The one with that graph

2 November 2007

OK, I’m not PZ Myers, so I’m not used to getting a bajillion¹ comments on each and every post, but those that I do get, I read. And it seems that my last post (the one with the “Dark Ages” graph) has been one of those that some have taken as the “I just don’t get it” biscuit².

Also, it seems that somebody dumped this on StumbleUpon (where it also seems to have gained it’s own little pod of comments) and has generated not an insignificant little maelstrom of Internet traffic, at least as far as this blog is concerned.

So, hopefully in the spirit (no pun intended, this time) of giving those who took this far more seriously than I did, I’ll explain my take on the graph, and why I included it.

As I recall, I originally found this graph myself through StumbleUpon. As one does when stumbling, it flickered past my eyes on my monitor, I took a fairly cursory glance over it, and thought to myself yes, well, I wouldn’t put too much truck in the details of the graph, but it’s fairly well presented and makes a point that the dark ages was a pretty stultifying time for the advancement of knowledge. You know what? I think I’ll post this on my blog!

Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have pointed out that none of the scales (rather than the singular I seem to have used—mea culpa) I would consider accurate. I could have also added the caveat that I was suspect of the data points, the labelling, and made a big deal about the appellation of “christian dark ages”. I could have scrimped and saved, left my job and sat in classrooms for the next 7 years so I could write a PhD thesis on the Dark Ages and totally ripped this graph to shreds. But I didn’t. What I saw in the graph was a fairly neat and concise summary of the idea that religion has and continues to hinder the gaining of bona fide knowledge, with the Dark Ages being a reasonably good example of such. For a more contemporary example, consider the “theological” arguments against some modern medical research, e.g. stem cells based on nothing more than the wistful (and completely unproven) notion of a “soul”.

Another thing I should probably have done, although I’m not sure if they would have thanked me considering the navel-gazing that’s seems to have gone on, was to link the graph back to nobeliefs.com. In fact, if I hadn’t visited AV’s Five Public Opinions blog post about the same graph, I might not have known about the related post at all, so kudos to him for digging that out.

Thankfully the Diggosphere pretty much ignored it, otherwise there might have been a lot more bandwidth-wasting hand-wringing over this.

As I said: it makes a point; what I didn’t say was wow! This is so accurate, real, true, perfect!

Seriously, some people need to lighten up and look at the bigger picture.

hopefully this is obviously a case of humorous hyperbole [↩]
a British idiom, hopefully again not without a little humour [↩]

No other posts are likely to be like this.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: chart, response

Comments

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

38212 Responses2007-11-02+21%3A48%3A26nullifidian to “The one with that graph”

The Vicar on November 2nd, 2007 11:25 pm

Speaking as the person who made that first post, I have to say that my point was not “Christianity was not as bad as you portray it” but more “the Romans were never good for science, even before they became Christian, so this chart is either wrong or mislabeled.” The Romans were a backward, thuggish group of polytheists long before they became a backward, thuggish group of monotheists.

But to address this post: if you don’t want to get all the random comments that the Internet sends you, then turn off comments, or else start actively moderating the comments. Or just don’t publish your posts. On the Internet, everyone can hear you scream. If that’s a problem for you, don’t go on the Internet.
TW on November 2nd, 2007 11:33 pm

Well, I thought it was funny!

There is nothing wrong with generating the sort of response you got – I would love to get that amount of hand wringing over a post… :-)

I may take note of the sort of thing which draws people off the fence and try it in a few new posts when I get back from my holidays… Trolling for fun… :-)
nullifidian on November 2nd, 2007 11:49 pm

@The Vicar: *sigh* Which part of “just not getting it” don’t you seem to get? That was the point of this post.

I appreciate your comment, although it might have been more pertinent if I’d argued that the Romans were so scientifically literate. I didn’t, but you addressed it anyway. Maybe that explains something; maybe not.

I’m happy for comments, and leave them all here, except for spam (although Akismet takes care of most of that).
sil-chan on November 3rd, 2007 12:21 am

On the plus side, I discovered a rather interesting new blog that is in my daily reading now^.^
nullifidian on November 3rd, 2007 12:50 pm

@TW: I didn’t find the graph particularly funny (nor particularly unfunny, either), it just seemed to make a valid (albeit not particularly precise) point. Perhaps that’s just my sense of humour though.

Good luck with the trial of bothersome posting, I look forward to reading them (and venting spleen, should it be required!) ;-)
Christ Davis on November 3rd, 2007 2:41 pm

I remember zipping past the graph and thinking it was slightly amusing-now on to something with meat on it’s bones! Then I came back to read some of the comments, a few days later and found comedy gold. So much hysteria over something so trivial! I suggest that whenever you get bored you root around in the cellar until you find something similar to post. At the least you may increase your footprint on the ’sphere, with the bonus that you offer pedants an opportunity to use their History 101 notes to educate your readers.
Joel Sax on November 3rd, 2007 11:58 pm

Nope,we can’t say we were wrong. We’ll just indulge in the same kind of obfuscation that we’re always catching the Christians at….
The Vicar on November 5th, 2007 5:54 am

@nullifidian: darn right I don’t get it. I don’t understand how a fellow atheist — someone who stands against the dominant cultural falsehood of our times because of evidence — is willing to put up something which is either wrong or mislabeled, a graph with no data points in actual fact, and see no contradiction. It wasn’t funny; it was a jokoid — something with the shape of humor which is not, in fact, humorous. It was the worst possible thing that an atheist can do for atheism: an unfounded snide jab which is easily refutable. Any popular appeal atheism has comes about because of the integrity of the position. Lose the integrity and you might as well give up and say a few Hail Marys, or bow towards Mecca.
nullifidian on November 5th, 2007 8:50 am

@The Vicar: a few points to address your comment:

1) I didn’t claim that it was right nor factual: I opined that it made a point. False attribution.
2) I didn’t claim that it was funny. False attribution.
3) I didn’t “do it” for “atheism”. In fact, atheism never made any appearance whatsoever in the entire post (graph included). Red herring.
4) I somehow doubt that it’s “the worst possible thing” one could “do for atheism”. I can think of plenty of things that one could “do” that might bring atheism negative attention. No true Scotsman.
5) I didn’t “do it” for popular appeal. Hasty generalisation.
6) I don’t give a flying fuck about any “popular appeal” atheism has: I’m an atheist because there’s no evidence to convince me otherwise, not because ‘all the cool kids are doing it’. Argumentum ad populum.
7) You really think that, because (in your opinion) I have somehow been insincere, that I somehow now believe in a particular notion of a god and/or should follow some alien and (IMO) backwards cultural traditions? Non sequitur and a generous side-salad of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

And you seem to think it appropriate to question my integrity? I question your thinking.

Really, if this thing grates on you so much, I invite you to feel free to expend as much energy researching and producing an accurate graph as you have venting about this one (and what you seem to perceive as my complicity in perpetuating unscientific inaccuracy). Then, for my part, I’ll be happy to help publicise that on your behalf, and I’ll go so far as to claim that it’s both scientific and correct.
Christ Davis on November 6th, 2007 3:06 am

I invoked a pedant and one showed up. I hope all the power doesn’t go to my head!
kezz on November 21st, 2007 2:21 am

‘I donâ€™t give a flying fuck about any â€œpopular appealâ€ atheism has: Iâ€™m an atheist because thereâ€™s no evidence to convince me otherwise, not because â€˜all the cool kids are doing itâ€™.

Even so u will always be one of the cool kids for me….

love the new look null….will be busy catching up on reading for a while i see….still love ur way with words….

cheers
kezz
nullifidian on November 21st, 2007 9:34 am

MIssed chatting to you kezz, where have you been?