Over at The Intersection, Chris Mooney has made one of the most aggressive peace efforts that I’ve yet seen.
How could this change? Well, first of all, I’m highly skeptical that it can. But if I were to suggest the conditions in which it might, I would say that a serious dialogue cannot resume without an end of name calling, ad hominem attacks, and extensive misrepresentation of positions. If there is no interest in getting basic views right, understanding them, or admitting those views are based on evidence and not unreasonable, there is no way a two-way dialogue can be had.
As you’ll notice, he gives examples of where he figures he’s been wronged, without acknowledging that there may be problems with his own position. Now, personally, if I was trying to end a dispute with a compromise, I’d start by trying to compromise, rather than attack.
Eventually, when called on this, he admits that maybe he did misrepresent Dawkins once, but immediately take the opportunity to go on the attack on that front as well:
I believe we have been much more seriously misrepresented than this, however, with far less responsiveness than I have shown. See for example here:
Were I more cynically minded, I might suspect that Chris Mooney’s intent here was to be able to claim that he tried to make peace after this inevitably goes nowhere. But no. I suspect he simply doesn’t realize how militant and strident he’s being.