I used to read Free Inquiry, but I was never really crazy about it. Sometimes it published dreck, like an article by philosopher Mario Bunge (Spring 1997) that made the following laughably unsupported claims:
-"there is no algorithm to design algorithms"
- "Only a living brain ... can invent radically new ideas"
- "the Internet will never displace refereed academic journals and books".
(The last one seems preposterous today, but was ridiculous even 14 years ago.) Furthermore, it refused to publish a letter taking issue with those claims.
But the main problem with Free Inquiry was that it was boring.
So I gave up reading it, but I always wondered why it was so bad. After all, its sister publication, Skeptical Inquirer, was often entertaining and lively. But I think I've finally figured it out: R. Joseph Hoffmann was Associate Editor of Free Inquiry from 2003 to 2009.
Yes, the same R. Joseph Hoffmann who loves to write mindless pieces like these two. Hoffmann has got to be one of the most unimaginative, boring writers I have ever encountered.
Hoffman has devoted his life to the study of religion, so it's no surprise that he reacts badly when people point out that gods offer no worthwhile answer to any interesting question. I imagine somebody who devoted their life to studying horse-drawn carriages must have felt the same way when the automobile came along: "Horse-drawn carriages are a big idea. Automobiles are unappealing, and so are their advocates. Only 1% of the population drive cars, so the death of automobiles is just a matter of time."
Another motivation seems to be envy. All those atheists he despises (Harris, Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, Rosenhouse) are popular; they're the ones getting the media attention and invitations to speak. No surprise; they're good and entertaining writers, and they have something novel to say. And, irony of ironies, Myers has now been added to Free Inquiry as a columnist. Poor Hoffmann: it must be the final indignity. (Hey, maybe it's time to subscribe to Free Inquiry again.)
But don't bother pointing out any of this on Hoffmann's blog. He's not a big fan of publishing critical comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
...and also Russell Blackford and Ophelia Benson. I think it's time for us to subscribe.
Free Inquiry was boring long before Hoffman got there. I always blamed Paul Kurtz.
"the Internet will never displace refereed academic journals and books".
(The last one seems preposterous today, but was ridiculous even 14 years ago.)"
You realize that "displace" has at least two different definitions. If defined as "To move or shift from the usual place or position", then you're right, it would seem preposterous. But if defined as "to take the place of, supplant," then Bunge is probably right.
I googled on "algorithms to design algorithms" and found some hits, so I imagine Bunge was wrong on that count. As for the claim that only a living brain can invent radically new ideas, I'm trying to think of a counter-example. Can you? I suspect that you'll demand an exact definition of "radically new." (A definition, which, you should have already determined before you made your original comment.)
Finally, Hoffman's comment, as much as it sticks in your craw, is probably true, even if he is jealous of Hitchens, Dawkins, etc: "I cannot imagine a time in the history of unbelief when atheism has appeared more hamfisted, puling, ignorant or unappealing."
But if defined as "to take the place of, supplant," then Bunge is probably right.
You don't know a damn thing about academic journals, do you? Many - perhaps most - academic journals are already on the internet, and many - perhaps most - academic libraries have already ended their print subscriptions, replacing them with electronic ones.
Why do you comment over and over about things you know nothing about?
I'm trying to think of a counter-example
Without connected brain cells, you're going to have a long wait.
"I cannot imagine a time in the history of unbelief when atheism has appeared more hamfisted, puling, ignorant or unappealing."
And yet its popularity is growing, as evidenced by the numbers. I guess that means it is appealing, at least if you're not seething with envy.
Lady Gaga's popularity has also grown. But that's merely an indictment of American society.
I noticed something troubling about you, Jeff. When someone writes something that can be interpreted in two different ways, you choose to interpret it in the way that makes the person look dumb. (Or perhaps you don't even notice a second interpretation.)
I offered two interpetations of the word "displaced" in the sentence "the Internet will never displace refereed academic journals and books". One which makes the sentence probably true, and one which makes it probably not true. You insisted on the latter.
Now, you then go on to say, "academic journals are already on the internet, and many - perhaps most - academic libraries have already ended their print subscriptions, replacing them with electronic ones." This is obviously true, and you were wrong in jumping to conclusions by accusing me of not knowing that. But again, there's two ways to interpet "the Internet will never displace refereed academic journals and books". One way is: "the Internet will never eliminate refereed academic journals and books with un-refereed, online, academic journals and books". Another way is "the Internet will never replace refereed academic journals and books with refereed academic journals and books that are simply online". Again, you chose the interpretation, the latter one, for no good reason except to make me and Bunge look dumb. I think Bunge meant the former interpretation.
Finally, the phrase "Only a living brain ... can invent radically new ideas" can also be interpeted two different ways. One is: "Only a living brain ... is currently able to invent radically new ideas, and is likely to remain that way" and another is "Only a living brain will ever be able to invent radically new ideas, ever!" If Bunge meant the former, then I'd wager he's correct. If he meant the latter, (can you prove he did?), then it sounds like like an iffy claim. Not "laughable", but iffy.
Now if I can jump to tentative conclusions myself, I posit that the real reason you gave up on Free Inquiry is not mainly because it's boring, but because Hoffman criticized your brand of atheist to the point of discomfort.
Most people would find ambiguity a fault in themselves, not in others.
If you find me "troubling", Melville, you're free to go elsewhere. So far you haven't contributed anything worthwhile here.
I haven't seen a more radically different method of locomotion than this computer generated one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUXc6mckGLE
Addendum: Jerry Coyne gives Hoffman the 2011 Mooney Award
I posit that the real reason you gave up on Free Inquiry is not mainly because it's boring, but because Hoffman criticized your brand of atheist to the point of discomfort.
Oh, I forgot to add -- I don't think Hoffman wrote much about the New Atheists when he was Associate Editor for Free Inquiry - at least nothing that I remember. But I could be wrong.
The link at 2:53 Jan 2 is in response to Melville's comment:
"As for the claim that only a living brain can invent radically new ideas, I'm trying to think of a counter-example. Can you?"
(but I see Jeff has smuggled the link into a relevant thread two or three posts ago).
"If you find me "troubling", Melville..."
Oh, I don't find you particularly troubling. After all, everyone is troubling in one way or another. I'm sure I am. That's why I wrote: "I noticed something troubling about you, Jeff".
Anonymous shared a cool video which showed a type of locomotion which is radically different from what he's ever seen. I'm waiting for Jeff to insist that Anonymous define "radically." Meanwhile, the following real-life beetle larva moves in a way that's not "too" different: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEQsx4xLqKM
Hey Melville
What's the wrong with Lady Gaga?
Post a Comment