In the comments to yesterday's post about framing, Damian offers a long comment that doesn't actually contradict anything I said, but re-frames it in terms more complimentary to the Dawkins/ Myers side of things. I may deal with some of what he says over there (probably not today, though, as I have a class to teach), but I wanted to single out one particular part of his comment for response:
Nisbet has claimed repeatedly, and without much evidence I might add, that PZ and Dawkins are poor advocates for science. For a start, neither PZ or Dawkins has ever claimed to be an advocate (at least, not in the sense that is the goal of Nisbet and Mooney), and what ever one thinks of them, it has not been shown that both men are hurting science education.
The data that we do know of - that of books sold and visitors to blogs - show conclusively that these men have been extraordinarily successful science advocates, as well as framers of science (I guess you could claim that it is for other reasons, but you would have to show that). The problem is that it isn't the correct audience, although it is rather sad that those who are among the strongest supporters of science are often left out of the equation.
This is a response I was expecting. If I may take the liberty of re-framing the re-framing, this boils down to asking "If what they're doing is so bad, why is Pharyngula the biggest blog at ScienceBlogs by an order of magnitude or more? What's the cost of not framing?"
Well, at the risk of sounding self-centered, the cost of not framing is me. Me, and people like me.
On paper, what Myers and Dawkins are selling ought to be right up my alley. I'm a Ph.D. scientist, working in academia, and doing my own science popularization thing (I'm still waiting for comments from my editor, but my pop-physics book should hopefully be out by next year at this time). I'm fairly liberal politically, and strongly opposed to the political abuse of science that we've seen in recent years. I'm not personally religious, and I'm strongly opposed to any sort of religious education in schools, and against the promotion of religion in public life.
I ought to be all over their message. I don't support them, though, precisely because of their rejection of Nisbet and Mooney's advice. In fact, I am sufficiently disgusted by their behavior, and especially the behavior of the screechy monkeys from the comments at Pharyngula and elsewhere, that I want nothing at all to do with them.
I don't read or link to their blogs. I don't pass on their action alerts, or promote their events or causes. I won't send money to their political organizations, donate to their charities, or even buy their books, lest my beer money find its way to their royalty checks.
Their behavior has landed them in the same basic category as Little Green Footballs, as far as my reading and linking habits are concerned. I'd say that they're in the same category as the Republican Party, but that's not true-- I can't say that I won't vote for them, because at this point, I will vote for absolutely anyone on a Democratic ticket, and my hatred of the modern Republican party has a much deeper basis.
"So what?," you say. "Pharyngula gets as many hits on a slow day as you do in a month."
Sure. I'm not half vain enough to think that they notice or care about my lack of support. I might occasionally get their attention for a fleeting second by directly calling them assholes in public, but that's it.
The thing is, I'm not the only one who feels this way. If I'm offended, as a liberal apathetic-agnostic professional scientist, how do you think this comes off to people who are actually religious? People who aren't already predisposed to support science? People who are a bit to the right of center politically?
It may turn out to be a moot point. It may be that the stirring rhetoric of Myers and Dawkins et al. will win vast hordes of converts supporters, and the Atheist Revolution will sweep to power on the backs of a billion godless ethusiasts, trampling squishy moderates like me along the way.
It could happen. Good luck with that.
Or, it may turn out that exclusive and alienating over-the-top rhetoric loses a bit of its luster outside of a core population who are already predisposed to like it. It may be that there's a limit to the popularity of the Dawkins/ Myers brand of atheist radicalism, and once that's reached, things don't really go much farther. They might very well turn out to have a band of supporters who are very passionate, but ultimately not numerous enough to effect significant change.
They might very well end up as a sort of Libertarian Party with biology degrees-- loud, passionate, and annoying, but ultimately politically impotent.
That's what Mooney and Nisbet are warning against, and they continue to push this discussion because they very much want to avoid that fate for science. Personally, in my pettier moments, I think it couldn't happen to a more deserving troop of monkeys.
Politics
Education & Careers
Comments
# 1 | Jamie Bowden | April 4, 2008 9:50 AM
You could be as big as Pharyngula easily. Just start posting in support controversial topics guaranteed to attract the attention of every grepping monkey on the net. We used to call that 'trolling' if memory serves.
# 2 | Brian | April 4, 2008 10:03 AM
Personally, I'm more afraid of them turning into a sort of Ralph Nader. Crazy, but with some fundamentally good ideas (and a lot of not so good ideas), and splitting the people I agree with into to warring factions that allow the other side to win whatever contest we're worried about...
# 3 | etbnc | April 4, 2008 10:14 AM
"Their behavior..."
Behavior.
We react to our perceptions of behavior.
When I consider that we call ourselves a social species, a species that evolved to interact and to function in social groups, it makes sense to me that we might have some very deeply embedded mechanisms that transmit, detect, and interpret behavior signals. And yet it seems to me we can expend amazing effort trying to work against our evolved social mechanisms.
Thanks for explicitly describing your perceptions of behavior, and for explicitly stating the consequences of behavior as you see them. It seems to me that demonstrates a healthy behavior, and an important aspect of authentic human interaction.
Cheers
# 4 | Duae Quartunciae | April 4, 2008 10:17 AM
I hear you... but I don't actually see the "cost" you mention. You find them offensive, okay. That's not really a big cost (no offence intended... :-).
I'm quite sure you are correct that their style prevents their message from getting through to lots of folks; but then we have others (like you and me, or better like Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott and Wes Elsberry and Nick Matzke and lots of others) for that. But Myers and Dawkins are getting through to some folks, as you recognize; and they are making a difference. I don't think it's good to have all the same approach.
The question for me is; is the difference they make a net positive, or a net negative, for science education?
I find that easy to answer. It's a net positive, by far.
Full disclosure: I'm a "do-nothing" atheist according to a Pharyngula article from last year: Do-nothing atheists and re-igniting the Enlightenment. I'm Chris Ho-Stuart; it was me PZ was talking about. And he could hardly be more incorrect. I find it hard to account for such a stupid appellation; PZ Myers has all the information available to know that his label was wildly and unfairly inaccurate.
It's just that my involvement is a different style, to a different demographic. I interact primarily with Christians directly, at an online forum. My writings are mostly focussed on science. My atheism is open and well known (it's tagged on all my posts), but it is not my major focus of attention. I do also present my own reasons and apologetics for unbelief, but without denigrating others for disagreement. In debate on science I side with people based only on the accuracy of their science, without a care for their religious beliefs.
I don't find any significant downside to the existence of more aggressive atheists like PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins. Indeed, there can even be an advantage, with opportunities to "frame" science discussions so as to encourage Christians to rebut the Myers/Dawkins style of attack by showing themselves as simultaneously recognizing good science while also being Christian.
Actually, there is a down side, in that it encourages a stereotype of atheists which may lead to negative assumptions being made about me personally, as a declated atheist. But I honestly don't care about that... in fact I can also make it a positive, and it is so easy to show that the stereotype fails in my case, and in the case of several others in the same forum.
# 5 | Maria | April 4, 2008 10:21 AM
I think there is room for both of you. PZ is one of the first (certainly the first I knew) in-your-face, unapologetic atheists, who thinks that the world would be unambiguously better off without religion. His is undoubtedly an extreme position, but I think it serves a role. At the very least, he broadens the spectrum of acceptable behavior.
This sounds very moderate... because we have people like PZ. Otherwise, it would be quite an extreme worldview, especially as far as not being religious is concerned (not mixing religion and education is compatible with a very religious population diverse in their beliefs). "Agnostic" sounds moderate only when there are "Atheists" around.
Of course, this does not mean that you have to make nice with PZ. I just think that he, and Dawkins, and others like him, are and have been useful in getting certain beliefs into the mainstream.
# 6 | John S. Wilkins | April 4, 2008 10:32 AM
I think part of the problem is local culture. PZ may be the first atheist many folk have met in the USA, but I grew up with scores of the buggers, none of whom made much of it in public. Atheists were elected to public office, and it was considered bad form for a journalist to ask any questions of a candidate's religious beliefs or the lack of them (because we had an opposition party that included many old style socialists and communists who thought religion was just embarrassing).
So for me as an Australian, atheists are another species in the cultural ecology. And some of them are noisy and some (most?) of them are quiet and nobody thinks they have no role in the social fabric. I gather this is also true in many European nations and regions. Sure, theists try, especially if they are influenced by their coreligionists from the USA, to impose their values and constraints on the rest of us, but that's all part of the democratic process and the good sense (I can't believe I'm saying this) of politicians has prevented them from succeeding.
So noisy atheists can be just part of the social fabric, as can agnostics (who in this country, at any rate, rarely get called lazy atheists or Chamberlainists or whatever is the insult du jour), Christians of various stripes and so forth. Onyl when a religion tries to impose its views on everyone else does anyone get het up.
It's one of the virtues of a country that has a State Religion that nobody takes too seriously.
# 7 | ponderingfool | April 4, 2008 10:55 AM
Shouldn't PZ and Dawkins be more likened to promoters of an atheist group identity? I see them making space as noted above.
I look at the Gay Pride Parades in SF. They in the past have offended many a moderate but I can't help but think that such events have only advanced the cause of gay rights in this country, making it more acceptable to be gay especially in younger populations.
It is beneficial in this country to have atheists who are loud and proud. Hopefully this gets others atheists to speak even it is to disagree with PZ & Dawkins.
# 8 | Mike Haubrich, FCD | April 4, 2008 10:57 AM
Whether you refer to me as a "screechy monkey" or not, I am in the target audience. I am not a scientist, a biologist or a degreed academic in any shape, manner or form. I will say this:
What sparked my renewed interest in science were claims of the craetionists and intelligent designers. I heard some things from them about specified complexity, fine-tuning, moon dust accumulation and the moon's recession being too fast for an old earth. I knew they were wrong, I just didn't know why they were wrong. So, I went to talkorigins.org and from there to the talk.origins newsgroup.
And in that den of "howler monkeys" I learned. I learned about biology, the philosophy of science, about cosmology. From the howler monkeys I followed trails and links to science sites that taught me how the creationists and ID'ers were completely full of hogwash.
Who were the people that led me towards understanding the science of origins? John Wilkins, PZ Myers, Larry Moran, Richard Forrest and a great deal many more. They took the abuse of creationists and even theistic evolutionists and came back firing with facts. (While Wilkins argues that science doesn't lead to atheism, neither is he shy about pointing out the failings of religious interference in science.)
I also learned a great deal about quote-mining.
They have led me to think more and more about how science works in ways that I never got in my secondary and post-secondary education. While this is no substitute for a proper science education, it has built my own understanding. I would bet there are many more like me.
I also learned a great deal about quote-mining.
What Matthew did was unforgivable. He featured a conveniently edited video from the movie Expelled. The interview was gained under false pretenses. We don't know the questions that PZ was asked which led his comparing religion to a personal exercise such as knitting. (We can guess, knowing PZ.) Matthew said that the video was evidence that PZ should not allow himself to be seen as a face of science. PZ should instead refer enquiries to the NCSE, where the public relations firms can properly deal with couching science in terms non-offensive to moderately religious people.
Matthew is strengthening the frame that science=atheism, whether intentional or not. And he is doing so by referring to the "New Atheist Noise Machine." He is poisoning the well for anything that PZ says publicly about any subject. "Pay no attention to the atheist behind the curtain." And the moderately religious are left in a comfort zone, where no one criticizes their beliefs, no one forces them to challenge their own faith. At least we will get the global warming problem solved. Once we do that, we can get back to defending evolution and all of the other niggling little details on what science teaches us about the natural world.
A faith that daren't be challenged, to me, is a weak faith. You are here accommodating those who don't want to be challenged, and apparently it is "for the greater good."
PZ has his role. Dawkins has his role. Dennett has his role. Can you tell me wny their roles need to be diminished, other than to allow people to sit back in their comfort zones?
There are those of us who are not content to sit back and wait while all of the religions resolve their differences before we approach knowledge and its implications. It's patronizing both to the religious and especially to atheists to tell them that the ties between atheism and science can be safely ignored.
So, here I am in the target audience, being patronized.
Thanks, Chad.
# 9 | JSinger | April 4, 2008 11:06 AM
"If what they're doing is so bad, why is Pharyngula the biggest blog at ScienceBlogs by an order of magnitude or more? What's the cost of not framing?"
I think you're making this way too complicated. The real potential cost is convincing a substantive number of Americans that research really is a fundamentally anti-religious activity, and creating a genuinely anti-science segment (as opposed to "anti-science" in the sense of opposing embryonic stem cell creation or some other detail) in a country that now almost universally supports the world's largest public funding of basic research.
It's hardly out of the question that they can antagonize enough people (5%? 10%?) that the Heath Shulers feel uncomfortable with lifting the freezes on NIH and NSF funding growth. At that point, given the disaster already ongoing at NIH from Zerhouni's bungling of the Clinton-Bush doubling ... bad things will happen.
As far as Myers' traffic is concerned, obviously, that's less a concern than a fresh opportunity, but I don't think that's the relevant metric.
# 10 | Jennifer Ouellette | April 4, 2008 11:25 AM
The commenter Chad quotes hits the nail on the head (inadvertently): it's about the audience. Pharyngula is mostly "preaching to the converted," and is the biggest science blog precisely because of its often inflammatory content. Pharyngula taps into a groundswell of anger and frustration among a very vocal subgroup of science-minded atheists (who for some reason refuse to admit they are angry). So you can't really use that argument to support the contention that they don't "harm" the public discourse on science. They''re reaching the usual audience for such things, and further alienating the usual extremists on the other side. At best, the overall effect is null because the two sides cancel each other out. :)
However, Chad is correct that it alienates people like him, or me, or others -- including moderate and liberal Christians with a strong respect for science (yes, they exist) -- who prefer, shall we say, a calmer style of discourse :) [note that I state specifically it's a personal PREFERENCE]. We are the ones "at risk" of being lost to the cause because of all the inflammatory rhetoric being tossed around. We usually remove ourselves from the debate -- in part because we get viciously attacked as tepid "do-nothing" atheists rather than being treated with a modicum of respect for our different views and approaches. Life is short. Who needs that crap? We all love and support science; that common goal should bring us together, but the kind of rhetoric one finds in, say, the Pharyngula comment threads serves to drive many of us away.
For the record, I like PZ tremendously on a personal level (the same cannot be said for many of his commenters, alas). I read Pharyngula for the cephalod love and science posts, and skip over the rash of religion vs science posts. They don't interest me, and frankly, I don't find constant rehashings of the silliness of the extreme religious enterprise to be either surprising or particularly interesting. It distresses me that this accounts for such a hefty percentage of postings at ScienceBlogs.
I come from a religious fundamentalist background (now agnostic/atheist) and believe me, I know better than most how the extremists in that community can make you want to bash your head into a wall and/or resort to primal scream therapy in record time. [There's a reason I don't live too near my family...] But these are extremist examples, just as the Myers/Dawkins crowd are on the extreme end of the atheistic community. Frankly, their form of atheism strikes me as having strong elements of fundamentalism: you're either with us, or against us, and we will brook no dissent from the party line. If I had run into that kind of rhetoric in those critical years when I was struggling to move from faith to agnosticism, it may very well have driven back towards the religious community. Fortunately for me, I didn't.
I had a lot of anger for a few years about my upbringing, and the various measures to "control" my thoughts, behavior, reading material, etc. I opted for early admission to college just to get out of the house one year earlier. But I eventually acknowledged the anger, and moved beyond it. Atheists are becoming more vocal in public discourse, and in the long run, despite the controversies (and the fact that I find the rhetoric personally distasteful), maybe that will help advance a more scientific mindset. Maybe not. Frankly, I'm not that optimistic. But it definitely won't happen unless the "screechy monkeys" as Chad so colorfully dubs them, eventually move beyond angry outbursts and broad denunciations they're currently known for.
The answer is not for PZ, Dawkins and their ilk to shut up. (I think we can all agree that most of us differ with Matt Nisbet on that score. But it doesn't invalidate his entire message.) It's for moderate sorts to SPEAK up, like Chad has. If the "Framing Wars" have done nothing else, perhaps it's succeeded in forcing those of us who normally just ignore the ruckus to come forward. And maybe, for once, we won't get drowned out by all the shouting.
# 11 | DrugMonkey | April 4, 2008 11:35 AM
Haubrich: They have led me to think more and more about how science works in ways that I never got in my secondary and post-secondary education. While this is no substitute for a proper science education, it has built my own understanding. I would bet there are many more like me.
You NAILED it. (except there is no reason anyone needs a "proper science education" to enjoy lifelong scientific appreciation and learning).
This, I hope quite sincerely, is at the root of what science blogging is all about for bloggers and readers.
Can we back off and remember this? Instead of flailing around with self-aggrandizing statements about our own grandiose preferences as if anyone should GiveACrap?
so the anti-religion turns chad off PZ's message--BIG DEAL.
so the religio-apologist scientists turn readers off THEIR message--BIG DEAL.
get over yourselves already....go back to enjoying fun stuff about science.
# 12 | Anna K. | April 4, 2008 11:42 AM
Mike, the target audience is pretty big. I think you are making a lot of assumptions about religious moderates. One, that they don't deal with challenges to faith or don't go out of their comfort zones. Two, that PZ and Dawkins-style attack-polemics is the only way, or even the best way, to promote scientific knowledge among this group.
# 13 | Anna K. | April 4, 2008 11:48 AM
Oh yes, and to Jennifer Ouellette and Chad:
A round of applause, and my sincere thanks for speaking up.
# 14 | Mike Haubrich, FCD | April 4, 2008 11:51 AM
Anna, I wasn't making any such assumptions about religious moderates nor did I ever say that PZ and Dawkins have the only way to communicate science. I get the feeling that you only skimmed my comment if you came to that conclusion.
I was saying that Matthew's version of framing makes the assumption that the religious moderates don't want to be challenged, and that his approach is patronizing. I was saying that it is patronizing to both atheists and the religious moderates to tell PZ and Dawkins to defer to the professional spin-meisters.
I hope I am more clear on this now.
I left alone Chad's comparison to such a crap site as "Little Green Footballs" because I didn't want to break my keyboard as I was typing a response to what he wrote.
# 15 | kevin | April 4, 2008 12:01 PM
I am not a scientist, but I read SciBlogs daily and have been following the framing debate with some interest. There is no doubt that PZ and Richard Dawkins offend a lot of people. There is also no doubt that they are very effective at exposing the lies, the hypocrisy, the misrepresentations, and the logical fallacies of the loudmouthed arm of the Christian right.
That does preclude you and other moderates from taking a more respectful approach. The religious community, like the science community, allows for a multitude of different viewpoints. The more moderate religious voices suffer from the same affliction you lay claim to---being drowned out by their more vocal and dogmatic brethren.
If you want to engage theists in a more moderated and respectful debate/discussion then by all means do so. You don't need PZ's approval any more than he needs yours.
# 16 | Anna K. | April 4, 2008 12:10 PM
Mike,
Thanks for your clarification. Having had a ringside seat a few months ago to the reaction of a group of religious moderates to some of these anti-religious polemics (Dawkins, in this case), the reaction of this group of people was not: "Gosh, maybe I should question my faith."
Instead, they felt strawmanned and insulted, and I suspect these folks will hardly be likely to trust Richard Dawkins as a science educator since -- to this group -- his anti-religious attack was so offensive. He lost credibility with this group. And that's too bad, because I think his science writing is brilliant.
# 17 | John Novak | April 4, 2008 12:14 PM
Chad:
The thing is, I'm not the only one who feels this way. If I'm offended, as a liberal apathetic-agnostic professional scientist, how do you think this comes off to people who are actually religious? People who aren't already predisposed to support science? People who are a bit to the right of center politically?
More pointedly, people who don't take religion as an exercise in community, but for whom the communal aspects are a manipulable by-product?
Jennifer, #9:
The commenter Chad quotes hits the nail on the head (inadvertently): it's about the audience. Pharyngula is mostly "preaching to the converted," and is the biggest science blog precisely because of its often inflammatory content. Pharyngula taps into a groundswell of anger and frustration among a very vocal subgroup of science-minded atheists (who for some reason refuse to admit they are angry). So you can't really use that argument to support the contention that they don't "harm" the public discourse on science. They''re reaching the usual audience for such things, and further alienating the usual extremists on the other side. At best, the overall effect is null because the two sides cancel each other out. :)
Not only that, but there's a locked-room phenomenon going on, as well. It's pretty well documented that if you lock a group up which has a mild or moderate predisposition to one or another side of an argument, then they will, after deliberation, be very likely to have deliberated themselves to a position more extreme than most had initially had.
Setting up preaching-to-the-choir venues is therefore useful for generating and maintaining extreme positions, but it doesn't do much for generating a tone of discussion that gets other people to listen to them.
# 18 | Uncle Al | April 4, 2008 12:15 PM
Science vouchsafes the only sustainable argument - it works, every time, to spec. Anybody who pursues a different path inevitably discovers evolution in action. Evolution is a hoot - if you are one of the survivors.
# 19 | tincture | April 4, 2008 12:29 PM
The category being mentally challenged bigots who have wet dreams revolving around the death of most of the world population?# 20 | Mike Haubrich, FCD | April 4, 2008 12:40 PM
Then, Anna you can excuse me for being a bit put off by Chad's comparison to an odious website. Why are people who don't want to insult the religious free to insult atheists? You want to call some of us extremist, fundamentalists and cranks for attacking creationists, for expressing reservations about Evolution Sunday because it often gets the science part completely wrong, for expressing the conclusion that religion is irrational and that by raising children in a particular religion is a form of child abuse (because they don't have freedom of choice in the matter.)
Yes, there are commenters at Pharyngula who are jerks, but PZ is not responsible for them. He only deletes trolls who have violated his warnings repeatedly and add nothing to the conversation. He has never deleted Scott Hatfield's posts, either.
Too many people play the ad hominem game. Matthew and Chad are feeding into the anti-PZ game, the anti-Dawkins game. And so are you, Anna.
Extremism and polemicism are easy labels to use when you don't want to deal with the substance.
# 21 | Winawer | April 4, 2008 12:59 PM
That should be an empirical question, not a rhetorical one.
# 22 | RJ | April 4, 2008 1:05 PM
Just a question.
Can someone give any actual example of intolerant or otherwise bad behavior by Myers or Dawkins? I just don't get it. Over the past couple of years, I keep seeing these 'criticisms', most of which rely not on what either says, but on absurd extrapolations of what they say.
I know the critics of M and D aren't all idiots. So why do they all seem unable to verbalize what exactly is wrong with their behaviors? I'm curious. I want to see an actual example of bad behavior - just one! Not an abstract tut-tut, but an honest-to-gosh example.
Note: repeatedly saying 'there is no rational basis for religion' doesn't count. If you think it does, you're part of the problem. Without the possibility of disagreement, there can be no serious discussion.
As for really offensive statements, comparing Pharyngula to Little Green Footballs surely is one. Unlike LGF, Myers does not advocate violence against those that disagree with him. Unlike LBF vis-a-vis libruls, he never says that as individuals, religionists are stupid or evil simply for being such. Where is the 'intolerance'? Please refer to the following lists:
intolerant: violence, advocating revocation of citizenship, intimidation, property destruction, harassment, interfering with employment
not intolerant: making fun, criticizing, disagreeing (however vehemently)
I'm disappointed that someone as bright as Chad can't see the difference between a site unambiguously devoted to hate and one that expresses vehement disagreement. The frequent comparison of M and D to fundamentalists is poisonously metaphorical. Real people are facing job loss, being kicked out of churches, having their kids beat up - this is not hypothetical - through the actions of the sort of people that comment on LGF. And you want to compare this to the behavior of Myers and his commentators? Really, I can't blame him for the occasional 'fuck you'.
# 23 | Anna K. | April 4, 2008 1:08 PM
I think Dawkins and PZ are more interested in being anti-religion, than in promoting science. As it happens, I think they ARE extremists and polemicists. And I am sure neither one loses any sleep over my opinion.
# 24 | Nepenthinator | April 4, 2008 1:17 PM
It's indicative of the overall tone that both sides are losing me. I'm an atheist, a scientist, and a liberal, and just about everyone involved in this conversation has left a foul taste in my mouth. I imagine that fewer insults and displays of temper all around would likely be helpful if any of the participants want to avoid alienating pretty much everybody.
# 25 | Maria | April 4, 2008 1:42 PM
Anna,
Let's say that it is true that Dawkins anti-religious positions have compromised his credibility among a certain group of religious people. What other positions would have done it? What if Dawkins had said that he is firmly in favor of abortion at will (I have no idea whether he thinks this, I'm just giving examples)? Or any other policy stance that goes firmly against your friends' beliefs? I suspect that would have also compromised his credibility - because apparently his credibility did not depend on his credentials, but on his beliefs.
# 26 | Ahcuah | April 4, 2008 1:45 PM
I'm sorry I keep harping on this but . . .
Why the heck aren't you all over Nisbet for ignoring his own advice? He warns, and then committed the same sin himself when he got the chance.
If he was so good at framing, surely he could have framed his message to Myers and Dawkins in such a way that they would be much more willing to cooperate. Or, Nisbet could advise them on how they could both satisfy their needs for saying what they saw to be the truth and frame it so as not to alienate others. But did he? No.
# 27 | Art | April 4, 2008 1:54 PM
What your missing here is that science is not monolithic. There has to be some core commonality in message for those promoting free secular science but there also has to be advocates who are unvarnished enough in their rhetoric to break trail for the overall advance of the cause.
The GOP advanced their cause by having people out there who would call it as they see it even when it upset people. Limbaughs and Hannities served to advance the edge of the movement and they left behind plowed ground for their cause. Anyone who was even slightly less outrageous could call themselves 'moderate'.
Following closely behind were the self-styled 'even-handed' media commentators and behind them is an interlocking system of patronage positions on corporate boards, conservative think tanks and well paid book deals.
A classic method of shifting the culture to the right and a patronage system that cultivates loyalty and both supports and protects agents who infiltrate all major power centers.
But it is the idealogical brown-shirts who break ground for the advance. PZ and Dawkins are breaking ground. They do it in a far more even and moderate way than the right ever did. But in the end you can't advance the cause by compromising and making excuses for the other side at every turn. You have to operate on and appeal to the raw emotions. You have to do the dirty work of pointing out how wrong your opponents are and lay it out in uncompromising and stark terms that raises blood pressure and are memorable in their visceral and emotional power.
Of course the cause both PZ and Dawkins are pushing has real advantages. Science is evidence based. There is always less of a need to 'spin' when your message is rooted in reality.
It also has to be noted that while they advance the cause they avoid the faults of the right's cheerleaders by being extreme enough to be effective without going so far as to be self-parody. Yes they are harsh, sorry if that offends you, but they are both correct in their analysis and targeted in their aggression in that those who oppose them get the tone of their commentary returned in kind.
Those who object in good conscience and civility get a nod for their civility and a polite observation that they are still wrong. Those who objection takes the form of personal attack get attacked personally as they are informed they are wrong. Thinkers get noted as thinkers. Nuts as nuts. All fair play in my book.
If that isn't your cup of tea there are plenty of other ways to support the larger cause.
# 28 | Mike Haubrich, FCD | April 4, 2008 2:04 PM
Then you haven't been paying very close attention. I am sure you are a nice person and all so don't take it as a personal attack.
My position is that if framing is to be done, then it needs to be focused on what is effective. What is not effective is for Matthew to take the creationist bullseye placed on Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers and paint it with red luminescent paint, and then sharpen their arrows. And here, Chad is moving the firing line closer to the target.
I think it is a gross mischaracterization to paint Chris and Matt as closet creationists, as some of PZ's fans have done. I have met them. I liked Chris personally, and I didn't like Matthew at all. That really has no bearing on my stance, but I think that Chris is sincerely trying to sort it all out while I think that Matthew is on a personal crusade of self-aggrandizement. Take it with a grain of salt, if you wish.
# 29 | TimJ | April 4, 2008 2:20 PM
Hi Chad,
Just a few thoughts from one desktop guy to another (well..my "desktop" was an accelerator, but totally hands on from ion source to target, which is what I loved about it. But, major digression there..:) ). None of this is meant as an attack and I'm really interested in your opinion. As another digression, I came over to PZ's blog directly from a reference at Cosmic Variance. PZ's blog (which I still do enjoy) led to science blogs in general, which, lead to yours, which I also enjoy and follow regularly. So, in a sense, PZ did get you at least 1 reader. :) Usually time is too scarce to comment anywhere though and so I remain a lurker. I meant to respond to your religion as cultural heritage post as it reminded me of some Greek Orthodox friends, but alas...
So, here's the background I see as a "frame" for the discussion. Forgive the lack of references, but I think most of this is general knowledge or, at least, easily google-able. George Bush Sr. once famously said that atheists should not be considered citizens. Most Americans would not elect somebody for President who was a known atheist. Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan, said that we didn't need to worry about the environment because Jesus was coming back soon. On you-tube, do a search for "Price of Atheism" to see a video of girl who was eventually taken out of a school in OK for not wanting to take part in pregame prayers on her public school basketball team (I think it was some 20/20 episode or something). We also know that there exists strong sentiment among fundamentalists to push creation/ID into schools undermining a solid science education. Once this is wedged in, one can see you so-called Young-Earthers wanting their view heard in schools with implications reaching towards astronomy, physics (think radiometric dating methods), etc. There is a danger of the whole foundation for a good science education being undermined. In addition, various esteemed people such as Behe, Dembski, et al, (who seem to command respect among intelligent designers and/or creationists) show themselves to be quite immune to awareness of evidence at best, or outright frauds and charlatans at worst.
Of course, as you implied in a previous post, there are two issues here. One is atheism in America and the other is implications towards education from certain groups who seem intent on taking us backwards. Of course not all Christians belong in the latter group (nor do I wish to imply that all belong in the former either). On the first issue, from the few examples above, we do see discrimination against people simply for not accepting the existence of a God. We also see guidance in thinking about public policy, based not on evidence, but instead, on centuries old stories and myths. Should nonsense not be called out when it is observed? To me, it seems useful to shine on a light on this type of thing (which is what PZ seems to do from time to time) and expose it for what it is. At the very least, it does seem he stretches the Overton window a bit to allow atheism to finally become more mainstream. One can see, I think, how atheists can be quite frustrated in our current situation here in the States. On the science education front, again, it seems useful to me to expose the nonsense to the light for all to know it for what it is (and at times not mince words...). It would be nice to have more of the moderate Christians fighting this battle with us, though I do know there are a few who do. Some are not even aware of the battle. My own father, a deeply religious and highly educated guy I deeply respect thought the days of a literal Biblical interpretation were long gone and was genuinely surprised when my brother and I informed him that no, an extended family member (among many others in our country) believed in a literal world wide biblical flood, ark and all.
So, I was wondering what your thoughts were from looking at thing from within this background, or "frame", if you will. I should add that having read "The God Delusion", I found it to be quite tamer and more polite than internet rhetoric would have made it out to be. Perhaps the part about relating religious indoctrination with child abuse could seem somewhat controversial to the religious minded (though, even as one of the "abused" myself, I would be inclined to agree with Dawkins), but not something one could not get past. Apologies if I rambled on a bit and appear disorganized, but I was firing this off in quick 30 second bursts while in the midst of a hundred other things going on... :).
Thanks for listening,
Tim
# 30 | Chad Orzel | April 4, 2008 2:20 PM
kevin, #15: That does preclude you and other moderates from taking a more respectful approach. The religious community, like the science community, allows for a multitude of different viewpoints. The more moderate religious voices suffer from the same affliction you lay claim to---being drowned out by their more vocal and dogmatic brethren.
If you want to engage theists in a more moderated and respectful debate/discussion then by all means do so. You don't need PZ's approval any more than he needs yours.
I do, from time to time. It's not my main issue, though-- there are plenty of other things that get me much more worked up than the latest idiotic statement by some idiotic creationist. I have better things to do with my time than troll through the sewers of the Internet looking for something to take offense at. When I run across something that happens to particularly bug me, I'll post about it, and I make it a point to promote moderate religious voices like Fred Clark of Slacktivist at every opportunity.
Quite frankly, though, the atmosphere at ScienceBlogs is such that I'm reluctant to post about religion at all. If I pick some offensive incident and offer a moderate denunciation of it, I quickly find my comments full of people with "FCD" after their names saying things I don't agree with, or complaining that I didn't go far enough. If I complain about the extremist response to some incident, I get a bunch of "FCD" comments bitching that I'm a traitor to the cause, or some such. It's on the list of topics that are more headache than they're worth.
I wouldn't've posted about this now, if the recent discussion at the Intersection hadn't turned into "everybody pile on Chris Mooney." I already watched Rob Knop get driven off ScienceBlogs by the monkey army, and I don't want to see the same thing happen with Chris.
Acuah: If he was so good at framing, surely he could have framed his message to Myers and Dawkins in such a way that they would be much more willing to cooperate. Or, Nisbet could advise them on how they could both satisfy their needs for saying what they saw to be the truth and frame it so as not to alienate others. But did he? No.
As I said numerous times in the other thread, I don't think this says anything at all about his framing skill. There is, in my opinion, literally nothing he could say that would get Myers and Dawkins to agree with his message, because they do not want the same things.
Nisbet's failures here may be indicative of poor judgement, but I don't think they have any relevance to his ability to get his message out to people who are receptive to that message. Again, he's had articles published in Science and The Washington Post, and been invited to speak to the National Academy of Sciences. These are the people he's trying to reach, and they're considerably more important than a bunch of cranky bloggers on the Internet.
(And, of course, there's also the fact that just because he studies/b> framing for a living doesn't mean he's good at doing it. You'll notice a distinct lack of billionaire economics professors, for example...)
# 31 | Cherish | April 4, 2008 2:22 PM
Anna (#23)...I tend to agree.
If they were trying to focus on commonalities, it might be different. Instead they ask why people in the middle don't stand up for science enough while belittling those same people's religious beliefs. I don't get it.
# 32 | Peter Morgan | April 4, 2008 2:56 PM
Intelligent Design, if it were not supported by so much money for marketing, might have quietly amassed evidence for 30 years, changed its point of view drastically, numerous times, as it attempted to understand the evidence that didn't fit its point of view. Instead, it seems as if they did 10 years work before someone started wanting to tell the world that the idea would fly.
I suspect that ID is now too defensively entrenched for it easily to be used as a basis for a new attempt at scientific theism, although there will be some attempt to comprehend some of the concepts of ID and creationism. Despite ID's failings, it is striking that it is ever so slightly in better correspondence with the world than the creationism that preceded it. That is some slight scientific progress for you. Scientific Theism III still won't be in perfect correspondence with what we see in the world, but then the "perfection" of neo-Darwinism has been 150 years in the making, which is in turn founded on hundreds of years of other Science.
It's curious to see the attempts that ID has made to drop this or that assumption that has traditionally been seen as an unalterable axiom of religious thought. Some assumptions are currently untouchable by modern-day theists, but others have been dropped. It should perhaps be remembered that the process of removing theist assumptions from Science has been done before, starting 600 years ago, say, but it should be of some interest to scientists to see whether the removal can be done in a different way, and what the consequences of the different way are. Personally, I do not think the ethics, morality, and methodology of Science are perfect, and a rethinking of such fundamentals is justified.
The way that Science claims that complexity is just more of the same simple-minded Physics as can be perfectly controlled in lab experiments (you, know, Chad, the perfect control you achieve in every experiment) is generally just so much wishful thinking and arm waving, so it seems possible that Science is throwing stones in a glass house.
# 33 | Adrienne | April 4, 2008 3:14 PM
I tend to lean more towards the Mooney/Nisbet/Orzel/Orac side on the "Framing vs. not framing for religious people debate", although Nisbet's posts on the whole "PZ expelled from Expelled" debacle really turned me off, I must say. Lately I've maybe "crossed over" to the dark side of this debate, becoming more aligned with Myers/Moran/Dawkins, I don't know. But I definitely prefer reasoned discourse to ...uh..."screechy monkeys".
Anyhoo, I think you, Prof. Orzel, have just done a better job of framing the issue "framing" than Mr. Nisbet has done recently, at least here on scienceblogs.com. I'd like to see you respond to James Hrynyshyn's comment on "Island of Doubt" about "The REAL Problem of Framing Science", though.
# 34 | Chad Orzel | April 4, 2008 3:45 PM
I tend to lean more towards the Mooney/Nisbet/Orzel/Orac side on the "Framing vs. not framing for religious people debate", although Nisbet's posts on the whole "PZ expelled from Expelled" debacle really turned me off, I must say.
I read very little of that, and I'm actually kind of torn on the question to the response to Expelled. I'm sort of on the Nisbet side generally, in that I think this is just one example of a whole parallel universe of "Christian literature" and "Christian film" made for and marketed to kooks. If it were just ignored, it would circulate within that community, and nobody else would ever even hear about it. Kicking up a big fuss over yet another depressingly stupid "Christian" movie project is just giving them publicity that they don't deserve.
That said, I understand that Myers is in the movie, thanks to some deceptive practices by the filmmakers, so I can understand him being especially outraged, and don't blame him for making a stink. And once they had the police eject him from the theater, I don't think there's anything wrong with going all Dennis the Peasant over the incident. There's really no way to spin that that doesn't make the people responsible look like utter fools, especially since they let Dawkins in.
So I think Nisbet's wrong on the specific example of the Expelled incident, even though I think he's right about the general phenomenon of underground "Christian" entertainment products and the response to them.
# 35 | Wilson Fowlie | April 4, 2008 3:45 PM
I would like to see someone (Chad?) answer RJ's question (#22).
I think PZ's "Fuck you very much," answer to Nesbit telling him to shut up, may qualify. But that was to a specific person's specific comment about PZ himself. Not that tit-for-tat (well, actually, escalatory) retaliation is an excuse or particularly mature or anything. I just don't think it's the sort of thing that RJ meant.
So, does anyone have anything else? If RJ didn't seem sincere enough, would a second, sincere request for the same thing help?
I'd like to point out that Chad did not compare Myers & Dawkins to Little Green Footballs in terms of content. He said, "Their behavior has landed them in the same basic category as Little Green Footballs, as far as my reading and linking habits are concerned." (Yes, I added the emphasis, in case you don't feeling like scrolling up to check.) Meaning, simply, he doesn't like them so he doesn't read them.
Or, Chad, did you mean to imply, by association, that Pharyngula and Dawkins.net are on a par with that site? I assumed not, but was I mistaken? (Lucky me, I hadn't even heard of LGF before reading this post.)
# 36 | Chad Orzel | April 4, 2008 3:54 PM
I'd like to point out that Chad did not compare Myers & Dawkins to Little Green Footballs in terms of content. He said, "Their behavior has landed them in the same basic category as Little Green Footballs, as far as my reading and linking habits are concerned." (Yes, I added the emphasis, in case you don't feeling like scrolling up to check.) Meaning, simply, he doesn't like them so he doesn't read them.
I have to run to a meeting, but I'll post quickly to confirm that, yes, this is the correct reading of that sentence. It's a little more extreme than that-- I won't link them, either-- but that's the gist of it. Lubos Motl's Reference Frame would be another example of a blog in this category for me, but I don't think he's as well known as LGF.
I was not implying a parallelism between the behaviors, but rather the way I treat the blogs in question, and references to them.
As for the question of examples of misbehavior, the specific that that made me write Myers off for good took place elsewhere, and I'm not free to talk about it. Dawkins lost me for good when he tried to pretend that "ignorant" is not insulting.
# 37 | Anna K. | April 4, 2008 4:06 PM
Mike,
I'm not taking it as a personal attack, and it's clear that we disagree on how effectively PZ and Dawkins can communicate about science to religious publics.
Maria @ #25,
I suppose an analogy might be, if you thought global warming requires serious policy changes, would you favor the science writing of somebody working for Exxon-Mobil, who has a record of using science to promote Exxon-Mobil's line on climate change?
The church I attend is moderate-to-liberal, with a range of political and theological opinions. (It also fired a youth director who attempted to teach YEC to our impressionable young.) The problem with Dawkins' credibility with this audience is that he has roped science into his broad-brushed tarring of religion. He is using evolution, which is legitimate and proper science, in the service of promoting his atheism, which isn't.
# 38 | Dave X | April 4, 2008 4:16 PM
So?
If you don't want to support Dawkins or PZ's agendas, fine. I think they are fine with that, you are fine with that and I am fine with that.
Maybe the negative side damages PZ's dissemination of his scientific results, or socially some of this colleagues avoid interactions with him due to his aura, but you can't expect to get along with everybody.
I'm not sure how to frame it non-religously, but I'm perfectly fine with letting people go to hell in their own way. I think that is an important right that people deserve.
Much of the problem with advising people that they should frame certain ideas in a certain way is that you don't have a right to control how they speak.
# 39 | Maria | April 4, 2008 4:38 PM
Anna,
I realize this is a bit subjective, but I don't think the analogy is quite right. I may suspect a scientist when there is a conflict of interest between the potential outcome of his research and his funding source. But I see nothing of the sort in an atheist who claims that science proves that God does not exist. Clearly, some religions accept scientific facts regarding the age of the Earth and the process of Evolution, and they agree on the facts with Dawkins. The difference is in their interpretation.
If you read one of Dawkins' books on biology, and look at his CV, it should be irrelevant what his views on religion are. I read "The selfish gene" when I still was a Catholic, and it did not affect my faith. (I am an atheist now, but that's a different story.)
Personally, I think most people, most of the time, make up their minds and then look for ways to justify their beliefs. So a very religious person won't trust Dawkins because they don't want to, and his atheism is just another excuse. If you're truly open to being convinced that you're wrong, you should concentrate on the arguments, not on you prejudice against the speaker.
Finally, one broader question. I don't think Dawkins is at this point discussing evolution much. He did that with his initial books, but now he's in a sort of "anti-religious" campaign. His argument against religion is not based on evolution, and I think there may be a bit of a contextual problem here. Dawkins sees himself as having a global audience, and in most of the world the "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" debate is... inexistent. It is only a problem in the US.
# 40 | RJ | April 4, 2008 4:47 PM
Chad said:
...the response to Expelled. I'm sort of on the Nisbet side generally, in that I think this is just one example of a whole parallel universe of "Christian literature" and "Christian film" made for and marketed to kooks. If it were just ignored, it would circulate within that community, and nobody else would ever even hear about it.
I think this comment is helpful in getting to the heart of certain disagreements under discussion here. Scientists ignored creationism for a long time because they beleived this. The empirical evidence over the last couple of years suggests very strongly that it is utterly false, however. Parallel to this, liberals tried to ignore far-right kooks for a long time, for the same reason. The result was the nuttiest regime the USA has ever seen. [See the blog Orcinus for many details.]
Chad, Matt, everyone else - you may have your reasons for beleiving that ignoring the kooks will take away their spotlight, but I think you're wrong, deadly wrong. While you may never come over to my opinion, I hope you at least can accept that it's a reasonable one.
One more thing regarding the perception of soft right-wingers. Dollars to doughnuts, you can bet that they tend to view Mr. Mooney in exactly the same category as Dr. Myers. As we speak surely there are many thousands of heartlanders who see a title like The Republican War on Science as hatred towards them. The point already has been made, but I'll say it again - we're dealing with people who have abandoned science and reason. Playing nice just isn't working.
As to the word 'ignorant' - I try to avoid blunt words, but sometimes they're necessary.
# 41 | Wilson Fowlie | April 4, 2008 5:29 PM
Hm. I may have to take issue with you on that one. The word 'ignorant' can be insulting, but I disagree that it has to be.
The plain definition of it is simply, "The condition of being uninformed or uneducated. Lacking knowledge or information." By that definition, I know I'm ignorant on a lot of topics. Not so ignorant on others, I hope. I'm not proud of being ignorant and I am doing what I can to change it, but it doesn't change the fact that there are things I don't know because I haven't been taught or been exposed to them. Until today, I was ignorant about the Little Green Footballs site.
The problem is that words, besides having denotations, also have connotations. The usual connotations of the word ignorant are a) "willfully ignorant" - actively trying to avoid learning something - or b) "ignorant of social graces"; i.e. crude. Both of these can reasonably be considered insulting.
Used precisely, however, 'ignorant' doesn't necessarily mean either of these things.
I don't deny that Dawkins may have been "pretending that 'ignorant' is not insulting." Not having seen - and therefore being ignorant of - the exchange that led to your opinion, I can't judge the particular context that caused you to think he was using the term insultingly, nor the terms in which he denied the intent to insult.
But from what I've read - which is far from everything he's written, and possibly far less than you've read (again, I'm ignorant on the matter) - he strikes me as one to use a term precisely and intend by it only a factual statement, rather than a value judgment. I think that if he wants to call someone stupid or incompetent or irrational, he'll do so directly (as he did in his review of Expelled, for instance), rather than use the connotation of a less-appropriate word to do so.
It is certainly easy to be insulted by being called 'ignorant'. I was yesterday, by a friend, who then hastened to assure me that he did not mean it pejoratively, but "as one who lacks information about something" (his words). I still had to break through the connotative emotional baggage that the word caused, but I could then recognize that my friend did not intend to insult me by using it.
If Dawkins can't see (or can see but won't admit) that the word can give unintentional insult, that's one thing. If he says insult was not intended, I don't think that's pretense.
Hope your meeting went well!
(By the way, none of this even considers the fact that British English is different, in ways both subtle and overt, from U.S. English (and they're both different from Canadian and Australian English!), and that to a British speaker, 'ignorant' may simply be less insulting than it is to a U.S. or Canadian one. I'm ignorant of whether this is actually true, though.)
# 42 | Anna K. | April 4, 2008 5:52 PM
Maria,
I am less interested in the global status of ID/evolution debates, than in promoting science literacy at my own church. If I read you correctly, you seem to think that being truly open means overlooking someone directly telling you that you are ignorant and irrational, misrepresenting and strawmanning your views, and finally, capping it off by telling you that what you believe in and value, and how you raise your children, is stupid, wrong and evil. Who is close-minded, here? Who is prejudiced against whom? Why on earth should a group look to be educated about science by someone who expresses such wide-ranging contempt for them, and is so eager to co-opt science as a weapon against them? Again, this is not a group that is inherently hostile toward science; but some science writers sure are hostile toward them.
Fortunately for my admittedly narrow purposes, there are other science writers.
# 43 | M. | April 4, 2008 5:52 PM
"In fact, I am sufficiently disgusted by their behavior, and especially the behavior of the screechy monkeys from the comments at Pharyngula and elsewhere, that I want nothing at all to do with them."
At the risk of being relegated to the "screechy monkey" category, can you elaborate on what, exactly, do you find so offensive?
It is true that PZ and Dawkins do not compromise on their position towards religion, but that is something they are certainly entitled to. I have not seen an example of their behavior that would in any way warrant disgust. You can disagree with them, but there is really no reason to be disgusted with them.
You talk about the cost of not framing. I can talk about the cost of framing. Your description of yourself could be copied almost word-for-word to describe me - with an addition of "I'm non-religious, but I'm married to a devout Catholic". I certainly don't believe in, or practice, bashing religion. Yet I like PZ. He says what he thinks, in no uncertain terms. And when he says something I disagree with, I disagree. And that is it.
But you, the so-called "moderates" have lost me. I was friendly to the idea of framing, but now that I have seen what it actually means, I want nothing to do with it.
Your entire argument against PZ and Dawkins, to the best of my understanding, boils down to: "I don't like them for saying that religion is unreasonable, and that makes it ok for anyone to spit into their face. And they better take it, and say thank you, and ask for more, or we will be severely displeased."
For instance, you are displeased at how strong their language is, but you see nothing amiss in calling them (and anyone who may support them) "monkeys".
It is this message that annoys the hell out of me. It is ok to spit and stomp on atheists for saying their opinion, while at the same time we have to be oh-so-careful not to offend the poor religious evangelicals. Saying "religion has no rational background" is an example of horrible framing that is going to destroy science, but saying "people who support PZ are screeching monkeys" is a perfectly acceptable frame which expresses reasonable disgust at...what?
****
And, additionally, why is it so hard to understand that the complaints against Mooney and Nisbet have little or nothing to do with atheism? Or even PZ, or Dawkins?
Nisbet isn't warning against some (highly unlikely) atheist-apocalypse of science. He is insisting that he, personally, should be the ultimate arbiter of what kind of expression is appropriate for scientists. In the course of doing this, he writes what is essentially a front-page article for the creationists. He supports their frame, in its entirety, enforcing the idea that atheists are evil, and that evolution means atheism.
And you support him? How? How in the world can that kind of behavior be good for science? How can that not disgust you?
# 44 | M. | April 4, 2008 6:03 PM
Anna K. "If I read you correctly, you seem to think that being truly open means overlooking someone directly telling you that you are ignorant and irrational, misrepresenting and strawmanning your views, and finally, capping it off by telling you that what you believe in and value, and how you raise your children, is stupid, wrong and evil."
You mean...that we who are atheists should not ignore evangelical Christians and creationists when they directly tell us that we are evil and willfully ignorant of God's love, when they misrepresent and strawman our views, and finally, cap it of