…and this is a 
A familiar pattern
Category: Communicating science
Posted on: February 17, 2008 10:35 PM, by PZ Myers
Apparently, there was some panel on the repellent practice of "framing science" at AAAS recently, which I'm sure the principals will consider a triumph, despite their refusal to have any dissenting voices there to speak.
It reminds me of something.
Recall the recent episode with the creationist, Geoffrey Simmons? He had a strategy for winning arguments: it was to get an exclusive hour on the radio to make his case without those troubling critics. He crowed victory afterwards, too.
Comments
Simmons knows that when you play with yourself, you always win.
Posted by: October Mermaid | February 17, 2008 10:49 PM
By now, "framing science" has nothing to do with the (relatively uncontroversial) assertion that people rely upon cognitive shortcuts and emotional preferences to make judgments in areas outside their factual knowledge. Instead, it's become a byword for living in a fantasy world where if Hirsi Ali were knifed by a Muslim extremist, Hitchens were killed by a vengeful liver and Dawkins died of sexual exhaustion in a vault full of money, the Creation Museum would close up shop and the Discovery Institute would repent its sins in sackcloth and ashes.
Clearly, the "New Atheists" were excluded out of fear that the panel would be relevant.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 17, 2008 10:50 PM
Only post on this thread for me.
Could we please not confuse one strategic approach to framing with the entire field.
Bye now.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 17, 2008 10:53 PM
Why is it that whenever I hear a discussion of Framing Science I find myself looking up references on Neville Chamberlain
Posted by: Lorax | February 17, 2008 10:56 PM
Yes, but Simmons was pathetic. Don't think everyone would be so easy, no matter that you have small-t truth and science on your side:
I feel queasy about "framing" as Nisbet and Moody recommended for the evolution issue (we have to stick to the importance of evidence and of proper inference), however it does matter how smoothly Richards layers on the bullshit, and how adept one is at pointing out that the smooth finish is just plain excrement.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | February 17, 2008 11:02 PM
WTF!
There Is 'Design' In Nature, Biologist Argues:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm
Posted by: Coturnix | February 17, 2008 11:03 PM
October Mermaid: A remarkably astute analysis. No Ambulocetus could be found next to his jar of Vaseline.
Posted by: danley | February 17, 2008 11:06 PM
Honest scientists know in their bones that we fight error through open criticism (David Brin wants to make "criticism is the only known antidote to error" — CITOKATE — into a catchphrase). We can see why this process is essential if we look at the people presenting at this panel. Consider the anthropologist Barbara King, and her take on the "New Atheist" writings:
In an open forum, this idea could be critiqued, as it was at Mike Dunford's blog. A commenter named Wes pointed out,
It's a familiar pattern: if a religious act and a non-religious act both share some common property, the non-religious act will be labeled as a new kind of religious behavior. All is interpreted through the lens of faith and piety: bounded in a nutshell, the anthropologist is king of infinite space!
The complaint is not even consistent with the story we're being fed. We're supposed to communicate science by appealing to people's emotions, using metaphors which get them thinking in the right fashion and so forth, but we can't include personal stories when we write a popularized science book? Honestly, one would think that a "testimonial" would be the effective way to communicate science in "religious America". Which is it — do we have too much God or not enough? It's reminiscent of when the creationists accuse science of being "just another religion", which causes the freethinker to pause and wonder, "Doesn't that mean they're devaluing religion?"
All we get is a stream of inconsistent and confusing verbiage, a garish bricolage whose only theme is ill will, distaste concealed by glitter. In an open forum, these ideas could be held against the touchstone of criticism, but when critics are barred, the touchstone is flawed, and the buyer is left with fool's gold.
Creationists are fond of complaining that Intelligent Design has been kept out of academia by a "Darwinist orthodoxy" (perhaps projecting their own habits of thinking onto their enemies). It is ironic that a panel dedicated to "communicating science in a religious America" has aped the tactics of creationists and made flesh their projected image of science: the New Atheists have been Expelled.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 17, 2008 11:08 PM
One thing I would add to Blake Stacey's comment - we use cognitive shortcuts and emotional preferences even _within_ our areas of factual knowledge (this was the point of the National Research Council's "How People Learn," - a book that collected research on learning, cognition, and teaching to show how to better teach science). We can't help using those shortcuts - it's what makes it so we don't have to explain the fundamentals of DNA structure every time we run a PCR. And within science these frames _have_ sometimes blinded us to alternative explanations that turn out to be more correct.
For most educators who understand frames, the important point is that without understanding the "frame" of a student, you can't know exactly how to tackle their scientific misunderstandings. This is simply good pedagogy; anyone who takes the time to understand the ways that scientific explanations get _mis_understood by students knows that the most common errors come because students already have rational and common-sense notions of how the world works that provide them with cognitive shortcuts. They are not scientifically correct, but they are often sensible given what the students know. We have to spend a lot of time breaking down those sensible but incorrect frames before we can make "scientists" out of our students. I don't think we really appreciate how much time we spend convincing our students that things they cannot directly see, hear, or touch are "real."
Nesbit has, sadly, treated "framing" as if it is simply trying to put the findings of science in to religious language (or something like that - he is seldom really clear). This is NOT what framing is all about. We reframe our students understandings all the time, but we do it by acknowledging their (unscientific) frames and then showing them how a more scientific frame does a better job of explaining some evidence. This is NOT what Nesbit is proposing. He is, it seems, proposing that we couch scientific findings and approaches in the language and rhetoric of religion to "fool" religious people into accepting science. Or something like that... it really is hard to tell.
Posted by: Slothrop | February 17, 2008 11:16 PM
From the link provided by Coturnix (#6):
Meh. If cheap rhetorical tricks ripe for the quote-mining are the best he has to offer, I'm not going to wet myself. This does nothing to address the major reasons why people find evolution emotionally unpalatable. When all the clever talk is done, we're still kin to the monkeys.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 17, 2008 11:22 PM
I can certainly see that you'd want to be careful about talking on science in public. I mean, if there was a way of thinking about things that in 500 years could double the life span, cure disease, discover how living things are put together and locate galaxies 13,230 million light-years away, you'd want to keep that under your hat, right? I mean, Jesus Christ, can you believe how upset people would be if they could live to they were 90? And all without boils! People would be furious. I think it's best to keep this whole science thing on the downlow. What kid is ever going to be excited by the idea that stars are unbelievably distant, and unbelievably large? I mean, BSG didn't even get to FIVE seasons. Just tell the children that the stars are tatooes on the body of giant sky god stretched across the earth; if they want to know more, they can get a PhD in astrophysics. I'm pretty sure people are pretty sick of scientists crowing about the earth revolving around the sun by now, too.
Posted by: inkadu | February 17, 2008 11:26 PM
Slothrop -
I get the feeling Nesbitt is like one of those English teachers who thinks his students would really love Shakespeare if they could just see a version of "Hamlet" where all the actors wear baggy jeans.
Also, I like it when we don't talk about Nesbitt. He's an idiot. As Steve Labonne wrote,
Posted by: inkadu | February 17, 2008 11:34 PM
Pardon me, but I really don't understand the problem. What's more important:
a) Science/Religion getting along enough to figure out we have just about pushed our environment to the limit or
b) Science vs religion as in who wins.
Frankly, I became a non-theist after reading Dawkins - not by reading TGD (which I liked and encouraged me to investigate) but by reading TSG and TEP - at which point I realized I needed to go educate myself in Biology.
As far as a) or b) above...count me in with the a)'s
There is science and there is business and I believe our survival as a species depends very much upon our getting our collective shit together before it's to late.
Personally, I would not bet the bank that we are *that* intelligent a species to make it across the river without drowning.
Posted by: foxfire | February 17, 2008 11:35 PM
Framing is the way of using language in such a way as to get the audience to trust you. To believe you are an authority on what you are talking about and to take your word for it. It is essential in politics. And some of the politics is science related. You want to get the people to vote against Creationists when the next school board election comes. You do not have ten semesters to explain evolution. You do not have receptive audience for explaining evolution. You just have ten minutes or ten seconds to establish to them that you are right and the preacher is wrong.
This does not mean you talk like a preacher. This does not mean you praise religion. This does not mean you even mention religion. No, you develop your own way to demonstrate certainty. If you can project stronger certainty than the preacher and if you can get the preacher to waver, or start getting red in the face, you got it.
This has nothing to do with science education. Education is a two-way process. You need a teacher. You need a willing student. Most people are unwilling to get educated in science - no time, no interests, prior biases, whatever. If you try to teach them - you lose. If you are trying to win a political battle, do not try education. Education is for long-term goals. Politics is short-term.
As I argued before, there are two battles here. Though they seem to be similar, they are quite unconnected to each other. One is a battle for science education. The other is the battle against the irrationality when it impinges on everyone else's rights (e.g., the right to privacy in the bedroom, to quality science education, etc.). The two operate at different time-scales, are done by different people, have different goals, have different target audiences, and are done using different methods - the two messages are thus framed differently.
The battle against irrationality (really against the special treatment of religion) is also waged at two levels: private and public. In private, you want to give a helping hand. You need to gain the trust first. You use the language that allows you to gain that trust by eliciting positive "frames of mind". It's a long process and painful for people losing their religion - you are their tutor and best friend. In public, Dawkins et al. are doing exactly what needs to be done - moving the Overton Window in the right direction. They make discussion of atheism possible. It is now perilous for a public figure to deride atheists when the microhpones are on - something that was not true just a couple of years ago. Honest discussion of religion is now possible. This, of course, riles up the fundies. Instead of being all saintly and meek, the protest in anger. Anger is ugly. It repels. They are also forced to say stuff in their defense and the stuff they say makes no sense and is laid out there for everyone to see. More the fundies look angry and say stupid things, more they lose general support.
Mixing all those things up and saying it is all "framing: is an error. When Matt thinks that being nice to the religious has anything to do with framing science, he is wrong. But also, when we (vocal atheists) conflate the two in order to make gleeful noises at Matt, we make the same mistake.
Posted by: Coturnix | February 17, 2008 11:38 PM
Appeasers: The spineless pushovers.
That says it all.
Posted by: Evolved | February 17, 2008 11:41 PM
Probably because you must be , that's why.
Posted by: Orac | February 17, 2008 11:41 PM
Obviously I munged up the HTML, so here goes again:
Probably because you must be clueless about history, that's why.
Posted by: Orac | February 17, 2008 11:43 PM
uh, Orac, if you look in the comments for the post which you just linked to, you'll see someone who sets you straight on your own historical errors.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 17, 2008 11:47 PM
I know this is off-topic, but has anyone commented on Dembski's list of ID predictions posted in the comments on one thread over at UD? I had heard back in January he was threatening to unleash them, but hadn't seen them till just now.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/adminstrative/what-happened-to-colson-praises-peta/#comments
Posted by: porkchop | February 17, 2008 11:49 PM
*yawn*
ID has always predicted that there will be classes of biological systems for which Darwinian processes fail irremediably, and conservation of information is putting paid to this prediction.
make your false assumptions, then tweak your conceptualization to fit.
what else is new?
Dembski is just as irrelevant as he always was.
the moment he gets invited to be a speaker at a conference of real information specialists, that would be worth blogging about.
hasn't happened.
never will.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 17, 2008 11:59 PM
Sure, there are short-term goals and long-term goals, which will require different methods, but bollixing the processes of communication, deliberation and debate is not helpful for either one.
And, you know what? I don't think we're doing that badly in the short-term battles. If we can get the creationists into a courtroom, we can expose them as buffoons and play the church-state separation card — hence, indeed, the victory at Dover. We can put out a fire, but the entire nation is made of flammable tinder, waiting to burst into flame at a warm breeze from the heartland.
Do what you will in the short term, but please, let's debate those short-term tactics fairly, and let's keep the long term in mind.
KTHNXBYE.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 18, 2008 12:01 AM
What Blake says.
Posted by: Coturnix | February 18, 2008 12:03 AM
Tried to set me straight would be a better term. He didn't really succeed, and I answered most his criticisms. None of his criticisms truly challenged my argument that the whole "Neville Chamberlain" gambit in terms of the issue that is the topic of PZ's post is a load of ahistorical bullshit.
Posted by: Orac | February 18, 2008 12:06 AM
Meaning, yes, we are doing fine in short-term battles, too. But the method we use to win those does not apply to the long-term.
Ken Miller is great in the courtroom. A disaster in the public area. Dawkins does exactly what's needed in public and may not be as good in the courtroom. Division of labor.
Posted by: Coturnix | February 18, 2008 12:06 AM
It is now perilous for a public figure to deride atheists when the microhpones are on - something that was not true just a couple of years ago.
quite remarkable, in fact, how rapid the shift has been!
it adds a small spark of hope to an otherwise rather dismal outlook.
Moreover, to me it suggest the direction of thrust is pretty much dead on.
Nobody needs Nisbet.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 18, 2008 12:08 AM
To Coturnix @14: Exactly! Your point about two battles is RIGHT ON (and I hadn't looked at it this way before) as well as your point about the transition from irrationality to rationality.
If science is to win this war, scientists (and those who support science) need to understand the rules and play the game better. I love science and I understand how business works - This (science vs other) IS is business ;-)
Thanks!
Posted by: foxfire | February 18, 2008 12:09 AM
None of his criticisms truly challenged my argument that the whole "Neville Chamberlain" gambit in terms of the issue that is the topic of PZ's post is a load of ahistorical bullshit.
that wasn't the point of his post; the point was illustrating your own lack of historical knowledge.
in that, he did quite well.
as to your position on the term Dawkins used - you can argue the relative value of terminology all you wish, but I do hope you don't think that what Dawkins was pointing at, with an arguably poorly worded sign, wasn't an issue that needs to be addressed?
Otherwise, I'd have to accuse you of merely obfuscating the issue by attacking the sign, instead of what it is pointing to.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 18, 2008 12:17 AM
But you also make a great point yourself that "Neville Chamberlain School" is itself a frame, and an effective one. It's shorthand for "compromising with people who are not going to accept compromise." I don't think people care too much about the historical details, and history often stands in for mythology, as much as that may frustrate historians.
The problem with Nesbitt is if anyone disagrees with him, he blinks a few times, and then says, "Clearly, you do not understand the the basic principles of framing." That's pretty aggravating. It's difficult to have an honest disagreement with someone who is not capable of honestly disagreeing.
Posted by: inkadu | February 18, 2008 12:19 AM
We'd all have been better off if Dawkins had just called Godwin's Law on Michael Ruse on p. 67 of The God Delusion. That said, the section entitled "The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists" is not even four full pages long, and the "Chamberlain gambit" itself could be entirely expunged by revising a handful of sentences. The point of that entire portion of the book, the last twenty pages of Chapter 2, is to judge whether NOMA is a legitimate principle, and secondarily, to propose reasons why people might endorse it.
The worst thing about the "Chamberlain gambit" is not any historical shoddiness of it, but rather that it has made so many smart people waste so many ones and zeros arguing about it instead of discussing the interesting parts of the book. For the love of fuck, Dawkins spends more time eulogizing Douglas Adams than he does calling people Chamberlains. He argues that "anthropic" explanations are alternatives to fine-tuning by divine intervention, which is surely an under-appreciated idea. He considers the "Ultimate 747" a stronger argument than the Problem of Evil; why, and is he correct? He shamelessly cites and quotes bloggers, including our very own evilutionary superscientist P-Zed, and he writes,
Historians of print and scholars who study the junction of paper and electronic media will doubtlessly see this as an important example worthy of study.
I could go on; I'm a lover of books and a geek for text. Suffice it now to request that we please learn from Dawkins's mistakes, dust ourselves off and move on.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 18, 2008 12:34 AM
The problem with Nesbitt is if anyone disagrees with him, he blinks a few times, and then says, "Clearly, you do not understand the the basic principles of framing." That's pretty aggravating. It's difficult to have an honest disagreement with someone who is not capable of honestly disagreeing.
I felt the exact same way.
looking back on the times I've engaged him, I wonder if it isn't entirely intentional on his part. a very specific stonewalling tactic.
Posted by: Ichthyic | February 18, 2008 12:43 AM
Add habitual name-dropping, tedious recitations of his schedule, reminders of his eminence, dismissal of posters who use monikers, and failure to back up his [rare] substantive points with anything more than "it's in the peer-reviewed literature" to the list of Nisbet's irritating attributes.
Posted by: ngong | February 18, 2008 1:25 AM
Few tactics are more annoying or insulting, particularly when regularly employed, than this:
"You disagree with me only because you don't understand me."
(I'm pleased to see Blake and Ichthyic (LTNS!) serving up multiple comments here.)
*waves*
Posted by: Kseniya | February 18, 2008 1:33 AM
/me waves to Kseniya
Posted by: Blake Stacey | February 18, 2008 2:13 AM
Quick O/T, but anyone feel like filleting this latest silliness from the homeopaths?
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | February 18, 2008 2:35 AM
#34
I would do it but I don't have a blog and I'm not sure my English is up for the task. But as a material scientist that has actually done semiconductor epitaxy this makes my head hurt. I guess the woo is always worst when it concerns your own profession. Different molecular structure, riiiight.
Posted by: Katrin | February 18, 2008 3:21 AM
@ #34 Here's a decent treatment at The Quackometer:
http://tinyurl.com/ynlhl8
Posted by: Form&Function | February 18, 2008 3:26 AM
You know, I often wonder if Nisbet is just performing some bizarre experiment. Perhaps he's trying to evaluate the effects of bad framing, and we're all just test subjects.
Posted by: MartinM | February 18, 2008 5:02 AM
I mentioned this Dawkins discussion over at Sandwalk, but thought I'd repost it here in case anyone missed it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/audio/2008/feb/14/richard.dawkins
It's worth listening to in the context of the discussion here. Dawkins admits to not always being politically savvy when it comes to creationism and other issues. As an appeaser, I've often felt that his rhetoric hurts the cause; it would appear that Prof D agrees (but isn't especially bothered).
Posted by: SteveF | February 18, 2008 6:05 AM
I actually wouldn't mind the "let's be nice to fundies" school (it seems to me to be a recipe for being ignored but hell, that's just my opinion), if it wasn't for the way they treat people who don't want to do what they say is best for science.
You can't have it both ways - stressing being polite and fluffy to fundies, whilst using even more antagonistic and aggressive tactics than those you allegedly deplore against "new" atheists who disagree with you is called hypocrisy, at best.
Is it just me or does this type of behaviour remind you of anyone else's tactics recently?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 18, 2008 6:38 AM
Quick O/T, but anyone feel like filleting this latest silliness from the homeopaths?
It's like saying that Legos are among the most complex objects in the world because of all the complex things you can make out of them. Anyone who isn't convinced that this article is idiotic simply by reading its first paragraph won't be swayed by responses to the rest of it.
Posted by: truth machine | February 18, 2008 7:20 AM
Ridicule is the only way to destroy faith. Children have faith in Santa, but not adults. Why? Because as they get older, kids who believe in Santa are mocked by their peers.
Every opportunity to make a creationist or other woo-naut look like an ass, especially in public, should be seized upon.
Posted by: Lycosid | February 18, 2008 7:37 AM
Turns out I'm not done ranting. The only framing we should be doing is making the irrationalists look like the wankers that they are. You can side with Einstein or Falwell, take your choice.
Posted by: Lycosid | February 18, 2008 7:53 AM
#13 You have set up an inappropriate dichotomy. It isn't either a or b as you, and Nisbet, argue. See there is this group of people out there, who happen to be fundamentalist christians who want evolution banned from schools or at the very least equal time given to creationism. So should those of us who understand that evolutionary theory is the grand unifier of biology defer to the communication majors who really don't care all that much about it one way or the other because they have a different agenda? I like the push reason and rational discussion and if the real world contradicts someone's religious belief, then their beliefs should be criticized. I want to point out that some of these fundamentalists could care one way or the other about the environment as well, having the world go to shit fits well with their interpretation of revelations.
Posted by: Lorax | February 18, 2008 8:02 AM
Orac, I did not mean to elicit such an emotional response from you. While I could be wrong, I do believe I have a clue about history. I will defer to comment #28 in regards to the point I was trying to make, which you certainly understood but did not like. Hmmm, maybe framing isn't such a good idea I mean here is a intelligent scientist with whom my point completely got lost. Not only did the crux of my point get lost but because of my frame Orac decided not to address my point one way or another, but to insult me. Its no big deal, its because he's short.
Posted by: Lorax | February 18, 2008 8:12 AM
There is a point that Dawkins bring up in "The God Delusion", although I think he might have made more of it, and it is this: Almost all religious people accept some religious dogma that is contradicted by science.
Now we all know about the fundamentalist Christians who reject evolution, along with cosmology and almost everything else in science. However they are not alone in making claims that contradict science. Catholics, and many (but not all) Anglicans accept that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a virgin. Now that claim is a scientific one, and what science tells us is that humans cannot undergo parthenogenesis. Not only has there never been a recorded case of a human female doing so, there has never been a case of a human mammal. Likewise claims for the literal resurrection also founder on the shoals of scientific credibility, not to mention turning water into wine, or the feeding of the five thousand.
How can we take someone seriously when they offer support in saying creationism is not science when they believe in equally non-scientific dogma ? And yet it is these people whom Nisbett et al thinks will save science from the fundamentalists.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 18, 2008 8:18 AM
Okay, some of us aren't excessively acute this early in the morning.
Be glad that I'm one of them, or I'd drop in a link to some babes-in-bikinis site to disprove that little slip.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | February 18, 2008 9:22 AM
This is where I part company with framing. Certainty is not part of science. In fact, it is fundamentally unscientific. I understand the point, but as a scientist it would compromise a fundamental aspect of how science succeeds, and so I am not willing to do that no matter what the short-term political benefit.
Posted by: TR Gregory | February 18, 2008 9:31 AM
Pierce,
Thanks. Don't know how I missed that. What I mean to say was "any mammal".
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 18, 2008 9:43 AM
Okay, I'll take a whack at it, seeing that a familiar pattern has repeated itself (i.e. Nisbet getting exhaustively properly framed) by memorable efforts from all (though seeing Blake and Kseniya wave over the great Internet divide was a special treat):
(1) Where is the theory predicting productive ("most structures") and efficient ("occasional degeneration") designers?
[Related questions:
How do we distinguish from preexisting processes (evolutionary designs)? And why would a biology relying on evolution be a science stopper when it continues to find functions?]
(2) Where is the theory predicting that biological mechanisms are isomorphic to humanly built machines, and what does "isomorphic" mean here?
[Related questions:
- Our machines are large, and when shrunken have problems with friction (excessive wear) and stiction (won't move). A few miniaturized mechanisms has been made to work, and characteristic for them is that they look nothing like classical large scale machines nor biological miniature mechanisms.
- Characteristic for biological machinery on the discussed scale is that chemical and mechanical processes are stochastic (they "step randomly") and reversible (once in a while they take a step back). Not a general characteristic of human machinery, nor sought for.
(3) is false.
So ID is neither defined nor supported with truthful claims.
Also a familiar pattern.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | February 18, 2008 10:09 AM
Matt Penfold,
(Aside: surely you know it is not just Catholics who hold the virgin birth as dogma.)
I've seen you make this argument before, and I find it strange. Those of us who are scientists and theists do not find the virgin birth at odds with science in the sense that you mean, if I read you correctly--rather we recognize that there is a reason why it is called a miracle and not a parlor trick. You are simply wrong that the claim is a scientific one--in fact the claim is exactly the opposite. The claim is that the virgin birth is not scientific, which is why such a big deal is made. It does not bother the scientist within that the claim cannot be supported scientifically, although it might bother the theist within if it could.
Theists obviously accept the supernatural, so I don't get this particular criticism. The virgin birth is not a testable claim. Some things are, such as present-day faith healing, but the classic miracles are considered isolated supernatural interventions--where the laws of nature were temporarily and locally suspended, as part of God's redemptive plan. It seems a strange point to focus on--after all if we believe that God supernaturally created the universe, why focus on such an arguably, by comparison, modest miracle?
Posted by: heddle | February 18, 2008 11:36 AM
"I've seen you make this argument before, and I find it strange. Those of us who are scientists and theists do not find the virgin birth at odds with science in the sense that you mean, if I read you correctly--rather we recognize that there is a reason why it is called a miracle and not a parlor trick. You are simply wrong that the claim is a scientific one--in fact the claim is exactly the opposite. The claim is that the virgin birth is not scientific, which is why such a big deal is made. It does not bother the scientist within that the claim cannot be supported scientifically, although it might bother the theist within if it could."
Heddle, I have seem you make this argument before as well, and like last time, you have completely failed to understand the point.
Maybe I can make it simpler for you. Miracles ARE claims about the material world and thus are part of what science explains. If you wish to remove claims about miracles from scientific study then you do not get to claim your religious beliefs do not conflict with science. They clearly do, as you are forced to make a special category of event and separate those from the normal events science can investigate.
You can either claim miracles happen, and give up claiming your beliefs do not conflict with science, or you can give up believing in the supernatural. You do not get a free pass in claiming to both accept science and the supernatural. That is not an honest claim to make, and we will call you it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 18, 2008 11:51 AM
Matt Penfold,
Why not, other than because you declare it to be so? When I am in the lab I expect everything I do and measure will follow the laws of nature and that the scientific method is the tried-and-true proper approach. I don't worry about miracles messing with the data, because I believe that God operates by secondary means except in those relatively rare and isolated instances when the bible tells us that God intervened. If the data seem odd, I don't invoke a miracle, I redouble my efforts to explain it scientifically, which is presumably the same thing you would do.
I don't need a free pass, nor do any of the other numerous theists/scientists.
Posted by: heddle | February 18, 2008 12:06 PM
"why not, other than because you declare it to be so? When I am in the lab I expect everything I do and measure will follow the laws of nature and that the scientific method is the tried-and-true proper approach. I don't worry about miracles messing with the data, because I believe that God operates by secondary means except in those relatively rare and isolated instances when the bible tells us that God intervened. If the data seem odd, I don't invoke a miracle, I redouble my efforts to explain it scientifically, which is presumably the same thing you would do."
Heddle, I despair, I really do.
You claim to be a scientist and yet you are willing to invoke supernatural claims to explain certain events. Science does not let you do that. You cannot say most events are explained by science but there are a few events that science cannot explain because god did it. If you do then you are rejecting a central tenet of science, which is that all material events have a material explanation.
"I believe that God operates by secondary means except in those relatively rare and isolated instances when the bible tells us that God intervened."
Now this really is the killer. You cannot make such a claim and carry on saying your faith does not conflict with science. Not if you do not want to be considered dishonest.
It is not me that declares you cannot claim miracles happen and not have the view conflict with science. It is central to very method by which science is done. "Goddidit" is NOT a valid scientific answer to explain ANY event.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 18, 2008 12:20 PM
Only if you don't believe in them; for the fervent believer, they are magic, and therefore fall outside of the realm of science. Anybody who accepts science, but also such magic, is simply adopting a dualistic position.
For many people, of course, that dualism is rarely challenged, because they don't have to deal with the contradictions that exist at the interface between those two philosophical systems. So, for all practical purposes, they are able to ignore such inconveniences as the irrationality of monotheistic belief, or the simple contradictions of reality contained in religious doctrine, by ignoring the philosophical implications of either.
They don't fully subscribe to materialism, allowing special exceptions, but also don't fully subscribe to doctrinal literalism (at a push). It is the same psychological device that has be employed throughout history, allowing people to attest to philosophies which are (in their purest forms) mutually contradictory.
So, Ockham's Razor is applicable in all instances, except those that contradict faith. Which is convenient.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 18, 2008 12:23 PM
"Only if you don't believe in them; for the fervent believer, they are magic, and therefore fall outside of the realm of science. Anybody who accepts science, but also such magic, is simply adopting a dualistic position."
Bernard, this is true, but then they need to be honest and admit that sometimes, as in the case of miracles, their religious beliefs do conflict with science. Heddle is not doing this this, he want to claim that miracles cannot be explained by science but that does not mean his faith is then in conflict with science. That position is simply not logically tenable. I know why Heddle holds the position he does, both science and his faith are important to him so he has to find some method of reconciling the two. It is pity he has chosen a method that is dishonest.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 18, 2008 12:30 PM
Matt Penfold,
You are mistaking science for philosophical naturalism. Science simply says that science (by definition) has nothing to say about the supernatural, even if it does exist. Being a scientist, to the majority of scientists, has always meant following methodological naturalism, and that I do.
My faith does not conflict with science unless I make testable claims from my faith. For example, if I claim the earth is flat or it is only 6000 years old, then there would be a conflict.
Your argument boils down to nothing more than the old assertion "you can't really be a theist and a scientist" which is patently absurd, given the overwhelming availability of counter-examples.
which might be a valid criticism if I were arguing, as you are implying, that Goddidit was the scientific explanation of the virgin birth, when in fact I am arguing the opposite, that Goddidit is the blatantly non-scientific, irreproducible explanation of the virgin birth.
Posted by: heddle | February 18, 2008 12:36 PM
But, to admit to the trick would necessarily be to invalidate it; above all else this psychological device relies on denial.
The dishonesty is not deliberate, but it is essential.
(It cannot be easy - paractically or emotionally - to coldly examine, and probably discard, one's own faith. Fortunately, it is not something I've had to do.)
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 18, 2008 12:41 PM
"My faith does not conflict with science unless I make testable claims from my faith. For example, if I claim the earth is flat or it is only 6000 years old, then there would be a conflict."
Heddle, you have made testable claims, such as the virgin birth.
You do not get to say it was a virgin birth and claim that does not conflict with science. Humans, indeed mammals, simply do not go in for parthenogenesis. After all that is what a virgin birth would have been, Mary becoming pregnant by parthenogenesis. We know that is simply not possible. YOu claim that is fine, as it was a miracle. Well fine, you can think that. Do not claim that is not conflict with science, it is. You continued insistance that it is not just makes you look foolish, and make me question if you really are a scientist at all. If you deluded yourself over one thing it is quite possible you delude yourself over others.
"Your argument boils down to nothing more than the old assertion "you can't really be a theist and a scientist" which is patently absurd, given the overwhelming availability of counter-examples."
Nope, it does not boil down to that. There are theists who reject the whole idea of miracles being actual events. A number of Anglicans reject the idea that there really was a virgin birth or indeed a real resurrection. It is simply not true to claim that in order to be a theist you have to accept miracles happen.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 18, 2008 12:46 PM
Sorry, that was a reply to Matt's last post, whereas now it looks like a slightly chiding or patronising attack.
Still, heddle, in the strictest philosophy of science Ockham's Razor applies to eveything, so the subscription to any religion is invalid. The logical extension is that we who claim to be scientists should all be agnostic to the point where it looks atheism.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 18, 2008 12:48 PM
I'm too slow!
But it would also be fair to say that the existance of any deity is itself miraculous, so...
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 18, 2008 12:51 PM
Matt Penfold,
You have simply repeated your original argument, so I'll assume we have come full circle. I'll just comment on this statement:
which I believe is quite wrong. Of course, various theists, as you pointed out, deny specific miracles or even all the "text book" miracles, but at a minimum they must accept the existence of transcendent being, or else they are not really theists at all. To claim the mere existence of God, the minimal claim one must make to be a theist, is to claim belief in an unscientific miracle. So, at some level, all theists must accept the miraculous.
Posted by: heddle | February 18, 2008 12:57 PM
What do you mean by that, exactly? Are you claiming that it wasn't testable in principle - that even if someone with arbitrarily advanced technology had been present, no test would have been possible? Or simply that now the opportunity has passed?
Posted by: MartinM | February 18, 2008 12:58 PM
Sorry if this seems as though I'm hijacking the thread, but I'm about to leave...
I would just like to say that I don't think religiosity is necessarily a bar to understanding or conducting scientific research. It is possible to be religous and to do science, as long as you are able to mentally separate the two pursuits.
There are good scientists who are also religious, but there remains a direct contradiction between scientific materialism and religion.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | February 18, 2008 12:59 PM
"Sorry, that was a reply to Matt's last post, whereas now it looks like a slightly chiding or patronising attack.
Still, heddle, in the strictest philosophy of science Ockham's Razor applies to eveything, so the subscription to any religion is invalid. The logical extension is that we who claim to be scientists should all be agnostic to the point where it looks atheism."
Well when it comes to miracles, yes, scientists should. It would be interesting to know how many scientists who think miracles happen would allow such an explanation within their own field. I am willing to bet not many. Case in point, Heddle claims to be a physicist, but claims about virgin birth would be biology. Do you think Heddle would allow for the laws of gravity to suddenly be nullified ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 18, 2008 1:00 PM
"But it would also be fair to say that the existance of any deity is itself miraculous, so..."
True, but when a person who believes in god has got the stage where they reject the idea that their god is active in universe performing miracles or answering prayers, then they are no longer subscribe to the type of religion that Dawkins et al object to.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 18, 2008 1:05 PM
heddle,
On those grounds you can't oppose C