That was a while ago.
In keeping with the persecution fantasy so common to creationists (they criticized us! They're exactly like Nazis!), the World's Worst Journalist™ -- aka Denyse O'Leary -- is apparently under the delusion that scientists want Nagel to "recant". (Not true, Denyse, those few scientists who know who he is mostly just laughed.) But -- she informs us proudly -- this has not happened! And she cites as evidence an article that Nagel published in 2008, four years before his book appeared.
I've read the article in question ("Public Education and Intelligent Design"), and I read it when it came out 7 years ago. It's not very good. Nagel has a lot of misunderstandings about Kitzmiller v. Dover, about the intelligent design movement, about evolutionary biology, and about the nature of science in general, and these are all abundantly on display in his work. As usual for Nagel, he appeals to "common sense" and pretends this is an argument.
Denyse O'Leary also mutters darkly about how expensive it is to get a copy of Nagel's article. She writes, It’s hard to believe someone has the guts to say this stuff in a world of well-funded Darwin rubbish – but note how much one must pay to see a rebuttal – whereas we must all fund the rubbish through tax dollars at schools. Our moral and intellectual superiors have so ruled.
Poor Denyse seems to have no understanding about how academic publishing works. Publishers like Wiley often charge for copies of academic articles; it's how they make money. She also seems to have no understanding that one can easily get a copy of an article like this through interlibrary loan -- usually for free. She also seems to have no understanding that it is routine to write to the author of the article and ask for a copy. Authors are usually glad to provide this service.
But, you know, all that would be actual work, the stuff that real journalists do. Too hard for Denyse, I guess.
6 comments:
It's too bad. I do remember appreciating "What is it like to be a bat?"
This is good post, and further proof of O'Leary's basic incompetence, as if we needed any more.
But do we need to hear that Nagel is "aging"? Aren't we all?
Some of us are aging faster than others, Dio.
As for "What is it like to be a bat?", I have a family member who just read that article for the first time. He actually had to call me to discuss how bad it was. And this is an article for which Nagel is famed. It just goes to show the crisis of academic philosophy.
It has been a very long time since I read it--in college, I think, or shortly after. I don't remember it well enough to defend it. I'll have to revisit it.
Sorry I'm late to the table on this one:
Poor Denyse seems to have no understanding about how academic publishing works. ... She also seems to have no understanding that one can easily get a copy of an article like this through interlibrary loan ... She also seems to have no understanding that it is routine to write to the author of the article and ask for a copy ...
She also doesn't seem to understand that there is something called "Google" where, if you enter the title, the very first hit is a pdf copy of it from NYU:
http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/docs/IO/1172/papa_132.pdf
Post a Comment