Holy crap, we were all played!

There once was a gigantic blow-up of accusations that fed into Chris Mooney’s self-righteous crusade against atheists as harming the cause of science education. Remember “Tom Johnson”, the mysterious scientist who told stories of outrageous bias against Christians in academia, driven by people like me and Richard Dawkins? Mooney was very grateful for his brave willingness to speak up.

Well, the fallout from the collapse of the ‘You’re Not Helping’ blog continues. “Tom Johnson” was the same sockpuppeteering undergraduate, “William”. The entire episode was a contrivance built up into a mountain of false accusations fed by one little liar making stuff up that Mooney wanted to hear.

Mooney’s frequent claim of a “New Atheist hate machine” suddenly sounds extraordinarily ironic. The fact that he claimed to have checked on the identity of his source is either an instance of incompetence or dishonesty.

I do believe that Mr Mooney owes us all an apology. I’d also suggest that he needs to do something about his site management; he’s been quick to whine at me that New Atheists need to clean up our act because we use rude words, but I find his tolerance and even encouragement of raging dishonesty to be far more offensive. He doesn’t need to patch up his credibility for me, though, because I’d long ago dismissed him as useless, and these recent revelations have just put him deeper in the toilet.

HuffPo adds cowardice to their résumé

We’ve known for a long time that the Huffington Post is a stronghold of anti-scientific, anti-medicine woo. They’ve also recently added Discovery Institute propagandists to their roster. I’ve given up on them as a lost cause, but Eric Michael Johnson of the Primate Diaries has been trying to swim up the sewer, posting articles on HuffPo that are pro-science and reason. It’s been a noble but futile effort.

The latest revelation is that being a columnist on HuffPo does not mean you have any independence to write as you please: they have editors who censor content. Write something critical of HuffPo’s lunatic woo side, and swish, that gets conveniently sliced out of your article.

Write ’em off. HuffPo is not on our side.

We have been scrutinized!

My post about women’s issues in skepticism/atheism got a lot of comments, and now those comments have been analyzed…so if you didn’t want to read them all, now you can get the numerical breakdown.

One thing surprised me: only a third of the comments were people arguing with each other! When did we become so nice? Also, only a quarter of the arguing comments were by men telling women what they should do, which is a huge improvement over what I expected.

Morbid squid sex story

You’re reading this over breakfast, right? Just want to be sure I’ve caught you at an appropriate moment.

The story is simple: scientists have figured out how deep sea squid, which lack a modified arm for sex, copulate. It’s obvious now — the males have an enormous penis, as long as their whole body. It just hasn’t been easy to notice in the typically dead, flaccid, often somewhat decomposed state of many deep sea squid specimens.

The morbid part is that scientists caught a live specimen of Onykia ingens — well, dying specimen, actually — and they started cutting open the mantle, which prompted a surprising response from the animal. It got an erection and started ejaculating on the table. A two-foot long erection. I’m impressed at both its endowment and the remarkably inappropriate timing of its deployment.

Some of you really want to see this, and others are already planning to run away screaming. I’ll be nice and put the photo below the fold.

[Read more…]

The interesting experiment is already getting interesting

Speaking of the untrustworthiness of corporate drones, the decision by Blizzard to end online anonymity is already having consequences. Protests have gotten so hot that they are banning complainers and shutting down threads, and people are unsubscribing from the game in protest (impossible to tell if there are enough numbers there to make a dent in their obscene profits, though). There have already been instances of people revealing their own names, only to have a horde of prickly adolescent gamers descend in force on their facebook pages and email, and doing the unimaginative trick of sending pizzas to their home address.

Their player base is already enriched for the competitive male gamer element, i.e. arrogant jerks. I’ve heard from and read about many women who are very careful to hide their sex while online, because they know exactly what kind of harassment they will get. Look at the cases of Kathy Sierra and Jill Filipovic for perfect examples of what to expect. There are some prominent gay guilds on WoW, too — their members may not appreciate being suddenly outed. Sure, it may reduce some of the flood of trollishness online at their forums…by transferring it offline, to real world abuse of anyone who doesn’t fit the smugly heteronormative line of the testosterone-addled.

Interesting experiment is failing spectacularly already. One good thing about it is that having the 900 pound gorilla of the gaming world set itself on fire and jump off a cliff might open up the market to a little more diversity.

Say hello to…PepsiCo??!? WTF?

It’s nice when we add another blog to the stable here at Scienceblogs — it means another human face added to the collection, another set of opinions to enjoy or destroy, yet more scientific minds committed to engaging in discussion with the culture. After all, that’s what we’re all about, putting a human personality to this weird enterprise of science. And as everyone on this blog is particularly aware, we encourage all kinds of diversions and digressions and transgressions, freely stomping on sacred cows and stuffed shirts because we can. Feels good, doesn’t it?

So what’s with the corporate drones moving in next door?

They aren’t going to be doing any scienceblogging — this is straight-up commercial propaganda. You won’t be seeing much criticism of Pepsico corporate policies, or the bad nutritional habits spread by cheap fast food, or even any behind-the-scenes stories about the lives of Pepsico employees that paints a picture of the place as anything less than Edenesque. Do you think any of the ‘bloggers’ will express any controversial opinions that might annoy any potential customers?

There won’t be a scrap of honest opinion expressed over there that isn’t filtered and vetted by cautious editors before making it online, and it will all toe the Pepsi line. It’s going to be boring. It’s going to blur the line between blog content and advertising. It’s going to be bloodless dull blogging that will diminish the Scienceblogs brand.

So don’t say hello to them at all — don’t even bother to read them. If you want to know more about food science, check out Tomorrow’s Table or Obesity Panacea (more of an exercise physiology blog than a nutrition blog, but they did recently post on sugar-sweetened beverages. Didn’t like ’em.)

Oh, and I don’t care what the Supreme Court said. Corporations aren’t people. I read blogs written by sentient beings, not committees of shills.

An interesting experiment in online social forums

Blizzard, which makes a couple of extremely popular computer games like Starcraft, Warcraft, and Diablo, also maintains a gigantic set of forums with an overwhelming volume of posts appearing non-stop. I’ve never dug into them — way too much stuff, and it’s scary how ferocious the debates can get over a change in a magic spell in a game — but they’ve announced a major, radical change:

The first and most significant change is that in the near future, anyone posting or replying to a post on official Blizzard forums will be doing so using their Real ID — that is, their real-life first and last name — with the option to also display the name of their primary in-game character alongside it. These changes will go into effect on all StarCraft II forums with the launch of the new community site prior to the July 27 release of the game, with the World of Warcraft site and forums following suit near the launch of Cataclysm. Certain classic forums, including the classic Battle.net forums, will remain unchanged.

Whoa. No pseudonyms at all, all anonymity removed. They can actually do this because everything is linked to subscriptions to their games, so they can demand accurate billing information…and they have just announced that part of that billing information will be made public. There have been a lot of debates about privacy and anonymity on the internet, and here’s an actual exercise in testing the Penny Arcade theory by eliminating one of the parameters.

Have no fear, I’m not proposing to do the experiment here. It could get interesting if we have a major before and after dataset available on the internet, though…I predict that many casual trolls might get filtered out fast, but there will still be online meanies and contrarians and aggressive debaters, and there may not be a huge change in tone. After all, I’m not writing under a pseudonym, and you don’t see me wilting politely into courteous discourse.

Some sociologist should get ready to study this…

There’s a good discussion going on at Shakesville — this decision is an exercise in privilege by Blizzard. There are a fair number of female gamers who would rather not advertise the fact…because many male gamers are jerks.

Hooray for the Catholic Church! It’s a priest who wasn’t raping children!

Father Kevin Gray had better things to do with his time.

Apparently for the past seven years Gray has been spending church money to fund trips to New York and pay for sessions with male escorts, and he also racked up $200,000 in restaurant bills including a large tab at Tavern on the Green.

It is a step up for the church, from child molesters to hedonistic embezzlers. Progress!

Creationist weaseling over the age of the earth

Last week, the hilarity was that Rand Paul refused to say how old he thought the earth was. The new chew toys are creationist apologists for ignorance trying to justify it, while also refusing to state how old they think the earth is. The amusement lies in the way these guys puff themselves up into a state of moral superiority while claiming that scientists are dogmatists…because, you know, they know stuff.

I don’t know the age of the earth, but I know that someone who thinks that someone who doesn’t know the age of the earth should have a position on the age of the earth anyway is a dogmatist. What else could he be?

This is the curious thing about people who hold to Darwinism: they demand that people with no scientific expertise hold scientific opinions. But on what basis? Many people can’t hold them on a basis of scientific knowledge, since they don’t have sufficient scientific knowledge to hold them. There is only one basis upon which they can hold them, and it is the basis upon which Darwinists demand they hold them: on the basis of authority.

Nah, it’s simpler than that. We read the books — even the simple books for the lay public — and they describe the evidence for the age of the earth, and they also explain how the data is used to explore deeper into geology. I’m not a physicist or geologist, but it’s relatively easy to get an overview of the host of data used to support estimates of the age of the earth, to see the degree of detail geologists have at hand, and it’s also even easier to see that working geologists and physicists, people with in-depth training in their fields, are not arguing over whether the earth is 6000 or 4.6 billion years old; the issue is settled.

It’s not dogmatism, it’s pragmatism. The depth of science is so great that no one brain can even grasp the whole of a single subfield, so we trust our colleagues — at least, we trust them as far as they demonstrate cooperation with the tacit rules of the institution of science, which safeguard to some extent the reliability of a scientific claim. The relevant scientists say the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and they are all willing to show their work, so I’ll provisionally accept it until I see a reliable source provide cantrary evidence. A cowardly creationist who won’t even set a rough date is not a reliable source.

It’s fine if someone doesn’t know how old the earth is, if it’s not at all relevant to what they do. I don’t do spot checks on plumbers and carpenters and electricians who come by my house, making sure they know the date of the Permian extinction before I let them do their job. But there are a couple of situations where I think it is appropriate to insist on some basic understanding.

If you are a scientist of any kind, you’d better be aware of the general location in space and time of your planet. It’s not too much to ask, most of us went through a nerdy phase (lasting practically our entire life) in which we devoured all kinds of general knowledge, and we kind of figured out how old the earth is in 4th grade. If we were a bit slow. We also puzzled out that the planet was a rough spheroid in an elliptical orbit approximately 8 light-minutes from our sun. Other kids might have been accumulating baseball knowledge or memorizing the lyrics to pop songs, but Our People learned other things.

If you are a politician, you don’t need to know the scientific data directly, but you’d better be competent to delegate, and you’d better know who in the scientific and engineering community, and that means it’s a good idea to have some information about the scientific consensus. You don’t want to appoint somebody to head the department of energy who thinks the power grid taps into electricity from the sun, or that oil was created in situ in the last 6000 years. It matters when Rand Paul runs away from a basic scientific question, because it means he doesn’t have the competence to judge who will be a good advisor or not. It also tells us that he does not have the political courage to fight for good science-based policy.

The third category is most appropriate here: if you are a creationist who regularly complains about “Darwinists” and promotes intelligent design creationism, yet declaims at length that you are so abysmally ignorant that you can’t even make up your mind whether to trust elementary geology, then nothing you can say about any science is trustworthy. It’s fine to admit that you are an empty-headed goober who hasn’t bothered to look up any relevant science at all, but when you set up a soapbox and pontificate about the insupportability of “Darwinism” from your platform of self-admitted lack of knowledge, you’ve upgraded yourself from silly schlemiel to arrogant putz.

One other hilarious addition: this inane creationist has posted a citation that he thinks supports his agnosticism on the age of the earth: it’s an articled describing how astronomers are revising the estimated age of the solar system — between 4.566 billion and 4.567 billion years old. Oh, yeah, baby — a little more uncertainty, and 0.000006 billion years will look reasonable!