Footnotes on footnotes
I mentioned that a commenter at The Intersection said I was lying. Tim Broderick, he is; here’s the central part of what he said:
When Ophelia Benson claims through her “questions” that Chris and Sheril have no evidence she is not telling the truth. It’s one thing for people who haven’t read the book to assert this – she has the book. So let me say that again and more emphatically: She is lying.
Here is the question from her own site: “How do you know overt atheism causes people to be hostile to science? How does that work? What is your evidence?”
From page 173 to page 185 there are detailed endnotes with citations to back up the assertions in Chapter 8…Benson doesn’t just disagree. She lies and asserts that they have nothing to back up their assertions.
Asking questions is not asserting, but never mind. He’s wrong on the substance too. This bit of chapter 8 for instance:
If the goal is to create an America more friendly toward science and reason, the combativeness of the New Atheists is strongly counterproductive. If anything, they work in ironic combination with their dire enemies, the anti-science conservative Christians who populate the creation science and intelligent design movements, to ensure we’ll continue to be polarized over subjects llike the teaching of evolution when we don’t have to be. America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of Americans will select the former. The New Atheists err in insisting that such a choice needs to be made. Atheism is not the logical outcome of scientific reasoning, any more than intelligent design is a necessary corollary of religious faith. A great many scientists believe in God with no sense of internal contradiction, just as many religious believers accept evolution as the correct theory to explain the development, diversity, and inter-relatedness of life on Earth. The New Atheists, like the fundamentalists they so despise, are setting up a false dichotomy that can only damage the cause of scientific literacy for generations to come. [pp 97-8]
I would like to rip into the argument there, but won’t. (See Jason Rosenhouse on the subject.) But what I will do is point out that there is no endnote for that paragraph. None. Zero. You can easily check – the notes are on page 174. They go from one related to a passage on page 97 before that paragraph begins, to one on a passage on page 98 after that paragraph ends. That whole paragraph is note-free. So Tim Broderick was wrong.
The closest thing to a note for the overarching claim comes much later, for a passage on page 104 – and it’s worthless.
In fact, education researchers have found that defusing the tension over science and religion facilitates learning about evolution. “I submit that anti-religious rehtoric is counter-productive. It actually hampers science education,” a biologist at Davis and Elkins College in West Virgina. In Stover’s view, students who feel that evolution is a threat to their beliefs will not “want to learn,” and only reconiliatory discussion can open them up to evolution. (p. 183)
That’s just someone saying something, in the same way they are saying something. It doesn’t count as evidence. It could illustrate, or amplify, or clarify, but it can’t support.
So – are we clear? I wasn’t lying. M&K don’t provide support for all of their assertions, and some of what they purport to offer is actually worthless.
Unscientific America feels like an unedited rough draft of a book, unceremoniously dumped on us long before it was ready. If it were a Wikipedia article, it would be blue with [[citation needed]] tags.
I think they’d probably cite footnote 99 as relevant to that paragraph (which covers a lot of different territory). They appeal to the opinion of Eugenie Scott, point out that she works on the front lines with science educators (like the religious science teachers who stood up for evolution in the Dover case). If she thinks attacks on religion are unhelpful, that surely that counts for something. She says “dichotimization is just starting off in a ten foot deep hole. Why handicap yourself?” The dichotomy talk connects with the paragraph you quote.
Of course, that doesn’t mean you were lying–deliberately speaking untruths. That charge does seem over the top. But then….Chris Mooney is “morally bankrupt”? Is that just a bit over the top?
Endnote to page 99, that is.
To be fair, there were also the anecdotes regarding the Congressman and the legal testimony.
Nevertheless, TB was pretty far off base. There’s no basis for calling someone a liar when the reasons offered have such a loose connection with the conclusion.
Granted, because I’m generous, I took the experience of the teacher cited above as providing some support — I view it as grossly inadequate support, but still support. Still, there’s another, perfectly legitimate way of looking at it: what has been provided counts as evidence to a related proposition (“Sometimes there are cases where teaching is more effective when we take standing beliefs seriously”), but doesn’t count as evidence to the proposition (“New atheists polarize”, “New atheists force the choice”).
The difference between the two is one of epistemic standards, and I find myself hard-pressed to choose one over the other and stick to it across all contexts and pretend that I’m in a better place to reach the relevant truth(s).
» Jean K.:
Chris Mooney is “morally bankrupt”? Is that just a bit over the top?
I think that’s just angry. ;>
Oh, Jean – who cares what they would do? The issue is what they did do.
Yes of course morally bankrupt is over the top, but it was in response to their 1) allowing someone to say I was lying and 2) banning me – which is more over the top. Morally bankrupt is over the top but deserved.
And another thing – not only does that not mean I was “lying–deliberately speaking untruths” (thank you so much), it also doesn’t mean I was wrong – especially since I asked a set of questions as opposed to making a set of assertions.
I would imagine that the following bit, quoted in the linked piece from Jason Rosenhouse, might be what Broderick has in mind.
“In fact, education researchers have found that defusing the tension over science and religion facilitates learning about evolution. “I submit that anti-religious rehtoric is counter-productive. It actually hampers science education,” a biologist at Davis and Elkins College in West Virgina. In Stover’s view, students who feel that evolution is a threat to their beliefs will not “want to learn,” and only reconiliatory discussion can open them up to evolution. (p. 183) “
It caught my eye mainly because (at the risk of making a kwok out of myself) I grew up in Elkins. I even went to school with a couple of the current faculty at Davis and Elkins College. Oooh, finally someone is quoting a source with a tenuous personal connection to me! ;)
Could this be the evidence? The opinion of one biology teacher at a very tiny, Prebeteryan collage in a fairly conservative, religeon soaked mountain town in West, by god, Virginia?
I am underwhelmed.
Students don’t want to learn something that conflicts with their existing beliefs. It makes them uncomfortable. It challenges them. So what? These are not novel insights. The point remains: if their views conflict with reality, it does them no favor to smile and pretend otherwise.
Ooh very kwokky! :- )
Yes I included that bit in the post – having lifted it from Jason’s post to save myself the typing – which is why we all have the same typo (verb seems to be missing after quoted bit). That’s it. And it’s not up to much and in any case the paragraph I quoted still has no note at all (and it’s full of very dubious assertions and connections).
And the basic point – exactly. It does them no favor.
I wasn’t talking about what they would do. I was talking about what they did do–they provided some endnotes quoting teachers and science educators who think anti-religious rhetoric alienates students. You mentioned one endnote like this in your post. It seemed only reasonable to say there’s another–the note to 99. Hey, I bought the damn book on my Kindle for $14 just to read chapter 8. I’ve got to get my money’s worth. Endnote 99. It cost me about .50 to read it, so I’m going to trot it out every time I can.
Well to be strictly accurate you did say “I think they’d probably cite footnote 99 as relevant to that paragraph” – “they’d” being a contraction for “they would” – so it’s not actually what they did do, and it does look to me like doing their work for them. But okay, there’s another note. Only it’s not attached to that paragraph.
Come, come Jean. Does note 99 really do what you say it does? After all – and I have no intention of reading the book – given what M&K say in the quote Ophelia gives us, their claim is that “If the goal is to create an America more friendly toward science and reason, the combativeness of the New Atheists is strongly counterproductive.” I’m sorry, but I don’t think that citing Eugenie Scott really carries that much weight. I saw the video clip of her talking about the compatibility of religion and science. Were you convinced? I wasn’t. M&K cannot produce evidence that ‘New Atheist’ combativeness is strong anything, except, perhaps, combative. But talk about combativeness! M&K’s combativeness – or perhaps, as Jason Rosenhouse says – M’s combativeness is really over the top. And just one the basis of Eugenie Scott and a biology teacher at a two bit college!? Give me strength! And yes, of course biology will be a threat to people’s religious beliefs, Eugenie Scott notwithstanding. M&K didn’t do enough to support the vitriolic campaign they carry out in their book, their blog, and their magazine columns.
Okay, I’ve re-read the note to 99 now (I read it the first time I read the book). It’s pretty worthless. It would perhaps be of interest in the text, but it’s worthless as a citation – because it’s just another person saying. So we have four people saying – M, K, Stover, and Scott. But it’s all just saying – and it’s not a strong argument on its own.
Jean K,
Surely you realize that citing someone’s opinion (even Genie Scott’s) doesn’t constitute evidence for a factual claim. Where are all the people who say that they would have accepted evolution if P.Z. hadn’t been so hard on religion? There should be tons of them if M&K are right.
So far I haven’t seen one such person come forward, though I’ve heard from several people who said the opposite — that P.Z.’s critique of religion has made them MORE accepting of evolution, because it made them go learn about it. Now THAT is data, and though it’s anecdotal, it’s certainly more substantive than Scott’s unsupported opinion.
Let’s face it, there is not ANY evidence that vociferous atheists have led to “unscientific America.” That claim is a PR gimmick, something (poorly) designed to sell books and, perhaps, to settle scores.
Except that testimony does count as evidence when you have reason to believe the person speaking has the kinds of relevant experiences that make their claims believable. I think it’s fair to presume that Scott and Stover do have relevant pedagogical experiences, due to their vocations. I have every reason to believe that they’re giving me their informed beliefs.
Sure, these claims are then illicitly generalized to help them arrive at a bold conclusion about rhetoric in all contexts. Depending on what verbal gymnastics you want to call your epistemology, that means that at worst it will only counts as evidence to a related but distinct claim (and therefore isn’t evidence at all), or at best it counts as the weakest kind of evidence. I note all that above.
I don’t know how to make sense of Prof. Coyne’s remarks in light of that. He (above) suggests that anecdotal evidence counts as evidence. Anecdotal evidence is what Stoker gave. We then have to go with the “at best” epistemic standard, and conclude that evidence has been presented.
(“Have to”, that is, in order to be consistent.)
The issue I was addressing is just whether there’s any evidence at all cited in the notes to chapter 8 to support the allegations about alienation. At first Ophelia said “none”… in her post she admitted there’s one endnote that’s germane to the alienation business…I said there was actually a second. End of story.
“in her post she admitted there’s one endnote that’s germane to…”
It’s interesting how you’re equating “there’s no evidence” and “there’s a ‘germane’ endnote”. What Ophelia has “admitted” is that, germane or not, the endnote still does not qualify as supporting evidence.
Benjamin I think you’re correct in that Stover and Scott have relevant experience…with the specific cases in which those whose religious truth claims are in opposition to the ToE do tend to be uncomfortable with coursework related to the ToE. I think that M&K generalize and extrapolate this specific finding to a ludicrous degree, however, and what they continually fail to grasp is that this particular type of faith is, truly, incompatible with the tenets of evolution. There is no accommodation possible with these people.
The type of (hypothetical) anecdotal evidence Dr. Coyne mentions in his comment is different than the anecdotal evidence supplied by Stover and Scott because, although equally anecdotal, it would at least provide specific support of M&K’s thesis. As it is, though, it strains credulity to go from “young earth creationists are worried about the challenge evolution presents to their faith, and are therefore resistant to studying this realm of science.” and “New atheist scientists are scaring otherwise open-minded people away from science”, Alas, the former claim (via the personal experiences of Stover and Scott) is all that they have to go on.
Interestingly, the new Pew data came out days before the official book release, and although many of the questions were specifically related to the topics presented in UA, it didn’t help them out in the least. In fact, many of the findings were quite contrary to M&K’s published assertions, and underscored the point that they really didn’t do the necessary research of their own before going to print. They’re either lazy, incompetent, or so insulated from the relevant information that they are completely deaf to it. None of these are appealing options, but I honestly don’t know what else to think.
I think there is a (deliberate?) confusion of the classes of religious believers in this debate. It makes political sense for certain organizations to stake the middle ground by claiming that talk of linking atheism and evolution polarizes the question for the religious. What they don’t tend to emphasize is that the subgroup of religious who are so upset by atheism-evolution linkage are the very group that are intractable to even the mildest Miller-Collins type coaxing.
» Benjamin Nelson:
I don’t know how to make sense of Prof. Coyne’s remarks in light of that. He (above) suggests that anecdotal evidence counts as evidence. Anecdotal evidence is what Stoker gave.
Sigh. Stover gave his opinion. He wasn’t himself turned off of science because of the Bestselling Atheists, he just thinks there are such people. That’s not evidence. Now if one of those people came forward—something comparable to the stories on RD.net’s Converts’ Corner—to say that that’s what happened to them, that would at least be a piece of evidence—flimsy, but hey, it’s not as though we’re expecting anything rigorous from M&K anymore.
To pick on on Eric MacDonald’s comments on Eugenie Scott, I too saw the video M & K posted in which Scott stated that religion and science were not incompatible.
Her evidence that they are not came from the fact there are religious scientists, and that being religious does not stop a person from being a good scientist. However when Dawkins, Myers, Coyne and others talk of science and religion being incompatible they do not mean in that trivial manner. They all accept that it is possible for someone to be both religious and be a good scientist.
The type of incompatibility they talk of relates the the claims for an interventionist god. They argue that an interventionist god can be investigated using science. And when specific claims for such a god are investigated the evidence is that there was no intervention.
I have asked Mooney to explain how he reconciles science and religion in this respect. Other than saying it was a good question he has not addressed it.
I now suspect that is because he cannot. Better people than he have tried and failed.
No, Jean, not end of story at all. What Ophelia has been talking about is evidence, not just support. M&K have produced no evidence to support what they say. And since, I note, you have defended M&K in detail on your blog, you really must try to show that what Scott and Tover say is true. Their saying it does not constitute evidence.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that, because unbelieving scientists have been so forthright in the last few years, not only have religious voices been placed on the back foot – which may explain why they are sound so shrill – including some alarmed atheist voices on their behalf – but the voices of scientists, which are usually confined to laboratories and classrooms, are slowly becoming major public voices. I cannot remember a time when scientists have been so prominent in public discusssion. Of course, my observations do not constitute evidence, but, you know, I’ll bet I could get someone to say it!
Of course, there is a great gulf between religion and science. This has become more and more evident since Galileo. Many scientists, since then, have made pretty, cooing sounds, to reassure the religious. Reading Einstein’s or Darwin’s words about religion is a lesson in scientific diplomacy. Did it work? No, it did not. The gulf became so wide that a US President could deny, 200 years after Darwin was born, the basic discoveries of biology! That’s not just alarming. That’s dangerous.
Jennifer, I think we pretty well agree on everything that matters. Ordinarily I would press the idea that evidence of close propositions counts as a weakened form of evidence to the proposition, but… meh, who cares. My only bone to pick was with the internal consistency of Prof. Coyne’s remarks as stated.
Peter, yes, it is poor evidence of a counter-claim (congeniality helps), which is not evidence of the claim (confrontation doesn’t help), unless one is feeling generous with what one deems germane. But whether or not we feel generous is not necessarily a feature of what we know.
An appeal to relevance can be non-arbitrary, though, if you appeal to the background of facts we already know. i.e., a safer line of argument would be as follows: “Well, actually, we DO know good reasons for not being generous with your anecdotal claim, since here is the whole gamut of evidence that has been around for ages…x,y,z. What is it that we’re supposed to take away from your bolded anecdotes?” But you have to do that.
A fairly recent paper (2002) by two well-known science educators Brian Alters and Craig Nelson (Evolution 56(10):1891-1901) ends with a section titled “Summary and Suggestions for Further Research.” In a subsection “Religious Complications” they write:
“A few studies have shown that religious beliefs appear to interfere with the understanding or acceptance of scientific views, especially for evolution. However, an important research question would ask the extent to which various strategies for addressing religious- and worldview-based obstacles actually succeed in getting students to understand and to accept the science of evolution.”
I would conclude from this statement that the research has not been done and essentially no research-based evidence exists to back up any of M & K’s claims linking “outspoken” atheism and nonacceptance of evolution.
Here’s a citation for what Eric said. I think so too!
Hahahaha
By the way, Jean, I didn’t in my post “admit” there’s one endnote germane to the alienation business – I simply said there is. You do resort to a lot of very tendentious wording in all this.
You express surprise on your blog at the level of anger at Mooney. As I said there: this is one big reason: the way Mooney and people of his school of thought (Andrew Brown for example) use tendentious wording to “frame” their critics. Frame indeed.
I thought you’d changed your stance a little–from saying there’s nothing in the notes to support the chapter’s claims about alienation, to saying there’s something, but it’s rubbish. That slight change of stance doesn’t strike me as misdescribed with the word “admit.” If it does to you, then I humbly withdraw the word.
Is there a raison d’être behind the Buddhist myth (associated with the Japanese Macaque) ‘See no evil hear no evil speak no evil”?
@widget
My impression of the origin of that myth was as a means to encourage good behaviour. Sort of a “speak of the devil and he doth appear” type saying. Also compare to other various and sundry folk beliefs that evil cannot touch a righteous person.
I must admit I miss the connection to the subject at hand though.
‘See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil”?
Exactly, it is a ‘Golden Rule.”
“Some simply take the proverb as a reminder not to be snoopy, nosy and gossipy. Others believe the message is that a person who is not exposed to evil (through sight or sound) will not reflect that evil in their own speech and actions. Today “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” is commonly used to describe someone who doesn’t want to be involved in a situation, or someone willfully turning a blind eye to the immorality of an act in which they are involved?”
I find myself thinking–yet again–I find myself thinking this a lot–that this is yet another place where people don’t want so much to be bothered with these troublesome demands for actual evidence because there’s a sort of prevailing attitude long established–a near automatic deference to certain categories of belief. So they’ll take anything, however limp, as ‘evidence’ that attitude is justified, figure hey, good enough.
That’s whence arises this peculiar asymmetry: if, say, someone were to contend that outspoken and clear statements to the effect that religious beliefs are a confounding factor in understanding and accepting certain of the natural sciences actually make it easier for people eventually to understand those same sciences on balance, they’d be expected to put up their evidence. The acceptable evidence for such a claim would be high-grade, rigourous, systematically-gathered stuff: surveys, elegantly-designed experiments in which the participants’ established religious views were deliberately challenged and their potential conflicts with the material outlined right before they were told to read a text then tested for their absorption of its content… But say the converse and hey, whatever, anything goes. For that contention, “‘Cos my Mom sez so” is considered quite sufficient.
There are 2 issues here regarding the “learning” assertion that nobody seems to be talking about.
1 – How many teachers speak out against religion in their classrooms? In public schools, such a thing would be illegal. From my understanding, even PZ does not discuss such things in his own classroom. How many students are exposed to “militant atheism” at all? Can this really be connected to exposure to anti-religious education?
2 – Although science literacy is not what WE would like it to be, it is not going down; it’s going up. Of course, this depends on how it is measured, but I talked about this after the CAS report came out in March: http://tinyurl.com/deeme5
If science literacy is improving at ANY rate, they can hardly blame “the new atheism” for science illiteracy. In the past decade, as atheists have become more vocal, religious affiliation has gone down and science literacy has gone up.
Yeah PZ has said quite emphatically that he doesn’t discuss religion in his classroom.
Everyone should loosen up, M and K are clearly saved or in a pre-saved potentiality. What they claim is Transcendental thus it would be otiose to apply criteria such as Logic or consistency, or mere fact, to their insights.