I've been writing more for D.C. based political magazines lately--going back to the roots, I guess--and I now have a piece in the latest issue of The New Republic about why scientists need to stop taking abuse and fight back. As described in this piece, "framing science"--or, as I put it, "investing... in mass-media initiatives to communicate"--is just one part of what must be done. There's a great deal more if we want science to be both tough but also smart:
So how can scientists strap on the gloves? They can start by investing, through their major organizations, in mass-media initiatives to communicate the facts on issues like climate change. At the same time, through auxiliary groups, those who care about science should directly take on politicians with the most outrageous anti-science stances, such as Oklahoma senator and global-warming denier James Inhofe, while working to elect better candidates (including more scientists). Elected representatives ought to know there are consequences for attacking scientists and undermining scientific knowledge.
In an admittedly fledgling way, this has been tried--a group named Scientists and Engineers for America organized to target select races in the 2006 election and, more recently, has been training scientists to run for office and disseminating information on nationwide candidates' science policy stances. Meanwhile, an initiative with which I have been involved named Science Debate 2008 has organized much of American science in a call for the presidential candidates to debate science policy. (So far, no takers.)
Scientists seem able to organize behind the prospect of a science policy debate; but a still more overtly political tack will probably worry many researchers, who recoil from the messy political process--and who fear attacks on their carefully guarded objectivity. Furthermore, there has long been a culture in the world of science that disdains mere "popularizers" and those who shirk research for less "pure" activities: Everyone in science remembers what happened to the great public communicator Carl Sagan, who was denied membership in the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.
Certainly, these kinds of changes could have trade-offs and negative consequences; and they might well bring science itself under political attack. But science is under political attack anyway, which is precisely the point. The only question is how long researchers are going to sit and take it.
You can read the entire piece here. It's entitled "Hard Science." The New Republic always has the best article titles.
- Log in to post comments
But when scientists like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins don the gloves, they are told by Mr. Mooneys' pal Matt Nisbet to shut up and hand the gloves over to Ken Miller.
SLC:
GET A LIFE! On to other things.
Now this is the Chris Mooney whose writings I came to respect. Here is the key paragraph from your article IMO:
In 1996, a group called Science Watch organized a system to rate members of Congress based on their science-related votes--precisely what any number of other interest groups on both sides of the aisle do, and unapologetically so. But, when the scorecard emerged, Democrats generally garnered considerably higher ratings than Republicans, leading--all too predictably--to charges of politicizing science. Once again, the science community retreated from political engagement; no further scorecards from Science Watch were forthcoming.
This was and is the mistake. Put out the scorecards anyway. If the Republicans score worse than the Democrats, than say so. Who better than scientists to counter this obsession with pretending everything is "fair and balanced"? Reality is not fair, and its not balanced. Waiting for the Republicans to catch up to the Democrats in scientific literacy (at least in their public statements) before being critical of anti-science politicians is like waiting for the bully to stop beating people up before talking to him about the benefits of peace.
Re ScienceFan
No.
Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.
-PZ Myers
Chris,
now you are talking ! Now you are framing "framing" in a way we can understand. Finally !
Framing Science = Investing in mass-media initiatives to communicate Science
Thats a bit more concrete than the usual enigmatic language you have been using until now.
Just say it, and let's get organised. We need first to find concrete initiatives, and collect the money. The religious folks have their charities and their philantropes, we need ours. It's nonsensical that they can find money to produce a movie like Expelled based on a pack of lies and stupid ideas such as Darwin caused Nazism, and in the meantime, we are just bloging (which is the only thing we can do as have no means to go mass media).
These are the only short term actions that WE can take.
The rest is long term public policy on education, public broadcasting,... and how to ensure that this nation has a more significant % of critical thinkers. And that will only come once there is a real debate, which needs to be provoked.
Michael Shermer does analysis on the most famous science popularizers in his book, "The Boarderlands of Science." For example, Gould's cred among scientists took a nose dive when he became famous, but so did his actual science research. It does appear to be a trade-off.
On a different point, there still seems to be a disconnect between the definition and application of framing.
Sounds great but how do we achieve this? Grants are tight. I know of top labs that are without funding and are applying for grants like crazy. Those labs with grants are pushing to churn out more papers so they can "insure" their current grants get renewed. Of course these labs are still applying for grants as well, why? Their budgets are getting sliced. You add on top of this ever expanding duties placed upon them from the universities who have been passing on responsibilities from administrators onto PI's and their labs. The same is true with regards to publishing. Oh yes demands by graduate students and post-docs for better mentors & undergrads for better teachers. How are these scientists going to have the time to push groups as you have stated? How are we going to change the idiotic view of too many PIs that those grad students/post-docs who go into policy, writing, etc. (i.e. not academic research) are "failed scientists"?
This is not for Chris to answer. His is a call to arms. It is our responsibility to create a climate where this can be achieved.
" Gould's cred among scientists took a nose dive when he became famous, but so did his actual science research. It does appear to be a trade-off."
...and so did some of his logic. His "non overlapping magesteria," which claimed that religion and science don't overlap, was a case of well-meaning wishful thinking rather than an honest examination of the facts. Some religions clearly make scientific claims--the earth stopped rotating for a day, 3-day-old corpses can come back to life, bushes can talk, donkeys can fly and Pi is exactly 3.
As to taking the gloves off, sorry ScienceFan, but that is **exactly** what Dawkins and Myers do. There are a number of activists in Sb, including Chris (sort of), Orac, PalMD, Mark Chu-Carroll and others who are very direct and take no BS for an answer. But the corollary (pronounced in the affected British fashion "kuh RAHL er ee") is that popular and outspoken science communicators people may be told by mediocre communications academics that they should be quiet and let others speak. We can't ignore that this post is related to others of recent vintage.
"...and who fear attacks on their carefully guarded objectivity."
I don't think losing objectivity is what worries scienctists. It's that politics routinely requires a particular kind of lying by omission or altered emphasis. Ask a politician to criticise their own policy initiative--who does it hurt? what might be the negative consequences? what are the weaknesses in your arguments or reasoning?--They CANNOT do it. It's political suicide.
Rigorous interrogation of your own work is a large part of science, and a large part of the scientific mindset. If someone says "Teaching evolution leads to an increase in the questioning of religious beliefs and even atheism"--a statement that is supported by a lot of evidence--there are several ways to answer.
"No it doesn't, it just provides natural explanations that do not impinge one's personal religious beliefs." This is a lie.
"But Francis Collins is a Christian, and many other scientists are religious." This is a true statement, but is irrelevant. It is dishonest in its attempt to distract from the truth: that good science education--in fact, good education in general--does undermine supernatural world views. This seems to be the kind of dishonesty that "framing" encourages, but correct me if I'm wrong.
I think many scientists don't want to get into an arena where their work and ideas will be--in fact, MUST be--misrepresented by omission or emphasis to achieve a political end. Nothing to do with maintaining "objectivity"--which I think no one has really worried about since the 80s. Hard to claim objectivity when you have to tailor your work to fit the ever-narrowing priorities of grant providers.
Scote: "As to taking the gloves off, sorry ScienceFan, but that is **exactly** what Dawkins and Myers do. There are a number of activists in Sb, including Chris (sort of), Orac, PalMD, Mark Chu-Carroll and others who are very direct and take no BS for an answer."
You are smooching together some people with very different sentiments. Dawkins and Myers might very well say something like you said:
"Some religions clearly make scientific claims--the earth stopped rotating for a day, 3-day-old corpses can come back to life, bushes can talk, donkeys can fly and Pi is exactly 3."
Orac, I suspect, would be more careful and recognize the straw men inherent in that quote, and not be so quick to say anything like it.
miko: "If someone says 'Teaching evolution leads to an increase in the questioning of religious beliefs and even atheism'--a statement that is supported by a lot of evidence--there are several ways to answer."
And one of those answers is that questioning of religious beliefs, for better or worse, doesn't necessarily lead to atheism, and that one may have religious beliefs that don't clash with evolution.
You are making up an imaginary argument by Orac in which he would recognize **my** strawman? I think you just broke the IronOMeter (tm).
Point out the alleged "strawman" arguments yourself rather than having your imaginary Orac merely insinuate them.
Scote: "Point out the alleged 'strawman' arguments yourself"
I count two definite strawmen:
1) The first is writing as if an account of an extraordinary event implies a general rule, , e.g. Balaam's donkey talking implies that donkeys--note the plural--can talk. Either it's sloppy writing or a cutesy insinuation.
2) The ye olde pi=3 chestnut. You even were foolish enough to use the word "exactly," as if a reader in an age where the cubit itself was an imprecise length, basically the distance from the tips of one's fingers to one's elbow, would expect precise numbers. One has to wonder if you think that when it is reported in 2 Chronicles 1:14 that Solomon had 1,400 chariots, the number is supposed to be correct to four significant figures.
@JJ
An arguable point isn't a strawman.
A strawman is when you mischaracterize your opponents argument so that it is easy to knock down. So, the question is did I mischaracterize either of the two or are those **weak points** that legitimately allow me to falsify the idea of NOM?
Now, indeed, I could have been more general and in a more easily defensible position with both Pi and plurals. However, you made a strawman of your own by making a invalid analogy, claiming that an exact and invariant geometric ratio is somehow comparable to the imprecision of archaic units measurement based on individual physiology. Once again, you've managed to invoke a strawman in your attempts to pin that claim on me. (Pegging the IronOMeter, once again) Next, you point about the bible never saying the word "exactly" is an **arguable** point not evidence of a strawman, especially since many Christians consider the Bible to be literally true and **inerrent**, thus if it says "three" it means "three" and no more or less. You can respond saying that not all people believe that but that is irrelevant since my point was to falsify the idea of non-overlapping magesteria, which does not require that I prove that all-religions overlap with science, I only need prove that one or some do.
Now, indeed, I did use plural when I said "donkeys can talk." I did not mean to imply that all donkeys can talk, but that some can. Balaam's donkey is proof of this and, if you believe the bible and accept that one donkey can talk, you have no way to falsify that others can, for the bible does not say that only Balaam's donkey can talk. Note that if I had said the bible says "a donkey can talk" I'd have omitted the plural but the result would be the same in that it is implied that ability is not necessarily restricted to a single donkey.
Here's something to consider, for what it's worth. You could put it this way: the problem is less with our scientific institutions (which have been doing their jobs) than with our journalistic and political institutions, which are in need of some help these days. In certain ways, even though some aspects of framing research is new, similar ideas have been around for a while. If you look into the work of the influential journalist Walter Lippmann, back in the 1920's he was positing some notions that sound an awful lot like framing.
So you can talk about framing as supported by valid, up-to-date empirical studies, but also as part of some longstanding unresolved issues with our political and journalistic institutions. So yes, it isn't pure science, but framing is important to consider if good science is going to have the appropriate impact in politically controversial areas...
Scote: "However, you made a strawman of your own by making a invalid analogy, claiming that an exact and invariant geometric ratio is somehow comparable to the imprecision of archaic units measurement based on individual physiology."
No, I didn't, and based on what you just wrote, I suspect that you don't know the basis for the pi=3 canard. The circumference and diameter of the molten sea were given in cubits, and any imprecision in the cubit is bound to be reflected in the ratio of those two dimensions. (And if you don't know what the "molten sea" is, you have no business making the pi=3 argument.)
Scote: "Christians consider the Bible to be literally true and **inerrent**, thus if it says 'three' it means 'three' and no more or less."
Even more reason to suspect that you don't know the basis for the pi=3 canard. The passages from which the pi=3 canard is justified don't even say "three." Furthermore, you show that you are pretty ignorant about what Christian believe about inerrancy. For example, the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy says in Article XIII:
"WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."
Scote: "I did not mean to imply that all donkeys can talk, but that some can."
As I said before, that's sloppy writing or a cutesy insinuation. If one were to write, "Donkeys can kick with a force of 300 lbs," this would be taken as a general statement about how hard donkeys can kick, rather than implying that only a few donkeys can kick that hard, or that a donkey could only kick that hard with the assistance of some deity. (BTW, I just made up the number "300 lbs." There is probably an accurate number somewhere, but it's beside the point.) There is no reason for "Donkeys can talk" to be treated any differently, and to phrase things as you did is misleading spin.
Scote: "that is irrelevant since my point was to falsify the idea of non-overlapping magesteria, which does not require that I prove that all-religions overlap with science, I only need prove that one or some do."
Considering what Gould actually wrote about NOMA, that is actually completely wrong. Gould was well aware of the problem of overlap, especially with regards to creationism, and he treats it as an illegitimate crossing of the bounds of religion's supposed magisteria. You can reject his scheme, but not on the arguments that you are currently offering. Razib of GNXP, IIRC, takes Gould's own writings into account and rejects NOMA as a condescending attempt to redefine religion. If you are going to reject NOMA, I suggest that you follow his lead.
Now, back to something halfway related to the main point of the opening post....
It's not enough merely to take the gloves off. You also have to know how to counter B.S. without making more of your own.
OT:
"No, I didn't, and based on what you just wrote, I suspect that you don't know the basis for the pi=3 canard. The circumference and diameter of the molten sea were given in cubits, and any imprecision in the cubit is bound to be reflected in the ratio of those two dimensions."
While one person's cubit can be different than another's, a cubit, as with the measurement "foot" or even "pace" can be accurate to itself for more than one sig. fig.
"Even more reason to suspect that you don't know the basis for the pi=3 canard. The passages from which the pi=3 canard is justified don't even say "three." Furthermore, you show that you are pretty ignorant about what Christian believe about inerrancy. For example, the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy says in Article XIII:"
Christianity is a diverse agglomeration of beliefs. What one group of scholars collectively believe is not binding all people who call themselves Christians, nor do individual Christians necessarily care what "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" says. Further, the statement is really more of a post-hoc rationalization, saying that the bible cannon be proved to be inerrant by showing errors in it. In other-words--they declare the truths in the bible to be beyond scientific--or logical--scrutiny. More proof invalidating NOM.
"As I said before, that's sloppy writing or a cutesy insinuation. If one were to write, "Donkeys can kick with a force of 300 lbs," this would be taken as a general statement about how hard donkeys can kick, rather than implying that only a few donkeys can kick that hard, or that a donkey could only kick that hard with the assistance of some deity. (BTW, I just made up the number "300 lbs." There is probably an accurate number somewhere, but it's beside the point.) There is no reason for "Donkeys can talk" to be treated any differently, and to phrase things as you did is misleading spin.'"
Actually, JJ, my post was sloppy, but not for the reasons you cited. I said "donkeys can fly." You argued that it was wrong for me to have said donkeys can **talk** You wrote, "
Balaam's donkey talking implies that donkeys--note the plural--can talk. Either it's sloppy writing or a cutesy insinuation." I accepted your false characterization of my statement and argued on that basis. My mistake to do so, and my mistake for saying "donkeys can fly" when I should have written "donkeys can talk." (There is a tradition in Italy surrounding St. Lucia who is sometimes associated with a flying donkey, but that was not what I had been thinking of.)
"Considering what Gould actually wrote about NOMA, that is actually completely wrong. Gould was well aware of the problem of overlap, especially with regards to creationism, and he treats it as an illegitimate crossing of the bounds of religion's supposed magisteria."
Nope, I'm going to follow my own lead, but I will update my use to the preferred acronym. NOMA is a fruitless idea based on an unsound premise. It is easily falsified by numerous religious beliefs and was not one of Gould's better ideas. It would be nice if religion would concede the natural world and explanations thereof to science, but science keeps growing in knowledge and closing the gaps the god of the gaps lives in. Many religions see this as a zero sum game.
You wrote:
"It's not enough merely to take the gloves off. You also have to know how to counter B.S. without making more of your own."
Indeed, that is an issue. But more than that, as miko alludes to, politics often involves "lies" by omission to spin a favorable angle. So it's not just avoiding lying but how to be an advocate without compromising ones values that is an issue. Unless you are an "Expelled" producer, who's values only seem to be "winning" and that any amount of deception towards that goal is acceptable. For scientists, not so much.
Scote: "Further, the statement is really more of a post-hoc rationalization, saying that the bible cannon be proved to be inerrant by showing errors in it."
Is there any point in arguing with you if you grossly mischaracterize quotes?
How many angels can dance on a pinheaded rhetorical point?
Are black holes 'real' since a singularity can not be measured?
Can a call to action be answered when no one agrees which direction to march?
Who is giving the orders here?
When did I join up and what did I join anyway?
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
You are missing something important.
OT
"Is there any point in arguing with you if you grossly mischaracterize quotes?"
:-) Not if you are going grossly mischaracterize the validity of my statement.
From the relevant link:
[emphasis added]
Here they are carving out a logic and science exemption that claims that the bible cannot be declared errent for any purpose that is "alien to its usage or purpose," eg, math, science and, especially, IMO, logic and reason.
I stand by my statement. It's my interpretation and while it might not be yours I think it is a "gross mischaracterization" to call it a "gross mischaracterization." Once again you mistake an arguable point for an invalid one without proper basis.
We don't see eye to eye religious matters, clearly. While it's nice to know there is someone out there I could have an endless debate with, I have to say that our common ground is surprisingly infirm.
" stand by my statement." Well, except for the typo. It should have read "Further, the statement is really more of a post-hoc rationalization, saying that the bible cannot be proved to be inerrant by showing errors in it."
For those that are unaware, the pi=3 idea is in the 1st Book of Kings, ch 7, v23 - The Sea of Cast Bronze, referring not to a 'molten sea' (sorry J.J.), but to a cast-bronze bowl whose dimensions are given as 'ten cubits from one brim to the other', 'completely round' and 'a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference'.
(as an aside, JJ - could you tell me which translation refers to it as the molten sea? Just interested - thanks).
J.J. Ramsey is correct to say that nowhere is it mentioned that pi=3 ("The passages from which the pi=3 canard is justified don't even say "three."). However, context and mathematics make it perfectly obvious that the measurements require a pi value of 3 so it is distinctly misleading to imply that they don't. The literal biblical value of pi is 3.
I would say, however, that despite urban legends to the contrary there has not been any call from Christians to legislate a 'biblical pi'. American Christians have been guilty of many stupidities but that's not one of them - proving once more that even literalists aren't stupid enough to really take the holey babble literally.
"I would say, however, that despite urban legends to the contrary there has not been any call from Christians to legislate a 'biblical pi'."
Indeed, not that I have heard. There was at least one straight-faced satire calling for biblically based mathematics and geology (Pi as three and the four cornered earth, flat square or four sided pyramid) to supplement the Biblical biology and geology classes. And yet it is hard to justify why biology and geology should be based on biblical literalism but not math and geology on any biblically consistent basis.
Lee Harrison: "(as an aside, JJ - could you tell me which translation refers to it as the molten sea? Just interested - thanks)."
The NRSV. The NIV calls it a sea of cast metal.
"However, context and mathematics make it perfectly obvious that the measurements require a pi value of 3"
Only if the measurements are exact. If one expects the measurements to be to the nearest cubit, which would make sense if, for example, one were measuring out cubits by unwinding turns of a rope wrapped around one's forearm. Essentially, if the numbers in question are rounded--which is almost inevitable--and one does not consider reporting rounded numbers to be an error, then the case for "Bible sez pi=3" degenerates to "Bible implies pi is about 3." Considering that the context of the measurements is a purported historical chronicle where the exact values of the measurements aren't that important, there isn't a great reason to expect those numbers to be taken as exact.
Scote: "Actually, JJ, my post was sloppy, but not for the reasons you cited. I said 'donkeys can fly.' You argued that it was wrong for me to have said donkeys can **talk**"
I figured you were mangling the story of Balaam's donkey. I notice, too, that you didn't deal with the general point I made.
Scote: "We don't see eye to eye religious matters, clearly."
Indeed. I prefer arguments against religion that are not vulnerable to the obvious counterattacks from reasonably intelligent theists. Not much point in being an atheist if the only religions I can intellectually reject are made of straw.
Um, guys and gals, can we call a time out? Most of these comments seem to be about tearing one another's quotes apart instead of, oh I don't know, debating the merits of Chris's points and describing how we scientists might do as he suggests without loosing ourselve in the process. And sadly, turning on each other only makes his point all too well. Who, in the "real world" is going to listen to a bunch of scientists who are more concerned with thier specific interpretation of reality then with the issue or issues at hand? Chopping each other down, debating the "true" value of pi - that has ZERO to do with whether and how scientists should defend themselves in the public discourse.
Now as to the point made earlier about tight grants causing more competition for grants yielding less time to defend science - you are right, it is a vary vicious circle. Unfortunately, many of the grant sources you might cite in such an argument are governmental, so their scope - the number of dollars avaialable for scientists to compete over - is ALL about politics. And like it or not, that means that scientists have to engage in the political process so that politicians, who ultimately control the purse strings, will understand what the return on thier investment is, and be willing to fight for more money, so more science can ultimately be done.
Back on the subject of this thread, apparently Prof. Nisbet has teed off on PZ Myers again. When are Mr. Mooney and Dr. Kirchenbaum going to cut him loose?
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/04/it_is_ok_to_be_an_atheist_but…
Now as to the point made earlier about tight grants causing more competition for grants yielding less time to defend science - you are right, it is a vary vicious circle. Unfortunately, many of the grant sources you might cite in such an argument are governmental, so their scope - the number of dollars avaialable for scientists to compete over - is ALL about politics. And like it or not, that means that scientists have to engage in the political process so that politicians, who ultimately control the purse strings, will understand what the return on thier investment is, and be willing to fight for more money, so more science can ultimately be done.
******************
All true but it is a negative feedback loop at play. As funds become less available, more and more scientists have to scramble to get funds. Their time becomes focussed on the short term, getting the grant rather than on expanding the size of the pot available to all. Yes it becomes more important for scientists to advocate upon their collective behalves but the selection is not for that but rather on surviving. That surviving it should be remembered is paying post-docs, technicians, lab managers and graduate students. You loose your grants you can't pay them, they are out of work. The question then becomes how do you break out of this destructive cycle. How do you change the system to allow scientists to do as Chris suggests?
Someone needs to be "cut loose" because they "teed off PZ Myers again"?
Can someone please tell me the approved way of disagreeing with PZ Myers so he doesn't get "teed off?" And the rest of the community doesn't demand the disputant's ouster?
Is there a list of approved and disapproved subjects for disagreement?
Thanks.
Jon, as you can see from PZ'z response in the comments, even he doesn't agree with the original commenters sentiment, so don't attribute this sentiment to "the rest of the community".
Jon, as you can see from PZ'z response in the comments, even he doesn't agree with the original commenters sentiment...
Yes, I saw that too. Good to see that...
Re Jon Winsor & Tulse
1. There is a slight misinterpretation here. I said that Prof. Nisbet teed off on Prof. Myers, not that he teed Prof. Myers off. Much Like Tiger Woods tees of on a golf course.
2. The issue is not kicking Prof. Nisbet off the Scienceblogs (I would be opposed to that). The issue is Mr. Mooney and Dr. Kirchenbaum cutting loose from Prof. Nisbets' framing position.
The issue is Mr. Mooney and Dr. Kirchenbaum cutting loose from Prof. Nisbets' framing position.
What do you mean by "Nisbets' framing position"? What in your mind is Nisbet arguing?
Re Jon Winsor
"What do you mean by "Nisbets' framing position"? What in your mind is Nisbet arguing?"
That's part of the problem. Most of the critics of Nisbet are unable to understand what his position is because he has been unable to communicate it.
OT
"I notice, too, that you didn't deal with the general point I made."
...and you didn't deal with all of my points either.
"Not much point in being an atheist if the only religions I can intellectually reject are made of straw."
I haven't actually seen you reject any.
Anyways, I've realized that arguing with you is annoying because it's like arguing with myself only you are wrong :-) You never yield a centimeter, even when, perhaps you should--something I'm occasionally accused of.
Yes, he's incomprehensible! I just watched these two videos yesterday and it was like trying to understand German phenomenology. Mysterious! Inscrutable!
Scote: "I haven't actually seen you reject any."
Actually, you had. Remember reading this?: http://merkdorp.blogspot.com/2007/02/why-reject-miracles.html
OT:
@JJ
Indeed, I do recall you citing that link before (a thread at your blog) in a different thread where we were conversing, but I must confess to only having skimmed the link, as I have just done again. Since you haven't made a specific claim here, as opposed to providing the link en masse, I'm not sure what religion you may have rejected as opposed to, perhaps, certain tenets of a religion, which isn't necessarily the same thing.
I'm actually not trying to be argumentative (for once :-) ), but rather I am curious. Your site says you are not 'that' kind of atheist, listing what you say you aren't, but I couldn't find a list of what kind of atheist you are.
And, as a token not back to the topic, if two atheists can't agree on whether NOMA applies how can scientists expect NOMA to be a clear case between them and theists?
OT: JJ Ramsey "Indeed. I prefer arguments against religion that are not vulnerable to the obvious counterattacks from reasonably intelligent theists."
Me too - I'm not fond of arguing against biblical literalism by pointing out its idiocies because, as I stated in my earlier comment, even literalists aren't that literal (I suppose a text that would be correct even from a strictly literal view (one that doesn't allow of approximations) would have given a measurement of "...a line of more than thirty cubits...")
I prefer arguments that cut to the heart of the matter - such as the one that points out that the temple described in Kings has no archaeological evidence going for it whatsoever.
Anyway - thanks for the reference.
We now return to your scheduled program...
ponderingfool asked:
Make contacts within the entertainment industry and convince investors that not only would such presentations result in a positive shift toward a more science based culture, they could prove profitable.
A lot of money is going into political causes to get people elected and what not. A fraction of that could finance a good movie, or a TV series.
Fictional shows can be of use too. Has anybody here been watching Battlestar Galactica?
Is there a dedicated organization that does media outreach for science and scientists? I once talked to someone who worked at the Harvard School of Health, and they had just one person who wrote press releases for the entire place, I think (maybe it was the graduate school, not the whole school). That's pretty weak support for an organization that supposed to be about conducting research for "the public." Some of the stories I heard about the way the media treated new findings were just crazy. (There's a story for you, Chris.)
If you just had one organization that did consulting and outreach, I bet that would make a huge difference.
"Harvard School of Public Health," that was supposed to be...
Norman,
I *love* Battlestar Galactica.
And maybe I should start blogging on that instead. Despite the important counsel of some, like Philip H, this dialogue is really just not looking up, over all, and I'm fatigued by it.
http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/2008/04/part_iv_defending_framing_…
Chris C. Mooney wrote:
I think you should blog on Battlestar Galactica. I'd like to see what kind of insights you have into how science is being framed on that show.
Galactica's science policy is worse than the Republicans. They need help framing science. ;> Baltar actually has a working Cylon detector in his lab and no one on Galactica knows what to do with it or even tries to figure it out. :)
I think you could also approach the issues you want to approach in your framing posts in a less direct way by looking at how Galactica is framing science. Their world is a kind of mirror to our own.