Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed
by Science Progress
Thanks to Logicel for the link.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/
COMMUNICATING SCIENCE
Manufactroversy
The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed
By Leah Ceccarelli
SOURCE: SP Contemporary rhetorical tactics designed to confuse politicians and the public about scientific issues are as old as antiquity. The methods are just as disingenuous 2,500 years after their invention
Manufactroversy
N., pl. -sies.
1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.
2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.
With all the sophisticated sophistry besieging mass audiences today, there is a need for the study of rhetoric now more than ever before. This is especially the case when it comes to the contemporary assault on science known as manufactured controversy: when significant disagreement doesn't exist inside the scientific community, but is successfully invented for a public audience to achieve specific political ends.
Three recent examples of manufactured controversy are global warming skepticism, AIDS dissent in South Africa, and the intelligent design movement's "teach the controversy" campaign. The first of these has been called an "epistemological filibuster" because it magnifies the uncertainty surrounding a scientific truth claim in order to delay the adoption of a policy that is warranted by that science. Languaging expert Frank Luntz admitted as much in his now infamous talking points memo on the environment, leaked to the public in 2002, where he confessed that the window for claiming controversy about global warming was closing, but he nonetheless urged Republican congressional and executive leaders "to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." ExxonMobil was doing this when it published its "Unsettled Science" advertisement about climate science on the editorial pages of the New York Times in March 2000. A more recent guest editorial by a reader made the same claim in the pages of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in January 2008. All three seemed to be following the playbook of the tobacco industry when scientists discovered that their products cause cancer; when a threat to their interests arises from the scientific community, they declare "there are always two sides to a case" and then call for more study of the matter before action is taken.
South African President Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS dissent eight years ago is a similar case. Like global warming skepticism, this assault on the science of HIV/AIDS research ingeniously turned the scientific community's values against it by drawing on the importance of rational open debate, a skeptical attitude, and the need for continued research. Mbeki alleged that the mainstream scientific community branded scientists who questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS as "'dangerous and discredited' with whom nobody, including ourselves, should communicate or interact." Claiming the successful dissident's authority in post-apartheid South Africa, Mbeki condemned the mainstream scientific community for occupying "the frontline in the campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths."
A parallel case is being made by the intelligent design movement in conjunction with its "teach the controversy" campaign against evolutionary biology. Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled, portrays scientists as participating in a vast conspiracy to silence anyone who questions the Darwinian orthodoxy. This movie promises to be the most extreme application yet of the intelligent design movement's "wedge" strategy to break the supremacy of evolutionary theory in contemporary science. Just as a wedge can be set into a chink in a solid structure and, with the careful application of some concentrated force, will split that structure to pieces, so too do the producers of this movie hope that it can break the scientific community and allow for a change in how science is taught in America. Of course, any claim by biologists that there is no scientific controversy to teach merely feeds the conspiracy theory.
In light of this difficulty, some have suggested that the best response to manufactured controversy is no response at all. They say that countering such nonsense merely gives these modern-day sophists publicity and enables their continued efforts to reopen debate on settled science. I understand this impulse to remain silent in the face of foolishness, but as a professor of rhetoric, I think it's shortsighted to cede the public stage to the anti-science forces in the naive hope that no one will pay attention to them. Ever since the field of rhetoric was born, there have been those who misuse the power of persuasion to mislead public audiences, and it has been only through vigilant counter-persuasion that such deception has been overcome.
The ancient sophists, or "wise men" (wise guys?) who taught the new art of rhetoric to those who would pay their fee in the 5th century BCE, included Gorgias, who was said to have boasted that he could persuade the multitude to ignore the expert and listen to him instead, and Protagoras, who claimed that there are always two sides to a case and it's the sophist's job to make the worse case appear the stronger. It was to oppose this kind of deception that Aristotle codified the art of Rhetoric in his treatise by that title. He recognized that before lay audiences "not even the possession of the exactest knowledge" ensures that a speaker will be persuasive, so Aristotle promoted the study of rhetoric so that experts could confute those who try to mislead public audiences.
As a scholar of rhetoric, I have studied some modern cases of manufactured controversy to discover how to best confute these contemporary sophists, and I have come up with some preliminary hypotheses about what makes their arguments so persuasive to a public audience. First, they skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the American public alike, like free speech, skeptical inquiry, and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who invokes these values without seeming unscientific or un-American. Second, they exploit a tension between the technical and public spheres in postmodern American life; highly specialized scientific experts can't spare the time to engage in careful public communication, and are then surprised when the public distrusts, fears, or opposes them. Third, today's sophists exploit a public misconception about what science is, portraying it as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data; any dissent by any scientist is then seen as evidence that there's no consensus, and thus truth must not have been discovered yet. A more accurate portrayal of science sees it as a process of debate among a community of experts in which one side outweighs the other in the balance of the argument, and that side is declared the winner; a few skeptics might remain, but they're vastly outnumbered by the rest, and the democratic process of science moves forward with the collective weight of the majority of expert opinion. Scientists buy into this democratic process when they enter the profession, so that a call for the winning side to share power in the science classroom with the losers, or to continue debating an issue that has already been settled for the vast majority of scientists so that policy makers can delay taking action on their findings, seems particularly undemocratic to most of them.
Aristotle believed that things that are true "have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites," but that it takes a good rhetor to ensure that this happens when sophisticated sophistry is on the loose. I concur; only by exposing manufactured controversy for what it is, recognizing its rhetorical power and countering those who are skilled at getting the multitude to ignore the experts while imagining a scientific debate where none exists, can scientists and their allies use my field to achieve what Aristotle envisioned for it—a study that helps the argument that is in reality stronger also appear stronger before an audience of nonexperts.
Leah Ceccarelli is an associate professor in the Communication Department at the University of Washington. She teaches rhetoric and is the author of the award-winning book Shaping Science with Rhetoric.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/
COMMUNICATING SCIENCE
Manufactroversy
The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed
By Leah Ceccarelli
SOURCE: SP Contemporary rhetorical tactics designed to confuse politicians and the public about scientific issues are as old as antiquity. The methods are just as disingenuous 2,500 years after their invention
Manufactroversy
N., pl. -sies.
1. A manufactured controversy that is motivated by profit or extreme ideology to intentionally create public confusion about an issue that is not in dispute.
2. Effort is often accompanied by imagined conspiracy theory and major marketing dollars involving fraud, deception and polemic rhetoric.
With all the sophisticated sophistry besieging mass audiences today, there is a need for the study of rhetoric now more than ever before. This is especially the case when it comes to the contemporary assault on science known as manufactured controversy: when significant disagreement doesn't exist inside the scientific community, but is successfully invented for a public audience to achieve specific political ends.
Three recent examples of manufactured controversy are global warming skepticism, AIDS dissent in South Africa, and the intelligent design movement's "teach the controversy" campaign. The first of these has been called an "epistemological filibuster" because it magnifies the uncertainty surrounding a scientific truth claim in order to delay the adoption of a policy that is warranted by that science. Languaging expert Frank Luntz admitted as much in his now infamous talking points memo on the environment, leaked to the public in 2002, where he confessed that the window for claiming controversy about global warming was closing, but he nonetheless urged Republican congressional and executive leaders "to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate." ExxonMobil was doing this when it published its "Unsettled Science" advertisement about climate science on the editorial pages of the New York Times in March 2000. A more recent guest editorial by a reader made the same claim in the pages of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer in January 2008. All three seemed to be following the playbook of the tobacco industry when scientists discovered that their products cause cancer; when a threat to their interests arises from the scientific community, they declare "there are always two sides to a case" and then call for more study of the matter before action is taken.
South African President Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS dissent eight years ago is a similar case. Like global warming skepticism, this assault on the science of HIV/AIDS research ingeniously turned the scientific community's values against it by drawing on the importance of rational open debate, a skeptical attitude, and the need for continued research. Mbeki alleged that the mainstream scientific community branded scientists who questioned the causal link between HIV and AIDS as "'dangerous and discredited' with whom nobody, including ourselves, should communicate or interact." Claiming the successful dissident's authority in post-apartheid South Africa, Mbeki condemned the mainstream scientific community for occupying "the frontline in the campaign of intellectual intimidation and terrorism which argues that the only freedom we have is to agree with what they decree to be established scientific truths."
A parallel case is being made by the intelligent design movement in conjunction with its "teach the controversy" campaign against evolutionary biology. Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled, portrays scientists as participating in a vast conspiracy to silence anyone who questions the Darwinian orthodoxy. This movie promises to be the most extreme application yet of the intelligent design movement's "wedge" strategy to break the supremacy of evolutionary theory in contemporary science. Just as a wedge can be set into a chink in a solid structure and, with the careful application of some concentrated force, will split that structure to pieces, so too do the producers of this movie hope that it can break the scientific community and allow for a change in how science is taught in America. Of course, any claim by biologists that there is no scientific controversy to teach merely feeds the conspiracy theory.
In light of this difficulty, some have suggested that the best response to manufactured controversy is no response at all. They say that countering such nonsense merely gives these modern-day sophists publicity and enables their continued efforts to reopen debate on settled science. I understand this impulse to remain silent in the face of foolishness, but as a professor of rhetoric, I think it's shortsighted to cede the public stage to the anti-science forces in the naive hope that no one will pay attention to them. Ever since the field of rhetoric was born, there have been those who misuse the power of persuasion to mislead public audiences, and it has been only through vigilant counter-persuasion that such deception has been overcome.
The ancient sophists, or "wise men" (wise guys?) who taught the new art of rhetoric to those who would pay their fee in the 5th century BCE, included Gorgias, who was said to have boasted that he could persuade the multitude to ignore the expert and listen to him instead, and Protagoras, who claimed that there are always two sides to a case and it's the sophist's job to make the worse case appear the stronger. It was to oppose this kind of deception that Aristotle codified the art of Rhetoric in his treatise by that title. He recognized that before lay audiences "not even the possession of the exactest knowledge" ensures that a speaker will be persuasive, so Aristotle promoted the study of rhetoric so that experts could confute those who try to mislead public audiences.
As a scholar of rhetoric, I have studied some modern cases of manufactured controversy to discover how to best confute these contemporary sophists, and I have come up with some preliminary hypotheses about what makes their arguments so persuasive to a public audience. First, they skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the American public alike, like free speech, skeptical inquiry, and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who invokes these values without seeming unscientific or un-American. Second, they exploit a tension between the technical and public spheres in postmodern American life; highly specialized scientific experts can't spare the time to engage in careful public communication, and are then surprised when the public distrusts, fears, or opposes them. Third, today's sophists exploit a public misconception about what science is, portraying it as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data; any dissent by any scientist is then seen as evidence that there's no consensus, and thus truth must not have been discovered yet. A more accurate portrayal of science sees it as a process of debate among a community of experts in which one side outweighs the other in the balance of the argument, and that side is declared the winner; a few skeptics might remain, but they're vastly outnumbered by the rest, and the democratic process of science moves forward with the collective weight of the majority of expert opinion. Scientists buy into this democratic process when they enter the profession, so that a call for the winning side to share power in the science classroom with the losers, or to continue debating an issue that has already been settled for the vast majority of scientists so that policy makers can delay taking action on their findings, seems particularly undemocratic to most of them.
Aristotle believed that things that are true "have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites," but that it takes a good rhetor to ensure that this happens when sophisticated sophistry is on the loose. I concur; only by exposing manufactured controversy for what it is, recognizing its rhetorical power and countering those who are skilled at getting the multitude to ignore the experts while imagining a scientific debate where none exists, can scientists and their allies use my field to achieve what Aristotle envisioned for it—a study that helps the argument that is in reality stronger also appear stronger before an audience of nonexperts.
Leah Ceccarelli is an associate professor in the Communication Department at the University of Washington. She teaches rhetoric and is the author of the award-winning book Shaping Science with Rhetoric.
Comments 1 - 50 of 59 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #159832 by Cartomancer on April 13, 2008 at 8:07 am
Ah, the glory days of the old Athenian sophists! I might add to this that Aristotle wasn't the only one who tried to come up with an antidote to the sudden arrival in Athens of skilled rhetoricians. Half a century earlier the comic playwright Aristophanes (in his Nephelae or Clouds) took them on with humour - making sophistic dissembling seem ridiculous, sneaky, and an unnecessary parasitic phenomenon that people should be encouraged to look beyond in making up their minds on an issue.
I think the modern age needs its Aristophanes just as much as it needs its Aristotle.
Other Comments by Cartomancer
3. Comment #159835 by yussel123 on April 13, 2008 at 8:17 am
I have a question which is not really relevant, but it bother's me anyway:
Would a scientist, Dawkins for example, ever support an effort to halt scientific research in a given area because of the terrible consequences that would follow? Ex, what possible good came from the research that developed napalm? What about those scientists who engaged in the reasearch and development of the killing machines for the Nazi concentration/death camps?
Is there ever a moral consideration that justifies halting scientific research?
Other Comments by yussel123
4. Comment #159843 by RationalistHomeTchr on April 13, 2008 at 8:32 am
Cartomancer said: I think the modern age needs its Aristophanes just as much as it needs its Aristotle.To some extent, Stephen Colbert is - for US audiences, at least - an Aristophanes. He has a lot of science-oriented people on his show, he deals with religion a LOT, and he's funny as all get out (IMO). He is able to be much harsher on people like Bill O'Reilly, while still being funny, than the also-funny Jon Stewart, because Colbert plays a hyper-religious character to great comic effect--and to great THINKING effect.
Other Comments by RationalistHomeTchr
5. Comment #159858 by Sargeist on April 13, 2008 at 9:09 am
yussell:A really good (fictional) investigation of the sort of thing you mention can be found in the book "The Trigger" by Arthur C. Clarkr and Michael Kube McDowell.
I really enjoyed it, although it is rather USA-centric in parts :)
Other Comments by Sargeist
6. Comment #159871 by Mozglubov on April 13, 2008 at 9:44 am
Yussell,There is also a difference between science and engineering. The Nazi killing machines, for example, were much more a feat of engineering rather than science. In the Four Horsemen, I think it was Daniel Dennett that brought up a question along the same lines as you. You might be interested to watch the responses of Dawkins and Harris (as they are the two scientists at the table).
Other Comments by Mozglubov
7. Comment #159873 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 9:55 am
yussel123-
Would a scientist, Dawkins for example, ever support an effort to halt scientific research in a given area because of the terrible consequences that would follow?
Well, I'm not a scientist, but I don't think they should.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and to deny knowledge for any reason, especially a scare-mongered one is antithetical to everything I consider to be the meaning of being human, and therefore life itself.
Knowledge is just that.
What people do with it is another matter.
To begin to fear that, you may as well go crawl back into the caves.
Other Comments by Diacanu
8. Comment #159875 by rod-the-farmer on April 13, 2008 at 10:00 am
I suppose one tactic we rationalists could try is to ask the YEC people for equal time so we could teach the controversy - evolution etc. - in their home turf, the mega or not-so mega churches. While I am personally willing to have a go locally, I am a scientific generalist, NOT a degree holding expert in any one subject. I DO have lots of experience speaking in front of audiences.It bet a slide & video presentation is either already available that would do what we need, or one could be assembled quickly. Probably various individual chapters, from which one could select those most appropriate for the audience. Suggestions please ? Anyone ? Anyone ? Buehler ? I would be willing to help.
Has any made this challenge to YEC's and others of similar beliefs ? I mean, other than someone at the level of the Four Horsemen ? What was the result ? There are not enough of them to go around, so it will be up to us foot soldiers to do some of the heavy lifting.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
9. Comment #159879 by Pattern Seeker on April 13, 2008 at 10:03 am
Looks like the title of the article, "The Art of Creating Controversy Where None Existed," could be a treatise on the U.S. Gubmint. Other Comments by Pattern Seeker
10. Comment #159883 by SPS on April 13, 2008 at 10:36 am
Great article. It reminds me of Manufacturing Consent.rod-the-farmer.
I suppose one tactic we rationalists could try is to ask the YEC people for equal time so we could teach the controversy - evolution etc. - in their home turf, the mega or not-so mega churches.
I posed a similar suggestion on the 'Expelled' blog website some months ago. I asked if the believers would be willing to give equal time to other religions, atheism, and evolution, in their churches, mosques, synagogues, etc. I also asked if they supported teaching faith healing, prayer, and voodoo in our medical schools as an alternative to medicine. These questions were left unanswered, at least after checking within the few days of posting it. One of the posters kept accusing opponents of ID as lacking "honesty" and "intellectual rigor". I explained that his accusation was dishonest, since the burden of proof is on the believer. I also suggested that given the state of the world and our universe, perhaps the "creator" lacked "rigor".
Other Comments by SPS
11. Comment #159897 by black wolf on April 13, 2008 at 11:11 am
rod-the-farmer,your post reminds me of something that's going on in Germany currently. The renowned author and investigative journalist Guenther Wallraff had heard that certain Imams boasted of their open-mindedness and peaceful intentions. So he decided to help them along the way of enlightening the muslim population by reading Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' in a mosque. The Imams cringed and refused. Too much enlightenment at once for them, what with the fatwa still hovering like a Damocles sword. Wallraff however wasn't discouraged and offered to do the reading in the mosque's parking lot instead, as that area isn't sanctified and could easily accomodate a great number of listeners. The Imams are still refusing, and Wallraff's still trying to get it on the way, in spite of the death threats he's already received. He has held readings at home to muslim neighbors, achieving "smiles, liberated laughter and thoughtfulness". (Die Zeit, March 26, 2008)
Other Comments by black wolf
12. Comment #159901 by The Englishman on April 13, 2008 at 11:22 am
Stick to rhetoric - science isn't democratic, at least discovering the truth isn't. When only one person believed that balls of different weights would fall from the tower at the same rate he was right and the consensus wrong.As Wikipedia says: An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."
This type of argument is known by several names including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".
Other Comments by The Englishman
13. Comment #159915 by Colwyn Abernathy on April 13, 2008 at 11:48 am
I wonder how long it'll take for Michael Moore to be mentioned?
Wait...
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
14. Comment #159916 by SPS on April 13, 2008 at 11:49 am
Stick to rhetoric - science isn't democratic, at least discovering the truth isn't. When only one person believed that balls of different weights would fall from the tower at the same rate he was right and the consensus wrong.
Honesty of opinion is a good start, but unfortunately for many it serves as an acceptable substitute for fact and truth-seeking.
Regarding rod's suggestion it could help to have a list of qualified volunteers who are willing to speak, or provide information, at churches, etc, by invitation. I don't know if there would be many invitations made given where they would come from, but showing a willingness to better inform people about evolution, etc, would be a good counter against the spread of unproven claims such as ID. This could be accompanied by a website, newspaper ads, and so forth.
Other Comments by SPS
15. Comment #159928 by yussel123 on April 13, 2008 at 12:19 pm
If I may add a comment from a theistic (orhtodox jewish) perspective:
The orthodox community (right wing) believes that scientists are all in a conspiracy to destroy religion. I can state for a fact, that anybody within the community who even suggests that there might be something valid about evolution is treated as a pariah. I don't see how there could be hope of getting any invitations to volunteers who want to "better inform people about evolution".
I am one of those within the community who are curious enough to seek out information. Within the jewish tradition, there are avenues of thought which are more open to the scientific outlook. The problem seems to be overcoming the idea that if you open yourself to new ideas, then you will automatically end up trashing the whole thing.
(The above may seem a bit rambling and incoherent, but it's the best I can do under the circumstances)
Other Comments by yussel123
16. Comment #159929 by D'Arcy on April 13, 2008 at 12:20 pm
The effect described in the article of basically describing an agnostic point of view, ("We don't know enough yet"), could be described in one word:
SMOKESCREEN.
Could someone turn off the italics? I haven't the savvy.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
17. Comment #159936 by Satanburiedfossils on April 13, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Test Your Scientific Literacy! (2001) by Richard Carrier:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/SciLit.html
Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils
18. Comment #159946 by Santi Tafarella on April 13, 2008 at 1:04 pm
An interesting route into reflecting on rhetoric and sophistry is to read Aristophanes' ancient comedy, "The Clouds." It's really quite thought provoking. Socrates, like contemporary science, is slandered throughout the play. He is accused of being a violater of the wisdom of the masses and common sense, with his head in the clouds (hence the play's title). I'd have to go back and look at it again, but there might be a lot of striking similarities between the sophistries of that play and contemporary creationism. At the end of the play, Socrates' school is burned down. There is an anti-intellectual vibe at work throughout the play. It's a "comedy," but is actually quite disturbing, especially at the end.Other Comments by Santi Tafarella
19. Comment #159966 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 1:30 pm
will young-
The pursuit of truth is amoral. It is what we do with knowledge that needs moral consideration.
Beat ya to it.
:P
Other Comments by Diacanu
20. Comment #159972 by ME!0364 on April 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm
"To some extent, Stephen Colbert is - for US audiences, at least - an Aristophanes. He has a lot of science-oriented people on his show, he deals with religion a LOT, and he's funny as all get out (IMO). He is able to be much harsher on people like Bill O'Reilly, while still being funny, than the also-funny Jon Stewart, because Colbert plays a hyper-religious character to great comic effect--and to great THINKING effect."
Interestingly though, the real Colbert (not the character he plays on TV) is catholic, and even teaches Sunday School. Wierd, because his show is awesome.
Other Comments by ME!0364
21. Comment #160009 by AmericanGodless on April 13, 2008 at 2:13 pm
#3 yussel123:#19 will young:
Is there ever a moral consideration that justifies halting scientific research?
The pursuit of truth is amoral. It is what we do with knowledge that needs moral consideration.
Scientific research is frequently halted due to moral considerations. Clinical trials of drugs or medical procedures are based on the moral assumption that the researcher can truthfully say to the human subject that there is insufficient evidence as to whether the treatment may be no better than a placebo, or whether the side effects may be worse than the condition. If the preliminary evidence from the trial builds to a point where the researcher is convinced that the treatment is more dangerous than witholding treatment, the trial will be stopped. There are historic cases (for example, in using mercury compounds to treat syphilis) where trials were continued far beyond this point, and these are cited as clear lapses in scientific research ethics.
The practice of science cannot be called amoral. The ethic of science is that the scientist must act in such a way that what is true may come to be known to be true (Jacob Bronowski, "Science and Human Values," 1956). The rhetorical sophistry discussed in the article is an example of what happens when that ethic is abandoned.
Other Comments by AmericanGodless
22. Comment #160011 by jonjermey on April 13, 2008 at 2:15 pm
I have thought for a while about why many Christians and believers in general simply refuse to see when they are wrong, and the best answer I can come up with is that they are in love with the idea of God. (Most of you will remember the first time you fell in love and how hard it was to even listen to -- much less agree with -- any criticism of the beloved one.) I think this also goes a long way towards explaining why God is given the traditional properties of omnipresence -- so you never have to leave him -- and omniscience -- so he can't do anything wrong even by mistake.This suggests that the best sort of arguments to use against believers are not rational proofs but rather contradictions which suggest the loved one is actually not all that good -- the Argument from Evil -- or all that bright -- the Argument from vestigial organs -- or doesn't really care about the lover anyway. None of these are likely to produce an immediate result because so much of the lover's self-esteem is tied up in his affair; but they might at least cause believers to go away and think about it a little.
Other Comments by jonjermey
23. Comment #160035 by Wosret on April 13, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I don't understand how anyone falls for their obvious crap to begin with. Other Comments by Wosret
24. Comment #160047 by EvidenceOnly on April 13, 2008 at 3:06 pm
The urge of some people to create controversy where none exists is driven by their inner value system. Here are the characteristics of 2 opposing value systems:The scientific value system
- Scientific theories are ALWAYS subject to new discovery
- New discovery MUST come with overwhelming supporting and verifiable evidence
- Scientific theories get adopted on the strength of their evidence after broad peer-review
- Scientists go back to the drawing board when their evidence is deemed insufficient
- Scientists rejoice when a new more powerful theory with better evidence supersedes theirs
The faith-based value system
- Faith is ALWAYS claimed to be an unquestionable revelation and absolute truth (funny how all can claim to be the one and only truth at the same time with a straight face)
- New revelation MUST NOT come with any supporting evidence (no evidence by design)
- Faith gets adopted on the strength of lies, deception and fear
- Religion claims intolerance when their faith is criticized
- Religions put the fear of their god in whoever does believe in it
What happens when a faith-based system attacks a scientific theory:
- First oppose a scientific theory on religious grounds
- Then oppose science with pseudo science (based on lies and the experience that lies repeated often enough eventually become accepted by many as truth)
- When science shows that there is no supporting evidence for this pseudo science, claim that the scientific establishment is boycotting your evidence
- When that does not work claim that the scientific establishment is preventing your scientists to search for evidence within the academic world (they do not get tenured or get fired)
- When that does not work, create controversy where none exists and demand equal representation in science class
- If that does not seem to get you anywhere, claim freedom of speech and use the "Fox" standard of deception by demanding that both sides are thought in a "fair and balanced" way (this moves the average far away for the scientific theory)
- Eventually claim that the scientific theory is extreme left, anti-religion, anti-god, the reason for all misery in the world, supported by liberals, communists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU, an attack to our freedoms, worse than terrorism, …
- Finally have enough parents attack and intimidate science teachers so that they stop teaching "controversial" subjects. This creates new fertile grounds of ignorance which makes de facto results in a double victory.
This recipe is used diligently to distort the scientific evidence about the environment (global warming), health (tobacco, AIDS), biology (evolution, homosexuality), as well as a many issues in society (same-sex marriage, immigration), …
We should not be surprised that people who make claim all patents of morality based on faith without evidence consistently spread lies to stuff their view down everybody's throat.
While the pope is visiting the US this week, Garry Wills' "Papa Sin, Structures of Deceit" is an excellent reminder that the absolute truths of the catholic church are neither absolute, nor truths.
We should NOT stay silent but us scientists should first learn a lot from George Lakoff, a UC Berkeley professor, cognitive linguist and founder of a progressive think thank (www.rockridgeinstitute.org).
In "Thinking Points" (available in PDF online at: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/thinkingpoints/) he reframes political and social issues in a progressive way using the power that language has on all of us.
He explains why being against something only enforces the thing you are against. For example, being against Bush's "Tax Relief" and his "War on Terror" only reenforces that taxes are inherently evil and that those against his efforts to protect the country are anti-patriotic while the the insanity of giving huge tax credits to the wealthy while engaged in an immoral 3 to five trillion dollar "occupation of Iraq" (more than $20K per second) gets lost in people's mind.
It is time we reframe the debate with creationists and IDiotic friends and all others who attack solid scientific evidence.
Other Comments by EvidenceOnly
25. Comment #160054 by robotaholic on April 13, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I totally agree Mitchell gilks - My dad tries to talk religion to me and finally one day I told him that it all just boils down to him trying to get me to beleive in invisible people with magic powers and of course talking snakes.-
How CAN anyone fall for that crap?
Other Comments by robotaholic
26. Comment #160058 by robotaholic on April 13, 2008 at 3:22 pm
wow! EvidenceOnly, that was awesome- - Eventually claim that the scientific theory is extreme left, anti-religion, anti-god, the reason for all misery in the world, supported by liberals, communists, gays, lesbians, the ACLU, an attack to our freedoms, worse than terrorism
You're totally right.
Other Comments by robotaholic
27. Comment #160090 by Cartomancer on April 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Socrates, like contemporary science, is slandered throughout the play. He is accused of being a violater of the wisdom of the masses and common senseThe character of Socrates in Aristophanes' Clouds is an interesting one, but it seems the playwright used Socrates primarily as a figurehead - to stand for clever modern sophists in general rather than as an accurate portrayal of the historical Socrates. Although he was misunderstood by many sections of society (in some part due to Aristophanes' portrayal in Clouds, which Socrates himself mentions in his courtroom speech in Plato's Apologia), the accounts of his students Plato and Xenophon seem to suggest that Socrates was in no way a sophistic thinker. Where the sophists concentrated on teaching rhetoric and persuasive speaking, and usually took a fee for doing so, Socrates simply extolled the virtues of rational self-examination as a route to understanding, particularly in the realm of ethics. The focus of both was sharply different from the earlier presocratic philosophers, who mostly lectured on natural philosophy, mathematics and physics.
Aristophanes' concerns in Clouds seem to be mostly with sophistry and deceitful argument rather than scientific philosophy in general (the traditional old learning which sophistic thinkers are trying to supplant). He sends up the ideas of people like Protagoras and Gorgias marvellously, by staging a fight between two debaters called "better argument" and "worse argument", competing for the main protagonist Strepsiades' studentship. It's a complex piece of social commentary as well as an excellent slapstick farce, but although Aristophanes can occasionally come across as anti-intellectual (probably because he was trying to get laughs from an audience which included many conservative and uneducated people) his overall message is more akin to Richard Dawkins's take on postmodernism - what does this trendy modern sophistry actually contribute to learning or society, and why should we value it?
Other Comments by Cartomancer
28. Comment #160148 by AmericanGodless on April 13, 2008 at 6:08 pm
will young:The pursuit of truth is amoral. It is what we do with knowledge that needs moral consideration.
... I never said the practice of science should be amoral,
... Most certainly, but that still does not change the amoral nature of truth.
I think you may misunderstand me. We agree that science should be practiced in a moral way (as in the example of clinical tests, we don't keep the results of our tests secret, to the detriment of the health of our human subjects). But beyond that, I still must disagree with you if you really mean to say "The pursuit of truth is amoral." If we hold the active pursuit of truth to be amoral, then don't we also have to hold the deliberate obscuration of truth to be equally amoral? Are we prepared to say that?
The decision to pursue truth, rather than to obscure it, is a moral choice. I could agree that "truth" is "amoral" only if we were talking about some kind of theoretical truth that is separate from human knowledge or human interests. The truth may be "out there," and as long as it stays "out there" I can agree that it is amoral. But it is hard to come by, hard to establish and justify, hard to put into human hands (or heads). Pursuing it is hard work. Anything that takes so much effort (and indeed, can also be the subject of so much effort by some to conceal and obscure) is not, in my view, morally neutral. The very decision to gather truth and to verify it (as at least probable) is itself a moral decision.
But I don't think we disagree at all. You say to "refer to comment #7 if you still fail to grasp my point." There Diacanu says:
Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and to deny knowledge for any reason, especially a scare-mongered one is antithetical to everything I consider to be the meaning of being human, and therefore life itself.
Sounds like a moral choice to me.
Other Comments by AmericanGodless
29. Comment #160181 by Teratornis on April 13, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Three recent examples of manufactured controversy are global warming skepticism, AIDS dissent in South Africa, and the intelligent design movement's "teach the controversy" campaign.
Well, at least all three of the corresponding areas of science have managed to get themselves into the realm of discourse to the degree that requires a response of some sort.
An even more important issue than all of the above is peak oil, but scientists haven't even managed to make most scientists aware of the phenomenon and its implications yet, let alone the general population. That may change after petroleum hits $300/bbl, Wal*Mart goes broke, suburbanites are burning down their McMansions to stay warm, and the world's poorest billion have starved to death. But I imagine the mobs of angry unprecedentedly immobile former gaswasting terrorist-financing red-state Hummer drivers will go to their graves blaming their self-inflicted problems on "the environmentalists."
There's no real need for a controversy about peak oil yet, as the vast majority of people are either entirely ignorant of it, or are rejecting the theory for all the wrong reasons already if they have heard of it.
In a way, it almost helps when the CEOs of major oil companies attempt to reassure the public that there is now and ever shall be plenty of petroleum, since most people trust the oil majors about as far as they can throw a drilling platform.
Other Comments by Teratornis
30. Comment #160185 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Teratornis-I agree with the poster in another thread who said to you, and I paraphrase here "go write a fucking book about peak oil, and stop spamming every thread with novel sized posts about it".
Other Comments by Diacanu
31. Comment #160194 by Teratornis on April 13, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Comment #159835 by yussel123:
Would a scientist, Dawkins for example, ever support an effort to halt scientific research in a given area because of the terrible consequences that would follow?
I can't speak for Richard, but there are practical problems with your question. For example, it's hard to know how dangerous a new area of research is before someone does the research.
Another problem is that we can choose not to research something, but how do we stop everyone else who might? Now and in the future?
The cost of computers keeps dropping. If Moore's law continues far enough, it might eventually deflate the costs of scientific research to the point that machines can do it. Then anyone with a computer might potentially embark on forbidden research.
We can only hope there aren't too many doomsday secrets in science waiting to fall into the wrong hands.
Ex, what possible good came from the research that developed napalm?
Well, considering that napalm is a simple form of jellied gasoline, you'd probably have had to prevent the entire Petroleum Age to prevent napalm. That would mean sacrificing the modern mobility that most people in the developed world can scarcely imagine living without. Which will become the new reality in just a few years, thanks to peak oil.
What about those scientists who engaged in the reasearch and development of the killing machines for the Nazi concentration/death camps?
As others have pointed out, no scientific breakthroughs were necessary. All the technology was already in use for other purposes, such as insectidies. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B
Is there ever a moral consideration that justifies halting scientific research?
People routinely hamper scientific research for ideological reasons. For example:
1. The U.S. government decided that any ancient human remains found on lands claimed by native American tribes must be removed from museums and reburied. Scientists lost access to these remains for future research (assuming the bones don't get dug up in the future if people should start becoming generally more rational - don't laugh, anything could happen).
2. You've heard of the stem cell research controversy.
3. Steven Pinker wrote about dangerous ideas:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1449,In-defense-of-dangerous-ideas,Steven-Pinker
Other Comments by Teratornis
32. Comment #160210 by Wosret on April 13, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I totally agree Mitchell gilks - My dad tries to talk religion to me and finally one day I told him that it all just boils down to him trying to get me to beleive in invisible people with magic powers and of course talking snakes.-
How CAN anyone fall for that crap?
I am not saying that I haven't fallen for fallacious reasoning before, or deceptive tactics. I have. I just think that it is complementary to refer to the completely obvious bullshit spewed by the groups mentioned in the artical as sophistry. Their arguments are not subtly fallacious, they are no plausible. Those people are clearly, bat-shit-crazy. Scientists and members of the academic intelligencia don't roll their eyes, call them morons, and walk away for no reason. They are supposedly smug, arrogant egotists, the scientists and such, yet they seem to expect far more from the general public in the way of reasoning then is warrented. They don't argue against these people, because they are clearly wrong, obviously wrong. Without a question, wrong. There is nothing to argue, no debate to take place, the best you can possibly do is recommend them some reading material, and point out, point by point, the flaws in their reasoning. They don't have cases, they don't have arguments.
Just look at how PZ Myers' "debate" with that creationist went on the radio. What could he do other than tell him he's wrong, and needs to crack a fucking book?
I agree that something needs to be done, but debates cannot be had. There is nothing to debate on either issue, and if there were, it would clearly not be with people that have a lesser understanding than average of the issue. When they shrug and say we need better education, and better means of informing the public. That is simply true. The issue is that the general public don't know any better. It is hard to debate someone who knows the issue by name alone.
I for one don't know what can be done. Since there is a long precedence of things just like this happening. I don't see anyone putting a stop to it anytime soon. I surely would like to see it, but I don't see it happening. Time will put a stop to our current "controveries", as they did with heliocentricity/geocentricity flat earth/round earth and such. As the older generations die, and the newer ones irrationally steamroll more current things they don't like the sounds of but don't know, or care to know anything about.
Other Comments by Wosret
33. Comment #160387 by lievemebe on April 14, 2008 at 2:43 am
Comment #160210 by Mitchell GilksThere is nothing to argue, no debate to take place, the best you can possibly do is recommend them some reading material, and point out, point by point, the flaws in their reasoning.
An alternative approach is to to tally the material benefits provided by religious sophistry (none that I can see) and those of science and reason (modern medicine, air travel, mobile communications, the list is endless). Ask religious sophists to give up the benefits of science. If this message is repeated often enough it may sink in to those who have difficulty with reason. Although this is a dumbed-down message it is far enough removed as not to denegrate science.
Other Comments by lievemebe
34. Comment #160438 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 5:17 am
Another tactic is to embrace the "teach the controversy" concept. For example...
The next time somebody springs the old "Tornado/Junkyard/747" argument on you,(or any of the other 'scientific notation' arguments) don't launch into an elaborate defense designed to explain how evolution is not a random process, etc. etc. Talk about the lottery.
Ask them what has the better chance of being a winner, a powerball ticket with the numbers 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 or one with the numbers 23, 19, 32, 40, 08, 11. Most likely they will pick the second ticket, unless of course they know you are a sneaky, atheist bastard, then they might pick the first one. Either way, of course they are wrong. Both tickets have an equal chance of winning...the first one just seems improbable because it has the appearance of design.
If they then ask what that has to do with tornados, junkyards, and 747's, say "nothing". "It just goes to show how poorly the human mind is at dealing intuitively with probabilities. If they are still with you, ask them this...
which has the better chance of winning between these two powerball tickets? 21, 22, 23, 06, 07, 08, or 13, 16, 37, 11, 13, 25. Of course they will be suspecting a trick (as they should), but if they grasped the first part---that any given set of numbers is just as probable as any other given set of numbers---they should answer that they have an equal probability of winning. Unless, of course, they are familiar with how powerball works and noticed that the number '13' is used twice. This breaks the "natural laws" of powerball, in other words it just doesn't work that way. So ticket 2 is an impossibility.
Now you explain how evolution is not a random process but is actually guided a set of "natural laws". Ever so gently, point out that that is why the 747 analogy is flawed. While it might be mathematically correct, it doesn't take into account the rules of the game, so it is flawed from the outset.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
35. Comment #160441 by yussel123 on April 14, 2008 at 5:31 am
Question for #40 Christopher Davis:
I am scientifically illiterate. I have been trying to find an explanation (in layman's terms) for the idea the natural selection is not random but is also not teleological. I noticed that you made reference to the non-random aspect of natural selection. Do you know of any books or articles that explain that in simple, non-technical terms?
Other Comments by yussel123
36. Comment #160450 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 5:44 am
yussell123, The Selfish Gene is very good.
For a quick intro, I'll hunt for a YouTube... BRB
Other Comments by Dr Benway
37. Comment #160451 by yussel123 on April 14, 2008 at 5:46 am
So where are the scientists who are supposed to reach out to the public. I've been sending e-mails with requests for information to this website, to Dawkins' oxford address, just to name to places, and NEVER recieve a reply. If the scholars abandon those of us who call out for information to our ignorance, then don't be shocked when we feel we can't trust you. Other Comments by yussel123
38. Comment #160452 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 5:48 am
Yussell123,You don't need to read a book to understand the non-random part of natural selection. As long as you can see why a creature with slightly better eyesight or slightly longer legs might survive better and pass on these characteristics to its offspring, then you have understood the non-random element.
Natural selection has a random element: the mutation of a gene which can be either good, bad or neutral for the organism that is born with it. Then there is the non-random element, i.e. the genes/characteristics that help you to survive in the world. Bad mutations will probably handicap or kill you, thus making your chances of passing on your genes smaller; neutral mutations will have little or no effect; and good mutations can help you survive and pass on your good genes.
So, survival depends on having the best genes for your niche in the environment and there is nothing random in this.
Other Comments by keith
39. Comment #160453 by Steve Zara on April 14, 2008 at 5:50 am
Comment #160185 by DiacanuIndeed. There is another mechanism. Create a website, or even set up a blog on blogger (only takes a few seconds). Post all your thoughts there, then end each post with:
Oh, and here is stuff about peak oil [link].
Other Comments by Steve Zara
40. Comment #160456 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 5:58 am
yussell1123,
Actually yes. Both Professor Dawkins and Stephen Gould are particularly good at constructing analogies regarding the non-random nature of natural selection. Unfortunately, I am not near my library now (I'm in Afghanistan) or I could give you titles and page numbers.
I know Gould's "Full House" provides several analogies regarding different aspects of evolution and Dr. Dawkins has used the analogy of a screen producing a pile of uniformed sized more than once (he also does an awesome job of explaining how species are man-made constructs by using an analogy involving a time machine in "The Ancestors Tale").
The key thing to remember is that most ID arguments claim that evolution is a random process, not natural selection. In fact, only one of the four major components of evolution is random...that's genetic mutation. However, ID'ers are dishonest in their dealings with genetic mutation in that they fail to acknowledge that while the mutations are indeed random, with only four nucleotides in DNA they do not have infinite degrees of freedom to vary.
What I suggest is that you pick up a copy of "The Blind Watchmaker" (Dawkins) and "Full House" (Gould), and read both from the perspective not that species adapt to their environment, but that the environment adapts it's species to it.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
41. Comment #160457 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 5:58 am
Steve-
I hope fascinating facts about peak oil are not going to become a regular feature on your blog.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
42. Comment #160460 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 6:03 am
TeratonisThe cost of computers keeps dropping. If Moore's law continues far enough, it might eventually deflate the costs of scientific research to the point that machines can do it. Then anyone with a computer might potentially embark on forbidden research.
Yeah right. In Star Trek, everytime when they were caught in a jam they just incanted some incomprehensible techno babbles and got out of it. Techno babbles were the all purpose salvation for the Enteprise crew.
Your all purpose salvation is the magical black box. Sorry, invoking the magic box wouldn't help you to do meaningful research if you're an idiot or don't have a sound undertstanding of concepts, which takes years of hard work to acquire.
Get off the computer sometimes and smell the coffee, or the dog shit, anything real. Having sex with a real person wouldn't hurt either.
EDIT:
I wonder how many people in the third word are actually wired. What to do with the computer illiterate,--which is probably over 80% of humanity,-- in the brave new world of Moore's law? Keep them as pets or slaughter them for meat?
Other Comments by Bonzai
43. Comment #160462 by Steve Zara on April 14, 2008 at 6:06 am
Comment #160457 by QuetzalcoatlI am not worried about peak oil. I think global warming, nanobots, black holes and aliens (individually, or in combination) are going to do us all in well before that.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
44. Comment #160463 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 6:07 am
Christopher Davis,The basic definition of a species is one that cannot have viable offspring with another species (though there are some grey areas e.g. some very close species don't like the look of each other though they probably could interbreed).
Surely not being able to interbreed with another species is not simply 'a man-made construct' but an obstacle that exists in the real world?
Other Comments by keith
45. Comment #160473 by Dr Benway on April 14, 2008 at 6:23 am
Here's the video:
The Blind Watchmaker
Around 13 minutes in, Dawkins offers a combination lock analogy which might prove useful. He then goes on to the famous monkeys typing analogy, to illustrate cumulative selection verses random chance.
This is the vid with a few frames of a younger Dawkins in shorts showing off his sexy legs.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
46. Comment #160487 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 6:42 am
50. Comment #160463 by keithChristopher Davis,
The basic definition of a species is one that cannot have viable offspring with another species (though there are some grey areas e.g. some very close species don't like the look of each other though they probably could interbreed).
Surely not being able to interbreed with another species is not simply 'a man-made construct' but an obstacle that exists in the real world?
Yes, although a "species" is essentially a man-made pigeonholing of what is more of a sliding scale. "Ring Species" are a good example of this.
It's this need to classify that lends itself to the creationists "transitional fossils" cry (like asking for a transitional person between a child and an adult).
Other Comments by Geoff
47. Comment #160488 by yussel123 on April 14, 2008 at 6:43 am
To Dr. Benway, Keith and Christopher Davis:
Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful replies.
Yussel
Other Comments by yussel123
48. Comment #160557 by keith on April 14, 2008 at 7:43 am
Geoff,a "species" is essentially a man-made pigeonholing of what is more of a sliding scale. "Ring Species" are a good example of this.
Hmm. I agree that this is, to some extent, a problem of a 'sliding scale', but this is not simply another example of the way that, say, one colour merges into another at some point along a continuum.
Yes, at some point green becomes blue and you would be hard-pressed to say precisely where one becomes the other. However, in the animal world there exists a natural line, namely, that of the unviability of offspring. This barrier is not simply a phenomenon of language or how human minds interpret reality, but a real facet of the natural world. And even if this barrier isn't 100% leak-proof, this still doesn't reduce the concept of 'species' to a man-made construct.
Neither does the rather rare existence of ring species convince me that we would be right to view the idea of 'species' as simply one of human convenience, for which there is no correlation in the natural world.
Other Comments by keith
49. Comment #160596 by Geoff on April 14, 2008 at 8:13 am
54. Comment #160557 by keith a "species" is essentially a man-made pigeonholing of what is more of a sliding scale. "Ring Species" are a good example of this.
Hmm. I agree that this is, to some extent, a problem of a 'sliding scale', but this is not simply another example of the way that, say, one colour merges into another at some point along a continuum.
Yes, at some point green becomes blue and you would be hard-pressed to say precisely where one becomes the other. However, in the animal world there exists a natural line, namely, that of the unviability of offspring. This barrier is not simply a phenomenon of language or how human minds interpret reality, but a real facet of the natural world. And even if this barrier isn't 100% leak-proof, this still doesn't reduce the concept of 'species' to a man-made construct.
Neither does the rather rare existence of ring species convince me that we would be right to view the idea of 'species' as simply one of human convenience, for which there is no correlation in the natural world.
No, that line is not as clearcut as you make it out to be. There is still a sliding scale of
"more viable"<----->"less viable".
Rather than ring species, if you prefer, think of time separation rather than distance. Imagine following your family tree back all the way to our common ancestor with, say, chimpanzees. Every intermediate (by definition) can interbreed with its neighbour (past or future), but the species classification line still has to be drawn somewhere between a parent and its offspring.
Other Comments by Geoff
50. Comment #160599 by Christopher Davis on April 14, 2008 at 8:17 am
Keith,
I agree with your definition of species...if two animals can't mate and produce viable offspring, then I say they are separate species. However, what I was referring to was Professor Dawkins analogy of a man traveling backwards in time and encountering ancestors that he could viably mate with and then taking them along for the ride,then meeting ancestors whom they can mate with but the original time traveler cannot. Creating a "temporal ring species", so to speak.
The point I was hoping yussel123 would take away from this was the point that Geoff touched on regarding "transistional" fossils. Creationists are looking for a point in time where a dinosaur becomes a bird. Dawkins analogy helps to show that no such line of demarcation exists (at least not temporally), and that ideas like "the first bird" are really meaningless. Most fossils that are found are going to be classified according to our modern day classifications (i.e. as either a bird or a dinosaur). Paleontologists aren't in the habit of classifying fossils as 80% dinosaur 20% bird, etc.
But once again, I agree with you that where a natural reproductive barrier exists between animals we are justified in calling them separate species.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #159823 by Glacian on April 13, 2008 at 7:50 am
I'm always disconcerted that many scientists apparently don't have enough time to involve themselves with the public, which I think is highly important. I'd like to see science be seen not as a strange pursuit for a bunch of "brainiacs", but as something interesting and enjoyable that more of the public would regard with interest and enthusiasm - I suppose what I'd like to see is more people like Richard Dawkins writing popular science and getting people inspired to involve themselves in it. People can't very well be drawn into science if scientists remain aloof to the world.
Other Comments by Glacian