Just because you were right yesterday doesn't mean you're going to be right tomorrow. Even if you're one of the most important contributors to biology, like Lynn Margulis, there's no reason anyone should keep paying attention to you if you abandon the skeptical foundation of the scientific method. I doubt that Margulis, she of the endosymbiotic theory that revolutionized evolutionary biology a few years back, cares what people think of her, but she sure has undermined her reputation with what I would say are some poorly chosen words in a guest post at Pharyngula.
Margulis' theory that eukaryotes -- cells with a nucleus -- are the result not of simple evolution through natural selection, but the product of the integration of one prokaryotic cell into another was an example of brilliant thinking at that first generated enormous resistance from the status quo but was too good idea not to win out in the end. For that, the world owes Margulis big time.
People now justifiably hang on her every word. I have no problem with that. But in her Pharyngula post she makes some very odd arguments. Even for someone who had to fight tooth and nail against scientific orthodoxy, her dismissal of "Neo-Darwinism" suggests something less than rational, and more akin to the silliness that is deconstructionist literary theory, is at work. Evolutionary biologists, she writes
rarely acknowledge that their theoretical frames derive from an Anglophone-capitalist model, and inevitably carry the prejudices, assumptions and philosophical orientations of our milieu
and then, without offering any actual examples, claims that
There is, in fact, paltry evidence for the neo-Darwinian "thought-style". The staunch neo-Darwinist claims have become less and less valid as information from other fields (e.g., molecular biology and the fossil record) has increased. It is not unusual, especially in the science of evolution, that theories contradictory to the neo-Darwinian "thought-style" are ignored or rejected, not on the basis of their claims, or proof of those claims, but on the, often unconscious, grounds that they do not agree with our biases.
Or how about this little gem, from an interview she gave to Astrobiology magazine:
There's no intellectual tradition in microbiology.
It gets worse. Tara "Aetiology" Smith has already expressed her shock at what Margulis had to say in a subsequent comment on the subject of AIDS and HIV. Here's the nub:
From my readings, discussions with knowledgable scientists close to the story, I simply conclude, as does Kerry Mullis, the Nobel Lauriate who wrote a foreword to [the notorious Peter] Duesberg's classical work that there is no evidence that "HIV causes AIDS".
Now, that's an interesting choice of an ally. One might even say an ironic one. Mullis may be smart. He inventing the polymerase chain reaction, a nifty technique that basically makes modern genetic science possible. But he also believes in astrology and talking animals. Today he's one of those odd folks who continue to demand evidence that HIV causes AIDS, even thought it's quite easy to find. Indeed, the first comment to appear after Tara's post was a link to a now well-used National Institutes of Science web page that offers the peer-reviewed evidence that Mullis and Margulis can't seem to find.
I made the mistake (in a debate I lost with Tara) of suggesting not that we should pay attention to what Kerry Mullis has to say just because he has a Nobel prize, but merely that we'd have to come with a modified strategy to counter what Mullis has to say because he has a Nobel prize. I now concede that, just as one shouldn't suspend skepticism because the writer is famous, nor should we make any adjustments to the central tactic of sticking to the facts and demanding evidence.
It is disappointing to learn that Margulis seems to have joined the ranks of the Kerry Mullises and Linus Paulings of this world. They're all very intelligent scientists who did some marvelous thinking, back in day, but have since squandered their reputations by embracing ideas that simply don't stand up to critical thinking.
The lesson of the day: facts come before fame.
- Log in to post comments
Good lesson, but I'm a bit confused how Linus Pauling "squandered [his] reputation by embracing ideas that simply don't stand up to critical thinking." I have no doubt that he may have done so, but could you point out what example you have in mind?
Dan, Try this link or google "pauling vitamin C".
www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html - 22k -
Mega doses of vitamin C were Linus's downfall.
Ok, so when replying to that tab opened earlier in the day it might behoove one to look and see if the question was already answered ;-) Sorry about that James.
Thanks for the link to Pauling's Vitamin C writings. Probably like most people, I was only familiar with his more laudable works.
Oh well - as you suggest, even the most respected scientists sometimes say the most ridiculous things, and that we should never forget that arguments from authority should never replace arguments from evidence.
Ignoring the AIDS comment and focusing instead on Margulis' comments regarding neo-Darwinism, I am surprised that you should accuse her of losing her skeptical edge. If anything, she is accusing you of losing your skeptical edge.
Specifically, she is simply restating Thomas Kuhn's argument that science must hold certain truths as paradigmatic, and unquestionable, in order to function (ie - if you had to question whether calipers worked before you were allowed to use them, you would never make any progress). But what Margulis is accusing you of is holding so very, very dearly to neo-Darwinist thought that you are blinding yourself to possible new discoveries that could conflict, even if only the tiniest bit, with that paradigm (ie - you accept calipers as so totally incredible that you never find a better way of measuring things...say...quantum measurements). In other words, she is accusing you of the dogma and lack of skepticism that science supposedly avoids in order to make truly revolutionary discoveries. Holding on to paradigms allows you to make minor progress in your field - questioning them allows you to make revolutionary progress.
She's telling you to start listening to arguments as arguments - on the weight of their points and evidence. Giving them their day in court.
Seems like a fairly reasonable, and utterly scientific, suggestion to me.
I smell a hint of ethnocentrism in the neo-darwinist comments. Margulis is of the jewish heritage. I doubt she would have such criticisms about Einstein's Relativity paradigm as having been derived from a Judeo-Socialist
model.
Scientists, in my experience, constantly taint great thinking with politics. It gets really old. Margulis obviously isn't immune. Stick with the science. Its more interesting.
BW - she's not criticizing neo-darwinism for its roots, she's criticizing scientists for pretending the roots don't exist and/or being ignorant of them. She's not talking politics. She's talking history.
There's a world of difference between those two positions.
She's not talking any history of biology I know, and I have read and done a fair bit.
Scientists use history to make propaganda. Margulis is doing the same thing - over identifying a group, ascribing errors to the abstraction thus formed, and then smearing everybody that might fall into that abstract class with those errors. It's bad history and bad logic.
John Wilkins: I agree, Margulis is using bad history and bad logic.
In 'Not In Our Genes' Lewontin et al made an argument about the role of economics, ideology, and biology similar to Margulis' dismissal of the Modern Synthesis and evolutionary ecology.
Dawkins reviews 'Not In Our Genes'
http://tinyurl.com/7q9yp
Stanley Salthe, Mae-Wan Ho, Brian Goodwin, and other critics of neo-Darwinism have made similar assertions about capitalism both shaping and benefiting from conventional evolutionary theory.
Tsk, you're losing the forest for the trees, man. I didn't say you had to agree with her conclusions concerning AIDS or evolutionary theory, I outlined her points concerning skepticism and paradigmatic thinking (and the traps therein). And, although I didn't state it explicitly in my last post, I would say that those parts of her argument are perfectly valid.
In other words, you're extremely quick to write off an opponent's argument by making the statement, "this lady is a moonbat poopy nuthead," but without offering any evidence of your own! The above post, for instance,
1) writes off her claim that scientists write off people's claims that don't agree with them (ironically so). Basically, you had a knee jerk reaction to her use of the words "theoretical" and "Angolphone-capitalist" and cried foul before you paid attention to what she actually said. What she said was "see Thomas Kuhn." Now, you are welcome to disagree with Kuhn, but please address that issue, since it is the relevant one - saying that some scientists at some times in the past have used history to make bad claims does not address the current discussion or the current use of history to make claims.
2) Next you cite a part of her text in which she actually makes the following three statements - there is no proof for neo-Darwinian thought style being correct, other fields are weakening these claims with new proof, and "see Thomas Kuhn." You accuse her of failing to provide evidence. But you provide none of your own. You have placed the burden of proof on her. Her third statement needs none (see Kuhn), but you are correct that her first two require more proof. That does not in and of itself make her argument fallacious, it simply means you need more information from her. In the meantime, her third point is requesting that you examine your own biases. You have not responded to this yet, and thus you have not met your burden of proof for this point.
3) She says there's no intellectual tradition in microbiology. You disagree. Provide evidence, please.
4) She tries to back a claim on HIV/AIDS by calling to a higher authority. Instead of saying, as you should, "using Mullis' name does not substitute for proof and is fallacious because it tries to call to higher authority," you say "Mullis has made different mistakes in the past." We are not talking about different mistakes, however, we are talking about the HIV/AIDS mistake. Citing prior errors is fallacious on your part.
Seriously, I do not disagree with you that her conclusions are questionable. I disagree with your irrational standards concerning the burden of proof. You seem to have no burden of proof. A person who disagrees with you has it all. That is sloppy and dogmatic and, quite frankly, no different than the people you decry as idiots. You should do better.
In the end, you do yourselves a disservice both by ossifying your opponents' positions and by ossifying your own. You also make stupid mistakes because you fail to read arguments carefully, having already come to foregone conclusions because of your existing biases.
alex, reading a fair amt. of margulis' material is hard to escape the conclusion that she is soaked in her own hubris, and her accusations of dogmatism and conceit are rank hypocrisy. you should get off her high horse, she's not making a kuhnian point, she's using critique to buttress her own ego. anyone who listens to the woman being interviewed can glean that she thinks the world of herself, and little of others.
Yes, but her hubris isn't relevant to a debate, now is it? It might make her an unlikeable person, but it doesn't address her points.
Incidentally, I'm not on her high horse, nor anyone's, for that matter. But I find it incredibly frustrating that scientists continue to defeat their own arguments by failing to make them in any sort of recognized way, instead devolving into, well, "Margulis (or insert other name/group/theory here) is a stupid and self-important bitch who doesn't understand reason, so I am simply going to scream the word 'idiot' more loudly than she....then I will win." With all due respect, the pretty much puts your level of debate in the same league as the ID folk, but the difference is that you actually have evidence and reason to back your points up. Given that, it's a shame not to use them.
Now, addressing your point that Margulis is using this particular argument as a way to bolster her own, that would be fallacious on her part. She has taken a more or less true premise (Kuhn's argument) to say, "therefore, what I say is right." That is an incorrect conclusion. However, it would be reasonable and correct for her to say, "therefore, it behooves you to listen to divergent points of view and interact with them in civil and constructive debate, to the best of your ability." That does not make her following arguments any more or less worthy, as those rest on different premises and must be considered separately.
There are several debates which she has presented, two of which are "listening to (though not necessarily accepting) fringe theories is healthy for science" and "HIV does not lead to AIDS." You can accept the first without accepting the last, because they are not related, except insofar as the latter is a fringe theory. Given that, though, if you accept the first, it is incumbent upon you to then listen to the latter, whether or not you ultimately agree with it. But sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalallalala" a whole lot....well....I don't know how to put it any other way than to say that it is bad form.
Alexis, I agree with many of your general points. We all need to consider contrary views, recognize our potential for bias, etc. But those don't seem to be the points that Margulis was making. (At least, not in the quoted passages.)
[emphasis added]
Evolutionary theory may have been developed primarily by Anglo scientists living in capitalist societies. That doesn't establish that their theories actually derive from a political model. This goes beyond the warning that scientists might be biased (in part) by their culture, etc. It makes a positive claim, without support.
This is not a warning against bias. It's a claim about evidence. She's claiming that molecular and fossil evidence contradict 'staunch neo-Darwinist claims.' Whatever she may mean by this, a reasonable scientist should offer support for such a claim.
If it's not unusual, she should be able to give at least one example. Absent any, how should neo-Darwinists respond?
[emphasis added]
This is another claim of fact. Note that she doesn't say the evidence is inadequate. She doesn't just disagree with the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS. She says there is no evidence that HIV causes AIDS. That's a ludicrous and indefensible statement, one that no scientist with any biological training should make.
Alexis, you argue for teh p[ropositin that "listening to (though not necessarily accepting) fringe theories is healthy for science."
This is a true statement, but only in a more complete form. It is missing a couple of filters.
I'll buy "listening to (though not necessarily accepting) fringe theories THAT HAVE NOT ALREADY BEEN SOLIDLY REFUTED, AND THAT HAVE SOME CHANCE OF BEING USEFUL is healthy for science."
There are a lot of fringe theories out there that deserve no more than outright dismissal - paying attention to them is simply distracting. As an extreme example, there are still 'flat earth' theorist around - and paying atentin to them is simply a waste of scientific time.
If the HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS "theorists" come up with some solid and relevant data that supports their position and undermines the HIV/AIDS connection, then it would become worth paying attention to. As of now, the HIV/AIDS connection is so extraordinarily well supported, and the 'anti' theorists position's so obviously rooted in denial of much of the extensive record and obvious misinterpretations of the selective parts they do cite, that there is no more reason to pay serious attention to it than to the flat earthers.
Qetzal,
Thank you - excellent points, all, and what I was looking for.
Lee,
I would agree with you up to a point - in particular, the one in which you say that it is a poor use of resources to devote copious attention to X (where X has been solidly disproved). What concerns me is when scientists actually spend lots and lots of time belittling these theories, rather than refuting or ignoring. I suppose much of what I'm saying is that I think they should either be debated civilly and/or treated with a polite, but brief, "I'm sorry, I've stated my case and don't believe you've met yours - I'm happy to talk further when you have new evidence," and left at that. To take the middle road - devoting lots of time but in an uncivil manner, is counterproductive for everyone, both in the amount of time spent on the issue as well as the outcome.
I made the mistake (in a debate I lost with Tara) of suggesting not that we should pay attention to what Kerry Mullis has to say just because he has a Nobel prize, but merely that we'd have to come with a modified strategy to counter what Mullis has to say because he has a Nobel prize. I now concede that, just as one shouldn't suspend skepticism because the writer is famous, nor should we make any adjustments to the central tactic of sticking to the facts and demanding evidence.
Having a nobel laureate HIV "rethinker" gives a false aura of credibility to the "rethinker" movement. They love trotting out the list of "respectable" scientists that they have on their side. Margulis is the latest addition to the stable.
This gives the "rethinkers" their typical argument from authority position.
The answer to this fallacy is to point out that:
a) His claims about astrology are not made credible by his Nobel prize.
b) His claims about talking to glowing raccoons (and them answering back) are not made credible by his Nobel prize.
c) His claims about the Urantia book are not made credible by his Nobel prize.
d) His denial of manmade global warming are not made credible by his Nobel prize.
e) His denial of manmade ozone depletion are not made credible by his Nobel prize.
These are valid responses to the "rethinker" argument from authority fallacy.
I also don't think that ignoring HIV "rethinkers" is the best solution. They don't go away when you ignore them.
Only last week Robert Gallo admitted in an Australian court that he could only find Hiv in 40 patients out of 130 with aids, incredibly he subsequently admitted that this was not sound evidence for proving the hiv-aids hypothesis (aliveandwell.org - if you want a look). There are a growing number of top scientists that question this hypothesis. Those people who use non scientific argument to discredit people like Duesberg, Bernstein and Mullis should perhaps try engaging in scientific debate, as this is all they are asking for.
Try asking yourselves a question, why is it that you believe certain things without opening your minds to other possibilities?
Who was it that convinced you that Hiv causes aids?
Scientific Papers or The Media?
It certanly can't have been the former because no scientific papers have been written documenting the direct link between Hiv and Aids, try and find one, you won't be able too.
No doubt you will respond with the same old rubbish 'It's a fact, how can you deny it blah blah blah'.
And you certainly aren't qualified too discredit Duesberg. As Gallo said 'He knows more about retroviruses than any other man on the planet'.
I have met and talked with Lynn Margulis, and I have never met a more dogmatic and argumentative scientist. She is the only person that I have met who refuses to allow one to agree with her (personal anecdotage withheld in the interests of brevity and politeness). I understand that she went through a fair amount of hell when she was attempting to establish the endosymbiotic theory, and I do not mean to trivialise her unfortunate experience, but I suspect that she has come out poorly from that. I also understand that she is a far more companionable person in her lab (a former tech described her as "motherly"), but still, I do not see her public persona as warranted. More than that, I suspect that her experience as an underdog has led her to adopt and champion other unconventional theories, even those with no foundation in reality, such as HIV/AIDS denialism.
Meanwhile, I am compelled to point out that she did not come up with the endosymbiosis theory herself. It had been floating around for a good decade or so before she latched onto it; the sole contribution that she made to it was the idea that eukaryotic flagella (or in her terms, "undulipodia") also had a symbiotic origin, descended from spirochaetes. True to form, she still maintains this, although all of the evidence that led her to propose this has been rigorously and unambiguously refuted as either artefactual or misinterpreted.
Having said all that, I will not hesitate to aver that the biological community owes her a serious debt of gratitude for championing the endosymbiotic hypothesis, and for persevere with it in the face of initially overwhelming opposition. I wish that I could appreciate her without reservation, but such is sadly not the case.