Comments on: Bloggingheads and the Old Challenges of New Tools

By: SELF DEVELOPMENT BLOG » On Bloggingheads With Michael Specter | The Intersection

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:07:47 +0000

[...] I’m aware that colleagues whom I respect, like Carl Zimmer and Sean Carroll, have a serious issue with Bloggingheads over two diavlogs in the past that [...]

By: On Bloggingheads With Michael Specter | The Intersection | Discover Magazine

Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:17:05 +0000

[...] I’m aware that colleagues whom I respect, like Carl Zimmer and Sean Carroll, have a serious issue with Bloggingheads over two diavlogs in the past that [...]

By: Boycotting Bloggingheads: Reaction to an Intelligent Design debate shows limit to public discussion. | Uncommon Descent

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:54:21 +0000

[...] decision to repost the interview prompted notable scientists Carl Zimmer and Sean Carroll to publicly disassociate with the website because they believe Intelligent Design [...]

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 22:50:38 +0000

To start, I think it’s fair to resign over repeated “slip-ups.” It speaks to integrity and the unwillingness to be cajoled or duped into believing the possibility of a creationist, let alone a YEC, having a debate with a biologist (or geologist, or paleontologist, or any field that relies on expertise in the vicinity of evolution or abiogenesis) on the merits of Evolution versus Creationism. The two don’t even play on the same field as Evolution is built on tested hypotheses, fossil record evidence, and all sorts of other data that individually are factual. Creationism is, at its roots, an idea based on the suspension of disbelief, the abhorrence of skepticism, and the reliance on articles of faith.

Creationists often try to play “gotcha” with tangential information and attempt to discredit an entire theory based on minute items they perceive as an inconsistency (radiocarbon dating, for example). Unfortunately, the methods by which they determine such inconsistency is wholly subjective as they impart the bias upon which their entire belief is built – that of a divine creation.

It is grossly disingenuous and an insulting slight to scientific and empirical methods to frame the two as sides of the same debate. Any scientist, or individual familiar with science, would be hard-pressed not to feel insulted when asked to cover encounters between creationists and evolutionists and then call it a scientific discussion. I applaud the authors’ ethical guidance in choosing to leave.

By: Bloggingheads Diavlog With Craig Callendar « Not Even Wrong

Bloggingheads Diavlog With Craig Callendar « Not Even Wrong — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 18:36:55 +0000

[...] who follow science-blogging controversies will have heard that certain science bloggers have announced a boycott of Bloggingheads, based on the fact that two creationist/ID types [...]

By: JoseAngel

JoseAngel — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:23:10 +0000

There seems to be an interesting point here as regards acceptable editorial policies. Would it make any difference if Bloggingheads were considered a TOOL, and not a publisher or broadcaster with editorial standards? Surely you have a point when they include it under the label “science”, but then there was a historian of science arguing on the other side? Would you consider not using YouTube, which perhaps you don’t anyway, because they allow videos by creationists? Or not getting on the bus because they allow creationists on board? There are many fine lines to draw here, and while your decision is perfectly respectable, I feel that it is also questionable in the context of a medium (or tool) whose point is precisely a conversation between different viewpoints. And, yes, thumbs down on creationism!

Carl: If Bloggingheads were a tool, then the issue might be different. But it’s not a tool. It’s not just an open site for uploading anything you want, like YouTube. There are editorial decisions being made. So therefore it’s more like a magazine.

By: The Evolution Of A Blogginghead; Or The Ballad Of Jim And Jerry « Around The Sphere

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:27:05 +0000

[...] Carl Zimmer at Discover: My standard for taking part in any forum about science is pretty simple. All the participants must rely on peer-reviewed science that has direct bearing on the subject at hand, not specious arguments that may sound fancy but are scientifically empty. I believe standards like this one are crucial if we are to have productive discussions about the state of science and its effects on our lives. [...]

By: Juno

Juno — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:03:23 +0000

So, the site posts two segements you with disagree, and which they have freely admit were ill advised and didn’t meet their editorial standards, and your reply is to boycott making any more contributions? Wright argument is perfectly sound: content contributors shouldn’t be able to dictate editorial policy, and a match up between a creationist / IDer/ what have you and an eloquent and informed critic shouldn’t be ruled out, out of hand. I have zero sympathy for ID or creationism, but the correct way to combat these arguments is through open discussion and public appeal, not by bullying editorial staffs into promising you they wont ever allow their proponents on.

Carl, I’ve enjoyed your prior contributions to BHTV. I hope you’ll reconsider this.

By: judex

judex — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:55:48 +0000

The decision to leave BHTV, though understandable and even noble, makes no sense tactically. The aim of such forums is to inform the non-specialist public about science, which can also mean to engage it where it is most dogmatic and confused. Not to be part of such an engagement is to facilitate the very thing you want to eliminate- the vulgarization of scientific discourse. Discussion, debate–isn’t that the most effective way to expose such frauds while giving those of us who are non-specialists, who live not among scientists but among regular and mostly god-fearing folks, better tools to convince?

By: Eliezer Yudkowsky

Eliezer Yudkowsky — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:28:46 +0000

As a non-accomodationist atheist who has been given a platform by BHTV to argue that science and religion are not the tiniest bit compatible, I would like to announce that:

I am willing to trust Robert Wright’s explanation of the Behe affair;
I applaud BHTV for making a commitment to discuss controversial matters including the intersection of science and religion, while most of the world is pretending the controversy doesn’t exist;
I accept that this noble commitment may sometimes go wrong, as in the admittedly and admitted foolish mistake of having Behe interviewed by a non-biologist who couldn’t call his BS;
I observe that noble commitments to repeatedly discuss dangerous controversies cannot possibly be expected to go right every time;
I put forth that people who have served us well in the past, should be allowed more chance than this to recover from their (or their coworkers’) errors – even more than one error, so long as mistakes don’t seem to be happening systematically;
And I announce my intention to stay on Bloggingheads.tv.

By: Robert Richards

Robert Richards — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:00:39 +0000

Mr. Zimmer, I understand and respect your decision to withdraw from Bloggingheads, though I am saddened by your decision, because I have found your Bloggingheads diavlogs extremely informative, and because I believe that your Bloggingheads diavlogs have provided a very high quality of science education to a very large audience. I’ve written a proposal, http://bit.ly/5qtj0, for addressing the problems you raise respecting the Bloggingheads editorial process. Thanks very much for considering this proposal.

By: Peer Review for Bloggingheads « Droit Blog

Peer Review for Bloggingheads « Droit Blog — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 14:37:57 +0000

[...] the context of BHTV are called “diavlogs.” Dr. Carroll provides his account here, and Mr. Zimmer here. The matter is further discussed in this BHTV diavlog between BHTV founder Robert Wright and [...]