No ripples on the pond
Chris Mooney is seeking suggestions for his new gig.
I may as well make clear I am not going into this with the goal of having big arguments with leading New Atheists about science and religion.My position on this topic is well known…
No of course not – arguments are never what he wants. What he wants is to say what’s what, and have everybody listen quietly and nod soberly and say ‘Good idea, I never thought of it that way, I shall put your suggestions into effect immediately.’ He’s not at all interested in what people who don’t agree with him say. And if his position on this topic is not well known, that’s certainly not his fault, because god knows he’s been repeating it faithfully and imperturbably for lo these many months. That is precisely why I think he’s the wrong kind of person to host a podcast on inquiry. He’s not interested in inquiry.
Curse you, Ophelia, for making me go over there and reading his post and the (shudder) comments. I need a shower. ;)
NewEnglandBob, I almost clicked on that link. Now I’m glad I didn’t.
I think this is all tawdry. I am replying in full to Ophelia Benson and Russell Blackford here.
http://heathen-hub.com/blog.php?b=219
Ophelia Benson and Russell Blackford are quite welcome to reply there.
And I think you’re silly. And that your blog is poorly laid out. And that your little complaint reads like a toddler whine – all full of indignation, but giving no evidence that you know the history of what you purport to talk about.
Yawn.
I also think you’re blogwhoring, and that you’re going to get no satisfaction here. No one is going to register at your blog just to refute your hand-wringing.
Oh, pooh – hysterics, indeed; nonsense. As Josh says, it looks as if you have no clue about the history. You’re right that my claims look rather bald if one doesn’t know the history, but I assume that most of my readers do know it; those who don’t can always ask, or google. Now they can just look at Mooney’s new article, and see if they can find any substance in the advice there.
[meta-meta-humor]
This is a comment where I entirely miss the point, and link to my own blog where I also miss the point.
[/meta-meta-humor]
I don’t actually mind him/her linking to his/her own blog post. I’d actually prefer that at Metamagician and the Hellfire Club than someone bore us with innumerable long comments that kind of take over the screen, as one of my regular (banned but hard to keep away) commenters does.
But the word “tawdry”, which Gurdur also used on my blog, is ominous. Once people accuse an argument of being “tawdry”, rather of having false premises or reasoning that isn’t cogent, or whatever, you can sense that you’re in for trouble. (Not that I necessarily expect anyone to say: “Here’s my formal reconstruction of your argument and I think premise 2. is false and that your reasoning at step 3. is fallacious.” Still, a discussion between people who respect each other can be focused on trying to get agreement on the facts and relevant principles, and what follows from them. The use of a word like “tawdry” makes that more difficult.)
Yes, and “hysterics” isn’t much help either.