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.

3 Oct – Another Lie, And One We Missed

One of the perks of being non-ideological is we can go where the truth leads us. We’re not wedded to a narrative and don’t have to skew facts to fit that narrative. If PZ Myers were struck by lightning and suddenly started telling the truth, we’d shut down and be happy to do so.

It also means that we admit we’re fallible. We make mistakes from time to time and when those are pointed out to us, we fix them.

Yesterday, on Twitter, we were advised that we missed a lie PZ told about Steven Pinker, and boy is it a doozy.

And in our second lie of the day, we dig into yet another lie about the Grievance Studies Hoaxers, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay.

PZ Myers Lie [in bold]:

Heh, yeah — The Blank Slate is the terrible piece of crap that totally soured me on Pinker. It’s a dishonest polemic contrived to advance a dead perspective by pretending it was obviously true while taking malicious swipes at everyone who had a more nuanced, sophisticated view of the interplay between genes and behavior. I am not surprised that he became a proponent of evolutionary psychology, which was just more of the same old ignorant adaptationist [sic] garbage. When I compare the careers of two Harvard professors, Gould and Pinker, one of whom wrote two great books, The Mismeasure of Man and Ontogeny and Phylogeny, and a multitude of essays revealing his fundamental humanism, and the other of whom is a darling of modern racists and rapists, I have to think that the wrong one died early.



Aside from wishing Steven Pinker were dead, PZ claims in this snippet that he is “a darling of modern racists and rapists.”

The ‘racist’ claim has at least a tenuous relationship with the truth. Pinker believes – we’re paraphrasing here – IQ tests have some predictive ability and are at least in part the result of heredity. PZ does not. Some racists will point to disparities in average IQ scores between races as proof of superiority/inferiority, but if you simply dismiss IQ scores altogether, as PZ appears to do, then you sidestep all of this. It’s still not a fair representation of Pinker’s beliefs, but it’s not an out-and-out lie.

The rapist claim, however, is. Pinker’s views on rape are public, and there is nothing to suggest that he promotes rape or apologizes for rapists. We think PZ might be trying to insinuate a connection with Jeffrey Epstein, but there’s nothing there. This is just another PZ Myers lie about someone he hates.


Not only does he appear to hate Steven Pinker, he wishes Pinker were dead! As we wrote on Twitter, that’s unusually deplorable, even for PZ. He’s never been one to hide his disdain for ideological enemies, but he normally stops short of wishing them dead.

PZ Myers Lie #2 [in bold]:

Now [Peter Boghossian’s] come out with this book, How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, which is just nuts. What next? Trump writing a book on modern physics, Deepak Chopra writing about mathematical rigor, PZ Myers becoming an Instagram model, Uwe Boll producing a movie classic? Boghossian and his coauthor, James Lindsay, are temperamentally and intellectually incapable of writing a guide to handling challenging conversations. They’ve always relied on simply pandering to the biases of their right-wing friends.



In case you missed yesterday’s lies, Boghossian, Lindsay and co-author Helen Pluckrose are the people behind the “Sokal Squared Hoax.” They wrote and submitted fake academic papers to peer reviewed journals in an effort to expose shoddy scholarship. The results of their hoax?

By the time of the reveal, four of their 20 papers had been published, three had been accepted but not yet published, six had been rejected, and seven were still under review. One of the published papers had won special recognition.


Pluckrose is the editor-in-chief of Areo Magazine, and describes herself as:

Helen Pluckrose is an exile from the humanities with research interests in late medieval/early modern religious writing by and about women. She is currently writing a book about postmodernism and critical theory and their impact on epistemology and ethics in the academy and more widely. She is editor-in-chief of Areo.


Boghossian and Lindsay have the following bios on their Amazon author page:

Peter Boghossian is a full time faculty member in the philosophy department at Portland State University and an affiliated faculty member at Oregon Health Science University in the Division of General Internal Medicine. He is a national speaker for the Center of Inquiry and an international speaker for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. He is the author of A Manual for Creating Atheists. He lives in Portland, Oregon.

James Lindsay holds degrees in physics and mathematics, with a doctorate in the latter. He has authored two previous books: Everybody is Wrong about God and Dot, Dot, Dot: Infinity Plus God Equals Folly. He lives in Knoxville, Tennessee.


Nowhere in any of these bios, nor in the Sokal Squared Hoax itself, is there any evidence that any of these three are at all right-wing, but not only that, there is also no evidence that they’ve ever relied on “pandering to their right-wing friends.”

PZ just makes this up out of thin air.


If you question PZ Myers’s evangelical progressive ideology, you automatically become a right-winger. It doesn’t matter if it’s the truth or not. Boghossian and Lindsay self-identify as liberals, and there’s no reason to doubt their claim, but it doesn’t matter to PZ. He’ll continue to lie about them because they lack the ideological purity he desires.

Final Tally:

Today: 0 science-related posts, 6 posts on other stuff

Since 30 May 19: 113 science-related posts, 430 non-science posts.

21% of the posts on a “science blog” are about science. 

Today: 2 PZ Myers Lies

Since 30 May 19: 132 PZ Myers Lies

Over to you, PZ. Until tomorrow.

26-29 Sep – PZ Lies While We Take A Few Days Off

We had a last-minute chance to take a few days off and unwind at the beach, and we’re of the opinion that if you’re offered that opportunity you say yes immediately and don’t look back. We knew PZ wasn’t going anywhere, and while we expected to find a few more lies upon our return – he’s been uncharacteristically subdued in his recent political commentary – we have two to showcase for you today.

The subjects of both are frequent targets of PZ Myers – James Lindsay and Elon Musk. James has the temerity to question PZ’s evangelical progressive political dogma. Musk has the gall to use his fortune to try new stuff. PZ hates both of those things, and when he hates something you can be sure a lie will follow.

PZ Myers Lie [in bold]:

James Lindsay, embarrassingly regressive acolyte of the equally embarrassing Boghossian, decided to explain to the waiting hordes of alt-right dopes how the Spaniards conquered the Americas in the 16th century using the Liberalism and Science of the 18th century Enlightenment.  They used the vast powers conferred upon them by Humean philosophy, apparently…Gosh. I thought Spain used the advantages of gunpowder and horses to murder and enslave populations that were decimated by exotic diseases that Europeans had unthinkingly seeded on the continents, which in itself doesn’t sound like an exactly “enlightened” act. But hey, you know if a different set of Europeans two centuries later invented some useful rationalizations for racism and colonialism (along with some genuinely good principles), and that makes it all A-OK to ahistorical pseudoscholars almost three centuries after that, it must have been a good thing.



There are several lies here which, given our longstanding tradition, we’ll treat as one.

The ellipsis above are, in the original blog post, where PZ inserts a three tweet snippet from a much longer thread by James Lindsay. Our general rule of thumb for reading a PZ Myers blog post is: whenever he posts a quote from one of his perceived ideological enemies, there is usually way more to the story.

Was the point of Lindsay’s Twitter thread to explain to “waiting hordes of alt-right dopes how the Spaniards conquered the Americas”?

Yes and no.

First of all, there is no evidence that Lindsay’s Twitter followers are exclusively or even extensively “alt-right.” Given the tenor of the comments on this thread, one could hypothesize that his audience is a mixed bag of supporters and critics. But, to the causal observer, there does not appear to be the same number of sycophants on his Twitter feed as there are in the Pharyngula comments section, to choose a random example.

Second, the entire Twitter thread originated with this tweet:

Here’s something you can’t really say: A shocking amount of Social Justice Theory exists specifically to maintain a strict assumption of cultural relativism, which is to say to maintain the lie that all cultures produce equal outcomes.


His goal isn’t to describe how Spaniards conquered the Americas, but to describe his position on cultural relativism – a point PZ fails to bring up in his post. In the process of doing that, the example he uses is Spain in the Americas.

And it is here where PZ actually helps make Lindsay’s point. PZ says, “I thought Spain used the advantages of gunpowder and horses to murder and enslave.” That’s the same point Lindsay makes, with one exception. To PZ, those “advantages” spring up out of nowhere. “Gunpowder and horses” (which were by no means their only advantages) just appeared, not as a result of anything the Spaniards did, but due to something like luck. As Lindsay makes clear, he doesn’t believe that. He believes those advantages “came from developing superior epistemologies and ethics.”

Lindsay also never claims that what the Spanish did in conquering the Americas is “A-OK” with him. He appears to make no value judgement about it at all. What he does say is this, “The key actually isn’t that European ‘culture’ is superior. It seems to have some elements that are and some that aren’t, depending on what you’re measuring for.”


Were PZ Myers an intellectually honest critic, he would have addressed the overarching point Lindsay was trying to make about cultural relativism. Instead, he chose to infer a relatively minor historical inaccuracy to smear Lindsay instead. For our new readers – welcome to PZ’s argumentative style.

  1. Pick a target.
  2. Find a weakness.
  3. Lie about that weakness.
  4. Claim victory.

James Lindsay, consider yourself PZ-pwned.

PZ Myers Lie #2 [in bold]:

A couple of years ago, Elon Musk bought a company called Neuralink, which is trying to build a bigger, better brain-machine interface. The hype was incredible. Here’s a small sample (note: the author confuses a concept called a “neural lace” from Ian Banks’ science fiction novels with Musk’s Neuralink over and over again, which tells you how unreal every thing is)…Nope. None of that is true. It serves Musk’s interest to have these absurd claims floated about. I wrote about this nonsense at the time. 



The ellipsis above once again denotes where PZ inserted a snippet from the linked article on Neuralink. Here it is:

As an immediate application, Neural Lace could potentially help patients suffering from brain injuries and certain illnesses. However, the utimate goal and mission of Neuralink are to successfully merge the human brain with machine, fusing human intelligence with Artificial Intelligence. As a result, this is expected to bring humanity up to a higher level of cognitive reasoning. 
At some point, Neural Lace is going to enable humans to upload and download information directly from a computer. Just in a similar way how Neo from the Matrix does in order to learn new skills and acquire new information. 
In order to insert Neural Lace, a tiny needle containing the rolled up mesh is placed inside the skull. The mesh is then injected and unveiled upon injection, encompassing the brain. 
The Neural Lace integrates itself with the human brain. It creates a perfect symbiosis between human and machine. This technology could be the catalyst for the technological Singularity.


There are two lies in PZ’s post.

First, author of the Interesting Engineering article does not confuse “neural lace” with Neuralink. At the very beginning of the article he says, “Part of Elon Musk’s inpiration for the creation of Neuralink is a science-fiction concept called Neural Lace that is part of the fictional universe in Scottish author Iain M. Banks’ series of novels The Culture.” He then uses Neural Lace as a rhetorical device throughout the rest of the piece. Far from confusing the two concepts – which PZ thinks illustrates the hype surrounding Neuralink – the author understands the two concepts better than PZ does.

Secondly, PZ offers no evidence that any of the potential applications of the “Neural Lace” technology are impossible. Will it enable humans to upload/download information from a computer? Maybe. Will it help patients suffering from brain injuries? Perhaps. You can’t falsify a prediction without some pretty hard evidence it’s not possible.

For example, if Elon Musk said he could get a pig to fly to Mars using only its tail as propulsion, then PZ Myers would be on firm ground calling that a lie. If Musk says he’s on the brink of developing new anti-gravity technology allowing that same pig to leave the Earth’s gravity, then the refutation of that prediction would involve a deep dive into the technology before one could proclaim it will not work.

PZ doesn’t do that. He says, “I wrote about this nonsense at the time,” but all he’s really doing is recycling the same criticisms over and over again: It’s all hype. It’ll never work. It’ll take a miracle. He never digs into the science – probably because he’s not qualified to do so – but he wants to proclaim it as false anyway.

Which is a lie.


If PZ had said something like this instead – “Elon Musk is more smoke than fire. I don’t think the reality will live up to the hype.” – not only would we not call it a lie, we’d agree with him. We’ve listened to Musk and aren’t convinced he’s as smart as everyone makes him out to be. But, his success to this point is undeniable, and that’s really what irks PZ Myers. Musk thinks and dreams big, and sometimes achieves those dreams. If people, especially those without a PhD, can do that, then it invalidates a huge chunk of PZ Myers’s worldview which says people get ahead and stay there unfairly due to racism or sexism or some other type of privilege.

This brings us to another point we probably don’t make often enough here at PZWatch. Just because we think PZ Myers is a liar doesn’t mean with disagree with him about everything.

We don’t think Elon Musk’s signal-to-noise ratio is very high, but just because we agree with PZ on that point doesn’t prevent us from calling out his lies. Truth is truth, and we should strive to be as accurate (or more so) in our criticism as we are in our agreement. But, when everything is a zero-sum game and power is the only metric for success, then the side you choose to belong to is incredibly important. And once you pick a team, you always have to side with that team, no matter how dishonest they become.

It’s fascinating for us to watch that world in action.

Final Tally:

26-29 September: 3 science-related posts, 11 posts on other stuff

Since 30 May 19: 112 science-related posts, 406 non-science posts.

22% of the posts on a “science blog” are about science. 

26-29 September: 2 PZ Myers Lies

Since 30 May 19: 127 PZ Myers Lies

Over to you, PZ. Until tomorrow.