Yes, looking forward to the eye discussion. In the meantime, would you be willing to open a new topic on your experiences with Discovery Institute. I am sure it will be an interesting discussion.
2 Likes
For sure! My experience was quite negative and it, somehow, lowered my opinion of them even further. They want so badly to be taken seriously, but they canât manage to behave in a serious way. They are their own worst enemies with their nastiness and their amateurish approach to science.
1 Like
I think you handled yourself quite well. Overall do you think that DI does science at all?
Let him tell his story first. Then take shots.
1 Like
In my opinion, what they do is nowhere near what we think of as science. The DI is a conservative political group, first and foremost, and it really shows. When an organization is founded with a particular political agenda, no amount of rhetoric about âdissentâ and âkeeping an open mindâ can overcome that. They have an agenda and a posture, and that is completely antithetical to science. Ask them what would change their mind and watch them scramble. Ask me what would change my mind and there is one simple answer: evidence.
6 Likes
Can you recap for those here, what they challenged you on and how the discussion went?
1 Like
I agree @NLENTS, please give us the story before getting into the assessment. Iâm curious to hear it.
Eek! Bad timing! I would be happy to, but right at the moment I am waiting to board my flight to Austria. Iâm speaking at the Ars Electronica Festival on Friday morning. I will try to pick this up again tomorrow afternoon but if I forget, go ahead and ping me and Iâll pick it up again. The articles about me were bad enough, but the Twitter exchange with them was truly remarkable. As I said before, they want desperately to be taken seriously but they canât muster even a modicum of adult conversation about science. Itâs like a weird mix of arrogance and insecurity expressed as rhetorical foot-stomping
1 Like
In fairness, just about all public conversation is like this, and most of us scientists are just not accustomed to it. The good news for you is that it drew a lot of attention to your book. That is a good thing, right?
1 Like
Did it? I am not aware of any publicity or book sales that came from it.
It is part of what brought you here 
. Also, how could you know if and how it impacted sales?
I got your book well before from Amazon Prime.
1 Like
Oh, youâre the one! 
1 Like
Of course you canât, but publisher seems to think it usually doesnât. The DI picks on Ken Miller a lot and he said the same. That community does not read the books and articles they criticize. They admitted not reading mine which didnât stop them from all those articles about me. And they tried to use an article against a claim I made about the sinuses when the title of the article made it clear that it wasnât about what they tried to say it was. This is what I mean about them not being serious.
3 Likes
They first âpingedâ me back in 2012, in response to a very benign WSJ article. It was my first experience with this sort of thing. It shook me.
I grabbed a beer with David Klinghoffer latter (2015?) and was surprised to hear his perspective. He comes from the political reporting world, where things are rough and tumble. There wasnât animosity on his end. Rather, he saw it as a sign of respect that they thought I had to be answered. He rightfully advised me to take it less personally, and to recognize that it only raised my profile. In his view, this was all just public theatre.
That is not an excuse for personal attacks, mind you, nor is it how normal communication works. He is, however, right. This is just public theatre. When we enter the public sphere, we need to get used to it, even if we are going to rise above it. Iâm honestly thankful for that conversation, and think he was essentially right in this advice (though not on the science). It is not what we are used to, and we can dislike it, but it is how public engagement works now days in quite a bit of things, not just origins.
That is bad form. Show us those quotes.
I do not usually agree with how science is engaged on ENV. To be clear, though, they are doing a public performance for their base. Their base is watching. It is an opportunity to surprise them with something that appeals to them. You have to understand their base to succeed at this though.
In the end, it is important to remember that being right is not enough. We also have to be trusted.
2 Likes
@NLENTS, when you get back, youâll have to tell us this story:
[Note: This post has been substantially edited since it was first published because my mom was upset that I was too harsh, dismissive, and mean. Although I donât agree, if Iâve learned one thing in life, itâs to listen to my mother.]
1 Like
It all began with an article that I published in the WSJ that acted as a teaser of my book. Quickly thereafter, the DI posted an article from an engineer with absolutely no background in biology attacking my views as âignorant and arrogant.â Nothing in my article can be construed as mean or as an attack, but they came out swinging anyway. The book hadnât even come out at this point. The author of that first article then went on the DI podcast and admitted that he hadnât read the book, and, at about the 2m mark, he say something like, âIâm not going to get into any of the specific examples he mentions.â (Iâm not kidding - he says that!) Instead, he goes on about how design is often about tradeoffs and compromises, something a biologist wouldnât know, but an engineer would, I guess trying to overcome his obvious lack of any credentials in biology. Nevermind that many branches of biology are intimately involved with design, the issue of tradeoffs and compromises is, in many ways, WHAT MY BOOK IS ALL ABOUT! So it was beyond frustrating that they would attack my book without reading it using arguments against it that are actually part and parcel to the conceit of the book. The only thing that they ever say that I agree with is their old favorite, âwe might just not know everything about this yet.â Thatâs correct, we might not. I donât see how that leads you to dismiss the entire âargument from poor designâ out of hand, except if that is the conclusion that you need to end up with in the first place. And thatâs why I donât consider what they do science. Science is the objective, if imperfect, pursuit of truth and knowledge. Not an attempt to more fully describe the truth and knowledge that we already need to believe about the world (that it was created by supernatural means). Itâs not science, itâs religion. Doesnât necessarily make it wrong, but it does place it outside the discipline (and classroom) of science, imo.
4 Likes
Here is the article that he used to âshellack meâ about my claims about drainage in the maxillary sinuses. 
You will notice that the article is all about the paranasal sinuses not the maxillary sinuses. Totally different structures! But since heâs an MD and this is a scientific article, this had the air of authority, but it was completely off-topic. I suppose that could have been mistake (but one that cripples their whole article), but when I pointed it out to them, they never corrected, never backed down, never responded. They kept going on attacking in other ways. Thatâs why there is no point taking them seriously. They made an obvious error, got caught, and then just pretend it didnât happen.
1 Like
This is important to pick apart and be clear on.
Everyone makes mistakes. Even big mistakes. Even scientist get things wrong. If you had made this mistake, what would you have done in this situation? What would you have hoped they would have done?
Correct it! Remove the article! Iâve made mistakes, some I caught, others someone else caught. I always correct it the best I can. Thatâs what honest people do.
2 Likes