( - previous issue - / - next issue - )
AR 25:41 - The ideological corruption of science
In this issue:
CONSPIRACY THEORIES - practical tips for approaching those who feel they have discovered conspiracies
ORIGINS - when "deep homology" isn't homologous
SCIENCE - American laboratories and universities go woke - discover nightmare
Apologia Report 25:41 (1,498)
October 14, 2020
CONSPIRACY THEORIES
"I've been talking to conspiracy theorists for 20 years - here are my six rules of engagement" by Jovan Byford <www.bit.ly/3dn8bSe> (Senior Lecturer in Psychology, The Open University) -- "Most people will know someone who has succumbed to conspiracy theories....
"Here are the six rules I use for talking to conspiracy theorists in the effort to change their mind.
"1. Acknowledge scale of the task ...
"Lack of evidence of a conspiracy, or positive proof against its existence, is taken by believers as evidence of the craftiness of those behind the plot, and their ability to dupe the public. So arm yourself with patience, and be prepared to fail.
"2. Recognise the emotional dimension ..."
Conspiracies "are stories about good and evil, as much as about what is true.
"This gives conspiracy theories a strong emotional dimension. ... Be prepared to de-escalate the situation and keep the dialogue going, without necessarily giving ground.
"3. Find out what they actually believe
"Before trying to persuade someone, find out the nature and content of their beliefs. When it comes to conspiracy theories, the world is not divided into "believers" and "sceptics" - there's a lot in between. ...
"Also, try and find out what specific conspiracy theory they endorse. ... What videos or websites have they looked at? Once you find out, gather as much disconfirming evidence as you can from credible sources, including multiple independent fact-checking websites. ...
"4. Establish common ground
"[W]hen talking about conspiracy theories, start by acknowledging these broader concerns [the concentration of financial and political power, mass surveillance, inequality or lack of political transparency] and restrict your discussion to whether conspiracy theories can provide an adequate or meaningful answer. ...
"Avoid criticising or mocking this. Instead, present it as something that, in principle, you value and share. Your aim, after all, is not to make them less curious or sceptical, but to change what they are curious about, or sceptical of. ...
"The kernels of truth on which conspiracy theories are based are a solid starting point for a discussion. ...
"5. Challenge the facts, value their argument
"Debunking conspiracy theories requires a two-pronged approach. The first involves challenging evidence and its origins. Address specific claims and discuss what constitutes a credible source. Offer to look at the evidence together, including on fact-checking websites. ...
"The second approach involves challenging the relevance and value of the conspiracist case more generally. ...
"[S]et realistic expectations. The aim of talking to conspiracy theorists is not to convert them, but to sow doubt about an argument, and hopefully enable them to gradually build up resistance to its seductive appeal." The Conversation, Jul 22 '20, <www.bit.ly/3l2stmM>
There may be value in exploring the question of how conspiracy theories are different from rumor - if at all.
---
ORIGINS
Some Assembly Required, by Neil Shubin <www.bit.ly/3nV2Dn9> (Professor of Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago) [1] -- reviewer Paul A. Nelson <www.bit.ly/373aB7m> finds plenty to enjoy in the book (hereafter referred to as "SAR"), but observes that the essential information is missing.
"SAR qualifies as a book well worth reading... You won't be disappointed.
"What the reader will *not* get from SAR, however, is an explanation of how evolution works: in particular, how a testable mechanism of macroevolution constructed animals and plants from single-celled organisms, and, eventually, built humans from primate ancestors. ...
"[S]cientists in the field are themselves looking for the testable mechanism(s) of macroevolution.... If they don't have the answers yet, Shubin won't have them either.
"This critique does not mean that ... Shubin has no message to deliver. He surely does, and here it is:
*If you think feathers arose to help animals fly, or lungs and legs to help animals walk on land, you'd be in good company. You'd also be entirely wrong.* ...
"'The history of life,' Shubin writes, 'has been a long, strange, and wondrous trip of trial and error, chance and inevitability, detours, revolution, and invention.'"
The presupposition that "design just isn't science, whatever the evidence shows - has been the ground rule of historical biology since the late 19th century. This rule usually goes by the name of methodological naturalism (hereafter MN)....
"But 'natural,' the key word in the [National Academy of Sciences'] definition of MN, does not actually mean 'testable.' In the context of MN, 'natural' means *ultimately derived from physics, without the action of mind or intelligence. ... There is no *you,* really. Just physics. ...
"MN only takes options away from investigators, but gives them none. ...
"The reason MN only takes options away from us stems from the core intelligent design claim, namely, that genuine agency or intelligence is irreducible to physics. ... Design will be a causal option in addition to, with explanatory power over and above, what 'natural' causes provide. Thus, if we throw out design, we will never get it back from physics alone - a loss in power, with no replacement. ...
"Shubin himself, as a student and young professor, lived through radical shifts in the content of evolutionary theory (some of which he sketches in SAR). Take the pattern of homology, for example [which was renamed] 'deep homology.' Despite the falsification of the textbook account by unexpected new data, evolution could be spared embarrassment if the adjective 'deep' stepped protectively in front of 'homology,' changing the meaning of that term....
"MN spoils our quest to understand homology, and turns biology into a fruitless enterprise, by taking away explanatory options in the face of unexpected findings." Christian Research Journal, 43:2 - 2020, pp36-9.
---
SCIENCE
"The Ideological Corruption of Science" by Lawrence Krauss (a theoretical physicist, is president of the Origins Project Foundation) -- "In the 1980s, when I was a young professor of physics and astronomy at Yale, deconstructionism was in vogue in the English Department. We in the science departments would scoff at the lack of objective intellectual standards in the humanities, epitomized by a movement that argued against the existence of objective truth itself, arguing that all such claims to knowledge were tainted by ideological biases due to race, sex or economic dominance.
"It could never happen in the hard sciences, except perhaps under dictatorships...
"Or so we thought. In recent years, and especially since the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, academic science leaders have adopted wholesale the language of dominance and oppression previously restricted to 'cultural studies' journals to guide their disciplines, to censor dissenting views, to remove faculty from leadership positions if their research is claimed by opponents to support systemic oppression.
"In June, the American Physical Society (APS), which represents 55,000 physicists world-wide, endorsed a 'strike for black lives' <www.shutdownstem.com> to 'shut down STEM' in academia. ...
"The pre-eminent science journal Nature, which disseminates what it views as the most important science stories in a daily newsletter, featured an article titled 'Ten simple rules for building an anti-racist lab.' <www.bit.ly/371jRJp>
"At Michigan State University, one group used the strike to organize and coordinate a protest campaign against the vice president for research, physicist Stephen Hsu....
"Within a week, the university president forced Mr. Hsu to resign.
"At Princeton on July 4, more than 100 faculty members, including more than 40 in the sciences and engineering, wrote an open letter <www.bit.ly/2GNk1JP to the president with proposals to 'disrupt the institutional hierarchies perpetuating inequity and harm.' This included the creation of a policing committee that would 'oversee the investigation and discipline of racist behaviors, incidents, research, and publication on the part of faculty,' with 'racism' to be defined by another faculty committee, and requiring every department, including math, physics, astronomy and other sciences, to establish a senior thesis prize for research that somehow 'is actively anti-racist or expands our sense of how race is constructed in our society.'
"When scientific and academic leaders give official imprimatur to unverified claims, or issue blanket condemnations of peer-reviewed research or whole fields that may be unpopular, it has ripple effects throughout the field. It can shut down discussion and result in self-censorship.
"Shortly after Mr. Hsu resigned, the authors of the psychology study asked the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science to retract their paper.... As a cosmologist, I can say that if we retracted all the papers in cosmology that we felt were misrepresented by journalists, there would hardly be any papers left.
"Actual censorship is also occurring. A distinguished chemist in Canada argued in favor of merit-based science and against hiring practices that aim at equality of outcome if they result 'in discrimination against the most meritorious candidates.' For that he was censured by his university provost, his published review article on research and education in organic synthesis was removed from the journal website, and two editors involved in accepting it were suspended. ...
"As ideological encroachment corrupts scientific institutions, one might wonder why more scientists aren't defending the hard sciences from this intrusion. The answer is that many academics are afraid, and for good reason. ...
"Whenever science has been corrupted by falling prey to ideology, scientific progress suffers. This was the case in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union - and in the U.S. in the 19th century.... To stem the slide, scientific leaders, scientific societies and senior academic administrators must publicly stand up not only for free speech in science, but for quality, independent of political doctrine and divorced from the demands of political factions." Wall Street Journal, Jul 12 '20, <www.on.wsj.com/3jgJFEB>
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1 - Some Assembly Required: Decoding Four Billion Years of Life, from Ancient Fossils to DNA, by Neil Shubin (Pantheon, 2020, hardcover : 288 pages) <www.amzn.to/33h6xOI>
------
( - previous issue - / - next issue - )