Pharyngula

Posted by: cervantes | December 20, 2010 7:44 AM

It's true -- the denialists increasingly try to ape the language and superficial appearance of scientific thinking. This is an obvious characteristic of creationists, woomeisters, AIDS deniers, global warming deniers -- they all try to look like and pretend to be scientists.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/nLzNsvBzjcVWHqXNyEN1lcQmrB7cxEBb#3b6bf | December 20, 2010 7:53 AM

Dammit! It ate part of my comment. Should be

"At least with p less than 0.05 confidence"

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKzW5iVcTbhPfv4VK6zy0lLr16HduVL1M | December 20, 2010 8:03 AM

It amuses me how some who decry climate science and evolution as bad science really love the tools science makes available. Like cell phones, say. Or high definition TVs.

Amuse = makes that vein in my temple throb to the point of bursting.

Posted by: charley | December 20, 2010 8:31 AM

Science is the tool that defines our culture, like flint handaxes or pottery beakers defined previous cultures

What about duct tape?

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | December 20, 2010 8:36 AM

I'm one of those few who does begrudge that kind of shit. I begrudge the living hell out of it. It really pisses me off when people who are benefiting from science and medicine try to chalk it up to whatever magical bullshit. "YAY GOD SAVE MY MOMMY!" they yell, and I say "No, you ungrateful piece of fcuking garbage, the god damn Doctor saved your mommy. Fuck you."

Then again, I'm kind of a prick.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | December 20, 2010 8:38 AM

Tis an easy call...of course it works cos the religiotards hates it so!

They would not bother with it if it was benign or even another belief...they fear it with a passion born of utter ignorance.
They lie and misrepresent it as much as they possibly can ...'but still it moves'...

That has gotta be frustrating cos their tactics always worked in the past...now they are at a total loss.

So they concentrate on the xian rallying point...Evolutionary theory.
If they break that they think they are on the home run...problem being is that they cannot no matter how hard they try and pray.
The Theory stands and the 'tards are sad!

So the second front is attack the messengers, but that is not going well, the ones they attack laugh at them...they are distraught.

And supporters of the delusion must get ever so slightly embarrassed by the likes of chummy in the last thread.
He might well be mentally indisposed but the message firmly places 'religiotard' as the prime source of the inanity.
Expressed so it rather tarnishes the moderate wing contentions, bit inconvenient but they feel incapable of looking after their own despite the advertisement.
The thrashing and careering in the media by religious fuckwads will undo them all, but they have to take that risk...tis all or nothing in the end game....

To try and form a coordinated and structured assault on secularism requires distraction.
Maybe the likes of chummy are to the advantage...while the atheist hordes and anti- religionists laugh and point at the kooks...the real workers of contagion can infiltrate the back door while gazes are averted.

But the bulwark of science is un-scalable.
That will be and is the only fortification available against the massing cockroach like siege without the walls.

It will remain the focus of their bile and hatred for the foreseeable future...they are fighting and losing, and they know it, and that pisses them off.

Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | December 20, 2010 8:57 AM

Tea24hours, people that happen to be religious but actually take "solace and comfort from a community of loving people" are probably not the problem. There is extensive variation in this sort of thing that would be, I guess, approximately orthogonal to either religious belief or scientific knowledge.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 20, 2010 9:13 AM

Cool, very cool!

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-d1Fs1KnWNGA5okQ1WlBdaffAMkKWSO0 | December 20, 2010 9:25 AM

“Science is the tool that defines our culture, like flint handaxes or pottery beakers defined previous cultures, and it's a generalized tool that cuts across disciplines and ought to shape our minds…and it does, even among the people who try to reject it.”

Agreed; up to a point, in part, though engineering and technology preceded science, as it is currently understood, by a few, several(?), millennia.

Science is extremely useful as long as it is regarded as a tool, as it is in engineering, rather than the be all and end all.

There is more to doing things, progressing, in the real world than just science, which is only a small part of engineering; less than 20%. Besides, engineering is, really, an art that uses science, among other things, rather than being a science. Also, there is the matter of relating theory to the physical world, let alone those areas where the science simply runs out; though, ultimately, it is all down to engineering judgement anyway.

Medicine, in the as practiced, healing, sense, is not that different to engineering, in that it is an art which uses science.

The “world” is even more amazing than science, at least “mainstream science”, has yet discovered, though that is down to my non-physical side rather than just the physical, engineering, science side, largely because there is far more than just the world. I not only live to experience it now but have lived to experience it many times, though that is hardly exceptional, it is the general rule. However, the knowledge and understanding that I have gained, in that sense, in no way clashes with anything I have learned in science in more than half a century, nor with any of my forty-six years in engineering. On the contrary, that knowledge and experience reinforces the physical side, complements it and results in understanding from a different perspective.

Posted by: KG | December 20, 2010 9:31 AM

I not only live to experience it now but have lived to experience it many times. - googlemess

No, you haven't - there's really no such thing as reincarnation, or your "non-physical side". Such delusions, however, are not necessarily a sign of psychiatric illness, so if you are able to cope adequately with everyday life, I wouldn't worry too much about them.

Posted by: Ranger Rick | December 20, 2010 9:34 AM

So if I might just play devil's advocate for a moment...

Hasn't it been shown that placebo effect/positive thinking CAN be helpful in getting not sick in some circumstances? So it would seem like taking solace in your religion isn't the worst thing in the world and might actually help--as long, of course, as your religion doesn't prohibit you from seeking out modern medical treatment for your condition.

Like I said, I'm playing devil's advocate here--power of prayer my ass, science got my ulcerative colitis under control, not deity/ies.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | December 20, 2010 9:53 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/magazine/19Urban_West-t.html?_r=1

A Physicist Solves the City

Perhaps I was a tad harsh about the NY Times science section.

Posted by: --E | December 20, 2010 9:59 AM

Fred the Hun: "Only 28% of our population is even considered scientifically literate, let alone fluent in the nuances of scientific methodology and thinking."

-->And what percentage of ancient people do you think knew how to make those flint handaxes or pottery beakers?

People don't have to know how the science works in order to use it. I don't know how to formulate an antibiotic, but I sure know how to take one according to doctor's directions.

Posted by: Ranger Rick | December 20, 2010 10:04 AM

Snoof, I had more in mind stuff like praying, which doesn't NECESSARILY cost anything (I mean, it does if you go to some church that wants you to tithe part of your income). I wasn't devil's-advocating expensive sugar pills.

Posted by: Cor (formerly evil) | December 20, 2010 10:14 AM

In my less-realistic reveries, I sometimes wonder how much fun we could have if people weren't allowed to accept the benefits of science without endorsing the method. It wouldn't even require a statement of (non)faith; just a checklist:

ANTIBIOTICS:
Please acknowledge the science of:

() Germ Theory of Disease
() Evolution by Means of Natural Selection
() Rejection of Homeopathic Hypotheses


ANALGESICS:
Please acknowledge the science of:

() Neurology
() Pharmacology ("Western")
() Rejection of Scientology


ORGAN TRANSPLANT:
Please acknowledge the science of:

() Common Descent
() Immunology
() Rejection of Supply-Side Economics and Randian Objectivism.


I can dream, can't I?

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 20, 2010 10:17 AM

I love that he's still with the tag line from comic 54 (I think that was the number). :)

It is the number.

Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third | December 20, 2010 10:34 AM

It is not faith or belief that is the problem it is how that faith and belief are used.

It is how the faith and belief are constantly thrust up the nostrils of the section of society that rejects the premise for that faith and belief in the first place.

It is the intolerance and the discrimination that section of society suffers from those with a tacky and vacuous faith and belief.

It is the utter hatred and bigotry that cowers behind that faith and belief.

I have no problem with folks deluding themselves with ridiculous fairy tales, but I certainly do when they attempt to frame those inanities as a valid and real aspect of being.

I get particularly furious when Cardinals spout utter bollocks and shite about atheists being sub-human, I get even more pissed when they assume arrogance enough to not apologise for their woefully flatulent ignorance.

I do when they attempt, sometimes successfully, to interfere with other peoples lives and lifestyle.

I do when they lie and misrepresent Science.

And I do when they lie and cheat and mislead the rest of society.

Don't give a rats ass what they want to believe or have faith in, but the rest of us do not need their sky fairy to live honourable and full lives.
Nor do we need the magic pixie to explain how the world operates and what governs that operation.
We do not require supercilious nonsense to function.
It is about sodding time they fully understood the point.

They can stick their god given morality up their squeaky tight arsehole, I have seen their morality and want absolutely not one drop of the toxic sludge they pan handle.
It really is more then time they understood that last point.

That's all!

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR | December 20, 2010 10:39 AM

When we battle slings and arrows
And the path before us narrows
Or when shock or illness harrows
Us, and bedrock yaws and pitches
Though we battle against giants,
We find aid, in our defiance,
When we use the tools of science—
Why? Because they work, bitches.

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/12/it-works-bitches.html

Posted by: Fred The Hun | December 20, 2010 10:55 AM

E @ 25,

-->And what percentage of ancient people do you think knew how to make those flint handaxes or pottery beakers?

I think you are equating technology, which can be a fruit of scientific knowledge, with actual pure science.

I'd also be willing to bet that most primitive people knew how to use flint handaxes or pottery. I think that a higher percentage of those people, even if they were not themselves skilled tool or pottery makers, understood that technology. This IMHO is still a long ways from having science define a culture.

I would, BTW, agree that our culture is also defined by technology and that most people are able to use technology in their day to day affairs in a reasonably competent manner.

I would still strongly disagree that most people understand, let alone are able to use science as a tool and that this is therefore a defining pillar of our culture.

To be clear, my definition of science, is a tool, used to understand nature.

The vast majority of the members of our culture are deliberately blind to the mysteries of the universe and work overtime to construct fantasies that keep them in comfortable ignorance. So if anything I would say that is fantasy and myth that really defines our culture and not science.

Not very different from when we were learning to make pottery and flint tools.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 20, 2010 11:04 AM

That is simply your opinion. If you are putting it forward as “fact” then prove those statements, scientifically, or otherwise, though bear in mind that the assumptions on which science is based are, ultimately, totally unprovable.

Do you?

Posted by: raven | December 20, 2010 11:07 AM

I've been saying that for a while.

Science created modern Hi Tech 21st century Western civilization. All xianity has done is sponsor xian terrorism and get in the way sometimes.

Science is also responsible for American exceptionalism. The US with 5% of the world's population spends about 1/3 of the total world R&D budget. Science translates into a strong economy and a military with the technological edge.

When we lose science, we will lose our economic advantages and we will start losing wars.

Posted by: Snoof | December 20, 2010 11:10 AM

When we lose science, we will lose our economic advantages and we will start losing wars.

Start?

Posted by: raven | December 20, 2010 11:19 AM

Only 28% of our population is even considered scientifically literate, let alone fluent in the nuances of scientific methodology and thinking. So how exactly can you say that 'Science' defines our culture?

Wow. Is this stupid or what?

Our entire civilization is a product of science. Cars, planes, TV, the internet, computers, modern medicine, cheap and abundant food. The US lifespan has increased 30 years in the last century due to modern medicine.

The military defends us with state of the art weapons. The latest is robotic drones that operate half a world away. Satellites, space craft, robots on Mars.

It doesn't matter if only 28% of the population is scientifically literate. They all depend on science heavily for their own existence and to enrich their lives. Without science they would be freezing the dark, riding horses, dying young, and most of them wouldn't even exist.

Posted by: Palaverer | December 20, 2010 11:34 AM

Science: it works, bitches.

This slogan needs to be spit on, crumpled in a ball, and burned in a hot, hot fire. And we need a better one. I'd really like to hear some suggestions.

Posted by: ouigui | December 20, 2010 11:38 AM

It doesn't matter if only 28% of the population is scientifically literate. They all depend on science heavily for their own existence and to enrich their lives. Without science they would be freezing the dark, riding horses, dying young, and most of them wouldn't even exist.

It may not matter to the question of whether science "defines" our culture, but it certainly matters for our progress as a sentient species, doesn't it?

Posted by: KG | December 20, 2010 11:39 AM

richardkingceng (Do you expect us all to genuflect when you reveal that you're a qualified engineer?),

That is simply your opinion.

No, it is not simply my opinion. As a universal empirical generalisation it is not susceptible of proof, I admit, but the astounding success of physicalist science and the complete lack of good evidence for anything outside its purview mean that the burden of producing evidence is on you - just as it would be on me if I claimed leprechauns exist.

The concept of delusions are only subjective anyway,; one person comparing their reality with that of another person and assuming that their own is the correct one.

Utter crap. If someone believes they are Jesus, or that aliens are giving them instructions over the radio, that is a delusion. If someone believes bears are large mammals, that is not a delusion. See the difference? There is only one reality, and we all live in it. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Got it yet?

Incidentally, if you claim that all truth is subjective, what is the status of your claim that all truth is subjective?

Members and Fellows of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (www.rcpsych.ac.uk) as friends and colleagues; several are well aware of the unusual, unique, aspect of my non-physical side and have no problems with it, quite the reverse, hence me being invited to a specialist conference of the Spirituality and Psychiatry Special Interst Group

Ah, I see. You're a loony who believes they are special, not like the rest of us mortals.

Posted by: KG | December 20, 2010 11:56 AM

te24hours@52,

Oh, I'm quite prepared to believe he's an engineer. For some reason, a remarkably high proportion of cranks of all kinds seem to be engineers. It makes me rather worried about my son, who has held to his ambition to be an engineer ever since he learned the meaning of the word :-p

Posted by: Dan L. | December 20, 2010 11:58 AM

Shorter googlemess:

"OK, science is cool, but the real world is cooler."

Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente | December 20, 2010 12:04 PM

That is simply your opinion. If you are putting it forward as “fact” then prove those statements, scientifically, or otherwise, though bear in mind that the assumptions on which science is based are, ultimately, totally unprovable.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 20, 2010 12:07 PM

Yeah, but what about this:

Actually, far from confidence, the Church of Science evidences much of the brittleness of the ancient pagan religion of Rome before the rise and spread of Christianity. In the first centuries of the Common Era, some Roman intellectuals mercilessly picked apart the traditional pagan religion, holding it up for mockery.

OK, it's one of the truly ignorant IDiots, David Klinghoffer

See, so because science has to defend itself against anti-Enlightenment liars, it's doomed, and we'll soon have a glorious return to the Dark Ages*.

Isn't that obvious?

Glen Davidson

*Not impossible in some sections of the world, like the US, which would then likely be controlled by those who do accept science.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | December 20, 2010 12:29 PM

Raven @ 45

Wow. Is this stupid or what?.

Perhaps. But Ok, let's start with a mutually acceptable standard definition of 'Culture'

I'll grab the second two definitions from the Wikipedia page on culture:

# An integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning # The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group

To be clear, I do not intend to dispute that the internet or Facebook or computer hardware could exist at all in non technological civilization, which in turn could certainly not exist with out a scientific foundation.

However this is not in my opinion, culture per se. These are what Dr. Lambrous Malafouris, in his 'Theory of Extended Mind' would call cognitive prostheses.

The mainstream approach to cognition holds that it happens in the mind and that material culture is nothing more than an outgrowth of our mental capacities. Archaeologist Lambros Malafouris is challenging this deep-seated idea with a radical new notion: the hypothesis of extended mind, which posits that material culture is not a reflection of the human mind but an actual part of it. Take, for instance, a blind man’s stick. “Where does the blind man end and the rest of the world begin?” he says. “You might see the stick as something external, but it plays a very important role in the perceptual system of this person. It extends the boundaries of this human—the stick becomes an integral part of the cognitive architecture.”

So back to this statement:

Science is the tool that defines our culture, like flint handaxes or pottery beakers defined previous cultures, and it's a generalized tool that cuts across disciplines and ought to shape our minds…and it does, even among the people who try to reject it.

I would argue that science does not define our culture at large, despite the fact that cognitive prostheses such as Facebook and Google required scientific knowledge to spawn them in the first place.

I agree that science is a tool that has the capability to shape our minds and maybe even define our culture at some point. That day is not yet here from a purely cognitive POV. IMHO, It would require that a majority of the population used scientific thinking as their primary filter for assessing reality.

Posted by: KG | December 20, 2010 12:35 PM

Free Lunch,

I'm not really worried; my son is an exceptionally level-headed realist. When he was 3, he made some remark beginning: "When I die...". I said: "I hope you won't die!" - meaning, of course, not for a long time and not before me. "I will!", he replied, "I'm a person, persons* die, so I will die!".

* Over-regularisation of plurals, but by chance it fit very well into this perfect Aristotelian syllogism, since philosophers tend to think "persons" sounds so much more philosophical than "people".

Posted by: robinsrule | December 20, 2010 12:38 PM

@richardkingceng:

On the contrary, that [non-physical] knowledge and experience reinforces the physical side, complements it and results in understanding from a different perspective.

Interesting. So how has your non-physical knowledge affected your practice of engineering? What engineering principles have been validated or falsified due to this knowledge?

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | December 20, 2010 12:53 PM

…though bear in mind that the assumptions on which science is based are, ultimately, totally unprovable.

Ahh. A fan of Agrippa's Trilemma, I see.

There's a flaw with your statement. The necessity of your reckoning is that nothing is totally provable, as the base axioms of all epistemologies are fundamentally "unprovable." For any epistemological framework, there is a corresponding metaphysical system to support it. Conversely, there is another metaphysical system which will deny it.

The fundamental test of any epistemological framework is its efficacy. Are the fruits of the epistemology coherent with each other, and do they describe observable reality? If an epistemology does not answer "yes" to both halves of the question, it is not an effective epistemology, and the metaphysical framework on which it is based is questionable at best.

So, while the metaphysical assumptions of science may not be "provable" for certain values of "proof," science has demonstrated it is effective. It has also demonstrated the knowledge it produces describes observable reality to a very high degree. This is easily verified by the very computer on which you type, or the GPS you use to get to unfamiliar destinations.

Science works, meathead.

Unfortunately, there is no other epistemology that has demonstrably produced coherent knowledge that accurately describes observable reality. There simply isn't a known alternative to science. While some epistemologies present concepts disguised as knowledge, on further inspection, these concepts invariably turn out to be nothing but wish-fulfillment.

These facts together indicate that the fundamental assumptions of science, its base metaphysics, is an accurate representation of reality. The very fact that science works when no other epistemology does is a stark and inescapable indication that reality is as science assumes: observable, coherent, and natural.

So, while you may be technically correct that the fundamental axioms of science are not completely provable, they have been proven to a far greater extent than any other metaphysical system. Since all other epistemologies have failed, so have their metaphysics.

As it is, science is the last one standing.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 20, 2010 1:06 PM

nigelTheBold: Sharp, homes.

Posted by: CJO | December 20, 2010 1:14 PM

Science is the tool that defines our culture, like flint handaxes or pottery beakers defined previous cultures

Define material culture for physical anthropologists long after the fact, you mean. By that measure, landfills full of disposable plastic crap that nobody needed "define" our culture more than an activity or an epistemology.

Your specific examples are interesting cases actually. The Achulean hand axe dominates the material remains of genus Homo for over a million years, and yet, nobody can say with complete confidence what it was actually for. Ridiculously large versions and miniature specimens have been found, as have large caches of them, many more than a hunting band could have used and worn out in a generation, suggesting that the activity of making them in and of itself had cultural importance. The name is a misnomer, as most of them have an edge nearly all the way around and would not have been usable as a chopping tool held in the hand. Some physical anthropologists have suggested that it was good for throwing into a dense herd of game, in order to stun one individual as the herd stampeded away so the hunters could bring it down by other means.

There is also, in terms of "defining" cultures the well understood problem of the "stones and bones" sampling bias of physical anthropology. A given culture tens of thousands of years ago may well have defined themselves based on a wood or textile material economy, and we would be none the wiser because those materials are not usually preserved, while stone artifacts are.

Pottery is of such interest in archaeology because it can act similarly to an index fossil for the purposes of stratigraphy. It's also a good indicator of trade connections between cultures. But here again, we have anthropologists defining cultures for their own purposes by typically minute variations in shape, technique, clay composition, and decorative elements. While the differences may well have been salient to the members of the ancient cultures in question, it's hard to imagine anyone feeling that their culture was defined by the fact that they used a higher kiln temperature than their neighbors to fire their just slightly differently-shaped pots.

Posted by: --E | December 20, 2010 1:27 PM

Fred the Hun: "I think you are equating technology, which can be a fruit of scientific knowledge, with actual pure science....To be clear, my definition of science, is a tool, used to understand nature."

-->Fair enough. I suspect I'm more forgiving because I am scientifically literate, and still lots of articles on science leave me cross-eyed before I get to the end. I try to assume that's a failure of communication, but reasonably it could just be because most science these days is very, very complicated.

More Fred: "I would still strongly disagree that most people understand, let alone are able to use science as a tool and that this is therefore a defining pillar of our culture."

-->This, I'm not sure of. It's difficult to determine, since of course my personal experience is a self-selected group of mostly well educated people. I would like also to understand what constitutes "scientific literacy." People may not know particular principles, but most folks are still fascinated by seeing them in action.

The ongoing popularity of Mythbusters cheers me. The guys may get sloppy and certainly they aren't meeting rigorous standards, but their presentation of the concepts of science and skepticism--testability, repeatability, accounting for variables--is a reasonable introduction for the masses.

That so many people find this interesting says a lot about the human instinct for learning.

Posted by: bullofthewoods | December 20, 2010 2:18 PM

nigelTheBold, Captain Smug @67.
Excellent rebuttal. (makes Molly vote reminder).

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 20, 2010 2:39 PM

On the contrary, that [non-physical] knowledge and experience reinforces the physical side, complements it and results in understanding from a different perspective.

Translation:

whenever he learns something new, he attributes it to a projection of his own fantasies.

conclusion:

he's delusional.

prognosis:

grim; both the AMA and APA refuese to acknowledge his condition, let alone recommend treatment. Bad case of "argument ad populum", I'm afraid.

Posted by: Q.E.D | December 20, 2010 2:52 PM

Science: it works, bitches.This slogan needs to be spit on, crumpled in a ball, and burned in a hot, hot fire. And we need a better one. I'd really like to hear some suggestions. - Palaverer

Perhaps the word "bitch" is terminally misogynistic but I'm not entirely convinced it is in this context, I honestly read it to mean "all you religiots, woomeister, homeopaths, evolution denying morons(of whatever sex) who undermine science"

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 20, 2010 3:08 PM

@CJO

I'm mixed about this. On one hand, what you said.

On the other with the meaning having taken on "someone submissive" I might be in favor of people expanding this towards men more to dwarf the misogynist use.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 20, 2010 3:12 PM

If all you want is to capture the anger of a curse word, might I suggest "Science: It works, assholes"?

That way, we avoid hideously gendered language, and keep the curse, mmkay? There's really no reason to keep the misogynist language there.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | December 20, 2010 3:26 PM

Science: it works, bitches.
a good start
nigelTheBold, Captain Smug #67 "meatheads"
Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom #83 "assholes"
me "douchebags"
or "cupcakes" but no one would get that.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 20, 2010 4:19 PM

Psychology is compulsory for an engineering Degree...

Hell, psych wasn't even compulsory for biology degrees when I was an undergrad.

I took it specifically because I was interested in the evolution and ecology of animal behavior, and realized it would be quite relevant.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 20, 2010 4:24 PM

.... maybe something focusing on the pragmatic failure of all other epistemologies?

"Religion: Full of Fail since the beginning."

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | December 20, 2010 4:33 PM

How about a t-shirt that reads ala a dictionary page

Scientism(N): The fact that you won't accept my woo woo fairy shit

Posted by: A Bad Idea (♀) | December 20, 2010 4:46 PM

@32 ecurve

Then I raise this hot chocolate in memory of Lauren, who sounds like someone I would have liked to know. (I can't have any alcohol.)

Posted by: Fred The Hun | December 20, 2010 5:23 PM

Re: Bitches as used by XKCD. I always took it to mean that it was meant as a slap in the face (a bitch slap) to those who were arrogantly proud of their ignorance and anti science stance.

Until today I had never really thought of it as having any gender or misogynistic connotation whatsoever.

It just seemed to me to be a way of underscoring the innate superiority of science over non science, making non science explicitly subservient to science and therefore science's bitch.

More like a subservient male being called a bitch in a prison environment. So perhaps it might even be construed as being more offensive to men than to women.

At the end of the day, I'm pretty sure it was meant to offend anti science types and no one else

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 20, 2010 5:34 PM

It's really not that hard to not use the word, seriously.

flail away then, don't let me stop you.

Uh, do you pay attention to internet memes?

yes, which is why I posted what I did.

The good ones go through thousands of variations.

think about what you're saying there.

what made the meme popular to begin with? what iterations are STILL the most popular, regardless of variations?

yeah.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 20, 2010 5:41 PM

Psychology is compulsory for an engineering Degree.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | December 20, 2010 6:05 PM

CJO @ 96

You really need to think this through. See my #84.

I did think it through and I still think you are wrong.

Let give you an example of why I think this way.

I happen to be Brazilian born and a native speaker of Portuguese. My ex wife and son are both Jewish.

There is a word in Portuguese 'Judiar' which comes from the Portuguese word 'Judeo' which means Jew, 'Judiar' is used in the sense of causing pain literally torturing someone. This word is part of the Portuguese language today. Should I not use this word?

Would you suggest I should campaign against The word 'Judiar' and not use it because of its origins? Should the Portuguese language be changed so as not to offend anyone even by accident even though 'Judiar' is used in day to day conversation? Should only Brazilian Jews have the right to use that word?

To me, using 'Bitch' in this case is similarly not intended to be offensive to women or men or even less intended to convey some sort of misogynistic superiority over women.

Words must be considered in context and it depends on the context whether or not they are meant as an offense. I don't see this particular use of 'Bitches' as being offensive. Granted this is my personal view.

Posted by: CJO | December 20, 2010 6:29 PM

There is a word in Portuguese 'Judiar' which comes from the Portuguese word 'Judeo' which means Jew, 'Judiar' is used in the sense of causing pain literally torturing someone. This word is part of the Portuguese language today. Should I not use this word?

I do not dispute that there are gray areas and such matters on which reasonable people can disagree, I just don't think English 'bitch' is one of them.

First of all, etymology is not meaning; the word Judiar is derived from the word for a Jew, but it is not the exact word. Not being a speaker of Portuguese, my ignorance is a barrier here, but if I may ask, do you think that the average speaker inevitably connects the two when they utter or hear 'judiar'? (In English slang, 'jew' is a verb as well: it means to be stingy or to cheat someone out of money; it is clearly an offensive usage. If 'judiar' is as clearly related to its historical meaning as that, then I'd say yes, it's offensive.)

Take another English example: 'sinister.' It derives from a word in Latin that just denotes left-handedness (it or a cognate may still denote that in Portuguese). Even if you are a sufficiently educated speaker of English to know this (and most aren't), the Latin meaning no longer colors the denotation of English 'sinister' at all in standard spoken English. It would be silly and pedantic indeed to insist that using the term was offensive to left-handed people.

I dispute that 'bitch' is far enough abstracted from its denotation of 'nasty, complaining woman' to be free of misogynistic connotations. It may someday become so, and it would if its most common usage were something more like in the comic, but this is far from the case.

Finally, intent simply isn't everything. I understand that many people use the term 'bitch' without considering its connotations, but obliviousness to a condition doesn't make that condition disappear for everybody, it just means that you personally don't have to deal with it.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | December 20, 2010 6:52 PM

I'd be quite happy if there were a different phrasing, but I can't come up with one. It's definitely not "asshole", though. The meaning is more like "losers", which they are regardless of whether they are sweet, kind, woo-believing grandmas, or arrogant religious nutjobs. One might say "science pwns j00" but I don't even know how to pronounce that...

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 20, 2010 7:11 PM

Speaking as a privileged male

speaking as one myself, I always viewed it's common usage as more in line with "Stop your bitching!", equating with someone who is overly whiny and complaining.

that's the context I see "Science works, bitches!" being used in here.

OTOH, if it said something like: "Science works, you bitch!"

then, I would lean more towards misogynistic interpretations.

subtle? maybe, but when I see "You bitch!", I tend towards equating that with implying someone who is angry and female.

when I see: "You bitches!", unless specifically directed at a group of females, I tend towards equating it with the whiny/complainy interpretation.

I really can't see the point of wasting a lot of time trying to redefine it, but that's just me.

Like I really can't see the point of wasting a lot of effort trying to expunge the word "Darwinism", beyond a brief mention that evolution has moved beyond Darwin.

I'm not going to jump down Dawkin's throat for using the term, for example.

Posted by: Fred The Hun | December 20, 2010 7:30 PM

CJO @ 103,

Take another English example: 'sinister.' It derives from a word in Latin that just denotes left-handedness (it or a cognate may still denote that in Portuguese). Even if you are a sufficiently educated speaker of English to know this (and most aren't), the Latin meaning no longer colors the denotation of English 'sinister' at all in standard spoken English. It would be silly and pedantic indeed to insist that using the term was offensive to left-handed people.

Yes, despite it's latin roots, in Portuguese It is not used to mean left. We have the word 'sinistro', it means basically the same thing as 'sinister' does in English, though it is also used as technical term by the insurance industry to mean an accident. However In both Spanish and Italian, two other latin based close cousins of the Portuguese language, 'Sinistra' does mean left. But I digress.

I don't want to come across as insensitive but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree in this case and leave it at that.

Perhaps we could lighten the mood a bit and listen to his song about the power of language...
Prejudice by Tim Minchin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVN_0qvuhhw

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 20, 2010 9:56 PM

Science, it functions, you people who are inferior in regard to something other than your gender.

Jacques Cousteau could never get this low.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 20, 2010 10:28 PM

Is this usage acceptable?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtnxvpIEg8w

Posted by: martha | December 20, 2010 11:47 PM

"Science it works kids" is boring.

I don't find his use of the word "bitches" to be the least bit an insult based upon so called feminine traits. Maybe the word is starting to change its meaning. As the number one definition in the urban dictionary says:

Originally used to describe women;
now a days literally can be said to any1 ..anytime ..anyplace for any reason

Posted by: Anri | December 21, 2010 12:46 AM

Fred The Hun @101 (hey, it rhymes!):

Well, let's try some word substitution, shall we?
Your statement could look like:

Would you suggest I should campaign against The word 'Nigger' and not use it because of its origins? Should the English language be changed so as not to offend anyone even by accident even though 'Nigger' is used in day to day conversation? Should only American Blacks have the right to use that word?

Bonus points for opening with a statement to the effect of "I'm black, and this doesn't bother me at all... really, people who get worked up about it are just overly sensitive - it's just a word!"
What do you think - certainly not offensive to anyone, right?

I mean, not anyone important.

Posted by: The Sailor | December 21, 2010 1:21 AM

On another, but similar subject: I'm watching Body Heat, again. I think it's the hottest sex scenes and best acting I've ever seen in a movie together.

Ted Danson is dancin' and Hurt is hurt. Just a bunch of dicks and bitches hurting and dancing.

What? That makes me an asshole!?

Posted by: Fred The Hun | December 21, 2010 2:11 AM

Anri @ 117

I guess you missed the point about the fact that the Portuguese word I used as an example is *NOT* considered offensive in normal conversation while the N word certainly is. You also might have missed my reference To Tim Minchin's song 'Prejudice' in my comment @ 109.

In any case my point was that the usage of certain words in a particular context might fall into a gray area and I had conceded that in the case of the phrase 'Science, it works bitches.'I could see where it might offend some people. Though I myself hadn't found it to have been used in a deliberately hurtful way towards women.

I strongly doubt that anyone could think that substituting the N word for 'bitches'in this case might in any way shape or form be considered non offensive.

Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory | December 21, 2010 6:03 AM

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 20, 2010 3:12 PM

If all you want is to capture the anger of a curse word, might I suggest "Science: It works, assholes"?

That way, we avoid hideously gendered language, and keep the curse, mmkay?

That doesn't seem to quite fit, either in rhythme or in nuance of meaning. How about:

"Science: it works, motherfuckers".

(Hmmm... when was the last time you say "nuance" and "motherfucker" used in conjunction?)

Posted by: Q.E.D | December 21, 2010 7:55 AM

Re: Science it works bitches

Porch Monkey --Rutee

perhaps this particular use of the word "bitch" is like South park's use of the word "fag" in the biker episode?

South Park Fags

Arguing my Youtube reference - not sure it's the way forward

Posted by: mikerattlesnake | December 21, 2010 11:25 AM

"No, it totally hasn't. It pretty much always refers to someone who is complaining in the manner of a "screechy woman", or who is trying to assert rights that the complainer doesn't think they ought to have (i.e. being all uppity about it)."

Clearly, anyone using it in that way is a misogynistic asshole and I don't think the word can be free of misogynistic connotations until that usage becomes completely unacceptable.

That said, maybe it's just our different predicaments, but I hear it used far more often to mean subservient/ineffectual/spineless. This is, of course, the way it is used in hip-hop, where the word has become as fluid and divorced from it's origins as gyp, sinister, motherfucker, etc. where the etymology to an offensive term can be easily traced, but where the common usage is disconnected (at least in the mind of the speaker) from that original meaning.

Again, while I have my own standards for usage, I will gladly defer to women who feel otherwise. I don't use "bitch" here ever, though I might find it appropriate rarely in my everyday language, because people have made it clear that THEY find it to be bigoted and it makes them uncomfortable. It's certainly no bother for me to avoid the word if doing so makes someone elses posting experience more comfortable.

Posted by: Ted Zissou | December 21, 2010 2:14 PM

The next time I'm ill enough for someone to say "You'll be in my prayers". I'm gonna say "Better yet, give me a glass of water and hand my medication".

Posted by: goodlookingfatman | December 21, 2010 10:33 PM

Science can work to benefit us in our short lives, yes. It also works for nuclear weapons and methamphetamines, however.

Posted by: drbunsen | December 22, 2010 11:17 AM

I add my doubt of the supposed engineering degree.

It's totes legit: he earned it in a past life.

Posted by: drbunsen | December 22, 2010 12:53 PM

mikerattlesnake:

I hear it used far more often to mean subservient/ineffectual/spineless

And those exact terms have also been used to describe ...

The word gets its insulting power from the attitude towards women. It's not incidental, it's inherent. Without its earlier use to describe women, none of the later meanings would have arisen. Linguistic drift be damned - it's an insult because you are calling someone a "woman."

The same goes for gay, jew, gyp and (now that you mention it) lame. They were specific insults that became general insults - because they referred to the specific "lesser" group.

("hostage" in the post above was meant to be struck through, not italicised)