Unscientific America 17 Jul 2009 I can’t yet speak about this book, because my review copy is presently on what passes as Australia’s international mail service, which involves yaks hiking across the Himalayas and then taking the parcels via the Silk Road to Beijing, where they will be brought to northern Australia by junks, and then carried across the desert by camel, some actually being led by camel herders, to a hole in the ground, under a rock, where we are expected to go looking for it if we happen to intuit this whole system. [No, I’m not annoyed. Why do you ask?] But I do like Josh Rosenau’s post on the criticisms it has received. As he notes, it is no disservice to education to repeat what, among others, Darwin said: Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. That’s Darwin, not Mooney and Kirshenbaum, by the way. The summary is: to promote science, teach science. Seems reasonable. When I get my copy from the jaws of the rabid dingo that has dug it up and tried to eat it, I will approach it directly and not in the context of the present blogwar. Book Education Politics Religion Science
Book Aware updates 20 Feb 202420 Feb 2024 Oops, I forgot to post links to my latest chapters of Aware on Substack: Desires Morals and Values There are perhaps two chapters and a conclusion to come. Read More
Evolution Philosophy and evolution 19 May 2009 Over the past 50 years or so, there have been many attempts to give a general metaphysics of evolution, ranging from axiomatisation (by Mary Williams, at the height of the “theories are axiomatic systems” period*), to “logical necessity” cases (such as Lewontin’s three conditions for natural selection), to “units of selection” arguments, most closely associated with George Williams and RIchard Dawkins. In each of these, and other, attempts, there has always been the presumption that there is a fixed hierarchy of ranks and units in biology. These are the “forms” of biology: replicators, interactors, species, genes, cells, and so on. The odd thing about this is that as people were asserting that essentialism is dead (see the article on species linked above), they were being essentialists about concepts and units and ranks. Ernst Mayr, for example, who asserted that species individually (the species taxon, as he put it) have no essences, nevertheless asserted that the concept of species (the species category) did so. He was an essentialist about the species concept. Likewise, the gene centrism of a Dawkins is essentialist about the replicator concept. And so on. Now one of the reasons why people adopted the hard and fast categories is that they usually were specialists in groups, such as mammals, birds or insects, where these categories had a real purchase. This is often referred to, mostly by botanists, as the “fur and feathers” or “vertebrate” or just “animal” bias. But another is just that they were seeking what used to be called the Characteristica Universalis, or the most general universal and formal language for the domain in question. It is a general disposition of those in the west to do this (and despite suggestions to the contrary, I cannot see how one might apply the Eastern metaphysics fruitfully in the domain of science). It is a constant temptation to try to ground ideas in unchanging and agential categories. We like species because they do something. We like replicators because they are the ultimate doers. These categories apply in ways that make sense of both the world, and our need for constancy. Coherence is not gone. Until you stop focussing on the “obvious” cases, and start paying attention to as many as you can find. I have what I call the “esoteric method”: look for cases that don’t fit the current categories and then go look and see if that is more general than you might think. For example, in his 1942, Ernst Mayr referred to nonsexual organisms as “aberrant” when discussing the adequacy of his “new” “biological” species concept (122, 129). Today we know that not only are most organisms not sexual, which would mean most of them are not arrayed in species, but that the sexuality of species even in the small twig of the phylogenetic tree that is metazoans is not constant: many groups have either got hybridisation, or asexuality, or both. Nor is gene exchange confined to sexual species – between species gene flow is common, and even among asexuals lateral transfer is frequent. In fact the sort of species Mayr expected to exist are rare, except among some groups of vertebrates (oddly, the group Mayr studied, birds, often hybridise). Over the past 50 years these essentialistic categories have become harder and harder to support empirically, as we have learned of more and more exceptions. Some, such as John Dupré, have argued for a pluralism of conceptions in biology due to the polytypic nature of the instances to which these categories are applied. It’s just a brute fact of biology that none of these categories are universal, and so biologists must avail themselves of whatever conception works in a particular case (to make this more concrete: species are sexual isolates when that works, but in, say, bacteria, they are phenetic clusters or something else). Some years ago, I published an idea that I think might be the resolution to this (2003) in which I argued that species is like any other property of organisms, something that has evolved in its own way. The reason there is no universal notion of species for the same reason there is no universal notion of leg: species, like legs, are the outcome of evolution. In other words, these kinds themselves evolve. This applies also to other apparently universal aspects of biology: genes, or rather replicators, cells, individuals, and so on. It is not the case that, as Dupré thinks, that anything goes, but that there are evolved modalities, as I called them – ways of being whatever it is that we are trying to understand. This applies not only to the organisms and their traits, but to the kinds of organisms, and even to the kinds of kinds. Taxa, units, ranks, entities, systems – all these are evolved, and so to understand what it means to be, say, a bird species or a eukaryote gene, you need to understand the evolutionary relations of that group. Last year, Peter Godfrey Smith published an interesting book that argues that the sole precondition for a Darwinian perspective on the world is that there are populations. Because we are disposed to see biology in terms of agency, we want agents, but that is, PGS holds, a remnant of the oldthink of teleology that Darwinism replaced. I think he’s well on the right track, although he still thinks that this means we cannot have types or classes. I think that classes are merely local and evolved. We are in a reading group covering his book right now, so as we work through it, I’ll probably add some more. One thing I do want to say now, though, is that there is a prior problem knowing what a population is. For instance, to know that an ensemble of individuals form a population, you need, minimally, to show they are of the same species because you don’t get a population that spreads across two or more species, unless they are causally connected reproductively (in which case they might be classed as the same species anyway). Moreover, you already need to know the sort of object/organism that counts as an individual for that group in order to identify it as a population. This is not always so easy, in the case of colony organisms. While PGS is rightly arguing that there are no ranks or special units, only populations (which comprise individuals that have heredity and ecological differences, leading to evolution**), it seems to me that he still requires there to be some sort of types or equivalence classes, even if there are no universal kinds of types. In part, this is something that comes out of the death of the essentialism story: it is often assumed that if one abandons essentialism, one loses access to any kind of equivalence class in biology (i.e., natural kinds; we aren’t worried about conventional classes or functionally defined classes), and that is what PGS assumes too. But it is my view that biology always uses types, which are defined or rather ostended by identifying an exemplar and then looking for clusters of properties. This is what PGS says we should be doing, but he does not see these as types. I do. By finding these clusters of properties (and even more the underlying developmental traits and heredity), we are then able to determine what a population is, and what individuals are, by a process of iterative induction (start with a case that is presumably exemplary and then make inductive generalisations from that until they fail). What bothers people who think in terms, not of binaries as Chris Schoen suggested, but of absolute levels or entities that do not change, is that evolution leaves us gasping and dealing with vague boundaries, shifting kinds and so on. I feel for them, but it is really biology that does this, and always has. What really is novel about evolutionary thinking is that we know not only that the appearances change, but that the forms, and the forms of forms also change. However hard to come to grips with, we must. And the solution to this vagueness is phylogenetic thinking. If you know where a species or an organism is placed on an evolutionary network (allowing for the moment that the tree topology sometimes fails), then you know what sorts of sorts it will fall into, or if you find that it doesn’t, that sets up an interesting research project. More as it occurs to me. * Williams was a student of the originator of the Axiomatic Method for the sciences, Joseph H. Woodger. ** Evolution includes a lack of change by stabilising selection or developmental entrenchment (which I think may be a subset of the former). We need not presume that selection always causes change (but if there is a lack of change, I think we should presume that is due to selection). Read More
Accommodationism Accommodating science: Faith and reason 5 Mar 2014 [This is the penultimate chapter. I can’t be bothered trying to get the references or footnotes included in the posts, so you’ll have to wait for the book. Some of this has appeared on the blog before in less well written form, so don’t worry about the deja vu] All… Read More
Certainly right… But I think the debate arond the book is more about: Do direct arguments against religion actually undermine science? What do you think?
But Mooney and Kirshenbaum are arguing that attacking religion actually harms science. Certainly you don’t agree with them on that point.
I will tell you when I’ve read the book. If they make a good case then I may. As yet, I think only that attacking religion is peripheral to the goal of improving public understanding of science, and can be mistakenly used for that purpose.
Well and then theres the cases where M&K criticize PZ for not supporting science in crackergate. But it is only in their mind the goal of crackergate was to promote science, so it seems an od event to bring up. And they keep doing it. Tell me John, does you ridicule of the Australian postal service further philosophy?
Why is it that you like to strawman the arguments of atheists while positioning yourself as a neutral or reasonable centre guy. I guess in the end, you’re like Mooney and Kirshenbaum (and the guy you linked to) in that you want to be different, but aren’t, so you obfuscate, and claim there is a non center space where reasonable people like you are. Quoting or approving of quotes by Darwin, and then standing back like you’re a sage only shows that you can make an inappropriate argument to authority, to wit, what authority does Darwin have regarding science and those who’d undermine it in the early 21st century? When I first started reading your blog, you were worth the effort, sadly, you’re a one card trick. I’ve followed Russell Blackford for longer, and am still impressed by his impartial application of reason. I guess it’s not your fault. Sadly, I still think you can do better.
guess in the end, you’re like Mooney and Kirshenbaum (and the guy you linked to) in that you want to be different, but aren’t, I haven’t read the book either yet, but it has nothing to do with being “different”, as if that were relevant. Perhaps they’d like to see a bit more science and teaching, and a bit less atheism and negative attacks. Fine by me. Atheism != science. you’re a one card trick. That’s about the last phrase I would use to describe John.
Brian English wrote: …When I first started reading your blog, you were worth the effort, sadly, you’re a one card trick… Wow sweety! Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? He also wrote: …what authority does Darwin have regarding science and those who’d undermine it in the early 21st century? Given the fact that he is the scientist whose work is largely responsible for the attempts to undermine it, a fact of which he was painfully aware when he published, quite a lot I would think. But then again what the fuck do I know?
John Wilkins wrote, … to promote science, teach science …. Aren’t you making the same mistake that Chris and Sheril make? They assume that the “New Atheists” share their objective; namely to promote science and enhance science literacy. But that’s not the goal of people like Dawkins and PZ (and me, and many others). Our goal is to fight superstition and convince people that they should abandon beliefs and myths that are not based on evidence and rational thinking. Don’t be confused by the fact that many of us are scientists. We actually share the same goals as our allies who are not scientists (e.g., Christopher Hitchens, Ricky Gervais, Daniel Dennett). We think that the best way of achieving that goal is to directly attack the myths and superstitions of the popular religions. We also think that it’s appropriate to attack the false beliefs of homeopaths, chiropractors, and those who argue against vaccinations. The accommodationists believe (I think) that the only path to a truly rational society is to teach good science. They think that religious people, homeopaths, and chiropractors will gradually abandon their false ways as soon as they learn the facts of science. Furthermore, they think that teaching science will fail if religious believers, homeopaths, and chiropractors feel threatened so we should avoid telling them that they are wrong. John, you may disagree with the tactics of the “New Atheists” but you make a big mistake by misrepresenting the strategy. This is not a debate about the best tactics to use in order to achieve a common objective; namely, how to teach science. It’s a debate about different strategies. Darwin’s quote is far more relevant to the real debate than to your interpretation. Maybe it’s true that pointing out flaws in the reasoning of Christians (and homeopaths and chiropractors) will never be effective in changing their minds and getting them to abandon superstition. But that’s a far different point than the one that Chris and Sheril make.
You may be right. As yet, I cannot say what I think about the book, as I have not yet read it. But I have expressed my disagreements with Chris and Sheril here before, and one of my disagreements is that I think those who are arguing against religion ought to be afforded the same opportunities as anyone else. I think, and have said, that a plurality of voices is important. I don’t want anyone to shut up. But I do think that, if our purpose is to improve the understanding of science and to increase the general quality of debate, then attacking religion will not achieve that aim. It achieves other aims. Just not that one. So when I read that book, I will see if it says what everyone says that it does. I read such a disparate range of interpretations, objections and complaints that I am sure people must be reading different editions of a book with the same title.
I get rather fed up with this sort of crap and name calling. Very popular in some parts of the web. Reminds me of the long running feud concerning ape and human anatomy, H.W Janson disscussed in “Apes and Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and Renaissance” (London: Warburg Institute, 1952) What a pointless waste of time that one was. Agree to disagree, no need for the emotive willie waving that goes along with it.
Well I can at least dream. FAITHEISTS, Credophiles, Placatheists, Godlycoddlers and Muzzle-ems http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/we-have-a-winner/
It’s the Jerry Springer approach to marketing science. If we point and fling our feces hither and yon the public will at least stop and pay attention to us, for amusement value if nothing else, even if they are not encouraged to take us even vaguely seriously.
Jeb // July 17, 2009 at 6:14 pm | Reply Well I can at least dream. FAITHEISTS, Credophiles, Placatheists, Godlycoddlers and Muzzle-ems http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/we-have-a-winner/ That’s a direct response to Mooney’s repeated use of the term “New Atheists” as a garbage can term for everyone who argues against religion.
It seems to me to be an empirically approachable issue that I am surprised isn’t approached empirically more often. We do spend quite a bit of time arguing our armchair opinions about the perceived pros and cons of accommodationism or this communication style versus that. I wonder what methods of science education/communication are most effective as evidenced by scientific observation? There are many approaches, but just examining the kind-hearted approach versus the obnoxious approach (however they may be operationalized) can lead to discoveries of what sways people. I know that James Randi, for example, can have a brusk, pointed tone when speaking about some alleged psychics, which isn’t my style personally, but I wonder if there is a place for that approach in that it captures the attention of people. Maybe the attention grabbing allows for the opportunity to get the points across to a wider audience than by using a more “civil” tone.
I tend to be a pluralist on this issue, precisely because we don’t have a lot of empirical evidence on which types of communication works best. I think there’s a proper place for Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins, for Chris Mooney and PZ Myers. A multiplicity of different voices which appeal to different audiences is a good thing, in my opinion.
It got caught in the spam trap. I just got up, so I approved it a minute ago. I’ll try to figure out why your comments only get caught that way and fix it.
I think quite a lot of empirical work is being done in that area PsyberDave, particularly with regard to academics training and teaching skills.
A plurality of voices is essential as it raises everyones game and tightens up argument. Myths and superstition must be attacked when they seek to impose themselves at a public and political level. If people want to believe in U.F.O’s or the sacred healing power of dolphins, it’s correct to try and convince them that these have no basis in rational thought. But how you achieve that aim must be a matter of debate and constant assessment. It’s just too important an issue and it’s an issue that needs broad consensus and support on an international basis. Yet as faith and also superstitious beliefs are diffrent in all parts of the world, answers are going to have to be diffrent. My view of religion coming from a European culture is going to be very diffrent from someone from a more fundamentalist country. Our perspectives and experiance of what religion is will be totaly diffrent, despite the fact we may share a fundamental disbelief in such activities. I think if we were all saying the same thing something would be deeply wrong. Such consensus is for those who share a faith and sing from the same hymn sheet without a question or murmer of disent. Its this fundamental intolerance of diffrent points of view that I find most distasteful when it comes to faith based beliefs.
Thony C. said “Thank you kind Blog God for fixing my faulty tags!” If there are no gods then there definitely are no blog gods . The English language is riddled with words that are connotatively religious. I suggest that another way to “directly attack the myths and superstitions of the popular religions” [Moran] is to stop using religious language in comments and conversations .
But I’m an animist! How else do TVs, MP3 players, stereo systems and computers work if they don’t have souls? Who makes my thoughts appear in the comments column if its not the Blog God, hallowed be his name?
Thony I am not sure what you are on about but if it’s a critisisim of my use of foklore and animisim could you be a bit more direct.
My comment was adressed at Veronica’s objections to my invocation of the Blog God and had nothing to do with you 😉
As an agnostic who studies belief systems I get a bit nervious of how people view some of my comments. Particularly given the claims that an agnostic can be some sort of stealth theist and I refuse to describe belief as stupid its a far more complex social processes than that. I also don’t like the idea of having to state what my personal opinions on faith are at times anymore than I should detail my political beliefs. Things are getting very P.C. I have thought recently of ditching my subject and doing something else as I don’t find some of the arguments (or lack of argument and claims of stupidity) very helpfull or balanced when it comes to understanding the complexity of belief systems. Clearly effecting how I read things at the moment and how I view my subject. I think aspects of this debate (not this thread) are very messy and ill thought out.
These devices work on smoke. We know this because when they break, the smoke gets out. Simple physicalist explanation.
What you think is smoke is the ectoplasma of the anima returning to the Great Electro God, OHM hallowed be his name, when the devices die.
“Aren’t you making the same mistake that Chris and Sheril make? They assume that the “New Atheists” share their objective; namely to promote science and enhance science literacy. But that’s not the goal of people like Dawkins and PZ (and me, and many others). Our goal is to fight superstition and convince people that they should abandon beliefs and myths that are not based on evidence and rational thinking.” I appreciate that there may be different goals, but that in and of itself doesn’t refute their criticism. I’m going to buy the book this weekend and follow John’s radical path of reading it and making up my own mind.
@Larry Moran upthread: you state that the likes of Dawkins, Myers and yourself do not have the goal of promoting science and enhancing science literacy (strange in a former Professor of the Public Understanding of Science). You do not “share their (Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s) objective”. Are we therefore to understand that you oppose this objective? That would certainly explain the vituperative temper of your criticism, but it leaves rather a considerable onus on you to explain how such an objective runs counter to convincing “people that they should abandon beliefs and myths that are not based on evidence and rational thinking.”
I have several goals in life. One of them is to promote science and enhance science literacy. Let’s call this goal “SL” for science literacy. Another is to convince people that superstitious beliefs are wrong and need to be exposed. Let’s call this goal “SR” for skepticism and rational thought. When I concentrate on the second goal (SR)—as I often do—everyone who is religious is on the other side of the issue. I am opposed to their point of view and I “attack” those points of view. Religious people are my opponents. Chris and Sheril interpret this as counter-productive in terms of goal “SL” but they are missing the point. Their primary interest is promoting science literacy(SL) and not attacking superstition. I were to share their primary goal (SL) then I might agree with them that theistic evolutionists are potential allies and they should not be criticized. But I have a different goal and even after years of trying to explain this to accommodationists they still don’t seem to get it. I don’t know why they find it so hard to understand that when religion is my target, allying with theists isn’t going to be very helpful. They may not agree with my *strategy* (objectives/goals) but criticizing my *tactics* as though I were fighting a completely different war isn’t going to be productive.
“But I have a different goal and even after years of trying to explain this to accommodationists they still don’t seem to get it. ” No, I think it’s pretty well understood. I understand it just like I understand the concept of collateral damage, for instance. I understand it just like I understand how one person’s actions can cause problems for another person. And I understand that the first person may disregard the problems of the second person. But that’s not an answer to the situation, that doesn’t disprove the second person’s criticism. The conflict exists whether you acknowledge it or not.
“I understand it just like I understand how one person’s actions can cause problems for another person. And I understand that the first person may disregard the problems of the second person. But that’s not an answer to the situation, that doesn’t disprove the second person’s criticism.” I’m glad you are so understanding. 🙂 In case others are having difficulty, let me try and explain how to interpret TB’s comment. I understand that some atheists want to be accommodationists in order to advance the cause of keeping creationism out of the schools. Their behavior makes achieving *my* goal more difficult, but that’s life. I would never tell them that they have to stop allying themselves with theistic evolutionists just to make my life easier because I understand that they have their own objectives and those objectives are different than mine. So, you’ll never see me writing a book where I criticize the accommodationists and tell them to shut up because they’re hurting the cause of abolishing religion. I understand full well that that’s not their cause so they don’t have to listen to me.
Reply to Larry Moran // July 20, 2009 at 2:17 am “I’m glad you are so understanding. 🙂 In case others are having difficulty, let me try and explain how to interpret TB’s comment.” How very patronizing of you. Actually, my reply was pretty straight forward… “I understand that some atheists want to be accommodationists in order to advance the cause of keeping creationism out of the schools. Their behavior makes achieving *my* goal more difficult, but that’s life.” So you do concede that one person’s action in trying to attain their goal can cause problems for people with different goals. Thank you. As I said above, “I appreciate that there may be different goals, but that in and of itself doesn’t refute their criticism. ” The rest, well, doesn’t really have anything to do with me does it? You’re playing to an audience, not engaging in a dialogue with me, so there’s probably not much of a point in replying. But, in case your imagined audience cares, how a person thinks someone should respond to a problem that person may have had a hand in creating isn’t necessarily germane. They are, after all, part of the problem and their opinion on the proper response may not be objective. I bought the book today, and have read up to Chapter 5. It’s an interesting book so far.
Veronica, sometimes one just makes a joke. While eating lunch with my husband and mother today, I remarked, referring to his sandwich choice, that the combination of cheese and pastrami is an offense against god. My husband replied, “You’re an atheist. You don’t believe that.” I said that nevertheless, I stood by my assertion. Figure of speech. My use of such did not in any way encourage believers, if they happened to overhear me, to continue their magical thinking nor would anyone cease to follow their chosen faith should I refrain from making such comments.
Susan Thank you for explaining what I already know. Your casual comment about “cheese and pastrami” is exactly what I am objecting to. I don’t think that your comment would “encourage believers . . . to continue their magical thinking. I do think atheists should stop using religious language in comments and conversations to show that atheists have a view of the world that is different than the Judaeo-Christian view of the world. “Religion Poisons Everything” even language.
Veronica, from some of your comments you appear to have some sort of connection to literature and language and that being the case it should be obvious to you that your demand for a language for atheists purged of all religious references would make it virtually impossible to continue to speak English. No more ‘goodbye’ no more ‘holiday’ for me as Englishman no more ‘bloody hell’, unthinkable, I could go on but I think you should have got my drift by now. Language evolves naturally all attempts to purge it of ‘undesirable’ words can only end in disaster. I wish you Godspeed on your journey through the intertubes.
Yup. I think the French and Gaelic speakers attempt to purge English words from the laguage is an example of a doomed attempt at this sort of thing. But then when I see the early medieval period refered to as the dark ages and then further described as some backwater of human stupidity and religious nonsense I get all P.C myself and start blowing flames. So I am somewhat hypocritical on this issue. But in this case droping the name dark ages has not changed popular imagination with regard to this key period in the development of Western culture.
Thony C. and Jeb Did you read my comment or just react to my comment. I did not say that I want “a language for atheists purged of all religious references.” I said that atheists “should stop using religious language in comments and conversations to show that atheists have a view of the world that is different than the Judaeo-Christian view of the world.” “Goodbye’ and ‘holiday’ regardless or their origin are fairly neutral words and have denotative meanings that are not explicitly religious. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/holiday?view=uk http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/goodbye?view=uk Yes, I have “some sort of connection” to literature and language and I am aware that “[l]anguage evolves naturally”; however, I would like atheists to help speed up the “evolution of language ” by purging words and expressions like “god”, “god bless” and “godspeed.”
Yes I read it. Ive stopped using words like for christ sake and god myself in every day speech without really thinking about it to much. But if I was told it’s not acceptable to use such words, I think I would use them more often. Its a trait that comes from a mis-spent youth listining to punk rock and rebelling against any form of authority. Ive never managed to grow up fully in this regard. I would respectfully disagree with youre comment. I am not about to tell my kids Christmass is no longer celebrated in the house. I also don’t think impositions like this are very popular with the wider public. Bad P.R. I think. I may be wrong but it’s my honest opinion on the subject.
John, no escaping from the godlycoddlers and their bookselling campaign these days…:-) And the misrepresenting and strawmanning is strong in the godlycoddlers,too.