While I have been busy getting married, on honeymoon, and trying to get settled in Boston, a great many things have been said about Unscientific America and about myself and Sheril. Many have been false, unfair, or worse. Or as Josh Rosenau put it: “Mooney and Kirshenbaum were personally maligned, and their book misrepresented to a degree that raises questions about whether critics actually read the book.”
Sadly, I must agree with this assessment.
During this time, I have been logistically hampered in my ability to reply to such things, but also limited in my desire to do so. After all, there are many reasons to just let stuff go, no matter how unfair or ridiculous. It takes a lot of time to refute errors and misrepresentations, and there’s relatively little chance minds will be changed even when you do so.
The chief argument for not responding to unfair critics involves peace and tranquility–not getting dragged into a debate in which one side is willing to say very irresponsible and inaccurate things, and having one’s time consumed by such an unedifying spectacle. And there is also the fact that, when under unfair attack, there are always a few honest souls who perceive what is going on and leap to your defense–in this case, Rosenau and Jean Kazez in particular have filled that role, as have some others.
But on the other side of the ledger, not everyone is a Rosenau or Kazez–and many folks don’t want to enter a brawl even if they do perceive what’s really going on. Meanwhile, misinformation has a way of getting repeated ad nauseum, and all too many people make up their minds not based on whether they have read a book or thought about it, but merely based on what they’ve heard someone say. Repetition becomes reality.
This fact would seem to argue that one must be constantly involved in responding and setting the record straight–but then again, one quickly reverts back to the counterargument. With so much being said that is wrong, it would be a massive endeavor to set it all right, with highly uncertain rewards.
……
To show as much, let’s consider one tiny example of a ridiculous thing said about our book, and how much effort it takes to refute it.
In a negative review of Unscientific America recently published by Ars Technica, the reviewer, Yun Xie, faults us for (among other things) our argument about how science used to enjoy a better place in American life, writing as follows:
The authors bring up these periods in history throughout the book and advise that we should learn lessons from them because “we need science to reestablish its core relevance to American life, to enjoy the standing and visibility it had in the late 1950s and early 1960s.”
But, while there are definitely lessons to be learned, the authors didn’t convince me that science should return to its standing in the post-war era. Much of the appreciation for science back then was based on awe and an almost blind trust in the power of chemicals and machinery. [Italics added]
Instead of returning to a previous state of prominence, wouldn’t it be better to achieve a modern level of importance, a place where the public is informed about what research is done in the labs, and why?
This sounds like a reasonable criticism–but in fact, it isn’t one at all. Why? Because the argument seemingly being used against us is in fact one that we completely agree with. Indeed, the observations that form its basis [in italics] can be found in our book.
You see, in order to better criticize us, Xie leaves out a key part of our sentence and misconstrues our meaning. We actually wrote the following:
…we need science to reestablish its core relevance to American life, to enjoy the standing and visibility it had in the late 1950s and early 1960s (with full accommodation of the lessons learned since then).
The “lessons learned” here certainly are not that we ought to go back to the 1950s and 1960s uncritically. On the contrary, our parenthetical, which Ars Technica inexplicably drops off, is quite clearly a qualification meant to say precisely the opposite–i.e., that we need a different, more modern way of embracing of science; that we can’t just hope to warp back in time.
What’s more, the “lessons learned” from the past involve pretty much exactly what Xie writes–”Much of the appreciation for science back then was based on awe and an almost blind trust in the power of chemicals and machinery.” In fact, we wrote it first. Discussing the reasons science fell from its postwar pedestal in Chapter 3, for instance, we include the following:
Not only did the new mood of “questioning authority” include the questioning of science, but there was often good reason for skepticism. The environmental and consumer movements, spearheaded by the likes of Rachel Carson and Ralph Nader, brought home the realization that science wasn’t always beneficial. Seemingly wonderful technologies–DDT, chlorofluorcarbons–could have nasty, unforseen consequences. A narrative began to emerge about “corporate science”: driven by greed, conducted without adequate safeguards, placing profits over people.
So the reviewer appropriates our point about “lessons learned” while dropping the parenthetical off our sentence–and then criticizes us by raising a point that we’ve already thought of and addressed; indeed, a point the reviewer may well have gotten from us in the first place (and that we totally agree with). Thus, the “criticism” isn’t actually a criticism at all–if you’ve read our book. It’s psuedo-criticism from someone who either doesn’t understand what the book is arguing, doesn’t care to do full justice to its arguments, or perhaps is just sloppy.
And after making such a mistake, Xie nevertheless has the gall to accuse us of lacking “substance.”
The above is the kind of nonsense criticism I would have to respond to, if I responded regularly to many of our detractors. And indeed, especially among the less rigorous and exacting ones, this is a favorite routine: Criticizing the book based on arguments that are in fact our own arguments, so that they are actually attacking a strawman–but only someone who has read the book would know it.
Moreover, I wouldn’t be able to just set the record straight once–rather, I would have to do it over and over for each wrong or unfair claim. I am nevertheless thinking of doing more–but at the same time, I wonder if I should bother. By God, it’s an imposing task. Do readers–open-minded ones, those who might actually be swayed by argument on this matter–think it is worth it?
September 28th, 2009 at 11:17 am
I agree and sympathize with what you say about “having one’s time consumed by such an unedifying spectacle.”
Probably the best way to go about responding is in discussing your *solutions*–what you feel are the best ways of to move forward on the things you are concerned about in your book, find allies who are making good points on your side, and occasionally respond to critics when they’re making the kind of mistakes that instruct on a larger point.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Wow. You’re “addressing” the Ars Technica review is pretty ridiculous. You completely ignore much more substantial criticisms present in that review (are you ever going to “clarify” you position on pluto, and how the public should have dictated science in that situation?), but your meager hand-waving doesn’t actually address the criticism you decided to mention.
“(with full accommodation of the lessons learned since then).”
How was Xie supposed to know what you meant there? Was there anything in the text surrounding that quote to actually suggest what you’re trying to imply here?
The fact of the matter is that no where did you explicitly state what Xie suggested. Maybe you felt like it was ‘too obvious’ or something. I don’t know, and I doubt anyone else did either. Don’t blame them for your own faults.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
For the record, I have read UA. And you sir, have no room to talk about being maligned and misrepresented.
Rt
September 28th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
“It takes a lot of time to refute errors and misrepresentations, and there’s relatively little chance minds will be changed even when you do so.”
Yep, and Josh just proved you correct on that last bit.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Yes, I agree with Josh. I am unfamiliar with the issue at hand, however, from reading your response, I feel as though either 1. This is all very petty because that was a minor and obscure critiscism, or 2. There were more significant critiscisms, but they aren’t being addressed.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
What to do is your call.
But, should you choose not to engage your critics, including those whom you feel criticize you unfairly, it would be time to start apologizing to all the scientists you’ve been blaming collectively and individually for failing to engage the public. Or at least for failing to be successful at it — One group that rarely gets much blame, but should also probably shoulder some responsibility here, is the scientists. Given the massive public opinion gap between themselves and ordinary Americans, one could argue that just as the public ought to move toward thinking more like scientists, scientists should also reach out more to help them get there. Yet while scientists have released reams of steller reports on climate change over the years, they’ve been technocratic tomes that only reach a tiny portion of America.
September 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
“The “lessons learned” here certainly are not that we ought to go back to the 1950s and 1960s uncritically. On the contrary, our parenthetical, which Ars Technica inexplicably drops off, is quite clearly a qualification meant to say precisely the opposite–i.e., that we need a different, more modern way of embracing of science; that we can’t just hope to warp back in time.”
Did your parenthetical qualification ‘mean to say’ or did it actually say? It seems that to address one small example of the criticism of this book, you’re having to pull passages from multiple sections and re-synthesize them in a very unclear way just to provide a weak rebuttal. If you were trying to make the same argument that Xie made, it seems you did a very poor job of it. Without qualifying what those ‘lessons learned’ may have been within the next few sentences, it’s a very meaningless fragment.
“It’s psuedo-criticism from someone who either doesn’t understand what the book is arguing,”
In general, if most reviewers don’t understand what your book is arguing, is that a fault with the readers, or with the authors? Before you embark on a such an imposing task of rebutting all of your poor reviews, perhaps you should take some time and reflect on if the fault lies with you. Maybe you could use this criticism constructively to grow as a writer. This book was what, some 130 pages of actual writing? Could you have used another 10 to add some clarity?
September 28th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I can understand why you would feel compelled to respond personally to negative reviews of your work. It’s enormously frustrating – the feeling that your case has been misrepresented by those too lazy to fully understand it. Nonetheless, I can assure you that swatting at critics isn’t an especially useful way to spend your time. I think that the best thing you can do is let people make up their own minds about your book, without engaging in (what you seem to acknowledge) is an ultimately-futile debate. Very few people put any stock in book reviews, and I seriously doubt that you are losing readership because of the negative comments of a few critics.
Of course, your motivation in making such an “unedifying spectacle” of this may be to drum up publicity for your book, in which case I suppose you’re succeeding.
September 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Let me offer a more personal take on this problem. I have enjoyed some fame in a completely different field, and fame based on one’s ideas always comes fully equipped with its coterie of nattering detractors. When I was your age, I tried hard to deal with these criticisms, many of which had much the same vitriol that you have experienced. It is all to no avail.
Think of it this way: the world is a huge grinding machine, and anybody who sticks out gets ground down. Most people figure this out quickly and develop a form of thinking in which they average together the opinions of the most significant people. If you deviate from the norm, you will be assaulted. The greater the deviation, the greater the assault. The problem is, the value of any idea you present is commensurate with the degree to which it deviates from the norm. In other words, you must suffer slings and arrows if you are to make a contribution.
My suggestion, then, is to accept this vituperation as standard operating procedure in the world of ideas. There will always be critics. But remember, as a Nordic composer once said, nobody ever raised a statue to a critic. Make certain that all reasonable criticisms are answered. Above all, always be reasonable even as you promulgate the “heresy” that so riles them. And deep down inside, in a place where nobody will ever hear you, say to yourself, “Go to hell, bastards!”
September 28th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
On the other side of the political fence, David Frum wrote a while ago about David Horowitz’s defense of Glenn Beck:
In place of “truth or falsehood”, you could put “possibility of dialog,” and it would look uncomfortably close to the New Atheist position. Anyone who suggests that you should approach peoples’ religious consciences with any degree of respect, the way to deal with those people is with sneers and outright dismissals of their work (even if those dismissals stand on obviously shaky ground). This is something you do even if the people advocating respect are avowed atheists like Chris Mooney or Robert Wright.
September 28th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
@ Josh:
Um, ok, other then the exact words used, how ar ethe following two things NOT equivalent:
1.“But, while there are definitely lessons to be learned, the authors didn’t convince me that science should return to its standing in the post-war era. Much of the appreciation for science back then was based on awe and an almost blind trust in the power of chemicals and machinery. [Italics added]
Instead of returning to a previous state of prominence, wouldn’t it be better to achieve a modern level of importance, a place where the public is informed about what research is done in the labs, and why?”
2 …we need science to reestablish its core relevance to American life, to enjoy the standing and visibility it had in the late 1950s and early 1960s (with full accommodation of the lessons learned since then).
Really? So now every scientist who has read UA is a verbal literalist? And that’s why we’ve had all these clashes? Really?
September 28th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
I think there may be a mutual comprehension problem here. To me the sentence “Most of all, we need science to reestablish its core relevance to American life, to enjoy the standing and visibility it had in the late 1950s and early 1960s (with full accommodation of the lessons learned since then).” implies that the 1950s-60s position is desirable with a few modifications. Xie in contrast believes that the 1950s-60s position is a very bad model for science communication, which is why she rejects that position.
Chapter 3, as I understand it, generally discusses the lionisation of science during the Cold War and its fall in the 1970s. If I follow the argument correctly, the standing of science in the 1960s was as an authority to be trusted rather than questioned. If this is undesirable, and I get the impression that you think it is, then your sentence should be interpreted as “Most of all, we need science to reestablish its core relevance to American life, to enjoy the standing and visibility it had in the late 1950s and early 1960s (but not for any of the reasons it enjoyed the standing and visibility it had in the late 1950s and early 1960s).”
It’s possible I’ve misunderstood what you meant by that sentence too, but it shows why – to me – Xie’s criticism may be erroneous, but it’s not ridiculous. However your willingness to denigrate a reader, rather than ignore what you perceive as unfair criticisms and address the ones the one you think are salient, suggests that any rebuttals will produce more heat than light.
Perhaps a blog post explaining how deploying the “You’re dishonest, you’re ignorant and you’re lazy” frame will win over the dissenters will be more useful.
September 28th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Your lengthy post illustrates the large effort and modest payoff in responding to a single reviewer who malquoted your book. It does seem unworthy of your time to respond to other examples. I, for one, understood when I read the book that you recognized that science and technology hold risks that would make a return to the uncritical adoration of the postwar period unwise.
It also seems pointless to say more on accommodationism. That’s an important issue, but there’s been too much blogged already, often in response to misrepresentations of others’ point of view. (People on both sides, for example, claim the middle ground of not telling others what to think/believe, and accuse their opponents of the opposite.)
However, where multiple criticisms raise common issues, it may be worth a (short!) response, if it can clarify rather than muddy the issues. For example, several commenters (including the Ars Technica reviewer, as well as Jason Rosenhouse, Ian Musgrave, Dave Strickland, and me) were baffled as to what message we were supposed to glean from the opening chapter on Pluto. It’s too late to make this edition of the book set the stage the way you must have hoped, but you could at least clarify what you intended.
September 28th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I would not respond to anything that you aren’t interested in taking somewhere new, and I would not respond to any specific review or critique unless you’re interested in and have some expectation of opening a dialog with its author.
Use the critics to find the places where you weren’t clear or failed to make your point or missed something entirely, and start working on revisions or new chapters or a new book.
September 28th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Chris,
Having spoke to at least two notable science journalists about your book recently, you should take seriously the charges that yours is a most superficial analysis of the problem of American scientific illiteracy. You should also ponder whether you’ve been too overly zealous – and I believe you have – in portraying Carl Sagan as though he was the “patron saint” of popularizing science in the United States when there were others doing the same at the height of his popularity, from the 1970s through 1990s, of which the most notable examples include anthropologist Loren Eiseley, physician Lewis Thomas, and especially, paleontologist and noted evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould. Moreover, as I have noted in my Amazon.com review of your book, Gould probably had a more important impact on public opinion than Sagan ever did, especially with regards to his vehement criticism of E. O. Wilson’s “Sociobiology” and his later condemnation of Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s “The Bell Curve” (Gould’s most important rhetorical condemnation of “The Bell Curve” appears in the appendix of the revised, updated edition of his “The Mismeasure of Man”.). Moreover, I am surprised that you did not adhere to the same high – and rigorous – standards of journalism which you displayed in your “The Republican War on Science”.
I think you and Sheril should take special note of criticisms stated by those of us who regard you as an important friend and ally. As for the other criticisms aimed at you by certain Militant Atheists, then you should merely consider the source and move on, even if that may seem to others that your reaction is one of blissful ignorance. I’m not sure whether it is productive to engage further with your Militant Atheist critics, especially those who are Pharyngulites.
Sincerely yours,
John
September 28th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Bravo Chris. Let the critics bray. Let me say this: I was awake an entire night reading the book. I was floored by the time I finished reading it and I am sincerely convinced that, in spite of the criticism, after fifty years this book is going to enjoy the same status as Snow’s “The Two Cultures” or Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. Kudos, and keep up the good work.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Chris, you don’t need to respond to every criticism but as someone above mentioned, you should respond to common threads of criticism in multiple reviews. As I have said before, I am disappointed in the book not because of its criticism of the New Atheists (which I do believe is fuzzy and ambiguous; in fact you might notice even positive reviews on Amazon noting this) but because the book is very superficial, lacks sophistication and unfortunately detracts from the high and admirable standards of rigor that you displayed in The Republican War on Science and Storm World (and I am a big fan of both of these). I do hope you come out with a sequel that remedies these flaws since the book has the potential to be an important document but has not lived up to that potential yet.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Controversy sells books, but this is rather weak controversy
September 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
If you defend against attacks, you are being “overly sensitive” or “defensive”.
If you don’t, well, the attacks must be right.
There’s no winning. There’s just how much effort you’re willing to expend while losing…
September 28th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Chris,
Clearly, you’re taking negative reviews – any negative reviews – very personally, and should probably refrain from reading any for awhile because you’re sounding rather more peevish than righteously indignant here.
Your response to critics – if any – should probably be in the area of general concerns (such as the many critiques that the book lacks substance – a complaint common to SciBlogs, Amazon, in the comment threads here, and other parts of the web – including Ms. Xie’s), rather than any minor quibbles, such as the one you’ve chosen to address in this article. Doing otherwise just makes you appear as if you’re avoiding bigger issues in favor of playing the victim.
Just the impression I got from this.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Thanks everyone–the replies to this trial balloon are very revealing and helpful
September 28th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I’ve learned that there’s just no point in arguing with some people. Duane Gish and other creationists, for example, have been spouting out the same BS for years, some of them even using the exact same lectures/debate rebuttals for every event. I say, if you’re going to reach out to anyone, choose carefully: open-minded adults, especially college-age ones, make the best listeners. I realize it’s a cliche, but, as people age, they do become pretty stuck in their ways. If only there were some way of influencing the very young, in the way Ronald McDonald has. No, I’m not suggesting that we brainwash anyone, but early engagement is definitely key.
If you’re going to engage adults, argumentative style is crucial as well. I’ve discovered that the Socratic method works the best, since it allows all involved to let their guards down and together arrive at a deeper truth. It sounds so cultlike, but, if you think about it, it makes sense: if someone has already formed a deeply entrenched opinion about a given subject/topic, it makes sense to break through their tough, outer shell first before beginning new construction.
September 28th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Somebody put another nickel in John Kwok.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I doubt that there has ever been a book written that hasn’t received a few negative reviews.I wouldn’t worry about it.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Unfortunately, I fear that, with the growth of the blogosphere (and other future tools), the number of book authors who will been misrepresented by people who have not even read their book, will rise to the sky.
This is something sad for the blogosphere, but this is the kind of evolution which is as unavoidable as web forums evolution has been, and mailing lists, and Usenet, and so on. The more people there are, the more chaotic a system behave.
So books authors will have to learn to deal with it.
I know, this is not the way it is supposed to be on the Internet. According to the traditional utopian view, everybody is equal, universal conversation and so and so and so… But, unfortunately, we all have a long way to go before a) all those conversations are fully rational and b) before a majority of citizens are listening to the most rational views rather than the loudest voices (case in point : talk radio). So in the meantime, Chris and Sheril, keep on your good work and don’t waste your energy. Life is too short.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
— Do readers–open-minded ones, those who might actually be swayed by argument on this matter–think it is worth it? Chris Mooney
Not all criticisms are equal, some are a waste of time to answer, some are not. And it’s not always the quality of the criticism, sometimes it’s the prominence of the critique that makes it worth answering.
You might save some time by collecting some of the points and addressing them in the form of FAQ, then you could just point out that you’ve already addressed that point when it’s inevitably raised again. It could also save your supporters time by collecting the responses in an easily searched form.
Only don’t call it FAQ, something like “Foolishly Asserted Canards” might be more accurate.
You might have a duck call come on when someone logs on to it, “fac, fac, fac,…..”
No, seriously. The ones that just want to waste your time can be ignored. And it is your time, you aren’t under any obligation to let them take it up, you can choose who to answer and who to ignore based on your own convenience and agenda.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Chris,
Why wouldn’t you want to respond to criticism? In the first place, you are in the enviable position where a lot of smart thoughtful people are responding to you work. If they are misinterpreting your message, you have an opportunity to clarify your position. If they are wrong in their criticisms, you have the opportunity to hone your arguments and evidence. If you find yourself unable to defend a particular position – change it!
Is that the way science is supposed to work? Argument, evidence, open discussion . . . shouldn’t an author of a book on scientific literacy welcome that?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
@ Sven -
Don’t hold your breath. But guess what? I’m appearing on a memorial tribute panel that’s being held to honor a certain famous former teacher of mine. That’s this weekend, but I’m not saying where. Seek and you may yet find.
John
P. S. So how’s life as a Long Island biologist who is a diehard fan of the Rolling Stones and the Grateful Dead?
September 29th, 2009 at 1:58 am
No, it’s not worth it. Let your book speak for itself. Take the substance of the criticisms to heart, be honest with yourself when they’re correct, the others are fodder for more books and articles. I think you and the people that are 100% on your page are somewhat over-emphasizing the degree to which it’s maligning vs. critiquing, too. But even if that were not so, you’d still be making the same mistake people make when they respond to too many blog trolls.
The only good I see coming out of this is that when you respond like you do in this comment, you are repeating and refining your point. Non-boring repetition is good.
Anyway Paul Fussell called responding to critics the Author’s Big Mistake because you are putting yourself in the public eye to begin with, and because your work is your best venue.
To the degree you can break through a deadlocked discussion to a place with grace and a sense of humor, to that degree I think the process will have produced something worthwhile.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:49 am
I’ll agree with the “maligned” bit in that people have all sorts of infantile names for you and Sheril, but I can’t agree with the bit about misrepresenting the book. On the contrary I think there are still many people waiting for a substantive response to fair criticism.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
@ Marion (@ 29),
While we may disagree about the negative role of your “New Atheist” friends, your latest comments are quite sensible. I endorse them completely and hope that, for their sakes, Chris and Sheril heed your advice.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Xie should have faulted you for couching your extremely vague caveat (“lessons learned sounds like a hand wave) in parenthesis. Parentheses are for asides and afterthoughts. Many readers (Xie included, apparently) often skim over the words between parentheses, because it shouldn’t significantly detract from the overall point being made.
If you’re making the argument that what’s contained withing your parenthetical is important to your point then why relegate this vital tidbit of thought within a parenthesis? More importantly, do you agree with Xie’s stronger statement about “lessons learned” here:
“Much of the appreciation for science back then was based on awe and an almost blind trust in the power of chemicals and machinery”
Perhaps the book has been over-hyped, for the common theme among the critics is the lack of something: analysis, clarity, solutions, ideas, evidence, etc.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“Many readers (Xie included, apparently) often skim over the words between parentheses…”
A mark of very, very poor readers not reading to understand.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
in the parenthetical statement, what’s placed in parentheses is nonessential information, and so the writer by bracketing his/her statement give the reader a choice.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“in the parenthetical statement, what’s placed in parentheses is nonessential information, and so the writer by bracketing his/her statement give the reader a choice.”
That is only poorly-reasoned rationalization of poor reading skills.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Caveat: I haven’t read the book yet.
But.
Vindrisi, you are wrong. Parentheticals are by definition non-essential. If you want to make it essential, use different punctuation.
Unless “lessons learned” are spelled out, that sentence sounds like a throw-away sop to those who disagree, not anything of substance.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Parentheticals are used to interject within a sentence or other text either to add supplementary information or to make an ancillary point. Their inclusion by the author within the text itself clearly makes them worth reading if for no other reason than they may add subtle points that greatly contribute to the fully understanding of the author. To argue otherwise is to support poor and lazy reading. If you want to plant your flag there, be my guest, but that is not ground worth holding. This is the first time I have ever encountered anyone who has tried to make the case for ignoring or merely skimming parentheticals, and I find it troubling that presumably educated people are doing so.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Chris,
I can’t help but notice that there seems to an overarching trend in book reviews these days to do exactly what you discuss in this post – that is, pick out the most seemingly offensive phrases out of context and use them as a platform for “destorying” a book.
Consider Jerry Coyne (who you have discussed as doing this to you before) blatantly misrepresenting Robert Wright as an example. (See here: http://evolutionofgod.net/coyne) Despite Coyne’s protestations, Wright produces some rather damning evidence against Coyne, alleging (and often outright proving) that Coyne did just the things you mention above: taking quotes out of context, not reading the book, and – especially – claiming Wright disagrees with points he actually agrees with in the text.
Something tells me this is a more “I don’t agree with you and must slander you however I can” trend. It’s frightening…especially so coming out of the scientific community.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
uh, you know, OK.
I’ve never liked the Stones much, though.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Chris,
Again, you’re harping on an irrelevant point. If someone is reviewing the book, yes, they should have read it. If someone is, however, challenging the ideology they read on your blog, in your many articles, and have heard from reliable sources happens to also be promoted in your book, they should not be expected to have bought and read your book in order to challenge that ideology. Similarly, one doesn’t have to have read The Koran in order to have an opinion about its ideology. When the ideology of the book is so heavily promoted elsewhere, whether or not the person has read the book is moot. You also seem to dodge the negative reviews of your book from those who did read it. If you want to have it out with your critics, fine. But don’t pretend that bad book reviews equal a maligning of your character. That just makes you look like you can’t handle a little healthy criticism. And I agree with MadScientist, who wrote, “I think there are still many people waiting for a substantive response to fair criticism.”
September 29th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Similarly, one doesn’t have to have read The Koran in order to have an opinion about its ideology.
Come on. To *publish* an opinion about the Koran, I’d expect someone to know something about its contents, and not just hear what other people in the game of telephone *say* about “its ideology.”
This is basic. Just like in college liberal arts classes you learn you have to read the primary sources, and not just read what other people say about the primary sources. (I have to say, for a skeptic, you don’t seem to have a lot of skepticism.)
September 29th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Similarly, one doesn’t have to have read The Koran in order to have an opinion about its ideology.
What is “the ideology of The Koran”? How do you come to your conclusion without having read it? By trusting people who say something about that, hardly unanimous, topic?
You want to apply the same rule to Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc?
September 29th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
The Koran has an ideology? Really? Not the last time I read it. I assume you are conflating the Koran with fundamentalist Islam, which has far more to do with fundamentalist movements arising from and in reaction to modernism in the last century or so. And that, frankly, is an ignorant and stupid thing to do, which you would know if you did a little research and tried to, you know, approach the world reasonably.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
@40. Yes, you should read the Koran before you say one word about it, regardless of what you have been told. Similarly, artists should learn to draw from real life, rather than using other artwork as a [singular] reference, regardless of how realistically the “artistic” reference may be portrayed. If you don’t go to the source, you are going to be getting some kind of bias – we can’t help it, we’re human. So yes, I absolutely would laugh in someone’s face if they talked to me about the Koran but had never actually read it. Laugh. In their face. Because they’d be stupid.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Anthony,
You are lapsing into the same bigotry that you have correctly accused New Atheists of. True, the Qu’ran is the product of a savage, semi-nomadic people, but there are passages that are not only beautifully written, but speak of respect and tolerance towards others.
October 1st, 2009 at 1:28 am
The Koran most certainly does have an ideology and you know that. Methinks you protest too much. I could just as easily have used many other examples. Does one need to read Dianetics to know about Scientology? No. In fact, one would learn a hell of a lot more about it by reading or listening to the broad range of material from current and former members. Likewise, one doesn’t have to read any one particular libertarian book in order to have an informed opinion about libertarianism. By trying to poke holes in my example, you’ve moved away from my point. M&K’s position is no great secret that can only be found in their book. They blog about it all the time. They publish articles in the LA Times that briefly summarize their thesis. Critics, both positive and negative, have written about it. And occasionally they argue points that their critics have made on this very blog. While someone who is specifically critiquing their book ought to have read the book, one is perfectly capable of developing an informed opinion about their general position from all the other available data that’s out there. If we were all expected to read every book in order to develop an informed opinion about the general ideology of it, nobody would get anything done. Using the “just buy the book” gambit to shrug off general criticism instead of answering the legitimate questions that have already been raised by those who have read the book is a lazy dodge.