Skeptics ask questions (Q's) and try to do so in a systematic, scientific, way. But what about IQ (and here I use IQ as a euphemism for smarts). The recent discussion here and elsewhere about the Skepchicks touched on this issue. I've been (temporarily) avoiding it, but skepchick car2d2 is staring to think about it.
Please have a look at this: Skepticism: Your IQ must be this high to ride
- Log in to post comments
More like this
About a year ago, a month before our wedding, I was walking with my wife (wife-to-be, I guess) and some friends through New York City. It was a hot, sunny summer day, so she was in a sun dress.
We walked through parks, we met various friends throughout the city, and generally had a good time.
That…
A discussion in the comments section of the recent Skeptics' Circle reminded me of something I learned only after years in the skeptical movement.
A real skeptic always sides with scientific consensus.
This may sound really unsatisfying and self-contradictory at first. Isn't skepticism about…
Skepticism is a cultural phenomenon. I know that many self-declared skeptics prefer to ... ah ... believe otherwise, or as they would perhaps say, they have deduced from pure principles using sound logic that Skepticism is rational behavior and there is nothing cultural about it. But they are…
There is no doubt that Associated Press’s Seth Borenstein is a top notch science reporter. However, he is a professional journalist, and for this reason I expect him to be part of, and to be guided by, the culture of journalism. The culture of journalism involves a critical feature that makes…
Not on point, but we're all still waiting for the beat down you seemed to hint at that Rushton et al had coming from you.
What happened?
D: I've been very busy with other things that have come up that I did not expect, and I can't lay my hands on one or two items I need (but that will be fixed).
This is going to take time and it will be a long and drawn out process, because every time I say one thing there will be dozens of comments citing all the same exact self-referential or irrelevant studies. Which is part of the fun, I suppose!
Thanks for asking!