Expelled: “Denormalizing” the Darwin thugs 2 – PZ Myers and friends
| April 8, 2008 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
In an earlier post, I introduced the concept of “denormalization.”
In this second post, I want to talk about PZ Myers. He and his supporters are also candidates for denormalization.
To recap, thuggery or scams that have persisted for a long time and are endorsed at the highest levels of the establishment come to seem “normal.” So the “problem” is not the behavior of thugs and scammers but the attempted responses of those they attack.
The responses sound raucous or incoherent against the tranquil background of accepted misgovernment.
However, in a free society, misgovernment persists because most people do not know what is going on and do not know what they can do to change things. Denormalization means getting the message out to a broad public: Look, this is happening. Do you think it’s fair? If not, here is what you can do about it.
That’s what the Expelled film is doing in the ID vs. unguided evolution (Darwinism) controversy. It shows both the evidence for intelligent design of life and the unconscionable lengths to which the Darwin fans are willing to go, to keep both students and the broad public from knowing why their ideas about the nature of life are probably wrong.
Myers came to public notice recently when line producer Mark Mathis ejected him from a recent Expelled screening. I suppose he felt ill-used, given that a number of other atheists who were attending a conference in the area (including Richard Dawkins) were admitted. Mathis retorts,
It is amazing to see the reaction of PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and their cohorts when one of them is simply expelled from a movie. Yet these men applaud when professors throughout the nation are fired from their jobs and permanently excluded from their profession for mentioning Intelligent Design.
I hope PZ’s experience has helped him see the light. He is distraught because he could not see a movie. What if he wasn’t allowed to teach on a college campus or was denied tenure? Maybe he will think twice before he starts demanding more professors be blacklisted and expelled simply because they question the adequacy of Darwin’s theory.
I doubt it. Myers, who teaches at a Minnesota liberal arts university that is proud of its status, had this to say about those who think that the evidence favours views other than his:
The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians … I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.
Yes, this statement is famous among ID theorists, particularly those whose expulsion from their positions Myers has celebrated. But most Americans do not know even about it, let alone contemplate what it means that a teacher at a “liberal arts” university should express himself in this way. The Expelled movie will, I hope, denormalize that.
And there is more. Myers clearly enjoys his self-appointed role. Here is an excerpt from his Raving Atheists interview (9 20 2007):
At one point, the interviewer asks, “In a related matter, how come when I enter the search term “demented f[#]ckwit” into Pharyngula I get about a zillion hits?” (09-20-2007, 08:34 PM)
Myers’s reply:
Somebody’s got to be in charge with slapping around the demented f[#]ckwits. The position has devolved on me. (09-20-2007, 08:39 PM)
Go to Raving Atheists for the excerpted material in context.
(Alert readers will notice that I airbrushed the text above. It should not interfere with readers’ understanding.)
Again, most people, who hear only sympathetic treatments of Myers in legacy media, simply do not know about his zesst for persecution. Denormalization means telling them.
It is most revealing that a number of people describe Myers as a nice guy. You know, “a gentle soul”, a gentleman, and soft-spoken but with strong convictions, and all that.
What could they possibly mean, in light of the material above, which Myers has never disowned?
Only four possibilities come to mind. These people
1. do not know what he thinks and says. But many do.
2. are disingenuous (but it’s hard to prove).
3. are disconnected from reality (possibly).
4. This is what I think most likely: Attacks – verbal, career or otherwise – on anyone who talks about the problems with Darwin’s theory are considered normal.
Thus, a person who writes as Myers does is nonetheless viewed as a mild-mannered gentleman and scholar, worthy a place at a liberal arts university.
Herre’s a thought: Abused women sometimes tell friends, in all seriousness, “He’s a really nice guy, you know. As long as you don’t get on his wrong side.” In one such case, the appropriate response was offered by a female relative of mine who snapped, “Well, I can tell you this. If I ever get on his wrong side and anything happens, he will end up wishing he had only right sides.”
As this anecdote illustrates, a critical aspect of denormalization is to let a wider range of people view the problem and respond. Suddenly, what was supposed to be, oh you know, just normal, becomes recognized for the abnormality that it is.
39 Responses to Expelled: “Denormalizing” the Darwin thugs 2 – PZ Myers and friends
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Of course not. However there is only limited time in a classroom – where do you draw the line? Does this “equal time” apply across the board? In all subjects?
I disagree. If the details are not given then students are the last people that are going to follow blindy what the authority figure at the front of the class says – they’ve always been the most resistant to dogma.
Agreed. Care to make a prediction as to the likely time that’ll pass before Darwin becomes consigned to “the history of science”?
Perhaps the scientists who did not identify themselves in expelled could help by identifiing themselves? It might inspire others to do the same.
What do you think the most important things to address are? What’s top of the list for critical examination?
leo: “But they are still Darwinists, aren’t they? They are still out their pushing their dying materialist ideology. It is just that they aren’t bellicose about it. Indeed, given most people’s natural tendency to write off the zealot, it is the Darwinists that come across as rational and charming that are the greater danger to the cause.”
As I understand it, O’Leary uses the term “de-normalize” to describe the process of “outing” abnormal people who have been posing as normal people. That would seem to include two classes of people: [A] ideologues who pose as disinterested scientists and [B] ideologues who pose as disinterested scientists who also misbehave over the internet. It doesn’t matter whether [A] spills over into [B]. What matters is that both conditions are abnormal, even though [B] is the more outrageous of the two.
O’Leary:
“leo stotch, the work of addressing the strengths and weaknesses of specific arguments for Darwin’s theory in the academy is the job of qualified experts, working in an atmosphere of scholarly respect and academic freedom.”
Wouldn’t any qualified experts in the academy be far more involved in testing the predictions of Darwin’s theory, thereby producing new data regardless of whether Darwin was right or wrong?
What you’re describing sounds more like English lit criticism than science.
“I remember, from a 2004 conference, a most interesting exchange between Nick Matzke and an ID guy whose name now escapes me. I couldn’t follow the discussion but they appeared, from their body language, to be evenly matched.”
What did the evidence suggest to you about the exchange?
—–Richard Fry:” If the details are not given then students are the last people that are going to follow blindy what the authority figure at the front of the class says – they’ve always been the most resistant to dogma.”
I submit that the principle should precede the details. That way the student gets the general idea even if some of the details are missing. That is precisely the problem we have in education today. Young Skulls full of mush are filled with facts, but they don’t know how to process them. Without an overarching principle, there is no way to put facts in perspective or weigh their relative value to other facts.
Principles and paradigms are not synonymous with dogmas. The former asks for INTELLECTUAL UNDERSTANDING; the latter asks for INTELLECTUAL ASSENT. We should not avoid the former while guarding against the latter. It is important to know the meaning of such terms as “methodological naturalism,” “design,” “randomness,” and “law,” and yes, “purpose.” To pretend that science doesn’t overlap with other disciplines is to remain ignorant of the very subject matter under discussion.
It is unnatural to keep students uninformed about these and other basic principles of out of some misguided fear that ideology will creep in to the discussion. But that is precisely what has happened. Many who come on this blog to dialogue about ID and evolution are completely oblivious of the historical context of the controversy. Indeed, they come here with a script and they can’t depart from it long enough to do any critical thinking. They know only one paradigm.
I remember once having a dialogue with someone who was highly credentialed in the field of science. To be precise, I was arguing for the EXISTENCE of a non-material reality called the “mind.” It was only after several interchanges that I discovered he did had not yet learned the DEFINITION of a non-material mind. Get this—he had never heard of any such a thing. The distinction between mind and brain had been withheld from him throughout his entire education. In effect, I was dueling with an unarmed man, and it was the educational establishment who had consciously and maliciously disarmed him.
StephenB: “I remember once having a dialogue with someone who was highly credentialed in the field of science.”
What exactly do you mean by “highly credentialed,” Stephen?
Do you realize that one of the most famous paleontologists in the world never finished his bachelor’s degree?
Scientific credentials are the data one contributes, with very rare exceptions for revolutionary predictions.
Omar Mirza @ 21
Dittos.
—–”Russell: “Do you realize that one of the most famous paleontologists in the world never finished his bachelor’s degree?
—–”Scientific credentials are the data one contributes, with very rare exceptions for revolutionary predictions.”
Yes, I am on board with you on this one. It seems consistent with my point that multiple degrees don’t always reflect a high level of education.
Having been formally educated at the higher levels myself, I can attest to the fact that whatever wisdom I have attained came from resisting the non-wisdom of the academy and getting the other side of the story.
I have concluded that there are three kinds of people [A] Well educated, [B] uneducated, and [C] badly educated. If one cannot attain [A], they are far better off with [B] than [C].
Correction: If one cannot attain [A], HE is far better off with [B] than [C].
StephenB:
“Yes, I am on board with you on this one. It seems consistent with my point that multiple degrees don’t always reflect a high level of education.”
Yes, but are you on board with the metric of significance and quantity of data contributed as the primary scientific credential?