Last week the book tour for Unscientific America opened to a packed house at Warwick’s Books in La Jolla–one of my all time favorite stores. Roger Bingham, of the Science Network, interviewed me in the store, so we should also have a broadcast of much of the event soon.
But that’s just the beginning. I’m traveling a ton this week, and doing the following three back-to-back stops on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday:
Monday, July 20
5:30 PM–7:00 PM
The Hastings Center
21 Malcolm Gordon Road
Garrison, NY 10524
Web siteTuesday, July 21
4:00 PM–5:30 PM
Sponsored by the Yale Chapter of Scientists and Engineers for America
The Anylan Center (TAC); introduction by Carl Zimmer
300 Cedar St
Auditorium N107
New Haven, CT 06519
Web siteWednesday, July 22
5:30 PM–7:00 PM
Sponsored by the Northwestern University Science and Policy Action Network and the Illinois Science Council
Northwestern University
Technological Institute
2145 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL
Web site
Will try to send dispatches from the road, even if only @UnscientificAmerica…..
July 20th, 2009 at 9:58 am
On your book tour will you answer these questions?:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=2841
I’m interested in an open debate on the answers.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Hey, there’s a thought. I’m interested in an open debate on the answers too. I think the questions are quite reasonable, and directed to genuine issues. I don’t understand why Mooney and Kirshenbaum haven’t answered them.
I’ll just post them in here, in case it’s too much trouble to hit the link.
1) What do you want? What do you mean? You say religion is private so we have no business prying into what people believe, but Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson wrote books, Francis Collins wrote a book and has a website. The National Center for Science Education has a website. Are you saying we can’t dispute claims made in books and on websites? If yes, you’re making a grotesque demand. If no – what are you saying?
2) How do you know overt atheism causes people to be hostile to science? How does that work? What is your evidence?
3) How do you know it doesn’t work the other way? Instead or in addition? How do you know the increased availability of atheism doesn’t make some, perhaps many, people feel more at liberty to explore science, follow the evidence wherever it goes, and the like?
4) How do you explain the fact that theism has had pervasive automatic respect and deference for many decades yet the public-science gap has not narrowed?
5) Do you have any evidence that the putative ‘new’ atheism caused a spike in public hostility to science? Can you point to even a correlation?
6) Do you have any concern that your advice is in sharp conflict with the whole idea of free inquiry, free thought, freedom of debate, discussion, argument? Do you have any sense at all that it is, in general, a bad idea to impose prior restraints and inhibitions on what it is okay (acceptable, advisable) to discuss? Do you worry at all about the general effects of this timid, placating, cautious, apologetic imposition of taboos and ’ssssh’ and ‘don’t mention that’ on public debate? Do you really think your reasons are good enough to trump those possible concerns? Do they, for instance, rise to the level of the reasons it’s best to avoid racial or sexual or ethnic or national epithets in public discussion? And are their attendant risks as small? Do we lose as little of substance by not saying there is no good reason to believe God exists as we do by not calling women [a word that is now filtered]?
7) Do you take enough care to present your critics’ views accurately? You admitted on Daily Kos that you got Dawkins wrong in your book. Are you thoroughly confident that you haven’t made other such mistakes, in the book and on your blog? I know I’ve seen other inaccuracies of that kind, and pointed some of them out to you. (Just one example: you said “The New Atheist critics don’t like [what Eugenie Scott says], it seems, because they want to force people to be “rational” and completely justify their views to a very high standard, or else reject them.” Can you see what is wrong with that? I pointed it out at the time. Do you see the problem? Do you worry that it is pervasive?) Have you noticed that this has happened many times? Does it prompt you to worry more about a tendency to strawman anyone you disagree with?
8] Do you understand the need to be clear about terminology and to avoid ambiguity and equivocation? In particular, do you now see that there is a difference – an important difference, one that’s central to this disagreement – between saying that people can combine science and religion ‘in their lives,’ that ‘you really can have both in your life’, and saying that science and religion are epistemically compatible?
9) Do you understand the implications of the Pew study, which spells out the fact that a large percentage of people simply ignore the findings of science whenever they contradict their religious beliefs? Do you understand that that is not epistemic compatibility but its opposite? Do you have any qualms at all about telling scientists and atheists to just acquiesce in that?
July 20th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
@ Ophelia -
Why don’t you look too at recent polling data published by Britain’s Guardian three weeks ago?
This is off topic, but you owe me an apology for your rather insensitive comment at Pharyngula ridiculing my concern about Frank McCourt’s failing health. If you can’t apologize for that, then why should Chris and Sheril consider answering the questions of someone as insensitive to human suffering as you have demonstrated?
July 20th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Kwok – be quiet. Let the grown ups talk for once.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
You call this being a “grown up”:
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | July 17, 2009 5:56 PM
KOOK FIGHT!
Kwok v. John A. Davison.
And the joy of seeing Kwok tell people to quit making fun of Stuyvesant High School on account of Frank McCourt is very ill.
I asked if that meant we had to not be funny about Ireland and New York too. Well does it?
July 20th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
@ Ophelia -
Don’t you have any respect for the dead? An apology is the only appropriate response from you in such circumstances.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Kwok,
Many people in the USA die every day. Can we not criticize anything about the US because her citizens are dying? Whatever the tone, Ophelia’s question was fair.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
@ Paul -
But not “many people in the USA” were as well loved as Frank McCourt was – and still is – to his hundreds, if not thousands, of former students (like yours truly) and millions of his fans across the globe. I would never make fun of PZ if I knew he was dying. Don’t you or Ophelia have any sense of decency?
July 20th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
@ Paul -
Not only does Ophelia demonstrate that she has no sense of decency by apologizing for her insensitive, quite tactless, Pharyngula wisecrack about me, she is a sanctimonious hypocrite too for telling me to “shut up” and let the “grown ups” speak (when she, herself, indulges in “infantile” behavior of the kind I’ve just posted). I suppose Chris and Sheril alreadly realize this, which is whey they have ignored her “questions”.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
@Kwok
Plenty. I would not speak ill of McCourt. I did not know him personally, and do not know enough about the man to speak ill or well of him (aside from being able to say I enjoyed reading his books).
The point was that you implied mocking your high school was off limits because a former staffer was dying. That seems silly, even on the face of it. That was what was being addressed.
I would also like to make it clear that there was no mocking of McCourt, even in the past; the mocking was of you dropping his name repeatedly, for months, in every possible situation. The person that reflects badly on is not the esteemed Frank McCourt, and it’s dishonest of you to act like that was the intention.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
@ Paul -
Nor should the school be mocked simply because it is regarded by many as America’s premier high school devoted to mathematics, the sciences and technology. If we are to have any hope in stemming the tide against evolution denialists, then we need a lot more schools like it. That, unfortunately, is a point missed by you and your fellow PZ acolytes.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
@ Chris -
Hope you enjoy your visits to Yale and Northwestern. I hear that the Yale Peabody Museum has a new exhibition pertaining to Darwin, so if you can squeeze it into your schedule, then by all means, please visit. As for Northwestern, I think you’ll enjoy chatting with Alec Klein.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
You’re being dishonest again. The school isn’t mocked because of being regarded as a premier high school. It’s mocked because you spent months using the name in every blog post you made on Pharyngula, where it was not relevant nor germane to any given topic at hand. Honestly, before I saw you on Pharyngula I used to laugh when watching Frasier, when he was always name-dropping Harvard. It was funny because nobody was really like that, it was an exaggeration. But after seeing someone name-dropping their high school, and with even greater frequency…it’s just irritating.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
@ Paul -
I had valid points to make about secondary school science education and neither you nor PZ nor any of your fellow PZ acolytes got it. BTW, PZ had to “dishonor” himself by being associated with Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson – who is a Bronx Science alumnus – at last month’s American Humanist Association’s awards ceremony.
P. S. You obviously don’t think much of McCourt either since you refer to him as the “esteemed Mr. McCourt”.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@ Paul (@ 13) -
Yet another compelling reason why Pharyngula has lost some of its readership and is being denounced not only by yours truly, but by others, especially Chris and Sheril. Your remarks merely illustrate the predominantly juvenile behavior shown by you and your fellow acolytes there.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
You continuously lying, deceiving, and requiring correction shows why Pharyngula is predominantly juvenile? You’re still not making any sense, and I’ve spent time enough correcting you. Back to ignoring.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
@ Paul -
Maybe if PZ had learned some of the same humility, generosity of spirit and religious tolerance shown by Frank McCourt towards others, he would have never committed “CrackerGate” or be the target of Chris and Sheril’s well-reasoned, well-stated criticisms. Instead, he takes pride in his Viking heritage and acts like one online. Enough for today. I am in mourning….
July 20th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Kwok, Kwok, Kwak, Kwak, Quak, Cwak, Quack, Cwack, Cwrack, Crack, Cracked. Coo coo.
John, go get some medical help.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Is it possible for the Pharyngula food fight to go somewhere else? The repeated ad hominum attacks on Kwok are exceptionally tiresome, as are the carrying of ancient arguments from another message board.
Making every single post a place to repeat the same junk is also extremely annoying. You have a platform to vilify S&C over at Meyers place; use it and leave the threads to discuss the actual topics they discuss. Radical, I know, but more adult and – dare I say it – rational.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Way to frame the debate, Marc, but I note Kwok was the first off topic poster. I also note you have no scolding for him.
But it’s a fair enough request. I’m out.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Great! Paul says he’s out of here. Let’s hope he means it.
Now if we can get the other pharyngulas to get back to their den, it would be even greater. If Kwok annoys them so much there is one sure way to get away from him – go back to Pharyngula – he’s been banned there. However, I can understand why they would want to escape. A bunch of taodies sitting around trying to reinforce each other is not very exciting.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
I’m just waiting for CM and SK to answer the questions, that’s all. If Kwok insists on taking over every thread – that’s Kwok’s doing, not anyone else’s.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
+1 to Mooneybaum answering Ophelia Benson’s list of questions, serious and germane questions assiduously avoided by the proprietors.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:21 am
Was Carl Sagan really all that?
July 21st, 2009 at 8:32 am
Re Lab Lemming
The late Prof. Sagan was also a pot smoker, not a good role model for the younger set.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
@ Paul -
No, I wasn’t the first off topic poster. The “Denyse O’Leary of Militant Atheism”, one Ophelia Benson, was.
July 21st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
@Kwok
Are you saying that book critiques are off topic for book posts? Even if you consider them off topic, that would mean the first off-topic post was by ShowsOn. You still make no sense. At least make an attempt to be coherent. Doesn’t it bother you that the vast majority of the content of your posts is based only on the person you are replying to, instead of the actual content of their posts? It’s sickening.
I did not want to keep posting here, but misrepresentation is just plain rude — and the regulars here are too accommodating to point out when Kwok is lying or misrepresenting.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
@ Paul -
Ophelia posting those questions here at this blog entry is a bit sanctimonious and hypocritical on her part when she has ignored valid questions from TomJoe and myself which have yet to be answered. If she wants Chris and Sheril to answer hers, then she better start thinking seriously of answering mine first.
July 21st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
@ Paul -
She also owes me an apology for mocking a favorite teacher of mine at Pharyngula as he was dying.
July 21st, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Who’s off-topic now? Contact her via email if you demand she apologize to you. It has no relevance to public discourse. You’re also dishonestly ignoring that she was mocking you, not McCourt or Stuyvesant.
In short, I agree with her earlier post. Grow up, Kwok. Or at least be quiet and let the grown-ups discuss things. It pains me to say something so blunt, but you’re acting like a child.
July 21st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Then quit acting like it was an insult to Mr. McCourt. I’ve called you on this lie several times, and it’s really childish to repeat lies after they’ve been debunked (even moreso than telling them in the first place).
I repeat. Grow up.