The limits of tolerance.

Wow Mike - maybe next time you will tell us how you really feel.

Seriously, that is a powerful post. Thanks.

I love it. They try to shock an audience with PZ's "violent" words, but instead the audience cheers PZ's words.

Why shouldn't we be intolerant of being lied about, Swift-boated, smeared and having science distorted?

I suppose one does have to forgive ignorance and correct gently at first, but when that doesn't work -- you've got to get a little nasty.

http://normdoering.blogspot.com

...when that doesn't work --- you've got to get a little nasty.

I certainly don't think PZ meant to incite any physical violence with his comments. After all that might violate someone's civil rights! However, I do think it is time to stop giving these people a pass when they are caught in illegal activity. For example, why are some members of the Dover school board not in jail? They committed perjury under oath repeatedly. Isn't there some rule that says you shouldn't do that? There should be consequences for these actions. If they are not going to jail, why don't they pay the 2 million dollars that was effectively stolen from their school system? Why don't people who violate the Consitiution of the United States ever get held accountable for their actions? If any of these consequences were to come to pass there would most likely be a drastic reduction in the number of problems across the country with creationists on school boards and illegal legislation proposed in state legislatures. As long as we let them get away with illegal tactics, they will just take this as encouragement and continue to cause trouble. It took more than ten years for Kent Hovind to get convicted of anything. During all that time the government was sending the wrong message to him, his family and every tax evader out there. We have religious freedom in this country because of the Constitution. Why let people abuse that freedom and get away with it?

PZ said: ...when that doesn't work --- you've got to get a little nasty.

Scott Belyea asked: Why? Do you think it will be any more effective? Or is it just to make yourself feel good?

...when that doesn't work --- you've got to get a little nasty.

Since MarkP beat me to answering a question addressed to me -- and he did it better -- I'd like to add something more on being nasty. A court case where you sue someone is nasty, it has a level of force and an implied potential for violence inherent in it. But can the writers of journal articles that Dembski distorts sue for slander?

Phrases like "butt-kicking" and "break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots" do have to be understood in context as metaphor. Behind the words though we really do want to do a kind of damage to the people and institutions that are now warring with science. We want to shred their credibility in the public eye, we want to force them out of high schools, we want teachers fired, we want their figureheads to look absurd and pathetic, we want their books not to sell, and we want to cripple their propaganda machine.

What's lacking in phrases like "hammer on the lunatics and idiots" is a method to do that and therein lies the frustration.

The purpose is to send a signal to one's audience of what kind of people we are battling.

The audience is the majority of people out there who are fairminded, not completely scientifically illiterate, but have better things to do than follow the ID/creationist controversy as closely as many of us do, and therefore might be taken in by the snake charmers' tricks. The idea is not to "impress" them, but to reveal the other side for the liars and scientific posers they are. Personal attacks are entirely appropriate when they are 1) Accurate, and 2) The point. There is no moral superiority in not calling a liar out, and there is no intellectual superiority in pretending a con is real science.

Hopefully the result will be fewer Dovers wasting millions of taxpayer dollars, and better quality textbooks and science instruction.

So just who is impressed by the insults, putdowns, and personal attacks? Beats me ...

The audience is the majority of people out there who are fairminded, not completely scientifically illiterate, but have better things to do than follow the ID/creationist controversy as closely as many of us do, and therefore might be taken in by the snake charmers' tricks. The idea is not to "impress" them, but to reveal the other side for the liars and scientific posers they are.

Personal attacks are entirely appropriate when they are 1) Accurate, and 2) The point.

Well, I've called people stupid on my blog - in fact I make a habit of it: http://normdoering.blogspot.com/ Deepak Chopra for one

There are indeed times when an angry response is appropriate and effective. I posted this comment on a long thread at Pharyngula, and copy it here.

A case study in the effectiveness of anger.

Public comments

This is an audio file of public comments at the January 2006 meeting of the Ohio Board of Education, after a motion to remove a creationist lesson plan from the curriculum had been narrowly defeated. I was one of the angry speakers.

The next month, a similar motion was approved. I know that votes were changed as a result of our presentations.

No, you're dead wrong. I have no use at all for Chopra and the unsupported pseudoscience he preaches, but one thing he isn't is "stupid."

Scott Belyea said: I have very seldom come across fairminded folks who are impressed by an "argument" that calls the opponents "stupid," "idiots," "morons," "assholes," "fucking jerks," and the like. More typically in my experience, fairminded people will wonder about the strength of the argument being supported. Are you familiar with the old anecdote about the sermon with the handwritten marginal annotation, "Point is weak ... pound pulpit" ? That's the way lots of folks tend to react to sort of ranting you seem to favour.

These Luskin posts are sickening.

Has anyone seen the IDEA Center website lately? Air sick bags required...

Give a liar more credit and respect than they are due intellectually, and fairminded people often give his charletanism more credit than its due, thus leading to disasters like Dover.

Well, I have evidence to the contrary here:

I advocate exposing them for what they are via reasoned argument, not an ad hominem avoiding rational argument.

Well, I have evidence to the contrary here:

Ack!! Bad editing:

I've got three Deepak posts. I catch him saying things that are clearly and demonstrably wrong. For one example, Deepak's claimed "...transformation of noise signals into meaningful music cannot be observed physically," which ignores MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and other technologies which can brain scan while you listen to the music.

And Deepak Chopra is stupid and not just ignorant because he never learns from those who continually point out these errors on his blog. He just goes on and on repeating the same errors with different words.

No, you don't. I said I had no use for what he preaches, but if the man were stupid, he wouldn't be where is is and able to (I suspect) buy both you and me several times over and never feel the effect.

And Deepak Chopra is stupid and not just ignorant because he never learns from those who continually point our these errors on his blog. He just goes on and on repeating the same errors with different words.

If saying something known to be false rakes in the money *every time*, is Chopra "stupid" to keep saying it?

If saying something known to be false rakes in the money *every time*, is Chopra "stupid" to keep saying it?

as i said, this is entirely unrelated to intelligence.

you can train a dog to ring a bell if it is associated with food.

You are projecting onto Chopra a goal he does not possess and then attacking him for failure to achieve what he has no desire to achieve.

From my copyright 1947 desk dictionary:

stupid. 1. Wanting in understanding; in a state of stupor; stupefied. 2. Sluggish in understanding; slow-witted; crassly foolish. 3. Resulting from, or showing, mental dullness; foolish; witless; as, a stupid book. --- Syn. Stolid, obtuse, doltish. See Blunt. --- Ant. Acute, keen, alert, bright, sharp, shrewd, intelligent.

Perhaps a better description of many of these dolts is insane...

Now you are being stupid. You didn't read my Deepak posts and stupidly assumed I didn't have the evidence I claimed. I've got three of Deepak posts. I catch him saying things that are clearly and demonstrate wrong. For one example, Deepak's claimed "...transformation of noise signals into meaningful music cannot be observed physically," which ignores MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and other technologies which can brain scan while you listen to the music. And Deepak Chopra is stupid and not just ignorant because he never learns from those who continually point our these errors on his blog. He just goes on and on repeating the same errors with different words.

You didn't read my Deepak posts

...stupidly assumed I didn't have the evidence I claimed.

Maybe we should borrow from Ayn Rand and accept that Chopra is not stupid, but rather "shrewd without intelligence"?

Perhaps a better description of many of these dolts is insane...

But one last try - you seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between someone's opinion and a judgment about the person. One can be a part of a rational argument, the other is just pointless personal insult.

I don't think Chopra is stupid, although I do echo the criticism that the correlation between wealth and intellect i rpetty weak. I think he is stubborn and arrogant and more interested in the money and fame than anything else.

I don't think Chopra is stupid,...

stu·pid Pronunciation (stpd, sty-) adj. stu·pid·er, stu·pid·est 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. 5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

I think he is stubborn and arrogant...

From my copyright 1947 desk dictionary:

Someone who has to look up "stupid" in the dictionary because they don't know what it means.

Again from my copyright 1947 desk dictionary:

insane. 1. Unsound; --- said of the mind; exhibiting unsoundness or disorder of mind; not sane; mad. 2. Used by, or for, insane persons. 3. Characterized by the utmost folly; chimerical; unpractical; as, an insane plan.

insanity. 1. State of being insane; unsoundness or derangement of mind, esp. without recognition of one's own illness. ... Mental deficiency is usually not included. ... Syn. Lunacy, madness, derangement, alienation, mania, delirium, frenzy.

And there is no evidence you've read my Deepak posts.

Perhaps a better description of many of these dolts is insane...

And there is no evidence you've read my Deepak posts.

Again from my copyright 1947 desk dictionary:

insanity. 1. ... Insanity is a social and legal rather than a medical term, ...

insanity. 1.... Insanity is a social and legal rather than a medical term, ...

normdoering --- Well, if it was within my power to have them committed, I would seriously consider doing it.

:-)

normdoering --- Well, if it was within my power to have them committed, I would seriously consider doing it. :-)

If saying something known to be false rakes in the money *every time*, is Chopra "stupid" to keep saying it?

— normdoering

I think in the case of his blog on Huffpo he is. The tide of comments is clearly turning against him and I've noticed a couple people reluctantly changing their minds about him because of it. I think attacking this windmill on Huffpo is hurting him with Huffpo readers. On his other blog he can delete us, but not on Huffpo.

...if he admitted he'd been wrong about them, that would prove that even he thinks he's ignorant about this stuff, and that would be marketing suicide. "Never admit you're wrong" is quite a rational strategy for a pseudoscience huckster. His audience wants certainty above all else. Remember what creationists say about science---it keeps changing its mind, but the Bible always says the same thing, hence the Bible is superior.

"Never admit you're wrong" is quite a rational strategy for a pseudoscience huckster.

Why does he go on and on about science being, basically, stupid to "refuse the non-physical" when he could just stick with politics

hey, speaking of Deeply-packed-Woo, I do believe he is scheduled to be on the next Bill Maher, so any lurkers wondering who this guy is can check him out then.

I'm curious to see if Maher will have something to say about his inanity.

I give it less than a 50% chance, though.

anymore than Sir Toejam is an imbecile for repeating what works. Chopra is the Guru To The Stars, a role in which he pontificates pseudo-profundities without much semantic content most of the time, for the purposes of immersion in the spiritual hot tub. He's the dispenser of the psychological little pink feelgood pills. Anyone who thinks Chopra doesn't understand his job, or how to play his role, hasn't been paying attention.

Chopra is the Guru To The Stars, a role in which he pontificates pseudo-profundities without much semantic content most of the time, for the purposes of immersion in the spiritual hot tub.

He probably makes this "mistake" because there is a lot more academic criticism of Evolutionary Psychology and no criticism of neurophysiology. The legit criticism of Evolutionary Psychology gives Deepak's attack on neurophysiology more of an aura of credibility. Yet it is neurophysiology which really deals the most crippling blows to Deepak's world view. He benefits from any confusion he can cause here and that's why I put quotes around "mistake" here.

Chopra read some articles called "Are You a Giving Person? Your Brain Tells Why" and "Music on the Brain: Why We Are Hard-Wired to Rock" and they have upset the poor little charlatan.

likewise, it doesn't take someone educated in science (or educated at all) to pitch "Woo".

... speaking of Deeply-packed-Woo, I do believe he is scheduled to be on the next Bill Maher, so any lurkers wondering who this guy is can check him out then.

So just who is impressed by the insults, putdowns, and personal attacks? Beats me ...

I suppose one does have to forgive ignorance and correct gently at first, but when that doesn't work --- you've got to get a little nasty.

Well, now you're just insulting me as opposed to engaging in any sort of productive or rational debate. I rest my case. Bye ...

The IDers/creationists are wrong, their most vocal proponents have proven themselves to be intellectually dishonest, and their movement is political, not scientific. Their intellectual mentor is not Einstein, or even Paley, it's Barnum.

And Deepak Chopra is stupid and not just ignorant because he never learns from those who continually point our these errors on his blog. He just goes on and on repeating the same errors with different words.

I think you are mistaking stupidity, which would indicate he was incapable of comprehending your points, and *willful* ignorance - where he is capable of understanding but chooses not to.

Whether that choice is based on woo-woo beliefs or financial considerations is up for conjecture.

I think you are mistaking stupidity, which would indicate he was incapable of comprehending your points, and *willful* ignorance - where he is capable of understanding but chooses not to. Whether that choice is based on woo-woo beliefs or financial considerations is up for conjecture.

I think you are mistaking stupidity, which would indicate he was incapable of comprehending your points, and *willful* ignorance - where he is capable of understanding but chooses not to.

This implies a notion of libertarian fee will

In my experience, people who come to understand things are generally glad they did, even if it results in losing something they cherished (a belief in eternal life or being created for a purpose, for instance).

It would take a libertarian to figure out how to charge us for that.

Well, today I found someone who has consciously decided to remain ignorant in order to preserve their religious delusions.

...someone who has consciously decided to remain ignorant in order to preserve their religious delusions.

Neurophysiological evidence suggests that there's no such thing as "consciously decided", that consciousness (if there really is such a thing) is a monitoring mechanism and that the notion of consciousness as "the decider" is an illusion.

anonter reason not to pull punches: I heard on a radio show yesterday

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/03/06/PM200703066.html

a comment regarding the "brilliant but cruel phenomenon, that if you say the same thing sort of with an extra personal insult attached to it, that you'll be given extra IQ points rather than saying it nice. So, your folks who watch the American Idol, if you've seen Simon Cowell, who almost always adds a personal insult even when he says something nice, he's viewed as the smart one, while the other two, Paula and Randy, will tend to be nicer and say often virtually the same thing, but we think he's smarter. So there is part of this cultural myth where we think that people who are nastier are smarter"

so maybe we should always and a nasty bit to the end of our arguments.....something like " my counterpart believes that ID is valid science, and should be tought in high school biology classes. my counterpart is lying and a smarmy SOB. ID is not science and here's why...."

So, your folks who watch the American Idol, if you've seen Simon Cowell, who almost always adds a personal insult even when he says something nice, he's viewed as the smart one, while the other two, Paula and Randy, will tend to be nicer and say often virtually the same thing

So, your folks who watch the American Idol, if you've seen Simon Cowell, who almost always adds a personal insult even when he says something nice, he's viewed as the smart one, while the other two, Paula and Randy, will tend to be nicer and say often virtually the same thing