I found it insulting the first time I heard this “suggestion” on some board, which is to say, how they suggested it was rather patronizing. I mean they came across all in one go as suggesting that this was a new idea that we hadn’t heard of, that we COULDN’T think of it on our own, and that were were “rude” all at once.

For anyone capable of seeing though “framing”, it’s insulting, not a way to “bridge the gap and open dialog”.

I prefer talking to someone politely rather than being incredibly rude when I talk to them. That’s my style mainly because I can’t help but care perhaps too much about what they think. HOWEVER, I also care about the truth, more so in fact. I don’t think one needs to resort to PR speak to get a message across in a polite fasion. I don’t think that saying my idea politely means I need to layer a very brief non-statement with paragraph upon paragraph of “I was raised by a coal miner” style speeches no one cares about just to say “hey I’m like you”. It’s rude to go to that extreme.

Rather, I’ll just say what I think and try to be polite about it as is my style. In this case, I’d actually probably come off sounding more or less like a robot describing the data outright. I’d still probably offend, but what matters to me is that I stated it in the nicest way possible without being inefficient, pandering, patronizing, and above all leaving out what I intend to get across.

[N]ot collecting stamps is as much a hobby as collecting stamps.

That rocks! I plan to share that with my compadres in our corporate “Freethinkers” group.

It never had anything to do with the blog, but everything to do with the mass media.

There comes a point when reasoning simply fails. How many times can you show evidence for evolutionary theory to someone, and have them ignore it, before you simply need to resort to ridicule? Ben Stein was on Glen Beck a while back and said that he didn’t understand why scientists wouldn’t simply give ID equal room and open it for debate. WTF? Hasn’t the scientific community destroyed this nonsense “theory” time and again, yet here we are, the liars for jeebus continue to deny evidence and logical, reasonable arguments, and then of course play the persecution card.

Ridicule is all that will work at this point; we have to just make as much fun of these people as possible, expose their nonsense for others to see, and at the same time, show how well supported evolutionary theory is. Demonstrate why flu shots are necessary every year, explain the superbug (hello, prediction by theory anyone?), target those on the fence. I’m not too convinced that the die hard fundies will ever see the light, but it is those who sit on the fence we need to go after.

Ok, end rant

And is it just me, or did anyone find Nisbit’s post, imploring PZ and Dawkins to not attend the “Expelled” screening/represent the scientific community to be more than a bit patronizing and presumptuous?

Ultimately, his blog is simply himself, out there for anyone who would like to see, and at least as of this time, he still has freedom of speech.

But Nisbet and Mooney seem to want to conduct scientific discussion and education within the same frame that theists are constantly trying to squeeze atheists into, that we’re all warriors in a battle of theism/religion-vs.-atheism. Their approach seems to me to buy into the false theistic claim that atheism (and the field of science by association) is just another belief system, that not collecting stamps is as much a hobby as collecting stamps. Also, as some Pharyngulites have noticed, Nisbet seems to envision himself as some sort of glorious leader in the conflict, as the messianic peacemaker who will ultimately unite all sides in a blissful future, and thus seems eager to nudge anyone else who appears to be any kind of spokesperson out of the limelight completely.

Ironic, isn’t it, that the experts in framing have by and large failed at - well - framing…