There’s an idea that has been floating around the science blogosphere lately. It has hit several major blogs, and has incited several reactions from bloggers that it has hit. In my own arena, I’ve experienced a similar reaction to my podcast in iTunes. For this week’s edition of Monday Madness - I’ll have my scientists one-dimensional and without opinions, please!

Let’s start with what I first noticed. The first review I got of the Mindcast in the iTunes directory:

Posted by: KingMonocle

Not objective ***

This podcast is informative, however, the podcaster is too opinionated for a scientist in my opinion.

Too opinionated? Without knowing what they mean, I could only guess. Did I go too far in suggesting that there isn’t any evidence against evolution? Because there isn’t. Did I overstep the facts to say that the anti-global warming crowd is misusing and skewing science to further a political agenda? You see, they are. No, it couldn’t be an issue with the facts I bring to the show, after all, they didn’t say anything about the facts, except that the show is informative. What about matters of pure opinion?

Could it be that I think that compassion and logic leads to the good life, and that our ethical judgements should be based in humanistic considerations rather than ancient myths? Perhaps. Could it be that I think that people need to discuss things less from political and other ideological perspectives, and instead start from the science itself when determining what is and isn’t? Could have struck a nerve. Instead, maybe they take issue with my opinion that although John Williams is an amazing and brilliant composer, that he frequently re-uses themes and dominates his compositions with a few too many of certain kinds of instruments (horns)? An unsettling idea, sure to start a riot, but it had to be said.

Wait, I got it. I remember what must have stuck out enough to have this person leave such a review. Each spring, as I suffer under the weight of pollen allergies, I remark about plants having sex in the air, all around us, and that we’re breathing in their sperm cells. A simple fact, yes, which might disturb a few folks but is relatively harmless by itself. But, on more than one occasion I have expressed an opinion too controversial for most people. That is, while we humans are accelerating the rate at which species go extinct, we are damaging the biosphere to our own detriment. So while we’re at it, why can’t we make certain species go extinct? How about ragweed - which belches out the worst pollen known to humanity. Growing wild, spreading its antigens all around, making people like me suffer! It’s my bias, but I think I’m on to something. Let’s save the whales and extinguish the ragweed. You don’t like ragweed, do you?
Clearly, KingMonocle, if that is your real name, you are part of the pro-ragweed coalition. And I’m on to you. What kind of diabolical scheme are you involved in, spreading ragweed around the planet..? Testing out new strains of high-intensity ragweed? Or trying to recruit others into disparaging those that think that if any species has to make room for humans, it ought to be ragweed?

Pollen aside, KingMonocle presented an interesting claim. Too opinionated for a scientist in my opinion. What, are scientists not supposed to have opinions? It’s the next incarnation of “Seen and not heard.” Scientists can go ahead and work in their labs, writing about discoveries and can keep to themselves about their “knowledge.” But if they so much as have an opinion about a subject, especially science (oh they are so arrogant), then its time to trot out the gag orders. Don’t suggest to me which is the more ethical course of action, don’t you think I already know what I think before you confuse me with facts?

But scientists that are ignorant enough to have opinions I agree with - they’re A.O.K.

It seems that the idea that scientists, and science bloggers, should be pigeonholed into being opinion-less info-drones is widespread enough to have gotten noticed. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy was attacked for writing about something other than science:

Whenever I write about politics, religion, or something that is not 100% straight-up science, I get a handful of protests in the comments, usually along the lines of “I came here because this is supposed to be an astronomy blog…”

Well, for the n^th time, I’ll let y’all know: this is primarily a science blog, but not exclusively so. I think people like what I write about astronomy because I add a dimension of humanity to it, since I’m personally involved with some of it, and I know some of the fun back story. But that same humanity means I’m human, and I have other things on my mind too.

Phil Plait. How. Dare. You. Be. Human. And. Multi-.Faceted.

PZ Myers, who is not to much human as an advanced cephalopod-hominid hybrid, had a similar thing happen to him:

This week, I tossed off a casual, flippant comment that launched a thousand ineffectual bastinados. (…)
Fury, outrage, and massive snits ensued. Blogs were riven to their very foundations by anger — “How dare Myers insult me…I am offended!” — and the sun was darkened in the sky, while badgers gave birth to raccoons and other abominations occurred with alarmingly elevated frequency. Mostly, though, people wrote more blog posts pro and con, commenters were roused to furious typing, fora were inundated with tirades, and my in-box was overflowing.

Madisonites forgive me, but even I saw the Badgers giving birth to Raccoons. PZ gave his opinion on religion, in the harshest PZ Myers kind of way, and had such a strong reaction that he had to address specific categories of responses. Here’s the last and most important one:

You’re boring. I never read your garbage about religion, and it’s gotten so boring that I never read Pharyngula anymore.

I think these are patent attempts to make my brain meltdown and explode, ala the super-intelligent computers in Star Trek that could be destroyed by telling them a paradox. How is it that my science posts get only a small (but usually appreciative and intelligent) response, while my incendiary godless atheism posts drag all these strangers out of the woodwork to complain, if they are so boring? Is inciting a riot boring? Maybe you aren’t interested (even if the fact that it’s driven you to write to me or about me contradicts that claim), but so what? I am not writing for you. I am writing for me, and I find it interesting.

Allow me to make a constructive suggestion. I seem to be a fairly successful blogger, at least in terms of traffic and linkage and all those other artificial metrics. Now there are good reasons to ignore those metrics — there are excellent blogs with low traffic, obviously, and I do not pick my readings by how many other bloggers read them — but if you’re complaining that I’m boring or that your avoidance of my blog is some kind of chastisement, you’re clearly thinking that entertaining a readership is something of value. Now think about how a blog could attract a large following.

One strategy is to pick a topic with a wide base, and pursue it well and deeply.

He went on to also suggest that one choose multiple topics that interest them, and allow people to skip over the ones that they find boring. Hah, poppycock! If I’m to read your blog, I couldn’t possibly have any interests other than yours, nor have any disagreements with you whatsoever! I mean, no one is allowed to disagree with anyone at Uncommon Descent! Err…

This is obvious advice, that the key to successful blogging is to follow your passions and follow them well, but from all the people who complain that my passions aren’t the same as theirs, I clearly need to explain the obvious.

I’m sorry, PZ, but your suggestion that your passions don’t align exactly with mine is offensive. What are you saying, that I can tolerate different opinions? Bah! We must have conformity!

Chris Pirillo, a political blogger, runs into the same problem. He is not free to write about what he wants.

I love y’all, but please DO NOT tell me what I can and CANNOT write about in my PERSONAL blog. Please? Thanks. I’m not a one-dimensional being, and I have plenty of thoughts that aren’t directly related to hardware and/or software. This is Chris Pirillo. Sorry ’bout that. I’ll try to be more like who you think you want me to be in the future…

No, Chris, you can’t. You may own the domain, take the time to set up the blog, think, write, and post your thoughts (even in that order if you feel like it), but don’t you know that your readers own you?

It’s much easier to label or categorize someone than it is to take the time to understand them and the context in which they have made and continue to make decisions, isn’t it? Much, much, much easier… much, much, much safer…

He’s on to us. Maybe we can’t skip over posts about topics we’d rather not read about. (cue the violin music) Maybe we can’t listen to someone else’s opinion that we disagree with and voice our disagreement rather than our offense at the existence of the opinion. (I said cue it!) Maybe we should understand that there are more things in this universe than are dreamt of in our philosophies, and maybe we should never stop learning. Maybe if we voiced our own opinions in a constructive manner, we could change the opinions of those people who we once thought should be one-dimensional.

Let’s get back to the iTunes reviews. It seems, in response to the review left by KingMonocle, Jimfromsac left a shining review:

Not all points of view are valid *****

“This podcast is outstanding as the Author is not afraid to have an Opinion about subjects, I find it inferiorating(sic) when a newscaster is afraid to make a stand and possibly offend someone. So tired of politically-corrected news.”

Right on, Jimfromsac! And thanks for the review. Yes, folks, prepare to encounter opinions that differ from your own. It seems the Mindcast reviews have been saved from the anti-opinion once again…

Posted By: ScienceRocks

Too opinionated and obviously biased *

This is a nice attempt at being informative, however there is a thick undertone of an agenda or bias. Its almost like the caster is trying to confirm his beliefs by saying they are based in fact. He would be better served by honestly keeping an open mind and let the science speak for itself instead of making assumptions as to what he thinks he knows.

Nice try, just a little hard to steer past the propaganda, slant, and bias.

Now that’s interesting. Thick undertone of an agenda or bias? I don’t keep an open mind? What beliefs am I trying to confirm by saying they are based in fact? Ever tried to send me an email, or thought about saying what exactly you take issue with? An episode number, perhaps?

Needless to say, it didn’t take too much digging to figure out what this person had a problem with. After clicking on their name, I could see where else they left comments on other podcasts.

Hmm… that’s odd, they seem to have only left comments on two podcasts… mine and the Reasons to Believe Creation Update. Oh, let’s see what they have to say:

Its about time *****

Its about time that a panel of scientists declared that religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Science by default has an open mind. I am surprised to see how closed some of the other reviews are. This is definitely worth checking out.

How interesting - apparently I have a “thick undertone of an agenda” and Hugh Ross and “Fuz” Rana are open-minded? Excuse me.

Hahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahahhahahahha!

Reasons to Believe is an old-earth creationism organization, that denies the scientific evidence for evolution, and pushes a religious agenda. They believe that science can study the actions of supernatural entities, as Hugh Ross said at a presentation in Davis in 2005, “We believe we can put God in a test tube.” They clearly do not understand the difference between the natural and the supernatural, and do not offer up any way of detecting the supernatural besides God of the Gaps. They argue that their untested ideas should be taught in high school, and by the way, they are not practicing scientists, ScienceRocks. They are evangelists, people who are seeking to convert people to their religion. They even call their approach “Science apologetics.” Jebus. No, really, Jebus.

In Hugh Ross’s book, he suggested that people skip the science section. Hugh Ross even believes that the scientific method should be called “The Biblical Method.” I kid you not.
When asked at a presentation how he could be disproved, Fuz Rana, Ross’s counterpart, said “I don’t know. I haven’t really thought about that.” They aren’t open-minded, and I will demonstrate that in a future set of posts. I recently read one of Hugh Ross’s books, Creation as Science, at the request of someone else. I had considered reading one of their books before, but this person gave me a copy. (Which makes it easier to start reading it) That’s open-minded. What Ross wrote in his book was not open-minded.

Folks, what you see here is a classic case. “ScienceRocks” believes that merely agreeing with someone means that they’re open-minded, and disagreeing means that they are closed-minded. Having an opinion that contrasts with your own means that the person must be closed-minded? Open-minded does not mean that you have to accept what the other person says. Open-minded means that you are willing to accept what the other person says if they can demonstrate it to you with evidence. Open-mindedness is a mindset in which you will consider the claims of others and evaluate them without dismissing them off-hand.

What’s funny is, I believe I know who “ScienceRocks” is. Can’t be too many people who know about both their, and my show. The timing is also interesting. I won’t say their name, but if they wish to self-identify, they may do so here. It’s not like they were sampling many podcasts like the other commenters were, they commented on a very specific two.
Anyway, ScienceRocks believes that I’m too opinionated. What kind of a public discourse can there be when expressing one’s opinion qualifies one as “too opinionated?” Why is it that the existence of dissenting opinions makes people reel back and feel offended? Look, if you want to stay in your comfort zone, don’t go outside. Don’t turn on your TV, or read the morning paper. Turn yourself off to reality, and you’ll never have to learn how awesome the universe is. You’ll never have to taste a new cuisine, meet new people, or have your own beliefs turned upside-down and revel in your newfound knowledge. You’ve been taught everything you need to know, from a few convenient sources, pre-packaged for easy digestion, and you don’t need to know anything else.

Richard Dawkins responded to his critics, and how they couldn’t bear to hear his critical arguments, as if he shouldn’t have made them in the first place, and also calling into question his use of harsh language. As Dawkins rightly pointed out, we tolerate an incredible amount of harsh language from food critics. And food is a very personal thing.
I don’t assume what I think I know (bizarre string of words), I read about things from reliable sources, from original scientific sources, and talk about them on my show. I insert my own perspective, and give a few thoughts about the topic to try to get people interested in thinking about it. I don’t try to warp them to fit my evil diabolical agenda point of view - unlike other podcast shows.
At the SpaceWriter’s Ramblings, I find a different sort of review:

The Inoculated Mind
Bills Itself as a weekly science mindcast. Thought-provoking, honest.

Coincidentally, I find the same terms being used at [Insert Title]:

As a whole, it is incredibly informative, and the commentary and analysis are thought-provoking.

Thought-provoking. I like that. That’s what I’m trying to be. Back to Phil Plait:

I can’t please everyone, and by its very nature a scientific and skeptical blog will make some people upset.

People are going to disagree. They will get annoyed, perhaps even offended that someone could hold an opinion that is not in agreement with their own. Sometimes my opinions cross political, economic, social boundaries, so few are really safe from wholesale disagreement. With feedback, we can all learn from each other, and change a few minds. The idea that holding opinions is bad, or even worse, that scientists are somehow not allowed to hold opinions, is well, Madness. Hope you had a good Monday.