…and this is a 
There are science crackpots, and then there are journalist crackpots. Suzan Mazur is a strange writer who runs about trying to convince the world that there is going to be a revolution in evolutionary biology…but her sources tend to be fringe figures like Stuart Pivar, or she relies on mangling quotes from people like Massimo Pigliucci or Richard Dawkins. Her theme, as you might guess from her fondness for Pivar, is that structuralist tropes are going to replace genetic/molecular explanations for development.
That is complete nonsense.
Apparently, she reads Pharyngula (hi, Suzan!), where, to her delight, she discovered Vincent Fleury, a fellow crackpot. She scurried off to procure an interview with Fleury, which turns into a weird complaint session about me mixed with boosterism for overhyped flaky science.
Suzan Mazur: PZ Myers, the Howard Stern of sciencebloggers, recently reviewed your paper Clarifying tetrapod embryogenesis, a physicist's point of view, which was published in The European Physical Journal: Applied Physics. It appears Myers is increasingly doing a pas de deux with the physical approach to evolutionary science, trying to reposition himself now that a paradigm shift is afoot. In essence, so he can maybe say, well I knew it all the time.
Last week he praised D'Arcy Thompson and Brian Goodwin, saying he found Goodwin's work "thought-provoking". What is your response to Myers tactics?
Oooh, "the Howard Stern of sciencebloggers"…I'm going to have to renegotiate my contract with Seed so I can get $100 million/year, and once I do, I'll start live-blogging strippers!
As usual, though, Mazur gets the science all wrong. There will be no paradigm shift. I am confident that there will be a gradual integration of more developmental biology into evolutionary theory, a process that is going on right now, but that this will require no radical re-evaluation of theory — evo-devo is exciting and opens up new areas of productive research, but it doesn't turn the world upside-down. It's a specific subset of evolutionary theory, not a replacement. As for structuralism, it has its place, too, and this isn't some sudden ploy by me — you can find me writing about it in 2003 and 2004, for example. Again, it will not replace the molecular/genetic approach to development, but it can supplement it.
Look at this bit of amateur psychologizing:
Vincent Fleury: Well that's fine. But I have a problem with this fellow. He uses a very rhetorical technique. He starts off with some smooth positive statement and then progressively trashes the paper. I'm not so sure it's sincere.
Suzan Mazur: It's his way of saying I love you. He knows he can't maintain his present ground, so he's increasingly introducing the newer evolutionary science, however he can. He projects himself as a bully so he won't look like a sissy when he has no choice but to go with the flow.
There's a simpler explanation than some strange conspiracy theory where all of evolutionary biology is trembling on the verge of collapse and I'm trying to dance on the edge of the avalanche. How about this one: Fleury's paper was very poor. It proposes a mechanism that he does not support with any evidence, and implies that we need to throw out a huge and useful body of knowledge. It was far too long, and larded with superfluous information that he largely ignored in his conclusion. He relied on the fact that he published a paper on biology in a physics journal, where he could bamboozle a body of reviewers with no knowledge of the scientific discipline being discussed.
That's why I trashed the paper — because it deserved to be trashed.
It's really that simple.
And no, Fleury's work does not represent the "flow" of modern biology. It's more like a small stagnant eddy far from the major currents of research. If I were trying to position myself in the vanguard of science, I guarantee you that I wouldn't be trying to cozy up to the likes of Fleury or Pivar or Mazur. That's the crackpot club.
(via Wilkins, who is clearly angling to be my Baba Booey)
Comments
Posted by: Alyson Miers | June 26, 2009 9:45 AM
The Howard Stern of Sciencebloggers.
It's not coherent, but I must say, that kind of moniker takes some colorful thinking. I suspect the Trophy Wife wouldn't take kindly to your liveblogging strippers, but surely some equivalent eccentricity could be arranged.
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
June 26, 2009 9:46 AM
... this will require no radical re-evaluation of theory — evo-devo is exciting and opens up new areas of productive research, but it doesn't turn the world upside-down. It's a specific subset of evolutionary theory, not a replacement.
Exactly! I mean, that was even obvious to me, a mere engineer.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 26, 2009 9:56 AM
I trust you won't forget the automatic spanking machine!
Posted by: Qwerty | June 26, 2009 9:59 AM
PZ's trashing papers for Howard Stern cash reminds me of that Fats Waller WWII song "Get Some Cash for Your Trash." Yes, it's too bad you aren't getting Howard Stern-like cash.
Wow, "increasingly doing a pas de deux" must mean you're also balletic. Who knew? Which ballet company are you going to join?
Posted by: Brian | June 26, 2009 10:04 AM
Why do reporters all seem to believe that they can cover up their gaping ignorance on subject matters by tossing around vivid figures of speech? Do they actually teach this technique in journalism classes, or does it just come naturally?
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | June 26, 2009 10:09 AM
Mazur has been pushing her "it's a revolution" line for a long time, and getting no buyers. It's pathetic, really. "Scoop" has a number of interviews online with fringe biologists.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | June 26, 2009 10:18 AM
Surely the strippers could be covered under a 'Day-of-the-week Metazoan' category.
It's Science, people!
Posted by: Brian | June 26, 2009 10:22 AM
All hail the King of All Science bloggers.
Oh, and Ba Ba Booey!
Posted by: MadScientist
|
June 26, 2009 10:29 AM
I'm beginning to like Pivar's theory that everything evolves from a torus. That would explain why Mazur, Fleury, and even Pivar resemble big fat zeros - and all without saying 'goddidit'!
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 26, 2009 10:34 AM
I'm still amazed at the comments apparently made by Fleury towards the end of the Ontology thread. Incredible! What a prick.
I find it incredible that he feels able to dismiss molecular biology and genetics so easily, by implying that biologists are simply unable to see the bigger, deeper picture.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 26, 2009 10:42 AM
Er - Ontogeny...
Posted by: strangebeasty | June 26, 2009 10:46 AM
Hey, thanks for those links. Sometimes I forget that you used to write about science.
Posted by: Sili
|
June 26, 2009 10:47 AM
I thought you did that already.
Posted by: Kraid | June 26, 2009 10:50 AM
PZ Stern: "Today's guest on the show is Ken Ham."
Ken Ham: "Blargle argle woogle oggle..."
PZ Stern: "Show me your tits."
Posted by: Black Jack Shellac | June 26, 2009 10:53 AM
Wow, the Howard Stern of sciencebloggers. That's gotta be deserving of a t-shirt. Maybe with those fake boobs and nipples and an explanation of why men have them too, in varying degrees of boobiness.
Posted by: dinkum | June 26, 2009 10:58 AM
ERV's already got the "TITS or GTFO" tagline. Have you discussed licensing?
Posted by: Interrobang | June 26, 2009 11:08 AM
PZed could never be Howard Stern.
PZed's too much of a feminist. (Good bloody thing, too.)
Also, you know, our host looks like the adult form of one of those adorable boy archetypes from Norman Rockwell paintings, and that's entirely too wholesome a look for someone like Stern. PZed couldn't look like a depraved, coked-out former bass guitarist from a second-string bar band if he worked at it. And, much as I think he's cute as a little bug's ear, I think he's not built for the sort of long hair and leather pants look. :)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 26, 2009 11:10 AM
But. . . but. . . I thought you were the Don Imus of atheism!
This must be that "multitasking" ability people keep telling me to develop.
Posted by: Ian Menzies | June 26, 2009 11:18 AM
Yes, I too have trouble remembering all the way back to Tuesday. And there's no way I could remember back one week or more for the last few times he reviewed a research paper.Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | June 26, 2009 11:23 AM
PZ, you probably already know this, but for the entertainment of the rest of the pod, did you KNOW that if you go to Suzan Mazur's site and leave a comment, you are likely to end up on a mailing list that will periodically update you with her work in following the 'coming revolution in biology?'
These articles all follow the same pattern, one which (dependent on your point of view) is either hilarious or sad. Mazur's pieces are essentially interview-driven, usually by phone, so she spends the first few paragraphs talking up her subject's credentials, often with a homey observation about some personal interest of the scientist in question. Then the interview proper begins, and within a few paragraphs we get some of the Mazur staples:
"And then it became politically incorrect to question?"
"What machine do you think is at play preventing the media from reporting this? Is it economy-related?"
"So you don’t agree that natural selection is more of a political term than anything else? "
"Do you think that natural selection should be relegated to a less important role in this whole discussion of evolution?"
"This has been claimed to present a direct challenge to Darwinian scenarios for the origin of organismal body plans. What's your take on that?"
"Is it your perspective that we are now witnessing a sea change in evolutionary thinking? "
"More sophisticated evolutionary thinkers are now saying natural selection is not the most important mechanism of evolutionary change."
And so forth. Some times Mazur's subjects quietly demur that they lack expertise to respond to her questions, and sometimes they express their disagreement, upon which Mazur changes tack. Hilariously, Mazur will sometimes lecture her subjects on her imagined new paradigm, as in this interview with the philanthropist David Koch.
Anyway, you can watch this ongoing voyage of self-deception for yourself by getting on Mazur's mailing list.
Posted by: apoLOLgetics | June 26, 2009 11:28 AM
Wow. I don't think they've been reading the same Pharyngula as I have.
Posted by: Foggg | June 26, 2009 11:31 AM
Mazur interviews Scott Gilbert, with some unintentional hilarity:
http://scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0902/S00321.htm
PZ is mentioned. Gilbert tries to slide out from Mazur's "come join the revolution, Great Leader!"
Posted by: Guy Incognito | June 26, 2009 11:31 AM
The Howard Stern of science bloggers? I'll believe it when you get a caphalopod to ride a Sybian.
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 26, 2009 11:34 AM
Could someone give an in-depth, low-level explanation of what this person is talking about, for a lowly classics undergrad with only two semesters of college-level bio? Or provide links to same?
Posted by: Guy Incognito | June 26, 2009 11:36 AM
"Caphalopod"? The one fucking time I don't hit preview...
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 26, 2009 11:38 AM
stubbed my toe on the damn thing this morning
Posted by: Dave Wisker | June 26, 2009 11:44 AM
Richard Lewontin pwned Mazur when she tried to interview him.
Posted by: Fern Fricassee | June 26, 2009 12:02 PM
Ontology capitulates to phychology(1)
(1) see Firesign Theater,
"Industrial Phychology as a guide to
Mental Demangement" 1975
Posted by: XD | June 26, 2009 12:27 PM
That's the most-wrong thing I've read all year.{shakes head violently]
Posted by: Sarah Trachtenberg | June 26, 2009 12:44 PM
If it were for the sake of (real) science, I'd be a stripper blogger any day!
You're better off getting some lesbian wrestlers, though, if you want to really be more like Howard Stern.
PZ, how do you have time for all these thoughtful posts?
Sarah
Posted by: Jim S. | June 26, 2009 12:52 PM
SWM seeking like/simple-minded woman to yell at traffic with.
Likes: Long walks on the beech, reinventing science, dissecting pigeons for fun, saving and testing urine.
Dislikes: The Man, THEY!, sheeple, the theory of relativity.
Must have a PHD or mail order diploma and a healthy distaste for the establishment (whoever I say that is at the time), fluent in technobabble. No fatties.
Posted by: JD | June 26, 2009 12:54 PM
Mazur just got stung by the p to the z to the e to the d (for those brits out there).
Posted by: Kyle | June 26, 2009 1:06 PM
I must say, I attempted to read Wilkin's blog and I found it to be rather poor. I sure hope that the reference to it was in jest.
Posted by: jj | June 26, 2009 1:10 PM
Dumbest of dumb right there... IF there was a legitimate reason to consider a change in theory, any researcher would "reposition" themselves, it's called science. Evidence, that's all that's needed.Posted by: Steven Sullivan | June 26, 2009 1:28 PM
I don't see any references to Fleury or Mazur when I follow the link to John Wilkins's site. Nor when I search that site....am I missing something?
Posted by: tim Rowledge | June 26, 2009 1:55 PM
Sorry folks but it has - like a good lover - gone down. Damned Windows Blue Screen Of Death again. I said we shouldn't have stolen the code from the USS Yorktown! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_(CG-48))Posted by: Greg F. | June 26, 2009 2:03 PM
Maybe I'm a little slow today, but I can't understand why a physics journal would publish a biology paper. Physics deals with vectors, behavior of particles, the flow of space and time, etc. The only life cycles physicists tend to work with are those of astronomical bodies and the only evolution they use is a rhetorical device to describe the formation and growth of planets, stars and galaxies. Fleury's paper is totally irrelevant in this framework.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 26, 2009 2:07 PM
XD:
OK, you realize you've just implicitly admitted to the whole frickin' world that you know what a Sybian is, right?
Ooops... I guess I have too, eh? ;^)
Posted by: Phodopus
|
June 26, 2009 2:32 PM
@37 I wouldn't define physics to be that narrow, and when it comes to physical systems with many degrees of freedom and/or complex interactions which are not exactly solvable any more, the boundaries between physics and neighboring sciences become blurry,. A neural network, for example, can easily by analyzed from a physics point of view, as can ecological systems. But, and this is a real problem, the boundaries to pure woo and esoteric ramblings can also get blurry (Fritjof Capra comes to mind).
Posted by: IceFarmer | June 26, 2009 2:38 PM
The "Howard Stern of science bloggers?" I didn't realize PZ had people riding the Sybian for his blog! Go, PZ! I trust you'll post some streaming video. LOL.
Posted by: Tommy Traddles | June 26, 2009 2:40 PM
"Myers is increasingly doing a pas de deux with the physical approach to evolutionary science, trying to reposition himself now that a paradigm shift is afoot. In essence, so he can maybe say, well I knew it all the time.
Boy, does she have you pegged.
"We knew it all the time". Right ;-)
Only the paradigm shift happened at least a decade ago.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 26, 2009 2:44 PM
Question is, who does that make Bababoey and does he have to wear a mask during the sybian rides?
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 26, 2009 2:57 PM
PZ, are you sure Wilkins isn't the Baba Louie to your Quick Draw McGraw?
Wilkins: I don' thin it's such a good idea Quicks Draw.
PZ: I'll do the thinnin around here, Baba boy; and don' you forget it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 26, 2009 3:07 PM
Doesn't everyone?
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | June 26, 2009 3:25 PM
PZ,
You don't have to take being called a sissy by Suzan Mazur.
That's why we have Phil Plait.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 26, 2009 3:35 PM
Wilkins alerted me by email. He likes to do that, taking a private poke at me now and then.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | June 26, 2009 4:21 PM
You are much more funny, relevant, useful, informative and entertaining than Monsewer Stern. Too bad you can't parlay that into some primo filthy lucre.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 26, 2009 4:38 PM
You can tell Suzan what you think of her work at sznmzr@aol.com
Posted by: Mike Caton | June 26, 2009 5:53 PM
If PZ is Stern, then we need a Baba Booey code we can "shout" in comments to identify each other while we're trolling or POEing or otherwise inflaming creationists. I don't know, "PerZippety" or something.
And speaking of Stern, give the guy his due - how many big media figures have said they're atheists and openly called religion a fairy tale on their shows? He's been doing that since well before the New Atheists came along.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | June 26, 2009 8:14 PM
Bill Dauphin #38
Or, he looked it up ? On ze wabe even ?
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | June 26, 2009 8:18 PM
Aaaaargh, so sorry, pished agane...
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 26, 2009 9:23 PM
the word paradigm has become one of the most badly misused words of all time. I wonder if Mazur even read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions or maybe just picked up the phrase "paradigm shift" from some other idiot. I'm reminded of the Dilbert cartoon in which Dilbert gets his project funded because he used the buzzword "new paradigm" (business writers, sadly, have borrowed from Kuhn, without much good to come of it). Wally pipes up "Hey, my project's a paradigm too!"
After reading this post I imagine all the crackpots gathered in a field somewhere calling out like the "I'm Spartacus" scene:
"MY idea is a Paradigm-shift!"
"No! MY idea is a paradigm-shift!"
[sigh]. If any of them actually bothered to read Kuhn and then could understand him they would not be anywhere nearly as amusing.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 26, 2009 9:45 PM
Sybian what?
"Sybian" is a adjective of origin.
right?
(wait...where's Sybia?...google...oh.)
ah.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | June 27, 2009 12:06 AM
A foot is indeed a paradigm shift if all you have is tentacles.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
June 27, 2009 4:33 AM
@Scott Hatfield: Wow - well, that small sample conclusively demonstrates that no one should waste any time reading Mazur's stuff. No journalist with any self-respect could ever ask such a chain of loaded questions. She's definitely Fox material.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 27, 2009 7:55 AM
From Mazur's interview with Fleury:
English isn't Fleury's native tongue and he may not be aware the term "help a fellow hang himself" does not actually refer to assisted suicide. But it doesn't say much for Mazur that she let this comment slide through. She should know better. Unless she just took it to be another sneer at PZ.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 27, 2009 8:14 AM
Himself, isn't that what they call purblindness? ;)
Most English speakers would recognise the allusion, but I'm guessing Mazur doesn't expect much of her readers.
Then again...
Posted by: Claire Binkley | June 27, 2009 8:41 AM
PZ, how do you have time for all these thoughtful posts?
It is the summer..
Posted by: derwood | June 27, 2009 9:29 AM
"PZ,
You don't have to take being called a sissy by Suzan Mazur."
Well, to be fair, Mazur does sort of look like a man...
Posted by: Ed_CO | June 30, 2009 9:16 PM
Not sure why you'd need $100 million/year before you'd start live-blogging strippers. I'd think it could be done for free.