…and this is a 
In which I concede that some scientists are evil and stupid
Category: Kooks
Posted on: March 18, 2008 11:33 AM, by PZ Myers
The name Satoshi Kanazawa wasn't familiar to me until I read Cosma Shalizi's lovely needlework on the guy, but then I remembered … I have his book, Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, on my shelf. It has a wonderfully provocative title, so I even skimmed a couple of chapters, which sent multiple wtf signals bouncing around in my brain — the premise of the title is the product of statistical shenanigans, and I don't think the authors would recognize a mechanism if it advanced menacingly on them and threatened them with physical dismantlement — so I set it aside and allowed it gather dust.
Now I learn that Kanazawa has a blog, like everyone does nowadays, and he calls himself the "Scientific Fundamentalist". I wish I could say that finally we have a target for all those people who complain about fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist scientism and fundamentalist whatever-they-hateists, but no, Kanazawa does as much violence to the word "fundamentalism" as he does to biology. He's more like an amoral, principle-free, unconscious reactionary, which isn't really a fundamentalist mindset. How bad is he? Well, he argues that Americans need to hate a little more.
Here's a little thought experiment. Imagine that, on September 11, 2001, when the Twin Towers came down, the President of the United States was not George W. Bush, but Ann Coulter. What would have happened then? On September 12, President Coulter would have ordered the US military forces to drop 35 nuclear bombs throughout the Middle East, killing all of our actual and potential enemy combatants, and their wives and children. On September 13, the war would have been over and won, without a single American life lost.
Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who's running.
Whoa.
That's an argument that carries reductionism well past over-simplification, beyond stupid, and deep into the territory of bug-eyed crazy. That's not a thought experiment, it's a right-wing masturbation fantasy. Kanazawa must be looking for a gig writing for WingNutDaily.
I have to go take a shower right now, so I'll leave you with this most excellent rebuttal.
The above, to be sure, is somewhat ambiguous. It could be that what he's saying is that, were Coulter president, she would have hated her new-found enemies appropriately, nuked the Middle East and thus "won" the war on terror in a day. But it could be that Kanazawa doesn't think that would have been a good idea, it could be that he's simply arguing hypothetically without endorsing that course of action. And yet... it really doesn't read that way. The tone, the context, and the register all suggest to me that Kanazawa would have approved of a nuclear response to 9/11. And this, I submit, is a little extreme. Forget for the moment that killing millions of innocent people is a Bad Thing, forget that the Middle East contains a good proportion of the world's oil, forget that America's democratic ally Israel is in the Middle East, forget that the fall-out would do extensive damage to other parts of the world, forget that there are tens of thousands of Americans (and far more other foreigners) living in the area, forget that the environmental damage would be enormous, forget that the Middle East contains innumerable priceless cultural artifacts, forget that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims living outside the Middle East (India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.), and forget that 9/11 was planned from Afghanistan, outside the Middle East. Have you forgotten all of these factors (and any others you came up with for yourself)? Good. Now it's a good idea to nuke the entire Middle East. Now only does it make any sense whatsoever to call the hypothetical nuclear destruction of the entire Middle East a "victory" for America.
Comments
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | March 18, 2008 11:39 AM
You also have to 'forget' that lots of Americans have relatives and friends who live in those 'nuked' countries, that plenty of foreigners live in the U.S. who would react somewhat unfavorably to the action, and that plenty of our nuclear-armed allies would consider us monsters for doing such a thing. In other words, such a monstrous, inhumane action would create plenty of internal enemies of the U.S. and make allies into enemies, which would be as great a threat if not a greater threat than a bunch of people plotting in caves.
Kanazawa: What an a-hole.
Posted by: gg | March 18, 2008 11:41 AM
strange. a fan of coulter's who is a bloodthirsty, simple-minded reactionary.
Posted by: kid bitzer | March 18, 2008 11:42 AM
strange. a fan of coulter's who is a bloodthirsty, simple-minded reactionary.
I know, I know, it's such a shock, isn't it?
Next we'll be hearing that Pat Buchanan's an anti-semite, or that "family values Republicans" Larry Craig and David Vitter are keeping their jobs despite being caught lookin' for love in all the wrong places. Oh, wait...
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | March 18, 2008 11:47 AM
That guy isn't even wrong. His base premise requires a single war on terra. But guess what? All these rebellious and insurgent groups are not unified into a single agenda nor a single theatre. Same BS fallacy the shrubco inc regime perpetuates - there's a bunch of evil-doers, and they hate our freedom.
Posted by: True Bob | March 18, 2008 11:49 AM
Geez pZ...too many brain damaging entries....we need more brain stimulating ones to compensate!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: An | March 18, 2008 11:51 AM
Wait a second. While Kanazawa was obviously exaggerating for effect by mentioning nuclear weapons, you make it sound like the US dropping bombs on foreign countries with the resultant death of many innocent civilians is something that would never happen. Don't you get the news over there?
Posted by: Sigmund | March 18, 2008 11:52 AM
I'm confused. First he uses the example of Ann Coulter as president, then implies that is why we need a woman in the White House. I don't get the connection...
Posted by: Deepsix | March 18, 2008 11:53 AM
This guy is a raving conservative lunatic. At least he isn't a biologist. He is a psychologist.
One of his theories is that scientists slow down and lose productivity with age. Unlike the rest of the population that works full tilt until they suddenly drop dead at 75.
Looks like Kanasawa not only is slowing down a bit early, he lost his marbles and can't find them.
Posted by: raven | March 18, 2008 11:56 AM
35 nuclear bombs ? At the same time or almost ? What would that give us : nuclear winter, or flash global warming ? I'm not sure. But one thing is sure, Earth wouldn't be a pleasant place to live after that. But who cares ! All that counts is that a non-existent war is won. Longlive weapons of mass destruction !
Posted by: Christophe Thill | March 18, 2008 11:57 AM
If you're an anti-evolutionist like Ann, you don't need evidence. And since killing off enough of "the other" should actually work, well, that's good enough for some people.
It's just all those snotty elitists who think that targeting the right persons, using evidence, and being against genocide, that keeps this world from being a paradise for the shoot-em-all-up types. We ought to just frag you all, and be done with it.
Happiness is a radioactive crater, nitwits, and the sooner you learn that, the better.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 18, 2008 11:59 AM
raven,
I'm just glad he's not an engineer...
Posted by: True Bob | March 18, 2008 12:03 PM
How bad is he? Well, he argues that Americans need to hate a little more.
In 1978 I heard Kurt Vonnegut speak and he made that very claim, although he didn't qualify it with the "little." He said that the problem with my (younger than he) generation was that we didn't hate enough.
Posted by: Sinbad | March 18, 2008 12:06 PM
PZ:
That's weird. I've been reading your blog for a while now, and it seems to me that, when it comes to hate, you could give Kanazawa a pretty good run for his money. I was under the distinct impression you hated Christians.
It's ironic that you would criticize someone for hatred, yet that seems to be the impetus for much of what you say on this site. Now, you might say something like: "Yes, I call them #%&*, #@%!wads, and even *$@-*%$s, but I don't actually hate Christians," but that kind of thing would seem to undermine the very point you're trying to make.
Am I off-base here? Don't you hate Christians?
Posted by: Wyatt Roberts | March 18, 2008 12:10 PM
This song is particularly appropriate.
Posted by: J | March 18, 2008 12:10 PM
...That wÒÓ† guy that posts in comments always strikes me with a WTF too.
Anyway, I've always been a big proponent of the good ol' Parkingstan idea... You know, nuking all middle east flat but not Israel. Why? Because when the radiation is gone years from now, we'll have a sweet parking for our flying cars and spaceships (which we will access with teleporters) and we need lots of people to manage the said parking (s'why we keep Israel)...
...But only as a slightly (Or absolutely offensive to some/lots of folks) distasteful joke. This is a retarded way to solve problems. What's wrong with that dumbass?
Posted by: Michelle | March 18, 2008 12:12 PM
vonnegut said weird shit sometimes. he wrote a good novel, once, but i don't feel called upon to defend his cranky old man views.
but here's the thing: vonnegut never pretended to be a *scientist*.
Posted by: kid bitzer | March 18, 2008 12:12 PM
Am I off-base here? Don't you hate Christians?
I must have missed a few entries, Wyatt. Could you direct me to the posts in which PZ advocates for the killing or nuking of Christians?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 18, 2008 12:13 PM
That actually does sound like something Vonnegut might say. Do you remember any of the context or reasons for this claim, Sinbad?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 18, 2008 12:15 PM
I must have missed a few entries, Wyatt. Could you direct me to the posts in which PZ advocates for the killing or nuking of Christians?
Since when is the advocacy of "killing or nuking" a prerequisite for hate?
Posted by: Sinbad | March 18, 2008 12:15 PM
I'm sure that Dr. Myers would say that of course he doesn't hate Christians. He just finds them silly when they're not being destructive.
And to add to Brownian's request, I'd like you to point to a post in which PZ says that he hates Christians.
Posted by: idahogie | March 18, 2008 12:16 PM
i know i shouldn't feed trolls, but for christ sake, #14, just how stupid are you?
you really think that a critical attitude towards an ideology is the same thing as advocating a nuclear holocaust against 10% of the human race?
man, that is one of the lamest attempts at a 'gotcha' i've ever read. yeah, pz thinks christian doctrines are pernicious, and he'd like to change people's minds about them. therefore, he's the same as someone who advocates the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of millions of men women and children, no matter what their beliefs may be.
that doesn't even count as bad thinking; that's just pathetic.
Posted by: kid bitzer | March 18, 2008 12:18 PM
This guy doesnt seem to get that nuking the middle east (adding to the reasons why this guy is either a horrible writer not accurately conveying his sarcasm or a moron), you still cant nuke an idea or a belief. Does he not think that people not in the middle east would perceive this as a justification to kill more americans? His idea of "no american life lost" would hold true for maybe a day or two before retribution would come. And this retribution would not be targeted at uniformed soldiers, but tourists, families, large gatherings.... what a weak, stupid and venomous thought experiment.
Posted by: JP | March 18, 2008 12:18 PM
I don't hate Christians, I just feel better when they're not around.
He's more like an amoral, principle-free, unconscious reactionary, which isn't really a fundamentalist mindset.
Since when!?
Posted by: Sarcastro | March 18, 2008 12:18 PM
Brownian:
Thanks. No, I didn't claim PZ advocates "killing or nuking Christians," only that I was under the impression he hated Christians and asked if that were true.
I wasn't trying to get in a debate about it. I was asking. I know that PZ has a great love for Science. However, a lot of what he posts on the site doesn't seem to relate that that, but seems to reflect a deep hostility toward Christians in general.
Posted by: Wyatt Roberts | March 18, 2008 12:20 PM
That actually does sound like something Vonnegut might say. Do you remember any of the context or reasons for this claim, Sinbad?
As I recall, he was comparing the group of us who went to college in the 70s with those who went to college in the 60s and those of us who were younger didn't fare too well in the analysis. I think his view was that big-time hate was necessary to spark and sustain real change.
Posted by: Sinbad | March 18, 2008 12:21 PM
He hates christians? Isn't that discriminatory? Discimination is bad.
I mean, he should also hate jews and muslims and hindus and raelians and buddhists and so on... I mean, they're all stupid to me.
I know I hate 'em all.
Posted by: Michelle | March 18, 2008 12:22 PM
yeah, back to kanazawa--he does seem to have forgotten this small thing called "indonesia", a.k.a. the world's most populous islamic nation, not really located in the middle east. so maybe not all of our "actual and potential enemies" would have been so easily addressed by kanazawa's kunning final solution.
which is just to say--this guy doesn't even have a geographic compass, much less a moral one.
Posted by: kid bitzer | March 18, 2008 12:22 PM
Wow. What Brilliance!
The oil embargoes of the past would be nothing compared to the uselessness of radioactive crude oil!
I haven't read him, but it doesn't sound like he can think from A to B to C. Or maybe he doesn't understand consequences.
Posted by: mas528 | March 18, 2008 12:24 PM
Victory! All your base are belong to us ...
.....
Seriously they don't need our "help." If we get through this century with just onenuclear exchange between neighbors in the Middle East we will be doing well.
And given the number of civilians that would be killed, how would we be better than Al Queda? I guess it's: "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."
And even of more importance to people of this mindset: You idiots! You nuked "your" oil!
Posted by: jeh | March 18, 2008 12:24 PM
Christianity, maybe. Maybe. Or more generally the attack on reason promulgated by woo-purveyors, one subset of whom are Christians. But not Christians en masse. Try to think a little more clearly, Wyatt.
Posted by: Form&Function | March 18, 2008 12:25 PM
I think his view was that big-time hate was necessary to spark and sustain real change.
Ah. Again, sounds like Vonnegut to me.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 18, 2008 12:25 PM
yeah, back to kanazawa--he also seems to have forgotten this small thing called "indonesia", a.k.a. the world's most populous islamic nation, not really located in the middle east. so maybe not all of our "actual and potential enemies" would have been so easily addressed by kanazawa's cunning final solution.
which is just to say--this guy doesn't even have a geographic compass, much less a moral one.
Posted by: kid bitzer | March 18, 2008 12:26 PM
"Now, you might say something like: "Yes, I call them #%&*, #@%!wads, and even *$@-*%$s, but I don't actually hate Christians," but that kind of thing would seem to undermine the very point you're trying to make."
You mean "demented fuckwits?" Yes, PZ calls some people that, usually in the context of pointing out that they in fact have engaged in demented fuckwitticisms. This is a far cry from advocating they be killed, nuked, jailed, etc. But I'm afraid if you're going to equivocate the advocacy of murder with pointing out that stupid people are stupid by lumping both of these things under the label of "hate," then you are simply making the point by example that there are stupid people who are stupid.
Posted by: AL | March 18, 2008 12:26 PM
Hate? With only a few exceptions, I have to personally know someone to hate them. Exceptions all relate to actions taken and motives displayed.
Posted by: True Bob | March 18, 2008 12:28 PM
Wyatt wrote: "Am I off-base here? Don't you hate Christians?"
Actually, PZ more or less addressed this sort of observation some time ago, regarding Jonathan Wells, at least. To quote:
Posted by: gg | March 18, 2008 12:29 PM
Wyatt, not "hostility towards Christians in general", more like "hostility towards stupid Christians in particular". And we're talking about the willfully stupid kind.
Posted by: Norm | March 18, 2008 12:31 PM
Hate? With only a few exceptions, I have to personally know someone to hate them. Exceptions all relate to actions taken and motives displayed.
Posted by: True Bob | March 18, 2008 12:31 PM
@14,
"I was under the distinct impression you hated Christians."
Please, don't insult the intelligence of those who read here. We are all aware that PZ believes that religion (not just christianity) is something that the world would be better off without. Yes, he (like many of us) wishes that fewer of the populace made their daily decisions on how to live on a fallacy. But where is the hate you speak of?
Unless, of course, you speak of his hate of the indoctrinization of children and such. How does this relate to wishing to kill millions of innocent people? Are you really so out of touch with reality that you can't see the difference?
I hate racism. I hate misogyny. I hate intolerance. I hate ignorance. Apparently, to you, this puts me in the same league as those who wish to innocents because they've been wronged by someone else.
Seriously, you need to try to visit reality once in a while.
Sorry, PZ, if I spoke out of line for you...
Posted by: Dahan | March 18, 2008 12:33 PM
wish to KILL innocents... sorry
Posted by: Dahan | March 18, 2008 12:35 PM
Ah. Again, sounds like Vonnegut to me.
Of course, I think he's mistaken. Hate in this context strikes me as being analogous to trying to motivate people by fear. It's very effective in the short term but almost impossible to sustain over the long haul.
Posted by: Sinbad | March 18, 2008 12:44 PM
I saw the book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters for the first time this weekend. I immediately pegged it as an unreasonable waste of time because the claim was at once outlandish and trivial. (I mean, honestly, just how many people do you know who are beautiful. I once met a woman who looked just like Walter Matthau.)
Posted by: rpenner | March 18, 2008 12:47 PM
GG:
You point to a post where PZ says he despises someone, but doesn't "hate" them. It seems to me that that's just another word for "hate," but then you may be seeing some kind of a nuanced difference that I'm just not familiar with.
But listen, I wasn't trying to rain on anybody's parade here. It just struck me as ironic that PZ can criticizes someone who believes we "need to hate a little more," while so much of what he seems to say here seems to be inspire people toward to that very thing.
Posted by: Wyatt Roberts | March 18, 2008 12:48 PM
This song is particularly appropriate.
Posted by: J | March 18, 2008 12:10 PM
The song that immediately popped into my head was this one. (Just ignore the video; I picked it because it was the one with the best sound quality.)
Posted by: Kadath | March 18, 2008 12:50 PM
Dahan:
How, exactly, does it insult your intelligence for me to 1) say I thought PZ hated Christians and 2) to ask him if that is true?
Posted by: Wyatt Roberts | March 18, 2008 12:53 PM
I think it's pretty damn obvious that 'hate a little more' is something of an understatement, and that PZ is criticizing this fellow for considerably more than that.
But then, actually reading for comprehension wouldn't allow you to pretend that PZ was being hypocritical.
Posted by: MartinM | March 18, 2008 12:56 PM
You also need to forget that the Russians still have a whole bunch of cold-war era ICBMs aimed at the US, on hair triggers, but without much in the way of functioning command-and-control systems. There is still a significant chance that a multiple US launch would trigger a significant retaliatory strike, even if the Russians weren't actually the targets... Although they're close enough to the Middle East that the distinction may be lost on them anyway.
Why are so many psychologists obviously nuts?
Posted by: Dunc | March 18, 2008 1:00 PM
Sorry to try & bring this back on topic from the "hate" fest.
Forget:
That a number of other Nations also have nuclear arsenals and would likely try to obliterate us before we obliterate them, since by dropping "35 nuclear bombs throughout the middle east" we would show our insane lust for destruction & demonstrate the danger to the world of allowing the U.S. to exist.
.
Posted by: Jaycubed | March 18, 2008 1:03 PM
Dictionary.com lists despise, loathe and hate as synonyms, though not in the same entry. But again, that was a feeling towards an individual. Individual hate based on actions is not the same as wholesale hatred based on prejudice.
Whether hatred of individuals is similarly corrosive and unhelpful is another discussion.
I don't find progressives unwilling to hate individuals or en masse, and while I don't think PZ is doing this, to suggest that Wyatt is somehow beyond the pale or insulting for asking is silly. Read dailykos for examples, including hopes for the demise of political rivals, dark imaginings of immolation of the US and/or western society, etc. Unthinking hatred is a human thing, not a conservative, progressive or religious thing.
Posted by: Dave Eaton | March 18, 2008 1:05 PM
Wyatt, I'll try my hand at explaining it. You mention PZ's use of profanity to discuss particular Christians, compare that with Kanazawa's contemplation of dropping 35 nuclear bombs in the Middle East, call them both "hate," and denounce PZ for hypocrisy. By posting that, you imply that the rest of the Pharyngula readership can't see the obvious differences between the two scenarios that you treat as the same. That is how it insults our intelligence.
Posted by: kmarissa | March 18, 2008 1:06 PM
"One of his theories is that scientists slow down and lose productivity with age. Unlike the rest of the population that works full tilt until they suddenly drop dead at 75."
Is he the idiot who who published something to that effect a few years ago and got demolished by John Maynard Smith who pointed out that those who were still doing science into middle age and beyond were 1) likely to be involved in admin of their departments and 2) would often rather their younger colleagues took credit for they collaborated on as they needed the kudos and the older scientists had already made or broken their reputations.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | March 18, 2008 1:06 PM
Wyatt and Sinbad,
This post is about a nutbag who happens to be a scientist. He apparently believes murdering hundreds of millions of people is a proper response to terrorism. He specifically says that hate is what is called for. PZ disagrees with prejudice.
Why are you here discussing whether PZ hates Christians or Kurt Vonnegut (WTF) thinks you should hate people?
Answer: You are fucking trolls. And stupid.
I hate trolls.
Posted by: eewolf | March 18, 2008 1:08 PM
Shorter Wyatt Roberts: "Look at me! Look at me! LOOK AT ME!"
It's understandable (if annoying) when toddlers do it, but seriously... Not everything is about you. Now, if you don't mind, the grown-ups are trying to talk.
Posted by: Dunc | March 18, 2008 1:08 PM
Wouldn't dropping 35 nuclear bombs ANYWHERE result in the destruction of every living thing on this planet?
Posted by: Matt | March 18, 2008 1:12 PM
This is all just a big distraction from the question on everyone's mind: Does PZ hate pants?
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 18, 2008 1:13 PM
MartinM and kmarissa:
No, I am not conflating nuclear annihilation with hatred. Aside from his suggestion that I'm being intellectually dishonest, MartinM rightly point out that PZ's description of this as "hate" is an understatement. However, by definition, the point made in an understatement is always greater than the form in which it is made. Therefore, it seems to me that in addition to viewing murder as wrong, he must believe also believe that hatred is wrong. And all I'm saying is that that sounds strange to me, given a lot of what he says and posts on this site. That's all.
Posted by: Wyatt Roberts | March 18, 2008 1:13 PM
@45,
It insults my, and other's intelligences because it implies that, although most of us read this blog regularly, we may not be aware of PZ's beliefs or have been in some way confounded by their complexities, leaving you to enlightening us on this matter.
Posted by: Dahan | March 18, 2008 1:13 PM
But listen, I wasn't trying to rain on anybody's parade here. It just struck me as ironic that PZ can criticizes someone who believes we "need to hate a little more," while so much of what he seems to say here seems to be inspire people toward to that very thing.
Yes you are trying to play little semantic gotcha games. If you had bothered to read the actual article instead of stopping at the headline you would realize that that he is criticizing him not for "hating a little more" but for advocating mass murder. Which is what everyone else has been trying to explain to you and you keep pleading "just asking". That is the definition of "concern troll".
Posted by: SteveM | March 18, 2008 1:16 PM
eewolf -- If you fail to see the point of the aside re Vonnegut I suggest that you visit my wife's second grade classroom when she is teaching writing and helping her students to "make connections." If you think I'm being a troll, I suggest you behave like my kids have (especially when younger) and ignore me. Not only will I not be offended, in your case I'll welcome it.
Posted by: Sinbad | March 18, 2008 1:17 PM
OK you execrable moron, I'll bite... Most people are capable of appreciating the fine distinctions between things like dislike, disrespect, despite, robust criticism, ridicule, etc, etc, and actual outright hatred. Most people. Evidently not you.
I do not believe that PZ hates Christians, as a group. I'd be rather surprised if he actually hates anyone. You are using the term "hate" in a manner not entirely in agreement with its usual connotational meanings in this culture at this time.
Posted by: Dunc | March 18, 2008 1:25 PM
I was with you until the "therefore." The understatement in the above post is where PZ refers to "hating a little more" and follows it with Kanazawa's paragraph on bomb-dropping. The understatement here is that Kanazawa has identified "not hating enough" as not using enough racial slurs and with caring too much about killing "their wives and children." Unsurprisingly, PZ expresses disgust at Kanazawa's version of adequate hatred, which includes indiscriminate bomb-dropping. That explains PZ's understatement, which consists of equating "hating more" with 35 nuclear bombs.
Like I said, that's a lot different from name-calling.
Posted by: kmarissa | March 18, 2008 1:32 PM
Being against a way of thinking verses advocating an action that will instantly kill millions of people that had nothing to do with a terrorist action, devastate the world's ecosystem, destroy habitation for thousands of years and cause potential allies to turn away in horror. The only place where this is comparable is in christianity where one's thoughts of sin not acted on is equivalent to sinful action.
BTW, this teaching of Jesus is but one of many reasons why I rejected christianity.
Posted by: Janine, ID | March 18, 2008 1:33 PM
Hrrrm. Well. I always thought my mom and my sisters, who are regular, ordinary Christians (definitely not the fundie type, though) were good people and that I liked them. Please don't tell them that I actually hate them -- it would make my visits very uncomfortable.
Oh, and dang...several of my colleagues at UMM go to church regularly. This is going to make faculty meetings tense.
Just wait until my flying fists of fury go into action at the local church-owned coffee shop, too. Oh, wait -- fists are so passe. Nukes! I have to go blow up all of the churches in town! It is a small place, so maybe just one large hydrogen bomb would take 'em all out at once.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 18, 2008 1:39 PM
No. Not even close.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | March 18, 2008 1:40 PM
I see, Sinbad, that you believe that PZ, Sam Harris, Dawkins and Austin Cline are all "Fundamentalists", based on what you describe - wrongly, in my opinion - as their "easy certainty", and based on one example from each. Ironically, you are chastising them for their opinions, based on one example, also.
My question is, does that also make you a fundamentalist? If not, can you show me that you have based your opinion on more evidence than the people that you chastise? If not, does that make you a hypocrite?
Thanks
Posted by: Damian | March 18, 2008 1:41 PM
sigh.
folks, we been trolled, in classic style.
the exaggerated initial allegation. the back-peddle to claims of 'just asking'. the semantic fancy-footwork. the stance of sweet reasonableness. it's all straight from the trolls' handbook of trollery, vol. 1.
and, of course, the underlying purpose: to change the subject, to divert our attention from the post.
so i think we can just get back to discussing kanazawa, and make a mental note that when we next see the name "wyatt roberts", we'll know he's a troll without having to go through all this.
Posted by: kid bitzer | March 18, 2008 1:42 PM
Loath though I may be to comment on such a silly argument, one point that should be made regarding the current crop of talking (or, rather, shouting, since the word "talking" may imply occasional listening) heads is that were someone like Ann Coulter elected president in such circumstances, she would probably be so paralyzed with fear that she would be unable to do anything. There's a world of difference between talking about what should be done and actually doing it -- which almost always involves actually working with other people, listening to their opinions and observations, and modifying a course of action based on these new inputs. Or is that "flip-flopping"? I can't remember.
Posted by: mrgeek | March 18, 2008 1:47 PM
If you think that is crazy, look up what he says about I.Q. and intelligence of "races".
The guy is bonkers. And clearly likes to see his name in the media.
Posted by: TheMonkeyMan | March 18, 2008 2:01 PM
I see, Sinbad, that you believe that PZ, Sam Harris, Dawkins and Austin Cline are all "Fundamentalists", based on what you describe - wrongly, in my opinion - as their "easy certainty", and based on one example from each. Ironically, you are chastising them for their opinions, based on one example, also.
Actually, I describe them as "fundamatheists" and I'm careful to define the term (if you care to look). Further, although the post to which you refer contains one example each, many more are provided elsewhere. Moreover, "easy certainty" is only one element of the charge.
My question is, does that also make you a fundamentalist?
No.
If not, can you show me that you have based your opinion on more evidence than the people that you chastise?
Yes. Read what I wrote.
Thanks.
You're welcome.
Posted by: Sinbad | March 18, 2008 2:01 PM
Pants, Dr. Myers. Don't avoid the subject.
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 18, 2008 2:07 PM
Kanazawa is the biggest crank in Evolutionary Psychology today (and THAT is saying something). My friend Fiona Jordan just had a paper out that attacked another work of his. She cites another TEN PUBLISHED criticisms of his recent work.
--Simon
Posted by: Simon G | March 18, 2008 2:19 PM
I think we wouldn't have to worry about radioactive crude oil.
Crude oil is a highly flammable mixture of chemicals, and flammable chemicals (and mixtures thereof) have this nasty habit of combusting when exposed to intense heat.
Imagine what would happen to your kitchen if you were to take a bucket full of roofing tar, and put it in the microwave for 15 minutes.
Having imagined the dire consequences of such a circumstance, now ratchet it up by a factor of bajillion, and imagine what would happen if you were to microwave all of the Middle East's oil, including the amount still in the ground, as well as the stuff that's already being refined.
Let's just say that all of Asia Minor would be glowing in the dark for a long, long time for two main reasons.
Posted by: Stanton | March 18, 2008 2:35 PM
PZ: Another candidate for the 'independent thinking' tag, for future reference when needed. I'm just saying.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | March 18, 2008 2:37 PM
Kurt Vonnegut did promote hatred.
Hatred for racism & sexism.
Hatred for brutality & hubris.
Hatred for corruption & arrogance.
I have never heard or read of him promoting hatred of another person.
Even the most racist, sexist, brutal, corrupt, arrogant or hubris-filled person.
Posted by: Jaycubed | March 18, 2008 2:37 PM
And when I say "intense heat," I refer to the firestorm that inevitably results at Ground Zero when a nuclear device is detonated.
Posted by: Stanton | March 18, 2008 2:37 PM
@Kadath #44
Hey, Alabama 3! Great band. And of course the voice-over is the Reverend Jim Jones. How can you go wrong?
Posted by: Don | March 18, 2008 2:42 PM
Maybe he is paid by evangelists or Discovery Institute so they can have an easy target when trying to discredit science!
Posted by: baley | March 18, 2008 2:47 PM
It's easy to like someone else's plan for violence when it's directed at the same people you want to commit violence on.
What Kanazawa is neglecting to think through is that someone like President Coultergeist would not, by any stretch of the imagination, limit her genocide to the "a-rabs". She'd start in on allied nations who were "insufficiently supportive", political opponents here at home, acdemics who aren't publicly religious enough, etc, etc. In the United States of Jesusland, Kanazawa's turn under the axe would not be long in coming.
These Eliminationist types are so very simplistic and short-sighted. they always think that if they can just get rid of that one guy, that one vice, that one ethnicity, the whole world will snap into the perfect harmony they've always imagined it should be. Read the propaganda supporting Prohibition and the War on Drugs, the Final Solution, stuff from Pat Robertson, the War on Terra, and this twit. They always assume that not only are the source of all their woes coming from this one narrowly defined set of people and that getting rid of them would as simple as passing a law or firing a gun or dropping a bomb, but that such a plan would be effective and never come back to bite them in the ass with loads of unintended consequences. "For every complex problem there is a clear solution that is simple, neat, and wrong". Seems they never got the memo about that.
The worst part is, everyone else seems to believe it, too. In the movies and on TV there's always a crime lord kingpin, Mr. Big, and they just need to put him away to end crime. Remember the sniper's line from Saving Private Ryan about how him sniping Hitler would instantly end the war? The Drug War is constantly taking down "the biggest cartel ever" and yet nothing changes. How many "#2 Al Qaeda"s have been killed now, and how often is that trumpeted to the stars as though it will actually affect anything? As the War Nerd put it, "There is no Mr. Big. They're more like a few thousand Mr. Middles, ... and nobody controls them all".
Posted by: Jared Lessl | March 18, 2008 2:49 PM
This is how you describe people such as PZ, Sinbad:
I'd be interested to hear your ideas about how else we can ascertain the rightness or wrongness of a proposition, apart from the use of science and reason (the more broad definition of science), and how you would know that it is right or wrong?
It is safe to say that I think that you are wrong and that you are simply playing the same us-vs-them game that you accuse others of, but don't allow that to stop you.
By the way, you still haven't shown that this even applies to those who you chastise, remembering that you have set a pretty strict definition.
Do you have those quotes where PZ, Sam Harris, Dawkins and Austin Cline specifically claim that "science + reason = readily ascertainable truth [...] with the Truth so obvious that those who disagree aren't just in error, they're evil or damned or irrational or delusional or mentally ill or or or?"
I might even agree with you if you could provide those.
Posted by: Damian | March 18, 2008 3:01 PM
"I must have missed a few entries, Wyatt. Could you direct me to the posts in which PZ advocates for the killing or nuking of Christians?"
"Nuke The Christians" would make for a fun t-shirt, though.
Posted by: craig | March 18, 2008 3:28 PM
Never heard of Kanazawa before. He is a psychologist and a scientist in the sense that Dembski, Behe, Gonzalez, or J. Wells is. That is to say, he is a crackpot.
Hard to say whether he is just being outrageous to sell books or because he is nuts. Or both. Looks like he is just copying Ann Coulter's strategy.
Posted by: raven | March 18, 2008 3:30 PM
Geez pZ...too many brain damaging entries....we need more brain stimulating ones to compensate!!!!!!!!!
seconded
It's also a good way to make trolls lose interest.
Posted by: Ichthyic | March 18, 2008 3:48 PM
I hate cancer. I don't hate people that have cancer.
Posted by: Brian W. | March 18, 2008 3:58 PM
Ha! "Fukuyaming", saying something so blatantly and obviously false that people can't help but write about how false it is, and thus, make the sayer famous... the literary world contemporary of the newsgroup/forum troll.
Posted by: Will Von Wizzlepig | March 18, 2008 3:59 PM
I hate cancer. I don't hate people that have cancer.
I hate war. I hate warmongers even more.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 18, 2008 4:01 PM
If Coulter (spit! spit!) had been president on April 19, 1995, she would have done the Kanazawa bombing on April 20, 1995; and, bingo! no 9/11!! Hah!
We should remember that there are a lot of people right here in the USA who would have done what the 9/11 schmucks did, if they had thought of it. And yo