Saturday, August 13, 2005

Weird Science on the Religious Right

"But when policies involving human biology and behavior are being hammered out, faith alone isn't always sufficient to win over voters and decision-makers. At such times, a bit of scientific evidence comes in handy, and some of the Religious Right's operatives aren't too choosy about where they get it."

As some readers of this blog probably realize, I'm highly mistrusting of the mainstream media's cavalier use of "skepticism" (as typified by the Washington Post's casual acceptance of Philip Klass' bogus explanation for Lonnie Zamora's UFO sighting and the New York Times' condescending use of the term "Martians").

But curiously, in the case of the Religious Right, the mainstream relaxes its usually strident intolerance for weird ideas in an apparent attempt to please everyone. This is the void that people like Michael Shermer should be scrambling to fill. (His "Why People Believe Weird Things" offers a devastating and informative critique of "intelligent design" and Holocaust "revisionism," both of which, I argue, are fundamentally connected.)

Instead, Shermer and other self-proclaimed luminaries spend far too much time brandishing toothless answers to phenomena they simply don't understand: Just because one grasps the social and political forces responsible for such nonsense as Creationism doesn't mean one is qualified to condemn the presence of unidentified objects in our skies or the presence of distinctly curious morphologies on Mars.

"Intelligent Design" is a scam; give the Religious Right an inch and they'll happily take a mile. But a similar trend pervades pop skepticulture. Shermer, Shostak, Randi et al aren't content skewering straw men; they want to take down a few genuine unknowns while they're at it.

In a week I'll be on camera for a documentary on ancient civilizations and extraterrestrial visitors to be aired on the Discovery Channel. And while I look forward to the trip -- and not-so-secretly relish the prospect of "wising up the marks" (or at least a few of them) -- I fear the worst, and not without some justification.

9 comments:

JEFM said...

Goodluck on the interview Mac!
Luckily I have cable and will be able to see it when aired.

Jon

Mac said...

Thanks! Hopefully I won't come off as a loonie.

KennyJC said...

I seen on 'abc news' that 45% of americans believe God put man on Earth 10,000 years ago.

That's a lot of people!

W.M. Bear said...

Mac -- I suspect you will come off as a rare "voice of reason," since you are neither a programmatic skeptic/debunker nor a credulous "believer."

kennyjc -- I honestly don't give a rusty fuck if the number of people who hold unreal beliefs is in the billions -- which it probably is.

dawn said...

Do you know when it will air? And what is the name of the program?

Hope it goes well!

Mac said...

I don't know the air date yet. I'm sure it has a name, but I don't know it quite yet.

I'll keep you posted.

W.M. Bear said...

I plan to plead "on bended knee" with my ex to let me come over and watch it on her TV!

W.M. Bear said...

Re I.D. again though. Metaphysics is not science. Why is this difficult? I'll tell you why.

Classical science (especially that of the ancient Greeks, essentially developed and promulgated by Aristotle) did include what we now think of as metaphysics -- with its four types of causes: material, formal, effective, and final (Artistotle's categories). Material cause is what something is made of. Formal cause is basically the mathematical/theoretical description of a phenomenon. For example, Newton's Laws of Motion or the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. Effective cause is what we typically think of as "process," more the observational/experimental side of science. And... final cause is a phenomenon's purposive behavior. So the essential paradigm of classical science was to include all four types of causes, including final cause. Where this led thinkers astray was that, since final cause was considered the "ultimate" causal factor, what you essentially did was to determine first and foremost what the final cause of something was and then worked back to derive the other three types or causes and, in consequence, what a phenomenon's behavior "ought" to be. This procedure, in fact, is what resulted (when Ptolemy systematically applied this paradigm in the fourth century of our era) in the geocentric theory of the universe, in which everything revolves around the earth. The brilliance of the medieval thinkers who radically changed this paradigm (and these thinkers include him of the famous Razor, William of Occam) lay precisely in discarding one of Aristotle's original four causes -- final cause -- as not lying within the province of science. Once science freed itself of final causality -- the appropriate domain now of a separated-off metaphysics -- it was able to focus on the observational/experimental side of phenomena instead of trying to deduce what they "ought" to look like according to some general Platonic principle of the Ideal. Ever since then, final cause has been banished, rightly, from science proper but at various points (and the whole Darwinian controversy is a prime example) certain thinkers keep trying to sneak it back in. So, I.D. is not and can never be considered modern science precisely because it does seek to use final cause as an explanation for evolutionary development.

Thank you Jesus! I'm starting to sound like Ken Younos!

W.M. Bear said...

And as an addendum (I hear those gentle voices saying, "Shut up, Bear!)

The reason that the so-called "soft sciences" (psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.) encounter so much methodological difficulty lies precisely in the fact that human behavior is purposive. But if you're excluding final causality (i.e., purposive behavior) from consideration as modern science is constrained by its basic paradigm to do well, you see the problem. Even biology runs into this (and here we're back to the whole Darwinian/I.D. shitbang) because all organisms -- even viruses! -- apparently exhibit purposive behavior.