…and this is a 
I feel obligated to reply to Mooney and Kirshenbaum's latest complaint, but I can't really get motivated. Their argument has become so absurd and so petty that it seems a waste of time anymore.
All they've done is confessed that they are on a personal vendetta: they are very upset with me, they admit that my existence is a central reason that they left the scienceblogs network, and you can just feel the roiling resentment that people dare to criticize them, persistently and at length…and it's all my fault.
I did not address their scapegoating of PZ Myers and Pharyngula in my reviews of the book because it was a palpably strange bit of personal antagonism on their part, and I confined my disagreement to the poverty of their other arguments. It is interesting to see my assessment of the anti-me sentiment now confirmed. It's unfortunate, too. Their book is very thin on ideas and evidence, and it detracts from it further that they spend two chapters whining about people who have annoyed them. It's unprofessional, and it reveals their own poor comprehension of how the web works. This petulant bravado, for example, is simply unreal.
For too long, people in the science blogosphere have tiptoed around Myers. After all, he can send a lot of angry commenters your way. And he, and they, are unrelenting in their criticisms, their attacks, and so on. Just read our threads over the last week—it's all there, the vast majority from people who have not read our book and do not seem inclined to do so.
But we're not afraid of Myers or his commenters. They can leave hundreds of posts on our blog-we readily allow it—but our book will be read by a different and far more open-minded audience. It's already happening. And that audience will largely agree that Myers' communion wafer desecration was offensive and counterproductive, and that more generally, he epitomizes the current problems with the communication of science on the Internet.
I have not noticed any tip-toeing around me at all — it is simply bizarre to argue that people are afraid to criticize me because something horrible might happen: they might get criticized back. That's all I've got, after all: I do not have clout in government or science funding agencies, I do not have an army of ninjas, people can howl all they want about me — and they do! — and all that will happen at worst is they'll get a brief flood of traffic and a bunch of comments on their blog. This is something most bloggers want. To claim bravery because they aren't intimidated by the possibility that I might link to their articles is damned silly. And I have read over the last week's worth of comments on their blog: it's a bunch of people on the internet arguing over both sides, and many of the angriest (and dumbest) are Mooney's own defenders.
They really don't get it. I have no power except as a focus for a lot of like-minded people; if I were to vanish, those people would still exist, and would still be hammering at the foolishness that Mooney and Kirshenbaum emit. There is a growing minority in this country, this Unscientific America that Mooney and Kirshenbaum write about, which is fed up with the false privilege granted to religion, that wants science to have a more prominent role, that is willing to be outspoken and critical, and that is more than a little exasperated with the tepid apologists for the status quo who believe that making nice with the Unscientific part of America is the solution. That minority wants a voice, and they will have it whether I'm part of it or not. They are also our only hope for changing Unscientific America. Ultimately, the only way we can get a Scientific America is by challenging and criticizing the proponents of anti-science and un-science…and all the Colgate twins can do is protest in horror at anyone who wants to rock the boat.
This isn't a problem with the communication of science on the internet, it is a strength. We have a platform from which we, with many voices, can roar. Use it, don't muffle it.
Ultimately, though, the problem with their book, the one they've avoided despite the fact that I brought it up in my review, reiterated it in my response to their 'rebuttal', which Jerry Coyne discussed briefly, and that Ophelia Benson skewered with some pointed questions, is that they are thin on substance. Bellyaching about me personally is entertaining and has brought them some short-lived blog traffic, but all that is is a distraction from what ought to be the topic of conversation: how do we get the public to think scientifically and become better informed about real world matters, and make decisions rationally? I push one obvious strategy: the erosion of a major source of delusional, sloppy thinking, religion. I do not pretend that this is the only useful strategy, however. What Mooney and Kirshenbaum could have done was provide a practical alternative, with details and specific suggestions that we could then productively wrangle over. They have not. That's the most obvious deficiency of their responses so far (other than their frequent distortions of what others and they themselves say), a strange reluctance to actually discuss what is in their book. I've already spilled the beans about their Grand Solution, so they might as well try to talk about it.
I predict that they won't.
Comments
Posted by: ctenotrish | July 17, 2009 2:55 PM
Maybe if you'd just stop breathing fire?? I mean, it makes you *terrifying*!
Posted by: James Sweet | July 17, 2009 2:55 PM
Yeah really.
Please PZ, please pretty please don't link to my blog? It would just be really horrible if my blog was linked to from multiple different posts on Pharyngula. I just don't know what I'd do if that happened...
...and I hadn't gotten the chance to click on "Monetize" beforehand...
Posted by: E.V. | July 17, 2009 2:56 PM
I, for one, just happen to be wearing a Ninja outfit as I type this. Where the hell did I put those damn throwing stars?
Posted by: Damon B. | July 17, 2009 2:56 PM
...I do not have an army of ninjas...
Just the kind of thing someone who actually does have an army of ninjas would say!
Posted by: ctenotrish | July 17, 2009 2:56 PM
Oh, that and all those tentacles. I mean, reeeaaaallllyyyy. Of course maybe the fire can be used to cook the tentacles? Maybe all you really need is a nice coating of garlic butter?
Posted by: Chris Granade | July 17, 2009 2:59 PM
Well put. I'm disappointed that M&K's personal attacks have distracted so many scientists (and science-minded people in general) from ever so much productive work. M&K had an opportunity to do a lot of good with their book, and they blew it by indulging in this kind of petty behavior. Thank you for reading it so that the rest of us don't have to, and for exposing the problems inherent in their rhetoric.
Posted by: ed | July 17, 2009 3:00 PM
I thought I was a PZ ninja! Double ought spy maybe?
Posted by: Don | July 17, 2009 3:01 PM
PZ, perhaps someone should explain that all those 'hordes' amd 'minions' comments are baddinage and not a literal description of the people who visit this site.
Do they take the Cthulu stuff literally, too?
Posted by: cervantes
|
July 17, 2009 3:04 PM
Ahh, but you could send a giant, mutant octopus to drag them into the ocean. Their fear is genuine.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 17, 2009 3:07 PM
How can they complain about this? This is precisely their strategy, which they learned from Matty Nisbet: criticise someone more popular than yourself, and thereby try to make yourself important.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 17, 2009 3:08 PM
I'm not speaking for anyone else, bur as for me it is but to yawn. I am losing interest in the book and the subject and ready to move on to new things.
Posted by: Caine | July 17, 2009 3:09 PM
Oh, those silly faitheists. A slippin' and a slidin' on all that butterism.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 17, 2009 3:10 PM
Ninjas? Pfft. This is a pro-pirate blog. We like being loud and having a good time and using blunt instruments.
Posted by: David Wilford | July 17, 2009 3:11 PM
I'm not sure why Mooney thinks saying that religion and science are incompatible will bring the pious peasants upon us with pitchforks in hand. PZ is no Voltaire, but this isn't the sixteenth century anymore, so I think we can openly talk about the irrelevance of faith with respect to science.
Posted by: Glenn Dixon | July 17, 2009 3:13 PM
I agree with James. It would be just HORRIBLE to have PZ's ninja hordes descend on my blog to comment on this whole topic. Just horrible!
(no, seriously, click the link! Please?)
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 17, 2009 3:13 PM
The whole thing has actually been kind of exhausting... all the blustering indignation, arguing over who was whose favourite intellectual and why they were better/more effective... My SIWOTI kicked in early, but got burned out pretty fast.
Posted by: Jared | July 17, 2009 3:16 PM
Don, do you not think Cthulhu is real and sleeping in R'lyeh?
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
"That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die"
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 17, 2009 3:18 PM
Any kerfuffle that gets J*hn A. Davis*n and J*hn Kw*k interacting with each other is an OK kerfuffle by me.
Posted by: Schmeer | July 17, 2009 3:18 PM
It is damning that they absolutely refuse to answer questions asked of them by Ophelia Benson, among others. The most they can ever manage is "Oh I was doing something sooooo important that I couldn't respond to you/delete Kwok's profanity/pay attention to my blog"
ps. Kwok is such a fucking douchebag.
pps Did anyone notice Pete R over there? Is that Pete Rook? That would kind of imply that PZ's dungeon is The Intersection.
Posted by: bickle | July 17, 2009 3:18 PM
/yawn
Doesn't attention whoring get old Paul? You're the king of the neckbearded basement nerds, congrats. It's what you've always wanted.
Now banter some more about ninjas and pirates to prove my point.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 17, 2009 3:18 PM
Pirate-Ninja Peace Treaty
Posted by: bickle | July 17, 2009 3:20 PM
/yawn
Doesn't attention whoring get old Paul? You're the king of the neckbearded basement nerds, congrats. It's what you've always wanted.
Now banter some more about ninjas and pirates to prove my point.
Posted by: Travis | July 17, 2009 3:21 PM
Now that James and Glenn have commented on the horribleness of PZ linking to them I feel like I cannot. I have missed out on the opportunity. Maybe I should put some content up first anyway, but perhaps that does not matter, Mooney and friends still seem to get some visitors.
Posted by: Andrew | July 17, 2009 3:22 PM
Kind of getting tired of this drama. It's like Ignatius and Myrna writing letters to each other in "A Confederacy of Dunces."
Posted by: bickle | July 17, 2009 3:22 PM
/yawn
Doesn't attention whoring get old Paul? You're the king of the neckbearded basement nerds, congrats. It's what you've always wanted.
Now banter some more about ninjas and pirates to prove my point.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 17, 2009 3:23 PM
The silliness of this fight is what's likely to sink M & K's book, or at least keep it from appearing serious to anyone.
People are going to read the book and think, what, we're supposed to be concerned about something on some blog that most people haven't heard of?
The fact that it means a lot to Chris won't change the fact that none of what they discussed really mattered much even when it happened, and was mostly water under the bridge until they brought it up again.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Sarah P | July 17, 2009 3:24 PM
Have to agree with your comment that your readers will still disagree with and comment on "The Intersection" regardless of your existance - although I for one am happy to read your expressing your thoughts so much more eloquently than my comments.
I learned about accommodation from the M+K blog, and made my few comments expressing my disagreement. Since then, I've enjoyed reading all the blog postings reviewing their book. Until Mooney started whining away about nasty atheists and promising his argument would come soon, I thought maybe their book would be interesting, as I love good science books.
Greta Christina has a great post from a while back on the "shut up" argument. Mooney should have read it. Maybe then he'd at least have anticipated the arguments and possibly had a coherent thought? Seems unlikely, though.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 17, 2009 3:24 PM
And you bickle are king of the cowardly anonymous America fucking retards. Too cowardly to say what you think and append it with your real name. The only time real Americans post anonymously is when they are afraid of losing their jobs because of assholes like you, or if our IPs have been banned on blogs and forums run by assholes just like you.
Posted by: Travis | July 17, 2009 3:26 PM
Why is it that whenever people come to complain they triple post? I have seen this a lot lately, it is really weird. It is like they have some sort of reading comprehension problem.
Posted by: bobxxxx | July 17, 2009 3:28 PM
And that audience will largely agree that Myers' communion wafer desecration was offensive and counterproductive, and that more generally, he epitomizes the current problems with the communication of science on the Internet.
Wow. They're upset because PZ doesn't respect magical crackers.
Yes, the desecration of Jeebus crackers was offensive. Wasn't that the point? To show that Catholics are idiots because they are offended when their medieval bullshit is not respected.
Posted by: Schmeer | July 17, 2009 3:28 PM
Bickle,
Easy on the submit button. You are not pounding away on your special place and it won't give you any more pleasure than you've already gotten out of your geek-heirarchy-bigotry joke.
Posted by: Jared | July 17, 2009 3:29 PM
Oh, come on, I bet their traffic goes up like crazy when PZ links to them. They should be thankful for the attention. Granted, it's negative attention, but at least people are reading them, and, if not at least thinking about what they are saying, laughing about it until they are bleeding profusely having fallen out of the chair so many times. I mean, for any experiment, PZ, link to any blog, preferably one with almost no traffic, like my blog and look at the referring links, then post the data. It's a blogospheric experiment in the making.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 17, 2009 3:32 PM
I propose a new law, similar to Godwins, that the more idiotic a trolls first post, the more likely to be triple posted.
Posted by: Glenn Dixon | July 17, 2009 3:32 PM
I agree with James. It would be just HORRIBLE to have PZ's ninja hordes descend on my blog to comment on this whole topic. Just horrible!
(no, seriously, click the link! Please?)
Posted by: Alexander | July 17, 2009 3:34 PM
in one thing I think they were right: "that Myers' communion wafer desecration was offensive and counterproductive"
If we want to win these (creationist, ID and 'their kind') people, such harsh actions should be avoided.
Don't misunderstand me, It is part of free speech of course, but counterproductive as well.
Posted by: JackC
|
July 17, 2009 3:34 PM
Aye. I'll not be draggin meself down ta their level and douse'n meself in that book O' tharn.
Arr...
Nor will I be a commentin about it then.
Blimey.
JC
Posted by: Puck | July 17, 2009 3:35 PM
Notice the ad-hominem about those who disagree with him in that quoted material -- that we're not open-minded! Apparently, only close-minded people can disagree that the communion wafer incident was not counterproductive.
Of course it was offensive -- many things are offensive. Too many people are too easily offended.
But some people need to be offended. And if even a few of them question why they're offended about the treatment of a cracker and change their viewpoint then it's productive.
Being respectful of such easily offended beliefs seems to be not productive at all, but offending them shows that it at least has the possibility of being productive.
QED.
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 17, 2009 3:36 PM
I attended one of Mooney's events once in 2006 when he was touring for The Republican War On Science. It was a good read. But it seems he has really started going over the deep end with his admonishments against criticizing science-ignorant/illiterate people. I think probably the simplest refutation of Mooney's position is that, to apply a Keynesian economic mold, ideas naturally have what we could call a marketplace, and like tangible products those intangible ideas compete for acceptance and dominance, the lesser ones eventually getting worked out of the collective consciouness for their unsuitability. While this model is flawed, it works better than just about any other where human beings are concerned.
That Mooney apparently hasn't ever considered this doesn't speak well to his critical thinking skills on the issue of science education and communication. Science has uncovered truths no old tome of quackery can lay waste to. Those old tomes house old ideas that are no longer suitable. Other ideas have come in and demonstrated a sufficiently practical element that they should be accepted as replacements. That's life. Deal with it.
I hate to use a conservative meme, but he is being an appeasing accomodationist for those that hold bad ideas. Science should not kneel before the collective public ignorance (however benign or malignant) and beg to be heard as if before a king. As the saying goes, power rarely if ever gives itself up willingly. Bad ideas die as hard as any malevolent force.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
July 17, 2009 3:38 PM
@Thomas Lee Elifritz (#28)
Why don't you lay off bickle? How can you be so sure that he's a troll? Aren't you aware of PZ's 3 comment rule? Wait until bickle has left 3 troll comments before you ... oh. Never mind. ;-)
Posted by: bobxxxx | July 17, 2009 3:38 PM
Alexander, how do you suggest we should "win" these retarded pieces of shit?
Do you also think we should try to "win" Muslim terrorists?
I say tell them to drop dead, both the Christian Taliban and the Muslim Taliban. If you think you can convince an idiot of anything, then you're as crazy as they are.
Posted by: tsg | July 17, 2009 3:39 PM
@35
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: XD | July 17, 2009 3:39 PM
An astute observation, Schmeer. And according to Sven, JAD is there too?When this blows over and the Pharyngulites sail back to port, The Intersection is going to be Crackpot Island.
I love it so!
Posted by: Buford | July 17, 2009 3:39 PM
Ophelia links to
Paul Vallely on Eagleton and Armstrong with the comment "Hard to find words for how stupid this is."
In particular I found this statement missing something: "Yet much of what seems reasonable in real life turns out not to be true. And much that is true, like quantum physics, seems rationally impossible."
He may have meant "Yet much of what seems reasonable [to me] in real life turns out not to be true. And much that is true, like quantum physics, seems rationally impossible [to me]."
But to give it a real shot at being an accurate generalization it should be something like "Yet much of what seems reasonable [at first glance] in real life turns out not to be true. And much that is true, like quantum physics, seems rationally impossible [to those you do not understand enough about the phenomena or rationality]."
Posted by: Puck | July 17, 2009 3:39 PM
Notice the ad-hominem about those who disagree with him in that quoted material -- that we're not open-minded! Apparently, only close-minded people can disagree that the communion wafer incident was not counterproductive.
Of course it was offensive -- many things are offensive. Too many people are too easily offended.
But some people need to be offended. And if even a few of them question why they're offended about the treatment of a cracker and change their viewpoint then it's productive.
Being respectful of such easily offended beliefs seems to be not productive at all, but offending them shows that it at least has the possibility of being productive.
QED.
Posted by: designsoda | July 17, 2009 3:42 PM
PZ, your exchange with Mooney at Daily Kos almost says it all. If Mooney himself is not aware of what he himself wrote, then there's not much else to discuss. I'm not even sure I would give him the benefit of the doubt as to whether it was an honest mistake when that smear of Prof. Dawkins is central to his thesis that the "New Atheists" are partly to blame for Unscientific America. Shameful, embarrassing stuff.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 17, 2009 3:43 PM
Evidently, M & K think that challenging religion is too dangerous: they want to get people to re-define it into a mild, benevolent, toothless form. True religion isn't about understanding the universe. It's about understanding yourself. God is not a failed hypothesis. God is an expression of deep emotional commitment to deep emotional commitments. Or something like that.
Over 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson predicted that one day all Americans would be Unitarians. Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to have dedicated themselves to turning Jefferson's lost dream into reality.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 17, 2009 3:43 PM
Yeah. It just ain't gonna happen. The battle is for the hearts and minds of "moderate" religious folk. Whomever they might be.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 3:45 PM
Hey dumbass, how about reading the error message?
Posted by: Alexis
|
July 17, 2009 3:49 PM
I do love this paragraph from the MK article:
"We recognize that Myers writes entertainingly and sometimes hilariously; we know he’s kind and soft-spoken in person; and we realize he describes science accurately and insightfully. And we understand he’s a very good teacher as well."
I can see the headlines "Mooney and Kirshenbaum endorse professor P. J. Meyers!"
Posted by: Kevpod
|
July 17, 2009 3:50 PM
"For too long, people in the science blogosphere have tiptoed around Myers."
When they resort to a vacuous gambit like that, you know they have nothing.
I hear that kind of thing a lot in our local public discourse – people trying to fluff up their importance by invoking phantom armies of like-minded supporters.
It also casts them as the brave vanguard, the only ones with the guts to speak truth to power.
My guess is that there are no skulking, oppressed mutterers. There goes their only allies. Oh well.
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | July 17, 2009 3:53 PM
Oh noes, P.Z., PLEASE don't send those thousands of angry supporters over to my site . . .
Posted by: Pete Moulton | July 17, 2009 3:53 PM
"That's all I've got, after all: I do not have clout in government or science funding agencies, I do not have an army of ninjas, people can howl all they want about me — and they do! — and all that will happen at worst is they'll get a brief flood of traffic and a bunch of comments on their blog."
Well, there is your army of Humboldt Squid. I think that's what they're really worried about.
Posted by: sharky | July 17, 2009 3:55 PM
I want everyone to know that I clicked links to all linked blogs and even left comments. Ninja comments. Look for them if you are bold enough... but you will not discover them.
Posted by: Alexander | July 17, 2009 3:56 PM
@40 "how do you suggest we should "win" these retarded pieces of shit?" Dunno.. Okay, most adult fundies will never change their mind.
But. They have kids. We should not scare them off with such actions. I still believe that a friendly face and normal tone is important.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | July 17, 2009 3:58 PM
This becoming obvious to me. This is all a marketing plan by K&M. They knew that by writing a chapter about PZ then sending him a copy of the book to review that he would likely generate a big hullabaloo. Since the chapter about PZ was deliberately written to be inflammatory they figured that he would concentrate his response on just that part of the book. I bet they even had a bunch of personal attack responses pre-written.
However, PZ surprised them by ignoring that part of the book and pointing out the failings of the rest of it. They hadn’t actually expected him to actually read the entire book and start poking giant holes in their arguments. They weren’t prepared to respond to that which is why their counter arguments have been so sloppy and flustered. This would explain why they refuse to actually address the flaws in their arguments and keep trying to bring it back to personal attacks.
By writing about PZ and asking for his review of the book they were deliberately trying to trap him into a personal flame war in order to boost their book sales. They just weren’t expecting him to actually address the full content (or lack thereof).
Posted by: tsg | July 17, 2009 3:58 PM
Psst. Your concern is showing.
Posted by: SLC | July 17, 2009 4:02 PM
it's a bunch of people on the internet arguing over both sides, and many of the angriest (and dumbest) are Mooney's own defenders.
In particular, two of the biggest assholes around, McCarthy and the Kwok. These two clowns dominate their threads.
Posted by: Happy Humanist | July 17, 2009 4:04 PM
I can't believe they are still harping about the cracker.
GET OVER IT!
It's just flour and water. It doesn't even taste good. You'd think Jesus would taste better than than sorry piece of dough. Maybe a little butter or jam would help.
I think they need a little cheese with thier WHINE.
Gosh I'm getting hungry now.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 17, 2009 4:04 PM
Does this mean round #2 of The Game over there?
Cripes, I'm late again.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
July 17, 2009 4:06 PM
I agree with all of Ophelia's "Colgate" article and all of PZ's article here except for calling them "Toothpaste Twins" and "Colgate Twins". That didn't add, but took away from the discussion.
Posted by: Walter Silveira | July 17, 2009 4:07 PM
"I do not have an army of ninjas"
...well clearly I'll just take my clan elsewhere if you're not going to use us, PZ!
*sullen mumbling* pro-pirate philistine *mumble mumble*
Posted by: Siamang | July 17, 2009 4:07 PM
"For too long, people in the science blogosphere have tiptoed around Myers. "
Uuuhhh.... What?
Why the fuck should ANYONE be afraid of PZ Myers?
Posted by: Chris Clarke | July 17, 2009 4:08 PM
Dammit, we're not tiptoeing. We're stalking. Learn the difference, Mooney.
Posted by: JBlilie | July 17, 2009 4:10 PM
Bullseye.
I believe unreservedly in free speech whether on the internet or anywhere else at any time (with the usual caveats about "fire!" in theaters, etc.)
This freedom is why all entrenched power fears the internet and wants to neuter it (note that I did not specify sex here ...) Speak truth to power. Nothing happens unless people rock the boat. Sitting down and playing nice won't do it! I love the cliche truism: Well-behaved women rarely make history. Expand it to include all people, not just women; just as true.
"There is one elementary truth, the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: the moment one definitely commits oneself, then Providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that never otherwise would have occurred ... Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness has genius power and magic in it. Begin it now." [attributed to Goethe; nevermind the "Providence" part: Just think circumstance and opportunity: It's always worked that way for me ...]
Posted by: stogoe | July 17, 2009 4:10 PM
If you're so damned tired of the whole thing, read a different post, or even (gasp!) head on over to another blog!
Posting that you're tired of reading a post is just, well, incredibly fucking stupid.
This ain't the 50s - there are more than three channels on the Interweb. If you don't like what you're seeing, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!!
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 17, 2009 4:12 PM
Cool! Does it work?
(Clears throat...)
Too many people have been tiptoeing around Mooney and Kirshenbaum, treating their ideas with... umm... underserved... well... resp...
Oh. Right. Presumably it also has to sound not quite entirely ridiculous...
Hey... Did anyone tell M and K that? Mighta helped.
Somewhat less flippantly, it's been noted, here and there, the apparent lack of sense of humour in some of these oh-so-irritated company. And I'd say: this is all of a piece, hardly even surprising.
There's always been this innate brittleness about certain forms of popular nonsense (to borrow Opelia B's and Jeremy S's term). Panic, outrage and almost comic overreactions at a little bit of unveiled mockery? Pretty much par for the course, really.
Can't have that. The bundle they're huddling over is all wrapped up carefully in decorum and dignity for a very good reason. It's serious see... Solemnity is expected, even required... Adults do not chortle out loud during the sermon. They're to nod gravely. Smiles are awright in some progressive congregations, even laughter of a certain careful and appropriately innocuous and vacuous kind (see, this part is all about 'joy'... kinda the same way a canned, derivative sitcom is about comedy), but pretending to sneeze while actually saying 'horseshit' into your hankerchief, that's right out. Not done...
See, those kinds of sneezes, they're catching. Gotta nip 'em in the bud. So: bad professor. Bad bad bad professor! And all of the rest of you, too! Stop laughing! It's not funny!
(Sneezes...)
Okay... But that one was really a sneeze...
(/It's the horseshit. I'm allergic.)
Posted by: Glenn Dixon | July 17, 2009 4:13 PM
Wow. I can't even beg for blog traffic on my blog right. Totally fubared my comment code.
It works now if any one cares to gleefully laugh at me whilst simultaneously crapping on the Moonies...
Posted by: tsg | July 17, 2009 4:14 PM
I thought it hit it on the head: M&K are all style and no substance.
Posted by: zaardvark | July 17, 2009 4:17 PM
Yeah. These guys just don't get it. PZ's blog has done more for exposing unscientific, and plain irrational, thinking than 1,000 books by these two could ever do.Posters here can indeed seem angry and offensive... if, you know, you take very seriously the idea that a cracker can be transformed into the flesh of the zombie son of an infinite and eternal sky-daddy, or if you think everyone should show respect for that idea or just shut their mouths about it.
They may be right that such an audience could be reached by vanilla-fied scientist-spokespeople, but I bet you'd lose everyone else's interest in the process.
Posted by: Robert Thille
|
July 17, 2009 4:20 PM
Sure, you may not have an army of Ninja's, but there's always the Kraken you control!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 17, 2009 4:20 PM
KOOK FIGHT!
Kwok v. John A. Davison.
M&K's blog is officially a joke.
Posted by: GreyRogue | July 17, 2009 4:22 PM
You have a point that sometimes it is more useful to make nice. However, it is sometimes (more often?) useful not to coddle delusional beliefs that actively seek to silence rational voices. Those like Mooney can continue to quietly tiptoe around religion, afraid to offend, while those like PZ can continue loudly point out that the emperor has no clothes. Not mutually exclusive, even if one approach might be better.
Posted by: Evil Eye | July 17, 2009 4:23 PM
Bravo! Now ask Kirsten Sanford and Justin Jackson why they went so easy on him. http://www.twis.org/audio/2009/07/14/365/
What is happening?
Posted by: Wes | July 17, 2009 4:27 PM
Let's let this be the end of the Mooneybaum saga. I'm just sick of hearing about those two petty-minded whiners.
Posted by: ChrisZ | July 17, 2009 4:30 PM
I love how there was no substantive response to PZ in that entire thing.
Shorter M&K
Response to PZ
9. PZ called us bigots and that's not true!
10. Even though this isn't a response to anything PZ said we just want to say again that PZ is a big, mean, extremist atheist!
-M&K
--Also, I really hope PZ never links to my blog (only a few weeks old so be nice).
Posted by: Pascalle | July 17, 2009 4:31 PM
I don't think i tiptoe around anybody.
If someone posts something that makes me form the opinion that they're full of shit, i will tell them that i think they're full of shit.
Than i will explain why.. and use the right quotes, sources and everything.. because _that_ is what i have learned from your blog ;)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 17, 2009 4:31 PM
Today I mentioned crackergate to a couple of Catholics I work with and their responses were basically "Huh? Somebody desecrated a host? So what?"
While anecdote ≠ data, it would appear that most people, including most Catholics have (a) never heard of crackergate and (b) don't care. Perhaps Mooney and Kirshenbaum are possibly overemphasizing the public response to crackergate.
They're overreacting to people in the science blogosphere have tiptoed around Myers. I've told PZ that he was wrong on his blog, I've made jokes at his expense on his blog, and I've even used foul language on his blog and he hasn't banned or tkn thr stps gnst m.
Posted by: Woronov | July 17, 2009 4:32 PM
I thought the "Toothpaste Twins" epithet was hilarious and dead on. Mooney's picture looks like a commercial actor's head shot. It's the most flattering picture I've seen of him and not at all representative.
Posted by: windy | July 17, 2009 4:34 PM
M&K's blog is officially a joke.
You maniacs! You blew it up! Gosh darn you all to heck!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
July 17, 2009 4:39 PM
That's it Coyne; you've stepped in it now.
Horde of Pharyngulites That Magically and Paradoxically Grows Larger Even As It Repels Decent People and Forces Them to Hate Science, attack!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 17, 2009 4:39 PM
windy, there's no call for such strong language! Faitheists could be reading this!
Posted by: John C. Welch | July 17, 2009 4:40 PM
Here's the comment I left there:
This is hilarious. Normally Dvoraking is the domain of the tech “press”, but I’m pleased to see that M&K have put the tactic to use in the “scientific” world.
What is Dvoraking?
Well, it’s a traffic jack trick. John C. Dvorak, tech pundit, realized, long ago, that whenever his columns weren’t getting hits, all he had to do was write something that was anti-Macintosh or (to a lesser degree), anti-Linux, and BANG.
TRAFFIC JUMPS UP.
Dvorak didn’t give a rat’s patoot about facts or accuracy, just in making sure he pissed off the right people. Best of all, no matter what, he wins. If the Macheads come in and argue, he gets to call them fanatics, and dismiss them, because they clearly only care about defending the Mac. If they ignore him, well, that’s because they know he’s right. (This isn’t speculation, Robert Scoble posted the video of Dvorak explaining how this all works.)
Same thing with M&K. They aren’t concern-trolling, or crusading for better manners. But, they knew that if they devoted a couple of chapters to whine about OMGPZ! OMGNEWATHEISTS that no matter how bad or weak their book was, it would sell, because of the nontroversy they created.
Here’s a test for anyone who thinks otherwise, and haven’t read the book. Buy a copy and remove all the chapters that are all up in PZ and the New Athiest’s faces.
Now read it.
What you discover, is that without the instant FIGHT trigger that PZ et al bring to the book, the book kind of sucks, and doesn’t really have anything useful in it to help increase science education. Oh, it’s also pathetically obvious that M&K either don’t read XKCD or are like people who never liked The Far Side, because the jokes were beyond them. If they did get it, they’d realize that XKCD had the best, most complete rebuttal to them in this strip:
http://xkcd.com/603/
Yeah.
This was NEVER about personal worry, or professional worry. This was a simple calculation:
writing a weak book + generating nontroversy about PZ/New Athiest == BIG FREAKIN’ SALES.
They win on royalties, their publisher wins on sales, and http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ has NEVER had hit counters like this. I’d love to see the analytics for this site since M&K Dvorak’d PZ, I bet the numbers are tremendous.
I also bet that M&K will keep bringing this up for as long as possible, because they know the hit jump they’ll get every time they do. Mmm…big numbers are like candy-coated crack…you can’t not take a hit once you start.
M&K: The Dvoraks of the Science world. Rock.On.
Posted by: tsg | July 17, 2009 4:41 PM
We really do need a shorter battle cry.
Posted by: Pascalle | July 17, 2009 4:46 PM
"We really do need a shorter battle cry."
for Pony!
*quickly hides her nerdy self in shame*
Posted by: donna | July 17, 2009 4:50 PM
"We really do need a shorter battle cry."
Oh, come on, this is easy.
"For the CHORDATES!"
Posted by: Diego | July 17, 2009 4:52 PM
Good points, Welch!
And gee, I am I glad that I braved the frightening packs of ravenous commenters and risked attracting the Eye of the Dark One who sits like Lucifer (not that there is anything negative about the Christian Hell or any possibly offended satanists or Dante fans or anyone else who might possibly ever be offended by the religious reference because it's those sort of attacks on alternative gestalts that make the materialist paradigm so darned inflammatory) in the center ring of this Pharyngulite Hell by leaving this compliment. ;)
Posted by: Sili
|
July 17, 2009 4:52 PM
Will "Squidyho!" do?
Has anyone seen FtK thither? It's misogynistic to keep the trollettes out of the fight.
Posted by: ERV | July 17, 2009 4:53 PM
#71-- Feynmaniac--
KOOK FIGHT!
Kwok v. John A. Davison.
M&K's blog is officially a joke.
*smiles*
*puts on sunglasses*
*smiles*
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
July 17, 2009 4:54 PM
Et tu, tsg?
Your concern is noted.
Posted by: jen | July 17, 2009 4:54 PM
So, am I correct in thinking that they have just defined "people in the science blogosphere" in a way that excludes readers of science blogs? And also excludes any science bloggers that disagree with them?
As in "people in the science blogosphere" = them and a select group of sycophants?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 17, 2009 4:56 PM
I'm not sure I want to include those namby-pamby faux posers, the tunicates. All they
standsort of puddle up for is accomodation of the invertebrate idiots.Posted by: Seer | July 17, 2009 4:57 PM
...I do not have an army of ninjas...
Sorry to nitpick, but like ravens, the collective noun is a murder of ninjas
Posted by: tsg | July 17, 2009 4:57 PM
I don't know. It's not likely to induce fear into our enemies.
"Your concern is noted!"
I'm not feeling it ...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 17, 2009 5:00 PM
[googles squid, reads wikipedia article] Squids ain't chordates.
Posted by: Seer | July 17, 2009 5:00 PM
...I do not have an army of ninjas...
Sorry to nitpick, but like ravens, the collective noun is a murder of ninjas
Posted by: Aquaria | July 17, 2009 5:01 PM
You know what really pissed me off about Mooney?
He didn't have the fucking courtesy to confront me here, to my face. Instead, he took the 14-year-old girl route. He ran away crying until he got to his 'hood and could talk tough with his homies there. Then he drew a lot of hysterical "she's a meanie" posters in orange marker and hung them up on telephone poles.
What a fucking coward.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 17, 2009 5:01 PM
yeah, but otherwise it's perfect.
(I'm still laughing)
Posted by: H.H. | July 17, 2009 5:06 PM
I'm really pissed off by M&K's implication that as a reader of Pharyngula and fan of PZ's ideas, that I'm somehow a mindless attack drone sent off whenever PZ needs some dirty work done. By choice (not by command), I've commented a few times at their old Intersection blog before their comment policy made it too much of a hassle. I saw numerous attempts made at well-founded and articulate criticisms, only to see them all handwaved away or ignored. And now, after finally realizing I was wasting my time and energy trying to communicate with people only interested in lecturing, I see that my (and others) good-faith efforts to substantively engage their points were never seen by them as anything other than empty PZ cheering leading, and thus totally dismissed as nothing more than an "angry attack."
So you know what Chris and Sheril? FUCK YOU BOTH! Fuck your arrogance, your smugness, your intellectual dishonesty, your condescension, your close-mindedness, your Puritanical moralizing and utter cowardice. You can now both consider yourself "attacked," and angrily so. But only now. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before. No longer. You are now both firmly entrenched in the lying shitbag camp with Ben Stein and Casey Luskin. Enjoy the company.
(P.S. Sorry for the language, PZ. I know you said not to give them more reason to gripe. But they are already well beyond the possibility of dialogue, and I needed to get that off my chest.)
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
July 17, 2009 5:08 PM
Fine then. Perhaps we should hire a consultant to 'frame' our battle cry.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 17, 2009 5:10 PM
I love it! Especially if we can generate a roar of "aaannnnnnndddd STUPID!" from the rear company as we set to.Posted by: Lowell
|
July 17, 2009 5:11 PM
Alexander #40:
Grey Rogue covered this at #72, but it bears repeating that we need a multi-pronged effort. If I was trying to get a fundie teenager, for example, to consider learning about evolution, I'd refer them to Ken Miller or Francis Collins, not PZ.
Posted by: E.V. | July 17, 2009 5:13 PM
Everyone knows all chordates are renates! That's why they get pissed off so easily.
Posted by: XD | July 17, 2009 5:19 PM
#68
And when they look at comments they recieve, they can't see the substance because they are distracted by the style. It really is the mark of an intellectual lightweight. Or a professional troll.
Either way, they will probably be very successful; look at Ann Coulter.
Posted by: Buford | July 17, 2009 5:19 PM
I don't know, as battle-crys go "Attack" is about as short as it can be.
A shorter name for 'us' might be in order...
"Pharyngulites, attack!" might be good.
(btw- I do get the original humor and the intent of the other commenters)
Posted by: Aquaria | July 17, 2009 5:21 PM
HH, that was awesome.
But this part here is what made me do a big Woo-hoo!
I'm really pissed off by M&K's implication that as a reader of Pharyngula and fan of PZ's ideas, that I'm somehow a mindless attack drone sent off whenever PZ needs some dirty work done.
I think I need to introduce Mooney to my mother. They could spend lots of time crying on each other's shoulders about how I just don't listen to anything they say, I won't do what I'm told, and I can be so fucking rude.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 5:21 PM
I've upset. I really want something to get my panties in a bunch about and I just can't find the right perceived slight or topic of an offensive nature.
I'm going to sulk.
And probably drink
a lot
Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 17, 2009 5:22 PM
I like KOOK FIGHT!
Posted by: Ken Wilber fan | July 17, 2009 5:27 PM
The one thing that I've not seen mentioned yet concerning the "cracker incident" is that Catholics are neither creationists nor Iders. The Catholic church has admitted evolution and apologized for past injustices committed against scientists. PZ may not agree with accommodationism, but if there is an ounce of practicality in him, he's got to pick his battles more prudently.
Posted by: ERV | July 17, 2009 5:27 PM
While we are throwing PZ minion page-views around, I just want to link to this again.
Interwebz be serius business.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 5:27 PM
I'M even upset
Posted by: Sili
|
July 17, 2009 5:28 PM
Bacon sucks!Better now?
Posted by: XD | July 17, 2009 5:29 PM
And I should point out that they may be right, and PZ et al might be hurting the cause of science literacy in the US. However, as far as I'm aware, they have produced as much evidence to support that view as Dembski has presented for "Intelligent Design": nil. And both parties seem just as disinterested in conducting the research; they have their conclusions, and they are sticking to them.
PZ's approach might be helping the long-term increase of science literacy, but they couldn't give a shit because they 'know' -- in their hearts -- he is wrong.
If ever Discover kick their unscientific asses out, at least Uncommon Descent will have a place for them. They already share a hatred for PZ.
Posted by: Carlie | July 17, 2009 5:32 PM
I'm more upset by what they did in Newsweek. They've gone from being disingenuous and vapid to proudly dishonest and vituperative.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 17, 2009 5:32 PM
Possible battle cries:
"Today is a good day for someone else to die!"
"Remember Crackergate!"
"SIWOTI"
"Aim for their balls!"
Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 17, 2009 5:34 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp - You wouldn't know a good bottle of beer if someone shoved it up your....
big dumb nose.
Stuff that in your knickers buster!
Posted by: Rhus | July 17, 2009 5:37 PM
This blog is so much more than Crackergate, though I must admit that I reacted at first like other "cultural Catholics" who've commented on it here and elsewhere. (A Spaniard who knows a little about the Inquisition, though, I felt very satisfied with your method of desecrating. Very fitting somehow in a grimly poetic way.)
For what's worth (a hundred thousandth opinion/repetition from a non-scientist, so not exactly much), I'd like to say a couple of things I love about this blog that seem appropriate under this post. It has opened my eyes to the incredible expenditure of energy and time that people devote to the craziest theories. You all might be accused of harshness, but given the strength and magnitude of the anti-scientific impulse, all I can do is thank you. It has been said here -- I've also learnt a lot from the answers of some of your wonderful, hilarious, wise commenters, but the horrified surprise came from those convoluted reasonings, imaginative twistings, desperate fantasies which have been given too much time, attention and money. Thank you all again -- there is indeed a reactionary, superstitious wave most of us are happily unconscious of and you're fighting the good cause.
I also have to thank you for using Scienceblogs in general, although your own technical posts are a little too difficult for me. Earthquake in Italy? Music and psychology? I'll check Scienceblogs! So you may have driven away two writers (?), but I'm certain that you have won over many readers for other blogs in this group.
I'd have so much more to say, but I'll end sighing as always, aloud this time: oh that you had been a teacher of mine.
Posted by: Lynna | July 17, 2009 5:42 PM
AJ Milne @66 noted the emphasis on decorum and dignity that's been a hallmark of most religions. Being strangers to irony, and hobbling their sense of humor -- some of that misplaced seriousness seems to have rubbed off on M&K. Missing out on the joy... not good.
Patricia can probably point us to some "no loud laughter" tenets of other faiths, but here are a few from the Mormon doctines:
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
July 17, 2009 5:44 PM
Now all they have to do is commit to the assertion of evolution (see recent backsliding by Ratzi) stop hindering the prosecution of the pedo priests among them, stop out-and-out lying to Africans about the efficacy of condoms in preventing HIV/AIDS infections (again: see recent comments by Ratzi), stop hindering public health campaigns with respect to HPV vaccines and the church just might earn itself the title of No Longer the Worst Blight on Humanity.
But yeah. We should ease up on them. After all, Muslims exist.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 5:44 PM
harumph
Posted by: XD | July 17, 2009 5:46 PM
A prophetic cartoon:
Vague Scientist
Posted by: The Curmudgeon | July 17, 2009 5:48 PM
Re #109: Oh boy, here comes another batch of hits at my place thanks to Abbie. I love ya, girl!
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 17, 2009 5:49 PM
Why don't you lay off bickle? How can you be so sure that he's a troll? Aren't you aware of PZ's 3 comment rule?
Actually, I did read that since it came up in polite discussion recently. I'm new here, and actually that makes me the troll, ok? And this only happens to be a topic I'm keenly interested in, since I promised I wouldn't troll here after my memorial day troll. I already commented on the one of the earlier threads, and I honestly didn't read the book, the articles, except maybe the Newsweek one superficially, and since my stated position early was to verbally stomp them out of the gate that's what I was doing.
Thus I apologize.
I'll try to follow PZ's forum and blog guidelines from now on in all of my future trolling here at this wonderful flame the flames of hell blog PZ has got going here, I already wore my welcome out on the other flame forum I frequent.
Disclaimer : I have flamed PZ and atheists in the past here, and I reserve the right to troll and flame PZ and atheists in the future, until my IP is banned and ScienceBlogs manages come up with some software capable of defeating older versions of TOR. Now what was a 'god' again, and why are you obsessed with their possible non-existence again?
I'm just here to defend science. Certainly PZ or someone is bound to comment on the invasion of the giant flying squids.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 17, 2009 5:49 PM
That actually gave me a good chuckle because I could be the target audience for that publication.
Posted by: windy | July 17, 2009 5:49 PM
I wonder, if they really believe this, why are they broadcasting the awfulness of PZ and Crackergate as far and wide as possible? Won't that just turn even more people off science before they manage to find the next Carl Sagan?
Posted by: XD | July 17, 2009 5:50 PM
Ratzi did 'slip' and break his wrist recently. Maybe God punished him for the backsliding?!('argument by omnipotent deity' is really too easy to be fun, isn't it)
Probably just some choirboy who knew karate.
Posted by: Patricia, OM | July 17, 2009 5:51 PM
Rumor has it that Rev. BigDumbChimps dog is SO ugly, that tree trunks burst as he walks by.
Posted by: Aquaria | July 17, 2009 5:51 PM
The Catholic church has admitted evolution and apologized for past injustices committed against scientists. PZ may not agree with accommodationism, but if there is an ounce of practicality in him, he's got to pick his battles more prudently.
It's not just about evolution, dumbass.
The Catholic church is insinuating itself into such issues as condom use in Africa (that they blatantly lie about), about stem cell research, abortion. It would be different if they talked about it only with their practitioners. They don't. They're trying to force their ideas of morality and "ehtics" on the rest of us.
They make claims about reality that just are not true. They demand respect for one component of their beliefs that no non-Catholic is obligated to believe or respect.
And they, too, can fuck right off alongside Mooney if they think I'm going to give them a special pass, just because they "believe" that patent absurdity like crackers to Jeebus is true, or that anyone else has to dance to their tune.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 17, 2009 5:56 PM
KOOK FIGHT!
Kwok v. John A. Davison.
And the joy of seeing Kwok tell people to quit making fun of Stuyvesant High School on account of Frank McCourt is very ill.
I asked if that meant we had to not be funny about Ireland and New York too. Well does it?
Posted by: XD | July 17, 2009 5:57 PM
re. #120
I really should have provided a link to the artist's site. Some good stuff there.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 17, 2009 5:58 PM
I made this comment on the Intersection blog, and I'll repeat it here. It is the worst insult I can think of to give to a fellow American, it comes from a very foul-mouthed, sometimes offensive person, and it perfectly sums up how I feel about Mooney and Kirshenbaum:
"It's people like you who voted for Hubert Humphrey."
If this or anything I've said offends you, please come and comment on my blog: www.truthspeaker.org
Posted by: Lynna | July 17, 2009 5:59 PM
H.H. @98 said he was pissed off at being considered one of the "mindless attack drones" that PZ supposedly controls. I agree. And the mindless-attack-drone view from M&K fits more closely in the religious arena, where, for example, the Pope can affect condom distribution in Africa; and Mormon bishops can raise $20 million by mentioning an anti-gay campaign from the pulpit. And if you think all those minions are acting on the promptings of their own consciences, think again.
No, we don't do what we're told. That's exactly the point. I don't always agree with PZ, but I often do because the man does his homework.
Posted by: cd | July 17, 2009 6:00 PM
I'm getting the feeling too that selling the book on a ginned-up controversy was a significant element of the marketing strategy. Very Nineties. As was the strategy in the 'content' of the book- subtly admit to the truth and prevailing in the long term of the liberal point of view. But blatantly charge the liberal side with awful offensiveness and wrongheadedness, bad tactics, hypocrisies, poor personal hygiene- with every aesthetic offense under the sun- and talk up every conceivable conservative hope of continued domination.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 17, 2009 6:01 PM
Yeah, and there might be a dragon in my garage.
Posted by: Butter | July 17, 2009 6:10 PM
Ken Wilber fan,
Let's trudge through this apparently difficult concept. Many of us, including PZ, are concerned about more than just science popularization. Being pro-science doesn't mean subordinating every other political or moral opinion to that goal, especially (now pay attention here; this is where a lot of people get lost) when confronted with actual evil—such as zealots threatening to kill a university student for an act of disrespect against a church. Keep in mind that these loons are perpetuating a grand tradition of using cracker abuse as an excuse to kill people; see PZ's original "desecration" post with its information about the Fourth Lateran Council and the treatment of Jews in the Middle Ages.
Seriously, do you think keeping creationists off school boards and such are the only goals science popularizers and public skeptics are allowed to have? They can't make moral judgments and act in defense of victims in any other context?
Posted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
|
July 17, 2009 6:14 PM
Aquaria - Have you looked at the YouTube clips re: Irish child abuse by the catholic clergy? I was interested enough to go have a look at the report (forgot the title) that is posted on the web...until I got to the section on scalding the children with boiling water. This is the shite that goes on and on, and we're supposed to just overlook it. HA!
That's what's really frosting the godcoddlers, people are finally speaking out. I'd like to see M&K serve that situation up with sugar.
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 17, 2009 6:18 PM
Butter and Aquaria: you forgot to mention the anti-gay bigotry.
Posted by: Ken Wilber fan | July 17, 2009 6:18 PM
Brownian, Aquaria,
You're right, the Church has some other issues they need to rectify. On a related note, would you join me in condemning the relationship between science and the military-industrial complex? It's not as though the scientific establishment doesn't have some soul-searching to do, as well.
Posted by: Paul | July 17, 2009 6:21 PM
How is that related? Science doesn't tell the military to go out and kill brown people. That's the Church.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 17, 2009 6:22 PM
Ken Wilber fan #108 wrote:
But PZ was prudent in his choice of opponent. Because these were Catholics, it kept - or should have kept -- the entire evolution -creationism controversy out of the issue. It wasn't really about science, or science communication, or even demonstrating that the eucharist is unscientific. It was primarily political.
Crackergate was a protest over some Catholics trying to implement a blasphemy law against a student in a secular university. They weren't content with kicking him out of the church or giving him some sort of faith penalty. No, they wanted him expelled, charged, and even killed -- because we need to respect "sacred" objects. Society needs to be more respectful of sacred beliefs.
They wanted some of the coddling the Muslims got with the cartoons. Disrespect of religion is an attack that requires strong legal and social counter-measures. Fatwah envy.
The elimination of the "sacred" belief or artifact which can't be questioned or challenged may be part of the larger scientific agenda, but it's also a strong part of the open democracy agenda as well. A liberal Catholic concerned with keeping church and state separate could have made the same sort of protest as PZ. M & K are wrong to act as if the incident was about creationism, and getting people to accept evolution.
Posted by: Lynna | July 17, 2009 6:22 PM
Feynmaniac @71 (and additional commenters enjoying the Kook Fight at the Intersection):
It just gets progressively worse, or funnier, depending on your point of view. I am expecially fond of the fact that Kw*k is desperately trying to enlist other commenters in his defense. I don't know what he thinks his compatriots can do to restrain Feynmaniac and Lowell:
Shameless.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 17, 2009 6:24 PM
KW fan, that's a false equivalence. The Catholic Church is an actual hierarchical organization, with the ability to set and implement policies. It can and should be criticized for the policies it has set (or refused to set).
"The scientific establishment" is not an organization. It's a vague term. There's no Pope of Science who can issue a bull directing that particular research be done or not done.
Posted by: Opus | July 17, 2009 6:24 PM
Alright, I need a little help here. I've been trying to get to the best short, pithy summary of UA, and I've narrowed it down to two options. Can anyone help me refine these? They are:
1. Unscientific America: All frame, no picture
2. Mooneybaum: an extraterrestrial system consisting of a sub-stellar object and surrounding satellites. The central body has a crust of defensiveness and a mantle of journalistic incompetence surrounding a core of scientific irrelevance. The satellites include McCarthy and Kw*k, dense planets in erratic orbits, as well as Laurel, a dwarf planet in an eccentric and highly inclined orbit. Laurel’s status as a planet is currently in doubt.
Any thoughts/additions would be appreciated.
As a special bonus, for those who are interested (especially the Rev BDC!): bacon!
http://cawcawcreek.com/index.php
Posted by: Ken Wilber fan | July 17, 2009 6:24 PM
Butter,
They can and should make moral judgments about acts committed in the name of religion that they find appalling. But such moral condemnation has little to do with their scientific work. Anyone, atheist or believer, plumber or biologist, can and should condemn those who overstep commonsense values (freedom of speech, expression, religion (or not), etc.).
Posted by: Don | July 17, 2009 6:26 PM
For too long, people in the science blogosphere have tiptoed around Myers
Yes, the minions tiptoe, but one day he will stumble. And then we will eat him.
Posted by: Lynna | July 17, 2009 6:27 PM
Opus @142: Addition o f Laurel in "an eccentric and highly inclined orbit" is priceless. Delicious.
Posted by: Paul | July 17, 2009 6:31 PM
And that's what Crackergate was. It had nothing to do with science or scientific work. It's dishonest to frame it as such.
Posted by: Ken Wilber fan | July 17, 2009 6:31 PM
Screechy Monkey,
True, but as members of society, we can condemn those scientists who sell their expertise to war hawks in Washington and their defense contractor friends/former employers. Religion can be a dangerous weapon used by those hungry for power. So can science.
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-University-Intellectual-History/dp/1565840054
Posted by: Cafeeine | July 17, 2009 6:32 PM
Perhaps M & K are "Shortpacked" fansPosted by: Patricia, Queen of Sluts OM
|
July 17, 2009 6:33 PM
Pssst - Don! Don't let the cunning plan out of the bag. *hides fork behind back*
Posted by: Sili
|
July 17, 2009 6:39 PM
I'm sure someone has said it already, but I am rather amused how running away with their tails between their legs constitutes not tiptoeing around PeeZed and stading up to the might Pharyngular hordes.
Ah well.
Squiddyho!
Posted by: Brownian, OM
|
July 17, 2009 6:39 PM
We can, and do.
Indeed. In fact, that seems to be the sole purpose of religion. At least science produces useful and beneficial things as well.
Posted by: ERV | July 17, 2009 6:39 PM
#121-- Curmudgeon, you took a Kw*k for me, man.
Linking to one of my favorite posts on the internet, of yours, is the very least I can do.
:)
Posted by: Beige | July 17, 2009 6:41 PM
In the wise words of melodic hardcore: "Revolution starts at learning. If you're not angry, then you're no paying attention."
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 17, 2009 7:00 PM
I've got a recipe for truffled mushroom fettucine on my blag, which I'm desperately trying to make into a sign of my mindless sycophantic ninja hoard (sic) thuggery. Ummm. Err. Aha, yes!
This dish is a sacrament of devotion to the FSM, and Her Squiddly Appendages. And therefore it is deeply offensive to all other religions. Plus, did you know the Catholics used to ban truffles because they were considered to be promoters of lust? Take that and spread it on your cracker. And I won't let Mooneytits and Cockenbaum have any! BWAhahahaha!
Yeah, I know, a bit lame, but I write a food blog. Best I could whip up at short notice while waiting for the airport taxi. Later, gators, I'm off to sunnier climes and no internet for a week.
Posted by: Raiko | July 17, 2009 7:03 PM
I used to be entertained by this whole Kirshbaum and Mooney debacle, but it's getting tiresome and boring for all the repetitiveness.
I put a comment on their blog, though their comments are moderated and who knows whether it will get through. In short, they need to go back and read their own entries. THEN they need to wonder why many people are not inclined to read their book at all now.
Obviously, they are unable to hide the personal vendetta and it seems from all the reviews of their book, good and bad, it appears that there's absolutely nothing new to find in "Unscientific America"... just their personal whining and complaining.
So - no, we're not very inclined to read your book: We know your blog. Who would PAY to have more of this, seriously?
Posted by: MTran | July 17, 2009 7:05 PM
"We should not scare them off with such actions. I still believe that a friendly face and normal tone is important."
Arrrgghhh, matey, if'n ye be soo concerned about the makin' nice wit' da fools, then ye shoulds goes about makin' nice.
But there be many on the ships o' fools who aintz there by choice an' what yearns to hear the plain speakin' an' the pirate speakin' fer it gets through the foolish noises they musts endures an' it strengthens their spirits stronger than a cask o' hot rum.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 17, 2009 7:11 PM
"I put a comment on their blog, though their comments are moderated and who knows whether it will get through."
All of my comments there have gotten through unmoderated (eventually) as far as I can tell. And although people have posted here about their comments being delayed due to moderation, I don't recall anyone posting about actually having anything rejected. So I'll give Chris and Sheril credit for that much at least, absent any evidence to the contrary. Although I fucking would have liked to swear a few fucking times.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 17, 2009 7:22 PM
Of course, just after I submitted my last comment, I saw that apparently it's ok at The Intersection to tell someone to "remove his face from [someone else’s] hairy anus." On the other hand, if you tell someone to fuck off, Chris will get another attack of the vapors.
So I retract my previous comment. Fuck them and their fucked up, hypocritical moderation policy.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 7:25 PM
Yaaarrrrrghh!
Posted by: Paul | July 17, 2009 7:27 PM
Exactly, Monkey. I'd much rather have a policy a la PZ (don't be boring and don't promote violence) than a Mooneybaum esque (no bad words please, anything else is fine) policy. To start with, if people were defending PZ the way Kwok/McCarthy are defending Mooneybaum, he likely would have warned and banned them a couple days ago. But no, anything goes as long as you're on their side (except baaad words).
Posted by: Seer | July 17, 2009 7:30 PM
Not to nitpick, but the collective noun is a murder of ninjas.
Posted by: Paul | July 17, 2009 7:30 PM
It's almost too bad we don't have our own Kwok/McCarthy types. I wonder if they would put up with that level of insipidity, dishonesty, and fallacy from people who disagree with them.
Posted by: Michael X | July 17, 2009 7:35 PM
So Mooney tucked tail and ran away becuase of PZ? I can't say I'm shocked. It sounds like the kind of thing Mooney'd do. Or at least it sounds like the kind of thing he'd do these days. Seems to be a sad decline I'm witnessing.
So I wonder, after this episode, will Mooney remove his website from Discover and go hide in a bunker?
Posted by: BlueIndependent
|
July 17, 2009 7:40 PM
The proposition that the "new atheists" are in large part responsible for "unscientific America" is the stuff of riotous laughter. Such a statement assumes A) the "new atheists" have been around for quite a while actually, B) that atheists were once quiet and respected (which they of course have never been), C) that the "new atheists" and the old (?) atheists differ in philosophy (which may be true dpending on how the new/old line is struck), and D) that anti-science religious elements throughout the country have just been sitting ass-on-hands for 50 years saying and doing nothing (which is so demonstrably not true it shouldn't need pointing out). That M+R think that atheists caused the problem really speaks to the thinness of their book. Talk about going out of one's way to play Mr. Tolerant.
..."Religion can be a dangerous weapon used by those hungry for power. So can science..."
While nearly anything made by humans can be used to gain power, I'm not sure what you mean by "so can science". What instances are you thinking of that make your point? The development of the A-bomb? That was the arms race, and we found it by science yes, but also through a hunger to fight and surpass an enemy. So the animus wasn't purely science-based. The development of evolutionary theory? That was an observation borne of human curiosity. Any misapplication of it has come through intentional misuse of the theory and research of many scientists, and there has yet to be a systematic misuse of it for misdeeds like unregulated cloning and organ generation, among other possible evils. What examples would you cite?
Posted by: Rick R | July 17, 2009 7:52 PM
Rev, I know you're upset, so this is just for you...
Tonight's menu:
broiled hamburgers with melted swiss cheese.
Sliced avocado
Sliced tomato
Sliced deli pickle
A little mayo and honey mustard dressing
And a few slabs of thick cut bacon, fried crispy.
Feel the *hugz*
Posted by: Ken Wilber fan | July 17, 2009 7:53 PM
BlueIndependent,
I think a case can be made that the entire Cold War was an example of the systematic misuse of science (both in the US and USSR). It was a misuse of the R & D of scientists by government; but the scientists knew exactly what they were doing. The problem is that science is a means whose end has so far been determined by the economic and political interests of the day. Science itself, as a pure method of research, cannot be blamed for this. But I think it is time for scientists to make good on their denunciation of belief systems, whether they be religious or nationalist. If scientists remain amoral about their work, the future of society is in the hands of the politicians (and their fundie constituents).
Science can no longer invent and ask questions later. Oppenheimer expressed this dangerous attitude well:
This is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by: The Curmudgeon | July 17, 2009 7:53 PM
Re #152: Actually, Abbie, I've got one you'd probably like better on the same subject: Hey Casey!
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 8:03 PM
KWfan:
For crying out loud, you still don't get the message: Scientists do science, but they're just people, and they do have belief systems. Science is a method, not an ideology.
Also, you're conflating science and techology.
You seem stuck in the Cold War mindset. Still, that's ahead of your understanding of science, which is stuck in the 19th Century.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 17, 2009 8:04 PM
oh...
hi, Pete.
Actually you were mocked mostly for the over-the-top words you typed, not so much the valiant thing.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 17, 2009 8:08 PM
Wow. Another Shortpacked reader here? That was unexpected (but a pleasant surprise).
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 8:11 PM
Pete Rooke makes mewling noises, having oozed out of the Dungeon. Meh.
Posted by: Michael X | July 17, 2009 8:13 PM
Yes Pete, your concern is noted.
You should also remember that "highly respected authors writing in august publications" also totally disagree with your spineless pandering and that argument from authority amounts to bullshit.
But I do not wish to hector and lecture but only provide diversity of opinion.
Posted by: articulett | July 17, 2009 8:13 PM
And what the hell does it mean to be mocked "mercilessly"? What would "non-merciless" mocking look like?
I think it's so weird the way the woo use words to say nothing at all.
I get the gist... Pete R. thinks he's noble and his feelings were hurt because others thought he was self righteously silly-- but so what? His he running around caring about the feelings of others who imagine themselves just as "valiant"?
Posted by: Ken Wilber fan | July 17, 2009 8:15 PM
John Morales,
Science is a method, but if the scientists who practice it remain amoral (many do not, and I applaud them -- Richard Lewontin comes to mind, who resigned from the NAS because of its involvement in secret military research...), the future of our civilization will be just as dark as the 20th century was. The Cold War may be over, but America still spends more than half the world combined on "defense" every year. Shouldn't we be pouring these hundreds of billions of dollars into research a bit less concerned with high efficiency murder? Further, and more to my point, shouldn't the public be voicing their outrage to those scientists who, as people, continue to collect paychecks for such efforts?
As for the relation between modern science and technology, you may find Heidegger's account of the genesis of the former from the advancement of the latter interesting: http://www.udel.edu/GPPC/rochel2006.htm
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 17, 2009 8:15 PM
Yeah, but most of them have no idea of the facts or the context; they've only read the biased M&K version which omits a great deal of what actually happened. If they bothered to inform themselves then I imagine it'd be otherwise.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 17, 2009 8:23 PM
Still lying for Jebus. Some idiocy never changes. Still no valid points for the banned troll, who deserves all the insults he receives due to circumventing the ban. Only people without any morals or ethics do that.Posted by: Ken Wilber fan | July 17, 2009 8:26 PM
Pete Rooke,
Thanks for posting that book review, it was excellent. Eagleton's book sounds like a must read.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 17, 2009 8:32 PM
Only by virtue of the breadth of the definition of the word 'faith'. And, more importantly, my 'faith' is supported by evidence; yours can only exist while there remains a lack of it.
So, all 'faiths' are not created equal. And if that's all you've got to sustain your nonsensical beliefs then your religion is pretty piss-poor, isn't it?
You haven't gotten any smarter during your dungeon stay, have you?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 17, 2009 8:50 PM
Fan boi, citing philosophy doesn't excite us. Try the peer reviewed scientific literature, which you need to become familiar with to be of interest to us. So far, you are headed toward trolldom, especially if you think PR has any insight beyond his ego.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 9:02 PM
Pete Rooke is banned here; that he changed IP address and resumed posting is plain rude.
--
KWfan:
Yeah, so is police work, but if police who practice it remain amoral; so is medicine, but if doctors who practice it remain amoral; so is psychiatry, but... etc.
It's a platitude.
That's you, now we. But yeah.
What's that got to do with science? That's politics.
No more so than the politicians (and those who vote them in), bureaucrats, PR people, financiers, service personnel, janitorial staff, contractors etc. that comprise and support the military-industrial complex.
To single out scientists is biased and misleading.
Posted by: tariqata | July 17, 2009 9:04 PM
Sorry to nitpick, but like ravens, the collective noun is a murder of ninjas.
No, no. "Murder" is the collective noun for crows. It's either an unkindness or a conspiracy of ravens.
I vote for a conspiracy of ninjas.
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 9:10 PM
KWfan: Eagleton's book has been reviewed by PZ and discussed here: The Eagleton Delusion.
--
Re my previous, I made a typo.
"That's you,
nownot we."I'm Australian.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 17, 2009 9:10 PM
Pete Rooke,
You're banned. I don't necessarily agree that you should be, but PZ did ban you and appearing here is kinda rude. But you know what you could do.....go on this The Intersection thread. You could complain about Stuyvesant High School. You know what?.....Voice your outrage of The Great Desecration by republishing your analogies. Or make new ones.
Posted by: edw | July 17, 2009 9:30 PM
PZ's startin' to act like a real whiner. Who cares what moonie says?
Posted by: ERV | July 17, 2009 9:33 PM
*gasp*
Rooke, you should totally do what Feynmaniac suggested in #183!
That would really make PZ mad!
DO IT!!
Posted by: Lynna | July 17, 2009 9:39 PM
Hi, Pete Rooke,
This is "nothing worse than a foul-mouthed woman" from your not-so-distant past. I agree with Feynmaniac @183. There are others who need to hear what you have to say. Go there. Be valiant.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 17, 2009 9:46 PM
Tiptoe around PZ Myers?
Heh! I ain't afraid of no PZ Myers. I never seen no cause to be. Why on earth would anyone tiptoe around him? Except courteous family and friends when he needs a nap?
*though, I haven't seen him clutching multiple cudgels in his tentacles. hmm. are we the cudgels? stay tuned*
Posted by: Hypocee | July 17, 2009 9:49 PM
Ken Wilber fan:
The one thing that I've not seen mentioned yet concerning the "cracker incident" is that Catholics are neither creationists nor Iders. The Catholic church has admitted evolution and apologized for past injustices committed against scientists.
Apologies to the folks who have already posted replies to this, but you weren't as clear as I think we need to be.
PZ writes on multiple fronts. How soon we forget - Crackergate had nothing whatsoever to do with the battle against cdesign proponentism or even science. It was an act of protest against a 'moderate' American, college town Catholic community that was, then and there, seeking legal and in some cases corporal retribution against a kid who had broken their rules.
Tommy Lee @ 124, you're aware that was a joke about bickle's illiteracy right?
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 17, 2009 10:10 PM
You know, it sounds like these people could certainly use some good consultants who could give them helpful advice on how to frame their points in a way that works with, and not against, their audience.
But where oh where could such consultants be found?
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 17, 2009 10:43 PM
It's much easier to criticise personally than to attack the issues at hand. Why are M&K spending so much time attacking PZ and his "close minded" followers instead of addressing the criticisms of the book at hand? You'd think they would try to take the high ground here and address all claims instead of turning this into a flame war.
But no, let them descend to the pettiness they are professing to preach against. Let them show themselves to be hypocrites who aren't showing any desire to actually educate people. Wouldn't that be the best way of going about this? Instead of trading barbs about the commenters on here actually respond to the criticisms made by the likes of PZ and Jerry Coyne?
If they want to know why I'm not going to buy their book, it's for this reason. That they aren't responding to criticisms, and that suggests beyond all else that the criticisms are valid. If the book offers nothing of substance, why would I spend my money and time on reading a piece of trash that's not really going to say anything new or of substance. Why not spend this time showing that the book is worth reading instead of engaging in petty insults? It just looks pathetic on M&K's part.
Posted by: articulett | July 17, 2009 10:51 PM
What I learned about "framing" from Mooney:
The accomodati are "valiant" when they boldly state their opinions; wheras, the incompatiblists are "militant" when they boldly state their opinions of the faitheists' opinions.
Have I got it?
Posted by: John Morales | July 17, 2009 10:58 PM
articulett,
I think so.
Posted by: atomjack | July 17, 2009 10:59 PM
Three comments:
1. @13: PZ, your Viking roots are showing, you Berserker.
2. bickle:loser::PZ:atheist
3. Seriously, bickleboy, if this place bores you so much, go offend dog with another swipe at the old nads with a washcloth or something. Damn, dude...wait for the notice that your post made it but you don't see it.
On a side note, it takes so long sometimes for this site to load, that when I scroll down, it stretches PZ's face and he looks like he has C'thulhu's tentacles dangling. Pretty cool. I bet he made the software do that himself.
Posted by: articulett | July 17, 2009 11:57 PM
"Rebellious Militant Atheist" seems to much more attractive than "Valiant Defender of the Faith".
Someone was "concerned" about the children of fundamentalists needing coddling, but I think Mooney's framing may work to our advantage. I teach teens, and they seem much more draw to "danger" than "diplomacy".
As a life long "good girl", I find it rather fun to be on the dark side merely because I don't find faith something to defer to. I suspect plenty of fundamentalists'kids feel similarly.
Posted by: articulett | July 17, 2009 11:59 PM
"draw" not "drawn"
(I wish scienceblogs would allow us a few minutes to fix our errors so I wouldn't have to witness my stupidity in everlasting print.)
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz. | July 18, 2009 12:37 AM
you're aware that was a joke about bickle's illiteracy right?
Probably not. I'm a troll. You don't expect me to actually read all these articles and posts, right? I'm still trying to sort through a whole bunch of entirely new and novel nomenclature I just picked up over at the 'Why Evolution Is True' website.
I'm not entirely up to speed on any of this. So cut me some slack, I'm still in 'blowing off steam on the usenet' mode.
Apparently it's a little more complicated than the empiricists vs. the retards. If you want my opinion - I think it's fine for scientists to have delusions, certainly it is acceptable for scientists to post and publish their delusions. I am a well known defender of the right for kooks to be kooks, but I feel kookery is best considered as a form of artistry, not science. However I must insist that science be considered the basis of our civilization and governance, sorry. It's kind of a non-negotiable fundamental point.
A scientist with unpublished delusions could be dangerous.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 18, 2009 12:46 AM
windy muses:
if they really believe this, why are they broadcasting the awfulness of PZ and Crackergate as far and wide as possible?
Yeah; I guess they never read that expert in the area of framing, P.T. Barnum - "There's no such thing as bad publicity."
Posted by: John Morales | July 18, 2009 1:03 AM
Marcus, so long as the publicity is for the purposes of notoriety, PT had it right. I don't think it applies to public figures' credibility so much... :)
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 18, 2009 1:23 AM
John Morales writes:
I don't think it applies to public figures' credibility so much... :)
I'm not sure. Unfortunately. :(
If you look at bigtime liars, who tell barefaced howlers without blinking (Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Coulter, etc, etc) it appears that notoriety translates into career survival; credibility takes a hit, sure, but ultimately the notoriety serves to polarize opinion. As we're seeing in this little teapot hurricane, PZ's fanbase hasn't budged much and, in fact, are digging in and supporting him - and vice-versa. It seems to me that it's human nature to reinforce belief systems when they are challenged. That would mean that bad publicity really is better than none at all.
When I read about "framing" I subconsciously translate it into "marketing" - an inherently immoral field, because its entire premise is to deliberately make something appear better than the marketer believes it to be. Framing is, basically, the same idea: knowingly make something less offensive (excuse me "more palatable") than you believe it is. I think that's foolish because I don't think the case is made that winning hearts and minds works as well as just being in front of people (i.e.: "branding") In marketing terms, "New Atheists" has become a "brand" and, potentially, the notoriety of the brand will help more than hinder it. (I.e.: "wow, Christopher Hitchens seems to think this Sam Harris guy is reasonable. Lemme buy his book, too.") It certainly leads to co-branding (I.e.: "Hey, Amazon.com offered me Harris for $5 along with my copy of Hitchens' latest") Where am I going with this? I really do think Barnum was right.
The conclusion we must draw from Barnum's observation (if you accept it) is "people suck."
Posted by: windy | July 18, 2009 3:32 AM
"There's no such thing as bad publicity."
I tried to tell them at the Intersection...
This controversy HELPS PZ Myers, people!
(or substitute Chris and Sheril, that works too.)
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 18, 2009 3:49 AM
To me, a lot of the controversy solely seems generated at drumming up more publicity for them, that they are doing it to increase book sales. Riding the coattails of a much more successful blog.
Though I find it a shame that they are so willing to engage in that sort of behaviour as opposed to actually countering criticism made by the likes of PZ and Jerry Coyne.
Posted by: Sauceress | July 18, 2009 3:52 AM
They have? Sigh...I seem to be always the last one to know these things.*dons ballet slippers..*
Posted by: toth | July 18, 2009 3:54 AM
I'm getting really fucking sick of their martyr complex.
Posted by: ian | July 18, 2009 7:04 AM
Mr. Myers, if you haven't noticed the people tip toeing around you then it only indicates their tip toeing has been successful. It is also an example of the greater powers of observation possessed by Mooney and Kirshenbaum that they are able to detect the tip toers from a distance.
Posted by: SEF | July 18, 2009 7:20 AM
Ah, but are they invisible, pink tip-toers? Do they interact with the real universe and have any known, testable properties (ie other than the alleged but undetectable tip-toeing around PZ)? Can they be named or otherwise identified as specific individuals or groups? Eg can the arch-tiptoer Gabriel be seen blowing his own trumpet in any particular bar in the evenings?
Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | July 18, 2009 7:25 AM
Surely this is a good example of the 'framing' that M&K are proposing? Yet they don't like it.
Apparently not challenging atheist opinion is not the same as not challenging religious belief. It makes you wonder why M&K are so fond of the religious...
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 18, 2009 7:34 AM
I'm expecting now that M&K have exposed the tiptoeing, all those bloggers who have been afraid to speak out against Myers will sing out from the highest hills. And then all the dungeon dwellers will infest those posts with anti-PZ rhetoric - like like what is going on at M&K's blog now.
Seriously, it's hilarious to see John Kwok, Alan Davidson, Silver Fox and Peete Rooke all posting there. Really freaking hilarious.
Posted by: Dania
|
July 18, 2009 8:21 AM
Well, maybe that's their target audience, the one who "will largely agree that Myers' communion wafer desecration was offensive and counterproductive, and that more generally, he epitomizes the current problems with the communication of science on the Internet". It doesn't earn them much respect, though.
Posted by: Rasmus Holm | July 18, 2009 9:07 AM
well said as always PZ.
Posted by: Mezzobuff | July 18, 2009 9:44 AM
ian and SEF: y'all just cracked me up. Thanks!
Posted by: SEF | July 18, 2009 9:52 AM
And we haven't even got to whether or not faith/religion is a valid alternative way of knowing, or merely framing, this tiptoeing.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 18, 2009 9:57 AM
Mooney and Kirshenbaum have won the Internet.
They now have Kwak, McCarthy, Davison and Mabus commenting.
Surely that much stupidity in one place is dangerous. Critical mass and all that.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | July 18, 2009 10:28 AM
How could you guys have missed JAMSHEED MOIDU?
It is like a gathering of all of ATHF's archenemies.
Did anyone catch JAD stating that he was proud of *nn C**lt*r and Sarah Palin?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 18, 2009 10:31 AM
OMFG !!!
Mabus is there! Alright, who is mailing everyone on the dungeon list?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 18, 2009 10:32 AM
"How could you guys have missed JAMSHEED MOIDU?"
There is lot of stupid to wade through over there, and after a while my brain begins to hurt.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | July 18, 2009 10:36 AM
uh oh...I just had a short comment moderated...has anybody figured out the triggers over there?
It was merely an observation that that thread has now become the officially Bestest Krazy Konvention ever.
And all due to the resurrection of Krackergate *jazz hands*!!!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 18, 2009 10:45 AM
Kwok, McCarthy, Mabus, John A. Davison, Jamsheed Moidu, Pete Rooke and Silver Fox !!!
This is like a crazy all star thread or something.
Posted by: Bobber
|
July 18, 2009 10:52 AM
Okay, you regular posters, how the hell are you able to respond to the insanity being posted over at The Intersection, let alone read it without your brains exploding in a shower of blood and gray matter?
There's a lot of craziness there, but that McCarthy fellow is a one-note instrument being played over and over and over and over and over...
I applaud your fortitude, but for the love of all that is good and decent, make sure you don't get any of it on you!!!!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 18, 2009 10:59 AM
Bobber #218
It has to do with SIWOTI syndrome.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 18, 2009 12:27 PM
I am saddened a bit by the whole kerfuffle. But mostly I'm confused.
I can understand having a disagreement with you. But after years of reading your stuff, I can't imagine not having a good time finding something to disagree with you about, so we could really argue, and get the insights from the discussion.
Oh, well. The rest of us can learn by watching. In the end, these sorts of things are usually best resolved in a bar. With a drinking game. (Though I must confess, discussions with Mormons are difficult to get into that venue; that's why I gave up discussions with Mormons.)
Posted by: Falyne | July 18, 2009 12:31 PM
I missed JAMSHEED MOIDU at 769 on my first read-through.
So, he's there too, along with Kwok, JAD, SF, and Rooke, all in one epic thread. Wow.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
July 18, 2009 12:35 PM
OK, own up, who unlocked the dungeons and smuggled so many of its denizens over to the toothpaste twins?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | July 18, 2009 12:44 PM
I am saddened a bit by the whole kerfuffle. But mostly I'm confused.
I can understand having a disagreement with you. But after years of reading your stuff, I can't imagine not having a good time finding something to disagree with you about, so we could really argue, and get the insights from the discussion.
Oh, well. The rest of us can learn by watching. In the end, these sorts of things are usually best resolved in a bar. With a drinking game. That is to say, the information needed to resolve the question is not available yet, and the best thing to do is to not be disagreeable.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 18, 2009 1:15 PM
and mabus, too. this is too fucking hilarious
Posted by: Lynna | July 18, 2009 1:19 PM
@213:
I was going to congratulate M&K on the Ultimate Kook FartFest, but Jamsheed Moidu used up all the exclamation marks in the universe.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 18, 2009 1:34 PM
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/18/unscientific-america-on-nprs-living-on-earth/ *
(read: "Buy my book! Buy my book!")
*Note "85% sure" dipshittery.
Chris Mooney is a fucking block.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 18, 2009 1:49 PM
Not cool, guys. I don't know who's posing as Jamsheed, but honestly, that can't be real. It's a bad Poe, right? The grammar is too mockingly bad.
Posted by: Iris | July 18, 2009 2:21 PM
I don't know what triggers the moderation over there.
...is in moderation.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 18, 2009 3:08 PM
And ka-slammo!
Shut down.
*sigh* A thread for the books.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 18, 2009 3:21 PM
DSM-IV.
Posted by: rmp | July 18, 2009 3:24 PM
I'm afraid that I may have upset Anthony. I was about to try to make up when they closed the thread.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 18, 2009 3:48 PM
ha!
So I am slacking off today and just ran across the closest approximation of J*hn Kw*k's writing style I have seen anywhere else.
It's Percy Weasley.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 18, 2009 3:50 PM
Holy shit that was easily the greatest concentration of upper echelon intartubular Kooks I've seen in a while.
If only DaveScot had shown up.
Posted by: Lee Picton | July 18, 2009 3:51 PM
Having gotten curious about what this Intersection thingy was, I managed to make my way over there for the thread. Oh, dear. That was one large vat of stupid in concentrated form. Glad to know I don't ever have to read the book.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 18, 2009 3:55 PM
I didn't visit, but with just reading the names of the posters, it felt like my IQ was dropping with every name based upon what they did here.Posted by: rmp | July 18, 2009 4:01 PM
I'm still naive enough to think a person can have a reasonable conversation with some of these folks.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 18, 2009 4:02 PM
Bravely bold Sir Mooney,
rode forth from Camelot
He was not afraid of speech,
oh brave Sir Mooney!
When dissent reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Bravely bravely bravely bravely...
Posted by: rmp | July 18, 2009 4:06 PM
And they ate the minstrels.
Posted by: Lynna | July 18, 2009 4:15 PM
So, just stop moderating the comments then.
I think the Kook Fest killed Sir Mooney. Where will all the Kooks go now that their rave has been shut down?
Posted by: Lynna | July 18, 2009 4:19 PM
If you're fast on the draw, you get this message from the Submission Overlord:
Too many comments have been submitted from you in a short period of time. Please try again in a short while.
Return to the original entry.
What's the purpose/reason for this?
Sven @232: do you have a link for the style example?
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 18, 2009 4:21 PM
That scene was written by eminent British comedian John Cleese, who once gave a commencement speech at Stuyvesant High School, where I studied English from a certain Irish-American memoirist whose initials are F.M. and whose name rhymes with Rank RcCourt. Interestingly, another Stuvesant alum is Ken Miller, who won the 2008 Very Nice Man Who Isn't At All Like Those Angry Militant Fundamentalist Atheists Award, and who teaches at Brown University, which almost certainly would have fired a certain mediocre evolutionary biologist from Morris, MN if said biologist was not from Morris, MN but actually at Princeton, as I suspect Lisa Randall would agree even though I assume she is an atheist, which makes her part of a "stealth religion" according to eminent biologist E. O. Wilson. Which means that you owe me a new camera, or else I will write all your colleagues informing them of my demand. Which of course was a joke all along, you see!
Sorry, folks, the above was provided in case anyone was feeling withdrawal symptoms. I'll leave it to someone else to provide the McCarthy impression.
Posted by: Iris | July 18, 2009 4:31 PM
Or maybe they're embarrassed that all they've got over there is pathological kooks defending them? No? Then I guess my comment must be "difficult to moderate":
I don't think they like it when Crackergate is put in context (which they apparently avoided doing in their book), or when their defenders are called out on their bullshit. Either that, or, you know, it's all just too "difficult to moderate."
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 18, 2009 4:33 PM
a link? no...I'm reading a dead-tree book, Order of the Phoenix (#5), Scholastic paperback, pp 296-298
Posted by: windy | July 18, 2009 4:53 PM
Chris Mooney is a fucking block.
If you want something really puketastic, I stumbled on this in the notes of UA. Granted, it's just an aside in a discussion of really important things like disaster movies.
"In the total media arena, then, The Day After Tomorrow made a much bigger splash than the release of a groundbreaking scientific report, but a much smaller one than a sustained politico-media scandal story, such as the Abu Ghraib prison saga."
Hey, kids? You're talking about war crimes, not a fucking soap opera.
Posted by: CanadianChick | July 18, 2009 5:05 PM
can someone refresh my memory?
when the original incident that inspired "Crackergate" came about, what was the reaction of M&K?
Did they profess any outrage or horror at how the original incident was "framed"?
Did they offer any comment on the underlying outrageousness that fueled PZ's reaction???
Or, did they blithely ignore it until PZ's reaction was manifested??
Posted by: wildlifer | July 18, 2009 5:23 PM
@242
Yeah, I don't believe I've ever seen logic and analogy abused the likes by which Kwok and McCarthey managed.
What's disturbing as well is that Kwok believes the 1st Amendment guarantees the right of respect for religions:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/15/pz-myers-vs-unscientific-america-part-iii/#comment-26950
Have I been reading the Constitution wrong all these years? I agree Americans have the right to believe in any looney-tune religion they want, but where does it say I can't ridicule and or criticize that belief? That I must show it respect?
Posted by: rmp | July 18, 2009 5:25 PM
maybe if you play the constitution backwards while watching the wizard of oz it will all become clear!
Posted by: Lynna | July 18, 2009 5:37 PM
Sven @243 -- ah, sorry, I misunderstood. The Order of the Phoenix book is rated on Amazon as suitable for readers age 9-12.
Posted by: wildlifer | July 18, 2009 5:41 PM
@245
This is all I can find on the old SciBlog Intersection:
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/07/paul_z_wants_a_cracker.php#more
I searched Cracker and then just PZ
Posted by: Lynna | July 18, 2009 5:44 PM
Iris @242: Well done. Excellent summary of Crackergate, along with proper rebuttal of some of the idiocy posted at the Intersection. Especially liked your closing paragraph:
I know Kwok et.al. are too thick, but I'm hoping others will see your comment and adjust their perspective accordingly.
Posted by: Iris | July 18, 2009 6:23 PM
Lynna @250: Thanks. But I doubt anyone over there who might actually be open to adjusting their perspective will ever see my comment, unless they happen to find themselves here in bowels of this thread - it was held in moderation for a few hours (while other comments got through), and then the thread was shut down. McCarthy (and no doubt others) will just go on smugly believing that PZ's defenders cannot address his ridiculous questions without exposing themselves as bigots and hypocrites.
We can add confirmation bias to Dunning-Kruger.
Posted by: articulett | July 18, 2009 6:59 PM
Kwok is confused about the first amendment; it actually says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
This means that cannot show respect or favoritism to any religion nor can it favor religion over non-religion. Sure, you can believe whatever crazy crap you want, but you can't expect the government to "respect" that belief any more than you can expect to it to respect other crazy beliefs!
(Either religion makes people too stupid to parse a simple sentence or the daft are inordinately drawn to religion.)
Posted by: Watchman | July 18, 2009 7:00 PM
Sure, it's all about respect! Look:
See? It's all about respecting religion. I'm amazed you couldn't see that.
Posted by: Sauceress | July 18, 2009 7:13 PM
Indeed!
M&K's "system of soothing" has been overthrown by "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_System_of_Doctor_Tarr_and_Professor_Fether
Posted by: Watchman | July 18, 2009 7:19 PM
articulett
Heh... seems we were riding the same wave at the same time. ;-)
Posted by: articulett | July 18, 2009 7:30 PM
Watchman,
..."great minds...."... ;-)
But yours was funnier. (I will steal it and make it my own.)
Posted by: Gustav Nyström | July 18, 2009 7:58 PM
"a link? no...I'm reading a dead-tree book, Order of the Phoenix (#5), Scholastic paperback, pp 296-298"
What is this "book" that you speak of? You can read it but not link to it? I find your arcaic ways laughable!
Posted by: Lowell
|
July 19, 2009 12:44 AM
Screechy Monkey #241: Tip of the hat. Nice work.
Unrelated, the following comment is in moderation on a later Intersection thread after the relevant one was shut down. Recording it here in case it never sees the light of day:
Posted by: windy | July 19, 2009 2:56 AM
Lowell: they've published the comment now.
But a new knockout argument in favor of Mooney&K-baum has emerged on some blogs - Darwin did not want to be associated with promoting atheism, so modern scientists shouldn't either! Wow! Game over for us I guess. Darwin said it, that settles it.
Posted by: Tristan | July 19, 2009 3:28 AM
I think I've worked out the pathology of Mooney, Kirschenbaum, "Isis" et al. My apologies if it's obvious, but it only just came to me - to be specific, when reading the derisive posts by Isis and Zuska to ERV's complaints about misrepresenting PZ in book form. Essentially, it's this:
They're approaching the issue following the rules of a high school debate.
For those who've never had the experience, high school debates involve two teams being assigned, randomly, opposite sides of a topic. It's then each team's job to defend, come hell or high water, their assigned position. The winning team is decided by an adjudicator.
Now, the key point here is that the job of a debater is most emphatically not to find the truth. If they work out before or during the debate that the other side is correct, and say so, they fail. Right or wrong, they defend their position.
If you're on such a team, you quickly learn a few things:
1. Never, ever, admit fault. If the opposing team makes a point against you that you can't refute, ignore it and move on. To concede fault on any point will pretty much lose you the debate there and then.
2. Lies are ok, providing: a) you're pretty sure nobody in the audience or opposing team knows the truth; b) the truth would take too long for the other team to explain; or c) if caught out it will seem plausible that you were simply mistaken (of course, you won't address it in any case; see 1.)
3. Twisting your opponents' words to misrepresent what they said, and constructing strawmen is a-ok. It puts your opponents on the defensive, and forces them to waste their rebuttal time addressing your misrepresentation rather than any more substantive points.
4. Profanity and direct insults are out. Sly barbs are a-ok, though, as long as you keep at least a paper-thin veneer of civility on them.
As I said above, this leapt out at me when reading all the responses trashing Abbie for complaining about M&K "attacking" PZ in print, when it was patently clear to me that her complaint was about them misrepresenting him (a common theme throughout the Intersection threads on M&K's responses to PZ, too). At first I thought they were just being dishonest, that they were ignoring the difference in order to score rhetorical points - but then I realised that to them there really is no difference. If you're going to argue with someone, misrepresenting what they said is simply par for the course - completely normal and even good tactics, since your goal is to win.
This in turn got me thinking about "that" chapter in M&K's book, and their problems with the so-called "New Atheists". They see people like Pat Robertson, the various Fox News pundits, etc. getting worked up, yelling, and insulting people. They see people like PZ, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens etc. getting worked up, yelling, and insulting people. And that's all they see. They don't see any difference between the two groups because, to them, the only rule that's being broken is rule 4 above, and both groups are breaking it.
The more I think about it, the more I think that this is the disconnect - we're arguing by two completely different rule sets. PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens etc. are about honesty and truthfulness, and politeness be damned, whereas to your average punter a debate is something to be won in a polite manner, and honesty be damned. This latter attitude seems to be incredibly, depressingly common. It's disappointing to see it in someone who would be a journalist. It's downright disgusting to see it in people who claim to be practicing science.
Posted by: John Morales | July 19, 2009 3:57 AM
Tristan @260, insightful +1.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 19, 2009 4:31 AM
Hehe.Good points.
And there is a word I like in this context !
The other thought that occurred to me is, how wonderful for just about every otherwise totally irrelevant blog out there this whole kerkuffle(that seems to be the official terminus technicus for this mess) has been.
Posted by: efrique | July 19, 2009 5:48 AM
Heh, they really don't get it.
I'm not some automaton drawn by PZ's magical blog to slavishly swallow PZ's every word. I read your blog because you talk eloquently about things that I read and talked about before I heard of you, in a way I enjoy. Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes I don't - and I'm just fine with that.
I am not some mindless slavering beast, who does your every bidding just because you ask. I am in fact a very mindful slavering beast, who occasionally does some of the things you suggest because it's precisely the sort of thing I do anyway - you just happen to be a good source of information about some of the sort of things I look for.
The thing is, if you have enough readers (and you do), almost anything reasonable you might suggest will have a fairly large subset of readers (which to almost anyone else seems like a large horde) who heartily agree with the sentiment.
Posted by: SEF | July 19, 2009 6:15 AM
I'm more surprised it has taken you that long to get there. It's what I've very much been aware of from childhood (as being among the most significant of the things which separate me from normal people).
The vast majority of people are habitual liars and condoners, admirers and praisers of lies. Dishonesty is rampant. So much so that the BBC apparently doesn't have a single non-lying person in its ranks capable of serving as a counter-example in suggesting otherwise, given that they've repeatedly advertised stuff on that basis. It's woven into societies and officially lauded in many cases (eg in the bible).
There are the pathological liars, the ones who say whatever comes into their heads without even considering whether or not it's true (because they assign no importance to that) and those who do know the difference between truth and falsehood but still choose falsehoods whenever it serves them to do so.
It must be only a tiny minority of people who respect (in the fullest possible sense) truth. It's not particularly surprising that many of those would be into science. That unusally high regard for the truth is also why science is much better at establishing truth than the legal process or the selling-of-news business is. (Ditto art, poetry, literature, music, film, etc and not just religion.)
Unfortunately, I suspect honest people are born rather than made (although nurture is bound to shift the degree of it somewhat). Which is one of the things which is going to make it hard (read "impossible"?) to get rid of religions and faith-based, magical "thinking" entirely. People mostly simply don't care whether or not a thing is true, especially if it's what they want to believe.
The system of having debates in schools merely makes the natural situation worse by formalising and rewarding it.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 19, 2009 6:30 AM
Just remember,
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
July 19, 2009 7:07 AM
Tristan @ 260 for the win.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 19, 2009 7:08 AM
Kel, Did you forget what it is that we are supposed to remember ?
Posted by: Logicel | July 19, 2009 7:09 AM
SEF:The system of having debates in schools merely makes the natural situation worse by formalising and rewarding it.
_____
Several decades ago, a close friend of mine was a very successful debater at our Catholic school. When quizzing her about her passion regarding debating, she made it clear to me that truth does not matter, just winning does. I was aghast and soon drifted away from her. All that mattered to me was the truth with this focus leading me eagerly to all the disciplines whose focus was similar. Those disciplines, like me, learn from our mistakes because our approach to getting at the truth allowed us to do that.
Anecdotally, the majority at my school were apathetic, they had no passion for anything, whether it was for winning for winning sake or for discovering the truth. Since then, some very astute people have pointed out the same thing, the majority of people do not give a rat's ass about anything, including their improving their own little worlds, and certainly not the bigger picture.
Science is repulsive to the general populace because it requires and demands a passion for truth and putting up with the laborious process that achieves it. Why would natural selection go for a mix of genes that would result in such apathy to be the dominate personality trait in a population? Sure, there are non-evolutionary influences on why people are apathetic, but there seems to be a genetic push in being apathetic for people. Apathetic people tend to just plod along, tediously doing routine stuff.
Routine actions must be important for our survival and ability to pass along our genes. I get thinking in this vein when I want to kick apathetic people down stairs to wake them up and need some kind of perspective to balance out my disgust at them.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 19, 2009 7:16 AM
I have no idea what went on there, I'm fairly sure I would have written something more than that. But for the life of me I can't remember what. So yes, I did forget what I was supposed to remember. This is why I have the internet, so I can post without thinking only to have reference at a later date.Posted by: windy | July 19, 2009 7:18 AM
Apathetic people tend to just plod along, tediously doing routine stuff.
http://xkcd.com/610/ :)
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 19, 2009 9:45 AM
@Lynna #240: The delay cuts down on spambots making dozens of posts in a row.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 19, 2009 2:46 PM
Tristan @ 260
You just earned my Molly vote for this month.
Posted by: Terry
|
July 19, 2009 2:54 PM
So, the wafer thing was bad, say some, so if I state that Jesus and Mary and the Holy Ghost and Mohammad and Joseph Smith et al., can take a healthy lick off of my shitty ass, would that be sacrilegious or blasphemous?
PZ is my irreverent hero.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 19, 2009 8:42 PM
That scene was written by eminent British comedian John Cleese, who once gave a commencement speech at Stuyvesant High School, where I studied English from a certain Irish-American memoirist whose initials are F.M. and whose name rhymes with Rank RcCourt.
Sadly, the latter author died today.
Posted by: Chasm | July 20, 2009 1:26 AM
At the serious risk of coming in at #275 and not being automatically sycophantic, I have to say PZ, you are seriously missing the point here.
From what I have read of this exchange, and the online sections of the book, the authors point, in part, is that scientists aren't engaging the public as a storyteller-audience relationship, and that has hurt sales.
Cases in point: Sagen, Crichton, Dawkins and you. What differentiates the first two from the last is that the former understood the power of mythos and story and you two do not. It is laudable that you have dedicated yourself to up-ending the plot where you can, but it's undeniable that you, and Dawkins, have both substituted personal performance pieces in place of a larger narrative. Take the "cracker" piece: a story about a young man who is unjustly treated by old thinking was completely consumed by 'atheist blogger nails Catholicism,' which was presumably launched as a subplot but which quickly become its own story. Result: PZ Myers gets allot of attention, but science not so much.
Some commenter, either in this post or one other pertaining to this spat, tried to rebuff Crichton's ability to tell stories by noting how many science-based films did well in the "Jurassic Park" aftermath, completely omitting the fact that without JP in the first place, no one to this day would know what a Velociraptor was.
Crichton - as misguided as he became - as well as Sagan understood that connecting with the human imagination requires much more than just smashing icons and prancing about, but they also showed that it can be done in an entertaining and engaging fashion.
Posted by: Nullifidian | July 20, 2009 1:51 AM
At the serious risk of coming in at #275 and not being automatically sycophantic, I have to say PZ, you are seriously missing the point here.
You risk nothing by not being sycophantic. Unfortunately, your message runs a serious risk of being inaccurate.
From what I have read of this exchange, and the online sections of the book, the authors point, in part, is that scientists aren't engaging the public as a storyteller-audience relationship, and that has hurt sales.
Cases in point: Sagen, Crichton, Dawkins and you. What differentiates the first two from the last is that the former understood the power of mythos and story and you two do not.
I certainly hope that's not their point, because then they're being idiots. Can anyone seriously argue that Richard Dawkins is hurting for book sales? The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, and even The God Delusion have all been bestsellers.
And as far as PZ, he doesn't have a published book out, but his website gets millions of visitors per month.
Furthermore, this contracts their complaint that the evil duo of PZ and Dawkins are so prominent that they're turning people off science with their outspoken atheism. Can you be a prominent writer or a prominent blogger without a large readership?
The whole "framing" debate is simply the latest iteration of sopping, middle-of-the-road liberalism. Mooney, Nisbet, and Kischenbaum, being good moderate liberals, falsely equate truth and reason with civility and moderation, as if truth is never shocking and reason can never be confrontational. This is the "faith" of those without ideas or convictions, which is why it so strongly appeals to wishy-washy atheists and agnostics.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 20, 2009 1:58 AM
Really? The writer of the bestselling books The Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale, and The God Delusion doesn't know how to engage the public? The writer of the most popular science blog doesn't either?
Alright, nonfiction books and blogs aren't "mythos and story", but it's still having an impact on the public. Fiction isn't the only way to do it.
NEWSFLASH: When scientist do something it's not always in the name of science.
If you only want to read science-related threads you can go here. Myers also teaches don't forget.
I don't see how you can consider Carl Sagan an accomdationist. Here are a lot of anti-religious quotes from Sagan.
Posted by: Nullifidian | July 20, 2009 1:58 AM
*sigh*
I meant, of course, to write:
"Furthermore, this contradicts their complaint..."
I really should hit preview first.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 20, 2009 3:05 AM
Chasm,
you make the same mistake most people in the accomodationist camp commenting on this issue make,you can not distinguish between promoting science and fighting religion.
Crackergate was about fighting religion and its effect on society,and has nothing at all to do with promoting science.And was never meant to be.
Posted by: SEF | July 20, 2009 4:07 AM
I think it's another example of them projecting - and hence a somewhat revealing insight into their tiny little minds.
The religious tend to believe that whenever one of their religous leaders does something (in public) it's for their god (and hence good even if it's bad!). It's easier for them to assume that PZ (as a leader of the religion of science - don't forget that's also how they "think"!) does everything for science. They can't conceive of the alternative.
So, "obviously", PZ must be molesting crackers in the name of science. He couldn't possibly be capable of doing or caring about more than one thing. After all, they themselves are generally barely capable of just the one. Unfortunately, they do know (in an instinctive way) how to breed, even if they can't think, read or write English properly.
Posted by: windy | July 20, 2009 5:11 AM
Like Nisbet and Mooney claimed "The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his advocacy of evolution and his atheism."
But it's interesting that Mooney unhesitatingly goes to bat for Holdren as science advisor and explains how his old writings on population control are no big deal. Apparently the public IS expected to make these distinctions between discussing methods of forced population control in a textbook and advocating them.
Whatever you think of Holdren as science advisor, I find it kind of offensive that Mooney apparently thinks association with atheism is worse for the image of science than association with forced sterilization.
Posted by: Paul | July 20, 2009 1:01 PM
Man, now every single post I make on The Intersection goes to moderation. In response to Mooney's newest article (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/20/40-years-after-the-moon-landings-americas-science-deficit/ ) I posted something with no possible keyword triggers, and a few posts have gone in past mine (so it's not just a backlog of posts to approve):
Oh, wait, maybe they've taken such a flogging that they filter on "ignorant" now. Really says a lot about their presence on the net lately.
Posted by: articulett | July 20, 2009 8:37 PM
Nullification, your response was spot on. Don't worry about the typo-- intelligent people are more likely to underestimate their competence, while the dolt you were responding to likely has no clue as to how many grammar and spelling errors he made in his little incoherent rant.
Regarding crackergate and science... it some ways, I do think crackergate did help encourage scientific thinking. In science, there are no sacred objects and crackers can't contain gods any more than they can contain demons. Invisible undetectable entities and divine secrets are all similarly suspect and open to questioning, testing, and derision in science... even if lots of people feel really super special and saved and humble for "believing in" such things. Science is about the truth that is the same for everybody. There are no magical properties in blessed crackers... transubstantiation is a religious delusion, and threats are not a means of getting scientists or anyone else to defer to such silly notions or to pretend they are worthy of respect.
Who will lead people out of their demon haunted worlds except for scientitists? And how can they do so without subjecting gods to the same harsh light?
When people let go of the notion that they are saved for "believing" something, they are free to explore and learn the wonders we humans are discovering through science.
Posted by: Lynna | July 21, 2009 1:45 PM
Christopher Hitchens memorialized Leszek Kolakowski in a recent article for Slate. Kolakowski's "refusal of the lie and the willingness to display civic courage," as Hitchens put it, strikes me as the most succinct way to describe what PZ is doing, and by his example, encouraging others to do.
See "A Sense of Historical Irony" - Leszek Kolakowski, 1927-2009.
http://www.slate.com/id/2223212/
Posted by: Paul | July 22, 2009 9:56 PM
I called Kwok on lying several times in one thread (I was irritated at how he constantly gets away with it) and Mooney silently disabled comments on the thread. Looks like he's too ashamed to draw attention to the Kwokster as his supporter, but not wanting to draw his ire by removing posts/escalating the situation. The situation over there is pretty sad. Also boring and repetitive enough that I won't bother going back unless the authors provide some actual material.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/20/the-book-tour-begins-in-earnest-hastings-center-yale-northwestern/#comments
Posted by: ricku | July 23, 2009 8:18 AM
I have a favor to ask. I've clicked the links and googled for answers but I'm afraid I don't grok the "Colgate Twins" reference. Would someone please enlighten me?
Posted by: Paul | July 23, 2009 3:51 PM
@ricku
It's mostly poking fun at the promo pic on their blog.
In other news, they silently closed another comment thread without saying why (or calling Kwok on his repeated lies/libelous statements). I'm really wondering how long they can accept him as a defender before they really call him on his bs, and get to experience Kwok going full-psycho and crapping all over their threads (at least right now he's on their side while crapping all over their threads).
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/22/the-state-of-things/