10 Ways To Enrage A ScienceBlogs.Com Audience.
A few of the better ones:
10) Ask why they don't just find a missing link to prove Evolution.9) Say you're not convinced the entire state of Kansas is stupid.
***
3) Tell them that saying they have a "Lysis To Kill" at football parties isn't all that funny.
(OK, I liked that last one. Many of the rest were kinda stinkers).
Apparently they don't think much of us and y'all from their sidebar:
Top 10 Reasons You Should Read Scienceblogs.com Instead Of Us:1) You have no sense of humor.
So, he thinks our audience has no sense of humor, but hey, at least he doesn't make any sweeping generalizations:
...not all scientists are anti-religion. A lot are ... most everyone at Scienceblogs is contemptuous of religion to a point beyond objective reasoning and bordering on zealotry.
Especially for you Christians out there, please, can you cut out the anti-religious zealotry? It would be appreciated.
Comments
Mwhahaha....doesn't he know that he's not suppost to hate the player, but hate the *game*?
And that all his base are belong to ScienceBlogs?
Posted by: Shelley Batts | August 23, 2006 3:56 PM
Yo, Yo, Yo I am All About fun! Whats that fool talking about? I guess I am just not nearly as funny as Pat Robertson. However, not to totally disrespect the nutter, yes, put me down for some of that contemptuous of religion.
Posted by: J-Dog | August 23, 2006 4:10 PM
From the "Haters Guide on How to Hate like a Real Hater and Not a Poseur Hater who can't Hate for Shit", Chapter 1:
"Don't use gray text on a gray background. Even if they're two different shades of gray."
How to hate:
Jesus was a hippy. I hate hippies.
Posted by: RPM | August 23, 2006 4:20 PM
I can't even read his frickin' site. I don't know about the rest of the Science Blogs audience, but I can tell you that tragically stupid design choices enrage me.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 23, 2006 4:32 PM
... yet another example a right-winger who thinks that putting "real" or "sound" in front of science makes them cool?
Well, it does work a hell of a lot better to say Real Science than to say Creation Science, so he may be full of sh*t, but he's no dummy when it comes to propaganda - it just sounds like something right out of the textbook on both political framing and the war on science.
Posted by: Daniel
| August 23, 2006 4:45 PM
And two other things of note on him and his "Real Science" site:
(1) Is it me, or do most of his posts sound kinda whiny when it comes to scientists' treatment of evangelical Christianity?
(2) I note that he doesn't have anything suggesting who he is, what field of science he's primarily involved in, or why anyone should listen to him? Shades of George Deutsch, anyone?
Posted by: Daniel
| August 23, 2006 4:55 PM
Realscientist (?) should learn that if he wants people to READ his blog, he should make it legible. I have no colorblindness issues, but found I could only read what he had to say by highlighting it. I looked at some other things, but refused to spend my time trying to decipher his posts on that color scheme.
As for his 10 reasons...can he give us 10 reasons as to WHY we should read his blog that make sense? I'll stick with scienceblogs where I can a)read the blogs and b)learn interesting things.
P.S. I did like the "lysis to kill" though..might be a good shirt to wear on weekends.
Posted by: Dawn | August 23, 2006 5:28 PM
.
I apologize to the rest of you. It is obviously me he is talking about. I have no sense of humor and I hate religion and other forms of delusion.
Posted by: somnilista, FCD | August 23, 2006 5:28 PM
Posted by: somnilista, FCD | August 23, 2006 5:32 PM
Um, did anyone else notice the uber-annoying ads? No scientist claiming to be *real* could tolerate that.
Posted by: Shelley Batts | August 23, 2006 6:01 PM
I'll give you humor:
I hate all bigots!
Wow. Brown on gray. Only Real Scientists can read it.
Posted by: Stephen | August 23, 2006 6:15 PM
Posted by: somnilista, FCD | August 23, 2006 6:39 PM
Just to be clear, since I know sarcasm doesn't always come off the best over text, I was mocking him. While, sure, there are a number of atheist bloggers (and commenters) here, obviously there are a lot that aren't. His characterization makes me thinks he's not exactly given SB a fair shake.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 23, 2006 8:14 PM
Good to see something track these characters. I have given up all black background blogs, no way can I make out the words without serious eyestrain. Now I have an excellent reason.
Posted by: Borneo Breezes | August 23, 2006 10:29 PM
Ouch, my eyes hurt now. Still, I liked the way that many of the posts finish with "0 attempts to be rational and informed"...
Posted by: gengar | August 24, 2006 4:40 AM
Clearly the world is unfolding as it should.
SB is becoming a force to be reckoned with. Small minds are feeling threatened and are desperately casting aspersions.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | August 24, 2006 5:45 AM
Ow my freakin' eyes!!
Posted by: Geoff | August 24, 2006 9:06 AM
I love this blog, but I have to emerge from lurking to respond to:
Especially for you Christians out there...
It may not seem like much, but speaking as an unabashed atheist, there are many Christians who are science advocates and who cringe at the narrow-minded dogmatism of Biblical literalist and creationist believers. It perpetuates negative stereotypes and threatens some of science's best allies in the arena of public opinion (considering that we live in a predominantly Christian society where much of our scientific endeavor is dependant on public funding) when they're all grouped together. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of your fans would call themselves Christian. My two cents.
Posted by: John | August 24, 2006 10:23 AM
Somehow the "all you Christians" remark isn't coming across very well... I get the impression that Tara knows that many of her readers and many of her fellow SBers are Christians, and is trying to point out the attendant absurdity of calling SB an anti-religious site. Once again, we need a sarcasm emoticon...
People like this guy, who automatically conflate pro-science advocacy with anti-faith sentiment, are a bigger danger to the Rational Religious than SB could ever be.
Posted by: Jess | August 24, 2006 10:41 AM
Heh...I don't know if it's sad or a stirring commentary on the nature of mankind, but it seems ever popular discussion area has it's share of haters.
Hell, even RPG.net, a site about *games* has a blog devoted to whinging about it. One that claims - with pride - to be the highest readership blog on English-language games in Paraguay. I kid you not.
Posted by: Eric | August 24, 2006 11:26 AM
Yes, thank you--exactly. (I already tried to explain it more here, but it must've been overlooked). Obviously, for most readers or commenters out there, I have no clue about their religious leanings--and neither does "Chief Scientist," because it's not as if every comment or post needs to be qualified with "I am a Christian" or "I am an atheist," etc. To characterize everyone here as being anti-religious is just ignorant stereotyping.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 24, 2006 12:23 PM
i read the post, and the comments, and the stuff on here, so i will unlurk to make my 2 cents. there is bad science in evolution like in any field these days but no one seemed to address the issues - some complained about the crappy font and 2 regulars on here used the 'you're stupid' argument on him.
tara also can be a little guilty for snipping parts of sentences for her convenience. the guy/girl also said 'Obviously we are not against evolution but we go apeshit over bad science' ... the quote she used was from a different one on reconciling religion and evolution.
Maybe they came here and just saw the real crazies, like pharyngula and whatever and wrote that post. so what does everyone do in response? they go crazy like he said. if sb is so balanced and open to all scientists, let's make sure we continue to show it.
Posted by: Jamie | August 24, 2006 12:23 PM
"there is bad science in evolution like in any field these days "
----------
Really? What makes these days so special, and do you have an example of bad science in evolution? I mean, obviously there must be poorly done studies and lousy professors, but that isn't bad science in evolution. That's a trivial point about the bell curve.
Bad science in a theory suggests that there are fundamental flaws in the theory and its investigation that must be addressed, and if that is the case, you should probably have some specifics handy. Otherwise, people might conclude that that is a reasonable sounding statement that actually has no meaning, and is meant only to open up a rhetorical gate through which to sneak bullshit.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 24, 2006 1:13 PM
seth, you think you're smart because people agree with you in order to shut you up. you reaching that conclusion on that kind of evidence is an example of bad science. you are welcome.
Posted by: Jamie | August 24, 2006 6:43 PM
So, basically, your answer to my question "Do you have an example of bad science in evolution?" is "No."
Which leads me to the conclusion that you haven't really thought about that statement. You don't actually know that there is any bad science in evolution at all, and certainly not to the degree that it needs to be addressed as an important issue or as failing in the field in general. This "there is a lot of bad science" thing is just a rhetorical trojan horse.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 24, 2006 7:05 PM
seth, fine, evolution is perfect science and it is conducted by perfect scientists, like you, with perfect results. you win. see how smart you are? now shut up.
Posted by: Jamie | August 24, 2006 7:52 PM
There is a lot of ground between perfect science and bad science. A reasonably good science of evolution could be conducted by mediocre scientists, and that wouldn't be bad science the way I understand the term.
I get the feeling that you think I'm being unfair to you. Perhaps I am prejudging too much. But honestly, I don't know what you mean by "bad science in evolution"? Can you give an example of what you are talking about? Is it just trivial stuff like a poorly conducted research project, or are you talking about something more endemic to the field? If so, what? What are these issues that people ought to address?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 24, 2006 9:06 PM
The issue in at least one post over at the other blog wasn't even "bad science," it was bad coverage of a study by the media. I've discussed this before as well (for example, here). But one can't put all the blame on the scientists for lackluster media coverage, can they? IMO, that's what makes sites like SB so valuable--they go beyond the sound bytes that generally pass for science journalism.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 24, 2006 9:50 PM