There was a recent online tempest about an article posted by Roger Ebert [1] outlining, nay promoting, the Creationist way of thinking. For a few days, many were arguing about whether his site was hacked, or had he lost his rational mind? I voted for “hacked”.
Turns out, he was attempting satire [2]. He argues that anyone aware of his earlier writing should see the invisible quotes used to denote irony. He claims that anyone today should recognize that satire as easily as they did for Swift’s “A Modest Proposal [3]” in the 1720’s.
But, as PZ Myers points out [4], had Parliament in Swift’s time been discussing recipes for Irish babies, and running candidates on a pro-baby eating platform, that satire would also have fallen flat.
Apparently, Poe’s Law [5] needs some better distribution:
“… it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.”
Pharyngula suggests: “Maybe we need to rename Poe’s Law to Ebert’s Fallacy.”
Print this post [6]
[7]