Talk:Jerry Coyne

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon evolution.svg

This Evolution related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Trouble with templates[edit]

We need warnings to stop users putting references above templates like {{evolution}} and {{raycomfort}}. Below is a section copied from Talk Kirk Cameron and the same can happen here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There was something wrong with this page[edit]

When you pressed the edit button you found links given as references for quotes etc, they appeared between the <ref></ref>. When you didn't press the edit button but instead clicked to get to footnotes different footnotes came up which didn't appear between the <ref></ref> when the page was opened for editing. You can check this problem by clicking onto This old version of the page. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've found out part of what was wrong, references that came above the {{raycomfort}} template didn't appear in the footnotes for some reason. I moved the {{raycomfort}} template higher up the page and the references now come right. Still the layout was worse afterwards and I had to work to improve that. Proxima Centauri (talk)

If the template contains random dpl it tends to muck these things up. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 08:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem probably exists with other pages that have the {{raycomfort}} template, perhaps/probably with other templates too. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a problem with all pages with similar templates that include random lists of pages, yes. Peter This is not my first temporal anomaly 08:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What should we do? Often the layout of a page is better with the template lower down and good faith editors will keep on trying to improve page layout by putting templates too low in the page. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Preventing trouble[edit]

I put the text below onto this page and into Kirk Cameron, it warns editors but doesn't show on the page unless you press the edit button. :-
<!--please don't put any referenced links above the {{evolution}} template as the computer can't handle those links. --> Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne also thinks psychiatry is a medical pseudoscience scam. Maybe worth a mention. Dirk Steele (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Coyne thinks about psychiatry, that is not his field. Anyone who thinks psychiatry is a pseudoscience has clearly never studied it. Forests (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Many psychiatrists/psychologists think that psychiatry is a pseudoscience. Coyne talks enough about psychology. Why discount his views on psychiatry just because they do not accord with your views? Weird. Is this a normal RW ideal? Dirk Steele (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
"Many psychiatrists/psychologists think that psychiatry is a pseudoscience". Have you taken your meds recently Dirk? Forests (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I am sure you don't want me to bore you with a list of names. But I could do. Start here for an update. And no... it is too early yet for my whiskey binge - give me a couple of hours though. Dirk Steele (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edward Feser's review[edit]

Edward Feser (a conservative Catholic philosophy professor) has just reviewed Coyne's Faith versus Fact at First Things. Since I haven't read Coyne's book, I cannot comment on how fair or accurate Feser's review is, but (as usual) Feser is a lot of fun to read, with such gems as "Reading Coyne trying to do something as simple as defining his terms is like watching him play tennis with himself. And losing." (((Zack Martin))) 05:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Feser and Coyne have long sniped at each other and each considers the other full of shit - David Gerard (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Keith Parsons, well-known atheist blogger and associate professor of philosophy at the University of Houston-Clear Lake, wrote a letter to First Things letting them know that he agrees with Feser's review of Coyne's book. I think the fact that a person coming from an essentially opposite point on the ideological spectrum (Feser is a conservative Roman Catholic, Parsons is an atheist) is willing to endorse it is a positive sign in favour of Feser's review. (((Zack Martin))) 06:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:FGM[edit]

below you find a complete derail, and counterfactual claims that (as shown in my reply) are polar opposite of what Jerry Coyne wrote. It's ovbiously a libellously loaded question, but FCP told me that it was acceptable on the Wiki. Just levelling the playing field a bit, if anyone felt constrained. :) ~ Aneris 19:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a lot of anger for asking what your opinion of something is. A simple opinion was all that I was looking for. You read too much into things; might want to put down the conspiracy Kool-aid. Sometimes a question is just a question. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You claimed he was a "fervent supporter" (when in reality he argued against this scathingly). ~ Aneris 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Pre-2012, he argued against it.
Post-2012? Well, that's after his conversion. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
complete unmitigated horsecrap. He wrote scathing reviews on papers, and later defended the scientific field itself against science denialists. You can easily say that one or ten movies were total crap, but that film making is worthwhile. The whole episode is clearly above your pay grade, so we need not bother with your random opinion, and after all, let's move this to the proper section. ~ Aneris 22:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of Coyne, what do you think of his fervent support of evopsych's theorem that women evolved orgasms in order to alleviate the pain of constant rape, in accordance with the roles of sexual dimorphism as proposed by the subject? --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
A mod should look into your edit. The edit is of course in line with the Kult behavior. So Coyne made a critical comment, he's an Unperson now. We got it. ~ Aneris 04:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
He's not an unperson. I said nothing of the kind. I merely noted when looking the article over that it is incorrect; Coyne is a heavy supporter and defender of evo psych. His viewpoints are well-documented. I don't see how that makes him an unperson; is it somehow wrong of him to support evo psych? (Excuse me, that was the wrong link. Edited correctly now.) --Castaigne2 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
And? What about your stated opinion that date rape with alcohol is acceptable when she has no memory afterwards? That's disgusting if you ask me. See it? You fool nobody.
^ demonstration of what Castaigne does. Reality: "Coyne became part of a larger debate surrounding Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, the biologist-anthropologist duo who authored A Natural History of Rape. Coyne gave the book a scathing review in the journal Nature and argued against them on a radio debate hosted by NPR. Coyne supports the idea of evolutionary analyses of psychology and behavior, but is a critic of much current evolutionary psychology.[x]" Castaigne changed this critic to "supporter", ignoring the context and disappeared the reference to the scathing review. I'm biased of course, but why do I and other people have to waste time with this. ~ Aneris 05:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So is he a critic or a supporter[edit] Both viewpoints are referenced. Which wins? Or is this even more accurate: Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 14:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I had written a sourced section with the nitty gritty details, but it was killed by Usual Suspects. The gist is: Coyne is a critic of most of the contemporary output, and wrote about this many times, but as a an evolutionary biologist, he doesn't reject the premise altogether. The article was correct. It's useful to know that there is a deeper conflict known as the Nature-Nurture DebateWikipedia, with things like the controversy over the SSSMWikipedia. Hence, he teamed up with Steven Pinker, who also wrote an entire book on this (The Blank Slate). As for Coyne, a key post may be this one. ~ Aneris 16:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
He was a critic from about 2009 to 2012. In late 2012, he changed his mind and became a champion of it. He now writes several posts on the subject. If there are doubts, just ask Kurzban. As he says, "Jerry Coyne’s conversion I think serves as a powerful example. His journey from staunch critic to defender of the discipline illustrates that smart people who know a lot about biology can be persuaded. Some of the field’s critics might be induced to read the primary literature, as Coyne did. More deeply, Coyne’s public change of heart, I think, will make it easier for others to say they were wrong." (Source) Aneris likes to refer to Coyne's pre-"conversion" viewpoints in an attempt to whitewash, but the evidence is clear if you go looking. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Things can change over time instead of being static? Never, that's unpossible. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Nobody says things were static. I would just ignore the obvious troll Castaigne, who hangs out in Stormfront forums otherwise (google it) and claims in other thread, also whitewashing, the exact polar opposite of what Coyne himself stated on the matter. If you can't deal with such trolls, your problem. Below you find more of his incoherent drivel ~ Aneris 16:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
So...Castaigne is a troll because he successfully proved you completely wrong about Coyne? Typhoon (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, I've even been invited to white nationalist conferences under the couple of identities I use on Stormfront. That last one in TN was a fucking hoot (Stormfront Smokey Mountain Summit 2015, to be exact). Although, you won't have a lot of luck googling for my name on Stormfront; I've never posted there under this name. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Another SJW into stormfront stuff. Colour me surprised. It's a meme already. Thanks for the clarification. Btw, the basic googling showed what appears to be a wargaming or something community. I suspect that's somehow a thing. Your buddy Typhoon likes "scorched earth" according to his own page. That's another clue, since it's a war tactic only wargaming or military geeks, or well... ideologues could appreciate. ~ Aneris 17:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I also have several accounts on Free Republic, Reddit, Where Liberty Dwells (a now defunct conservative forum), the Daily Stormer, various creationist forums, some NRx sites, some anti-vax sites, and am an anonymous contributor to Freeper Madness on occasion. These accounts are all very helpful to keep track of the cranks and what they're up to. I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not an SJW (in fact, I'm a pre-Burkean conservative authoritarian). Oh, and I don't do wargaming. I despise miniatures. Also, I'm not the only Castaigne on the internet.
What you should take away from all that is that I enjoy reading about crankery and loons, which is one reason I'm on RatWiki. --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
(SJWs are right wing authoritartians in my book). Anyway, you are exactly right on the RationalWiki, I agree. ~ Aneris 19:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
SJWs are part of the left-wing democratic socialist/communist oevure. SJWism is Light Communism. No conservative economic philosophy. No highly nationalistic viewpoints. No opposition of abortion. No religious orthodoxy. No support of capital punishment. No opposition to gun control legislation. No rigidification of class divisions. No pro-capitalist attitudes. No dominance over others by being competitive and destructive, by utilizing aggression and violence. No militarization. No ethnocentricity. No opposition to deviant sexual behavior. If SJWs are RWAs, then they are doomed to failure just by existence. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Right?!? How unpossible! --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
A very cromulent observation. Change can embiggen even the smallest of us.Petey Plane (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
As for why Aneris is a big fan of Coyne, this particular quote from him should make it obvious. "But the left-wing opposition to evolutionary psychology as a valid discipline in principle, especially when it involves differences in sexual behavior, seems to me based more on ideology than on biology. Ideologues cannot allow any possibility that males and females behave differently because of their evolution. Such people think that this would buttress the view that one sex would be “better” than the other." Fits straight into the support for his his Leftist Evil FemJay SJW Postmodernist Cabal thinking. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Checks out. Aneris has been trying to wikilink the word "students" to "SJW" in this article. Typhoon (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, it's common topic outside of your little echo chambers, and you know this, since you whitewash this everywhere for long time (mostly also with other people's work, not just mine). Didn't you remove this, and when I sourced everything you removed it all because now there too many sources? Here you go again, and here are the relevant cateogries. ~ Aneris 16:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You mean, it's a common topic inside your little echo chambers. The conversation is nowhere in the halls of corporate power and nowhere in IRL. I never hear word one of "SJWs" in my workplace or in the outside world - the only place where it's of concern is on the tabloid sections of the internet.
I suppose you're talking about Typhoon removing sources. Query for you; isn't Coyne speaking outside of his line of expertise there when he natters on about politics? --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Coyne's bitching about students, in a nutshell. His wordpress continues to be mentioned in the writing section, so anyone can still view his rants. What we don't need is an overly long unfunny joke about cats, interspersed with you trying to wikilink "SJW". Typhoon (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Ayup. At least you can use that as a rule of thumb with cranks. If they even vaguely support Aneris' conspiracy theory, it's practically a given there's going to be crankery there.
Although it is interesting how only the Brits give a shit about "no-platforming", as if they were guaranteed a platform for their speech. They should probably have Parliament pass an Act that requires platforms to be obedient to their speech. Thank the Constitution for 1st Amendment rights here. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and I forgot - Coyne's whole support for the Regressive/Authoritarian Left jerkass meme. I really wish scientists would stick to their fields of discipline rather than make stern pronouncements on their (lack of) expertise in political science. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's not forget that Aneris got Coyne to call RationalWiki a part of the "authoritarian left". Typhoon (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. The Slymepit old boys network at work. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
It's almost as if there is a network of critics out to suppress and mock views different from their own.Petey Plane (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Holy shit, did I walk into nega-rationawiki here? "It's almost as if there is a network of critics out to suppress and mock views different from their own" is iterally something that's word for word said from people on the other side. Keter (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
That's the joke. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
"It's just a prank bro" is only valid when you don't unironically believe it, tuffguy.Keter (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, I've completely lost the thread of what you're talking about here. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Also interesting - you can always tell where a person has been getting their talking points from the jargon they use. "privileged crybullies", "this is censorship", "Banning Crowd" - it's really sad. Coyne should just go ahead and admit that he's switched his allegiance to the alt-right. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
See how we not discuss the question at hand, but it becomes the usual smearing. Castaigne, who previously launched 100% opposite false claims on Coyne for trolling and derailing purposes, now linked to Kurzban. He is a psychologist and proponent of Evo Psych who likes it that Coyne has recently defended the field against science denialists and anti-intellectuals. Seems fair to me. That doesn't make him a total 100% supporter of everything ever written. ~ Aneris 16:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I already answered the original question in my first comment on the subject.
Are you saying I'm not allowed to point out various other things I discover? Why is that, I wonder?
And I'm not smearing Coyne at all. He has the absolute right to ally himself with whoever he wants to. That's part of American freedom of association. If he chooses to use terms invented by Vox Day, that's his business. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
None of which would have come to light if Aneris hadn't pushed this issue. We get it...he says something you like looking at most anything else he says is batshit crazy which makes you look crazy by association. If you like the ideas maybe come up with the proof yourself, or look to someone else who might have it if you can't do anything yourself, without the taint of his other opinions instead of whitewashing it. If the only people who state it are crazy, like the only people who think the Earth is flat are crazy, it says a considerable more about the people that endorse it. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we all agree that nobody knows who these people are, Castaigne is surrounded with. I've noticed several times how he and others from his gang always introduce their icky gender warror or manosphere corner into everything. As if anyone cares about this bullshit. Other people are like: "who!? Am I supposed to know them?". I have again the same feeling. What does it have to do with subject at hand? It's the same derail and smearing as Castainge and his gang always do, sometimes better concealed, sometimes obvious-is-obvious trolling. I mean Vox Day!?? The article says he's an anti-vaxxer Christian Apologist. Makes total sense. ~ Aneris 17:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Aside from not being able to parse what you're saying here very well - seems very disjointed - I have a gang now? That's news to me! Is my gang an already established one, like the Ghostface Killers, Douglasville Nazi Squad, or the Georgia Boys Incorporated? Or is it something new?
Man, I need a gang leader title. Warlord, or something like that. Yeah. --Castaigne2 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a gang more along the lines of ganging up. Like a kid who feels teachers are ganging up on them when they think 2+2=5 and everyone they ask is part of the "gang" that thinks it is 4. If you are wrong, and arrogantly obstinate, it feels like the world is ganging up on you when you are just wrong. An adult learns from their mistake, corrects it if they can or changes, while a child cries people are being mean to them. Every class has that idiot and some don't grow up. It's not nice to say but I view him like I view my dog running into the same door face first twice every day. People have detailed this so often for so long that you realize they cannot understand, have no desire to, and frankly wasting time to go over it yet again is a waste of everyone's life. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk)
What you are on about? This article had it correct. But now that Coyne became an unperson, changes are proposed. So what changed? The facts, or your kultish opinions. Here is what he himself wrote. Here is the controversy that sparked it, plus Steven Pinker's statement. These are accordingly all dogs who are "running into the same door face first twice every day." Maybe consider that you are wrong. ~ Aneris 18:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
LoL, posting the same wordpress blog repeatedly going "NO YOU'RE WRONG! ANYONE WHO DOESN'T AGREE IS KULTISH!" without addressing anything that debunked it in the first place, is exactly the point. I couldn't have produced a better example :-) Ignatius J. Reilly has so many contemporaries. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
If I wanted to know whether you prefer vanilla or chocolate, I would ask you. Presumably you know best. And you would be obviously the first go-to source in an article on EmeraldCityWanderer. Secondly, you would perhaps need to know what exactly is meant by "vanilla" and to which extent you prefer it. In our instance here, you got the second link where Steven Pinker enters the picture. ~ Aneris 18:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Facts aren't a preference. That conversion happened, and in his own hand, which is a fact if either of us like or care about it or not. That you think facts are malleable opinions says more then I could hope. :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticising feminism[edit]

A postmodern academic signals her virtue: Why Pilates is white and racist by Coyne highlights 2 cases where Coyne alleges feminist women wasted taxpayers' money on useless research. I won't take sides here since I've only read Coyne's version of events. I haven't read how the women or their departments defend their work.

I will say in general terms there are researchers who treat public funds as a gravy train if they can get away with it and men are as likely to be guilty as women. I hope Coyne will be equally dilligent in exposing men who he feels are wasting research funds. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I know he's been kind of hanging with Sam Harris lately, which makes me a bit apprehensive. On the other hand, we don't like postmodernism at RW either - for good reason - and while I haven't read all he wrote yet, I was much calmed by seeing that the specific "feminist thing" he was being critical towards was, quote, "feminist glaciology, whose intent was to bring a feminist viewpoint to the study of glaciers". But again, I take no hard stance, other than the fact that I'm a feminist (out of all the sorts there are) and that I haven't read more than a sentence into what he wrote. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Your English is extremely good, Swedish student. German is my second language and my German is nowhere near as good as your English. Ich kann Deutsch keineswegs so gut schreiben wie Sie Englisch schrieben. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
...And the irony is that my (high school) German is atleast good enough to understand what you wrote there, too! Ich heiße Percy, ich komme aus Uppsala... Etc.
Jokes aside though, thanks for the compliment! Th hug.gif Your English isn't exactly unintelligible, either. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Jonah Lehrer fails at bid for redemption Coyne followed up with criticism of a man who, in Coyne's opinion plagiarises bad stuff. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne the anti-psychiatry crank[edit]

See the following three articles (dated 2011, admittedly) from the online skeptical resource Debunking Denialism:

  1. Why Jerry Coyne is Wrong about Medical Psychiatry
  2. Why Jerry Coyne is Still Wrong about Antidepressants
  3. Confronting Jerry Coyne on His Stance on Medical Psychiatry

Note also the comment field in the final article — Coyne appears to have repeatedly dodged the questions (for shame).

Now, I can forgive the guy for struggling with philosophical issues — though his confidence in his own ability seems quite a bit overinflated for him to rant against Daniel Dennett of all people, never mind nearly dismissing Dennett as simply being "wrong".

But anti-psychiatry crankery — broadly of the "anti-depressants are a HOAX"-variety?

Making Coyne on par with Stefan Molyneux of all people? Really now?!

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Facepalm Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it really barely about Coyne, or not about Coyneter all[edit]

@David Gerard would you take a few moments to enlighten me how is section which I included recently "barely about Coyne"? As far as I can see and read, great deal of this article is written on reference to his blog and his rants there? Maybe it's my attempt to emulate "freestyle" editing, widespread on Rat - no, not really!?--ʘ ౪ ʘ °°° 02:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)