27 Oct – PZ Inverts Yet Another Argument

No response today from PZ Myers regarding the hoax he helped to perpetrate yesterday. We’ll update you when or if it happens, but we won’t hold our breath. If PZ acknowledges the hoax at all, he likely minimize his role in it and say it doesn’t matter who edited the thing, the words inside were Peterson’s and that’s all that matters.

In the meantime, PZ continued his crusade against Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay (he, curiously, always leaves out Helen Pluckrose, the third member of the group). They appeared at the “Speaking Truth To Social Justice” Conference a couple weeks ago.

PZ doesn’t link to anything the trio has written or said, however. Instead, he uses one of his familiar ploys when he wants to engage with someone but doesn’t really want to talk about their ideas or arguments – he links to someone else’s summary of the event and argues against that summary instead. Usually it’s a friendly, progressively-minded summation of the arguments, but this time we don’t think he could find one, so he uses one written by an author sympathetic to Boghossian and Lindsay and Pluckrose’s views.

And then proceeds to lie about them.

PZ Myers Lie [in bold]:

First off, none of those three are particularly prominent — they are all self-promoting hucksters who inflate their importance. Most people who have heard of them at all have heard about them because of their self-aggrandizing attention-seeking, nothing more. But I do like the irony of the three publishing bogus papers to highlight charlatanism. They succeeded. They are charlatans…Somehow, they’ve twisted around a belief in a knowable world into an appreciation of a simplistic, black-and-white universe where what’s valued is a willingness to close one’s eyes and engage in mutual dialogue with whatever nonsense the other side is espousing, as long as they let you talk (and pay the airfare and hotel bill).



In the above snippet, PZ repeats what might be our favorite lie of all time: the idea that publishing bogus papers is somehow a strike against these three. That’s just pure comedy gold. What PZ is saying is that someone like us could completely make up an academic paper out of fairy dust and unicorns, submit it to a respected, peer-reviewed journal, have it be accepted and even awarded a special prize – due the quality of our work -and somehow the end result of all that is WE would be exposed as charlatans.

We really couldn’t make this up if we tried.

The other bolded claim above it simply refuted by the very article PZ cites in the post. Of course Boghossian, Lindsay and Pluckrose do not value closing one’s eyes and engaging in a mutual nonsensical dialogue. What they’re really after is this:

Principled-based rules of engagement create an environment in which dialogue can be fostered and cultivate a culture that values freedom of speech and dialectics that eschew ad hominem attacks and mischaracterization. They begin with, according to James Lindsay, ‘putting forth the best arguments from opposing and differing sides in the best-possible faith, and seeking understanding and communication across divides.’ To him, this is the way to preserve all that is good and effective about free liberal societies that tolerate and welcome differences of opinion. 


“Putting forth the best arguments from opposing and differing sides in the best-possible faith,” sounds like the opposite of what PZ Myers does. No wonder he hates them so much.


There are several more lies in PZ’s post – he’s become so incoherent lately it’s almost not fair to criticize him. The true purpose of this site is to try to bring out the best in him – by telling the truth – but if this really is the best he’s capable of then maybe we’re in the wrong business.

Final Tally:

Today: 1 science-related post, 1 post on other stuff

Since 30 May 19: 124 science-related posts, 519 non-science posts.

19% of the posts on a “science blog” are about science. 

Today: 1 PZ Myers Lie

Since 30 May 19: 169 PZ Myers Lies

Over to you, PZ. Until tomorrow.

Leave a Reply