Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Loons abhor a vacuum, too

Alun discusses a new book by Graham Hancock, a ditzy New Age pseudoarchaeologist with some of the same biases as our ID crowd. Does this sound familiar?

Could it be that human evolution is not just the "blind", "meaningless" process that Darwin identified, but something else, more purposive and Intelligent, that we have barely even begun to understand?

That could have come straight out of a Discovery Institute press release. The lack of positive claims by ID creationism, the gaping hole left by their reluctance to specify any features of their Designer, opens the door to all kinds of interesting characters, like Chariots of the Gods-style crackpots, some of whom may be more rhetorically persuasive than old school Puritans and Dominionists. Alun explains that Hancock is "perfectly capable of philosophically mugging the Intelligent Design movement."

There’s an excellent paper “Why Creationists Don’t Go to Psychic Fairs” by John H. Taylor, Raymond A. Eve and Francis B. Harrold in Kendrick Frazier’s book Encounters with the Paranormal. It shows that the credulity and tolerance of ideas that exists in the New Age culture is anathema to the intolerance of the fundamentalists. The last thing a Southern Baptist preacher will want to say is “Some people believe in the Christian God, but you never know you might want to sling a few prayers Rama’s way too.” So far by trying to open up science to their ‘alternative’ the Creationist lobby have been beating the scientists with a New Age snake. I think Graham Hancock might be about to demonstrate why that is so dangerous. Can a Christian movement really promote a theory which seriously suggests that God was one of many beings that you can contact with powerful drugs and pagan rituals?

We're seeing some signs that the culture warriors of the Discovery Institute may be concerned about this problem in general. They have to be careful that no one think Space Aliens did it, but not so loud about it that they expose their religious bias. They're also trying to separate themselves from the Old-Timey Gospel Hour folks. This is what happens when one has no process and no evidence and no rigor, and are trying hard to conceal one's actual religious agenda—there is no substance, only vacuum, and any ol' garbage can freely move in to fill the space. And in the case of the Discovery Institute, it's their stealth religion garbage that's at risk of being displaced.

It would be interesting if ID were hijacked by New Agers. Not only would it strip the ID creationists of most of their political leverage (a good thing!), but then I'd have to sit here writing crotchety rants against those danged crystal-waving, fairy-believing, sky-clad hippie libruls. My head would 'splode (a bad thing, I'm pretty sure).


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2535/hsuixYMn/

Comments:
#30576: — 07/02  at  10:29 AM
It would be just like the 60's, except that I was much younger then.



#30577: Raven — 07/02  at  10:31 AM
It would be interesting if ID were hijacked by New Agers.


Oh, no, PZ, I beg you--please don't start that meme. I'm working on systematic evaluation of massage research, and there's already enough mistrust of science in that community as it is.

Actually, for me the surprise has not been how many vocal opponents of science there are (I was expecting that), but how many massage practitioners are open to exploring the truly scientific aspects of complementary medicine. (I use the term "complementary" on purpose, because it can be an effective adjunct treatment; it's not an "alternative" to standard cancer treatment, for example, but it can help lower pain and anxiety about both cancer and cancer treatment.) They have not previously been exposed to concepts such as "control", "randomization", and "significance", but if one takes the time to go through it carefully, patiently, and systematically, there is a lot of openness to learning about both science and massage that way. My sessions have actually been full to overflowing on multiple occasions.

But yeah, it has occurred to me that if the IDers were to market their approach as "holistic", they might get some takers in the New Age community that way, because there is a meme out there that science is fatally reductionistic. The thing is, the IDers are actually more reductionistic than the science they deplore, but they've never balked at other catchy PR before, true or not. But you're right; they'd never do it, because then they'd have to be ready to talk about Rama and Bast as well as Jehovah.



's avatar #30578: Chris Clarke — 07/02  at  10:34 AM
but then I'd have to sit here writing crotchety rants against those danged crystal-waving, fairy-believing, sky-clad hippie libruls.



And that's my job, dammit.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson



#30580: Don — 07/02  at  10:56 AM
ID is a movement of mystery and doubt. It is not science, as we all know, but rather a socio-political umbrella for crackpottism. It's sort of a science anarchy, and so ID advocates spend a great deal of their time tweaking their PR and explaining what they are not. They're not Darwinists, they're not Creationists, they're not Panspermists, they're not Scientologists and Moonies, etc. It's almost comical watching them tell each other that they must be verrrrrry careful not to actually be anything specific, lest all their options dissolve away in the corners of contradiction and confusion. All they all agree on is that they must fight the good fight. For the children. And all that.

PS - Doesn't the film "What The Bleep Do We Know!?" fall into the potential highjacker category too? The ID questions would seem to appeal to the same crowd that gets excited about the new-age "maybe we're all just a thought process made tangible" kinds of ideas.



#30581: Hank Fox — 07/02  at  11:01 AM
I'm too often glum about all these creationist clowns, especially considering what's in the White House these days. But, then again, I often think "Hey they really are actually LYING. That has to have some strong negative effect on how successful they can be. Sooner or later, the real world does weigh in."

With this post, now I know of another of the unintended side-effects. Bravo!



#30582: Alon Levy — 07/02  at  11:06 AM
The anti-science sentiments in the entire world are now guided by conservatism rather than socialism. There are a few anti-scientists on the left (speaking of which, my critique of Biology as Ideology is up - it has comments enabled so there's no need to further hijack this thread), but the bulk of the movement is right-wing. As Alun says, there's big enough a difference between the two that a permanent alliance is impossible.

The ID movements everywhere are primarily conservative: they oppose evolution because of religious reasons, with race thrown into the discussion once in a while. Because of New Agism's association with feel-good leftism and the 1960s' counterculture, and because their non-fundamentalist conservative allies are very anti-New Age for obvious reasons, creationists hate this form of left-wing anti-intellectualism.

Similarly, the pseudo-scientific racists never try to coopt post-modernism or other forms of left-wing anti-intellectualism. We've had many racists here who have argued that the reason mainstream scientists reject works like The Bell Curve is purely ideological; none of them has tried to quote any post-modernist or other leftist in order to show that science is an ideological enterprise.

Leftist anti-intellectualism usually rejects rightist anti-intellectualism, though less categorically than vice versa. After all, New Agism is little more than an attempt to replace traditional mystic bullshit (i.e. Christianity in the West) with alternative, more progressive forms of mystic bullshit. New Age mystic bullshit is generally consistent with left-wing principles such as equality, so for example Wicca supports gender egalitarianism. So it's not surprising that the same New Agers who bash skeptics for being close-minded also oppose traditional creationism, which comes with sexist and hierarchical bias.

On a related note, Raven, creationism is a holistic enterprise. The religious concept of life depends on vitalist metaphysics, which is the purest form of emergentism. You can't be a reductionist and believe in souls or free will without contradicting yourself. Especially with modern astrophysics and its description of a gargantuan universe, believing in a god that especially favors humans is a very holistic thing, too.



#30584: Raven — 07/02  at  12:38 PM
You can't be a reductionist and believe in souls or free will without contradicting yourself.

I think we're actually agreeing with each other here, Alon, just in different words--my point was that the granular tinkering with individuals and species by the deity that ID has to postulate because of their rejection of evolution takes what would otherwise be a holistic creation story, and injects a high degree of reductionism into it that defeats their whole purpose. ID contradicts itself all the time, for the very reason you describe.



#30585: — 07/02  at  12:40 PM
Hancock used to write for the Economist, which is rather funny in a dismal-pseudo-science kind of way.

Alon, in the essay you link to you claim:

<blockquote>
in the last four hundred years, there have been exactly two cases of science being subservient to the dominant social structure



#30586: — 07/02  at  12:45 PM
[apologies for prvious broken post]

Hancock used to write for the Economist, which is rather funny in a dismal-pseudo-science kind of way.

Alon, in the essay you link to you claim:


in the last four hundred years, there have been exactly two cases of science being subservient to the dominant social structure


which is just silly. Lysenko? In the US, there were wildly dubious medical theories which legitimated slave-owners' customs and practices, like the lung disease which made slaves run away, best treated by repeated blows to the back...



#30587: Raven — 07/02  at  01:12 PM
Are we discussing Alon's essay here? I don't mind doing so, just want to make sure I'm not hijacking the thread if we should be elsewhere.

Larry:
Alon, in the essay you link to you claim:

" in the last four hundred years, there have been exactly two cases of science being subservient to the dominant social structure"

which is just silly. Lysenko? In the US, there were wildly dubious medical theories which legitimated slave-owners' customs and practices, like the lung disease which made slaves run away, best treated by repeated blows to the back...


There are many more than just two cases, Alon--the Tuskegee syphilis study, Pernkopf's anatomical atlas, nuclear testing without notification of populations in the US Southwest and in Micronesia, suppression of negative research findings by government or corporations (like Vioxx), continued practice by physicians and remuneration by insurance companies of treatments backed by little or no evidence (certain orthopedic surgical procedures, for example)--I could enumerate them all day, but no one here has time for that.

I am not including scientific fraud like Bezwoda here, because that is a renegade scientist, who was outed and rejected by the scientific community. Rather, I confine myself to the practice by established scientists of research that is less than faithful to the principle of scientific truth above every other consideration, and that is practiced in such as way as to reinforce existing social structures.

If your point is that, like Semmelweis, the truth is ultimately vindicated by science, I'd buy that, in most cases at least. But getting to that point of vindication is often full of sociopolitical obstacles which science can and does temporarily reinforce, sometimes for decades.



's avatar #30588: Chris Clarke — 07/02  at  01:20 PM
Alon, that's a very well-written piece. I'm impressed.

I agree with the criticism Larry and Raven make. I also think you're too quick to relegate reflexive reductionism to the rubbishheap of history. There are plenty of reductionists still walking the earth. (Dawkins, anyone?) And I'll probably have other substantive disagreements as I get deeper into it after I come back from replenishing my household's Strategic Pet Food Reserves.

But it's a great read. Nice job.

"I do not think we should antagonize the religious when it is not warranted, though I think we should be willing to do so whenever it is.”
-- Glen Davidson



#30589: Raven — 07/02  at  02:05 PM
But it's a great read. Nice job.


Chris is right. I jumped right into the debate, because I thought there was enough good and well-argued there that we could proceed to have a productive discussion on the points where we disagree. And there are several points of potential discussion in your piece for that. But sometimes I forget to mention the good up front, and forget that I can't just take for granted that you know that.



#30590: — 07/02  at  02:08 PM
Below is an analogical teleological argument that DNA was designed by a highly intelligent designer, probably God.

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ap85/papers/ProgramsAndBugs.html

OK! Blood is in the water! Tear that argument to shreds! :D

http://galilean-library.org/



's avatar #30593: PZ Myers — 07/02  at  02:21 PM
Can't. It was such a stupid argument that just looking at it gave me brainlock.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#30594: — 07/02  at  02:33 PM
but then I'd have to sit here writing crotchety rants against those danged crystal-waving, fairy-believing, sky-clad hippie libruls.


Hey, I'm all for pretty ladies going sky-clad, whether they're hippie libruls or otherwise.

I wonder if Rosalind Franklin went sky-clad while wielding her crystals. I'll have to ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Arrrr!



#30595: — 07/02  at  02:36 PM
OK, so what is going to be worse? ID being infiltrated by so-called "new agers" or being co-opted by scientologists? I'll bet you that this Hancock guy's next field project is to find one of the surviving ships that the intergalactic despot Xenu sent into a Hawaiian volcano 75 million years ago.

see http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/xenu-space-aliens.htm

Sorry, but, I'll take patchouli stnking hippies bathing their crystals in Sedona over fundamentalist baptists or Scientology loons ANY DAY OF THE WEEK!



#30596: — 07/02  at  02:46 PM
but then I'd have to sit here writing crotchety rants against those danged crystal-waving, fairy-believing, sky-clad hippie libruls.

Over here in Scotland, we have quite a good word for them:
bams
as in bampots. It generally means someone of unsound mind, like people who truly believe in UFO's. Besides, I am not sure many of them would describe themselves as liberals, I am sure that liberals are too conservative and stick in the mud for them.



#30597: Alon Levy — 07/02  at  02:52 PM
If you don't mind, I'll continue talking about my article in PZ's new thread in order to avoid hijacking this thread.



#30600: — 07/02  at  03:20 PM
Back to the subject of this Graham Hancock loon,...

This charlitan provides the perfect example of the type of psuedoscientific enquiry that has plagued legitimate archeology for well over a century. Through the assignment of implied functional meaning to selected artifacts and features, Hancock claims to have made all sort of "groundbreaking discoveries" about otherwise mythical or legendary figures. It is blind sensationalism, and the result of an enormous ego, pure and simple.

The fact is, aside from basic observations of morphological traits and spatial distributions of said artifacts and features, little else can be delineated in the field about the culture much less the identities of those whose left them there. Are clusters of burned rock "ritual fireplaces ... used for worshipping the Sun God" or were they simply hearths used in the preparation of lunch?

Even when clear patterns begin to emerge, we must be hesitant to make functional assignments as to their socio-religious meaning, especially when we are dealing with an ancient culture that we know only through myth and oral legend.

Sorry pal, archeology is rarely that sexy or that easy.



#30605: Raven — 07/02  at  04:01 PM
So timageous, can I assume you're not a fan of "Angelina Jolie, Tomb Raider", or whatever it was called? smile



#30606: — 07/02  at  04:08 PM
Lets just say that I am a fan of parts of her.



#30609: — 07/02  at  04:51 PM
C'mon, PZ! You can do better than that! Why is it a stupid argument? The point is simply that some philosophers make intricate arguments suggesting that a God might be possible, and it might perhaps be the case that on the surface at least, they have better arguments than those of that dingbat illustrator you recently tore apart. Don't you want to tackle the strongest possible arguments? When you dump on that illustrator, whose name I already forget, you come off like Muhammad Ali beating up on a 97-pound weakling.

On a completely unrelated note -- and I hope this is not somehow inapporpiate -- you, PZ, and several others here might remember the estimable WinAce from iidb. WinAce, who is 20, has cystic fibrobis and is dying. He needs an operation to save his life, one that he can't afford. Medicaid -- an adjunct of the American Bushocracy -- has decided not to pay for this operation. Why? Well, because the operation to save his life is itself life-threatening.

That's just good logic. We're in good hands, here in America, sort of like an Allstate deal.

Anyway, while we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars to slaughter Iraqis and American troops in defense of life, a lone American citizen faces death for want of support from his government. I and several others are working up a Web site to raise funds to pay for his operation. His full story can be found at the Freethought-Forum, at the link below:

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3395

I'm sure WinAce would appreciate any advice or even a word of support. PZ, I apologize if this intrusion is in any way inappropriate to your blog, but I thought I'd try to get the word out. Thanks.



#30615: — 07/02  at  07:06 PM
Lets just call creationism (ID or any other version) what it is a religous belief. There continues to be a tendency to attack it as non science - of course it is not science - but that attacks don't help the cause - lets peg it as religion. We have seen just how upset the ID folks get about that, but lets just put them in their corner where they belong.

G



's avatar #30617: John M. Price — 07/02  at  07:30 PM
You can't be a reductionist and believe in souls or free will without contradicting yourself.


Sure. I'd only comment on the fact that this may be criticized as a really naive understanding of reductionism. From where I sit reductionism is excellent as an explanatory enterprise, and probably correct in its explanations. However, in insanely complex systems, such as humans, it can only really be post hoc. Emergence is seen many times over. The behaviors seen (or expressed in terms of thinking) cannot easily be reduced on the spot and I don't think anyone here is willing to go to the point of full determinism. Hence even educated folk will see a gap between the explanatory models developed by reductionistic explanations and emergence of behaviors seemingly out of the blue.

Therefore I can give folk a large benefit of doubt in this area and realize that to them, their faith in souls may actually be observable within their world view. Indeed, I'd suggest that the data being the same, the generalization to souls and the generalization to a solely biological based beings are informationally equivalent.

All that said, my gravestone will have a reference to Gen3:19 (I think) which is perhaps the most fact based verse in the whole damn "holy" book. I don't expect an afterlife. If there is one, expect to be haunted!



's avatar #30618: John M. Price — 07/02  at  07:44 PM
I noted the following on Alun's site:

And hallucinogens such as mescaline, also produce visionary encounters with exactly the same beings. Scientists at the cutting edge of consciousness research have begun to consider the possibility that such hallucinations may be real perceptions of other “dimensions”.


Wow. I am absolutely amazed at the total ignorance of brain expressed here.

Would that stupidity be a fatal birth defect and ignorance cause excrutiating pain until remedied.



Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Next entry: Biology as Ideology

Previous entry: Something for all you preeverts

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college