We have a little argument going on in one of the pointless poll threads. The question being asked is, “Do you believe in the Big Bang?” Some people are indignant (and correct!) and protesting that their views on scientific matters are not a matter of opinion, but of impartial assessment of the evidence; these views are independent of personal belief, and are also held provisionally, subject to revision in the face of better evidence.
These people are also being infuriatingly pedantic, and are expressing an attitude that interferes with the communication of ideas. Don’t sputter out a bunch of reservations and refuse to answer, state a general position and then drill down into the details and qualifications. Pound this into your heads, and stop boring people with irrelevant musings that only detract from the central point.
Here’s an example. Imagine you’re at a party with a bunch of normal people, not the kinds of nerds who hang out in Pharyngula comment threads. Ordinary people, drinking beer, talking about sports and the weather, and one of them has heard that you’re kind of an egghead, so they ask a simple question in terms that they understand (just like the phrasing in that poll), and they ask it in a tone that suggests they have doubts, but they’re willing to talk with you about it. They ask something like, “Do you believe evolution is true?”
How are you going to answer it? Remember, your goal is to engage this person in conversation and start a discussion about something other than the local football team.
Here’s what I would propose. Remember, the first sentence is important; if you’re too tedious they’re going to tune you out and start thinking about the hot neighbor standing back behind your shoulder.
Yes, I believe evolution is true.
I consider it the best explanation of the origin and diversity of life on earth,
and it is backed by an immense body of evidence. Strictly speaking,
it is not a matter of belief, but a recognition of the knowledge
of qualified experts and a familiarity with the research
that has been done in the field; I would also
add that science does not deal in absolute
truth, but strives for approximations,
and is always willing to discard old
ideas if better explanations
with better evidence
come along.
Do you have evidence for an alternative theory?
Notice: one paragraph with an unambiguous declaration. The essential reservations are in there because scientists tend to be cautious about this stuff, but you aren’t hiding it, you’re just answering the question plainly. You also open up the possibility for further discussion along lines that you would find acceptable — maybe they’ll ask about this intelligent design stuff they keep hearing about, and you can lead it to talk about whether there is actually evidence there.
That’s the way to do it.
Now, what do we get from the true pedants? Here’s a possibility.
Science does not deal in belief or truth.
I hold certain scientific principles to be provisionally valid because
I have extensive knowledge of the fields involved, but I am also
aware of the fine details that are subjects of controversy
and criticism. You should rephrase your question to
be more accommodating to serious scientific and
philosophical principles, because I simply
cannot answer it honestly. It is a bad
question. If you had asked
whether I accepted the
evidence for the
theory of
evolution,
then I would probably answer you in the affirmative.
Wait a minute, what? The question asked wasn’t answered, except in a very waffly way at the end of this irrelevant drone! You weren’t asked about the nature of “belief” or “truth”, you were asked about your stance on a scientific theory. You’ve lost your audience, unless this party happens to be stocked with faculty from the local university philosophy department.
If not, you’ve now left the indelible impression that scientists can’t give a straight answer, they don’t believe their own ideas are true, and that the subject of evolution is something scientists weasel away from.
So stop it. Straight talk first, nuance second. OK?
Dude. Make them into t-shirts.
You could also answer in one sentence: No, I understand that evolution is true. Then add the fine print.
Framers in 3…2…1….
Or “Yes, just like I believe that the Earth is round and orbits the Sun.”
Good point, and I agree in general.
However I would point out that most people who believe in evolution are believers. I doubt they have examined the evidence independently and analyzed [scientific] alternatives. The same applies to global warming. While you would be right in both cases, it’s still belief. That’s okay.
Right on, PZ. Beautifully… framed?
Problem is the word belief has been corrupted by creationists and many people will think ‘faith’ when they hear ‘belief’.
Uh, what? Droning on about abstruse matters of scientific philosophy is not the point? Then what is?
Of course the real problem with the pedants is that there’s nothing at all wrong with saying that one “believes that the Big Bang happened,” or that evolution occurred. Wouldn’t hurt to say that you don’t deny solid evidence, thus you believe it.
On forums, however, it is worth pointing out that “belief” is ambiguously used by pedantic creationists to try to sully the integrity of science. Most anywhere else, it’s a dull, boring bunch of useless information.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
A-fucking-men.
I’m a member of the International League of Pedants, myself.
Mostly for the logo, though.
Wait a minute. That phallic symbol has FOUR testicles. That’s, anatomically speaking, highly unusual.
Think digits more than phalli.
If you believe in evolution that just means you will affirm sentences such as “elephants evolved.” That’s the common usage of the word. What’s the problem?
PZ,
It’s not “peeeedaaaaaants”, that would be pronounced (pee-ee-duuuntz). It should be spelled “peeeehdaaaaants” with an “h” to effect the long “e” sound.
Oh my god, PZ, you’re a-preachin’! You’re a-preachin’!!!
Show us the way.
(It’s kinda sad that you actually have to instruct us on this…why can’t people realize that a more direct civil answer is more likely to win people over rather than obscenities and insults?)
Wait a minute. That phallic symbol has FOUR testicles. That’s, anatomically speaking, highly unusual.
Not that unusual around here (in Mass.), it seems there must be alot of members since they seem to flash this sign at each other all the time while driving around town.
PZ wrote:
Or, better yet, imagine you’re a Republican presidential candidate and they ask for a show of hands on “Do you believe evolution is true?”
That actually happened and what did we all correctly assume about the three that didn’t raise their hands?
So, unless you can write New York Times OpEd to clarify your position…
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/06/brownback-mountain.html
You have to be concise, to the point, and confident. I recently found this out when some relatives–who I don’t even think are particularly religious, just uneducated beyond high school–I got the age-old “why are there still monkeys?” and from another (and most horrifyingly), “blacks are related to monkeys, not whites” (!!!!!!). The conversation was about to take another turn, but I interjected, “No, wait. You asked questions. There are answers.” They seemed to see the theory of evolution as an “In Search of…” episode, that it was all conjecture shrouded in mystery, and their questions as ultimately unanswerable. So I tried to give simple and direct answers about how humans have adapted to different climates and that we share a common ancestor with monkeys. I don’t know if any of it stuck, but it was a good insight into how creationist memes have infiltrated the average, non-fundy, person, and how to address them.
There is a rather obvious middle ground to the two answers given by PZ, something simple along the lines of…
“It doesn’t matter if I believe in evolution or not, all scientific evidences points to it being valid, and nothing has shown it to be false.”
(In other words, it seems like PZ is being pedantic in his anti-pedanticism.)
More than likely at that hypothetical party the question asked would not be “Do you believe evolution is true?”, but rather “Do you believe in evolution?”
Wouldn’t a valid response be –
“I understand, and agree with the tremendous body of evidence that supports evolution. Do you have any evidence for an alternative explanation?”
Doesn’t this more easily direct the conversation away from “beliefs” and into evidential, fact based discussion?
Hey, I resemble that comment!
That’s a neat trick you do with the upturned triangle that fades out.
OMG!!!! PZ is talking about framing! The apocalypse is near.
If they’re digits, you must recognize that the outline of a thumb and the outline of a pinky finger cannot be symmetrical and identical in the manner that the ILP logo displays.
Now, that’s a framing debate I can understand !!!
Glen D brought up the important point. “Believe” has two meanings in English, and through dishonesty or carelessness, Creationists will typically conflate the two meanings.
1. To embrace a system of values, i.e. “I believe in a scholar’s mind in an athlete’s body”.
2. To think that X is true. i.e. “I believe that India has a much larger population than the USA”.
I would answer the hypothetical question thusly: “Yes, I believe that evolution happened. The evidence is overwhelming.”
Then if they want to dispute or clarify my position, we can get into the the pedantically gory details.
To refuse to use a perfectly good English word because of Creationist obfuscations is to let them redefine our language. Take it back!
“Depends on what your definition of “is” is….jerk!”
-Bill Clinton (in parody form) on the Simpsons
uh-oh…that last sentence sounds suspiciously like an endorsement for McCain over Obama!
The Chemist wrote:
No, I don’t think that is okay. You’re putting evolution on the same intellectual plane as religious belief. Most people who do believe in evolution have examined some bit of evidence, that’s why there are so few believers in evolution. Polls show that we’re a minority:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx
It doesn’t take much, just a trip to a natural history museum to look at some fossils and you’re already seeing how absurd the creationist view is looking at those long flesh tearing teeth.
I say it depends on your audience. If you are engaging highly educated people, it can sometimes be better to put a definition of terms up front. Example: my father, a lawyer who also believes in ID Creationism. As a lawyer, he understands the nuance of meaning from even subtle differences in definition. Defining terms up front can allow you to pin down waffling language (intentional or not) and steer things back in the right direction.
Now, with the majority of the population, I agree to the direct approach. It prevents you from losing your audience before you even present your reasoning.
PZ, I like this plain talkin’. Let’s say it out loud, “There aren’t any gods.”
But on BBC Radio 4 on Sunday, I heard an intelligent woman, who currently gets a 10 minute slot to pontificate, say that Richard Dawkins, whom she admires, nevertheless is a fundamentalist atheist, because he says there is no god.
Of course, RD has said no such thing, but she’s misremembered his comment about god being highly improbable, to the extent that it can be regarded as non-existant.
So, we can’t win, because we don’t have a feckin’ holy book to point to & say ‘this (crap) is true because it says so in the bible’. We always have to explicate, qualify, & justify. But it may help to phrase things the way around that you suggest. Just how does it get remembered, though?
One nit to pick: I don’t like using the word “believe.” It seems intellectually lazy. People “believe” in crystals and “believe” in fairies and “believe” in god.
I prefer to say that I “accept” evolution, because there’s no “belief” necessary.
@26
Words with multiple meanings are used frequently by creationists to try and twist what science is about and what scientists have to say. I find this both underhanded and intellectually dishonest, but they do it nonetheless.
I do believe that the Big Bang and evolution are true. I believe these things based on evidence, not faith.
Edward Condon used “I believe” rather effectivly when testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities..
@Doering,
It doesn’t matter if people have examined some small part of it, that’s still not a full examination of the evidence. Pure and simple.
“Belief” and “acceptance” mean the same thing. Sorry, that’s the way the word is used in everyday life with normal people. If you don’t like it, tough. You can talk about justified belief or not if you like.
My replies when asked about evolution. Of course creationist retards never understand.
“Do you believe evolution is true?”
I accept the facts of evolution because I have studied the powerful overwhelming evidence.
“But don’t you think God-Magically-Created-People or God-Guides-Evolution or God-Invented-Evolution?”
Your god-of-the-gaps is running out of gaps to hide in. It was thrown out of biology more than a century ago.
No, no, no. The correct answer is:
“Do I believe evolution is true? Do I what? What do take me for, some sort of fucking crank? You think I’m one of these creationist assholes who thinks ‘science’ means ‘Gee I dunno Lucy May, maybe Jesus done it like it says in that there Bible’? That what you think of me? I’m some pig-ignorant fraud? Huh? WELL??! Hey! Don’t you dare walk away from me! You get back here before I chase you and stick my rationalist boot up your credulous pious ass!”
kermit wrote:
I’ve actually used that exact phrase on some scifi forum and I got challenged on the “overwhelming evidence” part.
Suggestion for Icelander:
1) read the definition of believe. No, not just 1a, all of them: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe
2) read what PZ wrote, again.
Full examination of the evidence. As in every bit of it?
I think you’re being unrealistic.
Either way, the “regular” persons eyes will just glaze over after the first few words.
WOW. Icelander. You almost slipped into it…
PZ, you made my day !
I love the way you formatted the text from bold and then fading in the shape of a triangle.
What a great idea.
Icelander @ #32 – If that was not a joke, I respectfully request that you read the original post (and its title) again.
Yours,
SC
Petty bickering over whether or not it is correct to say that one “believes” in evolution is silly and unproductive. Please stop filling up these threads with those pointless posts. It is accurate to state that one believes in evolution.
“Yes, I do believe in evolution. It’s a result of having a functioning brain.”
Although at some of the edgier parties I used to attend, that might result in several minutes on the rack.
If they’re digits, you must recognize that the outline of a thumb and the outline of a pinky finger cannot be symmetrical and identical in the manner that the ILP logo displays.
artistic license
The Chemist wrote:
Full examination of the evidence? No, that is literally impossible. Not even Darwin, Dawkins and PZ can claim that.
I’m with Rev. BigDumbChimp, I think you’re being unrealistic.
@llewelly
Well, to be pedantic, it is a representation of the shining tower of accuracy over the lesser hovels of those that accept that which is “close enough”. Any resemblance to another expression is totally coincidental.
Yes, I THINK evolution is true.
I consider it the best explanation of the origin and diversity of life on earth,
and it is backed by an immense body of evidence. Strictly speaking,
it is not a matter of belief, but a recognition of the knowledge
of qualified experts and a familiarity with the research
that has been done in the field; I would also
add that science does not deal in absolute
truth, but strives for approximations,
and is always willing to discard old
ideas if better explanations
with better evidence
come along.
Do you have evidence for an alternative theory?
Now that’s perfect!
@29:
Don’t you mean: those long coconut-breaking teeth?
^_^
My stock answer is: “Sure, it is the only theory that explains both the diversity and the similarities of all life but, unfortunately, that fact gets muddled up with religious beliefs”.
Then if the person, I talking to wants to talk about the evidence for evolution then we go that way. If he wants to talk about religious vs scientific beliefs, we go that way.
But truly, the real answer I would give depends entirely on the context of the question. PZ hit the issue on the head – how you say something depends on the audience and the situation.
By “full” I don’t mean impeccable, I mean anything a damn sight better than just looking at peppered moths, and then trusting scientists to be right about the rest.
I’m not saying there is anything wrong with that, but that’s what most people actually do. Do you deny that it’s what people do?
Or do you just have a problem with the fact that people, are never perfectly rational 100% of the time (and that “people” might include you)?
kermit @ #26:
I heartily agree with this. I get a bit annoyed when people say things like “I don’t believe in evolution, I accept it as true.” If you “accept X as true” then you believe X, at least according to the definition of “belief” that I use. That’s what the word has always meant to me.
Belief in this sense can be rational or irrational, though there’s admittedly enough of the latter that the word has come to lend itself to flippant declarations of faith. I think that the point that needs to be driven home is that belief in evolution is justified, not just another arbitrary religious doctrine.
And yeah, I am aware of the irony of my pedantry in this comment thread, but I assume I’m talking to other nerds.
No area would meet the criterion of “full examination of the evidence”, even for the scientists practicing in a given area. Have you fully examined the evidence for the existence of gravity, or the existence of elephants, or the existence of Natalie Portman? I “believe” in all these things just like I believe in evolution.
It is idiotic to single out evolution as some sort of special domain of knowledge that requires special certainty.
I like the quote by Dawkins,”Evolution is a fact and if you don’t like it you can fuck off”
I get a bit annoyed when people say things like “I don’t believe in evolution, I accept it as true.” If you “accept X as true” then you believe X, at least according to the definition of “belief” that I use. That’s what the word has always meant to me.
To me the issue is between the use of “believe” vs “believe in”. That is, there is a big difference between, “I believe evolution is a fact”, and ,”I believe in evolution”. Mainly do to the connotation with “I believe in Santa Claus”, versus “I believe you are telling the truth”.
A creationist retard would translate that to mean you’re not sure about it.
Would you say “I think the earth circles the sun”? Probably not because you know the earth orbits the sun. Aren’t you equally certain all life evolved?
I have to agree with Dagonsz (#2), although I might prefer the word ‘conclude’ to ‘understand’. But that’s just me trying to frame the context of the conversation to include the suggestion that I’ve actually, you know, done the work necessary to reach a conclusion.
I think Dawkins was quoting somebody else who said that.
Sometimes when talking to a brain-dead creationist this would be an appropriate response.
Thank you PZ. I made my little comment on that thread already (#95, check it out). Why the hang-up on the word “believe”?
How many of us have said and posted over and over throughout the years “I don’t believe in god, or any gods.” or something to that effect. Yet when asked a simple question like “Do you believe the big bang happened.” freak out. Notice, the question isn’t “Do you believe IN the big bang.” like it’s some sort of entity, but whether or not you think that it actually happened. Even if it is phrased that way, simply say “Yes, I believe the Bing Bang happened.” Clearing up any possible confusion.
What’s wrong with some of you people? If someone asked you if you thought the Pharyngula website was worth visiting, would you start out by saying “Well, I don’t deal with belief or truth…” Or what if someone asked you if you believed the current Iraq war was a good idea, would you say “Well, the term belief is one that shouldn’t be…”
Pull your collective heads out of your asses.
1. To embrace a system of values, i.e. “I believe in a scholar’s mind in an athlete’s body”.
2. To think that X is true. i.e. “I believe that India has a much larger population than the USA”.
Yes and this really fits well into what PZ has correctly pointed out. :-) I dare say that when 99% of people ask whether or someone believes in evolution, they are foremost thinking of definition 2. Most any use the “accept” language simply makes it look like biologists and/or the speaker don’t really think they have evidence that evolution is true. The only time to bring up “accept” language is in discussions of the nitty-gritty of philosophy of science. It is a better use of time and effort to bring up specific evidence for evolution that is accessible to ordinary people.
A good discussion question might be “What pieces of evidence for evolution are best for discussing with ordinary people?” Yes I know that technically it is not “a piece” of evidence but rather that thousands of pieces that makes the case for evolution overwhelming. But I don’t think we can convince people that countless pieces of evidence from many fields point to evolution unless we tell them about some compelling specifics which don’t require extensive preparation to understand.
Unlike the old Egyptans whole pyramids were stone it’s
simple to construct one by using words alone
the difficulty seems to be that mine
are all one shade and nothing
that I try to do will
let me make them
fade.
And with THIS software, which won’t even put a space after puctuation marks I probably wasted time constructing the above, which doubtless has all run together.
Now, on subject, I have NO problem with “believe” if the answer is “Yes, I believe, and the evidence supports it,” and would have no problem with many people in simply answering “yes.”
This is exactly the kind of perspective we need. Communication between scientists and the laity, between “nerds and normals,” is vital to preventing the spread of ignorance and unreason.
Limey Bastard #57,
Dawkins was quoting another scientist who said “Science is interesting and if you don’t agree you can fuck off.”
See this YouTube video: Neil deGrasse Tyson criticizes Dawkins’s barbed approach to presenting atheism. Dawkins responds with a funny anecdote.
The Chemist wrote:
Full seems to mean “all.” No one can look at all the evidence, even expert biologists have to specialize in one area.
Well, I am saying there is something wrong with just looking at “peppered moths, and then trusting scientists to be right.” And I’m saying that most people who accept/believe in evolution actually have done more than that. Find someone who says “I believe in evolution” who doesn’t know something significant about genetic algorithms, trilobites and dinosaurs.
Yes. I’d say most people don’t believe in evolution precisely because they haven’t looked at the evidence and haven’t grasped why science is more reliable than theology.
There is an element of faith in scientists being honest, but it’s not the same kind of faith people have in religion, it’s earned faith.
Hmmm, after looking at my comment at 62, perhaps saying I believe in the “big bang” would be better than saying I believe in the “bing bang”. That way just leads to confusion. Who doesn’t believe in the “Bing Bang” after all?
It’s called “equivocation”, and it’s a very old logical fallacy. That they repeatedly engage in it, though, isn’t reason to stop using a perfectly good meaning of a word.
I believe the theory of evolution the same way I believe grass is green. I will tell them that and then let them try to tell me it’s the same as faith, at which point I call them on the fallacy. Conditional acceptance of that which we can observe is not the same as unconditional acceptance of that which we can’t, whether or not you use the same word to describe them both.
And when they can’t wrap their head around that, I ask them if they keep their money next to a river (equivocation of “bank”).
Again I make the point that “believe in” is not the same as “believe”.
Yes, I believe that the Big Bang occurred. I don’t “believe in” it, though.
By the way, I voted “yes” on the pointless poll.
Well I didn’t mean all. So there. *Pthbhtbht*
That’s not going to change the way laypeople understand science. I understand you have an ideal, but human beings are too messy to fit into it in reality.
My point exactly. That’s why there’s nothing wrong with a cursory examination of the evidence and trusting scientists to get the rest right.
Ha! Got you! You conceded defeat!
*Puts fingers in ears* Ha ha! No takesies backsies!
I simply reply:
“I think evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on thgis planet”.
I feel I should point out that you have misspelt the title of this post: the word is pedants.
Isn’t this whole debate futile? Because what it ultimately is, is semantics. You can play around with words all you want, but what it really comes down to is what definition or connotation you are implying when you use any word, including “believe”.
The manner in which many here describe their acceptance of evolution or any other scientific theory, can be describe using either ‘believe’ or ‘belief’ according to many of the definitions that the Oxford English Dictionary provides for both words. And I guarantee that similar and just as applicable definitions for both words can be found in pretty much any English language dictionary.
In fact one of the definitions that Oxford provides for “believe” is simply: accept as true or as conveying the truth. And that definition that is an apt description of all those here that accept evolution.
Quite frankly there is no definition of either ‘believe’ or ‘belief’ I can find that even implies that “evidence-based provisional acceptance” can NOT fall within the the confines of either word.
And on a further point, to restrict any word, including believe/belief, to a single definition seems rather dogmatic to me, maybe even close-minded.
My favourite quick answer :
Do you believe in Evolution ?
Sure, nothing else makes sense.
Nope. Leaving aside my emphatic disagreement with your suggestion that we don’t get straight talk from Obama, what we actually get from McCain is disingenuous, fake “straight” talk first, last, and always. Nuance, according to Republicans, is for pussies.
What we really need in a leader is both real straight talk followed by unapologetic nuance. Which of the (only two viable) presidential candidates we’re more likely to get that combination from is left as an exercise for the student.
Richard Carter, I think you just misspelled “misspelt”.
If anyone has time to chime in, there is an interesting discussion of ID at the Overcoming Bias blog here.
I’m being outnumbered!
That whooshing noise was the point whizzing past your head.
best ?
Is there any other one ?
I believe that to believe you need to believe that believing is believable and that belief is based on believable beliefs and not believe that believing is beyond belief.
Believe me? I don’t accept it if you do.
The Chemist wrote:
There’s one problem with that “trusting scientists to get the rest right” idea: Scientists admit that they can get it wrong and many theories have been thrown out.
Because we have to deal with ID proponents who claim they have a new theory that will turn over evolution like the big bang turned over the steady state theory it requires some significant understanding of why the ID proponents don’t even have a real theory. People who don’t get that do buy into ID and will generally not claim to “believe in evolution.”
Oh, right, like that’s ever likely to happen! I’d guess the last time I was at such a mythical event must have been before the Thatcher Dictatorship.
#6:
Exactly! Let’s hope Nisbett reads this and learns a little something.
I’m one of those dumb laity, and I ignore the “believe” crap. When someone asks me if I “believe” or “believe in” evolution, I ignore the “believe” nonsense and reply, “Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, based on the evidence. Show me credible evidence for an alternative, and I’ll make sure to catch your Nobel Prize acceptance in the paper.”
@ Norman #67.
“Yes. I’d say most people don’t believe in evolution precisely because they haven’t looked at the evidence and haven’t grasped why science is more reliable than theology.”
I think you’re right. And I think we can all agree that evolution is a rather difficult notion to get your head around. But the question is why haven’t people examined the evidence?
There are the standard responses… People are stupid… fundie propaganda poisons the well… etc. But I think there is something unintentional that bars people from feeling the need to get their head around difficult subjects. Abrahamic religions portray a world that is made for us. Like a house or an office building… everything is designed to be user friendly, take little effort, all the buttons and doorways are human size and the AC works. The world was made by God (man) with us in mind and so it ought to be easy to understand and maneuver. Anything that does not fit this category is rejected as not only being contrary to preconceived notions of what is true and false… but the very format that the information is in is an alien artifact.
The afundie view of the world is one in which the world is not designed for us (perhaps specifically “designed” against us)… so there is no reason to think that things ought to be easy to understand or to maneuver. This is essentially the opposite. If anything, explanations that are too simple are rejected on the basis of format (truisms and dichotomies for example).
The point being (as much as one could call it a point)… that while it may be true that smarter people are afundies. It may also be true that being a afundie challenges you to stretch the limits of what you think you understand… because if you don’t get it there is no recourse to “the problem’s not with me… the problem is with the concept itself”.
You can do both things at once. That is, you can answer the question straight out and also indicate what you mean by “believe in”.
Q: Do you believe in evolution? (I’ve never been asked whether I believe that it is true.)
A. Yes. (That’s the straightforward part.) I agree with the conclusion that evolution is the best explanation for the unity and diversity of life on earth. (That’s the nuance.)
I think when you accept the term “belief” you’re shooting yourself in the foot. My English may fail me, but I think the right word in a scientific context is “assumption”, which calls implicitly for experiment and prove.
The clarification of terms is indispensable, even at the example party. IMHO it would be far more valuable to establish a basis of logic with the interlocutor than to disprove his belief in ID with an argumentation whose conditions he can later dismiss as “scientific faith”.
There is another angle to this, maybe uncomfortable for natural science nerds. The person behind the argumentation has psychological, social motives to uphold the idea of a magic or divine universe. Getting past a rhetoric which reminds strongly of debate competititons in school, there is a critique to be aimed ad hominem. I’m convinced that the striking stupidity of vast parts of the public, often deplored here, has very little to do with the actual intelligence of the people. As Adorno put it, stupidity is more an attitude than a condition. The very same people professing dismaying sunday-school-or/and-Fox-news-induced claims can be very creative and relentlessly scrutinizing when it comes to their pet subjects, like NFL, cars or the sexual mishaps of Ms Hilton. Obviously, intelligence in all its ability to question everything is there.
The question is if you’re ready to engage somebody in a confrontational debate that includes the unspoken motives or prefer to play safe and profess nice little slogans that indeed would fit on a T-shirt. That sounds quite DNC to me, and it sucked big time as a political tactic. The adversary is virtually full of talk radio worldview, you’ll never reach that degree of manipulation skill.
Best ?
Is there any other one ?
Damned straight!!!!!!
I get rather upset on discussion boards where a question is deflected through a waffly, though “technically correct” answer is given, and even worse, when a pedantic “your question is wrong because…” reply is made.
Sometimes it’s necessary to clarify a question, but it’s also very important to be straight up and not play games.
You hit the nail on the head with this one, PZ!
My standard reply is:
“I don’t have to believe in evolution; I can check it.”
This tends to stun them, somewhat, and then some thinking may happen.
@ Gibbon #74
Yes, it is just semantics. But semantics can make the difference between getting someone to listen to you or not… Which can be the difference between convincing them or not.
Rhetoric man!
Rhetoric is the cream filling to Logics chocolate cookies.
And I thought PZ wrote only to hang out with us, the cool kids.
Does he truly miss the teeth-chattering cool that wafts casually from my posts?
I’m not so much mad as disappointed in your judgment, PZ.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
“Evolution is the best explanation for blah blah blah”
“best”, get rid of it :
“Evolution is the explanation for blah blah blah”
People don’t know how to write, PZ. In a way it’s nothing new: what’s changed in the last decade is that the internet has made more people write in full public view than ever before, and most of us are pretty bad at it. This has made it look (to people who read internet discussions, anyway) like the population is getting dumber and less communicative by orders of magnitude over time. (For some of the worst discussions, see YouTube. Compared with YouTube posters even the Fundies on Pharyngula discussions seem measured, intellectual and well-spoken.)
Of course you’ve also hit upon another related point: liberals have a tendency to sound pedantic. It’s one reason George Bush, who speaks like someone you wouldn’t mind having a beer with, attracted so many voters in 2000 despite his lack of qualifications for the job.
I think when you accept the term “belief” you’re shooting yourself in the foot. My English may fail me, but I think the right word in a scientific context is “assumption”, which calls implicitly for experiment and prove.
I think what you are describing is “hypothesis”, which is what is presented to be disproven (and you do not try to “prove it”, you can only “fail to disprove it”). But I also don’t think that is the word you are looking for to replace “believe”. I think what you are looking for is “accept”; as in, “I accept evolution to be true based on the observations and experiments so far (it has not yet been disproven).”
I do believe that the Big Bang and evolution are true. I believe these things based on evidence, not faith.
Dead on — this is the way to go.
How about?:
I believe in evolution. [Notice no qualifiers.]
That belief is based on evidence. No faith is required for that belief unless you think that not believing that God is trying to trick us is “faith.”
That evidence is overwhelming and comes from many aspects of our knowledge about the natural world.
Let me tell you about few examples.
Do you know why humans don’t have the powerful sense of smell that other mammals have? Scientists have found that we humans have over a thousand genes for smelling things that are broken. This is because humans primarily use vision to find food and thus if an gene for smelling breaks, it will cause little or no harm. When scientists checked these genes in closely related apes — which like us mostly rely on vision –, they found that those genes were broken in the same way as they are in humans. Do understand that the ways to break any particular gene number in the thousands. The odds that a thousand genes would get broken in the same way is for all practical purposes is zero. Evolution easily explains and indeed predicts this based on inheritance from a common ancestor. There are many other examples of this. We can’t make vitamin c, because of a gene that was broken by a mutation. Our ape relatives have that gene broken in the same way. Cats can’t taste sweet things because whether or not they are a housecat, a lion, a tiger, or whatever there gene for tasting sweet things is broken in the same way. There is a monkey that is nocturnal. Color vision is not of much use at night and its genes for color vision are broken. Is this not evidence that the ancestors of this monkey lived in the day? I could go one with many examples of this if you wish and this is just one type of evidence among many that has convinced that vast majority of professional biologists that the case for evolution is overwhelming and indeed the central fact of the field.
Maybe someone can improve that general idea. But the point is that the emphasis must be evidence, evidence, evidence. And specific evidence at that. Nuance is for those who want to study in depth. (And obviously that vast majority who have are on our side.) For those who are not going to spend an enormous amount of time on the issue, most nuance is a waste of time that could be spent emphasizing the evidence. Our “frame”, our primary “talking point” or whatever you want to call it must be evidence.
Once again PZ does an admirable job of explaining how to correctly frame a discussion about science. Very good points.
Not:
“Do you have evidence for an alternative theory?”
For several reasons.
1. Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is something that happens in the world of life as we know it. There are theories of evolution, that is theories which explain that process, or theories which depend on the ways that that process happens.
2. There is not just one theory of evolution. There are many theories, some complimentary to others, some alternatives to others, some with wider scope than others.
3. There are no alternative theories about the world of life. No such alternatives, whether or not they have evidence. (Where by “alternative” I mean something like “dealing with the same subject”.) There is no alternative which even attempts to deal with basic realities about life, such as that complex specified structure known as the Tree of Life.
OT to the post but not pharyngula:
I really hate to quote the National Enquirer. Oddly enough, they were the ones who first vetted Palin, seeing as how the GOP has yet to do so. And claimed correctly that her 17 year old daughter was pregnant and even who the supposed father was.
There are persistent reports that Track was involved in a vandalism incident involving 60 school buses.
FWIW. No idea if any of this is true of course. But this sort of thing seems to be common in Alaska, a remote area with long very and cold dark winters.
To all those who think “accept” is better than “believe” in any substantial way, I just want to ask you one question:
Do you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?”
Great post.
Another pointless poll:
http://www.kulr8.com/
neg:
I see you, and raise you (OK, I know that’s technically an illegal string bet, but we’re stuck with the idiom, no?):
How ’bout, “evolution is the only explanation for blah blah blah that fits the evidence”?
I was being sarcastic.
Well said. Better than the “Straight Talk Express.”
Of course then you find yourself in one of those family gatherings and some fundy relative starts off on you, “So you’re one of them lib’ral evilutionists, you must b’lieve your gran-daddy was a monkey, …” This is what I will face this weekend. Sigh.
“Do you believe in evolution?”
“I don’t believe in evolution; I accept evolution”
There. In one sentence you can state quite clearly that there is a distinction between faith and facts, but still emphasize that you find evolution to be true.
I hate to disagree, but I think that the semantics are important to the discussion. And by comparing belief and acceptance in your opening sentence, you have opened the door to a, hopefully, illuminating conversation.
My standard reply is:
“I don’t have to believe in evolution; I can check it.”
This tends to stun them, somewhat, and then some thinking may happen.
This won’t make sense to many people.
How about: “I believe in evolution precisely because I can check it and I have checked it.”
That’s the problem. You think the semantics are important. The people listening to you don’t.
This isn’t a problem if you’re talking to yourself, but in just about every other real world situation it’s a major obstacle.
BobC @ #39:
That’s why I prefer the term “accept” to words like “think” or “believe.” “Think” sounds wishy-washy, and “belief” sounds like my acceptance of it makes it true. Evolution will be true whether someone believes in it or not. That’s why I like the word “accept.” It carries the connotation of something being true and adjusting one’s mind to it, not vice versa.
If someone asks me if I “believe in” evolution, I’m going to reply “Yes, I accept evolution,” followed by pedantry. The words “believe in” carry too much baggage. I get what Prof. Myers is saying, but it’s important not to get drawn into a rhetorical trap.
If someone asks if I “believe in” evolution, they can just as easily ask why I don’t “believe in” god. To them, they’re both instances of belief. By not using their term, I defuse that trap. And by thinking about it ahead of time, I can give a quick answer before my neighbor gets distracted.
“I believe the children are our future.
Teach them well, and let them lead the way…”
(Sorry. I’ll go stand in the corner now…)
Q: Do you believe in evolution?
A: Yes, I know evolution is true.
See if I have this right. The other thread, where we’re talking about alternatives to the standard inflationary Big Bang model, is the “pedantic” one? And this one, which is entirely about the meaning of the word “belief”, isn’t?
@PZ #108
Really, if the person you are talking to is paying as much attention to semantics as you are… the semantics don’t work. Like, logical fallicies are convincing unless you’re talking to someone who knows as much about fallacies as you do. (except semantics isn’t as underhanded)
Essentially Semantics and rhetoric are ways of subtle manipulation…
Do you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?
“Accept” is being used in a different sense here, as in accepting a gift. Not as in accepting the truth of a proposition. And even though “I believe A” may be semantically equivalent to “I accept the truth of A”, it is the nuance of avoiding the “weaker” connotations of “believe” that is important. What I am saying is the the question “Do you believe in evolution” is using “believe” in exactly the same way as “Do you believe in God”. I don’t see the same equivalence in “I accept the truth of evolution” and “I accept JC as my personal saviour”.
I do see that I am not expressing myself very well, but I believe there is a real difference and I am not able to express it well enough to convince you as well.
Your entire premise is based on the fallacy that there is only one acceptable meaning of a word.
The Chemist wrote:
Easy answer: No.
Now, what was your point?
Icelander, you’re not doing it right. You think you’re avoiding a rhetorical trap, but you’re falling into another one: the quicksand of pedantry. I guarantee you that creationists love that — suddenly your voice is hesitant, you’re hedging every statement, and the audience — this is always for the audience — is losing confidence in you. You’re a dead duck if you let your opponent turn this into an argument about the shaded meanings of common, ordinary verbs that the audience understands to have a plain meaning.
It’s fine to say “accept” instead of “believe”. Turning your finicky word choice into a major discussion point is a DISASTER. And that’s what I see several people doing here.
You can both accept evolution (not as a belief but as a theory yada yada) and believe in evolution (as a cultural being at a cocktail party).
Its ok to do this. My wife and I fight about it all the time, but I’m sticking to my story.
uhhhh..
I think am a bit pedantic…
Of course, It depends on the audience…
Ussually i Answer…
No i do not BELIEVE in evolution…
Ussually it works well as a catch phase, to explain the diference between believe and the doubt that is the basis of science.
But if the audience is not apropiate, i simple say “yes”.
Wow, finally something to which PZ and I disagree. I get a little queasy every time I hear the word “believe” and “evolution” in the same sentence. The question is invalid simply because it isn’t a matter of belief. Does anyone every ask you if you believe in gravity?
Like #4, I try to shift it from the implicit attack on belief to pointing out the science.
Something like:
Yes, I understand Evolution is a fact, just like Gravity or the Earth going round the Sun. All observable evidence points demonstrates Evolution, both currently observed and the fossil record.
@Nanahuatzin
yeah. being able to judge your audience is the key.
If there were any widespread religions that refuted it, I can guarantee you they would. The reason they aren’t asking the question is not because of what the word “believe” means, but because the answer is bloody obvious.
“Do you believe in evolution?”
“I don’t believe in evolution; I accept evolution”
There. In one sentence you can state quite clearly that there is a distinction between faith and facts, but still emphasize that you find evolution to be true.
And virtually no one outside academia or those who like reading about the philosophy of science will think you made anything clear. If you don’t say you believe in evolution then you are saying to the vast majority of people that you don’t think you have the goods. They are also likely to conclude that you are trying to bullshit them. That is because they are not using the word belief like you are. For questions of related to reality, belief is what you think is true. That is how ordinary people (and indeed many educated people) use the word.
I know of no one of no one outside certain pedantic academic circles who use “belief” in this context to mean anything out than than what someone thinks is true. The other definitions of “belief” are mostly about contexts that include things besides mere reality. “I believe that non-defensive killing is wrong” or “I believe that [fill in the blank” is the best movie I have ever seen” being a good examples.
PZ is dead on in this post. Straight talk is the only way to go. We believe in evolution.
Great post. PZ: do you think you could do a series of posts in a similar vein? My toolbox of arguments for the positions here is scant right now, and I’d like to beef it up.
For example, when I argue with creationists, they often bring up the micro/macro pseudo-distinction. I know why the argument is ridiculous, but I often have trouble explaining it to them in a way that gets them to understand that too. I have similar problems with other, more general, theistic arguments. A beneficial by-product of such posts may be a better understanding of religio-nuts’ attitudes.
I think everyone would have something to gain from these discussions. So, please?
Correction to #123:
Poor word choice.
Bill,
Also can !
It doesn’t really matter whether you use only or just skip it, but why on earth would you want to use best, unless you believe there are other possible explanations ?
The whole point of the question “do you believe evolution is true”, when asked by somebody who has doubts, is to let him know first that YOU don’t have any doubt (unless you do), because the other stories (ID, special creation) aren’t “explanations”.
As soon as you use “best”, you give credance to the notion that ID or special creation are alternative explanations, which is exactly the thing that the other person who has doubts doesn’t understand.
Then you can develop your argument why they aren’t explanations.
“Imagine you’re at a party with a bunch of normal people—“
Nnnoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
You win! I’ll confess anything! Yes, I believe evolution is true! It’s all true! I believe it! Just please, stop the torture!
Laila wrote:
That could be because your opponent is far more ignorant than you at first thought. This happened on an old Nightline debate between two people from the Rational Response Squad, Kelly and Brian, and Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron from “Way of the Master.”
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/08/dealing-with-abysmal-ignorance.html
Brian took on Kirk’s attempt to separate macro and micro evolution by saying, “how do you avoid walking a mile by taking small steps?” Alas, Kirk didn’t seem to be able to get his head around that point and just dodged it. The problem seems to be that Brian didn’t fully grasped how misinformed the Christians were about what a transitional form was. It became clear after the moderator revealed how little he knew. The moderator seemed to be under the impression that adult animals can mutate, that an individual animal, a full-grown organism, somehow changes from one form into another form and that was evolution.
I’ve got a YouTube video on my blog, linked above.
“Evolution has successfully been proven; therefore, I believe it.”
If they need nuance, explain “proven” is used in the same formal sense as “proven that your brain is not cauliflower”.
If they need details, offer to go over the nature of proof, starting from the very beginning with the Robbins and ZF Axioms, building to the relationship of formal inference, the equivalence of unrestricted finite grammars to halting Church-Turing machine recognition, the proof that description probability corresponds to minimum induction length (Occam’s Razor version 1.1), and the practical algorithmic application strategy derived therefrom that rely on such competitive testing of description sets – AKA, science.
Well said, PZ. Frankly, I’m sick to death of pedantic responses that are often nothing more than mental masturbation.
In a way, pedantic ramblings are like legal disclaimers. You’ll never convince anyone using this approach (except, maybe a lawyer or too :-). To me, they smack of anal personalities who absolutely have to be “precise” (and maybe show off how “clever” they are).
More importantly – Which approach is more likely to get the hot neighbor to move from “standing behind my shoulder” to “undressed in my bedroom” ?
A book I recommend for rabid pedants:
“Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die”, by Chip Heath and Dan Heath. It details shows how to craft a narrative clearly and in a way that “sticks” with people.
Of course, pedants would never read something like this :-)
@Timothy Wood#86: they have examined evidence; the problem is they do not understand the formal relationship between evidence and proof. This is one of the more important things elementary science education tries to teach.
Some neurobiology research on the causative process of humans forming and changing beliefs might help, too.
abb3w wrote:
And here’s an almost on topic cartoon about that:
http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=19817&start=0
(raises pedantic hand)
I’m torn. See, I like the nuances, and I think they matter…not because I want to create some sinecure for faith, but because I feel that we do evolution a disservice if we obscure its ontological status. Evolution is an empirically-determined fact about the natural world, as much of a fact as gravity. Populations of certain kinds of replicators will evolve, period. And I don’t mind saying so, because I agree people will tune us out and regard us as wafflers if you begin a transaction by dodging the question.
Having said all of that, I still think it’s appropriate to say that ‘I don’t believe in evolution.’ Because I don’t ‘believe’ in gravity, either. I don’t have to affirm gravity or evolution on the basis of faith. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion they exist.
From #107:
Sometimes making sense is not a good idea. If what you say makes sense in their faulty world view, then you have not made any progress. If what you say makes no sense at all, it is just thrown away, however, if you are just off enough to destabilize that world view, then you can start leading them as they do some actual thinking to “recover balance.”
abb3w,
Possibly the WORSE answer.
And going over the nature of proof afterwards and the Halting theorem, are you joking ?
I’d like to make a slight defense of calling evolution “the best explanation,” although not in the context in which it has been discussed. Here’s Sagan talking about evolution:
The fact is that when you’re being careful, perhaps even pedantic, calling it “the best explanation” is the most proper term to use, according to virtually any philosophy of science. After all, one can’t really say that design is not any kind of explanation at all, for some of what we see in life is similar to what design produces. It’s the entirety of the details of life that design fails miserably to explain at all well.
But again, I am not saying that one should call it “the best explanation” at the party, it should just be “the explanation.” In the vernacular, evolution would indeed be “the explanation” or “the only explanation,” because ID (and any other idea) doesn’t amount to “an explanation” at all in the general sense of the term. Only in philosophy and in science would one carefully consider ID to be “an explanation,” but not the “best explanation,” or as Sagan called it in the quote, “the best explanation by far.”
Is this comment pedantic? Of course it is, but that’s because we’re discussing how to use words in various contexts, including contexts in which we would think that pedantry is appropriate.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
negentropyeater asked:
I certainly thought it was a joke – a fairly good one too.
Learn from the politicians.
When you are asked a question, you don’t have to answer it.
What you do is use the question as the occasion for talking about what you want to talk about.
Use it as the occasion to say accurate things about evolution. If you don’t like the word “believe”, then don’t use it. Say something like, “Of course I accept that evolution happens. Everybody who has looked has seen it.” If they’re really interested enough in whether you believe in evolution, then let them ask the follow-up question, whether it is a matter of belief for you. But I suspect that they’ll be more interested in hearing that people have seen evolution.
I would be tempted to quote an old joke:
Jones says to Smith: Do you believe in Infant Baptism?
Smith responds: Believe in it? I’ve seen it!
If asked, “Do you believe in UFO’s?”
Do you answer ,”No. There is no evidence extraterrestrials have visited Earth.”
Or, do you answer, “UFO’s are simply unidentified flying objects, which certainly do exist. There is no evidence any of them are due to extraterrestrial origins, but that’s not what ‘UFO’ means.”
One gets your point across succinctly. The other derails the discussion into an argument over what a term means when you knew what the speaker meant anyway. It’s pointless and clouds the issue.
Most of the people asking “do you believe in X” are asking you if you think X is true. As for the others that are going to conflate that into a belief in god, let them, then refute it. If I’ve learned nothing else in years of arguing on the internet, it’s that arguing against a person’s position is much more effective if you let them make it first rather than assuming what it is.
I think you’re right. And I think we can all agree that evolution is a rather difficult notion to get your head around. But the question is why haven’t people examined the evidence?
Some indeed have not examined it out of fear or dogmatism.
But really there is another reason that applies to most of the population. It is the some reason why most people have not examined the evidence that atoms exist beyond what they got told in high school or college intro courses.
There are a lot of things in this life to be interested in. The vast majority are not science. And there is a lot of things one can spend ones time doing besides learning science. Most people say they are interested in science. But the vast majority are not nearly as interested in it as they are about football, girls, cars, or whatever tickles their fancy.
I say it is a fair guess that most people reading this blog that are not trained or professional scientists have read (or if they are novices will read) dozens of books about science. I dare say that if they have opportunity to do so, they will visit natural history museums. And so on. They do it because they are interested enough to spend the time and effort to do so.
Most people are not going to read a dozen books on the subject. Our time to get to them is a limited resource.
Thus one reason to really emphasize evidence is not just that excess use of nuance in introductory discussions makes it sound like lawyer-esque bull, but that our time is limited and we need to make the best of it. And besides, if we get them truly interested they take the time to learn the nuance.
And I don’t think that is talking down about them either. That many are not interested in spending a thousand hours on the subject does not mean that they can’t be engaged for short periods of time. What they desire to spend the bulk of their free time enjoying is their own affair.
Besides we can’t be “experts” on everything. Most people know that experts are aware of many “ifs, thens, and howevers.” But they primarily expect some straight talk (what do I need to know?). Indeed if we are only going to spend a short time with the expert, what we want is straight talk. If we want to spend large amounts of time on a subject then we will also want the nuance.
The people whose lack of reading about evolution that I would show contempt for are those who think they can spend thousands of hours online “debunking” it without bother to read what scientists actually think about it. (And of course those who intentionally lie about it.)
Oh well, I wrote ambiguously in my pedantic post, #139. Here’s the relevant passage, with the correction in brackets:
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
They are also likely to conclude that you are trying to bullshit them. That is because they are not using the word belief like you are. For questions of related to reality, belief is what you think is true. That is how ordinary people (and indeed many educated people) use the word.
The emphasized sentence is exactly why I think it is important to not use “believe” or “belief” in your answer. It is a trap because you cannot be sure of exactly how they intend it, are they really using the commonsense definition you provided, or are they using it the sense of “faith”. My answer to the “Do you believe in evolution” is “YES, I accept evolution to be a fact”. Do not use the word “believe” at all. That way you cannot be tricked into their semantic traps, and will not appear evasive by trying to define their words in your answer. Use your words and you automatically control what they mean.
You are aware that people use the word “prove” in contexts other than mathematics and logic, right?
Even I can answer that: By taking small steps back and forth. But that doesn’t advance the discussion at all, especially since I take the evolution side ;)
Your blog post was very interesting, by the way. I see what you mean by the ignorance of creationism proponents, but that’s even more of a reason to learn more about how to combat that ignorance.
@abb3w #134
Have they really? I’m not so sure they have. Anyone who’s ever come across the…
“we came from monkeys?”
“so were going to be superman someday?”
“I don’t believe we just hopped out of slime.”
“why are there still monkeys?”
or other such comments know’s that that the problem is not that they don’t understand the relationship between evidence and proof. but that they are simply ignorant of even the most basic evolutionary concepts needed to carry on a coherent conversation about the evidence and its relation to the theory being a “fact”. I think you underestimate their ignorance… or maybe you just live in a more educated part of the world (i am writing from kentucky)
@ a lurker #143
I think you have bypassed the original question i intended to ask. you say that it’s because people aren’t interested… but why are they not interested? why is it that us “dorks” hold having knowledge of this type as a priority over knowledge about… football (either type). There at least appears to be very different motivators (because there are different results). but why?
One think I just realized that I should have mentioned in my previous comments is that there is an education methodology issue here.
When we learn things we don’t start with the nuance first. We learn the simple stuff, the basics, etc. and then work up to the nuance. Nuance is worthless unless we have learned some basics first. And even ignoring the learning curve aspect, nuance is likely to bore the uninitiated to tears. If we bore them, we will lose because they will be unlikely to continue trying to learn.
Even then, should one consider “a partial explanation” (which includes an unexplained agent for which there’s no evidence), “an explanation” ?
Or “a failed explanation,” perhaps.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Laila wrote:
Yes, or by walking around in circles. It’s really the idea that the drunkard’s walk will eventually wind up a long way from where the drunk started. That, of course is the point — but Kirk didn’t get it enough to even refute it that way. He couldn’t understand the point at all.
I think, when you’ve got people that ignorant, you have to begin by confronting them with evidence of how much they are ignorant of. Ask them a lot of “why do you think [this or that]” questions that you can answer.
“Why do you think the majority of scientists accept evolution? Do you think you know more about science than they do?”
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
I like precise. Probably far too much. When we share a common sense of connotations and subtle nuances of meaning, communication can be exceptionally efficient and concise. In extremis, comparing the reality-based community and the supernaturalist community, our respective senses of the secondary meanings of words like “believe” and “evolution” are different even before we start taking individual variation into account. We may be able to agree dictionary definitions and primary meanings, but subtle shades of meaning, which may carry a lot of emotion, are more difficult to capture.
Those of us who love precision may be perceived as (or even be) pompous, condescending, and anal about spelling, punctuation, grammar, and malapropisms, but I think these perceptions (fair or not) are occupational hazards in the service of clarity.
But they also misrepresent what “evolution” means and I don’t see anyone trying to avoid using that word.
People have a skewed view of science, and we should not correct that?
How does boring them out of listening to you correct that?
That’s fine, but getting pedantic over the use of “belief” is derailing the argument over a position that the asker of the question “do you believe in evolution” may not even hold. It isn’t clarifying anything. It’s confusing it.
I’m a thinker rather than a believer. As a scientist, an evolutionary biologist, I think precision of speech is a good thing. I am sort of miffed that no one has ever asked me the “Do you believe in . . .” question. If the opportunity ever comes up, I will use a response learned from one of my colleagues.
“No, I do not believe in evolution. I have studied the matter and I am convinced of it.”
PZ – Thanks. Great post and some very good points. I tend to be a little short with people because I’m so tired of being attacked by the brainless Fundigelicals around me. But your method of answering has a lot going for it, and may actually make people think.
@ a lurker #143
I think you have bypassed the original question i intended to ask. you say that it’s because people aren’t interested… but why are they not interested? why is it that us “dorks” hold having knowledge of this type as a priority over knowledge about… football (either type). There at least appears to be very different motivators (because there are different results). but why?
I was not meaning to bypass the question. Part of the answer is–call it a bypass if you will– is that it is simple reality. Whatever the reason, we have to deal with reality. But what are the actual reasons? They are undoubtedly legion. Each of us is an individual and thousands of things have contributed to what we are personally interested in. And there is a good aspect to this. It is what makes us individuals. And having many things that we could get interested in gives us many options. Indeed I doubt humanity would make any progress if everyone was interested in the same things.
The pool of people who are going to spend enormous time and effort to learn science whether at a formal education or simple reading and visiting museums is going to be limited. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with it per se: to each his own. As a general rule, we will get the vast majority of people in this pool. It is not them that we primarily need to worry about.
Now there are many people, possibly even most people, who are interested enough to discuss the issue on a much more limited way. As a general rule what someone is willing to spend a half hour learning about is far in excess what someone is willing to take the time to learn the nuance.
Thus we have a limited window. I don’t think we have time for nuance and I don’t any of these people give a damn about “belief” vs. “accept.” Indeed they will suspect nuance and for some good reasons: Those who want to talk “nuance” where simple talk is more appropriate are often trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
More specific reasons for lack of committed interest? Many. Poor prior presentations would be a big one. Science teachers who did nothing more than force us to memorize things with no view towards the big picture is an example. Bad presentations can make even the most interesting things boring. But it can also be a simple as the person simply likes tending their garden, collecting stamps, watching football, tinkering with engines, etc. more.
Now can we get more people deeply interested to spend the time to learn the material? I am sure the answer is yes. With good presentations will get more.
Will we get most of them? I am extremely sure the answer is no. There are many things in life and science is just one of them. That is not to say it is not important — it is. But it is not what most people want to spend hours and hours and hours doing.
But can we get people with only a casual interest on the pro-evolution side. I think it can be done. Yes there are fundies that can never be reached. But most are not as extreme as their preachers. I am sure that a straight-talk and evidence oriented use of the limited time our side will have with them can take many. And if we only get a few percent a decade, evolution denial will be in serious decline in a human lifetime. (Hey folks, you were not expecting complete victory overnight were you?)
So rather than give a clear, concise answer to the question, you’d rather obfuscate it based on your insistence of what a word means?
And when speaking with other intellectuals, it’s great. I like it too and go deep into detail. But this is not what will help people understand.
The poll question that precipitated this thread, whether one “believes” in the big bang, is nonsensical. To be fair, what I support is stripping away detail so people will “get it” and maybe even walk away enthused.
For example, compare the presentation styles of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Jobs uses simple words and uncluttered imagery. Even if the products were exactly the same, Job’s delivery would engage far more.
I think the same applies here. First, get them to “get” it.
A respect for nuance is no excuse to lose sight of the forest from the trees.
The term “belief” is synonymous with “acceptance” and even with “knowledge”, I can “know” that the population of Russia numbers in the thousands, just like I can “know” there are no other galaxies, or that phlogiston holds things together. I would still be wrong.
The only thing wrong with the term “belief” is that is frequently used by most of the commenters on this blog derisively, and in a derogatory way with reference to a specific idea. Meanwhile, the rest of the world still uses the word the same way it always has.
The resistance to using the word as it applies to many of the commenters stems from the simple fact that they don’t want to be associated with it. However, if you were to ask me to translate the statement, “Do you believe in evolution?” into my other language, Arabic, then in order for the statement to be understood, I would likely translate it as, “Do you agree with evolution?” This is also problematic in its own way, but it doesn’t matter so long as people understand what the hell I’m saying, which they invariably do!
If you think the word “believe” doesn’t enter into scientific language you would be wrong. It’s used all the time in journal articles.
There are times when lack of nuance clouds an issue as Stephen Colbert regularly demonstrates, “Do you support the troops?” The importance of the scientific meaning of the word “theory” is far more important to get across than getting across your level of confidence.
No one gives a shit how confident you are, that only gives them less reason to talk to you.
@tsg #161.
whoa. harsh.
So that one can confidently say that Evolution is “the only valid explanation” for blah blah blah, rather than “the best explantion” for blah blah blah.
It’s a bit like saying that between Lagrangian Mechanics and Intelligent Newtonian Mechanics (ie Newton’s formulation of classical mechnanics plus the intervention of an unknown intelligent agent), Lagrangian Mechanics is “the best explanation” for the complex orbits of the planets.
I think one can confidently say that Lagrangian Mechanics is “the only valid explanation”, and avoid any doubts that some people might have that INM is also “an explanation”.
I don’t care if “believe” is technically correct or not, I don’t like it. As soon as you say “belief”, you’ve opened yourself up to charges that “science / evolution” is just an alternative belief, that the speaker’s beliefs are as valid as yours, and that all beliefs deserve equal treatment. At the very least, you have to refocus on damage control. Also, by starting with “I”, you’ve also tacitly agreed to focus the discussion on what you and the questioner think rather than on the objective evidence.
So, depending on the discussion you hope to have, there are many better answers than “Yes I believe in evolution”.
A) Skip the ‘belief’ issue: “Yes, evolution is the only explanation supported by the evidence,” or “Evolution is the only justifiable explanation.”
B) Issue an invitation to a pedantic debate: “Would you care for a long argument where I explain some of the mountain of evidence supporting the theory of evolution and against religious myths and superstitions?”
Also (parties aside, and pedant hat pulled on even more firmly), getting beyond your own preconceptions and preferences is one of the hardest things to do in science. Even if “I believe” is technically acceptable parlance, by using it, you are inviting yourself to indulge in sloppy thinking. If, every time you are in a lab or a class or at a conference or are writing a paper and you feel like saying “I believe X” or “I think X”, you feel a bit guilty and instead ask yourself “What evidence supports X?” and “Why do I want to believe X?”, your science will be a whole lot better for it. Beliefs are usually held most strongly and defended most fiercely when the evidence is least definitive (e.g., politics and artistic tastes, otherwise, everyone would be clear on the answer and debating and arguing would seem pointless), and surprisingly often the reason for the belief is simply acceptance of an authority, be it a long-ago teacher, a trusted professor, or what a textbook said. However, authority figures are fallible, and it’s always good to question them.
@Timothy Wood #164
How so?
It seems like you are kindof constructing a false dichotomy in the sense that all answers that are not bare bones are obfuscated. For someone with creds like Jim who is actually a biologist there may be a little more lee-way in conversation for ped-antics… whereas for someone like me (a student of social work) I’m just going to sound like a smarty-smart-smart.
And again… as was said earlier:
There’s really no universally right or wrong technique to this. It depends on your audience. Sometimes ped-antics is conversational suicide. Sometimes people like to fancy themselves intellectual and want to get deep. Sometimes throwing in a lil high level vocab can establish that you may know what you’re talking about. etc
Of course, all of this comes with the disclaimer (which i suppose is the whole point of this post) that the sort of person who will argue with you about evolution or the big bang is generally not of the sort to sit and argue about the differing definitions of “believe” and “know”.
Re my #161:
Let me clarify:
To a person who is using “believe” to mean “accept as true”, you’ve just answered “No, I don’t. Yes, I do.”
N. Wells @166,
Let’s say the next census has the question: “Do you believe in evolution?”, and the only response you are allowed is “Yes” or “No.”
We know evolution is not about belief, answering “Yes” in such a case would make sense for obvious reasons. Sometimes there is no opportunity for an intellectual debate.
The only creotard I’ve actually spoken to face-to-face was so ignorant that it wouldn’t have mattered which style I used, he wasn’t going to understand words longer than 3 letters anyway except “Bible”. He was in the why-are-there-still-monkeys category. Somewhere in our conversation about the reality of fossils (I was hunting fossil shark’s teeth on the beach at the time) he found out that I am an atheist. At that point he moved us away from his wife and baby, I suppose out of fear that I would either infect them with godlessness or eat the baby. Most of the creationist trolls that post here are willfully hardheaded but this guy was truly igornant*.
*misspelled for effect.
To the extent that “know” means “has justified true belief”, then you don’t know those things, you just think you do. In other words, you are mistaken that you know those things. You believe you know them, but you’re wrong.
I “believe” in evolution. That belief is justified and true to the extent that any beliefs in science are, so I also “know” that evolution is correct.
Wrong. Because believing implies not knowing.
Believing in evolution is then no different than believing in a god.
My standard answer is always: “Well, no, I do not believe in evolution, I consider it to be a fact just as I consider it a fact that the earth is round”. Adding “and by looking at you I suspect you’re not convinced of either” is, of course, optional.
Now, on the other hand, I do believe it is unlikely that hurricane Ike is going to tear us an new one here in the Big Easy. Sweet.
Well duh. Because there are zoos. pfffft everyone knows that.
Apparently, “Peeeedaaaaaants!” was an invitation.
I clarified why I thought his answer was obfuscated in a previous post.
There’s a difference between being precise and being pedantic. I’m in air conditioning. When a customer calls up complaining that his air handler isn’t “making cold air”, that isn’t the time to get into a fifteen minute explanation of the refrigeration cycle and how it is really drawing air from the room, removing the heat to reject it outside, and pumping the air back into the room. He just wants the damned thing fixed, and I know that’s what he means. Correcting his terminology is just being pedantic. On the other hand, if someone asks me why putting a window unit on their coffee table (or leaving their refrigerator door open) won’t make their living room cooler, that is a different story. The answer depends on an understanding of the refrigeration cycle and that requires precision.
Who made you the authority on what words mean?
I’ve never seen a comment thread in which so many simply reiterated the stance the blogger is arguing against, without further argument and without apparently noticing.
Did you read the post, people?
Even if “I believe” is technically acceptable parlance, by using it, you are inviting yourself to indulge in sloppy thinking. If, every time you are in a lab or a class or at a conference or are writing a paper and you feel like saying “I believe X” or “I think X”, you feel a bit guilty and instead ask yourself “What evidence supports X?” and “Why do I want to believe X?”, your science will be a whole lot better for it.
Well the context was answering the question of whether or not one believes in evolution. In that context, the only answer that we should use is yes.
Now if we control what questions are being asked (often not realistic) then yes we should just skip it and just go to “Evolution is supported by many overwhelming evidence from many branches of biology. For example…” Always try to get the focus centered on evidence.
—–
As for those who use the “why are there still apes?” line. That seems easy to answer. “You say you are descended from Irish? How come there are still Irish?” Then point out that evolution is not a ladder but a bush and quickly try to get the conversion back to the enormous evidence that evolution happens.
Some people for whatever reasons can not be reached. That is true for anything. It is a shame, but that should not distract us from the whole point: some people can be reached. The question is how do we reach them with the limited opportunities that we have?
And don’t expect converts every time and even most of the time. Not even the most success debaters debating on the factually correct side will do so. But if we start getting a small part of the population, over time our side will win. Even small victories over time will add up.
Ten years ago, the single most pedantic argument ever reared its ugly head: when the millennium starts. Invariably it would come up in response to someone talking about their millennium party (to be held on Dec. 31, 1999) and some smartass would say “you know you’re having it in the wrong year.”
The entire argument about the millennium “really” starting in 2001 hinges on a single definition of the word “millennium” being the only acceptable one. A millennium can be any one thousand year period. There’s one starting right now. And another right now. And now. And now….
My response was “my party is celebrating the point in time when, in the number we use to represent the current year, the digit that stands for thousands of years (or millennia) changes from a one to a two. Are you saying that’s not a valid usage of the word?”
It was stupid for three reasons: it only acknowledged one usage of a word when many exist; the person making the argument knew what the speaker meant when he said it; and it didn’t matter in the slightest. I guarantee you none of these pedants who were making this argument that got invited to a “millennium party” showed up in the wrong year.
The argument that “belief” necessarily meaning “unconditionally without evidence” is only slightly less stupid.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Glen D and Kermit got this right way early in the thread.
Knowledge is justified true belief.
So knowing something doesn’t entail that you don’t believe it, it entails that you do—and that you believe it for good reason, and you’re right.
The fact that faithheads abuse a perfectly good and indispensable word like “believe” is no reason to accept their perverted use of the word.
The absolutely normal, central case of belief is the usual pedestrian one in which you believe things for good reasons, and you’re usually right.
It’s not a word we should abandon to the semantic perverts.
I once had someone ask me if I was “for or against” evolution. I was more than a little nonplussed, but managed to muddle through by saying “you can’t be for or against a fact” (which itself has problems as a statement).
Facts? I’m agin’ ’em. Leads ta nuthin’ but trouble. Dancin’ and suchlike.
I think the correct answer is: “Evolution is true, because the fossils say so.” Nothing about personal belief. Nothing about abstract discussions of how one species changed into another after almost unimaginable periods of time. Just completely different species, now extinct, converted into rock, which can’t be argued away.
Actually, tsg, I might be a pedant, but it wasn’t 10 years ago that we were arguing about when the new millennium started, it’s only 9 years, 9 months, 11 days, 23 hours and 29 minutes since midnight on the 31st of December, 1999, and I can’t imagine that any reasonable person would have been arguing much more than a month beforehand, so it could have only been 9 years, 10 months, 11 days, 23 hours ago, at most, that we were arguing. And anyway, you’re wrong. The new millennium DID start in 2001!
Q: Do you believe in evolution?
A: Hey, evolution happens! The evidence is overwhelming; fossil evidence, genetic evidence, geological evidence, anatomy, physiology, chemistry, physics, every realm of science supports it. And the various modern theories that explain the mechanisms that generate evolution, when taken together, offer the only coherent, rational explanation for life as we observe it on this planet. So yeah, I “believe” evolution like I believe gravity. Why do you ask?
Here’s my answer to the question:
That’s where all the evidence points. Have you ever been on a jury?…Imagine a trial where one side has a mountain of evidence and the other side says Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, look at the defendants face…such a nice and happy face. That’s a face you can believe in..a face that says “trust me”. We don’t have any ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’. What we are saying is “trust me”. Would you let a potential murderer go or would you put him in jail?
It does not have to be one or the other. “Do you believe in evolution”
No believing is something you do in religion. Evolution takes understanding not belief, and when you see the evidence it becomes clear evolution is a fact.
RobertM wrote:
Obviously guilty. He couldn’t be a successful crook or murderer without an honest “trust me” face.
prefer to say that I “accept” evolution, because there’s no “belief” necessary.
Accepting as true is belief. Belief is defined as “accepting a proposition as true”. You can’t not have beliefs. There is no one that lack beliefs. Even the hardcore sophist accepts as true the possibility of all his experience being false.
I don’t understand you people saying you have no belief. Of course you do. You accept it as true, that’s belief. Belief is not faith, belief is not blind acceptance, belief is acceptance. We can, after we establish belief, get into whether or not it is justified or true. Yet believe is still one of the most basic building blocks of the mind.
So yes, I BELIEVE in evolution and BELIEVE in the big bang.
From the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/
MTran wrote:
Every realm?
Even meteorology? Parapsychology? Cosmology? Helioseismology? Agnoiology? Molinology? Anesthesiology? Areology? Balneology? Campanology? Cereology? Musicology?…
Hey, Frustrated Dictionarian–how come you missed, in your Merriam-Webster link, Believe definition 1a. To have firm religious faith? Surely just a lapsus.
This comment thread is an amazing demonstration of people not getting the point. Are you people seriously arguing in favor of pedantic speeches over content?
Concerning the point made in PZ’s post, huzza!
First, say what you mean and mean what you say.
Second, when possible, reply to the questioner as much as to the question. Delicate personal politics come into play here.
Third, never expect to win the day by means of one clever and inspired riposte.
One does not cause another to change their views, one leads another . . .
“Be as cunning as a serpent and as harmless as a dove.” -from the New Testament.
E Pluribus Unum, somehow. Boom de yada, y’all.
Jim Thomerson,
That’s the intransitive verb “believe”. We’re talking about the transitive version. (Believe some x.)
The intransitive version (believe full stop) is more often used in religious contexts, where belief in a particular thing is fetishized.
The transitive version is more often the paradigmatic, commonsense, sane version.
My formatting skills suck
Excellent.
Fixed it:
No lapse at all, just a little too much trust on my audience.
Context is the primary way of discerning with definition of a word is meant. Unless there is an explicitly religious context then there is no reason to assume that belief equals religious faith.
The question was do you believe the big bang. This is explicit context, asking about our stance regarding the veracity of a proposition. I see no reason anyone should infer or see religious context behind the question. To claim that both meanings are applicable borders on equivocation.
Norman Doering said:
“Every realm?”
Ha! Well, that’s a legit question, Norman.
But, of course, you seem to be listing various fields of science rather than “realms”. And “realm” has no strict or narrow definition in this context, does it?
I hope you can bring yourself to forgive my use of inventive analogous language, which could have been more accurately phrased ;-)
In the meantime, you might want to consider whether every field of study is “science” and whether adding “ology” to the end of a word turns it into a science.
I mean, if you want to get pedantic :-)
Why bother to enter comment number 200 or thereabouts, if not to confess my pedantic sins? I aspire to the direct answer, and find PZ’s post inspirational. I hope I can remember its lesson when the time comes.
Jumping over 201 comments:
One of the best interviewers I ever had was when I was being interviewed for a show on Evolution and ID for Nick News on the Nickleodeon channel, for kids. The interviewer told me to “state the conclusion and skip the premises”. (My brother sometimes says “tell the time, don’t build the clock”.)
The neat thing was how the interviewer helped me make this happen, as opposed to just giving me advice. If I said something that was perhaps a little long-winded or over-qualified, he would say something like “So this is what I hear you saying …” and restate my main point. Then he would ask me the question again, expecting me to get right to that main point. This was a good learning experience.
When someone asks “Do you believe in evolution?” I am more likely to assume that the inquirer is not a “believer,” as no rational scientific thinker would even ask the question. So the answer that should stop them cold should be framed in exactly the same terms as the question, and at the same time open up the subject for further elaboration. “Oh, yes, I believe in evolution in the same way I believe that grass is green.” I know this is similar to some of the other answers, but it has the advantage of being on exactly the same level, i.e. one that he should be able to understand, just in case he truly is dumb as a box of rocks.
_Believe_ it? Hell, I’ve seen it!
Thanks PZ. That’s some really good advice. I tend to dilly-dally around the point when I’m speaking because I’m so careful with words.
You have a good point here.
My response to anyone confronting me with that garbage:
Who “qualifies” the experts? It appears to me a good old boy’s club of existing experts does the qualification. Spare me. This is like only allowing public office holders to vote for who’s allowed to become public office holders. If you don’t see what’s wrong with that picture you are probably either an existing member of the club or an aspirant to it.
Do you believe evolution is true?
I KNOW the basic facts of evolution are as certain as our planet’s orbit around the sun. I know this because the evidence is powerful, massive, and growing every day.
@ tsg #176
I agree. I “believe” I misunderstood what you were saying.
#207: It’s the shit for brains asshole Dave Scot from uncommonstupidity.com.
Dave Scot, who is the designer, asshole? Who is your magical sky fairy, moron?
I asked this simple question on your worthless uncommoninsanity.com a long time ago. My comments were never published and I was banned.
You creationist retards love censorship.
So why don’t you answer the question here shithead. Who is your magical designer?
Journalists call it INVERTED PYRAMID — and unfortunately, it’s not the law, just a good idea.
To elaborate: ALWAYS lead with the ONE sentence you want the listener to hear before that asteroid SMOTES the structural integrity and moisture contents of your neurons CLEAN OFF.
I can’t believe you are letting someone called DaveScot wind you up. You know he’s going to take it as a victory, then go tell Bobbie Joe and Peggie Sue.
Kel, When I see an asshole, I call him an asshole. It’s the least I can do. Also, I would really like that coward to answer my question.
You know that any answer he gives is one that you don’t want to hear (i.e. painful and evasive) ;)
Looks like DaveScot is still smarting from not being let into the cool kids’ treehouse.
DaveScot asked:
Teachers, journal editors and then employers.
You mean the same system that chooses your doctors, dentists and lawyers doesn’t work for scientists? Or would you as soon go to a plumber to remove your appendix?
Whoa! You really would go to a plumber!
I read this post yesterday, and thought about it all last night, and I would like to add my thoughts. First of all, I have to apologize, because the comments at PZ’s blog are quite numerous, so someone may have made this point previously (and more concisely), I understand, and I apologize for any redundancy.
I have to start out by saying that I have no degree in any of the sciences. But I think that actually gives me a clear perspective of the dangers that arise when people like me go around claiming to “believe” scientific theories. I am part of a team of atheists who respond to a list where other atheists write in for various reasons. One of the more distressing (to me personally) types of letters we get are from atheists who have engaged themselves in arguments with theists for which their own level of understanding is insufficient.
It is one thing for an astrophysicist to say “I believe Big Bang.” It is another thing altogether for an amateur skeptic to make the claim to a theist in a theological debate in the trenches. I have received letters from atheists, sometimes more than one a day from the same atheist, asking me, basically, “the theist said this–what do I say next?”
When I get a string of these from the same atheist, my first thought is, “Maybe you should say you’re sorry for telling him you believe something you, yourself, don’t understand and can’t explain or defend.” But what I normally do is explain as much as I know about why the theist criticism fails, and send a link, usually from a more authoritative source, and ask the atheist to READ it and not reply until he understands what the expert is saying. However, what I’ve seen is that this can STILL result in a flurry of letters as the theist advances criticism after criticism and the amateur cannot respond.
In my view, it is irresponsible for ANYONE to put forward that they “believe” any claim that they do not pretty-near fully understand or cannot observe first-hand. It is one thing to say “I believe Big Bang.” It is wholly another to put forward that it is the best, most current model put forward by the best minds in the field based upon the best and most current data. If a theist wants to put forward a criticism of Big Bang that is beyond my understanding, I generally reply that they’ll have to ask an astrophysicist. I see it as no different than someone coming to me and asking why their car is acting funny. Why are they asking me? Isn’t it more direct to ask the mechanic? Likewise, I have asked theists on more than one occasion why they are posing physics questions to an atheist list–why not pose them to physicists if they truly want a quality answer? I think that is a fair question.
What I’m trying to express is that I cannot, in good conscience, ask people to assert belief in things they cannot defend and do not understand. This just leads them into arguments with theists where the theist, very rightly, can point out that the atheist is “just as guilty” of faith–taking things as truth (without question or explanation) simply because they come from a source that is a respected authority. This is a stereotype I’d like to see die. However, the atheist who continually writes to me to ask what his next argument should be is just as guilty of basing his beliefs on the Argument from Authority as the theist. It doesn’t matter whether he’s right or wrong, what matters is his justification for the belief. And if it truly boils down to “this is what science says,” then his belief is no more justified than that of the theist with whom he’s engaged.
I don’t think it’s wrong for someone to say they believe Big Bang, but I do think they are obligated as much as anyone else to be able to offer sufficient defense for what they believe. And not everyone understands the theory and the data to the same degree. Those with a more solid grasp are more able to justify a claim of belief. Those with less of a grasp, may want to limit it to the “best model” statement. That way, if they can’t defend something they don’t understand, they don’t look ridiculous, and can honestly say, “Hey, I’ve never said I believe this–or even totally understand the theory. I have a basic grasp–but this is really an astrophysics thing–so if you really are interested in getting at the truth, I recommend contacting an astrophysics professor at a university with your question. In fact, go ahead and do that, and let me know what you get back. I’ll be interested to hear the reply myself.”
To me, this accomplishes two important things. It shows the theist that I do not “believe” things based on arguments from authority–we are not the “same” in that regard. AND, it challenges his claim that he’s interested in truth. If he is, he must go now and test his criticism with a real-live, honest-to-goodness astrophysicist.
I sometimes ask theists what sorts of responses they have gotten back from astrophysicists before they posed their criticisms to an atheist list, in order to point out they aren’t really interested in talking to someone who can answer their questions. They’re just trying to get to the end of my knowledge (which isn’t difficult) to say I believe things I don’t fully understand–that I’m just taking it on authority–same as they are. And had I started our debate with the claim “I believe” something I can’t defend at every level at which it might reasonably be criticized, they’d have proven their point.
In regard to evolution (which I see has grown on this thread), I agree with most posters that if I can observe it (and I can with evolution), I can believe it. Belief is merely the acceptance of a proposition as true. I accept it as true, because I can see it. To not accept as true that which can be observed firsthand is blatant denial of existent reality. I do not think scientific claims that can be observed firsthand by anyone (lay people as well as researchers) fall into the same category as those that cannot be with regard to what I’m describing above. In other words, I would probably end a discussion with a theist who claimed to disbelieve the effects of gravity, since our views of reality would be too divergent (although I might hang on long enough to hear an explanation, I admit). To me, the important question is not whether I believe a thing or not, but, rather, what is my justification for my position? Is my belief justified by data/observation or is it not? But I am comfortable using “believe” as a term to describe every aspect of what I claim to “know” about my existence. Even “know” is just shorthand for belief that is _extremely_ well-justified (brain in a jar, and the like).
Why can’t the answer be: “Yes, I do. In fact, I accept the theory of evolution, rather than just believe it.”
Maybe someone already pointed this out, but evolution doesn’t explain “the origin and diversity of life on earth.” It explains only the diversity.
Really. There’s got to be a term for responding to an argument against a position by simply re-stating the position without addressing any of the arguments being made against it.
Nuts. Many of the commenters here seem resentful of the fact that the word ‘belief’ is purloined by the religious to mean, in effect, a proposition taken on faith.
Well, get over it. This is the way the world is. The layperson typically doesn’t define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, either. Most people use ‘know’ for a claim which is held to be objectively true independent of what a person believes, a claim that doesn’t require justification by faith. They use ‘believe’, on the other hand, to represent the subjective assessments of what is or isn’t true, and some degree of faith is implied.
Therefore, agitated nattering and pedantry aside, scientists should limit their use of the word ‘belief’ and should promote words and phrases like ‘facts’, ‘evidence’, ‘demonstrations’, ‘observations’, ‘descriptions’ etc.
Let me give a few examples of the latter…
Evolution is a fact.
Natural selection is a fact.
That natural selection, among other things, can cause evolution is a fact.
Speciation, one possible result of evolution by natural selection, has in fact been observed in nature, demonstrated on the lab benches, and described in the literature.
That evolution by (among other things) natural selection has occurred in the past is supported by mountains of evidence, and widely-accepted in the scientific community is a fact.
Does anyone (ahem) ‘believe’ that any of the above requires any ‘leap of faith’ to accept?
I (ironic emphasis intended) BELIEVE I have made my point.
Full stop. STFU.
It seems to me that anyone asking the question would do so from having some encounter with creationist thinking. So one wonders how the person asking the question defines “believe”. A fair number of creationists think of us as people whose religion is Darwinism. Such a person would interpet I believe as a statement of faith. I think the word believe is so contaminated by faith that it should not be used in a scientific context. Of course, if your religion is Darwinism, believe away.
I insist on the necessity of taking the interlocutor himself into consideration. Is he just been bombarded by fundie propaganda and has bought into the “teach both theories” rhetoric? Or is it the other way around: First, the acceptance of the divine, and then the implicate creationism. If the second is the case, you’ll have to work with the personal motives that led to conversion or with his growing up in a fundie environment. Debating about logical inconsistencies in creationism won’t get you to the core of his rejection of science. It’s the “I want to believe” factor with which you’re dealing with, often triggered by more fear of eternal damnation than love for God. To some extent you’re talking to someone who’s being held hostage and suffers from a spiritual Stockholm syndrome. In that situation he’ll say anything to save his faith and a superficial debate victory won’t do much more than to reassure yourself of your higher education. Intellectuals tend to shy away from irrational fears, but that’s exactly where they’re needed. Behind the rhetoric of creationism lies a seemingly unescapable divine blackmail. When that is overcome, the intellect is free to reason away and the chances to self-liberation from indoctrination rise significally.
tracieh,
I believe in the existence of top quarks. Yet I have never seen one, neither have I studied the experimental detection or the theory of said quark. I can’t tell you how it fits into the Standard Model, and I don’t know the history of how the top quark was discovered.
So why do I believe in the existence of top quarks? – Because the physicists say so!
Why? – Because I have a basic understanding of how science works! – Observe, hypothesize, experiment, revise hypothesis, experiment some more, revise again … publish, review, verify experiment … spin of an invention based company …
Where do products like DVD discs and interplanetary probes come from if not from this process? How could they exist if science generally produced false and fictional results and theories? If the top quark doesn’t exist, there is a vast conspiracy in the physics world, and not only in the physics world, because all science is interconnected. And still they produce useful results. How could that be?
When the religious say “I believe this because the Bible tells me so”, it is an unjustified appeal to authority.
When a rational person says “I believe this because it is the consensus of the scientific community”, it is (hopefully) a justified appeal to authority.
Now I have the Pink Panther theme going through my head:
“Pedants, pedants, pedants pedants pedaaaaaants…”
** I KNOW that evolution is true (and so do you) **
Fundies don’t ask “Do you believe THAT evolution is true?” They ask “Do you believe IN evolution?”
No need to be pedantic. When asked “do you believe IN evolution?”, I answer “No, I don’t believe in evolution, I KNOW THAT evolution is TRUE.”
The difference is not *mere* semantics. If you find explanation too pedantic, stop now.
1. Fundies speak from a non-rational non-empirical context, faith-based supernaturalism
History matters. Distinctions in concepts matter. A distinction between “belief that” and “belief in” is critical. It is one key to knowing what science is.
‘Belief in’ or ‘Faith’ needs to be traced back to ancient Greek before making sense of it. ‘Faith’ in English translates ‘fides’ in Latin. Biblical translators used ‘fides’ for ‘pistis’ in koine Greek, “common” Greek of canonic xian texts. A direct translation of ‘pistis’ into English is ‘trust.’ For skeptical Greeks, pistis was lowest on the scale of knowledge.
Having faith means my trusting that some belief is true. I trust not because I have any evidence for that statement (of belief). I trust because I am someone who regards as authoritative some other person or written source who has said that it is true.
The so-called great monotheisms (judaism, xianity, and islam) are authoritarian — authoritarian in power (as in Iran or Saudi Arabia) and authoritarian in matters of faith (from infallible Benny XVI to other moral monsters like James Dobson and Sarah Palin).
Having faith, even when contradicted by evidence far beyond a reasonable doubt, has always been a mark of pride for zealots and martyrs. Or, as early church “father” Tertullian says, “I believe because it is absurd.”
2. Empirical knowledge at its most refined is the sole domain of scientific inquiry
With respect to science vs. near-eastern monotheisms, the relationship is strongly in favor of science. Mythological discourse which is psychologically comforting gives way to empirico-conceptual discourse, setting comfort aside in order to determine what can be known to be true about nature.
Science arbitrates which statements about the world, empirical statements, are or are not “known” — that is, are properly given the metalinguistic accolade, ‘is true.’
Such statements are ‘methodologically fit’ according to the relevant testing procedures within science itself. This is the meaning of a yet unfinished shift — ‘the scientific revolution’ — In whom is power vested?, Who shall decide what is true about nature?, and By what criteria is truth ascertained?
Neither ‘ethical fitness’ as in Heraclitus and his Stoic followers, nor ‘theological fitness’ as in Plato and his xian followers, is any longer considered a viable principle for assessing the truth of an empirical statement.
Methodologically, whenever so-called “sacred” writings make claims about the natural world, they are subject to exactly the same forces of potential refutation as any other empirical claim. There is no *Executive Privilege” for God.
3. Know your opposition. “Christianity is the practice of nihilism.” — Nietzsche
Fundies disagree. And these bible worshipers say so. They deliberately lie in their pseudo-scientific textbooks and they demand equal time for their lies in public education.
For 2,000 years one vile hallmark of xianity has remained its hatred of natural knowledge and skeptical philosophy. The Stoics and Epicureans of Athens laughed at Paul of Tarsus when he spoke to them. Paul’s anti-intellectual rejoinder remains holy writ:
27-But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28-He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things–and the things that are not–to nullify the things that are … (1st Corinthians: Chapter 1: verses 26-28 New International Version of the New Testament). Quintessential nihilism!
Xianity still appeals to those who believe themselves mistreated. To those in whom resentment surges. To those who must punish their guilty selves. To those who must project that guilt onto others and into nature. (The whole of 1Cor1 deserves reading.)
Their death impulse directed inward, engenders hatred of self. Directed outward, hatred of others and the world. Revenge seekers acting on their lies of absolute *truth*.
bipolar2 ©2008
secularguy wrote:
That’s because you don’t really care. If you wanted to learn you could start with Wiki, or Google all the terms, and find out that it was discovered in 1995 at Fermilab, that it has the same weight as the nuclei of tantalum or tungsten atom, etc.. You’d probably have to start reading up on the Standard Model, fermions and the Higgs mechanism before you could understand more.
Also, if those physicists you trust came out and declared there really wasn’t a top quark after all, that the standard model was wrong, then your life wouldn’t be much effected by the discovery — at least not right away. You haven’t been living your life based on the Standard Model.
In the end it’s just science and you simply trust the science. As you admit:
Not necessarily.
In some cases, like voodoo priests in Haiti that seem to be able to make zombies, it turns out, if I can trust “The Serpent and the Rainbow,” (and I’m not so sure I have much faith in that book – but I just use it for the sake of argument) that there is something of a vast conspiracy involved in that zombie production. The victims only appear dead at first and the priests know it and the rituals involved aren’t as physiologically important as the drug tetrodotoxin, which they didn’t know.
Is there also a vast conspiracy associated with Christianity and its theories of the soul, the afterlife, original sin, etc.? Did they just invent exorcism to fool people into thinking there were demons?
I don’t think so, not a conscious one.
I’m not so sure that’s true. If you have to appeal to any authority then you’re just admitting that you don’t know. What’s wrong with that? Why not say, “Top quark, I haven’t really thought about it.”
Why do we have to believe in anything we don’t understand even if it is science which we believe in? I expect some scientific theories to fall… history proves that many will.
[quote]However I would point out that most people who believe in evolution are believers. I doubt they have examined the evidence independently and analyzed [scientific] alternatives. The same applies to global warming. While you would be right in both cases, it’s still belief. That’s okay. [/quote]
That is why I don’t use the term believe. I use accept. I accept evolution & reject creation.
Yeah, that happens a lot and it’s annoying. I can’t imagine a worse insult than to be called religious, which means ‘batshit crazy’ or ‘hopelessly stupid’ or ‘gullible idiot’. My usual response to this insult is “Science is not a religion you (insert very bad words here)”.
. . . there is no Royal Road to empirical knowledge. And science won’t tell you why.
** There’s no mind meld with God — or, empirical knowledge cannot be certain **
1. God doesn’t do math . . .
Here’s an appropriate quote (rather than a vanity quote) from Einstein: “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” (The man did not disdain philosophy — not even humble epistemology.)
Put differently, mathematics applied to nature provides models of nature. Not unassailable descriptions of nature as it is; even less ontologically irreplaceable explanations of nature. Mathematics as a bundles of theorems supplies *irrefutable truths* since they may be derived from coherent and finite sets of axioms.
The geometry of Euclid and that of Riemann differ over the famous “parallel postulate.” Each gives rise to a perfectly sane idealized space. As alternative geometries, they rest comfortably side by side. But they can’t both be representations of space-time; they are incompatible models of the world.
To be empirical, models must be testable. That is, the relevant methodologies of research (only one of which is repeatable experimentation) have to be applicable. Often enough, applied with remarkable insight. Insight requiring experimental genius.
Experimental creativity ought not take a back bench to theoretical creativity. They are different excellences — and frequently facts outlive the models which gave rise to them.
2. God doesn’t imprint reason in the human mind, you know
Identical strictures apply to logic. Simply . . . there are no *absolute* axiom sets (or theorems) of logic and mathematics. To imagine otherwise just neglects at least 150 years of mathematical development. Tides of research scoured God’s footprints off Newton’s Knowledge Beach where he is still gathering seashells.
Consider an attempt to provide a logic of knowledge, an epistemic logic. A naive epistemic logic might capture a common distinction between belief and knowledge. The word ‘belief’ applied to statements allows degrees (more believable, most believable) — ‘knowledge’ applied to statements does not allow degrees. A statement is either known or it’s not known. And, if a statement is known (Kp) then p is true. Seems fundamental. In a sloppy way, it seems OK to say that p must be true, or certain.
But, it’s not OK. Assume the fundamental notion gets to be an axiom: if a statement p is known, then it is true. In a shorthand of logic: Kp –> p.
By more ordinary propositional logic: if p is false, then knowledge claim has to be withdrawn, -Kp. In logical shorthand: -p –> -Kp. This aligns with a naive epistemic logic — a false statement cannot be something we know. Only truths can be known.
Now, the sloppiness must go away. Notice it’s not the statement p which is certain, but the *relationship* between two propositions (Kp, p) which is logically necessary. So, Kp –> p does have an axiom-y feel to it.
3. Is there empirical knowledge? Can one be certain?
The notion that empirical knowledge would have to be “certain” in order to be knowledge is an ancient error — a hangover from supernatural thought going back farther than Plato, including younger fellow travelers like xianity. Kant tied himself in knots trying to pull a priori empirical knowledge out of some transcendental top hat.
When all knowledge gets assimilated to ideal mathematics (Euclidean geometry for Plato), then God, author of Nature etc, etc, produces perfection as He wills it. (Plotinus gives the same role to Nature herself in his grand neo-platonic architectonic.)
“[A]s far as [the laws of mathematics] are certain, they do not refer to reality.” “Sorry,” says Einstein, “for science, no transcendental hat; no metaphysical white rabbit.”
If knowledge were limited to topics about which certainty could be obtained, no empirical statement could be known. That’s a stringent requirement which science need not apply to its statements.
There is empirical knowledge. It’s the certainty requirement that gets dropped. Why is this is a legitimate move? “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain.” ‘Well, says Einstein, no matter how clever we become, Nature will never tell us the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help her God.’
Plato’s ideal is unobtainable. Our human standard for empirical knowledge cannot be set so high that science can never be said to “know” anything. No scientific theory, not even one as exalted as General Relativity, is flawless. What would violate a strong, but perhaps naive, concept of empirical knowledge is that General Relativity is not a contribution to knowledge.
4. Just give me the data, ma’am. Coherent, predictive, informative, refutable statements
Newton’s Principia is still a contribution to knowledge. And, not because it can be seen as a limiting case of Special or General Relativity. By demanding that theories be true, which we know cannot be achieved by any empirical science, we’ve been led far off course and onto the biting rocky graveyard of ships surrounding the Isle of Certainty.
Let’s look instead at informational increase from unthought of predictions which are refutable and which continually withstand refutation. Only previously unapprehended, unanticipated, testable deductions from a coherent model are informative as these risky predictions refuse to be falsified. They are legitimate Popperian survivors. The tested outcomes and the parent theory still tell us how to get around in Nature better than we could before.
As long as a statement strains at out current limits of informational content and is not overthrown by testing, we give it a metalinguistic accolade ‘is true.’ We do this in accordance with Tarski’s Semantic Definition of Truth: [‘p’ is true < --> p].
What would a map drawn by a blind person look like? — a map of her local space, how to get to the grocery, shop there, come home, put things away, and prepare dinner. Scientific theory is like that. We want to be better informed despite the fact that we will never see the world that we experience.
So much for “correspondence” theories of truth, including models as pictures or Geological Survey maps. Like our blind friend, we can no more see the images we do create by our “modalities of sensation” than we can see the territory we symbolize by employing them.
Consequently, truth is a chimera for us. We don’t get closer to “the” truth. We simply make more informed mistakes — we go blindly but we don’t trip over the unseen couch as often.
Informational content admits of degrees. Newton is now less informative than Einstein — but his system of the world remains a contribution to empirical knowledge. It is not just a historical artifact.
bipolar2 ©2008
Somewhat ignorantly, I wrote:
which probably was a bit of an exaggeration, and the top quark was a badly chosen example.
I wasn’t aware of how “new” and exotic the top quark is. Since it has only been produced in one accelerator prior to the LHC, and probably isn’t yet utilized much in other branches of science, a top-quark conspiracy could be restricted to just the physics community …
#232?
Very impressive.
In an excruciatingly tedious sort of way.
So “truth is a chimera”. (Was that thunder and earthquake I just sensed?)
Is it ok to use the word to refer to “more informed mistakes”? You know, just for the sake of convenience?
Pardon. I do not mean to be sarcastic. But you won’t mind, will you, if I dutifully update my conceptual models on the fly with whatever information comes to hand, and provisionally call that “truth”. It’s just a mundane private matter you needn’t squirm an essay out over, but it helps me to cut to the friggin’ chase.
You won’t mind if I exercise my liberty to acknowledge the existence of consistency and correspondence between conceptual models and the Great Yonder beyond the noggin, will you?
true or false: 2+2=1.61803398….
Scott Hatfield (#222):
Er, Scott, the “justified” in “justified true belief” has nothing to do with faith. It refers to plain old epistemic justification, i.e., the process of establishing that a proposition is “objectively true independent of what a person believes”.
So what you’re actually saying is that most people do in fact use the term “know” in the sense of “justified true belief” (even though they may not explicitly define the term in those words).
“Posted by: Elyse | September 11, 2008 11:22 AM
Oh my god, PZ, you’re a-preachin’! You’re a-preachin’!!!
Show us the way.
(It’s kinda sad that you actually have to instruct us on this…why can’t people realize that a more direct civil answer is more likely to win people over rather than obscenities and insults?)”
Here here.
It would seem the godless and the god-fearing are more alike than one cares to admit.
Let me add a comment that is partly in agreement with PZ, and partly in disagreement.
I would suggest that, if one is asked “Do you believe in evolution?”, a good response is something like the one PZ suggests; that is, “I believe that evolution has occurred, because all of the evidence available points in that direction,” or “I believe that some theory of evolution is the best explanation for the development and diversity of life on Earth,” or something along these lines.
I am not opposed to the idea of ‘belief’ per se, but I think that there are some real risks in the idea that one should simply say “yes” in answer to a question in the form “do you believe in X?” The reason for this is that (at least in common US usage) ‘believe in X’ very often has a very different connotation than ‘believe that X’. As suggested already above, ‘believe that‘ is a a propositional attitude; to ‘believe that X’ is simply to believe (or ‘accept’) that X is true. But to ‘believe in X’ very often means something quite different, which includes some element of faith.
And here I do not mean merely “religious” faith. If someone says (or sings) “I believe in love”, then they almost certainly are not saying that they accept the existence of something called ‘love’. If someone says “I believe in the USA,” or “I believe in Sara Palin,” or “I believe in my children,” then they are plainly not saying merely that they accept the existence of the USA, Sara Palin, or their children. And even in a religious context, if a Christian says “I believe in God,” they normally are not saying merely that they accept the existence of God. In all of these cases, and many others as well, ‘believing in X’ is something much more than an attitude involving accepting the truth of X, and indeed is an expression of faith in the power, agency, character, etc. of the thing ‘believed in. In a sense, “believing in” is investing one’s faith in the object of belief.
When looked at in this light, one simply doesn’t “believe in evolution”, for it is not the kind of thing that one can “believe in“. Evolution is a fact or a conclusion, and as such is something that one can “believe that” is true of false, but one cannot “believe in” facts.
And this is why concern about questions like “do you believe in evolution?” is not mere pedantry. The question is ill-formed (often intentionally so, like the “have you stopped beating your wife?”). If you answer ‘no’, then your answer can (and will, by some) be interpreted as meaning that you do not believe that evolution is true; while if you say ‘yes’, then your answer can (and will, by some) be interpreted as meaning that your view on evolution is a matter of faith.
In conversation, I believe that “I believe that evolution has occurred” (followed by any additional explanation you might wish to add) is sufficiently straightforward an answer as to avoid any charges of ‘waffling’, but also avoids giving a misleading answer. It also avoids providing ammunition to those who are intentionally asking an ill-formed question in order to provoke an answer that they can twist for their own purposes. And it allows you to explain why you believe that evolution is true, and even allows for the possibility of going over the distinction between faith and evidence, if the conversation goes in that direction.
And if the question is in a poll or survey, then one should immediately cease participation, as such an egregiously ill-formed question is evidence of either incompetence or dishonesty on the part of the pollster.
What an awful idea for a party.
The Pedant and the Petit-Maître, the two, who in social intercourse never fathomed conversation as a pastime.
I see no reason to place the concept of belief out of bounds for discussions related to science. It’s true that there is a kind of pointlessness about questions such as, “Do you believe in electrons?” Nevertheless, it’s perfectly reasonable to accept the vernacular use of “believe” as encompassing not only blind faith but also reasoned evaluation of scientifically based assertions.
“Do you believe in global warming?” is not such an outrageous question. I might reply, “I believe the preponderance of evidence suggests that global warming is neither a fabrication nor simply a local fluctuation in weather patterns.” But I might also say, “Yes.”
Ultimately each of us is forced to make a decision as to which evidence-based assertion we will use as a guide to our future actions. Making such a decision is based not only on our evaluation of the evidence, but also in our sense of trust or distrust of the investigators and authors who report that evidence or support the hypothesis in question.
In that connection — and this is surely a minority view — I would suggest that even our acceptance of a mathematical proof is conditioned on a kind of “belief” that the proof is without error and that it corresponds to the “fact” or “truth” under examination.
Look, isn’t the problem that someone who idly asks about evolution and creationism is having trouble distinguishing between the two, and is wondering whether you can help them?
Sure, be nice and friendly, but if you want to help them actually understand, you really do need to make sure that they realise that science and faith treat the word ‘believe’ differently. Otherwise they won’t understand that there is a mechanism and process behind scientific knowledge, and there isn’t one behind faith. Science isn’t just another case of ‘someone insisting something is true’ like religion is.
And I think it’s a bit unfair proposing the conversation in ‘a party’ as well – that’s artificially restricting how ‘serious’ one can appear when helping someone understand something more complex than the location of the booze.
Myself, I like to concentrate on