Pharyngula

Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | September 7, 2009 12:16 AM

If it was a good idea, then it is likely we will see a replacement. One with a little more integrity.

Who might make this happen?

Posted by: alex.asolis.net | September 7, 2009 12:39 AM

The people in the video have to agree to actually do the video. If they know they're going up against scientists, they may not want to do it. While that would be perfectly fine with you or me, maybe Bloggingheads was simply being understanding by letting them talk with someone who isn't particularly antagonistic toward them. Although it might not be an entirely fair comparison, they've let you have discussions with people you aren't particularly antagonistic against, right?

Posted by: Muzz | September 7, 2009 12:51 AM

I wonder if there's some way to do an editorial reply edition or something; get on two biologists to talk about the other guys' arguments in the other video for a while. Not great but it's all I can think of right now. others would know better.
As mentioned, there's a lot of good stuff on there. It'd be a shame to give it a brain drain over this.
Although it's true that playing hardball over creationist apologism seems extreme to me because where I live (in Aus) we've no need to take them seriously as a political and social force.

Posted by: Yubal | September 7, 2009 12:52 AM

# 3

I think it was a side effect of the site's general philosophy about how to do journalism, which is that antagonism was forbidden.

That does imply there is no real debate going on on this site in the sense of thesis - antithesis - conclusion

In this case, what's the matter when scientific commenter leave that site? Science itself is not thinkable without antagonizing current models, that is what we do in order to make progress. Unleash the FSM guys if you want, but do not worry about scientist leaving the site.

Creationism deserves a sociological/philosophical debate, but for sure not a scientific (in the meaning of biology, physics etc.) debate. Key issues are supposed to be the reasons for individuals and groups to act they way they do, e.g. pastors concerned about the security of their jobs are more prone to defend creation etc. or the impact of creation mythology vs. science on developing minds (children).

There is no scientific debate creation vs. evolution, this controversy does not exist. Who is going to tell this the the consumers of bloggingheads in future? You? Nobody? Who actually CAN do it, considering their format as granted?

Posted by: alex.asolis.net | September 7, 2009 1:44 AM

Alex, it's an entirely unfair comparison, actually.

If bloggingheads decides to do a piece on "Are people who oppose dam removals crazy" and they have as their two guests/debaters

It's a far more fair comparison than your comparison of creationism to supporting the removal of dams. While creationism is certainly silly, it's not immediately obvious. You have to really think about it, and decide that you're going to choose your belief based on the best available evidence. With the removal of dams, it's pretty clear-cut.

Posted by: RBH | September 7, 2009 2:14 AM

To repeat something I've said elsewhere about this, bloggingheads has no intrinsic credibility. It must borrow its credibility from its participants. By having the two creationist sessions, the mutal backslapping of Paul Nelson and Ron Numbers and the love fest of McWhorter and Behe, it spent its borrowed credibility on bullshit.

I applaud genuine scientists for declining to loan bloggingheads their credibility again.

Posted by: alex.asolis.net | September 7, 2009 2:56 AM

Is this part of a new comedy routine you're working on?

I, for one, would like to try the veal.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's really not obvious, unless, you know, you've already thought about it and come to the conclusion that it's bullshit. It's easy to say that after the fact, but it shows you lack insight if you don't realize that it's not so clear-cut for people who don't read about science all the time.

With dams, all you have to do is realize water flows when something isn't in its way, and you're set. How the universe and life on Earth came into existence before anyone was around allows for far more room for argument, even if those arguments are merely the result of ignorance and a devotion to a dogma.

Posted by: scooter | September 7, 2009 3:28 AM

So I guess my reach-a-round where Bill Donahue gives me some bloghead is off the agenda.

Why do scientists hate Amnerica? Total bullshit, advertising, non-stop propaganda and mass hallucinations are as American as Peyote Pie.

Posted by: Treppenwitz | September 7, 2009 4:19 AM

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's really not obvious, unless, you know, you've already thought about it and come to the conclusion that it's bullshit. It's easy to say that after the fact, but it shows you lack insight if you don't realize that it's not so clear-cut for people who don't read about science all the time.

If you were posting this a few centuries ago, then I'd agree that it is not immediately obvious that creationism is false. Today, however, so much evidence has been available for so long that it should be considered absolutely scandalous that so many people in the developed world make it to adulthood without understanding these basic facts about how the world is and, more importantly, lacking any capacity for critical thinking.

Regarding the comment about scientists not being subject to interviews as antagonistic as the creationist interviews should have been, well, what do you want the interviewer to be antagonistic about? The issue, as I see it, is that creationist interviewees weren't being called out when they made bullshit claims. If scientists aren't being similarly deceitful, what do you want the interviewer to grill them about? With more outspoken scientists like PZ, they can (and should) ask questions about the merits of various approaches to promoting science and skepticism, but that still isn't (and need not be) on the same level as having to call someone out for lying.

Posted by: Walton | September 7, 2009 4:26 AM

Do a blog post where you challenge Dembski, Behe, or Meyers to a debate.

The latter would be far too confusing. Since most creationists seem to be unable to spell "Myers", and you clearly can't spell (Stephen) "Meyer", a sizeable proportion of the audience wouldn't know who was who. :-)

In any case, creationism is intellectually bankrupt, and doesn't deserve the attention that this debate would bring. What would be far more interesting is a debate between Professor Myers and, say, Dr Francis Collins, or some other intelligent religious believer with a solid scientific track record.

Posted by: fourposter beds | September 7, 2009 4:55 AM

May be it is fine comparison but i am not much concern about it.

Posted by: Sigmund | September 7, 2009 6:47 AM

"In the likely event that brave sir Behe will run away, the debate could then take place between John McWhorter and Abbie, with her explaining what he hadn't appreciated about Behe's woo."
I'm not so sure McWhorter would be amenable to taking on Abbie considering what she accused him of doing to Behe!
As for Abbie herself taking on Behe then I'm all for it. Wrights suggestion that Dawkins would be a suitable match-up with Behe is ridiculous and completely plays into the creationists hands and gives far too much credibility to Behes arguments.

Posted by: mvantony | September 7, 2009 8:55 AM

"The problem with bloggingheads wasn't simply that creationists were given a venue — it was that creationists were given a venue without voices opposing their ideas. It was setting up crackpots with softball interviews that made them look reasonable, because their peculiar ideas were never confronted."

This is weak. Having a few diavlogs in which ID people/creationists/"crackpots" are paired with interlocutors who put them at ease has it's own benefits: it allows the individual to express him or herself freely, in a way that's entirely different from what would ensue if the person were defending against an unrelenting one-hour onslaught by someone who thinks they're vile scum. That's educationally highly valuable; and you, Sean, Carl, and Phil, seem to me to be a bit blind, frankly, if you don't see it. Bloggingheads of course should also pit creationists against strong knowledgable critics like yourself, and that they haven't done. Yet. But there's no reason on Earth to think that Bob Wright wouldn't happily do that, and wouldn't have happily done that even without your protest. In my opinion, you jumped too soon. That said, I highly value all of your contributions to BhTV, and hope you come back -- e.g., if Bob ensures that he'll also subject ID/creationist perspectives to the sort of criticism you wish it had been subjected to from the start.

Posted by: osmium | September 7, 2009 9:20 AM

PZ, I am a long-time bloggingheads viewer and a scientist. I understand the frustration with the McWhorter-Behe episode, but I believe not appearing in the future is a mistake. I wish you would reconsider. The many Science Saturday episodes over the years have been a wonderful thing.

Posted by: Kel, OM | September 7, 2009 9:41 AM

It'll be interesting to see what Carl Zimmer has up his sleeve, looking forward to seeing what he does as a kind of "replacement"

Posted by: Greg Laden | September 7, 2009 11:05 AM

Oops. Sorry about that screwed up link code.

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | September 7, 2009 11:44 AM

mvantony@28: "Bloggingheads of course should also pit creationists against strong knowledgable critics like yourself, and that they haven't done. Yet. But there's no reason on Earth to think that Bob Wright wouldn't happily do that, and wouldn't have happily done that even without your protest."

There certainly is reason to think that: Wright has pretty much ruled it out. He has stated his belief that evo/creo debates are too esoteric and technical for the BH.tv audience unless you get someone who is a fantastic communicator. He said Dawkins is the only one he can think of who fits that bill. (Which I think is a silly position; I suspect Wright is also requiring a certain degree of fame and prestige.)

And since Dawkins has already stated publicly that he won't debate creationists, Wright is effectively saying "no evo/creo debates on BH."

Posted by: mvantony | September 7, 2009 1:40 PM

Screechy Monkey@35:

He said Dawkins is the only one he can think of who fits that bill. (Which I think is a silly position; I suspect Wright is also requiring a certain degree of fame and prestige.)

Although I'm sure Bob Wright would like to get someone famous like Dawkins on the site (reasonably enough), it's hard for me to imagine that it's anything close to a requirement. (There are countless non-famous people on BhTV.) He'd no doubt want someone sufficiently competent to (a) explain technical disagreements in a clear and accessible way to a lay audience (e.g., the way Sean Carroll does with physics), and (b) have a reasonable chance of remaining hooked up with Behe (or whomever) for an hour without either of them descending into juvenile name-calling and the like. The fact that Bob said in the heat of the conference-call with Sean Carroll and others that Dawkins is the only person he could think of probably has more to do with Bob's mental state at the time, and his limited knowledge of who's out there, than with any stringent set of selection-criteria he's using. I'm pretty sure he'd be open to all sorts of suggestions.

Posted by: Robert Wright | September 7, 2009 1:55 PM

Thanks to Mark H. for linking to the diavlog I did with George Johnson about this whole controversy: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22300 . (You might want to skip the small talk by clicking on topic #1 and then clicking on topics in succession.)

During that diavlog I tried to convey that the two infamous diavlogs were *not* representative of my editorial policy but rather reflected my own failure to exercise adequate editorial oversight. So they aren't an indicator of what to expect on Bloggingheads.tv in the future.

For those who don't have time to watch the diavlog, you can read my summary of some key points in a note I left immediately below the video player. (But if you want to fully appreciate how many times I've screwed up in the course of this whole thing, there's probably no substitute for watching or listening to the diavlog.)

As for the suggestion from Screechy Monkey, above, that I wouldn't feature PZ debating a creationist or other ID adherent: On the contrary--I'd be happy to host that debate. For that matter, if PZ wants to come on the site and excoriate me to my face for my mishandling of this whole thing (or for anything else), that would be fine, too. I deserve it.

BTW, if anyone has questions about my own position on intelligent design, here's a piece I wrote on the subject for Slate in 2001: http://www.slate.com/id/104349/

Finally, if any of the veteran commenters can explain to me how to embed URLs in words and phrases, that would make me feel more sophisticated.

Thanks,

Bob Wright

Posted by: bjkeefe | September 7, 2009 2:58 PM

PZ says in comment #3:

I don't think they decided to go creationist-friendly at all. I think it was a side effect of the site's general philosophy about how to do journalism, which is that antagonism was forbidden.

As a long time Bh.tv participant, I can say that this is not generally true. Not by a long shot. While no one hated those two creationists diavlogs more than I did, many of the diavlogs on Bh.tv feature robust debate. And when you eliminate the ones that are, by design, straight-up interviews, you can change "many" to "most." In fact, it is somewhat of a running joke among regular diavloggers, made during the course of diavlogs, to say, "Uh-oh, we're not disagreeing enough. We better move on to the next topic or we'll get in trouble with Bob."

I don't have a problem with the decision made by Sean, Carl, Phil, and PZ to cut ties with Bh.tv due to their admirable principles concerning the unwarranted treatment-as-scientific-equals of creationists, although I do hope, for selfish reasons, that they'll consider a parole rather than sticking to a life sentence, assuming Bh.tv doesn't screw up by letting unchallenged woo be presented again. And I have other complaints with the site, concerning some of their other regular diavloggers who I think equally undeserving of intellectual respect. But I do have to take exception with PZ's characterization of Bh.tv as "forbidding antagonism." That is simply not true, generally speaking.

No one that puts something out every day never drops the ball once in a while. Criticize the two creationist fumbles all you want, and you'll get no disagreement from me. But there's no need to exaggerate. In fact, all it does is make your case weaker when such obviously untrue things are said.

On a related note, @RBH #13 said:

To repeat something I've said elsewhere about this, bloggingheads has no intrinsic credibility. It must borrow its credibility from its participants. By having the two creationist sessions, the mutal backslapping of Paul Nelson and Ron Numbers and the love fest of McWhorter and Behe, it spent its borrowed credibility on bullshit.

I strongly disagree with this. Bh.tv has built up a lot of credibility, in my mind at least, due to their generally good guests, their site policies, and their ongoing efforts to present different views. Bob Wright earns credibility for running the site as it's run, and for the many good diavlogs and interviews he himself has done on the site.

Yes, the diavloggers themselves contribute significantly to the credibility, and yes, Bh.tv isn't perfect. I agree completely that the two creationist diavlogs were a disgrace, and I think they hurt themselves by repeatedly having on people like Althouse, McArdle, and Jonah Goldberg. But in an average week, four or five of the diavlogs are at least good, and often, a couple of them are very good. Putting that together and keeping it going week after week, month after month, year after year, earns Bh.tv some credibility. In fact, I think one of the reasons the creationists generated so much protest is precisely because we don't like to have these clowns on what we consider a prestigious platform. If it was just Joe Website posting puff interviews with Nelson and Behe, our reactions would have been a considered "Meh."

Posted by: Screechy Monkey | September 7, 2009 4:16 PM

Bob: I stand corrected. I was going by your earlier statement that the only possible interlocutors you could think of for Behe were yourself (on theology) and Dawkins.

I appreciate your willingness to come on this and other blogs to deal with the issue (and to apologize repeatedly). I think your best bet at this point is to state a clear policy that BH.tv will apply in the future. It still sounds to me like the policy is "whatever Bob Wright and/or one of his staff thinks is appropriate," and while that's your right, it's also what got you into this mess.

It's not a matter of making "promises" to any particular contributor or giving anyone veto power, it's just about announcing "here's what we're going to do to make sure this doesn't happen again," and if it sticks to that policy, maybe in time BH.tv can regain credibility in the eyes of Sean, Carl, Phil, and PZ. It sounds to me like all the apologies and diplomacy in the world aren't going to change their minds right now.

Posted by: Ron Sullivan | September 7, 2009 4:32 PM

OT and something of a diversion, but:

Alkali in #26: If it requires some amount of thought to decide whether creationism seems reasonable, surely it also requires some thought to decide whether removing dams seems reasonable?

I can't quite tell what the opinions of the commenters who've used this metaphor actually are, in re: dam removal, but it's happening right now all over the place and there's rather a lot more to it than the fact that water flows. (In fact, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it soaks in and percolates and makes that indispensable invisible thing we call "the water table.")

Some 60+ dams were removed or slated for removal last year just in North America. Google on "dam removal" for enough info to destroy any notion that the matter is "clear-cut."

Posted by: articulett | September 7, 2009 5:02 PM

I think having creationists on science blogs mixes "magisteria" that should not overlap. It's like having an astrologist or "psychic detective" presented as thought they are on par with astronomers and forensic scientists.

Scientology is not science-- neither is creationism. If you wouldn't give a platform to the former because it is not science, then why would you give such a platform to the latter? What next--homeopaths and antivax folk?-

I understand the decision of PZ et. al. Who wants to be a part of an organization that seems to be legitimizing pseudoscience? Lies are not on par with truths. Delusional thinking is not equal to realistic thought.

Keep woo out of science.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | September 7, 2009 5:22 PM

R. Wright, why are you giving any platform to IDers?
Why accomidate IDers at all?

Posted by: mk | September 7, 2009 6:09 PM

if any future diavlog is going to feature someone arguing that creationism/ID has merit, his/her counterpart should be

Stop right there!

Why would you allow anyone on who thinks creationism or ID has merit? Are you going to allow astrologers on because they think there is merit in that? Flat-earthers? Unicornists? Fairyists? Moon-hoaxers? Holocaust denialists?

Posted by: Robert Wright | September 7, 2009 9:26 PM

mk, at the risk of repeating myself, i really encourage you to read this:

http://www.slate.com/id/104349/

I wrote it 8 years ago and haven't changed my mind.

Posted by: mk | September 7, 2009 10:00 PM

I've read it.

And it doesn't jibe with current events or comments. I still do not get why you would want to feature IDers or Creationists and not all those others mentioned above. Or... would you?

Posted by: thouartgob | September 7, 2009 10:41 PM

mk:

Come on is this Mickey Kaus

( by the way Bob the site uses REAL HTML tags so the above is:

[LT]a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/" rel="nofollow"[GT]Mickey Kaus[LT]/a[GT]

of course replace [LT] and [GT] with "less than" and "greater than" symbols )

back to mk:

And it doesn't jibe with current events or comments. I still do not get why you would want to feature IDers or Creationists and not all those others mentioned above. Or... would you?

He would like to as he has said above and in other forums but the real point is why something he wrote 8 years ago doesn't jibe with current events. Just as creationists have complained about fossils being planted so to has Bob has planted this years ago to inoculate himself against criticism while he destroys science piece by piece now in 2009. He is a monster !!!

Posted by: Robert Wright | September 7, 2009 11:35 PM

Screechy Monkey, you can rest assured that in the future no diavlogs involving a creationist or other ID adherent will be taped without my approval. That message has definitely been delivered to my staff. It used to be the case that I had to approve any new blogginghead in any realm--science, religion, politics, whatever. The cause of this controversy is that as we drifted away from that model, and I delegated more and more authority over orchestrating diavlogs, I failed to provide my staff with clear guidelines for choosing bloggingheads.

Posted by: Tom Wood | September 8, 2009 12:39 AM

@Robert Wright -

You've made the statement to the effect that you wouldn't want a scientist on BHTV with a deep knowledge of biology to debate the creationists because the conversation might become too esoteric for the audience. I think that sells your audience short and also closes off the possibility for the best sort of debate that could happen. Let it become esoteric and then provide links to further information.

Also, any biologist who also teaches has to be able to communicate at a level that a student can understand. PZ is the perfect type of candidate for this type of debate. While there is only one PZ, I suspect there are many more biology teachers out there who can make the debate accessible to the lay audience.

Posted by: strange gods before me | September 8, 2009 1:02 AM

Feh, I see that thouartgob already did it. Look what the internet did to my reading comprehension.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | September 8, 2009 5:59 AM

"Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's really not obvious, unless, you know, you've already thought about it and come to the conclusion that it's bullshit."

Actually, it is obvious. Very, very obvious. So obvious that growing up some of the Christians I met advised that it was better to not read the Bible because it erodes faith.

Genesis is frankly the work not merely of bronze age nomads, but particularly stupid ones. The sort of shit they came up with was the sort of shit they didn't have an excuse for even back then (The moon being a light? It has phases. You can see it isn't a light just by looking up one night when it isn't full.)

Dam removal on the other hand, is frequently actually needed. The Kruger Park has been removing dams lately because of hippos crapping in the water, leading to toxic algae blooms. Dams frequently end up messing up salmon runs, you have the risk of increased flooding in some areas and depriving other areas of water. Dams, can start wars when one country relies on a river that runs through another country first.

Creationism is ultimately complete bullshit with zero validity - removing dams is actually something one can argue in favour of in specific instances.

Posted by: mk | September 8, 2009 7:36 AM

Ahem... "NO rational ideas."