…and this is a 
Two cultures?
Category: Communicating science
Posted on: April 28, 2008 10:25 AM, by PZ Myers
My fellow academics, have you ever noticed that when our science students have problems with writing, we send them off to get tutorials from the people who know better, over in the English department? Our campus has a writing room where students can get advice from experts before they hand in their work to the science nerds. Unfortunately, there is no reciprocal arrangement: when English majors write about science, almost any claptrap can pass muster, we science nerds don't provide remedial science education, and they don't send their students to us to get their assertions vetted. This leads to distressing situations, like this account of a student who wrote a paper on evolution for a history class. The history TA marked up her paper with painfully stupid comments about the science of evolution. What can be done about this sort of thing?
Well, my first thought was that the next time I get a set of term papers (next week! Oh, no!) I'm going to grade them by insisting that "it's" always gets an apostrophe, verb tenses are irrelevant and changing them frequently spices up a paper, and that anything written before the date of the author's birth is old timey history and doesn't need a citation, since they make it all up anyway. Sentences optional are. Speeeling ireluhvent. We is always at war with humanities and social sciences.
But no! Let's acknowledge that both sides of the campus divide have essential contributions to make to one another! This is a case where Science ought to put on its best lab coat and stomp on over to History and set them straight, while recognizing that it would be a good thing for History (and Philosophy and English and Art usw) have grounds to tromp over and assail us over our philistine ways. Silence is the worst approach we could take.
Which actually makes this a nice segue into my announcement for the Café Scientifique, which represents an attempt to bridge the two cultures. It's our last Café of the year, and we've got a couple of people from those buildings on the other side of the campus mall to join us in talking about how to communicate science. I'm really looking forward to this one; it's not too late for the rest of you to book a flight and rent a car and make the trip on out to Morris for a splendid evening.
Consuming information: Translating science for the rest of us
Barbara Burke (Speech) and Tisha Turk (English)
"Consuming information: Translating science for the rest of us" describes and explains the journalistic practices that occur when research about science topics gets translated into headlines and news stories. By examining recent news stories about the dangers of coffee consumption, we illustrate the progress of information from an article in the American Journal of Ob/Gyn to a ten-second spot TV or a two-inch news story in a daily paper. Drink up while we discuss coffee research findings!
So, for that history TA who is ignorant of evolution, I'd say that one response ought to be that the science disciplines at that university make a routine effort to offer introductory lectures and discussions on core topics in the field, aimed at a general audience. I'd also like to see more explanations for us geeks on basics in other disciplines — if someone offered an evening "Idiot's Guide to Post-modernism", or similar grossly misunderstood topic, I'd go.
As always, the answer is more speech. Talk and share ideas.
Education & Careers
Comments
That reminds me of the classic Bob the Angry Flower comic:
Bob's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, You Idiots
http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
Posted by: amstrad | April 28, 2008 10:37 AM
I have a problem with other people using first person pronouns for me.
For instance, I don't trust anything with "my" in its name, from the "My Documents" folder, through MySpace and even Myanmar (though if the last weren't run by such bastards, I might give them some slack for having a non-English root to the name.)
So that "for the rest of us" ... Who's the "us," in this case? Burke and Turk? You? Me?
Posted by: just john | April 28, 2008 10:38 AM
I am reminded of a creationist I encountered a few years ago on a discussion board who claimed that because his older brother got an A on an english paper 'debunking' evolution, and the teacher was an atheist, his brother must have written the truth and evolution must be wrong.
Posted by: slpage | April 28, 2008 10:39 AM
Any chance that the Cafe Scientifique will be web cast in the future?
Posted by: Shane | April 28, 2008 10:45 AM
The situation really could be worse,
If science journals only published verse.
(Dual citizen in both cultures, Cuttlefish.)
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | April 28, 2008 10:46 AM
Interesting...
How would we feel if a student, obviously taking intelligent design seriously, wrote a paper on the history of intelligent design for some sort of "modern issues" class? Would we expect that TA to make a note that intelligent design is in fact a load of crap?
Thinking about it, it seems to me that we wouldn't. Critiquing the thesis in this way (as opposed to critiquing the argument) is inappropriate, no matter what the thesis is.
We have a math center at my school, but are students ever sent their to check their papers? I have a friend who went for that purpose, and they sent her away when they discovered she wasn't there for a math class!
It's a framework-vs-content issue, I think. Bad English is seen as bad framework, and universal; but bad Science is viewed as bad content, and limited by course boundaries.
Posted by: lytefoot | April 28, 2008 10:49 AM
I wrote a paper debunking Astrology, specifically the arguments in the book Sun Signs by Linda Goodman, (way back in the Typewriter Days...). I didn't realize my English professor was one of those Tarot, Crystals, New-Age types...
I got an 'A' on the paper, and in the class, but... Well, she seems to think I actually thought it was true based on the comment next to the grade.
That puzzeled me, so I read the paper again and, no, I found Astrology to be wishful thinking. I even said it was wishful thinking and explained how we came to the wishful thinking. I went on about the anthropic principle, narcissism, religious training, etc., that makes us think we're the center of the damn universe, but we are not, and how we invent mythologies to make ourselves feel special via an external forces.
She missed it by a mile.
I may still have that paper, old and yellowing, in a box.
Posted by: Moses | April 28, 2008 10:50 AM
One obvious answer is not to write about things you don't understand. True, that's about as profound as saying "don't drive on the wrong side of the road," but with Stein making the most stupid comments and articles on science, it's painfully evident that it still needs to be said to some wildly ignorant types.
This doesn't help much with the TA, who still has to grade the paper. But if the TA doesn't know the subject, said TA should grade for grammar, punctuation, and literacy, and make a note that grading the science is not within the capability of that TA.
Yes, the basics of science ought to be taught. A few lectures covering the basics isn't going to change much, as most students don't have much time or incentive to attend them. Plus, it's often hardest communicating concepts to those who know little, and most professors really couldn't do a proper "for dummies" lecture.
Actually recognizing what is not understood is sometimes the hardest to do, and some of the humanties sorts will assume they know more that's really important to science than do the scientists, while scientists will sometimes ignore the fact that philosophers know something. But that's simply restating the problem (seriously, it's not just non-scientists who short the knowledge of others, as I tire of scientists thinking they know epistemology when they don't (though some do)), one that will certainly never go away, but might be lessened somewhat with better core courses.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 28, 2008 10:50 AM
Chances are the TA couldn't even have graded for grammar and punctuation, Glen. I've edited enough dissertations and scientific manuscripts to know just how bad it can get! lol
The question I have is why a TA was grading the papers when they obviously weren't capable of handling the content of the class. When I was in that position I attempted to be honest about my capabilities handling advanced courses, for the sake of the students if nothing else.
Posted by: Alicia P | April 28, 2008 10:56 AM
Don't overanalyze. "For the rest of us" is a broad reference to all people not intimately involved in the details of a particular subject. Most science papers, for instance, are written in a very specialized style that economically communicates information to those already steeped in the tradition -- I know from experience that trying to get a smart freshman college student to read a science paper for the first time is a horrible, difficult, generally unpleasant situation.
"For the rest of us" just means those outside the narrow band of specialists.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 28, 2008 10:57 AM
I'm a freshman bio major currently enrolled in an introductory philosophy class at DePauw and the only way I can bear to write the papers on a subject I have so little interest in is to insert bits of science and attempt to relate them back to the subject at hand. This is a skill the professor does not have. I've started writing down his funny science quotes. He really shouldn't even try.
I haven't had much room for biology in papers, but I did manage a couple paragraphs on Schrodinger's Cat in my last paper on uncertainty in Neurath's writing. Incidentally, I discovered that Schrodinger actually was in contact with Neurath in the 1930's. Anyway, we'll see what kind of grade I get. The prof is considered a difficult grader, but I got an A on my last paper, debunking Descartes' argument. It included a rather random sentence on the sexual spores of fungus.
Ah, liberal arts schools.
Posted by: Vanessa | April 28, 2008 11:00 AM
Sounds interesting.
Sloppy journalism is very irritating.
I would be surprised the kind of ignorance you describe persists on both sides given the emphasis put on "well-roundedness" at most American universities today but, well, I'm a student, and therefore I have a firsthand view of how my fellow undergrads spectacularly fail to learn anything in all of the mandatory, so-called "core" courses.
I've met many an undergrad who relies solely on Word's grammarcheck to correct his or her poor English language skills and also many an undergrad who thinks that science should be left to the scientists. It's a sad state of affairs all around, since basic English proficiency and a working knowledge of the scientific method should already be in place by the time students enter the University.
Aaaaand I'll get off my soapbox now...
But yes, more communication between the language geeks and the science geeks, please. It's not a dichotomy in which one must choose one or the other.
Posted by: ira wyatt | April 28, 2008 11:01 AM
I agree. If the content is beyond your capabilities, than you should stick to grading the presentation of said content.
Posted by: zer0 | April 28, 2008 11:01 AM
I can offer dumb bunny's guides for dead Northern European languages; how to use the Library of Congress cataloging system (read: how to find stuff in a university library); opera; quick and dirty history of the Arab-Israeli conflict; basics of women's, gender and queer studies.
I'll tell you, there's something to be said for the old fashioned liberal arts curriculum -- you'd get some botany, physiology (or 'hygiene' at a women's school) and math in there with your composition, music, and Latin.
I took a philosophy of biology class my last undergrad semester. Nice meeting place for sciences and humanities, as long as the folks from each side had dabbled a little in the other already. So my poetry-writing biologist house mate and I, the well-rounded reader of books did rather well. But we had this girl. And at my school (women's college) there was this concept called That Girl. If someone said they had "that girl" in their class, you knew they meant that she took over class discussion, overshared personal information, actually had no idea what she was talking about, and basically wasted everyone's time, making them all stupider in the process.
Our That Girl was a philosophy major, mostly because she wasn't smart enough for psychology, so philosophy was psych lite for her. Anyway, she has some mild mental illnesses (not making it up, like I said, overshare, she told us herself), and instead of seeking effective treatment, she used her classes as therapy.
This is all background, because the other problem was that she had no grasp on the scientific concepts we dealt with in class. Not for lack of opportunity, as she'd gone to a rather good high school (again, the overshare), and would occasionally argue against facts that someone else would pul out of a reading we'd done for class.
My point is that there's probably lots of humanities people who are not good with the science, not because there's no conversation between disciplines, but because they are either (a) dumb, or (b) full of themselves, or (c) both.
Posted by: rowmyboat | April 28, 2008 11:01 AM
If all scientists were like Cuttlefish,
Then journals in verse would be what I'd wish.
(I'm not a poet, and I don't play one on TV, but my daughter is an accomplished, though nascent, poet; I assert confidently that it must be in my genes somewhere!)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | April 28, 2008 11:11 AM
From the article:
Personal opinions should be left off of graded papers.
Posted by: Dennis N | April 28, 2008 11:12 AM
I had this happen twice to me when I was an undergrad in the late '80's. The first time was in english 101. I later learned that that english prof. was a graduate of Robert Jones u. The second time was in a public speaking class-by then I was better prepared and managed to hold my own against some of the students in the class and the instructor. It would be a good idea for science departments around the country to provide some backup for students in these situations, as I am sure they are quite common, unfortunately.
Posted by: DVMKurmes | April 28, 2008 11:16 AM
Postmodernism for Science Nerds: Should This Made-Up Term Have a Hyphen?
No.
Posted by: mojojojo | April 28, 2008 11:16 AM
Hey, hey, HEY! I am an English professor, and you can be sure my students don't get away with passing off stupid shit for science, especially if they are writing a paper concerning evolution.
Don't tar us all with the same brush.
Posted by: Ric | April 28, 2008 11:17 AM
Posted by: zer0 | April 28, 2008 11:01 AMAs an English major, my objection to this TA's action is essentially the same as above, except I would replace the word capabilities with responsibilities. He reached outside his field of expertise in his comments, and thus perverted his responsibility to that student by not seeking out the knowledge needed for a correct evaluation.
I only wish I lived close enough to attend this Cafe Scientique - I hope it is a practice that is emulated in universities across the country, because such cooperation will directly lead to a better public understanding of the two fields, and hopefully undercut the IDeologists and creationists in their future attempts to control the course and progress of science.
Posted by: brokenSoldier | April 28, 2008 11:22 AM
'An idiot's guide to post-modernism.' Classic!! Ranks next to 'An idiot's guide to bioinformatics' as a must read while hitchhiking by boat to the Olympics.
@6 Any 'history of x' depends on past developments or discoveries leading to x. If I (completely unqualified) wrote a history of philosophy, there would be names, dates and a framework showing the evolution of ideas. I could not help but show the subject for what it is (if I had no political agenda and was not incompetent:)). Ditto American history. In science, because it is all about ideas which are refined into a testable form- hypotheses, which, if confirmed become theories, then, with the same stipulations (competence and honesty)any history must accurately portray the subject. I admit I am skating close to a 'True Scotsman' fallacy here. A history of Genetics published by Lysenko would of necessity be inaccurate, a history of Astro-physics by Shirlley McLain would be laughable, and a documentary about evolutionary theory in Western Society by Ben stein is both.
At my university, all 'disquisitions' (theses/ dissertations) are proof-read by a 'deaconess' from the English Department, occasionally with 'comments' on the science which of course falls under the perview of a student's committee. Go figure.
Posted by: mothra | April 28, 2008 11:25 AM
If for no other reason, Science and History need to join forces to battle back the dark forces of Creationism and Intelligent Design. If sciences like Geology and Evolutionary Biology fall to the barbarian horde, history will quickly go next because it is far less able, thanks to beliefs like post- modernism and the lack of objective, measurable evidence to stand firm against the darkness.
On the other hand, if creationism vanquishes Darwin, getting my PHD will infinitely easier. No more trudging to the library and reading fat, thick books with lots of words. Instead, my thesis will say - GODDIDIT. My dissertation will say GODDIDITINSIXDAYS and the LORDSWAYSAREMYSTERIOUS and I'll be DR. Matt in no time.
Anyway, a professor at my university called me a "biological reductionist" and that was "seduced" by evolutionary theory. Also the judges at the conference I presented at had some criticisms about my application of kin selection theory to a terrorist group cohesiveness, is that enough to get a documentary featuring Ben Stein made about my plight?
Posted by: Matt | April 28, 2008 11:26 AM
I'm a history student at NC State University, and one of my higher-level classes in the fall is "Darwinism in Science and Society", taught by a professor who specializes in the history of Darwin and knows tons about all the surrounding issues. The class will focus on reading "The Origin" and will also include sections of Darwin's notes, letters, lectures, etc. A very cool thing is that half the students will be honors-level history upperclassmen reading to understand the history of what was going on, and the other half of the class is zoology and biology students reading to understand the basic/underlying science for their majors. It's a solid balance and will allow sharing of correct ideas across disciplines that normally don't have any interaction.
Posted by: John Mark | April 28, 2008 11:27 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | April 28, 2008 11:29 AM
but, but, but... PZ, you're singluar posesive's all way's has a apostrofe at there end's!
Posted by: djlactin | April 28, 2008 11:31 AM
rowmyboat,
I don't know what you meant to imply here, or how things worked at your school, but on average, philosophers are substantially smarter than psychologists.
If you look at GRE scores of people applying to philosophy programs, psych applicants score around the 60th percentile, and philosophy applicants score in the 90s somewhere---ahead of engineering applicants and most science applicants except for physicists. Well ahead of biologists and psychologists, on average.
There are a lot of psych majors who just aren't the brightest. (Especially clinical psych, as opposed to experimental.)
Of course the top people in all of those areas are really really smart, and I don't think it's productive to make invidious comparisons.
On the other hand, the common idea among scientists that philosophers are generally not smart enough to be scientists is just wrong.
One problem is that the minority of kooky philosophers tend to make claims that get a lot of press.
Another problem is that a lot of the postmodernist "philosophy" that scientists hear about isn't done by philosophers at all. It's done by philosopher wannabes in English departments, who would get laughed out of a good philosophy program.
Posted by: Paul W. | April 28, 2008 11:33 AM
This idea of 'two cultures' really annoys me. The idea that if you 'do science' (and by extension anything sciency like engineering) then you can't possibly do arts is a total crock of crap. The popular term seems to have started from that C.P.Snow book where he complained about an apparent gulf appearing between art and science communities; the irony is that although he was a scientist and a novelist the term seems to have been adopted by the artyfarts as a way of excusing their lack of science knowledge!
There are so many things wrong with this idea. Let's see if I can cover a few of them before my brain melts over the annoyance I feel on this:
a) in 'the old days' a good artist had to be fairly knowledgeable about science in order to be able to make art. Or at least, the technology end of science, for making paper and inks and paints etc.
b) rather a lot of scientists (using the term broadly to cover people with primarily science/technology jobs) seem to produce literary works as well as research papers etc. How many artists produce anything even faintly scientific these days?
c) the term seems to be primarily used by art types as a reason why they don't need to understand nor care about that sciency stuffy math thingy.
d) I'd have to agree with Snow's observation "I remember G. H. Hardy once remarking to me in mild puzzlement, some time in the 1930s, Have you noticed how the word "intellectual" is used nowadays? There seems to be a new definition which certainly doesn't include Rutherford or Eddington or Dirac or Adrian or me? It does seem rather odd, don't y'know." as being worrying and perhaps more current than ever.
e) I have several engineering degrees and an art masters. Possibly this explains part of my annoyance at the artificial balkanization.
f) there is something of an attitude of wilful ignorance in the standard advice to writers - "write what you know". Sure, writing about what you know about is a good way to achieve an authentic flavour in your writing. Sadly there seems to be a subtext that you can only write about what you know already; what about actually learning something new so you can write bout it? Actually I would contend that this a symptom of a wider problem, where a reasonable bit of advice is given a pithy phrase and that then becomes somehow the sum total of the field and limits what people will think about.
I'll stop now before my blood pressure becomes dangerous.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | April 28, 2008 11:37 AM
djlactin wrote:
Whose singular possessives? His singular possessives? My singular possessives? Your singular possessives?
Posted by: Wicked Lad | April 28, 2008 11:41 AM
I am not University educated and I am not a scientist, I was raised a disparing English teacher (have you seen my spelling?) however I have a College certificate in Gemmology.
Gemmology stadles the gap of science and history generally using a fair amount of tradition and a little bit of accident. I gotta tell you it doesn't get much better in the middle. Example: Sapphire and Ruby are the same stone but Ruby is red and Sapphire is any other colour, including pink and purple. Have you ever sat through a heated debate of people grabbing at semi-sceintific straws trying to define the difference between pink and red while refusing to break down and just call it Corundum? Don't.
As for bridging the gap in a meaningful and useful way, I think it helps that most libral arts types are suckers for a good story and you can get a fair amount of basic sceince into the history of it... I'm rather fond of Bill Bryson's A Brief History of Nearly Everything. Learning the order of discovery I think really helps some types of minds understand why so many debates are as dead as they are.
I'm just nattering I'll stop now.
Posted by: lynnai | April 28, 2008 11:42 AM
All of you who complain about not having enough science in your history or philosophy classes... Why not just take a history of science or philosophy of science class?
Posted by: Ignotus | April 28, 2008 11:49 AM
Another English professor weighing in. Part and parcel of instruction in writing is instruction in critical reading and thinking. The writer has to have something sensible to say. If not, no matter how good the spelling, grammar, or punctuation, the writing will not pass muster. We are an eclectic bunch here, and in the main we are scientifically literate because (a) we know that writing has to have content and so we strive to be well-read in any number of fields, from philosophy to psychology, from art to anthropology, and (b) like everyone else, we live in the world and are concerned about its state. The instructors who teach Appalachian literature, for example, have become local experts on mountaintop removal and its effect on the culture, the economy, and the environment. That said, I am afraid that current trends at this university may drive a wedge between disciplines because students may be encouraged to be dismissive of courses not in their majors. (For starters, the number of General Education hours will drop from 50 to 42.) Countering that, the administration is at least paying lip service to the idea of reviving a Writing Across the Curriculum program. One of the hallmarks of that program was that it created venues for collaboration between faculty in the "Arts" and faculty in the "Sciences."
Posted by: Elf Eye | April 28, 2008 11:54 AM
#11,
How could you possibly write a paper on uncertainty in Neurath's writing and not mention Schrodinger's Cat?
Posted by: ancientTechie | April 28, 2008 11:56 AM
Recently I've been listening to these lectures from The Teaching Company. They're a fairly interesting melding of history and science (into what the lecturer, rather amusingly to my mind, calls Big History). It presents human history in a larger context. The lecture series starts with the Big Bang and gradually zooms in, going from formation of stars to our solar system to the earth to the origin of life to evolution to the eventual rise of humans to the emergence of civilisation to present day. It gives an interesting perspective.
Posted by: Ted D | April 28, 2008 11:58 AM
Paul W.:
A little further on, I mentioned that going to class for That Girl was a poor substitute for going to therapy. Really, she wasn't smart enough for either, but science-y things were beyond her in particular, especially if she couldn't reduce it to her feelings or it had to do with facts. Every department has it's crosses to carry around, and she was the philosophy department's -- they couldn't wait for her to graduate and go away, so she'd stop disrupting their classes.
Posted by: rowmyboat | April 28, 2008 12:04 PM
As a humanities postgrad: oh the shame. Doesn't anyone remember the Sokal hoax and its humiliating revelation of scientific illiteracy within arts departments? The reflexive contrarian attitude displayed by the TA is a sorry shadow of the sort of genuine critical thinking which a training in hermeneutics ought to encourage.
I know of a tutor who once offered "Economics for Poets" as an optional undergrad module. Maybe "Very Rudimentary Scientific Method for Poets" should be posited in the universities, although apparently it would need to be a compulsory module for every member of the humanities faculties from the dean on down...
Posted by: SRW | April 28, 2008 12:05 PM
At the post-secondary level, papers should be graded on form and content with an emphasis on content. If a TA finds himself that far out of his depth in marking a paper, he shouldn't mark it at all. This TA had recourse to a number of more professional options:
1. independent fact-checking;
2. asking a colleague who is more familiar with the material for help; and
3. asking the instructor to mark the paper instead.
Quite aside from these points, TAs should not foist their values and beliefs on the students -- especially in written comments on a formal assignment.
Posted by: Avekid | April 28, 2008 12:09 PM
Lynnai in #29: I think it helps that most libral arts types are suckers for a good story ...
Yes yes yes. And there are so many good stories.
Joe and I were talking the other day about how it would be only reasonable to include Darwin and Wallace in any Victorian literature course. (Speaking of artificial archipelagoes, there's the fiction/nonfiction divide, which gets applied in all the wrong ways.) They're better reading than, say, Tolstoy.
There are plenty of terrific writers right now who are writing natural history, and frankly that scene is a lot less airless than most of current fiction. My bias, admittedly, is that one learns more about oneself by looking at the rest of the world than by looking at one's navel. Perhaps I'm reinforced in this bias by how much more difficult the latter has become as I age.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | April 28, 2008 12:09 PM
As long as the result isn't more pages in my favorite sci-fi digests devoted to poetry, I'm okay with it.
Posted by: DaveX | April 28, 2008 12:11 PM
I'm one of these arts types -- Hons. BA in English Literature, MA in Language and Professional Writing, but I also took astronomy and formal logic as an undergraduate (along with my approximately half a million language courses and a really cool philosophy course called the Metaphysics and Epistemology of Witchcraft).
I do think there is a bit of a culture divide, in that especially with English people, we're remarkably content-agnostic (downright content-atheist in some cases, hur hur), but exceedingly process-driven. Science cares a lot more about content than the average English major does; we just want to see a good argument and some nice belletristics. Where we English folks can take it to the next level is by insisting on rigour in content as well.
the term seems to be primarily used by art types as a reason why they don't need to understand nor care about that sciency stuffy math thingy.
No, it's generally used by arts types to refer to the fact that the vast majority of sciencey types can't write for shit, and if, as I said, you're of the process mindset where belletristics counts for more than content, you're liable to notice a lack of writing ability right off the bat.
Please note that by saying this, I'm not actually making a value judgement. If there is such a thing as a valid NOMA argument, it probably has to do with paradigms used in the arts, sciences, and social sciences. (On the other hand, I've got a heavy arts background, make my living as a technical writer and a software tester, and am publishing a book on history pretty soon. So it's entirely possible that I'm biased.)
Posted by: Interrobang | April 28, 2008 12:15 PM
Ron @37: Darwin (and Marx) are on the syllabuses of many literature departments. Gillian Beer is one academic critic who does an excellent job of approaching both the scientific and the literary beauties of Darwin, as well as assessing the cultural importance of the theory of evolution on the nineteenth century.
Posted by: SRW | April 28, 2008 12:15 PM
I'd modify this to say that critiquing the thesis is appropriate only to the extent that the thesis is material to the course objectives:
In a class on persuasive writing, the only standard should be the persuasive competence of the paper (independent of the grader's a priori opinion on the topic).
In a class on expository writing, the accuracy with which ID was described would be fair game, but without any judgment on the grader's part regarding the truth (well, falsity, actually) of ID.
In a "Modern Issues" class, I would grade a student down who presented ID uncritically as true, because it's the "controversy" that makes ID an "issue," and any essay that doesn't recognize ID as an alternative belief system isn't characterizing the "modern issue" correctly (note that this is so regardless of the grader's personal position on ID).
In a science class, of course, there should be no issue with grading the paper down (or, preferably, giving it no credit at all), because ID ISN'T science!... but even there, the rationale is not that "ID is a load of crap" (however true that may be), but that the topic is inappropriate to the subject matter of the course. Actually, I'd hope that in most cases students would be counseled away choosing such a topic, long before it came to giving them Fs.
Re TAs not going outside their responsibilities/competencies, it really shouldn't be an issue: IMHO no graduate student should ever be assigned to TA a class in which his/her knowledge of the subject is likely to be eclipsed by even the brightest undergraduate in the class. In my own case, as an English/Creative Writing grad student whose transcript was heavy on writing and (relatively) light on literature, I was assigned to work in the University Writing Center and, later, to teach Intro to Creative Writing. Assigning me to TA an upper-division seminar in Middle English poetry would've been inappropriate... and the good folks at SUNY-Binghamton (now Binghamton University) were perspicacious enough not to give me such an assignment.
BTW, I try never to rag on people for online writing errors (FSM knows even so-called "pros" like me make their share!), but sometimes the irony is just too amusing to ignore:
8^)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | April 28, 2008 12:17 PM
Oh dear....
As a current college student (biology major; 3rd year), I could go on and on about this subject. Unfortunately, though, the coursework I have due at 6 pm today suggests against such a course of action :\.
I will say this, though: even though my school (University of Chicago) requires core biology courses for all students as part of its "core" (everyone has to take calculus, biology, an introductory physical science course, a civilization [ie, history] course, art/art history, writing seminar, and a hybrid sociology/philosophy course), "core bio" is often regarded as a joke.
Being a bio major, I never had to take this course, so I can't entirely vouch for the accuracy of this opinion, but given the general state of science education in this country, I really wouldn't be surprised. For some reason, even though everyone has to take the same level of humanities courses, the sciences are regarded as something that not everyone can "get". So you have "bio for dummies" and "rocks for jocks" and what not. This just reinforces the "science is scary" or, worse, "scientists are elitists" notion that a lot of people seem to have.
Sometimes someone will tell me (or I will hear on the news -- eg, in the statements of Obama, McCain, and Clinton) that they "believe in evolution." I always have a minor hissy fit at this, because evolutionary theory isn't something that people should think they have to "believe in". It's supported by a lot of objectively observable, testable evidence. But I can't really fault people for saying this, because I think much of the wider public really does simply "believe in" evolutionary theory on the authority of science teachers and what not. In their K-12 & college educations, it's likely that they got a cursory overview of what evolutionary theory claims, and *maybe* a few over-simplified examples of what constitutes evidence for it. Unless they independently took a real biology course in college, or went over to talk origins, or read a book, this is likely all they have to go on. And as proved by the clear explanations at sites like talk origins, and by PZ's own great "how does chromosome number change" explanation posted here a few days back, this doesn't have to be the case. The basics of evolutionary theory, and why it is accepted as good science, CAN be taught to the lay person. And popular science doesn't have to be dumbed down science.
Then there's the issue of taking things in authority in general. We all do it, even scientists. When one of my particle physics friends tells me about an exciting new discovery in the field, I usually take it on the authority of those scientists. I rarely try to read the paper, and usually when I do, I really don't understand it fully at all. But because I've been educated to understand how the scientific method works, I know that something published in a respectable peer-reviewed journal has scientific merit because it's been tested and retested, interpreted and re-interpreted, and subject to the harsh editorial process of peer-review. I also know that there is a chance that it will be disproven, and that I cannot accept it as indisputable fact -- and that, what's more, scientists in the field won't. They'll continue testing and retesting it, and either confirming the findings of the initial researchers or finding issues with it and revising the theory. That's how science works. (Disclaimer: and no, it's not perfect. There's politics in science, just like everything else, and I'm not trying to paint a picture of science as a lovely unbesmirched ivory tower institution...but for all its flaws, it does have great merits in sorting out good ideas from nonsense.)
But because of the utterly abysmal state of science education, which generally consists of vague descriptions of some scientific theories and "experiments" in which nifty phenomena are observed but never explained to the student, most people don't realize this about the scientific method. So when they "believe" a scientific theory on authority, they're not believing it because they know the scientific rigor that's gone into testing and establishing it; they're just believing it because some professor told them so. And in this case, it's no wonder the public is so succeptable to "free speech" claims from ID pseudoscience. They don't know what science is -- only that it's something a stuffy teacher told them on authority, many years ago.
(I do have to give credit where credit's due, though -- for the last few years, one of the compulsory core bio essays has been, "Why Intelligent Design 'Theory' is not Science.")
And now, with that rant over, back to the coursework....
Posted by: Etha Williams | April 28, 2008 12:20 PM
I'd just like to say that I knew Steve Notley when he lived in Edmonton.
And I remember a former friend of mine--an English major--who claimed that English students were de facto polymaths because in their course of study, they read a little bit of everything.
Such a smart girl, yet still so dumb.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 28, 2008 12:26 PM
There most certainly are two cultures and rarely the twain meet. It is very true that the average liberal arts student is woefully deficient in science. I have had Yale drama graduates ask me whether a chicken is a bird, for example.
That said, the level of ignorance among the few scientists of my acquaintance - I'm a musician- is equally shocking. Often, not only no knowledge of literature beyond sci-fi or Tom Clancy but no sense of literature - ie, how to read for anything other than the most obvious levels of meaning. And don't get me started on musical ignorance.
To some extent this mirrors American society's ignorance, but I would hope that scientists, being as a group pretty smart, would have more curiosity about the arts than they do. Saying that in no way minimizes "our" - ie, we arts folks - shameful lack of knowledge and curiosity, of course. That's what's meant by "two cultures" - we both have little idea of what the other is. And that is to both cultures' detriment.
Posted by: tristero | April 28, 2008 12:33 PM
Old axiom: divide et impera....Ceasar's words which religion has used on areas of knowledge to (cynically?) keep students from knowing too much.
For example, witness these founding events from one of our oldest sources of higher education, William and Mary: http://www.wm.edu/vitalfacts/index.php
If you click on the links to the left, one will see the church's influence on education and knowledge in general. Ergo, I believe, like many of you, that it's time to begin the re-evolution of education...without religion's influence.
Posted by: Latina Amor | April 28, 2008 12:34 PM
Etha,
Etha, I think you've got this exactly backwards. "Believe" is a perfectly fine English word with a very useful everyday meaning.
For example, suppose if I say
(1) "My mechanic said I need a new transmission, but I don't believe it," or
(2) "Scientists no longer believe in the luminiferous aether", or
(3) "I don't believe in Sasquatch."
These are perfectly fine statements where "believe" is used the right way, in its original, central sense.
The problem is with the peculiar religious sense of "believe," where you "believe in" something without the usual need for good evidence. Often you "believe" in something you don't even grasp, like the holy trinity, and/or refuse acknowledge the entailments of, like the three-omni monotheistic God being an impossibility.
That's what's fucked up. Religious folks have taken a perfectly good, absolutely necessary word for a perfectly good epistemic relationship, and made it into something screwily corrosive of sensible talk about knowledge. It's the world's oldest Orwellian term.
I wish we could make religious people put air-quotes around the word "believe" when they use it in that way. In any case, it's not a word we can afford to abandon just because they abuse it.
(I feel the same way about the word "truth." Science is about truth, even if absolute certainty is not obtainable. The ordinary everyday sense of "truth" should not be sacrificed just because some people claim to trump it with some mythical absolutely certain revealed "truth.")
Posted by: Paul W. | April 28, 2008 12:49 PM
You think this is bad. You should hear about cases where students in a biology courses on evolution start giving the teaching assistant heck just because they feel their religion requires them to hold on to Dark Age pseudoscience.
I've heard about an instructor who was teaching a seminar course on evolution which required critical evaluation of research papers. It turns out that one of the students was a creationist, and would raise absurd objections in the required assignments and would continually go off on tangents with junk probably influenced by Ken Ham et al. So when this student gets a bad grade, she and her husband start claiming that she is being discriminated against based on her religion. Go figure.
Posted by: NP | April 28, 2008 12:58 PM
As a Fine Arts Major in the '80's ,we had a few profs who would come accross the street to see student and faculty concerts, theater productions and art shows. One in particular was a physics prof who always seemed to be in the audience. Great guy, I'll never forget him or his "Far Side" lined office windows. Several musicians were actually rabid math and physics geeks who changed majors once they considered how they would make a living post graduation.
It's very easy for those in the Humanities to ignore the sciences, and vice versa. I really admired the profs who showed support to the arts beyond their academic discipline. (You seem to be well rounded, PZ) I'm sure a little more reciprocity would be appreciated.
Posted by: Jsn | April 28, 2008 1:04 PM
It should be remembered that this was not an English but a History TA. Historians, like social scientists, should be trained in the proper collection and use of evidence. This includes not only the appropriate form of citations, but the selection and critical evaluation of primary and secondary sources. So the TA was well within his/her rights to say what (s)he did in the second part of this comment:
"As you may be able to tell, I personally have lots of reservations regarding evolution (even scientifically). But your goal isn't to agree with me, and I found your referencing excellent and essay concise and to the point. The two complaints I have will be the heavy reliance on people such as Orr, and you are a bit thin on primary sources."
The rest of the comments are utterly bizarre and have no place on a student's paper. Especially as it wasn't really a paper about the science itself, but (it appears) a paper about the historical reception of the theory, which is entirely different. I suppose I'm just bothered to see the line between the "hard" sciences on the one hand and the social sciences and humanities on the other being drawn so sharply. Historians and social scientists spend years in dusty archives, libraries, and field sites doing research; these disciplines have developed methodologies and evidentiary standards. A good history paper is not just a matter of making a good argument, but of providing/citing solid evidence to back it up.
Additionally, "a historical overview of the theory of evolution" is, in my view, too broad a topic for an undergraduate history paper. I ask students for a title and quick overview of their papers several weeks in advance, and this is one important reason - the original topics are often far too broad, and need to be narrowed to something that is researchable within a shorter time frame. That said, from the brief excerpts given this paper sounds pretty good (some of the reasoning appears a bit sloppy, but that's typical of papers at this level).
Posted by: SC | April 28, 2008 1:08 PM
This is reflective of the overall state of relative ignorance that the majority of Americans have in regards to science. It's the "it's just a theory" canard writ large in popular consciousness. The parallels between the Creationists and the climate change "skeptics" are legion and illustrate that a fundamental American misunderstanding of science itself transcends religion and educational background.
What is needed isn't a Scientific Literacy 101 course for Liberal Arts students and teachers, but a Scientific Literacy 101 course for the American public that goes beyond simply outlining the Scientific Method- it needs to go into the value and limitations of peer review; the relative rarity of consensus and its significance when it does occur; the differences between lay and scientific use of words like "hypothesis", "theory", "uncertainty", etc.; how funding is secured; acknowledgment of politicization of science where it has and is happening (e.g. EPA, NOAA, etc.) and what can be done to prevent it.
I have heard many people who work or study in the intersection between science and education or policy lament that The Demon-Haunted World isn't required reading. I would go a step further and suggest that TDHW is overdue for a revisit and update, particularly in this age of ideologically-driven think tank influence on policy. That we had a presidential candidate bluntly admit to total ignorance of evolution, the remaining candidates at least paying lip service to vaccine-Autism nuttery, etc. beggars belief.
With Expelled serving to challenge laws regarding science education and James "climate change is a hoax" Inhofe serving as the Ranking Minority on the Senate Environmental committee, the stakes have never been higher. In order to protect our schools and ensure our economic and environmental future, science must be brought to the forefront of national consciousness, warts and all.
@45
As a W&M alum, the influence of religion on the education one receives is (or at least was as of a short time ago) virtually non-existent. There is a broader issue of "conservative Christian values" influencing administration hiring practices, but in my experience this hadn't made its way into the classroom.
Posted by: Jon | April 28, 2008 1:09 PM
For the record, postmodernism (and, for the matter, deconstructionism) aren't "misunderstood" topics.
They're understood perfectly.
They're just stupid.
Posted by: Bob | April 28, 2008 1:34 PM
Posted by: llewelly | April 28, 2008 1:45 PM
#41:
In an ideal world, no graduate student would be assigned to TA a class in which his/her knowledge of the subject is likely to be eclipsed by the brightest undergraduate in the class. In the real world, far too many undergrads count themselves lucky if their TAs can speak and read English.
Many TAs are little more than human keyword scanners who grade work into percentile bins based on extremely specific criteria provided by the professors. Actually understanding the material is a bit beyond them.
Posted by: Vagrant | April 28, 2008 1:46 PM
Just wanted to comment, you're not only fighting the "cultural" difference between science people and humanities people, you're also up against basic human nature. People who know very little of a topic are inevitably the ones who are the most certain, and they also tend to be people who are most swayed by certainty. The TA in question didn't end up doing much harm to the science-literate student, but imagine if those comments had been instead given to a history major who went out on a limb to try and understand evolution?
Posted by: tikistitch | April 28, 2008 1:55 PM
In a class on persuasive writing, the only standard should be the persuasive competence of the paper (independent of the grader's a priori opinion on the topic).
Impossible. The reader's a priori knowledge of the topic is what determines whether she will be convinced.
In a science class, of course, there should be no issue with grading the paper down ... because ID ISN'T science!... but even there, the rationale is not that "ID is a load of crap" (however true that may be), but that the topic is inappropriate to the subject matter of the course.
Nope. It's inappropriate precisely because it's a load of crap. It's the fact that it's claims aren't true (i.e., supported by evidence, tested, falsifiable) that makes it not science.
Posted by: outlier | April 28, 2008 1:57 PM
"For the record, postmodernism (and, for the matter, deconstructionism) aren't "misunderstood" topics.
They're understood perfectly.
They're just stupid."
I would add a caveat to that. Post-Modernism is a term that means something in architecture. It essentially is any school of architecture that post-dates Le Corbusier. In any other subject it is meaningless.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | April 28, 2008 1:59 PM
This is exactly the kind of thing atheists need to think and talk about more. It fills me with dread bordering on rage against "Big Science" knowing that majors in philosophy, theology, nursing, elementary ed, accounting -- whatever -- are not universally exposed to even fifteen solid minutes on things like how Copernicus clambered past Ptolemy (with pictures!), continental drift, why is there oil under the ground, radioactive dating, genes & mutations, etc. -- all of this at even the pop science, hand-waving, pre-Discovery magazine level.
(And as an aside, relativity and quantum theory ought to be purged from a list of topics "everyone should know" -- in practice, they teach people to feel too dumb to ever understand science, and to therefore not bother.)
We all agree that such learning should take place in highschool (and it probably does maybe 10 - 20% of the time), but it so often does not, which is hugely risky for society (i.e., my genes). It looks a lot like (get ready for it) Big Science, does not continually push, shove, elbow, cajole, make enemies and cultivate allies, for substantial progress in this area.
Posted by: Neil Schipper | April 28, 2008 2:21 PM
Aww, now comments like this just cheese me off.
I'm no expert on postmodernism, but the contempt scientists and engineers generally show for advanced critical theories in the arts is really annoying. Trust me, folks, string theory and non-Euclidean geometry seem just as esoteric to your colleagues in the humanities... but they're usually not foolish enough to call your far-out ideas "stupid" just because they're far-out.
As someone who's had a foot on either side of the sciences/arts dichotomy (which ought to be a false dichotomy, but in practice, sadly, isn't), I've seen far more cases of scientists and engineers dismissing humanities scholars as clueless eggheads than vice-versa, and it's really not fair. At the high end of any intellectual pursuit, advanced theory and practice is likely to be incomprehensible to people outside the field; it's just as bogus to write off postmodernism as "stupid" as it would be to write off quarks as "goofy" just because y'all have given them goofy names. Anybody got change for a Higgs boson?
Actually, I think this is a mirror image of the prejudice against college athletes. We tend to write off athletes (esp. football and basketball players) as "dumb jocks" because they're singlemindedly devoted to perfecting a physical skill, often at some detriment to other, more intellectual pursuits. OK, fair enough. Now leave the football player on the practice field and wander across campus to the Music Department... where you'll find a violin major who's every bit as singlemindedly focus on perfecting a physical skill, likely at just as much risk to "other, more intellectual pursuits." But... because we afford music an aura of intellectual respectability that we (for whatever reason) deny to athletics, we tend to value these two essentially similar efforts quite differently.
When I say the science/humanities dichotomy is the mirror image of this, what I mean is that we devalue athletics because we perceive it as too concrete and not intellectual enough... and we devalue all that artsy-fartsy lit-crit "BS" because we perceive it as not concrete enough and too intellectual, as opposed to science, which is based on observing and explaining real stuff.
Well, look: The texts that literary criticism responds to are real, and the natural and emotional landscapes that art interprets are real, and people who care about those things are no less deserving than scientists are of an advanced, professional vocabulary and theoretical structure to bring to bear on the subject matter they love. Even when that theoretical structure stretches the bounds of credulity, it's neither fair nor properly respectful to call it "stupid." </rant>
<deep breath>
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | April 28, 2008 2:34 PM
'Postmodernism' seems to yank some people's chains. Without wishing to serve as an advocate for it, I would note that, outwith its philosophical and social-theoretical uses, which may be questionable [and are certainly debateable], it is a firmly-established part of the history of late twentieth-century literature, and indeed all narrative forms - including the cinema which, no doubt, few of the so-scornful commenters above would object to as 'just stupid'.
Once again, the injunction not to dismiss what you don't fully understand would seem apposite.
Posted by: Dave | April 28, 2008 2:45 PM
@#46 Paul W --
While I agree in principle, when you see people using "I believe in evolution" and "I believe in God" in the same sentence, it's hard not to think they mean belief in the co-opted religious sense. Which is, unfortunately, the sense it's come to have in the minds of the general public as well.