…and this is a 
Oh, boy. As many of you already know, the big AAI conference is taking place in LA at the end of this week — I'll be there! — and they are giving Bill Maher an award. This is a problem. Maher made a provocative movie about religion this year, Religulous, and that's the kind of thing we want to acknowledge and encourage, but at the same time…Maher is as loopy as they come on medical matters. He's a conspiracy theorist who blames Big Pharma for controlling health care, thinks modern medicine is a failure, and promotes 'alternative' therapies that don't work. It is a serious embarrassment.
I think it is an excellent idea to ask difficult questions and put Maher on the spot, as Orac has proposed, and the last thing any skeptic or rationalist should do is ask critics to be silent. However, we have a couple of small problems here.
One is that some people (not Orac) have been threatening to disrupt the proceedings at the meeting. Nope, not good: there is a difference between asking hard questions and interfering with the event so no one gets to ask questions. Let's nip this one in the bud: do not show up at the meeting with the intent of turning it into something equivalent to those townhall teabagger shouting matches. I think you're entirely right to be pissed off at Maher, but that doesn't justify disruption.
Another problem is that Maher is going to be well insulated. He's showing up for the award ceremony, which will NOT have time scheduled for a Q&A, and I think he'll be vanishing right afterwards. We're not likely to have an opportunity for discussion.
And yet another problem: people are barking at Richard Dawkins. Dawkins does not support quackery. This isn't an issue on which he'll disagree with any of you, but he's also there to talk about his exciting new book, not about fake cancer cures. I suspect he's not looking forward to a lot of time-wasting headaches over this issue, and if it sounds like it's going to eat up all of his time with the public, he'll probably do the rational thing and cut back on spending time with the public. This is not to be encouraged.
I have some suggestions.
I'm going to be printing out Orac's excellent complaint, and if you're going, you should, too. I'll keep an eye on the comments in the next few days for more good questions.
If we get an opportunity in an open forum to pin Maher down on these questions, let's do it. Let's do it politely and according to the rules of the session. That's fair game.
If you find yourself with a chance to ask Richard Dawkins questions, though, please stick to issues that interest him. If you ask him about acupuncture, he's going to be as dismissive as all of us other skeptics, so there really isn't much point to going on about it. Don't waste an opportunity to converse with Dawkins on a bunch of annoying noise. OK?
However, I've probably got a greater likelihood of getting a shot at a private conversation with Richard Dawkins than most readers here; maybe, and this is a very thin maybe, I'll even get an opportunity to collar Maher. I may also get a chance to talk with some of the other organizers of the conference. If that happens, I'll pass along the complaints, and I'll try to drill down and get some good answers for you…which, of course, I'll post here.
I think that's your best strategy for actually getting answers to the questions Orac is asking, rather than simply triggering a shouting match. While shouting matches are fun, we should want something a little more thoughtful out of these fellows.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: meyemo
|
September 28, 2009 4:38 PM
Sounds like a great idea.
Posted by: Feynmaniac
|
September 28, 2009 4:38 PM
Careful, Maher knows how to deal with hecklers.
Posted by: Platinumwolf
|
September 28, 2009 4:42 PM
Admittedly, I'm a fan of Maher, but even I know that he has some issues upon which he is not well educated. I find it hypocritical, and somewhat appalling, that there are people out here who would take any potential opportunity for reasoned discourse and turn it into a pathetic yelling match.
Maher has demonstrated on at least one issue (religion) that he's a skeptic. Let us, instead of engaging in histrionics, engage his intellect so that he will understand why we think he is wrong on the particular issues we think he is wrong about. Invite him to expound on the information which causes him to think otherwise, so that it can be analyzed and refuted.
Eventually, reason will out.
Posted by: llewelly
|
September 28, 2009 4:42 PM
What if there isn't an opportunity to pin Maher down and ask him Orac's difficult questions? I don't see any plan for dealing with a situation where Maher shows up just in time to take the award, and vanishes without answering any questions.Posted by: rock-biologist
|
September 28, 2009 4:50 PM
Time to get PZ on Real Time.
Posted by: llewelly
|
September 28, 2009 4:51 PM
This completely misses the point of asking Dawkins questions about his earlier statement on AAI's decision to award Maher. A clear statement from Dawkins, that he disagrees with Maher's anti-health views would let people know that the award is not an unqualified endorsement of Maher's views.Posted by: Shamelessly Atheist
|
September 28, 2009 4:56 PM
I'd like to ask Maher why he lacks the integrity to turn the award down, since he isn't even an atheist. While we're on the topic, why stop at Maher? Let's put those who chose Maher under the microscope.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
September 28, 2009 4:57 PM
PZ, I'm crossing my fingers that he invites you onto his show as one of the panelists. I can already picture him bringing up alternative medicine and you softly saying, "Oh that? That's woo," to which Maher would undoubtedly guffaw at, giving you an opening to refute it in the most uncontroversial way, throwing in some new insight that Maher can get behind. You're really good at disarming difficult topics like that in person, like the way you handled the Expelled media conference call or your most recent radio interview.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 28, 2009 4:57 PM
Seems like the "plan" for dealing with that is to contact the organizers and register your disapproval with the procedure. Are Q&A sessions common at award ceremonies?
Posted by: James Sweet
|
September 28, 2009 4:57 PM
I don't think this is at all clear. Not everyone who is an atheist is a skeptic, or arrives there by skepticism. Someone at Orac's blog compared it to someone cheating off another person's exam... Maher may have gotten the right answer on the God question, but that doesn't mean the way he got there was with sound reasoning and skepticism. (Maybe he did, but this is not at all clear)
As far as whether to pester Dawkins, I would just like him to state clearly and unequivocally that he does not approve of Maher's views on medicine, and that would be enough for me. I am ambivalent as to whether Maher's great contribution in the form of Religulous is outweighed by his vaccine crankery. But I'm not ambivalent about Dawkins' failure to distance himself from Maher's views in this regard.
Posted by: thepugilist
|
September 28, 2009 5:04 PM
#5
I've already sent a few emails about getting PZ on Real Time, that would be great. I'm going to keep emailing until it happens.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
September 28, 2009 5:05 PM
So what am I supposed to do with all these posters of Bill Maher that I've draw Hitler mustaches on?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 28, 2009 5:08 PM
Isn't the question why the AAI is giving him an award? He makes skepticism look bad by peddling woo, potentially lethal woo.
Some of what he says is a more immediate threat than religion, although the long-term effects of religion may cause more damage.
Giving up religion oughtn't be a mere exchange for more evidence-free nonsense.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: courtneylove
|
September 28, 2009 5:10 PM
"This is a problem. Maher made a provocative movie about religion this year, Religulous, and that's the kind of thing we want to acknowledge and encourage"
No, he just went around laughing in the faces of religious people. Thats not the sort of provocative conduct i'd want to encourage.
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
September 28, 2009 5:14 PM
So says courtneylove?Posted by: Sastra
|
September 28, 2009 5:15 PM
The wording on this year's Dawkins Award is:
"for outstanding contribution to freethought
in Religulous
and many insightful criticisms of religion
presented to Bill Maher
by Atheist Alliance International, Oct 2, 2009."
In other words, it's targeted specifically for Maher's outspoken stance towards religion, and his movie.
Posted by: James Sweet
|
September 28, 2009 5:15 PM
I know of at least one person who was pushed over the edge from nominally-Catholic agnosticism to atheism as a direct result of Maher's movie. For me personally, I found Religulous extremely entertaining, and the closing monologue was what inspired me to be more vocal about my atheism.
Religulous may not be have presented a carefully-constructed well-reasoned argument, and at times it was out-and-out disingenuous. But it is hard to dispute it's effectiveness.
(I'm still ambivalent about Maher receiving this award, though)
Posted by: Sili
|
September 28, 2009 5:16 PM
I'm sorry, PeeZed, but Dawkins has screwed the pooch on this one. Even if he didn't know when first asked that Maher is a nut, that's no excuse for not distancing himself from the award now. Also shame on the AAI for making such a thorough dogs breaksfast of the whole thing. That's what they get for trying to roll everything into one award instead of explicitly distinguishing the science, the skepticism and the atheism.
Of course, people should conduct themselves appropriately and I sincerely hope they do. But I'll applaud anyone who manages to - politely - ask mesrrs Dawkins and Maher about their views. If this is all it takes to get Dawkins to retract into a shell, then good riddance. I thought the man was made of sterner material than that.
Ideally, I hope a significant part of the audience will abstain from applauding Maher. Hopefully that'll send a message.
Posted by: James Sweet
|
September 28, 2009 5:22 PM
@Sastra: Thanks for providing that. For me personally, that does go some way to assuaging my distaste for this turn of events.
I still hope Dawkins would clarify his opinion of Maher's medical views, though. I actually would have been okay with Dawkins keeping silent on the matter entirely, but he has forgone that privilege and I think at this point he really ought to politely but explicitly distance himself from Maher's quack ideas.
Posted by: courtneylove
|
September 28, 2009 5:26 PM
"I know of at least one person who was pushed over the edge from nominally-Catholic agnosticism to atheism as a direct result of Maher's movie. For me personally, I found Religulous extremely entertaining, and the closing monologue was what inspired me to be more vocal about my atheism.
Religulous may not be have presented a carefully-constructed well-reasoned argument, and at times it was out-and-out disingenuous. But it is hard to dispute it's effectiveness."
I don't know about that, the only guy in that film that made any sense was the catholic priest Maher interviewed at the vatican.
I find it embarrassing that a film where they literally point at a theme park holy land and laugh is being considered as the least bit thought provoking. Each to their own I suppose.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 28, 2009 5:30 PM
Slow down. That's a very broad, blanket statement.
In at least one sense, it's uncontroversially true that the pharmaceutical companies are controlling health care and subverting democracy. Like the American Medical Association, they have demonstrated that they are not allies of the American people.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 28, 2009 5:34 PM
Maher made Religulous. It was a pretty good movie. Maher also made some highly dubious claims about medicine. Influenza vaccines make one ten times more susceptible to Alzheimer's? Cancer can be cured by diet? Better sanitation, not the polio vaccine, brought down the incidence of polio?
I'm really dubious if Relgulous offsets all of the medical woo Maher is promoting. If I were one of the people selecting candidates for the AAI award, Maher would not have made my short list.
Posted by: Walton
|
September 28, 2009 5:47 PM
Without pharmaceutical companies, and their constant incentive to innovate in order to increase profits, we would not have anywhere near the range of medical treatments which exist today. Research and development costs money; and the drug companies are, in large measure, the source of that money.
At the same time, in relation to the topic of the blog post to which you linked: yes, I agree that it is wrong for a few large drug companies to have so much lobbying influence. Unfortunately, this is a systemic problem with the American system of government (and perhaps with liberal democracy in general). It is to be regretted, in the American political system and to a lesser extent in other systems, that big business, labour unions, trial lawyers, and other special interest groups have such easy access to political leaders (there have even, IIRC, been documented cases of congressmen putting forward legislation drafted word-for-word by private lobbyists).
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that there will ever be anti-lobbying legislation with real teeth - because the people who write laws are themselves the beneficiaries of the cosy relationship between government and special interests. This is one of the problems with the push for federally-run healthcare. Like defence contracting, infrastructure, and other areas of high-spending government activity, it will inevitably become a haven for lucrative no-bid contracts, lobbying and the "iron triangle".
Posted by: frank-oswalt.myopenid.com
|
September 28, 2009 5:55 PM
From AAI's mission statement:
Maher fails on all three values: he is unreasonable (his stance toward "alternative medicine" is entirely emotion-driven), anti-empirical (he rejects evidence-based medicine) and believes in the supernatural (homeopathy).
He is a terrible choice for this award. We atheists should have higher standards. People at the ceremony should absolutely try to get a statement from him and from Richard Dawkins on this matter.
Posted by: zylph
|
September 28, 2009 6:01 PM
Let me see if I've got this straight: Dawkins has made a career out of talking about how dangerous irrational viewpoints are. An award is being given, in his name and with his imprimatur, to a man that espouses irrational and deadly (as far his antivaccination stance goes) viewpoints. And the proper thing to do is not to call Dawkins on this, because he might get irritated and take his ball and go home. If Peter Duesberg was getting this award, should we simply ignore his crazy HIV denialism?
No - sorry. I hope people do pester Dawkins about this because antivaccinationism has actually killed people. And if anybody should understand that being rational except when you're talking about some pet beliefs (God, acupuncture, whatever) doesn't work, it should be Dawkins.
Posted by: chuckgoecke
|
September 28, 2009 6:26 PM
Ya ya ya, Bill Maher is out there a bit on his alternative medicine. First, I think its a mistake to pile up all alternative medicine into the same heap, and call it all equally bogus. Alternative medicine is a continuum of practices and beliefs that range from batshit crazy to almost accepted by the conventional medical establishment, or accepted by large parts of the medical establishment, but yet not all. Big subject, and plenty of room for controversy. Even Maher's medical ideas are not all equally wrong. Some are probably right for those of us lucky enough to have good immune systems, but from a public health perspective, you have to serve the weakest common denominator.
I don't think Maher is so down on Big Pharma for their science and medicine, but for their business and political practices. He and I agree on some things here. One of the things that bugs me is the direct marketing to ordinary people. Totally inappropriate in my opinion. Another is the WAY they market to doctors, and lobby politicians, with junkets and crap like that. Third is the budgets they have for marketing, compared to new product development.
Big Pharma, just like Big Agra, and Big Insurna, Big Energia, Big Auto and Big Defensia, need to be kept in check, regulated and watched over. They can make profits, but not obscene ones, on the backs of the poor, the sick, or the hard working folk. Their ability to influence politics should only be in proportion to the number of employees and share holders that they can inspire to vote differently than the general population.
Posted by: Feynmaniac
|
September 28, 2009 6:29 PM
Seconded, if only to see Bill Donohue's head explode.
Posted by: rc-moore.myopenid.com
|
September 28, 2009 6:41 PM
Definitely. Us atheists at the conference really should do the bidding of the millions of atheists who have never bothered with AAI, never joined or donated a dime, or even made themselves aware of it until P.Z. Meyers current blog.
Let's be realistic. AAI is a shrinking organization struggling to get media attention. Bill Maher is an excellent source of positive PR. I would like atheists to be good skeptics first, but that is not going to happen any time soon.
There is a lot of self-righteous indignation over this award going on, now that it has been advertised -- I assure you, you are late in this game (because, to be honest, you don't bother to play. You prefer the easier role of second-guessing from the grandstands).
There was much discussion before the award was given. Everything in the real world (which this blog is not) is a compromise. And a bit of marketing.
I will have the questions. If I get a chance to ask them, like an adult would, I will do so. But to be honest, if a get a chance to talk to Richard Dawkins (I will see him twice in the next couple of weeks), I just can't imagine this issue will be high on my agenda.
Mr. Maher is a different matter. I will ask him (little chance) every tough question I can.
And AAI? I already have asked, and had the situation explained. Because I bother to show up and play.
Posted by: jo5ef
|
September 28, 2009 6:43 PM
I agree with those who think Dawkins needs to clearly state his position on Mahers anti science position. As for the award not being about science, the AAI states the award is to "honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge".
Posted by: frank-oswalt.myopenid.com
|
September 28, 2009 6:49 PM
RC Moore @ 28:
An organization that calls itself "Atheist Alliance International" cannot claim to speak just for itself and still be taken seriously. And at the very least it should stick to its own mission statement. In this particular case, the event is co-hosted by the RDF, which is seen as a major voice for atheism.
Oh yeah, and Bill Maher isn't actually an atheist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher#Views_on_religion
Makes this award even sillier.
Posted by: rc-moore.myopenid.com
|
September 28, 2009 7:01 PM
If you, as an adult, have not figured out yet that awards such as these are indeed silly, then what can I say?
You have two choices I guess: accept these awards as the media attention getters they are, or start your own international campaign to end the abusive award giving that is destroying our very culture.
Or, you could spend your time founding or promoting a local atheist or skeptic group, where you can receive an education in just how hard it is, and why "silly" awards and other personally debasing activities are often required in order to bring more serious issues to the attention of the public.
And if enough atheist and skeptics groups form, and become AAI affiliates, then maybe this kind of nonsense will not be necessary to repeat in the future.
The grown ups at the conference will be aware of the issues brought up here, to the extend possible. For the children who want cake and ice cream, then I suggest you first eat your dinner.
Posted by: rock-biologist
|
September 28, 2009 7:29 PM
To be fair, they've got competition from the Unified Atheist League, the United Atheist Alliance, and the Allied Atheist Allegiance.
Posted by: andrew
|
September 28, 2009 7:30 PM
No, Dawkins doesn't get a pass on this if he or you or we see him as a voice of reason and rationality. His apathy is *somewhat* akin to Oprah's in not taking McCarthy to task for her crankery.
If you're going to be a full time skeptic, you can't pick and chose which pseudo-scientific notions you're going to oppose, especially when one so blatant walks up and bears its neck.
No pass for Maher, Dawkins or AAI
Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum
|
September 28, 2009 7:31 PM
Walton writes:
Without pharmaceutical companies, and their constant incentive to innovate in order to increase profits, we would not have anywhere near the range of medical treatments which exist today.
Minor nit: we would. Their products just wouldn't work.
:D
Without pharmaceutical companies, Andrew Weil's caca-peddlers, homeopaths, and the acai berry crowd would expand their operations to fill the niche. Once cannot help but wonder how much of sCAM's success is due to the expense of "real" medicine.
Posted by: Marcus J. Ranum
|
September 28, 2009 7:36 PM
they've got competition from the Unified Atheist League, the United Atheist Alliance, and the Allied Atheist Allegiance.
Voice 1: The United Atheist Alliance? THOSE pissants? F*ck them, I say!
Voice 2: We're the United Atheist Alliance!
Voice 1: Oh.
Voice 2: What about the Atheist People's Front?
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 28, 2009 7:45 PM
You'll believe anything. Fact is, they spend far more on advertising than they do on research. Corporations do not innovate. Scientists innovate. And scientists can be paid by the public sector.
The end result is no different from defederalizing it all and letting corporations pit the states against each other in a bidding war. The people get screwed either way under capitalism, and it's no better to get screwed at the state level.
Single-payer health care is our only defense, and provides the best medical care in the United States today.
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
September 28, 2009 7:46 PM
That post is probably the most disappointing thing I've ever read by Dawkins. "I didn't know he was a total quack but he made a funny movie" is a pretty poor defense, especially given how much time was available for him to change his mind about approving of the award.
As for Religulous, it was mediocre at best. I don't award many points for shooting the dumbest fish in the smallest barrels.
Posted by: meyemo
|
September 28, 2009 7:57 PM
I think the most fitting description of Maher was when he was portrayed not as a skeptic, but as anti-authoritarian figure. He arrives at his conclusions not through skepticism, but by consistently rooting for the underdog. It seems to line up with his views on just about everything.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 28, 2009 8:24 PM
He is opposed to women breastfeeding in public.
Posted by: nelc
|
September 28, 2009 8:42 PM
Can I just say, Orac's Excellent Complaint sounds like a spell from the works of Jack Vance, or even from Dungeons & Dragons.
Posted by: dustycrickets
|
September 28, 2009 8:49 PM
B M has a fairly large audience....
Maybe part of the equation is weighing engaging that audience vs turning them off.
Posted by: Dr Benway
|
September 28, 2009 9:09 PM
I'd like to hear Dawkins say something like this:
"Bill, we thank you for Religulous. It was a lot of laughs and a breath of fresh air. Too many Americans lack the courage to openly question or criticize religion for fear of being demonized by the politically organized religious right. The fact that Religulous found a broad audience gives me hope that religion's spell over America is ready to crack.
"Now, it's no secret that you're an opinionated person and that many of your opinions are controversial. In particular, your belief in alternative medicine is rather hard to swallow. There is no alternative to science. Either one does science properly or improperly, end of story. The phrase "alternative medicine" has no meaning a genuine scientist would recognize. It's simply marketing buzz designed to fool the gullible and I think it's a shame you take it so seriously.
"But let's not stress our differences. We don't need to agree about everything in order to work toward a common goal, the liberation of minds bound by the tyranny of ancient superstitions.
"I hope that our recognition of your fearless irreverence encourages you to continue the good fight. Keep speaking out. Keep challenging your audience to question and to think for themselves. Thanks again for your important contribution to this community of free thinkers."
Posted by: Sastra
|
September 28, 2009 9:22 PM
Dr, Benway #42:
That was lovely. I hope so too.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 28, 2009 9:27 PM
As Sastra points out, this award is given "for insightful criticisms of religion".
I do not get this argument of saying that because you disagree with someone on a particular topic, that you therefore must also reject all of someone's opinions on any other topic.
How many people would be married if you think this to its conclusion?
This is about Maher's contributions on critisizing religion, and not about his views on the pharmaceutical industry or breastfeeding.
Posted by: Kerry Maxwell
|
September 28, 2009 9:44 PM
As has been pointed out, Maher is a contrarian, not a skeptic or rational thinker. If Maher was a Holocaust denier, would there be calls to *go easy* on him and be polite? Well, he is at least sympathetic to HIV denialists, if not openly one himself. I haven't seen Religulous, nor will I ever, as I don't need convincing that religion is a waste of time, and Bill Maher is a smug, irrational assclown. I'd throw him on the same pile with Jenny McCarthy. If someone is a germ theory denialist, I couldn't care less what their views on religion are, and I certainly don't want to see their name even vaguely associated with Dawkins. Maher's opinions are not *controversial*, they are out and out lunacy. Period.
Posted by: Mr T
|
September 28, 2009 9:57 PM
What if, instead of a teabagger shouting match, someone administers an actual teabagging for Maher once he's given his award? I don't think it would be too disruptive, and perhaps it could even be educational.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 28, 2009 10:08 PM
@ 45,
[Citation needed]
Strawman argument that noone here has been using, as far as I can tell.
So if someone is a YEC, say, then following that "logic" we should reject everything else they say about any other topic, because a YEC couldt possibly have a reasonable and useful stance on anything else?
I find that argument bullshit, to be honest.
Posted by: richolas
|
September 28, 2009 10:58 PM
I thought one of the benefits of following the path of free thought is that people are allowed to agree on Topic X without being required to also agree on Topics Y and Z.
It gets tiresome to hear about people say that Maher should be rejected as a spokesman for atheist beliefs because his attitudes towards vaccines are less than fully informed. Personally, I know a lot of intelligent people, and most of them are appallingly wrong on at least one issue or another (at least from my perspective). I'm too old to sit and wait for everybody to agree about everything (as if such a goal were possible).
Maher is invaluable as a spokesman for atheism. No other atheist has such a prominent position in today's media, and is as accessible to so many people. And Maher is considerably more charismatic than Dawkins (or PZ for that matter, no offense intended).
"As far as whether to pester Dawkins, I would just like him to state clearly and unequivocally that he does not approve of Maher's views on medicine, and that would be enough for me."
Fer fuxsake, the guy's a professional biologist! Wouldn't you just assume that to be the case?
Posted by: Dr Benway
|
September 28, 2009 11:10 PM
This is not about Dawkins' view or Maher's view exactly. It's about the views of the many alt med sympathizers soon to be drafting our national health care bill. Oh, and other stuff having to do with the appearance of credibility where it ought not be.
If Dawkins can say, as bluntly as manners will allow, that Maher's anti-medicine rants are daft, fewer children will be chelated and fewer people will die stupid deaths.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 28, 2009 11:13 PM
Nobody said that his anti-breastfeeding assholery meant he shouldn't get a reward for Religulous. You are pretty much subliterate, aren't you, Rorschach?
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
September 28, 2009 11:13 PM
Maher's more comfortable in front of a camera, but that's the only thing he's got going for him as a spokesman for atheism. He doesn't strike me as being able to hold his own in a conversation with anyone more sophisticated than those truckers in Religulous, which makes his smug self-satisfaction all the more irritating.
Posted by: MikeS29
|
September 28, 2009 11:22 PM
Holy shit, the guy is funny and he made a movie about the stupidity of religion. So he still needs to wake up on other fronts. His contribution here is the movie and the visibility he brings to open critique of religion. Period.
He may figure out the rest on his own, or he may not. I hope he does, but the award is going to happen. Get over it, and fight what's next. Write to him. But don't jump him at this meeting. It will backfire.
Posted by: CalGeorge
|
September 29, 2009 12:02 AM
This is a mistake.
Integrity is more important than keeping faith with an incompetent awards committee and some pre-scheduled ceremony.
Revoke the award and suffer the wrath of Bill Maher.
Richard Dawkins' name should not be associated with that loon.
Posted by: Dr Benway
|
September 29, 2009 12:29 AM
What's with the concern trolling?I was surpised to read PZ's concern trolling in the OP. Not like him. Hmm.
Dawkins has often said he's not interested so much in what people want to be true as in what is true. And thus our love for him.
Tell the truth. Let the chips fall where they may. Humans are an adaptive species.
Posted by: catta
|
September 29, 2009 2:12 AM
@42 and 48: Disagree. Entirely. No. Do let's stress the differences! Why on earth would we focus on the commonalities all of a sudden, when even the link between Mahers "criticism" of religion and well-reasoned atheism is very tenuous? I don't want a buffoon who is "spiritual, but not religious" recognised. Atheism of the kind that makes conferences possible has to include critical thinking, and considering evidence. None of which Maher does. If we are suddenly interested in uninformed, uncritical atheism -- congratulations, that's no more and no less than a private club for people with a certain hair colour or tie preference honouring the member who can scream the loudest. I, for one, would not be particularly impressed.
(Incidentally, Maher is decidedly not an atheist, unless he's had a very secret change of heart. He rejects that label. He finds atheism equally ridiculous as religion, he's said. Some spokesperson.)
As to Dawkins: again, no no no.
Dawkins has earned my respect by making logical, reasoned arguments and by being uncomfortably argumentative, whether asked to or not. If he prefers talking about his book at an atheist conference to addressing this Maher debacle -- which involves an award named in his honour -- then he prefers preaching to the choir to actively combating ignorance, and I've lost a certain amount of respect for him. Sure, let him read excerpts from his books, but if that's all I'd be very disappointed. He got up after Expelled to ask about PZ being kicked out. I hope he'll get up at the award ceremony and ask what on earth Maher is doing there.
No, Maher does not deserve a pat on the back for his movie just because it happens to target religion -- in an unthinking and often irrational way.
When the neighbourhood arsonist burns down every house but yours in a fit of youthful exuberance, and leaves out yours not even because he likes you, or has come to his senses, but because he's out of matches, you don't give him a cookie for being a good boy, no matter how much you dislike your neighbours.
Posted by: Dr Benway
|
September 29, 2009 2:13 AM
I'm capable of holding my own with people like Dawkins, so this bit of advice must not belong to me. Is it for the AAI crowd generally? And does a hat come with the herd duty gig.
Surely you're selling Dawkins short when you imagine his head can hold "BUY DIS BOOK PLZ!!!!1!" and little else. In fact I'd bet money he's got a few neurons in there ready to parlay some juicy quack chat if the mood strikes.
"He's there to talk about..." Oy. Intelligent people also listen. They engage in conversations. It's really quite fun.
Headaches? Hiding from the public? Who is this girly man of whom you speak?
Posted by: Dr Benway
|
September 29, 2009 2:44 AM
Hi catta,
I'm for setting realistic objectives. But I'm not married to the idea. *shrugs*
I figure a Dawkins speech that boils down to "liked the movie; WTF alt med?!" is a reasonable goal. A brief rejection of Maher's habit of promoting anti-medicine will make it clear to the public that Dawkin's doesn't agree with that crap.
Would a 100% WTF speech work? I don't see how. Inviting a guy to an award ceremony then shitting all over him as he takes his award would not be a cool thing to do in my book, even if said guy happens to be a major fruit cake.
Posted by: TheChemist
|
September 29, 2009 3:18 AM
What really concerns me more than anything is this idea that Dawkins is some groundhog who emerges only occasionally and is scared of his own shadow. if this truly the case, why bother looking to Dawkins for approval on anything? Its one thing for him to get tired of things like anti-evolution nonsense. Hell, I skip some posts on this blog, not because PZ has lost his touch, but because it gets repetitive to hear the same arguments refuted no matter how well the refutation is done. This is different though, this isn't old hat, and if Dawkins feels that such things are beneath him, why bother with him at all?
I admit, I'm not a fan of Dawkins. He strikes me as arrogant (and not the good kind of arrogance that stems from the courage of one's convictions) and unapproachable. People might tell me I'm wrong, but I'm not responsible for the impressions people make on me. I can only go by what I've seen, and if this concern is grounded in truth- about him petulantly abandoning events because the major concern of the moment displeases him- then it only goes to confirm my suspicions.
Posted by: frankosaurus
|
September 29, 2009 3:19 AM
I agree!
Posted by: catta
|
September 29, 2009 3:33 AM
Agreed. This is the very least I would expect, though - especially since the award is named after RD - rather than just "Liked the movie, buy my book" -- which seems to be all that's expected for now.Yes. However, the best solution to this would be not giving him an award, rather than ignoring that he's a model of everything rational thinking should be against. The process matters, not just the outcome. I see no problem with "hey, you know what? We were wrong about you. (Still liked your movie but) with a bit of thought, we don't think you fit the criteria." Sadly, the time for this has long passed even though it was there. And sadly, this leaves us with no option but to grit our teeth and make some dissent known.
Honestly, the way one comes about one's opinion matters; especially in the context of this award. Would anyone cheer for Dawkins if he revealed that he's an atheist because fairies told him so? No? There you go...
Posted by: zylph
|
September 29, 2009 3:39 AM
TheChemist and Catta... Exactly.
This is not an issue of "Well, almost everybody's ignorant or irrational about something. Live and let live." It's "We agree about God being a fairy tale, so it's cool if you believe in magical needles or peach pits for cancer." And "We both make fun of religion, so why not let measles scar and kill children?" Fuck that.
Maher's a celebrity with a soapbox to thousands or millions of impressionable people. This award is being given in Dawkins name. If it was me, I would be screaming "No. Not in my name!" Dawkins is doing nothing and PZ is asking us all to play nice and ask about the "exciting new book." This makes me ashamed of my cohorts. Really, honestly, ashamed.
Posted by: shemp333
|
September 29, 2009 5:06 AM
Big bunch of haters in here. Bill's got the most engaging show on television, hates religion, questions why Americans are so overmedicated on pills, loves marijuana, loves freedom, is the funniest intellectual today, and and and and... Hates religion!
Yeah. He sucks. (suck on my sarcasm haters)
And go do your own show. I'm sure yours will be soooo much better. Losers.
Posted by: Hume's Razor
|
September 29, 2009 5:07 AM
It seems pretty clear by now that this award has damaged the atheist cause. The lesson to be learned from this, one would hope, is that the enemy of our enemy is not our friend by default. It is not enough to just reject belief in god(s). What's more important is the method of thought that lead a person to such a conclusion in the first place. The real conflict, as I see it, is not limited to evolution vs. creationism or even naturalism vs. supernaturalism; the real is between good and bad reasons for believing. By this criterion Maher clearly on the opposing team.
I still think that critical thinking - if applied concistently - can't help but make you a non-theist (as well as a non-"toothfairyist, a non-"trollist" etc.), but that doesn't mean that non-theism also makes you a critical thinker. The best thing that can be said about "atheists" in general is that they lack one particular delusion that theists don't lack. It is clearly possible to be an atheist for the wrong reasons and I certainly think that Maher (but not Dawkins!) fits that description. His hostility to religion seems to have nothing to do with logic and evidence and everything to do with ideology.
I would not expect Prof. Dawkins, whom I respect and admire enormously, to speak out against Maher's views without having first looked into the matter. Now that it has been brought to his attention however, I would be very dissapointed if we don't see some kind of effort to distance himself from this disgraceful award.
Posted by: shemp333
|
September 29, 2009 5:46 AM
I swear that he is being grossly misquoted on what you "believe" his thoughts to be. It's the same thing Dawkins' haters do with him. I have seen all his DVDs, and watch his show every week. I almost never have heard him go full into any of the things you claim he "believes" in, like alternate healing or whatever. He does say many times how Americans take way too many pills, eat like Caligula, and are not exercising.
What's wrong with saying that?
If I'm wrong give me some direct quotes. No more of this, "Maher believes this and that". Quotes.
He has also said many times he is always looking for the candidate to vote for who stands for science and reason.
Posted by: shemp333
|
September 29, 2009 6:01 AM
He's a conspiracy theorist who blames Big Pharma for controlling health care, thinks modern medicine is a failure, and promotes 'alternative' therapies that don't work.
Come on PZ. You are putting words in his mouth.
Big Pharma is actually something to think about. Never once heard him say modern medicine is a failure, and what 'alternative' therapies is he promoting? I never heard him endorse anything loopy.
I think you're way too judgemental without being sure of what you're judging about. And you, especially, should know better PZ.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges
|
September 29, 2009 6:15 AM
This infighting is asinine. It diminishes our credibility. The fundies would like nothing better than to be able to say, "See? They even turn on their own."
It's an award, a PR gimmick. Perhaps he wasn't the best choice, merely the most recognizable - big deal. We have enough trouble with our enemies; we don't need to turn on our friends.
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
September 29, 2009 6:24 AM
If you follow the links in PZ's post, you'll find that Orac has been tracking Maher's bullshit for a good while, complete with video and quotations.
To echo what others have said above, the fact that Maher is critical of religion does nothing to address the larger issue that his critical thinking abilities and/or his education are severely lacking. The man the award is named after has himself identified irrational thinking as the real issue, with organized religion simply its most visible instantiation.
The "big tent" argument is better applied to people like Christopher Hitchens, who, though I often don't agree with him, has at least shown himself capable of doing a little research and bringing more to a discussion than cheap heckling.
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
September 29, 2009 6:30 AM
Who exactly is it we should be showing solidarity with? Throwing science-based medicine under the bus to gain some publicity and deny fundies a weak talking point seems like a poor tradeoff to me.
If I have to choose between promotion atheism and promoting a scientific mindset, I'll choose science every time. Critical thinking is more likely to lead one to atheism than atheism is to lead one to critical thinking.
Posted by: shemp333
|
September 29, 2009 6:35 AM
I've been googling this and did find a clip from Sept 2009 in Overtime where Bill does go off the rails a bit. He keeps saying that you can be put in jail for suggesting alternative methods for cancer treatment in the US.
I can't tell if he's just over reacting for the camera or if he's really serious. I think a bit of both, and he should use a better choice of words and he could do more research if this really interests him.
O well. He's off a bit, but I think he means well. Hopefully he'll read more into the subject as he gets more flack over it. At least he's bringing his thoughts up for public discussion. Very brave to do that.
I'll keep watching him and hope he keeps telling it like he sees it. We all gain from these discussions, and no one is perfect.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 29, 2009 6:50 AM
@ 63,
What cause exactly would that be? And how was it damaged?
Way too many nebulous arguments and unsubstantiated claims in this thread.
Btw as to the origin of the award's name, Prof Dawkins commented on this here a while back to clarify, maybe someone can find it, I'm at work.
Posted by: Neal O
|
September 29, 2009 6:51 AM
People seem to have lost the plot here. I have some very caring thoughtful christian friends. I don't knock them as people for their nutty christian beliefs. As an atheist I respect there rights to there beliefs although I might sometimes criticise those beliefs. I do however live in awe sometimes of there thoughtfulness and try to learn from it and emulate it myself. btw I have some very caring thoughtful atheist friends too!
What is at issue is that despite Mahers woo he is being awarded
I don't even agree that Religulous was a particularly good film but that my opinion, others disagree. What is undeniable is he makes some strong points in favour of atheism in a way that is accessible to many - see popularity on YouTube.
In short he is being awarded for something he does not everything he does.
If you want to dispute the award on the grounds of him not being funny fine. If you want to argue against woo and hold up Maher as a nutter on the issue that's fine too. Just don't muddle two very different issues.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
September 29, 2009 7:22 AM
It's not obvious why that's a bad thing. The more fundies that claim that the harder it'll be for the rest to claim atheist is a monolithic cult lead by Zombie Stalin.Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
September 29, 2009 7:24 AM
HERETIC
The true believers follow Robot Hitler.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 29, 2009 7:51 AM
ugh that was painful
Posted by: catta
|
September 29, 2009 7:52 AM
Neal O,
nobody is saying that Maher might not very well be a lovely person who likes kittens and helps old ladies across the street.
Nobody cares whether he's funny or not. Not the issue.
You're pointing out the correct problem while seeing only half of it.
How can you possibly justify giving this award to Maher, is the question. As you quote, "contribution to freethought". In my opinion, he qualifies just barely. I honestly cannot see the contribution in anything but volume and possible audience -- but not the "freethought". "Not mainstream" does not equal "freethought". I want to see critical thinking at work, and I see none.
"Insightful criticisms on religion" -- again, he just misses the mark as far as I can see. The criticism of religion is there, but the insight is near-nonexistent.
Dawkins in his position as the award's namesake has been brought up a few times, so has Hitchens. Previous recipients include Randi and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I have not a shred of doubt that these are capable thinkers, rational, and willing to form their opinion or change their mind based on evidence. I would assume the same of other possible recipients. And I believe that this should be, and for all we have been told is the relevant criterion: to promote a rational, evidence-based approach to life wherever possible. I don't care if it's funny, or which format it's presented in, but I do care about whether it involves sloppy reasoning or not.
So, in light of the fact that Maher undermines any promise he may have shown with Religulous (and I have my reservations about this as well) by promoting deeply irrational concepts that fly in the face of evidence, using the very same prominence that may be used as an excuse for giving him an award: I think that this is a big mistake.
Please, do read Orac's posts and the rather thorough collection of quotes and sources he has amassed. Start with the first one reacting to the award, maybe. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/07/bill_maher_gets_the_richard_dawkins_awar.php
...and shemp333: you didn't just seriously try to defend your position by using the "you're just jealous!" gambit, did you? Really? How big a show would be good enough for you to let us have an opinion? Are theatre-sized audiences okay, or does it have to be a TV show? At what point do you become immune to criticism by virtue of popularity? Does it work for the pope, too?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 29, 2009 8:01 AM
You could follow the link in the original post to Orac's post on Maher.In that post there are links to a number of posts on Maher and things he has said. I little foot work on your end would benefit you in this discussion.
Maher is a wacko when it comes to medicine. Period.
Really? You really said that?
The anti-vaxxers "mean well" yet they are directly responsible for the increase in some infectious diseases coming back.
The anti-chemo therapy people "mean well" but they are responsible for who knows how many people who could have extended their lives but instead fell for their misinformation.
He means well.
Come on.
That's not an excuse especially with all the information that is out there easily available.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 8:03 AM
Somehow I doubt there would be the same barrage of heavy weather if Maher called into question special relativity instead of modern medicine. Also I don't see biologists shunning their colleagues who've advocated "the blank slate", a dogma which is at least as whacky and unsupported as Maher's views on medicine.
There is a substantial difference, namely that misinformation about medicine directly puts people's lives in danger, whereas special relativity and theoretical biology/psychology only impact our lives in a much more oblique way. This is the issue, then: Maher is potentially doing a lot of damage. The issue is not that Maher is so stupid or scores a 10 on the Crankometer, or anything of the sort. To the minds of many atheists, lots of trendy people around here advocate positions that are just as insane (for instance the position that Islamophobia is inherently racist).
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
September 29, 2009 8:04 AM
Speaking of anti-vaccine people, this is sad news for all:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8279855.stm
"Cancer jab alert after girl dies"
Posted by: catta
|
September 29, 2009 8:17 AM
Amen, Reverend.
Other well-meaning people include parents who treat their children's diseases with homeopathy, or who just pray for them. Do they ever mean well -- it's just that they're convinced by quackery because they lack critical thinking skills and do not know how to weigh and act on evidence.
It is very much possible to do the right thing most of the time by pure dumb luck. Same with woo-parents, same with Maher. What the rational approach changes is that you do not rely on luck as much, which significantly reduces the body count. You gain nothing by rewarding the right outcome if the outcome is a chance occurence.
As to the infighting some people are decrying: what are you afraid of? If you can define atheism as a community -- and that's a stretch to begin with for some people -- one of its features is its lack of dogma and the willingness among its members to debate using reason. Is it universal? Again, no. But fortunately, it is widespread enough to see it as a common characteristic that most of us share.
If "what will the religious think of this 'infighting'" is of any concern to you, you are accepting their oft-stated memes that "science is wrong because it can't 'make up its mind'" and "atheism is just another religion". I respectfully disagree.
Posted by: James Sweet
|
September 29, 2009 8:19 AM
I'm not so sure about this hypothetical in regards to special relativity... I'm pretty sure if Maher went around talking about how Einstein was part of a big conspiracy and that Newtonian physics was all there is to it, skeptics would be mighty pissed.
You have a point about the much higher level of tolerance for Blank Slate ideology, though that's a much more subtle point than vaccines. Furthermore, the "mainstream" is, at best, ambivalent on the Blank Slate, and even preaches it from time to time when politically convenient. Not that that makes it okay, but it's easier to forgive someone for drinking the Kool-Aid when that's what they learned in school and what they hear on TV, vs. going out of their way to drink the Kool-Aid brewed by fringe groups like anti-vaxers.
And in any case, you already addressed the biggest difference: Anti-vaccine propaganda is a clear and immediate public health risk, and those spreading it should be ashamed of themselves. What's worse, they prey on the fears of new parents at their most susceptible.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
September 29, 2009 8:25 AM
Also I don't see biologists shunning their colleagues who've advocated "the blank slate" - Hyperon
Which colleagues would those be? Please provide specific blank-slatist quotes, not general unsubstantiated accusations.
Posted by: Walton
|
September 29, 2009 8:34 AM
strange gods,
Yes. But the public sector does not need to live within its means or show a profit, and so it does not put the same pressure on scientists to produce immediately useful results. In some contexts this is a good thing; much basic research doesn't lead to instantly profitable discoveries but will be useful a few years down the line, hence why I support public funding of scientific research. But when it comes to turning that research into marketable new drugs, the drug companies have a financial incentive - which the public sector does not - to produce a profitable product as quickly and cost-efficiently as possible; meaning that we, the public, get more new treatments more quickly. So drug companies' R&D is an indispensable factor in the progress of medical knowledge.
=====
Re the main topic of the thread: I do not think Maher should be getting this award. Nor, indeed, do I think that it's useful to have a "Richard Dawkins award for atheism" at all. Atheism is not an ideology or a belief system; atheists have no reason to evangelise. I don't honestly care what proportion of the population believes in god.
On the other hand, what is valuable, and what we should be actively promoting, is a generally rational and sceptical outlook. And we should also be fighting the perpetuation of harmful woo and pseudoscience - not just religious creationism and faith healing, but also the plague of so-called "alternative medicine" and the anti-vax movement. It is much more important to combat these things than to try and eradicate all religion.
Not all religious people are the enemy, and not all atheists and agnostics are good allies. As someone said earlier, many people arrive at atheism for the wrong reasons. We shouldn't have an "atheist movement" at all; we should have a broader rationalist movement, and focus on combating harmful forms of irrationality and pseudoscience, wherever they arise.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 29, 2009 8:54 AM
Of all the things you've said hyperon, this ranks up there as one of the dumbest.
Analogy fail.
The issue IS that Maher is a crank and holds and forwards stupid and dangerous positions on medicine that he is either grossly uninformed or willfully ignorant about. That while he may hold popular opinions on religion, he hold utterly irrational opinions many other topics.
And you trying to make this comparison to everyone rightly calling you a racist, and not just about Islam, is a fucking intellectually dishonest and cowardly gambit.
Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
September 29, 2009 9:00 AM
Oh good, I was worried there wouldn't be a Hyperon-maintains-he-is-not-a-racist thread this week.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
September 29, 2009 9:00 AM
Walton, you might like to note that I, working as a publically funded scientist in a publically funded university, developed some software which we were able to sell to pharmaceutical companies, who are using it in rational drug design. Apparently I was innovative enough to achieve some methods development that their financial incentives hadn't led them to. Curious, no?
Also, those of us who have to write research proposals and try to get funding from the research councils _do not appreciate_ being told that "we have no incentive to live within our means". What the hell did that even _mean_?
Please, if you're preaching rationality, apply it to your socioeconomics as well as your religion.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
September 29, 2009 9:04 AM
But when it comes to turning that research into marketable new drugs, the drug companies have a financial incentive - which the public sector does not - to produce a profitable product as quickly and cost-efficiently as possible; meaning that we, the public, get more new treatments more quickly. - Walton
They have a financial incentive to produce profitable treatments, as you say - but the most profitable are not generally the most useful in medical terms. Much pharmaceutical R&D goes into producing near-copies of existing drugs, either to evade another company's patent, or replace their own when it expires; or into producing drugs for newly invented "medical problems" such as restless legs syndrome. The failure to produce new antibiotics, or other new defences against bacterial infections, over the past three decades suggests that the current system is not actually working very well.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 9:09 AM
The pharmaceutical companies are not living within our means; they are bankrupting this country. Spending twice as much on advertising than research is not reasonable. There is no reason for pharmaceutical companies to be advertising at all.
It's not as though "I think I would like some pills to control my cholesterol" is a valid consumer desire, like "I want some of that beer that makes me attractive to women." If you go to the doctor and the doctor decides you do or do not need pills for cholesterol, then that should be the end of it.
Advertising drugs to consumers actually distorts the market, and is unhealthy.
Once again you are insulting scientists, Walton. Scientists are motivated to produce results as quickly as possible because they want to help people, and also because the work itself is thrilling. They certainly appreciate a comfortable salary, but the pay is just what allows them to work.
Spending twice as much on advertising than marketing is not cost-effective.
And it's just a lie to say that scientists working in the public sector do not have an incentive to work quickly.
This is not the first time you've insulted scientists. Your right-wing contempt for your fellow humans comes through every day.
Posted by: Walton
|
September 29, 2009 9:11 AM
Stephen Wells,
You have to live within your means, but government as a whole does not. If a private company consistently spends more than it earns, gets into too much debt, and fails to show a profit, then it goes out of business. A national government with control of the currency, by contrast, can essentially keep doing all these things indefinitely; and since it has a captive market (taxpayers) who, in general, cannot choose to take their business elsewhere, there is nothing to force a government to run its services along efficient and cost-effective lines. For some purposes, this is fine, since there are some things which cannot effectively be run at a profit but which are nevertheless essential; some types of research belong in this category, hence why I'm not against all government funding of research. But the fact is that drug companies' labs will, in general, deliver more "bang for the buck" than university or public-sector labs, because they are driven by the incentive to turn their ideas into profitable products as quickly as possible.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 9:11 AM
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
September 29, 2009 9:40 AM
Walton, are you intending at any point to intersect with the real world, or are we only getting abstract libertheory from you? Governments can fall and states can collapse from economic mismanagement; the Soviet Union doesn't seem to be around any more, neither is Weimar Germany, nor indeed the Roman Empire, so clearly it's _not_ possible to governments to do things "indefinitely" with impunity. Companies that persistently run at a loss sometimes go under and sometimes jack up the taxpayer for enormous subsidies - airlines, car companies and finance have all pulled that one lately. And drug companies' incentive to _make money_ is not the same as producing useful treatments, which is why we're running a tad slow on new antibiotics and vaccines (not very profitable) but going great guns on new boner drugs.
In any case, you seem to have conceded that I do have to live within my means- all of us in academia do- so you'll have to try again at explaining why I'm less "motivated" or "innovative" than someone in a corporate lab, and if so, how come they are willing to pay for my software. Some info here (http://flexweb.asu.edu) if you're interested.
Posted by: Matt Bowman
|
September 29, 2009 9:53 AM
I had no idea that Maher was into quackery. I'm not surprised though after seeing him cuddle up with Arianna Huffington. I've seen that 9/11 truther, Geniene Garofalo on his show several times too. I guess if you spend every night of the week talking with loons there's a danger that they can rub off on you.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 29, 2009 9:58 AM
I'm trying to figure out where Walton got the idea that high-quality solutions are also the most profitable. Maybe the UK isn't overrun by Wal-Marts, Burger Kings, and HMOs.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
September 29, 2009 10:10 AM
Walton: "A national government with control of the currency, by contrast, can essentially keep doing all these things indefinitely;"
I would love to be there when you tell this to a citizen of Zimbabwe, or Argentina or Bolivia, or Uganda. Do you ever even drop reality a post card?
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
September 29, 2009 10:12 AM
Naked Bunny @ 92: "I'm trying to figure out where Walton got the idea that high-quality solutions are also the most profitable. Maybe the UK isn't overrun by Wal-Marts, Burger Kings, and HMOs."
There's not much room for HMO's in a country with a decent national health service, and Tesco's was already here before WalMart (although they are trying through Asda).
I think the crap lager served in a lot of pubs instead of quality ales disproves the "high profits = high quality" hypothesis.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 29, 2009 10:16 AM
I quick turn of the dial through popular radio stations also shows this.
Posted by: Neal O
|
September 29, 2009 10:30 AM
@catta
I followed the link and yes, way more of a wing-nut than I knew about.
I just picked up a typical quote off of YouTube tho
Instinctively I go with an award on the grounds of popularising the atheist view. You do convince me that the actual stated grounds are at best a "barely qualified".
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 10:35 AM
See The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, which has many such citations. "Crank" is an utterly subjective label. It makes no sense to act as if the definitive truth is that Maher "IS" a crank. Personally I would be more hesitant to use such a label. He has made some ignorant and sometimes bizarre comments, but so do people here, for example when they accuse American soldiers of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, or equate Islamophobia with racism, or allege that it is literally theft if a worker is paid 10c a widget for produce selling for 15c a widget. I don't know about cowardly gambits, but you're the one who's "fucking intellectually dishonest" for accusing me of something I didn't say. Above I never complained about being called a racist (though if you must know, I think such charges prove herd-mindedness as well as breathtaking illogicality -- that's one more than Maher). In fact I think the Pat Condell thread from a while back gives better examples of Islamophobia being howled at as racist.Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 10:52 AM
Apparently Hyperon thinks there's no such thing as an innocent Iraqi.
Posted by: CalGeorge
|
September 29, 2009 10:54 AM
Another reason to dislike Bill Maher - he's misogynistic.
http://www.unapologeticallyfemale.com/2007/09/bill-maher-hates-you-along-with-all.html
"And finally, new rule - and I never thought I'd be the one to say this - but DON'T show me your tits! (laughter) Last week the world's first nurse-in was held to protest the case of a woman who was breastfeeding in public and asked by an Applebee's manager not to leave but just to cover up a little bit. Because the wait staff got tired of hearing, 'I'll have what that kid's having!' (laughter) I'm not trying to be insensitive, here. I know your baby needs to eat, but so do I and this is Applebee's, so I'm already nauseous. (laughter) Breastfeeding a baby is an intimate act, and I don't want to watch strangers performing intimate acts. At least not for free. (laughter) It cheapens it. But breastfeeding activists - yes, breastfeeding activists, called Lactivists (laughter) - say this is a human right and appropriate everywhere, because it's natural. Well, so is masturbating, but I generally don't do that at Applebee's. (laughter and applause) Not in the main dining area, anyway. I mean next thing, women will be wanting to give birth in the waterfall at the mall! (laughter) Look, there's no principle at work here, other than being too lazy to either plan ahead or cover up. It's not fighting for a right, it's fighting for the spotlight, which you surely will get when you go all Janet Jackson on everyone (makes flashing motion of opening shirt) (laughter) and get to drink in the oohs and ahhs from the other customers because you made a baby! (laughter) Something a dog can do. (laughter and applause) Only in America do women think they deserve a medal for having a kid. In China women give birth on their lunch hour and that afternoon they're back on line painting lead onto Barbie dolls. (laughter and applause) But this isn't really about women taking their breasts out in public - as much as I'd like them to. It's about how petty and parochial our causes have become, and how activism has become narcissism. It's why Al Gore can't get people to focus on global warming unless there's a rock concert. Melting icebergs, brought to you by Smashing Pumpkins. It's why there will be no end to this dumb war until there is a draft, because at the end of the day, Iraq is somebody else's problem. And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It's called Hooters! (laughter and applause)"
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 10:58 AM
If one person documents the fact that Hyperon said something racist, that's illogical. If two people document the fact that Hyperon said something racist, that's herd-mindedness.
Posted by: CalGeorge
|
September 29, 2009 11:18 AM
On 4, 5 and 6, Bill Maher could be doing a whole lot better.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
September 29, 2009 11:18 AM
yawn.
Ok. Maher displays many of the characteristics of being a someone who acts just like a crank.
And your comparison is again, ridiculous.
Not here, but elsewhere. I made the connection because it fits.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
September 29, 2009 11:28 AM
@Ray Moscow: I should have said the "the equivalent of", though I wouldn't have been surprised if the UK really were overrun by Wal-Mart and Burger King, given their scope. HMOs would have caught me off guard, though, even after the attempts the last few decades to privatize healthcare.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
September 29, 2009 12:04 PM
See The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, which has many such citations. - Hyperon
Shouldn't be difficult for you to provide some, then. I mean recent ones, that show this is a live issue. I don't have Pinker's book, but in an essay by him at http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/The_Blank_Slate_General_Psychologist.pdf, the only blank statist quote comes from the anthropologist Ashley Montagu, who did his work decades ago. He also mentions psychology, but there blank slatism ended with the cognitive revolution of the '70s; and was already on the retreat after Chomsky's review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior in (IIRC) 1958. Come on, you said 'I don't see biologists shunning their colleagues who've advocated "the blank slate"', so you should be able to name some colleagues they could shun for this reason.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 12:07 PM
So does Noam Chomsky, in my opinion. He denies that the function of human language is communication, even wondering whether language is better for communication than dress and hair. He thinks human free will violates the laws of physics. Nevertheless he is one of the most trendy intellectuals in leftist circles, and has many passionate disciplines on this blog. SGBM, isn't it enough that we had almost an entire thread, consisting of hundreds of hateful posts, devoted to calling Hyperon a racist? Are you so insecure in your conviction that you can't allow me one unanswered post in which I disavow those charges?I have no intention of pouring gasoline onto smoldering embers, so I'll allow you to get the last word if you really feel you need it.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 12:37 PM
What you said was racist. There's no denying it. What you can do is admit that what you said was racist, use that as a learning experience, and try not to say racist stuff again in the future.
But if it's your intention to rewrite history, and pretend you never said anything racist, then no, I won't let that pass without comment.
Posted by: wayofdisaster
|
September 29, 2009 12:40 PM
PZ, just a couple posts before this you said:
How does this not apply to Maher? Big difference between that and simply being a serious embarrassment.
I really don't understand why folks treat Maher with nerf gloves just because he's on the same side of the fence on religion (or politics or whatever).
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 12:47 PM
If you want an example, how about Richard Lewontin? He was one of the signatories (along with Stephen Jay Gould) of a diatribe called "Against Sociobiology", which included the following passage:Also how about the following from Not in Our Genes, a book Lewontin co-authored with Steven Rose and Leon Kamin:
Needless to say, E.O.Wilson is not a genetic determinist, not has he ever been someone trying to preserve the "status quo" and all the rest of it. In my opinion, these hysterical lies are at least as dishonest (not to mention batshit) as any remarks made by Maher that I've witnessed.
Anyway, Pinker's book is choc-full of such quotations, and he examines the disgraceful behaviour of prominent blank-slaters such as Lewontin in far greater detail than I can here.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 12:55 PM
No, I just think it's patently fraudulent (or grotesquely ignorant) to claim that American soldiers are slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Almost all the killings over there are the direct consequence of Iraqis murdering their fellow Iraqis in cold blood. (We surely agree over what brought about this state of affairs, but that isn't the point.)Posted by: Treppenwitz
|
September 29, 2009 12:57 PM
The newer of those two citations is 25 years old. Where does Lewontin stand now?
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 1:09 PM
We do know that American soldiers have deliberately massacred civilians.
Can you find a quote of someone here at Pharyngula claiming that American soldiers are personally slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Or is this another one of your lies?
That this level of violence was not occurring under Saddam is a rather important point. People are responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 1:13 PM
Okay then, how about an example of Richard Lewontin actually advocating "the blank slate." I notice you didn't bother to give any evidence that he does.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 1:20 PM
He wouldn't do that directly, because it would sound indefensible. There are more cunning tactics, for example hysterical misrepresentation of any departure from the blank slate paradigm.Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 1:23 PM
Oh I see. So it's another scientific cover-up. Carry on, then.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
September 29, 2009 1:45 PM
It seems people have expressed ire at Bill Maher for his selection for this award (deserved or not) when the ire should be expressed at the method and those responsible for determining who should win this award.
Posted by: catta
|
September 29, 2009 1:48 PM
Neal O -- I hope that wasn't sarcasm (sometimes, my detectors fail). If not, I'm glad. :) As to the YouTube comment - yes, I'm sure this happens; and I'm glad when atheism becomes more acceptable through exposure. Sometimes I forget about this -- it's just easier to be an atheist in Europe, I think. Every now and then I need a reminder that publically "admitting" to atheism can be a daunting experience.
I'd still point out though that commenters like the one you quote, encouraged by Maher, are usually atheists already -- for whatever reasons. In which case, if they never really thought it through, the situation is still "being right by chance", and his woo-peddling is all the more dangerous. And to someone who is not an atheist, I doubt that "well, it's all so silly!" -- Maher's main argument in my recollection -- is very convincing.
____________________________
Also, while wading through some of Maher's alternative medicine opinions, I noticed this: he does many things simultaneously of which, individually, I have seen (very justified) criticism on this blog just recently. This includes well-meaning but ineffective (and in some cases, therefore potentially lethal) treatments, the recanting-on-the-deathbed tactic (this time, it's Louis Pasteur), and the ever-present anti-vaccine nonsense. Taking each of the issues seperately, the consensus seems to be that these are deplorable things which no-one in their right mind could defend.
And yet, somehow, when Maher does all of it at once, we're biting our tongues because he's been critical of religion. "Well, at least he's not a creationist" doesn't cut it, I think.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
September 29, 2009 1:51 PM
Hyperon,
I asked for quotes showing that blank slatism is a live issue. You reply with quotes from the early 1980s which, while they are unfair to E.O. Wilson, do not even show that the authors were blank slatists when they wrote them a quarter-century ago (and I happen to know they were not). I conclude that you have no relevant examples.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 1:54 PM
What? I gave two examples of appalling misrepresentation from Lewontin. It's difficult to see what could have induced this behaviour other than "offensive" lack of lip service to a blank slate paradigm. Anyway, this isn't the essential point (although a whole book by Pinker supports my comments on blank-slatism, so your condescending sneering is far from justified).Posted by: Knockgoats
|
September 29, 2009 1:56 PM
He wouldn't do that directly, because it would sound indefensible. There are more cunning tactics, for example hysterical misrepresentation of any departure from the blank slate paradigm. - Hyperon
Oh, I see. IOW, Lewontin never actually says he's a blank-slater, you just know it. Just as E.O. Wilson never said he was a genetic determinist, Lewontin et al just knew it.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 1:59 PM
Last I looked, Stephen Jay Gould was still respected. Last I looked, Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose were still breathing. I wasn't aware that any of them have retracted their misrepresentations of Wilson. I'm afraid I haven't yet received the instructions that it is my duty to follow your orders.Posted by: Knockgoats
|
September 29, 2009 2:00 PM
Hyperon,
You said: "I don't see biologists shunning their colleagues who've advocated "the blank slate"". Now, since it's clear none of their colleagues have actually done so ("advocated" has a very clear meaning), why not just admit you were bullshitting?
Posted by: catta
|
September 29, 2009 2:01 PM
Addendum for Qwerty (and apologies for my long posts):
Most of the ire is directed at the fact that he's been selected, as far as I can see.
Personally, I'm appalled at AAI and preparing for a good dose of disappointment should Richard Dawkins not vocally disagree with this choice. And I'm not holding my breath for a pleasant surprise because his only reaction so far, despite his advocacy of reason rather than simple atheism, has been to say "nothin' to do with me, he's a funny guy, and hey, I've got a new book out!".
As for ire at Bill Maher -- certainly, I have that, and have had it for a while before this award decision was announced. But on this particular topic, he's certainly not to blame. It's not like he proposed himself for this, so it's hardly his fault.
Mind you, I have been angry at Hitchens on numerous occasions too, but I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow had he been the recipient. At least he -- for the most part -- does what it says on the tin (or award description).
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
September 29, 2009 2:02 PM
I wasn't aware that any of them have retracted their misrepresentations of Wilson. - Hyperon
Irrelevant. You have failed to show that any one of them ever was, let alone is now, a blank-slater.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 2:14 PM
Even if I haven't (I think I have), it's irrelevant to my original purpose. The comments I pasted in were in my opinion just as illogical, and just as ungrounded in facts, as Maher's statements about medicine.Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 2:40 PM
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 2:58 PM
I also deny being a racist, but that doesn't make any difference to you, SGBM. People like Lewontin sound reasonable much of the time, but they continue to resist any departure (such as Wilson's departure) from the blank-slate doctrine.
If Bill is to viciously slander and misrepresent anyone who alleges that Stalin was not a nice man, you could be forgiven for believing that Bill actually believes Stalin was a nice man.
It's difficult to establish a conclusive case, I admit. That's why it took Steven Pinker an entire book. Hard to do justice to it here, and it's not my duty to lecture for hours supplying watertight proofs of every single one of my assertions.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 3:21 PM
You made explicitly racist statements, Hyperon.
We know that you are the kind of person who finds it easy to casually say "African-American culture IS singularly primitive and violent."
We know that you are the kind of person who finds it easy to imagine that "reverse discrimination and affirmative action" are hurting white people and actually putting us at a disadvantage.
We know that you are the kind of person who finds it easy to imagine that the 13% of the US population who have black skin sell most of the drugs in America.
We know that you are the kind of person who gets very defensive when these behaviors are noted to be racist.
We know that you are the kind of person who refuses to admit that there is anything wrong with making these racist statements.
Because you can't. You asserted that Lewontin believes in "the blank slate." For this to be true, he must believe that genes have no influence upon differences in mind or behavior. Yet he explicitly says that "gene, environment, organism, and society" each play a part in influencing human behavior. Therefore, you lied.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 3:32 PM
I see you continue to trot out the same depraved lies.
I already explained what I meant and why this is quoting me out of context. Well undoubtedly that is the case. Affirmative action gives priority to black candidates over white candidates, regardless of individual circumstance. Affirmative action is illegal in some countries, so I'm clearly not the only one who considers it unjustified. I already explained what I meant and why this is quoting my out of context. By the same logic, I explicitly stated that I'm not a racist, therefore you lied. Naturally things are not so simple. If you think you can reject Steven Pinker's book with such a simplistic caricature, be my guest, but don't expect anyone beyond a handful of dogmatist lunatics to pay attention.Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 3:34 PM
Much of Not in Our Genes is a reply to Arthur Jensen, who claimed black people on average are genetically less intelligent than white people, and so we should not expect education to bridge the poverty gap between black and white people:
"Various subpopulations (social classes and ethnic groups) in the United States and elsewhere show marked differences in the distributions of those mental abilities most importantly related to educability and its occupational and socioeconomic correlates. ... Success in improving the benefits of education to the majority of Negro children, however, may depend in part upon eventual recognition that racial differences are not mainly the result of discrimination and unequal environmental conditions."
Now, you can either try to tell us seriously that this sort of argument does not "tend to provide a genetic justification of the status quo and of existing privileges for certain groups according to class [and] race", or you can admit that you grossly misrepresented Lewontin.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 3:48 PM
This is what you said, Hyperon:
Those were extremely racist and false observations, given that you refused to discuss white ghettos, and ignored MAJeff's point that you are transforming black folks from people who face problems into "problem people."
Wrong, and simpleminded. That could only be true if the playing field was already level.
If white people already have an advantage due to institutional racism and white privilege, then decreasing their relative advantage does not put them at a disadvantage. Someone who is overprivileged is not suddenly made underprivileged if the playing field is made more level.
Now, you can complain that an even playing field means your unearned white privilege is being taken away from you, but you will just sound like a whiny racist, longing for the good old days of white supremacy.
I know you were talking about rates and proportions. I don't think anyone misunderstood this. There was nothing unclear about what you said, and what you said was racist.
It was racist for you to believe that black people could be committing drug crimes at a rate many times higher than white people. It was racist for you to believe that from 13% of the population could come 53% of the drug crime.
Clearly you are not very good at logic. Your statement that you are not a racist is falsified by an instance of saying something racist, well documented here. Your statement that Lewontin believes in "the blank slate" is falsified by an instance of him saying that genes do influence differences in behavior.
I'm not arguing with Steven Pinker. I'm arguing with you. I don't think you've even given evidence that Pinker says Lewontin actually believes in "the blank slate." I daresay Pinker's argument is probably a bit more nuanced than your little brain is capable of relaying. You, however, have lied about Lewontin.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 4:21 PM
SGBM, I'm only going to address your less transparently false accusations.
Actually I speculated about the possibility that a combination of greater use of hard drugs as opposed to soft drugs, and a greater frequency of drug dealers, could conspire to put African-Americans in prison for drug use at approximately five times greater rates. Just off-the-cuff speculation, coming from someone who knows very little about drugs and their distribution (and who later admitted he was wrong about this). Falsified by quotations such as the ones I produced, where he attacks a work (Sociobiology) which did little but unpack the logical alternative to the blank slate. I think I gave evidence that he does subscribe to the blank slate, at least behaviourally, apparent from his habit of misrepresenting departures from the blank slate. I have no intention of fighting a war, if that's what it's going to take, solely to defend an opinion, amply supported by Pinker, which is in any case inessential to my original argument about Maher.Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 4:37 PM
If they're transparently false, then they ought to have been easiest to address. You said racist things, and the evidence of your racism is right here.
Some alternative hypotheses are not reasonable. It was racist to assume that "maybe there are more African-American drug dealers" and "maybe hard drugs are more popular in African-American communities" were reasonable responses, and it was crankish to offer them instead of just reading the literature.
You are obviously unable to understand basic logic. A universal statement is falsified by a single counterexample. You can pile up all the examples you want, but a single instance of Lewontin saying that genes influence some differences in behavior is a counterexample that falsifies your claim.
Your original statement about Maher at #77 was nothing more than a way for you to complain about slights to your own ego. There were many ways you could have made your case without whining about "the position that Islamophobia is inherently racist", but you had to bring that up because you need to make every thread about Hyperon. You had to find a way of seeking sympathy for "almost an entire thread, consisting of hundreds of hateful posts, devoted to calling Hyperon a racist". Poor you, poor you, you're practically the victim of a hate crime.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 29, 2009 4:53 PM
being a profit-maker first and medicine-maker second has another major consequence: we now have pills for such things as "Irritable Bowel Syndrome", "Restless Leg Syndrome" and "Acid Reflux" because they're highly profitable, but they don't actually do much good. On the other hand, we have diseases which have a massive impact on both individuals and on societies in general, but the pharma companies don't bother with them, because they are Poor People Diseases, and thus completely unprofitable.
IOW, while the market can indeed drive innovation, at some point the signal to noise ratio in any field drops to the point where the output is no longer worth the input. Our societies have reached this level in many many fields. Stricter regulation of these fields would cut down severely on the noise (and some people would whine, because they do like the "noise"), and free up resources for more actually helpful projects.
you're right, there's no point in awarding atheism. what we should award is skepticism, and Maher is many things, but not a skeptic. Awarding a woo-meister for being an atheist sort of amounts to a "stopped clock award"
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 29, 2009 5:15 PM
hmmm.... interesting. why does that put him into the "crank" category, though? what evidence do we have that "free will" isn't the same sort of illusion as "soul" or "mind"?
I understand this falls under the Hard Problem of Consciousness; so why is proposing that free will could be an illusion something only a crank would do? or does the problem have to do with the "violates the laws of physics" part (which Hyperon might well have made up as a hyperbole)?
Posted by: robocop975
|
September 29, 2009 5:16 PM
Dawkins has been announced as a guest on Real Time for Friday evening so we may get a preview of Saturday's festivities then. I'm guessing that since Maher is pretty popular amongst a significant group of folks who might buy the new tome it will be a mutual lovefest. Priorities and all that. But I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 5:26 PM
Jadehawk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnJ6ahB_g4g#t=1m30
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 29, 2009 5:32 PM
thanks, SGBM.
It really shouldn't surprise me that Hyperon is talking out of his ass again.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 5:39 PM
Jadehawk,
You misunderstand. Chomsky doesn't think free will is an "illusion". He thinks free will is a very real phenomenon, defying physics of randomness and determinism. This has nothing to do with the Hard Problem (Chomsky has weird views on consciousness as well, incidentally). And no, I assure you, it's not hyperbole.
These views are at least as cranky as Maher's. "At least" because the possibility remains that Maher if challenged would moderate or withdraw his expressed opinions. Chomsky, however, remains as stubborn as a mule. (I know because I debated free will with him over email.)
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 5:44 PM
Citations, Hyperon. Where is your evidence that Chomsky believes in supernaturalism and not compatibilism?
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 5:46 PM
I'm not talking out of my ass; go fuck yourself. Only about two months ago, he said to me over email, unambiguously, that free will seems almost certainly beyond the known physics of randomness and determinism. I quizzed him about this repeatedly, and he refused to back down. I discussed this with someone who was a graduate student of Chomsky, and I was told that Chomsky has been making these noises since the 1970s.Here's another interview in which Chomsky expresses some weird opinions regarding free will (totally consistent with my above comments). (I forget which part -- I think it's the third. Worth watching all the way through anyway.)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 29, 2009 5:46 PM
as far as I can tell(and I did do a quick google search on this), Chomsky thinks free will is an experiential phenomenon. which it is: you experience it, I experience it, most people experience it; it's even more widespread than the experiential phenomenon commonly known as "god". he doesn't say it is an actual, physical phenomenon though. do you have any evidence that suggests that he DOES think it is physically real? because all I've found is him saying that this is one of these things we might not ever figure out, and thus he's not going to take a firm position on it.
Posted by: Mr T
|
September 29, 2009 5:48 PM
Hyperon:
No, really, you're making shit up. Here's Chomsky, in that video, on free will, "I think it's something that we simply do not know." He talks about how the world is, at present, unintelligible. According to the video, he speculates about what it would mean to have "free will", but doesn't think there's something like contra-causal free will that defies physics.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 5:49 PM
You can email Chomsky to verify that I'm right. Give the Devil his due, he's very diligent about responding to all of his emails.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 5:53 PM
So maybe I'm wrong that he thinks it's a "very real phenomenon" (whatever that means). However he definitely thinks it's something weird, and strongly leans toward the position that whatever free will is violates the laws of physics. I provided another interview in which he assigns great weight to the "problem" of free will, implying that it's beyond modern science. These are mystical, woo-laden views, as far as I'm concerned.Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 5:55 PM
Well, even this isn't a simple yes or no question. Dan Dennett believes that free will is real, and that determinism is also true; it depends on "the varieties of free will worth having." I see no evidence that Chomsky's take is incompatible with that view.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 29, 2009 5:58 PM
huh?! all I hear is him repeatedly saying that it's a difficult issue and possibly not something we'll solve. This is precisely what the Hard Problem is about.
Also, I fail to see the point of that video you linked to. what was that supposed to prove?
Posted by: Feynmaniac
|
September 29, 2009 6:00 PM
Please provide the quotes.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
September 29, 2009 6:01 PM
I'm glad to see that Walton wasn't able to derail this thread into a libertarian wankfest. However, I don't think that Hyperon derailing the thread into a "I'm not a racist, I just fear everyone whose name is Mohammad and African-American deserve to be in jail because they're inherently violent hard drug users" is much of an improvement.
And yes, I know that Hyperon will now inform me that his best friend is a brown-skinned Indian named Abdul.
Posted by: CJO
|
September 29, 2009 6:02 PM
Chomsky is a mysterian on free will, basically. He concedes that it might be an illusion, but that's not why he seems like a crank. It's rather the opposite. From a 1983 interview in Omni:
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 29, 2009 6:03 PM
anyway, my point being that having any personal theory about free will doesn't make one a "crank"; insisting on it being 100% real, physical and absolute (or conversely, insisting that it's absolutely not the case, for all values of "free") is the mark of a "crank"
Also, simply saying that some problems may not be possible to solve don't strike me as woo-ish. Insisting that something is REALLY REAL and that science can't prove/disprove it, that's woo-ish. and AFAIK that's not what Chomsky is doing
*shrug*
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 6:03 PM
I don't like quoting personal correspondence, but it won't do any harm to give just one extract:
This is notwithstanding my comments on Libet, conservation of energy, and a recent proof by Conway and Kochen that if humans have free will, then so do elementary particles.Take it or leave it, but I think you'll find that if you investigate you'll confirm that beneath his obscurantism he has some pretty mystical views regarding free will.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 6:08 PM
He seriously entertains the possibility that it's some mysterious force beyond known physics. This is despite being rendered utterly superfluous by experiments like Libet's. I see no way to excuse him here. If Maher is a crank, then so is Chomsky.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 29, 2009 6:14 PM
and that quote is incorrect.... how?
I get the feeling this conversation is sailing waaay past any possible points it could make*. Or maybe there's some massive amount of context I'm missing here. All I see is the acceptance of it as a tough question in regards to cognition/consciousness, rather than outright dismissal of (or unshakeable belief in) the issue :-/
*I'm glad my original misunderstanding of what Hyperon was aiming at is cleared up tho.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 6:16 PM
That's true. We do not know how to account for the experience of free will. Or qualia.
Posted by: Feynmaniac
|
September 29, 2009 6:19 PM
Hyperon,
So, at of respect you won't fully quote a personal correspondence but you have no problem referring to them to label someone a mystic.
Nonetheless the following the are different:
The first is a mystical view. The second is merely an acknowledgment of (current) ignorance. Now you might think Chomsky is wrong to say there is no known way relate free will to physics, but he's not saying it's beyond physics.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 6:21 PM
Qualia yes, I would agree (although I'm working on some theories). Free will? Hell no.Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 6:23 PM
You can account for the experience of free will? Do it, Hyperon. You've got a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 6:26 PM
This is really exciting!
Hyperon is going to be the next James Watson, and we'll be able to say we knew he was a racist before he was a Nobel laureate.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 6:28 PM
What? I'm not quoting personal correspondence because I haven't asked for permission. Doesn't matter if I don't like him. I couldn't resist quoting an extract of it (I'm only human). If his point is merely that physics is too "reductionist" a discipline for dealing with free will, then it hardly needs to be said, and is totally inappropriate given the context of our correspondence.Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 6:38 PM
Given consciousness, how do you get a system that thinks it has free will? Frankly, it seems to me like a trivial question. Obviously it will be many years before all the details are in, but there isn't any interesting conceptual problem that I can discern. Only lots of different technical problems.Posted by: CJO
|
September 29, 2009 6:40 PM
I ask sincerely: what is considered so hard to account for regarding subjective experience ("qualia")?
The exact neural correlates? Or Chalmersian "Hard Problem" philosophical questions?
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 6:42 PM
I'll take hand-waving for a thousand, Alex.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 6:49 PM
Have you ever had one of those dreams where you're watching yourself perform actions but you do not have the experience of controlling those actions? It's important to ask why that isn't our normal experience of waking consciousness.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 6:52 PM
I'd best not get involved in this before I've published, but here's one amusing question. In principle, can a piece of paper be conscious? Can a book be conscious? If not, why not?Posted by: CJO
|
September 29, 2009 7:03 PM
It's important to ask why that isn't our normal experience of waking consciousness.
That's similar to a Chalmers Zombie. The short answer, at the risk of being accused of hand-waving, is that clearly consciousness has a role to play in performing actions, even if that role isn't as robust as comprehensive control. (Yes, Libet, I know. That just shows that consciousness doesn't [always, or even usually] 'pull the trigger', not that it plays no role.)
In principle, can a piece of paper be conscious? Can a book be conscious? If not, why not?
A single, ordinary book? A single piece of paper? No. Does the Chinese Room, as described by Searle, understand Chinese? Yes.
Why couldn't a single, ordinary piece of paper be conscious? Intuitively, I'd say because it has no means of representing anything; it has nothing to be conscious of. But I have a feeling you're asking a trick question, if you find it amusing.
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 7:12 PM
The paper can be arbitrarily large, and can be covered in whatever symbols you please. If it's allowed to be dynamic we have a pretty much identical thought experiment to the Chinese Room or the China Mind, and it's not interesting. Better if we talk about a static piece of paper, or a gigantic book.Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 7:14 PM
Maybe so, CJO. On the other hand I can imagine that consciousness is a neutral, non-adaptive spandrel on subconscious planning.
I agree with Dennett that there is no Hard Problem. But that doesn't mean there aren't problems that are hard. And as yet, we do not know how to account for any experience at all.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 29, 2009 7:15 PM
Hyperon:
If you're speaking of cellulose ((C6H10O5)n) fibers bound together in a thin sheet, no, unless you have some weird definition of 'conscious'.
Why not? Because consciousness requires a mind, which needs a computational substrate, which a sheet of paper as defined above ain't.
Echoes of Matthew Segal... :)
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 7:16 PM
That's a "Maybe so, CJO" except I do not agree that the question is at all similar to Chalmers' zombies, which do not even have experience.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 29, 2009 7:28 PM
I see Hyperon still is being a dumbhit with both feet in his mouth. Sometimes the smart thing to do is to just go away for a while. But that requires a working brain...
Posted by: CJO
|
September 29, 2009 7:29 PM
No, they don't have experience at all, which is why I said "similar" and not exactly the same. Functionally, though, doesn't your thought experiment aim at the same intuition as Chalmers', that we couldn't possibly operate in a way identical with observed reality without conscious awareness 'being in the driver's seat'?
Or, would it change Chalmers' argument very much to give his zombies the kind of ineffectual awareness you imagine?
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 7:31 PM
If you examine the word "computational", it seems clear that the only essential difference, really, is that computers are dynamic systems. It isn't easy justify why only dynamic systems can be conscious. In my opinion reconciling the dynamic systems requirement with an idea of time informed by modern physics is even harder. For example, one increasingly popular idea (set out in e.g. The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch) is that different times correspond to different "universes". To exist at a "later time" means nothing more than to exist in a universe corresponding to a later time. It follows that time in the context of dynamic system is nothing more than a parameter specifying the universe the system happens to exist in. How is this different from a parameter specifying page number? (We haven't even got started on relativity, which complicates things further.)Anyway, I apologize for derailing the thread further.
Posted by: John Morales
|
September 29, 2009 7:44 PM
Hyperon,
Yeah. Perhaps you should take this to The Horror Express.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 7:45 PM
Can a piece of paper be racist?
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 29, 2009 7:46 PM
Hell if I know. I never really understood what Chalmers was trying to get at.
Posted by: Mr T
|
September 29, 2009 7:55 PM
strange gods before me:
Only if it doesn't have experience.
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitresses.
(And Chalmers never made a lot of sense to me either.)
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 29, 2009 7:57 PM
His essential point is that zombies are logically possible, even if they mightn't be naturally possible. It doesn't seem incoherent to imagine, as a hypothetical possibility, our brains being just as they are without anyone being at home. His general point, which zombies serve to illustrate, is that consciousness is not logically supervenient on the physical, i.e. if physical properties are fixed then consciousness doesn't logically follow. This would imply, in Chalmers' opinion, that a "reductionist" explanation of consciousness is doomed to failure.I think he's wrong, in an interesting way. But that's another discussion for another day.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 29, 2009 8:10 PM
Annoying thread derailers are annoying.
Josh Timonen has written a comment about giving the award to Maher:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,4388,n,n
Posted by: Pikemann Urge
|
September 29, 2009 8:13 PM
Thanks to comments 21 and 26. It seems that it is not enough to cry "But it's science!" to justify the way our medical system works (yes, I know, medicine is strictly speaking not a science).
Not all those medical professionals are putting your health first. Remember, being a doctor is kind of like being in a secular priesthood. And who gives priests that power? We do. And we can take it away if we wish. Or rather, make them realize they work for us.
Posted by: Walton
|
September 30, 2009 5:28 AM
strange gods, sorry for the delayed response (I was busy yesterday evening).
But for some things, there are a variety of different options. Indigestion remedies, for instance, and over-the-counter painkillers. A competitive market in these products is a good thing, since it drives down prices; and advertising is a normal consequence of competition.
I am not "insulting scientists". I don’t doubt that many scientists are great people who are genuinely motivated by a desire to discover useful things and help others. However, this doesn’t mean that we can make policy on the assumption that all scientists are motivated in this way. Policy always has to be made on the assumption that people will be the worst they can be.
For example: some politicians are decent people who go into public service with a desire to make their country a better place. However, this doesn't mean we should generally trust politicians as a class: and, indeed, we don't. Hence why we have constitutions, democratic accountability, limited government, and other checks on politicians' power. Similarly, many police officers are good people who are dedicated to keeping their communities safe. But we don't place uncritical trust in police officers; we have courts, oversight, civil liberties, chains of evidence, and other means of holding them to account. In exactly the same way, we don't, and should not, place unlimited trust in scientists.
Ray Moscow,
Well, personally I dislike beer. I'm more of a gin and tonic drinker, or red wine. Or the best drink in existence: a good glass of finest reserve port. Sadly, it doesn't come cheap. :-)
And most pubs in the UK are a rip-off. My nearest pub in Oxford charges £4.10 for a single G&T. (Admittedly, it's mainly Gordon Brown's fault; the alcohol excise duties in the UK are absolutely extortionate.)
Jadehawk,
IBS is a real problem; I know people who suffer from it. As I understand it, though, there is no medical consensus as to the causes of IBS, so any treatment for it would presumably only ameliorate the symptoms.
Acid reflux, on the other hand, is a form of indigestion from which many people suffer on a frequent basis, and which is quite painful. The indigestion tablets on the market are, as I understand it, basically just alkali pills which neutralise the acid - but they work, and therefore save consumers a considerable amount of pain. What's wrong with that?
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
September 30, 2009 5:30 AM
All that Chalmers' zombies establish is that, if you start out believing that consciousness is somehow independent of brain activity, then you can imagine a zombie world where all the physical things are the same but consciousness is missing, and you'll think it's coherent. If, on the other hand, you don't think that, then Chalmers' zombies are indeed incoherent. They bring nothing to the argument. You might as well say "Imagine a world with four-sided triangles". Just writing the words down does _not_ establish that it's coherent.
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
September 30, 2009 5:46 AM
Walton, you just posted this:
"Policy always has to be made on the assumption that people will be the worst they can be."
No. Explain. We don't construct a civil society on the basis that everyone is a depraved sociopath with a torture dungeon in the basement.
Do you even know what you're arguing against? People here, _including scientists_, are pointing out that intellectual curiosity can be a great driver of innovation _regardless of profit_, and you reply that we are maximally depraved and must not be trusted. How is that even a response?
Posted by: Michael
|
September 30, 2009 6:48 AM
"Acid reflux, on the other hand, is a form of indigestion from which many people suffer on a frequent basis, and which is quite painful. The indigestion tablets on the market are, as I understand it, basically just alkali pills which neutralise the acid - but they work, and therefore save consumers a considerable amount of pain. What's wrong with that?"
It's not just reflux. Many people like me suffer from GERD = gastro esophageal reflux disease which means basically a weak valve at the top of the stomach. Stomach acid splashes up and scars the oesophagus leading to pain, difficulty swallowing and increased likelihood of oesophageal cancer. To stop this happening you take drugs which control the production of acid. Popular at the moment is esomeprazole a proton pump inhibitor (whatever that means). It is making a lot of money for Astra-Zeneca. It works.
Michael
Posted by: Hyperon
|
September 30, 2009 8:26 AM
Coming from someone who spends hours lecturing people on why they shouldn't make sweeping assertions, that is just an amazing piece of hypocrisy.Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 30, 2009 9:50 AM
You're really reaching, aren't you, Hyperon. Do you need more attention? But why do you think anyone cares about a racist's opinion?
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 30, 2009 10:08 AM
Since they sell the same drugs in Canada, cheaper, we know the prices here are not driven down enough by competition. They could be more competitive if they had to compete with some public-sector companies as well.
I notice you had to divert the discussion away from prescription drugs. I was not complaining about advertising of over-the-counter drugs. When a layperson can identify symptoms and decide on a treatment, that's fine. But there is no excuse for advertising cholesterol pills, or anything else that requires a doctor's diagnosis. Such advertising is a market distortion, and a potentially deadly one.
I agree with Stephen Wells. You are insulting scientists in the worst way. Politicians kill people. Police kill people. The comparison presents "mad scientists" arbitrarily deciding to kill people. In reality we have nothing to fear from publicly funded scientists, and indeed we already have regulatory boards and research councils to which scientists have to justify their funding requests. Your comparison is disgusting.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 10:24 AM
Walton obviously doesn't understand how pharmaceutical innovation really occurs. The big pharma companies have not been developing anything novel for quite a while. They are too big, and have too much in-fighting by people with big egos over projects to be innovative. The real innovation is occuring at small start-up companies, usually linked to academics. If their initial work looks good, then venture capital keeps it going for a while, and if early clinicals looks good, big pharma buys a piece of the action and helps get the drug approved by the FDA. It is usually marketed under the big pharma name, so it looks like they did all the work. Not so.
Posted by: Walton
|
September 30, 2009 12:55 PM
strange gods,
You're missing the whole point of my analogy. Yes, the State and its agents can use lethal force. But this is not the only reason why we seek to hold politicians and police to account. They can also impose lesser forms of coercion - one of which is taxation. And, like any other public servants, publicly-funded scientists are funded by tax money - meaning that their activity is coercive.
This doesn't mean that public funding of science is wrong. It isn't. As I said on another thread, my position is that coercion is prima facie wrong unless it is justified by an overriding social need which cannot be adequately fulfilled by private or voluntary means. In the case of some scientific and medical research, this criterion is fulfilled; publicly-funded research can lead to useful discoveries, and often pursues avenues of inquiry that would not be adequately addressed by the private sector. So I'm not criticising public funding of scientific research.
I am, however, saying that drug company R&D, and its drive towards profitable innovation, is an essential and indispensable part of medical progress. Both the public and private sectors have a useful role to play.
Nerd,
[my emphasis] Exactly! So, entrepreneurs do the groundwork, private capital keeps it going, and, once the initial work is done, private investment from big pharmaceutical companies turns the ideas into marketable reality. You're proving my point for me: entrepreneurship and private investment are essential in the drive towards innovation.
Posted by: Jack
|
September 30, 2009 12:55 PM
You know, I really dislike the right-on inflexibility being displayed by a lot of the Maher-objectors here. The wording of the award - as has been pointed out in this very thread - makes it quite clear that it is in appreciation of what Maher did with "Religulous". PERIOD. Some folk seem to be upset because of what they think the award should mean and to hell with what that wording says it actually does mean. This is an RDF award and it means whatever the hell they say it means, okay? Deal with that, and if you don't like it, set up a charitable foundation of your own and give an award of your own with whatever super-rigorous stipulations you want to attach to it.
But really: are we to only give such awards to people who tick every single one of our precious rationalist boxes? Good God, people, chill the hell out already. Some of you sound positively McCarthyite about this, and that is not a good way for us to be.
"Are you or have you ever been someone a bit taken in by alternative medicine? Are you or have you ever been someone known not to dismiss alien abduction of chiropractic out of hand?"
Get a sense of perspective and proportion. The almost rabid rationalist right-on-ness on display here is at least as counter-productive as Maher's ill-considered views on medical matters, and I think we'll be shooting ourselves in the foot if we get a bunch of scientific sparts wasting Maher's or Dawkins' limited time on the podium. Because quite apart from anything else that would be a really great way to make sure big name atheists/agnostics don't show up at AAI conventions in future.
Posted by: Jack
|
September 30, 2009 12:59 PM
"...alien abduction OR chiropractic". Jeez. preview more carefully, Jack.
Posted by: robocop975
|
September 30, 2009 2:12 PM
189: The wording of the award - as has been pointed out in this very thread - makes it quite clear that it is in appreciation of what Maher did with "Religulous". PERIOD.
The most recent wording is an attempt at damage control and nothing more. Here's how the award was announced:
"We are also pleased to announce that Bill Maher, effervescent host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher and host and coproducer of the 2008 documentary movie Religulous, will be in attendance Friday evening to receive the 2009 AAI Richard Dawkins Award for his efforts to further the values [of] science and reason in the world."
Science and reason? Not so much.
http://www.atheistalliance.org/Latest/AAI-Announces-Site-of-2009-Convention.html
Further evidence of it being all about damage control is provided by the AAI's removal of the link to the "AAI Richard Dawkins Award" in the above announcement and there being no description of the purpose of the award generally anywhere on the AAI site. Might it be because of the "unfortunate" language about the award being given to an atheist (which Maher has denied) for advocating "increased scientific knowledge"?
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
September 30, 2009 4:54 PM
No. No, Walton. That is not an appropriate analogy. The problem with the police is not that they are funded by taxes. You reached way to far with your disgusting analogy, and now you're trying to retcon it as though you were talking about taxes the whole time.
Fail.
They are spending twice as much on advertising as on research. At that rate we can absorb their function into the public sector and save everyone a bunch of money.
It's impressive how you can spin lies. I'll give you credit for being a good mouthpiece. But there's nothing there that the large pharmaceutical companies are doing. There's nothing that the small companies Nerd was talking about can't do instead. They can make the drugs available to doctors. Again, there is no need for marketing. In fact marketing is bad, and hurts people. It's an unhealthy market distortion.
Posted by: Jack
|
September 30, 2009 6:30 PM
#191 (robocp975):
Well, good, no? That shows they've taken the point and still consider Maher deserves an award for "Religulous". I agree with them, but even if I didn't it wouldn't be for me to whine endlessly about it to the detriment of what should be an enjoyable convention, when they have clearly heard the point.
Irrespective of that, I don't think it makes the slightest difference to the thrust of my initial comment. I'm going to be exceedingly pissed off if a bunch of self-righteous people try to railroad the Dawkins talk over this.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 6:40 PM
Wrong liberturd breath. The projects that get funded are the "sexy" ones, that can sell in the US. Many good projects that would help the third world keep languishing due to lack of funds. After all, no get rich quick for solving a disease in the third world. You, your inane free market, and your morally bankrupt philosophy keep making the best reason for disbelieving everything you say.Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
September 30, 2009 6:50 PM
not just the "third world", Nerd. I'm not gonna link to it again, but the paper on Neglected Infections of Poverty right here in the U.S. is up there in my previous post.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 30, 2009 7:01 PM
Jadehawk, I went back one day, but couldn't find your link. But the same old. No quick profits, no funding where needed. If the Gates Foundation had trillions of dollars instead of billions it might make a difference to both the poor and the third world.
Posted by: robocop975
|
September 30, 2009 7:02 PM
193: "Well, good, no?"
I don't see how. AAI screwed up. Dawkins screwed up. All parties have apparently recognized that the award couldn't be justified based upon its stated purpose, so they have concocted a new purpose and tried to cover up what the award is supposed to be for. But a guy whose views are not just opposed to reason and science but are also downright deadly (think Eliza Jane Scovill and others like her) will be given a huge award that's supposed to be based upon reason and science advocacy while AAI and Dawkins (in all liklihood) make nice and pretend that Maher is just swell. After all, he's really a good guy because he dependably bashes religion and, of course, there are books to sell.
I don't see how.
Posted by: LindaRosa
|
October 1, 2009 2:22 AM
Note that the AAI website currently makes this claim:
http://www.atheistalliance.org/Latest/AAI-Announces-Site-of-2009-Convention.html
"We are also pleased to announce that Bill Maher, effervescent host of HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher and host and co-producer of the 2008 documentary movie Religulous, will be in attendance Friday evening to receive the 2009 AAI Richard Dawkins Award for his efforts to further the values science and reason in the world."
The people responsible for this outrage are AAI and Dawkins -- and the selection committee, whoever they were. Things like this will come back to bite. The next time Maher is challenged about his quack notions, he will probably reach for his Dawkins Award and start waving it around.
But even if there has been an attempt to make this award solely about atheism, selecting Maher is still a problem. On a Daily Show, Maher claims not only NOT to be an atheist, but he likens atheists to religionists, demonstrating a poor understanding of what atheism is all about:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-30-2008/bill-maher-pt--2
Posted by: Walton
|
October 1, 2009 7:09 AM
strange gods,
Even assuming that you're right, those small companies are still part of the private sector.
So what exactly are you advocating? Nationalising all pharmaceutical companies over a certain size?
Posted by: Urinal Gum
|
October 1, 2009 12:48 PM
It's appalling that they would give an award to someone with whom they don't agree on every single topic. It's almost as if they are giving him an award for having wacky beliefs about alternative medicine!
/off to see the naturopath
//Stein's movie was better anyway
Posted by: Smith123
|
October 1, 2009 6:22 PM
Disappointing and hypocritical PZ. Maher not only denies vaccines but also as you should know has been elaborated on other blogs, germ theory:
"I don't believe in vaccination either. That's a... well, that's a... what? That's another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur theory, even though Louis Pasteur renounced it on his own deathbed and said that Beauchamp(s) was right: it's not the invading germs, it's the terrain. It's not the mosquitoes, it's the swamp that they are breeding in."
Maher is denying science as basic as evolution. Now if an creationist made an anti-religion movie and won the Richard Dawkins Award for it, what would your and Dawkins response? Would Dawkins say "I loved the movie, I don't know anything about his views on evolution." Would you say let him have the Dawkins award (which originally included promotion of science they seemed to have changed the wording thank goodness), we'll just put him in the hotseat. And tell people not to question Dawkins on his implicit support of the crackpot just because he agrees with us and is there to promote his book.
Its freaking unbelievable cop-out, an intellectual hero like Dawkins says nothing against someone winning the award bearing his name, who is at least as anti-science and deluded as a creationist, if not more.
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 2, 2009 3:34 PM
Granted. I don't have an antipathy for the private sector per se, and in general I would say that a diversity of small businesses is a relatively positive thing.
I don't think that's a bad idea, but neither am I convinced it is necessary.
What is necessary is some public sector competition. The paper that Jadehawk linked to earlier shows us a real problem that the profit motive is not addressing. It's a market failure, hence the government can have an obvious role to play.
Let's have a publicly run pharmaceutical company that can perform the same function of buying and/or developing useful chemicals, but for those neglected infections of poverty that the government has a moral responsibility to address.
Posted by: Walton
|
October 2, 2009 4:19 PM
But isn't plenty of pharmaceutical research already publicly funded, via the National Institutes of Health? Would it not be more sensible to retarget some of the existing public sector health spending on the neglected diseases of poverty, rather than create a whole new bureaucratic agency?
Posted by: aratina cage of the OM
|
October 2, 2009 4:22 PM
I just checked out that video of Maher on The Daily Show (September 30, 2008) and that faitheist barb he throws out does sting: But otherwise he brings up some really good points and questions:The conversation he had with Jon Stewart could probably be turned around on him to make him critically reflect on his wacky understanding of medicine, a topic he seems awfully certain about.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
October 2, 2009 4:23 PM
Walton, for the bazillionth time, there are some things that the free market does a terrible job on. Anything to do with helping the poor is one example. But since you looneytarians don't give a rat's ass about the poor, this is not a concern for you, is it?
Posted by: strange gods before me
|
October 2, 2009 4:24 PM
How is that going to make the products profitable?
I'm not talking about a bureaucratic agency, but a publicly-run company. We could nationalize and consolidate the worst corporations, or form a new one from scratch.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 2, 2009 4:52 PM
Walton, you have a very flawed view of our governments science agencies work. A lot of cutting edge research is done by NIH or its grantees at academic institutions. The big pharma companies do not engage in this reasearch, but they do make use of some of the results. Gratis, of course. Most of this research is very basic biochemistry, and not active pharma discovery. Some interesting compounds that NIH or NCI sponsor undergo limited testing in animals, but that is it.So the promising leads need to be run through the venture capital/sales to big pharma system, which is weighed heavily against something like antimalarials, since malaria is primarily a third world disease. In spite of what people like you think, the FDA does not run clinical trials. It just reviews clinical trials run by the pharma companies, at their expense, to get approval for commercial sales. Actually, the military is a big backer certain tropical disease research since the troops can be sent to those regions. But compared to the NIH/NCI budget, they are small potatoes.
Posted by: RogerJH
|
October 2, 2009 6:43 PM
'TisHimself: One argument to make for supporting the poor in a capitalist society is that the poor will turn to crime if there is no other way to survive. Is it a coincidence that the countries where socialist policies support the poor have the lowest crime rates?
Posted by: bobscience
|
February 5, 2010 6:07 AM
this leaves us with no option but to grit our teeth and make some dissent known.