Dissent
For the record – the (critical but reasonable) comment I tried to post on Chris Mooney’s post on science and communication yesterday has now been deleted. Yesterday it was showing up (for me only) as being held in moderation, and today it’s gone.
It is possible of course to think that no matter how reasonable one particular comment may be, the person behind it is not. Mooney doesn’t delete all dissent on his posts, so clearly he does think something along those lines – that I am myself inherently unreasonable and unallowable, even if I do manage to fake up a reasonably mild comment at some particular moment.
I think he’s wrong. I can easily see why he would resent my criticisms, but the fact remains, I think he’s wrong. I think I’m not so unreasonable as all that. I think I’m a more honest and forthright disputant than he is.
Also, I think unless someone proves to be a spectacular troll, reasonable comments should go through even if normally unreasonable people made them, and vice versa. I mean, I’ve had my share of stupid comments, and I think I am generally reasonable at the blogs I frequent.
If you’re talking about the comment you copied elsewhere here, I think that’s a perfectly valid comment. But then again, I just decided not to download the latest Point of Inquiry because it was hosted by Mooney – and I did listen to the first ones he did, only stopping after he talked with Elaine Howard Ecklund about her Templeton-funded study. Which seems like a good study on the face of it, but it also seemed like Mooney was starting to try and make his viewpoints a stronger part of PoI.
To be more precise and as an addendum, I stopped halway through that episode when talk turned to the dreaded and oh-so-militant new atheists.
Mooney’s blog is just like the creationist blogs which do not allow any dissent. His behavior is cretinous.
Well, he does allow some dissent, so that’s not quite accurate. But the repression of dissent in which he does engage is cretinous.
Like Coyne.
It’s been awhile since I clicked “The Intersection” on my feed reader, and I don’t miss it. At some point in the future, I’ll haul out Mooney as an example of what’s wrong with American public discourse, but otherwise I think he’s best ignored.
Well, yes, ignoring is the default mode. This was just a little interlude…
As it almost always does over there…
I was surprised at that, actually – I thought Mooney had said he wasn’t going to use PofI to diss atheists or otherwise flog his hobby horse. Well no doubt he did say that. Stupid of me to believe him.
I was able to listen to the Elaine Howard Ecklund interview all the way through. Yeah, there was some criticism of new atheists, but mostly just contrasting them with all of the really nice (i.e., quiet) atheists in the scientific community. Most of whom, it seems, had secular parents. So, take pride in making a real contribution to society.
Perhaps it’s in her book, but I haven’t been able to figure out, from this interview and her other writing, the disciplinary composition of Ecklund’s subjects. Even if she’s excluding social scientists and mathematicians (and I’m not sure that she is), the mix of physical vs natural scientists is going to have an impact on her findings.
Ophelia, the game is to allow dissent that makes him look good by allowing it. Dissent that tears his arguments to shreds — not so well tolerated.
Perhaps it’s personal now, Ophelia. It’s quite possible he actually does hate you, especially if he’s feeling bitter about the reception Unscientific America got. I’m learning the hard way that academics are not above petty politics and personal vendettas. Every time you post, you give him the opportunity to have another swipe at you. If I was you, I’d save the comments for a book.
kenneth: according to <a href=”http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2010/05/scientists_and_religion.php”>This</a>, she included social sciences but not mathematicians. The article I linked gives a slightly different impression of her findings, too.
Even if her findings could be construed as being correct in some way, I wouldn’t think the results could be as monolithic as it seems they’re being portrayed. Actually the recent focus on finding new & exciting ways to make religion & science philosophically compatible strikes me as a bit silly.
Plus, even though I’ve admittedly cringed a few times at something that one of the so-called “new atheists” have said, the whole exercise seems to be about contrasting nice and not nice, which is just really, really asinine. I swear some people need to grow thicker skins.
Stating the obvious, I know.
Actually (though I appreciate the sentiment), it’s deadly serious. Informed concern that human interest in science could undermine the religions’ control of our minds is what led to the establishment of the Templeton Foundation. They’re spending serious money, some little of it on Mooney and Ecklund, in an effort to maintain that control.
When Mooney tells scientists that they risk public support for science by tolerating the new atheists, he’s already told someone else that that’s what he’s going to tell scientists!
A bit OT: are there any other goodies from Templeton that Mr. Mooney can look forward to? Mr. Mooney certainly knows that he will never get the top prize, but are there other possible rewards in addition to this fellowship thing he has already received?
I seriously doubt that Mooney has given up on the top prize. Write a best-selling book on the value of religion as it relates to science, give lots of lectures, articles in mainstream press – he could easily be a contender.
Very well said. Sums it right up.
Matti, oh hell yes there are other Templeton goodies that Mooney can angle for. Templeton funds books. Templeton is already funding the M-K blog via a large intrusive advertisement for itself – at least I assume they pay for it, I assume M and K don’t just run it for free. Templeton pays lavishly for articles in its “magazine” In Character. And so on. There are lots and lots of ways Templeton channels money to people who push (and push and push and push) its line.
One thing this really seriously compromises, in my view, is the Center for Inquiry. The fact that both CFI and Templeton are paying Mooney is…incoherent.
Emily, well of course he hates me. I realize that. But that by itself isn’t necessarily a valid reason to ban someone permanently from commenting on one’s blog.
To be fair, he hasn’t taken any swipes at me (unless of course he does it anonymously – I have several anonymous swipe-takers, most of whom I take to be one person in various sock puppets). He merely ignores me, and blocks my comments on his and SK’s blog.
You mean you would save comments for prudential reasons? In order to avoid swipes? Or do you mean on principle?
Either way I don’t entirely agree, and I suppose that’s why I don’t entirely agree with Chris Hallq. Mooney is in a position to influence the public discourse, so I think there are good reasons to point out what is wrong with his influence.
I meant take another swipe at you in a passive aggressive way, by not not allowing your comments. It’s possible that he hates you so much, that his response to you is unreasonable, and that you’re being too charitable in trying to figure out his reasons for blocking you.
I think you should definitely point out what is wrong with his influence, but if he won’t give you a platform for that, just use / make your own. Maybe make a special blog just for him, Chris Mooney Watch, or The Intersection Dissection, or something, so that when people search his name / blog name, it will come up too.
The Ruler of Comment Overmoderation whines about comment moderation. Hm.
The irony – it BURNS.
Bullshit, Milton C.
1. I’m not “whining.” You and the sock puppets call almost any claims you don’t like “whining”‘ that’s classic bullshit. I said “I think he’s wrong. I can easily see why he would resent my criticisms, but the fact remains, I think he’s wrong.” That’s not whining.
2. It’s not “comment moderation,” it’s total banning.
3. I don’t overmoderate. The only commenter here that I regularly moderate agrees with me probably more ardently than anyone in the world; I moderate his comments partly because of the sheer monotony of his echo effect. I’ve never banned anyone just for disagreeing with me or saying things I don’t like; the only person I have banned – it was years ago – had a couple of years here; I banned him in the end because he was way too prolix and obscure.
Don’t bullshit. That works a treat in some places, but not here.
Ophelia, like lots of people here I bet I agree with you even more ardently – on most issues – than G T—–. Don’t sell your mostly-lurker fans short.
And Chris Mooney isn’t a serious commentator on anything, and he is, as you say, terrible at communicating and, ironically given his claims, especially lousy at handling or reducing conflict.
But I think his primary motivation is commercial. He’s hoping that “framing”, which is as close to an empty concept as makes no important difference, is a product that can be sold, first in this “science v religion” context but ultimately to companies as a management-communication product: how to introduce new products, or new management systems. Corporate America falls for all sorts of training scams and spends an absolute fortune on them. There’s no reason they shouldn’t fall for “framing” too. I think Chris thinks there might be a living in it, until the bubble bursts.
Get your snake oil here! This is the pr and advertising stage.
Heh. Okay Newt, I won’t sell mostly-lurker fans short – I’ll decide there’s a myriad of ardent fans who agree passionately with every word I say.
Heeheehee.
That’s an interesting suggestion; I hadn’t thought of it before. Quite right about the training scams. I don’t know though – I think Mooney still retains considerable interest in real science and genuine issues (e.g. global warming), even if his interest gets blurred and warped by the PR filter he sees them through. My guess is that he wants to be PR and Framing Expert to the World O’Science more than he wants to be PR and Framing Expert to the corporate world. On the other hand, I also think he wants to be a Templeton honcho more than he wants either of those. In a way I think Templeton ambitions are more despicable than corporate ones.
idk, Ophelia. I’ve been a “lurker” here for some time, and I’ve seen you engage in ‘total banning’ on some people who have made comments that really didn’t get too offensive or inconsiderate but that you just took personally…but I’ve also seen you engage in ‘total banning’ when people have been purposefully inconsiderate and offensive, too.
In the end, comments get moderated by different people with different opinions and different benchmarks for what’s acceptable. And those who get trashed will almost always deem it unjustified, while those who do the trashing will almost always deem their actions justified.
And those who get banned but have their own blog will almost always whine/cry/complain/strike back/insert label of choice here about it in a post on their blog. No difference here, I’m afraid.
Milton C, you have seen no such thing. No one is blocked from commenting here. A total ban is being prevented from commenting at all. There is no such ban here. Do not come here to tell falsehoods.
Since Milton C. is sure that Ophelia has frequently applied total banning for personal reasons, he should have no problem of telling which nicks were/are banned. I, at least, would be interested to hear the list. So Milton, let it rain!
I’d forgotten all about this post and these comments. What a joke. Milton C is “Tom Johnson”/YNH. He was lying through his teeth in these comments. Brazenly, flagrantly, determinedly lying, with malice aforethought. He was doing his level best to damage my reputation by making what he knew to be false accusations.
[…] this one, which I had forgotten about. Milton C, May 27 last year. I didn’t know at the time that […]