Thursday, September 11, 2008

Matt Tries Framing for the Umpteenth Time

 
Matt Nisbet promotes two of his essays that have just been published. He summarizes them in Two Essays on Expelled, Dawkins, and PZ by saying ...
In both essays, I draw attention to the confusing messages that scientist pundits such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers continue to send to the wider American public. By combining their attacks on religion with their defense of evolution, they blur the lines between science, religion, and atheism, providing fodder to creationists who claim that evolution is part of a larger atheist agenda. These confusing messages are only likely to be amplified next year during the anniversary celebration of Charles Darwin, as Dawkins goes on a publicity tour for his new book and Myers is reported to also have a book in the works.
Poor old Matt. He just doesn't get it. There's no confusion. Dawkins and PZ (and me) are on the side of rationalism in the war between rationalism and superstition. Evolution is part and parcel of the rationalism perspective while religion and creationism are on the other side.

The only person who is confused is Matt Nisbett because he wants to spin frame the debate differently. It isn't working for him 'cause Dawkins and PZ aren't playing his game.

At the end of the second essay Matt Nisbet comes very close to saying that Dawkins and Myers should shut up because they are interfering with the Nisbett spin frame.


24 comments:

  1. "Dawkins and PZ (and me) are on the side of rationalism in the war between rationalism and superstition. Evolution is part and parcel of the rationalism perspective while religion and creationism are on the other side"

    Oh really? Then fuck you, and fuck the creationists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Since "its a war" I guess that everybody who does not fight is morally inferior to you champs, huh

    If only the three of you were a little less IGNORANT about evolution! I guess one thing leads to another. Larry knows dick about development (and I suspect about natural history), PZ knows dick about phylogenetic systematics...and Dick, well, Dick only knows about Dick)

    ReplyDelete
  3. you guys are just another clique of moralistics pontiffs peddling a bunch of no-brainer, prefabricated answers

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Oh really? Then fuck you, and fuck the creationists.

    Is that really necessary? Sorry Sanders but it's people like you that make me hate discussing anything on the internet and bring the entire blogosphere down.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry if you are sensitive. Al I'm saying is, if "it's a war" (like the creationists think, see "wedge"), then, FUCK both sides, man

    I'm tired of these guys sickly nonsense being attached to evolution. Specially when they show poor evolutionary understanding

    ReplyDelete
  6. Geez. As someone who isn't as hard-line on the whole religion vs. science thing as Larry is, I used to think that Sanders had a point or two. But this last pretty much puts paid to that notion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually I'm planning to use the "wedgey" strategy on both: Give them hardcore wedgies untile their butt-crack epidermis peels off. Then maybe both will shut the fuck up hahahah

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's kinda unnecessary, Sanders. I disagree with Larry on a number of things, but we don't need to launch into a tirade about someone's mother. If Larry wants to view the evolution/creationism thing as a conflict between rationalism and supernaturalism, that's his prerogative.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The wedgey strategy may be unnecessary, but it would certainly be gratifying heheh

    ReplyDelete
  10. OK, I'll moderate my statements a little but I'll add soem new criticism:
    Larry has good antiadaptationist awareness; PZ has good awareness of the importance of development and the complexity of organismal biology. This being said, Larry could certainly elaborate on his developmental knwoledge and so could PZ on his thinking about molecular-morphological conflicts (maybe he needs to hang around more with good morphological cladists. I doubt he does)
    It is of course obvious to indicate my own limitations, but I can say that my natural history knowledge is predominantly zoological, for instance.
    What is my beef, then?
    Dawkins is pretty fucked up, man. He is both an adaptationist and someone incapable of giving anything beyond "bare genes" much credit. "Extended phenotype" seems a "brilliant" idea but is in fact Von Uexkulls "umwelt" in "selfish gene" language (I'm sure uexkull, a staunch antidarwinian and antiweissmanian, would have vomited)
    Any of the three don't really enjoy reading the humanities. They don't read much sociology, history, philosophy. Some openly mistrust the humanities. Here, their "scientistic" culture begins to show.
    Their role as "educators" is also motive for concern. Educators are supposed to deliver previously digested truths. In the end, they end up replicating anything that's in the better textbooks like if it's a mantra. "evolution is population genetics" "only natural selection explains adaptation" are mantras oft repeated by Larry. It's going to be hard for opinions to change much from those of the ole synthesis if all you need be is that "it be in the textbooks" . Much harder still if we are “positivist”, if we take any generally accepted, received statements as “hard and simple facts”.
    The poor reader whose first evolution book is one griten by Dawkins then gets sometimes some pretty severe ultradarwinian-reductionist brain damage. who gets his atheims mixed with evolutionary misconceptions specially ultradarwinian, the result in some sort of “monster” that never dies.
    PZ and Larry may back off from dawkins adaptationism or reductionism but ta the ned of the day they completely trust him on the topic of “WHAT IS SCIENCE”. How fucked up is that? Obviously, its not about science anymore. With this brand of positivism, plus the moral imperative of the "war on religion", you have a perfect formula for dogmatic thinking in the name of science.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jesus H Christ, Sanders. With your calamitous command of English, your utterly unwarranted & childish personal attacks, your seeming inability to actually articulate your own points and your incoherent railing against - what the fuck is it you're railing against, exactly? - you come off more like a fundy retard than a reasonable rationalist.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I second mandrellian.

    In his screed, Sanders indicts himself more than he indicts the Dawkins/Myers/Moran axis.

    Ad hom attacks (check)
    Inability to craft a sentence (check)
    Typos (check)
    General incoherence (check).

    Welcome to the internets.

    ReplyDelete
  13. glad you liked it. Don't forget the wedgie strategy. Welcome to the internet!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Man, this thread got polluted rather quickly. I got to the end of the comments and forgot what the topic was about.

    Getting back to Larry's post, it seems like Nisbet does this about every month or so: publish another attack against the evil *outspoken* atheist scientists, who he feels are interfering with his political agenda. It sure seems like a deliberate ploy to keep up traffic at his blog and keep himself a topic of discussion. And it has long since gotten old (even if you assume he is correct). I mean, he’s made his point, and the reasonable reply (that perhaps PZ and Dawkins have different agendas, so why should they kowtow to Nisbet’s agenda) doesn’t seem to sink in.

    So, I guess I’m wondering why the latest attack by Nisbet is even worth mentioning? (It's kind of like feeding a troll.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't want to impose any moralistic-paranoid scenario, as if this were a "war". It's not. Larry is not "evil", nor is PZ or Dawkins doing (much) harm to society.
    They are juts goofy, embarassing, and chauvisnitic. I simply reserve the right to laugh out loud at their simplistic, scientistitic views (like the "religion vs supersitition" apocalypse) as well as their many scientific shortcomings and dogmatisms.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hoi, sanders, check your pills!
    They ain't doin' you no good!
    Or is it the catlicker inside you kicking in?

    Yes, there are (were) better advocates for rationalism (Robert G. Ingersoll comes to mind), but unless some are willing to put the light on the increased willful ignorance and stupidity displayed by the religious mobs, we shall all eventually revert back to the Dark Ages.

    And that Nisbett cretin ain't gonna make too much indent in the creationists' crusades.

    ReplyDelete
  17. These confusing messages are only likely to be amplified next year during the anniversary celebration of Charles Darwin, as Dawkins goes on a publicity tour for his new book and Myers is reported to also have a book in the works.

    Didn't they already have a bunch of those already? Just how many Darwin celebrations are there anyway? Good grief.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And people wonder why I moderate comments strictly on my own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Because, you're a pussy, barefoot bum.

    "we shall all eventually revert back to the Dark Ages"

    Hahaha. Apocalypse? You guys sound like the Jehovah Witnesses.

    What you say is ridiculous, truly.

    What we could do with a little destruction of the old culture to make room for new, better ideas. There a symptoms of cultural stagnation in too many ideas, from politics to biology.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Because, you're a pussy, barefoot bum.

    What are you, twelve?

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is not a situation where we have a dagger pressed to our throat. No "fiery lake" of ignorance awaits humanity if we do not partake in the "war on superstition".

    Rather , the way I see it, this is about whether we are going to make a forward leap, or are we going to just keep things in the current state.

    "rationalism" has been around without innovations for quite some time. It was actaully popular at a massive level before the 2nd wrold war (which is not unrelated, specially in the establishment of soviet communism). Any one who knows a little about the history of rationalism can realize just how dated and obsolete these simplistic views are; people like Gould realized how dangerous positivism (the "hard and simple facts" mentality) when he closely examined the evidence for racism. Generalized, unchallenged prejudice get confused with "facts plain and simple"

    The epistemology of Dawkins and Gould is radically different. So is their stance about religion. But I guess for Larry, Gould does not "Get it": There's a War!! and Dawkins, that lighthouse of science, represents the good guys.

    Yeah, I'm sure Gould would have loved it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Now, if you know anything about recent human history, you'll know that rationalism has lost it's popularity within academia, specially since the 60's, and we're not talking only among humanists, but also among a substantial portion of the academic culture of biologists, physicists, etc. The kind of prefabricated answers that rationalism has to offer simly do not help scientists out. Historiclaly, the academic enthusiasm for rationalism has bee substantially watered down and it is unlikely to ever recover. Specially becuase it is, for the most, vacuous. It simply does not help you be a better scientists; my opinion is that it does the contrary. It stupifies.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I left a comment on his blog where I said that asking scientists to avoid mentioning their (perfectly rational) views because Matt's spin theory dictates that some views should not be mentioned, is a dishonest idea and despicable idea. I suggested that Matt should argue against Dawkin's views rather than arguing against his right to air his views. This comment was sent yesterday, and until now I do not see it posted on Matt's site.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Great, dualism.

    Nothing better than a whole cohort of 'black or white' self-proclaimed rationalists.

    And these are the same people who so vigorously castigate Bush for 'you are either for us or against us'...

    ReplyDelete