…and this is a 
Mooney is at it again, scrabbling madly to refute my criticisms. It's another ho-hum effort.
He claims he did spend some effort criticizing the overt anti-science forces in our country — only it was in his previous book, not this one. No, that doesn't rebut me at all: in a book that purports to be discussing problems and solutions to the science and society divide, there ought to be some effort made to prioritizing the issues, even if it means revisiting points made in other books. Unfortunately, the message here is that we have three problems: the bumbling scientists who don't know how to communicate, and the malicious atheists, who are hurting the cause of science education, and the sell-out media. You don't just get to pretend that your readers have all read your other books.
He then compounds the problem by answering my accusation that he did not deal with the root causes of the problem by simply saying "did too". Maybe he doesn't think religion is as serious a problem as I do…but judging this book by its content, he apparently doesn't think it has anything to do with the unusual American disregard for science.
Further handwaving ensues in his defense of the media. Apparently, his own words that label factual accuracy as "mere", is taken out of context — which he justifies by pointing out a comment by Dawkins that the natural world is fascinating, and doesn't need human drama. As I said before, accuracy is not the enemy of drama, so this is a silly and pointless argument. Sure, make fun, entertaining, exciting movies. They just don't need to be imbecilic to be good.
Ah, but the real kicker here, the one that clearly is annoying Mooney most, is my accusation of uselessness against his book, that it offers no solutions at all. He says there are, there are! He says it several times, in several ways!
There are solutions in each chapter of the main body of the book, broken down by sector-politics, media, entertainment, religion. And then there is the grand solution in Chapter 10-which emerged from our collaboration, and which we don't think either of us would have come up with on our own. So far as we know, it really is new in its particular way of analyzing the academic pipeline and finding, in it, a solution to our problems at the science-society interface.
Alas, if you read his rebuttal, he won't actually tell you what those solutions, or even that Grand Solution, are. It's very strange; it's as if he's afraid that if he even briefly summarizes what his proposals are, you won't need to buy his book, so they've got to be kept secret. His book is apparently like an M. Night Shyamalan movie — if you're told what the little twist is before you go to see it, all you've got left is a rather slow moving, boring story that is plodding tediously towards the big reveal. Come on, grow up. If it's a substantial idea, it's the explanation and the details that make your book worth reading, not the one-liner gloss on your solution. You can give it away, it really won't hurt your book sales. And if it does, that suggests right there that you aren't offering much.
Well, I'm going to do it. I'm going to spill the beans. I am going to give you the Grand Solution that Mooney and Kirshenbaum present in chapter 10, the one that is so new that neither of them could have come up with it on their own.
Here it is. Ready?
Here's a summary of chapter 10: seven pages laying out the many problems that face people who want to pursue a career in science, from uninspiring teachers in grade school to the fierce competition for university positions. All true, of course, nothing at all novel here. What is their solution, presented in the final three pages? Create more well-rounded scientists, more Renaissance scientists, more scientists with specific training in communications skills, so that when they don't manage to land that academic position, they're still prepared to go out into society and act as ambassadors for science.
Really, that's it. All of it. That's their solution.
How nice.
I'm all for it. I teach at a small liberal arts college, and there's absolutely nothing new at all in the sentiment expressed by Mooney and Kirshenbaum. It's actually something of a letdown and rather dismaying that they think it "really is new in its particular way of analyzing the academic pipeline". Excuse me for being thoroughly un-dazzled, but I think they could have talked to any of a few hundred thousand academics and they would have told them the same thing.
It's also a little insulting.
You know, the majority of my cohort that entered graduate school with me are not currently employed in academic positions. Mooney and Kirshenbaum know this, they outlined the general state of affairs in the first 7/10ths of this chapter. Yet, somehow, they aren't sitting around panhandling for Thunderbird money down at the bus station — they are gainfully employed, and they are already smart, well-educated people with considerable depth and breadth to their knowledge and marketable skills, and no, none of them (as far as I know) are now anti-science cranks out there fighting the system. They already are ambassadors for science in our culture. They vote for pro-science candidates, they support public schools, and some of them even have jobs in government, industry, and communications where they are working in their own way to better the country…and many of them are certainly more effective at what they do than I am.
It's very strange. Mooney and Kirshenbaum say their "solution" will "alleviate pressure by opening new pathways for pent-up scientific talent to filter out into society." I had no idea that post-docs and graduate students who left the academic track were "pent-up" somewhere! I do hope someone lets them out of their cage soon.
Now there really is a problem, that all of you readers who have gone through grad school know. There is a lot of social pressure that is piled up on you to reinforce the notion of a hierarchy of science careers. The very topmost rung is the research professor at a Research I university, getting big grants and running a big lab with a team of grad students and post-docs; anything less is regarded as something of a failure. It can make it very hard to move on to something like these Renaissance jobs Mooney and Kirshenbaum want to promote. You can also see that same attitude resounding throughout the comment threads on their own site, where being, for instance, a teaching professor at a small liberal arts college or, oh no, a mere popularizer of science are the marks of a lesser being.
I think it would be absolutely wonderful if science students could also value the noble profession of teaching, or think that communicating well was a most excellent and useful skill that they could acquire by writing and speaking throughout graduate school. Or if they felt empowered to use their knowledge for public outreach in film-making, or in working as an activist for environmental causes, or finding a job in the pharmaceutical industry that would help establish new medicines. I know I felt that way, as did enough of my peers who went on to such professions. However, nothing in their book explains how to make such an attitude occur more frequently, or even why we should expect a major change in the culture if something that is already happening, Ph.D. students finding work outside of academia narrowly defined, should continue to happen.
So, bottom line, still useless. The fact that Mooney seems so determined to hide his Grand Solution from public attention testifies to the fact that he's offering some mighty thin gruel in his book.
Oh, but I should mention where Mooney shines, just to be fair. He's written a rather shallow book with negligible substance, but he has managed to get articles in Salon that tells us we need to "figure out where the real blocks to accepting science are" (but fails to tell us what they are) and another in Newsweek that claims that atheists are "hurting their own cause". Perhaps self-promotion ought to be high on the list of their proposed Renaissance curriculum.
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2009 6:32 PM
Here's a solution for science illiteracy--quit making unsupportable statements about the effects of "New Atheists."
You don't build respect for science by treating proper standards of justification as if they were so much expendable nonsense that only eggheads care about.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 14, 2009 6:35 PM
It seems as if Mooney hasn't found where the real blocks to accepting science are and is trying to mollify the one clear and present block that is known: i.e. religion. What a shame that the answer is right in front of him but he is unwilling to do anything about it.
Posted by: JD | July 14, 2009 6:40 PM
Those "New Framers" poison everything.
Posted by: Michael Fugate | July 14, 2009 6:42 PM
After reading the Newsweek article, I thought the grand solution was for all of us non-believing scientists to lie about our religious beliefs. If we only were to tell the general public we are god-fearing bunch, then they would immediately become pro-science. Our unbelief is really the only thing holding them back from accepting GCC and evolution...
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 14, 2009 6:44 PM
Actually, in one thread he did write a comment which linked to a guy who basically gave away this "grand solution."
Needless to say, it was underwhelming, which is perhaps why he thought it was still a secret.
I do not, of course, see anything wrong with encouraging more scientists to engage with the public, but then I thought that was what PZ was doing. Oh yes, and also making science appear more relevant by saying that it does tell us about humans, minds, the universe, and whether or not we will have life after death. I do suppose that a case could be made that PZ's approach is wrong (a case, not a repetition of the bare charge), yet it seems odd to complain about scientists not engaging the public while complaining about specific instances where they do--without making a real case against the "how" of it, that is.
I'm certainly sorry to see that it took two of them to think up such an old idea.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 14, 2009 6:46 PM
It's not just religion, journalism has a lot to answer for. We've all seen erroneous reports in the media. Reports that were deliberately wrong. Outright laws. Journalism needs reform, and not just in the area of science. It's one thing when you're enemies work to make you look bad, but when people who say they are friends do it...
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 14, 2009 6:50 PM
That's the solution? I was very carefully reserving judgement on that section of their rebuttal because so much of it seemingly hinged on the actual content of the book that I have not read (so I thought it unfair to tie into the post)... but I knew that already. Hell, it's something I'm facing in my own bloody life as I try to figure out what I'm going to do after grad school (once I get the whole grad school ordeal itself figured out).
When "interdisciplinary" is the academic buzzword of the last couple years, you would think someone had already thought of producing well-rounded scientists...
Posted by: SciencePundit
|
July 14, 2009 6:51 PM
Ooh ohh! Can I go next?
"Accomodationists are hurting their own cause by attacking atheists." I can play that game too.
Posted by: Chayanov | July 14, 2009 6:51 PM
So his response is "Buy my book! Buy my other book!"? What a tool.
Posted by: Mr T | July 14, 2009 6:51 PM
Yeah, everybody. Don't just buy this crappy book. You must also buy his other book which also didn't really address the issue. Eventually, he'll get around to writing "The Democratic War on Science", "The Labor Party War on Science", "The Independent Party War on Science", "The Green Party War on Science", "The Nazi War on Science", etc. ad nauseum. Collect them all!
Posted by: Sili
|
July 14, 2009 6:54 PM
Oh noes! Now you're gonna get sued! Again!
I think part of the reason I started suffering depression during my post grad was an inability to accept that I just didn't have the smarts (or drive) to become a Big Name Researcher and similarly a lack of idea about what to do with myself, then.
That means I have somewhat more limited to options now (with only formal M.Sc.), but I still don't particularly want to teach. As it is I'll prolly apply to the community college where I was in revalidation/jobproofing with the janitor and library, next month if I haven't been invited to any interviews yet.
But I fear that I'll only end up putting the students off maths and chem for good. But perhaps the paedagogical training will be good enough to set me straight.
For now I still can't help but look at it as a means to an end: CV-fodder.
Any suggestions on how to discover the Joy of Teaching(tm)?
Posted by: Mr T | July 14, 2009 6:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKa68kWkP48
Posted by: Geds | July 14, 2009 7:00 PM
Oh noes! Now you're gonna get sued! Again!
What kind of camera do you think Mooney's gonna want?
Posted by: truthspeaker | July 14, 2009 7:01 PM
Maybe students majoring in science should be encouraged or even required to take some classes in the humanities.
Wait, most if not all universities already have that requirement, and have for decades.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 14, 2009 7:06 PM
I was asked the other day by a believer (who at the time had no idea about my religious belief - only that I was a science nerd) if I thought there was a conflict between science and God. I ultimately said "depends on your version of God". I don't mind being accommodationist when it is needed (it's their belief, not mine) but honestly I don't see what is going to be gained by having to bite ones tongue against the forces of vacuous crap.
Posted by: robotczar | July 14, 2009 7:08 PM
It is tedious to listen to a back and forth about this silly book.
Any idea that we should blame scientists for American science illiteracy neglects why the situation is worse here than in Europe. Are European scientists better at explaining science or using the media? Come on, let's admit that we have a problem and it ain't the media skills of our scientists.
Also, why should we expect scientists to be good PR people? They are good researchers, not good teachers and not good science popularizers.
We also need to be clear that "new atheists" arose because the old approach (i.e. pretending all religion is innately beneficial and "respecting" ridiculous ancient myths) is NOT WORKING. Things are getting worse, not better, Extreme religion is not only growing in this country--it is trying to take control. The non-extreme religious people (most Americans) are enabling and abetting the kooks because, in part, nobody is challenging their beliefs and actions.
The days of shy and agreeable "agnostics" is over. Get over it, politicians (and writers of bad books).
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 14, 2009 7:14 PM
Why not just keep on doing what you're doing?
Lots of people still profess belief in god, but most of the kids I talk to these days show signs of incipient skepticism about gods and governments. Progress is being made. Dumb ideas like religion held amazing sway for the last couple thousand years but it's been sharply downhill for church and crown since the 1600s. We are still so surrounded by the stupid that we don't take a step back and realize how far we've come - and we need to realize that it's not going to happen overnight.
I guess my "framing" is that I don't even see what the problem is. So what if people don't want to understand science - they still use an iPod or the internet or the other fruits of science. Ultimately, it really doesn't help Joe Sixpack to be abreast of the latest cosmological theories, or to know about HOX genes, or whatever. Yes, education is important, but we shouldn't assume it's automatically important to everyone. People can live a comfortable consumer life without knowing much more than we understood by the middle of the industrial revolution. "You can lead a horse to water, but it's not your business to make him drink" - or something like that.
If there's a place where religion and stupidity need to be fought, it's at the extreme edge, where religion is still violent and attempting to dominate the social agenda. I.e.: the 'culture wars' over stuff like cracker handling, "modesty wear" etc. Those battles will not be won or lost by science as much as by common sense and solid moral arguments. I'm not saying that science isn't part of the solution, but confrontation a la Hitchens (i.e.: "belief in god is immoral") or Dennett is going to be more effective because it attacks the ostensible strengths of religion.
Saying 'we must defend against religious attempts to break into the classroom' presupposes already that you're dealing with students - which means they are already accessible to philosophical challenges, scientific challenges, and social challenges ("it's not cool") to religion; that's why they want to fight there. But - again - science isn't the battlefield that will make the difference; it's the whole school experience and socialization that'll carry or lose the day.
I wish this was a problem that was solvable with better science education, but it just simply isn't. It'd be vastly more important to have - for example - better media. Sucky articles and crappy rags like Scientific American (which is now about on the intellectual level of People Magazine) makes a bigger difference. After all, more kids care about who won american idolatry than who's Darwin - or the pope.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 14, 2009 7:15 PM
Is it too much to ask for a "***SPOILER ALERT***"?
You've completely ruined the suspense! What's the point of reading it now?
Posted by: ERV | July 14, 2009 7:17 PM
Ed Yong and I talked about alternative careers in science like 100 years ago on BloggingHeadsTV.
Not that Mooneytits and Cockenbaum would have any reason to know who Ed is. *rolleyes*
Posted by: Dr P | July 14, 2009 7:18 PM
The book was just recommended by ScienceDebate in their email newsletter based on a review by RealClimate.org http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/unscientific-america-a-review/
Posted by: littlejohn | July 14, 2009 7:25 PM
Did anyone else get some positive crap about this in your email today from Discover magazine? I just skimmed it; just a puff piece.
Posted by: Kobra | July 14, 2009 7:30 PM
Oh man, is that clown still trying to stir the pot and convince us that we need to castrate ourselves to accommodate religious ideas? I'm frankly a bit sick of hearing about him and his ad hominem bullshit towards "New Atheists."
The problem with America isn't that scientists aren't reaching out to the common person, but rather that many people are raised with a distrust for science. Maybe they didn't learn the basics in school. Maybe their Puritanical families reprimanded them for asking questions about things they "shouldn't question." Whatever the cause, blaming scientists for all of the problems involving scientific populism is at best imprecise.
Posted by: firemancarl | July 14, 2009 7:31 PM
Wow! What absolute crap from those two. If religious views are one of ( if not THE ) root cause of a lack of science and science education, then why the hell wold those two idiots propose something as anti science as
? I don't think there is a middle ground. It goes against everything science stands for. What next, should we tell the fundies and IDiots that yes, creationism has merit? Just so we can establish a middle ground?I don't think so!
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 14, 2009 7:32 PM
Indeed, and I immediately hit the 'unsubscribe' button in reply. Fuckers.
Posted by: Kobra | July 14, 2009 7:33 PM
@23: Exactly. Give them an inch, grant them a boon, and they will steal a mile. It's like Europe's attempt to appease Hitler: Not going to work.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | July 14, 2009 7:34 PM
Mooney keeps suggesting that all authors say, "You've got to read the book." The only authors I see who do that when they're talking about a nonfiction book are authors I expect to see on Oprah. Unscientific America is The Secret for the pro-science crowds?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 14, 2009 7:37 PM
Kobra #22
It's the accommodationists like M&K that are the problem. They're enablers, telling the religious, anti-science people that basic education and research on myth and prejudice is just great. The accommodationists really don't like atheists saying "that's a load of crap, you can't base science on religion." This undermines the accommodationists' playing nice to the goddists.
Posted by: Benny the Icepick | July 14, 2009 7:39 PM
And in other news, bloggers today were at loggerheads over whether creamy or crunchy peanut butter should be served in our school lunch program.
Most students just opted to have the pizza.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 14, 2009 7:41 PM
It's so strange. They're bloggers who don't seem to understand, appreciate, or have any idea how to utilize blogs, or the internet in general. It's like they see blogs as a one-way medium to promote their "real" productions to an audience. In reality, here and at Discover they have access to a huge number of people who are or have been involved in scientific careers. They could have put some preliminary thoughts to their readers/commenters and asked for feedback, and I'm quite sure they would have gotten great stuff in terms of stories, problems, and suggestions. They could then have drawn heavily on this in preparing the book and produced something interesting. (Some more training in social and historical analysis probably wouldn't have hurt, either.)
Opportunity to write a good book lost due to arrogance and stupidity.
Posted by: Joshua Fisher | July 14, 2009 7:44 PM
The raison d'etre of the so-called "accommodationist" position, in my opinion, begins with the question, Would you say that kind of stuff to your (believing) mother's face?
Would you tell your (devout Christian, Jewish, or whatever) mother that her beliefs are not reasonable? Maybe call her a wackaloon? a god-soaked fool?
It's not a bad question, actually.
Posted by: Jim Bob Cooter | July 14, 2009 7:45 PM
You know, if these two assholes had just let your initial bad review slide and not kept whining, I would have forgotten about the book entirely. Now, instead, I will always know that Chris Mooney (I keep thinking Paul Mooney, bad association) and Sheril Kirshenbaum are lightweight morons. Apparently he's not that good at self promotion.
P.S. WOW Sheril, "The Science of Kissing" is your next book? That sounds fucking deep. I'll be sure to chuckle and keep walking if I ever see it in Barnes and Noble.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 14, 2009 7:52 PM
@SC, OM:
Indeed, they seem to have reserved this sagacious use of their internet prominence to collect data for "The Science of Kissing". I suspect that they *didn't* do this for UA because they knew full well what the responses would be. Hard to buttress your position when you anticipate your biggest support coming from people like Kw*k and McCarthy.
Posted by: Michael X | July 14, 2009 7:53 PM
[parody]
Doesn't Mooney realize that if he keeps speaking so harshly about atheists that he could
alienate them from the cause of supporting science?! They might just take their ball, go home and support irrationality!
[/parody]
See? Anybody can write this tripe.
Posted by: Jeff F | July 14, 2009 8:02 PM
So basically, their 'Grand solution' is an accommodationist version of this: How to do it
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | July 14, 2009 8:02 PM
Actually, it's a terrible question. PZ has addressed a variant of this before -- search for a post on the "Grandma Gambit."
There are huge differences between the public sphere and the private one.
You have a personal relationship with your mother. You don't have one with Richard Dawkins. (Unless, of course, you're John Kw*k, who has a personal relationship with everyone, at least in some convoluted Six Degrees of Kw*k way. But I digress.)
If your mother doesn't like what PZ Myers has to say about her religious beliefs, she can stop reading Pharyngula, not buy his book, turn off the radio if he comes on, etc. If she's hurt by what you say, she's still got to deal with you in her life on a regular basis.
We often soft-pedal our criticisms and comments on controversial subjects with people we care about, but we don't do it because it's a more effective way of making the argument. We do it because we're more interested in avoiding hurt feelings than making the best argument.
I wouldn't tell my friend the amateur musician that his music is unoriginal and vapid. That doesn't mean that professional music critics should avoid making such blunt criticisms.
We don't expect political commentators to refrain from saying things like "Republicans are void of ideas and are holding this country back" just because dear old Grampa is a Republican and will be offended. Indeed, Mr. Mooney had some rather uncharitable things to say about Republicans in his previous book, but nobody -- including him -- seems to worry about hurting poor Gramps' feelings.
Posted by: Nicole | July 14, 2009 8:03 PM
What is most needed is greater science literacy for those who already communicate about science to the general public (i.e. journalists). I can't get through any news site (including the NY Times) without feeling like the science reporters are trying to sensationalize news (the recent article about shacking up before marriage leading to higher divorce rates, for example) while neglecting to really discuss what the studies actually report, and (gasp) suggest where there might be problems (correlation not being causation in this case).
If I were to write a book about science literacy, my conclusion would be that there should be higher journalistic standards, and that the AAAS or someone put some money into improving scientific training for journalists and/or journalism training for scientists who want to go into writing careers. Alas, I'm too busy researching to do another job communicating that research, but it's an option I keep in mind.
Posted by: QrazyQat | July 14, 2009 8:07 PM
If it's a substantial idea, it's the explanation and the details that make your book worth reading, not the one-liner gloss on your solution. You can give it away, it really won't hurt your book sales.
If it's a good idea, revealing it helps sales. It's the tag, the sell. Examples: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. by Charles Darwin, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Hell, they both had the idea right there in the title!
Posted by: minimalist | July 14, 2009 8:10 PM
Hahaha, WHAT. They say this AFTER writing a book fellating the oh-so-original idea* that scientists should be better at, uh, popularizing science?
Of course those waterheads just wanted to get a cheap dig at Dawkins, but they had to sacrifice their entire premise to do so. Pathetic.
* This idea, which is mine, Chris Mooney. Well, this is what it is - my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine. My theory by C. Mooney. Brackets Mister, brackets.
This theory goes as follows and begins now.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 14, 2009 8:13 PM
I've been reading the comments on their various posts about PZ - good grief but Kw*k is an idiot; he doesn't appear to realise how dull he is, and got very upset when I prefaced his name with the expression 'content-deprived name-dropper' - and find the whole thing a bit depressing.
But the whole thing's kind of a mystery to me - why are they like this? Is it fear? Are they genuinely afraid that science can be in any more danger from religious idiocy than it already is, and they're hoping that by fawning and forelock-tugging they'll somehow protect it?
Or is it more about seeming nice and not hurting anyone's feelings?
I think the most unsettling thing about it is that there are people there claiming to be atheists yet who are very deferential to religious ideas and who are insisting that there is such an entity as 'new atheism' (rather than just 'new atheists'), that it's a religion, and its proponents are harming 'real' atheism.
Makes my frackin' head hurt.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 14, 2009 8:16 PM
Here is the Grandma Gambit post.
I notice that the first comment is a prediction that it will reduce the frequency of the gambit being tried.
No, it hasn't.
Posted by: Carlie | July 14, 2009 8:16 PM
Fucking FUCK. I have been roiling to a boil the last few days.
Kindly tell me, Chris, Sheril, anyone: What other field exists where the people in it are told they MUST make everything they do understandable by the general public, and if they don't THEY'RE the ones with the problem? (Besides the ideal of politics, that is.) Seriously. Are there Newsweek articles bemoaning how mean aviation engineers don't do enough work to explain to people how planes magically fly in the air? Are there books written on how the reason there are lawyer jokes is that lawyers don't properly describe the intricacies of court procedures to grade-schoolers? Do blogs say that guys working on potholes for the DOT required to stop every car that goes by and tell them what exactly's going on? I am so fucking sick of this. It's enough of an insult that every shmo on the street thinks that five minutes with a Ken Ham video means that they're as much of an expert on my subject as I am, but now every scientist has to be trained as a media expert, too? When the hell are we supposed to get research done? Like graduate school isn't stressful and filled to bursting enough already? And then any of us who don't manage to make it to a coveted faculty or research position right away is supposed to be happy with a consolation prize of telling everyone else how great science is? That's insulting to the people who have worked to the bone to be able to DO science, not to mention insulting to the people who actually train in science journalism by insinuating that a Ph.D. with a couple of media classes is just as able to communicate with the public as they are. Argh.
Don't get me wrong, I love the public communication aspects of science. I teach pre-teen and teen science camps. I teach exclusively general education science classes to people who walk in the door hating science. I teach workshops for K-12 science teachers. But that's ME. That's what I like to do, it's something I'm relatively good at, and I like that it's plugging in somewhere that's important for science and society in general. But I sure as hell wouldn't say that every scientist ought to do it, and I absolutely wouldn't say that the fate of all of science hinges on it.
I understand that they didn't say specifically that every single science student should train as public liaisons, but that's the effect of their rationale - you can never tell who's going to get the good positions and who isn't, so to get to their goal of it being a way to shunt the pipeline, you'd have to train everyone because you don't know which ones will end up there.
This just... ugh. I'm sure Kwok will yank this out as an example of how snotty and elitists scientists can be and parade it all over Intersection, but FUCK. Getting a Ph.D. is HARD, people, and I'm really sick of being told that I can't just learn the subject to do it, like sociologists and historians and English comp majors and everyone else does, but that I also have to be able to explain exactly what I do, why I do it, and the entire philosophical framework of every sub-discipline remotely related to it to any person of any mindset who happens to walk by. YES, I understand it's important that some people do this. But it shouldn't be required of every scientist to do so.
Now I have to step away from the computer for a bit, because I'm about a minute and a half away from making a facebook group called "When I was your age, Chris Mooney wasn't an asshole who wants to pawn his job off onto everyone else".
(And I think I just used up my entire swearing quota for the week.)
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 14, 2009 8:23 PM
It's funny because it perfectly fits their argument.Maybe he counts on scientists having more fortitude than believers - that they are fragile people who need coddling while us Big Bad AtheistsTM will keep supporting the cause regardless.
Posted by: Amy Larimer | July 14, 2009 8:26 PM
It seems that most people who get degrees in science do not actually work in academia. Many probably work in the public sector, as I do, and we do public outreach every single day. I am not sure if Mooney and company consider us real scientist (some are, some aren't) but that is certainly the avenue many science graduates take.
Posted by: Geoff | July 14, 2009 8:28 PM
I thought journalist integrity dictated that critics had the right to get the last word.
I think Mooney really does have a thin skin.
Posted by: gb | July 14, 2009 8:28 PM
"Create more well-rounded scientists.... they're still prepared to go out into society and act as ambassadors for science."
Am I one of those science ambassadors? I work for an educational institution focused on research and technology. I thoroughly enjoy being surrounded by a student base who aspires to learn, an academic population intent on teaching us to teach ourselves, and the staff that keeps all this research and technology happening. I relish the cultural mix, the diversity of customs and the overwhelming tolerance we all exhibit to our differences. What I do not condone is the vocal anti-science creationists who look for every opportunity to destroy, condemn or misrepresent the very nature of what this community has to offer society. They have taken their distortions to the public arena for the sole purpose to foster social distrust and misinformation. They make every effort to destroy scientific credibility in hopes that their faith becomes a better choice. Yet the likes of Mooney and Kirshenbaum insist we display an ever greater tolerance to such destructive activities? I'm inclined to disagree. What Mooney and Kirshenbaum need to understand is that these ambassadors, those that they so highly praise, need to stand up to anti-scientific creationism as equally as they need to stand up to the likes of sexism, bigotry, racism, homophobia and all the other putrid ilks that fester in social decay.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | July 14, 2009 8:29 PM
It’s new! Improved! Efficient!
It’s got power! It’s got speed!
There are some who’ll even tell you it’s the only thing you’ll need!
It makes medicines effective!
It makes buildings extra-strong!
It’s the reason that we’re healthy, and it’s why we live so long!
It can help us find more energy,
Or help us grow more food,
And begin to answer questions that we always have pursued.
When it breaks, it’s self-repairing,
Till it’s better than before,
So there really isn’t any competition any more.
But the market can be fickle;
Many buyers may refuse,
And prefer the obsolete, because it’s what they used to use;
Sure, it’s rather old and cranky
And it isn’t like it works,
But the buyers are accustomed to its problems and its quirks.
Is there any way to reach them?
Is this segment simply lost?
After all, they’d get more benefit, and suffer smaller cost!
I found a friendly framer,
And inquired for advice,
But the counsel that was offered had me thinking more than twice:
“You’ve got quite a nifty product,
And it’s working really well,
But you need to offer Heaven, and you need to threaten Hell;
You need to tell your customers
God loves them, every one,
And that purchasing your product is what Jesus would have done.
If you want to do some selling
(And you do) then I’ll be blunt—
You have to, have to, have to give the people what they want!
The problem with your product is,
You made it much too good!
If maybe you could cripple it, I think perhaps you should.”
“If you build a better mousetrap
Then the world will beat a path
To the older, lesser mousetrap with the smiting and the wrath;
It’s the mousetrap that they’re used to,
And aesthetically it’s nice,
And it doesn’t really matter if a mousetrap catches mice.”
So listened, quite politely,
And I thought a moment more,
Then I quietly went back to just the way I worked before.
No heaven, hell, or angels,
Gods or demons, prayer, or voodoo—
So tell me… if the choice was yours… well, what the heck would you do?
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/07/parable.html
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 14, 2009 8:38 PM
The "Einstein was wrong and relativity is a Jewish conspiracy and the Bible Code proves it" crowd have that habit, too. (They're also rather bad at putting abstracts in front of their papers and organizing their websites.)
Not long ago, I had a big festive dinner with relatives from the believing side of the family. We talked big-screen TVs and the perils of home renovation and the intriguing prospect of jambalaya pizza and all sorts of things. I was even able to discuss going to a skeptics' conference (TAM 6 in Las Vegas last year): I just emphasized that it was a group of people interested in rooting out quack medicine and the like. Even religious folk have been known to want good medical care for their children.
Posted by: apoLOLgetics | July 14, 2009 8:38 PM
Do atheists get their own Grandma gambit? i.e., if your grandmother were a determined atheist, would you waste the last hours of your time together trolling for Jesus? Because often enough, yes, they totally would, and we just have to respect that their heart is in the right place, which means that everything is fair game and they don't have to give a shit about what follows.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 14, 2009 8:40 PM
too fucking true
Posted by: RamziD | July 14, 2009 8:41 PM
Cuttlefish, your best work yet! Of course, that's what I think about every new piece you post :)
Posted by: J-Ball | July 14, 2009 8:43 PM
PZ, you're really enjoying this, aren't you? :-)
Posted by: Josh
|
July 14, 2009 8:50 PM
They're kidding, right?
So what, we're supposed to expect that a bunch of new scientists, who just spent YEARS bleeding for a PhD and doing the science that they obsessively love*, are just going to happily up and sacrifice themselves upon the altar of public communication, forgo getting a job where they can actually continue doing science (and thus be respected in their role as Great Communicator**...), and are going to try and get some other kind of job*** whereby they can "act as ambassadors for science?"
Yeah. Likely.
Don't get me wrong. I think it would be great if a lot more people decided to do that in graduate school. But exactly how you're supposed to be both a Renaissance scientist and a master of your subfield is fucking beyond me. And I saw how the faculty treated the couple of folks in my group who decided that they didn't want to be Tier I research professors. And I've also personally seen how the tenured faculty at those kinds of universities treat new professors who enjoy (indeed, may even see as important) giving public lectures and the like. Let's just say that this trajectory isn't one that I suspect is going to get a lot of institutional support soon.
How about spending some goddamn energy trying to convince the tenured fucking faculty and the administrations at the Tier I schools that there is nothing wrong with having young professors talk to the fucking public. Don't make it a choice that they have to make. Until you get the trajectory accepted as a viable option, then I suspect you're going to find few young scientists who want to take one for the team quite that badly.
*Of course, what they're really advocating is that our noble science communication martyrs decide much earlier on to be "generalists" and piss away any hope of an academic job.
**By other scientists, I mean. You might recall how much shit Sagan and Gould took (still take!) from colleagues who didn't think they were fucking serious enough as scientists. How essential this respect is to the job of Great Communicator is of course probably arguable, but it's something to keep in mind.
***I'm a bit skeptical that most positions outside of the Academy are going to have the flexibility of time and schedule to really facilitate being the Great Communicator, but this is speculative. I don't have a good sense of this.
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 14, 2009 8:50 PM
Actually, the first comment is a prediction that it will not significantly reduce the frequency of the gambit being tried, and that's certainly come true.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2009 8:51 PM
Mooney, from the article in Salon ( http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2009/07/13/science_illiteracy/ )
It's strange. Mooney actually identifies the very problem PZ documents Mooney HAS in his recent book. Labelling "New Atheists" as "the problem" not only is a denunciation from "across the intellectual battlefield", but fails utterly to even attempt to understand why the arguments atheists make wrt public outreach and science are entirely valid. I bolded that particular sentence to underscore precisely that strong religious beliefs ARE the main hindrance to science education in the US. If Mooney doesn't believe that, he should read an article published in Science a couple years back that documents how religious authoritarianism in the US has really fucked entire generations of people:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996
I think he spent too much time studying republicans for his first book, because projecting your own faults onto a strawman of your adversary is a very successful republican tactic.
It's almost like swiftboating...
Posted by: apoLOLgetics | July 14, 2009 8:52 PM
I should add that my parents did something like the reverse grandma gambit with my grandma if not when she was dying, near the end of her life. They sent someone from the church to talk to her and everything, like unsolicited, no shit, for reals. I didn't hear about it until much later, and I don't know the details.
Posted by: Carlie | July 14, 2009 8:56 PM
Here's the clip that keeps running in my head during each M&K rebuttal of reviewers' points. (youtube does have everything!)
Posted by: SC, OM | July 14, 2009 9:01 PM
Perfect.
Posted by: Badger3k | July 14, 2009 9:01 PM
Wait a minute - a "mere" popularizer of science is bad, but the solution is to make ... popularizers of science?
Posted by: MadScientist | July 14, 2009 9:12 PM
Oh, so I'm not necessarily going senile. I did see a lot of "not so!", and "did too!" and "is so!" in the responses. As for the claims of having proposed solutions, I think that deserves a snark:
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."
[Ah, isn't Project Gutenberg just awesome?]
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 14, 2009 9:13 PM
I have an MS in Cell Biology.
I do computer programming and computer security. I wasn't cut out for dealing with grants and all that, I just want to get things done. I am about as far from politic as you can get.
Posted by: Chris | July 14, 2009 9:13 PM
Anyone else getting bored of this axe-grinding?
Posted by: dreikin | July 14, 2009 9:15 PM
I've seen it mentioned or implied a few times that scientists ought to be communicators as well, and that the best scientists would be communicators as well as scientists, and all sorts of related implications, like preferentially hiring those who are good at communications.
Bullshit. And exclusionary, too.
The best scientists are NOT necessarily great communicators. Some of them probably hate being forced into that position. Some of them may not be able to do it all - they just don't have the talent/ability, or they have some other reason such as deep social anxiety. Perhaps they simply have other things they prefer to do with their free time (for those not pressured into a teaching position by their university's tenure requirements). That has nothing to do with how well they can research, nor how promising their scientific career should be.
Why do some people think that because they have it easy socially, that because they like to communicate/popularize science to the masses, every one else must be the same way? That if someone else doesn't like, or can't do, the same things as them, it can be 'fixed' by putting them through some classes, or forcing them to do it anyway? Or, should that fail, believing that those others have no place in an endeavour that, at its core, has nothing at all to do with the ability to popularize and teach the masses?1
Why do we have bad teachers? Not just because they haven't been given good training, or because they don't understand what they're talking about, but also because we essentially force, at the university/college level, people who are good at / like science but not communication to teach anyway, so that they can keep doing what they like.
Then, even if they are the best at the practice of science at that school, they may not get tenure because, predictably, the evaluations of their teaching/public communication performance are horrible. After which, they are implicitly kicked out. At which point, if we're fortunate, they'll go into the private sector, or maybe try again. If we're less fortunate, we've just lost a great scientist because of a system that apparently values communication and social skills more than the actual ability to do science (on the administrative level).2
Sure, encourage the Feynman's, Asimov's, Dawkins's, and Pharyngula's - but don't exclude the ones who do great work in the background just because you never notice them (or you've heard of them, but don't realize that's only because of the significance of their work, not their communication and social skills/attitudes).
How many people have you heard of / know who dropped out of science/math/whatever because of one horrible teacher, thinking that they couldn't understand the subject, or didn't have the capacity to do the work? How likely do you think it is that that professor didn't want to teach? Or knew they were bad at it? Or viewed it as a duty imposed on them so that they could do the stuff they actually like?
Forcing scientists to be communicators is contrary to goal. Some of the victims of such a policy will continue to endure it, and in the process drive students (and perhaps other members of the public) away. Those who don't choose to endure it will go private sector (possibly locking up their discoveries/inventions in patents and trade secrets - and for better money, at that) or even be driven away from the pursuit of science altogether.
1Yes, you need to be able to communicate somewhat - but the communication/social skills needed to communicate to someone else sufficiently proficient in the relevant arts/skills/areas to make use of your work is quite different from those needed for the general populus. Same goes for mentoring, one-on-one, an undergrad/grad versus an entire class.
2Not based on personal experience (yet), but based on a number of items, many from this very site.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | July 14, 2009 9:18 PM
NEWSFLASH:
Results of a 2400 year long experiment have just been announced!
Accomodationism proven to NOT work.
"It only encourages the loonies, we've discovered.", said a spokesperson for reality.
In further comments, Chris Mooney asks for a tiny bit more time to turn around this veritable mountain of negative data by repeating the same behaviours that caused the original failure.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2009 9:19 PM
But exactly how you're supposed to be both a Renaissance scientist and a master of your subfield is fucking beyond me.
Would have to be a rare talent indeed. I went this route myself, actually, but would hardly qualify myself as a master of fish behavior (compared to some of the tenured faculty I'm familiar with), regardless of knowing a lot about it. The problem is there simply isn't enough time to work on rounding one's interests, and focusing on a specific field anymore. Most fields have grown large enough now that just keeping up with the lit in them is a half-time job in and of itself.
And I saw how the faculty treated the couple of folks in my group who decided that they didn't want to be Tier I research professors.
Oh yes, been on the receiving end myself. Typical responses took the form of peevishly puzzled looks, and comments like: "What else would you do with an education in biology??"
And I've also personally seen how the tenured faculty at those kinds of universities treat new professors who enjoy (indeed, may even see as important) giving public lectures and the like. Let's just say that this trajectory isn't one that I suspect is going to get a lot of institutional support soon.
too true.
It's why I went to work with NGO's instead. Strangely, I get a lot more respect from tenured faculty when they are approached to assist from OUTSIDE of their academic institutions.
If the infrastructure for outreach is set up outside of the university's purview, and the faculty don't have to spend time and energy themselves with it, then they seem much happier to volunteer their time for various non-university related research and outreach projects.
I saw this with my own major prof, who often shunned those faculty members and grad students who worked on establishing outreach programs within the department, but he himself appeared to have no problem spending time giving lectures and providing useful info to nonprofit groups associated with Cichlids.
So, my answer, from having lived the very "renaissance" scientist life Mooney seems to point to, is that if one is interested in such a thing, pushing it directly within academia is not the way to go. Instead, working outside the auspices of academia via non-profits is much more productive, and often leads to not only successful outreach projects, but interesting and novel research projects too.
Mooney has the emphasis all wrong. There simply is NO way that pushing this idea WITHIN the academic world itself will be successful, and it's simply asking too much for any graduate student within the sciences to balance their time between thinking about outreach and a career as a tenured faculty member at a research-oriented university.
One in a thousand graduate students might have the wherewithal to pull off being both tenured faculty material, and have the time and energy to invest in outreach besides.
I can think of only a handful of tenured faculty that have managed to pull it off; Paul Ehrlich comes to mind readily, and was actually a personal influence that set me off to explore this direction to begin with.
That said, the direction I took also hasn't been easy, let me tell you. To be middle aged and still spending time on occasion living like a grad student isn't something I would typically recommend as a career choice.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2009 9:23 PM
Anyone else getting bored of this axe-grinding?
I'm sure if that were what it was.
Oh wait, did you want me to address your strawman directly?
Posted by: MadScientist | July 14, 2009 9:27 PM
@Chris: So long as there is any material left in the axe, we can grind it. When the blade is gone we'll just grind the haft.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2009 9:28 PM
Tripp is trippin'
Posted by: gillt
|
July 14, 2009 9:31 PM
"Perhaps self-promotion ought to be high on the list of their proposed Renaissance curriculum."
haha, is they why they celebrate Pardis Sabeti in the book?
I kid, but she is good at tooting her own horn, or, in her case, guitar in the middle of science conferences.
Posted by: MB | July 14, 2009 9:39 PM
at least they sent you the book...
Posted by: ChrisG | July 14, 2009 9:40 PM
Alan Kellogg:
There oughta be a lie about it.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 14, 2009 9:40 PM
I nominate Tripp for the dungeon, that comment has been in a few threads.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 14, 2009 9:42 PM
Right. They don't see you as competition. Remember, the Academy is nothing if not a continual pissing contest*.
#64 was well said, btw.
*Not saying it's a bad place or a good place, but to ignore the posturing is like watching a football game by ignoring the players.
Posted by: Rev. Bigdumbchimp | July 14, 2009 9:49 PM
yes and we know exactly what kind of tabs. Window pane trippled dipped, Tripp.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2009 9:49 PM
but to ignore the posturing is like watching a football game by ignoring the players.
heh. I often have told people that I learned more about politics than science when I was a grad student at Berkeley.
Posted by: Medievalist Jon | July 14, 2009 9:51 PM
Carlie @41 -
Forgive my going off-topic but believe me when I say we English profs. are often required to justify ourselves and our profession.
Even further off-topic: I try not to mention to people I don't know that I teach English because invariably I'll hear "Oh, that was my worst subject in school. I hated it!"
Posted by: Rod | July 14, 2009 9:54 PM
Can someone please tell me if I'm irrational according to PZ's or Dawkins' definition? I am a biologist with an interest in every branch of science and an agnostic. I don't belong to any religion. But like many I tend to believe that there may be some kind of "force" or "intelligence" that you might want to call God. But I don't know that for sure. I don't have any evidence of it.
I don't believe this God is a creator, at least not a creator of life since science has shown that life is a natural product of the material universe. I don't believe this God interacts with the material world we live in. I also don't claim to know what it is. I see it as a possibility. Something that may lie beyond the horizons of our scientific knowledge. It may be something that science can never grasp because it can't be objectively measured.
Am I irrational by PZ's defintion?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 14, 2009 10:01 PM
No. Your beliefs seem rather pointless, but harmless. They're too nebulous to involve you in any epistemic inconsistencies.
Posted by: sharky | July 14, 2009 10:03 PM
"A far better approach is to work with religious believers to help separate their personal religion from everybody's shared science, and move toward a much needed middle ground."
To your average believer, this IS an attack on faith. Religion is not something that can be removed from anyone's worldview just because we happen to be talking about a different set of facts than what happened at work. To someone who believes there simply was no prismatic effect in the sky from suspended water crystals until after the Flood, you can't say "that isn't everyone's science, please don't discuss it in a scientific forum" or whatever, and they'll nod and be quiet about it.
You have to say something more like "well, one of the properties of water droplets is that they refract light. That sounds a lot like a tribal just-so story, pretty much like the rest of the Flood myth." Which will not make them happy, but is less likely to get you accused of censorship or oppression or whatever.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 14, 2009 10:04 PM
Probably, but what's your point?
As long as you keep your beliefs for yourself and dont try to enforce it on everyone else, as long as you dont try to push your belief into public life and science education,nobody cares.It's a free country.
Posted by: Paul | July 14, 2009 10:04 PM
If you start claiming this "force" gives a shit if consenting same sex adults fornicate, then yes. Otherwise, no. Deism is less parsimonious than atheism, but it's not consistently shown to be BS like religion.
Posted by: Sili
|
July 14, 2009 10:05 PM
SQUEEEEEEE! ERV used my epithet! Yay! I'm internet famous!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 14, 2009 10:05 PM
You're a deist. You're not promoting any kind of specific silliness that you expect me to respect in the absence of any evidence.
Posted by: Carlie | July 14, 2009 10:21 PM
True, especially when it comes to departmental hires, but is it to the same level in the general public? Are there cover stories in Time about how bad text-speak is, and that it's all the fault of the English professors who don't do a good enough job teaching students the importance of language? If it is, I haven't seen it. Anything I've seen on the state of English in this country is presented as a decline due to the way people communicate, from the view of English experts. They're certainly not the ones blamed for it.
In a lot of ways what M&K are doing is victim-blaming. If politicians don't understand science and cut funding for research, it must be the scientists' fault. If school boards vote to put creationist texts in their schools, it's the science teachers' fault. If pastors teach that you can't believe in evolution and go to Heaven, and people therefore refuse to believe in evolution, then it's the evolutionary biologists' fault. I, for one, am sick of it.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD
|
July 14, 2009 10:22 PM
@ Carlie #41 - Nominated for a Molly.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 14, 2009 10:24 PM
I'm tired of the fighting with the 'New Militant Accomodationists'. I suggest we concede defeat and agree to no longer use the word 'science' and instead use the expression 'Science That Does Not In Any Way Suggest A Conflict With Any Religion™'.
Sure, it's a mouthful. But isn't that a small price to pay to avoid hurting anyone's feelings? That's the most important thing, right?
Posted by: Anton Mates | July 14, 2009 10:26 PM
When my grandmother went on hospice, Medicare actually required a chaplain to periodically visit and minister to my grandparents' spiritual needs. My grandmother was largely aphasic at that point, and wouldn't have talked to him even if she'd been able. My grandfather was very kind and polite, but explained that it was probably a losing proposition to witness to an atheist philosophy professor who had the greater part of Sextus Empiricus, Leibniz and Bertrand Russell memorized.
The chaplain was a nice guy, and he knew he wasn't wanted, so he didn't argue much. He just showed up every month for a half-hour or so and listened to my grandfather explain how death, as a state of nonexistence, could not be meaningfully considered either superior or inferior to life. Bit of a waste of government funds....
Neither of my grandparents seemed remotely interested in an afterlife as they were dying. My grandmother may or may not have believed in one, but the issue certainly wasn't occupying her mind. In my limited experience, the elderly generally don't worry very much about oblivion.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2009 10:27 PM
But like many I tend to believe that there may be some kind of "force" or "intelligence" that you might want to call God.
based on the fact you have absolutely no evidence of any kind in support, one can only conclude you believe this way because it is reactionary to your maturing with religious peers, in a culture awash with religious icons and ideology.
kind of like people who carry good luck charms because their peers did while they were growing up, and it just "rubbed off".
you've compartmentalized provincial fictions your peers held.
now that you know this, you can just drop it. Or not. Again, it's like carrying around a good luck charm while having no defensible rationale for believing they have any effect.
harmless, but you can dump the baggage if you wish to.
Nobody forces Obama to carry around all those good luck charms he does, and if asked (hasn't he been?) I'd bet he would say they really have no effect.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | July 14, 2009 10:29 PM
ChrisG, #70
While I'm not as prolific with my typos as RBDC, I make up for it with the quality. :)
Or as a freshman representative said when asked why he hesitated before entering the House of Representatives for the first time, "I wanted to check out the lie of the land."
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 14, 2009 10:31 PM
It's been said a few times; I'll say it again: one of the problems with those criticizing the so-called 'new atheists' is they have begun to believe the implications of their own somewhat deceptive label.
The truth is, there's nothing wildly 'new' about the new atheists. With all due respect to those present, there have been people saying stuff like this a while.... to some degree of accuracy re 'stuff like this'. Sure, there's been a few newish ways of putting ideas, maybe some neat ideas about how religion spreads and why, but honestly, there's only so many ways of pointing out the same old, old lie is indeed an old, old lie. I find no huge difference in tone between Russell and Dawkins, Ingersoll and Myers. To the point: this so-called stridency is neither that new nor so strident against the backdrop of history.
What's new is how many people are reading it. What's new is instead of picking up the book in a niche publisher in a back alley NYC bookstore, you can get it at Amazon off Random House's lists, and the print run's got more zeroes at the end.
That's what's changing: people are hearing this message; it's becoming respectable--or respectable enough that you can be seen publishing it, be seen buying the book. Probably a lot of people always thought this stuff. Now, they realize other people do, and have written books saying as much. Now, they realize they can get away with saying it. Out loud. And with writing it down. And they may live. Hey, their social life may even live.
So no, there are no 'new atheists'. Or rather, if there are, the proper definition of a 'new atheist' is: an atheist enough people are reading. That's how you get in that club. The definition has a certain utility: anyone people find themselves agreeing with is a 'new atheist'. Dangerous, see. Part of this sinister movement. And a danger to all of us, if not their very selves, the poor dears...
But cut through that crap, and it becomes a bit too obvious: it's an awfully self-serving formulation for folk who really don't want to see that kind of richly deserved mockery of religion spreading (or even just too much of an upset to the old social rules they figured everyone was supposed to keep). I mean, what, you're popular?... Well, then, stop whatever you're doing. It must be wrong.
Going beyond the safe to say into the somewhat speculative, I'd also say what's happened was probably inevitable, too, in retrospect. The suppression of such voices, the suppression of the loud, laughing cries of 'how fucking ridiculous' always took effort on the part of organized religion and its fellow travellers. That natural and richly deserved ridicule was and is always threatening to break out; that pressure was always there, always will be. As to why, hell, it's a longer essay than this to get into, but keeping it short, it's just this: you just can't fool all the people all the time. Mostly just because there's too many of them, and humans have a natural curiosity you have to suppress to avoid that very thing happening.
That's not saying they can't shut it back down, so don't anyone get too cocky or anything. Because that's how PR works (and much religion, too, really)--repeat the same BS again and again and again and again until people start to believe it--you don't so much have to give reasons, if you do that, certainly not good ones, anyway. That's why it really isn't so necessary for any of the wanks insisting the new atheists are a boorish threat to all the arts, or a terrible danger to good science education or what have you even to make their case in a particularly rational way--they figure--and they may well be right--that the key is to keep insisting something must be wrong with them, that they must not be allowed to continue, they must silence themselves, reason be damned, we said it five hundred times, it must be true. The key is to convince people that there's fire behind all the smoke, or just to let them think they've got some justification for turning off, turning away...
To which all I can say is: don't you believe it. Not a word. It's smoke and mirrors and a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, and the obvious vacuity of their arguments on even casual inspection ought to have made this clear by now. America had a problem with science education long before PZ Myers started blogging, long before Dawkins had a single publishing contract. I find it beyond absurd to say now such voices are a liability in a battle so long-standing, when the principal factor about them that stands out as of the last few years is: they now have a larger audience.
No, I'd say, rather: let them continue. See where it goes. The simple notion that we should simply strike at the root of irrationality, call nonsense nonsense however large the constituency it claims has obvious merit even beyond its obvious integrity (which, as mentioned, might well be argument enough on its own anyway). Considering that there are so many more people apparently interested in hearing it, now, that alone should give anyone pause.
And especially considering that audience, I find a tremendous if familiar hubris in Mooney and his ilk: pronouncing 'they aren't helping', when really, I think it's pretty clear they don't really know that, haven't a fucking clue, honestly... These are forces that take their time to wend their way through the public consciousness. Knowing there are people out there who consider religion part of the problem, a lot of people who scoff at the very notion that the creationists ever waste another fucking minute of the networks' and the public's time, that may very well change the landscape in positive ways. Widens the window, as has been mentioned, among other things. Makes the right people braver, even.
But then, if the usual patterns hold, Mooney and his ilk don't even have to know what they're claiming about this so-called 'stridency' 'hurting the cause' is particularly true. There will always people who want to hear that message of theirs, too, anyway, as long as there are people who want to be reassured: these mocking voices, however much sense they may seem to make, they're just causing trouble; they're just being rude; they shouldn't be saying those things; so don't worry; we'll shout them down. And again, there's no need, on that side, especially, to make a lot of sense. Just say it lots, and loudly, and repeatedly.
So no, don't believe it. Or rather: if you pay them any mind at all, look well upon the evidence they give for their claims, or the striking absence thereof. And better, fuck, mock them for rhat too, to the degree they've earned it...
After all: what could be more fitting?
Posted by: Rod | July 14, 2009 10:38 PM
Thanks Paul and PZ. Never knew I was a deist. I'd heard the word but never bothered to look it up.
I asked the question because I was wondering whether it was people like me that Mooney was worried were being offended by the New Atheists and were being turned away from science.
Of course there is no danger of that with me. I am not offended at all by Atheism. It's all just ideas to me. But perhaps someone who holds similar beliefs/speculations who isn't a scientist would be offended. Or maybe deists aren't the people Mooney is concerned about.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2009 10:40 PM
Nicely said, AJ.
Posted by: bonze | July 14, 2009 10:45 PM
I just posted this over at the Mooney site and thought I'd add it here since it's such a nice quotation, coming straight out of the blue yet... relevant:
I thought I'd toss in another comment with respect to Crackergate. I just picked up Michael Lewis' "The Money Culture" at my local library and found it starts off with a relevant quotation from H. L. Mencken:
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2009 10:46 PM
Or maybe deists aren't the people Mooney is concerned about.
The key question has been, since the "framing wars" first started: exactly WHO IS the intended audience of people like Mooney and Nisbet?
They aren't ignorant enough to suppose the audience are creationists (or fundamentalists), so one can only assume they mean some nebulous "middle" that they have never defined, and at best merely opens them up to legitimate claims of their appeal to the fallacy of the middle ground.
Posted by: amandave | July 14, 2009 10:46 PM
Out of 15 entering classmates in grad school (Biochem, for those who care) I think only one or two are in tenured positions in research universities - the rest are a mix of govt, small colleges, not working at all, etc. Not including me, who went into business when I realized the baby would be there soon and would actually need to eat.
I know that all of us are out there swinging for rationality and the hoped-for role of science as the only useful way of knowing what the hell is going on in this big wide universe of ours.
Oh, and when my evil, looney advisor told me I was probably to "social" to make a good scientist (imagine, trying to establish collaborations with the lab down the hall!) she might have been annointing me as the chosen communicator. Too bad...
Posted by: Mark N. | July 14, 2009 10:49 PM
Long time lurker, first time commenter (I'll get the hang of html tags soon, I hope). The following may become part of an expanded piece on my blog.
America is indeed deeply mired in scientific illiteracy, but that is not what the “new” atheism, as a cultural phenomenon, is really about. If one had to pick a date to mark the beginning of the outspoken criticism of religious belief it would have to be September 11, 2001 when it was made clear to many just how destructive dogmatic religious certainty was. Richard Dawkins said, as only he could, what was on the minds of many in an essay entitled “Time to Stand Up,” saying:
“My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the "Day of Prayer" in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion.”
Before 9/11, our god-soaked president, certain of the ensoulment of blastocysts in Petri dishes, banned the derivation of any new lines of embryonic stem cells, setting back a number of investigations of promising therapies for a myriad of terrible ailments. Following 9/11, President Bush persuaded the American public to support an ill-considered war in Iraq, just as certain in the righteousness of his cause (and just blind to any disconfirming evidence) as the 9/11 hijackers were in theirs.
This new criticism of religious belief was not solely focused (quite rightly in my view) on only the most fundamentalist of believers, but also on the “moderates” (the very people M&K are courting) who provide cover for their more dangerous and fanatical co-religionists. Science is only one of the tools that are now deployed in dismantling the dangerously muddled thinking of the religious. In addition to science, there is history, sociology, ethics, and psychology. It is only because the religious make empirical claims about discernible, objective reality, that, if true for one, is true for all (i.e. souls, an afterlife, parthenogenesis, water into wine, the cessation of planetary revolution, and parting seas, at least when not walking on them) that science and the scientific method have little that is flattering or consoling to say to believers. M&K do not seem to get that and it is just too damn bad.
Posted by: tsg | July 14, 2009 10:56 PM
@89
Nicely said, but I just want to add one thing:
There is nothing "new" about "new atheists". What's new is the means of getting the message across is much more available. We are no longer beholden to an editor or publisher whose primary concerns are whether or not it can make money. Even a schmoe such as myself can have his thoughts (like this one) published for the world to read with a modicum of fuss.
No, what's new is that it's much, much harder to keep us quiet. So Mooney had to write a book telling us to.
Posted by: Rod | July 14, 2009 10:57 PM
Ichthyic, you are right. I have no evidence for any supernatural entity. But I don't think of my beliefs as baggage because I don't hold these beliefs very strongly. To me they are just speculations that I feel cannot be ruled out. I think it's correct to say we should not believe anything without evidence. But I feel speculation without evidence is scientifically valid.
I wonder if an Atheist position that says you are irrational if you even just speculate about the possiblility of some very vaugely defined "spiritual force" might be needlessly turning people off science.
Posted by: Rorschach | July 14, 2009 11:04 PM
You might want to think about that sentence again.
It's not even wrong.
Posted by: tsg | July 14, 2009 11:06 PM
Speculation is where science starts.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 14, 2009 11:20 PM
It's where it starts. The problem is that in religion that's where it ends. And it's also why I consider Rod irrational (harmless and I don't begrudge him the belief because of that), he's letting things stop there.
Posted by: Butter | July 14, 2009 11:23 PM
I wonder if an Atheist position that says you are irrational if you even just speculate about the possiblility of some very vaugely defined "spiritual force" might be needlessly turning people off science.
If you are positing the existence of something you can't define and for which you have no evidence, you are indeed being irrational--in the same way that I'd be irrational if I postulated that an invisible snarffle-farffle is standing next to me. If, though, by "speculating" you mean just indulging in flights of fancy, or thought experiments, then knock yourself out, though you should be cautioned that thought experiments tend to work better when you can define the elements within them.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 14, 2009 11:24 PM
Rather than trying to revise the whole "academic pipeline", wouldn't it be better to try something within the realm of the doable? Say, elective workshops for undergraduate and graduate students to provide practical experience in general science writing, post-doctoral positions at organizations like the Science and Entertainment Exchange and so forth? Make the opportunities available for those educated brains which want them, rather than forcing yet another curriculum requirement upon the indifferent.
Posted by: echidna | July 14, 2009 11:30 PM
There, fixed that for you (nod to Wowbagger).
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 14, 2009 11:30 PM
To me they are just speculations that I feel cannot be ruled out.
the question is:
Why do YOU rule them "in"?
have you ever heard the arguments in support of the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
I still maintain that the reason you think about them at all, is simply because of a natural reaction to ideas and concepts presented to you on an almost continuous basis within most peer groups, and every type of mass communication media within the US.
kind of like jonesing for a coke after repeated exposure to coke advertising.
your jonesing for a god concept, because you hear about it almost daily.
recognize it for what it is, at least.
Posted by: dreikin | July 14, 2009 11:33 PM
Reading Jerry Coyne's latest blog entry, I realized something: the accommodationists are the philosophical equivalent of “Nice Guys”.
Mainly in that they're mental image of who they're dealing with, and how to interact with them, does not match reality. That people don't need protectors, and sychophants are looked down upon by all but the people who are most likely to (ab)use them.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 14, 2009 11:35 PM
See?! See how many of the comments on this thread alone provide evidence for what I said @ #29?
***
Snorzel? :P
Posted by: John Morales | July 14, 2009 11:35 PM
Rod,
When you see such propaganda, it might be wise to research whether these putative positions are actually expressed by those who are condemned with holding such (and their positions are easily found via the Internet).
Atheism can be, but is not in general, an ideological stance. So far as I can see, those called the "new atheists" are merely being skeptical, rather than dogmatic ideologues, and are basically saying that religious truth-claims have no place in science, because such are either not testable or, if so, either fail the test or explain nothing that is not already explained.
Posted by: gb | July 14, 2009 11:42 PM
@Chris
My father gave me a axe to grind a long time ago. I have since replaced the handle twice and the head once. Yet I continue to grind it when I have a need for a sharp axe!
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 14, 2009 11:43 PM
Here's my solution : anyone with even an ounce of intuitive understanding of basic scientific and engineering methods (plural) needs to go out daily (as time permits) and (verbally) kick American retard ass, anybody, anytime.
Americans are fucking retarded. How do I know that?
NASA. Ares I. There you have it, in a nutshell.
Fuck accomodationism. It's a total failure.
Posted by: Paul | July 14, 2009 11:44 PM
comment 87 on the Intersection Newsweek thread, where some actual discussion has taken place:
And they accuse PZ of unthinking acolytes that hang on his every word. It's creepy, I think I need to stop visiting for my own health...I've just been trying to ride out the whole PZ vs. useless book debacle. Part of my instinct to give people second chances I guess, but they sure aren't making good on turning around the vapidity of their arguments.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 14, 2009 11:48 PM
The atheist position isn't about knowledge, rather it is about belief. One really cannot rule out the possibility, but this in itself isn't enough to break the atheist position. Sure there's the possibility that God exists, or Spinoza's god, or the gods of Ancient Greece, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There's the possibility that the universe resets itself every wednesday night on the stroke of midnight, so thursday we are created anew with the universe in the state it is now.But the atheist question is whether one has reason to believe in any of that. Is there a good reason to believe in Yahweh or Spinoza's god? Is there a good reason to believe that Odin and Thor are real entities or that the Giant Rainbow Serpent created the lands? Is there any reason to believe that the universe resets itself at midnight between wednesday and thursday or that we are brains in a vat where reality is but a computer simulation?
The atheist position is that there's not any reason to believe these positions unless there is suitable evidence for them. To exclude the possibility completely is one thing, but to think of that as atheist is to set atheism at a position that is not obtainable. An atheist is one who doesn't believe in a god for whatever reason, it doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of a god - there's just no reason to support such an *absurd claim.
*absurd given where the evidence points
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 15, 2009 12:00 AM
"A far better approach is to work with religious believers to help separate their personal religion from everybody's shared science, and move toward a much needed middle ground."
yeah, they'll be so open to that.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 15, 2009 12:03 AM
holy CRAP! I submitted my comment, and it didn't take forever, and the message that came up was "you comment has been submitted!"
Amazing!
Posted by: JT | July 15, 2009 12:13 AM
I wonder if an Atheist position that says you are irrational if you even just speculate about the possiblility of some very vaugely defined "spiritual force" might be needlessly turning people off science.
First rule of any sort of attempt at a genial debate: Do not lie about your opponent's motives to his face. No matter how hard you try, you are not going to convince your opponent that he holds a position that he knows he does not. You are only going to tick him off.
Posted by: Lynna | July 15, 2009 12:19 AM
When my father was dying, religious people hounded him. I was torn between being glad that he had visitors and sad that they took advantage of his weakened state to preach to him. His religious visitors did more than just preach, but the balance of human kindness/empathy and preaching was too often out of whack. Finally, my dying father had to use some of his very little strength to say to my brother, "Tell that preacher not to come here anymore. And tell him not to pray for me."
My mother's strong connection to a religious community complicated the situation. She was the "Grandma" who needed reassurance. We couldn't give the dying man what he wanted without offending the living wife. The vulture-like religious community could have been more understanding -- but they saw the whole thing as an opportunity.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | July 15, 2009 12:22 AM
Dear Brother Thomas Lee Elifintz @109
As per your impassioned generalization I have been going out and kicking all the American retard ass I can find.
I'm now completely exhausted and my foot hurts. Would mind if I moved onto a different activity involving gratuitous name calling? Off the top of my head I thought it might be fun to sodomize anyone with a stupid surname beginning with "E".
Where do you live again?
Yours in Christian generalization,
Smoggy Batzrubble
Posted by: Rod | July 15, 2009 12:30 AM
JT, to clarify I said "AN atheist postion" rather than "THE atheist postion" because I didn't want to assume that what followed was what any particular atheist is actually saying. Maybe that wasn't clear.
Posted by: Lynna | July 15, 2009 12:32 AM
Josh made a good point up-thread about some of Sagan's fellow scientists not taking him seriously because he spent time popularizing science. The time Sagan spent creating presentations that entertained and informed did not win him points from research scientists. I had forgotten that part of the story until Josh brought it up. Now that I remember it, I remember I was affected by some of that tripe and took Sagan less seriously myself. I rekindled my respect for Sagan later by watching his presentations again.
So, now PZ is also a popularizer of science. He'll catch flack from all sides.
Posted by: NoGurus | July 15, 2009 12:39 AM
I read this book last week and thought it had some good points, particularly about the lack of openings in science related positions for PhD's. If I remember correctly, the authors said that 7% of science PhD's get a university position with a possible tenure track, that most of them are hired as post-docs at 20-30 grand per year, and many soon drop out altogether. That is a pretty sad state of affairs and should be brought to public attention. I mentioned this claim to a biology PhD friend of mine the other day, who runs a biology lab at a major university, and he said the substance of the comments are true. He has had more than his share of disillusioned post-docs working for him. What is a possible solution to this problem PZ?
I also thought the authors made some good points about newspapers dropping their science sections in favor of fluff, about the lack of scientific scrutiny in politics, about the silly science in movies and that scientists should be a bit more diversified (e.g. PZ Meyers) in order to make a living.
I agree the book may have been a bit light on posing solutions, but it did a good job of pointing out problems.
Yes, they take on the "New Atheists," particularly PZ, as being too strident, but so what? If you dish it out you got to be able to take it.
I disagree with their position that the science blogs are not up to the caliber of the mainstream press. The good ones offer better, more precise and neutral reporting than newspapers, since they are not beholden to editors and advertisers. And unlike newspapers, they willingly offer themselves up to immediate criticism from folks like me, who will call them on their b.s. or bias.
Overall, I find this debate to be childish and silly, and that you guys are more on the same side than against each other. Don't let your egos on both sides descend into this foolishness. Kiss and make up.
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | July 15, 2009 12:41 AM
Where do you live again?
Earth, retard.
An American retard told me that America was the greatest country in the entire universe. You earthlings ain't got nuthin on US retards.
Posted by: Paul | July 15, 2009 12:43 AM
If you're going to dish it out, you need to be able to support it with evidence. That's the issue people are raising with UA (even the "positive" reviews).
Posted by: Newfie | July 15, 2009 12:45 AM
Only one way to solve this spat:
Meyers vs Mooney Cage Match
Sunday Sunday Sunday
Posted by: Lynna | July 15, 2009 12:51 AM
Shorter Mooney: If I'm nice, everybody will be nice to me.
Mooney, meet Reality, which is here to kick your butt.
Posted by: Chris Clarke | July 15, 2009 12:54 AM
Grant funders.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 12:56 AM
Fuck Kwok is annoying with his hero worship of Ken Miller. If I were Miller I'd do something before Kwok kidnaps him and puts locks him in a dungeon basement.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2009 1:05 AM
What is a possible solution to this problem PZ?
I'm not PZ, but I can tell you that Mooney actually had one of the solutions spelled out in the title of his first book:
The REPUBLICAN war on science.
in short, don't vote republican unless they clearly guarantee large amounts of general science funding.
While the TOTAL amount of grant money available to NSF and NIH has certainly increased over the last 30 years, relative to the number of scientists and grad students, and relative to funding for general biological research, it's gone down an order of magnitude.
You can't have a career as a scientist if there is no money for science, and by and large most of the grant money still comes from the large fed agencies*.
As much in disagreement as I am with Mooney over his current drivel, his first book did an excellent job of documenting how bad funding for non-applied science has gotten since Reagan under republican administrations, with only a minor recovery during the Clinton presidency.
I recall meeting biologists in the 70's who told me it would be a great career.
By the time I finished my undergrad in 87, I had grad students and professors in all areas of science warning me how bad it had gotten.
I had a buddy who was a chemistry grad student introduce me to a friend of his who had a PhD in marine biology and now sold medical equipment for a living.
*That WAS beginning to change to independent nonprofits supplying some funding, but I think much of that ended with the crashing economy.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2009 1:06 AM
Grant funders.
ah.
funny 'cause it's likely accurate.
Posted by: Lynna | July 15, 2009 1:20 AM
The Submission Overlord has spoken.
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 15, 2009 1:20 AM
Dogma is useless. And authoritarian atheist extremism that acknowledges no other viewpoint as existing, much less legitimate, is dogma, plain and simple. Unless science is taught and done your way, by forcing people to choose between science and their personal faith, it is useless according to you. The Pluto issue is telling in that commenters here make blanket statements such as "there is no controversy" and "scientists got together and agreed on a definition." This shows complete denial of reality. What about Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of New Horizons? What about the hundreds of planetary scientists who signed his petition rejecting the IAU definition (which itself was adopted by four percent of the IAU, most of whom are not planetary scientists, in a process that violated its own bylaws). Do these scientists not exist to you? Instead of responding to these issues, commenters on this site choose to make personal attacks against those raising these issues. It sure seems like groupthink to me when everyone is parroting exactly the same idea.
And what's with all the profanity? Is this some sort of fantasy of reliving high school? Do commenters just enjoy hearing themselves swear every other word? It does nothing for any of your arguments and makes this a site completely unsuitable for kids.
You condemn Mooney and Kirschenbaum for "self-promotion," yet you seem to have no problem with self-promotion when it is done by those who support your views, such as Neil de Grasse Tyson in "The Pluto Files." He did extensive promotion for that book, and so would anyone who publishes a book. What you show here is a clear double standard.
In the world of this blog, PZ Myers is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to science, but by him.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2009 1:29 AM
And authoritarian atheist extremism that acknowledges no other viewpoint as existing, much less legitimate, is dogma, plain and simple.
and strawmen are so easily knocked down, eh?
Posted by: Cat of Many Faces | July 15, 2009 1:32 AM
@ #129:
Yawn, been there, read that. Got the troll t-shirt.
Posted by: NoGurus | July 15, 2009 1:34 AM
Good points Ichthyic. Thanks. I will have to track down and read the other book.
Posted by: JT | July 15, 2009 1:34 AM
JT, to clarify I said "AN atheist postion" rather than "THE atheist postion" because I didn't want to assume that what followed was what any particular atheist is actually saying. Maybe that wasn't clear.
Your intent was clear enough. If I said it's "a Christian position" that abortion doctors should all be murdered in cold blood, I would rightly be called out for implying that a position only held by a few extremists is mainstream. Likewise, I am calling you out for your obvious (and I suspect deliberate) misrepresentation of "an atheist position".
Posted by: Athe the False | July 15, 2009 1:36 AM
Yep.
In fact, I have. Why shouldn't we be able to have an honest discussion with our own parents?
Posted by: bob | July 15, 2009 1:41 AM
@Paul 110: It really is bizarro world over there at The Intersection, huh? I had to stop commenting, and will soon have to stop reading.
It's so bad, that I've found myself questioning if the propagation of science/skepticism/etc blogs are a somewhat-dangerous double-edged sword. The proliferation of sound, logical arguments online have taught the true-believing putzes how to co-opt arguing strategies for their own nefarious purposes. They're becoming neo-sophists.
Amazing. Mooney/Kirshenbaum are doing such a piss-poor job backing up their arguments at their blog that I'm starting to think they might be CORRECT about science blogs being bad, because theirs is so spectacularly bad. They're like a Mobius strip of bullshit.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 15, 2009 1:48 AM
Strawman. Where is this authoritarian extremism that acknowledges no other viewpoint as existing? Point to it please, because I believe you misrepresent what people have said here.
Strawman. No one is forcing people to choose. They are simply challenging superstition. The Godly are free to profess their faith so long as they do not try to distort science with cant, lies and unreason.
What's with the high-handed moralizing and sanctimony? Certainly all other areas of my public life are not short of profanity. Why should I deny myself here? It is a lubricant for robust discourse. Your complaint is petty and potentially an end in itself. We have encountered many trolls who dismiss any argument where profanity is used. Frankly, they are useless cnuts who can fuck off.
I doubt that anyone here has a problem with authors promoting sales. However, the suggestion here is that the ideas are so limp and weak that the book is a effectively vehicle for positioning the authors as the pre-eminent communicators in this field; to make themselves gatekeepers to the media. There is some circumstantial evidence to support this view.
Posted by: Anna Lemma | July 15, 2009 1:49 AM
M&K are completely mistaken according to the latest Pew poll. This poll was geared towards people who are not especially scientifically or mathematically inclined. They were asked several basic science questions and questions about their attitudes towards scientists. The results showed that the public is well aware of the irreligious attitudes of most scientists. Even so, these "delicate religious people" ranked the "godless" scientists in the top 3 most trusted professions, along with teachers and the military.
My father is a fairly religious man. We have generally avoided discussions regarding his religiosity and my atheism. It works very well for us. I was surprised recently when he mentioned that perhaps it was a good thing that scientists have a more down to earth approach to things. He thought it was necessary to keep religious movements from going off the deep end. Even my religious father understands the issue better than M&K.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2009 2:00 AM
Mooney/Kirshenbaum are doing such a piss-poor job backing up their arguments at their blog that I'm starting to think they might be CORRECT about science blogs being bad, because theirs is so spectacularly bad.
Projection:
Not just for creationists.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 15, 2009 2:00 AM
Personal faith. Neat how people can have that, their own personal "how the universe and I came to be." Quite right to point out how unfair it is of party-poopers to assert that not everyone can have their own personal origin of everything, to claim that there's a reality.
So nice to have options. But I try to be more original than that, so instead of a personal faith I've opted to have my own personal physics. Though I look fat, I'm actually thinner than any of you. Also I can fly.
I just choose not to.
Posted by: JoshS | July 15, 2009 2:03 AM
Jesus Christ, Lauren Kornfeld, give it a rest. We get that you're all about Pluto. We get it. Enough. But just because some here don't agree with your take on that particular issues doesn't mean everything else the Mooney set lobs at atheists is true or supportable.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2009 2:04 AM
Personal faith. Neat how people can have that, their own personal "how the universe and I came to be."
Your own personal Jesus
Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 2:16 AM
"Can't we all just get along" has never, ever, resolved a conflict. Just sayin'....
Posted by: JHS
|
July 15, 2009 2:18 AM
The common theme running through the recent deluge of criticism against the (strangely titled) "New Atheists" -- as I understand it, none of us are born with the King James Bible hard wired. Or the Koran. Or [ whatever ]. We're all born atheists, without preconception, without prejudice or sectarian bent. Tabulae rasae. There's really nothing "new" about it -- is basically, STFU. From Canadian church ladies to so called "science journalists," people sure don't like their fellow citizens, friends, and neighbors much when they learn that they don't idly believe in the same Iron Age mythological stories. Even supposed fellow travelers like Mooney feel just plain icky when people like us skewer the credulous. And, frankly, I can see where he's coming from, in so much as I'm familiar with the vaguely self-hating thing.
There are two distinct schools of thought on this. To illustrate, let's take gay rights. I, personally, as a gay man, think that anything short of equal rights is "separate but equal," a travesty, a corollary of centuries of abuse and derision, an expression of individual religious dogma that has no place in gov't, etc, etc, et al, and so on. The accomodationist, Log Cabin Republican position with regard to gay rights goes something like this: sure, I'm homosexual, in that I'm attracted to persons of the same sex, but beyond that, I want nothing more than to indulge in the same picket fence, 2.5 kids, carpool, uppermiddle-to-upper class fantasy that these straight folks at the country club enjoy. Maybe I'll even douse myself in failed Reaganomic trickle-down economic thought to save face. [Despite that fact that I attended and enjoyed and grew from the experience in my youth,] I resent the lascivious images handpicked by Fox News of gay pride parades. [The parades and the people at them, mind you, not the strategically edited footage on Fox]. That's not me! It never was! Therefore it should never ever be for anyone else, ever, amen!
Begging your pardon for indulging in a bit of hyperbole there, but you take my point. There are certain nonbelievers who, basically, feel bad about it. They admire and perhaps secretly admire those who are satisfied with woo. The paintings, the songs, the power and dominance, the cultural ubiquity, the stained glass, last but not least the popularity, etc etc etc, ad infinitum....these all seduce them. They do not believe, but they desire.
To be honest, I don't think that M&K really desire the woo so much as they don't want the woo to turn on them. It's better to be an agnostic and halfway please your Auntie Em than to be an atheist and give Auntie a coronary. They're hedging, and in the most shameful way. They are the Vichy France of the scientific, rationalist community, and they know it. They are arguing for better communication between the scientific community and the public (good), but they know that the public is, frankly, scientifically illiterate, so they don't want to frighten the villagers, and thus they deride anyone who authoritatively does so (bad).
Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 2:19 AM
Fuck off.
Posted by: Kagato
|
July 15, 2009 2:22 AM
I think you hit every troll talking-point there!
Well done!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 2:31 AM
Dear lord, Laurel what is wrong with you? You have a blog dedicated to this Pluto issue with dozens of long posts going back all the way to August 2006. This whole Pluto thing is nothing more than an issue of semantics. It's totally trivial. Don't go to your deathbed regretting you wasted your life to this meaningless topic. I'm saying this for your own good.
Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 2:32 AM
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!', but 'That's funny...' -Isaac Asimov
Before there's even any evidence to examine, somebody has to go find it. That search starts with "I wonder if ...", in other words, speculation.
Posted by: bastion of sass | July 15, 2009 4:11 AM
Sounds only to be a more detailed version of UA which seems to be about science kissing the butts of people who believe silly things.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 4:17 AM
So what if religious people are offended?
When it comes to politics, ideologies, science, etc. people are expected to defend their positions and not to get offended by others merely questioning it. Mockery is brushed off. That’s not the case with most of the religious. I don’t think people here have been especially harsh to the religious. The religious, for the most part, have been oversensitive, coddled, and as a result generally cannot handle being challenged well.
The notion that someone questioning or disagreeing with you is worth being offended over is ridiculous. I’d find it just as ridiculous if a Republican was offended that someone questioned the wisdom of lowering taxes or a Democrat being offending that someone was critical of their plans on health care reform. Most view it as acceptable to question political leaders, but that wasn’t always the case. It only changed because people decided not to remain silent.
M&K think that rather than challenging this oversensitivity we should be restricted by it. They're wrong. Everybody should be challenging this blatant attempt to control the conversion by the religious. If the case for their beliefs really is as strong as they seem to think it will survive criticism.
M&K seem to have been influenced by some of worst aspects of the public relations industry. Rather than seeing this debate as an opportunity to discuss the issues they have treated it as a marketing campaign. We are told endlessly to go "read the book". They have used a minority distrusted by the public as a scapegoat. They are low on substance, high on self-promotion. Ironically this strategy is so transparent that it has turned many off.
M&K shouldn't be lecturing scientists about public relations; they should be learning from scientist on how to argue one's case.
Posted by: Logicel | July 15, 2009 4:35 AM
Rod at #97: I wonder if an Atheist position that says you are irrational if you even just speculate about the possiblility of some very vaugely defined "spiritual force" might be needlessly turning people off science.
I have recently spent time communicating with such a person on the net. Anecdotally, this speculator in the supernatural, though an agnostic, was more focused on what he perceives the necessity of belief in belief. And as others have brought out, that is a very problematic perspective in a world that has terrible acts being committed in the name of non-evidential beliefs. The moderates will continue their enabling of a system that is rotten to the core, that is, institutionalized deference to respecting such beliefs as long as they insist that belief in non-evidential belief is a good thing which can be held widely and in the public, tax paying sphere.
While moderates may not hold extreme non-evidential beliefs, they still hold them and hold them to be positive and good for society. All they can possibly say though, at this point in time (unless research shows otherwise), is that such beliefs may be good for their own individual and adult selves. And that's it.
The atheists at present, with the aid of the Net, are changing the zeitgeist to one where religious beliefs are held up to scrutiny like any other idea or concept. They fully support the holding of such beliefs, but not deferring or accommodating them or allowing them special privileges. If religious beliefs are kept in the private realm, they will be in a realm where they fit, where they belong.
All the good things that religion has hijacked will remain: empathy, striving to improve our lot, etc. I live in such a culture in France, where secularism is embraced by non-believers and believers alike. There is little talk regarding both atheist/theist perspectives. Individuals get on with their viewpoints in their own private lives.
Fervent believers in non-evidential beliefs, like Silver Fox, a poster here, insist that such beliefs must be percolating all through society in order for it to be a good one. Europe proves that not to be the case. Coyne also see this correlation, that when religion is kept out of the public, tax-paying realm, society does well. And since religion is one of the obstacles to getting people to accept reality and evidential truth, less religion in the tax-paying collective sphere is a positive move in getting science to be in the forefront of making important collective decisions.
Religious beliefs need to be challenged loudly and consistently. Such non-evidential beliefs are welcomed to inform the personal narrative of people, but not to surface in the collective, tax paying realm. Public ethics need to be secular and based in knowledge coming from research and disciplines like Philosophy and Psychology, not religion.
There are different styles of challenging this status quo and different styles are required at different times and with different people. What is irking is the accommodationists insistence that atheists are operating like the borg. Atheists, at this time, are not. They are a varied bunch whose only connection is their lack of god belief and their concern that such belief is allowed to infiltrate a realm that needs evidential beliefs to function well.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 15, 2009 5:18 AM
Just to play advocātus diabolī here:
How many nursing homes. hospices. homeless shelters. charities for the support of widows and orphans, the unemployed, addicts and so on are run by scientific institutions?
Religion provides a stable, ordered, supportive and comforting role to those in need and taps into a part of the human psyche that science doesn't, and so it has a legitimate function in human society*.
Having said that: science seeks (sometimes unsettling) answers to (often difficult) questions, which is another vital part of the human psyche.
Perhaps science and religion should simply do the things they are good at and leave the rest to others.
Just my $0.02 - DJ
PS: Apartheid seems a bad way to go, but is appeasement any better?
________
*A personal anecdote (skip it if you want)
As my grandmother lay dying (in a nursing home run by the Catholic Church), my mother (her only child) sat with her. Every day a priest would come in and quietly sit with them. Finally my mother told him that neither her, nor her mother were particularly religious.
'That's OK', said the priest, 'but if you need someone to talk to, I'll be here.'
My mother began talking to him, first about innocuous stuff, and finally about the things she really needed to talk about, like how she felt about her mother dying.
She later told me it really helped having someone around who she could talk at, without worrying about the the possible blowback. A kind of on-site grief counsellor during that difficult time.
Posted by: Lotharloo | July 15, 2009 5:24 AM
The newsweek article is extremely silly.
That would be true if science and religion were compatible. They are not. So this solution promotes people with severe cognitive dissonance.
So Dawkins is expected to shut up and sacrifice truth for political correctness?
Half-correct. Religion is one source; one big source but not the only source. Dawkins, the poster-body, has said that as well.
I love that they have quoted Dalai Lama. That just explains the problem with the paragraph. People do incredible mental gymnastics to make up justifications for their beliefs. Dalai Lama is one of them.
There is nothing in science to justify some of the silly Buddhist beliefs. While we can't say reincarnation is "disproved", it certainly contradicts almost everything we know about human body: reincarnation is extremely unlikely to be true. So, if Dalai Lama is consulting scientists, we know what he should do: he must renounce his belief in reincarnation. But does not. Dalai Lama is not genuinely interested in science. The quote is simply a propaganda machine to make Buddhists feel good. Sadly, it also lulls some actual scientists.
So, at the end, I suppose their solution to promote science in Tibet is to claim that it has no conflict with reincarnation, to promote it in China we must maintain that it has no conflict with the notion of Chi, to promote it in Turkey we must say that it is compatible with beliefs in bad eye and so on. I wonder if what remains at the end resembles science at all.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 15, 2009 5:31 AM
personal anecdotes? OK here's mine.
I was hit by a speeding pickup while crossing the street. I had amnesia for a few weeks, so I'm relating what I was told.
As I'm wheeled into the hospital conscious but severely injured (spent over a week in ICU) a priest starts giving me last rites or whatever, praying over me. My father sees that this is freaking me out, asks the guy to leave me alone, the priest shoves my dad out of the way and continues to chant his voodoo over me. He's going to save my atheist soul whether I like it or not.
Comfort was not involved, unless you count his comforting himself by feeling he was doing something constructive and not something that would have been at best useless but was at worst damaging.
In a slightly more benign encounter after I was out of surgery and stabilized, a nun came over to talk to me about God, praying etc. I'm told I asked her with perhaps a bit of sarcasm "how many people have you saved?"
"I don't save people, God saves people" she replies.
"Well how many people has HE saved?" I ask?
I'm told that scared her off.
Posted by: John Morales | July 15, 2009 5:48 AM
DingoJack [a.d.] @151,
I would hope none; those are social services that Governments should provide (and, here in Australia, do).
(Admittedly, a lot of money goes in the form of grants to religious institutions, which have traditionally run such.)
That good people ran such under the rubric of their religious faith just shows how embedded the belief that faith is responsible for good behaviour was in the culture.
PS My three sisters spent their early childhood years at a Catholic orphanage. They have nothing good to say about it.
Posted by: SEF | July 15, 2009 5:52 AM
@ 89 (sort of):
The real new atheists are the ones who didn't have to get there by themselves.
In past woo-soaked eras, with fewer people overall, limited travel and almost no wide-spread communication (initially not even writing carrying information from previous generations to subsequent ones), any individual atheists had to arrive at their atheism by intellect alone (along with a heavy dose of personal honesty and sufficient anti-apathy curiosity of course). However, telling anyone else what you had worked out was frequently a death sentence.
Nowadays, with massive overpopulation, global travel and all-pervasive communication, when people can hardly avoid coming across other people and ideas, including ones which contradict or refute local woo (ie rival religions and science respectively), it's much easier to become an atheist - even accidentally (eg by happening to have both parents relatively non-religious). Better yet, in many places the religious nutters aren't simply allowed to kill you for it any more.
Those new accidental atheists are the ones the religious fear - not for who they are in themselves (since they can be shallow, feeble and not even particularly vocal) but for the fact they can happen at all.
To the religious leaders, it means they're losing their grip on the pool of available gullible victims/marks which provided them with their unmerited power and parasitic life-style. To the religious sheeple, it means other people aren't being victimised like them (the misery demands company principle). They're having forbidden fun, getting forbidden and potentially career-advancing knowledge, are not being raised in abject fear and enforced poverty and yet, outrageously, aren't the bad people they're supposed to be (and nor are they selectively suffering any genuine god-given consequences). It's not "fair"!
All other atheists are really "old" style atheists but with the new civilised-society right of being able to talk about it without getting tortured and killed by religious people. This makes many religious people cross (for the reasons given above). They (especially the sadistic sociopaths / psychopaths) liked being able to silence the old atheists and prevent new atheists from happening.
Posted by: Didac Lopez-Martinez
|
July 15, 2009 6:04 AM
Basically, New Atheists are an easier target. A far easier target than, say, fundies that can (character-) kill you. And a great lot easier than to reflect about the role of science in modern society. Scientific carreer (and scientific carreerism), scientific honestity, social compromise, relation between science and technology, and between science and economy, are all difficult issues. An emotional ones, also. It is very difficult to discuss about your own bread and the bread of your own offspring.
Posted by: SEF | July 15, 2009 6:17 AM
Moving on:
Now that mass communications are much more available for everyone to use, from the scientists being able to speak for themselves via blogs to the clueless politicians releasing their own material on YouTube or Twitter and with book publishing being far less exclusive too, what the official meejah communicators fear is finally being exposed as incompetent at their jobs and gradually being made redundant (as fewer people are relying on traditional meejah voices).
The scientists now actually get to say for themselves what they really meant or did and that they've been misrepresented by the trashy reporters. And perhaps nearly as many people will see that as would bother to read the original wrong-headed editorial - probably more than would have seen any not-pology retraction.
So, of those impinging threats, since they can't risk hitting out at the (dangerously insane) people with power (ie the politicians and TV evangelists) nor the potential pool of paying sheeple, they go for the safe option of picking on the largely non-violent and powerless truth-tellers (ie the scientists and atheists) and blame them - rather than blame themselves (for their own incompetence) or the march of technological progress.
The religious aren't the only faction desperately trying to hold onto an untenable position.
Posted by: Carlie | July 15, 2009 6:20 AM
Unless what you need is an abortion. Or contraception. Or to see your dying same-sex partner in their last minutes. Or to see your adopted child in hospital if there has already been one mommy or daddy checked off on the list. Or if you don't want visits by priests while you're already weak and vulnerable yourself. Religion has picked up some of the duties that government has abandoned, but at a steep price. How many religions would continue serving the poor and needy if they were allowed only to help, but not to proselytize while doing it? Is their concern really for the people, or simply for spreading their own meme?
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 15, 2009 6:32 AM
I love SOLVING problems - even if only in my imagination. Mooney ought to try it; it's ton of fun. In fact I want some fun now.
My Chapter 10 (partial summary for illustration):
Problems:
(1) some science teachers are unwilling (theists, cowards, etc.) or unable (icompetents hired because Ed Boards, etc. failing, or competents hamstringed by protocols and prohibitions explicit and implicit) to teach proper unadulterated uncensored science.
(2) some students are brainwashed outside the class to ignore and disdain science, and even are withheld from proper unadulterated uncensored science instruction.
Solution (without nuance):
* take science instruction (and others subjects too) almost completely outside the control of politics.
* let real uncensored experts make standards and instruction guides
* hire only competent and willing instructors (see experts for how)
* set rules that children get the real poop regardless of their parents' insanity and eforce them
See how easy!! Yup you can argue with me - hey I was just playing not really writting a book. And I left out details for sake of summary (but I could wax on - my imagination is not lacking). Again see how easy to do what PZ has rightly seen absent in his book! And don't you think much more productive than flaying away at straw men like their book does as I see it?
Posted by: DingoJack | July 15, 2009 6:34 AM
Jafafa Hots - I'm sorry that you met an sanctimonious priest. Ive met quite a few asshole cops. Should we ban cops too, because I've met bad ones?
I'd say that what's needed is kind of the opposite of the premise of M&K's book: religious persons need to understand that their beliefs are theirs, they don't get to share their woo with others unless permission is given.
Some have learned this lesson, some have not. Those that haven't need to undergo 'cultural sensitivity' training post haste.
John Morales* - Yes here that is the way it goes, however before the Government got into the act the Churches had been doing it for years (badly in very many cases). My point is let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nor should we naively believe that science can solve every problem. Each has their own function. - DJ
______
*Where the hell are you? I'm in Sydney! :)
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 15, 2009 6:46 AM
Before someone jumps me for the summary comment "..teachers are unwilling (theists, cowards, etc.) "
I mean theists that pretend (or do not pretend) to be honest scientists / honest instructors of science but are really just religous dogma teachers in disguise (or not in disguise).
I am not saying all theist scientists or science teachers are dishonest teachers and cannot properly compartmentalize. They can and do. I think it is weird they they force themselves into the dichotomy (how could they be believers?) but that is my opinion privately thought and I have really no right to value judge them on it per se,and I was NOT in my summary.
Posted by: XD | July 15, 2009 6:47 AM
DJ
Is anyone advocating the banning of priests? And cops are necessary. Of course, hospices are necessary too. There is no reason why either have to be religious though; indeed, I would say that it is preferable that they are secular.
Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 15, 2009 6:48 AM
"Jafafa Hots - I'm sorry that you met an sanctimonious priest. Ive met quite a few asshole cops. Should we ban cops too, because I've met bad ones?"
Can I think about that for a bit before I answer?
Anyway, who said anything about banning priests? I was just giving my own anecdote in response to someone else's anecdote that seemed to suggest that despite it being delusional and damaging to society, we should cut religion some slack because it made his grandma happy.
For all the millions of people who have been made happy by religion, there are millions who have been made unhappy - and there are millions who are neither made happy nor unhappy, religion made them dead and the dead have no capacity for pleasure or displeasure.
If the religious don't get to share their beliefs with others without permission, religion will die. What child has ever consented to their indoctrination? What child has the legal capacity to give such consent?
Asking religion not to impose itself on people is like asking water to not be wet.
That's what religion IS. Take that away and you don't have religion, you just have individuals daydreaming to themselves about things they don't have the answer to.
Posted by: Brian English | July 15, 2009 6:51 AM
DingoJack
I'm sorry that you met an sanctimonious priest. Ive met quite a few asshole cops. Should we ban cops too, because I've met bad ones?
Analogy fail (i.e. terrible weak). Remove the police and society fails, remove the priests and religion and nothing changes.
Nor should we naively believe that science can solve every problem. Each has their own function
Name the function of priests or religion that doesn't involve bullshit. Yes, some priests are good, some religious are good, but that doesn't mean that religion is good or has a function or can solve a problem that can't be solved without religion or priests. Terrible logic. How is it naive to not include religion when talking about things that affect humans? After all, religion is based on a false premise (that there is a god and supernatural realm). You can argue that there is no proof of any god's non-existence, but that doesn't mean that any reasonable person should think it true that a god exists.
I'm from Melbourne, can't believe that the folks in Sydney spout such illogic.
Posted by: Jason A.
|
July 15, 2009 6:52 AM
Every scientist I know enjoys telling people about their work and why it's important. It's just something you do when you're passionate about something, especially when you've devoted your life to it. The problem isn't getting scientists to reach out, it's getting the public to reach back. They're apathetic. Not only do they not see any need to know what a mitochondria is or that F=ma, they actively see it as undesireable to know (nobody wants to be a nerd, of course).
Look at any group of high school kids. It's a badge of honor to do poorly on a math test.
Posted by: Brian English | July 15, 2009 7:01 AM
P.S. dingojack. Don't get upset. I'm just a young "old"-atheist, trying to act like a new atheist. ;)
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 7:05 AM
No one is saying we should ban priests.
No one is saying science can solve every problem.
Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 15, 2009 8:00 AM
» Rod, #76:
But like many I tend to believe that there may be some kind of "force" or "intelligence" that you might want to call God. But I don't know that for sure. I don't have any evidence of it.
Well, that's the dictionary definition of 'bias'. As a scientist, you know what to do with bias. No, not discard it, but actively look for evidence that would run counter to it. As a biologist, you need to look no further than evolution. For all the philosophical implications of that, the place to go IMO is Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dan Dennett.
Posted by: Kismet | July 15, 2009 8:39 AM
@129
Fuck, this site is unsuitable for kids? I didn't know.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
July 15, 2009 8:45 AM
Ichthyic @126
What? You won't work for pretty sea shells?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 8:51 AM
Yes, this site is unsuitable for kids, of any age.
I assume when you say kids you mean those whose have not developed enough to begin to understand complex ideas. As for the swearing, well anyone mature enough to cope with subject matter here is not going to be damaged by someone saying fuck. The age at which people can understand the ideas here will vary. Many teenagers should have no problem, but some adults will. M&K seem to have problems with the content and the swearing, but then they seem to be like a couple of those delicate Victorian ladies that writers were once so keen on. The sight of an uncovered piano leg would probably upset them.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
July 15, 2009 8:56 AM
@129
Any "KID" that reads this blog, has already self selected him or herself, as sufficiently mature enough, that the site is indeed suitable for them. Case in point, my own kid!
Unlike yourself. Twit!
Posted by: John Morales | July 15, 2009 9:17 AM
DingoJack, I live in the Barossa.
Most of us* don't seek to prevent people from being religious, or the mandated abolishment of religion.
What we seek is that religion stops being privileged and instead becomes as accountable as any other activity; that it not be seen as beyond criticism and granted special status.
--
* There are exceptions — where are you Holbach? ;)
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 15, 2009 9:18 AM
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 15, 2009 9:21 AM
And Truth Machine needs to lay things down too...Me personally, I just want fundie religion gone. Couldn't really care less about those religions adapting to secularism and working towards a more tolerant and peaceful society. Problem is that moderates aren't doing their job and in the end and protecting fundies from just criticism by protecting the institution they prize. Problem as I see it is that many aren't willing to speak out against fundamentalism as it compromises their own position, and that's the sham of religion.
But hey, if people want to be deluded, that's their choice. all I ask is that their delusion doesn't affect me and I'm happy.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 9:27 AM
Also the "moderates" can be quite reasonable on one issue and batshit insane on others.
Posted by: John Morales | July 15, 2009 9:32 AM
Regarding language, I don't know about youse, but I well remember my pubescent years at school, and by damn we all swore like troopers* (when teachers weren't around).
I seriously doubt kids today are any more repressed than we were. "Kid safe" is a ridiculous conceit, especially on the internet.
The Laurels of this world seem to me to be unrealistic prudes. Hell, Laurel, you don't think kids search out hardcore pr0n first chance they get? Get real.
--
* Not that we knew what all the terms meant, but hey it's the spirit of the thing! ;)
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 15, 2009 9:37 AM
Heck, I'm pushin' 40 and still run into that now and then.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 15, 2009 9:40 AM
I dunno. The reflexive defense of religion (even among those who don't believe) is such a habit with so many, concentrating on the few folk who really do give it the what-for it may well deserve strikes me as rather a low priority. It makes vastly more sense to me to concentrate on the former. Ask 'em: okay, why shouldn't it be criticized? And vigourously. And honestly: what's it good for, what's it necessary for, really?
And speaking of, this whole 'science doesn't solve everything' is a bit of a red herring, there, too... insofar as it does not follow, even if this were true, that religion's really much good for anything even so. That, too, methinks, is one of those reflexive defenses of religion just alluded to, really, and not a particularly sensible or convincing one. If you go so far as to say: 'merely thinking things through clearly and going with what that reason tells you just isn't on if it takes you into conflict with established superstitions', I think it puts the lie to that false dichotomy. You can't say that much, anyway, and it seems to me that's what 'science doesn't solve anything (so let's use religion where it claims it does have a solution)' really implies.
That's the point. Maybe science doesn't solve everything, but reason and clear-thinking in conjunction with a decent set of the merely sensible human priorities that tends to make life workable (get along, where you can, work together, because we have to, because we're a hairless neotenous ape with crappy claws and really suck at living in total isolation anyway) probably solves as much as can be solved anyway. Religion doesn't have to enter into it; and again, on balance it's probably better for everyone if it just doesn't. Muddies waters better kept clear.
So getting back to that metaphor: I'm not so convinced there's much of a baby in that bathwater in the first place. More likely we're just going to find semi-dissolved soap scum, some rancid sweat... Mebbe some stray hairs.... Possibly some faecal matter... in fairness, I s'pose that might be good for fertilizer, properly used... (Die, metaphor, die...)
Posted by: MartinB | July 15, 2009 10:00 AM
@Lotharloo:
Before you categorically state that the Dalai Lama is not interested in science, consider that he regularly invites scientists to talk with him, that he has encouraged monks who can attain deep meditation states to work with neuro-scientists so that we can understand what actually happens in the brain during meditation etc. etc.
In an interview he was asked (I quote from memory)
"What if science disproves reincarnation? Would it have to go."
DL: "Yes it would - laughs - but it will be *very* hard to disprove reincarnation."
You are right that "There is nothing in science to justify some of the silly Buddhist beliefs." (apart from the word silly, perhaps). But there is also nothing in science to disprove it, which distinguishes it from other religious ideas which *are* contrary to science.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 15, 2009 10:04 AM
No, it's very easy. Reincarnation requires substance dualism. Substance dualism is firmly ruled out by everything we know about neurobiology and evolutionary biology. Therefore, reincarnation is ruled out by science. QED.
Posted by: BAllanJ | July 15, 2009 10:06 AM
That's probably true. But as an atheist who volunteered for 6 years staffing a distress telephone sometimes as many as 50 hours a month, I can tell you that it wasn't the funny collar that enabled the priest to help. The collar maid it more difficult, as you said about her early reluctance. We had various religions represented among our volunteers, but a golden rule was not to talk about our religions on the lines. It can be alienating to lots of people.
And another thing about the nursing homes etc... compare the care at a modern nursing home run on modern medical princples to that run by Mother Teresa. And they made her a saint!
Posted by: BAllanJ | July 15, 2009 10:08 AM
yeah, I know... "made" not "maid" and "principles"
Posted by: Thoughtful Guy | July 15, 2009 10:11 AM
It's not surprising that PZ hates the book considering they devote a good portion of it criticizing him. It also supports the view of accommodation, which PZ also opposes.
If you take a more objective look at, it does make some valid points.
1) There is significant problem with scientific illiteracy in the USA that has resulted in some set backs (e.g the global warming debate).
2) People on both sides of the issue have made some mistakes worth mentioning.
3) We need to find some middle ground if we are to find a solution.
4) We cannot afford to have ivory tower professors talking down to the ignorant masses, lest we drive them away.
5) Science needs more people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller to promote the accommodation strategy for overcoming scientific illiteracy.
Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 10:14 AM
I keep hearing this and I have yet to have anyone give me an example of a problem that religion solves.
Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 10:26 AM
"Of course he would say that, he was attacked"
Fail.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 15, 2009 10:29 AM
"Thoughtful" Guy, Mooneyboum indeed make many of the ASSERTIONS you list. Problem is, they don't trouble themselves to provide the slightest bit of evidence for their truth (and continue to fail to do so in their numerous "responses" to criticism). You may be willing to skip that little step, but I'm not.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 15, 2009 10:31 AM
Kel:
The problem, as I see it, is that there really is no such thing as moderate religion, at least when it comes to the Abrahamic monotheisms: At their most basic core, those faiths are inherently extremist and authoritarian, demanding uncompromised fealty to an omnipotent creator-god. If you call yourself a Christian (to limit myself to what I know a little about, though I assume similar comments could be made about Islam and Judaism) and you don't commit yourself utterly to the will of your God, UR DOIN' IT RONG! The fundies who call out moderates as weak in their faith are not wrong about that (even though they are wrong about whether being weak in a silly, false faith is a bad thing).
In addition to their many offenses against justice, as human institutions churches have a great deal to recommend them: They can be a focal point for a sense of community, and they can be the organizing center for good works, charity, and positive social advocacy. But if what you want is a secular organization working to promote charity, social justice, and peace, why not make it truly secular? In this context, a god-belief is at best a distraction, and at worst a force that perverts good intentions into social ills.
In my dreams, whole denominations announce to their flocks that "what we really care about is promoting justice and love for our fellow humans, and we've grown up to the point that we no longer need to pretend there's a god forcing us to behave justly... so from now on, we're a purely secular organization. Come to church as usual on Sunday to hear an encouraging lecture about social justice, but don't expect any hymns or incense."
But that's just a dream. In the world-as-it-is, the existence of "moderate" churches cannot avoid giving aid and comfort to their most radical coreligionists, and thereby magnifying the social ills attendant on belief in a supernatural dictator.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 15, 2009 10:33 AM
Since science is an adeistic (ignores god) enterprise, why should only the religious be at the forefront. Science needs all types, including the strong atheists like Dawkins and PZ. Accommodation and quiet is for people who want to retain the status quo. Change always requires noise, and if you study history that is what is seen.Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 15, 2009 10:34 AM
"Traditional" Atheism (100AD - 1600AD)
(Lots of dead atheists)
Old Atheism:
Jean Meslier (~1700) wrote a book-length treatise promoting atheism and refuting religion. Committed suicide and left it for publication after he was safely dead.
Intermediate Atheism:
Betrand Russell (~1900) wrote promoting atheism and refuting religion. Was denied a position (he was "EXPELLED") as a professor at City College of NY for his wanton views.
New Atheism:
Christopher Hitchens (~2000) wrote a book promoting atheism and refuting religion. Made bestseller lists, had a successful speaking tour, and - aside from too many expense account dinners - appears to be surviving just fine.
Remind me, one more time, exactly what about the "new atheism" isn't working?
Posted by: BAllanJ | July 15, 2009 10:36 AM
"3) We need to find some middle ground if we are to find a solution."
Unless it was trying to use the so-called middle ground solutions that got us here by totally failing to work.
Posted by: Fitz | July 15, 2009 10:37 AM
"4) We cannot afford to have ivory tower professors talking down to the ignorant masses, lest we drive them away."
Yeah PZ, stop driving people away by running a hugely poular science blog. You tell 'em ThoughtfulGuy.
Posted by: MartinB | July 15, 2009 10:38 AM
"Reincarnation requires substance dualism. Substance dualism is firmly ruled out by everything we know about neurobiology and evolutionary biology. Therefore, reincarnation is ruled out by science. QED."
I'll try to argue by analogy. If you have ever done fantasy role-playing games, you know that in them you impersonate a character within a fantasy world. If you are a character in the fantasy world, there is of course no way for you to realise this fact, but from the outside (as a player) you can. If you play *two* different characters (at different times, for instance), there is no way anybody within the fantasy world can realise that these characters have something in common, but from the outside you see it easily - in a sense, you could say that one is the reincarnation of the other.
I'm not saying that this is how our world works (heck, I don't even believe in reincarnation), I'm just trying to show that things are not as simple as many people take them to be...
The same goes for an intervening God, BTW. If you consider it like the author of a book, it constantly interferes with the world without ever being detectable within the world. (You would not expect Harry Potter to say "Ms Rowling, I hate you!") There is nothing logically impossible with this and no way to disprove it. Of course, there is also no way to prove it either and you can, if you want, invoke Occam's Razor to say you don't see the sense in this kind of author-God. But invoking Occam's Razor is a bit different from claiming that science disproves it outright...
Posted by: ERV | July 15, 2009 10:39 AM
TG-- 4) We cannot afford to have ivory tower professors talking down to the ignorant masses, lest we drive them away.
LOL! If you had said that to me irl, I would have thrown a glass of water in your face, beaned you with the glass, and walked away.
If youre trolling, *high-five*.
Posted by: Thoughtful Guy | July 15, 2009 10:47 AM
I didn't mean it as a troll post, but rather just to promote more discussion. It's pretty clear there is a lot of bias against Mooney/Kirshenbaum here. How many of you have read the book objectively? Did PZ's review set a prejudiced bias?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 10:50 AM
Fine.
Why not go away, rewrite the post so you avoid pissing off scientists and come back when you are done.
That or tell us who these scientists in ivory towers are.
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 15, 2009 10:54 AM
Heh. Amusingly enough, I assumed that too... Had this impulse to hold up the post as yet another point supporting my contention above that mindless repetition of the same set of vapid, braindead assumptions sans evidence as natural laws to be received as holy wisdom and venerated as such without question is pretty much key to the whole PR strategy here... But then I thought: naw, too blatant; gotta be satire...
(/I mean, the 'nym itself is kinda a giveaway all on its own, really...)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 15, 2009 10:54 AM
@193
Doesn't help you. In your analogy there is a physical entity- the real-world game player- in common between the characters. Just what is the analogous entity that persists between a Buddhist's lives? Good luck specifying ANYTHING that could play such a role yet is compatible with science.
Science, by the way, doesn't "disprove" anything- that's an outrageous demand. What it can do is point to things that are sufficiently improbable that in practice they can safely be ruled out. And I"m not using Ockam's razor at all. I'm not saying the "something" that persists between lives is an unnecessarily postulated entity, quite the contrary, it's a NECESSARY entity for reincarnationists to postulate. I'm saying that the existence of such an entity is logically incompatible with a very large and well-established body of scientific knowledge.
Posted by: SC, OM | July 15, 2009 10:57 AM
Well, Abbie, I've often found your writing style prissy, complex, and overly formal. Why can't you just talk to people in casual, everyday language?
Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 11:02 AM
Says someone who clearly hasn't read any of this or the other 3+ threads dealing with the subject. Project much?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 15, 2009 11:04 AM
Bias? This is disagreement. You do realise that hold a counter-opinion to your own doesn't necessarily indicate a lact of objectivity?
Have you read the book? I haven't, but I don't need to in order to answer many of the charges, since Mooney has listed them himself on his blog. I form an opnion on the things that I can know without reading the book. I have no opinion on whether or not it is a good book for instance, but I also don't like the accomodationist argument. (Even though I might have made such an argument myself, in the past. My attitude has changed.)
Many people here simply don't agree with the idea of universal accomodationism by atheists, not least of all because they recognise that such a consensus policy is impossible, given that atheists don't belong to any single monolithic organisation. (PZ himself pointed out that, were he to adopt a more conciliatory tone, then someone else would simply fill the niche by offering a more strident voice) There are, of course, good arguments as to why accomodationism is both dishonest and unfair. (See above, and Pharyngula passim.)
Anyway, PZ is not the only critic to savage this book.
Posted by: DynamicUno | July 15, 2009 11:15 AM
Mooney's Newsweek article is atrocious. He refuses to take a firm stand and at one point actually argues that science and religion can co-exist, except when they can't. Then, to prove his point, he compares science to Buddhism - which is nothing like the Judeo-Christian religions in that Buddhism puts the notion of changing your mind in light of new evidence at the very center of its tenets.
I've not read the book, and I've heard both positive and negative reviews, but the article is just terrible, so I don't have very high hopes for the book.
Posted by: Badger3k | July 15, 2009 11:26 AM
@185 - religion "solves" problems that it makes up.
or to put it succinctly, "science can't solve everything, religion does't solve anything"
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 15, 2009 11:27 AM
You have your cause and effect backward. PZ was attacked in the book because he has been exposing Mooney's framing arguments for a long time as the navel-gazing, science-damaging, feel-good pablum they are.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 11:29 AM
Over at the Intersection Kwak is now revealing what a twisted sense of ethics he has.
He has been claiming that PZ told him in an exchange of e-mails that he (PZ) was a mediocre scientist. When asked to produce the email PZ said this in, Kwak refused stating there was an assumption that the contents of the email exchange would not be made public.
I take Kwak's position as being I can repeat things said to me in private, and that is ethical, as long as I do not produce the evidence to support the my claims of what was said.
Posted by: Mike Brotherton | July 15, 2009 11:34 AM
I have to agree with PZ's comments here and moreover make the case that there is already a large effort to implement Mooney's "grand solution." The NSF already asks for education/public outreach components in ALL the research grants they hand out, trying to make sure researchers are disseminating their knowledge broadly. And if Mooney doesn't have billions of dollars to do what the NSF is already doing, I don't know what he's thinking.
The problem is not with the scientists who are already doing a lot more than Mooney has a clue about. Well, I'm off to teach a bunch of professional writers about astronomy so they can get more and better science to their audiences:
http://www.launchpadworkshop.org
This one is NASA funded and my time is volunteered. We already do all this stuff for free that he gets paid to do. It's so bad of him...
Posted by: Rev Matt | July 15, 2009 11:41 AM
Mooney stopped being interesting and insightful when he decided to become a Nisbet clone. I used to really enjoy his posts and still have The Republican War on Science (my only criticism of that book was that it tended to create the impression that the Democrats were not also at war with science).
Posted by: Lowell
|
July 15, 2009 11:44 AM
Part III just went up. Nothing new, really. Just more hand-wringing.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 11:55 AM
The three part is up. Interesting tidbit:
There's also this pathetic response:
Buy our book! Buy our book!
Actually, as SC,OM mentioned, Screech Monkey said it best:
"You're starting to sound like something I'd see in The Onion: Blogger Shocked At Being Criticized On Internet; Bravely Vows To Fight On." [My bold]
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | July 15, 2009 11:57 AM
Not that much. There's been millenia for proof. Until there's evidence, null hypothesis holds.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
July 15, 2009 12:03 PM
Mooney admits to being a petulant child who blames others for his problems.
Like all children, Mooney hates it when the targets of his attacks can give their side of the story.
This explains a great deal.
Posted by: Prometheus | July 15, 2009 12:06 PM
"We also know the standards of intellectual decency, fairness, and so on that we’ve learned from years of journalism and in academia."
Screw them.
Seriously, they are emotional, intellectual and academic toddlers crying and kicking at the edge of the playground where the big kids are playing the real games.
This is revolting. The greatest crisis these lightweights have ever faced in their "careers" is an insufficiency of mirrors.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | July 15, 2009 12:07 PM
Said Mooney, said Kirshenbaum, too:
"We know very much more than you do.
If you try to enlighten,
You surely will frighten,
So dress up your science as woo!"
Digital Cuttlefish: I used occasionally to post "poems" on this blog, but you are much better than I am at it. So much better, in fact, that you make me feel small and insignificant when I read anything by you.
You don't want me to feel small and insignificant, do you!?
So in your future works, could you please ruin your scansion by inserting or removing a syllable every third line or so? And could you make sure that where rhyming is called for, you seldom quite achieve a perfect rhyme except among four- (at most five-) letter words? (Never, of course, use double or triple rhymes, as I've seen you do.) And would you limit yourself to simple four-line iambic pentameter verses in the scheme aabb or at most abab, since I'm no good with internal rhyming, sestets, sonnets, and other such versifying niceties!?
That sure would make me feel good!
[Do I need to alert *anyone* that this is an attempt at satiric snark?]
Posted by: ??? | July 15, 2009 12:11 PM
P.S. WOW Sheril, "The Science of Kissing" is your next book? That sounds fucking deep. I'll be sure to chuckle and keep walking if I ever see it in Barnes and Noble.
Deep, indeed. But will it be translated into French?
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 15, 2009 12:31 PM
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood (#136):
I certainly don't!
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 15, 2009 12:36 PM
O RLY?
And bloggers just hate traffic, don't they?
Posted by: Stu
|
July 15, 2009 12:38 PM
Let's see if this makes it through moderation over there:
Okay, that’s it. You’re nothing but dishonest hacks, and you’re not even good at it.
In response to PZ closing the thread with
“Now I’m afraid I’m going to have to close this thread. Its purpose has been well served: the fanatical Catholics and their crazy beliefs have been fully exposed.”
You say:
“Watching all of this, we were appalled. We could not see what this act could possibly have to do with promoting science and reason.”
It doesn’t. Because it wasn’t meant to. You know, LIKE HE SAID.
You should be embarrassed.
Posted by: Guy Incognito | July 15, 2009 12:41 PM
Actually, as SC,OM mentioned, Screech Monkey said it best...
I just read the post that prompted that comment. That Mooney fella is so thin-skinned, he could double as a fucking condom.
Posted by: Ray Moscow | July 15, 2009 12:42 PM
Well, the latest MooneyBaum comments -- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/15/pz-myers-vs-unscientific-america-part-iii/ --
finally admit that the basic problem is PZ's lack of respect for Jesus crackers.
Why didn't they say so in the first place?
Civilisation cannot stand without cracker respect all around.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 12:43 PM
BTW, are there any special plans for the anniversary of The Great Desecration?
Posted by: ERV | July 15, 2009 12:50 PM
@ #209-- Oh my god. I am actually really shocked at how awful that post is. Oh my god.
My comment, should it be deleted:
32. ERV Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
You are a disgusting, despicable creature, Chris Mooney.
Enjoy the warmth from the bridges youre burning now No one will build them with you again.
Posted by: Blake Stacey
|
July 15, 2009 12:57 PM
Feynmaniac (#220):
I haven't made any plans, but since I missed the anniversary of Sabot Day, I feel I ought to do something! :-)
Stu (#217):
That comment thread was twenty-five hundred comments long! If P-Zed hadn't closed it, the server would have melted.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 12:59 PM
May I suggest PZ sticks a rusty nail through photos of M & K ? Preferably ones where they are looking supercilious. Actually that will probable be all of them!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 1:03 PM
Argh......
#209 should say "Part Three is up" and it should link here. Tired.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 1:03 PM
ERV, I see that Kwak no longer seems to lust after you.
Tell me, are you really upset about that ? Only I know what you feel about him.
Posted by: DingoJack | July 15, 2009 1:03 PM
Jafafa Hots - Your argument seemed to be: "Religion is bad, 'cause I know a bad priest", if I know a bad cop, librarian, shop owner or council worker, does that make those entire classes bad? Yes, religion has cause great misery and great joy, terrible despair and transcendent hope ... (OK I'll get off the 'Tale of Two Cities' thing).. you get the idea. Can you objectively measure the negative and positive effects of religion? Can you calculate the net effect of suppressing religious belief? Without data how can we judge if religion is good or bad for a society?*
Brian English - Ah, from Melbourne that explains it ;) If you think you can run a secular hospices, homeless shelters & etc. I'd be more than willing to help out! But right now religious institutions tend to do this (some proselytise, most do not). If religion was suddenly to disappear, you think it would have absolutely no effect on society, really?
All I am saying is this:
a) not everything in religion is bad, not everything in science is good,
b) if people want to believe in something that comforters and soothes them that's their right (no matter how idiotic it is), as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, and finally
c) Religious belief doesn't change reality. - DJ
___________
PS Brian English - I'm not upset at all. I'm presenting a "Devil's Advocate" position, since all the pro-religious nutters know not to tangle with PZ and his crew :)
*Actually there have been studies (but I've lost the citation, damn it!) that show that societies with a low religious and high personal freedom scores tend to be more progressive. Unfortunately the US shows exceptionalism in this (surprise!)
Posted by: ERV | July 15, 2009 1:11 PM
Matt-- I can think of anyone on planet Earth who deserves Kwok more than Mooneytits and Cockenbaum. I really, really hope they treasure their time with him.
Posted by: XD | July 15, 2009 1:12 PM
Surely, believing that a piece of bread turns into slices of god when someone casts a magic spell over it, is the very antithesis of science. It's positively medieval.
And M&K are wanting to protect those beliefs from even the merest challenge?
PZ's act was to say that even though a certain cult believes in magic crackers, no-one else is under any obligation to treat them as anything other than stale bread, unless they can provide evidence of their assertion.
If I claimed to believe that every-time someone started a car, an invisible unicorn was killed, and if I consequently sent death threats to motorists demanding that they refrain from such transport, would M&K defend my beliefs from those who would call me a fool? In order to be consistent*, I guess they would. However, what does that make them?
*I realise that consistency is not really their forté.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 15, 2009 1:13 PM
Careful now, ERV: John's Kwok is hanging out, and it has your name written all over it. His strange obsession with you continues unabated; I think he's hoping to save you from the terrible PZ, so that, you know, you'll be all grateful and everything -
The man really is a creepy, smug arsehole.
Really? I thought the above was some kind of love letter.
I somehow imagined that he was one of those weird stalkers who presumed they were in a relationship with someone just because the object of their desire didn't vomit on them the first time they saw them. And I still think he has rescue fantasies.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 15, 2009 1:19 PM
Okay, since I won't be able to say it over there, I'll say it here:
WHAT A BUNCH OF MOTHERFUCKING WATB ARROGANT DOUCHEBAGS.
Just a taste of the delusions of grandeur:
we decided we had to speak out about Myers in a way that would really be heard.
Ah, yes, without your clarion call, the world would be oblivious! To your steed, brave knight!
Though we have not said so until now, Myers is among the central reasons we left ScienceBlogs.
Right-y ho, you waited until you had a book to sell.
There were many factors involved, of course, but one was our shock at what he calls “Crackergate.”
And they are surprised when we call them a bunch of pearl-clutchers? "Shock!" May woyd! Run! Quick! To the fainting couch!
We describe the full incident in the book,
But let me guess, you're going to take it completely out of context here (and thus, presumably in the book).
but let us quote from Myers’ words when he closed off comments (there had been over 2,000) after posting his picture of the defiled eucharist with a rusty nail driven through it:
...in order to expose how crazy Catholics get over a cracker, up to and including assault and death threats...
Ah yes, the journalistic integrity of not including that part. Sweet as wine. Probably went to school for that one, right?
So anyway, they quote PZ's explanation of the purpose for the "desecration":
Now I’m afraid I’m going to have to close this thread. Its purpose has been well served: the fanatical Catholics and their crazy beliefs have been fully exposed. Over 2300 comments on this subject in 20 hours is quite enough.
Since you quote it, I suppose you read it, right?
Watching all of this, we were appalled.
*faint* ... good thing you ran to the couch!
We could not see what this act could possibly have to do with promoting science and reason.
Not a fucking thing, since that was not what it was intended to do, you complete and utter tool. It is in the paragraph right the fuck above this one. Jesus Ass-Spanking Christ this is the most moronic non-sequitur vapid piece of apologist clap-trap I've seen in a long time.
It contributed nothing to the public understanding or appreciation of science,
Unscientific America contributed nothing to the public's understanding of penguin mating habits. Dunce.
and everything to a nasty, ugly culture war that hurts and divides us all.
A nasty, ugly culture war with religious lunatics? Hell yes, but Mooney, what you and your ilk don't seem to want to realize (even though you've been told over and over and over and motherfucking over): that war has been going on for a long time, and the other side doesn't care how nice you are to them. THAT is the entire point you're not getting, and THAT's why your book is, in the end, completely useless.
The way you misportray Crackergate means you're either dumb as a sack of hammers (which would make you a shitty journalist), you don't do research (which would make you a shitty journalist), or a liar (which would make you a shitty journalist). Take your pick.
we believe he cultivates a climate of extremism, incivility and, indeed, unreason
You can believe all you want. If you expect people to agree you might want to back that up.
And it is past time that someone spoke out about that, as we did in Unscientific America.
Hark! Hark! Lord Mooney has arisen from his fainting couch and rides once more to save reason and civility! Harooo! Harooo!
For too long, people in the science blogosphere have tiptoed around Myers.
Are you fucking shitting me? Crackergate was controversial amongst science bloggers, and plenty of them spoke out.
After all, he can send a lot of angry commenters your way.
Oh noes! Not angry commenters! Fetch Lord Mooney's fainting couch! Send for varsity vassals Kw*k and McCarthy! They will show them!
And he, and they, are unrelenting in their criticisms, their attacks, and so on.
The smelling salts! Quick!
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.
Take your Courtier's reply and shove it. Your non-rebuttals have been pathetic enough to merit scorn all on their own, not to mention your excerpt.
But we’re not afraid of Myers or his commenters.
Sound the trumpets! Lord Mooney and Lady Kirschenbaum will lead the way!
They can leave hundreds of posts on our blog–we readily allow it–
Would it that you would read them, too. Let alone understand.
but our book will be read by a different and far more open-minded audience.
Wait, you're telling "new atheists" to shut up, but THEY'RE the narrow-minded ones? What fucking hypocrites you are.
And that audience will largely agree that Myers’ communion wafer desecration was offensive and counterproductive
Because you say so? Holy flying fuck you're an arrogant pair.
and that more generally, he epitomizes the current problems with the communication of science on the Internet.
Whiny, arrogant, argument from assertion, hyperbole all in one shiny package of bullshit. Bravo.
We know how many others agree with us, because we have heard from them.
Has this been disputed? Why are you saying this, other than for proving what a defensive little whiner you are?
We also know the standards of intellectual decency, fairness, and so on that we’ve learned from years of journalism and in academia.
BWAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA. No you bloody well have not. You have quotemined, misrepresented, asserted, lied, avoided and whined.
And if, as our book proposes, we are going to be training young science communicators, they must learn at least two basic lessons they will not be getting from Myers: civility and tolerance.
Civility has to be reciprocated. Tolerance has to be reciprocated. And again, YOU are preaching tolerance by calling for people to shut up?
horde of loyal followers who see themselves as the disciples of reason
Buddha on a pogo stick, grab a mirror. Project much?
and swear by “science” (when they’re not just swearing).
You're getting a little confused here, aren't you? Running out of steam a little? That didn't make any sense whatsoever. And why the scare-quotes?
That doesn’t just say something unflattering about Myers–it says something devastating about all of us.
Ah yes, a perfect pseudo-profound coda to your ongoing concern troll.
Pathetic.
Posted by: ERV | July 15, 2009 1:21 PM
Bernard-- Get the conversation off me over there. Encourage Kwok to stick with Mooneytits and Cockenbaum. Itll be awesome when he goes off the rails there, after all the support TittyCock have given him over this affair.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 15, 2009 1:24 PM
Brilliant Stu.
Do you reckon M & K have to buy cucumbers pre-sliced ? Only if they saw a whole they might be reminded of male genitalia and go all faint and giddy. And if they both did it, who would be around to loosen their corsets ?
Posted by: J.D. | July 15, 2009 1:27 PM
Every time I post over there it gets delayed for "moderation" yet I have never in the slightest used any kind of profanity or personal attack. Just issued my last post ever on their site. I was an Intersection reader. I used to have respect for Mooney even when I disagreed with some of his points I could at least understand his POV. I know everyone agrees on the need for improved science literacy in the public sphere and I certainly sympathize with some of his thoughts regarding how arguments are presented can turn some people off. However they went way off the deep end with unwarranted attacks, dishonest tactics and total non-responsiveness to thoughtful commentary to the point that ironically they have alienated me in addition to I'm sure alienating many of the much more hardcore aggressive atheists. Nice "framing" and bringing of camps together there. Maybe all the people he wants to accomodate will become his loyal fans and readers but somehow I doubt that very much. Very disappointing and an incredibly piss poor job of what he described framing if you ask me although it does match another definition of that word quite well. Don't know when it might get out of moderation but here is my last post ever over there in part 3 of their so called rebuttal to PZ:
Posted by: Stu
|
July 15, 2009 1:30 PM
Abbie, you have more experience with Kwok than me -- does he seem to become increasingly unhinged and narcissistic, or did I just forget?
Posted by: Logicel | July 15, 2009 1:32 PM
M&K left science blogs for a more receptive audience? Don't they know how the net works? Of course, they do. They did say they do not mind the PZ hordes leaving comments so they do realize they are not 'safe' from being skewered by their opposition.
This statement of theirs seeking receptivity is typical of their confused and confusing language. What are they really saying? I think they are boycotting science blogs because it is sullied with the likes of PZ and at first it was a secret protest (What else would you expect from a pair of compulsive politeniks) but now their protestation is out in the open (a bit too late if you ask me, they don't seem to understand boycotting dynamics either).
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 15, 2009 1:35 PM
TG #184
Try my #159
My point and PZ's too: K+M added nothing substantial to solving the problem (heck they missed or ignored the obvious root cause - and thus have failed to produce well formed problem-solution statements) as many here have pointed out.
Let me try it for you: we have a "science" problem because religion has too much sway in our so called secular society. It poisons the well so often and yet we still kowtow to it or are told we must kowtow to it.
If kowtowing even more to it seems like a great strategy to you then you all are hopeless. PZ outside of this blog is a gentleman from all I've ever heard. And telling it like it is is not a crime I hope.
See my playful - sketched for illustration - problem/solution in #159. Then show us where in K+M they attempt anything substantive like that with the detail that a book would allow (note: they can have a different slant - I said LIKE - in form and meaning).
Sorry - but I think PZ is polite and spot on - others here try to be for most part. But stupid for the sake of stupid (not saying you are) sometimes requires tough love to correct.
Posted by: XD | July 15, 2009 1:35 PM
They were shocked when PZ threw a piece of stale bread in the bin (not something a Catholic would do), just as I was shocked when Sheril ate a hamburger (not something Hindus would do), and when Chris ate a bacon sandwich (not something Jews/Muslims would do).Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 15, 2009 1:38 PM
Just a matter of time really. Unless they have a superhuman tolerance for wankery, and that little Kuckoo Klok fails to erupt.
Posted by: Watchman | July 15, 2009 1:41 PM
It's interesting how Kw*k called Kseniya a "delusional troll" for suggesting that the reasons Kw*k had been banned from Pharyngula and from ERV were worthy of notice. She shouldn't have wasted her time. The "Survivor" thread proved that Kw*k has neither aptitude nor inclination for self-examination. What was that she said about fascinating blind spots?
I do wonder why we're spending so much time on the guy.
Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 1:44 PM
From part III
So, you took 192 pages to say "can't we all just get along?"?[1]
[1] Maybe some grammar nazi can tell me where those two question marks are supposed to go.
Posted by: XD | July 15, 2009 1:45 PM
Since when does everything on a blog -- even the ones at scienceblogs -- have to contribute to the public understanding and appreciation of science? Are they really saying that every post they made on their blog contributed to the public understanding and appreciation of science?Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 15, 2009 1:48 PM
Stu #230,
Bravo!
Oh wait, you used bad words. Your opinion thus is invalidated.
Posted by: Alexis
|
July 15, 2009 1:48 PM
Bill Gates has done something that will do more for science than this book in question. He has started a web site that will offer videos of the best science lectures and presentations that he can find. He is starting with Feynman lectures from 1964 that had greatly impressed him twenty years ago. You can read an interview at CNET News http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10286732-56.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea.1 . Here is a quote from the interviewer Ina Fried: Gates first saw the series of lectures 20 years ago on vacation and dreamed of being able to make them broadly available. After spending years tracking down the rights--and spending some of his personal fortune--Gates has done just that. Tapping his colleagues in Redmond to create interactive software to accompany the videos, Gates is making the collection available free from the Microsoft Research Web site.
Gates said that he hoped his action would serve as a model for taking great educational content and making it broadly available for free.
"When a lecture is presented as well as this, it draws more people in to understanding science." Gates told CNET News. "And over time I hope there's more like this."
Posted by: Onkel Bob | July 15, 2009 1:50 PM
Mein Gott Stu - that is vicious - brutal - and absolutely brilliant. You really need to try to post that over there because the blogger who shall not be named might just have a fatal dose of the vapors, and that would be a good thing.Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 15, 2009 1:51 PM
PZ, responding to an earlier query about a commenter's beliefs, writes:
Could one be a theist and meet the same criteria, PZ, or does theism inevitably make demands to be privileged in the absence of evidence? This is a genuine question, I'd like to know people's thoughts.
Scott
Posted by: Stu
|
July 15, 2009 1:53 PM
Hey, let's start a Pharyngula pool on how long it will take for M&K to quote my comment as being representative of Pharyngula.
It's heartening to see a bunch of people showing up in the comments over there expressing rank, frank disgust. I thought it was just me for a minute.
Posted by: davidm | July 15, 2009 1:57 PM
Yeah, right, P.Z., Mooney is "scribbling madly" to refute you. Just imagine if he had ignored you entirely. Then we would have gotten from you and your fanboys: "What a coward Mooney is, not to confront the terrible wound which I have dealt him!" Or suppose he had did something in between: given a cursory response to your "review" of his book. Then we would have gotten from you and the sycophants: "What a superficial response Mooney gave! Has he no shame?"
LOL. Of course no matter what he did, he couldn't win. That's because of your God-like rightness.
I'm an atheist and I find you and your blog, and your acolytes, nothing but repulsive, and terribly destructive to the causes that you purport to advocate. And don't think I'm the only atheist in this category.
You have the temerity to claim that Mooney personally attacked you in his book. What do you do every day on your blog, but personally attack theists with your repeated two-minute hates against them? Do you think you're converting anyone, or winning them over? How? By calling them morons?
Why your bigoted diatribes against theists are even worthy of a blog spot on a site that cliams to be about science remains utterly elusive.
Posted by: Lynna | July 15, 2009 1:59 PM
Chris and Sheril wrote in Part III:
Notice that they cannot leave the issue of "swearing" alone. They're fixated on the bad words to their own detriment. Good Heavens! Golly Gee Whiz! PZ allows his commenting hordes to SWEAR!
I have to go lie down.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 15, 2009 2:00 PM
Sorry, Scott, but if you're a theist of any particular stripe, yes, you believe in some truly wacky, irrational stuff. If you're an evangelical theist, then by definition you go around demanding that your irrationalities be given special privileges.
However, I know quite a few people who believe in that same looney-tunes crapola, but they don't demand that it has to given any precedence at all in discussions of how the world works, who we should vote for in the next election, or which team will win the Stanley Cup. We get along just fine. No one should be asked to abandon beliefs that are part of their personal conscience and that they act upon in their private lives -- they just shouldn't try to use them to drive the cogs and gears of a pluralistic society.
Posted by: XD | July 15, 2009 2:00 PM
They did exactly the same thing when they made the "Expelled a Box Office Success" blunder. It's their modus operandi.1. Make a bad argument, usually out of spite.
2. Receive criticism.
3. Ignore criticism.
4. Blame everyone else.
5. Cry persecution.
They claim to be pro-science atheists, but their behaviour is straight out of the creationist play-book.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 15, 2009 2:04 PM
Oh boy, another David M?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
July 15, 2009 2:06 PM
So, you're basically admitting that Mooney failed to address and of the substantial criticism of his work?
And I would say that devoting three blog posts of barely coherent arguments in a day to essentially reiterate his disdain for PZ (whilst ignoring all other critics) must qualify as "scribbling madly".
Oh no! Now Our organisation is ruined. This is just like the Reformation all over again (I forget which one...).
Posted by: DingoJack | July 15, 2009 2:09 PM
Stu posted a bravura piece of sarcasm (#130):
Meanwhile... :) - DJPosted by: SC, OM | July 15, 2009 2:11 PM
Um, you seem to have left out a possibility there. THEY COULD HAVE ADDRESSED THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CRITICISMS AND QUESTIONS PUT TO THEM BY PZ, OPHELIA BENSON, JERRY COYNE, VARIOUS COMMENTERS, AND OTHERS.
Posted by: Damian | July 15, 2009 2:12 PM
— Call Pharyngula readers "fanboys" and "sycophants" - check.
— Claims of hurting science, unevidenced - check.
— I'm and atheist, but... - check.
— Claims PZ personally attacks religious believers, completely misunderstanding the reason for the criticism about personal attacks - check.
— Insinuates that all that PZ does is call people "morons" - check.
— Calls PZ a bigot, unevidenced - check.
Come on, davidm, only six? You can do better than that, surely?
Feel better now?
Posted by: Tulse | July 15, 2009 2:16 PM
I do find their fixation on PZ bizarre to say the least. I mean, no offense to our genial host, but PZ is not exactly a household name, and I can't imagine that the vast majority of the lay audience they want to reach has even heard of him. To an outsider, unfamiliar with the science blogosphere and more specifically with SciBlogs and their history, their now four postings regarding a review by some blogger in Minnesota must seem inexplicable, especially given the emotional tone of those postings (and especially since they always go on about the tone of others). Frankly, their behaviour seems staggeringly unprofessional to me -- they could have handled PZ's objections in a single, detailed, detached posting. Instead they've prompted a flame war. Nice going for the Great Communicators.
Posted by: Lowell
|
July 15, 2009 2:28 PM
Ophelia Benson called them the Toothpaste Twins, which is the funniest thing I've read on this whole kerfuffle, except Stu's post at #230. Bravo, sir!
May I suggest you attempt to post a bit of it over at Lord Mooney and Lady Kirshenbaum's place? If you could use the word pantaloon as well, it would be greatly appreciated.
Posted by: Lynna | July 15, 2009 2:30 PM
I would not be half the woman I am if PZ did not cultivate my extremism, incivility and unreason daily.
Bleh. Insulting in a way, that Chris and Sheril think I depend on PZ (or anyone else) to make up my mind for me, or to determine my personal traits. I was like this before I found PZ's blog -- so on what, or on whom, should we blame this unruly expression of individuality?
How about we blame me.
Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 2:35 PM
Sure he could. He could have answered the fucking questions.
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 15, 2009 2:36 PM
"Fuck off."
Back at you. And at a certain 424 members of the IAU, whose motives you naively believe are pure as the driven snow.
"Dear lord, Laurel what is wrong with you? You have a blog dedicated to this Pluto issue with dozens of long posts going back all the way to August 2006. This whole Pluto thing is nothing more than an issue of semantics. It's totally trivial. Don't go to your deathbed regretting you wasted your life to this meaningless topic. I'm saying this for your own good."
I'm sure you believe that last sentence, just like the Soviet officials who sent dissidents to Siberia or the inquisitors who burned people for being "witches" believed they were doing these things for their victims" "own good." You're trying to "save me" from wasting my life? Gee, sounds familiar!
I can devote my life to any purpose I want. Maybe I'll do you one better and become a nun!
Posted by: AJ Milne | July 15, 2009 2:42 PM
Hey... Do those ever do that vow of silence thing? Or was that just the monks?
(/Just wondering. Totally academic interest, honest...)
Posted by: Sili
|
July 15, 2009 2:42 PM
Guy Incognito,
Please don't say that. We want to get people to use fucking condoms.
Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 2:45 PM
Nice reading comprehension: a) irony, b) I didn't say shit about the IAU or Pluto, I was addressing your attack of the vapors over a couple of words.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | July 15, 2009 2:52 PM
Sorry, Scott, but if you're a theist of any particular stripe, yes, you believe in some truly wacky, irrational stuff.
PZ, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I appreciate your time. I don't disagree with the above assessment, of course. It IS irrational to hold views that can not be supported by evidence, and I will cheerfully admit that I do believe things that I can't prove, among them the existence of God. Theism, from this point of view, is inherently irrational, and I don't think you have to apologize to me for pointing that out....:)
However, I was more interested in the second part of your reply, as to whether or not theism inherently attempts to privilege itself. My intuition is that you are right, that there are some varieties of theism that do by their very nature demand privileges. I would love to hear what commenters have to say about that. What is it about some religious views that lead them down that primrose path?
Posted by: tsg | July 15, 2009 3:20 PM
Oddly enough, I think it's a case of natural selection: the religions that discourage scrutiny of their claims survived better than the ones that didn't[1]. Once you have a bunch of people thinking it's wrong for them to question their beliefs, it's not a far leap at all to think that nobody else is allowed to either.
[1] Really, it's not hard to imagine an exasperated preacher inundated with questions he can't answer saying "right, new rule: no more freakin' questions".
Posted by: noodles | July 15, 2009 3:23 PM
Allied Atheist Alliance (AAA) or Unified Atheist League (UAL)? This is a UAL blog. AAA-type alleged "atheists" are not welcome.
Posted by: Rev Matt | July 15, 2009 3:24 PM
@Tulse: They focus on PZ because their desired audience is right wing evangelical Christians who most certainly DO know who PZ is. I think that they truly believe that if they can just speak reasonably and respectfully to these people they can make them understand that science doesn't require them to stop believing in their God.
I also think they're as wrong as it's possible to be, but I at least credit them with acting in what they believe to be the best interest of, as they say, "science". As with Nisbet they are more concerned with people liking them than with accuracy in the short term, viewing that as a path to convincing said people to change their own views. Which always works out wonderfully.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 15, 2009 3:24 PM
Jafafa Hots @ #163:
Quoted for truth, and because I'll probably be stealing it later.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 15, 2009 3:38 PM
Scott Hatfield OM #264 wrote:
At the risk of repeating what's been better said many times before, I think a good part of the problem lies in the nature of "faith." Accepting that subjective evidence is 'good enough' -- for those who are good enough -- divides the believers off from the non-believers not because of differences in their conclusions, but because of presumed differences in their basic character. And different rules apply then to the different groups, with one side getting an unfair advantage.
In a religious context, faith is a commitment to believe a proposition as if one is putting trust in a person, or a value. There's always evidence supporting any special revelation or spiritual intuition, of course, but the evidence is only supposed to be persuasive to those who are "open" to it. Such faith-ready people are eager to believe in its virtue. Receptive to truth. Capable of rising above the mundane. Sensitive to that which is sacred. And willing to make difficult commitments which will be tested by those who are lesser, because those without the gift of faith cannot be as tolerant, enlightened, and "open" as those so gifted. By definition.
It is one thing to disagree with someone because you think they have their facts wrong. It is another thing to disagree with someone because they suffer from defects in character which can only be changed through their own choice to be better. If it's the second case, there is no point in dialogue, or persuasion, or argument. It can be abandoned whenever inconvenient.
Is the existence of God a science question? If it is, then believers and non-believers stand on the same ground, where they objectively draw a conclusion from the evidence. Such a conclusion may or may not be correct, and can be refined.
If it's not a science question, then believers and non-believers are separated by attitude and character. You've got a fact claim which is being treated like a value claim. This gives privilege to the person who has the value.
Apply it to another question and see. Is there a sea serpent in Loch Ness? Well, that's like asking if I love my mother, or experience beauty, or believe that hope is something that lifts us up. It's not about the size of the lake, or the consistency with our understanding of aquatic creatures, or coming up with reasonable explanations for why people would think they saw one when they didn't. No, it's about making the choice to believe, and leaping into mystery, in order to strive to fulfill what is best about being human. You cannot be compelled to accept the monster's existence: it's a matter of embracing its truth with the heart. And so on, and so forth, and see how you're screwed. The playing field is not level. And they can play tennis without a net.
Posted by: Badger3k | July 15, 2009 3:43 PM
I agree that a religion that allowed people to question the tenets (especially if they made no logical sense or contradicted the real world), that religion would find itself reduced to deism, eventually. The "I can't be questioned or confronted" angle is a survival mechanism. One of the things that caused me to shed all faith is that none of the religions could support what they said with any evidence - I had no way to determine what might be correct, and, since I had no evidence any were correct, I had to accept that. My personal feelings were irrelevant to reality. This scares the crap out of many people, and they don't want to hear anything that challenges it, unless they can explain it away.
I honestly have to say the Intersection post was hilarious, especially once Kwok got on a Ken Miller roll (or is that a roll on Ken Miller?)
Posted by: Aquaria | July 15, 2009 3:48 PM
#267:
What is that saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions?
They're on the path to a fresh new hell, and they're mad at the warning signs along the road that at first point out alternate routes, or get increasingly more emphatic about turning back. Then they're mad at the cops trying to turn them back.
Sane people would stop at that point and say--maybe this isn't the path we need to follow. Maybe there's a reason so many are warning us against it, and trying to show us other paths to get where we want to be. And maybe it's really, really stupid, to vandalize the signs along the road, or hit at the cop who's trying to save you.
Posted by: TiG | July 15, 2009 4:01 PM
Best, most entertaining thread I've read in a while.
Except where is Cuttlefish? I miss the poetry.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 15, 2009 4:02 PM
Is Laurel Kornfeld still whining about how mean the IAU was to poor, unappreciated Pluto? There's a famine in Kenya, Mugabe is still driving Zimbabwe into the ground, the North Koreans are testing missiles, there's a recession in North America and Europe, and Fred Phelps is still ranting, but does any of that seem to concern Laura? Apparently not, she's still keeping her unrequited love for Pluto aflame to the disregard of real world situations.
________________________
Note to self: Remember Stu when this month's Molly is up for a vote.
Posted by: XD | July 15, 2009 4:09 PM
His poem at #46 is a classic.Posted by: phantomreader42 | July 15, 2009 4:18 PM
Kismet @ #169
I can't see a single damn reason why! :P
Honestly, how can adults be so fucking stupid as to not realize that kids already know the naughty words? I've known these words for two decades. Everyone at my elementary school had heard them already. And not a single one of those students died of the vapors. That seems to be exclusively an adult affliction.
Why are people so terrified of a handful of words? Why go to such effort and waste so much energy complaining about the word "fuck", when it's our absurd attitudes toward sex that cause so much real harm? Why whine about the words "damn" or "hell" when it's the concepts behind them that are truly obscene? Fear of neverending torture is taught in every Sunday school, used to enforce conformity through terrorism, scarring innocent children for life, and no one even bats an eye! But dare say a naughty WORD, and the motherfucking bastards who won't lift a finger to clean up the shit and piss some asshole left on the bathroom floor never stop screaming!
I suspect the terminal case of the vapors people like Mooneytits get is a symptom of an inability to deal with actual reality. They don't want to hear dirty language, becasue they don't want to accept that there's anything that needs to be described with dirty language. They don't like being reminded that there are assholes in the world who spew shit all over everything, so they faint at the words "shit" and "asshole".
Posted by: Stacey C. | July 15, 2009 4:22 PM
Stu...if I wasn't already married and didn't think stalking someone on the internet was hella creepy....I'd find you and swoon at your feet, professing my undying love.
Posted by: Fallsroad | July 15, 2009 4:25 PM
@SC: It's like they see blogs as a one-way medium to promote their "real" productions to an audience.
Ah, the perils of framing. Framing isn't about useful discussion, nor is it really about concrete solutions - it is an end to itself. Bear that in mind when considering all that has transpired since the authors asked PZ to review their book, and the way they responded to said review, and it makes perfect sense.
They have utterly fallen prey to the "form over function" trap.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | July 15, 2009 4:50 PM
Scott:
My own take is that any form of theism in which the god is conceived as ominpotent and consciously desiring obediance to its will demands, by its very nature, privilege: The belief that you owe fealty to a supernatural, all-powerful being inherently subordinates natural and human law and social custom to the whims of a supernatural dictator who, because he's imaginary, is actually a projection of his human "servants."
Perhaps there are polytheistic and deistic belief systems that avoid this, but I'm not aware of any monotheistic religion that is not in fundamental theory a supernatural totalitarianism, and in practice a proxy human totalitarianism. As I've said elsewhere today, so-called moderate monotheists who practice "tolerance" are really just being untrue to the deep basis of their faith.
You hadda' ask, eh?
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 15, 2009 5:02 PM
I haven't made any plans, but since I missed the anniversary of Sabot Day, I feel I ought to do something! :-)
you could help me find more appropriate vids and content for crackergate?
http://www.crackergate.com/
I'm too busy right now to spend time on it.
If you find anything interesting, just email it to:
Ichthyic@crackergate.com
and I'll put it up.
cheers
Posted by: Knockgoats | July 15, 2009 5:03 PM
My point is let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. - DingoJack
I should think not! As fully certified New Atheists, it is both our pleasure and our bounden duty to EAT the baby - after boiling it in the bathwater.
Posted by: Medina64 | July 15, 2009 5:04 PM
I haven’t read Unscientific America and probably won’t. But I did read The Republican War on Science and thought it made some good points that I could see had affected my own career. I’ve been in the corporate R&D game for over 30 years and agree 100% that the God stuff has caused a lot of damage to science (after all, I do live in Austin). However, I also think there is more to our current state of scientific illiteracy than that. I think that big universities are really business institutions and not educational institutions (look at football coaches salaries, I’m not saying they aren’t warranted but they are strange) and that, consequently, all aspects of education suffer. I think that corporations have been cutting back on R&D efforts since the 60’s in the name of higher stock prices and faster profits. This has limited the jobs available for scientists and engineers, limited what they can earn, and put a lot of scientific decision making in the hands of bean counters and business development people (Dilbert is not far off). I think that government funding agencies, e.g. DARPA, DOE, and NSF, are often capricious and unstructured in their efforts leading to boom and bust cycles in research areas that drive people out those areas cutting short their careers. I think that DoD and the DoD part of DOE suck incredible amounts of money out of the budget for junk projects that could be used for real projects and programs that would provide lots of technical and scientific jobs. I also believe that this is to some degree a constant condition in American life, and agree to some extent with Hofstadter’s critique in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life. So, while I agree that we should always laugh and point at the people who believe in fairies, I also think that we need to sit down and really try to identify more concrete reasons for the drop in scientific interest than Jesus did it.
Posted by: SEF | July 15, 2009 5:15 PM
It is not correct to tolerate dishonesty. A zero-tolerance policy is required instead. Religion is dishonest to its very core. Religion also demands special privileges (along with its individual members wanting and demanding to be special) which it's also a very bad idea to tolerate. Hence most countries becoming more secular as they become civilised, in order to achieve better overall tolerance by suppressing the intolerance and evil of religion!
Religion isn't civil either. Quite apart from its murderous tendencies, there's its underlying dishonesty problem again. The style over substance people mistake lying (eg tact and weasel words) for civility. They're wrong. It's not really respectful or civil to lie to people and imagine one can get away with it. It's rude. It's an insult to people's intelligence and ability to eventually find out the truth (even if, sadly, with too many people it's a safe bet). Plus the religious are generally very uncivil (ie dishonest and violent etc) with their delusions and demands to be special (eg the origin of crackergate!).
So it's also not genuinely civil for scientists (and/or atheists) to lie by pretending that religion (faith, emotion and fantasy) is compatible with science (evidence, reason and reality). It's only storing up more trouble for later, as with raising a spoiled brat.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 15, 2009 5:15 PM
most kids know all the "bad" words when they're 10. what is it with this idiotic obsession of avoiding profanities in the presence of children?!
none, since those are social rather than scientific issues. they should be provided by society, preferably by the state (as to avoid the discrimination that often happens when these things are run by religious organizations).
1)If we get rid of cops, society collapses. if we get rid of priests... nothing bad happens
2)no one was suggesting getting rid of them, only not having them waste scarce hospital resources. secular counseling would be a more useful way to deal with people in crisis.
3)Police brutality and authority-abuse are serious problems which need to be adressed; what cops can or cannot do must be narrowly circumscribed, to avoid excess. where are the same restrictions on priests?
a)except that the bad outweighs the good in religion, and the good can be replaced with secular/humanist methods; on the other hand, in science the good outweighs the bad, and there's nothing else that can provide the good that comes from science
b)right. and who's arguing with that? (except bobc, holbach, and truthmachine, that is)
c)yes it does; it changes the social makeup of a society. it creates its own social realities, even if it cannot affect physical realities.
another name to add to next month's molly list.
so we're the 4-chan of science blogs now? fucking idiot. this is the internet; toughen up or go back to meatspace.
1)it's not just religion, but every group that was originally privileged and is having their privilege stripped (see slacktivist for good definition of a "persecuted hegemon")
2)when you deeply and passionately believe something to be correct, to be proven wrong would mean you can't trust your own mind. that is not pleasant, and to those who aren't good at dealing with uncertainties (a group to which a lot of conservative religionists belong) not being able to trust your own mind = insanity; so the more someone is invested in their truth-beliefs, the less willing they're to allow criticism.
3)the nasty mix of American Patriotism (or Southern Patriotism, for that matter) and religion results in insistence that you're literally God's gift to the world, and everybody should obey you and be grateful for your existence.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 15, 2009 5:43 PM
Police brutality and authority-abuse are serious problems which need to be adressed; what cops can or cannot do must be narrowly circumscribed, to avoid excess. where are the same restrictions on priests?
Who priests do must be narrowly circumcised, to avoid excess. Everybody knows that.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 15, 2009 5:48 PM
*groan*
Posted by: Stu
|
July 15, 2009 6:02 PM
I know, I know... sorry. Could not resist.
Posted by: Bobber
|
July 15, 2009 6:04 PM
I think the accommodationists are completely missing the boat in their attempt to make science more palatible to the general public. Hollywood-ization of science is exactly what is NOT needed - you will inetivably dumb down the science. If that sounds elitist, it's only because we have expecting so little from our children, in terms of teaching them critical thinking skills - and it's often because of the undue respect we afford religious/spiritual beliefs.
95% of my 8th grade students were adamant that God had created the universe. Half of them were young earthers, including the daughter of my team's science teacher. In this case, the children (all of them Christian) had been raised within their various churches, few of them liberal, and were operating on indoctrination and fear (of hell). These children become adults, and those adults continue to believe their childhood fantasies are real, not because some bad old scientists have challenged their beliefs, but because they haven't been challenged enough, and they have never been taught the skills necessary to critically examine their beliefs.
The accommodationists are picking a fight where one is not necessary. Their beef isn't with the so-called New Atheists. Rather, they should continue to train their intellectual guns on religious twisting of science education and sectarian attempts to influence policy. Don't want to be associated with vocal atheists? Great, that's your choice - but don't harm the mission of science and reason by taking rhetorical aim at them. They aren't the enemy.
Be gentle, be harsh - but be true to the mission, which is to promote skepticism, reason, and science.
Posted by: Mister Griswold | July 15, 2009 6:18 PM
Cuttlefish @ #46
Inspired.
Stu @ #230
That, was sweet.
MG
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | July 15, 2009 7:02 PM
Stu for Molly!!11!eleventy!
Posted by: becca | July 15, 2009 7:49 PM
Yeah, everyone knows it's only the grad students and post docs who stay in academia that are kept in cages.
Posted by: ERV | July 15, 2009 10:14 PM
AAAAAHAHAHA!
The III post comments are now just a troupe of goonsays doubting PZ ever had a FOR REALSIES cracker, and for all intents and purposes, not knowing what the fuck happened during Crackergate. But Moonietits is like, TOTALLY right!
AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! This was a fucking year ago, which is at least 100 years internet time, and these people are still behind!
Wait... I know how to end this.
Lets take them all on a hike up Candy Mountain!
Posted by: TTT | July 15, 2009 11:37 PM
I loved "Republican War on Science."
I don't think Mooney would have the backbone to write it today. A 2009 version would probably be "Some Perfectly Rational And Respectable People Who You Shouldn't Criticize At All's War On Science And Why You Should Say Please And Thank You With A Smile As They Constantly Attack You Which Is Normal In Their Culture Of Course."
Posted by: Stu
|
July 16, 2009 12:14 AM
TTT: I think you mean "The Republican War On Science: If We Only Bend Over, Grab Our Ankles And Say Please, I'm Sure We Can Make Them Be Nice. Some Day."
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 16, 2009 12:55 AM
Yes, me advising you to stop wasting your life on this Pluto issue it exactly the same as Soviet gulags and witch trials. ***eyeroll***
Spending hours on this Pluto issue isn't a punishment I'd want on my worst enemies. Yes, you are free to do as you wish. If you want to waste what little precious time you have been given on this Earth for Pluto's planethood, go right ahead.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 16, 2009 1:22 AM
Feyn, stop feeding the clinically insane.
Posted by: Lotharloo | July 16, 2009 2:39 AM
@MartinB:
I had demolished your argument in the same post you are quoting. If Dalai Lama is serious about science then he must go with the overwhelming consensus that reincarnation is an extremely silly superstition. But he does not. Therefore he is not interested in science. QED
By the way, in science we cannot disprove vague claims.
Posted by: MartinB | July 16, 2009 2:46 AM
@Steve LaBonne (198)
Sorry for not answering sooner, my internet connection broke down yesterday for good.
"Doesn't help you. In your analogy there is a physical entity- the real-world game player- in common between the characters. Just what is the analogous entity that persists between a Buddhist's lives?"
Seems you did not get the analogy. In the role-playing (or book author) situation, the player or author has no physical presence whatsoever within the world, that's the whole point of the analogy. You have to step outside to see him/her.
"Science, by the way, doesn't "disprove" anything- that's an outrageous demand."
That's exactly my point - I was answering to a post that claimed
"Substance dualism is firmly ruled out by everything we know about neurobiology and evolutionary biology. "
So in effect that post said that science *does disprove* reincarnation - and it was, after all, the point of the Dalai Lama that sicence will have a hard time disproving it.
My analogy was just meant to illustrate one possible way of how you could reconcile a (strange, I admit) kind of reincarnation (or an intervening God, if that's what you prefer) with all of physics, specially designed so that there is (and cannot) be a way to find out in our world.
If you now ask how this God could interfer and never violate the laws of physics and causality, the simple answer is that this cane be done easily if you are out of the timeline of our world. Like when the book author needs some character to find a treasure at some point, the author simply decides that at some point back in time the treasure was hidden there (and the author can decide by whom and why the treasure was hidden later, in his/her time, although of course causality works with a different timeline in our world).
So if God wants to have some brick fall on my head right now, it will simply go back to the big bang and twiddle some elementary particle quantum states to get the brick to fall now (if the world is deterministic and you are sufficiently powerful, that's easy).
Please note, I'm not saying that this is how the world works (how could I, since it is by design impossible to find confirmation for this model), I'm just saying that there is not and cannot be a way for science to rule out this scenario.
Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 2:59 AM
MartinB,
Well, that's vacuous. Neither can science rule out solipsism or "the matrix (a.k.a. brains in a vat)" scenario, or any one of a number of other speculations.
Guess we just have to soldier on with only empiricism and rationality to guide us, eh? :)
Posted by: MartinB | July 16, 2009 3:38 AM
@JohnMorales and Lothatloo
"Neither can science rule out solipsism or "the matrix "
I agree wholeheartedly. That's the whole point, actually. If you are religious, you would say "Since science cannot rule out this kind of things, I'll look for other means of studying this part of the nature of reality."
Of course, as someone scientifically inclined you will say that there are no ther means for studying reality. But that is a statement that in itself is not provable by science, obviously.
So if a Buddhist like the Dalai Lama claims to be able to study reality in a deeper, different way from science (get access to or insights about the outside world of the author/role-player in my analogy), for example, by meditation, you cannot disprove it. You can of course claim that all statements they arrive at are vacuous in as far as they cannot be verified by science.
"Guess we just have to soldier on with only empiricism and rationality to guide us, eh? :)"
Nicely said, and I agree, there's no better way to get along in this world.
Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 4:27 AM
MartinB, fair enough, and thanks for the clarification.
I'm quite happy that I misread you!
Posted by: debunk | July 16, 2009 5:15 AM
@ERV: Candy mountain charlieeeeeeeee!
Posted by: Kansas Trolls Team Member | July 16, 2009 8:01 AM
I love the smell of atheists bashing each other in the morning!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 16, 2009 8:03 AM
Looks like the Kansas Kid Fucker is back.
Posted by: Kansas Trolls Team Member | July 16, 2009 8:05 AM
I love the smell of atheists bashing each other in the morning!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 16, 2009 8:10 AM
I wonder which one this is. There are soooo many to choose from and all of them are idiotic. Some more than others, but all definitely from the moron family.
Posted by: TTT | July 16, 2009 8:56 AM
I loved "Republican War on Science."
I don't think Mooney would have the backbone to write it today. A 2009 version would probably be "Some Perfectly Rational And Respectable People Who You Shouldn't Criticize At All's War On Science And Why You Should Say Please And Thank You With A Smile As They Constantly Attack You Which Is Normal In Their Culture Of Course."
Posted by: tmaxPA | July 16, 2009 2:02 PM
DingoJack@151:
Religion provides justification for and constantly results in murder, rape, exploitation, and untold amounts of psychological torment. The only "legitimate function" of religion in a human society is as a counter-example to thinking and acting rationally.
All religion seeks unsettling answers to often the most trivial questions, in order to increase the social power of its priests.
What religion manages to accomplish is simply this: taking credit for anything good that happens for itself, and laying blame for everything bad that happens on others.
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 16, 2009 2:09 PM
"Spending hours on this Pluto issue isn't a punishment I'd want on my worst enemies. Yes, you are free to do as you wish. If you want to waste what little precious time you have been given on this Earth for Pluto's planethood, go right ahead."
I guess you'd prefer that I and/or others spend our time serving a god.
There is something a bit creepy in one person telling another how to live their life with the reasoning "it's for your own good." I'm not telling you how to live your life, and I expect the same courtesy in return. If you don't like what I'm doing, then don't do it yourself. I am perfectly happy and that's not wasting my life.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 16, 2009 2:23 PM
oh ffs, Lauren, you do realize that being insipidly boring and repetitive is a High Crime on this blog?
don't you have ANY other interests in your life? ANY other subjects you would take interest talking about? One-trick-ponies are fucking boring; diversify or go away.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 16, 2009 2:25 PM
Laurel, even. sorry.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 16, 2009 2:28 PM
You know what's creepy? Someone with nothing but time, a Google News Alert on "Pluto" and a crusade.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 16, 2009 2:37 PM
Laurel, a boring one-topic poster. And boring is a high crime against Pharyngula.
Posted by: ben | July 16, 2009 2:53 PM
Fascinating. So have you considered, you know, fucking off? I really think that would solve your/our problem.Posted by: antistokes | July 16, 2009 3:28 PM
Ok. crap. Laural has forced me from "lurker" mode to "commenting in a mean way" mode.
If you like Pluto so much, then, from what I have read, it's ok that whatever many orbiting objects now become planets under the new rules.... right? More planets-- cool! I am *totally Ok* with this, I am a mere chemist. Redefinitions = more planets, from what I am seeing in the literature. Cool. I like it. More planets.
We in spectroscopy re-define "rules" all the fucking time. Like, what is a diagnosis of cancer, and what is not? This is what I try and distinguish between-- cancer and NOT cancer, in the (patient) brain as the surgeons cut away. NOTE: *Not, in any way, a physicist; just dating one*.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 16, 2009 3:44 PM
Laurel, why is this such an important topic for you?
Were you a big fan of Disney as a kid and the demotion of Pluto stirred some childhood memories of Cartoon Doggies?
Posted by: Stu
|
July 16, 2009 4:14 PM
DUDE! DUDE! GUESS WHO SHOWED UP AT THE INTERSECTION THREAD!
John A. Davison. I shit you not. It's a reunion of loons! Go see!
Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 16, 2009 6:38 PM
"Were you a big fan of Disney as a kid and the demotion of Pluto stirred some childhood memories of Cartoon Doggies?"
No, not even close. That's Neil de Grasse Tyson's reasoning for people's responses to the Pluto issue, and he's wrong.
How about asking him or Mike Brown why Pluto is important to them? Mike Brown loves to comment ad nauseam how he killed Pluto, "put the nails in Pluto's coffin," "reshaped the solar system," etc.
I'm a writer, actress, amateur astronomer and astronomy student. And I do a lot of public presentations on the solar system.
Of course, if I'm guilty of a High Crime, that all may end when you send me to the guillotine.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
July 16, 2009 6:43 PM
drama queen. change the fucking subject, or piss off. insipidity is a bannable offense.
Posted by: Terrymac | July 16, 2009 10:36 PM
My grandson has just dropped science as a subject. I first thought he was just dumb but after reading these comments I think maybe it is because his parents are creationists or ID advocates and there is now a conflict in his mind. It's therefore easier to just drop out.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 16, 2009 11:01 PM
That's Neil de Grasse Tyson's reasoning for people's responses to the Pluto issue, and he's wrong.
Wow. Well, since you say so...
I'm a writer, actress
And you'd like to write your own things, and produce your own things, and have creative control, and be your own woman, and...
[100 points for the reference]
amateur astronomer and astronomy student.
Oh, goody! I'm sure you are thereby well-positioned to dispute findings of every planetary astronomer!
And I do a lot of public presentations on the solar system.
I pity the fool.