Unfortunately, I won’t be appearing on Bloggingheads.tv any more. And it is unfortunate — I had some great times there, and there’s an enormous amount to like about the site. So I thought I should explain my reasons.
A few weeks ago we were a bit startled to find a “Science Saturday” episode of BH.tv featuring Paul Nelson, an honest-to-God young-Earth creationist. Not really what most of us like to think of as “science.” So there were emails back and forth trying to figure out what went on. David Killoren, who is the person in charge of the Science Saturday dialogues, is an extremely reasonable guy; we had slightly different perspectives on the matter, but in the end he appreciated the discomfort of the scientists, and we agreed to classify that dialogue as a “failed experiment,” not something that would be a regular feature.
So last week we were startled once again, this time by the sight of a dialogue between John McWhorter and Michael Behe. Behe, some of you undoubtedly know, is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, and chief promulgator of the idea of “irreducible complexity.” The idea is that you can just look at something and know it was “designed,” because changing any bit of it would render the thing useless — so it couldn’t have arisen via a series of incremental steps that were all individually beneficial to the purpose of the object. The classic example was a mousetrap — until someone shows how a mousetrap is, in fact, reducibly complex. Then you change your choice of classic example. Behe had his butt handed to him during his testimony at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial over teaching intelligent design in schools; but embarrassment is not an arrow in the ID quiver, and he hasn’t been keeping quiet since then.
John McWhorter is not a biologist — he’s apparently a linguist, who writes a lot about race. In any event, the dialogue was hardly a grilling — McWhorter’s opening words are:
Michael Behe, I am so glad to meet you, and thank you for agreeing to do this. This is one of the rare times that I have initiated a Bloggingheads pairing, and it’s because I just read your book The Edge of Evolution from 2007, and I found it absolutely shattering. I mean, this is a very important book, and yet I sense, from the reputation or the reception of your book from ten-plus years ago, Darwin’s Black Box, that it may be hard to get a lot of people to understand why the book is so important.
I couldn’t listen to too much after that. McWhorter goes on to explain that he doesn’t see how skunks could have evolved, and what more evidence do you need than that? (Another proof that belongs in the list, as Jeff Harvey points out: “A linguist doesn’t understand skunks. Therefore, God exists.”) Those of us who have participated in Bloggingheads dialogues before have come to expect a slightly more elevated brand of discourse than this.
Then, to make things more bizarre, the dialogue suddenly disappeared from the site. I still have very little understanding why that happened. The reason given was that it was removed at McWhorter’s behest, because he didn’t think it represented him, Behe, or BH.tv very well. I’m sure that is the reason it was removed, although I have no idea what McWhorter was thinking — either when he proposed the dialogue, or while he was doing it, or when he asked that it be taken down. Certainly none of we scientists who were disturbed that the dialogue existed in the first place ever asked that it be removed. That feeds right into the persecution complex of the creationists, who like nothing more than to complain about how they are oppressed by the system. And, on cue, Behe popped up to compare Bloggingheads to Stalinist Russia. But now the dialogue is back up again — so I suppose old comrades can be rehabilitated, after all.
But, while none of the scientists involved with BH.tv was calling for the dialogue to be removed, we were a little perturbed at the appearance of an ID proponent so quickly after we thought we understood that the previous example had been judged a failed experiment. So more emails went back and forth, and this morning we had a conference call with Bob Wright, founder of BH.tv. To be honest, I went in expecting to exchange a few formalities and clear the air and we could all get on with our lives; but by the time it was over we agreed that we were disagreeing, and personally I didn’t want to be associated with the site any more. I don’t want to speak for anyone else; I know that Carl Zimmer was also very bothered by the whole thing, hopefully he will chime in.
It’s important to understand exactly what the objections are. (Again, speaking only for myself; others may object on different grounds.) It’s too easy to guess at what someone else is thinking, then argue against that, rather than work to understand where they are coming from. I tried to lay out my own thinking in the Grid of Disputation post. Namely: if BH.tv has something unique and special going for it, it’s the idea that it’s not just a shouting match, or mindless entertainment. It’s a place we can go to hear people with very different perspectives talk about issues about which they may strongly disagree, but with a presumption that both people are worth listening to. If the issue at hand is one with which I’m sufficiently familiar, I can judge for myself whether I think the speakers are respectable; but if it’s not, I have to go by my experience with other dialogues on the site.
What I objected to about the creationists was that they were not worthy opponents with whom I disagree; they’re just crackpots. Go to a biology conference, read a biology journal, spend time in a biology department; nobody is arguing about the possibility that an ill-specified supernatural “designer” is interfering at whim with the course of evolution. It’s not a serious idea. It may be out there in the public sphere as an idea that garners attention — but, as we all know, that holds true for all sorts of non-serious ideas. If I’m going to spend an hour of my life listening to two people have a discussion with each other, I want some confidence that they’re both serious people. Likewise, if I’m going to spend my own time and lend my own credibility to such an enterprise, I want to believe that serious discussions between respectable interlocutors are what the site is all about.
Here’s the distinction I want to draw, which might admittedly be a very fine line. If someone wants to talk about ID as a socio/religio/political phenomenon worth of study by anthropologists and sociologists, that’s fine. (Presumably the right people to have that discussion are anthropologists or sociologists or historians/philosophers of science, not biochemists who have wandered into looney land.) If someone wants to talk to someone who believes in ID about something that person has respectable thoughts about, that would also be fine with me. If you want to talk to a theologian about theology, or a politician about politics, or an artist about art, the fact that such a person has ID sympathies doesn’t bother me in the least.
But if you present a discussion about the scientific merits of ID, with someone who actually believes that such merits exist — then you are wasting my time and giving up on the goal of having a worthwhile intellectual discussion. Which is fine, if that’s what you want to do. But it’s not an endeavor with which I want to be associated. At the end of our conversations, I understood that my opinions about these matters were very different from those of the powers that be at BH.tv.
I understand that there are considerations that go beyond high-falutin’ concerns of intellectual respectability. There is a business model to consider, and one wants to maintain the viability of the enterprise while also having some sort of standards, and that can be a very difficult compromise to negotiate. Bob suggested the analogy of a TV network — would you refuse to be interviewed by a certain network until they would guarantee to never interview a creationist? (No.) But to me, the case of BH.tv is much more analogous to a particular TV show than to an entire network — it’s NOVA, not PBS, and the different dialogues are like different episodes. There is a certain common identity to things that BH.tv does, in a way that simply isn’t comparable to the wide portfolio of a TV network. Appearing for an hour-long dialogue creates connection with a brand in a way that being interviewed for 30 seconds on a TV news spot simply does not. If there were a TV show that wanted me on, but I had doubts about their seriousness, I would certainly decline (and I have).
And heck, we all have a business model. I’d like to sell some books, and I was really looking forward to doing a BH.tv dialogue with George Johnson when my book came out — it would have been a lot of fun, and perhaps even educational. But at the end of the day, I’m in charge of defending my own integrity; life is short, and I have to focus on efforts I can get completely behind without feeling compromised.
Having said all that, I’m very happy to admit that there’s nothing cut-and-dried about any of these issues, and I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who feels differently and wants to continue contributing to BH.tv. The site provides a lot of high-quality intellectual food for thought, and I wish it well into the future. These decisions are necessarily personal. A few years ago I declined an invitation to a conference sponsored by the Templeton foundation, because I didn’t want to be seen as supporting (even indirectly) their attempts to blur the lines between science and religion. But even at the time I admitted that it wasn’t an easy choice, and couldn’t blame anyone who decided to go. Subsequently, I’ve participated in a number of things — the World Science Festival, the Foundational Questions Institute, and BH.tv itself — that receive money from Templeton. To me, there is a difference between taking the money directly, and having it “laundered” through an organization that I think is otherwise worthwhile. Not everyone agrees; Harry Kroto has expressed deep disappointment that I would sully myself in this manner. And that’s understandable, too; we all have to look at ourselves in the mirror each morning.
So, on we go, weaving our own uncertain ways through the briars of temptation and the unclear paths of right and wrong. Or something like that. I have no doubt that BH.tv will continue to put up a lot of good stuff, and that they’ll find plenty of good scientists to take my place; meanwhile, I’ll continue to argue for increasing the emphasis on good-faith discourse between respectable opponents, and mourn the prevalence of crackpots and food fights. Keep hope alive!
Update: Bob Wright has left a comment here. (See also a comment by David Killoren here.) And at some point soon, a more official BH.tv editorial policy will appear here.
Bob is unhappy that I left out some of the points he made in our conversation, which is somewhat reflective of the fact that we were talking past each other. I was not looking for a “pledge” of anything at all. Rather, I was hoping — and completely expecting — to hear a statement somewhat along these lines: “Of course we all agree that when someone listens to a dialogue on BH.tv, they have a reasonable expectation that both speakers are non-crackpots.” But I don’t think we do agree on that. I am personally not interested in interrogating crackpots to understand their motives; they get more than enough attention as it is, and I’m more interested in discussions between reasonable people. That’s why, unlike some of the commenters, I wouldn’t feel especially different if it had been an expert biologist interrogating a creationist. Different folks have different feelings about this, and that’s why it’s good that we have a big internet.
Pingback: Well, that was predictable | Uncommon Descent
Lab Lemming asked
It means that Behe thinks malaria was purposefully designed to kill children:
from BJKEEFE:
“To tell you the truth, one minute into watching the Behe/McWhorter diavlog when it first went up, I stopped it and went right to the comments section. I was about 75% of the way to announcing that I would no longer be participating in the site myself. (This would no doubt have come as a relief to many, but let’s leave that aside.) I decided instead to post a few links to some of the better critiques that I know about, concerning Behe’s books. That both helped me get over my mad and made me think that sometimes one has to stand up and make clear why a guest like Behe in the context in which he appeared is simply not acceptable.”
I just came across this thread and I couldn’t spend much time watching that diavlog either. As someone who has enjoyed the links you provide on many issues I was gratified to read that the excellent links you provided in the comments section made you feel better since they made me feel better as well since they added a great deal of value to the proceedings.
The fact that you posted those and many other links proves that you give a shit and giving a shit is a pain in the ass ( so to speak). It is inconvenient to still have the presence of mind to add something to a process even if that process isn’t going in the direction you would like or a direction that makes logical sense even. It’s a non-zero sum transaction in my opinion 😉
Sean and Mr. Zimmer both give a shit as well and I do not quibble with their response to these mistakes in refraining from participating in a process that isn’t going in a direction that seems to make much sense at the time. Their subsequent discussion with Mr. Wright didn’t assuage their misgivings and so they are still on the outs. I understand that indulging a debate with some ID maven is a painful experience ( ID isn’t science but a debating tactic ) and that adding some value to the proceedings is difficult. Many scientists don’t bother and since it is a free country I applaud them in their decision. I appreciated Sean and Carl’s contributions to BHTV and while I will miss them I hope that whatever they’re future plans may be successful ( something along the lines of BHTV or whathaveyou ).
For others who may be on the fence about interacting with the thorny underbrush of ignorance that resides on the other side of diavlog with and IDster I would suggest that I as a consumer of your writings gain quite a bit knowledge from your continued participation. I am not alone in this and there are plenty of people who do not regularly visit sites such as these who nonetheless gain value from it as well.
BHTV is a bit idiosyncratic and the events of the past month or so has shown that there needs to be more transparency and stricter guidelines so that the signal stays above the noise long enough to make a point or 2. I think that this will happen and I hope that in the future these kinds of problems will not escalate to the point where people of good will won’t be speaking past each other ( as sean mentioned ) so that everyone who gives a shit can enjoy a conversation.
WOW.
are all die-hard atheists such cry babies? what a bunch of snivelling prima donnas.
“oh let me have a fainting spell because people expressed views that i don’t agree with”, what crap.
I’ve been exposed to many worthy scientists through BH.tv that i would not have otherwise known about. The fact that you are so deeply embedded in your little academic cocoons that you don’t see the value of educating people that might not agree with every one of you views is really sad.
that venting aside, y’all really aught to come back and keep educating interested people with your amazing intellects, if there is a crime here, its your refusal to share your insights and ideas with as many people as possible.
yours truly,
Dr. Z
p.s. sorry for the venom, but this decision is pretty incomprehensible to me.
@thouartgob:
Thanks very much.
@Z:
What you call being a “crybaby” many of us call “having principles and sticking to them.” As I said in the forums over at Bh.tv in response to a comment similar to yours:
There is a struggle going on right now for the intellectual hearts (if that’s not too much of an oxymoron) and minds of this nation and this world, between the attitude that wants to move out of our superstitious ways and the attitude that wants to cling to religious belief as privileged above all else. Each of us draws our line in a different place. You can disagree with the location, but to belittle that the line is drawn at all is either to be unaware of the stakes associated with this struggle or it is to be a squish, where “all points of view are equally valid.” Both Sean and Carl feel the latter is an unacceptable attitude, and see the former as significant, and I agree with them.
Your comment suggests you fail to understand that {creationism/IDiocy}-as-science is not a worthy point of view. People who have spent enough time engaging with creationists already know this.
Robert Wright’s comments again show that he simply doesn’t understand the point. Wright said he’d like, for example, a Dawkins-Behe debate. Dawkins, as many other scientists concur, will not debate creationists. They shouldn’t be given room at the table of scientific discussions.
I would expect this to be true of any publication/service that wants to be taken seriously by the scientific community.
Does BH.tv let flat Earthers debate geologists? Or does such a stupid discussion belong only in the area of biology?
But what’s done is done.
I think BH.tv can move on from this, but not ignore the mistake. Why not have two biogists discuss this issue and the importance of evolution for understanding biology? Surely, BH.tv can find two that are willing to discuss this issue to put it in the past.
Sean,
I am a long-time BhTV viewer, have enjoyed your diavlogs, and do wish you would reconsider. I do understand your frustration. However, I believe providing Behe with a forum does him no favors, despite what he may think.
All the best,
Josh
Brian Mingus wrote:
Indeed. I was doing editing that sophisticated, the better part of a decade ago. I’m sure it’s gotten easier since then.
Bloggingheads comes with an audience, I suppose, but then again, you can get eyeballs from Reddit.
Pingback: Zimmer and Carroll say adios to Bloggingheads | Science News
Pingback: Zimmer and Carroll say adios to Bloggingheads | The Atheist Mind
“WOW.
are all die-hard atheists such cry babies? what a bunch of snivelling prima donnas.
“oh let me have a fainting spell because people expressed views that i don’t agree with”, what crap.”
p.s. sorry for the venom, but this decision is pretty incomprehensible to me.
People are equal, in as much as anyone can be equal. Ideas (views), however, are not and at some point one has to acknowledge that by participating in a conversation with someone whose ideas are proven horsesh*t you are not helping but elevating that horsesh*t to the illusion respectability.
If you aren’t going to think or speak rationally there is little point wasting breath giving you a forum to speak in. Our time is better spent making our argument to those that haven’t closed their minds to science. ID proponents have nothing to add to the conversation, they just need the conversation to continue so they are not forgotten.
That you would find this incomprehensible is either hyperbola, or an admission of your inability to distinguish argument from discussion or science from BS.
Good luck to you
Uhm, not that I particularly want to increase their traffic, but uncommon descent has a post from Paul Nelson adding some more fuel to some kind of fire.
David Killoren, is what he conveys of your thoughts accurate, and in context? Did you change your mind at some point about the merits of the Nelson BH?
Sean, I tend to agree with your post, but I’m confused about your update. I think it’s somewhat reasonable for Wright to expand upon your phone conversation, whether you were talking past each other or not.
And why put `pledge’ in scare quotes? (Oops, I’ve just done it, too.) Doesn’t what you *did* want amount to a pledge that all future BH speakers will be non-crackpots? Otherwise I’m not sure what you mean by reasonable expectation. Considering we’re talking about two incidents out of many, someone clicking randomly is unlikely to find one of them. What you (and probably me) want is a pledge that BH won’t feature crackpots, which is fine—you just didn’t get it from Wright.
Pingback: Standards for discussion and the bloggingheads.tv controversy « Bradley Monton’s Blog
boreds,
First of all, in my time working for BhTV, I’ve sent out hundreds of thank-you emails to BhTV participants. The point of those emails is to express gratitude to people who have worked for free to give us a diavlog. The point is not to offer a thorough critique of participants’ efforts.
But second, there’s no inconsistency here. Nelson has me saying that “this conversation is really fascinating on several levels.” That’s consistent with my current belief that setting up the diavlog was a mistake.
Sean, your beef seems to be with “non-serious ideas,” but I would have thought that as someone involved in educating nonscientists you would frequently come up against non-serious positions, and attempt to the best of your ability to dispel them and offer more serious alternatives. Isn’t that a big part of the science educator’s job description? So what’s so special about non-serious ideas concerning the existence of a personal god who causally influences the physical universe (assuming they are non-serious)? If no such god exists, then given that such a large percentage of humanity believe in such a god, isn’t humanity in very great need of public instruction on the matter? But if so, what serious pedagogical principles dictate education by isolation, ostracizing, mockery, etc? None I’m aware of. In my view the Dawkinsesque position of refusing to engage with religious believers (call them “creationists” if you must) about evolution, or science more generally, is deeply flawed. If doing so is not your cup of tea, then fine. But someone needs to do it. Consequently, it seems quite wrong for one to criticize and disassociate oneself from publications, websites, organizations, etc. that promote and encourage such interaction. Sean, please reconsider coming back to BhTV (and pass this on to Carl too).
Uh… mvantony, there is a difference. Dawkins and Sean (and most of us here!) know this. That is why they don’t call all religious people “creationists.”
Telling Sean (and Dawkins) to “call them creationists, if you must”! is obnoxious… and downright stupid. And it suggests you need to read up on some of their writings.
My apologies if I offended you or anyone else. I admit to not being up on all the distinctions between different forms of creationism, and between creationist and non-creationist religious belief in a (non-deist?) personal god. I should read up on it. But I don’t see how any of this affects my point. Sean’s example of a non-serious idea in his post was belief in an “ill-specified supernatural ‘designer’ [who] is interfering at whim with the course of evolution,” and I described the position somewhat more neutrally and generally as belief in “a personal god who causally influences the physical universe.” (I assume Sean’s inclusion of “at whim” is inessential.) It’s people who hold that position that Sean believes shouldn’t be given a platform to express it on BhTV, if I understood him correctly, and it’s those people I had in mind with my (imprecise) use of “religious believers,” and who I was arguing need to be engaged with. Whether that position is properly called ‘creationism’ or not doesn’t seem to matter, so far as I can tell.
IDers and creationists purport to believe in things which contradict widely accepted theories supported by vast amounts of evidence, without offering any credible evidence of their own. IDers and creationists do not ever accept the challenge of the evidence which contradicts their beliefs. Instead, they repeat their invalid claims in any forum which will allow them to speak. That’s why there is no point in “debating” them. A proper debate should offer the hope that either side might be correct, or at least have valid points to make.
Wouldn’t the best way to get rid of ID to expose it on venues like bhtv?
Get someone like PZ or Abbie to interview Behe. I am sure he would agree as long as they also have to support their claims.
It is easy actually- you refute ID by actually supporting the claims of your position!
Not engaging IDists just makes the public wonder what you are afraid of.
Just goes to show how terrified the Temple of Darwin is of having Darwood’s unscientific creation myth exposed. What a bunch of cowards.
As Dawkings and Steve Gould once said, they (IDists) are not interested in debating. They are interested in being on stage with people, scientists of weight. They want to be able to say, hey, I took on Dawkins! He didn’t lay a glove on me! The hopelessly religious are not swayed by reasoned debate.
It is a no-win situation for PZ, Dawkins, et al.
And by the way, ERV offered to go on BhTV and take on Behe. She was ignored apparently!
@ #70…
Were human beings created exactly as they are about 6,000 years ago?
Joe G:
“Wouldn’t the best way to get rid of ID to expose it on venues like bhtv?
Get someone like PZ or Abbie to interview Behe. I am sure he would agree as long as they also have to support their claims.”
I’m sure he’d run away, just like Dembski did in Dover.
Speaking of Dover, the trial transcripts show how Behe does when confronted by real scientists: He got his ass handed to him.
JoeG: “Get someone like PZ or Abbie to interview Behe. I am sure he would agree… ”
No, he wouldnt. Several people have offered to mediate a ‘debate’ between us over the past couple of years, and Behe has always told the moderators to f*ck off. In the meantime, Behes gotten older and dumber, the field has moved forward exponentially, and Ive learned more and more… I wasnt even in grad school when I wrote that critique of ‘Edge’.
No, I honestly dont expect him to accept, but I did expect the BHTV crew to ask.
I have this great mental image of McWhorter ripping off his rubber mask to reveal ERV facing Behe.
Yeah, yeah, too much Scooby Doo….