There is going to be a melee in Minneapolis, a testicle-twister in the Twin Cities, a bloody battle at the Bell — the framing debate is going LIVE, in an event sponsored by the Bell Museum in Minneapolis at the end of September. On one side, Mooney and Nisbet; on the other, Greg Laden and … uh, me, I’m pretty sure. I’m still juggling some travel dates, but I think I should be able to make it.
I think the plan, though, is to pretend I can’t, so Mooney and Nisbet get all cocky. Then, just when Greg is down, trapped in a headlock by one and the other is doing the dreaded pinky toe pincer, I come parachuting down off my Northwest Airlines passenger flight, carom off the ropes, launch into a flying tackle on both, and Greg and I then spend the next hour kicking and punching two cripples. And then we buy them both a Bud Light.
That’s the plan, anyway. It should be great fun.
Don’t worry, Greg. I’m not chickening out. It’s part of the dramatic narrative, where putting you in the role of the underdog is part of the frame to get the crowd supporting you.
I would suggest trying to get “Atheist Noise Machine” Nisbet to blow his top. It should be easy, and it will damage his credibility.
I dunno … this might be getting out of hand. I mean, a But Lite? Have we no sense of humanity?
Don’t forget to mention the On The Media interview of Nisbet in which he was asked to offer framing advice to Copernicus and trickled down his leg.
Live it up … buy each of them a beer instead …
Yep, even Olde Frothingslosh Pale Stale Ale would be a step up.
Reginald- thanks for that link. Wow, that was quite the moronic non-response, even by Nisbet’s standards. As Larry Moran has said, he’s just a broken record.
Aaargh, this will really be a lite answer, PZ’s volley is already smashed.
So let’s speculate about PZ’s artist name. PZ The Hook and Peg Myers? PZ Squid Squeeze Myers? PZ Flying Spaghetti Monster Myers?
Aaargh, this will really be a lite answer, PZ’s volley is already smashed.
So let’s speculate about PZ’s artist name. PZ The Hook and Peg Myers? PZ Squid Squeeze Myers? PZ Flying Spaghetti Monster Myers?
As long as you can’t blame the bloodbath on roid rage.
Will there be scantily clad but peculiarly muscled women in the corners too?
I came to the Great Framing Shitstorm late, but given the almost universal derision their efforts have provoked in their target audience, don’t the framing guys stop to think about how much they suck at framing?
They’re like librarians screaming “be quiet!” into a megaphone, over and over. Arguing over whether or not we were already being quiet seems beside the point…
Sorry to disappoint everybody, but the debate has been cancelled – there is NO argument. If you are smart, you are an atheist. If you are dumb, you believe in some sort of Big JuJu. Period. End of story. Move along, nothing to see here.
I don’t care what more Ed Brayton and Money have to say, IMO, it really is as simple as this. You are either enmeshed in our cave-dwelling, god(s)fearing past, or you are able to think for yourself and see there are no monsters hiding under the bed or in the closet. (Well, unless you’re e republican, then you DO have something hiding in the closet, but that I believe, is a story for another day.
Ugh! What Greg and Scott said above.
…Except, I just realized the subtle fiendishness of your plan. Beat up on the two fools, then wear down their spirits with bland megabrewed swill–or, if they do know good beer, they understand they’re being punished & humiliated a second time. Either way, you (and we) win.
Unless, of course, you were planning to join them in drinking that stuff. If that’s the case, at least you didn’t say Coors Light! Or Miller…but I digress.
So…is this part of the discovery institute’s divide and conquer plan? Seriously, why are you folks all blasting away at each other, when the real fight is with the creationists?
Alluring alliteration amuses athiests and agnostics alike! PZ proposes punching parapalegics!
The following is auto-plagiarized from a Skepchick comment thread; see the original for links.
You’ll know that Nisbet is serious when he starts speaking in all capital letters. Remember the whole “ATHEISM IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE” debacle?
When you think about it, that’s a pretty stupid argument, and in fact it goes against his better interest to say so. The stance he takes isn’t just factually warped; it’s also bad framing!
Neglect, for a moment, all the examples which commenters and other bloggers provided of discrimination against atheists, case studies of people who were hated because they did not believe, or believed too weakly. Neglect the common pattern of xenophobia which runs between these cases and all the other types of discrimination which it is more politic to criticize. Neglect the Constitutional argument that “civil rights” are those things we have Amendments to protect, and other items covered by plausible extensions thereof; the right to free exercise of non-belief is surely more explicit in our Bill of Rights than is, say, the right to privacy, a notion which lurks off in the penumbra. Even letting all that fall by the wayside, we still have a potent and poignant reason to seek inspiration in the civil-rights movements, and present skepticism in their image.
Consider: one legacy of past liberation movements is that we’ve now learned you don’t have to be gay, black, female or any combination of the above to support equal rights for people who are gay, black, female — and any combination of the above. Isn’t this the state we’d like to create by reaching “beyond the base”? Isn’t this how we’d like a devout but ecumenical religious person to see the atheists of America and of the world?
Like many disciples of Lakoff, Nisbet tries to turn the master’s theory into effective rhetoric, but the examples produced show a remarkable failure to persuade.
Willey’s winning wit won’t wane.
I can’t wait!
Well technically the panel discussion is supposed to be about framing science, not atheism. I expect some category creep though.
Hasn’t Chris been frequently pictured with Miller Lites in his hand?
I’m no fan of shrinking ambiguity, but in fairness to Mooney, he’s definitely not pro-theism, and even earned an anemic scolding from Casey Luskin for having the Skittles to describe “Intelligent Design” as it actually is. Mooney doesn’t deserve to be tarred with the same brush as Nisbet, in my view, despite their having made common cause of a sort.
I just wanted to point out that this is all senseless fantasy.
You can’t get Bud Lite at the Kitty Kat Klub.
REG: You are correct, we are not discussing evo-creo per se.
One must possess a ton of self-loathing to drink Bud Lite. How hateful of yourself do you have to be to think, “This ‘beer’ tastes like shit, but it’s what I deserve”?
The Anheuser Busch heiress once offered to buy me a beer. I ordered a Sam Adams. She told me that if I would only consent to drinking Bud, I would have access to great fortunes.
I ordered a second Sam Adams.
Reason is on your side, but the balance of rhetorical skill is not. Mooney is a superb debater, and will likely walk all over you and Laden, unless Nisbet turns out to be a huge liability.
I wonder if this was before or after the Anheuser Busch purchase of Sam Adams?
unless Nisbet turns out to be a huge liability.
I don’t understand why the guy isn’t forced to walk around ringing a bell, crying “Unclean, unclean”.
He equated Dawkins with Anne Coulter (in the comments, here).
I just love reading this stuff.
I just love reading this stuff.
I’ve studied technical communication quite a bit–they make undergrad science majors take classes in it these days. Framing is important. It’s just too bad Matt Nisbet is it’s advocate. He’s a pretty shitty communicator. Someone should remind him that pissing off your audience is not a good move out of the gate.
Flying Northwest, eh? Good airline. Nice people . . .
Probably means you’re going through the Minneapolis airport, too, right? I have a couple of nice Jerry Garcia ties I snagged at the airport mall there, at the tie store, on deep discount. Nice place.
Um, watch out for guys with “wide stances” in the restrooms. I hear that Republicans hang out there, in the restrooms — probably accosting people for votes.
We’ll find somebody religious to pray for your safety. That’ll hold off the Republicans, won’t it?
“Then, just when Greg is down, trapped in a headlock by one and the other is doing the dreaded pinky toe pincer, I come parachuting down off my Northwest Airlines passenger flight”
Cool – it’ll be like ‘deus ex machina’.
I’ll get my coat.
Hey Folks,
They have a definite advantage. Mooney-Nisbet are the away team, not the home team, and we’ll be coming in tired. We have another talk to give earlier that day.
I’m sure they’ll sweep the floor with us ;>
They have another advantage: Nisbet raves incoherently on certain topics. All they need to do is light the fuse and stand back.
Fuel for the fire:
From Michael Shermer’s forthcoming “An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens” in Scientific American
Link:http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=423C1809-E7F2-99DF-384721C9252B924A&colID=13
Michael E:
Shermer’s piece is old news. See, for example, what quork and I said in this thread, not to mention the various responses at Richard Dawkins’ forum and elsewhere.
OK. Took a look at Jason Rosenhouse’s blog.
There was reasonable discussion all around, and the usual amount of pointless blather.
I disagree with anyone who says that Dawkins is too much of a hardass, but I also disagree with anyone who supports an either/or fallacy in the vein if “if they ain’t wid us, they’s agin’ us.”
In fact, someone pointed out an important technique that Dawkins applies when dealing with people: He gives them the benefit of the doubt until they have proven by their own words and deeds to be irrational beyond hope.
The poster on that other thread who said we should have multiple methods of framing made one of the best points of all, as did the person who provided exampels of how the moderate believers prove to be worthwhile political allies.
I get paid to sell financial security to people. I am trained to take each person as an individual and find out what his/her needs are, help them articulate those needs and show them solutions. I am trained to avoid hasty generalizations or lumping people into categories. It works very well.
We free thinkers have quite a few ideas to “sell.” Each idea will have a different level of compatibility with the ideas of different religionists. We should at least respect those who have not proven themselves to be disrespectful long enough to find out what areas of common ground we have and show them that many of their goals are our goals too.
PZ, does Minneapolis still have a pretty decent funk scene? I think you should hire a kick-ass funk band to play you on with James Brown’s “Sex Machine.” You could stride onto the stage in a gold lame cape, do a few dance steps, grab the microphone and sing, “Stay on the scene, like a Noise Machine! The way I like it is, is the way it is!”
Hah! Get up! No gods, y’all.
I don’t get it. I just don’t.
There is a general agreement, I think, that fundamentalist religion and the encouragement of public gullibility are conspiring to keep good science education under attack, and the lack of decent science education perpetuates itself as acceptance of fundamentalist dogma and general public gullibility. Lives are actually lost because people don’t understand science, and are thus drawn in by anti-vaxxers and “alternative medicine” woo. Basic research and future innovations suffer or are lost because of “religious objections”. The pool of candidates for one of the most powerful positions in the world is mostly science-illiterate fundamentalists incapable of critical reasoning, which presents a whole new raft of political dangers.
And yet, instead of maximising the united front of people who speak out for reason, instead of looking for how people with different approaches to education and philosophy can work together productively to get through to people on issues of science, rationality, and data — rather than that, you seem to spend a heck of a lot of energy on calling people names who, in your opinion, just aren’t right enough. You spend words and energy snarking and snarling at people who “take the wrong approach”, and posting divisive and splintering “diagrams” of ways of thinking and lumping people you don’t like into uncomplimentary categories, and in general seeming to find it fun to splinter the community of pro-reason people into factions.
The one thing that Christians do effectively on a lot of issues is present a united political and cultural front. Unless you can manage to do this, unless you can actually spend more of your energy working WITH each other rather than working on pissing each other off, you are going to remain culturally marginal.
Since historical precedent seems meaningful to some people here, could I just point out that “The enemy is at the gates! Let’s fight amongst ourselves!” has seldom been a winning tactic.