Apparently, there was some panel on the repellent practice of “framing science” at AAAS recently, which I’m sure the principals will consider a triumph, despite their refusal to have any dissenting voices there to speak.
It reminds me of something.
Recall the recent episode with the creationist, Geoffrey Simmons? He had a strategy for winning arguments: it was to get an exclusive hour on the radio to make his case without those troubling critics. He crowed victory afterwards, too.
Simmons knows that when you play with yourself, you always win.
By now, “framing science” has nothing to do with the (relatively uncontroversial) assertion that people rely upon cognitive shortcuts and emotional preferences to make judgments in areas outside their factual knowledge. Instead, it’s become a byword for living in a fantasy world where if Hirsi Ali were knifed by a Muslim extremist, Hitchens were killed by a vengeful liver and Dawkins died of sexual exhaustion in a vault full of money, the Creation Museum would close up shop and the Discovery Institute would repent its sins in sackcloth and ashes.
Clearly, the “New Atheists” were excluded out of fear that the panel would be relevant.
Only post on this thread for me.
Could we please not confuse one strategic approach to framing with the entire field.
Bye now.
Why is it that whenever I hear a discussion of Framing Science I find myself looking up references on Neville Chamberlain
Yes, but Simmons was pathetic. Don’t think everyone would be so easy, no matter that you have small-t truth and science on your side:
I feel queasy about “framing” as Nisbet and Moody recommended for the evolution issue (we have to stick to the importance of evidence and of proper inference), however it does matter how smoothly Richards layers on the bullshit, and how adept one is at pointing out that the smooth finish is just plain excrement.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
WTF!
There Is ‘Design’ In Nature, Biologist Argues:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm
October Mermaid: A remarkably astute analysis. No Ambulocetus could be found next to his jar of Vaseline.
Honest scientists know in their bones that we fight error through open criticism (David Brin wants to make “criticism is the only known antidote to error” — CITOKATE — into a catchphrase). We can see why this process is essential if we look at the people presenting at this panel. Consider the anthropologist Barbara King, and her take on the “New Atheist” writings:
In an open forum, this idea could be critiqued, as it was at Mike Dunford’s blog. A commenter named Wes pointed out,
It’s a familiar pattern: if a religious act and a non-religious act both share some common property, the non-religious act will be labeled as a new kind of religious behavior. All is interpreted through the lens of faith and piety: bounded in a nutshell, the anthropologist is king of infinite space!
The complaint is not even consistent with the story we’re being fed. We’re supposed to communicate science by appealing to people’s emotions, using metaphors which get them thinking in the right fashion and so forth, but we can’t include personal stories when we write a popularized science book? Honestly, one would think that a “testimonial” would be the effective way to communicate science in “religious America”. Which is it — do we have too much God or not enough? It’s reminiscent of when the creationists accuse science of being “just another religion”, which causes the freethinker to pause and wonder, “Doesn’t that mean they’re devaluing religion?”
All we get is a stream of inconsistent and confusing verbiage, a garish bricolage whose only theme is ill will, distaste concealed by glitter. In an open forum, these ideas could be held against the touchstone of criticism, but when critics are barred, the touchstone is flawed, and the buyer is left with fool’s gold.
Creationists are fond of complaining that Intelligent Design has been kept out of academia by a “Darwinist orthodoxy” (perhaps projecting their own habits of thinking onto their enemies). It is ironic that a panel dedicated to “communicating science in a religious America” has aped the tactics of creationists and made flesh their projected image of science: the New Atheists have been Expelled.
One thing I would add to Blake Stacey’s comment – we use cognitive shortcuts and emotional preferences even _within_ our areas of factual knowledge (this was the point of the National Research Council’s “How People Learn,” – a book that collected research on learning, cognition, and teaching to show how to better teach science). We can’t help using those shortcuts – it’s what makes it so we don’t have to explain the fundamentals of DNA structure every time we run a PCR. And within science these frames _have_ sometimes blinded us to alternative explanations that turn out to be more correct.
For most educators who understand frames, the important point is that without understanding the “frame” of a student, you can’t know exactly how to tackle their scientific misunderstandings. This is simply good pedagogy; anyone who takes the time to understand the ways that scientific explanations get _mis_understood by students knows that the most common errors come because students already have rational and common-sense notions of how the world works that provide them with cognitive shortcuts. They are not scientifically correct, but they are often sensible given what the students know. We have to spend a lot of time breaking down those sensible but incorrect frames before we can make “scientists” out of our students. I don’t think we really appreciate how much time we spend convincing our students that things they cannot directly see, hear, or touch are “real.”
Nesbit has, sadly, treated “framing” as if it is simply trying to put the findings of science in to religious language (or something like that – he is seldom really clear). This is NOT what framing is all about. We reframe our students understandings all the time, but we do it by acknowledging their (unscientific) frames and then showing them how a more scientific frame does a better job of explaining some evidence. This is NOT what Nesbit is proposing. He is, it seems, proposing that we couch scientific findings and approaches in the language and rhetoric of religion to “fool” religious people into accepting science. Or something like that… it really is hard to tell.
From the link provided by Coturnix (#6):
Meh. If cheap rhetorical tricks ripe for the quote-mining are the best he has to offer, I’m not going to wet myself. This does nothing to address the major reasons why people find evolution emotionally unpalatable. When all the clever talk is done, we’re still kin to the monkeys.
I can certainly see that you’d want to be careful about talking on science in public. I mean, if there was a way of thinking about things that in 500 years could double the life span, cure disease, discover how living things are put together and locate galaxies 13,230 million light-years away, you’d want to keep that under your hat, right? I mean, Jesus Christ, can you believe how upset people would be if they could live to they were 90? And all without boils! People would be furious. I think it’s best to keep this whole science thing on the downlow. What kid is ever going to be excited by the idea that stars are unbelievably distant, and unbelievably large? I mean, BSG didn’t even get to FIVE seasons. Just tell the children that the stars are tatooes on the body of giant sky god stretched across the earth; if they want to know more, they can get a PhD in astrophysics. I’m pretty sure people are pretty sick of scientists crowing about the earth revolving around the sun by now, too.
Slothrop –
I get the feeling Nesbitt is like one of those English teachers who thinks his students would really love Shakespeare if they could just see a version of “Hamlet” where all the actors wear baggy jeans.
Also, I like it when we don’t talk about Nesbitt. He’s an idiot. As Steve Labonne wrote,
Pardon me, but I really don’t understand the problem. What’s more important:
a) Science/Religion getting along enough to figure out we have just about pushed our environment to the limit or
b) Science vs religion as in who wins.
Frankly, I became a non-theist after reading Dawkins – not by reading TGD (which I liked and encouraged me to investigate) but by reading TSG and TEP – at which point I realized I needed to go educate myself in Biology.
As far as a) or b) above…count me in with the a)’s
There is science and there is business and I believe our survival as a species depends very much upon our getting our collective shit together before it’s to late.
Personally, I would not bet the bank that we are *that* intelligent a species to make it across the river without drowning.
Framing is the way of using language in such a way as to get the audience to trust you. To believe you are an authority on what you are talking about and to take your word for it. It is essential in politics. And some of the politics is science related. You want to get the people to vote against Creationists when the next school board election comes. You do not have ten semesters to explain evolution. You do not have receptive audience for explaining evolution. You just have ten minutes or ten seconds to establish to them that you are right and the preacher is wrong.
This does not mean you talk like a preacher. This does not mean you praise religion. This does not mean you even mention religion. No, you develop your own way to demonstrate certainty. If you can project stronger certainty than the preacher and if you can get the preacher to waver, or start getting red in the face, you got it.
This has nothing to do with science education. Education is a two-way process. You need a teacher. You need a willing student. Most people are unwilling to get educated in science – no time, no interests, prior biases, whatever. If you try to teach them – you lose. If you are trying to win a political battle, do not try education. Education is for long-term goals. Politics is short-term.
As I argued before, there are two battles here. Though they seem to be similar, they are quite unconnected to each other. One is a battle for science education. The other is the battle against the irrationality when it impinges on everyone else’s rights (e.g., the right to privacy in the bedroom, to quality science education, etc.). The two operate at different time-scales, are done by different people, have different goals, have different target audiences, and are done using different methods – the two messages are thus framed differently.
The battle against irrationality (really against the special treatment of religion) is also waged at two levels: private and public. In private, you want to give a helping hand. You need to gain the trust first. You use the language that allows you to gain that trust by eliciting positive “frames of mind”. It’s a long process and painful for people losing their religion – you are their tutor and best friend. In public, Dawkins et al. are doing exactly what needs to be done – moving the Overton Window in the right direction. They make discussion of atheism possible. It is now perilous for a public figure to deride atheists when the microhpones are on – something that was not true just a couple of years ago. Honest discussion of religion is now possible. This, of course, riles up the fundies. Instead of being all saintly and meek, the protest in anger. Anger is ugly. It repels. They are also forced to say stuff in their defense and the stuff they say makes no sense and is laid out there for everyone to see. More the fundies look angry and say stupid things, more they lose general support.
Mixing all those things up and saying it is all “framing: is an error. When Matt thinks that being nice to the religious has anything to do with framing science, he is wrong. But also, when we (vocal atheists) conflate the two in order to make gleeful noises at Matt, we make the same mistake.
Appeasers: The spineless pushovers.
That says it all.
Probably because you must be , that’s why.
Obviously I munged up the HTML, so here goes again:
Probably because you must be clueless about history, that’s why.
uh, Orac, if you look in the comments for the post which you just linked to, you’ll see someone who sets you straight on your own historical errors.
I know this is off-topic, but has anyone commented on Dembski’s list of ID predictions posted in the comments on one thread over at UD? I had heard back in January he was threatening to unleash them, but hadn’t seen them till just now.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/adminstrative/what-happened-to-colson-praises-peta/#comments
*yawn*
ID has always predicted that there will be classes of biological systems for which Darwinian processes fail irremediably, and conservation of information is putting paid to this prediction.
make your false assumptions, then tweak your conceptualization to fit.
what else is new?
Dembski is just as irrelevant as he always was.
the moment he gets invited to be a speaker at a conference of real information specialists, that would be worth blogging about.
hasn’t happened.
never will.
Sure, there are short-term goals and long-term goals, which will require different methods, but bollixing the processes of communication, deliberation and debate is not helpful for either one.
And, you know what? I don’t think we’re doing that badly in the short-term battles. If we can get the creationists into a courtroom, we can expose them as buffoons and play the church-state separation card — hence, indeed, the victory at Dover. We can put out a fire, but the entire nation is made of flammable tinder, waiting to burst into flame at a warm breeze from the heartland.
Do what you will in the short term, but please, let’s debate those short-term tactics fairly, and let’s keep the long term in mind.
KTHNXBYE.
What Blake says.
Tried to set me straight would be a better term. He didn’t really succeed, and I answered most his criticisms. None of his criticisms truly challenged my argument that the whole “Neville Chamberlain” gambit in terms of the issue that is the topic of PZ’s post is a load of ahistorical bullshit.
Meaning, yes, we are doing fine in short-term battles, too. But the method we use to win those does not apply to the long-term.
Ken Miller is great in the courtroom. A disaster in the public area. Dawkins does exactly what’s needed in public and may not be as good in the courtroom. Division of labor.
It is now perilous for a public figure to deride atheists when the microhpones are on – something that was not true just a couple of years ago.
quite remarkable, in fact, how rapid the shift has been!
it adds a small spark of hope to an otherwise rather dismal outlook.
Moreover, to me it suggest the direction of thrust is pretty much dead on.
Nobody needs Nisbet.
To Coturnix @14: Exactly! Your point about two battles is RIGHT ON (and I hadn’t looked at it this way before) as well as your point about the transition from irrationality to rationality.
If science is to win this war, scientists (and those who support science) need to understand the rules and play the game better. I love science and I understand how business works – This (science vs other) IS is business ;-)
Thanks!
None of his criticisms truly challenged my argument that the whole “Neville Chamberlain” gambit in terms of the issue that is the topic of PZ’s post is a load of ahistorical bullshit.
that wasn’t the point of his post; the point was illustrating your own lack of historical knowledge.
in that, he did quite well.
as to your position on the term Dawkins used – you can argue the relative value of terminology all you wish, but I do hope you don’t think that what Dawkins was pointing at, with an arguably poorly worded sign, wasn’t an issue that needs to be addressed?
Otherwise, I’d have to accuse you of merely obfuscating the issue by attacking the sign, instead of what it is pointing to.
But you also make a great point yourself that “Neville Chamberlain School” is itself a frame, and an effective one. It’s shorthand for “compromising with people who are not going to accept compromise.” I don’t think people care too much about the historical details, and history often stands in for mythology, as much as that may frustrate historians.
The problem with Nesbitt is if anyone disagrees with him, he blinks a few times, and then says, “Clearly, you do not understand the the basic principles of framing.” That’s pretty aggravating. It’s difficult to have an honest disagreement with someone who is not capable of honestly disagreeing.
We’d all have been better off if Dawkins had just called Godwin’s Law on Michael Ruse on p. 67 of The God Delusion. That said, the section entitled “The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists” is not even four full pages long, and the “Chamberlain gambit” itself could be entirely expunged by revising a handful of sentences. The point of that entire portion of the book, the last twenty pages of Chapter 2, is to judge whether NOMA is a legitimate principle, and secondarily, to propose reasons why people might endorse it.
The worst thing about the “Chamberlain gambit” is not any historical shoddiness of it, but rather that it has made so many smart people waste so many ones and zeros arguing about it instead of discussing the interesting parts of the book. For the love of fuck, Dawkins spends more time eulogizing Douglas Adams than he does calling people Chamberlains. He argues that “anthropic” explanations are alternatives to fine-tuning by divine intervention, which is surely an under-appreciated idea. He considers the “Ultimate 747” a stronger argument than the Problem of Evil; why, and is he correct? He shamelessly cites and quotes bloggers, including our very own evilutionary superscientist P-Zed, and he writes,
Historians of print and scholars who study the junction of paper and electronic media will doubtlessly see this as an important example worthy of study.
I could go on; I’m a lover of books and a geek for text. Suffice it now to request that we please learn from Dawkins’s mistakes, dust ourselves off and move on.
The problem with Nesbitt is if anyone disagrees with him, he blinks a few times, and then says, “Clearly, you do not understand the the basic principles of framing.” That’s pretty aggravating. It’s difficult to have an honest disagreement with someone who is not capable of honestly disagreeing.
I felt the exact same way.
looking back on the times I’ve engaged him, I wonder if it isn’t entirely intentional on his part. a very specific stonewalling tactic.
Add habitual name-dropping, tedious recitations of his schedule, reminders of his eminence, dismissal of posters who use monikers, and failure to back up his [rare] substantive points with anything more than “it’s in the peer-reviewed literature” to the list of Nisbet’s irritating attributes.
Few tactics are more annoying or insulting, particularly when regularly employed, than this:
“You disagree with me only because you don’t understand me.”
(I’m pleased to see Blake and Ichthyic (LTNS!) serving up multiple comments here.)
*waves*
/me waves to Kseniya
Quick O/T, but anyone feel like filleting this latest silliness from the homeopaths?
#34
I would do it but I don’t have a blog and I’m not sure my English is up for the task. But as a material scientist that has actually done semiconductor epitaxy this makes my head hurt. I guess the woo is always worst when it concerns your own profession. Different molecular structure, riiiight.
@ #34 Here’s a decent treatment at The Quackometer:
http://tinyurl.com/ynlhl8
@ #34 Here’s a decent treatment at The Quackometer:
http://tinyurl.com/ynlhl8
You know, I often wonder if Nisbet is just performing some bizarre experiment. Perhaps he’s trying to evaluate the effects of bad framing, and we’re all just test subjects.
I mentioned this Dawkins discussion over at Sandwalk, but thought I’d repost it here in case anyone missed it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/audio/2008/feb/14/richard.dawkins
It’s worth listening to in the context of the discussion here. Dawkins admits to not always being politically savvy when it comes to creationism and other issues. As an appeaser, I’ve often felt that his rhetoric hurts the cause; it would appear that Prof D agrees (but isn’t especially bothered).
I actually wouldn’t mind the “let’s be nice to fundies” school (it seems to me to be a recipe for being ignored but hell, that’s just my opinion), if it wasn’t for the way they treat people who don’t want to do what they say is best for science.
You can’t have it both ways – stressing being polite and fluffy to fundies, whilst using even more antagonistic and aggressive tactics than those you allegedly deplore against “new” atheists who disagree with you is called hypocrisy, at best.
Is it just me or does this type of behaviour remind you of anyone else’s tactics recently?
It’s like saying that Legos are among the most complex objects in the world because of all the complex things you can make out of them. Anyone who isn’t convinced that this article is idiotic simply by reading its first paragraph won’t be swayed by responses to the rest of it.
Ridicule is the only way to destroy faith. Children have faith in Santa, but not adults. Why? Because as they get older, kids who believe in Santa are mocked by their peers.
Every opportunity to make a creationist or other woo-naut look like an ass, especially in public, should be seized upon.
Turns out I’m not done ranting. The only framing we should be doing is making the irrationalists look like the wankers that they are. You can side with Einstein or Falwell, take your choice.
#13 You have set up an inappropriate dichotomy. It isn’t either a or b as you, and Nisbet, argue. See there is this group of people out there, who happen to be fundamentalist christians who want evolution banned from schools or at the very least equal time given to creationism. So should those of us who understand that evolutionary theory is the grand unifier of biology defer to the communication majors who really don’t care all that much about it one way or the other because they have a different agenda? I like the push reason and rational discussion and if the real world contradicts someone’s religious belief, then their beliefs should be criticized. I want to point out that some of these fundamentalists could care one way or the other about the environment as well, having the world go to shit fits well with their interpretation of revelations.
Orac, I did not mean to elicit such an emotional response from you. While I could be wrong, I do believe I have a clue about history. I will defer to comment #28 in regards to the point I was trying to make, which you certainly understood but did not like. Hmmm, maybe framing isn’t such a good idea I mean here is a intelligent scientist with whom my point completely got lost. Not only did the crux of my point get lost but because of my frame Orac decided not to address my point one way or another, but to insult me. Its no big deal, its because he’s short.
There is a point that Dawkins bring up in “The God Delusion”, although I think he might have made more of it, and it is this: Almost all religious people accept some religious dogma that is contradicted by science.
Now we all know about the fundamentalist Christians who reject evolution, along with cosmology and almost everything else in science. However they are not alone in making claims that contradict science. Catholics, and many (but not all) Anglicans accept that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin. Now that claim is a scientific one, and what science tells us is that humans cannot undergo parthenogenesis. Not only has there never been a recorded case of a human female doing so, there has never been a case of a human mammal. Likewise claims for the literal resurrection also founder on the shoals of scientific credibility, not to mention turning water into wine, or the feeding of the five thousand.
How can we take someone seriously when they offer support in saying creationism is not science when they believe in equally non-scientific dogma ? And yet it is these people whom Nisbett et al thinks will save science from the fundamentalists.
Okay, some of us aren’t excessively acute this early in the morning.
Be glad that I’m one of them, or I’d drop in a link to some babes-in-bikinis site to disprove that little slip.
This is where I part company with framing. Certainty is not part of science. In fact, it is fundamentally unscientific. I understand the point, but as a scientist it would compromise a fundamental aspect of how science succeeds, and so I am not willing to do that no matter what the short-term political benefit.
Pierce,
Thanks. Don’t know how I missed that. What I mean to say was “any mammal”.
Okay, I’ll take a whack at it, seeing that a familiar pattern has repeated itself (i.e. Nisbet getting exhaustively properly framed) by memorable efforts from all (though seeing Blake and Kseniya wave over the great Internet divide was a special treat):
(1) Where is the theory predicting productive (“most structures”) and efficient (“occasional degeneration”) designers?
[Related questions:
How do we distinguish from preexisting processes (evolutionary designs)? And why would a biology relying on evolution be a science stopper when it continues to find functions?]
(2) Where is the theory predicting that biological mechanisms are isomorphic to humanly built machines, and what does “isomorphic” mean here?
[Related questions:
– Our machines are large, and when shrunken have problems with friction (excessive wear) and stiction (won’t move). A few miniaturized mechanisms has been made to work, and characteristic for them is that they look nothing like classical large scale machines nor biological miniature mechanisms.
– Characteristic for biological machinery on the discussed scale is that chemical and mechanical processes are stochastic (they “step randomly”) and reversible (once in a while they take a step back). Not a general characteristic of human machinery, nor sought for.
(3) is false.
So ID is neither defined nor supported with truthful claims.
Also a familiar pattern.
Okay, I’ll take a whack at it, seeing that a familiar pattern has repeated itself (i.e. Nisbet getting exhaustively properly framed) by memorable efforts from all (though seeing Blake and Kseniya wave over the great Internet divide was a special treat):
(1) Where is the theory predicting productive (“most structures”) and efficient (“occasional degeneration”) designers?
[Related questions:
How do we distinguish from preexisting processes (evolutionary designs)? And why would a biology relying on evolution be a science stopper when it continues to find functions?]
(2) Where is the theory predicting that biological mechanisms are isomorphic to humanly built machines, and what does “isomorphic” mean here?
[Related questions:
– Our machines are large, and when shrunken have problems with friction (excessive wear) and stiction (won’t move). A few miniaturized mechanisms has been made to work, and characteristic for them is that they look nothing like classical large scale machines nor biological miniature mechanisms.
– Characteristic for biological machinery on the discussed scale is that chemical and mechanical processes are stochastic (they “step randomly”) and reversible (once in a while they take a step back). Not a general characteristic of human machinery, nor sought for.
(3) is false.
So ID is neither defined nor supported with truthful claims.
Also a familiar pattern.
Matt Penfold,
(Aside: surely you know it is not just Catholics who hold the virgin birth as dogma.)
I’ve seen you make this argument before, and I find it strange. Those of us who are scientists and theists do not find the virgin birth at odds with science in the sense that you mean, if I read you correctly–rather we recognize that there is a reason why it is called a miracle and not a parlor trick. You are simply wrong that the claim is a scientific one–in fact the claim is exactly the opposite. The claim is that the virgin birth is not scientific, which is why such a big deal is made. It does not bother the scientist within that the claim cannot be supported scientifically, although it might bother the theist within if it could.
Theists obviously accept the supernatural, so I don’t get this particular criticism. The virgin birth is not a testable claim. Some things are, such as present-day faith healing, but the classic miracles are considered isolated supernatural interventions–where the laws of nature were temporarily and locally suspended, as part of God’s redemptive plan. It seems a strange point to focus on–after all if we believe that God supernaturally created the universe, why focus on such an arguably, by comparison, modest miracle?
“I’ve seen you make this argument before, and I find it strange. Those of us who are scientists and theists do not find the virgin birth at odds with science in the sense that you mean, if I read you correctly–rather we recognize that there is a reason why it is called a miracle and not a parlor trick. You are simply wrong that the claim is a scientific one–in fact the claim is exactly the opposite. The claim is that the virgin birth is not scientific, which is why such a big deal is made. It does not bother the scientist within that the claim cannot be supported scientifically, although it might bother the theist within if it could.”
Heddle, I have seem you make this argument before as well, and like last time, you have completely failed to understand the point.
Maybe I can make it simpler for you. Miracles ARE claims about the material world and thus are part of what science explains. If you wish to remove claims about miracles from scientific study then you do not get to claim your religious beliefs do not conflict with science. They clearly do, as you are forced to make a special category of event and separate those from the normal events science can investigate.
You can either claim miracles happen, and give up claiming your beliefs do not conflict with science, or you can give up believing in the supernatural. You do not get a free pass in claiming to both accept science and the supernatural. That is not an honest claim to make, and we will call you it.
Matt Penfold,
Why not, other than because you declare it to be so? When I am in the lab I expect everything I do and measure will follow the laws of nature and that the scientific method is the tried-and-true proper approach. I don’t worry about miracles messing with the data, because I believe that God operates by secondary means except in those relatively rare and isolated instances when the bible tells us that God intervened. If the data seem odd, I don’t invoke a miracle, I redouble my efforts to explain it scientifically, which is presumably the same thing you would do.
I don’t need a free pass, nor do any of the other numerous theists/scientists.
“why not, other than because you declare it to be so? When I am in the lab I expect everything I do and measure will follow the laws of nature and that the scientific method is the tried-and-true proper approach. I don’t worry about miracles messing with the data, because I believe that God operates by secondary means except in those relatively rare and isolated instances when the bible tells us that God intervened. If the data seem odd, I don’t invoke a miracle, I redouble my efforts to explain it scientifically, which is presumably the same thing you would do.”
Heddle, I despair, I really do.
You claim to be a scientist and yet you are willing to invoke supernatural claims to explain certain events. Science does not let you do that. You cannot say most events are explained by science but there are a few events that science cannot explain because god did it. If you do then you are rejecting a central tenet of science, which is that all material events have a material explanation.
“I believe that God operates by secondary means except in those relatively rare and isolated instances when the bible tells us that God intervened.”
Now this really is the killer. You cannot make such a claim and carry on saying your faith does not conflict with science. Not if you do not want to be considered dishonest.
It is not me that declares you cannot claim miracles happen and not have the view conflict with science. It is central to very method by which science is done. “Goddidit” is NOT a valid scientific answer to explain ANY event.
Only if you don’t believe in them; for the fervent believer, they are magic, and therefore fall outside of the realm of science. Anybody who accepts science, but also such magic, is simply adopting a dualistic position.
For many people, of course, that dualism is rarely challenged, because they don’t have to deal with the contradictions that exist at the interface between those two philosophical systems. So, for all practical purposes, they are able to ignore such inconveniences as the irrationality of monotheistic belief, or the simple contradictions of reality contained in religious doctrine, by ignoring the philosophical implications of either.
They don’t fully subscribe to materialism, allowing special exceptions, but also don’t fully subscribe to doctrinal literalism (at a push). It is the same psychological device that has be employed throughout history, allowing people to attest to philosophies which are (in their purest forms) mutually contradictory.
So, Ockham’s Razor is applicable in all instances, except those that contradict faith. Which is convenient.
“Only if you don’t believe in them; for the fervent believer, they are magic, and therefore fall outside of the realm of science. Anybody who accepts science, but also such magic, is simply adopting a dualistic position.”
Bernard, this is true, but then they need to be honest and admit that sometimes, as in the case of miracles, their religious beliefs do conflict with science. Heddle is not doing this this, he want to claim that miracles cannot be explained by science but that does not mean his faith is then in conflict with science. That position is simply not logically tenable. I know why Heddle holds the position he does, both science and his faith are important to him so he has to find some method of reconciling the two. It is pity he has chosen a method that is dishonest.
Matt Penfold,
You are mistaking science for philosophical naturalism. Science simply says that science (by definition) has nothing to say about the supernatural, even if it does exist. Being a scientist, to the majority of scientists, has always meant following methodological naturalism, and that I do.
My faith does not conflict with science unless I make testable claims from my faith. For example, if I claim the earth is flat or it is only 6000 years old, then there would be a conflict.
Your argument boils down to nothing more than the old assertion “you can’t really be a theist and a scientist” which is patently absurd, given the overwhelming availability of counter-examples.
which might be a valid criticism if I were arguing, as you are implying, that Goddidit was the scientific explanation of the virgin birth, when in fact I am arguing the opposite, that Goddidit is the blatantly non-scientific, irreproducible explanation of the virgin birth.
But, to admit to the trick would necessarily be to invalidate it; above all else this psychological device relies on denial.
The dishonesty is not deliberate, but it is essential.
(It cannot be easy – paractically or emotionally – to coldly examine, and probably discard, one’s own faith. Fortunately, it is not something I’ve had to do.)
“My faith does not conflict with science unless I make testable claims from my faith. For example, if I claim the earth is flat or it is only 6000 years old, then there would be a conflict.”
Heddle, you have made testable claims, such as the virgin birth.
You do not get to say it was a virgin birth and claim that does not conflict with science. Humans, indeed mammals, simply do not go in for parthenogenesis. After all that is what a virgin birth would have been, Mary becoming pregnant by parthenogenesis. We know that is simply not possible. YOu claim that is fine, as it was a miracle. Well fine, you can think that. Do not claim that is not conflict with science, it is. You continued insistance that it is not just makes you look foolish, and make me question if you really are a scientist at all. If you deluded yourself over one thing it is quite possible you delude yourself over others.
“Your argument boils down to nothing more than the old assertion “you can’t really be a theist and a scientist” which is patently absurd, given the overwhelming availability of counter-examples.”
Nope, it does not boil down to that. There are theists who reject the whole idea of miracles being actual events. A number of Anglicans reject the idea that there really was a virgin birth or indeed a real resurrection. It is simply not true to claim that in order to be a theist you have to accept miracles happen.
Sorry, that was a reply to Matt’s last post, whereas now it looks like a slightly chiding or patronising attack.
Still, heddle, in the strictest philosophy of science Ockham’s Razor applies to eveything, so the subscription to any religion is invalid. The logical extension is that we who claim to be scientists should all be agnostic to the point where it looks atheism.
I’m too slow!
But it would also be fair to say that the existance of any deity is itself miraculous, so…
Matt Penfold,
You have simply repeated your original argument, so I’ll assume we have come full circle. I’ll just comment on this statement:
which I believe is quite wrong. Of course, various theists, as you pointed out, deny specific miracles or even all the “text book” miracles, but at a minimum they must accept the existence of transcendent being, or else they are not really theists at all. To claim the mere existence of God, the minimal claim one must make to be a theist, is to claim belief in an unscientific miracle. So, at some level, all theists must accept the miraculous.
What do you mean by that, exactly? Are you claiming that it wasn’t testable in principle – that even if someone with arbitrarily advanced technology had been present, no test would have been possible? Or simply that now the opportunity has passed?
Sorry if this seems as though I’m hijacking the thread, but I’m about to leave…
I would just like to say that I don’t think religiosity is necessarily a bar to understanding or conducting scientific research. It is possible to be religous and to do science, as long as you are able to mentally separate the two pursuits.
There are good scientists who are also religious, but there remains a direct contradiction between scientific materialism and religion.
“Sorry, that was a reply to Matt’s last post, whereas now it looks like a slightly chiding or patronising attack.
Still, heddle, in the strictest philosophy of science Ockham’s Razor applies to eveything, so the subscription to any religion is invalid. The logical extension is that we who claim to be scientists should all be agnostic to the point where it looks atheism.”
Well when it comes to miracles, yes, scientists should. It would be interesting to know how many scientists who think miracles happen would allow such an explanation within their own field. I am willing to bet not many. Case in point, Heddle claims to be a physicist, but claims about virgin birth would be biology. Do you think Heddle would allow for the laws of gravity to suddenly be nullified ?
“But it would also be fair to say that the existance of any deity is itself miraculous, so…”
True, but when a person who believes in god has got the stage where they reject the idea that their god is active in universe performing miracles or answering prayers, then they are no longer subscribe to the type of religion that Dawkins et al object to.
heddle,
On those grounds you can’t oppose Creationism or any present day claim of psychic phenomena, etc. There are Creationists who claim the world has been made to look as if it is much older, contains fossils, etc, but was in fact created according to the Genesis account. On your argument you have to accept that. There are peddlers of woo who claim that psychic/etc phenomena are interfered with when studied scientifically and argue that we have to accept the anecdotal evidence. This is no different than your claim about miracles.
That’s not true. “Methodological naturalism” is one (anti-realist) interpretation of science. Scientists, like non-philosophers generally, tend to believe in the truth and reality enter in to what they do.
Matt Penfold,
Of the miracles in the bible, many if not most are violations of the laws of physics. I have no problem with that.
By the way, what is this “claims to be” business? As in heddle claims to be a scientist or heddle claims to be a physicist? Is it just about me that you would use that sort of language, or would you use it for anyone who declares himself to be a scientist and a theist? If it is the former, i.e., it is just a slight dig at me, I have nothing to say. If it is the latter, I have a follow-up question.
Poke,
It is true that neither I (nor anyone else) can argue with the apparent age theory, other than to point out that by the same reasoning it is possible that the earth was created just six seconds ago. However, most YECs do not argue apparent age, sensing that such an argument impugns God’s character. Instead they argue that science demonstrates a young earth. That is, they make testable claims.
“By the way, what is this “claims to be” business? As in heddle claims to be a scientist or heddle claims to be a physicist? Is it just about me that you would use that sort of language, or would you use it for anyone who declares himself to be a scientist and a theist? If it is the former, i.e., it is just a slight dig at me, I have nothing to say. If it is the latter, I have a follow-up question.”
Well you do claim to be a physicist but you have never come across as being very bright. In addition you are not an honest person. Taking the fact you are not honest, and that you are a bit thick, does make me question your claims to be a scientists. In fact absent evidence to the contrary I do not believe you.
Matt Penfold,
Fair enough.
Heddle shows up and the whole thread devolves into hash.
“A Familiar Pattern”, indeed.
Pierce Butler,
No, the familiar pattern is to make the claim you just made. I commented on Matt’s comment, we had a few interesting and mostly friendly iterations, a couple of others chimed in, nobody got angry, nobody cried foul. Until you show up and commenced to whine, because, it would appear, you lack the facilities to do otherwise.
I’m glad you enjoyed it, too, Thorbear. It amuses me that the “divide” crossed by those bits and bytes is almost certainly far greater than the distance between my house and his! :-D
Kseniya (#72):
Yeah, we Boston-area Pharyngulites should get together sometime. We could all cook soup with MAJeff or something. (A Kseniya showed up at a party we threw at my place, a few months ago, but the friend-of-a-friend in question turned out to be a different Kseniya.)
On the original topic of the thread, it occurs to me that everything I’ve seen come out of that “Communicating Science in a Religious America” has been flawed, or at least needing a good fisking to separate the viable parts from the fluff. Brian Switek and John Wilkins have ably critiqued Ken Miller’s statement, but there was also Dietram A. Scheufele’s spiel about nanotechnology and Barbara King’s ramble about New Atheist “confessionals”. All of these are addressing important topics and subjects of interest, but they all need a good scrape across the touchstone, and the panel wasn’t set up to give them one.
Addendum necessitated by link limit:
For the nanotech story, see Russell Blackford’s post.
PROBLEM : Finding effective ways to communicate science in (religious) America ?
Agree with Blake #21,
“Do what you will in the short term, but please, let’s debate those short-term tactics fairly, and let’s keep the long term in mind.”
Then, we have, a full charge attack on Nisbet, which was to be expected…
Inkadu #12,
“Also, I like it when we don’t talk about Nesbitt. He’s an idiot.
As Steve Labonne wrote,
[Nesbitt]’s so transparently an asshole that I’m reasonably hopeful the problem he presents is a more or less self-correcting one.”
Ichtyic #25,
“Nobody needs Nisbet.”
Ngong #31,
“Add habitual name-dropping, tedious recitations of his schedule, reminders of his eminence, dismissal of posters who use monikers, and failure to back up his [rare] substantive points with anything more than “it’s in the peer-reviewed literature” to the list of Nisbet’s irritating attributes.”
MartnM #37,
“You know, I often wonder if Nisbet is just performing some bizarre experiment. Perhaps he’s trying to evaluate the effects of bad framing, and we’re all just test subjects.”
Matt Penfold #45
“How can we take someone seriously when they offer support in saying creationism is not science when they believe in equally non-scientific dogma ? And yet it is these people whom Nisbett et al thinks will save science from the fundamentalists.”
(then followed a thrilling discussion on miracles and the Virgin Mary)
SOLUTION : getting rid of Nisbet
Seriously, again confusing the enemy…
Um, it’s nice that we agree and all, but throughout this thread, I’ve been arguing that Nisbet is not promoting fair debate. I’m just as upset as Inkadu, Steve LaBonne, Ichthyic, ngong, MartinM and Matt Penfold. I share the unease of TR Gregory.
I agree that Nisbet is not promoting fair debate.
But look:
Nisbet (and his friends) : when communicating Science, we need to take into account the religious sensibilities, otherwise people will not listen to us
New Atheists : no we don’t
Nisbet : yes we do (and I’m not going to ask your opinion anymore)
New Atheists : no we don’t (and Nisbet is an asshole)
…etc
Hey, are folks serious about a Boston get together? I’d be up for one (but no soup at my house because, well, I don’t think I could fit more than one person in this little shithole)…..
I would also be up for a Boston get together.
I’d be willing to get the organization rolling, but the last time I tried something like this (organizing a bunch of people from dKos to meet at RedBones several years ago) no one showed up. I don’t know if it’s my poor organizational skills, or if people saw me standing in Davis Square and ran away, but I ended up waiting and waiting and waiting….
so, if folks are interested, I’ll start off organizing something, but people better show the fuck up…or NO SOUP FOR YOU! (And my soups really are that good. If I had a business partner with disposable income, I would so be opening up a little cafe–I’d give up academia in a second to do recipe development, particularly for soups.)
I would never miss anything that occurred at RedBones.
Quite the obsession with soup you have.
it’s not an obsession, really. I do love it though. One of the things that my students seem to really like is the way that I’m able to bring food into conversations in the classroom. I am passionate about food, and I find it a fascinating topic (someday I;d like to develop an Intro to Sociology course using food as the lens through which the entire course is organized).
But, if this is pharyngulite meeting, we should do squid, and The Daily Catch does the best squid (as well as black ink pasta putanesca) I’ve ever had.
Great. A meeting of pharynguloids, serving squid, and I don’t get to go.
Well, PZ, you could always fly out here….don’t you have enough FF miles to take a long weekend or something? Would you be willing to link to my site?
I’ll plan it, I guess (better than dissertation work–i love procrastination–although this weekend’s being ill certainly helped)
Nice ellipsis. How about, “No, that plan is flawed, for reasons we can elaborate, and which we should all discuss.”
Then comes the reply, “No, you’re wrong! And I’m not listening anymore,” followed by a few immediate counter-replies expressing hostility or disgust, along with others trying to remain cordial, with the genial voices eventually giving up.
But enough of this. . . . Let’s all meet at Redbones.
. . . or a seafood joint in the North End. Also good.
OK all, here’s a post at my place dealing with a potential Boston-area get-together.
C’mon over and let me know what y’all think!
But look:
at what?
your strawman of the actual arguments many of us have had with Nisbet?
did you actually have a point?
Seriously, again confusing the enemy…
just because someone is fighting on the same side as you in a war, doesn’t mean you don’t chastise them for getting you lost on a recon patrol.
Nisbet IS causing damage in this debate, I have little doubt about that.
the only question is, how far down this trail will he manage to take folks before they have to spend all that time backtracking.
His ideas are fundamentally flawed. His refusal to even listen to what those flaws are is quite telling. However, he’s obviously just young and cocky for getting his paper published in Science.
I suspect he might be a far more valuable ally in ten years or so, once he runs into a few walls of his own making.
but right now… he’s as much a liability as a blind tracker.
The Daily Catch is a great idea.
I am not much into cooking but I do like to eat.
Your class idea sounds pretty interesting.
The way to a cultures heart is though its stomach?
More like–the relationship between geography and culture; inequality and hunger; the development of the capitalist world system and the sugar trade; norms and table manners…..all sorts of fun to be had.
that’s what I love about sociology; I can use any phenomenon as an entry point.
@Ksenyia:
LTNS
been very, very busy of late.
which is a good thing.
cheers
“that’s what I love about sociology; I can use any phenomenon as an entry point.”
It can’t hurt to have an entry point that you are enthusiastic about.
Enthusiasm is infectious.
It can’t hurt to have an entry point that you are enthusiastic about.
Enthusiasm is infectious.
I think that’s one of the things that makes me an effective teacher. I suck at the administrative/organizational stuff (bore the shit out of me), but when I’m in the classroom I have the time of my life. I consistently get the highest ranking in our department–as an adjunct, and my enthusiasm and respect for the students are what constantly receive comments (favorite eval comment: “1 cup of coffee, not 2”). I love what I do and I respect my students–and that helps make a great classroom atmoshpere. I teach up (sometimes above their heads) but they’re willing to go along for the ride….I just love teaching. Best career in the world
The most intimidating comments was on one of the senior surveys (a student named me as most influential on them during their time in college): “He makes me want to be a better person.” that;s a bit intimidating.
Blake #85,
thx for the link to Jason Rosenhouse’ commentary.
He states :
“People on the other side, me in particular, do not deny that there are moderates of the sort describe above. There are, indeed, people who will be driven away by the harsh rhetoric employed by people like Dawkins and Dennett. What we deny, however, is that such folks are a major force in shaping the culture. We argue instead that the number of people who really are driven to the forces of darkness in large part because of the strong rhetoric of certain atheists pales in comparison to the number of people languishing in parts of the country where it is impossible for atheism to get a fair hearing. The harm that is done in driving away that small subset of moderates is outweighed by the good that is done by making atheism a major topic of conversation in the news media. Polite, sedate approaches to the subject do not generate as much attention and are consequently ineffective.”
Where is the detailded analysis, the evidence, to support this very central claim ?
Because, and that’s my problem with this whole “debate”, neither party provides any evidence.
So, where is the detailed analysis ? I mean, where are the reports, the market research, the focus groups ? It’s not just the number of books sold, and the “impressions” that count.
I’ve spent most of my professional life analysing people’s opinions, consumer demand, market research, and I know how easy it is to get mislead from a few impressions.
I repeat, where are the focus groups, that’d be a good start if one really wants to study this issue in an objective manner ? Where are the budgets ? I have seen none of it. And all these numerous opinion polls ? They are systematically flawed, as any serious professional will tell you, that one cannot understand people’s reactions to complex issues based on a few ridiculous poorly worded surveys.
We are supposed to be analytical people, derive conclusions from evidence, and on such a critical issue, nothing, just “sentiments” and “opinions”.
So No, I am not satisfied with a few nice rethorical catch phrases and preconceived opinions from Nisbet, nor from the “New Atheists”.
And Ichtyic, Yes, I had a point, there is no debate, because there are only opinionated people, entrenched in their respective camps, who seem to refuse to go beyond the bickering, and instead, start asking themselves, what are the relevant questions.
That’s what a CONSTRUCTIVE debate should bring. The rest is just wishful thinking.
negentropyeater, it is the framing folks who are making the claims about the efficacy of social change for their approach, and the horrible consequences of the “New Atheist Noise Machine”. It seems to me that folks whose main claim to fame is the development of “framing”, and who hold academic positions directly related to it, are the ones with the burden of proof for its effectiveness.
But, if we do indeed want counter evidence, I would offer the rise of religiosity, and especially its influence on politics and social policy, during the “let’s be nice” period of atheism, and the current very live discussion of godlessness in the media with the advent of the “New Atheists”. For that matter, I would argue that the whole notion of “framing” is blown out of the water by folks like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and all the other rather “immoderate” commentators of the Right, who helped the resurgent conservative movement shift the discourse in US politics significantly to the right.
Their approach even has its own theoretical apparatus that offers an alternative to framing, namely, the Overton Window. The notion is that as more extreme ideas and public policies are promoted, ideas and policies that are in that direction but less extreme become more acceptable (extreme ideas “move the window” of political discourse). In other words, if you want to shift the view of what is acceptable, you don’t promote moderate ideas currently within the Overton window, but instead promote more extreme positions that move the window toward your desired goals. It looks to me like the rise of the Right on the back of talk radio and extreme commentators provides pretty darned good empirical support of this position.
So “framing” is not the only theory of social change in town, and certainly the Overton window approach suggests that the “New Atheists” are doing precisely what should be done to shift public opinion and policy.
And finally, I think it is a mistake to see most of the “New Atheists” as directly aiming for social change in any case. I don’t know that Dawkins is so much concerned with changing society as he is in expressing truth, whatever the consequences. The “New Atheists” aren’t policy wonks, they are essayists about a particular topic, and I see no reason why they should have the same goals and desires as some professor in a School of Communication.
TR Gregory #47 “Certainty is not part of science.” Are you certain? In relation to Coturnix’s short term aims (that is, to trounce the preacher by developing our own kind of certainty), I sounds like you’ve found your soapbox: argue with certainty that certainty is not part of science. See?
Tulse,
The Overton Window, in my opinion, is basically the key to the Republicans’ success over the past twenty years–and it comes straight from the Neocons think tanks.
And that’s a good thing isn’t ? Let’s keep doing the same, but now pull the baby from the opposite leg, so that we can win.
That’s the main problem with the American way of solving complex issues during the last quarter century, polarization, and making sure that the level of civility in all forms of discourse is reduced to the absolute minimum.
Second, I have no issue with the New Atheists. They have made their opinions known, they have done it well, and I admire them for having done so.
But that’s not the question. For me, it’s how do we move from there ? How do we transorm these first positive results with real durable long term change.
Because, let’s not forget, it doesn’t look like the battle is won, yet.
Do we keep doing the same thing only (option 1), or do we encourage other voices, not necessarily as extreme as the ones of the New Atheists, and not intellectually dishonest (that’s the problem with Nisbet), carry a similar fundamental message on all scientific issues, but do not necessary see all in religion as evil.
Right, and I’d suggest that using the Overton window is indeed one strategy, and one that seems to be working better (and has a stronger history) than “framing”.
I have no problem at all with people “encouraging other voices”, even if they want to do something accommodationist like framing. I say we use every tool at our disposal to promote science and rationality in the general public. My objection is specifically to Nisbet’s approach, as he says that there is essentially only one tool that should be used, and that’s his.