One thing that has come out of this is that BHTV has finally posted their editorial policy, but I am quite disappointed that it’s so vague. The substantive parts are:
At Bloggingheads.tv, we aim to set up conversations about interesting and important issues on which reasonable people have a diversity of viewpoints. We choose participants based on their past contributions to public discourse. This doesn’t mean we see particular merit in their views; it may just mean that they are articulate spokespeople for views that have been influential.
...
When controversial subjects are explored, the careful selection of participants usually results in a worthwhile conversation in which the subject is illuminated via contrasting perspectives.
To summarize, anything that “reasonable people” disagree about that is considered “interesting and important” is fair game, as long as there is a contrasting perspective. Since the problem with Behe, from their perspective, was not having a (sufficiently informed) contrasting perspective, we’re to assume that “reasonable people” disagree about creationism/ID and that creationism/ID is an “interesting and important” topic. I disagree on both counts, and I think the fact that they believe creationism/ID is interesting and important and debated by reasonable people indicates that their perspective is out-of-line with science and that of what I consider “reasonable people” (i.e., intelligent, knowledgeable people who are conversant with science and the topics under discussion and are committed to the highest intellectual standards).
I confess that I’m not really a fan of the idea that creationists should never get any space for debate. If prestigious scientists are worried that talking to creationists gives them too much credibility, then find some bright ambitious college student who reads Pharyngula to shoot their little fish in a barrel. But this business of trying not to have debates… doesn’t quite seem to me like the right strategy, somehow, when the cold fact of the matter is that creationists already get plenty of airtime with plenty of listeners. That is probably one reason why I’m sympathetic to BHTV here.
I don’t think there ought to be a debate about whether many-worlds is correct, but there is. Should I refuse to talk about it henceforth? Fundamentally, people talking to each other on public video just doesn’t strike me as such a bad, terrible, awful thing, even if it’s about something you shouldn’t have to debate. Now setting up Behe with a non-opponent was terrible, but I’m willing to accept that as an honest mistake.
Creating the debate is a strategy used by the creationists. Every time you debate a creationist, you perpetuate the idea that there actually exists something to debate. The reason people are so against the debates with creationists is that creationists really like having debates, because it makes it more likely that their perspective will be mentioned any time the topic of evolution comes up even though their beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
I understand what you mean but … seriously, you overestimate the rationalist skill of the average biologist TA in jeans. Even professors have a hard time making their scientific knowledge truly part of themselves. I don’t hold out much hope for TAs.
Don’t send out an average TA. Send out an ambitious, bright TA from a higher-ranked school (or just with good SAT scores, I understand the results are the same) who’s been vetted by P. Z. Myers for ability to debate well, explain well, and respond with scientific accuracy to standard lies. But send out a TA nonetheless, and make sure they’re dressed in jeans.
In other words, don’t give viewers the impression that creationists are to be taken seriously, right?
The thing is, because BHTV has previously limited itself to hosting diavlogs between mostly honest, mostly reasonable people about topics that haven’t been settled a hundred years ago, and because of the participation of scientists like Sean Carroll, merely taking part in a debate on BHTV gives that impression.
Very true. Last year I have seen an interesting Canadian documentary (Denial Machine, on youtube available, worth skimming through) on how the artificial debate on global warming was generated by the same PR firm that was hired by the Tobacco industry in the 90ies. They even funded the same university professors to generate apparent dissent.
Although creationism/ID is a different area, the methods are strikingly similar. A good example is the http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ with the only purpose of luring scientists (mostly in unrelated areas) to sign the list with the sole purpose of demonstrating that there is genuine scientific debate going on.
Fundamentally, people talking to each other on public video just doesn’t strike me as such a bad, terrible, awful thing, even if it’s about something you shouldn’t have to debate. Now setting up Behe with a non-opponent was terrible, but I’m willing to accept that as an honest mistake.
Hmmm… Does it also apply to your discussion with Aubrey de Grey?
Objectively (putting asides my own personal (non-expert) views, hopes etc.) It was a diavlog without any clashes but quite far from current scientific consensus.
Does it also applie to your discussion with Aubrey de Grey?
They requested an interview rather than a debate. Did my best to just expose the BHTV audience to de Grey’s ideas, and query further in one or two places where I disagreed with him (without going too deep).
Fundamentally, people talking to each other on public video just doesn’t strike me as such a bad, terrible, awful thing, even if it’s about something you shouldn’t have to debate.
The actual scenario under consideration in this case is “people talking to each other on BHTV specifically [1], about topics (such as creationism) that the relevant experts pretty much unanimously agree are nonsense [2], with people who refuse to debate (in person and in the literature) in good faith following the standard norms that govern intellectual discourse [3].”
Even if debating creationists and psychics were handled by bright, informed college students, the prestigious scientists would still end up leaving, because those sorts of dialogues affect the general reputation of the site and thus the reputation of those who speak there. Many scientists will (correctly, imo) infer that a site that thinks creationism is an “interesting and important” topic that reasonable people can disagree on is a site that has low intellectual standards.
I just watched Wright’s diavlog with George Johnson, at the end of which he says that he would have gotten an astrologer on right after Obama made the comment in a debate about astrology and Nancy Reagan, if he could have. Wright clearly has different ideas about what is worthy of discussion than many of his academic guests, which is why they are parting ways. The extremely vague and overly broad editorial policy he put up makes this clear.
On your point that BHTV never having creationists on is akin to you never debating advocates of interpretations other than MW, the relevant differences between the two scenarios are that (1) many experts in the relevant science believe those other interpretations (not true of creationism), and most importantly, (2) they present arguments and react to and update on counter-arguments in the manner that we all expect intellectually honest people to do when participating in intellectual discourse (not true of creationists).
because those sorts of dialogues affect the general reputation of the site and thus the reputation of those who speak there.
So is it necessitated for consistency’s sake that those who would boycott BhTV over this incident must also boycott all other forums with lower intellectual standards… which would basically include all mainstream organizations? Somehow I don’t believe that it’s this simple.
The question I’m curious about is why a Creationist video on BhTV apparently creates reputational pollution in a way that a Creationist video on Youtube does not. My guess is that this has to do with BhTV being a smaller and more-exclusive community than Youtube, and this confers some benefits to “insiders”.
Youtube is a free-for-all with no intellectual standards whatsoever. I understood BhTV to be something different.
In terms of consistency, I imagine that most scientists would boycott any forum that presents itself as having intellectual standards and aiming at an audience skewed towards the educated, knowledgeable, informed subset of the population, IF THAT SITE also commonly supports discussion about topics such as creationism, ghost hunters, alien abduction, psychics, astrology, channelers of dead Atlanteans, etc.
I think it’s perfectly fair to have on “silly” topics, if the silly advocates are set up against skeptics who are strong debaters who usually proceed to kick silly butt all over the place. Nothing wrong with it. Seriously. It’s instructive for the nation’s youth.
I just watched Wright’s diavlog with George Johnson, at the end of which he says that he would have gotten an astrologer on right after Obama made the comment in a debate about astrology and Nancy Reagan
I was pretty young at the time, but if I recall correctly, my father, a PhD physicist, went on TV at one point to refute astrology, and borrowed my star globe to do so. It may be argumentum ad fuzzium but I don’t think my Dad was wrong to do that.
If prestigious scientists are worried that talking to creationists gives them too much credibility, then find some bright ambitious college student who reads Pharyngula to shoot their little fish in a barrel.
ERV is willing to debate Behe, but BHtv apparently has yet to show any interest.
You should link to your comment on BHV.
One thing that has come out of this is that BHTV has finally posted their editorial policy, but I am quite disappointed that it’s so vague. The substantive parts are:
To summarize, anything that “reasonable people” disagree about that is considered “interesting and important” is fair game, as long as there is a contrasting perspective. Since the problem with Behe, from their perspective, was not having a (sufficiently informed) contrasting perspective, we’re to assume that “reasonable people” disagree about creationism/ID and that creationism/ID is an “interesting and important” topic. I disagree on both counts, and I think the fact that they believe creationism/ID is interesting and important and debated by reasonable people indicates that their perspective is out-of-line with science and that of what I consider “reasonable people” (i.e., intelligent, knowledgeable people who are conversant with science and the topics under discussion and are committed to the highest intellectual standards).
I confess that I’m not really a fan of the idea that creationists should never get any space for debate. If prestigious scientists are worried that talking to creationists gives them too much credibility, then find some bright ambitious college student who reads Pharyngula to shoot their little fish in a barrel. But this business of trying not to have debates… doesn’t quite seem to me like the right strategy, somehow, when the cold fact of the matter is that creationists already get plenty of airtime with plenty of listeners. That is probably one reason why I’m sympathetic to BHTV here.
I don’t think there ought to be a debate about whether many-worlds is correct, but there is. Should I refuse to talk about it henceforth? Fundamentally, people talking to each other on public video just doesn’t strike me as such a bad, terrible, awful thing, even if it’s about something you shouldn’t have to debate. Now setting up Behe with a non-opponent was terrible, but I’m willing to accept that as an honest mistake.
You’re right, but...
Creating the debate is a strategy used by the creationists. Every time you debate a creationist, you perpetuate the idea that there actually exists something to debate. The reason people are so against the debates with creationists is that creationists really like having debates, because it makes it more likely that their perspective will be mentioned any time the topic of evolution comes up even though their beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with evolution.
Okay, so send out a TA in jeans to respond. Seriously, I think that defuses the attempt to manufacture the appearance of serious debate.
I understand what you mean but … seriously, you overestimate the rationalist skill of the average biologist TA in jeans. Even professors have a hard time making their scientific knowledge truly part of themselves. I don’t hold out much hope for TAs.
Don’t send out an average TA. Send out an ambitious, bright TA from a higher-ranked school (or just with good SAT scores, I understand the results are the same) who’s been vetted by P. Z. Myers for ability to debate well, explain well, and respond with scientific accuracy to standard lies. But send out a TA nonetheless, and make sure they’re dressed in jeans.
In other words, don’t give viewers the impression that creationists are to be taken seriously, right?
The thing is, because BHTV has previously limited itself to hosting diavlogs between mostly honest, mostly reasonable people about topics that haven’t been settled a hundred years ago, and because of the participation of scientists like Sean Carroll, merely taking part in a debate on BHTV gives that impression.
Very true. Last year I have seen an interesting Canadian documentary (Denial Machine, on youtube available, worth skimming through) on how the artificial debate on global warming was generated by the same PR firm that was hired by the Tobacco industry in the 90ies. They even funded the same university professors to generate apparent dissent.
Although creationism/ID is a different area, the methods are strikingly similar. A good example is the http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ with the only purpose of luring scientists (mostly in unrelated areas) to sign the list with the sole purpose of demonstrating that there is genuine scientific debate going on.
Hmmm… Does it also apply to your discussion with Aubrey de Grey?
Objectively (putting asides my own personal (non-expert) views, hopes etc.) It was a diavlog without any clashes but quite far from current scientific consensus.
They requested an interview rather than a debate. Did my best to just expose the BHTV audience to de Grey’s ideas, and query further in one or two places where I disagreed with him (without going too deep).
The actual scenario under consideration in this case is “people talking to each other on BHTV specifically [1], about topics (such as creationism) that the relevant experts pretty much unanimously agree are nonsense [2], with people who refuse to debate (in person and in the literature) in good faith following the standard norms that govern intellectual discourse [3].”
Even if debating creationists and psychics were handled by bright, informed college students, the prestigious scientists would still end up leaving, because those sorts of dialogues affect the general reputation of the site and thus the reputation of those who speak there. Many scientists will (correctly, imo) infer that a site that thinks creationism is an “interesting and important” topic that reasonable people can disagree on is a site that has low intellectual standards.
I just watched Wright’s diavlog with George Johnson, at the end of which he says that he would have gotten an astrologer on right after Obama made the comment in a debate about astrology and Nancy Reagan, if he could have. Wright clearly has different ideas about what is worthy of discussion than many of his academic guests, which is why they are parting ways. The extremely vague and overly broad editorial policy he put up makes this clear.
On your point that BHTV never having creationists on is akin to you never debating advocates of interpretations other than MW, the relevant differences between the two scenarios are that (1) many experts in the relevant science believe those other interpretations (not true of creationism), and most importantly, (2) they present arguments and react to and update on counter-arguments in the manner that we all expect intellectually honest people to do when participating in intellectual discourse (not true of creationists).
because those sorts of dialogues affect the general reputation of the site and thus the reputation of those who speak there.
So is it necessitated for consistency’s sake that those who would boycott BhTV over this incident must also boycott all other forums with lower intellectual standards… which would basically include all mainstream organizations? Somehow I don’t believe that it’s this simple.
The question I’m curious about is why a Creationist video on BhTV apparently creates reputational pollution in a way that a Creationist video on Youtube does not. My guess is that this has to do with BhTV being a smaller and more-exclusive community than Youtube, and this confers some benefits to “insiders”.
Youtube is a free-for-all with no intellectual standards whatsoever. I understood BhTV to be something different.
In terms of consistency, I imagine that most scientists would boycott any forum that presents itself as having intellectual standards and aiming at an audience skewed towards the educated, knowledgeable, informed subset of the population, IF THAT SITE also commonly supports discussion about topics such as creationism, ghost hunters, alien abduction, psychics, astrology, channelers of dead Atlanteans, etc.
I think it’s perfectly fair to have on “silly” topics, if the silly advocates are set up against skeptics who are strong debaters who usually proceed to kick silly butt all over the place. Nothing wrong with it. Seriously. It’s instructive for the nation’s youth.
It’s instructive and worthwhile, and I agree it should happen somewhere. It’s just not what I thought BhTV was all about.
I was pretty young at the time, but if I recall correctly, my father, a PhD physicist, went on TV at one point to refute astrology, and borrowed my star globe to do so. It may be argumentum ad fuzzium but I don’t think my Dad was wrong to do that.
ERV is willing to debate Behe, but BHtv apparently has yet to show any interest.