Last March, the Washington Post's Shankar Vedantam reported on research which showed that, in one interviewee's words, "We are really bad about putting ourselves in other people's places and looking at the world the way they look at it." We tend to quickly assign base motives to our opponents and lofty ones to ourselves and our allies. Vedantam concluded:
It is important to note that the[se] experiment[s] do[] not establish which ... is true. It is possible ... that everything you believe about [your opponents'] motives is true and everything that your opponents believe is false. But a number of studies suggest people ought to be cautious about such conclusions. Studies have found, for example, that people believe that those who disagree with them are less informed and that those who agree with them are better informed.
What are we to do with such insights?
Vedantam is arguing for a version of civility in which there is no such thing as evidence, in which, as he puts it, it does not matter "which version ... is true." [...]
What Vedantam fails to recognize is that the purpose of civil discourse is to allow us to find the truth together. Facts matter. Matter matters. Believing, or presuming, "the worst about those who disagree" should be avoided because it is uncharitable and unjust, but it also should be avoided because it is a distraction from the consideration of the facts of the matter. The motives, feelings and attitudes of those who disagree with me are not, to begin with, the substance of our disagreement.
This is my objection to Dr. Myers take on Gallup's poll on evolution.
Upon seeing that religious people (and Republicans) reject evolution, he stated that religion is "dedicated to delusion." It is a classic instance of this uncharitable approach to opponents. There is no doubt that rejecting evolution is incorrect, and an institution which focuses on attacking and undermining demonstrably true things could be fairly referred to as one "dedicated to delusion." Hence my lack of respect for organizations like the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers, to name a few.
To label religion like that is an error, though. That label, like Orac's comment that evolution-rejecting Republicans are "either ignorant or simply care far more about what their religion says than what science says," suggests that there is only one discourse under way. Evolution supporters root view evolution through the lens of scientific hypothesis testing, and assume that evolution rejecters are looking at the issue the same way, evaluating the evidence, and then intentionally rejecting it. There may be instances of such dishonesty, but imputing that level of hackery to half of our fellow citizens is a dangerous and dubious practice.
My reading of Gallup's poll and my discussions about evolution with religious people all suggest that evolution rejection is not rooted in a concern for the scientific discourse, but in concerns over the philosophical implications of the science. The mechanical details of how bipedalism evolved are of little interest to most people in and of themselves. They are interesting only to the extent that bipedalism is a marker for our intrinsic humanity. Discoveries about evolving brain size, tool use, abstract reasoning, ritual burial - these all serve as signifiers of some quintessence of humanity, not as the interesting and contingent historical events that scientists see them as.
If the question we are trying to answer is "what is humanity" and "how did we acquire our unique form of existence," the ability of science to answer the question becomes limited. The contingent process of evolution can tell us something about the path that evolution took, but whether that path was inevitable, and what philosophical consequences that might have, are questions not within the scope of biology. Those questions are of great interest to the public. The biological account of how those traits that make us distinctly human evolved are certainly related to those philosophical issues, and the public gets confused.
Part of the problem is that scientific details are notoriously fuzzy. Chris Mooney, in an editorial written with Dr. Beth Jordan describes "news headlines, presenting bewildering and often conflicting information" and they comment that "Surveying this turmoil is a weary public, unclear what to think as research conclusions seem to change and contradict one another with disconcerting frequency." Scientists are trained to see past the fluctuating details to the solidifying structure of knowledge, but to the public, it can be difficult to see the persistent forest as trees are cut down and new ones grow. That's why a poll in March found that 39% of the public does not think that "the scientific theory of evolution is well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community," 13% are unsure, and a mere 49% know the truth, that evolution is as close to uniform acceptance within science as any other theory, and has accumulated a massive wealth of evidence.
Understanding what questions the public is trying to answer can help them answer the question. Rather than assume people are intentionally deluding themselves, let's assume that we have failed to communicate, perhaps even to establish a common framework for a discussion. This doesn't excuse anti-evolution rhetoric. As slacktivist points out, "Convictions based on evidence do not violate the presumption of innocence."
The anti-evolutionists assume evolution is an attack on religious belief per se, and that evolution is an assault on morality and perhaps even the roots of society. By failing to recognize that evolution is a scientific claim focused on evidence, not a philosophical claim, they push the conversation onto ground other than the actual science. Some of them do so dishonestly, others just buy into it because they think everyone is talking about the issues that matter to them. Those people can be reached, if we can get them to shift the conversation. Only then will they be able to appreciate the evidence that actually exists.
- Log in to post comments
Here here. Finally, someone reasonable.
The truth is, refusing to see something from someone else's point of view is not only unreasonable, but can have disasterous consequences. For instance, considering the point of view of those who commit terrorist acts by some is discouraged and considered "blaming America," but only by doing so are we able to theoretically prevent such acts. Similarily, demonizing creationists is not productive from the perspective of furthering our views. It is productive at creating cohesiveness within a group- but that is not what we need. What we need are solutions.
Agreed. Additionally, nobody in the history of the human race has ever made a friend by belittling people. I'm all for taking down the Discovery Institute, killing Sam Brownback's chances at election, etc., but the real goal here is to win the hearts and minds of the people. Calling them deluded and ignorant is not going to help. If anything, we need to show the religious right that we too, care about God, we just do so by critically observing his Creation rather than literally interpreting the Bible. Offer educational programs to preachers and priests. Heck, tell them that God dumbed down the creation story because He knew nobody would understand evolution back then.
Okay, that's a bad idea. My point is, ease people into understanding evolution, and assure them that scientists are their friends. Waging a war of words on half the population is not going to convince anybody.
Still, you have to admit those creationists can be pretty darn wacky with a lot of their ideas..........
I am sympathetic to the argument that ridicule and derision of false beliefs may not be an effective tactic to persuade people of the error of their ways.
But after reading your post, I am still left wondering what specific steps would cause more people to accept the science of evolution. By the way, while 68% of Republicans did not believe in evolution, neither did 40% of Democrats. That's not much of an achievement.
If people are rejecting truthful descriptions of the world because such desciptions conflict with a mythically or philosophically-based, wishful view of the world, then these people are not rational. Rational people can recognize that, for example, saying "I wish I had a thousand dollars in my pocket" does not change the world to comply with this wish.
When irrational behavior affects laws, foreign policy, research funding, education, and overall public discourse, etc., there's a responsibility to call such irrationality exactly what it is.
Nevertheless, you raise good points about framing the discussion so that people understand that accepting history, biology, physics, etc. generally does not demand changing one's philosophical values.
The people who think evolution makes philosophical claims and is a threat to religion don't have to look further than car bumpers to feel validated: Darwin Fish anyone?
I think we need to clarify some terms and boundaries for the conversation. I suspect many respondents to the gallup poll don't bother to differentiate between evolution and natural selection.
To deny evolution is to deny empirical observation, thus terms like "delusional" seem warranted. The philosophical argument arises when discussing the mechanism and intent of evolution. Natural selection is a theoretical construct (hello philosophy!) built upon the empirical fact of evolution. To claim that the inevitability (or its opposite) of the path of evolution is not within the scope of biology is bizarre. Natural selection asserts clearly that the observed course was just one of many possible paths. More significantly, if you believe that humans were the goal of evolution, you possess a dramatically different philosophy (supernatural) than those of us who believe that humans are merely the result of evolution (natural materialism).
Ho hum. Another attempt to make excuses for stupid ideas.
Look: I am not assuming that people have carefully weighed the evidence and come to a conclusion contrary to reason. Quite the contrary, I know that the evolution denialists haven't had the slightest trace of education on the basic facts. It is equally absurd to claim that they have "concerns over the philosophical implications of the science." "Philosophical implications" are not even on the radar in this argument.
In fact, these people have had a lifetime of miseducation and lies, and they have been subject to the cheap slogans and fraudulent promises of their preachers. That isn't an uncharitable assessment, that is reality. The problem is not with scientists failing to communicate, it is with religious liars undermining our attempts to communicate.
Evolution supporters root view evolution through the lens of scientific hypothesis testing, and assume that evolution rejecters are looking at the issue the same way,
But that's the only way to look at scientific opinion or theory. We aren't debating national health care where I could (but shouldn't) dismiss my opponent as a greedy cold-hearted idiot and he dismiss me as a freeloading mushbrain.
Believe me, I bend over backwords trying to see my opponents point of view at every turn.
But when the issue is one of science the only issue is "is xyz what is physically there"? This is like debating how many ice cubes in the freezer. If I insist there are eight and you insist there are twelve I can't assume anything about you except that you are wrong and I am right.
My reading of Gallup's poll and my discussions about evolution with religious people all suggest that evolution rejection is not rooted in a concern for the scientific discourse, but in concerns over the philosophical implications of the science.
But that isn't the issue. The issue is "Did Evolution Happen or not". One can no more reject this over the philosophical implications than one can reject the number of ice cubes in the freezer over the implications.
Now in some scientific debates one side might assume the other is being stupid or irrational when in actuality there may be other explanations of the evidence, the evidence itself may be in question, or the participates may have been ignorant of parts of the evidence.
This really isn't the case with evolution though.
To get to the heart of the question as to why one side answers "did evolution happen" as "yes" and another as "no" without name calling the other side as "idiots" or "deluded" we should address how we evaluate that we believe we know what we think we know. I actually heard a rather sane and rational creationist on NPR a few weeks ago who said his first basis of believe is the bible is literally true and he must and always believes that and his observations and reason must conform to it. Well, I have to give him credit for his frank honesty. He was earnestly questioning evolutionists conclussions when evolution (as he incorrectly saw it) wasn't reproducible or testable. This seemed like clutching at hope beyond reason to me.
So what can one say about the "other side" when their assumptions are "bible first, observation second, reason third" and your side is .... something else? Well, if I feel a need to be polite than "dedicated to delusion" may not be tactful. But it really isn't inaccurate.
All science can really offer is the truth...data, facts, reality. If people reject that much, there is little more that science can do.
And people DO reject the premise that evolution happened. They really DO think it takes more faith to believe that than it takes to believe religious fundamentals. Go figure, but that's the way it is.
I agree with PZ and would add that at some point people who've been misdirected from reality their entire lives by self-serving acolytes must, at some point, still be held responsible for their own ignorance.
Thanks for this post. It is very insightful and goes a lot further than (I think) most are willing to go with the issue. I have to both agree and disagree with PZ Myers comment that, "The problem is not with scientists failing to communicate, it is with religious liars undermining our attempts to communicate." True, there is a lot of effort to create dissonant noise so that hard-working people cannot rely on any source for honest information. It is also the case that we ALL need to do a better job at communicating, not just scientists. There's no reason to separate scientists into a class by themselves. That's part of the perceived problem isn't it? However, scientists and others do need to do a better job of getting out there and making an effort to translate their ideas and finding into language, images, and meaning that everyone can grapple with.
That's what the post is about, right� Creating and leveraging empathy? In the design disciplines (and I mean this is the human-process sense, not the supernatural), empathy is a key skill to have if you are developing anything from can openers to public-school curricula. For whom do these things, ideas, and processes matter and how can you gain their perspectives?
I've been reading Scott Page's book "The Difference" in which he describes his proof for why diversity in groups matters. One of the ways he explains the differences among perspectives (one-to-one mappings of reality to an internal language) is based the landscape metaphor. Different perspectives have more or less rugged landscapes depending on how well they align with reality (more rugged=greater mismatch). It stands to reason that translation between different perspectives (either because of empathy or some mediator) can systematically help to bring different perspectives into closer alignment.
Now the question is who can translate? What kinds of translation already exist?
While I agree with PZ that me must call a spade a spade here, I also think it is important to distinguish between what we think and what we do about it.
Though I or we may personally think that creationism or religion is patent nonsense, and the people who espouse it are delusional or ignorant, saying so to them or in a public forum like this, pretty clearly only adds fuel to the fire. As Renee pointed out, it creates group cohesiveness for us to say it, and it creates group cohesiveness for them when we say it to them!
Instead, we must think tactically. What should one do about the fact that people choose to believe in magic and fairy tales, particularly the smartest and best educated of them? Call them stupid? No. We must fully understand the set of circumstances that led to the adoption of that point of view, be it apathy or utter coersion, and then delicately attack those institutions. Are there social costs to believing in creationism? Financial costs? Emotional costs? Personal attacks will never be effective, because there is no way to do it without calling someone stupid -- the claims are just silly.
As I'm sure is the case with many of you, I continue to live my life utterly awestruck that we live in a world where people really believe in magic. I see among my first and most important responsibilities to live my life successfully and morally, and to be both vocal and proud regarding my secular worldviews. As the number of people doing so increases, the cost of living in the dark ages will increase proportionally. At least this is my hope.
PZ: "It is equally absurd to claim that they have 'concerns over the philosophical implications of the science.' 'Philosophical implications' are not even on the radar in this argument."
I'm sorry, but sez who? You yourself noted that scientific issues are not what motivates evolution rejection. I suspect that opposition to Wilson's Sociobiology was rooted more in philosophy than in science, also. I agree with woozy and with you, PZ, that "The issue is 'Did Evolution Happen or not'. One can no more reject this over the philosophical implications than one can reject the number of ice cubes in the freezer over the implications."
This is the old "is-ought" distinction. People shouldn't reject scientific ideas because of philosophical objections, but they do. We can't reach them with the empirical evidence until we address those other issues, and those issues aren't in the conversation.
I don't know what "stupid idea" you think I'm making excuses for. Saying that this is how people are approaching the issue does not excuse it, any more than E.O. Wilson meant to excuse philandering or racism.
I said in no uncertain terms that "There is no doubt that rejecting evolution is incorrect, and an institution which focuses on attacking and undermining demonstrably true things could be fairly referred to as one "dedicated to delusion." Hence my lack of respect for organizations like the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers, to name a few." Nothing there about excusing that behavior.
PZ writes: "The problem is not with scientists failing to communicate, it is with religious liars undermining our attempts to communicate."
Can it be both? Can it be that we are communicating in ways that are especially easy for certain people to undermine? GHarp is right that we need a way to translate between the scientific mindset and the mindset of religious followers. I don't yet know how to do that, but the answers in the Gallup poll at least give us some hints.