I’m now used to the ritual of Jerry Coyne (@whyevolutionistrue) attempting a takedown of my stuff. To my perverse delight, though, the Harvard psychologist and hair model Steven Pinker took a poke at me. Couldn’t resist that. What follows is the tweet stream I sent out in response, clarifying some points in the article and differentiating further between science and scientism.
So @sapinker is talking trash about me, re: my piece in #Nature150 (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03014-4). The delicious comic beauty is how well Pinker’s tweet makes the central argument in my @Nature article. Here’s the tweet in question.
I write satire from time to time, and I’d be hard-put to parody Pinker’s language. So let’s break down his own words: “Unlike past anti-scientism rants in lit/cult/pol mags, this [my piece] is in Nature.” https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03014-4
My piece is not a rant, @sapinker, either in tone or in argument. It’s an analysis and a plea for more good scienceNathaniel Comfort, “Science, Scientism, and Steven Pinker” at Genotopia
It’s getting so that Darwinians are being treated like ordinary folk who could actually be wrong about some things. What is the world coming to? Where is Queen Umpadeedle when they need her?
Hat tip: Pos-darwinista
See also: At Nature: An honest attempt to come to terms with Darwinism’s role in eugenics. With eugenics, as with racism, all critics want is an honest acknowledgment of the sources, not butt-covering bafflegab. It doesn’t matter now except for the butt-covering bafflegab.
Is violence really declining, as cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker claims?
Follow UD News at Twitter!