After the interview - a week or so later - Watson wrote this blog entry: http://skepchick.org/2011/07/a-weird-ti ... gingheads/
This time, she is apparently obliquely alleging that Althouse pulled a switcheroo, claiming to be on Watson's "side" (on what, we aren't told), but then for some reason the interview went horribly awry. In her blog, Watson writes about two ways the interview was "frustrating," and apparently Watson felt that she wasn't given a chance to answer appropriately. I can't see from watching the video where she gets that, but everyone will have to judge that for themselves.
Althouse responds to Watson's attack here: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/re ... -time.html
The "this" being Watson's latest complaint about someone who wronged her - http://skepchick.org/2011/07/a-weird-ti ... gingheads/I enjoyed the conversation and tried to keep it interesting and enjoyable, and I had the impression that she was enjoying talking too. We went 10 minutes over an hour, and afterwards we talked, and she said she enjoyed it. So it's weird for me to read this.
I liked Althouse's rebuttal, and I am very confused about what Watson is really complaining about here.This reminds me. I forgot to ask her a question I wanted to ask about the atheist in the elevator — the man who asked her if she'd like to come to his room for coffee. I wanted to know what she said to him at the time. We know that later, she slammed him in a blog post. And now, here I am, slammed in a blog post of hers days after the encounter. So I'm kind of empathizing with the elevator guy.
Email me, elevator guy!
What is really amazing is PZ Meyers. PZ jumps on Watson's blog and writes this:
So - Meyers sees nothing wrong with calling a woman a "dingbat" - which is exclusively or almost exclusively used toward women, a la Archie Bunker of All In the Family.Wait, what does that dingbat Althouse have to do with science?
She’s rather loopy — it was a poor match for you.
Watson responds to PZ Meyers:
No worries about PZ using a sexist term towards a woman - he's in the in-crowed, right? And, he's been the biggest defender of Watson's honor since the beginning, so, wouldn't want to rock the boat there. But, here Watson basically claims to be sandbagged - this was supposed to be some sort of fawning interview by someone "on my side", and Watson implies it turned into a hatchet piece.I didn’t know anything about her prior to agreeing, except for that she was “on my side.” Bah!
If you listen to the interview, though, it was pleasant and none of the questions were impertinent or "gotcha" type questions. And, Watson had as much time as she wanted to respond with whatever she liked.
And, PZ Meyers chimes in again to attack Althouse and defend the honor of the "fair" Watson....
I wonder - if PZ Meyers ever comes here, what's the evidence for Althouse not understanding science in the slightest? And, she "always" gets it wrong? Always? Really?Ooh, ooh, call me, call me! I can answer that one!
You don’t have to publish peer-reviewed papers to be able to speak competently about science. You just have to understand it, and you have to get it right.
Althouse doesn’t understand science in the slightest, and she always gets it wrong. Look at her stance on climate change, for instance, or her silly crusade to defend her favorite lightbulbs.
Watson, on the other hand, has for example done a fine job on explaining alternative medicine and how homeopathy doesn’t work. She actually understands the basic science and communicates it well.
Get it? One has demonstrated her misunderstandings of science, the other has educated people about science.
And, let's assume that is true and Althouse has zero understanding of science - how is that relevant to the interview? Althouse didn't attack Watson at all, and all she did was ask questions. She didn't adopt any contrary positions, or argue with Watson as if it was a debate. She interviewed Watson and elicited Watson's answers and opinions. One wouldn't know Althouse's opinions on a single issue, whether scientific to Elevatorgate, from listening to the interview.
Watson also wrote separately:
What does that even mean? Althouse just asked questions throughout, and it was a discussion. Something "came out of nowhere" to Watson? Really? You're bitching about that now? Watson - news flash - when you get interviewed, you might have to handle some unforeseen questions. If it's some sort of affront to have some view or "baggage" about feminism "come out of nowhere" you have an eggshell sensitivity. I mean - how do you handle it? You listen to her question. You answer it to the best of your ability, and you add any explanatory material that you think you need to or want to. If you feel as if she has interrupted, then you say "wait - may I please finish my thought there?"Yeah, her weird baggage about feminism was another frustrating aspect. It came out of nowhere, to me, and I wasn’t sure how to deal with it.
PZ Myers - a college professor, right? Said this also:
Flibbertigibbet is another sexist term - it means a flighty or foolish person or a gossip, but it has classically applied only or almost exclusively to women.Just finished listening. One side of the conversation was excellent; Althouse is a clueless flibbertigibbet. If you do bloggingheads again, get a better partner!
And, it's an interview, PZ - Althouse was asking questions. What, exactly, was the problem? Were they attack questions? Did Watson get stumped and sandbagged? I mean, FFS, you'd think Watson had been promised a day at the beach and been sent to Antartica instead, the way this is being characterized by Watson and PZ.
And, then Watson says:
What a disingenuous person this Watson is... "out shout?" Really? Watson must rely on folks not actually watching these videos, because, for the record, nobody "shouted" at Watson at all. And, "not a polemicist?" You were being interviewed, Watson. You're going to get questions, and if the interviewer is doing his or her job, then some of the questions might tax you, or might cause you to have to think.“I don’t see why you think it was a weird interview.”
Because I’m not a polemicist and I have no desire to out-shout an opponent when I think I’m having a discussion.