An amusing back-and-forth

The tiff between Jerry Coyne and Robert Wright is getting even more hilarious. Wright is accusing Coyne of misrepresenting and misunderstanding his book, and is bringing up all these quotes from The Evolution of God to refute Coyne's claims. If you just read Wright, you'll have to agree — Coyne does say things that are directly contradicted by the text.

But then you miss the point. Coyne has a short reply in TNR and a longer reply on his blog where he quotes Wright several times saying exactly what Wright says he didn't say. Wright's true name seems to be Legion, and he contains multitudes. One of the problems with his book is that it hares off in all kinds of directions, and you can find pieces that say one thing, and others that say something very different.

It's a lot like the Bible.

Note to fans of Wright: that's not a compliment.

And there's more! The few comments are from Wright fans whose response is to demand that "the Editors … step in on this one and review the original essay by Jerry Coyne. The author provides some strong evidence that his book was either misunderstood or not actually read by the reviewer." Quite the contrary. The evidence shows to me that the reviewer seems to have read the book more carefully and perceptively than the author.

More like this

Attention conservation notice: A couple thousand words that can be summarized as: "Someone is wrong on the internet." Jerry Coyne has a longish reply to my post yesterday. He seems quite upset about it. He seems to think I'm very, very wrong. And yet he cannot manage to characterize my argument…
On Monday I posted a reply to Jerry Coyne's clique-ish and philosophically naive report on a talk he didn't see. I thought this would be a useful exercise because: Coyne is a former professor of mine, I respect him, and don't want to see him embarrass himself. High school-level cliqueishness seems…
I'm sure we all remember the book Unscientific America, by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. I found the book to be very disappointing, for reasons I explained in my epic, three-part review (Part One, Part Two, Part Three.) In short, I felt the book was superficial in its analysis of the…
Jason Rosenhouse, criticizing Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum's reply to Jerry Coyne's review of their book in Science, ends with this thought: You can not consistently argue that one side hurts the cause every time they open their mouths, but then object that you are not telling them to keep…