Waist-deep in the moral slime
I wasn’t going to inflict any more Mooney-Kirshenbaum nonsense on you, but now Mooney (at least) has taken a couple more steps further into the moral slime, and I feel it My Duty to record the fact. I think it’s time to declare Chris Mooney officially morally bankrupt. He’s not just wrong – he’s doing bad things.
On that post I criticized on Monday, a commenter announced that I was lying.
When Ophelia Benson claims through her “questions” that Chris and Sheril have no evidence she is not telling the truth. It’s one thing for people who haven’t read the book to assert this – she has the book.
So let me say that again and more emphatically: She is lying.Here is the question from her own site: “How do you know overt atheism causes people to be hostile to science? How does that work? What is your evidence?”
From page 173 to page 185 there are detailed endnotes with citations to back up the assertions in Chapter 8. [details of citations] It’s one thing to disagree with the premises the authors put forward. That’s fine – you’ve provided links to reasonable reviews that do disagree with parts of your book.Benson doesn’t just disagree. She lies and asserts that they have nothing to back up their assertions.
You know (if you’re regular readers, at least) how loaded that language is. You know we don’t allow people to use that language here because it could get us (or, worse, just Jeremy) sued. That fact hints at a certain moral weight to the language. That’s not news – duels have been fought and brawls have been brawled over such language. I take very strong exception to the accusation. The notorious flamer John Kwok repeatedly accused me of lying (on the same kinds of grounds, i.e. ridiculously flimsy) last week, and I emailed SK to say please delete (it was her thread), and she did. This time things went differently. One, I did a couple of posts denying the charge and explaining what was wrong with the claim. Two, I emailed both bloggers to say please delete.
The comments were blocked; the email was ignored.
I emailed again later, after other comments were let out of moderation and posted (one can tell because new comments appear interleaved with old ones); I also tried again to post the comments. Still nothing.
I tried to comment in reply to people addressing me, this morning, and was unable even to do that – so I tried to post a comment saying ‘Good morning. Have a nice day’ and was unable to do that. So this is the state of play: a libelous comment announcing that I am lying sits there, and my denials are blocked, and I am now apparently banned entirely.
That’s morally disgusting. And there’s no way to get it on the record other than by saying it here, so I’m saying it here. Chris Mooney is morally bankrupt.
Here are the comments I made, that Mooney won’t let me post:
It’s libelous to say that people are lying when they’re not. I’m not lying. It’s not lying to ask questions. I’ve read the endnotes (obviously), and I’ve never said that M & K don’t have references; I’ve said they don’t offer evidence or argument. So have other people. So far, M&K haven’t offered any, they’ve just repeated their assertions.
Notice I’ve never said M & K are lying. I’ve flatly contradicted them at times, for instance when they claimed that Chris “tried to engage in a civil debate with Dr. Coyne” – but I’ve never said they are lying. That’s because I don’t know that they are – for all I know they believe every word they say.
Then
“From page 173 to page 185 there are detailed endnotes with citations to back up the assertions in Chapter 8.”
I’ve just gone through them again. There are citations and some attempts at argument, but they don’t back up all the assertions in chapter 8. In particular they don’t back up the one I asked about in the question you quote. I didn’t ask ‘how do you know science and religion are compatible?’ As you point out, I asked ‘How do you know overt atheism causes people to be hostile to science? How does that work? What is your evidence?’ The citations and attempts at argument in the endnotes don’t back up that assertion. It looks to me as if M and K think that assertion is so self-evidently true that they didn’t need to back it up – in other words that it never occurred to them to back it up because it never occurred to them that it was an assertion. They appear to think it’s just an obvious fact.
That’s it. As you can see – there’s nothing salacious or blasphemous or libelous, or even rude or repetitive or conspicuously tedious, at least not compared to comments by several regulars there. Yet I’m not allowed to say it – even though it is in response to a baseless charge that I am lying.
To repeat – this is morally disgusting.
Barbara Drescher tells another story of Mooney’s Short Way With Dissenters.
(I’m not including SK in this because she did delete the accusations of lying last week.)
I was browsing through the references to chapter 8 and I found one that appears to deal with the “atheists are evil” meme. You really need to read the papers by Bill Cobern a science education prof. at Western Michigan U.
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~cobern/religion.htm
His evangelical Christianity, rants against atheism and acceptance of evolution put him perfectly into the M&K camp. His writings are full of the usual cliches – philosophical/methodological naturalism, limits of science, scientism, atheism is religion, etc.
But is it all opinion and no evidence that “overt atheism causes people to be hostile to science.”
Is it just me or Barbara Drescher’s link isn’t working? It keeps loading for 1 minute and ends up showing nothing.
I must add he views all attacks on creationism (even though accepting evolution) as attacks on Christianity. He believes we should be completely sympathetic to antievolutionists and never ever say anything negative about them; he basically considers creationists as “brothers in Christ.”
Following your link to the commenter who accused you of lying, I find that it is the same as one who assumed I was an angry atheist (which I am, but that was not apparent in what I wrote on the Boston Globe site to which he referred).
Mike: Perhaps it is time I looked for a more reliable host for my blog. I do hope you will keep trying as the link is correct.
Barbara, I will. Thank you.
“I must add he views all attacks on creationism (even though accepting evolution) as attacks on Christianity.”
This is the case with everyone I have seen defend Mooney on his blog. If you criticise a one religious belief, they complain that not everyone believes that. And somehow that is supposed to be the end of that, and you’re a philistine (they like throwing that word around) because you’re not taking into account all the different beliefs people might have (even when they’re not relevant to the point you were trying to make).
Whoa! Just had a look on Barbara’s post and the comments. Somebody should show The (self-appointed) Professor for the Scientific Understanding of the Public a proper apology, so that in the future he will know how it’s done.
Ophelia, it’s possible that they received lawyerly words and are trying to decide how to field criticisms so as to spare their egos (well, primarily one ego) without entering actionable territory.
Mike, ah, no, it’s not just you – I thought it was just me. I get the same thing. I got the same thing at the library, too! So that’s three.
Interesting about the comment at the Globe. Easy to make airy guesses about people when your name is “TB” – since no one will be tracking you down.
Athena – I don’t really think it’s possible they received lawyerly words when they left the libelous comment in place (and then blocked my denials). That would be very bizarre legal advice.
For what it’s worth, “TB”‘s posts at The Intersection link to http://www.timbroderick.net/ . His personal site gives plenty of information about who he is.
Ah, that was lazy of me – I didn’t notice that his name was a hyperlink. I take it back about the stealth.
Now to send my gang around to give him a good wallopping. If only I had a gang.
» Paul:
For what it’s worth, “TB”‘s posts at The Intersection link to http://www.timbroderick.net/ .
» Ophelia:
Ah, that was lazy of me – I didn’t notice that his name was a hyperlink.
That’s probably because sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. ;>
I try reading the Intersection occasionally still to see if there’s anything can be salvaged from it. At least it can help to show how some people are thinking. Unfortunately the only way I can make sense his recent post to the atheist blogosphere is treating like pseudoscience.
The claim that the strong negative reactions prove they’re right comes straight out of Pseudoscience 101. They could be right, if they presented counter-arguments, but “New atheists are nasty” doesn’t work for me. I’m a bit worried I’m making an ad hominem argument myself. I can at least point to one reference about personal attacks being the defence chosen by alternative archaeologists, though I’ll admit that’s anecdote rather than data. Perhaps M+K have got to the stage where they genuinely can’t tell the difference between evidence and hearsay.
Most bizarrely, their postings don’t make sense even within their own beliefs. If they genuinely think New Atheists are a problem which needs to be fixed then surely they’d move to a form of accomodation by emphasising the common ground. They presumably want a more reason-based debate in politics. If I wanted to quieten atheists I’d be putting it in a frame which showed how that course of action would lead to concrete and measurable gains against religion – if such a frame existed.
Instead they’ve chosen confrontation which shows a lack of belief in their argument.
It’s not the fact that I disagree with them that bothers me. I can learn from intelligent people I disagree with – even if they’re wrong. It’s what looks like a complete collapse of critical thought that disturbs me. It makes my toes curl with embarassment reading the Intersection.
It also worries me that I could go the same way. After all, if you lose all self-awareness of how flimsy your argument is, how would you recognise it’s a problem?
I have a comment in moderation (surprise!) over at the increasingly ill-named Intersection that touches on your encounter with TB (even in writing that seems unhealthy, doesn’t it? ;>), which I’d like to reproduce here. However, it tries to highlight the fact that there are, indeed, specifiable circumstances that would compel us to reconsider our opinion. I think that’s a point that warrants being made more often.
» TB:
Another troll. Why do I say that? Here’s why:
1) I don’t have to do jack for you. You’re demanding evidence and you haven’t even read the book! Why should I take any time for you when you haven’t shown any interest in finding out for yourself.
If you were interested in a real discussion and were acting in good faith, I assume you would quote a real sentence from the book, because you say you have it at hand and it wouldn’t cost you very much. At least, that’s what I would do.
And I’ll do something else for you, since you were making the accusation that no evidence would ever be enough to persuade M&K’s detractors. You know the Converts’ Corner over on Richard Dawkins’s site? It may not be strong evidence for the claim that TGD has helped people make up their minds to actually say that they are atheists, but at least it is evidence that can be discussed. If and when anyone can produce something at least as solid as that, I for one would be happy to discuss—and thus treat as respectable—the claim that vociferous atheists turn people off of science.
“…confrontation which shows a lack of belief in their argument.”
Unless perhaps they think that The Cause of accomodationism requires Firmness and Courage in the face of The Enemy, which would be atheists.
I’ve had that last thought many times. There are some parallels in our respective book launch circumstances (though certainly not in the publicity department; they’re ahead there by about 100 to 1) – DGHW has had some ferocious reviews, and more of those than of the other kind. I don’t play the ‘They laughed when I sat down at the piano’ tune, but on the other hand – I can’t help thinking that the ferocious reviewers have a fairly obvious axe to grind. Well that’s a convenient thing to think, isn’t it. Yes, it is – but on the other hand they are a tad intemperate, and inaccurate.
Why Truth Matters got some mildly critical reviews – but I didn’t think those were axes being ground. I can easily imagine critical reviews of DGHW that I would not think were axey – it’s just that we haven’t had any of those yet.
Still. As Alun says – if you lose all self-awareness, you don’t know you’ve lost it, do you.
shudder
Peter…I suppose they could just produce the Texas school board.
Hahaha!
No but seriously. I don’t particularly doubt that there are plenty of activist believers who do hate atheism and do conflate it with science, and vice versa – but I doubt all kinds of other things that surround that – such as the idea that vocal or ‘new’ atheism makes that any more the case, or the idea that atheists being Nicer and Quieter would change that, or the idea that anyone can be certain that that result is more common than the opposite one of believers finding the escape hatch. It’s a complicated subject and there are a lot of variables, and one of the things I find most annoying about the twins is the drastic and unthinking way they oversimplify it, as if it were all C A T cat.
Alun:
It also worries me that I could go the same way. After all, if you lose all self-awareness of how flimsy your argument is, how would you recognise it’s a problem?
That’s an interesting point, Alun, and one I’ve been thinking about for a while. What it comes down to in the end, I think, is that you have two main weapons. First, to openly acknowledge your biases, i.e. what you will tend to believe without the support of publicly available evidence. Second, to be able to specify conditions that would compel you to change your mind. (See in this post for a little more detail.) That’s the best, or at least the most fundamental, that the philosophy of science can offer you.
Ophelia, I don’t know what went wrong in my last post, but can I ask you try and fix the HTML screw-up that seems to have occurred? The last sentence should have read, “(See this post for a little more detail.) That’s the best, or at least the most fundamental, that the philosophy of science can offer you.”
Oh, I see now: missing ” at the end of the URL in the anchor tag. *d’oh*
I’m a late-comer to this thread, but perhaps it is worth noting that M&K write under the banner of Discover Magazine. Why is M&K’s round of self-congratulation (which is so sickeningly cloying) and ‘new atheist’ bashing not being checked by Discover? Especially as they seem to have allowed commentary to wander into the realm of slander? And then denied the slandered an opportunity to respond?
And why, given that they write for something called ‘discover’, do they write as though their new book is flawless? They had a good indication of what the response to their book might be from the argument that was being carried out before it was published. Indeed, it seems as though no one knew that a book was in the works, and suddenly, there it was, with the critique already in place!
They tried out their arguments on their blog, and got them soundly thrashed, so they should not have been surprised at the response to their book. And yet, despite that, they keep repeating, as though it were a religious mantra, that they simply cannot understand why people like Coyne and Myers fail to comprehend their argument, and accuse them of ‘culture war instincts’ and lack of civility! But they already knew that Myers and Coyne disagreed, before their book was published!
They have claimed, without evidence, apparently, since they offer none in response to quite cogent criticisms of their critique of the relationship of science and the ‘new atheism’, that this relationship is ‘destructive–not conducive to reason, nor to advancing the place of science in our society.’ And they make this claim despite the continuing denial of basic science by large religious segments in American society.
They say that the divide between science and the public in the US is a decades long, multilayered problem, and then, without evidence (since it is a relatively recent phenomenon), state peremptorily that the relationship of the ‘new atheism’ and science is destructive. How could they possibly know this? And why would they want to make this claim, without evidence?
They say that ‘The [‘new atheist’] movement may also have the effect of making our society more, rather than less, polarized around science–of adding fuel to a longstanding and fruitless culture war with science trapped in the middle of it.’ (my italics)May, notice. And then they go on to say: ‘We think these things are true.’ (my italics again) If this is no more than a gut feeling, why do they spend a whole chapter (no matter what its length) discussing it? And why does it engage, if quotes by PZ Myers are anything to go by, in so much character abuse in the course of that discussion?
There is more than moral slime here. I haven’t read the book, I admit, but I’ve read some of the blog-posts on the Intersection, and it strikes me that M&K should be regarded as a salient example of how serious the breakdown between science and American society really is. It should not surprise us if their solutions to the problem seem inadequate and shallow, nor that they find it hard to rise above childishly gushing self-praise and petty abuse. Intellectual shallowness and moral blindness often walk hand in hand.
I’m a late-late-comer but I just wanted to say I really liked Alun’s comment.
Also, does anyone think it’s possible M&K could be writing a book they know will sell, as opposed to one genuinely aimed at progressing the debate? Because if that’s their MO, they’ve succeeded, and all the comments on their blogs, and all references to their work in other people’s blogs, will just be helping push their sales up a little bit more. It’s a trick a lot of artists employ: think Damien Hirst, Habacuc and even Marilyn Manson, who deliberately provoke a certain segment of the population and then ride on the publicity wave all the way to the bank . . . have we all just been taken for a ride?
While we unwittingly expend reams and reams of free publicity speaking out against those who deride us, they deride us for speaking out against them, guessing from the beginning that we would speak out against them, and then claiming that speaking out against them is actually proving their point, while for the most part they silently sit back and watch their book sales soar? If so, they are Machiavellian maestros, especially as the message in their book seems to be about strategy as opposed to substance. Too, too ironic.
The fuss is probably good for their sales, but I doubt that they’re really pleased with the way things are going. That’s because they have pretensions to seriousness (as do I, for instance), and I find it hard to believe they’re happy to have people like Drescher and Rosenhouse and Coyne so unconvinced by them. I strongly doubt that Mooney is delighted that so many former friends or allies now consider him a complete shit.
It is hard to believe he couldn’t foresee the bridges he would burn by singling out PZ – especially without providing any evidence to justify his action. All that has been provided is anecdote and opinion.
I get the feeling that Mooney thinks that his opinion is so obviously true that there’s no need to justify it. Anyone denying it is just trying to avoid an uncomfortable truth, rather than someone with a genuine objection.
Yeh – and to the extent that he does think that, he is revealed to be incapable of thinking. The more optimistic view would be that he is pretending to think that.
But it may well be the former. People do keep saying he’s in over his head, he’s punching above his weight, etc, and he has yet to say anything (that I’ve seen anyway) to show otherwise.
Ophelia, still no response from Chris at all?
Maybe I am a bit slow on figuring this out compared to others, but I can’t see accommodationism as anything but pandering to ignorance. No wonder they have no supporting evidence.
Perhaps some of the criticism is getting through the ego barrier. This morning I found a rather well-written and well-reasoned article:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/mooney_kirshenbaum
It’s actually quite good and mostly discusses problems with science reporting – until you get into their “solutions” on the third page…
I, for one, HOPE this is not just about selling books and hope they simply overlooked much of the 30+ years of research in cognitive psychology.
I could have had a reading comprehension fail, but that article in the The Nation seems to say “Good sources of information today are ignored, so we need to create some better sources of information that will also be ignored.”.
Josh, no indeed, no response at all, and comments still ‘in moderation.’
I do have to wonder what I am banned for. Commenting-while-atheist? That plus having a little visibility? Who knows.
Since Chris won’t admit it, and since modesty prohibits you from saying it (and at the risk of sounding like I’m sucking up to the Blogmistress, which I’m not):
You out-class him in every way that counts in this discussion. You’re a deeper thinker, a more responsible, reflective participant (you worry about making sure to interrogate your own views), you’re a more straightforward, concise prose-writer, you’re direct and unambiguous because you want actual answers to questions, not the mere appearance.
There isn’t any way for Chris to save face except for ignoring and/or banning you. If he were intellectually responsible, he would have to engage your questions directly. If he did that, he would have to backpedal on basically everything he’s written – the entire premise on which UA appears to be built.
He’s not willing to do this because he’s become a salesman of Brand Mooney. It’s that base, I’m afraid. I know I’ve said it before, but I used respect him, and I really admired The Republican War on Science (lest anyone think I have some petty, reactionary distaste for him).
So Mooney’s plan is to ban everyone who outclasses him? So everyone would be gone except Kwok and McCarthy?
That’ll do a lot to save face!
Hahahahahaha!
“I do have to wonder what I am banned for. Commenting-while-atheist? That plus having a little visibility? Who knows.”
Now that’s just silly. Chris is an atheist, and he hasn’t banned himself. Therefore, there’s no way he’d discriminate against an atheist.
Yes, they have used this defense several times, even deliberately misunderstanding the point being made (e.g. on being accused of bigotry against the new atheists, they pull out “Chris is an atheist, and I hardly think he’s bigoted against himself”)
“I can’t see accommodationism as anything but pandering to ignorance.”
And willful ignorance at that – at the kind of ignorance that considers itself entitled to get in a righteous rage at dissenters.
I have a really gut-level aversion to that approach. I might write a little bit about what I think the reasons are for that. There’s something interesting about it, which eludes my grasp (by which I mean I haven’t been boring enough about it yet).
“So Mooney’s plan is to ban everyone who outclasses him? So everyone would be gone except Kwok and McCarthy?”
After Kwok wrote “I am in the midst of reading “Unscientific America” now, and I have to agree with you that I am especially stunned by how superficial parts of it seem…”, presumably he’s in danger too?
Ophelia, you’re certainly not the only one who’s being silenced, so you shouldn’t take it too personally. I only started getting active about a month ago here by defending Mooney against the “shut up” interpretation. Now we’re both being subjected to far worse than being told to “shut up”: he’s actively eliminating in-depth examination of the endnotes on Intersection. Pure and distilled anti-intellectualism. That probably led up to my review — I don’t know, maybe it was too harsh?
One thing that may make matters worse is that the blogosphere is informal, so normal standards of professionalism don’t apply. In such environments (the best environments), you need to have a kind of serious playfulness about you, or a playful seriousness, depending on your style. You have it; he hasn’t got it. He’s in “serious seriousness” mode, seemingly expecting a kind of narrowly defined range of debate which is uniquely Washingtonian in its dimensions — the kind of debate that one has when they have cherry-picked their audience before the show. Genuine debate is impossible with persons of this temperament, because it’s not possible to pry open another man’s brain.
Kwok may be gone soon, too. I just read Kwok’s review of UA on Amazon.com, and he sounds almost reasonable. (Yes, I know, hard to believe.) Kwok gave the book only three stars.
For those thinking about tuning into ‘The Infidel Guy’ show tonight (and perhaps sending in an awkward question or two) I’ve just heard that tonights guest, Chris Mooney, has rescheduled his appearance to next week.
Actually, Benjamin, I’ve never seen any indication that Mooney has ever had a mode other the “serious seriousness” mode you note. And as far as I can see, that’s a trait shared by a lot of people on the faitheist side of this debate – a poorly developed sense of humor (scroll down).
Some “funny” stuff:
If you look up Unscientific America at Amazon.com and click “look inside” and then “back cover” you would find “Praise for THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE”.
Is it normal?
G, well it looks like you had your hands in my brain when I wrote the above. Life in the Zeitgeist can get quite eerie, can’t it?
“a kind of narrowly defined range of debate which is uniquely Washingtonian in its dimensions”
I think that’s part of the reason for my visceral aversion to the approach (see above) – it all sounds so political operativey. So calculating, so manipulative, so dishonest, so small. Ech, I loathe it.
“the increasingly ill-named Intersection”
Maybe it’s more like a level crossing, where there’s no real interaction between the two directions of traffic, except that half of the time your car gets blocked and you have to sit there listening to that annoying bell going “ding ding ding” as the train rolls by in its predetermined course.
—
“it all sounds so political operativey”
At the Intersection they praised something called “science’s Obama generation”. I couldn’t resist some snarky thoughts on what this might mean:
-Big on style, short on specifics?
-Having an almost fanatical devotion to bipartisanship?
-?
The Intersection is where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled. *
* This is not a cruel satire. It’s their blog’s self-description.
“it all sounds so political operativey. So calculating, so manipulative, so dishonest . . .” ie. so Machiavellian? I dunno, OB, I’m still not convinced M&K didn’t foresee this furore: why wouldn’t they have said something to Coyne et al. before they published? From the way they’ve described “New Atheism” it doesn’t sound like they would much admire “New Atheists” or care about being taken seriously by them. I’m interested to see how it will all pan out. Has there been much interest in the major publications about this book?
Btw, if Mooney is only seriously serious, that might explain why he dislikes PZ so much. I find PZ’s style to be piss-your-pants funny at times, often amusingly irreverent and he can also be bracingly impassioned in his honesty. He seems able to imbue his writing with such character, there is a real human quality in his work. If Mooney doesn’t “get” PZ, lack of a sense of humour could partially explain it.
Kwok in a message to me:
“You may find interesting my Amazon review of Chris and Sheril’s book. I only gave it a marginal thumb’s up. Neither Chris nor Sheril have ‘defriended” me, but my comments are being held for “moderation” over at the Intersection…
…P. S. IMHO Chris and Sheril made serious goofs in discussing Pluto and Carl Sagan.”
I think he really believes his comments are in moderation because they are not glowing. Maybe he’s actually right this time?
“There’s something interesting about it, which eludes my grasp (by which I mean I haven’t been boring enough about it yet).”
For me it demonstrates one of four things:
1 – you don’t feel your position is strong enough to withstand scrutiny (then you shouldn’t be voicing it)
2 – you don’t think the issue really matters (then you shouldn’t be talking about it)
3 – you plan to “flip” later (ethically vomitous)
4 – you are selling out (ethically vomitous)
I don’t know which of those, but it sure feels like #4.
Mooney is censoring because he has no choice. He is out-reasoned and backed into a corner. He can’t retract the whole book, and that’s basically what he would have to do at this point if he admits to the problems because it leaves him with no solutions at all to offer.
I can’t figure out what Sheril’s role is in any of this…
I noticed the twins have published another attack on PZ Myers, this time in an article for The Nation.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/mooney_kirshenbaum
As well as insulting his blog (“the online clearinghouse for confrontational atheism”) they completely misrepresent the circumstance around the 2008 weblog awards (PZ had asked people to refrain from voting for Pharyngula in the science category as a protest against the inclusion of pseudo science sites in the ‘science’ shortlist.)
I’m curious. Where did you get the idea that calling someone a “liar” (as opposed — maybe — to calling someone a “perjurer”) is libelous? … In the US at least (I won’t hazzard a guess on what it is in Britain where calling chiropractic “bogus” is apparently libel).
Cool word, Eric. Though I was disappointed to find out it only means ‘baby-walker’. I was hoping for some kind of mysterious C18 police kidnap-mobile… ;-)
» badrescher:
This morning I found a rather well-written and well-reasoned article
To which I said over at The Limbo Palace:
First, I’ll have to say that your analysis—which is, of course, more extensive than the paragraph quoted here—rings painfully true. The one conclusion I would jump to, though, by dint of seeming rather glaringly obvious, is that journalists simply have no idea how one forms an independent opinion. In that, one should add, they are in plentiful, if not exactly good, company.
The basic process is actually quite simple. One makes observations about the world that one interprets, necessarily, in terms of what one assumes about the world. Then, one checks those interpretations against a different set of observable facts. The key in this second step, however, is not to look for facts that would make sense in light of your interpretation but to look for such facts that would not make sense in light of your interpretation.
In the HIV example, it would not make sense for anti-viral drugs to work in AIDS patients, or for specific immunity against HIV to be due to mutated T-cell genes blocking virus particles from docking to the cells, or for the transmission to be inhibited by using condoms if AIDS was actually caused by some Juju up some mountain or other or even by looking in the general direction of a gay bar. That makes any of the made-up stories appreciably inferior to the scientifically corroborated story. It would blow any ideas of so-called ‘balance’ right out of the water. And anyone who actually explained the reasoning behind the science would not only further the cause of the public understanding of science, he would probably also improve his ratings. Because he would treat his audience like adults. In today’s media landscape, that kind of thing would stand out like a freshly groomed rottweiler in a pack of wet poodles.
» badrescher:
He can’t retract the whole book, and that’s basically what he would have to do at this point if he admits to the problems because it leaves him with no solutions at all to offer.
Of course there’s an honourable way out even you wrote a bad book: Say that maybe what you wrote didn’t go far enough and then lead the way in whatever direction you think you should have gone further.
For example, they could provide some specific ideas for creating new career opportunities in the academic landscape. They could provide ideas as to how to steer the media towards an appreciation of philosophically—and by extension scientifically—sound thinking. They could try to produce the missing evidence, or at least make a coherent case, for accommodationism giving better results than a more confrontation-based approach.
If they did engage in that kind of debate, it wouldn’t really matter that their book didn’t spell all that out. But that’s looking like an increasingly big ‘if’.
Parrhesia, no, I’m not convinced of that either, I’m not convinced of anything about M&K’s motivations – I just expressed doubt. I find it all fairly inexplicable.
badrescher (it’s so hard to read that as b a drescher instead of bad rescher!) – well Mooney does have the choice of just ignoring the comments as opposed to banning the commenters. It’s not a very good choice, but neither is banning.
Eric – yes. I just read the Nation article, and my hackles rose at “But the Internet is not unifying our culture.” This is what I hate about them and their book – this insistence that we have to be unified all the time. It’s stupid, it’s impossible, it’s authoritarian, it’s communal, it’s reactionary, it’s anti-intellectual, it’s stupid. Did I mention that it’s stupid?
I don’t want “our culture” fucking unified, and I sure as hell don’t want it unified around whatever core set of whatnots that M&K have in mind. As Peter O’Toole said through gritted teeth in Lawrence of Arabia, “I don’t want to be part of your Big Push.”
And they’re still pursuing their brainless PZ-hate in public.
Love the reference to the “Big Push.” Exactly, we don’t want to be part of their big push; nor do we want to be part of a “happy family” either.
I don’t know what is the moderation policy or moderation technique at Intersection, but I tell about my experiences below.
At Intersection, Mooney congratulates Kirshenbaum:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/28/sheril-role-model/
Somebody called David Wescott praised Kirshenbaum in his blog. Since Mooney thought the blogger had presented an “amazing post”, I wanted to know why the words of Mr. Wescott should be taken seriously. After all, if he is a friend of Mooney and Kirshenbaum (like f.ex. Olsen), the evaluation might be biased.
Therefore I commented Mooney’s post shortly, asking “David who?” It appeared in the comments section immeaditly without any mention of moderation, but was later removed.
True, my scepticism could be read from the question. However, I don’t think the reaction would have been different, if I would have asked: “Why should Mr. Wescott’s evaluation be taken seriously”?
I accept fully that Mr. Mooney removes comments that he finds inappropriate. However, it seems he has no coherent pölicy guiding it.
Oh it’s coherent enough – he finds comments inappropriate if they’re not flattering to him or to him plus Kirshenbaum. It’s just about that transparent.
Eric, it’s hard to say, and will ultimately depend on how you cash in on the idea of “understanding”. But according to one researcher, misunderstanding of natural selection is common even among biology students. (Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts
and Common Misconceptions, T. Ryan Gregory) The fact that some of these misunderstandings can be found even among excellent philosophers, like Jerry Fodor, suggests that there are intuitive mind traps that need to be disarmed. This will require people to be, if not a happy family, then at least a less dysfunctional one. Tone is part of it — but not all of it, as M/K demonstrate.
Do you think it’s possible they have a time-out at the InterLimbo after which un-moderated comments are deleted automatically?
I just saw that the comment I referred to earlier on this thread, the one about the HIV example, had disappeared. But I’m actually rather nice in that comment—with the possible exception of the poodles. :-/
I must be confused. It wasn’t disappeared, it’s right here. I should take a nap.
Turns out, it was another comment that got nixed. So what about the time-out theory? ;>
Well it’s plenty easy to get confused on those threads. They’re not what you’d call coherent and thus easy to keep track of.
Benjamin, why does disarming intuitive mind traps require people to be a less dysfunctional family? We can learn from people outside our families (or friends or any other particularly close groupings) can’t we?
Why does everybody call Kirshenbaum a “scientist”? She isn’t. She has a master’s in science but is not doing science. She’s a journalist/p.r. person, just like Mooney. They tout her misleading credentials to give weight to the book.
Benjamin, well, I don’t follow, I’m afraid. I don’t see how by any kind of family you can mean a public space. And I can’t parse your second para at all. AND I don’t think we are in a quagmire of “you are nasty, I am nice” because I don’t think anyone on the non-framing side claims to be “nice” – though I do for instance claim that Mooney is morally bankrupt, but that doesn’t translate to “I am nice.” I’m not nice – but I don’t think I’m morally bankrupt in the way that Mooney is. Or perhaps what you say in the last para is really meant to be global – but I can’t tell. It’s all too opaque for me.
If you don’t understand, it’s likely my fault, and I apologize. I’ll see if I might clear it up a bit.
First, to clarify, yes I did want to make global remarks in the final paragraph, as an afterthought. I didn’t mean for it to be accusatory, actually I thought I had made it clear that I meant the opposite by a previous paragraph. My intent was to show what I think is common to both anti-intellectualism in American culture and to Mooney’s behavior.
Second, about this family business. I do draw an (unhappy) analogy between the public square and family, because both generally share in common something like the following: “despite our differences, we can’t deny or overcome the fact that we have this basis for talking to each other (or not silencing each other)”. In a family, the basis is usually the mere self-evident fact that “you’re related”. In the real public square, the basis is surely “reasonable discourse, whatever that is”. And if you say “reasonable discourse”, then you have to lay out (or tacitly agree on, or be bullied into) some kind of framework for discussion in order for there to be any square at all. Obviously, at minimum, there has to be no riot going on, no mobsters, no police shutting you up; but there are other desiderata that need spelling out in order to at best set up honest debate, and at worst, any debate at all.
So here are two options for understanding what makes for reasonable discourse. The “integrity” model, and the “Washington” model.
If one wants to reach consensus through exchange of reasons, say on the subject of global warming, one has to show that reasons matter in conversation. If reasons matter, it’s because they can be consistently upheld while also defended; and if values can be communicated, it’s through consistency. Emphasis on integrity and consistency is what makes for a culture of reasons, because reasons are held up to be what makes for a reasonable discussion. If we adopt the conceit that the public square is a family, then it is more like a functional family, not necessarily a happy one.
Or one can adopt the Washington standard of reasonableness, which is less interested in reasons, and more interested in being nice. This is the happy family model of the public square. Honestly, is it not your perception that Mooney and his DNC equivalents are accusing each other of being too nasty, and then lauding themselves for being so nice? I certainly have the impression that they do. The DNC/Washington Post types follow the same old script in their “debates”. Instead of saying, “Your reasons fail to convince for these other reasons”, they ignore you, accuse you of being shrill, or (given the opportunity) shut you up entirely. I think Mooney/Kirshenbaum have bought into this model, either by taking it for granted or by cynically buying into it. They’re like what John Kerry would be like if Kerry had less of a brain.
Though of course not all of Washington follows the “happy family” ideal. The Republicans just tend to be shit-disturbers. (Which, of course, emboldens those in the DNC to emphasize the matter of tone, so that the criterion for having any debate in the public square is wherever you fit in with the “nasty v. nice” script, which condemns us to having to endure blathering nonsense instead of honest attempts to fix actual problems.)
Sorry for the double-post. Could you delete one of them (plus this post)?
Sure.
Yes, it does indeed seem to me that Mooney and co do that – I just thought you meant we’re all doing that. I’m not being nice, I’m being nasty.
:- )
There are layers of irony to all this, some of which commenters or I or both have pointed out – the irony that the side that makes no claim to being nice is behaving less badly than the side that tells everyone to be more civil; the irony that the civility-enforcers are actually stirring up the flames; the irony that the Party of Civility is carrying on a very public very irrational vendetta; the irony that the ‘how shall we bridge the gap’ crowd is energetically sowing division by pointing and jumping up and down and shouting “Look look look at that monstrous religion-bashing PZ Myers at this blog right here at this address look look look” – and so on.
Peter: “For example, they could provide some specific ideas for creating new career opportunities in the academic landscape.”
Chris has said in comments on their blog that this is coming…
“They could provide ideas as to how to steer the media towards an appreciation of philosophically—and by extension scientifically—sound thinking.”
From recent writings, I am not sure they know what this is themselves.
“They could try to produce the missing evidence, or at least make a coherent case, for accommodationism giving better results than a more confrontation-based approach.”
Can’t produce what doesn’t exist.
BTW, Peter, I wish to retract my “well-reasoned” statement as it is clearly too far removed from the “until you get to…” part. I meant that the appeared to be building up the media’s role (which I think is important) until he gets to the same old stuff 2/3rds through (that it’s all PZ’s fault).
OB: “badrescher (it’s so hard to read that as b a drescher instead of bad rescher!)”
I know, sorry. You should have heard my students the first time I returned papers with feedback using Word comments (they all started with “BAD:…”).
Heh heh.
Ophelia, yes you are very nasty and quite mean, all hands may agree! But as far as I’m concerned, consistency of conversational expectations is sainthood, so that makes up for it.
Barbara, there is field of relevant social psychological evidence that suggests a mixed message on the “nasty v. nice” question. And mixed messages have an annoying way of providing enough conversational room for both sides to say, “You’re wrong in this way, therefore you’re wrong and we’re right” (assuming both tacitly or explicitly hold bold and mutually exclusive claims).
Of course, Mooney and Kirshenbaum don’t mention any of it, and treat it as a given. So they’re bullshitters in this regard. Once we all get over the fact that they’re bullshitters, we can move on to say, “Okay, so here’s what an empirical view of rhetoric actually looks like” and then hopefully distill the message down to a palatable paste that can eventually be conveyed in soundbytes and swallowed. Or be published by “Basic Books”, which is just as well.
[…] wrote about the widespread suspicions regarding Tom Johnson last year, during which time she was banned from The Intersection. The ban is still in effect […]
[…] http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2009/waist-deep-in-the-moral-slime/ […]