Mocking religion

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
warumich
Clardic Fug
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by warumich » Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:01 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:43 pm
We need a word for the belief that a tweet is the most powerful force in the universe. 55 characters and the earth shudders on its axis. One sentence and a billion people are alienated from another billion people. Twelve words and an exchange of dozens of 20,000 word theses must follow.

How about omnipotweet?
Did I say that? It was a silly tweet from somebody who should have known better, given her job. That's it.
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

User avatar
Stephanie
After Pie
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Stephanie » Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:52 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:43 pm
We need a word for the belief that a tweet is the most powerful force in the universe. 55 characters and the earth shudders on its axis. One sentence and a billion people are alienated from another billion people. Twelve words and an exchange of dozens of 20,000 word theses must follow.

How about omnipotweet?
Earlier in the thread, you were making a case for the power of a tweet to be part of a force weakening the control of religion over children and teenagers.
lpm wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:17 pm
We need to keep up the pressure, sticking with what has worked for 75 years, a message that has decade after decade weakened the control the religions have over children and teenagers. In particular teenagers - our main target audience - respond well to the provocative and convention-defying approach. Don't make the mistake of thinking what appeals to us middle aged types is a universal appeal, instead try to remember what appealed to our teenage selves. As Nezumi said, know your audience. Roberts knows the audience is the younger people still forming a view of the world.
(As an aside, I suspect anyone interested in influencing the views of children and teenagers would be better on YouTube or Instagram).
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
jimbob
After Pie
Posts: 2498
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Mocking religion

Post by jimbob » Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:03 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:52 pm
lpm wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:43 pm
We need a word for the belief that a tweet is the most powerful force in the universe. 55 characters and the earth shudders on its axis. One sentence and a billion people are alienated from another billion people. Twelve words and an exchange of dozens of 20,000 word theses must follow.

How about omnipotweet?
Earlier in the thread, you were making a case for the power of a tweet to be part of a force weakening the control of religion over children and teenagers.
lpm wrote:
Tue Apr 06, 2021 5:17 pm
We need to keep up the pressure, sticking with what has worked for 75 years, a message that has decade after decade weakened the control the religions have over children and teenagers. In particular teenagers - our main target audience - respond well to the provocative and convention-defying approach. Don't make the mistake of thinking what appeals to us middle aged types is a universal appeal, instead try to remember what appealed to our teenage selves. As Nezumi said, know your audience. Roberts knows the audience is the younger people still forming a view of the world.
(As an aside, I suspect anyone interested in influencing the views of children and teenagers would be better on YouTube or Instagram).
Yup.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3005
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by lpm » Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:33 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 4:52 pm
Earlier in the thread, you were making a case for the power of a tweet to be part of a force weakening the control of religion over children and teenagers.
No I didn't.

I'm the one who said, hang on a sec, how about some context, and copied and pasted a whole bunch of other tweets, and tied it to the campaigning mission of the humanist club.

I'm the one who put it against backdrop of 75 years of eroding the power of the reactionary churches.

I'm the one who looked ahead to children and teenagers forming their world view, the coming generations who'll continue the fight in the next 75 years.

This isn't an isolated example. I'm always the one who points to books not blogs. Who gives a lengthy history of Trump's crimes not just his latest outrage. Who tries to talk about a 3,672 word article while several others drag it back to a 22 word tweet. Who always starts with a 30 years outlook in economics when people worry about some local event.

I'm interested in eroding the mountain with the billions of windswept grains of sand, it feels to me that the current culture is overly obsessed with little pieces that get incorrectly magnified into boulders.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

User avatar
bob sterman
Snowbonk
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by bob sterman » Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:25 pm

warumich wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:38 pm
Yes. Alienating such a large part of the public through offhand mockery is pretty much one of the worst things you can do. Most of our troubles with people not accepting vaccines, or believing in creationism, or climate denial or whatever stem from a breakdown in trust, it's not just about explaining things clearly or in terms of one syllable, it's about social identities and people taking up positions that they think they need to have in order to belong to their identified social group. It's pretty paradigmatic in social psychology of knowledge, and you'll find plenty of researchers, including yours truly, who have applied this to the public understanding of science. The evidence is there, it's published, among other places, in two dedicated high impact journals and many others, there are scholarly societies on science communication, and annual conferences where that research is presented (where I've never seen her).

If you either don't read the professional literature on public engagement in science, or you do read it and don't care, then I really don't see how you can hold a professorship of that exact title. If we unearth a professor of physics who doesn't engage with the literature* at any level we wouldn't, I hope, get upset about a post where someone suggest they might be in the wrong job. I don't see where this is different.


* edited to add footnote, but we wouldn't get a professor of physics without at least an undergraduate degree in physics, either. Having said that, it's easier to come to the social sciences later in life, and I know plenty of colleagues who did just that. But at least they made an effort to get up to speed.
You've got a few other reasons why you think she shouldn't hold the position she does in there - aside from the tweet. Although I suppose you are suggesting that from the tweet you can deduce that she has not been reading the literature?

Alternatively, maybe she is very familiar with the literature? But just got fed up with people telling kids (and her kids in particular) about the resurrection as though it were a fact? That's exactly what Roberts has suggested in the longer sequence of tweets that lpm posted to the thread...
@theAliceRoberts wrote:People have told my children about the resurrection as though it were a fact since they were about 3. I think it’s completely reasonable to point out that it’s nonsense. I respect everyone’s right to believe what they like - but that doesn’t mean I respect the beliefs themselves.
On qualifications - it's pretty common for Professors of Public Engagement with Science / Public Understanding of Science to have backgrounds in one of the sciences and popular science writing. So Roberts is hardly unusual in that regard. She has a track record of doing science communication - rather than studying it.

User avatar
warumich
Clardic Fug
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by warumich » Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:30 pm

bob sterman wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:25 pm
You've got a few other reasons why you think she shouldn't hold the position she does in there - aside from the tweet. Although I suppose you are suggesting that from the tweet you can deduce that she has not been reading the literature?
Not really, the tweet is ill-advised not maybe because of the amount of damage it does (it's quite mild and as others have pointed out, twitter is maybe not as influential as all that), but because it's such an elementary thing to get wrong for someone in a public engagement profession, it's hair raising. Like a doctor who mistakes veins for arteries, that level of fundamental. But hey, maybe I deduce wrongly, maybe she really does know and care about the evidence on what works and what doesn't in science communication, and this was just a one off mistake. Her explanatory tweet does not help as much as you think it does (though it's better), because she's still calling it "nonsense". You, her, I and lpm all agree it's not likely that this happened 2000 years ago, but plenty of people clearly do, and as has been argued and demonstrated at length by historians and sociologists of science, believing in this as a one off miracle does nothing to harm anyone's understanding of science. And if you'd bothered with the literature, you'd know that. Heck there is even a leading research centre studying the relationship between religion and science at Birmingham University.

It's not about background either, at our sci com events both researchers and practitioners are very welcome, and usually aim for a 50-50 split (don't always achieve that, but practitioners will always be welcome and/or even given keynotes). I've not seen her there (nor of course, have I ever seen Dawkins, or Brian Cox), though of course I don't manage to go to every event everywhere so who knows. But anyway, there are plenty of sci-com practitioners who engage with the evidence on what works and what doesn't at at least some level. That's pretty much all I'm asking.
bob sterman wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:25 pm
On qualifications - it's pretty common for Professors of Public Engagement with Science / Public Understanding of Science to have backgrounds in one of the sciences and popular science writing. So Roberts is hardly unusual in that regard. She has a track record of doing science communication - rather than studying it.
I know plenty of people like that, and I don't have a problem with this. I even worked for one once, and worked on a grant application with another one recently (didn't come off sadly). Both of them are lovely people who as far as I know them wouldn't dream of writing stuff like what Roberts did, because when they took up the job, they read up on what it is about, and because they're scientists they looked at what the research says. I would have thought that's pretty elemental.
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

User avatar
FairySmall
Buzzberry
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:47 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by FairySmall » Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:34 pm

warumich wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:30 pm
Not really, the tweet is ill-advised not maybe because of the amount of damage it does (it's quite mild and as others have pointed out, twitter is maybe not as influential as all that), but because it's such an elementary thing to get wrong for someone in a public engagement profession, it's hair raising. Like a doctor who mistakes veins for arteries, that level of fundamental.
This. A million times this. And for someone who works in that field as well (both me and warumich) it's a real nails down a chalkboard moment.
bob sterman wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:25 pm
On qualifications - it's pretty common for Professors of Public Engagement with Science / Public Understanding of Science to have backgrounds in one of the sciences and popular science writing. So Roberts is hardly unusual in that regard. She has a track record of doing science communication - rather than studying it.
I do have a problem with this. It's like making Angelina Jolie* a Professor of Film without expecting her to understand any theory, read any literature or change how she acts in any way. These roles might seem to be a good way to recognise someone's achievements outside their research field but they create a world of confusion for both academics and practitioners in the area.

This is a very niche sidetrack to the main gist of this thread but there are some of us who live and breathe this stuff. So I'll jump on any chance to talk about it, even if it's to have a gripe :).

* Other celebrities also available. Not sure why I chose her.

secret squirrel
Snowbonk
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by secret squirrel » Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:54 am

Drake disapproves: Faith in God.
Drake approves: Faith in History and Phil. of Science takes that would have been embarrassingly simple minded in the 50s.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Woodchopper » Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:37 am

So to sum up Warumich and FairySmall, it would be preferable if the people advocating for science actually did so scientifically.

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
After Pie
Posts: 1803
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: Mocking religion

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:44 am

I mean, if you think it's a good idea (or, if not a good idea, then absolutely fine) for professors of public engagement with science to wait until Easter Sunday - the most important date in the Christian calendar - to tweet out a mocking tweet about resurrection, albeit a mild one, do you think there is or should be a line on where the mocking stops? Is there a "too far" with this stuff? If so, what?

Here's a list of fun ideas for professors of public engagement with science to really ramp home the "religious people are stupid c.nts and humanists are massively superior to them" message which Roberts is supportive of here. Which of those would people here support? Which ones would bring the most people To Science do you think?
  • Walk into a C of E church during Easter Sunday and start arguing with the vicar
  • Walk into a Russian Orthodox church during Easter Sunday and start arguing with the priest
  • Start a movement to stand outside churches every Sunday with signs that say things like "Religion is pathetic", "You're all idiots", "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" and so on, chanting slogans about how pathetic Christians are
  • Find your way into a secretive, unregistered Christian church in China where the risk of persecution is high and start a facebook live broadcast laughing at them all for their pathetic beliefs
  • Moving onto other religions, how about waiting until Eid al-Fitr next month, then tweeting about how Mohammed was a paedophile
  • Or, let's make it real-world, what if said professor walks up to a bunch of Muslims and tells them loudly to their faces that Mohammed was a paedophile
  • Or waiting until Shabbat and finding your nearest group of Jews and loudly proclaiming how vile Moses was - after all, he ordered the slaughter of the Midianite men, boys and non-virgin women, and the keeping their virgin women as slaves.
How could anyone fail to be enamoured with the loveliness and welcoming nature of science with such public engagement?
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

plodder
Dorkwood
Posts: 1329
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by plodder » Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:51 am

warumich wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:23 pm
Justified or not, you don't talk down to people if you want to engage them with your point of view <snip>
Err, really? There are lots of tools in the rhetorical toolbox and confidently pointing out that someone is wrong is definitely one of them.

I find lpm (for example) to be pretty persuasive, and of course people like Andrew Neil and Piers Morgan (not to mention trumpeting red-faced politicians) make a career of persuading people in exactly this way.

User avatar
Stephanie
After Pie
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Stephanie » Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:15 am

plodder wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:51 am
warumich wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:23 pm
Justified or not, you don't talk down to people if you want to engage them with your point of view <snip>
Err, really? There are lots of tools in the rhetorical toolbox and confidently pointing out that someone is wrong is definitely one of them.

I find lpm (for example) to be pretty persuasive, and of course people like Andrew Neil and Piers Morgan (not to mention trumpeting red-faced politicians) make a career of persuading people in exactly this way.
You've conflated two things there though. Confidence and pointing out someone is wrong.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
Fishnut
Dorkwood
Posts: 1184
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Fishnut » Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:16 am

plodder wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:51 am
people like Andrew Neil and Piers Morgan (not to mention trumpeting red-faced politicians) make a career of persuading people in exactly this way.
Do they? I thought they just pandered to people's pre-existing bigotry and biases.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
warumich
Clardic Fug
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by warumich » Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:23 am

plodder wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:51 am
warumich wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:23 pm
Justified or not, you don't talk down to people if you want to engage them with your point of view <snip>
Err, really? There are lots of tools in the rhetorical toolbox and confidently pointing out that someone is wrong is definitely one of them.

I find lpm (for example) to be pretty persuasive, and of course people like Andrew Neil and Piers Morgan (not to mention trumpeting red-faced politicians) make a career of persuading people in exactly this way.
Yes really. It works only with people who are already pre-disposed to your view. You'll have noticed that lpm did a really bad job in persuading me or epd, for example. If she had been a little bit less abrasive I may have been more willing to see her point of view. Instead she got all the people on her side who were already leaning towards her view. It's communication (or rhetoric if you want) 101.

A politician only has to persuade 51% of the people, less in a constituency with more than two parties. It's a different rhetorical context
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

User avatar
Stephanie
After Pie
Posts: 2055
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Stephanie » Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:27 am

I personally find warumich more persuasive since he actually has knowledge of science communication, and isn't doing a bunch of "wot i reckon" stuff.

ETA: I fully acknowledge that I'm probably already biased to that view though. Lpm is amusing at times, but I'm not swayed by her argument on this thread.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
warumich
Clardic Fug
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by warumich » Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:40 am

plodder wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:51 am
warumich wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:23 pm
Justified or not, you don't talk down to people if you want to engage them with your point of view <snip>
Err, really? There are lots of tools in the rhetorical toolbox and confidently pointing out that someone is wrong is definitely one of them.

I find lpm (for example) to be pretty persuasive, and of course people like Andrew Neil and Piers Morgan (not to mention trumpeting red-faced politicians) make a career of persuading people in exactly this way.
To clarify this, there are as Stephanie noted, two things in your assertion. Talking down to people and stating facts are different things. You can state a fact without being condescending (and obv. you can talk down to people without using facts). Facts are indeed important in communication, I don't want to suggest they're not.

In this case, stating that people don't come back from the dead is not a fact in the sense that it'll be new information to the addressed person, because they know that. The resurrection wouldn't be a miracle otherwise (five times, shpalman, five!). And that is a fact.
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

User avatar
warumich
Clardic Fug
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by warumich » Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:42 am

warumich wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:40 am
In this case, stating that people don't come back from the dead is not a fact in the sense that it'll be new information to the addressed person, because they know that. The resurrection wouldn't be a miracle otherwise (five times, shpalman, five!). And that is a fact.
Also of course, this was a slightly condescending way of putting it, my apologies. You see it's not that easy
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

Chris Preston
Fuzzable
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:05 am

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Chris Preston » Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:52 am

I am a bit late to this party, but this strikes me that Roberts has missed the first rule of communication: know your audience. Now of course that is far more difficult to do well on Twitter, which means you need to be careful about how you communicate.

Mocking people or their beliefs almost never convinces someone to change their views.

Mockery of ideas may have some use with people who may be toying with ideas, but are not yet convinced of them, but you need to provide real alternative evidence as well. Mockery is used far more often as tribal signalling.

The end result of Roberts' efforts has been to get people to talk about her and almost nobody is engaging with the message. If that was the outcome Roberts was after, well it worked, but I doubt that was what she after.
Here grows much rhubarb.

User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3005
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by lpm » Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:10 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:44 am
I mean, if you think it's a good idea (or, if not a good idea, then absolutely fine) for professors of public engagement with science to wait until Easter Sunday - the most important date in the Christian calendar - to tweet out a mocking tweet about resurrection, albeit a mild one, do you think there is or should be a line on where the mocking stops? Is there a "too far" with this stuff? If so, what?

Here's a list of fun ideas for professors of public engagement with science to really ramp home the "religious people are stupid c.nts and humanists are massively superior to them" message which Roberts is supportive of here. Which of those would people here support? Which ones would bring the most people To Science do you think?
  • Walk into a C of E church during Easter Sunday and start arguing with the vicar
  • Walk into a Russian Orthodox church during Easter Sunday and start arguing with the priest
  • Start a movement to stand outside churches every Sunday with signs that say things like "Religion is pathetic", "You're all idiots", "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" and so on, chanting slogans about how pathetic Christians are
  • Find your way into a secretive, unregistered Christian church in China where the risk of persecution is high and start a facebook live broadcast laughing at them all for their pathetic beliefs
  • Moving onto other religions, how about waiting until Eid al-Fitr next month, then tweeting about how Mohammed was a paedophile
  • Or, let's make it real-world, what if said professor walks up to a bunch of Muslims and tells them loudly to their faces that Mohammed was a paedophile
  • Or waiting until Shabbat and finding your nearest group of Jews and loudly proclaiming how vile Moses was - after all, he ordered the slaughter of the Midianite men, boys and non-virgin women, and the keeping their virgin women as slaves.
How could anyone fail to be enamoured with the loveliness and welcoming nature of science with such public engagement?
Do you think there is or should be a line on where the subservience to powerful religious institutions stops? Is there a "too far" with this stuff? If so, what?

Here's a list of fun ideas for cowards to shut up about, to really ram home the "religions are always privileged and ordinary mortals always must be nice to them" message which so many forum members are supportive of here. Which of those would people here support? Which ones would bring the most people to meek compliance with reactionary ideas do you think?
  • Keep smiling vaguely while your CoE vicar implies modern gender fluid ideas are to blame for online sexual harrassment
  • Keep silent when a Roman Catholic Priest argues that Covid has been caused by the sin of abortion
  • Start a movement to support the freedom of speech of an evangelical church that organises conversion therapy
  • Look the other way when religious leaders fight for the right to sexually mutilate children
  • Say "lovely sermon vicar, another cup of tea?" after he's argued that children raped by priests weren't so innocent they knew what they were doing who are the real victims here
  • Go on an internet forum and get hopelessly confused between punching upwards and supporting oppressed minorities in fascist China
  • Pretend there's no religious component when one sect places IEDs to kill members of another sect
How could anyone fail to be enamoured with the loveliness and tolerance of such public engagement?

It's always a joy to see the "CoE niceness" privilege being expressed so eloquently, EPD. "Religion never did me any harm and my grandma likes it". Guess what: white hereosexual males with conventional lifestyles and careers don't tend to get harmed by this sort of sh.t. You might not see any reason to rock the boat. But it's not acceptable to moan at other people who rock the boat, complaining that the boat rocking is making you feel a bit queasy.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

User avatar
warumich
Clardic Fug
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by warumich » Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:31 am

lpm wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:10 am

Do you think there is or should be a line on where the subservience to powerful religious institutions stops? Is there a "too far" with this stuff? If so, what?

Here's a list of fun ideas for cowards to shut up about, to really ram home the "religions are always privileged and ordinary mortals always must be nice to them" message which so many forum members are supportive of here. Which of those would people here support? Which ones would bring the most people to meek compliance with reactionary ideas do you think?
  • Keep smiling vaguely while your CoE vicar implies modern gender fluid ideas are to blame for online sexual harrassment
  • Keep silent when a Roman Catholic Priest argues that Covid has been caused by the sin of abortion
  • Start a movement to support the freedom of speech of an evangelical church that organises conversion therapy
  • Look the other way when religious leaders fight for the right to sexually mutilate children
  • Say "lovely sermon vicar, another cup of tea?" after he's argued that children raped by priests weren't so innocent they knew what they were doing who are the real victims here
  • Go on an internet forum and get hopelessly confused between punching upwards and supporting oppressed minorities in fascist China
  • Pretend there's no religious component when one sect places IEDs to kill members of another sect
How could anyone fail to be enamoured with the loveliness and tolerance of such public engagement?

It's always a joy to see the "CoE niceness" privilege being expressed so eloquently, EPD. "Religion never did me any harm and my grandma likes it". Guess what: white hereosexual males with conventional lifestyles and careers don't tend to get harmed by this sort of sh.t. You might not see any reason to rock the boat. But it's not acceptable to moan at other people who rock the boat, complaining that the boat rocking is making you feel a bit queasy.
But what do you do if you want to stop all these things? If you're really interested in helping then shouting insults is not going to work, and most likely achieve the opposite. It'll make you feel better, but then if that's what you're after and you're cool with this maybe your own white middle-class privilege is showing (yea, I realise I'm making assumptions here, just as you are).

Earlier in the thread you made a boast of taking the long view, recommending books rather than blog-posts. I have on the wall behind me a 2.5 meter long shelf with only books about the sociology and history of religion and the science-belief relationship, one of which I've written myself. There are also some really interesting books there on the relationship between belief and religious violence. I'm happy to send you some reading suggestions.
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

User avatar
Tessa K
After Pie
Posts: 2275
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Tessa K » Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:36 am

warumich wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 9:40 am
plodder wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:51 am
warumich wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:23 pm
Justified or not, you don't talk down to people if you want to engage them with your point of view <snip>
Err, really? There are lots of tools in the rhetorical toolbox and confidently pointing out that someone is wrong is definitely one of them.

I find lpm (for example) to be pretty persuasive, and of course people like Andrew Neil and Piers Morgan (not to mention trumpeting red-faced politicians) make a career of persuading people in exactly this way.
To clarify this, there are as Stephanie noted, two things in your assertion. Talking down to people and stating facts are different things. You can state a fact without being condescending (and obv. you can talk down to people without using facts). Facts are indeed important in communication, I don't want to suggest they're not.

In this case, stating that people don't come back from the dead is not a fact in the sense that it'll be new information to the addressed person, because they know that. The resurrection wouldn't be a miracle otherwise (five times, shpalman, five!). And that is a fact.
Context is all. Stating a fact doesn't happen in isolation. Without taking the context into consideration, a statement has much less meaning or impact and can easily be misinterpreted.

With any statement of science or facts generally, whether original or reported, the speaker/writer needs to consider a) who is saying it b) where they say it c) when they say it d) why they say it e) who the intended audience is f) what the intended effect is g) how they say it. These are basics of reporting and communicating in any field. Taking all of these into consideration, Roberts' tweet missed the mark as effective communication, which is her job.

Stating that dead people don't come back is a fact but it's not useful because, as Warumich says, it's not new, or embedded in any context that justifies it (explanatory, analytical etc).

Yes, religion should be challenged but in an effective way. Which this wasn't.

User avatar
bob sterman
Snowbonk
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by bob sterman » Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:37 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:37 am
So to sum up Warumich and FairySmall, it would be preferable if the people advocating for science actually did so scientifically.
Can't disagree with that - although I think it needs to be acknowledged that people can't be expected to do their job 24/7. I would say that getting fed up and tweeting something that does nothing to advance science communication is not "incompatible" with being an effective science communicator the rest of the time.

And I'm not sure the argument for a scientific approach was strengthened by the suggestion that that Professorships like the one Roberts has tend to go to those "who look good on TV" (for which Warumich has apologised). Or the analogy with Angelina Jolie being made a Professor of Film (incidentally she has credits as a director, screenwriter and producer - as well as acting).

Finally as a serious aisde - although things are changing with online conferences - I would strongly recommend that people try to avoid using whether someone is seen at conferences as a proxy for engagement with a field - because e.g. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaon ... le/2738415

User avatar
bob sterman
Snowbonk
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by bob sterman » Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:40 am

warumich wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:31 am
Earlier in the thread you made a boast of taking the long view, recommending books rather than blog-posts. I have on the wall behind me a 2.5 meter long shelf with only books about the sociology and history of religion and the science-belief relationship, one of which I've written myself. There are also some really interesting books there on the relationship between belief and religious violence. I'm happy to send you some reading suggestions.
:D

You did say in an earlier post it was not easy to get a message across without being condescending!

User avatar
warumich
Clardic Fug
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by warumich » Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:51 am

bob sterman wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:40 am
warumich wrote:
Thu Apr 08, 2021 10:31 am
Earlier in the thread you made a boast of taking the long view, recommending books rather than blog-posts. I have on the wall behind me a 2.5 meter long shelf with only books about the sociology and history of religion and the science-belief relationship, one of which I've written myself. There are also some really interesting books there on the relationship between belief and religious violence. I'm happy to send you some reading suggestions.
:D

You did say in an earlier post it was not easy to get a message across without being condescending!
I know... :oops:
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

JellyandJackson
Clardic Fug
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 3:40 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by JellyandJackson » Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:01 am

I’d be grateful for some very entry level reading suggestions, though.
A thousand strawberry lollies and the princess of Lichtenstein.

Post Reply