Wow, Im so upset SciBlogs lost a winner like Chris Mooney.

Only 40 percent distrust what scientists say about the environment? I'm amazed it's that low.

It's because at its core, the objection to evolution isn't about science at all, but about perceived threats to faith and moral values. The only way to defuse the conflict is to assuage these fundamental fears. Yet this drags many scientists out of their comfort zone: They're not priests or theologians and don't know how to sound like them. Many refuse to try; others go to the opposite extreme of advocating vociferous and confrontational atheism.

Ironically, to increase support for the teaching of evolution, scientists must join forces with -- and show more understanding of -- religion. Scientists who are believers also need to be more vocal about how they reconcile science and faith.

*rolleyes* Here we go again!

I just want to know, on Planet Mooney, are we supposed to address or ignore anti-science? This is the second time hes flopped on this, btw.

God he is such a poseur.

You could interpret his position as consistently meaning that scientists need to be trained to communicate effectively; to control their message so it isn't counterproductive, and spread it to the desired target audience. I've previously seen you complain about him being light on the "how", which is the next logical place to go.
Of course, I'm as good at finding patterns as anyone, so I'll have to be on the lookout for something he's written that falsifies this.

Hehehe, for someone so concerned that we all stay on message, he seems remarkably unable to stay on message... or even to be able to figure out what the message is supposed to be.

href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Graffiti"

I have never seen this movie, but the blonde in the convertible was apparently played by ... Suzanne Somers. How appropriate.

To anyone unaware of Abbie's history of trying to extract some useful, practical advice from Mooney, read this first.

While we're on the subject of SciBlogs' "winners" leaving, what do you think it would take to encourage that tedious gasbag Nisbett to do the same?

While we're on the subject of SciBlogs' "winners" leaving, what do you think it would take to encourage that tedious gasbag Nisbett to do the same?

Maybe ignore him, and hope he goes away? Or at least doesn't write as often if he realizes no one's reading it. I wish there were a listing of hits per month or something for each blog here. That would be interesting anyway.

Also, scienceblogs should try to poach good bloggers like Phil Plait from Discover. I'm surprised Jerry Coyne doesn't have a blog here either; is there a quota on "New Atheist" evolutionary biologists?

Oh, I don't think any of you need worry. Keep acting just as you're acting and more bloggers will pick up and leave.

Perhaps we should feel a little sorry for Mr. Mooney and Ms. Kirshenbaum as every time they post something on global warming, the fucktard deniers come out of the woodwork like termites.

"Oh, I don't think any of you need worry. Keep acting just as you're acting and more bloggers will pick up and leave."

Promise?

"Perhaps we should feel a little sorry for Mr. Mooney and Ms. Kirshenbaum as every time they post something on global warming, the fucktard deniers come out of the woodwork like termites."

That usually happens when you don't rape them good enough, which of course Mooney doesn't do because he's a pussy. Increase rape intensity to reduce denier presence, it works on Deltoid quite well from what I've seen.

You'll notice their latest article on their blog is another plug for their book. I'd wish that after many months that they'd get over it, but I guess it's just their idea of marketing...

Here's an idea for the people getting all het up about evidence threatening their religion:

Drop your religion!

"It's because at its core, the objection to evolution isn't about science at all, but about perceived threats to faith and moral values. The only way to defuse the conflict is to assuage these fundamental fears. Yet this drags many scientists out of their comfort zone: They're not priests or theologians and don't know how to sound like them."

This, of course, totally ignores the fact that the idiots' fears are founded on total bullshit. They don't have their own facts, and religion's a prime source of bullshit.

No. You do not assuage their stupid fears that have to do with their imaginary friends or things which have been proven to be totally wrong. You tell them to sack up or ovary up and deal with the real world.

You don't fucking CODDLE people.

Unless it's changed, the Intersection is the new home of Kwok and company, and given Mooney's support for him (until his pathetic "I don't read everything" excuse), I have no sympathy for them. I don't think Mooney is up to Denyse o'Leary level Buy-My-Book, but it has to be close.

Science threatens my morals.

Accommodate me.

When Phil recommended them on his blog I shot straight over, I tried really hard to read it and like it, I failed. There are better things to do with my time; one of those better things is reading this awesome blog!

I think he's right about the reasons why people reject science and how to address it. There's an attitude here that reveling in being right is more important than figuring out how to change people's mind. Being sanctimonious pricks isn't going to help us win over people on the margin.

DisturbingClown | January 3, 2010 4:25 AM

There's an attitude here that reveling in being right is more important than figuring out how to change people's mind[s].

I guess you didn't follow the link I provided in #7. Abbie has devoted a lot of time to outreach in her local community. Her style is very different when doing that than on this blog (see here for an example of her debating some dumb hick creationist in a church). But she still does not get very far and she has asked Mooney, the professional communicator of science, for practical advice but none has been forthcoming.

@Badger3k: Funny you should say that; I've been referring to "Intersection" as the Kwok-McCarthy blog for a few months now.

Re The Chimps' Raging Id

Actually, I think that Ken Miller is a much more effective communicator of science, particularly on evolution, then is Mr. Mooney.

I've already posted my thoughts at my blog but I have a bigger question for you: How did you know to cite American Graffiti when I doubt seriously that you were even born in 1973???

Actually, I think that Ken Miller is a much more effective communicator of science, particularly on evolution, then is Mr. Mooney.

Agreed.

"Science threatens my morals.

Accommodate me."

No. Science doesn't work that way.

"Oh, I don't think any of you need worry. Keep acting just as you're acting and more bloggers will pick up and leave."

As Comrade Physioprof is so fond of saying, this is not a care bears fucking tea party.

Whatever happened to people growing a skin?

Abel,
I reference the Thin Man movies all the time and I wasn't born when they came out! Reruns & DVDs are great. I had forgotten the Suzy Sommers link, just awesome.

Katharine,
Prometheus was kidding/making a point.

SLC,
Agreed, Ken Miller is a very accomplished speaker and communicator.

"Whatever happened to people growing a skin?"

There's a difference between growing a skin and enjoying, say, the casual use of rape metaphors (see Tyler's comment).

Rape is never humorous or casual in my book, yet educated, intelligent, supposedly professional people on Sb do that sort of thing all the time. I guess some people enjoy it. I don't.

Bioephemera-- No, you made your weird statement before Tyler. Dont try to justify your less-than-stellar first comment on ERV by blaming him.

My blog has been and always will be a free-speech zone. It has been since Day 1. I figured I was so mad at being censored on Creationist/HIV Denial/anti-vax blogs it would by hypocritical of me to censor anyone else.

If you are offended by comments here, dont read them.

If you are offended by posts here, dont read them.

If you are going to read ERV, and you can only contribute to the discussion in the form of childish pouting, I suggest you lurk more. But I wont censor you if you choose to comment.

WTF, abbie...you like bioE get under your skin for a little comment like that? And then didn't bother to take on Tyler for suggesting RAPE???

It's ur blog, ur priorities, but you come out looking like a total doucherocket.

Chris Mooney:

It's because at its core, the objection to evolution isn't about science at all, but about perceived threats to faith and moral values.

Where does the perception that evolution is a threat to moral values come from?
There is nothing in evolution which makes a direct statement about moral values. The monstrosities of the past which are so oftem blamed on evolution - Nazism, slavery racism, and so forth - are clearly not due to evolution; Adolf Hitler was a creationist; he clearly said so, and the authority on which he based his anti-Semitism was Martin Luther - a deeply religious man, one of Europe's most important theologians, who lived and died centuries before Darwin. Slavery and racism, likewise, predate Darwin by millennia.

The answer cannot be found by studying evolution or by studying the scientists who research and teach evolution. One must study those who claim evolution is a threat to moral values. Almost without exception, these people are religious. Further, they explicitly advance religious reasons for attacking the teaching of evolution. Attempts by scientists and teachers to re-frame evolution, to teach it in better ways, and so forth, may have value in their own right, but they cannot directly change the perception that evolution is a threat to moral values, because those scientists and teachers are not the source of that perception; the source of that perception is creationist religion. To put an end to the numerous false claims that evolution is a threat to moral values, one must attack the source of those claims; one must attack creationist religions, and must do so directly. In order for the teaching of evolution to achieve wider acceptance, creationist religions must be destroyed.

(posted over at MtMB)

I haven't really weighed in on Mooney's arguments here at Scienceblogs before, but his WP article I think deserves a response.

Mooney really, really, REALLY misses the boat on this.

See, I'm a biologist, and I recently had the "pleasure" of having something I work on get picked up by the media. We had a feeling it was going to be a relatively big story, so we spent over a month working with outreach people, putting together talking points and Q&A sheets. Then the AP calls and I do a 20-30 minute interview with the reporter, going over all sorts of nuances and doing my best to make sure our message gets out.

So what gets in the article? Two sentences that relate to the political controversy, and nothing about the biology.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34468988

Now, it's not necessarily a bad article, but my point here is that Mooney is focusing his criticism on the wrong people. As scientists, we have very little control over media content. We can do all those things Mooney suggests but if the editor or producer decides to make the article or show about some "controversy" rather than the science, what can the scientist do? Once we give the interview, the content, message, and overall focus is completely out of our hands. If 95% of what we say ends up on the cutting room floor, how is the subsequent lack of communication our fault?

Perhaps Mooney would be better served to chastise his colleagues in the media for focusing so heavily on controversies--real or manufactured--and so little on actual scientific content. Of course the reality is that controversy sells and science doesn't. I know that, the media knows that, but Mooney seems rather oblivious to it.

And as far as evolution? Come on...there's one reason and one reason only it's even an issue here, and it has very little to do with scientists' ability or willingness to speak to the public. The root of the denialism rampant in this country is the simple fact that evolution contradicts a plain reading of Genesis, with the most significant sticking point being that Genesis says we were created by God, separate from everything else.

Oh sure, some prominent Christians can argue that you can read Genesis non-literally and still be a saved Christian. Mooney seems to think that a lot of conservative Christians don't know that and...gosh, if only a scientist would team with a liberal theologian, these people would see the light!

Trust me, I grew up in a conservative Christian environment and these people are fully aware of the "alternative" ways of viewing Genesis and evolution.

What Mooney seems to miss is that in order for a person to change their position on such an important issue, they have to be open to change in the first place. It doesn't matter how many books or TV shows are out there arguing for the compatibility of faith and science (and there are plenty of them, which also shows how Mooney is missing the point), if you're not open to the message, you aren't going to read it or watch it.

Also, scienceblogs should try to poach good bloggers like Phil Plait from Discover.

scienceblogs tried to convince Phil Plait to join over a year before he got an offer from Discover.

bioE, yes, I agree the rape metaphor is stupid. Tyler DiPietro is one of those types, to my knowledge, who is sort of only halfway there to being not an asshole - they're liberal and pro-choice and not fundie troglodytes, but they have a short way to go. Give them credit, but they need to be nudged along a little bit.

And ERV is correct in pointing out that you made that statement before Tyler came on the thread. What precisely were you referring to?

What I thought you meant, though, was that you were somehow supporting Mooney's 'oh, but the public are wilting little snowflakes who must be treated with utmost care!!!!!'

MikeMa, I realize Prometheus was joking. I was simply making a point. :D

What I don't understand is why people need to derive their morals from anything other than a desire to be compassionate, fair, intelligent, and wise.

Actually, anyone who couldn't come up with their morals on their own scares me. It's as if without religion to inadequately regulate them they'd be a complete sociopath.

Actually, it wasn't my first comment on erv.

My comment was a direct response to qbsmd, Chimp, and ERV all stating that they prefer bloggers they disagree with, specifically Mooney and Nisbet, to leave Scienceblogs.

Since Katharine observes that my response seemed cryptic, I'll spell it out: yup, I agree with you that if you attack people consistently, they'll leave the community.

I'm really surprised my comment surprised anyone, since the tone of the thread (which took a dark turn with Tyler's comment) implied that the people I mention want to drive them out and enjoy venting at them as part of the shunning process. Is that not accurate?

Perhaps we should feel a little sorry for Mr. Mooney and Ms. Kirshenbaum as every time they post something on global warming, the fucktard deniers come out of the woodwork like termites.

There was a time when Mooney had many loyal commenters who would combat deniers. But Mooney has driven them away.

That usually happens when you don't rape them good enough, which of course Mooney doesn't do because he's a pussy. Increase rape intensity to reduce denier presence, it works on Deltoid quite well from what I've seen.

Combating the claims of AGW deniers is in no way equivalent to rape, and it is disgusting and immoral for you to compare the Deltoid regulars to rapists; where rapists commit an awful and inexcusable crime, the Deltoid regulars do us a hygienic service.
Further, to defame cats or women by comparing them to Chris Mooney is uncalled-for.

What I don't understand is why people need to derive their morals from anything other than a desire to be compassionate, fair, intelligent, and wise.

For one thing, people very often disagree on what exactly is fair, compassionate, intelligent, and wise. Religion is (among other things) one way of providing a common code that overrides a huge number of individual disagreements and allows for a coherent community where everyone follows the same rules. Whether the positive features of religion outweigh its negative features is another question, one which I do not think has an easy or obvious answer.

Re llewelly @ #39

I agree that Mr. Mooney has been oversensitive to criticism of his latest book, in particular, banning Ophelia Benson. Perhaps it's a case of his thinking of his cut of the sale of each book.

Re Badger 3k @ #17

I'm going to have to do something here that will surely tick off Ms. Smith but I have to defend John Kwok who is certainly no friend of mine as he has labeled me a male chauvinist pig for having the temerity to comment favorably on the personal appearance of certain individuals of the female persuasion. However, Mr. Kwok, in comments over at the Intersection blog site, has stoutly defended the theory of global warming in opposition to the fucktards who infest it whenever a post on the subject appears and has managed to do so in an adult manner, avoiding reference to his high school. Sometimes, one must give the devil his due.

Re Bioephemera

I would agree that Mr. DiPietros' choice of the word rape was unfortunate. I prefer the terminology stomp on. Perfect examples of this can be seen over at the Dispatches site when Ed Brayton stomps on a whackjob calling himself MRoberts, who is notorious for hijacking threads on the formers' site.

I like Mooney, but it really is troubling that he has such a tin ear for how his polemics--right or wrong--sound to actual scientists. He is telling scientists what their New Year's resolution should be? For realz?

I also don't know if Mooney appreciates the fact that it's easy for unscientific idiots to make assertions, and it's horribly hard for us who are scientific and who are tasked with taking significantly more care with our issuances to condense our words into anything as short as the other words without losing significant meaning. Brevity has more oomph on a crowd of morons, unfortunately.

Stick Mooney in a lab for a while. Let him know how conclusions are made. Put him through a series of courses. The problem with him and Nisbet is that they do not understand how nuanced our existence is.

Tyler,

This is where /b/tard humour is gets you in trouble and sometimes by extension make the rest of us look like assholes. I know you aren't condoning rape but the casual use of that word is going to understandably piss people off for no good reason at all.

I was going to push just a little farther, but apparently people who I like (and, conversely, appear to like me) are pissed off too. I think I'll just stop.

Raging Id,

Indeed. I was tempted to say 'GB24CHAN'.

Oh come on, rape metaphors are exclusively *chan related now?

I wasn't up to speed with the internet dramaz surrounding this, but Mooney's point about the fears that under-grid a rejection of science is sound. An atheistic world view has implications for ethics that are profoundly disturbing for most people. Insisting on packaging science advocacy with hard-line atheistic evangelism is going to run smack dab into these anxieties about ethics and meaning.

Oh come on, rape metaphors are exclusively *chan related now?

No, but they tend to bring the discussion down a notch, one step closer to the level typical of "chan" sites.

Rt

Mooney's point is not only historically demonstrably unsound, it is patent bullshit designed to serve Mooney's ambitions rather than society, science education or their posterity/future.

I don't think there is any more untenable position than to pretend that the future of science education depends on giving hand jobs to people that are so invested in magic that they think it is the only thing keeping them from killing and eating their own babies.

The future of science educations is dependent on removing obstacles. Some of those obstacles are self aggrandizing finger pointing, boot lickers like Mooney.

If Mooney had thought major media would have picked it up he would have written three pages fellating Orel Roberts' corpse in the interest of "building bridges" and explaining why Orel was exactly the kind of communicator science education needs.

Mooney isn't just worthless, he is a pandering destructive narcissist.

"No, but they tend to bring the discussion down a notch, one step closer to the level typical of "chan" sites."

Which is a good thing, amirite?

"'No, but they tend to bring the discussion down a notch, one step closer to the level typical of "chan" sites.'

"Which is a good thing, amirite?"

facepalm.jpg

An atheistic world view has implications for ethics that are profoundly disturbing for most people.

People only believe that because the perpetrators of religion insist on pretending that atheists have no morals.
It is in no way implied by atheism; it is attached to it by people who spread misunderstanding - many of whom have a clear financial stake in doing so. It is not a false impression which can be corrected by changing the way science is taught; it can only be changed by directly attacking those who tell lies about atheism.

"facepalm.jpg"

Moar liek "awesomeface.png", amirite?

Katharine @14, 15:
Spot on. But how does the analogy work? Those AGW denialists claim 'it aint so, it is but its not us, al gore is fat', I understand, due to their irrational fear of the economic consequences of combating climate change. Unfortunately, the endless growth, always forward like a shark or we die, economics is mainstream in a way that religion hasn't been for a long time.
Where are the economic new atheists?

eddie, I think part of it is they're not willing to put up with the fact that if they continue on the path they're on, they will be worse off than if they change to the path we suggest.

A lot of these people are economically invested in fucking up Earth or doing other dumb shit. Some of them may risk ostracization from their social circles (which is fixable; just get yourself another social circle!) or families (bit harder to do, but if necessary, you can always cut 'em off).

There may be some huge psychological hurdles that they may have to surmount.

Alternatively, they may just be dumb.

"Unfortunately, the endless growth, always forward like a shark or we die, economics is mainstream in a way that religion hasn't been for a long time."

There is a problem with this morally. It's not so much a problem for the developed world as it is for the developing world, stopping economic growth in it's tracks would relegate them to a lower standard of living. The challenge is to find ways to permit growth that is environmentally sustainable.

Where are the economic new atheists?

They are called environmentalists.

"There is a problem with this morally. It's not so much a problem for the developed world as it is for the developing world, stopping economic growth in it's tracks would relegate them to a lower standard of living. The challenge is to find ways to permit growth that is environmentally sustainable."

I think, in addition, the problem is that growth has to be not only environmentally sustainable, but also compassionate, just, intelligent, and wise. There are a lot of ways for society to progress, but not all of them are good.

It's late in the game, but I wanted chime in here:

Mooney's point is not only historically demonstrably unsound, it is patent bullshit designed to serve Mooney's ambitions rather than society, science education or their posterity/future.

What Prometheus said.

For the record, Nisbet posted yet more patent bullshit in his blog.

I posted an unfortunately somewhat disorganized but, I think, pretty good argument on there.

I cannot stand comm-arts idiots or other media idiots - they produce nothing; all they do is tell everyone else about what others produce, which is necessary but rather pathetic.

Katherine said:

"I cannot stand comm-arts idiots or other media idiots - they produce nothing; all they do is tell everyone else about what others produce, which is necessary but rather pathetic."

Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! aaand I quotz mahself:

"It is guaranteed that every fall an ivy covered fossil who has been cogitating something new to say about Xenophon all summer will have every thought driven out of his head by a bright eyed youngster wanting him to plod through their course catalog and give them a plan for life as a reporter/broadcaster.

They do this despite the large brass sign that says âCLASSICSâ over which the secretary has hung an enormous banner that screams âTHIS IS NOT THE COLLEGE OF JOURNALISMâ.

All reporting stinks because all journalists are congenital idiots."

Prometheus, I'm not totally sure how that argument exactly fits with what I'm saying, but, uh, if you're saying that their tangential, just-barely-scratches-the-surface exposure to the topics they report on is completely inadequate, you're correct.

Thanks for the replies to my comment. I made it just before bedtime.
I agree will all, mostly, but would add that I think progess is not the same as growth. Indeed, much of the economic history of the developed world has been growth at the expense of justice and so on.
I once thought that some leading environmentalists (e.g. Jonathan Porrit) could provide leadership in reshaping economics in the way that is necessary to save the world. I'm not so sure since JP was assimilated.

I'm always amused when HRH Mooney the Great Communicator fails to communicate.

...which is pretty much every time he writes.

One thing I persistently don't understand about people in, say, comm-arts-tardery or political science or sociology is why they have chosen to divorce their fields so much from the component of what they study that is REALLY important: psychology.

Or, rather, not the component of what they study, but the field that all studies of human behavior come from.

"....tangential, just-barely-scratches-the-surface exposure to the topics they report on is completely inadequate, you're correct."

This.

And Nesbit's response to your calling him out on another steaming blog pile was predictable.

But it isn't like a guy who saved up enough cereal box tops for a PhD in communications and a decoder ring is going to blog that the failure in science reporting and education is that, drum roll....

the standards for who is a credible science reporter bear no relationship to who is a credible scientist!!

My job gets reported by a pro-debater/working lawyer with English degrees and a J.D. from Stanford like Dahlia Lithwick.

You guys get Miss "biology is not as fun as playing the bongos and being famous" Kirshenbaum and her partner in crime Mister "How's my hair?" Mooney.

How the hell does anybody who thinks they are a scientist even bother to return calls from a couple of clumps of fluff that fell backwards into a bucket of gravy?

If fingers are pointing how about pointing at people who respond to these self appointed celeb-sci-comm-journots.

Dawkins declines to play with banana man because he is a ridiculous lightweight looking to glom on to some glitter but he responds to Sheril???? Bad Dawkins. If you feed her attention jones, she will never go away.

She's probably on his porch right now.

Prometheus-- Dawkins responded to those dingbats because hes not sexist and was offended at the accusation.

He didnt respond to me because society says its okay to be anti-virus. At this point his prejudice against viruses (and hes proud of it) couldnt be any more clear.

He is sexist. He is prejudiced against viruses because they have no gender. It angers him that he does not know which ones to oppress.

P.S. Don't tell anyone. It was a confidence we shared while we egged Zuska's car and swapped dirty jokes.