PZ Myers has a delightful short story on what scientists do when presented with a ridiculous supernatural hypothesis that has testable empirical consequences.
As a philosopher I’d have been quite happy to dispatch that one from the armchair. That’s (part of) why they don’t teach my stuff in high-school science classes, and rightly so.
FWIW, one of the comments appears to be written by Michael Behe. (No one has responded to it yet, although I’m sure that will change.)
I don’t think the comment is actually posted by Behe - I think it’s someone else who quotes a long comment by Behe. I’m not sure though - quotation marks are missing, so it’s not absolutely clear.
Oh, you didn’t say posted, you said written. Nemmine.
Thanks for linking to this Brian. I’ve got to forward it to all the scientists I know; it’ll crack them up.
Good stuff, that.
But isn’t astrology-bashing a bit like hitting a barn door, or like taking the Mickey out of Christian doctrine? Two, four, six, eight — trying to trans-substantiate. Or arguing that homeopathy is a load of bullshit — so obvious to the typical Crooked Timber devotee as to be preaching to the converted. I subscribe to Shermer’s quarterly ‘The Skeptic’ and get a dose of this every few months. It’s fun. But does it move the ball down the field?
Charles, keeping the ball from moving in the wrong direction is worth doing. And this actually does move the ball down the field in the right direction, IMHO. It does so by demonstrating the idea of testable/falsifiable hypotheses, and experimentation.
Well, that was my point. Astrology is ridiculous. Like Brian says, it can be dismissed without budging from one’s comfy chair. But giving some scientifically trained people an easily testable claim is like throwing chum to sharks — we can’t resist taking a bite.
As a general rule, seemingly ridiculous fringe beliefs have more intellectual pull than the highly educated imagine them to have, and their proponents can often blindside skeptics with advanced sophistry, especially if the argument is in front of an audience hostile to the skeptics. It’s always good to discuss strategies for dealing with them, even if nobody who is actually reading needs to be convinced.
Matt McIrvin writes:
“As a general rule, seemingly ridiculous fringe beliefs have more intellectual pull than the highly educated imagine them to have …”
They may have pull, but it’s hardly INTELLECTUAL pull.
And why ‘fringe’ beliefs? Islam is certainly a ridicuous belief system, but Moslems aren’t on any fringe in Arab countries —- or in ‘Eurabia’ for that matter.
Perhaps I’m too much of a tragic realist — but I doubt whether the 50000 members of The Skeptics Society will ever catch up, number wise, with the 50 million churchgoers (I think Daniel Dennett made that point somewhere, so I msy be inadvertently plagiarising him).
Reommended reading on the evolutionary inevitability of religion, superstition, astrology, etc : ‘In Gods we Trust’, by Scott Atran
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/ref=sr_sp_go_as/026-4258854-8727628)
Charles Copeland wrote:
“Reommended reading on the evolutionary inevitability of religion, superstition, astrology, etc : ‘In Gods we Trust’, by Scott Atran”
So, this is good evolutionary psychology unlike the bad evolutionary psychology that Crooked Timberites were fulminating against a few days ago, right?
This may be a dumb question, but what does an Intelligent Design scientist DO all day? What kinds of experiments or investigations do they do? What would an Intelligent Design research program look like?
“I can’t figure this out, therefore God” doesn’t take a lot of time or laboratory equipment.
I wasn’t interested in the story as an argument against astrology, because as I said I think it’s utterly ridiculous and doesn’t particularly need arguing against.
Rather I was interested in it as a little bit of folksy sociology of science. In particular, it was evidence for a proposition I’d rather hope is true, namely that scientists empirical curiosity will often overcome any bias towards prior beliefs as long as there’s a nice, clean experiment to perform.
A lot of people whose views are not accepted by the scientific mainstream resort to shouting “BIAS!” to explain the poor reception of their views, and this story (along with many others) helps undermine that ‘explanation’.
C.J.Colucci: “What would an Intelligent Design research program look like?”
They’d be looking for evidence of design, and then testing hypotheses about the methods used by the designers, and the aims behind their designs. Of course we do this in the social sciences all the time, so I’d say ID would look a lot like, say, anthropology and archeology, with maybe some good historical digging, interpretive clarity, and clever survey research (“when you designed this planet, did you have a specific goal in mind? if not, please skip to question 6. If yes, was it (a) …”).
An uncomfortable fact for ID’ers is that, for all their griping about naturalistic bias in the sciences, we study design scientifically all the time. What the likes of Behe and Dembsky presumably don’t like is that, when you apply scientific scrutiny to the question of design in nature, you just don’t find very much to study outside of human societies, and maybe a few other terrestrial organisms at the outside. That may change, but I’m not holding my breath.
Hi, a skeptic of neo-Darwinism chiming in here.
nat whilk - I think you are confused. Charles Copeland is a highly obnoxious reader of Crooked Timber and is certainly not a Crooked Timber author. So what’s your point? That Crooked Timber allows dissent to be posted?
asg - Still no direct response yet to Behe’s argument that ID is falsifiable. One post claims that Behe doesn’t understand the concept of falsifiability - without explaining what exactly is wrong with the experiment Behe proposes. Another post claims that Behe’s absence of evidence for ID is tantamount to evidence of absence of ID - which is a bit like throwing stones in glass houses, since the same could be said about neo-Darwinism’s shaky foundations (see for example Richard Milton’s writings or book on the subject).
robin: “Still no direct response yet to Behe’s argument that ID is falsifiable. … another post claims that Behe’s absence of evidence for ID is tantamount to evidence of absence of ID - which is a bit like throwing stones in glass houses, since the same could be said about neo-Darwinism’s shaky foundations”
Design conjectures and hypotheses can be falsifiable: we use falsifiable design claims in the social sciences all the time (“that policy was intended to have that outcome.” “Doesn’t seem that way to me — give me evidence!”)
In spite of what you read from Behe and Dembski, the fruitfulness of ID does not turn on the vague question of whether or not there is evidence of design in nature. Hey, hypothesize away. Here, I’ll go: I hypothesize that really complex biological systems are designed, by which I mean they are artifacts. So what? The really hard work would then have me testing specific claims about who designed these systems, how they did it, and why.
ID theorists have proven time and again that they really aren’t interested in exploring these sorts of scientific questions about design. And that leads me to think that they really aren’t much interested in science.
Perhaps the real point should be that, even if complex biological “systems” were designed, they would not be predictable, so what is gained by claims to design? But then, that point would tell against “reverse engineers”, as well as against crypto-creationists.
Robin Green wrote:
“nat whilk - I think you are confused. Charles Copeland is a highly obnoxious reader of Crooked Timber and is certainly not a Crooked Timber author. So what’s your point?”
Again with the “what’s your point?” query, Robin? Either I need to work on my writing or you need to work on your reading comprehension. My point is that it would be nice to see some consistency—both by Crooked Timber authors and Crooked Timber readers—in their individual reactions to the claims of evolutionary psychology, or, failing that, a reason for the inconsistency. Are evolutionary psychologists’ explanations for religion somehow more legitimate than their explanations of those things that humanists hold dear?
nat whilk: in simple words so that you can understand: Charles Copeland is a nutcase. A crackhead. A fool.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review