Pharyngula

Posted by: Chris | July 27, 2009 9:22 AM

#1 WTF?

Posted by: Jerry Coyne | July 27, 2009 9:33 AM

M&K have also responded to my review of their book, and, as expected, they now imply that my review is biased because I'm a New Atheist. This is the way they dismiss all criticism of the book. However, earlier, when I put up a post asking if M&K would take any review I wrote seriously, and not dismiss it on the grounds that I'm an atheist, they said yes, they'd take it seriously.

Posted by: Sara | July 27, 2009 9:35 AM

#3:
I'm not exactly fluent in Chinese, but it looks like a table of contents. With some short message at the top. But, yes, WTF?

The only thing M& K have achieved with the book so far is the perfect reenactment of The Wanker's Guide to the Internet's: Chapter 1, Grudgewanking - So, Somebody Was Making Fun of You on The Internet Their Blog?.

Posted by: Talley | July 27, 2009 9:58 AM

I didn't think The Republican War on Science was a good book at all. It was an incredible idea, but Mooney effed it up by simply tossing a bunch of statistics at the reader in the hope that some of them would stick. He didn't craft a cogent analysis of the overall picture because he assumed the conclusions would be self-evident - a problem that seems endemic among journalists who publish books. Usually they consist merely of a bunch of entertaining anecdotes strung together without any substance.

Worst of all, he rarely addressed possible rebuttals to his arguments (kind of like Unscientific America), and when he did he basically obscured the accusation away through an unctuous parsing of words (again, like Unscientific America). When faced with the accusation that science in general is politicized, and not just by Republicans, he basically said, "Yeah, but the Republicans are EVIL. Vote Democrat!"

I think, PZ, you should fess up to the fact that Mooney is just a shitty journalist.

Posted by: Sara | July 27, 2009 10:12 AM

#10

So, they're the ones telling "New Atheists" to either shut up or communicate science exactly as they say, but we're the ones who are certain our way is the right and only way? Really?

Yes, they are! \o/
I find it rather ironic that for all the importance they ascribe to communication skills, their own are severely lacking. First there was the "PZ Myers was meaaaaaan to us, so we wrote a booook" and also the alienating "our commenters are better than the Pharyngula sheeple, hur, hur, hur!".
Then there was the persecution complex of "everybody quivers in fear at the mere thought of PZ Myers laying a smackdown on them, WE ARE THE ONLY DISSENTERS!1!!!!".
Seriously, M&K need to realise one thing.
The internet? It's not Sparta.

(Seriously, though, this is absolutely ridiculous. Just following their blog makes one stop caring at all what the book was about, and instead point and laugh, laugh, and laugh)

Posted by: G.Shelley | July 27, 2009 10:21 AM

"Indeed, we’re glad it has touched such a nerve in some quarters—to us, this underscores that its critique was much needed."

If someone resorts to "People reviewed it negatively, that proves we were right" they pretty much are admitting they have no real argument.

Posted by: Bob | July 27, 2009 10:27 AM

I've already posted my meta-review and I'll gladly clarify it once I get my hands on a copy of the book, provided I don't have anything decent to read. It doesn't sound like M&K have any actual evidence to support their position that 'New Atheists' are harming science communication nor concrete recommendations beyond what Greta Christina has termed the "Shut Up, That's Why" argument.

What's clear is that M&K are relentless self-promoters, thin-skinned, and more interested in continuing a (losing) blog spat with PZ, et. al. than actually firming up their weak thesis with evidence and dialogue. 'Lack of civility' is a canard; surely they could rephrase whatever criticism is aimed at their thesis, distill out the substantive arguments, and address them (or cut to the chase and address Jerry Coyne's quite civil, clear, and reasonable criticisms.) But they don't seem to want to do that, much preferring fora where they control the message and they don't need to deal with those pesky critics.

Is that polite enough? :P

Posted by: Bill | July 27, 2009 10:36 AM

I read through chapter 7 on a flight to Frankfurt a couple of weeks ago and finished it on the return flight. Aside from the mon-and-apple-pie point that better communication is better than worse communication, which is true in general, not just for scientists, I agree with PZ that the book is pretty light-weight.

I haven’t read Republican War… yet. Should I?

Posted by: Jason Rosenhouse | July 27, 2009 10:46 AM

As is his habit, Jason Rosenhouse has begun a long review of Mooney and Kirshenbaum's book.

The first draft of the post was close to 1000 words longer than what I ended up posting. I'm holding back!

Incidentally, M and K are going to be speaking in Washington DC tomorrow (Tuesday) and I expect to be going to see them. Any message you'd like me to deliver for you?

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | July 27, 2009 10:51 AM

#1 WTF?

Exactly. Which encoding is it even??? I can't get the characters to display! Sure it's supposed to be Chinese, but that doesn't help, none of the available encodings (in IE8) work.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 27, 2009 11:01 AM

Hell, it works okay in Konqueror. Weird that IE is having trouble.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 27, 2009 11:07 AM

we're glad it has touched such a nerve in some quarters—to us, this underscores that its critique was much needed.

I'm having SIZZLE flashbacks! "You didn't like my movie, so you're the kind of ivory-tower elitist I was criticizing!"

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | July 27, 2009 11:08 AM

The magic of Google Translate returned the following whenI submitted the text of #1:

Hello! Communicate your expectations and拙文"maximal symmetry of four-dimensional fluctuations in the evolution of the universe." Hard-line publishing, please look at my blog. Thanks!

By-laws: "the greatest four-dimensional symmetry of the fluctuation evolution of the universe," a summary and outline

Abstract not view the universe, woo, woo dynamic view of the universe is composed of the Department of static
Points, the four-dimensional universe is the largest symmetric static, and its local fluctuation cited
Yu made a concept of evolution and chemical evolution of the structure, based on this reasoning in this article
Yu explained the concept from a series of the evolution of the phenomenon of the sun.

Outline:

1 Introduction

2 zero-sum zero-sum theory and the assumption that
2.1 Einstein's field equations of the limitations of SCHWARZSCHILD
2.2 Einstein's field equations of the amendment
2.3 "dry water" and there is no potential energy of the universe
2.4 The gravitational potential energy and full of negative space-time MINKOWSKI substances
2.5 The principle and zero-zero-sum and assumptions

3 Yu-static and dynamic view of the universe
3.1 Einstein's static universe void of non-contradiction
3.2 under the principle of zero-sum static universe
3.3 The principle of zero-sum view of the dynamics of building
3.4 ΔΡJ is described in a variety of scale expansion of the phenomenon of collapse and static internal variables

4, the structure of the universe evolution
4.1 The collapse time scale.
4.2 The first generation of stars with the microwave background
4.3 hollow sheet structure and the formation of
4.4 Fragmentation sheet structure and evolution of galaxies

5, the chemical evolution of the universe
5.1 "small explosion" on the chemical evolution of galaxies the effects of
5.2 and combining the decision of the chemical evolution of the Milky Way structure and movement
5.3 Cloud Ring metal abundance and helium abundance of the increase in the proportion of
5.4 stars on the interstellar medium of the helium abundance of the impact of
5.5 solar activity on the sun surface helium abundance of the impact of

6 Conclusion

References

Posted by: Sigmund | July 27, 2009 11:23 AM

#24 Blake Stacey said:
I'm having SIZZLE flashbacks! "You didn't like my movie, so you're the kind of ivory-tower elitist I was criticizing!"

I noticed that Randy Olsen is coming out with a new book on the 'framing science' theme entitled 'Don't be such a Scientist'
Unfortunately its not exactly a surprise to find out that the framers view my profession as akin to an insult.
Hey Randy, I've seen Sizzle. Don't be such a film-maker. Please.

Posted by: Paul | July 27, 2009 11:36 AM

I recently read that Kirshenbaum only got a Masters' degree and has focused on communication instead of science. More and more my initial spider sense feeling that he just paired up with her to have "cred" to criticize how academic culture works without actually having to do much research or talk to scientists about it.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 27, 2009 11:42 AM

Incidentally, M and K are going to be speaking in Washington DC tomorrow (Tuesday) and I expect to be going to see them. Any message you'd like me to deliver for you?

Could you ask them just what they mean when they say science and religion are compatible ?

Thye keep saying they are, and they tell us we should not say they are not, but nowhere I can find have they actually bothered to say how science and religion are compatible.

They did post a video of Eugenie Scott saying science and religion are compatible because some scientists are religious but it has got to be more than that. No one argues that you cannot be both religious and do science.

I ask Mooney on his blog. He replied, say it was a fair question but he did not bother answering it. I am beginning to suspect they cannot.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 27, 2009 11:44 AM

I recently read that Kirshenbaum only got a Masters' degree and has focused on communication instead of science. More and more my initial spider sense feeling that he just paired up with her to have "cred" to criticize how academic culture works without actually having to do much research or talk to scientists about it.

I had always assumed she had her doctorate, but only because she is touted as a scientist. Doing an MSc does not expose to you what an academic career in science will be like.

Posted by: AdamK | July 27, 2009 11:52 AM

They did post a video of Eugenie Scott saying science and religion are compatible because some scientists are religious but it has got to be more than that.

But that must end the matter, because to say anything more or to answer further questions would be impolite. Such rudeness--subjectively defined--is, by fiat, a great big wall beyond which inquiry must not venture.

M&K (and Scott, despite her many other virtues) are not involved with science or scholarship, but with polemics, rhetoric, journamalism, lobbying and politics, and have decreed that all arguments must be costrained by those fields.

Posted by: Lynna | July 27, 2009 12:05 PM

I think M&K are mostly guilty of being young -- so sensitive that they think it matters that their feelings are hurt. I do like the fact that they are still thinking about the controversy, even if they haven't responded to all of the criticisms made by Coyne, PZ, and others.

We think these things are true. But they’re vastly different from blaming the “New Atheists” for decades of problems they weren’t even around for–at least not in their current form. And we even say this directly in the book: “Of course, the New Atheists aren’t the origin of the cleft between religious and scientific culture in America–they’re more like a reaction to it” (p. 98).

When was there *not* a cleft between religious and scientific culture (in America as elsewhere)? We'd have to go back at least several centuries to even make a case for religion and science being pretty much one and the same. Atheists like Dawkins are healing a long-standing cleft in the culture -- they're just not doing it according to M&K's prescription. M&K feature Dawkins and PZ as putting explosives under a bridge that's never been built.

And what about that word "culture" -- the use of "culture" to describe both religion and science fosters the idea of equivalence between the two. Both are legitimate "cultures." No, that's not correct. M&K continue to accidentally out themselves as proponents of some sort of equality between religion and science.

One of my Mormon friends who is trying to stay in the LDS Church for the sake of her family, but to simultaneously reduce its influence on her time and money, told me, "I don't think religion should dictate lifestyle or culture." Good luck with that, my friend.

By inserting "in its current form" into the discussion of the cleft between the two cultures, M&K try to bring their point about New Atheists into perspective. In his day, Hobbes's radical political theories upset people mostly because they rejected God as the authority for placing Kings on the throne. Hobbe's reputation for atheism inspired some to burn his books. It was the label "Atheist" (whether correct or not) that ruffled the feathers of the faithful the most. We're back to the 1640s -- and so it has ever been as it is now. An atheist or agnostic or humanist (pick your evil label) creates a great hullabaloo, receives death threats and reminders of hell, then a change to the culture is finally made that turns out to be beneficial to all.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 27, 2009 12:09 PM

From my limited perspective (not having read the book), what seems most untenable in M&K's approach is the notion that the public's view of science can be dramatically and permanently shifted via conscious choices made by scientists. PR's the cure.

Unquestionably, PR matters, and presumably the public could be alienated by certain approaches. Yet society is an autonomous and constantly-evolving entity, not something that can simply be shifted at will. Even if scientists could shift attitudes through better communications skill, it's entirely possible that in the end the public would simply tire of hearing about the "wonders of science," and tune out science so that it would be worse than before.

I mean, what happened to Apollo? There was intense interest, Apollo 11 was huge, and pretty quickly the public thought the moon was a boring bunch of rock and dust, and that other issues mattered more. Interest didn't wane because of poor PR efforts or a pre-Myers "desecrating" a wafer, it just followed a cycle of interest and disinterest. Another odd fact is that the Apollo program was followed (and to some degree, matched) by an upswing in woo, Uri Geller and other such nonsense.

Sagan had a salutory effect, and it would be helpful for scientists to value it better. The idea, though, that Sagan created any kind of golden age of respect for science appears strange, though. Sure, those of us who already cared about science thought it was great, and he presumably did reach some less interested sorts as well. I don't think there's any evidence of any large effect that Sagan had, however, and he himself reduced his effectiveness by overstating some matters, notably nuclear winter and the hopes for alien life.

Realistically, there's no real reason to think that knowledge and appreciation of science will dramatically increase by anyone's efforts. What's perhaps the most likely means of dramatically increasing science interest is by killing off religion, and we know that M&K aren't pushing that angle. I don't see that it's necessarily an effective approach either, mainly because it's not clear that it would work, yet it probably has the greatest chance of permanently shifting attitudes toward science.

The fact is that people get to listen to and heed whatever they want in society, and if they are actually receptive to understand and value science more, they have numerous existing avenues through which they could satisfy their desires. M&K seem to think that there's this great unsatisfied demand for science and for science PR that isn't being fulfilled, when the evidence suggests far more that supply and demand are in pretty good balance at present.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 27, 2009 12:12 PM

by killing off religion, and we know that M&K aren't pushing that angle. I don't see that it's necessarily an effective approach either, mainly because it's not clear that it would work

I mean, that it isn't clear that religion will recede in the face of opposition to it.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 27, 2009 12:15 PM

Religion and science appear to be compatible in the same way as pedophilia and teaching grade school; after all, some people manage to do both...

(I'm going to hell, aren't I)

Heaven for climate, Hell for company.

Posted by: AlanWCan | July 27, 2009 12:42 PM

Posted by: Talley | July 27, 2009 9:58 AM I didn't think The Republican War on Science was a good book at all. It was an incredible idea, but Mooney effed it up by simply tossing a bunch of statistics at the reader in the hope that some of them would stick. He didn't craft a cogent analysis of the overall picture because he assumed the conclusions would be self-evident - a problem that seems endemic among journalists who publish books. Usually they consist merely of a bunch of entertaining anecdotes strung together without any substance.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 27, 2009 12:51 PM

Fair point.

I don't want to judge the quality of a movie I haven't seen; my concern is that if you want advice on marketing, you might be better off going to the people who handled Transformers.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 27, 2009 1:09 PM

M&K are becoming New Media Douchebags, aka NMDs.

Along with yet another example of Dvoraking, (O NOES, HIT COUNTS DROPPING, ANOTHER ARTICLE ON NEW ATHEISTS, ON THE DOUBLE!), they're also pulling a Scoble/Winer/Arringtion:

1) Talk out of your ass

2) Dismiss all criticism as biased, stupid, or they obviously couldn't understand what you were saying.

3) Whine, Whine, WHINE about how mean people are.

If they move true to form, one or both of them will commence to threatening to STOP BLOGGING IF THE MEAN PEOPLE DON'T GO AWAY.

Seriously, this is standard NMD Blogmonkey attention-whoring. I'm only surprised it took this long to infect the science blog community.

Posted by: Lynna | July 27, 2009 2:13 PM

So Mooney said in Time magazine

The only way to remove that block is to show them that science and religion can go together.

No, that's exactly the wrong way to go about it. I guess some people on the cusp of questioning their religion might be temporarily assuaged by seeing the example of Francis Collins still functioning despite massive amounts of cognitive dissonance.

But, for the most part, it's better in the long run to take the approach Dawkins takes: remove the block by slowly chipping away at religion itself. Religion *is* the block. M&K think "the conflict" between religion and science is the block. Wrong.

You can only remove the conflict between religion and science by removing intellectual integrity from the discussion.

Posted by: Ben Sullivan | July 27, 2009 2:21 PM

There's an ongoing misconception among readers of this site about a science news site that I've run for the last seven years. It's called ScienceBlog.com. No 's' on the end. It aggregates press releases from research institutions and hosts science-oriented blogs.

I'd been putting ScienceBlog.com together every day for years before SEED appeared on the scene (really: check the Wayback machine if you don't believe me). When SEED launched ScienceBlogs.com, I asked them to find a different name to avoid marketplace confusion. They declined.

My site, ScienceBlog.com, might not be your cup of tea. No worries; there's a ton of interesting science news to be had elsewhere. But it aggregates and hosts. You can find on there ideas from Nobel laureates, and sometimes others from damaged minds. You can also find some nice give and take on hot button topics. But in fairness to us, we're not responsible for (or endorsers of) the opinions expressed in people's posts.

You can stop reading here, but if it suits your fancy, here's our site disclaimer. Meanwhile, I hope some of you will take a minute or two to drop by. The water's fine and we're nice people.

The opinions expressed by ScienceBlog.com bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of ScienceBlog.com or any employee thereof. ScienceBlog.com is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by site bloggers, commenters, or of the third-party press releases posted on this site. In other words EVERYTHING ON THIS SITE IS LIABLE TO BE INACCURATE EITHER NOW OR AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. As you read the content on this site, keep in mind that science and medicine are moving targets. Advice you get here may cause cause blindness and stigmata, halitosis and loneliness. Generally, it should be ignored. If you're sick, talk to your doctor. Don't rely on what you find here for much of anything beyond entertainment.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 27, 2009 6:23 PM

O.k., I admit it. I'm a pearl-clutching softy who was somewhat shocked by the the incivility when I first came to Pharyngula. Some posters are swarmed like an injured tuna in a shark pool. I found that some deserved it (past trolls returning; the proselytizing posters); sometimes I think new posters should be given a little rope before they are treated like shark bait.......BUT, I kept coming back. And found I usually agreed with the points made by PZ and many of the regulars.
But I do find it rather upsetting that M&K are personally criticizing people like Dawkins & PZ in a book that is being sent out all over the country for review, will have a wide distribution in bookstores, will appear on library shelves and be referenced for years to come. M&K just didn't attack a principle or a movement - they attacked specific people by name.
But they think is is "uncivil" to have their opinions and professional behavior attacked on a blog that most people have never heard of.
I'm sorry, but I think that is a double standard that they think they merit a courtesy they did not extend to PZ, Dawkins & the other New Atheists they criticized by name. (Who, by the way, have not stooped to personal vilification in response.)

Posted by: Paul | July 27, 2009 6:46 PM

@Hypatia's Daughter

It's worse. They actually quote Richard Dawkins out of context and bluntly claim he argues that science disproves God. Dawkins has never been vague on that point, as he clearly states that while there is no evidence of God, science cannot rule out the idea completely. You'd think if you're putting something in print you'll do more research than you would for an off-the-cuff blog post.

And yet, they don't acknowledge this on their site, even after they admit to the error. No, it's buried a hundred posts or so down in a Daily Kos thread.

Personal attacks are silly, but I could see a justification if they at least supported said attacks with evidence. They do not, and they actively misrepresent and lie. In an actual, published literary work. And they're supposed to be on the side of science.

Posted by: tmaxPA | July 27, 2009 7:59 PM

I tried to read The Republican War On Science and was very much disappointed. I'd have to disagree with PZ, Mooney does not know how to put together a good story. He knows how to do research, and he knows how to report well enough; I don't consider him dishonest. He's a good man who's talent doesn't seem to match his ambition. TRWOS was a collection of facts, not a story. There was no over-arching narrative, no clear identification of the dramatis personæ or their background. In short, he managed to uncover all the things we already knew about said War On Science, and I appreciate his doing that, but failed to answer any of the interesting questions that haven't been asked, which might lead to clear identification of individual people and the financing of the most regressive elements in our society. That money comes from somewhere, and someone is in charge of spending it, and I for one would like to know more about the particulars, and would like them to be made public.

But I didn't bother criticizing Mooney or that book until I read the excerpts from this new book, and I can see the parallels. As I said before, it looks to me at this point, like Mooney might well be getting paid himself. Perhaps TRWOS didn't only incidentally miss providing any 'big picture' that would make clear that this isn't a general phenomenon but the result of specific actions on the part of specific people.

I truly find it hard to believe that he would now write a book about how unscientific Americans are, and have the temerity to scoff at the very important and powerful (if sometimes silly-looking) work that New Atheists do in battling against the religious oppression of the public, and STILL not notice that there are powerful and wealthy interests spending large amounts of money purposefully misinforming the public about scientific facts.

Let's get rid of them before worrying about how well scientists are themselves communicating with the public.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 27, 2009 11:09 PM

I'm getting sick of M&K's insistence that it's all the scientists fault, and if scientists did more edutainment and less dry, boring education and mythbusting, everything would be peachy.

we don't need more edutainment, we need more classes on skepticism! I just read an article by Scott Calvin about his class called "Crazy ideas in Physics"; it's basically a class in which a number of "crazy" ideas is researched, presented, peer-reviewed, and otherwise scrutinized by students, and then ranked on a chart for plausibility and honesty. It sounded awesome. we need more skeptics, not more people comfortable with their delusions.

Posted by: Fallsroad | July 27, 2009 11:58 PM

@#50:

If they move true to form, one or both of them will commence to threatening to STOP BLOGGING IF THE MEAN PEOPLE DON'T GO AWAY.

This will not happen, as blessed an event it might be.

Their blog isn't about community, but about self-advertising. No matter how mean the comments directed toward them there, here or anywhere else, they'll continue to use it to that end.

Posted by: Paul | July 28, 2009 12:02 AM

Hm, the blockquote should be down to "Thanks for catching this."

Posted by: Jack Mitcham | July 28, 2009 8:58 AM

I'm don't consider myself a "New Atheist" and I read the book yesterday. I have to agree with the review of "mixed, but mostly negative."

There just wasn't much substance to the book. I was able to pick up a couple interesting tidbits of information, and at times it looked like they authors were actually going somewhere, but it always sputtered out. It wasn't a very long read (the last 1/4 of the book or so is just citations), and I was able to finish it cover to cover in under 3 hours (while being distracted).

Again, this is coming from somebody that isn't so abrasive when it comes to religion. I personally think people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are fine for "preaching to the choir," but should stay away from being the public face for atheism.

I "believe in" Dale Carnegie's book "How to Win Friends and Influence People," and I've had some success in bringing some religious people closer to logic. I even got a young-earth creationist (Orthodox Jew) to see that the Earth actually is 4.5 billion years old. Sure, she had to go back to ancient Jewish writings and do some interpretation, but it's a start! If I had taken the brazen approach of "You're a moron," it never would have worked. However, saying "It must be difficult, because you've been brainwashed since birth" worked better.

Of course, even as I say that, I visit this site to laugh at religious nuts (and learn about cephalopods).

So, I guess I'm torn. I enjoy the bombastic nature of the "New Atheists," but I don't believe it's useful for bringing people over to our side.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | July 28, 2009 11:52 AM

kevinj said

hmm, just ventured to the intersection. I can't help but feel sorry for those two since the people they have lining up to support them in the comments appear a tad odd.

You sir are a master of the understatement

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 28, 2009 4:27 PM

He isn't "trying" to "claim"; he states, directly, because it is a fact. The existence of any specific thing, God included, is a scientific question.

From the point of view of religion, God has made a dual reality. Humans live in a world that we can only know through our senses; God exists in a realm that is beyond our senses and we can only know Him when He chooses to interact with our "sensual" world - miracles, communication with prophets, inspired writings, etc, are all interactions with humans in the material world.
It is only these material interactions that we can study. So, No, science cannot study God, per se; but, Yes, science can any objectively study any of His manifestations in the material world.
And His "material manifestations" are all we've got to know anything about God (except for the voices in some believer's heads..........)

Posted by: Lynna | July 29, 2009 1:56 AM

Pat Condell has new video out that makes a lot of good points against appeasement when it comes to religion, and against being polite when it comes to religious practices the discriminate against women. See http://patcondell.com/