You know this part: PZ Myers was thrown out of a screening of "Expelled". He blogged about it, Richard Dawkins blogged about it, half the science bloggers in the Universe blogged about it. It made the New York Times and Salon, who both had very good articles about the situation.
Not everyone, however, was pleased. Chris Mooney wrote that this incident has helped the movie more than science, and Matt Nisbet says that PZ and Dawkins shouldn’t have been in the movie to be interviewed in the first place.
I have some thoughts on this, of course. First, Sean over at Cosmic Variance sums things up pretty well. Read his first and then come back. I’ll wait.
OK, welcome back. Again, I think Sean has done an excellent job as usual on this topic. I know Chris Mooney and I like him, but he’s dead wrong on this one. This publicity is killing the movie; it makes the producer Mark Mathis and Ben Stein look like the craven liars they are (and the New York Times article says it’s a creationist movie! Score one for the good guys!). By showing the methods and almost reflexive lying the makers of the movie have resorted to, it’s showing them in a very bad light. By Chris’s reasoning, a movie critic’s bad review actually helps a movie, which is obviously wrong. The more the public knows about the real motives and methods behind this movie, the better.
Nisbet’s claims are a little more complicated. First, his writing his post in the style he did is ironic in the extreme; for someone who talks about framing all the time he certainly didn’t frame his argument in any way that will convince PZ to stop giving interviews and writing about religion. In fact, I don’t think I’d have won Randi’s million dollar challenge predicting PZ’s response.
Nisbet’s overarching comments are more interesting to me. It is certainly true that there are people who are de facto spokesmen for causes who wind up actually hurting their cause. For example, I’ve seen many (many many) scientists who have not exactly pushed forward the idea that science can be cool and scientists hip and fun.
But does this pertain to PZ and Dawkins? I’ve spent some time thinking about this. I think the answer is no, Nisbet is wrong here, and basically for the same reasons Sean laid out: PZ and Dawkins aren’t politicians, trying to spin, shuck, and jive their way through an interview so as to spin things just so. They are scientists, and they are interested in telling the truth as they see it.
Does that hurt the cause against antiscience? Sure, it can. A lot of people will be offended by such talk, and others can edit their speech or frame it in a way that makes science look like some sort of creeping menace.
But looking at what the makers of Expelled have done, it’s clear to me that this would have happened to any scientist they talked to. They would have edited, tipped, and tilted things to make them look good no matter what. I’m sure that had they interviewed Nisbet it would make him look like a befanged devil. That’s the MO of people like Mathis and Stein. They’re liars, and they’re only interested in suppressing reality. Nisbet said PZ and Dawkins should leave interviews to people who can handle it. Even if this weren’t an offensive thing to say, it should be noted that such people do not exist. Anyone can be edited to promote anything at all.
Given that, then maybe we should all shut up. Maybe we should just let the antiscientists, the liars, the hoaxsters, the conmen, and the shills just have their way, saying whatever they want with no accountability at all.
No way. That won’t happen, and we cannot let it happen. Matt Nisbet thinks that we should have front men who can take on issues the way they need to be framed so that they’re more palatable to the public. Of course making science palatable and understandable is a good idea. But we must be honest when we do it. We shouldn’t "dumb down" the science (that is, oversimplify it to the point where it’s content-free news); and we can’t change the results or the methods or — most importantly — the implications of research just because the public will find that an easier pill to swallow.
And it’s the right of any scientist to talk about science. Telling some scientists to shut up and let someone else talk about the issues is ridiculous. If Matt Nisbet doesn’t like what PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are saying, then it’s his right to counter their speech. Just like it’s mine to publicly state that Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney are wrong here as well.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
That was an excellent post, Phil. You were able to criticize the ideas of Chris and Matt without demonizing them as people.
J. D.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The only way Myers and Dawkins a could possibly stop their words being twisted is to stick to bland,not-giving-a-straight-answer-to-a-straight-question, politicianspeak. Long may people like them push their heads above the parapet and into the firing line. Long live debate.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Eh, PZ has a chip on his shoulder anyway. If he knew what Matt Nisbet’s opinion would be, we ALL knew what PZ’s response would sound like. Real classy, but then look who we’re talking about.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
This story just keeps on giving! What a delightful way to spend the Easter bank holiday…
March 24th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Shut up and let the pros do the talking? Myers and Dawkins have done more to get people thinking and talking about important ideas than Moody/Nisbet. It is less damaging to let people just lie and do nothing to challenge them. The noise might not be what everyone wants to hear but silence is always worse. With Myers and Dawkins there is not much danger of silence!
March 24th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Dawkins aren’t politicians, trying to spin, shuck, and jive their way through an interview so as to spin things just so.
Wait, what? That’s my impression of exactly what Dawkins is usually doing.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Well Myers and Dawkins are not everyone’s cup of tea, that’s for sure, but I agree that they are not helping Mathis and his movie by calling Mathis on his lies and deceptive behavior. If Mathis had been able to play the victim card, then perhaps he could have harnessed the publicity by gaining the sympathy of potential viewers, but his actions have been so obviously foolish and duplicitous that no one outside the creationist community will be fooled.
I tried to go see Richard Dawkins when he came to Austin last week. I showed up 30 minutes before the event, which turned out to be about two hours too late. The line wrapped all the way around the building and more than half-a-mile beyond that. I didn’t even bother to wait, and I heard later that hundreds of people were turned away. So there is an obvious desire to hear what people like Dawkins have to say in America, and the last thing they need to do is to shut up.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Heh. If Dawkins is guilty of doing that on occasion, its specifically because he knows that the creationists will attempt to take his words and spin them for their own purposes. “Expelled the Movie” will be Exhibit A in that regard.
But to compare Dawkins with politicians like McCain or Clinton is just silly. Dawkins doesn’t mince words when it comes to his views on religion. Can you see any politician doing that? I can’t.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Eh, PZ has a chip on his shoulder anyway.
Which is a BIG problem. I sent someone to his site once for a particular issue, and the person I sent was pushed in the opposite direction due to the vulgarity. Not that she was offended by it, but she asked me, “If he feels he is right, why can’t he state it in a calm and rational manner.”
The swearing and the name calling comes across as SOMEONE WHO IS EMOTIONAL AND NOT LOGICAL!
I preach this to skepticdom over and over but no one listens, and it will be our undoing.
WARNING! THE FOLLOWING DOES NOT WORK!
Confused person: “Hmm. The people pushing $CRAZY_CONSPIRACY_THEORY actually make a few good points, but I really don’t know enough about $SET_OF_RELEVANT_SCIENCES to be sure.”
Skeptic: You are a f******* idiot for even considering that. You should be sterilized and made to kiss my glorious behind every day.
Confused person: But…
Skeptic: Shut up. How dare you speak from your bottomless well of ignorance.
Confused Person: Kthx. Bye.
Skeptic: (to empty room) I win!
March 24th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Regarding the makers of the Expelled movie and the response coming from the science community, I think there is a big problem: no one is considering the perspective of the public.
I usually don’t leave long blog comments but I think this is important.
Now, in a way I consider myself the success story we’d like to see more often in the general public. I’m 30 years old and only have a high school education (currently attending community college night school for an IS degree). I’m an average blue collar middle class American. On top of that, though, I’m a science fan and a skeptic. So I can sympathize with those who identify things like Expelled and the ID movement as nonsense but I can also sympathize with the work-a-day average Joe who sees both sides vying for his endorsement but doesn’t know what to believe. The American public is starting to take the perspective of a child in a divorce. It’s watching these two figures of authority at each other’s throats trying to win control. At this rate there isn’t going to be a pretty end. The public is going to wind up resenting the entire ordeal and end up sharing its time with both sides. We all know that’s not a solution.
To get children back into a healthy mindset during a divorce they need a third party to help them understand the situation. To win the minds of the public we need the same. My suggestion is to give the public what I credit with giving me the perspective that sets me and other skeptics apart: an understanding of logic and reason. We tend to have to counter the same kinds of illogical claims made by promoters of ID so that the public doesn’t digest them as valid. We also tend to make the same arguments that support evolution for public consumption. Instead of hoping the public will ingest the good and not the bad why not try to give the public the same tools we use and ensure it?
We need to focus our efforts not on a single issue like evolution but start a cause to promote teaching logic and reason to kids at the earliest appropriate age. With a good sense of logic the public will be better equipped to figure out which claims are solid and which are nonsense. A logically informed public will scare ID promoters into retreat. Instead of trying to protect the public we need to arm them so they can protect themselves.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Great post, Phil. Very reasoned. We need people like you. And truth be told, we also need people like PZ AND Nisbet. Without being overly dramatic, what seems to have gotten lost in recent times (certainly in this recent episode) is that what is underway is a true campaign, something that almost by definition is for the long haul and which should be engaged in strategically or not all.
Unlike Matt Nisbet, the audience PZ, Dawkins et all are playing to are the ones currently outside the fray, those who never thought about the fray, and those that have yet to be born into it. Theirs is an excellent (and I must admit, quite entertaining) tactic of fighting for control of an agenda that is more often than not dictated by a conflict-oriented media. And they are succeeding in this “bad cop” approach. But bad cops are no good without good cops (and probably all sorts of other types of cops in between), and I think everybody needs to step back, take a breath, and realize one particular tactic is actually no good without the other: Myers on his own would look like a raving luncatic; Nisbet on his own — well, he wouldn’t even be noticed.
Can’t we all just get along — and then collectively dogpile on the real opposition?
March 24th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Phil,
Did you clear this article with the PR department? In the future, I would appreciate it if you got their approval before posting. Science is about image and spin, not facts and reality.
Get on board. Science doesn’t need people who rock the boat. The hallmark of good science is towing the party line. Any dissenters will be “Expelled”.
-OEJ
March 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
While it is the right of every scientist to have opinions, I would suggest that we be careful about public comment on issues that are not our area of primary competence. Dawkins is, however, the right guy to deal with evolutionary biology and the movie.
Richard Dawkins [Darwin' Rottweiler] has been an excellent advocate and spokesman for science when it comes to refuting the the ID and creationist crowd. You need to understand that the issue will never go away for the ID & creationist zealots. Their “faith” trumps facts, reality and science. It is a shame since this ID junk is a constant distraction from the real battle — the fight to enlist the minds of our youth and engage them in the pursuit of science,
March 24th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Judging from Dawkins’s write-up, they did exactly the same thing (or worse) with Michael Ruse’s contribution. Ruse is exactly the sort of person Nisbet/Mooney claim should be leading the charge. Indeed, he and the people Sean Carroll calls “critics” have had big dust-ups over reconciling religion and science. Yet the Expelled crowd give him exactly the same treatment – deception, distortion, smears and mockery. Funny that. There’s room for both framing and straight talk in this world. Let PZ talk to scientific and atheist audiences and Ruse and Nisbet talk to religious audiences if you want. Dawkins does a good job in the UK, where the public mostly rebels against ostentatious religion. His programmes are just about the only serious treatment science gets on television. Telling people to just stop telling the truth because it’s hurting the “cause” is a really dumb move.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
One thing that bugs me is that I haven’t seen much discussion of what the Expelled people are trying to achieve, and, if so, whether it’s worth taking any action to thwart them.
For example, if they are merely preying on the Creationist audience by pandering to their prejudices, then that’s nasty, but it probably doesn’t affect the larger discourse about education in America very much. The PZ affair is mostly irrelevant one way or the other under this hypothesis, because the target audience will just see it as another incident in the public war against faith. It might help them a little because they can start to call Expelled ‘the movie everybody’s talking about’ or some such.
Another possibility is that they are trying to convince neutral observers of te validity of ID. This seems to be the unspoken assumption of many in the Scienceblogs community (yeah, Sean, you have a point with ‘Dramablogs’), but, frankly, I doubt it’s the case. If it is, then, yes, they have probably shot themselves in the foot with the PZ affair, though the New Scientist review above (and the Orlando Sentinel one) won’t have helped them either.
What’s *really* interesting, though, is if there’s a political agenda – for example, if they want to use the “everybody’s talking about it” meme to start to influence legislators (“Look at the huge groundswell of controversy around this ground-breaking movie, Congressman! Doesn’t it show that the American people are beginning to rebel against Darwinist repression? Why, even notorious atheist blogger PZ Myers was so incensed when he learned the truth, that he had to be escorted out! Please sponsor this legislation on giving ID a fair voice in schools.”) then it gets more tricky. I think they will fail, because the movie will tank, because it’s a bad movie, but PZ might just have given them a few more legs.
It all depends.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I agree with you Quiet, one does not need to respond with “F” bombs and vulgarity in debating this, or responding to criticism. That’s what I appreciate about Phil’s blog. But I did ask PZ if I could use his classic opening line in his response…
March 24th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Although I agree completely with both Sean and BA, there are certain ethical considerations one has to make in terms of framing the extent of scientific truth. I personally believe that the truth should always be spelled out as it is, regardless of whom it may offend. Yet, there are instances where I can see how some people can view blatant truth as harmful. As an example, suppose someone discovers a faulty gene that renders an individual more likely to be homosexual. Say that 80% of homosexuals carry said gene and through advances in gene therapy, an expectant mother can take certain medicinal precautions to prevent the expression of the gene in her fetus. Now, although I personally believe that this should all be presented as openly and honestly as possible, there are many that feel that releasing this information will ultimately be counter-productive and harmful to society. These kinds of ethical and moral questions, although brought up through various hypothetical instances, do highlight the fact that ultimately, we just have to trust the truth, and educate the population in understanding and using it effectively (through science education, critical thinking, and a more secular and learned society).
March 24th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Psh. How could they shut up about such a thing? It needed to be told, these Expelled guys are *insert an awful word of your choice here*.
If something concerns me I’ll be the first in line to talk about it.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
We do not need Dawkins and Myers to shut up or to moderate. We do need to avoid publicly confusing missionary atheism with science. This is difficult for scientist missionary atheists. We just need to recognize the danger and to try.
When speaking publicly my opinions on the scientific basis for doubting religous opinions, I need to avoid casting myself or my opinions as “representative of science”. Nobody elected me. Being unwilling to do what I can to avoid such misrepresentation would be dishonest. Also destructive to the place of science.
I can’t stop others from distorting my expressions, but I intend to be as careful as I can about what hat I’m wearing.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Almost all of the comments on these articles are the same, but there’s one aspect that really hasn’t been mentioned:
PZ isn’t really targeted at these offended people. His purpose is to push people who are already skeptical to be louder, and to keep the loud ones loud.
Saying he’s alienating other people is completely missing the point. He’s not trying to please those people.
He is good at rousing his actual target audience. I would think that would be enough.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
QD, you are right that it does not help to call someone you want to convince about your point of view an idiot. But I must point out that I have not seen the scenario you give on this blog (at least as far as I can remember, which means they must be few and far between). The first time someone posts a question about creationism, global warming, the moon hoax, etc., there is always someone who will direct the commenter to the relevant web pages. Only when the commenter persists in his folly does derision follow.
About profanities: sometimes it can be very effective and apt. When someone tells you to shut up like that, “f*ck you very much” seems a perfectly measured response to me. However, I would not send my granny to Pharyngula, because I know the language would offend her (I would send her here, or to Cosmic Variance).
March 24th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Craig, that is a very good point.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
PZ’s vuglarity (and that of his sycophants) is definitely a problem. If that becomes the image of the “New Atheism”, it will turn off anyone who’s even borderline religious. They’ll look at the new atheism and say, “Is THAT what they want me to become? An vulgar adolescent ape who flings excrement at anyone who disagrees with him? No thanks – I’ll stick with church”.
PZ as an individual scientist expressing his option is not a problem. It’s the danger that the New Atheism will become too tightly associated with him, and damage atheism as a consequence. Of course, that’s exactly what PZ wants – it’s good for his career.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Both Craig and Pieter:
Excellent points from both of you.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
@ dave
“If that becomes the image of the â??New Atheismâ??, it will turn off anyone whoâ??s even borderline religious.”
If anyone decides to formulate an opinion of ANYTHING based on a single source or site, then that person or those persons are too narrow minded in the first place, and would likely never be convinced of anything other than what they already believe.
The last thing I would do is formulate an opinion of the scientific community by using one website or blog as a reference. Nor would I formulate my opinion of religion using only the Discovery Institute’s website as a reference.
I guess the point is that there is a place for each methodology. PZ may be a bit gruff with his message, and that will turn some people off. I myself find his style not to my personal liking… but the message is loud and clear, and he makes no attempt to sugar-coat it or lie about it. And for many people, that’s a rallying point, and as such is a good thing for combatting what is often a loud and obnoxious anti-science croud.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Craig: Saying he’s alienating other people is completely missing the point. He’s not trying to please those people.
That may be *his* point, but the collateral damage is still real. As an active skeptic in my own personal life, I’ve seen it time and time and time again.
Pieter: But I must point out that I have not seen the scenario you give on this blog
No, Phil does a decent job even if he gets a bit hyperbolic now and then. But we’re all only human.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
If this is a pollitical question, and I think it is (unless there really IS a scientific controversy – and I am repeatedly assured there isn’t) then you/we need to learn how to do politics.
In that case, the careful and the loud will be equally important and will have to learn how to play the game together toward the same goal.
No political party I can think of consists of only the one or the other.
So once again cooperation might be the smart thing.
A few lessons in practical PR might not be a waste of time or attention.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I don’t think infighting will do any good… unless it occurs on the other side… so I hope that isn’t what’s going on here…
March 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I am afraid most people here won’t like my opinion, but I think the tendency to try to put everything into clear-cut categories is neither rational nor very helpful if you try to convince someone. When I learned some years ago – through this Blog – that there are a lot of people in the United States who do not believe in evolution and that many of them think that Intelligent Design should also be taught to children, I was just shocked. I couldn’t believe that anyone (except from members in some dubious sect) can doubt such obvious facts. Unfortunately, it didn’t last long till I heard similar voices (even from politicians) in my country.
At that time, I had the impression that this Blog’s issues are pro critical thinking in science and as well in education. But the more I read, the more it struck me that it is just as well against religion and against theists. But rationalism (or ‘skepticism’, if you prefer this) is not equal to (in many comments here, unfortunately, intolerant) atheism. Of course, you can discuss these questions, too (so this is not against Dawkins in any way), but it’s just different issues. I think that if you paint it all black and white and draw a strict line between ID/theism on one side and evolution/atheism on the other side, you will leave many people left in the middle who would otherwise certainly support your case against irrationality.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
QD, just to turn things around:
WARNING! THE FOLLOWING DOES NOT WORK!
Confused person: â??Hmm. The people calmly discussing the Theory of Evolution actually make a good case. Although I haven’t studied paleontology, geology, or biology, much of their argument makes sense”.
Religious Fundamentalist: “You are a DEMON-POSSESSED HEATHEN! God will destroy you for even CONISDERING such a thing!”
Confused person: Butâ?¦
Skeptic: REPENT NOW, or spend ETERNITY in torment, with the HOMOS, and the PINKOS, and teh EVILUTIUONISTS!”
Confused Person: Kthx. Bye.
Skeptic: (to empty room) I win!
Tell me you’ve never seen this kind of ‘polite discourse’ on the message boards. And you are exactly right, if the creos are going to resort to thiese debate ‘tactics’ it behooves us, as the ‘rational’ side to keep our arguments calm, without resorting to ad hominem attacks. While it’s a lie that you draw more flies with honey than with vinegar, you certainly draw more people to your way of thinking with calm evidence than with virtiolic hyperbole.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
QD, just to turn things around:
WARNING! THE FOLLOWING DOES NOT WORK!
Confused person: â??Hmm. The people calmly discussing the Theory of Evolution actually make a good case. Although I haven’t studied paleontology, geology, or biology, much of their argument makes sense”.
Religious Fundamentalist: “You are a DEMON-POSSESSED HEATHEN! God will destroy you for even CONISDERING such a thing!”
Confused person: Butâ?¦
Skeptic: REPENT NOW, or spend ETERNITY in torment, with the HOMOS, and the PINKOS, and teh EVILUTIUONISTS!”
Confused Person: Kthx. Bye.
Skeptic: (to empty room) I win!
Tell me you’ve never seen this kind of ‘polite discourse’ on the message boards. And you are exactly right, if the creos are going to resort to thiese debate ‘tactics’ it behooves us, as the ‘rational’ side to keep our arguments calm, without resorting to ad hominem attacks. While it’s a lie that you draw more flies with honey than with vinegar, you certainly draw more people to your way of thinking with calm evidence than with virtiolic hyperbole.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I don’t think the story was covered enough. I agree with the BA. Why wasn’t this covered by more “mainstream” outlets? Why does anyone gain by keeping quiet about this? Creationists like to lurk in the shadows. They don’t do so well when illuminated.
March 24th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
tes, I agree that infighting doesn’t do any good. Unfortunately, it is human nature. I think everyone brings up very valid points…but I think most people have a hard time realizing that we need BOTH types of people when debating, well, anything. PZ and Dawkins have their place in the world, just as Chris and Matt. I happen to think Phil is the most well-rounded of the skeptic bloggers. But there is a time and a place for every reaction, and I think most people lose sight of that. You know – being able to see issues from different angles.
Just my 2-cents.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
QD:
Yeah, I’ve had the same impression of Myers, and it all started when I listened to a radio show that the BA linked to a while back that purported to be a “debate” between him and an anti-evolutionist. The unfortunately truth is that Myers more often than not resorted to ad hominem attacks and rhetoric, rather than relying on calm, honest discourse. Frankly, whenever he began to speak, I cringed a little… and I agreed with everything he had to say!
Now, I understand the frustration. In fact, in that very radio program, the anti-evolution advocate made some pretty glaringly incorrect claims regarding science and evolution, claims that, without proper research materials, were rather difficult to dispute without relying to a simple he-said-she-said argument (which is what the conversation essentially devolved to). But to resort to attacks, rather than reasoned discourse, helps on one, and only works to amplify the already strong anti-intellectual sentiment that seems so very common these days.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
@ DAV
“From what Iâ??ve seen of PZâ??s site, PZâ??s response is not atypical. He does the case for evolution/anti-Creationism far more harm than good. This is not a person interested in education and enlightenment. Heâ??s more like the class clown looking for attention and his audience is completely without need of persuasion regarding evolution. He tacitly encourages potty-mouthed posts. Why your association with him isnâ??t a source of embarrassment for you I canâ??t really understand.”
Although you’re entitled to it… this is purely your opinion. Yet stated as fact.
I disagree… You may see it that way because of your own personal beliefs / issues with PZ’z point of view. But can you really tell me that his methods are unique? As I’ve already stated, although not my style, I find his site to be a counter-weight to the loud obnoxious corner of the anti-science crowd (spelled corectly this time. *rolls eyes* ). And I think in some ways it’s needed. A loud, boisterous, even obnoxious voice is sometimes needed to be heard in a room full of loud, obnoxious people. Just as a moderate, reasoned approach is better for those who’s ears hurt and need to get out of the loud room… in that case they can come here.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
One thing Myers and Dawkins do is play to the ID stereotype presented in Expelled:
accepting evolution == materialism
materialism == atheism
atheism == Nazis
Well, except for the Nazis part, of course.
Now, we know that all three are patently false, and it would be up to the makers of Expelled to prove the associations, but this is more akin to “debate” now. Evidence is arbitrary, and the point of Expelled is to go for a gut-reaction, something akin to the treatments in “A Clockwork Orange.” Repeat an association often enough with painful stimuli and people make the assocation on their own, regardless of whether it’s true or not.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
A few more thoughts, if I may..
I do think that both sides of the cultural divide underestimate two things.
One is the time and effort it takes to actually get a usable idea of what sience is and how it works. How many hours have YOU spent on science? You may have forgotten, since so much of it was so interesting. That may be one reason you are now in science. Others may honestly think you have just read a few books, like they themselves did in college or wherever, so what have you got to be so uppity about?
The other is the extent to which “nonscientist culture” is political even on a personal level. An amazing amount of “debate” is actually nothing more than social positioning. Which may literally be a matter of life and death. Most people, if taking higher education of some sort, will actively avoid studying any more than absolutely necessary to pass the exam and get the degree so they can use it to get the job, the position, the status… to get ahead, or even just to survive socially. A question I got all the time was “but what are you going to DO with it?” It takes a nerd like me (and some others) to loose him/herself in some esoteric subject in search of some everchanging “truth” just because it is interesting.
And what is the social standing of the nerd?
Most people don’t have the time, knowledge or resources to decide what is going on in these cases, they just have to take somebodys word for it.
So whose word will they take?
The nice and friendly (or recognizably dominant) one who appears more or less reassuringly familiar, or the “nerdy” know-it-all who insists on calling them an ignorant idiot, if not actually in so many words?
Taking sides may have practical consequenses in many ways, so think carefully… Would YOU risk your membership in the gang just to side with an outsider on a matter you don’t even know much about?
What is the rational response in a situation like that?
Now you guys are used to scientific debate and may automatically expect your opponent to follow the rules just because this happens to be a scientific question.
Your opponents on the other hand will be conditioned to expect something else. Sermons, for instance, or a political argument of some sort. And, being innocent of scientific debate, a lot of people will interpret the scientific response as just that, sermons or propaganda.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
He’s more like the class clown looking for attention and his audience is completely without need of persuasion regarding evolution. He tacitly encourages potty-mouthed posts.
Exactly – a lot like Howard Stern, or in Star Trek: the “Q” character and his kangaroo court.
As far as PZ goes, it’s really all about his career and self-promotion. Even though I agree with much of what he says about science, I do not think that there’s anything admirable or inspirational about him, as a human being. He always takes the low road. Dawkins and a few other scientists, I have a lot more respect for.
Why your association with him isn’t a source of embarrassment for you I can’t really understand.
Phil may be a little afraid of him. Also, these bloggers have a good ‘ole boy network of their own, and they do communicate behind the scenes. We don’t see the whole story.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I’m going to have to agree with Craig here. While he’s hosted on Science Blogs, and is routinely considered to have the most popular “science blog”, the simple truth is that PZ treats his blog, either consciously or unconsciously, as an atheist blog that dabbles in science news, and not the other way around.
We can talk about whether Meyers’ and Dawkins’s words and actions are good for science or not, but, and this is especially true in the current discussion, their current focus seems to be on spearheading an atheist movement. PZ is highlighting, as much as anything else, peoples reactions to atheists rather than science, and encouraging like minded people to stop sitting on their hands and actually get out and make themselves heard.
Telling Meyers and Dawkins that they should lie low and maintain radio silence is like telling a feminist to get back in the kitchen. Quite frankly, I’d have a rather harsh reaction to either such comment.
If you disagree with either of their tones, there are a great number of other, more science focused blogs and webpages to send people with considerably less vitriol.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
This is a huge topic complicated by different interest groups, time scales and meanings of framing, but the immediate interest is that for my 0.02 $ BA takes the subject by its short and curly more than other blogs. Well done!
Rumor has it that Nisbet now has made it as a framing example on the UD blog (a site I don’t care to visit much so I haven’t checked). If true, Nisbet’s old chip on his shoulder regards Dawkins and PZ has fallen badly.
I would be pissed too, if I fail when I let my actions stand in place of explicit suggestions and when I’m trying to communicate on how to communicate.
This is like an epic epic fail and places him somewhere in the neighborhood of Mathis on both counts. It would be ironic if it wasn’t for the nagging feeling that Nisbet’s and Mathis’s ignorant dealings with the inflammatory interface between religion and science is what brought them together in the first place.
PZ has responded that Nisbet is clueless on the absence of autocracy in science which is correct as far as it goes. I would claim along the lines of this post that it is rather that Nisbet is clueless on the de facto stature of Dawkins.
It is like Nisbet is asking The University of Oxford to prematurely releave Dawkins of this tenure on the the Simonyi professorship for the public understanding of science, ask the Royal Society of litterature and the Royal Society to dismember him as a Fellow, ask Oxford’s Balliol college to stop giving out Dawkins Prize, or ask Dawkins to dissolve the Richard Dawkins Foundation for reason or Science.
Of course, even if Nisbet manages to convince all these people of the appropriateness of this, he surely must consider the Atheist Alliance International Richard Dawkins Award out of bounds for his request. Mustn’t he?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Some of the things Dawkins says — such as the article a few months back where he said that adultery was perfectly natural for men, and therefore women have no right to be offended when their husbands cheat — make me want to maroon him on an desert island. At times he sounds exactly like th stereotype creationists try to paint scientists as, which completely undermines those of us who aren’t militant atheists.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Sean, that sounds rather unlike Richard Dawkins. Do you have a reference for that?
March 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
If you disagree with either of their tones, there are a great number of other, more science focused blogs and webpages to send people with considerably less vitriol.
Yes there are. I’m just wondering why Phil seems to be lending support to PZ instead of trying to distance himself.
It’s a bit ironic that Phil, who obviously is against anti-science, doesn’t appear to realize that atheism is just as ungrounded as theism. Neither can be settled by any conceivable experiment and that makes a belief in either one an unscientific belief.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Reading a few posts of his on the subject of religion, education or science will soon dispel that misconception, though. It is his intense dislike for religion and ignorance that fuels his engagement, and the short shrift given for stupidity that ignites it.
What is more ironic than the above statement is that while PZ was showing restraint with first his humor on Mathis mistake and then his vitriol on Nisbet, it is impossible to argue that he could have used that language here on BA. Of course, in what should be the real test of his manners on this topic, during the movie interview he comes over as very mild mannered and during the movie expulsion it was the humor of his initial blog response that kicked the legs out under Mathis. Imagine how well played his expelling of PZ would have looked if PZ had answered with a post filled with vitriol and curses.
So infantile berating on his answer to stupidity, either humor (Nisbet) or vitriol (possibly other concern trolls), doesn’t really come out well.
March 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
@ Sean O’Hara
“Some of the things Dawkins says â?? such as the article a few months back where he said that adultery was perfectly natural for men, and therefore women have no right to be offended when their husbands cheat â?? make me want to maroon him on an desert island.”
Dawkins really said that? Verbatim? Reference article please?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
@ DAV
“It’s a bit ironic that Phil, who obviously is against anti-science, doesn’t appear to realize that atheism is just as ungrounded as theism. Neither can be settled by any conceivable experiment and that makes a belief in either one an unscientific belief.”
I think what’s ironic to me is your inability to understand that atheism isn’t a belief. It’s the absence of belief. Atheism requires no “conceivable experiment”.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Funny you should mention that, since the mentioned scientist Dawkins makes a rational argument in his book The God Delusion why atheism is not only more compatible with the empirical rationale of science but is a much more probable state of nature.
As no one AFAIK has been able to come up with a reasonable problem with his argument, it can be claimed to be a reasonable ground for atheism.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
So infantile berating on his answer to stupidity, either humor (Nisbet) or vitriol (possibly other concern trolls), doesn’t really come out well.
Neither does clapping him on the back for his schoolboy, locker room behavior.
PZ, or anyone else like him, is not someone I’d want for my poster boy.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Thanks C-E, I somehow missed the more obvious erroneous claim. In any case, I’m quite tired of the philosophic preposition that one can’t use observations to assess reliability of science and weakness of religion. That is an unfounded belief.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
“I think what’s ironic to me is your inability to understand that atheism isn’t a belief. It’s the absence of belief. ”
But I can believe in atheism if I want to, can’t I?
It would be absurd, perhaps, but that is what belief is for, if I remember Tertullian correctly…
March 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
As no one AFAIK has been able to come up with a reasonable problem with his argument, it can be claimed to be a reasonable ground for atheism.
There are just as many, or more, reasonable arguments for theism. That doesn’t make either one testable. The ability to falsify is what science is all about. Without it, any theory is just as good as any other.
Theism cannot be falsified. Neither can atheism. By definition then, both are beyond scientific investigation. Atheism, theism, Spaghetti Monster-ism, whatever-ism are all fundamentally equal when it comes to support.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I didn’t do that, did I? I remarked that PZ showed restraint and that it was appropriate vitriol. It is you who call it schoolboy behavior – don’t erect your own strawmen on my behalf.
Meanwhile, curses is a fact of life in the adult world.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Dave instead of speculating, you could always ask me. I’m right here.
I consider PZ a friend, and I think he’s a good scientist. I don’t always agree with his methods — I won’t curse on this, or allow others too either (which is why I just deleted two comments in this thread) but that’s his prerogative. I have lots of friends I disagree with, either on issues or methods.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Reading a few posts of his on the subject of religion, education or science will soon dispel that misconception, though.
Yeah, if you can find one. It’s always, “hey, look at ME in this cartoon, or look what happened to ME at the theater, or look at ME in this article. ME, ME, ME!”. With all his infantile sycophants (you included) cheering him on – just like Howard Stern.
What is more ironic than the above statement is that while PZ was showing restraint with first his humor on Mathis mistake and then his vitriol on Nisbet, it is impossible to argue that he could have used that language here on BA.
Wow – you’re right, thanks to PZ’s benevolence we’ve been spared. If the almighty PZ were to suddenly appear here, we’d really be sorry!
March 24th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
DAV, don’t play the concern troll – it is very unseemly to a group of readers who value a free exchange of ideas.
And if you think atheism is just an ungrounded belief system like theism, one could make the argument that not collecting baseball cards is a productive hobby.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
About the profanity… Myself I’m 100% for profanity. I don’t use it here because the BA asked us not to of course.
I feel bad to substitute words I meant to say with something else. It’s borderline hypocrisy to me. And frankly… Offended by little “profane” words… COME ON! It’s so… prehistoric.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I think you misunderstood. Nisbet does not seem to be talking about their being interviewed for the movie in that statement, but rather being interviewed now about the movie. He is not talking about being misquoted and misrepresented, lied to and taken out of context. He is talking about vocalizing the deception, intent, and inaccuracy of the movie. Two different topics. Though I still disagree with him.
dave said:
>Why your association with [PZ Meyers] isn’t a source of embarrassment for you I can’t really understand.
>Phil may be a little afraid of him. Also, these bloggers have a good ‘ole boy network of their own, and they do communicate behind the scenes. We don’t see the whole story.
Afraid of himi? In what way? Afraid PZ will hit him with a stick if Phil says something negative about PZ? Afraid PZ will call Phil funny names and deride the BA Blog? What kind of afraid can you mean, and why do you propose such a silly thing?
Yes, they communicate “behind the scenes”. It’s called email. And maybe phone calls. And they met in Austin not too long ago, as part of a mutual get together with fans. What are you trying to imply?
DAV said:
> It’s a bit ironic that Phil, who obviously is against anti-science, doesn’t appear to realize that atheism is just as ungrounded as theism. Neither can be settled by any conceivable experiment and that makes a belief in either one an unscientific belief.
Define your terms. FTR, “atheism” typically means for atheists “without a belief in gods”. I don’t need an experiment disproving God for me to decide not to believe in him any more than I need an experiment disproving Yoda to disbelieve in him. A lack of evidence to support a god belief is all I need to lack a belief in a god.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
@ DAV
“Theism cannot be falsified. Neither can atheism. By definition then, both are beyond scientific investigation. Atheism, theism, Spaghetti Monster-ism, whatever-ism are all fundamentally equal when it comes to support.”
I tried to point out the error in your logic about atheism being falsifiable… you either chose to ignore it or don’t buy it.
Either way, I give up.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Sure, but science isn’t all of empiricism. In our daily life we come across a lot of successful empirical methods that aren’t science methods.
Never the less, on this particular point you are wrong. Dawkins based his argument on the nature of creative agents for such things as life. Observing them or their handiwork could have falsified his argument at any time, as much as an observation of precambrian rabbits could have falsified evolution at any time (and still can).
March 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Agree 100%, Michelle! I am more than happy to play by the rules of BA’s blog… and not because I’m offended by the profanity, but because I understand Phil’s desire to have this site be accessible and usable in the classroom. As such, this isn’t the place for that sort of display.
PZ can be a little dismissive and intimidating with his style, and it’s that part of his method that I take any issue with… certainly not his use of profanity. But it’s his blog, and I enjoy it for the most part. I’m just not as participatory there.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Oh dear, squabbling about true atheism again…
Were we not discussing how to increase the fold?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
@Pirx
“I think that if you paint it all black and white and draw a strict line between ID/theism on one side and evolution/atheism on the other side, you will leave many people left in the middle who would otherwise certainly support your case against irrationality.”
There is pretty good support for the ID/theism connection. ID has been shown to be a reworking of Creation Science (see, for example, the “Wedge” documen that had a spotlight shone on it during the Dover case). Also, the idea of an intelligent designer, as posited by the Discovery Institute crowd, is, at this stage, anyway, an inherently supernatural construct. Although many proponents are careful not to specify that the designer is a deity, by suggesting aliens, for example, most of the vocal types promoting the concept suggest that the designer is God (i.e., the big guy from the Christian Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, the Dagda, Odin, the FSM or other deity).
The evolution/atheism connection is a bit harder to nail down. Certainly, many ID supporters and hardline Christians seem to say that if you believe in evolution, then you must be a godless, heathen atheist. And, to be frank, a lot of evolutionists are atheists, some more vocally so than others. On the whole, though, I think a lot of the people that post to this blog are not of the vitriolic type, and there is a decent mix of atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists.
I do agree, however, that the extremes on either side do little to promote constructive dialogue, and insulting supporters of either side (superstitious idiots or heathenistic cretins) does nothing more than paint the speaker as incapable of using coherent argument, and only riles the emotions of the recipient.
As others have mentioned, though, and though I am loathe to admit it, the vitriolic, loud, obnoxious sorts on both sides are necessary to their causes. They bring the attention to the topic and open up the field for the more rational to begin calm discussions and, hopefully, reach an amenable conclusion. The question, though, is just knowing when to be loud and when to shut up.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Well, even if the argument is OT since the main point is, as other commentators have pointed out, that atheism isn’t a belief, I guess I should make this stick by exemplifying such a method.
Trial and error learning.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I think what’s ironic to me is your inability to understand that atheism isn’t a belief. It’s the absence of belief. Atheism requires no “conceivable experiment”.
I tried to point out the error in your logic about atheism being falsifiable…
Atheism, by definition, asserts “there is no god.” That is an unprovable statement. While you might insist that assuming it is so is reasonable, there is no conceivable test that will demonstrate it. That means it’s unfalsifiable as well.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Scientists, by their very training, are handicapped in debates with opponents who lie, obfuscate and use underhand tactics to achieve their aim. Dawkins has given great arguments that can be used in such debates, PZ is more direct but both have achieved success by stating the plain truth (little t).
Nisbet wants us to use ‘framing’ and ‘spin’ to achieve the same end. Playing politics may very well be more effective but at what cost? This necessarily means that the facts and the conclusions they generate will by altered. Perhaps not very much at first, but the slippery slope awaits and soon we will not have high debate but low level politics, in fact we will have descended to the level of the ID/creationists.
No Nisbet, keep your grubby politics to yourself and let true thinkers shine through.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Hey, Phil, I see you deleted My original post — the one that repeats (for all to see) what you linked to! You link to it but don’t want to see it here?
Am I somehow missing what your point is?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Sorry DAV, but I’m going to have to disagree. A – Theism, as it’s known, is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. I doubt that you’d say that A – Astrologism is irrational.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
@DAV
Atheism can have two definitions. One, as you suggest, is belief that there is no god. But, and I think this is what applies to a lot of the people here, it can also be defined as noted previously, lack of belief in a god. These are two very different definitions and positions to take.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Sorry DAV, but I’m going to have to disagree
Well, desagree then. Here;s the definition from Merriam-Webster:
How does disbelief (of lack of belief) translate into not meaning “there is no god?”
March 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I agree that the publicity makes the filmmakers look intolerant to mainstream America.
But here’s the problem: The people pushing this movie aren’t mainstream, and they are proud of it.
The reason they are proud of it: Creationists live by a persecution complex. When PZ was there, just because he was there they felt threatened and persecuted. Which is why he was booted.
As someone who used to be an extreme creationist, I know the mindset. The reason why PZ was expelled was because the creationist establishment thought they were being “persecuted” by him attending it. In their eyes, PZ was one of those worldly, evil, satanic, amoralistic, evolutionist liberals who supposedly are out to destroy America. Because of that, they reasoned, he has no business attending “their” screening of this “righteous” movie. In other words, this was a movie meant for creationists only.
Smearing those who disagree with you as a bunch of Nazis (which the movie does) is not only offensive, but one would think would bring condemnations from Jewish civil rights groups. PETA found that one out with the “Holocaust on your plate” campaign. But has the Anti-Defamation League even made a peep about Expelled? This is a whole lot worse. But I digress.
Back to what I said before: Creationists think that the war over science has to do with morality and religion and everything else out there that they do no agree with or understand. Have you noticed that when debating a creationist over science, they change subjects and point fingers at science over such things as homosexuality, pedophilia, drug use, school shootings, politics, etc.? That’s because they are taught, every weekend, that they are all connected and are out to get them. Science, I was taught as a kid, is out to “recruit” children in public schools into homosexuality. Science is out to make America Communist — just look at that ACLU, for example. (That logic does fly in creationist circles, believe me.) It’s out to rub Osama’s belly and tell him he has mental problems and he needs counseling. (again, I am not making this one up, I have heard that one myself.)
It is my opinion that creationists are so separated psychologically from the world around them that they wind up not understanding it. How exactly does being convinced of evolution lead to lost morality? As far as they are concerned, it’s “worldly” and therefore has to do with society’s sagging morals somehow. There is that part in Genesis about creation by God and since mainstream science doesn’t preach Genesis, then that must be the culprit.
See the problem? Evolution is group as a societal evil along with racism, murder, rape, terrorism, drugs, etc. because it is part of that “great big bad evil world out there” that creationists have no desire to understand.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
@DAV
Lack of belief is not the same as stating that it doesn’t exist. I lack a belief in unicorns, but unicorns may very well exist somewhere. I just haven’t seen one or evidence of one yet.
That is very different from saying that unicorns absolutely, totally do not exist.
Believe it or not, but a lot of people that say they are atheists still allow for the possibility that there could possibly be a deity. They just won’t believe in it until evidence for its existence comes along.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Dav, you’re taking an absolutist definition, when we all know there’s a broad spectrum of Atheism. As Richard Dawkins points out, even he’s considers himself a “de facto atheist”. In essence, the probability of there being a god, or gods, or fairies, or elves, or dwarves, or magical dragons living in the lost dryer socks of children is so infinitessimally small that, to think critically, empirically, and reasonably will conclude us towards the direction of de facto atheism. Science is not about to debate on the likelyhood that Thor’s going to drop his hammer on your head, or that Shiva will crush your bones with his mighty dance. Similarly, why should the idea that the universe has some kind of consciousness that you or some may call god (as a christian entity? muslim? or more mystical and quasi-scientific?) without any evidence whatsoever be practical?
March 24th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
With regards to the definition of atheists, I like to use Dan Barker’s definition, as quoted in his book Losing Faith in Faith:
Atheists claim that god is unproved, not disproved. (italics in original)
March 24th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
@Heliopogenus
Good point about the spectrum of atheism. Definitely a range of beliefs (or lacks of beliefs).
March 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Lack of belief is not the same as stating that it doesn’t exist. I lack a belief in unicorns, but unicorns may very well exist somewhere. I just haven’t seen one or evidence of one yet.
That’s what’s called the agnostic position. It means you don’t see the proof. If you’re going to claim to be atheist at least try to understand the meaning of the word. It means you reject the idea of a god. It is the opposite of theist. (Incidentally, the Greek “a-” means “opposite” but the M-W entymology is close enough for translation purposes.)
Understand that Dawkins and all are not agnostic. In fact, Dawkins specifically rejects the word saying it is insufficient Go see the Bright site.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Considering the number of people so interested in changng the definition of atheist, it appears there are many here hedging their bets. Very wishy-washy. Whatever makes you feel good, I guess.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
@DAV
Keep in mind that a) languages are fluid and not static and b) that dictionaries reflect common usage in print and typically are slower to update than actual usage in everyday life. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they are representative.
To address agnosticism, gnosticism is, IIRC, a belief that God is knowable. Agnosticism, therefore, would be a belief that God cannot be known.
Agnosticism and atheism sometimes go hand-in-hand. Other times, they don’t.
Since we’re using dictionaries, though, here are some from the American Heritage Dictionary for agnosticism:
n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
Again, two very different usages reflected. The 2nd is what you are using. The first is more along the lines that I am proposing.
Regardless of the dictionaries, though, the people posting here are sometimes using atheist the way I described, and sometimes the way you describe. There is no absolute definition.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Yes, DAV, I deleted your post, because you used a bad word. I am tired of editing peoples’ posts when they use such language, so I have taken to simply deleting them. It’s faster and easier on me.
If you have a problem with this, then you have two options: stop using bad language, or stop posting. Read my comments policy in the meantime.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
@ DAV
Agnosticism is not a halfway house between belief and unbelief. Thomas Huxley wrote about agnosticism about 150 years ago, referring to it as simply a refusal to accept any statement or idea unless sufficient evidence justifies it.
It is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic. Most atheists are agnostic, actually. The two labels aren’t mutually exclusive.
If someone were to say, “I don’t know” when asked if they believe in a god or not, then it is better to called that person undecided or unsure rather than an agnostic.
Also, the “a-” prefix in Greek means “without,” not “opposite.” A theist is someone with belief in god(s), an athiest is simply someone without that belief. If an individual cannot say that they believe in god, for whatever reason, is an athiest.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
@DAV
“Considering the number of people so interested in changng the definition of atheist, it appears there are many here hedging their bets. Very wishy-washy. Whatever makes you feel good, I guess.”
Not wishy-washy at all. Saying that atheism (lack of belief in a god) is not the same as saying that there is no god merely reflects a scientific approach. I.e., until there is evidence, I will not believe. This is in contrast to saying (using the agnostic approach) that no evidence can prove or disprove the existence of a god.
The scienific approach is simply this: Someone claims that a god exists. The burden, then, is upon them to support this claim through evidence. Until the claim is proved or supported, the scientific approach makes no claim one way or another as to the existence of the god.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
I have seen a lot of talk about PZ being too loud and proud on this thread. I have seen some anger that he occasionally uses adult language. I find these arguments a bit out of touch with reality. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you have every right to voice it. I do however have my own opinion and would like to state a few points.
How many times have trolls and perhaps even regular BA posters criticized BA for stating his opinion on his own blog? It happens pretty often. PZ has his own blog and is just as free to post his own opinions. I have found some great science on PZ’s blog, just like I find it here. So PZ has every right to post anything he wants without attacks for being out for money, his career or popularity. The web gives us an opportunity to express ourselves.
Another point I would like to point out is that the makers of “Expelled” and other blatant attacks on science seem to have no problems with hitting below the belt. They advocate the removal of science, literacy and even worse. Many religious groups advocate far worse things, including child abuse, abuse of women, genital mutilation, the list goes pretty long.
I have no problem with those who are willing to stand up and speak out against irrational behavior. I have no problem with a naughty word, or an occasional outburst. It really pales in comparison to the hate spouted on Sunday morning throughout the world.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
One other point I’d like to see discussed is that of respecting the other person, as an individual even though we may vehemently disagree with his/her viewpoint. During my fervent Christian years, I saw many of my friends assassinate the character of those that they disagreed with by going beyond the parameters of the viewpoint being discussed. I like to think it this way, me next door neighbor may hold views that I find very contradictory to mine, we may hold fiery discussions over the back fence, but if I saw his house burning down at 2 AM, I would do everything in my power to get him out.
Let’s not descend to the level of intolerance that is all to often displayed by those on both sides of this debate.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Just another example of how agnosticism has nothing to do with a belief in the existence or possible existence of a god:
A Christian (or Muslim or Jew or Druid…) can believe that it is possible to know God or the divine. These would be gnostic Christians. It is also quite possible (and indeed very common) for a Christian to believe that it is impossible to know God (e.g., “He works in mysterious ways.”). This would be an agnostic Christian.
The same can be said of atheists. The gnostic approach: God may or may not exist. There is no current evidence one way or the other, but future discoveries and technological advances may let us know. Until then, I do not believe in Him. The agnostic approach: God is supernatural and therefore outside of any possible method of discerning His existence or non existence. Because it is not possible through any natural means, I do not believe in the natural existence of God.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
DAV
Atheism – without belief in god
Agnosticism – without knowledge of god
Gnosticism deals with knowledge, theism with belief. It is possible to be an agnostic theist or a gnostic atheist. What you doing is conflating the two, which is very common for people not familiar with atheists or their positions to do. These terms are often mistaken for being degrees of belief in the nonexistence of god, but they have different etymological roots. The blame for the confusion over these words lays at the feet of Aldous Huxley, who coined the word agnostic, but most atheists have abandoned his definition, due to the very argument you make. Language evolves. If you were to poll a random sampling of atheists, you’d find the majority of them fall into the agnostic atheist category. There are gnostic atheists, but they tend to use philosophical arguments to defend their position, rather than scientific arguments. Dawkins is a scientist, not a philosopher and as such falls within the category of agnostic atheist.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Huh…another Todd. Who knew.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Great, another Todd, who thinks just like me. I’m Todd #2. Nice to meet you, Todd #1.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I guess I’ll start having to use a last initial, now. Nice to meet you, Todd #2. Very eloquently put summarizing of my comments.
(Oy! This could get confusing very quickly.)
March 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Just remember Todd #2… as Prof. Farnsworth said, a time paradox duplicate is always doomed!!!
March 24th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
I’m responding to several posts in this one:
# tacitus on 24 Mar 2008 at 12:50 pm
Well, I’m glad I went star-gazing that night, then! It’s a long enough drive from San Antonio to Austin I’m sure I’d have been one of those turned away. I did want to go, but really wanted to go out with the San Antonio Astronomical Association’s Wednesday Nights in the Park, too. Looks like I chose well.
I do think that sometimes PZ jumps into name calling too quickly sometimes – but then I don’t know the whole history and sometimes it is an old association refreshed. The name calling might be appropriate – but I don’t see that. The same probably goes for many new readers there. It might not win converts, but it is entertaining.
# Ginger Yellow on 24 Mar 2008 at 1:20 pm
Especially when the message is that telling the truth and honesty is important in scientific discourse.
# David on 24 Mar 2008 at 1:21 pm
Their motive should be obvious. Their purported message is that “Big Science” (are you getting your Big Science Inc. paychecks?) is keeping good Christian’s out of teaching and science positions and blocking the discussions about the problems of Evolution in our public schools (thus the “Expelled” and school theme). And this is precisely why the truth must be told. Intelligent Design has yet to do any real science, has no place in discussions of Evolution in science classes because it is a thorough-going Religious (big “R”) doctrine.
# Pieter Kok on 24 Mar 2008 at 1:44 pm
You trigger two thoughts for me here. One, you are right, nearly every “newb” that asks a question gets an appropriate answer (mixed with the mess of derisive banter). And two, any calm and rational answer will be completely ignored (I exaggerate – there will be some that pay attention and rebut or reply – but mostly not). So, in order to really get someones attention, abusive and arrogant comments seem the most effective. That isn’t me, I tend to the reasoned and rational, and ignored. But then maybe people just think I’m wrong and not worth the effort to correct.
# Sergeant Zim on 24 Mar 2008 at 2:38 pm
First you have to be noticed. I doubt if many, if any, of my carefully researched, reasoned, and logical posts (the kind I generally post, regardless of their lack of effect) have helped any off the fence to one side or the other. Mostly they don’t elicit any sort of response. The occasions when I have raised my virtual voice or stepped into the realm of the snark have garnered the vast majority of the responses. I don’t know what that means, especially since those responses were certainly not from converts!
# DAV on 24 Mar 2008 at 3:52 pm
Um, because atheism isn’t a religious stance, because atheism is exactly the position that theism is unfounded, because – well, Phil might actually think PZ has a point, or he’s Good Cop to PZ’s Bad Cop, or any number of other reasons a person might not distance themselves from a person they aren’t exactly like. Are you telling me you don’t have any friends that are different from you, that have world views and opinions that differ from yours? Are you telling me all your friends vote exactly the same as you in various polls? Sounds like a rather bland group of friend if true. (er, not that I’m calling you bland, per se, just that such a group, in the long run, would be).
# DAV on 24 Mar 2008 at 4:07 pm
Science doesn’t work that way and you should know that. No poster-boy has been elected. Anyone more popular, vocal, and precise is welcome to come along and take that position. So far, PZ has enjoyed his limelight, but I’m sure he knows just how fleeting that celebrity can be and has no illusions as such.
Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov remain, for me, if there are any, the Poster Boy’s of Science. Sadly, they aren’t around to continue that work. PZ has stepped up. Whether he stays there time will tell.
JBS
(pressing submit wondering if I finally got block quoting correct)
March 24th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
@CE
Is the presence of Todd #2 evidence that I’ve discovered time travel? A topic for another BA post, I guess, since we have completely gone OT.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Yes… LOL… WAY OT… once again. Oh well.
I can go back to haggling with DAV over the proper definition of atheism…
Nah…
March 24th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
This doesn’t belong on an astronomy blog, it belongs an a cognitive science blog. One of us an artificial self referencing automaton replicant of the other. Unfortunately, I can’t figure out which is which.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
To the 2 Todd’s, seriously, get lives…. O wait, you apparently do have 2 lives! Clones?
March 24th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Dav, why are you always speaking in such absolutist terms. Now you’re trying to redefine what an agnostic is when the meaning of it shifts from one generation to the next. Just as in atheism, there’s a broad spectrum of agnostics. For example, go look up weak and strong agnostics, from christian agnostics, to muslim agnostics. Just because one claims ignorance in the belief of god does not make one an agnostic in the absolutist sense. Conversely, one can be a functional “de facto” atheist, even with allowing that there is a miniscule probability towards something supernatural. However, when the miniscule probability is so close to zero, then just use it as zero. Think of it this way, often times, although empty space is not quite a perfect vacuum, often times, we treat it as such, because the pressure generated by this near perfect vacum is negligible. We treat it as a zero, when in fact, it’s a non-zero number. Similarly, in science, mathematics, physics, even biology, we treat negligible amounts as zero, and still remain near enough to observational facts that we can function with a de-facto zero.
The difference however, is that in science, sometimes, the negligible amount is important, whereas in terms of understanding the function of the universe, we can comforabley exclude anything supernatural and still remain true to the universe. This is about as clear a near-perfect absolutism as we can get. Therefore, based upon those two points (shifting definition of the word agnostic, acceptance of atheism as the near-perfect non-belief in anything supernatural) I am an atheist. In any case, enjoy the trolling.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
@Michael Lonergan
A clone of me would be a very scary thing. I don’t think the world could handle it.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I think it’s ironic that people like PZ are considered vitriolic and militant when, most of the time, they’re simply being honest. Does he go off the reservation sometimes and use a naughty word? Yeah, but so what? He’s human, like the rest of us. Plenty of people are potty-mouths, but it doesn’t make them any less effective or make their messages any less valid (or invalid). Complaining about such a thing is a distraction, a strawman to kick around, rather than addressing the primary issue being discussed in the first place. Why harp on that, rather than the issue? It’s distracting and annoying.
I can appreciate both PZ and BA. Both have inspired a greater interest in science for me, a non-scientist, than I have felt since I saw Cosmos so long ago. But I have to say that I like the rough and tumble, in your face style of PZ, and, in an ancillary matter, Dawkins and Hitchens. I’m just that type. Some of us are diplomats. And some of us are contrarians. There’s plenty of room at the table for all of us, even if some people there don’t approve of the manners of the others.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Funny, people say the same about me Todd W.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Phil… if you build it… they will come…
literally…
This reminds me a smaller version of the “passion of the christ” fiasco that developed a few years back..
Remember the outcry from the jewish community about how “wrong” Mel Gibsons movie was… remember the interviews on CNN pitting jewish scholars against catholic, and protestant scholars?
All the “negative” press did was spread the word, and make everyone want to see it for themselves to make the judgement on their own..
Unfortunately (for the evolutionist) this one is a lose lose situation. If you talk about it, people may look into things deeper (i.e. cracks in the geologic column, circular logic etc..) and if you don’t talk about people may think your silence means you can’t defend these logical fallacies that are promoted as fact…
but hey, if you think it’s working, keep on blogging about creationism and how bad it is… why not blog about all the new developments, and factual findings regarding the “truth” about evolution.
wait… now i think i’m beginning to see why you’re always dogging on creationism instead of promoting your “facts”….
there are no facts to support your ideologies…
that must suck… bigtime!
March 24th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Mr. Myers, Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens are lighting rods of sorts, all vocal (unapologetically) and popularly read; so popular they are know by surname alone. But they are only three, which makes them prime targets for concern trolls politically motivated to turn a debate on its head so that the lightning rod and not the lightning becomes the point of contention. This should take no one by surprise… the tactic is standard practice for the opposition and their emotionally pliant audience.
Of course, there are always “dangers” in the active or passive development of a personality cult–if for no other reason than because they can so easily be burned down, which is why it is so crucial that the voices of reason do not “shut-up” but, instead, actively propagate so that Mr. Myers, Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Hitchens no longer stand alone to take the barrage.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
one more thing phil–
In a most ironic twist of fate, after browsing your previous blog archives– it seems that you blog about creationism MORE than any other subject..
Maybe you should change the site to the “bad philosopher” instead of the BA..
Funny that the self proclaimed astronomy professional and the self proclaimed biology professional (BA and PZ) are the ones who delcare knowledge about things the could not possibly have ANY clue on… i.e. eternal life, how the big bang went bang out of nothing, how the earth formed, or how life began..
since they boldly declare they have the answers, and that creationism is wrong..
phil, please tell the forum your inner “secret” knowlege of how something came out of nothing at the beginning of the universe?
I want cold hard facts, not theories, or suppositions based upon other suppositions..
quickly I think you’ll find that your whole world of “theoretical science” is exactly that… a made up world where everything is eventually proved wrong and “corrected” to meet the “new facts” of the day.
A perfect example of this is the omnipotent “age of the universe” answer… did you know that between the years 1900 and 2000 the universe “became” older at a rate of about 2 million years per year? HAHAH ROTFLM@O … dude you call that factual?! ;^) It went from 100,000 years old to 4.5 billion years old… and that number will keep changing to “fit” whatever new “facts” pop up that distort the “theory”.
It never dawns on the dense legacy science cronies (BA and PZ) to throw out the theory, instead of constantly “adjusting” it to fit contrary evidence.
The contrary evidence you ask?
How about the FACT that everything popped out of nothing at the beginning of the universe, which is logically and scientifically impossible to demonstrate or prove.
So if one can prove that it is illogical for everything to pop out of nothing NATURALLY… then the only other logical answer of course is that it happened in a way beyond naturally… thus making the origins of the universe supernatural.
Its the only logical answer.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Aquaria,
I will concede that there are times and places for that kind of tactic, but to the average non scientists among us, like myself, to see that constantly being used, IMHO brings it down to the level of those being opposed. That is why I appreciate BA’s blog. For the most part, I don’t feel I have to worry if I want my daughter to see something on here. It would be nice if the few that do troll could at least refrain from vulgarity.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
as for Dawkins… he has become the atheist-science version of George Dubya..
boldly relying on bad intelligence gathered from the “community”… boldy proclaiming an “enemy” where none lies… boldy attacking this “infidel” … and even declaring that the war(debate) has been won (when in actuality the war/debate has just begun).
Also the guy has the nack of rubbing the people the wrong way when he speaks..
hah!
March 24th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
PHIL, “If you have a problem with this, then you have two options: stop using bad language, or stop posting. Read my comments policy in the meantime.”
I was repeating what was germane to the rest of my comment and to establish context. After all, you linked it. It was only fair of me to assume you wanted others to see it and were inviting comment. The rest of what I said should have made that clear.
Sorry if simply repeating it caused you to stop reading.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Mike J.
It was only a matter of time for you, wasn’t it?
If you had said one single thing in your rambling post that you hadn’t spouted over and over and over time and again on this site and had it adequately refuted over and over and over again, I might spend 10 minues rebutting it. But as it is, it’s already been addressed. Every single point you try to make has been refuted on this site more times than I care to remember. If I thought by aything I’ve ever seen from you that engaging in a debate over any of the garbage you just spouted would be received or even considered by you, I might bother… but by now I know better.
You make repeated fallacious statements, demand “cold hard facts” while producing none yourself and ignoring any facts you are presented. And you have a complete mental block where it comes to understanding the scientific process, as is made clear every time you post things like “did you know that between the years 1900 and 2000 the universe “became” older at a rate of about 2 million years per year?”. How does one even argue with such a ridiculous statement.
Feh… Moving on.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Mike J
Until god comes down and makes a new species out of nothing there is no proof that he created life one Earth if he does exists.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Mike J
The age of the universe is more to 13 billion years old the 4.5 billion years old, the solar system it self is 4.5 billion years old and the that was determine when we figured out using radioactive decay to date objects.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Mike J, have you read your email? I suggest you do before posting a comment on my blog again.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
DAV, your sarcasm is both unbecoming and unnecessary. Just because I link to something doesn’t mean it a) needs to be repeated here, and b) should be repeated here.
The rules here are simple. Follow them.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Celtic_Evolution …
i’ve raised *some* of the same questions a *few* times… never got an answer… only ad hominems… some quite entertaining ad homs that really make me chuckle ;^)
but seriously ..
i’ve never heard the scientific proof as to how everything can come out of nothing in a natual way… your closest grasp at an explanation (maybe not yours but phils for sure) is the amorphous string THEORY…
but all the string theory does, is ADD more universes to the mix.. and basically says that “other” universes collided to form our universe… haha … in otherwords .. it doesn’t explain how the other universes popped out of nothing. It just says that there were/are MORE of them..
I raise the question because, as we all know, in a physical universe… logically speaking… everything could not naturally just “pop” into being out of nothing.
Put simply, assume the universe at its beginning was like an empty room. And assume the universe is like a complex computer.
Even if the room sits for 1 trillion years, it cannot just pop out a computer in it— that is illogical— the computer has to come from somewhere, be made of atomic structures, have laws that govern it. It has to be manufactured somewhere, and then built into a full unit.
The only logical answer is that someone made the computer, and put it there in the empty room.
Only an idiot would say that the computer was “just a small dot on a page” that then “blew up in a gigantic explosion” which slowly settled into the computer we see today. But that’s exactly what you have to “believe” in order to accept the Theory of evolution.
So again, I say, and you must somehow try to refute, how NATURALLY— something can come out of nothing.
I claim, and have basically proved in a laymans way, that the only logical explanation as to how everything came into existence out of nothing … is that it literally, and logically must have come from ‘beyond’ natural source… thus making everything … well… er… supernatural.
Thus negating the “theory” of “origins” as commonly accepted by the community at large— as it becomes obvious that if there is a supernatural component to the universe even being here, that there may need to be further logical/scientific investigation into other things in our universe that just don’t add up logically until you add the factual argument that there is a supernatural explanation in some cases.
As for the geologic column being totally made up, and the dates associated completely inaccurate, i don’t want you to waste your (and my) time trying to defend it, or claim that it exists *somewhere* in the world… when any reasonable person could look at the facts about Charles Lyell, and just go to your darn local museum and see how they use “circular logic” to justify the dating system…
In case some of you are ignorant on this matter, i’m talking about how geologists have been dating rock layers by what fossils are found in them, and then turning right around and dating the same darn fossils by what layer of rock they are found in.
Let me smack down the potassium argon, or carbon dating suggestions right now… as these dates are generated BASED UPON the fraudulent geologic column, as are the “half lifes” of each isotope.
And I must also remind you…
When Lyell MADE UP the geologic column in the 1800′s… the SAME column used today i might add, he didn’t have or use isotope dating, he used the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils.
So, really I don’t want to hear platitudes or hominems.. i want to hear your facts…
Please start with something naturally coming out of nothing— proof PLEASE!
March 24th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
phil, didn’t get any email from you..
whats up?
I didn’t curse at anyone … is there some other new policy I should know about?
did we now ban snarkism?
-der kommisar is back in town ;^)
March 24th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
That doesn’t appear to be happening. The jump from believing in a god to not believing in a god is more complex and thought out than what one person’s vulgarity does. People who become atheists, especially as adults, face a lot more obstacles than vulgarity. In fact, some of them may be glad to see it. A borderline religious person who sees atheism as unattractive based on PZ’s comments would not have delved into the matter much or looked into what thousands of other atheists say and how they live their lives. Methinks people are overplaying the issue.
Damage atheism to whom? As an atheist for over 30 years, um, atheism can’t be damaged anymore than it has been in the past. In fact, it’s doing better now thanks to the Internet, because people can better connect with each other and share their experiences. PZ, Dawkins, David Mills, et al. have given voice to people who have been living undercover. Why do you think so many theologians are nervous about people straying from religion?
If you mean the public’s image of atheism – again, that’s been pretty bad for decades. The more people “come out,” the more prejudiced people see that atheists are normal, moral people too.
And PZ already has a paying career in a university (I think he has tenure). He does not want to damage atheism – he’s been involved with and encourages local skeptic groups, as his daughter has also, meet-ups for skeptics, and events he wouldn’t even attend, goes on radio shows that I doubt he’s paid much for, if at all… So, why would damaging atheism be good for his career? That makes no sense. You are way off the mark on understanding PZ’s motives, I believe.
Sounds like you’re taking potshots at him without knowing much about him. Some fact-finding is in order.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
phil
just re-read the updated comment policy… I like the ‘don’t be a jerk’ addition..
its very succint.
sometimes, and i don’t mean this disrespectfully, it seems quite a one way street of jerkyness coming out from you and your readers, and any contrary commentary is considered … well.. how should I say… attacks..
This reminds me of when you originally attacked me on my blog http://www.mikejanitch.com … when the BA and the PZ decided to smear me across Huffington post with ad hominems galore, and directly linking the story to my blog, where all your followers came and were quite rude. Eris and Dysnomian anyone? I was proved right by the way on that story.
I hope you never think I’m trying to “be a jerk” when I call you and PZ cronies.. look up the definition, its spot on.. too bad the word has been maligned over the years..
here’s the definition:
“cronie”
A member of a group of friends or associates, usually loosely organized, brought together by common circumstances or activities. Members are often prone to a mischievious group mentality.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I agree to a certain extent about PZ. Sometimes I find his approach a bit off-putting, sometimes I find it gut-butingly-hilarious. But let’s consider this: what he says in the context of his blog is perfectly appropriate because he’s speaking to an appreciative audience. He’s not trying to talk a believer into rejecting god. He’s talking to his audience. In contrast, his more public appearances (the video interview with Dawkins following the movie incident, for instance) were handled evenly, calmly, and was perfectly regulated and appropriate for a mass audience.
As for Dawkins, in the few appearences I have seen him, he too has been articulate and relatively calm (though I really wish I had tape of his standing to talk to the producers after the movie).
In both cases, I find that they are both very competent public communicators and are perfectly appropriate spokesmen for this issue. Consider that Sagan and Gould, too, were very vocal in their athiesm, and this did nothing to hurt their credibility; they both enjoyed considerable mainstream success. (I mean, really, Sagan achieved the rock star status that Einstein enjoyed, and Gould was on The Simpsons!!!)
And let’s be honest, while this issue has blown up on the blogs to the point where it hit the NY Times, it still hasn’t made Expelled a household word. Nobody is going to see this thing!
March 24th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Celtic:
So that was Mike, huh?
March 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Phil. It wasn’t meant to be sarcastic. I apologise if it seems so. 1) it has been the ONLY time I ever used such language here. 2) I was quoting PZ to point to what I had to say. 3) Yes, I was chiding you.
On one hand you are quite reasonable but on the other hand you seem to be vicariously encouraging the very thing that got the post deleted. I personally find that unbecoming. If this is not so, I again apologise. I’ve been reading your posts for quite some time and hold you in high regard but lately it seems you are actually supporting the attitude and tactics employed at PZ’s site; it appears you are slowly beginning to follow the same course; and I am sadden to see it.
I should have said so via e-mail instead of making public comment. My mistake. I can be very inept at times.
You have a great blog and I’ve it enjoyed immensely and continue to support it. It’s your house and I’ve overstepped the bounds. I will not post here again.
You may delete this after reading it.
Take good care,
DAV
March 24th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Frank, not sure if that’s Phil. Others can handle-jack and do stuff like that.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
10 bucks says Phil deletes that before midnight.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I’m thinking it is an imp too. Which is why I bet it’s going to get deleted.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Sorry for the triple comment. I just noticed something: when the real Phil posts a comment it gets boxed (look at comments above). The above one is not boxed in green; ergo, it must be fake.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Yeah, I agree Sourblaze, I’ve seen someone do that before with other people who post on here. (Take their identity and post totally out of character responses). It won’t last long.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Frank, I sincerely doubt that was Phil.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I thought you were not going to post again DAV.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
After that I had to say something. I may have differences with Phil but I don’t want something like that to be, however inadvertently, associated with him.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I was just joking anyway.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Ahh, good eye, SourBlaze! I never noticed that before!
March 24th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I’m not trying to tell Phil how to run his blog or anything, but to make sure people didn’t imp him or anyone else perhaps he could look into installing an OpenID system here (it’s free too, from what I understand). That way when someone IDs themselves as from a particular website (like a particular blog) it gets confirmed.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I was joking about not making another post.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
“Remember the outcry from the jewish community about how “wrong” Mel Gibsons movie was… remember the interviews on CNN pitting jewish scholars against catholic, and protestant scholars?”
That’s a very instructive comparison. But supposing the publicity _did_ cause more people to go and see The Passion of the Christ. There were still millions of people who were exposed to the argument and debate but _didn’t_ go to see the movie. And a significant number of those people ended up, as a result of all the debate, just a little better informed about the controversies surrounding our understanding of Late Second Temple Period Judaism. (A lot of people who didn’t see the movie would also have learned a great deal about Mel Gibson’s “unusual” world view.) So was the net effect of the controversy really more negative than if the jewish community (and the scholarly community) had just ignored the movie?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Zim: Hey, no argument from me. It’s annoying from any direction.
Geez, I leave for a few hours and all hell breaks loose! What am I going to do with you people?
That wasn’t the BA swearing like a sailor up there was it? ‘Cause that’s, like, the fifth sign of the Apocalypse, or something.
OK, here’s something to calm you all down. Click these links, damn you!
TINY PUPPY!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPaL2ZN9Qr8
And now our title bout. A fluffy bunny versus ROBOT BUNNY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os43MEoBorE
There now. Feel better?
OK. One more, then off to bed with you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPcOKIm_ZzQ
March 25th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Yikes…
“In order to promote the film, the website “GetExpelled.com” launched “The Expelled Challenge” which offers to pay schools up to US $10,000 to send students to see the movie. In what Wesley R. Elsberry described as “a kickback to school administrators”,the programme offers between $5 and $10 for every ticket stub submitted by the school within the first two weeks of the release of the film. Elsberry noted that at the upper end of the range, the value of the reward is probably greater than the actual ticket price.
The programme also recommends a “school-wide ‘mandatory’ field trip” as “the best way to maximize your school’s earning potential” Elsberry criticises this as a call to “take children away from classrooms, fill their heads with obnoxiously delivered misinformation, and profit off of it”.”
Just…….yikes.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Awwwwwww cute wittle puppy! WTHeck was that Robo Rabbit doing!? ROFLM@O!!!! That beats the derranged Big Dod Robot I saw earlier. I tried to post a link but haven’t figured out how to for YouTube yet. Maybe I’ll have another crack….
BTW Kitty made me sleepy, but did you notice the other videos posted by that user: Dog and Cat massacre in China….
March 25th, 2008 at 12:20 am
After the nice and cute videos by QD, get a load of this beast:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww
March 25th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Of course that post wasn’t from Phil. Notice that the green border is missing from around the post? A genuine BA post™ has the green border. It’s your guarantee of quality!
March 25th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Some of these comments are going to look strange after Phil deletes the fake BA post that channelled PZ but I did LOL when I saw it.
Any excuse for tiny puppies and fluffy bunnies is good and in that context here is a shameless piece of self-promotion with a lovely peaceful whale swim…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v_GqGTwAiM
March 25th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Last words, then?
Remember we are monkeys. Of sorts.
Have others noticed:
That the ones who insist on our simian descent more often than not tend to be involved in an actual honest attempt to find out about reality and principles and other very abstract stuff?
While the ones who go on and on about our spiritual nature and eternal truth and suchlike are the ones most intent on doing the “rank, territory and control of females and young” thing?
I think PZ is OK as long as we have Sagan. Which we don’t. So we have to get another one. Anyone?
PS. Why get upset if you are right?
Why be defensive when the opposition really is a sham? It should be easy to point this out.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:40 am
Shane,
Sorry, when I looked at your video, I git sidetracked by the interesting video that makes creative use of 2 fingers and ink… ROFL
I’m sure swimming with whales was good too…
Now, back to my new Wii…
March 25th, 2008 at 2:53 am
BA must be having an off night, he has yet to delete that poseur BA whose foul mouth language pretty much guarantees that it’s a creationist or some idiot like that.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:52 am
Mike J.: I raise the question because, as we all know, in a physical universe… logically speaking… everything could not naturally just “pop” into being out of nothing.
No? Well, ignoring for the moment that things pop into being and then out again all the time (on a quantum level, at least), what about the position that things have always existed? What evidence do you have that there was once a time that things did not exist?
Why must we assume that it must have had a beginning?
Mike J.: As for the geologic column being totally made up, and the dates associated completely inaccurate, i don’t want you to waste your (and my) time trying to defend it, or claim that it exists *somewhere* in the world…
You’ll forgive us if we don’t believe you, then, since you’re not forthcoming with evidence.
And the fact of the matter is that the entire geologic column does exist in at least 27 places in the world (the Ghadames Basin in Libya; the Beni Mellal Basin in Morocco; the Essaouira Basin in Morocco (Broughton and Trepanier, 1993); the Tunisian Basin in Tunisia; the Oman Interior Basin in Oman; the Western Desert Basin in Egypt; the Adana Basin in Turkey; the Iskenderun Basin in Turkey; the Moesian Platform in Bulgaria; the Carpathian Basin in Poland; the Baltic Basin in the former USSR; the Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the former USSR; the Farah Basin in Afghanistan; the Helmand Basin in Afghanistan; the Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran; the Manhai-Subei Basin in China; the Jiuxi Basin in China; the Tung t’in – Yuan Shui Basin China; the Tarim Basin China; the Szechwan Basin China; the Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska; the Williston Basin in North Dakota (Haimla et al, 1990, p. 517); the Tampico Embayment Mexico; the Bogata Basin in Colombia; the Bonaparte Basin in Australia (above this basin sources are Roberston Group, 1989); the Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta (Trendall 1990); the Parana Basin North in Paraguay and Brazil (Wiens, 1995, p. 192); the Cape Karroo Basin (Tankard, 1995, p. 21); the Argentina Precordillera Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 136); the Chilean Antofagosta Basin (Franca et al, 1995, p. 134); and the Pricaspian Basin (Volozh et al, 2003)).
Mike J.: Let me smack down the potassium argon, or carbon dating suggestions right now… as these dates are generated BASED UPON the fraudulent geologic column, as are the “half lifes” of each isotope.
Horse puckey. Why, then, do radiometric dates from meteorites and Moon rocks agree with results on Earth? Wild coincidence? Why do these dates agree with other, independent methods of determining the date? More wild coincidence? (There’s an interesting bit where rugose coral from the Devonian revealed a day length of approximately 22 hours, consistent with what the Earth’s rotational speed would have been at the time as calculated through tidal action using physics. Look up John Wells, Cornell University, 1963. And this is just one example among many.)
Besides, one can test a “half life” without waiting for the full half-life to elapse. It’s just a matter of counting atoms, waiting a bit, counting again, and determining probabilities. The math is so simple that a high-schooler could do it without breaking a sweat.
If radiometric dating is so simple to wave away, then why is it that there is no substance with a half-life shorter than eighty million years(*) that exists in detectable levels on this planet?
(*) Except as a daughter product of a much longer-lived radioactive isotope, of course.
Mike J.: When Lyell MADE UP the geologic column in the 1800’s… the SAME column used today i might add, he didn’t have or use isotope dating, he used the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils.
Also not true. I suggest you read some Lyell (Principles of Geology is excellent). He was a devout Christian who was dragged kicking and screaming to the conclusions that the facts pointed to: an extremely old Earth. He came to interpret most of what he saw through chemistry.
Mike J.: Please start with something naturally coming out of nothing— proof PLEASE!
First, prove that this happened. Otherwise, it might be an interesting mental exercise, but it’s irrelevant to the topic.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:34 am
@MikeJ
“Only an idiot would say that the computer was “just a small dot on a page” that then “blew up in a gigantic explosion” which slowly settled into the computer we see today. But that’s exactly what you have to “believe” in order to accept the Theory of evolution.”
Sorry, but I guess I missed where the big bang is connected to how living organisms differentiate over time through natural selection. Remember, the Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life began or where life came from. It only describes how it changes and the possible mechanisms used to achieve those changes. So, again, why do I need to believe in a “gigantic explosion” in order to accept the ToE?
March 25th, 2008 at 6:38 am
@MikeJ
As to something coming out of nothing, I’m not an astronomer, but IIRC from what I’ve heard on the subject, and the BA might be able to shed some additional light on this, we have evidence that there was a huge explosion. We don’t really know, yet, what was before this Earth-shattering kaboom (something else? nothing?), but it is suspected that at that point, the universe was an immensely dense little speck and the forces of gravity, magnetism, weak and strong radiation (I think those are the ones) were bound as one force.
Just offering what I’ve heard recently from, I think it was, the Universe program on Discovery Channel. I have not had the time, yet to look more deeply into it, so I can’t point to specific evidence of how these conclusions were made, but, it does address some of what you are saying.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Thanks, MattFunke. That is a great response. Now if only people would listen…
March 25th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Helio:
Yeah, maybe the Mrs. BA has his attention. And here I thought the BA loved us so much
March 25th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Michael, I think even BAs sleep. They put their telescopes away, lay their head on the pillow and start dreaming of naked-eye GRBs or a moon landing denier copping a punch to face from an elderly astronaut.
Maybe he even saw it and although disagreeing with the content agreed with the sentiment and decided to sleep on it. I reckon it will be gone by the time I get to work in, crikey gotta hit the sack, 8 hours.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:48 am
There you go, Mike J… factual, scientific examples for you to chew on. Which have been said to you before. Which you have dismissed and ignored before. Why will this time be any different?
I’m glad that MattFunke and Todd decided to have a whack at it, because frankly I have no interest in having a discussion with someone who clearly has no intention of having a discussion. You prove this time and time again with statements like:
“Let me smack down the potassium argon, or carbon dating suggestions right nowâ?¦ as these dates are generated BASED UPON the fraudulent geologic column, as are the â??half lifesâ?? of each isotope.”
Just a made up LIE, based on your other made up LIE. With no evidence or supporting documentation, of course. There never is. Oh, and this gem:
“As for the geologic column being totally made up, and the dates associated completely inaccurate, i donâ??t want you to waste your (and my) time trying to defend it, or claim that it exists *somewhere* in the worldâ?¦”
You’ve already told us right there that you’re not going to accept facts we present you… you’ve already covered your ears and shouted “la, la, la, la” before we even get the chance to set you straight. You make it clear that you will not listen no matter what we tell you. So why do you even bother? And frankly, why do we? *sigh*.
But really, at the heart of all the problems with you is your continued insistence on stating that since no absolute proof exists for any non-magical theory, it must be magic. Which is really the same logic the Greek’s used to believe that Zeus threw thunderbolts down from the sky. Infer from that analogy what you will.
You state:
“I claim, and have basically proved in a laymans way, that the only logical explanation as to how everything came into existence out of nothing â?¦ is that it literally, and logically must have come from â??beyondâ?? natural sourceâ?¦ thus making everything â?¦ wellâ?¦ erâ?¦ supernatural.”
Huh? What the heck have you PROVED in any way, laymans or other? Cause you SAID so? You’re going to have to learn that proof requires more than simply oozing out of your orifice. So, OK, Mike… back at ya… you spend paragraphs attacking our lack of proof for… well anything really… so WHERE’S YOUR PROOF of this inane statement? Is your wording that it “MUST be” proof? Feh. Don’t attack a theory for it’s lack of proof and then turn around and propose a theory with absolutely NO proof, and no ability to even be tested… you sound silly. Again, you clearly have no understanding of scientific method… and you show that you don’t want to have that understanding.
The last, VERY last thing I will say on this subject to you Mike, is that AGAIN, your entire basis of argument is that we can not provide absolute proof for the various theories presented… and yet never have we ever claimed that we can. Science doesn’t work that way. What we do have is clear evidence that supports the theories and has shown to have predictive powers. What I don’t see are any competing theories that have anywhere near the preponderance of evidence. If your “alternative” theories in ANY way had any modicum of evidence supporting them that was testable and verifiable, they could be considered. But they don’t. Period. What is it about that process that you simply fail to grasp?
But again, this has been said to you over and over and over again… and all you ever do is ignore it and continue to press with the demand for ” absolute proof”. Which just indicates to me that you aren’t really in this for the science. You’re in it for the argument. And this is the last argument you will goad me into, Mike J. I’ve had enough of you.
March 25th, 2008 at 8:49 am
@Shane:
“They put their telescopes away, lay their head on the pillow and start dreaming of naked-eye GRBs or a moon landing denier copping a punch to face from an elderly astronaut.”
Cost of 1 Saturn V Rocket: Over 1 Billion
Cost of Apollo Moon Program: $100 Billion
Cost of Seeing Moon Landing Denier Get Socked By Second Man On the Moon: Priceless!
March 25th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Celtic,
There’s an old saying that goes, “There is none so blind as he that will not see.”
You and I know that 1 + 1 = 2.
We can prove it, by demonstration.
Some people are convinced 1 + 1 = 3.
No amount of demonstration will convince them otherwise. It’s best to just move on and leave them in their blindness.
At least there are some here that are willing to learn from others.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:03 am
The foul-mouthed poser claiming to be BA is very obviously a handle-jacker.
Comments from the real BA have a border. That comment did not.
Also, not only is that comment out of character for BA, it comes immediatlely after reminding someone of the commenting rules.
This will make no sense once BA (the real one) deletes that comment.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I am late into this, but as a regular reader of BA and ocassional reader of Pharyngula, I am always a little taken aback by how often the conversations end being theism vs atheism grudge matches (with a nice little side show of all the different shades of atheism thrown in which should take place in a steel cage).
It seems to me that focusing the debate this way is not only irrelevant, but plays into the hands of anti-science crusade. They want this to be a religion vs science debate and therefore are always trying to frame science in terms of beliefs and then trying to debate the beliefs.
But that is not really the point, is it? It is a question of reality and using rationalism as a tool for public policy and governance.
I have never read Nesbit before, so I will refrain from agreeing with his agenda, but I agree with his point. I do think that PZ’s virulent form of atheism is off putting, even to an atheist like myself, but more importantly is distracting and ends up debating or highlighting tangential issues.
I feel like he is preaching to me. As much as I respect Dawkins, he also preaches and I get titred of them speaking for me. For me – my sole little opinion – if PZ and Dawkins stuck to just reality (as opposed to Truth, which is a much more slippery thing), I think they could be more effective as spokespeople for rationalism and materialist notions. But neither can seem to help themselves and I think that is a shame, beause that is precisely where the anti-science movement wants the debate to happen. By even admiting it as a valid topic for discussion, you tacitly admit its importance.
I would like to see other voices take center stage during this debate and address the core issue: ID is not science and does not progress the field of biology.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Terry:
Hear, hear!
March 25th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Terry -
I agree that it is important that we have many, many voices in the discussion. But I also think that there is a place and an audience for PZ and his methods. Just as there is JUST as important a place and audience for the milder, more tempered approach. I know of several in this circle who think that the science community is sometimes too muted and doesn’t make itself heard loudly enough. That’s where a guy like PZ comes in. He may be somewhat off-turning at times, but he does get heard, and he is know… and often times as a result will draw people to his site, people who will then find other sites like this one as a result, and then may find a better level of comfort for their position.
Gladly, we have a wealth of various sources where we can get the full spectrum. I try to visit them all, but participate only where I personally feel comfortable. I commend all the members of the science community who frankly put themsleves in the public eye and often directly in the line of fire to provide us with a medium to stay connected and informed. It’s always easier to remain quietly anonymous. Keep it up, science bloggers!
March 25th, 2008 at 9:28 am
@Michael Lonergan
“Some people are convinced 1 + 1 = 3.
No amount of demonstration will convince them otherwise. It’s best to just move on and leave them in their blindness.”
Now, now. We all know that 1 + 1 =/= 3. However, 2 + 2 = 5. Remember, Big Brother is watching you.
March 25th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Wait… is that Todd #1, Todd #2, or have you gone an created a third time paradox duplicate? Didn’t you hear what I said? DOOMED!
March 25th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Ah! Sorry. Forgot to add my initial on this computer.
Even if I have doomed us all with time paradox duplicates, we were doomed anyway from that GRB pointed right at us.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Celtic_Evolution: You make a couple very valid points. You are right that there needs to be a spectrum of voices and PZ has a role, if for no other reason than he has a right to one.
But regarding your point “and often times as a result will draw people to his site, people who will then find other sites like this one as a result, and then may find a better level of comfort for their position”, are they the people that are at issue? Someone with an open mind will certainly seek for alternative viewpoints (heck, they may even click on a footnote or two on Wikipedia).
I think that is PZ’s case, it is like a loaded gun that anyone can pick up and you never know where it will get pointed, perhaps back at you. The implication is that for the “washed” (full body wash with extra eternals), PZ is simply an easy source of quotes and straw man arguments. They will come up with them anyway, why give them the tools? They should have to work at it.
And especially in his case, because he *is* scientifically sound and that gets missed – it played almost no part in this dicussion or the much more rancorous (lively?) one on his blog. And that raises a question that I have with him – what exactly is the agenda? Further, it raises questions – without reopening the whole aTheism vs ATheism debate – about the role that atheism plays in his public role. Regardless of whether it is a belief system or not, one belief I would attest to is that he certainly believes everyone should be an atheist.
Why require everyone to also be one? There are successful scientists and engineers that have reconciled their religious beliefs with their vocation and studies; atheism is only one possibility in a continuum. It seems to me that this requirement is what is so offensive – it feels like the same kind of homogeneity that religion requires. It begs the comparison; that cannot be a good thing.
Your point “It’s always easier to remain quietly anonymous” struck home. Guilty as charged in this case. Tell me at what point you want me to be quiet again
March 25th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Some people are convinced 1 + 1 = 3
The equation holds true eventually if the 1s intend to have a child.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
BA, You will incense people of faith with comments like these:
“…This publicity is killing the movie; it makes the producer Mark Mathis and Ben Stein look like the craven liars they are (and the New York Times article says it’s a creationist movie! Score one for the good guys!)”
Good Guys??? Cmon, you may have reason and logic down pat. You may have a solidly materialistic and rational view of the universe compared to most religious people. But do you really think you help anyone by making this out to be a “good versus evil” thing? This is a reason versus magic debate. You don’t win those by being childish and calling people names.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
My parent’s cat purrs even louder than that one, but I can’t post a video because the little guy is terrified of my video camera. He can even tell when I turn it on from another room, so I think he might be hearing something ultrasonic from the camera. That’s not uncommon with video circuitry.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Torbjorn Larsson posts:
[[Funny you should mention that, since the mentioned scientist Dawkins makes a rational argument in his book The God Delusion why atheism is not only more compatible with the empirical rationale of science but is a much more probable state of nature.
As no one AFAIK has been able to come up with a reasonable problem with his argument, it can be claimed to be a reasonable ground for atheism.]]
Apparently you haven’t read any of the reviews of his books, or you’d be aware of the several dozen replies that have been made to his silly arguments.
One simple one right away: science studies nature. The religious question is whether something other than nature exists. The atheist of Dawkins’s stripe simply assumes it’s a null set. To say there’s no scientific evidence for God is like saying there’s no Star Trek episodes about medieval agriculture. Duh. There’s not supposed to be.
The empirical rationale for science includes something called “methodological materialism.” It rules out supernatural causes from the start. To then say, “there are no supernatural causes because there’s no scientific evidence for them” is to completely and utterly miss the point.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Todd writes:
[[A Christian (or Muslim or Jew or Druid…) can believe that it is possible to know God or the divine. These would be gnostic Christians. It is also quite possible (and indeed very common) for a Christian to believe that it is impossible to know God (e.g., “He works in mysterious ways.”). This would be an agnostic Christian.]]
I understand what you’re trying to do here, but the term “Gnostic” is already taken. It’s a particular religion, which uses a lot of Christian terminology but includes grossly non-Christian beliefs. Gnosticism is belief that Jesus taught a “gnosis” or secret knowledge to a few intimates that he denied to the masses. Gnostics also believe that spirit is good and matter is evil — “Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter!” says Yoda. They believe in particular that human sexuality is evil, and thus some Gnostics embraced celibacy and some embraced sexual acting out to show that human sexuality was meaningless. Modern-day neo-Gnostics tend to say that the Gnostics were early feminists who believed in the equality of women, but that’s a hard belief to maintain if you actually study the Gnostic gospels (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas where Peter indulges in an unbelievably foul rant against women, but is reassured by Jesus who tells him that in heaven, the women all become men.)
March 25th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Phil,
I am grateful for the level of discussion that is taking place on your boards. While I commented on The Intersection’s yesterday re this topic, it felt as though I was trying to talk to a bunch of grad students wired to defend their opinion to the hilt.
I am not likely to go back to reading PZ’s site now. His attitude towards Matt and Chris has always bothered me. At some point you pause when shooting the fish in the barrel, and realize that you’ve gone beyond hunting for subsistence and turned into a crazed killer. And these highly evolved fish regard their lost relatives not as the loony ones living in a barrel, but as martyrs. In other words, these are Christians we’re talking about. They aren’t out to refute evolution, they are out to make money shilling their crapulent work to other Christians. And the more controversy, the better, in their mind. Do you think the people who will watch this movie care what the NYT writes?
And as far as framing the discussion on ID/creationism and evolution goes, Eliot Sober gives a great presentation that perfectly frames the argument such that it is super easy for non-science folks to understand the controversy and grasp how ID can logically be nothing else but creationism.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Mike J posts:
[[Only an idiot would say that the computer was “just a small dot on a page” that then “blew up in a gigantic explosion” which slowly settled into the computer we see today. But that’s exactly what you have to “believe” in order to accept the Theory of evolution.]]
You have the Big Bang, a theory in cosmology, confused with evolution, a theory in biology.
[[Let me smack down the potassium argon, or carbon dating suggestions right now… as these dates are generated BASED UPON the fraudulent geologic column, as are the “half lifes” of each isotope. ]]
No, they are not. That is simply false. There is nothing about the geologic column that goes into radioactive decay dates. And the half-lives of the isotopes are based on measurements of their radioactivity. In general, the more radioactive an isotope is, the shorter its half-life.
[[When Lyell MADE UP the geologic column in the 1800’s… the SAME column used today i might add, he didn’t have or use isotope dating, he used the fossils to date the rocks, and the rocks to date the fossils.]]
Lyell didn’t make up the geologic column. It was first posited by Nicholas Steno in the 1600s and developed by James Hutton, Roderick Impey Murchison and others.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Matt Funke writes:
[[What evidence do you have that there was once a time that things did not exist?]]
Are you familiar with Olbers’s Paradox?
March 25th, 2008 at 11:58 am
BPL, what is Olber’s Paradox?
March 25th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
@BPL
Thanks for the history lesson on the Gnostic sect. Learned something new! What I was aiming for, however, was to illustrate how people commonly use the term around here: little-g gnostic, rather than big-G Gnostic. The way I was using it fit a little more in line with the common definitions in a dictionary…getting at the same technique used by DAV.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Terry, you don’t have to read PZ Myers.
The idea that there should be some major spokesman for science is rather shortsighted. Sagan became popular around 1980 when there was no mass Internet access nor 200 channels on TV. When people look for major spokespeople for science they are putting down the thousands of people who promote science. That is your teachers, the public outreach people at NASA, SOHO, the people who work in museums, the hundreds of websites about science, the Michio Kakus and Tysons, Brian Coxes, Richard Attenboroughs, Dawkins, Planetary Org, the hundreds of amateur astronomers, National Geographic, people like Phil, Sean Carroll, who get on radio shows, people like Jennifer Oulette who write books for laypeople, the Skepchick people who get out on the street and have lectures, and on and on.
The more people who speak out for science in all their corners of the world is what is good, imo – not just a few major spokespeople. If people like PZ or Dawkins want to focus on religion, more power to them. If only THEY are heard, that means other scientists are failing to reach the public, but I don’t think so. Dawkins has reached a lot of people both in science and more recently the atheism vs. theism argument. Dawkins has spoken in front of children and on programs most eloquently.
Intelligent Design has been discussed here many times and argued by most astute commenters as well as Phil’s comments. Phil, for example, has reached the target audience that Nisbit would like to (I certainly don’t read Nisbit’s blog). I am one of those target people – fairly educated who lost interest in science for some years. Now I know a lot more about the solar system than three years ago.
PZ has reached his target audience. I know more about evolution and have read books he has given good reviews about. I know more about the people who try to wedge ID into schools. I’m sure that applies to a lot of people as I am not unique.
Those who try to dictate how other scientists speak on their blogs or in public are missing the point that there are hundreds of spokespeople out there who don’t bring up religion. PZ and Dawkins aren’t hurting the cause of science because the majority of the public hasn’t cared much about science for decades. Teachers in elementary and high schools are the front lines in this battle for science education. Not blogs. Blogs can help motivate people to help fight those battles.
Failure to listen to the target audience makes some bloggers look like snobs who think they know better than others what works. The stereotype about scientists and academics sounding like snobs who engage in intra-discipline fighting hurts their image more than just letting those folks be. I know many people who feel this way.
Each scientist or science promoter has their role and style. And each feeds an audience who then does their part – writing letters, talking to their friends and families, and so on. Arguing about methods with each other sounds so petty. The “New Atheists” are new, but science has suffered before them. And they are good scientists, so others ought to keep pointing that out and just try to reach their own target audience. If you don’t like someone don’t listen to them. But to think that certain scientists are hurting “the cause” simply means that there needs to be more scientists who are good at communicating with the public, especially about evolution and how it is relevant to people today in the 21st Century. The science/evolution/political problem has been around for decades – it needs to be fought against by LOTS of people.
Thank you, PZ and Richard Dawkins for providing that necessary information about evolution and the information about the liars out there. Thank you to Phil Plait for linking to great science communicators on his sidebar about astronomy, physics, and anti-pseudoscience. Thanks to the commenters here who are so good about explaining things with clear arguments. I have written letters, signed petitions and bought books as a result. I know what the Large Hadron Collider is about. I know what FermiLab is all about. I know what the NASA budget is about, etc.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Michael,
Olbers’ paradox is the conundrum that the sky at night is dark. If the universe were infinite in time and space, everywhere you look you would see the surface of a star, however far away. Interstellar gas would have heated up to thermal equilibrium in infinite time. So the whole sky should be as bright and hot as the surface of the average star.
The solution to the paradox is that the universe has a finite age and the speed of light is also finite. Note that we do not have to make assumptions about the (in)finiteness of space.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Barton Paul Levenson: Are you familiar with Olbers’s Paradox?
Yes. Are you aware that the Universe need not have existed in eternity past in its present state to have existed for all time?
Are you aware that existing for all time in the past does not necessarily imply existing for eternity into the past?
March 25th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Just wanted to pop in and say that I’m glad these issues are finally being debated in public. Keep up the good work.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Mike J: “Let me smack down the potassium argon, or carbon dating suggestions right now… as these dates are generated BASED UPON the fraudulent geologic column, as are the “half lifes” of each isotope.”
What about tree ring dating (i.e., dendrochronology)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
“Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 10,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers).[1][2] Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California).[3].”
10,000 years ago is 4,000 years older than the supposed creation of the world in 4004 B.C. according to the Ussher chronology. So are you going to refute the basic fact that growing trees add a new layer of wood each year?
What about annual sedimentary deposits (i.e., varves)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve
This has been used to establish a chronology in Sweden going back 13,000 years.
Neither of these methods depends on the interpretation of the geologic column or the fossils within them. Neither of these methods depends on knowing the half-life of radioactive isotopes. Both methods involve only something as simple as counting up the number of tree rings or varves. Both methods have yielded dates far older than the supposed Genesis account of the creation of the world.
March 25th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Regarding PZ’s rants, if you offend and insult someone as you are telling the truth, odds are they will hear the insults and not much else.
Telling the truth and being passionate about it, is no excuse for being offensive. But much more importantly, you won’t be heard no matter how compelling your message is.
This is PZ’s problem.
I suspect that the overwhelming majority of PZ’s readers are people like us: people who already agree with him. If this is the case, than PZ is preaching to the choir (he’ll love that analogy) while he alienates those that don’t already think like he does. Certainly that’s his prerogative, but I wouldn’t classify it as education nor would I say that science is better off for it. On the other hand a respectful and articulate argument might do well in advancing the cause of science over superstition (see the BA).
March 25th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Thanks Pietr, I have heard that one, that’s the one that asks the question “Why is the sky dark at night?”
March 25th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Creationism= FAIL
Intelligent Design= FAIL
Theory of Evolution= PASS
Just my $0.02
March 25th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Theory of Evolution= PASS
Intelligent Design= FAIL
Creationism= FAIL
Just my $0.02
March 25th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I don’t know if anyone will read this far down, but I spend quite a bit of time trying to persuade technical people that it is necessary to get involved in politics to the extent that politics affects your technical job. In my area, nuclear energy (disclaimer: I am not a nuclear engineer or nuclear physicist, just an interested individual and activist), you can’t move without drawing the ire of a couple of hundred thousand people and in many cases getting on the front page of the New York Times–and because nuclear engineers don’t have the PR expertise to counter all that opposition, nobody moves. For example, for the first time in 30 years, people are talking about building nuclear power plants, but those nuclear power plants are all going to be based on US Navy submarine engines from the 50s. Attempts at research to solve the few remaining problems always get shot down by organizations whose names begin with “stop” (e.g., “Stop Cassini”–remember those guys? They’re still going strong; I get their newsletter…), who are interested in ensuring that these problems never get solved, so that they never have to concede that anything has improved. That’s how bad it is elsewhere; be happy that you don’t have to deal with that, and learn as much about public relations as possible. Scientists and engineers don’t need front people; they need to learn how to be their own front people when it is necessary to be one. IMHO, people going into controversial fields should get PR, political science, sociology, etc., training.
And yes, this can all be done ethically. If scientists and engineers don’t get their message out there, their opponents–and yes, they have opponents, as some of them are unable to figure out–will get there first. I swear, if I read one more letter to the editor from some clueless professor who thinks that the anti-nuclear movement is a bogeyman invented by bitter right-wingers…
I also find very interesting a reference somewhere above to computers not evolving–a strikingly similar process happens to software all the time. Unix, for example, was not in any way “designed”–its most famous features (the use of files as data structures and the shell) were not included in the original system or included as part of any “plan.” Unix was certainly not assembled from a specification, it was not engineered, and it was most certainly never, ever, planned. The result was one of the most if not the most complicated family of operating systems ever–precisely because nobody ever defined how a specific obstacle was to be overcome, so six different incompatible solutions were tried, each with its own user base, and they had to all be integrated with various patches and converters, a process which repeated itself for going on 40 years. Its hodgepodge of features that overlap each other and provide a certain screwy defense-in-depth, its inconsistency of interface, the sheer variety of distributions, the commercial failure of certain distributions due to unpopular features (even bugfixes!), code that works but nobody can figure out why, the presence of “Junk DNA” like teletype drivers, and the lack of clear versioning would be familiar to any evolutionary biologist.
This isn’t an analogy. It really isn’t. This is the same process in action; Unix evolved in the most literal sense of the term. And we know for a fact, because the development of Unix occurred in living memory, that Unix succeeded precisely because there was no central, coordinating intelligence behind it. Sure, there were people asynchronously assembling it, but their intelligence did not contribute to solving the problem, rendering the fact that they aren’t random signal generators irrelevant. Vast complexity does not need skilled design to occur; on the contrary, it is the natural result of anarchy and chaos. Ask any professional project manager.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
@ DAV:
First, you don’t prove statements by empirical methods. Second, why do you think this is the statement that is treated? You can do this in any number of ways, so you have agnostics, weak atheists, et cetera, each with their own supports for their assertions.
As I started to describe for Dawkins TGD argument, it is instructive to continue. Dawkins notes that religious gods, as opposed to philosophical, are taken as creative agents. By going over the nature of those, he finds that they are phenomena of the universe (as we are). And he doesn’t assert impossibility, he extracts improbabilities.
In essence, by analogy this is the old “who created the creator” problem of philosophy, albeit with a falsifiable basis as I noted earlier.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
@ Melanie:
I can confirm that, today in some comment the question was brought up. He got tenure 5 years ago.
@ Terry:
PZ and Nesbit has different audiences and different agendas. If you want a nice frame for what PZ and dawkins are doing, is that they move the Overton window. They make it possible for atheists to come out, and to come out and make comparatively less offensive statements.
One should also consider the different time scales. Nisbet is planning for the immediate future, Dawkins and PZ’s concern is future generations education. [It isn't really that simple, as both strategies have short and long term dynamics. But that would become a long discussion.]
March 25th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
@ Barton:
I have read those reviews and I’m aware of the negative ones. I have yet to see some that engages his argument though.
The religious reviewers either are make special pleading against criticism on behalf of religion, or pull a bait-and-switch with a philosophical god. (The noninteracting god of philosophical agnostics.) As I noted, that isn’t what Dawkins discuss, he discusses the creative agent of theism.
Ironically, apparently you haven’t read Dawkins The God Delusion there he doesn’t make such an assumption.
But he does discuss “the poverty of agnosticism”, where there is an assumption of a null set. (Among philosophical agnostics; technically [well, philosophically technically] Dawkins is an agnostic as well, as he himself has noted.)
So philosophers like to assume. Scientists makes no such assumptions about their method.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
@ Mike J.:
How did you establish that observation? This is still an open area with many possibilities.
@ Todd:
Yes, or at least for most of the 13 Gy this “explosion” has been ongoing.
Except that there is no spacetime for the universe to explode in, so people prefer to describe it it as an expansion of spacetime itself. (That takes care of the problem with the connection between space and time in relativity too.)
March 25th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
That is sufficient though obscure, but in fact it was meant to say stronger and clearer “phenomena of the late universe”.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Terry
“Your point “It’s always easier to remain quietly anonymous” struck home. Guilty as charged in this case. Tell me at what point you want me to be quiet again.”
I would never ask you to do such a thing, Terry. Always want to hear what you or anyone else has to say. As long as you are open to reasonable discussion and debate.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Matt Funke writes:
[[Yes. Are you aware that the Universe need not have existed in eternity past in its present state to have existed for all time?]]
Yes. Are you aware that the tensor equations governing the standard model of the Big Bang have both space-time and mass-energy being created at T = 0, which implies that nothing existed before the Big Bang? That saying something existed before the Big Bang is therefore like saying something is north of the North Pole?
March 26th, 2008 at 3:40 am
Torbjorn Larsson says (of the Big Bang):
[[Except that there is no spacetime for the universe to explode in, so people prefer to describe it it as an expansion of spacetime itself. (That takes care of the problem with the connection between space and time in relativity too.)]]
Actually, it’s an expansion of space, not of space-time.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Barton Paul Levenson: Yes. Are you aware that the tensor equations governing the standard model of the Big Bang have both space-time and mass-energy being created at T = 0, which implies that nothing existed before the Big Bang? That saying something existed before the Big Bang is therefore like saying something is north of the North Pole?
Funny. I’ve used that analogy myself. I have no idea who started it, but it sure gets trotted out an awful lot.
Here’s what I’m getting at, without having to appeal to tensor equations, and lacking the proper HTML tags to represent them in any event: saying that something existed “for all time” means that it existed whenever there was time. That’s why I was trying to distinguish between “past for all time” and “eternity past” (as slippery a term as that might be) in my previous post. Note that “always” also refers to (as the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed., puts it) “at all times; inavariably; at any time; in any event”.
Speaking of cause-effect relationships outside of time seems a bit nonsensical. Saying that something had to cause the Universe to exist begs the question of why we have to assume that there was a time when there was nothing. Since there was no time outside the Universe’s creation, of course, it’s not even reasonable to assume that such a time even existed.
I was hoping to get Mike J. there with reason before whipping out the Math Bludgeon.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:56 am
@ MattFunke
“I was hoping to get Mike J. there with reason before whipping out the Math Bludgeon.”
THAT would have been downright bloody!
March 26th, 2008 at 9:28 am
People like Mike are immune to reason, and we already know that creationists are categorically incapable of understanding numbers. Well, not incapable. Perhaps just unwilling.
You have to make someone actually want to learn, and that involves convincing them to exercise some independent solid intellectual fortitude.
I won’t be holding my breath.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Torbjörn Larsson, OM said:
> Except that there is no spacetime for the universe to explode in, so people prefer to describe it it as an expansion of spacetime itself. (That takes care of the problem with the connection between space and time in relativity too.)
Except for the conceptual problem of what spacetime is expanding into. This is a problem generated by our brain’s formulation for dealing with a cause/effect and time dependent scale of being. It is impossible for most people to conceive of how something can be expanding without expanding into something.
Barton Paul Levenson said:
> Are you aware that the tensor equations governing the standard model of the Big Bang have both space-time and mass-energy being created at T = 0, which implies that nothing existed before the Big Bang? That saying something existed before the Big Bang is therefore like saying something is north of the North Pole?
You are equating the lack of time and space with nothing. I think this again one of those conceptual problems. We are stuck thinking of before and after, so there must be a before time began. I’m not certain if the problem is our need to have a before t=0 or our inability to make sense of the idea there could be something before/beyond/outside of “space”, i.e. our current universe.
> Actually, it’s an expansion of space, not of space-time.
Except time is just another “dimension” equivalent to the 3 space dimensions in many ways. Thus GR combines the 4 items into one linked article. That’s the root of all the inconstant time issues of GR.
MattFunke said:
> That’s why I was trying to distinguish between “past for all time” and “eternity past”
You’re being hampered by our language deficiencies that arise from our conceptual limitations. “Before” and “eternity” are inherently time concepts. It’s a definite conceptual paradox.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
@ Barton:
Ah, thanks! I haven’t studied GR, but here is the FLRW metric of the concordance model, with a spatial scale factor. Mea culpa.
@ MattFunke:
I thought it was Hawking, on his “no boundary condition” cosmologies? There is definitely no initial “time” with such an absence of proper boundary.
March 27th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Irishman: You’re being hampered by our language deficiencies that arise from our conceptual limitations.
Agreed. It’s even hard to come up with a definition for time itself without using time-dependent words (“event”, “rate”, “succession”, and so on).
The power of science (and the mathematics used to describe it) is that it can tell us things that are true that are not only counterintuitive, but nigh-impossible to imagine.