Thank goodness that Jason’s blogging hiatus didn’t last too long. He’s back—in spades—with a nice warm whipping for the Templeton Foundation’s resident nuisance, Rod Dreher.
That Dreher complains about a lack of civility one minute and then engages in snotty incivility the next is indicative of a common phenomenon among those who complain about the tone of blogs. The problem rarely seems to be incivility per se. Usually that is just a cover for the real complaint, which is seeing incivility directed towards people the writer does not think deserve it.
Absolutely true! I’ve lost track of those people who constantly call for civility while hurling invective at atheists and fundamentalists. Civility, it seems, is best practiced selectively.
And that’s precisely the problem with all the hand-wringing about tone, the worries about driving people away for excessive nastiness, and the fretting about what is and is not convincing to people. The same features that some people find offputting are precisely the ones that others find attractive. Discourse that drives some people away from your cause draws other people to it.
I don’t know which of those forces (the driving away or the drawing towards) is more powerful in this case. But I have noticed that P. Z. Myers currently gets more than a hundred thousand hits a day. Am I seriously to worry that his primary effect on the site is to drive readers away?
As we should all know by now, when you see an argument about tone, you see somebody who’s avoiding the substantive issues.
Off the top of my head, I’d trade places with Claus von Stauffenberg and place that satchel just a little bit to the right.
Errr – this was meant as a reply to the Churchill post…
Vaporize it please!
Yeah, but it brought a laugh! Because it’s kind of appropriate in an “inappropriate, incivil way” civility thread. 🙂
This argument is incredibly oversimplistic. It makes no allowance for the fact that some ways of speaking work better than others, nor does it take into account that you can change your tone depending on your audience – you’re not limited to speaking the same way all the time.
So let me get this straight… if I am arguing with someone and they, unprovoked by me, say something along the lines of “No, assdouche, it works like this… Even a fuckwhit like you should be able to understand that”, then I am in the wrong for complaining about that?
If it has been demonstrated that you argue in a disingenuous, devious and dishonest manner, repeating falsehoods despite being corrected dozens of times, and just being an all-around idiot, I think the term “fuckwhit” applies.
However, I’ve never seen Prof. Coyne or even the irreverent PZed use any of those terms. Their contributions may have some sarcasm, yes, but it’s not like every one of their responses to the usual creationist screed is just a long list of four-letter-words. They’re able to make their rebuttals without such vulgarities, and we (at least I) could (and do) learn a great deal from how they respond to their critics.
Another thing I wanted to add is that Prof. Coyne, PZ, Dawkins and others are SCIENTISTS. They’re used to operating in an environment in which passionate and vigorous debate occurs. It’s vital that this is the case. Scientists cannot afford to show mercy towards deception of any kind, even if the survival of someones “deeply-held beliefs” are at stake.
But most people are not scientists and are unaccustomed to their religious beliefs being challenged. I think it is a mistake to lay the blame for hurt feelings and offense at the feet of the scientist. Those that feel offended or uncomfortable should understand there’s something greater at stake than their feelings, and it’s something that scientists are working toward everyday: a more accurate understanding of reality.
If the religious regard mild mockery as vicious as a slap across the face, then they should remove themselves from the discussion or grow some thicker skin.
You also may have noticed that the thin-skinnedness of the religious is only apparent when they are on the receiving end of ridicule!
Maybe they should spend some time on a building site to appreciate it is a game of give and take.
Actually, Myers used “demented fuckwit” to describe someone who is actively trying to bring about the End Times (by breeding a red heifer, re-establishing the temple in Jerusalem and so forth).
Well he IS a ‘demented fuckwit’, obviously!!
And Myers wasn’t trying to change his mind. All the accommodationism in the world won’t change the mind of a demented fuckwit.
When life gives you the ridiculous, make ridicule. (What else can you do?)
And we fondly remember the deserved “clueless gobshite” remark which will burn infamously into infinity.
In case you don’t remember: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/michael_ruse_probably_wont_be.php
ah… memories!
I mostly agree with you. But that’s not the scenario my queston was about. I asked, what if someone evidenced that level of hostility despite being unprovoked by the other person (including “dishonesty” as a type of provocation).
You’re asking us to be saints.
Humans are humans. Some have more patience than others.
And I hardly think that I would call someone a fuckwit or any other name without at least some provocation, so you’re begging the question.
Seriously, do you think people just fly off the handle for no reason whatsoever? Perhaps you should rethink your complaint.
“You’re asking us to be saints.”
I’m asking a question, actually.
“And I hardly think that I would call someone a fuckwit or any other name without at least some provocation, so you’re begging the question. ”
Show me where I have inserted my conclusion into my premises.
“Seriously, do you think people just fly off the handle for no reason whatsoever?”
So you agree that it would be legitimate to complain about the tone of someone who flew off the handle for no reason?
…well, yes, it would be…but you have yet to demonstrate that this is, in fact, what this discussion is about.
You create a “no provocation” scenario, yet clearly one does not fly off the handle without at some sort of provocation unless one is a total dick.
Now, I have known some total dicks. I have long, extended conversations with total dicks. And each and every time a total dick has behaved like a total dick, I could *still* point to a provocative moment where that person’s inner dick was compelled to make itself known.
So. I suggest again that you might want to re-think your complaint.
Because what you’re describing seems to me to be nothing more than someone looking for justification to think yourself “better” than the other guy. Who is, as far as I can determine, some Platonic ideal of a total dick who would fly off the handle at someone for no reason whatsoever other than wanting to appear to be a total dick.
Those kinds of people tend to end up in jail — or get high-paying gigs with Fox News.
And we all know who has found a routine way to feel superior to others.
Martin: “So you agree that it would be legitimate to complain about the tone of someone who flew off the handle for no reason?”
_____
If such verbal insulting and/or loss of control was a pattern, and that person was in a superior position over you, as a boss, or a priest, or a teacher, yes, it would be a problematic situation that would need some kind of resolution such as putting your foot down and stating that such verbal responses are unacceptable to you and take it from there (you may need to take it to a court or their boss).
Sometimes these kind of bullies can be handled by telling them to fuck off and giving their own medicine back to them. Honestly, that has worked best in my long life. It also takes experience to recognize this kind of bully.
But as has been pointed out to you, despite your saying that the OP is misleading, it is very clear that this focus on tone versus substance is related to the way religious believers and their apologists consider any challenge to their beliefs to be insulting, regardless of the tone.
@Michelle B: I appreciate you answering the question!
“Sometimes these kind of bullies can be handled by telling them to fuck off and giving their own medicine back to them.”
Sometimes, definitely. And sometimes people end up just lacing their sentences with epithets, unendingly, for no other reason than it makes them feel better to do so. These are the occurances that I find more concerning.
“this focus on tone versus substance is related to the way religious believers and their apologists consider any challenge to their beliefs to be insulting, regardless of the tone.”
That’s certainly a problem. There are a couple ways of combatting this that don’t involve making the unwarranted conclusion that all tone arguments are invalid. One way is to use similar phrasing and tone to make a statement about a mutually unprovocative topic. This will demonstrate that it is possible to use those words and that delivery in a completely benign way, showing that it’s not about how you said it, but what you said that got the other person upset.
Option 2 is to just ask the other person, “Ok, here is the information I want to convey. Give me an example of a tone for saying this that you would find suitable.” Oftentimes, they can’t do it.
My experience is that honest creationists seeking honest answers are treated well. After that, they’re treated to the merits of their conduct.
Obviously, in rare instances, they run into people who have serious personality issues to the point of emotional-sickness/mental-illness. But the rare crazy person is probably not what you’re looking for in your dog-and-pony hypothetical.
If you come in and lie for Jesus, or run a disingenuous question-and-response series in a thread like you’re doing here with your deliberate hypothetical daisy-chain, then even if you observe the “forms” of politeness, you’re, in effect, being a rude ass as you try to justify the pedestal you’re obviously putting yourself on.
(And, btw, your gambit is an old one. Creationist or not.)
I don’t think Dreher and the others of his ilk are worried that people might be driven away from science by uncivil tone; I think they are afraid that people will be driven away from religion by such tone.
And given the statistics, he’s right to be worried.
Science works no matter what the “tone” of assorted scientists. The facts remain the facts no matter how they are communicated.
But all the bluster, belief, and whining in the world can’t make a nonexistent god exist. Neither can sugar-coated semantic fluff.
Since religion has no facts in it’s favor, it relies on manipulating the emotions of others with cries about “tone” of those who think it’s all superstitious nonsense.
So, does anyone find the “tone” of Dreher and others of his ilk particularly inviting or useful in furthering understanding of science (or anything)?
I don’t. I prefer those with the “tone” that drive the faitheists bonkers.
Tim can you give us an example of this supposed situation amongst the scientists in questions(using quotes) so that your utterances below don’t sound like a Tom Johnson type innuendo.
You realize this is a straw man because it doesn’t pertain to anything anyone actually said. You can clearly complain about whatever you want… you’re complaining now it a passive-aggressive sort of way. What does that have to do with the topic? The article was about Dreher’s hypocrisy… maybe you missed that.
He’s complaining about others’ tone when his tone is hardly worthy of emulation.
I would hope that if you wanted to know a fact and someone gave you that fact that you wouldn’t ignore that fact because it was delivered in a manner that hurt your feelings.
Ugh my brain hurts from all my typos.
Let me try that second to last paragraph again:
Tim,(I forgot the comma after “Tim” before).
You realize this is a straw man, don’t you? It doesn’t pertain to anything anyone actually said. Obviously, you can complain about whatever you want (and whether you are wrong or not would be a matter of opinion); I think you’re complaining right now in a passive-aggressive sort of way. What does your post have to do with the topic? The article was about Dreher’s hypocrisy… maybe you missed that. Not about people calling him mean names for no reason. Dreher is complaining about the tone of others when his tone is hardly worthy of emulation.
“You realize this is a straw man because it doesn’t pertain to anything anyone actually said.”
Dr. Coyne writes, “…when you see an argument about tone, you see somebody who’s avoiding the substantive issues.”
This statement can only be true if it is never warranted to issue a complaint about tone. Coyne seems to be saying that it is not about where you draw the line, but that there is no line whatsoever, and you’re justified in talking to someone however you want. After all, “The same features that some people find offputting are precisely the ones that others find attractive,” therefore it’s all just a wash and no complaints about tone are ever valid.
Furthermore, even if this somehow wasn’t Coyne’s meaning, I know from seeing it that there do seem to be people who espouse this idea. So, I posed a question, to see if some people might agree that there is a line.
The context of this discussion concerns the wisdom of accomodationism.
If you can show any examples of accommodations complaining about tone but also providing evidence to support their complaint we would like to hear of them. I wish you luck with that as Jerry, PZ, Ophelia, Russell, Jason and others have repeatedly for such evidence. They have repeatedly not been offered any. There comes a time when it is reasonable to conclude lack of evidence indicates evidence of absence and this is such a time.
“The context of this discussion concerns the wisdom of accomodationism.”
There are conclusions in the OP that extend beyond accomodationism (at least given how they are worded). I take issue with part of that. If you don’t want to discuss the issue I’ve focused on, you don’t have to.
Yes, the post was about the argument, not specific examples you ask for. And typically accommodationists won’t give, for reasons Penfold notes.
If you wish, you can think of it as a statistical observation. I.e. there may be examples that doesn’t apply – but they have zero statistical mass. And again, see Penfold and others on this sub-thread.
In other words; yes, a meteor may kill you in the next hour, but to argue that it we should build meteor shelters isn’t realistic, nor is that something a discussion on health risks or death statistics should have to mention.
So when is an argument not exactly like a strawman (argumentum ad accommodationism) but very strenuous? When it is like a last straw.
Oops, I meant when it is like clutching to straws.
[Odd. I have never had so many metaphors that I have mixed them before. I may have read too much english…]
I have a feeling you wouldn’t get a single objection if you offered to stipulate the premise, “Complaints against ‘total dicks’ are always justifiable.’
Tim, Coyne’s statement wasn’t a true/false statement– it’s an opinion! And it is valid even if it’s generally true, but not true in every case.
Wherever the “line is drawn” clearly differs from person to person and situation to situation. There a some means that are better than others for accomplishing goals, though I hardly imagine that you are an expert on what those means are.
We can all think of assorted goals that might be thwarted with the wrong “tone” if that’s your only point. However nobody is trying to stop anybody from complaining about “tone”. We are just noticing that those who complain the most about tone are doing so because they are really peeved about the message.
Dreher is mad that the “new atheists” dismiss his god in the same manner that he dismisses all other gods and superstitions. He can’t say this because there IS no reason that his beliefs/opinions are more respectable than the ones he mocks, so instead he complains about tone. He’s attempting to silencing his critics (and probably the cognitive dissonance in his own head) so that he can keep pretending that his god is real and that he’s “better” for having faith in him.
We note his hypocrisy and giggle.
Neither Jason’s post nor Dr. Coyne’s post had anything much to do with whether there is a line we should not cross when it comes to tone. All such discussions on that topic would be opinion anyhow unless someone had data that showed what “tone” (however that is defined) worked best to achieve which goals.
I agree with most of what you say, and I’m fully aware of what Coyne’s and Rosenhouse’s posts were mainly about. But the fact is they both drew conclusions that went beyond the scope of that main topic, and invoked dubious logic to support it. (Another example from Rosenhouse: “She visited the site, found it rude and left… How many other people like the passion and the politics and would simply find it boring if everyone wrote in staid, academic terms?” Notice the false dichotomy he uses to support his position – either you’re rude or you’re staid and academic, with no middle ground.)
This kind of overreaching is pernicious because there are people, like Kevin, who think that all tone complaints are invalid (and there are many more over at Pharyngula), so it’s important to say something when sweeping statements such as this are made: “…when you see an argument about tone, you see somebody who’s avoiding the substantive issues.”
When living in christianvile “hell” is a better alternative.
Suck it, jesus christ 🙂
A distillation of the realist atheist contention:
“Sane accomodationists are deliberate frauds & conscious liars.”
– Fact.
You may deal with this solid-gold-fact in whichever way you see fit.
Distillation? That wasn’t even pithy.
Uh…that’s not my conention. I don’t know if I count as a “realist atheist” or not.
I like keeping it real.
I am an atheist.
I don’t know if that makes me a realist atheist or not though.
I wonder how long it will take for Templeton to realize just how stunningly they’ve been conned by Dreher and his “Big Questions Online” and what a bogus house of cards they’ve purchased in Dreher’s BQO.
Not exactly a salon, is it? More like what Dreher knows only and best, the vision that indelibly imprinted him as a little duckling, the New York Post. Or maybe a Japanese game show. Or, on the evidence of the posts themselves, something like the relaxing personal haven an adult diaper provides.
And so, in between token Automat servings of what are supposed to be the Templeton staples of science, religion, markets, and morals but which in reality can be about anything at all at any time (how about the science of Snooki’s alcohol metabolism?) we get liberal servings of such weird stuff as Snooki from the Jersey Shore, “Advice for restless young men” (from Dreher? really?), and how Dreher eats and drinks so much better than you do (what IS the science of his superior taste in wines?), all knit together with a catty, backbiting undertone worthy of Joan Rivers. Where is Ed Wood when we need a film treatment of this romp?
Do you know a writer you really, really hate? Someone in whose hair you’d cheerfully sprinkle a few fleas infected with yersinia pestis? Here’s the career-terminating pit of quicksand you’ve been waiting so long to drop them into, BQO.
If Dreher didn’t have a long history that unmistakeably proved otherwise, you’d almost think BQO and it’s public face was a false flag ploy by a P. Z. Myers or other concerned scientist of his milieu to crush creationist accomodationism in the most humiliating way possible.
But it’s not. It’s just what happens when, like Templeton, Sr., you die rich and leave your ocean of money to a trustbaby son who couldn’t tell the difference between a journalist and a jack-in-the-box. Or, in BQO terms, between science and Snooki.
Civility is grossly overrated, and often confused with lack of spine.
I don’t find the people complaining about other peoples’ civility to be particularly civil themselves.
I couldn’t agree more (with both of you). Civility, these days, is often receieved as an indicator of human weakness.
Ironic.
I am reminded of fans of Rush Limbaugh rushing to his defense when Franken’s book “Rush Limbaugh is a Bit, Fat, Idiot” came out. They declared that Franken was calling names because he could not argue against Limbaugh’s positions (apparently, they did not read past the title).
They apparently forgot that Limbaugh routinely made fun of things like how Jesse Jackson talks, how members of Clinton’s cabinet looked, and of course, referred to 12 year old Chelsa Clinton as the ‘White House dog’.
But it was NOT NOT NOT because HE had no arguments against their positions. He was just ‘being funny’.
Pardon my typos….
Virginia Hefernan, on last sundays’ NYT magazine: “Under cover of intellectual rigor, the science bloggers — or many of the most visible ones, anyway — prosecute agendas so charged with bigotry that it doesn’t take a pun-happy French critic or a rapier-witted Cambridge atheist to call this whole ScienceBlogs enterprise what it is, or has become: class-war claptrap”.. a propos recent events on ScienceBlogs.
Heffernan
Yes, we are bigoted against corporations that deceptively disguise advertising as blogging. We are bigoted against people who lie. We are bigoted against people who try to keep other people ignorant. Guess I’m just a big old bigot.
No need to take it personally. Dont have to be so hard on yourself even if you are old:-)or fat (big?).
I’ve said, since the 1980’s, that the whole ‘civility’ (which includes ‘political correctness’ censoring, too) issue is about controlling the other side’s ability to deliver their message, their freedom of speech and hamstringing their will to fight for what is right. And those that preach it, never practice it while constantly using the concept to bash others.
You see it a lot when you call the so-called “white pride movement” people racists. They don’t like it, but that’s what they’re doing in their movement.
“white pride movement”
I haven’t heard of it, but it sounds like an “intelligent design” approach to criticizing evolution – “it’s not wrong on deep time, it is just unnecessary because “we have design””.
So did any of those inspire the other?
I think that is right-on. I hadn’t noticed that before in contexts other than the controversy over ‘religion’.
Perhaps I’m only going off of one book and some essays, but Dan Dennet seems the poster child of civility, and yet he is still grouped as a “New Atheist” just as much as Dawkins and Myers, and frankly, only Myers breaks out four letters in his blog.
Really, its the ideas that the religious find offensive, not the language. They use the lack of civility as a cover for what they are really bothered by, a lack of unearned respect for ideas they hold sacred. So yeah, by all means, try to be nice, but I don’t think there is every a nice way to tell people you think their belief structures are rubbish.
not to mention nobody has any right to tell anyone unless it jeopardizes ones’ existence..i assume…. as in paredon destiny for example.
Yes, I’ve discovered that when people find out that you don’t believe in their god (and you don’t respect faith in general), they start noticing that you have a very “uncivil tone”.
The perpetually indignant have gotten more mileage out of Dawkins’ “child abuse” comment than The Village People have extracted from YMCA. I doubt most of them could recall a second ‘strident’ comment if their lunch money depended on it.
And I bet they cannot quote what Dawkins’ actually said nor the context of the child abuse comment. What they’ve heard that he said is very different than the actual context: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118
It quite telling of their arguments when so few of critics of science bloggers can reach above the “Responing to tone” tier.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/upload/2009/08/weekend_diversion_how_to_argue/disagreement-hierarchy.jpg
I general, I agree, especially in this context. Complaints about tone are usually substanceless.
However, I do have to say that there are boundaries. I say this mostly because of my experience. When I was getting my PhD, there was a certain member of the department who was infamous for criticizing the ideas of others in a belligerent and impatient manner. And sometimes he even had good points to make. But to almost everyone, including me when I agreed with him, his tone really did detract from his message.
Of course, this might be a more important issue in scientific discourse when it can be expected that most people people at least pay lip service to valuing evidence over faith.
Complaints about tone are ALWAYS substanceless.
It’s a clear admission on the part of complainant that they have neither effective arguments nor evidence to support their primary contentions.
So, they complain about the manner in which we suggest that they are so full of shit, their eyes are brown.
“Complaints about tone are ALWAYS substanceless.”
This is in contrast to complaints about complaints about tone, which are full of substance?
And herein is the part where I tell you to fuck off…
See how that works? You provoke me and I tell you to fuck off.
I didn’t tell you to fuck off earlier, now did I?
Now I am. Because of the provocation.
If you have anything OTHER than complaints about complaints about complaints about complaints about tone to complain about, I think now’s the time to bring it up.
Otherwise, see paragraph 1 above.
However, I will defend this post because it strikes at the very heart of the accommodationist playbook. Accommodationists want us to shut up; and the way they attempt to get us to shut up is to tell us we’re “not being helpful”. And the REASON they want us to shut up is because deep in their heart-of-hearts, they know they have no *real* arguments left. And no evidence, either.
So they complain about the manner in which we suggest that there is no pony under all that manure, and that by continuing to dig, you’re just covering yourself with more shit.
So no, I won’t shut up. I will continue to call a lie a lie, and accommodationist horseshit will continue to be accommodationist horseshit.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, now’s the time to bring it.
“Now I am. Because of the provocation.”
Provocation? You mean you were “provoked” by your own logic being applied to you.
“So no, I won’t shut up.”
What is this persecution complex? No one’s told you to shut up.
“I will defend this post because it strikes at the very heart of the accommodationist playbook.”
Kudos, sir. You certainly won’t get any complaint from me. After all, I haven’t told you to shut up (despite your allusion to the contrary), and – here’s the kicker – I agree with you. …You just think I don’t because you have yet to appreciate the difference between what I’m saying and what you’re arguing. So, here it is again; try to read it this time:
Sometimes people use tone as a distraction. This is no doubt a bad thing. Some complaints about tone are valid. Therefore, this statement of Coyne’s cannot be true: “…when you see an argument about tone, you see somebody who’s avoiding the substantive issues.” Sometimes people complain about tone because they have a legit concern, and I know you understand this, because you refuse to answer yes to my question about people who fly off the handle without provocation. You don’t want to admit that a complaint about tone in such a situation would be entirely justified, which is my entire POINT- that there are cases where it’s justified. There IS a line. I would rather spend time discussing where that line should be drawn, but I know that it would be unwise to do so when there are still people unwilling to admit that the line exists. So I have started from the beginning, and hopefully made my point that it is possible to be too disrespectful or too insulting in the course of an argument, given how you have been treated by your fellow interlocutors.
Also, everything J.J.E. said.
>Complaints about tone are ALWAYS substanceless.
No they’re not. They often are. In fact, I daresay that they are most of the time. But “ALWAYS” is a tall order.
Criticism about the way that one delivers their argument can and often is constructive criticism. This can range from use of jargon, structure of argument, proper calibration of brevity/depth, and yes, “tone”.
The first thing one should ask oneself when trying to disseminate their ideas is “how can I be more effective?”. I generally agree with most folks here that “tone complainers” are usually complaining either because harsh tones are MORE effective (for the apologists), because they are misled into believing that they are less effective (accommodationists), or because they don’t have counter-arguments of their own.
However, humans are a social species, and there are certain social conventions that must be followed for effective communication, like a common language, adjusting one’s tack based on social cues, and yes, again, adopting the appropriate tone for the goals of the speaker, the venue, and the audience.
What your unnecessarily sweeping statement fails to acknowledge is that your little argument cuts both ways. I would be well within my rights to criticize Chris Mooney for adopting TOO conciliatory of a tone. And in fact, I actually believe this. The reason why is because, like everyone here argues constantly, is that a harsh tone works!
So, if complaints about tone are ALWAYS vacuous, then you can’t make arguments about how a harsh tone is effective.
So, once we put appropriate use of rhetorical devices on the table in addition to raw unvarnished Platonic-ideal logic, then your ill-thought little “argument” falls to pieces.
“So, if complaints about tone are ALWAYS vacuous, then you can’t make arguments about how a harsh tone is effective.”
God dammit I didn’t even THINK of that!
::kicks self in the ass::
Excellent reply, JJE.
Complaints about tone are meant to fill the vacuum between the ears of accommodationists, excusing them from actually coming up with real, substantive arguments.
No. I’m pretty sure I’m right.
I can think of no instance where an accommodationist complaint about “tone” was not merely an attempt to hand-wave the discussion away from the clear fact that they have no facts, no arguments, no nothing that can possibly persuade us to take their position.
And so, like a defense attorney blaming the victim for “dressing like a slut”, excuses rape. “She should have laid back and enjoyed it…after all, look at the way she was dressed.”
If accommodationists bring something to the table other than the weak tea of “tone”, I’d respect them a lot more. As it is, it appears that’s all they have.
No evidence. No rational arguments. Not even any theological ones (which, FWIW, are irrational per se). No math. No science. No observations. No philosophy. No metaphysics. Just pearl-clutching.
Color me unintimidated.
Wow, you just refuse to read, don’t you? You still think we’re talking about accomodationists only?
“I can think of no instance where”
Ok, just show me how to get from “kevin can’t think of any X” to “there are no X” and “there never could be X.”
Sounds a lot like “I can’t imagine how life could have evolved from non-life, therefore…”
“Color me unintimidated.”
Again with the persecution complex! No one’s trying to intimidate you, Kevin. Or telling you to shut up. But we would like you to realize that you’re rebutting arguments no one here is making, and generally making not much sense.
Of COURSE accommodationists are generally wrong. Duh. We agree there.
But that’s not what we’re talking about, is it? We’re talking about the fact that tone CAN matter. And it MUST matter if we’re to argue that the strategy of PZ or Dawkins etc. are better than less confrontational approaches.
So, put those goalposts back where I originally planted them, and let’s get on with the discussion we’re having instead of the discussion you’d like to change to.
The real argument is not that the confrontational approach is the better one. Many New Atheists agree that different approaches work better under different circumstances.
But what gets up their noses is the insistence by accommodationists that confrontationists shut the hell up entirely, regardless of situation.
When you do find a confrontationist who insists that accommodationists shut up, you’ll most often find that, after he calms down, he’ll admit that both strategies have their place. But he lost his temper and assumed the extreme version of his position after the umpteenth smug accomodationist pushed him too far.
J.J.E, the comments by both you and Tim, are fully rude and disrespectfull, yet you feel qualified to lecture regarding tone. Perhaps there is an intersection you could stand in?
***
> J.J.E, the comments by both you and Tim, are fully rude and disrespectfull[sic]
Not unless you are offended by being pwned by having your own ill-considered and self-defeating logic pointed out in a public forum. If you are, tough shit. And besides, a harsh tone is often effective, like I’ve been arguing. Ergo, tone matters, moron.
> yet you feel qualified to lecture regarding tone
This is a non sequitur. What do “qualifications” have to do with what I think you are actually (very badly) trying to imply, i.e. hypocrisy.
So, applying the principle of charity, I will take the most reasonable possible interpretation of your pitiable little attempt at argument, and then demolish that. You think that arguing that “tone matters” while using a harsh tone is hypocritical? If so, then you must also think that simultaneously believing that “a harsh tone may be more effective” and using a harsh tone in argumentation is also hypocritical. Bam! Self-contradiction. You’re done, bye-bye.
*** This has been an exercise in using harsh tone. I’ll leave it as an exercise to the reader to muse on the effectiveness of that strategy in this particular context. I don’t really think you’re a moron.
Anyway, I’m getting sick of seeing people constantly arguing for their “side” from any rhetorical position that presents itself. Accommodations are wrong and New Atheists are right, in my opinion. But simply jumping on a bandwagon and saying “every argument about tone is meaningless” is just crap. Both PZ and Dawkins have made the meta-argument that ignorance, dogma, stupidity, and credulity can and often should be met with unvarnished criticism (at least) or even ridicule.
Would anyone like to contradict them in that context that “tone matters”? The fact that accommodationists will complain about tone is wrong. But it isn’t because tone can’t matter. It is because they have the direction all wrong. Tone DOES matter. What we should be arguing isn’t that tone is irrelevant. We should be arguing that the accommodationists are wrong in HOW tone matters.
To minimize the strawmen of the argument which goes on to clutch at straws, Rosenhause makes a very explicit suggestion:
Speaking of which, Joshua Rosenau seems as much a nuisance as Dreher:
Well, no accommodationist argument without a large strawman, argumentum ad accommodationism. There are facts and theories that empowers atheism and dis-empowers theology, as well as ways to test them. To claim that there isn’t, or that it is “creationist bullshit”, is, well, bullshit.
Rosenau should know better than this, as he writes for a science blog. That elevates it from typical accommodationism to nuisance.
Link to where Rosenau said that?
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/08/on_bullshit.php
GFE. Google Exists! 😉
I know, but if you’re pasting a passage, you might as well link it at the same time.
Yeah, sorry:
It was in context, it was one of the two Coyne gave above.
But I could have been clearer.
Duh, there I go again. It was one of the _two links to Rosenau_ that Coyne gave. Coyne gave three.
You guys and gals will make a pedant of me yet! 😀
Gnu Atheist sez:
“Gnu Accommodationist likes the straw of discussion.
But Gnu Atheist likes the grain of discussion.”
Just an observation:
When I look at the accommodationist position, it seems clear they are aligned with the creationist in silencing the atheist. Which, I guess, makes The Intersection the Vichy France of the struggle for equality and the footsoliders, no more than pawns in the hands of the creationist.