Why should Catholicism be a prerequisite for speaking science?

Well, my main problem is with citing Lakoff as a political strategist, even though his framing suggestions for Democrats will make them fare even worse than they're faring now.

I would also disagree with Chris that the U.S. is a religious nation. The U.S. is a church-going nation. I think being religious should entail an understanding of the doctrines of one's faith and the reasons that faith requires one to act in a certain way. Church going merely requires one to show up in a certain building somewhere between once a week and once a year and trying to stay awake for an hour. I could rant for an hour on the disconnect between people's stated faith and what they actually believe, but I think I will do my blood pressure a favor and stop. Lets just say it was my study of both science and religion at a Christian college that gave me the tools to accept non-theism as a rational choice.

The suggestion that a religious person should defend evolution really has nothing to do with science. It's entirely a matter of philosophy. It's saying that a person can believe a totally irrational thing while at the same time, in another sphere of thought, think and behave rationally. It's an argument for partitioning the mind, not a strong defense of science. It is, in fact, a surrender to the idea that Americans are too stupid to understand science.

What's wrong with making a "wedge" of our own? The problem I have with Dawkins-style attacks on religion isn't that I disagree with his views (which, at least on religion, I don't), or that such attacks aren't "politically expedient", but that in some ways it weakens the arguments of atheism -- in the first view minutes of "Root of All Evil" he literally used the weak argument from authority "I'm a scientist and I can tell you there is no good reason for believing in a god".

Isn't it better to teach the public the scientific method, and let them draw their own conclusions? If they understand the method, they'll understand for *themselves* how weak the arguments of religion are.

Johnathan, I don't think anyone is arguing that scientists should attack religion as a way of advancing science. I am only saying that a scientist should not have to justify science by pointing out that a religious person can believe the science. The scientific method stands on its own; it does not have to attack any other belief system in order to justify itself. It is some of the religious who attack science as a defense of their own beliefs.

Well, this is exactly my concern regarding the communication of science to the general public--how to present a subject viewed as "snobbish" in a non-snobbish way. We do this regarding another subject (art) at my workplace, and according to the feedback we get, we do it very well. The secret is not to get religion, but to initiate discussions rather than lectures. We make use of a curriculum called VTS (Visual Thinking Strategies) that is grounded in developmental psychology, and I am currently working outside my job in trying to flesh out some ideas in modifying/adapting this curriculum for presenting science to a high school audience and to parents.

http://www.vue.org/whatisvts.html

I disagree that this is a church-going rather than religious nation. This is a very religious nation. Think of all the decentralized Christian cults and communities (Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, charismatics, Assemblies of God, etc.) that have sprung up. I think that people who don't grow up connected to these communities don't really think about how pervasive they are, and that they are a grassroots reaction against the "orthodoxy" of church and its presumably "pointy-headed humanism," which includes the embrace of evolutionary theory. But there again, I grew up around people who make religion central to their lives, to their very identities, and that is what I see.

"It's an argument for partitioning the mind, not a strong defense of science."

Exactly. This is the pertinent distinction often left out of such debates. People categorize their beliefs into modalities designed to suit the task at hand (Oncologist 6 days a week, Mass on Sunday). Ideally, hopefully, as one matures, they can apply the critical thinking skills required in their profession to all thoughts and experiences. The only excuse not to is intellectual laziness or unwillingness to maintain mental acuteness. At the end of the day the lawyer, meteorologist, auto-mechanic all go home sit back and reach for the remote. Zombie.

Why, sure. And the ideal messenger to reach the public on Democratic ideals is a moderate Republican.

Actually, the ideal messenger to reach a Republican audience in support of a program that Democrats support may well be moderate Republican.

Take my cousin. In her worldview, religious authority takes precedence over any emperical method. In a thousand years, I couldn't persuade her, arguing from scientific evidence, to accept something that contradicts her notion of religious authority. Yet, she votes for schoolboard members, and I'd prefer that she not support creationist yahoos.

So, if a member of her church assures her, without even making a single scientific argument, that evolution is not inconsistent with her religion, her schoolboard may be spared.

In a scientific setting, of course the religion of the actors is irrelevant. In a political setting, it's as relevant as the citizens want it to be. In the US, that's pretty relevant.

Thanks, PZ. Will be posting something of a reply shortly. I don't feel too bloodied...

I think the analogy between religion friendly scientists and Democrat friendly Republicans is strained. Science and religion are roughly orthogonal when done right. They answer different questions. Democrats and Republicans are opposite ends of a spectrum. One cannot be both, while one can be a religious scientist, or a scientific religionist.

The analogy might more properly be to say that a good way for Democrats to reach out to the general public would be to talk about classical liberalism (libertarianism) and not to focus on traditional left-right battles.

The danger that you rightly note is that you wind up where we are in talking about Iraq, where the only people who can speak out against the war are veterans. We don't want the only people who can speak out on science to be those who wear their religion on their sleeves.

I don't know George Lakoff, but he seems to argue like a postmodernist ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9956 ) , ie he is "somewhat" removed from reality as we know it.

He has apparently initiated a lot of seemingly interesting programs like generative semantics (seems dead now) and embodied philosophy (which lead up to the cognitive science of mathematics, which seems dead or irrelevant too). And now he is into politics. Weeeell, I don't know... One should not dismiss someone offhand, but in this case it seems tempting.

>So, if a member of her church assures her, without even >making a single scientific argument, that evolution is not >inconsistent with her religion, her schoolboard may be spared.

That sounds fruitful. Why look to scientists-who-are-religious (SWAR) when the faithful listen better to religionists-who-are-scientific (RWAS)?

I think the Vatican, despite Schoenborn, has been doing an admirable job of siding with the science of evolution. Pope John Paul II believed that "two truths cannot contradict one another" -- he deemed evolution true.

If there's an argument from authority needed, why listen to SWAR when RWAS have the ear of the faithful, are preaching to the choir? Dawkins is a fine (though rabid) spokesman for the godless liberals. They're a minority, though.

Who is a good RWAS? Do they exist?

I think one of the big arguments here is whether we want the American people to be scientists or to just get out of science's way. If they're convinced that science is compatible with religion, they're more likely to accept it on a loose basis and less likely to interfere with its teaching. If scientists refuse to make this statement of compatibility, we will be holding the American people to a standard of being Scientists, with a capital S, truly believing that science is the best method of finding truth. While I believe that this is the case, I think fairly few people will meet this standard.

The whole idea of allowing the assumption that religion is relevant to science whatsoever is a losing battle in the long run. If one is going to insist that science should be rejected because it's not riddled with the kind of pestulant god-bothering that a random theist insists upon, then I think you have to write the person off as a loss. Likely you can write off the clergy encouarging them to be such fools and drones too.

I also grew up with many people who made the church a central focus of their life. I still find that many of them are spectacularly uninformed about their faith except where it supports their preconceived notions. A friend I had many years ago, a liberal Baptist (he said it was like being a High Church Unitarian), loved to invite in and make sport of Mormon missionaries with his superior knowledge of their faith. I have a number of friends who have worked hard to understand what they believe and why they believe it. But they would agree with me that they are not typical of their congregations.

If you have to present every scientific theory to the general public by first showing that it doesn't contradict religion(s), then you can never win over the fundies. The religious always interpret their religious books the way they want to. So if they don't like the sound of a certain scientific theory they will go on and find some passage in their book that contradicts it. And who do you think your average chuch going fundie will listen to when it comes to the question of the compatiblity of a theory with religion? I bet everytime they will chose to listen to their preacher instead of the scientist-who-goes-to-church.

Science should stand separate from religion. And if science needs to be "sold" to the public then it should be done by showing how science help the population in general to live better lives. If the religious don't want to benifit from science of godless scientists then they can stop going to the doctor, driving their car, using their computer and go live like an Amish.

What I think matters most is that messengers make it clear which "hat" they are wearing - in other words, when they are speaking as scientists, and when they are speaking as atheists or Catholics or whatever - and don't expect their expertise in one field to carry much kudos in another (even one which they regard as nonsense).

I was just about to make a comment about one of my biggest pet peeves, when I ran into an even bigger one in the comments. Lakoff doesn't argue "like a postmodernist." He is a kind of relativist, a fact that he admits, but "arguing like a postmodernist" is so nondescriptive that it makes no sense. I wonder if the people who make that claim have ever read a single postmodernist text.

Anyway, now back to the other pet peeve: people listening to Lakoff. It always makes them do silly things. Mooney, who is obviously a very bright guy, falls into the trap like so many other progressives. When on Earth did Lakoff become an expert in marketing? Because, despite the claims that he's not about marketing on Pandagon the other day, that's clearly what he's doing here, in arguing that we need to pick the right sort of spokesperson. He should probably have mentioned that the Christian scientist we pick should be attractive, too... maybe we need to pick a supermodel Christian scientist to sell evolution! I'm voting for Naomi Campbell, personally. Someone get her an honorary degree in biology from Harvard, quick (and if she's not Christian, we need to baptise her too).

Anyway, I'm all for noting that, unless we adopt a strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, there's nothing inherently contradictory about being a Christian and recognizing the facticity of evolution, just as there's nothing inherently contradictory about being a Christian and accepting heliocentrism. Pointing out that there are many biologists who study evolution who are, in fact, Christian might be a good thing, too. But the ideal messangers for science will be people who knows the science well, and can communicate it in such a way that it is undestandable to the general public, and in particular, a general public to whom educators hae done a poor job of teaching science. Individuals who can explain, for instance, how the "evolution is just a theory" camp is a wrongheaded as the "Lakoff argues like a postmodernist" camp. People who respects religion, and the important role in plays in so many people's lives, but who make it clear that science is in the business of finding and explaining facts, and who can show how evolution does that so well, and in a way that is completely orthogonal to non-fundamentalist religious beliefs. I can't imagine why those people must be Christian themselves, because the only people who will focus on the religion of the spokespeople for science will be the fundamentalists whom those spokespeople will never convince anyway.

Justawriter, you hit at least one nail on the head. I dated a girl once who was a fundamentalist and believed the bible to be literally true. I didn't realize it at first, but we had a discussion once in which I happened to mention that the bible contradicts itself on numerous occasions. She said she didn't really know what was in the bible, but she believed it was literally true.

If you're going to baptize Naomi Campbell, make it a full-immersion baptism. Wet t-shirt night down by the river.

Chris, you can't be too bloodied yet. We've only just started!

This is the warm-up. June. Las Vegas. You. Me. Bare knuckles. We're gonna pack the house and clean up.

PZM quotes Mooney:

The United States is, of course, a very religious country; one in which many fundamentalists attack evolution but also one in which many moderate Christians support it. In this context, Lakoff explains that scientists ought to be defending evolution by highlighting scientists who are able to reconcile evolution with religious faith. The ideal messengers to reach the public on this issue, then, would be evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Christians.

PZM then responds:

Why, sure. And the ideal messenger to reach the public on Democratic ideals is a moderate Republican. The way to win friends and persuade people is to dilute your message so much that you sound just like them. Baa-aaa-aa-a.

I disagree strongly with this whole idea of an "ideal messenger". Ken Miller is one messenger, a good one I will agree, but I object to the notion that the best representative of science is one who holds a set of non-scientific ideals.

I also confess to a bit of Miller Fatigue. He's a good guy, don't get me wrong, but whenever the conversation turns to how to get the scientific message across, it's his name that gets brought up.... If you want an "ideal messenger", it should be someone who really doesn't give a damn about religion, someone who rejects simplistic fundamentalism, someone who thinks the answers are found by looking at the world, not praying for a revelation.

PZM,

I whole-heartedly agree with you. If it comes to communicating the empirical case for evolution, you should focus on the facts and the convergence of multiple lines of evidence. And as far as evolutionary biology is concerned, this is all that really matters.

However (and yes, you know me, of course this was coming), this assumes that the primary problem is that people have difficulty with evolutionary biology is that they do not understand the empirical case for evolution. I think this is a fair assumption in many contexts. But sometimes the mind is closed due to the belief that there is a conflict between religion and science -- where religion is of great personal importance to them -- and at that point, you may need someone to show them that this isn't necessarily the case. At this point, a religious scientist may be the best messenger.

For better or worse, I understand that about 40 percent of american scientists are religious. In some way, they manage to reconcile the empiricism which they display in their performance of science with the faith they demonstrate in the realm of religion. As far as I know, they are still good scientists, and this is all that really matters when it comes to the practice of science itself. They are, I believe, the best messengers (at least in the beginning) for those for whom religious belief is the primary stumbling block in their acceptance of evolutionary biology.

What does this mean for non-religious scientists? Not much really, except that I believe it helps to understand the personal importance which religion has for those scientists who are religious, and to permit them to perform that function which they are best suited to perform.

"So, if a member of her church assures her, without even making a single scientific argument, that evolution is not inconsistent with her religion, her schoolboard may be spared."

This is very frutiful even if it seems like conceding to an iratonal viewpoint. When people see something as a threat to what they hold (rightly or wrongly) as core beliefs they are unlikely to respond to it by listening carefully to the rational arguments. This is how the fundamentailist and evangelical groups control their congregations, make them afraid that evolution will damn them and they won't even hear the science, they will just block it out. However if they are not afraid then it may be possible to engage them in a fruitiful discussion and you might even find some common ground.

However that does not mean putting up with the rubbish and lies that so many fundamentalists and creationists spout and dribble. Irrational also comes in degrees. They need to be ridiculed every time they open their mouths. But when you get the chance to talk to someone with a religous viewpoint that is willing to accept that a history written in non-scientific times is not infallible and can be interpreted in a more modern light please take that opportunity. You might find a friend and save a mind:)

By the way what odds are the Vegas bookies giving on the Myers/Mooney tilt?

Haven't read all the stuff said:

Please feel free to pick apart my opinion: I think science needs advocates over a wide spectrum: From theists who believe in evolution all the way up to atheists who are actively (verbally) anti-religion (though not anti-First Amendment). I suspect that if the front is too lock-step unified, science will appear too dogmatic.

I'm not all that confident in my opinion, though. It involves influencing the way Fundamentalists (don't?) think.

Thought: One thing that seems to help facilitate change in my limited experience: Deal with off-brand paranormal/urban legend stuff the target audience typically considers rediculous and/or lacks a lot of emotional investment. If you can give them legitimate reasons beyond "it's rediculous" to doubt it, they might start asking themselves appropriate questions about their religion.

strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, there's nothing inherently contradictory about being a Christian and recognizing the facticity of evolution

I agree and disagree witht he above. I don't want to start a war but evolution does make Christianity somewhat less plausible. The thinking processes aside, evolution being the continuum it is means that the first 'human' was not really measurably different from it's parents. If the first human had a soul, it was then born and raised by souless vessels.

The question then would have to be asked what type of afterlife would such a being have to look forward to if it's parents/friends/family weren't there. It would also mean that Jesus himself arises from our primate ancestors. Not to mention the fact that Genesis clearly states Adam brought death into the world a view not compatible with evolution.

This is just what it means. IMHO the fundies are right on how their religion should interpret Genesis they are just wrong on the science. Apparently none of these people can accept that the chapter was written by a fellow in a prescientific age doing his best to explain the word. It's that simple. No bending or false allegories needed to rescue your faith.

Isn't it an odd aspect of human nature that we simply cannot accept an altered view of what we were taught since youth?

Well, I accept an altered view of what I was taught since youth. I went to Sunday school, I was a very good Bible pupil, and I remember my horror at stumbling on a book that described naturalistic theories of the formation of the solar system... but very early (somewhere between age nine and eleven) I broke with the church. I tried after that to have some sort of concept of God until I gave up around age eighteen, but I never, ever really felt that he was alive, like a person is. I think it's only within the last few years that I truly understood that people think God is a living being to have a relationship with.

I think it has something to do with being an authoritarian personality (i.e., needing to submit oneself to an authority and be told who you are and what to do). I was never like that, even as a kid. I went my own way, even if it cost me (and it did). Whether this is caused more by genetics or environment, I don't have any idea.

Shaker wrote:

If you have to present every scientific theory to the general public by first showing that it doesn't contradict religion(s), then you can never win over the fundies.

I don't think anything is going to necessarily win over the fundies.

Shaker wrote:

I bet everytime they will chose to listen to their preacher instead of the scientist-who-goes-to-church.

Well, if we are not talking about the fundies, then perhaps it will help to enlist the help of the preachers as well:

An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science

(We've reached our goal of gathering 10,000 clergy signatures. The next step in our campaign is outlined here.)

You might also want to checkout Evolution Sunday.

Shaker wrote:

Science should stand separate from religion.

Agreed. And perhaps both religious scientists and ministers who respect science can help those who difficulty seeing this understand in a non-confrontational way.

Shaker wrote:

And if science needs to be "sold" to the public then it should be done by showing how science help the population in general to live better lives. If the religious don't want to benifit from science of godless scientists then they can stop going to the doctor, driving their car, using their computer and go live like an Amish.

I wouldn't have a problem with that. But then again, if religious scientists can help open the door to the consideration of the evidence, I do not see why this should be a problem for anyone -- except the fundamentalists.

Incidentally, Evolution Sunday is just the sort of thing I was hoping for when several months ago, as someone who is not religious, I wrote "Religion and Science." I wasn't expecting anything like "Evolution Sunday," or for that matter "An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science," but in all honesty, when I saw "Open Letter," I went "Of course!" I might explain why a little later...

"I was just about to make a comment about one of my biggest pet peeves, when I ran into an even bigger one in the comments. Lakoff doesn't argue "like a postmodernist." He is a kind of relativist, a fact that he admits, but "arguing like a postmodernist" is so nondescriptive that it makes no sense. I wonder if the people who make that claim have ever read a single postmodernist text."

Hmmm. Chris, I usually try to stay away from making arguments on subjects I know little about. So this time I stand with my pants down and have to make some heavy contortions to avoid having you run all over my precious butt. Which I will, since you are rather roughshod. :-) And it's an opportunity to learn more, too, which was my intention in looking at Lakoff.

First, the contortions. I said I didn't knew him, but that he _seemed_ to argue like a postmodernist.

I agree that 'postmodernist' is vague, which is one of my problems with it as one of _mine_ pet peeves, but my characteristic was "removed from reality". One of the defining characteristics seems to be that it does analysis based on deconstruction of texts. Those analyses seems to be based on a challenge of 'binary opposition'. It basically starts with considering texts on a "he said, but he said" basis.

Which easily leads to a total misunderstanding of for example science, which is fundamentally based on facts instead. To quote Chomsky: "I have spent a lot of my life working on questions such as these, using the only methods I know of -- those condemned here as "science," "rationality," "logic," and so on. ... Quite regularly, "my eyes glaze over" when I read polysyllabic discourse on the themes of poststructuralism and postmodernism; what I understand is largely truism or error, but that is only a fraction of the total word count." From http://www.econopundit.com/archive/2005_07_01_econopundit_archive.html . Which BTW characterises Lakoff as "Lakoff's tolerance level for postmodernism is much higher than Chomsky's", which might be more agreable to you.

Now the learning. What in Lakoff's text isn't a polysyllabic discourse on poststructuralism? He says early: "The rationalism-behaviorism issue enters rarely if at all into actual linguistic analyses, whether transformational or structural. The reason for this is that the behaviorist vs. rationalist dispute has no necessary connection with the structuralist vs. transformationalist dispute." He gives no specific citation which could give facts. So it seems to fit both 'binary opposition' and Chomsky's description nicely.

"But the ideal messangers for science will be people who knows the science well, and can communicate it in such a way that it is undestandable to the general public, and in particular, a general public to whom educators hae done a poor job of teaching science. Individuals who can explain, for instance, how the "evolution is just a theory" camp is a wrongheaded as the "Lakoff argues like a postmodernist" camp."

How endearing! And probably wrong - evolution is about natural science and its facts, Lakoffs arguing is likely a matter of judgement on a vague cultural concept and difficult to find texts. Roughshod, indeed.

I hate to be the one to have to actually defend Lakoff, but what Lakoff is doing looks nothing like what, say, post-structuralist philosophers do, much less what run-of-the-mill critical theorists do (though Lakoff has apparently become popular in some lit crit circles, and there are actually conceptual metaphor theorists doing literary criticism). Now, the typical person who cries "po-mo" when he or she sees something he or she doesn't like will, in justifying that nonsensical accusation, take a quote out of context. It's true that Lakoff is using polysyllabic words, but if you find me one scientific article that doesn't, let me know. Are they all "po-mo" too?

Lakoff's making a point about the relationship between a long-standing philosophical and psychological debate, the rationalism-behaviorism, or idealism-empiricism, and a less long-standing, but still old debate in linguistics, between transformational approaches to grammar (Chomsky) and structuralist approaches to linguistics. Both of those camps are part of scientific linguistics. In fact, Chomskyan linguistics grew out of structuralist linguistics. I would bet, though I can't tell for sure since you've taken the quote entirely out of its context, that Lakoff is discussing the fact that while structuralism grew out of behaviorism, and transformational grammar is a distinctly rationalist approach, when it comes to everyday linguistic analysis, the debate is pretty much irrelevant. How is that "po-mo" again?

Heh! I mean't to say that "the matter of Lakoff's arguing is likely to be a judgement about if he is using a vague cultural concept and with difficult to find texts", but the original text may be correct too - if he is using it.

Anyone who's taking more than 2 undergraduate linguistics courses would know what Lakoff is talking about in the passage you quoted.

Now, as for Lakoff's political analysis, I think that, at least in Moral Politics, he does an OK job of explaining the technical concepts with which he's working. In fact, I think one reason for Lakoff's popularity, even before the publication of Moral Politics (Metaphors We Live By is probably one of the better selling cognitive science books) is that he's quite good at stating things very simply. I think many cognitive scientists think that his views are actually far too simplistic, even. I know I do.

Anyway, if "I don't know what he's talking about" means "he's a postmodernist," I suppose that after I read one of Dr. Myers' scientific publications, and don't understand large portions of it (not being a biologist), I can call him a postmodernist?

I find the whole notion that there's a group of "moderates" who need "convincing" by this sort of careful rhetoric to be completely detached from reality. People aren't undecided in the sense that they need to hear a convincing argument, they're undecided in the sense that they don't care either way. You win these sorts of fights by giving people a reason to get behind you, which usually means either giving them cause to think they'll look stupid if they don't or getting them angry. Someone like Dawkins can do that better than someone like Miller.

Ooops! Crossposting here!

"the typical person who cries "po-mo" when he or she sees something he or she doesn't like"

Usually I go "bad dog!". But that's me. :-)

"in justifying that nonsensical accusation,"

I think I have explained why its not nonsense for me, at this time. Unfortunately, your entire first sentence is. Not enough context for me yet.

"take a quote out of context."

I gave the context; it's the first text of Lakoff I found, and it was the start of a "he said, but he said" discussion.

"It's true that Lakoff is using polysyllabic words, but if you find me one scientific article that doesn't, let me know. Are they all "po-mo" too?"

I think the point are the frequency of polysyllabics. But it's not enough of a characteristic by itself. Did I say so?

"I can't tell for sure since you've taken the quote entirely out of its context"

Uuups! Sorry, the link was the original one, forgot to append. ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/9956 )

"Lakoff is discussing the fact that while structuralism grew out of behaviorism, and transformational grammar is a distinctly rationalist approach, when it comes to everyday linguistic analysis, the debate is pretty much irrelevant."

Yes, I think that could be it. He ends with promoting his generative semantics. And while I can't find any facts from his references, I find a description of generative semantics in Wikipedia that shows that it was substantive research. Thank you for your clarification of these concepts.

"How is that "po-mo" again?"

Well, he said structuralism was outdated. "Poststructuralism", get it? ;-) Actually, that and the beginning was what lead me astray.

Okay, so now I know that Lakoff is not a postmodernist. He merely _seems_ to argue like one at first glance. ;-) Bad enough, but not enough to reject him entirely.

Returning to the original debate, I will start with another of my pet peeves. It is not doable to apriori "separate religion and science", unless religion backs off from all factual claims. This is naturally because science is a (group of) method(s) that we can vaguely define (observations, reproduction, theories, verifiable, falsifiable) but doesn't know what it will describe apriori, except that it will be grounded in facts.

I think it's better to acknowledge that conflict, as most here do. It isn't like religion hasn't this problem with all realitybased activities. I don't see how to avoid the conflict either. Ironically, it's more of a separation to argue science on it's merits instead of by the equivalent of "science apologetics".

More crossposting.

"Anyone who's taking more than 2 undergraduate linguistics courses would know what Lakoff is talking about in the passage you quoted."

Why do you think I knwo anything about linguistics, Lakoff or postmodernism, except the pitance I try to learn on the web? My goal is mostly to avoid postmodernism, since "he said, but he said" doesn't necessarily get to the facts. See the citation from Chomsky...

"Anyway, if "I don't know what he's talking about" means "he's a postmodernist," I suppose that after I read one of Dr. Myers' scientific publications, and don't understand large portions of it (not being a biologist), I can call him a postmodernist?"

You know very well that I had reasons for my naive characterisation. If you misconstrue my easily recognisable attempts to learn as a carte blanche to be stupidly rude instead of informative, you can as well be silent because it's misdirected.

I understand the positition of people who advocate the politically expedient stance of "you can hold whatever religious beliefs you like and still believe in or support the teaching of evolution." I think the resistance to it we see from a lot of people here underscores a fundamental political weakness of the left (and perhaps scientists in particular) compared to authoritarianism and the right. The right stays on message, rarely break ranks, and speak and act with total confidence. The left is inherently pluralistic, and it's hard to convince critically thinking scientists or atheists that political expedience should be a driving force in choosing what to say or how to say it.

It's so weird that science/atheism/the left are the ones cast as the exclusionary group in this situation. The left's tent is a lot bigger (though less crowded) and is a much more tolerant environment. We are welcoming of religious people, people of ANY religion I might add. But here's the catch: you can't impose your personal beliefs on others. (Also, the lesser known bylaw you can't just make shit up to support your freaky ideology.) And that's the kicker, and that's what this fight has to be about...not just the narrow issue of teaching science in science classes.

I'm sure many Americans could be brought into the "religion and evolution are reconciliable" camp with the right tepid non-confrontational unified message and lots of money...we are nothing if not frighteningly malleable under the hands of able marketers. Hammering home the party line just isn't what we do well, because there isn't a party line, there is a plurality of opinion.

Finally: SEED, YOU BASTARDS. OMFG I must have been one of the first people to subscribe to this magazine several years ago...I paid for two years in advance and received a grand total of two issues. Apparently, changing addresses was too mind-blowing for them to deal with, despite several letters and who knows how many emails. All unanswered. Several actually bounced back as undeliverable. I've finally given up, thanks for nothing, assholes. They can produce a magazine and run a web site but the subscription department can't handle an address change or reply to email? Pathetic

Hmmm...maybe this shoulda gone to Mooney's blog...will crosspost.

Perhaps Lakoff's technical works have some solid merit, but what he writes for the general public is tactically inferior to beginners' salesmanship manuals from a generation ago and politically more vacuous than a small-town Rotary Club luncheon speech for National Secretaries Day. That Democrats seem so drawn to him can only be explained by their general attraction to mediocrity - but that in itself still needs explanation...

Re: Lakoff
Torbjorn Larsson wrote:

Why do you think I knwo anything about linguistics, Lakoff or postmodernism, except the pitance I try to learn on the web?

Postmodernism isn't exactly my strong point, either. I am a bit more traditional in my outlook, and while I like much of the emphasis upon practice that I see in postmodern or existentialist thought, I believe that at least for the individual, practice must be grounded in theory, in the individual's grasp of the world. I suspect that Lakoff overplays the role of metaphor. In terms of my own approach, I would also argue that epistemic norms (which are concerned with how we ought to arrive at knowledge) necessarily have priority over ethical norms (which are concerned with how we ought to act), and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this would be a point upon which Lakoff takes an opposite view. (If anyone more familiar with Lakoff would like to enlighten us on this matter, I myself would be interested. However, in either case, I intend to look into his thought more on my own free time.)

Moreover, for the most part, I would prefer to stay out of politics. Personally, my focus is on evolutionary biology, the Separation of Church and State, and related matters, at least for the time being. And prefer keeping my issues fairly focused, as this gives me the chance to deal with those who may disagree with me on a great many issues, but who I am likely to find considerable agreement with on those issues which I consider most important.

However, with that said, I believe that there are things which one may be able to learn from Lakoff even if one ultimately objects to his fundamental theoretical framework. I believe that he is correct in viewing certain unarticulated metaphors as playing an important role in politics, and in terms of much of the emphasis which he places on how issues are framed and how they are perceived. At a certain level, I see him as stressing the importance of being able to "speak to the context" of those who one wishes to work with, even when the do not necessarily share all of one's fundamental premises. To do this, however, one must understand what their context is. Moreover, speaking to someone's context does not necessarily involve any form of dishonesty, rather, to be effective, particularly in the long-run, I believe it must be honest, but it involves being able to emphasize those points which one is in basic agreement on with one's audience, and being able to put in terms that they will understand.

In any case, that will have to be my two cents (or perhaps only 15 mills) on Lakoff for the time being.

GH quoted the following:

strict, literalist interpretation of the Bible, there's nothing inherently contradictory about being a Christian and recognizing the facticity of evolution

GH then responded:

I agree and disagree witht he above. I don't want to start a war but evolution does make Christianity somewhat less plausible. The thinking processes aside, evolution being the continuum it is means that the first 'human' was not really measurably different from it's parents. If the first human had a soul, it was then born and raised by souless vessels.

Less plausible? Perhaps. It may depend upon what a religious individual or church regards as allegorical as opposed to literal. If, for example, some near-fundamentalist abandons YEC in favor of OEC by taking an allegorical understanding of what is meant by days, then what else might be taken allegorically? For those Christians who accept evolution or who at least adopt some form of theistic evolutionary approach (how tenable that is will greatly depend upon whether or not they think there is any evidence for this view as opposed to naturalistic evolutionary biology), they may view the story of the garden and the flood as containing certain important truths regarding the relationship between their god, that god's creation, and humanity, or perhaps the individual. And this may differ from individual to individual and church to church. How exactly this is related to their understanding of the "human soul" and its immortality will no doubt be subject to variation as well. But that is an issue which is best left to those who are religious.

Returning to the original debate, ...

Sounds good. I suspect this is where the interests of most people will lie, including largely my own.

I will start with another of my pet peeves. It is not doable to apriori "separate religion and science", unless religion backs off from all factual claims.

Agreed, more or less. I think what we are most concerned with at this point with respect to Christianity itself is simply the story of the garden and the story of the flood. I would leave other points for another time. And in truth, we certainly do not have to focus on even the garden or the flood and how these would have to be interpretted allegorically or what they mean. If you are not Christian, then it really isn't your concern. Leave religion to the religious.

This is naturally because science is a (group of) method(s) that we can vaguely define (observations, reproduction, theories, verifiable, falsifiable) but doesn't know what it will describe apriori, except that it will be grounded in facts.

I think it's better to acknowledge that conflict, as most here do.

Ok. How about this? Emphasize the importance of the Separation of Religion and Science -- and how it is essential to the preservation of a pluralistic society in which people people of different religions are still able to speak to one-another regarding the same objective, empirical reality. Emphasize the importance of the Separation of Church and State, and how this is important in terms of the preservation of religious freedom for all. Take the time to point out the fact that the Intelligent Design movement was begun by an individual (Phillip Johnson) who denies that HIV causes AIDS. Take the time to point out that Dembski believes all scientific theories must be grounded in Christ. Take the time to point out that much of the funding for the Discovery Institute comes from Dominionists, and that the a Dominionists largely believe they should take over, establish a theocracy, and exterminate anyone who disagrees with them. I should think that this will establish some form of commonality with most.

It isn't like religion hasn't this problem with all reality-based activities. I don't see how to avoid the conflict either. Ironically, it's more of a separation to argue science on it's merits instead of by the equivalent of "science apologetics".

I think science --or to be more to the present point -- evolutionary biology needs to be defended on various fronts. A very important part is obviously the merits. Another important part for many concerns the relationship between the acceptance of the factuality of evolution and their personal religious beliefs, beliefs which they may regard as very fundamental to defining who they are. Leave them and those who share their beliefs (e.g., religious scientists and clergy who accept evolution) the room and the time in which to sort out the issues which are of importance to them. (If you do that, I won't insist on a detailed analysis of "The Critique of Pure Reason" by the beginning of next week.)

;-)

Torbjorn, clearly you and I differ, in that if I didn't know much about two things (say, postmodernism and modern linguistics), I wouldn't be comparing the two, since I wouldn't have the knowledge to be able to align them.

Anyway, I think Pierce is right in a way. While I don't believe Lakoff's conceptual metaphor theory has any real scientific merit at this point, and while I think framing analysis can be very beneficial, I don't think the way that Lakoff has been implementing it, particularly in his post-Moral Politics writings, is much better than Marketing 101. In fact, I'm not sure it's anything more than that, at this point. He seems to have lost what I thought was his original focus: understanding people's representations and choosing one's wording appropriately.

cross-posting:

Here are two short posts I really liked, but in reverse chronological order.

Phobos wrote:

It seems to me that the "ideal messenger of science" would be someone expressing neutrality toward religion (or perhaps curiosity) until the point where it becomes necessary to reject a faith-based explanation in a scientific debate. But I agree that, politically, someone like Miller can reach more people in this national debate. In a public debate, the more neutral messenger would have one less distraction to face (i.e., quote-mined statements about personal beliefs in God).

Personally, I think we need different messengers for different tasks. As long as the major sticking point for people even opening their minds to evolution consists of their religious beliefs, we can expect them to react defensively and without much rationality on the topic of evolution vs. creationism. If they do not feel as if their religious beliefs (which they may regard as being fundamental to defining themselves) are under attack, they are more likely to rationally consider the evidence for evolution -- rather than learn how to recite creationist arguments. Once they have begun to actually consider the evidence for evolution, the religious will undoubtedly be willing to listen to others regarding the scientific issues regardless of religious affiliation.

MissPrism wrote:

What I think matters most is that messengers make it clear which "hat" they are wearing - in other words, when they are speaking as scientists, and when they are speaking as atheists or Catholics or whatever - and don't expect their expertise in one field to carry much kudos in another (even one which they regard as nonsense).

What I especially like about this is that there isn't any reason why anyone (most especially including the Rottweiler of evolution) should have to muzzle themselves. (Yep -- I think he is just to damned brilliant to gag!) However, when people begin mixing evolutionary biology and their own personal ideologies or philosophies (showing how their personal philosophies grow out of their understanding of science, or showing how their religious beliefs are compatible with their understanding of science), they should make this clear. A little disclaimer to the effect of "in my own personal view" or even "in my view" should probably be enough. This won't prevent the quote-mining, but it should help as it can be pointed out at least after the quote-mining.

However, I think it would help everyone involved if we try to keep the rhetoric to a low roar. If you are preaching to the choir, heavy-handed rhetoric might be just the thing. However, if for example you actually intend to get people to consider your views on religion when they do not already agree, the most effective way would be to approach the topics in a cool, calm manner. The alternative is likely simply to make people feel like they are being attacked, put them on the defensive, and cause them to shut down as far as their ability to listen to you is concerned -- if not actually drive them to support those whom you oppose.

(cross-posting)

Gerry L. wrote:

Ideal messenger? "Ideal" is a relative term. We non-theists don't need a Miller explaining the evolution to us. But if his religious credentials allow him to be heard by an audience that is suspicious of science, great. I don't think anyone is saying the Millers of the world have to be the only spokespeople for evolution. They're the warm-up act.

Exactly. What is "ideal" really depends upon the context. I don't think that Miller, for example, would necessarily go over that well at some Protestant churches. For some people, clergy who accept evolution may be the opening act. This might be followed by religious scientists (in the US, approximately 40 percent of all scientists are presumably religious). Others might skip immediately to the religious scientists, or go immediately to the science itself. It depends upon their context. But oftentimes, just to get people to react non-defensively, you need for them to realize that there are scientists who aren't simply gunning for their god or taking potshots at their most personal beliefs.

(cross-posting)

Joseph O'Donnell wrote:

One thing I admire about Professor Meyers, is at least he isn't the kind of person that you find on the "ID side" of things. He doesn't say one thing to one audience and then another to an entirely different one. That consistency and honesty of what position he holds is much better than trying to 'pretend' he doesn't have a problem with religion (when he does). I happen to disagree with his views that evolution isn't compatible with my particular religion, but at least he's direct and honest about what he thinks.

I admire PZM's directness and honesty as well. However, sometimes I think diplomacy is better -- so long as it doesn't involve dishonesty. I personally don't care what an individual's religious beliefs are -- so longer as they recognize that science should be independent of an individual's religious beliefs, and so long as they recognize the Separation of Church and State. Give me that much, and I generally just don't care. Personally (and at the risk of offending just about everyone), I regard religious beliefs or philosophical beliefs as essentially superficial -- what matters is the individual, how they choose to live, and how they choose to interact with others. The rest, from my perspective, is pretty irrelevant.

Timothy,

On your first post. "At a certain level, I see him as stressing the importance of being able to "speak to the context" of those who one wishes to work with, even when the do not necessarily share all of one's fundamental premises."

Now that I know more about Lakoff, I think that may be a correct statement of his ideas. "Context" is a bit vague, but I agree that it can be seen in its effects, as you speak of here:

"I believe it must be honest, but it involves being able to emphasize those points which one is in basic agreement on with one's audience, and being able to put in terms that they will understand."

Which I of course agree with.

Timothy,

I forgot some more interesting parts.

"I like much of the emphasis upon practice that I see in postmodern or existentialist thought,"

That is a definition I will remember. I have so far seen long (polysyllabic) texts which seem to be based on an obsession of identification of binary oppositions. Which I don't think is a useful approach to get in touch with facts.

"I would also argue that epistemic norms (which are concerned with how we ought to arrive at knowledge) necessarily have priority over ethical norms (which are concerned with how we ought to act)"

That seems sensible. A natural model for that would be to look at science. Science ethics are now appended to science methods. Of course, I can see situations there ethical concerns for patients or test animals or future generations takes priority, but normally your ordering seems to be the best.

The problem with "selling" science to people on its fruits (computers, etc.) is that we never know what scientific findings will make it to technology, never mind to artifacts. In other words, we don't want a narrow pragmatism, since the broad base of basic science is required for the artifacts in question. This is apparently being felt keenly in the pharmaceutical industry where much more basic biochemistry is needed to develop the next generation of drugs, and it isn't available because everyone was funding at the wrong level. (See my website for papers on the science-technology distinction if the subject interests you.)

Timothy,

On your next post. "Leave religion to the religious." Sound advice, including deists, agnostics, and atheists, I guess.

The program you propose, here and in your following posts, are good. Taking you up on honesty would mean that it must be said that we expect the separation line between science and faith to go between factual claims and faith claims. Otherwise there is, or may be, a conflict.

Now comes the iffy part. PZ and others seem to think that then is left of religion is superfluous, silly, and a bad influence to boot. It's outside the science as such but an effect of how it and religion behaves. Even though appending "in my view" it's hardly diplomatic. But honest.

I guess it comes down to politics in the end. Your program is based on science as such, in everyones view. PZ's program is based on the effects of science, in his view. That said, I think PZ makes a good case for that there need to be messengers who are free from religion to put both messages out to the public. Both are worth it.

Uups! Last two Anonymous messages are mine.

Chris, "Torbjorn, clearly you and I differ, in that if I didn't know much about two things (say, postmodernism and modern linguistics), I wouldn't be comparing the two, since I wouldn't have the knowledge to be able to align them."

I don't think so. As I said, I usually try to stay away from making arguments on subjects I know little about. I tried to make a quick assessment of Lakoff, and I didn't see that any of his chategories mentioned in the beginning existed as real linguistics (transformationalist, structuralist).

Structuralism is a general approach... And I have had the (mis)fortune to learn both my native language and english before grammar entered into it, so my knowledge of linguistics is nil. (Well, actually I have heard of and read some on Chomsky's generative grammar for some reason, so maybe I should have guessed that was transformationalism, and not "generativism". Chomsky's name was mentioned a lot.)

So I didn't really made comparisons. In my naiveté I merely saw that he discussed binary oppositions, and took it from there.

Perhaps I should have phrased my assessment as a question, but the provocation learned me some about Lakoff, linguistics and postmodernism, which of course was the intent. (Well, linguistics was the seasoning in that pot.) I'm merely opposed to the effectiveness of teacher spanking students bottom, it's distracting during lectures. :-)

That said, I see that you, I, Pierce and perhaps Timothy, seems to agree that Lakoff's politics may be lacking.

Ooops - "categories". Bad manners to make spelling errors when discussing linguistics...

Holy Zarquon's flying fish!

Is this where "framing" started?