…and this is a 
An important tip to book authors who want to decry the ability of others to engage a consensus: don't alienate the literate, thinking part of your readership yourself. Mooney and Kirshenbaum make much of the fact that those wicked "New Atheists" are going to drive away support for science, a fact not in evidence, but they seem oblivious to the fact that their recommendation to hush up a significant element of the public voice of science is going to alienate us, and it's working to bite them in the ass right now. In other words, Jerry Coyne's review of their book is online.
I'll start with my overall opinion of the book, which is that it is confused, tendentious, evanescent, and preachy. It is a blog post blown up to book length. Yes, there are some useful parts, in particular the emphasis on science communication and the need to reward those who are good at it. But these solutions are hardly new; indeed, I could find little in Unscientific America that has not been said, at length, elsewhere. And what is new—the accusation that scientists, in particular atheist-scientists, are largely responsible for scientific illiteracy—is asserted without proof.
I am still endlessly amazed at how proponents of congenial communication, like Mooney and Nisbet, manage to so consistently piss off the targets of their discussions while trying to appease the people who care least about good science.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Rorschach | July 14, 2009 10:05 AM
I think the kids these days call that "pwned".
Posted by: Bronze Dog | July 14, 2009 10:06 AM
That's certainly my consistent gripe about the "framers": They're so piss-poor at framing. They aren't interested in telling us how to be more effective, just scapegoating us and telling us to shut up.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 14, 2009 10:07 AM
I have to highlight my favorite line from Coyne's review:
Talk about pwnage...
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | July 14, 2009 10:21 AM
This is only PART ONE of the review. Two more parts to go. Oy, this is hard!
Posted by: Rorschach | July 14, 2009 10:23 AM
Well,as PZ said,the gift that keeps on giving...:-)
Posted by: Bjoern Brembs | July 14, 2009 10:24 AM
Maybe one answer is that no matter how much they piss us off, we'll still be scientifically literate. If they piss off the religulous, they'll be even less likely to try and become literate?Posted by: Porco Dio | July 14, 2009 10:30 AM
don't the names Mooney and Nisbet just shout out that the book will be trite?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 14, 2009 10:36 AM
This book is written by Mooney and Kirshenbaum.
Mooney does not seem to mention Nisbett much these days. They were supposed to be writing a book to explain to us what the framing business was supposed to be all about. Reading between the lines I think Mooney and Nisbett had a big falling out. Quite probably over Nisbett's silly comments about how PZ being banned from Expelled, whilst Richard Dawkins was allowed in, was good PR for Expelled and bad PR for science.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | July 14, 2009 10:37 AM
I've about decided that Mooney has made a conscious choice to emulate the tactics of the Republicans he knows so well -- pick an enemy minority you're pretty sure most people can be led to hate with enough invective, and pound the living hell out of them. The majority will then be on your side AGAINST said targeted minority and you can pass your actual agenda more easily.
It's right out of the Republican Party "Brown People Are Scary" Playbook.
Posted by: Rev Matt | July 14, 2009 10:39 AM
Don't be amazed that they constantly cater to the anti-intellectual strain of the population. Their history demonstrates that they value popularity over all else, and if that means deferring to religious authority when said authority demands it then so be it.
"Effectively and accurately communicate science that is approved by the church to the general public." That will sure do a lot of good.
Posted by: Ike Solem | July 14, 2009 10:55 AM
What would one expect from a scientifically literate public?
Severe skepticism about claims made by pharmaceutical and fossil fuel lobbyists, for example?
Disgust with the extent that academics has prostituted itself to the public relations industry?
In fact, a scientifically literate public might suddenly start thinking that the American academic system has become something farcical, the equivalent of the kind of system that controlled academics in 1930s Germany, or in the Soviet Union under Lysenko.
This is in fact true. Academic freedom and scientific integrity now are secondary concerns; the primary concerns for most academic administrators now revolve around securing corporate financing, extending public-private partnerships, and maximizing patent-related income.
A scientifically literate public would not be influenced by advertising, either, but would rather judge the claims made by Pfizer, etc. on rational rather than emotional grounds - something that advertisers don't like to think about.
For the general public, the real value of science and math is that it allows them to sort out and judge the various claims made by government and corporate officials - for example,
1) Does burning fossil fuel increase atmospheric CO2 and raise the global temperature? (Yes - the only questions involve how hot and how fast)
2) Can you replace all fossil fuels with renewable energy sources like solar and wind (Yes - it's technically feasible but requires a lot of infrastructure investment)
3) Does tobacco cause cancer and asthma? Do diesel fuel emissions do the same? How about agricultural pesticides and herbicides? What about residues from manufactured products, etc.? (Yes - the only questions involve exposure levels and individual sensitivities)
All of the above conclusions are based on experiment and observation, but they tend to be suppressed in media and academics due to the increasing control of institutions by conglomerated corporate interests.
It's not so different from the story of how IG Farben teamed up with the Nazis in the 1930s, or of how Lysenko used his connections with Stalin to enforce his own curious views on genetics. Any book on the state of science in the U.S. that glosses over these facts is not to be trusted.
Your scientific integrity or your career - which is it going to be? That's the question that many scientists have had to face over the past several decades. The fact that so many have chosen the path of financial reward over that of science is the real reason for public distrust of many scientific claims, much as the public distrusted the snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century.
Posted by: Scrabcake | July 14, 2009 10:56 AM
It's kind of like how a lot of Democrats feel the need to pander to the socially conservative or to at least tone down the rhetoric in fear of offending them. "Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman". "Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare." Guess what, dems? The social conservatives wouldn't like you if you were serving cigars to Jesus, so cheese off your base to appeal to them? Ditto the mormons trying to get in on the fundy hoedown.
Tangential rant aside, it is true that Mooney and Kirschenbaum have moved towards alienating a good part of the choir. The book is only going to be of interest to scientists and people who are already interested in scientific literacy. Those are the people who the message is going to be going to. A petty rant against an internet rival trivializes any message the book might have to these people who will see chapter 8 for what it is. The other part of the equation, the scientifically illiterate public probably isn't going to read it...they just aren't interested.
This seems like future yardsale fodder along with other books that serve the purpose of letting people with a certain point of view pat themselves on the back and do nothing productive to get a message out of that small circle in order to deal with problems.
PZ, you seem to be rather caught up in chapter 8, and you come off as being offended and letting that blind you to the message of the rest of the book. This is totally understandable, but you might want to dissect the whole book logically if the message that you're trying to convey is that the book is wrong and not that you're upset that the book attacked you.
Posted by: Lotharloo | July 14, 2009 10:59 AM
To be honest, I like Naomi Oreskes' view. She believes that scientists were unscientific in dealing with the general public. She argues that scientists determined that the public is ignorant of many scientific facts and thus assumed it will be fixed by throwing science at public. But on the other hand, the opponents (e.g., the anti-climate change group) experimented with various forms of propaganda to see which one works the best.
The point is, scientists must also approach this from a scientific point of view. Maybe just writing books is not enough; maybe the science camp needs nice looking slogans, banners, short local TV, newspaper commercials. To assume that those things do not work without any evidence or trial is unscientific.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 14, 2009 11:00 AM
Chris M & Sheryl K think (if I understand correctly) that the cause of scientific illiteracy is a lack of access to scientific knowledge. PZ (and J. Coyne, it seems) thinks that it is rather the result of the active fight of some groups and opinion currents against science, which is much closer to the truth. But I think we shouldn't forget a third aspect. Many people (in the US and elsewhere) are not anti-science, but rather indifferent to science. Science is complicated, it's high-brow and it's boring. The medias, especially TV, thrive on the idea that what's boring is useless, that "culture" is a rude word, and that immediate dumb fun is a much better thing. Of course, it's not just a worldview, it's a specific aspect of some commercial interests. Actually, the latest discoveries of biology are much more fun that the latest antics of Britney Spears; but if you want to sell more copy with the former than with the latter, you have to work harder. That's what it seems to me anyway.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 14, 2009 11:10 AM
I'm loving the fact that the posters at the Discover comment section most emphatically critical of the "new" and "militant" atheists are the most stridently obnoxious purveyors of argument by assertion to be seen in the whole conversation.
With enemies like these and The Catholic League, PZ, you know you are fighting the good fight.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2009 11:14 AM
Cross-post from Coyne's blog:
Posted by: Scrabcake | July 14, 2009 11:15 AM
Oooo. Screw this petrie dish stuff! I want my kids to be part *puma*. Where do I sign up?!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 14, 2009 11:17 AM
I'm behind on my comments reading, so forgive me if someone's already mentioned this. Also, it's a bit OT relative to the book itself, but directly relevant to the subject of why polite complacency is an inappropriate response to religious nutbaggery:
Consider Texas: Reactionary revisionist religion-promotion... it's not just for science anymore!
[sigh] I used to be somewhat proud to have grown up in Texas, but this version of Texas looks backwards even compared to what I lived through in the 60s and 70s.
Posted by: Scrabcake | July 14, 2009 11:22 AM
I'm sorry! 17 was supposed to go to the manimal thread. And Matthew, TL;DR AND SPAM. You win a prize.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 14, 2009 11:24 AM
Oh, and this just in: <GarretMorris>Michelle Bachmann is still crazy!</GarretMorris>
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 14, 2009 11:24 AM
Oh, and this just in: <GarretMorris>Michelle Bachmann is still crazy!</GarretMorris>
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 14, 2009 11:29 AM
OK, now that's just weird!
I swear I didn't post twice. I did the very same wait-for-the-error-message; hit-"Back"; hit-"Refresh" routine I always do; I can't imagine why it led to a double post. Is this the upgrade we've been promised?
Posted by: rob | July 14, 2009 11:30 AM
Matthew Tripp: seriously deranged, or just a link spammer? Whatever; that post should qualify for a spot in the dungeon.
Posted by: eddie | July 14, 2009 11:30 AM
Re Lotharloo @13
Good point, both Naomi's and yours.
I hope that the internet, routing round the old gatekeepers, can be seen and used as part of that approach, as can be the various groups for excellence in science education, such as vhutcison in OK. Other groups highlighted here, the atheist support groups are getting involved but, despite having membership with diverse interests, this will be criticised as 'bad framing'.
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 14, 2009 11:31 AM
Bill Dauphin, OM,
It was only a matter of time. It's been said before at Pharyngula, but it bears repeating: the attacks on science are just one thrust of the True Believers(tm). That's why artists, historians, musicians, creative writers, administrators, lawyers, the medical community - people in general - all have a vested interest in the science-not-superstition fight. The self-righteously superstitious aren't just coming for the United States' science classrooms, but all its classrooms.
(Incidentally, I gather you knew this already; my point was not posited as some illumination you did not already have, rather only as a supportive voice alongside the warning you bring.)
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
July 14, 2009 11:38 AM
To sum up what others have said: the problem isn't atheism, the Cool Hand Luke Effect, or anything scientists have or haven't done.
The problem is general apathy, and the fact that science is often inconvenient to religious beliefs or short-term financial gain, which provides an incentive for rich folks to dilute science and confuse the apathetic masses with bullshit.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 14, 2009 11:39 AM
Has le Marquis de Coiffure weighed in on the book yet? And how swooney was Mooney about the praise and lack of bad words?
I'm almost tempted to go look, but I don't want to defile my browser history. (Though it does deserve a good whacking, actually. Let's just say I'm no longer an unconditional Opera fanboi.)
Posted by: J.J.E. | July 14, 2009 11:44 AM
Wow, an unforced Godwin before lunch. Isn't it awfully early for that in the U.S.?
Posted by: SLC | July 14, 2009 11:45 AM
Re Gingerbaker
Consider that the most ardent supporters of the Mooney/Kirshenbaum position are the fucking assholes Kwok and McCarthy. With supporters like these, the Bobbsey twins don't need any opponents.
Posted by: Benny the Icepick | July 14, 2009 11:50 AM
*yawn*
tl;dr version: two camps with the same goals in mind differ in opinion on how to achieve said ends. Bickering ensues, much to the general ennui of the populace.
Dear PZ: They wrote a book. Sure, it was a stupid book. Yes, they said mean things about you and your buddies. We get it. This has to be the most anticlimactic and unexciting Battle of the Nerd Titans that ever existed. You both have differences of opinion, and disagree on philosophical positions regarding the enlightenment of the masses. You're both too intelligent and too stubborn to back down. There will be a stalemate, and everyone's fans will eventually forget it ever happened.
Get over it.
Posted by: J.D. | July 14, 2009 11:51 AM
Christophe Thill said:
Uhh, methinks you're doin it wrong.
Science is as exciting as it gets when its presented right, not boring at all. I've always said that nature as it is is infinitely more fascinating and fantastic than what humans have tried to imagine it to be. Young children all see that, somewhere their natural curiosity gets burned out of a lot of them (in some cases religion would have something to do with that). For some of us it never goes away though...
Posted by: J.D. | July 14, 2009 11:59 AM
Christophe Thill said:
Uhh, methinks you're doin it wrong.
Science is as exciting as it gets when its presented right, not boring at all. I've always said that nature as it is is infinitely more fascinating and fantastic than what humans have tried to imagine it to be. Young children all see that, somewhere their natural curiosity gets burned out of a lot of them (in some cases religion would have something to do with that). For some of us it never goes away though...
Posted by: J.J.E. | July 14, 2009 11:59 AM
You wanna know what's REALLY boring? Try football or soccer or any sport. You know, hours spent running, doing drills, reading play manuals, reviewing video of the opponents, frame-by-frame, hours in the weight room. I mean, complete monotony. And for all that, only a tiny miniscule proportion involving a few games a season is actually even potentially watchable, and much of that fails to satisfy. Pshaw. I doubt the media could sell something so boring.
Posted by: tsg | July 14, 2009 12:01 PM
Translation: I don't care enough about this issue to understand what it's about, therefore neither should anyone else.
Posted by: Tulse | July 14, 2009 12:09 PM
I don't know of any direct response, but it looks like he's actually taken a somewhat indirect critical shot at the book in his recent review of a review:
This passage seems profoundly disingenuous to me, as it cites the reviewer for promulgating these myths, when the reviewer is simply summarizing the book. It's a rather underhanded way to knock M&K without doing so straightforwardly and explicitly. However, I think it's hard to read that as anything but a definite criticism, which makes me curious as to what happened to the Wonder Twins of Framing, and whether, as many have speculated, there has been a falling out.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 14, 2009 12:15 PM
Fuck the stupid. Future morlocks, is what they are.
Posted by: Paul | July 14, 2009 12:16 PM
This just in, McCarthy is a homosexual. Nothing wrong with that, but it casts his anger at the "uppity atheists" in an interesting light. By all appearances he's so angry because we're not persecuted enough. Posting it here in case anyone wants to reply, him and Kwok are on my "no point in replying to" list at this point.
/sigh
And this is one of the few people on M&K's side. At least once this blog war is over I know The Intersection has no redeeming qualities.
Posted by: Tulse | July 14, 2009 12:17 PM
Some science writer (I don't recall who) once said that the problem clearly isn't that science is complex or involves a lot of numbers and analysis, because huge numbers of people spend a vast amount of time doing complex reasoning and analyzing numbers about their favourite sport. I think that's an extremely useful insight.
Posted by: Kagehi | July 14, 2009 12:18 PM
To #19.. Uh, dude.. Slapping together a lot of words, which are either unconnected, or totally incoherent when used in the same phrase, makes you sound like an idiot, not a genius. But, then, you also like random caps, and conspiracy theory stuff, based on my ***attempt*** at parsing the damn mess, so... you probably need meds more than you need a dictionary or a refresher course in everything from grammar to just plain thinking. Yikes!
Posted by: Patricia, OM
|
July 14, 2009 12:26 PM
Nice to see some of our regulars over at Discover giving them another good smackdown.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 14, 2009 12:38 PM
I haven't had any comments over there censored so far, but this one is still awaiting moderation despite no links or "naughty" words:
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 14, 2009 12:49 PM
Actually, as one who likes to shoot the breeze about baseball from an analytical, more or less Baseball Prospectus point of view, I have to say that this describes a very small minority of sports fans. Most are clueless maroons.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | July 14, 2009 12:51 PM
Tulse (#39)
"Some science writer (I don't recall who) once said that the problem clearly isn't that science is complex or involves a lot of numbers and analysis,because huge numbers of people spend a vast amount of time doing complex reasoning and analyzing numbers about their favourite sport."
I don't buy that, not even slightly. There isn't that much overlap between those numbers and even science. For hundreds of years now science has involved many highly abstract concepts. It's one thing to be able to calculate a pitcher's ERA or recall the score from Superbowl IVX but it's a completely different thing to be able to solve a quadratic equation.
Thing is the great majority of the population has no chance of ever really understanding even Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin let alone Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar or Robert Huber.
Posted by: DLC | July 14, 2009 1:01 PM
#19 : Uh, by any chance were you trying to compete with Timecube?
Posted by: Aaron | July 14, 2009 1:02 PM
Chris Mooney is a hack. Everything I've seen from him would be incredibly dull if it weren't for the fact that he tries to be incendiary and snide. Emphasis on "tries".
Posted by: debaser71 | July 14, 2009 1:12 PM
There are people who need to fall in the middle of an issue in a manner that allows them to push for an agenda. M&K have an agenda that is similar to ours in that it helps promote science. Anyway the tactics they use to do so are in this "fall in the middle" category. M&K are against anti-science nonsense but since they need to always fall in the middle of an issue they have to manfucture an other side. They can't push for their agenda without falling into the middle of it first. They feel as though this gives them the aura of objectiveness. This is where us atheists step in. So IMO it is important to always state that sometimes when there are many sides to an issue, that one side can be right while the other sides are wrong. That the truth doesn't always reside somewhere in the middle. That many times some sides are profoundly wrong.
/rant off
Posted by: CT | July 14, 2009 1:37 PM
Of course, to a scientist, science is fun and exciting. Most people are indifferent to it, and concepts that come easily to a trained scientist can be absolutely baffling to the layperson-it requires some active effort to grasp it, and it generally requires interest (or an upcoming exam) to motivate that effort.
@JJE: Of cours, none of that tedious stuff you list is televised, so it doesn't really factor into the 'sizzle' factor of trying to get people interested in it. And the end product is something unpredictable, viscerally exciting (if you like the game), and something that requires no intellectual effort at all to enjoy (you can enjoy your favorite football team regardless of whether you can diagram a blocking scheme or explain the Cover 2 defense to someone).
@Steve@43 Totally agree, plus most sports fans are the most faith-based group of people you'll run into. A thread on your favorite game-day superstition is a guaranteed winner on any message board. Concepts like 'momentum', 'clutch', and 'hot hand' are sacrosanct.
On the larger topic, the notion that someone like PZ, who the overwhelming majority of American have never heard of, or even someone like Dawkins, unknown by a somewhat smaller overwhelming majority of Americans, is dragging down science literacy, is a joke. Maybe I'll poll my class this fall to get a little data on how well known either are. At any rate, most people in this country get their science education nearly entirely in high school, where I imagine there's not a lot of 'New Atheist" dogma allowed. That's the level where we need to do a better job of communicating both enthusiasm for science as well as critical thinking skills-and issues like vaccine denialism and creationism should be directly confronted on their merits.
Posted by: tomh | July 14, 2009 1:43 PM
@ #44 Thing is the great majority of the population has no chance of ever really understanding even Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin
I don't know about Newton but I would disagree about Darwin. I think he's very accessible to anyone with a slight interest in the subject. Now, if you said most people have no interest in understanding Darwin, then I would agree.
Posted by: Tulse | July 14, 2009 1:52 PM
Of course they're not identical skills -- the original writer was just pointing out that there are various activities that the average person passionately engages in that involve very complex relations and detailed analysis, belying the notion that people don't get science because they're mentally lazy.
Posted by: Strangel
|
July 14, 2009 1:55 PM
Bah.. G-money and Kershitbomb can kiss my ass. It wasn't until after I had become an atheist that science evolved into a passion but it was Richard Dawkins that fueled that passion.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 14, 2009 2:02 PM
I'd like to see Jerry Coyne's next book titled "Your Inner Bullshit: A Journey Into the Recorded History Of Insane Religious Bullshit".
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 14, 2009 2:02 PM
Only there's no reason to believe that's true. Actually only a small minority is capable of this, in any context. In the US anyway; perhaps less so in countries with better educational systems.
Posted by: Christophe Thill | July 14, 2009 2:04 PM
#43 "You wanna know what's REALLY boring? Try football or soccer or any sport."
Why, yes, that's a very good remark. My personal tastes say I agree. And objectively, your description is spot on. Still, the medias sell sport news, and their derived products (which club buys which player, love life of players, their drug problems, etc) as thrilling, and science news as boring, except if :
- it involves cancer
- there's a controversy (including manufactured ones, of course)
- it borders on pseudoscience
- and of course all three at the same time (like in "this man says wifi gave him brain tumors!")
That's how things are. Or aren't they ?
Posted by: Anonym | July 14, 2009 2:04 PM
So, one day you wake up and find someone (or two) trying to attach their wagon to your ass.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 14, 2009 2:07 PM
Hoo boy, Silver Fox has re-entered the fray. It's interesting to see how far out there he really is when he gets a bit more comfortable.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 14, 2009 2:10 PM
#46 Aaron:
"Chris Mooney is a hack. Everything I've seen from him would be incredibly dull if it weren't for the fact that he tries to be incendiary and snide. Emphasis on "tries"."
Now, now-- let's give equal time here. What I find interesting is how Kirshenbaum hates the negative stereotypes and attention to appearance given to female scientists (as complained about a while back on a link posted here) and how female scientists aren't taken seriously-- but then her contributions seem to be less about marine biology and more about gushing like a 12-year old girl about kissing:
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2009/02/science_of_kissing.php
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&num=100&q=%22Sheril+Kirshenbaum%22+kissing&aq=f&oq=&aqi=&fp=5lFJmpjL11Q
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 14, 2009 2:17 PM
Heh heh. Here's the title of the article Bill Dauphin, OM linked to in #21 (and 22):
"Bachmann, Poe introduce bill to curb yearly Census survey"
It's just one comma away from explaining SOOOOOO much. :)
Posted by: AdamK | July 14, 2009 2:22 PM
Said the pirate, while polishing his cutlass.
Coyne just keeps getting better and better. Where will it all end?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 14, 2009 2:25 PM
LOL
Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 14, 2009 2:37 PM
Public intellectuals talking past each other... that's novel. It's also surely entertaining for Behe and Ham.
It seems clear (from reading a few snippets and these reviews) that MK wrote an easily digestible book for a specific audience -- mainstreamers who are on the front lines in these early days of the Obama admininstration, people who sit in face to face meetings with paymasters, policy types, science advisors, lobbyists, people in higher levels of academic admin -- it's a very political world. The book looks to have short-term gains in mind -- to equip its audience with breezy cheerful "can-do" platitudes, a shot of adrenalin if you will, that might help them push the pro-science agenda (climate, biotech, evolution education) in a world where power is highly sensitive to not just religious, but also consumerist and greatest-nation sensibilities.
Don't look at the book as a source of anything deep or novel about the human condition, or even for depth about decades-scale aspirations in the American culture wars. If that's what you're after, better find some history or neuroscience.
I'm not saying 'hush'. By all means, point out the weaknesses and express disappointment. But the urge to rein down, in hyper-defensive tones, mountains of fire on their heads makes atheists look weak.
(Also posted on Coyne's site)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 14, 2009 2:52 PM
Schipper- I'm sorry, that's just a really intellectually lazy, High Broderian comment that makes zero effort to engage with the many specific and well-supported criticisms of Mooneybaum. Why did you even bother to type it?
Posted by: FrankC | July 14, 2009 2:53 PM
"The book looks to have short-term gains in mind . . "
Yup. $$$$$$$
Posted by: SEF | July 14, 2009 2:57 PM
@ Marcus Ranum #37:
I think you failed to comprehend properly what the actual roles of the future populations in "The Time Machine" were. The Morlocks would have been more akin to the scientists etc (technological and aware of reality) whereas the Eloi were very much the (religious) sheeple. Though those apparently weren't actually the issues concerning H.G.Wells (if the traveller's class divide hypothesis is supposed to have been an accurate one).
Though, if one removes any suggestion that the Morlocks do know what they're doing, then scientists don't exist in the future at all and the divide looks more like the privileged politicians and religious leaders of any flavour (rethuglicans and dimocrats etc having come to some accommodationist arrangement) stashed in their underground bunkers still preying on the overland religious sheeple who have been carefully kept ignorant.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 14, 2009 3:07 PM
Steve/#62,
Count the number of scientists in the U.S.. What is it, in the 100's of thousands? Imagine if 1% of their cognitive bandwidth were devoted to exerting influence towards the goals of the non-supernaturalist side of the culture war in media, government and commerce.
This is a world that could be, but isn't.
As i see it, neither side of the current shouting match is digging very deep.
Posted by: windy | July 14, 2009 3:11 PM
Premise: Learning that a scientist desecrated a cracker will cause many people turn away from science.
Conclusion: We must keep telling people about this cracker incident, by writing about it in a book, and posting about it on the Newsweek web site.
makes sense?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 14, 2009 3:13 PM
Artist Formerly Known as Danio (@58):
Hey! Not my fault! And I apologized anyway!
Yeah, I almost commented on that myself. I'm just waiting for the estimable representative from Minnesota to get involved in some wacky scheme involving someone named Turner, so I can describe her ardor as... ahh, but you can guess the punchline, can't you? ;^)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 14, 2009 3:18 PM
Imagine if you went to your local bookstore and looked at the science shelf. There you'd find any number of excellent and accessible popular science books which busy scientists took time out to write because they want to share their excitement about science with the public.
Imagine if you went to Scienceblogs. There you would find any number of working scientists taking their time to use the Internet to share their excitement about science with the public.
Imagine if you turned on PBS and watched Nova. There you would find...
Imagine if you had something sensible and worthwhile to say. Nah, doesn't look like that's going to happen.
Posted by: Lindsay | July 14, 2009 4:13 PM
"I am still endlessly amazed at how proponents of congenial communication, like Mooney and Nisbet, manage to so consistently piss off the targets of their discussions while trying to appease the people who care least about good science."
I don't know about that... I'm a scientist and an atheist and I get their message. In fact, most of the people I interact with get the message fine too. It actually seems like a certain group of talkative bloggers are the minority on this one.
I think the overall point is completely valid: if you are nice to people, they will like you and what you do more. I don't understand why people here are so against that!
Not that I think that should be taken as "you atheists should shut up!" I don't think I've heard anyone say that or anything close to it. If you're one of the people who think accommodationists are telling you that you should shut up, perhaps you should calm down and stop acting so emotionally!
Posted by: Lindsay | July 14, 2009 4:17 PM
"I am still endlessly amazed at how proponents of congenial communication, like Mooney and Nisbet, manage to so consistently piss off the targets of their discussions while trying to appease the people who care least about good science."
I don't know about that... I'm a scientist and an atheist and I get their message. In fact, most of the people I interact with get the message fine too. It actually seems like a certain group of talkative bloggers are the minority on this one.
I think the overall point is completely valid: if you are nice to people, they will like you and what you do more. I don't understand why people here are so against that!
Not that I think that should be taken as "you atheists should shut up!" I don't think I've heard anyone say that or anything close to it. If you're one of the people who think accommodationists are telling you that you should shut up, perhaps you should calm down and stop acting so emotionally!
Posted by: Mankel | July 14, 2009 4:18 PM
Forgive me as I comment without reading all the comments, so maybe someone said something along the lines of my opinion:
M & K are accusing the scientist of not doing the job that THEY would have to be doing... as other great Scientific Journalists, and Scientists with a "popularizer" hat on are doing right now.
They prefer to tell the "scientist" how badly are they doing part of their job and THEIR job.
Posted by: Carlie | July 14, 2009 4:20 PM
Because there is a certain very vocal, very influential group for whom that is simply not true. Ever hear "love the sinner, hate the sin"? It's a mantra for evangelicals. If, say, a stem cell researcher is quite nice to them, they will be happy to be friends. They might like the stem-cell researcher very much. Why, some of their best friends might be scientists! However, they will still work to legislate against the researcher's entire line of experimentation, and try and force the researcher out of a job, and say on tv that the researcher kills babies. But they still like the researcher, honest! They just don't like what the person does.
Posted by: Mankel | July 14, 2009 4:22 PM
Forgive me as I comment without reading all the comments, so maybe someone said something along the lines of my opinion:
M & K are accusing the scientist of not doing the job that THEY would have to be doing... as other great Scientific Journalists, and Scientists with a "popularizer" hat on are doing right now.
They prefer to tell the "scientist" how badly are they doing part of their job and THEIR job.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 14, 2009 4:30 PM
Imagine if three times a year, a scientist called up a reporter, an editor, a television programmer, a minister, a prominent local businessman, an artist, a musician, a congressional aide, a literature professor, an education professor, or a council member... and said "Hello, I'm Professor so-and-so, and I'd very much like to have lunch some time."
And they'd meet, and trade a bit about their life stories like people often do on airplanes, and the science guy would say, "I want to tell you a little about how scientists came to accept the notion of deep time before Charles Darwin was born" or "You know, I understand that religious people have been reading about Intelligent Design, and I really wanted to take the opportunity to try to explain to you why most of us are unable to take it seriously" or "We are concerned that many high school science teachers don't have a strong science background, and I've been kicking around ideas for a refresher course for biology teachers that I think they'd find really enjoyable and invigorating."
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 14, 2009 4:35 PM
If you really believe that, then you have a lot to learn about human beings and human nature.
Posted by: tsg | July 14, 2009 4:36 PM
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.
If you think this is what the argument is about, you don't understand the problem.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 14, 2009 4:39 PM
Bill Dauphin @67:
I'm guessing such a duo would definitely be taking care of business. In fact, I feel it's safe to predict that we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 14, 2009 4:41 PM
I've just got to have that on a t-shirt!
Posted by: tsg | July 14, 2009 4:42 PM
<Homer>Get to the "workin' overtime" part!</Homer>
Posted by: Taz | July 14, 2009 4:59 PM
At a glance, it seems that everything they say about the American public's scientific illiteracy applies equally well to other academic disciplines, like History. I suppose that's the fault of atheist historians.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 14, 2009 5:00 PM
Lindsay #69 & 70
Cdesign proponentsists don't care how nice, nasty or indifferent you are to them. They'll still push their anti-scientific views as hard as they can.
Folks like Mooney and, especially, Matthew Nisbet have been whining about how "new atheists" are upsetting the downtrodden, persecuted goddists. They have been telling us to STFU. Just because you've never noticed it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.
As for telling us to calm down, why should we? You essentially telling us to STFU. Well, accommodationist, what if we're not going to? What are you going to do, whine at us for expressing our view in a manner you think is unbecoming?
Posted by: frog | July 14, 2009 5:08 PM
Lindsay: I think the overall point is completely valid: if you are nice to people, they will like you and what you do more. I don't understand why people here are so against that!
That's true enough -- if you are nice to a person, they are more likely to be nice to you.
'Cept we're not talking about one person asking another for a favor. We're talking about the social dynamics of mass movements. In that case, you're not activating the ancient monkey dynamics of I give you one banana and you'll later pick my fleas, but the creation of mass frames of reference between anonymous entities. Often then, the biggest prick defines the grounds of communication, and "nice" disappears below the threshold of noise.
Let's put it another way -- in intimate relations, being "honest" trumps "nice", because you have to be able to build a level of confidence in each other's judgment. You're not "nice" to your children or partner -- often you have to be brutally honest, if you expect them to be honest with you.
But if you behave that way as a faculty member, you'll quickly find yourself with the smallest floorspace, the least co-operation, and no grads or post-docs to actually do experiments while you write grant proposals. Forget getting your tenure approved, much less becoming an administrator.
Different contexts -- what is reasonable and moral in one case, is unreasonable (and arguably immoral) in the other. The tones and styles that are the way to play the game as a blog-commenter are different from being a blog-poster, and both are worlds away from how you deal with random strangers face-to-face.
The morality of the Prince is not the morality of the citizen.
Posted by: Lynna | July 14, 2009 5:13 PM
Heard a news story on NPR this morning about research done to see if subjects could withstand suffering or torture for longer periods of time if certain techniques were employed. Turns out that subjects who vent a continual stream of four-letter words can keep their hands in ice water longer.
People subjected to god-botting would be well-advised to use "foul" language. You can stand the torture for longer periods of time without resorting to violence.
Science proves that impolite, rude, foul language serves a good purpose.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 14, 2009 5:16 PM
@Lynna,
Based on my childbirthing experiences, I can corroborate those findings.
Posted by: Lynna | July 14, 2009 5:19 PM
@Jennifer: I'm with you there. Silence increases the pain.
Here's the link to the research story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106588085
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 14, 2009 5:22 PM
Me: Breathe, sweetheart, breathe...you're doing really well!...
Her: SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
Posted by: Aquaria | July 14, 2009 6:12 PM
A film with just dinosaurs running around would never have been so successful (and would never have been made).
Oh for fuck's sake!
Nature TV programs are so enormously popular that we have entire networks devoted to them. Isn't Nature one of the longest running series on PBS?
Jaysus, his tramp mother and cuckold father! Looney's a stupid git if he doesn't understand that people will watch shows about nothing but dinosaurs.
Maybe he wants everything to be like Land Before Time, because he's never gotten over Mom not buying him that stuffed Littlefoot.
Oh, and Looney can still fuck right off.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 14, 2009 6:16 PM
I think the overall point is completely valid: if you are nice to people, they will like you and what you do more. I don't understand why people here are so against that!
You seem to think that the theotards have the same definition of nice as sane people do, which is, "We can discuss ideas, without taking things too personally."
Their idea of nice? "I get to say whatever retarded thing I want, and you can't question it at all. If you dare to speak, I can call you anything I want, and you just have to take it. Your best course of action is to just shut up if I am speaking."
It's always heads I win/tails you lose with theotards.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 14, 2009 6:21 PM
And another thing, Lindsey: Why should I have to tailor my message to appease someone who will distort it, lie about it, and insult it from a well of stupidity, no matter how "nice" I am to them in the process?
By the way, if they have the right to speak mounds of stupid at will, why can't I say what I want how I want it? This is my speaking style? Who the fuck are you to tell me how I have to deal with things in life? If you think you have any right to do that, you, too, can fuck right off.
Once again, I have to use the metaphor of accommodationists thinking we need to bring a casserole to a knife fight.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 14, 2009 8:54 PM
Gee Schipper, maybe we could send them flower and candy, too!
The stupid, it burns.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 14, 2009 8:58 PM
I was trying to find a nice way to say it but the dear Aquaria is not only ahead of me but has knocked all of the chintz and gilt from my meanderings and made a much more suitable response.
*updates toolbox*
Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 14, 2009 11:10 PM
"Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker."
(ee cummings? I forget..)
Steve, I realize that on Pharyngula you get points for sticking to the script. But Scopes was like 90 years ago. It seems to me there could be more reflection about that by scientists, a fairly intelligent demographic.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 14, 2009 11:18 PM
Yes, I'm sure that if we were just a bit nicer, then Ken Ham would go away and the mass indoctrination of children into believing mythic nonsense would stop...The fact of the matter is that no matter how "nice" you are, we are talking about deeply-held beliefs. Should be be nice when the curse of ham is used to invoke racism? What about when the destruction of Sodom is used to suppress homosexuals? Being civil has its place, but it's not going to fix what is broken. Is it really that the big bad evolutonists were mean to Ken Ham as a child or maybe that he has an unwavering faith in biblical literalism? I'm going to guess the latter.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 14, 2009 11:38 PM
What script. I have been posting here for over a year and there isn't one. Strangers, like you, may fallaciously think we do. We do have common interests in science, rationality, and atheism, so there is some commonality. But each of us has a different approach.Here's something to think about. People will keep doing what they are doing until they get a big enough jolt to get their attention, be it a toddler having a tantrum, or a bigot going about hating everyone. Nice and status quo doesn't get the attention, but being loud and noisy does. Once you have their attention, then you can dialog.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 14, 2009 11:52 PM
Ogden Nash? (pre-Google)Posted by: Kseniya | July 14, 2009 11:53 PM
Sometimes, yes, but the response to niceness depends entirely on the temperament and motivations of the responder. There are those who will take your niceness as an opportunity, if not a license, to walk all over you and your needs and goals, and will view your niceness as a sign that it is safe to do so. Should we expect that ideologues like Pat Robertson, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Fred Phelps, Jonathan Wells, James Dobson, Ann Coulter, William Dembski, Andrew Schlafly et al. may begin to see things our way if we are nice to them? I think not.
The fence-sitters are another matter. We get them in here sometimes, and their well-intentioned queries are often mistaken for the opening salvos of standard-issued creationist trolls (not without reason - one bitten, twice shy). Some take offense, others explain their position and stick around long enough to pick up some useful information. It's entirely possible that some of the fence-sitters are put off by the aggressive approach, but one can only guess at what percentage are lost due to rudeness or intellectual aggression, whether real or perceived, particularly when one considers that lurkers outnumber commentors by a wide margin.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 14, 2009 11:55 PM
Yes!
Posted by: articulett | July 14, 2009 11:59 PM
Honest scientists treat theists the same way a theist would treat a member of their family who was drawn into a cult. We treat theists the same way they treat people with conflicting beliefs and harmful superstitions--and for the same reasons.
There is just one truth and lots of stories that people make up to explain that which they don't understand. So far, science is by far the best method we have for determining that one truth...
Being nice to the deluded just encourages their delusions-- I cannot see how being kind to the likes of Ben Stein is likely to help anyone become more scientifically literate.
I advocate respecting the deluded to the same extent they respect those whom they think are deluded. I don't advocate respecting delusions.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 14, 2009 11:59 PM
Neil:
No, Ogden Nash. It's also very reminiscent of the Dorothy Parker style of wit; she and Nash often riffed on the same themes... e.g.:
Parker —
Men seldom make passes
At girls who wear glasses
Nash —
A girl who is bespectacled
She may not get her nectacled
But safety pins and bassinets
Await the girl who fassinets.
BTW... what is this "script" of which you speak? I can't recall another forum at which I've encountered a greater diversity of both opinion and approach among the regulars.
tsg & Danio:
Glad to see my reference @66 (which is to say, my musical taste!) was not as obscure as I feared it might be. You can't say I'm not lookin' out for Number 1! ;^)
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 15, 2009 12:00 AM
Actually, on Pharyngula you get points for sticking it to condescending fucks.Posted by: Kseniya | July 15, 2009 12:11 AM
I think that's a bit harsh, not to mention unwarranted. His track record has been pretty good overall, and his prenisbetian books (The Republican War on Science, Storm World) kinda rocked. Am I wrong?
Posted by: Paul | July 15, 2009 12:14 AM
Your examples are past tense, whereas you were responding to a statement in the present tense. Unscientific America is what Mooney's current endeavor entails, and he sure is doing a bang up job of presenting evidence for his overarching assertions (it's not even an argument) or responding to criticism without resorting to logical fallacy.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 15, 2009 12:17 AM
What point are you trying to make with this?
Yes, it was - but Kitzmiller vs. Dover was, what, four years ago? Why are you telling us the religious got their ass handed to them? We know. Why not try telling them?
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 15, 2009 12:33 AM
"Actually, on Pharyngula you get points for sticking it to condescending fucks."
Heh,
I had a condescending fuck once.
I felt so used and dirty, it was marvelous.
Posted by: Dr. P | July 15, 2009 12:47 AM
Hmmm....so we're collectively so simple we don't really demonstrate the ability to think for ourselves, but you're going to pat us on the backs for being smart little scientists anyway...the sincerity of your post is disarming!(that o.k. PZ? or should I tell him to fuck off? Which colored script is Tuesday?)Posted by: Neil Schipper | July 15, 2009 12:50 AM
#98: yup, thanks.
#99: thanks. I will reflect on this.
#102: Point being, the American science community has known for a long time that woeful ignorance was a threat. In ensuing decades, "science" had significant prestige and money. I think some atheists are in denial about the failure of this community to apply some "science & engineering" to the problem. Check out my #73 (a follow-up to a reply to my #60).
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 15, 2009 12:54 AM
My instructions say on Tuesdays use the green - but I'm in Australia, so it's Wedneday here. Ah, crap! Whose time am I supposed to be going by, yours or mine? Should I be calling the first troll to post on an even comment number a vapid dimwit, or a pissant fucking clown shoe?
Damn, it'd be so much easier if we could just think and comment for ourselves. Just like M&K's open-minded, independent-thinking non-sycophants.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 15, 2009 1:15 AM
Paul:
Oh, right. Tenses! *facepalm*
"Time is nature's way of preventing everything from happening all at once."
Let me get this straight: We don't like what he's doing now, therefore we can (should? must?) define him based solely on what he's doing now. Is that it?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 7:58 AM
Yeah, his earlier stuff does seem to have been much better. Do you think Kirshenbaum has anything to with his change in attitudes rather than just Nisbet ?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 15, 2009 8:09 AM
No, you are.Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 15, 2009 9:15 AM
Sven:
Smug bastard! I knew it pre-Google, too, but I didn't feel the need to brag! ;^)
I only went to the wiki for detail. While I knew the line was from Nash, I actually thought it might have been Dorothy Parker who popularized it, by quoting it. Instead, I learned that Parker and Nash (sounds like a cheap law firm, doesn't it) were just frequently on the same wavelength.
Kseniya:
Neologism of the month!! But enquiring minds want to know: Is it pronounced preniz-BE-shun or PRE-niz-BETTY-un1 or some other way altogether?
1 Please forgive my homemade phonetic spellings; I'm not a trained linguist, and don't know how to do it properly, but I think you can get the point.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 9:25 AM
It is one of the words that is pronounced nothing like it is spelt.
The correct pronunciation is PRE-clueless-dip-shit.
Posted by: Paul | July 15, 2009 11:12 AM
I really don't understand what you're getting at. It's perfectly accurate to call someone what they are instead of what they were. Is there a controversy with this? "Mooney is a hack" doesn't imply he never did anything of worth, it implies his current output is rather subpar.
That's my current guess. Her identifying as an agnostic set off some bells. Mooney identifies as atheist. I could be completely off the rails, but the contrast in self-identification seemed potentially significant.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 11:23 AM
I was not aware Kirshenbaum has identified herself as an agnostic. Last I saw she was refusing to comment on her religious views, or lack of them, at all. Even that made me take notice given the relevance of her views to her repeated (and it has to be said, unsupported) claims that science and religion are compatible.
Posted by: Paul | July 15, 2009 11:27 AM
Agreed, Matt, I had figured her to have some sort of faith. The attribution is from the end of the Newsweek article, which said to the effect of "Chris Mooney is an atheist, Sheril Kirshenbaum is an agnostic Jew,
they fight crimebuy our book!"Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 11:35 AM
I missed that bit at the end of the Newsweek article. To be honest I gave up halfway through.
Posted by: Paul | July 15, 2009 11:56 AM
Review part 3 is up. It sure is a piece of work. They're still framing it as an ideological battle between PZ Myers and the book, instead of treating it as a book review with legitimate criticism shared with the other reviewers. He may not be with Nisbet anymore, but he sure has this framing thing down.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 11:58 AM
Is that the framing as in making shit up and missing the point ?
Posted by: Paul | July 15, 2009 12:00 PM
My favorite excerpts from the new Mooney piece:
Stay classy, Mooney. The sad part is the Pharyngula posters were actually raising the level of discourse on The Intersection. I'd hate to see it when it's only people making strawman attacks and misrepresenting the people they are responding to.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 12:05 PM
Even sadder is the fact that it seems they approve of both Kwak and McCarthy. Kwak who cannot go two comments without telling everyone his bestest ever buddy is Ken Miller, and McCarthy, who is so stupid he cannot even work out when he has been caught out lying about be banned from here.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 12:08 PM
When this whole thing is over all they will have left is Kwok and McCarthy....</shudder>
Posted by: Paul | July 15, 2009 12:09 PM
I must protest! He knew full well he had been caught lying, he just didn't think it was relevant. No sense of intellectual honesty. I consider it worse than stupidity. I tend to dislike him because of his "I'm gay and we faced real persecution, you atheists don't know anything, sit down and shut up" shtick.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 12:13 PM
The could set up a Ménage à Quatre. Kwak could watch Kirshenbaum brushing her teeth and tell her how his bestest ever buddy Ken brushes his teeth the same way.
McCarthy could swear blind to Mooney that he has not eaten the last of the ice cream, whilst the evidence he has is smeared all over his face.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 12:30 PM
LOL!
Kwok:
Posted by: Josh
|
July 15, 2009 12:52 PM
I love commenter "Jon" @ 29. If he were any less accurate he'd be a creationist.
Posted by: Paul | July 15, 2009 6:47 PM
@123
Shortly after that post, Kwok denied reading Pharyngula (well, more specifically, he referred to me mentioning that he is the only troll there that has visited Pharyngula regularly "inane"). You really can't make that stuff up.
Posted by: Ben | July 15, 2009 8:16 PM
Getting back to Coyne's review, I can say for certain it is not the fault of atheist scientests that I stayed scientifically illiterate for so long. Ultimately the choice was my own, but I was heavily influenced by the bastardized version of science I learned from the Bob Jones University Press science textbooks I studied as a kid at a small Christian school. By the time I was twelve I was convinced I knew so much more than all those evil, delusional evolutionary scientists out there. Why go learn from people I thought were dumber than me and involved in a massive conspiracy to suppress the truth?