Sarah Palin Proudly Ignorant

Yesterday, Sarah Palin gave a speech on the McCain/Palin plans for special needs children. And in it she demonstrated her ignorance more clearly that in anything she had said before. Which, considering the other things she has said, is quite an achievement. Get a load of this:

This is a matter of how we prioritize the money that we spend. […] And where does a lot of that earmark money end up? It goes to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good -- things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

Research into fruit flies. In France. France I tell you! The horror. (The “I kid you not” was not part of the official transcript, but she said it. I kid you not.)

Palin's proud ignorance shines through loud and clear. The actual research she was mocking was into the olive fruit fly – a major pest that threatens California’s olive farmers. (I guess she doesn't care about Joe the farmer.  How elitist.) But fruit fly research is much more than this. The fruit fly is a standard organism that is used to study numerous genetic traits, precisely because it shares so many genetic similarities with humans. Including possibly genetic causes of some of the very “special needs” traits of children Palin was supposed to be supporting in her speech. Just a ten second Google of fruit fly research would reveal 1,390,000 articles explaining the many benefits of research using fruit flies. Avenues of research and benefits achieved already that are too numerous for me to list, although a molecular biologist writing in the Daily Kos yesterday managed to list quite a few.

Of course, such research only makes sense if you accept that evolution happened - that humans and fruit flies have a common ancestor. Palin doesn’t believe this, because it conflicts with what she read in her bible, and so she sees no value to it. And right there you have, eloquently expressed, the reason that creationist nonsense should not be taught as science, and why creationist idiots (some redundancy there) like Palin should not get anywhere near having any real power.  And I kid you not.

October 27 - Edited to add:

Bora has much more on this, including links to this response from UNC researchers: In defense of fruit flies and basic medical research, as well as videos from some actual fruit fly research scientists, and these additional links:

Mike the Mad Biologist
Evolgen
Napa Valley Register
Island Of Doubt
Pharyngula
Pandagon
The Tree of Life
Washington Post
Myrmecos Blog
KSJ Tracker
Hyllaballoo
Radula
Uncontrolled Experiment
Greta Christina's Blog
Bjoern Brembs
Salon.com
Life v. 3.0
Flags and Lollipops - Network Edition

I'm smarter than Palin

Comments

[Jane]

The level of willful ignorance in America depresses me. It is one of the great countries in the world with a wealth of natural resources, stunning landscapes and a population whose diversity is pretty much unparalled. Yet your scientists are routinely undermined by dogma driven fools and a whole chuck of your children are being given a substandard education by homeschoolers who believe that any fact that contradicts the bible is the work of the devil. The same dogmatists are also trying to ruin the science education of every American child by getting christian creationism taught in your classrooms.

As for Sarah Palin, The general view from of the pond is that she doesn't seem fit to be the dog catcher of the arse end to nowhere let along the governer of Alaska.

[Ric]

Not only do humans and fruit flies have a common ancestor, the evidence before us these days suggest that the fruit flies got the better, smarter genes.

[stavros]

America (and not only) is screwed if McCain/Palin goes into power. But then again, they will only reflect the intelligence and mentality of the American people. As was the case with Bush. I mean, seriously, who would ever vote for Bush? Twice?!?

Good luck in the elections, us in Europe will be holding our breaths. I kid you not.

[Don]

You say "what she read in her bible." I doubt that she reads a bible any more than she reads newspapers. Her fundamentalism is as weird as her science.

[Laura]

Palin is the perfect example of the brainless, hypocritical far right religionist. She would not recognize the "truth" if it smacked her on the side of her empty head.

[Techskeptic]

Stavros,

But then again, they will only reflect the intelligence and mentality of the American people.

You know what? Screw you.

I don't know which country you are from, but almost all of them have serious wackjob contenders for high positions. Look at France a couple of years ago when Le Pen almost became president. England has their share of nut jobs in office especially recently with Tony Blair giving Bush head on basically every issue except global warming.

Not to mention that of the 50% of people who actually voted, almost exactly 50% of those actually voted for Bush. Is your country better than that, where 25% of the population isn't brainless or voting with their greed or religion? I'd like to know which country that is.

There are too many idiots here in high places, I agree, it hardly reflects the demeanor, values, or rationality of most of our population.

[Mike Huben]

While it seems many people have their hearts in the right place on this subject, the press (and this site) are showing an incredible ignorance as well.

The common name "fruit fly" is used for SEVERAL FAMILIES of flies. The olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae) is in the family Tephritidae, while the common fruit fly of genetic research (more accurately called a vinegar fly or pomace fly) is in the family Drosophilidae.

Olive fruit flies have NEVER been important for genetic research, and anybody implying that this earmarked research is important for genetics is a fool ignorant of the differences between flies. I've yet to see the research proposal itself, but the few words I've seen describing it make it sound as if the research was for biological control through release of sterile irradiated males: a technique that has been used successfully to control several pest fly species such as the screwworm fly. That's economically valuable research that Palin is wrong to ridicule, but it also has nothing to do with genetics.

Once again, we see Skeptico (this time following the herd) making comments on a subject where he is extremely ignorant, where anybody familiar with the subject (like me: I had a course in fly systematics at Cornell) could immediately spot the howlers. I suppose his excuse is that he's as ignorant as most people, and doesn't have the sense to consult an expert in the RIGHT FIELD before he regurgitates bullshit from experts in the wrong field, who can't tell one family of flies from another.

[Mike Huben]

While it seems many people have their hearts in the right place on this subject, the press (and this site) are showing an incredible ignorance as well.

The common name "fruit fly" is used for SEVERAL FAMILIES of flies. The olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae) is in the family Tephritidae, while the common fruit fly of genetic research (more accurately called a vinegar fly or pomace fly) is in the family Drosophilidae.

Olive fruit flies have NEVER been important for genetic research, and anybody implying that this earmarked research is important for genetics is a fool ignorant of the differences between flies. I've yet to see the research proposal itself, but the few words I've seen describing it make it sound as if the research was for biological control through release of sterile irradiated males: a technique that has been used successfully to control several pest fly species such as the screwworm fly. That's economically valuable research that Palin is wrong to ridicule, but it also has nothing to do with genetics.

Once again, we see Skeptico (this time following the herd) making comments on a subject where he is extremely ignorant, where anybody familiar with the subject (like me: I had a course in fly systematics at Cornell) could immediately spot the howlers. I suppose his excuse is that he's as ignorant as most people, and doesn't have the sense to consult an expert in the RIGHT FIELD before he regurgitates bullshit from experts in the wrong field, who can't tell one family of flies from another.

[Tom Foss]

Or, you know, it could be that Palin's remark was dismissive of fruit fly research in general, both this specific case where the focus was on a practical benefit to agriculture, and the more widespread use of fruit flies to conduct genetic research.

Because I guarantee you that Sarah Palin wouldn't be able to tell you the difference.

[tacrepus]

Quote "and why creationist idiots (some redundancy there) like Palin should not get anywhere near having any real power."

She is Governor of Alaska, which means she already has power, which also means there are a considerable number of unthinking idiots who are willing to overlook the creationist dogma to which she unquestioningly subscribes and who have already cast their votes in her favor during gubernatorial elections.

If that isn't a cause for serious alarm among intelligent and rational minded people then I don't know what is.

[Jameela, Messenger of Allah]

[Off topic racist / religious drivel deleted by Skeptico]

[Glen Raphael]

In addition to the word "fruit fly" being ambiguous here, so is "public good". In the economic sense, research that is likely to benefit a few companies in a specific industry is arguably a "private good", not a "public good". If this research is so valuable to California's green olive growers, why don't they fund it themselves? Or why doesn't California?

(Do we want the federal government to fund every conceivable research project, no matter how much it smells like pork? "What's good for the olive growers is good for America" doesn't seem like the best guide to where our federal dollars should go. Sometimes the reason something smells like pork is that it actually is pork.)

[Q]

Speaking of ignorance, where on earth did you come from?

[Jimmy_Blue]

Mike Huben:

While it seems many people have their hearts in the right place on this subject, the press (and this site) are showing an incredible ignorance as well.

...

Olive fruit flies have NEVER been important for genetic research, and anybody implying that this earmarked research is important for genetics is a fool ignorant of the differences between flies.

Well, it's a good job that nobody said this then, except in your head.

Nowhere in Skeptico's article did he say that Olive fruit flies specifically were of importance to genetic research. Nowhere in Skeptico's article did he imply that olive fruit flies specifically were important to genetic research.

You really have some personal issues with Skeptico don't you? The point that Skeptico was making was nothing to do with whether or not olive fruit flies have been used for genetic research, but the fact that Palin does not understand that fruit flies are used for important research, genetic or not; but she was still willing to try and mock this and/or portray this as a waste of money.

In fact, Skeptico quite clearly states:

Palin's proud ignorance shines through loud and clear. The actual research she was mocking was into the olive fruit fly – a major pest that threatens California’s olive farmers. (I guess she doesn't care about Joe the farmer. How elitist.)

Showing very clearly that he knows what this olive fruit fly research was about.

The point he was making then comes in the very next sentence:

But fruit fly research is much more than this.

If you didn't have your head up your arse admiring your own qualifications, maybe you might not have missed this and made yourself look like a complete twat. Again.

Once again you have missed the point, jumped to a conclusion based on your own prejudices, and shot your mouth off before even stopping to think about it. This is turning into a pattern with you.

Jameela:

Stay on the pills next time. I mean, wow. Racism, pseudohistory, blind faith and ignorance all in one rant. Incidentally which Qu'ran are you quoting from, and how do you know it is the correct one?

Glen Raphael:

Might it not be true that research into stopping one particular pest might be useful in stopping other pests? Not saying that's the case but if you don't research it, you don't find out.

So maybe, just maybe, it makes an enormous amount of sense for the U.S. federal government (or any government for that matter) to fund research into stopping pests that destroy food crops. Regardless of who benefits in the short term.

Just a thought.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Oh and Mr Huben, in your reply don't forget to drone on and on about Skeptico's sycophants running to defend him; or about how your own qualifications are particularly superior to everyone else's.

And don't forget to repeat the same things again and again without acknowledging that they have been addressed and you were wrong the first time, nevermind the eventual second or third times.

And do be sure to list all the fallacies that we have apparently succumbed to whilst at the sametime you have obviously remained free of committing even though you demonstrably have committed many of them.

And then remember to come up with a really bad analogy/story to illustrate your point, and make particularly sure that it ignores the real world completely.

[Skeptico]

Congratulations to Mike Huben – winner of this week’s "completely missing the bleeding point" award. (Applause)

[Mike Huben]

Piffle. I get the point, hence my first sentence. I've added another point (maybe you're too self-centered to recognize that other people have ides.)

Skeptico and the mainstream press have clearly conflated two different kinds of flies to ridicule Palin's scientific ignorance. And so we have the spectacle of ignorance ridiculing ignorance.

And while I doubt that Palin would know the difference, she could be defended by pointing out that SHE was not talking about Drosophila, but rather a much less important (to us, to researchers) organism. She did not make a scientific mistake: her critics did.

Jimmy_Blue: you are acting as a syncophant, and I do have superior qualifications in this subject. If you think qualifications don't matter, go vote for Palin.

[yakaru]

Mike Huben,

Skeptico did not conflate two different kinds of flies. Read the article.

[King of Ferrets]

Mikey, Mikey, the only reason she brought up Paris was because people make fun of France. She just thinks fruit fly research in general is stupid.

Defending someone who is demonstrably right isn't sycophantic. It's what people who aren't idiots do.

Lastly, citing qualifications online? I laugh at you! Online, anyone can claim whatever qualifications they want. It's generally almost impossible to check, except in a very few cases. Even in real life, while you can generally assume a PhD isn't a raving nutcase, you will find the exception (I think Kent Hovind got one from a diploma mill). So qualifications mean little in real life, and nothing online. All that matters is the evidence. Oh, by the way, just because you took one class on something doesn't make you qualified; people are capable of failing classes.

[Mike Huben]

yakaru, Skeptico plainly is talking about two different flies, in different families. Look it up in wikipedia if you don't believe me. Palin was talking about olive fruit fly, but Skeptico talks about Drosophila, which is used for genetic reseaqrch. He even puts up a picture of Drosophila. This is all trivial to confirm: only chauvanists can deny this.

KoF: syncophants like you are probably embarrassing to Skeptico. You plainly are incapable of researchibng who's right, and your notion that qualifications are unimportant is much closer to creationist argument than skeptical argument. And of course it's not difficult to confirm people's qualifications with a little research. For example, you could confirm mine by phoning Dr. James Carpenter at the American Museum of Natural History: we took the Diptera and Hymenoptera course together in 1976.

I think the problem is that people with no qualifications are looking for excuses to doubt people who do know what they're talking about. No quest for truth here: instead, simply a sophist rhetorical strategy.

[Skeptico]

Of course Mike Huben, you’re right. I mean, OBVIOUSLY, Palin was referring to the Olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae), because she knew this research was for biological control through release of sterile irradiated males and NOT genetic research using the common fruit fly (more accurately called a vinegar fly or pomace fly) which obviously she would never have ridiculed. I guess all the scientists posting similar things to what I posted had better sharpen up now Mike Huben is here to put them all straight. Watch out PZ Myers and others – Huben did a course in fly systematics at Cornell! He did a course, I tell you.

Huben, you truly are a moron. Seriously, piss off.

[Sugarfrosted]

I will admit I am a conservative, but I am offended by McCain picking her as VP. I am offended because their were other more qualified women republican governors. Such as Linda Lingle of Hawai'i, I guaranty you she understands genetics more than Palin, as University of Hawai'i is at the forefront of genetic research. Research that saved the Hawai'ian papaya from extinction.

[Glen Raphael]

"the only reason she brought up Paris was because people make fun of France."

You don't know that. It could just as easily have been intended to imply it's a boondoggle project. A proposal to do research in Paris has two problems:

(1) It gives the researchers (and their grad students, and the administrators overseeing them, and so on) an excuse to waste taxpayer money taking trips to Paris.

(2) Even if the research is providing a public good, work that has to be done in France probably benefits the people of France at least as much as those in America. So perhaps the French are better positioned to efficiently fund (and oversee, and perform) the research than we are.

I'm not claiming Palin is brilliant or well-prepared or particularly on top of things. I'm not planning to vote for her. But if you're going to attack her on this sort of point, you need to give a little benefit of the doubt. The fact that one can imagine a reading of what she said that would be a good excuse for mockery doesn't mean mockery is actually appropriate.

[yakaru]

Mike Huben wrote:
>>"yakaru, Skeptico plainly is talking about two different flies, in different families."

I know. You have already explained the difference, and the article does not imply that Palin was talking about Drosophila.

>>"He even puts up a picture of Drosophila."

Yes, and if he had've labeled it "Bactrocera oleae" you could have corrected him.

You could have just left a comment clarifying the distinction. Instead you seem to be taking it as an opportunity to attack people and list your qualifications.

It seems to me that the attacks are a way of getting more attention for what is actually a very minor point.

I remember your comments and attitude from the GM thread.

And, incidentally, if you want to discuss minor points, I'm still waiting to for you to answer my question from that thread too.

[King of Ferrets]

I see no reason to give Sarah Palin the benefit of the doubt on something that could just be an attempt to exploit prejudice to get more votes. Plus there's the "I kid you not"; that seems to mean she's making fun of the research, Paris, or both.

[Mike Milk]

Skeptico,

Stop pretending to be a scientist. You never have been and you never will be.

[King of Ferrets]

As far as I know, he's never claimed to be a scientist. He is, however, a skeptic.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Huben:

Skeptico, and it is there for all to read, clearly states that there is more to fruit fly research than the olive fruit fly research that Palin referred to, the one she attempts to ridicule. It couldn't be any clearer in the actual text of the original post. And I'm going to keep mentioning it until it sinks in.

Did Skeptico know the difference? I don't know, but then neither did you when you made your claims of ignorance. Why would you jump to that conclusion immediately then? The answer is, your own personal bias coupled with your willingness to see in the text only what you wanted to.

The mistake was Palin's - either she did not correctly refer specifically to olive fruit fly research (again, the research that Skeptico did make a point of highlighting when others have not bothered to), or she was lumping all fruit fly research together because she was ignorant of any difference.

From the context it seems she was talking about only olive fruit flies and this one case, but made the mistake you are accusing everyone else of and simply referred to fruit flies. She was ignorant one way or the other.

You stated that Skeptico was a fool for implying olive fruit flies were used for genetic research. He did not. You were wrong. He clearly stated there was more to fruit fly research than the previously mentioned research into the olive fruit fly pest. The only way you can't see this is either poor English language skills or you are reading only what you want to read.

You then stated that Skeptico was regurgitating bullshit from people unqualified or not even in the field. He did not do this. You were wrong.

Anyone with an ounce of honesty or decency about them would admit this and move on when shown the evidence. But that isn't you, is it Huben?

Once again, Skeptico pointed out that there was more to fruit fly research than the research Palin was talking about. He did not say that olive fruit flies were part of any genetic research, or important to any.

Then he linked to a Google search for the phrase 'fruit fly research'. No regurgitation there.

Then he linked to an article by a molecular biologist who uses fruit flies for research purposes. You know, someone who works in the field. Someone whose qualifications are more current than one course taken 32 years ago.

So, you were wrong.

Sycophant

noun a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.

Or:

n. A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.

Or:

noun
a person who tries to please someone in order to gain a personal advantage

Go on then, explain how my pointing out that you made claims about Skeptico that were wrong makes me a sycophant.

If you think qualifications don't matter, go vote for Palin.

When did I say qualifications don't matter? I have no problem with qualified people. Just with people like you who apparently only debate so they can throw their qualifications in other people's faces.

Palin was talking about olive fruit fly, but Skeptico talks about Drosophila, which is used for genetic reseaqrch. He even puts up a picture of Drosophila. This is all trivial to confirm: only chauvanists can deny this.

After saying there is more to fruit fly research than the specific olive fruit fly research Palin was talking about. This is all trivial to confirm: only someone with a personal bias can deny this.

your notion that qualifications are unimportant is much closer to creationist argument than skeptical argument.

Do you know what else is common to creationist argument? Repeating claims that have been shown to be wrong and not acknowledging that they have already been addressed.

I think that means you've made 3 out of 4 of my pieces of advice for your replies. Just waiting for the bad analogy now.

I think the problem is that people with no qualifications are looking for excuses to doubt people who do know what they're talking about.

Oh I don't doubt that you know a lot about fruit flies. You're still wrong in the claims you made about Skeptico though.

Glen Raphael:

A proposal to do research in Paris has two problems:

(1) It gives the researchers (and their grad students, and the administrators overseeing them, and so on) an excuse to waste taxpayer money taking trips to Paris.

Why must the trips be a waste? Perhaps France has better facilities. Or better researchers. Or more expertise in this area. Or perhaps, since France has been dealing with the olive fruit fly problem since the year dot and California has only been dealing with it for 10 years, researching how to deal with olive fruit flies with experienced people in situ might be good old common sense.

You know what would be a waste of taxpayers money? Repeating research already done elsewhere just because it was done elsewhere.

Interesting personal bias you highlight there though - no trip abroad can be purposeful or useful, it must be a jolly.

(2) Even if the research is providing a public good, work that has to be done in France probably benefits the people of France at least as much as those in America. So perhaps the French are better positioned to efficiently fund (and oversee, and perform) the research than we are.

And perhaps they needed more money. What you seem to be saying is that the French should give the Americans the research they do, even if the Americans contribute nothing. Would you be saying that if roles were reversed?

Some of the work was being done in France because of the French familiarity with the problem. It was a collaborative international effort. Here are some more details.

Test pests and predators were shipped through France to the US from Africa (hence the money to labs in France) and, as I mentioned was a possibility, the research was into more pests than just the olive fruit fly.

So, it seems Palin was ignorant of that too.

So, let's recap:

Palin mistakenly refers to fruit flies instead of olive fruit flies when complaining about money being sent to France to research control of several pests, not just olive fruit flies. This makes it seem like she is complaining about all research into fruit flies. Palin therefore really does confirm her scientific ignorance and her ignorance of even the case she is trying to criticise.

Skeptics and scientists complain that Palin is writing off research into fruit flies as pointless when clearly it isn't, and some people point out that Palin almost certainly meant olive fruit flies (but given her anti-science stance on just about everything, how can they be so sure that the apparent slip was not intentional or that she really didn't just mean fruit flies as a whole?).

Huben says he is more qualified than everyone else, so everyone else is wrong and ignorant. Everyone who disagrees with Huben is a sycophant.

Research money sent abroad is a waste and any scientist or researcher who goes abroad to research is on a jolly. Even though the US often won't share its research or patents with other nations, other nations should share their's with the US, even if the US contributed nothing.

I think that about sums it up.

[Mike Huben]

For all the excuses Jimmy_Blue makes, and for all the eloquence of Skeptico's "Huben, you truly are a moron. Seriously, piss off", the fact remains that Palin was referring to an applied science olive fruit fly study, not a Drosophila study. It is a stupid and dishonest tactic to say she meant to condemn other research: that's putting words in her mouth no matter what excuses you make. A tactic worthy of creationists.

Unlike the science bloggers Skeptico has linked in his addendum, Skeptico shows no evidence he knows the difference between Drosophila and olive fruit flies. I've only looked at a few of the links, but they explicitly point out that they are separate organisms. Skeptico ignorantly uses the ambiguous common name "fruit fly" to misrepresent Palin as opposing Drosophila research, as have so many others.

And, if you follow the evolgen link, you'll see that folks at scienceblogs are saying exactly the same thing as I am. That folks like Skeptico have made this mistake en masse. Please, go ahead and decry the expertise at scienceblogs: over the internet you don't know who they are, and they might be dogs!

The problem here is that Skeptico can't admit that he's ignorant or wrong on this subject, nor can his flacks. That's not a good attitude for a skeptic.

[Skeptico]

Huben, the problem here is that you are a moron concentrating on irrelevant trivia for reasons that are actually incomprehensible to most people. Thanks Jimmy for trying to break Huben’s drivel down, but I really see no reason to have to defend myself against this pedantic crap from Huben. Some commenters at scienceblogs and elsewhere are pointing out the difference, true, but they are doing it in the “this isn’t strictly correct (but I agree in principle / it doesn't change the argument)” type of wording, not the “you don’t know what you’re talking about (and yet again you’re wrong)” type of wording that Huben seems incapable of avoiding. (And many more commenters, researchers, PhDs etc are just ignoring the technical difference that Huben is making such a big deal about anyway.) Huben you are a moron. I told you to piss off and I meant it. I am tired of your stupid crap, piss off and do not bother posting here again.

Sheesh. Unbelievable.

[sophia8]

Thanks to Ken MacLeod, here's an interesting angle on Palin's view of the non-usefullness of fruit fly research:
"But Lysenko was the man of the hour, suited as he was to step into the role of the man of the people, the man of the soil, who had come up from humble origins under the revolution and who directed all of his energies into the great tasks of socialist construction. He knew well how to whip up massive peasant support, how to woo journalists, and how to enlist the enthusiasm of party and government officials. He began to be pictured as the model scientist for the new era. He was credited with conscientiously bringing a massive increase in grain yield to the Soviet state, while geneticists idly speculated on eye colour in fruit flies.

Lysenko made the most of this image and became more and more virulent in attacking geneticists and contrasting their "useless scholasticism" with his own great "practical successes."
From here.

[yakaru]

It wouldn't surprise me if Palin's speech writer was trying to kill several birds with the one stone. Many will still associate France with the "freedom fries" business, and will consider fruit fly research a great example of useless science. Some creationists will associate fruit flies with gene research and evolution, and all creationists will notice how much it upsets the scientific community.

All that simply by mentioning "fruit fly research". I suspect whoever wrote it knew exactly what they were doing.

(Or maybe Huben was right!!! Maybe Palin was assuming that as soon as she mentioned researching fruit flies in France her audience would immediately know she was objecting to a specific research program on Bactrocera oleae and not referring to research on the Drosophila. Yup pretty soon Palin will be laughing at people like Dawkins for ignorantly cracking jokes about "Drosophilistinism", when OBVIOUSLY she wasn't even referring to the Drosophilidae family.)

[Big Al]

"What is your name?"

"Arthur, King of the Britons."

"What is your quest?"

"I seek the Holy Grail."

"And what is the airspeed velocity of an unladen Drosophila?"

"Is that melanogaster or simulans?"

"I don't know that... AAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!"

[yakaru]

Apology to Mike Huben for my above comment. Didn't realise you were asked not to comment anymore & so have no fair way of responding. (Also stupid comment anyway. Clicked post too quickly.)

Big Al: very funny!

[Jimmy_Blue]

Huben:

For all the excuses Jimmy_Blue makes

And here we have an interesting insight into Huben's mind. Point out the obvious. Point out the evidence, and you are making excuses if it disagrees with him.

the fact remains that Palin was referring to an applied science olive fruit fly study

A fact that Skeptico made a point of highlighting. Part of reading is understanding what you read Huben.

It is a stupid and dishonest tactic to say he didn't highlight this and then talk about further fruit fly research: that's putting words in his mouth no matter what excuses you make. A tactic worthy of creationists.

Unlike the science bloggers Skeptico has linked in his addendum, Skeptico shows no evidence he knows the difference between Drosophila and olive fruit flies.

It is interesting that you bring this up. And telling that you didn't bother reading into them in too much detail. Take the Evolgen link for instance, where he writes:

an important point was missed by the general public, scientists, and even Drosophila geneticists: she wasn't talking about Drosophila

But hang on, I thought only ignorant people who weren't qualified or didn't work in the field made the mistake you talk about. Why, if even people with qualifications can be wrong...

You really must work on actually reading and understanding things you comment on Huben.

Evolgen goes on to say:

Okay, maybe it wasn't so remarkable, given that even Drosophila researchers refer to these little insects as "fruit flies"

What's that, even experts call them fruit flies. But how can this be?

But, there's even more:

But everyone out there assumes that she's ragging on Drosophila research (which, for the most part, tends to be quite basic in nature -- note that basic does not imply worthless), even Drosophila geneticists.

But hang on, because Huben said:

anybody familiar with the subject (like me: I had a course in fly systematics at Cornell) could immediately spot the howlers.

So, Huben declares nobody familiar with the field can be wrong, including of course Huben himself with his 32 year old class. Yet, experts in the field say quite clearly that other experts in the field have been wrong. I guess it must be possible for even qualified people to be wrong, even people qualified in the area under discussion. Simply earth shattering.

Skeptico ignorantly uses the ambiguous common name "fruit fly" to misrepresent Palin as opposing Drosophila research, as have so many others.

Only he didn't. Brush up on the reading their bub.

Interestingly enough, apparently Huben also thinks the majority of Drosophila researchers are ignorant too:

Michael Eisen

This is because most of the world - including virtually all Drosophila researchers - mistakenly believe that “fruit fly” is the proper common name for members of the genus Drosophila.

And yet, I don't see Huben getting up in arms on any other blog but this one.

So, Skeptico doesn't say what Huben thinks he did. He is following the convention of Drosophila researchers themselves by calling Drosophila a fruit fly. And even if Skeptico did make the mistake Huben accusses him of, he was making the same mistake that qualified people Huben says couldn't make the mistake, did make.

So obviously, Huben's desire as a noble educator is only to highlight ignorance and is the only reason he keeps hammering away at this very minor point, and only on Skeptico's blog.

Right?

I mean, this couldn't be a personal thing, right?

And you haven't let your own bias make you look like a fool again, right Huben?

[Skeptico]

All:

I have told Huben not to post here again and banned his IP address. The reason is that I will waste no more time with his absurd criticisms (and only made on this blog – thanks for spotting that Jimmy) of the fruit fly research / Palin comments. And I am certainly not going to descend, as we did before on a different subject, into days of detailed rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals ad infinitum on this ridiculous subject, especially given Huben’s proven dishonesty and nastiness in these debates. I’m not going to bother to try to justify, again, what I wrote or why Huben’s criticisms are absurd. But if anyone really wants to hear Huben’s latest wisdom on this topic they should read Huben’s Critiques of Libertarianism blog, that should probably be renamed “Critiques of Skeptico” due to the number of posts he has there about me, and his apparent obsession to highlight every error he thinks I have made. And good luck. Huben is welcome to post whatever drivel he wants on his own blog, but in future I won’t be wasting any energy on it.

[Mike Milk]

Va fangulo tutti!!!

[Big Al]

So obviously, Huben's desire as a noble educator is only to highlight ignorance

This is something that always amuses me. I have argued with a number of people who after a bunch of asinine posts suddenly whip out a PhD in nukular fizzix or an MSc in Malekula Byolergy (whichever may appear to be most germane to the topic at hand). Thereafter, they rest on one long, abusive Appeal to Authority, spending dozens of posts saying it's pointless to explain their technical discipline to idiots. They then content themselves laughing like drains at any dribbling imbecile who doesn't know how to calculate the four-dimensional volume of a hypersphere. Of course, they refuse to enlighten these laughable fools out of principle (the first they'd ever heard of a hypersphere was doubtless when you raised the issue).

I've often wondered how long such a misanthropic educator would last in a rough inner-city school with an attitude like that. Or even a posh private school.

If someone I met in an Internet forum who didn't know how to determine the outputs of a logic circuit using truth tables and state diagrams, I wouldn't be surprised at all. But if it were necessary to prove I knew what I was talking about in electronics, I'd be only to happy to explain how.

[Mark Goodson]

I do believe there are excellent reasons to reject the macroevolutionary position
and that will ignorance certainly can be a trait of many evolutionist.

[JC]

Conservapedia? Please tell me you're joking.

[Jimmy_Blue]

I have a post filled with links to the evidence for evolution awaiting the spam filter because of the number of URLs.

My science trumps your conservative distortions, lies, quote mines and scientific illiteracy Mark.

[Techskeptic]

jimmy,

interested in getting it posted? (I notice you do not keep a blog). I'll post it for you and then you can link to a single place int he future and hopefully not get blocked.

email me, address at my blog if you lke

[Skeptico]

Jimmy's post just released - see 4 posts above.

Typepad's Spam filter is a pain sometimes. Nothing I can do about it but I will release them once I know one is held.

Also, if that is you John Best, why the sock puppet name? I never blocked any John Best posts, and you know I don't like sock puppets. "Sarah Palin," are you John Best?

[Jimmy_Blue]

Thanks Techskeptic. When I said 'filled' obviously I was talking with typical British over-exaggeration and meant 5 or 6, although I really appreciate the offer!

I could have filled a post quite happily and easily, which is what makes posts like Mark's and Conservapedia's entry so laughable.

And I know, one day maybe I'll get around to my own blog.

[Techskeptic]

When I said 'filled' obviously I was talking with typical British over-exaggeration and meant 5 or 6, although I really appreciate the offer!

LOL! Perhaps its a British thing to exaggerate quantity. Here we exaggerate size.

[benson.bear]

I just read Huben's original post here. Huben is totally a tool. He has a point that many people when they heard Palin thought that the study that led her to her claim was about genetics research, but his inferences from that point are, frankly, idiotic.

As is his preposterous argument from his own authority.

[Big Al]

Apparently now Ms. Palin is trusting to God to show her the way to the 2012 elections.

Does that mean that the Big Beardy Man was taking a day off during recent events? Or that Obama's prayers were more effective?

[benson bear]

Big Al, His Ways are a Mystery to us. Except when they aren't.