It does make a difference
What is it about this kind of thing that is so irritating? Why does it activate all my resistance equipment? Why does it make me snarl?
If the defenders of evolution wanted to give their creationist adversaries a boost, it’s hard to see how they could do better than Richard Dawkins…Leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins’s arguments against religion. The fact remains: The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his advocacy of evolution and his atheism.
Well there’s one reason right there – that breezy command to leave aside the validity question in order to focus on the important bit, which is what the public cannot be expected (by whom? according to whom?) to differentiate between. I hate that kind of thing; it’s a good thorough example of the kind of thing I hate. First the casual bracketing of the validity question, as if it doesn’t matter. But, excuse me, it does matter. If the argument is over the colour of Tinkerbell’s socks or what is Badger’s favourite ice cream, then fine, bracket it; but if it’s over something that matters, it does make a difference whether or not there is good reason to think it is true. If it’s about Tinkerbell’s socks it doesn’t matter what anyone thinks or says about it, but if it’s about the nature of the world and where it came from and what we can know about it and how we can know and if we can know – then it does matter what everyone thinks and says about it, and it’s asking a lot to say ‘leave it aside for a moment’ in order to tell atheists to shut up about it because ‘the public’ won’t understand. That’s one irritation-source; another is that stupid ‘the fact remains,’ which implies that the public’s putative incapacity is supposed to trump questions of truth. The article just starts from that patronizing manipulative ignorance-mongering assumption and goes on from there. That’s a bad place to start and a bad place to go on from. I’m sick to death of this babying coddling coaxing minimalization of public discourse, and its accompanying attempts to make everyone either shut up or talk baby talk. I hate all this creepy instrumentalism – it’s all method and no end product.
More than 80 percent of Americans believe in God, after all, and many fear that teaching evolution in our schools could undermine the belief system they consider the foundation of morality.
So what? What if we are not primarily focused on what 80 percent of anyone believes, what if we are simply more interested in doing our best to get at and tell the truth, instead? What if we don’t think majority opinion should determine what people think and say and write? What if not everything is an electoral campaign? Why does that possibility not seem to occur to Nisbet and Mooney?
Scientists have traditionally communicated with the rest of us by inundating the public with facts; but data dumps often don’t work. People generally make up their minds by studying more subtle, less rational factors. In 2000 Americans didn’t pore over explanations of President Bush’s policies; they asked whether he was the kind of guy they wanted to have a beer with.
Yes – and? They were very, very stupid to do that, those of them who did (saying ‘Americans’ did that as if we all did is a tad sloppy, and feeds the tendency of people outside the US to say Americans elected Bush when some of us in fact didn’t vote for the guy) – they were very very stupid to do that and the fact that they did that is not a reason to join them in being stupid, so what’s the point of saying it? Some Americans asked whether Bush was the kind of guy they wanted to have a beer with, therefore Dawkins should shut up about atheism? It doesn’t follow. And even if it did follow, it would be a creepy pandering anti-rational ploy, and I say the hell with it.
So in today’s America, like it or not, those seeking a broader public acceptance of science must rethink their strategies for conveying knowledge…And the Dawkins-inspired “science vs. religion” way of viewing things alienates those with strong religious convictions. Do scientists really have to portray their knowledge as a threat to the public’s beliefs? Can’t science and religion just get along? A “science and religion coexistence” message conveyed by church leaders or by scientists who have reconciled the two in their own lives might convince even many devout Christians that evolution is no real threat to faith.
Maybe it would, but if part of your concern is in fact with belief and thinking themselves, then that’s beside the point. If you think religion tends to interfere with the ability of believers to think rationally about many subjects, then asking if science and religion can’t just get along is obtuse. ‘Can’t science and credulity just get along?’ Well, no, and that’s the point, so what’s with the pretense that it’s just a side issue which can easily be ditched?
That’s at least some of what is so irritating.
He has a point. Why go to all the trouble and expense of having science now that we have opinion polls and focus groups?
What I don’t get is why most of the article is such garbage when the last few paras make reasonable sense, e.g.
“Thankfully, scientists seem increasingly aware of the need to convey their knowledge better. There is even a bill in Congress that would allocate funding to the National Science Foundation to train scientists to become better communicators. That’s a start, but scientists must recognize that on hot-button issues — even scientific ones — knowledge alone is rarely enough to win political arguments, change government policies or influence public opinion. Simply put, the media, policymakers and members of the public consume scientific information in a vastly different way than the scientists who generate it. If scientists don’t learn how to cope in this often bewildering environment, they will be ceding their ability to contribute to the future of our nation.”
It’s as if they looked at their point, decided it wasn’t dumb enough, and added some extra dumb….
“I hate all this creepy instrumentalism – it’s all method and no end product.”
Agreed. Aside from the fact that the whole attitude towards Joe Public is rather patronizing as you mention, there’s something deeply dislikeable about subsuming everything within a political creationism vs. evolutionism framework (as I recall, Dawkins’ latest book wasn’t exactly about evolution so what does it matter what effect it has on the public acceptance of evolution?).
The thing is, if Nisbet and Mooney actually believe what they say about the coexistence of science and religion, they have a substantial disagreement with Dawkins, and a point to challenge him on. Why not do that? I’d agree with them, mind you. But what they seem to be doing is not so much challenge the validity of Dawkins’ arguments but the political expediency of Dawkins bringing up his arguments. Which seems like rank opportunism to me.
Having just returned from The Land of the Fat (and the home of the gravy), I’m afraid there are clearly swathes of it that are almost beyond all hope when it comes to scientific rationalism, however mild-mannered it be…
ho hum.
p.s. boy, do babies get jet-lagged…!!
:-)
“Which seems like rank opportunism to me.”
Just so. All expediency, no substance. Very typical of the way US politics functions, but why they assume all subjects are basically a subset of US politics is beyond me.
Andy,
Oh, I dunno, it was just a little too obvious, too well-ploughed already.
Good luck with that jet-lagged baby!
Nisbet and Mooney: “the Dawkins-inspired ‘science vs. religion’ way of viewing things alienates those with strong religious convictions”
But that’s not Dawkins’ target audience. His target audience is those who may have religious convictions but not so strongly that they aren’t willing to entertain arguments that there might be a better way. Those people whose religious convictions precludes even considering that Atheism might be correct are not those to whom Dawkins is talking. (I know I shouldn’t speak for Dawkins, but I think I’m not too far off here.) What N&M don’t seem to realize is that for Dawkins evolution vs. creationism is only one aspect of a much bigger conflict, and he’s not about to abandon the chance to convince intelligent but uninformed people of the greater truth just to be able to convince some less intelligent and even less informed people of a lesser truth.
Or perhaps, even more weirdly, they do realize it and think it’s wrong and that it will be useful for them to explain why it’s wrong. But why they think he’ll be persuaded by ‘No no, never mind that much bigger conflict, concentrate on this lesser one, and do it by ceasing to talk about the truth as you see it’ is beyond me.
And the bit about giving cretinism a boost is untrue, as well.
It is, as far as I can see a knee-jerk reaction yo thr idea that some people are not respectful towards religion, no matter how inane or insane that religious expression may be.
It’s a variation on the emporer’s new clothes, where pointing out that the ruler is, in fact naked, is felt to be impolite, and that the child should be smacked for saying naughty things in public.
And/or it is a version of “shoot the messenger” – you brought us these bad tidings, therefore it’s your fault.
I think one thing here is that their immediate concerns are highly pragmatic: a substantial voting proportion of the American public rejects science and scientists outright, at least in part because they stongly associate methodological naturalism with atheism and immorality. That means that they reject the factual contributions of scientists when it comes to matters concerning the physical world – environmental issues, say – in such contexts as choosing the leaders that make decisions ffecting these issues.
Their concern is thus to effect attitudinal changes that will break this deadlock. They want to separate science from the atheism question not because they have no concern for the truth but because a situation in which scientific observations of the physical world are given no credibility is an immediate, real, and physical concern.
The ‘validity question’ (WRT the exestence of God) is important, relevant etc. but it is NOT essential to an immediate goal of, say, getting US leaders to recognize that AGW is a clear and present danger. This is not a new version of the old arguments about respecting religion, it’s an argument about how to get people to listen to critically important scientific data.
I know, but the fact remains that they simply assume that immediate pragmatic concerns ought to trump everything else, and ought to do so for everyone.
I don’t think so. His words are meant for science popularizers – especially those who (and who doesn’t?) roll their eyes in exhasperation and cry unto the winds ‘My God, why don’t these poeople listen?’ To which it seems fair enough to say, ‘well, have you thought about how this sounds to them?’
Dunno. I’ve been reading Mooney’s blog on and off for a couple of years, and I just don’t think the charges flying now stick. But he is a journalist, and as such his interest is communication – getting the science out to people. Bear in mind that as the author of the Republican War on Science he’s likely to be… well, hypersensitized to the effects of bad electoral decisions, shall we say.
I’ve been reading Mooney’s blog (and journalism) for even longer, and he does great work. Nisbet I don’t agree with (I took issue with a similar bit of communications-pandering give the people what they want in 2003), and I think this piece is more Nisbet than Mooney. But as for the hypersensitization; sure, I understand that, but that’s just it: that hypersensitization creates a distortion.
That’s (pathetically) especially true in the case of US politics, because rational thought is pretty much ruled out there. If you try to shape everything into US political terms, you give up on rational argument, and some of us just don’t want to do that.
I hadn’t registered Nisbet’s existance prior to this, so have no comments to make wrt his contribution or his basic approaches.
It does seem to me that the viscerality of your response is a little disproportionate to the supposed offence, but I know that compromise on total honesty is one of your betes noires and lies at the root of your integrity, so fair enough. Just don’t enter politics – an attitude like that could cause the whole system to implode…:)
Incidentally, William Connolley over at Stoat has a nice (though brief and typically noncommittal) comment on this here. I think he pins it down: the crux here is what to do with things that actually require policy responses… which is not a straightforward question.
Damn damn hope that sorts it out.
Good. Sorry, OB.