Pharyngula

Posted by: jdg | July 7, 2009 8:18 PM

I have a comment and need some advice (maybe PZ could comment?)

I just went to Barnes and Nobles and saw in their science section they had "The Darwin Myth"in that section. I complained to a worker there and they said they don't have any control over this issue. Should I complain to higher management (corporate)? Should I drop it? I'm sure if they had the "God Delusion" in the Bible section, there would be complaints? any help?

Posted by: Ron | July 7, 2009 8:24 PM

"knowing everything sucks" LMAO

Posted by: DaveG | July 7, 2009 8:33 PM

jdg,

Let us know how your appeal to corporate works. I found a book with a suspiciously IDish title in the B&N Science section; the staff said that the publishers pick the books' locations. At home I determined that the Publisher was AIG or the Discotute IIRC.

Posted by: B | July 7, 2009 8:39 PM

jdg, is anyone susceptible to The Darwin Myth going to be browsing the science section on Barnes and Nobles anyway?

Posted by: jdg | July 7, 2009 8:45 PM

---Posted by: DaveG | July 7, 2009 8:33 PM
jdg,

Let us know how your appeal to corporate works. I found a book with a suspiciously IDish title in the B&N Science section; the staff said that the publishers pick the books' locations. At home I determined that the Publisher was AIG or the Discotute IIRC.---

I'm going to contact them hopefully tomorrow, let's see if anything happens. I was hoping that you guys could go check out your local B&N to see if they have it there as well. Maybe if we unify with this complaint we can get the book "The Darwin Myth" in the New Age section instead.

Posted by: jdg | July 7, 2009 8:49 PM

--Posted by: ThorSonofOdin Author Profile Page | July 7, 2009 8:38 PM

Hey number one,
Don't get so worked up. it was probably a customer. I always carry Dawkins' books over to the religion section and hide them like Easter eggs throughout..---

I actually had them scan the book to make sure there was no error in its placement in the "Science" section. The book was indeed labeled for "Science". One B&N worker there had the ignorance of telling me "Well, evolution is just a theory!"

Posted by: JackC | July 7, 2009 8:57 PM

I am starting to sort of live for these things. Is that bad?

Another thing to check for - and remove - while at B&N and all those others - see if the godbots have dropped any little pieces of paper something like "Want the REAL story...?" inside of Origin. I try to scan all the copies I can and yank them.

It's just the way I am.

JC

Posted by: Carlie | July 7, 2009 9:07 PM

Did she accidentally say Jesus instead of Jesse at the beginning? Or is Jesus a character too?

Posted by: Zeno | July 7, 2009 9:28 PM

"Does that include Sunday school?"

Oh, it had better not!

Meanwhile, in real school, I was explaining to my calculus students how proofs should help to illuminate the content of a theorem and make it into something understandable instead of just a fact to memorize. One of my students called out, "But we trust you, prof! Just tell us the truth!"

I replied, "Yeah, that would be great. I can see it now. I would just put the calculus book down on the podium and read excerpts from it: 'For verily I say unto you, a continuous function on a closed interval shall attain both an absolute maximum and an absolute minimum. Amen.'"

The class laughed. "Yeah, like that," they said.

"Sorry," I replied. "This is a math class. We insist on a certain amount of proof and we don't simply take things on faith. Faith is for religion, which would be in trouble if you tried to put in proof."

There was a pregnant pause with widened eyes, then a burst of chuckling and nervous giggles. I went ahead with a proof.

God did not strike me down, by the way.

Posted by: Andyo | July 7, 2009 9:37 PM

Speaking of comedy, I'm on a Mitchell and Webb high right now from the various posts at the scienceblogs and others lately. Check this one out the Good Samaritan story from another perspective: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS_Uvg56U_o

Posted by: Bryan Elliott | July 7, 2009 9:44 PM

Hey, PZ. Would you appear on Mr. Deity if asked? I'm sure they could come up with something involving Lucy and Mr. Deity dithering about whether or not to inform you of His existence.

Posted by: apoLOLgetics | July 7, 2009 10:06 PM

Mr. Deity is the scatman?

Badabba deeeeee dup dup duh-dup duh!

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | July 7, 2009 10:17 PM

@ 1
The term in retail trade I think is "Shelf fee." This is pervasive and not only for book stores. The grocery stores charge for "real estate" in terms of how high (or for "food" aimed at children, low) the shelf and also the position in the aisle (again for children's candy and breakfast cereals - the middle is the higher price because the kid is whining for longer as the parent tries to flee the desired junk food).

You can take a look at The Naked Consumer for more details about how marketers use social and biological science on us. Actual respect for scientific progress in any other application - not so much. Hence the ID in the science section of a bookstore.

Posted by: JiminKy | July 7, 2009 10:29 PM

I'm also an ex-B&Ner, and I can confirm that booksellers have no control over how books are deposited in subject areas. After observing this for some time, I surmised that the descision was being made by someone casually glancing at the title. This led to some very odd placement, since titles are often deceptive. We could fill out a form to "head office" to request a change of subject designation, but any such requests disappeared into the maze of management.

ID books are regularly shelved with science because, to some corporate ignoramus who doesn't really care, it looks science-ish.

Posted by: Notatheist | July 7, 2009 11:35 PM

Here's what I can't figure out about Mr Deity. I have referred religious family members of mine to the site and they love it! Either they don't get the underlying implications of the humor, or I'm missing something. Is this truly a secular group making fun of religion or are we all missing something? There are plenty of comments from believers praising him on both facebook and their own forums as well.

Posted by: Doug Little | July 7, 2009 11:45 PM

Notatheist,

I guess the satire escapes them.

Posted by: SteveM | July 8, 2009 12:05 AM

Carlie, no, it's Mr. Deity that has called Jesus Jesse, by mistake. (In the first episode with Jesus in it, I think.)

I think Jesse is MD's nickname for Jesus, just as Lucy is short for Lucifer. In the first episode, I don't think it was a mistake the MD called him Jesse, I got the impression that Jesus just didn't like it; but then later episodes regularly call him Jesse. (e.g. "The Press Conference")

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 8, 2009 12:21 AM

Curiosity Killed The Cat? Ho! I've Heard That One Before! Ho Ho!
[end Steve Martin]

In other words, Don't Look Ethel!
[end Ray Stevens]

*Award Winning Moment*

Lucy: You know I'm not one to make trouble.

Mr. Diety: Oh, yeah. Tell that to Job.

So, is Lucy the Devil and is Mr. Diety projecting much? Or has there been a subtle role reversal since the last time I paid attention? That's the problem with all these eternal gods and such; they just won't sit still!

Just the sort of thing that makes me powerfully curious. Dangerously curious.

Posted by: Autumn | July 8, 2009 1:35 AM

I got the impression that "Jesse" was the "actor's" name, and he just decided to go method and to be addressed as "Jesus".

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | July 8, 2009 2:18 AM

What really stood out to me here was something taken from The God Delusion. So I went searching and found this blog post about the St. Augustine quote.

It turns out that the quote is taken greatly out of context. St. Augustine was not railing against investigation into nature as being the "disease of curiosity". He was probably speaking of astrology or other useless curiosities as being a disease.

We can excuse Dawkins from some responsibility here because he isn't the one who chopped up the quote, but the original source (Charles Freeman) did little more than what the creationists always do. Even worse, though, he wasn't simply quote mining - he was crafting the quote to work around the given context. It sounds a little Ben Steinian to me.

And before anyone freaks out with assumptions, I'm an atheist who reflects most of PZ's points of view, as it happens. I just also recognize that sometimes atheists can be dishonest, too.

Posted by: Ben | July 8, 2009 3:13 AM

I gotta say it's a little scary. Seems I identify pretty consistently with Lucifer's world view and not so much with Dog's. And who knew (s)he was really a hot babe and not a cloven demon with a bad sunburn! I've pretty much stayed out of the light side/dark side debate until now but I think I'm starting to lean toward the dark side.

Posted by: Felix | July 8, 2009 4:00 AM

Michael Hawkins #39,
I have read the page you linked to, but I cannot agree with the (Christian apologist) author that the Augustine quote is mined. I would go no farther than to say that it has been put together from a relatively large section of text and greatly condensed, which is not good writing style. But that's about it. 'Anthony', the page author, alleges that the passage in Augustine's work is about astrology and commendably provides links and the full text from the original work in translation. Yes, there is mention of astrology there, but it comes after the quote and is grammatically clearly recognizable as a sub-point (sorry my English grammar terminology is next to non-existent). Augustine uses astrology as an example for unhealthy curiosity in nature, not as the main point he was aiming at. Astrology was regarded as a topic of study in his time - he does note that it appears dubiously irrelevant and sacriligeous - but it was not generally regarded as meritless. Augustine clearly states that it his personal distaste that repelled him, not an understanding that astrology (as necromancy) were actually completely superstition-based and pseudoscientific. He cunningly chose two of the more unsavory examples of human investigation to make his point - which appears to stand in just the sense that Freeman and Dawkins quoted.
To me, it appears that Freeman has correctly distilled the sense of Augustine's 'rant', and Dawkins has used it in proper context.

Posted by: windy | July 8, 2009 6:53 AM

...or if I had bothered to refresh the page, I could have just written "what Felix said".

Posted by: Carlie | July 8, 2009 8:09 AM

I hadn't noticed them using the name Jesus before; I only remember referring to Jesse. Never thought of it as a nickname, though.

Posted by: BdN | July 8, 2009 10:31 AM

What Felix and Windy said.

I've read the page to which Michael Hawkins pointed and I fail to see how it shows something different. In fact, the only way to achieve it is using the same sloppy thinking as the author :

"When Augustine does begin to talk about the unhealthy curiosity, the ‘malady of curiosity’ the ‘disease of curiosity,’ the example he gives is of having freak shows. He gives an example of how people will gawk at a mangled body. If Dawkins is mocking Christianity, with Augustine as the one taking the hit, as rejecting curiosity, shall we then presume that the curiosity that Dawkins supports are traveling freak shows and gazing at mangled bodies? Is that the sort of curiosity he has in mind? Or does he perhaps join Augustine in rejecting curiosity in this sense? Hmmmmm? Hmmmmm?"

The author argues that the example Augustine uses gives us a clue about what he means by unhealthy curiosity. It could. But the problem is : it is not a definition of what it is, but a subset used to show how bad it can be, as if I said sexual desires are so bad they can even lead to the rape of children. Does that mean all sexual desire equals rape of children ? I don't think anybody would argue that (except maybe really really delusionnal religious people...). Augustine uses his example to strike the imagination but I hardly see how this means he thought that the only bad curiosity was the one who brought people to freak shows. This would leave out so many other things stanger than that.

Posted by: JackC | July 8, 2009 11:20 AM

Zeno @ 17 - Marvelous!

Yoyo@32 wrote:

Who cares about Michael Jackson!

You are kidding, right? I mean - personally, I will miss future editions of The Beer Hunter, not to mention all his excellent work with Scotch and Bourbon. The man was a prolific writer and wonderful resource. We have lost a genius.

... what's that? There was someone else that died recently.... Same name?? NAH! You can't be serious.

um...

NEVERMIND.

JC

Posted by: jwc | July 8, 2009 12:10 PM

That Lucy is cute.

Posted by: Anthony Horvath | July 8, 2009 2:15 PM

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins, for your reasoned analysis of my post. I am sure that we disagree on a great deal but it is a credit to your integrity that you could see the merit of my contentions.

Now, to the rest of you. ;)

First of all, this attempt to argue that Freeman and Dawkins 'correctly distilled' Augustine's point is really to miss the point. Freeman offered the statement as a direct quote.

Let me use something that Felix wrote to help illustrate:

"I ... agree with the (Christian apologist) author that the Augustine quote is mined. I would go ... farther ... to say that it has been put together from a relatively large section of text and greatly condensed, which is not good writing style. ... 'Anthony', the page author, ... is ... generally regarded as ... cunning..."

Hey, its a direct quote, right? Or is it just 'not good writing style'? Not good writing style? Please.

Allow me to strike a more moderate tone than what is in the original post and submit at least that whatever one might entertain by what Augustine meant, the passage definitely cannot be used to justify the claim that Christians were absolutely against knowledge and learning. Sure, astrology was the astronomy of the day... but he mentions freak shows and gazing at dead bodies, too. Perhaps if one is desperate one might manage to find a way to align Augustine with the 'distilled' version but I think it is fair to ask whether or not anyone would have come to Freeman's 'distillation' in the first place had they approached the text fairly from the beginning.

And for the record, I would just like to point out that I personally highlighted the part of the passage that Windy did as plausibly supporting the 'distillation.' I didn't ignore it, I addressed it.

Thanks all. I don't end up on PZ's blog very often. :)

Posted by: Anthony Horvath | July 8, 2009 5:32 PM

"I didn't say you didn't."

And I didn't say that you said I didn't. However, you did not address my addressing. ;)

This is important, because you said it was anachronistic to condemn Augustine for condemning astrology but it is equally anachronistic to suggest that he was condemning 'curiosity' in the sense ya'll believe is embodied in 'science.' It's pretty unfair to hold him as rejecting a way of thinking that didn't exist for more than a thousand years. He certainly didn't have these modern notions in mind when he wrote, agreed?

Only if what he was rejecting has a parallel in our own society can you be reasonable in making the comparison. For example, as I said in the original post, what if he was really contrasting was gnosticism? Or (again in the original post), he said that he was against "the secrets of nature, which are irrelevant to our lives," but that leaves wide open the very real possibility that he would be FOR the secrets of nature that ARE relevant to our lives.

You quote this in your response to me but even there you don't address this important qualification that Augustine himself includes.

I trust you agree that a great deal of modern science concerns that which is relevant to our lives? I don't suppose you believe that a lot of scientists are pursuing knowledge about irrelevant things just for the sake of knowing them. For example, the mapping of the human genome is a grand accomplishment and certainly constitutes something worth knowing 'for the sake of knowing' but it is not an accident that scientists pursued that with such an investment of resources other than other projects.

Would Augustine have objected to such an endeavor? As Dawkins seems to put it, he certainly would. But this is not supported by the text.

"Right, and many would say that condemning the search of knowledge that is not "of value" is not a good thing."

But it is far from being a slam dunk interpretation, either. We know from the text that Augustine thinks gawking at dead bodies is not 'of value.' I trust that if someone showed up at a car accident scene with popcorn you'd feel some disdain there. I don't suppose you think sorcery or astrology is of much value, either, do you? And yet these are the examples he gives.

For all you know, from the text, there is a great deal of empirical study that he would appreciate.

Moreover, I would wager that even many scientists wouldn't really go in for learning a bunch of worthless things, and scientists will differ over what constitutes 'worthless.' Augustine might have a differing idea of what is worthy, but this can no more be held against him then it can be held against scientists who themselves have different ideas of worth.

For example, I bet there is no one reading this blog who is so interested in knowledge for the mere sake of knowledge that they are interested in coming to my garage and categorizing and counting all the kinds of nails I have. Certainly, nails are well within empirical scrutiny and certainly a scientist could find a great deal to say about them. Nonetheless, I bet we'll find no takers. Why not? Well, there is only one possibility, right? Clearly, scientists today are uninterested in knowledge for the sake of knowledge, right?

How can the number and type of nails in my garage not be OF VALUE? As one who frequently has to use them, the question isn't worthless to me!

Don't you agree that in practice people will in actuality pursue knowledge that does have some sort of perceived value and that they do not invest themselves in petty projects just for the sake of 'knowledge'? Would you also agree that this does not necessarily mean that they aren't curious or uninterested in 'knowledge'?

If so, does that not leave plenty of room for a more charitable interpretation of Augustine's statement? Or are we all just hell bent on labeling Christianity and religion as being anti-science and anti-knowledge? Those damn creationists. They just aren't curious, don't you know. I mean, look at Augustine. What he said might possibly, conceivably, plausibly, be construed to be anti-knowing, and by golly that's all the evidence we need to prop up our caricature of Christians!

Posted by: Canuck | July 8, 2009 8:43 PM

If you pause the video at the right frame and magnify it, the luscious Lucy is reading Dawkins "The God Delusion". Too funny by half.

Posted by: Jeanette | July 9, 2009 1:18 AM

Love the show, but they need a fresh theme song.

Posted by: windy | July 9, 2009 6:52 AM

I mean, look at Augustine. What he said might possibly, conceivably, plausibly, be construed to be anti-knowing, and by golly that's all the evidence we need to prop up our caricature of Christians!

This comes after your second quote:
I go not now to the circus to see a dog coursing a hare; but in the field, if passing, that coursing peradventure will distract me even from some weighty thought, and draw me after it: not that I turn aside the body of my beast, yet still incline my mind thither. And unless Thou, having made me see my infirmity didst speedily admonish me either through the sight itself by some contemplation to rise towards Thee, or altogether to despise and pass it by, I dully stand fixed therein. What, when sitting at home, a lizard catching flies, or a spider entangling them rushing into her nets, oft-times takes my attention? Is the thing different, because they are but small creatures? I go on from them to praise Thee the wonderful Creator and Orderer of all, but this does not first draw my attention. It is one thing to rise quickly, another not to fall. And of such things is my life full; and my one hope is Thy wonderful great mercy.

At the very least, dude had some issues.

Posted by: epawson | July 9, 2009 6:04 PM

"ignorance is bliss... thats why I made the kids as dumb as rocks..." -- Priceless!

Posted by: windy | July 11, 2009 8:41 PM

Thanks for the story :)

****spoiler alert****

I can see how it would be devastating to learn that your origins were as undignified as a cell from some scientist's behind. As opposed to... a cell from his testicles, deposited by his fleshy appendage in the abdominal area of a woman, joined with a cell from the woman, and then some time later squeezed uncomfortably out through her nether parts?

Or, for that matter, a rib?