Update on the Haught/Coyne Discussion Video …

So, after a large E-mail campaign, Haught relented and allowed the video to be posted if certain conditions were met, and now the video has been posted. I’ll watch this at some point over the weekend, and comment on it.

Anyway, Haught’s big objection seems to be this (check the link to the comment he made at Why Evolution Is True): Haught wasn’t expecting it to be a debate, where the two of them challenged each other’s views directly, but where each primarly spent time outlining and defending their own views. Coyne, by his own admission, researched Haught’s position and spent a lot of time attacking Haught’s position directly. Coyne feels that he did outline and defend his own position, but I’d guess that Haught’s surprise at the turn of events made him see the attacks more clearly than the defense and description of Coyne’s own position. At the end, Coyne attacks — again, by his own admission — the morality of the Catholic Church, and tying that back in with the rest of the speech likely made Haught feel that he was being personally attacked. Hence, the angry reaction.

So, likely just a misunderstanding. It’ll be interesting to see how the debate works out.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Update on the Haught/Coyne Discussion Video …”

  1. TB Says:

    I’m interested in your take on it. Regardless, it certainly is must viewing for anyone planning to appear on stage with Coyne in the future.

  2. TB Says:

    Adding, I’m wondering how the structure of the presentation can be considered a debate per se. They each got 20 minutes to speak and then a brief q&A with the audience.
    I haven’t gotten through the whole video as it doesn’t load very well, but Coyne says at the beginning of his portion that he specifically targets what Haught says because Haught is there and can defend himself.
    But Haught went first, and as I understand it the Q&A followed. When was Haught supposed to respond to Jerry? The format didn’t provide for that, based on what I understand it to be, and so I can see why Haught is angry.
    If it is the case as I understand it to be, Coyne took advantage of the format to make assertions that Haught didn’t have the opportunity to address. Going into the debate, They both understood the limitations of the format so that would explain, to me, Haught’s anger at what he perceived to be Coyne’s lack of courtesy.
    If it is as I understand it, then Haught didn’t bring a knife to a gunfight, as one commenter over at Coyne’s claims, Coyne brought at gun to a knife fight.
    I think if the format was set up differently, Haught would have prepared differently. If thie situation is as i’ve described, and the entire presentqion isn’t in the video yet, then Haught made an error in assuming that Coyne would extend him any professional courtesy based on the limitations of the format. That’s what I mean about must viewing for the future.
    But, I’m not familiar with this kind of format – is it often the case that presenters attack the views of the other specifically when the other has no formal time to respond?

  3. TB Says:

    And I just read Haught’s letter, and it does seem to be the case that he was informed that this wasn’t to be a debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: