It appears the "spectrum" stance of physicist Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, which is sociological and not physiological, has been influence by a political censorship organization called Trans Journalists Association Style and Coverage Guide. This newly updated website now requests donations and has added further demands on the reporting of all things "trans." Doctors, scientists and researchers are kowtowing to intellectually stunted political hacks with a sexual fetish. I know their manipulative rituals--I divorced one. He now says he's me, mother of 2 sons.
I gave up on Novella and his crew several years ago when they began shilling for Monsanto. Not surprising to see Folta cited: see https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/kevin-folta/ for the ugly details.
With ideologically captured proponents like Novella, it's no wonder that the skeptical community lost its way.
I learned something - Brandolini Bullshit Asymmetry
It clearly occurs because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, actually, a result of entropic bullshit flow from high bullshit density to low. It requires a lot of energy to remove entropy (deleting, filtering, correcting bullshit), the same way as it requires energy to chill a fridge.
The 3rd law prevents you from ever having perfect information. When surrounded by bullshit it is harder and harder to resist - you can’t “unread”, and your mind begins to correlate high-frequency presence with “truth”.
Yes. Also, according to Science, I've heard, the number of unique sexes of said angels is exactly the same as the number angels. If only we could know how many fit on a pin, we would finally put to bed the question of how many sexes there are.
I used to love SGU, but their stance on gender are political, not scientific. I'm really really disappointed, and now I can't trust their judgement in other matters either.
Their answer is a big nothing. I've stopped listeing to the podcast, so I can't say for sure, but I'd be very surprised if they've amended their claims.
It is my belief that the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe is a poor representative of skeptics’ societies. Rebecca Watson, one of their podcast hosts, was embroiled in a - I would call it - contrived controversy about a decade or so ago wherein she castigated a young man at a convention who had invited her for coffee, and she made it out to be a form of assault.
They’ve been an emblem of political creep for years, so this is not surprising. The same happened to PZ Myers, and in spades.
It’s nothing more than special pleading and hand waving - two things that Novella is happy to use as evidence of irrational beliefs on any other topic.
I stopped listening to his podcast a few years ago when I realized that he and his podcast mates were woke. I can’t abide science ‘experts’ when they deny ninth grade biology. The show wasn’t that entertaining or very smart anyway.
I read a science blog called Science Based Medicine that Novella writes for, and it is likewise bad on the gender stuff. The folks who write there are very knowledgeable about the things they usually write about, but their pretense to being science generalists who are in the know about every scientific topic is bullshit.
Amusingly, this quote described the contours of the debate perfectly: "But now you’re making a status argument, not a factual argument. Your argument is 'conform to the way all the cool people use the word ‘fish'', not 'a whale is really and truly not a fish'."
That's what I see in appeals to the NIH, irrelevant journals, and false claims that that binary is NOT how biologists define sex: He doesn't need citations and science here because he's actually (wittingly or not) making a status argument: the IMPORTANT people say otherwise, so it doesn't matter what you say about determinants and gametes, because the determinant he's relying on is literally "the people that matter say so", not anything medically objective.
Which, in one sense, is even somewhat defensible: language CAN change and there is nothing intrinsically preventing people from arbitrarily deciding that the 'misuse' of a word has become common enough to legitimately be part of the acceptable usage (like people using 'literally' figuratively makes me cringe, yet some dictionaries have nonetheless added this usage). I suspect this would be quite inconvenient for biologists and students attempting to learn both biology and any other subject that has adopted this misuse of "sex", but much like "determinate" itself, it would hardly be the only word with a context-specific meaning that doesn't match the common usage perfectly. In that same sense, even you are making a status argument: you're privileging biologists over all other disciplines or what activists would have us believe is common usage today.
So, while it IS indefensible to attempt to brush the disagreement off with any variation of "you're just arguing semantics"; Words have meanings and agreement on those meanings is essential to avoid any Fallacy of Equivocation; you're really trapped in an even more fundamental disagreement: the differing warrant regarding which source of meaning to use. For whatever reason, a lot of otherwise reasonable people prefer to disregard the scientific source of words and favor the "common usage"... When it's convenient for them... and vice versa, but the less consistent they are about it the more they try to avoid being open about it, hiding the lack of scientific basis with weak or no sourcing.
I'm reminded of an argument I once had with someone who said "'Science' is what 'Scientists' do", to which I responded, "No, people who do 'science' are called 'scientists'". They didn't understand the distinction. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be one, but this isn't a perfect world and much of what "Scientists" say and do isn't itself "scientific" at all.
Thanks for the post! This is my first endeavor onto substack, and I’ve have a great introduction so far!
It appears the "spectrum" stance of physicist Neil DeGrasse-Tyson, which is sociological and not physiological, has been influence by a political censorship organization called Trans Journalists Association Style and Coverage Guide. This newly updated website now requests donations and has added further demands on the reporting of all things "trans." Doctors, scientists and researchers are kowtowing to intellectually stunted political hacks with a sexual fetish. I know their manipulative rituals--I divorced one. He now says he's me, mother of 2 sons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VSwPvRZQYE&t=204s
A heroic effort, Jon. Kudos!
I gave up on Novella and his crew several years ago when they began shilling for Monsanto. Not surprising to see Folta cited: see https://usrtk.org/industry-pr/kevin-folta/ for the ugly details.
With ideologically captured proponents like Novella, it's no wonder that the skeptical community lost its way.
This Guy is good! Seriously, thank you for writing and sharing your response.
Happy to have done it 👊
Tour de force. Good read - thanks.
I learned something - Brandolini Bullshit Asymmetry
It clearly occurs because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, actually, a result of entropic bullshit flow from high bullshit density to low. It requires a lot of energy to remove entropy (deleting, filtering, correcting bullshit), the same way as it requires energy to chill a fridge.
The 3rd law prevents you from ever having perfect information. When surrounded by bullshit it is harder and harder to resist - you can’t “unread”, and your mind begins to correlate high-frequency presence with “truth”.
The human humor in your writing is nice.
brilliant comment!
Gave me a good chuckle 😂
LOL!
Do the angels dancing on the head of a pin have genitalia?
Yes. Also, according to Science, I've heard, the number of unique sexes of said angels is exactly the same as the number angels. If only we could know how many fit on a pin, we would finally put to bed the question of how many sexes there are.
In the hilarious Matt Damon+Ben Affleck movie "Dogma", the angel called Megaphone (=Gabriel, God's messenger) says No.
Wow, this read was really something. All of this effort just to reaffirm the obvious ay?
Novella needs to have his baseless arguments thoroughly dismantled, which I hope to have accomplished here 🤞
Good job.
"Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious." – George Orwell
Unfortunately there appears to be quite a few people who don’t think it’s obvious.
What a feat, arguing woith Novella for so long!
I used to love SGU, but their stance on gender are political, not scientific. I'm really really disappointed, and now I can't trust their judgement in other matters either.
And one this is semantics and definitions, but they are peddling myths and bad statistics about transgender medicine, and they dont back down even when the truth is in their face. For instance, they're saying mastectomies for transsexuals (and non-binaries), are perfectly ok, claiming that hardly anyone regrets having the surgery, and the usual "there's much more regrets after knee surgery, or mastectomies for cancer". When they're asked about mastectomies for minors, they say no no no no NOONE does these surgeries on children! Or "maybe a few, but those are special cases". But when you show them the numbers, like this article: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/at-least-14000-us-minors-have-received?utm_source=substack&publication_id=225618&post_id=149986684&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=false&r=3ka2ca&triedRedirect=true
Their answer is a big nothing. I've stopped listeing to the podcast, so I can't say for sure, but I'd be very surprised if they've amended their claims.
SGU, you've lost me forever.
🍿🥤
Dr. David Gorski (Science-Based Medicine) as well.
This was a big reason I stopped listening to the SGU
It is my belief that the Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe is a poor representative of skeptics’ societies. Rebecca Watson, one of their podcast hosts, was embroiled in a - I would call it - contrived controversy about a decade or so ago wherein she castigated a young man at a convention who had invited her for coffee, and she made it out to be a form of assault.
They’ve been an emblem of political creep for years, so this is not surprising. The same happened to PZ Myers, and in spades.
It’s nothing more than special pleading and hand waving - two things that Novella is happy to use as evidence of irrational beliefs on any other topic.
I stopped listening to his podcast a few years ago when I realized that he and his podcast mates were woke. I can’t abide science ‘experts’ when they deny ninth grade biology. The show wasn’t that entertaining or very smart anyway.
Novella is FOS.
I read a science blog called Science Based Medicine that Novella writes for, and it is likewise bad on the gender stuff. The folks who write there are very knowledgeable about the things they usually write about, but their pretense to being science generalists who are in the know about every scientific topic is bullshit.
It used to be a very good blog. Now it's ruined.
tl;dr: Novella's arguments are pretty dumb.
It's been slightly more than 10 years now since I read this article, but it seems like the rationalist community still has the same blind spot. https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-made-for-man-not-man-for-the-categories/
Amusingly, this quote described the contours of the debate perfectly: "But now you’re making a status argument, not a factual argument. Your argument is 'conform to the way all the cool people use the word ‘fish'', not 'a whale is really and truly not a fish'."
That's what I see in appeals to the NIH, irrelevant journals, and false claims that that binary is NOT how biologists define sex: He doesn't need citations and science here because he's actually (wittingly or not) making a status argument: the IMPORTANT people say otherwise, so it doesn't matter what you say about determinants and gametes, because the determinant he's relying on is literally "the people that matter say so", not anything medically objective.
Which, in one sense, is even somewhat defensible: language CAN change and there is nothing intrinsically preventing people from arbitrarily deciding that the 'misuse' of a word has become common enough to legitimately be part of the acceptable usage (like people using 'literally' figuratively makes me cringe, yet some dictionaries have nonetheless added this usage). I suspect this would be quite inconvenient for biologists and students attempting to learn both biology and any other subject that has adopted this misuse of "sex", but much like "determinate" itself, it would hardly be the only word with a context-specific meaning that doesn't match the common usage perfectly. In that same sense, even you are making a status argument: you're privileging biologists over all other disciplines or what activists would have us believe is common usage today.
So, while it IS indefensible to attempt to brush the disagreement off with any variation of "you're just arguing semantics"; Words have meanings and agreement on those meanings is essential to avoid any Fallacy of Equivocation; you're really trapped in an even more fundamental disagreement: the differing warrant regarding which source of meaning to use. For whatever reason, a lot of otherwise reasonable people prefer to disregard the scientific source of words and favor the "common usage"... When it's convenient for them... and vice versa, but the less consistent they are about it the more they try to avoid being open about it, hiding the lack of scientific basis with weak or no sourcing.
I'm reminded of an argument I once had with someone who said "'Science' is what 'Scientists' do", to which I responded, "No, people who do 'science' are called 'scientists'". They didn't understand the distinction. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be one, but this isn't a perfect world and much of what "Scientists" say and do isn't itself "scientific" at all.