Pharyngula::Scott Adams fans: you've worn out your welcome

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

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Scott Adams fans: you've worn out your welcome

PZ Myers • 100 Comments (last page)

OK, Dilbertians, you can go away now. Your level of obtuse dishonesty is annoying (and no, as one commenter suggested, I really am not interested in raw traffic numbers). I'm going to pick on one commenter, but he seems to be sadly representative of a great many of the DilbertBlog fans, including the Great Wally, Scott Adams himself.

How utterly sad that people who claim to be educated can so clearly mis-read something. Adams didn't stand up for either side. He wasn't bashing the theories of one side or the other, he was bashing the way the debate and try to 'prove' their theories.

Adams was not putting up a show of impartiality. What he was doing was echoing bad arguments with complete credulity, giving the Intelligent Design side far more credit than they deserve, and tarring the evolution side with a few bad, mangled claims of his own devising. Please don't waste my time with the transparent falsehood of telling me he disavowed being a creationist; not only didn't I accuse him of being a "believer in creationism", but his disclaimer was just self-satisfied noise—he doesn't believe in "Intelligent Design, Creationism, Darwinism, free will, non-monetary compensation, or anything else I can’t eat if I try hard enough." You don't get to simultaneously claim he's a humorist who was making a joke and that I'm supposed to recognize that one item in his laundry list was meant seriously.

He was not misread. He's professing ignorance, and going ahead and peddling dumb ideas anyway. If he was serious about assessing the debate, he would have cited at least a few of the sources for his information about how either side works; he did not. Here's a a list of evolution books, some sources that make the serious arguments for science. He did not address a single one of them, nor will you find the bogus arguments he brought up anywhere within them.

I think I'd rather see a few honest creationists hanging around here rather than more of these Adams apologetics. We atheists tend to find apologetics to be trifling exercises in illogic, and they're just the same when Scott Adams is the deity.

The Dilbertians could take a hint from the charming Vox Day (via Orac), and use the fact that I'm a mere girl as an excuse to depart.

…I could have told Scott that Pharyngula, or as I prefer to think of her, Pharyngurl, was a run-of-the-mill, intellectually dishonest, little left-wing academic at a sub-par state school.

Actually, I do have a Y chromosome, and I don't find at all insulting to be confused with a female…I just find it amusing to unearth an extant troglodyte who thinks "you girl" is a potent accusation.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3368/EUdHQLOv/

Comments:

#49067: John Emerson — 11/16 at 07:46 AM
(I also posted this at the end of the previous thread, or tried to at least).

To Adams' defenders:

When Adams scoffed at the idea of reading Gould and Dawkins, that was the end of it for me. That was clownish know-nothingism, and nothing anyone can say can redeem him now.

Adams was making snarky remarks about evolutionists without knowing what they had said, and he was begging for someone to explain the issues to him simply, so he wouldn't have do any work at all.

If he's ignorant and wants to stay that way, he should shut up. Being a humorist doesn't excuse him; furthermore, he made same inane statements about "credibility" which he obviously intended seriously. He actually ruled out reading any books by biologists at all, because they all have a conflict of interest and cannot be trusted.

#49069: Joseph ODonnell — 11/16 at 07:56 AM
It's a shame you've lost your wick with it. The whole train wreck has been a fastastic read in general asshattery. I'm just surprised that the writer of such a clever comic like Dilbert can be so willingly ignorant himself.

#49073: — 11/16 at 08:11 AM
Yep. I actually plowed through all the posts and comments on both sites (I have a masochistic streak; but luckily I'm a fast reader) and was not impressed by the logical coherence of most of Adams' supporters. And Adams himself seems to take the position "I'm just having fun stirring things up, and anyone who takes issue with what I've said has fallen into my irony trap". Not logical or funny to me; but what do I know about humor? I don't think Dilbert is funny either. Too bad we don't have Bill Watterson (or Walt Kelly for that matter) taking on ID. Now that would be funny.

#49077: — 11/16 at 08:25 AM
Yeah. Get these guys out of here, some of them just keep making baseless accusations over and over again about misrepresenting Adams' work without giving any examples of this.

Also PZ your site has been really slow lately, I don't think all this extra traffic is helping.

#49078: — 11/16 at 08:28 AM
We do have Wiley Miller, fortunately.
http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/nq/2005/10/30/index.html

#49081: — 11/16 at 08:34 AM
Scott Adams is a friggin' cartoonist - I don't give a damn about his opinions on evolution, ID, or anything else. All I care about regarding Adams is whether his Dilbert strip is funny or not. This has been blown way out of proportion by both his detractors and supporters.

#49083: — 11/16 at 08:49 AM
Scott Adams is a friggin' cartoonist - I don't give a damn about his opinions on evolution, ID, or anything else.

He's still wrong.

#49084: — 11/16 at 08:53 AM
Scott Adams was pointing out that there are intelligent and educated people arguing effectively and informatively from both points of view. How do we know or decide which to believe? Just because there are more of you hardly makes you correct.

You all link everyone to "talkorigins" as if it's your holy bible, ignoring the fact that it's Just Another Internet Site where people can post however selectively they like, without peer review and with very little commentary. There are a multitude of other sites where people with just as many letters after their names disagree with talkorigins' conclusions. Indeed, Behe has countered (scroll to Response to Critics) many of the counter-arguments posed to the statements in his (in)famous Darwin's Black Box.

Why is this so hard to understand and acknowledge? Who am I to believe and why?

It is hard to get solid, believable, unbiased facts on the matter. Creationists have an obvious agenda and your vehement anti-anything-that-religious-people-agree-with agenda is no less obvious. Why should I believe them or you?

You may say it's intellectual laziness, but some of us have a responsibility to do other things with our lives besides spend it studying biology and chemistry. And even then, the more one studies of both points of view, the more mucked-up the arguments seem to become.

It is only easy for you because you make sufficient assumptions about what is false that it makes what you accept to be true more plausible.

#49088: — 11/16 at 09:20 AM
I'm a big fan of Dilbert and Adams, but he took a serious misstep with this debate. When someone like him - whether he's a humorist or not - contributes to the noise of the evolution debate, it only serves to promote the confusion in the general public. If he wanted to lampoon the debate, it could've been much better written. Of course, lampooning the Discovery Institute's side seems ridiculously easy, just show transcripts from Dover.

Anyone with a voice as large as his has a responsibility to be well informed. It's easy to say "my readers know I'm joking" but what about the ones that don't? What about the creationists that start quote mining Adams? What about those that say "yes, scientists can't be trusted?" We need to reduce the visibility of this manufactured controversy, and that starts with people that aren't qualified to either read up on the subject (and understand it) or totally hand the reins over to someone such as PZ.

Anyone that says neither side can be trusted because can't parse the arguments and think critically. One side's arguments are supported. The other side only makes noise. It's a pity people buy into the DI's rhetoric. Maybe if we started describing evolution like they do ID? Not from science, but from pretty sounding arguments?

#49090: — 11/16 at 09:24 AM
It's very hard to get unbiased facts if you assume that every scientist in the world is biased, yes.

Creationists have an obvious agenda and your vehement anti-anything-that-religious-people-agree-with agenda is no less obvious. Why should I believe them or you?

I doubt most of the people here have an anti-anything-that-religious-people-agree-with agenda. I think most religious types would be OK with points like

Don't lie
Don't murder
Don't steal
Look after those less fortunate than yourself
Learn stuff
Work hard
Look after your family

It's just the, ah, supernatural bits that there are differences over

#49091: John M. Price — 11/16 at 09:28 AM
Walt:
Rather than demonstrating your speaking from ignorance, perhaps you should take the hint and actually read the talkorigins.org site? It is decidedly NOT just another internet site, and no, anyone cannot just upload information, articles, etc. to the site. It is actually vetted, much more so than Behe's little tome. (See pandasthumb.org for a discussion of his alleged 'peer review'.)

Sure, it sends people to libraries where required. And yes, allows feedback (the only place where anyone can add info - and not all of that gets published to the site!). However as a collective index of the knowledge base, including some full articles (e.g., halos and radioactive decay; the second law of thermodynamics, etc.), it really can't be beat.

And, it is lots simpler to point to a reference 'book' with the full citation(s) than to repeat them over, and over, and over, and over, and over again for fools who, for some reason, do not seem to want to actually read the material the speak about from complete ignorance.

So go over to talkorigins.org and look up, say, the index to creationist claims. Come back when you aren't so ignorant about the site and let us know how successful you were, as an 'anybody', adding your screed tothe place.

#49092: Orac — 11/16 at 09:28 AM
Walt: "Just because there are more of you hardly makes you correct."

No one said it did. It is the evidence that makes us correct. Also consider that ID apologists have been unable to produce a single experiment to support their "hypothesis" (and I'm really being excessivly kind in calling it that).

"Why should I believe them or you?"

Because the weight of the evidence supports evolution, not creationism and not the ID variant of creationism. Because ID is not a science, the reasons why having been listed ad nauseum. Geez, if you can't comprehend this after all this discussion, then you're beyond hope.

There are plenty of resources for lay people about evolution. That's one reason we point to Talkorigins.org so often. Most of the articles there are written to present the evidence supporting evolution in a manner accessible to the educated lay person. That's what makes Talk Origins a good Internet source for information about evolution. It is quite open and upfront about its limitations and the editor asks that any errors be forwarded to his attention.

Basically, Walt, you sound like you want to be spoon-fed the information by some authority figure. You want to be taken by the hand and led, to be told what is correct and not correct. You just can't decide which authority figures to follow. Instead of looking at the evidence, seeking guidance, and deciding for yourself, you beg us to please--please--tell you whom you should believe and why. That is indeed intellectual laziness.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com

#49093: — 11/16 at 09:28 AM
"Scott Adams is a friggin' cartoonist - I don't give a damn about his opinions on evolution, ID, or anything else."

All he has a pulpit with millions of readers. It matters that he is ignorant of what evolutionary biology is and isn't. He confused abiogenesis with evolution, does not understand that pan spermia only moves the process to elsewhere in the universe, assumes that physical anthropology is the sine qua non of phylogenetic work, and because he probably lost his passion for anything constructive, finds meaning in twitting those that are passionate about the issue, rather than coming to grips with what underlies that passion, and how it fits into larger themes. In other words, he failed to heed the dictum about keeping one's mouth shut if you don't know anything.

#49094: — 11/16 at 09:31 AM

intelligent and educated people arguing effectively and informatively from both points of view

I'd like you to find some intelligent people who are arguing Effectively and Informatively for the ID side. ID arguements tend to be intellectually dishonest.
If you want to see Michael Behe in all his glory I suggest you take a look at the transcripts from the Dover Trial where Behe was called in for "expert" testimony. Read those and you'll see just how "informatively" Behe argues.

You all link everyone to "talkorigins" as if it's your holy bible

How can "Talk Origins" be our holy bible? We don't take things from Talk Origins to be without error and then make up some belief system based on that site. We don't go around saying "it says so at Talkorigins it must be true!". Quite the opposite. Talkorigins gathers information on evolution, geology, biology and puts them together in a very good reference site. The reason we link to it a lot is because it has good articles for non-biologists (like myself).

You don't need to be a biology expert to see that the ID arguements are bunk. Ask yourself, what's the difference between saying "Life is so complex, it must have been created by a higher power (God)" and saying "The plague is a scourage upon humanity - it is clearly the work of demons and the devil"?

The answer is that there really isn't much of a difference. Both statements represent a lack of knowledge. Science seeks to expand our knowledge and you cannot deny that it has been one of the most successful endevours in the history of civilization. Behe, Dembski and the gang take up the anti-science positions. They say "life is so complex, I don't see how this could have happened naturally, therefore God did it, that settles it, the end". That's a logically fallacy pure and simple. The whole ID belief system is founded on that logical fallacy.

#49095: — 11/16 at 09:35 AM

You all link everyone to "talkorigins" as if it's your holy bible, ignoring the fact that it's Just Another Internet Site where people can post however selectively they like, without peer review and with very little commentary.

PZ could tell you the standards for TO submissions, I certainly can't. But to portray TO as "Just Another Internet Site" is very silly.

Why is this so hard to understand and acknowledge? Who am I to believe and why?

It is hard to get solid, believable, unbiased facts on the matter. Creationists have an obvious agenda and your vehement anti-anything-that-religious-people-agree-with agenda is no less obvious. Why should I believe them or you?

But that's just it. We're NOT asking you to believe us. We're asking you to look at the evidence and understand why it's led to this conclusion. And the books and sites that we've referenced are excellent resources for the average joe to do just that. ID creationists, at best, ask you to redefine evidence and science.

And since you tried to portray this as a religious-vs.-atheist issue, need I remind you that the ID/creationism side (in the US) is nearly 100% Christian, while the evolution side is very roughly half religious? That doesn't wash. Agenda? Are you really lapsing into the Creationist "atheist conspiracy" allegations? Not only is that a gross mischaracterization of atheists, it's an insult to the army of hardworking believing biologists in evolutionary science.

You repeat Adams' claim that sources like TO are biased (he's referred to TO specifically elsewhere.) Okay. How? Where? What points, what articles, do you see as biased, as mischaracterizing ID creationists?

#49096: Ron Zeno — 11/16 at 09:38 AM
Ignorance and arrogance together is a very dangerous thing... Whining about not having the critical thinking skills to differentiate science from anti-science is simply pathetic.

#49098: — 11/16 at 09:45 AM
Hey Walt - what about the fact that talkorigins extensively references - and is almost entirely based upon - scientific literature that IS peer reviewed?

No, wait - those 'peer reviewers' aren't credible because they make money from science! Nobody is credible! Oh, who do I believe? The man who studies, learns and shares his data, or the proven liar who's trying to push his religious agenda? What a dilemma.

You guys really are idiots, and you deserve absolutely all of the derision that you attract.

#49099: Adam Ierymenko — 11/16 at 09:50 AM
Though I haven't read Adams' book, the way I've heard it described here makes him out to be a species of that most silly of modern creatures: the postmodernist skeptic. It's pretty in vogue now... just look at Michael Crichton.

Adams, as I've heard it paraphrased, does not believe in "anything he can't eat if he tries hard enough." So he basically doesn't believe in using the human conceptual faculty. There is nothing except what is directly in front of you. Reason? Induction? Higher order conceptual thought? Intuition? Bah! All those who engage in such things are... get this... biased by virtue of the fact that they believe something. You can't view the universe correctly unless you take all of your "models of reality" out of the equation. This is why he won't read biologists. They are biased because they think they know something about nature.

Just ponder for a moment how silly this is. The only way to know anything is to know nothing. We are blind because we have eyes, and we are dumb because we have thoughts and ideas.

I really have no problem with bashing these fools. When these postmodern fluff-balls abandoned reason, they left the door open for all the vile lunacy that we now see rising from the dead in this country.

#49100: — 11/16 at 10:01 AM
Adams' definition of a non-biased source is one that presents both arguements as equally respectable, doesn't criticise either one, and then concludes that it's "one person's word against another" and "we can't know for sure".

And I'm having a lot of problems with this site, I keep getting this message saying I'm not connecting to the database.

#49101: John Emerson — 11/16 at 10:04 AM
Walt: it's actually not that hard to get a reasonable grasp of evolution, but it takes SOME work. As I understand, you don't want to do the work, but you wish you could find out someone to trust (i.e., an authority.).

But you refuse to trust biologists, so you're going to be "open-minded" and trust no one. But openmindedness is a kind of opinion too, and isn't risk-free as you wish. Being openminded about the wrong thing is wrong.

This whole episode casts an unpleasant light on a certain sort of glib, semi-educated American, for whom issues can never be decided on the facts, but are always decided by deal-making between personalities or interest groups. The opinions of many (and not just stupid people) seem to be entirely decided by which kind of person is most fun to hang out with. (Notoriously, Bush vs. Gore).

I don't blame Kuhn or any of those guys, but a misreading of philosophy of science is part of the problem here.

#49103: Wally Whateley — 11/16 at 10:11 AM
I've just barely been paying attention to this, but it occurs to me that we're seeing the initial stages of Scott Adams transforming himself into Johnny Hart, Dave Sim, or Bruce Tinsley -- wingnuts who will be remembered more for their ideological lunacy than for any artwork they may have created for their comics pages.

#49105: Bryson Brown — 11/16 at 10:15 AM
When your opponent retreats into pure skepticism the game is over.

Who should I believe? Adams seems to think it's all in his gut reaction (I don't like the cut of their jib or the fact that they aren't nicer to me about my complete ignorance of the issues, so I don't think they're credible). Some of his fans seem to think it's about whether someone 'has a degree'.

But let's get serious: It's not just counting letters after names-- it's looking at training and motive (ever read Dembski on his own attitudes towards naturalism in science? His efforts to fudge the line between methodological and metaphysical naturalism? The repetitive, grandious self-comparisons with Galileo?), it's (crudely) counting the names (steve-o-meter, anyone?) and looking at the work (peer-reviewed!), it's substantive debates, predictions and observations vs. repetition, whining and empty 'God did it, so there' explanations...

If you don't want to read some serious biology (even when it's been carefully digested & arranged by experts taking time away from their own work to provide useful resources for the rest of us), if you don't want to think about what makes scientific method different from 'anything explainers' like "God (or maybe someone else) did it, & we have no idea how", then you're just in the way and adding to the "more stupid noise" level. Congratulations. (I assume Adam's superior irony detector will get that last shot right...)

#49106: Heliologue — 11/16 at 10:17 AM
I've read Adam's books, and I like the guy, but I also know that he enjoys postulating for the sheer hell of it, and obviously with no concern for researching it first (see The Dilbert Future for examples).

In this case, however, Adams is postulating "What if gravity is the uniform expansion of matter?", which is fanciful, at worst. No, what he's doing now is injecting that same sort of uncertainty (the "I haven't done any research, but gosh, I'm not convinced by either side" kind) into an already polarized debate. A lot of people read Adams' stuff, and Joe Schmoe, who might not give a damn about Behe or Dembski, might read Adam's blog and say to themselves, "Gosh, I haven't done any research, but gosh, I'm not convinced by either side." Boom, more mindless "teach the controversy" drones.

It's intellectually dishonest to avoid picking one side by disparaging them both.

#49107: — 11/16 at 10:19 AM
This so-called openminded attitude is psychologically very seductive. Indulging in it allows you to feel tolerant, intellectual and above-it-all. You can throw in a little nihilistic pseudoskepticism and feel cool and ironic. However, it s just laziness dressed up in shades and a black turtleneck (showing my age much)

#49110: John Emerson — 11/16 at 10:31 AM
Adams and his supporters seem amazed that there are people in the world who care about evolution A LOT. Probably for him people like us are not to be trusted. Certainly he thinks we're silly, but of course the feeling is mutual.

Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last »

Next entry: Welcome Winter

Previous entry: Tangled Bank #41

<< Back to main