Deferential Inquiry
Matthew Nisbet answered my question about Paul Kurtz by transcribing some of a Point of Inquiry interview of Kurtz. Kurtz does indeed say things along the same lines as what Nisbet says. There are differences, but there are also large similarities. I was skeptical about that yesterday, and Nisbet did indeed provide the requested link as well as doing some transcribing.
GROTHE: …I take it that you wonder how effective evangelical atheists are if all they are talking about is atheism?
KURTZ: I think they have had a positive impact, and I know most of the leaders, and they publish in Free Inquiry…so they have had positive impact, of course they are criticizing religion. However, that is not enough. One has to go beyond that! You can’t talk about abstract atheism, or merely a negative attitude. It is what you are for that counts, not what you are against! So I think on that point, one must affirm a positive humanist morality.
The emphasis is different from Nisbet’s, and the hostility to ‘New Atheists’ is (not surprisingly) not there, but he is talking about (broadly) the same subject. (It’s one that JS and I don’t agree with – we found ourselves saying ‘we’re atheists, we’re not humanists’ quite often at C f I – and that JS amused himself by roundly attacking in his last lecture, thus forfeiting his chance at a standing ovation like the one Julian got; but that’s not the issue here.)
Now we’ve got that straight, what about what Nisbet is saying? It doesn’t grow on me. It makes me bristle, and the more I contemplate it, the more bristly I get. This is no doubt one of those fundamental moral intuitions, one of those emotional reactions that I then attempt to consider rationally. What is it that I dislike so much?
The dishonesty, basically. The secrecy, the manipulativeness, the ‘shhh.’ The whole idea that scientists should be quiet about something they take to be true because if they’re not quiet they are likely to alienate an unknown number of potential political allies.
Even if Nisbet is right about the empirical question of the potential alienation, it doesn’t follow that he’s right about what to do about it. I think his goal of ‘bringing diverse publics together around common problems’ by urging scientists to refrain from challenging the truth claims of religion is antithetical to free and open inquiry. Of course it’s true that free inquiry always risks angering or alienating some or many people who don’t like what free inquiry turns up – but that’s why it’s called ‘free inquiry.’ If we decide in advance to shackle it in deference to pre-existing beliefs, then it’s not free inquiry anymore. The Center for Inquiry, if it heeded Nisbet’s advice, would have to change its name to The Center for Cautious Limited Deferential Inquiry. I think that would be a bad thing.
What I found interesting was in the comments:
Matt Nisbett: ” For example, a majority of American Catholics support stem cell research, yet their church leaders remain opposed.
In this case, the Catholic public’s support stems from a more salient belief in the values of social progress and economic development. That’s why instead of attacking religion, framing stem cell research around these values is the best way to build public acceptance.”
That doesn’t make sense, if Catholics are able to embrace a rational position on stem cells research, in opposition to their Church hierarchy, how can that justify the necessity to frame the question by using religious values?
I would be interested to know how Dr. Nisbett intends to determine exactly how far scientists are allowed to go before they have to be reined-in in fear of alienating these precious ‘moderate’ supernaturalists. Will he be calculating the critical number of religious adherents who have to disagree vehemently with a given position (eg x Conservative Baptists + y Opus Dei Catholics + z Deobandi Muslims = no discussing the evidence for naturally-occurring homosexuality) on a case-by-case basis?
And will there be a weighting system, according differing levels of importance depending on how ‘moderate’ the offendee is perceived to be? (eg. Let’s not upset the Pope, but poking Fred Phelps with a big stick [volunteers?] is fine)
Or is it all, as I suspect, horribly vague, imprecise, and deeply subjective?
I think so. And when you try to ask him questions, he doesn’t answer them, he just tosses out some bizarro insults and repeats what he’s said before. I give up on trying to get a serious answer out of him.
He’s an expert in communication and yet he’s fuckawful at it. Strange.
An aspect of interest to me is that, though Dr. Nisbet is doubtless aware that his blog and comments are public and permanent, he seems to have responded immoderately to initial comments.
I’m developing a theory about Matt Nisbet, that he’s one of those people who gets very angry from a “Why do these people persist in misunderstanding and misconstruing what I say?” sort of place when in fact he has not been misunderstood or misconstrued in any way.
About half the time, I think he has stated his position so badly or tendentiously that he has not really managed to convey what he intended – in which case he has not been misunderstood, but rather he has misspoken and bears the responsibility for any subsequent misunderstanding. The other half of the time, people simply do not agree with him, and he persists in thinking that the truth of his position is so obvious and unquestionable that they must be misunderstanding or misconstruing him if they disagree.
In either case, the basic error is the same – always assuming that when someone misunderstands or disagrees with you, it’s entirely their fault and none of yours. It’s an error born of massive arrogance, methinks. I won’t say I’ve never been guilty of such an error, but I’ve tried to learn from my mistakes – and Nisbet seems to just keeping making the same mistake over and over. Getting pissy about it, as he so often does, just compounds the initial error.
G – a bit like Freud, then, when he states right at the beginning of the “New Introductory Lectures” that anyone who doesn’t agree with what he has to say is a bit thick, and needs to go away and learn some more, and only come back when they’re clever enough to accept his genius?
;-))
G, yeah.
And yet he’s a professor of communication! I keep contemplating that fact in awe and wonder. He’s remarkably, conspicuously, exceptionally bad at it, yet he’s a professor of it.
There he is, trying to tell us all, ‘Look, you need to communicate better – like me, see?’ It’s too funny.
Andy, you brightened my morning immensely!
Amusing coincidence, your citation of Freud’s arrogance. In the context of discussing the *ahem* limited worth of some psychoanalytic feminism articles she was reading for a Women’s Studies class, a friend of mine just quipped: “Penis envy” is a tool of the patriarchy.
And now he’s answered me on that post and apparently blocked me from replying – unless it’s just a glitch – which it might be, but he is so evasive that I have my doubts. I hope I’m wrong.
So I’ll post my reply here, later.
On 05/04/07 Matt writes in a comment on his blog:
“framing …. plays on the human nature by allowing a citizen to make up their minds in the absence of knowledge….definitely not the scientific or democratic ideal, but…”
This is not the way Kurtz and Wilson are communicating.
No, it’s not. And the way Nisbet wants everyone to communicate is inimical to free inquiry. It’s both the opposite and the enemy of free inquiry. He needs to pay attention to and address that, but so far he’s refused (at least in replying to me he has – and if he’s addressed it anywhere else he hasn’t bothered to point out where, which surely he would have done in replying to me, if he could have).
I was wrong; Matthew tells me the inability to comment is a glitch. I did try several times, but scienceblogs will do that sometimes. Good; I hoped I was wrong and I was.
I have been eschewing this debate, but the woman tempted me and I did post a long comment on Nisbet’s blog. Sigh.
I don’t (myself) hold free inquiry to be the highest good; but I don’t think Nisbet’s argument holds up all the way through.
I just saw that. V. good.
I don’t hold free inquiry to be the highest good – but I do hold it to be a very high one. (Could I locate it precisely on a scale? No.) And I certainly hold it to be a lot higher than the kind of pandering to majority belief that Nisbet seems to have in mind.
You did what I keep wanting to do but don’t have the energy to do, given that he won’t answer – you spelled out what he always leaves vague. Do you mean this, or this, or this. If he means specific co-operation on particular issues – what’s that got to do with atheist books? If he means all centrists will turn right because five people write popular atheist books – that seems like something he can’t possibly know.
Do you not wonder if this disagreement is rooted in some failure in too small a frame of reference, eg he is responding mostly to the narrow scope, a topical meme of ‘atheist arrogance’ and its perceived downsides. You and others seem to me to be responding to its implications for ‘truth’, which includes a moral component that is not overlapping with his pragmatic frame’s requirement for truth.
The sort of argument that you get when people respond to each other through the press…
Because it sure seems to an outsider that this is a miscommunication between what ought to be the same side.
I was writing a long post about this framing debate crap and I realized that I was getting tired, it wasn’t coherent, and I just don’t care anymore. I’ve formed my opinion the merits of this framing stuff as Matt Nisbet and Chris Mooney have presented it to date. In my opinion, the actual advice they’ve given on how to frame presentations of science to the public has all seemed either too vague to be useful or simply bad (for the self-undermining reasons I sketched above). I will now join the ranks of those truly sick and tired of hearing about it… at least until they come up with something significantly better than what I’ve seen so far. And I’ve been sufficiently insulted by Nisbet’s pointless and rude atheist-bashing that I’ll have to hear that “something better” – if it’s ever forthcoming – from Chris Mooney. Matt Nisbet’s off my reading list.
And ChrisPer, you clearly haven’t been reading nearly as much of this stuff as I have if you somehow have the impression that this is just a matter of miscommunication. Nisbet’s been very clear in communicating sundry insults aimed at outspoken atheists. His arguments that outspoken atheists are somehow actually harming the Enlightenment cause aren’t particularly convincing, but his conclusion is nevertheless clear. If he’s on my side, why is he repeating his own version of this “you mean old atheists just need to shut up because you alienate people and hurt their feelings” crap? That ain’t miscommunication between people on the same side, it’s being on opposite sides – of this particular issue, at least. And I remain opposed to meekly shutting up, thankyouverymuch.
But you also mentioned the “atheist arrogance” perception, which I think is worth addressing in its own right. It’s a funny old word, “arrogance,” at least when applied to atheists. “Atheist arrogance” is something I learned about from some dear friends some 20 years ago. It doesn’t matter how polite you are, or how sincerely interested you are in hearing what a believer has to say in defense of their beliefs, or generally speaking how humble or proud your behavior or demeanor: All the believers I have seriously addressed the question of arrogance with have eventually admitted that what makes them judge an atheist arrogant IS THE VERY FACT OF THE ATHEIST’S UNBELIEF! For a person of faith, the rejection of faith is itself an arrogant act; atheist=arrogant is an analytic truth in their understanding, like bachelor=unmarried male.
In the guise of humility before their God, believers are so absolutely convinced – I would say “arrogantly convinced” – of the truth of their beliefs that your humblest expression of doubt looks like the haughtiest arrogance. From their blinkered perspective, you aren’t just questioning ideas, you’re questioning God Himself: If God exists, you (mere lowly mortal) would be arrogant to question Him. And God exists. Therefore, you are arrogant.
Oh. That settles it then.
From some perspectives, anyone is arrogant who thinks independently and asks tough questions and searches for evidence and so on. Hell, usually just thinking independently is enough to hang the label “arrogant” on, never mind the rest. You don’t have to be a genuine critical thinker to be considered arrogant: You just have to dare to question what someone has personally decided to view as unquestionable.
And when I say “(for the self-undermining reasons I sketched above),” what I actually mean is “(for the self-undermining reasons I sketched in another thread entirely – the thread on the post OB wrote after this one, in fact).”
*blush*
Frankly, why the f**k should we who have the facts frame our discussions to please those who believe nonsense? Why shouldn’t it be the other way round?
Chris W, it is actually the other round where I live, so the misery of the repressed and silenced atheists in the theocratic slave society over the pond didn’t inspire a lot of empathy in me – at least until it was explained.
There is only one reason – communication. Fantastic word look at its implications – ‘co’ meaning together for instance. If you irritate a few million people so much that they send their kids to faith schools to learn creationism, who got the benefit of your communication? You , who got a massive kick of self-righteousness.
I remember a conversation I had once with a Christian bacteriologist. He was a very nervous boy when I mentioned my interest in creation science, and a very relieved one when I said I didn’t think their position scientifically tenable.
Why the hell should you get so up yourself over disagreement with people like him? Maybe you have the time in a leper colony like he had, but I doubt it.
“From some perspectives, anyone is arrogant who thinks independently and asks tough questions and searches for evidence and so on.”
I blame Pyrrhonism. Or Montaigne. Or Erasmus and the Praise of Folly. Or Paul. Or Sextus Empiricus. Or Sir Thomas Browne. One of those – or more likely all of them.
In short, it’s a very old trope, and a very irritating one.
Hm. Could being part of irritatingly right minority have evolutionary advantages, for instance in triggering healthy intragroup conflict for intellectual leadership? It might lead either to leadership turnover or validation of the original leadership. How would this translate into probability of successful offspring?
Someone flip me a research grant.
I’m sorry to leave such a non-constructive comment, but I couldn’t help myself: “The Center for Cautious Limited Deferential Inquiry.” Haha! I might just start incorporating that into my talks on CFI’s behalf (as a field organizer and occasional giver of talks).
Thank you! I quite liked that little joke myself – hence I think that is indeed a constructive comment. Props for field organizing work.