Pharyngula

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 22, 2009 2:41 PM

(What. Am I really the first?)

I keep getting the impression that Mooney & Kirshenbaum fail utterly at... wait for it... wait for it... communicating what they want to say. They make themselves look rather silly.

The irony, the irony... <sigh>

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 22, 2009 2:45 PM

David, please, you should be above playing the firsties game.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 22, 2009 2:49 PM

Sorry, but I can't muster any excitement about the nonsense with those clowns anymore, severe M&K burnout.

Posted by: Carlie, OM and cuddly pedant | October 22, 2009 2:54 PM

Remember those words when YOUR book is published.

If it ever is, of course!

Makes more sense to take the time to write something good in the first place than to whip out something of poor quality and then spend all your energy trying to mop up after.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 22, 2009 3:01 PM

There is only one book I patiently await^*...

*I also await the copepod feeding frenzy it will stir up.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 22, 2009 3:46 PM

Paul Fussell one christened this sort of thing the "ABM"- Author's Big Mistake. You see it a lot in places like the NY Review of Books. The author indulging in an ABM nearly always comes off as a complete twit, just like M&K.

A local actor (whose biggest claim to fame, as it were, was one season on Mad TV) responded to a critical review in an artsy street magazine of a play he was in via letter to the editor. Unfortunately, many of the readers of said magazine are witty and erudite artistic-types themselves, and the stream of letters eloquently ripping him a new one in the next issue was far worse than the original review.

The only response to an honest critical review is, as PZ put it, "Let it stand on its own (that is, shakily, ready to topple at a sneeze) and write another, better book."

Posted by: Tulse | October 22, 2009 3:54 PM

What is especially silly is that much of the substance of Coyne's criticism, namely that UA itself has little substance, was by no means unique -- practically every negative or even lukewarm review of the book noted this.

M&K seem to really like making things personal.

Posted by: dwasifar | October 22, 2009 4:03 PM

I just finished this book, not having read the reviews beforehand, and I came to the same conclusion as the reviewers. Weak, superficial, and poorly thought through, especially when it addressed science's relationship with religion. I couldn't believe my eyes: "Religion and science don't conflict because 80% of American poll respondents say they don't." What? What?? Leaving aside the ridiculous idea that a poll provides truth, let's think for a minute about how that poll relates to the other polls that show 40% of Americans believe in creationism and reject evolution. Do the math: this means that at least half of that 40% are among the 80% of the former poll. The book exists to argue that Americans don't know the meaning of science, and then quotes this poll as if the selfsame Americans suddenly knew enough about science to give an informed answer.

At that point in the book I had to put it down for a few days to absorb the FAIL. I could hardly bring myself to finish it.

Posted by: Paul | October 22, 2009 4:06 PM

What is especially silly is that much of the substance of Coyne's criticism, namely that UA itself has little substance, was by no means unique -- practically every negative or even lukewarm review of the book noted this.

M&K seem to really like making things personal.

It's not personal, they're trying to drum up traffic again. Same as before when they pulled out one of Aquaria's vitriolic posts and acted like it was PZs.

It's obvious when you look at how they responded to reviewers. Janet Stemwhedle (another Science Blogger) posted a series in response to UA that made almost the exact same points PZ did. They mined the nice parts and called it a good review, whereas they went crazy trying to incite war with the Pharyngulites. They're just after attention. No point giving it to them.

In fact, pretty much every reviewer made similar complaints (except that AGW guy that gave it a glowing review). The only difference was whether Mooney quoted the complaining parts or the "It wasn't horrible" parts.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | October 22, 2009 4:27 PM

Of course, one notes that you apparently exempt yourself from that suggestion to "move on."

He'd have to be a saint to resist the tempting target presented by M&K's utter and continuing fatuity.

Posted by: Paul | October 22, 2009 4:35 PM

Orac, once again coming with snide 1 liners since his bff was mentioned! You might note that PZ's point was that obsessing over book reviews is less productive than actually trying to put out a good book. Your commentary is meaningless in that context, as PZ is not complaining about his mean reviewers.

So, Orac, did you ever read UA to try and see whether the commentary you complain about is valid? You might come off as less of a dick if you tried to actually get the truth of the situation before trolling comment threads.

Posted by: Peter Beattie | October 22, 2009 4:42 PM

Much like God, Mooneybaum are dead. They have lost any material or moral relevance. They've a runny brain and joined the choir unintelligible. Just let them rest in peace.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | October 22, 2009 4:48 PM

Of course, one notes that you apparently exempt yourself from that suggestion to "move on."

Orac,

You are aware PZ has not actually published his book yet ? Indeed it is not even finished.

Please do tell what bad reviews he has not moved on from though. I would love to read a review of a book not yet finished.

Posted by: IaMoL | October 22, 2009 5:38 PM

Shorter Orac: "sluuuuuuurp."

Thanks for redeeming my reputation, Orac. Say hello to Dr. Judy Tenuta Isis for me.

Posted by: articulett | October 22, 2009 11:15 PM

Orac enjoys exercising his freedom to criticize when an entertainer (Bill Maher) gets the science wrong (his anti-vax stance), but when self-appointed scientific communication experts (K&M) spread a false and prejudicial viewpoint (this notion that atheists contribute to unscientific America), Orac turns into a scold-meister.

Why the hypocrisy, Orac? No one seems to be suggesting that YOU shut up as you rant on and on about Maher (myself, I just stopped reading your blog)--so why in the world would you insinuate that PZ do so when he might feel equally strongly regarding this issue? What makes you the "decider" of who others can and cannot mock? Perhaps you're a tad jealous because the intelligent masses seem to prefer PZ's rants over your own and those of your faitheist pals. (By their fruits ye shall know them...)

Maybe if you keep whining about PZ, you can get Kwok, Dildo, et. al. to opine on your blog as they do on Mooneys. --Then you can all pat yourselves on the back in a self-satisfied humorless frenzy and the rest of us can enjoy each other without the constant braying of the faitheists.

Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 23, 2009 12:26 AM

Steve LaBonne @ # 12: The author indulging in an ABM nearly always comes off as a complete twit, just like M&K.

Are you saying that, since as co-authors they must share whatever status they achieve, that Mooney & Kirshenbaum are ... half-twits?

Posted by: Aquaria | October 23, 2009 2:13 AM

Same as before when they pulled out one of Aquaria's vitriolic posts and acted like it was PZs

Honey, that wasn't even an attempt at vitriol. That was what I considered plain speaking.

Posted by: MadScientist | October 23, 2009 9:06 AM

Ahahaha, Pierce R. Butler wins the thread. :)

Kirschenbaum is now pimping "evolutionary religious studies" - the name sounded like bullshit to me so I followed the link. If you think it sounds like religion attempting to disguise itself as science, you'd be right. It's paid for by the Templeton Foundation - 'nuff said.

I'll just have to resist the temptation to visit that awful site; no point in giving 'em the traffic when all I can do is whine about 90% of what they write.

Posted by: Carlie | October 23, 2009 9:16 AM

MadScientist, is that something like tracing the changes in religions as they diverge off from each other? Because that actually sounds kind of neat. It might show people that their own sect's beliefs weren't handed down directly from God the way they think they were.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | October 23, 2009 9:39 AM

It's paid for by the Templeton Foundation - 'nuff said.

It's probably fair to say that everything the Shiny Happy WonderTwins push these days is done so with those thirty pieces of silver sweet, sweet Templeton Foundation dollars in mind.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 23, 2009 10:43 AM

Brownian wrote:

Wow, Tabby, that's some detective work. To tell the truth, I don't exactly remember, though I'd put my money on it being Vue.

Posted by: MadScientist | October 23, 2009 7:36 PM

@Carlie #39: No, that would constitute an actual history of the development of specific religions. This "evolutionary religious studies" is no such thing; the aim, as claimed, is to show that religion is an evolutionary trait (the hidden agenda probably being: and therefore inevitable and therefore god). It seems to belie a gross misunderstanding of the basic concepts of evolution and wants to ride on the coattails of a comparatively new reemergence of the question "can behavior be shown to evolve". One of the favorite topics of that line of enquiry of course is "is altruism an evolutionary trait?" I would be interested if anyone can come up with a testable hypothesis.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins seems to believe that cultural heritage can develop in ways which are roughly analogous to evolution of species, but he makes it clear that it is only an analogy. It may turn out to be nothing more than an analogy with only the most superficial resemblances. I think it is safe to say that at present we do not have the tools to demonstrate that a cultural trait has a direct link to a species' evolution. Now in the case that cultural behavior has virtually nothing to do with evolution (except that having sufficient mental ability allows organizational development as we see in humans and other apes, and even in birds with their pecking order and 'top dog' behavior observed in dogs), we will never have such tools and the real challenge is to show that it is an exercise in futility to attempt to tie cultural behavior to evolution of species. Such challenges are not trivial; for example there is the notorious "3-body system" (and any system with more than 3 bodies in it). Given the speed, direction, position, mass, etc of a number of bodies, can you come up with a set of equations which would yield the past or future positions etc of these bodies just as you can predict the location etc. of a single body? After hundreds of years a mathematician finally appeared who answered the question decisively: no. (However we can approximate things by repeating calculations and varying time in small increments between each calculation, which is what had been done for over 400 years, and modern computers allow us to make pretty good approximations.)