Pharyngula

Posted by: Paul | July 13, 2009 6:37 PM

PZ,

My favorite part is that the meat of your complaints are echoed by the other reviewers that have posted their reviews online. But they get approvingly linked, whereas you get ad-hom'd (of course he'd say that, he's (under attack | a New Atheist)). The main difference is the tone of the reviews, and others going out of their way to extrapolate maybe what M&K were trying to get across.

Posted by: koan0215 | July 13, 2009 6:40 PM

I haven't read their book yet, but I still don't understand why they addressed you at all. If they disagree with what you say, that's fine, but how does attacking you help move science education forward? In the end we all want the same thing. It makes much more sense to build a big tent here.

Posted by: SciencePundit | July 13, 2009 6:40 PM

Yes, because we all know that, unlike Dawkins, the creationists liked and respected Sagan.

Posted by: Ken Cope | July 13, 2009 6:43 PM

The point of MK's book, and blog, is to win the Templeton prize.

I don't think they'd have to win a Templeton prize to get a regular column in The Huffington Post bashing New Atheists, but it couldn't hurt.

Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 13, 2009 6:43 PM

I just got done reading their point-by-point arguments against PZ's criticism of their book and it was humorous, to say the least. It's obvious someone is a little hurt, and all the crying in the world cannot redress the book as something more substantial. Did they really think they were contributing to science? Perhaps their aim was more sociological, and even then, they failed.

New Atheists are not the problem, and if someone finds the style of Dawkins, PZ, Hitchens, and Harris abrasive, than don't listen to them. As PZ mentioned, atheism is diverse, and no two views can be specifically shared. Do you think PZ wants to embrace Dawkins and Dennnet's Brights movement? There are many things people disagree on; including how to treat the ignorant masses. Yet, this is what provides dialogue and life to New Atheism. If you can't accept that concept, and you want to shove your face deep into the accomodationist movement, go right ahead. Just don't expect to be treated with kid gloves.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 13, 2009 6:45 PM

Good god, that bit on Pluto is worse than I was led to believe. Oh jeez, the public suddenly caught wind of what scientists were up to, when the issue was at least as old as the finding of Charon (since at last they realized how very small Pluto was).

And they "suddenly" kicked Pluto out? Although Eris forced the issue, it was a long-standing issue. Granted, it was ignored for some time (why upset anybody, when it didn't seem very important?), but clearly they were going to have to decide what a planet was, pretty soon, with Kuiper Belt objects being found regularly, and (large as yet, but bound to become much smaller, especially with the Kepler mission) exoplanets counting in the hundreds.

And no, it really didn't bother most people much, and has died down quite well since then.

I have no idea what they think astronomers were supposed to do, mount a massive and expensive campaign or some such thing? I'm beginning to think that scientific illiteracy in America begins with Mooney and Kirshenbaum.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: urdsama | July 13, 2009 6:47 PM

Right now Mooney and Kirshenbaum (I assume they co-wrote the response) remind me of magicians: complete misdirection. Pay no attention to the lack of details behind the curtain. Is the title "Unscientific America" a reference to an issue in the United States, or the book itself?

Their blog has become more disappointing as time goes on.

-urdsama

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 13, 2009 6:52 PM

Another thing about the "Pluto controversy," they point to a lot basically joking/BSing nonsense that people were having fun with as if it were serious opposition.

Of course it's a bit fun to assert strongly that Pluto's a planet, no damn pointy-headed physicist going to tell you otherwise. Honestly, though, I think that few cared, outside of creationists (I've seen Pluto raised by them as another reason why scientists are wrong) and elementary school students.

They mistook a lot of joking for serious issues with science and scientists. Really, have they no understanding of society at all?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | July 13, 2009 6:58 PM

I don't see anything wrong with cloning Carl Sagan. However, I think a lot of his personality and success had to with his upbringing. Keay Davidson's "Carl Sagan: A Life" is a very good biography that makes this point implicitly.

Posted by: Sili | July 13, 2009 7:01 PM

I really don't get this insistance on "one size fits all"? Isn't the 'American Way' supposed to be all about diversity? Heh - they act as if they know "the one true way(tm)" in exactly the same way as the religionists.

OT: Punctuation goes whereëver the hell we want them to go. Given that these are quotes and scarequotes it would make no sense to put the punctuation inside.

PS: We need more scientist zombies (zombie scientists?). I'll leave to others to link to the xkcd Feynman and Erdös (yes, I know that's supposed to be doble aigu).

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 13, 2009 7:09 PM

Yes, because we all know that, unlike Dawkins, the creationists liked and respected Sagan.

Then, tragedy struck. The candle went out. Confused and unguided, the masses reverted to their pagan ways, taking in the myths of old in the absence of a guiding light leading them to a new era. The likes of Dawkins tried and failed, succeeding onto to divide the crowd further. Gould tried to let them live in light and dark at the same time. But alas, it didn't work.

There are those sitting in the darkness, flicking a lighter on and off, hoping that a new Carl Sagan is born and will lead people back to the golden era that once was. Wary of false prophets, they rabidly jump on anyone who builds a cult following. Casting down these false prophets, they sit and pray that Sagan will make his 2nd coming and it will be a paradise on earth once more.

Posted by: Travis | July 13, 2009 7:13 PM

I have always wondered why they are so concerned about a few voices being a lot more vicious and perhaps not as "nice". Actually I have more wondered what they want to see and if they really do want to nothing but the same correct way of approaching these issues. I like the diversity, there are a lot of ways to communicate science and critical thinking, it can be a multipronged approach.

I miss Sagan though. I am going to be in bed after surgery tomorrow and plan to watch a good number of episodes of Cosmos while lounging around.

Posted by: Sigmund | July 13, 2009 7:15 PM

Come on, everyone should know by now that Guy Framey never answers direct pertinent questions. He is not a scientist, he's a journalist with his sight on a political goal. Or maybe a Templeton prize (whichever is closer).

Posted by: Deen | July 13, 2009 7:18 PM

Interesting that Mooney frames this as a battle: "PZ Myers vs. Unscientific America". Where's the bridge-building?

Posted by: Sili | July 13, 2009 7:21 PM

Joshua,

Please don't tell me you're encouraging us to aim for a Saganistic recreätion of The Boys from Brazil?

Because that would be bad. Baaaaaaaaaaad. Very bad.

:checks bloodsamples:

My preciousssssssssssss.

Posted by: Dianne | July 13, 2009 7:27 PM

From the online extract of the MK book: "A Facebook group entitled "When I was your age, Pluto was a planet" drew a million and a half members."

So does that mean that if I started a group called, "Pluto's a dwarf planet and not a major planet at all. Deal with it already!" and it got 1.6 million members MK would shut up about Pluto already? And would PZ join? Pleeeaaaase?

Posted by: Dianne | July 13, 2009 7:31 PM

Seriously, the whole Pluto section reeks of hysteria. Poked the public with a sharp stick? Remade the world? Get a grip guys. It's just a correction of a minor mistake made 70+ years ago. Happens all the time.

Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 7:38 PM

I just posted about this in the old thread and over at M&K's blog, but I'll do it again, just because that Pluto response (and even moreso, the whole goddamn chapter) downright hurts (from banging my head against the desk so much).

Warning: may contain spleen venting in excess of FDA recommended daily maximum.

1. They get the question that the IAU was answering entirely wrong. Or, rather, in trademark style, they strongly implicate the entirely wrong question while leaving just enough wiggle-room to deny it. They want their readers to think the question was "should we let Pluto stay a planet?" The real question was "WTF do we mean when we say 'planet'?" They finally settled on a definition, and Pluto didn't make the cut.

1a. One thing they seem to not get at all is that the IAU made formal definitions of "planet" and "dwarf planet." "Formal" as in "this definition relies on the actual properties and physical characteristics of the object in question rather than arbitrary grouping or cherry-picked numerical cut-offs." I'm not the biggest fan of the 'gravitationally cleared orbit' distinction, but at least it's a fucking physically meaningful definition.

2. If Pluto did make the cut, I guarantee Eris, Ceres, Makemake, and Haumea would have, too. In fact, you have to do a lot of fine-tuning of your definition to get Pluto in there with the others (since it's a binary object - the Pluto-Charon center of gravity is outside both of them), and doing so basically guarantees Charon gets in too.

2a. Then they would have bitched about out-of-touch scientists adding all these new planets and confusing people with two planets orbiting each other. I guarantee it. They don't actually come out and say a different decision should have been made, or object to anything at all about the definitions (in fact, they don't even mention them). I would really love to read what they think should have been done. Are they against formal definitions of scientific nomenclature?

3. Their radical democratic theory of science marches onward with their griping about only 5% of astronomers voting on the definition. That's right, they have a problem with cosmologists not trying to tell planetary astronomers how to do their job.

4. AFAICT, this was only an issue here in the U.S. That's some seriously arrogant nationalism assuming that the world scientific community should bend to the whims of the public in one country.

5. You could have basically just reposted your previous reviews for parts 1, 3, and 4, since they were completely unresponsive to the criticisms. +3 PZ.

666. Fuckity fuck fuck fuck. Also, fuck.

Posted by: Lactate dehydrogenase | July 13, 2009 7:40 PM

Mooney and Kirshenbaum are truly intellectual lightweights in this book. Which is a pity because Mooney's earlier two books had actually convinced me that he is capable of serious intellectual arguments. Seems the era of "chic flick" popular science writing is definitely upon us.

Posted by: jj | July 13, 2009 7:41 PM

From the Pluto Section:

People were aghast. Not only did they recoil at having to unlearn what they had learned as children and perhaps the chief thing they remembered about astronomy

Is it really that hard to 'unlearn' (or better put forget, maybe, leave out?) one planet of nine? Really, that's that hard? What, you can only remember what the last planet in the system is? Well, now it's Neptune, was that so hard?

Posted by: Myrdek | July 13, 2009 7:42 PM

Why can't Mooney and Kirshenbaum understand that in war we need soldiers, generals and mediators?

Posted by: Travis | July 13, 2009 7:46 PM

jj, Sadly I would think that there are many people who could not even name the 8 other planets. I guess in some way they have already unlearned them. Now I wonder what fraction of the people who were actually concerned about Pluto's status know all of the other planets.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 13, 2009 7:47 PM

Why can't Mooney and Kirshenbaum understand that in war we need soldiers, generals and mediators?

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 13, 2009 7:50 PM

It's not just that their arguments fail; for the most part, they are either completely ridiculous or not even there to begin with. See my post over at the Intersection for details. There's one or two things that add to the discussion, I think, especially the degree of philosophical illiteracy on display in C&S's posts.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | July 13, 2009 7:54 PM

The whole non-issue of Pluto shows how lightweight Mooney and Kirshenbaum are. Instead of writing in depth at how the anti-vaxers are working hard to promote the spread of disease or how the cdesign proponentsists are undermining scientific education, they wring their hands about the status of Pluto.

Posted by: ReneV | July 13, 2009 7:57 PM

PZ, long-time reader, first-time commenter here.

In case a balancing voice is useful at this juncture: I consider your writing and the various associated actions to be eminently reasonable. Sure, there are swear words and what probably could be seen as antics by some, but before any of that, there's always a point, and often several at the same time, and the employed methods are never disproportionate or missing the mark, as far as I'm concerned.

You appear to be tireless and never to take your eye off the ball, and more importantly to really be hitting your stride as an expositor of science, anti-science nonsense, and more. I dearly wish you will continue enjoying your work on Pharyngula.

Posted by: Mr T | July 13, 2009 7:58 PM

PZ: That was awesome, as usual. There's nothing to see here folks; move along....

Kevpod: "Yeah, I'm a newspaper editor. So you could call this a dying request."

Yeah, I'm not a newspaper editor. So you could say this second sentence, while pithy, is not a complete and meaningful statement by itself.

/pet peeve

Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 8:00 PM

Dianne @31,

I actually knew quite a few people who joined that as a joke, and many of whom were also members of the "I'm glad Pluto's no longer a planet, 'cause now Holst's Planets is complete" or whatever it was called.

Posted by: mothra | July 13, 2009 8:10 PM

Pluto has in fact been promoted to a realm of higher scientific accuracy. The only loos is that Heinlein's memonic for remembering the nine planets must be revised.

"Mother Very T(erra)houghtfully Made A(steroids)Jelly Sandwich Under No Protest."

Posted by: kyle | July 13, 2009 8:11 PM

wait. i just read their chapter on Pluto online. Are these buffoons for real? Do they not recognize that the vast majority of their examples of people being upset about the "demotion" were probably joking. I'm a frigging member of some of those facebook groups as are all of my fellow scientist friends. And those shirts aren't actual dissent. they are frigging jokes, for the most part. Wow.

Sure the people in the New Mexico might care a little. But not really since i doubt many of them knew where Pluto was discovered before this incident (not due to stupidity but because, "who the hell cares?"). And maybe there are a few rigid minded adult sized children who never found out that things change. But as far as i can tell most of the 'outrage' exemplified by those shirts and facebook groups are hipster irony not actual outrage.

Jesus, most of my scientist friends don't care about the demotion. And none of the nonscientists i know care at all, except, prehaps, as a cheap way to make a funny. So besides being vacuous complainers, they are also dramatically humorless to think all this poking fun actually equates to something more. They must be zero fun at a party.

that was sure a rambley post. oops.

Posted by: kyle | July 13, 2009 8:17 PM

wait. i just read their chapter on Pluto online. Are these buffoons for real? Do they not recognize that the vast majority of their examples of people being upset about the "demotion" were probably joking. I'm a frigging member of some of those facebook groups as are all of my fellow scientist friends. And those shirts aren't actual dissent. they are frigging jokes, for the most part. Wow.

Sure the people in the New Mexico might care a little. But not really since i doubt many of them knew where Pluto was discovered before this incident (not due to stupidity but because, "who the hell cares?"). And maybe there are a few rigid minded adult sized children who never found out that things change. But as far as i can tell most of the 'outrage' exemplified by those shirts and facebook groups are hipster irony not actual outrage.

Jesus, most of my scientist friends don't care about the demotion. And none of the nonscientists i know care at all, except, prehaps, as a cheap way to make a funny. So besides being vacuous complainers, they are also dramatically humorless to think all this poking fun actually equates to something more. They must be zero fun at a party.

that was sure a rambley post. oops.

Posted by: Don | July 13, 2009 8:20 PM

Thanks, Kevpod (#10); I've been hoping PZ would come around on his own to properly punctuating quoted material. It's an issue I take up afresh every semester with my English students: periods and commas always go INSIDE quotation marks, not outside.

How about it, PZ? Off-topic, yes, but, really, it's time to get it right.

Posted by: Don | July 13, 2009 8:21 PM

Thanks, Kevpod (#10); I've been hoping PZ would come around on his own to properly punctuating quoted material. It's an issue I take up afresh every semester with my English students: periods and commas always go INSIDE quotation marks, not outside.

How about it, PZ? Off-topic, yes, but, really, it's time to get it right.

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 13, 2009 8:22 PM

Posted by: Don | July 13, 2009 8:17 PM

Thanks, Kevpod (#10); I've been hoping PZ would come around on his own to properly punctuating quoted material. It's an issue I take up afresh every semester with my English students: periods and commas always go INSIDE quotation marks, not outside.

Here's the thing, Don. My AP English teacher in an American high school taught us the exact opposite. While your way is undoubtedly the standard used by American book and newspaper publishers, it is overreaching to say it is the "correct" way for American English.

Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 13, 2009 8:24 PM

The strange buzzing voices that I hear outside my window each night say they're very pleased that Yuggoth... I mean, Pluto has been demoted since it will help draw attention away from their activities on this planet.

I'm sorry.... what was I saying?

M/K sound like a pair of PR image consultants rather than journalists. They aren't really concerned about the "truth" some much as how it looks to the public:

"Boobie! Opinion polls say that people don't care for atheism, so we must keep that Meyers guy and Dawkins, at least 500 yards from it, babe! The same polls say that 30-60-year-old demographic still likes their religion, so let's say that that there is no conflict between science and faith,`kay? Meanwhile the focus groups gave that Carl Sagan guy big time positives, so we should look for another one of him to be the "official" spokesman of science. People like to vote on stuff like in "American Idol," so maybe the Astrological (sic) community could let people vote on that Pluto thing! I'll take to Zoe to set up the 1-900 numbers..."

This whole debate is not so much about science vs. anti-science as it is style vs. substance. They want scence to be "liked," what it actually has to say can take a backseat.

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 13, 2009 8:27 PM

M/K sound like a pair of PR image consultants rather than journalists.

In 21st Century America, "PR image consultant" and "journalist" are synonyms.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | July 13, 2009 8:29 PM

Can people please stop reposting the same comments? It's getting annoying. Post your comment once, no matter what the SciBlogs message that comes up is.

If you're really paranoid about it being eaten, copy and paste what you've written to a notepad or blank email or word document or something. Then, after you've waited a bit and refreshed, check to see if your message was posted. If it was, great. If for some reason it doesn't appear, then repost it.

Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 8:32 PM

kyle @52,

Yeah, my astro prof at the time, who studied under Tombaugh for fuck's sake, wasn't upset about it except as a joke. I do remember some idiots using it to whine about dumb scientists, but I also remember that lasting all of a couple weeks, tops. Then we got Eris. (See, M&K, the scientists even gave the public an extra one even bigger than Pluto as a consolation.) I too have my doubts that they can be "for real". A lot of this stuff could be explained by simply shallow and vapid writers, but some of it just makes no sense except as mendacity. Although they're not being particularly smart about it. Why deny personal attacks against PZ when they know he has a book and can readily quote their personal attacks back to them? That's just stupid.

donna @54,

Seconded. I'd have to create an account on that abomination, but it'd be worth it just to throw my support behind "Zombify Carl Sagan!"

Posted by: bonze | July 13, 2009 8:42 PM

kevpod, don:

Computer programming leads one to habitually exile non-quoted punctuation from the area within quotation marks. I have no idea whether this influences PZ :->.

Posted by: plum grenville | July 13, 2009 8:46 PM

I just read the Pluto section of the book. The authors seem to be completely oblivious to the possibility that people pretended to be outraged about Pluto's demotion AS A JOKE. People - including the New Mexico legislature - played along FOR FUN.

That a million and a half people joined a Facebook group opposing the change is not evidence of a populist revolt. It's evidence that people enjoy being in on a joke. It's a form of social bonding with the bonus of allowing participants to feel slightly superior to people who don't get it.

A couple of years ago in Canada, a million people (out of population of only 30 million) signed a petition calling upon a politician named Stockwell Day to change his name to Doris. Silly? Of course - it was intended to be; it was mass act of irony.

My impression is that most people who knew about Pluto's demotion had at least a basic idea of why it was done - because Pluto was different from the bigger planets - and what it signified - a correction of terminology that mattered to astronomers with no practical effect for the public. I would call the episode a public relations success, not a disaster.

Perhaps it's unfortunate that it's easier to generate mass involvement in a joke than in genuine issues facing the country or the world. But surely any engagement with science is better than no engagement. Humour is a nonthreatening way to draw people into any subject. Some of them will be curious enough to stick around and learn more.

Posted by: Don | July 13, 2009 8:53 PM

"Here's the thing, Don. My AP English teacher in an American high school taught us the exact opposite. While your way is undoubtedly the standard used by American book and newspaper publishers, it is overreaching to say it is the "correct" way for American English."

Not the thing at all, Truthseeker. Your AP instructor was simply mistaken. It's a common error--and a common misunderstanding. Your teacher may have been mistaught himself. The long-standing, widespread convention in this country is indisputably to place periods and commas within quotation marks.

For many a year now, the standard, basic, college English composition text in colleges from Maine to Hawaii has been Diana Hacker's BEDFORD HANDBOOK. Hacker (among many others) makes this one absolutely clear: "Place periods and commas inside quotation marks." That's it.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 13, 2009 8:56 PM

(aptly named) truthspeaker,

In 21st Century America, "PR image consultant" and "journalist" are synonyms.

You win the thread!

Posted by: Wirelizard | July 13, 2009 8:59 PM

Zombie Carl Sagan...

"Billllionnnnnzzzzz..... billionzzzzzz.... billllllionnnnnzzzz..."

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 13, 2009 9:09 PM

That's just the thing: we are not going to clone Carl Sagan, or raise him as a zombie.

Why not? I say we clone Sagan. On clone Sagan's 18th birthday we raise Sagan proper from the dead as a zombie. We lock them in a cage together and whoever survives gets to educate the public about science. The hardest part will be getting the Sagan family to approve of this....

Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 9:19 PM

Wirelizard, maybe he can hang out with Zombie Steve Irwin...

"Criiiiiiiiiiikeeeyyyyy.... Criiiiiiikeyy.... Criiiiiiiikeeyyyyyy...."

Posted by: Carlie | July 13, 2009 9:25 PM

I've been hoping PZ would come around on his own to properly punctuating quoted material. It's an issue I take up afresh every semester with my English students: periods and commas always go INSIDE quotation marks, not outside.

I am a conscientious objector to that rule, because it makes no sense. Things inside quotation marks are part of the quote. If there was no punctuation in the quote itself, the punctuation shouldn't go inside the quotation marks. That would be falsely saying that the quote had it there in the first place. Also, if the quote is part of a longer sentence, the period is part of the sentence, not the quote, so it shouldn't be tied up in there. So nyah.
And I like Oxford commas, too. Double nyah.

And I joined the Pluto Facebook group as a generation marker, too, although I got out a few weeks later after the novelty of it was gone.

Posted by: Dianne | July 13, 2009 9:29 PM

Why not? I say we clone Sagan. On clone Sagan's 18th birthday we raise Sagan proper from the dead as a zombie. We lock them in a cage together and whoever survives gets to educate the public about science.

If that works then we have a lot more science to revise than just Pluto's status.

Posted by: Dianne | July 13, 2009 9:34 PM

I've got it! Here's how we solve this Pluto status problem. Send a probe to Pluto. A really good one with lots of cameras and instruments and toys. One that'll send such pretty pictures back that no one will care whether its a planet, a moon, or a random Kybher belt object any more. That'll get people interested in science and take people's minds off this silly controversy. And would create some jobs which must be good for the economy. Real science and public excitement. What more could KM et al want?

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | July 13, 2009 9:45 PM

I too just now read that Pluto excerpt. Holy cow, that is a whole metric shit-ton of fail. What a couple of maroons.

Who actually wrote the Republican book for Mooney? Or has he suffered a severe head injury since writing it?

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 13, 2009 10:03 PM

I wonder if Mooney realized that if they had made the decision the other way, and kept Pluto as a planet, then we still wouldn't have 9 planets in the solar system, we'd have 12 or 13 or more.

Posted by: Jewbacca | July 13, 2009 10:05 PM

Dianne @95,

On the off-chance you aren't being deliberately snarky, that question's been settled. New Horizons is on it's way to Pluto, Charon, Nix, Hydra, and maybe some other Kuiper belt objects right now with some of Clyde Tombaugh's friggin' ashes on it. What, scattering the ashes of its discoverer on it (take that, William Herschel!) isn't cool enough for them? Clearly it isn't, all because Pluto's a dwarf planet and WHAT ABOUT PYGMIES + DWARFS?

Posted by: Ferrous Patella | July 13, 2009 10:18 PM

The really funny thing about putting other punctuation marks inside of quotes is that the reason for it is obsolescent. Back in the days of setting type with, you know, type, the reason was to keep the type from breaking. I once went to a museum where they had a Line-O-Type machine but other than that, I have never seen type laid out in lead.

I guess it is less then coincidence that it was the style books in technological fields that were the first to give up "typological" quote/period combination in favor of logical ones.

Posted by: Arabiflora | July 13, 2009 10:24 PM

Pluto and Punctuation--

First Pluto: A poster upthread alluded to this obliquely, but I think it deserves emphasis in light of Mooney's hissy fit. As I understand it, Pluto was granted planetary status some 70-80 years ago at a time when astronomers were unaware of the abundance and varieties of extraterrestial bodies. As the data have been collected and assessed, it became clear that inclusion of Pluto in the collection of bodies formally recognized/defined as planets was inconsistent with the existing body of data. The relevant scientific societies convened and reached a decision to correct the error in order that, going forward, the accepted definitions of-- and distinctions among-- those bodies would be uniform and clear.

New data leads to new appreciation of the diversity and nuance of the natural world and calls for reevaluation of existing definitions and models. Isn't that the epitome of the nature of scientific progress? And they're arguing against THAT? In a book that bemoans scientific illiteracy in the US??? Give me a fricking break.

Now in re: punctuation-- I "fart in the general direction of your oh-so pedantic rules!". See, there I am quoting (paraphrasing, actually) from Monty Python in a sentence that has the general form "I (do this)". The quotation marks define what I (do) and include the exclamation point for emphasis and clarity; the period ends my sentence. Had I ended my sentence with the exclamation point, that meaning and form would have been muddled, if not lost altogether. My habit is to place direct quotes comprised of a complete sentence (or more) entirely within the quotation marks which allows, as noted in a preceding post, for the original author's words to speak for themselves, including terminal punctuation. A slavish obedience to counterintuitive rules is antithetical to effective communication and besides, if it's good enough for PZ, it's good enough for me.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | July 13, 2009 10:25 PM

Did I fall asleep during the past 50 years? When did atheism divide into old and new camps?

Posted by: Dianne | July 13, 2009 10:28 PM

New Horizons is on it's way to Pluto, Charon, Nix, Hydra, and maybe some other Kuiper belt objects right now with some of Clyde Tombaugh's friggin' ashes on it.

Actually, I wasn't being snarky, I think it would work. I had no idea they'd finally actually launched the Pluto/Kuiper probe. Coolness, especially with Tombaugh's ashes on it. (Except that it would be even cooler if Tombaugh were alive to see the close ups of the object he discovered.)

Posted by: Hurin | July 13, 2009 10:42 PM

Sheesh. Add my name to the list of people who have no idea what the point of the Pluto section is. It seems to me that the authors want to use that episode to paint scientists as boorish and out of touch, without actually evaluating the issue in any meaningful way.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 13, 2009 10:56 PM

I'm afraid that Mooney and Kirshenbaum are altogether like the IDiots. I reasonably called some dumbshit "Jon" the idiot that he is, since he simply ragged on what I'd written, too fucking stupid to respond to it with anything but mindless contempt.

So, they didn't let it through. Screw them and the lies they facilitate.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 13, 2009 10:57 PM

It doesn't matter whether we call Pluto a planet to the same degree that it doesn't matter it we call Yahweh God.

We cannot know and are on our own.

Fun is afoot.

Posted by: Paul | July 13, 2009 11:01 PM

It seems I'm on the "moderate comments" list now. No bad words or even talking points or unpleasant names. Weird.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 13, 2009 11:03 PM

The Chimp effect is clearly visible.

"It" quire clearly should be "if"

Thanks, Rev..

Posted by: Aquaria | July 13, 2009 11:07 PM

logging brings out the "loud, angry, nasty, and profanity-spewing minority".

I thought PC spewing wankers like Mooney has morphed into were supposed to be ooey-gooey about not condemning minorities, and being tolerant, and supportive and... Er, whatever else it is that makes the PC types feel so superior about themselves.

/sarcasm off

And Looney can still fuck right off.

Posted by: Jewbacca, Camus-quoting New Atheist | July 13, 2009 11:28 PM

Hurin @111,

I had wondered what that was about in the sense of "what are they getting at?", but I never stopped to wonder "what does it have to do with anything?". I'm starting to think we've been trolled.

Glen Davidson @113,

Oy. Jon. I was, for some stupid reason, trying to engage him (in the sense where I should have said "tally ho" first), but fortunately, the page broke for me before I could go down the road of pointing out that he's saying "2+2=4" is a "question of conscience". Note to self: never try to engage M&K's commenters in discussion; it's like wrestling with a pig.

Paul @117,

I really hate to be devil's advocate and even tentatively defend them on this, but my first comment in that thread, which was my first comment on their blog ever, was held for moderation. I can only assume there are some stupid automated moderation rules -- in my case, probably comment length, as there were no 'bad' words or links.

Posted by: truthspeaker | July 13, 2009 11:48 PM

Some blogs moderate the first comments of all users automatically to weed out spam. It's nothing to worry about.

Posted by: Kel, OM | July 13, 2009 11:53 PM

Damn, great post Scott!

Posted by: SC, OM | July 14, 2009 12:00 AM

Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable.

- Albert Camus

Look, Jon! I'm an intelektshual!

Posted by: justawriter | July 14, 2009 12:09 AM

It is the nature of the MK trope that reality becomes the ultimate refutation. Tyson was on CSPAN last week (I don't know when it was originally taped) talking about his Pluto book. He said despite all the hubbub, the astronomers won because now when he talks to third graders (the demographic KM seems most worried about in this example) and he accidentally refers to Pluto as a planet, they correct him. Science will out, Chris and Sheril. We may have to wait for let a few generations die in error, but it will happen.

Posted by: SC, OM | July 14, 2009 12:25 AM

Gah.

The blithering "Jon" from Mooney's Daily Kos review "PZ Myers vs. ..." thread

Posted by: Susannah | July 14, 2009 12:44 AM

"nasty bullying". ... "shrill". ..."loud, angry, nasty, and profanity-spewing" ...

Whatever he claims, if he said that, they're personal attacks.

Posted by: Laurel Kornfeld | July 14, 2009 12:56 AM

"The relevant scientific societies convened and reached a decision to correct the error in order that, going forward, the accepted definitions of-- and distinctions among-- those bodies would be uniform and clear."

This is just plain not true. Of the four percent of the IAU who voted on the planet definition resolution, most are not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers. The fact that an equal number of planetary scientists, led by Dr. Alan Stern, the Principal Investigator of NASA's New Horizons mission to Pluto, publicly signed a petition rejecting the IAU decision makes clear that there is NO consensus among astronomers on the definition of planet.

Nor has the controversy over Pluto died down the least, either among astronomers or members of the general public. Declarations of support for Pluto's planet status such as those by Illinois and New Mexico are not jokes. They are statements of the viewpoints of legislators representing their constituents. In astronomy groups and forums all over the Internet, there are amateur and professional astronomers and interested lay people actively advocating either the overturning of the IAU resolution or ignoring it completely.

What is wrong with including Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, Eris, and even Charon as planets? Why the irrational fear of having a large number of planets? Why is there an inability to recognize that maybe there are not two but three classes of planets--the terrestrials, the gas giants, and the dwarf planets?

Myers is as dogmatic as the religious groups he despises in advocating one view of an ongoing debate as reality. If he is going to tell people to read Tyson's book, why not also tell them to read "Is Pluto A Planet?" by Dr. David Weintraub or "The Case for Pluto" by Alan Boyle, due out in October? Why isn't he referring people to the web site of the Great Planet Debate, where in depth discussion made clear the complexity of the issue regardless of which position one takes? How is referring people to only one viewpoint any different than a pastor telling people to read only the Bible and nothing else when studying religion?

Don't count on kids learning the IAU view, as many teachers and planetarium directors are teaching the controversy and providing children with both sides of the issue. Kids can understand that there are two types of astronomers, dynamicists and planetary scientists, and that they look at different parameters when defining what should be considered a planet. I wouldn't count on the viewpoint supporting Pluto's planet status dying out any time soon.

Posted by: MadScientist | July 14, 2009 1:02 AM

Part of the problem is the ever-shifting meaning of "religion" as used in discussions. As Jerry Coyne pointed out numerous times, you can have religious people who are scientists and this is absolutely trivial and not an issue to anyone whether religious or not. However, the word "religion" seems to change meaning all the time from religion in general to "ill-educated biblical literalists and creationists" and I believe that there is a deliberate intention to mix meanings and confuse people (after all that is a tactic I have seen in religious screeds from Augustine and onwards and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was also a common tactic with other cults and priests which preceeded Augustine).

If you look at the number of contemporary religious cults which eschew science in general there aren't that many. Even in the case of the catholic church most science is accepted and even evolution is accepted (however any developments in reproductive science are deplored). Where we do find a wholesale rejection of science is in the fundamentalist cults. These cults are on the back foot because scientists will concede nothing to them; I do not see that anything good will be accomplished by coddling them.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | July 14, 2009 1:02 AM

"always inside the quotes" can cause confusion.

In what year did Richard Nixon say "I am not a crook?"
In what year did Richard Nixon say "I am not a crook"?

Makes a difference.

Posted by: Jewbacca | July 14, 2009 1:13 AM

SC, OM @126,

Hehindeedy. I gotta confess, when they fumble a rhetorical cudgel like that ('you are all uncultured philistines unlike the Good atheists of ye olden times'), it's irresistible to pick it up and beat them over the head with it. I'd say Jon's Camus fail is pretty similar to Robert Wright's distinction fail between "old" atheists and "new" atheists. Do these guys get memos or something? I never get the memos.

justawriter @131,

Yeah, you give young kids who haven't had their intellectual drive crushed yet the chance to be smart-asses (in the best possible way) by showing how much they know, and they will jump all over it. It's funny... I'd noticed some hostility to Pluto's "demotion" (re-classification), but never from kids. In hindsight, I'm starting to think it was entirely manufactured controversy -- by a lazy, shallow, sensationalist media that must turn everything into a two-sided controversy, and by idiots like MK looking to score cheap points for... what, I don't know. And, yeah, a little bit of nationalism (though nothing on the level of William Herschel wanting to call Uranus "George's Star" -- now that was a controversy). I suppose I know a few adults who were kinda silly about it, but Brian May set 'em straight with a simple explanation and a sweet guitar solo. ;)

Jafafa Hots @132 -- Win.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 14, 2009 1:31 AM

Why not? I say we clone Sagan.

easy to say, harder to accomplish! after all, it isn't just genetics that make someone who they are, but also their life experiences. so, in order to have a real Sagan clone, we'd have to recreate all the essential experiences in his life that led to him being the Sagan we know. and since we don't know what those were, we have to pretty much re-create his entire life:

we'd have to find him surrogate parents who had the same background and character (or at least could fake it well enough). we'd have to recreate all his childhood friendships, any bad episodes as well as all lucky breaks, we'd have to control his environment so he wouldn't know he's a clone until after the formative years, etc. ad nauseam.

it's sooo much work!

zombie sagan would be much easier ;-)

Posted by: David Wiener | July 14, 2009 1:46 AM

Jeez, about 10 seconds of Googling will tell you why Pluto is no longer a planet. Ex:

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/10/why-pluto-is-no-longer-a-planet/

There are simple sound reasons that were used. Like a lot of sciency things, the word 'planet' has a very precise definition. K&M are idiots. Cute, bunny-eyed idiots.

Posted by: Jewbacca | July 14, 2009 2:08 AM

Logan N @148,

You assume the point was supposed to be about science illiteracy, not how mean those scientists are for not going along with people's unscientific preconceptions (which is more and more the message I'm getting from MK in their excerpts and blog posts -- framing, ur doin it wrong).

With Gamow, well, how can you trust him? I mean, he clearly didn't take science seriously, even making a joke in the attribution of a very serious paper. And really, how could he disrespect a cracker blessed communion wafer like that and then go on to -- horror of horrors -- scientifically investigate a religious claim? For shame.

Posted by: SignsofLife | July 14, 2009 2:16 AM

As a boy [George Gamow] snicked a blessed communion wafer out of his Russian Orthodox church and put it under a microscope when he got home, to see if it had transmogrified into the body of Christ!

Science has its own bizarre chemical (or is it alchemical?) transformations, just ask Albert Hoffman, accidental discoverer of LSD-25. If it's the body of Christ you're after, write Sandoz for some samples. No need for moist cookies when you've got the efficiency and precision of scientifically-engineered neurochemicals.

Posted by: Richard J. | July 14, 2009 2:53 AM

David Wiener @141:

The comments on the article show that there are still objections to the precision of "clearing the neighborhood", so it seems like the definition of a planet isn't so precise.

Posted by: for Muzz | July 14, 2009 2:58 AM

#152 Muzz

Speaking of word games, here is Heidegger speaking on language in 1966: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_vYz4nQUcs&feature=rec-HM-r2

Relevant to any attempted explanation scientists might offer concerning the nature of nature.

Posted by: Richard J. | July 14, 2009 3:55 AM

David Wiener @141:

The comments on the article you posted show that there are still objections to the precision of "clearing the neighborhood," so it seems like the definition of a planet isn't so precise.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 14, 2009 4:19 AM

I hear Wittgenstein was a beery swine
who was just as sloshed as Schlegel....

Posted by: SEF | July 14, 2009 4:32 AM

@ Wordnerd #138:

I will note that Don and Kevpod are right about the punctuation.

No, they're not.

Periods and commas go inside quotation marks, whether you think it makes sense or not!

Very damning. You lot are the equivalent of religious nutters while PZ and I (and a few others here), being scientific types, are on the side of caring about the truth. Of course, I also have the advantage of actually being English.

The possible cause of Americans and any other in-quote-comma people being wrong, viz that it was for the convenience of type-setters, doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. However, it's interesting for its resonance with this PR / framing issue.

Those who care about accuracy and truth should not be giving in to you type-setter accomodationists. Instead, we need to keep on shoving our correctly formatted quotes out there, in your faces, so that at least some people have a chance of learning better than you. Otherwise your misbegotten dross is the only thing the ignorant masses will see.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 14, 2009 4:36 AM

Just in case no one knows what the fuck we are talking about:

Monty Python - The Philosophers' Song

Posted by: Mariana | July 14, 2009 4:37 AM

Well, this is a really old one, but in case any Python/philosophy geeks/fans/etc. missed it, here it is:

Themes in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy
as Reflected in the Work of Monty Python:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~ebarnes/python/python.htm

Posted by: Vampire Weekend | July 14, 2009 5:31 AM

Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 14, 2009 7:19 AM

Kevpod, we know the rule. We just disagree with it. It isn't logical and it looks ugly. It's a purposeless rule and needs to be replaced.

By the way, does anyone know which Suzuki was meant? Should I feel bad that it was the only name in the list that didn't ring a bell?

Posted by: JBlilie | July 14, 2009 7:47 AM

It so incredibly lame to mount a public attack on someone who gives your book a bad review! The only reasonable approach is dignified silence, unless you've been libeled. Mooney and Kirchenbaum just look like spoiled children when they whine for being criticized. Wah, wah, wah.

Coward @169: David Suzuki, Canadian Nature TV Presenter (and real scientist). He's cut from similar cloth to Attenborough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Suzuki

Posted by: Dipper | July 14, 2009 7:52 AM

That should be M&K in #172, not C&K..

Posted by: Don | July 14, 2009 8:07 AM

@jafafa hots, who writes: "always inside the quotes" can cause confusion.

In what year did Richard Nixon say "I am not a crook?"
In what year did Richard Nixon say "I am not a crook"?

Makes a difference."

You're not paying attention, jafafa. What always goes inside the quotation marks? Periods and commas. Not colons, semi-colons, question marks, and so on. Periods and commas.

Yup, in the US of A, that's the convention, alas, whether it "makes sense" to self-appointed arbiters or not. Apart from a handful of contrary in-house style manuals, in American magazines, newspapers, and books, as well as in American high school and college English classrooms, that's how we do it.

Like the new fact of Pluto's deplanetization, it's a matter of slim consequence, and it isn't that hard to learn.

Posted by: John Morales | July 14, 2009 8:12 AM

JBlilie,

Coward @169: David Suzuki, Canadian Nature TV Presenter (and real scientist). He's cut from similar cloth to Attenborough.

I stopped listening to David Suzuki years ago; his FOEish style just grated on me.

I have little respect for him, and find it annoying you consider him comparable to Attenborough.

Posted by: Kingasaurus | July 14, 2009 8:16 AM

Dipper, you basically seem to be arguing that the concept of the Overton Window doesn't exist. I don't really buy that, sorry.

Posted by: JBlilie | July 14, 2009 8:25 AM

Morales:

Enjoy your annoyance.

I haven't seen Suszuki on TV since I was a kid, which probably accounts for it. (I haven't watched TV for decades.) I admire Attenborough very much: I have seen his programs (on DVD.)

Why is it that you have little respect for him? His native country seems to honor him quite well ...

Environmental activism, in my opinion, is and has been very important in limiting human destruction of our only living space in the universe. Your views would be appreciated.

Posted by: SEF | July 14, 2009 8:41 AM

But society is not amenable to honesty in that way. People in general are not rational!

That's not a good enough "reason" to give up the distinction which makes us better than them - our rationality and honesty. We still need to lead by example, so that they continue to find it difficult to avoid noticing that we have right (and the evidence, eg in the form of technological progress) on our side. The harder it is for them to remain self-deluded, the lower the threshold for doing so becomes and the greater the proportion of them who come over to (or at least respect) our side is.

Becoming scum, humouring scum or deferring to the scum is not really the way to go - however expedient it may be if one is a coward and the scum are murderous and have all the power.

Posted by: Aj | July 14, 2009 8:49 AM

#177

Wow - that's a really odd convention you have over there.

Why on earth should the type of punctuation mark being used affect it's position?

No wonder some people disregard (what appears to me to be) such an arbitary "rule."

};o)

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 14, 2009 9:01 AM

I know Sagan was an agnostic, not an atheist

*sigh*

Posted by: Peter Beattie | July 14, 2009 9:16 AM

Jerry Coyne just put up part one of his own review of Mooneybaum's book. Very thoughtful and comprehensive, methinks.

Posted by: Flex | July 14, 2009 9:27 AM

Dipper wrote at #182,

But society is not amenable to honesty in that way. People in general are not rational!

It almost sounds like you are falling into the error of extrapolating individual behavior from the knowledge gained by statistical analysis of a group.

Consistent with that belief would be a feeling that with the proper adjustments to society, greater scientific literacy would develop.

If we imagine scientific literacy in American society as a bell-curve (for convenience only), there is a median. It's unlikely that no person actually exists at that median, but it could be determined (theoretically, I have no idea how you'd go about accurately measuring scientific literacy. Every idea I come up with has some clear flaws.)

The question becomes, is it a good idea to move the median, and how do we do this?

M&K say, apparently, that gradual change by emphasizing the value of things within the first sigma of the curve will eventually cause the median to shift.

But that's not the only way. A small increase three or greater sigma out will also shift the median significantly.
The danger, as M&K apparently see it, is that the hypothetical bell-curve now becomes bi-modal and society fragments. The result is mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, etc.

I say the model is wrong. Individuals may fall on a normal curve in relation to the general idea of scientific literacy, but that is not really telling the story of individuals.

Individuals vary widely in knowledge of scientific fields, making determining an individual's scientific literacy highly dependent on the testing methodology.

As an example I blush at, being an engineer myself, there are plenty of creationist engineers who practice the process of science in their field and are highly knowledgeable about the science in their field.

So rather than a simple normal curve to describe scientific literacy, we have a multi-nodal, jagged, chaotic mess of data. Which is then smoothed out by the social scientists to give general observations about society.

This is why change appears to occur gradually in society. The process of making this chaotic mass appear as a normal curve dampens the apparent pace of change.

Look at gay marriage as an example, there is what appears to be a generational change in acceptance of gay marriage. Across three generations it (all still alive) has gone from abhorrent to acceptable. Any measure of American society as a whole would see a slow movement of the median towards acceptance of gay marriage, even though there are dramatic differences between generations.

Finally, if you treat scientific literacy as a single, society-wide, attribute falling on a normal curve. You may fall into the error of thinking this attribute is homogeneous, and like a widget on an assembly line, a small change to a tool-path can cause the entire curve to shift slightly in the direction you want.

Humanity is not as homogeneous as a manufactured widget. Different arguments appeal to different people, and if you want society to change, a wide variety of approaches and techniques are necessary. (Including, occasionally, attacking your allies in order to seem more reasonable.)

As you way, Dipper, people are not rational. So a rational approach of accommodation (and it is rational in some ways) doesn't work for everyone.

P.s. my apologies for rambling, and also for the fact that I'm now on my way to work and won't be able to follow up any discussion until evening, when, by that time, everyone will have moved on. ;)

Posted by: Carlie | July 14, 2009 9:31 AM

What about the other side? If accommodationists want so badly for strident atheists to shut up because they're hurting the cause, are the moderate religious doing the same? Are they loudly condemning the actual militant zealots who actually kill people as "hurting the cause"? Interestingly enough, I don't see a lot of that.

Posted by: Carlie | July 14, 2009 9:36 AM

If you don't buy this, consider the preceding as an explanation for why Obama is going so very slow, on, say, gay rights. Obama is also doing it right.

Tell that to every gay person who will still be denied the right to see their partner while they lie in hospital rooms dying from now until he manages to slowly tiptoe towards equal rights for them. Somehow I doubt they'll think he's "doing it right".

Posted by: John Morales | July 14, 2009 9:39 AM

JBlilie @183, I don't enjoy my annoyance; that is definitional. :)

I can't justify my perception; as I said, I stopped paying attention to him years ago. It is, I think, based on an inchoate perception that he's wooish and spiritual, and a kind of luddite.

It is an idiosyncratic reaction, perhaps, and certainly subjective. I do distinctly recall, maybe a decade ago or so, watching a series of programs where he was the narrator, and finding him as irritating and annoying as I found (and find) Sagan or Attenborough exalting and inspirational.

I understand he's liked and is popular, and from your link I note he has one PhD and 22 honorary degrees. Looking at the Wikipedia entry, I think it might've been The Sacred Balance which put me off him.

Environmental activism, in my opinion, is and has been very important in limiting human destruction of our only living space in the universe. Your views would be appreciated.

Sure. I dislike irrational fear of nuclear power and of genetic engineering, for instance, and I recall Suzuki encouraged such fear. I also dislike those who say we should all do less with less; rather, I'd like to see us do more with more.

Humans are part of nature, not outside of it, and tiny and insignificant. To think we can "destroy our only living space" is, I think, a risible and grandiose conceit.

Posted by: Rorschach | July 14, 2009 9:48 AM

I notice the term "inchoate" is all the rage these days. :-)

Carlie @ 195,

What about the other side? If accommodationists want so badly for strident atheists to shut up because they're hurting the cause, are the moderate religious doing the same? Are they loudly condemning the actual militant zealots who actually kill people as "hurting the cause"? Interestingly enough, I don't see a lot of that.

Somewhat tu quoque,but fair enough.
I thought it was pretty clear that it is par for the course for the religious moderates to demand tolerance, civility, equal time and the like, while not giving any of it to atheists, ever.
Let alone speak out to religious terrorists,now that would be impolite and intolerant,wouldnt it.
No end to the hypocrisy.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | July 14, 2009 9:51 AM

How is that different from what the "new atheists" are saying these days?

I dunno. Not in the presentation, surely. I've seen both Carl and PZ speaking, and both of 'em are adorable.

Posted by: Carlie | July 14, 2009 9:56 AM

It's not just hypocrisy, it's evidence against his entire position. With regard to being offensive and strident and loud, the religious side is already doing it, and it works (as Jafafa Hots just pointed out). Does Fox News have such high ratings because it's calm and nonconfrontational and accommodates different viewpoints? Do PACs run nice positive commercials during election season pointing out the good things their candidate has done and how we can all get along? The thing that infuriates me the most about Mooney's entire position on framing and science is that he has absolutely no evidence that being a nice quiet accommodationist works, and refuses to address the fact that there is vast evidence that it doesn't.

Posted by: Raldo | July 14, 2009 9:58 AM

@Monty Python #162

Kant was right, Sokrates looked off-side there.

Posted by: FastLane | July 14, 2009 10:02 AM

Scott Hatfield, OM @ 124

Really, when you come down to it, Chris, your position is an insult to believers like myself. Apparently, we are not capable of open dialogue. We must be catered to, pampered, given blissful vagueries of concord rather than treated like adults.

Whether they are truly in the majority or not, I do not know, but it seems that way from the cheap seats here in KS.

Posted by: John Morales | July 14, 2009 10:09 AM

RickK, way to miss the sarcasm!

Posted by: articulett | July 14, 2009 10:23 AM

PZ and those who comment on his blogs are so much more interesting, intelligent, and fun to read then the Kwoks, McCarthy's and Jon's that infest Mooney's blog.

On the other hand, a person like me, has a chance to sound intelligent in comparison to the posters on Mooney's blog rather than envying the brilliance of posters here: I posted this over there:

To me, “new atheist” describes people who are passionate about the truth– people who treat religion like the superstitious propaganda that it is.

Naturally, believers and those who “believe in belief” must malign them. The believer understands that the new atheist feels the same way towards their religion that the believer feels towards cults, superstitions, and those “other” religions (and for good reason). Those who “believe in belief” imagine themselves peacekeepers and moderators of some sort, but the the truth doesn’t need moderators. It’s dishonest and arrogant to promote the idea that there are “higher truths” that can only be obtained via “faith” or other non-empirical means. It’s harmful to promote delusional ideas as “higher truths”. The “new atheists” are those who understand this and refuse to enable the entitlement some people feel is due to them because of what they BELIEVE.

I don’t really care about the beliefs and opinions of Chris Mooney and his supporters any more than they care about the opinions and beliefs of “new atheists”. I care about what is true. I find PZ Myers a much more credible deliverer of the truth. Moreover, I think the catering to delusion that M and K indulge in is far more to blame for “unscientific America” than anything the “new atheists” have to say. I am appalled along with my fellow “new atheists” (though I’m middle aged and have been an atheist for more than half my life) by Chris’ failure to address this issue. His criticisms would be better aimed at himself.

Faith is not an avenue towards knowing anything true, and C and M’s book appears to be a pleas for “new atheists” to coddle a certain brand of superstition and treat it differently than science would treat similar “non-god” type claims. But god belief is no more valid than demon belief. Further, it gets in the way of understanding the hard won truths that science discovers, hones, and shares.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 14, 2009 10:28 AM

articulett,

Do not do yourself down. That post is well written and well argued. You can hold you own here with the best of the commentators.

Posted by: ConcernedJoe | July 14, 2009 10:33 AM

PZ your # 175 is so on target.

And so is that concept of ideas and what defines an idiot.

As to being a gentle-person: well almost always you should try at a person level. I have heard enough of PZ, RD, etc. in action to trust they are gentle-people. And I DOUBT most of us "true" atheists would hammer old Aunt Molly on her deathbed about her heavenly aspirations being delusions.

But just because we'd politely ignore the happenstance of a slipped fart from a nervous woman trying to be elegant at a formal dinner table - given the normal empathy of gentle-people that we have - it does not mean that we'd not have the right (and be right) to vociferously demand our children not do such purposely - nor not write forcefully against such practices purposely done in polite society - nor not lash out at advocates of doing such because they say it is so holy to do.

Religion and god delusions stinks up life - we have a right to defend ourselves FINALLY against the establishment and charlatans!

Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 14, 2009 10:37 AM

articulett,

PZ and those who comment on his blogs are so much more interesting, intelligent, and fun to read then the Kwoks, McCarthy's and Jon's that infest Mooney's blog.

I agree. After being at Kwok and McCarthy's blog 'The Intersection' for the last few days I am reminded about the quality of commenters here.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward | July 14, 2009 11:38 AM

>All rules are arbitrary. That is their nature.
Wrong, and wrong. If you take a detailed look at the processes by which rules are formed it will become clear to you that a lot of rules are not arbitrary. They are the way they are for a reason. If you assert that all rules are arbitrary you really don't understand the nature of rules.
Whether the reasons behind rules are good on the other hand is something else entirely, and of course there are things which were more or less decided by a coin toss. But even in such cases the fact that there is a rule at all in the first place may still have a reason.

Posted by: articulett | July 14, 2009 11:59 AM

I don't see any evidence that catering to superstitious ideas has ever helped humanity.

Humanity has managed to survive quite well without their rain dances and sacrifice of virgins...

The world didn't end with Galileo's revelation... and catering to religion didn't help people become more aware of Galileo's science. In fact, religion has long been a thorn in the side of scientific discovery, and "accommodationism" has no record of ameliorating the problem--rather, it appears to exacerbate it by allowing religionists to feel entitled to unearned respect for unsupportable claims.

I think PZ and the other "new atheists" are much more respectful of humanity's ability to handle the truth--the truth that is the same for everyone regardless of what they believe.

Mooney, the accomodationists, Templeton, etc. just seem to be enablers of superstition from my perspective. They are propagandists for faith--as though faith is "good" or a means of knowledge. But there is no evidence that this is so. Consequently, they end up maligning the truth tellers and glorify the deluded and dishonest in an effort to maintain their own delusion that they are "moderates" or peacekeepers. Francis Collins' Biologos is illustrative of the same sort of delusion.

I cannot see how god belief deserves anymore scientific coddling than demon belief. We are well aware that humans have long invented stories to explain things they don't understand and many of these stories involve invisible forms of consciousness (gods, ghosts, demons, sprites, succubi, etc.) Despite eons of such beliefs, we have not an iota of evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist outside a material brain and it's our duty to enlighten other humans to this fact. We have a growing body of evidence as to why and how humans develop these beliefs. We understand why they are most probably illusions and why they are unlikely to be real and how horribly manipulative these illusions can be because they seem so real and play on human hopes and fears.

The truth doesn't need peacekeepers...especially, when the only way to make "peace" is to obfuscate, malign the honest, and lie to oneself and others. The truth just needs to be understood, tested, teased out, honed, and shared.

Faith based knowledge is on par with superstition. It never will be on par with nor deserve the respect of science. There are no truths revealed by faith. Faith doesn't provide valid answers to any question.

I think it's arrogant to imagine that faith is noble or that one has access to divine truths not available to scientists or measurable via empiricism. I think it's doubly arrogant to enable this delusion in others while vilifying those who point this out. It's akin to the "courtier's reply"-- smoke and mirrors to hold on to undeserved respect for enabling people to believe what they want to be true.

M and K might be fooling themselves and the likes of Kwok, but they aren't fooling me. I prefer my truth undiluted and my science unmuddied by the "faith in faith" infected. It's nice to see that so many readers of Pharyngula share the same view. It also seems to negate Mooney's contention that people like PZ are responsible for "unscientific America". The "new atheists" seem to be among the most scientifically literate folks on the planet today. No doubt, this is in part because they don't have the belief that their salvation depends upon their belief in an unbelievable tale.

Posted by: Chris | July 14, 2009 12:17 PM

(I do have to wonder if they are going to feel compelled to make a reply to my reply to their reply to my review. And how are they going to cope with other critical reviews that will be coming down the pipeline? This could get fun!)

I've read your first review of "Unscientific America," the review at Discovery, the authors' response to your review, and your response to that. It has all left me mildly depressed on this fine summer morning.

Both sides are pulling unrepresentative, misleading quotes from the other, and engaging in some twisting and distorting. Debate is great, and can be constructive, but this is starting to look more like two competitors puffing their chests to maintain the sizes of their online following.

You both have much more in common than you're willing to admit, and sure, if the other mischaracterizes your arguments you're right to defend yourself. But Chris, PZ, come one! Have a little debate and then move on! Send each other a fine bottle of port and save your powder for the enemies of reason and common sense.

Posted by: Paul | July 14, 2009 12:36 PM

@225

You're missing the argument. PZ is saying they are making personal attacks and presenting no evidence for their assertions. M&K are saying New Atheists hurt science.

One side has provided evidence for their claims. Perhaps you should focus on the other.

Posted by: Stu | July 14, 2009 12:48 PM

Matt: it's a big, steaming helping of unfounded assertions. Not nearly as bad as the first one though (although that one had the distinct misfortune of discussing the freely available excerpt).

In short:

Doesn't address anti-scientific forces: well, we already did that in Republican War On Science.

Avoids addressing root causes: no, we just don't think religion is the root of the problem (then listing a bunch of things for which religion is the driving factor).

"Dawkins and some other scientists fail to grasp that in Hollywood, the story is paramount—that narrative, drama, and character development will trump mere factual accuracy every time, and by a very long shot.": That's taken out of context, and scientists should learn how to make Jurassic Park (I think, it's incoherent as fuck).

Offers no solutions: that's mean! There's solutions in every chapter, and a Grand Solution chapter (the academic pipeline thing PZ skewered).

And yeah, PZ is a poopyhead because here are the positive reviews, and he's a new atheist, eww.

Posted by: Mr.Man | July 14, 2009 1:02 PM

@ 31 "From the online extract of the MK book: "A Facebook group entitled "When I was your age, Pluto was a planet" drew a million and a half members."

FFS, it doesn't take a genius to understand that the group was just for fun. The groups aim is to gather those thatw ere taught that Pluto was a Planet. That's it. And yes, I joined because I thought it was FUNNY.

Surely Mooney is not that stupid, is he?

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 14, 2009 1:08 PM

Thanks to those who have replied telling what the latest puking from M&K says.

I will probable be able to face reading it in the morning. I might even feel up to tackling the moronic commentators they seem to attract (That does NOT include anyone from here!). Replying to to their inane witterings is like hitting your head against a wall. There is only so much of it you can at any one time.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 14, 2009 1:17 PM

I am sorely tempted to make a Facebook group called "When I was your age, Chris Mooney made a little bit of sense".

If you do I will finally join Facebook just so I can sign up for your group.

Posted by: Stu | July 14, 2009 1:22 PM

Let's send them a shirt:

I wrote a 132-page concern troll and all I got was this lousy T-shirt

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | July 14, 2009 1:35 PM

I dislike irrational fear of nuclear power and of genetic engineering, for instance, and I recall Suzuki encouraged such fear. I also dislike those who say we should all do less with less; rather, I'd like to see us do more with more.

Humans are part of nature, not outside of it, and tiny and insignificant. To think we can "destroy our only living space" is, I think, a risible and grandiose conceit.

what "more"?

now, in the very-long-term I agree, but right now, by virtue of being Earth-bound, there just isn't any "more" there. we're heading for a resource bottleneck, in terms of space, energy, and non-renewable resources (or even those theoretically renewable, but used at too quick a pace). If we don't pace ourselves, we'll fuck the Earth up sufficiently to make it uninhabitable to humans. this isn't a "risible and grandiose conceit"; it's not like no species has caused its own extinction before, nor is it the case that no isolated human population has ever driven itself off the cliff of resource depletion. The only difference now is that it would be global.

As for nuclear power and GM-crops... well, the former might be a good middle-term solution, but let's face it: it would never be implemented as such. once you'd get people to accept nuclear power, it would be THE power source, and people would stop bothering with less harmful alternatives. it's what happened with oil, too. and too much nuclear waste would be a hell of a lot more difficult to deal with than excess C02.

As for the latter, it's not the genetic modification per-se that worries me personally, but rather the way in which it reaches the general populace, i.e. via trademarked profit-focused designer-crops owned by the likes of Monsanto. And those have already proven themselves to be too susceptible to sub-optimal conditions (i.e. ones they weren't specifically designed for) to really be considered a good thing.

-----

yes, this is a deliberate threadjack. :-p

Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 14, 2009 1:57 PM

I think there are. Mine would be: M&K have a condition called philosophical illiteracy. As I said before, someone should go and write a book about it.

Sorry Peter :)

Yeah, there are some very good comments (your included).

Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | July 14, 2009 2:49 PM

Mr. Man @231:
The most positive thing to come out of this blog war so far is my discovery of the FB group
"Suck it, Pluto! Your reign of deception has ended". Joined last night.

Spaulding:

Ok, I haven't read the book, but I keep seeing Sciencebloggers and their posses confusing "I don't like your tactics or manners, and I think other approaches would be more effective" with "shut up!"
What's up with that? Sure, accept or rebut the criticism - but don't try to play the censorship card.

The question (thus far unanswered) that has been put to the framer/accommodation advocates more than once is to define the practical application of their condemnation. They have repeatedly scolded outspoken atheist scientists for not pulling their punches w/r/t/ calling out religion-fueled attacks. What do they want us to do instead? The two apparent options are to pull these punches (i.e. lie) or to avoid the fight altogether (i.e. shut up). What is this, if not an attempt at sensorship?

Posted by: Paul | July 14, 2009 3:52 PM

Peter Beattie posted a link on Why Evolution is True to M&K's newsweek article pitching their book ( http://www.newsweek.com/id/206609 ). Crossposting my answer.

In light of that book advertisement, I think it just got more likely that Coyne’s review will be attacked publicly. I think that would give them more of a platform to take "teaching the controversy" outside of the blogosphere and onto different media.

Incidentally, Kirshenbaum has come out as an agnostic Jew according to that article. Not that it’s all that important, but I have seen people wonder what her particular religious stance is. Contrasting Mooney’s "atheist" label to her "agnostic", apparently he has no doubt that there is no god. That’s taking an even stronger anti-god position than Mooney castigates Dawkins for taking in TGD.

Posted by: CJO | July 14, 2009 5:06 PM

From The CJO Manual of Style.

The practice of separating the words in a sentence with periods to indicate special emphasis is suitable only for casual communication.

Posted by: WordNerd | July 14, 2009 8:18 PM

@161, WOW. It's just grammar, man. American grammar, admittedly. Didn't meant for the exclamation mark to incite a riot.

Sorry for being off-topic, everyone. I'm out.

Posted by: Spaulding | July 15, 2009 3:20 PM

Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) said:

What do they want us to do instead? The two apparent options are to pull these punches (i.e. lie) or to avoid the fight altogether (i.e. shut up). What is this, if not an attempt at [c]ensorship?