Science Under Siege

[Buffy]

There's a very interesting article that was posted on Salon.com today entitled: "Archaeology from the dark side" (those of you without salon.com subscriptions will have to sit through an ad to read it, but its worthwhile). The thesis is that there's an interesting alliance that has formed between Creationists on one side and New-age spiritualists (e.g. Atlantis/Von Daniken believers) on the other, who, despite their obvious disagreements in purpose and goals, have both made, as one quote in the article says:

"If you examine the methodologies of pseudoarchaeology and creationism -- the way they construct their arguments -- you'll find that they're almost identical. These are essentially not intellectual arguments; they are political arguments. It looks like science, but it's not. They blame science and evolution for any number of social ills, and they regard undermining and destroying science as a primary goal." -- Garrett Fagan, Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies at Penn State

Although the reference here to Creationism is specific to arguments concerning Evolution, I decided to post this to philosophy to start a discussion concerning the effect that such arguments (and I encourage you to read the linked article) have on science as it is understood and taught in our society today.

The initial argument that I will throw out here is that the vast majority of the arguments promoting both Biblical accounts as well as Atlantean and Chariots-of-the-Gods beliefs are based mostly upon:

1. Attacking scientific explanations by finding seeming inconsistencies that seem "obvious" from a lay-person's viewpoint (e.g. arguments found in many current threads regarding the "problems" with Special Relativity), that do not withstand scientific scrutiny, and
2. Proposing "backwards hypotheses" that are circular in their form and turn science on its head.

This two-pronged approach first attacks the accepted wisdom, and thus makes every scientific conclusion suspect, and then posits conclusions about alternative theories that while they have no evidentiary support, appeal to wants and desires, while manipulatively cloaking themselves in a scientific veneer that is in almost every case, not in the least bit scientific.

It is the second notion that would seem to be the most concerning for an economy that is supposed to be maintaining its leadership in the world by its scientific prowess that large numbers of students entering college are being brought up--again both on the right *and* the left--with theories that teach them that "science" is anything you want to argue it to be. That is, that there is no agreed upon "scientific method" and any argument put forth by anyone must be presented as equally valid if it is supported by enough of the population. Insistence upon conformance to the provably useful scientific method are attacked as "dogma" rather than on the merits of the method, and any arguments offered to show that non-falsifiable hypotheses are false are derided as be in unwilling to accept alternative theories. I opine that this trend will result in the US continuing to fall behind the rest of the world in development of scientific advances and technology.

Discuss.

Cheers,
Buffy

[GAHD]

There's not much to discuss: the current educational system *is* out of date in many respects, preachers *are* continuing to preach, people *do* choose want over right. If you're asking for someone to play devils advocate, it's hard to find on a site like this without putting god in the title.

[Buffy]

Actually what I'm really asking is what we *do* about it. To a certain extent, some scientists are at fault too: the latest Discover mag has an article on Richard Dawkins in which even he admits that his religion-hostile, "Darwin's Rottweiler" image is counterproductive in convincing folks of the issues described above. The downside of not doing something about it is that we drift into a sort of latter day dark ages where any opinion can be justified as scientific because no one is defending science. In the Intelligent design debate, I hear too many defenders simply say "its wrong, and it doesn't belong in schools" instead of getting straight to the core of the matter that it is not a scientific idea at all, and trying to clarify why. Its kinda like saying "just say no", or "don't worry your little heads about it, just believe us experts". On the public policy side, the pro-business community has been very busy paying researchers to come up with any study at all, biased or not, that proves the points that maximize their profits, with studies that may not falsify data, but certainly skirt the issues of peer review.

I'm suggesting that we do need to do something "Lest Darkness Fall" (that's a great book!), and the question is, what do we do?

Cheers,
Buffy

[emessay]

Now we have graphical map 13,700,000,000 years . Take one mili-meter-square equals 10,000 yrs our civilized human-kind. Where is the point of sciene that we have to locate on the map ? I myself not embarrased to shout : "Help me God !". There is no more inquisition. It's free to say free in this gracious age.

[Eclogite]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Actually what I'm really asking is what we *do* about it.

This does not seem to be a problem in the UK or elswhere in Europe. (If anyone has counter evidence to this please post.) From that starting point we have to ask what is the difference between Europe and the US that leads to the problem. Rather obviously it is the presence of significant numbers of fundamentalist Christians in the US. These are largely absent from Europe, and certainly have no influence over educational policy.
That isn't of much help: I don't think you can readily 'eliminate' fundamentalist Christianity when it is so firmly rooted in your culture.
Perhaps the only option available is the one you have suggested yourself. Scientists, science teachers, and those with a belief in science have to pro-actively attack the ID proponents and the creationists with much more vigour, focus and commitment than has been the case to date. They need to organise in a comparable way to their opponents. I suspect someone will post with information about such pro-science organisations. My response to those would be 'clearly they are not doing enough'.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Actually what I'm really asking is what we *do* about it. To a certain extent, some scientists are at fault too....I'm suggesting that we do need to do something "Lest Darkness Fall" (that's a great book!), and the question is, what do we do?

This issue seems a little inflated. In spite of the hoopla over events like the introduciton of ID into schools, this is much ado about nothing.

Lots of scientists are at fault. Scientists are just as biased (as a group) as theologians are. Unschooled people of science are as embarassing as unschooled people of religion. The unschooled people of religion just seem to get more air time. Although some of the unschooled scientists that show up on NPR get pretty good exposire.

A substantal number of basic science sorts are theistic. This does not mitigate their impact on science. A substantial number of theologians understand the basic science issues, and are not young earth creationists. This heterogeneity is healthy. Heterogeneous opinion is the hallmark of science. Bias is also a hallmark of science. That is why the scientific method assumes bias on the part of the researcher, and requires reproducibility and explicit description of methods.

Introduction of a paragraph on Intelligent Design into speciation curriculum is not unwarranted, and it is not unreasonable. It is also not particularly significant. It might even get more kids (who might not otherwise) to think about science in an openminded manner.

The majority of biased (or outright fraudulent) presentations of science over the last 100 years have been by scientists, not by theologians. Nobody is overturning the scientific method.

The sky is not falling.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Eclogite

....Scientists, science teachers, and those with a belief in science have to pro-actively attack the ID proponents and the creationists with much more vigour, focus and commitment than has been the case to date. They need to organise in a comparable way to their opponents....

This is another example of insidious bias. Many ID proponents are pro science. Many standard-garden-vareity evolutionists are not. The technical position does not prescribe the nature of bias.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

This issue seems a little inflated. In spite of the hoopla over events like the introduciton of ID into schools, this is much ado about nothing.

So you're saying we shouldn't do anything at all? I'm not in disagreement with the idea that scientists are to be faulted, but you're saying we should do nothing about the eggregious actions of *both* sides? Just let them all get away with outright falsehoods? I don't see this issue as science versus religion so much as moderate agreed upon methodolgoies versus bias and outright falsehood spouted by the extremes, that is unfortunately leaving the vast majority confused and easily misled....

Originally Posted by Biochemist

A substantal number of basic science sorts are theistic. This does not mitigate their impact on science. A substantial number of theologians understand the basic science issues, and are not young earth creationists. This heterogeneity is healthy.

Again, this is not really the issue here as discussed in many other threads: there's plenty of acceptance (well, maybe not by Richard Dawkins ), of religion among many scientists, but that does not justify allowing any concept to be billed as "scientific":

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Introduction of a paragraph on Intelligent Design into speciation curriculum is not unwarranted, and it is not unreasonable. It is also not particularly significant. It might even get more kids (who might not otherwise) to think about science in an openminded manner....The sky is not falling.

Even the Discovery Institute is not pushing for this! The arguments associated with ID are not scientific because they are all entirely based on the absence of evidence (lets leave arguing that one for another thread if you'd like, though). Until there's more validating research, I will continue to argue that there's no excuse to "teach" it, because it does promulgate the notion that any belief is a priori scientific, which is a bad thing to teach kids.

My real issue here again is not ID, its pseudo science in general. We've had other threads about "dragon documentaries" and the amazing number of UFO abduction and Bermuda Triangle shows on TV pushed by "liberal media" like Fox. The public policy issue is one of media and politicians of every stripe *validating* the notion that anything you say should be accepted as an equally valid position.

So again, what should we do about it? Do you really think we should do nothing?

Cheers,
Buffy

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Buffy

So you're saying we shouldn't do anything at all?....that does not justify allowing any concept to be billed as "scientific"...Until there's more validating research, I will continue to argue that there's no excuse to "teach" it {ID} because it does promulgate the notion that any belief is a priori scientific...
My real issue here again is not ID, its pseudo science in general...

I agree with the pseudo science point. The only course of action is to defend the scientific method. The course of action is NOT to defend a specific position or theory.

Buff, you and I have argued before about my position that the evidence in support of speciation by mutation is thin. I don't mind folks talking about the evidence in support of it. I really mind folks assuming it is "proven". Anyone could argue that ID is a different view of the existing scientific-method-supported facts. Anyone could offer scientific-method-compliant studies to support their positions.

Defend the methods, not the theories. The rest will settle out.

Politics are not science. If politics were based on facts, we would certainly have a very different tax structure. Most of this discussion about "religion" in science is not religion at all. It is political behavior of an advocacy group. It is no different than NOW suggesting that they speak for American women, which they certainly do not.

[HydrogenBond]

The problem science has defending itself is connected to its own confused state. It one looks at medical reseach for example, one day something is bad the next day it is good. At least ID is steady in its overly simplified world. This onesided steadiness is appealling to the average person looking for general knowledge. One day an asteroid kills the dinsaurs now it is a suana effect, or a virus, aliens, too many cheese burgers. How can science support so many truths and illusions at the same time. The answer is jobs and money. The ID staff works for the same bennies for its truths and illusions. Science can't defend itself because it would be the kettle calling the pot black.

I believe there is truth in both sides. I think culture senses this and wants to put them both orientations side by side for the children. What I hope the children get out of it is an attitude leading to an orderred design with a scientific explanation. The god of randomness needs an overhaul, because it is turning science into entertainment.