Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

I'd say, "Welcome, Power Line!" but so far you aren't impressing me

I'm very popular today. So popular that I had to pare down the usual graphics-heavy layout of the page to accommodate all the traffic. The cause? The Power Line blog picked up on my criticisms of their main man, Hindrocket, and have posted a reply titled "Call me stupid".

OK, you're stupid.

Sorry about that. It's also pretty stupid to feed a guy such an obvious straight line, especially since you know that everyone who comments on it is going to say the same thing. Anyway, the reply is weird. It's the usual whimper of fragile right-wing egos demanding that they be treated better than they treat others, while still insisting on holding the line on the rank foolishness of the original post.

  • As Ogged has noted, they don't say the sensible, intelligent thing ("Of course we accept the best scientific explanation of our origins!"), but instead babble about "orthodoxies." The whole bunch over there must be wanking creationists. And yes, that certainly does discredit them—it means that they are not interested in the honest, critical evaluation of the evidence, but instead leap to conclusions based on ideology.
  • They complain that my short comment did not present the evidence for evolution. Silly people. I've got articles all over this weblog discussing the evidence for evolution. Check out the Panda's Thumb or many of the sites in the science and evolution categories of my blogroll. Or heck, go to a library. This isn't secret stuff. These guys aren't aware of any of it—so where do they get off criticizing legitimate biology?
  • They don't understand how their opinion of evolution is relevant to any assessment of their political stance. There is a sense in which that is correct—if someone honestly says they don't know enough of the scientific story to be able to judge, I think that would actually speak well of their ability to evaluate evidence. That is not what Hindrocket did, however. He pompously claimed that "the empirical foundations of Darwinism have crumbled under attack by a new generation of biologists, especially microbiologists." Either he knows better, and he's lying, or he's completely ignorant of what biologists say, and he shouldn't be pretending to have knowledge he lacks. Either way, he's demonstrating a disgraceful lack of respect for the evidence, and that does call his judgment into question. If I, who have never cracked a lawbook in my life, were to try to tell lawyers how to practice law, and made egregious errors of fact in my claim and even mangled the vocabulary, there'd be no hesitation about deservedly calling me a fool, an idiot, a pretentious poseur…so I'm returning the favor here. Hindrocket doesn't know biology, period. He's a fool, an idiot, and a pretentious poseur for acting as if he does.
  • They whine that they've been insulted. I'm sorry, but when Hindrocket can blandly assert that almost the entire Democratic party consists of traitors who are in alliance with terrorists to destroy America, they've lost the privilege of complaining from a lofty moral height about the level of the criticisms levied by others. Wingers are incredibly thin-skinned, aren't they? They can fling it, but they can't take it.
  • And, you know, they don't have comments on Power Line, but their fan base is appalling. I got a pair of obscene phone calls last night, after their article was posted, an attempted denial-of-service attack, and a flood of e-mail this morning. Some of it is just godawful stacks of obscenities, while the more civil stuff is basically, "I am a lawyer, and evolution is just a theory." Good grief. Go read this and come back when you have half a clue. You're confirming my prejudice that Power Line readers are benighted morons.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1952/ujDggbhP/

Comments:
#16741: DarkSyde — 02/23  at  02:29 PM
be careful now PZ, or they'll do to you "what they did to Dan Rather ..." That's an e-mail I got the other day from a powerline reader. I say bring it on, please for Odin's sake, please, hurry up and make me a multi-millionaire mega celebrity anchor man for twenty years and then force me into early retirement with all my money and fans.



#16743: todd. — 02/23  at  02:30 PM
I think the page is somewhat easier to read without the background images.



#16745: — 02/23  at  02:35 PM
What is so wrong with standing up and calling incompetent lying s#!ts out for what they are? And how is this equivalent with what Hindrocket's statements?



#16747: — 02/23  at  02:45 PM
“I am a lawyer, and evolution is just a theory.”

I am a former paralegal, and evolution is a fact. Who wins this rhetorical battle?



#16751: DarkSyde — 02/23  at  03:01 PM
"I'm a mathematician, and the new cryogenic procedure used at John Hopkins to excise brain tumors in the left medial symphosis is utterly worthless."

BTW Orac, I had some dealings with David Heddle. I didn't find him to be in the same league of raving winger manaic thugs that some of his pals are. But he didn't seem very interested in exploring how creationists had hoodwinked him using his faith as a lever. If I recall correctly, he was a Young earther. It's been awhile.



#16752: NBT — 02/23  at  03:01 PM
"They can fling it, but they can’t take it."

The only thing I disagree with. Oh these people can take it. However, they pretend to be thin skinned because it is an effective (sometimes) defense against the other side. Play the weak and make the other side look like callous and unreasonable beasts taking on the lesser strong!



#16754: — 02/23  at  03:08 PM
Whatever Powerline's faults on the subject of evolution, they got the "Rathergate" documents right, and were assaulted by moonbats of the left who believed all sorts of fantasies about their provenance.

Whatever your faults on the subject of politics, you get evolution right, despite assaults by moonbats of the right who believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

Both sites serve a useful purpose, in spite of the tendency both have to overdo the rhetorical heat now and then, and despite the proprietors being trustworthy on some topics and less so on others.

Remember not all evolutionists are left-wing.



#16755: Monty Zoom — 02/23  at  03:10 PM
Chris O. — 02/23 at 01:15 PM
“It’s long past time to call the lying idiots what they are, and time to stop treating them nicely. They do not deserve it.“

Well, then this may not be the place for me, then. I don’t agree with that statement even in the slightest.


I think you are missing a minor point here. If I'm a lawyer and I talk about law you assume I know what I'm talking about. However, if I talk about science, you may think that I may or may not know what I'm talking about. There really is no way to tell without looking at the context. If I make a wild leap at some scientific topic or another and attempt to pass myself off as an expert on this topic, some experts will notice and call my bluff. This should be expected.

What the point they are trying to make is that if you attempt to pass yourself off as an expert on something you are not, others will be sceptical of the things you are an expert in. In other words, if you attempt to speak as if you know something in areas where you are inadequate likely occurs in areas where you should be more informed. Without being honest about your ignorance, you put yourself in a position to be criticized in things you may indeed be capable. Why would anyone do that? It is just dumb.



's avatar #16757: Chris Clarke — 02/23  at  03:15 PM
<blockquote>Whatever Powerline’s faults on the subject of evolution, they got the “Rathergate” documents right, and were assaulted by moonbats of the left who believed all sorts of fantasies about their provenance.</bloxckquote>

Really? What I watched was a bunch of people making allegations that were quietly questioned by experts in the field, and CBS News knuckling under when the noise from the echo-chamber became too intense. Both sides raised good points, as I recall, and the issue was never satisfactorily resolved despite the victory crowing by self-appointed typographical experts at LGF.

I'm prepared to believe Powerline got the Rather thing right, but I haven't seen those pesky little counterarguments addressed yet. And I suspect now that victory has been declared, we never will.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson



#16758: — 02/23  at  03:16 PM
PZ wrote

"It’s long past time to call the lying idiots what they are, and time to stop treating them nicely. They do not deserve it."

and then

Chris O wrote

"Well, then this may not be the place for me, then. I don’t agree with that statement even in the slightest."

Chris, you might want to check out http://www.pandasthumb.org . They evidently have a policy there of banning (or threatening to ban) posters who espouse and embody PZ Myers' philosophy.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000827.html

Ironically, PZ appears to be a member of the group that "runs" that blog ...



#16760: Captain Salty — 02/23  at  03:21 PM
It's about time someone finally stood up and yelled, "bulls**t!" These same people continue to argue that we've found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that the global warming is a myth, and that working class people will get rich if only you permanently do away with the estate tax. If the guys who run Powerline had a shred of shame, this would turn into a cautionary tale about how not to publicly talk out of your arse. But, alas, they'll probably just declare themselves the winner and take a victory lap.



#16762: — 02/23  at  03:26 PM
> I’d say, “Welcome, Power Line!” but so far you aren’t impressing me

Speaking for myself, consider the sentiment mutual. So far, you've demonstrated extraordinary expertise at name-calling, but Don Rickles is good at that too, and even he doesn't see that as cause for such intellectual pretentiousness.



#16763: — 02/23  at  03:27 PM
The often quite harsh verbal thumping that the good Professor deals out to all who annoy him has to be assessed, I think, with regard to its object. If the object is in fact someone who opines with willful or complacent ignorance on a subject the Professor actually knows--well I'm inclined to think the victim deserves what he gets. Verbal abuse (by Myers or others) in some other context is much more bothersome for me, but surely we haven't become so mealy-mouthed as to think that debate is degraded by calling a liar a liar and a fool a fool.



#16766: — 02/23  at  03:42 PM
Lee

"So far, you’ve demonstrated extraordinary expertise at name-calling, but Don Rickles is good at that too, and even he doesn’t see that as cause for such intellectual pretentiousness."

Myers has demonstrated a lot more than name-calling expertise, Lee. He demonstrated that the Powerline commentator was a moron talking out of the wrong orifice.

It's too bad you can't bring yourself to admit that, Lee. Funny, that's an unfortunate trait shared by many self-proclaimed "open minded" rubes who frequent sad empty blogsites like Powerline.



#16769: Bryson Brown — 02/23  at  03:47 PM
Aristotle once said (roughly) that we shouldn't expect more precision from a study that is suited to its subject matter. Lawyers talking about evolution are often out of their depth because they haven't been trained in the level of detail and reasoning that natural science requires-- So they're often unduly impressed by the bulls**t arguments of ID theory, and utterly insensitive to the contrast between god-of-the-gaps explanations and real science.

But I think this provides important support for PZ's worries about the political arguments we find on PL and similar places. If anything, a serious, evidentially grounded account of social, political and economic matters is far harder to produce. (That's one reason why we haven't got one!). But these people have no hesitation: It seems that the truth, on these very obscure and difficult matters, has been revealed to them, and only the stupid and the traitorous could possibly disagree. I smell a very dangerous absolutism here-- one that fits all too well with the nonsense peddled by ID types, where all evidence on one side is dismissed with a sniffy 'unproven', while a trivial 'everything explainer' is promoted as a scientific alternative. Only an arrogant disregard for evidence and its limits can account for either point of view.



's avatar #16770: Chris Clarke — 02/23  at  03:49 PM
A note for those who have expressed distaste for PZ's occasional visible impatience with people who persist in repeating the same untruths over and over:

Get used to it.

You'll be hearing more and more in the months to come, and some of it will make PZ's "rudeness" seem as though he was tucking you in all comfy at night.

Because there are more and more of us who are FUCKING FED UP not only with the lies, but with the oh-so genteel people who cluck their tongues at us when we dare to respond in anything but the politest, most apologetic tones to those who would keep children ignorant, purge society of dissent and force their own cultic theocracy down our throats. At least 20,000 civilians killed in Iraq, and 1500 plus US troops, to spur a millennial paranoid cult prophecy, environmental and labor and civil protections swept away with the strokes of a few pens, the underpinning of all the biological sciences being kept from our kids by ignorant zealots intimidating teachers, and you think the worst thing about the situation is some people saying "screw that"?

Then screw you.

(Is PZ seeming more reasonable yet?)

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson



#16772: DarkSyde — 02/23  at  03:51 PM
yeah Dave funny thing about that Rahergate gig ... Didn't President Bush use a document that was forged to make the case for war/ And haven't a lot of folks died a sa result? And correct me if I'm wrong, but when the guy they sent over there to vet them reported back they were obvious phonies, and BushCo outed his wife from the CIA, did Powerline get all up in arms about that forgery? Or is their outrage at forgeries extremely conveneient given their warped, thuggish, political views and support of the extremist neo-Christie creeps?



#16788: — 02/23  at  04:32 PM
"Lawyers talking about evolution are often out of their depth because they haven’t been trained in the level of detail and reasoning that natural science requires— So they’re often unduly impressed by the bulls**t arguments of ID theory, and utterly insensitive to the contrast between god-of-the-gaps explanations and real science."

Speaking as a lawyer, I must take exception to this comment.
On the contrary, nuance, detail and logical reasoning are the bread and butter of the legal mind. A failure to understand a high level of detail and the difference between subtle nuances in logical arguements often leads to bad lawyering. The two professions of lawyer and scientist aren't as far apart as you might think.

Furthering that argument, I would immediately become suspicious of the lawyering skills of any lawyer who endorsed ID, or advanced the arguments that Powerline is making. These arguments show a remarkable lack of insight in even the very basics of logic, and a failure to examine evidence, which, to a lawyer, shows a lack of commitment to the profession.

Finally, a good lawyer should always realize when they are out of their league--only the truly unethical assume that they know everything. The hallmark of a good lawyer is the willingness to consult, and defer to, an expert. That Hindrocket fails to exhibit any of these trademarks of legal skill and reasoning makes me question his legal fitness.



#16789: Captain Salty — 02/23  at  04:35 PM
I, for one, will be happy to see people become more impatient. Growing up, I remember talking out of my arse a few times, and oftentimes there was someone around who'd call me on it. Not only did it teach me to be more careful about what I said, but it's also caused me to -- oh, I don't know -- read up on the odd issue before speaking out.



#16792: — 02/23  at  04:43 PM
What Chris Clarke said.



#16798: — 02/23  at  05:22 PM
PZ'z opinion that because someone does not believe in evolution then there views on other subjects therefore have to be mistaken seems rather excessive.

I'm familiar with a few rare cases of postgraduate geology students who are creationists. I think they have to have an odd psychology to do this but one of them is extremely knowledgeable about mineralogy and their politics are pretty main stream.

It’s probably better, and more liberal, to judge people on an issue by issue basis.



#16800: — 02/23  at  05:36 PM
Neil

"I’m familiar with a few rare cases of postgraduate geology students who are creationists. I think they have to have an odd psychology to do this but one of them is extremely knowledgeable about mineralogy and their politics are pretty main stream."

Guess what? I have no problem telling this person that his medieval views about biology are fucked and that it causes me to take everything else he says with a grain of salt.

Will that alienate this person? Maybe. So what.

I can then proceed to get my mineralogy info and political info from someone without "odd psychology" and who doesn't believe in Sasquatch, ESP, communication with the dead, and the healing powers of crystals.

Creationism and new age bullshit is the sort of garbage I put up with from the people who bag my groceries. I don't need to tolerate anti-scientific crap spewing from the mouths of my so-called "peers" in science who should fucking know better.



#16809: — 02/23  at  06:13 PM
Gladys, I'm not sure that "Creationism and new age bullshit is the sort of garbage I put up with from the people who bag my groceries" was a wise, or indeed liberal, remark. Are you as insulting to these people on a face to face basis?



#16812: — 02/23  at  06:21 PM
I think there is actually some substance to the "you don't believe evolution so your other ideas are suspect" idea. Sure, it's a fallacy, but when I find that someone doesn't accept modern science their abilities in assessing data in general become suspect to me. Not 100% fair, but it's true. If someone is willing to let ideology cloud their vision in science (where solid data is available) shouldn't I be more concerned that it might cloud their assessments elsewhere? Or, if they are swayed by some third party opinion (as is often the case in Evo/Cre debate), doesn't this bring into question their choices in authorities?

As for "Evo/Cre" as a right-left issue. Although the Creationism forces have found a home on the right, I don't think it's emblematic of some intellectual weakness on the right. I know a very thoughtful evolutionist who's happily right wing. And I've seen plenty of mushy headed, new agey stuff on the left.



's avatar #16817: Chris Clarke — 02/23  at  06:37 PM
As for “Evo/Cre” as a right-left issue. Although the Creationism forces have found a home on the right, I don’t think it’s emblematic of some intellectual weakness on the right. I know a very thoughtful evolutionist who’s happily right wing. And I’ve seen plenty of mushy headed, new agey stuff on the left.


Oh, you bet. Creationism is certainly not inherently allied with the right, as any student of the career of William Jennings Bryan will tell you. It was once the case, a century ago, that many christian fundamentalists gravitated to the left as a vehicle for their outrage.

I've been wondering lately about the cognitive disconnect necessary for flavor-of-the-month ID advocates to concurrently espouse free-market economics. They don't think it possible that natural selection could account for the biodiversity we enjoy even given 600 million years of time for it to evolve in, and claim there must be a designer somewhere responsible for all of it. But they're certain that an undirected, essentially random economic structure with millions of players each trying to survive in a hostile environment is the best insurance of an efficient market, and the thought that some intelligent visible hand might justifiably try to design an economic structure is anathema to them.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson



Page 2 of 9 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

Next entry: Modern diseases

Previous entry: Yay! I have a fan club!

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college