tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post6753503522439087813..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Jake Young Wants Atheist Scientists to Keep a Low ProfileLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45276209211148750112007-09-17T16:32:00.000-04:002007-09-17T16:32:00.000-04:00The Premise of Jake's Argument is flawed. This is...The Premise of Jake's Argument is flawed. This is my response:<BR/><BR/>http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=1321Greg Ladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03973115018538144984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56557142407145165882007-09-15T00:46:00.000-04:002007-09-15T00:46:00.000-04:00Thanks for the clarification, Ponderingfool! I co...Thanks for the clarification, Ponderingfool! I confess I'm not at all well informed with what Mooney and Nisbet have been up to. Yet, from your quote of Nisbet, it seems there's something distasteful -- perhaps even dishonest -- in his approach.Paul Sunstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81763037387334999852007-09-14T18:42:00.000-04:002007-09-14T18:42:00.000-04:00In fact, what nisbet proposes is the excat way to ...In fact, what nisbet proposes is the excat way to get people bored with science and give it the final kick in the ass. Like any washed out cliché that was never really true.<BR/><BR/>The yhing that I can agree with him, though, is that neither evolution nor atheism implies antireligiosity; and specially so, neither science nor evolution should be tried to be HYPED through mere antireligiosity. This is also some kind of stuid framewing; simply parasiting on those tired by the predominance of religion. As is obvious, the (still limited ) success of this strategy is a mere byproduct of religious growth in the first place. <BR/><BR/>I know a lot of fools who think the coolest thing about evolution is that "it leads to atheism" but don't know a rat's ass about evolution; nor do they really care about it.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24953562150684197912007-09-14T18:35:00.000-04:002007-09-14T18:35:00.000-04:00"It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to..."It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion"<BR/><BR/>UGH. I have never been interested in the framing debate, but Nisbet really screws up bad with this.<BR/><BR/>The only people that would be willing to do that are phonies. Misbet seems e have to pormote fakeness and clichés, "common grounds" repeated like parrots without any idea of what we are talking about.<BR/><BR/>Honestly, I'd prefer people capable of acknowledge unto themselves when they REALLY know something or are just mindlessly following fads.A. Vargashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04876504431768677209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50153951203559039062007-09-14T16:17:00.000-04:002007-09-14T16:17:00.000-04:00You can't talk about ideas with your mouth shut. T...You can't talk about ideas with your mouth shut. The "new atheists" have done more in the last year to advance rational thinking than Nisbet, et. al., will do in a lifetime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13265294256433561992007-09-14T10:55:00.000-04:002007-09-14T10:55:00.000-04:00The problem isn't really framing per se it is the ...The problem isn't really framing per se it is the type of framing Nisbet is putting <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/04/at_the_journal_science_a_nisbe.php#comments" REL="nofollow">forth</A>:<BR/>"That's the power and influence of framing when it resonates with an individual's social identity. It plays on human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge, and importantly, to articulate an opinion. It's definitely not the scientific or democratic ideal, but it's how things work in society."<BR/><BR/>Nisbet and Mooney believe that the ends justify the means. Things have gotten so bad that framing in the manner described above is the only way "we" can combat those who deny reality (especially with regards to global warming). If that means playing to the religious so be it. <BR/><BR/>The "New Atheists" attacks by Nisbet, et al comes into that. It is telling the religious groups "hey we are not them, work with us and we will keep them at bay." Of course in doing so they feed the notion that there is something wrong with being an atheist which is my problem Nisbet's style of framing. In the US it ends up solidifying the elevation of Christian White Males with money above all others.PonderingFoolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10767758746935185528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68954942771248367682007-09-14T10:01:00.000-04:002007-09-14T10:01:00.000-04:00While I agree with you that the "New Atheists" sho...While I agree with you that the "New Atheists" should not keep a low profile, I think you might have misrepresented what framing is about.<BR/><BR/>At least as I've understood it, framing is not necessarily a matter of hiding what you believe to be true.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps that can be more clearly seen if we use a more or less neutral example of "good" framing. The current US Administration seems to be trying to frame the debate over whether to go to war with Iran as a question of whether to blockade Iran or to bomb Iran. In other words, it's attempting re-framed the issue from whether to go to war, to whether to blockade or bomb. In no case is it hiding its real intentions: war with Iran.<BR/><BR/>In much the same way, framing a debate in science or a debate about atheism does not necessarily imply hiding your what you believe to be true.Paul Sunstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02462598852553696040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-56091463267576099462007-09-14T09:03:00.000-04:002007-09-14T09:03:00.000-04:00Young also wants you to "stop excommunicating peop...Young also wants you to "<I>stop excommunicating people from the scientific enterprise</I>". And while you're at it, stop beating your wife.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16938231847638922062007-09-13T23:31:00.000-04:002007-09-13T23:31:00.000-04:00Young makes a terrible argument as one can see by ...Young makes a terrible argument as one can see by his commenters and Rosenhouse's post. Taking out the big guns just to pummel strawmen doesn't quite make a successful campaign. <BR/><BR/>The main argument, that new atheism conflates to science so risk being high-brow fails. And indeed, it is easy to check commenters on popular atheist blogs to see that many couldn't care less about high falutin' details. <BR/><BR/>Creationists often complain about those, but it is another discussion whether that miscomprehension makes atheism difficult to accept. The message is that atheism doesn't depend on science, and that the new atheism is consistent with increased popularity.<BR/><BR/>But at least I learned about John Dewey.<BR/><BR/>Finally, <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2007/09/young_on_dewey_on_being_highbr.php#comment-564413" REL="nofollow">Mark Powell raises an interesting question</A>. Shouldn't atheism push for a more positive message and exuberant pride? It worked for suffragettes and it worked for gays. [Which of course leaves Young's analysis under so much more dust.]Torbjörn Larssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02022193326058378221noreply@blogger.com