The C-word, again
by machtSo, apparently, some people aren't so happy with Mooney and Nisbet and their articles about framing. So unhappy that it has been suggested that they may be (gasp) creationists. Not directly stated, of course, just a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, sort of thing. If you've ever read anything by them, you know that calling them (gasp) creationists is only slightly more ridiculous than calling Ken Miller a (gasp) creationist. But the word does generally gain for its user a lot of rhetorical miles … it's a nice word to have in one's arsenal. It still doesn't come close to words like "Nazi" or "fascist" or "mama's boy," but it's up there. Laden apologized to them for calling them (gasp) creationists, explaining:
I don't think you are a creationist. I really don't. I don't think Matt is either.
No, wait, that is not really the way I want to say it. I KNOW you and Matt are not creationists. I know it. I also know you are trying to do good things.
I have to admit that there was a moment when I was worried about this, with you and Matt. I don't know you guys at all. I saw some stuff you are saying and I was worried.
So the reason he suggested they may be (gasp) creationists, was because he was worried. He didn't like the ideas they were talking about and thought that people who say the types of things that Mooney and Nisbet were saying were exactly the types of things that "deep cover operatives" of the Discovery Institute might say. So, he's "worried" and he's "scared." And because of this, instead of merely arguing against Mooney and Nisbet's ideas about framing, he drops the (gasp) C-word. Gee, that tactic seems so familiar. I wonder where I've seen it before …
April 26th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Wow. Try reading Mooney's demand for a retraction. He clearly understands how damaging the "creationist!"-label is to one's reputation and career. Remember this the next time you see an ID critic playing fast-and-loose with the definition of that c-word in order to apply it to you.
Comment by Krauze — April 26, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
LOL!!! Talk about a raving paranoiac! check this out from the linked Laden 'camping' blog…
Holy Marlon Brando, Batman! Is Laden expecting a severed horse's head in his bed any time soon? Does he expect Dembski to do the deed, or Mooney? Maybe Mooney's handy henchman Nisbet? Hahahahaha!!!!!
Comment by Joy — April 26, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
April 26th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Wow. I was going to post something, but I'd rather let this sit at the top some more. Krauze is right - note that Mooney draws the line when it comes to the c-word. Dem's fightin' words! Like I have been saying, when it comes to the c-word, critics are just painting targets around arrows.
Comment by MikeGene — April 26, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
April 27th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Hmmmm.
Comment by MikeGene — April 27, 2007 @ 8:28 pm
April 28th, 2007 at 8:59 am
It looks like Mooney noticed Macht's post. In the comments section of his demand for an apology, he writes:
Yet note how clueless he is. The critics have been infighting ever since Myers and Dawkins declared jihad on the appeasers. There is nothing new there. What we "enjoy" is the demonstration that the C-word is intended as an ad hominem. Mooney explains his reaction to being tarred with the C-word:
You can almost hear him pounding the table, "I'm NOT a creationist!"
Thus, the fundamentalist atheists show us the real reason for the use of the C-word and Mooney's reaction confirms it.
Comment by MikeGene — April 28, 2007 @ 8:59 am
April 28th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Benn doing some computer "housecleaning" lately–for days now and I come across all sorts of interesting (to me) stuff.
I found Patrick Forbes PH.D. thesis "The Traces of Change"¦" (which I've scanned through but not read thoroughly), that appears to be relevant to the subjects of "confirmation bias" and "framing." (Notice who his thesis advisor is and whom he acknowledges as a principal influence.)
http://pforber.squarespace.com...
Might not be that topical but I thought that someone might also be interested.
Over the years I've cited innumerable publications (in this context, the whole "debate" thing) and noticed that few people could be bothered to read. Many people who involve themselves in the "debate" seem to have formed their opinions on the basis of little (and often inaccurate) information and evince little desire to learn more and little inclination to change their opinions. Which is manifestly a form of "confirmation bias" and "framing."
A decided and persistent form of ignorance that is immune to challenge.
(Which I usually refer to, in my own "politically incorrect way) as "stupidity.")
Comment by Rock — April 28, 2007 @ 2:31 pm