My disputed post has stopped being disputed and has been posted for discussion, albeit in two parts. I’m posting both parts here together. That makes relevant links so far:
- Their opening statement. (Jack Smith)
- My opening statement.
- My response to their opening statement.
- Their response to my opening statement. (Thaumas Themelios)
- Their response to my response to their opening statement. (Skep Sheik)
- My response to Thaumas Themelios. (New)
- My response to Skep Sheik. (New)
- A thread for discussion between commenters on this topic.
- Mick Nugent’s evaluation of the agreements and disagreements after two rounds.
- An update on the dialog so far. (New)
- Guidelines for conversation on that site.
For the sake of word count, I have removed points of settled agreement from this statement, though I expect we will refer to them throughout the dialog. I’ll start with Thaumas Themelios, who responded to my opening statement.
SZ: The key to working together under these circumstances is to understand that there are myriad solutions to each of these problems. None of them are complete in themselves, but together, they provide a strong force for change. Additionally, pursuing multiple strategies at once allows us to take advantage of the diverse talents and motivations of those who find value in promoting all or any of these ideals.
TT: I agree with this with reservations. The ‘many approaches’ approach supports and encourages multiple ways of pursuing activism, and I’ve argued this also. However, when you state that none are complete, but together they are strong, this omits mentioning a critically important caveat: Some ways can also be misguided and actually harmful. History is littered with tragic examples of good intentions resulting in more harm than good. And it’s not always clear at the outset which approaches are the misguided ones and which not. There will be disagreements on this topic and it seems our current ‘rift’ is an example of this. Speaking only for myself (Thaumas) here, I do not believe we can answer the question of “How we can work together … in the real world” without each of us also asking ourselves: Where do I draw the line? Do I support everyone regardless of approach (all inclusive)? Do I go it alone (all exclusive)? Somewhere in between? And what is the basis for this decision? Each person will have their own answers, and our individual criteria for making this decision will ultimately decide “How we can work together … in the real world”, depending on how they overlap. So, in the interests of moving the dialogue along, here are my own views:
I may not like or prefer some particular approach to activism myself, so I might not actively support it. But so long as there is no clear evidence that such activism is likely to lead to more harm than good, then I will not actively oppose it either. Diversity of approaches is generally a good thing. This is the basis of my support for ‘many approaches’.
However, if I consider some particular approach likely to lead to more harm than good in the long term — even if it is intended to promote some cause or idea with which I agree — then I will not support it. Indeed, I may actively oppose it, especially if it involves the promulgation of potentially harmful, unsupported ideas in society. This is the basis for my skeptical and atheist activism in the first place (i.e. against theism/religion, faith-based reasoning, pseudo-science, etc.).
1. I have already stipulated that an approach that is either not effective (points 13 and 14 here) or not ethical (point 3c here) should not be supported. If there are other criteria that would lead you to oppose a form of activism, please specify. Otherwise, we are in agreement.
SZ: To use science as the least contentious (currently) of these topics, we already recognize that there are different roles to be played. We recognize the bench scientist and the field scientist. We recognize the physicist and the sociologist. We recognize the philosopher of science and the critic of methods. We recognize the lab manager and the lab technician. We recognize the grade-school science teacher and the PhD student. We recognize the peer reviewer and the science journalist.
TT: I agree with this with reservations. I readily endorse the methods and findings of mainstream science (pending future shifts in scientific consensus, of course). And that does not preclude discussions on emerging advancements or areas of active scientific debate. However I do not accept the latter type of discussions as beyond question or debate as they do not form part of mainstream scientific consensus.
Furthermore, no one has a complete and thorough understanding of all of mainstream science. So in my view part of our role as skeptic activists is to educate both the greater public and indeed ourselves on a continuous and regular basis. This allows us to further develop the public understanding of even the most basic aspects of science, as may well be needed.
Many of us are inspired by famous popularizers of science, such as Carl Sagan, Einstein, and many others. We are deeply curious about everything in this universe. We want to fully explore science ourselves. There are no dumb questions, only dumb answers. The most tragic honest question is the one unasked, for whatever reason. The most dangerous answer is the one which cannot be questioned. Some of us delight in being asked even the most mundane questions, because it offers us an opportunity to ask ourselves, “Hmm! How do I really know that for sure?”
2. I don’t understand the point of this response. I simply said that we recognize multiple roles in science. I don’t understand whether there are reservations with that statement or whether this was meant to introduce a new topic.
SZ: There are far more roles to be played in promoting science than I’ve listed, but this gets the idea across. We require all those people and more to do good science, and we understand that. We don’t expect Neil deGrasse Tyson to be Shinya Yamanaka or either of them to be Mary Roach. We don’t tell them they’re hurting science because they’re not doing each other’s job. We all understand this.
TT: I agree with this with reservations. Some people in some roles taking some actions can be positively harmful to the promotion of science and reason. We cannot blindly accept all efforts, however well-meaning, as inherently valid and immune from critique. Further, some critics of science offer no useful criticism but serve only to undermine public understanding of science. For example: Post-modernism, Intelligent Design, the Templeton Foundation, Scientology, pseudo-scientists, ideologically motivated academics and scholars (such as some Bible historians for example), alternative medicine, etc. These are exactly the kinds of pseudo-allies we need to be wary of and should be allowed to question.
3. Postmodern critiques of measurement and classification have been extremely useful in at least the social sciences. Otherwise, I agree.
SZ: For whatever reason–possibly because the secular and skeptical movements in their current incarnations are much younger, smaller, and more consistently besieged than the broad institutions of science and science popularization–we lose that insight when talking about these movements and their priorities. All sorts of people suddenly seem to know The One True and Proper Way to conduct the campaign for the Pure and Shining Platonic Ideal of…whichever issue we happen to be promoting.
TT: I agree with this with reservations. Your paragraph appears to be describing dogmatists and ideologues. Could you give an example from within the atheist/skeptic community to illustrate your comment that “All sorts of people suddenly seem to know The One True and Proper Way to conduct the campaign for the Pure and Shining Platonic Ideal …”?
4. The accommodation “wars” can largely be seen as a disagreement between those who argued for many approaches and those who say that “militant atheism” cannot lead to any productive discourse. Similarly, in skepticism, some people want to apply skeptical methods to a large variety of topics while others describe “proper areas of focus for skeptics” (pdf). In each case, the latter person is declaring a “One True and Proper Way” to conduct activism.
SZ: According to these people, we may not or we may or we must include religious skepticism under our skeptical umbrella. We may not or we may or we must build friendly working relationships with religious institutions with similar goals. We may not or we may or we must shape our agendas to appeal to groups of people whose relationships to these various issues are very different from the relationships of the white, cisgendered, educated, middle-class to upper-class men who have shaped the traditional concerns of our movements.
TT: I cannot agree or disagree without clarification. Could you please define who these prescriptive people are and include evidence to support that?
5. See point 4 above.
SZ: That kind of prescriptivism is no more necessary for us, however, than it is in science. Beyond the basics of ethics and efficacy, we can take as many approaches as we have time and/or money, talent, and motivation for. Beyond ethics and efficacy, the more prescriptivist we are, the more people we exclude, because we don’t offer meaningful work that motivates them and puts their talents to work. The demand for active volunteers is high. They can always find another issue that motivates them with groups behind those issues that will welcome their work instead of endlessly insisting it’s the wrong kind of work.
TT: I agree with this with reservations. If by prescriptivism, you mean dogma, then I agree.
I agree with second sentence. I endorse a ‘many approaches’ approach. This kind of diversity is very healthy and more importantly it works very well to counter dogmatism and to reach a wide variety of people from all backgrounds.
I’m concerned with your vague usage of the word ‘efficacy’. How are you measuring efficacy? What are the criteria for separating effective from ineffective? Are you allowing for context-dependence? Are you unintentionally letting in a form of prescriptivism through the back door by importing, without realizing it, assertions of ‘what is effective and what is not’ which are not themselves open to examination?
6a. By “prescriptivism”, I mean declaring that there is a single way to conduct a particular type of activism.
6b. I am using a dictionary definition of efficacy. Once we have identified a goal, some actions will help us reach that goal. Some will not. Those that do are effective. However, they may still be more or less effective than other actions, they may help or hinder us in accomplishing additional goals, or they may be undesirable actions for ethical reasons.
6c. If only one type of activism is effective, that would support an evidence-based prescriptivism, yes. However, as a practical matter, there will rarely if ever be only one way to make progress toward a goal. For that matter, there will rarely be situations involving just one single goal. I don’t see any kind of broad prescriptivism being granted much ground under these circumstances. At most, this kind of analysis may take certain approaches off the table for specific goals because they don’t work.
SZ: Some of us are particularly in developing younger activists and support the Secular Student Alliance, have joined Secular Woman because we’re motivated by the assault on women’s rights to bodily autonomy, or feel that the Black Skeptics Group Los Angeles do important work with young adults that no one else is doing. Or we’ve joined some other specialized affiliation group that speaks to our interests. Some of us take our advocacy for skepticism or secularism with us into our other advocacy work because those principles can and should make our most important work better. Some of us consider our advocacy for skepticism and critical thinking our most important work and insist that we apply these principles to our shared advocacy work do for exactly the same reason. And on and on and on.
TT: I agree with this with reservations. See point 8 above. In addition as already stated no person or group of persons has the right to impose their particular brand of advocacy on anyone else.
7. As I have noted in points 7 and 13 here, I don’t understand how anyone is able to impose any brand of advocacy on anyone. Please explain how this would be done.
SZ: All of that is working toward common goals, even when it isn’t working hand in hand. It’s working together without having to agree at every point or even to work closely with anyone else. Everyone gets to do what motivates them–to a point. We do still have to consider ethics and efficacy.
TT: I agree with this with reservations. See point 1 regarding the risk of unintended harm.
8. See my response at 1 above.
SZ: I’ll assume I don’t have to get into ethics at this point. I will later if it becomes necessary.
TT: I agree with this with reservations. I think discussion of ethics is critical to establishing common ground. See point 1.
9. I agree.
SZ: When we’re talking about promotion of ideals and behavior, attending to efficacy is particularly important and not always easy. I recommend two resources highly. The Skeptical Activism Campaign Manual (pdf) by Desiree Schell, Maria Walters, Trevor Zimmerman, and K.O. Myers is an amazingly detailed resource for thinking your way through activism, including who your target audience is, how you expect to reach them, and how you’ll measure your success. I would also recommend Todd Stiefel’s presentation on Strategy and Leadership that he’s given at a couple of conferences. It covers a similar sort of planning but at the organizational level and over a longer period. Both resources strongly promote an “eyes on the prize” perspective.
TT: I agree with this with reservations. Efficacy needs to be defined. See 7b.
10. See my definition at 6a above.
SZ: That’s an important perspective. We become emotionally invested in the groups and activities in which we invest our efforts. If we hear that we’re not successfully reaching everyone we’d like to, it’s all too easy for us to find reasons to dismiss that feedback or blame the failure on others. Setting benchmarks ahead of time protects us from our own biases–as well as those of other people who might have their own reasons for persuading us to change.
TT: I agree with this with reservations. Whilst benchmarks might be suitable for the objectives of certain individuals or groups within the activist communities, no person or group has the right to impose benchmarks on any others. Benchmarks will vary according to the individual’s or group’s motives or final targets and they are the ones best able to formulate their own criteria for establishing them. It may even be undesirable for some groups or individuals to set any particular benchmarks as their beneficial activities speak for themselves. Finally, many people may have no interest in having a formal structure by which they are required to adhere.
11a. I disagree. Once again, I am not sure how anyone can impose benchmarks on others. People can, however, make observations as to whether any group or person’s actions move them closer to their stated goals. I see no reason to object to this.
11b. I also disagree that it might be counterproductive for a person or organization to measure their efficacy. However, I’m not certain that we’re very far apart on this point. What you seem to be describing here is the use of a mass of anecdotal evidence to support efficacy. I don’t object to that. For example, we understand that Richard Dawkins wrote an effective book in The God Delusion, because people continue to come forward to tell us what part the book played in their deconversion, and deconversion is one of Dawkins’ stated goals. Not all measurements of efficacy have to involve–or can involve–scientific studies.
11c. I agree that not everyone wants formal structure. However, I disagree that this is required for effective advocacy. In fact, in point 10 here, I listed a number of less formal activities people do that are already considered effective in the general case.
SZ: Sometimes that analysis of our efficacy will lead us back to a single, more prescribed approach. For example, we may want to craft a single message that can be broadcast to as many people as possible while alienating as few as possible. Sometimes it will lead us to use more parallel approaches, perhaps because we expect an issue to be important to different demographics for different reasons. Either way, our behavior going forward will be based in evidence rather than our innate or learned biases.
TT: I disagree with this. I already assert that establishing efficacy is problematic. Therefore to impose a prescriptive approach on that would be extremely troubling. Not only will this require a high authoritarian and top-down approach to activism it risks destroying all the bottom-up flexibility that we have already established as crucial to the movement’s success. Furthermore, who is in a position to assert on others which particular standard of efficacy we should follow? This comes across to me as a potentially highly dogmatic way of trying to control people who have no wish to be controlled. I firmly reject this as a concept. While people can lay down the rules on their groups or themselves, they have no right to try to impose that on others. In fact this whole statement seems to fly in the face of what was said in paragraphs 4, 6, and 7.
12. See my points under 6 and 11 above. See both the manual and presentation referenced in point 13 here. All of these talk about groups or individuals setting their own goals. I strongly disagree that there is anything top-down in suggesting attention be paid to efficacy and, again, have no idea how an authoritarian approach would be accomplished. Going forward, please refrain from referring to any concerns about “imposition” or “authoritarianism” without explaining where the power or authority necessary would come from. Otherwise, we’re discussing nebulous fears with no basis in reality. I don’t believe that’s a constructive use of anyone’s time or energy.
SZ: So, in short, we work together by not always insisting we all have to work closely on the same projects in the same ways and by keeping an eye on our ethics and efficacy in order to make sure we don’t overlook opportunities for outreach.
TT: I agree with this with reservations.
13. I will assume all the reservations were already discussed above as no specifics were given here.
Now on to Skep Sheik’s response to my response to Jack Smith’s opening statement. Responses here are somewhat more difficult as Skep Skeik did not indicate agreement or disagreement on each point.
JS – The subject of this opening strand, first of 5 strands, is: ‘How we can work together on core issues on which we broadly agree, including promoting reason, critical thinking, science, skepticism, atheism and secularism in the real world’. I speak as an individual member of ‘the atheist/skeptic community’ and recognize that other members of that community will not agree with me, or not on every point. What I say here is consistent with my understanding of core features of atheism and skepticism. The primary purpose of this dialogue is to find common cause on which we can work together while accepting diverse political and social beliefs. We first need to identify core areas of agreement and of disagreement. I think the following are core to atheism and skepticism and have served the community well for many years; on which of these do we agree, and on which do we disagree?
SZ: I agree that this is a fair characterization of the purpose of this portion of the dialog. I think it would be useful to define the term ‘community’ wherever it is used, however, as it is often a source of confusion.
SS: It may make communication cumbersome if we attempt to define commonly used words such as community. Perhaps we can agree to specify if we mean any fairly well delineated community, for example the members of one particular national atheist society or another.
14. I agree. This was what I meant.
JS – We stand for equality for all. We believe that all humans should be treated equally as people, with no inherent superiority of one over the other, as there is no rational basis for such claims of inherent superiority. Addressing areas of inequality such as seen in religions, cultures, and laws is done on the basis of these principles.
SZ: I agree with some reservations. The first reservation is that treating people all the same is not the same thing as treating people equally. This becomes obvious when one sees arguments from opponents of marriage equality who claim that everyone is already treated equally under the law because everyone already has an equal opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex. Prescriptions for equal treatment that don’t include consideration of how different people want to be treated are not merely meaningless but likely to drive away people who could, and other circumstances would, be happy to work with us.
SS: Could you give a different example here to illustrate what you mean? The question of marriage equality is not one that is an issue within the atheist community – with almost no exceptions we support equal marriage rights for all.
15a. As no agreement nor disagreement was specified explicitly, I assume the reference to the general acceptance of marriage equality signals disagreement with “equal opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex” as meaningful equality and, thus, agreement with the idea that not everything that is called equal treatment is, in fact, equal.
15b. The obvious example within secular and skeptical activist circles would be the idea that people must be willing to be subject to, for example, “dramatic readings” of their words on YouTube with no criticism attached, effective impostor Twitter accounts, being propositioned while working, threats, having their employment information published online, etc. in order to engage in or express opinions on secular or skeptical activism in public–with the rationale that, because some people say they are wiling to deal with these things happening to them, everyone else must allow them too. While this is “equal treatment” in theory, it is not equality in fact. It is unequal in that it bars only those people who do not wish to deal with this treatment. It is further similar to the marriage equality issue in that the bar to participation is irrelevant to the institution in which people are trying to participate. There is nothing inherent to marriage that requires it be limited to one man and one woman, just as nothing about tolerating this kind of harassment is required to advance our shared goals.
JS – We seek to establish real truths from untruths, for without this discernment we end up with religions, dogmas, and demagogues poisoning our society. We establish truth through the application of logic, evidence-based reasoning, critical thinking, skepticism, and scientific inquiry. Our competence in this truth-seeking endeavour is the most valuable asset we have.
SZ: I agree and disagree. We don’t only seek truth for reasons that are that dramatic or noble. The basic reason we seek truth is that, without it, were flailing ineffectually in the dark. Curiosity drives us to seek truth. The desire to predict and control the world around us drives us to seek truth.
SS: Scientifically driven skeptics like us may pursue truth for different reasons compared to others in society. We agree that curiosity serves as an impetus for some people; so may a desire to explain the world around us. While desires to predict and control the world around us may serve as an impetus for some people, those reasons seem less likely to be widespread among atheists & skeptics.
16. I disagree that atheists and skeptics are fundamentally different from the rest of the world in the reasons why they value truth-seeking. I have seen no evidence to suggest this.
SZ: Additionally, ‘dogma’ here seems to be used in a limited sense that may cause confusion later if not unpacked now. On top of the common meaning of ‘a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds’, ‘dogma’ is also that set of common agreements or principles that underlie our work. For example, the Freedom From Religion Foundation treats the desirability of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as dogma. That idea is the foundation of their work, and they dont devote energy to exploring whether the idea is true. Dogma is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it escapable. Any dogma must be examined on its own to determine whether it is problematic.
SS: We agree that ‘dogma’ can refer to foundational principles and that any dogma must be specifically examined to determine whether it is problematic. When it is clear that there is more than one definition of a word, it is erroneous to assume that only one of these definitions will be understood by all. This question of how we treat words that have differing definitions, particularly definitions that are not shared by people living in different countries, is an important point that we will address later.
17. I agree that we will continue to need to define our terms. I suggest that “dogma”, as both an ambiguous word and one with unpleasant connotations that should rightly accrue to only one of the definitions, be taken off the table in this discussion in favor of terms/phrases that are more precisely descriptive.
SZ: I am unwilling to put competence at truth-seeking above other-Ill call them ‘virtues’ for lack of a better word. It is certainly important, but making it our primary consideration has come to be recognized as a bad idea. Placing the collection of knowledge above all else was the kind of thinking that led to the Tuskegee experiment. Researchers uncovered a great deal of truth about the progression of untreated syphilis, but they did so at the cost of the health and lives of people who did not volunteer to be sacrificed for truth. In response to this and other travesties, weve instituted safeguards intended to curb unchecked truth-seeking. Putting truth-seeking above ethics and compassion is deeply troubling.
SS: I dont see any disagreement amongst the atheist community on the importance of ethics in biomedical research.
18. Nor do I. I used it as my example for that reason. Please indicate whether you agree that truth-seeking in general should not be placed above ethical concerns.
JS – In our pursuit of truth, we must test our beliefs in the forum of open and free debate. Nothing is left off the table; all claims can – and sometimes must – be fully examined and tested to determine the best evidence, arguments, and explanations. We can do this without rancour or dismissal and it is a key requirement in achieving our objectives: freeing this world of the terrible injustices we see all around us.
SZ: I’m not sure who ‘we’ is supposed to represent here. I can’t tell precisely what this is advocating for, so I’ll cover the most likely interpretations. If this is a statement that the scientific process should be as open as possible-given the ethical constraints I’ve already discussed-I generally agree. Where I disagree in that case is that science is supposed to be a cumulative process. Once consensus has been reached on a particular topic through that process, its typically time to shelve that topic and move on until we come across information that doesn’t fit the models. Continuing to study geocentric models of planetary and stellar motion at this point would not advance our pursuit of truth. Debate does not go on forever on a topic without the introduction of substantial new information.
SS: This description of science seems at odds with that typically seen in a research environment. Scientists do not shelve topics and move on to the next subject. Nothing is proven absolutely in science and even topics that seem certain are being constantly tested – for example the recent experiments testing the idea that some particles might be able to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. The principle that every hypothesis must be open to falsification is the primary means we have to distinguish science from pseudoscience. In other words, I agree that the scientific process should be as open as possible, and disagree that science is supposed to be a cumulative process in which a topic is shelved once consensus is reached.
19. See Jack’s original point here. We are discussing active debate, not unchanging absolutes. Additionally, I stipulated the circumstances that would reopen active debate in the text to which you responded. As such, I don’t see that this statement is responsive. Do you agree that active debate on geocentric models of planetary and stellar motion has ended and rightly so?
SZ: If this is intended to suggest that individuals must test all their beliefs through debate and that this process will lead to understanding the truth, I strongly disagree. When people who are taught to debate are taught to be equally comfortable taking either side of an argument, we are looking at a process designed for winning, not truth. If we want to arrive at truth through give-and-take, we need a more collaborative process in which the goal is not to win.
SS: This is rather confusing and perhaps would be better expanded so that the meaning is made clearer. Certainly we cannot expect the scientific method to determine every aspect of our lives (for example regarding the love we have for family and friends, taste in music, literature, etc.) These are questions about emotions. Again, many political questions are based on personal values that have an emotional rather than empirical basis. It is best to separate out value-based questions from those that have an empirical solution.
20. This was not a statement about the scientific process. This was a statement that debate outside the scientific process has very limited value in reaching an understanding of the truth. For example, William Lane Craig is widely considered to be an effective debater. When he wins a debate, however, he has not helped his audience understand the truth any better. Please indicate whether you agree.
SZ: Additionally, we have long since passed the point at which every person could be well educated on every topic for which we have accumulated evidence, if such a time ever existed. I could debate with someone on whether a call made in a hockey game was a good one, but since I dont know much about the rules of hockey, debate would not be productive. What would be productive is listening to expert consensus (or disagreement) on the topic or pursuing a course of education. When discussion is used as a pedagogical tool, it is guided by someone who is educated on the topic.
SS: We agree that no one person can be well educated on every topic for which we have accumulated evidence. A person who is not educated on a topic is most likely at a disadvantage compared to someone who has proven expertise. In terms of debates between groups of individuals, however, this point is often moot. Experts often exist on both sides of debates and so any one side attempting an argument to authority will simply face another authority on the opposing side who simply disagrees.
21. While I agree generally with what is said in this paragraph (with strong reservations about the general availability of experts), I disagree that this paragraph is making any kind of case for the usefulness of debates outside the scientific process in reaching an understanding of the truth. This also fails to address the superiority of education over debate for this purpose.
SS: In your reply to this response, could you please comment on whether or not you agree with the ideas in part 4(c) from Jack Smith’s opening statement: “Nothing is left off the table; all claims can – and sometimes must – be fully examined and tested to determine the best evidence, arguments, and explanations. We can do this without rancour or dismissal and it is a key requirement in achieving our objectives…”
22. I have already agreed to this in the context of ethical science and disagreed with it in the context of nonexpert debate. The elevation of nonexpert debate as a means of discovering truth is cargo cult skepticism, lacking the empiricism and rigor required to produce useful results.
SZ: It is also frequently reasonable to expect that the uninformed opinion will be dismissed. When the crank sends their ‘theory of everything’ letter to physics departments at universities around the world, we do not expect the physicists there to suspend their research and/or their teaching in order to carefully rebut the letter. We expect them to throw it away or keep it to laugh over. The presence of an idea is not enough to compel debate on that idea.
SS: We don’t disagree on this point, although it is important to distinguish uninformed from unqualified. For example someone who does not have a formal degree in a subject can stimulate a debate through the introduction of empirical evidence – for example finding a new fossil or identifying a previously undiscovered comet.
23. I agree. While it does require a broad understanding of the cumulative knowledge in a field to effectively produce theory, it doesn’t require theoretical understanding to uncover data.
JS – We believe that ethics is a valid area for discussion and debate While morality is an important part of our lives, by its nature it is highly subjective and dependent on values. We therefore feel, in the interests of mutual cooperation, that it is appropriate to consider the best in others, give the benefit of the doubt, and assume others are acting in good faith.
SZ: I agree with reservations. I’m not sure what the last sentence has to do with the first two, so I’ll treat it as unrelated for the purposes of this reply. My reservation on debating ethics is that, as with any other sort of debate or discussion, will generally be most productive if done, or at least led, by people trained to debate ethics. This is a field that has experts. We should make use of them.
SS: This is a fair point – although it should be noted that there is not a universal agreement between these experts and that the field itself is one of change.
24. I agree.
SZ: I agree that making immediate judgments about those we are dealing with is not helpful. I agree that when one can, one should generally err on the side of charity in judgment. At the same time, however, not everyone is in the same position to risk that kind of error. Sometimes the consequences to trusting and having that trust betrayed are too much. Given this, it also behooves those who desire to be trusted to create an environment in which risks are reduced.
SS: This statement is rather unclear and specific example are required before we can determine whether we agree or not about those particular situations.
25a. The first comment on my opening statement provides an excellent example. Phil Giordana unilaterally declared it “unacceptable” that I discuss how the organizations of the secular and skeptical movement have been influenced by the fact that most of the leaders of these movements have historically been white, cisgendered, educated, middle to upper-middle class, and male. He was not willing to see where that discussion went before passing judgment on it or even to have the discussion at all. He apparently did not feel that he was in a position to risk the outcome of that discussion.
25b. Thus, if I felt it was important to hold a discussion of that topic that was meant to include Giordana, I should create an environment in which he felt less at risk. At the very least, that discussion should accommodate the fact that he has an emotional response to the topic, as opposed to declaring his arguments invalid because of that emotional response or mocking him (or otherwise making the discussion inhospitable) for having an emotional response. If I were to fail to do that, I would have to recognize that the environment I created excluded him by design, whether that exclusion were intentional or not.
JS – We believe that in order for us to be effective we should strive to avoid: Imposing political or social beliefs on others. We can of course form our own social and political groups within the movement but they have no inherent right to impose those beliefs on others.
SZ: I am confused by this statement. I dont understand how people are able to impose their beliefs on others in this context.
SS: Political beliefs are often based on value judgments of the individual in question. While we may not be able to force people to think the same way as us, we may be able to enforce our personal values on their behavior – for example the moves in certain countries to restrict the right of marriage to men-women unions or imposing laws on society that makes it illegal for individuals to satirize authority or religious figures. In both cases the value judgments of one group are being imposed on the community as a whole.
JS – Attributing motives or character traits on others. Ad Hominem fallacies serve no good purpose in reasonable dialogue.
SZ: I agree with reservations. The more interactions we have with people, the more information we have about how they behave. Granting some charity and proceeding cautiously in how we interpret this knowledge is one thing. Declining to draw any conclusions from it is quite another and not productive in our search to understand and be effective in the world around us.
SZ: Additionally, I have some concerns that ad hominem argumentation not be confused with insults or observations relevant to an argument, but that can be discussed later if necessary.
SS: These last two comments bring up a topic deserving of a more detailed discussion. We shall expand on it in later submissions.
27. I don’t know whether this indicates agreement or disagreement with my points. Please specify.
JS – Commenting on others without accepting a right of reply. The right of reply is fundamental to any open society. If we criticise others then others have the right to respond to that without being personally attacked for doing so.
SZ: I agree with reservations. This is more generally covered under free speech and, thus, is subject to the same restrictions that other speech is. Im not sure what ‘personally attacked’ is meant to mean here, but I will note that a stipulated ‘right of reply’ would not be a right to have ones reply be the last word in a discussion or a right to not be criticized for the form or content of the reply.
SS: Again, the question of the protection of free speech online and exactly how to do so are subjects that deserve more space than a simple comment here. We shall provide more detail in future posts. At present it shall suffice to say that we support the right of a private individual to moderate their own online space as they see fit, and we agree that a stipulated ‘right of reply’ would not be a right to have ones reply be the last word in a discussion, or a right to not be criticized for the form or content of the reply.
28. I take that as agreement in full with my point.
JS – Ignoring the feelings of others. However we should not use our feelings to shut down valid and genuine debate and discussion. How many times have we heard theists say we should never attack their beliefs as it hurts their feelings? Allowing this would put us into a position where we are hostages of our own making.
SZ: I agree that it will not help us to work together to ignore the feelings of those with whom were working. I am confused as to what ‘valid and genuine debate and discussion’ is intended to describe. I dont think this can be discussed until we agree on the circumstances in which debate is useful (see #4 above).
SS: We may come to the conclusion that it is impossible to reach agreement over which subjects are open to debate. But agreeing to differ on that question would at least be progress from the current impasse.
29. I take that as agreement in full with my point.
JS – Shutting down all forms of criticism. Criticism has been a mainstay of free debate for hundreds of years. Satire, caricature and critical commentary are a valid human response to any issue and have been for millennia. its even on the walls of ancient Pompeii. While everyone has the right to their own protected spaces that does not provide the right to censor others outside those spaces.
SZ: As with imposing beliefs, I am confused as how this censorship is supposed to be accomplished. I don’t know of anyone in our overlapping movements with the power and reach to shut down ‘all forms of criticism’.
SS: Within a closed network censorship of views is simple to achieve – the heretical individual is simply ‘Expelled’. Luckily the internet is less a small pond than a vast ocean, with those trying to stop dissenting voices playing the role of Canute on the shoreline.
30. As the secular and skeptical movements are not closed networks, I take that as agreement in full with my point.
SZ: I agree that satire, caricature, and critical commentary are common human responses. I am unsure, however, what ‘valid’ is meant to convey in this context. All these things can be illuminating or can serve to obscure the truth. They can be proportional, productive, reasonable-or none of those things. They are all simply means of communication. Talking about them collectively tells us nothing about their content, and this is the important part of any communication.
SS: Indeed. But satire is often a mixture of politics and art, and in neither case have we a simple means of determining validity. We weigh value judgments, personal taste or sense of humor. The question, perhaps, should not be the validity of such posts, but whether they cross some agreed line – for example: would they be considered clearly offensive by someone not personally invested in the debate? This topic will be expanded upon in future contributions.
31. I take that as agreement that “validity” is not a useful concept in discussing satire, etc. I disagree, however, that “personal taste” is the measure by which we should be evaluating anything the creator labels as “satire”. I provided several measures I consider to be much more salient to this discussion. Do you agree or disagree that these are measures that should be applied when evaluating “satire” and the like in the context of working toward common goals?
JS – We see the issues as a clash of ideas between those who wish to impose a particular political and social ideology, and those who wish to maintain the rationalist principles that have served us well for so many years. This kind of imposition will necessarily divide the movement and weaken it. It will set up an us vs. them mentality which distracts from our core aims. It will alienate our friends and allies who would otherwise wish to support us, but will be discouraged if they do not hold the same political beliefs. It will impose unelected political leaders and encourage schisms.
SZ: I have a number of problems with this point. Above, it was suggested that attributing motives is unhelpful, yet this entire view of the conflict is predicated upon ascribing motives to others. Additionally, even if anyone wished to impose any ideology, it has not been demonstrated that this could be done. I dont see anything to be gained in opposing a hypothetical that is also, as far as I can tell, impossible.
SS: The fact that the imposition of sectarian values is a practical impossibility does not, unfortunately, immunize us from the negative results of attempts to do just that.
32. I can neither agree nor disagree with a statement this vague. If there are specific threats to working toward common goals, they should be brought out explicitly in this part of the dialog. What are these “negative results”?
SZ: I am also unclear on how this idea of ‘unelected political leaders’ is supposed to happen. Is this intended to refer to being persuasive? If so, I fail to see the problem, particularly in movements that value skepticism and rationality.
SS: The herd of cats is a prevailing metaphor of the skeptical/atheist movement for good reasons. While individual organizations within the worldwide community, American, Irish, Indian, Ugandan etc, may have leaders, any attempt to assume spokesperson roles for the overall movement is bound to fail.
33. This is not responsive to the question of how or whether attempting to be persuasive is problematic. As with the general question of “imposition”, it also fails to demonstrate that assuming a spokesperson role for the secular or skeptical movement as a whole is possible. I can’t tell whether it signals agreement with me. I continue to disagree that impossible hypotheticals are any threat.
JS – People with similar interests will tend to congregate and should have spaces in which they can communicate and work together cooperatively. We do not seek to control anyones space, the policies in others spaces, or their expression of their beliefs and values. However, when people in one such space criticize or challenge other people, we feel its important for them to accept rebuttal or presentation of counter-evidence in accordance with the core principles outlined above.
SZ: I disagree. Accepting rebuttal in the same space that a criticism was made is at most a courtesy. It is neither an ethical imperative in our world of easy access to publishing nor a universal practice. As a courtesy, it is expected that it will be taken away when abused. When we criticize creationists, we are not required to host a Gish Gallop in return. Those who write about antisemitism should be under no pressure to publish racist comments. When we criticize a climate change denialist, we are not required to allow them to spread their astroturfed disinformation in our space. No less than the blogs editor for Scientific American routinely deletes comments from denialists of multiple stripes. These are extreme examples, but they do illustrate the general point.
SS: We agree that moderation of a personal website should be under the control of the owner of that site. In line with this we agree that it is up to the owner of such space whether they allow rebuttal or criticism on their space. Our major issue is the attempts to silence criticism that is hosted elsewhere.
34a. I would like some indication of whether this agreement about moderation is shared more broadly among the parties involved in this dialog or whether this represents Skep Sheik’s position only. I ask as this is a turnabout from the position given in Jack’s original statement.
34b. Again, if these “attempts to silence criticism” are a threat to common goals, this should be elaborated upon in this portion of the dialog. How is it possible to silence criticism in spaces one doesn’t control?
JS – Failure to reach a common ground on these issues puts at risk our efforts in achieving our common goals.
SZ: I disagree. Again, we do not have to work closely together to work on common goals.
SS: There is a difference between reaching a common ground on certain issues, and working closely together. As an example the secularism of western Europe involves both non-religious and religious moderates who agree on a common ground of opposition to state imposition of religion, yet the same groups do not tend work closely together.
35. I take this as agreement in full with my point.
JS – We can work together by following the principles core to atheism/skepticism and remembering we are each and all fallible humans, each with one life to live and with an equal right to self-determination. We owe it to those who are hurting, suffering, and dying in this big wide world of ours.
SZ: I agree that we should follow our principles. I agree that we should remember we are each fallible. I agree that we have an equal right to self-determination. I am unsure how having just one life fits into this list or how most of these fit in with working together. I would request further elaboration.
SZ: Promoting reason, critical thinking, science, skepticism, atheism, and secularism is worthwhile, necessary work. I would disagree that any individual owes it to anyone to do specifically this work. There is other humanitarian work that is just as necessary and just as worthwhile. One of our challenges going forward is making people feel that ours is the worthwhile, necessary work on which they want to spend their time.
SS: Would you agree that among people who identify as skeptics and freethinkers, we owe it to each other to apply critical thinking and skepticism to the methods that those in our community are using to do the work they consider worthwhile and necessary?
36. I noted in my opening statement that we should be attending to our efficacy. If this is what you mean, I agree but don’t understand why you’re asking me to repeat that. If you mean something else, please specify.
SS: And we disagree if you are saying that “making people feel that ours is the work on which they want to spend their time” is a widespread goal among atheists and skeptics.
37. I am confused. The opening statement from Jack said that we owe one particular kind of work to the world. I disagreed that we have any call to tell people they owe that kind of work to the world when there is other useful work to be done, that we can only ask and make a case for doing the kind of work we see as important. It seems your disagreement is with Jack, not with me.
Image: “Free and Fair #Iranelection” by harrystaab