William fooled everyone, but Chris Mooney is taking most of the blame.

As per your notice on the left column: Your Wikio Widget is listing "Watts up with that" and "climate audit" as science blogs. Watts up with that is a clueless climate denialist site. Climate audit is a clueless climate denialist site for people who misunderstand statistics.

I think a lot of people at the PZ, Jerry & Ophelia end of the spectrum would be far less vicious in their denunciations of Chris had he not himself been overly eager to use the fabricated incident in the way he did, i.e. as a smoking gun to use as evidence that real people are being genuinely impacted by the actions of vocal atheists.

As a result everyone who was in some way affected by this - myself included; I've looked at a couple of threads and realised I was debating three or four of William's sock-drawer army at the same time - is enjoying the sense of schadenfreude it's engendered.

But I can only approve of a clamp-down on sock-puppets. I have a strong personal distaste for such behaviour because I think it's the height of bad faith and intellectual dishonesty and can make conversations completely worthless beyond shallow entertainment.

That's me, though, and I'm not in the habit of presuming blogs should be run just to please me; if the owner wants shallow entertainment that's their prerogative.

But I wouldn't bother spending any time on a blog where it's rampant.

If Chris was looking for cats I know a much better blog where can find those ...

Chris Mooney @ The Intersection:

weâre also considering further actions to rein in some kinds of comments that donât contribute anything or engage in baseless attacks

Wouldn't that require him to delete his entire blog?

Chris inspected the source of this information to some degree, and determined that it was valid.

No he did not. He did visit a webpage given to him to by "Tom Johnson". He made no independent efforts to check any facts.

Sure, expecting Chris Mooney to keep his blog 100% sockpuppet-free is unreasonable. Sure, he was duped by a maliceous commenter, and being too trusting is an eminently forgivable offense in my book.

But the fact remains, if Chris Mooney was taken in by confirmation bias, this means that Chris Mooney has a bias against New Atheists - something many people have already tried to point out in the past, and for which we now have one more clear data point of evidence. I don't think it's improper for people to expect Mooney to own up to his bias, and do something about it.

@Phillip IV in #4:
I don't really trust Mooney any more to decide which attacks are baseless and which aren't. Judging from his moderation behavior so far, it has all the appearance that "baseless" = "Disagrees with Mooney", and "not baseless" = "Agrees with Mooney".

what Chris and others in the "middle ground" (sometimes called accommodationists, but that is probably not the correct label)

You are right Greg. It is not the correct label. In Mooney's case a better label is "pandering, framing suck up".

Seriously - who cares about Mooney any more? You're wasting far too much time on trivia like him. Let's get science blogs back to science blogging.

James, I'm about to lose my lunch on that. Wikio asked me to advice them on what blogs are valid science blogs. I gave a LOT of time for people to comment, etc. and a month ago told Wikio to remove the denialist sites (well, one of them, I'm going slowly with this because I've not gotten sufficient complaining from the community ... and thus I appreciate your comment here!).

They told me that in the next edition it would be fixed. That was the July 1st round. They didn't. I complained. They have not gotten back to me. It is possible that they are having trouble translating my strongly worded statement into French.

Yeah, I'm deleting that widget today. Thanks for the reminder.

I think much of the torch-wielding-townsfolk activity over Mooney's confirmation bias (and I completely agree that's way it was) is not the specific screw up but the effects of said screw up and his apparent unwillingness to attempt to correct it.

Mooney bashes atheists, or the ones he disagrees with termed New Atheists, and wrote a post demonstrating the demonic nature of atheists. This post is based on a complete and total fabrication and should be taken as seriously as the Hobbit is as history. However, the post has already served as a source to misinformation to anyone else looking to hate on New Atheists (or atheists in general). The cat is out of the bag.

Mooney's blog, Mooney's rules, but I think its telling that the post entitled Counterproductive Attacks on ReligionâExhibit A is still up and while it has been updated to note it is based on a sockpuppet story There have been recent revelations that seriously undermine the claims of âTom Johnson.â See here. We are looking into matters further. Personally, I find that below acceptable (my opinion, my rules).

I find this similar to climategate or the New Scientist Darwin was Wrong cover. Using the phrase "attacks on religion" in google has Mooney's article as the second hit. Real damage was done, people affected or potentially affected are pissed, and some of these people seem to find the response by a person of some repute and potential integrity less than stellar.

BTW Greg, you could get rich or at least get enough to buy me a beer if you charged everyone for their 2¢.

Wiwbangger:

I think a lot of people at the PZ, Jerry & Ophelia end of the spectrum would be far less vicious in their denunciations of Chris had he not himself been overly eager to use the fabricated incident in the way he did

I have no doubt you are correct. But, what I see here is people refusing to acknowledge that post hoc rule making is inappropriate and confirmation bias is a possibility because they are extra mad at him.

To some extent this means, from one point of view, that Chris is just getting what he asked for. But, those who wish to mete out extra punishment for Crime A because the don't like the guy an extra amount should not expect to be taken seriously as rational or skeptical in their analysis. They are just mobby thugs.

No he did not. He did visit a webpage given to him to by "Tom Johnson". He made no independent efforts to check any facts.

Matt, yes he did. He visited a webpage that looked real that matched with email information given to him by "Tom." How is that not enough? This is you moving the goal post, not Chris missing the kick.

Or, at least, one can consider the possibility that Chris did not miss the shot here. But that is not what is happening. I don't expect you to understand this because of your mobby bias, but if anyone from outside this argument read the comments and saw the vitriol, it would be hard to imagine a level of checking Chris could have done that would have gotten the approval of this angry mob.

You do see this, yes?

Deen: the fact remains, if Chris Mooney was taken in by confirmation bias, this means that Chris Mooney has a bias against New Atheists

Ya think?

Yes, indeed, and as I say in my post, confirming that and the negative consequences of the anti-"new atheist" assumption is all I need. It should be all you need as well.

dmab [8] Thank you for your contribution. Your comment is not spam, according to my spam checker (though it looks kind of cut and paste to me). It is on topic as well. And, apparently I'm not supposed to edit comments so I left the links to your rhetoric in there.

But mainly thanks for reminding us that there is a spectrum (on which you are an end point).

Lorax: Using the phrase "attacks on religion" in google has Mooney's article as the second hit. That, perhaps, can be fixed!

Mooney doesn't have an obligation do to make sure that there no are sockpuppets on his blog. He does have an obligation when to do basic fact checking when he's claiming an anonymous source is what the source says it is. In this case, he failed to independently confirm that the individual in question was who they claimed to be when an email or phone call would have easily determined that. That is a problem.

he failed to independently confirm that the individual in question was who they claimed to be when an email or phone call would have easily determined that.

But that's the pont. He DID confirm his source. Post hoc, his confirmation was wrong because the source was dishonest. How would a phone call have avoided that? Post hoc, I am sure there are a lot of ways to say how a source should be checked.

Mooney has just posted more details:

http://tinyurl.com/2az7aqj

But, what I see here is people refusing to acknowledge that post hoc rule making is inappropriate and confirmation bias is a possibility because they are extra mad at him.

Well, I'm not extra mad. I'm the same level of mad I was when he originally decided to give Tom Johnson 's comment any weight in the first place. It's the same way I get mad at anyone when they misrepresent NAs in an attempt to gain sympathy for their position. I don't really care that he didn't check IPs. I don't care that his whether or not he confirmed his source. Even had Tom Johnson turned out to be a real person, his story was still an obvious lie. That's why I'm mad.

Greg - I don't think it is post-hoc to be mad at Chris Mooney for this. We know he knows better. He violated basic standards of decency in general, not just a "bloggy rule." He said he had verification on something that he didn't have. I don't think he gets a pass on this one, and I think he deserves the tiny measure of scorn that he has been getting on this issue; it is minute compared to the scorn he has heaped.

Also, the way that he has treated OB on this is abhorrent.

He had (false) verification on the identity of the informant, and trusted the informant. That happens all the time. (The trusting part that is, not where it ends up that the whole thing was made up.) And, a transgression is a transgression. It isn't like if a felon steals a loaf of bred they should spend more time in prison than if they were not a felon. (For the bread.) In a civilized system.

No, Greg, Mooney did not confirm his source. His source was rightly suspected of lying, and the reasons for such suspicion were clearly stated by several people.

He had reason to doubt anything that source said and look for independent verification of his source, i.e., whether the source was in fact who he said he was. Thats journalism 101. The full standards of journalistic rigor may not apply to blogging, or to his blog in particular, but a reporter should know better than to assume a dubious source wouldn't claim to be someone else who happens to be real.

As a journalist, Chris should know that untrustworthy sources engaged in smears often lie about their trustworthiness, including lying about their identities. Taking such a source's word for who he is doesn't verify anything---it merely assumes that the source is trustworthy.

Apparently, given the latest revelations on Chris's blog, his source was in fact who he initially told Chris he was, and only later lied and said he wasn't. But Chris didn't know that, and had not at that point verified his source when he reassured us that our skepticism was just our being horrible meanies to a brave, beleaguered, and noble whistle-blower. (Is this weird, or what?)

Even if Chris trusted his source not to lie about his identity, he shouldn't have reassured us that he knew his identity if he had not verified it---in particular, he shouldn't have used his poor substitute for verification to dismiss our clearly-stated reasons for concern. He should have known that his checking would not have satisfied us, because we were suspicious, even if he wasn't.

That was irresponsible, and the source's later piling of lies upon lies to avoid responsibility demonstrates that we were not wrong to be suspicious of anything this source said, and that our clearly-explained justifications for suspicion were correct, and that Chris's "checking" was entirely inadequate.

Chris was wrong not to be straight with us---e.g., answering questions about whether this supposed "scientist" professor, as many people assumed---whose supposed colleagues were supposedly publicly misbehaving science professors---or some student with some fellow students he found annoying, as he turned out to be, at worst. (Many other aspects of the story were overblown and fishy as well.)

We had, and still have, every reason not to trust Chris Mooney. He basically said "trust me" when he was trusting somebody we'd given excellent reasons not to trust, and didn't tell us he was trusting that same untrustworthy person in dismissing our concerns as pigheaded axe-grinding assholery.

I posted the following at The Intersection, before the latest revelation, but it hasn't shown up so far... it addresses your issues with "ex post facto" standards and blogs, and your assertion that none of us would have caught this guy. (Short version: some of us did catch this very guy, when it would have been much easier for Chris to do so.)

---

Greg Laden:

I think you have a point---this is just a blog, and maybe the full standards of journalistic fact checking don't apply here. I suspect that most of Mooney's critics would agree with that point, as I do, if you'd state it properly and not go way the heck overboard.

This isn't just a case of a blogger getting duped by a dishonest source, and some standards should apply. (The way you talk about it, it sounds like you think there shouldn't be any standards of rigor for bloggers, that any such standards are ex post facto, and that we should all be more appreciative of anything you bother to do. Bunk.)

You really should read the backstory, Greg. This was a case where the blogger was warned by several very serious people that the comment in question was fishy, and was given a number of good reasons for doubting the accuracy, honesty, and identity of his source, and the accuracy of the blogger's portrayal of him. (I myself was one of the people who questioned whether "Tom" was really "a scientist" in the obvious sense; it seemed pretty clear to me that he was not a professor or a research scientist at a comparable level, and didn't know how such people actually talk about their jobs.)

The blogger was also warned that even if the incident in question happened roughly as it was related---which seemed quite unlikely to many of us, and "Tom"s backpedaling seemed to confirm that---it was just one anecdote, and the blogger was making too much of it, making it sound typical or somehow representative of the "New Atheism" and its deleterious effects.

There's backstory there, too. Chris has often been accused---rightly, IMHO---of distorting and overblowing anecdotes, leaving out crucial context and making things sound much worse than they were.

Chris nonetheless chose to trumpet an unsubstantiated anecdote as Exhibit A in his case that the "New Atheism" is very damaging. He went further, and criticized the skeptics
of the anecdote as "attacking" his beleaguered, brave, and noble anonymous source because they were (rightly) skeptical of the anecdote.

We were not impressed then, and we explained clearly why. This isn't ex post facto. It's I told you so! And it's not just "I told you so" either---we didn't just casually dis somebody we disagreed with, and just happen to luck out and turn out to be right. We had correctly and repeatedly explained a number of good reasons to be quite skeptical, and we were ignored and portrayed as annoying and perhaps even menacing jerks for it. Hyeesh.

That's where some of the schadenfreude is coming from.

Do you Mooney Haters realize what you are doing here? You are no longer allowed to even USE the phrase âad hominemâ again.

Check your own meds, Greg. Your narcissism is getting really freaking tedious.

None of you would have done the kind of background checking that you are now demanding that Chris needed to so. None of you.

The hell you say. I certainly would have, and many bloggers do. Many bloggers do think that a blog should be more than a partisan rumor mill, and that questionable anecdotes should be questioned. Many readers appreciate that level of skepticism and rigor, even if it falls somewhat short of full journalistic fact checking.

You could learn a lesson from that. Your knee-jerk defense of bloggers at the expense of blog critics is getting old and explains a lot of the lack of respect you've been getting lately.

I think the point that Chris's critics are making about Chris being a journalist is that even if the standards of rigor on blogs are different and somewhat lower than in (some) print publications, Chris Mooney of all people should be aware of the issues, and exercise at least a modicum of skepticism and rigor. He should have been skeptical of his own source, at least after good reasons for skepticism were explained to him, rather than doubling down and portraying his lying unverified source as a victim and a hero, beset by nefarious types like me.

If a journalist, of all people, reacts as though such skepticism is just nefarious and threatening partisanship, and reassures people that his source is really "a scientist" without actually knowing that, it's a problem. It was bad enough that Chris did not answer the question of what he meant by "a scientist," when people expressed confusion as to what that meant. It was much worse that Chris didn't actually verify that his source was even a student of the subject he claimed to be a "scientist" in. And that's a far cry from veryifying that the incident in question actually happened at all, much that it was accurately and fairly portrayed.

Remember, this is coming from somebody who regularly sets himself up as an expert on science communication, and frequently criticizes other bloggers for their supposedly lax comment moderation policies. If you want to take exception to people imposing their own standards on other people's blogs, take it up with Chris.

This episode has demonstrated that Chris and Sheril have failed pitifully to impose any reasonable or fair standards on their comment sections. They've often allowed at least one vicious, dishonest sock-puppeting creep to dominate their comments and set the tone. (In at least one month, "William" was responsible for at least 30 percent of the comments, and that's just going by the sock puppets confirmed so far.)

They have also banned at least one fairly prominent "New Atheist" blogger who persistently and correctly pointed out that their source was probably fake, and who helped track down their rampant sock puppeter and elicit a confession from him.

Consider that when you say that none of us would have done the fact checking we're demanding. Some of us (Oedipus Maximus et al.)did in fact do some fact checking, and caught the very culprit that Chris and Sheril could have caught vastly more easily (by checking a few IP addresses when suspicions were stated and clearly justified).

Get with the program, Greg. Read the back story or shut up.

You are right that some people have overstated, or perhaps oversimplified, the issue here. It's not that Chris failed as a journalist in this instance---it's merely that he failed as a responsible blogger, and as a journalist and constant critic of other bloggers' standards, he really should have known better, but he let his own partisanship get in the way. He really set himself up for this, and it's an epic fail, and a bit of schadenfreude on the part of his incessantly-maligned critics is understandable.

Paul W., sorry, warnings from you are not even a tiny bit relevant. I read about one fifth of the zillion-word comments you tend to write. For all I know you've warned me of all sorts of things, but I would never know it. Again, this is all post hoc. Post hoc, Paul W says Mooney should have listened to him. But that does not take into account that Mooney would first have to take Paul W. seriously. Not likely. Even if Paul was right. Being right is not enough. I know in theory it should be, but the world does not work that way.

You need to learn to be more concise. I mean, seriously, look at the comment you just wrote. A middle schooler could edit that down to one fourth its size without losing any meaning.

Oh, and really, Mooney Haters should take note: "Confirmation Bias" is not an excuse. It's a phenomenon. It is a phenomenon with meaning. What might that meaning be? You just might be blinded to the significance of that.

The way you are playing it now, you have just another cluster fuck. If you play this right, you've got the end of the Mooney Influence. But you're doing it wrong.

If you play this right, you've got the end of the Mooney Influence. But you're doing it wrong.

His biggest influence lies in the fact that the mainstream media sometimes gives him air time because he tells them what they want to hear, that most scientists/atheists are arrogant jerks. They won't care.

Good, but more basic.

Correction: the 30 percent figure I gave is a bit too high, and is specific to two very long and contentious threads. I misremembered what Pope Maledict figured out in a post on Pharyngula.

Mea culpa.

And Greg, your standards are low enough that I'm not gonna worry much about editing things down for you. (Especially when I'm out of town, writing on a netbook whose battery is about to die, as I am now.) If you shoot from the hip without bothering to read the backstory, and you misrepresent people's legitimate concerns, don't expect me to worry much about writing deathless prose for you.

You are seriously not worth it. Sorry to everybody else, though.

I didn't do that. But you did just say something funny. If your batter is low, USE FEWER WORDS!!!

And stop telling me that I'm not worth it and then keep coming back. Either love me or leave me, not both.

There is no good reason why Chris Mooney or anyone else needs to pay much attention to a poorly behaved hoard of screaming banshees.

But I don't accept the claim that I was a badly behaved screaming banshee, so that's not relevant.

If Chris is worth so little, why boost his profile by spending so much time and so many words elevating his status to "someone worth aguing with"? And how much time have people spent arguing with William's sock puppets? Now in arguing with Greg, with whom everyone here is pretty much in agreementon the subject of accommodationism?

There must be something better to do.

OK, drove to a place with wireless and an outlet...

Golly Greg, I'll try to remember to use fewer words when I'm trying to address new revelations and recycle old text in a couple of minutes. But do realize that sometimes it doesn't work that way.

And I'll certainly remember your authoritative advice about careful editing for your blog next time my batter is low.

As far as the love you or leave you thing goes, well, no. I'm not writing just for you, and I happen to know that a number of people reading this blog do in fact appreciate what I write, and how I write, verbose or no. I also happen to know that a number of people think you're being pretty shallow and sloppy on multiple levels.

Love me or ban me, Mr. Blog Martinet, but don't expect me to be more careful and considerate of your writing preferences than you are of mine. If you can't be arsed to understand the subject and address the actual issues raised, and prefer to harp on trivia, go for it.

And if you keep grinding your axe that readers shouldn't impose their standards on bloggers, expect me to disagree occasionally, and to explain why for anybody who does give a shit about the actual issues that have been raised, rather than Greg's self-important shooting from the hip and snide carping.

On the other hand, if you asked me nicely to edit things down a bit more, I just might make an effort to do that. If you instead tell me I'm worse than a middle-schooler, well, middle school it is, isn't it?

Grow up, Greg.

"Good, but more basic."

I would say stop responding to his criticisms of poor communication skills and hostility with examples of both. But that'd be foolish. I'm learning too much from Mooney.

As soon as I finish my book ("Winning Arguments with Sarcasm") I'm going to follow the Mooney method, but at *Libertarians.*

I'll criticize them for being too confrontational and hostile. Of course not all are, and it's not really a significant problem. But the criticism will be an irresistible dog-whistle to every Libertarian jerk on the 'net.

The attention will be nice, but the real money will be with the book.

I'll mine the thousands of commenter e-mail addresses for use in selling it, which will be self-published under a pseudonym. And then I'm rich, rich, rich!

@ Stephanie: Don't blow it for me. At this point a keen sense of proportion among 'net users would ruin everything.

(Keep quiet and maybe I'll cut you in on a piece of the action!)

But I don't accept the claim that I was a badly behaved screaming banshee, so that's not relevant.

Oh, were you there? Sorry. You're not a screaming banshee.

Golly Greg, I'll try to remember to use fewer words when I'm trying to address new revelations and recycle old text in a couple of minutes.

Good!

bla bla bla

Huh?

On the other hand, if you asked me nicely to edit things down a bit more, I just might make an effort to do that.

Yes, you are correct about that. I was wrong and you are right about that. (But even so, I think I did ask you that nice once, but maybe I'm mistaken)

Ophelia:

But I don't accept the claim that I was a badly behaved screaming banshee, so that's not relevant.

Well, there it is. That's one of the facts on the ground that Greg insists on remaining ignorant of. He doesn't bother to look at the context, and how people actually behaved, and whether their behavior was justified.

Instead he just sides with bloggers against readers who criticize them, as he's prone to doing lately.

A bit of backstory for anybody who does care: Russell Blackford and Ophelia Benson were among the serious people who expressed serious reservations and valid reasons for them, from the start of Mooneys credulity fiasco. They weren't flaming assholes, or lightweights, or casual shooters-from-the-hip.

Sure, there was some sniping from Pharyngula regulars, but consider the milieu at the Intersection at the time. We'd been tag-teamed by a bunch of evasive, dishonest, vicious sock puppets for months, and Mooney and Kirshenbaum just let it happen, Even if they didn't know they were sock puppets---which I think they should have---they clearly allowed the sock puppets to make a mockery of any attempt at serious discourse, and to constantly derail and mislead.

I was one of the people who kept at it, and a number of people noted that I was pretty civil through that, despite constant ad hominems, insults, and general hit-and-run abuse.

If there were any screaming banshee involved, I have to say they weren't on our side. They were fostered and even incited by Mooney and Kirshenbaum. (The thread about supposed threats of violence and rape at Pharyngula is a nice example. Kirshenbaum was clearly inciting the trolls, and leaving us to them, whether she knew they were hosiery or not.)

Mooney and Kirshenbaum clearly fostered massive, substantive incivility on their blog, and then called out the Pharyngulistas for being (supposedly) assholes. (Though of course they'd never use a naughty word.)

And Greg fell for it. Way to go, Greg.

If you'd bother to actually learn the facts, I think you'd be surprised how much effort we put into actual communication in the face of massive deception, derailing, and abuse.

But you won't, because that would interfere with you grinding the self-centered axe you've inappropriately chosen to grind.

Screaming banshees my ass, Laden. Way to go, being a proud, authoritative, and oddly authoritarian dupe, and letting Mooney continue to get away with dishonest crap you appear not to even notice.

bla bla bla

Oh yeah?

NEENER NEENER NEENER!

Instead he just sides with bloggers against readers who criticize them, as he's prone to doing lately.

Interesting observation. Like when I sided with the YNH blog.

Your observation also reveals something else: How you are totally misreading this whole thing. I'm not siding with Chris Mooney. Although he and I may agree on some basics, especially regarding the history of communication vis-a-vis climate change, his RWOS stuff, etc. But in this discussion, no, we are on utterly wrong sides.

You are insisting that there are two sides, the pro Chris Mooney side and the Anti Chris Mooney side. You classify the actors into one side or the other and then determine the validity of what they say on that basis.

Poorly done, Paul.

Interesting observation. Like when I sided with the YNH blog.

I'll point out that in that situation your readers were being attacked by YNH, you were hardly an impartial observer (although to be fair you had criticized them before). A better example would be Henry Gee, which is likely what Paul W. had in mind...

How you are totally misreading this whole thing. I'm not siding with Chris Mooney.

You're not reading what he's saying if you think that's what he's saying. You've made statements attacking commenters for the stated reason of not liking the idea of blog hosts being criticized or held to standards of decency or accuracy.

I'll point out that in that situation your readers were being attacked by YNH, you were hardly an impartial observer (although to be fair you had criticized them before)

I'm supposed to be an impartial observer? My relationship with YNH consisted of this:

1) When it came to me I did everything I could do to make certain that no one could ever think I took YNH seriously, even the tiniest bit.

2) When PZ was attacked I pointed fingers to encourage PZ's band of merry commentators to fall upon YNH red in tooth and claw.

3) When Othellia was attacked I mostly kept my mouth shut to avoid being accused of using my white male priv-cred. Which I got accused of anyway.

Is there some rule you've made up that requires me to be an impartial observer?

You've made statements attacking commenters for the stated reason of not liking the idea of blog hosts being criticized or held to standards of decency or accuracy.

Yes, I see. I've made an argument (not the one you've stated here) and you don't like it, so you're groping around for ways to characterize it like I was going after some innocent victims. Nice work.

Is this somehow going to turn into one of your dumbass rules that I'm supposed to follow?

I'll point out that in that situation your readers were being attacked by YNH, you were hardly an impartial observer

Oh, and by the way, my readers were not being attacked. Sock puppets made up to badly imitate my readers were being attacked.

Think twice before you continue to assert that I am nice to bloggers.

Is there some rule you've made up that requires me to be an impartial observer?

No, and an impartial person would be boring. The issue being immediately discussed was bias for supporting bloggers. As such, in not supporting one I thought it was relevant to note that you (and your slaves/property, as you've described your commenters) were being attacked by YNH, so it's a bit different than a situation where there was a blogger and a commenter arguing and you decided the blogger was in the wrong. It's not really something significant, but I thought it was worth noting. Anyone that disagrees needs not take note.

I've made an argument (not the one you've stated here) and you don't like it, so you're groping around for ways to characterize it like I was going after some innocent victims. Nice work.

I never said you were going after innocent victims. Nobody's talking about innocence. Paul W. was noting that you tend to show support for bloggers (nobody is saying it's a universal thing, obviously you have issues with Kliqueons and other ridiculous people) over prolescommenters when there's a dispute. I mean really, do you think you can say the second paragraph here and subsequently try to pretend you don't have a bias towards a blogger in a dispute like the current one?

I didn't say I don't like your argument. You yourself have noted that we basically agree on the facts of the matter in this dustup (although I will admit I am not privy to your secret plan that would "do the right thing" in this situation that you've alluded to). I'm not trying to snipe at your position or attack you for holding it. I was simply pointing out that you weren't seriously addressing Paul W.'s comment, which is a bit of a shame (but of course, your prerogative).

It appears that I got myself banned at the intersection for this comment.

Many of my colleagues are fans of Moony, Kirshenbaum, and their ilk and make a point AT TEMPLETON FOUNDATION EVENTS to mock atheists to their face, tell them they're going to burn in hell, and call them âstupid,â âignorantâ and the like â and these are events hosted by religious moderates where weâve been ASKED to attend. They think itâs the way to be a good accommodationist, after all.

Let me know if anyone wants to confirm that I'm a real person. Of course, that doesn't mean that my story's not a ridiculous farce meant to paint a group of people I have disagreements with in the worst possible light. And never mind the fact that you've never witnessed any behavior remotely like this. If you think this slander will help your cause, just run with it.

your slaves/property, as you've described your commenters

Huh?

...there was a blogger and a commenter arguing and you decided the blogger was in the wrong. It's not really something significant,...

It is very significant that you noticed this thing that isn't really happening. But the significance will be almost entirely confined to your next session with your therapist.

...Paul W. was noting that you tend to show support for bloggers (nobody is saying it's a universal thing..

This is nothing more than waving around the old monkey. It is a fantasy that begins with the idea that I'm defending Chris Mooney. I'm not. So the idea kind of dies on the vine there. I happen to have one or two opinions that are shred with Chris about William the Blogger and that whole maneno. This does not constitute defending someone.

The fact that my opinion about these issues is contrary to yours and a few commenters is rather independant of that (unless you are admitting that your opinion was arrived at because you Mooney had the other opinion, which is in fact rather what it looks like)

In agreeing with Mooney in this regard, I'm disagreeing with PZ. PZ, as you may know, is a blogger.

I think this might be what we might call a loopy theory.

I mean really, do you think you can say the second paragraph here and subsequently try to pretend you don't have a bias towards

That's very funny that you think that. When I said "It is about me not wanting to agree to the precedent that a bunch of people who have gone off their meds can form a valid jury of my peers. " I was not defending a blogger. Did you think "peers" meant bloggers? It means commenters. Crazy-ass commenters.

But in the end, I'm glad to see that you admit that I'm right and that you agree with me.

Perhaps libeled or "had their nyms misappropriated" would be a better term for what YNH was doing to your commenters. Apologies for the inaccuracy in description.

Paul, IIRC, it wasn't even that. They were totally made up novel sock puppets that one of the other sock puppets pointed to and said "Look those are Laden's commenters"

Greg,

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to imply that you are generally on the side of Chris Mooney---certainly not. I know that you aren't, and I respect that.

I also didn't mean to imply that you always side with bloggers over readers; as you say, of course, PZ is a blogger.

You do seem to have a hobby-horse lately about resisting readers imposing their standards on bloggers, which I think you take to a simplistic extreme.

Of course in some sense Chris (or you) has no obligation to adhere to the standards we prefer.

Then again, we have no obligation to respect any blogger who doesn't adhere to what we consider minimal standards of responsible blogging.

For example, you could of course ban me for failing to either love you or leave you. And by doing so, you would alienate a certain contingent of people who think I'm making a respectable effort to sincerely communicate things I honestly believe, and which are not stupid. (Even if I'm sometimes a bit verbose.)

I also didn't mean to imply that you always side with bloggers over readers; as you say, of course, PZ is a blogger.

And, to be clear, I generally side with PZ. I just think he's missing an opportunity for an interesting argument in this case. So are you.

You do seem to have a hobby-horse lately about resisting readers imposing their standards on bloggers, which I think you take to a simplistic extreme.

I resent having what I consider to be an important perspective labeled with the trivializing term "hobby horse." This is not "lately" but goes back to the ancient days when I started blogging, and it really is very simple. Almost always, people bring rule sets to the table that they either make up post hoc out of convenience, or that they take from (a precieved but often incorrectly so) set of rules from another context. Like, that bloggers must follow journalistic standards and that journalistic standards include allowing each comment to remain unedited. In newspapers, every single letter to the editor is edited, the writer does not get to see the edited version, and blogging is not journalism.

This is simple and it is not extreme.

Of course in some sense Chris (or you) has no obligation to adhere to the standards we prefer.

Then again, we have no obligation to respect any blogger who doesn't adhere to what we consider minimal standards of responsible blogging.

And when you start with this 'we' thing I start to get a bit creeped out.

Paul, I am a reader of blogs and a commenter. If you are talking about commenters, your "we" is wrong, because you are not representing my position.

Are you talking, when you say, "we" about some particular club or organization? Or was that the Royal We? Or is the pluralization meant to give more weight to your argument? Or what?

For example, you could of course ban me for failing to either love you or leave you. And by doing so, you would alienate a certain contingent of people who think I'm making a respectable effort to sincerely communicate things I honestly believe, and which are not stupid. (Even if I'm sometimes a bit verbose.)

What I really should do is ban every other paragraph. That might work, but it is hard to do technically.

Actually, I thought Paul's comments here were enlightening. I skipped "The Intersection" once it moved to Discover, and so never delved into the comment threads there. I could tell it was a mess over there, heard stories about people I consider to be thoughtful, measured voices getting banned left and right there, and decided to skip the whole mess.

Paul's comment filled me in on what was going on there.

Thanks, Paul.

Greg, I didn't pay much attention to you before, but you're not coming off as cute and witty as you seem to think you are. It's coming across smug and condescending. In case you're wondering.

Greg, at the Intersection you said "there are a few people (myself included) who are not in the Mooney camp who donât have any problem understanding that this could happen."

I'm trying to understand, but these three sources are mutually contradictory in important ways: William's confessions, Mooney's latest post, and Jean Kazez's post (to which Mooney pointed us).

Would you please lay out the story for those of us who wish to understand how it could happen?

All three of those sources have one thing in common: They leave out one or two important details.

And, they're not really all that different. And no, I'm not laying out yet another telling of this story.

This issue of confirmation bias is interesting. What is the alternative to whatever blindness may be in the end documented? Plain fraud? Stupidity? I get the point (now) that confirmation bias is a more meaningful revelation. It means the accommodation movement is essentially flawed at a basic level, not that one or more members of the movement are bad. The movement can not see its way out of the corner it has painted itself into.

Greg, I have a similar reaction when it's obvious that people are not reading carefully enough. But now I find myself in the non-careful-reader group. When that happens it's usually a matter of getting some roadblocks out of the way.

So the first roadblock is the following: William says he made up Tom Johnson; Mooney hails Tom Johnson as a scientist in his "Thanks" post; today Mooney twice tells us that he correctly ascertained William's identity; we both know William is not a scientist; Jean says there is indeed a Tom Johnson scientist.

So William was lying in his confession to protect the "real" Tom Johnson, the pseudonym of a real scientist? I'm not asking you to lay it out again, but could you give me a quick pointer?

The beauty of science is that we have actually learned methods to control for biases... including confirmation biases.

But regardless, I personally consider the whole dichotomy of accommodation vs non-accomodation to be non-nonsensical.

All this thinking in rigid dichotomies pretty much only leads to camps and not to interesting new ideas. I think there is space for a wide range of approaches, attitudes, personalities, strategies and there is no need to micromanage how others do things.

Incidentally I recently heard someone compare the recent atheist movement to feminism. They too suffered from rather harsh internal battles, with not dissimilar lines forming.

Perhaps that's just the nature of things.

But regardless, I personally consider the whole dichotomy of accommodation vs non-accomodation to be non-nonsensical.

Exactly.

Why doesn't Mooney just apologize and admit to his mistake? "I'm sorry for being so quick to jump on an obviously made up story. I guess there isn't any actual evidence of these shrill new atheists shouting down meek and mild theists and making them feel bad about themselves out in meatspace. Next time, I'll use common sense and past experience rather than accept anecdata."

How hard is that?

Oedipus, I think it makes more sense if you assume grad student in science = scientist. Assume there is not a conflict there.

I'm also not sure if there is a tom johnson, and that does not conflict with what has been said. There really is an Oedipus (you) but that is not your real name (I'm guessing at that). I think it might be that "Tom Johnson" is a real person's pseudonym. I'm not sure of that, though.

All this thinking in rigid dichotomies pretty much only leads to camps and not to interesting new ideas. I think there is space for a wide range of approaches, attitudes, personalities, strategies and there is no need to micromanage how others do things.

Which, you'll find, is exactly what the so-called 'new' atheists say - that everyone's entitled to use their own strategy for dealing with the issue. It's the Mooneys of the world who are telling people to shut up and insisting that their vocal criticisms are somehow 'harming' the perception of science.

From what I can tell, the attitude of PZ and co. is this:

'Fine, you want to coddle the religious and let them shift the goalposts on the relationship between science and religion because you think that somehow, magically, they're going to stop opposing the science that demonstrates the falsehood of their claims then that's fine; we, however, are going to keep pointing out that we think their beliefs are what's causing the problem - and we're going to do that loudly, unequivocally and at every opportunity.'

But I don't remember ever seeing PZ or Jerry Coyne or any of the others saying that Mooney and pals shouldn't keep trying the deferential approach - only that they believe that it's an ineffective one.

Wowbanger: It may be that the first real shots may have been fired by the Acco's in telling the New Atheists that we were doing it wrong. (Though the first thing I remember was actually me telling the Acco's that this framing theory sucked, but that's probably just because I wasn't paying attention.) But it is also true that New Atheists have been firm on the point that accomodiationism is a slippery slope with negative consequences.

It comes down to this. The Acco's claim that New Atheists alienate the middle and the New Atheists claim that that Acco's give away the science.

Exhibit A was evidence of the former, but generally there is not much evidence of it, and Exhibit A was fabricated by, apparently an Acco. But even if it is true that there is some alienation, it comes from people's discomfort with the truth, and that is always an issue, and something that just has to happen. The evidence that the Acco's give away some of the science is something I see every day. People in education often say things like "Well, OK, Evolution, but ..." then some stupid ass thing like "not for the origin of life" or "not for humans" or "but there's still a guiding hand."

In other words, the most the acco's can complain about is that there is some discomfort, and the evidence is not strong that there is much of that. The least the New Atheists (and here I'll use the Paluian "We") can complain about is sliding on the truth, but really, it is worse than that, because it includes invalidating entire fields of study (such as origins and human evolution).

But, having said all that, yes, there is actually a spectrum, and in fact, the full set of conversational permutations assumed by this argument don't in fact happen much on the street. Spend a few days listening to regular people in social groups and you won't find this conversation happening anywhere. Or at least, I havn't (of course, Minnesota may be different).

Having said all that, PZ Myers is not obnoxious and Chris Mooney does not advocate giving away the study of the origins of life or human evolution. So the trope that is draped on the theme is made of ... whole cloth.

(That's me being cute and shit.)

It comes down to this. The Acco's claim that New Atheists alienate the middle and the New Atheists claim that that Acco's give away the science.

And people like Mooney further alienate the middle from the New Atheists by exaggerating/fabricating the evilness of the New Atheists, all for the sake of winning a pissing match.

Greg said:

He visited a webpage that looked real that matched with email information given to him by "Tom." How is that not enough?

It's not enough because anyone can claim to be anyone else. I could pull your bio from this blog, tack on some information gleaned from recent posts, and write an equally convincing email claiming to be you.

Confirming whether or not my claim is true would be as easy as sending an email to the address published here on your blog.

Likewise, Mooney could have emailed Tom Johnson at whatever address was published on the website or picked up the phone and called Tom's university department, but he didn't.

We're not "moving the goalposts" or being unfair. A journalist must verify the identity of their sources, and a google search just doesn't cut it. The only thing that Mooney verified was that the information "Tom" gave him could be found via a google search.

Josh, I beg to differ. I have hosted two guest bloggers on this site having not met them or checked them out at all. They were commenters, became email contacts, then they guest blogged. One of them, turns out, was definitely real and subsequently we've become good real life friends. The other, who know? He could be a total fake.

Same with Quiche Moraine. I'm not sure, but I think one or two of our guest bloggers may have been people we never checked out. The others we happen to know in other ways.

Post hoc, man. The whole idea that there are special security checks and standards that one must go through to repeat what someone said on the Internet (with attribution) and even to ramp the comment up to post level is simply not what we do. And no, thank you, we are not changing our standards because this thing happened to Mooney or because some commenters have an incorrect idea of how this works.

William cheated. Cheaters should probably be driven into the swamp so that others won't repeat that crime. That has, in fact, happened already.

Likewise, Mooney could have emailed Tom Johnson at whatever address was published on the website or picked up the phone and called Tom's university department, but he didn't.

Mooney has not described what he has done at this level of detail. For all you know, he did make such a call.

Josh, you need to get a grip. You are not being rational about the checking process. You are just out to get Mooney. A fine and noble cause, for sure, but your sketpics cred depends on on if you defeat your foe but if you do it with the right Kung Fu.

It's going to be really funny when Richard Dawkins or PZ or someone you like gets bamboozled some time over the next couple of years and the reverse pile on happens.

The other, who know? He could be a total fake.

I quickly add: He's not. How do I know? How do I prove he's not a fake? I can't. I just assume he's not because I have no reason to believe he is and I prefer to live in a world where a modicum of trust replaces paranoia, overzealous questioning of reality, or that whole security thing.

And, to reiterate, The Intersection is a blog. I don't expect a journalist to be on journalism duty when writing the year end family letter, a note to the kid's teacher, or their blog any more than I expect (or want) a cop to be all coppy when not on duty.

And, I don't like the idea of taking blame off William. I'm not sure why so many people are so into doing that.

Mooney has not described what he has done at this level of detail.

Yeah, he did. Here's what he said:

But moreover, when it came to âTom Johnson,â I emailed him after his first comment, to check on his identity. The response claimed to be a specific personâa specific Ph.D. candidate at a specific universityâand provided a university website and considerable detail about this personâs scientific career, publishing record, outreach endeavors, and so on.

Source here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/07/07/appalling-rev…

According to Mooney, "Tom" provided a bunch of information that anyone with Google (and maybe some journal access) could get, including a university website.

If "Tom" gave Mooney that much detail and he failed figure out that he was being lied to, then Mooney obviously didn't attempt to contact "Tom" through his department or his university email address. (Obviously, Mooney would have needed to pretend he was trying to contact Tom about one of his publications, but how hard is that?)

Josh, you need to get a grip.

It seems like you missed Mooney's first post on the subject. I suggest you read it (or read it more carefully) before accusing anyone of needing "to get a grip".

It's going to be really funny when Richard Dawkins or PZ or someone you like gets bamboozled some time over the next couple of years and the reverse pile on happens.

And if it does, I'll be saying the exact same thing: verify your sources.

Josh, you are never going to get this right, because you are going to pedantically stick with narrowly interpreted reference to the PART of the story that you know. From where I sit you are looking rather a fool.

I wonder why you have such a low level of trust going? Is it just Mooney Hate or is there something else going on with you?

The whole idea that there are special security checks and standards that one must go through to repeat what someone said on the Internet (with attribution) and even to ramp the comment up to post level is simply not what we do.

I understand that, and that's totally fine when the material is innocuous or it's the best you can do. Summarize, attribute, and tack on a disclaimer if you're not sure.

But when someone is making very serious accuations (e.g., "new atheists are destroying my career") and they give you enough information to check out part of their story, wouldn't you want to?

Maybe my perspective is different (I'm in IT), but if somebody emailed me from, say, a gmail account, and claimed to be someone at a business or university, I'd want to exchange a couple of innocuous emails with their business/university account to verify that they at least work or study where they claim to.

I'm sorry if my previous comments seemed rude, but these kinds of screw-ups are a sore spot for me. Being a skeptic is all about learning how to avoid being fooled by yourself or someone else.

Um, everybody arguing here has read Chris's post that says Tom/William/etc. is who he claimed to be, right? That everything Chris checked checked out correctly?

We're not going to stop arguing over a minor detail like that!!!!

Stephanie, yeah just saw that. That makes Chris look a lot better in this. Of course, it makes "Tom/William" even worse because it means that even part of his final confession was a lie.

Stephanie, not really. The "Mr. X" Chris dealt with at the time of the Exhibit A is not the same as "Mr. X" turned out to be, because ...

âTom Johnson.â Back in October, âTom Johnsonâ posted a personal story on this blog as a comment. And then I did something that, if Iâd known one tenth of what I know now, I would not have done: I gave it some added attention. More specifically, I elevated the comment into an individual post and later thanked âTomâ for sharing it.

That story had details about context (a working scientist as I recall) and events, all of which were made up.

I agree with Greg that it is absurd to hold Mooney to task for failure to investigate this into the ground, but it is also not true that Mooney had the truth in hand at the time.

Though yes, the double reverse on the identity may be confusing some of the commenters here.

"even part of his final confession was a lie."

I fixed this for you:

"even part of his final confession is known to be a lie, confirmation waiting on the rest of it."

Ange, some people have definitely seen it, but there are some others whose arguments seem to depend on not being up to date.

I heard Science Blogs has offered William a blog, to fill the gap left by Pepsi's departure. They are working on the name of the blog now.

"You're not hel... hhe... hwo... who you think you are!"

Mea culpa. While I read Mooney's first few posts about the Tom Johnson situation carefully, I did not give the same attention to his latest post, as it seemed like a rehash of what he and others had already said. But there it is in the middle of the post:

Further confirmation reaffirms that âWilliamâ/âTom Johnsonâ is indeed who he originally said he was. And this was always the most likely reality by farâalthough I understandably found myself questioning it for a while this week.

Part of my mistake was to assume that Mooney's initial post contained as much information about the situation as he could give reavealing any real details about the person(s) involved.

Because he didn't state that Johnson was Will's real identity in that post, I assumed that Will was impersonating Johnson. A bad assumption in hindsight, but it's an important detail and seems like a strange one to omit, even if further verification of Will/Tom's identity was desirable. To his credit, Mooney probably omitted it in an effort to avoid making further mistakes.

Argh, I'm missing a word. Part of my previous comment should read:

Part of my mistake was to assume that Mooney's initial post contained as much information about the situation as he could give without revealing any real details about the person(s) involved.

Well I'm done with the whole story: This is what I just posted in the comments of Intersections. Not sure if it will make it through moderation.

Note I do not align myself with any side. But it's extremely frustrating how the rhetoric works. But I'm fed up. Greg, I'm also not happy how you handled this. You basically stirred up hysteria to get people to stop asking questions. That's not OK either.

Chris could have very easily ended the discussion, both protecting Williams identity and keeping his face. But he chose to protect a line of arguing that is very clearly improper now.

But reality is that perhaps people have started making a career over pecking at certain groups. Maybe the "New Atheists" are right and that them being stereotyped is part of the plan here. I certainly cannot shake that impression coming to it as an outsider. But alas, what do I know.

Anywhere here is my post:

"Jeremy Stangroom has a blog post up that summarizes whatâs wrong with the debate:

âBasically, thereâs this fella called Chris Mooney, and he tortures kittens. Not literal kittens, but metaphorical kittens that have something to do with framing and accommodation and communion wafers. Anyway, torturing kittens is a bad thing, especially if you get paid by the Templeton Foundation to do it, and this really, really, really upsets those righteous defenders of all that is good and true â the New Atheists.â

The rest of the article again proceeds to pull the most extreme statements and make the examples of the whole.

My exception from the beginning with YNH was exactly this. This is not proper and fair arguing. It has but one ultimate goal: to paint a group, the nebulous word âNew Atheistsâ in a bad light.

Sadly nothing has changed. There are still plenty of people who would to the same.

Letâs evaluate Jeanâs post. She closed comments with this remark:

âLooking over these comments one last time, Iâve noticed two interesting things:

(1) Boy, there are a lot of juvenile people who dropped by here to insult me.

(2) Yâall are really gullible. Your problem is that you fell in love with William. You really, really want to believe everything he told you, even though you have no independent corroboration. He saidââI made up Tom Johnsonâ and you think that must be true. â

Well I looked over the comments, and there are few insults far and between, people ask for clarification and I was among those who said that her corroboration was not credible as phrased. And being in doubt over the facts does not mean that one is âin love withâ a certain personâs statements.

But again, exaggeration to paint critics as worse than they are. Jeanâs post stated out that way talking about âanti-Mooney blogsâ and âschadenfreudeâ.

But asking for clarification is not victimization. But playing the victim card is one old trick to stop critics, one of many rhetorical devices out there.

I fear nothing will change. It apparently is necessary and quite sufficient to keep labeling groups in certain ways!

Sad, because all this could have ended quite nicely and easily, by simply acknowledging the realities that did happen and anybody can go back and read, namely that people not only deserved an apology for the sock puppetry but also for falling of deaf ears when they early on said that the way a group was painted here was not fair and proper.

But painting a group in a certain way is âOKâ, so donât expect an apology for that! I guess."

See, and here I was totally going to get back to not commenting anymore, but your fucking defence of Chris Mooney is just two over the top!!!

I mean "confirmation bias?" Seriously? You aren't going to try to tell us that actually fucking means something? Geez Greg, fucking try again, why doncha?

Chris seriously fucked up by not working really hard to figure out who this character who totally fed his worldview really was. Especially when people who disagree with his worldview and defend their own from him, told him the story being told was bullshit. It was so obvious from the getgo, that this dude was really not the dude he claimed to be, because his story was such obvious bullshit.

Chris seriously fucked up by not working really hard to figure out who this character who totally fed his worldview really was

Indeed. Fits the definition of confirmation bias perfectly.

"It was so obvious from the getgo, that this dude was really not the dude he claimed to be, because his story was such obvious bullshit"

But as far as we now know he was the dude he claimed to be, even though the story was bullshit. So...

Fits the definition of confirmation bias perfectly.

Yeah Greg, maybe in your sciency sounding world it does. Where I come from though, it's just another fucking excuse for wrongheaded behavior. Cause where I come from, people really think about things - even when those things conform to and confirm their worldview. Where I come from, people don't rely on dubious, sciency sounding bullshit - we rely on good old common fucking sense, to know we're RIGHT!!!1!!1!111!!