By the way, the amazon forum arguments about that line are worth a quick perusal. It seems that some segment of their audience doesn’t mind the pro-evolution message, but is upset about their rejection of angels.

If you haven’t seen it already, read the Wired interview.

Some folks will say momentum is conserved
since old Queen Bess and her big Daddy Harry
told planets if they even slightly swerved,
they’d be treated like old Scottish Mary.

But planets grumbled: “Agamemnon, lord
of burning Troy would let us circle free.
Imagination never left us bored,
but charted epicyclic trajectories.

“New kings can try to change our errant ways,
but we’ll not follow puny laws like these.
Watch our independence. Lift your gaze
to where we frolic as we damn well please.”

But Newton told `em he would never look,
`less they moved exactly by the book.

A human activity, nobler but like any other
With Priests and Sacred Texts refereed by a brother
Revolutions and paradigm shifts , but mostly Normal
With a Logic and Philosophy, very Formal.

Certainly it’s important to cover experimental design (if gremlins are short, they should be able to reach a low hook, but in fact a low hook works just as well as a high one; and a shelf or table also works just as well as long as you have the habit of using it, which rules out hookophobia; etc.) but I don’t think it’s fair to demand the entire scientific method be crammed into a two minute video. (You might find one of the other songs on the album, “Put It To The Test”, relevant to that point, though.)

The main point of “Science Is Real” is to raise the distinction between fact-based approaches and “those stories about angels, unicorns and elves” (a line which gave rise to a much funnier (unintentionally) line of criticism from people who think that one of those things is not like the others).

Elegant
Hypotheses?
Nasty facts?
Algorithmic
Complexity!

But isn’t the history of the successes of science somewhat strong evidence that there might be something to this fancy science business? I realise that that isn’t going to convince you about any particular bit of science, but if the science project seems pretty effective at times then surely blanket dismissals on ideological grounds sound weaker.

I guess the tricky thing is when someone decides that while they may support the water-tight conclusions of noble science, they also regret the naked ideology of those bits that they don’t like very much. And, obviously, if sufficiently many people take that kind of self serving stance, then science is effectively ideological.

1. I’m always losing my keys and I think mystical, practically invisible creatures called gremlins are doing it. I believe gremlins to be short, so I attach a hook on the wall next to the door and systematically hang my keys there every time I come home. After that, I have no trouble finding my keys.

2. I’m always getting ear infections and I think they’re caused by microscopic, practically invisible organisms called bacteria. I believe bacteria to have cell walls with distinct chemical properties that can be disrupted by certain distilled by-products of molds, or synthetic equivalents. I take doses of those chemicals regularly and my infections go away.

Let’s further muck about with the scenario: In order to confirm my theories, I stop using the hook by the door and lo and behold, I start losing my keys almost immediately. I stop taking the antibiotics and my infections still go away. Ergo, gremlins are real and bacteria are not.

Now, you can tell me that the reason I stopped losing my keys was because I started putting them in a fixed place everyday and the reason it made little difference if I took antibiotics or not is because my infections were probably caused by viruses rather than bacteria. But, I could respond that you’re making just-so stories. In fact, I rarely lose objects in my house, and you’d think I’d be finding keys at random all over the place if I was just forgetful. And telling me that antibiotics aren’t doing anything because what I really have is viruses is akin to claiming that I’ve stopped losing my keys because there are no gremlins, only kobolds steal keys and they’re scared of hooks.

Children routinely have beliefs that are not very different from the belief in gremlins outlined above. Their belief in germs is no more well-grounded than their beliefs in monsters under the bed. To be honest, I kinda shuddered at that video, because singing “science is real” sounds to me a lot like “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so”. Children are not so clear on the ontological significance of claims about what’s real and what isn’t, but they generally have some understanding of what love is, so I suspect the hymnists are ahead on that one.

It is genuinely difficult to convince people that science isn’t just ideology, political correctness and personal ambition when the phenomena it discusses are remote from day-to-day life and when they want to believe otherwise, just as it is incredibly easy to convince them that science proves some prejudice they already possessed no matter how flaky. I came from exactly the kind of background that was sceptical of evolution but couldn’t even imagine questioning the virgin birth, and Dobzhansky’s argument for evolution is the one that I found convincing: Once you engage with a larger body of knowledge about the world, you find that nothing in biology makes sense without common descent and at least some aspects of natural selection. The most substantial argument against gremlins is that their existence makes no sense in light of a larger and more complex world, while the argument for bacteria is that vast amounts of modern medicine, epidemiology and microbiology make no sense without them.

Dobzhansky’s view may be compatible with a variety of metaphysical positions. It is totally incompatible with Carnap’s positivism, and certainly with the rather naive hypothetico-deductive approach described in the video.

Your pissed on epistemology with my bullet is ruptured
My soul deep ontology makes your white face get flustered
This bass mic is real like the laws of gravity
You tell me you it’s just words, man have you lost your sanity?

Breakdown! Jigga jigga jigga….I want everyone in da house to say ‘critical realism’…..Yo… Roy Bhaskar in da house….Respect is due…..

etc. etc. etc.

Regards,

Tim

If children have played online games like World of Warcraft, they may know that you can use scientific method to investigate an entirely simulated world. (And indeed, such investigation is part of the fun of these games)