I have to admit, I don't think the evolution v. creationism debate is worth having. There is simply no version of creationism, from young-earth creationism to intelligent design theory, that has the scientific merits to warrant a scientific debate. Still, if people must have such a debate, can't they at least try to do so civilly? All of the evidence speaks to the contrary. A case poin point is one of the latest installments (link via Brian Leiter), in which defenders of evolution are not-so-subtly compared to the September 11 hijackers. In the past, defenders of evolution have used Holocaust deniers as an analogy to characterize intelligent design theorists, while intelligent design and other creationists have compared "evolutionists" to Hitler and Stalin. I understand that, since this debate cannot be about science (due to the fact that, on one side, there simply is no real science), and is thus largely about public opinion, but I can't imagine anyone hopes e to get anywhere with tactics like these.
The scientists and philosophers, at least, should know better. Given the creationists' penchant for misrepresenting facts for rhetorical purposes, such heavy-handed tactics are likely to do nothing more than provide material for their lockeroom bulletin boards. Furthermore, since this debate is about public opinion, and survey after survey shows that the American public, by and large, believes in some form of creationism, scientists and philosophers must realize that participating in a mud-slinging contest in which creationists are compared to such unsavory characters as Holocaust deniers can only hurt their cause.
The gulf between scientists and creationists is great, and the animosity palpable. Knowing this should cause the participants in the debate to choose their rhetoric carefully, but instead, they've let their emotions get the better of them. The political consequences, particularly for those on the side of science and reason, cannot be good. My only hope is that if scientists insist on continuing to participate in this debate, as it appears they will, they can at least begin to do so in a way that doesn't make them, and by association, science, look bad.
19 comments:
I stopped reading Leiter's blog several months ago precisely because he was so shrill and would make such outrageous attacks on anyone who disagreed with him. Of course being a Republican, perhaps I just noticed the attacks more than others. It was unfortunate as I always enjoyed his actual reasoned philosophical content. It's just that this seemed to be the minority of his posts.
Posted by Clark
I still read Leiter's blog, though I tend to gloss over all of the "fascist theocracy" type posts. To be fair, though, the "holocaust deniers" analogy came from Panda's Thumb, and not Leiter. Leiter's blog is explicitly political, and I expect some shrillness in that context. Panda's Thumb, on the other hand, while it has to deal with the political parts of the evolution-creationism debate, is a science site, and I find the mud-slinging in that context inappropriate.
Posted by Chris
You should consider the possibility that civility itself can be a strategic error in some contexts, lending credence and dignity to positions that have--or deserve--none. Presumably we don't think it necessary (to take the most extreme, and uncontroversial, example) to be civil to Nazis, to weigh their arguments for genocide and refute them politely. The question then is whether there are other cases that should be treated similarly.
Posted by Brian Leiter
Brian,
I guess that depends on what you mean by civil. If you mean we don't have to avoid hurting the feelings of Nazis, or people in this country who are racists, misogynists, or homophobes, then it's certainly true that we shouldn't be civil with them. However, in public debates with members of these groups, it does us no good to stoop to their level. Our best approach is to make it very clear why they are wrong, highlighting the factual, ethical, and practical errors and implications of their views. Analogies can work nicely here, and thus, for example, comparing various xenophobic members of the right who feel that it is OK to curb the rights of members of certain ethnic or religious groups in the interest of "national security" to previous governments (e.g., Hitler's) who have done this is perfectly consistent with this approach. We should be very certain, however, that these analogies hold, and that the implications of the two analogous viewpoints are similar enough to warrant the comparisons.
If being civil means refraining from unnecessary and unproductive hyperboles and insults, then I'm not sure we're ever justified in being uncivil. When we do, we begin to resemble those we are criticizing, and our cause suffers for it. In the evolution-creationism debate, it's important to bring to the attention of the public and policy makers that much of the creationist rhetoric involves dissimulation, but we should do this by displaying their claims along side the facts. Comparing them to racists who deny the occurence of the Holocaust doesn't serve this purpose. It only serves to inflame our opposition, making them more motivated to undermine our cause, while simultaneously making us, and our causee, look bad in the eyes of a public that is largely sympathetic to our opposition.
Posted by Chris
The question, I suppose, is how do you know this is true: "in public debates with members of these groups, it does us no good to stoop to their level," i.e., to be insulting or dismissive. Do we know it does no good? How do we know? What is the evidence? Perhaps there are clear answers. Think how far the right has gone with exactly these tactics, whose rhetorical impact may be systematically underestimated. (Let me add, in my own case, I am not interested in the rhetorical impact, since I am not interested in persuading. But I'll accept, for purposes here, the premise of your discussion that rhetorical impact counts.)
Posted by Brian
It's definitely an empirical question, and thus my own view could be wrong. However, it appears to me that groups like the Discovery Institute have been able to use the less-than-scientific arguments of "evolutionists" to fire up their supporters, and thereby get more money from them. When Panda's Thumb compared ID supporters to Holocaust deniers, the DI was quick to put it in their newsletter and make sure everyone who supports them knew about it.
I understand that you, particularly in the context of your blog, are largely speaking to the choir, and therefore aren't really concerned with persuading. However, scientists who are trying to make sure that the integrity of science education in this country is preserved must be concerned with persuasion. They have to persuade policy makers and voters, many of whom are creationists of some sort. Pandas Thumb may not be explicitly designed for this purpose, but it's a public forum, and the creationists are watching very, very closely. Any mistake, or show of anger, will be used in the quest to tear science education apart.
Posted by Chris
Just to add, I'm not sure that the right did go far by using such tactics. It seems to me that the right made the most progress when it would play the victim. When it was perceived as being the attack dog, it generally lost ground. (I'm thinking of during the Clinton years)
While Rush Limbaugh makes tremendous amounts of money, I'm not at all convinced that he is persuasive when being shrill. (I should add the caveat that I can't stand him and only Sean Hannity makes me more nauseus) Rather I think he is most persuasive when making positive statements for his own position and then when he plays over and over silly attacks by more liberal critics of Republics. i.e. one of his strongest techniques is to do exactly what Chris suggests anti-evolutionists will do with the stuff from Panda's thumb.
Posted by Clark
Hi, Chris,
I'd add to your argument that when the question is in part who is being reasonable, civility can be absolutely crucial. Any incivility can be more easily spun by the other side as an indication of your lack of reasonableness than it can be shown to be justified by your own superior reasonableness (I suppose both you and Clark have already said that, so I guess I'm not adding anything after all). Worries about lending 'dignity' to the other side seem to me to make the mistake of thinking that civility and being nice (or worse, compromising agreement) are the same thing; but part of the entire point of civility is to make effective conflict over ideas possible. My own view is that anyone who finds it impossible to be civil without lending an undeserved dignity to the other side is either incompetent at arguing, and thus should remove themselves from the argument, or is simply not deploying the ingenuity and wit needed for civil demolition of one's opponents. T. H. Huxley is a powerful example of someone who did deploy such ingenuity and wit, so they do exist. It's a high sort of standard, but it's a standard worth having. And Huxley and people like him show it is possible to dismiss and even insult positions civilly: civility does not temper one's positions, merely the manner of communicating them; and the additional strength of civility is that it is a way of communicating does not distract from the content of the message.
Posted by Brandon
I find the comments above interesting, although perhaps missing the mark (maybe Brian isn't far off). It appears Chris and Brian are debating the virtues of civil discourse - specifically the persuasive efficacy of 'sympathethic, dignified' approaches vs. 'dismissive, mud slinging' approaches - to the Creationism/Evolution spectacle.
Surely, if we're debating "how to best present our scientifically-backed ideas" to citizens and Congressmen, then something has gone terribly wrong. Indeed, when dealing with a population unswayed by evidence and argument, bickering over how to present scientific evidence and arguments reflects a disconnect with mainstream consciousness and what affects it.
The real debate should focus on how to open Americans to critical thought. And if it's mudslinging and polemical postures, I'm for it. If its civilized communications, I'm for that too. But, if we can't steer our public towards rationality and respect for facts, I suspect it matters little how we present our facts and arguments.
Perhaps Chris already pointed this out in the main post, when he says this isn't a worthwhile debate. He's right. When all the facts are on one side yet most of the population is on the other, there is no debate. Rather, it more closely resembles a thick web of propraganda masking itself as emotionally appealing rightiousness, calling itself Creationism. Meanwhile, sundry scientists and academics whisper "Look in this tiny corner! We can show you they're wrong." That's the effect on most of the population, anyways. And unless we can combat the indoctrination from the media, the entertainment industry, and the educational system, blabbering about science, objectivity, and facts isn't spectacular enough to interest many.
Brian's "theocratic fascism" may resonate most strongly with his choir. But, the more I interact with the non-academic, non-activist population, the more often I see it manifest before my very eyes.
That said, anyone know how we can reinterest the masses in science, objectivity, and facts? Surely once we've accomplished that, evolution will follow?
Posted by Concerned US Citizen
This is totally off topic. Chris, feel free to delete this if you feel the comments below don't belong here. But I felt like raising an issue with Clarke.
Clarke, as a reader of this blog and someone who "enjoy(s) ... reasoned philosophical content," how can you identify yourself with Republicans? Do you share their neo-conservative agenda? Do you believe your tax dollars should be spent primarily on military research and military occupations? Are you even aware of how your government spends tax revenues?
Have you heard of the IMF?
Perhaps I should step back a little and say I don't mean to insult or offend. Instead, I just feel concerned about our country and its population. I strongly doubt our citizens have many clues about how our politicians operate and how they decide on policies. Clarke, please ease these doubts.
Posted by Concerned US Citizen
"Concerned US Citizen" makes some apt points, so I won't reiterate them. To Clark, on the question of Rush Limbaugh's influence, I would commend to your attention the final episode of Bill Moyers's NOW, which provided useful documentation.
Posted by Brian Leiter
I don't want to siderail the discussion too much. I didn't see Moyer's last show. I've watched it a few times though and never was too persuaded by it.
One problem I have is that critics of Republicans treat it as a single monolithic creature, often "under the control" of neoCons. It seems that there is far more diversity than many admit. Further a Republican need not agree or even like all that is done under Bush. Indeed they may feel Bush a rather poor Republican, overall. All they need do is say that in politics one must make a choice and that the Republican choice is vastly more appealing than the Democratic choice.
Perhaps we may wish the Democratic choice was more attractive, but the fact it isn't is largely the fault of Democrats and their own attempts at unifying fairly divergent groups.
Put an other way, I think the question rather misses the point.
I'd also say that I've found neoCons fairly diverse as a group as well. Further, neoCons, especially William Kristol, have been fairly outspoken critics of Bush quite regularly. The whole neoCon conspiracy that I keep hearing about simply couldn't be found once I started investigating it. Of course I'll fully admit that the anti-neoCons had me quite worried for a few months last year while I was investigating their claims. The fact that the reality bore so little resemblance to the conspiracy claims simply makes me far more loath to believe without abundant evidence any more claims from such groups. (Something to keep in mind and that goes back to the whole issue of persuasive and rhetoric)
Posted by Clark
Whoops. Ambiguous antecedant in that first paragraph. I've not seen Moyer's last show although I've seen other episodes of Moyer's.
Posted by Clark
Look, I know how rhetoric works. I've written on it (look up some of the posts on Lakoff), I've studied it (including conducting experiments on implicit attitudes and politics), and of all things, I know how analogy works (both my masters thesis and dissertation were at least partially on the role of analogy in constraining representations of novel or lesser-known domains). I know the influence that people like Limbaugh have, but I can also tell you that what the PTers and other scientists do in the evolution debate is not just different from what Limbaugh does, but likely to have the opposite effect. Limbaugh's rheteoric works because he plays on people's existing prejudices, fears, and other attitudes. People who were already somewhat distrusting of new things, of taxation, etc., are ripe for manipulation by Limbaugh's rhetoric. Limbaugh is, in a sense, a symptom rather than a cause. He became prominent when the conservative thrust of the early 90s was already underway, and while it's undeniable that he pushed it a little faster and a little harder, he could not have started it. People who are already somewhat distrustful of science, and evolution in particular, for reasons that have little to do with science, or even evolution, but that are instead based on values, are not ripe to be influenced by Limbaugh-esque tactics designed to get them to oppose teaching intelligent design in public schools.
And that's really what the evolution debate is, in this country. It's not just a matter of science against irrational or arational religion. It's a battle of values, for which evolution and creationism have become mere symbols of the two sides. It's not surprising that in other countries (e.g., Italy) where creationism and evolution have clashed in the last few decades, scientific rhetoric has won out for the most part. This is because in most of the industrialized world, science is not equated with a villainized intellectualism that yields progressive mores. In this country, if you want to convince people, the ones who are already biased against you, as scientists do, or must, if they want to win the political value (and some of these distrustful folk are, in fact, politicians), you cannot fuel their distrust, their anti-intellectualism and anti-scientism, and their belief that the evolution-supporting scientist's values are misplaced, or worse, by giving them inflammatory rhetoric that has little to do with your case.
You can, of course, try to show that the creationists are the ones on shaky moral ground, by showing their dishonesty, but comparing them to holocaust-deniers doesn't do this. It's just a soundbite that reaffirms existing prejudices towards scientists, not towards their opposition. If that's ultimately the tactic you want to use, all you will be able to do is further convince the people who were already convinced.
Posted by Chris
Chris said what I was trying to say, only far better than I did.
Let me add one thing. I have to listen to Limbaugh regularly because the other guy in my office loves it. When I'm working hard I put on earphones to drown him out, but I have listened to him a lot. (Unfortunately) When Limbaugh plays on fears and prejudices, he does so because the "liberals" give him a lot of ammunition. Now he'll certainly twist it and decontextualize it. But by and large, he doesn't have to do that much. Yes there is a strawman he is attacking typically, but the strawman is almost always provided as liberals attack conservatives.
I really feel that Limbaugh is a genius for doing two things. For one masterfully doing that whole "we're the underdogs but we have right ideology on our side" bit. The whole thing is a kind of victimization without really victimizing yourself. He presents the positives of the conservative movement (hope, the view that achievement is possible through will, freedom from government) while presenting the liberals as interfering with these or worse, by simply playing the liberal's own words.
Now I don't know if Air America manages to do this for the left. I've not heard it yet. They've got some talented guys, so perhaps they do. But fundamentally it is that positive that allows the negative to work. Not only are they "villians" portrayed as going against good values but they are portrayed as idiots for doing so. The closest analogy would be laughing at luddites. When Limbaugh launches into his vindictiveness or parodies, they work, because the audience has already bought it. Further, he typically does so with a deft touch of humor. And that's hard to pull off.
Yeah the positive values he supports he often simplifies. But it is those positive values and the victimization that makes the whole thing work. It is almost a religious mentality.
Posted by Clark
Here's my attempt to generate a political dialogue. While my comments are directed towards Clarke, anyone who has anything positive to say about about the Republican party - or the structure of our corporate/government power system, more generally - should reply freely. As usual, if this appears inappropriate to the blog owner, please remove it.
Clarke, your comments above intrigue me. I agree with you that Republicans are all different - they all have different positions on different political issues. And surely the same is true of neo-conservatives. So, while I assume you identify with both of the above groups, I still have no clue where you stand politically. Where do you stand, say, on issues like our government's (lack of) procedural transparency - especially concerning the campaign finance process and how taxes are spent? What are your views on US foreign policy, particularly the justifications regarding historical and current uses of military force? And finally, and perhaps most interestingly, what is your view on the two party political system? Specifically, do you think the corporations have undue influence, or do you feel the views, concerns, and needs of the public are well represented?
I won't bore anyone with my answers to these questions, unless someone is interested. I think recognizing their importance and asking them is usually a positive start.
Posted by Concerned US Citizen
Just to clarify, I don't consider myself a neo-conservative in the least. Although since hearing the attacks on neo-conservativism I did check out a lot of the figures and confess enjoying reading William Kristol a lot the last while.
As for the answers to your specific questions, I suspect that is a tad afield. I'm a strong pragmatist and tend to focus on what works and what works is usually an empirical matter. I will say that in the last election in terms of stated policies I thought Kerry had a lot of good points on the economic front. There were simply other matters that led to distrust (not the least of which is the influence of the party itself)
Posted by Clark
Clarke, I am glad to hear you are a strong pragmatist. I see myself as a pragmatist also; therefore, I attempt to steer my actions – with very practical, consequentialist considerations in mind – toward goal achievement. But, pragmatism only helps me pursue my goals; it doesn’t tell me what goals to choose. Instead, I listen, partly to my biological drives and partly to my more idealistic – my more conceptual and thought oriented - notions when determining what I want.
Admittedly, an untold number of arbitrary factors affect my biological and intellectual desires. In the end, when all the pushing and pulling forces are interwoven, they produce an arbitrary net of desires that I attempt to focus on:
1) To seek positive personal experiences
2) To learn what “positive” means to those closest to me, and to promote “positive” experiences for them
3) To learn what “positive” means to far-away others and to promote “positive” experiences for them
With those goals in mind, I go about applying my pragmatic toolkit. Clarke, I was curious, what goals do you apply your pragmatism towards?
Posted by Concerned US Citizen
Compairng ID'ers to holocaust deniers is from Shermers book. It is simply a study of how people think, obviously they take it in a derogatory fashion but the fact remains they are using the same methods and thought processes.
Posted by DC
Post a Comment