I read this when you first published, and said nothing as I hadn’t read the book…..I still haven’t. But I’ve read a lot of the book’s other crits, Mooney’s earlier Republican War, and all the PZM/MK squabbling over the science/religion issue. I also watched Mooney’s rather long (1 hr!) but ‘have-to-see-the-end’ interview on the book with Carl Zimmer.

Of course I’m also a Brit living in Britain (as opposed to a Brit living Stateside ) – so what do I know anyhow? Here goes…

First off, I understood what you’re saying about the book – very clear thanks – and it’s pretty much in line with the concensus. I also think its good to have the issues M&K raise publicised – however that’s done.

I note your point about feeling cheated over not having a serious argument over science/religion compatibility. But that’s the give away for me. From all the other material I’ve read by M&K, I feel I understand exactly the accommodationist line they are endorsing, and it’s very much a political stance – with a large P for sure, but also in general, and not just on the science/religion issue.

M&K sometimes appear to endorse an almost manipulative response, like we need to shift some rationality as if it was a fast moving consumer good. Rationality is good stuff, they seem to say, but if we mishandle the marketing then nobody will buy! This can be branded as savvy realism; but others might see it as playing a defeatist short game with a lack of courage. In the short term, sadly, they may be right, – but in the longer game, rationality will prevail or we’ll all be in the pit anyhow – for a whole host of reasons. I’m afraid we are facing real challenges – that require we all get real.

I should read the book of course, but I was wondering if M&K split out different ‘publics’? Scientifically illiterate politicians and journalists frighten me much more than some other groups.

On another tack, I’ve spent quite a few years now observing and even doing the occasional bit of science communication under various guises, and in the last year formally studying what is currently branded science communication. And through all that I still wonder, in all these debates, what experience do those who hold opinions and make policy on these issues actually have of the public’s (whoever they are) views? Like the rest of us, I mix mainly with my own ‘group’ – and even though I make a real effort to talk with folk who are outside that group, and perhaps not so steeped in the norms of scientific rationality I take for granted, it’s not easy to access and gauge the pulse of my street, let alone a nation. So I guess I’m concerned there is a lot of presumption and generalisation out there.

And lastly, although it’s extremely important on it’s own, the science/religion debate in the form M&K engage with it in this LA Times article is a fogging distraction from the other elements of their mission, and also very boring in my view.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mooney11-2009aug11,0,6581208.story