I agree with this. It’s for me somewhere between a sense of public duty and an unhealthy obsession. I would never however describe it as “fun”.
How do you find common ground with a not only a Flat Earth believer but someone actively campaigning to have Flat Earth taught in public school science classes?
People like Ben are why I don’t find these sorts of online discussions productive or particularly enjoyable. I really have zero common ground with someone like him.
2 Likes
I agree whole-heartedly although every once in a while some new interesting scientific snippet pops up which takes away the drudgery for a while. 
There isn’t any. I think we need to be careful about this common ground approach. It seems appealing but on some subjects we just have to recognize there is right and wrong and realize there isn’t any common ground to be had with some people.
1 Like
Agree there too. The attempt to make science a democracy with equal time for any and all long refuted crackpot ideas is a losing proposition.
2 Likes
I know he is YEC, but is he really flat earth???
1 Like
I’m not attempting to make science a democracy.
1 Like
I was speaking in general terms, not singling out BenKissling.
Ben ran for public office in TX and part of his platform was the elimination of public education. That is just as bad as being a flat earther, maybe worse.
Then what common ground do you see with those trying to undercut science education and get non-science things like YEC taught in public school science classrooms? I have no problems with anyone’s personal ID or YEC beliefs. But groups like the DI don’t stop at their own personal beliefs. They actively and often through nefarious means seek to push their religious anti-science agenda onto publicly educated school children.
A couple of thoughts. First, if a student in the life sciences is anticipating feeding at the NSF trough, a stint as a TA is almost essential. There’s something called Broader Impacts that NSF takes very, very seriously, and education is an important part of this. (So, incidentally, are the opportunities for outreach that boards like this may provide.)
Second, it should not be forgotten that the seeds of the debacle (for ID proponents) that was the Dover trial were sown on discussion boards not unlike this one, where bright and motivated students (as well as older and crankier sorts) schooled ID proponents, took their ideas to the woodshed.
My own advice - have fun, meet new and interesting people, and continue to confront the poseurs.
6 Likes
I get what you are saying and agree with the sentiments but I think it’s important to note your Facebook arguments are not the broader impacts NSF has in mind.
The Yankees suck, I still hate Laettner. (For what its worth, I first heard the name Bucky F******NG Dent a few seconds after the deed, in the office of a future Nobelist.)
Embrace the other intellectual and personal interests. Heck, fan them flames. The heat will feed your passion for science.
2 Likes
You have to remember that all those people with maybe the exception of Dawkins had very long and productive careers as research scientists before they started writing popular books. Stephen Hawking wasn’t arguing with creationists over the age of the universe in graduate school.
I suggest you read work by people like David Quammen, Carl Zimmer, Ed Yong, Matt Ridley, Elizabeth Kolbert or Rebecca Skloot.
1 Like
Clearly that isn’t the common ground. I find common ground elsewhere. 
Good luck with that.
In my experience it can some times be frowned upon if you explain to someone you spend a lot of time engaging with creationists on message boards.
The sentiment seems to be sort of like “these people are crazy, why do you even want to talk to them? - they’re extremist religious crackpots so you’re wasting your time”.
The common ground so often spoken about around here seems to be nothing more than you can simultaneously accept science and believe in Jesus without being an evolution-denying Young Earth Creationist.
1 Like
Usually the argument that you are “wasting your time” is “you’ll never convince any of these people”. Of course that is almost entirely correct. But scientists who say that don’t take into account that there are also many people out there among the silent readership who are on the fence. And many others who are coping with creationist arguments and need more information on how to refute them. The scientists who think we are wasting our time might come to a different conclusion if a government dominated by creationists came to political power and started to eliminate their funding. In countries like Brazil and Turkey this is a real threat. Suddenly, the people who argued that we are wasting our time would grab any random argument – mostly bad arguments since they haven’t paid attention – and try to use it.
9 Likes