anonym comments on Why I'm Staying On Bloggingheads.tv - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 September 2009 08:15PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (96)
Tags: antitheism bhtv

Comments (96)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: anonym 08 September 2009 01:45:36AM 4 points [-]

I'm quite sure that there are political participants who would fare worse than Behe on any of the dimensions you'd offer.

And the young-earth creationist? Since you are quite sure about it, which people hold which specific political beliefs that are as utterly refuted by the scientific evidence as the idea that Genesis is pretty much right and that the Earth is on the order of thousands or tens of thousands of years old?

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 08 September 2009 03:38:45AM *  -1 points [-]

And the young-earth creationist?

No one ACTUALLY cares that the young-earth creationist was on. They only care about Behe. Note that Eliezer didn't mention the first interview.

(edit for clarity)

Comment author: anonym 08 September 2009 04:44:44AM *  2 points [-]

Wrong.

Sean Carroll:

A few weeks ago we were a bit startled to find a “Science Saturday” episode of BH.tv featuring Paul Nelson, an honest-to-God young-Earth creationist. Not really what most of us like to think of as “science.” So there were emails back and forth trying to figure out what went on.

Why would emails be flying back and forth if he didn't care about the creationist?

Carl Zimmer:

But now my experiment’s over. This post is an explanation of why, and how this turn of events has gotten me thinking about the future of science in new media.

Last month Bloggingheads posted a talk between Paul Nelson, a creationist, and Ronald Numbers, a historian of science. They even put the talk on a Saturday, which they set aside for science. (Hence the name Science Saturday.)

Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer leaving BhTV is what kicked the whole thing off, in case you haven't followed the affair at all, and they both explicitly stated in the articles quoted above that they were cared very much that the creationist was on but that they were willing to accept it was a one-time mistake that wouldn't happen again. How do you interpret that as "not caring"?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 08 September 2009 08:59:20AM -2 points [-]

Some conspiracy theory! Epistemic hygiene, please.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 08 September 2009 01:10:21PM 1 point [-]

Some conspiracy theory! Epistemic hygiene, please.

I don't think a conspiracy is a reasonable reading of my words. I certainly deny a conspiracy.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 September 2009 02:40:10AM 0 points [-]

This is an interesting challenge and I'm wondering if anyone has a good candidate for it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit