The proper answer to that question is “Who cares?”, but just in case you’re morbidly curious, Bill Dembski weighs in:
The authors of “Framing Science” (see below), which appeared in Science, are world-renowned scientists and therefore know whereof they speak. Well, not exactly. Matthew Nisbet is a professor of communication and Chris Mooney is a correspondent for the atheist magazine Seed. (Nisbet’s blog is also hosted by Seed.) Nisbet and Mooney are both outspoken defenders of Darwinism and critics of ID — which is no doubt why the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publisher of Science) regards them as qualified to “frame” science.
The man is a bitter, seething mass of envy, isn’t he? It takes some chutzpah for a fellow of the Discovery Institute, that nest of lawyers, bad philosophers, and theologians, to complain about the scientific qualifications of others. If Dembski is world-renowned as anything, it’s as an incompetent hack and promoter of anti-scientific nonsense, so I don’t think he should be whining about credentials.
As for that “atheist magazine Seed” … I’ve read every issue, and the magazine as a whole does not take any noticeable position on atheism or religion; some of the interviews have been a little too conciliatory for my taste (but then my taste does not dictate content in any way, or he would have grounds fro calling it an atheist magazine!) Neither is scienceblogs in any way a host that favors atheism, and that is not a criterion used in selecting blogs to join the mob. My little corner here may be a vicious hotbed of brutal, humorless, militant atheism, but Pharyngula is not scienceblogs (it isn’t even particularly well liked by a great many of the sciencebloggers here) and it is especially not Seed.
But then, accuracy and honesty are not what we expect of Dembski…
I disagree again – I like you and Pharyngula…
And who the hell cares if IDiots at DIsco think Seed is atheist? It’s a compliment (it means “lacking in theological presuppositions”).
If only ignoring them were an effective method for making them go away.
Everybody, join in (to the tune of Chim Chim Cher-ee)
Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominee
Why argue facts when bluster is free?
Ad hominem, ad hominem, ad homini
Content is hard, let’s give smearing a try!
OK, I’ve done the first verse.
Who cares whether Dembski says “Seed is atheist”? Well, a lot of people who will close their minds do. So, while I am an atheist, I still think it’s worth calling a small mind on ad hominem tactics.
The proper answer to that question is “Who cares?”
roflmao
RickD (#3), that was wonderful. I still won’t go to see “Mary Poppins” on Broadway, though.
Someone wanna tell me why one of the fathers of the “scientific” theory of ID should be using the term “atheist” as a negative?
I thought the creationist position on framing was that they were all for it. In the last couple of months they’ve framed the Kitzmiller case Judge Jones as a plagiarizing stooge of the atheistic ACLU and Charles Darwin as a puppy torturing Nazi.
By the way, Egnor is up to his usual tricks on the latest DI podcast – he’s clearly either loopy in the head, or he’s signed up to the ‘Lie for Jesus campaign’.
Th prblm s nt scnc, bvsly.
Th prblm s thsts SNG scnc s frnt fr thr mtphyscl rmblngs.
n thr wrds, th dshnst cnfltng f mthdlgcl ntrlsm wth phlsphcl ntrlsm.
He’s really afraid of atheists spreading their seed, not reading it.
The comments there are even more incredibly, amazingly, mind-bogglingly ignorant and arrogant. Even compared with standard UC fare.
You forgot to mention his burgeoning career as a Flash-animation sound effects artist.
John Wilkins wrote:I disagree again – I like you and Pharyngula…
NOW you’ve done it! Making nice, just when another round in the dust-up between atheists and agnostics was warming up nicely…
Of course, Dembski would have us believe that framing is a Lakoff invention. In reality, Lakoff’s push is to re-frame the Democratic message because they had allowed the conservatives to frame it for so many years, and the Demos didn’t recognize the process until recently.
I don’t have an informed opinion on whether framing should be used to re-cast science as a friendly process for everyone, nor even can I determine exactly what scientists are supposed to “do” with it; but Dembski’s characterization here is obfuscatory. I feel like I have to wash my hands every time I follow a link to uncommondeceit.org.
Framing and used by conservatives and liberals alike has been around for years and years and years. It is not new, it was just recently quanitified for study in a specific way, and its most popular use is as negative propaganda. The new emphasis by the liberals is at least partly, if not mostly, to denigrate the position of convervatives and I would be against using this type of framing in service to science.
I for one think that we have a great number of working scientists who are excellent communicators; and I think they are doing a good job of getting the word out. The problem that they are facing is the amount of “white noise” inherent in a digital pop culture. There are so many other things vying for the attention of the hearts and minds. If people are not getting the message most of the blame lay with them rather than with scientists.
Unless celebrities are willing to tattoo “On The Origin of the Species” on their backs or their shaved heads there will always be this problem. And so it is easy to get people to agree that presenting ID is simply a matter of “presenting both sides.”
Could somebody explain the whole disemvoweling thing to me, I’m kinda new here. And when you disemvowel the words “atheists” and “theists” they both become “thsts”, thus confusing my little brain.
I disagree. I think Dembski’s work is very enlightening. The problem appears to be on the receivers end. Assumptions built on presuppositions is not a scientific basis.
Being angry or not liking something does not make it wrong. Look now at the people refusing to debate at the Darwin vs. Design conference…people blog big, then say they are busy when the real work comes and public humiliation could be at stake.
Dembski and those like him stand up for their beliefs and provide the evidence for them, those professors at SMU who won’t debate…well they don’t even do that.
———————————————-
SMU Professor Declines Invitation to Intelligent Design Debate
The head of Southern Methodist University (SMU)’s anthropology department has declined a request to debate major intelligent design (ID) proponents at an upcoming conference to be held on campus.
Mon, Apr. 09, 2007 Posted: 08:49:19 AM EST
________________________________________
The head of Southern Methodist University (SMU)’s anthropology department has declined a request to debate major intelligent design (ID) proponents at an upcoming conference to be held on campus.
SMU Anthropology Chair Robert V. Kemper turned down the invitation to join a debate over the validity of evolution vs. ID on grounds that the department had previous commitments that would keep its members from the conference.
“We appreciate your recognition of the value of dialogue on issues that have such opposing viewpoints,” replied the professor to the Discover Institute, a major organization that promotes the teaching of ID. “Unfortunately, previously scheduled events and prior commitments prevent our department from taking advantage of this opportunity. We nevertheless remain committed to public understanding of these issues, and to providing the public with information to make intelligent choices.”
Disemvowelling, if I recall correctly, is so you can mark someone as a troll and clean up the comments from drivel, but people who are interested can still see what the troll was about.
Also, :laffo: at the Pro-Dembski guy.
Pro-Dumbski, science is not dealt with in public debates. Science has a process, there has to be research, that research is double and triple checked by other scientists (this is what real peer review is), and then published in scientific journals.
I’m sure you know this.
Do you think you could explain process of gene duplication (for example) in two minutes during a debate? Everyone who has any inkling about science, and the contrived controveersy presented by ID/creationists knows all about debate tactics and how they are different from real science.
If debate is so critical, why is it that the DI declined a debate just recently? We aren’t hearing them issue press releases about that, for some reason? Hypocrisy….duplicitous lying?? Both, I would imagine.
Cheers.
Pro-Dembski, please link to the evidence provided by Dembski–or any of the Discovery crew, really–on behalf of intelligent design. I’ll wait right here, but I won’t be holding my breath.
SMU is refusing to dignify the lame propaganda stunt by their participation. That’s not fear, it’s contempt.
Oh, and the DI isn’t exactly all that excited about honest debate.
Actually, in this case I think Dembski has a point. As a scientist, I resent being lectured to by Nesbit and Mooney on how to write about science. If they were scientists themselves, I’d be more inclined to listen because I know they would have grappled with some of the problems I face.
This is one of the points I made in my latest posting about the Nesbit & Mooney article.
Dembski may be wrong about almost everything but every now and then he stumbles upon something that’s correct. I think it’s just a fluke.
I don’t disagree with Nesbit/Mooney because they aren’t my kind of scientist, though; I can accept that they have their own expertise in communication, and I could benefit from learning from them. I disagree because their article didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know, was unfortunately vague, and in parts conflicted sharply with what I want to do with my communication.
Pro-Dembski wrote:
“I disagree. I think Dembski’s work is very enlightening.”
If it’s enlightening, perhaps you could apply it to an actual biological system and generate some data? Dembski clearly is afraid to do that for himself, because he lacks faith in his notions.
“The problem appears to be on the receivers end. Assumptions built on presuppositions is not a scientific basis.”
I agree, but it describes Dembski to a T. Hell, I’ve done more work to address Dembski’s assumptions than Dembski has, in the process of doing something completely different.
“Being angry or not liking something does not make it wrong. Look now at the people refusing to debate at the Darwin vs. Design conference…people blog big, then say they are busy when the real work comes and public humiliation could be at stake.”
The real work of science is producing new data from tests of one’s hypotheses, not debate. All scientific controversies are decided by data.
“Dembski and those like him stand up for their beliefs and provide the evidence for them,…”
Dembski and those like him have produced ZERO evidence from tests of their beliefs (hypotheses).
“… those professors at SMU who won’t debate…well they don’t even do that.”
Really? Have you examined all their publications?
RickD wrote:
“Everybody, join in (to the tune of Chim Chim Cher-ee)…”
This summoned vivid images of the 1980s flick Amazon Women on the Moon and David Alan Grier’s “Don Simmons — the man with no soul” character singing this song. Dembski easily could have been a character in this dolt-bashing film.
Robert M, thanks for that link. I totally forgot about Luskin’s recent dodge.
PZ,
One example of framing is the DI’s continuous use of the terms “Darwinism” and “Darwinist” in place of “evolutionary biology” and “scientist”. They’re using these as dismissive terms, loading the words to make scientists who accept evolution as a fact look like deluded believers in one man’s crackpot idea. Eventually, if the terms gain wide enough usage, they become the reference for anyone who wants a short word to mean “evolutionay biologist”.
Some time ago you wondered if the IDiots ought to be called
“Johnsonists” or “Paleyists” (as I recall). I suppose it would work if enough people in the general populace knew who Johnson or Paley were.
I’ll say it again: Just wait until we can get those big blogging people into a court of law, where they will have to speak under oath. We’ll squeeze them, as if in a vise! And then we will make farting noises!!
Who are these “masses”? I notice that they are no longer “unwashed,” at least.
I also notice that Dembski seems to be shifting his “frame” to now accuse theistic evolutionists such as Febble and Ken Miller of high crimes and misdemeanors. Because scientists must not be reasoned with, but dismissed.
Nine years to go, Bill. Assuming you don’t eat your heart out, first.
PZ: Today’s ‘Piled Higher and Deeper’ has a few pointed jabs at the kind of presentations often seen by grad students, which is relevant to the earlier thread on ‘framing’ and communicating science, etc. Folk can view that here:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?n=847
DaeTard LIKES framing:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SP;f=14;t=1274;p=55340
Kristine: I’m sorry. I’m sorry that that house landed on your sister.
I have pitchforks and torches if you’d like yo join me in an angry mob?
BURN HER SHE’S A WITCH.
DaveTard wasn’t counting on the Shimmy Defense.
The degree of defensiveness and ego in response to Nesbit/Mooney among some science bloggers is unlovely. Had to laugh ruefully at PZ’s assertion that professors must be good communicators, recalling how very few of my college professors answered that description.
(Re-)Read Edward Tufte on MS PowerPoint and the Challenger disaster and contemplate the consequences of the routinely poor level of communication that goes on in lecture halls, businesses and government agencies every day.
It’s a bit paradoxical that some of the bloggers who most want to communicate effectively (and who often succeed) and who most want to move the political dialogue are so reluctant to react openly and generously to suggestions (certainly well-meaning whether you consider them mostly right or mostly wrong) for doing just that.
Jud the “defensiveness” is because the actual Science article is light on details and really is a fluff piece. The details do not exactly endure people like PZ Myers. I mean look what Nisbet wrote in the comments of his blog:
“That’s the power and influence of framing when it resonates with an individual’s social identity. It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion. It’s definitely not the scientific or democratic ideal, but it’s how things work in society.”
That is the antithesis of what Dr. Myers is trying to accomplish. Nisbet and Mooney have decided that the ends justify the means. They have battles they want to win now even it means losing the war. Enabling the type of mentality of where people make up “their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate and opinion” is dangerous. It is at the heart of bigotry that people like Don Imus spew. As an atheist why would Dr. Myers enable those who seek to oppress him? It doesn’t make any sense. Really the disagreement is between liberals and revolutionaries.
Both are idealistic. A call to frame is not going to bring about better communication. Universities are run like corporations. They are not going to spend the money to “frame” a debate. If you are going to be idealistic mine as well keep your principles.
ponderingfool said: “Enabling the type of mentality of where people make up ‘their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion’ is dangerous. It is at the heart of bigotry that people like Don Imus spew.”
These are salient points. But I don’t think we’re dealing with an either/or proposition here, i.e., I very much hope Nesbit and Mooney aren’t calling for content-free communication, but rather for content to be communicated as effectively as possible to the largest segment of the audience.
That audience is comprised of lots of people who do indeed “make up their minds in the absence of knowledge.” Actually, we all make up our minds in the absence of complete knowledge. I’m not a scientist, but I’ve made up my mind that evolution hangs together scientifically and ID is horseshit dimestore philosophy. (Unlike Dr. Egnor, however, I can certainly conceive of data that would change my mind: if Sal Cordova’s DNA steganography turned out to be real, for example – I’m not holding my breath.) Given the necessary absence of complete knowledge, how can we create the preconditions for interest in and acceptance of scientific content among most audience members?
Re Imus: Guy’s a jerk, ’nuff said.
Jud:
” I very much hope Nesbit and Mooney aren’t calling for content-free communication, but rather for content to be communicated as effectively as possible to the largest segment of the audience”
That is not how Nisbet’s comment comes across as his statement before that is:
“he “creation stewardship” frame activates attention and interest from Evangelicals on the issue of global warming, perhaps mobilizing some to seek out “science rich” information sources like the science coverage at a major newspaper or the executive summary of the IPCC report.
But for the great majority of Evangelicals, the fact that global warming can be perceived as a religious and moral concern–joining abortion, gay marriage, and poverty as issues they should care about–is good enough for them.”
To me it comes across that Nisbet is not arguing for conveying knowledge but rather getting people on his side of the argument in a passionate way not based on reason.
They are trying to sell global warming to Evangelicals by playing to their biases & in doing so enabling said biases, strengthening them in the process. This is dangerous and will backfire if you ask me. These are not frames scientists should enable. They are not frames atheists should enable. They are the frames that exclude us; that make us other in society; that we don’t belong in the public discourse. It is not Nisbet and Mooney’s intent but it is a very real outcome.
Given how Nisbet has tried to Swift Boat Greg Laden I think we should be concerned with what Mooney and Nisbet are proposing. For those of us who think democracy is a good idea, how something is discussed/decided is very important by definition.
Another concern is, isn’t this going to become a frames race? Each side reframing instead of actually discussing and debating issues?