…and this is a 
Whose head would you like to see on video?
Category: Communicating science
Posted on: April 20, 2008 6:34 PM, by PZ Myers
John Horgan actually defended Ben Stein on Bloggingheads. Now I can understand being a little contrarian, but that's going too far.
More importantly, I've been asked to do another bloggingheads session — it could be with John Horgan, and an opportunity to chastise him for that (as well as talk about something more substantive) or it could be with someone else — so I thought I'd throw it out here. Who do you think would be a good person for me to team up with for a diavlog? Maybe there's someone out there who hasn't been on bloggingheads you'd like to see.
Comments
It was his deviated septum that needed defending.
Posted by: danley | April 20, 2008 6:45 PM
You should face off against Vox Day!
Posted by: Vegan Atheist | April 20, 2008 6:53 PM
Horgan defending Stein. Ugly as hell!
It seems to me that the "arrogance" Horgan sees in biologists vigourously defending evolution stems from his own ignorance. Could this be? I just don't get it.
A lay person might not know the breadth and depth of the evidence supporting evolution, but what about Horgan? Doesn't he know better? Or does he know something I don't?
Posted by: trimtab | April 20, 2008 6:54 PM
Sure, I'd like to see you take on Horgan.
Posted by: Janus | April 20, 2008 7:00 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7354089.stm
A change in the law could mean mediums, psychics and healers face prosecution if they cannot justify their claims. Spiritualists are delivering a mass petition to Downing Street and complaining that a genuine religion is being discriminated against.
Please do come, psychics and tarot card readers (and homeopaths) will soon have to answer to 'trading standards' if they can't demonstrate that they took measures to avoid exploiting vulnerable people (children, the elderly etc) or if they sell a service or product that makes claims that cannot be substantiated.
Posted by: Mod | April 20, 2008 7:02 PM
Yeah that was meant to go in the other thread, never mind :(
Posted by: mod | April 20, 2008 7:06 PM
Just as long as it's not you know who.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 20, 2008 7:07 PM
You should debate Giblets.
Posted by: Zarquon | April 20, 2008 7:17 PM
Horgan is ok when he's talking to an actual scientist, because he takes on the role of interviewer. It's when he's paired with George Johnson (who I like) that Horgan starts pontificating about things he doesn't fully understand. Like most journalists, he loves the story of a maverick taking on the establishment, so he's naturally a sucker for Stein and others of his ilk.
Which is my long way of saying that I'd be ok with a Myers-Horgan segment. I'd suggest you make science journalism one of the topics.
Of course, I'm still holding out hope for a Myers-Mooney or Myers-Nisbitt video throwdown, but I take it you're done with that subject.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | April 20, 2008 7:28 PM
Just an Expelled heads-up: It looks like the movie (Expelled) is available on BitTorrent.
That is all.
Posted by: Mavaddat | April 20, 2008 7:40 PM
@10 I've only seen fakes so far on bittorrent in the last few days, so I'm skeptical.
Posted by: ivanm | April 20, 2008 7:47 PM
Paul,
What with the 'screechy monkey' id showing up now, and the Nisbett flinging that term too, ..., have you ever explained to folks about your earlier incarnation as one of the Howler Monkeys?
fellow original howler
Posted by: penguindreams | April 20, 2008 7:49 PM
Doesn't seem to be the real thing though.
Posted by: Dutch Delight | April 20, 2008 7:51 PM
Pick me! I'm a whore!
Posted by: Steve Ulven | April 20, 2008 7:53 PM
If anyone's interested, I uploaded a few bits of Expelled onto youtube.
Here is a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yXgLGix6v4
Posted by: Abbie | April 20, 2008 7:53 PM
For those taking #10's option, make sure your Peer Guardian or some other protective P2P software is running, don't trust those fuckers.
Posted by: Steve Ulven | April 20, 2008 7:55 PM
Horgan's blowing smoke. Stein isn't challenging anything, he's suiting up in his shiny armor and bravely attacking his strawmen, and avoiding all of the questions that have been asked of him.
Likewise with Berlinski. I brought up physics issues in a letter to Commentary (Berlinski likes to pretend respect for physics), and he just fobbed it all off with "...But if the mind and the brain prove in the end to be hopelessly distinct, then plainly thermodynamic considerations will play less of a role than he [Davidson] conjectures."
Uh, yeah, if it's all Platonic magic, then it's not physics.
How does Horgan suppose that something like this, or Stein's shrill attacks and strawmen, constitute a "clash of ideas"? The trouble is, we fight intellectually, they ignore everything meaningful and bring up magic, and Horgan wonders why we act offended at the "challenge". It's not because we're defending dogma, it's that we're defending intellectual discussion altogether against the attacks of those who have nothing except flim-flam.
I wish he'd care to listen to our objections before he simply agrees with the charlatans.
Glen Davidson
http:tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 20, 2008 7:55 PM
@11, ivanm
Me too. However, there are three reasons to think this is not a fake (and thus, why I'm hopeful): 1) The positive to negative rating is 188/109, which is unusual for a fake, 2) There are tons of seeders (55 currently seeding), which would be strange if it was fake (why would you keep uploading something that didn't work for you?), and 3) there's an actual synopsis of the movie. This last point is unusual because the fake torrents aren't usually so detailed (they are mindlessly computer generated).
Posted by: Mavaddat | April 20, 2008 7:59 PM
But anyway, I'll let you know when I'm actually done the download in about 4 hours (~1.2 GB).
Posted by: Mavaddat | April 20, 2008 8:01 PM
you should team up with Sandwalk.
Posted by: skeptic4u | April 20, 2008 8:02 PM
Possible discussion partners with PZ. These individuals and PZ will find plenty to argue about.
Jon Marks, anthropologist, geneticist, UNC-Charlotte. discussion: historical misuse of Darwinism, the various science wars
Henry Harpending, anthropologist, University of Utah. discussion: human evolution, evolutionary psychology, race, selection, adaptationism
Joan Roughgarden, Stanford: discuss theism and evolution, New Atheism, sexual selection and alternative theories, sexism and gender in science
and, come to think of it:
Terrence Deacon, Berkeley. This pairing might not be as argumentative as the above three, but Deacon is really on the ball.
Posted by: Colugo | April 20, 2008 8:17 PM
Na, that's definitely a fake...
the URL describes it as "high quality"
Posted by: wazza | April 20, 2008 8:18 PM
How about Bad Astronomer (C), for a webcam nerdbate of epic proportions? ;)
Posted by: JJ | April 20, 2008 8:18 PM
I would like to say ditto to what Glen said above...
John Horgan is a moron and is not stating the facts. Strawmen and pure ignorance of the facts is not the same as, "laying it all out."
Expelled is pure sophistry, and nothing else.
Posted by: Lago | April 20, 2008 8:28 PM
Posted by: wazza | April 20, 2008 8:18 PM:
the URL describes it as "high quality"Haha, if it was referring to the content of the movie... but I think it's referring to the pixel resolution and sound fidelity. I mean, it's freakin' 1.2 GB. 'Sgotta be hi-res.
Posted by: Mavaddat | April 20, 2008 8:31 PM
I can't get the video to work. Does anybody want to transcribe/summarize what Horgan said? In the interests of full disclosure, I'll note that Horgan always manages to rub me the wrong way, but I'd rather not judge him without knowing what he said.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 20, 2008 8:36 PM
You might want to look for someone in one of the masturbation camps or masturbation fundraisers. I hear they are doing well collecting public money for these charitable events. Most of them participate here but some of them go masturbation hiking during spring time.
Posted by: Those Pesky Darwinists | April 20, 2008 8:36 PM
@ #10
You couldn't pay me to see Expelled.
I am interested in this film though:
http://constantinessword.com/
Posted by: eric | April 20, 2008 8:36 PM
I wrote an essay responding to Horgan's "The Death of Proof" in an undergrad writing class. I knew at the time that I was going to grad school, and I could also tell that Horgan's reasoning skills were suspect to see the least. This book review of "The End of Science" mentions the article. (Warning: .pdf file)
It was clear to me at that time that Horgan was full of hubris, and didn't seem to appreciate the underlying goal of mathematics as a search for truth. It doesn't surprise me that he would defend Stein, because his writing has always taken a postmodern approach towards science, using as an underlying premise that there really is no absolute truth - at least not in a knowable sense. It is a small step from that to defend kooks, cranks and crackpots, which definitely describes ID.
Posted by: Reyalswoc | April 20, 2008 8:51 PM
#23 has it right. You and BA are the perfect match. I change my mind, I said to pick me just because I am a whore. I am willing to give up being the whore to see you and THEE BA go back and forth.
Posted by: Steve Ulven | April 20, 2008 8:54 PM
I've always thought Horgan was a horse's ass, and I'm grimly satisfied to know that I was right all along.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 20, 2008 9:00 PM
John Horgan... onetime editor of Scientific American, right?
I have his book, "Rational Mysticism", ... it's ok, but... not nearly hard-headed enough for my tastes.
As for being "arrogant," for fuck's sake, the anti-evolutionists are so fucking retarded in their blitherings, it is impoosible not to appear arrogant in opoosing them. Screw them. Hell yes I'm arrogant in this area. Justifiably so. Of course I'm arrogant. Bring the dipshits on and let us slice the heads off their arguments by the thousands for the sheer fun of it.
Posted by: SteveC | April 20, 2008 9:01 PM
Jonathan Sarfati - a non-retarded young earth creationist.
Posted by: Ross Nixon | April 20, 2008 9:13 PM
You mean Sarfati, the gibbering UFO lunatic?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 20, 2008 9:22 PM
I'd like to second a vote for Roughgarden, because she is such an interesting figure and I've never actually heard her speak publicly on anything.
What I'd really like to see, though, would be you and Michael Ruse. Ruse goes his own way in dealing with creationists, and I'm sure the sparks would fly.
And speaking of philosophers, why not Wilkins? He's always hinting that he needs a new gig, and frankly, is there anybody in the philosophy of biology more deserving of greater attention? I can't believe that one of our UC's hasn't made it their business to get a fella who has an entire book on species concepts. Besides, I want to see how that snowy-white hair looks on video.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | April 20, 2008 9:26 PM
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 20, 2008 8:36 PM:
Try using Internet Explorer. I couldn't get it to work with Firefox either.Posted by: Mavaddat | April 20, 2008 9:28 PM
You mean Sarfati, the gibbering UFO lunatic?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 20, 2008 9:32 PM
Only 1600 years have passed since Augustine of Hippo wrote these words:
It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.
- The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19-20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]
No comment.
Posted by: ShemAndShaun | April 20, 2008 9:35 PM
Phil Plait!
Posted by: jokermage | April 20, 2008 9:38 PM
Easy - go tag-team.
Horgan and Sarfati
vs
PZ and Digital Cuttlefish.
Posted by: Podblack | April 20, 2008 9:41 PM
Oops — browser crash. Sorry for the double post.
Anyway, the book review linked by Reyalswoc (#29) reminded me of one reason Horgan consistently manages to irritate me: his antipathy to string theory. His caricature of that subject seems to mesh perfectly with his caricature of the scientific process, making it his prototypical example of science creaking to a halt.
I suppose he must have found the recent books of Smolin and Woit to be godsends for his cause. But Smolin has a version of 1990s physics history which, to put it mildly, doesn't match with anybody else's recollections, and Woit (besides indulging in irrelevant asides and cheap shots) asserts that not only is string theory unpredictive now, it will necessarily be unpredictive forevermore. This, again putting it mildly, is not an established theorem. It's a gut reaction. Remarkably enough, neither spends their valuable book-time explaining the AdS/CFT correspondence, an area in which the mathematical tools developed in quantum gravity research are currently being applied to nuclear physics, a regime we can test via particle accelerators like the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). No, this isn't figuring out what happens inside black holes or at the first moments of the Universe, but it's still good, honest work. Incidentally, string theory began with nuclear physics, so it's something a case of returning to one's roots, with the rewards of the journey taken to one's benefit.
I could rant at much greater length, but I gotta go — friend's watching Firefly.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 20, 2008 9:43 PM
@18: I haven't downloaded the fakes, but they sound like they're seeded by the expelled folks. (according to comments, the file is a repeating loop of one of the trailers) So all those seeders might be "malicious".
Btw, on a point of geekitude: it's not too hard to modify a bittorrent client to prioritize the first pieces of a file, so that you can check fakes without downloading the whole thing. (hooray for open source!) I don't think anyone distributes a client with this capability, though, because it's not as efficient when the swarm size is small.
Posted by: ivanm | April 20, 2008 9:46 PM
Re., Expelled Torrent: Several torrent public review websites state that it is fake, so I stopped the D/L. Good points too, ivanm.
Posted by: Mavaddat | April 20, 2008 9:53 PM
PZ, Horse's Ass Horgan here. I'm delighted to see I have so many fans among your readers. I'd be happy to chat about Ben Stein (guess this means I have to watch his stupid movie), the pros of "teaching the controversy," the geekiness of ScienceDebate2008, the dismal state of science journalism (or at least my style thereof), and anything else you like, as long as we disagree. Do you think string theory is cool, by any chance? The last time we spoke, as I recall, we had a hard time finding things to argue about. We need more internecine warfare among science-loving Godless geeks! That's entertainment!
Posted by: John Horgan | April 20, 2008 9:56 PM
Do a diavlog with Francis Collins of course. :)
Posted by: Castaa | April 20, 2008 10:13 PM
pick me, pick me, pick me. i'll carve'em a new ahole.
Posted by: genesgalore | April 20, 2008 10:23 PM
You know, I'm going to defend John Horgan a bit here by pointing out that he doesn't seem to be defending creationism as such. I did a quick transcript of his beginning point (which rapidly gets lost as soon as Johnson gets a chance to lay into Berlinski):
John Horgan:
"I don't like it when scientists sort of harrumph and say "how dare you" to people who are challenging some kind of sacred tenet (and that's what they're beginning to sound like) of modern science. I mean, the way I deal with it as a teacher -- I know there are some teachers who say, you know, teach evolution and science in the classroom and leave all the religious crap outside, those are two different things. I actually like the phrase "teach the controversy" (even though I think George Bush has used it). I want my students to, you know - let's bring it all out into the open and have the scientific theories compete with religious theories or alternative explanations for life or whatever and, you know, may the best explanation win."
Science vs. religion head to head, -- and "May the best explanation win?" Gee, I wonder what that would be, in science class.
If anything, Horgan seems to be arguing here against NOMA. He's willing to take religious claims seriously, and let them compete. Later on, he says he thinks the best way to refute creationism is with "ridicule." Laugh at it. If that's a defense of Stein, it's an odd defense.
I also suspect that PZ would agree with him in that discussing the merits --or lack thereof -- of ID makes for a valuable discussion in class. PZ does not go "harrumph" and say "how dare you" if his students bring up creationism.
Or do you? ;)
Posted by: Sastra | April 20, 2008 10:29 PM
Sastra, for me it's the "and that's what they're beginning to sound like" part that annoyed me. It reeks of straw. I haven't come across any biologists harumphing and treating the ToE as a "sacred tenet." Perhaps some of them are getting a little frustrated and annoyed at having to deal with the same tired canards over and over again, but that's not the same thing.
But since John's here, maybe he can point out some examples I've missed.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | April 20, 2008 10:39 PM
PZ, I'd be happy to take you on, except that I suspect we'd be agreeing on too much. Except about whether or not biology is just stamp collecting. And squishy. But otherwise, it would just be boring old agreement.
How about John Allen Paulos? You'd probably agree with him, too, but it'd be great to get him in the loop.
Posted by: Sean Carroll | April 20, 2008 10:39 PM
Will Wilkinson.
You two could discuss the implications, if any, of Darwinism on the social sciences. You can see Will (a veteran of bloggingheads) on that very subject here:
http://www.cato.org/research/articles/wilkinson-050201.html
Presumably you disagree, and I think it would make for an interesting and enlightening discussion. Will had a bloggingheads with Robert Wright a while back, but I think you and he could have an even better discussion.
Will's blog can be found at www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle (there's a link a couple of posts down to a roundtable in which Wilkinson trashes ID; you might find that interesting).
Let's make it happen!
Posted by: Greg N. | April 20, 2008 10:41 PM
You know, I'm going to defend John Horgan a bit here by pointing out that he doesn't seem to be defending creationism as such.
I don't recall anyone saying he was. The problem arise when he creates horrendous strawmen like this:
"I don't like it when scientists sort of harrumph and say "how dare you" to people who are challenging some kind of sacred tenet (and that's what they're beginning to sound like) of modern science.
which is utter bullshit, frankly, and deserves round chastising.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 10:45 PM
Yo Horgon, explain the controversy? What new data has Ben Steins and friends brought about that is not being considered by science? Show us the evidence they have presented that merits a "controversy?" I watched your little interview and was wondering, do you know the difference between actual data and, "The God of the gaps?"
You think there should be a debate? Then debate us...
Posted by: Lago | April 20, 2008 10:52 PM
Regarding that Expelled torrent mentioned @ #10, someone at Pirate Bay posted:
:P
Posted by: taliesin | April 20, 2008 10:53 PM
Yes, I agree that the Harrumphing Scientists do sound like strawmen.
Do people still go "harrumph?" Or even "How dare you?"
What about "Harrumph! How DARE you, sirrah!" -- while popping out their monocle or clutching their pearls?
Posted by: Sastra | April 20, 2008 10:54 PM
I would guess fake, no one would encode ben stein to that high resolution
LOL
noice.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 10:55 PM
What about "Harrumph! How DARE you, sirrah!" -- while popping out their monocle or clutching their pearls?
Heavens to Betsy, I do believe you dun give me the vapors, child!
(harumph! harumph! HEY! I didn't get a harumph out of that guy!)
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 11:00 PM
oops, forgot the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSSUcj9zlH8
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 11:01 PM
If I were a scientist, I would so be taking up harrumphing right now. Actually, I guess I sorta kinda am a scientist, ish, in that I work in science research. (Doing the IT, not as an academic.)
Harrumph. Sirrah, fetch me my student whacking stick; those whippersnappers need a jolly good sorting out. But first, another chota peg.
Posted by: cath | April 20, 2008 11:03 PM
Science vs. religion head to head, -- and "May the best explanation win?" Gee, I wonder what that would be, in science class.
I wonder too, but you are assuming that the teacher has absolute say on how far the argument goes. Once it is in, the complaints of balance start, and you have to spend as much time explaining both "theories".
It sounds very fair, but in practice it would be a disaster.
Posted by: ShemAndShaun | April 20, 2008 11:05 PM
Everyone is being a little too vicious to Horgan -- I disagree with his position. That doesn't mean I want his head on a chopping block.
Yeah, the trick with getting a good diavlog, I think, is finding someone different enough that we have stuff to argue about, but not so different that the other person is a tedious loon (so no creationists, and no Nisbet).
Wilkins would be a good choice; I was thinking Randy Olson would make for a good sparring partner, too. Paulos would be fun, but we do agree on a lot of things...but then, maybe two people who largely agree but try to explore an issue in greater depth could be nifty.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 20, 2008 11:19 PM
but not so different that the other person is a tedious loon (so no creationists, and no Nisbet).
speaking of vicious...
LOL
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 11:22 PM
I think you should team up with with Ringo Starr, just because it would be so bizarrely random.
J. D.
Posted by: J. D. Mack | April 20, 2008 11:23 PM
What? Not Yoko Ono?
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 20, 2008 11:26 PM
What? Not Yoko Ono?
I have to admit, I would pay to see that.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 11:28 PM
They could do their video in a bag!
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | April 20, 2008 11:31 PM
hey, here's an idea:
why not have a musical counterpart!
get Roy Zimmerman!
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 11:43 PM
How could we be too vicious to Horgon? He is defending Ben Stein's position which has no defense. He claims a controversy which I would love to see defined.
The only thing out of his mouth that sounded like a position was a simple "God of the gap" defense where if one does not understand something yet, it is blamed on God. That is not a controversy, or a position. It is no different than, "Big sound in sky must mean the Gods are mad at us ugh!"
So, how is Horgon not in need of a good verbal slap upside the head?
Posted by: Lago | April 20, 2008 11:50 PM
"...the trick with getting a good diavlog, I think, is finding someone different enough that we have stuff to argue about, but not so different that the other person is a tedious loon..."
Wilkinson! He even has his own show over there ("Free Will").
Let's make it happen!
Posted by: Greg N. | April 21, 2008 12:02 AM
Why is John Horgan scared of looking in the webcam
Posted by: Scott | April 21, 2008 12:45 AM
On the subject of Expelled - not so good news.
The weekend box office is just in.
That they could get into the top ten for a 'documentary' is shocking for a supposedly educated country like the US. I guess they must have got the God Squad out in force.
1. "The Forbidden Kingdom," $20.9 million.
2. "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," $17.3 million.
3. "Prom Night," $9.1 million.
4. "88 Minutes," $6.8 million.
5. "Nim's Island," $5.7 million.
6. "21," $5.5 million.
7. "Street Kings," $4 million.
8. "Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!," $3.5 million.
9. "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," $3.1 million.
10. "Leatherheads," $3 million.
Posted by: Sigmund | April 21, 2008 12:47 AM
Posted by: Bob O'H | April 21, 2008 12:52 AM
MeamwhilebackatWired , there's this explanation of why john should cut Stein some slack:
God has a place for those who choose to not believe He exist and reject Him, a terrible place of perpetual suffering, mainly due to a great continuous desire and need for water. Unfortunately, most scientist will end up there because of Wired blogs peer pressure. Once there, there is nothing that can be done for them. And it gets even worse later, when the devil, the fallen angles, and people, including scientist, are placed into the lake of fire that burns forever and ever. It would be to much greater purpose for scientist to look into the things of God rather than continuously going about to deny Him and His existence.
No one continuously argues as to weather leprechaun exist, so if God didn't actually exist, there would likewise be no arguments. But because there is a God, as well as a devil and demons, some scientist possibly are being used to argue the devil's lies.
Posted by: John | Feb 11, 2008 4:52:54 PM
Posted by: Polyester Mather D.D. | April 21, 2008 1:14 AM
Sigmund beat me to it, but here's the link to the box-office numbers:
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/
Looks like Expelled is a bit of a flop box-office-wise, no?
Of course it is allegedly a "documentary," a category of film that traditionally has modest box-office results.
Posted by: Tim_G | April 21, 2008 1:22 AM
On the subject of Expelled - not so good news.
meh. If you look at the day-by-day revenues, they are actually decreasing since friday (18% on Sat., another 4% on Sunday).
Which suggests this thing will be forgotten at the box office in just a few more days.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 21, 2008 1:23 AM
A few days ago, one analyst was calling a $3 million weekend take a "dud". If taking in $3 million is a flop, well, I don't think $3.1 million is too much better.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 21, 2008 1:42 AM
I posted some data on Expelled and other documentary films' opening weekend in the other thread (post #7, 9-10)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/radio_reminder_7.php#comments
Posted by: semi | April 21, 2008 1:45 AM
Actually, I found another list comparing only documentaries, and among documentaries only, Expelled is doing pretty well.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=documentary.htm
It would appear to be the 3rd best opening weekend for a documentary, and is already 26th on the all-time gross list.
Does anyone have a clue how much this movie might have cost to make?
Posted by: Tim_G | April 21, 2008 2:01 AM
I don't think we can directly compare 'Expelled' with your average movie in terms of takings. To get into the overall top ten is at least some sort of temporary propaganda victory for them - and lets face it, thats all that concerns them. I don't think the takings were positively (!) affected by publicity from the PZ expulsion story or the numerous bad reviews its received. On the contrary that has probably discouraged many non creationists in the public from seeing the film. What the takings do reveal however, is that there remains a sizable number of the US public who are prepared to buy this crap (I'm presuming that the 3.1 million came almost exclusively from creationists - its not exactly a date movie). Still, if we are in a culture war and this is their best shot the whole thing is somewhat akin to the battle of wits against an unarmed man. Nobody expects this movie to have any box office legs. It will be long gone off the box office radar by next weekend. I'd still prefer them to have failed to get into the top ten, though.
Posted by: Sigmund | April 21, 2008 2:17 AM
Actually, the problem with its box office receipts is that it opened on a huge number of screens, but generated relatively little revenue. It's average revenue per screening is under $3K. They won't be able to hang on to those screens as the film will be dumped to make room for better revenue generators.
All in all, a dismal performance, and it's only going to get worse.
Figure a production budget of about $6M and a P&A cost (print and advertising) of $7M.
Then when you factor in the box office splits (50/50?) you can see that they are not living up to their projections.
Posted by: semi | April 21, 2008 2:20 AM
Perhaps during your talk you could spend a section on current evolutionary biology theories. I still can't find anything of interest in David Sloan Wilson's ideas on group selection that can't already be explained by extended phenotypes, kin selection, inclusive fitness, neutral theory, gene selection, sexual selection, handicap principle, etc.
I understand the evo-devo stuff about gene regulation, makes perfect sense that regulatory agents affect evolution. But Group selection just seems so hmmmm how can I say, I need some mathematical models or something.
Teach me peoples...
Posted by: Dave | April 21, 2008 3:21 AM
"[ID is] challenging some kind of sacred tenet [...]" - Hogan
I think this goes beyond the problem of the harrumphing strawmen. "Challenge", in the way that Hogan seems to be using it, implies that there is an argument behind the challenge. ID has presented its arguments, and they've been soundly defeated. To respond with conspiracies rather than counter-arguments isn't a challenge. At worst it's mental illness - at best a tantrum. A challenge isn't really a challenge when it has already been risen to, and won.
I think Hogan's point is fine in principal, just not applicable in this particular instance.
Posted by: Jams | April 21, 2008 4:16 AM
[/lurk mode]
Tim_G
About historic grosses for documentaries (or anything else that deals in dollars, for that matter), one would have to adjust the grosses to account for changes in the price of tickets. Likewise you would also probably have to net out dvd or vcr sales if every documentary is not available in one or the other of those formats.
My guess is that once inflation is accounted for Expelled probably wouldn't still be in the top 30.
[lurk mode]
Posted by: Tim_A | April 21, 2008 6:31 AM
How about PZ vs. Chuck Freakin' Norris? He just weighed in on Expelled. (Oh, joy!)
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62142
I had a lot of fun writing about him -- and I'm just a layman -- so I bet you could make him cry like a little girl. (That's what these debates are all about, right?) I imagine his only rebuttal would be to say, "But can you do this?" And then roundhouse kicking like Star Wars Kid on Geritol.
Posted by: UprightAlice | April 21, 2008 7:05 AM
Shelley Batts!
Posted by: teacherninja | April 21, 2008 8:11 AM
God. Come on God, do a vlog PA* with PZ if you're so ruddy great. You haven't done any of those since cameras turned up, have you? Your trolls are such dull fare, come on down and up the average Theist IQ above room temperature.
*Personal Appearance.
Posted by: Peter Mc | April 21, 2008 8:11 AM
I suppose I might be the only one who thinks Bloggingheads is a waste of bandwidth.
Posted by: sdh | April 21, 2008 9:16 AM
This is somewhat off topic, but... I wondered if this "Expelled" parody had been seen by many Pharyngula readers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM
Quaint, pointed, and a special appearance by Richard "boff-him-for-his-brains" Dawkins. (Sorry, PZ, I'll award you an equally flattering moniker when you do that nude spread in Scientific American.
Posted by: CR Stamey | April 21, 2008 9:40 AM
How about Matt Nisbett?
Posted by: me | April 21, 2008 9:44 AM
No one should forget that probably a lot of the tickets sold this weekend are due to the Expelled Challenge promotion, where schools pressure the children to go in order that the schools receive reimbursement for this. These tickets have to be purshased in the first 10 days, IIRC, and if there is a very good chance that theaters won't have it next weekend they'll need to have bought them this weekend.
The sales have been boosted with these heavy "kickbacks" to the schools. So unless something comes along to make it far more controversial and/or popular than it is, look for a substantial drop in sales in the future, especially after the 10 days or so window for the Expelled Challenge.
The fact is that there has been little exposure of this movie, outside of promotions to church groups. Sure, they ran commercials on Comedy channel (which never seemed to me to be a very likely source of audience members) and the History channel, and got a lot of bad reviews. But few know about it, and rather fewer care.
I don't know what might happen among church groups and the like, so conceivably that audience might keep the movie going longer than I'd have guessed. But I doubt it, since reportedly it's a directionless mess, above the heads of most of the dolts they want to impress (as sad as anything, I suppose), and it doesn't even provide much in the way of new lies to their sheep. D. James Kennedy told most of those lies, and he did it for free.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 21, 2008 10:54 AM
Horgan here again. I just posted on the Expelled dustup on my werbsite: http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/csw/?p=139.