Perhaps not what you’d think.
This is not about appeasement. It is about not being a racist slob.
Imagine a firing squad run by a relatively benevolent government (that happens to have not yet gotten rid of the death penalty). The squad consist of a dozen soldiers assigned to the duty. While most soldiers accept the assignment to the firing squad out of a sense of duty and a general cultural belief that it is appropriate, it is possible but unusual to object and get out of it. So there is a modicum of personal reflection involved. A soldier asked to join the firing squad considers the moral or ethical framework of the legal system, considers the legitimacy of the state’s claim as the sole purveyor of intentional death, considers the fact that an execution always follows a lengthy process of investigation, deliberation, appeal, and consideration of mitigating factors, and so on. When a given member of the firing squad pulls the trigger to participate in the killing of the condemned, he or she does so with a clear conscience, and a studied indifference to the particular case. In other words, the executioner does not feel differently about killing one condemned vs. another because in all cases the same process has been followed and there is never any moral or ethical ambiguity as to whether or not this should be done. Individuals prone to having such thoughts of ambiguity generally get off the firing squad. The rest, they just pull the trigger as a matter of duty, though certainly recognizing the great weight of the job they have to do.
Or do they?
What if a certain soldier happens to be assigned to take part in the execution of a person who happens to be the person who raped, tortured, and brutally murdered his wife. There are probably HR policy rules in place to avoid such a circumstance, but this is a thought experiment so let’s allow it. In this case, the person might feel something other than professional indifference when he pulls the trigger. He might feel a sense of revenge, or vengeance, or relief, or closure. Or it just might feel really good to put a chunk of lead in the brain of this particular condemned individual.
In a perfectly civilized society, the soldier should not feel this. The soldier should understand that a personal emotional reaction is inappropriate, and that justice is the civil replacement for revenge. But the humans that inhabit my thought experiment are just regular humans. It would be impossible for a normal person in this position to not have a reaction of some kind that is something other than professional indifference in this circumstance.
Now, suppose a more general case of a non-standard personal reaction. Suppose a regular member of this busy firing squad happens to really hate a certain kind of criminal. Now, all the soldiers feel the same indignation about people doing really bad things that everyone else feels, but I’m talking about someone with an obsession. This is a person who, if she did not have a job on the firing squad that allowed her to occasionally participate in the killing of, say, bank robbers who kill people during the course of robberies, or people who kill old people, or any other category of killer, that she would be out there on her own killing such individuals when she found them. But since she gets to do it legally and as part of her line of work, that never happens. She is satisfied that one in six or so of those she shoots in the line of duty happen to be her ideal victim. She is the serial killer’s version of a fox assigned to guard the hen house.
Now, shift the framework for a person’s homicidal desires. Imagine that the soldier on the firing squad simply despises a certain kind of person. Protestants. Blonds. Africans. Jews. People with freckles. There is an ethic/racial/physical category of person that our focal soldier hates, irrationally, and in private life would not give the time of day to, may harass on occasion, and if the person is a pathologically bad person, kill now and then. Recreationally, as opposed to professionally.
Obviously, I’ve tried to describe a spectrum of non-indifferent responses to killing in a legal and condoned, even necessary setting. Across this spectrum, the shooter has something else going on … the killing is valid, legal, and when he pulls the trigger there is nothing that separates what he is doing from what anyone else on the firing squad is doing. What he is doing is normal, even respected (somebody’s go to do it). But, the individual under consideration has something else going on. Consciously, or perhaps not entirely consciously.
A person could be a serial killer and not even know it. A person could develop a distaste for a certain kind of person, let it become quite pathological, psychopathic in fact, and since the desire is satisfied at work under legitimate circumstances, never actually become the kind of private serial killer he or she might otherwise become. One could even imagine that a person who would have never developed a taste for killing, or a specific dislike for a certain category of person, or a combined distaste and thus killing of a certain category, develops such a taste because of his or her job on the firing squad.
(There is actually a movie that seems to explore this effect, which I remember mainly because the main character manages to survive by using flintknapping skills learned during his special forces training, and thus is able to make a weapon out of some chunks of glass or rock he finds while hiding in the forest. In that case, a person is trained to kill killers and, in Bourne Identity fashion, shifts to killing deer hunters in the Northwest Woods of the U.S. But I digress.)
Now, imagine a hypothetical blog that is very popular among atheists. Let’s call it Blastula, because it is run by a developmental biologist at a small university campus in, say, Lake Wikiwookie Wisconsin. The conversations that make up the threads on Blastula are often about atheism, and tend to be down on religion. Over time, Blastual actually becomes one of the all too rare places on the internet where atheists can feel comfortable being atheists, criticizing religion and religiosity, and promoting ways of thinking that are explicit non-religious.
Now, if you asked Professor SP Simpson, the professor who runs Blastula, what he thought about killing religious people because of their religion, he’d tell you to buzz off. He does not condone violence of any kind. “Live and let live. Even though they are obviously wrong,” is the kind of thing he might say. He, and as far as one can tell by reading the blog, his commenters condemn violence generally and have very negative things to say about genocide, holocaust, that sort of thing.
Nonetheless, the commenters on this hypothetical blog are in some ways like the members of the firing squad. They are busily blasting the religious, creationist, holier than thou, annoying trolls who show up on Blastula, or other blogs, or who run absurd web sites, and so on. They are uniform and consistent in their disdain for religion. They dislike Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, all of it, equally and see no need for any of it. It is the desire of the Blastulistas to see religion … all religion … just dry up and blow away.
One of the things we learn as progressive liberal rational people is that there are certain language constructs that have specific meaning or side effects that some people feel should be avoided. We may argue over whether the term “shrew” or “hysterical” is sexist, or if calling Barack Obama “articulate” is racist, but we have a sense of the fact that certain language constructs just may be better avoided lest they offend.
Even the hard nosed Blastulistas recognize this and many of them even recognize this in relation to religion. Seriously offensive terms like “kyke” or “raghead” are not used on Blastula, or if they are, the users are corrected or admonished, and if they persist, they are thrown off the site.
My question for you is this, dear reader: Is it possible for a certain kind of reaction to religion to be inappropriate but to blend into the background of a Blastula-like context, like the hidden intentions and thoughts of a serial killer on a firing squad, perhaps to become visible when the conversation shifts to a different context? Again, like the serial killer taking his work home with him.
All religions are suspect, most of the rhetoric that comes from religious sources is bullshit. We all know this. But are there cases where people of a given religion/ethic group, like Muslims or Jews, are denigrated in a way that amounts to inappropriate prejudiced action or verbiage, where atheists should actually stand with them rather than against them? Is the ultimate atheist activism … anti religious activism … a genocide of all members of some religion? No, of course not. But are there shades of prejudice that are inappropriate that reside hidden in the atheist rhetoric that only appear when that rhetoric is taken out of context but not adjusted for that new context?
I expect an atheist activist to question all of the rhetoric that comes from religious sources. But when the information is about violence done to members of a particular religious group, that questioning starts to look a lot like anti-Xism. If the group is a Jewish support organization cataloging anti-Jewish activities, the automatic questioning of the validity of what the group says may very well be antisemitism. Jews are widely attacked and denigrated as a culture. Organizations have sprung up in defense of Jews who are attacked, and many of these organizations have established reasonable reputations and provide a valuable service to mitigate the effects of prejudice. An antisemite would try to discredit such an organization. An atheist activist would question any religious source of information.
And there is an area of overlap between the two that is a little uncomfortable. Isn’t there?
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
In a civilized and secular society, people can tell the difference between name calling groups of people, advocating their slaugher and actually slaughtering them.
History and current day shows us that in a religious society, there’s isn’t any difference, since religion demands no tolerance for non-members of said religion.
JuliaL: PGA (Pretty good analysis).
I agree with you. And to bring this back to what is apparently the very center of the topic, we need only imagine a very slightly different story:
Changing ‘Christian’ to ‘Jewish’ is a slight change? Christianity is privileged in a way that Judaism is not.
Squidworthy: think about what you’ve said and how dumb it is. Sorry, but really.
The appropriate time for me to be understood is “at the beginning.” Fine. But what if half the people who read something I’ve read get it, the other half don’t. According to your rule, I did it wrong. I should have had 100% understanding.
So into the time capsule I go, and I redo history. I rewrite to make it understood at the beginning.
Now 89% of the readers get what I meant, 11% don’t. What do I do now? Am I supposed to achieve 100%? OK, back into the time capsule.
Now I’ve got all but three of the 1000 people who read what I wrote understaning it. But to do so I’ve actually had to simplify my argument to leave out complexities that were originally part of what I wanted to say. And there are still these three people….
And so on.
So on, it is not the case that it is my responsibility is to get 100% of the people to understand what I wrote. Indeed, it may well be that my intention/expectationis that some people will get it right way, and some people will only get it if they ask some questions.
That strategy is something I’ve been accused of before, as though it is a bad thing. I start out the process, I leave open some issues, I expect some conversation. It is actually a pretty good way of developing a dialog, and that is sometimes (often) signaled by adding a question or provocative statement to the post.
The alternative … what you are demanding of me … is to write watered down wikipedia articles. I don’t do that. For that … consult wikipedia!
When you have to follow up with so many explanations – well I think that speaks for itself.
Is your problem that you are not a rational person with a scientific mind? Seriously. Do consider the meaning of “so many”
The pharyngulistas are mad at me, so of course they are making piles of noise. But many people are saying that they get my points, and several thousand people read this post with no comment. In my view, this means that it is most likely that most reasonably intelligent people with no ax to grind basically got it.
You don’t get to judge whether or not another party can tell what your meaning is. That is up to them to decide.
I don’t quite get what you mean by this, but if you are referring to someone telling me that I meant X when I actually meant Y, and then I insist that I really meant Y, and said someone continues to insist that no, I meant X, then you are quite wrong.
But maybe you meant something else. I guess you just weren’t clear. Please try to not ever be unclear again. Thank you very much.
Octopod: Did you read the paragraph above the list? Just curious as to whether people are even seeing that. You are the first person to mention this to me from having seen the sidebar.
I did have a blog post about this a while back:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2010/02/february_wikio_science_blog_to.php
I appreciate your input. It is duly noted, and I think it will make a difference.
(But feel free to leave an additional comment or note on that other post. That might be helpful.)
Squidworthy = pwnd
Laden: YFS (you’re full of shit)
You’ve burnt some bridges in this thread. No reason why you should particularly care about any of them (e.g., me; I don’t expect to be missed), though, I guess.
No, you know what? It is true. And it’s been true throughout. You think you’ve been making a consistent point here? Or, I guess, a consistent Socratic insinuation, or whatever? What. Is. It?
Paul W. has attempted many times to sincerely explain his perspective (which is not too different from the perspectives of many others , e.g., me), at painstaking length, in great clarity, and in a calm manner. Your first, kind of mind-bogglingly off-base, response was:
[yeah, I understand that last bit’s the recurring trope and all, but there’s deploying the trope make a point and there’s deploying the trope to be a dick. “Just sayin’.” Oh, and there’s also attempting to deploy the trope apparently solely to display one’s degree of not-getting-it-ness (e.g. Irene–if that is her real name–@#273).]
and your second was to refuse to respond because you felt insulted(!) by his first sentence? Butthurt because he said–what was it?–“Greg, you have said so many different things that I can’t tell anymore *what* your meaning is.”?
Ouchy!
Plus, with regard to SC, you have moved from being possibly obliviously an asshole to being blatantly and intentionally an asshole and not caring. “Salty Cracksâ?¢”? Really? Somebody should say it, and so I guess I will: fuck you.
um, what else?
Well, there’s more but frankly who gives a shit. Essentially, I have to believe that it’s a big ol’ trolling expedition that you’ve allowed and encoursged to get out of control. If you weren’t being a fucking jerk to people I like, I wouldn’t say anything.
So, um, please ask Sgt. Z. to muster me out, I’m going to flounce.
Recall,
Of course you are right about privilege. That was an important part of my point. When I said it was a slight change in the story, I was referring to the fact that we need only do a substitution of one word for another in order to make a giant change in the reader’s reception of the story. I would guess that’s also why Greg’s post is about being perceived as anti-Semitic rather than about being perceived as anti-Christian.
A one-word substitution (Jewish for Christian) in the language of a story we had already heard leads us to hear the other words differently: for example, the implication that the girl, her family, and her heritage group are inferior. This can for many lead to a dramatically different perception and evaluation of the rhetoric used by the adult commenter.
Sven, I don’t believe for a second that you are going anywhere.
Dixie, what do I owe her an apology for exactly?
/delurk
I see your Dixie and I’ll raise you a Lurker Larry. I would appreciate it if you would at least make sure that Salty Current, if she comes back, and your friend Paul W, and the rest of ’em confine themselves to these Pure Insanity thread so I, for one, do not have to be exposed to their lunacy.
/relurk
No sir, I don’t get it. I’m enjoying watching you wreck your train, though. Not all attention is positive, Greggie Poo, so don’t mistake attention for agreement.
1: If you are enjoying it, that is all that matters. I consider your participation a plus.
Is the rhetoric “delusional bitch . . . who DOES deserve a slap up-side the head…
I really, truly, honestly think that it doesn’t matter what her faith is or what the fucking motivation for it is – we really don’t need to encourage men to commit acts of violence against women. No matter how much of a “delusional bitch” she might be…
Paul W. whined some more –
I also think that what Greg and his supporters have been doing in these two threads largely amounts to an extended, slow-motion tantrum of sorts about not getting the respect and consideration they think they deserve, while dishing out scorn and contempt for their critics.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes this is all about respect – for ME!!!! While I may be an arrogant motherfucker, I couldn’t possibly care any less how much respect you have for me. I certainly don’t have much for you, so it really isn’t much of a loss. Nor do I expect much consideration. After my initial comment, I slipped into mocking you and those who were making pointless attacks, instead of paying attention and actually thinking about what Greg said.
As in, read, consider and then, without assuming that it is all about you – ask questions. Even ask questions that are pointed, if you still don’t agree. Get rather pissed at Greg, when after you have asked, he doesn’t really clarify – though I will warn you that this is not the way to get Greg to respond. I know from experience that he would rather leave you sputtering than respond to anger.
Here is a tip about this post. It is not about you, unless you communicate in a particular way and should probably be paying more attention to how you put things. I will gladly admit that this post is about me – I know it is because it is about things that I have struggled with in a number of contexts – including contexts that have nothing to do with religion.
Given the language that they are inclined to use sometimes, this post is also about some other friends of Greg’s as well. While I am unaware of how a couple of them I have in mind would react, not having asked them, I would tend to assume that a) they would note that it could apply to them and b) wouldn’t be fucking whining about it.
And having paid attention to a theme of Greg’s lately, I have my suspicion that Greg has considered this concept in the context of his own methods of communicating. I have noticed this, because in many regards this is becoming a big theme for me and more than because of the classes I am taking this semester that are heavy on language and culture – I took those classes because I am keenly interested in this discussion.
I am not defending Greg because I am “on his side.” I am not defending Greg because he is my friend. While I am his friend, that does not automatically equal on his side. Nor am I defending him, because this post wasn’t something that I could reasonably apply to my own methods of communicating. To the contrary, I am defending him, because reading this post made some ideas that have been rumbling around in my head for some time now rather click into place.
I’m defending Greg, because I am not particularly one of those nice citizens off to the side, fighting the death penalty, as it were. I am defending him, because I am on the motherfucking rhetorical firing squad he is talking about. Being a rather thoughtful person, someone who is rather loathe to hurt others – and being adamantly apposed to the death penalty, I do not want to be that person.
I am sorry, but you are one arrogant – and I mean take the roof off the fucking house bigheaded, to think that this post was all about you and other Pharyngulites (or whatever you call yourselves). If it was all about just you folks, he would have fuckingwell said pharyngula. He did not, because that would have been exclusive and completely miss making a reasonable point at all.
DuWayne, for the record, I do have a hard time thinking of you as a follower. Without laughing.
As for who this post applies to, as far as I know, it applies to me. Anyone else, you decide for yourself.
The original post is rambling, sophomoric blather that tries far too hard to sound “deep” and thoughtful. It is more like what you’d hear if the previous sentence was “woah, that hippie’s starting to kick in”. (Since he seems to like out of context references.) It contains a blatant reference to another blog on this site with terms barely changed, not in order to â??be representative of a larger communityâ?, but more as an attempt to give the author plausible deniability when accused of making statements about that blog and its participants. When confronted about this in the comments, the author not claims that his blatantly transparent description isnâ??t about what it is clearly about, but does so in a childish and taunting manner
Bla, Bla, Bla indeed. The author himself doesnâ??t believe this nor does he actually expect the readers to.
His â??editor in another contextâ? Stephanie Z strangely, for a supposed editor, doesnâ??t seem to understand language She states
Words mean things. They speak for themselves. Making them speak in ways you never intended them to is called â??spinâ? or â??twistingâ? or simply â??lyingâ?. When you do that, those words speak for themselves too. To think otherwise is to claim communication itself is impossible.
The authorâ??s responses to the comments in this post go on to be more abusive and violent as time goes on. The post and the following comments of the author read more like an insult designed to draw reaction from specific people and abuse towards those people when they arrive. It is like the internet rantings of a wounded teenager. Sullen, woolly-headed and unable to make reasoned arguments or state grievances honestly and plainly, the author does his readers a disservice.
Writing of this sort does not belong on ScienceBlogs. It is disappointing to find it here and reflects badly on the site. This does not seem to be the first time the author has gone out of his way to piss off another blogger or another readership here. Perhaps this is not the venue for you. The internet is a large place, surely there is a more appropriate format for your blogging.
I answer in the hopes that this long back and forth has not poisoned the well, Greg. And, if you’ll allow me to begin with my state of mind: I–a lurker because I often feel that my stepping into things can’t really change them–couldn’t let you “drag” me into it on your side by characterizing silent readers as intelligent and reasonable and unbiased people. “That means,” I said to myself, “that the unintelligent, unreasonable, and biased are the ones who have spoken up.” I don’t think that is true at all.
You owe her an apology for your belief in your privilege AFTER you wrote about the someone might think statement. I don’t know either of you personally; I read the exchange as if it were a dialog in a novel. I said, “Holy shit” to myself when you said it because my common sense editor saw the blowup coming a mile away. When it did, I was surprised only at how you seemed to want to focus on what you “meant” and the underlying systemic problems of antisemitism.
But you stated it in a way that a reasonable person could take as a blindside attack on an individual. And from that individual, a group of commenters who might be harboring her–and her ilk.
The length of time it has taken me to construct this reply (with trepidation) is another reason that I usually lurk.
Yes, obviously the well is poisoned, but I am interested in your thoughts.
You owe her an apology for your belief in your privilege AFTER you wrote about the someone might think statement.
… but I honestly do not know what you mean.
Oh, and by the way, I have indicated to SC already, some time ago, that she is welcome on this blog. (contra various comments above.)
Lynxreign, thanks for your considered and thoughtful comments. I will tender my resignation from Scienceblogs effective immediately.
Stephanie, you are fired as my editor in an other context. I expect you to look into these things … “words” … and find out what they are and stuff.
Well said, Dixie.
SC deserves an apology like I deserve a kick in the head. Greg, don’t expect Dixie to provide a coherent clarification of what she means. She started off believing that you should apologize for something fairly simple but when she formulated her answer she realized that there was nothing intelligent to say. Or at least, that is my kind interpretation of her post hoc yammering.
Yes, Dixie, the well was poisoned. With salt.
mk: “Well said, Dixie.”
MK, I’m calling you on this. if you were forced to write a 200 word description of what Dixie meant, and Dixie was forced to do the same, they would not be the same description.
Care to try?
DuWayne, all is forgiven; it seemed more ironic than anything else.
The problem with blogs is that people are not held responsible for their hit and run bullshit. Look how many anonymous (effectively so, at least) sophomoric attacks (on Greg and on his behalf) are above. There really is something to the idea that when your identity is hidden you become an ass. (I can’t find the link to it but there is a cartoon to this effect.)
It’s your blog; in view of past interactions with those who agree with you, tease you, disagree with you, you have an expectation of how things “should” go. I did the same thing in front of an 8th grade classroom for 30 years. Most of the time there was a disagreement, I was in the right and had the facts to prove it. Other times there was a difference of opinion that required me to adjust how and why I came to a decision. Fewer still (I am thankful to say), I didn’t mean to hurt anyone and actually felt that they were misunderstanding me totally to feel hurt. In those cases, I had to look closely at my privileges– successes in those classrooms, long-term standing in the community, recognition and achievement–to make sure I was discounting those things while seeing clearly only the misunderstanding and that one person–student, parent, colleague, or administrator–on the other side of it.
If any part of the misunderstanding was my fault, I apologized for it. The apology made it mean something when I invited that person back to engage with me.
If I were SC, I wouldn’t engage with you without one.
Salty Current, I am sorry that I did not reach into the fact that I had sufficient experience as a blogger to know that you were going to go all blewy if I pressed your buttons. I should have not allowed my experience as an interlocutor which is like that of a teacher, compared to your experience as an interlocutor, which is like that of a third grader …
no, wait, that isn’t working.
Salty current, I am sorry that I said something that made you feel bad and yell at me in all caps. I actually have enjoyed our prior relationship on the blogosphere and I feel badly that this happened.
… well, that is what I said to her already and it didn’t matter then, but maybe she’ll like that better now. It is not what you suggested, Dixie, but I can’t really pull off what you were suggesting because I’m pretty sure it is offensive and patronizing. Unless I misunderstand it.
Oh MY!!! I’ve been called out by someone named “david.” Aaaagh!
*completely chastened and humiliated I slink away*
Q.E.D.
What’s Richard Feynman got to do with it?
I would guess that’s also why Greg’s post is about being perceived as anti-Semitic rather than about being perceived as anti-Christian.
To be honest, I initially percieved it as an attack on atheists in general. I only clicked on the most active link because the word ‘atheist’ in the title got my attention. I had no idea there was a spat going on between Laden and Pharyngula until I read the comments. I’m used to posting on religious blogs, so when I read posts that talk about atheists, firing squads, serial killers, and bigotry, I’m not in the habit of looking for a deeper point.
Recall, how can you possibly think that this is an attack on atheists? Do you suppose these Pharyngula commenters are thinking this? Is THAT why they’ve gone ballistic? Misplaced tribalism?
Who would have thought.
I guarantee you that this is not an attack on atheists. That whole idea is absurd. No thinking person could possibly read my post and come a way with that.
Lynxreign –
Words mean things. They speak for themselves.
Apparently you understand neither the nature of science or the nature of language.
If you understood the nature of science, you would understand the critical importance of defining terms for every aspect of a study. Without defining terms in a study of who drinks more, people who’re alone or people in a group, how would you send people out to collect data? What does drinking more mean exactly? What is the measure for more drinking? And when you go to publish, how do those reading the paper work out replicating that study if you don’t define terms.
If you understood the nature of language, you would understand that like culture, language evolves. You would also understand that specific words often have very different definitions for different people. The meaning of words can vary from region to region. Or country to country. The meaning of words also changes contextually. Take “huge” for example. What does huge mean? Words mean something, so as I am thinking about huge things, what does that mean – how big are those things?
Words absolutely have meanings. Many words have no absolute meaning. What does asshole mean (the derogative, not the anatomical descriptive)? What does geek mean? Nerd? Queer? Little? Stupid?
Writing of this sort does not belong on ScienceBlogs.
Apparently the seed overloards disagree with you about that.
Perhaps this is not the venue for you.
Or just maybe, this is not the blog for you.
I guarantee you that this is not an attack on atheists. That whole idea is absurd. No thinking person could possibly read my post and come a way with that.
As I said, I usually post on religious blogs, and as an atheist, I am very much used to being called a bigot.
Here’s an example if you need one:
http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2009/7/20/75152/0072
That made my head hurt.
Salty Current, I am sorry that I did not reach into the fact that I had sufficient experience as a blogger to know that you were going to go all blewy if I pressed your buttons. I should have not allowed my experience as an interlocutor which is like that of a teacher, compared to your experience as an interlocutor, which is like that of a third grader …
Eighth grader. You also missed the list “student, parent, colleague, and administrator.” I’ve never had any of the first fit into any of the other three categories at the same time, and even though I’ve had far more students during my career, the greater number (and therefore percentage) of disagreements have been from the other categories–even from the last category alone.
Salty current, I am sorry that I said something that made you feel bad and yell at me in all caps. I actually have enjoyed our prior relationship on the blogosphere and I feel badly that this happened.
Why go vague with the underlined part? And why say anything at all about SC’s response when this is supposed to be your apology?
Now I’m beginning to feel like the assistant principals who would send the students back: “Mr. Humdrum said I had to apologize.”
“Okay, then. Apologize.”
“Huh?”
I’m just worried that it is condescending to apologize in this way. So that will be it.
Now, are you going to make her come back here and start commenting again? That would be cool.
Didn’t Humpty Dumpty address that very issue?
BS
That made my head hurt.
Well, that’s where I’m coming from, and it’s why my defenses are on a hair-trigger.
It is very easy, and understandable, to be on a hair trigger if one encounters prejudiced contexts and hate like this, even when it is subtle (and not so subtle).
An atheist on the internet, or in any town in the Midwestern US (and lots of other regions of course, but it does vary), an evolutionist on the faculty of a school in a conservative region where your fellow teachers wonder why you don’t include ID in the cirriculum, a Jew living in England, a skeptic surrounded by raging woo-meisters, all these things can put one in the hair-trigger state simply by engaging in the world around one.
+ 1
Who misunderstood? I did. In my mind, you were getting lost in “this SWOTI is about me!” mindset.
I thought that you, lost in that mindset, hadn’t realized that separating the ONE individual to which your comment was directed from the generalized problem would be the way to continue discussing the problem without insult or injury. Without that separation, how is this poster child for antisemitism (that you set up) welcome to continue?
But you don’t want to release SC as the poster child. I’ve belatedly realized that from #182. Her comments “look dangerously like” antisemiticism in one sentence. It “was nothing like the intent of those who were making the comments” in the next.
I can’t hand a test paper back to a student with the loud comment, “That grade makes it look dangerously like you cheated” and THEN have a valid class discussion about cheating while expecting that singled-out student to participate.
I was scornful of the stupid principal who would send back a child who did not 1) know how to apologize and/or 2) feel he needed to apologize. I was berating myself with that part of the comment because I found myself in those shoes. I should have realized I would end up in them.
Will I make SC come back? Now that’s funny.
So, Dixie, you are retracting your prior statement, changing your mind about what happened, or changing your demands on what you want me to do?
Your metaphor is not working. Overall, I’d say you are much less clear now than you were before, and it was kind of muddy before.
After a careful re-reading, I have decided that, actually, I quite like the original post. I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was really particularly effective. And, er, interesting rhythmic devices too, which seemed to counterpoint the…er…er…counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the…er…humanity of the…ah, yes, Ladenity – sorry – of the poster’s compassionate soul, which contrives through the medium of the sentence structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other, and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into…into…er…into whatever it was the post was about!
clamboy:
“So what you’re saying is that I write these posts because underneath my mean callous heartless exterior I really just want to be loved”
Your “demand” characterization is made up of whole cloth. “I think you should…” does not constitute a demand. The rest was my muddled, unclear attempts at metaphor to explain what I was thinking.
No, I am not retracting my prior statement, nor changing my mind about what happened; I am changing my estimation of what I am capable of communicating to you.
OK, then. No metaphor, since I’m so bad at them. Questions only to avoid “demand” language. I’m no longer silent; I’ve had my intelligence questioned via my inability to handle metaphor (dang, I thought the “cheating discussion” one was clear), but I’ll try for reasonable:
Salty current, I am sorry that I said something that made you feel bad and yell at me in all caps. I actually have enjoyed our prior relationship on the blogosphere and I feel badly that this happened.
How would you complete the apology if you started with “Salty Current, I was wrong to say [add specifics]”? How would you feel about not adding her subsequent negative reaction to this apology? What might be added as a commitment to avoid or mitigate the problem in the future?
Finally, somebody who understands me.
I demand an apology!!!!
(Cat)
Greg, you have said so many different things that I can’t tell anymore *what* your meaning is.
(Greg)
Actually, no, that is simply not true. If you start a comment with that, don’t expect much of a response!
Okay, here we have a learning experience. I pointed out an issue with your communication and provided evidence from actual exchanges and you dismissed what I had to say.
From your example, I learn how seriously to take your worries about a supposed problem with other people’s communication.
From your example, I learn how seriously to take your worries about a supposed problem with other people’s communication.
That would not be the appropriate lesson to take from this. That is, rather, the lesson you came here to demonstrate for yourself. Heal thyself, skeptic.
Dixie:
How would you complete the apology if you started with “Salty Current, I was wrong to say [add specifics]”? How would you feel about not adding her subsequent negative reaction to this apology? What might be added as a commitment to avoid or mitigate the problem in the future?
That is much better, much more clear, in fact, dead on. Now, we can get back to the issue. If I thought I had something to apologize to Salty Current for, I would have. But I didn’t. You are telling me I do. I’m willing to listen if you tell me. This has been hard. But now we are on the verge of success.
“[add specifics]” Yes! Please tell me what you think goes here. I am very willing to hear your suggestion.
Paul W., grow up. If you really are concerned about what people need to do in order to be understood, stop announcing your presence in comment threads by screaming about how the blogger has done something irredeemable. If you really want Greg to apologize to SC, go tell her to apologize for accusing me and Greg of bias in talking or not about Henry and accusing Greg of singling her out for moderation, and tell John Morales to apologize for accusing me of malice.
If you really think the things SC has done should be noted to her credit everywhere she goes, apply the same courtesy to me and to Greg. If you really think I need to understand your perspective on the things I’ve said, respect mine about the things others have said. If you really think I should pay some attention to how you feel about this situation, attend to the things you do that will shape how I feel about you.
I’m tired of your double standards, Paul. I’m tired of this “we” business, which is either a bandwagon appeal or some kind of specious argument from authority. I’m tired of being told that “we” value objective, logical argumentation while the actual arguments people are making are being ignored in favor of how people feel about the words used. I’m tired of being told that people who are obsessively sniping away somewhere else and are perfectly capable of doing the same here have been silenced. I’m tired of people here being the only ones who are supposed to listen when told that the way they say things matters. I’m tired of being told that I have to explain myself (or Greg himself) while explanations get dismissed. I’m tired of being told I need to be on the side of people who make no effort to be on my side.
In short, I’m tired of you. If you think I should give you any tiny little thing, it’s up to you to earn it. Here. In your dealings with me, because your dealings with other people only earn you consideration from them. And then it’s up to you to ask me for it, clearly, in a way that demonstrates that you understand and practice reciprocity. And then, if I’m feeling generous or it’s already in my best interest, I may set aside all the stupid shit you’ve already done in my presence and give it to you.
Because that is actually how these things work.
Shit, Paul-Dub, I think you finally got Stephanie mad. And, she’s pretty much dead on with this comment. Well said, Stephanie.
(Que inappropriate comments about how Stephanie is working for Greg or is Greg’s minion or whatever, in three … two … one …)
Reading #311, the meta-ness of the whole thread got to me. Those who are calling on Greg to apologize to SC for their perception that Greg insulted SC for Greg stating his perception that someone could perceive what SC said to be Antisemitic are doing exactly what they are accusing Greg of doing.
Greg didn’t say that SC was Antisemitic, Greg said that what SC said could be perceived to be Antisemitic. What Greg has said has now been perceived to be saying that SC is Antisemitic.
All communication requires two parties. Miscommunication cannot be allocated to one party or the other, communication and miscommunication are both shared attributes of the two party system that is attempting communication. There is the natural inclination to externalize misunderstanding and blame the other party, but that is an error. If you don’t understand what someone is meaning, then you don’t understand. Unfortunately human cognition often doesn’t allow for a default of not understanding, instead a meaning is imputed, a type 1 error, a false positive, the positive identification of an idea which is not supported by the evidence. In this case the idea that saying â??what person X said might be perceived to be Antisemiticâ? actually means the same thing as saying â??person X is antisemiticâ?.
I think the natural inclination to blame the other for miscommunication is what is at the roots of xenophobia, bigotry and intolerance. If you don’t understand what someone is saying, the default is to attribute a bad, possibly the worst possible meaning to it, and so invoke xenophobia against the person not understood.
This does relate to my NO research, but I don’t want to divert attention away from this thread to explain it in detail. It relates to my conceptualization of dividing cognition into a â??theory of mindâ? which is about communication with other humans and a â??theory of realityâ? which is about everything else.
Stephanie,
I’m sorry, but I think we are just too far apart on this. I think that you frequently demand respect for yourself and Greg that you do not reciprocate, and hence do not deserve.
I realize that you honestly think the same about me and my ilk.
I don’t know what to do about that without resorting to specifics, and dredging through the backstory, which you are evidently quite resistant to.
One of the problems with this post and thread is that the previous trainwreck of a thread got dragged into it.
Greg makes it clear that his post is about Pharyngula (although not exclusively Pharyngula) and you made it made it explicitly about SC when you said “the discussion about antisemitism was kicked off in another post by someone with an Order of the Molly.”
That’s a problem because we disagree about what went on in that thread, and if you and Greg start from the presupposition that you were right and we were wrong, and toss in little jabs as though anybody who disagreed with you was wrongheaded and stupid, this thread is doomed to be derailed back into that territory.
Greg evidently does not trust me. He’s made several remarks about not believing that I’m sincere, and used that as a justification for refusing to address specific points and arguments. He is quite mistaken. And because of that, I cannot trust him, either, and it’s hard to have a cooperative, communicative discussion. We are at an impasse.
I think that’s sad, because I like and respect Greg. I’ve been a sporadically regular and appreciative reader of this blog for years. Over the last few years, it’s one of the three or four blogs I’ve read most often.
I’ve mostly lurked because I was just interested, and rarely disagreed enough to speak up, or had the relevant expertise to add a lot when I agreed with Greg, as I usually have. When I have spoken up, it’s generally been to agree with Greg, or just toss a little sidelight on some issue.
So this isn’t a case of a Pharyngula troll out to fuck with Greg. It’s a case of a longtime fan who disagrees on some things, believe it or not.
I think the post above, and some of the comments by you and by Greg, are flame bait in a certain sense.
That’s not to say that I basically disagree with the post. I think it’s a very real concern how people are sometimes perceived as anti-Xist when they’re not, and whether groups like Pharyngula can provide cover for assholes who actually are, or are just vicious twits who don’t care, and the effect of whose actions are anti-Xist.
It’s something I think about, too, and it’s one reason I’m sometimes a self-appointed Voice of Civility at Pharyngula.
We’re really not that far apart, but any discussion of such things needs to be balanced; there are a lot of issues in play. And some of us think that there’s been a notable lack of balance around here, lately, with regard to Pharyngula and some sincere commenters here, notably SC.
But put that aside for the moment and let me give an example of something that shows that I do in fact appreciate some of the issues that Greg is raising.
—
A few years back, I took some mostly new grad students out for an end-of-semester drink at a pub, and we were talking about this and that, and about the mechanics of students working with professors.
Somehow the conversation got around to a particular student I’d worked with a little, who was simply brilliant, but had a thick southern Indian accent that made him difficult to talk with the way I do most bright students. We didn’t have great meetings, with ideas flowing freely and lots of back-and-forth, like I like. It was awkward and slow.
I realized at some point that three of the students I was talking—northern Indians—did not understand what I meant by that at all. They thought I was making fun of the guy’s accent. One of them thought it was funny, and threw in a snarky joke in that vein, and the other two looked a little uncomfortable.
I was aghast. I was in no way making fun of the guy’s accent—it’s not his fault he grew up speaking a language with different ancient roots than theirs and mine, and there’s nothing at all wrong with such languages; they’re just different.
I’d actually been expressing admiration of the student in question, and how he was brilliant and trucking along despite the disadvantage of language differences, and I thought it was tragic that he had an extra difficulty most of us, even foreigners, do not face—that was largely my point—but because it’s so common for people to make fun of other people’s “funny accents,” I’d been misunderstood to be dissing him.
Yikes.
Worse, I was doing it in a position of power and authority. The two students who looked uncomfortable were reluctant to speak up and call me on my perceived anti-Xist attitudes, because I was a professor and they were just students. Not only had I inadvertently talked like a racist, I’d inadvertently silenced dissent about it, just by virtue of who I was and who I was talking to.
Double yikes.
Even worse, I had inadvertently encouraged somebody to say anti-Xist things, making jokes at the expense of certain Southern Indians who grew up speaking languages from a different language group, as though they were stupid hicks or something.
Triple yikes.
So I tried to repair and maybe reverse the damage. I explained a little bit of historical linguistics, and I mentioned that the guy I was talking about has an excellent command of the English language, even for a native. (In fact, he’d aced the whole GRE, including an 800 on the verbal, but I didn’t mention that.) I made it clear that I thought the appropriate attitude was one of great respect for the guy and his differences, and of sympathy for his difficulties that were certainly no fault of his own.
What I did not do was decide not to ever talk about such things again, because it might be perceived wrongly. The issues are real and important, and I think the right thing to do is not to just shy away from real issues, but to get them right.
—
Now, to bring this back around to Pharyngula, or Blastula-like sites more generally, and the issue of antisemitism…
Do I think that sort of thing happens at Pharyngula, sometimes?
Yes, I do. I know it does. I know that sometimes some people use a broad brush and stupidly tar groups unfairly.
I also know that at Pharyngula, one of the social norms is to try to notice that, and call out the asshats, and make it clear that racism and anstisemitism are not tolerated, and specifically, that you need to distinguish between criticizing views and criticizing ethnic or racial groups.
Do I think that always works?
No, I don’t. I think that sometimes at Pharyngula, there are too many unsubtle people who are ignorant of some relevant stuff, and insensitive to things like, say, the history of Talmudic scholarship and what it means to many Jews. They’re too quick to dismiss it as irrelevant to what they are saying.
Often I think they’re basically “right” to dismiss it for the particular argument in question—it doesn’t, ultimately, bear much weight as to actual points in question—but that its insensitive and strategically wrong to do so, because it at least appears not to distinguish babies from bathwater.
Do I think that sort of thing came up in the Henry Gee incident?
Yes, I do. I think that Henry actually brought up a couple of good and interesting points about Jewishness that should have been explored, but weren’t. If I’d been there, or he’d stayed long enough for me and a few others to get involved, they would have been.
Do I think that was the main story in the Henry Gee incident?
No, I do not. I think Henry came in with a couple of big axes to grind, conflating a bunch of issues and making false accusations about Dawkins, the New Atheists, and Pharyngulans, and embarrassed himself. (Or would have if he wasn’t so shameless about it.) I think he was quite uncivil in some systematic ways, even before he Godwinned the thread with over-the-top accusations and stalked off.
The reception he got wasn’t just because he accused us of seriously Nazi-like tendencies—which he did do, in an over-the-top way, despite Stephanie’s repeated insistence that that’s a “straw man.” It was because he was shifty and evasive, throwing anything he could at Dawkins and us, and avoiding addressing valid points being made.
I, for one, don’t think Henry would have behaved much better no matter how nice and even-handed we’d been, or how much sensitivity we’d shown to Jewish culture as opposed to religious belief, and on the whole I think “we” did an okay job. (I wasn’t actually there at that moment.)
I think that Henry used the antisemitism issue as a disingenous ploy, and played the victim and Godwin cards to avoid defending his other accusations, and his points.
I could be wrong, but that’s how I see it, and to convince me otherwise would require taking the specifics seriously. I’ve read through that thread several times, and I think Henry pissed on our rug.
If you just keep asserting that the problem is our antisemitism, even of the passive unintentional sort, I’ll either explain why you’re wrong, or just give up and assert that I think you’re wrong, and that repeating your assertions doesn’t get us around that.
I think that the basic story is that Henry Gee came over and pissed on our rug, and if you want to convince me otherwise, start doing some convincing. If not, pick a different example.
I don’t think that’s going to happen, because I think Greg wants to justify his interepretation of that case, by talking in high-level terms and implying that they obviously apply to that case. Even to the extent that I agree with a lot of Greg’s high-level abstractions, I disagree as to how they apply to the specifics of that case. That problem is not going away.
—
Likewise, with the SC thing here, I’ve already explained in a fair amount of detail why I think you and Greg misperceived what happened, and were wrong to portray SC as some kind of kook throwing “a tantrum.” She responded in much the same way as J.B. did to similar apparent insinuations about Greg—and that wasn’t a tantrum, was it?—and for very similar reasons.
You guys keep evading serious and carefully-argued points, as though nothing we say matters or is worth addressing. You keep repeating the same assertions that we’ve repeatedly debunked to at least our satisifaction.
—
I hope you can see that I’m actually sensitive to a lot of the basic issues that Greg has been floating in these two threads, at least in the abstract. What we disagree on is cases, and exactly how the rubber meets the road, or fails to, in those cases:
1. Did we wrong Henry Gee, to such an extent such that it’s basically our fault what happened in that case, or was he basically an over-the-top asshat? I think the latter. I don’t think his being Jewish gives him that much license.
2. Was SC being unreasonable and kooky, and did she throw “a tantrum” for no good reaason, or was she being more reasonable than you realized, such that you proceeded to make things worse by compounding unfairness? I think the latter. I don’t think you guys are as insightful and evenhanded as you think you are. (I don’t think anybody is as insightful as Greg seems to think he is lately, such that it’s appropriate to pontificate and condescend in quite the way he’s been doing.)
—
This conversation is going nowhere if you guys keep bringing up those examples, and acting as though your interpretations of those events are obviously the right ones.
No matter how interesting and insightful we think Greg is at a certain abstract level, we’re not going to trust him any further than we can throw him, so long as he seems to be grinding axes based on misconceptions and bad examples of the actually admittedly interesting phenomena he’s talking about.
—
And Stephanie, if you still think it’s appropriate to start a comment to me by saying Paul W., grow up,” I still think it’s appropriate for me to respond as I did before.
Stephanie, get your condescending head examined.
Stephanie,
FWIW, I feel exactly the same way about you. I don’t feel any need to earn your respect at this point.
If you want respect from me, you have to earn it.
I used to have a lot of respect for you, and I’ve lost most of that by now.
If you think I need to earn your respect, and you don’t need to earn mine, and can continue to argue evasively and by assertion, we are certainly at an impasse.
Get your condescending head examined.
“Somehow the conversation got around to a particular student I’d worked with a little”
Why were you discussing specific problems of working with a particular grad student with other grad students over beers? Is this normal?
It seems very inappropriate to me. No wonder they responded awkwardly.
Paul, if you really want to repeat arguments already had, I’m happy to note once more that I’m quite content to condescend to someone who emerges from nowhere to scream that Greg “Godwined” a whole blog thread by mentioning in the title the name of someone who was mean to his friends somewhere else almost two years ago. That kind of behavior just doesn’t warrant high hopes for intellectual discourse.
Did continuing that argument help you in any way?
Nor do I feel any need to participate in arguments over who was being the biggest asshole in some confrontation where everyone was being an asshole. It’s too subjective to merit me wasting my time pretending to have an objective argument over it.
What is worth my time is looking forward and getting some work done. That means cutting out people who can’t discuss the matter at hand a long as they’re still nursing age-old injuries–real or imagined. That means ignoring people who are too sensitive to work past that first tiny misunderstanding. That means telling people who think they deserve more of my attention than the problem at hand does that, no, they really do not want that kind of attention. Period.
Congratulations, however, on making at least part of your comment on topic.
Whoa! Hold the phone!…misunderstanding? A misunderstanding? That almost suggest you are taking some responsibility here. Is that possible… or did I once again misread you? Almost an acknowledgement that you might have been even a tiny little bit wrr… uh, wrrr…. er, wrrroong?
Heh-heh.
Actually, I think at that point it was more along the lines of expressing sympathy for the special difficulties of foreign graduate students, while talking to foreign graduate students.
I didn’t think that was out of line, or the kind of thing one shouldn’t do. In general, I think it’s good for such things to be recognized as real issues. We should care about students’ difficulties, and the students should know we care.
I certainly didn’t mean for it to reflect badly on that student; I thought it was clear that I thought he was awesome. (Still do.)
In a sense, we (Pharyngulistas) are all anti-semitic, but only in the sense of anti-religious, not in the sense of anti-people. We are anti-santa, anti-islam and anti-homeopath. What PZ argues against is the belief in superstition and the concomitant damage it does through people that believe in it. You can love your son who throws a tantrum because he doesn’t get the present he wants from Santa and you can feel sympathy for the suicide bomber who feels his or her religion tells them to kill other people as well as themselves while recognizing the actions are wrong and the fundamental belief system they are based on is not true. And you can feel revulsion at pedophile priests and abortion doctor murderers. Atheists as a group are not free from the foolishness of racism but they are probably a bit less prone to it than others if for no other reason than it takes thoughtful reasoning in today’s society to come to atheistic conclusions.
Stephanie:
Condescend away, Stephanie. I don’t care; I’ll just explain why you’re wrong and/or tell you to have your head examined, which I do think you ought to do.
Greg didn’t just Godwin the thread by using Henry in the title. He and you did it in various comments that showed that he and you have a view of certain events that were quite at variance with ours, in a way that was entirely relevant to the core subject matter of the thread—namely, norms of civility on blogs.
And Henry wasn’t just some incidental person we dragged in. He was the guy Greg was talking about, who’d said some interesting things about norms of civility on blogs. Pardon us for finding it striking and noteworthy that Henry seemed to have no concept of norms of civility on blogs.
We probably could have let that go, except that once we voiced our view, you and Greg made it sound like we were wrong, out of line, clueless, and stupid, while systematically evading our arguments that we were not.
Sorry, if you casually dis us and tell us we’re wrong, in unflattering ways, and then try to proceed with the discussion on the presumption that we’re wrong, we’re going to interrupt your little self-satisfied in-group chat.
And in this thread, Greg and you have continued in that tradition. And so have we. That’s how it works; get used to it.
It’s absolutely clear to anybody who’s been following recent stuff here that the post at the top of this thread relates to real or imagined antisemitism at Pharyngula. It’s pretty explicit.
We’re not the only ones nursing an old grudge now. You and Greg are.
If you think Greg’s point is not closely related to the controversy in the previous thread, and that his use of incredibly loaded analogies about genocidal firing squads and applying them to Pharyngula is nontheless crystal clear, such that nobody should object to what he’s really getting at…
Let me direct your attention to the very first comment in this thread by a certain staunch supporter of Greg’s, who seems to have woefully missed the boat:
Who was that comment from? It was from Greg’s staunchest supporter, who’s even his editor in other contexts.
Yes, it was you, Stephanie.
Even you didn’t understand what Greg was saying and not saying, or if you did, most others on either “side” didn’t, even those who thought they understood what Greg was trying to say and were sympathetic to it.
You thought the post was about capital punishment.
I submit that that’s evidence that Greg was not writing terribly clearly, and was bringing in unnecessarily loaded analogies, such that even if we who disagree with him are mistaken about what exactly he is and isn’t saying, or is and isn’t suggesting, it should be forgivable.
Or should we cut you out of the conversation, perhaps, given what you proceed to say, above:
I hope others notice the irony of you of all people talking about how people shouldn’t be distracted because they’re “nursing age-old injuries—real or imagined,” and should proceed to discuss the matter at hand.
Which is apparently, bashing Pharyngulans (and their ilk) for being overly focused on an argument at hand at the expense of people who are distracted by nursing age-old injuries, real or imagined.
Of course, that’s not the point of Greg’s post, exactly. It just seems to be where things tend to go, for some reason which I’m sure has nothing whatsoever to do with anybody nursing old injuries, real or imagined.
Certainly not you. You’re above that, and fit to condescend to me.
Good luck with that, Stephanie.
Good luck playing thread cop and cutting me out of the discussion. It’s worked so well, so far. Keep at it, by all means.
I’m sure Greg will approve, since the controversy raises his page hits.
BTW, Greg, you owe me a cut.
I think that you frequently demand respect for yourself and Greg that you do not reciprocate, and hence do not deserve.
It is funny how sometimes it is the rational argument that trumps all, other times it is the reciprocity of behavior that trumps all, and which one is in play is determined entirely by the self interest of … well, in this case, Paul W.
I think that’s sad, because I like and respect Greg.
I like and respect you too. Can’t wait until we get past this shit.
I certainly didn’t mean for it to reflect badly on that student; I thought it was clear that I thought he was awesome. (Still do.)
It does not matter what you thought or what you meant. You violated an ethical standard and even to this day you seem unable to realize or admit that you did it.
Do they still allow you near students?
mk, I asked you in another context what specific behavior of mine you objected to. You never answered me. Did you want to do that now?
Paul, I did not think the post was about capital punishment. I do, however, speak metaphor, as I did somewhere later in this thread. You may search for it if you like.
And you may speak as much as you like. However, your speech creates no obligation for me to respond. It doesn’t even create an obligation for me to read, particularly when you’ve already said you think it’s pointless. Sneer at me some more, if you like. I don’t care. I’ve got things to do, and you haven’t given me any reason to want your respect. I refer you once again to the lecture on reciprocity. I’m sure you can find the comment.
Enoch,
Sorry, not buying it. Graduate students are largely apprentices, and part of the point of graduate study (at least for Ph.D.-bound students like the ones I was talking to) is to learn from professors about the issues in dealing with students, partly by observation and informal conversation.
Part of ethos of that department was to treat graduate students largely as colleagues and peers in science, for most purposes; that’s why the free bidirectional flow of ideas in a group meeting is important—you don’t want passive students just listening to the professor. You want them to get involved in the science and to own it in a more collegial than subservient way. And you want them to learn what being a scientist involves, and that includes why you deal with students the way you do.
Certainly, there are many things that I would never say to another student about a student, but might say to a faculty colleague. (E.g., worries about whether somebody’s cut out to be a scientist, or has personal problems going on, or whatever.)
There are many other things I wouldn’t say, e.g., telling a student another student’s test scores. (Which is why I didn’t mention that that student had aced the GRE across the board.) There is privileged information, and there are invidious comparisons to avoid.
In that particular case, I didn’t think I was violating a confidence. It wasn’t exactly secret that the guy in question had an accent that made it more difficult for some Americans and even Northern Indians to follow him.
If I had it to do over, I’d certainly do it differently—I’d be more aware of how what I thought was sympathy for an entirely admirable underdog might come across as making fun of the underdog. That was a shocker, which is why it’s so memorable that I told the story over a decade later.
I certainly did learn something from that experience, and temper my openness with students—which I think is usually a good thing—with a little more discretion and care.
Not since the incident with the thong and the claw hammer.
Just curious, what is the rational argument that is competing with and being trumped by the reciprocity of behavior in this case? To be clear, I’m taking no stake in this epic pissing match, but if we assume PW’s point of view, ‘people who demand respect but do not reciprocate it are not deserving of the respect they demand’ seems pretty rational.
Paul W.,
I realize that this thread has become so much a personal conversation between you and Stephanie that comments from anyone else (except of course Greg)begin to sound like an intrusion. Regardless, I call your attention to some of the language you used in #355:
There may be more than one equal problem at a time, or two equal and opposite facets to the same problem, and more than one person/groups may be at fault at the same time. You say “the problem” and “the basic story” and “Did we . . . or was he . . . .” This either/or formulation doesn’t seem to me, a complete outsider here, to represent all of what appeared to happen on that thread.
And Enoch is absolutely right. It is unethical and in many cases illegal for a teacher/instructor/professor, without that student’s express permission, to discuss him/her with other students, and in the case of a student who is of age, even with that student’s own parents or spouse.
Paul W. – It still sounds inappropriate; you were discussing your difficult interactions, however sympathetically, with another student. As a grad student, I have had beers many times with professors and have become friends with a few, but this would sound odd to me.
As for this conversation, there seems to be two sets of rules, one for Christians and one for everybody else. What the hell is wrong with having one set of rules – isn’t that easier?
eg showing “sympathy” for a suicide bomber but “revulsion” for an aqbortion doctor killer.
eg. Mocking “Christians” but being careful to only mock “Islam” or “Judaism”
Hypocrites, bigots and bullies need an outlet as usual.
Welcome to Science Blogs 🙁
It is very easy, and understandable, to be on a hair trigger if one encounters prejudiced contexts and hate like this, even when it is subtle (and not so subtle).
In this case, the hostility seemed to come as much from insularity as anything else. I’m sure you’re aware of the tendency for small internet communities to form their own specialized language that is inaccessible to outsiders.
Greg:
It seems to me that you’re again missing something I’ve been saying all along through these two trainwreck threads.
My point about respect is not that I particularly demand or need respect per se. The point is about the rational argument, and how you and Stephanie fairly explicitly say that you don’t respect me/us enough to have a rational argument. You don’t bother to address most of our points, because from your point of view, we’re not worth it and there’s no point. The matter is settled, and we’re just wrong, and you want to move on. We’re supposedly the irrational ones who need to be marginalized, and “cut out” of the conversation, to use Stephanie’s recent phrase for it.
We are not buying that framing, and won’t. That is the nature of the impasse. And it’s not generally us refusing to address your points, it’s you refusing to address ours, and getting annoyed that we don’t accept your framing. That is how the issue of lack of respect keeps playing out, IMHO.
You may be right that we are clueless boobs, and not cool enough to get your metaphors exactly the way you mean them, like your more insightful readers, and so on, and therefore not worth taking seriously enough to engage with. We’re unconvinced of that, so the impasse continues.
In all of this, and going back to the Henry Gee thing, I think there’s been an important pattern there.
There are some people who think that the problem (or a major problem) is with Pharyngulans and their ilk, who are focused on the p -> q argument, and miss the crucial connotations. There are feelings that matter.
There are other people who think that “the problem” (or a major problem) is that some people miss the fact that the connotations, while important, shouldn’t generally a trump card that derails an argument. There are facts that matter.
It is possible to see both of these things and the connections between them, in particular how too much emphasis on delicate feelings can be abused, and used to avoid settling matters of fact, so that nobody convinces anybody of anything, and everybody’s just pissed off and thinks the “others” are shitheads.
Implicitly, Pharyngula is largely about a choice about the tradeoff between a focus on arguments at the expense of possible hurt feelings and alienation, and a focus on feelings at the expense of arguments ever getting to a serious point. There’s an Overton Window argument behind all that and it’s entirely relevant.
(I know you know that, but you seem to write as though you don’t, or as though you don’t think we’re aware of such things, and that at least some of our choices are principled ones. And I realize that sometimes you do make comments in that general direction… but they don’t seem to connect up to the other things that you’re saying, and give an integrated, evenhanded impression.)
Do I think Pharyngula strikes the perfect balance? No. Not even close, though I’m amazed that it works as well as it does. There are certain regulars at Pharyngula, and often a number of drive-by’s among the hordes that read and comment, who I think bring down the tone of the joint, and often alienate people they don’t need to. It bugs me no end.
(There is one notorious regular I have regular run-ins with over this. He’s abusive toward everybody he disagrees with, and he disagrees with just about everybody sometimes, which at least is pretty even-handed, but that’s the kind of thing that’s not obvious to somebody new who stumbles in and suddenly gets abused. They don’t realize that he’s sometimes just as insulting toward PZ and the likes of me, and we just discount his abuse 95 percent; how could they?)
In discussing such things, and the general Blastula Problem, I think it’s a good idea not to start with the most loaded cases, and quickly pull in the most recent grievances. I think it was a mistake for you to make the genocidal firing squad analogy, and to move quickly to the issue of antisemitism at Pharyngula. That inevitably raised the Henry and SC issues, which are unsettled, and are apparently going to remain unsettled for at least the time being; the hole’s just too deep now.
I think there are plenty of applications of the ideas you’ve been floating that might actually fly, without setting off a shitstorm, and would be worth exploring before going there.
And yes, I guess I’m “telling you how to blog,” in some sense; so what? It’s my two cents. I’ll also say that I think you can be and often are an extremely clear and even beautiful writer. (I was tremendously impressed by the Congo Memoirs, for example, as were a number of of other people at Pharyngula who think you put your foot in it this time.) I just don’t think this has been your best work, or even up to your typical standards.
Paul W, you can’t just make up rules that suit you. Your department and university had/have HR rules and there are ethical considerations. Throwing the word “ethos” into your post hoc excuse does not suffice.
Not since the incident with the thong and the claw hammer.
Remarkably, there are very few Universities with rules about that sort of thing. You should see a lawyer about your inappropriate dismissal.
So sue me. 🙂 Or reread what I’ve said so far, and what I say below to Isabel:
I’m not sure we’re disagreeing. Part of my point in that example was that I fucked up, by underestimating how fraught even such seemingly benign things were, and that I learned a lesson from it.
I don’t think things are as black-and-white as some people want to make them out to be. (And I have to wonder if they’ve ever trained graduate students to do research, if they think it’s quite that simple.)
Part of what students need to learn if they’re going to be professors and researchers is how to interact with their (future) students and colleagues.
You can’t always play “grownup” and treat them like “children”; they need to know about the kinds of problems professors have with students and colleagues, and how they solve them. Graduate research isn’t like “school” with “teachers” in the sense that most students are used to, and many have trouble making the switch, partly because they don’t understand what the switch required is. They need to know about “grown-up” stuff, or they’ll be in trouble later.
They need to know about faculty-student relations, and departmental and academic politics. To some extent, you have to leave them in the dark, especially with regard to particular persons most of the time, but to some extent, you have to clue them in to the grown-up issues. (For example, when a Ph.D. student ends up effectively managing some of the other students working on a project—as they sometimes should.) One of the ways that this sort of thing plays out in practice is that you sometimes hope that the student learns to read between lines, about things you can’t say, and does it correctly. (And when they do, you don’t correct them.) There are things they need to know, and more of them as they get near to going off to be professors with their own research programs.
It’s actually a difficult line to walk.
Paul, you’ve got two sentences. Tell me what I would get out of reading the long post you addressed to Greg. Did you say something you haven’t already said? Did you get reflective about your own behavior? Did you acknowledge that you’re not asking SC or Morales to do the same things you’re telling me/us to do? Did you discover that you’re spending thousands of words on an internet scuffle? Were you funny? Did you refrain from using the word “we”?
Two sentences to tell me how what you said is going to make a difference.
Paul W. said I don’t think things are as black-and-white as some people want to make them out to be.
and it is the job of every reader of this blog and Pharyngula to never allow him to forget that.
Excellent question, and one I would have raised long ago if we weren’t busy wranging over everything else.
One of the things I find interesting is that Judaism usually gets off pretty lightly at Pharyngula, compared to Christianity.
I find it peculiar to think of Pharyngula as an “antisemitic” place, as opposed to an antireligious one, and a largely anti-Christian one because the more widely-held views are the ones more worth rebutting.
There are some relevant asymmetries, of course. One is that Jews were historically an oppressed minority in Western culture, and to some extent still are. Christianity has historically been the majoritym, and doing the oppressing, and to some extent still is and does. That really matters.
Another asymmetry is that Jewishness doesn’t have the same relationship to Judaism and Christianness has to Christianity. Christianity is a religious belief system, and if you don’t believe, you’re not a Christian. (At least in popular usage, and taking into account that ideas about what counts as a Christian do vary.)
That’s one of the things that can lead to misunderstandings of the sort that Greg is talking about, I think, especially if clueless or clueless-seeming people talk about “Jews” as thought it unambiguously mean the same kind of thing as “Christian.”
Two sentences:
Stephanie, you’re not in charge and I feel no more need to justify myself to you than you feel to justify yourself to me; got that?
If you’re not going to ask nicely, I’m not going to cooperate.
Two more sentences, gratis:
Get your condescending head examined.
Fuck off.
Paul W’s comments are so long they need abstracts and executive summaries.
Given that Greg spent 1700 words in his original post, I find this request for brevity more than a little ironic.
I find it peculiar to think of Pharyngula as an “antisemitic” place, as opposed to an antireligious one, and a largely anti-Christian one because the more widely-held views are the ones more worth rebutting.
I would tend to agree with that, partly because Christians are so extra annoying and partly because “Ex-Christians” who are agnostic/atheists are not Christians, but Jews who happen to be agnostic/atheist tend to be still Jewish, because of the famous link between being Jewish and ethnicity. Kind of obvious but worth pointing out.
It turns out an Atheist firing squad DOES look a lot like a “Polish firing squad”
Tulse, do you base your statement on the assumption that Stephanie and Greg are the same person?
I just love the fact that the metaphor has come home to roost. Paul “W” for “We” has a modus operendus that works a certain way, involves a certain commitment to a certain community with certain expectations. When he leaves that community he continues to act the same exact way which in this case involves deciding who is in each of his two black and white categories: Pharyngula-esque, or anti-Pharyngula.
But he got it wrong, because he is overly accustom to his own firing squad.
He quite clearly picked the anti-Pharyngula hat for Dr. Laden, for some reason, and there is ample evidence on this thread for Paul “The We” W. and his friends and followers having done that. Dr. Laden has been accused of being in favor of accommodation, yet it was his aggressive attack on Mooney that led to the Framing Slapdown. Dr. Myers repeatedly said in those days “I hate this argument” and “I don’t know why we are doing this” while Dr. Laden continued the Framing discussion with full force.
Someone said that Dr. Laden was going to “Bring up Crackergate” next, an obvious implication that he (Laden) was going to complain about Dr. Myers and crackergate. But it was Dr. Laden who uncovered the notorious 1-800-Hate-Flowers man, and it was Laden who interviewed Webster Cook’s associate, and it was Laden who blogged alongside Dr. Myers for that entire episode.
And he (Laden) said above that he is much scarier in real life than Dr. Myers who is a teddy bear. I have seen them both in real life and it is true that Dr. Laden has laser eyes and sometimes kills people in the audience if he thinks they are praying. Do not forget that when you mock him.
Tulse, if Greg were in the habit of repeating himself while assuming I didn’t agree with him just because I hadn’t heard what he had to say (instead of valuing things differently than he does, as is actually the case), he might get a similar response. Actually, he would probably get a much nicer, funnier response because he’s generally been pretty nice to me and entertains me pretty regularly. It’s that reciprocity thing.
It was not a request for brevity. It was a notice that he’ll no longer be allowed to waste my time, which I value.
Isabel, I think there’s probably also an element (albeit a small one) of being willing to poke at the myth that Christians are, as a class, persecuted in the U.S.
Saint Paulite,
I think you’re mistaken about my views of Greg. There are reasons why I’ve been a regular and admiring reader of his blog for years, and I’m not nearly as clueless about his stances on several related things, including atheism and accommodationism, as you seem to think.
That’s one of the reasons I find the whole thing interesting. If I didn’t respect Greg and most of his views as much as I do—and that’s a lot, seriously—I wouldn’t care in the same way.
One of the reasons I’m so verbose and sometimes repetitive is that in and adversarial situation—and we have had an adversarial situation on certain points, despite our basic agreement on many others—I’m averse to being quote-mined, or saying anything that will be misunderstood by people who haven’t carefully read and understood what I’ve said before. The context may have been stated, but gotten lost. That has evidently happened a number of times, on both “sides” here. (And I’m not claiming anybody’s been perfect on our side, including me. Oh no.)
I do write defensively, and with some good reasons. Some people like the fact that I at least try to be careful to make it clear what I am and am not saying or suggesting, and crucial things I do understand about what others are saying. Others just wish I’d shut the fuck up and go away. Different strokes, and Overton Windows apply.
Note taken, and notice appreciated. If you don’t waste any more time on me, that’s fine, and at this point, I think it’s the right thing to (not) do.
[What follows is equally profound, well-reasoned, and infinitely briefer that the usually very interesting G.L.’s posting. If you don’t think so, it’s YOU who can’t see it!]
You ever REALLY look at you hand, man? I mean, REALLY LOOK at it?
[sips a White Russian]
Paul [386]:
“One of the reasons I’m so … adversarial —I’m averse to being quote-mined. I’m not … good, careful crucial. Others just fuck strokes.”
Pwned.
Paul [386] said:
There are reasons why I’ve been clueless about several things, including atheism and accommodationism.
I respect Greg and his views a lot.
I’m so verbose that I’m misunderstood by people a number of times. Oh no.
I do fuck up.
Ray, that was totally unnecessary!
Haplodiploid already totally pwned me.
*slinks away*
http://tinyurl.com/sc-not-anti-semite
“Kind of obvious but worth pointing out. ”
Yes an obvious answer that means nothing. I wasn’t born yesterday…I’ve only heard all those excuses about 10,000 times. Also, Jews are way overrepresented in the upper classes, and have been lording it over me for decades in the two fields I have pursued so my sympathy is wearing a bit thin.*
Here’s a hypothetical: I’m at dinner with a bunch of upper-middle class Jews and atheists (in other words a typical UMC liberal get together). My family is working class Catholic, many religious, all very nice people btw, and I enjoy my identity as a “cultural Catholic”.
During the meal lots of sarcastic comments are made about Christians and even Catholics. Is it totally beyond your comprehension to see why this would be uncomfortable and alienating for me? Even though they would all insist that they are not talking about me. And there is no getting around the fact that they are definitely talking about my family.
I can’t wait to hear the cliched reasons for not dissing Muslims.
Lastly, conflating fundamentalist Christians with all “Christians” is pretty fucking ridiculous and a poor excuse for bigotry.
*I am finding The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald to be an interesting read.
A potpourri:
Of course, in many places, deluded people may be locked up, are the objects of derision, hostility and fear and generally are seen as not being fully human the way the non-deluded are. But then no true atheists holds such views of anyone, do they.
I can be a cynical sort at times and, considering the canonical example of “appeasement”, view the above example as demonization by likening the religious to Hitler. Or I would if I weren’t pretty sure the writer is an atheist and no true atheist would demonize anyone by likening them to Hitler, would they. I’m almost certain that AnneT, assuming she was of an age to have contemplated such things, regarded the use of “appeasement” and “appeaser” by the proponents of the Iraq war just a few years ago as invoking the image of Hitler. Maybe the writer’s conviction of her own purity prevents her seeing the intolerance in her own post even as she’s writing about thin lines.
Nice, subtle joke there.
Mike,
I think you’re quite right to be concerned about the connotations of the terms “deluded” and “appeasement.”
Unfortunately, connotations aside, they’re the right terms for what’s being discussed—or at least, as good as any I know.
The uncomfortable truth is that New Atheists do generally believe that religious people are, technically speaking, deluded. They’re not generally deluded in the clinical sense of the paranoid delusions of a paranoid schizophrenic, but they are in the grip of a complex of beliefs that is resistant to evidence.
When I use the term “deluded,” and I sometimes do, I try to talk about a popular delusion in basically the sense of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.
People in the grip of a popular delusion are not generally personally insane, or even close. They are victims of social feedbacks that have much the same bottom-line effect. That is why popular delusions are very interesting—they show that perfectly normal people can in fact be deluded, given the right social circumstances. I believe that religions are generally (and literally) popular delusions in that sense.
Whether or not they’d use the word, even religious people typically think the same thing of people who subscribe to very different religions; e.g., Christians commonly think Muslims are victims of a popular delusion for believing that Mohammed is the definitive prophet of Allah (God), and Muslims commonly think that Christians are deluded for thinking that Jesus was God incarnate, and that Muhammad was not a greater prophet.
Part of the awkwardness there is that some atheists are willing to call a spade a spade, and use the correct term—delusion—for what most other people also think, but sugarcoat.
As for “appeasement,” you’re right that it has terrible connotations, and that gets in the way sometimes.
Unfortunately, it too is often the correct term, connotations aside, for what is being discussed.
I find it interesting that a few years ago, what we now call “accommodationism” was often called “appeasement,” which it largely was, and is. The term “appeasement” was mostly dropped because it was too loaded—and even the anti-accommodationist New Atheists mostly went along with that.
I think that’s mostly a good thing. We don’t want to make it sound like the people who are or are not being “accommodated” (or “appeased”) are Nazis; we don’t think they are. We also don’t want to prejudge whether appeasement (literally speaking) is a bad thing. Sometimes it’s a good thing, up to a point.
Unfortunately, no matter what terms you choose, you have problems with connotations. For example, I think using the term “accommodationism” is misleading, because what we are talking about isn’t denying people reasonable accommodation—it’s about whether to bend over backwards to appease them.
If I say that I’m an “anti-accommodationist,” that sorta makes it sound like I won’t make reasonable accommodations for religious people, which I don’t think is true. I think I will, and I do. I just don’t want to bend over backwards and self-censor a lot to appease them, and thereby give away the store.
So, IMHO, the fact is that we’re talking about delusions, and whether to appease deluded people.
Unfortunately, stating that fact correctly and plainly is very misleading, because few people understand the literal meanings of those terms, and most people will think we’re talking about cravenly accommodating raving lunatics, or even Nazi-like folks. We’re not.
Paul W.
This is very interesting. You say that people who believe that God exists qualify as “delusional” because their “belief is resistant to evidence.” Tell me, please, about the evidence that God doesn’t exist, or at least point me to some source where I may read about it. I had been under the (apparently) mistaken impression that the reason atheists (at least those of the logical type) don’t accept the existence of God is that there is no scientific evidence. I had not read of the existence of the evidence you mention.
There is certainly evidence that the historical actions and qualities that various particular religions associate with god or gods are not true — for example, there was no worldwide flood. One can retreat to special pleading and say that this doesn’t rule out the existence of any god, merely gods with those qualities or who were alleged to perform those actions, but by those criteria, you can’t rule out the existence of leprechauns and invisible fairies in my backyard.
Tulse,
So you think that there is no evidence that God doesn’t exist?
Please note that I’m trying to understand Paul W’s definition and use of “delusion.” He has said, I think, that the word “delusion” refers to a belief held in defiance of evidence. And that a belief that God exists is a delusion. Logically it follows that he is claiming that there is evidence that God does not exist.
Either there is evidence that God does not exist, or else “delusion,” according to Paul W.’s own definition, is not correctly used in reference to people on the grounds that they believe that God exists.
All this is so without regard to whether God does actually exist. We are talking about the meaning of a word.
No side discussion of floods and leprechauns can change the fact that Paul W., by means of his definition and his use of the word “delusion,” has made an extraordinary claim. If he is correct, I would think everyone, atheists and theists alike, would want to hear the evidence he has.
I don’t think the statement relies so much on a definition of ‘delusion’ as it does of ‘God’. Depending on how you define ‘God’ and most importantly what he has supposedly done, talking about floods is not a side discussion. There is evidence that there was no world-wide flood, yet some people still assert that a God exists who did flood the world, and that does stand in defiance of the evidence.
This might be a case where the definition matters. Webster on line:
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
When one used “delusion” in a clinical sense, it is often used for beliefs for which there is no evidence. For example, if I believe that aliens have come down and performed surgery on me to remove my organs and replace them with others, without leaving any scars (a delusion that is no uncommon in paranoid schizophrenia), one does not have to point to evidence that such a belief is false, merely that there is absolutely no evidence that it is true. “Defiance of evidence” includes believing in extraordinary notions without any evidentiary foundation.
The claim is no more extraordinary than the claim that it would be delusional to think that leprechauns exist.
Tulse,
That is not what the published clinical definitions (that I have been able to find) say. More to the point, it is not what Paul W. claimed.
I don’t know what this thing is that you have about leprechauns, but I will leave you to it. I’m sorry that I can’t seem to develop any interest in them, but I am very interested in Paul W.’s claim that there is evidence that God doesn’t exist.
“The uncomfortable truth is that most people do generally believe that invisible leprechaun believers are, technically speaking, deluded. They’re not generally deluded in the clinical sense of the paranoid delusions of a paranoid schizophrenic, but they are in the grip of a complex of beliefs that is resistant to evidence.”
Julia, do you also find that to be an extraordinary claim? If not, what’s the difference when we plug in ‘religious people’?
Greg,
I have heard atheists say that people who believe God exists are “delusional” (those are quote-quotes, not scare quotes) according to what amounts to a paraphrase of the “Definition a” that you gave. My response has been that their use of the word “delusional” can mislead others into thinking they mean “Definition b,” thereby creating a false implication of mental illness. I have suggested that rather than using “delusional” to mean “false belief,” it would be less misleading, and therefore more honest, to say “false belief,” or just “wrong,” or “mistaken.”
I find myself fascinated that here in a thread asking, in part, whether some rhetoric used by atheists shares ground with anti-Semitism, Paul W. has actually explicitly equated his use of “delusional” with clinical mental illness, thus clearly implying that observant Jews are, on that ground alone, mentally ill – an implication that strongly overlaps with anti-Semitic rhetoric.
The only way I see out of that problem for Paul W. is for there actually to be evidence that God does not exist. For me at least, that would tend to move Paul W.’s comment back toward simple fact, and away from anti-Semitic rhetoric.
Hmmm, did he? In what you quoted from him, he explicitly said: “They’re not generally deluded in the clinical sense of the paranoid delusions of a paranoid schizophrenic,”
and his post talks about ‘popular delusion’ being different from insanity. Maybe I missed a post of his though.
Spartan,
You are now apparently claiming there is scientific evidence that leprechauns do not exist. And you also make the claim that what “most people do generally believe” about leprechauns is somehow relevant to Paul W.’s claim that there is evidence that God does not exist?
I’m sorry, but I repeat that I have no interest in leprechauns. Nor am I interested in the argument that because “most people do generally believe” that something does or does not exist, that their belief must of necessity have some validity. I am interested in the evidence that Paul W. claims to have knowledge of.
No Julia, I technically claimed no such thing, and even more technically, I didn’t say a thing about ‘scientific’ evidence. In this conversation your inclusion of that adjective strikes me as a little odd, since we’re talking about God, for which there is no scientific evidence either, just supposedly ‘evidence’. I think you are interested in the evidence that you claim Paul W claims to have knowledge of. I would be interested in that evidence also, but I don’t think Paul W made such a claim.
Spartan,
Paranoid schizophrenia is not the only form of a delusional clinical syndrome. Paul W. “says that “they [referring to people who believe that God exists] are in the grip of a complex of beliefs that is resistant to evidence,” which is a key definition for clinical delusion, as provided by Greg. The fact that Paul W. then goes on to imply that the word “insane” has a different range of meanings is irrelevant. I did not say that Paul W. claimed that people who believe that God exists are “insane.” I said, correctly, that he claims they are “delusional,” and that he defines that word by using the clinical definition.
Paul W. has clearly indicated that there is evidence that God does not exist. I want to know what it is. I should think that most of us would find such evidence to be of great significance.
Well I definitely disagree that Paul ‘clearly’ indicated that. As a contrast, which is what the purpose of bringing up leprechauns is, what would be an example to you of a delusional belief that you would consider not clinical? What belief would fit strictly under definition ‘a’ of Greg’s?
You keep dodging the point, which is that belief in a god has the same evidentiary base as belief in leprechauns. I presume that you don’t believe in leprechauns, and would consider someone who did so seriously and sincerely, despite an inability to produce any evidence for their belief, as being delusional in the colloquial if not clinical sense. Perhaps I am wrong in that presumption — is that a fair characterization of your approach to leprechaun-belief?
(Of course, all this presumes that you’re interested in debating this issue in good faith…)
Spartan,
That’s interesting. You think, then, that when Paul W. says, “they [people who believe that God exists] are in the grip of a complex of beliefs that is resistant to evidence” that he does not mean scientific evidence? That he means things like “I looked out from the mountaintop and had this overwhelming feeling of emptiness in the universe”?
Actually, a belief in the existence of God is not “resistent to [that kind of] evidence.” And it seems unlikely to me that the clincial definition is relying on such a vague concept of “evidence.” Yes, I had assumed that the “evidence” referred to both in the clinical definition and in Paul W.’s comments is scientific evidence.
If he is in fact, as you seem to suggest saying that people who believe that God exists should be called “delusional” because they are in the grip of a belief that somebody-or-other’s vague feelings and personal experiences and subjective impressions have proven wrong,” then I’ll have to just say that Paul W. is not making any sense. I think, though, that unless he himself says otherwise, I will stick to my assumption that he meant scientifc evidence.
The point? THE point? You are telling me what THE point is in my questioning of Paul W.? I am certainly willing to agree that leprechauns are YOUR point. However, MY point is that I would like to know what evidence Paul W. has that God does not exist.
Now if you have evidence that leprechauns do not exist, no doubt many, many people will be interested in that. I’m not sure I would be one of them, but I do acknowledge that it would certainly be a worthwhile scientific contribution on your part.
I have not been discussing the issue of lack of evidence. If it helps, I will state here and now that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that God or (in concession to your personal interests) leprechauns exist. I add “scientific” here in concession to Spartan who has brought up the notion of non-scientific evidence. Since I’m not clear what Spartan means by that, for now at least, I’ll stick to the scientific use of the term.
MY point is that Paul W. claimed that “delusional” is the correct term for people who believe that God exists because “they are in the grip of a complex of beliefs that is resistant to evidence.” The only way this claim can be more than word salad is if Paul W. believes that he knows of evidence that God does not exist. I’d like to know what that evidence is.
I’m sorry that as we are expecting both snow and company shortly, I must say good-bye for the time being to discussion of all these not-what-Paul-W.-said topics. I will add to both Spartan and Tulse that I appreciate your courteous and calm comments (how’s that for alliteration?), as I know you both to be effective and fierce fighters, with keen wit and potentially sharp tongues.
I do see what you’re saying Julia, and I do understand how you view it that way. As I stated above though, there are some common conceptions of God (Earth flooder) that are resistant to counter-evidence, so the truth of his statement is dependent on which flavor we are using. I do agree with you that there are some very common conceptions of God for which there is no scientific counter-evidence, which I agree, ‘resistant to evidence’, does imply exists.
We’ll just have to differ on ‘delusional’ and how it’s being used; I thought the purpose of Paul’s mentioning schizophrenia and insanity was specifically to try and clear up that he is not using the clinical definition, but the popular one.
My point about ‘scientific’ evidence vs evidence is that I was wondering aloud that if we use the same, what I consider ‘looser’, standard of evidence that supports belief in God, is there then no ‘loose’ evidence that counters it. I don’t know, but it depends on exactly why one believes that God exists despite their being no scientific evidence for such. If one believes that God exists because of an internal religious experience they had for instance, is the fact that other people also claim to have internal experiences that lead them to wildly different conclusions qualify as counter-‘evidence’ under this non-scientific definition of ‘evidence’? Again, I don’t know, just throwing it out there.
And likewise, Julia; I appreciate your equally calm and courteous comments also. See, civility is attainable. It might take 400+ comments, but it’s not a pipe-dream.
So, as I understand it, your point is about being resistant to extant evidence, whereas mine is believing in something in absence of evidence. Fair enough, although I think that the issue I raise is quite relevant to the notion of delusion in both the clinical and colloquial sense, which is why I raised the issue of leprechauns. In other words, I think you’ve raised a narrow semantic point about what Paul said regarding delusions, whereas I’m speaking to the broader issue of whether the label “delusion” is in general supportable.
Sorry I haven’t kept up with this thread… too much going on elsewhere.
JuliaL asked some good questions.
I do not think that there is scientific proof of the nonexistence of God, but proving the nonexistence of God is not and never has been what atheism is actually about.
I do think that there’s good scientific evidence that most religions are wrong, and systematically wrong for scientifically explicable reasons.
I don’t think that most people have been exposed to the relevant science and philosophy, and that’s part of what I mean about religion being a kind of popular delusion; a lot of the mechanisms that entrench religion and make it clearly religious are intrinsically social, and don’t imply that individuals are delusory in the same sense as a normal personal delusion.
The question becomes simplier if you take it as a given that people with an atheistic, materialistic worldview are allowed in the conversation, regardless of whether it’s ultimately justifiable or not. Then it’s just a matter of looking at the paticular options such a person has to create a theory of mind that can describe claims of religious experience.
QED, bitches.
“The requested topic does not exist.”
*blink*
Blink? Have you forgotten the to do over changing the Dawkins forum? Have you forgotten declaring loudly how Dawkins was spoiled for them forever? Have you forgotten the silly sight of someone repeatedly telling PZ that “It’s okay. I know you have political reasons why you feel compelled to support Dawkins in his decision because you couldn’t really support him on the merits”?
Yes, things change and disappear on the internet, but I’d think that whole fiasco would have made an impression.
That’s the problem with these retrospective posts. On the other hand, as Stephanie points out, things change and perhaps that dynamic is the important reality.
Suffice it to say that the last comment on a long sequence in which a half dozen neurotic commenters were screaming about how wrong I was was, indeed, the last word, almost as though I had been right all along … I guess we’ll all just have to assume that I was! Bwa ha ha ha hahahaah ha. .. ha.
I find atheists the same as everyone else. To think because you are atheist you are more logical, less judgmental, or less likely to extremist view would be to put yourself above others and think you are better. To say that all but atheist views are wrong is no different than any one else judges all but his beliefs as inferior and insubstantial. From what I’ve seen acceptance of others beliefs is not easily done by anyone, including atheists.
Being an atheist removes a significant source of stupidity the religious are hampered with.
Steph, I have to disagree with you–somewhat. I’d say that the problematic thing that religion provides is certainty. Plenty of smart people believe in religion and end up doing all sorts of fascinating mental gymnastics to support their certain beliefs.
Unfortunately, you can see a similar certainty at work in this thread with the idea that there’s only one way for a blog community to work or only one thing that any statement can mean. When you get people suggesting others are insane or dishonest over a disagreement about social interactions, you have to know there’s something a bit wonky at the root.
Being an atheist removes a significant source of stupidity the religious are hampered with.
Being an atheist removes a significant source of stupidity. Unfortunately, for many, it adds a source of unfounded and inappropriate hubris. It is often impossible to tell a privileged middle class but a culturally uneducated racist Christian from a self assured arrogant atheist when either is speaking of ignorant primitive superstitious brown people living like dumb animals in Bungbungaland. Neither has a clue what they are talking about. When we hear some news story from another culture where some silly humans are doing some dumb-ass thing, both individuals will expand the presumption of utter stupidity to all aspects of the life and lifeways of the subject of the news story, yet that is rarely the case. Those primitive Bungabungalanders are often quite a bit smarter in their day to day lives than the average Westerner, and are often just as much interested in cutting out the bullshit and crap as anyone else. The arrogant atheist or the christian with the crappy attitude will forgive themselves for having an unfounded idiotic belief but will use the same sort of thing to accuse, try, and convict entire cultures of having everything wrong. One thing that is missing that allows this to happen is recognition of the fact that the mundane of one culture is the stand-out bizarre for another. This is one of the main contributions of field Anthropology, though it’s significance was tossed out 30 years ago when sociocultural anthropologists went soft on ethnography.
Could this thread go to 500 comments?
Anybody who’s been around ScienceBlogs for a while and followed the Framing Wars and the Accommodationism Wars—as Greg has to some extent—will understand
This is VERY funny. Greg STARTED the framing wars IIRC with a post on how Mooney and Nisbet had framing wrong. This then led to a series of blog fights and the famous Slapdown in Minnesota.
I am not sure it is a good idea to dredge up these old posts, tho.