ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

On the sweetness of ankles

I have to admit, just when I think the old Fowl Atheist has bottomed out, (the last time he managed to publicly demonstrate his embarrassingly poor grasp on human genetics), he manages to dig himself in deeper. It is vastly amusing that he didn't even hesitate to plunge right into this one. Remember when he didn't want to debate me because it would be punching down? Now Richard Dawkins's former fartsniffer and failed successor is so desperate to be relevant again that he's swinging wildly at shadows:
Wait, what? I did a search; no, neither Vox Day nor Theodore Beale have published anything in Nature, or any other science journal, and they also haven’t been cited anywhere in the scientific literature. Weird. How can he make this claim?

As it turns out, his claim is so tenuous and absurd that you have to laugh.

Here is his ‘hypothesis’, which is his: Religion doesn’t cause wars. He said this in his blog, and he also says it in his self-published ‘I hate atheists’ book, both of which hardly anyone reads, and which aren’t exactly popular with scientists.

However, he now claims that anyone anywhere who even says something vaguely like that (for instance, Scott Atran, who has argued that religion is not the primary causative agent in terrorism), is “citing” him, even if they don’t mention his name or his source, or explicitly acknowledge other sources. It’s all him. It is entirely his idea. It’s not as if people have been making excuses to exonerate religion from all blame for centuries, it was his idea.
As we have learned to expect from him, PZ can't even get the simplest facts right.
  1. The Irrational Atheist is not self-published. It has never been self-published. I'm sure Glen Yeffeth, who is an atheist himself, and all the good people at Ben Bella books will very much appreciate the attempted insult. I say attempted insult because anyone who isn't locked into the dying publishing model recognizes that independent publishing is not merely the future, it is the now. As for hardly anyone reading it, it's still selling well enough that when I asked Glenn if I could have the rights back so that Castalia could sell it, he laughed and told me no.
  2. Scott Atran and others are, in fact, citing me, whether they realize it or not. It is very easy to prove it. They are taking it from this Wikipedia page, which took it from a Christian site which took it from TIA. The reason I know this is that the numbers that everyone is citing are not the numbers that appear in the Encylopedia of Wars. As it happens, no such numbers appear in the encyclopedia at all. They are the numbers that I used the encyclopedia to calculate and appeared in The Irrational Atheist.
  3. It is all me, as it happens. It was an entirely original idea, as evidenced by my 2004 WND column published prior to the publication of the encyclopedia, entitled God, George Bush, and War. The metric for disproving the hitherto common atheist claim, a claim that some atheists still make today, is obvious only in retrospect. Nor, as it happens, is it the only way to disprove the mistaken idea that religion causes war, as I came up with another metric that works equally well, but is less numerically quantifiable, which is why it was not cited by Wikipedia, Atran, and others.
  4. It's not an excuse. The fact that religion does not cause most war is a historical fact of military history, of which PZ is obviously ignorant.
  5. You don't hear much about religion causing war anymore. Not even PZ is dumb enough to try to directly push the canard. You don't hear much about the Red State argument anymore either. In both cases, TIA is why.
It's a bit ironic that PZ is so intent on claiming that I am not a scientist, when he was the original inspiration for my hypothesis, successfully tested in a study by Boston University scientists, that atheists are not neurotypical and that there is a positive correlation between atheism and autism.

This shabby attempt by PZ to deny historical reality, by the way, is one reason I make a habit of including some very minor information that is original, such as the "k"s in Psykosonik, in most things that I do. Doing so makes it very easy for me to see who is actually getting their information from me and who is not, regardless of what they pretend. I don't usually bother to point it out, as the important thing is the propagation of the information, not the credit. But I always know.

Petty little anklebiters like PZ don't bother me in the slightest. After 13 years of them nibbling at my ankles, I'd probably find the sensation unsettling if they ever stopped.

Labels: ,

91 Comments:

Blogger stats August 27, 2014 12:15 PM  

Well done, bitch.

Anonymous Joe Doakes August 27, 2014 12:19 PM  

Canary trap. Love it!

Blogger Eowyn August 27, 2014 12:21 PM  

Wonder if he'd be willing to debate you now that your star has grown brighter than his. It'd obviously lift his profile (since that's apparently the only reason anyone does debates).

Anonymous DrTorch August 27, 2014 12:23 PM  

What does Myers know about publishing? He's only got 14 articles, none since 1997.

But, he must have some spare time before JUCO is back in session.

Anonymous Josh August 27, 2014 12:31 PM  

Canary trap. Love it!

Beat me to it.

Blogger Harambe August 27, 2014 12:39 PM  

So PZ has started actively ignoring you again?

Anonymous Josh August 27, 2014 12:39 PM  

The McNabb bowl game anomaly is one of my favorite examples of this.

Espn magazine published an article about using games started and completion percentage in college to predict qb success. Nfl.com wrote a very similar piece. In the original piece, an espn fact had added the McNabb's bowl games to his tally of college games started. The nfl.com article used the exact same numbers. No other qb had their bowl game starts included.

Anonymous Porky August 27, 2014 12:39 PM  

PZ sure is getting fat.

Blogger FALPhil August 27, 2014 12:43 PM  

Lordy, the comments under the blog post are so idiotic that I think the aggregate IQ of PZ's readership is dwindling. And the vituperations! Clearly a collection of the close-minded, or maybe, "mind-numbed robots".

Anonymous Josh August 27, 2014 12:48 PM  

Interesting that Wikipedia cites both the Encyclopedia of War and the Encyclopedia of Wars.

Blogger John Williams August 27, 2014 12:51 PM  

Rabbit trap. Phase II is canary snatches.

Anonymous The Lion August 27, 2014 12:53 PM  

tl;dr Pharyngula: "Vox is wrong because evil!"

So apparently Gorski is Orac, eh?

Anonymous Porky August 27, 2014 12:59 PM  

I notice the Hooker paper has now been disappeared.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet August 27, 2014 12:59 PM  

VD,

I doubt Atran was using you as a source. Most of the statement for a non-religious causation are from terrorism databases and his own personal research, such as on social networks or soccer, into the motivation of suicide bombers. For example, his book In Gods We Trust came out in 2002, obviously prior to your 2004 article.

I don't doubt others are picking up your idea from you. However, your post seems to suggest Atran may have also, which I would guess you likely don't believe, but inadvertently wrote.

Anonymous Josh August 27, 2014 1:09 PM  

PZ's summary of the vaccine study is literally DISQUALIFY!:

"The author, Brian Hooker, is unqualified. He is trained as a chemical engineer, although he now has a position as a biologist in a nursing program at a Christian college.

The journal, Translational Neurodegeneration, is a new something-or-other with no reputation, in the BioMed Central stable of journals. It’s not clear if it’s legit or not — to its credit, it’s not one of those journals that levies large page charges or fees to publish, so maybe it’s OK (but you never know…there sure are a lot of flaky fly-by-night journals popping up). It is not to its credit that it published this paper."

Anonymous MrGreenMan August 27, 2014 1:24 PM  

If the good doctor simply used his earlier definition, wouldn't this be a completely empty statement? I thought he was the source for the definition that science is "what scientists do", and scientists are people employed with the job title scientist, researcher, etc? Back then, it seemed a reasonable way to finesse the usual derailing that comes about by trying to claim it's the only valid way to achieve knowledge of anything (which is what Nu Atheists were all about back then...)

Anonymous NateM August 27, 2014 1:28 PM  

" the old Fowl Atheist has bottomed"

Irony?

Anonymous so many different feet you meet August 27, 2014 1:42 PM  

LOL that the sponsors in the right column are advertising "amazing photos" of celebrity feet and ankles.

Anonymous takin' a look August 27, 2014 2:13 PM  

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1164827 HOT DAMN! This is gonna be huge folks

Anonymous Credo in Unum Deum August 27, 2014 2:20 PM  

"Religion doesn't cause wars."

islam on the other hand...

For the last 5000+ years of human civilization, religions, man-made and Divinely-Founded, HAVE COEXISTED, and fairly peacefully I might add.

With one glaring exception, founded 1400 years ago in the sands of Arabia, religions have coexisted side-by-side, and will continue to do so until Jesus returns.

Anonymous Nigglet August 27, 2014 2:20 PM  

But PZ once opened up a can of whoop ass on a Ritz cracker...

You ever do that, cracker-boy??? Huh???

I just crushed a whole package of Pringles under my heel in the NAME OF SCIENCE AND REASON!

Anonymous TadGay August 27, 2014 2:24 PM  

"Rowdy" Roddy Piper summarize's Vox's post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_K8prLfso

Anonymous Earl August 27, 2014 2:37 PM  

Nigg, u science n00b, ur science is nothing, I am ekstatik in this moment, my science level is OVER 900000))!)!))!!11!)11)!!)1

Anonymous Earl August 27, 2014 2:39 PM  

I meant euphorik not ekstatik, fer fedoras sake FFS

Anonymous GreyS August 27, 2014 2:41 PM  

The reason I know this is that the numbers that everyone is citing are not the numbers that appear in the Encylopedia of Wars.

Whenever I've seen the numbers laid out like that I knew it was from TIA. I've seen it unattributed in all sorts of places, and used it myself plenty of times. What's funny (to me anyway) is that I also ended up making sure I cited VD, TIA, and VP because I not only used the stat but also used your method of writing to those who were reading along-- as of course the Angry Internet Atheist can't refute it/changes the subject/disappears.

(For those who haven't read it-- There is a heck of a lot more useful stuff in that book)

Blogger Brad Andrews August 27, 2014 3:02 PM  

Those photo ads on the right are humorous.

Anonymous DavidK August 27, 2014 3:12 PM  

The thing that gets me about vaccine supporters is they have no idea they are backing outdated medical technology. I am sure vaccines were fine for their time, but that time was before the 20th century was over. We are in the 21st century now, and we know far, far, more about the immune system than we did decades ago. We know how to boost the immune system to prevent disease. It is just that our immune systems doesn't hire lobbyists to pay off Congress so that Congress can look after our immune systems' interests. So instead Congress looks out for the best interests of vaccine manufacturers who do pay them off.

Anonymous Feelings, Nothing More Than Feelings August 27, 2014 3:39 PM  

Autism wasn't identified until the 1930's. It was very rare until the 1980's. It became more common in the 1990's. So whatever exogeneous factor drives children, mostly boys, to autism is also manufacturing some atheists as well?

Schizophrenia was not identified until sometime around 1920, too.
How many mental illnesses are a result of overcrowding in some sort of way?

Blogger Alexander August 27, 2014 3:46 PM  

That's an avenue I had not considered. So point out to the pro-vaxers that sure, they worked... but it's like we're discussing how to move from A to B, and you're ranting on about how the horse and buggy TOTALLY GETS THE JOB DONE!

There was a time when all sorts of things 'got the job done' back when they were the best that could be developed, but would be considered if practiced today because of the progress we've made on alternatives. Why can't pro-vaxers quit being such reactionary 20th century luddites?

I like it.

Anonymous GreyS August 27, 2014 3:50 PM  

anyone who isn't locked into the dying publishing model recognizes that independent publishing is not merely the future, it is the now.

Indeed. It's pretty clear that author-controlled branding is going to be the way to go from now on. This interview with Harry Bingham highlights how authors are becoming quite adaptable and taking more control.

The sniffsnifflookdownyournose attitude toward authors who don't do x y and z is getting to be a joke.


Anonymous kfg August 27, 2014 4:07 PM  

"How many mental illnesses are a result of overcrowding in some sort of way?"

As well as the drop in fertility rate of the K Selected.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2014 4:21 PM  

I doubt Atran was using you as a source.

(laughs) You're wrong. I know he was.

"Moreover, the chief complaint against religion -- that it is history's prime instigator of intergroup conflict -- does not withstand scrutiny. Religious issues motivate only a small minority of recorded wars. The Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1,763 violent conflicts across history; only 123 (7 percent) were religious"
- "God and the Ivory Tower", August 6, 2012

"America’s seventeen previously mentioned wars account for less than 1 percent of the 1,763 wars chronicled in the encylopedia.... That is 123 wars in all, which sounds as if it would support the case of the New Atheists, until one recalls that these 123 wars represent only 6.98 percent of all the wars recorded in the encyclopedia."
- The Irrational Atheist, 2008

As I said, he actually took it from Wikipedia, which took it from Richard Deem, who got it from TIA. See, if you actually count up the wars in the encylopedia, you don't get 123....

Anonymous Rabbit Response Squad August 27, 2014 4:31 PM  

Well there you have it. Vox Day: admitted liar!

Blogger RobertT August 27, 2014 4:33 PM  

You have managed at least some control over your hypothesis. It is at least in play that you will get credit for it. It could very well happen that you made that hypothesis, somebody else copied you and later someone else copied them and they got credit. I suspect this is relatively common. Once it happens there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Public perception is everything.

Anonymous NorthernHamlet August 27, 2014 4:33 PM  

Vox,

Ah, my mistake. I hadn't seen that he had made the specific war argument in his work. I had read your post as slipping between the general "religion as a cause of violence" and "religion as a cause of formal war".

Anonymous dickson August 27, 2014 4:34 PM  

Vox; using the encyclopedia of wars himself, why would it have been impossible for Scott to arrive at 123? You arrived at that number using the work...

Anonymous Joseph Dooley August 27, 2014 4:42 PM  

I'm disappointed with the content of this post, as the title led me to believe Vox was going to talk about how spying a woman's ankle in the 19th or 18th centuries was an erotic highlight for most Anglo-descended gentlemen.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2014 4:48 PM  

Well there you have it. Vox Day: admitted liar!

Not at all. My number is correct to the best of my knowledge. There is no number provided by the encyclopedia. So, I suggest you retract the false accusation.

Vox; using the encyclopedia of wars himself, why would it have been impossible for Scott to arrive at 123? You arrived at that number using the work...

Because they screwed up a few times. They counted as religious wars certain wars that were not religious, in one case, a war that is even noted not to have been religious in its own entry in the encyclopedia itself. They don't provide any number at all, and if you count up all the listings under "religious wars" in the index, you don't get 123.

And, of course, Atran's wording is almost verbatim that of the Wikipedia entry. It is completely obvious that none of these people have ever even seen the encyclopedia, which runs $300. They're just taking it from the Wikipedia entry.

Anonymous Giuseppe August 27, 2014 4:50 PM  

@VD
"As I said, he actually took it from Wikipedia, which took it from Richard Deem, who got it from TIA. See, if you actually count up the wars in the encylopedia, you don't get 123...."

Heheh.
This made me actually laugh. The more I read this blog the more I find little surprising things that I have been doing myself for a long time but that I haven't really known other people to do, yet I can see you do the same things in a way that is basically identical.
It brings up all sorts of questions about intelligence in both the personal as well as the universal sense. And possibly about paranoia (because it's always justified dammit!) and other things.
I hope we meet one day Vox, I'm pretty sure it would be an interesting conversation for both of us. Besides... if it would stop that one tear from the one eye while you drink alone, it will be worth it. Every time I think of that reply of yours it makes me chuckle to myself.

Anonymous Perro August 27, 2014 4:51 PM  

Guau. Just guau.

Anonymous Noah B. August 27, 2014 4:53 PM  

Vox, I've always been against unrestricted trade (what some would call "free" trade) too, but you've made arguments against it that I haven't heard anywhere else. I don't recall you claiming that these are necessarily your own original ideas, but if they are, then I suspect you'll be able to take credit for them as they gain popularity.

Anonymous Noah B. August 27, 2014 4:56 PM  

"It is completely obvious that none of these people have ever even seen the encyclopedia, which runs $300."

It can be found online for, um, significantly less.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2014 4:58 PM  

I believe the forced movement of peoples is an original argument. As is the proposed alternative mechanism for the Austrian Business Cycle. (I do NOT buy Rothbard's goods-shifting notion.) Most of the others belong to Ian Fletcher, whose work on the subject has been stellar.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2014 5:03 PM  

It can be found online for, um, significantly less.

Sure, I have a digital copy in addition to the hardcovers myself. The point is that no one would ever phrase it that way after simply consulting the encyclopedia. It's just not structured in the way that my summary is. I'd have to check, but I don't think they even counted up all the wars. Based on the way their count of certain wars is more than a little nebulous, just the reference to 1,763 wars is enough to point to TIA.

Anonymous Noah B. August 27, 2014 5:15 PM  

Kind of like how my sophomore English teacher could tell I had read the Cliff Notes for Brothers Karamazov instead of the actual book...

Anonymous Doc's Strange, Luv August 27, 2014 5:20 PM  

dickson, the significance of the number 123 is that it is an error. Anyone who actually read the original source and had a calculator would not make that error.

But anyone just blindly doing a cut 'n paste with minimal rewrite of the online article would make that mistake.

I've personally seen errors propagate through peer reviewed technical papers, in one case a large summation equation had a sign error in the middle of it. This mattered because as written the equation would not converge; flipping the sign led to convergence. Some paper writer had typoed the equation waaay up the citation chain, and every paper after that contained the same error.

Because "peer review" doesn't always mean what people think it means.
And because many researchers are too "rushed" (lazy) to actually attempt to implement, derive or otherwise actually work with some or all of the equations in a paper they are citing.

I'm tempted to deliberately place rather obvious errors in a future paper, not only to test the peer review process but to see who cites without attribution in the future. Tempted, but that would be wrong...

Anonymous kh123 religious wars August 27, 2014 5:31 PM  

Would figure it'd be wise for a community college sophist not to add his name several-dozen times to the VP archive. But hey, who am I kidding - both students and faculty probably bonus him under the table for his Pharyngulan efforts.

Anonymous Jimmy August 27, 2014 5:51 PM  

Has anyone bothered to comment on PZ's article to point him this information in VD's post?

Anonymous dickson August 27, 2014 5:59 PM  

Doc; Vox claims its not an error, but he arrived at that number through his best efforts. I do buy that it was transmitted from Vox to evidence forged.org to wikipedia' and it seems likely Atran got it from wikipedia, even though its possible he arrived at the numbers using the same method Vox employed. Either way, that hardly counts as having your "hypothesis cited by Nature".

PZ is rarely right about anything, but he is correct that the idea that wars are not primarily driven by religion predates 2004.

Blogger Outlaw X August 27, 2014 6:14 PM  

It's a bit ironic that PZ is so intent on claiming that I am not a scientist, when he was the original inspiration for my hypothesis, successfully tested in a study by Boston University scientists, that atheists are not neurotypical and that there is a positive correlation between atheism and autism.

I figured out the answer today to something that dogged me all my life. Why I would do something never done before and peoples reaction was to tear it down. For example there is a large part of a large TX County that you couldn't use as nothing but rangeland because of the erodibility and steep slopes. So I developed a practice of improved pasture for this land with a little common sense and it was a success. Colleagues at work tore me down because I didn't have an ag degree I was the engineer that was their expertise and that land had remained unchanged for ever. Well once I helped that farmer establish a lush bermuda grass pasture other farmers saw and started doing the same thing. a few years later a female colleague with a prestigious ag degree saw this and concluded to me that I had learned it from them but she was exactly backwards.

Then today I heard of a guy named Max Scheler and Existential envy. I think this is what happens to you too, or its product welled up in others like PZ.

Existential envy which is directed against the other person’s very nature, is the strongest source of ressentiment. It is as if it whispers continually: “I can forgive everything, but not that you are— that you are what you are—that I am not what you are—indeed that I am not you.” This form of envy strips the opponent of his very existence, for this existence as such is felt to be a “pressure,” a “reproach,” and an unbearable humiliation. In the lives of great men there are always critical periods of instability, in which they alternately envy and try to love those whose merits they cannot but esteem. Only gradually, one of these attitudes will predominate. Here lies the meaning of Goethe’s reflection that “against another’s great merits, there is no remedy but love.

~Max Scheler

Blogger Outlaw X August 27, 2014 6:18 PM  

It's why they hate you, should I say.

Anonymous TMQ Fanboy August 27, 2014 6:52 PM  

This shabby attempt by PZ to deny historical reality, by the way, is one reason I make a habit of including some very minor information that is original, such as the "k"s in Psykosonik, in most things that I do. Doing so makes it very easy for me to see who is actually getting their information from me and who is not, regardless of what they pretend.

This was a strategy of old cartographers. They'd add a fictitious town or landmark to their maps, then when they saw that on someone else's map, they'd know they were being copied.

Anonymous DavidK August 27, 2014 7:19 PM  

Has anyone bothered to comment on PZ's article to point him this information in VD's post?

Why bother? He will only delete the comment or lie.

Anonymous Molon Rouge August 27, 2014 7:24 PM  

And oh the lies!!! It really does show the World these self-define "experts" have degrees and nothing more.Their standing does not make them smarter, moral or competent.

Thanks Be for this blog. It opens minds and shines a light on the worms of the compose heap.

Anonymous Rhys August 27, 2014 7:31 PM  

@ Davidk: "We know how to boost the immune system to prevent disease"

Can you please elaborate? I have an immune deficiency and would like to research further

Sorry for hijacking Vox

Anonymous Amok Time August 27, 2014 7:32 PM  

"Schizophrenia was not identified until sometime around 1920, too.
How many mental illnesses are a result of overcrowding in some sort of way?"

Yep! In the olden days, most mentally deranged folks rarely lived past their 20s. The normal population made sure they met an early demise. Here in the US of A we always had a frontier for the crazies to move on and live out their delusions away from civilization. I wonder if anyone has studied the stability of the late 1800's gunfighters. They come off as unstable and restless.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2014 7:36 PM  

dickson, the significance of the number 123 is that it is an error. Anyone who actually read the original source and had a calculator would not make that error.

The opposite, actually. 123 is not an error, but is closer to the truth than anyone who actually reads the actual source and had a calculator.

Either way, that hardly counts as having your "hypothesis cited by Nature".

Yes, it would have been more accurate to say "having my metric for disproving a particular false hypotheses cited by [whoever it was] in Nature", but Twitter is not the ideal medium for discussion. There is also the other part of the tweet that people have been ignoring, which is that professional scientists are, in fact, doing experiments on the basis of my hypotheses.

There are at least two of which I am aware. There are almost certainly others. What is ridiculous is that PZ and some other scientists act as if I am trying to pretend to their status. I'm not. I tend to hold scientists in disdain and consider most of them to be of modest intelligence and poorly educated. With a few exceptions, they're little more than jumped-up technicians who do an observably terrible job at the one thing they are supposed to be doing, which is science.

I mean, look at PZ. He's so inept that he's STILL trying to argue the point even though most people accept that my proposed historical metric has settled the issue, and settled it more conclusively than most professional "science" settles anything these days. But I supposed the credentialed always find it hard to believe that others are not as impressed by their hard-won credentials as they are.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2014 7:44 PM  

PZ is rarely right about anything, but he is correct that the idea that wars are not primarily driven by religion predates 2004.

Absolutely. Everyone who heard the opposite claims of an atheist and thought "bullshit" had the same idea. Probably tens of millions of people, if not hundreds of millions. But I proved it. And I consider a proof to be of considerably more valuable than a simple idea. If you don't, well, that's hardly going to bother an Austrian School man, now, is it?

Anonymous kfg August 27, 2014 7:48 PM  

"123 is not an error, but is closer to the truth . . ."

Because the error is in the source material, not your calculation.

Anonymous DavidK August 27, 2014 7:50 PM  

Can you please elaborate? I have an immune deficiency and would like to research further

With the caveat that my statement was directed more towards the general population, I will still elaborate.

Short answer is start with Vitamin C and Vitamin D. At the extreme you could try intravenous vitamin C which can't hurt and may help. Vitamin D(specifically D3) at the extreme would be injections. But start with oral supplements for C and sunlight(azimuth table has to be above 50 or it won't work) for vitamin D

As an example, for flu, it is impossible or almost impossible to die from flu provided you have enough Vitamin C in your body. There are flu shots every year because of the flu pandemic of 1918. Here is what we know now that we didn't know then...1) How to make antibiotics(some of the deaths were really pneumonia deaths, not flu), 2) Don't treat flu with aspirin(aspirin depletes vitamin C in the human body) and 3) What vitamin C actually is(discovered in the 1930s).

So flu shots are completely out of date.

For natural antibiotics, try garlic. It really does work, and it kept Roman armies from dying from disease.

Anonymous dickson August 27, 2014 7:57 PM  

But I proved it

Didn't the index of the EoW do that? Given your corrections have he number at 7%, I can't imagine using the index alone has the number much higher?

Anonymous dickson August 27, 2014 8:00 PM  

In the words of some wikipedia editor, this reads like resume fluff. Except sadder

Anonymous Doc's Strange, Luv August 27, 2014 8:05 PM  

dickson, the significance of the number 123 is that it is an error. Anyone who actually read the original source and had a calculator would not make that error.

VD
The opposite, actually. 123 is not an error, but is closer to the truth than anyone who actually reads the actual source and had a calculator.

My error due to misreading. I'll be sure to cite my own error in the future just because...

Anonymous kfg August 27, 2014 8:12 PM  

"For natural antibiotics, try garlic . . ."

And for topical antibiotics (keeping your hands clean is the most effective means of preventing infection in the first place) there is alcohol and honey.

Dust the honey with starch to take the stick out of it.

Blogger Unknown August 27, 2014 8:14 PM  

"PZ ... is correct that the idea that wars are not primarily driven by religion predates 2004."

Of course it does. I've been using a similar argument myself far longer. But I don't see where Vox ever claimed credit for the idea, only to being the source of all modern citations of it.

Vox, I think another, arguably more significant, metric would be casualty figures. If a certain war -- say, oh, I dunno, WWII -- caused more casualties than every other war in human history combined, is it still significant how many wars were religion-caused? Hell, a lot of Middle Ages conflicts simply devolved down to which side could push more knights off their horses.

I don't suppose you happened to tally up casualty figures while you were counting wars.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2014 8:18 PM  

Didn't the index of the EoW do that?

In a sense, if you also want to point out that no one discovered America or penicillin because both were always there. And that Copernicus guy didn't do anything either, since the Earth always went around the sun regardless of what anyone might have thought. But you'd really have to credit History itself, since even the list was nothing more than collecting facts that already existed.

But to answer your question, the answer is obviously "no". The metric existed before the index of the EoW was ever published, as the 2004 column shows. All the encyclopedia did was a) provide credibility and b) save me some work.

I'm curious. Why are you so determined to try to deny that I did anything, when what I did has clearly had a significant effect on the atheism-religion debate? And you haven't even touched upon my other proof, which is just as effective. Do you wish to try to deny that I came up with that one as well?

In fact, your apparent desire to deny credit tends to highlight the importance of the concept.

Anonymous dickson August 27, 2014 8:19 PM  

Stef, he said "hypothesis". He's backed off from that as of 7:44pm ET this evening.

Anonymous dickson August 27, 2014 8:23 PM  

And you haven't even touched upon my other proof, which is just as effective. Do you wish to try to deny that I came up with that one as well?

The one used (per you, no citations provided) in an undergraduate paper?

Anonymous VD August 27, 2014 8:28 PM  

In the words of some wikipedia editor, this reads like resume fluff. Except sadder

Why? I don't make a big deal out of it. I never have. I note, with no little amusement, that I've now got a number of atheist scientists propagating a convincing proof that religion doesn't cause war concept because they are more focused on posturing about how they are totally smart and credentialed than in defending their ideas. "Hey, you know that thing that proves I'm wrong? Well, Vox TOTALLY had nothing to do with it! What an IDIOT!"

I don't see where Vox ever claimed credit for the idea, only to being the source of all modern citations of it.

I've also never seen anyone articulate the concept in writing. It's impossible to say that an idea is original, tens of thousands of people could have well had the thought. But the fact remains that most outspoken atheists have abandoned the religion causes war argument since the publication of TIA. And that's the important thing.

Anonymous dickson August 27, 2014 8:35 PM  

Why? I don't make a big deal out of it. I never have

This blog and twitter are evidence to the contrary.

Anonymous VD August 27, 2014 8:36 PM  

Stef, he said "hypothesis". He's backed off from that as of 7:44pm ET this evening.

Yes, I should have said "proof". You do understand that a "proof" is more significant than a "hypothesis", do you not? It wasn't merely a hypothesis.

Are you seriously going to try to claim that I'm some sort of self-aggrandizing liar because I undersold my past action?

The one used (per you, no citations provided) in an undergraduate paper?

No, you ignoramus, the OTHER proof in the book you have not read, which goes on to show that in addition to religion not causing war, "religion is not a vital aspect of the art of war" and "religious faith is not a tool" used by those who make war.

Why are you so desperate to prove that I did not do what anyone can quite clearly read for themselves?

Anonymous VD August 27, 2014 8:39 PM  

This blog and twitter are evidence to the contrary.

No, dickson, they are evidence that it is a big deal to you. I once spent a solid month on the invasion of Pearl Harbor. I went on for weeks about an obscure early Sceptic. And I don't really care about either. A tweet and a few blog posts and comments indicates nothing of the sort.

So, why is this so important to you? You don't normally comment here. And yet you've commented multiple times here today.

Anonymous Pellegri August 27, 2014 9:12 PM  

Vox, I think another, arguably more significant, metric would be casualty figures. If a certain war -- say, oh, I dunno, WWII -- caused more casualties than every other war in human history combined, is it still significant how many wars were religion-caused? Hell, a lot of Middle Ages conflicts simply devolved down to which side could push more knights off their horses.

I'd be interested in that one too, because Steven Pinker (apparently) rather awkwardly tried to use casualty figures in war as a proxy for reduced violence (alongside murder rates and...something else I'm forgetting) in The Better Angels of Our Nature--and then made the claim that the resulting reduction was due to religion becoming "tamed". Which I had at least two problems with:

1. He claims reduced violence in the twentieth century on the grounds the World Wars (and presumably the Holocaust, and the Holodomor, and Stalin's purges, and...) killed a smaller proportion of the world population that previous violent incidents.
2. Religion is not the cause of most violent conflict, so "taming" it wouldn't result in a reduction of all but a small percentage of violent conflict.

This seems kinda weird for me. It could be an artifact of my misunderstanding the long review of it I read and Pinker does not actually make that claim. (I am of course open to correction/being called an idiot if that's not the claim he makes.) But if he does...

Anonymous Bobby Trosclair August 27, 2014 9:13 PM  

VD: "This shabby attempt by PZ to deny historical reality, by the way, is one reason I make a habit of including some very minor information that is original, such as the "k"s in Psykosonik, in most things that I do. Doing so makes it very easy for me to see who is actually getting their information from me and who is not, regardless of what they pretend. I don't usually bother to point it out, as the important thing is the propagation of the information, not the credit. But I always know."

Very cool. Commercial map publishers, like Thomas Brothers, have been doing something like that for years - they include small non-existant streets (usually small cul-de-sacs or tiny side streets) in their city maps to be able to show if someone had copied their copyrighted maps.

Anonymous dickson August 27, 2014 9:17 PM  

Are you seriously going to try to claim that I'm some sort of self-aggrandizing liar because I undersold my past action?

Self aggrandizing for sure. But you are very, very carful not to lie.

Blogger SirHamster August 27, 2014 9:19 PM  

But the fact remains that most outspoken atheists have abandoned the religion causes war argument since the publication of TIA. And that's the important thing.


The fact that those "Brights" argued it without validating it demonstrates that they're not as rational/evidence-based as they like to claim.

Anonymous dicksok August 27, 2014 9:48 PM  

I am become destroyer of Ritz crackers

Anonymous kh123 August 27, 2014 10:21 PM  

"1. He claims reduced violence in the twentieth century on the grounds the World Wars (and presumably the Holocaust, and the Holodomor, and Stalin's purges, and...) killed a smaller proportion of the world population that previous violent incidents."

More people now than then. Which means: Gulag was humane compared to the Inquisition.

Given I suspect Pinker lives up to his penname's sake in several ways, this tactic would make sense.

Anonymous Anonymous August 27, 2014 10:35 PM  

A tweet and a few blog posts and comments indicates nothing of the sort.

Derb has talked about this before: people who pursue knowledge for its own sake, who study or debate for the pleasure of the activity itself, are rare. Most people won't spend time on a topic unless it's critical to them or they're getting paid for it, so they can't imagine that others would do differently. If you just wrote 1000 words about something, you must be obsessed with it.

Anonymous Pellegri August 27, 2014 11:24 PM  

More people now than then. Which means: Gulag was humane compared to the Inquisition.

Given I suspect Pinker lives up to his penname's sake in several ways, this tactic would make sense.


Yeah, that's what I understood from his inference. I think it's a stupid inference because it essentially reduces to "one death is a tragedy (if you have a small enough number of people that one person was a significant percentage of the population), a million are a statistic (if you have a big enough number of people that a million are a tiny fraction of the population".

But if he is indeed pinker than most, well, he's on board with that sentiment.

Anonymous Beau August 28, 2014 12:56 AM  

Self aggrandizing for sure. But you are very, very carful (sic) not to lie.

You very, very carefully admit VD tells the truth.

Anonymous Ben Crane August 28, 2014 1:32 AM  

is not merely the future, it is the now.

I'm speaking to you...as we speak...form the Now, In the middle of the Now...

Mockery is Bliss

Anonymous kfg August 28, 2014 1:58 AM  

"Derb has talked about this before: people who pursue knowledge for its own sake, who study or debate for the pleasure of the activity itself, are rare. "

In a sea of humanity, I am alone.

" . . .killed a smaller proportion of the world population that previous violent incidents."

And the total suffering of individuals doesn't matter for shit. It's all just more data to be mined as some sort of epidemiology "study" for management of the herd.

I'm getting really, really sick of these people. Where can I go to be alone?

Anonymous Huxley August 28, 2014 2:28 AM  

Where can I go to be alone?

Nowhere. Accept your Collective Destiny.

Anonymous Bernays August 28, 2014 2:29 AM  

You don't normally comment here. And yet you've commented multiple times here today.

aka "Agenda".
aka "Propaganda"

Anonymous kfg August 28, 2014 3:35 AM  

"Accept your Collective Destiny."

Right then; off to try and find more ammo.

Blogger Unknown August 28, 2014 3:37 AM  

"I've also never seen anyone articulate the concept in writing."

Do Internet debates count? As I indicated up thread I've been using a similar argument online with atheists since the nineties.

"You're sure religion has caused most wars? So then you can answer a couple of questions: how many wars have there been? And how many were caused by religion?"

Since there's absolutely no possible reply that doesn't reveal the atheist to be a complete idiot, and since it's generally more fun letting them hang themselves, I'd never bothered digging for the actual numbers. So I was intrigued to read yours in TIA.

"But the fact remains that most outspoken atheists have abandoned the religion causes war argument since the publication of TIA"

Even most garden variety atheist trolls (though there's always the odd troglodyte who appears to have missed the memo). Not, I'm sure, because most of them have read TIA, but more likely because the religion-causes-war argument hasn't been reverberating around the atheist echo chamber much of late.

Blogger Akulkis August 28, 2014 3:43 AM  

Morons of history look at the rallying cries used to recruit the troops and get the rest of the public on board for paying the high taxes that come with wars, and assume, "religion causes wars"

But if one looks at the history PRECEDING wars, what one usually finds is an ongoing dispute over resources. In other words, most wars are ECONOMIC. In fact, the Philistine/Isreali dispute is remarkable for the fact that it isn't an economic war.

In fact, in the last 300 years, I have not found any war that was actually a religious war EXCEPT FOR Islam vs. Other wars in which Muslims were the aggressors. [That doesn't mean that none happened, it just means that so far, I still haven't come across any.]

Anonymous Pellegri August 28, 2014 4:27 AM  

I'm getting really, really sick of these people. Where can I go to be alone?

Tell me if you find it, and if there's enough space there that I could just go to the other side and likewise be alone.

Anonymous FrankNorman August 28, 2014 6:02 AM  

Akulkis August 28, 2014 3:43 AM
But if one looks at the history PRECEDING wars, what one usually finds is an ongoing dispute over resources. In other words, most wars are ECONOMIC. In fact, the Philistine/Isreali dispute is remarkable for the fact that it isn't an economic war.


But it is a war over control of territory.
"This Land Is Mine!"

Blogger James Dixon August 28, 2014 6:50 AM  

> But it is a war over control of territory.

Territory is a resource.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts