…and this is a 
Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum were right about one thing.
They sent me a copy of their new book, Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), with a strange request: "We hope that like Dr. Coyne, you will suspend judgment until reading the book, at which point we'll be interested to hear what you think." I was a bit offended; of course I was going to read it with an open mind. Why would they think it necessary to ask me to do so?
That was before I got to chapters 8 and 9, however, which open with very direct and personal attacks on me and on Pharyngula, atheists in general, and anyone who fails to offer religion its proper modicum of respect. "Oh, that's why they warned me," I realized, "it's like asking the victim of a hatchet job to hold still for a moment so they can get in a good whack." They definitely did need to request my forbearance, so I wouldn't just toss their hypocritical and ignorant paean to mealy-mouthedness in the trash right away, which was one perceptive moment on their part. And yes, I freely admit that my opinion of the book is colored by the palpable contempt they hold for me.
But I get ahead of myself. As I said, the discombobulating assault didn't begin until chapter 8, but the problems I had with the book started much earlier.
In chapter one.
This chapter is completely baffling. They chose to illustrate the serious problem of the disconnect between a science-illiterate public and the science establishment with a strange example: the redesignation of Pluto as a non-planet. This event was accompanied by a public outcry, by people who had some peculiar emotional attachment to the idea that Pluto was the ninth planet, an attachment that was fed by a willing media that found this level of trivia to be about as complex an issue as they could handle. We know that certain topics rouse the public, and often it's unpredictable what will catch the fancy of the news. But this? This is the opening story on which they build their argument that "consequences of the science-society divide may prove far more damaging"? And what do they propose we should do to resolve the issue?
This is where I am first taken aback. They come down on the side of Pluto being redesignated as a planet! Why, is not clear — they clearly list the scientific reasons why astronomers thought it didn't merit the title of "planet" — but they talk over and over about "rifts" and "conflicts" and the "danger of being seen as an Adlai Stevenson egghead". Apparently, the sin of the scientists was a failure to bow before popular opinion, and insufficient attention to the PR consequences of a scientific decision.
Well, Chris and Sheril, what should the astronomers have done? Should they have had a binding referendum delivered to the public to get their say? Are there other scientific matters that should be decided by popular vote? (Let's put the truth of evolutionary biology up for decision in a poll!) Should scientists take the time to explain with a little wit and humor and sound scientific reasoning why they made that decision? If so, they missed the boat: they should read Neil deGrasse Tyson's The Pluto Files(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) for exactly that. How about some discussion about exactly why they think that failed?
This chapter was symptomatic of the deficiencies of the whole book. We're told over and over about how scientists suck at the job of science communication (which is largely true), and that we need more media- and politically-savvy scientists (definitely true), but then…what? Apparently the job of these science diplomats of the future is to bow to the will of the people, and tell the nerds back in the lab what they should be doing. And of course, one of the keys to being a successful media scientist is to show the proper deference and respect to cultural conventions.
Carl Sagan is their hero, and he's one of mine, too. He's the model of the scientist who is also both a skilled communicator and an activist, and I would agree entirely that we need more like him. However, they fail to notice the peculiar disjunction in their story: while reciting the wonderful efforts of Sagan and praising his skills and efforts, they're also telling the story of the dismal state of science education at the same time. Strange…the object of their praise was influencing many of us growing up at that time, those of us who were already enthusiastic about science, but the culture was not improving, and was even getting worse. Is it possible that perhaps the problem does not lie entirely in the minimal PR skills of scientists, but in greater institutional forces at work in our society? The religious right was not glued to their TV sets every night that Cosmos was on, you know. Sagan was preaching to the choir, and there's nothing wrong with that — it can be a powerful tool for motivating and informing a wider cadre of science communicators.
The book entirely neglects the anti-scientific forces. Our salvation apparently lies entirely in the hands of scientists who quietly promote the positive values of the scientific outlook, while turning their eyes away from deep-rooted values and institutions that directly threaten science. To challenge those would be to offend people! And if we offend anyone, we lose! It's an exceptionally defeatist attitude in which they plainly recognize a serious problem in American society — it's the premise of the whole book! — but at the same time, demands that we avoid addressing the structural roots of those problems.
It's even in the weirdly oblivious conclusion to the whole book.
Science is not merely culture's "essential component", and we don't just have to mend the rift between science and culture: We have to create a perfect union. Science itself must become the common culture.
I can agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment…but how, exactly, are we to accomplish it without challenging anti-scientific attitudes? Like the Pluto incident, what Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to want is that science conform itself to that common culture, that somehow science will accommodate itself to the popular will, and everyone will be happy. They lack the realization that what they're actually proposing is a rather radical change in cultural values, and that that will not come without some pain and conflict.
Another blind spot is present throughout the book, but particularly in the chapters where they excoriate the "New Atheists". They regard Dawkins with considerable distaste (but at least they spare him the outright contempt they give to me!), and at the same time they bemoan the lack of great science communicators since we lost Sagan. Wait, what? Are they aware at all that Dawkins is an excellent and popular writer, that he has sold millions of books and has made a number of documentaries? That he's taken good advantage of the web? I'd be curious to know who has sold more books, Dawkins or Sagan, but if I had to bet on one it would be Dawkins. He has critics and even enemies, including Mooney and Kirshenbaum, but that's irrelevant — they know that Sagan was also strenuously vilified by critics on the Right and among the religious, as well, yet somehow that opposition is regarded as the defining element of Dawkins' popularity, yet is overlooked in the case of Sagan. Scientists will always be delivering hard truths; if our hypothetical desired media-savvy science communicator cannot make anyone uncomfortable, then he or she is a failure at science.
And then there's this exasperating nonsense, in which Mooney and Kirshenbaum are discussing how to get science into the popular media.
Dawkins and some other scientists fail to grasp that in Hollywood, the story is paramount—that narrative, drama, and character development will trump mere factual accuracy every time, and by a very long shot. [emphasis mine]
What Mooney and Kirshenbaum fail to grasp is that to a scientist, factual accuracy must be paramount; it is not a matter on which we can compromise. Further, what they fail to recognize, and what they excuse for Hollywood, as that accuracy does not have to compromise narrative, drama, and character! They berate Dawkins as if he has no awareness of the basics of what makes a good story, which makes me wonder if they've read any of his books at all — do they think he simply drily recites a body of abstract thoughts at the reader? Perhaps they should take a look at The Ancestor's Tale(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) to discover that he actually has addressed this imaginary deficit.
The bottom line is that Mooney and Kirshenbaum's book recites the obvious at us, that there is a fundamental disconnect between science and the popular imagination in our country, but offers no new solutions, and in fact would like to narrow our options to a blithe and accommodating compromise of science with rampant ignorance. Their own bigotry blinds them to a range of approaches offered by the "New Atheists"…a group that is not so closed to the wide range of necessarily differing tactics that such a deep problem requires as Mooney and Kirshenbaum are. It's not a badly written book, but it's something worse: it's utterly useless.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 8, 2009 2:06 PM
Did they miss Neil deGrasse Tyson? I think he's great - his enthusiasm for scientific exploration is infectious! I also like Sean Carroll and Brian Cox. I went to a public lecture in Chicago a few years ago by Stephen Hawking, and it was terrific.
Plus, there's PZ. Science and Cthulhu headgear! What's not to love?!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | July 8, 2009 2:16 PM
A 'controversy' that shouldn't bother anyone over the fucking age of 12. There's actually morons who claim this is a Leftie conspiracy of some sort. Probably there's some sort of pablum stipulating that children who were taught that Pluto was a planet are now confused, & should be 'taught the controversy!'. Feh.Posted by: Kyle | July 8, 2009 2:18 PM
I guess they don't think the Great Offender Howard Stern is very popular. True, he's not a scientist, but to assume that being offensive will always push people away is simply wrong. Further, to assume that challenging people will automatically offend them is demonstrably wrong - there's only one group of people who I think that might be said of semi-reasonably, and that's the extremely fundie religious nuts.
Posted by: Clemens | July 8, 2009 2:18 PM
Science: If you aren't pissing of someone, you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: SaraJ
|
July 8, 2009 2:21 PM
I can list a number of scientists who are good communicators of science: Neil deGrasse Tyson has been mentioned already, Sir David Attenborough, Dawkins, certainly, all the kids from Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, Matt Ridley, Phil Plaitt, and on and on. If anything, Sagan began a revolution and inspired many, many people to become vocal about science.
Posted by: Kichae | July 8, 2009 2:21 PM
The Pluto thing is doubly baffling to me. I work in a large planetarium which entertains and informs thousands of people per week. I've tackled Pluto five times a week, every week, for two years now in front of a general (i.e. largely scientific illiterate) audience, and almost every single one of them are comfortable with it.
Pluto was an issue for the 3 months following August 2006. Except in the most stubborn of circles, it's a dead issue. People now enthusiastically correct me when I "mistakenly" call Pluto a planet.
As someone who sat on the front lines of communicating Pluto: Dwarf Planet to a confused and emotionally invested public, this kind of argument paints these authors as armchair quarterbacks in the game of public outreach and communication in my eyes.
Posted by: Rhus | July 8, 2009 2:22 PM
Just yesterday I was reading Dawkins' eulogy of Douglas Adams. A very moving tribute, by the way. Dawkins quotes Adams about his love affair with science: "The world is a thing of utter inordinate complexity and richness and strangeness that is absolutely awesome."
Mere factual accuracy can be so beautiful. That sentence alone should make the whole book questionable. Besides, I suspect that these authors wouldn't have a comfortable relationship with fiction either.
I very much enjoy your reviews, Prof. Myers. Thanks.
Posted by: J.D. | July 8, 2009 2:25 PM
Did they miss that essentially Sagan was the Dawkins of his day? He challenged religious dogma directly in Cosmos and was villified by the right for it. I'll never forget how he introduced me to the concept of Occam's razor. He asked if the complexity of the universe required a creator, surely the creator must be vastly more complex and thus you must ask who created the creator so why not save a step and conclude the universe required no creator. He asked if the beginning of the universe required a creator then why did the creator not require a beginning. If you answer that the creator just always existed then why not save a step and conclude the universe just always existed. These were openly atheistic statements and even as a child at the time were so refreshing to my ears from constant din of superstitious crap surrounding us every day. One of the reasons I love Sagan is he ignored Mooney's strange advise on how to communicate science and he directly challenged the entrenched dogma of the public.
Posted by: Michael | July 8, 2009 2:25 PM
Wow, what a contrast against Michael Mann's review on the Discover Magazine website (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/08/unscientific-america-a-must-read-for-anybody-who-cares-about-science/) where he ends with the quote "If it were up to me, this book would be required reading for all undergraduate science majors, along with Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World”. "
It's as though you both were reading different books (or that MM is a friend doing them a favour by giving a raving review?)...
However I found your review more enlightening, and imagine if I read the book I would agree more with you.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 8, 2009 2:27 PM
I would differ with you on one point, I think the book is pretty badly written. It has that folksy slovenly-journalisticky style that is so common and so...unappetizing. It's all part of the populist schtick, I think, and it grates.
Posted by: Ray S. | July 8, 2009 2:30 PM
I think Sagan did reach beyond the choir; He was a popular guest on the the Tonight Show and the audience for Cosmos was (IIRC) a record for PBS for many years. Those audiences could not have been composed only of scientists. But the American public of that time was at least still somewhat enthralled by the space program. Today the public is disinterested in science if not actively opposing it.
I miss Sagan and Feynman, but Tyson and Dawkins are doing well in my estimation. I'm especially amused at hose who see Dawkins as some sort of attack animal (Discover referred to him as Darwin's Rottweiler a while back) as that really isn't borne out in any video I've seen of him.
Posted by: Michael | July 8, 2009 2:31 PM
In addition, I would have thought a more appropriate controversy would be either the vaccine/autism scare or global warming.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 8, 2009 2:32 PM
I didn't say it was well written -- but it is very breezy and easy to read, which is one measure of journalistic merit, I guess. I only had to waste 3 hours on it.
Comparing it to Demon-Haunted World leaves me feeling vaguely nauseous. That book was everything this one is not: bold, challenging, provocative, interesting, and favoring a view of a godless universe.
Posted by: marcus
|
July 8, 2009 2:32 PM
Pluto should not only be designated a planet by popular vote, it should be designated a habitable planet by referendum! Why should reality stand in the way of public relations?
Posted by: littlejohn | July 8, 2009 2:34 PM
What? Pluto is MIckey Mouse's dog! Don't you guys know nothin'?
Posted by: Kate | July 8, 2009 2:36 PM
I don't understand...I should prefer inaccutate Hollywodised versions of science/reality exactly why?
According to them, every sunset is beautiful because it's seen throgh Michael Bey's favorite burnt-orange filter, right? And giant robots from outer-space are more sexy than real robots and scientist-chasing zombies-vampires are more fascinating than the biology that explains how vampire bats actually sustain themselves on blood, etc, etc, etc. Pick a movie, any movie, and adjust your views on science to fit that!
Honestly, that assertion is just too fucked up for words.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 8, 2009 2:40 PM
That's how we deal with the issue of scientific illiteracy! We dumb down science and make it open to public polls!!!
Don't like Pluto no longer being a planet? Who gives a damn about classification guidelines, establishing criteria for determining what is and isn't a planet, 78% of Americans like it being a planet, TA DA! It's a planet!
Don't like evolution? 52% think GODDIDIT! TA DA GODDIDIT!!!
Dumb... really dumb...
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 8, 2009 2:42 PM
Thanks PZ, from what I have now seen from you and Ophelia, I will certainly not buy that book.
Scientists in the US and Europe and other places are pretty much equivalent. The fact that science education is so poor in the US is not because scientists are worse communicators in the US but due politicians being hostile and/or indifferent to science.
Posted by: marcus
|
July 8, 2009 2:43 PM
Hey! Giant intergalactic robotic scientist-chasing zombie-vampires need good PR too!
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 8, 2009 2:44 PM
Haha - no, you didn't say it was well written, you just said it's not badly written. I would just say it is badly written, that's all. I agree that it's an easy read though - but at the same time I found it so mentally stifling that I couldn't read it for long at a time.
Demon-Haunted World it ain't. And they underestimate how forthright Sagan could be about religion, too.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 8, 2009 2:44 PM
Really, Peasey, you won't be getting your review on the book jacket with that attitude!
Posted by: Ben | July 8, 2009 2:45 PM
"Mere factual accuracy?"
The guy who excoriated Republicans for playing fast and loose with scientific data actually uses the phrase "mere factual accuracy" without any hint of sarcasm?
I need a drink.
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 8, 2009 2:47 PM
I sometimes wonder how self-styled 'science enthusiasts' can feel that facts and truth can be compromised in favour of connection...
Posted by: Robotczar | July 8, 2009 2:49 PM
I tend to agree with your comments. Cultural change in the US is not going to happen by scientists getting more media savvy and carefully explaining themselves. Real change, if and when it comes, will involve pain. No amount of dumbing down science and playing background music in TV science documentaries is going to change the current situation. Anti-intellectualism and science illiteracy runs too deep in our culture. I am not clear on how things are going to change, but the change probably involves a painful readjustment of the American lifestyle, when seems pending.
I suggest that perhaps you want to look at science illiteracy in higher education. Has not the post modern movement, that has captured much of the humanities, launched severe attacks on what they call logical positivism or empiricism? How can we expect the average Joe to respect science if university professors are asserting that we need to move beyond empiricism? To my thinking, this is the academic version of intelligent design. Some professors, schooled in a particular philosophical perspective and armed with the righteousness of a political perspective (e.g. multiculturalism), think they can tell us what is "wrong" with the scientific perspective they do not understand. You don't seem to have much to say about this issue, perhaps because it is easier to deal with the religious who don't have the credentials or intellectual weapons of college professors. You may be somewhat immune in biology, but the social sciences are deeply divided on this issues and there is plenty of accommodation going on to the detriment of fields like psychology, education, and sociology.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | July 8, 2009 2:49 PM
Actually, the science fiction movies that strived for factual accuracy seem to do well and become classics. Kubrick's "2001" for example. "The Abyss" made plenty of money, too. (Sure, the aliens in each do magic, but they're supposed to be much more advanced than us. All the human tech in both films was either in use, or plausible extrapolations of existing tech.)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 8, 2009 2:50 PM
See? Here's the same Mooney who did such useful work in the Republican War book, reduced to this kind of pathetic driveling. Exhibit 1,056,945 for the case that trying to take religion seriously addles the brain.
Posted by: Michael Simpson | July 8, 2009 2:51 PM
I am so glad I read this review. The title of the book alone would have interested me in purchasing it. As for pluto, the Pluto Files gave me all that I needed to know about the "controversy."
BTW, for those of you who haven't read Pluto Files, you should buy it. It tells the story of how science comes to a conclusion, although I still don't like the fact that it was "voted" on. It would be like the International Society of Biochemistry voting to demote Uracil to a lesser nucleotide. But then again, I think Thymine rules.
Posted by: Watchman | July 8, 2009 2:54 PM
The book sounds to be, in part, a subtle exercise in blaming the victim.
Who shall we send to live there?
Good question. I dunno. Perhaps for reason that relates to why the scientists and engineers in Kornbluth's future world designed cars and highways that gave the rider the illusion of exhilarating speed without actually providing it?
Posted by: beth | July 8, 2009 2:54 PM
#2 commented that the Pluto controversy shouldn't bother anyone over 12. I'd counter that it actually wouldn't bother anyone under 12. My kids are growing up knowing that Pluto isn't a planet. I'm guessing it's only the old fogies who would whine about it. And that they use Pluto as an example just annoys me more - I don't want my kids getting dumbed down facts because science-illiterate grownups can't deal.
Posted by: ddr | July 8, 2009 2:54 PM
In Cosmos, Sagan also says (paraphrased) that he would rather know the truth, no matter how bleak, than have a fantasy, no matter how wonderful.
Carl was in favor of telling the straight truth. He was not sugar coating the pill to get more people to take it.
Posted by: Colugo | July 8, 2009 2:56 PM
Mooney and Kirshbaum are wrong about Pluto. There is no contradiction with Pluto no longer being a planet as far as science - and hence science museums, textbooks, papers - are concerned and Pluto keeping its cultural status as a planet.
It's not like Holst's The Planets is going to be revised in order to excise Pluto. Pluto is still a planet by cultural/mythopoetic/emotional criteria. But not scientific ones.
In the mythopoetic cultural realm, algae and mushrooms are still plants, there are only four (or five) elements, phlogiston and the ether exist, tree shrews are still primates, ramapithecus is a hominid, and langostino are lobsters. In the world of whimsy and lore just about anything goes. I don't have a problem with that. But there is no reason to ask science to go along with these fanciful notions in order to make some people more comfortable.
Posted by: bric | July 8, 2009 2:57 PM
Dawkins and Tyson on being nice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxff0k_TEzI&feature=related
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 8, 2009 2:57 PM
And apologetic
statesmenjournalists of a compromising kind,Such as--What d'ye call him--Thing'em-bob, and
likewise--Never-mind,
And 'St--'st--'st--and What's-his-name, and also You-know-who--
The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you.
But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list,
For they'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be
missed!
CHORUS. You may put 'em on the list--you may put 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed--they'll none of
'em be missed!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 8, 2009 2:58 PM
The whole Pluto controversy was a little silly. I remember Neil deGrasse Tyson on The Daily Show saying how he was getting hate mail from third graders.
As for Mooney and Kirshenbaum's blog, The Intersection, a far warning: the comments sections on many threads are totally Kwok-infested.
Posted by: Ray Ingles | July 8, 2009 2:58 PM
One more movie that got the science (nearly) right, and did well: Gattaca.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 8, 2009 3:00 PM
Well, let's see,
The US led the world in scientific discovery in the 60s, conservative backlash in the 70s led to the rise of the moral majority and "Christian conservatives" in the late 70s and early 80s. Across the country these "grass roots" movements led to more conservatives becoming involved in government at all levels. By the beginning of the 21st century we have dropped in education and science education nearly to the level of second tier countries ...
At the same time economic developments forced most families to establish dual wage earners. I'm not talking about the bogus "Leave it to Beaver" world, I'm talking about educated people being too busy and too tired to be as involved as they would have been in previous decades. This has made it even easier for lower levels of government, including school boards, to be dominated by religious conservatives who, have a problem with science education...
coincidences?
Posted by: Brian | July 8, 2009 3:00 PM
Ugh, just that they started with the classification/reclassification of Pluto is a huge red flag. Its classification is barely a scientific question in the first place. Gathering the data to inform this decision required some use of science, largely in using our understanding of known natural laws to describe the planet. Even that didn't come close to discovering new laws of nature, just using them to tell us a a speck more about the universe.
Posted by: Alverant | July 8, 2009 3:01 PM
Reminds me of a recent Jesus and Mo strip. Science and society can get along if 1) society ignores the parts of science that make it uncomfortable and 2) science doesn't disturb society with new facts and agrees with everything society wants to be true.
Sorry Mooney, ain't happening. Science will not be subject to superstition or popular opinion. It doesn't matter how unpopular an idea is, if it has proof behind it and if it is the best explanation for something then it's science.
Posted by: Watchman | July 8, 2009 3:01 PM
Beth:
RIGHT! Hear, hear!
Posted by: Robin | July 8, 2009 3:03 PM
Pedant point: there was no official definition of 'planet' before the 2006 IAU convention, so there was no 'redesignation' of Pluto.
Posted by: Steve13 | July 8, 2009 3:04 PM
Richard Dawkins is the reason I fell in love with science. I cannot emphasize enough how much my life changed after reading him and being exposed to the wonders of evolution.
Posted by: Tim Awake | July 8, 2009 3:08 PM
*sigh* As someone who writes fiction the dichotomy of narrative and truth/fact seems insane. You need "mere facts" to make a good story. If you are coloring outside of the lines for effect, you need to know where the lines are.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 8, 2009 3:09 PM
Nothing like starting out a book named Unscientific America with a blatantly unscientific (yes, nomenclature is part of science) tilt against a reasonable designation of Pluto as a non-planet (yes, there are still issues of what is, but Pluto's no planet).
After that start, I wouldn't have much hope for it.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 8, 2009 3:12 PM
That's for sure.
First performance of The Planets: 1918
Pluto discovered: 1930
I'd just like to make the pissy, petty and largely irrelevant observation that it bothers me that Ms. Kirshenbaum touts herself as a "marine biologist."
Posted by: Alexandre Mello | July 8, 2009 3:14 PM
Hey P.Z., you could write a much better book, why don't you give it a try?
Posted by: zaardvark | July 8, 2009 3:16 PM
"Dr. Spaceman, when they check my DNA, will it tell me what diseases I might get and help me remember my ATM pin code?"
"Absolutely! Science is... whatever we want it to be."
Posted by: Elwood Herring | July 8, 2009 3:20 PM
I agree that the Pluto debate is trivial, but nevertheless here's my take on it.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 8, 2009 3:21 PM
On Pluto: some people fret way too much over categories and classification. We classed Pluto in the most useful category, as we should. So-fucking-what? Bill Hicks' voice flashes into my head - 'What's it to ya?' The physical reality of Pluto is not affected one bit by what category we place it in, and Pluto is not offended (being an inanimate object) so no one needs to defend its honor.
"A rose by any other name"...
Posted by: Stu
|
July 8, 2009 3:22 PM
there was no official definition of 'planet' before the 2006 IAU convention, so there was no 'redesignation' of Pluto.
I did not even know that. WIN!
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
July 8, 2009 3:24 PM
Michael @27
If you like, you can think of it as a vote on whether the dynamicists/planet-formation folks or the planetary geologists get to set the definition the word 'planet'. Most dynamical simulations of the Solar System include the 8 planets (sometimes the Moon, and sometimes the Earth-Moon system is just modeled as one object), but not any asteroids or KBOs, except those being studied -- and those are usually test particles (no mass). Geologists, however, tend to compare any body that has had more geology than impacts/mass-wasting, and that tends to be the 'round' things. Depends on whether you think Ceres is more like Earth or more like 243 Ida.
I suppose you could always define dynamical planets versus geological planets, but the IAU definition already does this pretty much with planets/dwarf planets, and their way is shorter.
Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 8, 2009 3:28 PM
Preface: Having not read the book, nor am I intending to read it; my opinion should be understood in that light.
I've read a number of reviews, all of which praise it for its easy reading style. This falls into the realm of aesthetics, if you like the style you may like the argument. I dislike Mooney's style of writing, glib and swarmy just irritate the heck out of me and Kirshenbaum's style is as bad. So this raises the question, does this style undermine their argument? Does their (blatant) appeal to popularity reveal a hidden agenda?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
July 8, 2009 3:28 PM
It is funny that the authors should suggest that it's more important to provide a narrative and get science into the mainstream than it is to get the facts right. I haven't watched TV in years until I started watching "The Big Bang Theory". They actually take the trouble to get the facts right--engaging a UCLA physicist as a consultant And guess what? The comedy doesn't suffer. Even most of my non-geek friends like the show, and it's been signed for a 3rd season, so it must have a following. Maybe scientists need to communicate better. However, maybe the average American needs to get up off his fat ass and actually learn enough that they aren't completely illiterate of science.
Posted by: Michael Day | July 8, 2009 3:28 PM
This quote was attributed to Sagan and Ann Druyan (if it's not theirs, it's still quite true):
"In a democracy, opinions that upset everyone are sometimes exactly what we need. We should be teaching our children the scientific method and the Bill of Rights."
Posted by: Jello | July 8, 2009 3:29 PM
So if I have there basic idea correct, they are saying that if some huckster convinces a majority of the population that mixing coke and pepsi will cure AIDS, scientists shouldn't call it bullshit because that would offend the gullable doops. How moronic.
Posted by: Watchman | July 8, 2009 3:32 PM
Steve LaBonne:
LOL! Yes, yes... I should have thought of that. I was in a production of The Mikado just a few months ago, and the director (a good friend, and bandmate of mine) wrote an additional verse or two, with a more contemporary slant. It was very clever and amusing, especially in performance. (Our Koko was everything you'd want in a Koko...)
Posted by: dbear | July 8, 2009 3:35 PM
Kwok is commenting over at The Intersection on PZ's review.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/08/unscientific-america-a-must-read-for-anybody-who-cares-about-science/#comments
Posted by: Brian D | July 8, 2009 3:37 PM
NewEnglandBob said: The fact that science education is so poor in the US is not because scientists are worse communicators in the US but due politicians being hostile and/or indifferent to science.
This hits the nail on the head. One criticism of the book I haven't seen yet is that, for all its fawning over C.P. Snow's two cultures ideas, it prescribes scientists being better at communicating (accommodating the nonscientists) but doesn't seem to suggest that the nonscientists become better educated (that is, accommodating us). This progresses scientific literacy... how? (Indeed, it would seem rather to promote this approach, which is pretty much exactly the status quo, as opposed to getting the public and the politicians to understand what science says.)
I've argued with Mooney over this topic through comment discussions, and he just doesn't seem to get it. He's got an audience of nonscientists as well (probably more than any other science journalist), and he refuses to challenge them to rise to the task of solving scientific illiteracy, instead essentially blaming science. I find this profoundly misguided - even more misguided than religious accommodation.
Posted by: dbear | July 8, 2009 3:38 PM
Kwok is commenting over at The Intersection on PZ's review.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/08/unscientific-america-a-must-read-for-anybody-who-cares-about-science/#comments
Posted by: mk | July 8, 2009 3:38 PM
Mooney and Kirshenbaum told you they'd intended all along to send you an advanced copy of the book. I think that was a lie. A cowardly lie. It took your bringing that to the attention of readers that did it. Adding insult to injury they rudely and condescendingly say: "We hope that like Dr. Coyne, you will suspend judgment until reading the book, at which point we'll be interested to hear what you think."
Of lesser note and concern, a while back I was effectively banned from their site for (they say) dropping the F bomb. A simple search of their site quickly put the lie to that.
The Intersection... run by a couple of lying cowards.
Posted by: Michael X | July 8, 2009 3:39 PM
This review reminds me of the never ending (and never answered) question that I asked Mooney et al during the first wave of "framing" here on SciBLogs. Where is your evidence? Simply stating that the "New Atheists", whatever that actually means, damage scientific culture is an assertion. It is not a fact.
While on the flip side we have atheism, science, the dangers of religion, etc., all becoming a larger part of the public conversation and breaking new positive ground in news coverage and best seller lists. Much like suffragettes causing a stir and getting things done, I have yet to see how current atheists have actually damaged anything beyond a few timid peoples tender dispositions.
So again, Mooney and Co. please present a worthwhile case where forceful opinions did actual damage to the culture at large. All I've heard so far is that it makes fundamentalists not want to listen, which isn't any different than before those opinions were aired. This is of course countered by the fact that non-fundamentalists are being challenged, and minds are being changed. I could point to my own story as evidence of that fact, though I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one here.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 8, 2009 3:41 PM
I never understood the brouhaha about Pluto anyway. FFS, the thing only got discovered and named in 1930*, i.e. there's people alive today that are older than that model of the Solar System. So what's the drama with adjusting it again to fit better with what know about what's the Solar System is made of?
*I wonder if adding a planet to the system caused the same drama; and if not, what that tells us about our society...
Posted by: Elwood Herring | July 8, 2009 3:41 PM
Colugo: Holst never wrote a movement for Pluto, although others have tried to append his Planets Suite with a tacked-on extra piece (Colin Matthews for one. It's a good work in its own right but should be kept well away from Holst's masterpiece in my opinion.)
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 8, 2009 3:44 PM
The IAU is wrong about Pluto, as are you, PZ Meyers. Pluto IS a planet; however, it is the solar system's 10th planet, not its 9th. I am a writer who has actively been spending the last three years advocating either the overturning of the nonsensical IAU decision and/or ignoring it. I have done public presentations, write a Pluto Blog, and have educated counless children, including my two nephews about the fact that this is an ongoing debate along with the scientific reasons for Pluto remaining a planet.
You fail to mention a good book supporting Pluto's planet status, "Is Pluto A Planet?" by Dr. David Weintraub. Another book, "The Case for Pluto" by Dr. Alan Boyle, is due in October, and a third book, which I am writing will be out hopefully sometime within the next two years.
Only four percent of the IAU voted on the controversial demotion, and most are not planetary scientists. Their decision was immediately opposed in a formal petition by hundreds of professional astronomers led by Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto. One reason the IAU definition makes no sense is it says dwarf planets are not planets at all! That is like saying a grizzly bear is not a bear, and it is inconsistent with the use of the term “dwarf” in astronomy, where dwarf stars are still stars, and dwarf galaxies are still galaxies. Also, the IAU definition classifies objects solely by where they are while ignoring what they are. If Earth were in Pluto’s orbit, according to the IAU definition, it would not be a planet either. A definition that takes the same object and makes it a planet in one location and not a planet in another is essentially useless. Pluto is a planet because it is spherical, meaning it is large enough to be pulled into a round shape by its own gravity--a state known as hydrostatic equilibrium and characteristic of planets, not of shapeless asteroids held together by chemical bonds. That is why Ceres is far more like Mercury or Earth than it is like the asteroid Ida.
These reasons are why many astronomers, lay people, and educators are either ignoring the demotion entirely or working to get it overturned. I am a writer and amateur astronomer and proud to be one of these people. You can read more about why Pluto is a planet and worldwide efforts to overturn the demotion on my Pluto Blog at http://laurele.livejournal.com
Posted by: Snappy Turtullian | July 8, 2009 3:45 PM
As has been noted elsewhere, it comes down to a profound
lack of interest in science on the part of most people.
The difference was that in Sagan's time, that group of
folks felt that they had to be conventionally respectful
of science & scientists even if they privately spoke in
terms of pointy headed intellectuals with no common sense.
Thanks in large part to the religious right, cultural norms
are shifting: those who have no interest in science now feel
no need to pretend to respect it.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 8, 2009 3:47 PM
Jeezis - speaking of Kwok - he's been calling me a bitch and long lists of other names at Mooney's/Kirshenbaum's blog - none of which Mooney has removed, despite removing a comment and telling everyone to avoid personal attacks yesterday - now Kwok says Kirshenbaum told him about an article of mine. Can that be true? They feed Kwok to go after their critics? It beggars belief.
Jerry Coyne just blasted them for this bit of sweetness and light.
Posted by: Watchman | July 8, 2009 3:48 PM
Uh-oh. Have Kwok's obsessive attentions shifted from ERV to Sheril?
Posted by: Aquaria | July 8, 2009 3:58 PM
Dawkins and some other scientists fail to grasp that in Hollywood, the story is paramount—that narrative, drama, and character development will trump mere factual accuracy every time, and by a very long shot. [emphasis mine]
Fucking moron. Is he really that stupid? Hollywood is in the fantasy business, not the reality business. Even the rubes know this. People in Hollywood know this. Why doesn't Mooney?
Or does he really think that the rubes are so addled in their minds that they have to have their fantasies engaged to learn about reality? Does he think they don't know when to turn off the make believe and face reality?
Really?
Not only a fucking moron, but one who holds the rubes in utter contempt.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 8, 2009 4:02 PM
Mooney probably learned that from hanging around with Nisbet.
Posted by: mk | July 8, 2009 4:07 PM
I really do think that was the start of the descent into absurdity. It's been sad to watch.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 8, 2009 4:07 PM
Could we please get some kind of wordfilter for Kw*k? I don't really wanna hear about him. "Gently carress" won't work, but I'm sure something adequate can be thought of.
It's pretty rich if he's not cencored for calling a woman a "bitch", since one of the first topics after The Intersection's move was sexism. (Rightly so, I guess, since several commenters on Phil's blog had focused on Sheril's looks.)
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 8, 2009 4:09 PM
Kwok is a certifiable nut. It speaks poorly of the Intersection that they've let him run amuck over there.
Seriously, when I've had long comment threads where one person tries to flood the thread, I've put some smack down...even when they aren't entirely disagreeing with me. Or even if they are. There is something wrong with a guy who makes a third of all of the comments in an active thread like that.
Let's not even get started on McCarthy...
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 8, 2009 4:10 PM
#63:
No it isn't, not if it's location is a relevant factor. You're simply asserting that it's irrelevant because it allows you to make an argument. You've given no actual basis for that.
By your criteria, we have some 20 or more planets in our solar system (no idea what the actual number of spherical moons are, our own Moon, the Galilean four, Titan, Charon, and Mimas all spring to mind rather quickly.) Your criteria makes things more convoluted, not less. All because you want to cling to an emotional investment in calling Pluto a planet. We're talking about a continuum of objects of various masses and orbits, no matter where you draw a 'planet' line it's going to be completely artificial and will appear so when you compare objects only barely on one side of the line to objects barely on the other side.
Indeed, I've even referred to all the moons I mentioned above as 'planets' in various contexts. You're way more concerned with semantics than planetary science, which just makes no sense to me.
Posted by: Bob L | July 8, 2009 4:12 PM
So this book's message can be accurately summed up as "if those scientists didn't were those tight white lab coats they won't temp the Creationists to rape them"?
Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum don't have a clue, the Religious Right needs to destroy reason for it to survive. For fundamentalism to work it has to have it's beliefs accepted as a facts and not as theology or fine ideas.
Posted by: Interrobang | July 8, 2009 4:15 PM
Actually, I think he's right, although maybe not in the way you think -- in storytelling, the salient components of storytelling (narrative, drama, and character development) are going to trump factual recitation (accuracy aside) every single time.
The sad fact of the matter is that most people are more comfortable with stories (that is, things with narrative, drama, and character development) than they are with facts, which is part of the reason so many people hate history courses as they're commonly taught in primary and secondary schools across North America -- rote memorisation of dry dates, names, and places.
Human beings are wired to "do" narrative; it's what allows us to comprehend things like time and cause and effect, so we naturally tend to gravitate toward stories. The kind of people who become scientists may represent an atypical inclination away from preferring to absorb knowledge through stories, in fact.
However, the human liking for narrative does not mean that all stories have to be fantastical, or that stories must compromise factual accuracy. Not every story is fiction, and not every narrative is fantastical. The point is, one can certainly use the techniques of storytelling to convey factual information, usually to a positive result. (If Mooney failed to make this clear, then he's kind of not doing his job.)
Posted by: thalarctos | July 8, 2009 4:15 PM
Taken with the grain of salt that I am not a physicist, that is definitely my impression of the science/comedy ratio in "Red Dwarf" as well.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 8, 2009 4:23 PM
Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann has a different spin on the book over at Real Climate.
Posted by: Archaeopteryx
|
July 8, 2009 4:28 PM
PZ is so right about The Ancestor's Tale. If you haven't read it, get right to a bookstore. It's an imposing-looking book, but I promise, it'll hook you, and you won't be able to put it down, and you'll finish it in no time. Dawkins is as good a science writer as there is.
Posted by: Archaeopteryx
|
July 8, 2009 4:31 PM
PZ is so right about The Ancestor's Tale. If you haven't read it, get right to a bookstore. It's an imposing-looking book, but I promise, it'll hook you, and you won't be able to put it down, and you'll finish it in no time. Dawkins is as good a science writer as there is.
Posted by: SaraJ
|
July 8, 2009 4:33 PM
Colugo:
There is no Pluto composition in Holst's The Planets.
Posted by: Joel | July 8, 2009 4:37 PM
I didn't read any comments before this one, but I'd like to chime in about Dawkins.
I was born and raised in a very christian household. In my mid 20s I picked up The God Delusion (my first Dawkins book) pretty sure I was a diest or maybe agnostic. After I read the first chapter or two I considered myself an atheist. After the book (which contained only brief references to evolution but quite a few references to science as whole) I became engulfed in science. I wanted to learn about evolution and astronomy like I never have before, I started reading this blog and other science blogs, etc. I was am still am amazed at science!
I'm not sure if I'm in the minority but I suspect I'm not, I think Dawkins is a wonderful promoter of science. He got me into it and I'm sure he's turned on others. And I feel strongly that he's turned on more people that he's turned off (is it fair to say some people never will grasp it). Sure, he's no Sagan, but who is? It certainly isn't Mooney and I don't think his writing will create one.
Posted by: Lynna | July 8, 2009 4:37 PM
PZ, you didn't give us any examples of the authors dissing you. At least one, pretty please.
Posted by: Pascalle
|
July 8, 2009 4:39 PM
I think the scientists that are in the spotlight are actually very good and vocal about what they're doing.
Just speaking for myself, my life literally changed when my best friend handed me a copy of Hawking's "a brief history of time".
From there i started reading more, got more interested in my life long atheïsm and found this site.
Your posts PZ, along with what i read from Hawking, Dawkings (starting on the selfish gene soon, loved the god delusion) prompted me to make a big.. no, huge change in my life.
I'm going to study again. Age 35, i'll start on my bachelor of science in the upcoming year, direction nature and enviromental science.
It's YOUR fault :)
Posted by: Mariana C. | July 8, 2009 4:40 PM
Robotczar @24 said:
"I suggest that perhaps you want to look at science illiteracy in higher education. Has not the post modern movement, that has captured much of the humanities, launched severe attacks on what they call logical positivism or empiricism? How can we expect the average Joe to respect science if university professors are asserting that we need to move beyond empiricism? To my thinking, this is the academic version of intelligent design. Some professors, schooled in a particular philosophical perspective and armed with the righteousness of a political perspective (e.g. multiculturalism), think they can tell us what is "wrong" with the scientific perspective they do not understand. You don't seem to have much to say about this issue, perhaps because it is easier to deal with the religious who don't have the credentials or intellectual weapons of college professors."
This. The whole post-modernistic-multiculturalist-relativistic stance seems to be a plague in Humanities depts. I abandoned a career in academia because I couldn't envision myself putting up with that crap for the rest of my life.
Anyway, as I was reading PZ's review, this exact issue that Robotczar pointed out was what sprung to my mind. Made me want to go back and reread the whole debacle that followed Sokal's prank. We need more Sokals out there, I believe.
Posted by: Dave UH | July 8, 2009 4:41 PM
That book seems to be a rehashing of their boring and unimaginative talk at the beyond belief seminar. Yes, the science divide is extremely large in America, their solution "Take it up the ass".
Posted by: Marion Delgado | July 8, 2009 4:42 PM
From what I've read, it's no Matthew Nisbett.
I liked Michael's take better too, dhogaza, but he's not attacked in the book, either.
This all gets very meta- very quickly. It all depends on whose ox is gored - I studied biology and ecology for a couple of years, but basically moved to math physics and never went back, so climate, etc. controversies excite me more than evolution, quite naturally. The only exception was when the hate on Rachel Carson included insinuations that pests don't evolve resistance.
On the other hand, my pet peeve - the fundamentalist religion that is modern xxx-liberal "economics," and which combines more woo than a Coast-to-Coast A.M. convention could hold with more murderous fanaticism than the entire MidEast produces in 100 years, literally never gets mentioned. Most of the "New Atheists" pander to THAT religion 24/7, and are eager to jump on 3rd world people and blame THEIR religion when in the Mammon faith is doing business-as-usual. But instead of complaining, I accept that they debunk the bunkum they see, and I debunk the bunkum I see.
Chris Mooney generally does good and valuable work. P.Z.'s blog and his posts are interesting and informative, and his joy in biology is a bit like Rachel Carson's. I respect that they fight just as I did when Dawkins and Gould were feuding.
I have a class of people I don't respect at all, Nisbett would be one and Pinker would be another, where I think tearing down the work of other people masks their own inability to contribute anything accurate and non-ideological.
Posted by: recovering catholic | July 8, 2009 4:42 PM
My cynicism tells me that Mooney and Kirschenbaum are attempting to cash in on all the money the religious right are throwing at the current spate of publications similar to theirs.
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 8, 2009 4:44 PM
I'm not saying location is irrelevant. I'm saying it should not be the only factor in establishing a definition. A good definition takes into account both where and what an object is. The IAU definition does not do that, creating a potentially absurd situation. If a Mars-sized object is found in the Kuiper Belt, it would not be a planet while the real Mars is. That is a problem.
What is wrong with having 20 plus planets in our solar system? We don't limit the number of elements in the Periodic Table to make it easy for them to be memorized? Why artificially limit the number of planets? What is wrong with saying we have 20 primary planets and a much larger number of secondary planets? No one has a problem with there being billions of stars and billions of galaxies. To me, the need to restrict the number of planets to a convenient number could itself be considered an emotional argument.
And you do not know my motivation for wanting to keep Pluto in the planet category. Your assumption that it is based on emotion is the equivalent of an ad hominem attack. To me, what is far more convoluted is saying that dwarf planets are not planets at all. I include not just Pluto but Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris as planets because of their geophysical properties. Putting a shapeless object in the same category as one pulled into a round shape by gravity is simply bad science.
In fact, Dr. Alan Stern coined the term dwarf planet in the first place, but he meant the term to indicate a subclass of planets that are spherical but do not gravitationally dominate their orbits.
Posted by: Discombobulated | July 8, 2009 4:50 PM
Oh, it's Laurel@63. She's nothing if not persistent.
I first ran into her while listening last year to the Great Planet Debate at Johns-Hopkins, a sort of rehashing of the reasons for the demotion of Pluto, allowing members of the public to speak up.
Among the spectacular reasons given by the public were:
"By removing Pluto as a planet, we'll be teaching kids LESS!!!" (by far the funniest) and most of the rest were "but kids LOVE Pluto!!!! Why do you hate chlidren?!"
I think Laurel was the middle of the 3 "keep Pluto as a planet" speakers. She started off saying she was a internet blogging bloggety internet blogger from the internet blogosphere, and gave her URL, before going off for 10 minutes of highly emotional special pleading. I really think she's sort of obsessed with the whole thing, seeing as her blog goes back for years and years of emotive rants about it, and how she popped up here almost immediately (Google News notifications are magical!)
Now, completely ignoring that the very fact that Pluto has been demoted from its "planet" status can serve as a very effective "teaching moment" by illustrating to students how science is a process and not a set of rigid facts, the entire "controversy" is silly in and of itself. The term and classification of 'planet' (wanderer) was defined thousands of years ago from observations of the heavens from the ground, before we knew anything else about them. As a nascent space-faring race, having now discovered over 300 extra-solar planets (which wouldn't "wander" or even be visible without a very powerful telescope), it seems only fitting now that we understand enough about the universe to effectively give a solid, relatively self-consistent definition of bodies orbiting stars, we should do so before we go trotting off to visit them, so we don't have to backhaul potentially terabytes of data. Having done that countless times in databases here on Earth, I can tell you that's no fun. A bit of forethought is in order, so we don't end up with Yet Another Set of cumbersome and anachronistic Fahrenheit/Miles/Gallons on our hands.
That's the core of the issue, and the added ability of it to be used as a teaching moment toward the dynamic nature of discovery is just wonderful icing on the cake.
That Kirshenbaum and Mooney would have it reclassified back at the will of a few obsessed nutters who have completely missed the point is really telling. From what I've seen, framers are simply functionally retarded.
And Laurel, dear, the object is still out there, dutifully following the laws of Intelligent Falling, and will still be out there no matter if we call it a planet or a turnip. It's time to move on.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 8, 2009 4:52 PM
part of the reason so many people hate history courses as they're commonly taught in primary and secondary schools across North America -- rote memorisation of dry dates, names, and places.
One of the saddest myths ever perpetrated about the teaching of history.
It hasn't been dry rote learning, at least not since the 60s, when i was a kid--and I suspect it never was, since I grew up in Texas, of all places, where one wouldn't think history would be a subject deemed worthy of more than bare minimum emphasis.
People not paying attention in class thought it was dates and facts. For those of us who did pay attention, the story was how civilizations and countries rose and fell, the people behind all the events, the triumphs and tragedies of human affairs. History to me was just as interesting as any novel.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 8, 2009 4:54 PM
"Subtle?"
Posted by: Miranda Hale | July 8, 2009 4:56 PM
Thank you for this wonderfully written and very much deserved shredding of their ridiculous arguments!
On another note, I'm very tired of seeing them attempt to hitch the accommodationist wagon to C.P. Snow's star, so to speak. It's a false analogy and it's insulting, really.
Posted by: kjsjr | July 8, 2009 4:59 PM
Which insipid branch of science is it that does not challenge established beliefs? How is a simpering and innocuous science attractive? How is it science at all? Are we sure that the benefits of gaining 'allies' who enjoy obsequious science outweight the costs?
My research partner and I are following up some studies which showed the risks of exposing people to knowledge which may, for a short while, undermine their sense of free will (being exposed to deterministic ideas may suppress morality/prosociality in some people). However, we agree with the D. Dennett approach to educating on challenging subjects: it's a matter of how the facts are delivered, and not a matter of whether or not an educator should hold back the facts which may threaten the student. In our case, we don't feel we could consider holding back the facts which seem to lead to determinism (like understanding bias and situational factors which undermine well-reasoned decisions), because how else would a student learn to go beyond biases without disengaging from the old beliefs, which in our study would be the unsophisticated view of free will? You have to break the old worldview down to build a more robust and accurate model. There is no painless way to do this.
My favorite atheistic public figure is Hitchens, probably because he can be so caustic. He makes atheism entertaining, which was something I needed when I first joined up (living in Texas especially). But the left may have lost him entirely for precisely this issue. Lefties often feel the need to be kind and compromising, at any price. Set some damn limits. Some things cannot be given up. A science which can be practiced honestly without guilt is one of these things, I think.
Another question: has a society yet existed where a deep respect for the empirical method permeated everywhere? Is there evidence for a more enlightened society where scholars had to (or have to) mitigate their views?
Posted by: Josh
|
July 8, 2009 4:59 PM
Pascalle @82--congratulations on jumping back into the trenches to grab a BS. Well played. More education for everyone.
Vis per Scientiam
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 8, 2009 5:01 PM
My favourite quote:
"[R]eality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Posted by: Souljacker | July 8, 2009 5:03 PM
Shocking confessions of Uranus
Chapter one: Death spares no planetoid.
We were once again circling the Sun, it seemed the big hotheaded bastard always had to be the center of attention. I was far enough back to ignore the constant spew of radiation but the loneliness was something else altogether. Out there, swirling six planets from the bright lights and hot action it was easy to start thinking about the past. I didn't like to think about the past.
I used to be a star, that's what they'd call me anyway, 'Hey there goes Uranus, he's a star'. In truth I don't think I ever really felt like a star. I'm the third largest guy around here but I've always felt kind of small. I'm named after a God but usually I'm nothing more than the butt of every other bad joke told. It can be hard to deal with sometimes, swirling around in deep space with nothing but the echoes of a thousand anus jokes rattling around my mind. This is what drove me to do what I did. There was only one way, one way to get a little respect around this place. I had to get rid of that snivelling little pretty boy Pluto ....
Posted by: FraggedMind | July 8, 2009 5:11 PM
PZ, You are an awesome guy. I agree there is a rift between culture and science...but it is not majorly caused by a lack of science based communicators, but by the religious fronts that when science inadvertantly calls them to task, such as say Evolution or the Age of the Earth and Universe, that keep America in the dark. These issues cause religious people to task to justify their belief or attack science for "going against God."
What we need in America is a resolution that can shut down religion without it actually violating the US Constitution. We need an Amendment that officially states the separation of church and the government, and that religious beliefs cannot violate human rights. Hate speech is a good example of this. It is a crime to discriminate against homosexuals, except if it for a religious event or business. Yet it is also a crime to discriminate against religion, regardless.
Also...Love the new trophy!
Posted by: Souljacker | July 8, 2009 5:12 PM
By the way, my previous comment (#95) was a short excerpt from the new Science textbook I am writing for the American school system. I should also point out that the book is partially a 'choose your own adventure' type thing and the reader gets to decide whether Pluto is left a shaking wreck of an ex planet or a mighty planet hero of the cosmos.
Posted by: Praetorianstalker | July 8, 2009 5:12 PM
CARL SAGAN KICKED ASS!!!! Sorry for yelling, it needed to be said. Carl did get many potentially uninterested in science more interested. But I agree with the statement that he was the Dawkins of his day - and he was viliffied by the religious right for his atheism - I remember hearing about it as a kid in the 70s and 80s. Oh, sure, Carl was nicer about it, not as aggressive as say our resident CrackerMutilator and Servitor of Cthulhu, but back then, just stating one was an atheist was a direct attack against the religious right scum. Now it takes alot of effort, like running a blog and starting crackergate.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 8, 2009 5:19 PM
Is Pluto a planet is not an Earth-shaking controversy. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) The efeects of the anti-vaxers on public health is a genuine case of how anti-science has real life consequences. The creationist/IDer attacks on science education has real life consequences. The religious right's fight against stem cell research has real life consequences. The planeticity of Pluto does not have real life consequences. So why do Mooney and Kirshenbaum devote even a sentence on Pluto?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 8, 2009 5:29 PM
Until you took the test, when it all came back down to rote memorization of names and dates. Reading about history in school was great, just like what you describe; but the tests really killed the sense awe for a person like me, who sucks at memorization.
Posted by: Chris C. Mooney | July 8, 2009 5:29 PM
PZ,
we'll respond to you more fully, but, "offers no new solutions"? Chapter 10 explains how to remake the entire academic pipeline so we'll have more scientists ready to help bridge the divide between science and society. In fact, Chad Orzel has been blogging about precisely this aspect of the book.
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2009/07/popularization_is_its_own_rewa.php
Posted by: Religion™ Brand Brain Staples | July 8, 2009 5:31 PM
@'Tis Himself #99
My first guess would be incompetence. But I don't think that's right. I think they picked it because it can be used to paint scientists in a bad light.
Now turn that around and see how the scientists come off in the case of vaccinations (since you mentioned it).
In the first case, scientists come off looking like meddling know it alls. In the second case they look like... well... scientists. Harmless(well, mostly harmless) ordinary people working to tease out the secrets of the universe for the betterment of humanity.
I'm betting it's the very triviality of the example that attracted them to it. Make science look silly first, diminish it, and then the idea of making it share time with delusions and mythology doesn't seem so patently absurd.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 8, 2009 5:34 PM
As someone who writes fiction the dichotomy of narrative and truth/fact seems insane. You need "mere facts" to make a good story. If you are coloring outside of the lines for effect, you need to know where the lines are.
I can point to two examples of this: Rick Riordan, famous these days for his Percy Jackson kids fantasy series, is originally known for his mystery novels set in San Antonio. i live here, and I know things like, yes, we actually do meet at these distinctive boots, but I also know that 90 Queen Anne Street, where his character supposedly lives, doesn't exist. In that case, I understood why he had a fictional address--don't want actual (and entirely innocent) residents disturbed by fanbots. But I knew the area he was talking about, and I got a feel for what he was trying to say about his character.
Now if you color too far outside the lines, you will be called on it. Some Chicago folks have given Jim Butcher a hard time about a particular turn of Lake Shore drive he mentions in a Harry Dresden book (can't remember which one right now) that definitely doesn't go that way.
During his lifetime, Charles Dickens got a ton of flack for using spontaneous combustion as a plot device in Bleak House. Personally, I was a little disappointed when it turned out not to be arson. That would have made the story a lot more exciting.
Posted by: clarence | July 8, 2009 5:46 PM
Oh noes! Wouldn't that potentially lead to more talky-talking scientists who disagree with Mooney's notions of what is and is not appropriate for scientists to talk about? Scientists whose bridges Mooney finds vulgar?
I won't buy his book, so I'll never know what misunderstood genius Chapter 10 really contains, but maybe the "pipeline" he has in mind involves framists in high places who can take away a scientist's Popularization Grant if she or he speaks out of turn. Templeton envy?
Posted by: kjsjr | July 8, 2009 5:48 PM
@ Mooney:
The last paragraph from the blog you link to states:
"I don't have a solution to propose, alas. I'm just sort of thinking out loud, in print. If you have brilliant suggestions to offer, though, please leave them in the comments. We could all use some brilliant suggestions right about now."
Wellspring or poverty of ideas?
I'm a young researcher. I'm interested in science education for the public. Nobody says "oh, so you're a crazy person' for it. Don't make a good problem into a crisis. It's a good problem that we're wondering why everyone doesn't appreciate science education and knowledge. It shows we've done well at harder problems (starving, mass disease, etc), at least for the time being. We're where we should be, perhaps.
PZ kicks ass. He's solving your problem of educating the public just by doing what he does. You've got it the other way around. You should be learning from him. Science blogs are great, great tools. Pharyngula is up there, especially in entertainment value. You've really got the wrong guy in the crosshairs. What must you be thinking to not know that?
Posted by: Aquaria | July 8, 2009 5:52 PM
Mr. Mooney, you seem to have this bizarre notion that anyone here cares what you think, or what you have to offer.
After you spend two chapters essentially telling one of the strongest voices of the pro-science movement that he's a poopyhead who needs to sit down and shut up, even though he has evidence on your side, do you really think that he or those who think speaking out and up are going to heed what you have to say? To care?
And why--why--don't you expect the stupid to educate itself, rather than telling people to pat stupid on the head and say, "there, there, I'm sorry if what I said hurt your feelings." These people are screaming their heads off while smearing feces on the wall. "There there" will not change them. It only enables them, and usually makes them act up even worse.
I don't think it's the responsibility of any scientist or pro-science ally to make people feel better. Fuck their feelings! Ridicule can work to make people educate themselves, especially when they are way past the age of being compelled into schools.
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | July 8, 2009 5:55 PM
Laurel, a Mars-like planet in the Kuiper belt would have cleared out a nice orbit for itself fairly quickly.... it's massive.
Posted by: Mr.Man | July 8, 2009 5:59 PM
Aquaria: My history class was indeed dry rote "learning" and I'm 18.
Such a dynamic and fluid history class might be the exception rather than the rule. My own fascination with history came from reading wiki articles, believe it or not.
Posted by: Chris Short | July 8, 2009 6:01 PM
Indeed, being consistently "vocal about science" is key.
...and a little ill concealed laughter never hurt either.
I'm going to start making pins and bumper stickers that read,
"It's called SCIENCE, google it."
Posted by: The Chemist | July 8, 2009 6:01 PM
Well PZ, why don't you tell us how you really feel about the book?
Of course, I can't say anything about it without having read it, but you make it sound like a truly frustrating read indeed.
I do have to disagree with the idea that Richard Dawkins is an exceptionally gifted science communicator though. Putting aside for the moment the utterly irrelevant question of who outsold whom, I have read his science writing and I have to say that at least from my perspective he has yet to outdo Sagan in terms of style and clarity.
Also Richard Dawkins is not considered a science communicator by most people you would casually encounter on the street. Even though I know he's an ethologist and have read very little of his non-science writing, anytime I hear his name, I don't think of science- I think of Atheism. Not that there is an essential incompatibility, but that's what I know him for. I bought his books on biology having heard of him first in the context of his Atheism.
People who are more familiar with him are of course familiar with his popular-science writing. People who are not (hint: the very people who need to be communicated to) are not largely familiar with his work outside The God Delusion. This is of course putting aside the fact that there is a considerably large group of people who are repelled by his in-your-face criticism of religion that turns them away from his science writing. Not that advocacy of Atheism and advocacy of science are mutually exclusive, but people who do both are always going to be associated with one more than the other.
Posted by: Mr.Man | July 8, 2009 6:06 PM
The Chemist: I'd have to disagree with you on Dawkins. Having read both Sagan's TDHW and a couple of Dawkins' books I can say that clarity and a passion for communication science is a commonality between them.
It was by reading The God Delusion that I got really interested in science again (as I had not been since my childhood) and he wasn't even trying then; his books just drip with science and the love for it.
Posted by: Kate | July 8, 2009 6:08 PM
PZ,
we'll respond to you more fully, but, "offers no new solutions"? Chapter 10 explains how to remake the entire academic pipeline so we'll have more scientists ready to help bridge the divide between science and society. In fact, Chad Orzel has been blogging about precisely this aspect of the book.
FOr some reason, I read that as "...the divide between science and sobriety..."
I think I've been at work for too long...
Posted by: Fallsroad | July 8, 2009 6:21 PM
@92:
My favorite atheistic public figure is Hitchens, probably because he can be so caustic. He makes atheism entertaining, which was something I needed when I first joined up (living in Texas especially). But the left may have lost him entirely for precisely this issue. Lefties often feel the need to be kind and compromising, at any price.
Hitchens, someone I admired for a very long time for his caustic wit and delightful use of the language, lost the Left when he lost his mind on the war in Iraq. I am a lefty and an atheist, and I feel no compunction about being nice just for the sake of it if those I am arguing with are full of it. None of the Lefties I know (a diverse bunch) feel so restrained.
I might say that, in a way, Hitchens is winning back some of those he left in the dust of the Interminable War On Terror precisely because of his skewering of the religious right, and stupidity in general.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 8, 2009 6:26 PM
Ah, so Mooney is up and about and making comments as opposed to being stranded in a desert somewhere unable to respond to his many (cough) readers.
So, Chris, what's up with leaving Kwok's comment calling me a bitch on your blog? When you just made a point of deleting a comment yesterday? And what's up with Sheril feeding Kwok? What do you think you're doing?
Posted by: Badger3k | July 8, 2009 6:26 PM
Was either of the authors alive when Cosmos came out? If they were, they couldn't have been out of diapers, so I suspect their memory of Sagan is a bit flawed. As for the rest, did we really expect more? It seems like the "break" with Nisbett must have been more "framing". Basically, this is the paean to Accomidationism. This is sad - I used to like Mooney for his science activism, but I've lost, well, all respect I had for him. Same with Shermer - his latest point of inquiry podcast makes him seem to me to be a selfish, racist cracker (ok, so it's redundant). Not a good day for my opinions of some people. Good thing I had a good day teaching the kids in summer school, so that held up my respect for other people. I even got complimented on my knowledge of the bible, even though they know I am an atheist (unfortunately, I couldn't expand on that at the time).
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 8, 2009 6:28 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Sagan won by the numbers. Cosmos-the-show was seen by some huge number of people, and Cosmos-the-book is reputedly "the best-selling science book ever published in English". All of which makes it even more significant that Cosmos was uncompromisingly nontheistic. Watch episode 7, "The Backbone of Night" (The One with the Ancient Greeks), and try to imagine that Matt Nisbet wouldn't blast Sagan as a tool of the New Atheist Noise Machine if it were aired for the first time today. Even in The Demon-Haunted World, where he bends over backwards to be conciliatory to mainstream religions, he lists a whole infodump of ways in which religions pay no respect to the NOMA quarantine.
I don't want to suggest that Sagan would agree with Dawkins or Myers on every point, were he around to argue today. However, all things considered, I think the philosophical and rhetorical differences between Sagan and Dawkins are no greater than those between, say, Christopher Hitchens and Alan Sokal.
The whole "New Atheism" term is bullshit, anyway (as befits a neologism brought to us by Wired magazine). If you cast a net wide enough to catch Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, you'll also snare Isaac Asimov and Richard Feynman. Such are the dangers of reification! For that matter, after reading Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, it is not altogether in jest that I suggest the "New Atheism" is a century older than the rise of Christianity.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 8, 2009 6:29 PM
Well let us hope they lead the new scientific revolution in culture, because I would hate to think they are blowing nothing but hot air.
Still, I guess it is easier to blame those on your side for the failing as opposing to blame actual forces of non-science. It's quite pathetic really.
Posted by: IanJR | July 8, 2009 6:37 PM
Actually, the most frustrating thing is that they don't seem to emphasize science as a process. What they should be emphasizing is, how does the definition of planet fit into current theories of planetary science? If Pluto fits, that's great. If not, then drop it. Science isn't about sentimentality.
Posted by: Bob L | July 8, 2009 6:43 PM
Uranus is speaking out of its' darkside when it claims it ones the one who did the hit of Pluto. Pluto had it coming, his in your face eccentric orbit ruffled *a lot* of feathers with the powers that be. However Uranus is just full gas on this one.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 8, 2009 6:43 PM
"Science isn't about sentimentality."
No, it's about majority will.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 8, 2009 6:58 PM
Ophelia Benson (#65):
You'd think that Mooney and Kirshenbaum, of all people, would be hypersensitized to sexist insults and eager to put the hurt on anyone who spouted them off. I mean, am I the only one who can think back to March?
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 8, 2009 7:01 PM
@ Discombobulated: Ad hominem attacks are what people use when they can't or won't answer the argument in question, and they reflect far more about the person making the attack than the person being attacked.
If you listen to all of the Great Planet Debate, you will hear very well thought out arguments on both sides of this issue. In fact, the very title of the conference was "The Great Planet Debate: Science As Process." My discussion was not "emotional pleading"; it was about the importance of language and semantics to how we make meaning. Try listening to Dr. Alan Stern, Dr. Hal Weaver, and Dr. Mark Sykes, all planetary scientists, discuss the scientific basis for keeping the definition of planet broad. An entire day of the conference was devoted to teaching this controversy, and while not everyone agreed on whether Pluto is a planet, teachers, writers, and planetarium directors did agree that the best option is to teach both sides of this issue and let students themselves evaluate the arguments and come to their own conclusions, an exercise in teaching not what to think but how to think. A good example of this is a lesson plan on planet definition that won a NASA award, which you can find here: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/topnav/materials/listbytype/What_Is_a_Planet.html
You can move on to whatever you want. My next move is writing a book about Pluto.
Also, I find it interesting that while you go to great lengths to make personal attacks against me, you do not even use your real name. Why is that?
@ Shirakawasuna: An Earth-sized object, which is bigger than Mars, would not clear its orbit if it were in Pluto's location. Dr. Stern and Dr. Levison computed this mathematically. The further an object is from the Sun, the larger the orbit it has to clear. If Earth were in the Kuiper Belt, it would not be able to clear out all the Kuiper Belt Objects in its orbital path.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 8, 2009 7:11 PM
Yawn, Laurel Kornfeld. Let the astronomers take care of their nomenclature. Just as we chemists get to name elements and molecules. These are not up for popular vote, except within the profession.
Posted by: Richard Smith | July 8, 2009 7:27 PM
Laurel Kornfeld (#122): If Earth were in the Kuiper Belt, it would not be able to clear out all the Kuiper Belt Objects in its orbital path.
Chances are, it would have made a considerable dent over several billion years...
Posted by: cyan
|
July 8, 2009 7:28 PM
Colugo @ #31,
Green algae have now again been reassigned as belonging in the plant kingdom rather than in one of the protist clades. Red algae is considered a protist sister clade to the plants; brown algae is also assigned its own protist clade.
- All due to recent DNA analysis & comparison.
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 8, 2009 7:28 PM
@ NerdofRedhead: The astronomers themselves do not agree on this. Four percent of the IAU does not represent "the astronomers" of the world, especially when leading planetary scientists strongly disagree with their decision.
Did anyone vote on the Theory of Relativity or gravity? No, these were proven correct over time. Stern is right in arguing that science should not be conducted by vote at all. Issues such as planet definition will naturally evolve over time as we learn gain more knowledge about objects in this and other solar systems.
And the last I checked, this is a free country, meaning anyone, including writers and amateur astronomers can write a book on a subject if they choose to do so.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 8, 2009 7:33 PM
Blake Stacey @116:
Yes, I've often suspected that if Sagan were alive today, the Militant Accomodationists wouldn't be so quick to hold him up as the paragon of all they hold dear.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 8, 2009 7:35 PM
kjsjr (#105):
Now that I think back on it, every job I've ever had in science-land involved some kind of "public outreach". When I was an undergraduate minion for a neutrino astrophysicist, I did the sort of code-monkey work which is often about all undergrads are qualified to do — and I built a website explaining our research project to the general passers-by. (I was even told that this was a good thing which would count positively towards our grant renewal.) During my orbit through the Kuiper regions of academia, I've been tasked with revising press releases so that they are both exciting and accurate. I've given lectures on scientific programming techniques and mathematical modelling methods to management people. I've even gotten paid to add footnotes to Wikipedia.
There are no doubt plenty of scientists who think that popularizing scientific knowledge is a waste of time. Thankfully, I've never had to deal with any of them.
Posted by: chancelikely | July 8, 2009 7:40 PM
Laurel Kornfeld #126:
You're right in pointing out that the Theory of Relativity or Gravity shouldn't be put up to a vote. However, language is much closer to being a democracy. Usage, over time, determines correctness. If astronomers start using the definition, recognize that other astronomers use the definition, and teach that particular definition, it'll stick.
Besides, it's not like Pluto is going to fall by the wayside in the hearts and minds of anybody. Its position is charmingly weird, its orbit is bizarre, it rotates around a point outside itself, etc. Calling it a dwarf planet in the name of consistency isn't going to cause it to lose its place in the pop culture understanding of the solar system.
Posted by: gf | July 8, 2009 7:41 PM
I don't think the Pluto debate is terribly important, and surely can't have driven many people from scientific rationalism off to magical thinking, but I do think that it's a sensible point being made here that PZ and others are too dismissive of.
The word 'Planet' is not just a specialist scientific term. It is very much a part of our popular culture, and for many people, part of the definition of the word is 'an object like Pluto'.
Scientists do not have any particular authority over how people should define words. They can certainly join the debate, but to have a committee of scientists suddenly proclaim to the world that they should all change their use of language, will strike many as rather absurd. That's not how language, especially English, usually works, and it's an approach that taps into a number of prejudices about scientists (arrogant, aloof, ignorant of the way human culture works - only good with test tubes).
If it was important for scientists to have a clear definition of what a 'planet' is that excluded Pluto, that's fine, but it would have been sensible to make it clear that this was not an edict requiring everyone else to fall into line with their definition.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 8, 2009 7:47 PM
Laurel, any decision on astronomical nomenclature must be made by astronomers. And the astronomy community is very web savvy. There may have only been 4% at the meeting, but I'm sure more were present online, and a consensus reached. My point though, is that we are not your audience. Your audience are those who teach and do research in astronomy. You are wasting your time here since most of us can, or in my case, will do nothing. I don't want the astronomy community to lobby us chemists on nomenclature, ergo I can't lobby them. Golden rule.
Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 8, 2009 7:50 PM
Interesting. He doesn't talk about your book in that post. He mentions it because he wants to talk about a phenomenon that you also talk about in UA. But he's certainly not talking about any of the solutions you have to offer, nor about any pipeline. In fact, he explicitly says:
That sure doesn't sound as if he found any solutions in your book. If, that is, he includes you in "all".
Posted by: kjsjr | July 8, 2009 8:00 PM
@ Blake Stacey (#128)
I haven't ever heard a prof say "keep it secret, keep it safe!", unless they had found something that they specifically didn't want to be known. Generally profs are as sluttish as they can be with spreading the science love.
I really believe Mooney's motives are nothing like what he says. Why on earth (haven't read, trusting PZ's review, I should qualify) would he attack Pharyngula, of all places? Even if Pharyngula were a mediocre blog (it isn't), why would this be your target? What about truly incompetent people? Ray Comfort still walks free, eating bananas he believes were crafted by design for the human hand (find Comfort on youtube with the banana, if you have no idea of what I'm talking about). Why stalk PZ when this ignoramus speaks out about the nature of the universe before nodding heads?
The simple fact is that accommodationists are not would-be allies to empiricists, as they often like to claim. Their company and admiration is no testament to one's success.
I was actually raised a Jehovah's Witness. I cannot be an accommodationist. I've seen too much. This matters to me, and I won't listen to some moderate telling me about the sweetness of quiet and compromise.
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 8, 2009 8:04 PM
@NerdofRedhead: No online voting was permitted at the IAU General Assembly. Web savvy or not, anyone not in a particular room on the last day of a two-week conference had no say in the matter. Of 10,000 members, 2,500 attended the General Assembly. Most left before the last day assuming the resolution on the agenda was the one presented by the IAU's own committee--the one that established Ceres, Pluto, and Eris as planets. They had no way of knowing that a group of dynamicists would take matters into their own hands, violate the IAU's own bylaws requiring any resolutions to first be vetted by the appropriate committee before being put to a vote at the GA, and put a different resolution on the table. To this day, the IAU has not changed its policy of disallowing Internet voting.
Given that several hundred professional astronomers immediately signed a petition rejecting the IAU definition, it's safe to say that a consensus was not reached among astronomers.
As for the audience for this discussion, it probably includes a wide variety of people from professional scientists to journalists to members of the general public. While I am in regular contact with people who teach and research astronomy, I do not see posting a view that dissents from the author's as a waste of time, whether or not people do anything in response. At least they are reading and learning the arguments on each side.
Posted by: Dan J
|
July 8, 2009 8:11 PM
Please, Laurel, enough. Most of us here really don't care about Pluto's satus as a planet or a dwarf planet. It's an issue of semantics, of nomenclature. The decision was made. Petition the IAU to change it back if that's what will make you happy, but please let's get back to the discussion at hand.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 8, 2009 8:18 PM
kjsjr #133
The thing I've noticed about the accommodationists is that they don't want to rock the boat. "Don't upset the goddists because won't accept science if they're upset and they're just sitting on the fence and one little remark about evidence or lack thereof for GODDIDIT could drive them straight into the creationist camp but if we're nice to them and stroke their egos we just know they'll become raving evolutionists."
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 8, 2009 8:33 PM
Dan J #135
But Dan, don't you realize that the status of Pluto is one of the main underpinnings of Western culture? The slavering hordes of Pluto-planet-deniers will bring down civilization as we know it. Ask Laurel. She's fighting to protect the world from those miscreants at the IAU who have spurned Pluto, casting it into the outer darkness to wander the boondocks of the solar system forever. Instead of asking Laurel to please STFU about Pluto, you should be inviting her home for tea and/or crumpets and otherwise supporting her lonely, heretofore fruitless fight to regain proper recognition of Pluto as a valued, full-fledged member of the family of planets. For shame, Dan, allowing your sense of what's important to override Laurel's concern about poor, friendless (except for Laurel) Pluto. Just because you're more concerned about things like science, the eradication of woo in the American public school system, and the US regaining its place in the promotion of knowledge is no reason to castigate Laurel for bleating endlessly about something that doesn't make any difference to anyone except Laurel.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 8, 2009 8:38 PM
Laurel #122:
Where have we heard that before?
The simple fact is you're arguing a semantic point that has nothing to do with Pluto. What other reason could there be than emotion?
Posted by: Dan J
|
July 8, 2009 8:42 PM
'Tis Himself @137: You just made my day!
Posted by: Badger3k | July 8, 2009 8:43 PM
Jason A @ 138.
I like it - "Teach the Controversy over Pluto" - maybe we can get Ben Stein to do a movie...
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 8, 2009 8:51 PM
gf #130, lets replace a few words in your post and see how it looks:
Your argument could just as easily be used to say those 'arrogant, aloof, ignorant scientists' are wrong to have a precise definition for 'theory'. Of course we recognize that there are other definitions beside the technical one, a great deal of words have different meanings depending on context. The IAU decided, in a technical, scientific context, 'planet' has a meaning which excludes Pluto. In no way, shape or form did they expected everyone in the world to fall in line and never call Pluto a planet again. You suggesting they did is a strawman.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 8, 2009 8:57 PM
I'm starting an anxiety episode, so this comment is shallow compared to what I had planned on adding to this thread. Just a couple of points and I'm off to look for a spot of dinner and a newly released book.
1. Holst's The Planets
The suite was not based on astronomy, the suite was based on astrology. As an astrological work knowledge of Pluto would've made no difference.
2. Dwarf Planets
Any body orbiting a star or roaming free in space large enough to take a spherical shape under the influence of gravity that is, at the same time, smaller than the planet Mercury is a dwarf planet. End of discussion.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 8, 2009 9:04 PM
Thank you, 'Tis. Now I've remembered to make my first note for a Molly this month (for shame, I only had one last month).
Posted by: Discombobulated | July 8, 2009 9:12 PM
Laurel@122:
I did not dismiss your arguments because you were obsessed. I dismissed your arguments because they had no merit, and I gave a long explanation as to why. That I called you obsessed was orthogonal to the argument.
A personal observation (or attack, if you insist) orthogonal to your argument does not an ad hominem make.
Ad hominem argument:
You are obsessed, therefore your argument has no merit.
Personal observation ("attack"):
Your argument has no merit, and here is why. Furthermore, you are obsessed.
But I agree with the other posters; Pharyngula is not the right forum for carrying on your obsession. Please petition the IAU.
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 8, 2009 9:15 PM
No, THE decision was not made. A decision was made, and it was a bad one. It is not nor does it have to be the last word on this issue. If you're so bothered by the discussion about Pluto, take it up with PZ. He is the one who took issue with Kirschenbaum and Mooney's use of the Pluto discussion in their book.
As a writer, I believe semantics matter. And I happen to deeply enjoy astronomy and spend a lot of time communicating it with the general public. Guess what: many among the general public do care about this. If we want to successfully communicate science with them, we need to meet them where they are and work from there.
There is a simple solution regarding planet definition. Simply amend the resolution to establish dwarf planets as a subclass of planets that are planets because they are in hydrostatic equilibrium but of the dwarf subcategory because they do not gravitationally dominate their orbits.
Whether you ask me to STFU about Pluto or invite me for tea will make little difference to my not very lonely and not very fruitless efforts to overturn the IAU decision.
What is wrong with teaching the controversy? What is wrong with showing kids and adults two sides of an argument and asking them to actually think for themselves?
I am far more concerned with the hostility, disrespect and tone of the debate on this forum. Insulting those who disagree with you and using profanity will not do anything to promote interest in science among the general public.
Posted by: Dan J
|
July 8, 2009 9:27 PM
Since Laurel's tenacity will not allow her to let go of this:
Your opinion is noted. Again. Guess what: it doesn't matter whether or not the general public cares about this. Many scientists and scientific groups agree to use the nomenclature as defined by the AIU. You are not required by any law to use their definition. You can call Pluto a planet any time you want to. I actually don't completely disagree with your solution. I can't say much for your delivery though. Quite simple, really: Because there is no controversy. Laurel, you have not even begun to hear my profanity. But, then again, I thought I was being rather civil.Please, take it up with the AIU. Your beef is with them, not with us. Your own tone is doing nothing to promote your cause among those of us who read and comment here.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 8, 2009 9:31 PM
I find it weirdly amusing that there are actually people who give a rat's ass what the formal designation of Pluto is.
Hey, me, I could talk your ear off about astronomy, if you let me. Ask my daughter, who knows by now if she asks any question that impinges even minutely upon the subject she's gonna get the 200,000 word answer. She'll tell you. I own a Burnham's, I don't know how many sky atlases, I got the Exoplanet Encyclopaedia in the bookmarks of most of my browsers, and speaking of news updates, I make sure I hear about it when someone bags another such body just as soon as any press hear about it in a language I can read... It's such a broad science, so full of beauty, so full of wonder, and it's a sad consciousness, in my own opinion, that can't see as much. Give me five minutes to talk about what we think we know of the history of our solar system, the potential for finding others like it and others not so much, I'll take it happily...
But strangely, in all of this, I can't say I've spared more than about five seconds for the subject of how the fuck we classify Pluto. I mean geez, what? Why? Why would I care? They gonna saw some of the crust off too to make it smaller or something, you let me know--tho' possibly only because I want a piece--can't decide. Otherwise, seriously, people, there's other shit going on that actually matters. Like, say, if the TPF gets funded, or Darwin. That, I'll write a letter on. Nomenclature, not so much...
And the fact that a thread only incidentally on this subject--and more centrally on the state of science education in the US--is picking up noise on that? That's... ummm... kinda funny. But no more than it's a bit sad.
Geez. What they call Pluto? Get. A. Life. It's still what it's always been, whatever we call it. It's interesting, damned straight, on its own merits... A cold, remote piece of the ancient solar system, one I'm kinda glad a probe will visit, notwithstanding folk who wondered aloud if it was just some sorta 'completism' doing that. But whether someone puts 'dwarf' next to its label in the textbooks, I can't say that's much on my mind.
Posted by: creeky belly | July 8, 2009 9:35 PM
On the plus side of Pluto being kicked out, you don't need as much money when you have to recreate the solar system in styrofoam.
*Shrug*, I'll save judgment on the book 'til I read it, but I think the anti-vaccine movement has a much larger potential do to harm based on the unscientific thinking from, what else, Hollywood popularization.
And Chris, don't be such a dick. You baited PZ, and he responded. Get over it.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | July 8, 2009 9:35 PM
Sigh...
More feeble illogical accomodationist offal.
Is there something in the water?
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 8, 2009 9:36 PM
Is it that you're "concerned with the hostility, disrespect and tone of the debate on this forum" or that you're concerned that, judging by the comments in the thread thus far, few, if any, give a fig for your desire to change Pluto's classification?
Hie thee, then, unto the halls of the IAU, and brandishing thine hammer, nail thine theses to their portal and announce the coming schism with righteousness!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
July 8, 2009 9:40 PM
I am older than both Sheril and Chris. I remember Carl Sagan pretty well:
They don't need to read the novel if they don't have time. The movie makes clear Sagan's ideas of the dangers of allowing religion to trump science. The most qualified person for the trip was initially denied the opportunity by the mere fact that she was agnostic/atheistic.
I flatly disagree with the idea that the problem with scientific illiteracy has to do with the abilities of science communicators. It has to do with apathy, in a society in which reality shows about who is going to get laid from a field of 30 (with the pretense of marriage) and the reality shows that get the best ratings are the ones which show humanity at its most wretched. I don't think that science communicators should be expected to follow the reality show model, either.
Another factor is the authoritarian nature of religion. If these pastors and clergy who are threatened by the scientific process continue to damn "naturalistic philosophy" or whatever the problem, all the accommodationism in the world is not going to address the issue of scientific literacy. If people don't care whether or not evolution provides the accurate description of origins, (because that knowledge doesn't help them pay for their groceries) then a reborn Sagan isn't going to magically overcome that. The problem is more about apathy than atheism. I know it because I experience it in my workplace.
I do think that the spread of lay and scientist bloggers will help a bit, though.
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 8, 2009 9:45 PM
Well, well DanJ, great example of the pot calling the kettle black. You don't like my tone? I never once used profanity or insulted advocates of the opposing view. On the other hand, Discombobulated completely misrepresented my presentation at the Great Planet Debate, and several people here have called me less than flattering names.
I have a life, and astronomy is a huge part of it. Thankfully, the people in my classes and astronomy club are capable of agreeing to disagree and remaining not just civil but friendly with one another.
The issue at hand is communicating science with the general public. If you genuinely believe it doesn't matter what members of the public think, you're never going to make any progress toward promoting scientific literacy.
There is a controversy, and it's not over Pluto; it's over the concept of what is a planet. Denying that doesn't make it go away. An equal number of scientists and scientific groups are either not using the IAU definition or presenting both sides.
Interest in any one science issue, including Pluto, can be a gateway to further engaging people in science. If someone is interested in this debate, chances are they are interested in the solar system, in observation, and maybe even in making astronomy a part of their lives.
Posted by: Mr.Man | July 8, 2009 9:45 PM
Jesus fuckin' Christ, Laurel; PZ mentioned the Pluto bit precisely because it's a bloody insignificant thing. Whether you call it a planet or a wank is irrelevant to the scientific illiteracy and anti-science attitude that dominates the US and oh, just happens to be a very significant problem.
It's like protesting the word 'chemical' in a forum discussing contamination.
Posted by: lylebot | July 8, 2009 9:51 PM
Roger Ebert's latest post starts off describing the hate mail he's gotten for his negative review of Transformers 2, then segues into lamenting the fact that educated people are looked down on in our society. He specifically mentions scientists among them. I guess he didn't read Mooney's book, or he'd know that it's our own fault for being such poor communicators!
Posted by: Colugo | July 8, 2009 9:54 PM
To all who responded to my comment, thanks for the correction on Holst.
I'd like to think that my error was due to having been exposed to the added Pluto piece at some point, but the more likely explanation is dumbitude.
Posted by: Dan J
|
July 8, 2009 9:55 PM
Since Laurel's tenacity continues:
As I recall, neither did I. Your tone, as I referred to it, has nothing to do with profanity or insults. It has everything to do with your assumption that the matter of Pluto's nomenclature is one demanding great attention from the scientific community and the general public. The only controversy is one of a political nature within the IAU. Pluto has not changed. As I mentioned above, you and all others are quite free to refer to Pluto as a planet, as a dwarf planet, or as a small wedge of something that I pulled out of my belly-button last night. It seems you're making your own argument weaker. If so many people are not using the IAU definition, then it will fall out of favor, and the nomenclature of "planet" will be used.Posted by: llewelly | July 8, 2009 10:04 PM
The worst sin of public relations is to tell people what they don't want to hear.
But reality does not care what people want to hear. Scientists, therefor, will necessarily discover things that that people do not want to hear. And some of these things, like the effect of smoked tobacco on lungs, the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer, or the effect of fossil fuel emissions on climate, will be things the public must hear, if our cultures are to have some chance of continuing our current prosperity.
The primary error of Chris Mooney, is to think that PR conflicts between science and culture are avoidable. But the most important PR conflicts stem from science discovering that some cherished aspect of our culture is endangering all our lives. Those conflicts are not avoidable.
Posted by: Dan J
|
July 8, 2009 10:10 PM
llewelly said:
Exactly. The science news that doesn't threaten anyone's current beliefs is a piece of cake. The trick that we need to learn is not what Chris Mooney espouses, namely that we tone down the science a bit and coddle the currently held beliefs. The trick will be to explain the science in such a way as to disarm the objections, and to cushion the blow.Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | July 8, 2009 10:19 PM
Laurel Kornfield @ any-old-damn-comment:
Yeah, well, most of us are having a hard time working up a concern over the nomenclature of some damn rock 28.7 AU away (give or take). When we land there and/or people live on it, it'll be more of a concern.
So, what, does it upset some natal ephemeris of yours or something?
Just because you're smart doesn't mean you're not stupid.
Harrying people over a private obsession of yours is stupid. Fighting over some minor astronomical detail (yes, IT IS A MINOR DETAIL) is pedantry X 10, I'd suggest perhaps a better hobby than stumping over a 'dwarf planet's nomenclature & status in the universe that's way larger than the solar system. For over 3 years, no less.
Nutshell version:
Get a better hobby.
Posted by: articulett | July 8, 2009 10:20 PM
Isn't this a bit like blaming Galileo for peoples' ignorance about a geocentric universe?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 8, 2009 10:30 PM
I caught Neil de Grasse Tyson on C-SPAN, I think, last week. He was telling the story of the hate mail he got from third graders. He almost sounded callous talking about how Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto, would show up at scientific meetings to protest not listing Pluto as a planet. As Tyson explained, you can't win an argument against an impassioned, 95-year-old scientist who supports himself with a cane.
But then Tyson redeemed himself with a scientific answer. He said Tombaugh sorta missed the boat, but we don't have to. Tombaugh didn't discover just another planet, but instead he discovered the first known and most massive of an entirely new type of body in space. Among comets and mysterious icy bodies on the fringes of our solar system, Tombaugh found the first and the most massive. Tyson said he thought it would be better to remember Tombaugh as having discovered an entirely new type of celestial body.
And I agree.
In science, the reality of discovery is generally good enough we don't need to embellish it; and if someone tries to "burnish" the discovery, they almost always fall short of the genuine grandeur of the find.
Stick to the facts.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 8, 2009 10:31 PM
Who gives a crap about Disney's space-rock? Let's talk about Brontosaurus, the noblest generic epithet that ever graced an archosaur. An ideal to counless children and Sinclair gasoline customers alike. But a tiny minority of paleontologists voted IN SECRET to change the very name of the noble thunder-beast to Apatosaurus or some such five-and-dime off-the-shelf shit. I have devoted my life and those of my brother's kids to fighting this short-sighted tyranny of some self-appointed cadre of elites. Bully for Brontosaurus! is our motto, by which we paraphrase the great Carl Sagan.
Please! This is suposed to be a damn science blog! Can't we discuss the burning scientific issues of the day, like the theft of our beloved Brontosaurus by a bunch of white-coated museum-rat egghead Illuminati?!
Posted by: dinkum | July 8, 2009 10:31 PM
Hey, wouldn't the residual squabble over Plutonian nomenclature deep within the astronomy community signify that the entire structure of heliocentric theory is about to collapse? You know, the same way a 2-person cladistic pissing match over a Devonian fish fin (or something) is the harbinger of the Death of Darwinism? Or is it just way past my bedtime?
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 8, 2009 10:39 PM
Please remit to: Sven DiMilo at #162
One (1) Internets, won fair and square.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 8, 2009 10:43 PM
Let face it, compared to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all the rest are dwarf planets.
Come to think of it...
In folklore gnomes are commonly thought of as being very small in size. As small compared to dwarfs as dwarfs are compared to humans. Thus if we think of Earth as being a dwarf planet -being so much smaller than Jupiter, that would make Pluto a gnome planet.
(It helps if you think between the box.)
Posted by: Kseniya | July 8, 2009 10:46 PM
Long live Plutosaurus, the dimmest of the sauropods.
Posted by: Taz | July 8, 2009 10:49 PM
The argument over Pluto clearly shows that Mooney and Kirshenbaum do not know what they're talking about when it comes to public perception of science. Sure people grumbled - they grumble whenever something they learned as a child is challenged. But how many really care? The public at large doesn't give a damn whether Pluto is called a planet or not.
M and K's first mistake is in not considering the depth of concern. Their second is in recommending scientists reverse their position. This is good PR? Are you kidding me? Every creationist on the planet would be crowing about how scientists are just making it up as they go along, and the general public would shake their heads in disbelief. Anyone who thinks reversing the decision now would be a good PR move doesn't have a clue.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 8, 2009 10:51 PM
Yes to what AJ Milne said in #147. I've TA'd an observational astronomy lab for a few years now and done a bunch of public outreach nights, and I also get to become a bit of a go-to guy for my friends questions on astronomy too. A lot of people had a passing interest in Pluto's planethood, but they readily accept it when I explain we're interested in Pluto, the nomenclature is meaningless, arbitrary, and is only defined for what's useful for astronomers; and, by the way, nobody really cares if you keep calling it a planet unless you're writing journal articles.
Also a Right On! to Mike Haubrich @151:
As well as the astro labs, I do physical science labs for non-science majors. The people taking these classes don't even consider if some bit of what they're learning contradicts their bibles (and this is in the bible belt). They just think it's dull and want to get the grade and move on. I suspect most of them don't care about any aspect of their higher education beyond getting that slip of paper that says they should earn more money.
Posted by: Paul Murray | July 8, 2009 10:53 PM
"Cultural change in the US is not going to happen by scientists getting more media savvy and carefully explaining themselves."
The last great burst of faith in science in the USA was when fearful US readnecks looked up into the sky and saw the tiny moving star that was Sputnik. After the fundamentalist ignorance of the 50s, it became obvious that fact and not faith was *the* effective way of dealing with reality.
What will be first, I wonder? The flooding of LA due to global warming, or the food riots when the oil runs out and synthetic fertilizers can no longer be made?
Posted by: defective robot | July 8, 2009 10:54 PM
Isaac Asimov was a freaking genius and writing compelling stories about scientific principles. Where did the idea the idea that science and entertainment can't coexist come from?
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 8, 2009 10:58 PM
Oh, and whenever I heard the Pluto questions/comments, it always seemed people were more confused over wondering why they were taught it was a planet 'like a fact' if scientists 'weren't sure'. Just learning it's a terminology thing put most of them at ease. I think that comes from the common perception of science as just a big book of facts.
Badger3k #140:
The Theory of Intelligent Definitions? :P
Posted by: Tulse | July 8, 2009 11:07 PM
I suppose Mooney therefore thinks that Michael Bay is the world's greatest science popularizer, having brought us both Armageddon and the Transformers movies.
This comment shows how profoundly confused Laurel is, as unlike the definition of planet, those are theories which involve empirical tests. The designation of "planet" is not a theoretical issue, it is simply one of nomenclature, and what definition is most useful. There is no way to "prove" whether Pluto is a planet or not, as it all depends on the definition, which is the issue under debate. "Planets" are not natural kinds.
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 8, 2009 11:10 PM
Love the humor. That's much better.
The controversy is not just within the IAU. The fact remains there are competing parameters over what constitutes a planet. Scientists on both sides of the issue agree that if enough people don't use the IAU definition, it will fall by the wayside. That is something I am urging both astronomers and lay people to do as well--ignore the IAU decree.
Yes, it is the hostility, disrespect and tone of the debate on this forum to which I object. Believe it or not, I have had pleasant and even humorous conversations with both advocates of the IAU decision and people who simply did not care. Neil de Grasse Tyson and I actually had some laughs about it. If some people don't care about this, fine. That doesn't mean anyone has to be rude or insulting.
Even Tyson is coming around toward a viewpoint that it may be too early in planetary science to be having this discussion, and he has publicly distanced himself from the IAU decision.
DesertSon, you and Dr. Mark Sykes think alike. He jokingly compared the IAU to a cabal of priests like the Catholic church and often argues, "we need more Protestants."
So I guess it's off to Paris to paste 95 theses on the front door of the IAU offices.
@ KrystallineApostate: I am interested in Pluto and the outer solar system. I don't tell you what hobbies to take up, and you have no business telling me what my hobbies should be. "For three years no less?" Heck, this is something meaningful to me, and if I want to do it for 50 years and not get another hobby, it's my right to do so.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 8, 2009 11:15 PM
Laurel, you remind me of someone who wants to be a published author. Who should they show the manuscript to; friends and family, or agents and editors? You are doing the former. Only the latter will make you a published author though. Take your energy to the right audience, which isn't here.
Posted by: Hank Roberts
|
July 8, 2009 11:20 PM
> The last great burst of faith in science in the USA
> was ... Sputnik....
And Monday night I was out in the street watching the ISS go over, brighter than any star, and a couple of late teen boys walked by and I pointed it out. And one of them said "Where did it take off from?"
And I told him it's been up there for ten years.
And he said "No way!"
The response of the United States to Sputnik has been, in the end, to make the nights so bright and the sky so clogged with crap that the kids nowadays can't even see the stars.
I think the Intersection youngsters are like Gandhi dealing with the British, convinced that right livelihood and good intentions will carry the day.
And I think Turtledove's "The Last Article" is a better analogy for the need to oppose wilful deception amounting to evil. I'd like to see the Intersection people succeed, and hope science can be taught even against the machine culture.
But what if.... http://books.google.com/books?id=V7tKP6dBfRIC&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=Turtledove,+Harry,+%22The+Last+Article%22&source=bl&ots=oLIstRNN7d&sig=LelxJWqwXJkpziDyHWYT9rBf16I&hl=en&ei=6l5VSuq8PJOkMP-i1dQC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=14
Posted by: Dan J
|
July 8, 2009 11:26 PM
Yes, Laurel, there is a great deal of hostility and disrespect throughout the comments on Pharyngula. It's not a nice place for the thin-skinned. People entering the comments with causes that are very meaningful to them personally, but not so to the majority of the commenters, are often treated rather harshly. It's to be expected if you read the comments here frequently.
As I said, I don't disagree with your proposal. However, it's still merely a matter of nomenclature, and the "authority" granted the IAU by its members and followers. If enough people disagree, then take away their authority. They certainly don't exert any influence over me.
p.s. I like the "cabal of priests" reference from Dr. Sykes. Seems very appropriate to me.
Posted by: articulett | July 8, 2009 11:29 PM
It sounds like this is a very unscientific book.
Where's the evidence that Chris Mooney's "accomodationist" approach works better at ameliorating scientific ignorance than the writings of the "new atheists" he rebukes? Why does he imagine himself an expert on how to communicate science to the scientifically ignorant?
Being passionate about science often means being scornful of liars who obfuscate the actual wonders of science. I suspect Chris' Mooney's pleas for accommodation of religious superstition is more to blame for "unscientific America" and the fuzzy claims that go with it, then anything the new atheists say.
Lots of "new atheists" find a passion for science that they were afraid to explore before. I credit the "new atheists" for drawing others in to share the enthusiasm--not the mush mouthed accomodationists who use lots of words to say nothing much at all. Science plays a major role in mitigating superstitious thinking... including the superstitious thinking promulgated by religion, and it's dishonest to pretend it "supports" some types of magical thinking.
"New Athiests" and scientists are natural allies in the march towards reason; the accommodationists pretend to be allies, but as far as I can tell they are promulgating the coddling of certain superstitions under this notion that "faith is something to be respected". Further, they are confirming their own biases against the "new atheists" so they can imagine themselves peacekeepers between faith based "knowledge" and evidence based "knowledge". They ned to see us as bad guys so they can imagine themselves as moderates and "the voice of reason".
But the truth doesn't need peacekeepers, and it doesn't care what invisible entities people feel special for believing in either. Chris' book sounds a bit like the proverbial Courtier's reply.
Posted by: Zuska
|
July 8, 2009 11:33 PM
Apparently I am reading an entirely different book than the one you received, PZ.
I hope you had your fun quoting this:
"Dawkins and some other scientists fail to grasp that in Hollywood, the story is paramount—that narrative, drama, and character development will trump mere factual accuracy every time, and by a very long shot."
But if you think that is news, or seriously controversial, you are living in la-la-land, and you are poster child number 1 for Mooney & Kirshenbaum's argument.
Posted by: Dave Shepherd | July 8, 2009 11:37 PM
I love it when you hitch up the crankypants and stomp around. :-)
So science is failing to communicate- would Scienceblogs collectively beg to differ? The historical ignorance of the public on a range of issues is at least partly to do with previously limited channels for mass communication and what the owners of those channels were willing to allow. Would issues like climate change or peak oil be as widely acknowledged without the web? Call me paranoid, but it's hard to imagine issues with unpopular ramifications for societies' owners getting much of a fair run, at least not before it's too late (I still hold hope).
As someone who left highschool when the web was little more than a geek hobby, now I can't imagine life without it. While there is an obvious overabundance of apocryphal garbage, it has also exposed me to a host of expert opinions and points of view that would either never have seen airtime or been presented in a highly filtered way.
Out of interest, which bright spark invented it and why?
Posted by: Dan J
|
July 8, 2009 11:44 PM
Zuska spake:
It isn't news. It isn't controversial either. It's sad. It's pathetic. Factual accuracy trumps Hollywood in the real world. I certainly don't intend to let Hollywood, or the Catholic League, or the Nation of Islam, or the Westboro Baptist Church, or any other peddlers of fantasy to define reality or to redefine facts for me.Posted by: rmp | July 8, 2009 11:46 PM
I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to be part of this thread.
BTW: if MR. Mooney cares (and I don't think he does), the fact that I've finally been able to get the courage to get out of the 'theism closet' is primarily due to this site. But we are still NOT TELLING MY MOTHER!!
Posted by: Desert Son
|
July 8, 2009 11:46 PM
Laurel Kornfeld,
I apologize for not being more clear.
My reference was not to suggest that the IAU is like a cabal of priests. I don't have any contact with the IAU, so I don't know how they behave and what, if any, resemblance said behavior has to that of priests, cabal-affiliated or otherwise. My intent was also not to suggest that "we need more Protestants," whatever that means in the context of IAU business.
Rather, what I was trying to convey was that your zealous ardor in the matter of re-classifying Pluto struck me similar to that of Luther back in the day. I was hoping to suggest that, rather than posting your theses here where it seems to me most posters are largely indifferent, you might have better luck elsewhere, such as, say, the IAU. Frankly, I don't care about your efforts on behalf of Pluto's nomenclature, either, and so if you're an additional "Protestant" to add to the mix, then evidently Dr. Sykes and myself don't really think alike, except insofar as the metaphors we choose to invoke (though not to what end).
As a final aside on this matter, I would describe Pharyngula (as an environment for discussion) to be decidedly blunt, but blunt with integrity. If it's polite discourse you seek, perhaps this is not the best place, although to be honest, I think you could certainly find far worse on the Internet.
If it's substantive discourse you seek, and you're not worried about your feelings getting hurt, then by all means, stay and engage, and I daresay, prepare to be rewarded. I must, on occasion, remind myself not to bear so thin a skin. Regardless of where you fall in the desire for discussion to be tempered with polite decorum, the level of discussion here is among the best.
But, to be sure, it is not a place to be coddled. And now I really am off to bed. And with any luck, I'm off to sleep, too.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Dust | July 8, 2009 11:48 PM
As for science communicators, don't forget Bill Nye the Science Guy! I understand he is an atheist and he likes baseball!
Posted by: Caine | July 8, 2009 11:58 PM
@Laurel, please shut the fuck up about your pet obsession. Right now I'm typing one-handed because a baby Myotis lucifugus is occupying my left hand, so excuse any errors, however, don't mistake my tone. You're free to obsess on anything, but stop proselytizing. With all the wonder and problems which abound, what a petty thing to base your life on.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 8, 2009 11:59 PM
Speaking of my own conversion from religious idiot to being enthusiastic about science, all the accomodationists provided were stepping stones to cross the divide. But that's nothing without the motivation to cross, and it was the confrontational atheists who actually challenged me to do so.
So yeah, I'm interested to see what evidence they have that the 'new atheists' are harmful to the cause.
Posted by: Michael Fugate | July 9, 2009 12:04 AM
Deciding on whether or not something is a planet is completely arbitrary. We could make every object orbiting the sun a planet and it would not matter. Get over it and on with your life.
Posted by: Dan J
|
July 9, 2009 12:04 AM
Alright, Caine, 'fess up: are you going to post photos of the baby brown?
Posted by: Marion Delgado | July 9, 2009 12:08 AM
Blake Stacey, you're way, way off. It was the New Atheists, not the victimizing media, who themselves consciously, deliberately and painstakingly started this whole groupthink promotion, actually. And they're so idiotic they called themselves "Brights." Harris and Hitchens also seem to have decided that having Jewish heritage means God turns out to HAVE been a real estate agent after all. And all of them seem to offer an analysis of Third World opposition that boils down to "all religions are "equally bad" but some are more "equally bad" than others - namely the ones that neocons and neoliberals find inconvenient.
Really, Sagan would have had nothing to do with, at least, Harris or Hitchens. And your revisionism shows that this movement is indeed heading towards cult status.
Posted by: articulett | July 9, 2009 12:15 AM
Marion, your criticism of others seems more fitting of you. You appear to be infected with the "faith in faith" virus which causes you to project imaginary group-think on to others.
It's curable, but rather than advise folks like Blake Stacey, it might be better to actually take advice from him. New Athiests are the same as old atheists, they just don't defer to the "faith in faith" claptrap like the old atheists were forced to do.
You can't really define people by the invisible undetectable agencies they don't believe in. There isn't really a "groupthink" that goes with lack of belief in invisible entities named "god".
Posted by: --bill | July 9, 2009 12:17 AM
Definitions matter. We define the term `planet' so that we can make statements of the form `all planets have this property'. Definitions are how scientists classify objects, and theories are used to explain the behaviours of these classifications.
And Dan @146 says:
"Guess what: it doesn't matter whether or not the general public cares about this."
Yeah, this attitude pretty much fails at communicating science to the general public.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 9, 2009 12:20 AM
Screw Brontosaurus. What about poor Eohippus being renamed Hyracotherium? Oh, the huge manatee!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 9, 2009 12:25 AM
??
No, that might be better put in the following way:
???
I don't know about anybody else's experience, but most of the atheists — including the ones who would call themselves "New" — I've met think that "Bright" is a fucking stupid term. They'll tell you that the "Bright" thing was a PR move which failed, or at least which did nothing good.
Again, I'm not really parsing what you're saying.
Maybe so. He's dead; who can tell? My point was that if you define a term to encompass the views of the "Four Horsemen" (another stupid marketing name), that term will also encompass other people, even ones now being sainted by the accomodationists.
. . . the Hell?
I should probably make clear that I don't care for Hitchens' politics; that if Harris isn't kowtowing to mysticism it sure sounds that way; that I think The God Delusion needed to be red-penned by some people in the history and physics departments; and that the latter two thirds of His Dark Materials suffer from a lack of cohesion and don't live up to The Golden Compass. I guess I have to turn in my New Atheist Noise Machine membership card now.
Posted by: Dan J
|
July 9, 2009 12:25 AM
So you would prefer putting it up for a global vote? Let the people of the world decide what definitions the IAU should use for a planet? Scientific definition by public consensus?Posted by: T | July 9, 2009 12:37 AM
When talking about great scientific communicators you forgot Tom Lehrer =)
Posted by: Caine | July 9, 2009 12:42 AM
@187 Dan J., I already posted shots to my moblog: http://moblog.net/Caine/ What I really need is a bat rehabilitator in ND!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 9, 2009 12:43 AM
T (#194):
"But don't worry, base eight is just like base ten, really. If you're missing two fingers."
:-)
Posted by: Michael X | July 9, 2009 1:07 AM
articulett @ 177
Exactly.
I've been trying to get the same evidence against vocal support of the truth (and vocal condemnation of those who willingly distort it) from Mooney and Co. for a while now. No luck so far. And I have no illusions that I'll be getting it any time soon. Easier to write a book with the assumption already made I suppose.
Posted by: bob | July 9, 2009 1:08 AM
I don't think that Mooney and Kirshenbaum have a clue what most scientists are like.
While the negative "nerd" stereotype everyone freaks out about (at least when there aren't "framing" issues afoot) certainly isn't entirely true, it's also not entirely false. I shudder to think what would happen if some of the dudes in my department attempted anything resembling public outreach. Visions of children running away screaming come to mind ...
PZ at his most vitriolic is far more eloquent and respectful than many scientists are when confronting something they disagree with. Trust me, a whole lot of "eff those guys, they're morons" goes on when discussing competing research groups' work. (And over minutia, mind you, not conflicting worldviews as with the (scare-caps!!1!) New Atheists.)
This isn't a problem "remak[ing] the entire academic pipeline" could fix, even if such a change was possible or appropriate. Science doesn't work in a PR-friendly way. If it did, it would not only cease to work; it would cease being science!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 9, 2009 1:27 AM
I don't know if it's "seriously controversial", but I think one could make the case that it's overly strong and, to an extent, missing the point. Yes, the movies which are "based on a true story" still get embellished, but is the true story washed out "every time"? And, more fundamentally, why are drama and factual accuracy polar opposites? The assertion "narrative, drama, and character development will trump mere factual accuracy every time" basically boils down to saying that real life is never dramatic.
Treating excitement and accuracy as diametric opposites is part of the problem.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | July 9, 2009 1:27 AM
Laurel:
Hey, take the suggestion or not. No skin off my nose.
True enough, but I'd think the fact that Saturn's rings have spokes that are large particle accelerators is more interesting.
Maybe a rephrase then: find some extra hobbies then.
But I can pretty effectively stipulate you're in the lower .3% of the population who really cares about it.
Posted by: articulett | July 9, 2009 1:42 AM
Michael X @ #197,
I've been following your attempts at getting answers as well. Chris asserts his right to criticism others and then runs from their response.
I think Mooney is just wrong. I think accomodationism enables magical thinking... or at least encourages "fuzzy thinking".
I credit the new atheists (and old atheists) with my love of Science. Sagan was no shrinking violet... he made it very clear that he did not believe in such things as souls and he states in Cosmos that "Evolution is a FACT!--not a theory... it really happened!!" I believe that's considered "strident" even in these days.
But those are his words. In Pale Blue Dot he gives a pretty accurate description of just how provincial religion is when seen from the perspective of space. He never worries about how this might effect peoples heartfelt delusions... and I'm glad he did not. The truth is superior and wondrous and people should not need to be manipulated into seeing this.
Sagan was "militant" for his time. And I credit the militant atheists and "tell it like it is" skeptics for my own love of the scientific method and my profession.
I think Sagan made it very clear that you cannot get rid of peoples' "demon haunted world" without causing them to examine their gods under the same light.
I am disgusted that Mooney thinks he's an expert on scientific communication. I prefer the coherence of those he criticizes far more than I prefer his bald assertions and mealy-mouthed accommodationism. To me, people who try to blur the line between science and faith are just being dishonest. I don't consider them role models or exemplars, so their tsk-tsking of those I do find to be role models comes off as classic Dunning-Kruger anosognosia (the incompetent folks are proportionately overconfident in their competence too incompetent to recognize and, thus correct, their own damn incompetence).
Mooney's criticism of New Atheists might be better directed at himself. Faith is not an avenue towards truth. It is not ennobling; it does not make you special or humble. It just makes you "feel" that way. And if you come to believe that faith is good--then of course, you will confirm that bias by concluding that those who lack faith are bad. Mooney perpetuates the delusion.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 9, 2009 1:44 AM
In addition, once you start poking it, the question of "scientific accuracy" grows ramifications. Science is (a) a large collection of people employing (b) a set of techniques to build (c) a body of knowledge. What if the characters in your story include people who really act like scientists do, and your plot involves them using legitimate methods, but they're investigating something which scientists have yet to encounter? For example, think of Contact, the book and the movie, and to a lesser extent The Andromeda Strain (the movie of which cut out a whole lot of silly stuff that was in the book).
When you have sympathetic protagonists trying to overcome obstacles, you can generate tension and interest. And, fortunately for the writers, scientific investigations are full of obstacles.
But hey, what would I know, right?
Posted by: TheVirginian | July 9, 2009 2:57 AM
I for one am glad Pluto is no longer a planet, because it means the Prophet HPL was wrong when he warned, in his sacred gospel "The Whisperer in Darkness," that the recent discovery of Pluto (aka Yuggoth) was a sign that minions of Cthulhu were about to make a great revelation to all, and that Man would be served at last-- as soon as the Great Old Ones could find their cookbook and Great Cthulhu drags his backyard grill at R'leyh into this dimension.
Posted by: TheVirginian | July 9, 2009 3:33 AM
I won't comment on the book, as I have not read it and likely won't. I am not generally offended by the Accommationists as I think a multipronged attack on the cultists is more effective in de-converting some of the deluded. Obviously, I'm not an Accommodationist.
What offends me is the argument that it is we vocal critics who are stirring up anger and resistance. I'll point out some sources of this ... and we DID NOT START IT!
I'll focus on the evolution/creationism issue here, but this applies to other relevant areas about the biblical cults. The Accommodationists and "Militants" alike are viewed with contempt by devout believers, and we're up against a solid wall of anti-intellectualism, with at least 3 elements:
1) Simple, vast, ignorance. Most creatioists know nothing about evolution.
2) What they think they know is wrong: If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys, huh, huh! Why don't we have tails then, answer me that! Evolution says everything is random, so that's like a tornado sweeping across a junkyard and leaving a Boeing 747 in its wake. Can you believe that, huh!!!
3) Yet they are absolutely certain that they know the truth, the real story. They know the controversy that evolutioists pretend does not exist, and BTW, look at all the great scientists who have said they now doubt evolution (producing a list of scientists who would be very surprised to be on such a list).
It's very hard to get through such invincible ignorance. Sometimes the soft approach - lead the cultists to the answers, away from ignorance - will work. Othertimes, only a metaphorical, intellectual 2X4 between the eyes will make the deluded consider that they might need to go back to school.
I'm a history buff who has read many hundreds of books by scholars and primary sources of history of Christianity. I find most official Christian history to be fictionalized, when compared with the historical record. I also find most Christians 1) don't know anything about Christianity and its history; 2) what they think they know is wrong; 3) they're so certain they're right that they ignore any contrary evidnece I show them.
The fundagelicals are the worst, of course, but this is an area where the liberal Christians -- who realistically are secular humanists who go to church, as they flat out reject most traditional Christian beliefs (most people go to heaven, maybe Jesus just swoooned, there's not really a hell, God is just love - not that vindictive biblical monster, etc.) -- are just as infuriating. I get the "They weren't real Christians" (when they slaughtered millions of heretics and pagans); they misunderstood Jesus' message (when they demonized, discriminating against and occasionally slaughtered Jews); and, well, God warned us of human nature -- see even atheism gave us Hitler and Stalin (both Christians by upbringing, the former his entire life, the latter possibly lifelong).
I'm the one accused of being prejudiced, which is technically correct as I was brought up as a Christian, that is, to pre-judge non-Christians, but I now am free of the Christian prejudices. I'm also told that as I'm not a Christian, I can't know anything about it! (Nevermind my library of books by/about Christians that few believers outside of universities can match.)
The Accommodationists are up against Invincible Ignorance in one branch of Christianity and mushy rejection of Christianity's worst aspects among the better educated (we're still Christians, even though we don't believe much of anything the Bible says except what we've cherry-picked out of it to conform to to ... shhhhhhhhhh, don't tell anybody .... secular humanistic views).
So I wish the Accommodationists luck, but soft words won't turn away the wrath nor awaken the intellects of a large number of believers. Only by confronting the most stupid, violent, bigoted, self-destructive aspects of superstition will we be able to reach some potential de-converts.
Posted by: Cronan | July 9, 2009 3:40 AM
Thanks for the review, so that I don't have to waster my money on this dross.
Posted by: SEF | July 9, 2009 3:51 AM
@ articulett #201:
It's a mind drug - to which many people are dangerously addicted, in lieu of dealing with reality.
Posted by: SEF | July 9, 2009 4:04 AM
@ Blake Stacey #199:
Consider the possibility that, for the people saying/believing that, it's actually true. Being non-scientists their lives really are so completely mundane, devoid of meaning and lacking all the excitement of sudden, new or long-worked-for discoveries. One could pity them more if not for the fact that they're trying to destroy the good stuff for those who do appreciate it (and also the fruits of it for everyone else).
Teach the (real) controversy: excitement and accuracy are compatible!
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 9, 2009 4:04 AM
Is it unfair to suggest that this sort of obsequious behaviour amongst those in the science journalism/publishing field is directly proportional to the amount of grant money the Templeton foundation throws around?
Posted by: SEF | July 9, 2009 4:18 AM
PS (to #206) The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see (what I vaguely recall of) the old (UK) anti-drug adverts* re-made as anti-faith ones. The faith addiction is fairly straightforwardly the drug addiction - turning away from reality into a delusional fantasy. Getting some good solid facts into the addict would be about eating properly instead of spending all one's time and money on the drugs. Clear/critical thinking would be the equivalent of getting cleaned up instead of living in squalor.
* I wonder if that sort of thing ever made it onto YouTube (since it was largely before the internet or even much in the way of home video recording).
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | July 9, 2009 4:35 AM
Laurel Kornfeld: I'll look up Dr. Stern's calculations, but I am always wary of models which try to exclude a positive, like saying an earth-sized object 'wouldn't' clear its orbit. It's all about the length of time and stability involved, which includes the length of time when the planetoid -> planet was actually forming (and clearing its orbit as it grew!).
One other note: I appreciate advocacy, but you're coming off a bit.... too strong with the Pluto stuff. It's just some basic nomenclature and 'planetoid' still fits the definition of planet you'd like to use. I can get a bit obsessed with arguments and reason, so trust me when I warn you that you're going overboard :).
Posted by: SEF | July 9, 2009 4:38 AM
Given the real original definition of planet, not the later one about which the Pluto-philes are now whinging, they might get a sense of proportion from considering the controversy over whether the Earth was promoted or demoted to planet (from fixed platform) all that time ago.
@ Alan Kellogg #165:
The big ones are already (gas) giants. One could sub-divide them further into hill or mountain etc giants (with trolls and ogres for variety). Pretty much by definition, the Earth has to be a man-sized planet - perhaps with a hobbit henchman for a moon. But you're free to elaborate on dwarf class by adding gnomes or pygmies ... ;-)
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 9, 2009 4:48 AM
Pluto is Pluto is Pluto. Just because our categorisation of it changed, it doesn't change anything about it. Getting outraged over something so trivial is an incredible waste of energy.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 9, 2009 5:14 AM
This book is profoundly unethical, it is in fact anti-ethics.
The line preached by the book appears to be to rubbish scientific ethics in the name of the popular. That science is not aimed at uncovering sometimes uncomfortable truths, but rather it must silence the truths it uncovers in view of the vagaries of social opinion.
It highlights the central problem with the accomadionist stance, that these are not honest scientists, their ethics could have come straight out of Enron.
And they wonder why there is such a gap between the public imagination and science right now.
Certain professions in society are given certain tasks, for a scientist the task at hand is not popularity, it is as an investigator and reporter of the the facts.
Frequently, argument around the facts and what they imply will erupt, and sometimes what is revealed is going to be highly uncomfortable to powerful groups. One needs only look to global climate change for a largely secular version of this, or the history of tobacco for another.
If the answer to this is to compromise science, science is nothing more than the cum-rag of anybody with the money or the power to put together a strong marketting campaign.
Now before anybody says I am calling all religious scientists unethical - to adopt a position that science doesn't contradict religion for your specific religion and science as it stands now is not accomaditionism - it is merely adopting a position in a debate.
Accomaditionism is that guiding ethic that science should not be portrayed as contradicting popular opinion, with no regard to whether this position is actually true. If somebody came along and scientifically somehow managed to disprove the very concept of gods, accomaditionists would burn the research and then torch the researcher.
And once they were finished with that one researcher they would branch out to climate scientists, and any economist arguing for any economic theory which isn't held by the ruling party.
And so they take science, all of it, and render it irrelevant.
This creeping irrelevance is part of why creationism is so powerful, why global warming denialists get so much airtime, why it is so easy to build up a tide of anti-intellectualism in America, which is dependant in its intellectuals for its economic strength.
It robs science of its honesty, and hence renders it merely a word.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 5:24 AM
Do Mooney and Kirshenbaum offer a reason why an international scientific organisation should pay heed to the way the American public view its decisions ?
The more I read of Mooney and Kirshenbaum the more parochial they seem to get. The rest of the world might as well not exist as far as they are concerned. Certainly the opinions of non Americans do not seem to matter to them at all.
Posted by: Fleegman | July 9, 2009 5:37 AM
@Laurel
I've seen a pattern in your "debates" on the net. It seems you present her opinions on Pluto, talk about conspiracy theories, and then wait for someone to make even the slightest attack on you. And by slight, I mean suggesting that you might be obsessed, for example. Then you go and whine about how mean people are, scream ad hominem from the hilltops, as though that's the only ammunition people have against your special pleading. You completely ignore what people are actually saying (far less actually considering what's been said), project your emotions on to those your are debating with, and all of this in an environment in which no one actually gives a damn about it.
I have read the various comments you have made on this comment thread, read the various responses from commenters, and I found them to be some of the most civil comments I have ever seen on this blog. From your comments over at Kwok, though, you'd have thought everyone here had been ripping you a new one:
"I’m probably headed in your direction of being banned from Myers’ site. I’m being absolutely trashed over there for my statements about Pluto. The tone of discussion is very nasty, filled with profanity, insults, and personal attacks."
Well, that's not what I've seen, and as a member of this community I find this insulting.
Please go and peddle your obsession elsewhere.
Posted by: Fleegman | July 9, 2009 5:51 AM
My bad: "present her" should be "present your."
Posted by: MadScientist | July 9, 2009 6:27 AM
PLUTO? Wow - talk about beating a dead horse. Last week I saw a *kid's show* in which the planets only went up to Uranus and Neptune. So the authors of the kids show obviously accept the (somewhat dated) decision of the international union of astronomers. I wonder why - maybe it's because they believe they should leave the experts in their field to make such a distinction.
Going on with populist science - I vote that the earth is flat! The earth was also created 6000 years ago - and don't you tell me otherwise or you're just being a mean hellbound new atheist!
Now why couldn't Mooney and Kirshenbaum bring up a more substantive issue such as global warming? Why pick on the dead horse that most of the people on the planet really don't care about? Is it because we must be 'civil' and hold our tongue, keeping knowledge to ourselves rather than trying to educate people? Is this the fantastic method which is meant to gain science popular support? Shut up and people will give us money? Hahaha! I'd like to see that happen ...
Posted by: chanson | July 9, 2009 6:42 AM
Re: #29 My kids are growing up knowing Pluto as a dwarf Planet too. Actually -- because of the popular/media attention -- Pluto ends up being a good conversation starter about astronomy and science in general. It naturally leads to questions:
* Why?
* What/where are the other dwarf planets?
And by investigating those questions, kids start to get a feel for how science progresses, instead of mistaking science for a set bundle of facts that is handed down from some unknowable mystics in black robes...
Posted by: MadScientist | July 9, 2009 7:12 AM
@Ophelia Benson: I find it incredibly difficult to believe a word from Kwok - he's got the worst narcissus complex I'd ever seen. He's like Forrest Gump - only not half as smart. He's personally met Jeebus, Moses, JFK, Kirschenbaum - anyone who comes to mind really. All these good buddies of his, like 'Al' Einstein love to give him things and tell him things. So I wouldn't conclude that Mooney or Kirschenbaum feed the trolls and send them after their enemies - at least not without other evidence, preferably not involving the Kwok.
I simply lost interest in the 'intersection' because the blogs just didn't make sense. For example, C.P. Snow's talk about the "Two Cultures" had been re-interpreted to mean a gazillion different things - this is not something scientists do, it is what religious people with too much time on their hands do - try take a series of statements made under rather specific conditions and generalize to anything they please. It is the past-time of pseudophilosophers. That was the first omen that set off my BS alarms but the blog is pretty consitent and the accommodation of Kwok and McCarthy and others, at least in my view, doesn't conflict with the general character of the blog.
Posted by: goddogit
|
July 9, 2009 8:44 AM
So, given what I can see here, they are proud to be scientists who can "pass" as members of the gen'ral pub'ic?
If a scientist, or anyone, wants to compartmentalize their thinking and take seriously the ridiculous nonsense of religion for other than cultural background, historical interest, or entertainment, that is certainly their right. I don't respect that position IN ANY WAY, but I can avoid allowing it to color my relationship with such people: we just learn never to talk about it.
If such a person writes a book and projects their own uneasiness with their absurd bullshit on me, we have a more intense problem. That looks like what is happening here.
For now, I would - if these people were any I had to associate with in any form - note simply that they are, in teen slang, pussies, so fuck 'em and forget 'em.
Posted by: llewelly | July 9, 2009 8:51 AM
Hank Roberts Author Profile Page | July 8, 2009 11:20 PM:
A fine story, but no-one involved is either Ghandi or Hitler.
It seems clear that a certain amount of uncompromising rhetoric is needed - but at this point, no-one is suggesting scientists march in the streets, or quit their jobs, as Ghandi's people did.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 9:08 AM
One of things I love about science is the history of how we came to know what we do about the universe.
Take for example the Big Bang theory. The story of how it came about is fascinating and a totally gripping narrative. Simon Singhs tells the story brilliantly in his book "The Big Bang" and I am not aware of any significant inaccuracies in that book.
Why are some people too pig-shit thick to understand that one can have both a gripping narrative and be accurate at the same time ?
Posted by: MadScientist | July 9, 2009 9:19 AM
Perhaps we should drag Tom Lehrer, kicking and screaming, out of retirement? He had some great ideas in the early years after the creation of the earth - New Math bestsellers and movies like "The Tropic of Calculus". After all, Mr. Lehrer also recognizes that getting the correct answer doesn't matter; what is important is knowing what you did. If science would only take that approach, it would be 100% compatible with religion.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 9:36 AM
Mooney and Kirshenbaum could have written this instead:
"We, and some other journalists, fail to grasp that in science factual accuracy is what matters and that without it science is a futile exercise".
That is not news, or controversial either, except it seems to Mooney and Kirshenbaum whom one gets the distinct impression would sacrifice accuracy if it suited their purposes.
There is no point in bothering to even try and educate the public about science if one sacrifices scientific accuracy to do so.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 10:16 AM
I see they have now removed it. Took them long enough.
Don't I recall a week or so ago a long post from Mooney about the lack civility from the "new" atheists ? I presume he only expects this civility to be one way. The "new" atheists must be civil, but he will remove someone who calls a "new" atheist a bitch from his blog, or even admonish them.
Posted by: JRQ | July 9, 2009 10:16 AM
Well, I've requested it from my library so see what the big deal is....
But, come on:
"Dawkins and some other scientists fail to grasp that in Hollywood, the story is paramount—that narrative, drama, and character development will trump mere factual accuracy every time, and by a very long shot."
Seriously? Chris and Sheril wrote that sentence and put it in this book? I really hope PZ is taking this out of context, because that doesn't make any sense by itself. Dawkins most certainly does not "fail to grasp" the importance of narrative. No honest person who has read beyond The God Delusion would write that. Dawkins is a tremendous scientific storyteller and has been for 30 years. His popular science writings are widely admired by religious and non-religious readers alike. For crying out loud, I once heard a pastor recommended Blind Watchmaker to someone who wanted to understand how natural selection works.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 10:29 AM
Well reasonable people can disagree about what are important issues to them but still be willing to listen to each other. I doubt many pastors are going to agree with Dawkins on religion, but that does not stop them engaging with him about evolution. The accomodationist view that Dawkins et al alienate moderate religious people is simply rubbish and is hugely patronising to the religious. Mooney et al are patting them on the head and saying they know there are some big boys saying nasty things but he (Mooney and others) will make them go away.
Posted by: Chris Mooney | July 9, 2009 10:39 AM
We have much to say in response to PZ. To start out with, on our blog, I explain why it is that we criticize this blog, as well as PZ
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/09/classic-quote-from-pzs-blog-vs-classic-quote-from-realclimate/
Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 9, 2009 11:27 AM
I followed the link provided by Mr. Mooney and was thoroughly disgusted by its content. Since he has the ethics of Shyster, and I fully expect him to lose my comment, I am posting a copy here.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 9, 2009 11:48 AM
JRQ (#226):
True dat.
Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2009 11:49 AM
To explain Onkel Bob's comment, Mooney quotes Aquaria's post #106 and calls it a "classic quote from PZ's blog", nowhere even alluding to the fact that he's quoting a commenter and not PZ himself. So, apparently the reason he criticizes PZ is that he doesn't agree with every single commenter.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 9, 2009 11:54 AM
Here is a thing that gets me here though, Mooney wouldn't last two seconds in marketting.
How did Dan Brown, a guy who is pretty much a hack, get so big?
How did Harry Potter, which is actually quite generic in children's fantasy, become the major fantasy series of the decade?
How did Dawkins' book, not all that new really, do so well?
How? They were all unapologetically controversial. The were all targetted by religious groups, which generated interest in them, and got more people to like them.
So how does Mooney propose selling science?
By glossing over anything in it, which the religious would find interesting.
If you look at the way news has shrunk, what happened? The US news media figured America was by its nature conservative, and so more and more conservative voices filled the paper - and instead of rising circulation, the news industry is dying.
Yet in South Africa, the news industry is going strong - mainly because we maintain our voices and we are not all that afraid of controversy. People want to read the story everybody is talking about.
If you are going to promote science, you need to be controversial just to get people interested. That means, Mr Mooney, the "new atheists" are actually making science fashionable again.
And here is the other thing, if you are going to talk about marketting science right now, you don't look at Hollywood. Movie ticket sales and DVD sales, have dropped over the same period that computer gaming and internet usage have gone up.
Why is this? Because if you are going to "sell science" right now, you need to get the old media bullshit out of your head and get interactive. People want to participate, open the door to them.
And stop with the shit of religion not contradicting science, you can't speak for everybody's religion, and you can't speak for all of science. Whenever the head-up-their-arses brigage talks about how religion doesn't contradict science, they are talking about their religion and their science, and nobody else's.
Which is why, the 1980's and 1990's represented such a weakening point in science. Consider this, the fathers of Science Fiction, were more stridently atheist than Richard Dawkins, they thought religion would have died out by now because it is so stupid and juvenile.
And their era? Man went to the moon. Now we have got the appologetic shit, men flew into buildings. Controversy is not the problem, it has never been the problem, do you know what the problem is? Fear of controversy.
The creationists thrive by generating their own controversy, the anti-science types, the woo peddlers? They generate their own controversy. How the hell do you think George W Bush got enough votes to get elected the second time round? Controversy, he embraced it while his opponents shied away from it.
A former male cheerleader who possibly skipped out on the end of his civil guard duty ended up being seen as being more "manly" than a Vietnam war hero because Bush embraced controversy while Kerry backed away from it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 11:58 AM
I will second Blake here.
When I first read "The Blind Watchmaker" I read it through in one sitting. I think I finished about 4 in the morning.
There are not many books that make me do that. The final Harry Potter was the last one to do so.
Posted by: Jason | July 9, 2009 12:03 PM
To Pascalle @#82
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP
As a 40yo masters student in library science I raise my glass to you.
~Jason
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 9, 2009 1:00 PM
I give public presentations about astronomy about a dozen times a year in state parks, scout groups, etc. I have a nice picture of the Solar System with the planets to scale and put one of those circle/line symbols over Pluto (like the no smoking symbol). I could use a picture without Pluto, but this gives me a humorous way to talk about it.
If someone asks why or gives me the whiny "But why did they get rid of Pluto?" I tell them a version of this:
"Pluto got re-labeled because, thanks to new telescopes and spaceship fly-bys, we have discovered SO much about our Solar System in the last 50 years that we didn't know before, so many new objects, that scientists had to re-think and create new classifications for them. This is so exciting that we have expanded our knowledge so much and we are so lucky to live at this time in history."
Generally, my audience gets a little wide-eyed and slack-jawed (in a good way) on hearing this. They had never connected the change in Pluto's designation to the advancement of human knowledge (or as the payoff to all those NASA missions their taxes are paying for!)
Pluto is a golden and very rare opportunity to teach the public that science progresses, learns, grows. That we live in an exciting times due to scientific knowledge.
That is why I am saddened that Mr Coyne would advocate catering to the most slack-jawed (in a bad way) reactionaries in the general public.
That he would advocate altering the process and procedures of science to cater to them leaves me speechless.
Posted by: Mariana C. | July 9, 2009 1:01 PM
@ Chris Mooney # 228
Is this supposed to be your response to PZ's review of your book? You pick one comment in a 200+ comment thread and try to - ahem - frame it as PZ's? You, sir, are disgusting.
BTW, it seems the point you tried to make by *quoting someone else who is not PZ Myers* is not even a point on which PZ would disagree with you. Here, let me help you with some quotes that are actually from the review in question:
"We're told over and over about how scientists suck at the job of science communication (which is largely true), and that we need more media- and politically-savvy scientists (definitely true),"
"Carl Sagan is their hero, and he's one of mine, too. He's the model of the scientist who is also both a skilled communicator and an activist, and I would agree entirely that we need more like him."
So my suggestion is: try again, and next time address some of your opponent's points instead of quoting *someone else* so you can stomp your feet and go "See? He's so meeeeeeaaaaaaan!!!!"
Posted by: gf | July 9, 2009 1:04 PM
@ Jason A 140:
Indeed, the word ‘Theory’ does have a wider use, with different definitions to the purely scientific one. And again, scientists would look absurd if it appeared that they were trying to impose their preferred definition onto everyone else. Generally, when scientists clarify their use of the term they are very careful to avoid giving anyone this impression: “Within Science a Theory is…”
If such care had been taken with the decision to reclassify Pluto, we could have avoided reinforcing many of the negative stereotypes that much of the general public have about science and scientists.
I don’t think this is a terribly important matter, and would be surprised if this single matter would have turned anyone away from science, but I do think it works as an example of the sort of needless mistakes scientists can make when communicating with the wider public. And I think some of the comments made here which thoughtlessly dismiss it only serve to further reinforce those negative stereotypes.
@ Bruce Gorton 232: I really don't think atheists should see Rovian politics as a model to emualte. Key to Bush's embrace of controversy and his 'manliness' was his willingness to commit to beliefs even when the evidence was against them. He was just too darn principled to ever realise he was wrong. I'm somthing of a flip-flopper myself, and proud of it. There's much we still do not know, and I'm looking foreward to realising I'm wrong about all sorts of exciting stuff. Bush shouldn't be a model for anyone.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 1:15 PM
Do you mean Coyne ? Only Jerry Coyne, who I assume you are referring to, does not hold that position. It is Mooney and Kirshenbaum who are saying astronomers should give American public opinion primacy when deciding if Pluto is a planet.
Other than that, which I think is probably just a simple slip, I agree with what you say. When I first heard that they were criticising the re-designation of Pluto I thought what a waste of a teaching moment it was.
Posted by: rmp | July 9, 2009 1:23 PM
Dear Chris Mooney,
Do you realize that by referencing a commenter (rather than PZ) how much damage you did to your credibility? I, and many here, would probably agree that PZ is pointed and opinionated and perhaps a bit 'over the top' for some people. Even PZ acknowleges as much. However if it wasn't for this blog, I'd still be having anxiety attacks about my liklihood of going to hell (I stop crying myself to sleep many years ago).
This blog has given me the courage to come out of the 'theist closet'. Whould you rather I stayed in?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 1:25 PM
What is it with this Pluto business anyway ?
Here in the UK I am not aware of any controversy surrounding the re-designation of Pluto. It was widely reported, and astronomers were interviewed to explain why. They gave the proper explanation that Pluto was no longer considered to meet the criteria used to define a planet, and that this was because we now knew so much more about the planet. A number of the astronomers were American. I know Neil DeGrasse Tyson was interviewed by the BBC about it.
If Americans were not provided with the same explanations in their media I am not sure we can blame the scientists. After all they succeeded here. Seems like it is the American media who are to blame.
Doesn't Mooney claim to be a journalist ? Fucking cheek the man has, blaming the failing of his profession on scientists.
Posted by: Discombobulated | July 9, 2009 1:50 PM
Hypatia's Daughter@235:
Wow, that's a wonderful story! I'm glad to hear that your audience was receptive to your presentation, and I hope it inspired them to look more into astronomy and understand that science is a process. That harmless reclassification, when framed correctly, is such an excellent opportunity for widespread pedagogy, that to propose changing it back is simply irresponsible.
Thanks for posting that!
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 9, 2009 1:56 PM
rmp@181: "I don't have anything to add. I just wanted to be part of this thread."
Ah, but merely by posting a comment here, you have -- according to Chris Mooney -- become an official representative of PZ Myers.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 2:22 PM
I think I may be a little drunk.
I have been playing with Mooney's language filter. He claims he filters posts with bad language, only so far posts with screws, tosser, wanker and buggered have got through.
It would seem I can officially call Mooney a wanker, tosser, and bugger without him thinking I am using offensive language.
Posted by: Apatosaurus | July 9, 2009 2:32 PM
An interesting tidbit of information here. Laurel is a B movie actress who has been using the Pluto thing as a PR gimmick for the last three years. A couple of times she got articles to showcase her as the Plutogirl whose car is called the Plutomobile and cell phone called the Plutophone. She's promoting a play she wrote that's supposedly about Pluto. It's all about getting her into the limelight.
And getting a final grade of 83 for a basic astronomy course does not make someone an expert.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 2:43 PM
Do we still have B movie actresses, or is it now straight to DVD actresses ?
Posted by: antistokes | July 9, 2009 2:53 PM
@ # 232:
Now, now; we will have the Daily Show and Colbert. Both reliable and hilarious. Well. Mostly hilarious... I know, they are really just comedians! And yet, they are among the more honest "reporters" in the States...
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | July 9, 2009 3:09 PM
Posted by: gf | July 9, 2009 1:04 PM
I wouldn't emulate the stubborn element of Rovian politics either, you can see how it ended up in the long term destroying the Republican Party's credibility, and America's economy.
But, there are lessons to be learned from that era, on what works and what doesn't. One of the things we can learn from Bush is not to shy away from controversy.
Sure, when we are wrong we correct ourselves, we take in the evidence and we change our positions based on the evidence, that is essentially what we are arguing for when we argue in favour of science and a scientific approach to our lives - that doesn't mean we back down because our positions might be controversial.
If we back down it must only be because we think we are wrong - and that means saying no to accomadationalism.
George W Bush was the worst president America has ever had, but there are lessons to be learned from him from a public relations point of view.
Posted by: rmp | July 9, 2009 3:33 PM
Screechy Monkey #242, I would be proud to be considered as such.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 9, 2009 4:00 PM
I remember a while ago thinking Mooney had grown out of the "framing" nonsense. I'm sorry to see I was mistaken.
Unfortunately, I think their blockheaded, fratricidal, self-defeating bugfuckery is approaching the point where their quotes need gumbies and comic sans. :(
Posted by: lurker42 | July 9, 2009 4:07 PM
I have to say that this has been one of the most entertaining threads in a long time! I'm a sucker for a good board war.
Thanks, everybody.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 9, 2009 4:35 PM
#238 My most abject apologies to Mr Coyne. I had a brain fart when I typed his name instead of Chris Mooney. (Shows what happens when you wake up early, read Pharyngula and type a post before you have had 2 cups of coffee......)
Thanks for pointing that out, Matt.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 9, 2009 4:35 PM
Responses to Mooney's linked blog entry, currently "awaiting moderation":
Post 1:
So, you falsely attribute someone else's post to PZ, and you can't muster up the shred of honesty necessary to admit your lie? This falls far below the standards of accuracy and ethics I would expect from Discover Magazine. Hell, this falls below the standards of accuracy and ethics I expect from the Marvel Comics! You're about to the level of the Weekly World News. Keep it up and the Dishonesty Institute will offer you a fellowship!
And if you're going to hold the author of a blog responsible for comments, do you really want John Kwok, who was banned from Amazon.com for advocating the assassination of a presidential candidate, hanging around your place? Or do you only want that rule applied to OTHER people?
Post 2:
Here are a few "typical" examples of Mooney and Kirshenbaum's writing:
"Every word out of my mouth is a lie"
"I steal candy from children, then I beat them."
"Lying is fun, who cares about ethics"
"My entire career is a fraud"
"All my grants were obtained through theft"
"I have seven bodies hidden in my garage"
Of course, these MUST be accurate quotes from Mooney and Kirshenbaum, because some random commenter put them on their blog! Just make up whatever garbage you want, and it magically becomes a representation of whoever's blog you're posting on! Wait until 4chan gets wind of this! They'll have Mooney confessing to being a syphylitic pedophile within an hour!
If you don't like being held to ridiculous standards, maybe you should refrain from holding other people to them.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 9, 2009 4:41 PM
phantomreader42 (#252):
Eeek.
Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2009 4:50 PM
Mooney amended his post by inserting the following at the beginning of the quote:
[*****ADDED FOR CLARIFICATION: As the link above shows, these words are from a comment left on Pharyngula, not from its author.]
Note that the "link" was embedded in the words "From PZ's blog". I'm pretty sure initially before it said "as the link and wording above...", but it does not currently say that (which is good because the words "comment", "commenter", or even "someone" as used with the RealClimate link were not present at all, leading one with no cues that it was not PZ talking). Nopologies are fun. He's basically castigating us for taking him at face value and not checking his sources, when he fancies himself a journalist. Nice.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 9, 2009 4:51 PM
And another comment, just posted after the disclaimer finally came up on refresh:
This one actually seems to have escaped moderation, but my comparison to the Weekly World News is still being kept behind the wall.
Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2009 4:53 PM
Ah, yes, I located the initial quote since it was quoted by a commenter.
He sounds properly apologetic for his journalistic mishap, no?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 9, 2009 5:03 PM
Mooney's naughty word filter apparently doesn't catch "tosser" "wanker" or "semprini".
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 5:11 PM
No problem. None of us are immune from brain farts, and posting without adequate caffeine intake in only going to exacerbate the situation :)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 5:14 PM
Nor buggered. It is rather fun to play with a naughty word filter, only playing with one so useless takes some of that fun away.
I know what tosser and wanker mean, but I will confess to not knowing semprini. Is it a word I should add to my vocabulary ?
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 9, 2009 5:19 PM
Semprini is from a Monty Python sketch lampooning the banning of naughty words.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 5:21 PM
And I have watched all those.
How did I not know that ? Well it is late, and I have drunk a fair bit of beer.
Posted by: Miranda Hale | July 9, 2009 5:33 PM
Apparently, fawning reviewers are the only ones who "get it." Huh. That sort of simplistic thinking must be fun.
Clearly, the problem is that we just don't "get it." Clearly.
Sigh. Their blog is just ridiculous.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 9, 2009 5:40 PM
Reading the comments at Mooney's blog is fun. If you took away Kwak1 and McCarthy, and the occasional idiot called Jon, he would have no one supporting him at all.
Do you think that is the kind of public opinion he is going to listen you ?
1 I know it is really spelt Kwok, but one of the commentators typed Kwak, I think in error, and just seems more apt.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | July 9, 2009 5:50 PM
#240 Matt,
I don't think the Pluto controversy was very big for the average American. Perhaps, some confusion as to why (and remember, Pluto was the only Planet discovered by an American, so many were loath to have that claim to fame removed from the history books). And many adults are resistant to learnin' new stuff after they finish formal schooling. (That is why it is so hard to convert to the metric system: adults would have to relearn their weights and measures.)
But the media in the US likes 2 kinds of programming - controversy and pablum. So they think presenting a naysayer (even if he is a lone kook) on a program where Pluto was explained is being "fair", "presenting both sides" and, oh!, great for their ratings.
So, yes, the media is greatly to blame by badly mistreating professional scientists by putting them in untenable situations like this.
I'm not an American but have lived here for 14 years. I have an insiders empathy for Americans but an outsider's eye. After I lived here a few years I coined the saying "You have a right to your opinion - that does not make your opinion right".
A small minority of Americans genuinely think that they get to vote on reality and remake it in their image. It leads, in the extreme, to the notion of "American Exceptionalism". Mr Mooney saying that the feelings of the average American should be "respected" by scientists is one aspect of this (Imagine, all the astronomers, all over the world bending to the "feelings" of the American public).
And, incidentally, why the US hasn't gone metric. The US shouldn't have to adapt just because the REST of the world uses metric! No damn way!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 9, 2009 5:56 PM
Miranda Hale (#262):
That was the framists' defence against the people who didn't like Randy Olson's muddled movie Sizzle. Oh, all those nay-sayers are just ivory-tower scientists who love only facts and figures! They don't appreciate how the narrative is more important than mere factual accuracy! It's Hollywood, baby!
Posted by: Miranda Hale | July 9, 2009 6:27 PM
Thanks for that link, Blake. Frustratingly simplistic thinking from faux-populists is getting really tiring :/
Posted by: Medusa | July 9, 2009 6:50 PM
Thanks for the comments on this book, PZ. I was considering purchasing it, but now I'll save my money.
Posted by: Jack | July 9, 2009 8:43 PM
@Medusa #267...I suggest we all simply request our local libraries obtain a copy. No need to give much in the way of royalties to a journalist like C. Mooney yet.
He'd been someone I really liked till I got a look at the book...now I am left wondering how clear a thinker he is.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 9, 2009 11:24 PM
Blake Stacy, #265
Facts and presentation are not mutually exclusive. You don't have to lie to make something interesting.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 10, 2009 12:33 AM
Now for an open note to Chris Mooney:
You disappoint me.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2009 2:28 PM
Alan Kellogg (#269):
Yeah. There's this weird idea afoot that when a scientist doesn't like a movie, it has to be because the science was all wrong. Never mind that when we do criticize a bit of bad science, it's often to explore good science in a fun and memorable way. Some gaffes are good for starting discussions, while not making the movie itself a bad one. When the knives really come out, it's because the story was rotten, the characters were crap and there just wasn't anything worth suspending disbelief for!
Hardly a subtle point, I'd think, but on the Internet, everything is too subtle for somebody. . . .
The people who complain most loudly about how scientists need to "stop acting like scientists" and appreciate the viewpoint of the "common man" never pay attention when scientists do just that. Maybe they can't hear us over the sound of how awesome they think they are?
It struck me today that some of the people who think Mooney and Kirshenbaum's statement about "mere factual accuracy" is entirely uncontroversial would be the first to get up in arms if a Hollywood flick portrayed gay men as paedophiles or lesbians as women who just hadn't met the right man yet. Suddenly, a tear-jerking story doesn't sound quite good enough! "You can tell just as good a story with real characters," they'd say. "Look at movies like X and Y and especially Z." They'd tell us, "The way Hollywood is and the way it ought to be are far apart."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 10, 2009 2:37 PM
Oh, and I forgot to say:
Fucking fuck the motherfuckers!
(If I don't swear, Mooney will never quote me!)
Posted by: Marion Delgado | July 10, 2009 2:51 PM
articulett:
You hastily, I assume, misread what I wrote. I am claiming there really is a publicity-seeking "New Atheist" movement, and that the individuals I named did the unwise or unsavory actions I claimed they did. The revisionist I corrected claimed that the media victimized all atheists everywhere by creating "The New Atheists" label out of thin air. That's a lie.
To amplify on that, I pointed out the "Bright" debacle.
'Nuff said. We can all get along, in my opinion.
And I'll continue with my crusade to spam Ray Hyman's CSICOP article. http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-07/criticism.html
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 10, 2009 4:19 PM
Knock off the fucking foul language, asshole.
Oops, missed that. Never mind.
Posted by: windy | July 11, 2009 6:18 AM
Bashi-bazouks! Macrocephalic baboons! Slubberdegullions!
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
July 12, 2009 1:07 PM
Thanks to Ed Darrell at Millard Fillmore's Bathtub, I would like to point to a more appropriate target than us "New Atheists" for Chris and Sheril's aim - Robert Bate.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 12, 2009 1:18 PM
Comrade Physioprof puts it succinctly:
http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/science-and-religion/
Posted by: Aquaria | July 12, 2009 6:58 PM
Who would have thought a lowly postal worker could get Mooney's panties in such a wad?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 12, 2009 7:19 PM
That is why you are being upgraded to my top list. Lowly postal worker? Don't demean yourself. Talent can have many jobs. Eric Hoffer was a longshoreman.Posted by: Bart | July 12, 2009 10:42 PM
For every creationist, there's someone who's into astrology, homeopathy, Reiki, healing touch, and food combining. Weird science is alive and well on both sides of the political spectrum.
And don't forget, people got all distressed about spending so much tax money on space travel, when there were so many deserving poor people here on earth.
Posted by: Chris Mooney | July 13, 2009 11:32 AM
we have begun our response here
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/13/pz-myers-vs-unscientific-america-summary/
Posted by: Quiet Desperation | July 13, 2009 1:57 PM
This event was accompanied by a public outcry,
Not me. I supported it. Some folks (especially in Illinois) said it dissed Tombaugh, but I saw it as elevating his discovery from merely "The Ninth Planet" to "The very first Kuiper object".
Posted by: Ike Solem | July 13, 2009 5:55 PM
Science fundamentally relies on experiment and observation. Different fields may rely more on one or the other, but that is what underpins what we call scientific knowledge.
The ideological debate falls into the category of philosophy, for example: Could we all just be programs in a perfect virtual reality simulation run by some unknown power? Such a claim would not be susceptible to analysis by experiment and observation, as it would be a perfect simulation. Thus, belief in such a claim would be a matter of faith.
The real issue is that the general public suspects that scientific institutions have fallen under the sway of political and financial interests that have corrupted the integrity of said scientific institutions - that's the fundamental issue that is being skirted here. The best popular analysis of this trend is Jennifer Washburn's University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education.
The charge here is that scientists in the U.S. academic-government system are forced to tailor their researches and interests to the political and economic climate above all else, much as scientists in 1930s Germany were forced to agree with the theories of eugenics. Similarly, scientific counterparts in the USSR were forced to agree with Lysenko's condemnation of all prior scientific work in genetics. There's even a Russian book about this period: White Robes, or Belye Odezhdy, by Dudintsev - no English translation yet, but the novel is based on the conflict between Lysenko and Vavilov under Stalin (Vavilov being arrested and imprisoned for promoting anti-revolutionary theories).
Today, this is most clearly seen in the biomedical and pharmaceutical sciences, which have been beset by false claims, rigged data and corporate conflicts of interest involving professors, administrators and CEOs. However, similar things are also seen in many other scientific fields, as well as in the distribution of funding for such fields.
Now, science has largely replaced religion as the explanation for 'the way things are' in our world - but science, unlike religion, is based on experiment and observation, not faith. This has turned out to be a more reliable and useful approach for understanding the world about us - witness Galileo and Copernicus vs. The Church.
This doesn't mean that scientists haven't been ridiculously wrong. Take for example the hero-worship of Darwin, which is as absurd as hero-worship of Newton - yes, both made great progress, but both were wildly wrong about many things. Darwin in particular promoted ridiculous notions of racial eugenics based on a complete misunderstanding of how genetic material was transmitted from generation to generation. Darwin, for example, would have viewed our current president as a genetic disaster - seriously, see the above link for a quote Darwin uses:
"God made white men, and God made black men, but the Devil made halfcastes."
Such notions were refuted long ago, but you still see biologists engaging in Darwin-worship - at least physicists have gotten over Newton-worship, mostly. In reality, with experiment and observation you have to be able to change your ideas about the world in a way that is fundamentally different from the faith-based model - textbooks are usually rewritten every few years, for example, but that's not true for religious texts - and the Origin of Species is becoming more of the latter than the former, in reality - of historical interest only.
Cruel as this may be to loved historical figures, any other approach to science rapidly breeds nepotism, provincialism, cronyism and ultimately, corruption of scientific integrity in the name of personal gain. No one can deny that such issues also applied to religious institutions during the time when religion was the primary explanation for "why things are the way that they are."
Scientists and scientific institutions have been known to dress themselves up in the robes of high priests, haven't they? Isn't this fact at the heart of the real reason the general public might have developed a serious distrust of modern scientists and their claims - corruption of scientific integrity for economic reasons?
Maybe you are not having the right debate, is all - maybe the 'science vs. religion' theme is a misrepresentation of the really troubling issues in the modern 'scientific community', which have little do do with dusty Darwin debates, and everything to do with dishonest manipulation of the process of experiment and observation by economic interests with ulterior motives.
Posted by: Jona Earth | July 14, 2009 10:19 AM
I sometimes wonder about how little most people know in terms of the things they use every day and, bearing this in mind, how we'd cope after some technology destroying disaster.
Posted by: John Bonanno | July 16, 2009 6:12 AM
Perhaps they are arguing that one should allow the public to continue believing in cherished illusions rather than facing up to disturbing higher truths because scientists cannot face the ire of a shaken public or care to deal with the societal implications of a public whose shattered beliefs might cause them not to play the passive roles they have been taught.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 16, 2009 6:50 AM
Bullshit! Darwin was no proponent of eugenics; that is a smear by association. (Which I see you've extended in your linked-to essay.)
Had you given the rest of the quote about "half-castes", you'd have seen that (as misguided as it was) Darwin wasn't making the point you're trying to imply. Actually, it was as much of a social commentary as having anything to do with his (not unreasonably wrong) notion of heredity:
Yes, there are elements of the culturally prevalent racism in Darwin's writing, but it should also be noted that he was against slavery, and in favour of social justice. Less common traits in a gentleman of the age.
However, you're also more generally wrong about the status of Darwin, who is celebrated for his accomplishments, not canonized as an infallible deity:
a) Show me evidence of Darwin-worship. He is rightly celebrated as the originator of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Whilst others had developed some primative theories concerning heredity, Darwin was the first to recognise that variation, heredity, and natural selection could lead to evolution.
b)Origin is wrong in many details, and obviously doesn't encompass the 150 years of evolutionary science which came after it. However, it certainly isn't a religious text - hence that we know many of the details are wrong, because it never became a dogmatic doctrine. Equally, it is not a mere historical artifact, because it still contains good and relevant scientific observations and lessons in the application of the scientific method.
Posted by: GreenGoddessLove | August 21, 2009 3:38 PM
"....but how, exactly, are we to accomplish it without challenging anti-scientific attitudes"
What I have noticed about both sides is their willingness to demonize every aspect of the other side, without admitting their myopic contribution to the problem.
Apocryphally, professed skeptic Penn Jillette will not allow people to wear religious symbols into his house.
The question is: Why? What power does that little piece of metal, shaped like a star or yod or crucifix, have that he fears it so?
People don't enjoy being told they are stupid, or worse, willfully ignorant because their brain chemistry allows them spiritual feelings. Just as other people don't enjoy being held up as the destroyers of religion and "family values" because their brain functioning leads them toward critical and rational thought.
Scientism, as a fundamentalist world view, is just as destructive as the religious sort. To "heal the breach" there needs to be some tolerance of drives, desires and worldviews different from one's own.
Those opinions put forth, I'm all for increased scientific literacy and emphasis on teaching critical thinking beginning in grade one.
http://atheistblogger.com/2008/04/03/atheism-needs-more-penn-jillettes-and-less-jodie-fosters/
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 25, 2009 6:33 PM
People don't enjoy being told they are stupid, or worse, willfully ignorant
Then they should stop being stupid, or worse, wilfully ignorant.
Scientism,...
Yawn.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/T1bv_h8i0usRM5b6FBqKJf8Z2gtLhMzw1w--#2e488
|
September 23, 2009 12:41 AM
"Then they should stop being stupid, or worse, wilfully (sic)ignorant."
Nicely constructed rebuttal. Debate club?
Scientism
Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
September 23, 2009 1:02 AM
What's wrong with wilfully? Your spellchecker can't handle it? Anyway, religions don't have a surefire method for assessing truths from falsehoods because religions are based on arbitrary, elite claims of the human imagination. In general, knowledge about reality can obviously be gained without the scientific method through education (which is cultural), logic, and trial & error, but any truths touched on by religions are coincidental (arbitrary hit or miss).
Posted by: Feynmaniac
|
September 23, 2009 1:23 AM
'Wilfully' is perfectly acceptable in British spelling, and (IIRC) Knockgoats is from Britain.
Posted by: Kel
|
September 23, 2009 1:58 AM
People keep making this straw man, so I'll address it.The position is not that science is an absolute, only that no other form of enquiry has shown its legitimacy. There's a big difference between the two. Science cannot explain everything, but that doesn't mean that religion or any other endeavour can. Science works, it is a legitimate form of inquiry into the world. This doesn't mean that science can explain absolutely everything (or anything absolutely), it just means that the other forms of knowing proposed don't even come close to doing as is claimed.