Each day, it seems, I see more evidence that many "New Atheists" read Unscientific America differently from other people who care about or are interested in science. The latest case in point: A review by science writer Eric Berger over at his excellent Houston Chronicle blog, SciGuy. Berger writes:
Mooney and Kirshenbaum persuasively make a couple of points that have already proved unpopular in the burgeoning community of science bloggers: 1) New Atheism will not endear science to the 90 percent of Americans who believe in God, and 2) Science blogging may actually degrade American scientific culture, rather than revitalize it. On the atheism point, the book drew immediate criticism from Pharyngula, a popular New Atheism blog. While I am certainly sympathetic to the right of anyone to hold his or her own beliefs, what New Atheists ignore is that their shrillness gives all of science a very, very poor reputation in middle America.
Berger, of course, is a science writer who writes for "middle America"--well, Houston, anyway. He continues:
Secondly, on blogging, I think the following point is the most salient from the book:
I couldn't agree more. And this just doesn't happen among scientists, of course. This trend toward echo-chamber communities on the Web really decreases the opportunities for meaningful dialogue among those who disagree.
Seriously. You can read Berger's full review here....
The single biggest blogging negative, however, is the grouping together of people who already agree about everything, and who then proceed to square and cube their agreements, becoming increasingly self-assured and intolerant of other viewpoints. Thus, blogging about science has brought out, in some cases, the loud, angry, nasty, and profanity-strewing minority of the science world that denounces the rest of America for its ignorance and superstition.
