Strategy/logic in scientists NOT defending evolution in KA debates?

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

As a scientist, I'm PISSED. What the fuck? By not forcefully engaging in a debate over evolution vs. unintelligent design, we are allowing the IDIOTS and Dark Ages Throwbacks to define the debate and hog all the media. Haven't we learned by now that "taking the high road" with these christofascists DOES NOT WORK?

A cadre of evolutionary biologists should have been on-hand for this sham school board meeting and completely innundated the debate with IRREFUTABLE FACTS. Sure, they're going to pass IDIOCY in science in Kansas no matter what the scientists would say, but AT LEAST THE FACTS ABOUT EVOLUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. Now, we're given a media view of the scientists being too scared to debate a stupid policy.

Am I the only scientist with a sense for politics and strategy?

JB

[Freedom_from_Chains]

1. Not to be demeaning or anything

As my intent is not to insult your profession, I am just curious. But is there the possibility that for some scientist to speak out against this could cost them grant money?

[spooked911]

5. Possibly, it depends where the grant money comes from

but not that much grant money comes from the states.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

7. Didn't think about that...but you're probably right.

It wouldn't take much for someone in the WH to call the head of NIH and put the jinx on any grants under review. But, this presupposes that all scientists rely upon governmental funding, which is not the case. For instance, biologists funded by the Howard Hughes Institute (private funding with no strings attached) could very easily speak up for SCIENCE without regard to personal financial/professional consequences.

JB

[izzybeans]

19. Would or can the NIH do such a thing?

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

23. Reviews in the NIH-family agencies are subject to personal politics.

It wouldn't be too difficult for the WH to find a sympathetic NIH review scientist working on a target scientist's grant. I'm not saying that this is happening...only that is possible. I'm basing this on hearing horror stories from colleagues who have received negative grant reviews purely on personal politics and jealousy.

JB

[patcox2]

2. Debating with an idiot lowers you to their level.

It is not possible to debate some views. Entering into the debate only legitimizes them. Its similar to the media, which is so idiotically concerned with being fair, that they will present the opposing viewpoint as being just as valid, regardless of how ridiculous it is. the whackjobs have been exploiting that flaw in media coverage for years (its even worse in things concerning science, given the scientific illiteracy of most reporters and readers; they don't understand that just because a "professor" from Bob Jones U has published a "study" in the Bob Jones U. Review, does not mean he is as qualified as someone from a real university who publishes in a real, peer-reviewed journal).

I agree, stay away from them.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

9. Really...so Gallileo, Clarence Darrow, Oppenheimer, etc. were wrong.

Science is objective. Society IS NOT objective. Scientists must work within a society that is often illogical, but that doesn't mean that they must detach and not FORCE an understanding of the objective facts.

Without a counter-balance religious zealotry will continue to encroach upon scientific practice and research...sticking your head in the sand only facilitates the process.

Science suffers from those who feel that they can practice their profession isolated from society. In eras past, this sort of "snobbery" often got scientists killed as witches, warlocks, heretics, etc.

FIGHT gODDAMN IT.

JB

[Orrex]

13. Good points, but not the best examples

Gallileo recanted (and submitted to permanent house arrest), Darrow lost the case, and Oppenheimer's work didn't conflict with the doctrines of an entrenched theocratic power.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

17. Oppenheimer as the trickster..."Trinity" project was veiled reference.

Oppenheimer did piss off some in the religious community by naming the project to construct the atomic bomb after Xtian philosophies of a "holy trinity."

But, you are correct, he wasn't vilified for fighting against any prevaling religious theories. He was vilified, instead, by the head of the Atomic Energy Agency for his opposition to the hydrogen bomb.

JB

[Orrex]

21. Doh! Brilliant answer!!

First, a thump on the head to me for not realizing the "Trinity" zinger. Me, I figured he was talking about The Matrix...

Second, your pairing of religious orthodoxy with the doctrinaire powers-that-be in the AEA is clever, appropriate, and (dare I say) all too timely timely.


Nicely done!

:toast:

(on edit: For the record, that's "timely timely," which is twice as good as merely "timely.")

[enki23]

3. i remember suggesting scientists should politicize a while back

before the election. almost every response disagreed. scientists are supposed to be "objective" apparently, in the sense that they should have no interest in the world around them, and pretend they are unable to make decisions about it.

imho... this is what keeps scientists on the other side of the real wall of separation, the separation of reality and state.

[spooked911]

4. I am a scientist, a molecular biologist, and this pisses me off too

But I am not sure what to do at this point.

Frankly, I am so fed up with these anti-evolution idiots that I just feel like it is useless to fight it. It is just a bad phase our country is going through but eventually we will have a new enlightenment.

The problem is that there is just no arguing with people of faith over this. Logic does not work.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

12. You can fight it by speaking up during school board meetings, PTA, etc.

You can be an ambassador on a small scale for science. I'm taking this role here in NC, when the christofascists want to introject religion into the local school curriculum. Frankly, this small scale participation is the VERY tact being taken by the christofascists. They have been tasked on the grassroots level to infiltrate school boards to ease the task of moving curricula to a more conservative, religious bent. Why can't scientists do the same?????

JB

[izzybeans]

14. You beat them by out flanking them in the political arena.

The function of a public debate is for the audiences benefit. You will never beat your opponent with logic, you beat them by out describing them as to what it is you do and why its important. Variations in your audience's response will be due to your presentation as well as the biases they bring to the forum. So tailor the message to their biases. Scientists must combat the culture warrior with the best rhetorical devices they can muster.

Since I'm a lowly social scientist and a graduate student at that I have made a flailing attempt (science vulgarized below):

"You might imagine the world as being only 6,000 years old. However the fossil record indicates X."

creation scientist: "But that's not true the world is only 6,000 years old."

You: "On what basis do you make your claim?"

CS: "On the basis of fact."

You: "Please tell me how you constructed such a fact."

CS: "Pure deduction my dear friend. The bible tells me so."

You: "Ah ha! But no science can be purely deductive because we must build our theoretical models from methodically derived observable materials. That is the essence of any science. That relationship between thinking and observing. There are of course other mechanisms that need to be in place for particular sciences to function, i.e. control. If you were purely deductive you have no escape from theory, and are left with myth."

CS: "No we are not. It says so right here."

You: "Let's get back to the point.Or in this case...the observables. I'd like to talk about carbon dating. <pontificate on the historical development of the "test" and tie it into its usage for dating the earth past 6,000 years."

CS: "Yeah, let's get back to that. I've deconstructed carbon dating by the way."

YOu: "Okay. sure. That has no bearing on the validity of its usage. Anyway. This is how it works and this is what it tells us."

CS: "But if I deconstructed it I invalidate it."

You: "Only if you didn't read past the first paragraph of your intro to humanities text would you believe that. Here, science like religion is of human design. We are the intelligent designers and as such we must construct a method that provides us with a way out of dogma, and inch closer to the truth. Religion, as early social science on the subject teaches us, is also an attempt at reflecting nature. However, rather than devise strategies of methodical observations in an effort to know nature, religion operates through rituals and ceremonies in an effort to confirm belief. Even if both are attempts to "get to know" nature, if you can not provide us with such methods then you have no place in our classrooms. If all you want to do is reproduce a religious ritual then I must ask, just to be sure, "What are your methods?"

CS: "Science."

You: "just how do you do science?"

CS: "uhmmm...well.."

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

16. Awesome!

Very entertaining. Thanks for taking the time to write this up.

Another tact would be to demonstrate the inconsistencies in creation myths across religions and weaken their argument from the inside.

Regards,
JB

[izzybeans]

18. Certainly.

Thanks. When I get long winded I wonder if people ever make it past the first few lines.

On edit: I think I'll rest for a while to let my post count reflect the irony of it all.

:evilgrin:

[izzybeans]

6. They did the same thing in the 70's when this same debate took

place underneath the banner of Creation Science.

Scientists have the unfortunate quality of not recognizing the social processes they are involved in. They pretend that politics has no impact on their work. And yet the legitimacy of scientific knowledge is being called into question. If the IDers or creationists push this forward and establish themselves as "legitimate" scientists then we might as well do away with rigorous empiricism in favor of pure logical deduction. "My God says this...oh there is a tree, he did that too. and over there a bush. It's burning. He must of had a hand in that."

No they've spent too much time fighting their allies in the social sciences and humanities in turf wars within the academy to notice that much of their institution had been sucked in by business models and is once again being truly denigrated by religious fanatics.

[blindpig]

8. never debate an idiot

they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience.

Don't know who said that but it sounds like Wisdom to me.

[Ivan Sputnik]

20. Mark Twain said that

I believe the exact quote is:

"Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you on experience."

[blindpig]

28. thanks. n/t

[hecate77]

10. No, but I don't live in Kansas....

and have no voice there. I've done my bit to help the US government see through crackpot schemes put forth by wacko christians, but someone in Kansas has to do this thing. That is, assuming any local papers would do anything but twist the words of the scientists anyway. Remember, the local folks are the ones who elected these dolts, so they already side with them.

The big battle will be when they try to get something through on a national level, or get enough crackpot judges in the federal courts to try to bring cases up to demand evolution be taken out of the curriculum.

This battle is far from over.

[Orrex]

11. Tough balancing act

In my view, scientists are faced with a real conundrum. If they remain silent, they may be considered fools, but certain people will consider scientists to be fools regardless. But if scientists engage in debate with creationists, then the creationists will:

A) Probably "win" the debate, in terms of audience reaction (and, in this case, because the judging panel is openly hostile to evolution)
B1) Claim that scientists must think that creationism is worthwhile, or else why would they engage in debates about it?
or
B2) Claim afterward that they soundly defeated Scientist X in debate

Since the Kansas Inqusition will almost certainly come down in favor of creationist mythology, any scientist who participates would only be martyring himself in a hopeless battle (in a still far-from-over war)

The problem certainly doesn't involve the merits of creationism, of which there are none. The problem is that a plurality of people embrace creationism because they are generally ignorant (of science, at least) and because it satisfies their egos to believe that they are somehow fundamentally different from "lesser" animals.

It would be amazing if a legal case could be mounted in such a way that the Supreme Court would have to declare, once and for all, that creationism and its bastard pseudoscientific offspring are religious spilth, thereby banning it from science classrooms henceforth.

So, to sum up: scientists were absolutely correct to boycott this kangaroo farce.

[Ron Green]

15. I just checked the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists,

an organization to which I've contributed money. It was interesting, but not entirely surprising, to find that they aren't touching this issue. Lots of environmental, energy and transportation topics, but Creationism is just too hot, I guess.

[geniph]

22. I think at some level, it's like defending the theory of gravitation

If someone's too dumb to understand the theory of gravitation, why waste time and energy trying to argue with them about whether or not it exists? Drop a rock on their head from a great height. The same kind of goes for the evolution debate - those who can't understand it squeal and wiggle and froth, and want it not taught. Fine. Nonetheless, species continue to evolve all around us, while humanity in the U.S. devolves more and more every day. Entropy at work. Eventually, those humans who have continued to evolve intellectually will prevail over those who've regressed. Or the species will regress to the point that we wipe ourselves out. Either way, the planet will be better off without the "morans."

Oh, ooops, entropic theory is probably controversial too. Universal expansion and all that.

[AngryWhiteLiberal]

24. You must be talking about "intelligent entropy" theory? :)

You know...the one where god created chaos on purpose.

JB

[geniph]

26. LOL!

I like that! "It's not evidence of the Big Bang, God is just playing tricks on us!"

[ComerPerro]

25. From what I understand, they don't want to legitimize the IDiots

By acknowledging these "debates".

Plus, I have a feeling that these "debates" will be nothing more than a ID "expert" shouting BS and scripture at the scientist while not letting him get a word in edgewise, and shouting "blasphemy" whenver the scientists offer the facts.

All to a crowd of pathetic FReepers.

I don't blame any scientist who won't give these fanatics the time of day.

[minerva50]

27. I just hate the way they willfully misunderstand "theory"

as used by scientists. "Oh it's just a theory, it should be taught like any other theory." You can't argue with these people.

[0rganism]

29. Not the forum to do so, really

It's up to scientists to educate people as to what science is, what a scientific theory is, what evolution is, and why evolution is a valid scientific theory. It is not up to scientists to legitimize a faux proceeding through direct participation.

However, they SHOULD be commenting loudly and publicly about the farce.