The Expelled! fiasco: What's wrong with telling it like it is?

"The problem is we're not arguing with people who are open to intellectual persuasion."

Exactly. Being nice to the ID/creationist wing is playing their game. Give them the respect they want and suddenly they're respectable.

What makes me laugh about this is that all of you at SB seem to have abandoned science and reason. It's very depressing to watch.

The question at the heart of all of this, is "is it possible for us to win these arguments, and if so how?".

Instead of using, I don't know, socio-economic studies, evidence, logic or reason to answer this question, we see the ScienceBloggers regressing to personal attacks, telling each other to "fuck off", and writing long opinion pieces staking out their territories.

It's depressing because this is exactly what we all call out creationists for - relying on irrational arguments instead of coming to conclusions based on the facts.

You guys are supposed to be at the front of the crowd, the leaders and top representatives of the science blogging community. For the love of Brian, stop all this ridiculous infighting, get together on your "elite" forum, figure out a strategy between you, and start demonstrating that this little Seed project can actually do some bloody good in the world other than acting as a supermassive-gravity well for bloggers.

Do the (admittedly small number of guilty) Sb bloggers have any idea how utterly foolish they appear to vast majority of scientist outside of the insular Sb community? How can self-declared scientist leaders justify using the same type of communication skills as G. Bush's neo-cons? The bulk of the science community does not, in my opinion, accept the position that cursing, denigrating and belittling of others constitutes an effective standard for interaction between the science community and the public.

Martin's comments are directly to the point. Why have the Sb bloggers not used those techniques that the social sciences have proven, though research, to be most effective? Is it possible that the 'hard' sciences are tone deaf to the advances made in other areas of scientific endeavor?

The true science leaders of our nation have already instituted a well structured process for reaching out to the religious communities. A process that appears to be working. How about helping that process!

We have had enough of Sb's early adolescent exhibitionist behavior!

"The problem is we're not arguing with people who are open to intellectual persuasion."

That is why "progressives" keep loosing the argument. Because they've given up before even starting. The number of people who fit the above characterization is fairly small and the majority of people can be reasoned with. The lefties just need to drop their idiotic superiority complex and stop assuming that they're the only people smart enough to understand why their ideas are better.

The people on the right know what they believe and try to convince everyone else to agree with them. The people on the left seem to assume that most people are too stupid to understand their position, so they tell them what they (wrongly) think they want to hear in order to trick them into joining their cause. Well, if only one side is talking, talking to the rest of the people, guess who's going to win?

How does one go about changing the mind of someone who has rejected reason?

What a nasty thing to say about Matt and Chris. And they have such great hair!

Similarly, I wonder what Matt would have advised Darwin, who made a lot of people mad with Origin of the Species. Likewise Copernicus with De revolutionibus.

Wonder no more. Nisbet was asked about Copernicus during an April 200 7 interview:

BROOKE GLADSTONE: How would you have advised Copernicus to advance his highly controversial and unpopular sun-centered theory of the solar system?

MATTHEW NISBET: Well, again, you know, there are certain ideas that come about in science that clash so strongly against prevailing world views that any type of short-term communication effort is going to run up against a wall...

What tremendous insight! With such an impressive track of his own accomplishments, it's positively scandalous that the multitudes do not bow down to Nisbet's wisdom.

Martin's comments are directly to the point. Why have the Sb bloggers not used those techniques that the social sciences have proven, though research, to be most effective?

Has Nisbet, Mooney or Kirshenbaum (or anyone else for that matter) written a book that could convince thousands of Fundamentalist Creationists of the truth of evolution? Or even laid out the recipe for such a successful effort? I am not aware of any such successful accomplishment.

Y'know, my impression was that the whole Nizbetizian thing was an attempt to influence to basically win over the low-info undecided voters, the "wobbly middle". On one hand, it's a demure and modest aim; on the other - well, as a campaign strategy it's open to the same criticism (or praise) as its slightly more obviously political counterparts.

tonyl, I'm not sure James is saying such people are stupid, simply that they're not "open to intellectual persuasion., " something which can have a number of other explanations - they don't value that modality, they're not going to change firmly held beliefs vitally bound to their sense of self and meaning, they've decided we're the enemy and everything we say must be dismissed as corrupting satanic lies, etc.

Martin's comments are directly to the point. Why have the Sb bloggers not used those techniques that the social sciences have proven, though research, to be most effective?

Further to Tegumai's excellent point, where can we find these "proven techniques" for convincing people who have been brainwashed into accepting as gospel anything said by their religious leaders and right-wing media pundits?

The question at the heart of all of this, is "is it possible for us to win these arguments, and if so how?".

Instead of using, I don't know, socio-economic studies, evidence, logic or reason to answer this question, we see the ScienceBloggers regressing to personal attacks, telling each other to "fuck off", and writing long opinion pieces staking out their territories.

There are a couple of problems with your premise. One is the presumption that Nisbet actually has ideas or evidence. His primary point is "ur doin' it wrong." The tactics and "frames," other than "shut up and let someone else do the talking" (yes, really, that's really his position) are lacking.

Nisbet **had no frame** to take advantage of the publicity surrounding the Expelled expulsion. His suggestion was that Myers and Dawkins should shut up and, like cowed public employees, refer all questions to an Official Science Communicator. That isn't a frame, it's a bureaucracy. And there is no reason to believe that would have resulted in better, or any, media coverage of the event. If anything, a dull Official Response would have let the movie producers have all the jucy press coverage with a tepid, sound byted response by a "Spokesperson" trying to respond scientifically to dishonest propaganda. I say that just wouldn't work and you are welcome to try and refute my position with evidence to the contrary--but so far Nisbet has provided none.

I think the SB bloggers and readers are open to evidence based tactics. The problem is that Nisbet is all theory and basic past studies. Herr Professor "Frame Expert" says "Frame!" "Frame!" "Frame!" But when you ask him for one, there is nothing. If he's so good at framing, what is his frame for the Expelled expulsion???? AFIK, he ain't got one. And if, by some chance, he does, it has lousy penetration and recall--and I've read most of the threads on this topic top to bottom and I don't recall any frame for the Expelled expulsion--and there isn't a need for one because Expelled from Expelled is already perfect--why Nisbet lets his dislike of PZ get in the way of obvious is a mystery.

Another reason many SB bloggers distrust Nisbet is that when PZ asked how to frame his message for better effect Nisbet had nothing and apparently thinks PZ can't be framed. Is it the atheism? Hmmm....seems there is subtle agenda to Nisbetian PR.

When Nisbet does have a frame (when is that?) there is no evidence that his framing is the right framing. And bad "scientific" PR can be just as bad as any intuitive PR. Remember past presidential candidate Bob Dole and Al Gore's focus group-powered handlers? Both candidates were told to turn off their sense of humor to disastrous results. "Experts," even ones who have evidence and frames, can hurt a message as much as they can help it.

But the good news is that all this scorn heaped on Nisbet is his chance to "frame" his way out of it--think of it as real world test. If he can't, then maybe he's not the PR savant he claims to be.

errata: The first two paragraphs are quotes. SciBlogs apparently won't let a blockquote tag span paragraphs.

@Martin

relying on irrational arguments instead of coming to conclusions based on the facts.

What has Myers said that is irrational? Or are you referring to someone else's arguments? You may well disagree with Myers, but I don't think his position on "Expelled", or on Nisbet's writing, is irrational.

Thanks for the overall play-by-play of the discussion. I am new to the Sb scene and found the amount of play that this got to be surprising. Now I understand it a bit better now that I know where all these players come from.

Let me give you the perspective of someone raised in the ID camp and only later learned that science comes from scientists. I am not an Atheist but now no longer struggle with a dicotomy between what I believe and what I learn from science. First of all, you are not going to convince the 'big names' in the camp to bend to your views. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't voice your views but it does mean that you need to know who your target audience is. An atheist insulting a creationist's views won't open the audience to 'intellectual persuasion'. I think that you need to pry on the cognitive dissonance that they've learned to accept. Frankly I am surprised that the amount of hate here has risen to match those on the Fundamentalists' side.

Similarly, I wonder what Matt would have advised Darwin, who made a lot of people mad with Origin of the Species. Likewise Copernicus with De revolutionibus.

Well, of course, De Revolutionibus was published with a foreword by Andreas Osiander in which he argued that astronomical hypothesis should be considered mere instruments for calculation rather than true, or even probably true. Here's a quote:

So far as hypothesis are concerned, let no one expect anything certain from astronomy, which cannot furnish it, lest he accept as truth conceived for another purpose, and depart this study a greater fool than when he entered it.

This was totally contrary to Copernicus's own view, and was inserted to weasel some sort of freedom of inquiry for astronomy from theologians and philosophers. Seems like a first-class example of "framing"--it's been going on for a long time.

"Frankly I am surprised that the amount of hate here has risen to match those on the Fundamentalists' side."

I think that altogether too much has been made of this.

Nisbet and Mooney had some good arguments a year ago - express science in a way that is more acceptable to the target audience. Which is fine, and great, and I would love to see them work on it.

Unfortunately, it turns out that neither of them have any idea how to actually proceed. Nisbet, in particular, has turned this into a self-aggrandization scheme, and is attacking pretty much anyone who makes a good showing at communicating science. Al Gore talked about global warming? Produced a great film? Well, he didn't consult Nisbet, and therefore he did it wrong.

This last fiasco is really dissapointing. PZ Myers had used his "expulsion" to successfully communicate to the public that the producers of "Expelled" are ignorant, hypocritical liars. Whether one likes PZ or not, whether one agrees with him otherwise, one has to admit that he has handled this issue perfectly.

And then Nisbet ruined it, by turning the whole discussion to the subject of whether PZ was too rude to the religious. And Sheril and Matt compounded this with a huge hulabaloo over the use of word "fuck" (not the best word to use, but come on people, we are adults).

The result? Nisbet's diatribe was the headline for the creationists, "proving" that they are right and scientists who oppose them are evil and arrogant.

It boils down to this:

"An atheist insulting a creationist's views won't open the audience to 'intellectual persuasion'."

And they don't! If you ever listen to PZ or Dawkins actually debate creationists, they aren't screaming at them, or calling them names. They do state their opinion clearly, but they are certainly not screaming profanities.

We do need other strategies as well, but their approach serves a purpose. We need to stop talking about whether they are too offensive (for what, saying what they think?), and try to figure out ways to add to the communication. Attacking other scientists because we don't like their way of communication (even when it's proving to be effective) is not the way to promote public understanding of evolution.

And everyone needs to stop listening to Nisbet. With apologies to those squeamish about strong language, the man is a fucking imbecile. A supposed communication expert, he managed to alienate and outrage an initially friendly audience. Now we are supposed to believe that he knows how to woo an unfriendly audience?

"A supposed communication expert, he managed to alienate and outrage an initially friendly audience. Now we are supposed to believe that he knows how to woo an unfriendly audience?"

There really is no way around that.

Just as IDer's can't explain away the infinite regression necessitated by their theory, Nisbet's inability to make convincing arguments belies his claim to be an evidence-based expert at convincing people.

Perfect:

And everyone needs to stop listening to Nisbet. With apologies to those squeamish about strong language, the man is a fucking imbecile.

I still say Nisbet has no place on SB.

I second everything M. just said - well phrased. I was astounded by Nisbet's initial undermining response - can the man not see how wrong he is?

I really wish people would stop attaching the word 'hate' to every expression of indignation, anger, disgust, or disagreement. 'Hate' is a powerful word, describing an emotion I think is far more powerful and destructive than what goes on at SciBlogs, or even in most instances between creationists/IDists and the rest of us.

BTW, we can see just how bad Nisbet is at framing by looking at his post, as cited in the OP:

Matt "Framing Science Nisbet took offense for some reason. In a post titled "Why the PZ Myers Affair is Really, Really Bad for Science." he takes Dawkins and Myers to task for insulting those who don't share their disdain for religion. "Lay low and let others do the talking," he advises. "It's time to let other people be the messengers for science."

He chose a really, really bad "frame" if his desire was to convince fellow science bloggers and scientists to his side. He seems to think that other scientists, who aren't in the limelight, would take a populist view and chime in, "Yeah! We want equal time! So, you successful guys should just shut up and refer all media to us!" Instead, the message that resonated was the "shut up and let others do the talking message," a message of hierarchical control and censorship. Nisbet could not have more clearly demonstrated his total ineptitude at "framing" than by the cluelessness exhibited in his post.

Bee;

I concur that the word 'hate' is powerful.

Let's take an example that occurred several weeks ago on PZ's site: PZ and several others were disagreeing with a female commenter, vehemently so. Denigrating and demeaning language was being used toward the female commenter. Out of the blue, with no apparent justification, PZ post's the female commenter's real email address on the website. Then proceeded to denigrate the female poster for having the word 'Southern' in her email address.

To be fair, if in this situation fair is even an applicable term, someone (PZ ?) later removed PZ's post which included the female poster's email address.

Bee, just what type of emotional response would you have had to PZ' action? Would 'hate' be too strong?

(Note: I have posted under Anon due to fear of being treated in a similar manner as the female poster.)

@Richard "What has Myers said that is irrational? Or are you referring to someone else's arguments?"

He has said, for example, that the best way to deal with creationists is to shout at them. That may be true, but he's not provided any evidence for it, period.

@Scote "There are a couple of problems with your premise. One is the presumption that Nisbet actually has ideas or evidence"

You're confusing my position. I'm not saying Nisbet is right either, I'm saying you're all looking increasingly irrational, both sides. However, it seems like it is virtually impossible to criticize one side of the SB debate without being accused of being part of the other side. Yet another similarity with IDs and Creationists then...

@Tegumai "Has Nisbet, Mooney or Kirshenbaum (or anyone else for that matter) written a book that could convince thousands of Fundamentalist Creationists of the truth of evolution? Or even laid out the recipe for such a successful effort?"

Again, I NEVER SAID I WAS ON NISBET ET AL'S SIDE. Got that? Good.

You're asking whether anyone has managed to persuade large numbers of people to follow a particular viewpoint. Erm, have you ever read The Daily Mail? Have you seen how marketing works? Have you seen how successful televangelists are and how much money the creationist movement are raking in? That is success. While Nisbet, Myers and the rest of Scienceblogs indulge in their own little internal bitch fest, the rest of the world is doing quite a good job making its case.

You're confusing my position.

Kind of hard to do since you don't really have one. Your example @Richard isn't an example of "irrationality," either.

@Scote

Believing in things without evidence is, to me, irrational.

And as for my position, what do you mean? My position is that this big unseemly argument makes ScienceBlogs look a bit silly, and that I'm disappointed that the supposed flagship of the science blogging community has degenerated to this sort of level. Is that clear enough?

Just to (again) clarify, I don't think PZ Myers was initially in the wrong, it's the whole argument afterwards that pisses me off, and the inability of the SB crowd to coordinate and research the best way of getting the message across.

The question at the heart of all of this, is "is it possible for us to win these arguments, and if so how?".

Instead of using, I don't know, socio-economic studies, evidence, logic or reason to answer this question

Contrary to what Martin says people have been trying to use evidence reason and logic for years. Talkorigins is full of such things. Much of the debate about framing is what to do when this doesn't work, whether the truth needs to be sugar coated so people don't take offence and refuse to listen, or whether it is best to keep to one's principles and not tell half truths to keep as many on side as possible.

@G. Shelley "Contrary to what Martin says people have been trying to use evidence reason and logic for years. "

I think you've misunderstood me. What I'm talking about is using reason and logic to establish which PR techniques are best for putting out our message, not using logic and reason in arguments generally. Show me one single ScienceBlogs articles that discusses peer-reviewed research on how to disseminate information to the public the best way?

It neither "breaks my leg nor picks my pocket" when a religious person expresses faith in a god. As a consequence, I treat that person with the respect that all citizens deserve. Although I have been an atheist all of my long adult life, I simply have never had cause to curse and denigrate people who believe differently than me. Further, I question the validity and reliability of any justification which postulates that an aggressive position need be exhibited. On what basis should I treat a fellow human being in such a manner? I know of few!

For those who seek knowledge outside of the 'hard' sciences, a huge body of research literature regarding the effects of verbally (and physically) aggressive behavior can be viewed in the following areas: general learning theory; operate or instrumental learning; childhood education; personnel management; social communication; advertising; military; animal training; and many, many more. The well known and widely distributed research findings in these areas will no doubt transfer very nicely to the issue of public understanding of science. It is my understanding that several national science organizations have already undertaken such a process.

Apparently, a small 'dark age' has descended onto Sb. The creationists and new atheists appear to be totally unaware of their commonalities.

The problem is we're not arguing with people who are open to intellectual persuasion. These are people who get their ideas from charlatans and amoral entertainers the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. You can't simply say, "I beg to differ" in response to their lies.

Then you are not likely to persuade anybody ever. The logical course would seem to be, stop arguing with them and attempt to reach the reasonable ones. Or continue the argument until it loses purpose and becomes mere spactacle because that is already working soooo well.

@Anna and Lewis

Thank you. You both sum this up beautifully.

IT TAKES ALL KINDS:
To push the general national conversation more in one direction, more radical voices in that direction are also needed.
For example, if you want to have 'leftist' views more accepted,you need not only some middle-of-the-road proponents of such views, but also more radical 'leftists.' Here in the U.S., the political spectrum is cut short, reaching from the far right to at best, a Christian-democrat middle, which then is denounced as 'far left.' In Europe, the spectrum extends further left, to socialists and, in some countries, even communists (even if these are, since 1989, more marginal). But the existence of the 'further out' left makes social democrats in Europe the center of the political spectrum, and their policies more acceptable.--
Here in the U.S., the right-wing radio and TV talk hosts, the Limbaughs and the Coulters and O'Reillys, and (for intellectuals) the drivel from the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, and other right-wing 'think' tanks, these all made the slightly less obnoxious right-wing views appear quite acceptable, and shifted the perceived center to the right; hence the predicament of the last 8 years.

Similarly, having Dawkins, Harris and other 'new Atheists' around makes mild agnostics suddenly so much more acceptable. They give their views visibility and respectability. Without them, religious schools can easily propagate the idea that everybody is of their belief (except those of similar or competing religions).
Now for science, many religious people do accept that it is independent of religion. E.g. Catholic schools do teach evolution and physics, and Catholic hospitals do use evidence-based medicine, and probably will continue to do so. They might agree that religion and science are 'non-overlapping magisteria'[Gould], and not be affected by what Dawkins and Harris etc. say.--
Some fundamentalist might reject science, or try to co-opt it due to its obvious success and respectability.
They'll do that no matter what; but occasionally their children might see Dawkins' book in the store and
say, I thought I was the only one who thought that [religion
makes no sense].
Perhaps the only way to appeal to the fundamentalists is by the live-saving practical application of (medical) science. (say: would you accept last year's flu vaccine for your ailing parent or child? After all, it has been developed under the paradigm of evolution. If some fundamentalist doesn't accept vaccination [or blood transfusion], there's nothing one can do, no frame can help).

In the same way, many of us see the mainstream churches and religious groups as acceptable, and to be dealt with politely, because there are the so much worse fundamentalists around (who unfortunately, have gained so much ground in the U.S.).

So, if Dawkins and Harris and PZ Meyers etc would use some 'framing,' and bloggers would be unfailingly polite to all religious people out there, their impact would be actually less, as then nobody out there would pay attention, and the debate about science and religion would become limited to a spectrum from creationism/ID to 'non-overlapping magisteria.'

Nevertheless one should continue to try to understand how to best make the case for science in this society, so I do see value in studies of framing. Clearly, the frame that 'science is honest and open' but 'DI/Expelled producers are afraid of criticism and secretive and apply propaganda techniques' is a useful one. That one can make the Expelled producers the laughingstock of at least the sciencebloggers for excluding one critic, but ignoring a more famous one, helps, too.

Martin wrote:

Have you seen how successful televangelists are and how much money the creationist movement are raking in?

If you would like an example of effective framing in terms of rousing a particular sector, you need look no further than Pharyngula. At his current rate I believe he'll be averaging 12 million visits a year. That represents a lot of individuals and though he will not likely win over many fundies to his side, his work, and the work of others, is gradually changing the social climate in the U.S. Now politicians address their speeches not just to "people of faith" but to the non-religious too. That was not happening several years ago when it was all religion, all the time. You may not like Myers' frame, but he's doing what he does very well. There is certainly nothing irrational in his tactics, unless, of course, you don't understand what he's trying to do. I don't think he's trying to be Carl Sagan -- he's more of an Abbie Hoffman (at least in his writing).

@Richard

You are quite correct. There is a hunger in our USA (not to mention Europe) for a rational alternative to religion(s). It is undeniable! In recognizing that you have hit upon a point of inevitability in the future of humanity. Religion as an irrational construct will die!

Yet, the issue to many of us is not just that such an inevitable end point will occur, but of how soon and with what style we reach that end point. I believe that cursing, belittling, and demeaning our religious neighbors and friends is not only inappropriate, but counterproductive to the rapidity with which we could potential 'enlighten' our religion colleagues. Decades of social science research proves that point beyond all resonable doubt.

Did you happen to read Anon's post earlier in the day? Please, take a moment to do so before reading more.

It is quite saddening to many of us that a few science blogging sites (Pharyngula being prominent among them) which, in exchange for popularity, pay a very high moral price and sacrifice many of the professional qualities of leadership that many of us hold to be paramount.

Please, do not misunderstand me. I believe that PZ is a very bright and a very persuasive person. But, if I had to make a choice of the person I will live next door to, or the person that my daughter will marry, or the person I want to represent me when my chips are being thrown into the fire, I will rely most heavily on morality and ethics to guide my choice.

Richard, many of us in the science community (outside of Sb) are concerned about many more aspects of life than the wonderful, but limited truth of science. At the end of my day I want to be able to proudly face my granddaughters. I want the moral respect of my community-at-large. I want to be a well rounded person who helps the world be a better place for all of us. This I say as a life-long atheist and as a person who has seldom failed to confront irrationality (funerals and weddings excepted).

In my opinion, your post was well constructed, logical, rational and, more importantly, civil. I commend the honest presentation of your position.

The idea that someone will be definitely turned off to a message because he doesn't like the messenger seems wrong. Another person with a different discourse may very well be convincing. There's enough work and enough room for all kind of approaches, and I would think that having many different voices should be better than one.

And given the success of Dawkins and co to promote atheism, I really don't understand how anyone could dare to tell them to shut up, especially a nobody like Nisbet.

This framing theorization is just intellectual masturbation.

Out of the blue, with no apparent justification, PZ post's the female commenter's real email address on the website. Then proceeded to denigrate the female poster for having the word 'Southern' in her email address.

As the saying goes...WTF?This sounds like a complete fantasy. No such incident occurred. Why would I berate someone for the word "southern" in their address? And no, I haven't deleted any posts, except for one duplicate the other day.

Actually, I think that southern outing incident happened at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

It's way too late to go hunting for it. Her name was Susan or something and she was annoying and racist and from the south. Plus, her email was something like "southernbelle@yahoo.com".

Whatever. It was a stupid anonymous yahoo address calling out for a bad joke. It's not like he posted her home address and phone number. I'm sure she will survive to make many more lame posts on the internet with her other email address, cletuseswife@yahoo.com, I'm sure.

@Richard "If you would like an example of effective framing in terms of rousing a particular sector, you need look no further than Pharyngula. At his current rate I believe he'll be averaging 12 million visits a year. That represents a lot of individuals and though he will not likely win over many fundies to his side, his work, and the work of others, is gradually changing the social climate in the U.S."

That is the biggest load of codswallop I've heard in a long time. Firstly, I seriously doubt that 12,000,000 unique visitors, more like 100,000 visiting regularly. That's about 0.03% of the U.S.A. Now let's compare that with the number of Americans reading CNN or Fox News, or the visitor numbers at conservapedia, for instance. Hell, compare it to the number of Americans reading the British-based BBC.

Now compare it to, again, the impact Creationists are having. I don't see a Pharyngula candidate fighting school-board elections. I don't see the combined might of ScienceBlogs raising millions of dollars to start a Museum of Evolution.

The idea that any of us science bloggers, even Pharyngula, are "changing the political climate" by preaching to an already pro-science 0.03% of the population is frankly absurd so far. In order to genuinely have an impact, if they really want to, the likes of Nisbet and Myers need to stop their posturing, and actually start figuring out the best, "peer-review researched" ways of influencing the public, as I described on my own blog this morning ( http://layscience.net/?q=node/94 ).

Well, Anon, looks like you're spreading unfounded lies yourself, about PZ Myers. Why would you do that?

It doesn't hurt to have a Carl Sagan who can patiently and calmly reason with just about anyone.

But at the same time, if you're dealing with Limbaugh his audience - which an old study from years demonstrated that the more someone listens to Limbaugh the more certain they are they're informed while the more misinformed they become - ruthless mockery/satire/parody/ridicule etc. might be the only way to open an epistemic crack in the wall.

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them" - Thomas Jefferson

I confess that I didn't read the rest of the comments to see if this has been already been said, but wouldn't Paine's Age of Reason been a more appropriate book to imagine Nisbet saying not to publish?