bioephemera is art + biology - everything from representations of science in art and literature to the neuroscience of aesthetics. 
Wow: it looks like PZ Myers and his fans are embroiled in a bit of a kerfuffle with Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum and their adherents over the new Mooney/Kirshenbaum book, Unscientific America
First, PZ says the book is "useless." Chris says well, phooey, because plenty of other people like it. And then everybody calls one another "poopyheads" (or variants thereof) in the comments sections of both blogs, which are running into the hundreds.
I'm relieved to note that I am completing two big projects next week, so I won't have time to read my copy of Unscientific America for a couple weeks - until all of this dies down. But now I'm really, really interested to read the book. . . which is probably exactly why Chris sent PZ a copy. ;-)
Politics
Comments
Ah ha! It's a publicity ploy!
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | July 9, 2009 11:31 PM
This is called framing the book launch. Highly technical stuff, don't expect to understand it...
(great hair, BioE!)
Posted by: DrugMonkey | July 10, 2009 2:12 AM
"But now I'm really, really interested to read the book. . . which is probably exactly why Chris sent PZ a copy. ;-)"
I thought the same thing, and this exchanged piqued my interest, too. Not so much about the new-ending atheism debate, but about what the authors really say about Pluto's demotion. At least it will be a quick read (135 pages?!).
Posted by: Laelaps | July 10, 2009 6:34 AM
First post on this blog, see, the kerkuffle is good for the most obscure bloggers !
M&K's adherents now included the likes of John A D*vison,John K*ok,and David M*bus,all known internet lunatics,insane and at times committed in real life,one has to congratulate M&K for this sort of support.
PZ has fans, btw, because he makes a lot of sense most of the time.And if he doesnt, his "fans" point that out.But I guess it's easier to picture his blog as some sort of church full of zealoty followers, if you into knocking over strawmen.
Fact of the matter is that M&K wrote an irrelevant,awful book and are trying to pimp it(and their blog) by mentioning PZ and the New atheists.
And it's working.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 3:59 AM
Ah,comment moderation !!
Well,what did I expect.....
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 4:09 AM
Rorschach: yes, I moderate comments. You're probably unaware of the reasons why (which I recently posted) because you don't ever visit my "obscure" blog. :)
If your only reason for visiting is to engage in attacks and insults like the ones in your comment, I'd prefer you let BioE languish in "obscurity" and comment somewhere else. I happen to like PZ quite a bit, but that doesn't mean I like all his adherents. . . and I'm not interested in high traffic if it comes with ad hominem attacks. That's just not my thing.
Posted by: Jessica Palmer
| July 19, 2009 2:31 PM
I fail to see the ad hominem and insults in my post,to be honest.
I was commenting on your blog post,and the parts I consider wrong or factually incorrect.
Adherent huh? LOL
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 8:26 PM
Wow. Do I really have to tell you that attacking people's mental health is insulting?
In this post, I said that PZ and his blog commenters are arguing with Chris and Sheril and their blog commenters over the quality of the book, and that this cross-blog argument is piquing people's interest. I then quoted one of the more colorful comments. If you consider any of that "wrong or factually incorrect," then you have drunk some kind of Kool-Aid with which I am unfamiliar. I'm sure PZ would have no problem with the post. Shall I go get him and ask?
Posted by: Jessica Palmer
| July 19, 2009 10:34 PM
All due respect, the mental health--or, rather, lack thereof--of the particular commenters named by Rorschach is hardly in doubt by anybody actually paying attention.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 20, 2009 11:38 AM
And what exactly was the relevance of naming those commenters and attacking their mental health in Rorschach's comment? Nothing, because they weren't mentioned in the post and didn't comment on it. It was gratuitous and inappropriate. The reason I supplied links to the debate on the blogs of the interested parties is so BioE readers could go straight to the source and read both sides of the argument, if they wished to do so - not so non-readers like Rorschach would feel they had a new forum to insult people who don't even comment on this blog.
Posted by: Jessica Palmer
| July 20, 2009 4:16 PM
I think what might have prompted Rorschach's comment, lacking in clarity and tact as it was, is that it may come off as dismissive to label all participants in a discussion either PZ "fans" or Chris/Sheril "adherents". I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, but OTOH there's been so much of that kind of labeling lately, it gets tiresome.
Posted by: windy | July 21, 2009 5:39 AM
If people want to read that into a neutral post, Windy, there isn't much I can do to stop it - or much I can say to avoid being misread. Fact: those comment strings I linked to are places where you find strong, vocal supporters of both sides (and if I really wanted to be insulting, I'd have called them hordes or groupies). I don't think it's necessary to make the point that not *everyone* in the comment thread is a rabid supporter of either PZ or Chris & Sheril, because I think that's obvious to anyone who clicks through the links and reads the debate - or really to anyone who reads blogs and is familiar with comment strings.
Posted by: Jessica Palmer
| July 21, 2009 9:01 AM