3 ms·

"You're not allowed sarcastic metaphors any more." "Why not?" asked the scientist. "Because you haven't learned to employ them in a way that doesn't alienate

"You're not allowed sarcastic metaphors any more." "Why not?" asked the scientist. "Because you haven't learned to employ them in a way that doesn't alienate the very people you are trying to help. Now please send in Dawkins on the way out, we need to discuss internet memes with him."

sebular 12y ago
The sarcastic metaphor and the exasperation that motivates it comes after centuries of scientists being ridiculed, persecuted, and even killed by ignorant people.
- cix 12y ago
  That isn't limited to Scientists my friend.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Right, which is all the more reason to take the high road. To set a better example. Also, because trading vitriol with religious fanatics and ignorants accomplishes nothing. Knowledge is the antidote to ignorance. Not smugness, defensiveness, or indignation (well-justified though all of those things might be).
  - autokad 12y ago
    A+
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  I know where it comes from, with my scientists hat on, I completely agree with the piece. But from a literary perspective, it is like being repeatedly bashed round the head by a moron with a length of 2x4. This conceit can be done well. Mitchell and Webb's little old lady job-justification hearings are a particularly good example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXTBPN1HhA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXTBPN1HhA
  - tormeh 12y ago
    Oh wow, that's pretty funny. These "gamblers" on the stock market do actually make the system work better and moves investment to places where it's likelier to have a good return. So they do help, although in a very abstract way and maybe not as much in practice as in theory but still. A better question than whether they help is how much and how much they should be rewarded for that help.
VikingCoder 12y ago
You're right, but you're wrong. You're right - we shouldn't celebrate alienating people who need help. You're wrong, because there is no argument that can convince someone who doesn't care about evidence. So, please forgive us our gallows humor about this. After all, these people are content in risking the health of MY child on their Jenny McCarthy-inspired HUNCH that vaccines are bad. If anti-vaccine folks were only risking the health of their own children, their anti-science stance (or selective-science stance) would be tolerable. As it is, they're a menace.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  You're wrong, because there is no argument that can convince someone who doesn't care about evidence. That sounds reasonably falsifiable, especially with some nice biscuits.
- gloob 12y ago
  > So, please forgive us our gallows humor about this. Apologies for my pedantry, but dreaming about harming people is actually pretty much the opposite of gallows humour. A more appropriate phrase might be "power fantasy."
  - VikingCoder 12y ago
    Warning: This response is for pedantic purposes only. This is someone who is putting a gun to my daughter's head. They don't want to vaccinate their child, which increases my daughter's chance of getting seriously ill or dying. This is a fantasy about retaliating against the people who threaten lives. That's gallows humor.
- DigitalJack 12y ago
  My main issue with "science," which I put in quotes because there is the ideal of science and the reality of science which are unfortunately not the same. It is purported that science is objective, and that is the admirable goal, but it hasn't been successful. For every study purporting one thing, one can find an equal an opposite study purporting the opposite (or nearly opposite). Now, that is hyperbole, as usually one of they studies is inferior in some way that is not obvious to the lay person, but it won't stop them from taking an overly strong stance based on an inferior study. I believe a lot of the "vaccines are bad crowd" fall into a few categories: 1) the group that is very susceptible to confirmation bias 2) the group that has seen some studies that weren't conducted very well and were possibly informed by the first group. 3) those that fall victim to circular references in their proof (e.g. wikipedia article citing a magazine citing the wikipedia article, with possibly a few steps in between) 4) those who choose to believe something because the alternative is terrible for them. I see this one a lot. If you are discussing with someone of some modicum of intellect, you'll detect the situation when "slippery slope" starts being mentioned. I'm sort of friends with a "vaccines are bad" person. I've cited numerous studies, which, while I'm no expert at interpreting studies, seemed to have rigor. Didn't phase her in the slightest, and we just don't talk about that subject anymore. Or at least I don't, and I don't take the bait. I believe she has an autistic grandson, and if she didn't have vaccines to blame, she'd have to believe that God caused the autism and that's too terrible for her.

sebular 12y ago

The sarcastic metaphor and the exasperation that motivates it comes after centuries of scientists being ridiculed, persecuted, and even killed by ignorant people.

cix 12y ago
That isn't limited to Scientists my friend.
jonnathanson 12y ago
Right, which is all the more reason to take the high road. To set a better example. Also, because trading vitriol with religious fanatics and ignorants accomplishes nothing. Knowledge is the antidote to ignorance. Not smugness, defensiveness, or indignation (well-justified though all of those things might be).
- autokad 12y ago
  A+
lotsofmangos 12y ago
I know where it comes from, with my scientists hat on, I completely agree with the piece. But from a literary perspective, it is like being repeatedly bashed round the head by a moron with a length of 2x4. This conceit can be done well. Mitchell and Webb's little old lady job-justification hearings are a particularly good example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXTBPN1HhA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXTBPN1HhA
- tormeh 12y ago
  Oh wow, that's pretty funny. These "gamblers" on the stock market do actually make the system work better and moves investment to places where it's likelier to have a good return. So they do help, although in a very abstract way and maybe not as much in practice as in theory but still. A better question than whether they help is how much and how much they should be rewarded for that help.

VikingCoder 12y ago

You're right, but you're wrong. You're right - we shouldn't celebrate alienating people who need help. You're wrong, because there is no argument that can convince someone who doesn't care about evidence. So, please forgive us our gallows humor about this. After all, these people are content in risking the health of MY child on their Jenny McCarthy-inspired HUNCH that vaccines are bad. If anti-vaccine folks were only risking the health of their own children, their anti-science stance (or selective-science stance) would be tolerable. As it is, they're a menace.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
You're wrong, because there is no argument that can convince someone who doesn't care about evidence. That sounds reasonably falsifiable, especially with some nice biscuits.
gloob 12y ago
> So, please forgive us our gallows humor about this. Apologies for my pedantry, but dreaming about harming people is actually pretty much the opposite of gallows humour. A more appropriate phrase might be "power fantasy."
- VikingCoder 12y ago
  Warning: This response is for pedantic purposes only. This is someone who is putting a gun to my daughter's head. They don't want to vaccinate their child, which increases my daughter's chance of getting seriously ill or dying. This is a fantasy about retaliating against the people who threaten lives. That's gallows humor.
DigitalJack 12y ago
My main issue with "science," which I put in quotes because there is the ideal of science and the reality of science which are unfortunately not the same. It is purported that science is objective, and that is the admirable goal, but it hasn't been successful. For every study purporting one thing, one can find an equal an opposite study purporting the opposite (or nearly opposite). Now, that is hyperbole, as usually one of they studies is inferior in some way that is not obvious to the lay person, but it won't stop them from taking an overly strong stance based on an inferior study. I believe a lot of the "vaccines are bad crowd" fall into a few categories: 1) the group that is very susceptible to confirmation bias 2) the group that has seen some studies that weren't conducted very well and were possibly informed by the first group. 3) those that fall victim to circular references in their proof (e.g. wikipedia article citing a magazine citing the wikipedia article, with possibly a few steps in between) 4) those who choose to believe something because the alternative is terrible for them. I see this one a lot. If you are discussing with someone of some modicum of intellect, you'll detect the situation when "slippery slope" starts being mentioned. I'm sort of friends with a "vaccines are bad" person. I've cited numerous studies, which, while I'm no expert at interpreting studies, seemed to have rigor. Didn't phase her in the slightest, and we just don't talk about that subject anymore. Or at least I don't, and I don't take the bait. I believe she has an autistic grandson, and if she didn't have vaccines to blame, she'd have to believe that God caused the autism and that's too terrible for her.