The Special Responsibility
by MikeGeneThere are many people on the internet who claim to speak for Science. These are people who proudly display their academic credentials and positions while trying to explain, defend, and advocate for science. Their credentials and positions are displayed to give their voices added authority. Yet such authority comes with a price.
Several weeks ago, Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. Ian Musgrave (from Panda's Thumb) were involved in an internet debate. While I have no desire to re-visit the details of that specific debate, Dr. Musgrave did offer some profound insights that all the cyber-academics should keep in mind:
Yes, science is about civil discourse. And we, as experienced scientists are guardians and upholders of this discourse. We teach by example. If someone is discourteous to us, we reply courteously, and continue to reply courteously in the face of adversity. We keep to the topic and discuss the substantiative issues raised. We do not engage in petty sexism, we do not completely ignore someone's core argument and discuss trivialities.
Musgrave adds some more insights in the comments section:
We researchers have a special responsibility. We are the educators and nurturers of upcoming young researchers, it is up to us to set and uphold the standards so that those that follow can learn by our example. There can be no excuse for petty sexism and avoiding the question.
I would make one minor change in Musgrave's wording. Instead of being too narrowly-focused, we should replace "˜sexism' with "˜prejudice' (as sexism is just one form of prejudice). The special responsibility that comes with Representing Science would include a prohibition on relying on prejudice and propagating prejudice. And a clear way of telling whether prejudice is in play is whether a person is relying on or propagating a negative stereotype. As I have already made it clear why stereotypes should be eschewed by both people of faith and people of reason, it would seem obvious that those who come to us as academic mentors, the guardians and upholders of civil discourse, have no excuse for promoting petty prejudice and stereotypes. If they do, they set a terrible example.
December 15th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I got a chance to see some of that exchange, and I have to say that I really was impressed with Musgrave's demeanor throughout. It would be far more productive in my opinion if people on both sides would act more like Behe and Musgrave did here, I agree.
Comment by thechristiancynic — December 15, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Mike quotes Musgrave:
Someone really ought to tell PZ Myers what science is about, maybe give him a few lessons in how to do that "civil discourse" thing. It might help him avoid spewing such crap as…
But probably not. Either PZ Myers isn't a real scientist, or science isn't really about "civil discourse."
Comment by Joy — December 15, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Hi Joy
The only thing there that could be construed as not civil is the "bastard" bit, unless of course the gentleman it is aimed at was indeed born out of wedlock.
An inaccuracy in the statement is that it infers that all creationists are the subject of the sentence and that is clearly incorrect, as not all creationists are bastards, violent or murderous.
However the purported bastard was indeed violent and murderous.
Also from reading the entry you linked too, this was hardly a scientific article. Expecting scientists to remain "sciencey" even in their personal lives is not really sensible, it's a bit like hoping that politicians will always act as if they canvassing, clergy who criticise the actions of others will not part take of that same activity.
In other words it requires not being human.
I can understand PZ ire too, the double standards of those of the creationist camp are mind numbing.
Why the howling about PZ's language when the real issue is a man was killed because he didn't agree with the creationist position?
Comment by DaveC — December 15, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
DaveC:
You don't consider such an outrageous blanket generalization to be un-civil? …apparently not, though I do. I suppose if one happens to be on the receiving end, or just conscious of human rights and the dangers of hate-speech, it looks different than it does to someone who basically agrees with the hate-speech.
And you know for a fact that no one who believes evolution happens has ever committed an act of violence or murder, right?
Of course it's not a 'science' article. It's just on a science blog sponsored by a science media group. No one would ever confuse PZ Myers with a scientist, right?
LOL! No one is stopping PZ Myers from publishing his own blogs on any of several blog hosting sites out there. He can have a political blog, an anti-religion blog, a cooking blog, a drinking blog… pretty much anything he's into (so long as it's legal).
Instead, what PZ Myers does is use his legitimately sponsored science blog to spread his politics and religion as if they were science, or at least supported by science. And after getting his sponsors sued over his unbridled intemperance, I doubt he's among their favorites. He's still there because his is the most popular science blog on the internet. The money he draws to the group so far covers for the liability the group assumes for his intemperance.
Where's this "howling" you hear? I don't hear any. Have you had your hearing checked lately? As for drunken homicides, they're a dime a dozen. People have been known to kill under the influence of alcohol for any reason or no reason at all. That's nothing new.
PZ's a big boy. He doesn't need you to defend him against his own intemperate speech, or the fact that he published it on the internet on his science blog for the whole world to see. Getting all bent out of shape because people see it is dumb.
Comment by Joy — December 15, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
December 15th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Please don't rewrite PZ's words. The sentence is talking about a group:
Dave, what group of people are the "violent, murderous bastards?"
Comment by MikeGene — December 15, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Hmmm!
I feel both PZ and Joy are unfairly extrapolating from the particular to the general. Arguing with a drunken Scotsman is almost always a bad idea, no matter what the subject.
See, I can do it too. Stereotyping is not very intellectually challenging, though!
Comment by Alan Fox — December 16, 2007 @ 6:10 am
December 16th, 2007 at 10:44 am
If PZ was to stop peddling stereotypes, he would gradually lose a huge chunk of his readers.
Comment by MikeGene — December 16, 2007 @ 10:44 am
December 16th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
So would the crew over at UD. Dembski and O'Leary don't seem to have any tools left except petulant rants at materialists. And don't even get me started on Barry Arrington………….
Comment by leo_s — December 16, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
December 16th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Alan Fox:
No, I was very specific, citing a single example of someone who thinks hate speech works better than civil discourse, in direct contradiction of Musgraves' statement of what "science is about."
How does my particular highlight of PZ's ridiculous statement extrapolate to a generalization?
Comment by Joy — December 16, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
December 17th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Ah! As I said, I can do stereotyping too. I withdraw any suggestion that that particular comment of yours cast aspersions in general. I only thought that you were implying that this particular post of PZ Myers was a typical example of his general output. If you were not suggesting this, my apologies.
Mind you, joy, do you think, if I looked, I could find a post of yours that did a little stereotyping? I recall a while back in a comment at ARN you accused me of repeating "boilerplate" when I had posted a comment that I had written without help from anyone:smile:
Comment by Alan Fox — December 17, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
December 18th, 2007 at 2:19 am
I guess my point is that I hear any number of people on the ID side complain about the intemperant language of others while ignoring the murderous actions of some.
Joy how about decrying the death at the the hands of a creationist of a guy who was picking fruit with his girlfriend. Out of the choice between PZ''s use of vocabulary and the fact that a man was buried I know who I'd be criticising.
Un-civil verses dead, may I suggest you get your upset-o-meter adjusted a tad.
Mike I guess the violent murderous etc bit would be the creationist dude who stabbed someone to death… seems to fit the bill… No?
If all you serious ID folks don't won't to be associated with the religious loons, how about you won't condemn them when they do something that is so clearly wrong. You lay down with dogs then you'll pick up their fleas.
This violent scumbag was given three years for stabbing a man to death what is so hard about condemning him?
Oh no you have gotta condemn the non lethal action of a blogger, some thing is arse about tit in your world!
Comment by DaveC — December 18, 2007 @ 2:19 am
December 18th, 2007 at 3:58 am
DaveC,
I condemn anyone who assaults anyone physically or otherwise in the name of creationism v ID v evolution, on any side. I also condemn mudslinging, incitements to hatred, and willful misrepresentation along with it - and I consider a fair chunk of what PZ posts to fit that bill.
That was easy for me. Is it easy for you? I have a feeling you won't be able to match the condemnation, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.
Comment by nullasalus — December 18, 2007 @ 3:58 am
December 18th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Alan Fox:
Oh, no doubt you could. I do try to be careful, but sometimes the rhetoric gets out of hand and the frustration gets the better of us before we give up and just go take a walk.
DaveC:
How about decrying the death of a man at the hands of his friend after a dumb drunken spat? There is a link to the actual judge's report down around comment 100 in PZ's thread, and the situation he describes from evidence heard in court is nothing like PZ (and a few others) have portrayed.
Nope. Unless PZ Myers was present in that fruit-picker's campsite that night and participated in the brawl, his incivility is completely non-comparable to this particular homicide.
I wasn't the judge or the jury. But I did bother to read the judge's report, and thus know that what actually happened is not like PZ portrayed it, or how you are still portraying it. Would it hurt so much to avail yourself of what *is* known before shooting your mouth off with blanket condemnations of entire groups of others?
Comment by Joy — December 18, 2007 @ 11:51 am
December 19th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Hi Joy
Yup I read it:
PZ's extracts came from a newspaper report.
The judge's statement was well written but even he admitted that the girlfriend was the best source of facts in the case.
It appears that folk had a few too many.
An argument ensued.
Calm happened and the future killer started it off again.
The two folk left.
The killer was pissed off.
The killer found other things with which to vilify his foes.. beer/dope use.
Something happened back at the camp that resulted in the killer killing the other.
BUT however you cut it complaining about PZ's use of intemperant language over a story that involves the death of a man, rather than decrying the death of the man first and foremost is self serving and shallow. Just admit it. You are so right PZ's language is completely non-comparable to this death but you chose to use it as an avenue to link the two. This was an horrendous occurrence so stop trying to use this man's loss of life as a stick to beat PZ with.
Null nice start but the agenda still had to sneak in on the end. Wow how to spin a guy's death to make a case against PZ.
You could have given him at least a posts space between noting he had been slain and wow what a bad dude PZ is for pointing it out in a manner that is not nice.
Comment by DaveC — December 19, 2007 @ 3:54 am
December 19th, 2007 at 4:13 am
I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
Comment by nullasalus — December 19, 2007 @ 4:13 am
December 19th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Dave:
Nope, that doesn't fit. Read PZ's words:
They is plural. Bastards is plural. Creatonist dude is not plural.
Try again.
Comment by MikeGene — December 19, 2007 @ 8:12 am
December 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Mike
Did you read my first post?
I did cover that error then.
"An inaccuracy in the statement is that it infers that all creationists are the subject of the sentence and that is clearly incorrect, as not all creationists are bastards, violent or murderous."
Null
you are right harsh angry words that tend to oversimplify things should always be avoided, and where they are used should be correted asap. PZ hasn't done this I know.
My real beef about Joy's original comment was that she was trying to compare the death of man with a verbal outburst. Using the one to over inflate the seriousness of the other. I found this to be lacking in empathy to say the least.
As a soccer ref I know that there is a huge difference between being bad mouthed and being assaulted, but even that is a trite comparisson compared to the one Joy attempted to bring.
Comment by DaveC — December 19, 2007 @ 1:38 pm