Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Community Forums
 Book Reviews
 Unscientific America
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 5

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2009 :  10:37:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Ophelia Benson says,
Chris Mooney is morally bankrupt.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 07/30/2009 :  10:45:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Ophelia Benson says,
Chris Mooney is morally bankrupt.


You know, in all my years as a skeptic, I don't think I have ever seen anything like this little episode. Sure, we don't always agree, but this Mooney meltdown is something new. I compared him to a sideshow freak, but really, a train wreck is a more apt analogy.


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/05/2009 :  20:34:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
This is the same link as the one I posted in the other thread, but besides criticizing Francis Collins, Sam Harris also singles out Unscientific America for particular scorn:
The first thing to notice is that Mooney and Kirshenbaum are confused about the nature of the problem. The goal is not to get more Americans to merely accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reasoning and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory. Doubt about evolution is merely a symptom of an underlying problem; the problem is faith itself—conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas occluded by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc. Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to imagine that we can get people to value intellectual honesty by lying to them.

"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 08/06/2009 :  07:42:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Seems like this Mooney's guy is seeing his skept creed evaporating away at full speed.

By the way, it was mentioned in chat yesterday that Mooney was scheduled for an interview with the Infidel Guy tonight (thursday). Apparently, Mooney now desisted and is replaced by ERV's Abbie Smith. Abbie Smith that was very critical about the whole Mooney thing...

I do strongly believe that we are benefiting from the change. 'cause Abbie is awesome.

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/06/2009 :  10:09:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Rosenhouse put up the second part of his review on Saturday. A couple nuggets:
It's madness. M and K and Stover are right in describing the attitudes of many people, but that is an argument for ramping up our criticism of religion. If the problem is that dopey religious ideas are standing in the way of good science education, the solution is to scream and yell with enough vigor that non-religious views become part of the conversation. The contribution of the New Atheists is to make atheism visible as a viable way of life. Do this long enough and it becomes demystified, to the point where the younger generation no longer thinks there is anything sordid or illegitimate about it. We do not have to just sit back and accept that religion will always be a dominant social force. We can take steps to increase the likelihood of that not being the case for those future generations, even if that means bruising some feelings in the present.
And:
Throughout the book the emphasis gets put in the wrong places. Sure, there are entrenched and powerful interests determined to keep everyone ignorant about global warming, but the real problem is that some academics turn up their nose at science popularization. Yes, granted, many people hold religious views that close their minds and make them unwilling even to consider challenging ideas, but can you blame them what with Richard Dawkins being snotty and all? The media is sensationalist and uncritical and happily parrots any dubious claim it thinks will attract a few viewers, so the solution is to have more scientists trained in the art of framing and sound bite construction.
And on July 24, Ken Miller published a review in which he contributes to the "accepting science means being an atheist" problem (like so many others) by insisting that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins and the like are engaged in a science-vs-religion war when they become outraged at religious people. CrackerGate wasn't about science at all, it was about religion and only about religion, yet Miller says incredibly dumb things like this:
While Myers and others may advance the argument that religious faith is the arch-enemy of scientific rationalism, this doesn't imply that insult and ridicule are appropriate tools with which to defend science.
No, but they're perfectly appropriate tools with which to rail against the abuses of institutionalized religious fanatics, regardless of your (or their) stance on science. Miller goes on to say that it's inappropriate to tell the "New Atheists" to shut up, but since he gets so much wrong, what little he gets right simply pales.

Of course, M&K discuss Miller's review (unlike part 2 of Rosenhouse's), and say that it's "justly critical" of some parts of their book. Ironically, those same criticisms, when made by someone like PZ Myers, are roundly dismissed by M&K.

Ophelia Benson directs us to an M&K piece in The Nation which includes this ridiculous thing:
This problem [the problem of bad pseudoscience blogs not going away] was on full display in the 2008 Weblog Awards, a popularity contest that featured a tight race for Best Science Blog. The two leading contestants: PZ Myers's Pharyngula (scienceblogs.com/pharyngula), the online clearinghouse for confrontational atheism, and Watts Up With That (wattsupwiththat.com), written by former TV meteorologist Anthony Watts, a skeptic of the scientific conclusion that human activities have caused global warming. Both sites are polemical: one assaults religious faith; the other constantly attacks mainstream understanding of climate change.

In the end, Watts Up With That defeated Pharyngula, 14,150 votes to 12,238. The "science" contest came down to the religion-basher versus the misinformation-machine, and the misinformation-machine won. That speaks volumes about the form science commentary takes on the Internet.
Except, of course, that as per usual, M&K have oversimplified things to the point of absurdity. Nevermind that PZ himself regularly has his "goons" (or "loyal readers") "Pharyngulize" various online polls because they're the worst method by which to find the popularity of anything, but the fact that PZ told people he didn't care (even that he would be embarrassed to win it) says a lot more about the results. Had PZ told his readers to vote for him, his total would have been a few thousand votes higher, easily. Heck, our own little forum got Pharyngulized (in a poll we put up a year ago, today!), and attracted over 3,500 more votes than it otherwise would have.

Oh, and Abbie will be on IG tonight, instead of Chris Mooney. Go figure.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 08/06/2009 :  16:42:40   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Oh, and Abbie will be on IG tonight, instead of Chris Mooney. Go figure.


From "a guy" in the Infidel chat room, apparently Mooney's publicist says he is too busy with other interviews and will stop doing interviews tomorrow.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/06/2009 :  17:53:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky

From "a guy" in the Infidel chat room, apparently Mooney's publicist says he is too busy with other interviews and will stop doing interviews tomorrow.
One might think that Mooney would have checked with his publicist before agreeing to do the show a week ago, no?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2009 :  05:04:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So while M&K publicize their book in popular-press outlets like The Boston Globe or The Nation, Jerry Coyne published his review of their book in Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of friggin' Science, a group surely intensely interested in M&K's thesis. And it isn't a particularly positive review, either (as anyone could have guessed from his earlier gloss).

Unfortunately, Coyne didn't realize that his review would wind up behind a paywall, which, at $2.14 per paragraph, may be somewhat steep for a lot of people. A commenter at Pharyngula seems to have posted the entire review, however.

A couple choice bits:
Mooney and Kirshenbaum also fail to support their contention that the knowledge gap between scientists and the public is increasing. In fact, the only relevant statistic they provide shows no such thing: the proportion of Americans who believe that humans were created instead of evolved has not budged for three decades. This constancy undermines the authors' claim that scientific illiteracy once was ameliorated by people like Carl Sagan and Stephen Gould but is now exacerbated by the "new atheists." Instead of data, Mooney and Kirshenbaum rely on anecdotes.
And:
The public's reluctance to accept scientific facts may reflect not just a lack of exposure but a willful evasion of facts due to conflicting economic agendas (e.g., the case of global warming), personal agendas (vaccines), or religious agendas. A recent Pew survey, for instance, found that 55% of Americans see science and religion as often in conflict, and 64% said that if scientists were to disprove a particular religious belief, they would reject the scientific facts in favor of their faith. One could argue, in fact, that overcoming America's resistance to evolution could be accomplished more effectively by weakening religion than by teaching Darwinism.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2009 :  11:02:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Ricky
From "a guy" in the Infidel chat room, apparently Mooney's publicist says he is too busy with other interviews and will stop doing interviews tomorrow.
Here's Abbie's summary of the situation:
Heres what happened with Mooney and his appearance on IG, so much drama, you guys will love:
IG originally contacted Sheril. Shes a 'new' voice in the pro-science movement, thought it would be a great show. Yay!

No yay. She deferred to Mooney, because apparently she is precisely as vapid as some of us suspected, and doesnt have enough opinions of her own to fill a one hour show.

So IG contacted Mooney, who happily agreed... Until he pushed back his appearance last week... Well Reggie had no idea about the internet uproar UA caused, and his email changed since the last time I spoke with him, so I didnt get ahold of Reggie till Wednesday night to 'warn' him some calls/questions might be a little spicier than he might be expecting. Thursday morning I get an email that Mooney canceled permanently, and would I mind sitting in so Reggie could have a show. You see, its all so wonderfully polite and professional for Mooney to leave Reggie hanging because he decided he was 'too busy'. btw, I still dont think Reggie has a clue why so many scientists and atheists are pissed at S&M, I never got to tell him all the details. Reggie just wanted to do an interview.

But heres the best part: This cancellation/excuse wasnt relayed to IG via Mooney. Mooney had his *publicist* tell Reggie to fuck off.

Chris Mooney has a *publicist*.

*GAAAAAAAAG*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

*GAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKK*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

*PUKE*

aw...

"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2009 :  11:12:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So Reggie had no idea that Unscientific America is controversial within the atheist and also the skeptical communities?

Hmmmmm...

He really does need to get out more.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2009 :  11:19:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
From Sarl Cagan:
Published quickly on the heels of their book on public scientific literacy, Unscientific America, Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum have released their newest book Unartistic America, which tackles the low art literacy in America, it's consequences, and what should be done to change the situation.

...

But even worse for art literacy in America, assert Mooney and Kirshenbaum, are the neorealists, who criticize the "crap that my 5-year old could have painted" on their blogs. By criticizing crap that could be painted by a 5-year old, according to the authors, the neorealists turn off hipster doofuses who like crap that could be painted by a 5-year-old. For the greater good of increasing art literacy in America, according to Mooney and Kirshenbaum, neorealists should accommodate the hipster doofuses by pretending to like and respect crap that could be painted by a 5-year-old.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2009 :  14:49:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Jessica Palmer has some criticisms of Coyne's review, and wishes the whole "New Atheist" response to the book would just go away:
You already know how you feel about that issue, and if you're an enthusiastic New Atheist, you're certainly not going to have your mind changed by this book, so let's lay that to rest now!
Sounds to me like yet another person telling the out-and-loud atheists to shut up. She even used an exclamation point. And since she explicitly mentions chapter 8, what she's really saying is, "everyone knows that if you're a New Atheist, you won't like chapter 8, so quit your bellyaching and let's talk about something else." Real nice.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2009 :  16:03:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Jessica Palmer has some criticisms of Coyne's review, and wishes the whole "New Atheist" response to the book would just go away:
You already know how you feel about that issue, and if you're an enthusiastic New Atheist, you're certainly not going to have your mind changed by this book, so let's lay that to rest now!
Sounds to me like yet another person telling the out-and-loud atheists to shut up. She even used an exclamation point. And since she explicitly mentions chapter 8, what she's really saying is, "everyone knows that if you're a New Atheist, you won't like chapter 8, so quit your bellyaching and let's talk about something else." Real nice.


In all fairness, in her own review of the book she seems to be saying that Mooney should shut up about it too.
I don't agree completely with either Chris or PZ Myers; but then, I rarely agree completely with anyone. (I also wish this book spent a little less time on the New Atheists). And I don't think it's realistic or necessary for all of us to agree.


I don't either.

The bolding is mine.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2009 :  16:10:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Of course we don't need to agree, but that does not prevent a honest and polite (if possibly spirited) discussion.

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13476 Posts

Posted - 08/07/2009 :  16:12:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Simon

Of course we don't need to agree, but that does not prevent a honest and polite (if possibly spirited) discussion.
Of course not. I don't think she was telling either side to shut up, really. She was just pointing out that Mooney makes too much of the "New Atheists" and the "New Atheists" make to much of him.

The way I read it, she is just frustrated with the amount of hostility coming out of both camps. I think she misses that Mooney pretty much started it. But I don't think she was siding with Mooney on the subject, as Dave has suggested.

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 5 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.38 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000