re: #714 Gus 802

She is calling Zombietime blog extremist. This is what Freetoken refered to. Are you going to endorse someone that characterizes Zombietime as extremist?

I can dispute the characterisation of the blog as ‘extremist’, while agreeing with everything else in that post. Indeed, that is my position.

Then there’s the final paragraph:

It used to be that even in the Vatican, the Devil had his advocate. Now it seems the rules have changed: anyone who studies the Devil must worship him. Sometimes I think it’s not safe for scientists to talk about anything anymore… !
Who is Palmer referring to? Is she stating that Amanda Carpenter worships “the devil” or Zombie? Seems a bit reactionary and tinged with subtle theocratic assumptions.

Not at all. You’re misreading Palmer. She’s referring to the old Vatican position of “Devil’s Advocate”: the person charged with arguing against the canonisation of anyone nominated for sainthood. That person wasn’t literally ‘on the devil’s side’, but was entrusted with making the strongest possible argument for the opposing view.

So too here. Palmer is pointing out that in science and in academia, many positions are dispassionately discussed. Discussion is not endorsement. That’s the point of her piece.

People are wrong to construe Holdren as endorsing these positions, as construing him that way reveals either a misunderstanding of the book and of the nature of scientific discussion— or a deliberate misreading for the purposes of promoting a political agenda.