…and this is a 
I've always rather liked Bloggingheads — at least the idea of it, with one-on-one discussions between interesting people. It flops in execution often, since some of the participants wouldn't recognize reason and evidence if it walked up and slapped them in the face with a large and pungent haddock (the right-winger political discussions are unwatchable, and it's always had this problem of giving people like Jonah Goldberg a platform), but their Science Saturday has been generally good. I don't always agree with the people they have on, but at least they're interesting and provocative. And Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer have been superstars of the format.
That's changed lately. First they brought on Paul Nelson and Ron Numbers in a tawdry self-congratulation session that never addressed the Paraceratherium looming over the dialog, Nelson's insane young earth creationism. Then most recently they brought in Michael Behe, squirrely academic front for the ID creationism movement, and again they let his inanity slide by bringing in a friendly conversationalist, the linguist John McWhorter, who fawned over Behe's recent bad book.
What is this? Is bloggingheads to become a creationist-friendly site, where crackpots get to play talking head for a while and never risk getting their stupid ideas criticized? This is not good. If they want to bring in creationists, fine…but don't give them a free pass on their foolishness by pairing them with people who can't argue with the biology.
There was apparently some restlessness in the ranks of the regulars, and they had a conference call with Robert Wright, the man behind bloggingheads, which did not conclude at all satisfactorily. Now two of the best science people they had on call have declared that they will no longer be contributing.
Sean Carroll says goodbye for good reason.
What I objected to about the creationists was that they were not worthy opponents with whom I disagree; they're just crackpots. Go to a biology conference, read a biology journal, spend time in a biology department; nobody is arguing about the possibility that an ill-specified supernatural "designer" is interfering at whim with the course of evolution. It's not a serious idea. It may be out there in the public sphere as an idea that garners attention -- but, as we all know, that holds true for all sorts of non-serious ideas. If I'm going to spend an hour of my life listening to two people have a discussion with each other, I want some confidence that they're both serious people. Likewise, if I'm going to spend my own time and lend my own credibility to such an enterprise, I want to believe that serious discussions between respectable interlocutors are what the site is all about.
My standard for taking part in any forum about science is pretty simple. All the participants must rely on peer-reviewed science that has direct bearing on the subject at hand, not specious arguments that may sound fancy but are scientifically empty. I believe standards like this one are crucial if we are to have productive discussions about the state of science and its effects on our lives.
This is not Blogginghead's standard, at least as I understand it now. And so here we must part ways.
This is good, principled action, and it's exactly what we need to do every time some journalistic enterprise tries to generate a false equivalence between serious science and crackpottery like creationism — shut them out. Say goodbye. Let the credible sources wash their hands of them and move on.
I'm still somewhat sympathetic to the idea of bloggingheads — and David Killoren left a good comment that basically admits that they screwed up — but there has to be a commitment to good science from the top down for it to work. I'm not convinced by the replies Wright has left on those two sites that he has that goal in mind.
Technology
Comments
Posted by: Barklikeadog | September 1, 2009 1:59 PM
I got tired of Bloggingheads a long time ago. Watching some of those was just a waste of time and bandwidth.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 1, 2009 2:04 PM
Did they already know that Numbers was a dud against that experienced liar Paul Nelson? Because it seems to me that we might have expected better from him.
I wrote this on Sean's blog re McWhorter/Behe:
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 1, 2009 2:04 PM
Also because--let's be honest--a lot of people are a hell of a lot more interesting to read than to watch and listen to talk.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | September 1, 2009 2:11 PM
It flops in execution often
But when UW-Madison law professors get their drink on? Insanity gold!
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
September 1, 2009 2:12 PM
PZ,
If I understand your post correctly, you've put bloggingheads on probation? In other words, you aren't boycotting like Carroll and Zimmer, but you're unlikely to take part again until you see some improvement in their standards. Is that right?
Or maybe you and Abbie Smith can do another vlog on the topic of giving creationists and unmerited platform. ;-)
Posted by: lose_the_woo | September 1, 2009 2:12 PM
This got me thinking: Instead of meeting ID with scientific criticisms in these kinds of "debate" venues, perhaps their arguments should be met with astrological criticisms. I would love to see the looks on their faces when arguments using the Zodiac and planetary alignment hoo-haa is used to refute ID.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 1, 2009 2:15 PM
When Wright reinstated the Behe-McWhorter drivel, David Klinghoffer blogged the usual bullshit about "Darwinian Stalinists." My response there:
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 1, 2009 2:16 PM
Of course O'Leary the Terrible and UD are blabbering on like the idiots they are about this.
Manufactroversy Denise, manufactroversy.
And no I won't buy your book.
Posted by: Ordinary Man | September 1, 2009 2:16 PM
David Killoren wrote, "I set up the Numbers/Nelson diavlog without Sang Ngo’s knowledge."
It took me a bit more reading, and several returns to the repeatedly used "word" "diavlog" before I realized that it wasn't a typo.
I'll all for making up vwords, but let's vverify that they are not vridiculous before vwe revuse them ovver and ovver.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
September 1, 2009 2:19 PM
@lose_the_woo
Actually, Jon Stewart already did that back during Evolution Schmevolution! He had a panel with an ACLU lawyer, Bill Dembsky, and some "crystal spiritualist" and had them all debate life's origins. It was hilarious!
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
September 1, 2009 2:21 PM
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...no
Posted by: lose_the_woo | September 1, 2009 2:28 PM
Too funny, I'll have to find that video.
This sentence causes a train-wreck in my brain.
Posted by: Peter G | September 1, 2009 2:38 PM
Unfortunately they were always dedicated to the proposition that all opinions are created equal, reality notwithstanding. It's all very democratic you see.
Posted by: SC, OM | September 1, 2009 2:41 PM
I remember Sokal* saying at the time of the flap over his hoax that he didn't want to engage in verbal debates because they (I'm paraphrasing, but this may be an exact quote) generate more heat than light. I agree with this, and I detest verbal debates in general (many, many reasons). They rely on extemporaneous rhetoric and immediate recall, and it's impossible to bring evidence to bear in any real way. As a person who likes to think through her positions, put together arguments and evidence to support them, and read through substantive evidence allegedly supporting opponents' viewpoints, I find them a waste of time in almost every context.
* http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/2009/08/alan-sokal-science-and-politics.html
Posted by: mike ferrell | September 1, 2009 2:51 PM
Robert Wright lost all credibility a while ago with stuff like "More than Zero". Now we have "Evolution of God". If there was ever a "science" book with a name to delight booksellers, if not science readers, that is it. He really wants to believe, in some incoherent way, in both materialism and and a goody two shoes universal teleological force for the benefit of humankind.
But the real reason for the choice of bloggingheads talkers? Website hits, and thus revenue, are much better for those who don't talk about real science, which is so hard to understand and appreciate.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 1, 2009 2:54 PM
Sili (#11):
It would be especially funny if (as I suspect), they are thinking of the wrong Sean Carroll!
Posted by: Paholaisen Asianajaja | September 1, 2009 2:59 PM
Dembski on the Daily Show.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-14-2005/evolution--schmevolution---panel--edward-j--larson--william-a--dembski--ellie-crystal
Posted by: Geoff | September 1, 2009 3:05 PM
A wise choice. They made like Catholics and pulled out.
Posted by: dpc
|
September 1, 2009 3:08 PM
I do hope that bloggingheads turns around and Carl and Sean come back. As a postdoc with 2 small children I have virtually no time to keep up with any research that does not directly relate to my work. I looked forward to working around the house and listening to Science Saturday. I really appreciated the lack of discussion on religion and science. This 'debate' gets tiring sometimes and I just want to hear about some interesting science and Carl is excellent at this. Does anybody know of any other good science podcasts?
Posted by: Wes | September 1, 2009 3:11 PM
That Daily Show clip is fucking hilarious. The perturbed look on Dembski's face at being teamed up with a crystal healer is priceless.
Posted by: Curlew | September 1, 2009 3:50 PM
Would you PZ appear again ?
I enjoyed your appearance with ERV and also the one you did with George Johnson , (or was it hi side-kick John Horgan).
Those two are very good and I know they won't quit as I have emailed George. They are good for non-experts like me.
Hope you (PZ) appear again.
Posted by: Dave Wisker | September 1, 2009 4:32 PM
Nature has an excellent weekly podcast.
Posted by: Anon | September 1, 2009 4:42 PM
See http://www.resurch.org/ for a huge collection of science and skepticism related sites.
Posted by: Louise Van Court | September 1, 2009 4:53 PM
Has Sean B. Carroll the biologist had any public response to the Behe/McWhorter podcast? Behe mentions in the podcast that they had met recently at a conference and that he (Behe) thought Carroll was a nice guy.
Posted by: AndrewB | September 1, 2009 5:44 PM
Is there anyone left on Bloggingheads that's worth paying attention to? I'm not a fan of George Johnson or John Horgan. Add in the Templeton foundation and Bob Wright's lunacy. And I think I'm done with the site. The two people I will watch when it comes to politics post so irregularly that I don't think I will miss it.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | September 1, 2009 6:06 PM
The solution is clear: Henceforth Chris Mooney and Sherril Kirschenbaum should introduce and moderate every Blogginheads discussion. That way, we'd be sure there's no controversy!
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
September 1, 2009 6:09 PM
I detect some irony in the use of adiós in the title, though I'm not sure if it was intended.
Posted by: Nemo | September 1, 2009 7:20 PM
I think this may be too generous. He works for the Manhattan Institute.
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 1, 2009 8:02 PM
"Actually, Jon Stewart already did that..."
It was certainly a bizarre spectacle. I think the whole reason they did it was for the part where, after the woo-ist goes on with her woo, Stewart turns to Dembski and says "Now, do you think this should be taught in schools?" Brilliant.
Posted by: another | September 1, 2009 8:14 PM
So will scienceblogs.com now be hosting Zimmer/Carroll Science Saturday?
Please?
Posted by: AndyD | September 1, 2009 10:11 PM
A "sharply pointed" haddock???
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 1, 2009 10:14 PM
Well see that's the problem right there.
Posted by: eyespy | September 2, 2009 3:24 AM
"Go to a biology conference, read a biology journal, spend time in a biology department; nobody is arguing about the possibility that an ill-specified supernatural "designer" is interfering at whim with the course of evolution."
They are at Lehigh, home to the reprehensible Michael Behe.
In addition to generally sucking at everything, this pathetic pile of crap institution actually employs a creationist.
Note to all those impressionable youth out there--Lafayette College tolerates no such nonsense, is not built into the side of a mountain and we beat Lehigh in everything all the time.
Lafayette Maroon RFC in the hizzzzzouze!
Posted by: XD | September 2, 2009 4:39 AM
Puts me in mind of Reddit's recent behaviour.
A week-or-so ago, all mentions of the subreddit Atheism (which has 60,000 subscribers) disappeared off their front page. Some time later, one of the founders of Reddit ('Spez') said the reason was due to an attack of down-voters on Atheism, and that they were suspending its visibility until they could re-write the algorithms.
During this time, some redditors mass down-voted posts in the Christianity subreddit. This propelled it to the front page, despite it having less than a tenth of the members, and very little activity. Was it removed too? No. It only went back down the popularity list when the down-voting ceased.
Atheism is back up to the rank where it was before, but even popular posts don't make it to the front page for non-logged-in (ie. casual) readers. The reason given by 'Spez':
So, stories posted on Atheism (including links to many of PZ's posts) are being hidden from a casual browser of Reddit because they are controversial and might offend? I wander if this reasoning comes from the founders of Reddit (who have been reluctant share their religious beliefs) or from Reddit's owners, Condé Nast (especially as Reddit has been getting some mentions in the MSM recently). Or maybe Mooney has been doing some consultancy work?
Either way, I think I understand how regulars of BloggingHeads must feel.
Posted by: XD | September 2, 2009 4:47 AM
I should also add that for casual browsers of Reddit, the only other subreddits banned from the front page are moviecritic (which is actually nothing more that a list of movies which people vote up/down), and..... NSFW.
Yep, in the eyes of the powers that be, atheism is equivalent to pornography.
Posted by: windy | September 2, 2009 6:19 AM
Agh, if McWhorter can't understand how skunks could have evolved, how hard is it to google for some information on skunks or go read a book? It would be pretty easy (unless his internet filter is blocking 'anal') to find out that:
-Almost all carnivores have anal scent glands
-Mustelids have enlarged anal scent glands
-Skunks have huge, muscular anal scent glands
Mysterious weasel-like intermediate indeed...
Posted by: Tim Harris | September 2, 2009 7:49 AM
I have attempted to read Wright's 'the Evolution of God', but gave up. It is a silly, pretentious, confused and not altogether honest attempt at trying to have things both ways. He was allowed on Andrew Sullivan's blog, where he quite shamelessly pushed his book, and intimated that atheists couldn't be happy since there wasn't a God the Father to pat them on their heads. He also tried to pretend, in the Huffington Post, I think (or was it Salon), nthat all the 'new atheists' were neo-conservatives. He strikes me as a con-man, fundamentally.
Posted by: ArgusEyes | September 2, 2009 11:45 PM
My favourite blog is by a person I largely can’t stand. P.Z. Meyer’s Pharyngula has a post on a recent bloggingheads.tv kerfuffle.
"I've always rather liked Bloggingheads — at least the idea of it, with one-on-one discussions between interesting people. It flops in execution often, since some of the participants wouldn't recognize reason and evidence if it walked up and slapped them in the face with a large and pungent haddock (the right-winger political discussions are unwatchable, and it's always had this problem of giving people like Jonah Goldberg a platform), but their Science Saturday has been generally good. I don't always agree with the people they have on, but at least they're interesting and provocative. And Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer have been superstars of the format."
Yes, the reason it "flops in execution often" is that it allows people on with differing views to P.Z. Meyers. The very same flop in execution applies to freedom of speech.
However, those of us who are adults can handle opposing viewpoints without throwing tantrums, and may possibly admit that what Meyers considers a flaw is really the biggest strength of freedom of speech.
bloggingheads.tv is a website that offers many views, although I can’t stand creationism I enjoy watching stuff like this and no doubt I would have enjoyed watching Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer too. However, they have pulled out of Bloggingheads because of the presence of creationist babble that was "insufficiently opposed" oh the horror! My first thoughts when I head this is that Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer are childish fools. Is depriving the site of their own opinion in order to curtail future creationist content a mature approach to the problem? If anything, this will give credence to the common creationist claim that they are "expelled" wherever they go.
I think that a creationist love fest is funny to watch, and my hackles certainly don’t get raised at the existence of such a thing.
Not even mentioning that science is a lot more decidable than political opinion is. Jonah Goldberg wrote a book called Liberal Fascism. I recommend that Meyers should pick up a copy if he wants to understand how his "liberal" belief system is not so liberal anymore. As should be apparent by this ridiculous post of his.
Posted by: strange gods before me | September 2, 2009 11:56 PM
What a moron. "Fascism" requires government authoritarianism. Suggesting that private citizens are wise to avoid participating in a private website owned by other private citizens, of their own free will, cannot be fascism.
ArgusEyes, if reading Jonah Goldberg made you so fucking stupid, why would your recommendation impress anyone?
Posted by: Owlmirror | September 2, 2009 11:59 PM
*cough*. I believe I can do this one:
Shorter ArgusEyes: blah blah blah
Posted by: John Morales | September 3, 2009 12:03 AM
ArgusEyes, without a hint of irony, writes:
Wow.
Posted by: Curlew | September 3, 2009 10:46 AM
Bob Wright and George Johnson are to feature on this Saturday's science saturday to hash it all out.
Ref today's Bob + Mickey Kaus show - http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22238?in=34:13&out=42:36