…and this is a 
I'm supposed to sit down and shut up?
Category: Communicating science
Posted on: March 23, 2008 4:07 PM, by PZ Myers
You just knew Matt Nisbet was itching to voice his opinion, and we all knew exactly what he'd say.
As long as Dawkins and PZ continue to be the representative voices from the pro-science side in this debate, it is really bad for those of us who care about promoting public trust in science and science education. Dawkins and PZ need to lay low as Expelled hits theaters. Let others play the role of communicator, most importantly the National Center for Science Education, AAAS, the National Academies or scientists such as Francis Ayala or Ken Miller. When called up by reporters or asked to comment, Dawkins and PZ should refer journalists to these organizations and individuals.
If Dawkins and PZ really care about countering the message of The Expelled camp, they need to play the role of Samantha Power, Geraldine Ferraro and so many other political operatives who through misstatements and polarizing rhetoric have ended up being liabilities to the causes and campaigns that they support. Lay low and let others do the talking.
So Richard and PZ, when it comes to Expelled, it's time to let other people be the messengers for science. This is not about censoring your ideas and positions, but rather being smart, strategic, tactical, and ultimately effective in promoting science rather than your own personal ideology, books, or blog.
Fuck you very much, Matt. You know where you can stick your advice.
I'm much more impressed by the fact that the Expelled crew is in damage-control mode and is beating a hasty retreat than the pontifications of a mealy-mouthed hack.
Comments
This is gonna get ugly.
Posted by: JoshH | March 23, 2008 4:15 PM
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
*HEADDESK*
Nope, Nisbet's still not making sense. Maybe some beer will help.
For someone who focuses on strategic communication, he's not much of a strategic thinker.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 23, 2008 4:20 PM
"Fuck you very much, Matt" ah, le bon mot :-)
Posted by: Jason | March 23, 2008 4:21 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 23, 2008 4:24 PM
Oh please, Nisbet, you mean that protocol and decency are to be ignored by these yahoos, and no one is supposed to protest?
I'm glad it's to the "fuck you" stage with these idiots (Mooney and Nisbet). They've gotten some ideas from college, little from the real world, they don't value the "bad cop" role, and they don't know what a mendacious web of chicanery the IDiots inherited from the creos, and to which they added.
The fact is that the movie could conceivably sell better because of these incidents, but the credibility of these morons is tanking (not in the minds of the truly naive, granted, but they're hopeless) well before the first paid viewing of it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 23, 2008 4:24 PM
Ignore Nisbet. I stand foresquare with those who would give the legions of the ignorant a return volley.
Fire as she bears, Mister Myers!
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | March 23, 2008 4:25 PM
I appear to be in need of a clue - who's Matt Nisbet?
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | March 23, 2008 4:27 PM
Honestly, PZ, every time you resort to name calling and pointless swearing, you just make yourself look like a five year old throwing a tantrum. Disagree with someone, sure, but lame tactics like this really make me lose respect for you. Grow up.
Posted by: Jennifurret | March 23, 2008 4:29 PM
Now where have I heard that kind of 'shut up and let the big boys do the talking for you, you'll be better off' kind of rhetoric before?
Oh, yes, now I remember - it was around the late sixties when women were trying to get their voices heard on a large number of issues.
Whenever someone suggests you'd be 'better off' keeping your mouth shut, count on it being exactly the wrong thing to do, and count on 'the big boys' having an agenda all their own that likely isn't in your best interests.
I've been reading your blog for a long time, PZed. I think your head and your heart are in the right places and functional. Speak out as you see fit - and keep your dishonesty sensors in operational condition, there's BS ahead.
Posted by: Bee | March 23, 2008 4:29 PM
Someone who's such a great communicator that I'd never heard of him before I started reading this blog - thinks that the author of "the selfish gene" is not a good messenger for science?
That's just WTF city.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 23, 2008 4:29 PM
So, why in the world did Expelled had the idea of interviewing you in the first FUCKING place?
Posted by: Chupacabras | March 23, 2008 4:30 PM
Damn, what an eedjit. The first rule of rhetoric is never to let your opponent have the first premise, and the second rule is, when they're yanking on the Overton Window, you don't compromise, you yank back.
Of course, I'm one of these nasty rhetoricians and I play to win, where "winning" is defined as completely discrediting your opponent in the discourse, not merely staking out some kind of mushy-middle position. There's been entirely too much false fairness around lately, especially when one side is fact-backed and the other side is Making Shit Up™. The balance between facts and Making Shit Up™ isn't some point between the two poles; it's with whatever the facts are.
Reality (and communications practice) is often damned inconvenient like that.
Posted by: Interrobang | March 23, 2008 4:32 PM
Speaking of beating a hasty retreat:
I decided to attend a screening, and so to find a registration site, googled "Expelled screening."
You'll be happy to know the entire first page of results is about your and Dawkins' trip to see Expelled.
Posted by: James Stein | March 23, 2008 4:34 PM
PZ, I thought your "fireside chat" video was very well conceived. You guys were relaxed, unthreatening, and above all amused rather than anything else. Excellent f... f... ... I can't say it.
The one down side -- a bad one, I think -- seems to have been going so public with speculations about a link to the Harvard video. It looks, in the video, that you didn't see it, and Richard didn't recognize it, and that the two of you are jumping to conclusions. In the meantime, the connection has been explicitly and directly denied by Kevin Miller, the screenwriter for Expelled. See this comment from Kevin:
If Kevin's unambiguous declaration from one in the know stands up -- and I expect it will -- this will badly undermine what was otherwise an excellent bit of communication on the issue in your video with Dawkins.
Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | March 23, 2008 4:34 PM
Matt should realize that PZ has several goals. People aren't monolithic in their positions on issues.
What I fi,.nd interesting is Matt is asking PZ to lay low, using this crockumentary as a jumping block to bring it up. But Expelled is quickly demonstrating that this will be a huge catastrophe for anti-evolution activists.
It sounds like PZ and Dawkins were talking about their own personal religious de-conversions, and the Expelled producers were using those quotes to suggest that evolution and atheism and Nazi-ism are one and the same.
...and the conclusion is for them to shut up now? Yes, and have the Expelled enthusiasts write at length about how Dawkins and Myers are so embarrassed that they can't even answer interview requests?
Not a very well thought-out proposal.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | March 23, 2008 4:35 PM
I think Nisbit is wrong. No, evolution and science do not equal atheism. They do not inevitably lead to it. He's right on that.
But it's important to the evolution-creationism debate to point out that if you follow it all the way down then yes, science does not support the existence of God entertained seriously, as a science hypothesis. As Sam Harris put it, science is consistent with religion, but it is not indicative of it. You would not conclude "God" if you start out without it as a premise. All you will be doing is spinning and damage control to try to reconcile religion and science as you work along the two paths simultaneously.
Creationists are taking "God" as a science hypothesis -- to the detriment of modern scientific findings such as evolution. One reasonable strategy against this is to try to argue for NOMA and more liberal, humanistic interpretations of religion: "An intelligence which created the universe" is supposed to be classed into the same category as hope, love, and our attempts to become better people. Saying "God exists" is not like saying "the big bang happened." It is like saying "I love my mom" or "we should respect each other." Religion is not about its content, it is about how it functions in people's lives. And then trot out the religious people who also accept science and evolution. You can believe in magic if you keep magic in its place -- out of the way of doing anything except working as your personal "narrative."
But an equally valid strategy to defeat this is to stop arguing nonsense and run into the problem head on. You want to treat God as a science hypothesis? Excellent. It doesn't work. Throw it out.
Creationism is a gift to atheists, because it helps to highlight the divide between a magical world-view and a reasonable one. As long as we have a society where atheism is considered unthinkable, disrespectable, dishonorable, irrational, and fringe you will ALWAYS have people who are going to go "too far" in where and when they divide the magic world of essences from the material world we have discovered.
The strategies are opposite strategies, but they don't so much conflict as complement each other, I think. "You can believe in God AND do science" is supplemented by "but only if you keep them strictly separate -- and that's not necessarily the way we should work it, if we wish to be consistent." Without atheists making a safe place for "science all the way down," science will constantly be contaminated by confusion over where to draw lines.
Posted by: Sastra | March 23, 2008 4:37 PM
I can see what he's trying to say... or at least, I could if he said anything more than "lay low, let others talk" in those three paragraphs. Honestly, he repeated the same thing three times without explaining himself.
You and Dawkins may at times be a bit more antagonistic than other possible represenatives of science and reason would be, but that's neither a good thing nor a bad thing in terms of this "debate" - that's just the way it is. I don't see any reason why you should be expected to "lay low."
Posted by: Kevin L. | March 23, 2008 4:40 PM
Does this idiot realize you are in the movie? I think that more than anything (well except maybe the first amendment) gives you the right and duty to say something about Stein's movie.
Posted by: thadd | March 23, 2008 4:42 PM
Having been involved with a legal argument now and then, the last thing you do is argue from a position of weakness. Being nice isn't the point. Winning is the point. Sure, you don't want to be jerk in casual conversation but when in an argument, win it.
my $0.02
Posted by: rmp | March 23, 2008 4:44 PM
It seems to me that people like to talk, endlessly analyze, endlessly pass around reports in incredible wordy detail of what various wingnuts are doing. The problem with all that reporting sans condemnation is that it slowly normalizes everything wingnuts say and do, it suggests that they will always be with us and we should just get used to them being around and assaulting biology, physics and science in general at every turn.
What Nisbet and company apparently can't handle is when someone dares stand up and say, no, I'm not going to sit here quietly and avoid pointing out the obvious danger this organized wingnuttery presents. These attacks on almost anything they can figure out a way to object to, everything that merely offends the wingnut in their incestuous bubble of reality avoidance - including centuries of scientific inquiry - ultimately raise the possibility of the triumph of ignorance over pretty much the entire world as we know it.
There is nothing wrong with saying "no" to that in the strongest possible terms. In other words - go get 'em, PZ!
Posted by: swb | March 23, 2008 4:45 PM
I think the Worst Advice of 2008 award is now a tie between Ellen Johnson's Atheists shouldn't vote comment and Nisbet's Atheists shouldn't have opinions comment.
Posted by: Reed Braden | March 23, 2008 4:46 PM
Sorry, Jennifurret, but it's hardly pointless. Sometimes, the high-minded need to be reminded why holding to a veneer of civilized discourse is a fucking useless strategy when the barbarians are massing on the hills. It's one thing to pontificate from the safety of your tower and imagine you can fight without resort to base behaviour, but to preserve your way of life you still need rough men at the walls hurling pointed barbs back.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | March 23, 2008 4:46 PM
Lee, Why is it I now think of Jack Nickelson (sp?). We need them on the walls.
Posted by: rmp | March 23, 2008 4:47 PM
Go, PZ! Speak up, and speak up loud!
Posted by: michael | March 23, 2008 4:49 PM
I happen to like the "fuck you very much" tactic. It should have been deployed during the screening.
Posted by: danley | March 23, 2008 4:51 PM
Really? I was thinking of Orwell.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | March 23, 2008 4:55 PM
lMAO @ comment 10.
Posted by: tai haku | March 23, 2008 5:00 PM
New depths of douchebaggey from Nisbett. I'm impressed.
Posted by: inkadu | March 23, 2008 5:01 PM
PZ, keep on rocking the boat. Anyone who ignores their detractors does so at their own peril. Witness some golem named Kerry.
Posted by: True Bob | March 23, 2008 5:01 PM
Thanks Interrobang, for the Overton Window. I knew the technique, just didn't know what it was called.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, either. Sometimes throwing up the Overton sash and punching out the screen is the easiest or only way to create social change. Moving tobacco and alcohol use to more sane levels, from a previous position of both being defaults nearly everywhere, saw a lot of the technique. When I was a kid it was somewhat naughty to drive drunk, at a wife-eye-rolling level. Now, its criminal and almost unthinkable. Fine with me.
Noni
Posted by: Noni Mausa | March 23, 2008 5:02 PM
I think a bunch of the pro-science reviewers had stated that the cell video was similar to, but not identical to, the Harvard video. As I noted, these guys certainly have the budget to contract that sort of work, especially since someone else basically mapped out the general look and events for them, and all they had to do was reproduce the idea.
I wonder though, if they bothered getting the specific biological details correct in the way the Harvard team did (still noting that the Harvard version is a very stripped down representation that cuts out a lot of the noise and chaos of cellular processes).
Posted by: Bad | March 23, 2008 5:04 PM
There is a time and place for insult, mainly when someone has insulted you first. But to respond to someone's viewpoint like this? It's just immature and self defeating. I'll pass on "rough men" with all their chest thumping and dick waiving...I rather solve my issues with some brains.
Posted by: Jennifurret | March 23, 2008 5:05 PM
Who the fuck is Matt Nisbet?
Posted by: ChrisGose | March 23, 2008 5:05 PM
Who the fuck is Matt Nisbet?
<FRAMING>Matt Nisbet is Neville Chamberlain.</FRAMING>
OT: Hey PZ: here's a little holiday artwork for you.
Posted by: Chris Clarke | March 23, 2008 5:10 PM
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood. Um. The Lee Brimmicombe-Wood? Author of the Aliens Technical Manual?
cl_fanboy 1
About the post: yeah, I'm glad to see the expelled incident seems to be encouraging a kind of rolling-up-sleeves response from people. We shouldn't tolerate cdesign proponentsists at all. And no one should 'lay low'.
Posted by: Kell | March 23, 2008 5:14 PM
Appeasement may work as a tactic with reasonable people, but as a strategy against extremists it fails.
The Expelled movie alledgedly accuses scientists - as a class - of engaging in some vast conspiracy, and science - as a methodology - of fostering the Holocaust. I see no compromise position that doesn't admit those accusations by implication.
It makes good sense to be gentle with the genuine mainstream believers who do not wish others harm, but we should forthrightly challenge the extremists.
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | March 23, 2008 5:14 PM
Laying low and acting like a smarmy hand-wringer might be Nisbet's way of doing business, but we don't need to water down science education to placate the shysters in the pulpit.
The ultimate goal is to push religion and other mindless superstitions back into the shadows from whence they crawled.
I'll bet Nisbet has a portrait of Neville Chamberlain waving his umbrella and bleating "Peace in our time . . . .".
Posted by: waldteufel | March 23, 2008 5:15 PM
Sounds like a "fuck you" moment to me.
Posted by: Alexandra | March 23, 2008 5:18 PM
I just wanted to point out that if you read the actually blog post, you'll notice that in the very next sentence after condemning Dawkins and PZ of using the "film" to generate readers to their books and blogs. Nisbit goes on to announce that you can hear more on his view of Expelled at his upcoming talks. The hypocrite, he haunts my dreams!
Also why is Dawkins refered to by surname and Myers by "PZ"? If anything it should be " Dawkins and Master of the Universe"
Posted by: Andrew | March 23, 2008 5:18 PM
Shut up, Nisbet! You're giving framing a bad name.
Posted by: Gregory Earl | March 23, 2008 5:18 PM
Want to holler louder? Well, tell the screen writer for Expelled what you think of the PZ expulsion. He says he wants to hug PZ -- so lets give the guy our special hug. Here's a link:
http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/2008/03/chris-mooney-ge.html
Posted by: Norman Doering | March 23, 2008 5:21 PM
Seems like the shit just hit the fan big time. Nisbet was asking for it, though.
Posted by: forsen | March 23, 2008 5:21 PM
Concerning Matthew's plead to PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins that "when it comes to Expelled, it's time to let other people be the messengers for science", it is worth pointing out that in a recent interview Dawkins admitted the following:
Posted by: Steindor J. Erlingsson | March 23, 2008 5:22 PM
Dawkins and PZ are too polite in my opinion. Scientists should not just be defending science. They should be attacking religion relentlessly. They should insult the people who believe in the Resurrection and all the other insane garbage of Christianity. Being nice to idiots has never accomplished anything. Scientists and other rational people should promote the idea that being religious is disgraceful and even worse than racism.
Posted by: BobC | March 23, 2008 5:24 PM
I seriously doubt that they would allow Eugenie in to see their movie even if they managed to recognize her.
Posted by: bigjohn756 | March 23, 2008 5:29 PM
I seem to be in a decided minority here, but I have to say that Matt has at least highlighted the problem of the media's continual recourse to PZ and Richard when they need a quote that can catch fire. I understand the emotional pull of taking a healthy swat at fundamentalists, and our champions are second to none, but I'm old enough to remember how Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her family allowed xtrians and the media to paint atheists as frothing culture terrorists, to the chagrin of most. If the organizations that Matt points to would only take up cudgels too, the cumulative power would be considerably greater than the arguments of two scientists who might seem to have a xtrian-bashing agenda. As Reagan said during a debate "There you go again." We run a risk of being painted as xtrian-haters, hiding behind two outspoken O'Hair descendants.
But what Matt doesn't mention is that if PZ and Richard were to pass off the ball to other mighty forces, those organizations would probably retreat and cower rather than engage. They have to walk a political line that PZ doesn't. Matt makes a point, however inadvertently, that the fight shouldn't be PZ's and Richard's alone, although it probably will be by default for quite some time.
I confess I don't know if the scientific establishment stood up during Dover. Does anyone know how AAS and others reacted? Amicus briefs? Media quotes?
Posted by: Tim | March 23, 2008 5:31 PM
@Steindor J. Erlingsson (#43):
So what if Dawkins (and Myers) aren't "good politicians"? They care more about truth than they care about political game-playing, and that is their main asset.
Posted by: Gregory Earl | March 23, 2008 5:32 PM
Sometimes I wonder if Nisbet is just jealous of Dawkins and Myers, and is trying to get attention by whining about them. I had never heard of Nisbet until he started his whining.
Posted by: Sam | March 23, 2008 5:34 PM
@BobC: I agree wholeheartedly, since realizing the truth some two or three years ago Dawkins and PZ have been role models to me, but, times are changing, and I think it's time we all took a much more rough approach to religion then in the past. Most refuse to learn, though, in my opinion, it isn't their fault, rather, it's the fault of those who have abused their intelligence by drilling this drivel into their minds.
Posted by: JayH | March 23, 2008 5:34 PM
Apparently Nisbet's 'framing skills' disappear when he communicates with PZ and Dawkins. And to make his pathetic suggestion via a blog instead of quietly communicating with both of them? What a royal buffoon!
It is perfectly appropriate for PZ to tell Nisbet to fuck off. Just has more punch to it than get lost (unless it is get lost, fucker).
As for JennieF, sounds like you never had 'respect' for what PZ does without egual in the first place, so no gnashing of teeth regarding lost of your 'respect.' With respect like yours, disrespect is much more preferrable.
Posted by: Logicel | March 23, 2008 5:36 PM
What Nisbet doesn't seem to understand is that PZ and Dawkins are framing all of this quite successfully--and they have opponents who are helping them out.
Throughout, they have been focusing on the dishonesty of the folks who've made the movie--in the contracts, in their attaching of Darwin to Fascism/Nazism/Comunism, in their "reportage" of the situation involving ID in the academy, on their use of "Big Science" conspiricism. Consistent in his response to these folks, PZ has focused on their dishonesty. It's almost as though he's strategically selecting one particular aspect of all the things that are happening and using them in a strategic fashion in order to discredit the folks who made the film as dishonest.....
The wonderful thing is that by focusing on this particular aspect, is that they just keep on reinforcing this particular "the producers are liars" frame...He could focus on the minutiae of the science, as Nisbet would have him, but framing his opponents as liars who are not to be trusted undermines their entire message, which also happens to be mostly lies.
Let's take a look at the identity frames offered by our competing sides: Oh, big bad conspiratorial atheist mean scientists versus people who lie about pretty much everything. Do most people really think there's a big-assed conspiracy of dorky scientists running the world, especially people who've been to college and see how powerless people in academia really often are? Scientists may have an image problem, but Machiavellian conspirators attempting to tear down civilization is not a widespread perception--except among the unreachable. The Expelled folks have a much bigger task ahead of them than they think.
Except for the True Believers, which side is winning? Except for the folks who've been EXPELLED *jazz hands* and their already deluded choir, who is going to be convinced? This isn't going to be Evolution's Waterloo.
PZ and Dawkins, by continually highlighting their opponents' dishonesty are doing good work. We know these folks aren't acting in good faith. Once the content also comes out as being thorough nonsense, the early discrediting of the producers--along with their own ongoing foolishness and the occasional snippets of WTF? that have been slipping out--will have laid a solid groundwork for discrediting the entire piece. The only folks who will be convinced are those already convinced.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 23, 2008 5:38 PM
I saw Nisbet's post earlier and after a few minutes of trying to get my head around the sheer inanity of it, thought to myself, "damn, if I was PZ I'd just tell him to go fuck himself and be done with it." I guess this confirms my dittohead status!
Posted by: poke | March 23, 2008 5:39 PM
Against a group of people who have no problem lying about, misquoting and generally misrepresenting their opponents, the facts and the debate itself, you're told to not just play nice, but to not play at all?
'Fuck you very much' is indeed an appropriate answer to such idiocy.
PZ does not speak just for science, but for a lot of real people as well. People who want and need their message heard. ID proponents are delusional, dishonest not to mention wrong about evolution, and that's exactly what should be communicated.
Posted by: Ernst Hot | March 23, 2008 5:40 PM
There is a time and place for insult, mainly when someone has insulted you first. But to respond to someone's viewpoint like this? It's just immature and self defeating. I'll pass on "rough men" with all their chest thumping and dick waiving...I rather solve my issues with some brains.
I for one am still waiting patiently for your demonstration of brains.
You may not like PZ's rude (perhaps) response to Nisbet, but what you neglect to address is that a rude response may still be true and, yes, sometimes perfectly appropriate.
Posted by: Chris | March 23, 2008 5:42 PM
I think Matt Nitwitt makes a grand spokesperson for something.
Posted by: Dusty59 | March 23, 2008 5:42 PM
While I admit to only having heard one side of this in depth, it's sounding like Matt Nisbet can add "professional concern troll" to his resume. O.o
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 23, 2008 5:42 PM
I agree completely with Nisbet and Mooney, except they don't go far enough. Scientists need to stop publishing in academic journals and teaching courses in the universities. Let's face it, no matter how you try to divorce these activities from the socio-political arena, they are unmistakably political in nature. (Doubters may consider the research by the Oppenheimer group in Los Alamos and its relationship to the outcome of WWII via its application in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.) The problem lies in the fact that scientists are not trained in communications and often have very little experience in explaining difficult concepts to large groups. Add the fact that the public's general perception of scientists is that they are awkward and emotionally distant if not beset with a host other psychosocial disorders (witness the Simpsons' Professor Frink), and you have a recipe for a communications disaster of unimaginable proportions.
Still don't believe Matt, Chris, and me? Consider this: the number of scientists in the world has been growing exponentially for the last half-millennium. Yet, so has the number of religious believers. In fact, if one looks at the raw numbers by sheer population one can safely conclude that we are living in the most religious period in the history of humanity. Can this be what science hath wrought?
I could go on at length, but, like Matt and Chris, I fear more rational discussion in any form, on any subject, anywhere on Earth, past, present or in the future will only increase publicity for the producers of Expelled and earn Ben Stein more booty (definitely in woman form, possibly also in doubloon form). And as someone who loves science, I cannot in good conscience be part of that.
So please, PZ, Dr. Dawkins, and all scientists, everywhere, stop publishing your papers and teaching your classes, sit down, and shut up. We heartily thank you for your commitment to progress over the last few centuries (the germ theory of disease has been especially useful), but you're really just screwing everything up for everyone.
Let's let the communications experts take it from here.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 23, 2008 5:47 PM
Logicel, thanks for not even taking a second to know what my name is. And yes, I do respect PZ. I think we need more people to be outspoken defenders of atheism, reason, and science. He's intelligent, funny, etc...BUT, I think acting like a scorned 15 year old is just stupid!
Posted by: Jennifurret | March 23, 2008 5:48 PM
I am reminded of a dustup with the board of directors of a volunteer organization I've been active in for over 30 years.
A friend of mine was doing the loud, annoying, and agitating bit outside before the meeting. During the meeting, he was ignored when he wanted to ask questions. By contrast, I was dressed up (it's a generally casual bunch, but I was wearing suit and tie, as were the directors). I was *not* a "known agitator". As a result, I was allowed to ask the very same questions that my friend was not.
Do I think my friend would have been better off not doing what he did? No, I do not. It was *because* he was being the obvious "troublemaker" that I was able to get the critical questions in under the radar--he was the distraction I needed to get done what had to be done.
So my advice is: Go get 'em, PZ. If all else fails, others can use the fact that you're up front and in their faces to tip the statues off the pedestals while they pay attention to you. Our goals are the same and some noise and fireworks helps.
Posted by: W. H. Heydt | March 23, 2008 5:51 PM
Matt who?
Posted by: DavidONE | March 23, 2008 5:52 PM
'Another "courtiers reply" tsk-tsking those "shrill" and "militant" atheists.
Do they ever learn that the "stridency" they imagine is generated by their own bias, and not anything a nonbeliever actually says or does?
The "atheist = bad guy" bigotry is alive and well in some people who imagine themselves as rational. They do not see that they are protecting faith from scrutiny by demonizing those who lack it.
I think all methods of fighting ignorance are to be applauded, and I prefer the provocateurs to speak for this atheist. Why does Nisbet imagine himself an expert of "the cause"?
Posted by: Articulett | March 23, 2008 5:54 PM
Hmm, strange. My instruments detect large quantities of irony, but I can't for the life of me figure out where it's coming from...
Posted by: Ted D | March 23, 2008 5:55 PM
The American public may not have a great understanding of science, but they understand hypocrisy. I wouldn't recommend beating the issue to death, but it's important to let people know that the makers of a movie that is supposed to be about suppression of ideas had someone who used proper channels to attend a screening - and is featured in the movie - barred from seeing it.
Posted by: James F | March 23, 2008 5:55 PM
Jennifurret,
I find your comment about chest thumping and dick waving far more offensive, rude, and down right sexist then a simple "fuck you" from PZ to a man who rightfully deserved it. Isn't it it odd that you think of yourself as being the more mature poster while at the same time being very open about your apparent misandry. Curious, it is.
Posted by: Andrew | March 23, 2008 5:56 PM
Um, Nisbet wants you and Dawkins to retreat from Expelled's onslaught so that we can find a more diplomatic voice with which to oppose the menace that made that dumbcumentary?
Did Mr Nisbet get his diplomas and his brain in a box of stale CrackerJacks? Really, somebody please remind me why we should bother to pay attention to this numbwit?
Posted by: Stanton | March 23, 2008 5:56 PM
Holy shit, they are talking serious business. They don't want to censor you, so you better shut the fuck up. If I were you, I'd listen to them. They may have Joe Pesci at your door with a baseball bat, or even worse, god!!!
Posted by: Steve Ulven | March 23, 2008 5:57 PM
Jennifurret writes:
Disagree with someone, sure, but lame tactics like this really make me lose respect for you. Grow up.
Who the fuck are you and why should anyone care whether or not you respect PZ Myers?
Posted by: Thickie | March 23, 2008 6:00 PM
Matt should be more in the business of taking his own advice and shut up!
Posted by: Sue Laris | March 23, 2008 6:03 PM
Prof. Nisbets' sockpuppet, Chris Mooney has weighed in again on his blog.
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/03/expelled_screenwriter_wants_to.php
Posted by: SLC | March 23, 2008 6:07 PM
HAHAHA! Epic fail Matt Nisbet! Rock on PZ and Dawkins!
Posted by: Karim | March 23, 2008 6:08 PM
I think that evolutionary theory can and does stand alone independently of atheism. Like many scientists, I am pretty much indifferent to religion except when fundamentalist crackpots blow up a skyscraper or try to force schoolteachers to lie to kids about my profession.
I do think that it is important to get out the message that one doesn't have to abandon one's religion (unless it is crackpot fundamentalism) to accept evolution. But that is not PZ's responsibility, nor Dawkins'.
We have a good chance of getting a woman or a black president in the next presidential election. Anybody want to guess how long it will be before we see an avowed atheist elected to high office? So if it makes it a harder sell for those of us who consider evolution to be a more important issue than atheism, well that's just tough. I will not be the one to tell yet another oppressed minority, "Wait, stay in the closet, it's not your time yet."
Posted by: trrll | March 23, 2008 6:11 PM
... you just make yourself look like a five year old throwing a tantrum.
-
BUT, I think acting like a scorned 15 year old is just stupid!
-
Pretty soon you'll have the audacity to say he sounds like a grumpy fifty-one-year-old.
Posted by: Will K. | March 23, 2008 6:11 PM
PZ should have linked to Matt's original article, since in it Matt makes it clear that he is not so much objecting to PZ objecting to getting expelled from Expelled, as he is objecting to the content of PZ and Dawkins' interviews in the movie. The same film clip which seemed moderate and reasonable to us really pissed him off.
Here is what Nisbet writes:
There's little work needed on the part of the producers, since the message is spelled out via the interviews provided by PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins.
Notice the very clear translation for audiences as to what supposedly establishment science believes:
A) Learning about science makes you an atheist, it "kills off" religious faith.
B) If we boost science literacy in society, it will lead to erosion of religion, as religion fades away, we will get more and more science, and less and less religion.
C) Religion is a fairy tale, similar to hobgoblins, a fantasy, and even evil.
The simplistic and unscientific claim that more knowledge leads to less religion might be the particular delusion of Dawkins, Myers, and many others, but it is by no means the official position of science, though they often implicitly claim to speak for science. Nor does it stand up to mounds of empirical evidence about the complex relationship between science literacy and public perceptions.
He says "Unfortunately, you couldn't focus group a better message for the pro-creationist crowd." By agreeing that science and an understanding of evolution leads to a loss of faith in God, the creationists are gleefully using this to get their message across.
But PZ and Dawkins make it clear that this is not the official message of science. Evolution is simply the occam's razor that cuts out God as a viable and reasonable hypothesis, the "best" or only explanation for design in nature.
The real question then becomes:
As a workable strategy, should we encourage people to keep their faith in God in order to keep their confidence in science? Should we either say
1.) science has nothing to say about the existence of God (even if it does)
or
2.) The more you study science, the more you will have your faith and appreciation for God strengthened.(even if that's not, strictly speaking, necessarily true)
Matt Nisbet obviously fears that, if they go head to head, faith will win out over science. So soft-peddle the reasonable inference, or hide it altogether.
But I think their approach is important, and needs to be out there. It doesn't so much feed into Creationist hands, as the creationists are feeding into ours.
What's ironic is that PZ and Dawkins have more confidence and respect for the intelligence and reasonableness of human beings than Nisbet does. They also have more appreciation for science and truth. In the LONG RUN, head to head, faith will -- and should -- lose. Trying to promote both at the same time simply invites the constant chip, chip, chipping of pseudoscience.
Posted by: Sastra | March 23, 2008 6:13 PM
I sort of agree with Jennifurret. While Nisbet may be wrong, he isn't being particularly childish or unreasonable in his original post. Also, while I think he is probably wrong, he isn't obviously wrong: he offers an interesting strategic point for everyone to ponder. On the other hand, he does take a condescending tone, which is annoying. Such arrogance is one of many things that give armchair science commentators (e.g., the Science Studies departments) a bad name.
Ironically, if he had cut out the personal tone and focused on a more dispassionate presentation of his argument about strategy, we might be having a more substantive discussion rather than this meta-discussion which is boring blog prattle. That I just contributed to. Crap.
Posted by: Eric Thomson | March 23, 2008 6:13 PM
Misandry? I was replying to the notion that we "need rough men at the walls hurling pointed barbs back," which is both ignorant and misogynistic. The kind of thinking that masculine aggression is the best way to solve issues is just completely ignorant. Don't try to pull any "feminists just hate men" shit on me.
And I'm well aware no one has to care what I think. But the fact is, a lot of people here are just going to mindlessly suck up to PZ without actually thinking about each side of the issue. If anyone dares to disagree with them, they get thrown to the wolves. Try to think for yourselves for once - I would think a bunch of atheists would be less likely to blindly pledge alegence to someone.
Posted by: Jennifurret | March 23, 2008 6:13 PM
I find it interesting that the topic has moved from the fact that Expelled actually acted in a horridly hypocritical fashion, to that we shouldn't speak about it. You will also remember that Nisbet and Mooney have not said a word as to whether such actions were to be condemned, only that PZ and Dawkins should make less noise.
Their entire effort has been to quiet PZ and Dawkins, but they've made little to no effort at anything proactive in countering efforts like those of the Expelled team.
So to ask the simple question "What are Nisbet and Mooney doing to solve the problem?"
Posted by: Michael X | March 23, 2008 6:15 PM
Awwww. I think it's kind of sweet. He obviously has a total hard-on for you, PZ.........
Posted by: Janeothejungle | March 23, 2008 6:23 PM
LOL!!! omg....i bursted out when I read
"Fuck you very much,..."
hahahahahah.
Posted by: an | March 23, 2008 6:24 PM
Yes Jennifurret,
Misandry. The idea that you liken PZ's actions to that of an animal based on the fact that he is a man. If PZ were a woman I doubt you would have accused her of vagina waving. It's a rude and sexist comment no matter how much you spin it.
"Don't try to pull any "feminists just hate men" shit on me."
Again, the assumption that because my name "Andrew" implies that I am a man means that if I expose your sexist statement, I must be guilty of the same stereotyping of the sexes as yourself.
The term "Fuck You" in this case is not about masculine aggression, there is no threat of violence associated with the tone. It was comedic, as indicated by the "thank you very much." It was meant as a reply to Nesbit's shitty advice. Everyone here seems to get the joke except you, who somehow turned it into an act of gender specific aggression.
As much as you would like to believe that you have take the high ground by criticizing PZ on his use of "curse" words, all you have really done spouted bigoted remarks and then defended them in a rather weak and silly way.
Posted by: Andrew | March 23, 2008 6:25 PM
PZ reputation as a spokesman for atheism comes after years of outspokenness on usenet and later on Pharyngula. It's the reason he was in Expelled!. It's also the reason he's so successful as a blogger. If Nisbet and Mooney want him to change his message now after years of success, they'll have to provide much more evidence that what he's doing doesn't work. They're just too late to the party.
Posted by: Zarquon | March 23, 2008 6:26 PM
answering like troll is nor polite nor smart. I am pissed off, this kind of reaction is below all expectations. You are a professor, not a 5 years old kid.
Posted by: bubuka | March 23, 2008 6:26 PM
From this side of the Atlantic it strikes me that PZ was lied to by the producers of this film, artlessy edited, misrepresented when he objected then hoofed from a screening (which he went to see under his own name, the agent of Satan!). I think he is exactly the right person to give Expelled et al beans.
And as for Richard Dawkins, well I think he did sterling work in waking British atheists up. I like his style and have no problem with the media going to him. That's what the media do. I don't know that we've tried appeasing (as Mr Mooney seems to think we should) I think we've gone beyiond that. Right here, right now in Britain, religion is demanding special privileges over science and representative democracy. You can't appease that: these people (as history has shown) are bullies with vested interests in power and money and what happens when you appease a bully? They bully more.
The only way to deal with these people is to go toe to toe with them. And not give an inch. All behind you, PZ.
Posted by: Peter Mc | March 23, 2008 6:26 PM