From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: books
Date: 7 Apr 92 04:54:43 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> > 
> > According to prof, all
> >of these authors agree that there has never been a matriARCHY, and that
> >every culture ever studied back to its earliest days bears evidence that it
> >started as matriCENTRIC.
> > 
>  We seem to have an interesting dilemma here. The concensus of "womens'
>  studies" texts is indeed as he indicates. However, the concensus of
>  historians, sociologists, and anthropologists is otherwise. Isn't
>  it a pretty paradox when one branch of "knowledge" contradicts
>  another? What do you suppose might explain this error? Surely it
>  could not be: political agenda (i.e., Lysenkoism)?
> 
        You know, it constantly amazes me that when people study the roles of 
women in neolithic societies, they must constantly labor under the suspicion 
of pushing a political doctrine. Yet nobody suspects these motives behind 
those who promote a male-centered interpretation of history. Apparently, 
discussing how women may ahve had influence in ancient cultues is a sign of 
subordinating science to a political agenda, but discussing how men 
influenced societies isn't.

        I've sort of been lurking throughout this matriarchy debate here, and 
I really haven't seen much progress. I have seen a lot of unwarranted and 
half-assed attacks on Loren Petrich, specifically from Gerry Roston. (Who, in 
case y'all missed it, compared Marija Ginbutas to such cranks as Wilhelm 
Reich without having read her material.) I have seen Robert Sheaffer, 
apparently uncowed by the repeated demonstrations of his ignorance, still 
maintain that when people have different interpretations of history, it is 
because they labor under political agendas and biases-- but when people 
promote capitalism, patriarchy, and other things that Sheaffer accepts 
without question, they are regarded as authoritative and well-informed.

        I don't know which is more embarassing. If it's not Sheaffer trying 
to place feminist thinking in the same category as the UFO sightings he 
debunks, it's Roston insinuating that Loren's a closed-minded fanatic because 
she has the effrontery to argue with the rest of us.

        This sort of illustrates one aspect of the skeptics that's been 
bothering me for some time. When they deal with such fringey issues as UFOs 
psychics, astrology, and all the rest, they're on pretty solid ground. When 
it came to creationism, they did very well because the issue was very 
clear-cut. But in area where the answers are _not_ so clear-cut-- in this 
case, dealing with alternate interpretations of history, interpretations that 
are the part and parcel of the 'soft' science-- all too often the skeptics 
are way out of their depth. I've never seen James Randi touch a subject that 
he didn't understand fully-- but this admirable restraint hasn't stopped 
bottom-feeders trying to use the debunker's tools in a trade that demands 
tolerance of alternate ideas.

        At the last CSICOP conference I attended, in Washington, there was a 
panel discussion on animal rights. I had a low expectation of it-- when the 
form came around for suggesting topics, 'animal rights' was characterized as 
the greatest threat yet to scientific research. Luckily, the Capitol Area 
Skeptics conducted a fair and balanced panel discussion on the topic.

        The next CSICOP conference is actually titled "Fairness, Fraud and 
Feminism: Culture Confronts Science," and I have a sad feeling that CSICOP 
will find itself wedded to a reactionary, authoritarian point of view that is 
fundamentally anti-intellectual. I might be wrong-- my expectations on 
theanimal rights panel were certainly off the mark-- but after seeing the 
pathetic, let-ME-set-this-foolish-woman-straight strutting on this newsgroup, 
I get the strong feeling that certain individuals aren't happy unless they 
can Soundly Thrash these infidels with the full weight of CSICOP.

        Or, let me put it this way. Gerry Roston posted here about how Loren 
was using a 'classic' crank tactic, by continually arguing until reasonable 
people just threw up their hands and walked away, allowing the crank to claim 
victory. That could apply to anyone-- and frankly, it fits several other 
people better than it fits Loren.


Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
...Saure really turns out to be an adept at the difficult art of papryomancy,
the ability to prophesy through contemplating the way people roll reefers -
the shape, the licking pattern, the wrinkles and folds or absence thereof
in the paper.  "You will soon be in love," sez Saure, "see, this line here."
"It's long, isn't it?  Does that mean --" "Length is usually intensity.
Not time."                       -- Thomas Pynchon, _Gravity's Rainbow_