Freethought Media
Wow, has it really been almost three weeks since I last posted? I never thought I would let that much time go by without blogging! There has been a little bit of seizure-drama but all is ultimately well for now! I’ve certainly been enjoying my focus on scrapbooking, I must say. It’s been both calming and invigorating to take more time to explore my inner world and try to translate that into art with my photos and stories. So fun!
I do have a story I’ve been wanting to share and I’d love to hear anyone’s thoughts on the situation. I hope to be able to sit down and blog it in a couple of days. Until then, Olga provided a link to this Freethought Media website. Go take a look around. I am still getting familiar with it but there are audio files on Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennet, Steven Pinker and a couple others I am less familiar with (but looking forward to getting to know). So far I have listened to one interview with Richard Dawkins.
But before you go over there, I want to initiate a little discussion on science writing. In previous debates on my blog, as well as in other articles I have read, there seems to be an issue with some popular science writing, particularly with Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, but also some others. One issue, as far as I can tell, has to do with an unclear line between general scientific understanding and the writers’ own philosophies and worldviews. The other issue stems from language. Good writing involves tools that may sometimes obscure scientific accuracy.
Let me explain what I mean. In my earlier discussions about some of Pinker’s writing I began to sense that he intermingles his own philosophy with scientific data in a way that is sometimes hard to tell apart. He also doesn’t always say how strong the support is for a particular theory he is basing his premises on. At some point we have to make decisions about what we believe, even when there is little evidence. So I see no issue in Pinker’s forming philosophies around new and emerging theories. The problem comes when he doesn’t always clarify the strength of the various theories.
At the same time, I understand why he doesn’t. What a monotonous book it would be to make notes for every single statement in order to clarify. As a blogger I understand this. In every post I have to decide what information to include and what not to or you would never finish reading. Pinker also has to make his writing interesting if he wants to reach a greater audience. And in my opinion, reaching a greater audience is importance for the future of science. But so is integrity.
Dawkins seems to have some issues as well, although I am less familiar with his writing. I have read three different critiques of his work, and I wish I could remember with more clarity what the exact criticisms were. In addition to these two writers, I have read a critique of science writers in general about the personification of genes, Natural Selection and such (what I mean is, talking about Nature as if it were a thinking being, even though it is not). Many of us writiers do it. It is good writing. But it does give the false impression to some that genes, or Natural Selection, or even Nature itself, have a will and a purpose. I like writing that way and I see others do it all the time. It makes for a good story. It is what pulls me in to the study of Biology. And yet, I can see how it can be misleading.
So here is the dilemma, as I see it. We have good science writers reaching the public and educating them on important issues in science. It is generating an interest unlike before. But it may be generating a lot of misunderstanding as well. It it worth it? What are the ethics in this situation? Should a science writer sacrifice wonderful writing for more scientific accuracy? Or should one keep it interesting and hope that the overall effect is more scientific understanding, not less?
Please feel free to weigh in on my question, or just provide more information and specific examples if you have them. I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
19 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
October 2nd, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
Noell,
Good to have you back in Blogtown.
I have read a bit of Dawkins recently. I may be recollecting in error, but I think he refers to nature as having no will and no agenda.
I don’t have a problem with “science writers” injecting at least a bit of their own speculations and/or philosophy in their work. After all, there are still a lot of unanswered questions out there. Actually, I think it’s rather difficult for a scientist to write for a general audience. (Ever try to read a computer manual?)
Obviously, most of us are not “true” scientists. We dabble. Most scientists operate on a level which frankly, if not dumbed down, would be effectively gibberish to the average layman. I suppose “dumbed down” is a poor choice of words, but unless one is a properly educated student or practitioner of a particular discipline, attempting to read truly technical works would be fruitless. We need writers who can bridge the gap for us as it were.
Personally, I have the scientific acumen of a turnip. I need the “Dick and Jane” version of science books. “Oh, Dick, look, I’m undergoing mitosis again! Gosh Jane, that’s great, but I gotta finish mapping my DNA before the bus get here. Go show Spot.”
TLS
October 3rd, 2006 @ 6:33 am
Terry S–As for nature having no will and no agenda, yes, I think any scientist would say that. But what I mean is that sometimes writers explain natural selection as if it does because it makes it like a story and because it really helps a layperson understand the concepts (as long as they understand the will isn’t actually there).
One example is the title of Dawkins’ book, The Selfish Gene. Well, the gene doesn’t actually have desires or a will. And I am sure that he clarified it in the beginning of the book, but it is an example of what the critical article was describing of not being entirely accurate.
Another example would be Robert Wright’s description of nature as having the goal of spreading genes. He clarifies as well. But when people read excerpts of books out of context, might they consider it as literal? It seems rather absurd to think they would and yet someone once corrected me because they thought I saw nature as having a will based on the way I had written.
Would people really take that the wrong way?
October 3rd, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
Of course they would. Consider the topic that overrides our blogging efforts. Billions of people accept the myth of god with exactly NO proof whatsoever, and they accept as literal truth the word of the bible, quran, talmud, etc.
I don’t see this as a significant problem, though. Most anyone who has a true interest or curiosity about, say, evolution, would most certainly read beyond the title or a few excerpts. Dawkins and the rest can’t be responsible for anyone who runs amok with the notion that genes are “selfish,” or that nature has an agenda to spread genes. The reader must make some effort to go beyond the surface. Dawkins is a good writer. He couches his science in a manner which makes his subject accessible and interesting to a fairly wide readership. I would think that other evolutionary scientists would find most of his work worthy of perusal. He seems to be respected at all levels. I haven’t read any of Wright’s work.
Again, as I said, pure science can be fascinating to the learned reader, but pretty dry stuff to the uninitiated.
Personally, I found Stephen Hawking’s original “A History of Time” difficult to get through, and ultimately, I didn’t. As I recall, there was some criticism that stated much the same. Now I understand he has recently revised the book and apparently enlisted the aid of another writer to make the whole thing more palatable to the non-scientist reader. If that be the case, I may give it another go. If not, I’ll stick with Colby’s Big Book of Quarks. (I made that up.)
TLS
October 3rd, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
My husband read Hawking’s book, but I couldn’t get myself into it either. Of course, my husband seems to lean a little more towards physics and stuff about the universe while I am naturally more interested in biology and how life evolved. I’d check out the new version if he does it though.
Carl Sagan is a great writer!
There was some sort of disagreement between Stephen Jay Gould and Dawkins regarding evolution(actually Dennet, Wright, Dawkins and many others all seemed to be at odds with Gould). I don’t know what the disagreement was completley, but I know that Gould was criticized for hyperbole, of warping public understanding of evolution, and for being polemic. At the same time, these are similar criticisms to the ones I have seen about Dawkins.
I haven’t really spent a lot of time on this subject so I don’t know the reasons.
October 3rd, 2006 @ 2:33 pm
Again, I may be mistaken, but I believe that Gould felt that religion and science could be reconciled with each other, and that they could co-exist within one’s philosophy.I have not read any of Gould, but I imagine that others found problems and/or inconsistencies with such a view.
In the end, everyone will have their detractors. You just have to pick and choose for yourself. Sometimes critics are just out there to expand their own egos.
I liked Sagan as well. I loved his “Cosmos” series on PBS. I could have watched it “billions and billions” of times. He earnestly attempted to make science accessible to all.
TLS
October 3rd, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
Dawkins explained as clearly as possible that “selfish” was a metaphor. He also stated that humans were the only species which could raise itself beyond the level of genes - in other words, whether genes are selfish or not, we are more than our genes.
The difficulty between Gould and the others is on a technical point of evolution: is everything adaptive, or are some features exaptive - what Gould called “spandrels” and which might be thought of as byproducts. It’s not a major disagreement which threatens the new modern synthesis in any way. Gould occasionally set up strawmen to attack, and he might better have not done that, but he’s been taken wildly out of context by those who hope to use him as “proof” that evolutionary biologists are at odds with each other.
Gould was a supreme popularizer and a very intelligent man. Dawkins, in my opinion, is a better writer - quite brilliant - and all of his books are copiously sourced and annotated. (I’ve read most of them - all of his popular books, and I love him, so I’m not unbiased.)
Where Gould and Dawkins could have been at real odds is religion. Dawkins is, as an Englishman can be, an open and unabashed atheist, and has said that evolution makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Dawkins has compared religion to a virus - of course, Dawkins compares most organized thoughts, or memes, to viruses. They aren’t necessarily bad - though of course Dawkins thinks religion is now doing far more harm than good, and should be outlawed, but he doesn’t say that science thinks that, only that he does. Gould on the other hand came up with the theory of Non-Overlapping Magisteria, suggesting that science asks “what” and “how” and “when” while religion asks “why”, and that if both sides kept to their arena there would be no conflict. (Personally, I don’t see fundamentalists accepting that, so I think Gould was wasting his breath.)
On to your question… I believe that scientists should be accurate. Depending on their topic and audience, they needn’t annotate heavily, but they should be able to if they need to. I don’t mind them telling me their philosophies (Dennett is a phiolosopher in the first place) as long as they identify them.
October 3rd, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Not precisely on topic, but I had to drop in and recommend Dawkins’s production The Root of All Evil. I watched it for the first time this weekend and LOVED it. You can see both 50-minute segments for free on Google Video.
October 3rd, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
I think this is a very appropriate subject given the increasing number of science writers. My experience has been such that I now tend to classify some writers as almost scientific evangelists while others are trying to communicate scientific principles with no axes to grind. I will admit to a third category that I have never quite figured out.
I put science writers such as Dawkins, Sagan, and Pinker in the evangelical category. They clearly are giants in their respective scientific disciplines yet they have taken the next step to point out their views on the philosophical and social meaning of the scientific principles they are presenting. As a result, they are not shy about using the science they are presenting to delving into such controversial issues as the existence (or not) of deities.
I would put the likes of Hawking, Greene (“The Elegant Universe”) and Clark and Grunstein (“Are We Hardwired?”) in the science communicator category. Again, giants in their fields but when they write, they are doing their level best to communicate complex, counterintuitive concepts to a lay audience. There is no social commentary. They also tend to use highly inaccurate analogies to get the idea across but are usually quick to point out the flaws in the analogies. They are communicating science for the sake of science alone.
Finally I would comment on Stephan Gould. Again, a giant in his field BUT with a personal writing style that is all but incomprehensible to even members of his own genre of anthropology, say nothing to the lay person. In his last book, “The Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister’s Pox” he even takes a swipe at any writer that is not up to what he considers an appropriate standard. I personally enjoy his books but not so much for the scientific information as for the almost renaissance elegance of his style even if I must read it with a dictionary running at full throttle. He even exceeds William F. Buckley Jr.; well know for his use of platitudinous ponderosities.
So what of the ethics of the evangelists? I personally have no problem with it as long as they are recognized as such and their science is good. It does require the reader to maintain a critical perspective but that should be a given. When Dawkins introduced the concept of a “meme” it was reasonably obvious he was tossing out a loosely considered concept with the hope that someone would pickup the gauntlet and run with it; at least far enough to see if it made sense.
On the other side of the coin, is it ethical for Gould to hide the science behind paisley encrusted prose to create some type of literary art form? I don’t think so. The intent is communication, not an ego trip.
Finally there is the question of ethics involved in scientists taking advantage of their respected position and writing books on hot button issues in a blatant attempt to make money. I’ll pass on that one.
October 3rd, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
Perhaps the main reason there is such a gulf between the scientific community and most everyone else is how little of what scientists do is comprehensible to the lay community. It is tantamount to a language barrier.
While I am a true believer in science - in what it can offer humanity - I was a miserable student in both math and science. My ability to understand complex science is seriously limited. Numbskulls such as I are dependent upon those scientists who attempt to bridge that gap. I suppose it is difficult for some of them avoid pontificating or proselytizing from time to time. Some resist the urge better than others. In the end scientists are as human as the rest of us. There are those who claim that a true scientist should be selfless, the reality is often something different. We all have egos.
Again, I suppose it is up to each of us to separate the wheat from the chaff.
TLS
October 4th, 2006 @ 9:40 am
“Finally there is the question of ethics involved in scientists taking advantage of their respected position and writing books on hot button issues in a blatant attempt to make money. I’ll pass on that one. ”
I’m not sure I understand the benefit to dividing them into categories like “evangelists.” It’s not as if their positions as scientists and their perspective on religion are unrelated; they do not believe in the supernatural largely because of their extensive understanding of the natural. That’s the root of their atheism.
Dawkins, from what I’ve seen, “preaches” against religious attacks on scientific progress and education because those attacks are happening and they are dangerous to our society. He’s like Harris in his belief that since scientists are in a privileged position to harness the powers of reason, they have a certain obligation to set themselves against dangerous un-reason. While it’s all well and sweet to say “I’m a scientist but I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings and argue with him/her about religion,” the fact is that many powerful religious people are not allowing science the same courtesy. They have to be stopped before they hamstring science education not just for their own (doomed) children but for MINE.
October 4th, 2006 @ 11:32 am
You raised some good questions about science writing. It’s tough to find a balance between readability and rigor. Most of us are not going to be professional evolutionary biologists or astronomers. Even scientists need to rely on less than rigorous understanding when they read outside their particular area of expertise.
Scientists should try to indicate in their writing what ideas are well-understood and which ones are still speculative. I think most of the good writers usually do this well. For the problem that people are going to misunderstand “selfish gene” as an actual selfish little creature, I don’t think there’s much you can do.
“He’s like Harris in his belief that since scientists are in a privileged position to harness the powers of reason, they have a certain obligation to set themselves against dangerous un-reason.”
Are scientists in a privileged position to speak about reason? I don’t recall Harris or Dawkins making that statement. Maybe they are. For some issues, like evolution vs. creationism, scientists are uniquely qualified to explain the ways we understand certain things. But don’t expect scientists to single-handedly take on the responsibility to fight un-reason.
October 4th, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
I agree that they don’t have to do it single-handedly.
October 4th, 2006 @ 11:15 pm
I personally think it’s okay. I skimmed through The Selfish Gene a few weeks ago and you are right that Dawkins spends some time explaining the title. I remember him clarifying the title for The Root of All Evil as well if my memory serves me right. But the content of both the book and the documentary was enough to want me to explore it and I did. The Selfish Gene was a tough read because I’m not very biology-inclined and I’m still ignorant of many of the facts but I think any writing that can help me conceptualize big ideas is good because it keeps my interest level high.
For some reason your post reminded of something Joseph Campbell said in the Power of Myth interview. He said something along the lines of our myths having to conform to our modern understanding of the world. I’m not implying that evolutionary biology is a myth but to read these modern poetic science books is a lot more fun than reading alternative stories of our origins. I don’t mind them at all. Besides I’m sure the authors mentioned here would be the first to encourage reading all kinds of books and not just their own.
October 5th, 2006 @ 11:48 am
After reading all these responses (of course, I invite anyone else to add their opinions), it appears that while there may be some minor differences regarding semantics, we are all of the agreement that as long as the scientists are not purposely misleading, as long as they do their best to clarify, then it the reader’s responsibility to understand it, to be a critical reader, etc. Overall, we are learning more than if we never bothered with it at all, right?
Thanks for filling in the gaps for me, those of you who gave more background regarding the various writers.
Rodolpho–I think you’re right on! You remind me that Campbell said our generation needs a new “myth.” A modern story that speaks to us and is up to date with the way we understand the world. I always wondered what that story could possibly be. It doesn’t have to be fiction. It just needs to tell us a story about ourselves that resonates with us. Perhaps that is why so many of us turn to science when we leave religion. It gives us the story we need. (a more accurate one, at that).
October 6th, 2006 @ 10:27 am
Hi Noell,
Thanks for your blog! I have linked to it in a post about your recent article “Coping with Parental Difficulties”, on my own philosophy blog at http://dtstrainphilosophyblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/agnostic-mom-on-parenting.html
October 10th, 2006 @ 5:48 am
Hello Noell,
So am I understanding right that it’s not beliefs or belief systems that you oppose, but maybe something more like old-fashioned religious rituals? Especially “hard-nosed” ones that oppress people?
I agree that personifying Nature makes for good writing. I think that’s because humans have an innate religious or metaphysical sense. When we read about someone else’s experience of the metaphysical, it resonates in us. What do you (or anybody else) think?
October 10th, 2006 @ 12:54 pm
Dan–I have never opposed belief systems, the existence of religion, nor rituals, although I have criticized some of those things. I do oppose oppression and the denial of freedom from any source, religious or not.
I just think that a belief system based on a lack of evidence (which is faith) makes no sense and will inevitably set you up for many false understandings. Experience has shown this as Christianity has had to adjust its views over and over again as science makes more and more discoveries.
But, I concede that at times we don’t have all the evidence we need on a certain subject and we have to form an opinion or belief regardless. For example, I believe many of the theories of Evolutionary Psychology even though the evidence for it is not as substantial as, say, Biological Evolution. The difference, though, is that I recognize and acknowledge that the evidence for my in Evo.Psych. belief is weaker and I will adjust my thinking if it proves itself false.
Religious belief boasts its lack of evidence (the definition of religious faith) and its members make a massive claim to Truth with a capital T even in instances when evidence shows otherwise.
So religion makes no sense to me. But I am not “opposed” to it, nor to religious rituals. I am opposed to religious people infringing on my own rights, or infringing on society by watering down science in schools because some of its findings contradicts with their no-evidence-beliefs.
October 11th, 2006 @ 5:23 am
Noell,
I’m glad I asked, because I can see that I wasn’t really understanding you.
“At some point we have to make decisions about what we believe, even when there is little evidence.” I’m interested in hearing more about this, if or when you have time.
So, am I hearing you right that you’re totally cool with belief systems as long as they don’t limit other people’s freedoms, take into account all the evidence and fully acknowledge the Scientific Method? If so, then we’re much closer in our approach than I previously thought.
Peace to you and your family, and again, if/when you have time.
October 11th, 2006 @ 3:11 pm
Noell,
I just got done reading your HNN column “Who’s afraid of the Ghosts”, great job. I look forward to reading your column and you always know what to say. I bumble over stuff when I’m talking to my friends. Then I read what you have to say and it helps me explain to my non-theist friends. Thanks for helping! I hope your family is doing well.
Tracy