2009-07-08 PZ Myers' Review of UA

2009-07-08 Chris Mooney Discover Magazine \Unscientific America\PZ Myers vs. Unscientific America\PZ Myers http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/08/pz-myers-review-of-ua/ PZ Myers' Review of UA… PZ Myers' Review of UA  It is here. If you want a take that throughly trashes the book, well then this is it. But of course, that's not surprising, given that the book not only criticizes Myers but, indeed, identifies him as part of the problem.

Still, someone perusing the reviews so far might wonder, how is it that Michael Mann of RealClimate, or Chad Orzel, or James Hrynyshyn like the book, but PZ Myers (someone criticized in it) does not? From the comments section: It seems disingenuous to point to your positive reviews as a counterpoint to PZ without mentioning that they criticize you for some of the same points PZ does. From James Hrynyshyn: http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/07/unscientific_america_isnt_the.php Which brings me to my primary complaint. Chris and Sheril point too many fingers for my taste. Religion and the media are obvious and richly deserving targets. But Richard Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists are singled out more than once, for failing to understand that if you want to change minds and win friends, you can’t be rude to your audience. True, but I’ve long believed that there’s a place for pointed barbs, especially if those barbs are as well crafted as they are in Dawkins’ prose.

Just as the environmental movement needs Earth First! and other voices of impatience to help redefine the center and make others appear more reasonable by comparison, so the science-atheism debate need Dawkins and his allies to call a spade a spade. The genteel enthusiasm of Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson are critical to the campaign to engage the public. But there’s also room for more pugnacious criticism of that which threatens progress.

&ldquo;If you want a take that throughly trashes the book, well then this is it. But of course, that's not surprising, given that the book not only criticizes Myers but, indeed, identifies him as part of the problem.&rdquo;   