The Tangled Bank

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

PZ Myers's avatar

I'd say, "Welcome, Power Line!" but so far you aren't impressing me

I'm very popular today. So popular that I had to pare down the usual graphics-heavy layout of the page to accommodate all the traffic. The cause? The Power Line blog picked up on my criticisms of their main man, Hindrocket, and have posted a reply titled "Call me stupid".

OK, you're stupid.

Sorry about that. It's also pretty stupid to feed a guy such an obvious straight line, especially since you know that everyone who comments on it is going to say the same thing. Anyway, the reply is weird. It's the usual whimper of fragile right-wing egos demanding that they be treated better than they treat others, while still insisting on holding the line on the rank foolishness of the original post.

  • As Ogged has noted, they don't say the sensible, intelligent thing ("Of course we accept the best scientific explanation of our origins!"), but instead babble about "orthodoxies." The whole bunch over there must be wanking creationists. And yes, that certainly does discredit them—it means that they are not interested in the honest, critical evaluation of the evidence, but instead leap to conclusions based on ideology.
  • They complain that my short comment did not present the evidence for evolution. Silly people. I've got articles all over this weblog discussing the evidence for evolution. Check out the Panda's Thumb or many of the sites in the science and evolution categories of my blogroll. Or heck, go to a library. This isn't secret stuff. These guys aren't aware of any of it—so where do they get off criticizing legitimate biology?
  • They don't understand how their opinion of evolution is relevant to any assessment of their political stance. There is a sense in which that is correct—if someone honestly says they don't know enough of the scientific story to be able to judge, I think that would actually speak well of their ability to evaluate evidence. That is not what Hindrocket did, however. He pompously claimed that "the empirical foundations of Darwinism have crumbled under attack by a new generation of biologists, especially microbiologists." Either he knows better, and he's lying, or he's completely ignorant of what biologists say, and he shouldn't be pretending to have knowledge he lacks. Either way, he's demonstrating a disgraceful lack of respect for the evidence, and that does call his judgment into question. If I, who have never cracked a lawbook in my life, were to try to tell lawyers how to practice law, and made egregious errors of fact in my claim and even mangled the vocabulary, there'd be no hesitation about deservedly calling me a fool, an idiot, a pretentious poseur…so I'm returning the favor here. Hindrocket doesn't know biology, period. He's a fool, an idiot, and a pretentious poseur for acting as if he does.
  • They whine that they've been insulted. I'm sorry, but when Hindrocket can blandly assert that almost the entire Democratic party consists of traitors who are in alliance with terrorists to destroy America, they've lost the privilege of complaining from a lofty moral height about the level of the criticisms levied by others. Wingers are incredibly thin-skinned, aren't they? They can fling it, but they can't take it.
  • And, you know, they don't have comments on Power Line, but their fan base is appalling. I got a pair of obscene phone calls last night, after their article was posted, an attempted denial-of-service attack, and a flood of e-mail this morning. Some of it is just godawful stacks of obscenities, while the more civil stuff is basically, "I am a lawyer, and evolution is just a theory." Good grief. Go read this and come back when you have half a clue. You're confirming my prejudice that Power Line readers are benighted morons.

Trackback url: http://tangledbank.net/index/trackback/1952/dZYuWlFv/

Comments:
#16674: norbizness — 02/23  at  11:07 AM
Good luck being Diogenes! I guess people were always trying to blow out his lantern.

For the record, the scientific claims of Powerline are about one rung above (or a descendant of) "God put dinosaur fossils here to test our faith," which later morphed into the "humans and dinosaurs frolicking together" exhibit at that creationist museum.

This is a counterpart to the know-nothingism of non-scholars who have "figured out" the Middle East by watching Fox News or who have economic theory explained to them by Charles Krauthammer. Of course, being correct and/or learned is some of the flimsiest insulation to attack around.



#16675: — 02/23  at  11:07 AM
FWIW, I thought the calls to Rindhocket's workplace were out of line. Harassing receptionists who are simply trying to do their job doesn't accomplish anything. Stick to e-mail, please.



#16678: — 02/23  at  11:23 AM
What PL and its ilk fail to grasp is that it's not their attacks on evolution per se that reflect on their political stance, it's their attacks on the scientific method itself.

There was a time when conservatives could legitimately suggest that the political left was in denial of science, whereas they themselves represented the sober realities of the world. (Admittedly, this view probably hit its high mark when Hayek was at his best and the Soviet conception of, ahem, evolution was at its worst.) Today, however, the right is characterized by the belief that facts, theories, and research are trumped by ideology.

When asked how I can square my acceptance of genetics and evolution with my religious views, the shorthand answer I inevitably provide is, "Truth is greater than facts." By this, I mean that if a person sees the world with a religious framework, and testable facts seem to contravene that view, then the religion must be expansive enough to accomodate those facts. I'm suspicious enough of Man's ability to directly apprehend the divine that I'll take the reseacher's test tube over the revelator's text any day.

However, for some people (PL contributors evidently included), their soi disan truth obviates the need for facts. Whether it's in the realm of economics (supply-side theory is true, damn your empirical eyes!) or science (who cares if Murray and Herrnstein didn't actually understand multiple regression?), the new right is marked by a bold refusal to see the world as it is, rather than how they want it to work; every one of their policies begins with a solution (such as marketizing a commodity) that they then distort to make it fit a specific problem, regardless of how it actually plays out. That this inevitably places an expiration date on a political movement does not seem to faze them, but we'll see where they are a decade from now.



#16681: — 02/23  at  11:30 AM
I would think that any kind of harassment would be out of line; email or otherwise.

The argument that because you are ignorant of one thing leads to the ignorance of another as fact is ridiculous. It’s a non sequitur.

Also, calling a man a "...a fool, an idiot, and a pretentious poseur" for having a opinion contrary to your own seems rather petty and personal. It seems the mark of a good philosopher is the ability to separate one’s opinions from one’s being: where an attack on the former does not presuppose the latter. I would like to think that that is the most appropriate manner of discourse in all fields, not just philosophy.

Just my $.02



's avatar #16682: Chris Clarke — 02/23  at  11:31 AM
PZ, save those caller ID records.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson



#16683: Orac — 02/23  at  11:35 AM
I know this may be hard for some of PZ's regular readers to believe, but you don't have to be a liberal to be appalled by these guys.

My politics tend to lean center-right (with a libertarian streak), and guys like Hindrocket embarrass the heck out of me, as do blatherers like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin. When it's so mind-numbingly clear that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to evolution (and, worse, hasn't bothered even to try to educate himself). People like Hindrocket are totally embarrassing and one of the reasons I can no longer consider myself a Republican.

It's particularly annoying when they use the old "just a theory" crap, because it reveals such a monumental ignorance of not just evolution, but of science, that I don't know whether to laugh or cry about it.

No wonder they don't allow comments on Powerline.

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#16685: Andrew — 02/23  at  11:38 AM
I think real scientists have every right to take it "personally" when non-experts dismiss their life's work in a single monstrously ill-informed sentence.



's avatar #16686: PZ Myers — 02/23  at  11:40 AM
You aren't reading carefully, Chris. I'm not making "The argument that because you are ignorant of one thing leads to the ignorance of another"...in fact, I explicitly said up there that I don't condemn someone for admitting ignorance of a subject. What is damning, though, is pretending to be well-informed on a subject when you aren't, and Hindrocket is definitely guilty of that.

Orac, trust me, I know. There are sensible conservatives and Republicans. These guys who now dominate Republican party politics are batshit insane extremists, and I do not confuse them with rational conservatives.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#16687: Fontana Labs — 02/23  at  11:40 AM
PZ: yes. At the very least, it should be clear that Hindrocket's willingness to believe seriously faulty arguments in the face of massive counterevidence for the sake of preserving some prior ideological commitment puts him in a funny position. It looks to me, on the surface at least, like he's just being irrational. Now, it's possible that he's irrational when he's speculating about science and perfectly reasonable when he puts on the politics hat, but, well, that isn't the only possibility.



#16692: — 02/23  at  11:58 AM
I agree that calling receptionists is bad posture. But Hindrocket is a complete loon of a wingnut who repeatedly states that all people on the "left" are in bed with Islamic radicals. Why shouldn't the people he works with be alerted to his wingnuttery. I am sure that many clients (and probably many of his colleagues) of his firm would be appalled by his extremist, neofascist views.



#16695: — 02/23  at  12:07 PM
This "Hindrocket" incident has some echoes of the earlier Jonah Goldberg/Juan Cole tete-a-tete, in which Juan Cole pretty brutally disposed of Goldberg. Goldberg really seemed to be unable to get his mind around the fundamental issue: agree or disagree with Cole, he knew what he was talking about and Goldberg didn't. I'm sure that breezy, uninformed opining about all and sundry is not unique to rightwing pundits, but it does seem lately that rightwingers are providing the most grotesque examples: the ineffable Bill O'Reilly perhaps the worst of all. A smart conservative (I won't say libertarian; O'Reilly is in many ways the opposite of a libertarian) ought to feel quite embarrassed by these people. I can't exclude the possibility it's my limited, blinkered perspective here, but it seems to me this stuff has become widespread on the right in a truly disturbing way. I'm not aware of a left wing Ann Coulter, or O'Reilly, or what have you. If I'm right, I wonder why this has become a trend. I would like to say to Professor Myers: "Why are you wasting your time on these idiots?" But I have to admit that (while probably time-wasting) it's a more interesting subject to me than agnathic jaws. This doesn't speak well of me, I know.



#16700: Orac — 02/23  at  12:25 PM
Actually (at the risk of drawing hate mail from the libs), I will point out that Michael Moore comes close to being a left wing Ann Coulter, IMHO. He's a polemicist and propagandist and certainly isn't above cherry picking facts that agree with his point and ignoring facts that don't. Ward Churchill might qualify if he hadn't been so utterly obscure to most of the nation before his 9/11 comments were unearthed. The problem is that right now the right wing polemicists have a much wider audience than the left wing polemicists, most of whom are not nearly as well known.

And many smart conservatives (like yours truly) are embarrassed by the likes of Coulter and O'Reilly (not to mention Michelle "Defense of Internment" Malkin).

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



#16708: — 02/23  at  12:38 PM
Well, Moore certainly can be a loose cannon. My attitude toward him is somewhat complex, and I'd share it if I weren't certain it would just bore people speechless.

I'm trying to recover now from the realization that Hindrocket is (heaven help us) a lawyer. I don't mind being regarded as the scum of the earth (really I don't); but if people start to conclude that lawyers are just-plain dumb, too . . . I may not be able to survive that.



#16709: — 02/23  at  12:39 PM
I would say that I read it just fine. "Either way, he’s demonstrating a disgraceful lack of respect for the evidence, and that does call his judgment into question." is very hard to misinterpret. But, I may have worded my response ineffectually. Rather than claiming that he is ignorant of other manners as a result of a contrarian theory on evolution, you used his ignorance of a particular matter as proof of logical fallacy in another, or rather that he is “a fool, an idiot, and a pretentious poseur for acting as if he [knows biology]". Regardless of the weight of his argument in this manner, your disagreement with his stance should logically be contained in this manner alone.

You did the same with:
“What is damning, though, is pretending to be well-informed on a subject when you aren’t, and Hindrocket is definitely guilty of that.” By “damning” I assume that you mean that his logic is flawed in other manners as a result of his “pretending”.

So I apologize for misinterpreting your position with respect to ignorance, but would still stand by the original spirit of my argument; that claiming knowledge of something of which you are ignorant is grounds for dismissing other opinions. That is a non sequitur, as well.

As for Andrew being offended by his remarks on Darwinism: do you intend this to be a defense of responding with insults? Personal attacks are hardly a substantive portion of debate. They prove nothing, and only serve to weaken the sympathy for your position. You will be dismissed as being petty and shrill any time that you respond to anything (including personal attacks directed at you) with terms such as "idiot".

Again, just my $.02.



#16710: — 02/23  at  12:41 PM
"Actually (at the risk of drawing hate mail from the libs)"

We're not kneejerk unless you insult our intelligence. Your post doesn't, and it's highly refreshing to read something from "the other side" that's reasonable. Just to quibble a bit, whatever his accuracy, Moore is a mockumentary filmmaker and his product is analagous to that of Mel Gibson's, not O'Reilly and the rest.

Frankly, I hope like hell you take back your party. There is a legitimate conservative POV that is essential to the health of the country.



#16714: Thomas Wilburn — 02/23  at  12:56 PM
Chris O. -- By all means, ideas should stand alone. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with raising the possibility that someone who is so intellectually dishonest in one area might be lacking in others. If Hinderaker is willing to dissemble on biology, where he has no training, it might be possible for him to do so in other areas.

I think PZ's goal was more to highlight the ignorance of the Powerline position, and he chose to do so with hyperbole, exactly the kind of rhetoric that is so often used against the scientific community. Personally, I say more power to him.



's avatar #16715: PZ Myers — 02/23  at  12:58 PM
OK, Chris, do you understand the difference between these two statements?

1. "I'm a lawyer. I don't know the evidence for or against evolution very well, so let's ask some biologists who do understand it."

2. "I'm a lawyer. I don't know the evidence for or against evolution very well, but I know that evolution is an orthodoxy cooked up by a conspiracy of atheists to destroy America."

Both are examples of ignorance. #1 is a fair and reasonable position. #2 is raving lunacy.

Guess which position is Hindrocket's? Why should I respect a demonstrably raving lunatic's position on any issue?

Many of us have spent many years patiently explaining biology to people. We know the majority of people are actually in position #1, and we can respect that. We also know that an increasing number of people are following strategy #2, and we've learned from experience that reasoning with them doesn't work. We've lost patience with them. It's long past time to call the lying idiots what they are, and time to stop treating them nicely. They do not deserve it.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#16717: — 02/23  at  01:10 PM
Hey, I'm all for raising possibilities, but referring to these "intellectual dishonest" instances as "damning" with regards to other things is hardly a conclusive argument.

As for your second point, I would refer to the old adage of “two wrongs” and their incongruent relation to “a right”.



#16719: — 02/23  at  01:15 PM
"It’s long past time to call the lying idiots what they are, and time to stop treating them nicely. They do not deserve it. "

Well, then this may not be the place for me, then. I don't agree with that statement even in the slightest.

I certainly hope that the state of American debate is not this bad.

I will be signing off now.



#16724: — 02/23  at  01:33 PM
I certainly hope that the state of American debate is not this bad.

Oh, it's *much* worse than you imply. I mean, creationists, ID'ers and their ilk have been foisting off lies, half-truths and various rhetorical deceptions for decades now. If you don't understand where PZ's anger is coming from on this, I suggest you look through the archives of TalkOrigins.org sometime and learn a bit about why sharing the niceness is seen with a rather jaundiced eye on his part these days.



#16727: — 02/23  at  01:46 PM
I would refer to the old adage of “two wrongs” and their incongruent relation to “a right.”
What's with these folk and their old dogmatic adages? Get with the times, people! smile

Chris - Thanks for keeping us updated on your blogging activity!

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

-Jerry Garcia



#16729: — 02/23  at  01:55 PM
I hope those guys don't get too horrible.

Good for you, though. You're a brave man for standing up to them.

Powerline = "Blog of the Year"? My arse...



#16731: — 02/23  at  02:05 PM
Powerline's posturing both before and after PZ's assessment fits in very nicely with an article at the New Republic on-line by Jonathan Chait. His thesis is that the distinction between Republicans and Democrats lies in the former being ideologues, for whom the goal is ideological purity—less government—and the latter being emipirically driven pragmatism for whom real results matter—the size of the government being incidental. An interesting read and well illustrated by the fencing between ID promoters like Hindrocket and the DI on the one hand and scientists like PZ on the other.



#16734: — 02/23  at  02:09 PM
I find this tempest in a teapot discussion quite hilarious. I don't go the doctor for legal advice and I don't ask a lawyer why my back hurts. Trying to say someone's beliefs outside their area of expertise compromises that expertise doesn't hold water either. Science is full of great pioneers who had odd and sometimes bizarre political beliefs that did not affect their scientific ability. Some of the greatist politcians had terrible personal lives that, if made public, would have ruined them. Yet, did not interfere with the social changes they championed for the good of all. The scientists I detest the most, are the ones condencending about their area of expertise and extending that to areas that are not. Anyone depending on Power Line for scientific information and this site for political insight would be doubly mistaken.



#16736: Orac — 02/23  at  02:09 PM
Actually, I just came across a post that precisely shows what is so irritating about creationists to some of us. In this one, David Heddle uses the classic tu quoque fallacy and labels biologists who defend the theory of evolution as "fundamentalists."

--
Orac “A statement of fact cannot be insolent.”
http://oracknows.blogspot.com



Page 1 of 9 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

Next entry: About this course

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
About The Tangled Bank...
Search

Members

Login | Register | Members

Syndicate

RSS 2.0

Recent articles