RDFRS

[lordpasternack]

Rationalia needs a charitable foundation, and I need a pool.

[lordpasternack]

I sent an email to Richard three days ago asking this:

Hello Richard. I'd like to enquire as to what your charitable foundation actually does, with particular reference to its mission statement, if this could be provided. This information doesn't appear to be available or manifest on either of the websites carrying your foundation's name, so far as I can see - which is peculiar, to say the least.

...

...I'd expect you to leap on the opportunity to start gushing about and listing all the projects your foundation is involved in with regards to advancing reason and scientific knowledge and thinking, and why those things make you so passionate about what you've helped create, and why the necessity of your foundation, and your foundation's credentials as a charity (as opposed to another non-profit organisation) are obvious. And I'd expect you to waste little time in making sure you're less subtle in your bragging about what RDFRS is actually doing, on your site(s).

So far, crickets…

[Schneibster]

And I'm sorry, but that kind of hypocrisy, that kind of insincerity, that kind of bullshitting - even unconscious - really sticks in my craw. Particularly when it comes from an organisation that presumes itself an oasis of clear thought, reason, scepticism, rationality, evidence-based understanding, and everything else. It's one of the most risible Animal Farmish type things I've come across in a while. I just can't take you seriously anymore if that's on your record. 

I had about the same reaction to James Randi coming out as a global warming denier. Fucking ludicrous.

[lordpasternack]

Does he truly deny global warming/climate change or is he just one of those ones who wants dispute anthropogenic global warming? Has he changed his mind in light of the evidence, as Michael Shermer did? I'm curious.

[Schneibster]

I have no idea. I don't think he does either. The last thing he put out was apologism, this from someone who made a living tearing other peoples' apologism apart.

This is what he had to say. He makes five scientific errors in that statement; and he never even bothered to do the research to find it out (which required almost no effort at all; I could debunk that piece of shit but as you folks say "couldn't be arsed.") Skeptic my ass. This reads like apologism all the way, complete with scientific errors and logic errors and false dichotomies and every other damn piece of underhanded pseudo-intellectualism we hate from Creationists and crank "psychics."

Here's PZ Meyers on it;

Later, Randi walked it partially back: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swi ... thing.html

But the damage was done. And he still hasn't walked it all the way back, nor bothered to actually check the evidence at places like RealClimate.

Since I don't wish to waste my time, I don't bother going there any more.

[hackenslash]

I couldn't think of the best place to post this - considering that it isn't just a web-related issue - but am I the only one left to ponder a bit occasionally on what the fuck RDFRS actually does? I mean in practice. I can read the Mission Statement, but that doesn't tell me what they're actually doing.

They seem incredibly coy about advertising their activities, for an organisation with such great ambitions, anyway, I'll put it that way.

They get very excited about the changes, apparently.

[Pensioner]

I have no idea. I don't think he does either. The last thing he put out was apologism, this from someone who made a living tearing other peoples' apologism apart.

This is what he had to say. He makes five scientific errors in that statement; and he never even bothered to do the research to find it out (which required almost no effort at all; I could debunk that piece of shit but as you folks say "couldn't be arsed.") Skeptic my ass. This reads like apologism all the way, complete with scientific errors and logic errors and false dichotomies and every other damn piece of underhanded pseudo-intellectualism we hate from Creationists and crank "psychics."

Here's PZ Meyers on it;

Later, Randi walked it partially back: http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swi ... thing.html

But the damage was done. And he still hasn't walked it all the way back, nor bothered to actually check the evidence at places like RealClimate.

Since I don't wish to waste my time, I don't bother going there any more.

Spot on post

[lordpasternack]

I think a lot of skeptics have feet of clay in some way. It depends how forgivable it is. PZ's weak spot is his unscrupulous support of things that come under the heading of feminism - which isn't that egregious, except insofar as it makes me roll my eyes occasionally.

[Schneibster]

The entire point of being a skeptic is not to fuck stuff like that up. It's pretty basic IMNSHO. Kinda like don't start up the anti-child-abuse forum and then reveal you have a store of kiddie pr0n and two life-sized child dolls with orifices. It's not going to work out well.

[lordpasternack]

Yeah, well I've 'asked for evidence' about Richard's foundation, which claims to be all about promoting evidence-based understanding, sceptical enquiry, not taking things on faith, etc.

I'm not going to be pushy, but I will remind him a few times of this request, and if no response is forthcoming over the next few months, I'll consider it warrant enough to write RDFRS off completely - and might just take the time to pass along my enquiries, and the persistent lack of response from RDFRS, to the Charities Commission in the UK in particular. That won't be a threat to RDFRS so long as they can provide them with what they have failed to provide me/everyone else remotely interested. And if they can't? Then what the fuck are they playing at in the first place.

[charlou]

I couldn't think of the best place to post this - considering that it isn't just a web-related issue - but am I the only one left to ponder a bit occasionally on what the fuck RDFRS actually does? I mean in practice. I can read the Mission Statement, but that doesn't tell me what they're actually doing.

They seem incredibly coy about advertising their activities, for an organisation with such great ambitions, anyway, I'll put it that way.

They get very excited about the changes, apparently.

I can't be the first to say I don't?


*cue monty pythonesque "I'm not"*

[hackenslash]

Yeah, well I've 'asked for evidence' about Richard's foundation, which claims to be all about promoting evidence-based understanding, sceptical enquiry, not taking things on faith, etc.

I'm not going to be pushy, but I will remind him a few times of this request, and if no response is forthcoming over the next few months, I'll consider it warrant enough to write RDFRS off completely - and might just take the time to pass along my enquiries, and the persistent lack of response from RDFRS, to the Charities Commission in the UK in particular. That won't be a threat to RDFRS so long as they can provide them with what they have failed to provide me/everyone else remotely interested. And if they can't? Then what the fuck are they playing at in the first place.

Better still, you can submit a request for information directly to the Charities Commission, which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The information they hold on any registered charity includes information concerning income and expenditure and, being subject to the act, they must provide it.

[lordpasternack]

Still, it's worth testing how capable RDFRS is at answering arguably the most obvious general enquiry that could be posed, before I take that action. My hopes aren't high, but don't let them say I didn't fairly and reasonably invite them to falsify my hypothesis - both in cooperating in sharing what keeps them busy, and with any luck showing me that I and some others are wrong to be so cynical of RDFRS.

[Exi5tentialist]

Still, it's worth testing how capable RDFRS is at answering arguably the most obvious general enquiry that could be posed, before I take that action. My hopes aren't high, but don't let them say I didn't fairly and reasonably invite them to falsify my hypothesis - both in cooperating in sharing what keeps them busy, and with any luck showing me that I and some others are wrong to be so cynical of RDFRS.

The more emotional energy a person puts into an organisation, the more aggrieved that person can become at its failure to return the investment. To put a large amount of time and effort in, as invited by the organisation, only to find it jettisoned is an injustice. But pursuing justice then requires yet more emotional energy and potentially greater grievance. Every person must make their own decision at what point they cut their losses.

[laklak]

We're all really excited about the impending changes.