Phil Plait - Don't be a dick

Here's how things will be if people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins have their way:Creationists: Evolutionists: My view is that there must be something wrong, both ethically and factually, with any strategy enthusiastically employed by creationists. Besides, I want my arguments judged on the merits and not on the strength of my dissing skills. I grant PZ's and Dawkins arguments about the effectiveness of ridicule and so forth, I love reading Dr Adequate's posts, for example, but we're better than that, or at least I'd like to think we are.--Percy

And that is exactly what we have in the form of peer reviewed scientific papers. They are ignored, both by creationists AND the general public. What is even worse is that the popular press tends to mangle the science found in the primary literature, even though they may have the best of intentions.People are not Vulcans. We are not convinced by logic and reasoning alone. There does need to be an emotional connection. While ridicule is one of the baser emotions, it does work. Like PZ said, perhaps "tactical dickishness" is the way to go. Science with a few barbs attached.

I don't agree with your analysis.I used to follow the debates on talk.origins (the usenet group). And sure, PZ was not very effective at persuading creationists. There were others with more patience, though I'm not sure that they persuaded many creationists either.The thing to remember, is that there is a wide range of people and behaviors. For sure, I would not like to see a world where all evolutionists were like PZ. But I doubt that either PZ or Dawkins is asking for that sort of world.In the world of evolutionists, PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are outliers as far as their debating behavior is concerned. The creationist world has Ray Martinez and Ken Ham among its outliers.What is really being argued in the blogs, is the view evolutionists should all be perfectly reasonable in their debating, and that there should not be outliers such as PZ and Dawkins.As I see it, there's bound to be a range of behaviors. I would never try to use the PZ methodology - that would be contrary to my personality. But I think it doesn't actually hurt to have a few outliers, and it does liven things up a little.For the main part, I don't think PZ and Dawkins are addressing creationists. They are perhaps addressing closeted atheists and evolutionists, and are urging them to come out of the closet.For myself, I welcome the diversity.

I largely agree with you: we catch more flies with honey than vinegar.Most people are "better than that," creationists and evolutionists alike. I encounter creationists unexpectedly at times--dinner party, family reunion, etc.--and invariably we have a genial debate. To some degree, as has been pointed out by others, this is due to social inhibitions that operate face-to-face.But it is also due to the fact that the creationists I encounter in person are generally not warriors for creationism; they have not publicly staked their intellectual reputation on creationism; they often have never heard a cogent explanation of the ToE; they do not begin the conversation with accusations of satanic dishonesty.They didn't show up to fight.My experience with EvC is that creationists who arrive here in full battle dress get what they deserve, including a large helping of ridicule--but usually only after at least a few attempts to engage them in rational discussion. In general, evolutionists who appear on creationist sites are not afforded the same courtesy.I have also observed that a creationist who suffers a calm, civil dissection of his/her posts will still protest their treatment as disrespectul and hostile. It is, in fact, difficult to destroy someone's deepest convictions and NOT give grave offense, even with the best intentions and the sweetest tone.Ridicule is like a social neurotransmitter that among other things communicates social fitness; it hurts. But like Skids says to Mudflap, "It's supposed to hurt...it's an ass kickin'!" My wife can ridicule one of my hare-brained schemes with a raised eyebrow: that hurts, too, but it works.The great power of ridicule--disapproval with humor at the target's expense--should be used wisely. It has yanked a number (too small) of dangerous figures off the public stage.I probably use it too much. But I think part of Dawkin's and PZ's point is that we were losing the battle for the public mind, at least in part because our opponents were using ridicule to great effect.We were responding with a reasoned discourse that no one much understood or cared about. Ridicule makes the onlooker ask, well, is that guy's position ridiculous? It is difficult to provoke that question solely with arguments about evidence and method.There. I've been on enough sides of the issue for now.

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello

This discussion has put me in mind of a rather dubious paper from Arxiv earlier this year, here. In it the author, Serge Galam, suggests that if one wants to win over public opinion on an issue the best strategy is to overstate ones case, beyond where the evidence will take it.I don't actually agree with his opinion that evolutionary biologists overstate the evidence for evolution but that is beside the point.Perhaps dickishness is a similar strategy, it won't win over the 'inflexibles' on the opposing side, but if you stick to moderate reasoned debate you will lose out to the dicks on the other side when it comes to convincing the floating opinions.TTFN,WK

I certainly accept that we don't want a debate that is solely based on ridicule. But one of the key factors here, as indicated by your enjoyment of Dr Adequate's posts, is that ridicule can make the debate interesting. I think most people, certainly the general public, would soon lose interest if emotions were taken out of the argument and all we had were arguments based on dry scientific papers. I've learnt a lot of facts about evolution and physics that I would never have discovered had I not been drawn towards numerous scientific articles via these entertaining blogs.As per my previous post, I also think that if you consider your opponents position to be ridiculous, you are ethically and factually obliged to show it to be ridiculous. Putting on a pretence that your opponent is making a reasonable argument when you really consider it to be utterly ridiculous is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

I think this topic is one of the best out there for revealing the true motivation behind the evolutionists rants.You see, evolutionists constantly claim they are simply seeking the truth, using science, and judging the evidence as they see it. They argue that they don't have a worldview, they simply have a conviction to curiosity, and truth. And yet what is this discussion here actually saying?Well, it saying that what evolutionists actually want to do is convince others that their world view is right. They have decided that they need to come up with the best strategies to get others to believe that their view of the world is right, and " we need to catch as many of the stragglers who may be watching" as we can."But why, why would they be trying so hard to "convince" the fence-sitters. The obvious answer to this is that it is not simply about them seeking the truth, theirs is a religion-and guys like Dawkins and Myers are their preachers, and they are the Mormon-like missionaries, sent out to enlist more converts.That's fine, I get it that this is your religion. Just please don't think you are fooling anyone who is paying attention at all, that yours is simply a truth mission. That is pure bullshit and chicanery. Why would people on a truth mission feel it is so necessary to convince others. if others had a different take on what they believe, so what? You just want to altruistically benefit them?No, yours is a religion, the religion of atheism, plain and simple. Thus the need to convince others, the need to develop a strategy to convince the unconvinced, the need to choose your best weapons, the need to be an "evolutionist" site instead of an information site. This thread points out the truth, like a spotlight, for anyone listening.

No it isn't. What you are doing here however, is. Yes. And I want future generations to have an even better life than I have had. We will be glorious man, shining example for the galaxy. Not bigotted fuckwits who have miserable lives. That is the vision of the future I hope we one day will achieve, not the misery and suffering that creationists want us to be in. Which is why so many theists accept it, right? Seemed it has deafened you, then. The reason why I want people to have a rational mind, is because that is the way forward for humanity, it will give us so much better lives in future generations. Rather than the ignorance that creationists are peddling, which will only lead to deteriorating conditions for everyone, until we're all unhappily living in the dark ages again. That is why I want to convince other people, and no other reason.

Yes, I understand, you want the world to have YOUR worldview.That is just what I said. It is not a scientific endeavor into truth.

Yes, for I want humanity to prosper, and the only way to do that is by following things that are actually true. Who said debate ever was?

Wouldn't that be a good thing in your book?What's your point? So any religion claiming to be "a truth mission" in your opinion is "pure bullshit and chicanery".I wouldn't argue with that.

Maybe it's because science is a tool for finding objective and well-supported truth.
Everybody's got a worldview, and evolutionists are no exception. The difference is that when we say "I don't have one" we mean it in reference to science, because if our petty little biases were allowed to interfere then we would get nowhere pretty damn quickly. But if we're not talking strictly about facts and evidence - as is the case here - then we have just as much right as you to put our "personal belief" cap on. Bit of a long shot to call us out on something you do yourself, isn't it?
Yes, people have come up with strategising. It's fairly important to scientists that they have support from somebody, because electricity bills for NMR machines and particle accelerators aren't exactly household-sized. And it's harder to get support for science if a majority of people subscribe to ideas about "can't meddle there, that's God's business", effectively stuffing wool in their ears. So yes, finding aid for what they do is not only acceptable in a scientist, it almost has to be encouraged. No, the obvious answer is that people on one side of the fence accept what science has to offer, and people on the other side choose to deny it. Not much point preaching to the choir, and I hardly think a fullblown creotard is going to up and shift house because of a few rational arguments.It is the fencesitters that need to be convinced, because they are the ones that aren't convinced yet. Simple enough concept, I would have thought. But it isn't a religion, except for legal purposes in which it is merely defined as the nonexercise of rights pertaining to religion; in that case it's a category for people withot a category. You might have an office, which might have a desk, which might have a drawer labelled "miscellaneous". Same thing applies.By the way, I had assumed the entire point of a "truth mission" was to spread truth. How is it reasonable to criticise something for doing exactly what it sets out to do? Unless, of course, you're afraid of or dislike what that truth could do to society. Is the cognitive dissonance getting a bit much under the burden of all that truth we've been supplying? You do know there's a way to get out of it.And finally, why do you suspect somebody of ulterior motive?
If altruism is not an acceptable reason for doing something, then your Jeebus feller must be the most suspicious bloke of the whole lot. Can't be much of a problem then, if you're choosing to follow him around. The "need" to convince others is based on preventing fundamentalism like yours getting to them first. Because things like that only lead to more fundamentalism, and that only leads to bias and bigotry as all of the various fundy groups fight each for the title of The One True Truth™.Also, if you're proclaiming this to be an "evolutionist site instead of an information site", why is it that the simple aim of the fora is understanding through discussion? If it was devoted solely towards promoting 'evolutionism' then why do creotards and fundies get to say anything at all? If it wasn't about information, why are there scores of links available and hundreds of threads dealing with the sharing of such?The only truth this thread points out, like many before it, is that when faced with something True Believers can't abide (like somebody who disagrees with their precious beliefs) they almost immediately resort to insults and unfounded claims. The thread topic was discussion of the relevance, appropriateness and efficacy of using ridicule as a tactic in convincing people. Care to get back on it, instead of having a wild tanty about the perceived evils of atheism?

Actually, evolutionists are trying to figure out how species change over time and how we ended up with the biodiversity we see today by using the scientific method. That's it. We leave the "truth" to philosophers and preachers.In a more general sense, there are those of us who think science is important to the progress of our culture. We also think that there are no sacred cows. All natural phenomena are open to investigation. This includes species diversification, the origin of life, and how universes are produced. We also believe that human curiosity is a very important human attribute, and the scientific method is one of the best tools we can use to complement this curiosity. We believe that gaining knowledge just for the purpose of knowing is a noble enterprise. Knowing that there are massive black holes at the center of galaxies may not improve a pesticide, but does that make it any less important?What we have a problem with is that some theists believe that certain topics are off limits based solely on their religious beliefs. We balk at this, and I think rightly so. We are against the idea that knowledge is a bad thing because it may conflict with belief. We think that a belief that can not stand up scrutiny is not one worth having. Because the fence-sitters vote, and those votes can influence science education. For those of us who see science as a positive influence on the progress of our society this it is important to preserve science education. If you disagree, then please tell us how we would be better off with a generation of children who receive a sub-standard science education. Do you really think the Dover school board would have introduced ID into the school curiculum if it weren't for the support amongst the people who voted for them? Ahh yes, falling on your sword I see. You disparage others with the thing that is most important to your worldview. Creationists are so fond of the Polish Firing Squad. Yes, it is very similar to the sport of not playing golf, or the hobby of not collecting stamps.

No, people who don't play golf don't sit around and come up with the best schemes they can think of to convince others not to play golf. People who don't collect stamps don't try to subvert the world of philately, they don't attempt to censor Wikipedia entrances about stamp collecting, and hide stamp collecting books in Barnes & Noble so people can't find them. They don't go around creating blogs designed to harass stamp collectors, and they don't petition to have stamp collectors fired from their job, and they don't write thousands of books attempting to denounce stamp collectors. No there is in fact no comparison at all to the tactics used by atheists to control, stifle and censor the discussions of evolution, to the lack of tactics and scheming used by people who don't collect stamps.

Hi BD, That's because people who don't play golf aren't usually of the opinion that golf is harmful to society. That's partly because people who don't collect stamps don't think that stamp-collecting harms society and partly because the last two are just paranoid delusions of yours.I would love to see some evidence that atheists really are engaged in a conspiracy to hide the Christian books in stores, as you keep claiming. Well... I say that. Obviously, you don't have any evidence, on account of it being your own private paranoid delusion. If you were to track down some examples though, I stand ready to denounce such behaviour as excessively dickish.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod