…and this is a 
There exists a "Templeton Cambridge journalism fellowship programme in science and religion". I've complained often enough about the state of science journalism nowadays; I would think the last thing it needs is a further infusion of soft-headedness and religious thinking sponsored by the devious dogmatists of the Templeton Foundation, but that's what we're getting. They've got the money, and they aren't hesitant about using it to go straight to future information sources and pollute them at the wellhead. Anyway, one of these journalists in training wrote to a number of people requesting an interview on the subject of materialism, and made the mistake of mentioning his Templeton affiliation. You can guess what kind of response that elicited from those who do not trust the Templeton.
Daniel Dennett:
Many years ago I made the mistake of participating, with some very good scientists, in a conference that pitted us against astrologers and other new age fakes. I learned to my dismay that even though we thoroughly dismantled the opposition, many in the audience ended up, paradoxically, with an increased esteem for astrologers! As one person explained to me "I figured that if you scientists were willing to work this hard to refute it, there must be something to it!"
A.C. Grayling:
I cannot agree with the Templeton Foundation's project of trying to make religion respectable by conflating it with science; this is like mixing astrology with astronomy or voodoo with medical research, and I disapprove of Templeton's use of its great wealth to bribe compliance with this project. Templeton is to all intents and purposes a propaganda organisation for religious outlooks; it should honestly say so and equally honestly devote its money to prop up the antique superstitions it favours, and not pretend that questions of religion are of the same kind and on the same level as those of science - by which means it persistently seeks to muddy the waters and keep religion credible in lay eyes.
Those are good responses. That's both how and why scientists need to dissociate themselves from the lucratively tempting compromises of the Templeton Foundation.
Comments
Posted by: Alverant | June 22, 2009 8:15 AM
Whenever I read the word Templeton I think of Templeton Peck, aka Faceman of the A-team. He's the guy who will lie at the drop of a hat and con you out of whatever he wants. This foundation is like that, but without the good causes the A-team had.
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | June 22, 2009 8:21 AM
Those of a certain age will remember that Templeton is also the name of the rat in the classic children's book Charlotte's Web.
Posted by: Zeno | June 22, 2009 8:36 AM
"Please engage with us as equals."
"But you're not equals. You're superstition-mongers."
"You have to at least engage our arguments."
"You don't have arguments. You have wordy excuses and foggy rationalizations."
"But most people accept religion and therefore you should make an effort to face reality and debate that undeniable truth."
"We face it all the time. But not, thank you very much, in forums sponsored by those who want an A-vs.-B discussion that pretends that A and B are somehow comparable or have equal weight of evidence behind them."
Posted by: PlaydoPlato | June 22, 2009 8:39 AM
I'm thinking of applying for a Templeton grant to look into the connections between science and religion.
Of course, I'll need to travel around the world to places like Hawaii, Tahiti, and the great cities of Europe to interview leading figures in the realms of science and religion.
Naturally I'll need to stay in the best hotels and dine in the best restaurants in order to be well rested and to keep my strength up for such a demanding task.
Clothes make the man, so I'll need a hefty wardrobe budget and of course, I can't be expected to fly on one of those noisy commercial airlines, so a private jet will be mandatory for my research.
This will be a very demanding project, so I'll need a few female research assistants to, well, assist me with my work.
After about two years of interviews, research and careful analysis of my data, I will happily report back to the Templeton Foundation on the connection between science and religion, which will reveal the following:
There is no connection.
Posted by: NYCMike | June 22, 2009 8:41 AM
To my dismay I've noticed they are a sponsor for the Science section of Tuesday's NY Times online.
Posted by: Chris Davis | June 22, 2009 8:44 AM
Oi! Where's yer iPod?
Posted by: Robin | June 22, 2009 8:53 AM
I subscribed to Discover Magazine a few months ago, and about 2 weeks ago they finally started my subscription: by sending me 3 or 4 issues all at once.
Each issue had a 2-page spread of long quotes answering the question "does evolution explain human nature?" from various scientists, many of whom I actually respect. The quotes were all incomplete and "continued online" - at the Templeton Foundation's website. These ads were close to the beginning of each magazine, and I was so unhappy I hardly wanted to look through the rest of the issues. And I decided immediately that I won't be renewing that subscription. Sad when that's decided with my very first shipment of issues.
(I realize these were paid advertisements, but that in no way made it any better.)
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | June 22, 2009 9:01 AM
I admire your principles, Dr. Myers, and those of Dr.s Grayling & Dennett, but interests, especially material interests, will always beat principles. Eloquent hacks will allow themselves to rationalize taking Templeton's money, and they will be promoted. Those that do not will, on the whole, be relatively marginalized. Look how quickly the ordinary journalists -- supposedly liberal and with a centuries-long tradition of giving at least lip service to the truth -- caved in to the Fox News/CNN/MSNBC right-wing propaganda machine. Do you think scientists and philosophers can hold out that much longer than journalists or politicians?
The bourgeois democracies realized that you can restrict freedom of speech much more effectively by promoting speech favorable to your interests than by suppressing speech unfavorable to your interests. All you need to do to suppress unfavorable speech is to note that it's not "mainstream": If it were true it would be mainstream, n'est pas?
Posted by: The Barefoot Bum | June 22, 2009 9:02 AM
Those of a certain age will remember that Templeton is also the name of the rat in the classic children's book Charlotte's Web.
Yeah, but Templeton the rat is, while a little obnoxious, fundamentally a good guy.
Posted by: Lilith | June 22, 2009 9:06 AM
PlaydoPlato @#4
*puts hand up to be female reseach assistant*
Seriously, though, it is time scientists stopped giving these sort of people credibility in the eyes of the public by engaging with them in debates.
Posted by: llewelly | June 22, 2009 9:10 AM
It's not already?Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 22, 2009 9:14 AM
Stealthily, wealthily,
Billionaire Templeton
Offers his money, with
This little hedge:
Topics appear to be
Multidimensional
Variants on the
Creationist wedge.
(Damn, does this mean I can't get any of that money now?)
Posted by: Nasikoman
|
June 22, 2009 9:16 AM
See the dwarves and see the giants
Which one would you choose to be?
And if you can't get that together
Here's the answer, here's the key
You can still a grant from Templeton
A grant from Templeton
Play it cool and sugar coat all you can
With a grant from Templeton
With a grant from Templeton
Posted by: Bruce | June 22, 2009 9:16 AM
Well they've already helped fund a book from the Discovery Institute camp, so "mark of failure" seems imminent. That being said, I wish Paul Davies would wise up and jump ship.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 22, 2009 9:24 AM
Hint: the Templetonians are ripe for the next Alan Sokal.
Posted by: sisu | June 22, 2009 9:33 AM
Here is a little more Templeton propaganda.
'This is the fourth in a series of conversations among leading scientists, scholars, and public figures about the "Big Questions."
Scanning the list, I don't see *any* scientists. I do see a handful of economists of a particular persuasion. Their intimacy with Templeton Foundation values is not coincidental.
Templeton is a gateway think tank to the Disco Institute.
Posted by: speedwell | June 22, 2009 9:35 AM
Cuttlefish, I'm sure we can find a way to get you something, even if it's just a nifty squid hat :D
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 22, 2009 9:49 AM
"They've got the money..." Yes,lots of it. From whom? For what goal?
I hate advocating from the example of O'Lielly, but he makes a big deal of Soros (openly) funding liberal causes. I see nothing that looks at who is funding right wing organizations (Cato Institute, Discovery Institute, Heritage Foundation, Templeton Foundation, etc). I am not a conspiracy nut, but I think a lot of money has been quietly poured into these groups and over the last 30 years and nobody, except a few online kooks, ever asks who and why.
We all know,for example, that the Republicans under Reagan made a conscious decision to appeal to the religious fundies and created a voting block called "the religious right". We lefties whine & complain about them, but are ignoring that their being drawn into political power was the product of deliberate planning and action and, probably, lots of money from somewhere.
As scary & depressing as it is, I think the Barefoot Bum hit the nail on the head. The 'intellectuals' are being bought off (scientists who deny Darwin); they are then used as fronts to shill to the average man on the street ("but there are real scientists who don't support Darwin"); and the average man on the street votes - for school boards who select textbooks, representatives who pass laws, appoint judges and funding for science.
Why do you think the DI has a LAWYER for their spokesman? What scientific organization puts a lawyer in front of a mike (unless it is to talk about a purely legal situation it is facing)? The DI is not, has never been and will never be about science - not even creation science. It is about worming its beliefs into the conscious of the voter in any way possible so they will vote against "materialism."
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | June 22, 2009 9:51 AM
The observation that the Templeton Foundation supports 'accommodation' with religion is true. There is also no doubt that people who attend Templeton-sponsored events often labor under the conviction that science and religion are 'different ways of knowing', with all the fuzzy-headedness that implies. I've got no problem with anyone choosing not to comingle with religionists and thereby enabling an uncritical acceptance of religion. Dennett and Grayling's responses are well worth reading and clearly lay out why they will not participate.
But the claim that the Templeton Foundation is dogmatic is not true, nor do they promote creationism.
The Foundation has from time to time sponsored legitimate science that has not provided them the religious-friendly response they expected. This is dogmatism?
Further, the Foundation has rejected 'intelligent design' in rather stark terms, to the point that they are, as Bruce Chapman laments, excluding the Disco Tute from the table. This is a creationist wedge?
I think not.
Posted by: sisu | June 22, 2009 9:57 AM
@ #18:
sourcewatch.com
Posted by: Ranson | June 22, 2009 9:58 AM
Well, in the edition I play, dwarves get a +1 racial bonus against giants, so...
Posted by: littlejohn | June 22, 2009 10:09 AM
Robin @7:
I too am disturbed by Discover magazine.
It's worth noting a couple of things about Discover: It recently changed hands. It's now published by the same people who bring us Penthouse (good!) and who also brought us Omni (bad).
You have to be of a certain age to recall Omni, but it posed as a science magazine, but carried articles like UFO's: Threat or Menace? and which Bigfoot Tracks are Legitimate? and crap like that.
It's just a matter of time before it adds an astrology column.
Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | June 22, 2009 10:12 AM
It is frustrating right now, going to a Discover sponsored blog like Phil Plait's. There is that damned ad with Darwin being bounced of the stage by the question of if is there room for human nature in evolution?.
This has to be even more upsetting to all of the scientists who have blogs on Discover, to have it seem that they are even remotely associated with that foundation.
Posted by: dikken | June 22, 2009 10:21 AM
@20 - sisu
I think you mean sourcewatch.org
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 22, 2009 10:21 AM
On the other hand it probably makes Chris Mooney, who also blogs over there, feel all warm and cozy. You never know, if his blog displays enough Templeton ads they might give him a prize. He seems to want one pretty badly.
Posted by: sisu | June 22, 2009 10:23 AM
Oops @ #20.
That's sourcewatch.org
Posted by: Interrobang | June 22, 2009 10:33 AM
Aw, come on, Omni was great. Besides Playboy of roughly the same era, it was the best slick market for science fiction in all of publishing. I treasure my collection of Vinabound Omnis, courtesy of Air Ontario. :)
(I also wouldn't have called it a "science" magazine; it was more like a general-interest magazine for geeks, lots of whom -- including myself -- genuinely like reading about weird shit, even if we don't believe a word of it. But I was done talking about science fiction...)
Posted by: Eamon Knight | June 22, 2009 10:40 AM
Re littlejohn @#22:
I bought and read an issue of Omni about 30 years ago. One. Issue. 'Nuff said.
This wouldn't be the first time Discover has carried ads for bullshit. They once had a full page ad for that guy (name escapes me) who sells incredibly expensive water woo-ification apparatus. IANAL, but I have a vague idea that there may be some Constitutional thing that limits periodicals' rights to control the content of advertising.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 22, 2009 11:13 AM
Thank you for the "sourcewatch.org" site. I have seen bits & pieces but no place that collected the info together.
However, I am still griping that one must care enough to seek out the site. What I really want to see, is every time someone mentions the DI they say, "the DI, funded in large part by so&so"; or "the Heritage Foundation, funded in large part by so&so" . I suspect the same names will start popping up and people will ask questions.
A couple of years ago there was a op-ed piece in my local paper that said evangelical Christians should NOT be taking sides in "save the earth" politics or organizations. I went to the website listed and found a) they definitely had a side, so essentially they were saying 'agree with us or shut up'; and b) that one of the Board members was Colson. He is on a lot of right wing groups. So is Dobson. They may not be the money behind these organizations but they are the 'brains'. Cue the jokes about Dobson and brains.
Policy at the highest level is being made by a tiny minority of extremists - and we keep making cheap jokes about how little brains they have
Posted by: Die Anyway | June 22, 2009 11:45 AM
Responding to a Templeton invite has got to be a bit like feeding the trolls. You know you shouldn't do it but you know you have the perfect, biting, satirical response just bottled up inside and it wants out soooo badly.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 22, 2009 11:55 AM
Scott Hatfield, OM #19 wrote:
Well, yes and no. I've been following many of the dialogues regarding Templeton Foundation, and know a few of the people involved. I don't think there's one clear, shared agreement among all its members on religion -- which does pretty much rule out dogmatism. They seem to sincerely plan on being "open-minded."
To a point. There does appear to be a fuzzy, shared agreement on the value of spirituality, and spiritual truths, and spiritual approaches. This is somehow supposed to have a "higher rationality" than either naturalism or religion alone, and avoid the errors of excess.
From what I can tell, the Templeton Foundation is seeking the Golden Middle Way between the extremes, and using science to do it. I'm not surprised that they rejected Intelligent Design creationism. It's too obviously wrong. They know that they need to find a means to inject spirituality into science (or find it) in ways which are not too obviously wrong, and sound as if they might be right. That's 'progress' in religion.
Templetons are rather dogmatically against those they consider to be dogmatic. Creationism is dogmatic. But so is atheism. The truth is surely going to be somewhere in the middle.
Except, of course, that it may not be. There may be no God, no higher reality, and the word "spirituality" may only describe natural human emotions which can be not only shared by, but understood by, an atheist. But no atheist will ever win their award for progress in religion by explaining or demonstrating that.
You can't then 'do science' by trying to find an answer to the Big Questions when you've already eliminated what's most likely, in favor of some shiny undogmatic middle path of tolerance.
Posted by: Gary Rosen | June 22, 2009 12:22 PM
A.C. Grayling and Daniel Dennett have refused to talk to a serious journalist (Edwin Cartlidge of Physics World) about a serious subject (philosophical materialism) because the journalism fellowship under which he is pursuing this subject is sponsored by the Templeton Foundation. They will have nothing to do with the Templeton Foundation, they say, because our aim is somehow to "muddy the waters" about the relationship between science and religion.
That's not how we see it at all. First-rate, peer-reviewed science is essential to our work at the Foundation and to the progressive vision of the late Sir John Templeton, who was deeply committed to scientific discovery. Many of our largest grants go to pure scientific research (like our support for the Foundational Questions Institute in Physics and Cosmology, the Godel Centenary Research Prize Fellowships, and the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard).
But, yes, we do like to include philosophers and theologians in many of our projects. Excellent science is crucial to what we do, but it is not all that we do. We are a "Big Questions" foundation, not a science foundation, and we believe that the world's philosophical and religious traditions have much to contribute to understanding human experience and our place in the universe. For Grayling and Dennett to compare this rich, expansive discussion to a dialogue with astrologers is silly. They know better.
Gary Rosen
Chief External Affairs Officer
John Templeton Foundation
grosen@templeton.org
Posted by: barbara mink | June 22, 2009 12:28 PM
I'm the founder and artistic director of an annual festival of art and science,and applied for Templeton Foundation funds a couple of years ago. Fortunately we were turned down, ostensibly because our reach was too small. In hindsight we were lucky, and it does make me wonder about organizations like the new World Science Festival in NYC, based in part on our format, which seems quite dependent on Templeton Foundation funds.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 22, 2009 12:31 PM
Hypatia's Daughter and Barefoot Bum,
Science actually does an excellent job of weeding out greedheads and the fundamentally dishonest. I am less worried about scientists succumbing to the $$$ from Templeton et al. than I am about well intentioned scientists trying to reach out to the disciples of woo. The money is usually trivial; it just represents the final compromise of their honor.
The main problem is that people will listen to a single "scientist" telling them what they want to hear and ignore a whole community of scientists telling them about reality. Ultimately, it comes down to a necessity of breeding or training a smarter human.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 22, 2009 12:46 PM
Gary Rosen #32 wrote:
A legitimate question -- even a "Big Question" -- shouldn't be formed in such a way that there can only be one answer.
I have a question for you:
The Templeton Prize honors a living person who has made an exceptional contribution to affirming life's spiritual dimension, whether through insight, discovery, or practical works. Winners are those who "chart fresh paths forward."
Could the prize ever be awarded to someone who contributes to the denial or negation of life's spiritual dimension*, through insight, discovery, or practical work? In other words, if the path goes forward in an unexpected direction, would Templeton be prepared to follow?
*"spiritual dimension" in the sense of "purpose in the cosmos," and not the metaphorical, secular sense.
Posted by: Jerry Coynje | June 22, 2009 12:53 PM
The year that Richard Dawkins gets the Templeton Prize is the year I start rethinking the organiation. After all, hasn't Dawkins "affirmed" life's spiritual dimension by tireless showing how an understanding of evolution affirms our oneness with all life?
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 22, 2009 12:53 PM
Gary Rosen,
I think that the concern might be that the questions you are asking might be a little too big to lend themselves to scientific inquiry. While I don't think of science and religion as incompatible (indeed, many of my fellow scientists are religious), I think that you can easily run into trouble when you mix science and religion.
Faith is of necessity a subjective topic. When people use scientific research or methods to support or investigate their faith, we cannot count on their objectivity, and indeed, it is exceedingly difficult to design "double-blind" trials. The religious WANT very dearly to believe and to have their belief validated. Nonbelievers may also want validation. The result is that people often take as support for their position of faith phenomena that have a purely neurological or psychological explanation.
Even more disturbing are the potential implications of the supernatural in scientific research. Science must of necessity look for naturalistic explanations whenever possible. However, the second you introduce an omnipotent being into the equation, you lose falsifiability, especially when you are talking about rare events. With "God" in the equation, there must always be the question: "Is the theory falsified or was it a miracle?"
Mr. Rosen, I am much less opposed to religion than many here. However, mixing science and religion has never yielded good results.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
June 22, 2009 12:55 PM
Exactly. I know people who are deeply suspicious of science and scientists (they really don’t trust them), unless someone claiming to be a scientist (or some quote taken out of context) says something they like to hear, in which case they get all smug and say, “It’s proven by science! This person is a scientist; he knows what he’s talking about!”
Ignorance is so difficult to combat.
Posted by: antistokes | June 22, 2009 1:04 PM
Note to all: Mr. Rosen posted the EXACT same thing on the Dawkins website...... (http://richarddawkins.net/article,3973,Correspondence-regarding-the-Templeton-Foundation,Richard-Dawkins-Daniel-Dennett-AC-Grayling-Edwin-Cartlidge). Defensive, much?
Posted by: antistokes | June 22, 2009 1:12 PM
Additional note; Mr. Rosen's comment is #25.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 22, 2009 1:21 PM
What does "place in the universe" even mean?
Posted by: SC, OM | June 22, 2009 1:28 PM
On what basis? What have religious traditions, for example, contributed to our understanding of our place in the universe?
Really? Astrology is a set of beliefs millenia older than Christianity. That tradition of thought can't contribute anything to understanding human experience?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 22, 2009 1:32 PM
Not necessary. Probably he just wants to avoid misunderstandings that stem from lack of information.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 22, 2009 1:41 PM
But, yes, we do like to include philosophers and theologians in many of our projects. Excellent science is crucial to what we do, but it is not all that we do. We are a "Big Questions" foundation, not a science foundation, and we believe that the world's philosophical and religious traditions have much to contribute to understanding human experience and our place in the universe. - Gary Rosen
Your elision of the distinction between philosophers and theologians, and of philosophical and religious traditions, is typical of the dishonesty at the heart of the Templeton Foundation.
Posted by: antistokes | June 22, 2009 1:47 PM
"Not necessary. Probably he just wants to avoid misunderstandings that stem from lack of information."
Perhaps, but it is rather amusingly aggressive for one whose foundation have soooo much money.
Posted by: antistokes | June 22, 2009 1:50 PM
*_has_ so much money. Sorry.
Posted by: mk | June 22, 2009 2:24 PM
@ antistokes...
The exact same comment is at Jerry Coyne's site as well! ;^}
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 22, 2009 2:26 PM
My working definition of 'spirituality' is that is actually a process, in 3 stages:
1. Ponder or appreciate a feeling or experience that seems profound, awesome, and mysterious with the appropriate attitude of profundity, awe and mystery.
2. Create a story or myth around this profundity, in order to help contextualize it within the shared human condition and create a mental milieu by which we can cogitate and communicate more generally and systematically.
3. Pretend that the story that we made up in step 2 is actually true i.e. that it reflects tangible (non-conceptual) reality in a descriptive and representative fashion.
I guess it's an arguable point as to whether pretending that our made-up mythologies are true to a tangible reality enhances or detracts from real spirituality. I tend to argue the latter, but I would, insofar as I'm a philosophical materialist and pragmatist. There is no doubt some benefit, some human psychological itch that gets scratched when we immerse ourselves so much in the story that the divide between what we ourselves create and what exists apart from us melts away. But there is obviously some danger there as well - stories created by humans for a certain time and place (say, oh, I don't know, a community of rural bronze-age citizens struggling with massive political upheaval) don't always travel well to more modern, (hopefully) evolved times, and we'd certainly do well to remember that, fun as it is, it's just a story and it ain't really real.
In any event, I rather suspect that Sastra is right, and that only someone who has already decided that stage 3 is a necessary component to pursuing 'spirituality' would ever even be considered for the Templeton Prize (folks who seek actual answers to "Big Questions" are rarely content to try to find these answers in song or poetry or mythology). Of course, stage 3 is religion's stock in trade (come to think of it, the same might be said of philosophy as well), so it's pretty easy to see why someone who thinks like this would value these disciplines so much.
Posted by: antistokes | June 22, 2009 2:41 PM
"when we immerse ourselves so much in the story"
Sorry, gotta revert paraphrasing Sir Pratchett here: humans love stories, because when they make up a story about a huge, undefinable concept, they think that once they understand the story, then understand the huge, undefinable thing itself. And by changing the story, they can change (gain control) that huge, undefinable thing....(thief of time, and a few other books)
Posted by: antistokes | June 22, 2009 2:43 PM
"when we immerse ourselves so much in the story"
Sorry, gotta revert to paraphrasing Sir Pratchett here: humans love stories, because when they make up a story about a huge, undefinable concept, they think that once they understand the story, then understand the huge, undefinable thing itself. And by changing the story, they can change (and gain control) of that huge, undefinable thing....(thief of time, and a few other books)
Posted by: antistokes | June 22, 2009 2:47 PM
Um, sorry, that post popped up twice.
Posted by: DLC | June 22, 2009 2:52 PM
But do they take Ceiling Cat srsly ?
Posted by: phlgradstudent | June 22, 2009 3:02 PM
Recently, a templeton rep came to my university, to my department - history and philosophy of science - to interview the profs as well as a few lowly doctoral students. I was aware that we had received a grant from these *^%$&%&$$$$$^*, ahem, people; and despite the fact that I am a daily pharyngula reader, I must admit that I hadn't really thought about its consequences. Or rather, I had been thinking that it was of no consequence, but I was wrong - wrong about the whole damn affair. I am sure PZ will take no offense in my attempt to cleave to a strict empiricism, I didn't believe (act on) his information about, and interpretation of this foundation without either A) investigating it myself which I hadn't taken the time to do, or B) experience it myself which would put me in a position to judge (interpret) it for myself. well, the latter happened. I am itching to share.
The rep was a smart guy - and remarkably sociable. So long as you interested him, and it took all of 5 minutes in the same room with him to figure out what his criteria really was. He grilled us about our publications - those of us with few (such as yours truly) were summarily dismissed from his consideration. One of my colleagues recently had an essay published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology - a journal he had never heard of. He asked not one single question concerning the essay itself, but spent nearly 20 minutes lecturing my colleague on the ins and outs of publishing in scientific journals. His impromptu lecture went into sharp relief when my colleague admitted that he had no idea as to the size of their publication or the amount of traffic on their website. This. Was. NOT. Acceptable. Apparently, the first order of business for any aspiring academic is not to develop their intellectual ability - and express it via peer reviewed publications. NO. It is to market themselves. My colleague was chastised for a fool for wasting his efforts on a journal that is so very obviously of no consequence (after all, from the man's mouth "If I have not heard of it then it is not important in Academia, and if it is unImportant in Academia it will be unimportant in the development of your Career" - and yes, I heard the capitalization in his voice. He repeatedly informed the younger of us in the room that his primary focus was developing our careers. You will forgive my refusal to believe him.
This is a man who manages a series of grants, supposedly having to do with overcoming NOMA - a matter easily resolved (respect to SJG aside, NOMA is an arbitrary postulation with no evidence in its support, as such, we have no reason to accept it - there, can I have my millions now?) I know, I know, naïveté is unbecoming, but I am honest enough to cop to it. But this man? let me give you another example: I have another colleague working with the history of neo-platonism (a subject which bores me to tears, but that is of no concern, there is a valued place in academia for history of ideas stuff - I am basically an ex-theater geek who fell in love with Darwin and Peirce, which, despite its overwhelming relevance, does fall into the same category). Interestingly, the T-man loved this guys stuff and spent a large part of our meeting massaging his stones. At one point, he actually turned to me and said, "Now this is philosophy, you could learn something from him." Of course, I had learned quite a bit from many long conversations with this colleague. But this was not what T-man was referring to. No. To him, the intellectual life is all about pimping out your ghetto. really, pimp the f*ck out of your ghetto. This colleague has managed to turn an interest into a career - and done a good job of it. He ferrets out funky little issues that few people have ever heard about, and fewer ever cared, then organizes some conference, writes up some blah blah, and lines up his next grant. Next to him, I am a freaking piker. The point here is that, from my experience, templeton hires people who have never even conceived of intellectual honesty, let alone practice it, and prize cash flow over cognitive coherence.
This is getting a little long; I will stop here. Forgive me, for despite having been a daily reader almost since day one, this is my first posting. Thank you PZ for giving me this space to vent my spleen. And thank you for warning me before hand, next time I encounter one of these fucktards I promise not to doubt you.
Posted by: articulett | June 22, 2009 3:23 PM
If there was some evidence in support of gods, demons, souls, angels, or other invisible forms of consciousness or undetectable "forces", then science would be doing everything in it's power to amass, codify, and explore that information. Despite eons of humans belief in these notions, there just isn't an iota of evidence to suggest that they are real, and lots of evidence which shows why and how people are prone to believe in such things.
The Templeton Foundation gives these bankrupt ideas an aura of respectability when they are no more respectable than the astrology that the Templeton Foundation finds "silly". They muddy the waters between magical-thinking and evidenced-based knowledge.
Posted by: Hyman Rosen | June 22, 2009 3:38 PM
My wife, nine-year old son, and I went to the free child-oriented part of the World Science Festival in Washington Square Park, and it was the most fabulous thing of its kind we'd ever been to. We couldn't drag my son away, and stayed for the full eight hours. There was not even a hint of woo. Instead, there were exhibitions of physics, math, biology, forensic science, and even dog training.
If Templeton is willing to co-sponsor something this good, I think they're worth arguing with instead of boycotting.
Posted by: Hyman Rosen | June 22, 2009 3:41 PM
My wife, nine-year old son, and I went to the free child-oriented part of the World Science Festival in Washington Square Park, and it was the most fabulous thing of its kind we'd ever been to. We couldn't drag my son away, and stayed for the full eight hours. There was not even a hint of woo. Instead, there were exhibitions of physics, math, biology, forensic science, and even dog training.
If Templeton is willing to co-sponsor something this good, I think they're worth arguing with instead of boycotting.
Posted by: articulett | June 22, 2009 3:47 PM
I don't think anyone is advocating "boycotting" the Templeton foundation (whatever that would entail)... I think everyone supports it's scientific endeavors--just not the stuff where it muddies the waters between faith-based notions and evidence-based knowledge.
Posted by: Peter Woit | June 22, 2009 4:01 PM
If you're interested in the Templeton Foundation's activities in the field of physics, I just posted something here
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=2128
based on one of their planning and strategy workshops.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 22, 2009 4:07 PM
Well, only by someone who knows bugger-all about philosophy. Hint: Daniel Dennett is a professional philosopher.
Posted by: James | June 22, 2009 4:21 PM
A.C. Grayling's quote is in no way a "good response." It is a polemic diatribe containing opinions with no facts, in which he ironically derides religion as being non-factually based.
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 22, 2009 4:25 PM
phlgradstudent @53:
Your experience as reported tracks very strongly with my own in philo grad school - not with any Templeton henchmen, per se, but with the entire discipline itself. It's a huge part of why I eventually bailed - I realized that the steps that seemed to lead directly to success in professional philosophy were orthogonal to, if not outright oppositional, to those aspects of philosophy that I enjoyed the most (teaching, and the exploring the genealogy of the history of ideas). Based on my experience, anyway, the Templeton dude was actually presenting a pretty accurate survey of the field, at least as I lived it in the early 90s.
While I concur that NOMA is easily resolved, I respectfully disagree with the formulation that it is an "arbitrary postulation with no evidence in its support". NOMA is anything but arbitrary, but rather represents one of the most common and influential insights in philosophy - specifically, the concomitant realization that a) none of us can escape our own consciousness, and b) there still seems to be excellent reason to accept that there is an external reality apart form our individual consciousness.
Some folks really really don't seem to be able to handle this fact very well. Thus, God.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 22, 2009 4:27 PM
he ironically derides religion as being non-factually based.
It's not ironic if it's correct.
Oh, I'm sure I'll regret asking, but of what facts dost thou speaketh, limpet?
Posted by: Joe Bleau | June 22, 2009 5:11 PM
Knockgoats, I actually do know bugger-all about philosophy, but I do sometimes let my own somewhat bitter experiences with the discipline get the better of me.
You're absolutely right, that was a cheap shot, and I respectfully retract.
Posted by: cdx | June 22, 2009 5:33 PM
It looks like a typical conservative think tank effort to preemptively get to, grab, and set up optimal defenses on the best possible ground. Buying up propagandists, subverting as much of the opposition as possible, etc. For the day the disagreement about theism becomes an overt public, aka Culture War, political issue.
Posted by: Heraclides | June 22, 2009 6:02 PM
(Note: haven't read the comments.)
Maybe someone with serious science journalism intents and strong focus can apply and drive the poor soft-headed sponsors completely nuts by writing articles that damn them and their approach :-) I'd have half a mind to do it myself, for both the money and the pain it'd extract, but I couldn't stand the idea of being associated with them. Besides, you'd think they'd have some means of constraining the person who takes the post up... (While they are wrong-headed, that doesn't mean that they are entirely stupid, etc.)
Posted by: antistokes | June 23, 2009 12:42 AM
But do they take Ceiling Cat srsly ?
I don't! Not nearly as seriously as I take the Basement Cat!!
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
June 23, 2009 6:26 AM
antistokes said
HERETIC, BURN HIM!!!
Posted by: phlgradstudent | June 23, 2009 9:28 AM
joe bleau - your comment on my experience with templeton is well taken - i certainly do not intend to imply that such behavior is limited to this one foundation , or to this one field, or to academia in general . . . and i much appreciate your response to my throw away comment on noma. but with respect i will clarify. 'arbitrary' signifies willfulness, a judgement based not upon a 'law' (with its implied structure of response) but on 'choice' or an expression of an individuality. of course, whether it results of individual discretion or capricious narcissism is a later distinction, but both are arbitrary. hence, i would define noma as arbitrary postulation, one which happened to have appealed to an otherwise great thinker and writer as a way of dealing with the facts you so rightly delineate.
i also appreciate your comments on philosophy,both positive and negative. and i do agree with many of the basic criticism of philosophy - especially the professionally academic kind - but still, philosophy has a vital role to play in successful knowing; specifically, you probably know the phrase, the map is not the territory. . . yes, and philosophy critiques our mental maps internally - checking for consistency and readability of its signage, or for gross distortions of scale - this sort of thing. and science critiques our mental maps externally - seeing if the damn thing actually applies in the territory in which we find ourselves. science cannot function without a readable map. philosophy is utterly useless unless the map it is critiquing is a map of this world. after all, the map of mordor isn't going to help you find your way around cleveland.
this takes us back to the problem of the templeton foundation - it is hawking maps of mordor and claiming they will help you find your way in the world. of course, i have no problem with anyone selling such a thing, so long as they are brightly labelled as useless gimmickry - or momentary escapism, but to pass such a map of as useful in any actual terrain is disgusting. and it is disgusting in a way that i did not experience in the years i spent working in theater (where the show was the final arbitrator, and you can't fake talent) and it is antithetical to the value of philosophy (where the functionality of the mental map is the final arbitrator of value) and antithetical to the value of science (where the application of the mental map in an actual territory is the final arbitrator of value).
anyhoo, that's what i'm thinking . . .
Posted by: Matin Durrani | June 23, 2009 10:02 AM
In response to the comment by the Templeton Foundation's Gary Rosen (#32), I should like to point out for the record that Edwin Cartlidge is not, as Rosen seems to imply, on the staff of Physics World. He was, however, Physics World's news editor until 2007, before leaving to pursue a freelance science-writing career. Edwin Cartlidge does, though, write for us on a freelance basis on a variety of scientific topics.
Matin Durrani, Editor, Physics World
Posted by: Matin Durrani | June 23, 2009 10:06 AM
In response to the comment by the Templeton Foundation's Gary Rosen (#32), I should like to point out for the record that Edwin Cartlidge is not on the staff of Physics World. He was, however, Physics World's news editor until 2007, before leaving to pursue a freelance science-writing career. Edwin Cartlidge does still write for us on a freelance basis on a variety of scientific topics.
Matin Durrani, Editor, Physics World
Posted by: Matin Durrani | June 23, 2009 10:19 AM
In response to the comment by the Templeton Foundation's Gary Rosen (#32), I should like to point out for the record that Edwin Cartlidge is not on the staff of Physics World. He was, however, Physics World's news editor until 2007, before leaving to pursue a freelance science-writing career. Edwin Cartlidge does still write for us on a freelance basis on a variety of scientific topics.
Matin Durrani, Editor, Physics World
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 23, 2009 10:40 AM
Joe Bleau@63,
Kudos - admitting error in this way is admirable - and not something I find at all easy myself!
Posted by: Peter Morgan | June 23, 2009 1:08 PM
I note that the Templeton foundation has been creating arms-length activities. The principle example, FQXi, seems rather parallel to the Pentagon's creation of DARPA. The military is about as certain of itself when pressed about its intentions as the Templeton foundation is. I suppose the idea that the foundational ideas of military power are reasonable scientific goals is as or more problematic for many scientists as is the idea that justifying the existence of God is a reasonable scientific goal (to paraphrase badly Templeton's purpose). Scientists are apparently willing to work for DARPA and FQXi grants because both succeed in having statements of purpose that are or appear enough different from those of their founders, although it is my impression that scientists treat the desirability of both DARPA and FQXi funding on a case by case basis.
There is a continuous evolution of ideas and practice, as a result of which Templeton, the Pentagon, DARPA, FQXi, science, religion, live or die over decades and millennia. For all its successes, Science has its blind spots, which it tries to realize, understand, and finally accommodate, just as other entities and ideas do. One cannot accuse religion of being the same as it was 1500 or 500 years ago, but it does appear to move more slowly than Science, perhaps because it deals more with ideas that are intangible than with brute material. And yet the flow of religious ideas arguably controls the flow of history as much or more than the tangible material of science. Religion played as much as or more than the part of science in the 19th Century anti-slavery movements in England and in the US, for example.
I point out too that it appears that Intelligent Design accommodates more of scientific understanding of the tangible than does its predecessor, Creationism, while attempting to address different intangibles than those imposed by methodologies of Science that are generally not as fully articulated as scientists claim them to be. Intelligent Design has tried to do in a few decades what has taken centuries for Biology to do, in a different intellectual background, so if we judge its merits purely from a Scientific perspective it would be astonishing if it competed adequately on tangible evidence with modern Biology. Given that there is money, with Templeton only one source, there will presumably be a successor to Intelligent Design, which might be more or less interesting, depending on who thinks about the fundamental ideas.
Posted by: frog | June 23, 2009 6:37 PM
BarefootBum: The bourgeois democracies realized that you can restrict freedom of speech much more effectively by promoting speech favorable to your interests than by suppressing speech unfavorable to your interests.
Exactly. You don't need brownshirts on the street -- just McDonalds, cable tv and a few paid off "journalists" to tell everyone it's all gonna be alright.
Posted by: frog | June 23, 2009 6:51 PM
Morgan: And yet the flow of religious ideas arguably controls the flow of history as much or more than the tangible material of science.
Absolutely wrong. The flow of history (and religion) is primarily driven by proto-science, and especially mathematics. Christianity, Islam and even Judaism are the end result of Euclid For Dummies. The Enlightenment, including the end of slavery, was born with Muslim mathematicians, Galileo and Newton. Every cutting edge idea today came from a few mathematicians at the turn of the last century.
If you want to know what the world will look like in a millenium, don't ask the clerics. Ask the mathematicians.
Posted by: Cathy Sander | July 7, 2009 12:04 AM
"Ask the mathematicians."
...who are also human and are prone to a host of biases, like the rest of us. It's better to be honest: I don't know what will happen in 1 000 year's time.
Posted by: Greyfully | December 8, 2009 3:58 AM
Less Below,where trouble eye currently rely object claim measure understanding human introduction responsible high security train commission illustrate worth congress instead simply brain ourselves scientific revolution lift dead allow another thin mind forest character really most design conference every yard favour discipline up appropriate battle second approach along effectively sale location case possible basic block after somewhat driver requirement reform hotel similar shut term act appeal very document like name if also stuff worry output him contrast limit alternative approve acquire near engineering move climb good quite someone reduce careful male forest retain quarter defendant speak