For example, as someone who received a classical philosophical education, I can confirm from experience his claim that conservatives can understand liberal values but not vice versa. I cannot tell you how many well-educated liberals I know who cannot name any consequences of The Enlightenment which might be considered undesirable, who think any idea more than 300 years old (or even 200 or 100 years old) must be wrong, or who assume that any idea for which they cannot find hard evidence is therefore false.

Professor Haidt has committed the unforgiveable sin in academia: of suggesting that limits on rationality and objectivity may also apply to working scientists. Prof. Pigliucci’s defensiveness, evasiveness, condescension and refusal to take Haidt seriously are but the latest confirmation of the correctness of Haidt’s insight about the “sacred truths” which must not be questioned.

The failure of Massimo Pigliucci to forthrightly produce the past perfect tense when he purported to rebut your assumption regarding his initial (non) viewing of your talk, might be assigned to his foreign birth, were it not for the fact that he has standing in the U.S. as a professional philosopher.

And for the fact that he has used it himself, e.g.: “The New York Times’ John Tierney — who is usually a bit more discriminating in his columns than this — reports of a talk that Haidt had given.”

Apparently then, Pigliucci is capable of clearly distinguishing tenses when he wishes to avoid any chance of a misconstrual.

In the case of his reply to your request for a retraction , wherein you wrote,

“Let me be certain that I have understood you. You did not watch my talk, even though a link to it was embedded …”

… he apparently didn’t; as it would have undercut his attempt at a rhetorical flourish. Instead he tried to wave away a nebulous admission with the remark that the actual talk “simply doesn’t add much “.

“Doesn’t”, not didn’t.

Rationally speaking, rather puerile.

Professor Haidt, I can’t say that I am sympathetic toward your ultimate goal of promoting greater social cohesion as an end in itself through greater, and probably more empathetic understanding. The whole social “complementarity” predicate seems to elude me. Thus, to paraphrase someone well-known: ‘Understanding (of the types of human moral psychology) good , collectivism (solidarity pimping on behalf of the annoying) bad’. [Joke]

But despite all that, it is clear even to this bigoted right-winger anarchist that you are by far and away the more ethically scrupulous one here, while Massimo Pigliucci comes off as, well, disingenuous.

Ah well, consider yourself fortunate that Richard Carrier has not as yet shown an interest in your work.

For instance, the Federalist Society, started as a deliberate counterpoint to the ABA. Since then, with explicitly conservative places like Liberty starting their own law schools, that drive has been augmented.

A religious conservative who thinks homosexuality is a sin is NOT going to join the APA, and is not going to go to a mainstream school for psychology study.

Much more here:
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2011/02/academia-hotbed-of-liberal-bias-or.html

Since I put up that post, I heard you on NPR’s Talk of the Nation. I Tweeted the program that it should give someone like Pigliucci equal time in response.

This has no bearing on whether evolution or creationism is actually true. To point at biologists and note that their internal tribal dialogue all assumes the validity of evolution is a meaningless criticism in a world where belief in evolution is fully justified.