I do think that some of his assumptions are derived from a typically macho-tech orientation of the post war kind. I’ll admit he’s not Heinlein.

I don’t find his writing or his stories compelling or his ideas especially convincing.

I hadn’t known he’d died of AIDS related complex. Which was kind of surprising. It was a different world, one I’m all too familiar with.

I still think that Simack and Le Guin are far more imaginative and interesting writers and that it’s pretty astonishing that someone who cranked out so much pulp would have been so unaware of the need to communicate with a public.

Now, back to my pressing business.

I don’t know what you mean by “Sci-Jock”, if it’s related to Jock as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_(athlete) then I definitely can’t agree – but I wouldn’t say that his work was heavyweight, it’s pretty pedestrianly or utilitarianly written, it’s no tome on philosophy and the human condition, so we agree there. Though it may not be unmitigated genius in that area his books do cover interesting topics such as what makes one a ‘human’ as the race evolves and changes.

However, I think it’s pretty much indisputable that his writing was not ‘macho’ – his books were largely action and violence free explorations of logical tricks and the consequences of certain set ups – like how to find a robot who programming has been dangerously altered when it’s been ordered to “Get lost” and has done so among almost identical robots.
I don’t know if you’re thinking of someone else, or a particular few books of his, but I honestly don’t see how you could come to the opinion that his books are macho in any way – can you give any examples?

I mean yes, he did write the three laws of Robotics ’1) kill humans 2) blow shit up and 3) get the babe’, and yes his main characters were usually called things like R. Daneel McKickass, but really calling his writing ‘macho’ is like calling Jane Austen’s ‘aggressive’ or Dostoyevski’s ‘terse and to the point’

James Hanley, there have been scientists who were also mystics. Eddington, who I’m studying in depth, was one, rather clearly. He addressed the issue of keeping religion and science separate, which he, obviously, succeeded in doing.

But this attitude is liable to grate a little on the scientific mind, forcing its free spirit of inquiry into one predetermined mode of expression; and I do not think that the harmonising of the scientific and the religious outlook on experience is assisted that way. Perhaps our feeling on this point can be explained by a comparison . A business man may believe that the hand of Providence is behind his commercial undertakings as it is behind all vicissitudes of his life; but he would be aghast at the suggestion that Providence should be entered as an asset in his balance sheet. I think it is not irreligion but a tidiness of mind, which rebels against the idea of permeating scientific research with a religious implication.
A. S. Eddington Science and the Unseen World

Promoting a tidiness of mind, such a simple solution to the problem. And so unedifying for people whose real motive isn’t to solve a real problem

There isn’t any reason for a scientist engaged in religion to be more in danger of polluting science with religion than there is one engaged in politics or business or professional rivalry to be in danger of that intruding on their work. In all three cases the dangers are far, far higher because, as has been pointed out here before, in order for any religion inserted into science, it would have to be noticed and UNDERSTOOD TO BE RELIGION. It would have no effect if it wasn’t understood that way.

I think the refusal to address that point is evidence that most of this stuff is anti-religious prejudice, not the desire to protect science from superfluous intrusions. I’ll bet if Chris Mooney posted a piece about any of the other three being a danger to science it would be widely ignored by those who come here at the drop of an inference that the irrational anti-religious bigotry of a vocal segment of those who purport to represent science is a problem .

An entire chapter in Unscientific America addresses the problems with media. I recommend you read the book.
“(as I type, we have an epidemic of whooping cough sweeping my state and vaccination here is free. If you go to the “University of Google” the top 5 hits for vaccine information in Australia is to anti-vaccination sites – any strategies for changing that?)”

Did you know that Google has been working on a way to direct people to recognized experts on topics? Not an easy problem to solve, apparently, but at least they’ve acknowledged it’s a problem and are working toward solutions.

Asimov spent ten years on the staff of the Boston University of Medicine after he got his PhD in Biochemistry. He wrote popular science books for 25 years almost exclusively (1957-1982) but wrote about science books for almost his entire writing career. If he is a “pulp fiction writer” I would love to know your definition of a “real science writer”.

As for Asimov being a “macho sci fi jock” you better define the term as your ignorance of what he wrote is blinding. Asimov’s main SF writing had a below normal amount of violence.

Asimov wrote on physics, chemistry, biology and many others , I don’t think he ever had a problem communicating.

I won’t get into your ignorance of what skeptics are…

he argued that we should “present science without demanding that nonscientists accept the scientific world view”

I have a hard time understanding how anyone could take this claim seriously. The scientific world view is fundamental to accepting scientific findings. If anything, it should be turned around, and say that we should put less emphasis on simply presenting scientific findings and more on teaching people how think scientifically; that is, train them in having a scientific world view.

The two obviously aren’t that easily separated, so I wouldn’t want anyone to take me too literally here. But my point is that to suggest setting aside the scientific world view is to set aside the very mindset that would actually help people make sense of the findings that are presented to them. Asimov is right–to do it any other way would be to present science as mysticism.