Don’t believe everything you’re told
I’ve been tactfully silent about Chris Mooney lately, but I have to murmur a few words about stories and anonymity and credulity and skepticism and how we know what to believe and what not to believe and how necessary it is to pay attention to the difference between the two.
The background is a post a few days ago quoting an anonymous commenter at The Intersection saying
Many of my colleagues are fans of Dawkins, PZ, and their ilk and make a point AT CONSERVATION EVENTS to mock the religious to their face, shout forced laughter at them, and call them “stupid,” “ignorant” and the like – and these are events hosted by religious moderates where we’ve been ASKED to attend. They think it’s the way to be a good scientist, after all.
I saw it at the time, and was tempted to comment, but didn’t. But if I had commented I would have said that I find that anecdote highly incredible on its face (even before we get to the issues about the reliability of the witness). It just sounds stupid. It doesn’t sound like the way real people really behave in public places – it sounds like someone’s bizarro-world idea of how mean horrid nasty wicked ‘new’ atheists must behave because they’re so new and mean and wicked. It certainly doesn’t sound like the way academics behave in public gatherings with conservationists, even if the meetings are held in churches or temples or mosques. It sounds like the way children behave when they’re excited and acting up – but it does not sound like the way sane adults who have jobs in reputable universities behave.
And the commenter is in fact anonymous – but he insists that he is a biologist at “a large, well-known research university” and he expects everyone to take his word for it. But there is no reason for anyone to take his word for it, and it is not reasonable to expect people to do so, and people refused to do so. Hence Mooney’s new post on the subject today.
Last week, the New Atheist comment machine targeted the following post, in which I republished a preexisting blog comment from a scientist named “Tom Johnson” (a psuedonym). In the comment, Johnson had related how some of his New Atheist-inspired scientist colleagues had behaved toward religious folks at bridge-building conservation events. The comment obviously reflected one individual’s experience and point of view, and nothing more. But it struck me as worth highlighting, in light of my many well known concerns about the New Atheist movement.
No, that won’t quite do. The comment ‘obviously reflected’ one anonymous individual’s account of a purported experience, an experience which was implausible on its face. Chris Mooney is a professional journalist – surely he ought to know this very well indeed. Surely if someone phoned him and in a heavily disguised voice gave an avowedly false name and told an implausible story about a controversial subject – he would know that the story was not automatically reliable. Of course he would! Yet this is taken at face value, and not only that, but a group that Mooney dislikes is given a carefully offensive epithet for being skeptical about this story.
So we have a journalist, a member of a profession that is supposed to be trained to be skeptical of anonymous stories that don’t ring true, and one who has just co-written a book about science literacy. Basic science literacy surely ought to include knowing when skepticism is called for!
But mere credulity and verbal abuse (‘the New Atheist comment machine’) aren’t enough – there’s an even more sinister implication.
I’m a bit surprised how much hoopla the simple elevating of a comment into an individual post, with minimal additional commentary, has caused. Clearly, Johnson really touched a nerve. Accordingly, my post unfortunately subjected him to various attacks; fortunately his real identity remains unknown (though I am aware of it).
Geddit? Anonymous Johnson was subjected to attacks by those violent belligerent atheists, but fortunately his identity is still a secret, because otherwise those new atheists might go burn down Johnson’s house or kidnap and torture Johnson’s children or tear Johnson into little pieces while laughing their fiendish laughter.
Nasty stuff.
What a slimy little bigot is Mooney.
Ophelia, how does one politely meet a person like Mooney given what he has done? I’m not agressive, but don’t handle situations well with folks [edit]. I’d just refuse to talk to him and if pressed leave. What else can one do? I can’t see how one could have a conversation with him. Probably just me.
The subsequent posts by “Johnson” about how he feels forced to remain anonymous because the New Atheist mafia will get him fired for making blog comments are hilarious.
Of course Mooney is going to take “Tom Johnson” at his word. After all, he’s one of the about four or five people who keeps defending Mooney. Never mind that at any other blog most of them would be banned for trolling by now – if they haven’t been already.
Brian, that’s really going too far. I had a decent conversation with him. He’s reasonably accessible in person, and even reasons-responsive.
On the other hand, he’s completely inaccessible on the internet — any visit to the Intersection always seems like eavesdropping on a diary entry. It’s a monologue without any dialogue. Of course he gets quite a bit wrong, and probably part of him knows it (in the same way that part of him must know that the infamous “Pluto argument” is total bananas). After all, denial and reiteration is standard operating procedure when you are convinced that people aren’t listening to you.
That’s not necessarily slimy, but it’s not rational either. And I think folks pick up on the better argument, at least in university settings. In our exchange (a seminar setting), I received a few compliments from university administrators who felt we were engaging in constructive debate, and a few other students chatted with me afterwards and requested copies of my audio recording. I was even invited to a nice luncheon event out of it.
So to answer your question: you politely respond by reiterating your strongest points without going into denial, evasion, etc.
“Chris Mooney is a professional journalist – surely he ought to know this very well indeed.”
Mooney may be a journalist and he gets paid to do it but he is certainly NOT a professional.
Brian, that’s really going too far. Fair enough. I obviously haven’t met him and nor would I like to. In my experience people who act like he acts are not people to get too close to. Abusers can be nice and personable, but they will keep abusing while they can. As far as I can see he has lied and dissembled, and refused to discuss fair criticism. I’ll leave him to you Benjamin.
Brian
You keep up that stuff about lying, and I’ll fix it so you can’t post on here again (at least not while I’m paying for the site to be hosted).
The accusation of lying is potentially actionable under UK law. This site hosted in the UK. I own the domain name. I pay for the hosting. I don’t want to get sued.
Do not accuse people of lying. That goes for everybody here! (And apart from anything else the accusation lacks class.)
Never mind that at any other blog most of them would be banned for trolling by now – if they haven’t been already.
On some posts, the comments section of the Intersection is a regular who’s who of people that are banned from Pharyngula. Some of them for such bridge-building accomodationist actions as making death threats. Amazingly, they seem to get along well with Mooney. I guess they’re the internet equivalent of single issue voters. They can all at least agree that “the New Atheist noise machine” is full of meanies. Oh wait, Mooney calls it the New Atheist comment machine now, apparently.
@ Benjamin –
/
No, I really don’t think it’s going too far. Many of us here have had years – literally – of experience with Chris Mooney’s smarmy, mean-spirited nonsense. It’s not an overreaction.
You’re a great commenter, Ben, and you have a real talent for getting to the issues without rising to the bait or losing your temper. I admire you for that, because I surely don’t have your patience. But, I think you may not understand (only because you haven’t been around on this issue for as long) how thoroughly disgusted many of us are at Mooney. He really doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore, and we’re not unreasonable to feel that way.
Ophelia, my impression was the same as yours; it just doesn’t pass the smell test. I have had various roles in college and university biology departments for the past 25 years and have never seen any one act in the way the anonymous commenter claimed. He stated that an entire biology department is staffed by PhDs who act like they are 17 or 18 at best. Also, if these were local events, surely some audience member and most likely an alumnus to boot would complain to the university administration the first time it happened and it would never happen again.
Notice how Chris also calls “Tom” a scientist – how does he know any thing stated in the comment is true?
Another thing that struck me was if Tom’s colleagues do actually read PZ and Jerry, then won’t they be able to easily figure out who Tom is from the clues he has given? How biologists working at major research universities who go to conservation forums at churches and make fun of the Christians attending can there actually be?
The accusation will be deleted as soon as I can get the database open. I was away so I didn’t see it – I didn’t leave it there intentionally.
I have been very pleased, as I contqct so many atheist blogs, that they are really open to the new analysis indicating that there realy are contiguous worlds superior to ours. (Only about 8 of them have tried to infect my computer when I contacted them.) Usually those sites self-identify with their vitrolic approach to any view but their own.
Agnostics routinely refer to a lack of intelligent thinking on the part of Christians, and admittedly, ideas such as the dead rising long after their molecules are in use by later generations, the unprovable concept of an immortal soul and the search for the simple whereabouts of God, lead to Yuri Gagarin stating that he had been in heaven and looked all around for God and saw no sign of Him. But true agnostics keep an open-mind, carefully considering all views and weighing them well.
‘Techie Worlds’ (available at Amazon.com) builds on ‘Flatland’s ideas about contiguous geometric worlds to show how logical Trinity is, how resurrection, judgment and soul are reasonable in such worlds, and that Christianity is as probable as that simplistic idea of ‘only the material world’. Considering not just the testimonies of Wiccans and Satanists, but also miracles such as the dance of the sun at Fatima (witnessed by thousands) it appears that multiple-worlds is more likely. Oh well, the minds of agnostics are not really that open to any belief based on love. Techie Worlds presents a completely new way of looking at the truths of Christianity, able to persuade atheists that Christianity is logical and a sound, well-reasoned view.
GeorgeRic
GeorgeRic –
I think you’ve mistaken Butterflies and Wheels for beliefnet.com.
Edit is done. I should be able to stop shaking in an hour or two.
OB,
Do you think it’s time you should have your own site/blog?
I can understand why Jerry S is so fussy about certain (justified) accusations under UK law. (But I wonder why he had written that “lacks class” comment. Could he get sued for that?)
So maybe you should have your own place, potentially away from the reach of the “UK law”, and free Jerry S from his concern of getting sued.
Smith, yes, I should, of course, and I’m trying to arrange that.
Hey, OB!
While you’re around, would you mind clarifying a possibly offhanded comment on Sam Harris (or his TEoF) you made awhile ago: (Harris) has a terrible case of assumed male.
Funny, I was just thinking about that earlier – Harris’s assumed male, not my comment.
It wasn’t offhand; it bugs me. He just assumes everyone is male, that’s all – in his book everyone is always male, in his examples and generalizations and so on. (You know how you’ll hear people do that on the radio or tv and then they correct themselves? The hasty “or she”? Harris never ever corrects himself – everybody is always male.)
Brian/Josh, that’s all good, and thanks.
It’s true I know of, but was not part of, the backstory. So I don’t have the benefit of having the Mooney/Nisbett Experience — which is probably for the best. I’m actually studying cognitive science and semantics, which since the 80s has gotten more sophisticated than the “frames and slots” perspective.
George,
If you’re referring to my comments from not too long ago about ways of knowing and different worlds… in retrospect I think I took too much inspiration from David K. Lewis. I’d like to be able to retract my comments, but I still don’t know how else to make sense of the radically different ways that people have of talking in some way that’s logically explicable. i.e., When people say “I believe that the devil eats sinners for supper” without specifying that they mean to talk about some apophatic stuff, then my most charitable interpretation of their words would be to suppose that they are talking about some other planet. Or a planet in some other universe. Or a planet in some other universe on some other plane of existence. In that sense, you’re right, it might make sense on one of those.
Maybe Chris and Tom are looking to make “Expelled 2”. Not only is the Darwinist Conspiracy denying tenure and panning bad books about evolution, the New Atheist Conspiracy is denying tenure and panning bad books about atheism. Tom’s story only makes sense if he is afraid he won’t get tenure and needs someone to blame. It parallels Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State, but Tom is in bigger trouble because I doubt any Christian colleges will accept an atheist and all of the secular universities are now controlled by the NAC. What’s a poor accommodationist to do?
(A repost of what I put on Mooney’s blog)
Tom Johnson
Here is the thing TJ, this is a modern era where people go to these things and record them. There are articles written about atheists “behaving badly” which fail to bring up specific instances on a daily basis. About the best they can do is mention that atheists are forming social clubs and writing books that don’t accept the religious’ authority.
[edit]…frankly if your personal experience could have been verified we would have heard about it by now.
It would have hit Youtube for one thing, the creationists would be bringing up clips of it to support their victim-mythology. Yet we don’t see that do we? We see Mooney, in his utter desperation to find something to pin the the new atheists, taking anonymous posts with zero evidence on the internet. The bottom of the barrel has been scraped out and now the floor is developing scratch marks.
You are an anonymous person on the internet – and you strive to maintain than anonymity while at the same time putting yourself forward as an expert witness. I could claim to be the Pope for all anybody here knows, and I would be about as credible. If you are a serious biologist, then please, give us your name and your university, otherwise learn to live with the fact that your claims in that regard are worthless – and in fact count against your credibility.
You keep up that stuff about lying, and I’ll fix it so you can’t post on here again (at least not while I’m paying for the site to be hosted).
Please do. I make an empirical judgement that Mooney ignores ample evidence that’s been presented to him and keeps on repeating what, given that evidence he [should know – ob] is false. [edit].
The accusation of lying is potentially actionable under UK law. This site hosted in the UK. I own the domain name. I pay for the hosting. I don’t want to get sued.
Perhaps your just attacking, and you are attacking, me for being honest because it’s actionable in the UK. Fair enough the site matters more than malcontents like me.
Do not accuse people of lying. That goes for everybody here! (And apart from anything else the accusation lacks class.)
Goodbye. If I can’t state a conclusion based on evidence then apart from my lack of class, knowledge and whatever else I seriously do lack, you’d have me lack honesty and critical thinking. I’d be totally bereft.
I know that sounds self-important. But well, I don’t consider myself a good or important person, but I’d like to think I’m an honest person. Thank you all for you help. Hasta luego que todo los vaya bien. :)
Brian, the threat of UK libel laws are based on the possibility of legal action being started, not whether what you have stated fits with the facts.
Its clearly a broken and twisted system but its one in which, currently, website hosts are forced to follow if they dont want to become bankrupt. One of the ways they stay on the right side of this law is to never accuse someone of lying – no matter what the justification.
On the subject of Chris Mooneys use of the “Tom Johnson” post as an example of the effects of new atheism in society he uses a rather telling choice of words in his title of the post that generated all the heat.
“Counterproductive Attacks on Religion–Exhibit A”
Exhibit A? Does that mean its the first piece of evidence? Or maybe the best piece of evidence?
In either case I’d love to be the defense lawyer faced with this sort of damning ‘evidence’ in a courtroom.
“So, an anonymous person states that some anonymous people said some bad things in an anonymous place?
That’s exhibit A?”
From what I have read of “Tom Johnson” he seems to see insults everywhere. I suspect therefore that he witnessed what could have been a robust exchange of views and had his sensibilities upset. For an evolutionary biologist that does seem rather strange. Evolutionary biology is somewhat noted for robust disagreements between its practitioners.
I can see why Mooney would latch onto that. He also seems willing to take offence at the slightest hint of a lack of civility towards the religious.
Some people really do seem to be too delicate to be allowed to participate in either academia or the blogosphere.
It’s rather worrying that Mooney seems so quick to accept anything that fits his agenda as being evidence against the behavior of ‘new atheists’. It really leaves him open to Sokal style hoaxing.
Argh – Bruce, Brian, it’s what Sigmund said – UK libel law is nuts: the burden of proof is on the defendant. Haven’t you heard of the Simon Singh case? I’ve been covering it enough, I’d have thought! I apologize for the harshness from yesterday, but all the same, accusations of lying are just right out. Can’t be done. No go.
One could always take the Peter Medewar route when expressing doubts over someone’s intellectual integrity.
When reviewing Teilhard’s The Phenomenon of Man he wrote:
“…and its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.”
Er, not here, one couldn’t.
I’m dead serious. Please remember: Simon Singh was sued for writing in the Guardian that the British Chiropractic Association was happy to promote a “bogus treatment” – and he has already had to spend 100 thousand pounds to defend himself, and it’s only begun. This is NOT something to mess around with.
Hey, Jerry, I mailed you a while back about helping transfer ownership of the domain to Ophelia so we could get it hosed outside the UK. I’ll forward you a copy of that, in case you lost it. Is (your first name) @ philosophers (co uk) still the best way to get in touch with you?
Er… “hosted”, not “hosed”. Hosed is what it is while it remains in the UK.
Yes, Jerry – I would love to have the ownership of the domain transferred to me so that you would never have to worry about commenters on B&W again. Josh and I have emailed you to ask how we can help to do that. Perhaps the messages are trapped in your spam file? Do let us know how we can help, so that you can get entirely disentangled from B&W at last.
Jerry, accusations that accusations lack class lacks class.
Yeah, well, pots like to call kettles black around here. It’s a hobby.
Brian, please don’t leave.
[…] Ophelia does part-time outsourcing for the oracle at Delphi. […]
[…] part of that offensively-named “machine” because I did a post, not “targeting” the Tom Johnson post, but pointing out that it looked like bullshit […]