I think there's a huge difference between an audience you're trying to persuade and the banner-carriers of a movement you deplore. I'm willing to pull the punches with someone for whom I think there is hope...but someone like Ken Ham or James Dobson? No hope. All you can do is be unambiguous in your denial of everything they stand for.
True, there is a difference. And I definitely agree with your last sentence. I just don't know that ridicule, etc. is the best way to deal with them, either. I guess the way I view it is that I'm almost always trying to persuade someone, since I have no idea who's reading (if it's something I've written) or who's listening (if it's a talk I'm giving). And too many people seem to dismiss anything said by the "other side" if it contains something that's openly hostile to a member of "their team." Maybe it's just an excuse to dismiss the arguments--IPU knows I've seen that said on Panda's thumb many a time ("you're all too rude here, so I don't even bother reading"). But are there people who really mean that? Who might listen, but can't deal with the harsh tone, even if it's not directed against them personally?
I really don't know.
That's a really hard call. Look at Jim Kunstler. Talk about someone willing to play hardball with the American Dream. Yet, in spite of agreeing with him wholeheartedly, I find a certain hardness of heart in his exposition: a joyless kind of smug satisfaction that is easily taken as self-righteousness.
I find that some of those out there searching for a voice that can represent their cause of energy conservation have the same misgivings. His "pull no punches" coupled with a "them vs: me" attitude is really offputting.
I find PZ well worth reading but I think he's somewhere between someone like you and someone like Kuntsler. Funny but tends to preach to the choir.
The main problem I see is that we are a "story based" species. We just have to have a story to live by. Unfortunately science doesn't float most people's boat. That's a shame but it is perfectly understandable to me when I look at our roots. The "story" is an orienting mechanism that creates harmony in the tribal group. It is not important that it be "true." It is important that it give a basis in conversation for working out conflict. Otherwise the tribe fails and evolution does its work.
This "story" problem is inadequately treated by the gadflies like Kunstler and PZ who heap scorn on those who, for the most part, are just trying to get by and are following their own inner lights.
What we desparately need at this time is a system of ethics somewhat like Confucianism that can give us a sense of collective purpose and hope. How to get there? - haven't the faintest.
Personally, I treasure your tone and I appreciate that you hold your punches and try instead to present useful information with a calm voice. It's not easy as a rising storm of irrationalism threatens to capsize what is really the small and, for the most part, uncherished skiff of science in a country filled with backwater religion.
Every now and then, I find myself saying, "its worse than that". Maybe its ID's attacks on Evolution.
"Oh, yeah, well, Creationism has been down on Evolution - we'll grant that".
And I say, "Its worse than that. Evolution is currently at the heart of progress in medical science. In the past 50 years, my own life expectancy has risen by at least 20 years, and possibly 40 years. And that's just research into heart disease. My next problem will be Alzheimer's disease. I don't want the next generation to be working on a vacuous idea like ID. I want them to figure out Alzheimer's."
Dan Quayle said it best: What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is.
Carl Sagan put it very well: "I try not to think with my gut."
I tend to not take these people on head-to-head either, but eventually it'll happen, because I'll most likely have a future position that includes teaching. It does get me extremely angry to see creationist snake oil being peddled to kids (and, for that matter, to adults). We need to encourage creative minds of all ages, not hobble them.
Commenting by HaloScan
