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.
mk: you are correct. in debating a strictly environmental issue (like removing a dam) you are not dealing with people whose opposition is primarily driven by religious doctrine. good call.
But by the same token, even people who are motivated by a religious doctrine are willing, at some level, to listen to differing opinions and are open to new information, new evidence, new analogies and new explanations. Deep down, even adults still have a kid in them, and that kid is curious about what makes the world tick and why.
A good analogy might be a defense attorney facing a hostile jury. Think of yourself, the scientist or science educator, as trying to convince the jury to adopt your position that your client should be acquitted. Even if you know the jury is lopsided as hell against you, you have to give it your best shot. Your job is to find out what particular argument or analogy might create a little spark in one of them — just one.
I know it’s unfair and not right that basic science seems to be always being put on trial — but that’s the cultural milieu we live in. Science itself is a revolutionary concept and a revolutionary mode of thinking. Just look at how savagely a lot of mid 20th century geologists fought against the “ridiculous” theory of plate tectonics (John McPhee’s book “In Suspect Terrain” describes a particularly comical encounter with an anti-plate tectonics diehard).
Creationism canāt be lent legitimacyāit already has legitimacy. It needs to be actively de-legitimized. That canāt happen when smart, authoritative people walk away from the issue.
Thank you. Well said.
Do not quit. Challenge those guys at a bloggingheads duel. Science needs to be explained. If they will not [want to] understand even simple things that for you are obvious, you should do your best at explaining them; there will be others who will understand. Do not say things like āI wouldnāt even discuss with such stupid peopleā. Explain every tiny thing with patience, show respect to your opponent and to their supporters. Be patient, and maybe they will be the ones to quit.
Tfagn, if you cannot find excellent discussions and explanations of your questions online then you haven’t looked. It’s that simple. Try talkorigins as a good starting point.
@ERV: I’d pay for that cage match between you and Behe. After those two bhTV diavlogs and that podcast with Karl Mamer, I don’t understand why you can’t get paid for your performances.
Does this mean Jennifer Ouellette – someone else who should get paid for showing – judging from her comment here, won’t appear on bhTV either? Sean, Carl…Abbie…Jennifer? These two diavlogs have called into doubt any hope I have for the blogosphere. As I wrote on Zimmer’s blog, the Science Saturday diavlogs have helped me both to understand thorny methodological issues with direct bearing on my own social science research and just to define my own opinions about evolution and cosmology. And, just to see and hear people whom I admire talk so articulately and honestly about these issues is inspirational.
How about a podcast project between the four of you?
Thank you, Professor!
Attention people bawwwing at Sean/Carl for bailing:
1– According to The Worlds Most BESTEST communicator of science, Chris Mooney, scientists shouldnt be debating woomeisters anyway. Huurrr duuuuur.
2– You all seem to be under the impression that woomeisters will ‘debate’ scientists in the first place. Yes, there are attention whores who will do anything to get on stage for an hour (Ive debated several for the lulz), but Dembski/Behe/et TARD have no intention of ‘debating’ any scientist. I have been *actively trying* to debate Behe for *over two years*. But he doesnt want to debate me. He wants to get his Jimmy sucked by McWhorter. Dembski? He lives in Dallas. Been to OKC tons of times. He doesnt want to debate me. He drove up to OKC to get his Jimmy sucked by Michael Ruse.
So stop bitching at Sean/Carl for ‘running away from the problem’, when these oh-so-educational debates were never going to happen in the first place. Never. Whether Sean/Carl wanted them or not.
Good for you Sean. Debating outlandish theories and wishful thinking has its place, and well moderated debates of this kind can be a useful educational tool, but in excess it is merely an impediment to human progress. I applaud you for taking a stand.
ERV–
I’m not bitching at Sean for refusing to debate. I’m not even bitching at him for implying, “You’re silly so I’m not dealing with you.” I’m bitching at him because he’s implied, “You’ve allowed other people to engage in silliness somewhere in my general vicinity, so I’m not dealing with you. Ever.” That’s a win by default for the creationists, which is of course exactly what they want.
This has nothing to do with debate. Anybody attempting a head-to-head debate with a creationist should remember “never [to] wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” Head-to-head debate only allows discussion of the merits of the issue, which is pointless, since this is a political question, not a scientific one. We don’t need debates. We need talking points. Really slick, quotable ones. And lots of articulate, credible people to plow them into the popular media, over and over.
This is the beginning of the end result of allowing one sided entertainment “news” for the past decade like Fox News get away with this type of reporting. Things like this are given credence; those who know better don’t even try to confront the people who have “faith” with actual facts because it would do no good and those who don’t know any better think this is a credible line of thought. When society accepts stupidity as an explanation for the existence of intelligence then we are all screwed. I was born and raised in Kansas where this type of crap is accepted as more fact than 2+2=4 because no one rebukes it. Everyone is careful not to call their āfaithā what it actually isā¦ stupidity. I left Kansas because I hoped to become a part of society that knew better and to let those who donāt believe in improvement stay in their current state with zero education, zero future, and nothing but hope that the God almighty will help them with their lack of faith/intelligence/future but NOOOoooo they are pulling us all back in to their corrupt, ignorant and disrespectful world that has a mass acceptance of religion instead of a freedom from it. I’m going back to read Atlas Shrugged again and wait for those in power to provide me some “faith” in general society because I’m getting to the point where I have none left.
Pingback: Discovery Institute: Bloggingheads Hysteria « The Sensuous Curmudgeon
Pingback: Bloggingheads: Capo non grata | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
I wouldn’t want to verbally debate you either, ERV. Based on your blog you’re cranky, snarky, sarcastic, impatient, quick-tempered, prone to hyperbole and exaggeration (in characterizing opposing view points), easily provoked and twitchy š (loved that ‘twitch’ and ‘TWITCH’ in the band t-shirt post…I had a similar reaction).
This makes for entertaining reading, but if carried into the verbal arena it does not make for educational debating. You can still shred someone in a debate without any of the above even if they richly deserve it (which makes me wonder why anyone would want to debate a person who is so far looney that they do deserve all the condescencion and snarkiness that can be mustered. There’s nothing to gain from debating such a person).
I’m sure your verbal debating attitude would be very different from your blogging attitude, but your blogging might be all they have to judge you by.
Funny– Behe didnt appear overly concerned with ‘civility’ when he appeared in a theatrical film which called all scientists who disagreed with him Nazis… Though I suppose he was ultimately expelled from that movie too…
And my blogging style didnt phase the YEC or HIV Denier Ive ‘debated’.
So if Behe wants to take the “Im a hypocrite and run-of-the-mill loonies have more balls than me” route, I guess more power to him.
I am deeply offended that you equate belief in God with being a crackpot. The vast majority of Americans believe in God. You are an elitist. You mention theology being worth discussing by theologians – why? If belief in God is so preposterous as to not be worth your time, isn’t anyone who even considers theology meaningful a crackpot as well? I feel sorry for you.
Excellent typo! I suspect you meant “faze,” but the possibilities of this sentence as written are intriguing. Perhaps, through sheer rhetoric, you could cause your opponent to tunnel into some alternate reality. Or destructively interfere with himself. Oh, wait! Those pretty much happened before you debated them in the first place…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAF2NuAI9EU&feature=featured
Iām going to have to agree with Penn on this one and I don’t blame Sean from having the same reaction. Iāve tried walking away from theists and they keep encroaching on my freedom from their idealsā¦ Iām done playing niceā¦ If you believe in āsomethingā then stay away from me.
Sean, how principled art thou.
Bob Wright and George Johnson discussing the controversy
i feel like i must say something for us little people (nonscientist, nonscience journalist). i began watching saturday science on bhtv last year and became a huge fan because of the informal conversational but very informative format on a wide range of topics in science. the first program i watched was actually sean carroll and david albert in june 2008. i was instantly hooked specifically because it was so informal in comparision say to the science network. so i am very sad that sean carroll and carl zimmer have left and i suppose it won’t be long before others are gone as well. now i have no reason to get out of bed on saturday mornings thanks alot robert arrrg. perhaps you should meditate on this and find a way to fix it. and fyi robert – young people don’t actually say stuff like “don’t harsh my buzz” they just tell gullible old people stuff like that. not all scientists are equipped to effectively communicate science to the general public but i do want hear from those that can so sean if you don’t come back you will be sorely missed. and carl i loved your book microcosm but i had a tiny quibble with your dark matter in your brain article – but i will read it again because maybe i missed something. and you too will be missed.
feral child is very sad but you know what she always says … thank god i’m an atheist eh!
so i shall leave you with a poem i wrote…
ode to wave function
no-thing is truth
and every-thing
reveals the truth
of no-thing
Sean, I understand your need to take a principled stand, but I really do think it was a mistake on the part of the administrators, not some vast conspiracy cooked up by Bob Wright because he wants Templeton money. People have mentioned 2 diavblogs in which crackpots were allowed on. But compare that with the 100’s of episodes that have been truly serious and informative. If this is a reputation thing, isn’t your move a bit overboard? Can’t you instead state your principles and then continue educating the public?
By the way, Robert Wright and George Johnson have a diavblog up now discussing this whole controversy.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/22300
I have not announced any plans to stop engaging with the public. There are ways to do that other than by appearing on Bloggingheads! Ways that I am personally more comfortable with, but others may see things differently. I doubt those guys will suddenly find themselves bereft of content.
Hi Sean,
I’m a commentor at BhTV and follow the science diavlogs punctually. I have enjoyed and learned from your appearances there and think very highly of you as a scientist and a a teacher.
I understand the reasons for your decision. They have been discussed ad nauseum everywhere. I won’t engage in further discussion of the topic, but I want to say that I can’t help but to hope that you are able to work out some agreement with BhTV administrators so that you can come back and we, the audience, can continue to enjoy and learn from you.
Additionally, I am concerned about the other scientists or science presenters who have also withdrawn and the potential that still others could do the same in the near future.
Thank you for your contributions.
Hello Sean Carroll,
I want to say that I have a great deal of respect for you and your work.
That said, I have two problems with your hard-over position on this, which drove you to quit an interesting show and useful platform for discussion.
First problem: From your post I have to conclude that your position on irreducible complexity (I.C.) is this: the very idea of ‘irreducible complexity’ (specifically – not ID in general, or Michael Behe’s arguments about it, or Behe’s reputation, nor its potential implications about a Creator, etc.) is scientifically and logically absurd on the face of it, in an a priori sense – independent of any evidence for or against it. I say this because (at least in these comments) your dismissal of it as an idea is based on:
1. The specific example of a mousetrap has been disputed.
2. Behe was made to look a fool during his testimony in Kitzmiller vs. Dover
3. No ‘serious’ biologist ever talks about irreducible complexity.
But these arguments do not seem to me to be sufficient to dismiss the very idea of irreducible complexity, yet you do. So any one (however willing to be convinced) who even admits to not seeing the inherent and a priori fallacy of the idea and would like to be convinced of that, is obviously a ‘crackpot’ and not worth your time. But if your goal is to engage sincere and open-minded people in conversation, this attitude seems dogmatic and counterproductive. Although I myself am highly skeptical of the idea of irreducible complexity, I do not see how it is, in and of itself, logically absurd. Yet this is the position you take. As for me, the two best arguments against irreducible complexity are 1. It seems to be an argument from personal incredulity, and 2. if I.C. is used as a way to justify a Creator then, as Dawkins has eloquently said, it seems a bizarre God who creates a fantastic mechanism for generating ever more complex machines (evolution) and then resorts to tweeking the system constantly. But neither of these arguments speak to the inherent fallacy of IC. Furthermore, I actually think that the posing of the idea of irreducible complexity has actually been productive and usefully challenging to the scientific community, because it resulted in serious thinking about the evolutionary pathways necessary to create certain types of machinery that do seem difficult to explain.
Second problem: The idea that you would resign from further participation in a show because some other guests on the show voiced views which you find absurd seems extreme. For example, would you object to the appearance on the show of a renowned and respected theologian, who believed in a God and therefore also believed, by definition, in the general occurrence in this world of supernatural and causality-defying phenomena? And I know that you have been involved with the ‘Great Courses’ project, which discusses religion as well as science. So I see your reaction to the appearance of Behe as inconsistent. Your position seems to be that it’s fine to have conversations with religious people who absolutely believe that supernatural phenomena are rampant in this world, as long as they never seek to explain these (very real, by their accounts) phenomena in scientific terms.
Again, personally I don’t believe in ID, nor do I find the case for IC particularly compelling. But I do not see that the very idea of IC is inherently absurd, and this seems to be the position you have taken here.
johnqeniac, very good post.
The problem is, Sean Carrol has already made up his mind, he probably thinks your a nut as well for posting that.
Basically Sean Carrol lives in his own little fantasy world, where everything has to go his way.
Pingback: Peer Review for Bloggingheads « Droit Blog