|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/23/2009 : 08:42:56 [Permalink]
|
If you used "bullshit" in the text of your comment I think it may have been auto-moderated. Seems he has a profanity filter active or something.
Slightly ironic given the title of the particular blog entry.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2009 : 08:43:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Maybe he hasn't gotten to it yet? |
I wrote mine yesterday afternoon. Someone else's comment from this morning has been posted. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2009 : 09:15:08 [Permalink]
|
I'll keep this brief, mainly because I feel a lot less capable of commenting in detail than any of you other folks are.
The discussion on this topic here at SFN is world-class. Dave's opinions and detailed reporting on the progression of the debate has helped me, better than any other source, to remain abreast of the discussion. H.H.'s insightful comment about how M&K embrace scientific knowledge, while ignoring scientific method helps to clarify M&K's position.
I'm actually very glad that the "accomodationists" made the attacks they have, because it's sparked what I think is a very important discussion. M&K have launched their attacks ham-handedly, giving every possible advantage to the "New Atheists" to respond by making it clear that they are not trying to purge the religious from science, but merely wish to keep religion out of science itself.
What's so hard to understand about the idea that religious people can do good science, while religion itself never contributes to science? With that basic point to make, the New Atheists have it easy in this debate.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2009 : 12:04:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
H.H.'s insightful comment about how M&K embrace scientific knowledge, while ignoring scientific method helps to clarify M&K's position.
|
Well, it should be noted that I'm largely speculating, since nobody really seems to understand what Chris and Sheril's motivations are. Some have opined that it's all just a money grab, since there is an existing "niche" for authors willing to tell people that science and religion go together like wine and cheese. Think Templeton prize money. None of us know for certain, though, we're just left to scratch our heads.
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'd like to hear your take, H., on what he's got to say about what he thinks the book is about.
|
It's difficult to know for certain how valid Rosenau's points are because I have not read Unscientific America, nor do I have any intention to. But my problems with Mooney goes back to the Expelled fiasco and they way he chose to characterize PZ's expulsion as helping the cause of the filmmakers. I used to comment on Mooney's blog and I've seen the way he refuses to honestly engage the points of his critics. And while I've had to form my opinion on this latest effort through the reviews of other bloggers, this book was just the final nail in the coffin for me. And it's not just the "vocal" atheists like Abbie, Coyne, and PZ who didn't care for M&K's message. When you have bloggers who typically try to see both sides the framing wars like Jason Rosenhouse and Brian Switek of Laelaps also having deep reservations about the book, I tend to think there is more to the negative reaction then simply bruised egos.
In fact, other than Isis, who I find quite vapid, Josh Rosenau seems to be alone among ScienceBloggers in his glowing praise of Unscientific America. I can't say I'm very familiar with his writing, but he says a number of questionable things in this particular post. To begin with, he writes about Nancey Murphy, a theologian he classifies as "a perfectly reasonable person." He then faults Dawkins and Harris for failing to address her theological contributions: | In contrast, the defenders of Dawkins (and Harris and Hitchens) in these various fights have made truly bizarre arguments. Theology has been presented as a static field of inquiry with no actual reason for existing, claims which ignored vibrant intellectual disagreements and thoughtful research such as that of Nancey Murphy. |
First of all, I don't know anyone who would necessarily claim the field of theology is "static," but they do make the point that the sorts of disagreements which theologians busy themselves with are as pointless as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. So what does Rosenau offer as an example of Murphy's "thoughtful" research to the "vibrant" and "intellectual" field of theology? This: | Murphy...argues that humans do not have a soul, that soul is a Greek invention, and that the original Hebrew understanding of the human person was as a purely physical being. Thus, for her, our immortality consists not in having immortal souls but in the prospect of God resurrecting us to a new physical existence. |
WTF? So Rosenau thinks we need to spend time addressing whether the Hebrew's magic sky fairy is going to resurrect our invisible ghosts or give us new bodies??? Apparently. Of course, this is nothing more than the classic Courtier's Reply. These details really don't matter a whit if the Jewish god doesn't exist, and debates over which magic spell he might cast in the future certainly would fall into the "no actual reason for existing" category. Rosenau doesn't offer any actual arguments for concluding otherwise.
He goes on to say: | Largely settled areas of philosophy of science and epistemology were cast aside in pursuit of scientific justifications for atheism; |
Wait...largely settled? By whom? And if the issue was settled, then the objections of the new atheists to NOMA should have already been addressed. If they in fact haven't been addressed, then Rosenau has no cause to call the issue "settled." I also think it's unfair to say the motive was "scientific justifications for atheism," which Rosenau adds is unneeded, and I would agree. | ...and adopting creationist bullshit about what science can say regarding religion is hardly wise or helpful. |
Unhelpful to whom? And does it even matter if it's "unhelpful" if it's true? Again, like Mooney, I see an utter failure to address the actual arguments of the new atheists here, just an unsupported admonition to shut up lest they hurt "the cause," whatever that's supposed to be.
Also, for a blog post which makes bullshit the main focus, it's extremely curious to see Rosenau omit any mention of M&K's mischaracterization of Crackergate in their infamous Chapter 8, in which they presented PZ's actions completely devoid of context. Such a mention might explain why so many people feel S&K's book was less than honest.
Instead, Rosenau seems to focus on Coyne and chalk up his displeasure solely to S&K's rejection of his critical review--never mind that Coyne actually lists the points which S&K have repeatedly ignored. Rosenau then goes on to accuse Coyne of similar behavior in his treatment of a review of one of his books by Eugenie Scott. But other than the superficial similarity of both parties speculating that past disputes might have affected the predisposition of the reviewers, Rosenau doesn't actually point out any of Scott's objections which Coyne might have failed to address. Mooney isn't being criticized for being peeved at a negative review, but for stonewalling, for refusing to engage in any sort of constructive dialogue with the people who took the time to read through his book and offer criticisms. It's the same thing Rosenau just got done blasting Dembski for! Now, say what you want about Coyne, but I don't think a refusal to engage can be rightly considered of his faults.
Rosenau also calls the argument that religious moderates enable fundamentalists "bullshit," but does so mostly by ignoring all the arguments made on this topic by the non-accomodationalists. The poster Physicalist does a pretty good job in the comments of calling Rosenau out on that, but I'd love to hear your take on that section, Dave.
Rosenau ends his post by saying he hopes all the UA critics will come to their senses and admit how wrong they all are. After reading that shoddily argued hit piece, that's exactly how I feel about Rosenau himself.
|
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/23/2009 12:12:26 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2009 : 12:44:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
HH, you seem to be of the opinion that theology is of no intellectual value. I would strongly contend this, as theology is not just the study of god(s), but it is the study of religion and how it is influenced by and influences culture. There is also a large historical aspect to it. As such, it intersects fields like history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and art history.
|
And I think the fields of history, sociology, psychology, philosophy, literature and art history are fully sufficient to cover the social impact of religion in these areas. Theology is indeed useless as an independent academic interest, not only because it tends to focus exclusively on the deity of the Western tradition, but especially when it treats the existence of gods as a plausible subject worthy of serious consideration.
|
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/23/2009 12:44:31 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2009 : 12:44:32 [Permalink]
|
I too think that Dave has done a good job of reporting on the progression of the debate by linking to serious arguments (or at least, serious players arguments) on both sides, given that he counts himself as a "new atheist". He could have easily cherry picked or only linked to those articles and blogs that supports his bias. So Kudo's to Dave for walking the walk. Real critical thinking is not particularly easy, except when it is.
I have adjusted some of my thinking because of this and other threads, though I am still not willing to sign on to any defining terms other than "skeptic" and "agnostic/atheist" because I think those terms pretty much cover the whole scope of the things that concern me as a critical thinker, including all that is being discussed in this debate. I can align myself with an idea, but I worry about being sucked into a group think kind of attitude, and I would prefer keeping the labels down to a minimum. (I am speaking for myself.)
But I digress.
I haven't read Unscientific America. Aside from the reviews, both favorable and unfavorable, I have read Mooney's own words. Many of the things he says make me wince. Like his comments about how the decision of Pluto's status as a planet should have included the public's opinion (if I am reading that correctly) in the link I just provided. That's just wrong. And then there are the attacks on scientists, who also happen to be fairly aggressive about their atheism. As though, because they are scientists, they, in particular, are somehow keeping people scientifically illiterate. It seems to me that it's M&K who are conflating the issue. How many in the general public read Pharyngula? Not many is my guess. (Notice the quote mining M&K do in the last link. They don't bother mentioning who or what it was that set PZ off, so how is it possible to determine from that article if what PZ said was deserved or not?)
But then, there are, according to many of the reviews I have read, some by people that I respect, parts of the book that ring true.
And not in the "even a broken clock is correct twice a day" kind of way. It's perplexing to me. I don't know if Coyne's review of the book takes too hard a line against the book or not, based on his bias. How could I? Hell, I don't even have access to it and I haven't read the book. And I can't just discount everything Josh Rosenau says, because he failed to post a question by Dave. (Respond again, Dave, would be my suggestion. So far we are only dealing with a sample of one.)
Anyhow, this is where I am at the moment. I don't trust Mooney, and I have no way of knowing if at least some of the push back isn't driven by anger over his insults and some clearly wrongheaded ideas, and ideological differences, without a lot of consideration to much the actual content of the book.
What I have gleaned is that it is at the very least, a flawed book. But again, I base that on some things he has said that I have read.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2009 : 14:37:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Rosenau also calls the argument that religious moderates enable fundamentalists "bullshit," but does so mostly by ignoring all the arguments made on this topic by the non-accomodationalists. The poster Physicalist does a pretty good job in the comments of calling Rosenau out on that, but I'd love to hear your take on that section, Dave. |
That was what my comment on Rosenau's blog was all about. Calling him on his own bullshit. Unfortunately, I didn't keep a copy for myself (I encounter moderation so rarely on ScienceBlogs it took me by surprise), but I'll see if I can remember my finely honed prose. 
Rosenau wrote:Sam Harris's famous and oft-repeated claim that religious moderates enable fundamentalists also strikes me as bullshit. How can the Rev. Barry Lynn's work with Americans United for Separation of Church and State be taken as enabling fundamentalism? How can the efforts of religious moderates to end the enforcement of school prayer be taken as tacit endorsement of fundamentalist modes of thought? How can the hundreds of clergy who specifically defend evolution as compatible with their faiths be seen as clearing the ground for creationism? Could someone with actual awareness of the viciousness directed by those of Dembski's ilk toward serious scholars like Nancey Murphy really think that moderates enable fundamentalists? What can we call this line of argument but bullshit? The gist of my reply was based on the form of Rosenau's argument itself. It is to state the conclusion of someone else's argument as nothing more than an assertion (that conclusion we'll call 'X'). Then to present a bunch of questions which obviously aren't meant to be answered as if they are devestating to X, completely ignoring whatever X might or might not have to answer. Then, based on those statements of incredulity (that's all the questions really are), claim that you've demonstrated X to be false (or "bullshit"). It's obvious to me that such a conclusion is unsupportable by the rhetorical questions, simply because it's obvious that the author of such an argument doesn't care about what the answers to the questions might be. If he cared, then he would have discussed the argument leading up to X, and how it would answer them.
We see this all the time from creationists. Like this:Evolution is claimed to be true. But what good is half an eye? How could sex have evolved? Do you really think that huge explosions can create order? (Etc.) With all these issues, evolution is just a pipe dream. But my main point was what I found most interesting about this style of argument: we don't need to know the truth of the conclusion being critiqued, nor do we need to know the answers to any of the questions being asked. That form of argument ignores all of that, anyway. So long as we see the general framework I outlined above, we can say with certainty that what we're dealing with is bullshit by Rosenau's definition (the bullshitters are "the people who speak with no particular interest in whether their statements are true or false").Originally posted by Kil
I too think that Dave has done a good job of reporting on the progression of the debate by linking to serious arguments (or at least, serious players arguments) on both sides, given that he counts himself as a "new atheist". |
Didn't you see that I've made up a new term? Out-and-Loud Atheists (OLA) is my new favored descriptor for the likes of PZ and Dawkins (and me, too). It's inclusive of dead people like Huxley and Russell (who obviously aren't "new," but who would probably find themselves on Dawkins' "side" of things), and exclusive of brand-spanking new but meek-and-mild atheists.| He could have easily cherry picked or only linked to those articles and blogs that supports his bias. So Kudo's to Dave for walking the walk. |
Thank you, and the rest of you, too. Skepticism requires us to examine all of the evidence, whether we like it or not. On the other hand, I mostly pointed out M&K's BiosLogos piece just to point and laugh at it.| Real critical thinking is not particularly easy, except when it is. |
That got a big laugh out of my wife and me.I haven't read Unscientific America. Aside from the reviews, both favorable and unfavorable, I have read Mooney's own words. Many of the things he says make me wince. Like his comments about how the decision of Pluto's status as a planet should have included the public's opinion (if I am reading that correctly) in the link I just provided. That's just wrong. And then there are the attacks on scientists, who also happen to be fairly aggressive about their atheism. As though, because they are scientists, they, in particular, are somehow keeping people scientifically illiterate. It seems to me that it's M&K who are conflating the issue. How many in the general public read Pharyngula? Not many is my guess. (Notice the quote mining M&K do in the last link. They don't bother mentioning who or what it was that set PZ off, so how is it possible to determine from that article if what PZ said was deserved or not?)
But then, there are, according to many of the reviews I have read, some by people that I respect, parts of the book that ring true.
And not in the "even a broken clock is correct twice a day" kind of way. It's perplexing to me. I don't know if Coyne's review of the book takes too hard a line against the book or not, based on his bias. How could I? Hell, I don't even have access to it and I haven't read the book. |
I think it's important to note that the book itself seems to have been largely eclipsed by the meta-discussion of the book by its authors about their critics, and their critics' response to that. And perhaps the most important aspect of that meta-discussion is that communication can't be a one-way street, like it seems to be for M&K. I know we're verging on beating a dead horse, here, but rather than engaging their critics, M&K seem to be doing nothing more than preaching. I find it hypocritical, given what their book is supposed to be about.| And I can't just discount everything Josh Rosenau says, because he failed to post a question by Dave. (Respond again, Dave, would be my suggestion. So far we are only dealing with a sample of one.) |
Yeah, I know. I was probably hasty.
But one thing to keep in mind when reading his posts, especially the parts about Coyne and Eugenie Scott, is what Rosenau has written as the first line of his own bio on his blog:Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at the National Center for Science Education. He also disclaims that his blog posts reflect anything official regarding the NCSE, but I don't think anyone need go that far to maybe see a hint of defensiveness in his writing. Since M&K keep on repeating the canard that it's the "New Atheists" vs. the NCSE, perhaps it's not surprising to see an NCSE employee siding with them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2009 : 17:48:37 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, after reading his rant a second time, I couldn't not comment.
I've read only a little of Unscientific America while browsing at a local bookstore (maybe half a chapter total), so I can't really tackle that work in any meaningful way.
Rosenau seems to have jumped right off cliff though, his rant there is filled with burning strawmen, non sequitur, ad hom, and a total failure to actually address the arguments of the people he is criticizing. After looking up a little about this Murphy person he characterizes as "perfectly reasonable" I had to drop a comment on his post.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2009 : 15:57:23 [Permalink]
|
One of the latest additions to the ScienceBlogs stable has a very interesting second review. Here's the gist of the whole thing:In focusing on science communication alone, rather than unequal access to scientific tools, Mooney and Kirshenbaum have chosen to focus on style rather than substance. They present a host of wrongs but think that mere cosmetic changes will reverse two decades of decline. This is from the guy who liked chapters 5 and 6. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2009 : 16:43:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
One of the latest additions to the ScienceBlogs stable has a very interesting second review. Here's the gist of the whole thing:In focusing on science communication alone, rather than unequal access to scientific tools, Mooney and Kirshenbaum have chosen to focus on style rather than substance. They present a host of wrongs but think that mere cosmetic changes will reverse two decades of decline. This is from the guy who liked chapters 5 and 6.
|
Eric Michael Johnson:
For example, while the United States has a low international standing in science and mathematics, we also rank far below other countries in reading and critical thinking. This speaks to a poverty of education in general, not simply that scientists are no longer good role models or have trouble speaking in sound bytes. In the 2006 PISA study of international science literacy it was found that 18% of the variation in U.S. scores was due to socioeconomic circumstances, more than twice that of top-scoring countries such as Finland or Canada. The United States had the top-scores in the world for those with access to quality educational resources, but the preponderance of low scores lowered the country's overall average. |
Bingo!
I think that Johnson nails the problem. He's certainly not the first to identify it, but if M&K missed that the disparity in our educational system is at the heart of why so many people are scientifically illiterate, (I haven't read the book) they missed what should have been obvious to them or to anyone who bothered to look at the numbers.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2009 : 15:38:43 [Permalink]
|
More talk.
From Michael Rosch:The third guy in this Axis of Framers is Matthew Nisbit, who I know next to nothing about other than what I heard from his interview on the Point of Inquiry podcast, where in the same breath he chastized Dawkins for being a bad representative of science and atheism because he's a big meany while then applauding the fictional Dr. House for being a good representative for science and atheism. Now I have only seen a handful of episodes of House, but it seems to me that Dr. House is far more of a meany than Dawkins. But maybe I'm wrong on that one. Now that's funny stuff. Most of the rest of the piece is on M&K, though, with an interesting "paradox of paradise."
Thanks to Ophelia Benson, I learned that M&K republished their latest anti-OLA screed on The Guardian's Website, and that the comments are very funny. M&K still don't seem to get that the rest of the world is not like the U.S. And one commenter quoted Dawkins:When two opposing opinions are expressed with equal intensity, the answer does not necessarily lie exactly in the middle. It is possible for 1 side to be simply wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2009 : 18:05:52 [Permalink]
|
| I said on Friday that I was going to listen to the Science Friday interview with K all the way through. I just did, but I found that my attention continually drifted to other things. It was weird. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Unscientific America
