Print
Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong
by SCIAM
Thanks to Tim DiChiara for the link.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-know-better-than-you&sc=rss
Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong
Why fallible expertise trumps armchair science—a Q&A with sociologist of science Harry Collins
If you take scientists at their word, human-induced climate change is well underway, evolution accounts for the diversity of life on Earth and vaccines do not cause autism. But the collective expertise of thousands of researchers barely registers with global warming skeptics, creationist movie producers and distrustful parents. Why is scientific authority under fire from so many corners? Sociologist Harry Collins thinks part of the answer lies in a misunderstanding of expertise itself. Like Jane Goodall living among the chimps, Collins, a professor at Cardiff University in Wales, has spent 30 years observing physicists who study gravitational wave detection—the search for faint ripples in the fabric of spacetime. He's learned the hard way about the work that goes into acquiring specialized scientific knowledge. In a recent book, Rethinking Expertise, he says that what bridges the gap—and what keeps science working—is something called "interactional expertise". Collins spoke recently with ScientificAmerican.com about his view of expertise; what follows is an edited transcript of that interview.
How did we get to the point where scientific authority is so easily challenged?
The high point of the authority of science was perhaps the 1950s. In those days one would see on the popular television programs a scientist wearing a white coat with license to speak authoritatively on almost any subject to do with science—and sometimes on subjects outside of science. But things go wrong in the progress of science and technology. If you see the space shuttle crashing, you can see that these guys in the white coats don't always get it right.
When you discover the jagged edges of science, you start to think, wait a minute—maybe scientists' views aren't quite as immaculate as we thought they were. Maybe ordinary people's views can weigh a little more. And I think there's some truth to this, but not as much as some of my colleagues think. Having studied esoteric sciences from the outside, I know that ordinary people have no chance of grasping the details of them.
What's wrong with ordinary people weighing in on scientific subjects?
It is easy to imagine all sorts of horror stories if we abandon the idea that there are some people who know what they are talking about and some who don't. Most scientific disputes that concern the public are at the cutting edge—the place where things are not completely certain. Examples are the safety of vaccines, the true importance of global warming, the effects of farming genetically modified food crops, and so forth.
Even now, in the U.K., the relatively dangerous disease of measles is becoming endemic as a result of a widespread consumer revolt against the MMR vaccine about 10 years ago. Parents believe that even though doctors assure them that vaccines are safe, those doctors may be wrong. Therefore, the parents think they are entitled to throw their own judgment into the mix. Quite a few social scientists are pushing this trend hard.
Why should the average person acknowledge that scientists might know better than they do?
It is possible to make an argument from the common sense idea that scientists know what they're talking about because they've spent much more time looking at the areas of the natural sciences that we're interested in. Normally, if somebody's spent a lot of time in an area, you'd tend to take their opinion as more valuable.
We believe that you can work out whether someone has the right scientific expertise and experience to make some sensible contribution to scientific debates. It doesn't mean they're right. What you have to do is not sort out the people who are right and wrong; what you have to sort is the people who can make sensible contributions from those who can't. Because once you stop doing that, things go horribly wrong.
That seems like it cuts both ways. Are evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins fanning the flames in the way that they engage creationists?
Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.
In our book we too criticize creationism's pretensions to be a science, but we don't treat it as a trivial problem. Our critiques of creationism are: (a) that it stops scientific progress in its tracks by answering questions in a way that closes off further research; and (b) that there is no real attempt to meld the approach with the existing methods of science. We know that the creationists say this is not true, but their hypotheses relate to books of obscure origin or to faith rather than to observation.
How do you distinguish the people who can and can't contribute to a specialized field?
The key to the whole thing is whether people have had access to the tacit knowledge of an esoteric area—tacit knowledge is know-how that you can't express in words. The standard example is knowing how to ride a bike. My view as a sociologist is that expertise is located in more or less specialized social groups. If you want to know what counts as secure knowledge in a field like gravitational wave detection, you have to become part of the social group. Being immersed in the discourse of the specialists is the only way to keep up with what is at the cutting edge.
Is this where interactional expertise comes into play?
Interactional expertise is one of the things that broadens the scope of who can contribute. It's a little bit wider than the old "people in the white coats" of the 1950s, but what it's not is everybody. (Within science, lots of people have interactional expertise, because science wouldn't run without it.)
You did experiments to test your theory of expertise. What did you find?
The original version we did was with color-blind people. What we were attempting to demonstrate is something we call the strong interactional hypothesis: If you have deeply immersed yourself in the talk of an esoteric group—but not immersed yourself in any way in the practices of that group—you will be indistinguishable from somebody who has immersed themself [sic] in both the talk and the practice, in a test which just involves talk.
If it's the case, then you're going to speak as fluently as someone who has been engaged in the practices. And if you can speak as fluently, then you're indistinguishable from an expert. It's what I like to call "walking the talk". You still can't do the stuff, but you can make judgments, inferences and so on, which are on a par.
We picked color-blind people because they've spent their whole lives immersed in a community talking about color. So we thought color-blind people should be indistinguishable from color-perceivers when asked questions by a color-perceiver who knew what was going on. And we demonstrated that that was in fact the case. Now we're planning to do another imitation test on the congenitally blind to see if they can perform as well as the color-blind.
You also found that gravitational wave physicists had a hard time distinguishing you from one of their own in a written test.
I thought it's my duty to put myself through this test and see if anybody can tell. I'm not claiming my interactional expertise is really good enough to pass for a physicist, so I had to put brackets around it. There were no mathematical questions allowed. But they did involve some pretty damn difficult questions, which I'd never encountered before and which really gave me a fright. And it turned out I could work out the answers.
You've spent the past 30 years studying gravitational wave physicists. What do you like about them?
They're my ideal kind of academic. They're doing a slightly crazy, almost impossible project, and they're doing it for purely academic reasons with no economic payoff. I consider myself an academic who's made the bargain that I want to have an interesting life, and I'm prepared to have a little less status and a little less money as a result.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-know-better-than-you&sc=rss
Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong
Why fallible expertise trumps armchair science—a Q&A with sociologist of science Harry Collins
If you take scientists at their word, human-induced climate change is well underway, evolution accounts for the diversity of life on Earth and vaccines do not cause autism. But the collective expertise of thousands of researchers barely registers with global warming skeptics, creationist movie producers and distrustful parents. Why is scientific authority under fire from so many corners? Sociologist Harry Collins thinks part of the answer lies in a misunderstanding of expertise itself. Like Jane Goodall living among the chimps, Collins, a professor at Cardiff University in Wales, has spent 30 years observing physicists who study gravitational wave detection—the search for faint ripples in the fabric of spacetime. He's learned the hard way about the work that goes into acquiring specialized scientific knowledge. In a recent book, Rethinking Expertise, he says that what bridges the gap—and what keeps science working—is something called "interactional expertise". Collins spoke recently with ScientificAmerican.com about his view of expertise; what follows is an edited transcript of that interview.
How did we get to the point where scientific authority is so easily challenged?
The high point of the authority of science was perhaps the 1950s. In those days one would see on the popular television programs a scientist wearing a white coat with license to speak authoritatively on almost any subject to do with science—and sometimes on subjects outside of science. But things go wrong in the progress of science and technology. If you see the space shuttle crashing, you can see that these guys in the white coats don't always get it right.
When you discover the jagged edges of science, you start to think, wait a minute—maybe scientists' views aren't quite as immaculate as we thought they were. Maybe ordinary people's views can weigh a little more. And I think there's some truth to this, but not as much as some of my colleagues think. Having studied esoteric sciences from the outside, I know that ordinary people have no chance of grasping the details of them.
What's wrong with ordinary people weighing in on scientific subjects?
It is easy to imagine all sorts of horror stories if we abandon the idea that there are some people who know what they are talking about and some who don't. Most scientific disputes that concern the public are at the cutting edge—the place where things are not completely certain. Examples are the safety of vaccines, the true importance of global warming, the effects of farming genetically modified food crops, and so forth.
Even now, in the U.K., the relatively dangerous disease of measles is becoming endemic as a result of a widespread consumer revolt against the MMR vaccine about 10 years ago. Parents believe that even though doctors assure them that vaccines are safe, those doctors may be wrong. Therefore, the parents think they are entitled to throw their own judgment into the mix. Quite a few social scientists are pushing this trend hard.
Why should the average person acknowledge that scientists might know better than they do?
It is possible to make an argument from the common sense idea that scientists know what they're talking about because they've spent much more time looking at the areas of the natural sciences that we're interested in. Normally, if somebody's spent a lot of time in an area, you'd tend to take their opinion as more valuable.
We believe that you can work out whether someone has the right scientific expertise and experience to make some sensible contribution to scientific debates. It doesn't mean they're right. What you have to do is not sort out the people who are right and wrong; what you have to sort is the people who can make sensible contributions from those who can't. Because once you stop doing that, things go horribly wrong.
That seems like it cuts both ways. Are evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins fanning the flames in the way that they engage creationists?
Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.
In our book we too criticize creationism's pretensions to be a science, but we don't treat it as a trivial problem. Our critiques of creationism are: (a) that it stops scientific progress in its tracks by answering questions in a way that closes off further research; and (b) that there is no real attempt to meld the approach with the existing methods of science. We know that the creationists say this is not true, but their hypotheses relate to books of obscure origin or to faith rather than to observation.
How do you distinguish the people who can and can't contribute to a specialized field?
The key to the whole thing is whether people have had access to the tacit knowledge of an esoteric area—tacit knowledge is know-how that you can't express in words. The standard example is knowing how to ride a bike. My view as a sociologist is that expertise is located in more or less specialized social groups. If you want to know what counts as secure knowledge in a field like gravitational wave detection, you have to become part of the social group. Being immersed in the discourse of the specialists is the only way to keep up with what is at the cutting edge.
Is this where interactional expertise comes into play?
Interactional expertise is one of the things that broadens the scope of who can contribute. It's a little bit wider than the old "people in the white coats" of the 1950s, but what it's not is everybody. (Within science, lots of people have interactional expertise, because science wouldn't run without it.)
You did experiments to test your theory of expertise. What did you find?
The original version we did was with color-blind people. What we were attempting to demonstrate is something we call the strong interactional hypothesis: If you have deeply immersed yourself in the talk of an esoteric group—but not immersed yourself in any way in the practices of that group—you will be indistinguishable from somebody who has immersed themself [sic] in both the talk and the practice, in a test which just involves talk.
If it's the case, then you're going to speak as fluently as someone who has been engaged in the practices. And if you can speak as fluently, then you're indistinguishable from an expert. It's what I like to call "walking the talk". You still can't do the stuff, but you can make judgments, inferences and so on, which are on a par.
We picked color-blind people because they've spent their whole lives immersed in a community talking about color. So we thought color-blind people should be indistinguishable from color-perceivers when asked questions by a color-perceiver who knew what was going on. And we demonstrated that that was in fact the case. Now we're planning to do another imitation test on the congenitally blind to see if they can perform as well as the color-blind.
You also found that gravitational wave physicists had a hard time distinguishing you from one of their own in a written test.
I thought it's my duty to put myself through this test and see if anybody can tell. I'm not claiming my interactional expertise is really good enough to pass for a physicist, so I had to put brackets around it. There were no mathematical questions allowed. But they did involve some pretty damn difficult questions, which I'd never encountered before and which really gave me a fright. And it turned out I could work out the answers.
You've spent the past 30 years studying gravitational wave physicists. What do you like about them?
They're my ideal kind of academic. They're doing a slightly crazy, almost impossible project, and they're doing it for purely academic reasons with no economic payoff. I consider myself an academic who's made the bargain that I want to have an interesting life, and I'm prepared to have a little less status and a little less money as a result.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, May 9, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 80 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #177823 by Jack Rawlinson on May 9, 2008 at 7:27 pm
"I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle."Another lazymind trots it out without offering the slightest justification for it. I'm so tired of the dishonesty of these people.
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
3. Comment #177828 by ambymacula on May 9, 2008 at 7:35 pm
They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.
What could make you more competent to argue against creationism than a background in evolutionary biology? Humorous (but no crude) responses welcome.
Other Comments by ambymacula
4. Comment #177830 by mikecbraun on May 9, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Yeah, where's your sophisticated, subtle rebuttal of religion Dr. Dawkins? They have such subtle and refined proofs on their side, like Leviticus and Revelations, and kill all of the infidels, etc. We can't hope to win any arguments against high class stuff like that. /sarcasm Other Comments by mikecbraun
5. Comment #177831 by Diacanu on May 9, 2008 at 7:41 pm
If you see the space shuttle crashing, you can see that these guys in the white coats don't always get it right.
Scientists didn't break the fucking space shuttles, beurocracy did.
I can read no further.
Puke.
Other Comments by Diacanu
6. Comment #177833 by EvidenceOnly on May 9, 2008 at 7:48 pm
2 things come to mind:1. You don't have to become an expert in tooth fairies before stating that the existence of tooth fairies is extremely improbable. You can replace tooth fairies with anything for which no evidence exists. Keep doing this Richard!
2. When I get in an airplane, I don't argue with the pilots that I can fly the plane myself because I don't want to risk my life nor that of the other passengers. However people who believe things not based on any evidence (IDiots, GodDidIts, etc) keep pushing policies onto society based either on pseudo science or on bogus morality claims that jeopardize the life of many people. Examples are (a) the Pope's opposition to condoms which every year kills 1.6 million from HIV in Africa (the equivalent of 1.5 NINE-ELEVENs each and every day), (b) the opposition to stem cell research, (c) I could go on for a very long time here!
Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
7. Comment #177844 by Don_Quix on May 9, 2008 at 8:08 pm
If you take scientists at their word, human-induced climate change is well underwayDepends on which scientists you talk to. I don't think any scientist would disagree that "climate change" is underway (it always is, always has been, and always will be). However, I think a significant number of scientists, especially climatologists, are not entirely sure that climate change is 100% due to humans, and believe that we must immediately enact a huge number of draconian global initiatives to counteract it or we will all die a horrible death in the next 20-30 years (and even if we do change our sinful ways it might not help...and coincidentally the global initiatives seem to only punish developed nations). Smells suspiciously like religion to me :)
Just a thought. Not trying to make this an AGW debate ;)
Other Comments by Don_Quix
8. Comment #177848 by Zappi on May 9, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Ok, unfortunately I'm not a theologian, so I cannot express any opinion whatsoever related in any way with religion. That's sad. If I only knew, I would have spent years taking Theology in a reputable institution, just to make sure nobody would complain if I say that religion is rubbish.Regarding the Pope, It's easy to notice that he steps out of his field quite often, tackling human reproduction, morality, and recently even genetic engineering. Not to mention when he starts talking about cosmology or about charity. Oh well. Double standards everywhere.
Regarding the bad name given to atheism by Richard Dawkins, I would rather be associated with it. Strangely Mr Ratzinger did not give his religion a bad name when he defended quite recently the condemnation of Galileo.
Other Comments by Zappi
9. Comment #177857 by Janus on May 9, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Please. As if theology has anything to do with religion as 99% of people practice it. Other Comments by Janus
10. Comment #177858 by robotaholic on May 9, 2008 at 8:47 pm
If you see the space shuttle crashing, you can see that these guys in the white coats don't always get it right.that sentence makes me sad -
oh and ambymacula:
What could make you more competent to argue against creationism than a background in evolutionary biology?- That was AWESOME! -
Other Comments by robotaholic
11. Comment #177860 by mmurray on May 9, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.
Maybe he should talk to the Cardinal ?
I keep wondering why nobody ever writes a popular account of this wonderful, marvelous, subtle theology we have been hearing about ever since TGD came out ? Sure it's going to be tough for people like us to understand but people like Richard do a wonderful job of explaining science to the lay person. Surely someone can bring down theology to a level we can understand?
I can't decide if the reason they don't do this is because they really don't have anything to say or because they don't want to admit to the lay religious person that the theologians idea of God and Richard's are not that far apart.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
12. Comment #177862 by WilliamP on May 9, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.
Yes, it's quite crude to point out that belief in a creator based on the premise that complex life requires an intelligent designer is contradictory because it would require the designer to be more complex than the complex life that it seeks to explain. It's also quite unsubtle to argue that the concept would violate Ockham's Razor.
If an outsider to a subject can show that something within that subject is logically falacious, then he has a valid criticism of it. This especially goes for theology, because it's based entirely on fallacy.
Other Comments by WilliamP
13. Comment #177876 by hoops mccann on May 9, 2008 at 9:43 pm
By making claims about the physical world, claims which are testable, creationists open themselves to scientific challenge. Richard isn't stepping outside of his "narrow field", the creationists are stepping into it (so to speak). Other Comments by hoops mccann
14. Comment #177877 by Don_Quix on May 9, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle.
I really wish people like Dawkins would stop pointing out how utterly ridiculous it is for anyone to be a "professional theologian" with his constant tiresome appeals to common sense, fact, and reason.
There, I fixed it for him.
WTF is a "sociologist of science" anyway? That sounds like a fake degree he just made up.
Other Comments by Don_Quix
15. Comment #177893 by SteveO on May 9, 2008 at 11:02 pm
WTF is a "sociologist of science" anyway? That sounds like a fake degree he just made up.
professional fanboy by the sound of it.
Other Comments by SteveO
16. Comment #177898 by bucketchemist on May 9, 2008 at 11:28 pm
I keep wondering why nobody ever writes a popular account of this wonderful, marvelous, subtle theology we have been hearing about ever since TGD came out ? Sure it's going to be tough for people like us to understand but people like Richard do a wonderful job of explaining science to the lay person. Surely someone can bring down theology to a level we can understand?
I would agree with this, apart from the necessity to dumb down theology (since much of it is dumb enough already). There is a valid criticism to be made, I believe, that some atheist writings treats religion as if it aspired to the same epistemological status as the empirical sciences, which it could never do, and most 'thoughtful theologians' rightly join atheists in criticising efforts such as I.D. for taking this line. Theology can obviously make no contribution at all to a practice which is based on falsification and the ideal scientific method, and it is unfortunate to say the least, that theologians do feel at liberty to weigh in on issues that are better addressed using evidential methods. Empirical science isn't the only game in town though, and there are many areas of human activity which overlap with spirituality and religion. Personally I try to look at theology as a branch of the creative and performing arts, with all of the triviality and profundity that comes with that. I suspect also that large parts of sociology, psychology, philosophy, ethics, poetics, aesthetics, etc would also be incomplete without a recognition of this weirdness. I suppose what I am saying is that when theologians say that the god criticised by atheists is unrecognisable to them they may have a point, although in bringing their god to the debating chamber, the laboratory or the school science classroom they have joined us in this misrecognition.
Other Comments by bucketchemist
17. Comment #177899 by History_Junky on May 9, 2008 at 11:29 pm
...So apparently only theologians can talk about religion. Well then I guess that discredits the majority of religious people seeing as how you have be a theologian to discuss religion.The incompetence of these morons.
Other Comments by History_Junky
18. Comment #177900 by maton100 on May 9, 2008 at 11:32 pm
This article has a high level of tardensity. Other Comments by maton100
19. Comment #177904 by Spinoza on May 9, 2008 at 11:55 pm
I didn't think the article was that bad... I don't know why some have found it necessary to jump on every criticism as if they MUST be unfounded...They're criticisms and they may be justified or not, but they ought to be dealt with rationally and calmly, or else you end up looking crazy.
... The knee-jerk defensiveness of some people on this site confuses and saddens me.
Other Comments by Spinoza
20. Comment #177912 by adonais on May 10, 2008 at 12:21 am
Comment #177904 by SpinozaThe knee-jerk defensiveness of people on this site confuses and saddens me.
I'd be inclined to agree, I mostly thought it was an interesting article until I arrived at that Dawkins paragraph. Collins has really missed one of the MAJOR points that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al have been trying to make: that religion has for millennia enjoyed absurd measures of undeserved respect, and that it is highly questionable whether theology is a subject at all in any other sense than a historical one. Collins seems to saying that things should rather stay as they are, let's keep pretending that theology is a subject and let's respect their academic and scientific pretensions. For that he deserves to get flamed :-)
Other Comments by adonais
21. Comment #177914 by PaulJ on May 10, 2008 at 12:30 am
Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle. They step outside their narrow competences when they produce these arguments.There's no real point in discussing religion with theologians, because they nearly all argue from the point of view that God exists. If a theologian accepts that the question of God's existence is moot, then he or she has nothing left to say.
Other Comments by PaulJ
22. Comment #177915 by Barry Pearson on May 10, 2008 at 12:36 am
Are evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins fanning the flames in the way that they engage creationists?
Probably they are. It is inevitable that they will anger the creationists, but they probably also worry or anger some religious people too.
Here is an 88 minute video of Dr Eugenie Scott, who has been engaged in the battle with creationists for over 20 years. As usual, she speaks with intelligence and clarity. She makes the point that some scientists appear to be saying that scientific positions are incompatible with religion. She stresses the importance of getting religious people vocally on the side of Evolution so that religious parents need not fear science, especially Evolution.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=PE3Qvfm8jU0
Here are two excellent videos about Evolution by a Christian who believes that creationism damages Christianity. His aim is to convince Christians that they need to accept Evolution because it has been overwhelmingly validated, and that there isn't the dichotomy claimed by creationists.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zBoqKF52FU8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vBaOFKoLlZk
The "problem" with Richard Dawkins is that he has become relatively-independently well known for 2 topics, evolution and atheism, which causes them to be linked too strongly in the minds of many religious people.
Once scientists move outside their scientific experience, they become like a layperson. I'm not a religious person, but if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology (who might be either an atheist or a believer). I believe people like Dawkins give atheism a bad name because their arguments are so crude and unsubtle.
This in largely a non sequitur. It may take a lot of knowledge of religion to make significant advances in religion. But it doesn't take a lot of knowledge to realise that religious beliefs are nonsense! (And too many theologians appear to fail to address the issue of "many gods / many religions", which was of major importance to me when I was wondering whether God existed 20 years ago. I think they are too close to the subject).
In fact, of course, what Richard Dawkins mainly (not entirely) discusses in TGD is the (non-)existence of God/gods, not religion. I think a lot of religious people get confused about this. Many atheists, perhaps most, are not atheists because we are reacting against problems with religion, but simply because we see no evidence for God/gods and/or think the idea is pretty silly.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
23. Comment #177917 by bucketchemist on May 10, 2008 at 12:39 am
A quick follow-up to my previous post. I think it is interesting that the article cites a kind of golden age of scientific authority, located in the white coated fifties. That was also around the time that C.P. Snow was drawing attention to what he saw as 'Two Cultures', in which traditional intellectual activity (with the inherited authority that comes with it) was grounded in the humanities, with science and technology having a more menial role in culture and thought. It may be that science at that time was 'allowed' to have dominion over its own area of authority because there was less insecurity within the ranks of the traditional intellectuals that their own areas might be marginalised. That is much less the case today, when empiricism tends to be the default setting for not only scientific authority but credibility in all areas. Other Comments by bucketchemist
24. Comment #177919 by Spinoza on May 10, 2008 at 12:40 am
let's keep pretending that theology is a subject
... Adonais (btw, that's quite the ironic moniker!), the thing is, there's no reason NOT to call theology a "subject" in the same way that there's no reason not to call "women's studies" a "subject".
Being a theologian does not require one to be religious... the two are quite separable... it just happens to be the case that most theologians are religious (but NOT ALL!).
You MIGHT want to call it "philosophy of religion" or even "meta-analysis" or "metaphysics of religion", but I suppose for historical reasons Theology has retained the name it has always had (there's no really pressing reason to change it).
In fact, I'd prefer it if every member of every religion were forced to take theology at an undergraduate level.
There would far more sane theists (that is to say, the majority would likely end up as some sort of deist, or near-deist).
Other Comments by Spinoza
25. Comment #177928 by MPhil on May 10, 2008 at 1:14 am
Whoa, Spinoza -Did you just write that? Philosophy of Religion and Theology are totally different things. Mainly for one reason: Theology is as far from philosophy as possible, because it is dogmatically bound. Finding out the truth, loving wisdom - philosophy wouldn't be possible if dogmatically bound.
It's not even "Metaphysics of the Catholic/Protestant Worldview", because that - if it were to be philosophy would imply completely critical assessment even of the basic tennants, and not with the explicit goal of affirming it in the end.
They have a position they are required to hold, philosophy hasn't.
Michael Martin, Graham Oppy, Richard M. Gale, John Leslie Mackie - all these work(ed) in philosophy of religion, so do Swinburne, Plantinga and Craig. But not every theologian does that, and none of the four people I mentioned first were theologians.
Theology - you might as well say "Finding the metaphysical attributes of the FSM" was a subject.
Other Comments by MPhil
26. Comment #177931 by mrjonno on May 10, 2008 at 1:57 am
There is a whole culture of everyone can be an expert brought on by the mass media and in particular by the internet. And for once I actually think atheists and rationalists can be worse than religious people in this regard.An example how do you determine the possibility that global warming is man made and a genuine danger?
The only sensible answer is spend 20 years studying climatology at a University. Looking it up on google or having an online debate simply doesnt cut it. 'Free thinkers' simply dont like fact, that you can't study the evidence if you don't have the educational background. They don't like relying on the opinions of others as they want to be independent (which is a complete illusion no human being can survive in the modern world without relying on 1000's of others). Fundamentally if comes down to if you don't have a high level degree in a related subject you simply don't have a remotely valuable opinion.
Sometimes I hate the corruption and the attempts to try to democracise science even more than religion. I think it comes down to that there seems to be some innate part of human nature what wants easy answers.
Anyway I'm Jon with a degree in Physics but have no absolutely no idea on the science of global warming but if the vast majority of climate scientists say its happening then I wait for it TRUST them :)
Other Comments by mrjonno
27. Comment #177933 by Dune010 on May 10, 2008 at 2:08 am
I think people here are unnecessarily hard on theology as a subject. Yes, it is not the same as philosophy of religion, but the two overlap more than you think. From my experience, theology seems a lot like an English literature degree crossed with a history degree. It involves a lot of critical analysis of the texts. However, in the course at my university at least, they deal with the psychology of religion and the philosophy of religion as well.In my opinion, a theologian can be one of the most formidable allies in any religious debate.
Other Comments by Dune010
28. Comment #177934 by Darwin's badger on May 10, 2008 at 2:15 am
Sociology is the science of telling people what they don't need a degree to know already. *rolly eyes emoticon thingy* Other Comments by Darwin's badger
29. Comment #177936 by MPhil on May 10, 2008 at 2:34 am
Dune010,you're right - but still theology is dogmatically bound. It's not rational investigation.
A theologian might be an ally, but he is still confessionally bound. A philosopher of religion still makes the most formidable ally and opponent in a debate.
Other Comments by MPhil
30. Comment #177939 by Corylus on May 10, 2008 at 2:49 am
Spinoza They're criticisms and they may be justified or not, but they ought to be dealt with rationally and calmly...Okay, dude, I'll give it a bash. :)
-----
Setting aside the question of 'lay' contributions for a second (those discussion tend to get emotional with accusations of intellectual snobbery flying around), let's look at whether this article works on its own terms. I don't think it does for one simple reason.
There is a danger here that the author does not seem to have considered (maybe because he has shut himself up into a very specific area of physics), that his dichotomy between 'lay' and 'expert' is not just applicable to scientists and non scientists, but also between scientists of different fields.
How do you distinguish the people who can and can't contribute to a specialized field?Well, I can understand Collins' admiration for people with specialized knowledge and can see why specialisation is necessary. If you look at the history of science over the last 200 hundred years what you see is the increasing and astonishing amount of specialisation. This is understandable, no one can learn everything; this concentration on one specific thing can be hugely productive.
The key to the whole thing is whether people have had access to the tacit knowledge of an esoteric area;tacit knowledge is know-how that you can't express in words. The standard example is knowing how to ride a bike. My view as a sociologist is that expertise is located in more or less specialized social groups. If you want to know what counts as secure knowledge in a field like gravitational wave detection, you have to become part of the social group. Being immersed in the discourse of the specialists is the only way to keep up with what is at the cutting edge.
However, and this is a huge 'however', by this statement he appears to rule out the possibility of cross-disciplinary dialogue and knowledge sharing. If one professional tells another that their particular pet theory will not work because of evidence from other fields are they to be dismissed merely because they cannot 'walk the talk'?
People need to be able share knowledge without being forced into written tests. That is the way they can work towards coming up with ideas that work in both fields. The question is not whether they can bullshit their way through a test. The question is whether or not they are right.
What you have to do is not sort out the people who are right and wrong; what you have to sort is the people who can make sensible contributions from those who can't.Umm... Isn't being right making a sensible contribution? By definition?
Too narrow.
Other Comments by Corylus
31. Comment #177940 by Dune010 on May 10, 2008 at 2:50 am
A theologian might be an ally, but he is still confessionally bound. A philosopher of religion still makes the most formidable ally and opponent in a debate.
In a perfect world you would probably be right. Unfortunately, in my experience at least, the comments of philosophers do little to reach our opponents. When dealing with people who believe that their book is the most important thing ever, having someone who can take apart claims based on certain passages can be much more useful.
Obviously, it would be nice to be able to just say that their book is irrelevant.
Other Comments by Dune010
32. Comment #177942 by Christopher Davis on May 10, 2008 at 2:55 am
"In our book we too criticize creationism's pretensions to be a science, but we don't treat it as a trivial problem. Our critiques of creationism are: (a) that it stops scientific progress in its tracks by answering questions in a way that closes off further research; and (b) that there is no real attempt to meld the approach with the existing methods of science. We know that the creationists say this is not true, but their hypotheses relate to books of obscure origin or to faith rather than to observation."
Haven't I already read these arguments from Prof. Dawkins??? The same Prof. Dawkins that this guy calls "crude and unsubtle"?
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
33. Comment #177949 by MPhil on May 10, 2008 at 3:41 am
Obviously, it would be nice to be able to just say that their book is irrelevant.
If that is your opinion on what the only thing philosophers of religion contribute is, then (fortunately) you're wrong.
An atheist philosopher of religion usually knows the bible, the dogma, the theological/apologetic arguments very well. We can show how the conception of a deity as in the Catholic/Protestant/etc dogma is an impossible concept. They can reach the common man by arguing convincingly that "Meaning" and "Morality" and the value of certain things can be gotten from a worldview without god. That not all is allowed when there is no god, they can shoot down all the arguments for the religious position.
I myself (being a philosopher) have seen that happen (and occasionally made it happen) myself - I've "deconverted" at least 2 people, and eradicated some underlying misconceptions and remains of religiosity in the form of deism.
Wihout actual philosophically sound arguments against the claims of theism and theology, without arguments for the improbability of god, the logical impossibility of god, the lack of proper epistemic justification, the refutation of the arguments that belief is necessary to be moral and for life to have meaning - without these, we couldn't get anywhere... and these arguments we have are the brainchildren of people from Hume to Kant to Mill, Mackie, Martin, Oppy, Gale and Sobel. (and others)
Other Comments by MPhil
34. Comment #177950 by Enlightenme.. on May 10, 2008 at 3:46 am
It's Tenets, Mphil, not tennants.
Article? - bollocks.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
35. Comment #177954 by MPhil on May 10, 2008 at 3:52 am
Thanks, Enlightenme... I was thinking about a debate I'm following in which the Christian side is represented by a very deluded, pseudo-intellectual person named David Bnonn Tennant :) Other Comments by MPhil
36. Comment #177958 by Enlightenme.. on May 10, 2008 at 4:11 am
"..if I want to talk religion with someone, it won't be a scientist; it will be with someone who understands theology"
If I wanted to discuss concepts of the nature of a specified creed's god, perhaps I'd consult a theologian of that specified creed.
However, if I want to "talk religion with someone", then I'd need to seek out a spectrum of believers, and non-believers, in a spectrum of religions wouldn't I?
(I think, perhaps I'll steer clear of sociologists!!)
I have decided, for better or worse, to have a quick consultation with some 1 person; having spent 20-odd years as a religious person, and 20-odd years as an agnostic/atheist, he is able to give a balanced, and expert, opinion - his conclusion?
Gods appear unlikely to exist, therefore religion is a farcical, sad, waste of endeavour.
Is he bitter about losing those 20 odd years of the prime of his life? - you bet.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
37. Comment #177959 by Enlightenme.. on May 10, 2008 at 4:16 am
Mphil, could you define 'pseudo-intellectual' for me?
;)
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
38. Comment #177960 by Enlightenme.. on May 10, 2008 at 4:23 am
OK, Quick wiki to answer my own query:
Pseudointellectual is a pejorative term used to describe someone who engages in false intellectualism or is intellectually dishonest. The term is often, though not always, used to describe one who regularly critiques the work of professionals, while lacking the requisite background knowledge and experience to have an informed opinion. Synonyms for this character include sophist, and in medical terms, mountebank and quack.
Someone who comments on, or is knowledgeable of, disciplines outside his or her own field of study is not a pseudointellectual, as long as he or she is intellectually honest and does not misrepresent his or her own background and understanding of the subject.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
39. Comment #177963 by k1mgy on May 10, 2008 at 4:31 am
| Even now, in the U.K., the relatively dangerous | disease of measles is becoming endemic as a | result of a widespread consumer revolt against | the MMR vaccine about 10 years ago. Parents
| believe that even though doctors assure them
| that vaccines are safe, those doctors may be
| wrong. Therefore, the parents think they are
| entitled to throw their own judgment into the
| mix. Quite a few social scientists are pushing
| this trend hard.
There is no argument as to the efficacy of vaccines against certain diseases. Parents, however, are being blamed for the wrong reason.
Professor Collins is speaking outside of his field for he lacks credentials in the study of government corruption. It may well be that people do indeed trust science. It's the government enablers with their hands in the pockets of corporations that may arouse some suspicion, particularly when enforcing a one-size-fits-all vaccine policy and pushing to violate informed consent.
Other Comments by k1mgy
40. Comment #177967 by MPhil on May 10, 2008 at 4:43 am
He's a pseudo-intellectual because there is no intellectual honesty, the claim to have perfectly logical arguments and all the epistemic justification in the world when the arguments have so many fallacies in them, so many petitio principii, equivocation fallacies, even contradictions and many non sequiturs - pseudo-intellectual. Other Comments by MPhil
41. Comment #177969 by Robert Maynard on May 10, 2008 at 4:45 am
As Spinoza mentioned, the venom in peoples responses to this is kind of weird. Read the headline again and think about what you're lashing out against.I thought the article was an interesting outline of an approach to how we can change the conversation about science, in a culture which doesn't trust science as much as it used to. It's looking at why that is and what science may have done (unintentionally) to lose that trust, or rather to have it snatched away from them by cranks.
The reference to the space shuttle was simply an example of how laypeople can lose trust in science, because his argument is that public trust in science has historically been based on the results science yields, rather than the superiority of the worldview and methodologies which produce these results.
All he seemed to be saying with regards to Dawkins is that many religious people haven't taken to his arguments very well - they're blunt and no-nonsense, and many people have a similarly blunt reaction to them. Dawkins himself has agreed with this, admitting he doesn't expect to convert "dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads".
We might say, "Crude, unsubtle? You snob. He says it simple because it is simple! People just need to accept it!" Just like parents need to accept that vaccinations work, eh?
Saying "They're stupid and just need to get over it and accept that they're wrong" is a goal, not a plan, and if it's all we have to offer all we can look forward to is the non-proliferation of atheism and the scientific worldview, and the spread of sneering, post-modernist, anti-establishment sentiments.. and also measles. :|
Other Comments by Robert Maynard
42. Comment #177977 by adonais on May 10, 2008 at 5:27 am
Spinoza wrote:... Adonais (btw, that's quite the ironic moniker!), the thing is, there's no reason NOT to call theology a "subject" in the same way that there's no reason not to call "women's studies" a "subject".
Fair enough, but how much longer can theology be a subject that scientists are required to debunk on its own terms? Theology has a habit of moving the goalposts in order for that never to happen.
Are scientist still required to debunk palmistry, astrology and voodoo etc by first becoming expert shamans and palm readers (or whatever)? We've passed that point long ago, these subjects are now properly shelved under occult, hardly vying for academic respect or scientific recognition - how much longer for theology?
Btw, the irony of "Adonais" is, well, not intended. It refers to the poem by Shelley, the elegy for Keats (although Shelley might have constructed it from the hebrew Adonai and the greek Adonis, maybe that's what you were thinking of)
Other Comments by adonais
43. Comment #177979 by AntonAAK on May 10, 2008 at 5:37 am
If we cannot dismiss religion without a careful study of theology how can their supporters embrace it without the same?Most christians have little or no knowledge of theology and an understanding of their own religion and indeed scripture that many atheists would put to shame. Does this mean they are not qualified to be believers?
If we have no valid reason to disbelieve without theological study then rank and file theists have no valid reason to believe.
Other Comments by AntonAAK
44. Comment #177994 by FightingFalcon on May 10, 2008 at 7:21 am
I didn't think the article was that bad... I don't know why some have found it necessary to jump on every criticism as if they MUST be unfounded...
They're criticisms and they may be justified or not, but they ought to be dealt with rationally and calmly, or else you end up looking crazy.
... The knee-jerk defensiveness of some people on this site confuses and saddens me.
I've discovered the very same thing myself. Should an article dare question Richard Dawkins, certain posters will jump all over it and refuse to even acknowledge its points.
Just look at how many threads are dictated by the first few posts. And Jupiter forbid if Dawkins himself posts in a thread...
I feel like a lot of the posters here are no different than the Theists they condemn in terms of needing the answers from a higher power instead of thinking for themselves.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
45. Comment #177996 by Pattern Seeker on May 10, 2008 at 7:34 am
Why not post an article titled-'IDiots Know Less Than You--Even When They're Right'
yeah....that about sums it up.
Other Comments by Pattern Seeker
46. Comment #177997 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 10, 2008 at 7:37 am
Dick to the Dawk to the Ph,D. He's smarter than you, he's got a science degree!
Sorry, just reminded me of that parody rap.
"Your concerns are noted, AND stupid." ;)
EDIT:
Sure it's going to be tough for people like us to understand but people like Richard do a wonderful job of explaining science to the lay person. Surely someone can bring down theology to a level we can understand?
And let's not forget Carl Sagan as well. :)
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
47. Comment #177998 by clintonjason on May 10, 2008 at 7:57 am
I have a big big problem: I'm bored to death of religion. Can anyone of you please switch it off... Why can't we focus on how to live this life, instead on how to prepare for the next one... it-is-so-bo-ri-ng-!! Other Comments by clintonjason
48. Comment #178004 by FightingFalcon on May 10, 2008 at 8:18 am
I have a big big problem: I'm bored to death of religion. Can anyone of you please switch it off... Why can't we focus on how to live this life, instead on how to prepare for the next one... it-is-so-bo-ri-ng-!!
Just do what I do and learn to forget about it. When religion starts to really bug me, I just concentrate on doing things that I really enjoy. No purpose going through our one and only life constantly pissed off about something that you can't change all that much.
Now time for some Nintendo Wii action before heading to the pub! =)
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
49. Comment #178007 by Enlightenme.. on May 10, 2008 at 8:24 am
"Surely someone can bring down theology to a level we can understand?"
That would defeat it's purpose. The nature of theology's god, whilst simple, is also very complex, requiring further expert study.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
50. Comment #178010 by Logicel on May 10, 2008 at 8:28 am
If you want to know what counts as secure knowledge in a field like gravitational wave detection, you have to become part of the social group.____
Is this author implying that atheists need to throw tea parties for theologians? If so, please send me to hell now.
Other Comments by Logicel
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
David Brooks
"Pointing to another world will never stop vice among us; shedding light over this world can alone help us."
Walt Whitman
"It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so."
Sir Arthur C. Clarke
"No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth."
Richard Dawkins
"I don't want to sound callous. I mean, even if I have nothing to offer, that doesn't matter, because that still doesn't mean that what anybody else has to offer therefore has to be true."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Your Inner Fish
Neil Shubin
Genome
Matt Ridley
Why Darwin Matters
Michael Shermer
Read the 1st Chapter!
Against All Gods
A C Grayling
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #177819 by Quine on May 9, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Other Comments by Quine