I'm a fan of the Volokh Conspiracy, the group legal blog that features some excellent thinkers, but today's edition has an odd juxtaposition. First, Juan Non-Volokh (who recently announced he would not be blogging anonymously much longer, as I recall) posted an endorsement of Charles Krauthammer's column lambasting ID and supporting evolution. The very next post, by Todd Zywicki, said...well, it's said several things so far today. It initially said:
Scott Adams now has a blog, known apprpriately enough as Dilbert Blog ... I also see that Mr. Adams has also already had the misfortune to cross paths with the blogosphere's most infamous Lysenkoist. Welcome to the blogosphere, Mr. Adams.
Scott Adams, for those who don't know, is the man behind the very funny Dilbert comics. And the "Lysenkoist" to whom Zywicki was referring was PZ Myers. Given that Lysenko was the man responsible for the imprisonment or execution of many geneticists in the Soviet Union, calling a biologist a "Lysenkoist" is roughly equivalent to calling a Jew a "Nazi". It's a hell of a slur and, if offered, had better be backed up in a serious way. Kieran Healy at Crooked Timber caught this immediately and called Zywicki out on it:
But what I really want to know is, under what description of reality does PZ Myers (a biology professor at the University of Minnesota at Morris, and tireless rebutter of creationist and Intelligent Design arguments) qualify as a Lysenkoist, let alone the "blogosphere's most infamous Lysenkoist"? Does Todd have evidence that Myers fakes his scientific research? That he believes that species can be changed through hybridization and grafting? That he thinks genetics is a bourgeois pseudoscience? Or maybe Todd is suggesting that any scientist with left-leaning political views is, ipso facto some kind of fraud, and Myers is our most prominent example? I honestly have no idea what Zywicki is trying to say here.
Zywicki apparently didn't want to explain what he meant, or didn't know what he meant, because he quickly (and silently) amended his post to read, " I also see that Mr. Adams has also already had the misfortune to cross paths with one unpleasant corner of the blogosphere. Welcome to the blogosphere, Mr. Adams." He also deleted several comments taking him to task for his smear on Myers. Then a short time later, he changed it yet again. It now reads:
I just learned from Joe Malchow that Scott Adams now has a blog, known appropriately enough as Dilbert Blog. Joe points to this post explaining why a police officer is shown in one Dilbert strip firing a donut at a perp, rather than a gun.
Update:
I deleted the second paragraph of the original post in order to avoid spurring a debate that goes beyond what I was trying to raise here, and one that has been discussed extensively elsewhere. I really didn't want to open that can of worms here at this time, and so have revised the post accordingly and disabled comments.
In other words, in true Orwellian fashion, he has erased the past and erased all discussion of the past, and on the transparently false pretense that he just didn't want to "open a can of worms". I would suggest that he did it because he wanted to avoid the embarrassment of being called on an inaccurate and unjustified smear. If you're going to make an attack like that, I think you either need to back it up or publicly retract it and apologize for it. After all, the charge was made in public in the first place.
Frankly, I suspect that what really happened here is that Zywicki used the term without knowing what it meant. I suspect he thought that "Lysenkoist" was just a Russian word for "Darwinist" when, of course, the opposite is true. And when caught saying something really boneheaded, rather than admit that he now seeks to wish it all away. It's not very good behavior for a scholar.
- Log in to post comments
And now there is another update which seems to suggest that he's standing by his comments (which version he doesn't say) but that really all it's about is that he doesn't want to debate them.
Since some have asked, I want to emphasize that truly the only reason I pulled down the earlier post was because I didn't want to open that can of worms. Those who doubt the sincerity of this explanation clearly have not been down this particular road with this particular person before. For anyone who has doubts why I would have second thoughts about going down that particular path, I can simply point you to Scott Adams's post to which I originally linked. On reflection, I quickly realized that I would sooner bang myself in the head with a ball peen hammer repeatedly than to go through a similarly exasperating experience again. One need simply read his comment to my withdrawn post for a reminder of why I soon recognized the pointlessness of trying to engage in any sort of intellectual discussion. My empathy for Scott Adams, new to the blogosphere, overwhelmed my caution not to go down that path. Once I realized what I had done, I chose to modify, and then withdraw the post. I had a brief lapse of judgment, but I promise it will not happen again.
I'm not at all sure his judgment is yet sound on this matter.
If you don't want to debate someone, that's fine, but what's with the hit-and-run tactics followed up by a little historic revisionism? I would comment on that blog, but all comments have been disabled, afaict.
On another note, I'll never understand while why some people (like Scott Adams), often freely admitting their ignorance right up front, will nevertheless insist on disparaging the integrity of an entire group of people and dismiss them with an ignorant wave of the hand. I realize he tries to do the same with the ID people (maybe, his writing is rather confusing, I can't tell when he's parodying an argument or making a serious one), but surely that doesn't make it right.
Of course a public display of ignorance, especially by a prominent person, is going to invite harsh rebuttle by people like PZ passionate about their work. You don't need to be a genius to predict that.
Not only is Zywicki incompetent on the subject of evolution, he is someone who still thinks John Lott is a credible source:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_10_30-2005_11_05.shtml#1131142528
I'm actually surprised that you praise the Volokh Conspiracy blog. I'm not a fan of group blogs--it is difficult to maintain continuity among the posters--but more than a few of the posters at Volokh's site seem to have particular axes that they want to grind.
I go there every once in a while if I hear that a court issued an interesting decision to see if they have a link to the opinion, but I generally find the posts at Jack Balkin's web site much more insightfull.
I can understand wanting to like the site - it's pretty hard finding conservative bloggers who are capable of putting together a cogent argument and backing it up with solid evidence, let alone holding a polite and reasonable debate. But in practice Volokh and his pals have stepped over the line of reasonableness on far too many occasions. Volokh's absurd defence of torture, followed by a half-hearted retraction is a case in point. As is their defence of the horrific bankruptcy bill.
Ginger Yellow at November 22, 2005 10:41 AM
I rarely pay much attention to blogs that don't allow for comments. Volokh's site sometimes, but very rarely, has allowed for comments.
My primary objection to Volokh has been his co-blogger David Bernstein's reflexive support for the conservative Israeli government's policies in regards the Palestinians. That is one thing I was referring to in regards "axes to grind." I haven't paid a lot of attention to the Volokhs, in large part because I only read them to try to find links to court opinions.
Another objection is that they had one Dale Carpenter as a recent "guest blogger." Dale Carpenter is an instructor at UMinn's law school, and a frequent contributor to Independent Gay Forum http://www.indegayforum.org He is a gay Republican. In the fall of 2002, he penned an article for gay publication Texas Triangle entitled What Is A Gay Republican To Do. It may be online at the Triangle web site, but it isn't on IndeGayForum. Carpenter's conclusion: Why, vote Republican, of course. Even though the Republican party wishes to deny gay people equal civil rights. Sounded somewhat dumb to me then, and it still does.
raj wrote:
This doesn't bother me at all. I mean, there are lots of areas where I disagree with various members of the VC on lots of issues, but I don't go there to find agreement but to find cogent analysis of legal issues. I'm sure there are many more areas where I would disagree with Bernstein, for instance, but he's also a really good legal scholar and when he writes on con law, it's very much worth paying attention to. Same with Orin Kerr, Eugene Volokh and, of course, Randy Barnett.
Did you actually read Carpenter's contributions? They had him guest blogging because he is strongly for gay marriage and they had just had Maggie Gallagher guest blogging from the other perspective. I thought that was one of the coolest ideas I've seen on a blog. It was great to see Gallagher put out the best possible defense there is for the anti-gay marriage position, and even better to watch Carpenter destroy her arguments (and he did, in spades; it was a TKO in the 4th round). One of my best friends is a gay Republican, so it would never occur to me to dismiss someone's otherwise good ideas on the basis of something so irrelevant.
Did you actually read Carpenter's contributions?
No, I don't go to Volokh's site on a regular basis. I read about Carpenter blogging there at IndeGayForum's blog. I have read some of Carpenter's contributions to IndeGayForum, as well as his idiotic What Is A Gay Republican To Do article at Texas Triangle, and I really don't bother with him much any more.
I have stated my objections to most general-subject group blogs (such as Volokh's) and I won't re-hash them. Single-subject group blogs such as PandasThumb are significantly different, since they are just that--single subject.
So when Zywicki says: "I really didn't want to open that can of worms here at this time" we can't even be sure that this is what he means?? Does he want to open the can in some future moment?? Does he not want the can open at all??
As a dear friend once pointed out to so many decades ago: "The only reason to open the can of worms is to go fishing." Sounds like the Z-man is chumming for attention.