A report from the field…

Thank you Orac.

Thanks Again, Orac. I, too, believe that quackery is a great evil, with far fewer redeeming qualities than religion. It’s as bad as creationism, or worse. I hope there’s no schism or bad blood over this, but I hope there’s some serious dialogue.

Denise @2–YES! I was floored by Maher’s statements in that segment–and I wondered if he was maybe talking up the science a little more because he happened to have Dawkins at the table. Quite a display of cognitive dissonance, there.

I’m not at all happy with the way the whole award thing went down, but I am glad that Dawkins chose to do a bit of damage control, even though it clearly was too little too late.

The timing of Dawkins’s new book release, culture lag, and a generally busy schedule have all been put forth as justifications for him not paying more attention to Maher’s altie leanings before the fact. I’m not inclined to cut him much slack over this, although I’ll allow that these conditions may have conspired to prevent him from doing anything about the problem until it was too late to handle it delicately, in his view.

For me, the real test comes now. What will happen to the Richard Dawkins Award in future years? Will this embarrassment serve as a caution to vet subsequent recipients more carefully? To alter the criteria in a way that avoids liability? If I were Dawkins, I’d be parleying with the AAI ASAP about this, making their continued use of my ‘brand’ contingent upon them never, ever again bestowing this award on such a flagrantly anti-reason recipient.

This exercise, to me, has really exposed these prominant [sic] atheists for what they really are about. I used to respect Myers because I believed him to be non-apologetic in his support of reason, which led to things like atheism. Now it’s clear that he’s willing to compromise on reason, as long as one is sufficiently mocking religion.

PZ and Dawkins are first and foremost biologists. That’s their field of expertise, that’s what they’re passionate about, and when it comes to areas of science outside their scope, they don’t really care or give it a high priority. To demand that they passionately delve into medicine because that’s what you care about and label under the big “science and reason” umbrella is not realistic.

I don’t give chemistry a lot of attention because that’s not my area of expertise. Should that make me a bad guy to chemists?

@Greg F: Would you have been ok with them giving the award g to a flat earther or geocenterist? That wouldn’t be biology, so should be ok right?

“Quite frankly, I no longer care much about atheism; science and reason are my passion.”

Exactly!

Re: Maher. I think it is obvious Maher is not able to reason on any scientific subject. It seems to me he just filters what he hears through his preconceived political/religious biases. He didn’t chastise climate-change deniers because he suddenly is going all “sciencey”. He did it because he rejects Republicans–they embrace denialism, so he rejects it.

Same with the HPV vaccine. He embraced it because fundamentalists/Republicans(?) reject it. He rejects what those he opposes accept. That’s his science right there (to paraphrase a certain ex-actress blond vaccine googleversity PhD, which seems apt in Maher’s case).

Based on these examples I think if there isn’t a political or fundamentalist aspect to some topic then he’ll accept or reject it on some other equally arbitrary bias, and will not do so based on the quality of the science behind that topic.

It will be interesting to see who AAI gives the award to in following years. That’ll let us know if they realized they screwed up.

How is that not doublespeak for “accomodating the the medical woos in the atheist audience”?

Yup. Moreover, it seems to be a capitulation to the idiotic strawman that so inflamed Dr. Benway earlier, that some people think atheists should agree on every point. It seems that for the AAI, and perhaps also for Dawkins, the importance of maintaining the common bond of the group they’ve all worked so hard to build will always trump the diversity of world views within the group, no matter how disparate or even directly conflicting they might be. I have to wonder at the utility of a group in which the criteria for belonging are so broad as to be meaningless.

While I absolutely agree with what you’ve said, I think it’s worth noting that there are quite a lot of atheists who could be considered “anti-science” or at least very ignorant of science. I’m talking especially about humanities students (and probably specifically philosophy students).

Unfortunately I don’t think that in reality atheism = science.

Moderately in the defence of this award (perhaps in a devil’s advocate manner, since I really do agree that he shouldn’t have got the award and am fairly concerned with anti-science based medical views), it is an award given out by an atheist organisation, not a science organisation.

Religious also was a good movie.

So I guess I can understand why Maher got the award, even if I disagree.

…it is an award given out by an atheist organisation, not a science organisation.

It’s an award that A) is named after a prominent scientist, and B) includes promoting science and reason in its criteria. Decouple reason from atheism and you’re giving out a stopped clock award.

What you are witnessing at the AAI conference is Atheism (or more properly, secularism) as a political movement. You’re correct that atheism and science can sometimes come into conflict with each other as Maher’s beliefs and the actions of the AAI demonstrate. And in the big picture I think Dawkins made the correct choice as a leader in the Atheist movement (like it or not Maher is a leader in that movement as well).

You’re absolutely right that the actions of Dawkins and AAI are hypocritical in some ways, but it’s going to expand the movement, where being “pure” about this won’t.

All the rationalist bloggers I know and had the pleasure to work with are fervently anti-woo because we know it’s crap and saw people waste time and money on magic water that does absolutely bubkes, or harm themselves and those around them by refusing vaccines. From Phil Plait to the Skepchicks, Ian O’Neill and myself, we’ve written numerous anti-quackery articles ridiculing anti-vaxers, naturists, herbalists and homeopaths on scientific grounds without mincing words.

Yes and no. Most skeptics are profoundly anti-woo, but there is what I perceive to be a significant minority who are not. A few weeks ago I was at a skeptics in the pub event. There were people there who believed that vaccines cause autism or at least weren’t mollified by the science showing that they don’t. One woman in particular seemed completely unconvinced by explanations of why they don’t. When I was at TAM I encountered several “skeptics” who bordered on anti-vaccine and pro-alt-med. I always give kudos to Phil Plait, Rebecca Watson, and James Randi, for example, but this disaster reminds me that we have a lot of work to do.

@Orac,

It’s unfortunate that there are people who call themselves skeptics, forgetting that the word applies to a rational, scientific mindset about everything, not just ghosts and psychics, but I do know that they’re out there and I tackle them just as fiercely for it as I tackle the ardent creationists on school boards for their anti-scientific stances.

I can only speak for the bloggers I know and for myself. Yes, we have a lot of work to do and we will always have a lot of work to do as long as there are massive infestations of woo out there. However, I assure you that for many of us science writers having the right stance on evolution isn’t worthy of sainthood in our eyes.

Not that we even believe in sainthood… =)

Great post, Orac, and thank you for pushing this point.

Rationality, sense and sanity are the cornerstones of both evidence-based medicine and atheism. If one takes rationality away from atheism – as AAI has done in giving RDA to Maher – all that remains is vacuous rhetoric. I cannot conceptualize that PZ and Richard Dawkins do not understand this simple idea, but clearly AAI does not, and for some reason – obscure to me – both of them chose to toe the AAI line that Maher promotes atheism (though by his own words, he does not).

Golden words from Maher’s own mouth (repeated ad nauseum at many places, still…)

I’m not an atheist. There’s a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn’t believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don’t need. But I’m not an atheist, no.

And:

I believe there’s some force. If you want to call it God… I don’t believe God is a single parent who writes books. I think that the people who think God wrote a book called The Bible are just childish. Religion is so childish. What they’re fighting about in the Middle East, it’s so childish. These myths, these silly little stories that they believe in fundamentally, that they take over this little space in Jerusalem where one guy flew up to heaven no, no, this guy performed a sacrifice here a thousand million years ago. It’s like, “Who cares? What does that have to do with spirituality, where you’re really trying to get, as a human being and as a soul moving in the universe?” But I do believe in a God, yes.

we are all accomodationists. To say otherwise is just blind. PZ proved to be one in this case.

atheism also does not breed social justice or awareness, hence the Randi Foundation booked a cruise in the Galapogos on a European owned ship. DId not know (or care) to look to support local industry. His excuse, he is old and needs comfort now as did many he hoped would come on trip. No indication they left any money on local hands.

Both subjects seem to have a common goal (helping promote reason/critical thought).

Atheism per se doesn’t have goals: it’s a rather simple factual proposition (and not a particularly testable one, at that.)

In contrast, some atheists have the goal of promoting reason and critical thinking. It’s a fallacy to generalize that to all atheists.

Orac, thank you for pursuing this issue. It’s somewhat of a relief to hear that Dawkins at least “… unambiguously stated that some of his [Maher’s] beliefs about medicine were simply crazy …”, but really it would have been much better if Dawkins had opposed the award on exactly those grounds. Also, it’s a disappointment (but not a surprise) that Maher was not asked to address any of the questions you and your readers devised.

rb, whenever I hear the “we are all X” argument, I expect that overture to be followed by, “but the real problem is, where to draw the line concerning X…” or something like that.

You appear to be arguing simply that “we are all X.” Fair enough, I suppose.

Golden words from Maher’s own mouth (repeated ad nauseum at many places, still…)

I’m not an atheist. There’s a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn’t believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don’t need. But I’m not an atheist, no.
And:

I believe there’s some force. If you want to call it God… I don’t believe God is a single parent who writes books. I think that the people who think God wrote a book called The Bible are just childish. Religion is so childish. What they’re fighting about in the Middle East, it’s so childish. These myths, these silly little stories that they believe in fundamentally, that they take over this little space in Jerusalem where one guy flew up to heaven no, no, this guy performed a sacrifice here a thousand million years ago. It’s like, “Who cares? What does that have to do with spirituality, where you’re really trying to get, as a human being and as a soul moving in the universe?” But I do believe in a God, yes.
Golden words from Maher’s own mouth (repeated ad nauseum at many places, still…)

THE REAL ISSUE IS (as Kausik Datta and others have posted here and in previous entries on this topic) that Maher is NOT an atheist and has NO RIGHT to this award on that basis alone. I feel bad for Dawkins, though, who probably found out too late just who Maher really is and decided not to make a scene in another country or whatever.

There is indeed, much work to do and Orac should start with all the DOCTORS who write woo books and add woo to their practices and shrug off patients who use woo. I know he hits hard at the anti-vax docs, but more anti-woo books need to be written by docs–for a wide audience, something that’s right up there with all the self-help crap. It’s hard for me to argue with people when they shove a book written by some MD at me; I say that he’s a quack, but I need documentation.

Dr. Benway, I am not really arguing, simply stating an observation. I guess what I find critical is that we admit it to ourselves.

You cannot separate medicine from biology. Biology is life science, and medicine must keep up with the most current information and technology in biology to be effective. Giving Maher an award by a biologist is absurd when Maher boviously has no clue about biology.

Mary,

One can be an atheist and know nothing of science, so why should we hold hold an atheist to scientific standards?

You don’t really understand the issue here, do you? Have you checked the AAI blurb for the RD Award? This is how it reads.

The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.

Maher is neither an outstanding atheist (Ref: my comment above), nor does he advocate increased scientific knowledge, but he is rather big in advocating myths, superstitions and pseudoscience.

An atheist need not be a scientist, but we can at least expect some degree of rationality, which after all is the basis of atheism, no?

To be clear before I make this point, I completely agree that Maher should never have been given that award, nor should he even be invited to speak at any atheist conference that claims to be pro science as well. The man is the most dangerous kind of quack and needs to be repudiated.
Now, that being said, let me address this “PZ and Dawkins are being accomodationists” thing, because I’m fairly sure its steaming bullshit.

The accomadationism debate is not, and has never been, about whether religious people who accept evolution and atheists who accept evolution should work together to promote evolution. It is about whether or not religion and science are compatible worldviews. With this in mind trying to use that particular debate as an analogy to the Maher fiasco seem odd. Neither PZ or Dawkins seem to be claiming that Mahers crazy horseshit is compatible with science. Certainly they are being too nice about it for my taste given the extent of Maher’s delusions about medicine, but they are certainly recognizing that his views on this subject are antiscientific.

If the analogy is not to the worldviews of science and medicine but instead to worldviews of atheism and medicine. Well yes those are potentially compatible. There is nothing about atheism that prevents you from being a flaming idiot. There is nothing internally inconsistent about God not existing and western medicine being a big hoax designed to make money off the gullible. The inconsistency there is not with atheism but with reality.

But again, I’m damn glad there are people making noise about this Maher thing. Please excuse my pedantry.

… Dawkins disagreeing with Christopher Hitchens but remaining able to work with him on other issues. Maher is a medical crank, who is demonstrably wrong about vaccines, HIV, and cancer, among other things…

Yabbut Hitchens is a political crank, demonstrably wrong about Iraq, politicized Islam, and the “Global War on Terror”, among other things. And that roster is responsible for (I suspect) a lot more deaths and misery than is medical crankery.

Please don’t read this as a defense of Dawkins’s slackness regarding Maher. I’m proposing that you’re right in urging him to tighten up his standards – you’re just not taking it quite far enough.

Yabbut Hitchens is a political crank, demonstrably wrong about Iraq, politicized Islam, and the “Global War on Terror”, among other things

Not a good parallel.

Iraq is a mess. There’s a lot of room for reasonable people to argue over both factual and value statements.

Homeopathy –something Maher uses, by hearsay report– is just crazy.

Personally I see no evidence that Dawkins views promoting atheism as more important than promoting science, medical or otherwise. My feeling is that he, like most socialised people, and contrary to how he is usually perceived, is uncomfortable with being “impolite” to friends and colleagues (here Maher and the AAI).

The same with PZ. Although, bizarrely, he seems to be worrying about us being impolite to Dawkins.

Assuming I’m right in my reading of their behaviour, both of them have got over this discomfort on the matter of religion – probably on account of the amount of time they has been campaigning against it and thinking about how to combat it. They need to get over it on medical quackery too.

The AAI is another thing. It may well include people who are full of woo, and as long as it’s not theistic woo then they think that’s all hunky-dory. These people do not represent me in any way.

Back to being polite. We have a problem: AIDS denialism, anti-vaccine and anti-medicine views KILL PEOPLE. Potentially MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. Maher is not solely responsible for this of course, but he is on the team that is killing people.

I also don’t feel comfortable being impolite to people, particularly in person, and whether I like them personally or not (and I do like Dawkins, PZ, and Maher). However, if being impolite is the best strategy for saving lives, then I have to remind myself that people are dying and BEING POLITE CAN GO FUCK ITSELF OFF A CLIFF. If disrupting the ceremony was the best way to save lives, then we should have been advocating disrupting the ceremony.

The issue of debate for me is: what is (or was) the best strategy? Do we trust that words were had behind the scenes? Do we think Dawkins’ criticism of Maher’s woo at the ceremony was enough? Do we think the AAI will be more critical of anti-science in future?

I don’t know.

In the (unlikely) best case Maher will change what he says and could become a very useful public face of the pro-science and pro-medical-science “team”. If that happens then Dawkins had a good strategy – likely getting a better result than any of the ideas discussed here (although expressing opinions here, on richarddawkins.net, and Pharyngula, may well have influenced Dawkins’ actions). I hope Maher does have a road-to-Damascus conversion to reason, but I don’t see it as very likely. The end result will be likely be ambiguous, with some people modifying their behaviour in ways that we may not even notice.

However, I believe Orac and Dr Benway have been absolutely correct in telling the truth with no matter how much it might seem impolite. This is extremely important – in medicine lives depend on it in very direct ways. I thank them both for being such excellent examples, along with many other posters here and elsewhere, and for helping me to form my opinions of the matter.

@Jeremy, philosophers are generally better grounded on this topic than anyone else. They’re more closely united with the sciences than any other humanities discipline. There are entire PhD programs in the history and philosophy of science that strongly encourage the recipients to hold a joint MS by graduation (Irvine, Pittsburgh.)

Analytic philosophers take science very seriously indeed.

But if by “philosophers” you meant “people who go to metaphysical bookstores and buy a copy of _Jonathan Livingston Seagull_”, well, you didn’t mean philosophers.

Dawkins thinks that Maher’s views on medicine are stark raving mad. He’s still funny and he made a movie about religion that did not air his views on medicine, though

I noticed one thing you didn’t mention, PZ, is whether Dawkins thinks Maher was a bad choice for the award.

Is he going to ever say anything publically? Sure he says, “I don’t agree with his views,” but will he say, “He wouldn’t have gotten the award if we had known”? Or is he going to let Maher ride off proudly in the sunset, feeling he got endorsed by Richard Dawkins?

There is absolutely no evidence that Dawkins knew that Maher was a medical crank when he agreed that the award should be given to him, and it’s also not entirely clear what he attempted to do once he was informed about it, or even what he could/should have done. What is clear is that Dawkins has sold millions of books and made several documentaries promoting scientific, evidence based thought — one of which was specifically about the dangers of “alternative medicine” — and he also repudiated Maher in front of the audience at the AAI Convention.

What, exactly, did people expect Dawkins to do once he became aware of the situation? Refuse to present the award, after having agreed to do so? Perhaps, but he’d given his word to the AAI, not Maher, which means that he would have been letting them down. Of course, it’s terribly easy to criticize his decision to go ahead with the presentation, but excuse me for being just a little bit skeptical about whether most people would have even had the courage to do as Dawkins did, as opposed to simply refusing to present the award (which was the easy way out).

As it is, Dawkins made the best of a bad situation, in my opinion, which is why I find the reaction rather bizarre. Whether others like it or not, doing what Dawkins did, in front of the entire audience, as well as the media, is likely to have more of an impact than simply refusing to present Maher with the award, given that most people would not have bothered to find out why (if they even knew that he was meant to present it in the first place).

The key now is that people learn from this and endeavor to properly check people out before awarding them in the future. Or, you could be totally irrational, as some are, and pretend that Dawkins had a million other options, and that you would have personally stood up in front of all of those people and given Maher what for. Strangely, I notice that very few of the people talking the talk actually bothered to go to the convention, at all. I thought that some of you would have been protesting outside?

And so that I know that those of you who are specifically criticizing PZ and Dawkins are able to maintain a consistent position, you would all presumably refuse to present an award to someone like, let’s say, Francis Collins (or any religious believer with similar views), due to the fact that some of his beliefs are truly bizarre and explicitly contradicted by scientific evidence (he claims that morality could not have evolved, and that God has provided us with a Moral Law, among other things), and given that that mode of thought can be plausibly and logically linked to much harm in the world (and probably much more than medical quackery)? Or is that, like, totally different?

While I’m not suggesting that the comparison is exact, there is certainly a comparison to be made. There are lots of beliefs that could be described as comparable, in fact, both in terms of a lack of evidential support (and in some cases, an explicit contradiction between the belief and the evidence), as well as the amount of harm that has been caused, due in part to those beliefs.

If a mode of thought can be logically linked to harm, you are forced, under pain of inconsistency (as well as, hypocrisy), to be as concerned and vociferous about all beliefs of a similar standing. And yet, that is not what we see, and in some cases, we see the exact opposite.

To be clear, I’m as annoyed that Maher was chosen for the award as anyone else. I wish that he hadn’t been, because he is not an advocate of science or reason (or even atheism). But unless you can outline a better solution to this particular issue, given the very specific circumstances, and not your own fantasy, blaming Dawkins and PZ is both ridiculous, as well as an unfair overreaction.

@56: Ummm … thanks for that?

If you’re done preaching, you might try stepping off your high horse and actually reading Orac’s post and people’s replies. No one is complaining about what Dawkins did at the event; everyone, except you, has moved onto what this issue indicates about the promotion of atheism vs the promotion of science, reason, skepticism, etc. Do try and keep up.

@45: You kind of missed the point, too. Right about here you swung and missed: “Neither PZ or Dawkins seem to be claiming that Mahers crazy horseshit is compatible with science.” Nope, but it does seem completely compatible with atheism!! And that’s what is still making people uncomfortable.

Is he going to ever say anything publically? Sure he says, “I don’t agree with his views,” but will he say, “He wouldn’t have gotten the award if we had known”? Or is he going to let Maher ride off proudly in the sunset, feeling he got endorsed by Richard Dawkins?

The award being named after him makes this trickier, I think. If Dawkins, rather than AAI, says that giving Maher the award was a mistake, it undercuts AAI. As much as I dislike making concessions to political expedience, it’s worth asking whether Dawkins publicly having it out with AAI is worth it over one incident.

If, as PZ suggests, they understand why it was an unpopular decision and have learned their lesson, maybe it’s worth waiting a moment and seeing how they proceed from here. I don’t really know anything about their other activities, though, so I don’t know whether they’ve done anything to deserve that sort of consideration.

Pablo:
I’m sorry you are simply misunderstanding the point I am trying to make, and the whole debate about accomodationism.
I admit that it perhaps not the most aptly named issue but it has nothing to do with the moderates not going after the fundamentalists. The issue is whether the religion that the moderates do believe in is in fact compatible with science, and whether there are valid “ways of knowing” in any theology. Basically the NCSE’s approach of telling religious people that there religion can be a perfectly valid way knowing, versus the Dawkins approach of working with the moderates but not backing down on the fact that religion and religious ways of “knowing” are vacuous.

Moving on, PZ and Dawkins are most certainly not giving Maher a “pass”. As I said, there should have been a clear statement earlier in the process from Dawkins. He certainly should not have been dismissive of the criticism’s that were originally leveled, but to suggest that PZ and Dawkins are just fine with Maher’s medical views demonstrates nothing more than the fact that you have apparently not taken the time to actually see what they have to say.

As for the rest of your post. What that I have said so far has lead you to believe that I would not agree with your last two paragraphs. Did you even read what I wrote?

Jennifer:
Just because the same people are involved in both debates does not mean they are the same debate. That being said feel I am obligated to address the analogy as you stated it as it is not at all as ridiculous as the accommodationism angle.
I am still not entirely satisfied by it though. Dawkins is certainly are not soft on Alt Med in general, he is just as barbed about those issues as he is about religion (see Enemies of Reason for evidence). The issue here was not one of accommodating alt med (or quack med as I would prefer) the issue is that Dawkins accommodated Maher because he was put in that awkward position by the AAI.

That is not meant to excuse him however. I think, first of all, that he should have investigated Maher’s medical views as soon as he heard about the complaints. Secondly he should have very clear as soon as he heard about Maher’s medical stupidity that he did not endorse it and in fact repudiated it. I don’t even think any of this would have been bad form. He takes jabs at the priests that he promotes evolution with all the time.

Basically Dawkins accommodated a person, not an idea. This is the difference in my view. And again, to be very clear, this does not excuse him, but it does indicate that the analogy is flawed.

richard dawkins, the supposed paragon of reason and science, chose religion-bashing politics over reason and science.

i will seriously be reconsidering his arguments about how religion is so dangerous.

thanks for giving us a voice orac, else this would have been totally suppressed.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking an award away when someone is shown to be a crank. people do it all the time.

You’re talking about beauty pageants though, where it’s all about commercial sponsorship. Or guest speaker engagements at US university Commencements, which is much the same thing.

The Nobel Committees have committed a few major fuckups along the way (lobotomies? Kissinger?), and they are not retracted. More gravitas, see. That’s what the AAI is emulating.

You’ve made a strong case in your various posts to demonstrate the serious errors made by AAI and Dawkins, but I think this statement goes way beyond the evidence and has been contradicted by the efforts of Dawkins throughout his career, in his newest book, in his talk at AAI the evening after Maher got the award, and in the mission of Dawkins’s foundation:

“To me, this whole fiasco is pretty strong evidence that, if atheism and science come into conflict (unless, of course, that science happens to be the science of evolution, in which case I highly doubt that this controversy would have been so flippantly dismissed), for Richard Dawkins atheism wins hands down, and science-based medicine once again remains the poor, neglected stepchild of the so-called ‘reality-based’ community.”

@ smith123

You’re over-analysing it: that’s just how we Brits speak when we’re being polite. I often say “delighted to meet you” on being introduced to someone for the first time: I’m not actually “delighted” in the true meaning of the word.

So now the argument is we should lay off Dawkins due to his mysterious inability to google? Seriously in this day and age failing to take a look on the internet before endorsing someone is just plain fucking stupid.

This whole incident proves once again there’s no heroes to look up to. It’s like finding out Batman isn’t real, all over again.

Ack, editing failure.

“I don’t think the award criteria weren’t met in intent” → “I don’t think the award criteria were met in intent”.

PZ Myers:

Dawkins also takes it very seriously. You must understand: the decision was made by the AAI committee 10 months ago. It was run by Dawkins as a courtesy, and as a Brit, he knew nothing of Maher except that he’d seen Religulous.

That’s a lousy excuse. Basically, what you are saying is that Dawkins didn’t know enough about Maher to determine whether he merited the award, and yet still let Maher have the award anyway. That’s just lazy.

damianphillips:

What, exactly, did people expect Dawkins to do once he became aware of the situation? Refuse to present the award, after having agreed to do so?

That would have been one viable solution. Sure, it would mean admitting that he had screwed up in letting the award go to Maher in the first place, but it’s not as if Dawkins hasn’t admitted error before. Sure, it would be disruptive and anger a lot of people, but that has hardly stopped Dawkins before, especially when he has been promoting the cause of atheism.

So now the argument is we should lay off Dawkins due to his mysterious inability to google? Seriously in this day and age failing to take a look on the internet before endorsing someone is just plain fucking stupid.

Yeah, that’s pretty much one problem.

PZ says that Dawkins is distressed and unhappy now about the decision and detests Maher’s medical views. That’s good. However, nearly three months ago, he airily dismissed said concerns in a comment on PZ’s blog when PZ’s readers started referring to Maher’s quack views. Quoth Dawkins:

The Richard Dawkins Award (RDA) has no connection with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS). The RDA was instituted by the Atheist Alliance International (AAI) several years before RDFRS was founded, or even thought of. This year, the committee of AAI took the decision to give the RDA to Bill Maher. They asked me, as an individual, if I approved, and I was delighted to do so because I find him, and especially Religulous, very funny. I know nothing of any stance he may have taken on medical questions.

Come to think of it, PZ himself said nothing about Maher’s quack views when he first announced on his blog the list of speakers for the AAI Convention. In fact, PZ referred to this list as:

By the way, if you’ve ever wanted to actually meet Mr Deity, you’ve got a shot: he’ll be speaking at the Atheist Alliance International 2009 Convention in LA this October. And it’s not just him, look at this phenomenal lineup of speakers.

And:

I’m going to be in there somewhere, too — I’m a late addition. It will be a wonderful assemblage of the godless. Plus one deity.

It was only after commenters started pointing out that Maher was a crappy choice and I likened giving Maher an award that has the word “science” anywhere in its list of criteria to giving a an award for public health to Jenny McCarthy that he finally started to urge people to “put Maher in the hot seat.”

So, PZ, if the choice of Maher bothered you so much from the beginning, why did it take reminders from your readers and me to goad you into starting to criticize him three days after your original post announcing the lineup for the AAI Convention? Did you warn Richard Dawkins back in July? If not, why not? Aren’t you guys buddies now? After all, you seemed to spend a fair amount of time hanging out with Dawkins at this convention. Isn’t that what friends do? Warn friends when a shitstorm’s coming their way?

I realize that neither you nor Richard Dawkins had any say in who got the award, but it really does strike me as an EPIC FAIL on Dawkins’ part not to have taken the complaints more seriously right from the beginning. It’s not just me. With Dr. Benway leading the charge, the commenters at the RDF are also largely up in arms. Even worse, Paula Kirby (comment 478 in the RDF thread I just linked to) said this:

I don’t know how long ago it was, Steve, but I do know Richard has said he knew nothing of Maher’s views on medicine until just the other day.

Is that true? The clamor began back in July, right after the selection of Maher was announced. If Dawkins didn’t know about it until “just the other day,” then I add the EPIC FAIL not just to him but to PZ and anyone else who knows Dawkins and knew about Maher’s love for woo.

Of course, that’s all water under the bridge now. What I want to know is what the AAI and RDF are going to do after the convention to make sure a fiasco like this doesn’t happen again.

The difference between the anti-vaccers and anti-evolutionists is that evolution has been and is now under far more withering an attack than the anti-vacc people.

A few years with an attitude like this prevailing, and I bet antivaxers will be able to give creationists a run for their money.

We can’t launch full blown artillery barrages at everything that deviates; I’m advocating measured responses. I really don’t see the anti-vaccine movement building up that much steam, but if it did then it should be focused on to that extent.

Vaccines also have two advantages over evolution: it is extremely obvious that they work, and they don’t directly conflict with religion as it is widely interpreted today. Virtually every American understands that vaccines exist. Once there was polio and small-pox ravaging the world; now there isn’t. Evolution is much more esoteric. People simply have a hard time ignoring their religion to accept that a 20 year study on bacteria evolving to adapt to a different environment means dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Threats to rational thinking exists in a myriad of places. The biggest threat by far, dwarfing all others, is religion and it is targeting two things primarily: evolution, and skeptical-philosophy (atheism).

@ John (#87)

My goodness you are pretty naive about the anti-vaccine movement. Sure, it’s obvious to scientists that vaccines work, but, because they work so well, it’s no longer so obvious to lay people. The anti-vaccine movement plays on that very aspect, and it has an explanation as to why polio is rarely seen in the U.S. now that claims that it’s the better hygiene, etc. In huge swaths of California and other woo-friendly areas vaccination rates are plummeting.

No, you really do appear not to understand.

*knock knock*
*creak*
“Psst, is this the gallery for the House Un-Atheist Activities Commission? a…Oh you’ve already started. Damn. Did I miss the shaving of the collaborators?”

The reason we can’t launch full blown at everything is that we will end up in an echo chamber. I really don’t want to see the proponents of rational thought burn every bridge to the outside world. We, finally, have a mainstream personality willing to be seen with us. While that may not appeal to your pride (it doesn’t mine either) I think it is a much better idea to attempt to correct what appears to be Maher’s only problem (awful as it may be) than to attempt to make reclusive scientists who write papers 99.5% of Americans can’t read into charismatic ambassadors.

If we had a Carl Sagan, then I’d say give him the award. The closest thing we have is Neal de Grasse Tyson and he has a long way to go yet. My fear is that proponents of rational thought will only award and applaud people who noone else have heard of. If we intend to have impact (as opposed to parties congratulating how right we are) we need to be willing to be pragmatic and be more shrewd with the resources and connections we have instead of cold-shouldering. In this I think Dawkins took the right tac in his speech awarding Maher.

As an aside, what was Dawkins supposed to do? Once he realized what Maher thought was he supposed to campaign for the award to be rescinded? Was he supposed to tear apart Maher during his speech giving the award? What a great message, atheists like to give awards only to stab you in the back. Are we so ready to isolate ourselves further?

My last entry for a long time on the Maher issue (I hope), plus a little history.

And the people, mostly children who wind up deaf, blind, paralyzed or dead due to vaccine preventable diseases are just collateral damage in the fight against theism. I have far fewer problems with with theists who compartmentalize their irrationality to their religious beliefs than I do quasi atheists who hold irrational beliefs about vaccines and science in general.

I have no problem “isolating” atheism from a loud mouthed contrarian ignoramus who is an atheist only because the people he disagrees with politically are usually christians.

“Your very username is “howtoplayalone”. Well I’m tired of playing alone.”

That is so clever! How do you do it? It must be a gift. I don’t think I was rude to you, I certainly didn’t lay any stupid jokes on you.

Not accommodating Maher’s quackery would not make me, or Dawkins, or Orac or anybody else’s an “ineffectual voice in the wilderness.” I would say it would make Dawkins’s stand for reason and science more effective, certainly less wishy washy (this is the only case I’d accuse him of being having a wishy washy stance about science, which is why it’s so surprising and frustrating).

I don’t think a science based medicine award should be given to a creationist who happened to strongly support all science based medicine, particularly not in Dawkins’s name. I don’t think Orac would allow a science award to be given to a physics super genius in Orac’s name if the physicist was also a Holocaust denier. It’s not alienating the world to strongly disapprove of snake oil pushers and not give them awards in one’s name. I’d approve of giving the award to Maher if he only say was a big pusher of multi-vitamins and raw food. He’s not, he’s dangerous.

If the joke was offensive, my apologies. I meant it as a light jibe, not direct insult.

I will admit I didn’t know that medical quackery has made such headway in the United States. I live in Mississippi and am surrounded by substantially more religious woo than medical woo.

This new-agey medical woo, growing as it might be, doesn’t have thousands of years of religion backing it. I think it to be a silly fad that few will take seriously over years. Evolution and atheism have faced stalwart opposition from organized religion.

I could very well be underestimating the power of medical woo but I stand by my feeling of working with people when common ground can be met. I also stand by my strategic musings that it would be easier to make Maher into an ideal ambassador than a nameless scientist. I think 45 minutes alone with Neal de Grasse Tyson (or one of countless scientists with SOME penchant for communication to the layman) could convince him of his error. Remaking a scientist into having the influence and charisma Maher does, however, is much harder.

I’m offense proof. Just seemed like a pointless ad hominem.

I see what you mean, I just am more worried about quackery than religion (although I’m very worried about religion) probably because I don’t live in Mississippi and do live in an arty college neighborhood.

http://whatstheharm.net/vaccinedenial.html

And I’m *certain* it’s not a silly fad. It’s been around forever, literally all of human history, and it’s more surprising and worrying now that we actually do have a scientific method. Evidence that it’s no more powerful now than over the last 200 years:

http://www.amazon.com/Fads-Fallacies-Name-Science-Popular/dp/0486203948

I could very well be underestimating the power of medical woo but I stand by my feeling of working with people when common ground can be met.

John, my “holy shit” moment came last year when I shared an autistic patient with and MD who convinced the mother that her child had Lyme disease, mercury poisoning, PANDAS, leaky gut syndrome, systemic candidiasis, hepatic insufficiency, and a number of nutritional deficiencies.

This MD sent the child’s sent blood work to four naturopath-friendly laboratories. The misleading results came with the standard quack miranda warning in the footer: “Not for the diagnosis or treatment of disease.”

I wrote to the med school I graduated from asking for help in standing up to the “integrative medicine” movement. I offered a scholarship to pay for a med student to attend the Science Based Medicine conference at TAM last year.

Professor emeritus thanked me for my generous offer, which he forwarded to the chair of the Department of Integrative Medicine.

No takers for the scholarship.

No takers for the scholarship.

Obviously, the lazy bastards didn’t even offer it to the students. All it takes is an email or even an announcement between lectures.

Med students would sell their first born into slavery for a free lunch. No way in hell they’re turning down a free trip to Vegas.

Dr. Benway @ # 49: Iraq is a mess. There’s a lot of room for reasonable people to argue over both factual and value statements.

Imagine someone saying that about a patient in critical condition due to intervention by a notorious quack. The policies which Hitchens has cheered on Iraq are undeniable and atrocious failures, as proven by results. This is not contradicted, in either case, by the many difficulties in finding suitable remedies.

John @ # 87: The biggest threat … is religion and it is targeting two things primarily: evolution, and skeptical-philosophy (atheism).

Uh, no. The primary targets of religion in this country are gay rights and abortion rights. Other sex-related issues (contraception, privacy laws, health education, etc) are the rings around that double bullseye.

Outward from there we find hate crime laws, accurate history education, and whatever opportunistic quarry their corporate allies point them to (health insurance reform, at present). Evolution and atheism are still at the edges of their radar.

That’s in the US. Worldwide, the primary targets of religion seem to be – following a venerable tradition, a measure of which spills over into American crusades as well – other religions.

The difference between the anti-vaccers and anti-evolutionists is that evolution has been and is now under far more withering an attack than the anti-vacc people.

The other, far more important difference, is that anti-vaccinationism is deadly, with the potential to kill literally millions. Creationism is entirely irrelevant in comparison.

Quite frankly, I no longer care much about atheism; science and reason are my passion

Science on the Internet needs a lot more of this kind of thinking.