In his recent column for Scientific American, Michael Shermer relates the following tale:
Thirteen years after the legendary confrontation over the theory of evolution between Bishop Samuel Wilberforce ("Soapy Sam") and Thomas Henry Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog"), Wilberforce died in 1873 in an equestrian fall. Huxley quipped to physicist John Tyndall, "For once, reality and his brain came into contact and the result was fatal."
Shorter Carson Holloway:
Take I: Scientific facts should not be stated publicly if doing so would disturb the delicate sensibilities of ignorant rubes.
Take II: Doesn't Richard Dawkins know that reality is, like, a total downer?
(Via Butterflies & Wheels.)
I generally like the Dixie Chicks--their music as much as their politics--and I've never boycotted an artist. But I certainly don't see how an individual buyer's decision not to buy a Chicks album because of Maines' (in)famous remarks about Bush is "destroying" anyone.
One reason Chicks apostates had become Chicks fans in the first place was because Maines never made conspicuous political remarks like these before these fans came aboard. If she had, of course, they never would have become fans. And no one would object to that. Right?
But there's no meaningful difference between (1) deciding not to become a fan of an artist because of their publicly stated politics and (2) deciding to cease being a fan after those politics are made public. (Concerns about the possible chilling effects on speech aside, it would seem pretty absurd to demand of somone that he become a Chicks fan because he admits he possibly would have become a fan if Maines hadn't made her remarks.)
The issue is different with institutional actors like Clear Channel, whose boycotts don't merely affect the artist but also distort the market and punish loyal fans. Clear Channel has an effective monopoly, and there were no reasonable substitutes for those of its listeners who otherwise might have wanted to wage a retaliatory boycott against Clear Channel for its boycott of the Chicks.
But individual buyers's decisions not to buy a record don't wreak these ugly effects. All they can do is shrink demand down to what the artist should reasonably expect. I just don't see the rub.
Side Note: As it happens, my band is made up almost entirely of atheists. What makes this unusual is that, like the Chicks, we're a country band. Which (given our desire for mass popularity) means that the more-or-less unspoken agreement among us is that we just don't talk about it in public fora.
If we ever decide to "come out" as atheists, though, we'll know what to expect.
(Via onegoodmove.)
UPDATE: Some of the commenters over at onegoodmove and Joho are making a distinction between a person's personally boycotting a CD and a person's lobbying others (buyers, radio stations, stores, whatever) to boycott the CD, and that Joho's argument was only aimed at the latter type of boycotter. Well, no doubt about it, the lobbying described isn't at all consistent with a stated personal regard for free speech. But then that's a rather trivial observation, isn't it?
Glenn Reynolds now has his foot in his mouth just about up to his knee. You'll recall his post of yesterday, in which he said that "people assume that there's no point in behaving morally when they're going to be called monsters anyway."
I guess Reynolds counts himself a "person," so he's effectively admitting to a defective moral psychology--the logic of which (assuming Reynolds' claim to being a person as true, of course) entails that if you call Reynolds a Nazi, he would just assume act like a Nazi.
Reynolds is up to three updates now (plus the original post), and notwithstanding all the sand he's kicking up, he has yet to repudiate this obviously degenerate morality (i.e., I guess, by saying he meant only other people assume that). One must presume he means to stand by it. If only on one foot.
Wow. Among other things, Glenn Reynolds declares:
[P]eople assume that there’s no point in behaving morally when they’re going to be called monsters anyway. This seems rather uncontroversially obvious to me.
So, e.g., calling someone a Nazi will only make him behave like Nazi.
Yikes. Better not call Glenn Reynolds a Nazi.
(Via Eschaton.)
John Holbo allows "real" Americans to reveal themeselves, with gems like
I’d rather have a corrupt Republican than an honest Democrat (not that there is such a thing).
and
DeLay was an effective leader, albeit too liberal in recent years.... As far as we can tell at the moment, DeLay appears to be yet another victim of the Democrats’ politics of personal destruction—the only politics they know.
And now for our regularly scheduled programming back on planet Earth...
(Wait a minute--this is the regularly scheduled programming on planet Earth.)
Apparently, Michael Ruse is trying to extinguish his philosophical career, since he persists in arguments like this:
If Darwinism equals [charitably, he means "entails"] atheism then it can't be taught in US schools because of the constitutional separation of church and state."
This is a profoundly ignorant argument, tantamount to saying that teaching that Jesus or Muhammad are historical figures makes history equivalent to Christianity or Islam. History is certainly consistent with some version of Christianity or Islam (and also consistent with atheism). But it is also inconsistent with other versions of Christianity or Islam. The same goes with mathematics, economics, sociology, psychology, medicine, etc. But none of these subject areas implicates church-state separation, and Ruse knows it. So why on earth is he pretending that evolution is somehow peculiar in this respect?
Ruse had better start acting like he has a "reputation to preserve," or else, well, he won't.
Philosopher of religion Alvin Plantinga has three questions regarding the Kitzmiller intelligent design decision (numbering is mine):
(1) [I]sn’t this question — whether ID is just rewarmed creation science — a question for philosophical or logical analysis? (2) Can one settle a question of that sort by a judicial ruling? (3) Isn’t that like legislating that the value of pi is 1/3 rather than that inconvenient and hard to remember 3.14?
Answers:
(1) Yes.
(2) As a matter of metaphysics, no; as a matter of constitutional administration, well, of course.
(3) No; but it would be like ruling (not "legislating") that the "pi-ous" value of .333 is not mathematical.
This concludes my criticism of Plantinga. (Note that it was not meant to be exhaustive.) For credit due him, see Taner Edis' charitable post here. (Thanks to Taner for the pointer.)
William Saletan has an interesting article at Slate on why, contra the phobic utterings of conservative, antigay hysterians, gay marriage is no gateway to polygamy (of either the hetero- or homosexual variety).
In short, "[f]idelity isn't natural, but jealousy is."
Recent Comments