So where is the Decree?
by MikeGeneRemember the Decrees? Faculty members from University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa, all eagerly signed a decree dissociating themselves from Intelligent Design. The decree was deemed necessary because Guillermo Gonzalez taught at ISU and we wouldn't want the public to get the false impression that his colleagues embraced ID. Around the same time, the biology faculty at LeHigh University issued a similar decree. After all, we wouldn't want anyone to think Michael Behe's colleagues were supportive of ID. And don't forget the statement from the president of the University of Idaho. We wouldn't want anyone out there to think Scott Minnich's school was supportive of ID.
Thanks to these esteemed members of academia, we now have both precedent and a model. We know that scientists and scholars are more than willing to sign-off on public statements that allow them to dissociate themselves from a colleague who adopts a controversial position.
I'm reminded of these decrees because of something William Dembski just blogged out (see here, here, and here ). According to Forrest Mims, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, who is an evolutionary ecologist from the University of Texas, gave a rather distrubing speech to his fellow scientists and students at the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science.
Pianka apparently adopts a metaphysical view of reality that is hostile to human existence, arguing, "We're no better than bacteria!" According to Mims, Pianka advocates sterilization and complains about smarter people having fewer kids. These are eugenicist arguments (you can them see documented here. ). But what is most disturbing is that Pianka actually expresses glee at the thought of my children (and your children) dying from a torturous infectious disease (while preaching about "uncaring" people). What's more, it looks like Pianka actually got a standing ovation from the scientific community after advocating his anti-human views.
Well, I'd say it's Decree time. The scientific community has shown an eagerness and willingness to publicly dissociate themselves from such dangerous radicals as Guillermo Gonzalez and Michael Behe. If the faculty at University of Texas do not write up and sign off on a decree that dissociates themselves from Pianka and his views, doesn't the justification for the anti-ID decrees kick in? That is, shouldn't we assume that most faculty at the University of Texas support Pianka's anti-human views?
UPDATE: Here
April 2nd, 2006 at 2:24 pm
I just wanted to point out that most of the faculty at Iowa State didn't sign the ID "decree." Only 120 out of over 1700 faculty members (roughly 7%) signed it. I would hope the U of T could get more signatures than that.
Comment by macht — April 2, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Well, the blogosphere is beginning to light up, as The Drudge Report has linked to Mim's story. This could spill into the talk show circuit. The insidious part of the story that will resonate was when they carefully turned off the camera.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 2:41 pm
I've never seen Pianka speak, but based on his website he is quite a joker. See, for example, his Ten Commandments, his pre-emptive obituary, and Ontogeny of Eric Pianka.
I strongly suspect we are seeing a classic case of religious-right self-delusion going on with Forrest Mims. Like when they freak out about Harry Potter, non-existent child sacrifice, and the like. I'm surprised you would fall for this when all you've got is Mims's second-hand account to go on, which might well represent more what is going on in Mims's head, than what actually happened.
In fact, in about 5 seconds on google we can find some indication of what Pianka actually thinks about ebola, since he has written it down:
He's not advocating mass genocide by Ebola, he's saying he thinks nature will control human population growth if humanity don't exert self-control.
He could be right or wrong about this (the demographers seem to be saying that the human population explosion is leveling off due to factors such as education, women's rights, contraception, and delayed age of childbirth), but it is a commonly asserted opinion in ecology based on what happens to animal populations in the wild when they exceed their carrying capacity.
You might as well complain about the hit book the Hot Zone, it makes similar points in far more graphic terms.
Let me know when Mims, Denyse O'Leary, and the various uncritical people in the right wing echo chamber realize their mistake and apologize for their paranoid accusations. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised if instead this expands, and we see this explode onto the cable talk shows next week.
PS: And it should also be mentioned that even if Mims was right about Pianka, then the "problem science" involved would be ecology, not evolution.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Nick – history is on Mims' side, espectially with respect to eugenics and its relationship to evolutionism.
Also, for those of you who don't know, Mims was the popular author of a regular Scientific American column, until SciAm learned of Mims' religious beliefs. SciAm, founded by Christians, but now run by philosophical atheists, is now a shadow of its former self, not much better than Discover magazine, and sometimes like the now defunct Omni.
Comment by David — April 2, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 3:19 pm
David,
I thought his name sounded familar (though, come to think of it, I was also reminded of the Disney cartoon about Arthur and Merlin). When was he graciously allowed to leave Scientific American? What evidence is there that it was due to the discovery of his religious beliefs?
Comment by Douglas — April 2, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Yep, the scientific reputation of Scientific American sure has suffered for not having a young-earth creationist like Mims on the staff…
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 3:30 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Doesn't address my point, which is that ecology is the science that gives us the concept of carrying capacity, which is what inspired whatever Pianka said.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Nick:
Ah yes, Nick Matzke and his infamous "˜attack the messenger' strategy. With one hand, he defends Pianka as someone who merely jokes about mass genocide (there's nothing more funny than watching 9/10 children die of an Ebola infection, I suppose) while psychologizing Forrest Mims as suffering from "a case of religious-right self-delusion."
Unfortunately for Nick, his googling skills failed to turn up another person who heard the talk: http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html
As for Pianka advocating mass genocide, I did not say that in my blog. But it sure does look like Pianka takes pleasure in the idea of mass genocide. Furthermore, why did they turn off the cameras, Nick?
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 3:39 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Hey Nick,
It looks to me like some of Pianka's own students think they have heard a similar message.
Why would a student write, "I don't root for ebola?" and then following up with an "I agree" about "too many people ruining this planet?"
This student clearly disagrees with preaching "that 90% of the human population should die of ebola."
And this stuff is from 2004.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Macht:
I imagine a sizeable fraction of the UT community will frown upon Mim's slander.
I predict that, should things turn out as Nick indicates will likely be the case, the bloggers here will justify the lie by resorting to their tried-and-true postmodern moral relativist standards (what Pianka actually said and meant isn't relevant, it's what Mims heard and feels in his heart that counts). What we most certainly won't see is any requests on the parts of the bloggers that Mims qualify or correct his remarks.
Welcome to the Post Wedge World, where there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect, true or false. Only what the ID proponent feels to be true.
MG:
Only a delusional ID proponent would confuse ecological disaster (which is what Pianka is warning of) with genocide. One more indication that, for the ID proponent, biology is irrelevant. (As if we needed more data that shows how utterly and completely dismissive of science the ID movement is.)
Comment by Art — April 2, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Hi Mike,
"Furthermore, why did they turn off the cameras, Nick?"
Maybe this is a clue:
Comment by Krauze — April 2, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Nick, Art,
I suppose Pianka's statements about how people "are no better than bacteria", that the human population was ruining the planet, and that a drastic and quick population decrease would be needed to save it, were all unrelated to the ensuing speech about ebola. And let's see, then there was his statement that the human population would need to be reduced to 10% for the planet to survive. Hmm, I wonder where he got that number from? And then there was this: "We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that." Hey, here's an interesting coincidence I just noticed: If you subtract 90 from 100, you get 10! Whew, I bet Pianka's face would be red if he'd realized he'd made that mistake! I mean, I'm sure we all realize it was purely an accident, but accidents like that could give rotten fundamentalists like Mims the wrong idea!
Okay, let's return to something resembling reality now. Sheesh, guys, there's a point at which plausible deniability ceases to be plausible and starts to look ridiculous. Do you two honestly want to be on record defending this guy? Really, is there not a lick of common sense between the two of you? I mean, even if you didn't have any moral qualms about running to his defense, one would think that out of pure political self-interest you'd want to avoid it. How seriously is anyone supposed to take you as a rational, good-faith conversationalist when they see you stretching credibility to come up with a defense for a psychopath who blatantly fantasizes about and promotes the mass eradication of humanity by a horrible disease? Are you honestly trying to convince anyone but yourselves here? Frankly, you guys surprised even me this time. I was expecting a more sensible disclaimer along the lines of "I deplore Pianca's statements in the strongest possible terms, but they are completely unrelated to Darwinism". Never overestimate a true political idealogue, I guess.
Comment by Deuce — April 2, 2006 @ 5:54 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Of course, scientists have been talking about potentially humanity-ending catastrophes for decades, from nuclear world war to nuclear winter to meteors to various diseases to global warming. The idea that the the cameras needed to be turned off because the public couldn't take the "news" is totally unbelievable. Heck, it's been revealed now. Are we rioting in the streets?
Comment by Deuce — April 2, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Hi Art,
"I predict that, should things turn out as Nick indicates will likely be the case, the bloggers here will justify the lie"
Ah yes, Wesley's wedge, according to which all disagreements with ID supporters must be labelled as "lies". In this case, the "lie" would consist of having trusted people who actually heard the speech, as well as one of Pianka's own students.
Also, as Mike notes, Nick is putting words into Mike's mouth. Should we also label this a "lie", Art?
"Only a delusional ID proponent would confuse ecological disaster (which is what Pianka is warning of) with genocide. One more indication that, for the ID proponent, biology is irrelevant."
While I'm sure it would be fun to discuss the biology behind Pianka's belief that airborne Ebola will kill off 90% of the global human poulation, let me just ask this question: What enables you to speak with such certainty about what Pianka said in his talk to the Texas Academy of Science?
Comment by Krauze — April 2, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Hey, here's another report from someone who was there. Man, this is a case of mass hallucination for the history books!
Comment by Deuce — April 2, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
From a student evaluation:
"Though I agree that conservation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90 percent of the human population should die of Ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness."
The critical question here is whether several people (like Mims and some former students and McConnel) are reading advocacy into these comments or not. So far we have evidence of some people being offended and some people being invigorated by the comments that were made. This suggests to me that there was some advocacy involved. But, what was the advocacy for? Was it for solving our problems before ebola strikes or was it in praise of the radical fact that ebola will wipe out 90% of the population?
Comment by bipod — April 2, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:06 pm
What enables you to speak with such certainty? That's my point.
You guys have managed to find two apparent witnesses besides Mims supporting the "Pianka advocates ebola use for mass genocide" opinion. But then on the other side we have dozens of rave reviews of his courses from students on his website, plus numerous teaching awards, plus his written comments, plus at least two explicit statements from Pianka that he is being misunderstood — Mims said that that's what Pianka told him in email, and then in the Seguin Gazette article, which despite its hysteria quotes Pianka as follows:
Later on in the article, Pianka reiterates his position:
A few irony-deprived individuals misinterpreting Pianka does not make a convincing case against him.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 7:06 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Did you use Tarot cards or did you read the stars to come up with that prediction?
Comment by macht — April 2, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Who knows? Mims doesn't, or isn't telling. All he says is,
Maybe this was a private operator who had not secured permission to record the speech. Maybe the guy was in the way of the audience, in front of the auditorium. Maybe the academy had arranged for someone else to record it. Maybe there were technical diffculties, and the right extension cord couldn't be found. Maybe the guy didn't have an admission badge for the conference. Maybe Mims has been on Pianka's case for awhile, and arranged for this guy to record it for a right-winger documentary, and one of the conference officials realized what was up and stopped it.
Who knows? Could be anything.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 7:16 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Art:
Yes Art, I know you think I am delusional, stupid, and immoral. It's a perception that strangely maps to your preconceived stereotypes. But I can note that you have ignored the data that was in front of you.
1. We have evidence from a blogger friendly to Pianka, writing, "He's a radical thinker, that one! I mean, he's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population! And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he's right."
2. We have student evaluations from 2004 that echo the same theme http://telicthoughts.com/?p=625#comment-10296
3. No one has disputed the fact that the cameras were turned off during this part of the speech. We are still waiting for a rational explanation for this.
Instead of dealing with the data, Art lashes out at us.
Since then, Deuce has brought up a good point about the context and we could, I suppose, build on that. For example, if you believe that human beings are a) no more valuable that a bacterium and b) responsible for the destruction of Nature, why is it hard to believe that Pianka takes glee in the idea of 90% of his fellow human-beings dying from a virus? Would Art like to answer this?
We have three possibilities here. Pianka was only warning about the coming disaster. Pianka was celebrating the coming disaster. Pianka was advocating for the coming disaster. The evidence, to date, favors the second explanation. Perhaps it would help if we could all see the PowerPoint presentation Pianka gave.
One thing worth noting. If Pianka is hoping for a virus to rid the planet of most of humanity (the eevil entities that kill off his beloved lizards), he would not be the first. A little googling turned this up:
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
One additional point on the "recording" issue — Pianka is obvious not shy about his "doomsday" lecture, he gives it over and over. The Seguin Gazette article reports on a March 31 version of the lecture, and not directly on the lecture that Forrest Mims saw at the March 2-4 meeting in Texas.
PS: The March 31 lecture was given at St. Edward's University, a catholic university in Austin. The symposium was called "What is biodiversity & why does it matter?" Pianka's talk was entitled, "The Vanishing Book of Life" — but I'm sure this was just code for "humanity needs to be destroyed by the most gruesome means conceivable," a popular position at catholic universities.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:39 pm
I should point out that there are more points of convergence between blogger Brenna and Forrest Mims.
According to Brenna:
According to Mims:
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:46 pm
Nick:
And we read, "But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers is this: Humanity's collapse is a notion he embraces."
So Nick supports my point.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:58 pm
This would count equally well against the supposed "humanity isn't ready to hear this" explanation that was given. Either way, he didn't want his statements to become public knowledge, regardless of how lousy he was at actually keeping them from going public.
Comment by Deuce — April 2, 2006 @ 7:58 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:00 pm
Or it would, except that that Pianka himself contradicts the reporter's interpretation several times in the article, and the reporter reports no actual quotes that support the "Pianka advocates doomsday" interpretation over the "Pianka is warning us of doomsday" interpretation.
The reporter is also heavily influenced by Mims's second-hand account — half of it is quoting Mims.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 8:00 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:04 pm
What the heck are you talking about? Pianka is giving public lectures!
Even Mims says it was an "official of the Academy" who approached the camera-man, not Pianka. Pianka might not know anything about the camera issue at all.
If it turns out that this camera thing was completely innocuous and the conspiracy-to-hush-this-up interpretation was invented entirely by Mims, you guys are going to look pretty silly.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Another point of convergence. Mims writes:
This has the ring of truth, as Pianka himself asks:
BTW, notice the questions that Pianka addresses in his science class –
Why am I here? What is the purpose of my life?
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 8:12 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Many people don't appreciate that Forrest Mims III is an oustanding scientist and engineer. His electrical engineering books are classics, and for me, the first to truly explain the operation of the transistor in a clear, intuitive manner. I continue to share his books with young engineers and they all have the same reaction – "why wasn't this presented to me sooner?"
Mims is no crank, and if you visit his personal web-site, as well as the ones he participates, I would hope you'd agree that we need more scientists like Mims and fewer like Pianka, who at worst is advocating genocide, and at best is irresponsible.
Nick:
I disagree – SciAm has lowered its editorial standards to promote evolutionism of the most speculative kinds. I do get and read SciAm every month, and the percentage of each issue devoted to these sorts of topics without critical evaluation is a significant problem that I hope will one day be addressed.
Douglas:
The evidence is from Mims himself. You can read his perspective here: http://yarchive.net/env/fmims.html
Comment by David — April 2, 2006 @ 8:13 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Nick:
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Why do you insist on this ham-handed binary decision of "warning" vs. "advocate?" I just wrote:
Pay attention.
Apart from your malicious attack rooted in stereotype, you have not provided a single good reason for distrusting Mims' report. And an amatuer such as myself has found many bits of circumstantial evidence that support his report.
Let me guess. You've decided to defend Pianka because Dembski and Mims brought this to our attention, right?
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:21 pm
Honestly, the camera thing is the least of our worries. If it turned out to be "completely innocuous" (which still seems pretty unlikely to me), we'd be wrong about one thing, and not the main thing. Meanwhile, evidence is piling up pretty high that this guy really is celebrating the end of civilization by ebola.
Comment by Deuce — April 2, 2006 @ 8:21 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:29 pm
As far as the camera thing goes, Mims says two things:
Okay, we need to hear from the camera operator. "Official" explanations from the Texas Academy of Science will not suffice.
Either Pianka said this or not. If he said this, the camera incident was most likely an attempt to keep this talk from public view. If he did not say this, Mims was lying.
In the meantime, let's see the unedited PowerPoint presentation. Pianka could load this on the internet tomorrow.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:44 pm
MikeGene writes,
Except that the reportee, Pianka, contradicts Mims, as does numerous ancillary evidence on Pianka's actual views.
No, I decided to defend Pianka because I actually took a look at Pianka's website, and realized that this looks like a classic case of:
(a) a professor who tries to get people to think with jokes and deliberately silly hyperbole, and is beloved by most students/listeners
(b) getting badly misinterpreted by people who exhibit classic signs of irony deficiency
(c) and worse yet, an attempt was being made on the blogs to turn this into a classic condemn-the-nasty-liberal-darwinist-professor rally in the right-wing echo chamber (apparently we've reached the Drudge Report stage already),
(d) and finally, the usually more reasonable people here at Telic Thoughts were buying it hook, line, and sinker, with no critical reflection on Mims's interpretation whatsover.
As for why I am motivated on this issue, I saw things like this happen in miniature several times while I was an undergraduate at (lutheran) Valparaiso University. The faculty were fantastic, but occasionally some naive student, usually a freshman, would freak out and not get a professor's humorous point at all. A prominent case was a revolt of a group of freshman theology students against the theology department for a professor's "Was Jesus an alien?" question in class. This was quelled when some junior and senior theology students showed up and explained what the professor was on about.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Or perhaps Mims just connected two unrelated events that actually had two entirely different meanings. Maybe Pianka was just saying "Our ecological party is ending, but people don't want to hear the bad news."
I am getting to be pretty convinced that Mims is, perhaps unintentionally, bringing some of his own views about what he thinks evil Darwinist professors say into his interpretation of what the evil Darwinist professor actually said.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 8:51 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 8:52 pm
You skipped this question:
Comment by macht — April 2, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Mims says "advocate", and he is the source of this little kerfluffle which you guys are uncritically relying upon. If you want to say Mims was wrong about this, fine, but then you are conceding that he is not a reliable interpreter of Pianka.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:05 pm
That, of course, doesn't answer the question. But the fact that the question was asked suggests that Mims isn't being "uncritically" relied upon.
Comment by macht — April 2, 2006 @ 9:05 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:10 pm
Here is what Mims said:
This is what you are stuck with if you are going to reply on Mims as a source.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Again, that doesn't answer the question. Again, you prove that the source isn't being "uncritically" relied upon. I realize that you are deep enough in this that you don't want to answer the question, though. So I'm not really expecting you to.
Comment by macht — April 2, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:29 pm
If this is what you're on about, I don't see a huge difference between the accusation that Pianka "celebrates" ebola or "advocates" ebola. I think Mike Gene has introduced this distinction late in the discussion because it has become apparent already that Mims's interpretation is dubious, and the "celebration" interpretation can make use of much squidgier evidence, for example if Pianka dares say anything about the ecological benefits of a lower human population. If MikeGene had said at the beginning "Now, Mims says that Pianka advocates ebola, but I think he's wrong and Pianka actually only celebrates ebola", then maybe it would be a meaningful distinction and evidence that MikeGene was not being uncritical about Mims. But as it stands, I think this is just unadmitted backpedalling and thus not very important. But tenditious hair-splitting is often used as a defense around here, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised…
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 9:29 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Nick:
What is the contradictory evidence?
I don't see it as you do. I see an independent blogger, and fan/student of Pianka, write about the specifics of the talk in three places. In all places, she is saying the same thing Mims reports. I see a student review where the student actually says, "I don't root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one child." This ban on having more than one child is something Pianka approves of. So why did this student say, ""I don't root for ebola?" The same student "agrees," and then part of the comment is cut out, leaving the student to agree with the belief of "too many people ruining this planet." I see another student who is quite explicit "“ "I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness." So we have four independent accounts that all appear to converge on the same message "“ Pianka is rooting for ebola.
Second, your "classic case" is matched by two other sets of context.
First, the logic of Pianka's position nicely fits the accusation. As I put it to Art, "if you believe that human beings are a) no more valuable that a bacterium and b) responsible for the destruction of Nature, why is it hard to believe that Pianka takes glee in the idea of 90% of his fellow human-beings dying from a virus?"
This then leads to the second point of context, where there are ecologists who have hoped for such genocide. For example,
Finally, Pianka is a scientist who uses his science class to peddle metaphysics. Or do you think questions like, "What is the purpose of my life?" belong in the science class.
Now, if you pay attention, my blog qualifies its commentary with "apparently" and "according to Mims" (etc.) But at this point, I don't see a solid reason to doubt Mims' eyewitness account.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:45 pm
Good, so we really are talking about whether or not Pianka advocates mass death by ebola. Well, I imagine we'll see what Pianka and various students and viewers say over the next few days.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Nick:
What a load of crap. Matzke now begins his attack of me, but overlooks that my original blog does not say that Pianka advocates genocide. My original blog does say, "what is most disturbing is that Pianka actually expresses glee at the thought of my children (and your children) dying from a torturous infectious disease (while preaching about "uncaring" people)." In other words, the distinction is right there in the original blog (perhaps Matzke needs me to explain how "expresses glee" is more akin to celebration than advocation). And if that wasn't enough, my very first reply to Matzke spelled this out explicitly: "As for Pianka advocating mass genocide, I did not say that in my blog. But it sure does look like Pianka takes pleasure in the idea of mass genocide."
When Matzke speaks about "this distinction late in the discussion," he is confused. The distinction was always there. He just finally figured it out late in the discussion. It would have helped him if he had relied less on stereotype and bothered to read the things he criticizes.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:55 pm
LOL
The relevant item of data is the scurrilous lie that Pianka is advocating a bioterroristic attack to deliberately destroy 90% of humanity.
"Takes glee" is not advocating bioterrorism.
Let's add a different perspective: recall Joy's position re: modern agricultural methods. Joy advocates for the elimination of modern and new agricultural technologies, and replacing them with archaic practices that will translate into less food, and more expensive food. IOW, Joy advocates permitting the earth to return to a sustainable human population via widespread and long-term starvation. Even worse is that her vision spares the wealthy and deliberately targets the poorest among us (people as well as nations).
I'm sure Joy would be most happy to see her insidious vision for the future of agriculture put into practice. The question is – is she any less evil than Pianka? Or maybe she's more dangerous, because, unlike Pianka, she actually practices her craft.
(Think very, very carefully before answering.)
Comment by Art — April 2, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Nick:
Deuce already smacked this one down. The idea that the camera would be turned off because "people don't want to hear the bad news" is just plain ridiculous.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Nick,
As you well know, what Pianka says under the pressure of huge media exposure means a lot less than a pattern of behavior and speech that has emerged over several years.
Imagine using your same criteria for determining facts in other contexts. If we know anything it is that people lie when they are in the spotlight, when they are faced with the prospects of seriously bad consequences.
Comment by bipod — April 2, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:08 pm
Art looks like he's going to take Ed's mantle pretty soon.
Comment by bipod — April 2, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Art:
Nervous laughter is no substitute for a counter-argument. The data has been placed before Art and he has decided to close his eyes.
Who is telling "the scurrilous lie?" Art needs to quote this person.
Exactly. That's been my point all along. But like Nick, it seems clear that Art has not read this blog or the comments here.
Yes Art, just as you have this vendetta against me, I've seen that you also have a vendetta against Joy. In other words, rather than deal with the data on the table, Art would rather we change the topic and attack Joy.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:14 pm
MikeGene think carefully? I should have known better.
Comment by Art — April 2, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:18 pm
That's what Mims is doing in his recollection of Pianka's talk.
The recollection that the bloggers here have embraced without any sort of reservation.
Comment by Art — April 2, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Nick:
Not really. Since it's now clear you don't read the things posted here (and are not a reliable interpreter of us), I should point out that I have found four points from Mims report that have been independently supported. Personally, I have always been someone willing to offer charitable interpretations (one reason, for example, that I rarely accuse my opponents of lying), so I was/am willing to accept that Mims (and several other students) misinterpreted an expression of glee at the thought of ridding the planet of most people for a position that advocates this. After all, it is a thin line between enthusiasm and activism (as the animal rights terrorists have shown). But that doesn't discredit the whole report. If Pianka is merely rooting for ebola, that is a topic that is that worthy of much commentary and exploration.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 10:21 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:23 pm
And then we have the leader of the ID movement stating:
Better get yer stories straight, TTers.
Comment by Art — April 2, 2006 @ 10:23 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:31 pm
So provide the quote. I want to see the scurrilous lie.
And Art accuses me of being delusional.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Art:
Art, you are projecting your group-think on us in a rather trollish manner.
It does seem that this story has struck a sensitive nerve in you. Now, let's consider your enlightened contributions thus far. You fail to address the data that is before you. You don't seem to possess an understanding of what is being said in this blog. And you continue to nurse a grudge against Joy, seeking to make her the subject of debate.
Since you will not address the data, perhaps you can answer a question "“ Do you think human life is more valuable than animal life?
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2006 @ 10:40 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:41 pm
No, silly. I was saying that maybe Pianka was just telling the audience something like "Our ecological party is ending, but people don't want to hear the bad news", just because he felt his talk had a hard message — and, I was suggesting, his saying this had nothing whatsoever to do with whatever happened with the camera issue, which he might not have even known about. This is not a complex point.
I was going to go away and wait for more data to come in, but you guys are seriously not getting me. There is a great deal of evidence that Pianka, like many scientists, has a bit of an absurdist streak to him. Think Douglas Adams in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. If he comes along and says something like "I'll be so glad when ebola comes along and wipes everyone out and proves I was right in warning everyone, and plus my lizards will be a lot happier" there is a rather substantial chance he is joking about being glad about it, even if he is quite serious that he thinks natural factors will cause the human population to crash (which taken by itself is a dubious proposition, but quite common in the older generation of ecologists).
I still won't say I know what happened, but I will say that it seems much more likely that Mims and a blogger misinterpreted Pianka, than to say that hundreds of scientists got up and gave a standing ovation to genocide, which is what you and the echo chamber are saying.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Nick:
I think what was being claimed is that an injustice was done to Mr. Mims. Surely you are not suggesting that we answer the question of whether an act is unjust discrimination by exclusively asking whether the alleged perpetrator's reputation has been enhanced or diminished as a result of the act? Of course, Mr. Mims' dismissal may have been perfectly just, for all I know. But it seems clear that one could not make that judgment with any confidence without also answering the question whether Mr. Mims' religious beliefs, rather than the quality of his work, was the catalyst for his termination.
Comment by fbeckwith — April 2, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Mims wasn't dismissed, he just wasn't hired. Since young-earth creationism is completely ridiculous — as wrong as anything has ever been in the history of science, on the same level as flat-earthism — I think Scientific American was well within its rights not to hire him. I suspect they would feel the same way about geocentrists and AIDS deniers. Anything wrong with that?
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 2, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Mike, if you don't really want quotes, then don't ask for them.
Comment by Art — April 2, 2006 @ 11:09 pm
April 2nd, 2006 at 11:43 pm
Nick – Mims is probably one of the most qualified scientists for the Amateur Scientist column, and the ones that he wrote which were published were well recieved. Anyway, Mims doesn't need SciAm to establish his credibility as a scientist. Here is a good summary of the entire affair. Debates along the lines of "he wasn't fired because he was never hired" are red herrings.
"Forrest Mims, 1990 – "Amateur Scientist" Article
Michael Behe, in his book Darwin's Black Box, reminds us that the effects of the Scopes Trial still ripple through our society today, especially through the camps of politically correct media and "owners of the microphone", as in this story about a science writer named Forrest Mims III, who in 1990 was asked to write several columns for the Amateur Science feature of Scientific American magazine:
The understanding was that if the editors and readers liked the columns, Mims would be hired as a permanent writer. The trial columns all went very well, but when Mims came to New York for a final interview he was asked if he believed in evolution. Mims replied, well, no, he believed in the biblical account of creation.
The magazine refused to hire him.Scientific American was afraid that merely having a creationist on the staff would hurt its reputation among scientists, even though Mims was well qualified and had no plans to write about evolution. Undoubtedly scenes from Inherit the Wind (the movie based loosely on the Scopes trial) and news clips of battles between creationists and their political foes flickered through the minds of the magazine's editors. Such widely reported mini-conflicts as the Mims affair "” even though they have nothing directly to do with the real intellectual issues about how life on earth came to be "” fuel the historical flames of conflict between science and religion, and persuade many people that you must belong to one camp or to the other.
Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p.237
Once news of Mims' brush-off from Scientific American broke in an article published by the Houston Chronicle, Mims became an object, much like Scopes, of media attention. In this case, the shoe was definitely on the other foot.
On the television show Crossfire, Mims appeared with Dr. Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. Dr. Scott cast a particularly nasty oblique insult at Mims when asked what she would do if she was turned down for a job because of (or lack of) religious beliefs:
"I think the issue here has been unfortunately framed in terms of science versus religion and it's not that at all. It's really a matter of scientific competency. What you might consider is that evolution is not just that man descended from apes. Evolution is a theme. It's a grand unifying principle that runs across all scientific fields. Now, I'm not defending [Scientific American]. They can defend themselves, but what I would consider if I were in this "” in their position, is whether you would be "” whether they would be limiting the scope of this column by hiring somebody who is so far out of the scientific mainstream. This man would not be able to write about a wide variety of scientific topics because of his views which are basically religious."
A complete version of Mims' story is told by Mark D. Hartwig, in an Access Research Network article at Leadership University's website."
Comment by David — April 2, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:27 am
Art:
Indeed. I was about to reply to your posting that begins, "So it really is possible that Mims is guilty of slander and libel in his accusations that Pianka advocates a terror-like purging of human life" and I must confess that I lost patience with you. Not only did you cut away relevant points that I made, but I began to tire of your primitive thinking. Recall that I previously dissected such primitive thinking here, but it's something that you don't seem able to grasp. Whether it's the stereotypes, the Fear, or the Us vs. Them thinking, I cannot say. But since you have already refused to address the data and questions in this thread, while personally attacking others here, the decision to dump your complaints in the Hole was an easy one.
Let's review the reply that Art wanted to ignore:
Note that Art ignores this point. A rational, objective person would seek to address this issue head-on, as it is the main point of contention.
While primitive thinkers cannot grasp this distinction, they can neither refute it. So while people like Art are quick to accuse others of being liars in a knee-jerk fashion, I simply find it hard to engage in such reckless rhetoric (for both sides). I think it has to do with the fact that I am not the extremist or the crusader.
Another point that Art ignores. If someone takes glee in the notion of seeing most of humanity die off because of some extremist metaphysical views, it's not hard to see how many others would naturally view this as advocating for the death of most of humanity. After all, advocating for the death of most humanity is not something that would violate the logic of Pianka's position, whereby he seems to place more value on Nature than Humans, and blames Humans for the ecological collapse. Maybe Art would like to step into Pianka's shoes and explain why, using the belief system and "˜science' of Pianka, it would be wrong to advocate for such mass genocide? I'd like to see that argument.
When pressed, Art finally supplies a quote from Deuce and labels this as a "scurrilous lie that Pianka is advocating a bioterroristic attack to deliberately destroy 90% of humanity."
No where does Deuce say anything about a bioterroristic attack. On the contrary, it's not hard to view one who expresses glee about the destruction of humanity (something that is no more valuable that a bacterium) as one who "fantasizes about and promotes the mass eradication of humanity by a horrible disease." Deuce is obviously a little hot-under-the-collar, but there is no reason to attack him for expressing an opinion.
Nevertheless, all of this is irrelevant as Art does not understand what a lie is. For Deuce to be lying, he would have to be saying Pianka "fantasizes about and promotes the mass eradication of humanity by a horrible disease" when he doesn't really believe Pianka fantasizes about and promotes the mass eradication of humanity by a horrible disease. It's a simple, but important, distinction that most crusaders cannot grasp.
Now that I have again made the good-faith offer of addressing Art's complaints, I need to come back to the fact that he ignores the arguments I have put before him. Like I said, I tire of this tactic. So I again ask him another simple question – Do you think human life is more valuable than animal life?
Art can rejoin the discussion by cleaning up his act and addressing this question.
Comment by MikeGene — April 3, 2006 @ 12:27 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:34 am
I have read the articles by Hartwig and others, they typically don't go into the fact that on evolution Mims repeats the same old bogus creationist objections: http://www.skepticfiles.org/evo2/mims.htm
Would Popular Mechanics be "discriminating" if they refrained from hiring a perpetual motion machine enthusiast?
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 3, 2006 @ 12:34 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:41 am
Nick:
I see. It's possible, but that still doesn't make much sense to me. Consider his audience. Do you think they were surprised to hear "our ecological party is ending?" That's a very common theme that even your average person has heard for years.
I do not rule out this possibility. But I will note that you have failed to adequately deal with the many points I have brought up. We'll just have to wait and see. I'd like to see the PowerPoint presentation. As for Pianka, I'm not interested in any official spin; I would also like to see Pianka answer the following questions:
1. Do you think human life is more valuable than animal life?
2. Why do some of your students think you are advocating that ebola kill off most of the human race?
3. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing if ebola mutated and caused a pandemic, killing hundreds of millions of people?
4. Would it be wrong for some terrorists to unleash a deadly virus on people? If so, why?
Perhaps I'll think of some more, but I have to hit the hay (and I don't have much time for the blog during the week).
Comment by MikeGene — April 3, 2006 @ 12:41 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:41 am
Arguments about Mims and Scientific American are off-topic and will quickly find home in the Hole.
Comment by MikeGene — April 3, 2006 @ 12:41 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:52 am
Well, allegedly he was beginning by commenting on what the public thought. As in e.g., the public doesn't want to hear this, but fact is that the ecological party is ending and human population is about to crash. A perfectly normal and unsuspicious thing for an ecologist to say (probably wrong since population is leveling out, but that's another story). The fact that Mims pulls a connection out of thin air between this and the camera event doesn't mean much at all.
Comment by Nick Matzke — April 3, 2006 @ 12:52 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 1:43 am
Here's another comment from someone claiming to be a former student of Pianka's:
Comment by Lurker — April 3, 2006 @ 1:43 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:24 am
Hi Mike,
"Deuce is obviously a little hot-under-the-collar, but there is no reason to attack him for expressing an opinion."
Actually, I'm sure Deuce was just joking to make a point, and that it's Art who's irony-deficient. Right, Nick?
Comment by Krauze — April 3, 2006 @ 2:24 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:32 am
Back to the original post and the subject of Decrees.
Academics for better or worse operate under a somewhat different honor code than do non-academics. Academics place a higher value on intellectual property, high-quality scholarship, and research for the sake of basic knowledge than do most people. If you ever wondered why plagiarism seems to be treated nearly as seriously as murder in University circles, this is why.
If we assume for the sake of argument that Mim's take on Pianka is correct, then what is Pianka guilty of? Having a strong opinion, certainly. Making statements that people find offensive, that too. Coming across as a callous jerk, perhaps. But AFAIK he hasn't misrepresented anyone's work. He hasn't ripped off someone else's thesis. He hasn't fabricated any data. His statements, whatever their ethical merits, aren't greatly at odds with any sort of empirical data. His opinion may cause offense, but it isn't substantially in violation of the traditional academic honor code.
In my opinion, Mike Gene's main error in the original post is to assume that the anti-ID scientists offered up their decrees because they wanted to distance themselves from "controversy":
Controversy is not why scientists distance themselves from ID. Scientists distance themselves from ID because much of ID is based on shoddy scholarship, deliberate misrepresentation of the research of others, and worst of all these sins, a thinly-veiled political motive, not an academic motive. Pianka has not violated the same honor code that some IDists have, which is why I doubt that scientists will line up to sign another decree. (He apparently violated the ethical code of some of the audience; however, that is a different matter).
Mike's other error is to tar an awful lot of people with an awful broad brush based on little more than hearsay. But that's been discussed plenty already.
Comment by Myrmecos — April 3, 2006 @ 3:32 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 5:42 am
Lurker quotes:
Nice find, Lurker. And a noticed there is a real name behind this account. That's now five data points telling us the same story.
Comment by MikeGene — April 3, 2006 @ 5:42 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:14 am
Hi Myrmecos,
You write:
A commentator on PZ's blog comes close to my concern:
Actually, this is the very thing that bothered Mims: "Must now we worry that a Pianka-worshipping former student might someday become a professional biologist or physician with access to the most deadly strains of viruses and bacteria?"
Consider the effect he has had on one of his students "“ "I mean, he's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population! And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he's right. The student even opines about the political correctness of the genocide: "A virus is probably the fairest method of extermination (though still not completely fair, I admit) because it's nondiscriminatory as to whom it targets."
It's not about "causing offense." It's about one of his starry-eyed students someday taking his "strong opinions" too seriously. After all, we're dealing with a guy who teaches about the purpose of life in his science class. Would you teach about the purpose of life in your science class?
Furthermore, there is the issue of the standing ovation. Just what were these ecologists applauding? A re-run of the Paul Elrich show? Or the courage to publicly express the Death Wish? Again, we need only consider the response from his student. The excitement was apparently contagious.
Yes, "controversy" was not the best word, but you did lift this out of context. I also noted: "The decree was deemed necessary because Guillermo Gonzalez taught at ISU and we wouldn't want the public to get the false impression that his colleagues embraced ID"¦..After all, we wouldn't want anyone to think Michael Behe's colleagues were supportive of ID"¦.We wouldn't want anyone out there to think Scott Minnich's school was supportive of ID" and "The scientific community has shown an eagerness and willingness to publicly dissociate themselves from such dangerous radicals as Guillermo Gonzalez and Michael Behe." What we see is a willingness to publicly distance themselves from a fellow faculty member (i.e., politicizing academia). So why the change of heart?
Does that mean you think Gonzalez should be denied tenure?
Sorry Myrmecos, but I don't buy it. Behe published his book in 1996. The LeHigh Decree came out in 2005. Why did it take nine years for the scientists to distance themselves from Behe? Might it have had something to do with the Dover trial that was about to start? Or what about the Iowa decrees that came out about the same time? As Macht points out, only a meager 7% of the faculty signed off. Didn't the supermajority of 93% recognize that "ID is based on shoddy scholarship, deliberate misrepresentation of the research of others, and worst of all these sins, a thinly-veiled political motive, not an academic motive?" Recall that the ringleader was Hector Avalos, the ex-faith-healer who has become one of those "Hitler was a good Christian" atheists. Avalos claimed that the DI planted Gonzalez and lamented, ""We don't want to be known as the 'Intelligent Design University." Does that mean we can start portraying the University of Texas as the "˜Death Wish University'? Or could it be that the rationale for the decrees was always political?
You call 7% lining up?
Speaking of Decrees, don't forget my standing offer for the critics. So far, since only one critic is willing to stand up against ID, it would be embarrassing for me to host that on my web page. Perhaps you, Nick, and Art can get the ball rolling and sign-off?
Yes, the critics have supplied plenty of hand waving, ad hominems, and psychologizing. At some point, you too should address the data and arguments that have been supplied.
Comment by MikeGene — April 3, 2006 @ 6:14 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 7:10 am
Lol! Mike Gene accusing me of "psychologizing" and of "ad hominems". That's rich.
I suspect the ecologists were applauding because the purpose of the event was to honor Pianka's lifetime of research accomplishments. I don't know his work particularly well, but apparently there is a lot of it. Maybe he's a charismatic speaker and they liked his talk. I really have no idea, I wasn't there. See, unlike some other people who also weren't there, I don't really feel compelled to read much into it.
Comment by Myrmecos — April 3, 2006 @ 7:10 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:30 am
MG:
Yeah right.
The relevant data in this thread are the OP, that glorifies Mim's misrepresentation and highlights other blogs that explicitly accuse Pianka of advocating terror-like assaults, and the responses in the thread (that MG apparently intends to wish away) that again make the accusation in explicit terms. You can call these data anything you want, but the fact is that the accusation is a scurrilous lie, it's baseless, groundless slander. It is best retracted, not rationalized.
Is this a thread to discuss the moral arguments that lie behind radical environmentalism (including the brand to which TTer Joy holds to)? Or the scientific issues behind Pianka's opinions (could a mutant Ebola really do what Pianka claims? Is the Earth near its human carrying capacity? Does the history of life on this planet hold any clues as to the apocalypse Pianka predicts is almost upon us?). No. This thread is, plain and simple, another MikeGene witch hunt. It's about decrees, castigation, unwarranted assertions, hysterical rhetoric (like equating ecological disaster with genocide), clueless and imaginary threats, and all of the other things that are always brought to bear by the inquisitors.
But look at the bright side. A witch hunt makes for a spirited thread. And that's what blogging is all about, no?
Comment by Art — April 3, 2006 @ 9:30 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:58 am
Everyone can relax now. Pianka has been reported to the Department of Homeland Security by our fearless patriot Bill Dembski (though it seems some other patriot beat him to it, LOL):
I know I'll be sleeping better, knowing that William Dembski is eternally vigilant.
Comment by KC — April 3, 2006 @ 9:58 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 am
Pianka and Mims: An Update
Here is an update on something I posted yesterday– A Cheap Shot from Bill Dembski.
I fully expected this to happen. Some scientists are starting to comment on Mims' report. PZ Myers, at Pharyngula, makes some of the same observations I made and he…
Trackback by hell's handmaiden — April 3, 2006 @ 11:28 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:58 am
KC:
Izzat a standing O I hear coming from the TT skybox?
Close ranks, people, close ranks.
Comment by Art — April 3, 2006 @ 11:58 am
April 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Can someone clarify something for me?
Am I wrong, or are Dembski and Mims now on the record as finding abhorrent and repulsive any philosophy that envisions, in a positive light, the mass suffering and death of the vast majority of human beings (dare I say it – even wishes and prays for it), while the few survivors will live in some sort of "better world" That Dembski and Mims consider the public dissemination of such a philosophy a bona fide danger to society, least some impressionable minds take its claims too seriously? That they deem proponents of such philosophies unworthy of academic positions?
Just asking, because somehow it doesn't sound right.
Comment by Andrea — April 3, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
April 3rd, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Hi Andrea,
If you're genuinely interested in having your questions answered, wouldn't it be an idea to… you know, ask them to Dembski and Mims?
Meanwhile, why don't you adress the question raised in Mike's post? Since the faculty of the Texas Academy of Science has failed to sign a petition against Dr. Pianka, should we assume that they share his views?
Comment by Krauze — April 3, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Very cute, Andrea, but your analogy is exceedingly strained.
Comment by Eric Anderson — April 3, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:32 pm
Wow Pianka, is insane. Mencia would say he's "dee dee dee" .
Comment by Guts — April 3, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Well, yeah, we could use a decree against irresponsible blogging. You've got your facts wrong. You should hope Pianka has a good sense of humor, but in any case, you may want to consult a good attorney about your responsibilities as a journalizer.
Comment by edarrell — April 3, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:28 pm
Mymercos:
You misinterpreted me, Mym. You accused me of tarring "an awful lot of people with an awful broad brush based on little more than hearsay." Instead of backing this up, you simply said, "But that's been discussed plenty already."
It is that plentiful discussion that I had in mind.
Comment by MikeGene — April 3, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Art:
But you misrepresent the OP. The OP has one section that uses Mims's account. Let me show how you are wrong.
There is no glorification of "Mim's misrepresentation" here. In fact, there is no evidence that this is misrepresentation and there is independent evidence the supports this assessment.
There is no glorification of "Mim's misrepresentation" here. In fact, Pianka's own student received essentially the same impression from the talk. And complaints about smarter people having fewer kids is a eugenicist argument (as I document).
There is no glorification of "Mim's misrepresentation" here. In fact, this is where I part company with Mims and confer a more charitable interpretation to Pianka's talk. In fact, you already conceded this above: "Takes glee" is not advocating bioterrorism." Exactly. That's the very point it took Nick some time to understand. What's more, there is a plenty of evidence that supports this interpretation.
I see nothing that indicates I am wrong on noting that Pianka got a standing ovation after advocating his antihuman views. I'm not saying he got the ovation because of his antihuman views, but it does look like his talk was loaded with antihuman views and you would think something like that would have merited only courtesy applause.
You don't seem to understand how blogs work. I gave Dembski a courtesy link, since there is where I first became aware of the story. I then followed this with a link to Mims account and the newspaper story. No where do I "highlight" explicit accusations of advocating terror-like assaults.
I suggest you do a blog search. You will find dozens of blogs with comments far more inflammatory than what offends you here. I will do a search of some of these blogs in the next few days to see if you have expressed similar outrage.
No, you have confused your opinions, rooted in your perceptions, for facts. You don't seem to understand that not everyone thinks like you. In your mind, Pianka was just warning his audience about an inevitable ecological collapse. I see someone who was taking some pleasure in the upcoming ecological collapse. One of his students sees him advocating for such a tragedy ("He's a radical thinker, that one! I mean, he's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population!"). Why do you think we all see the same thing?
BTW, have you over to Brenna's blog to accuse her of spreading lies? Why not?
I would gladly and willingly retract something that needs to be retracted. But you need more than misrepresentations of my views and vague complaints. Quote what I wrote, demonstrate that I am wrong, and I will retract.
In the meantime, I ask you to please retract your misrepresentation of my OP as one that "glorifies Mim's misrepresentation." It's baseless, groundless slander.
No, but nothing was/is stopping you from discussing the moral arguments that lie behind radical environmentalism. I simply don't approve of your personal vendetta against Joy. If you want, you can address biologist David Graber's comments: "Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." I cited this twice and you ignored it twice. I asked you, "For example, if you believe that human beings are a) no more valuable that a bacterium and b) responsible for the destruction of Nature, why is it hard to believe that Pianka takes glee in the idea of 90% of his fellow human-beings dying from a virus?" You ignored that question too. You clearly were not interested in discussing the moral arguments that lie behind radical environmentalism; the only thing you wanted to do was to stalk Joy.
Nothing stopped you from talking about these things.
Let's start with "could a mutant Ebola really do what Pianka claims?" Tell us, Art, was that good science? Don't forget that Pianka also dismissed HIV, as he apparently has been giving this viral culling of humanity some thought. In fact, according to the newspaper, "Responding to these very questions, Pianka said, "Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.""
Why don't you give us the scientific skinny on the best way to cull the human race? Begin as Pianka began: "Good terrorists would be taking ______."
Once you've finished that thought, how about turning to his views about religion (Daniel Dennett tells us it is an appropriate scientific topic). According to one of the audience members that Krauze linked to: "I recall cheering for him when he said that religion is stupid and the time to "Be fruitful and multiply" has passed." Do you have any scientific evidence that overpopulation is the result of this Bible verse? Don't you think the desire to have children has something to do with evolution?
After exploring the science of the most efficient virus for culling purposes, and explaining the scientific evidence that implicates the Bible as the cause of overpopulation, perhaps you can turn your scientific mind to the following bit of conversation as the science meeting:
There's a chapter from a genetics text on my web page that could help:
If you want to talk about all this, what's stopping you?
No, the OP is about another apparent double standard that characterizes so many critics. With eager willingness, people issue decrees to distance themselves from ID. Why? According to one of the ring-leaders for the decrees, "We don't want to be known as the 'Intelligent Design University." So like I asked Myrmecos, "Does that mean we can start portraying the University of Texas as the "˜Death Wish University'? Or could it be that the rationale for the decrees was always political?"
Just two of the many questions that go unanswered around here.
You are projecting the common tactics employed by many critics over the years. It's a rhetorical move that only appeals to those who share in your animosity.
Nope. The OP focused on this apparent double standard:
Personally, I have gone on record in opposition to such decrees. But as I said, thanks to the critics, we "have both precedent and a model." And as you can see, the critics have once again failed to address the questions head-on.
Things quickly got off track when Nick Matzke derailed the thread with his personal attack on Mims:
So here is what I see. A leading scientist takes pleasure in the idea of 90% of the human population dying of a torturous viral infection. It even has one of his students contemplating politically correct ways to cull the human race. How do the critics respond? They maliciously attack those who are offended by such publicly stated sentiments.
Comment by MikeGene — April 3, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
April 3rd, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Matzke writes:
You said it yourself, Nick, you weren't there. Please, oh please, give us one good reason to take your word and interpretation over that of Mims who was there. And don't give us this whiny "right winger" garbage. To you ANYONE who disagrees with your worldview is "right wing". Your bias is meaningless and your, uh "interpretation" of remarks you never heard are meaningless drivel. Even students who were there are confirming Mims' account. Instead of trying to dismiss Pianka or explain him away, why don't you attempt to defend his remarks. After all, he is solidly in the Darwinian camp isn't he? Why would you disagree with him? What's the basis of your disagreement? Is it a moral question? If so, what's the basis for that? Please enlighten us.
Comment by DonaldM — April 3, 2006 @ 11:53 pm
April 4th, 2006 at 12:07 am
Wow. Ed's now threatening people. I suggest Ed go to this blog. Unlike us, this blogger has indeed asserted that Pianka advocated for the death of 90% of the population. I quote:
Did you see that, Ed? "He's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population" complete with exclamation point.
Why haven't you threatened this blogger?
Ed, you need to do a blog search – Pianka can sue the whole internet for commenting on a news story!
Let's stay grounded in reality, shall we? If Pianka wants to sue, his best chance is to go after Mims. Maybe with enough cheer-leading from behind those closed doors, he'd reach for Dembski. I suspect that is what Dembski wants.
I thought you guys were supposed to be so smart.
Comment by MikeGene — April 4, 2006 @ 12:07 am
April 4th, 2006 at 12:14 am
Okay, after reading through the rest of the replies, I don't see much reason to keep this thread alive. I don't have the time during the day to watch over the comments, and this thing could attract a lot of trolls and flame-wars while I am away.
I give Myrmecos a high mark for being the only opponent who actually tried to tackle the argument raised in the OP. I did not find his reply all that convincing, but that's how things go.
If something new comes up, I may comment on it in a new blog.
Comment by MikeGene — April 4, 2006 @ 12:14 am
April 5th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
[...] ad to the blogosphere via places like Dembski's blog (three posts!) and Telic Thoughts, and then went to the Drudge Report and caused a national media firestorm appearing [...]
Pingback by Cyberspace Rendezvous :: Don’t jump into the hype, jump onto it :: April :: 2006 — April 5, 2006 @ 7:00 pm