Posted by ERV on July 23, 2009 Uh oh. Ive dont it again! Enabled teh cranks by talking about HIV-1and HIV Denialism with The Conspiracy Skeptic (scroll down to find the mp3)!
I was worried it would come off as too ‘inside’– Conspiracy Skeptic is an ERV reader, so we made some references that newbs might not be familiar with, but then CS hunted down, like, all the links to stuff we were chatting about!
Hope you all enjoy it, and you can leave feedback here!
Really like your comments about students debating kooks. Great points! I’m eagerly awaiting your next debate. 
Still listening. Just wanted to say that while it was fresh in my mind.
Defeating cranks by ignoring them is very wu wei. Fighting cranks, Mooney style!
Oooooh – The Avro Arrow!
Students should debate, because professors are afraid.
Willie, we know you like to fantasise about people being afriad of you, but it will never happen in reality. Sorry.
Speak for yourself, Stephen! I find such blatant stupidity mixed with such unwavering arrogance positively terrifying.
And with the number of hours Limp Willy puts in here, I’m betting it doesn’t leave much time for things like employment or hygiene.
Motherfucker is probably horrifyingly ripe.
The Arrow, Sili? Did I miss something here?
Students should debate, because professors are afraid.
Reading comprehension FAIL! (Listening comprehension?)
Students should debate, because the opposing arguments are *so* weak that any reasonably prepared student can shred the arguments rather easily. It also provides a great opportunity for the student to stretch their intellect.
Also, putting a full professor up against Joe Dumbass sets up the bully meme. “That big bully was so *mean* to that nice Joe Dumbass. With his evidence, and his facts…”
Of course, you knew all that. You just couldn’t resist pulling your little dick out to wave in ERV’s face, could you?
Creeeeepy.
Abbie’s claim was, I believe, students should debate because they’re get very used to people criticizing and debating ideas using logic and evidence (ie other scientists). They don’t get exposed to the cranks. It’s a valuable lesson that not everyone thinks rationally about their area of interest. It’s probably also a good lesson on how that science might be treated by the general public. As we’ve seen with the vaccine debate, cranks can significantly affect public perception.
Consider, a researcher might think some new advance in car technology will make cars 20% safer and therefore save 20% more lives. But we discover the technology has increased traffic deaths. Doh! The researcher was thinking logically, not thinking emotionally. If I think I’m 20% safer, I might drive 20% faster, or 20% more reckless.
Another example, an polio vaccine is a marvelous idea. But then we know certain imams don’t see it that way.
Professors need not debate the cranks because they get the cranks all the time. Ask any physics prof at a high profile university how many times he gets a “paper” submitted by an “amateur scientist” (not to be confused with Brian Thompson of the excellent podcast by the same name) claiming to have proven Einstein wrong. I’m sure biologists get bizarre “papers” disproving evolution, HIV, etc. How many times do you see claims like “Over 120 geology professors could not disprove my evidence for a young earth” or “Over 300 top anthropology professors could not disprove this plaster cast is of a real bigfoot!” Of course it turns out some crank just mailed them something written in crayon and the prof ignored it.
I’m also reminded of Alex Tsakiris’ self published “press release” alludes to Randi was backing out of legit research. (Alex thinks dogs are psychic, Randi asked him to apply for the challenge, Alex wanted Randi to bend the rules for him, Randi asked him a second time to apply, Alex restated his position that Randi should bend the rules for him, Randi stopped returning his emails.)
http://www.pr.com/press-release/84975
I think Abbie’s final point was a professor needs to abide by some kind of decorum. If an ivory tower prof beats up badly on a crank, the crank becomes a martyr.
I don’t think so, BAllanJ. I was just scrolling through the episodes and saw that one was on Canadian conspiracies – including something about the Avro Arrow. I liked the Dan Akroyd film is all …
I think Abbie’s final point was a professor needs to abide by some kind of decorum.
PZ Myers.
Speaking of the devil, he did successfully debate a creationist on a Christian radio show (hostile audience from his point of view). He was careful to pick an easy target, though. And he won. Stoked his ego. I’d like to see him debate Dr. Charles Jackson. But he’s afraid. Clearly, concerns about his reputation for propriety and good taste are not the issue. More likely an edict from the NCDE.
Dr. Charles Jackson. But he’s afraid.
It must be the credentials of Dr. Charles Jackson, FRS, PhD, DDS, ESQ which scared PZ away.
I will say that, at least, Abbie has more balls than PZ. She debated him.
Well, sure. Academia is all about sending in grad students to do the tedious stuff the professor doesn’t want to waste time on.
Me, I’m completely and totally terrified by Jackson’s long, long list of accomplishments in science. *snicker*
I’m growing a creeping suspicion that William Wallace either is Charles Jackson himself, or is about to add Charles Jackson to his “collection” in the basement.
/r/ final solution on Wallaids. He’s overstayed his welcome IMO.
I’d like to see him debate Dr. Charles Jackson. But he’s afraid. Clearly, concerns about his reputation for propriety and good taste are not the issue. More likely an edict from the NCDE.
…wait, what? Did you just say that the NCSE handed down an order that no one is to debate Dr. Charles Jackson, FRS, PhD, DDS, ESQ, and PZ fearfully complied?
I think there’s one or two points of implausibility in that scenario, but I can’t quite put my finger on them….
William,
Are you referring to the guy PZ debated who didn’t know about whale evolution? If I recall, PZ only went on the radio show because it was claimed the ID “expert” would be presenting evidence for ID. Which would be a first. Don’t you creationists always claim scientists won’t give you a chance to present positive evidence?
We were all shocked — shocked — when “someone” changed the theme of the show at the last minute on PZ. We got the same old tired creationist “here are gaps! Gaps!!!!” But of course the gaps presented had been filled last decade. And the creationist looked, typically, foolish.
If PZ won’t debate you (I’m assuming you’re just a silly sock) it’s because you’re slinging the same old silly creationist crap that’s been answered a hundred times. Come up with something new, some positive evidence. Beyond that you’re anachronistic, silly, and plain tiring. See my point about why profs quickly learn to ignore the cranks. And no one, but other cranks, take seriously a refusal to debate a tired old crank as a tacit admission your god-fu is un-assailable.
I should hasten to add when the top boys of ID had a chance to present their positive evidence in a venue of fact and logic (a Dover court) they ran. The real scientists showed up and destroyed you creationists.
It was the debate, and PZ’s opponent was not up to debating whether or not a daughter is in fact younger than her mother, let alone ID or evolution. PZ only takes easy opponents.
PS…I’m not Dr. Charles Jackson. I found out about Dr. Charles Jackson from Abbie’s blog. And, I give her respect for debating him. It would be fun to watch PZ get mopped up by Dr. Charles Jackson, but, as I said, he’s a coward, and not likely to debate him on evolution or creationism.
Mr Jackson
You should actually address the point I made instead of simply repeating your silly claim.
Dr. Jackson is a SUPAR DEBATER… as long as he gets to edit the videos to make himself look good and his opponents look bad.
Actually, I guess that would make him a Mental Master Debator. Wally knows a kindred spirit when he sees one.
#22 William Wallace
“It would be fun to watch PZ get mopped up by Dr. Charles Jackson, but, as I said, he’s a coward, and not likely to debate him on evolution or creationism.”
Oh come on. Nobody is really that dumb. If you are going to troll put a little effort in.
It’s called the Gun Slinger Effect.
People with poor credentials and a relatively meager following attempt to challenge people who have a certain prominence to elevate their status all the time.
Abbie debated Jackson on his turf with an audience of his people and where she had nothing to lose and everything to gain.
That was smart.
It isn’t smart for PZ to debate “Doktor Hobo” or Dawkins to debate Banana Man.
You don’t walk up to Maestro Aldo Nadi in the grocery store with a couple of foils and shout, “Let’s go old man!” There is nothing in it for him, he’ll just call the cops.
OT. hey ww, i wanted to report back to you. as you may recall, on an earlier topic, you provided a link to a short interview with Richard Dawkins. i was so impressed that i ordered “the god delusion” from my public library. i just finished reading it and i want to thank you again for guiding me in this direction. have you read it? i think you would find it interesting.
…Richard Dawkins. i was so impressed that i ordered “the god delusion” from my public library.
I ordered my copy of Dawkin’s boook from copy from the public library, too. I especially disliked the part where RD fondly recounts how he was molested as a child. The man is sick, and comes off as an apologist for peophiles. Glad you didn’t waste your money on it. His arguments against creationism and religion were two edged swords, equally applicable to his view of the universe as the religious. Sophomoric pap, but if you liked it, glad I could help.
I ordered my copy of Dawkin’s book from the public library, too. I especially disliked the part where RD fondly recounts how he was molested as a child. The man is sick, and comes off as an apologist for pedophiles. Glad you didn’t waste your money on it. His arguments against creationism and religion were two-edged swords, equally applicable to his view of the universe as the religious. Sophomoric pap, but if you liked it, glad I could help.
Now that it’s obvious that Wallaids is trying to get b& I withdraw my request for a final solution.
Sophomoric pap??
You were still on teat and gruel as a sophomore?
Explains a lot.
Just a passing thought on the Debate debate:
As Richard Dawkins said, “It would look great on your resume, not so good on mine.”
dNorrisM, by his own admission, PZ is a mediocre scientist teaching at an insignificant campus in the middle of nowhere.
Furthermore, it wouldn’t *look* good for him if he lost. If he won, it would look better for PZ’s street credibility in the minds of the legions of NCDE drones, and it would attract young impressionable “FU dad atheists”.
But *looking* good aside (a rather shallow reason to fear debate), it shows intellectual cowardice for such a strong advocate to cherry pick his debate opponents, selecting only the easily defeated.
But, he only accepts debates from easy opponents.
Prometheus, clue. Words in the English language often have more than one meaning. Take a look at 3, for example.
William
You’re just repeating your silly claim without addressing what has **already been explained to you**. PZ debated Mr “I don’t know the whale fossil record” ONLY because the host promised the creationist ID guy would be presenting positive evidence for ID. A first. As has been **explained to you before**, you woo slingers try to wear the martyr badge claiming evil old established scientists like PZ won’t hear your positive evidence. It would be irresponsible of PZ to say no.
But of course the format of the debate was switch at the last second. Surprise. And we got the same old tired “there are gaps (that have been filled)”
Now does your Jackson character have any positive evidence he’d like to present? Anything that hasn’t been debunked a hundred times already? If so, table it here. If Abbie is impressed by it, she’d surely take it to PZ. If Jackson is just slinging tired old Hovind-style crap, then you’re looking like a bigger fool and a particularly bad spokesperson for him.
Prometheus, clue. Words in the English language often have more than one meaning. Take a look at 3, for example.
…
Good grief.
Yes, Wally, he knows. He was playing on the multiple definitions to make a joke at your expense. This is the sort of thing that people capable of responding normally to social cues just naturally pick up on.
Seriously Wally, are you some kind of autistic? I’d feel bad about mocking you if you were. Of course, autistics are usually good with numbers…
Oh, and speaking of the meaning of words:
dNorrisM, by his own admission, PZ is a mediocre scientist teaching at an insignificant campus in the middle of nowhere.
Show me where he has said this. EXACTLY this. No weaseling, weasel.
PS: Even if it were the case, I’d also take a mediocre but credentialed scientist whose facts check out, over a lying, ignorant nutjob like you or Jackson.
Seriously Wally, are you some kind of autistic?
Hmmmm… Maybe Wallaids is Chris-chan! So *this* is what he’s been doing when he isn’t drawing his *ahem* comics! Oh LAWD!
||dNorrisM, by his own admission, PZ is a mediocre scientist teaching at an insignificant campus in the middle of nowhere.||
People are allowed to be modest, no?
He’s so insignificant, the people from Expelled had him sharing screen time with Dawkins?
Yep.
July 23, 2009
July 23, 2009
July 23, 2009
July 24, 2009
July 24, 2009
July 24, 2009
July 24, 2009
July 24, 2009
July 25, 2009
July 25, 2009
July 26, 2009
July 26, 2009
July 27, 2009
July 27, 2009
July 27, 2009
July 28, 2009
July 28, 2009