I’m not a fan of the Huffington Post — I see too much support for clowns like Chopra and anti-scientific thinking like Robert Kennedy’s — so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at this. Matthew Chapman posted his suggestion for a presidential debate on science there. This is the same issue I thought was a good idea, but cynically suspected none of the candidates would ever go for it. The response on HuffPo was to a large part deranged.
Because Chapman used the creationism as an example of a dangerous denial of reality, several commenters barrelled in with accusations that evolution is a philosophical ideology, that he or scientists were denigrating religion, and one idiotic commenter in particular turned it into an argument about whether evolution was true or not. That argument is done, people; if you’re still whining about Intelligent Design creationism, you’re part of the problem.
Anyway, all of the noise prompted Chapman to write a reply:
I have learned a lesson here. I made a serious proposal about a presidential debate on science and hoped I could find some support. I suggested a number of topics which loosely fall under three categories, The Environment; Health and Medicine; and Science and Technology Policy. I think we can all agree that these are important subjects and worth talking about.
Unfortunately, I mentioned evolution in the preface which elicited a series of angry comments from creationists of various types. Although this highlights the importance of one of my suggested topics, science education, it totally distracted everyone from the other 14 science and technology subjects I mentioned, and from the prime reason for the post, a call for a Presidential Debate on Science and Technology.
I hope I can still find some support for this idea, and from now on, I promise I will skip over the “e” word and go straight on to “f”.
I sympathize. There are many science issues that need to be discussed, and it’s unfortunate that the “e” word sucks all the air out of the room so effectively. But evolution is also symptomatic. Don’t avoid it — one useful thing about it is that it makes it easy to spot the clueless wankers in the room.
And there are a lot of clueless wankers inhabiting the HuffPo. I don’t know how many of them are right-wing trolls and how many are left-wing ditzes, though, and I don’t rule out the likelihood that there are many of the latter.
You’re right, PZ. (no surprise) Otherwise we only get to talk about an issue until enough whiny, easily offended religiots start complaining, then we have to move on to another one. It’s fine to have beliefs that are radically different from mine, but if you won’t even engage in a reasonable discourse, instead yelling about how I’m “denigrating” you and the beliefs you hold dear, well frankly you’re excepting yourself from the realm of rational discussion. Go sit somewhere while the grownups talk.
Not only is evolution “symptomatic”, it is, in my meager opinion, a litmus test for all of science education. If a student insists on injecting the supernatural into science or degrading evolutionary science, because the results contradict their religion, then we have a national problem. Anti-intellectualism spills into all walks of life.
I think I know what the “f” stands for.
Yes, now I think of it, the word “evolution” is a litmus test for nutters.
And???
The realissue ought to be whether science is ever going to demand its rightful place ion our society.
Debating science makes perfect sense and one needs to nderstand that in the media world this sodes mean time spent on popular topics .. whether that is evolution, global warming or perpetual oil discovery. The point is the public SHOULD have a feel for how the Prexy will relate to reality.
Why not laucnch a petition drive? If anyone contact me at my Blog I will be happy to set up a chainletter.
http://www.seattlejew.blogspot.com
It’s very sad…but Huffington post seems to be full of overly politically correct idiots. It’s sad to see far left-wingers holding the same opinions as these fundamentalist zombies we hear from so often (especially since I consider myself very liberal).
I think it is just this illogical desire to make sure that no one’s beliefs/rights get trampled on…but they never seem to grasp how science works…that it’s not a place where everyone’s ideas are equally valid. It seems like a competition to see who can be the most sensitive to other people’s faiths/beliefs.
Ever since I’ve read some of Deepak’s brain farts he’s posted over there…I have made a conscious effort to stay away!
I understand about HuffPo. I write for them sometimes, and knowing that Chopra and Kennedy are out there composing blog entries as well makes me feel a little skeevy. However, like any other blog collective (cough cough) there are always one or two that are from voices of goofiness, while the majority can be reasonable.
Now that I have a bit more free time, I may start taking on Chopra. That would be fun…
Left-wing ditzs and far-right wing nuts coalesce on several issues. Religious people insist that their ideas be exempt from rational object reality and politically correct relativists insist that there is no “one” object reality.
Framing?
I just skimmed all of the comments and only found one creationist. That’s it. One guy named Paul Thompson who claimed to be a “ecothologian” whatever the flunk that is?
Everyone else was patiently trying to correct him, but he was not about to let his ideology be transformed by science. I hope Chapman doesn’t give up that easily over one lousy troll.
Matthew Chapman has been EXPELLED!
I think it’s a bad idea…BAD idea…for presidential candidates to debate science. They are lawyers and politicians and actors; none of them should be expected to be able to debate scientific issues.
If it were possible to have a debate around science policy, then I think it would be worth it (at least as part of a larger debate). But they are politicians running for office; they will, all of them, pander to the religionists. Still, I would like to hear them pinned down on questions of science policy and education.
I would like to believe that those on the left side of the political spectrum are more enlightened about science. But I just don’t think it’s true. You’ve mentioned HuffPo, but how about Firedoglake? This is another lefty blog that routinely gets taken in by anti-science bull. It got so bad that I quit going there, I couldn’t take it anymore. They’ve got this guy who writes for them and always signs everything with “M.D”, and everyone responds to him as “Doctor”. And of course everything he writes about is completely outside of his specialty. He goes on and on about how GM food is going to kill us all, childhood immunizations cause autism, etc. etc.
Which is worse, Christianity or new-age crap?
PZ: “Because Chapman used the creationism as an example of a dangerous denial of reality…
Augh! PZ, please be careful with the definite article! You’re not old enough yet to be acting like Andy Rooney!
Huffington Post is supposed to be on the left, but it uses the same techniques of pandering and misrepresentation as the right-wing media. Which is why a good many netroot people deeply distrust it. The problem goes far beyond giving space to Chopra, et. al.
Good point. It is clear that the scientific view on evolution is a clear test that can be used to sort out frauds, the ignorant and the scared from those with whom one can have a serious discussion on science.
Maybe the solution is to have the candidates be the judges and/or questioners, not the debaters.
It’s not just science. If you want to make the top of your head blow off, read Joshua Holland’s article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali at alternet.org. I really don’t get the logic that states that human atrocities should be allowed if they’re part of another’s culture or religion:
“Her outspoken advocacy on feminist ethical issues — roundly condemning “honor killings” and female circumcision — has also made her a poster-girl for the aggressive brand of atheism typified by figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, all three of whom have held her life-story up as an example of the harms caused by religion in general, and Islam in particular.”
Or this: “It’s the equivalent of a Catholic choirboy who, having been the victim of sexual abuse at the hands of pedophile priests, is asked for an impartial view of the church.” What the hell does this mean?
That’s just the first page – I can only read a little bit at a time.
Then, there are the comments to the effect that since western culture is not perfect we have no room to criticize. Since we have not eradicated domestic violence in our culture, we have no room to criticize honor killings. What tripe!
Well then, we need more scientists to become politicians. I’ve had enough of lawyers and actors (though I applaud the efforts of some, such as dhonig, who posts here on occasion.)
I just took ildi’s cue and read Holland on Hirsi Ali. I think I should sue to get my braincells. That level of self-immolation is really something that should be reserved for comedy.
Huffington Post is steeped in the West coast entertainment industry and is trying to counter Drudge etc. by doing a flashy site with wide appeal. I agree there’s some ditzy New Age stuff on it, not to mention trivial gossip. But I’ll take allies anywhere I can get them. The number one proirity has to be getting the Repubs out of power, and if Ariana can help do that, more power to her.
Could someone post a link to something Robert Kennedy posted that is anti-science? I’ve heard his radio show from time to
time, but he has not seemed that anti-science.
Thanks
James, have you not read his many , many batshit insane pieces on vaccines?
Orac explains all about RFK.
If honor killings, female clitorectomy, and wife beating is “part of the culture”, then there is a very proper response.
The culture is all screwed up. Don’t make the simple complex.
… that should be Robert Kennedy I guess, not RFK!!! (11:00am is still too early in the morning for me)
James, look here:
“I think it’s a bad idea…BAD idea…for presidential candidates to debate science. They are lawyers and politicians and actors; none of them should be expected to be able to debate scientific issues.”
They, themselves shouldn’t, no. However, as aspiring officeholders, one would think they’d surround themselves with experts on every subject a president might conceivably encounter on the job. Perhaps a series of questions put together by scientists could be circulated to the candidates, who would, then, be briefed by their individual science advisers on just those specific queries. The debate would consist of only those questions- obviously they’d better be good ones. It wouldn’t be perfect but we might actually get a glimpse of- if not their personal science chops, their attitude towards the subject and their basic comprehension skills.
Raven wrote:
If honor killings, female clitorectomy, and wife beating is “part of the culture”, then there is a very proper response. The culture is all screwed up. Don’t make the simple complex.
Perfect point. After the Michael Vick dogfighting fiasco came to light, one writer (I can’t remember who) pointed out that “culture” can mean art, literature, music, food, and many other positive cohesive forces within a society. Warfare, crime, domestic violence, racism, animal abuse, political and religious repression, and enforced ignorance are not elements of culture that merit preservation. All of them are about abuses of power, and the only thing “cultural” about them is that they can take different forms in different societies.
As for the woo on HuffPo, or any other politically or issue-oriented web site: Someone who has learned to understand the difference between evidence and assertion can take what she likes and leave the rest. Ultimately, that’s why we’re all concerned about the subversion of public education. Left, right, theist, atheist, black, white, whatever you are or may be: Recognizing crap when you see it is an important life skill.
The common thread between the right wing trolls and left wing ditzes is that neither has ever had a decent background in science education. Any moron that stands up and speaks of supernatural forces should just shut the hell up.
I know most politicians hold these views to pander to their constituents, and I bet many of them are closet atheist, or at least, chickenhawk agnostics. They don’t necessarily believe in the same bullshit that they’re producing and smelling. The simple fact they must understand is that stupidity of their constituents does not excuse them to embrace those views. For far too long, the majority of uneducated idiots have represented national policy. Regardless of political orientation, if the majority of people allow their supernatural beliefs to rule their lives, the pimps we call politicians will whore themselves out to this majority. We laugh at the repressive values the Saudi’s practice, but isn’t turning your back on science a greater repression? Someone has to lead the world in science and technology, and that can’t be done with these morons in congress.
Ultimately then, the solution should be a comprehensive exam for would-be congressman on science, math, history, diplomacy, among other subjects. Regardless of their personal views on religion, they better be secular enough to resist the temptations of a theocracy.
Jim (#15 wrote): Huffington Post is supposed to be on the left, but it uses the same techniques of pandering and misrepresentation as the right-wing media.
OK, so where on the political spectrum would you place HuffPo? Is the “supposed to be” part simply an attempt to pretend that a true leftist would never engage in pandering or misrepresentation?
All parts of the political spectrum use pandering and misrepresentation. That’s how politics works.
I don’t know what counts as a true leftist. I’m not particularly leftist myself, though in America positions that are centrist by traditional standards are routinely denounced as radical. What I object to about Huffington is not that she and her operations are not really left, but that whatever they are, they use the same methods that have corrupted the rest of our political discourse.
I’m a Californian so I remember Ariana’s efforts to get her then husband into the senate by every kind of misrepresentation. While she’s decided she’s not a conservative Republican anymore, she hasn’t given up on the lying and cheating. I don’t like it when any media outlet tries to spin news stories by giving them misleading headlines or plays on people’s prejudices as Ariana certainly has in her vendetta against Hillary Clinton. Dishonest is dishonest.
I’m much less concerned about the appearance of RFK, Jr. or Chopra on Huffington Post. Indeed, I think it is quite appropriate. The fact that what they have to say is hogwash doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to say it.
>>>> I think I know what the “f” stands for.
>>Framing?
“e” better stand for effing.
HuffPo is basically FOX news of the far left. The danger that it poses is that people will see these deranged posts and quite probably get swayed by them. I normally skim the titles and opening lines to see if an article might be worth my time, but most end up seeming to be written by Obama fangirls (nothing wrong with liking a candidate, but when they can do no wrong…) or anti-vax loonies. The last post I read was by some idiot recommending that people avoid the flu shot, so this waste of space is going to hope to sponge off herd immunity, which depends on most people getting the shot. Fricking irresponsible nutters at HuffPo all right.
“Anti-vax loonies?” There are people who actively oppose the Digital Equipment VAX architecture? Other than the original DG people? I mean, I remember being very, very angry at a specific 11/750 once, but later we made up and were friends again. Even when I was working for Pr1me.
I know I’m getting off topic, but I have to protest the rhetorical maneuver used by Badger3K. I don’t like Huffington Post, but calling it far left is either dishonest or just stupid unless you think that the only permissible political positions are extreme conservatism or mere fascism.
I’m reminded of the old British joke about how there are two political parties in America, the Republicans, who correspond to our Tories and the Democrats, who also correspond to our Tories. No wonder we’ve wound up with a government that not only wants to junk the Constitution but also the Magna Carta.
I vote left-wing ditzes. Trying to out-evangelize the religious-right trolls.
Thanks for the links on Robert Kennedy.
The vaccine issues linked to is not something I’ve followed in politics or news articles.
The scary thing to me is that this Paul Thompson comes out of nowhere (no previous comments) and carries on comment-by-comment rebuttals. Where did he come from? Who is watching something like this to haul someone out to spend most of the day with mostly snide but enough buzzwords to sorta sound like science. DI must have lots of staffers to look for a post anywhere that they can spam.
Vax was always a pain in the neck to work with.
Acknowledge and move on . . .
Being Canadian, American Presidential Debates are mainly a rather low end form of entertainment. However, it would be fascinating to see the lawyers and the professional politicians actually debating science and the policy which flows from it.
Sure, you’d have to have the one embarrassing question about Evolution where each candidate would contort themselves in order to support Creationism, ID and Evolution; but after that it would be entirely fascinating to see where they would end up on genetically modified food, cloning, space, the “science” of climate change, pre-natal DNA testing, data mining and a wide variety of scientific questions.
An American President has tremendous agenda setting powers. If the President thinks “X” is important then it is. As well, by way of appointment, the President has a good deal of influence on the major granting bodies in the US. With that set of practical powers it seems reasonable to ask whether, left or right, any Presidential candidate has a clue about science and what is actually happening at the moment in the fields likely to give rise to issues which will hit the President’s desk.
How long before the Amer-rouge round up all of the intellectuals, everyone in glasses, anyone who can read? I used to think that the ‘slipery slope’ argument was hand flapping alarmism but when it comes to evolution I think the sliding has stopped because the grade has become so steep we are in free fall. This handbasket aint stopping until we hit rock bottom folks.
Check out the Amazon Science forum if you want to be depressed. They might as well rename it the Theology forum and be done with it.
http://www.amazon.com/tag/science/forum/
Jay:
It’s more likely that most of the candidates would spin out some position that didn’t quite say anything, but seemed to agree with the most commonly-held beliefs of the voters. That’s what they do on most other issues.
Look at the kind of nonsense we get for energy policy, where corn-based ethanol is presented as some kind of practical step in energy independence, rather than as a boondoggle to pump the price of corn up and put money in the coffers of ADM. Or where people start nattering about how we should replace all our energy with wind and solar right away.
It’s not that these guys are dumb, though they’re mostly not much into science. It’s that being right about science, even at the level of not being embarrassingly silly, is just not very important for getting elected.
Most people getting the flu shot? I don’t know what it is like in your state, but around here we’re lucky if there’s enough for all the seniors to get them.
#12:
“I think it’s a bad idea…BAD idea…for presidential candidates to debate science. They are lawyers and politicians and actors; none of them should be expected to be able to debate scientific issues.”
I think Al Gore belies your rather depressing contention.
I know I’m getting off topic, but I have to protest the rhetorical maneuver used by Badger3K. I don’t like Huffington Post, but calling it far left is either dishonest or just stupid unless you think that the only permissible political positions are extreme conservatism or mere fascism.
Protest away, Jim, but you’re still avoiding classifying HuffPo. Again: Where on the left-right spectrum would you place it?
Sounds like you want to disown HuffPo because they’re an embarrassment to your ideal of liberalism, which is understandable. The sad truth is that the left is just as full of irrational nut-jobs as the right — crystal gazers versus bible thumpers.
To my way of thinking Huffington Post’s ideology is very slightly to the left of the center. It certainly isn’t far left. As I wrote above, my bitch about the site is not its leftness or lack thereof but its use of the same propaganda techniques that infect American political discourse from left to right and top to bottom. My concern is not about policy so much as process.
But lord knows it would help if we had a free press in this country, instead of the current system in which the mass media is controlled by six corporations with essentially the same economic and political interests and effective dissent is prohibited in the name of hysterical patriotism.
Ariana Huffington …just what is the appeal there, anyway? The fact that anyone takes her seriously amazes me.
I think there needs to be some differentiation between *wrong* (believing that childhood vaccinations could cause autism) versus *insane* (believing that praying to the Sky God will bring rain).
It’s entirely plausible that childhood exposure to certain elements could cause harmful side-effects. Even though it’s probably not true in this case, it’s not some *crazy* idea like, say, 9/11 happened because we tolerate abortion.
“If honor killings, female clitorectomy, and wife beating is “part of the culture”, then there is a very proper response.
The culture is all screwed up. Don’t make the simple complex.”
Using “it’s just a part of their culture” to excuse terrible and unethical behavior is a very dangerous road to go down. Part of the whole point of enlightenment is to get rid of those behaviors, regardless of the perpetrator. Making that excuse also seems demeaning, to wit: “well, we just have to allow those benighted others to keep acting in way X, it’s just their nature.” Plus, it can be turned around: “Well, it’s a part of my culture to rain hurt down on brown people and take their stuff, so you can’t criticize (my support of the Iraq war, &c.)…”
that it’s not a place where everyone’s ideas are equally valid
I’ve been vilified by right-wing Xtians for relying on science over the Bible as well as left-leaning professors for assuming science is valid for all people, in all cultures. Scientists, even leftward leaning, are often considered downright embarrassing by some on the left for ‘privileging’ scientific method, because logic and science are really white-male imperialism, tools of oppression just dressed up nice.
The number one proirity has to be getting the Repubs out of power, and if Ariana can help do that, more power to her.
At best it should be only half of the top priority. I think it is worth the extra effort to make sure we aren’t replacing morons with idiots. Any nutbag in the WH is disastrous, regardless of the label it chooses.