I see that Matt Nisbet has organized a panel for the AAAS meetings, in which he has picked a squad of people sympathetic to religion to ‘argue’ that “scientists must adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal, avoiding the pitfall of seeming to condescend to fellow citizens, or alienating them by attacking their religious beliefs”, and he doesn’t have a single person on the panel that might actually challenge them on that recommendation to muzzle the godless. He’s also presenting a paper on “The New Atheism and the Public Image of Science,” and we all know precisely how competent he is on that topic. Unless you’re one of those god-soaked apologists who welcomes a chance to nod approvingly at yet more whining about bad ol’ atheists, that session sounds like a real snooze. We already know what they’re going to conclude.
Remind me to show no mercy.
The poll is interesting, but do you think that maybe folks vote for Cambridge just for a trip out of the USA?
Sympathetic to religion much as I’m sympathetic to A. smokers who give themselves cancer, B. retards, or C. old people who’ve fallen down?
More and more I’m wondering what people expect to be the result of science education. Yeah, yeah, we uppity atheist bastards are “sabotaging the cause”, but what would victory look like? Would Mr. Gallup report that a majority of Americans can correctly state that electrons are smaller than atoms while the Earth goes around the Sun once a year? Sure, that would be nice. But that’s not the only point of teaching science.
Put more precisely, the goal of science education includes familiarizing students with the methods of science as well as its discoveries. The lesson plan must include both — ultimately, because we want a citizen body instead of a proletariat. And what do you get when you have a scientifically literate population of students? Why, you get teenagers acting like Richard Dawkins. The alphabet of pseudoscience does not stop after astrology, biorhythms and crystal healing, and some fraction of any group which learns critical thought will recognize that fact.
Deal with it now, or deal with it later, but widespread beliefs are gonna get thumped.
Give em hell… err… be ruthless!!
Blake said “Deal with it now, or deal with it later, but widespread beliefs are gonna get thumped.”
That’s the whole problem in a nutshell: people may actually think.
I guess I’m only speaking for myself here, but that’s all I want my religious friends (and others) to do. Just think. Some were never taught how, some find it uncomfortable, some are biochemically unable to do so, and some just don’t want other people to figure out what they’re really up to.
Heh. Looking at Nisbet’s post, I remember when Sean Carroll used that same magazine cover as evidence that the Uppity Atheist campaign was having an effect: shifting the Overton Window so that frank discussion of godlessness was possible.
Hmmm. “Windows”. . . “Frames”. . . One says yes, the other says no. . . Makes me happy I went into physics and not public policy.
(Of course, magazine covers are chosen by people who are probably in the intellectual upper crust of society, and they might move faster than others, but then again, I haven’t been particularly impressed with Framism’s track record of considering the diversity of people’s personalities.)
Also, what’s the point of filling a panel with people who will all agree with each other? Genuine science thrives on a diversity of opinion, because that diversity means there’s a chance one person might be less wrong than everybody else.
This looks about as intellectually engaging as a panel discussion organized by the Discovery Institute to discuss the place of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in modern society.
PZ,
Your commitment to spinning and twisting my arguments to fit your ideology and to spark a feeding frenzy of anger among your like-minded followers is admirable.
Yet as a fellow atheist, at no point have I argued that we “muzzle the godless.” And that’s definitely not part of the panel at AAAS.
You have every right to run a popular blog that serves as an ideological safe zone for your preferred brand of Don Imus atheism.
On the other hand, with atheist and religious participants at the AAAS panel, our goal is different. It’s to foster cross-cutting discussion, healthy debate, and innovative ideas, something every bit in the tradition of science and free inquiry.
That was pretty hilarious. Which one of you jokers posted the fake Nisbet response?
Wait a moment – Nisbet seems to be suggesting that this blog only permits people who agree with PZ to post, and that its goals exclude discussion, healthy debate, and creative brainstorming.
This would seem to be a clear case of well-poisoning, in addition to being completely unlike the Pharyngula experience I think most of you have had.
Nisbet isn’t ‘framing’, he’s propagandizing. He just gave it a different name and a new hat.
I mean really; that wouldn’t come from the same man that coined the phrase “Atheist Noise Machine.”
I just posted a comment there suggesting that this so-called “condescension” is only a problem precisely because religious people choose to come and be offended by what people like Myers and Dawkins write in their “ideological safe zones”.
There are hundreds of science sites that simply report the science with no editorializing that would offend any religious person except those who see anything that disagrees with their interpretation of the Bible as offensive. There is nothing any scientist can do to help them.
The panel will be discussing a non-issue.
Yet as a fellow atheist, at no point have I argued that we “muzzle the godless.”
Then you might want to rethink this comment over at Pure Pedantry:
“(…) by silencing the Noise Machine and instead taking on visible community leadership roles, we can also start to repair our image problem.”
Matt, your panel has the self-described goal of suggesting that “scientists must adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal, avoiding the pitfall of seeming to condescend to fellow citizens, or alienating them by attacking their religious beliefs”. That’s rather plain language. It’s saying that it’s imperative that scientists avoid attacking religious beliefs. It’s not even a subject that’s open for discussion, but an explicit assumption of the panel — and it is saying that the New Atheists are bad for the cause.
Even worse, you’re going to give a talk that I suspect will be a sloppy hatchet job on the “New Atheists”, and you’ve carefully avoided having a single one of these “New Atheists” on your panel. That’s just plain intellectual cowardice. And it’s so obvious. Have you no shame?
Oh I get it – this is just a ploy to increase the hype before the big smackdown. Like when they have the weigh-in before the big rasslin’ match, and the manager throws a folding chair.
Why does Nisbet believe that religion should be exempt from criticism?
I’ll bet his posse of apologists will be a real hoot.
Fairy tales and woo-woo deserve respect commensurate with what they can explain based on real evidence.
Mumbling priests waving incense burners and eating crackers don’t deserve any more respect than a first rehearsal of a Monty Python skit.
Matt: “Yet as a fellow atheist, at no point have I argued that we “muzzle the godless.” And that’s definitely not part of the panel at AAAS.”
You said “scientists MUST adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal”
What does MUST mean to you?
We should have a rock group called “The Atheist Noise Machine”. A typical show would include Dennett on the drums, PZ Myers dressed as Satan on guitar, Richard Dawkins dressed as Ming the Merciless on vocals, and they’d feed a likeness of Nisbet to a pus-spewing foam and rubber Cthulhu. I guess Hitchens would have to be in the band, too, but he’d be the crazy bassist who trashes rooms after shows.
That would be METAL m/
I’m just curious how the New Atheists interact with people on a daily basis. Matt Nisbet’s suggestion that it is a tactical error to “attack religious belief” is caracterized as equivalent to claiming that “religion should be exempt from criticism.”
The response here seemst to be that it is very important that religion be met with widespread ridicule because all religion is nonsense and y’all it is imperative upon you to make sure that your disrespect is public knowledge.
So, if you meet someone at a party and they mention the church they attend or are wearing a religious symbol do y’all launch into an explanation of the non-rationality of their religion? Or do you seek to find other things you might share and have a conversation based on that (say you find out you are both Charger fans or something)?
I don’t know about the others, but I always bring a ball gag and a horsewhip with me for just such occasions.
Seriously, don’t be ridiculous. The “atheist noise machine” that Nisbet wants to silence is a group of people who write books and blog entries — not a gang of terrorists who attack people for wearing crucifixes. If I’m at a party and someone is wearing religious jewelry or mentions going to church, it is not the subject of a conversation and I let it slide. If the conversation is about religion, if I’m asked my opinion, then I do not compromise but do state my position strongly. What else would you expect? I know the apologists for religion would like me to bow my head and meekly shuffle away lest the Christian decide to dislike zebrafish research, but screw that.
I’m an unapologetic atheist. But, to answer fardels bear-
I don’t wear my lack of faith on my sleeve, and I really don’t give a damn what others believe or don’t believe unless they start pushing their religion on me.
Just because I would most likely try to find common ground with someone in a conversation doesn’t mean that I would meekly nod and smile if they started to tell my how much I should love Jeebus. Or Thor. Or whoever their imaginary friend is.
While I don’t write much on new atheism, I do have a BA in music (voice) and would love to be in the band! I’ve got a great growling low baritone (although my college choir director said I had a cello-like quality, a few years of smoking surely destroyed that)
PZ,
Based on your blog reactions to our original Science article, you’re definitely the expert in authoring sloppy hatchet jobs. As for the paper presented at the AAAS meetings, when submitted to a journal, I will leave it to journal reviewers and editors to decide its’ merits.
The focus of the panel is the public communication of science. The focus is not on promoting atheism or criticism of religion. In your opinion, science and atheism are one and the same. You have a right to express that opinion, but it is definitely not an official or consensus view of organized science.
Given that the panel is about science communication and not about promoting atheism, I didn’t think it was necessary to invite a New Atheist to be on the panel. Moreover, the paper I am presenting is not a criticism of New Atheism but rather an analysis of how it is portrayed in the media and the implications for how the wider public perceives science, scientists, and science-related issues.
Btw, anyone is free to propose a panel for the AAAS meetings. I encourage you to do so in the future.
I can only imagine his (honest) response would be,
“Because if we dare to criticize them, they will come for us, with pitchforks and torches, and they will kill us and take our children.”
Sure, PZ, I figured as much. But I guess what I wonder about is why the “party strategy” doesn’t work on the larger scale? You spend a lot of time on this blog pointing out that atheists aren’t immoral, make good neighbors, obey the law, etc. In other words, there are a lot of shared values between theists and atheists.
So, to engage in a dialog, why not START with the things that are shared between the two communities? Emphasize the things in common and then work toward areas of disagreement. Now, it is certainly true that with some religious folks, the YEC and ID crowd, such a dialog is simply impossible since there are very few shared values at all and they are either completely corrupt of irretrievably dense. But the attempt isn’t to persuade THEM, it is to attempt the hated “mushy middle” who aren’t necessarily hostile to science but are religious. Aren’t those the people that you should be trying to reach? And aren’t they easier to reach by pointing out what you share with them rather than insulting their religious belief?
I promise half a Molly vote to stogoe for comment #24.
Abject Apologists for the Abasement of Science.
fardels bear,
why should PZ, or any of us “new atheists” fail to point out what is false? The belief in supernatural deities has no basis in evidence. What is wrong with pointing that out, or the ridiculousness of so many religious beliefs, or the vile monster that is the monotheistic deity?
Again, it’s “shut up nonbelievers.”
“Don Imus atheism”? Is that intended to be a comparison with “Joe Liebermann agnosticism”?
Am I the only one annoyed by the Nisbet camp’s strawman that “New Atheists claim that science and atheism are one and the same”?
I can’t say I’ve ever seen anyone say or even imply such a thing. Disbelief in deities is a conclusion of the scientific method, as is disbelief in fairies, a “life force”, astrology, and an infinity of other concepts that are not supported by evidence.
I think the strawman comes from a failure to differentiate between science as a body of facts and theories about reality, and science as a method for discovering these facts and theories. Science as a body of knowledge often conflicts with religious beliefs, but such a conflict can be avoided by religious believers if they’re willing to make their gods non-interventionist, superfluous, and nebulous enough. But scientific thinking is by definition opposed to faith.
So in a way the disagreement between the two camps of atheists has to do with how large their definition of science is. The Dawkins/PZ camp is concerned with defending and promoting the scientific method and the body of scientific knowledge, while the Nisbet camp is only concerned with the latter.
O Woe! How do expect to win me over to your side when you keep attacking me like a big fat meanyhead?
Correct. The focus seems to be on promoting religion and criticizing atheism. That’s exactly my point.
It is? Really? You know my opinion better than I do? It’s a little surprising that I think that, since, in my opinion, science is a method and atheism is a conclusion. That makes it very hard for me to equate the two.
The panel is about “Communicating Science in a Religious America”, you’ve stacked it with religion-friendly panelists, you’re going to be presenting a paper on the “New Atheism”, and the first paragraph of the panel description talks about religion in every sentence. But yeah, it’s only about science communication, and the “New Atheist Noise Machine” wasn’t even on your mind when you thought about putting it together. How disingenuous can you get, Matt?
And I know it’s not about promoting atheism, nor would I expect it to be. It’s clearly about promoting religion, though.
Not one critic. Not one. Tsk, tsk.
Funny. You know, if I did propose a panel on, say, the impact of the new atheism on communicating science to the public, I’d try to get a few big name godless types on board with me, and then I’d also try hard to get a few people who urge more accommodation. The session is only worthwhile if you’ve got people honestly trying to address the different views scientists have. But that’s just me. It must be because you can’t do a proper hatchet job without a victim.
Bingo, Janus. You get a kewpie doll for not only making my same point, but doing so at essentially the same instant.
Wait a second… PZ Myers is complaining about someone writing nasty comments on the Internet? That sounds like the height of hypocrisy to me. Buck up, PZ!
No it isn’t “shut up nonbelievers.” In a religious discussion, by all means speak up. But the communication of science is not a religious discussion. Hence, there is no point in discussing religion.
Religious belief is not usually very relevant to talking about science. If you are interested in communicating about science, belief or nonbelief in God is not particularly important. I’m sure PZ doesn’t start his neurobiology class with a long explanation about how the entire class is founded upon there being no God. Because such a discussion is not relevant to the class content.
From the general public’s point of view, they have YECers and IDers telling them that God is necessary for science. Scientists should be telling them that God is irrelevant to science. What PZ and others here seem to argue is that that scientists should play by the rules established by the YECers: that the important question is the existence of God and that is where argument should occur. And folks round here seem to be anxious to play by their rules.
It seems to me to be a better option to change the rules. Insulting religion is a bad idea for science education because religion isn’t relevant to science education. Insulting religion is as needed as insulting someone’s musical taste or favorite baseball team. Religion has nothing to do with science. YEC/IDers are wrong when they claim that it does. Scientists are wrong when they make the same claim as the YEC/IDers
Why should conversations be made to accommodate the embarrassingly ignorant and foolish? I figure if the religious folks don’t like what I have to say, they can take a hike. But, I’m not going to dumb myself down just to protect their delusions. Why should anyone give the veneer that they care about those delusions anyway?
I’m pretty sure PZ was being sarcastic, DAC. Nisbet’s comment shows that he isn’t applying his own tactic.
Besides, I question the dogma that being uncompromising, or even impolite, is so much less effective at convincing people than the opposite approach.
fardels bear wrote:
I’m just curious how the New Atheists interact with people on a daily basis.
———————–
I(atheist) work with a several believers at my workplace. We get
along pretty well, but they know by now not to expect a “gesundheit” or
“god bless you” from me when one of them sneezes.. We’ve worked together
long enough for them to know that I’m a courteous person, but I just decided
around January I wasn’t going to do it anymore.
About a year and a half ago, one of the new people at work asked me about what church
I was going to-
Me: “Um, I haven’t been to church in a while….”
Him:”You don’t believe in god?”
Me:”As a matter of fact, I’m an atheist.”
Him:”Well I guess it takes all kinds I guess…”
No more discussion of religion from him.
Other workers: Have overall good relations with the more open-minded
believers. With the ones that tend to fundamentalism—we don’t
communicate much at all except on work related issues…they
have their circle and us assorted heathens have ours.
Dark Matter: “gesundheit” just means “Good Health.” No religious connotations there. A way to keep the courtesy and lose the religion.
PZ,
I admire your commitment to hard headed dogmatism. And as a rhetorician and polemicist, you are certainly skilled.
1. When I read the hatchet job you did on our Science article, I was at first a bit stunned. Here was a scientist and a professor violating all the norms of his profession, twisting and distorting to fit his ideology and to rabble rouse among his blog readership.
Moreover, in your complaints, you specifically focused on our suggestion at Science that in communicating about the teaching of evolution, the scientific community should emphasize that many religious leaders see no conflict between evolution and faith.
From that, I could only assume that you view the implications of evolutionary science as leading to atheism i.e. science and atheism are one and the same.
2.I don’t understand what you mean by “religious friendly”? By that statement I assume that you think I should have invited someone on the panel who is a “religious enemy”?
That’s an example of the basic flaw in your logic and rhetoric. You write about science and religion in binary terms, as a battle between black and white, reason and unreason, with nothing in between.
In reality, there’s no “anti-science public.” Even among devout Americans, when asked in polls generally about science, they perceive it as promoting social progress and the economy. In fact, these are shared values that almost everyone agrees on, and the central reason why funding for science is so strong in the US.
Sure, several interest groups and leaders have worked against specific science-related issues such as the teaching of evolution. Yet, it’s in part because of the inability of the science community to effectively communicate that these groups have been so successful in building public support for their cause.
Btw, want an example of the dogma and intolerance you are promoting by using your blog as an echo chamber for Don Imus atheism? Note comment #35 in your discussion thread:
Gesundheit means “health”. Not even “good health” literally.
BTW, you don’t need to press “enter” at the end of each line.
Gesundheit means “health”. Not even “good health” literally.
BTW, you don’t need to press “enter” at the end of each line.
Everyone in choir, now: We — wanna — see — blood! — We — wanna — see — blood! — We — wanna — see — blood!
I’m trying to say this “discussion” is amusing to watch from Old Europe.
Everyone in choir, now: We — wanna — see — blood! — We — wanna — see — blood! — We — wanna — see — blood!
I’m trying to say this “discussion” is amusing to watch from Old Europe.
In reality, there’s no “anti-science public.” Even among devout Americans, when asked in polls generally about science, they perceive it as promoting social progress and the economy.
So…Matt Nisbet is not just a coward but a delusional coward. Good to know.
With the exception of a rare reference to “cognitive dissonance”, there doesn’t seem to be much science behind Nisbet’s arguments. If we had any clue how to engineer public psychology, Iraq would be a different place now.
In the end, Nisbet is just voicing his personality. He probably didn’t like punk music, and thinks guys like Imus should get raked over the coals. I don’t see PZ arguing that a certain flavor of argument be stifled.
MK,
For the so-called “reality based community” that hangs out at PZ’s blog, here’s a dose of reality:
Americans, who are overwhelmingly religious, strongly believe in the promise of science to improve life and to grow the economy. Indeed, American culture is defined by scientific and technological optimism.
It’s on a handful of issues that support for science wanes, and that’s where improved public engagement is needed.
Most people – at least in my neck of the woods, I don’t know what it’s like where you may be – perceive ‘science’ as a cross between a) white-coated, wild-haired and -eyed men running around with smoking beakers yelling about “gigawatts” and “flux capacitors”, b) a source of entertaining technological gizmos, and c) a potential threat to sanctified tribal dogmas.
“Religious belief is not usually very relevant to talking about science.”
Exactly, fardels bear. You pretty much just summed up the motto of the New Atheism.
For several of the preceding decades, we atheists have stood quietly by and politely waited for the religious people to figure this out for themselves, and stop sticking their faith into discussions about science.
You know what? It didn’t happen. One might even say that the opposite happened. So, now we’re coming out and stating it plainly. “Hey. Stop pretending that religious beliefs can take the place of science. Seriously, knock it off. It’s a really poor idea, and here’s why.” For that we get accused of attacking religion and bringing it up when it’s not relevant? We’re not the ones who brought it up in the first place.
Caledonian,
You are arguing from anecdote and the bias of personal perception. Read the polling data at Pew and Gallup and the NSF’s Public Survey on Perceptions of Science and Technology. Or better yet, take a look at the peer reviewed literature on public perceptions of science.
I hadn’t *made* an argument yet, Nisbet.
I’m familiar with those studies – and they show startlingly different things when people are asked about specifics instead of generalities.
In reality, there’s no “anti-science public.”
Sure, if you define “science” as technology, which is what most people mean. What the public is largely opposed to, or at least feels squeamish about, is inquiry. They have no idea what science is or how it’s done, but there are many who would echo Ned Flanders: “Science is like a blabber mouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. Well I say that there are some things we don’t wanna know. Important things!”
That attitude is anti science, no matter how much people enjoy low infant-mortality rates and iPods and what have you. Hostility to open inquiry is hostility to science. Period.
Mr. Nisbet,
One of the earlier commenters said it best – there is a substantial gap between support for the body of scientific knowledge (and its fruits) and for the actual process of science. People’s support for what science and engineering have done is nice, but if that comes with a lack of support for the processes that enable such knowledge to be obtained, there is a problem. People don’t understand the processes of science or its limitations, and without that understanding, new knowledge won’t be found, and the benefits of science will disappear. It doesn’t seem like constructive engagement makes sense here, because there isn’t anything useful to gain. The religious people misusing science for their own purposes are likely aware of their logical flaws (or at least, their enablers are) and unwilling to change because it gets them what they want. The religious people not involved don’t necessarily have anything better to say about science than anyone else, and appeal to authority is an antiscientific method. Explaining what science can do and what it can’t would be helpful, and I don’t know how engagement with people irrelevant to this helps science.
The public has a very poor understanding of science, and you want us to accept the results of surveys of their perception of science? I think this might be the root of your problem: you’re seeing that the public likes the egg-headed man in glasses and a white coat and tells them that their toothpaste works wonders, and they like the abstract idea of a cure for cancer, and you’re trying to tell scientists to be more like that avuncular and reassuring figure who fixes things and builds televisions and rocket ships. And we aren’t like that. Never have been, never will be. Don’t want to be.
Scientists are always going to be the possessors of uncomfortable truths, at least as long as people continue to cling to reassuring delusions. Most people like the kind of science that doesn’t require them to think or change their minds — and that’s the kind of science this whole “framing” thing tries to promote.
Nisbet’s panel strikes me as simply pandering to the ignorant and religious. That AAAS would countenance this is amazing to me. Makes me want to reconsider my membership if this is where the organization is headed.
Science is all about open, honest, and diligent inquiry with a willingness, indeed a passion, to changing ideas as new evidence comes in.
Religious dogma is all about “unchanging truths” revealed to us by long dead ignorant men.
How can there possibly be open and free inquiry with people for whom open and free inquiry is heresy? I guess that’s why Nisbet’s posse excludes a good hard-nosed atheist. Better to feed the masses pabulum rather than harder to digest good red meat. Talk about condescending . . . . . .
Don Imus Atheism?
Atheist Noise Machine?
Mr. Nisbet you do seem to have a nack for coining insulting terms and turning many many otherwise openminded people off to whatever you have to say. This normally wouldn’t bother me if it weren’t for your claimed goal of bringing people together.
PZ obviously has different views, and most likely goals, from yours. He looks to be hostile to religion. So when he is (in print alone) one must admit that he’s being consistant. But when you make the case that one shouldn’t be hostile in order to win support, and then are hostile in your very own declarations, what are we to think of you?
Nisbet:
Nisbet, in a later comment:
In your first comment you imply those you disagree with are equivalent to a sexist, racist anti-science moron. This indicates you do not wish to discuss anything with them, thus explaining why your second comment bravely ignores the widespread success of _The Ancestor’s Tale_ .
Michael:
Perhaps Nisbet’s research shows that insults bring people together to attack the insulted party? (Joking aside, none of his research shows that, although I don’t think it tests it either.)
Nope, but that’s a conversation for another day.
If you’re interested in a more nuanced approach to framing, from folks who’ve been working in the field since way before Lakoff became popular, I’ll suggest a couple books:
Talking Politics, by William Gamson
Prime Time Politics, by Charlotte Ryan
Shaping Abortion Discourse in the United States and Germany, by Myra Ferree, William Gamson, Dieter Rucht, and Jurgen Gerards
The Whole World is Watching, by Todd Gitlin
Frame Analysis, by Erving Goffman
Nisbet:
Do you believe ‘ignorant’, ‘foolish’, and ‘delusion’ are equivalent to ‘nappy-headed ho’ (to quote Don Imus)?
Okay Mike. Since it seems I’m the example of intolerance, let’s play a little game. Let’s say I believe that instead of breathing oxygen, human beings actually breathe argon gas. Now, you’ve told me hundreds of times that I am wrong, and I refuse to believe you no matter what you say and how much science you show me. I am right, and you are wrong.
Eventually, you’re going to get kind of annoyed and dismayed at my complete lack of understanding of reality. How long are you going to accommodate my delusions?
Do you see what I’m getting at here?
Yup, Nisbet sure is the master at finding common ground with those who disagree with him. We can see his superior communication and diplomatic- not to mention reasoning- skills at work in this thread. Clearly we must all bow to his superior wisdom.
MAJeff,
All great works on framing, cited in my journal articles, book chapters, and at my blog, and research that supports the conclusions featured there.
Michael and Llewelly,
Hate to break it to you guys, but after witnessing PZ’s hatchet job on our Science article and the like-minded reaction at this echo chamber, I long ago gave up on persuading his loyal readers and commenters.
To post on this blog in an attempt to persuade, would be like going on Sean Hannity’s radio show and convincing his listeners to vote for Al Gore.
My only goal here is to hold PZ, as a professor and a scientist, accountable for any distortions and spin that he might put on future articles, or for that matter, peer-reviewed proposals for panels accepted at AAAS. I also think it’s important to call attention to the dogmatism and intolerance that he breeds.
Btw, if everyone at this blog is so out and proud of their preferred brand of atheism, why doesn’t anyone use their real or full name when posting? Just curious.
Here’s my hatchet job on the Nisbet/Mooney Science paper, if anyone has forgotten. It clearly treats both of them as the personification of evil.
Nisbet’s response is to compare me to Imus and Hannity, and accuse me of intolerance and dogmatism. I don’t think he takes criticism very well.
And, please, whining that some people use pseudonyms, and some go by just their first names? That’s pathetic and more than a little clueless. Some of these people posting under pseudonyms have been doing so for months or even years, and some of them are even supporting Nisbet. I don’t think posting under first_name-MI-last_name is a prerequisite to credibility, or even relevant.
Just saying,
The esprit de corps appears to be “out and proud” about a preferred brand of atheism. Was just curious why that means using a pseudonym.
To remind people: across your posts, you have referred to our suggestions as the “f___ word” and “snake oil,” among the terms that most prominently come to mind.
When are you guys gonna stop feeding this attention whore?
Are you really a blogger? Do you realize this is the internet?
Many people use pseudonyms here because the internet is wide open to millions of people, and they are reasonably reluctant to give those millions access to their private lives. This is common everywhere on the net, not just among atheists, not just among your critics. To act as if this is some kind of strike against just those people who disagree with you, as if they are afraid to speak directly to the face of Matthew C. Nisbet and have invented a cloak of secrecy just to avoid you, is ludicrous.
I’m beginning to feel that “snake oil” is a far too generous term, by the way.
Dr. Nisbet:
I’ve read about all I can take without sticking my two cents in.
POINT #1: My name is Scott Hatfield. That’s my real name. I am NOT an atheist, I’m a theist. I am NOT part of PZ’s ‘echo chamber’. I do, however, have higher regard for his honest doubt than the double-talk that seems to emerge whenever this business of ‘framing’ is raised.
POINT #2: It is unworthy of you, as a non-believer, to bait the other non-believers for their anonymity, especially when both you and PZ are academics in secular institutions, folk that enjoy greater job security and freedom of personal expression than the average fella on the street, insulated from the discrimination that many atheists experience daily.
POINT #3: Your crusade to reform how science should be communicated is conceptually flat. It’s driven not by how science is done, but out of a desire to make science more appealing to the non-scientist. This is the WRONG approach. What is needed is to get non-scientists to think LIKE scientists. That’s hard work, harder than getting some celebrity to pose with a ‘milk mustache’ or croak ‘Be like Mike.’
POINT #4: Your approach would seemingly exclude many greats from scientific history from communicating science. Unpolished folk without press secretaries, who did not suffer fools gladly, people like Galileo, who had the nickname ‘Wrangler’, would have no place in your Properly-Framed Temple of Science, I think.
POINT #5: Finally, if this were truly an academic dispute, there would be no need to be personally exercised. PZ’s view is a minority view, clearly. There is no cabal of atheism, New or otherwise, pulling the puppet strings of the scientific community. Why, then, do you act as if you have received some sort of mortal wound? How can you possibly complain that ‘framing’ hasn’t received a fair hearing when you repeatedly ‘frame’ the discussion in the terms seen on this thread? Physician, heal thy frigging self.
I mean, I’m a theist, and in principle I should be inclined to agree with you, but I just can’t take your arguments seriously, Dr. Nesbit. I’m a high school science teacher, which means I get PAID to communicate science content AND the strategies scientists employ. I know from experience that good pedagogy is not about making everything user-friendly, or making nice-nice with every interest group that’s got a mad-on against science. You probably know that, too, but if this thread is any indication, perspective has gone out the window. What a shame!
Classic ad hoimen.
Interestingly, many of the ‘nicks in use here can be trivially connected to the owners’ place of residence (not just names). Anyone who thinks ‘nicks grant anonymity is dangerously naive.
This whole framing thing is just a projection of Nisbet’s psyche. He’s a guy who’d prefer to type “f______” over “fuck”. That’s OK, but he wants more: for the entire scientific community to type “f______”.
My given name is Ken Hodge. Gawwwd, I feel sooo exposed now.
The noisy atheistic anti Atheist noise machine machine?
What the bloody %$&# does that have to do with a damn thing?
Mr. Nisbet, if you’re criticizing people for not using their real names, how come you don’t post your shoe size? Are you that much of a coward? Huh? Are you?
Let me see if I get this straight. From what I see the folks generally hold to the following three points:
1. The public really has no good idea about what it is to “do science.” They like the gadgets, but have no good idea of the method or practice of science. Teaching them about those things is important. Many of these people are religious.
2. Religion has nothing to do with science. Creationists and fundamentalists who claim it does are mistaken.
3. Attacking religion as irrational is a necessary and important part of teaching the public described in #1 about science.
So, I guess what I need explained to me is how someone can believe both #2 & #3. Especially because most mainline churches already agree with #2.
And does anyone have any good data to show that public ignorance of science is primarily due to religion? As opposed to, say football, Paris Hilton, and American Idol? All of which, I would argue add quite a bit to the nation’s ignorance quotient.
Forget the shoe size, Dan. Let’s just have him get it over with and post his dick measurements.
Nisbet isn’t the biggest clueless asshole on the tubes, but he’s better than average.
Indeeed. Now, when you get a chance, could you please explain this to Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris and Ken Miller? Thanks.
Nisbet is a concern troll. Can we just ignore him now?
I’ve used this handle since I was 12. Hell, you could probably find out most information on me since I’m pretty open about who I am. I only use the [unoriginal] handle for consistency’s sake.
Steve Labonne: We aren’t talking about convincing the YEC/IDers. I take it as given that those people are too dishonest or delusional to be persuaded.
We are talking about convincing the general public to reject the YEC/IDers. I maintain the best way to do that is NOT by attacking religious belief because it really has nothing to do with science.
Folks around here, on the other hand, seem to be convinced that the best way to convince the general public to reject the creationists is to ACCEPT the creationist argument that religion and science are at odds with one another. And I don’t see it as a good move if you are serious about persuading the general public about the nature of science.
Football, Paris Hilton, and American Idol promote their own foolishness, but they don’t try to convince people that faith is an alternative path to knowledge, and they aren’t regarded as somehow privileged and exempt from both taxes and criticism.
Dr. Nisbet, (“Mr.” wasn’t a slight by the way, just customary until I saw your actual title and was reminded) as far as not wishing any longer to sway the beliefs of this particular “noise chamber” as you put it, I’m perfectly fine with that. But your widely read essays seem to include such non-framing-friendly terms as well. Therefore, it’s not simply this particular blog, or those like it, that read your ire and could be inclined to call it hypocracy. It’s the general public.
Again, this isn’t a problem if your intention is to denigrade, ridicule and reduce the positive social view of this group. Fine, no hypocracy in that. But, in that case are you not doing exatly what PZ is attempting to do to christians; ridicule, defame and reduce their social standing, save in your case the target happens to be PZ’s brand of atheists?
It would seem that the only difference between PZ and yourself in the respect of insult and ridicule is that you have different targets. Having closely followed the framing debate, I have yet to see framing work in any real life situation. It looks great on paper but seems to have no spine. While the atheist noise machine, if you will, has done a remarkable job of getting the message of science and atheism out to the a broader audience.
So, in short, you have little room to accuse PZ of unmannerly tactics while you yourself employ them for much the same reasons. I would much rather see you simply come out and say that this group (loud atheists) is a detriment and that framing should be reserved for those you with to sway. Then yours and PZ’s dispute will simply fall to evidence. So until there is evidence that the ideas of framing create more palpable social change than being open and honest about religion in print, then I have to say that I agree with PZ.
No echo chamber needed.
No PZ, Paris Hilton does not promote an alternative path to knowledge, but I’ve yet to see any evidence from you or anyone else that the religion promotes itself as a separate path to scientific knowledge.
Sure, the Fundamentalists say that “faith is an alternative path to knowledge” on scientific matters but most religions simply do not do that. Every mainline church has come out clearly that creationism is not part of their religious belief system. The mainline churches file amicus briefs AGAINST the creationists in legal cases, for cryin’ out loud.
You, on the other hand, agree with the fundies that religion is an alternative to science. You are playing by THEIR rules. You are never going to convince the fundies of anything, they are lost. They are not the audience for pro-science arguments, the vast majority of Americans are.
So I ask you again, what is your attitude towards the NON-creationists- Nisbet’s heroes- who seek to delude the public into believing that science supports religion?
Anyway, the claim that science does not conflict with religion is crap to begin with, for reasons that have nothing to do with creationism. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the great majority of religious believers are unavoidably committed by their beliefs to substance dualism, which is a total non-starter scientifically.
PZ,
It has nothing to do with criticism of me. Rather, it appears that for many, the esprit de corps at this particular blog is to be out and proud about a preferred brand of atheism. Making statements about how stupid religious people are is part of that brand.
Therefore, given that a popular belief at Pharyngula is that it is so important to speak “truth to religion,” I’m not sure why a real name wouldn’t be used in posting comments. It seems inconsistent to me.
One of the effects of the Internet is that radicalism is fueled by anonymity, a trend I observe in play at this blog.
I’m just calling attention to the reality of what goes on inside the echo chamber that you have created.
Since I think that science and religion are unrelated, I obviously would disagree with anyone who claims that science supports religion.
I don’t think that many scientists have the first clue about arguments about the mind/body split, substance dualism, emergent properties or a host of other deep, knotty philosophical problems. Nor do I think that we need to pledge allegiance to a particular solution to those philosophical problem in order to function as a scientist.
In which science classes did folks confront and solve the problem of substance dualism? In what chemistry classes did budding chemists contrast Cartesian dualism with say, Spinoza’s double-aspect theory? None, I would think.
And doesn’t your claim that the religious MUST be committed to substance dualism preclude the existence of a religious scientist? And haven’t there been thousands and thousands of religious scientists? So how, exactly does substance dualism preclude people from being scientists?
Boy, it’s such a joy dealing with people who understand neither the subject, nor the topic, nor the arguments involved.
Yeah,Cal. That’s telling ’em!
I know this will come as something of a shock to you, Nesbit, but sometimes when a great many people agree on something, it’s not because of social forces or branding, and it’s not because they got together and decided to create a consensus.
There’s plenty of creationist godbots, that many of us, would rather not expose ourselves to harrassment from.
I would say the exact same things if my last name was attached.
Most of us don’t think people are stupid because they are religious.
Just deluded. There’s a difference.
You don’t get it, fardels. Science puts great stock on clearly formulating ideas and rigorously exploring their consequences. Most of the concepts of philosophy don’t survive that.
Dualism of any kind violates basic requirements of interaction. Scientists noticed that ages ago. Philosophers, who are a great deal more proud of their sophistication and a great deal less sophisticated than scientists, by-and-large don’t comprehend the problem associated with philosophical dualism. In most cases, they don’t care – they make arguments not to be correct, but to impress others.
As the delusion becomes more and more obvious, the stupid and the deluded become functionally equivalent. How much thought is necessary to see through a delusion before we can conclude that only a stupid person would be subject to it?
Notice the switch? The original comment referred to religion representing itself as a path to knowledge, and fardels switched ‘knowledge’ with ‘scientific knowledge’.
Bad news, fardels: there’s only one kind of knowledge. And religion has no claim on it.
So there is a brand of atheism (Coke or Pepsi?) that thinks religious people are stupid and it appears to you Matthew C Nisbet that some people that share this common idea post here.
You are a frickin genius Matthew C. Nisbet (Although really what are you trying to pull by hiding your middle name?).
Also according to Mattew C. Nisbet there is a popular belief here at Pharyngula. What is that belief? Why it is the belief that you should be factual and tell the truth. Again you are a frickin genius Matthew C. Nisbet. So because it is a popularly held opinion (not belief Matthew C. Nisbet) that one should take evidence into account, it follows that one shouldn’t post anonymously. You are a frickin genius Matthew C. Nisbet. Oh wait, no that last part doesn’t follow. My, I mean your bad.
Also thanks to Matthew C. Nisbet I know that this is a radical echo chamber of a blog, fueled by rampant anonymity.
How do I know this? Because the frickin genius Matthew C. Nisbet told me so.
So the lesson is that if you share similar ideals (like evidence based thinking), that someone like fricken genius Matthew C. Nisbet finds distasteful, you will be framed as a brand of cowardly radical sycophant fueled by the rampant anonymity of the internet.
Fricken genius!
My only goal here is to hold PZ, as a professor and a scientist, accountable for any distortions and spin that he might put on future articles, or for that matter, peer-reviewed proposals for panels accepted at AAAS. I also think it’s important to call attention to the dogmatism and intolerance that he breeds.
holy projections, batman.
funny, I thought that the AS in AAAS stood for “Advancement of Science”, not advancement of science only when it suits the religious.
aside from the idiotic name calling, the ONLY point worth repeating in all of this is that a panel discussion is NEVER supposed to be a collection of yes men, unless it occurs within the purview of a Disco Institute function.
how on earth is that supposed to help further the advancement of science??
oh and…
Nisbet’s a weenie.
:p
.Making statements about how stupid religious people are is part of that brand.
funny, but I can’t seem to find where PZ used that in any of his arguments as to what the flaws are in your current approach, Nisbit.
do you paint the contributor with the brush used by the posters?
tell us, do you have a blog, where we could look at the responses, and judge you by them, eh?
you really are a weenie.
Yup, always raggin’ on those notchy-hatted hoes.
Are the people who believe the gold-foil woman is somehow producing gold foil from nothing stupid?
What about the people who think the David Blaine actually levitates?
What about the people who invest in schemes to build perpetual motion machines?
If none of these things are what it means to be ‘stupid’, what exactly DOES that word mean? Is anyone ever stupid, or are they always ignorant and misinformed?
The results from such a panel appear to be merely delaying the inevitable. Instead of advancing science, they are letting the fear of the ignorant INTERFERE with the advancement of science. Nisbit at some level recognizes this isn’t really an issue of religion, but really IS an issue of “stupid”; or better, “willfull ignorance”. However, religion IS the enabler of such ignorance in most cases, inarguably, and plans intended to try to reduce the levels of fear in the ignorant will inevitably fail, based on past experience.
Watching this issue for a couple of decades now has begun to convince me that it might be well past the time where the religious question should be answered by placation; at least superficially, it starts to look too much like how the dems have reacted to the war in Iraq, and the mishandling of just about everything by the current administration. How long do we play the “yeah, sure, compartmentalization works, just look at Miller” idea before the cracks get too large to cover up any more? How much longer will the “weaning” tactic work?
It might be time to say “Down in Front!”; let those who only truly represent the advancement of SCIENCE push this issue forward; continue to shift the framing towards that consistent with the scientific method itself, and for those who preach “compartmentalization works!” to be the ones to zip it.
might still be too early for that, but it’s definetly too late to continue organized “placation”.
But that’s the worst of it – compartmentalization doesn’t work. It has tends to creep into other uncomfortable situations where you don’t want to confront an unpleasant conflict – cutting corners is disturbingly habit-forming, and compartmentalizing one’s beliefs about the world cuts all of science’s corners.
But that’s the worst of it – compartmentalization doesn’t work.
sorry, I guess I wasn’t being clear enough, but yeah, that was a point I was also trying to make. I guess the sarcasm didn’t come through well enough with the “before the cracks get too large to cover up any more? ” reference.
Miller and Collins have taught that lesson publically, as far as I can see. It’s been remarkable to read their latest books.
I tend to think in his studies of communications, Nisbit might have wanted to take a few more pysch courses.
or paid better attention, maybe.
but hey, I must just be one of those “new atheists” calling him stupid, or something.
oh well.
You have every right to run a popular blog that serves as an ideological safe zone for your preferred brand of Don Imus atheism.
i just noticed Nisbit said this.
LOL I guess he forgot he also has an open blog.
Is his blog a “safe zone” for Don-Imus Atheism too?
sure seems like it, based on most of the comments there on this subject…
:p
Of Mister Matthew C. Nisbet, as a fair number here have observed, perhaps best summarized by Michael (#53) who says, “But when you make the case that one shouldn’t be hostile in order to win support, and then are hostile in your very own declarations, what are we to think of you?”
Indeed. And this is the COMMON state with minds of this ilk, who love to cast the aspersion without ever taking responsibility for their own hostility.
Let’s get this straight once and for all: we all know who started it, and even why. As PZ says, “We already know what they’re going to conclude.”
Dish it out if you really must, Matthew C. Nisbet, but an honorable fellow should be able to accept like-for-like parry from his opponents like a gentleman, nay? Let’s not get TOO carried away with our personal sense of privilege and elitism, shall we?
Matthew C. Nisbet said:
Hate to break it to you guys, but after witnessing PZ’s hatchet job on our Science article and the like-minded reaction at this echo chamber, I long ago gave up on persuading his loyal readers and commenters.
To post on this blog in an attempt to persuade, would be like going on Sean Hannity’s radio show and convincing his listeners to vote for Al Gore.
Sorry, did I just hear that right? Is Matthew C. Nisbet suggesting that there are certain groups of people that it’s not necessary to frame an argument for?
Matthew C. Nisbet also said:
Btw, if everyone at this blog is so out and proud of their preferred brand of atheism, why doesn’t anyone use their real or full name when posting? Just curious.
OMG. Did he just call me a fraidy cat?
Sorry, did I just hear that right? Is Matthew C. Nisbet suggesting that there are certain groups of people that it’s not necessary to frame an argument for?
why yes, I believe you did.
shocker, i say!
for someone with a PhD in communications, I’ve yet to see a poorer performance presented in the area of communications than that of Nisbet in this thread.
quite remarkable.
Your URL there is busted, PZ. You wanted this one, right?
thanks, anton. yeah, reviewing that again, it’s hard to disagree with most of what PZ is saying there, and it certainly wasn’t the rant that Nisbet painted it as.
again, I find it very odd that someone putting together a panel on communications, with a PhD in the subject, appears to be so horribly bad at it in practice.
fardels bear,
Some of them do. Meanwhile, according to polls endorsed by Chris Mooney himself:
“42% of Americans reject the notion that life on earth evolved and believe instead that humans and other living things have always existed in their present form….Moreover, in the same poll, 21% of those surveyed say that although life has evolved, these changes were guided by a supreme being. Only a minority, about a quarter (26%) of respondents, say that they accept evolution through natural processes or natural selection alone.”
and
“Many of those who reject natural selection recognize that scientists themselves fully accept Darwin’s theory. In the same 2006 Pew poll, nearly two-thirds of adults (62%) say that they believe that scientists agree on the validity of evolution.”
and
“When asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific finding.”
So there’s your evidence. A majority of Americans endorse creationism/ID, despite widespread awareness that these positions are rejected by scientists, because they think religion is a separate and superior path to scientific knowledge.
Haven’t seen anyone give #66 the kudos I think it’s due. Wrote Scott Hatfield:
Fantastic comment. I suppose the “OM” after his name implies that I’m late to the party in this respect, but Scott just took a big leap up this atheist’s personal list of “My Favorite Theists.”
they think religion is a separate and superior path to scientific knowledge.
and therein lies the exact problem that should be addressed by the more intelligent and educated among the religious, within their OWN “panel discussions”. I think, in fact, that there are some who are starting to take the lead and adopt the risk on that, judging by cases like that of Richard Colling.
it really isn’t an issue that can or should be addressed by scientists, and attempting to do so can only end up in more confusion, not less.
Caledonian,
I think Martin Gardner has managed it. He’s a fideist deist who believes in an afterlife, but is quite adamant that there’s absolutely no evidence for his position whatsoever–he believes purely because it comforts him to believe. And it really doesn’t seem to have impacted his skepticism or ability to follow the scientific method anywhere, so far as I can see.
That said, I’ve never encountered any other believer who could completely NOMA themselves in that way. I’d be interested to meet some.
Anton Mates (#102):
Reading that post again, I’m surprised (and impressed) with how sympathetic PZ was to the general concept of framing. He conceded all sorts of intermediate points about ways that science can and should appropriately be framed for the general public.
For Nisbet (#61, echoing the same point in #23 and #39) to call that post a “hatchet job on our Science article” just destroys any pretense he has to honesty… or credibility.
Sadly, it’s now kind of assumed that Scott will be reasonable and forthright, so kudos are deemed unnecessary. If he’d go endorse wife-burning or exorcisms or something for a few months, like a proper theist, then a post like the above would merit great praise. :-)
Reading that post again, I’m surprised (and impressed) with how sympathetic PZ was to the general concept of framing.
Absolutely. A “hatchet job”? Is he serious? I would have thought that a publishing scientist would have a thicker skin than that.
Untrue. Every single religion claims that faith (and revelation) is an alternative path to knowledge. It’s one of the defining features of them, along with the quite specific piece of pseudo-knowledge that there’s one or more superbeings running the show, again in some fashion over which they are often specific on no credible evidence whatsoever.
The fact of the matter is that the scientific approach is the only valid one for the acquisition of knowledge of any sort – even if not all of it is called scientific knowledge as such and not all the practitioners of it recognise the aspects of the scientific method that they too employ. Evidence, logic and testing for possible falsehood are core concepts of finding out stuff (not just stuff labelled “scientific”) and knowing that you’ve found out something real. Faith, by definition, is in complete opposition to this – and is the core of religion.
So what? They haven’t come out and said that faith, revelation and authority are not part of their religious belief systems – and those are the genuinely damning (anti-scientific) things about them. Creationism is merely one symptom.
When this topic comes up, you have you to pull out the old
flowchart.
I wonder how unusual Scott really is? I’m Catholic and have never found it interfering with my acceptance, appreciation or understanding of science (caveat: I don’t accept the abortion/stem cell etc. dogma-it’s unscientific). Faith is faith (and not susceptible to logical proof) and totally separate from what can be seen, examined, postulated and theorized about the real world. Good science is to be evaluated by the standards of the scientific method. Faith is an emotional choice and can provide comfort in trying times, even if illogical-which is it’s bottom line value for me. I don’t require anyone to share my faith and seriously oppose any legislation based on any religion. Separation of church and state should be stricly followed. In this case, I don’t see how my faith disadvantages me or anyone else.
Notice that Shelley has to pick and choose among Catholic dogmas (something that would make the current Pope wish to cast Shelley into the outer darkness) in order to maintain a plainly uneasy truce. I’m afraid that this is nothing more or less than a typical example of the kind of intellectual laxity required in order for the truce to hold. People can do and have done excellent science while in such a state, but I happen to believe this is possible only because they are surrounded and supported by a larger scientific community which is willing to follow ideas wherever they lead.
Dr Nisbet wrote:
Just an amazing coincidence, then?
It almost looks like you are trying to chance the subject by turning on the commenters?
If this is just an echo chamber, any speaking truth to religion would have to happen elsewhere, right?
Wrong. There’s nothing special about the subjects of faith that makes them invulnerable to logical analysis, to proof/disproof and the balance of evidence.
I love how you inherently acknowledge that your religious beliefs have no bearing on the real world.
What about the bit in the scientific method that says hypotheses have to stand or fall based on their strengths and weaknesses alone, and not our emotional attachments to them?
What about the part that requires us to treat as true only that which can be rationally justified?
Where you don’t see a problem, I see a glaring failure to apply the method – and I think I can support my position better than you can.
I feel less and less like a primary participant in this debate and more and more like a referee.
PZ, Matt, can we please save at least some of our energy for the Minnesota debate, and can we keep it friendly?
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2007/09/alright_nisbet_myers_back_in_y.php
Is anyone ever stupid, or are they always ignorant and misinformed?
Paraphrased: “Pray allow me to despise those who aren’t as smart as me!”
It’s chumming the waters, Chris. Nothing wrong with getting the feeding frenzy started a little ahead of time.
I don’t know Dr. Nisbet and will not offer an assessment of his personality or motives, but I will say this, from experience: Complaints about anonymity on comment threads are rarely little more than argumentum ad hominem.
There are many reasons why some people maintain some degree on anonymity on forums like these which have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the commenter is “proud” of their position. Please. An argument that rests on the implication that anonymity obscures ulterior motives or reveals cowardice is – in the absence of evidence of ulterior motives or cowardice – weak.
I could post as “Kseniya Nikolaevna Kirilenko” and thereby dodge the accusation of anonymity, but would it make my arguments more compelling or true? (Probably not – they’d have to be compelling and true to begin with!) Furthermore, how would anyone know if that was even my real name without my divulging even more personal information?
Shelley, you have a point and I think you’re correct to conclude that Scott isn’t all that unusual out in the world, in that there are many good scientists and science teachers who are not atheists. However, he is unusual here – not just on Pharyngula, but on the ‘net battlegrounds of Evo and ID/Creationism, where a disprortionately large number of theists are vocal opponents of evolutionary theory, who are afraid to embrace the concept that they are the product of a natural process with which they cannot converse, and who try to persuade people like PZ and Scott that the human appendix is the highest achievement of an omniscient and omnipotent creative entity.
Maybe, as a regular Pharyngulian, I’m myopic about that, but that’s how it looks from here. FWIW.
I don’t know Dr. Nisbet and will not offer an assessment of his personality or motives, but I will say this, from experience: Complaints about anonymity on comment threads are rarely little more than argumentum ad hominem.
There are many reasons why some people maintain some degree on anonymity on forums like these which have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the commenter is “proud” of their position. Please. An argument that rests on the implication that anonymity obscures ulterior motives or reveals cowardice is – in the absence of evidence of ulterior motives or cowardice – weak.
I could post as “Kseniya Nikolaevna Kirilenko” and thereby dodge the accusation of anonymity, but would it make my arguments more compelling or true? (Probably not – they’d have to be compelling and true to begin with!) Furthermore, how would anyone know if that was even my real name without my divulging even more personal information?
Shelley, you have a point and I think you’re correct to conclude that Scott isn’t all that unusual out in the world, in that there are many good scientists and science teachers who are not atheists. However, he is unusual here – not just on Pharyngula, but on the ‘net battlegrounds of Evo and ID/Creationism, where a disprortionately large number of theists are vocal opponents of evolutionary theory, who are afraid to embrace the concept that they are the product of a natural process with which they cannot converse, and who try to persuade people like PZ and Scott that the human appendix is the highest achievement of an omniscient and omnipotent creative entity.
Maybe, as a regular Pharyngulian, I’m myopic about that, but that’s how it looks from here. FWIW.
Where you don’t see a problem, I see a glaring failure to apply the method – and I think I can support my position better than you can.
I see a glaring failure to recognize where science ends and mere logic begins. There is no ‘method’, as far as I can see, in the sense of a single unitary approach to problem-solving. Yet, even if there was, it doesn’t follow that same is definitive for all tasks. You can exclude Gardner’s fideism if you want, but if so you manifestly exclude the qualitative aspect of experience that said position seeks to preserve. Even Caledonian, it seems, can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and we don’t ‘explain’ eggs by defining them as ‘that which we must break in order to make an omelette.’
Oops, bad editing strikes again:
“are rarely little more than” should be “are rarely more than”
Ichthyic:
When Nisbet is not writing about ‘New Atheists’, he displays superb communication skills, and explains many principles of communication quite well. It’s only when Dawkins or PZ is mentioned that he takes leave of his senses.
There are many (probably the majority) otherwise intelligent, well-educated people who are nonetheless subject to ‘triggers’ which make them behave irrationally.
Next thing you know you’re going to tell us that, despite our pretentions otherwise, humans aren’t all that rational, or are at least only partially so.
Perhaps I’m completely misreading this. But it seems to me that you just said “I’m Catholic, and I accept science, except for the parts I don’t accept. But that’s OK, because they’re not really science anyway.”
As I said, I could be misreading you completely. But there’s an important point in there nonetheless. One can’t talk about science with an evangelical fundamentalist for long without coming across 1 Tim 6:20, which reads:
Leaving aside the fact that the word ‘science’ is a mistranslation, this passage sheds some light on how fundamentalists really view science. There’s real science, which usually covers basic stuff like Newtonian mechanics, atomic theory, and so on. It typically also covers some form of creationism.
Then there’s false science. That almost always covers evolution, plus whatever other parts of mainstream science the person in question rejects. More importantly, it usually covers some of the scientific method itself; you’ll often find methodological naturalism crop up in this context, for example.
And that’s why Nisbet can honestly claim that the public is broadly pro-science. More accurately, the public is broadly pro-(whatever they think the word science means). That’s a very different playing field.
I read it the other way, as rejecting the church’s dogma as unscientific
And on another note, I don’t post under my full name for the blatantly fucking obvious reason that a simple Google search on said name reveals considerably more information than I’m willing to share. The full physical address of my place of work, for one.
Yes, that could well be it. I already had most of my above post in mind when I reached Shelley’s comment, so my reading of it might well have been coloured by that.
I used to think Nisbet was simply an incompetent communicator trying to pass himself off as something he’s not. Then I thought he was simply intellectually dishonest. But consider a third possibility: Matthew C. Nisbet is a sklled communicator, and he knows his audience well, and his audience is not us.
Cui bono?
Sorry-gone for a while.
I do see the church’s position on some issues as unscientific – this is hardly unknown in the history of the church and they usually catch up some decade or century.
“What about the bit in the scientific method that says hypotheses have to stand or fall based on their strengths and weaknesses alone, and not our emotional attachments to them?”
A lot of people on the board seem to feel a split between applying the scientific method the “real” world and having an emotional attachment to certain beliefs is an unreasonably difficult state to maintain.
I and others don’t find it so. I was an agnostic and then an atheist for a great period of my life. After re-evaluation, I decided it didn’t hurt my overall lifeview to allow religious feelings, if I found comfort there.
People and life are certainly not always logical – a little amibiguity can make life more interesting.
Shelley,
I see your point, and I have a friend who converted to Catholicism in adulthood. I always kept her at a distance because of that, and particularly because of the church’s vile stance toward me as a gay man. Once we sat down and discussed that she rejected church teaching on that, our relationship became closer.
Having said that, though, the “faithful” will always have to work harder to gain my trust. The belief in god may be comforting, but the concept of hell will constantly make that god a monster in my eyes. While a Hitler or a Pol Pot or a Stalin or a Pinochet may belong there, your church says I do as well–indeed it uses the word evil to describe my sexual activity, the same word that most of us would apply the dictators I mentioned.
Anyone who believes that shit just ain’t gonna be welcome in my life until they demonstrate they’ve overcome the hatred, even if they accept some of the superstition. Your faith may not be the same as your religion, but your religion is poisonous.
feelings…
I had amazing emotional, cathartic feelings upon hearing Mahler’s first symphony at the Concertgebouw. (honestly, a dream come true) Why is it necessary to ascribe such feelings to some mythical being? Why can’t the feelings be just that, intense–even cathartic–feelilngs? Why attribute them to something for which there is no evidence? What’s the point?
No, we don’t “feel” that. We hold that the two concepts are logically contradictory, and it is impossible to both apply the scientific method and keep certain beliefs.
Why can’t you acknowledge what the arguments are, instead of twisting them into strawmen?
Actually, there is no such place. It’s ALL science.
And you teach science, professionally? I shudder for your students.
Leaving out the modifier “as far as I can see”, your statement is wrong. Leaving it in, you are wrong. The concept isn’t “problem-solving”, but in recognizing what sorts of claims about truth are valid and justified, which is necessary for solving problems in a systematic and intentional way but is not itself problem-solving.
This doesn’t even make sense – it’s devoid of meaning.
That paraphrase is wrong on two counts.
1: It’s not “who aren’t as smart as me”, but “who choose to make themselves stupid”.
2: We don’t need your permission to despise your hypocrisy, arrogance, and willful stupidity.
Nisbet should be beaten with a large kipper every time he appears in public, for equating Richard Dawkins with Ann Coulter.
Can we also lash him with a small herring for comparing me to Don Imus and Sean Hannity?
Mike seems to have learned the Frame and Reframe stategies very well. He did it here to this blog on this post. Imagine the framing from the position of a salesman. He is trying to sell something and we are not buying. Simple as that. But he will not let it at that. He must frame any non-buy in terms that he can later use to his advantage. He merely points out how this blog post was nothing more than mistreatment of his ideals.
What Where Why How Who does religion or the lack thereof have anything at all to do with science? It is a False frame that accommodations must be made for religion or the lack thereof. It doesn’t. Simple as that.
We hear of the all too pervasive religious discussion insinuating itself into science. There is no need to accept such malicious, deceitful, and arrogant thuggery. (Use this framing of it as often as you like and pretty soon we have framed the religious as malicious thugs).
Caledonian:
Well, yeah; that’s the point. We’re talking about compartmentalization. Gardner explicitly admits that the scientific method does not support his theological position; he rejects the result of the method in that one instance; yet he applies it in pretty much every other instance. In other words, he has compartmentalized successfully.
The scientific method forbids compartmentalization. So by compartmentalizing successfully, he has failed.
Shelley,
I can’t really agree or disagree until I know more about your personal position on, for instance, bodily resurrection and various Biblical miracles. But in my experience, virtually every believer who assents to the above–and honestly believes it, so far as I can see–nonetheless ends up holding a contra-scientific position on some real-world issue.
Except, I should say, for those who identify as “Christians” but really turn out to be atheists/agnostics who find the literary figure of Jesus an admirable and instructive one. But I wouldn’t really call them believers.
Caledonian,
And compartmentalization requires occasionally flouting the prohibitions of the scientific method, so by failing, he has succeeded. Round and round….
But your original argument was that compartmentalization fails for a different reason: namely, because “it tends to creep into other uncomfortable situations where you don’t want to confront an unpleasant conflict – cutting corners is disturbingly habit-forming, and compartmentalizing one’s beliefs about the world cuts all of science’s corners.”
I maintain that Gardner, possibly alone among humanity, has managed to compartmentalize without developing a general habit of doing so.
He’s failed at science, which is the point. He’s also failed at religion, because he’s not actually holding on to those all-important beliefs.
But if you want to emphasize how he’s succeeded at compartmentalizing, be my guest.
Okay, so he’s managed to confine a delusional system to a particular and narrow topic.
What kind of accomplishment is being very skilled at driving oneself insane?
I usually don’t post comments here for this very reason: I never have enough time to respond quickly.
But my statement still stands. If Nisbet chooses to place himself at odds with “out and proud” atheists (the first moniker said by Nisbet that I agree with) and employ scathing verbiage in the process, then I say Wonderful! But please do save the rhetoric towards PZ, or any other vocal atheist, about how they should tone down their own arguments.
So by all means, be scathing, and lets move past this argument about decorum and focus on who’s tactics produce the most results towards their goals. And as I said before, the out and proud group seems to be rolling along quite well towards making positive views of science and atheism common topics in the public forum.
I also want to say that I still have great respect for Chris Mooney and I look forward to the debate.
Except the beliefs don’t seem to be all-important to him; he says he holds them primarily because they cheer him up.
Seems to make himself happier, without impacting his relationship with the real world. It’s not something I think I could do, or particularly want to do, but it’s a pretty impressive feat of mental gymnastics.
Likewise, if someone managed to convince themselves they were always about to win the lottery, yet somehow this didn’t impact their financial good sense in practice, I’d have to give them points for effort.
There are many (probably the majority) otherwise intelligent, well-educated people who are nonetheless subject to ‘triggers’ which make them behave irrationally.
oh, yes, that’s an excellent point, and really pretty much what I was thinking too (considering I probably have more triggers than Nisbet!). Still, since the subject at hand IS the nature and composition of the paper in Nature, and the the AAAS discussion panel, it still rather behooves someone who is purportedly taking the lead in this specific area to hone their communication skills such that they can control their own “triggers”.
I mean, if it was a stupid thread where someone was dissing his mama, or similar, I certainly wouldn’t fault poor trigger control.
but this is a serious area of debate, and letting one’s “triggers” affect one to such a degree doesn’t really bode well, and actually becomes supporting evidence in one theory as to why he refused to include alternative viewpoints on the panel:
he was afraid of triggering his own emotional responses, and lose any chance of having any kind of productive discussion.
so, I still think there is reason for concern, based on his behavior here.
I think Martin Gardner has managed it
people often can accomplish herculean feats of twisted behavior, and maintain the appearance of complete sanity. that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a healthy model to follow.
compartmentalization should be considered to be the best one might accomplish aside from really delving into the detailed history of how one has developed a particular set of worldviews, and then attempt to deconstruct them. It’s like a balancing act one has to constantly put energy into in order to maintain.
I’m not saying it isn’t a common thing; Indeed, I think the vast majority of people do in fact, compartmentalize (myself included, to a lesser extent at least).
still doesn’t make it the ideal solution, though. Like using a wad of chewing gum to plug a hole in a radiator.
…no offense to cale, of course, who has already pretty much detailed the dangers of compartmentalization as far as I am aware of them.
Or a jetpack. O’course, look how well that turned out for the hero…
Here’s a fine example of frame-free troof tellin’.
This one’s for you, “Dr.” Nisbet!
———————————————
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2448854.ece
September 14, 2007
Hindus up in arms as god clashes with government
Ashling O’Connor in Bombay
Thousands of furious Hindus took to the streets after the Indian Government claimed that the epic that forms the cornerstone of their religious beliefs was a work of fiction.
Police used teargas to disperse crowds in the central state of Madhya Pradesh, where protesters accused the Government of blasphemy.
The row erupted when the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), an arm of the Culture Ministry, told the country’s highest court that there was no evidence to support the existence of the characters in the Ramayana, a revered ancient text. Nor was there any historical record that Lord Ram, one of Hinduism’s most popular heroes, was a real person or that any of the events in the epic took place.
The highly controversial claim formed part of statements submitted to the court in support of a plan to dredge a channel between India and Sri Lanka that would allow cargo ships a faster route around the tip of the sub-continent, cutting 36 hours off a typical passage.
Many Hindus oppose the £250 million scheme because the proposed shipping lane would demolish a submerged stretch of limestone shoals that Hindus believe was constructed by Lord Ram to rescue his kidnapped wife, Sita. They want the Ram Setu to be declared an ancient protected monument. The controversy over the fate of Ram Setu – Adam’s Bridge as it is known to nonbelievers – has dragged on for years, but is reaching a climax.
someone mentioned Nisbet comparing PZ to Ann Coulter.
that being the case, it would seem appropriate to compare Nisbet to the Vancome Lady:
On fideism and compartmentalization:
The fideist is like the bigamist who, behind the other’s back, tells each wife that he loves her the most, assuring her friends that the other wife is only an acquaintance, while expecting kudos for honesty.
Caledonian writes:
1: It’s not “who aren’t as smart as me”, but “who choose to make themselves stupid”.
2: We don’t need your permission to despise your hypocrisy, arrogance, and willful stupidity.
I sit corrected. As always, your bon mots are my best evidence, not my attempts to provoke a response that would actually lead to my learning something. Which, by the way, you obliged me with…..
However, I have questions: suppose I were to abandon my religious commitments, and admit that your argument rules the day. Am I expected to believe that you would cease to regard me as willfully stupid?
I kind of doubt that. You would continue to play the part of the long-suffering misanthrope, quick to heap scorn on those who might be your inferior, willfully stupid or otherwise–right?
Also, I didn’t mean to imply that you need anyone’s permission to be yourself. It was just a turn of phrase, meant to tweak your penchant for aphorism. A pity that my attempt at homage was buried in a characteristic squirt of misplaced spleen, old Scot. Pray excuse me, but I must now go and willfully reduce my intelligence….:)
You’ve never explained how it is that your religious beliefs survived the gauntlet of skepticism that you so frequently praise. Furthermore, you’ve made vague assertions about your religious beliefs being beyond the bounds of scientific inquiry, which is only possible if they’re incoherent and devoid of meaning.
If you cease doing a willfully stupid thing, would we stop regarding you as willfully stupid? Gee, let me think…
Sheesh!
I’ve come late to this post, but got sucked in by the comments.
Before reading this thread, I’d not heard of Dr. Matthew C. Nisbet.
Now, I have a somewhat jaundiced opinion of him.
So it goes.
The fideist is like the bigamist who, behind the other’s back, tells each wife that he loves her the most, assuring her friends that the other wife is only an acquaintance, while expecting kudos for honesty.
damn, Ken, that’s perfection.
I’m adding that to my collection of quotes.
Hey, I’d be more easily persuaded. Who am I to argue with someone who, going by their name, is an elite black-ops assassin? You’d probably seduce me and then kill me with a Pez dispenser just for kicks.
When you’re a deist fideist unaffiliated with any organized religion, I think it’s more like having a wife you claim to love the most, while you’ve got a mistress on the side whom you’re openly keeping around only to assuage your midlife crisis.
Of course, very few mistresses would stand for that, unless they were well compensated. I doubt Gardner is well-beloved amongst believers.
I could say the same about wives, and it would be equally true.
The real issue, though, is that the person having this affair is also an advocate for family values and publically supports fidelity in marriage.
Caledonian writes:
You’ve never explained how it is that your religious beliefs survived the gauntlet of skepticism that you so frequently praise….
Fair enough. I’ll discuss this challenge to the best of my ability on my site, and I hope that you will take the time to respond. I invite comments, even if anonymous.
Has Nisbett not yet realised that many of the “new atheist noise machine” are not American ? And that for him to call on them to moderate their tone in order to accommodate the feelings of Americans whose understanding of science is less than perfect is really just him being xenophobic and nationalistic ?
I have made this point to him before so I have little hope he will take it on board. The issues the US faces with regards religion are not the same as those faced by, for example, Europe. Nisbett seems to think the only place that matters is the US, and that reason alone means he just talking bollocks.
Adam’s Bridge? It’s Google time.
“According to an Islamic legend, the Biblical Adam used the bridge to reach Adam’s Peak in Sri Lanka, where he stood repentant on one foot for 1,000 years, leaving a large hollow mark resembling a foot print. Both the peak and the bridge are named after this legend.” (Wikipedia)
There’s a lesson is there somewhere… :-)
Anton, I only use the Pez dispenser to kill people I like.
OT, it’s funny you should mention that. I’m in the middle of a very interesting book called Death of a Dissident: The Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and the Return of the KGB by Alex Goldfarb and Marina Litvinenko. (I mean, I’m in the middle of reading it – I don’t appear in the middle. *poke*) All is not well in post-Soviet Russia. (My inner Ukrainka wants to say that it serves them right, but my respect for the Russian people and their culture overrides that…)
(Thanks Ichthyic!) If I understand framing, when visiting our neighbor, we are to ever so politely ignore the consumptive coughing from over on the fainting couch, lest we be accused of being intolerant dogmatists.
lest we be accused of being intolerant dogmatists.
or Don-Imus style New Atheists, even.
Matthew,
I’d just like to thank you for speaking out about these issues. As a Christian, when I listen to PZ and his choir, I wonder just how much damage they will eventually do to the advancement of science.
They seem to be adamant in pushing *their* faith belief that science can *only* lead to one conclusion in regard to origins…and that would be that there is no source of intelligence responsible for the incredible complexity that we find in nature.
Regardless of their desire for a world free of religion, the belief that there is a creator of the cosmos will never be disregarded. What they are doing is closing off science to a great majority of the world’s population. No doubt there are many brilliant students being turned off from science due to professors like PZ who display contempt, hatred, and intolerance for those who disagree with his belief that science can only lead to atheistic conclusions in regard to religious faith. Either that or they feel bullied into toeing the party line so as not to be looked upon as “ignorant”, “moronic”, “retarded”, “fucking IDiots”, etc., etc..
I realize that you agree with PZ’s conclusions, but the fact that you call him on his arrogance and his *complete* intolerance for anyone who questions his views is commendable.
I’d just like to thank you for speaking out about these issues. As a Christian, when I listen to PZ and his choir, I wonder just how much damage they will eventually do to the advancement of science.
uh, not to burst your bubble or anything, but you did know that matt is an atheist, right?
methinks you are quite confused as to what kind of communication Matt is speaking of, and his motivations for doing so.
you might want to read his nature paper, or visit his website.
but then, knee jerk response is certainly nothing new for yourself, why change character now?
I realize that you agree with PZ’s conclusions, but the fact that you call him on his arrogance and his *complete* intolerance for anyone who questions his views is commendable.
btw, you’re commending a man who calls everyone who posts here Don-Imus style New Atheists..
so, uh, welcome to the club!
when should we send you your scarlet “A” T-shirt?
Coming from Ftk…
Someone who doesn’t give two shits about science or evidence, the sentiments expressed should scare Matt, not comfort him.
There’s your fans Matt. Ever come accross Ftk before?
She’s someone your framing does actually nothing for, except maybe give comfort to the “enemy”.
yes, I rather think Matt should have a long talk with FTK.
that might disavow him of some of his less well thought out notions.
Nisbet strikes me as someone who just hasn’t really had enough direct experience debating creationists yet. too many “yes folk” debating finer points of communication skills surrounding him. I would have liked to have been at his thesis defense.
oh well, based on past experience looking at similar approaches on a smaller scale, he’s pretty much doomed to fail with his current approach. I doubt it will have that much impact one way or the other in the long term when it does, so in the end I guess I’m not terribly concerned as to what comes out of this AAAS panel discussion.
eventually Nisbet might even figure out he really doesn’t speak for the majority of science professionals, like he seems to think he does.
given some time, I think, his skills will become far more valuable; hopefully he will maintain his same level of enthusiasm.
He is a smart guy, after all.
Caledonian,
Well, except that he doesn’t. He publically opposes bigamy, but also publically endorses adultery provided you’re very clear that you have no intention of marrying your mistress.
It’s bizarre, but consistent.
Kseniya,
I hope you’re not impugning a man whose soul our president has personally examined and found up to spec.
But yes, Putin seems to be racing Bush to see who can achieve a dictatorship more quickly. Putin apparently has the edge in terms of material resources and ability to silence his critics in imaginatively ugly ways, but Bush has God on his side.
Interesting, the response to FTK:
“uh, not to burst your bubble or anything, but you did know that matt is an atheist, right?”
seemed pretty “kneejerk” considering that just a few lines down in the same post FTK wrote:
“I realize that you agree with PZ’s conclusions, but the fact that you call him on his arrogance and his *complete* intolerance for anyone who questions his views is commendable.”
But, oh yeah, you’re a scientist who always examines the empirical data before reaching conclusions.