The feud widens.
The certain prominent skeptic is Michael Shermer.
Harriet Hall’s review is in the Skeptic reading room.
To be honest I can kind of see why they might have wanted some tweaking even if they agreed with the content. Hall doesn’t always make it clear whether she’s summarizing the book or offering her own generalizations. I don’t usually read SBM (not for any particular reason, I just don’t) so I don’t know if they have a house style, but it they do and it’s somewhat formal, I could understand their wanting a more Officially Sciencey note. I like the review myself, but I can see some non-invidious non-stupid non-orthodoxy-enforcing reasons why they might want changes.
But, the reality is, we know Gorski doesn’t like the content (I don’t know about others at SBM), so it’s hard to give him the benefit of the doubt on the whole “Well I gave it my best shot but I’m just going to go ahead and retract it now soz” thing.
Meanwhile, Shermer is wrong if he thinks the trans dogma is any kind of far-left progressive ideology. It’s extremely conservative and regressive, unfortunately.
Comments
8 responses to “A certain prominent Skeptic”
alas, Shermer is a dick, but I expected better from Orac
I could see asking for a substantial rewrite of the review, asking for better sourcing of the claims, for example. But you do that before you publish it, not after.
And keeping the comments up while taking down the review is, or at least ought to be, unacceptable.
Ah yes, that’s a point. So it ought.
I really can’t see the political alignment of the trans cult, it doesn’t fit neatly down any bipartisan lines. The adherents to the dogma generally claim to be lefty, maybe that’s what Shermer is pointing to. There seem to be people who reject religion and embrace the trans ideology, but the conservative backlash is also significant.
Keep in mind that Robespierre was a far leftist… as were Weather Underground. The crazyshit just happens to be a recessive trait in the Left’s genome that we’re seeing manifest itself again.
Well, believing in science and reason, and also believing in the trans cult dogma, is textbook cognitive dissonance. I don’t accept the opinions of those who suffer from it without a good dose of suspicion.
I can give one: this very event. The one we’re talking about.
When trans-misogyny and HAMAS are considered ‘progressive,’ you find yourself with uncomfortable ‘allies.’