There is hilarity in the blogosphere, little chickens. Last week I wrote this post. It got a few comments.
In the post I made mention of the recent hot topic in the 'sphere, Sheril and Chris's Unscientific America. Like one of my Sciblings (see Zuska's post here) I have not yet read the book. I know, I know.
Figure 1: I plan to read it as soon as the grant is done. I'd much rather be reading because I am exhausted with granting, but you know that Mama's got to get that ca-a-a-ash. Maybe some of the stuff from this ad will help. The text reads: Why is this woman tired. She may be tired for either of two reasons: 1) because she is physically overworked. If this is the case, you prescribe rest, because rest is the only cure for this kind of physical problem. 2) because she is mentally "done in." Many of your patients -- particularly housewives -- are crushed under a load of dull, routine duties that leave them in a state of mental and emotional fatigue. For these patients, you may find 'Dexedrine' an ideal prescription. 'Dexedrine' will give them a feeling of energy and well-being, renewing their interest in life and living. I Dexedrine* (dextro-amphetamine sulfate, S.K.F.) is available as tablets, elixir, and Spansule* capsules (sustained release capsules, S.K.F.) and is manufactured by Smith, Kline & French Laboratories, Philadelphia. Wow, that was a long diversion...
In the post I made reference to the fact that the book has been controversial around these parts, specifically with respect to the way in which PZ Myers and the "New Atheists" are portrayed. I linked to one of PZ's posts discussing his objections to their book. I also linked to ERV's post in which she essentially, as I interpreted it, calls Sheril and Chris "traitors." I don't think my interpretation of her post was incorrect.
Link to PZ. Check. Link to ERV to capture the conversation about the book as I had seen it. Check. Mention about why I generally don't typically find discussions of science and religion interesting. Check. New stuff about something I thought was interesting. Check. Recap complete.
But, then ERV leaves some wackiness in my comments that I just don't get. I was willing to grant that maybe I am not as hip to the LOLSpeak as our friend, ERV. THEN I go over to her "blag" and find more wackiness that I do understand and I am now convinced that our Scibling has done lost her mind. Either that, or she's been working in the lab without lowering the sash on the fumehood.
Allow me to illustrate....
ERV wrote this in my comments:
Isis-- I havent read Unscientific America. I called foul on some shit Mooney wrote in 2006 he has yet to address, I would have been shocked if he sent me a copy.
My issue with Mooney initially had nothing to do with atheism, nor does my problem with him today have anything to do with atheism.
PZ defended Mooney against all kinds of shit in the past, yet Mooney made the decision to attack PZ in a dead-tree format-- No links to posts so readers can analyze what happened themselves, no trackbacks so readers can see PZs response, no comments section for commentors to come in with their perspectives-- the portion on PZ might as well have been posted on 'Evolution News and Views' or 'Uncommon Descent'.
Luskin and Mooney can go on a speaking tour together, calling me a male sexual pervert and PZ a 'destructive' site-hit slut.
Assuming Luskin would even agree to tour with a backstabbing bitch.
If my views on Mooney must be connected to religion, let me be clear that I too dont give a fuck what you believe. While I think its interesting you get mad at SciBlogs for having mail-order-bride ads, yet you financially and socially support an organization that
institutionalized child rape, I wouldnt 'call you out' on this by name in a print book where you couldnt defend yourself.
But Mooney might in his next book.
Followed by this just a bit ago:
I won't lie to you, little muffins. My head is spinning 4 bazillion different kinds of purple because I have no idea what any of this means. I'll grant ERV that she never said the word "atheist" in her post criticizing the book she didn't read. That said, to deny that the current disagreement has anything to do with religion when she links specifically to PZ is disingenuous at best. If chapter 8 (that is the one we're talking about, right?) had been about how PZ is a successful squid-o-logist, great humanitarian, is a generally studly dude, and poos rainbows, she'd have no problem seeing it in print where people can't immediately respond.Orac-- It's not appropriate to bring up an issue like this in print format because the person can't defend himself?
Twisting and misrepresenting someones view online? Meh, not a big deal.Twisting and misrepresenting someones views in print media? Unforgivable.
Mooneys admitted he fucked up on Dawkins. Yet there are hundreds, if not thousands of copies of 'Unscientific America' out there. How many readers are going to find Mooneys admission in the middle of a +300 comment thread on someone elses blog? He summarized Crackergate, a weird complex ordeal, in a paragraph. He fucked it up too.
How is he going to fix this? Run to the Library of Congress and put a Post-it with 'My bad. --Chris Mooney' in these chapters?
If youre going to bad mouth someone in print, youve got to be like Dexter. You have to be sure. Mooney fucked up and threw PZ under the bus, a la Casey Luskin. Unforgivable.
Isis-- I'm not that old, Orac and I still don't think I agree with ERV.
You also thought my post had something to do with Catholics or atheists, or something... so... *blink* [Emphasis a la Isis].
"Why no, Chris and Sheril. Let me set the record straight. I don't actually poo rainbows, but I am a studly dude."
There'd be no discussion, would there?
I am blown away by her contention that what makes the book problematic is the fact that PZ and the New Atheists are criticized in print rather than in the blogosphere where they can't openly respond with a fucktillion comments. This freaked me out. I had no idea it was rude to criticize someone's ideas in print! I am going to have to retract a lot of articles where I have been critical of other scientists because, apparently, it's rude to do it in print. Then, I am going to have to republish that work on my "blag" where those scientists can respond directly to me in LOLSpeak because print media, complete with punctuation and everything, is apparently no longer an acceptable form of communication.
Newspapers? Books? Not an acceptable place to be critical? You bitches had better call Woodward and Bernstein and tell them they are out of a job. They're going to be pissed.
Seriously, I had no idea.
Then again, I would say that if PZ really has a problem with any of this he could respond on his very highly traffic-ed blog and write his own book.
Oh, wait.
A hat tip to my feminist sister Zuska who is also critical of ERV's murder of the book as an acceptable form of communication and Orac who is basically my blog hero.
ERV Point 2: *squeeee* I've never experienced sexual discrimination, so let's make fun of it *squeeee*
But all of this is a silly skirmish compared to my real issue with ERV, so let's take our motherfucking gloves off and hash some shit out.
In the comments section of her blog one of the members of her enlightened commentariat says this:
Remember a while back when Sheril Kirshenbaum decided to manufacture some internet drama? Some "science hero" apparently made an awkward pass at her and she decided to threaten him with her blog, and then decided to blog about it anyway (but without releasing his name). Mostly this was calculated to stir up a frenzy of third-wave sanctimony and white knighting. It's as though being at the receiving end of a hamhanded pass diminished her ego just enough that she had to find a group of people to dogpile the issue until she had felt good about herself again. "Eeew. A nerd. Throw rocks at him," is apparently good framing.
Reply a la ERV:
I dont appreciate you taking that incident lightly. Having an ugly person ask you out is a thoroughly traumatic experience. Ugly AND old AND apparently a NERD, I dont even want to think about it. Im just glad she survived that ordeal.* Isis's ears (um, eyes?) perk up *
Then, a la some other random dude:
The real question is what do we call them? I mean, if we call Sheril "Sheriltits," then we'll just be big, bad sexists.Then, creepily...
Egaeus, the genderneutral referents must be Chris Mooneytits and Sheril Cockenbaum. (What's with the "i", by the way?)And I think to myself, "Self, surely ERV isn't going to stoop to making light of Sheril's concerns over the fair amount of creepy, stalkery, sexist comments she receives. Right? Right?????"
Until today when I see this post that she's written:
You have to be, as an HIV-1 researcher. You have to be, cause when you think about how far weve come, and how far we have to go... youd never get out of bed in the morning.
So I happily found something good through Mooneytits and Cockenbaum throwing PZ under the bus: Idiot America
With that I've gone from thinking ERV was just generally obtuse to being officially disgusted. You see, the most recent part of this incident reminds me of a Bloggingheads I once saw where PZ and ERV discussed a bunch of stuff. In it, PZ asks her if science has become more friendly for women (see 6:01) and she cheerfully answers, "I haven't encountered any sexism yet and, if I have, I've been too oblivious to notice...I'm not sure if I'm the best person to talk about sexism in science these days just because I haven't personally had to deal with it. But, at the same time, I know it's still out there."
My head spins again, little muffins, to see that one of ERV's responses to Sheril's writing is to mock an experience in which Sheril spoke openly about sexism. I thought of all of the ways I could make the point more obvious for ERV that speaking out against being marginalized isn't a source of humor -- hilarious ways to Photoshop penises in to the many pictures of ERV available on her precious Interwebz, but at the end of the day, I just can't bring myself to do it.
ERV noted back in 2008 that she had never been on the receiving end of a firm fucking from the patriarchy. That is apparent. It's also apparent that she is not the best person to talk about sexism in science. It's a shame that, of all the ways to respond, this is the tactic she's chosen.
A final thought about Sheril. I've noted before with a bit of a flippant tone that Sheril is my blog "bff." In all seriousness, Sheril is one of the bravest blog chicks I have the pleasure to know. I enjoy the luxury of my pseudonym. I don't get recognized in public and no one ogles me, except for my ankles. When I receive creepy emails it's different than when she does. I know how I feel sometimes when I read things about my pseudonymous self. I would like to think that if I ever chose to write under my real name that I would deal with this crap as thoughtfully and brilliantly as she does. I began reading Sheril's work before I was Isis the Scientist. Since joining ScienceBlogs it's been my pleasure to get to know her better and she is truly one of my favorite people.
Humanities & Social Science
Information Science
Comments
Yes, Abbie should have at least read the book before wading... well, actually jumping in to the discussion, balls to the wall. But I don't think her point was that you shouldn't be critical in print, just be damn sure that you're right- especially given that this all began in the blog world. It's kind of a general thing - you engage people first in the same forum that they're putting their stuff out there on. If you see something at a conference that you think is incorrect, you don't write a book to that effect or a letter to Nature, you engage the person there.
Posted by: Brian | July 16, 2009 6:45 PM
It's an odd dichotomy, that personality shift enabled by even non-anonymous blogging. I think people in this position seem just a bit shielded from the world, and shed some of their social etiquette. This is a similar experience to how the nicest person can turn into Mad Max when placed behind the wheel of a car. My father's abusive driving tirades are legend in my family.
My philosophy is: never write anything you wouldn't want your mother or daughter to find.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | July 16, 2009 7:04 PM
ERV-- "You also thought my post had something to do with Catholics or atheists, or something... so... *blink*"/
Anon-- "I won't lie to you, little muffins. My head is spinning 4 bazillion different kinds of purple because I have no idea what any of this means."
*shrug*
It means I think youre slow, anon. I dont think youre that way naturally, I think you get slow when you talk about religion.
Because anyone who has followed ERV (new or old), knows that my issues with Chris Mooney have never been religious. I made it a point to be nice to him, to try to learn something from him, to give him the benefit of the doubt on how to communicate better. I want to communicate better. Alas, Ive received nothing from him but hot air. It was intensely frustrating.
So, I happily forgot about him.
Then he releases a book slamming PZ irl.
Mooney is not a ‘traitor’ for this. ‘Traitor’ implies he turned on The Cause… ATHEISM! Oh how could Mooney say something bad about King PZ?!?!?! TRAITOR!
No, I used the word ‘back-stabber’ on purpose, because his attack was personal. He attacked PZ. He twisted an event that happened on the internet to personally attack PZ, in real life, in a medium where PZ could not respond. Its disgusting. Creationists do that shit, not us, as I demonstrated by comparing them to Casey Luskin. Apparently Im naive in thinking ‘we’ are better than that. lol, ‘we’.
You realize that if he/she had written that you ‘betray science’ by ‘blogging like a 12 year old’, that you make ‘women in science look immature’, instead of attacking PZ, I would have defended you. Like I have in the past.
If he/she had attacked Janet, saying that she shouldnt blag because she ‘dropped out of science’, ‘couldnt hack it as a real scientist’, got a ‘fluffy career as a philosopher’, I would have defended her.
If he/she had attacked Orac, saying he hurt medical efforts by ‘heartlessly slaughtering poor mummies just trying to do the best for their kids’, I would have defended Orac.
Anyone who reads ERV would know that.
But you dont read ERV, do you?
You just mine ERV for ‘naughty’ quotes so you can bravely defend your bff and Jesus.
*shrug*
Posted by: ERV | July 16, 2009 7:35 PM
Wait a minute.
You and Sheril are bffs.
Anon, did you proof this book before it went to print? Did Sheril give you a copy, you saw what she and Mooney did to PZ, and you let it fly? "Who cares if they burn, PZ? He deserves it for what he did to Catholics!"
Are you so defensive about me calling them back-stabbers because youre an accomplice?
Posted by: ERV | July 16, 2009 7:47 PM
As an atheist who is "agnostic" about religion, part of the point of PZ existing as such is to bring controversy and foment vigorous discussion. If he weren't attacked for many of his stances, he would simply be another biologist.
Yes, I have little patience for "framing" per se, but one thing the book is clearly doing is causing discussion...among scientists. The book is succeeding in some ways which may or may not be intended.
So-called New Atheism is, i think, a very good thing, but it will be attacked, sometimes legitimately. It certainly makes sense to defend one's peeps, but it's not out of line to have one's very-public views attacked in print. The blogosphere is not the only place where issues are discussed. There are things called books and newspapers that are still widely used.
Posted by: PalMD | July 16, 2009 7:50 PM
I've stayed away from all this New Atheism stuff, as I do not understand what religious belief has to do with science. Yes some extremists out there would like to make teaching creationism or ID part of science class, but it doesn't belong in science class. Its not science. Yes some crazy extremist atheists out there want to prove to all God fearing folk that there is no GOD. You can not prove or disprove the existence of God. It is not testable, therefore it is not part of science class. Personally I see no difference between a atheist who feels that they must convince me that no God exists and the christian / catholic evangelist that is trying to convince me of the fact that I am going to hell in hand basket if I do not recognize that Jesus Christ is my lord and savior. Neither of these people are recognizing or respecting my choices. Both are extremist, stuck in their opinion crazy folk who refuse to listen to the other end.
Painting all christians or atheist will a single brush is sad and intolerant behaviour. Its no better than saying all scientists are old, perverted white men because of the few that are.
Posted by: ScientistMother | July 16, 2009 7:56 PM
"ERV noted back in 2008 that she had never been on the receiving end of a firm fucking from the patriarchy. That is apparent. It's also apparent that she is not the best person to talk about sexism in science. "
Better than Zuska. At least ERV has a sense of humor.
Posted by: steve | July 16, 2009 7:57 PM
I too wondered how ERV and her commentariat turned a supposed "book review" into a sexually mocking tirade about SK (as well as just a general fist pounding tantrum-tirade about Chris Mooney). If they wanted to be petty, why the sexual critique of Sheril? Why not complain about Sheril's writing style? Or how often she uses the letter "Q"? Janet/Dr. Free-Ride has managed to post a series of well considered critiques of Unscientific America. Clearly, then, it's possible to review a book without going ape-shit, as it were.
ERV has been literally foaming at the mouth for days over this one book - specifically one chapter in this one book. Her disproportionate hostility and continuing avalanche of spittle laden insults have led me to believe that she is genuinely mentally ill.
Posted by: stickypaws | July 16, 2009 7:59 PM
I have no idea what this has to do with your post or linking to PZ's review of the book. Again, it seems to me that your concern is about that chapter you didn't read that is critical of PZ. And then, I have no idea what your tiff with Chris has to do with Sheril.
Wait, wait, wait. What do you think this blog shit is, ERV? Fake because it's not something tangible you can hold in your hand? That things you write here don't matter because it's just "blagging," but if you put it in print it is now "totes important?" We both know that online criticism is much more accessible than print.
Maybe they all should have gotten Second Lives and duked it out there.
Really, because this I would like to hear about. Did Chris and Sheril call PZ a "goatfucker" or insinuate and inappropriate relationship with his mother? Or, were they critical of his ideas, his tactics, and the style in which he communicates? I really don't know because I haven't read the chapter yet. Have you? Oh......
I have no idea what the fuck you are rambling about here.
I didn't have to "mine." Those are events and things you've said, aren't they?
You are a hilarious little muffin. I got my copy just like everybody else. I asked them for it and they happily mailed it to me. You know. "irl." Did you read the 5 times I've admited I haven't read their book? That's why I haven't dealt substantively with the content other than to point out that a debate was going on about how the "New Atheists" are handled, that it is generally something I don't find intellectually interesting, and then to move on to a discussion about religion I did find interesting.
Nope. Not about religion at all, is it ERV?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 16, 2009 8:00 PM
"Better than Zuska. At least ERV has a sense of humor."
She also actually blogs about science once in a blue moon, which is more than can be said for certain feminist and white knight whiners around these parts who shall remain nameless.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 16, 2009 8:04 PM
You mean the book she claims to have not read?
I want to be able to do that "irl." "No, I didn't read your paper or look at your data, but I heard about it and I think you are wrong!!! How dare you!!!"
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 16, 2009 8:04 PM
I concur with Dr. Pal. Though Sheril and Chris did indeed write a book and engage in a new medium, they certainly did a great deal of engaging in the blog world as well. I don't really think moving to print is something to call foul on. And if everyone had to be exactly, 100% sure about the truth of what they were writing, nothing would ever get published on paper.
Posted by: Scicurious | July 16, 2009 8:09 PM
Time for another game of Anti-Feminist Bingo!
Woo Hoo! Can't you bitchez take a joke?!
Posted by: stickypaws | July 16, 2009 8:12 PM
Isis-- I have no idea what the fuck you are rambling about here.
You know what? I believe you.
Posted by: ERV | July 16, 2009 8:22 PM
It's interesting how some feminists try to get humor out of the fact that they're humorless. It's like a non-terminating recursive loop of failure.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 16, 2009 8:34 PM
I'll brush up on my l337 speak this weekend and reread the posts. Maybe then I will understand what your problem is with a book you haven't read and why you felt the need to endorse the marginalization of Sheril. Then we can totes blag some more.
The comedy is killing me. I still just cannot get over how as PZ's apparent pitbull you go around the tubes talking about about this alleged character assassination in a book that, dare I say it again, you confess to not have read.
Then again, pitbulls are unstable animals...
HA HA HA
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 16, 2009 8:37 PM
"I'll brush up on my l337 speak this weekend and reread the posts."
Honestly, your persistent inability to follow a simple string of sentences is becoming disturbing. It's pretty clear that she's objecting to the in print hatchet job done on PZ and saying that she would also not appreciate such behavior if carried out against Orac or even yourself. Can you read?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 16, 2009 8:54 PM
Oh great, now you've done it. Was it really necessary to drag pitbulls into it?
"creepily"? Well, that prolly does acurately describe a good deal of my interactions with the other sex. Which reminds me that I'll likely have to start that from the beginning now; it's gathered dust for too long. Anyway, I still think "Sheril" with an "i" looks odd. Were her parents numerologists?
Posted by: Sili | July 16, 2009 8:54 PM
She didn't read the book, Tyler. Can you not read?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 16, 2009 8:55 PM
"She didn't read the book, Tyler. Can you not read?"
So have I adequately communicated her objection?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 16, 2009 9:11 PM
The objection that (she believes) Chris and Sheril have written critically (you know. see above) of PZ "irl"? Yeah, dude. Loud and clear on that one. Now go read Zuska.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 16, 2009 9:22 PM
"The objection that (she believes) Chris and Sheril have written critically (you know. see above) of PZ "irl"?"
And their online behavior. Bonus points if you can guess what Luskin-esque tactics they've employed to further vilify PZ.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 16, 2009 9:32 PM
To be fair, ERV did indicate that she had "read the portions of 'Unscientific America' relevant to Crackergate on Amazon, via its 'search this book' feature."
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | July 16, 2009 9:44 PM
Wait, wait, wait. You mean Chris is talking about PZ "online?" You know, where he can link and comment and shit?
Argument 1: Don't mess with PZ "irl." It's totes serious
Argument 2: Don't mess with PZ online. It's totes serious.
HA HA HA.
J.J.: I read the abstracts of articles all the time. I don't cite them though (or state that anyone has thrown anyone under a bus) until I've read the whole article though.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 16, 2009 9:53 PM
"Argument 1: Don't mess with PZ "irl." It's totes serious."
"Argument 2: Don't mess with PZ online. It's totes serious."
I see you also delight in erecting strawmen.
Here's a clue, when you cherry-pick one comment from a blog with a virtually free for all comment policy and use it for a lame guilt by association play, it's a dishonest tactic. It's not just "complaining about someone online."
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 16, 2009 9:59 PM
Dr. Isis, can we have more shoes and hot science please? I'm getting nauseous from all this cross-linking from one blog to another (and to a non-reader of this book, NONE of this makes any sense). And just a reminder to posters: sarcasm and snark are difficult to convey in type alone...
Posted by: ktbug ladydid | July 16, 2009 10:35 PM
Wow
I don't know which of you is being more childish at the moment. Both ERV and Isis seem to need a time out and maybe some ice cream or something.
Gheez, at least Crackergate I could actually follow and understand. This is like overhearing the cheerleaders bitching about the bandfront in the girls lavatory. Both of you have points and both of you have faults. Take a deep breath and either agree to act like adults or change the topic and ignore the chasm.
Posted by: flame821 | July 16, 2009 10:40 PM
I love ice cream.
And not to fret, kt. I've got some sweet heels for you as soon as we are done with why endorsing misogyny is a big, fat no-no.
Tyler, are you saying that PZ is a slave to his commentariat and that he has no control over who comments there? Are you saying that C&S don't have a right to call that commenter out to support their argument? They seem to have clarified that the comment did not come from PZ but from one of his minions, no?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 16, 2009 10:51 PM
Obviously there are two major issues here, and I think we're spending too much time focusing on the wrong one.
Issue #1: Criticism of PZ in *heh* "real life". I got a chuckle out of that one, because as we all know, what is written in a blog isn't really real. With that said, it is obviously downright asinine to complain that someone got criticized in a book, but it's ok in a blog. Oddly enough, that strangely coincides with "Chris is wrong because he criticized someone in a book he wrote. PZ is fine because he only criticizes people in his blog." As PZ's sycophantic followers are quick to point out, PZ gets over a million page views a month. If you don't think that's a wide audience, you're friggin bonkers. PZ, with his criticisms, will reach as many if not more readers in a year than Chris and Sheril will reach in that same period of time with their book. Also, Scienceblogs is searchable from any number of search engines. You cannot search a book for content in its entirety online until the copyright is over and it's placed on something like Google Books. That will be years from now.
Issue #2: The personal attacks, via sexual reference, on Sheril. One would think that a host, any host, would rise above such petty and ignorant comments, but here she is, along with a few of her lapdogs, nipping at our heels about how it's not a big deal (and there she is, on her own blog, participating in it). One day, when she's experienced what it is to be nothing other than a skirt, she'll realize the errors of her ways. Unfortunately in this day and age, it's still probably not a matter of if, but a matter of when. Too bad that this is what it will seemingly take to get her to realize this.
Issue #1 makes her blog laughable. Issue #2 makes her blog pathetic.
Posted by: TomJoe | July 16, 2009 11:05 PM
Very nicely said, TomJoe.
Posted by: stickypaws | July 17, 2009 1:09 AM
What I find most depressing about these flamewars is that almost everyone becomes covered in some form of crap. Also, when ERV decided to just go to the mattresses over everything, and then interpret everything though the lens of "Mooney/Kirshenbaum=bad/deceitful", including obvious and sad sexism directed at Kirshenbaum. I say this thinking that Mooney and Kirshenbaum appear to be demonstrating a careerist streak and a penchant for simplistic and cheapish rhetoric, not withstanding any rabble-rousing by PZ. Their point #10 of the PZ "rebuttal" was kind of a snide "oh by the way" and seeing how it very much supposedly dominated their blogging decisions, for it to come up now and not in their book seems odd, if the behavior of PZ was so striking and beyond the pale and to cause them to alter their internet home. It sounds pretty ad hoc, or at least beneath them in terms of sticking to a civil argument, regardless of the other side (two wrongs, etc.)
I do think argument ab random blog comment is cheap and easy from C/S.
ERV is in that seeing red zone where nothing really matters, and it is flame on.
Posted by: Pinko Punko | July 17, 2009 1:59 AM
Abbie's main objection is one that I wholeheartedly endorse, although admittedly not with such colorful colloquialisms. To wit, the Framing/New Atheist/Accommodationist war between Mooney and PZ goes back many years, and has gotten quite personal. 'Crackergate' was neither the first nor the most recent time at which their respective ideologies clashed. The extent to which both this particular event and PZ's blog activity in general were featured in UA, evidently to exemplify how badly the 'New Atheists' are fucking up *science* communication, effectively transfers this very personal online vendetta to a much wider audience, without the context or background. Clearly the authors felt strongly enough about it to make this judgement call, but wherever you stand on the issue it shouldn't be that hard to acknowledge that a lot of people are justifiably questioning the ethics of such a maneuver. It also shouldn't be that hard to acknowledge the validity of these concerns without writing them all off as symptomatic of the mob mentality of the Pharyngula hordes.
TomJoe's point that the full history is readily available online is technically true, but as reading the backstory would take roughly 10 times as long as reading UA in its entirety, this seems exceedingly onerous. Furthermore, putting the burden on the readers to provide their own context for what seems to be a key example of the central problem is just plain bad journalism. Unfortunately, it's not an isolated case:
Yes, about 7 hours after the original post was made, after hundreds of comments and a couple of minor blogs picking up the story, having understandably misinterpreted the featured text billed as coming 'from PZ's blog' as something written *by* PZ because of the way Chris worded his post. A cheap shot in what has become a whole fucking firestorm of cheap shots.I truly don't want to believe that Chris and Sheril have deliberately fomented this dust-up to sell more books. However, Chris's series posts on the Intersection, interviews (excepting the bloggingheads discussion with Carl Zimmer, which was infinitely more substantial), opinion pieces, etc. have thus far generated all the wrong kinds of discussion about the very real problem of science illiteracy.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 17, 2009 2:17 AM
JJ Ramsey said
"To be fair, ERV did indicate that she had "read the portions of 'Unscientific America' relevant to Crackergate on Amazon, via its 'search this book' feature."
Lets leave fairness out of this matter. We haven't seen any of it so far and to bring it in at this stage will simply ruin all the fun.
Ding! Ding!
Seconds out.
Round Two!
Posted by: Sigmund | July 17, 2009 2:54 AM
Oh, bloody hell. It's blindingly obvious to anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension that ERV's complaint is not about M&K criticizing PZ in book format where he can't easily respond, it's about them misrepresenting him and his actions in such a way. The difference is not small.
Posted by: Tristan | July 17, 2009 5:21 AM
@ 34:
"Oh, bloody hell. It's blindingly obvious to anyone with an ounce of reading comprehension that ERV's complaint is not about M&K criticizing PZ in book format where he can't easily respond, it's about them misrepresenting him and his actions in such a way. The difference is not small."
Is it obvious? The relevant portion of the original ERV comment in question is:
"PZ defended Mooney against all kinds of shit in the past, yet Mooney made the decision to attack PZ in a dead-tree format-- No links to posts so readers can analyze what happened themselves, no trackbacks so readers can see PZs response, no comments section for commentors to come in with their perspectives-- the portion on PZ might as well have been posted on 'Evolution News and Views' or 'Uncommon Descent'. Luskin and Mooney can go on a speaking tour together, calling me a male sexual pervert and PZ a 'destructive' site-hit slut."
That's not about misrepresentation and there's no particular reason to infer this meaning. It's a clear statement that "attacks" are the problem. Unless you are a particularly expert mind reader, I'm not sure how you could parse anything else.
Posted by: SteveF | July 17, 2009 5:47 AM
@35: case in point. All you had to do was read on just a scant dozen or so lines, to get to this:
Emphasis a la Tristan.
Posted by: Tristan | July 17, 2009 6:06 AM
Onto the actual issue itself; if S&K have indeed misrepresented PZ then shame on them. But regardless of if it is a misrepresentation or a plain old attack, PZ is one of the "lucky" few in being able to respond to this. Back in the good old days, if you were on the recieving end in print format, there wasn't really a great deal that could be done.
If there was a particularly egregious misrepresentation then you might have recourse to the law. Otherwise, the best you could probably hope for would be a newspaper column in reply, but most people written about in books wouldn't get that. It would be even rarer for someone to actually write a book in response.
Responding to articles in print is now much easier, particularly for PZ who writes an extremely popular blog. He's one of the best placed people in history to respond to words in tree format. He can easily respond. If all S&K have done is attack him, then I have no sympathy whatsoever. Attacks in books have always been made and long may that continue. If they have misrepresented him it is a slightly different matter; even though his blog is popular it likely won't reach all the readers of Unscientific America. Nevertheless, attacks and misrepresentations of people in books have been going on for as long as books have been in existence. PZ is one of the best placed people to deal with this.
Posted by: SteveF | July 17, 2009 6:10 AM
@36, yes you're right, I missed that. My bad. It is worth pointing out that the original point was about attacks, the subsequent one regarding misrepresentation was made 3 days later. A plain reading of her initial argument, clarified significantly later, would be that simple attacks are a problem.
Posted by: SteveF | July 17, 2009 6:15 AM
... and it's still disgusting every time it happens - especially if the culprits are those who would place themselves as role-models of how science should be communicated. If you're going to be that, then honesty must come first.
Posted by: Tristan | July 17, 2009 6:55 AM
That said, it's the mark of a mature mind to readily and openly admit to an error. Kudos.
Posted by: Tristan | July 17, 2009 7:12 AM
@39,
I entirely agree. If S&K misrepresented PZ then that's not acceptable. I've heard mention of links to online versions of their book. Does anyone know of one for the relevant section?
Posted by: SteveF | July 17, 2009 7:45 AM
ERV,
See, when you clarify that the lying (or at least a massive fail at getting it right) is the problem I can get right behind you, but rereading the comment you left you really didn't get that point across. Hell, I even agree with it being far worse in books because that shit can't be corrected (although, it doesn't seem like CM&SK are that willing to admit lies and misrepresentation when it's pointed out to them on blogs either).
Posted by: LostMarbles | July 17, 2009 7:52 AM
Wow, one would assume someone who claims not to endorse misogyny and worships the tyranny that is PCness, wouldn't refer to another female as if she was the sum total of her genitalia.
@28
It's wrong to attribute a comment from a commenter on a blog to the blog author. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Posted by: wildlifer | July 17, 2009 7:53 AM
Dr. Isis,
Having read the chapter in question (from a book copy I bought off Amazon), it's the later. Which is why I have grown so annoyed with all this as to largely stop commenting. PZ says over and over in his blog - both before and after CrackerGate - that EVERYTHING should be open for criticism and nothing held sacred. Yet when his tactics and views are criticized, out come the hordes with their butcher knives. So much for the EVERYTHING part of that.
Posted by: Philip H | July 17, 2009 8:36 AM
Let's be clear. I don't think PZ is up in arms because C&S cricized him in their book, per se, but is critical of what they have written. I think it is reasonable to be critical in response. That seems pretty in line with his philosophy. It is, however, certain horde members who are up in arms over poor PZ's honor because the cricism comes in paper form rather than bloggy form. That is absolutely ridiculous and I guarantee that if one of PZ's usual opponents did that, the horde would have a feast. It appears I am not the only one who thinks so.
And I think it is really interesting that our fearless defenders here are generally ignorning my second criticism...
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 17, 2009 8:57 AM
Yes, it is *very* interesting to me that people would rather talk about PZ/ERV/buses/crackers than the real point of this: how is it at all ok for ERV to be saying/allowing this:
"Remember a while back when Sheril Kirshenbaum decided to manufacture some internet drama?" -- comments
"I dont appreciate you taking that incident lightly. Having an ugly person ask you out is a thoroughly traumatic experience. " -- erv
"The real question is what do we call them? I mean, if we call Sheril "Sheriltits," then we'll just be big, bad sexists." -- comments
"So I happily found something good through Mooneytits and Cockenbaum throwing PZ under the bus: Idiot America." -- erv
Debate about ideas is great. What about dismissing and perhaps even encouraging sexual comments about Sheril? It doesn't make it better to just start on Mooney in order to pretend it's 'fair' and thus 'ok.' If we're truly in this for the science and the truth, comments about Sheril's bodyparts and sexual preferences need to stay out of it.
WHY ARE ALL OF YOU MISSING THE POINT? Even the guy who came up with Sheriltits gets it better than most of the commenters in this thread.
Posted by: kt | July 17, 2009 9:50 AM
Thanks for steering us back on point.
What I actually found interesting about ERV's comments and her defense of other sexist comments, is that this is the first time she has indicated that she thought that entire episode was attention whoring on Sheril's part.
As for appending "cock" and "tits" to people's names, it's not like she brought that in just for Sheril, she's been doing that as part of her version of LOLspeak for most people she disagrees with (see: Caseytits). Not that I think this tendency is appropriate, but we should keep that in context when discussing it.
Posted by: LostMarbles | July 17, 2009 10:33 AM
Correction: the bloggingheads bit on sexism is more like 28:15 than 6:01 (I got to 6:01 and I was like, DUR? epigenetics = sexism?).
In that conversation, when ERV talks about "stereotypes of female scientists" she is, in fact, noting sexism. She just doesn't label it as sexism. Maybe she calls only extremely obvious and egregious discrimination "sexism". But when she says it doesn't apply to her, this is despite the fact a moment later she's joking about exemplifying one of those stereotypes. All things considered, I'm inclined to believe that labeling only blatantly obvious discrimination (as opposed to labeling the "gender smog" as sexism) is probably a defense mechanism, as is laughing about it. I wouldn't fault her for using it as a coping mechanism. But that sympathy doesn't extend to her laughing at others experiences of sexism.
Given how ERV would eviscerate a "moderate" ID proponent who said "oh, I'm sure evolution occurs, I just don't think it applies to humans"; I think the "oh, I'm sure sexism exists, it just doesn't happen to me" sounds a bit hollow.
Posted by: becca | July 17, 2009 11:16 AM
Look the difference between a online posting and a book that's relevant here is pretty obvious. When you make a mistake online, you edit your post add an "update" on the bottom, and anyone who looks back on it now knows that you made a mistake and what it was. The same cannot be done (easily) for a book.
Hence why, if you're writing a book, you should be more careful and get it right - because corrections cannot be easily made. What's so complicated about that?
Having said that of course, I don't think ERV should've played along with the whole sexual insults thing.
And Philip H, they are free to make criticisms. And then the "hordes" of Pharyngula are free to make fun of them when those criticisms are laughable. I suppose you think the way to not be hypocritical is for PZ to sit quietly and not respond to criticism eh?
I have to say that I personally lost interest early on at the philosophical/methodological naturalism debate, where Chris came out with an argument from authority which didn't even address the issue PZ raised. I.e. that in fact New Atheists do not, and don't have to claim philosophical naturalism, unlike the book claimed. Methodological naturalism is perfectly fine for rendering any religion apart from deism incompatible with science. Something that Chris apparently didn't understand, even when it was pointed out to him, judging by his comment at PZ's blog.
It's not even like it's a difficult subject - this attack is a freaking standard creationist talking point. There are plenty of other problems with the book that other people have pointed out, but that, and the whole Pluto "example" was stupid enough that I don't see the point of taking the rest of it seriously.
Posted by: Coriolis | July 17, 2009 11:40 AM
ScientistMother - Neither of these people are recognizing or respecting my choices.
If "New Atheists" actually did try to 'force' atheism on you, then they'd be guilty of that. But that's not the case. A quote I saw when the whole "New Atheism" stuff got started:
"It's a hilarious double-standard that you actually have to pick up a gun and kill somebody to be considered a 'militant' believer, but all you have to do to be considered a 'militant' atheist is write a book."
Writing a book arguing a point is not "feeling they must convince" you.
They do argue that religion shouldn't be involved in making public policy (e.g. abortion, HPV vaccine, 'gay marriage', alcohol sales on Sundays, extra federal vacation time to attend religious services, child custody, etc.), and that may or may not involuntarily impact your life, I suppose, but I don't see that as being "extremist".
Posted by: Ray Ingles | July 17, 2009 11:41 AM
No, I think the way for PZ, Dawkins, or anyone else to not be hypocritical is to not resort to tactics and arguements thet they criticize in others. If New Atheists want the right to criticize religious believers of any stripe, then they inherit the responsibility for their conduct inthat critique. Debate of ideas, which include criticism, doesn't get anywhere when people start excluding other people simply because the other pseron doesn't share the same world view.
Put another way, what I've seen a lot of is people attacking Mooney & Kirschenbaum because they didn't give enough detail on crackergate (as if summarizing is somehow wrong), don't support PZ's approach, and tried to refute claims PZ made in his review of the book. Along the way, there was a lot of adhomimem, and very little of substance.
You and I can debate the ideas - we can even debate religion vs. atheism and whether either deserves a place in the public square. But we can't have that debate if you automatically conclude I have nothing to say simply because I don't see the world as you do. We really can't have the debate if one of us goes around calling the other irrational, mentally deficient, and a threat to society based on those views.
Posted by: Philip H | July 17, 2009 12:09 PM
"We really can't have the debate if one of us goes around calling the other irrational, mentally deficient, and a threat to society based on those views."
The only person that's been labeled mentally deficient on this thread has been ERV, by one of Isis' minions.
Have any of the uppity atheists ever called religious people in general mentally deficient? I am at a loss to think of a single instance of this.
Informing them that their beliefs have about as much validity in the real world as believing in Santa or leprechauns is not the same thing as calling them mentally deficient.
Calling them irrational? What the hell is wrong with that? Most religious people say they believe through faith - which is irrational by definition!
Look, the current dust-up over Mooney and Kirschenbaums book needs to be seen in the context of the framing wars of the past few years. Mooney along with Matt Nisbet advocated a position where they called for a unified public voice of science that was religious friendly. They criticised PZ long before the Crackergate incident (and just to keep THAT in perspective I thought that particular stunt was rather childish and witless of PZ and distracted from the very real bigotry and violence being threatened against the student who unwittingly started the whole kerfuffle by taking a eucharist from a church service to show his non catholic friend). For instance Chris Mooney made a fool of himself during the 'Expelled' debacle when the producers of that movie expelled PZ from a showing in Minnesota but accidently allowed Dawkins to see it. In contrast to almost everyone on the pro-science side Chris criticised PZ rather than the Expelled contingent and again advocated his policy of silence from pro-science atheists as the best tactic towards the religious anti-science brigade.
Chris refused to answer direct questions about his stance on his blog and switched it to approved comments only - making it about as open a forum for debate as 'Uncommon Descent'.
There are many valid questions that Chris has avoided;
Why should uppity atheists be quiet for the sake of US education - particularly when some of these vocal non-believers, such as Dawkins happen to live on different countries.
Why does he continuously accuse the uppity atheists of claiming that religious scientists cannot do good science? That is never the point of the anti-accomodationist stance - which boiled down to its basic level is the claim that believing in miracles is incompatible with the scientific method - defined as the way we determine whether a particular idea about the natural world is wrong.
This last point is related to Chris' claim that the fact that some scientists are religious means that religion is compatible with science - which is about as logical as saying that because some Christians are murderers that Christianity is compatible with murder.
And most importantly why does he call foul when asked to back his claims (that uppity atheists are driving the religious away from science) with evidence?
Posted by: Sigmund | July 17, 2009 12:55 PM
So, I hope I have enough street cred for my opinion to be taken seriously in your 'hood, even if you don't agree with it. My opinion is that worrying about bullshit like the etymology of "Mooneytits and Cockenbaum" is a fucking waste of time. The conversations in the comments on ERV are often akin to the conversations one might overhear in the back of a school bus on a 5th grade field trip. But while these naughty and anatomically ironic nicknames are, I'll freely admit, inane and insulting, I cannot agree that there are sexually charged in any way. Yes, Abbie has been derisive, and has permitted derisive remarks to be entered on her blog about someone with whom she is (albeit indirectly, as Mooney is her main target) engaged in a war of words. But I think cries of 'misogyny' here are missing the mark, and trivializing real instances of misogyny that are far more impacting and concerning.
I am aware of your involvement with the 'Break the Silence' Campaign, and I fully support that--in fact, it is the principal reason I continue to visit your blog--but to me the many instances of what I perceive as overreactions on this and a couple of other Scienceblogs to male behavior that, while certainly ignorant or misinformed, doesn't come close to meriting the outrage it generates, dilute the urgency and importance of the cause. Are you seeing some parallels here between the 'New Atheists' v.' Accommodatheists' imbroglio? I think your passions are sometimes misdirected. You and your followers likely think that I 'just don't get it' , or that my refusal to get on board with tearing the eyes out of any hapless idiot who makes a suggestive comment about a stiletto signifies that I'm in deep denial about how such things are really oppressing me. But in the midst of all this infighting, very much akin to what is going on with the science literacy argument, we are unable to address our common goal.
I'm not telling anyone how to think or express themselves. As is the case with addressing science illiteracy, I believe that there is more than *one* right way to go about things. Chris and Sheril will reach some people with their method, PZ and Jerry (Coyne) will reach others with theirs. You, Zuska and your like-minded naughty-monkey sportin' posse will resonate with some. Abbie and I and many others who choose our battles using different criteria will reach others. In both cases, however, it's truly distressing that we have, it seems, completely lost sight of our common goals. I find that heartbreaking indeed.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 17, 2009 1:16 PM
Yeah. Books are SO last century. We should just get rid of them altogether.
And then how to respond to ERV? Ugh.
It's NEVER appropriate to make or endorse comments of that kind in ANY medium. Whether you believe it's IRL or not. Period. ERV is a both a victim and tyrant to her own reasoning/hypocrisy. Ignorance is bliss, dear, so enjoy it while it lasts.
Ditto (and amen!) to kt's last point @46.
Posted by: Callinectes | July 17, 2009 1:46 PM
Dude, get over yourself and your mind out of the gutter. That's not what that word means ALL the frickin' time!!!!!
Posted by: Callinectes | July 17, 2009 1:53 PM
Quick, call the PC police:
Posted by: wildlifer | July 17, 2009 2:00 PM
Quick! get out the asshat repellant!
Would you rather someone cheer on the misogyny? You'll be welcome over at ERV but not here. (Sorry, Isis, if I presume to speak for you)
Posted by: Callinectes | July 17, 2009 2:11 PM
I think the time to address the problem of "Unscientific America" might be after we've addressed the problem of "Unscientific Scientific America".
Unless, of course, our objective is to adopt the Jerry Springer approach of making sufficient fools of ourselves in public that the laity will finally take an open, if voyeuristic, interest in what we have to say and do to each other.
Posted by: DSKS | July 17, 2009 2:21 PM
Heh, I find it particularly amusing that here we are accused of not having a debate over the issues and particulars Philip, yet if you didn't notice I did mention two issues, the methodological/philosophical naturalism problem, and the Pluto "controversy" albeit the latter very briefly.
You of course ignored any mention of either of those - and yet we are the ones who are not being substantive, apparently. I'll be honest that after those I really found little point in getting into the details of any of the other arguments as to how much detail or lack thereof there was on crackergate or that infact the new atheists are surely not the only cause of scientific illiteracy considering they are a grand total of 5-6 years old at most as a movement.
And please enough with the "waah you won't consider my worldview" thing, which consumes roughly half your post. Last I checked Mooney at least is an atheist (or agnostic), and at no point did PZ dismiss him simply because he's religious or anything of the sort - although of course he wouldn't have dismissed him because of that in any case. There various sets of questions about the book for the authors, Ophelia Benson's a prime example - nowhere in there is there any mention of what religious people are or aren't. Why? Because the whole argument between the accommodationist and non-accomodationist positions is between people who are nonbelievers for the most part.
Callinectes, I'd respond if I had the slightest clue what your point was. All I said was that it's easier to correct an online post then a book and so one should take more care to not make mistakes in writing a book then writing a blog post. And that I think that's the point ERV was trying to make, although admittedly she didn't go through a long explanation. If you think that's wrong, feel free to explain why.
Posted by: Coriolis | July 17, 2009 2:56 PM
Coriolis,
First, in case it was not obvious, my response was sarcastic - I don't actually think we should do away with books (neither did I not mean to imply I necessarily thought you do).
What I was reacting to was the obviousness in the observation of how books and online media are different. I almost want to just leave it at that and be done with the now silliness of this thread, but...
I think we can all get a little too comfortable with our online activities, and forget that that is still real life (we're just ignoring the non-ether world around us). I'm often reminded of Wordsworth's "the world is too much with us."
I think technology is too much with, sometimes. So what that books and blogs are different in this instance? I just don't see how the authors of Unscientific America committed some sin in talking about a blogger and a specific instance with that blog. Are we not supposed to talk about blogs in print now? Then WTF are we doing talking about a book online???
Posted by: Callinectes | July 17, 2009 3:24 PM
Do you mean real misogyny, or just the stuff you don't like so label as such? No to the former, and blow off, laugh at or ignore the later.
There, there, here's a tissue, dear:
http://scienceblogs.com/thusspakezuska/2009/07/i_have_a_blog_i_dont_need_to_r.php#comment-1778443
Posted by: wildlifer | July 17, 2009 3:41 PM
Isis, I submitted a comment a few hours ago with three embedded links. Can you check your spam filters, please?
@Callinectes,
no, but basing a large portion of a book (which is otherwise composed of gossamer-thin reasoning and unsupported assertions) on a personal inter-blog disagreement just comes across as petty axe-grinding. That's the primary objection. There's no prohibition over taking these things to other media, but as so much of the context is lost in the process, it seems to serve no other purpose than to goad.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 17, 2009 3:44 PM
Going back and re-reading, I'll grant that maybe my reaction was a bit knee-jerk and so not very clear. Let me clarify that my initial post was mostly reaction to the excerpts of what Isis posted from ERV's comments and her fellow misogynists about M&K and that book chapter that ERV didn't read.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I see how appropriate is the entirety of Wordsworth's poem and is EXACTLY what I feel:
I'm done here, and in need of some shoe therapy stat!
Posted by: Callinectes | July 17, 2009 3:46 PM
Callinectes, as a big Pratchett fan amongst other things I vaguely understand the concept or sarcasm hah. And yes, I certainly agree that the observations I made are downright obvious.
However, looking over Tristan's post at #36 with emphasis, it seems pretty obvious to me that the issue isn't about commenting in books about blogs or in blogs about books but about the difference when you're making a mistake in each media, i.e.:
"Mooneys admitted he fucked up on Dawkins. Yet there are hundreds, if not thousands of copies of 'Unscientific America' out there. How many readers are going to find Mooneys admission in the middle of a +300 comment thread on someone elses blog? He summarized Crackergate, a weird complex ordeal, in a paragraph. He fucked it up too.
How is he going to fix this? Run to the Library of Congress and put a Post-it with 'My bad. --Chris Mooney' in these chapters?"
Assuming that she's right in her assertions that Mooney admitted to making a mistake, and that he didn't explain the context of crackergate (and personally I have no clue if that's correct), I don't see what's so objectionable about this comment.
Posted by: Coriolis | July 17, 2009 4:03 PM
Two points:
First: To whoever commented about Chris moderating comments on "his" blog - first of all, the blog belongs to both him and Sheril. And they are moderating comments because of the incredible amount of horrific misogynistic shit that is being directed at Sheril in no small part due to ERV's post and encouraging her commenters to call her nasty names and treat her experiences with sexual harassment as a lark.
Second: I am constantly amazed at how many people keep talking about UA as if it is "Chris's book" when the book has TWO authors on the book cover.
To sum up: Sheril disappears as author of the blog and book, except to be excruciatingly present as recipient of vile misogynistic bullshit comments.
Posted by: Zuska | July 17, 2009 4:06 PM
Thanks Isis! (it appeared @ 53).
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 17, 2009 4:17 PM
DSKS @58: Hear, hear.
Posted by: Dr. Jekyll & Mrs. Hyde | July 17, 2009 4:20 PM
Mooney and Kirshenbaum have committed the major sin of failing utterly to effectively communicate with the people they claim are not doing the job of communication. They have done absolutely nothing to remedy that, instead becoming increasingly strident as the discourse runs away with them. I don't think they intend to throw scientists under the bus, but the truth of the matter is that they and Nisbet have done an absolutely terrible job of making their case, and instead of adjusting their technique accordingly have indeed reacted like creationists/tax protestors/JFK conspiracists/9/11 truthers/etc and made complete and utter buffoons of themselves. If I'm reading the reviews of the book correctly, Unscientific America is nothing more than two people mumbling "I know we're right i know we're right i know we're right" to each other.
As for Crackergate, the genesis of this whole thing: no offense intended towards you, Isis, but as someone who grew up Catholic and endured over a decade of a sincere but strained and eventually dead faith, the RCC got far less than it deserved in Crackergate for the way Webster Cook was treated. There should have been lawsuits aplenty both towards the church and, after Cook was screwed by the student senate, the school. (Granted, this opinion is coming from someone who thinks that Italy abrogating the Lateran Treaty and unilaterally obliterating the Vatican's sovereign nationhood is only the beginning of what the RCC deserves for everything it's done in its history, but we can't always get what we want, can we?)
Posted by: Brian X | July 17, 2009 7:45 PM
I have never seen quite such a load of bullshit.
Rules to live by:
1) If you are going to criticize a book, read it first.
2) If you are so moved by your own "rightness" and the "wrongness" of the author(s) of said book that your head is exploding, write your own fucking book.
3) Arguments about ideas are interesting. Ad hominems? Not so much.
Posted by: Catharine | July 17, 2009 8:31 PM
From this little muffin's perspective it is time to pray. This coming from an atheist (reformed Catholic). I find the whole shit funny (but only because I can't spell hollaeous(sp?) and my spell checker isn't giving me the proper options).
Posted by: Danimal | July 17, 2009 9:41 PM
*decides it's time to bring out the fire hose*
Posted by: Ace | July 18, 2009 5:29 AM
@65 Zuska. This is the side-bar from Chris' and Sheril's blog:
I don't have the book yet. Two author's are on the cover, eh? I only see one author on the sidebar of their blog, despite the fact that she is listed as an author in other places on the blog (which fact can be found after digging). Their own blog does not make it readily apparent she is an author.
Posted by: Jeb, FCD | July 18, 2009 10:17 PM
I was willing to entertain Isis' arguement, up to this point:
Posted by: rob | July 18, 2009 11:26 PM
This matches with Sheril's comments about answering the book critiques being more Chris's thing. It would seem she's got her name on the cover mostly to provide science cred to keep people from asking what Mooney knows about the state of science in the US.
Posted by: Paul | July 19, 2009 1:09 AM
I haven't read the comments, but I have a question about the post. I don't read ERV's blog, nor do I know her, so maybe I'm missing something.
You, Isis, are Catholic. You have written about belonging to Catholic faith.
Which is...not sexist? Other then banning contraception, forcing women to endure dangerous pregnancies at absolutely any cost (even if the "woman" is nine fricking years old), insisting on the doctrine that positions man as superior to woman and woman as the source of everything wrong in this world, a religion and an organization which forever and absolutely bans women from positions of power...
And after supporting all that, you attack someone for possibly in some way making light of misogyny?
The mind boggles at the level of cognitive dissonance involved here.
Posted by: M. | July 19, 2009 3:21 AM
Cross-posting this from Pharyngula:
I think I've worked out the pathology of Mooney, Kirschenbaum, "Isis" et al. My apologies if it's obvious, but it only just came to me - to be specific, when reading the derisive posts by Isis and Zuska to ERV's complaints about misrepresenting PZ in book form. Essentially, it's this:
They're approaching the issue following the rules of a high school debate.
For those who've never had the experience, high school debates involve two teams being assigned, randomly, opposite sides of a topic. It's then each team's job to defend, come hell or high water, their assigned position. The winning team is decided by an adjudicator.
Now, the key point here is that the job of a debater is most emphatically not to find the truth. If they work out before or during the debate that the other side is correct, and say so, they fail. Right or wrong, they defend their position.
If you're on such a team, you quickly learn a few things:
1. Never, ever, admit fault. If the opposing team makes a point against you that you can't refute, ignore it and move on. To concede fault on any point will pretty much lose you the debate there and then.
2. Lies are ok, providing: a) you're pretty sure nobody in the audience or opposing team knows the truth; b) the truth would take too long for the other team to explain; or c) if caught out it will seem plausible that you were simply mistaken (of course, you won't address it in any case; see 1.)
3. Twisting your opponents' words to misrepresent what they said, and constructing strawmen is a-ok. It puts your opponents on the defensive, and forces them to waste their rebuttal time addressing your misrepresentation rather than any more substantive points.
4. Profanity and direct insults are out. Sly barbs are a-ok, though, as long as you keep at least a paper-thin veneer of civility on them.
As I said above, this leapt out at me when reading all the responses trashing Abbie for complaining about M&K "attacking" PZ in print, when it was patently clear to me that her complaint was about them misrepresenting him (a common theme throughout the Intersection threads on M&K's responses to PZ, too). At first I thought they were just being dishonest, that they were ignoring the difference in order to score rhetorical points - but then I realised that to them there really is no difference. If you're going to argue with someone, misrepresenting what they said is simply par for the course - completely normal and even good tactics, since your goal is to win.
This in turn got me thinking about "that" chapter in M&K's book, and their problems with the so-called "New Atheists". They see people like Pat Robertson, the various Fox News pundits, etc. getting worked up, yelling, and insulting people. They see people like PZ, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc. getting worked up, yelling, and insulting people. And that's all they see. They don't see any difference between the two groups because, to them, the only rule that's being broken is rule 4 above, and both groups are breaking it.
The more I think about it, the more I think that this is the disconnect - we're arguing by two completely different rule sets. PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens etc. are about honesty and truthfulness, and politeness be damned, whereas to your average punter a debate is something to be won in a polite manner, and honesty be damned. This latter attitude seems to be incredibly, depressingly common. It's disappointing to see it in someone who would be a journalist. It's downright disgusting to see it in people who claim to be practicing science.
Posted by: Tristan | July 19, 2009 3:30 AM
I agree with M. at #75. I find it extremely hard to take Isis seriously as a feminist when she supports one of the most misogynistic organizations on earth. (Full disclosure: I am a woman, I have experienced sexism. I don't always get my knickers in a twist and feel all victimized about it though.)
Isis must suffer a large degree of cognitive dissonance. She seems to believe that no one is ever allowed to act or speak in a sexist manner, even in jest, unless that person is a priest, in which case it becomes just fine. Doesn't it bother her that God is the biggest misogynistic jerk in history? That religion has sanctified the oppression of women for centuries?
Also, I don't understand how she can think that it isn't possible for science to have anything to say about religion. Isn't God supposed to be able to effect the physical world? Shouldn't we be able to detect that effect if it were there? Does she believe in miracles and the power of prayer? After all, how can you have saints without miracles? I assume the physical laws of the universe get thrown out the window when God wants to strut his stuff, so shouldn't we notice that on occasion? If the standard answer is that we can't prove that God doesn't exist, then does that mean we should believe in Bigfoot too?
I also think that Isis must be deliberately misunderstanding some of ERV's comments, because I can understand them, and I was under the impression that Isis is pretty intelligent. I don't fully agree with everything ERV has said, but I understand what she means when she says it. ERV is not speaking leet or lolspeak, so I don't know why Isis is accusing her of doing so, other than just to insult her, I guess. (1 R l337 lol n d4t n0t 1t)
...Ok, now I feel dirty for writing like that. I'll need to grab the soap and clean my keyboard.
I haven't read Unscientific America, and honestly, I'm not going to. I haven't been impressed by their blog writings, and I've read enough negative reviews to feel I am justified in spending the money elsewhere. It's not because they criticize PZ either - I like PZ, but I don't always agree with him, and I wouldn't condemn an entire book for criticizing him. It's the other shortcomings, most notably spelled out in Janet's series on Adventures in Ethics and Science. I suppose this means I'm not allowed to have any opinion on the book other than, "I've heard it's not very good."
Posted by: Azulene | July 19, 2009 5:19 AM
Tristan: "trashing Abbie for complaining about M&K 'attacking' PZ in print, when it was patently clear to me that her complaint was about them misrepresenting him"
Ahem, here is what ERV wrote: "Mooney made the decision to attack PZ in a dead-tree format-- No links to posts so readers can analyze what happened themselves, no trackbacks so readers can see PZs response, no comments section for commentors to come in with their perspectives"
But then maybe you are just using Rule #2 of high school debate.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | July 19, 2009 7:49 AM
If nothing else, the hour and a half I just spent catching up on all the blog-and-forth has reinforced the reasons why I almost never read Isis, Zuska, or ERV.
Just a few context-free opinions:
"Misogyny" is not synonynmous with "sexism." You could look it up!
There is a very real difference between books and blogposts: longevity. Nobody will read these comment threads, ever, after a couple of months. The book is in libraries and homes all around the world. If M&K have rhetorically misrepresented blogospheric events in their book (as they certainly did in the Newsweek excerpt), then they have misled many readers for many years. Links in Notes notwithstanding.
It's really very condescending and insulting to refer to adult readers as "little muffins" and "chickens." It really is.
It's anthropologically fascinating to observe the circling of the blog-clique-wagons.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 19, 2009 11:18 AM
Little lambs? Better? No? Um...little kittens?
You just come sit right here on Mama's lap and tell me what you'd prefer to be called....
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | July 19, 2009 12:22 PM
They call me Mr. Tibbs!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 19, 2009 2:31 PM
This whole thing is starting to feel like watching a group of kids fighting in a sandbox (without even the relief of watching their parents sort it out,) but maybe this should be said now that subconscious sexism has been raised:
I have no idea what Sheril personally thinks about any of this, because I haven't heard a peep out of her since she showed up randomly somewhere to defend Pluto. I don't think she's been whitewashed away as an author because of her gender; I think she's been largely overlooked because we don't know which of the words in the overload of replies to PZ are hers, and she doesn't step up and say much. Compare to Chris, who carries on loudly everywhere from his blog to Daily Kos. He's getting the publicity because he's being the face of the conversation.
(And after Kwok's behavior to Ophelia, I don't think she can give herself a gold star for not using the same tactics ERV is frowned on for, either.)
Posted by: sharky | July 19, 2009 4:16 PM
@Jeb (#72):
"I don't have the book yet. Two author's are on the cover, eh? I only see one author on the sidebar of their blog, despite the fact that she is listed as an author in other places on the blog (which fact can be found after digging). Their own blog does not make it readily apparent she is an author."
Sheril and Chris co-wrote each chapter. Chris basically got the ball rolling in each with his political perspective, while Sheril handled the sections dealing more with science education. This, according to one of the co-authors.
DwM
Posted by: Dances with MILFs | July 19, 2009 10:23 PM
All of this is blowing my mind. Has Scienceblogs gone completely mad?
On BioE, I just finished a mindnumbing argument with a bunch of wingnuts who think Obama's science adviser is going to forcibly sterilize us and force us to have abortions by putting chemicals in our water. Or something like that. This is *really* not why I blog. But you know what the worst part is?
That series of hostile, angry comments about how I'm a left-wing apologist for Holdren was preceded by a bunch of hostile comments from . . . new atheists, who were angry that I said I thought Christians can be nice people too.
Right now, my latest comment is from a PZ supporter calling me out for MENTIONING the Mooney-PZ blog argument. Keep in mind, I linked to both sides and didn't take a position on it (because I haven't read the book yet, and I don't take positions on things I haven't read). But apparently just MENTIONING that the argument existed was enough to piss someone off. Wow. Sensitive much?
It's gotten so people around here aren't even reading posts - they're just making random assumptions about whose "side" bloggers are on, and then attacking them. I'm sick of putting hours of my time into arguing with trolls from both the right AND the left. Given the current vitriolic state of the science blogosphere, I don't blame Sheril for laying low. I think I may just emulate her for a while, because I don't have time for this crap.
Posted by: bioephemera | July 19, 2009 11:24 PM
I truly don't want to believe that Chris and Sheril have deliberately fomented this dust-up to sell more books. However, Chris's series posts on the Intersection, interviews (excepting the bloggingheads discussion with Carl Zimmer, which was infinitely more substantial), opinion pieces, etc. have thus far generated all the wrong kinds of discussion about the very real problem of science illiteracy.
When former Inhofe aid and wanna be Drudge of climate denial Marc Morano linked to one of Mooney's blog posts, Mooney pretty blatantly asked Morano to keep linking to him for the traffic it would get him.
An additional data point, nothing more.
Posted by: thingsbreak | July 20, 2009 12:06 AM
#69 said,
"2) If you are so moved by your own "rightness" and the "wrongness" of the author(s) of said book that your head is exploding, write your own fucking book."
Bingo. Authors have been battling it out in ink over the last two thousand years, after all. It's amazing how those poor dirty humans managed to get by in those dark and cold millennia prior to the advent of the Interwebosphere.
And if you can't write a book, write a review. If the review is bad, write a rebuttal... if the rebuttal is bad, write a rebuttal's rebuttal... PZ and Mooney seem to be going for the Guinness Book of Records with their rebuttals and counter rebuttals.
Posted by: DSKS | July 20, 2009 11:20 AM