…and this is a 
JL Vernon is lobbying to have Huffpo dedicate a section of their undeservedly popular, cheesy website to science. He makes a superficially reasonable argument: to work within the belly of the beast to promote good science, in opposition to the tripe they usually publish. I'm sympathetic, really I am, but I see the Huffpo as a dead cause.
I also think Vernon fails to grasp the problem here. For instance, he complains about the refusal of anti-creationists to debate the opposition.
The most resounding message emerging from the opposition is the idea that having "real science" share a platform with "bad science" will ultimately tarnish the reputation of the legitimate scientists and science communicators who choose to participate. This is essentially the same argument Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers and others take when refusing to debate evolutionists. The concept here being that by sharing the stage with creationists, scientists lend credibility to the creationist arguments. In some ways, I think this is a cowardly response. If you have a sound argument, the opposition should not win the debate.
That's wrong on multiple levels. First, a debate is not won by sound argument; it's by persuasive rhetoric. Many creationists have that skill (I have to repeat a mantra I've got: creationists are not stupid, just ignorant and misled by ignorant arguments), so it is a serious tactical error to think that because all the facts and science are on your side, you're going to win debates. That's a recipe for consistent failure.
The other problem here is that I've "won" most of my debates…because the other side is just nuts. Jerry Bergman and Geoff Simmons, to name two, were raving loonies who made me embarrassed to be sharing a spotlight with them. There was no gain for me, and plenty for them. You get two possibilities: you'll face an eloquent rhetorician who will run rings around you despite your command of the facts, or you'll get a nutcase who makes you feel like you're sharing the podium with a brain-damaged hobo. Neither are great options.
The final big problem is that creationist debaters willingly lie and distract to win their arguments. The Gish Gallop is just one of the tools they use; they sputter out dozens of claims that are false and falsifiable, if you had an hour to address each one. And then, of course, if you do "win", they'll cheerfully lie to their little closeted evangelical audiences that they not only defeated you, but that you were a big abusive meanie who was rude and accused the creationists of making stuff up.
I have little hope for Vernon's endeavor if he doesn't grasp these basic realities of dealing with kooks.
As for Huffpo, he has a couple of hurdles. He has openly announced his intent to expose the "bad science" on HuffPo — while I like that idea, does he really think Ariana Huffington is going to look kindly on that proposal?
Also, we know that Huffpo editors censor articles. There isn't going to be any criticism of the site's major goals, the promulgation of Newage garbage, getting through unbutchered.
But let's assume Vernon succeeds, and gets a good science section with reputable contributors writing about good solid science and criticizing the pseudoscience and quackery otherwise rife on Huffpo. If it acquires even a scrap of prestige and respect, I can predict exactly what will happen: Deepak Chopra and Robert Lanza will ask Huffington to include their raving madness in that section. They write about "science" and "medicine", after all. And a credible science section on Huffpo will be quickly subverted to promote quackery.
Convergent Revolution agrees that Huffpo Science would be a bad idea. Huffpo is tainted fruit — stay away from it altogether.
Comments
Posted by: Matt Hone
|
July 28, 2010 1:16 PM
I really don't understand why people still spell your name incorrectly. Do they do it on purpose? Does it give them some kind of thrill?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 28, 2010 1:19 PM
This is exactly the reason that a science section on HuffPo will fail miserably to promote solely good science.
I won't work.
*sits back and waits for the "WHY WON'T PZ DEBATE [insert loon here]. IS HE SCARED?!?!?" crowd to shit all over this thread.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
July 28, 2010 1:20 PM
Vernon:
I didn't realise you guys refused to debate evolutionists, too.
(I think he meant "creationists".)
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ls4.cw9kw8C8bBU7ioytcor2qrqpUYHd#cbe70
|
July 28, 2010 1:22 PM
I wouldn't write for that place until they got rid of their stupid "Religion" section, much of which involves infusing science with woo.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 28, 2010 1:22 PM
Exactly. Has Vernon never considered why so many politicians are lawyers?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
July 28, 2010 1:26 PM
I agree with you PZ. This has failure on so many levels all over it.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
July 28, 2010 1:27 PM
I gave up the other day and deleted my account and my bookmark to Huffington Post when I went to the front page and saw nothing but articles on woo, Republicans, and female breasts.
The religion and science "discussion", which could have raised the bar, turned out to be nothing but browbeating the atheists, and there had also been a recent uptick in homophobic content over there. It just isn't worth dealing with anymore.
From the looks of it, I think Arianna might have collected just enough Blue-Dog Democratic followers to feel little compunction about slipping back into Republican mode.
Posted by: irenedelse
|
July 28, 2010 1:28 PM
Can we say that writing PZ's last name "Meyers" = automatic fail?
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
July 28, 2010 1:32 PM
I'm not opposed to the idea, but it will never happen.
As I'm sure others of you have noticed, any criticism of Jenny McCarthy or Deepak Chopra simply doesn't get past the moderators, who apparently can't stand the mildest disagreement.
Arianna, whose politics I like, has apparently drunk the woo-laced Kool-Aid. She's a bit like her friend Bill Maher in that regard.
Posted by: irenedelse
|
July 28, 2010 1:36 PM
@ Ray Moscow #3: Oooh, nice one! Refusing to debate "evolutionists", indeed!
Posted by: MrFire
|
July 28, 2010 1:37 PM
But HPIWOTI.
Posted by: MrFire
|
July 28, 2010 1:45 PM
Reverend @2:
Then you're fired.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
July 28, 2010 1:48 PM
Why is it that no matter how obvious this is, no matter how many times it's repeated and demonstrated, no matter how often we make the same point over and over, nobody ever seems to get this point?
That's it, right there... end of discussion. Facts aren't decided by debate. No discovery was ever made, nor confirmed, by means of debate.
Posted by: theistnot
|
July 28, 2010 1:49 PM
Huffpo should have to have a disclaimer attached to that section, as well as being forced to label it their "Pseudo-Science" Section.
The Disclaimer: Any factual science related items found in this section is purely coincidental and does not represent the views of the Huffington Post
Posted by: grudgedk
|
July 28, 2010 1:50 PM
QFT! Nope. I'm pretty sure that the more popular term is supposed to be true, as opposed to the correct one, much like artificial, hacker and quarantine, so PZ and Mike Myers will just have to change their names to the now proper form so no-one gets confused. :)Posted by: Clearwater
|
July 28, 2010 1:51 PM
I have been getting increasingly fed up with Huffpo's quack science. Now they have just added another section for religion. It is a sad state.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 28, 2010 1:54 PM
Too bad one can't do on HuffPo what I've recently started doing in bookstores: reshelving Andrew Wakefield and the like to the "science fiction" or "occult" sections and out of the respectable "biology" section where their cooties irritate Darwin, Dawkins, and Gould.
Think of how much fun the PharyguHordes could have correcting the shelving errors over there.
Posted by: Orac
|
July 28, 2010 1:57 PM
Funny how everything old is new again. This isn't the first time someone's advocated a science section for HuffPo:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/03/a_science_section_for_the_huffington_pos.php
I expect this time will go no differently.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
July 28, 2010 2:08 PM
I gave up on Huffpo the first year. The politics was generally ok, but there was so much other crap I couldn't take it...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 28, 2010 2:09 PM
whoops
I'm still not gonna work
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 28, 2010 2:13 PM
In other news, the Klan just launched their new African-American Outreach Program...
Posted by: Hubbub
|
July 28, 2010 2:18 PM
I emphatically agree.
This guy clearly knows nothing about cranks if he thinks that "if you have the facts, you'll win the debate". We should refer Vernon to some live debates about the authenticity of the moon landings. I love Phil Plait, but I think he really taught us all an important lesson about the dangers of debating kooks, despite his formidable knowledge of the subject.
I want to give Vernon an 'E' for effort, but now I think his sloppy argument could have provided some propaganda to the creationists. "Even this liberal HuffPo guy thinks scientists are being cowardly by not debating us".
Any prominent (or even anonymous internet) skeptic could have explained to him why his argument is bogus. The Gish Gallup is practically Skepticism 101!
Ughh...
Posted by: jtotheizzoe
|
July 28, 2010 2:35 PM
The more important question is, over/under, how long until this HuffPo Science section would feature its inaugural study of "Analysis of Gravitational Perturbations of the Nip-Slip"?
Posted by: cnocspeireag
|
July 28, 2010 2:36 PM
One can only admire Vernon's resolve to introduce reality to Huffpo, he has a long and arduous road ahead.
May I respectfully suggest that Vernon finds a good, hard, brick wall and simply bangs his head against it repeatedly. This will cut out the middle men.
Posted by: mattheath
|
July 28, 2010 2:40 PM
Counterpoint: Until about a decade ago the Guardian* was more-or-less synonymous with flaky new-age wankery. Now it has science coverage as good as the MSN offers: Ben Goldacre weekly, Simon Singh frequently, PZ at least once and beat reporters that usually avoid embarrassing themselves . I'm glad people didn't write it off as permanently damaged goods.
*The sometime Manchester Guardian; I believe "of London" is correct nowadays.
Posted by: Don1
|
July 28, 2010 2:53 PM
Didn't Dawkins reply to a challenge to debate from a creationist with something along the lines of, 'That would look good on your resume, not so good on mine.'?
Posted by: Perplexed in Peoria
|
July 28, 2010 3:19 PM
PZ: " ... the [HuffPo] site's major goals, the promulgation of Newage garbage ..."
No. The HuffPo's goals are the same as those of the National Enquirer, or Penthouse, or New Scientist, or the New York Times, or ScienceBlogs. The goal is to make money by attracting readers and to attract readers by giving those readers what they want. The HuffPo dispenses woo, because its readers want woo, not because Ariana thinks they ought to have woo.
Do the HuffPo readers also want science? Maybe some of them do, but those folks already know they can get their science elsewhere. The HuffPo readers in whom we should be interested are the ones who weren't actually looking for science but could be persuaded to try some if it is presented with lots of frosting, whipped cream, and a cherry.
If someone wants to do that, then I say "fine". But the author should not expect to be praised by other scientists as if (s)he were doing a public service.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
July 28, 2010 3:30 PM
The same HuffPo that was recently peddling the Darwin-to-Hitler crap?
Yeah, right.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl0c38lu51v5qcPENZXY5uCCIU8_pbKU94
|
July 28, 2010 3:31 PM
"There was no gain for me, and plenty for them."
I couldn't disagree more. During your "debate" with Simmons, he performed so astonishingly, mind-destroying awful - to the extent that the hosts had to jump in and help him out - that any evolution-denier listening had to have been squirming in their seats, embarrassed.
Never underestimate the power of shame.
But yeah, HuffPo is a joke.
Posted by: Schenck
|
July 28, 2010 3:36 PM
I created a 'science' section for my google news page, and it spit out, amoung other things, an article on Einsten by Robert Lanza, MD. I commented on the article. Almost every comment was rejected by moderation. The very first, I'll admit was a /little/ mean (i think i used the word absurd and nonsense, but that's about it). So I rewrote it. The rest were nice in tone, but still disagreeing, they kept getting rejected by moderators. I even had a comment that asked something like (in response to a comment that said the article was bold and intelligent) /what/ they found bold or intelligent. That was rejected also. Finally, my account was banned. All in the course of a few hours, from creation to banning. I used their contact section to politely, and I mean it, politely, ask why, since they do allow that as an option, and heard no response.
I think that /that/ really shows me that the site is worthless, I was rejected because I disagreed, even politely. Put up whatever garbage you want, but at least have the decency to stand up for it.
This, I think, also shows why the 'non-confrontational' stuff that people ask the 'new atheists' to do is BS; if people don't want to deal with you, they'll just erase you, politeness is meaningless, they just want someone to pander to them.
Posted by: scribe999
|
July 28, 2010 3:49 PM
Sure, you could put a "science" page on HuffPo, but to quote Principal Skinner: "Of course we could make things more challenging, Lisa, but then the stupider students would be in here complaining, furrowing their brows in a vain attempt to understand the situation."
Posted by: tutone21
|
July 28, 2010 3:59 PM
The whole thing is kind of ridiculous. Hard science is difficult to understand, even for scientists in those fields. When I read chemical journals I have to reread articles multiple times. Now HuffPo thinks that they can have a section dedicated to “science” and people will flock to read it? No self respecting scientist is turning to that publication to catch the latest update. This means that they are going to have to water down the articles and topics, which means a large contribution by De-hack Chopra et al. If they want to change and be thought of as a creditable source for scientific information then the first step would be putting distance between the publication and the pseudo-science woo-meisters. Then try and get revered scientists to submit articles.
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
July 28, 2010 4:56 PM
@27: Your assertion that HuffPo is only in it for the money annoys me a bit (although I agree with the rest of your post).
I've worked for newspapers most of my life, and I can't count the number of times a person who disagreed with some position the paper has taken has claimed "Aha! You're just trying to sell papers!"
Well, no shit, Sherlock.
Would anyone criticize General Motors for "just wanting to sell automobiles"?
What the fuck do you think we're doing?
If you don't like HuffPo, don't go there. But for dog's sake don't base your criticism on their need to make money.
As a young man, I dug ditches for a plumbing company in South Carolina. Do you think I was doing it for the pleasure of building blisters on top of blisters on 100-degree days? No, I needed a paycheck, and that was all I could find at the time.
With all that said, it seems to me that a popular site like HuffPo, with its variety of (mostly liberal) political viewpoints, could do just fine without the pseudoscience. But I don't know. I'm not privy to their readership information.
Posted by: DaveH
|
July 28, 2010 5:25 PM
@ johnlil#0a224 #33,
But General Motors doesn't serve an important public good necessary for a free democracy. For example, physicians in North America are private business people (even here in Canada, the insurance company just happens to be the gov't), but if a doctor said "I'm going to treat you for this disease instead, because I just want to do lucrative procedures.", we would go apeshit. And rightly so!
Journalists serve a public good by disseminating the information necessary for the functioning of a free democracy. If they only report on what is popular, then they are entertainers, not journalists.
(Leaves to check cbc.ca/news and bbc.co.uk/news)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 28, 2010 5:43 PM
Yes it is a bit ridiculous, but no one AKAIK is claiming that HuffPo could have or even should have a science section that reads like a Journal or that any self respecting scientist would choose HuffPo as his/her go to source for science updates.
But a science section that disseminates good science to the public, which obviously mostly includes laypeople, would be nice.
From the article
Noble goals, but impossible as HuffPo currently operates.
Of course, but that's the point. It's not going to happen as they are tucked in snug as a bug in bed with Chopra, woomiesters, anti-vaxxers, and all other kinds of pseudo-scientific hacks who will pollute the science section with non-scientific nonsense.
Posted by: AnneH
|
July 28, 2010 5:53 PM
That was the best explanation for refusing to debate creationists that I've seen.
I've been watching William Lane Craig videos, and videos debunking him. He is a professional debater who uses ALL the tricks to win over his audience - not only the Gish Gallop, but appeals to emotion and authority. And man, does he ever tell whoppers! One that made my jaw drop was a claim that religion is important for women's rights... !
He's not interested in enlightening anyone. He just wants to win, and will do and say anything to that end.
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
July 28, 2010 6:27 PM
Just remember to say it so it rhymes with 'sewage' and all will become clear. Unlike the sewage.Posted by: secularshawshank
|
July 28, 2010 6:33 PM
That's true. Let's say they started a "Science and Reason" section tomorrow, giving space to (oh I don't know) people like Shermer, or Dennett, or Coyne. Where would they begin?! Think of all the garbage they'd have to refute on a daily basis! No, HuffPo has already been delivered into the hands of woo, and that's that. Those who defend science and reason will have to educate the public via other media.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 28, 2010 6:55 PM
Let's put it simply: a debate to actually find the truth (as opposed to an adversarial, lawyerly contest to guarantee due process) requires good faith on both sides.
Both sides must honestly debate the points, must intend to find the external truth, must play fair and be willing to lose if they are wrong. The debate must have value to both sides in itself, and not as a means to an end.
For a certain sort of religionist, salvation is the only goal -- the debate is a tactic in a greater fight to save lives. It is a mere means, and cheating is justified if it advances the goal.
You don't play chess with someone who doesn't care about the game -- where the game is a means to another end. Who'll demand that the rules are changed mid-game, who'll "trip" and knock over the pieces if they're losing, who will sneak into the room and move the pieces during a break.
In that case -- the best you can do is not lose. If they lose -- they don't care. If they win, they get points. It's silly.
Posted by: Perplexed in Peoria
|
July 28, 2010 7:21 PM
@33
I'm not criticizing HuffPo for wanting to make a buck (even if their product is not to my taste). I am criticizing PZ for being so naive as to say that HuffPo distributes woo because they mistakenly think it is in the public interest to do so.
@34
You apparently think that journalists and publishers have some kind of responsibility to the public. Well, in a socialist state, with state control of the press, they probably do. But we happen to live in a system where anyone has the right to publish and anyone with the money has the power to publish.
Now, if you prefer to get your news from quasi-governmental outlets like BBC, CBC, and perhaps NPR, that is OK with me. But don't preach about Ariana's responsibility for "disseminating the information necessary for the functioning of a free democracy" unless you can explain to me how she got assigned that important job. Exactly what feature in her life story makes you want to trust her with the preservation of democracy?
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 28, 2010 7:29 PM
@40:
Everyone has a responsibility to the rest of the public, unless you are one of the Glib Libertarians, who don't believe in the existence of society. Those who are in a privileged position, such as having a particularly big soap box, have a larger responsibility.
That doesn't mean you don't have a right and even a duty to have a functioning profitable business. It doesn't even mean that legal means should be the response. But it sure as hell means that we can judge them for failing to live up to their responsibility.
What a pseudo-intellectual world, trying on fancy ideas without thinking them through. The very basis of traditional liberal society -- including traditional conservatism -- has been that private economic activity works because of a civil community that judges and influences peoples behaviors.
Have you ever bothered to read Smith? His "invisible hand" worked with community constraints -- in fact, required community constraints to work. Don't claim to be a Smith free-marketer, an enlightenment Liberal (as most folks making your childish statements do) if you haven't bothered to even understand your founding documents.
Posted by: DaveH
|
July 28, 2010 7:51 PM
@#40
I don't trust her. She and her associates have proven time and time again that they are not worthy of that trust. Just as some scientists; some physicians; and many politicians have proven themselves unworthy of similar trust. The feature of her life story that says that she should live up to that trust is the fact that she runs a significant news outlet.
My point is that there are a certain class of jobs that AUTOMATICALLY require a certain degree of commitment to ethics and integrity. Physicians are the most prominent example, journalists (and bloggers) less so. A democracy is dependant on its electorate being well informed, and that information will by and large come from media sources. Thus, to preserve a democracy, journalism must be something more than entertainment. And if all you are doing is disseminating "what people want to hear about", entertainment is all you are producing.
Do I think the kind of regulation we have with physicians would work in the case of journalists? No, of course not. The situation is different. What a reputable journalistic outfit needs is a consistent source of funding that is not dependant upon popular demand. A nice fat endowment from a philanthropist setting out a non-profit institution which has various bits about journalistic integrity in its charter would be best, but is a little unrealistic. A legislatively set level of funding given to an arms-length organization is a reasonable compromise.
And please, "state control of the press" my ass. My fellow Canadians can attest that the CBC is more than willing to publish embarrassing shit or even satire about the sitting government. They aren't perfect by far, but they are certainly better than Faux News or its bastard Canadian cousin, Global News.
State control of the press is when the news outlet has to report what the government wants. This is exactly the opposite of what you need for a democracy. On the other side, being in the news to make a buck tends (not always) to lead to jingoistic populism; it's what sells. Which is equally bad. The best situation, as always, either somewhere in between, or in a rejecting a state control/free market dichotomy altogether and going a clever third way (no support for any British political party implied).
(Apologies for the length, end rant)
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
July 28, 2010 7:58 PM
Trying to establish a science section at Huffpo would be every bit as productive as trying to establish one at world nut daily. If the higher ups on that site had any investment in the advancement of science, then they wouldn't be hosting pseudoscientific and anti-medical propaganda in the first place. Why would you want a bunch of people who host creationists and Jenny McCarty's anti-vax rants in charge of a science web page?
Posted by: Peter H
|
July 28, 2010 8:18 PM
"[C]reationists are not stupid, just ignorant and misled by ignorant arguments."
May I steal that?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
July 28, 2010 9:13 PM
A science section on HuffPo?
A screen door on a submarine?
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 28, 2010 9:32 PM
I sadly suspect this quote would backfire. In academia, "ignorant" means "unaware, not knowing." In popular parlance in the U.S., however, "ignorant" means "stupid." It's sort of like the word "theory" -- the public perception is almost the opposite of the technical meaning.
So this sentence will probably just sound meaningless or self-refuting to the hypothetical average person. "Creationists are not stupid, just stupid." They will hear what they expect to hear. Of course, maybe it's meant for us -- in which case, good point.
I'd like to believe that Huffington Post could handle a good science section -- and reach an audience which really needs to be reached -- but the folks in charge would probably think it has to be "fair" and "diverse" while still maintaining rigor(heh), and so allow the best non-Western, non-reductionist science into the mix. They really do think woo is supported by maverick, cutting-edge science, with the dull majority of scientists yet to catch up.
The old-fashioned science doesn't account for the soul, you see. So it's not necessarily wrong -- just incomplete. Come now, what could be fairer than that? Respect diversity.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
July 28, 2010 9:59 PM
Diversity is laudable, Sastra, as well as informative and profitable. Mine is not the only life that has been enriched by differences. The deepest problems arise when there is no widespread agreement on what sort of rigor is best applied when judging relative value. (Mostly relative to ancestry, to hear many go on about it.)
While reason and science rely on historical results in making recommendations with regard to how different something can be and still fall under the umbrella of fairness and diversity, those with a faith or an agenda or a drum to beat are deaf to any appeal that thwarts, even questions, them. Any query is as good as persecution, crucifixion even, to listen to the shrill protestations.
As soon as evidence of the soul appears I'll be shouting from the rooftops. Until then, my counsel will be disappointing to the hopeful and the faithful.
Caveat Emptor, again.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 28, 2010 10:36 PM
@Matt Hone, #1: Because if one creationist dumb-bomb ever reaches the Pharyngula, you may call him Meyers...
---
Will JL Vernon ever actually see this posting by PZ? Once he sees that the road to PuffHo Hell is paved with good intentions, you would think he would set course for 180-land and find a better forum for presenting sound science.
Maybe one day Arianna will pull her head from the woo-gluebag and it will be worthwhile then. Otherwise he's just pharting in the Jovian atmosphere...
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 28, 2010 10:53 PM
Just a thought regarding the Gish Gallop. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss had a discussion on his YouTube page where they ditched the moderator. Even though they were talking from the same side of the argument, this idea would work in a debate against a Gish Galloper.
When the galloper begins his shitstream, stick your foot in the door and say you will address his claims one by one. By ditching this idiotic idea that debates HAVE to be a particular way, it may be possible to engage in a debate and not let the rules of the stupid overwhelm the intelligence of the person who knows what the fuck is really going on with the universe.
Posted by: Stardrake
|
July 28, 2010 10:59 PM
Crudely Wrott @45:
"A science section on HuffPo?
A screen door on a submarine?"
Now, let's look at this. If it sinks the HuffPo, is it a bad thing?
McCthulhu @48:
Hmmm--Göring quote, not Hitler quote--Godwin dodged!
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
July 29, 2010 12:50 AM
Stardrake, sometimes bubbles from the deep bode well (our tentacled master stirs, however slightly). Sometimes bubbles are bad (your grandmother just fell in and she is blowing them).
In the end folks seem to be impressed by two things: actual knowledge and the wit to express it or happily claiming that knowledge and wit don't matter!
Today was an exercise in both for me.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 29, 2010 1:00 AM
Oh for pete's sake, Stardrake! I thought I could avoid Godwinism and make an obscure paraphrase reference to a scene from Guy Hamilton's 'Battle Of Britain' and then you go and ACTUALLY drop the H-bomb. How do you live with yourself?
'Who's been a naughty nazi? *SPANK*SPANK*SPANK!*'
Posted by: Ed Tew
|
July 29, 2010 7:17 AM
We should start a science blog called "Huffington Post Corrected". Maybe we could advertise on Huffington.
Posted by: Orac
|
July 29, 2010 8:14 AM
I'm not real confident of Dr. Vernon's judgment of good science. Last night he posted this video:
http://jlvernonphd.tumblr.com/post/872907150/the-story-of-cosmetics-examines-the-pervasive-use
It's typical ranting about "Oh, noes! The toxins! The toxins!"
I deconstructed a similar video and post here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/07/joe_mercolas_shampoo_woo.php
I also mentioned that the video that Dr. Vernon posted was heartily approved of by über-quack Mike Adams.
Perhaps Dr. Vernon is a better fit to the current HuffPo medical writing than he'd care to admit.
Posted by: Stardrake
|
July 29, 2010 8:54 AM
I know Nothing! NNNNOTHINNNGGG! I did not even get out of BED this morning!
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 29, 2010 9:16 AM
@Stardrake: That's it...ease it back a little...that's right...only reference fictional German National Socialist* Party members played by Jewish actors. There. Doesn't that feel better?
Pharyngula, safely de-Godwin'd. Gondwana'd? Spackled the fuck over.
*Things are not what they seem with this monicker.
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
July 29, 2010 9:58 AM
Arianna's commitment to woo is of much longer standing than her commitment to progressive politics. In one of her previous lives, when she was still in the UK, she was a prominent supporter of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. She succeeded in selling his ideas to a fairly well-known, and previously rather skeptical, journalist Bernard Levin. His affair with Stasinopoulos (as she then was) marked the end of his professional reputation, in my view.
Posted by: JamesBrown
|
July 29, 2010 10:13 AM
I disagree.
I'm not sure a science section would succeed but stranger things have happened. HufPo has a wide audience and many, like myself, would be attracted to a science section if the articles were on the level of say Popular Science. A journal level section, like American Scientist, would simply be too difficult for all but a very small number to read.
Here is another idea. Publish anti-religion articles in the Religion section. I have no idea if they would be accepted but PZ if you have something off the shelf it might be worth a try.
I regularly comment in Religion and have never had a post rejected and I get insulting at times. Many other commenter's, who say they are atheists,never let a piece of crap idea go by without comment. I think as many as 50% of the commenters in the religion section are atheists or close to it.
So a science section - possible.
Reality posts to Religion - worth a try
Commenting in Religion - Great fun and lots of company
Posted by: JamesBrown
|
July 29, 2010 10:15 AM
I disagree.
I'm not sure a science section would succeed but stranger things have happened. HufPo has a wide audience and many, like myself, would be attracted to a science section if the articles were on the level of say Popular Science. A journal level section, like American Scientist, would simply be too difficult for all but a very small number to read.
Here is another idea. Publish anti-religion articles in the Religion section. I have no idea if they would be accepted but PZ if you have something off the shelf it might be worth a try.
I regularly comment in Religion and have never had a post rejected and I get insulting at times. Many other commenter's, who say they are atheists,never let a piece of crap idea go by without comment. I think as many as 50% of the commenters in the religion section are atheists or close to it.
So a science section - possible.
Reality posts to Religion - worth a try
Commenting in Religion - Great fun and lots of company
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 29, 2010 12:09 PM
I've been thinking* about those lose-lose debates with creationists.
Since they can't even stay on topic (as evidenced by the guy who talked about the Irreducible Complex carbon atom, when the debate was on what to teach in schools), why should we?
I say that who we really should get to do these debates are biblical scholars. Ignore the topic and have them do biblical exegesis on what exactly is wrong with the theology of whatever church is hosting the debate. Chapter and verse, chapter and verse all the way through. Quotations from Doctors of the Church for the Catholics, from Prophets and Quorummers for the Mormons and so on.
Is this completely crazy? You can lead
a horticultureCreationist to water, but you cannot make him think, I know. But mightn't it be more effective to get people to read their Bibles and think about them as a first step, since they're bound to already have those around?*I know, bad idea.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
July 29, 2010 6:30 PM
@ frog, inc. #39
Someone commenting in Pharyngula once gave me one of my favorite analogies: debating with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It will knock over the pieces, crap on the board and then fly home to its friends to tell them about how it won the game.
Posted by: CW
|
July 29, 2010 7:54 PM
Their pseudoscience articles published under the guise of alt-med and quackery have never allowed one of my posts through.Their gurus and anti-science posters moderate differently.
Their normal topics have passive moderating, they take comments away if they harrass or break TOS.
For their gurus and pseudoscientists of choice, they actively moderate and only approve the comments that most appeal to them.
They're a horrible site run by a woman completely uninterested in anything but being a media darling. She's not really a liberal so much as she's found a usable niche.
The site should be avoided, it's beyond assistance.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
July 30, 2010 5:12 AM
@Steve Dunlap, #61: The quote was by Scott D. Weitzenhoffer. Here is a link that has the history of the comment. It is so apropos to any debate a person can get into with creationists that it has become the stuff of legend.