I get email » « Maybe it’s because rocks and critters are more honest than creationists The Scientist picks scientists to pick blogs A bunch of us were asked to recommend science blogs for The Scientist … now you can see the picks, too. Share this:PrintEmailShare on TumblrTweet I get email » « Maybe it’s because rocks and critters are more honest than creationists
Reginald Selkirk says
This is off-topic, but interesting: gerald spezio says:
This reportedly for comments made about/to Matt Nisbet on The Intersection.
Steve LaBonne says
And if you read what Spezio actually posted, Mooney (who made the decision) is mischaracterizing it (must have been hanging around too much with Nisbet and something rubbed off.) What Spezio said was that Nisbet is advocating propaganda, not information, and that Goebbels would recognize and approve of Nisbet’s prescription for “informing” the public. That’s pretty harsh, but certainly arguable and in no way defamatory.
Kausik Datta says
I just put in my choices at the Scientist website. What about others? Let us know what you guys and gals read. I indicated Pharyngula, Aetiology, Pure Pedantry, Respectful Insolence, and Sandwalk, off the top of my head (not in any order of preference). I like these blogs because of the intelligent writing style, the biology, the philosophy and the rationality inherent in them, apart from the substantial amount of great commenters, with a dash of occasional trolls who revel in making a public display of their ignorance…
Finding time to read all these and all that I want to becomes difficult!!
My apologies for going off topic, but I though you might like to know that Cheri Yecke is still alive and kicking. She’s made it into the top three in consideration for Florida Education Commissioner. Any suggestions for how to stop this nightmare from becoming a nightmare?
Sorry … meant: “stop this nightmare from becoming a reality.”
Blake Stacey says
Gerald Spezio quoting Matt Nisbet on the page linked by Reginald Selkirk:
Whoa. Well, that blows out of the water any claim that “framing” might be related to the simplifications which professors do when lecturing to freshman classes. In that context, the goal is to get across as much information as possible, to impart knowledge rather than provoking students to form judgments without it.
You know, I sorta wish that when folks like Orac and Mark Chu-Carroll had made that comparison to freshman lectures, somebody would have come along and said, “That’s not ‘framing’, because it’s not about making up your mind in the absence of evidence.”
Look, I like the idea of making the presentation of science emotionally resonant, of appealing to the heart by going through the head. I like the idea of finding common cause with as many people as possible. However, I also have the apparently heretical notion that science should not be sold in an antiscientific way, and that if our country isn’t living up to democratic ideals, we had better try harder to realize those ideals instead of abandoning them and spitting on their memory.
Steve LaBonne says
Nisbet is a walking, bullshitting example of what Al Gore has just called the “flight from reason”.
Mike Haubrich, FCD says
Hey, did anyone else notice that PZ, in addition to listing three very, very, very good blogs, linked to his entire blogroll? And he said we are all very worthy? That’s why I am a pharynguloid.
spezio compared Nisbet to Goebbels. Goebbels advocated and actively participated in genocide. Argumentum ad Nazium. Much worse than when Mooney and Nisbet wrote ‘If the defenders of evolution wanted to give their creationist adversaries a boost, it’s hard to see how they could do better than Richard Dawkins …’ (to repeat the mad and baseless accusation that started this debate down this ugly road).
The Nisbet lines Blake quotes are troubling, but they do not by any means deserve Argumentum ad Nazium.
Steve LaBonne says
Can you read? That is absolutely false. What he actually said is that Goebbels would recognize and approve of the quoted passage from Nisbet as being a good description of the kind of propaganda in which he was expert. I believe that to be a true statement, however unkind the choice of example(if he had wanted to be nice he would have chosen an advertising guru, or some such.) Rude? Yes. Ban-worthy? Hardly, to anyone who actually values open debate. The “framers’ clearly don’t. That’s because they only know how to lie and bullshit, not debate.
Robert Maynard says
The only one of these I regularly read besides Pharyngula is The Loom, which is also excellent. I’ll have to check the rest of these out!