Skip to main content

Inviting Refugees from infighting at Science Blogs

July 26, 2009 by Fred Bortz

Fred Bortz's picture

I promise not to keep posting about PZ Myers, who went from a little bit snooty when bashing Science Blog to downright nasty in bashing his fellow Science Blogs-ers Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum.

But if you are a Science Blogs reader who has gotten tired of the infighting over there, I have a much more civil alternative to suggest.

We bloggers here at Science Blog are a varied lot, largely because anyone can open a blog here. Now of course, that means some of us are known for grinding axes or having crackpot ideas.

But quite a few of us offer enlightenment. I'll let you decide whether my Reflections on a "crackpot" post was enlightening, but it captures the difference between the two different sites.

For a long time, I was a regular reader/commenter of Chris Mooney's blog, "The Intersection," which I discovered after reviewing his best-selling The Republican War on Science. The discussions of the politics surrounding climate change and stem cell research, to name two hot topics, were occasionally "loud" and could get personal, but were, on the whole interesting.

When Chris added co-blogger Sheril Kirshenbaum, I wasn't sure what to expect. She had a lively voice and interesting background in science, policy, and deejaying. I enjoyed her style, but the blog moved toward a heavier emphasis on science communication. That was fine, but I lost interest as more and more of the posts emphasized style ("framing" for example) over substance.

The blog was no longer of much interest to me, though I still liked and respected the co-bloggers. Gradually I paid more attention to Science Blog, without the "s." The news releases that Ben Sullivan, the blog owner, chooses to post are varied and interesting. He allows those of us who choose to blog to speak our minds or grind our axes as long as we don't go beyond what is legal.

True, there's the occasional goofy idea to shoot down or the posts aimed at self-promotion. (I admit to a few of those amidst my informational ones). But it's a very nice, varied, open neighborhood, and we can choose the characters we want to hang out with.

Once in a while things get hot, as in the vanished "crackpot" post discussed above. But in trying to discover more about that poster, I found that PZ Myers had been following that thread and chose to discuss it with some gratuitous dismissals of us "s"-less Science Bloggers.

i decided to see what PZ was posting about today, and I found him on another tirade, this time against Mooney and Kirshenbaum. If you read my comment there, you'll find that I shared his misgivings about Mooney and Kirshenbaum's new book, Unscientific America. Because it addressed what I saw as an important topic, I had successfully pitched a review of that title in a major newspaper.

But when I read the book and found it disappointing and even misguided in its expectations for scientists, I pulled back my offer to review it. Unfortunately, Mooney and Kirshenbaum had the temerity to criticize militant atheists in general, and PZ in particular, in one of their chapters. His review began by stating some of the same dislikes I had, but then he went off on a personal tirade that continued with today's post. His readers joined in with an escalating personal attack on M&K, forgetting that the authors were addressing an important issue and offering their own suggestions of how to address it.

There is so much to discuss, and yet it became a personal piling-on fest rather than an exploration of an important theme.

So the bottom line for Science Blogs readers is that it may be worth your while to spend a little more time at Science Blog, without the hissing that the "s" on Blogs seems to have been brought to Pharyngula.

I figure that "turn-about is fair play." If PZ Myers wants to demean Science Blog, it's time to say what's wrong with his style and invite his readers to a less contentious and equally informative venue.

Fred Bortz
Science Books for Young Readers
and
Science Book Reviews

Comments

Addendum to the PZ Myers vs. Mooney & Kirshenbaum affair

July 27, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 17 weeks 3 days ago
Comment: 38374

Mooney and Kirshenbaum have just moved The Intersection to Discover magazine's blog and began with this post, which attributes the controversy to wounded atheists.

Though they talk about striking a sore nerve with those atheists, the book didn't strike a sore nerve with me. I simply found that it had little of value other than the topic. If they had piqued my anger or at least annoyed me rather than boring me, I could have reviewed it in the same vein as I did ten years ago with a book called The Gendered Atom.

Meanwhile, PZ has a more civil take today in a posting called Another Review of Unscientific America, where he admits that he almost feels duty bound to say negative things about the book but that the review consensus is "mixed, but generally negative."

That's where my own review was heading had I decided to write it. I probably would have ended it with a sentiment similar to PZ's closing: "I know Mooney has the ability to put together a solid story, as he showed in The Republican War on Science and Storm World -- it's too bad he chose to go the shallow and substanceless route in this book. I hope he does better in his next."

Fred Bortz

Tirades on fluff, etc.

July 27, 2009 by Anonymous, 17 weeks 3 days ago
Comment: 38377

PZ's three paragraphs about Mooneybaum's fluff-fest are "a tirade"? Really? Seriously, why is it that a substantial number of people apparently need to go running for the smelling salts as soon as somebody else disagrees with their ideas? Why is it that they take that kind of thing personally?

Perhaps "tirade" was not the right word

July 27, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 17 weeks 3 days ago
Comment: 38379

On the topic of this book, PZ is either (1) a provocateur or (2) an inciter of rioting from his followers. The evidence suggests that (2) is becoming increasing more the case.

I like provocateurs, but PZ's snide, sometimes personal tone in this and previous postings have incited a lot of personal attacks on Mooney and Kirshenbaum. That's what I'm calling PZ on.

Perhaps you didn't notice that I disagree with their ideas in Unscientific America as well, but Mooney and Kirshenbaum still linked to this post because I kept my focus on the book. They seem quite capable of accepting disagreement when the discussion moves in a constructive direction.

I'm hoping others will comment further, but I probably should just step back and allow the discussion to proceed. That's why I posted this piece.

Fred Bortz

M&K and disagreement

July 27, 2009 by Anonymous, 17 weeks 3 days ago
Comment: 38382

I did, of course, notice that you disagreed with M&K. What I have so far not noticed, however, is that M&K even acknowledge disagreement if it doesn't come from people off whom they can generate publicity for their book. (I link to relevant comments here.)

But as to PZ: Especially in the post you linked to ("add fluff"), where do you see snideness or even so much as a personal remark? (Calling Francis Collins a "flaming idjit" is, arguably, a personal remark, but even in that case I would argue that since PZ obviously bases that judgement on Collins's behaviour which he aptly characterises as "a genuinely appalling load of rubbish". Since, in the words of the distinguished philosopher F. Gump, "stupid is as stupid does", I would submit that not even this particular "flaming idjit" is to be taken as an ad hominem attack.)

Where I see snideness

July 27, 2009 by Fred Bortz, 17 weeks 3 days ago
Comment: 38383

I really want to drop out of this discussion and leave it to others, but since you asked a direct question, all three paragraphs of the "add fluff" posting are dripping with sarcasm.

Here's the middle one:

I will say one good thing about their op-ed, though. It contains the full content of their entire book. Read the essay, now you don't need to buy the book, since it covers it fully, including all the non-existent details for how to actually implement their solution.

I'll leave it to other readers to judge whether "snide" is the right adjective to characterize "Solution: blame scientists, add fluff."

FB

Not personal

August 16, 2009 by Anonymous, 14 weeks 3 days ago
Comment: 44134

Eh, it could be "snide." It also could just be "succinct."

Either way, though -- it's in no sense "personal." The focus remains strictly on the ideas.

My past experience of comment threads leads me to believe they all turn into pilings-on, so I don't blame PZ Myers for that.

Ted



About us

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.


Premium Drupal Themes by Adaptivethemes