Somebody had to appreciate him : Pharyngula

Search

Profile

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

• Quick link to the latest endless thread

Register for the Atheist Convention Melbourne 12-14 March 2010

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

I support Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Random Quote

Superstitions typically involve seeing order where in fact there is none, and denial amounts to rejecting evidence of regularities, sometimes even ones that are staring us in the face.

Murray Gell-Mann (Quark and the Jaguar)

Other Information

2005 Koufax Award
Best Expert

2006 Weblogs Award

« The Pastor Ray Mummert award goes to… | Main | King James is so passé »

Somebody had to appreciate him

Category: Communicating science
Posted on: March 30, 2009 11:55 PM, by PZ Myers

It's heartwarming to see Dr Dr Russel Blackford rise to the occasion and pen a laudatory essay praising Matt Nisbet. Praise the lord!

Wait…is sarcasm ethical?

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/104503

Comments

Posted by: Mozglubov | March 31, 2009 12:07 AM

Not only is sarcasm ethical, it ought to be required. Unfortunately, beyond the use of exclamation points and question marks, prosody tends to be lost in written speech. I think, as text correspondence over the internet continues to become more ubiquitous, we ought to introduce a sarcastic punctuation mark.

Posted by: Russell Blackford | March 31, 2009 12:13 AM

It was time for someone in this wicked and multiply-vipered generation to stand up and give Matt the praise he so obviously needs.

Posted by: homostoicus | March 31, 2009 12:20 AM

I can't help but wonder what Nisbet's definition of ethics is. I don't have to patience to slog through his misdirections, however. "normative imperatives"? Would that be how one is to toe the line?

Posted by: Snowbird | March 31, 2009 12:25 AM

After reading Dr. Blackford's blog, I was wondering how long the bruises from a back-handed compliment take to heal. ;)

Posted by: FastLane | March 31, 2009 12:29 AM

That's some epic level sarcasm....and pwnage....there. Nice.

Posted by: HalfMooner | March 31, 2009 12:35 AM

Dr. Dr. Blackford, that was devastatingly funny.

Posted by: Thomas Winwood | March 31, 2009 12:42 AM

#1: Subtitles here in the UK use (!) and (?) as final delimiters for sarcastic speech, declarative and inquisitive respectively. I find it a good solution for use on the internet.

Posted by: Jared | March 31, 2009 12:48 AM

Thanks PZ, and Dr^2 Blackford, are you also one of the lingually bifurcated?

Posted by: David | March 31, 2009 1:17 AM

Haha, wow, I kept reading through that essay getting more and more infuriated until I finally realized it was sarcastic. Poe's Law makes another appearance.

Yeh, I just got trolled hard. Q_Q

#10

Posted by: Daniel M | March 31, 2009 1:52 AM

wow, I was gnashing my teeth one second and going "wait, what?" the second.

I have to proclaim him Master of Poe

#11

Posted by: Geoff | March 31, 2009 1:54 AM

Matthew Nisbet is my hero. I wish I had hair like his. I'm so jealous he has a PHD in communications and I only have a lousy BA.

I wish I knew as much stuff as Nisbet. He is the Walrus! Koo Koo ka Choo!

#12

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | March 31, 2009 2:24 AM

I suspect that sarcasm is unethical, but I need to conduct a focus group to make sure.

#13

Posted by: Sgt. Obvious | March 31, 2009 2:44 AM

PZ, how can you criticize Matthew Nisbet? He's been a good friend of mine ever since we went to the same prestigious preschool together, which shall remain nameless, but I promise it's a big deal. Besides, he's done more for science than you ever did. It's not like you've ever won Humanist of the Year or anything.

#14

Posted by: Brian | March 31, 2009 3:58 AM

I'm pretty sure we can conclude that this entire blog is unethical, and possibly even Seed Magazine as accessories.

#15

Posted by: Logicel | March 31, 2009 4:54 AM

Nisbet is unethical both in direct practice and also indirectly, as he enables unethical people.

However, I sure would like to get the patent on his invisible hair net.

#16

Posted by: Freidenker | March 31, 2009 5:51 AM

#13

You forgot to mention the camera PZ owes you.

#17

Posted by: XD | March 31, 2009 6:39 AM

Does anyone else think that Matt is like a young Bill Dembski? The sun-like glow of his ego blinds him from seeing his incompetence.

#18

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | March 31, 2009 7:41 AM

Obviously, education is unethical. Anything beyond a grunt is against dog.

#19

Posted by: Marcus B. | March 31, 2009 8:23 AM

As I've mentioned before I haven't always been reading the comments to these posts, so maybe I'm missing something. Does anyone know why I just read a report about unemployment rates in Germany, in German? I'm honestly confused.

#20

Posted by: Walton | March 31, 2009 8:23 AM

One of the comments resonated with me:

I have been researching Buddhism recently, and I was quite surprised to come across a statement that was supposedly made by the Buddha, which said basically that public statements of faith are political acts, and are not deserving of respect. This idea has been around for millenia, yet seems to have been largely forgotten in Western societies. Public declarations of membership of a faith are, said the Buddha (allegedly) equivalent to declarations of membership of a political party. No-one complains about evidence undermining the policies of a particular political group. We don't "frame" ideas so as to avoid offending the opposition.

I think this is exactly right. If a person publicly declares their membership in a political party, I don't question their right to do so - but I do feel free to criticise and to judge them for it. If a person expresses public support for the Communist Party, or the Nazi Party, I will tell them that they are wrong.

Exactly the same attitude should be applied to membership in a religious group. Vapid, mealy-mouthed exhortations to "respect all religions" are not helpful; they seek a kind of uncritical "respect" for religious ideas which we would not give to any other kind of idea. When the Catholic Church announces that condoms do not help in the fight against HIV/AIDS, we should stand up and point out that they are wrong. When a religious group asserts that dinosaurs walked the earth with humans and that the Earth was created in 4004 BC, we should stand up and tell them that they are wrong. "Respecting" religious beliefs is all very well when those beliefs remain private and personal; but when they are announced and promoted in a bid to influence public policy and social behaviour, they are everyone's concern and we are morally entitled to criticise them.

#21

Posted by: Auraboy | March 31, 2009 8:27 AM

Ah yes, the unethical attempt to point out the bleeding obvious. Hell, if we're going to misuse 'ethics' we might as well not hold back, let's go for 'illegal'. That's better. Dawkins is breaking the LAW!! Hmm...how about a warcrime? Thoughtcrime? Incitement to...er...people's unjustified paranoid ranting? Hmm.

As ever, a well written takedown Doctor Doctor. It's only a shame so few people can recognise sarcasm anymore. It is practically unethical.

#22

Posted by: Colonel Molerat | March 31, 2009 8:42 AM

THREAD DE-RAIL!
Sorry, but I couldn't think of another way to introduce this to the rest of the Pharynguloid hordes...

I noticed a small 'Case for Evolution' Facebook group on a debate between creationists and theistic evolutionary theory believers (can I make this the one time it's acceptable to say 'evolutionist'? Theistic evolutionist is less of a mouthful.)
It's only got two members, and I'm unsure of their religious persuasion, so I thought I'd publicise it here and on the RichardDawkins.net forums, in case lots of Christian apologetics join. I don't want to a minority atheist...
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=32729531595

Sorry for the derail! To try to get back on topic:
Science is unethical? Well, I supposed it does mandate the beating of children, raping of women and stoning of gays.
Remember when Darwin said:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword"
That was Darwin, right?

#23

Posted by: www.10ch.org | March 31, 2009 8:53 AM

Obviously, the "scientific establishment" is meant to be a political machine.

#24

Posted by: KI | March 31, 2009 9:13 AM

Walton, you're going Buddhist on us? Careful, my boy, you might start smiling, laughing and dancing around the house, not to mention acquiring a taste for pork products.

#25

Posted by: Joel | March 31, 2009 9:14 AM

Great piece, I'm in awe at his ability to deftly smack down a fool.

#26

Posted by: mikeg | March 31, 2009 9:29 AM

@1... (+)= sarcastic punctuation (i know, not original)

#27

Posted by: Colonel Molerat | March 31, 2009 9:41 AM

Yeah, because everybody knows there's no symbol for sarcasm right now (!)

------

I don't know if that was sarcastic or not. Does (!) count? Did I sound sarcastic?
Either (!) is and I was, or (!) isn't and I wasn't.
I think.

#28

Posted by: Matt Heath | March 31, 2009 9:56 AM

Raivo Pommer's comment reads "Just like me, Dr. Nisbet knows how to get his message out in terms his audience will understand and how not to just people off and make them hate him. Richard Dawkins made Germans unemployed."

#29

Posted by: Felix | March 31, 2009 10:25 AM

It seems that raivo indulges in some sort of dadaistic action art, sort of like DM, only in a non-disturbingly-and-in-desparate-need-of-medication way.

#30

Posted by: Russell Blackford | March 31, 2009 10:34 AM

Matt has now responded in a comment on my blog, so I took the trouble over there to state my position more straightforwardly.

There's also a debate on Jerry Coyne's blog.

#31

Posted by: Bill Dauphin | March 31, 2009 10:41 AM

@18:

Ausgezeichnet!!

What a delightful opportunity to review how much of my long-past high school and college German study I still retain (not a lot, but enough to get the gist).

Aber... was gibt? What does a report about job losses in Germany actually have to do with this thread? Jus' wondrin'....

#32

Posted by: Mozglubov | March 31, 2009 10:49 AM

Thanks to everyone who has replied and suggested sarcastic symbols... I especially enjoyed #28. I'm still not sure if the Colonel was being sarcastic...

#33

Posted by: www.10ch.org | March 31, 2009 11:28 AM

@#33 Mozglubov
I am being sarcastic right now(!)

#34

Posted by: Bryn | March 31, 2009 12:15 PM

Quelle horreur! How dare Dr. Dawkins "give resonance" to something? I don't what that means, but it can't be good. How utterly kind of Mr. Nisbet to try and show us the error of our atheistic ways.

Oh, bravo to "Dr. Dr." Blackford! I love me some well-done sarcasm. I think Mr. Nisbet's strategy could be condensed to a much shorter form--"Shut up and sit in the back of the bus where you belong". I'd like to ask him how well that strategy worked in the past for women, blacks, gays, lesbians.....

#35

Posted by: CalGeorge | March 31, 2009 12:45 PM

Matt: "These organizations have had a long standing position on science and religion that has emphasized compatibility."

Apparently, it's not okay to disagree with "long standing" group think. Matt doesn't seem to like it when people make up their minds for themselves.

"Yet what's still missing is a clear outline of the ethical and normative imperatives that apply to scientists, journalists, and their organizations when actively drawing upon framing to achieve these public engagement goals."

Should scientists who speak out on issues of the day call Matt before giving a talk to make sure that "public engagement goals" are being met? Sounds like Matt thinks it's more important not to offend anyone than to speak honestly and truthfully.

Richard Dawkins and PZ treat people like adults who can think for themselves. Thank goodness for that.

Matt? Who knows what he thinks. He's too busy framing his bloody frames.

#36

Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | March 31, 2009 11:15 PM

actually, #20,

"When the Catholic Church announces that condoms do not help in the fight against HIV/AIDS, we should stand up and point out that they are wrong."

I don't think that is exactly the point. I think its that because the Catholic Church announces that condoms do not help in the fight against HIV/AIDS, when someone professes respect and allegiance to the CC, then we should stand up and point out that they, personally,are wrong for supporting such a hatefull and lying organization.

Further if that person insists they support the church, then we lose respect for that person, as they prove themselves an idiot.

Should we do that? What if someone said they were a member of the New Nazi Party and celebrated Hitler's birthday. Would you lose repect for them then?

#37

Posted by: Cowcakes | April 1, 2009 1:14 AM

#9 Posted by: David | March 31, 2009 1:17 AM

"Haha, wow, I kept reading through that essay getting more and more infuriated until I finally realized it was sarcastic. Poe's Law makes another appearance.

Yeh, I just got trolled hard. Q_Q"

David, You are obviously not Aussie, Kiwi or British ;-) Such a deliciously served plate of sarcasm I've not seen in a while. Brilliant

#38

Posted by: kingfurniture | January 17, 2010 5:56 PM