…and this is a 
Sam Harris wrote an op-ed criticizing Francis Collins' nomination to head the NIH titled "Science is in the details". Now Ken Miller has written a short letter in reply, and I think he would have done well to have heeded that title.
Dr. Collins's sin, despite credentials Mr. Harris calls "impeccable," is that he is a Christian. Mr. Harris is not alone in holding this view. A leading science blogger, also attacking Dr. Collins, demonstrated his own commitment to reasoned dialogue by calling the scientist a "clown" and a "flaming idjit." When reason has such defenders, Heaven help us.
No, that first sentence is completely false. The head of the NIH can be a Christian, a Jew, a Moslem, even an atheist, and it won't disturb us in the slightest. Here's a list of past directors of the NIH; can you identify their faith, their hobbies, their sexual orientation, their favorite kind of music? Do you care? The fact that Collins is a Christian is not a problem at all — we are not interested in narrowing the search pool for science administration to the extent that we exclude the majority of people in this country.
What is disturbing is that Collins is a fervent evangelical believer who inserts his superstition where it doesn't belong, in the execution of his job. James Wyngaarden and Bernadine Healy and Harold Varmus did not do that. I cannot trust him not to Christianize his responsibilities — from reading his book, it is clear that he actually feels a moral obligation to add religious instruction to everything he does. That should bother everyone.
There should be no religious litmus test for the office, but that does not mean that there shouldn't be constraints on how the office should be used — it should not be steered into becoming the National Institutes of Holiness.
Jerry Coyne also makes the point that the tolerance always goes only one way: if the nominee were aggressively atheist…oh, never mind. A person who was as vocal an atheist (or Muslim, or Scientologist, or Hindu) as Collins is a Christian would never even be considered for nomination. The kind of behavior exhibited by Collins on his BioLogos website, if done in service of any other belief than evangelical Christianity, would be a great big waving red flag to anyone vetting the nomination.
As for the rest of Miller's complaint, it is true: I called Collins a "clown" and a "flaming idjit". But that's because I believe in telling the truth.
I did not say those things because Collins is a Christian, but because of the bad science and poor logic he uses in his talks. Those imprecations were inspired by an examination of what he did.
I will repeat what I wrote about the Collins nomination again.
The situation is this: the White House has picked for high office a well-known scientist with a good track record in management who wears clown shoes. Worse, this scientist likes to stroll about with his clown shoes going squeak-squeak-squeak, pointing them out to everyone, and bragging about how red and shiny and gosh-darned big his shoes are, and tut-tutting at the apparent lack of fine fashion sense exhibited by his peers who wear rather less flamboyant footwear.
I would rather Obama had appointed someone who wore practical shoes, and didn't make much of a fuss about them, anyway. And excuse me, but I don't want American science to be represented by a clown.
I stand by that still. It's what I think of the situation.
But notice that nowhere have I or Coyne or Moran or any of the people critical of this choice ever claimed that "Dr. Collins's sin…is that he is a Christian." That's simply a disgraceful lie, one designed to imply false motives and generate an unjustified sympathy for Miller's choice.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Kismet | July 29, 2009 10:24 AM
The "you called me names... I won't listen to you anymore" defense is getting old. And how I hate it, basically any talk with a true believer ends that way. Even if you just point out the obvious.
Posted by: debaser71 | July 29, 2009 10:28 AM
So I'm at the Museum of Natural History in New York city and I go into the evolution section and there's a video playing of Collins, Miller, and Eugeneie Scott all talking about how evolution and religion are not incompatible. How science teaches us about one sort of thing and religion teaches us about other things. Lame lame lame lame lame. I walked out. This was about 6 months ago.
Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 10:37 AM
Miller's just pissed at you and going to take his whining to sympathetic ears. "How dare you mock
meus for compartmentalizing reason/logic as men of science and belief in a magical sky fairy!!"Posted by: daveau
|
July 29, 2009 10:39 AM
They reinterpret everything else to their purposes. This surprises anyone?
Posted by: Sigmund | July 29, 2009 10:40 AM
I do agree with one point of Millers, although the implications of it aren't exactly to Collins intellectual favor.
"The suspicion that Dr. Collins’s faith would lead him to suppress research is sharply contradicted by his administration of the genome project and the profound scientific curiosity that has marked his entire career."
This is after all just another way of saying that Collins demonstrates such a high level of cognitive dissonance that he is able to act in ways completely contradictory to his beliefs without seeing a logical problem (for instance in regards to abortion or stem cell research).
For someone to simultaneously believe in the fall of Adam and Eve AND believe in biological evolution they must have compartmentalizing capabilities of monumental proportions.
Perhaps after he's finished at the NIH he could take over NASA were he would unite everyone behind him by declaring the moon landings to be simultaneously a hoax and to have really happened!
Posted by: Doosh | July 29, 2009 10:45 AM
It is unsurprising that Christian apologists are forever telling us that science cannot address Godidiot questions, that there are non-overlapping magisteria, etc etc. Yet when an assclown like Collins trots around the country doing precisely that -- making idiotic claims about God vis a vis science -- it's perfectly fine.
Suck it, Jesus.
Posted by: Kevpod
|
July 29, 2009 10:53 AM
This will be explosively controversial, but...
As wrong as Ken Miller is about the larger issue, he did get use punctuation correctly in that quote, with the comma and period inside the quotation marks. While you, PZ, got it wrong in your opening graf.
There is something to be said for getting the trivial stuff right, and being able to change minor habits like that.
I know I'll be called a troll and a nazi etc. for pointing this out, but no, I'm just an editor.
Posted by: Susan | July 29, 2009 10:54 AM
Apparently, that's how Miller defines "Christian."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2009 10:54 AM
Kwok will be furiously typing away about this on some other blog somewhere.
Posted by: XD | July 29, 2009 10:54 AM
I don't really think he believes the former. Indeed, from his 2008 talk at UCL, didn't he claim that God gave humans the knowledge of good and evil, i.e., it wasn't Satan who tempted Adam and Eve to take such knowledge from God against his wishes?(urgh, I feel more stupid having had to type that. How can people truly believe such nonsense?)
If I had been in the audience, I would have been very tempted to shout "He's making it all up!".
Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 29, 2009 10:55 AM
All right! PZ has called Miller a liar and Collins a clown.
I'm puttin' on my pajamas, and getting all comfy-snuggly on the couch with some popcorn. This is going to be quite a show!
Posted by: Bob O'H | July 29, 2009 10:56 AM
I must admit I haven't been following this too closely, so can someone provide a link that describes where Collins' theological views cause a conflict with the way he has done science?
Posted by: forgetful | July 29, 2009 11:02 AM
Many apologies for off-topic...
a month or so ago someone posted a link to a youtube
video that basically showed how incredibly simple the earliest
proto-life could have been. I thought it was remarkable,
but I managed to lose the link regardless.
Is there any chance anybody here can recognize the
video despite my vague and not-particularly-helpful description?
Posted by: Kevpod
|
July 29, 2009 11:02 AM
"Get use." See? Even editors need editors.
Posted by: XD | July 29, 2009 11:03 AM
The rest of the English speaking World would disagree with your U.S. perspective.Posted by: Scrabcake | July 29, 2009 11:06 AM
THAT was a good, civil, well-reasoned reply, and provides a good explanation for the name-calling in the prior post. Dr. Miller, if his intentions are honourable, would do well to read it and think on it rather than just cherry-picking through the comments for something colourful to quote. ("See? People who disagree with me are all foul-mouthed assholes! There's no civilized dialog here!")
Posted by: MrFire | July 29, 2009 11:06 AM
These are key points that I hope Miller takes into account next time.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 29, 2009 11:12 AM
No. PZ used a convention which is extremely common among users of non-American English, as well as in technical fields such as computer programming, where precise knowledge of whether a period is part of the quoted material or not is vitally important.
Posted by: co | July 29, 2009 11:20 AM
Indeed. PZ's convention is to not claim that terminus punctuation was included in the actual quote itself, which is eminently reasonable. It's a nicely useable and transparent convention, and it makes clear what was actually written or said.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 29, 2009 11:23 AM
I just wonder: Is the thing that keeps Newton from being a flaming clown idjit the fact that he kept his alchemic and occultic lunacy quiet rather than singing about it?
Posted by: Zeno | July 29, 2009 11:28 AM
Some extremely religious people are opposed to superstition. Did you know that? No, really. Here's a case in point. It's an example of how far compartmentalization can go.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 29, 2009 11:31 AM
And one of his "arguments" for Xianity is essentially that he can't accept the implications of evolution (esp. morally).
He therefore has an actual anti-science bias, in some areas. I'm still not particularly worried that he was appointed (not in favor as such, just not terribly put out), thanks in part to his (pending?) resignation from Biologos, but the idea that there's nothing to worry about from Collins is absurd.
Miller would be rather more acceptable, by contrast.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: sasqwatch | July 29, 2009 11:32 AM
Miller confuseth beliefs and attitudes with actions methinketh.
re: punctuation & editorializing... as has been pointed out before, there's American English, and then there's the English practiced everywhere else in the world. There are also many situations where the punctuation goes outside the quote marks, even in American English. But the editor up above probably knows this, at least somewhere deep down perhaps? Hopefully we don't have another editor hopelessly corrupted by the "The Elements of Style". The previous sentence should be an example of correct punctuation, regardless of type of English used, if my noggin is screwed on correctly this morning.
Posted by: JJR | July 29, 2009 11:33 AM
@20
"Is the thing that keeps Newton from being a flaming clown idjit the fact that he kept his alchemic and occultic lunacy quiet rather than singing about it?"
That, and he was writing at the dawn of the 18th century rather than the 21st. If he were alive and still making those claims today, with all that has been learned since the early 18th century, he *would* (correctly) be regarded as a flaming clown and idjit, too.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 29, 2009 11:37 AM
Not to speak of it being the prevalent convention in other languages (at least now where the quotation marks have come into universal usage, due to word processors).
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 29, 2009 11:42 AM
OK, a blog vs. the NY Times. Which one would you expect to have a paid editor?
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2009 11:42 AM
When reason has such defenders, Heaven help us.
Thanks for the non-sequitur there, Mr. Miller. Time to dig out the quote book of all the defenders of reason who thought religion was idiotic, I guess. Thank you, master of non-sequiturs.
Posted by: stogoe | July 29, 2009 11:43 AM
As has been pointed out, repeatedly, you're completely fucking wrong when you say it's incorrect and you need to fucking stop being a dick.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 29, 2009 11:44 AM
@24
My point is kind of that he really DIDN'T "make those claims." He kept them quiet, so far as I know, presumably because he thought that broadcasting them would damage his scientific credibility. I'm happy to be corrected on that point if it's wrong, so long as my larger point is not missed: No one really cares about the private hobbies of scientists very much, up to and including deranged ideas about undetectable supernatural forces, if their peer-reviewed and for-public-consumption hypotheses and statements agree with objective science. It is precisely the public nature of Collins' fantasy life that casts any suspicion on the man. Take away the guitar and singing, slide shows about God, metaphysical books and website, and what is left is a guy who seems competent and genial. So by all means--take them away. What is then left is not so hard for me to appreciate.
Posted by: charley
|
July 29, 2009 11:45 AM
So closet Christians are OK for the job, but outspoken ones are not? Or is it that we presume Christians innocent (of contaminating science with woo) until proven guilty by their actions and words? Is there some clear criteria?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 29, 2009 11:49 AM
"So closet Christians are OK for the job, but outspoken ones are not? Or is it that we presume Christians innocent (of contaminating science with woo) until proven guilty by their actions and words? Is there some clear criteria?"
Yes. Not confusing their religion with science would be a good one. Collins is on record as doubting that evolution can explain why humans are moral. His doubts come from his religious beliefs, not his scientific understanding. The evolution of morality is no longer regarded as something unexplained by evolutionary biologists although no one claims to know the precise details.
Posted by: SC, OM, Blogmistress | July 29, 2009 11:51 AM
OT:
***HONDURAS UPDATE AT MY BLOG***
http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/07/honduras-update-7-29-09.html
From a letter below, by a Suzanne Hoffman Levin:
Do you really think that's what anyone is remotely suggesting?
Oh, yes. That must be it.
Right. Science would grind to a screeching halt were it not for scientists believing in things for which there is no empirical evidence.
Posted by: Goldenmane | July 29, 2009 11:53 AM
Miller seems to be pushing ever-further into the "fucking nutjob" oeuvre. Pity, really. I quite liked his work at the most recent staging of "The Monkey Trial". You know, the one re-imagined for modern times. He played a great supporting role in that one.
But now he seems to be getting typecast as the schizophrenic/multiple personality guy. Like Central Casting, on being told "we need a fucking fruitloop who has, like, the magical superpower of being able to be completely rational *and* completely fucking nuts *at the same time*... and they just call Miller.
CC are pretty good at their job, though. If you want an insanely expensive barely-functional idiot, they call Keanu. If you want "can play any kind of charismatic crazy" they give you Depp. And if you want "Jack Nicholson", they give you Jack Nicholson.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 11:54 AM
As wrong as Ken Miller is about the larger issue, he did get use punctuation correctly in that quote, with the comma and period inside the quotation marks. While you, PZ, got it wrong in your opening graf.
There is something to be said for getting the trivial stuff right, and being able to change minor habits like that.
Well, maybe you can stop burning carbon and destroying my planet, and all of the 'trivial' lifeforms you depend upon for life, while you're addressing critical scientific issues such as punctuation and the evolution of language, retard.
Maybe, and get this, your astuteness in editing will allow you to come up with the critical physics and engineering breakthroughs that will allow you to stop destroying Earth.
Or even better, maybe you'll start publishing your own works instead of editing the good works of others, for profit.
Do I get to count other people being nice as 'nice posts'?
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2009 11:59 AM
Dr. Collins's sin, despite credentials Mr. Harris calls "impeccable," is that he is a Christian.
And what religion is, oh, say, the president of teh freakin United States? Thank you for yet another brilliant non sequitur, Mr. Miller. You are the master of non sequiturs, that is for sure.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 29, 2009 12:00 PM
Charley, yeah, sort of. I mean, this takes as a given that the science being produced is sound regardless of what is being believed and said. But a clear criteria? I don't know. You tell me. Do we presume Christians guilty of contaminating science with woo regardless of what they say, so that no Christians should be scientists? Look, I'm a no-holds-barred, baptized in the Galapagos, dipped-in-the-blood-of-Giordan-Bruno atheist. I would much prefer that all scientists were capable spokespersons for materialistic, secular science. And I'm not really proposing anything, least of all a criteria--I'm just asking precisely what you are, Charley...does it matter if a Christian (or Jew or Hindu or Muslim or Wiccan) is outspoken? I think it does, because that outspokenness is used by the credulous to promote superstition. But a criteria for how much is too much eludes me--would simply going to a temple also be providing too much (tacit) support for woo? I'm not proposing that it is or isn't. Since you brought up the issue of criteria, perhaps you have a good suggestion.
Posted by: GregB | July 29, 2009 12:03 PM
I would hope that the head of the NIH would recognize when he's commiting a straw man fallacy.
"the sin of being a Christian"
STRAW MAN! We never claimed that was the problem.
Then again, the straw man fallacy is the mainstay of the Christian aplologist. Without logical fallacies and "proof by analogy" Christian aplogist would have no debating tools at all.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 29, 2009 12:04 PM
XD #10,
According to his biologos page about The Fall it certainly doesnt look like he's interpreting it as poetic metaphor.
http://biologos.org/questions/death-before-the-fall/
Posted by: marc | July 29, 2009 12:05 PM
An irony here is that many people here would consider a man like Ken Miller a better pick for precisely what makes him different from Francis Collins. Despite his own religious beliefs, Miller's very popular biology book contains no discussion of deities.
Collins' best known work on science is actually a religious treatise. Subtitling his book "A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" says everything that need be said on his philosophy of science. "Belief," in the religious sense, means "acceptance through faith in the absence of evidence." That seems to indicate that he lacks the reasoning skills to even produce a logical title.
Collins may have done good science in the past, but that doesn't excuse his misuse of science any more than James Watson's Nobel excuses his racist comments.
Posted by: 386sx | July 29, 2009 12:06 PM
Then again, the straw man fallacy is the mainstay of the Christian aplologist.
That, and non sequiturs. Do a Bible search for "therefore" and you'll see why!
Posted by: E.V. | July 29, 2009 12:10 PM
Posted by: Kausik Datta | July 29, 2009 12:10 PM
Just because scientific and environmental issues are very important to us, you think issues of punctuation and evolution of language are not important? Moron.
Let 'Kevpod' be, folks. He wrote in about what he considers his specialty, since he is an editor. Right or wrong as he may be, what's the point in flogging him about it? Let us focus on the subject matter of PZ's post.
As SC pointed out, there are a few other letters in the NYT after Miller's full of ridiculous arguments in favor of Collins. Unfortunately, these letters have already been published in print, and there was no commenting button. Anyone knows how we can send in messages to NYT pressing this issue?
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 29, 2009 12:13 PM
Showing my age here but...
Perry Como was a devout Catholic - and a very popular and technically respected singer and performer. His "Ava Maria" sold millions but so it his "It's Impossible" and "Hot Diggity Dog". My point: Mr. Como was a good singer and a well loved decent man. He had a profession that allowed his faith to come into play. No problems - I enjoy his singing and respect his decency and loyalty to family and friends and his public. He came by his RC devotion honestly. Mr. Como was not idiotic .. he was just an good Italian-American boy of that era.
Mr. Collins does NOT have a profession where he can commingle his faith with it. He cannot come by his faith honestly - he has to be intellectually dishonest (some call that compartmentalization I do not!). He is a scientist - he should know better than to ask others to share his intellectual dishonesty. He should recognize that he does damage to science when even the littlest opening is given to the forces of woo (which all seek to overcome reason with their version of the truth).
If Collins was a Perry Como (which he is NOT musically or by profession) he'd have every right to sing Ava Maria and get teary - and I as an atheist for the beauty and sincerity of his performance may even get teary with him. But he's not - he is a SCIENTIST - and though I think he'll play his cards straight enough in the position he is not necessarily to be trusted. His performances of recent time suggest caution on our part.
Posted by: Geds | July 29, 2009 12:13 PM
Right or wrong as he may be, what's the point in flogging him about it? Let us focus on the subject matter of PZ's post.
Because he shows up and bring that BS up every couple days and is becoming the punctuation equivalent of a creationist apologist?
Also, that very bullshit takes away from the subject matter of PZ's post. So, um, what was your question about again?
Posted by: xebecs | July 29, 2009 12:14 PM
Kevpod: Meanwhile, the rest of us will do the sensible thing with quotations, as did PZ. If you want to get bent out of shape about something, try "tow the line" and "axe you a question".
Posted by: XD | July 29, 2009 12:20 PM
From Sigmund's link (#38):
Now that is some weapon's grade stupid. Personally, I think the "most reasonable interpretation of Scripture" is that it was made up by ignorant goat-herders, largely as a way of controling members of their tribe, and motivating them to kill the people of other tribes.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 29, 2009 12:23 PM
marc #39
"An irony here is that many people here would consider a man like Ken Miller a better pick for precisely what makes him different from Francis Collins. Despite his own religious beliefs, Miller's very popular biology book contains no discussion of deities."
Millers popular books are full of the exact same arguments that Collins employs (fine tuning, morality, excuses for christian miracles etc). Its only in his high school biology book that he doesn't mention God and for fairly obvious constitutional (and probably practical) reasons.
Of the two scientists, however, only Collins has the standing to be head of the NIH. Miller has done nothing of note in the research world compared to Collins and has no personal experience of being either a physician or someone who has run a large government agency in the past.
Personally I don't think Collins will turn out to be too bad. All the focus the non-accomodationists have placed on him should help keep his bio-illogicos tendencies in check while he's in the post. What he does afterwards is up to him and shouldnt concern us.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 29, 2009 12:24 PM
XD,
I presume that is an example of this accomodation we being told so much about. If you are vague and wolley enough no one will ever be able to tell if you are contradicting their views.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 12:25 PM
Just because scientific and environmental issues are very important to us, you think issues of punctuation and evolution of language are not important? Moron.
Actually, no, I don't, and furthermore I feel that as a metazoan I have the right to force language to evolve in any direction I see fit, whenever I see fit, according to my vague and indefinite whims of behavior. Animals glued to a surface of a planet by the immense force of gravity with the need to continually respire and metabolize are like that.
And right now I feel like point out that you idiotic motherfucking ASSHOLE AMERICANS are fucking up my nation, and my planet, with your idiotic ideas about energy conversion, resource development and cosmic evolution.
So fuck off. The sooner the better. And take your Christian punctuation NAZI's with you. Oh shit, I forgot, you are SO FUCKING STUPID you can't even get LEO to orbit launch right.
Ares I. Ahhh hahahaha hahahahahaha heh heh, fucking retards.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 29, 2009 12:36 PM
I s'pose those last three words are just a turn of phrase, but still, how oddly a propos...
(/Heaven's not coming to help, doc. Just in case you're still waiting.)
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 12:37 PM
"I called Collins a 'clown' and a 'flaming idjit' ...because I believe in telling the truth"
No. You said this because you seem to have an unremitting compulsion to insult people.
Look up the word idiot in any dictionary and explain how applying it to Francis Collins is "truth."
And I say this as a scientist and fellow nonbeliever. You should be ashamed, but you don't seem capable of that emotion.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 29, 2009 12:44 PM
Tommy Lee @49-
Isn't that redundant? ;-)
I'm pretty sure that the americans on this site aren't the ones you have a problem with. Or are you over generalizing?
Posted by: heddle | July 29, 2009 12:45 PM
You people would command so much more respect if you just manned up. Instead you take the transparent But really, it's not that, not at all! In fact some of my best friends are black! Honest! It's just that... tactic.
What a bunch of sissies. Miller has you pegged.
Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 12:45 PM
"What is disturbing is that Collins is a fervent evangelical believer who inserts his superstition where it doesn't belong, in the execution of his job."
It has been asked already, but remains unanswered: Is there an available list of these infractions?
39: "'Belief,' in the religious sense, means 'acceptance through faith in the absence of evidence.'"
Do you have a cite for that? The dictionaries I have available to me don't define it that way.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 29, 2009 12:50 PM
You people would command so much more respect if you just manned up. - heddle
What, even the women?
Posted by: Siamang | July 29, 2009 12:50 PM
Dave,
Idjit isn't in the dictionary.
Duh!
Posted by: Tom Morris | July 29, 2009 12:51 PM
Sorry to continue the punctuated distraction:
1. "This sentence contains 37 characters".
Would be corrected by a puntuation-inside-the-quotes editor to:
2. "This sentence contains 37 characters."
The sentence quoted in (2) contains 38 characters while the sentence quoted in (1) does not. The truth value of the sentence can change based on how you quote it.
Another example:
3. To delete the current line in the Vim text editor, type "dd".
Would be edited to say:
4. To delete the current line in the Vim text editor, type "dd."
But typing "dd." in Vim instructs the computer to delete the line the cursor is currently on then the period tells the computer to repeat the last command entered. You would end up deleting two lines rather than one.
Punctuation changes meaning (otherwise, why use it?) - therefore, unless the punctuation isn't in the original, it shouldn't be included inside the quotation. That predominantly American editors and publishers see fit to carry on this ridiculous and irrational tradition is their prerogative. It does change the meaning and the truth value of the text, which is a very good reason to not do it.
As for Collins? I don't think that he'll abuse his post at the NIH, but I do think that the fundamentalists will see his appointment as some kind of justification or talking point. I'm just hoping that Collins might prompt the religious to shift away from creationism towards theistic evolution, which is the first step - at least that puts the creationists out on the nutty wing and enables scientists and evolution advocates to have an easier time defending science evolution. That's the only positive spin I can find.
Posted by: xebecs | July 29, 2009 12:51 PM
heddle:
I don't see how "You do what you want but don't fuck things up for me and mine" compares to "some of my best friends are black".
A significant portion of the problems we face in society today stem from a lack of understanding of science and scientific thinking. When Collins uses his prominent position to encourage unscientific thought, it harms society, and I take that personally.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 12:52 PM
No. You said this because you seem to have an unremitting compulsion to insult people.
And for good reason. Uncloseted Christians were an unmitigated disaster at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in Huntsville, Alabama, and in NASA managerial and administrative positions. They wasted many years and many billions of dollars on the 'Christian Rocket' - Ares I, and set the US back by decades, at a cost which far exceeds their actual quantified dollar value and time wasted on complete engineering stupidity. And you are saying we shouldn't insult these assholes, and shouldn't complain when President Obama is about to make the very same mistake at NIH? Fuck you.
Look up the word idiot in any dictionary
Another idiotic dictionary quoter. How quaint.
Look in the mirror. You will find both an idiot and an asshole, in real life physical illumination and reflection.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 29, 2009 12:52 PM
"It has been asked already, but remains unanswered: Is there an available list of these infractions?"
You mean other than the stuff written by Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne and PZ ? The links are on this blog, so there is no excuse for not finding them.
Posted by: Siamang | July 29, 2009 12:52 PM
Dave,
Urban dictionary has this for "idjit":
"a normal person who does something really outrageous without thinking"
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 29, 2009 12:54 PM
Re #53:
Oh yeah? Well you, Heddle, would command much more respect if... umm...
Okay. Never mind. Actually, I can't seem to think of anything you could do right now.
(/Stopped trolling, wrote a lengthy, funny book entitled 'I was a teenage bride of Christ, but I got better', mebbe...)
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 29, 2009 12:56 PM
OK
1usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2: a foolish or stupid person
Biologos and the talk that spawned the original editorial certainly fall under "foolish person"
Posted by: eddie | July 29, 2009 12:56 PM
Re: Greg Peterson @20
As I understand it, Newton was appointed head of the Mint and, given the knowledge at the time, had to take seriously any perceived threat to the economy that a claim to 'turn base metals into gold' would represent.
Perhaps the historians among us can tell us more about this.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 29, 2009 12:57 PM
Matt Penfold writes:
Collins is on record as doubting that evolution can explain why humans are moral.
(bites his tongue)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 29, 2009 12:57 PM
Why would we want respect from you Heddle ?
Posted by: The Chemist | July 29, 2009 12:58 PM
"...he'll do a competent job in the office. I agree completely. There really are no plans for the godless horde to march on Washington, there will be no effigies burnt, we aren't going to even throw rotten tomatoes at the NIH building. We will sigh and go on."
-From the flaming idjit post.
So what's the problem again? That he has some loony views? There's no evidence it will affect his performance. Of course you'd want someone who shares more of you views in any public office, but everyone wants that.
Yet when Bill Maher has loony ideas, we're supposed to understand that he's part of the fraternity regardless. His cardinal sin is that he's Christian. Granted it's specific brand of Christianity whose followers get really loud, but it's true.
I anticipate the broken analogy complaint. Sure, you could argue Maher's different 'cause he's a comeeedian and therefore of lesser importance. Yet once again, I point out that Collin's beliefs are not likely to severely hamper him, so how he stacks up in terms of public responsibility with Maher is a moot point. I really prefer bringing up some of Hitchens's wackaloon ideas, but t'would definitely be trolling. So I stuck with Maher.
Collin's specific brand of loonyness is beyond your tolerance level, which is frankly not something anyone can really be in control of.
Blech, group dynamics 101. Get over it.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 12:58 PM
"Thomas Lee Elifritz," who doesn't know me from Adam (pun intended), says:
"...Look in the mirror. You will find both an idiot and an asshole, in real life physical illumination and reflection."
How would it be possible to defend myself against such brilliant ad hominem attacks?
I concede.
Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 1:05 PM
60: "You mean other than the stuff written by Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne and PZ ? The links are on this blog, so there is no excuse for not finding them."
Then please, point them out. PZ's charge is as follows: "What is disturbing is that Collins is a fervent evangelical believer who inserts his superstition where it doesn't belong, in the execution of his job." What I find when I read your suggested sources are charges that Collins is "a publicly vociferous evangelical Christian who has made statements that blur the lines between science and faith" (Coyne) and that Collins has made public proclamations that, if taken seriously, violate a program of empirical, naturalistic research (Harris). I'm interested in the specific charge that Collins's beliefs impacted his job performance.
Posted by: The Chemist | July 29, 2009 1:05 PM
@#68
Far be it from me to get into it with either of you, but this is a pet peeve of mine,
It's not an argument, it's an insult. Insults aren't ad hominem because they have nothing to do with the argument. If you call someone a dumbass because they hold a certain idea, they're just insulting you. Respond as you see fit I guess.
If they're telling you your ideas are wrong because you're a dumbass, then it's ad hominem and you can once again-uh respond as you see fit.
Just sayin'
Posted by: co | July 29, 2009 1:09 PM
Re: eddie @64:
Surely Newton took the Mint job so that he'd have access to much of the gold passing through London, and therefore had a chance at collecting the Philosophick Mercury!
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 29, 2009 1:09 PM
Or "should of".
Posted by: Coyote | July 29, 2009 1:11 PM
@71
Too bad Jack Shaftoe made off with it, isn't it?
Posted by: Orac | July 29, 2009 1:14 PM
Oh, please, give me a break. If someone calls you names often enough, do you listen to him anymore? I don't.
Posted by: ritebrother | July 29, 2009 1:14 PM
Thomas @ #59:
Do you have any links describing the "christian rocket" program as such? I haven't heard of this - sounds like something out of Monty Python.
Posted by: Mentat | July 29, 2009 1:14 PM
Thomas Lee Elifritz @59:
I am curious about this "Christian Rocket" story; can you provide some further details or a link? What did they do?
Posted by: co | July 29, 2009 1:15 PM
Hey, if I had a chance to remit some of that gold to Eliza, I'd have done so too. Besides, if I remember correctly, it didn't work out too poorly for old Isaac.
Posted by: AdamK | July 29, 2009 1:15 PM
Perry Como's great. Maybe we should all just take a break and listen to some Perry Como.
Posted by: The Chemist | July 29, 2009 1:16 PM
@#75
Here's your rocket link.
Oh wait, it's not actually relevant or on topic. My bad.
(It's still funny though.)
Posted by: eddie | July 29, 2009 1:18 PM
Re: Greg Peterson @36
As I understand it, part of being skeptical, or even atheistic, is to not blindly accept the authority of others.
Perhaps visiting the biologos site and reading the evidence may help you make up your own about this.
Posted by: The Chemist | July 29, 2009 1:21 PM
#79
Okay. Apparently I'm running on much too little sleep (big final doncha know). This is the rocket link
Posted by: MartinDH | July 29, 2009 1:23 PM
Thomas:
Why is the Ares rocket called the "Christian Rocket"?
N.B. Kevpot see below
What Christian design elements (as opposed to normal incompetence) have caused such cost overruns and failures to perform?
Kevpot:
The question mark is not part of the name and belongs outside of the quotes to terminate the sentence and flag it as a question.
Which is correct:
1. Did he say "Damn!"?
2. Did he say "Damn!?"
3. Did he say "Damn?"
(however I do prefer real quotes: '....')
It's time you changed your style guide.
--
MartinDH
Posted by: David Wiener
|
July 29, 2009 1:26 PM
kevpod@#7,
"get use" - I am not familiar with that grammatical construct.
Perhaps I should introduce your Glass House to Mr. Brick.
If one is going to be annoyingly pedantic, one needs to be a especially careful, no?
Posted by: SL Mading | July 29, 2009 1:28 PM
The quotation rules for American English are exceedingly stupid, and I say this as an American myself. The purpose of the quote marks is to mark which text is being lifted from somewhere else to be pasted into your sentence. They denote the difference between the text that is yours and the text that is not yours. Therefore, if the punctuation mark is an artifact of the fact that the quote was being dropped into your sentence, it logically should go outside the quotes, whereas if it is part of what is being quoted, it should logically go inside the quotes.
Original sentence, written by Bob: At the store I bought some things. I bought an apple, a pear, and an orange.
My sentence, quoting Bob: "At the store I bought some things.", said Bob.
Note there is a period inside the quote marks, AND a comma outside it. The period is part of what I am quoting, and the comma is there because I put a quotation in my sentence. The comma is part of MY sentence, but the period is part of the quoted sentence.
That would be how it would work if punctuation followed basic simple rational rules.
If that does not follow punctuation rules, then it's the punctuation rules that are broken, not what I did. I will choose to ignore the broken rules that are contrary to rational coherent communication.
Whether it's American or British style is irrelevant. It's inconsistent and impairs communication and therefore it's bad no matter which country is using it.
I feel the same way about date formats. The American middle-endian order (M-D-Y) is silly. The rest of the world's little-endian order (D-M-Y) is less silly. But a big-endian order (Y-M-D) would be better than either one of those two because at least you can sort it sensibly from left-to-right like everything else in the language, like numbers and words, get sorted. You don't alphabetize words by the letters they END with. You don't sort numbers by the one's digit first. So why put the year last in a fully qualified date?
Oh, and about the actual topic at hand, at no point did PZ claim that merely the fact that Collins was a Christian was the reason he thought Collins was a bad pick for the job. Miller should be ashamed of lying like that. It's beneath him. It's fine for Miller to disagree and say PZ is wrong, and to point out why he thinks that Collins is a good pick - that's the sort of debate science is all about. But to descend to lying about what PZ said in order to accomplish this is low. Far lower than any of the things Miller accused PZ of doing even if they were true.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 29, 2009 1:28 PM
So Heddle thinks we would "command more respect" if we lied about our motivations and agreed with the strawmen spewed by those attacking us. Right. Back into the Waste of Time bin.
Posted by: David Wiener
|
July 29, 2009 1:29 PM
Crap! "a especially" = "especially"
... hey, when I submitted this I got a "too many comments in too short a time". I see SB is trying to idiot proof things.
Posted by: co | July 29, 2009 1:30 PM
Robert, # 83:
PZ has repeatedly praised Collins' achievements. Mixing science and religion, though, is no achievement. Get it?
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | July 29, 2009 1:35 PM
"I cannot trust him not to Christianize his responsibilities — from reading his book, it is clear that he actually feels a moral obligation to add religious instruction to everything he does."
But Collins *hasn't* done that to 'everything he does', PZ. He *didn't* add religious elements to his CF or HGP papers. He didn't 'Christianize' his work or workplace. We have no indication that he will incorporate religious instruction into the NIH. If anything the indication is that he will remove himself from lightning rods like BioLogos, while continuing pro-evolution/science outreach to the wacko-american religious sector.
Until and unless Collins starts 'Christianizing' NIH policy, this pre-emptive nuking is just overwrought. Collins isn't a 'clown' or an 'idjit' and Harris was right to call you out on that. Collins is just (more) proof that a respectable and accomplished scientist can also believes in silly shit that he manages to compartmentalize and (poorly) reconcile with his science. Human beings are funny things that way. As long as the science itself stays clean-- and Collins' has -- so what?
It's not like he won't be scrutinized every step of the way from here on. If he fucks up, we'll be on it. There's nothing wrong with attacking nonsense that Collins has *already* written/spoken, or his poor rationalizations of belief in silly shit, nothing wrong with making church/state concerns known. But frontline anti-creationists need to choose their battles and rhetoric for maximum intelligent effect. That's not happening here. This is just overheated pre-emptive rabble-rousing, with us as the rabble.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 29, 2009 1:39 PM
I find it amusing that PZ Myers, someone whose intellect and acheivments are utterly unremarkable, has such a deluded sense of self-worth that he feels obliged to level criticism against someone as brilliant as Francis Collins. - Robert
Good grief, yes, you're so right, Robert. Can't have people criticising their betters, can we? That sort of thing could lead to democracy in no time.
Posted by: Fitz | July 29, 2009 1:40 PM
Bit drunk, getting ready to go to the football. Haven't read the all the comments and don't have time to. Sorry.
Two points:
1) PZ, you the man! Love the blog, your take on things and the style you deliver it in.
2) In continuance of #2. I would like to know one piece of "knowledge" that religion has given us that equals (or comes close to) the discovery of DNA.
Posted by: MartinDH | July 29, 2009 1:43 PM
Coyote @#73 & Mentat @76:
The lions share of the gold went to Peter the Great as "punch cards" (that may have shown up, reworked, in "Cryptonomicon"). Daniel Webster received a ring made of the remaining gold as a reward for his work. He used half of it to resurrect Sir Isaac before his all important defence, and half to Jack Shaftoe to resurrect him after his hanging.
--
Martin
Posted by: Geds | July 29, 2009 1:49 PM
39: "'Belief,' in the religious sense, means 'acceptance through faith in the absence of evidence.'"
Do you have a cite for that? The dictionaries I have available to me don't define it that way.
Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Any more questions, Robocop?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 29, 2009 1:50 PM
That depends. Is he calling me names because he has a point and I am ignoring it, and now he is getting frustrated with me? Have I tried to explain to him why he is wrong? Or have I simply dismissed his concerns with lies and misrepresentations, the way Ken Miller did?
Posted by: Seer | July 29, 2009 1:53 PM
I've noticed a trend with these sorts of posts. The faithest tend to believe in the Bible as fact, and we do not. When you try to make a point to a faithest, you run into a brick wall, the wall of not standing on the same ground. If you believe that every word in the Bible is "truth" (read: fact), then we can not even have a discussion about scienece and materialism. The faithest has already made up their mind about what is and is not a fact. If you observe something that doesn't square with their "known truth", they will for the most part no accept it.
My question is this: Is there a way to get around this? Is there even a point in trying to discuss science and/or materialism with someone who accepts an old book as fact?
Posted by: eddie | July 29, 2009 1:54 PM
MartinDH @82 - "...I do prefer real quotes: '....'"
I do too, but tend to use apostrophes a lot and then lose count and have to go back and replace them.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 29, 2009 2:02 PM
@Knockgoats #90: Perhaps Robert should post his CV before any further criticism of PZ Myers so we can determine if he's sufficiently qualified. Surely he doesn't hold a double standard.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 2:09 PM
#70, getting on his semantic high horse ;), says,
"Far be it from me to get into it with either of you, but this is a pet peeve of mine,
It's not an argument, it's an insult. Insults aren't ad hominem because they have nothing to do with the argument. If you call someone a dumbass because they hold a certain idea, they're just insulting you."
I read the comment of "Somebody Lee Something" (I'm trying really hard to suppress any grassy knoll jokes) as something along the line of "I said something stupid *because* 'I'm 'an idiot and an asshole'." Perhaps you read it differently, though.
And in my original post I called PZ's calling of Collins an idiot... wait for it... an insult.
Several resourceful people actually got out their (e-)dictionaries. Bravo. However, these cherry-picked definitions do nothing to counter my opinion that PZ's calling Collins an idiot is nothing more than an inflamatory insult.
Since this is called a "ScienceBlog", I prefer to choose the following (albeit cherry-picked) sciencey definition of the word idiot:
"A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive."
I did not attack PZ's specific arguments against Collins -- I agree with many of them. I often find his arguments and explications remarkably cogent.
I only wish that he understand that insult is a very weak rhetorical tool. And that it severely weakens his position. Not to mention the fact that it's just wrong.
Posted by: XD | July 29, 2009 2:19 PM
SL Mading #75
I would go with:Although I agree that one shouldn't quote what wasn't there originally, I think it that context, the period is unnecessary.Regarding date formats, I also agree that YY/MM/DD is the most logical (and is expanded nicely to YY/MM/DD HH:MM:SS etc.), but aren't the current formats connected to how dates are spoken? Someone from the U.S. will say "July 29th, 2009", whereas someone from the U.K. will say "the 29th of July, 2009".
Posted by: antistokes | July 29, 2009 2:19 PM
Huh--- my adviser has authored over 200 textbooks and publications....does that mean he beats Dr. Collins...? By pure association, I should head up the NIH! :P
Seriously though Dr. Myers appears to have at least 10 solid publications that I can see on pubmed. This is pretty damn good for a prof that is at a smaller college and, I would bet, spends most of his time TEACHING which is PROBABLY EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN PUBLISHING. Or maybe that's just me thinking education is important...
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 2:24 PM
...One more comment on the need, or lack of it, to use insults to make your arguments.
I believe that PZ fancies himself somehow in the same league with Richard Dawkins. They both fight on the side of "right" when it to comes religion and revolution (easy there ...Lee..., remember that I'm on the same side).
Here's a very big difference that I perceive. I have heard Dawkins interviewed several times. I have observed that he sometimes undergoes strenuous verbal gymnastics to avoid insulting people that he disagrees with. I commend him for that -- it's not easy.
PZ, on the other hand, doesn't seem to understand and/or care about such a distinction. If he did, his skills, energy and passion for these subjects could really be powerfully deployed.
Posted by: Nec_V20 | July 29, 2009 2:26 PM
With regard to the appointment, did it ever occur to anyone that Obama might be playing it smart?
He knows that the abortion issue is going to be dredged up in an attempt to derail his health care plans, so he has someone that the fundies can't moan about serving at his pleasure.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 29, 2009 2:28 PM
Whatever you think of Collins's views, or his penchant for promoting his views, since he obviously isn't an "idjit," flaming or otherwise, the important discussion (whether his penchant for pushing those views disqualifies him from this position) gets muddied (once again) by an annoying irrelevancy. I don't mind the critique of Collins, but would it really be too much of a strain just to critique him?
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 29, 2009 2:35 PM
An insult does not change the truth value. Collins is an idiot. He doesn't have a low IQ, but he's an idiot.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 29, 2009 2:36 PM
All this bickering over PZ's credentials can be resolved with one simple question: where did he go to high school?
You're welcome. I'll accept camera equipment in lieu of thanks.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 2:37 PM
"An insult does not change the truth value. Collins is an idiot. He doesn't have a low IQ, but he's an idiot."
Wow. That's good.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 29, 2009 2:40 PM
Does Collins believe and/or promote what is on the biologos site, despite all evidence to the contrary?
The answer to that question is the same as "Is Collins an idiot?"
Posted by: daveau
|
July 29, 2009 2:45 PM
XD@99
You say "potato", I say "Wednesday".
Seriously, do we write it that way because that's how we say it, or do we say it that way because that's how we write it?
Posted by: Aaron Baker | July 29, 2009 2:51 PM
I'd say the answer to both questions is No. It's comforting to believe that the other guy, when wildly wrong about something, must be a fool; but it's often not the case. And as I said before, it's an annoying irrelevancy. We've had discussion here so far on what "idiot" means, whether this or that meaning is appropriately applied to Collins, on the qualifications of P.Z. Myers relative to Collins, on (heaven help us) punctuation--but not much on the actually important and interesting question: should Collins have been appointed?
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 29, 2009 2:52 PM
Reiterating point of my post #43 that I think (in my own way) is aligned with PZ.
Collins is no idiot obviously.
But he is being idiotic, duplicitous, naive, and/or dishonest intellectually to mix his faith with science. And he most certainly does - if not in his stellar work but in his capitalizing on his reputation as a real scientist to push woo into the discussion.
Dave, Robocop, whoever - have you listened to his interviews, read his blogs, etc. He mixes magic and science. How can you say he doesn't.
As I tried to illustrate: for Perry Como the singer to let his faith hang all out was just nifty - because he was a singer and by golly sometimes it just worked (e.g., his Ave or his Lord's Prayer).
But it never works for a respected scientist to let their intellectual dishonesty (compartmentalization) and faith spill into a discussion where the only reason the said scientist is discussing anything is because they are a respected scientist. Get it? I hope I am clear.
He should keep it to himself (higher standard and all) else I call him "[being] idiotic, duplicitous, naive, and/or dishonest intellectually". It will be used by the enemies of reason which to me is good enough reason not to do it!!
Oh and by the way: an atheist position is totally and absolutely intellectually honest and appropriate in science. The standard is such that I MUST NOT inject any god into science. The minute I do - e.g., a god of the gaps - well I cease doing science by the rules of science. I am not arguing there is no god - just there is no god in science and Collins does suggest there is and that is just idiotic in my book and especially idiotic because he of all people should know better.
Posted by: antistokes | July 29, 2009 2:56 PM
Dave @ 101
I see this more as a difference in English and American mannerisms. To paraphrase Sir Terry, to the English, it's perfectly all right to mock your friends, but it is the height of bad manners to be rude to your enemy. I've noticed this in particular among the older Englishmen I've collaborated with. Us bloody Colonials tend to take the more "in-your-face" route, which has seemed to work for Dr. Myers who is responding to a problem (evangelical xians with money pushing science out of science classes, etc) that appears to be more rampant in the USA than in other countries (not that it's nonexistent in other countries). Fight fire with fire, and so forth....
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 2:57 PM
It amazes me that this merry band, led by its pirate-fancying leader, and *professes to want to advance the cause of science*, believes that insult (regardless of its "truth value") is a valuable tool in advancing that cause.
To the best of my knowledge, insult has never accomplished anything in science.
Are you all just grown-up kids who were insulted and bullied in junior high and now you're getting revenge by insulting people with your knowledge?
No matter how powerful your arguments, when you always have to end them by insulting someone, you look like "idjits."
Posted by: co | July 29, 2009 3:02 PM
@ Robert: Hate to break it to you, but 95% of what people call research is doing the same old experiments on the same old materials (perhaps with smallish changes here and there), and then getting new publications and funding out of it. Real, ground-breaking research is rare, and wonderful stuff. And when you ask those researchers if they credit anyone, almost invariably you get appreciation of good teachers. Your argument that "great thinkers" have rarely needed to be taught is complete hogwash.
Posted by: co | July 29, 2009 3:04 PM
Dave, ending his post # 113:
Posted by: dinkum | July 29, 2009 3:06 PM
Concern troll is boring.
Posted by: antistokes | July 29, 2009 3:12 PM
Too late! Already graduated with a PhD in Chem-- and somehow got a postdoctoral position right when the economy was collapsing. I will use the ":P" face whenever I damn well please, thank you very much. I was referring, by the way, to my postdoc adviser, not my graduate or undergraduate ones. My undergrad advisers have bios similar to Dr. Myers, and without them I would really not be in my current position performing active biomedical research--- which is I think teaching so very fucking important. Oh, that and my mom was a chemistry teacher. Little thing that biases me, I guess.
Ah, and just how much research have you done? I'll admit I am no expert, I only have three peer reviewed articles in basic biochemical research. My graduate adviser is at a huge state university in NY. He heads up a drug discovery department and a 20-odd person research lab that designs MDR tuberculosis drugs--- and he still considers that teaching intro chemistry is one of his most important duties. Please do not underestimate the power and importance of good educators. You can't even begin to do the Important Research without it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 29, 2009 3:12 PM
Amen brother/sister. And repetitive. Yawn.Posted by: Carlie | July 29, 2009 3:31 PM
try "tow the line" and "axe you a question".
"Can I axe you a question? Can I axe you a question? Can I aaaaaaaaaaxe you a queeeeestion????
Posted by: Duff | July 29, 2009 3:31 PM
I just came upon a quote from Murray Gell-Mann in his book The Quark and the Jaguar, page 63, that should be pointed out to Mssrs. Miller and Collins.
"But even as a child I rejected, as serious scientists have done for generations, the idea that life is characterized by any special "vital force" outside of physics and chemistry."
I guess some kids just never stop believing in Santa.
Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 3:33 PM
93: "Hebrews 11:1: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
The claim about which I asked was about religious context rather than Christian context, but your purported answer even fails in that more limited context. You want to define faith and interpret the above text as relating to various propositions. But that's not the Christian view. For the Christian (at least), faith (πίστις) is confident belief in God as revealed in Jesus Christ (cf. the OED, which is consistent with this view). Thus a Christian can be confident in an unseen future because of his or her trust in the goodness of God. It doesn't relate to a set of propositions at all and thus evidence as to the truth or falsity of certain propositions is manifestly irrelevant. That is not to say that such evidence necessarily doesn't exist, however. The unsupported claim that faith is belief without evidence is a purported argument disguised as a definition, and a pretty lousy argument at that.
"Any more questions, Robocop?"
Why do you insist on trying to play gotcha when, at least in this regard, you're so obviously an ignorant idjit?
Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 3:40 PM
...still waiting to see if there is any evidence for the primary charge, that Collins "inserts his superstition where it doesn't belong, in the execution of his job.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by: Stu
|
July 29, 2009 3:45 PM
Dungeon quiz: who does Robert almost exactly sound like? (Minus alma mater references, of course).
Posted by: IST | July 29, 2009 3:53 PM
Robocop>
I'll ignore teh Babble quote and the concern trolling, because I haven't the least interest in doing anything but ridiculing them.
As to your question in 122, did you read the slides cited by Sam Harris in the NYT here ? Inserting religion into a scientific presentation is exactly as the charge reads. If he can keep that out of NIH decisions, there's no argument, but the if is the whole of the concern that has been raised.
Posted by: stogoe | July 29, 2009 3:54 PM
Robocop, if you're unwilling to follow links that have already been provided, why should we coddle you any longer?
Posted by: co | July 29, 2009 3:55 PM
Stu: Yep, I was thinking that myself. And Screechy Monkey at #105 anticipated us both!
Posted by: JBlilie | July 29, 2009 4:00 PM
Miller completely misses the point both of you made: Collins colors his understanding of the world, in a very real and significant sense, with his religious ideas. These religious ideas conflict with the conclusions drawn by science. This is a conflict of interest.
Collins, like every federal government official is obligated to have no conflicts of interest regarding his work and no appearance of conflict of interest. I worked for a federal agency and we had to take training on this.
At the very least, there is an appearance of conflict of interest when one views Collins' slides from his very recent lecture on religion in science.
Posted by: Geds | July 29, 2009 4:01 PM
Why do you insist on trying to play gotcha when, at least in this regard, you're so obviously an ignorant idjit?
Yeah. Because I'm obviously un-fucking-educated in the ways of Christianity. I guess 25 years in the church and a plan to go to Seminary before I realized, "Wow, this is a load of bullshit," doesn't count for much.
The claim about which I asked was about religious context rather than Christian context, but your purported answer even fails in that more limited context.
So are you going to argue that Christian context doesn't count as a religious context? Fascinating. And explain to me how it is, exactly, that my response fails, given that your next argument hinges on this:
For the Christian (at least), faith (πίστις) is confident belief in God as revealed in Jesus Christ (cf. the OED, which is consistent with this view). Thus a Christian can be confident in an unseen future because of his or her trust in the goodness of God.
Whereas if we go to the end of the chapter in Hebrews chapter 11 we see the assertion "And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect."
So the writer of Hebrews holds up as perfect examples those who not only believed in something in spite of the absence of evidence, but never at any point saw their belief come true. And those to whom the letter were addressed and now those who believe the letter was actually, somehow, addressed to them are to hold up these people who supposedly believed in and built up a religion based on absolutely no evidence as the ultimate expression of what humans can do.
Of course there's also Jesus's speech to Thomas that he was blessed because he saw and believed but the ones who don't see and still believe are the ones who are truly blessed.
But, please, throw some more Greek at me and shift a few more goalposts in your re-definitions of what it means to have faith and belief. I'm really intimidated by your decision to toss in a Greek word in an attempt to prove that I'm the one who's an uneducated idjit.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | July 29, 2009 4:11 PM
Eddie @ 80, huge respect for expertise, none whatsoever for authority. No one has made up my mind for me about much of anything since I left Christianity about twelve or so years ago, after a couple of decades as an evangelical (with a degree in biblical studies and working for churches and ministries). I think my critical thinking skills have benefited immeasurably from my having had to reverse engineer my mind. If you or Collins or anyone else has anything really new and interesting to consider, of course I'll be happy to see it. But most things just rehash Paley and argue from ignorance, so...excuse me if my expectations are incredibly low for anything interesting to come out of theology or apologetics.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | July 29, 2009 4:16 PM
#90 Dave
I'm curious ,when you have called someone an idiot have you verified that his mental age is under 3 ,or his IQ is below 25?
The normal usage of the term is an insult for a profoundly stupid act, not necessarily intended to mean that the person is an idiot in all aspects of his life.
And yes P.Z. insults folks and they are mixed in with his arguments. And yes Richard goes a long way to avoid insulting people, so what?. The targets of P.Z. ire are normally repeat offenders. You can only hear the fine tuning argument so many times and argue patiently before using profanities, right?
If you are arguing for civility in debate, i believe P.Z. has already posted on why he doesn't always do it.
Posted by: Happy | July 29, 2009 4:19 PM
Robert spewed:
"I find it amusing that PZ Myers, someone whose intellect and acheivments are utterly unremarkable, has such a deluded sense of self-worth that he feels obliged to level criticism against someone as brilliant as Francis Collins."
I find it amusing that people criticize Kobe Bryant. They must have a deluded sense of self-worth that they feel obliged to level criticism against someone that was named MVP of the NBA.
Robert is so thoroughly sunk in his foolish religious convictions that he cannot understand that an argument that favors unquestionable authority will not appeal to rational people.
Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 4:32 PM
124: "If he can keep that out of NIH decisions, there's no argument, but the if is the whole of the concern that has been raised."
I understand the concern, it's the focus of the pieces by Coyne and Harris. But PZ's claim is fundamentally different. PZ raises no if. For him, it has already happened. Allegedly, Collins "inserts his superstition where it doesn't belong, in the execution of his job." I want to see evidence to support this charge, because I think it's a very serious one -- much more serious than the fear of what he might do on the job based upon what he has said away from work.
125: "[I]f you're unwilling to follow links that have already been provided, why should we coddle you any longer?"
As I have already stated, I have followed the links provided and still see no evidence to support PZ's charge. Is there any? Anyone?
128: "So the writer of Hebrews holds up as perfect examples those who not only believed in something in spite of the absence of evidence...[blah. blah, blah]."
Evidence has nothing to do with it. They trusted God. If your spouse tells you to put on a raincoat because it's raining, it doesn't matter if you have any evidence that it's raining or not (if you trust your spouse) -- you put on the raincoat.
"Of course there's also Jesus's speech to Thomas that he was blessed because he saw and believed but the ones who don't see and still believe are the ones who are truly blessed."
Exactly, because for them His Word was enough, irrespective of evidence.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 29, 2009 4:37 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3613/3336242819_08cd04b7d0.jpg) no-repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial; width: 333px; height: 450px;">
This is the same damn argument all over again. I had the same "discussion" with the ilk over on Panda's Thumb.
I can't understand why, when it is spelled out over and over again, that xians and xian faitheists continue to trot out the same strawman that we are attacking Collins for being a xian, instead of for some really sloppy thinking and inane proposals about evolution, that obviously should concern anyone who rightly has a clue about how ideology influences science funding.
Still, I guess I'm glad that, yet again, PZ has spelled what the concerns are explicitly, and shown the faitheists to be tossing out netfulls of red-herrings.
I've even been accused of being the same as those who wanted to prevent minorities and women from getting the vote in the US ffs!
It's enough. This argument that criticizing Collins is the same as putting a "filter" against xians for science jobs MUST stop.
Those making this argument are the ones degrading legitimate criticism, and that's not how science is supposed to work.
Posted by: Paul | July 29, 2009 4:38 PM
So he appoints someone who is on record in believing that a magical ensoulment event happens when sperm meets egg. An obvious candidate for a pro-choice agenda.
Some people are too ready to ascribe anything Obama does to a huge Xanatos Gambit working towards whatever goals they consider important. Protip: the president isn't always working towards the same goals you are, or advancing the same priorities. And sometimes he does the wrong thing, or breaks campaign promises (more and more every day, especially if you care about civil liberties). Don't be so fast to write off everything he does as "for the cause", especially if it requires mental gymnastics to even start to believe such.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 29, 2009 4:40 PM
hmm, don't tell me inline tags are a fail now?
trying again:
if that didn't work (and curses to sciblog programmers if not), then here's the pic that was supposed to appear.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3613/3336242819_08cd04b7d0.jpg
Posted by: Geds | July 29, 2009 4:41 PM
If your spouse tells you to put on a raincoat because it's raining, it doesn't matter if you have any evidence that it's raining or not (if you trust your spouse) -- you put on the raincoat.
Ooooh! Analogy fail! Hooray!
And, assuming I was married and my spouse didn't often play practical jokes on me, I could assume that since she's in the same room as me and has recently been or looked outside. I wouldn't be, say, reading an email she sent me six years ago and interpreting her opinion of the new single by the Dave Matthews Band to tell me, hey, I'd better get a raincoat.
I'd also have the benefit of plenty of evidence that my spouse is actually, um, what's the word? Oh, yeah, REAL. See, I'd be able to touch her, see her, hear her, smell her. All of the evidence would indicate she's actually there.
And, of course, if she's just come in from outside, is soaking wet, and says, "If you're going out, you'd better wear a raincoat, it's pouring," that would be even more evidence.
There's absolutely nothing faith-based about your example. To borrow from Terry Pratchett, that would be like believing in the mailman.
Exactly, because for them His Word was enough, irrespective of evidence.
And this supports your argument how, exactly?
No, go on. I'll give you time. Show your work, though...
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 29, 2009 4:43 PM
The LA Times now has a point/counterpoint between Michael Shermer and Francisco Ayala on the subject.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oew-ayala-shermer29-2009jul29,0,7711520.story
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 29, 2009 4:45 PM
Allegedly, Collins "inserts his superstition where it doesn't belong, in the execution of his job.
like PZ, one of Collins' jobs (chosen by Collins himself) is that of science communications.
He gets paid to do that, via lecture circuits, etc.
It's a complete fail to be a science communicator that represents entire areas of science as a "no go" because there's no way they could happen without invoking a deity.
So, PZ is absolutely right.
Whether that failure will represent itself as bias wrt to how he directs science direction and funding at NIH, noone can really know for sure.
...and that's the problem.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 29, 2009 4:48 PM
Oh, I should add: I wasn't terribly impressed with Shermer's argument. Too much of it relies on the unspoken assumption that all evangelical Christians are the same, therefore the fact that Shermer was constantly proselytizing when he was an evangelical means that Collins does (and will do) so, too.
Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 4:53 PM
136: "Ooooh! Analogy fail! Hooray!"
If that's so, you haven't shown it.
"And, assuming I was married and my spouse didn't often play practical jokes on me, I could assume that since she's in the same room as me and has recently been or looked outside. I wouldn't be, say, reading an email she sent me six years ago and interpreting her opinion of the new single by the Dave Matthews Band to tell me, hey, I'd better get a raincoat."
It doesn't matter whether or not you can find some evidence or whether you evidence (e.g., seeing your spouse's wet hair). If you trust your spouse, you put on the raincoat. Your comments about six year-old e-mails and the like relate to whether you should be trusting or not. It doesn't impact what faith is one bit.
"There's absolutely nothing faith-based about your example."
Nonsense. You (wrongly) keep wanting to focus on propositions. The proper focus (and the Christian focus) is on character, being worthy of trust.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
July 29, 2009 4:55 PM
Robert burbled:
I find it amusing that Robert, someone whose intellect and acheivments [sic] are utterly unremarkable, has such a deluded sense of self-worth that he feels obliged to level criticism against someone as brilliant as PZ Myers.
Let's compare CVs, shall we?
(Gosh, this is fun! A little copy/paste, and voila! Anyone can be a critic!)
And Myers was not criticizing him for that. Had you bothered to consider what he wrote before going off on your childish little rant, you might have avoided sounding like an ass. It would appear you are more interested in rabidly defending religious faith than engaging in meaningful dialog, but that's hardly news around here. We've seen it countless times before.
We're still waiting for your CV, by the way...
Posted by: Frank | July 29, 2009 4:56 PM
Bernadine Healy recently has called embryonic stem cell therapy "obsolete." Given the paucity of data, I expect that this reflects her Roman Catholic religion rather than her dispassionate scientific judgement. I don't think her tenure at NIH was free of similar controversy, the Wikipedia panegyric notwithstanding.
Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 5:00 PM
138: "[L]ike PZ, one of Collins' jobs (chosen by Collins himself) is that of science communications."
I think it's a real stretch, not to mention a major mistake, to define "job" so broadly. If there's evidence that his religious convictions got in the way at the Genome Project, PZ's point is well taken. If all you've got is stuff he said and did elsewhere (even if he got honoraria for it), PZ's got nothin'.
Posted by: Geds | July 29, 2009 5:01 PM
Nonsense. You (wrongly) keep wanting to focus on propositions. The proper focus (and the Christian focus) is on character, being worthy of trust.
Aaaaaaand now you've added the No True Scotsman Fallacy to your resume.
Good work.
Because, see, back when I was going to church I was told that the Great Commission was the "Christian focus." You know, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit."
But, y'know, your thing works, too.
And you still haven't demonstrated how me listening to my theoretical but quite evident spouse is the exact same as me listening to a theoretical but not-at-all evident deity.
Still, your lack of rhetorical skill annoys me and the fact that you're, at best, the third-worst evangelist I've come across this week means that I simply don't give a shit. It doesn't matter how many times I point out that you're moving the goalposts and can't actually offer a coherent answer when challenged. You're going to keep doing it because you don't have any other arrows in your quiver.
So to you I bid adieu. And to the rest of the horde, I apologize for feeding the troll.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 5:06 PM
Deepak (#130):
[...more stuff about the definition of the word "insult."]
You're completely missing the point. Regardless of how many ways you try to dilute its definition, to call someone an idiot is an insult. That's what PZ intended. Doing so
weakens his position. He does this a lot.
"And yes Richard goes a long way to avoid insulting people, so what?"
His arguments are more powerful because they are not jumbled together with inflammatory insults. Do you really not understand this?
"The targets of P.Z. ire are normally repeat offenders."
So what?
"You can only hear the fine tuning argument so many times and argue patiently before using profanities, right?"
No. That's called admitting defeat.
"If you are arguing for civility in debate, i believe P.Z. has already posted on why he doesn't always do it."
It's still wrong. But more importantly, it weakens his position.
And it weakens all of ours. Personally, I wish that PZ would grow up.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 5:10 PM
Make that:
[...more stuff about the definition of the word "idiot."]
Posted by: Insignificant Speck | July 29, 2009 5:15 PM
Robert @108:
I recommend that if you want your opinions to be taken seriously, don't say things like "Teaching just repeats stuff."
Just a suggestion.
I.S.
Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 5:17 PM
Geds -- You keep wanting to re-define faith as belief without evidence. I get why you'd want to -- cheap rhetorical advantage. But we already have a word that fits your proposed definition: credulity. On the other hand, the Oxford English Dictionary defines faith as
"a. Confidence, reliance, trust (in the ability, goodness, etc., of a person; in the efficacy or worth of a thing; or in the truth of a statement or doctrine).
b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority."
Gee, that fits with what I've said just fine. Your proposal...wait for it...wait for it...is nowhere to be found. What a shock.
"So to you I bid adieu."
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Posted by: Happy | July 29, 2009 5:20 PM
"The proper focus (and the Christian focus) is on character, being worthy of trust."
What the fuck does some dickhead 3,000 years ago being born of a virgin and rising from the dead have to do with character and trust?
Posted by: Happy | July 29, 2009 5:26 PM
"Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority"
How the fuck is your local priest an "authority" on the sexual conduct of a woman in Bethlehem 3,000 years ago? Why is his "testimony" on said matter worth shit?
As we said: Belief without evidence.
Posted by: co | July 29, 2009 5:28 PM
*shakes off dirt*: "Hiii... I'm Joe Isuzu."
Posted by: Geds | July 29, 2009 5:30 PM
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I'm amused that you seem to think my bidding you adieu means you've won. Evidence indicates that I've posted here many times in the past. I will probably post many times in the future.
So while my intention was to say I'd be leaving this particular discussion, I'm most certainly not leaving Pharyngula.
Just thought I'd clear up that distinction for you, since your lack of reading comprehension both here and at Why Evolution is True is so glaringly obvious...
How the fuck is your local priest an "authority" on the sexual conduct of a woman in Bethlehem 3,000 years ago? Why is his "testimony" on said matter worth shit?
Hey, hey, that was 2000 years ago. Haven't we learned today that it's the details that matter, not the fact that the overall argument is completely fucking stupid?
;-)
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | July 29, 2009 5:31 PM
#145 Posted by: Dave
Your first point was that Collins is not a flaming idjit because he is smart in other respects. I see that you have stopped trying to defend that view.
The second part is about insulting people who can be engaged in debate.
Richards arguments are powerful to most non believers.
Has he managed to convince Francis Collins? Bill O'Reilly? Harun Yahya?
If not why not? why doesn't the civility work?
All of us know that, and noone including P.Z. disagrees. The point is that some people deserve it. They wont listen to you either due to malice or due to incompetence. They lack sincerity and will not be engaged. They are mostly hypocritical. In general I will agree with you that insults aren't helpful in a debate. However the difference is that I think they are appropriate in some cases (Two cases come to mind Bill Donohue saying *only* x% of the children were abused and some islamic nut when asked that islam forbids killing innocents answered no non muslim is innocent). That is a matter of opinion. Only if you buy the religious argument that Richard/P.Z. are our gods and prophets. Your position is yours argue it as you wish. P.Z's arguments do not strengthen or weaken your.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 29, 2009 5:31 PM
Why don't you follow your own advice troll.Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 5:39 PM
"I'm amused...."
They always say they're going to leave (a discussion), but never do.
"So while my intention was to say I'd be leaving this particular discussion, I'm most certainly not leaving Pharyngula."
I never thought otherwise.
"[T]he overall argument is completely fucking stupid...."
I know, the Oxford English Dictionary is just plain stupid, and purely a propaganda tool to boot.
Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 5:45 PM
154: I appreciate the drive-by, Nerd, but could you stay and explain where Collins "inserts his superstition where it doesn't belong, in the execution of his job"?
I'm still waiting for evidence....
Posted by: Stu
|
July 29, 2009 5:47 PM
Asked and answered, Robocop. Fuck, you do realize people can scroll up, right?
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 5:48 PM
Deepak,
Go ahead and mince my words. The important point has always been that insulting people is a defeatist strategy.
Clearly we disagree on how to defend science in a public forum:
You advocate the use of insults and profanity.
I don't.
I hope that you are not in a position of defending science in a public setting.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 29, 2009 5:51 PM
So am I. Either show some physical evidence for your imaginary deity. And I asked first.Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 5:55 PM
157: "Asked and answered, Robocop. Fuck, you do realize people can scroll up, right?"
Yup. Indeed, I hope they will. I hope they'll check out the links too. If they do, they'll see the basis for the concern expressed by Coyne and Harris but see absolutely no basis for PZ's claim that Collins "inserts his superstition where it doesn't belong, in the execution of his job." Of course, it's possible I missed it. If it's out there some where, would you describe it and link to it, Stu?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 29, 2009 5:57 PM
Then why are so many Christians completely unworthy of trust? Would you trust Pat Robertson to be anything but a right-wing ranter? Would you trust Fred Phelps to be anything but a homophobe? Would you trust Ted Haggard to be even be a trustworthy homophobe?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 29, 2009 6:00 PM
Why should they be trusted? They lie about dog existing. They lie about the holy babble being inerrant. They lie about the holy babble being a moral book. What is there to trust? Nothing but lies.Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 6:04 PM
How would it be possible to defend myself against such brilliant ad hominem attacks?
You can't, because prior to dispensing with your well earned insult, I provided you with a very clear example as evidence of how Christian pedagogy can totally corrupt one of our national scientific institutions, with dire if not irreversible consequences. The Augustine review committee is right now trying to clean up the stinking mess of Ares I and Christian rocketry at the national scientific and institutional level right here in the United States O' Murka.
I'm still waiting for evidence....
I just provided you with one, NASA and Ares I.
The director and/or administrator of any one of our prestigeous NATIONAL scientific institutions, take your pick, NOAA, NASA, NSF, NIH, whatever, represent OUR NATION with respect to SCIENCE. When they present their religious nonsense in the name of science, in a secular nation with clear separation of church and state, that is a violation of their job description. If he gets this job, and continues to violate his task, people just like me will be here to call for his termination. We're just trying to save you the trouble and embarrassment a priori of the inevitable.
Francis Collins is on notice.
Posted by: Paul | July 29, 2009 6:07 PM
Because man is fallible. The part that really confuses me is why this god character is considered worthy of trust. I haven't really seen a good explanation as to why the world circa 0 CE got Jesus to redeem them from their sins and trespasses against God, but the people circa the Flood were just unceremoniously drowned en masse for said sins and trespasses. It always seemed rather arbitrary to me. And let's not even start with the Problem of Evil or the Euthyphro dilemma...
Posted by: Robocop | July 29, 2009 6:10 PM
"Then why are so many Christians completely unworthy of trust?"
I'm not sure how seriously this question is posed, but I'll offer at least the start of a serious answer. In my view, Christians are as likely to be good or bad (and everything else too) as anybody else. In some cases, they may well be worse because dogmatic certainty is so dangerous. Such certainty leads to repression and all kinds of evil to prop up "the cause" because, well, "We're right!" The flip side of seeing oneself as so clearly and obviously right is that those who see things differently aren't just wrong, they're inferior somehow. Otherwise, those who see things differently wouldn't, after all. And when those you oppose are deemed inferior, it's that much easier to abuse them, lie to them, cheat them, or de-humanize them in all kinds of ways.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 6:16 PM
T... Lee E... says,
"Francis Collins is on notice."
I do wonder if he knows.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 6:21 PM
"Francis Collins is on notice."
I do wonder if he knows.
He's an evangelical Christian who sees no problem with interjecting his unverifiable religious beliefs into science.
That's a big negative. Over.
Posted by: frog | July 29, 2009 6:25 PM
"Then why are so many Christians completely unworthy of trust?"
I really have to suggest Altermeyer's "The Authoritarians" here. He makes a strong case about the "why" -- which can't be summarized here fairly.
Posted by: co | July 29, 2009 6:29 PM
frog, @ 168:
I have to suggest "The Aristocrats".
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 29, 2009 6:32 PM
Isn't this roughly parallel to Bill Maher winning the Dawkins prize thingie and being an anti-vaxer loon and member of the board of directors of PETA? Well, he did do some stuff to help make fun of religion and encourage people to maybe re-assess the lunacy, but he's a whacko himself. So this guy Collins is a bible thumper and a whacko for jebus but he appears to still have done some science. Hm.
I'm just trying to make sure my views are consistent across both situations. I'm willing to chuckle at Maher's movie and reward him with a few of my dollars for making it, but laugh at him for being a creo. Maybe I'm OK with Collins heading NIH and still laughing at him. Just keep an eye on him?
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 6:36 PM
Re : insults.
Not to mention the fact that it's just wrong.
Can you quantify the 'wrongness' of it for me, perhaps with some numbers and equations and stuff? Thanks. When it comes to impact, units of force usually do just fine. Or is it just something you feel must be right. Like a ballpark guess. You might have to weigh your words too.
Or did you read it in a holy book?
Posted by: frog | July 29, 2009 6:38 PM
Let's turn the question around -- not "Should Collins head the NIH?" but "Should PZ head the NIH?" (assuming for the sake of argument equal scientific authority).
I would say no. PZ, despite his publishing & teaching record, etc, by making himself a public advocate for New Atheism would not make a good head of the NIH. Being head of the NIH is a political position, requiring a certain public neutrality on positions that don't directly impact the job.
In the same manner, Collins has made himself an inappropriate choice by being a public advocate for a sectarian position that isn't directly involved in heading the NIH. It's not whether they are Christians or Atheists that is directly the issue --- it's that they are "political" actors already, and so have a "political" conflict with the job.
Most scientific jobs don't have this highly political character, so usually outside activism is irrelevant. But being a high-level bureaucrat is not primarily a scientific job, just a political job that requires scientific knowledge.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 29, 2009 6:43 PM
Screechy Monkey writes:
I wasn't terribly impressed with Shermer's argument. Too much of it relies on the unspoken assumption that all evangelical Christians are the same, therefore the fact that Shermer was constantly proselytizing when he was an evangelical means that Collins does (and will do) so, too.
I agree. It seemed as though all Shermer had to offer was "well, I was an annoying jerk when I was a christian. (I got better)" He doesn't address the problem that, had he tried to inflict a lot of bible thumping while he was working on the HGP, he'd have had a lot of people loudly questioning his role.
I can see someone having a website that reveals their inner self to be an asshole (I do! Check mine out!) but what this discussion lacks is people who worked on the HGP posting specific examples about how Collins distorted the HGP's agenda with his goddist views, or held prayer meetings when people should have been talking about genomes, only promoting bible whackers, or something like that.
Posted by: frog | July 29, 2009 7:00 PM
co: I have to suggest "The Aristocrats".
It may take less time to just read the book.
Posted by: Happy | July 29, 2009 7:10 PM
Robofuck:
"I'm still waiting for evidence..."
For the crazy shit written in your holy book? Don't hold your breath.
Posted by: articulett | July 29, 2009 7:17 PM
We live in a world where it's becoming increasingly clear that souls are a product of the mind... they are as much as an illusion as our perception of a flat earth.
I feel very strange about people in high positions that have a vested interest in maintaining a belief for which there is no evidence. When I was a kid, I trusted such people, because I thought, surely, the adults knew what they were talking about. It seems I mistook confidence for competence, but now I see such thinking as primitive and backwards. It's closed-minded but it makes the believer imagine themselves moral and humble while being neither.
It slows progress. It makes people stop searching for better answers because they imagine they have the "best one" already.
Should Francis Collins discover that he has fooled himself, will he be able to say so publicly? If he is found to have dementia or a seizure disorder that better explains his beliefs than any actual evidence (and let's face it, there is no more evidence for his beliefs than for the conflicting beliefs he rejects), then do we get to use him as a cautionary tale?
Will believers always need to mishear criticism of faith as "hate speech" to keep their preferred delusions alive? Will we ever get over our need to invent invisible entities to allay our fears of death and explain that which we don't yet understand? Can't we begin preparing children for a future where superstitions are not respected "just because"?
To me, "faith in faith" is the cause of "unscientific America; it's not something that honest people should ever feel bullied into supporting.
Bravo PZ, Coyne, Moran, et. al. for repeating the refrain: the emperor IS naked--there are no magical robes that only special people can see or at least there is no evidence for such.)
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 29, 2009 7:42 PM
Should have signed that letter:
Ken Miller, practicing Catholic and Pope brown noser.
Two peas in a pod.
Pray for us, Ken!
Has Ayala chimed in yet?
Posted by: Pete Murray
|
July 29, 2009 8:06 PM
While I agree that Francis Collins is a miserable theologian, I was talking about this appointment last night with someone who knows him and his work on the genome project, and he was apparently an impeccable administrator and scientist. I'm not aware of any evidence that he ever misused his position to advance a religious agenda there, and this leads to me question the claims that he would do so at the NIH. I'm as upset as anyone at the still-fervent hatred of atheists, but I think the Obama administration has made an intelligent, strategic choice, given the at least not-uncommon perception of scientists as anti-religious. If Collins, in addition to be being a fantastic administrator, which there is every reason to think he will be, also manages to encourage a few people who are on the bubble to re-engage with science then I'm all for it. Obviously, there are plenty of people who are unreachable, but there may also be some for whom Collins serves as a role-model of how to be religious (which they won't give up) but still respect science.
Also, a quick note about the "evolution explains morality" strand of comment. I think that's wrong. I also think that putting God into the equation doesn't add much either. But, science cannot tell us what is valuable and why. I look to the tradition of philosophical ethics to help with that: people like JS Mill and Aristotle and Kant.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | July 29, 2009 8:18 PM
Posted by: Dave
Strawman? I explicitly said that as a general principle i would agree that insults are bad, but I make exceptions for repeat offenders or insincere people. Francis Collins clearly makes outlandish statements when he should know better. He has no excuse for propagating the fine tuning argument. The first few times you argue you might be polite, after that you either have to refuse to argue (which leads most people of his ilk to claim victory) or content yourself with insults. whats your strategy? Say Francis Collins steps up tomorrow and says He's concluded that the earth is 6k-10k years and that God makes it appear to be billions of years old. Will you call him an idiot? You can make whatever argument you want civilly, he ignores it and repeats his statement as if there is no argument against his position. Would you call him an idiot?
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 8:29 PM
T. Lee E. says,
"Or did you read it in a holy book?"
No. Don't read those. As I explained before, I am a non-religious scientist. You seem incapable of absorbing that fact.
I was trying to communicate some constructive criticism of PZ's tactics.
T. Lee E. responded with shocking vulgarity.
Others chose to pick apart my words and ignore the gist of my criticism. Yet another asserted that insults and profanity are "necessary" in the war against the wackaloon fundies.
I spent 90 seconds on google to see what I was up against in T. Lee E. I didn't have to go beyond the first page of search results. Having once "run with an outcast intellectual crowd," he now asserts that "Buzz Aldrin is an American coward and an American retard." And the material on his own web site is, well, interesting.
I can see that I'm out of my league.
And I consider myself one of the good guys.
I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that PZ's style attracts this kind of crowd.
p.s. 28 years ago, Ken Miller was my first-year biology professor. One hell of a teacher. And I NEVER ONCE heard him mention his faith. No one dislikes the Roman Catholic church more than I. Yet, I'm glad that Miller is the one who testified in the Dover case. Regardless of what he might have said, PZ would have been a disaster, at least from a public perception standpoint. He's no longer qualified to be considered a coolly objective observer of the issue of public school science education. And I consider that to be loss, because he is capable of being an outstanding science communicator.
As Marcus Ranum mentioned above, "what this discussion lacks is people who worked on the HGP posting specific examples about how Collins distorted..." People here, including PZ, don't seem to be looking for this. And, to be honest, that really surprises me from a bunch that fancy themselves scientists.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 29, 2009 8:33 PM
Why do you think this is wrong? Do you think the scientific experiments and literature on the nature of morality and how it evolved is flawed? If so, in what way?Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 8:35 PM
Deepak writes,
"... Will you call him an idiot? ... Will you call him an idiot?"
Deepak, I don't know you, but I'll assume that you are intelligent and were able to understand my position -- and that your question is rhetorical.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 29, 2009 8:39 PM
articulett writes:
I feel very strange about people in high positions that have a vested interest in maintaining a belief for which there is no evidence.
It's all tied up in that "divine right of kings" thing. People have been pretty successfully convinced that we need leaders and that nationalism is a good idea. So they worry that if people start questioning, when will they stop?
Posted by: ist | July 29, 2009 8:39 PM
Robocop> you've been given evidence, but you chose to move the goalposts rather than read it. Again, reconciling one's faith with evolution in a public talk, as a scientist, is inserting his superstition into his job writ large. Either you can't bloody read, or you've chosen to ignore that because it's destructive to your non-argument. I don't especially care which it is because you've proven yourself a tiresome troll several times over. Feel free to fuck off now, and let the adults have their discussion.
Posted by: Canuck | July 29, 2009 8:40 PM
Thank the FSM for the tenure you have, so you can speak out without fear of loss of livelihood. Once I get mine, which should be confirmed in a few months, I'll be able to "come out". There are a few of us on our campus who would like to get more vocal about things, and only those with tenure are able to be vocal. We have some very devout types in our midst who could cause a lot of trouble if we were to be detected pre-tenure.
Posted by: ist | July 29, 2009 8:57 PM
Dave> you received ygr responses you did because you come off as a concern troll with your comments about insults and profanity, despite your actual intent.that's the nature of this blog, and either something to deal with or read elsewhere. Unlike a number of other commentators, I agree with you on Miller's involvement at Dover. I don't, however, have any respect for his latest diatribe with its poor assumptions.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 9:01 PM
T. Lee E. responded with shocking vulgarity.
We're gonna need another fainting couch in here.
Others think animalia sex is shockingly vulgar.
You just can't satisfy some people it seems.
You know what I think is vulgar? Modern intelligent primates unable to understand the remarkable uniqueness and fragility of their evolutionary home, because of religious dogma, financial agendas, outright greed and political corruption.
If I think I can change that with shocking verbal vulgarity, I'm gonna take that risk. My words weigh more than yours.
And I'm throwing them faster and harder than you.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 29, 2009 9:02 PM
Kel, OM, writes:
Do you think the scientific experiments and literature on the nature of morality and how it evolved is flawed?
We went down some of that in a thread yesterday, I think it was. The problem is that "morality" probably means something very different to Collins than to the scientists who are looking for behaviors indicating empathy/sense of fairness and/or game theoretical or selfish gene models for altruistic behaviors.
For some people (I think I include myself in that group) "morality" is about determining what is "right" and "wrong" not merely having "a sense of right and wrong." Because merely having a sense of right and wrong is not a "morality" worth having. We may as well just say we're amoral (as I do) but have notions of how we individually think things should be. Science and biology, it seems to me, point very strongly toward the latter and there's overwhelming evidence that people's notion of "right" and "wrong" is mostly retroactive self-justification - which would neatly answer the question "if most people feel they have a sense of right and wrong why do they so often ignore it?"
For a creo like Collins, who appears to believe in some kind of external absolute morality, I can see how science and biology's "answers" to the question of morals look mighty thin. (Belief in external absolute morality also doesn't answer the question "if most people feel there is an absolute right and wrong, why do they so often ignore it?" which requires non-answers like mythical evil beings)
Posted by: Adeist | July 29, 2009 9:04 PM
Re: Eddie #64
Newton was actually instrumental in bringing the English off of gold coins and on to paper currency while head of the mint. I guess we could wonder aloud if his belief in Alchemy had anything to do with that. I can't remember the name of the book exactly, but I think it's called Newton & the Counterfitter, which goes in to great detail about his time at the Mint.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 9:08 PM
T. Lee E. writes:
"My words weigh more than yours.
And I'm throwing them faster and harder than you."
Q.E.D.
Posted by: Adeist | July 29, 2009 9:10 PM
Yeah it is called "Newton and the Counterfeiter"
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 9:24 PM
Q.E.D.
And furthermore, I'm a scientist studying the effects of shockingly vulgar exclamatory phrases on undereducated American Christians posting on usenet and internet forums.
Consider it a linguistic spectroscopy experiment. Pwned.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 9:24 PM
ist asserts that I "come off as a concern troll..."
I had to look it up. I am not a concern troll. I guess it's easier to label me than to listen to me.
I care deeply that science is not corrupted by religious bigots. I also think that PZ Myers' (and apparently a lot of his readers') approach to this cause is destructive, not constructive.
"...that's the nature of this blog, and either something to deal with or read elsewhere."
I'm not sure if there's such a thing as a Pharyngula First Amendment right, but if I think that PZ is hurting something that I care about by needlessly insulting people, I'm going to say that. And I'm also going to point out the testosterone-induced, defective logic that seems so prevalent here.
And I thought Fox News was obnoxious.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 9:34 PM
I care deeply that science is not corrupted by religious bigots.
But how can that be? Surely the faulty bigoted scientific evidence and conclusions will be uncovered and exposed in real time on internet science forums just like this one, just as the delusional religious convictions and conclusions of Francis Collins have been uncovered and exposed.
Science is entirely unbiased and neutral in that respect.
We have fully welcomed the new scientific method into our extensive repertoire of scientific methods - free and unfettered internet and usenet chatter. Why can't you?
In the future I look forward to quicker and more efficient and effective shooting down of scientific bullshit, with the verbal accuracy equivalent of a free electron laser.
We're gonna save a whole lotta money and time this way.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 29, 2009 9:36 PM
I didn't think Collins deserved the "flaming idjit" title, although I am convinced from what I've read here and elsewhere that his religion is getting in the way of his science.
But since his post is mainly administrative, we will just have to see what happens !
As to what I call the form before content nazis, they come in all shapes and sizes, from the spelling/grammer/punctuation faction to the tone and wording mob, and I can't say that I'm impressed by any of them,the arguments from vim, or from american english punctuation as opposed to world english punctuation, border on the ridiculous.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 9:38 PM
T. Lee E. says:
"Consider it a linguistic spectroscopy experiment. Pwned."
Linguistic spectroscopy, eh? I once worked closely with a soft-spoken gentleman who built the first infrared spectrometer. He was my scientific hero.
What exactly do you pwn? (Didn't have to look that one up. Maybe I'm not such an old fart, after all. ;)
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 29, 2009 9:40 PM
Fair enough. Would it be fair to say something along the lines of:Evolution can explain our moral systems. It can explain our sense of right and wrong, our sense of fairness and how we came to be moral creatures. That we have innate capacities for morality, and most things that most people see as moral most of the time are transcendant of culture (as indicated by such thought experiments as the trolley problem) demonstrates that there is an evolutionary base to the sense that we have.
But at the same time, this isn't a prescription for how we ought to behave. That the brain is suitably plastic that one can in effect 'override' these innate desires by means of culture, experience and by thinking about things. That if there was such a thing as a rape gene, it doesn't mean that because such a gene exists that it is okay to rape. There's a social component to morality that while acts on evolved components such as biochemical functionality and brain patterns, is strong enough to change what we think is right or wrong.
Would that be a fair statement of how things work in terms of morality? Personally I subscribe to Michael Shermer's notion of provisional morality, that what we consider moral is based on the time and place of our birth. To me the statement "evolution explains morality" is one that explains our genetic component of behaviour, that things like game theory and studies of animal behaviour show that there's a capacity to evolve such a system as we have now. (i.e. no divine intervention needed) But that it's not the whole story to how we behave. If it was, why would any of us waste time arguing that religion causes people to act poorly?
Posted by: Rorschach | July 29, 2009 9:47 PM
That would seem an insult to all the fine female commenters with their Oestrogen-induced defective logic here.
More likely is however, that you confuse defective logic with "stuff I disagree with and don't want to be true".
And I thought you said you weren't a concern troll?
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 9:48 PM
I once worked closely with a soft-spoken gentleman who built the first infrared spectrometer. He was my scientific hero.
I'm sure you'll find UV, XUV and soft X-ray spectroscopists to be considerably more harsh. It gets worse than 'harsh'.
Lots worse. Can't have that. Perhaps you can have it banned.
The God Word Bomb. Oh ... the humanity!
Posted by: Pete Murray
|
July 29, 2009 9:52 PM
Kel @ 197
I think you've captured very well my concern with the connection between evolution and morality. We evolved to be the kinds of creatures we are - particularly, the kinds of creatures who can reflect on what they ought to do and ought not to do, and what sorts of lives are valuable, and so on - but the evolutionary story, I believe, doesn't provide any content to morality. The content is provided through the exercise of the reasoning capacities that we in turn possess by evolution.
About Shermer: I don't know the specifics of his view, but from your brief description it sounds like a form of relativism. I think the same kind of line works against views like this as works against the claim that science can answer moral questions. Basically, just because I was born into a culture that caused me to develop certain views does not mean those views are correct. I don't believe, for example, that slave owners in the antebellum south were correct to hold slaves even though by their local cultural standards this was morally permissible (perhaps even required, on basically religious grounds and an assumption of the inherent moral inferiority of Africans). I'm not sure if this is the sort of view you had in mind, though.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 9:53 PM
Rorschach wrote:
"|And I thought Fox News was obnoxious.
And I thought you said you weren't a concern troll?"
I must not yet understand the term. How does my observation that some of the posters here are as illogical as what passes for newscasters on Fox make me a concern troll?
I gots to know.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 9:56 PM
T. Lee E. hath uttered:
"I'm sure you'll find UV, XUV and soft X-ray spectroscopists to be considerably more harsh. It gets worse than 'harsh'.
Lots worse. Can't have that. Perhaps you can have it banned.
The God Word Bomb. Oh ... the humanity!"
I have trouble following your trains of thought.
I bet you do too.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 29, 2009 9:56 PM
Rorschach,
Re: punctuation/grammar Nazis; I can only say that SIWOTI comes in a wide variety of flavours and everyone has their favourite...
Posted by: Iris | July 29, 2009 10:01 PM
...in stark contrast to the testosterone-induced, defective logic that pervades Christianity and its apologists (e.g. andyet & robocop et al.).
Concern troll is very concerned.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 10:06 PM
Hi Iris, who said:
"...in stark contrast to the testosterone-induced, defective logic that pervades Christianity and its apologists (e.g. andyet & robocop et al.)."
That's called a "tu quo que fallacy." Look it up.
This is too easy.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 29, 2009 10:07 PM
Hm, it wouldn't have occurred to me to subsummize that under SIWOTI, interesting thought..:-) I thought that most of the times it's just a sign of lacking a decent argument and going for the form of the argument instead.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 10:10 PM
I have trouble following your trains of thought.
Of course you do, you're a fucking retard. Do try to find yourself a scientific specialty and lose yourself in your work. May I suggest cultural anthropology?
I bet you do too.
Not at all. You are an anonymous 'Dave' terribly offended by words, yet seem unconcerned about the real life problems with real consequences to real life in the real world that real scientists work on. I, on the other hand, freely admit I'm an American retard, with the caveat that I acknowledge real problems in the real world and propose and publish publicly available solutions for them. Big bad meanies using big bad words is not real high on my problem list right now.
O'murka, I love you for giving us our freedom to be big meanies using real big mean words in the noble and unselfish effort to solve our real big, real mean real world problems.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 29, 2009 10:13 PM
A tu quoque can be a weak argument, which it why it falls under the informal fallacies, but it is not necessarily automatically wrong.
And in this case Iris points out correctly that your "testosterone-induced defective logic" argument is rubbish.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 10:18 PM
T. Lee E. says,
"you're a fucking retard."
I know that somewhere out there, Deepak is thinking, "go ahead, call him a flaming idjit."
Nope. Not gonna do it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 29, 2009 10:20 PM
OT, is it just me, or does the concern trolls seemed to have multiplied the last day or so?
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 10:24 PM
Rorschah says,
"And in this case Iris points out correctly that your "testosterone-induced defective logic" argument is rubbish."
Then I would argue that you haven't been reading what I've been saying closely enough.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 29, 2009 10:25 PM
Classic concern-trolling is an exercise in subversive deception. It's meant to describe the ploy of a commenter who argues that tactic A hurts cause X, when in fact the commenter is opposed to cause X and wants to undermine the pro-X faction's reliance on tactic A, which in fact may be an effective means of promoting cause X.
However, the label is more often applied to the more common type of commenter who, like Dave, does support cause X but honestly objects to tactic A, and expresses his opposition in a forum whose denizens frequently (sometimes famously) utilize tactic A on a regular basis.
It could be argued that the latter usage is incorrect, but terms have a way of evolving quite rapidly on the internet, and usage eventually trumps conventional definition. Right?
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 10:28 PM
OT, is it just me, or do you folks seem to really need to lean on the "concern troll" crutch a lot?
Posted by: Rorschach | July 29, 2009 10:33 PM
Only with people like you who rely on rubbish like the argument from testosterone and argument from "you are just like Fox news" a lot.
Posted by: John Morales | July 29, 2009 10:33 PM
Robocop:
Sam Harris on Collins' appointment.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 29, 2009 10:34 PM
My opinion is that the term is over-used, but I haven't really studied the issue.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 10:37 PM
Thank you Kseniya.
I knew about the first definition.
I guess that I am a concern troll, according to the second definition.
Still, I do find interesting the apparent lack of tolerance of criticism amongst people, many of whom, profess to be involved in science. It's really kind of pathetic.
Next post from Iris?
"Concern troll pities us."
Go ahead Iris, make my day. ;)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 29, 2009 10:39 PM
Dave, you may fit the concern troll definition, but I have noticed maybe half a dozen or so others the last day or two. Much more so than normal (my comment wasn't directed at you per se). We usually get a person or two per day who comes here and keep telling us we are mean, nasty, irreverent, disrespectful, blah, blah, blah. Usually they post for up to a day or so, then leave when we don't agree with them. I call tone trolls (don't like our tone) concern trolls.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 10:39 PM
Thank you Kseniya.
I knew about the first definition.
I guess that I am a concern troll, according to the second definition.
Still, I do find interesting the apparent lack of tolerance of criticism amongst people, many of whom profess to be involved in science. It's really kind of pathetic.
I guess many of these people are not truly interested in an honest clash of ideas. They come here to fit in. Hence the "concern troll" labeling.
Next post from Iris?
"Concern troll pities us."
Go ahead Iris, make my day. ;)
Posted by: John Morales | July 29, 2009 10:42 PM
Dave,
Criticism of your criticism is intolerance only inasmuch as your criticism is intolerance of that which you criticise.
Posted by: Iris | July 29, 2009 10:44 PM
Nerd:
It's not just you.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 29, 2009 10:45 PM
Dave, do you honestly think comparing PZ and commenters to Fox News is a kind of constructive criticism?
Your "lack of tolerance of criticism" reminds me of the religionists requesting tolerance and respect, but never giving any.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 29, 2009 10:47 PM
"you're a fucking retard."
Nope. Not gonna do it.
Why not? Science clearly demonstrates that given enough time, and a friendly and benign enough environment, even retards fucking leads to evolution. Environmental stress does seem to occasionally speed the retard evolution up, though.
I'm just guessing offhand the modern world qualifies as environmentally stressed. Certainly we have enough retards.
I say, go for it.
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | July 29, 2009 10:52 PM
Hey, Thomas, have you noticed that you're the only person in the Smart Zone that uses that term?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 29, 2009 10:57 PM
Kel, OM writes:
Would that be a fair statement of how things work in terms of morality? Personally I subscribe to Michael Shermer's notion of provisional morality, that what we consider moral is based on the time and place of our birth.
I'd say yes, but then I would push back against using the word "morality" to describe it. Because it's not really a system about right and wrong, it's just an individual or group's consensus at any given time. I'd say that our normal use of the word "moral" doesn't apply to a system of values that includes slavery and human sacrifice - but Shermer's provisional morality and biological/game theory/evolutionary morality would say that - indeed - it was "moral" at one time. (This was another topic we hammered on yesterday!) We could call that a "values system" or "socially acceptable behaviors" but if we say human sacrifice is "moral" then we may as well discard the term completely.
It's somewhat like the compatibilists' views of "free will" - they have something that feels enough to them like free will that they can feel they are choosing to believe in it and therefore - ta-da! Free will! But it's such a watered-down notion I don't see why they bother and it's more sensible to accept there's no choice but to abandon the idea completely. ;)
There's another problem with provisional values systems: they can only make statements about values in the here and now, given what we know right now. (BTW, that matches past behaviors: as we have an industrial revolution we conveniently "realize" that slavery is bad, etc.) But we're left with a problem of moral induction: we were ignorant savages, once, doing what we thought was right - what are we, now? Our attempts to make moral decisions in the here and now may be just as "wrong" and savage as things we thought were "right" 2,000 years ago (the code of Hammurabi was considered very just in its time but had a lot of rules regarding slavery that we'd consider repugnant) - since it's impossible to know if we are right about being "right" at any given time, the best we can say is "I'm doing what makes sense to me right now." Hardly a "moral" system if it's what amounts to an informed guess.
(Which, by the way, is why I self-describe as amoral. I recognize that "morality" appears to be meaningless as there is no "right" and "wrong". I do what seems to me to make sense and have given up trying to justify it or anchor it on any notion of right and wrong.)
Posted by: comfychair | July 29, 2009 10:58 PM
Neil deGrasse Tyson, Beyond Belief 2006. Explains how having an invisible friend can be an impediment to discovery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 29, 2009 11:01 PM
Kseniya wrote:
Indeed. I've only been involved in online discussions of this sort for just over a year or more and don't believe I've ever encountered someone who matches the first definition of 'concern troll'; I suspect that the term is acutally more appropriate for the second.
Much like 'Poe'. Yes, the full definition of Poe's Law relates to being unable to distinguish between genuine idiocy and feigned idiocy, but these days it's used to describe someone saying stupid, usually exaggerated and/or inflammatory, things while pretending to be something they aren't.
And the latter has become so common that it seems pointless to point out the original description.
But I guess unless someone comes up with better terms for either (or both) the meanings that've become attached to them are going to stick.
Posted by: Dave | July 29, 2009 11:05 PM
Sorry about the double-post, I'm sure you folks have a derogatory term for that too ;)
Nerd of Redhead said:
Much more so than normal (my comment wasn't directed at you per se). We usually get a person or two per day who comes here and keep telling us we are mean, nasty, irreverent, disrespectful, blah, blah, blah. Usually they post for up to a day or so, then leave when we don't agree with them. I call tone trolls (don't like our tone) concern trolls.
Thanks Nerd. I would guess the higher incidence has to do with some people (like me) who read about PZ's comments about Collins and came by to check it out.
Your observations seem spot on to me. Only one point that I see differently. I'm about to leave too. But I would say that it isn't because "They don't agree with me." I wouldn't expect that...
Rather, I would say, "They don't have any interest in honestly engaging my arguments." That's boring. And, as I have said before, it surprises me to find this attitude on a blog about science.
I support everyone's right to be "mean, nasty, irreverent, disrespectful, etc." Knock yourselves out. T. Lee E. -- you've got skillz there, and I hope you find some wisdom to go with them.
I just hope that you all (especially PZ) will consider the impacts that this behavior has on the public's view of science. I am an optimist (I dove into this morass, after all), but of this I am not very hopeful.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 29, 2009 11:09 PM
I dont think I have either.
And in the end it becomes convention how people use and apply the term, and on the net and certainly around Pharyngula the second definition seems the one that is conventionally used.
As to the wrong use of Poe, that still bothers me ! :-)
Posted by: Rorschach | July 29, 2009 11:11 PM
Well, QED I guess ! LOL
Off to work.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 29, 2009 11:16 PM
Doesn't bug me too much; it's more that there isn't another term to describe someone posing as something they aren't in order to be inflammatory. And I don't want to have to write that whole 11-word phrase when I can just use 'Poe' and know that readers will understand what I mean.
We need someone to come up with a new word.
Posted by: John Morales | July 29, 2009 11:17 PM
Dave:
I say you're projecting, in the Freudian sense, and that your claimed surprise is disingenous.
PS The subjunctive mood is a classic example of rhetorical distancing from your contention, and is often seen. The fact is, you are saying it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 29, 2009 11:19 PM
shithead?
wait
I guess that isn't descriptive enough
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 29, 2009 11:23 PM
Like any group trying to change peoples minds, you really need two types of messages. The first is get peoples attention. (Think what is required to get the attention of a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.) That is what we do here. Then you need some less vocal groups to assure them that we don't want to eat their babies. That is for Miller, Collins, and the more mild mannered people. (Think reasoning with the toddler once you have its attention and it is no longer screaming.) In our case, the toddler is the moderate religious folks...Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 29, 2009 11:26 PM
Well, I gave the world the word 'delugionist'; I think I've used up all my neolexicographical capacity for this year...
Posted by: Kseniya | July 29, 2009 11:28 PM
Dave:
You... you dirty, low-down, double-doggin' post-poster!
Indeed.
Agreed; though I'd add that there are situations in which resorting to insult is eminently appropriate (while still being a matter of personal choice). I base that conclusion on the large number of hedgeborn, pustulant swillpipes I've encountered here on the innertoobz. Heh.
Hmmm. Perhaps. I've been reading this blog pretty regularly for a few years now, and PZ has always struck me as a person whose self-esteem is in harmony with his humility. I could be wrong.
True.
That may also be true.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 29, 2009 11:39 PM
The problem I have with the, ah, emergent definition of "concern troll" is that many of The Concerned aren't trolling. They're not being dishonest, they're not misrepresenting their true position, they're not posting for the sole purpose of provoking an emotional reaction.
[cue Sven to assure me that my concern "has been noted."]
:-)
Posted by: Sven DiMIlo | July 29, 2009 11:45 PM
oh, I noted it all right
Posted by: John Morales | July 30, 2009 12:01 AM
Kseniya,
Indeed, 'trolling' is a rather general term.
It's arguable whether functional vs. intentional criteria should apply to the term 'trolling'; it's also an issue that most regulars tend to become jaded after the first few dozen instances of such expressions of naive concern.
I suggest that PZ's 3-comment rule is probably a helpful heuristic for these type of situations.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2009 12:06 AM
Yup, along with the old "brain first, keyboard second, conscience third, mouse last" workflow model of commenting. ;-)
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 30, 2009 12:08 AM
True. I guess that, since most of the people meeting this criteria appear to be of the sort flocking to the Chris & Sheril let's-all-play-nice-and-snuggle-with-cuddly-kittens-and-fluffy-bunnies standard, I'm just going to refer to them as 'Whiny New Militant Accomodationists' and drop 'concern troll' from my lexicon.
Posted by: GAZZA | July 30, 2009 12:32 AM
OK, just one more random comment from the horde...
Some have suggested (Dave, in particular) that Dawkins is a "better" spokesman because he's so much more "polite" than PZ. Well, here's my take:
- I have read and enjoyed every single one of Dawkins books, although I struggled somewhat with The Extended Phenotype (just a lowly computer programmer here).
- I have, in fact, briefly even met Dawkins at TAM3. I missed the opportunity to see PZ, but there has been few occasions that made me want to visit the States more than joining the Creation Museum tour (though sadly I just can't take the time off right now).
Dawkins = Good. No question about it. A little aloof, perhaps, but then again he was in a crowded room full of hundreds of strangers.
But here's the thing: I'd rather read PZ's blog. It's true that the occasional coarse language and insults would feel out of place in a published book, but this is not a published book. From all accounts from people that have met Paul, and from listening to him on the occasional radio interview he's on, he is not confrontational in person. This is his blog, for goodness sake. We're his "homies". He's amongst friends. I can't believe it's an exclusively Aussie tradition that your language becomes less formal amongst your mates than amongst strangers - surely that's universal?
Posted by: Dan W | July 30, 2009 12:35 AM
Oh, I just love it when people deliberately interpret someone's statements to mean something rather different than what they said!
(End sarcasm)
Collins is way to full of woo, far too illogical, and seems very likely to inject his nonsensical religious ideas into science. What good scientist or supporter of scientific progress wants that?
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | July 30, 2009 12:39 AM
182 Posted by: Dave
Nope my question wasn't rhetorical. If there is no statement that Collins makes that will make you call him an idiot, then you value politeness over honesty. I can agree to disagree with you.
If there is such a statement then we only differ in where we draw the line. Thats a different argument.
Posted by: Geds | July 30, 2009 12:50 AM
So I'm not really up on the cast of thousands that is the Pharyngula community, but is it just me or between Dave and Thomas Lee Elifritz did we get to watch two trolls of some sort argue with each other all day?
I hit the point where I was just tuning them out after about their second or third posts, but it sure seemed that way to me. I was too busy exploring the stupidity with which Robocop blindsided me to really care at the time.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2009 12:51 AM
Gazza @ #242:
Good points overall, Gazza, but I think you've overlooked one important aspect of this, which is that most people who've heard of PZ and think they know something about him have gained their knowledge, directly or indirectly, from what PZ has written here on Pharyngula. Very few, by comparison, have had the pleasure of meeting PZ or hearing him speak in person. Yes, this is PZ's blog; it is his to do with as he pleases, but it's hardly a secluded meeting place or members-only club where he and his friends can chew the fat away from the prying eyes of the world wide web and the various legacy media that occasionally cover it. To most of the PZ-aware population, Pharyngula is PZ Myers.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | July 30, 2009 12:53 AM
209 Posted by: Dave
Oh your thinking of me , Im flattered.
Posted by: Geds | July 30, 2009 1:09 AM
Yes, this is PZ's blog; it is his to do with as he pleases, but it's hardly a secluded meeting place or members-only club where he and his friends can chew the fat away from the prying eyes of the world wide web and the various legacy media that occasionally cover it.
You know, I've never really bought arguments like this. Yeah, it's public, but it's also a friggin' blog. I mean, I have my own little, significantly less popular corner of the internet wherin I talk about history, religion, and whatever else comes to mind. On my blog I don't claim to offer any hard and fast explanations for how the universe works but I offer an awful large number of theories and I often argue for them somewhat forcefully.
That's my prerogative. I don't care whether or not people agree with me. And while I'm one of those anonymous internet folks it's because "Geds" the internet person has a slightly different persona and slightly different concerns than "Brian" the real-life person. My internet and real-life personas are substantively similar, but they're still distinct.
Why should I expect someone else to have a different set of standards? Sure, PZ uses his real name, but I'd also be willing to bet that he doesn't get up in front of his classes and launch in to a diatribe against the woo or creationist craptrap of the day. I'd also be willing to bet that he doesn't get home and immediately launch in to stories of how annoying Collins or Miller are. He does that here, but that's because that's what he does on Pharyngula. I'm totally cool with that. It's why I keep coming back.
I'm also guessing that both the regulars and the concern trolls consistently overestimate PZ's reach. Yeah, we all know who he is and the Creation Museum knows who he is, but on both sides we're talking about the people who are deeply invested in the conflict. You ask to the average person on the street and they'll probably ask, "PZ who?"
Trust me, when I was in church this stuff didn't really come up much. I'd be willing to bet that most of the people I went to church with didn't have the faintest idea who PZ Myers is. Many probably knew who Dawkins was, but he got painted as that horrible, uncouth atheist, anyway. It doesn't matter that he's witty and urbane and goes out of his way to avoid insulting people. I didn't realize until I was quite ready to leave the church that Dawkins wasn't a ravening lunatic.
I think that's the perspective that's missed by everyone who says that people who aren't fans of Christians have to be nice. The Christians who are worried about this don't give a shit whether or not Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett are really good guys. They will paint their enemies (real or perceived) with whatever brush they need to in order to keep the flock scared.
Ultimately I think that's why accommodation is useless. You can't get ahead by giving quarter and expect the other side to do the same when history indicates they'll just take that quarter and demand another one.
Posted by: inkadu | July 30, 2009 1:16 AM
Two notes before I go to sleep:
- I'd sum up the difference between Francis Collins and Kenneth Miller in a few ways. Francis Collins believes in God BECAUSE of the science, and Miller believes in God DESPITE the science. And another facet of that is: Collins uses science to evangelize religion, whereas Collins evangelizes science to the religious.
- WowbaggerOM: I thoroughly reject your rejection of the phrase "concern troll." Did I say "concern troll."? I meant "concern troll". Intention to me is irrelevant. The subject matter of a concern troll is both so very aggravating and so very difficult to resolve that it leads to a lot of conversational froth; it is disruptive, so a negative connotation is perfectly acceptable. I say this as an occasionally earnest concern troll myself.
Posted by: kamaka | July 30, 2009 1:19 AM
Concern Trolls,
Before I begin, let me pass out tissues so you can wipe your tears away.
Do you have any idea how much time and effort PZ puts into this blog? He told me he reads all the comments! Imagine the time that has to take, above and beyond the posts.
So apparently, he is an incredibly dedicated educator. And this blog is an extention of his vocation as an educator.
Fuck you, Robert, not just the brilliant need educating. I taught underpriveledged kids for 17 years. Not too many great thinkers there. So you're saying I'm a hack? A second rate educator? My work isn't worth much? When was the last time you took a gang-banger on a canoe trip? Too busy with your own brilliance for such a thing, I would guess.
This is the venue PZ has chosen to further his vocation. Oh noes!! He insults the insultable, tolerates BAD WORDS, desecrates delusions, and calls 'em the way he sees 'em.
Really, who cares about your opinion of what you think PZ should be doing? This blog is what PZ IS doing, this is the way he chooses to be an outstanding science communicator to the larger world. Apparently, it's working, he gets huge traffic. The word would be "success".
Spare me the "Dawkins' style" argument, Dawkins posts here and seems just fine with the rowdy goings-on. If Dr. Dawkins dissapproved, I doubt he would be chumming around with PZ when he's on his lecture tour. The two of them looked like associates, perhaps friends, to me.
Make the adjustment, the woo-meisters need to be confronted in different ways with different styles. Given the dreadful history of religious behavior, the one thing we know for sure is that they need standing up to. Don't you cry-babies get it? The religious idiots are liable to be the death of us all! Child rape and suicide bombings are the least of it. If such a thing should ever happen, the next nuke gets lobbed in the name of dog.
Saying "fuck" and fucking children are not in the same league. So please, spare me all the concern trolling. There is no reason to be deferential in any way to the religious. They lie, cheat, steal and rape in the name of dog, and much, much worse, idoctrinate chidren in their hellish lies.
Thanks, PZ, I appreciate what you do.
Posted by: GAZZA | July 30, 2009 1:31 AM
Kseniya@246: True, it's not a secluded club, but to continue the analogy it's not the middle of Times Square either. If you disagree with what Professor Myers says, you may need to leave your thin skin at the door when you come here, but coming here is a choice, is it not?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 30, 2009 1:55 AM
Inkadu wrote:
Er, okay. Not quite sure what you're getting at, though - can you give me an example or an analogy?
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 30, 2009 2:20 AM
but is it just me or between Dave and Thomas Lee Elifritz did we get to watch two trolls of some sort argue with each other all day?
But I admitted up front I was a troll, and I was only here to troll on the subjects that interest me, which for the most part includes rockets, science and national scientific institutions, and the corruption thereof by nutty religious beliefs. I'm more than willing to give Francis Collins the benefit of the doubt, even though he has damned himself with nutty statements already. Maybe by exposing those statements here, PZ will influence him to straighten up and fly right.
But the damage over at NASA is already done, and I've still got to sweat through another month of the salvage job. So I damn well am going to say something up front about Collins in order to avoid the problems wrought by Griffin et al. How many lurkers here can say there were even aware of the huge problem over there at NASA, and it's fundamental religious component? That's just the tip of the iceberg.
Religion in science and government is a HUGE problem, and avoiding that problem or denying it isn't going to solve it.
It's going to take WAY bigger insults than I can come up with. So have at it. I am very 'concerned' about this.
On the other hand, it makes for great retard observing.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 30, 2009 3:04 AM
ist@#184 concisely sums up a line of reasoning on this thread:
Again, reconciling one's faith with evolution in a public talk, as a scientist, is inserting his superstition into his job writ large.
So, if Collins had kept these sentiments to himself, am I expected to believe that all of the commentators here and elsewhere calling for his rhetorical head would be appeased? I kind of doubt that.
You guys can go on and on about how you're NOT imposing a belief litmus test for heading a government agency, but the distinction you're trying to draw here is pretty weak. Miller, in my judgement, is guilty of rhetorical overreach at worst, and perceiving hostility to faith in general doesn't necessarily make Miller a liar. After all,at what point does Collins's private sphere of belief end, and at what point does it enter 'his job writ large'? If he had given his talk on 'religion and science' in a church rather than on a college campus, would that have mollified all of you? If his web site 'BioLogos' began with disclaimers about its theological content, would that have satisfied all of you?
I don't think so. I think this supposed echo chamber has a lot of different voices, and some of them have drawn the same conclusion I have: there is a rush to judgement where Collins is concerned, fueled by fear and colorful mockery, but not supported by evidence. At the risk of really hurting someone's feelings, isn't this the way a lot of believers treat public figures who acknowledge their atheism?
A few more comments:
Robert, your arguments appealing to authority (as at #83) are ridiculous. Teaching is an important part of the scientific enterprise. Playing 'dueling CV's' and bagging on PZ personally has no bearing on whether or not Collins is a good pick to head NIH.
Marcus Ranum (#169), you seem unusually sensible and calm on this thread, even for you. But then, you probably have more security, Internet-wise, than the rest of us . . .:)
Posted by: MadScientist | July 30, 2009 3:29 AM
Miller on Collins? Ooo - sounds kinky! Hey, isn't that a sin that'll damn them both to hell? Oh well, that's their problem.
I was rather disappointed to learn that Collins, much praised by others for fighting 'ID', turns out not to be a proponent of reason after all. The fight against ID was a religious ideological fight - Collins doesn't oppose it because it's nonsense but because he believes it's in conflict with *his* nonsense.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 30, 2009 4:44 AM
Scott,please remember, and PZ pointed this out, that it is the religionists that are imposing belief litmus tests for public office in the US,and that there would have been an outcry like there is no tomorrow had an atheist or Muslim,or any non-Xtian for that matter, been selected to lead the NIH.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 4:53 AM
Rorschach "256 said
"there would have been an outcry like there is no tomorrow had an atheist or Muslim,or any non-Xtian for that matter, been selected to lead the NIH."
I don't think that is quite true.
What would cause an outcry is if someone of another religion who was as much a public advocate of that religion as Collins is of Christianity had been appointed.
Collins is pretty much a sectarian advocate within the culture wars - just as say Dawkins, Harris or Dennett are.
In the case of a national position the argument is whether it is best that whoever takes the post is publicly neutral on this philosophical question (in other words someone like Dawkins would be equally incorrect for the post).
Now the practical problem could be overcome by Collins remaining publicly neutral on this issue until he leaves office and if he does this I cannot see a good reason why we should have a major problem with him in the post.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 30, 2009 5:02 AM
Sigmund @ 257,
true, I should have clarified that to mean any non-xian religionist as public about their belief as Collins.
Well, see, I'm not convinced that is true.
The criticism most people have with Collins seems to be that his religious views will interfere with his science.An atheist is not going to have that problem, and will, although maybe not " publicly neutral on the philosophical question", as you say, nevertheless be able to be neutral and uninfluenced on the science, which is what counts.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 30, 2009 6:45 AM
@Marcus Ranum
The system is not wholly contingent on that though, there are what we would call "universals" that pop in. And there are evolutionary reasons for that, just as there are reasons why the eye is shaped to see. In this sense, one doesn't fall into moral subjectivity even in a provisional view of morality. Interesting take. I agree that in the prescriptive sense, provisional morality fails in that case. But in the descriptive sense, there are still those universals that apply to most people that transcend culture that mean the term morality still has a use. Maybe this will get lost in semantics, and if that's all we are disagreeing on then there's really not much more I could add.
It's more the apparent illusion of free will which is why some would choose to keep the term even if it is not contra-causal. Same goes for morality. We are 'moral' beings in that we have the sense of right and wrong, and we act upon that sense. Our sense of right and wrong is somewhat personal, even if it has genetic, cultural and experience that shapes it. It doesn't stop the feeling from being there.
Again, this seems to be a problem between using morality for descriptive and prescriptive. In the prescriptive sense, I'm fully agreeing with you. But like I mentioned earlier, it's hard not to use the language for descriptive because we are talking about an internalised system. Maybe I'm missing your point though, is it that you feel that prescriptive morality holds no basis? Interesting take on things. When I talk on the matter, I try to take away all notion of prescriptive morality and instead talk in ethics. I still have a strong sense of right and wrong, what I would call morality. But there's no point in talking morality in terms of being prescriptive. If that makes sense.Am I on the same wavelength with what you're saying? I'm not sure if we're arguing semantics or there's a general disagreement in what we are trying to say.
Posted by: Sigmund | July 30, 2009 7:30 AM
Rorschach, I agree with you in principle but in practice the US constitution first amendment makes it difficult for such a national director to be so public in his or her advocacy of one philosophical position - thus political and legal reasoning must underlie the choice and public neutrality (or silence on the matter, if you wish) is the only option that seems to fit.
Posted by: llewelly | July 30, 2009 8:56 AM
Most forms of Christianity strongly encourage - and a few even require - that their members evangelize at every opportunity.Posted by: Robocop | July 30, 2009 9:58 AM
171: "[W]hat this discussion lacks is people who worked on the HGP posting specific examples about how Collins distorted the HGP's agenda with his goddist views, or held prayer meetings when people should have been talking about genomes, only promoting bible whackers, or something like that."
Exactly.
182: "Robocop> you've been given evidence, but you chose to move the goalposts rather than read it. Again, reconciling one's faith with evolution in a public talk, as a scientist, is inserting his superstition into his job writ large. Either you can't bloody read, or you've chosen to ignore that because it's destructive to your non-argument. I don't especially care which it is because you've proven yourself a tiresome troll several times over. Feel free to fuck off now, and let the adults have their discussion."
I appreciate at least the at a rationalization.
It's an interesting take to say, in effect, that everything Collins says in public is part of his job and that, if he says the wrong thing (in your esteemed view), he's unqualified. In your view there doesn't have to be any evidence of actual impact upon his science or his job -- holding the wrong beliefs and expressing them is enough. The thought police have made further advances than I would have guessed.
213: I've read the Harris piece. But it doesn't say anything that supports PZ's charge. All it provides are reasons why Harris is concerned that Collins's religious views might impact his job performance negatively.
252: "I think this supposed echo chamber has a lot of different voices, and some of them have drawn the same conclusion I have: there is a rush to judgement where Collins is concerned, fueled by fear and colorful mockery, but not supported by evidence."
Precisely.
Posted by: IST | July 30, 2009 10:51 AM
@ Dave> actually, I wasn't labelling, and I've read the content you posted... the point of my post was to identify for you the reason you've been receiving the responses you have. Perhaps I should have phrased it as " I/They know what you're saying, it isn't new, and they don't give a shit." Had I thought your motives less than sincere, i.e. the real definition of a concern troll, I'd have been less cordial.
@ Robocop> Sparkling example of illogic, thank you. The thought police comment is a gem as well. Am I to assume that you really can't see the issue with filling a scientific talk full of religious references? He can have all the public conversations on religion that he likes, I would prefer that he didn't attempt to infuse it into the subject matter he presents in the course of his job. Even Miller manages to avoid that, which is why I can stand to hear him speak. But since we've already had the Orwell reference, go ahead and trot out another bullshit canard, we'll wait.
@ Scott Hatfield> In my case, yes, if Collins would keep his belief out of his job I'd be fine with the appointment. I can't speak for the others here, but I personally don't give a fuck what someone believes if they can do their job properly and without interference from those beliefs. Miller is guilty of a strawman ad absurdium, but little else in this case. I'm not naive enough to think that a non-Christian would politically survive the appointment process for so public a position in the U.S. ... (with the possible exception of a Jew?)
Posted by: Robocop | July 30, 2009 11:20 AM
261: "Am I to assume that you really can't see the issue with filling a scientific talk full of religious references?"
If you're referring to the specific Veritas Forum talk, Veritas is a religious organization. If you mean general concern that his religious views as expressed might impact his scientific judgment at the NIH, I get it (as I have repeatedly said). But unless and until there's evidence that (in your words, paraphrased) Collins did his job properly without interference from his religious beliefs, PZ's charge is utterly baseless and unwarranted.
Posted by: Robocop | July 30, 2009 11:24 AM
Hit in 262 too soon. Sorry.
Should be:
"But unless and until there's evidence that (in your words, paraphrased) Collins did his job improperly and let his religious beliefs interfere with his science in that regard, PZ's charge is utterly baseless and unwarranted.
Posted by: Watchman | July 30, 2009 11:31 AM
Seconded.
Would it be naive to add Hindu to the list of possible exceptions?
Posted by: IST | July 30, 2009 11:36 AM
Watchman> I honestly don't know... the number of Xian fundies whose votes are needed to confirm such a nomination make me hesitant to say that anyone but a Christian could successfully navigate the hearings... I added Jew because people tend to be rather sensitive to being perceived as anti-Semitic, so the issue might not arise. I would like to think that the religion (or lack thereof) of the nominee is irrelevant, but I know better. I would definitively state that with the current political climate, an atheist, agnostic, or muslim wouldn't have a chance. Perhaps I'm misinformed as to the process for this particular nomination, as well.
Posted by: frog | July 30, 2009 12:28 PM
Rorschach: The criticism most people have with Collins seems to be that his religious views will interfere with his science.An atheist is not going to have that problem, and will, although maybe not " publicly neutral on the philosophical question", as you say, nevertheless be able to be neutral and uninfluenced on the science, which is what counts.
It goes above and beyond that, since head of the NIH isn't really a scientific job, but a political job informed by science. Collins will be an administrator over scientists, not a PI or working chair of a department.
So it's not just whether your "vocal activism" directly conflicts with the science -- but whether it makes you an ineffective leader, by distracting from the job at hand.
Dawkins (or PZ) beliefs wouldn't interfere with the job -- but being vocal about them would, insofar as it is a political job. Whether or not Collins allows his beliefs to interfere with his job is only part of the question; the other is that there is a conflict between his role as an evangelist and his role heading any government department.
When you join the Treasury, you have to leave G-S behind. When you join the Interior, you have to leave any lobbying, whether pro-environment or pro-corporate, behind. And if you were the face of any of those, it may really be impossible to leave them behind -- there will always be suspicion.
Posted by: davidm | July 30, 2009 3:05 PM
I was just wondering when P.Z. was intending to get around to supporting the above claim.
Oh, never mind! I know the answer! Never! Because he can't!
Ha, ha!
Oh, and this is another classy thread, P.Z. I'm sure it reflect great distinction on Science Blogs. LOL.
Posted by: bilbo | July 30, 2009 3:50 PM
This whole tit-for-tat over Collins' appointment as NIH head is getting more and more ridiculous. The sentiment in the blogosphere has evolved from initial skepticism, to "I don't trust him, but I'll give him a chance," to pointing fingers at a great christian conspiracy. I'd be careful in making wild suppositons that were Collins an atheist, Wiccan, etc. etc., he wouldn't have gotten appointed. That's bordering on something akin to extreme conservative, conspiracy theorist buffoonery...just at the other end of the spectrum. We're better than that.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 30, 2009 4:35 PM
Oh, and this is another classy thread, P.Z. I'm sure it reflect great distinction on Science Blogs. LOL.
Is that what you think science is about, great distinction?
Dude, your bow tie looks like shit.
The rest of us want results.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 30, 2009 4:39 PM
bilbo @ #268:
How is that a "wild supposition"? It's been pretty clearly established that non-christians are damn near unelectable in this country. Even the suggestion that a political candidate might even KNOW a non-christian is met with foaming-at-the-mouth hysteria. There's exactly one Muslim in Congress, and pundits demanded on national television that he prove he wasn't plotting the overthrow of the country, without even pretending to offer the slightest speck of evidence. Yes, an elected official was publicly accused of treason simply because he believed in the wrong imaginary friend! Our last President fought to deny Wiccan soldiers the right to select their own religious symbols for their own tombstones, and his father has been quoted declaring that atheists shouldn't even be considered citizens. And do you remember the whining and screaming that ensued when a Hindu was allowed to preside over a prayer in Congress? Or how Elizabeth Dole, her entire party, and most of the media screeched in horror at the fact that Kay Hagan even dared take money from atheists?
How do you THINK the crazies setting the tone of what passes for public discourse in this country would react to a high-profile appointee who wasn't a member of their cult? What chance would such a person have of getting a fair shake at confirmation hearings? Given the repubs' proud batshit insanity and the dems' cringing cowardice in the face of that insanity, who would dare take the political risk of making such an appointment?
Posted by: Robocop | July 30, 2009 4:47 PM
270: "How do you THINK the crazies setting the tone of what passes for public discourse in this country would react to a high-profile appointee who wasn't a member of their cult?"
Read this thread. Consider (again) the complete lack of evidence that Collins, in PZ's words, "inserts his superstition where it doesn't belong, in the execution of his job." Pot. Kettle. Introductions.
Not that you don't think you raise a valid point....
Posted by: Robocop | July 30, 2009 4:55 PM
"I don't think...."
Sorry.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 30, 2009 4:58 PM
As usual, Robocop shows he has no interest in addressing anything honestly. Such would be against his programming.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 30, 2009 4:58 PM
"inserts his superstition where it doesn't belong, in the execution of his job."
Dude, we already explained that the 'execution of his job' involves representing America and Americans as administrator of one of its highest level federally funded scientific institution, in a secular nation with constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
His previous statements would have been a DIRECT VIOLATION of the execution of that job had he had that job when he made those statements. We will not tolerate it when he gets the job. How can it be made more clear to you?
We're just cutting you some slack because you're a fucking retard.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 30, 2009 5:03 PM
I think it's a real stretch, not to mention a major mistake, to define "job" so broadly.
thankyou for your opinion. Your concern is noted.
If there's evidence that his religious convictions got in the way at the Genome Project, PZ's point is well taken.
if there's evidence that studying genomes is all there is to the science that NIH funds, then you might have a point.
unfortunately for you, that's not the case.
If all you've got is stuff he said and did elsewhere (even if he got honoraria for it), PZ's got nothin'.
all you have on Ken Ham is what he says and does.
you got nothin'.
...and you're a moron.
Posted by: Robocop | July 30, 2009 6:36 PM
275: "[I]f there's evidence that studying genomes is all there is to the science that NIH funds, then you might have a point."
You have a fear of what he will do. Okay. But PZ claimed more. Much more. Indeed, despite a number of obvious chances to do so, Collins notably did not insert his religion into his job at HGP.
"...and you're a moron."
[Yawn].
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 30, 2009 7:16 PM
Have you read The Language of God, Robocop?
I believe it is in the first chapter, where Collins brags about getting Clinton to include religious language in the HGP announcement, and made a speech himself in which he referred to the titular phrase.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 30, 2009 7:48 PM
It's fairly common for Jews to be appointed to high bureaucratic posts. Henry Kissinger and Alan Greenspan are both Jews.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 30, 2009 8:39 PM
Francis Collins stands by his god. It will be with him in his new post, whether he wants it or not.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 30, 2009 9:00 PM
Of course we must give Collins a chance and time to prove himself, and I have the gut feeling that he will eventually and surreptitiously insinuate hid god into the workings at NIH, maybe even dispensing with all hands-on experiments and issuing an order that from now on we will pray over the current experiments and let god perform the miracles as is it's wont. If this does not work, why then there is an unbeliever, or several, among the faithful and they will be weeded out. His god so directs, and no one is going to make fun of his god if he has anything to do with it!
Also, he will rename the agency The National Illogical Happenstance. Give him time and enough leverage and he will have proved himself to us and to his god.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 30, 2009 11:25 PM
Geds@246:
What argument? I've stated a fact.
That PZ is reserved and polite in person and that he keeps Pharyngular issues (and rhetorical styles) out of his classroom are worthy of note, but have very little bearing on the discussion. The argument I don't buy is this one: "PZ can do what he wants here, because it's like a haven where he hangs out with his mates." No, he can do what he wants here because it's his frakking blog. Period. But for better or for worse (and that determination is very much in the eye of the beholder) PZ's global public persona, such as it is, stems almost entirely from how Pharyngula is perceived, for it is the face he presents to the outside world. Furthermore, I reject Gazza's "it's not Times Square" comeback, because a) the popularity of Pharyngula makes that claim debatable, and b) more to the point, scale is irrelevant. Multiply the daily traffic counts by ten, one hundred, or one thousand, and the issues at hand wouldn't really change.
One more thing: If Richard Dawkins' unrelenting civility is not perceived as "accommodation" of the religious and the anti-rational, how is it that Dave's suggestion that PZ's somewhat intemperate and insulting criticisms of Francis Collins weaken his otherwise cogent arguments is perceived as such?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 30, 2009 11:54 PM
Collins notably did not insert his religion into his job at HGP.
aside from what PZ added in response to your comment, being the moron you are, you must have missed the part where Collins' Moral Law argument, which you might know something about if you had read his book, looked at his website, or ever heard him give a lecture on the role of science (which he has, and gotten paid for it), has fuck-all to do with the study of the human genome.
as I said, there is more to science than just studying the human genome, and he didn't even do a great job managing THAT project.
so, after all is said and done, you have a point that at best can be said to be born of ignorance, and at worst, is nothing but a deliberate red herring.
are you finished now?
I am.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 30, 2009 11:57 PM
robocrop sez:
"I don't think...."
yes, we know.
Sorry.
yes, you are.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 31, 2009 12:01 AM
It's fairly common for Jews to be appointed to high bureaucratic posts. Henry Kissinger and Alan Greenspan are both Jews.
It's also fairly common for Jews to be atheists.
did you have a point?
Posted by: Robocop | July 31, 2009 10:37 AM
277: "Have you read The Language of God, Robocop?"
Yup.
"I believe it is in the first chapter...."
It's in the Introduction.
"...where Collins brags about getting Clinton to include religious language in the HGP announcement, and made a speech himself in which he referred to the titular phrase."
That's not quite the way I remember it. The actual quote:
“I had worked closely with the President’s speechwriter in the frantic days just prior to this announcement, and had strongly endorsed the inclusion of this [‘we are learning the language in which God created life’] paragraph. When it came time for me to add a few words of my own, I echoed this sentiment: ‘It’s a happy day for the world. It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.’”
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 10:46 AM
Robocop,
Your quote clearly supports the claim that Collins has indeed brought his religious convictions into his work. A responsible scientist would have strongly advised the President to take the phrase out. Expressions of either religious faith or atheism have no place in government announcements about scientific issues.
Posted by: Dave (yeah, that one.) | July 31, 2009 11:56 AM
[concern troll pokes his nose in the door to see if anyone is still here...]
I guess this is my post mortem:
Ken Miller's only specific reference to PZ was to question PZ's commitment to reasoned dialog. From PZ's response, I guess that he concedes this point -- he reiterated that Francis Collins is a flaming idiot. That is not reasoned dialog. Miller wins on this very specific point.
Deepak:
If there is no statement that Collins makes that will make you call him an idiot, then you value politeness over honesty. I can agree to disagree with you.
Deepak, you were so close. What I wanted you to understand was that the following position is possible (and in my opinion preferable):
Attack the man's ideas. Attack the man's actions. Attack the man's words.
Don't attack the man.
I have no problem calling Collins's statements idiotic, I even agree that some are. I draw the line at calling him an idiot.
PZ called one of Miller's statements a lie (I happen to agree with the person above who called it a rhetorical overreach). He didn't call him a liar. That's good.
There is a difference. The former conveys your power. The latter, weakness. Deepak, we may still disagree, but I hope that you at least understand and acknowledge my point.
My argument, which most of you never even bothered to engage, is that if PZ wants to be taken more seriously, he'll consider not stepping over that line so often.
My son just finished his high school Lincoln-Douglas debate career. For four years, I got to watch many really amazing young critical thinkers engaging each other's arguments.
When they stand to debate, they don't look at each other. They look only at the judge, because that's who matters. They make arguments and counter-arguments. Insulting their opponent is called "abusive" and never impresses a judge. They are docked "speaker points" when they do it.
Get thee to a weekend debate tournament. Sit down and listen. You'll learn some very valuable skills from some kids.
Rorshach:
and argument from "you are just like Fox news" a lot.
I remember saying that only once -- if that's "a lot" to you, so be it. I guess I struck a nerve. I get it -- you really don't like to be compared to the other side.
Someone above referred to this forum as an echo chamber. I agree and it's pretty noisy in here. I expected a little more signal and a little less noise. But, as someone clearly pointed out to me, that's not what this place is about (and that makes me a "concern troll").
T. Lee E.:
I know that you are really proud that you shocked me with your vulgarity. Now I'll burst your bubble. When I wrote that post, I thought about putting scare quotes around "shocking vulgarity" to be absolutely certain that you knew that I was mocking your insults. Instead, I thought, let's see if he can figure it out on his own. You never did.
And what's with calling everyone a "retard?" I got over that in about 3rd or 4th grade. And pretty much everyone else I knew cleared it out of their system by, say, 10th. If you want to be taken seriously, come up with something more interesting. And, sorry but Buzz Aldrin is not a retard, American or otherwise.
T. Lee, I do however concede that there are people out there who will really be shocked and offended by the way that you talk. As I said before, knock yourself out. But what's the point?
PZ: Regarding your fraternity prank "Night at the Museum," if T. Lee E. shows up, please give him some movie money.
To the person who invoked Freudian analysis: Freud? Really? I hope that in *next* semester's psych class you learn something more interesting. (Notice that I just threw you a bone -- I didn't say "I would hope that...")
Back to the man of the hour (sorry T. Lee E. -- it's not you): Francis Collins. Consider the following:
For many years, Francis Collins, laboring under the weight of what many of you consider the ultimate handicap, has produced himself and and made other very important contributions to some very historic scientific work.
Now, just think what all of you, who are "blessed" not to have been so burdened, should be capable of doing. There is your charge.
(I know. I know. "Blessed" is a little inflammatory. ;)
Now I know that some of you are ready to resume telling me what you think of me (and not so of much my ideas), and where I should go.
Don't worry. I'm already on my way back there. It's where concern trolls come from...
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 31, 2009 12:03 PM
Yawn, concern/tone trolls are sooooo boring...and they take so looonnnggg to say nothing of interest.
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 31, 2009 12:06 PM
I guess I struck a nerve. - Dave
Anyone who says this is immediately assigned to the category "idiot without a real argument to present".
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | July 31, 2009 12:20 PM
In general you are correct and Ive never disputed that. My point is that a lot of the religious nuts will refuse to acknowledge the points you make and repeat their positions as if there was no argument against them (there are no transitional fossils! The eye couldnt have evolved! no morals without God! ad nauseum) At which point not only are their ideas idiotic , but they qualify themselves as idiots. Do you disagree? The only difference is whether you publicly call them as idiots or not?. And I see no problem with either approach. Someone like Carl Sagan/ Richard Dawkins may not call a religious nut an idiot and someone like P.Z does. I don't believe either of them are wrong. To each his own But what if Miller keeps repeating his lie even after it is brought to his attention? What makes someone who lies repeatedly different from a liar? Seriously by whom? The non believers? or the religious nuts ? If the religious nuts , then you'll have to give an example why you believe the attack ideas , not the person approach will work. This approach only works with reasonable people , most of whom wont need any additional prompting by P.Z. In the case of the Intelligent Design folks , I believe it was extremely important to show publicly that not only were their ideas idiotic , but that they were dishonest, insincere liars.Posted by: Dave | July 31, 2009 12:52 PM
Deepak:
[taken] Seriously by whom?
The public, in general. The readers of the New York Times opinion pages, in particular wrt this thread. I've been very clear all along that that's who really matters.
The non believers? or the religious nuts?
Of course I don't believe that we're going to convince them.
And here's the important point... not even by calling them names.
And what does the general public see in this "Science Blog?" "Yeah, they make some interesting points. But they sure seem to insult people a lot. Must be kind like the people over on Fox (sorry Rorschach, I said it again). Click."
Posted by: Dave | July 31, 2009 1:34 PM
Deepak:
What makes someone who lies repeatedly different from a liar?
Maybe nothing. But if you've already called his words a lie, what does it add to also call him a liar?
Nothing. And people who value civility will take you less seriously. You have gained nothing at the cost of being tuned out. It's a pretty simple equation.
And yes, I am well aware that civility is not highly valued around here.
Nerd: sorry to have taxed your attention span. ;)
Posted by: antistokes | July 31, 2009 2:41 PM
Dave @ 292
Ah, you do realize this is an internet forum with the comment moderation turned off....? "Civil" ain't what you're gonna find here. It's more like fury, which yes, tends toward the non-civil. It's a place for people to vent.
Also, your whole attack the ideas not the man schick? What else is a person but the combination of his genes, his environment, his past, his ideas, and his actions on those ideas? I'm going to agree with you, after reading a few of his (peer-reviewed, science) publications that Collins is not an idiot--- but some of his views recent, publicly stated ideas are idiotic. And he does indeed appear, in recent talks, to be pushing those views into (and on to) the science, which makes me as a scientist in biomedical research want to permanently flee the USA.
Posted by: Dave | July 31, 2009 2:58 PM
antistokes:
You must have missed this part of my post:
And yes, I am well aware that civility is not highly valued around here.
I understand that people are here to vent.
My main arguments have been consistently directed at PZ, who is a public figure. I've met him and agree that he is very pleasant in person. He drove all the way across the state to speak against a creationist on our local school board.
I have consistently acknowledged that PZ is a very good communicator. But his value to speak for our community (the science community) in a public forum is diminished every time he finds that he needs to follow his arguments with insults.
Posted by: antistokes | July 31, 2009 3:20 PM
Dave,
Yes, I did indeed see the "civility is not highly valued" bit in your post. I was in fact trying to refer to that with the mention of "venting". Venting not just in the comments, but for Dr. Myers, who yes, frequently insults on his own personal blog that no one has to read....perhaps uncivil, yes! Dr. Meyers being uncivil to the religion freaks is half the reason I read this blog. But this incivility is well within his prerogative, on his blog-space.
Posted by: josh | July 31, 2009 3:25 PM
[Concern troll levels up to meta-concern troll, remains concerned.]
Seriously though, Dave, while I agree that people like yourself aren't technically trolls in that they aren't intentionally disingenuous for the purpose of derailing a thread, they display a lot of troll-like characteristics. In effect, they contribute nothing to the discussion (something we are more likely to put up with from friendlies of course). The overarching trollishness of these types is to present themselves as supporters of a given cause who are only arguing for moderate tactics because they sincerely think this would better accomplish the shared goal. In reality, usually they don't support a common goal (e.g. opposition to Collins's appointment, reduction of public religion) and find style to be a convenient excuse to dismiss their "allies" arguments without engaging them on substance.
As to yourself, Dave. Trollish habits include:
-Pretending that "idiot" is either a medical diagnosis or a mortal insult. Giving a dictionary definition while ignoring the obvious usage "Idiot: n, one who does idiotic things."
-Engaging the trollish T.Lee E. and using that to cast aspersions on PZ or the blog community as a whole.
-Your "I am shocked! Shocked to find profanity on the internet!" moment, which you later claim was sarcasm.
-Whining that you expected better of a science blog and are disappointed, while not having offered any scientific arguments or evidence. Generally ignoring the distinction between a blog and a more formal setting.
-Picking out a passing reference to Freud to imply that a commenter was ignorant/beneath your consideration. Not addressing substance of comment.
-Demeaning, irrelevant, unsupported potshots at PZ: He "fancies" himself in Dawkin's league. He's unable to understand the distinction you are trying to make. He's compelled to insult people. He's incapable of shame. Etc.
-Wild assertions of fact and statements of arbitrary, schoolyard-game rules: It's just wrong. It weakens your position. It weakens all of our positions. It's admitting defeat. It conveys power/weakness (this one sounds straight out of a lame business self-help book). You concede the point. It would get you points docked in a high school debate. (Hilarious.)
-Strawmen: We believe that religious sentiment is the "ultimate" handicap, we can't conceive of a successful religious scientist.
-Unflattering comparisons to Fox News, etc., with no substantive evaluation of method or motivation.
-Upon finding that people continue to disagree with you or don't think you are worth their time, declaring: They're not interested in honest debate. They are intolerant of criticism. They're boring (irony alert). Their faulty logic is testosterone fueled.
-Concern trolling being called a concern troll.
If you don't want to be seen as a troll avoid the above. If you think PZ went too far in calling Miller a clown or opposing Collins' appointment, that's fine. People who want to honestly argue these points can do so. But they have to acknowledge what PZ and others exactly are and aren't arguing for. They can't pretend that there is no tradition of valid criticism outside the stuffy affectations of formal debate. They need a more sophisticated analysis than "Psych 101 teaches us that people become defensive when insulted." Al Gore, John Kerry (both wrongly) and Sarah Palin (rightly) were all effectively ridiculed out of an election. They can't assert that their personal tastes in style are proscriptive. They can claim that style affects communication but not that it invalidates substance.
In short, quit clutching your pearls and make a real argument, if it's worth anything someone will listen.
Posted by: antistokes | July 31, 2009 3:39 PM
heh ok at seeing Josh's "meta-concern troll" I am laughing my ass off...thank you, Josh. Just remember to use the prefix "meta-" in a Responsible Fashion! (PS when in college me and some friends painted "meta-god" on to a whole bunch of tshirts that where then worn by a math major gal. We also got a pair of socks and painted "meta-socks" on them. O college, how i meta-miss you....)
Posted by: Dave | July 31, 2009 4:01 PM
Josh:
That's not half bad.
-Concern trolling being called a concern troll.
Trying to grok recursion always makes me dizzy.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | July 31, 2009 4:03 PM
Dave
Again, in the Dover trial , in my opinion , it was essential that not only were the Intelligent design theories proven as fake, it was also essential that Dembski and co were shown to be dishonest liars. That it was essential to prove they had hidden agenda's. That they were continuing to mislead people and were frauds and charlatans (all insults mind you)
Do you agree or disagree?
Posted by: antistokes | July 31, 2009 4:14 PM
@ Dave 298:
Awwww, honey, "recursion trolls": that's a good one. Will think of making a tshirt. Ohhh or a "meta-recursion-troll" tshirt.
Posted by: Dave | July 31, 2009 4:37 PM
Deepak:
...That it was essential to prove they had hidden agendas. That they were continuing to mislead people and were frauds and charlatans (all insults mind you)
Do you agree or disagree?
That's very good -- something substantial to chew on.
I didn't really follow the Dover trial that closely and am certainly pretty foggy on the details that I do remember. With those caveats, here's my response:
If you want to prove that someone has a hidden agenda, the best way to do so it to prove inconsistencies in what they have said and what they have done. Standing up and court and declaring, "You sir are a charlatan," while certainly gratifying, can't be considered evidence in a court of law. And I'm pretty sure that the jury should not weigh it.
I'm pretty sure that's how it went down at Dover. I do recall that the judge was pretty careful.
Methinks that maybe you watch too many courtroom dramas.
(That's joke. I don't mean to demean to you. I do appreciate your willingness to rebut my arguments. It's what I expected more of here -- no melodrama intended -- sorry Josh.)
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 31, 2009 6:39 PM
Ken Miller's only specific reference to PZ was to question PZ's commitment to reasoned dialog. From PZ's response, I guess that he concedes this point -- he reiterated that Francis Collins is a flaming idiot. That is not reasoned dialog. Miller wins on this very specific point.
Headline news:
Dave creates strawman of debate; makes Miller winner of strawman by knockout!
what will you do next, Dave, imagine a strawman version of the Scopes trial?
pretty pathetic.
suggest, before you make conclusions about whether or not reasoned arguments were presented, that you ACTUALLY FUCKING READ THEM.
this "debate" has centered around the "accomodationist" issue, and there are dozens of individual threads detailing the arguments involved.
If you really want to know, rather than assume, you might try starting here:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/the-big-accommodatinism-debate-all-relevant-posts/
then read the many threads regarding Collins' many failed attempts at applying his theology to science.
you know, like rather than assuming what happened at Dover, you could read the transcripts that are readily available.
this is why people are calling you little more than a concern troll; because the thrust of your diatribe is based on little more than creating a strawman of the actual arguments based on your personal objections to the emotional invective used.
which, btw, exists on BOTH sides of this debate. You might want to read some of Miller's screeds more closely.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 31, 2009 6:49 PM
Dave is still concerned. I'm concerned about his concern, since it is totally misplaced behind faulty thinking, and his inability to specify what he actually wants.
Here's the thing Dave, sometimes to get things done, or put people on notice, the good cop/bad cop game needs to be played. We are the bad cops. Which also means we don't give a shit about your opinions.
Posted by: Deepak Shetty | July 31, 2009 6:52 PM
Not the judge/jury, it was necessary for the general public, not only to demonstrate that the ideas were fraudulent but also that the people in questions were fraudsters who shouldnt be allowed near any educational institution. So in my opinion there is value sometimes in explicitly naming and shaming. It might not help you make your case better but it does help identify the people you are dealing with. Heh I love perry mason. probably indicates my age too. I have a thick enough skin :).Posted by: Anri | August 1, 2009 3:07 AM
Strangely, we seem to get a fairly large number of people online here that are of the opinion that scientific or free-thinking causes are harmed when the spokespeople for them use insulting or rude language.
Yet, whenever we wander a thread over to a recounting of deconversion stories, I don't recall anyone ever saying anything like 'I remained a Christian (or whatever) because I thought atheists were rude.' On the contrary, we hear of many people that came to abandon their religion specifically because they found out that other people dared to be rude, insulting - disrespectful! - towards things they had been taught were beyond reproach.
In short - politeness sometimes works to convince people of things, and rudeness sometimes works. If you feel a specific instance of rudness was unwarranted, by all means, post about it - you are likely to have lots of company, for and against. But to suggest that any rudeness on the part of those outspoken on 'our side of the fence' is guaranteed to be counterproductive just doesn't seem to be the case.
Posted by: John Morales | August 1, 2009 3:20 AM
Anri @305,
Strangely, none of the regulars hold to this viewpoint.
We're an echo-chamber, apparently. :)
Seriously, this is regularly asserted, but I've yet to see supporting data, nevermind an established case for it. Anecdotal evidence, I think, runs both ways.
It's argument by assertion.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 1, 2009 4:38 AM
If people would just open their fucking eyes, look around and see what atheists have achieved by keeping their mouths shut and being nice, tolerant and respectful little atheist sheep so far.
Posted by: Kel, OM | August 1, 2009 5:13 AM
Ridicule is an important social tool.
Posted by: Dave | August 1, 2009 10:18 AM
OK Deepak.
I guess the difference is that the the court ruling can stand on its won and people can draw their own conclusion. And you think that it's better to tell them explicitly.
Thanks for the honest exchange.
Posted by: Dave | August 1, 2009 10:20 AM
"stand on its _own_"
Posted by: pdferguson
|
August 1, 2009 11:42 AM
Exactly, it is often the best tool when dealing with religious claims. And not all ridicule is rude, except perhaps to the target. Anri seems not to understand the distinction between rudeness and ridicule.
Posted by: Dave | August 1, 2009 11:46 AM
Deepak:
I see that I really butchered my response. Here's what I meant:
I guess the difference is that I believe the the court ruling can stand on its own and people can draw their own conclusions.
And you think that it's better to tell them explicitly.
Thanks for the honest exchange.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 1, 2009 12:24 PM
Ichthyic #284
IST in #261 wrote:
I was pointing out that Jews do not have a handicap in being appointed to senior US governmental positions.