Jeez, I go on vacation to New Orleans and all hell breaks loose between PZ and Matt over framing science stuff.
I feel less and less like a participant in this debate and more and more like a referee.
Folks, we're going to publicly debate all this in, as I count it, two weeks in Minneapolis. It's going to be a great event, and it's going to provoke much thought and generate tons of follow-up dialogue.
So don't use up your best stuff too far in advance! And can we please keep it at least mildly friendly?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
You probably aren't going to believe this. But not only was the battle at the Bell Museum in Minneapolis last night pretty un-warlike; the participants actually seemed to find plenty of common ground. Both Greg Laden and, yes, even PZ Myers agreed that the framing of science can be a useful tool…
You may be aware that there is a huge discussion about framing science going on in the blogosphere. It has gotten out of hand. But, for those who want to dig in, or want to analyze the posts and comments (that is a lot of data!), here is the comprehensive list of links (excluded are links to…
But please, avoid Minneapolis, OK?
With the Democratic National Convention going on in Denver, and the Republican Convention about to start in Saint Paul, I thought I'd pass on some helpful advice for Republican delegates and others who may be coming to town.
This is for your own good. Pay…
Believe it or not, sometimes even Orac has a life. I know, I know, between the ridiculously logorrheic blogging here and other online activities, coupled with even more ridiculous long hours working at his day job, it's hard to conceive. However, my wife and I had a whole passel of relatives over,…
I have rarely if ever mentioned PZ in posts at my blog. When he has made comments, I have responded cordially and respectfully. My goal has always been to have a serious discussion about issues related to science communication, the relevancy of framing, and what the New Atheist movement might mean for the public perception of science and scientists.
However, after witnessing PZ's latest distortion of my motives and arguments, in this case the AAAS panel proposal that was reviewed by a committee of experts and organizers, I felt it was necessary to hold him publicly accountable and to speak out.
After all, besides being a blogger, he is also a scientist and a professor.
Detailed below are specific examples of hatchet jobs and distortions that PZ has authored. Among things, he has insinuated that professionally I am a hack, that Chris and I are "snake oil salesmen," and that I argue for censoring, muzzling, and "sticking a knife" in fellow atheists. He has even endorsed the outrageous speculation that Chris and I might be creationists.
Besides these personal attacks, he takes a serious argument originally published at Science, and consistently twists and selectively quotes our ideas to stir reactions and confuse his readers, drawing analogies, for example, to puppy strangling and other bizarre comparisons.
Given this history and track record, when I referred to him yesterday as the Don Imus of ScienceBlogs, I consider the comparison as appropriate. Someone needs to stand up to the 800 pound Gorilla and bully.
To be more specific, his attacks have little to do with me, the merits of my research, or my arguments, and have everything to do with the hard headed nature of his ideology, and similar to talk radio, the dogmatism and sophomoric rhetoric that attracts traffic to his blog.
Specific examples of PZ's distortions or personal attacks:
1. Reaction to our original Science article where he promotes confusion and anger by comparing our proposals to puppy strangling and giving seminars in cheap suits. He ends by falsely suggesting that we are arguing that atheism be "put in a dark closet."
.
2. Reaction to our WPost article, where in his post he labels us "snake oil salesmen."
3. Another follow up where he compares our Science article to "a pious Discovery Institute press release," and endorses for his readers a Greg Laden post, where Laden insinuates that we might be covert creationists.
Laden writes outrageously: "Somebody please tell me I'm right about this! I don't want Nisbet and Mooney to pull off the latex masks and expose themselves as Discovery Institute Interns who have infiltrated the blogospheric discussion on science education."
4. Follow up comments at my blog offering his spin on my professional expertise and motives, reposted at his own blog:
5. Another follow up post where he distorts our argument as "atheists must surrender."
6. Finally, his most recent post where he claims that the forthcoming AAAS panel is about promoting the "recommendation to muzzle the godless." Of course it has nothing to do with that, as I explain in the discussion thread.
That's Matt's best stuff? Uh-oh.
Nisbet stated:"That's the power and influence of framing when it resonates with an individual's social identity. It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion. It's definitely not the scientific or democratic ideal, but it's how things work in society."
That type of framing is the antithesis of what PZ is striving for. That type of framing is taking the easy route. The tendency is to feed into stereotypes. Nisbet constantly going after "New Atheists" seems like he trying to make them into "Other". There are other ways of changing opinions, other ways to frame than to do it in the absence of knowledge. They are harder but striving for a democratic society I think is worthwhile.
Plus if your you are actually trying to reach out to the PZ's of the scientific community, I must say you are doing a poor job of framing things to them. Those scientists most welcome to your words were the ones that seem to have embraced it but the rest not so much. Most that I know have completely ignored the entire debate. I honestly haven't heard any grad students, post-docs, faculty who have talked about it and that is at a top 10 department.
It is important work but there is so much more to do why is Nisbet using so much time commenting on New Atheists? Are they holding up things to address carbon emissions? Time is precious. Devote your resources where they matter especially if your argument is for Climate Change that we must act now.
Usually I tend to be more on the side of the Chamberlains when it comes to the religion and science issues, but in this particular case, I think Nisbet is way off base and way out of line. It's a busy Saturday, but I'll probably have something up about this on my own blog later on.
Nisbet made the following statement on April 5, 2007, and pondering fool has both quoted and made mince-meat of it again.
"That's the power and influence of framing when it resonates with an individual's social identity. It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion. It's definitely not the scientific or democratic ideal, but it's how things work in society."
Would Joseph Goebbels have embraced Nisbet's specific statements explicitly and precisely? Read each sentence and ask yourself if Nisbet's statements aren't a classic definition of pure unadulterated propaganda. Nisbet calls it framing.
"Things work" like this, most efficiently when the fascist/framer engineers it. I call it crypto-fascism.
What ever happened to the noble tradition of telling your neighbor how NOT to fall into the quicksand?
Mooney, a referee you ain't. You chose your bed of bullshit, and now you must get the damn good whacking you deserve. Bring bandages.
Re gerald spezio
Uh oh, the undead Fuhrer rides again. The Hitler Zombie has been invoked.
Like Mike, I generally side with Matt Nisbet's position. However, he isn't doing himself any favours in this latest exchange. For example,
"When I read the hatchet job you did on our Science article, I was at first a bit stunned. Here was a scientist and a professor violating all the norms of his profession, twisting and distorting to fit his ideology and to rabble rouse among his blog readership."
No evidence is provided to support this assertion. Moreover, it's actually a very serious assertion and absolutely demands further elaboration. That Nisbet fails to provide this is unacceptable.
Also:
"Not at all. The panel is about communicating science to religious audiences. The criteria for speakers were people who have done research in the area or who have been successful in engaging religious audiences. The prominent New Atheists don't fit that criteria."
This seems like quite a narrow criteria. PZ has a wider agenda regarding the role of faith within society, but as part of this he does have a line on communicating science with religious people. I happen to believe it's the wrong approach, but surely it's reasonable to incorporate his (or someone similar) voice. Matt could argue that this line of attack doesn't work, but surely that is something that could be concluded following an active discussion in which a "new atheist" were involved. Moreover, it's also fair to say that the new atheist approach hasn't really been field tested in any great depth; it's a relatively new thing. I'd be extremely surprised if it were fruitful, but I don't believe definitive conclusions can be reached.
SLC, I dunno whad the undead Fuhrer riding is or means. Ditto for the Hitler Zombie. Have I done bad or whad?
He could just provide a link to my hatchet job. You can all make up your own minds.
Especially given that it seems as though the prominent New Atheists don't fit it precisely because they are prominent New Atheists.
<pedant>criterion</pedant>
...he does have a line on communicating science with religious people.
Yes, his line is a monologue. And for him the play is over as soon as he finishes speaking. His Science Phd lets him do that don't you know.
Gerald: I think he's referring to Godwin's Law.
Yeah, I'm with Pondering Fool on this one. The framing debate sure has taken alot of time focusing on atheism that could be better used on climate change.
I also want to commend you on sticking to the message. If you reprimand those who use certain styles of rhetoric, then you automatically remove yourself from being able to use it as well. Matt has a bit of a hard time doing that. You on the other hand seem to do better. I encourage you to keep that up. Either that or allow for everyone to do it and no condemnation gets to be attached to it.
Grazi, Jon.
If Nisbet sounds like Goebbels, writes like Goebbels, and preaches like Goebbels, one is forced to consider that Nisbet could be similar, analogous, or identical with Goebbels.
From the Law of Ducks and mandatory analysis of framing as yuppie shuck and jive.
gerald spezio wrote:
And they accused me of Conan bias.
Mongol General:"What is best in life?"
Conan:"To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."
I feel less and less like a participant in this debate and more and more like a referee.
Maybe you should realise that you are in over your head and gracefully withdraw...
Chris -
"Friendly" seems inevitably impossible, or at least extraordinarily difficult, in blogo-disagreements. There will always be people like Gerald who, rather than disagreeing thoughtfully, will insist on a bloody whacking, and for whom nothing else will suffice.
Take heart, though, that out in the real world where I spend a lot of time discussing this issue with working scientists, the discussion has been much more friendly and productive.
Re gerald spezio
May I respectfully refer Mr. spezio to Oracs' blog where an explanation is given as to the meaning of the Hitler Zombie.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/12/hitler_zombie_massacre_over_e…
"What they need is a damn good whacking," sang The Beatles in "Little Piggies." The bloody bastards.
Everything is metaphor and innuendo in framing studies.
"Aw, I wouldn't hurt the rabbits," Lennie whispered to George.
While I think Nisbet has grossly and unfairly characterized Myers, Dawkins, and others, spezio's comparison of Nisbet to Goebbels is insane; Goebbels was guilty of malfeasances Nisbet would never approach, and to compare Nisbet's words to Goebbels is to devalue the memory of those who suffered due to Goebbels' lies and manipulations.
Nisbet's statement speaks for itself. Every word of it.
When pushing and selling "the brand," all elitist yuppie games are acceptable because it's about selling shuck to the schmuckery. Advancing one's petty career and persona is part of the game.
I find this whole "debate" tiresome. Obviously, there is room for both approaches. As someone who lives and teaches in the Bible belt, Dawkins et al are an incredible breath of fresh air and deeply helpful sources of strength for those of us on the "front lines" of the culture wars. When Dawkins spoke not far from where I live last year, the event was like a rock concert and it mattered less what he said than that he gave isolated people a chance to come together.
As for framing, I have long been critical of Chris and Nisbet (far more critical of Nisbet) for making an issue out of something really pretty irrelevant. For several years now there have been scientists and science writers who write incredibly powerful books in language for the masses; it is not longer just a world of Sagan and Gould doing that (and how I miss those guys!).
Further, there is an arrogance in Nisbet, especially, in his apparent assumption that someone like Myers talks the same way in class or in professional meetings as in his blog. That's an absurd assumption. I teach college in Missouri; I teach the students Nisbet and others imagine only in the abstract. While in my personal life I very much align myself with the so-called New Atheists, of course I take a more gentle approach in class - when this stuff is even relevant, which is not that often. I would suggest that Chris and Matt talk to some people who work on these front lines.
I would also posit that Nisbet doesn't know much about the religious audience he wants to "frame" for. There is the group that doesn't know the science very well and can learn it, and that group needs information and, yes, some patience. But the other group is one of Christian Nationalists who are not interested in evidence or reason; they are explicitly opposed to that approach and no amount of framing matters. Nothing much matters that any of us can say, though an outspoken atheist might at least plant a seed of doubt. If one thinks, as I do, that that group of Christian Nationalists is a real threat, then outspoken atheism is absolutely necessary to help combat that. I fear that Nisbet has little idea about that group, and they scare the bejeezus out of me, pun intended.
So, again, there is room for all voices and agendas. Criticism of the atheists is short-sighted and a distraction at best, and I hope Chris (whom I respect far more than I respect Nisbet) will come to understand that.
"It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their(sic) minds in the absence of knowledge ..."
As far as I know, this is precisely what science teaches us not to do.
Would you practice Nisbet's professed technique of outright manipulation on your children or your neighbors?
Would you support, endorse, and advocate a teacher practicing this stated technique in the classroom?
Nisbet knows what human nature is. He plays on it.
His framing; "by allowing a citizen" ... ALLOWING?
"Make up their minds in the absence of knowledge."
Nisbet delivers us from our own ignorance.
Plato called his identical technique; "THE NOBLE LIE."
Plato, Leo Strauss, and Nisbet know what is good for you? They only want to help us?
CraigB: "I would also posit that Nisbet doesn't know much about the religious audience he wants to "frame" for. There is the group that doesn't know the science very well and can learn it, and that group needs information and, yes, some patience. But the other group is one of Christian Nationalists who are not interested in evidence or reason; they are explicitly opposed to that approach and no amount of framing matters"
Your dichotomy is misleading. The group that doesn't know the science well can be subdivided further:
* Those who don't know the science well but have an interest in it. These are the budding enthusiasts and possible future science professionals.
* Those who don't know the science well and don't really care. They aren't stupid, but they have other interests and other ways that they want to spend their time. Trying to deliver general information on science to this group will tend to bore them, because they will see it as irrelevant to their lives. The vast bulk of people fall in this category.
Dealing with the latter group means focusing on how the science is relevant to them, which means focusing more on how issues that they care about are impacted by the science, rather than the relatively more technical background information.
No! We need to hold Nisbet down, and get Myers a bigger stick!
CraigB,
At no point have I ever insinuated that PZ talks the same way in class as he does on his blog space.
Yet given his traffic and readership size, his blog space is his public identity and therefore calling attention to how his arguments might influence public perceptions of science is definitely fair game. As is holding him accountable for personal attacks and distortions of our articles at Science, the Washington Post, and the panel at AAAS.
JJ Ramsey:
"Those who don't know the science well and don't really care. They aren't stupid, but they have other interests and other ways that they want to spend their time. Trying to deliver general information on science to this group will tend to bore them, because they will see it as irrelevant to their lives. The vast bulk of people fall in this category."
Agreed. I have found that that group can be approached effectively (relatively speaking) through the "frame" of informed citizenship and citizen responsibility for knowing what is done in their name.
However, what I was trying to emphasize is that the group that does not listen because it is violently opposed to the premise of reasoned discourse is in fact a much larger and more powerful group (actually, many groups) than most people on the coasts realize. (I strongly recommend Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming for more information on that score.) And that group does not respond to framing or other approaches, and angry atheism is, in my opinion, an entirely appropriate response to people who threaten society on the basis of imaginary friends in the sky.
CraigB: "However, what I was trying to emphasize is that the group that does not listen because it is violently opposed to the premise of reasoned discourse is in fact a much larger and more powerful group (actually, many groups) than most people on the coasts realize."
I gather that the Christian Nationalists are also known as dominionists. From what I have seen so far, they are still a minority, and they have influences (1) by getting some of their own into positions of power, and (2) by using larger groups like evangelical Christians as somewhat unwitting allies in their agenda.
I can't see how the "angry atheists" help here. The dominionists aren't about to listen to them, and they are likely to make the evangelicals feel even more under threat, which would give the dominionists more leverage on the evangelicals.
I haven't been reading the arguments, so I am in the (perhaps fortunate) position of not knowing who is on what side, and not even exactly what the "sides" are. But I have been thinking about this a lot lately, so I would like to put forth some of my own thoughts without the baggage of "reacting" to anyone in here.
I have been simultaneously reading Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God, Richard Norman's On Humanism, and Hugh Gauch's Scientific Method In Practice. A couple of the common threads are: how we know what is "true," and the profound difference between mythos and logos.
I have usually felt that criticizing religion is counter-productive, but I am more and more inclined to say we can and must criticize certain aspects of fundamentalism, namely that our "revealed" myths can be used as evidence in our understanding of physical reality. We have to be able to defend the position that the literal interpretation of our myths is simply wrong. There is a proven and "correct" method of advancing knowledge that we should all be able to agree upon, and that we must use as the basis of our policy decisions.
That doesn't mean faith is "wrong." But it does mean that stories about what can't be proven are stories about a different kind of "truth" -- metaphors, if you will, although I don't think that captures the full nuances of "myth." The problem seems to be that in our "rational" age, neither the atheists nor the theists are able to grasp the concept of mythos. Everything has to be True or False, Proven or Not. Unless we can separate the realms of mythos and logos again, there may be no room for the coexistence of science and religion.
Respectful Insolence also has a discussion thread going on about these topics. Rather than reposting, for the specifics of the distortions and personal attacks that PZ lodged against us after publishing at Science and then at the WPost, go here.
As to whether or not we have "personally attacked" Richard Dawkins or any New Atheist for that matter, we never have, as I explain here.
@jockyoung
I agree with a lot of what you said. Part of the problem as I see it is that actually, neither side is following "a proven and "correct" method of advancing knowledge that we should all be able to agree upon, and that we must use as the basis of our policy decisions," nor are the "New Atheists" criticizing "certain aspects of fundamentalism". They're criticizing religion, period. In doing so, they not only alienate those religious people who don't identify with the fundamentalists, they actually promote fundamentalism, by justifying the fundamentalists' claim to speak for the "one true interpretation" of their respective faith. As if that wasn't bad enough, they actually discredit the scientific method by applying it to something it never was designed to apply to.
J.J.: "I can't see how the "angry atheists" help here. The dominionists aren't about to listen to them, and they are likely to make the evangelicals feel even more under threat, which would give the dominionists more leverage on the evangelicals."
You are right that the Christian nationalists won't listen, but what the "New Atheists" (I really hate that term but don't have a better one) have done is make questioning religion and constructing public policy on the basis of religion an open topic of discussion. Our society has a long history of tiptoeing around religion, allowing all sorts of nonsense to be done if it is in the name of religion or "faith." People like Dawkins, Harris, and PZ have very loudly criticized the idea that we should passively defer to religious "justifications" for absurdities. They deserve our great thanks for taking the lead in this public defiance of religous dogma, and they (and others) deserve our support in their efforts to reveal and confront the threat to the public good that such religious fervor brings.
@CraigB
You are right that the Christian nationalists won't listen, but what the "New Atheists" (I really hate that term but don't have a better one) have done is make questioning religion and constructing public policy on the basis of religion an open topic of discussion.
Sorry, but I call BS on that. They've done no such thing. Questioning religion and problems of constructing public policy on the basis of religion has been going on worldwide for quite a while -including in the US. The entire abortion discussion has centered about religious concepts of life and how much they should influence public policy. Roe v. Wade was decided more than 30 years ago -on issues of privacy, but that doesn't detract from the public discussion, which went far beyond that point.
They deserve our great thanks for taking the lead in this public defiance of religous dogma, and they (and others) deserve our support in their efforts to reveal and confront the threat to the public good that such religious fervor brings.
Sorry, but idolatry stays idolatry, whether you call it religion or atheism. The fact that you single out religious fervor, at the exception of all other forms underscores the true problem here: We're not talking reason vs. irrationality, we're talking one fervor against the other. It's not religious fervor that's bad, it's fervor, period. Tacitus wrote already that he wanted to write "sine ira et studio", but it seems that some among the New Atheists want to toss two thousand years of philosophy of science to put themselves into the Pantheon. Again: Idolatry stays idolatry, it doesn't matter what name you give to the golden calf you dance around.
Hi Chris, Matt (who I expect is reading this too) and others. I'm following the discussion, and reading the material, and soon I'll be watching some of those videos. I'm very interested in this topic, and I'm glad to say that I'll be seeing everyone at the event in question in less than a couple weeks.
So far, I agree with MIchael and Mike above, I think that Matt has done a terrible job framing framing itself and has turned would-be allies against your and his cause. I am very interested in the concept, and Nisbet has co-authored a paper on framing in my field of plant genetics, something that might be incredibly useful for my own communications goals. However, I have been reluctant to start digging into it because of well, the kinds of things that lead Matt Nisbet to label those he disagrees with as "The New Atheist Noise Machine". To say that he hasn't personally attacked anyone is almost comical. From the post he just linked to:
If Matt read what he wrote above that statement, he might notice:
Because comparing PZ to a sexist racist bigot is of course, not a personal attack and indeed a very scholarly thing to do...
I think that you, Chris, have been decidedly less personally confrontational than PZ and Matt, and although I can't say I yet have a "side" in this debate, so far I am more inclined toward the other side. However, out of my respect for your scholarship, I expect that you'll be providing the better argument in favor of framing and hopefully you can explain it well to me and everyone else at the event.
Anyway, rising above all this rhetoric and engaging in the topic itself next week should be very enlightening, and hopefully I'll get a chance to talk at length with everyone after the debate/discussion. And hopefully we can all work toward progressing through this mess!
Inoculated Mind,
Following our publication at Science and the WPost, for months, I stood silent as PZ consistently distorted and twisted our arguments to fit his ideology and to anger and confuse his readers.
I also stood silent while he labeled us "snake oil salesmen" and endorsed the insinuation that we were covert creationists. (See my post above linking to a comment documenting these examples.)
Meanwhile, I started reading his other blog posts. At his blog he endorses the idea that all forms of religion are equivalent to fascism and that any atheist who begs to disagree is a "Neville Chamberlain." He also consistently denigrates religious people as "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed."
His rhetoric, like a shock jock radio host, whips up similar intolerance among his readers, that he then defends and amplifies. Just consider one post representative of many.
Begin quoted material:
Why should conversations be made to accommodate the embarrassingly ignorant and foolish? I figure if the religious folks don't like what I have to say, they can take a hike. But, I'm not going to dumb myself down just to protect their delusions. Why should anyone give the veneer that they care about those delusions anyway?
-->End quoted material.
Given these consistent distortions of our arguments and motivations and given the intolerant rhetoric at his blog, I felt it was time to hold PZ accountable.
So on Friday, when making the comparison to Don Imus, based on the evidence at hand, I called it as I see it.
Hi Matt,
The language that both of you use to attack various forms of atheists are both problematic. He attacks the "Neville-Chamberlains" and you attack the "New Atheist Noise Machine." Raise the level of rhetoric with PZ as you will, but don't say you haven't personally attacked him. The higher ground at this point, for anyone involved, is discontinuing the use of that kind of language.
I haven't followed the framing debate closely, however I will be up on it when the big event rolls around. I'm very interested in it, but the discussion about it so far has raised the activation energy it has taken for me to get into reading and understanding it.
One of the things that we all have to understand is that people are not single-goal entities. PZ has several goals, which may come into conflict when it comes to the enormous religious opposition to evolution that we have in this country.
Myself, one of my goals is also to increase the public's understanding of science, in addition to its acceptance. Framing, so far, seems to only address the issue of acceptance. I believe it should be possible to promote both the understanding and acceptance of science together. I think without giving people the proper tools, how are they to tell the difference between one frame and another?
Insofar as a philosophical ideal prevents someone from accepting an idea that is diametrically opposed to it, what are we to do? Whether it is a political ideal about global warming and the market, evolution and a literal interpretation of a religious text, or genetic engineering and a philosophical ideal about "natural" vs "unnatural," there is a wall between acceptance of an aspect of reality that cannot be explained in terms of ideas that exclude them a priori. (Perhaps this is an issue for another time...)
Chris, of course was only resorting to hyperbole, metaphor, and/or framing when he called PZ a liar.
Inoculated Mind,
Email me at nisbetmc@gmail.com and I can send you PDFs of the two relevant studies I have done on framing and public opinion of plant biotech.
As for the outcomes of framing, it depends on the issue, the context, and goals of communication. See comment where I explain:
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/09/aaas_panel_communicatin…