The Michael Egnor Report : Pharyngula

Search

Profile

PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)

• Quick link to the latest endless thread

Register for the Atheist Convention Melbourne 12-14 March 2010

I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

[Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1987), p. 5]

A Taste of Pharyngula

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« With reluctance, me | Main | Tech assistance, please: help me with mail! »

The Michael Egnor Report

Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 20, 2007 5:31 PM, by PZ Myers

Coturnix is organizing an informative google bomb — if you look up Michael Egnor on the web, what should you find? How about lots and lots of critics?

It seems only fair. Teach the controversy!

If the DI wants to use him as a nice figurehead, it seems like a good idea to make sure that any reporter doing some quick background on the guy discovers that he is not a reputable spokesman for evolution, no matter how estimable his record as a neurosurgeon may be.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/36120

Comments

Posted by: TheBrummell | March 20, 2007 5:53 PM

I just did a google search for "Michael Egnor", and Panda's Thumb was the first critical hit. It was 5th on the list (if one doesn't count sub-hits).

The first hit is his physician profile from Stony Brook, the second is a news account of some surgery he performed, the next one (and a sub-hit) are from the DI, after that is a blog that apparently got into a tiff with him after posting a response to his letter-to-the-editor of the New York Times about the Schiavo thing.

Another DI hit, BronzeDog, and another profile type webpage round out the first page.

Perhaps a more effective tactic would be to pick one particularly devastating response to the foolish doctors ignorant ramblings, and google-bomb using that.

Posted by: quork | March 20, 2007 5:59 PM

discovers that he is not a reputable spokesman for evolution

Or even on evolution.

Posted by: locken | March 20, 2007 6:11 PM

I think a more effective tactic would be to act like grown ups, not a gang of renegade teenagers out TPing the hated kid who lives down the street.

Any competent and/or honest journalist will telephone a local University Biology Dept before writing about Egnor. Incompetent or dishonest journalists are going to turn Egnor into a heroic iconoclast against the dominant paradigm, or treat the whole thing as a he said/ she said horse race no matter what.

Y'all know that. Don't pretend a Google Bomb in this case has any point other than fucking with Egnor.

Posted by: Niket | March 20, 2007 6:12 PM

Avoid using a google bomb. For all you know, the algorithm might push the legitimate results lower than they deserve to be.

Posted by: Wesam | March 20, 2007 6:13 PM

Google changed their search algorithm a few months ago to minimize the effects of Google bombs, so you probably won't get the desired effect. It still works on other search engines such as Yahoo and MSN though. But if you really want to get to the top of the search results, the right way to do it is to have a lot of people post the same one link critical of Michael Egnor on their sites.

Posted by: Ben | March 20, 2007 6:13 PM

"Perhaps a more effective tactic would be to pick one particularly devastating response to the foolish doctors ignorant ramblings, and google-bomb using that" - TheBrummell

Not a bad idea - I'm pretty far from a Googlebomb expert, but I think it's more effective if you have lots of websites all linking to one particular post. For instance, if people linked to this post by PZ (or Coturnix's) with the words "Michael Egnor", it would probably shoot up to the no.1 result. The hypothetical journo could then spend the next hour (or five minutes) checking any number of these posts, all from this one resource.

You can read more about effective bombing here

Posted by: Steve_C | March 20, 2007 6:44 PM

It also is nice to have someone to a search for something like...

"Egnorance" and have the top hit be for an essay criticizing him.

Posted by: Graculus | March 20, 2007 7:16 PM

I think a more effective tactic would be to act like grown ups,

Ley me give that the thoughtful consideration it deserves.

OK, all done. "Acting like grown-ups" is what the side of reason has been doing all these years, and it has done exactly SFA good. It's time to play with the bastards.

Posted by: mjb | March 20, 2007 7:21 PM

For my worst enemies, I usually fill out these web forms:

http://www.watchtower.org/contact/submit.htm
http://www.scientology.org/moreinf.htm

I feel a little guilty sometimes, due to the obvious cruelty of such an act. But I suppose in some cases, it may be justified.

#10

Posted by: JD Kolassa | March 20, 2007 7:24 PM

[shamelessplug] I saw this list, and I had to add myself to it, so I wrote my own review of his egnorance. Little rougher than most of PZ's posts, but it's up there anyways.
[/shamelessplug]

As for the journalists, if they're smart, they'll go all over the place to pick up every view on Egnor before writing a peice--but if they're in the majority who don't care about being smart or balanced (aka "Faux News"), then they'll just parrot the guy as a brilliant genius. I would like to see PZ discount all those journalists and then see what happens.

#11

Posted by: coturnix | March 20, 2007 7:24 PM

Thanks for the link - it is always nice to get a Pharyngulanche.

This was not meant to be a true Googlebomb (as it does not really work well any more), but an attempt to raise the Google status of a number of good posts about him (compared to DI stuff etc.), as a service to potential journalists who may one day write about him (I explained the whole idea on the original post linked by PZ in the beginning).

#12

Posted by: Stogoe | March 20, 2007 7:31 PM

yeah, hell damn fart! I'm sick of all the Very Serious People pushing their anti-fun, anti-dissent dick-measuring contest on us.

We're all very impressed with your Very Important Manhood, guys, but really, pulling out the dour face and stomping around isn't helping.

#13

Posted by: coturnix | March 20, 2007 7:50 PM

We are having fun, actually....why the long face?

#14

Posted by: Zombie | March 20, 2007 7:53 PM

"Any competent and/or honest journalist..."

Yeah, honest and competent journalists will do that. Too bad they're all dead.

#15

Posted by: Interrobang | March 20, 2007 8:14 PM

Thanks! A huge post that's nothing but a compendium of pile-ons (pylons!!) of Egnor. *rubs hands together with glee* Whee! Reading material for tonight!

I don't know what that's going to do for his Google rankings, but I'm sure going to enjoy reading all those posts...

#16

Posted by: lockean | March 20, 2007 8:15 PM

I read your self-serving explanation, coturnix.

How helpful of you to provide this service to 'potential' journalists. And what luck that you can punish Dr Egnor for Google not listing Scienceblogs separately, while simultaneously punishing Google for Dr Egnor being a crackpot!

It's irresponsible for anyone in any profession ostensibly dedicated to discovering and propogating the truth to do anything that gives even the appearance of manipulating the free flow of information.

#17

Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | March 20, 2007 8:18 PM

How helpful of you to provide this service to 'potential' journalists. And what luck that you can punish Dr Egnor for Google not listing Scienceblogs separately, while simultaneously punishing Google for Dr Egnor being a crackpot!

/me is confused.

#18

Posted by: Stogoe | March 20, 2007 8:56 PM

My 'hell damn fart' was inspired by Graculus and directed at lockean.

There are many Very Serious People out there who are dismissive of dissent because it isn't Serious Enough for them.

Brayton, the FriendlyAtheist, JJ Ramsey, and lockean among them.

#19

Posted by: David Marjanović | March 20, 2007 9:04 PM

mjb, you scare me.

#20

Posted by: Lee | March 20, 2007 10:47 PM

"Don't pretend a Google Bomb in this case has any point other than fucking with Egnor."

Egnor is overtly using his professional credibility to attempt to lend credibility to ID. If he wants to link his professional credibility to ID, I see no reason not to make that link clear and obvious to anyone looking for info about him.

#21

Posted by: helen | March 20, 2007 11:33 PM

I'm not sure that this is an actual GoogleBomb - since those tend to associate a less-commonly used phrase with an unrelated topic. This is simply using Pharyngula's popularity to raise the "importance" of these articles when associated with the good doctor's name. This is a perfectly kosher use of links, because PZ is linking only to articles that are actually about this guy. Am I wrong?

#22

Posted by: The Rev. Jenner J. Hull | March 21, 2007 1:49 AM

Since I'm damn-near computer illiterate, I can't comment on "Google Bombs," but if I have to hear one more "educated" schmuck (who should know better!) talking about "Darwin and Eugenics," I'm gonna kill myself, go to Hell, become a demon, and get Satan to let me out on a conditional release predicated upon me screwing with any and all DI proponents.

Since they believe that kind of crap, maybe that will get them to shut up and stop waxing philosophical about real science.

#23

Posted by: Greg Laden | March 21, 2007 7:58 AM

Locken:

I think everyone understands that these Google Bombs don't actually work. Google is a search engine, a machine that could probably run unattended or with a couple of guys sticking the plug back in every time it gets pulled out of the wall by accident. But they have a very large staff of people constantly doing things like realizing what a google bomb is and how to write the 15 lines of Python code (or less) that it takes to figure this particular kind of google bomb out.

This is not about manipulation information, being grown up (or not) or anything like that. It's about messing with The Man and having some fun.

#24

Posted by: Greg Laden | March 21, 2007 8:00 AM

Oh, by the way, how your google search works depends as much on you and your browser as it does on anything else. Since I almost never search for myself, or for any of the blogs in the "bomb" I mostly get Michael Egnor sites when I search. Annoying but expected. locken

#25

Posted by: Graculus | March 21, 2007 9:55 AM

I'm not sure that this is an actual GoogleBomb - since those tend to associate a less-commonly used phrase with an unrelated topic.

No, technically a Googlebomb is a co-ordinated effort to change the ranking of a given site in a search, it doesn't matter if it's a "good/legitimate" bomb or a "bad/illegitimate" one. Google may have tweaked the algorithm against the most egregious bombings, but these are legit links.

Pagerank is a democracy, and the blogosphere is voting.

#26

Posted by: Dunc | March 21, 2007 9:58 AM

If the DI wants to use him as a nice figurehead, it seems like a good idea to make sure that any reporter doing some quick background on the guy discovers that he is not a reputable spokesman for evolution, no matter how estimable his record as a neurosurgeon may be.

Most reporters don't do background, nor do they care about repute - they do (a) controversy, and (b) what they're told. You'd think people would've figured out by now that Fred Singer isn't a reputable source on anything, but you'd be sorely disappointed...

#27

Posted by: Skeptico | March 21, 2007 6:41 PM

Seems to be working. Google Michael Egnor and the first four sites are now critical of him. In fact, all but two hits on the first page are critical of him. That's a huge change over yesterday.