Bit of a kerfuffle over at DramaBlogs ScienceBlogs, in the wake of PZ Myers’s visit to a screening of Ben Stein’s new anti-evolution movie, Expelled. PZ apparently signed up online for tickets to a screening (under his own name), but upon arrival he was recognized by the organizers, and asked to leave. Expelled from Expelled! It’s the 21st century, we all have to re-calibrate our irony meters. Adding to the fun was the fact that the rest of PZ’s party was allowed to continue in to see the movie — and among the friends he had dragged along was Richard Dawkins, who was apparently not recognized. This is too delicious a story to pass up, and it’s already been reported in the New York Times and elsewhere.
But not everyone is amused, even on the pro-science side. Chris Mooney complains that the controversy gives a huge boost, in the form of priceless publicity, to Expelled and its supporters. People who never would have heard of the movie will now be curious to see it; the filmmakers are already gloating about all the attention.
I think that Chris is right: this is publicity for the movie that they couldn’t possibly have received any other way, and PZ and Dawkins are basically doing exactly what the filmmakers were hoping for all along.
And they should keep right on doing it.
To understand why, consider the much more intemperate response by Matt Nisbet, Chris’s partner in the Framing Science game. They have been exhorting scientists to communicate more effectively by framing issues in a way that resonate with their audiences. This sounds like very good advice, and in fact kind of obvious and uncontroversial. But when ask to give examples, Chris and Matt often choose Richard Dawkins as their poster boy for what not to do. Personally I think that Dawkins has been very good for the cultural discourse overall, but Matt and Chris fear that his avowed atheism will turn people against science, making things easier for folks who want to fight against evolution in public schools.
In his post, Matt is perfectly blatant: PZ and Dawkins are hurting the cause, and should just shut up. When called up by the media, they should decline to speak, instead suggesting that the reporter contact someone who can give the pro-evolution message in a way that is friendlier to religion.
As you might expect, neither PZ, nor Dawkins, nor any of their ilk (and I count myself among them) are likely to follow this undoubtedly well-intentioned advice, as this pithy rejoinder demonstrates. The heart of the difference in approaches is evident in the analogies that Matt brings up, namely to political campaigns:
If Dawkins and PZ really care about countering the message of The Expelled camp, they need to play the role of Samantha Power, Geraldine Ferraro and so many other political operatives who through misstatements and polarizing rhetoric have ended up being liabilities to the causes and campaigns that they support. Lay low and let others do the talking.
When Chris and Matt talk to the PZ/Dawkins crowd, they do a really bad job of understanding and working within the presuppositions of their audience — exactly what framing is supposed to be all about. To the Framers, what’s going on is an essentially political battle; a public-relations contest, pitting pro-science vs. anti-science, where the goal is to sway more people to your side. And there is no doubt that such a contest is going on. But it’s not all that is going on, and it’s not the only motivation one might have for wading into discussions of science and religion.
There is a more basic motivation: telling the truth.
What Matt and Chris (seemingly) fail to understand is that PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are not trying to be successful politicians, persuading the largest number of people to come over to their side. They have no interest in being politicians. They are critics, and their goal is to say correct things about the world and argue against incorrect statements. Of course, they would certainly like to see evolution rather than creationism taught in schools, and ultimately they would be very happy if all of humanity were persuaded of the correctness of their views. But their books and blogs about science and religion are not strategic documents designed to bring about some desired outcome; they are attempts to say true things about issues they care about. Telling them “Shut up! You’ll offend the sensibilities of people we are trying to persuade!” is like talking to a brick wall, or at least in an alien language. You will have to frame things much better than that.
Politicians and critics often don’t get along. And the choice to be one or the other usually comes down more to the personality of the individual rather than some careful cost-benefit analysis. (You know that PZ will be regaling youngsters with the story of how he was expelled from Expelled for decades to come.) I’m very much in the mold of a critic; one of my first ever blog posts was why I could never be a politician. It’s easy enough to tell the difference: even if a critic knew for a fact that a certain true statement would harm their cause politically, they would still insist on saying it.
But one stance or the other is not better nor worse; society very much needs both politicians and critics. The job of a critic sounds very lofty — speaking truth to power, heedless of extraordinary social pressures and the hooting condemnation of a benighted populace. But if everyone were a critic, it would be a disaster. We need politicians to actually things done, and (in the rare instances where it is carried out with integrity) the role of a politician should be one of the most honored in society. A gifted politician will understand the contours of what is possible, and work within the constraints posed by the real world to move society in a better direction.
However, we also need critics. If everyone were a politician, it would be equally disastrous. In Bernard Shaw’s famous phrasing, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” The perfect can be the enemy of the good, but if we don’t have a loud and persistent chorus of voices reminding us of how far short we fall of perfection, we won’t work as hard as we can to get there.
And we should hardly be surprised that bloggers and polemicists tend to be critics rather than politicians. We should have people out there selling evolution to skeptical listeners who might be committed to religion and suspicious of science. But that doesn’t mean that sincere voices who believe that thinking scientifically sends you down the path to atheism should be told to shut up. Without stubborn critics who refuse to compromise on their vision of the truth, our discourse would be an enormously poorer place.
Ali:
You’re the umpteenth person I’ve seen make a complaint like this. And just like the previous umpteen-1 complainers, you give us scarcely any clue as to what exactly you think it is that Dawkins is missing, let alone why it is important.
If you have something useful to contribute to the debate – maybe you have, but it certainly isn’t obvious from your comment – put it on your blog and give us a link.
And I’m afraid that comments such as yours are like a complaint over a broken clock being met by a supercilious reply that the complainer is insufficiently familiar with the history of clepsydras.
@Jud (#25):
Dawkins certainly isn’t, but Myers throws around things like “demented f*ckwit”, “f*ck you” and “f*ck off” quite a bit. Never without good reason, mind you…
Just to let you know where my point of view is coming from, I’m a biologist, and I explained evolution to my own children when they were in elementary school to give them a more balanced view than they were getting in school. They don’t argue with others about evolution, they just logically explain points that can’t be denied. The way they do it gets others to think. It’s not an “in your face you idiot” approach, its a “well this just makes sense” approach.
I think your “DramaBlogs” makes a good point. Right now this looks more like a football game than science. PZ scored one for the team and then was given a penalty for “excessive celebration” by some other blogs.
I don’t know PZ personally but I have read his blog and comments from him on other peoples blogs. I can’t help but wonder if he was actually recognized when he was at the screening. Could, perhaps, they instead have noticed his behavior and language? Might he have been making disparaging comments about the other people there or religion in general? I honestly don’t know the answers to this. Only he and those with him could say. However, the thought popped in my head based on his posts.
Why is this important for me to know? Because, if they didn’t recognize him and ask him to leave because of who he was, but instead because of how he behaved, all of this will make scientists who are enraged that he was “expelled” look very silly indeed.
In a word: no. I gather you haven’t seen any of PZ’s videos or heard his radio talks. He is in person a very mild-mannered and quietly-spoken person. He is also, when addressing a general audience, almost as gentlemanly as Dawkins. It’s only on his blog that he sometimes plays the incendiary dragon, because he knows that much of his audience there appreciates it.
I can hardly believe that we are still having this discussion. Exactly which century did you people in the U.S. get left behind in?
Jud wrote (#25):
>
> I don’t think it’s PZ’s and Dawkins’ manner or tone that’s bringing them in for criticism, but rather the very substance of what they’re saying.
In Britain it may be precisely Dawkins’ tone that detracts from his message. G B Shaw, quoted by Sean, also famously said “In England it is impossible for a person to open their mouth without someone else despising their accent”, and that holds true to some extent even today.
In his TV appearances Dawkins comes over to many as supercilious and superior, not just in the content of his speech but in his very tone of voice and precise clipped accent and his sour faced demeanour.
Dawkins also seems to “try too hard”, and to many especially in Britain this shrill insistence, and dwelling so long on something he disdains, is suspect(shades of philosopher Sir Francis Bacon’s quip to the effect that if atheists care so little for religion then why should it trouble them?)
Hitchens has a different image problem: We all (even rational scientists)pigeonhole people, sometimes unfairly, and where Dawkins is marked down by many as a “smug git” Hitchens is widely seen as the archetype of a “grumpy git” and as a result his impassioned outbursts taken with a large pinch of salt!
Mind you, their TV appearances have at least got them noticed and their names recognized, and their books have thus been more influential.
Here is an excellent introduction on why it is difficult to correct society’s incorrect understanding of evolution
http://www.newcomensengine.com/2008/03/why-it-takes-long-time-for-society-to.html
I have a college-age friend who is recovering from a religious education and still very unsure about God, atheism, and all that. She is currently reading Hitchens’ God is not Great. While she doesn’t agree with all of it (who does?), she’s really enjoying it and finding it very enlightening. She thinks it’s very straightforward and honest, in comparison with her schooling.
In the end, people who are truly blinded by their faith aren’t going to be persuaded by much of anything, and for people who are ready to think a bit, there’s nothing very offensive in these books, even Hitchens, who is somewhat more acerbic than Dawkins.
And, of course, Hitchens, Dawkins, PZ, and all are framing; they’re asking their readers whether they want to be counted with the backward dupes or with the enlightened rationals. Maybe it’s not as nice, but I’ll be damned if it’s less effective.
Just a quick summary of some good points made by folks above: I agree that “shrill” and contemptuous activists mostly harm whatever good could otherwise come from their cause. If you care about a cause, you know that your first responsibility is to make a good case in a mature way, and above all appeal to moderate, wavering observers. Your major responsibility is not about entertaining and throwing red meat to your most rabid supporters in the manner of Rush, Ann Coulter, etc. Dawkins, PZ, et al must come across to many in “the audience” somewhat like Rev. Wright when unleashing as he sometimes did. (BTW, critics of him avoid the issue of how often he sounded like that, likely not much but I wouldn’t know…)
Replying to a couple of the comments re my comment above (#25 unless things get rearranged):
Gregory Earl mentions that PZ sometimes uses profanity on his blog. True, but profanity doesn’t strike me as a predominant note in his posts. (Not that I would describe his written tone as mild, though Stephen (#29) is quite correct that you’ll find him surprisingly soft-spoken and courteous if you listen to or watch audios/videos of him.)
John Ramsden says Dawkins’ manner comes across as superior in Britain. I can certainly see that possibility, as his accent and manner strikes even this American as upper-class. I would not, however, describe his demeanor as “sour faced.” Those interested may want to check out on YouTube a very funny exchange Dawkins had with Neil de Grasse Tyson over the issue of how science education might best be done (or more accurately, Tyson’s polite criticism of Dawkins that the latter wasn’t going about it the right way).
I continue to adhere to my main point – that the characterizations of PZ and Dawkins are more negative than their manners strictly deserve due to the contents of their messages.
Since 2009 will be the sesquicentenary of the publication of Origin of Species (and the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth), this discussion reminded me of the Origin’s centenary, the major conference for which was held at the University of Chicago (anthropologist Sol Tax had started planning for it in 1955, and had the bright idea of courting Sir Julian Huxley; a retired academic, Huxley was feeling neglected and was glad to be courted. And he knew everyone.)
As a kid in Chicago at the time, I avidly read the press coverage of the conference. Especially highlighted were remarks by Huxley — I wish I had ready access to the Chicago Daily News, where I read about it, but that paper hasn’t been digitized. However, quotations taken from the Chicago Tribune (Nov. 27, 1959) may serve:
“In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for supernatural beings capable of affecting the course of events” Huxley said.
“The earth was not created. It evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body.
“So did religion. Religions are organs of psycho-social man concerned with human destiny and with experiences of sacredness and transcendence.
“In their evolution some, but by no means all, have given birth to the concept of gods as supernatural beings endowed with mental and spriitual properties and capable of intervening in the affairs of nature, including man.
“They are organizations of human thought in its interaction with the puzzling, complex world with which it has to contend – the outer world of nature and the inner world of man’s own nature.
“In this, they resemble other early organizations of human thought confronted with nature, like the doctrine of the four elements, earth, air, fire, and water, or the eastern concept of birth and reincarnation.
“Like these, they are destined to disappear in competition with other, truer, and more embracing thought organizations which are handling the same range of raw or processed experience.
“Evolutionary man can no longer take refuge from his lonliness by creeping for shelter into the arms of a divinized father figure whom he has himself created, nor escape from the responsibility of making decisions by sheltering under the umbrella of divine authority, nor absolve himself from the hard task of meeting his present problems and planning his future by relying on the will of an omniscent, but unfortunately inscrutable, Providence.”
Naturally, Huxley’s speech was assailed in letters and columns; most of the opposition suggested that Huxley’s concepts of theology were uninformed, much as many of Dawkins’s opponents do. Obviously Huxley was speaking not as a politician, but as a critic, and thus offended many.
But the impact, at least on me as a 13-year-old, was liberating and exhilerating.
I suspect, and hope, that Dawkins, Myers, and others have similar impacts on kids today.
The only reason people are upset with what Wright had to say is simply because nothing outrages some people more than to have the truth stated to them bluntly.
There’s no cure for that. You either live in the truth and live with a certain percentage of people being intolerable in the face of it, or you give in to the lie and help spread it to please them while enduring their complaints that you arent thankful enough for the privilege.
You cannot use reason to bring to the side of reason those who have rejected reason. You just have to ignore their whining and forge forward.
I think your “DramaBlogs” makes a good point. Right now this looks more like a football game than science. PZ scored one for the team and then was given a penalty for “excessive celebration” by some other blogs.
PZ and Dawkins definiitely did score one for the team, but that may be balanced them both looking a little silly for having been duped to appear in the film in the first place. If they had been more careful, there might not be much of a film to talk about.
Sean, I agree wholeheartedly! Thanks for the analysis.
Jud, Dawkins’ accent is neither upper class (nor lower class, as you can probably guess 😉 ). You would recognize upper class if you heard it; it is much more exaggerated.
jeff, both PZ and Dawkins were misled about the purpose of the film. It was sold to them as Crossroads, even though the producers already knew it was going to be called Expelled…
This all sounds eerily familiar.
This is exactly of what happened to to Dr. David Albert and other esteemed scientists in the making of “What the Bleep do We Know”. Take them out of context, promote the film and in the end no one is the wiser. These people don’t care about the truth or understanding anything. Pick your battlegrounds because this is one you will not win.
The two great scientific-religious conflicts of the past 500 years both resulted in the diminished power of the religious authorities of the day.
The study of astronomy first took the Earth from the center of the Universe, to a secondary position around the sun, which itself became just one star in a galaxy of a hundred billion stars, and that galaxy, in the 20th century, just became one among another 100 billion galaxies in our known universe. So much for the special role for human beings in Creation, and for the authority of God’s special agents on Earth.
The study of evolution, i.e. the inheritance of genetic information (as pioneered by Gregor Mendel), also reduced the authority of religious powers. Evidence showed that creatures had evolved slowly, over millions of years, not suddenly. In the 20th century, radioactive dating (based on physical laws and quantum mechanics) and DNA sequencing and other molecular studies proved conclusively that all life on Earth is related, shares a basic biochemistry (more or less), and evolved from common single-celled ancestors that lived on the planet over 3 billion years ago. Personally, I think that’s a more glorious and remarkable ancestry than to be popped out of a hat overnight.
As a result of all that (and nuclear weapons), in some sense the public now tends to view scientific authority with the same kind of awe (or doubt) that medieval citizens had for The Church. Just as with the priests, some scientists have misused their mantle of authority in order to enrich themselves, or to support some ideology or other. However, science has a good record of exposing any frauds pretty quickly (unlike religion).
Perhaps Dawkins and Myers should spend more time explaining science to the public – such as going over radioactive decay, how we can use it to date objects. We also just had a uniquely large gamma ray burst from 7.5 billion years ago, which is hard to fit in with a six thousand year old universe. There are hundreds of examples of biological evolution in action as well: Snakes Versus Newts In The Evolutionary Arms Race (of course, Myers and Dawkins do discuss such things)
The fear of the religious theologians is that Dawkins and friends are arguing for Social Darwinism in human affairs, i.e. the Darwin-inspired concept of eugenics that was so popular in the U.S., Britain and Germany in the early 20th century, and which inspired “racial purification”. It’s a valid concern, and scientists should make a point of repudiating eugenics.
However, that’s all 19th century mentality. Science makes no claims about what the best form of human society is – that’s up to everyone to decide. As far as the issue of evolution, the scientific evidence is itself the best argument.
ike wrote: Perhaps Dawkins and Myers should spend more time explaining science to the public – such as going over radioactive decay, how we can use it to date objects.
Why? They’re biologists, not experts in radiocarbon dating; supporters of young-Earth creationism deny the validity of radiocarbon dating; and the old-Earth variety of Intelligent Design adherents have no argument with radiocarbon dating.
The fear of the religious theologians is that Dawkins and friends are arguing for Social Darwinism in human affairs, i.e. the Darwin-inspired concept of eugenics that was so popular in the U.S., Britain and Germany in the early 20th century, and which inspired “racial purification”. It’s a valid concern, and scientists should make a point of repudiating eugenics.
Social Darwinism != eugenics. Eugenics was not “Darwin-inspired.” It is not a “valid concern.” Rather it’s propaganda that evolution denialists continue to use (apparently they do so again in “Expelled”) despite scientists repeatedly pointing out that neither historically nor currently does support for the science of evolution equal support for eugenics.
Pingback: Why I rarely go Scienceblogs.com anymore « Clastic Detritus
Well, I’m of two minds about this or that brawl in which P.Z. Myers happens to find himself. As an unbeliever, and an American unbeliever rather tired of the free pass religion so often gets in this country, I want to hear and see more criticism of religion–and not just in the print media.
Nonetheless, I’m not convinced that religion is so consistently contemptible as Myers evidently thinks it is. Convinced as he is (or striking the pose that he does), he mostly approaches the subject with a sneer–and this can get very tiresome after a while. Nor, while he is sneering, insulting, and ridiculing, am I entirely convinced that I’m witnessing nothing but your high-minded critic, rigorously demanding the truth.
Why do some scientists insist on continuing to get involved in these useless debates with the anti-science types? As any physicist who has made the mistake (which usually happens only once) of responding to a crank’s email expounding on his great new Theory of Everything based on Helices (to give one example) can confirm, the more you engage someone like that, the more you give them validation. Some blame for the current mess surely must lie with the scientists who continue to agree to appear in public debates with anti-science types. I am thinking in particular of the common U.S. media device of pairing each proponent of a reasonable view with a proponent of the diametrically opposite view, no matter how rabidly wrong, as if they were comparable.
By debating them, you are acting as if their views mattered. By acting as if they mattered, you are making them matter.
It is so much more difficult, but would be so much more productive, to just ignore the bastards.
Anon,
I totally agree. Our dog starts ripping up newspapers when my wife is on the phone. The behaviorist said it is nothing more than attention getting behavior and any response positive or negative is going to reinforce that behavior. The thing to do is ignore it and when he gets no response, he will eventually stop.
Seems like this might be applicable here as well.
e.
Anon in #45: Please note that the handful of cranks spouting their theories of everything and perpetual motion power devices are not the same as mainstream religion. Cranks have little influence on the rest of our lives, usually. Each of the mainstream religions, however, can mobilize large populations of people and change laws that do affect us. That is a good reason to counter their messages early and often.
That’s my take, anyway.
JBS
Ali in #10: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php
I worked in astrodynamics for a number of years, in particular with how to get a spacecraft from Earth to say mars. Imagine a scenario where a program manager is hiring up some engineers to send a $250 million probe to a Lagrange point (tricky navigation and the WMAP was placed at one) or to rendevous with a comet. Some candidates are interviewed for the job of astronavigation, and it turns out that one of them is a geocentrist. This person thinks that the Earth is at the center of the solar system, and there is a small community of people who adhere to this! Should this person be hired? Similarly, should a person who thinks the Earth is flat be hired as an air traffic controller?
The thesis of the Expelled movie is that Creationism is expelled from the scientific community. Fortunately the geocentric crowd is not big enough to make a fuss against physics & astronomy departments, but if they were big they would make the same cry of discrimination. Evolution is the central backbone of biology. It is with the recent development of genetic cladistic measures of evolutionary distance become a tool. The isozymes of different proteins and their genes are being mapped and used to research so called designer drugs. Evolution is becoming an applied science! Genesis is a mytho-poetic framing of the world in a mystical context and what truth there is in this is not of a scientific nature, it is not a matter of scientific research.
Lawrence B. Crowell
Sagan was a respected and famous best sellingvoice for science and reason. Gould was a respected and (somewhat less famous) best selling voice for science and reason. Need I point out that Dawkins himself is a respected and famous best selling voice for science reason? All three were also famous athiests, combative with religion in their own ways, and at least as far as Sagan and Gould were concerned, their athiesm did nothing to hurt their credibility with the mainstream. Dawkins may be better known as a rabble-rouser than as a scientist, but that does nothing to change the fact that he has written best-selling scientific defenses of athiesm. That he and PZ should not be considered acceptable candidates to carry on the tradition that Sagan and Gould started is completely ridiculous.
The simple fact of the matter is this: before this weekend, I had heard of neither Chris Mooney nor Matt Nisbet. Myers and Dawkins, however, were well known to me. In light of this, I’m not entirely sure that Mr. Mooney or Mr. Nisbet are particularly capable of becoming popularizers of science. Drs. Myers and Dawkins are already famous. I see no reason why they shouldn’t continue to use their fame.