Atheism and universal loneliness
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
tchomp tchomp tchomp
Registered Member
BWE is a friend of mine on another forum, jdog. He's been talking about this thread and posting some of your diatribes there. I was reading them while waiting for a tow truck in the ass end of montana. So if you want someone to blame for why I was posting in the middle of the night, blame the tow truck.
As for "lying" you're ridiculous. What research has he done in the past 10 years? What papers has he published on that research?
Google scholar is a surprisingly complete index of academic papers; all of mine are indexed there, and that includes one or two relatively obscure publications. If PZ has published scientific research in the past 10 years, that should certainly be found with a short search of google scholar. Hell, you should be able to find published abstracts there, too, which serve as record of research talks given. If I'm in fact a lying liar who lies, then you should be able to demonstrate that pretty quickly with a search of google scholar.
The truth is, regardless of PZ's research output in the 90s (which was actually pretty sparse in comparison with the typical output of a developmental biology lab) PZ hasn't been involved in research for a decade. He also has not advised graduate students in that time, so he's also not overseeing someone else's research in an advisor role. Regardless of PZ's qualifications, he does not have an active research program. The papers he publishes are policy and issue papers on creationism, as are the talks he gives. He writes about science, but as a journalist.
BWE called him out on that when PZ was trying to use his influence in the secular community to ostracize a graduate student who criticized the folks who pay him for his journalism. Trying to harm graduate students is wrong. It harms the next generation of scientists. BWE pointed out that this graduate student has a leg up on PZ here because she, unlike him, is actually presenting research at scientific meetings, rather than talking at minor secular conventions, and that for all his huffing and puffing, he's crazy if he thinks he's going to be able to prevent her from giving talks at scientific meetings. Then PZ claimed a bunch of stuff that was generally untrue to try to suggest that he too was involved in scientific research, when none of the things he claimed had anything to do with that. When BWE broke that down, PZ deleted the comment and banned him. This has nothing to do with PZ's position on atheism or evolution or anything else of that nature (I myself am a biologist who works with evolution and development). This is an issue of professional ethics, specifically in a case where a professor is going on a public vendetta against a graduate student because she hurt his feelings. That professor, when called out on their behavior, turned around and misrepresented their current work to try to shut down criticism of that behavior.
If this was anyone but PZ, you'd be calling for their head.
As for "lying" you're ridiculous. What research has he done in the past 10 years? What papers has he published on that research?
Google scholar is a surprisingly complete index of academic papers; all of mine are indexed there, and that includes one or two relatively obscure publications. If PZ has published scientific research in the past 10 years, that should certainly be found with a short search of google scholar. Hell, you should be able to find published abstracts there, too, which serve as record of research talks given. If I'm in fact a lying liar who lies, then you should be able to demonstrate that pretty quickly with a search of google scholar.
The truth is, regardless of PZ's research output in the 90s (which was actually pretty sparse in comparison with the typical output of a developmental biology lab) PZ hasn't been involved in research for a decade. He also has not advised graduate students in that time, so he's also not overseeing someone else's research in an advisor role. Regardless of PZ's qualifications, he does not have an active research program. The papers he publishes are policy and issue papers on creationism, as are the talks he gives. He writes about science, but as a journalist.
BWE called him out on that when PZ was trying to use his influence in the secular community to ostracize a graduate student who criticized the folks who pay him for his journalism. Trying to harm graduate students is wrong. It harms the next generation of scientists. BWE pointed out that this graduate student has a leg up on PZ here because she, unlike him, is actually presenting research at scientific meetings, rather than talking at minor secular conventions, and that for all his huffing and puffing, he's crazy if he thinks he's going to be able to prevent her from giving talks at scientific meetings. Then PZ claimed a bunch of stuff that was generally untrue to try to suggest that he too was involved in scientific research, when none of the things he claimed had anything to do with that. When BWE broke that down, PZ deleted the comment and banned him. This has nothing to do with PZ's position on atheism or evolution or anything else of that nature (I myself am a biologist who works with evolution and development). This is an issue of professional ethics, specifically in a case where a professor is going on a public vendetta against a graduate student because she hurt his feelings. That professor, when called out on their behavior, turned around and misrepresented their current work to try to shut down criticism of that behavior.
If this was anyone but PZ, you'd be calling for their head.
He's a friend of yours? I try to judge people based on what they do rather than who they consort with, but your buddy is a clown. Have you seen the rants he's posted here? Did you read the rant he posted on PZ's blog? Not anywhere in any of those rants does he actually defend this student. Instead, he attempts to assassinate PZ's character. There wasn't an ounce of substance to his argument. It was all ad hominem. I'm assuming this is because he either already dislikes PZ or perhaps has a friendship with this Abbie woman (who, just from the little I've read of her, seems like a real jackass, scientist or no), but it's certainly got nothing to do with PZ's critique of her.
But again, I said I didn't know anything about their fight. I only know the one immature joke I saw posted by her, and then one or two of her comments after the post. Which is why I asked BWE to clarify. He chose not to, opting instead of wild accusations about PZ's character, which even if true wouldn't say anything about his exchange with Abbie.
Well, to be honest with you, I did what you said and only found something as recent as 2002. My assumption was based on the credentials he gave at his blog, which indicate that he has current research going on. I suppose I figured that if he could pull current research out at the first provocation, then he must have been doing it the whole time. If he hasn't, he hasn't, and that's my fault for assuming so.
Of course, I'm not hearing from you any refutation of his claims that he has a paper coming out in the fall, or that he has a major new grant, or that he has a field study upcoming this summer. Would this not qualify as research? If he publishes a paper this fall, would that not be research?
Again, I don't know the whole story behind the feud, and BWE certainly did not present his case in such a way. He simply said it was an excuse for when she was invited to functions he was not. Also, if a graduate student is wrong, they are not above criticism. I'm not saying I know what's going on there, but the blanket "harming graduate students is wrong" is bogus. If she's an idiot, there's nothing wrong with saying so.
And how would she have a leg up on him? If he's not a research scientist, they're not competing. I don't see the conflict of interest here, a motive of any sort. There's no question who the bigger celebrity is--I don't even know this woman's name. To be fair, I had only known PZ by name prior to this discussion, but he's certainly a big name and he attends quite a bit more than "minor secular conventions." If you want to whip them out and measure, I have no doubt PZ would win. How many people are invited to have public conversations with Richard Dawkins? I'm not saying this makes him better than her, only trying to address this implication that he's somehow relegated to lesser endeavors.
This is the thing: How do you know it's untrue? How do you know he doesn't have a grant? How do you know he isn't publishing a paper? How do you know he doesn't have field research slated for the summer? How do you this stuff is untrue? You and BWE both seem to have this penchant for glossing over these important details, such as the very basis of your claims against him. Where's the evidence that he's lying?
BWE broke what down? You mean the thing you just glossed over? By all means, do us a favor and break it down again. Oh wait, you're not BWE (wink). Call your buddy BWE and have him send you a copy of his post (I'm sure he kept it; people who know their posts are going to be deleted usually do) and lets have a look at it here.
Again, tell us how he's misrepresented his current work. I offered this same opportunity to BWE, and he folded like an accordion.
Let's not forget, you said "his claims can be tested." In reality, the only claim that can be tested by searching Google Scholar is the one that he hasn't published anything in ten years. I'm going to contact PZ myself and see if he won't give me a straight answer, but okay, so we can test that. What we still don't have substantiated are the claims that he's lied about his current work, or that he's going after a grad student for hurting his feelings. Let's have some evidence of that, T3.
Interesting assumption. The only claim you've seemed to verify is that he hasn't published in ten years. Neither you nor your "friend" have bothered to back up any other claims.
tchomp tchomp tchomp
Registered Member
I'm posting from a mobile device, so this will be brief as opposed to a point by point response.
1. PZ isn't trained as a field biologist. He is trained as a developmental biologist. Developmental bio requires maintenance of animal colonies for embryo production, which means constant funneling of grant money towards colony upkeep and dedicated space. To get this funding, you need active research as evidenced by recent publications and graduate students. PZ works at an institution without a graduate program and has not published in 10 years. The idea that he has an active developmental biology research program under these circumstances stretches incredulity. In fact, his upcoming paper is coauthored with a philosophy prof, not a scientist, and appears to be a paper on atheism and policy, not developmental bio. The grant is likely the same, as he does not meet the minimum requirements for NIH or NSF funding.
2. In terms of treatment of graduate students, grads are a bit loud and hotheaded. It's part of being young and trying to make a mark in our fields. It's fine if you don't like Abbie (or me or whoever else) but it is entirely different for a professor to use their status to lead a personal attack on that student's career. This isn't about protecting grads from legitimate criticisms of their research, but rather protecting the next generation of scientists from personal attacks by tenured faculty who have various personal vendettas, some of which are based entirely in a disconnect with reality. Trying to keep her out of scientific conferences with some dumb boycott is professional misconduct on PZ's part.
3. I don't care about celebrity. Celebrity does not come into this discussion. This is about professional ethics, not who Kim Kardashian is fucking this week.
4. Testy may be a clown, but he is also pretty perceptive about when people are on ego trips. Sometimes clowning is the best way to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your opponent.
If I missed anything let me know.
1. PZ isn't trained as a field biologist. He is trained as a developmental biologist. Developmental bio requires maintenance of animal colonies for embryo production, which means constant funneling of grant money towards colony upkeep and dedicated space. To get this funding, you need active research as evidenced by recent publications and graduate students. PZ works at an institution without a graduate program and has not published in 10 years. The idea that he has an active developmental biology research program under these circumstances stretches incredulity. In fact, his upcoming paper is coauthored with a philosophy prof, not a scientist, and appears to be a paper on atheism and policy, not developmental bio. The grant is likely the same, as he does not meet the minimum requirements for NIH or NSF funding.
2. In terms of treatment of graduate students, grads are a bit loud and hotheaded. It's part of being young and trying to make a mark in our fields. It's fine if you don't like Abbie (or me or whoever else) but it is entirely different for a professor to use their status to lead a personal attack on that student's career. This isn't about protecting grads from legitimate criticisms of their research, but rather protecting the next generation of scientists from personal attacks by tenured faculty who have various personal vendettas, some of which are based entirely in a disconnect with reality. Trying to keep her out of scientific conferences with some dumb boycott is professional misconduct on PZ's part.
3. I don't care about celebrity. Celebrity does not come into this discussion. This is about professional ethics, not who Kim Kardashian is fucking this week.
4. Testy may be a clown, but he is also pretty perceptive about when people are on ego trips. Sometimes clowning is the best way to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your opponent.
If I missed anything let me know.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Why is a Sciforums thread that's ostensibly about atheism and "universal loneliness" even interested in this PZ Myers person?
The guy seems to be an entirely legitimate biology professor at a fairly highly-regarded undergraduate branch campus of the U. of Minnesota. He has a PhD from the U. of Oregon, was a post-doc at the U. of Utah, and a research professor at Temple U. before joining U.M. Morris. That all looks perfectly fine to me.
http://www.morris.umn.edu/directories/personnel/cv/Myers.html
He also seems to be a very outspoken atheist. That's fine too. But it's important to notice that he doesn't seem to have had any formal training of any kind in the subjects of philosophy or religion. So in those fields he's a layman, and his writings about broader issues in philosophy and religion probably shouldn't be treated as if they are academically authoritative.
The exception to that judgement would be the evolution-creation controversies, where his being a biology professor would obviously be highly relevant. He might have quite a bit to contribute in that particular area.
As to whether or not the guy is personally an asshole, or whether he's behaved unprofessionally towards some graduate student, I have no way of knowing. Nor do I see how all this is relevant to the thread or to Sciforums.
The guy seems to be an entirely legitimate biology professor at a fairly highly-regarded undergraduate branch campus of the U. of Minnesota. He has a PhD from the U. of Oregon, was a post-doc at the U. of Utah, and a research professor at Temple U. before joining U.M. Morris. That all looks perfectly fine to me.
http://www.morris.umn.edu/directories/personnel/cv/Myers.html
He also seems to be a very outspoken atheist. That's fine too. But it's important to notice that he doesn't seem to have had any formal training of any kind in the subjects of philosophy or religion. So in those fields he's a layman, and his writings about broader issues in philosophy and religion probably shouldn't be treated as if they are academically authoritative.
The exception to that judgement would be the evolution-creation controversies, where his being a biology professor would obviously be highly relevant. He might have quite a bit to contribute in that particular area.
As to whether or not the guy is personally an asshole, or whether he's behaved unprofessionally towards some graduate student, I have no way of knowing. Nor do I see how all this is relevant to the thread or to Sciforums.
That's very interesting. I have no way to verify this, but I don't really have a reason to doubt you, either. You're too coherent to be BWE, so I apologize for the accusation made earlier.
Looks like I was wrong! I'd still like to get in touch with PZ and see what he says. Not that I'd take him at his word, but I don't know you from Adam, either.
But again, if he's not a research scientist, and not getting invited (as BWE claims) to scientific conferences, then who is he hurting? Is Abbie getting invited to atheist conventions? I mean, come on. Or is he really a respected lecturer and biologist?
I cant speak to their disagreement. That I suppose I can follow if I have the time and energy, and for the sake of this argument maybe I'll do that, but until I do I can't really say that he's doing something wrong. If she's really out of line, I can't blame him for that. If he really was that much out of line, then nobody's going to listen to him anyway, so it's not like he could hurt her if he was wrong.
Please. You know what I meant. You reduced PZ's career to appearances at "minor atheist conferences" and claimed that his motive for going after this girl was that she was a professional rival who was doing better than him. I simply pointed out that he seems to be doing just fine, as evidenced by his teaching career, his lecturing career, and presumably his blogging career. And again, the argument doesn't even make sense if they're not actually professional rivals. The grant money he's going after isn't the grant money she's going after, if what you say about him is true. The conferences he's attending aren't the ones that she's attending, if what you say about him is true. So either you're wrong about his motives for going after Abbie, or you're lying about what he does with his time.
He's also an outright liar, as well as a forum troll.
tchomp tchomp tchomp
Registered Member
Re: yaatzi:
PZ's research career ended when he left Temple (apparently because he was going to be denied tenure due to his lack of scientific productivity) and got a job at a teaching college.
There are plenty of people who receive training in the sciences but can't cut it as actual researchers. This is apparently what happened with PZ.
I am only having this discussion because my friend BWE was banned and called a liar for making a factual and verifiable statement about PZ's research output.
PZ's research career ended when he left Temple (apparently because he was going to be denied tenure due to his lack of scientific productivity) and got a job at a teaching college.
There are plenty of people who receive training in the sciences but can't cut it as actual researchers. This is apparently what happened with PZ.
I am only having this discussion because my friend BWE was banned and called a liar for making a factual and verifiable statement about PZ's research output.
He was called a liar for more than that, and was banned for accusing another poster of being a pedophile, as well as referring to other posters as "idiots" and "morons."
If you're going to pretend he was banned from this site because of his views on PZ, then you're not more honest than he is. And I also notice you can't substantiate the other claims you've made, and your choice to ignore them has been noted. I had hoped you were slightly better than the troll you claim friendship with, but you're letting me down.
tchomp tchomp tchomp
Registered Member
Reflexively calling people who disagree with you "trolls" and "liars" tends to do little to foster discussion.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Maybe. But what relevance does this guy's research have to anything?
Do you know that, or are you imagining it? Most likely it wasn't a tenure-track position from the beginning.
And again, how is it relevant to this thread?
It's a branch of the U. of Minnesota that specializes in teaching undergraduates. The U.M.-Morris is fairly well regarded and it doesn't look like a bad academic gig.
That's a non-sequitur. It's simply your own personal supposition, which you're spinning in an intentionally insulting way.
Anyone familiar wih the academic world knows that it's difficult to find permanent full-time academic positions. This Myers guy may or may not have gotten a line on one at U.M.-Morris. That looks perfectly fine to me. It's how academia works.
I don't know why you and your friend leaped so suddenly into Sciforums and are trying to portray this fairly typical and unremarkable history as a history of failure. You and BWE obviously have your own agenda, and I'm curious what it is.
The guy earned a PhD from the University of Oregon. (PhDs are research degrees.) He was a post-doc at the University of Utah. (A research position.) He apparently held a research position at Temple. That looks like fairly substantial research experience to me.
The fact that he's currently working at a school that specializes in teaching undergraduates doesn't discredit any of that, even if it doesn't provide him with as many research opporitunities at the present time. Your assertion that it indicates that he was a failure as a researcher simply doesn't follow.
Look, if you and BWE want to attack Myers' atheist activism, then it would be smarter for you to attack his lack of training in the fields of philosophy and religion. That's where his real vulnerabilities lie. When he's writing about those subjects, he appears to be writing as a layman and has no more professional authority than anyone else.
Being "a scientist" doesn't make somebody an authority on totally unrelated fields. The exception in this case would obviously be the evolution-creation controversy, where professional training in biology is highly relevant.
Last edited:
tchomp tchomp tchomp
Registered Member
PZ lists his employment at Temple as an Assistant Professorship. That's a tenure track position at a research institution. He left that position for one at a non-research school. That means either he chose to leave research for personal reasons or else he couldn't cut it as a researcher.
As for educational attainment, that does not correspond to current efforts. Science is not about educational attainment; it is about method and results. Which is "my agenda." I think that awarding people respect as a voice of a field based solely on educational attainment is bad practice. While I am an active research scientist, I strongly oppose the concept of ivory tower privilege.
Interestingly, Myers is probably currently more of an expert on atheism than developmental biology. Developmental bio has changed significantly since he stopped doing research. He's hardly an expert anymore. The field has long since left him behind.
As for educational attainment, that does not correspond to current efforts. Science is not about educational attainment; it is about method and results. Which is "my agenda." I think that awarding people respect as a voice of a field based solely on educational attainment is bad practice. While I am an active research scientist, I strongly oppose the concept of ivory tower privilege.
Interestingly, Myers is probably currently more of an expert on atheism than developmental biology. Developmental bio has changed significantly since he stopped doing research. He's hardly an expert anymore. The field has long since left him behind.
Just that he lied to me about it.
Hi everyone! I'm back. Duly chastened and contrite.
To take you back, this thread is about whether not holding belief makes life worse or whether holding belief makes life worse. I posted the conjecture that Holding any belief very tightly causes more suffering that not holding belief tightly. I used the PZ example, for something. I forget now. You could check. And I was called a liar because it didn't fit with what people knew about PZ.
I pointed out that we had just identified an unexaminiable truth and that we could spend some time watching and deciding if it caused more suffering than not holding it. We did. It did. We also discovered that some people here believe that facts are determined by authoritative pronouncement. Evidence which contradicts belief is automatically false because it contradicts. known authoritative truths, pronounced by the most reliable authorities.
Which looks pretty much like religion from my perspective, but what do I know?
The irony here is beautifully crafted. The lie PZ told related to his scientific research output. Where he works doesn't matter. That he isn't a research scientist does.
I have been a member here for a long time. Your narrative requirements do not change the facts no matter how much you may like them to. I was allowing the people here with absolute truths demonstrate the problem with believing absolute truths. I feel like I did alright at that.
I may in fact want to challenge some of the things PZ does. However, in this case, PZ directly lied and misrepresented himself to me.
If you can excuse it, fine. It doesn't make it not true.
Authority is like toilet paper at the store when you need it in the bathroom.
Evidence is toilet paper in the bathroom when you need it.
Everyone who knows anything about anything knows something but that doesn't add a single bit of information to a claim. Unless of course it is presented as evidence, in which case that is evidence that the person who made the claim doesn't understand evidence.
If you think that character assassination is a legitimate argument, then that might explain why you think that this whole PZ derail is about character assassination. Also why so many people have inexplicably (to me anyway) made so many assumptions about my motivations and beliefs, despite the fact that I have answered those questions and linked to outside examples so interested parties could use information rather than pre-existing labels to assess those questions.
I think that, if you are worried about a stealth provocateur undermining the credibility of a truth, I might as well tell you that I am likely to be that person because I find that I like to make the truths people hold, including myself, publicly available for inspection and that seems to pretty much undermine the vast majority. But if you think there is a side I am covertly working for, well, let's look at that.
If I was, would it make any difference? Do you not accept information from the enemy? Or do you only know how to assess information based on whether the source may or may not have the same goals as you?
Because if you want atheism to take over the world, or to replace theism, I don't have that goal. But if you imagine that my statement there has given you any information on my goals other than one I do not have, well, enjoy the map. It's too small for me. The territory has hidden pleasures I keep finding when I leave the marked trails.
If that makes no sense then it's probable that I am a pirate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s0UURBihH8
Last edited:
So, wynn, when you come back, I am curious whether you think holding to a truth is the cause of suffering as I proposed or if that still makes no sense to you. I am a little bit amazed at how powerful the example of a silly thread on a message board turned out to be.
Maybe it's just me though.
Maybe it's just me though.
As far as atheism and the opening post, it just stated the human condition. I have no recollection of relgion providing happiness in the long run. But if you have a tendency to depression, just to be safe, dont become an atheist. On the other hand, if you shoot yourself, you can be relieved there is no hell.
So there as some possibilities. Whatever floats your boat.
I haven't worried about these things for a long time as I do not get depresses. Anxious many times.
So there as some possibilities. Whatever floats your boat.
I haven't worried about these things for a long time as I do not get depresses. Anxious many times.