Fix the radar
So now we know all about “Tom Johnson,” except that we don’t. We also don’t have a frank account of how it all went so terribly wrong.
It was just a blog post, and I had no reason to think there was anything fishy going on. And I did note that the story was “one individual’s experience and point of view, and nothing more.”
He did though. He did have reason to think there was anything fishy going on. He had – what to call it – he had an ear. He had his skeptical faculty. He had reasonable sensible journalistic caution. He had an acquaintance with human beings and the way they talk and behave. He had any reason to think Tom Johnson’s story sounded fishy for the same reason I did: because it sounded fishy!
It did. It sounded stupid. It sounded like a childish caricature. It had that stupid, childish note of exaggeration – the bit about atheists screaming in believers’ faces for instance. Come on! Yes, Virginia, that does sound fishy.
It sounded fishy in just the way the story that William told on YNH sounded fishy; the story about being a woman and “a scientist” (that itself sounds fishy) and an atheist, who saw the error of her ways when her young son came home from school with a tale of having called a goddy schoolmate “stupid.” Our scientist atheist mother realized she had taught her son this behavior, and she was stricken with remorse.
Yeah, right.
That’s it, really – Tom Johnson’s story was a “yeah, right” story. Chris Mooney is a journalist, or at least he used to be. (He’s more of a commentator now.) Surely journalists are supposed to have some ability to spot fairly obvious implausibility of this kind? Isn’t that just part of the job?
I had no reason at the time to suspect he was beginning an increasingly elaborate career of sock puppetry.
He did though. Just as before, he did. He had the same reason – there was too much of an echo effect in the comments at The Intersection. Not just agreement, but an echo effect. I noticed it at the time – though I don’t think I thought of sock puppets, I just thought (rather disgustedly) that there were a lot of brainless sheep all going “baaaaaaaa” at the same time. But then it wasn’t my blog. If I had a lot of commenters all going “baaaaaaaaaa” I hope I would have the sense to wonder if they were sock puppets, even if they agreed with me. I do in fact have one regular longstanding commenter who does go “baaaaaaa” and I don’t like the bleating any more because it agrees with me. In fact I may like it less, because it so often sounds like a parody of me. (No it’s not you, this guy knows who he is.)
Update: Really – if I haven’t told you it’s you, it’s not you. I haven’t told you it’s you. So it’s not you!
So no, M&K aren’t quite the innocent victims Mooney wants to pretend. They have seriously bad radar. Their radar tells them to ban me, and then as the months and years roll on, to ban lots and lots of other reasonable people too, while they keep people like “bilbo” and “MiltonC” and Kwok. That is some malfunctioning radar.
Baaa?
Fix the radar – and listen to your commenters, even if they’re not “on your side”.
Seriously though – I haven’t got a great deal of self awareness and we agree on a lot of things. If I was the guy in question you would tell me to knock it the eff off wouldn’t you?
What comes to mind is Martin Gardner’s response to letters he received about his article on Temple University’s woo-woo department (not reproduced on the website).
In the same light, it seems necessary that a science journalist should have a background in science. Some basic knowledge and experience is needed to discern good from bad, plausible from implausible.
At the very least, a science journalist should be fully engaged in dialogue with scientists. Mutual feedback, corrections of points, re-clarifications, etc. Through earnest back-and-fourth, scientists should have been able to get through to Mooney about Tom Johnson’s oversized clown shoes. Because he did nothing of the sort, Mooney gets to wear the clown shoes.
:- ) Bruce, did you miss the “No it’s not you, the guy knows who he is” part? I meant it! He’s heard from me on the subject, many times; he’s on permanent probation; I delete many of his comments routinely. No it’s not you!! That’s the plural you.
In other words yes, if it were you, I would have said so, and I haven’t, so it’s not; and that applies to everyone it applies to.
Oedipus
It would – if science journalism was up to snuff. The most that can be said about me is that I am interested, my core field is actually business. I got into science via an interest in scams. I write a few health briefs for every Monday and hope to shit that I am not doing any harm.
How the media treats science is downright scary.
Ophelia
Thanks, because I was starting to worry about that.
I agree with your comments on science journalism, Bruce. I am a former journalist who recently returned to college pursuing a degree in astronomy. When I graduate I hope to do science journalism the right way. I’m working my tail off at math because I realize I cannot explain science unless I understand it.
Sheril is a scientist. Where was she in all of this? Why didn’t she see what everyone who wasn’t a UA sycophant saw?
Here is part of the comment from TB who claims he has inside info which no one seems willing to share:
As PZ says in the next comment, this makes no sense. “Tom” cannot be “William” and also be a scientist. It just doesn’t fit. How do Chris and TB know who “Tom/William” really is? Why wouldn’t Chris investigate the original story and verify it – especially since it lacked credibility from the start?
If as “Tom” claimed his colleagues were acolytes of PZ, Jerry and Richard, why hasn’t a single one shown up to comment on this? Why wouldn’t they be able to identity “Tom” from the story?
DarronS
We need science minded editors in South Africa, possibly wordwide. When people are willing to put stuff sourced from the Telegraph *spit* in with stuff I was very, very careful to make sure was at least in line with what the research said…
We need good science editors.
Guess who Chris Mooney’s new BFF is?
Josh
I would have posted there, but frankly my stomach isn’t that strong.
Can someone please help me out to understand this. Chris Mooney, over at the Intersection, has just told everyone that the Tom Johnson story is a whole lot of duplicity wrapped up in duplicity. Jean Kazez has just said this:
How can there be corroborating evidence for — what, exactly? What is being verified, and who is verifying it? Because this isn’t what Chris Mooney is saying, and Jean links to what Chris has said. Have I missed a step somewhere?
It is time to end this BS about protecting the identity of the poor, innocent, repentant soul who fed Mooney the defamitory falsehoods he wanted to hear. I posted this to the Intersocktions memory hole, I mean comments forum:
The reason people are confused is because your narrative is self-contradictory. and deliberately vague. TB “gets it” because he agreed with you in the past, even to the point of explicitly demanding you ban a certain blogger, who is one of your most effective critics, from commenting.
It is time to stop this nonsense about protecting the identity of a confirmed and self-admitted liar. Unless he is a minor there is no excuse for protecting the identity of someone who leveraged anonymity and your credulity to stir up dissent, confusion and false accusations. The only way out of the confusion is to bring **all** the real details to light. Are you protecting his identity, or your own culpability? Or Both?
So, Chris, please stop with the “I can’t tell you the details, but if you knew you’d side with me” BS. And stop sending those alleged bits of proof just to people who already agreed with you. Just publish them here. If they were actually secret you wouldn’t have been able to email them to TB and Jean, so that excuse is 100% gone. Showing your cards, completely and fully, is the only way to clear up this confusion. Publish the records, all of them.
Scote,
I don’t think that William’s identity should be outed. Granted, if anybody deserved it, it would be him, but there’s little reason at this point.
Mooney clearly didn’t make a serious attempt at verification, taking everything straight from William, by all indications. That’s enough to make a judgment until it’s positively demonstrated otherwise.
As I, and Coyne, and others, pointed out earlier: the university e-mail of William’s “grad student” and a phone call should have been very doable.
This has gone from mere comedy to farce.
Oh good lord, that’s a mess of a post. And from one of her comments on that post (addressing Ophelia):
WTF? Yes, how dare you ask for answers to completely reasonable and relevant and important questions? And how dare you get justifiably frustrated when they refused to answer those questions and banned you from posing any more questions? Poor Chris and Sheril, having to deal with your relentless and “dogged” desire for answers and clarification.
Her post is total facepalm FAIL.
Josh, it’s even worse: as several people noted at the Intersection, the story told by Kazez doesn’t match what Mooney wrote in his last post!
They are forming a laager, and not doing a very good job of it.
Look, at this point who knows how to check poster’s IP adresses? Is there any way for us to check their IP adresses? At this point I am disgusted enough to suspect anything.
I never afforded “framing” much credibility, but frankly this is a new low.
She didn’t mean it, as here subsequent post reveals:
Apparently, Johnson is the root identity, or something. Kazez is trying to play some kind of semantics game. But, as Jerry Coyne summarizes in the comments:
I still think the only way to cleat this up is to come clean with the real details, including outing the lying liar. Actions have consequences. Lie on the internet and get publicly caught? That is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of setting up a public website and an army of fabricated sock puppets. And, I think, people who are prone to lying are likely to do it again. That isn’t a certainty, to be sure, but I think the rest of us deserve to know who this guy is for real. That is the only way to clear up this confusion. I don’t really give a rat’s butt about his “heartfelt” repentance **after he was caught red handed by others** and didn’t even come clean. He had his chance, but he still kept quiet about “Tom Johnson”, and others had to dig that up to. Fool me once…
Cheese is swept, this story is confusing. Jean is contradicting Chris but TB is saying she is not? I must be feverish or very slow as these stories seem confusing.
The only thing I can conclude is that the original story told by “Tom” was a fabrication. I still have no idea who “Tom” is – undergrad, grad student, faculty, in the sciences, etc.
I also loved the way Jean glossed over the abuse poured on Ophelia, as if it were not relevant to any of this. Given that she is such a pal of Chris’, I am sure she doesn’t need to speculate on why Ophelia was banned.
Chris should adopt the Discovery Institute’s stance for their Evolution News and Views “blog” and just not allow comments or Uncommon Descent’s and only allow ones that are in agreement; he has no intention of using comments as feedback to improve his work.
What’s really frosting me at the moment is that Kazez says what the sock did was “stupid” but not worth messing up his career. I beg your fucking pardon?! He’s supposed to be an academic, yet he lied and cheated in order to single out a woman for sustained obscene abuse, including calling her a useless putrid twat? And that’s not worth messing up his career as an academic?? “Messing it up” in the sense of (at least) making the business public knowledge? Letting his colleagues know what a loathsome human being he is?
I beg to differ!
Michael, yes exactly. And Kazez is…you know…a woman.
I’m just disgusted.
Has the real Tom Johnson, the grad student to whom William/Bilbo etc. linked, offered any comment?
This is why I live science. In case you didn’t see it in the other thread.
The more I think about it, the more I think the study Ben Goldacre was describing is being repeated right in front of our eyes.
I see now. I didn’t miss a step. It is confusing! As Jolo5309 says: Cheese is swept.
However, just to put in my two cents worth. Under the circumstances, I don’t think Chris has any right to keep this person’s name a secret. He permitted this person an unusual latitude to abuse commenters, Ophelia in particular, and, it having turned out as it has, he has a duty to say who it is, and the person concerned, and Chris himself, should apologise. If this person is William of YNH or Tom or whoever, if his rather exhorbitant apology is really sincere, he’ll come out of hiding, say who he is, and apologise generally for being a such a fool. Then, and only then, can he really get on with his life. Chris another story. Does he still have one?
I cannot understand Jean Kazez’s point of view. Not only is her post — in which she says that, so far as she is concerned, the case is closed — contradictory and confusing, especially when she links to one of Mooney’s posts which directly contradicts what she says, but, while I had often disagreed with Jean, I always thought she was an honourable person. Now, I wonder.
I think it’s time for Chris and Jean come clean on what they know, bring all this out into the open, let the earwigs scurry away to some dark place, and let in the sun. But this whole soap opera is entirely contray to the stated beliefs of someone who says that framing is all important and that tone is vital. Instead of the “New Atheists” being out there as the nasty, boorish, strident lot with whom it is impossible to communicate, Chris Mooney has demonstrated that he has no idea whatever how communication is done. For someone who claims to be an expert in communication, he is a complete failure so far. The next few days (hours?) will tell the tale.
It seems to me that the primary lesson about “framing” that Chris has taken to heart is the one the Republicans (and some Democrats) have stuck to so vehemently: never admit fault–no matter how strong the evidence against you is. Mooney only goes so far as to “admit” being the hapless victim of a clever liar, for which he “apologists.” That kind of notpollogy just won’t do, nor will his deliberately vague account of his “fact checking,” nor his selective sharing of secret details to a select cadre of biased, sympathetic bloggers, nor his conspiracy to protect the identity of an admitted liar who falsely smeared groups and specific individuals.
It’s time–again–for Chris to come clean and provide full, un-redacted details to the public.
Eric,
Agree on the failures of Jean and Chris, but I disagree on the outing.
Would you consider reading my comments from #108 onwardhere and telling me what you think?
I’m mostly on the sidelines on this, but I have to reiterate the question- does anyone know if the real Tom Johnson who’s identity was stolen is even aware of this? I feel like someone owes him an email to explain why his name has become synonymous with “bastard.”
Is it just more of this extreme confirmation bias (there are other less flattering psychological terms) on behalf of Mooney? He reads some blog which is favorable of him, but that’s all he sees. He doesn’t fully read what the blog says or whether it makes sense from a logical point of view. He knows he’s right, the blog says he’s right, so the blog must be right. That’s the most sympathetic view of him I can imagine.
Patrick,
If my current understanding is correct, the real Tom Johnson was “William.” And “Tom Johnson” was always a pseudonym.
Oedipus,
That’s the view that’s been basically forced upon me from looking over the records of the “Framing” debate of 2007 (least severely), the reaction to <i>Unscientific America</a> (most severely), the present, and everything that I have looked at in between.
Up to New Atheists, at least, he acts according to the true believer model.
Ah, I have to apologize for so many past HTML fails here…
Blanket apology for the past, Pope style, commence!
We don’t know who the real “Tom Johnson” is. We don’t even know that his name is “Tom Johnson”.
We don’t know who the real “Tom Johnson” is. We don’t even know that his name is “Tom Johnson”.
I suggested, like many others, that Chris should send the information to a skeptic instead of one of his friends, this would shut the criticism up. Unfortunately, this piece of brilliant posting has been caught up in moderation for about 2 hours so I don’t hope to see it ever soon.
Quite. Only releasing the **full, un-redacted** details and correspondence will do to clear up this mess, otherwise it will always remain a confused morass which serves in large part to shield Mooney from his own negligence and culpability.
No she ain’t. She has done a Masters in Marine Biology, and a Masters in Marine Policy as well, but she has never worked as a scientist.
There is no requirement for any original research to obtain a Master’s. Her undergrand and postgrad studies might have given her some idea what it is like to be a scientist in academia in the US, but she has zero first hand experience.
She claims her current position is research scientist.
Wait, I’m all confused. Are some people now suggesting that the story is true, but that it happened to someone other than the person who posted it? I thought “William” admitted that he pretty much made it up. There’s too much speculation on too many blogs to keep it all straight.
When you look at the organisation she works for, it is more concerned with public policy on energy matters than scientific research. Which would mesh with her CV much better.
Chayanov:
Short answer, yes. Long answer: Who kows any more. Jean Kazes said this
The student provided ample well-corroborated detail that made it clear he could have witnessed just what he said he’d witnessed.
Chris Mooney said this:
In light of all this, there’s no reason to trust the story that “Tom Johnson” originally told on this blog. It might still be accurate, and it was never any more than one person’s perception anyway. But one cannot trust its source in light of subsequent behavior.
So it may be true, or it may not, Jean, Chris and TB may know for sure, but they are not telling…
Added to which, she is not listed as being employed by or working with Webber Energy Group.
The fact that somehow the story didn’t seem obviously fishy to her kind of lends weight to having no experience when it comes to how scientists relate and socialize…
Mooney’s not saying it, but him and his trusted confidants sure are hinting loudly (and that it happened to William, even). Jean Kazez seems to be saying that it probably happened, but Mooney has to back off on the story because his source is no longer credible to the public. And Mooney is sure to slip in a “it still could have happened” and only finds the story fishy because of the sockpuppet action, not because it sounds like a stupid caricature in the first place.
“It didn’t happen, probably, but it could have happened, and this is why the New Atheists are bad.”
Got it.
My head hurts!
Can I claim the cost of aspirin from Mooney ?
Echoing #46 and previous…
Amazing tastes, isn’t it? It’s like saying “sure, Democrats weren’t planning on killing off the old and weak with the healthcare bill, but they could have been. It would be consistent with their ideas.”
Mooney is rehearsing his own prejudices here. Sure, it’s logically possible that NAs have acted in the caricatured way toward a religious or “ecumenical” atheist, just as it is logically possible that I’m actually the first ever self-aware carrot with the capacity to comment on blogs.
Here I hop from key to key…
Hey Zach, You are looking pretty orange these days!
And talk about a wrong-place-wrong-time way to keep drawing equivalences… Just to note.
The fact that he felt obligated to note the evilness of his “other side” says something about his mind. Again, I’m forced to conclude that with regard to NAs, his mind is partisan to the extreme. Not extreme in the sense of being the most extreme anti-NA, but extreme in the sense of being firmly entrenched in the anti-NA ideas he holds.
That happens, and I’ll repeat something myself and others have noted already… Mooney isn’t a conscious fraud, and he isn’t the moral equivalent of “William.” However, he is wrong in the most common way, the way that perfectly sane and otherwise rational people so frequently are; and consequently, he will not be changing his mind about NAs anytime soon.
Well, if you say you’re a carrot, that’s good enough for me. See, I’m just as good a journalist as Mooney!
Posted on the Intersection and just disappeared down the moderation hole:
<blockquote>@Chris Mooney in #31: why can’t you just give us a straight answer? We don’t want to know the real identity of “Tom Johnson”. Telling us that we have to rely on two other pseudonymous bloggers doesn’t help us much either. They got all the information from you. And for all we know, they could both be your sockpuppets (and no, I don’t actually believe that). We just want to know how you confirmed the identity. Did you ask “Tom Johnson” through his “Tom Johnson” account? Or did you ask the scientist who he claimed to be? It’s a simple enough question.</blockquote>
Sorry about the blockquote tags. Habits don’t die easily.
Wait, I’m all confused. Are some people now suggesting that the story is true, but that it happened to someone other than the person who posted it? I thought “William” admitted that he pretty much made it up.
TB (who has seen the “secret information”) is saying that William/Tom is actually a grad student, despite his “confession” which says otherwise. Mooney concludes that his original story “might still be accurate” since he might also have been lying when he said he made it up.
“Mooney concludes that his original story “might still be accurate” since he might also have been lying when he said he made it up.”
So either he lied about the original story, or he lied about lying about it.
Ooooooookay…
Matt,
I am not trying to defend Sheril – I just think that given her background she should have known the story was questionable from the start. She does have two papers under her name – one as an undergrad published in Oecologia and the other in Fishery Bulletin while she was a grad student. That she managed to say the 2nd was published in Fisheries Bulletin (sic) on her Bio page is perhaps a bad sign.
The 2nd paper is available at the UM site, if any one cares.
@Jolo in #37:
Except that he says he can only “share it with trusted people who also respect the need to keep it private”. Can we conclude that he can’t trust any of the “New Atheists”?
Look people, I will say this carefully.
Someone called Tom Johnson once claimed to have witnessed colleagues, who were new atheists, being nasty to religious believers at a scientific conference.
Mooney checked out Johnson’s story, found it credible and highlighted it. Mooney claimed to have checked out Johnson and confirmed his identity.
Sometime later a blog starts up called “You Are Not Helping”, which took an accomodationist stance on atheism. The blog claims to have a number of authors, and attracts a fair few comments. A number of accomodationist bloggers praise the blog.
Rigorous research reveals that in fact there is only one person behind YNH, and that person not only authored all the blog posts but also a good number of the comments.
The person behind the blog, known as William, admits to the charges levelled against him.
William then goes to admit he posted at The Intersection under a number of different identities.
He later reveals that he was the person called Tom Johnson, and that he made it up.
Mooney then becomes aware of this.
Mooney being Mooney cannot apologise for his lapse of judgement so claims that in fact Tom Johnson is who he says he is.
Mooney then sends the details originally given to him by Johnson to selected people all of whom are known accomodationists and vocal critics of the new atheists.
These select people then say they have looked at the information and believe Mooney. They refuse to reveal what that information is though.
So we have people who were taken in by a self-confessed liar now claiming that the self-confessed liar lied about what he lied about and that anyone who doubts that is a big meany.
I hope that is clear. I will be asking questions later.
Big news!
Someone just successfully posted Ophelia’s name at The Intersocktion!
On comment #55 of the latest excuses thread (“Sock Puppets and ‘Tom Johnson,’ Part II”), commenter “Will” (er–one fervently hopes it’s not that “Will”) writes:
So apparently, as long as you’re engaging in armchair psychoanalysis, it’s just fine to mention Ophelia’s name. If, on the other hand, you intend to agree with our gracious hostess, or ask why in the hell she was banned from The Intersocktion, she’s a Woman who Shall Not Be Named.
What a crock.
Zach, in one sense I can well agree with you in your note on the previous thread from #108 ff. This should not be a defining moment in ‘Multi-alias’s’ life. Outing him is (i) not going to happen, since Chris Mooney is too deeply implicated, and he’s not going to out himself (that much seems clear); and (ii) not going to do much good, if it’s just a matter of turning him into information highway roadkill.
However, honesty being the best policy, it would be a good idea for everyone to come clean here, and it would give Chris, ‘Multi-alias’, and all those who have been denigrated by this whole mad episode, a chance to go on without the odour of scandal hanging around them. They’ve already confused the issue so thoroughly that it probably needs a bit of fresh air.
I can also understand Ophelia’s anger about all this, since she is the one who was pilloried unjustly — along, may I add, with women in general — who should be able to go about their lives on the internet without abuse of this kind being threatened, and then, when it was brought to Mooney’s attention, not only ignored, but amplified.
As I say, I don’t expect this to happen, because Chris Mooney is not a nice guy. He’s been going around shouting about people shouting, and he’s the one who’s been making all the raucous noise, and now that he’s been caught out, he’s putting up mountains of obfuscation, instead of being clear, and framing this in an appropriate way. This is the communicator, don’t forget, the one who goes around mouthing off about the horrid way some named people communicate, and disparaging a whole host of people who are concerned, and rightly concerned, about the way that religion is skewing global communications lately. So, I think a little humble pie is in order, and the person who allowed his duplicitous posting to be praised and highlighted, needs to eat a bit of crow as well. As the religious say, confession is good for the soul. Again, I repeat, this is not likely to happen, but it should.
Nice summary Matt! Ask away!
Eric,
First, thank you for looking my comments over and considering them.
I agree with everything you’ve stated, and I want to repeat a suggestion I’ve made elsewhere and ask what you think: We could ask Mooney to publish his correspondence with the Williams Family with all specific, identifying information removed, and wherever that is necessary, specific notes about the nature of the omission added.
I think that this is a reasonable demand which could not be denied for the sake of protection. It also eliminates my concerns and still allows the air to be cleared.
@Matt Penfold:
Actually, you’re being too charitable. He put it up first, people pointed out the story was fishy, and then he decided to verify it. Sort of.
Contrary to the accommodationists’ claim that framing is not the same as spin, it seems that Mooney is doing exactly what a politician, large corporation, or other habitual spinner would do when caught in a misdeed: claim to be an innocent victim, say as little about it as possible, and then hunker down and wait for it to blow over.
What does Discovery the corporation think about all this?
‘Blog traffic is up and good’
‘what have we gotten ourselves into?’
‘not much of anything’
Also:
This is entering realms of psychological twistery that I have never personally experienced no matter what turns out to be true. Good thing I am not a detective in law enforcement, I don’t think I would be good at it.
Compare this to Sheril’s comments when she moved to Discover…
Well, you know, I went way out of my way yesterday (even getting some mild criticism from a couple of you) to ask Chris in a civil manner if he might think this through now – really reflect on his biases, etc. Kazez saw fit to interfere with that, so we may never know whether he might have been responsive without her feeding his fantasies about himself, but of course it’s most unlikely.
I’m currently not in a mood to get too caught up in this (lots of other stuff buzzing around me today), but I just want to say, soberly, how these people are able to find new depths of self-deception. The story always rang false to anyone with experience of academe and how religion is discussed there. Far from “Tom Johnson’s” story being plausible, it sounded like something someone was making up. It runs completely contrary to the kind of weird, extreme attention to being inoffensive about religion that has overtaken the academy and did not cease just because a few people like Dawkins wrote books. Of course, it was always possible that this was a bizarre one-off case, but it just didn’t sound right.
Btw, that has nothing to do with being a scientist (my own background is in law and the humanities, notably philosophy but also literature). It has a lot to do with having a feel for universities.
The original comment on The Intersection that I saw from Kazez last night showed such a tin ear that I even wondered whether someone was impersonating her – by this stage almost anything seems possible – but obviously not, as events unfolded overnight my time. All I can say is that I’ll never put any weight on her judgment in future.
Unfortunately, these things are, indeed, matters of judgment, “feel” and so on. It’s impossible to be sure, and impossible to prove one’s intuitions, which are based on soaking up the academic culture and so on, and just having that in-built shit detector that Hemingway or whoever it was used to talk about. But all I can say is that the story was always going to be an exaggerated outlier at best, remote from how these things usually happen and no evidence for anything, and quite likely to be a total fabrication. I’m still amazed that Mooney couldn’t see that when he promoted it to an actual blog post and then a follow-up post praising the implausible “Johnson” for coming forward.
Ah, the stupid. It hurts.
Michael, thank you, that was enlightening. I wonder why Sheril is so apparently reluctant to come forward on this one and deal with things a bit more forcefully, as the woman on the team with the concerns that she expresses in “Singled Out”? (Her English is not great, but she puts the case for her right to be respected as a person, whatever her chromosones, with fairly evident passion. With that approach to things, she should have stood up to Chris a bit more boldly, and produced a yellow card from time to time.)
Zach, that solution, publishing everything that is known about the damned elusive Tom Johnson would at least put Mooney on the hot seat where he belongs, and at least not expose the wilting violet to more attention than he could stand. There are, however, so many lies inside lies inside lies involved here that in order to sort them out, we may need an anchor somewhere to hold the narrative down. But if Mooney is not prepared to out the guy, he should at least out himself.
Eric,
I don’t feel that an anchor is possible. At this level, we’re stuck with “he said she said.” My idea was the closest I could conceive of so far as anchors while minimizing ethical issues and further unpleasantries.
How he responds to pushes for that would at least be telling. I’m not optimistic, but at least it could not be said that a fair option for disclosure was never presented.
Aaaaaaaaaaand now a former colleague and co-author of mine has weighed in. On how horrible the New Atheists are, of course.
But let’s just sneer and shrug that off and move on to trashing the New Atheists.
Comments are disallowed for that post. Gee, that’s impressive!
Ugh, horrible sentences. Anyways, my suggestion is in moderation, and I’ll post how it turns out.
After much effort I still have no idea what the story is supposed to be. I give up. The blogosphere is a silly place.
I’m curious about the detail that Tom Johnson was at a “conservation” meeting and saw this “not helping” behavior.
This point underlies a major theme in Ivy League conservation schools, that the cause of conservation, one of the real world applications of biology, demands science and faith be understood as compatible.
This is a variant on the intersection that seeks to discuss religion and technology – the main point being that unless conservation biologists affirm the importance of religion, that they will fail at protecting resources.
what more was said about this aspect … is Mooney saying that Tom Johnson is a part of a university related conservation biology group?
Silly?! The blogosphere is a tremendously dignified and worthy place, starting with the name “blogosphere.”
Your former colleague has completely lost his mind. And his ability to weigh ethical duties and missteps. Lots of putatively smart people have done gone mad lately.
Well that’s how it strikes me. Baying for blood, for fuck’s sake! Witch hunt!
Well no doubt he thinks I’m a useless putrid twat.
Aw, but you’re our useless putrid twat!
Jeremy does seem to have a weird idea of who is the victim in all of this (hint: who were the people who were maligned by way of an elaborate charade involving multiple sockpuppets and numerous lies?).
And I’ve now commented over on Jean’s blog about her crazily misleading original post.
It becomes clear in the comments over there that she is denying that “Johnson” is a sockpuppet of “William” based on her belief (with some evidence, she says) that it’s the other way around: “Johnson” is real and “William” is the sockpuppet.
Perhaps so, though it’s an odd distinction when it’s quite likely that neither is the person’s real name. But anyway, none of that changes the fact that Mooney fell for a story that was always wildly implausible, elevated it to an absurd degree given its facial implausibility and lack of corroboration … and is now known to have followed the lead of someone who turns out to have lied pathologically on many occasions. Even if “Johnson” revealed his real identity to Mooney at the time – which is still murky – that does not exonerate Mooney. The complaint was always that the story defied credulity, yet Mooney fell for it uncritically. The credibility of the story has now been further undermined by what we now know about the source’s other actions, but even if Mooney knew the source back in 2009 that in no way validates his judgment. The point is that he has such a biased and incorrect view of how things are in the real world – and specifically of what the real-world impact of the “New Atheism” has been – that he fell for and promulgated this fantasy about the “conservation conference.” It was obvious that the story Mooney was relying on was very likely made up from whole cloth … and that even if there was some grain of truth in it somewhere, it was, at a minimum, grossly exaggerated and spun for effect.
And of course, Mooney still doesn’t get it. He just doesn’t have enough feel for the reality of how these things work to be able to internalise the point of just how badly his bullshit detector was functioning. When someone tells you such a bullshitty-but-convenient story, you just don’t place that sort of weight on it. The very most you might do is let it sit there without comment, thinking, “Hmmm.” You don’t elevate it to “Exhibit A” in your case against your opponents.
Actually, Matt, I think you missed a few important details in the summary you offered (comment #56 above). So someone can understand the full story without scrolling up and down this thread, I’ll re-copy with my addenda:
The two steps marked with asterisks above are where understanding the following details is important. When Mooney “checked out” Tom Johnson’s implausible story by contacting him, the person he contacted was multi-pseudonymous sock puppeteer extraordinaire William/Tom/YNH. William (et al), in order to preserve his dignity and his “Tom Johnson” deception, identified himself to Mooney as a science grad student, using the name of an actual science grad student of his acquaintance and sending Mooney to said science grad student’s website. In other words, Mooney’s entire “investigation” consisted in contacting the person who told the obviously implausible story, and when that person (William et al) told him, “I’m a science grad student who needs to remain anonymous not to hurt my career, but here are some details about me and here’s my website,” Mooney simply believed him.
Mooney’s “investigation” thus included these two stellar steps in investigative journalism: E-mail the guy who told the implausible “Tom Johnson” story. That guy e-mails Mooney back with a link to the website of an actual science grad student (who, remember, has nothing to do with this story other than being the false identity picked out of a hat by William) and says, “This is who I am.” Mooney did nothing more than look at the website to confirm that there was a real science grad student with that name, but did not bother to confirm that the person who sent him the link was actually that grad student. Mooney could have double-checked the claimed identity incredibly easily: All he had to do was e-mail the address on the grad student’s website – which, for obvious reasons, could not have been the same e-mail address William was using to communicate with Mooney. He did not.
Later, when he finally confessed to being the person who posted the implausible “Tom Johnson” story, William (et al) claimed that the story “was loosely based on things I had heard other general students say” – in other words, he made the story up. The story was total bullshit, just like it smelled to all the genuine critical thinkers who read it.
Not exactly. Mooney claimed that his prior “investigation” had revealed that there was a real science graduate student whom he had been misled (by the multi-pseudonymous William) to believe was “Tom Johnson.” He was claiming that he had been cleverly duped. Well, he’d been duped, but not cleverly. He could have not been duped, but instead he was willfully gullible and exercised no serious critical thinking or journalistic due diligence.
This strikes me as a particularly stupid move. All Mooney did was send around the information about the anonymous grad student that “William” had picked out of a hat. Everyone Mooney sent that information to naturally agreed that it was indeed a real person. And because they are his sycophants, they all quickly agreed with Mooney that there was no way he could have known that this real person wasn’t actually the person who posted the “Tom Johnson” story on The Intersection. Except Mooney easily could have known, simply by independently contacting the anonymous grad student to confirm the story: Journalism 101, confirm the quote with the source!
There is really no reason to reveal the information. Remember, this is NOT information about William/Tom/YNH/etc. It’s just information about a random anonymous grad student who has nothing to do with any of this except that William picked him out of a hat to be his false identity for the Tom Johnson story.
Yup. But they are doing so in a very deceptive way. Talking about having inside information that confirms anything whatsoever is bullshit. All they are doing is looking at the real person “William” chose to impersonate when Mooney contacted him and saying, “Gosh, that sure is a real person. How could Mooney possibly have known?” The answer, of course, is that Mooney could have independently contacted that real person instead of simply taking William’s word for it. And why did he just take William’s word for it? Because he wanted to believe and tout William’s story, despite the fact that the story stunk to high heaven, and despite the fact that many, many, many people TOLD HIM that the story stunk. But the story confirmed Mooney’s prejudices and reinforced his narrative, so he didn’t bother to genuinely investigate. And now he wants to play the victim. It’s pathetic and disgusting.
I just dropped this down the Intersection memory hole. I thought folks here would enjoy it and help contribute to writing the final history of the Accommodating Sock War.
TheBlackCat has it right. We need a timeline to sort things out. Here is version 1 of “Multisock Pileup in the Intersection”. Feel free to contribute to version 2.0 (fill in additional facts, add relevant links, put in dates, etc.).————-Timeline of facts:*The Puppetmaster takes an interest in science communication and starts posting comments on blogs, including The Intersection, using multiple handles (bilbo, milton C, Tom Johnson, etc)*Puppetmaster posts an anecdote of atheist scientists behaving in a boorish manner*Others question the veracity of this story, as it seems rather implausible*Chris makes a blog post highlighting the Puppetmaster’s story *In October 2009, The Puppetmaster gives Chris information about his real-world identity (apparently that the Puppetmaster is a graduate student in the sciences)*??Chris independently confirms the real-world identity of the Puppetmaster??*The Puppetmaster starts his own blog, “You’re Not Helping”, and fills it with puppets*The Puppetmaster confesses to posting under multiple identities, claims he confabulated the story of the boorish atheists, and that he gave Chris a false real-world identity*??Chris reconfirms the veracity of the Puppetmaster’s real-world identity??*Sheril posts a week-old XKCD comic. Thanks for contributing Sheril.*Chris shares private info regarding the Puppetmaster with TB and Jean*??Chris and Jean still maintain that the story of the boorish atheists _could_ be true–or was at least very plausible in 2009??———————Random discussion:I can understand why the Puppetmaster lied about his true identity in his confession. It gives him plausible deniability. If Chris rats him out, or someone else figures out who he is, he can just claim identity theft (“look, the jerk even said he wasn’t me.”). Pretty clever, actually.Personally, I’m fine with him remaining anonymous. Being a jerk on the internet is pretty close to being a victimless crime. He apologized and took the advice of others to leave and not come back. As far as I know, he never crossed a line by threatening people with real-world violence or anything like that. ———————–My remaining questions:*How and when did Chris confirm the Puppetmaster’s real-world identity? This is an important point that is still a bit mysterious. *Is there any evidence that the story of the boorish atheists is true? The Puppetmaster claims the story was a total fabrication. It reads like a total fabrication. How can Chris and Jean still maintain that it could be true? Is there additional evidence, or are they straight-up delusional about how people, and atheists in particular, behave in the real world?*What is a “conservation conference”?Seriously, I don’t know.———————–a final quote from gilt:”You just need to understand that anecdotes from anonymous people on the internet aren’t worth much. “Chris, maybe you should go write that on the blackboard a few dozen times.
wow, that stripped out the hard returns, sorry about that. Attempt #2
TheBlackCat has it right. We need a timeline to sort things out. Here is version 1 of “Multisock Pileup in the Intersection”. Feel free to contribute to version 2.0 (fill in additional facts, add relevant links, put in dates, etc.).
————-
Timeline of facts:
*The Puppetmaster takes an interest in science communication and starts posting comments on blogs, including The Intersection, using multiple handles (bilbo, milton C, Tom Johnson, etc)
*Puppetmaster posts an anecdote of atheist scientists behaving in a boorish manner
*Others question the veracity of this story, as it seems rather implausible
*Chris makes a blog post highlighting the Puppetmaster’s story
*In October 2009, The Puppetmaster gives Chris information about his real-world identity (apparently that the Puppetmaster is a graduate student in the sciences)
*??Chris independently confirms the real-world identity of the Puppetmaster??
*The Puppetmaster starts his own blog, “You’re Not Helping”, and fills it with puppets
*The Puppetmaster confesses to posting under multiple identities, claims he confabulated the story of the boorish atheists, and that he gave Chris a false real-world identity
*Chris reconfirms the veracity of the Puppetmaster’s real-world identity
*Sheril posts a week-old XKCD comic. Thanks for contributing Sheril.
*Chris shares private info regarding the Puppetmaster with TB and Jean
*??Chris and Jean still maintain that the story of the boorish atheists _could_ be true–or was at least very plausible in 2009??
———————
Random discussion:
I can understand why the Puppetmaster lied about his true identity in his confession. It gives him plausible deniability. If Chris rats him out, or someone else figures out who he is, he can just claim identity theft (“look, the jerk even said he wasn’t me.”). Pretty clever, actually.
Personally, I’m fine with him remaining anonymous. Being a jerk on the internet is pretty close to being a victimless crime. He apologized and took the advice of others to leave and not come back. As far as I know, he never crossed a line by threatening people with real-world violence or anything like that.
———————–
My remaining questions:
*How and when did Chris confirm the Puppetmaster’s real-world identity? This is an important point that is still a bit mysterious.
*Is there any evidence that the story of the boorish atheists is true? The Puppetmaster claims the story was a total fabrication. It reads like a total fabrication. How can Chris and Jean still maintain that it could be true? Is there additional evidence, or are they straight-up delusional about how people, and atheists in particular, behave in the real world?
*What is a “conservation conference”?Seriously, I don’t know.
———————–
a final quote from gilt:
“You just need to understand that anecdotes from anonymous people on the internet aren’t worth much. ”
Chris, maybe you should go write that on the blackboard a few dozen times.
Would it be utterly unfair to wonder if there ever was a real commenter (i.e. beyond the blog operator) called — or pretending to be someone called — “Tom Johnson”?
[…] last year. Several months prior to that post she was banned from The Intersection, and the ban remains in effect […]
Wasn’t the story that Tom Johnson was present at a “conservation meeting where religious people were invited.
The idea here is that the effectiveness of Conservation Biologists, and the cause of conservation biology are being degraded by the New Atheists, who elevate ideology over results.
Mooney’s whole “frame” is that he is an Atheist, but he doesn’t let that fact interfere with his ability to function “in the real world” … where real species are being really threatened.
This is an analogy to accusing Dawkins of yelling fire in a crowded theater: which is a legitimate reason to limit his speech (he’s harming people).
Mohler’s speech on the other hand shows that simply asserting that science is a reliable guide to helping us decide what we should do – is offensive to his brand of religion. But remember, the Southern Baptists became the “southern” baptists, because the northern baptists said that the justification for slavery was not in the bible. Goodbye north. Hello South.
Do the new Atheists have the blood of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker on their hands?
Just in case it doesn’t last, my comment at Jean Kazez’s site:
Alain, are you suggesting that all of this was Chris Mooney all along and that he even created the “You’re Not Helping” blog? If so, I think that’s getting a bit paranoid. After all, he has a known identity, is a reputable (even if he sometimes acts disreputably as with his treacherous backstabbing of PZ in his book) journalist, etc. Or have I misunderstood?
There certainly are some murky points remaining. I’d like to think that George has nailed the facts, but Mooney and now Kazez are so cagey about what they think actually happened that I’m not sure. I’m waiting for the onion to peel back a layer or two yet. It would also be nice if we had a complete list of sockpuppets so that we could see what other dots, if any, might get connected. I’d also be a bit happier if I knew how well the official story from William, in his supposedly full and frank apology on Oedipus’ blog, matches what Mooney and Kazez think they know.
What we (seemingly?) know is that the same person stands behind both “William” and “Johnson” and that the full and frank apology was far from full and frank. There was at least another layer, and there may be more.
IP Freely:
this would be an example of a “conservation conference”
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146:longleaf-pine-restoration-gets-huge-boost-from-conservation-reserve-program&Itemid=95
as I saw it, this attracted Mooney – because in his imagination, at a meeting dealing with something like this, “stakeholders” talk about how to negotiate the various priorities on a piece of land.
One stakeholder might be an academic who studies woodpeckers, another might be a rancher or forest owner who can decide to cut down the woodpeckers tree.
That is the plausible part, since there are 20,000,000 people in the southern baptist church, and these people are officially taught by their church that “evolution didn’t happen” – there is a real potential for a member of this church to potentially own a forest where some rare species live – and for them to meet a biologist.
What got Mooney excited was that someone imagined that Coyne’s influence was having a real world harm to the potential of the biologist to conduct himself with the religious stakeholder.
In Mooneys mind, some arrogant new athiest inspired conservation biologist “attacked” a baptist landowner and hurt the chances of conserving something.
The reality is that atheist conservation biologists work with Baptist fundamentalist landowners all the time … for all the reasons that OB and others said … all along.
I always wondered if it was a typo and he meant “conversation conference,” as in a dialogue between science and religion. Either way, his post was incredible on its face, which is why Jean Zazez’s assertions to the contrary are so odd. Mooney’s smile and ingratiating emails sharing secret evidence must be very beguiling… :-p
G Felis,
Matt mostly has the story right, as Mooney is telling it.* But Mooney’s story disagrees with “William’s” confession. “William” claimed to be a student at University of Alabama, and that he fed Mooney “Tom Johnson’s” CV to make his story more plausible. Mooney claims that that was a lie to conceal his true identity of either a young scientist or grad student at an undisclosed location (but I guess from IP addresses we know he’s in the Alabama area), and that he’s confirmed through that CV and record and so on that “Tom Johnson” really is the sock-puppeteer, and that “William” is just the sock-puppet he’s using for fake apologies. That is, Mooney is claiming that he really did confirm “Tom Johnson’s” legit identity several months ago, so was only duped by the story, not by the identity. I took a quick peek at The Buddha is Not Serious and it doesn’t look like “William” has confirmed that version of the story there.
Of course, Mooney’s description of “Tom Johnson” the young grad student or scientist with an extensive publication and work record online isn’t exactly self-consistent.
*I think, though there are points that I’m still confused on
I need to walk back my example of what I gave as a “conservation conference”.
While that would be an example of a “conservation conference” – Tom Johnson described being invited to a church lead program:
As one specific example, consider this anecdote from a recent outreach we had with a religious group. Myself and several colleagues were asked by a group of religious progressives (not creationists, not biblical literalists) to come speak about enegry conservation, climate change, etc. at their annual meeting. In other words, the theists had ASKED the scientists to come provide education on a scientific topic. On the way to the meeting, one of my colleagues kept talking about how she was “going to give it to these religious bimbos” because that’s what scientists should be doing to the religious (quoting PZ and Jerry Coyne all the while). At the meeting, I was having quite an interesting dicsussion about evolution with a pastor (he fully accepted evolution but still believed in God) when that same colleague walked up, asked “You believe in GOD??!!” incredulously, and laughed (loudly) in his face when he responded “yes.” She then said “we don’t NEED the help of the religious!” and walked away. The pastor never said another word that whole meeting.
That’s a long story, but I hope you and others get the idea. You can say this kind of offensive stuff on the blogosphere, and it’s great because it gets you hits and comments and gets your name exposure. But try doing those same thing when you’re trying to apply science, and see just how far it gets you.
Now I see why Ms. Benson, and Blackford, and Matt Penfold were so confident that Tom Johnson was not credible, if you read his comments you can see that unless you want to believe it, the anecdote is so absurd, and silly, that the slightest critical thinking, would have your bullshit antenna up.
The comment above though is applicable to the kind of thing that Mooney is saying “might happen” … and why he wants to scare people into thinking that Coyne and Dawkins are so extreme, because like Falk at BioLogos, the truth needs to come with padding, so no one gets hurt.
In a way, it doesn’t really matter who is the sockpuppet and who the puppeteer. Neither name we have been given is this person’s real name, presumably, though IIRC he did claim, in one of his apologies, that his real name is William something.
Be all that as it may, the point is that the story was implausible on its face and we now (seem to?) know that it came from a repeated liar. The actual identity of the person is irrelevant to the main issue.
Whatever checks Mooney made in 2009 to try to establish that he was dealing with a real person are a distraction, though Mooney and Kazez are trying to make this the issue for some reason. The point is that the story itself was implausible in the form in which it was presented. There was also collateral evidence that the person telling it had a poor understanding of the debate, and so was not credible in the inferences he drew, in his objectivity, etc. Even if the story had had a grain of truth in it somewhere (and this is still possible; after all, something has made this person so radicalised as to go through the charade, so I suspect that he did have a bad experience of some kind with an aggressive atheist somewhere along the line), there were signs of too much embellishment and confabulation for it to be evidence for anything. It was the inability to see that that I (and many others) criticised at the time. Mooney still doesn’t get it, and I’m sorry to see Jean Kazez, whom I’d had some time for, getting herself so confused about the issues.
Whoever “William” is, he admits that the story is fabricated, though he claims it’s based on things he’d heard from other students. The latter may be just another lie, but it may yet be true. Perhaps there really was some incident that he heard about and then used as the basis for his fiction. We’ll never know, but that doesn’t let Mooney off the hook in failing to recognise the story’s implausibility as it stood, and in using such an implausible and uncorroborated story in the way he did (“Exhibit A!”). Nor does it take away that we now have powerful corroborating evidence that we were right all along in pointing out its implausibility.
I wonder if Mooney is critical of what BioLogos is saying? BioLogos is clearly antagonizing the Confessional Seminary system. Is francis Collins making the project of the NIH harder by being part of a group that calls millions of people:
intellectually marginalized
become a cult
put .. into an intellectual cul-de-sac
and who says flatly that the the writers of scriptures were plainly wrong.
And, you know, Scott is right. It’s not that Ophelia and I and others were all that smart (sorry Ophelia). We may not be dunces, but we were confident because the story really is absurd and silly. That is not how academics operate – or other grown-ups if it comes to that. Even if there was some argument somewhere along the line that provided the seed of the story, the story as presented was simply unbelievable unless you wanted to believe it.
77. Tom Johnson Says: October 17th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Robert says: “Mooney believes that: “When you want to promote evolution, it’s just plain counterproductive to attack faith; rather, you want and desperately need religious allies.”
That may or may not be true. No evidence is offered to support this view or any of the arguments or prescriptions in Unscientific America.”
Au contaire. Read my comments to this post, Robert, as well as Anne K.’s. We experience evidence to support this almost daily.
Yep, it was important because it was evidence to support one of Mooney’s main points … Tom Johnson was so valuable because he was witness to the “daily” destruction being done by people he claimed knew Jerry Coyne personally!!
Uh oh. I suggested (in essence) to Jean Zazez that Chris Mooney is a protector of proven, self-admitted serial liars and the banner of thoughtful critics and that Jean Kazez, herself, is a protector of proven, self-admitted liars and defender of banners of thoughtful critics, and that seemed like the opposite of the moral high ground. Not long after she wrote
If my pointing out her positions is an insult then I suggest that her own positions are at fault, not me for pointing them out. Granted, she may not be referring specifically to me or my slightly typo’d post, but I think she is retreating into a Mooney-like resistance to outside criticism.
Zach, do you want an argument as for why the details of this should all come out?
because Bilbo doesn’t think we want to hear about it … do it for bilbo.
6. bilbo Says: October 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
Something tells me that, as harmful to science as Tom’s example is, we’ll hear nothing about this from the new atheist rant-o-sphere…despite all their calls for “show us how we’re hurting science!”
Exactly – it was the story which should have been verified not just the identity of the storyteller. Chris claimed he knew who “Tom Johnson” was last year, but has never claimed he knew the story to be true. Chris, Jean or TB could still verify the story since they know who “Tom Johnson” is and where he lives.
@Scote
She deleted the comment she made that you have copied and has disabled comments. So much so for “I wouldn’t have put myself in the line of fire.”
For some reason she’s insistent that the only issue was whether Tom Johnson pulled off a credible bluff of his identity.
Scote, you left the best part out of Jean’s final response (before she shut down comments):
Seriously, she wrote that, without any hint of irony.
@Tulse
She doesn’t seem to realise that ‘juvenile’ and ‘gullible’ are insults.
George Felis @ 79:
It is admittedly difficult to suss this out from the vague and poorly written explanations on Mooney’s and Kazez’s blogs, but I don’t think the above account matches M&K’s assertions regarding the investigation they claim Mooney mounted. According to Kazez’s comment on her blog (7/9/2010, 10:45 PM):
So Mooney and Kazez are contending that Mooney did a substantially more thorough job of checking out “Tom”‘s identity than you give him credit for. Of course, that contention can’t claim any more confidence than Mooney and Kazez themselves do–and it’s less than self-evident that their credibility is solid.
Still, it is at least asserted that Mooney did a meaningful check of “Tom”‘s identity. …Though almost all of that check appears to have occurred long after Mooney’s 10/22/09 post trumpeting the sockpuppet’s story.
it seems like we are blowing the issue of whether Mooney did his fact checking out of proportion.
Mooney did no fact checking, until after people called bullshit on “Tom Johnson”:
here is how we know:
82. Tom Johnson Says: October 22nd, 2009 at 7:55 pm
“While I understand Tom is an anonymous commenter on a blog, I also know that in order to post a comment here you have to put in an email address. So presumably, before elevating the comment, the person was checked out initially.”
Precisely, TB. If Chris or Sheril want me to substantiate my identity, they may email me personally and I will provide them with evidence.
I’m refraining from revealing my true identity because, in what I’ve seen in the New Atheist blogosphere, once someone criticizes their tactics, their name, reputation, and work all get dragged through the mud, regardless if it’s relevant, by at least Jerry Coyne and PZ. I’d rather not have my research record smeared for simply pointing out an observation that gives me pause.
I see no reason that Mooney has to “check out” stories that he highlights on his blog – but here is the thing, Mooney apparently DID check out the story, but his checking it seems was not about the story itself, it was out of concern for the brave commenter who so valiantly was willing to come forward with evidence of the kind of damage that happens “daily” in the real world … where Jerry Coyne and PZ convince scientists to go into churches and mock moderate religious people.
And Reiux is exactly right, Mooney was concerned about his identity, and protecting his anonymity (which is fine).
If all this is true, it seems totally possible that Tom Johnson is indeed a person who “might” resemble the person he says he is …
His whole persona is about supporting Mooney’s thesis that the New Athiests “aren’t helping.
But really they are helping … here is evidence, of an Atheist using Jerry Coyne to educate a creationist at a meeting:
the Coyne reference comment comes at 3:05 …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH1D-_znQEk
See Mooney, when scientists go to meetings, and present the findings to people in itellectual cul-de-sacs, they are very polite and well mannered.
When really, what would help is for someone, anyone, to insult this woman … this is the real world impact of accommodation … .
Actually, Scott, what I see in that video is a creationist cherry-picking one number out of Jerry’s book and trying to present it to her unfortunate (though valiant) paleontologist witness as a smackdown of evolutionary theory. (Which makes about as much sense as her dimwitted arithmetic, in which 100 – 99.9 = 1.) She’s the one using Jerry’s book, not him.
But the video does help demonstrate that, for all of their supposed faults, “new” atheist scientists actually are doing their part to (try to) educate the populace about scientific reality. Though, on this score, so are Ken Miller, Francis Collins, etc.
It seems to me that none of the above are going to get through to this woman. I’d bet heavily that we couldn’t convince her that evolution is real by insulting or flattering her religious beliefs. I certainly favor Myers/Coyne uncomfortable honesty over Miller/Collins doublethink dissembling, but not because I think either one would make any difference to a subject as god-soaked as that one.
Who knows? Maybe Mooney did do a more thorough job checking out “Tom Johnson” than I concluded from both Mooney’s (inadequate) account and William’s confessions: I doubt he did, but I doubt even more that it matters much. As Russell and others have noted, the story itself was obviously implausible. I’d forgotten exactly how wildly implausible the story was until re-reading it today. (Thanks for the cut-n-paste at #90, Scott.) The story was SO implausible that Mooney flogging it was simply shameless, regardless of whether he thoroughly checked out the source or not. It’s even more shameless that now, after the story has been exposed as wholly fraudulent (just like many people told him from the start), he’s chosen to respond with not-pologies which focus on how he was really fooled that the source was legit instead of just admitting that he should never have highlighted the obviously bogus story to begin with.
And, of course, Mooney and his allies (notably Kazez) are still maintaining that they think “Tom”‘s story may well be true after all. Ophelia is right: he’s learned nothing.
I’d recommend tempering the Mooney critique with some other critiques, of other things that you do so well.
Too much Mooney makes you look loony.
But why would you care about what I recommend?
All things in moderation.
Signed, Socrates, Plato, and perhaps Aristotle
Why is this trainwreck not suprising at all?
Rieux,
yeah, I see the same thing. But what I think this represents is more like what would happen at a “conservation meeting” … nothing but respectful and considerate dialog … in the face of bawling deliberate ignorance.
The paleontologist even uses the word, “ignorant”, to describe the state of awareness of people who don’t think there are “transitional fossils”.
This is the “real world” benefit of Jerry Coyne – he’s written a book, it is read by the people who are deciding school policy in Texas, he, nor anyone he’s influenced is out in public “screaming” at people … they are patiently dealing with people who are purposely distorting and dissembling.
Mooney created “exhibit a” out of whole cloth … and confirmation bias.
This is not nearly complicated enough. In the last reel, we’re going to learn that it was actually Ophelia, using the name Tom Johnson, who posted the anecdote about horrid atheists at a conference, because she wanted to show up Mooney as a gullible phoney. Mooney wasn’t taken in, and established that ‘Tom Johnson’ was really Ophelia. However, to rile Ophelia, he blogged about the horrid atheists anecdote as if he believed it. He simultaneously had to ban Ophelia, in case she let on that the story was a hoax. Meanwhile Jeremy Stangroom (who has a down on vocal atheists) started YNH, and commented on the horrid atheists story at the Intersockshun using various aliases. Jeremy confessed to that, using the pseudonym William, and also (falsely) claiming to be the poster of the horrid atheists anecdote. Meanwhile, in a Starbucks in Des Moines, Mooney got chatting to Ophelia, who was disguised as Amy Pond. Mooney fell in love with her razor-sharp mind and cute hair-style. Once ‘Amy’ had revealed herself as Ophelia, poor love-struck Mooney decided not to out her, and, hoping to win her love, (1) took the rap as if he had initially believed the horrid atheists anecdote; and (2) revealed only to a couple of trusted confidant(e)s that ‘Tom Johnson’ was Ophelia. Touched by his magnanimity, Ophelia succumbs to Mooney’s charms. Surging violins. Credits.
Well, it makes much more sense that Mooney’s version.
Russell @86,
Yes, perhaps I’ve gone too far. Paranoia lies in that direction. (Though, having operated a blog myself briefly, I did encounter some pretty strange manifestations of sockpuppetry.)
Regardless, it’s “Tom Johnson’s” story that’s the thing, not whether the teller was ever real. It had “concocted” written all over it right from the start… And I’m rather impatient with onions. I only peel their outer skins. After that I either slice them for salad or chop them up for sauce. (New Atheist sauce… Take that, Tom Johnson!)
I would modify Charles’s claim: “Too much Mooney makes you loony”. As Nietzsche said, when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares into you.
Hahahahahahahaha Nicholas – that sounds about right!
I’m hoplessly confused now, of course. Not that it matters…except I do think it makes a difference whether the YNH sock plus the Intersection-YNH comment socks were 1) a student age 23 or 2) an adult with publications and a career.
It makes a difference because people of 23 can be (somewhat) forgiven for not knowing how to behave. An adult with publications and a career, not so much.
This isn’t to say the adult should be named and exposed – I’m not actually “baying for blood,” thank you. It is to say I’m not at all convinced the adult should be anxiously protected from exposure by (for instance) people who wouldn’t normally approve of anonymous mendacious sexist bullying.
It all seems to have been turned around in some weird way. The story somehow seems to be that the non-anonymous non-mendacious people who don’t call women useless putrid twats are bullying the poor sad vulnerable anonymous mendacious bully who does call women useless putrid twats. The story is that we are bullying Mr Sock. I find that unutterably bizarre – and disgusting.
Russell
No, I know! I said that. No need to apologize. I said that – it was obvious. It oozed sawdust from every pore – that’s a reference to Gatsby’s absurd yarning about lion hunting or whatever it was.
Ben, I know. I’m going to stop now. See you later, abyss.
Well maybe not exactly stopping, but winding down.
Because I have to laugh – on Kazez’s blog her loyal lieutenant “amos” announces that I have “assumed the role of the Ayn Rand of New Atheism.” Ha!
That’s one of the many byproducts of sexism of course – women in prominent roles are so sparse that you get ridiculous comparisons like that. “Let’s see…who is that nasty female New Atheist OB like…hmmm…drawing a blank here….oh I know, Ayn Rand! She was a woman. And an atheist.”
And – as people have pointed out – we’re supposed to be the bullies, the witch hunters baying for blood – yet Mooney can come here and dispute me – Kazez can – Stangroom can. But I can’t dispute any of them. They fire off shots and then either ban “enemies” or close comments altogether. Yet we’re the witch hunters baying for blood.
Very odd.
I’ve always thought of you as New Atheism’s Evita Peron. Or perhaps New Atheism’s Marie Curie. Maybe New Atheism’s Amelia Earhart?
[…] Stangroom is not pleased with the reaction of new atheists to the Tom Johnson […]
Tulse :- )
New Atheism’s George Sand? New Atheism’s Billie Jean King?
New Atheism’s Greta Christina.
No, wait. That spot’s kinda taken.
Ophelia, did you notice Kwok’s post on The Intersection? This is an example of what they consider constructive and not simply a personal attack. They specifically, manually accepted that post.
…and people are trying to paint them as generally well meaning people who were duped by an unscrupulous character.
I’m sorry, but why are “comments disallowed” over at this (apparently) nose-thumbing post from Jeremy at Talking Philosophy? I would just like to say that I am not convinced that Ms. Kazez “has been absolutely right about all this New Atheist nonsense from the get-go”, but I can’t state it there because the discussion has been shut down in advance.
I’m beginning to think the world’s gone mad…
Geoff Coupe, I can’t tell you why comments are “disallowed” on Jeremy’s post; I have no inside information. I assume it’s because he wanted to bash “the New Atheists” without dealing with any response.
I too of course am not convinced that Kazez has been absolutely right about all this New Atheist nonsense all along, nor am I convinced that it’s such an obvious fact that it can be stated as such.
My bias is that I don’t trust TB at all. So when I read this, it seems like he was trying to diffuse this Tom Johnson situation before it all blew up.
In the comments section of”The Curious Case of the You’re Not Helping” post I wrote this to William before his Tom Johnson admission.”Tell me something. Were you also Tom Johnson, because that guy was too perfect a caricature to have been real.”
It was just an off-the-cuff comment thrown in at the end. But TB quickly responded:
“Don’t think everyone who disagrees with you at the Intersection is a sock-puppet, gilt. You exhibit a lot of troll-like qualities yourself.”
His strong reaction seemed out of place at the time.
Paul said this:”TB now claims that Mooney shared the information identifying Tom Johnson with him, and he says there’s more to it.”
The next day TB said this about my further suspicion of MiltonC and Tom Johnson: “Typical gilt misrepresentations. Do you have any evidence that Tom Johnson was a sock puppet? I’ll need William to not only admit to it but provide some proof – like the email address he would have given to Mooney.”
Maybe I’m being paranoid and TB was only trolling. It just seems odd that TB is mixed up in all of this and he was the only person to try and squash the whole thing before it ever got started.
Chris Mooney is acting like he is afraid of something. He made a mistake, and instead of admitting his mistake he is doing everything possible to cover it up. Perhaps he fears his career is in jeopardy, as well it should be. The ironic part is he could salvage his credibility by coming clean and admitting his mistakes, then taking steps to never repeat them.
Darron,
I have my doubts that his career would be seriously hurt by this, whatever he could be covering up at this point.
At this point, I think it is safe to say the original TJ story was another of William’s lies. If this were not true, then Chris/Jean/TB would have produced evidence to the contrary. They don’t appear to have even tried and I wonder why? Also given the number of US graduate students in the sciences, one could provide quite a bit of information without anyone coming close to identifying William.
I went onto Stangroom’s blog and posted this on the blog posting before the one where he went on about witch hunts. It should get me justifiably banned:
Zach, you are right, this one episode will not damage his career, though it should. I have a background in journalism, and if I were Chris’ editor at Discover Mags his ass would be so raw he wouldn’t be able to sit down until he publicly admitted his mistakes, apologized to the people he has branded New Atheists, and reinstated those he has unfairly banned from commenting on his blog.
Given Chris’ actions the past two years, especially accepting Templeton Foundation money, Chris’ career as a science writer will derail at some point. At least he’ll be able to make a living writing for Religious Accommodationist think tanks.
You’re simply wrong here, Ms Benson. And I say that just to be able to point to this comment in case you ever think I’m a sheep baaaaing along. :)
I’m pouring over your comments on the recent Mooney thing, and I am seriously shocked at how Mooney proves himself to not only be wrong, not only be biased, not only be unable to consider his bias when called on it, not only be unable to admit when his bias and being wrong is made obvious – but as the main guy proposing better communication, to see him being *so bad* at this. He’s trying to frame the discussion and failing spectacularly everywhere except at his own blog, and there only because he deletes comments willy-nilly. He’s trying to explain and insinuate and play the victim and frame along but does so in a way that just confuses people as to what he’s trying to say. If you need to read his writing several times before understanding what he’s even trying to say, and that he’s only being evasive and not trying to say much more, then how on earth are you to take him seriously when it comes to criticizing science communication?
But then again, he never really did give actual criticism about science communication, he never really made a point of showing how to do it right, did he? He just said that the others were doing it wrong.
Bruce – imagine my surprise; I don’t see your comment there. :- )
I do see a lot of risible stuff about feeling “morally obliged to take a public stance” and the like, as if that post were a shining example of morality.
Now, I get it that a rush of critical comments can feel like a battering (I should know! the sock puppets staged rushes like that almost daily, and they were way more vicious than anything anyone said to Jean), but to equate approximately 40 or 50 critical blog comments (63 minus Jean’s replies and friendly comments) to witch hunters baying for blood is……disgusting.
Patrick – I don’t know (your last question). He gave a workshop on communication for scientists at MIT recently – so maybe he did teach them how to do it right. It seems unlikely, but maybe he did!
Well he could have done a good job, had he said: “You all know how I communicate ? Well don’t do it like that!”.
This is somewhat reminiscent of Oprah’s radar failure a few years ago:
via BoingBoing