PZ Myers. 2005 Feb 21. They aren't just petty and mean, they're stupid. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/they_arent_just_petty_and_mean_theyre_stupid/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Monday, February 21, 2005
They aren't just petty and mean, they're stupid
I don't mean to harp on this stuff, but I think that blogs need to publicize the fact that some of these alleged "mainstream" bloggers on the right are quite far out on the fringe. They will respond furiously that Atrios and Kos and others are America haters or "barking moonbats" but their own words speak for themselves. It's important that people see them, especially the mainstream media who are just beginnning to pay attention. They need to understand that Powerline is not just some nice lawyers and bankers who write about politics. They represent what Richard Hofsteder calls the paranoid strain in American politics. It's important that people begin to make distinctions.
I'll add to that…not only are they paranoid crazy, they're stupid crazy. Rising Hegemon dug up this tiny jewel of idiocy from Hindrocket from a few years ago:
Professor Volokh seemed to assume that someone who doesn't believe in evolution is a harmless crank, who should not on that account be barred from pursuing a career in, say, medicine. My own view is different. I think that Darwin's theory of macroevolution is plainly wrong, on strictly scientific grounds. So to bar a student from progressing in his career because he refuses to sign on to what is, in my view, a rather obvious fraud, which cannot withstand the mildest scrutiny, is really an outrage. It is no different from the practice in Soviet Russia of promoting only biologists who believed (or pretended to believe) in the theories of Lamarck, who argued that acquired traits could be inherited. But Darwinism is the official religion of the biological (and more generally, the scientific) establishment, and as such is rigorously enforced.
"On strictly scientific grounds"? Hindrocket doesn't know any science. The "macroevolution" canard is stock mindless creationism. The real outrage here is that a clueless nitwit like Hindrocket can claim that the entire field of biology is a fraud that cannot stand up to scrutiny; I'd be happy to mop the floor with him in a debate, if he wants to try.
Karl Popper argued long ago that Darwin's theory of evolution was never a matter of science; it was always about faith. As the empirical foundations of Darwinism have crumbled under attack by a new generation of biologists, especially microbiologists, its advocates have become increasingly shrill and sectarian.
I am one of the current generation of biologists, and I can assure you that his claim that evolution ("Darwinism?" Give me a break. Calling it "Darwinism" is clue #1 that you're dealing with an ignorant creationist) is under attack from us is a stinking pile of baloney. He's simply accepting the dishonest claims of the skulking creationists at the Discovery Institute at face value. The overwhelming majority of scientists support evolution…as they should, since it is the theory best supported by the evidence.
As for that remark about "especially microbiologists"…hilarious. It's obvious that Hindrocket doesn't even know what microbiologists are, or what they do, or what evidence his imaginary "microbiologists" are pulling out of their ass.
Time magazine really screwed the pooch when they named PowerLine "blog of the year"—they picked a site run by a few paranoid, extremist doofuses. People, please don't judge the good progressive state of Minnesota by these extremist clowns and Lileks.
Hey, all you charming and adorable powerline fans who are sending me e-mail and making phone calls: consider this fair warning. I will consider your messages fair game to post publicly. They will provide us all much merriment.
Oh, and here is my reply to Power Line.
-
You'd think one would get sensitized to this sort of thing over time, but the combined level of arrogance and ignorance in that post was just astounding.
And blog of the year? Am I the only semi-compulsive blog reader who's never even heard of Powerline?#: Posted by on 02/21 at 06:33 PM - I'd heard of them, but only because they were sorta local -- and I regarded them as members of the regional wingnut brigade. That Time thought they were important is just a measure of how clueless magazines can be.
-
I've heard of them, along with LGF, Instapundit, NRO, Town Hall, and so forth. I don't frequent wingnut blogs though; Irefuse to give them the traffic, and absolutely refuse to endorse any of them by linking.
#: Posted by paperwight on 02/21 at 06:43 PM
-
Oh well, if Karl Popper says (supposedly) that evolution is a matter of faith, that settles it - an offhand remark from a philosopher like Popper or Flew is worth far more than the research of thousands of scientists.
I love the way Creationists like to find crumbs of comfort in the words of some prominent intellectual rather than to think for themselves or to get themselves properly qualified to understand the work of modern scientists. Their use of the word "Darwinism" is not just a polemical device: they really can't get their heads around the idea that scientists don't treat the Origin of Species like the Bible.#: Posted by Bartholomew on 02/21 at 07:19 PM -
I love the way Creationists like to find crumbs of comfort in the words of some prominent intellectual rather than to think for themselves
They're conservatives, of course it's all about Authority. It's how they make decisions.
Assmissle's a lawyer. What is it about lawyers? (cf Johnson, NavyDavy, etc.)#: Posted by Jim Flannery on 02/21 at 07:34 PM -
“Darwinism?” Give me a break. Calling it “Darwinism” is clue #1 that you’re dealing with an ignorant creationist
I was just thinking about this yesterday. While you see a lot of people with a (positive) interest in evolution calling ID "Intelligent Design Creationism" in order to thumb their collective noses at the memeticists working for the Discovery Institute who insist ID isn't Creationism, I think we could learn a thing or two from their propaganda techniques, especially the above common attempt to portray the central theory of biology as nothing more than a cult of personality.
How about if everyone made a concerted effort to refer to ID as "Dembskism" and its proponents "Dembskists"? After all, the man's the Isaac Newton of Information Theory and one of the most important thinkers of our Age of Information, so he really should have an -ism named in his honor.
I'm sure the DI wouldn't find it the slightest bit annoying to hear "Dembskism, Dembskism, Dembskism" over and over whenever anyone talks about their work, nor feel any need to waste time in their blog constantly explaining why the other side would employ the term.#: Posted by on 02/21 at 07:36 PM -
I find it funny that Hindrocket cites microbiology as a challenge to evolution. Some of the best examples of evolution and the process of natural selection come from laboratory microbiology experiments. Also, over at I posted a list of articles from the last three months that deal with evolution. You can also find the list at my blog, Mike the Mad Biologist.
#: Posted by Michael Feldgarden on 02/21 at 08:02 PM
-
I assumed Hindrocket's "especially microbiologists" was a referrence to Behe, who single-handedly crumbled the foundations of Darwinism with his microbiological flagella outboard motors, leading to his common misidentification as a microbiologist (although he's a biochemist... and also a Dembskist).
#: Posted by on 02/21 at 08:25 PM
-
"Dembskism......"
Ah, jpf, someday the Oxford English Dictionary will have you in a footnote! That's my new favorite word, and I shall use it. Lots.#: Posted by on 02/21 at 09:25 PM -
Assmissle’s a lawyer. What is it about lawyers? (cf Johnson, NavyDavy, etc.)
So, I won't take personal offense at that either on my own behalf or on behalf of all the profoundly decent, smart, honest lawyers I know. I do, however, wish to note (off the top of my head) the EFF, Larry Lessig, the ACLU, the JAG who are leaking Gitmo torture info, and so on. Asininity is not a professional hazard.#: Posted by paperwight on 02/21 at 09:46 PM -
Assmissle’s a lawyer. What is it about lawyers? (cf Johnson, NavyDavy, etc.)
It's not the law's fault that a certain percentage of people who enter any number of professions are lying sacks of excrement. It has more to do with people deciding that they have to lie in order to best serve Their Cause, whatever that cause may be.#: Posted by on 02/21 at 09:49 PM -
So, I won’t take personal offense at that either on my own behalf or on behalf of all the profoundly decent, smart, honest lawyers I know.
Gah. None intended, of course.
But the idea that you can figure out whether something is true or not by having two "sides" (darwinism/dembskiism) argue in front of a "neutral third party" (school board/church congregation/classroom full of teenagers) ... privileging argument over evidence ... where does one find these methods?#: Posted by Jim Flannery on 02/21 at 11:16 PM -
Being from Wisconsin, I would never blame the Powerline tools on my Viking friends, but Lileks, the old fivehead, is all yours. Someone over there must be reading his columns.
#: Posted by on 02/22 at 12:01 AM
-
"Especially microbiologists" -- what in hell is he drooling about? I've watched the assault on Darwinism pretty closely and I can't think of any major creationist or ID proponent who is also a microbiologist. Ya know, I've got a doctorate in that very field, and I'd have noticed. Only conclusion that makes sense is that Hindrocket -- who thinks himself sufficiently well-informed to attack a cornerstone of modern biology -- doesn't know what microbiology is, what microbiologists study, or who is or isn't a microbologist.
Ignorant fool. -
The quote below comes from Hindrocket's fairly recent post on PowerLine called The Insanity of the American Left. I know this man isn't one of our favorites but I think he has a point.
I can't count the number of emails we've gotten from Democrats on the Jeff Gannon "story." For the most part, they drip with venom and irrational hatred. I'd like to believe that there is some kind of a respectable left in this country, but where is it? It sure isn't showing up in our email inbox.
This missive, which came in this morning, is typical:
I guess you "holier-than-thou moral values conservatives" don't have a problem with gay male prostitutes who pose as conservative reporters as long as they are republican, huh? Hypocrites. If there is a god, you hypocrites are all going to hell. (I don't think God will forgive you, even if you ARE republican.)
The stupidity of these people, as well as their malice, is mind-boggling.
. . . .
Of course, what we've criticized the left-wing blogs for is posting nude photographs of Gannon. How does the twisted "logic" manifested by these emailers justify that contemptible practice? Once again: beats me. The only conclusion I can come to is that a great many liberals are so consumed by hate that they have gone stark raving mad.
UPDATE: The meltdown continues. Here is the latest from our email inbox: Jeff Gannon and Karl Rove are secretly lovers! I'm not making this up; not only have we heard about this theory via hate mail from lefties, a reader (a sane one, that is) also says this is popping up all over AOL's political discussion sites. It's just about time for the men in white coats to intervene, I think.
Now, I understand that there is much to dislike and speak out about concerning the religious right (even some minor things in this post), however I am taken aback at the venom and ignorance that is often displayed by those on the liberal left. There should really be some speaking out against this sort of insulting trash. It not only does nothing to further our arguments but it also makes us look bad as a whole and gives the conservatives more ammunition.
On another note, paperweight, isn't the general idea of most discussions to engender communication? Isn't tolerance also a great part of what we believe in, even tolerance of things we dislike even hate? Obviously, I don't know about your tolerance but I don't think that the solution lies in ignoring our opponents, rather I believe that these people should be exposed and read more widely.
I omitted a section in the middle that is mostly a rant but you can find the whole thing at <http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_02.php#009626>. Sorry, I don't know how to put links in yet.#: Posted by on 02/22 at 12:42 AM -
Amante, I find it interesting that you suggest having a dialogue in the context of papwerwight's post, which references LGF, Instapundit,TownHall, et al. These blogs don't promote communication, and if invited to have one certainly don't respond in kind.
This isn't to say that Powerlines is the same, but the post at hand certainly isn't a good indication. If they are really interested in having such a conversation, perhaps they can begin with an admition that they know little or nothing about what they are pontificating about in this instance. Sounds fair to me. -
All of the big right-wing blogs have this kind of idiocy, although some have it more than others. LGF and Free Republic are Nazis. Instapundit is not, although he has a tendency to make outrageous statements that his left-wing equivalent, Josh Marshall, would never even dream of making. Tacitus is considered a moderate, but his blog is full of conservative vitriol in the LGF tradition. The only left-wing blog that has anything approaching that level of extremism is Daily Kos (plus the Democratic Underground, but that is not a blog).
#: Posted by on 02/22 at 02:25 AM
-
Karl Popper argued long ago that Darwin’s theory of evolution was never a matter of science; it was always about faith.
Uhh, what? I've read all of Popper's books and I don't remember that one. Cretinism would be the first helplessly crushed into powder under the wheels of Popper's falsifiability qualifier, but let's not get involved in that sticky either/or muck. -
Another lawyer here to defend the profession; I'll grant you Johnson, but why are so many of the leading lights of the IDist movement biochemists or mathematicians? (Note: this is where the 'smiley' would go, if I used such things.)
Seriously, though: I think PZ is wrong, or at least could be wrong, about Hinderaker's ignorance of science. He might well be that ignorant. Then again, he might not be. I don't think that, for Hinderaker and people like him, the truth of the claim that 'the new generation of biologists is sceptical of evolution' matters very much. What matters is creating a field of white noise. Whether or not Hinderaker really thinks that scientists are dubious about evolution, he'd like the general public to think they are.
Sure, lots of IDists, like lots of other creationists, are ignorant (in many cases, wilfully so). But I think lots of people in the expensively-educated rightwing opinionmongering caste know that ID, and creationism generally, are so much unscientific nonsense. And they don't care. They might even accept the idea of evolution themselves, and think it grand that a relatively small number of professional scientists know about it and use it fruitfully. But for reasons having nothing whatever to do with science, they view the idea of evolution as dangerous and unwelcome, at least for the Toiling Millions.
It's a very Straussian thing. And it's nothing new. As the possibly apocryphal Victorian bishop's wife (or whoever it was) said, 'Let us hope that Mr Darwin is wrong; but if he is right, let us hope that this does not become generally known.'#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 02/22 at 05:26 AM -
Now, I understand that there is much to dislike and speak out about concerning the religious right (even some minor things in this post), however I am taken aback at the venom and ignorance that is often displayed by those on the liberal left. There should really be some speaking out against this sort of insulting trash. It not only does nothing to further our arguments but it also makes us look bad as a whole and gives the conservatives more ammunition.
I don't see all that much "venom and ignorance" on the liberal left. Venom and ignorance of what, exactly? I see a lot of frustration with proto-fascists on the nominal right (there are so many axes of political thought that I despair of left-right at this point). And the "venom and ignorance" line sounds exactly like the endless right-wing troll talking points that I see over and over again on liberal blog comments.
On another note, paperweight, isn’t the general idea of most discussions to engender communication? Isn’t tolerance also a great part of what we believe in, even tolerance of things we dislike even hate? Obviously, I don’t know about your tolerance but I don’t think that the solution lies in ignoring our opponents, rather I believe that these people should be exposed and read more widely.
I don't have to be tolerant of people who want to destroy me and everything I believe is good about my country. They don't tolerate me. In fact, one of the classic attacks from the current crop of revanchists is "But you're a liberal so you have to be tolerant of me. Now hold still while I accuse of hating America and being a traitor." Nunh-unh. Sorry. Expose these people, yes. Tolerate, no. "Discussions to engender communications" suggests that you're falling prey to what I've called the "Getting to Yes" fallacy: You can't negotiate with someone who wants to destroy you. If you want to, that's your business, but the outcome is guaranteed to be negative not only for you but for everyone you purport to represent. Sorry, but that's the Schmittian tribal reality of American politics for the last 20 years.I omitted a section in the middle that is mostly a rant...
Ah. Why? The rant is the actual content -- phatic language to communicate Hinderaker's bonafides and get his sympathetic readers nodding their heads in agreement. You can't seriously be omitting large chunks of "rant" and then telling me that the left is where the venom is, and exhort me to engage in dialogue with the ranter. Come on.#: Posted by paperwight on 02/22 at 07:23 AM -
Instapundit is not, although he has a tendency to make outrageous statements that his left-wing equivalent, Josh Marshall, would never even dream of making.
The closest liberal equivalent to Instapundit in blogging style, from what I remember when I still read Instapundit, is Atrios. Josh Marshall is a DLC Democrat (EU center-right), which he says regularly, and which his mostly long and thoughtful posts (contrast with Instapundit's link-and-run) tend to show.
Atrios, by contrast, is a left-liberal Democrat (putting him in the EU center), and most of his posts are hit-and-run. That's more like Instapundit in style and further to the left than Marshall, but without the public welfare payments that Instapundit lives on as a libertarian state law school professor. Funny, that.
I also don't think the two are equivalent in their political extremism -- it's a facile and false thing to do, picking one person on one side and assuming there's a counterpart just as extreme and just as influential on another side. There was no anti-Pinochet. There is no anti-Dobson. THere is no anti-Instapundit. The most outrageous statements are what Instapundit believes. Don't think otherwise.#: Posted by paperwight on 02/22 at 07:36 AM -
It's interesting how people like Hindrocket use the laguage of religion to deride biology- saying 'darwinism' is based on faith, calling it the prevailing 'religion of biology'. Presumably when they use words like 'faith' and 'religion' to describe their own beliefs, it is in a positive way. You could chalk this up to simple double-think, and I'm sure there is plenty of that going on, but I suspect it goes deeper. They don't actually care about truth or objectivity- for them it is a matter of us versus them. So when describing their own beliefs, faith is good because it is faith in the beliefs of the Good Guys, and so the more you have of it the better you are, but when it is placed in something else it is Evil because the more of it you have the more you are immune to re-programming. Faith, belief, conviction- these are not things that need to have anything to do with truth, they are simply tools or markets for identifying the good guys and bad guys. Truth has no standing, it's simply a rhetorical device.
According to this way of seeing things, all the talk of evidence is just another rhetorical trick. Since it's somewhat effective, they've tried to co-opt it. Statements like 'all faith is bad' or 'all reasonable conclusions are good' don't appeal to them- things which lead to the conclusions they want to reach are good, things which lead to other conclusions are bad. -
“Especially microbiologists” — what in hell is he drooling about? I’ve watched the assault on Darwinism pretty closely and I can’t think of any major creationist or ID proponent who is also a microbiologist. [...] Ignorant fool. (Alex Merz)
Or maybe he's just out of date, although I doubt it. Directed mutation was an attack on Darwinism and came from microbiologists (Cairns, Hall). As biologists we should not forget that some of our colleagues find natural selection vaguely distasteful, and would love to see it diminished.#: Posted by on 02/22 at 08:38 AM -
The only left-wing blog that has anything approaching that level of extremism is Daily Kos
Atrios richly qualifies - it wasn't that long ago that a thread on there was full of people calling Michelle Malkin a "wog" and a "Filipino whore", language one will never see on Tacitus or anywhere else on the right outside LGF. The worst thing about the thread in question is that not a single left-wing participant saw fit to call those who were throwing about such insults on their language.
I hate to say this, but this entire post only says to me how blind some people are to the failings of their own side. Hindrocket is undoubtedly utterly ignorant of science, but how PZ Myers feels about his foolishness is exactly how I feel whenever I hear some left-winger spouting nonsense about anything to do with economics; if confidently sounding off on matters of which one is ignorant is a crime, then the majority of opinionators on both sides of the political divide are guilty. If one is willing to grant that a person can have valid opinions in one domain while spouting nonsense in another, then why not entertain the possibility that the same is true of Powerline?
The fact of the matter is that as reliably partisan as Instapundit and Powerline are, there can be no legitimate comparison of them to LGF or Free Republic, while Atrios and DKos have a routine viciousness to them that makes Glenn Reynolds and the Powerline guys seem the height of civility; you never see them throwing around insults like "Dhimmicrat" the way many liberals do "Rethug" and much other childish stuff in that vein. There really is nothing "extreme" about Instapundit or Powerline, unless by "extreme" all one means to say is "espousing policies I don't like."#: Posted by Abiola Lapite on 02/22 at 08:58 AM -
some left-winger spouting nonsense about anything to do with economics
Because all economics are right-wing? That doesn't make any sense.
(1) Hinderocket takes the position, from the posts of his that I've seen reprinted, that liberals are by definition traitors, which is a common trope among the right-wing in this country, including a lot of people on the right that get a lot of air time, like Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter. That's a lot more hateful than anything I've seen anywhere on the left.
(2) You are conflating commenters with the people who own the blogs. Last time I checked, Reynolds doesn't have comments -- it would be interesting to see what they really look like. LGF and FreeRepublic actually moderate their comments, which I don't think Atrios does. So I have a bit of difficulty with you associating Atrios with his commentors. I'm not a fan of the name calling, but the bottom line is that no matter what anyone says about "civility", the American public doesn't respond to it. Period. For whatever reason, Americans say that they want civility, but when you respond civilly to a slur, Americans think you're a wimp. And being called traitor over and over again for 5 years or so will tend to get people's backs up.
(3) In the civility vein, Have you seen the recent emails that people have received from Hinderocket?
(4) Glenn can seem the height of civility because all he does is link to the nastier stuff.
(5) That false equivalence stuff is just tiresome. I'm sick of it. It's like pointing at John Kerry and saying "SEE, HE'S TOO FAR LEFT." Well, he's not. The right in the US is VERY FAR RIGHT. The left in this country would have to be pretty close to Maoists (a position of which we're often accused) in order to counterbalance it. So, when people say "a pox on both your houses", they're de facto endorsing the right, because there is no equivalent left, either in politics or in the size and persistence of their influence, smear tactics, and demagoguery.
PZ, I'm done. I'll be back later today.#: Posted by paperwight on 02/22 at 09:20 AM -
I gave up on the comments at Eschaton some time ago, as the signal-to-noise ratio there had fallen to a value approximating zero. I don't think Duncan Black now even tries to moderate them, and I can understand why he wouldn't want to waste his time doing so. (I think he keeps the comment feature around to help drive viewers to his site, because of the revenue is generates from advertisers.) Caveat emptor would certainly seem to be applicable to the gentle readers who venture into Blogistan!
However, Daily Kos is different in that the comment rating system there really does seem to work to moderate what's said. Sure, plenty of comments are rude and insulting and the ratings aren't always fair given the partisan slant on Markos' site, but it does give the more fair-minded a way to admonish those who make insulting comments, and the level of discussion there is better than it otherwise would be.#: Posted by on 02/22 at 09:31 AM -
Is there anything left-wingers say about economics that is more deranged than the support of right-wingers for GW Bush's policies?
That's the bottom line for me. Say what you want about Democratic naivete on economic policy, but the reality is that they tend to support moderate ideas that lean towards labor and the lower class, if anything; and most importantly, Democratic economic policy has actually worked.
Republican policy, while also moderate historically, is currently insane and destructive. Bush's phony budget shenanigans, consistent lies about expected expenses for the war in Iraq, demolition of support for basic infrastructure, gutting of education and science...we could go on and on.
And against that you stack the fact that many Democrats are extremely pissed off and saying rude things about Rethuglicans? I don't think they've gone far enough. If there is any real problem here, it's that the Left is insufficiently outraged. -
Undoubtedly, we are most often blinded by our own convictions. Why must our fealty to certain ideals necessitate much of the same, and sometimes even worse, lowbrow verbal bullets that are flung against us from the right (or whoever doesn't agree with us)?
Yes, paperwight, I think there is substantially less "ignorance" on the left, but reactionary hate mail like the examples posted by Hindrocket are not a boon to our cause.
Finally, I left out a, not so substantial, chunk of the post in order to focus on the specific point I was trying to make. My point was not to expose Hindrakers venom and <b>not<> that the left is where the venom is, but that the left is where it should not be.#: Posted by on 02/22 at 09:58 AM -
Correct me if I'm wrong, Abiola, but isn't the vitriol on Atrios in the comments rather than in the main posts? On forums like DU, and forum-like blogs like Kos, it's easy for vitriol to trickle up to what everyone sees.
Insults like rethug and repug are idiotic - I'm one of the last liberals you'll see defend anything originating from DU - but their right-wing equivalent exist: witness how Instapundit et al call liberals traitors and equate them to terrorists. If you look at Nazi memorandums, you'll see that they don't use insults like "Jewish scum"; rather, they use very PC language, must like how American racists used to hate niggers whereas now they hate African-Americans. What is said may look more civil but what is meant is the same.
Regarding your comment that no one criticized calling people "wogs," I don't know about the others, but I don't even know who Michelle Malkin is, much less where she was called a wog. Either way it's wrong, but you can't expect people to criticize what they don't know happens.
I do remember idiotic comments made on Tactius, although the most extreme thing I can be certain of is that some commenters said Chavez was a totalitarian dictator and started flinging mud on the commenter who asked them to name one opposition paper Chavez closed down. As of now I don't even remember whether the original poster said that, though I remember more strongly that the poster called Chavez a communist.
Hindrocket is undoubtedly utterly ignorant of science, but how PZ Myers feels about his foolishness is exactly how I feel whenever I hear some left-winger spouting nonsense about anything to do with economics; if confidently sounding off on matters of which one is ignorant is a crime, then the majority of opinionators on both sides of the political divide are guilty.
The connection between economics and libertarianism is much weaker than the one between biology and evolutionism. Stiglitz is anything but a crank. Sen is pretty revolutionary about economics, but comparing him to Behe or Dembski is downright ignorant. Krugman's sole crime, it seems, is that he disagrees with you. Hell, Keynes created modern macroeconomics. The economic liberals can and do rest on what all of these figures say.
The closest equivalent on the left to the crankiness of creationists is racial/sexual separatism, but I don't think you can compare the power of black nationalists and radical feminists to the power of creationists in the USA. Every other American is a creationist, whereas I'll be surprised if more than ten percent subscribe to the idea that logic is a patriarchal construct.#: Posted by on 02/22 at 09:59 AM -
I like jpf's idea only I'd add an extra "i". Make Dembskiism linguistically as well as scientifically analogous to Lysenkoism.
Slogans I've ruminated on are:
"Leave pseudoscience behind"
"No special rights for Christian pseudoscience"
"No secular pseudoscience, no sectarian pseudoscience" -
(there are so many axes of political thought that I despair of left-right at this point)
I agree. It's regrettable we are often forced to generalize in order to communicate. One of my favorite authors, Ernesto Sabato, rails, briefly in his book Antes del fin(Befre the end), against the effect that our larger more interwoven and, rapidly, more technological and scientific world has on humanity. Elimination of the individual and treatment of large collective lumps.#: Posted by on 02/22 at 10:14 AM -
Ricardo, "Directed mutation," (a.k.a. "adaptive mutation") was never an attack on Darwinism (common descent, natural selection, spontaneous mutation) as a whole. Rather, it was a proposal -based on some experiments that were reproducible, but at the time difficult to interpret, that certain mutations appeared to occur at specific sites in response to a selective stimulus, and could reasonably be said to be as much anti-Delbruckian than anti-Darwinian. Anyway, it was proposed as a special case, and indeed its proponents argued that its underlying genetic mechanisms could have arisen through natural selection. It is now fairly clear that the examples in question reflect changes in mutational spectra under conditions that favor different mechanisms of DNA damage surveillance, recombination and repair.
And I seriously doubt that Hindrocket knows about any of this. -
I recently read an interesting paper that I think explains a lot of the arrogance with with creationists dismiss the entire field of biology. It's called Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. One simple, and rather commonsense conclusion of the study is that people with the lowest level of knowledge in a particular domain are also the least capable of recognizing their own deficiency, and are the least capable of assessing the competence of others. Those with greater competence in the domain are much better equipped to gauge their abilities in the domain, and those at the highest skill level may tend to underestimate their own abilities (because they know what they don't know, I guess).
#: Posted by on 02/22 at 10:55 AM
-
Alon Levy:
Michelle Malkin is one of the shining new stars of conservative punditry. Her claim to fame at the moment is that she has written a book defending the Japanese Internment during the Second World War and has suggested that such a policy might not be out of bounds with respect to American Muslims.
From what I remember of the "wog" characterization on Atrios, it was written satirically mimicing the specific language of Old European racial superiority. The writer actually signed as King Leopold of Belgium if I am remembering correctly. I don't have tome to track down the exact quote at the moment but I believe the writer intended to suggest that Malkin herself was helping to carry on this particular set of attitudes and traditions. Of course, one can argue about whether or not this is sort of thing is funny or appropriate but needless to say, Malkin didn't even get the fact that it was intended as a joke.#: Posted by on 02/22 at 10:58 AM -
Hindrocket is undoubtedly utterly ignorant of science, but how PZ Myers feels about his foolishness is exactly how I feel whenever I hear some left-winger spouting nonsense about anything to do with economics; if confidently sounding off on matters of which one is ignorant is a crime, then the majority of opinionators on both sides of the political divide are guilty.
By the current US definition of Left, both Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman would b included in those numbers, and they have far more economical sense than the entire Bush administration (at least in regards to macroeconomics, it seems that the Bush milionairs are doing fine on a microeconomical level).#: Posted by on 02/22 at 11:08 AM -
Michelle Malkin is one of the shining new stars of conservative punditry. Her claim to fame at the moment is that she has written a book defending the Japanese Internment during the Second World War and has suggested that such a policy might not be out of bounds with respect to American Muslims.
A full-fledged racist, in other words... alright.#: Posted by on 02/22 at 11:54 AM - It's also important to note that Malkin is ethnically Asian.
-
Found the post:
Why exactly does this large toothed educated female wog believe that she will be treated as white when God chose to make her yellow?
Even her political allies see her as nothing more than a trained monkey coached into saying a few simple racial truths that would be politically damaging if put into the mouths of a white man?
Her hatred for her fellow wogs comes from an inability to accept that God did not make her a European and that God chose to make her a woman.
Please, beat her severely and set her to work in a brothel somewhere in Malaysia that services Islamic terrorists.
King Leopold | Email | Homepage | 02.04.05 - 12:39 am | #
Now, I think one can argue about whether or not this is at all funny but its difficult for me to imagine that one could miss the intentional burlesque unless they are willfully doing so. The writer is insulting her, not by calling her a "wog," but by suggesting that she is a racist. The implication is really that her type of thinking is more closely aligned with archaic notions of race. It is an insult that she, of course, ignores.
Obviously this is all rather a bit off topic but I am constantly amazed by the right's unwillingness (I don't believe it is an inability) to recognize irony.#: Posted by on 02/22 at 12:56 PM -
Les Lane: I like jpf’s idea only I’d add an extra “i”. Make Dembskiism linguistically as well as scientifically analogous to Lysenkoism.
I vacillated on whether to use two 'i's since it looks strange, but ok.
Google shows that one person already thought of the term in 2002, although he defined it as a perjorative term for "advocates of purposeful and premeditated irrationalism" such as Dembski.
My idea, however, is that the term should be exactly equal to "Intelligent Design", with no overtly stated connotations, and should be dropped in wherever "ID" would be used, analogous to the way "Darwinism" is used in place of "evolution". Saying that it should be scientifically analogous to Lysenkoism kind of misses my intent, which isn't to simply criticize ID, but to highlight the smarminess of Creationists' use of "Darwinism" by engaging in the same activity in an obvious way such that any complaining they do about it undermines their own use of the technique. Think of it as analogous to Project Steve.#: Posted by on 02/22 at 01:22 PM -
Thanks for linking to us.
I thought I'd comment here for one specific reason.
Two of the folks who run RISING HEGEMON are University of Minnesota, Morris graduates. Nice to see a quality blog eminate from the Alma Mater.
I'm also a frequent commentor at Atrios, and a vitriolic, satiric blogger. -
Wow, UMM grads actually continue to exist after commencement? That's amazing. We thought they all vanished...at least, they don't seem to come back to Morris all that much. (I don't need to explain why, I assume.)
So do I know you guys, or is it a secret? -
Well Powerline mentions you on their blog....
#: Posted by lloydletta on 02/22 at 11:59 PM
-
Unless Powerline approves of PZ, I'd mark that down as a badge of honor.
#: Posted by paperwight on 02/23 at 12:12 AM
-
That explains something. I just got a couple of late night obscene phone calls, the only politely repeatable one being the guy who told me to "shut the fuck up about politics."
Nice people over there. -
Nothing new here. Just some more "Pot.Kettle.Black" asshattery from leftwing fascists. Listen, let's just stop the pretentious bullshit and acknowledge that each side think the other side is a bunch of fucking idiots.
Paperwight :
"I don’t have to be tolerant of people who want to destroy me and everything I believe is good about my country. "
Agreed. Now go fuck yourself.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 12:45 AM -
On Popper: see this page for the scoop on the Popper thing, including the stuff the antievolutionists don't want you to know about. (Hint: Popper recanted.)
#: Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on 02/23 at 12:45 AM
-
The proper term for the ID movement is "neoPaleyism".
#: Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on 02/23 at 12:48 AM
-
How do you expect people to take your arguments seriously when you seem to spend most of your time with the ad hominem fallacy (attacking the other person/group rather than their arguments)? Whether one agrees with you or not, this is a serious credibility issue. Fewer people will care about the opinions of a scientist, however intelligent or well educated, who spends so much time mocking people. "Stupid" "paranoid" "ignorant creationist" "clueless nitwit" and are simply irrelevant at best, and at worst, very damaging to your credibility as a rational adult. Also, "Darwinism" is the term by which I became acquainted with "Evolution" while studying Philosophy at the University of California. We called it this simply because it is more clear. When one refers to "Darwinism", it is know that they are speaking of Darwin and his ideas. Evolution, however, is often misunderstood. Marco and Micro evolution are too easily confused, especially by those who are still becoming more familiar with the ideas from both sides.
Please consider this simply as a request to address your arguments more to the issues and less "ad hominem".
Jason B#: Posted by on 02/23 at 12:54 AM -
“Darwinism” is the term by which I became acquainted with “Evolution” while studying Philosophy at the University of California.
Exactly.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 01:07 AM -
Fewer people will care about the opinions of a scientist, however intelligent or well educated, who spends so much time mocking people. “Stupid” “paranoid” “ignorant creationist” “clueless nitwit” and are simply irrelevant at best, and at worst, very damaging to your credibility as a rational adult.
I disagree with your characterization of PZ's rhetorical methods. That said, did you sleep through the last election? Tactics such as those you inaccurately ascribe to our esteemed host are extremely effective in the US.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 01:27 AM -
Chris, don't conflate reality with marketing.
Jason, it doesn't matter how philosophers call it. What matters is how biologists call it.
Wesley, Popper's attack on Darwinian evolution was not a personal revelation but an argument, and hence recanting doesn't mean anything. What does mean a lot is that his attack just doesn't hold water, because Darwinian evolution does make falsifiable predictions.
Smokem, who are you, really? PZ? Chris? DD? DS? I just find it hard to believe a real person would say what you said.
Brent, in that case the comment is just tasteless, but not racist.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 01:50 AM -
Sorry, Jason B., but if you hang with scientists you quickly discover that they don't pull their punches. In other words, if you're acting like a stupid fool we will generally tell you so.
I call Nazis evil. Ad hominem? Maybe. Pithy and accurate? That, too. Spend any significant amount of time conversing with creationists, as PZ, I, and many others here have, and you will quickly discover that these...
“Stupid” “paranoid” “ignorant creationist” “clueless nitwit”
...are, all too often, accurate descriptors. Hang around here, or at the Panda's Thuimb, and you will also find detailed discussion of specific points of fact, theory, and methodology. If you can't stand the heat, you don't belong anywhere near the scientific kitchen. "Rational adults" can deal with heated discussion of serious issues. Can you? -
Marco and Micro evolution are too easily confused
I think a more pressing point of confusion is that many people seem to think that such a dissociation exists. -
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 01:59 AM
- Shouldn't that be a semicolon, Lord Almighty?
-
I wandered over here following a link from "Powerline" and read most of the above posts. I'm not a creationist and I'm not a scientist (unless you consider a minor in biology enough education to give me some credibility); but I do allow a kernel of doubt about scientific laws since the history of science has more than a few examples of how past laws have been proven wrong or had to be modified after new discoveries. I'm not 100% convinced, therefore, that natural selection and evolution are immune from some future tweaking. I think Einstein nailed it when he said (paraphrasing) that the universe is stranger and more complex than we can possibly imagine.
Even when I agree with a point of view, I'm put off when those who share that point of view launch sarcastic, vicious attacks against those holding other points of view and I feel compelled to distance myself from them. There is something decidedly uncivilized and un-American about the intolerance such attacks demonstrate. The tone and tenor of many of the above posts attacking creationists are, simply put, rude and uncalled-for. If you are on firm, factual ground, what's the point? Use the facts to argue, don't insult, and don't assault my senses.
I believe this kind of behavior is explained by an absence of manners coupled with a self-absorbed, impulsive need to use in-your-face behavior. When I read such stuff, I'm reminded of two-year olds throwing fits for attention. I suppose that explains why I no longer consider myself a liberal. I don't like to be associated with wild-eyed screamers whose main debating tactic seems to be turning up the volume. I cannot say I am a conservative either. I don't like to be associated with heartless bastards who seem to believe in social natural selection.
Lately, the Dems have scared me and the Reps continue to piss me off and I cannot bring myself to register with either party. To some, that means I have no political convictions. To me, that means that both sides of the aisle fail to impress with their inability to address problems and issues rationally and consensually so common sense solutions to important problems can be found and implemented quickly.
A year in-country Viet Nam during the war, over a decade of living and working in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, a graduate degree, and all the international perspective that comes from a life of work with scores of nationalities give me some credibilily when I critique the positions marked out by our politicians and their supporters. I believe I can say with confidence that most of you, as well as most of the right-wingers, have it mostly wrong.
Except for a few rational posts above, this blog is just boring with its drumbeat of invective. Your logic could impress, but your inability to keep it civilized is troubling and diminishes your credibility.
I'll continue my quest for some civilized, informed discourse. I didn't find it here.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 02:25 AM -
Only dupes, grant money a**lickers, and intellectual buffoons believe in the theory of evolution anymore. It's pure atheist dogma, and it's had more a-holes torn in it than murderous, satanic communism. All you've got is your comic book/Chomsky educations and your juvenile resentments and your eternal battle to keep your vanity and worldly pride 'higher' than He that created you. Fools.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 03:30 AM
- I think you're being a bit harsh, curmudgeon. This is a blog, not a Senate hearing. People often use blogs to blow off steam in a like-minded environment, and they need to because discussing the Creationism issue with an infinitude of patience and reason is like playing "Who's on First" with Bud Abbott. Ask these people to present evidence in front of a school district committee and I'm sure they'd fulfil all your lofty intellectual expectations admirably.
- They'd probably even fulfill it.
-
A '3 digit I.Q.'? No doubt. And to judge by the comment, the first of those digits is 0.
#: Posted by Mrs Tilton on 02/23 at 04:12 AM
-
So, are you then arguing, PZ, that since you believe a part of Hindrockets argument is built on fallacy that Professor Volokh has the right to bar individuals from scientific fields if they do not prescribe to the same belief system...no matter how well they understand it? Surely there is enough dissent within the field to actually challenge what is unknown into the known. While I personally do not posses the knowledge to inject anything more into evolutionary theory it seems odd that his main contention is ignored...it also seems odd that there's an assumption being made as to what exactly Hindrocket does believe in after only stating what he does not.
In many ways your post, PZ, brings to life exactly what Hinderocket was referring to in the major thrust. What makes him an "extremist"? Simply your opinion of him being wrong concerning a field you specialize in? naw...we know better than that.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 05:04 AM -
Without knowing Popper's or Hindrocket's comments, I've seen the following argument used:
The evidence tells us that evolution has occurred.
Darwin suggested that this was through a process of random mutation and natural selection.
Because this cannot be experimentally verified, the argument goes, the process might not have been random, but could have been directed (entirely or occasionally).
Either of these two theories are thus matters of faith, although Occam's razor would seem to direct us to the Darwinian mechanism.
("Would seem to" because arguments have been made to the contrary)#: Posted by Idle Fellow on 02/23 at 05:09 AM -
Because this cannot be experimentally verified, the argument goes, the process might not have been random, but could have been directed (entirely or occasionally).
Either of these two theories are thus matters of faith, although Occam’s razor would seem to direct us to the Darwinian mechanism.
You got the first few right, but the "matters of faith" thing is a leap. If you have an hypothesis that the evolutionary mechanism/s are/were entirely and/or occasionally directed (implying intelligence), you need to provide evidence as to who or what this directional (implied intelligent) agent is/was. -
I actually agree with Rocket Man and recognize the mega-weaknesses of Darwinism and better support for "Intelligent Design". Darwinism explains simple mutation-selections (an extra finger), but not complex biological evolutions (sight or hearing).
For example, how does an organism mutate and select over time an optic nerve in isolation? Which mutation occured first - the eyeball, optic nerve, eye socket, retina, pupil? What purpose would any of those serve to be selected and maintained? A random mutation of an eye ball would not be selected without everything else already being in place because it serves no purpose. The same with eye socket or optic nerve. Natural selection would explain the FINAL stage of the species promoting the best eye sight, but not the development of the optic entire system from a one-celled organism.
It's easy to explain how a mutuation resulted in an extra finger being promoted through the natural selection process, but a random mutation of an ear/hearing system?
One scientific theory that better recognizes and explains phenomena is "intelligent design", which is what Rocket Man beleives (and I recently started to).
Search the web for intelligent design. I can only do it a little justic this morning. Here is an example -
http://www.ideacenter.org/resources/faq.php#: Posted by on 02/23 at 06:01 AM -
To ignore or reject the gaping holes in Darwinism is ignorant, or, as the author originally put it, "stupid".
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 06:17 AM
- In addition to the glaring appeal to incredulity, you're committing an either/or fallacy. Attacking the theory of evolution does not strengthen intelligent design, and attacking intelligent design does not strengthen the theory of evolution. To claim otherwise is logically equivalent to the proposition "My least favourite colour is black, therefore my favourite colour is white". If you have evidence to support your hypothesis, PRESENT IT.
-
Is there anything left-wingers say about economics that is more deranged than the support of right-wingers for GW Bush’s policies?
Yes there is, a tremendous amount of it in fact. Any number of left-wing policies still being advocated by some in America have led to mass starvation and wrenching poverty elsewhere in the world, from Zimbabwe to Tanzania to Ethiopia to China to North Korea and elsewhere. You may not like the Trotskyists, Naderites, Chomskyites and so forth, but they do undoubtedly belong to the left, and are a very vocal component of it.
That’s the bottom line for me. Say what you want about Democratic naivete on economic policy, but the reality is that they tend to support moderate ideas that lean towards labor and the lower class, if anything; and most importantly, Democratic economic policy has actually worked.
Oh really? Then how did we get the stagflation of the 1970s, or the virtual bankruptcy of cities like New York and Philadelphia during the same period? How did things get so bad in New York City that a Republican like Giuliani became electable there? Democratic party policies have "worked" to the degree that they have only because the Republicans were there during the 1990s to block the worst ideas to come out of the party. If Democratic party policies are working so well, what are all those minority kids in the inner city doing being warehoused, as opposed to receiving voucher-supported educations from institutions that care about more than cosseting teachers' unions?
Saying that a policy was instituted with the lower classes in mind is not the same as saying that it actually benefits them in the long run: which is better, a policy that "supports" the lower class but sees everyone's wages rise 1 percent a year for the next 20 years, or a policy that is "indifferent" to them, but sees their wages rise 2 percent per annum over the same period, even if those of the upper classes rise 3 percent? It's easy to imagine that "pro labor" policies are a delirious success if one doesn't take into account opportunity costs: there's a good reason why comparatively deprived African-Americans now have more spending power per head than welfare-state embracing Swedes.
The connection between economics and libertarianism is much weaker than the one between biology and evolutionism. Stiglitz is anything but a crank. Sen is pretty revolutionary about economics, but comparing him to Behe or Dembski is downright ignorant. Krugman’s sole crime, it seems, is that he disagrees with you. Hell, Keynes created modern macroeconomics. The economic liberals can and do rest on what all of these figures say.
This is outright ridiculous. Since when did these guys constitute the mass of liberal commentators? Since when has any of them been a blogger like Hindrocket? This is especially ridiculous in that I actually link to one of Stiglitz' books on my blog as highly recommended. Nice bit of switcheroo there, I must say; if you care to address the point I'm actually making, as opposed to the one you'd like to think I'm making, that would be fodder for real discussion.#: Posted by Abiola Lapite on 02/23 at 06:45 AM -
It's more than a little disingenuous to whine about courtesy in defense of the PowerLine wankers, and it's particularly amusing to hear someone claim they are looking for "civilized, informed discourse" when they came here from PowerLine, where Hindrocket's rhetorical strategy is to accuse all Democrats (except maybe Zell and Lieberman) of being traitors.
As for the quality of the intelligent design/anti-evolution arguments we're seeing here, they're about on a par with Hindrocket's…and "stupid" is definitely the operative word. I'm trying hard to imagine an optic nerve evolving in isolation; only a creationist could come up with something that ridiculous. And I am so, so intimidated at the thought of a "three digit IQ"—while Mrs Tilton has the right idea, even if the first digit is "1", I can't work up a sweat over the thought that someone with average intelligence is after me.
And I do believe that professors have the right to fail students who cannot master the basic material and concepts of their discipline. Evolution is not a belief system: it is a coherent body of facts and ideas that have been demonstrated to accurately describe the world. -
From what I remember of the “wog” characterization on Atrios, it was written satirically mimicing the specific language of Old European racial superiority. The writer actually signed as King Leopold of Belgium if I am remembering correctly. I don’t have tome to track down the exact quote at the moment but I believe the writer intended to suggest that Malkin herself was helping to carry on this particular set of attitudes and traditions. Of course, one can argue about whether or not this is sort of thing is funny or appropriate but needless to say, Malkin didn’t even get the fact that it was intended as a joke.
Well, the "joke" was lost entirely on this particular "wog", and it wasn't just a single person making said "joke", either; on the contrary, people piled in with insults like "Maglalangangbang", asked if her vagina was slanted, called her a yellow wog wanting to be white, taunted her with "sucky sucky long time", told her to return to her "massage parlor" to await the American GI ready to make her his mail-order bride, etc. ad nauseum. Not only did absolutely no one in the thread even raise the slightest objection to any of this, but virtually every single one of the left-wing bloggers who did take notice of Malkin's complaint didn't have the decency to say "this is going too far", only contenting themselves by accusing her of oversensitivity or missing the "joke." I doubt any of you would be so quick to defend someone signing himself "Adolf Hitler" and making anti-semitic "jokes" at Ezra Klein's expense ...#: Posted by Abiola Lapite on 02/23 at 06:53 AM -
There is something decidedly uncivilized and un-American about the intolerance such attacks demonstrate.
If it were possible to have signatures here, mine would be, "patriotic is not always good; un-American is not always bad." Mind you, PZ argues a lot using just the facts, but when some people spout blatant crap, you can understand it when biologists become as hot as blowtorches. It'd be as if someone denied that Stalin killed millions of people - and while we're at it, right-wingers become vitriolic for a lot less than Ukrainian holocaust denial; just mentioning one good thing that communism did is enough.
For example, how does an organism mutate and select over time an optic nerve in isolation? Which mutation occured first - the eyeball, optic nerve, eye socket, retina, pupil?
The first mutation would be light-sensitive tissue. No eyeball, no pupil, no retina - just cells that are sensitive to light. Darwinian evolution made a prediction how the eye could've evolved, and later evidence proved that prediction true. That's a falsifiable prediction that came true, despite what Popper said.
So, are you then arguing, PZ, that since you believe a part of Hindrockets argument is built on fallacy that Professor Volokh has the right to bar individuals from scientific fields if they do not prescribe to the same belief system…no matter how well they understand it?
Can you explain further what Volokh is doing? If it's what Dini is doing, then it's a reasonable requirement that students put science above their belief systems. The evidence for descent with modification is as overwhelming as the evidence for heliocentrism, and you'll be hard-pressed to find anyone taking geocentrism seriously in any astronomy department.
Only dupes, grant money a**lickers, and intellectual buffoons believe in the theory of evolution anymore.
Shit, I forgot my asbestos suit somewhere...
I suppose that explains why I no longer consider myself a liberal. I don’t like to be associated with wild-eyed screamers whose main debating tactic seems to be turning up the volume.
Liberalism is a political philosophy. If you think that its tenets are true then be a liberal and to hell with how other liberals behave. If I followed your rule of opposing an ideology because of how its believers behave, I wouldn't be able to think anything because as almost everyone on the planet who has an opinion is two-faced, every group is tarred by utter hypocrisy.
Your logic could impress, but your inability to keep it civilized is troubling and diminishes your credibility.
Civilized or not, PZ makes some damn good points about science and education. If you want civility, go read Stentor Danielson; every other blog written by someone who knows what he's doing has some incivility.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 06:57 AM -
It’s easy to imagine that “pro labor” policies are a delirious success if one doesn’t take into account opportunity costs: there’s a good reason why comparatively deprived African-Americans now have more spending power per head than welfare-state embracing Swedes.
And yet, Norway's productivity per hour of work is greater than the USA's.
This is outright ridiculous. Since when did these guys constitute the mass of liberal commentators?
I think you're missing my point. If there were several mainstream creationists out there - that is, IDists who were professors of biology at respectable institutions and published many articles in support of ID in peer-reviewed journals - then ID wouldn't be an idea for cranks. In that case, comments made by IDists would become much more respectable. The situation with leftists and economics is similar: they parrot the arguments made by economists of great caliber such as Galbraith, just like rightists parrot other economists of great caliber such as Friedman. That's what I was saying. If you meant to attack creationism in a different way, say by attacking its vitriol and comparing it to left-wing economic vitriol, then I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.
I doubt any of you would be so quick to defend someone signing himself “Adolf Hitler” and making anti-semitic “jokes” at Ezra Klein’s expense ...
Actually, a lot of people, including many Jews, make anti-Semitic jokes about people who are overly pro-Israeli. This goes both ways, as pro-Israeli people make Nazi jokes about people like Chomsky. For instance, some people who may be pro-Israeli but not supportive of transferring (=ethnically cleansing) all Arabs out of Greater Israel might say, "Throw these damned Arabs to the gas chambers!" as a hyperbolic slogan against extreme Likudniks.
And for the record, I did say it was tasteless, and if I didn't say it was stupid, I say it now. I just think it's too much to call it racist.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:13 AM -
And by the way, if "people piled in with insults like “Maglalangangbang”, asked if her vagina was slanted, called her a yellow wog wanting to be white, taunted her with “sucky sucky long time”, told her to return to her “massage parlor” to await the American GI ready to make her his mail-order bride, etc. ad nauseum" is correct, then that is racist. But then again, Atrios' commenters are hardly a bunch from which you can expect rational, respectful arguments.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:15 AM
-
and it wasn’t just a single person making said “joke”, either;
I'll take your word for it Abiola although I am a little surprised that noone would challenge this sort of rhetoric. My personal opinion is that people like Malkin and Coulter are best ignored. Even bothering to address them with insults actually empowers them.
But my point is not about the Leopold comment as humor or that Malkin (or anyone for that matter) should have found it funny but that it was intended ironically. By responding to the comment in a literal way, Malkin deliberately avoids responding to the inherent critique of racism and of her own point of view.
With respect to your example of Ezra Klein: If Ezra had written a book arguing that rampant American antisemitism was a rational and reasonable response to say, the post world war Zionism movement and was going around the country arguing that maybe we ought to institute policies that specifically target and quarantine other minority groups out of completely unfounded fears that they might be traitors, then I think an ironic comment signed as Hitler would be equivalent. It would certainly not get the criticism from the left that you seem to think that it would.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 07:41 AM -
Attacking the theory of evolution does not strengthen intelligent design, and attacking intelligent design does not strengthen the theory of evolution. To claim otherwise is logically equivalent to the proposition “My least favourite colour is black, therefore my favourite colour is white”. If you have evidence to support your hypothesis, PRESENT IT.
The point is nobody knows for sure how living things progressed and developed since earth formed.
And for PZ Myers (who started this entire topic) to call Rocket Man stupid for recognizing how little Darwinism actually can explain, shows lefty intolerance for diverging ideas.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:09 AM -
poo bear, perhaps you should try to read up a little on the issue you are spurting nonsense about?
I think the rest of us should just ignore these morons - they are beyond reach. All they do is repeating the same talking points again and again and again.....#: Posted by on 02/23 at 08:19 AM -
Alon Levy wrote:
Wesley, Popper’s attack on Darwinian evolution was not a personal revelation but an argument, and hence recanting doesn’t mean anything. What does mean a lot is that his attack just doesn’t hold water, because Darwinian evolution does make falsifiable predictions.
How about reading the provided resource before unnecessarily conceding ground to antievolutionists? Popper became aware that his premises for the first round of pronouncements were in error. "Recantation" was Popper's choice of term, not mine.#: Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on 02/23 at 10:41 AM -
For the record, Abiola, I have challenged exactly those heinous and racist comments about Malkin in a number of places. (Though not in Atrios' comment threads, which I have not read regularly in some time.) It's no news to me that there are racists who call themselves leftists, as I've dealt with same for more than three decades.
But I think your characterization of Atrios' commenters as "leftists" is silly. There are angry moderates, conflicted liberals, and clever rightwing trolls commenting there as well. In a number of threads here I've seen you make sweeping generalizations and unwarranted assumptions about "leftists" that I truthfully find hard to distinguish in essential nature from the racist comments you rightly criticize - except that yours are phrased far more politely. I suggest to you that we leftists are far more diverse and hold far more nuanced positions than your "Naderite, Chomskyite, Trotskyite" strawmen would allow.#: Posted by Chris Clarke on 02/23 at 10:46 AM -
Poo Bear: Hindrocket's criticisms are stupid because he clearly does not understand the science that he is criticising. What, exactly, is wrong with pointing that out?
And don't give me that bull about civility. Hindrocket has, among other things, accused all Democrats -- including former President Carter, and excepting only Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman by name -- of treason, a capital offense. That is: he's called nearly half the citizens of the United States triators. Hindrocket is not a person who wants, or deserves, civility. And on top of that, at least when talking about biology, he is an ignoramus. -
Attacking the theory of evolution does not strengthen intelligent design, and attacking intelligent design does not strengthen the theory of evolution. To claim otherwise is logically equivalent to the proposition “My least favourite colour is black, therefore my favourite colour is white”. If you have evidence to support your hypothesis, PRESENT IT.
The point is nobody knows for sure how living things progressed and developed since earth formed.
And for PZ Myers (who started this entire topic) to call Rocket Man stupid for recognizing how little Darwinism actually can explain, shows an intolerance now typical for liberals.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 11:00 AM - Hindrocket isn't "recognizing" how little "Darwinism" can explain -- he is merely expressing his own personal incredulity and ignorance. Don't confuse the information available on evolutionary theory with the amount Hindrocket knows; the former is immense, the latter miniscule.
-
Congratulations on playing the part of the Catholic Church to Powerlines Galileo. Let us remember that the scientific method can be ignored by those who put themselves above it, or rather who needs it to be repeatable when I sound so good talking about it.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 11:36 AM
-
Galileo had evidence, the church had faith.
I have evidence, Hindrocket is pulling lies out of his butt.
Which of us is Galileo again? -
Haha. I recommend that the people comming from the Powerline blog read PZ's archives before you post something about evolution in this thread. It will save you a lot of embarrassment.
#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 02/23 at 11:47 AM
-
Hi PZ,
Remember me? I saw you mentioned over on Powerline. You're famous now!
Best regards,
Lou#: Posted by Lou Minatti on 02/23 at 11:53 AM -
The Powerline guys can't be accused of being part of the paranoid strain in American politics. They're not the ones indulging in conspiracy theory, or constantly seeking enemies, or (ahem) indulging in ad hominem attacks.
As for one of them not believing in Darwin's theory of evolution, I haven't heard his arguments; more, it's irrelevant.
So you don't agree with them. Fine. But what's your point?#: Posted by on 02/23 at 12:03 PM -
OK. Then show me with concrete evidence the causality and repeatablity of what you claim. Do what real scientists do, state what you think you know and sound the horn for others to try and repeat it.
Build me a man out of a monkey.#: Posted by on 02/23 at 12:03 PM -
DG, perhaps you should try to get better informed on the subject. There are literately thousands of articles that show that evolution is happening all the time. Go do some research on the subject - it might not convince you, but it will stop you for making stupid statements like the one you just made.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 12:07 PM
-
So you can show me a change from one species to another? Then, by all means do so. Educate if you think you can.
#: Posted by on 02/23 at 12:12 PM
-
DG: links to papers providing the evidence you're asking for have been repeatedly posted and discussed here. If you actually care (and you are not actling as though you do), try Googling the site for "speciation". Or you can go here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
or here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
After you've read those, and perhaps some of the references cited therein, come back and we can perhaps have an actual conversation. Until then, you're blowing smoke, just like the eponymous Hindrocket. -
The first mutation would be light-sensitive tissue. No eyeball, no pupil, no retina - just cells that are sensitive to light.
Then what? What benefit would result that would promote greater survivability?#: Posted by