Trackback: The Doubters Tracked on: Newton's Binomium (72.9.234.70) at 2005 08 23 07:35:14
Yesterday, the New York Times released the second installment in their series on the so-called "evolution debate". Unfortunately it was terrible...

Trackback: Good and bad reporting, how do you tell? Tracked on: Buridan's Ass (66.235.212.128) at 2005 08 23 17:34:25
I want to contrast two different modes of reporting for you. They're both NY Times articles - The first is what I think is an excellent piece that gets it right for a change and the second is one that...

#37365: — 08/24  at  05:43 PM
"What possible objection could there be to a rebuttal to ID that does not involve throwing accusations of dishonesty around?"

How about this objection: that strategy has been historically proven to be a loser with a capital freaking L.

#37378: — 08/24  at  08:20 PM
"Any discussions about these assholes that concern scientific facts is a sideshow and one that only benefits the creationists and the scientifically illiterate rubes who eat their conspiracy stories up."

I'm more optimistic than that. When someone proposes an invalid idea, you ought to be able to show that it's invalid. What's more, the process of showing that it's invalid can be very instructive. One of the best books on my bookshelf is called - approximately "Science Misused" - and it does a devastating and perfectly polite demolition of the bogus points that creationists have brought forward over the years in their attempts to discredit evolution. Hydraulic sorting, polonium halos, the anthropic fallacy. It's all there. When you are done reading it, you don't just understand what's wrong with creationist argument; you also learn quite a lot.

The new problem is twofold. First, it's a bit more investment than you can expect the average lay person to make to read. Secondly, even handwaving mathematics about probabilities is much more of a deterrant to most people than nonsense about the flood.

And I think that is part of the reason that we are getting such weak signals from people like Bush and Frist. They are afraid that they are well out of their depth, and so the only safe thing for them to say is that both ID and evolution should be taught so that students can make up their own minds.

This one seems to be coming at us pretty fast, and I think some people are panicing. I honestly don't think it's going to win us many friends just to call the ID folks liars. They are definitely slippery, and they are in some wierd company, but I have no trouble believing that some of them genuinely think they are on to something, and that they're actually sincere; that rather strange kind of sincerity that comes from valuing faith over logic.

As I said before, I watched the relativity debate, and I learned a whole lot more from the people who patiently explained things, over and over if necessary, than from the people who lost their tempers and personalised the debate.

It would be a poor outcome if we spend our time yelling about liars, while they patiently and politely take over the school boards.

#37384: — 08/24  at  08:50 PM
As I said before, I watched the relativity debate, and I learned a whole lot more from the people who patiently explained things, over and over if necessary, than from the people who lost their tempers and personalised the debate.

Agreed. The patient explainers are indirectly sending a very positive, personal message, and that message is "I want to get at the root of our disagreement, because I value our relationship and your experience." That kind of person tends to listen a lot, as well, even if they're hearing misconceptions they've heard a thousand times already. That kind of person also asks the other person how they arrived at their beliefs, to get them thinking about why we believe what we believe.

Jon, I wasn't around for the relativity debates, but they sound interesting. Know of any good books that discuss them?

#37388: — 08/24  at  09:53 PM

It's like a nineteenth century physicist saying that he does not know what gravity "is", but the orbits of the planets argue for the existence of such a force.

Jon, if evolution is wrong and the theory that living things were designed is right, you couldn't design new organisms, as we are now doing. When we are transferring existing genes from one organism to another, when we are creating completely new genes, when we are modifying the number of chromosomes, when we are in the verge of creating new reproductive mechanisms (DNA with new aminoacids, for example), etc. it can be said we are designing life not less than the original Designer.

We could not do all these if evolution was wrong.

In other words, the antibiotic you are taking would not work if evolution was wrong.

How could anyone argument honestly that he/she is seeing design everywhere by someone not ourselves, when nowadays we ourselves are designing life forms and we are learning how it is done and we know that what we find in nature was not designed but sculpted by wild, naturally ocurring processes we call evolution?

Evolution is not a mysterious process but something we not only understand but are starting to manage. The light-producing fish sold in pet shops and all kind of new pets being developed will take out the mystery from evolution and design, I hope.

It also will devaluate the figure of a life-designing god, for sure. If we can do it, what is this designer? Not much. Probably nothing.

#37393: ekzept — 08/24  at  11:00 PM

It's like a nineteenth century physicist saying that he does not know what gravity "is", but the orbits of the planets argue for the existence of such a force.

it's a quibble, for sure, but we still don't know what gravity is. it's believed to be mediated by gravitons but noone's detected one yet.

#37408: — 08/25  at  06:28 AM
"..we still don't know what gravity is."

But we know exactly how it works. We can easily calculate trajectories of rockets and planets, and even my weight on the moon.

Where would you situate the Supreme Designer in relation to gravity? I cannot find a job for him/her to do in the gravity business.

#37434: Roger Christie — 08/25  at  09:45 AM
As Stephen Colbert put it so elequently on the Daily Show, it isn't the job of the NYT to report FACTS. "We spend half the time reporting what one side says, and half the time reporting what the other side says. A little thing called objectivity, John. You might look it up."

A little more objectivity such as this and we'll soon find ourselves living in Iran West.

#37436: — 08/25  at  10:24 AM
I’m a novice at this. All I understand about gravity is that when I drop something expensive a force takes over, jerks it to the ground and smashes it against the hardest object available. Gravity must have a cost/benefit component.
Gravity, hell, someone explain light to me. I know that when I go out at night and turn on a flashlight a beam of light comes from the tiny bulb. The bulb has a filament that is burning and it may get warm but the beam of light has no temperature. Is the flashlight emitting energy? Is it in waves like sound? Does it have the property of particles? Ten feet from the end of my flashlight if I interrupted the beam what would I measure and what would I measure it with? I don’t think “lumens” count. That is just a measure of how bright this unknown beam is; it doesn’t tell me WHAT it is.
I’m a Pastafarian. When I shine the light up into the sky attempting to catch a glimpse of His noodly appendage where does the projected beam stop? When I shut the light off does the beam that has been projected continue to go out in search?
Oh, and I forgot, what is time? It can’t just be a measure. If so a measure of what?
This is serious stuff. If we can’t answer even these simple questions I think we should stop teaching science to kids.

#37447: — 08/25  at  11:18 AM
This whole thing really sets in sharp relief the limitations of the so-called objective media when trying to report on clashes between members of the 21st C. reality-based community with 13-14th C. spiritualists behind "intelligent design."

Remember, this was all printed in the same paper that relentlessly pushed the "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction" stories and buried the rebuttals in the back, and whose reporters say that they simply cannot write that the President is a liar, no matter how baldfaced the lie.

Creationism highlights the limits of the press because reporters and editors kowtow to a "balance" principle that says you can "balance" a Stephen Jay Gould with an Allan Johnson and an E.O. Wilson with Pat Robertson.

The entire body of evidence (using the term legally, rather than scientifically) for "intelligent design" is stated in the same sentence as the "theory" itself: Life is so complex that it's implausible that it was not generated by some supernatural "intelligent designer." But the Times can't bring itself to write that, because the conventions of the press are that if enough people say 2+2 = 5, you've got yourself a story, and you simply quote people from the "4" camp and the "5" camp, and leave it to the readers' good judgment.

Thus, as the DI rightly points out, the story was great for creationists because it suggests an equality between the contending positions and the existence of a significant controversy ... in other words, giving the creationists 100% more than deserved and helping ignorance prevail. The story will be copied and reprinted in DI fundraising letter for years, evidence that "your contribution have helped force even the liberal NYT to pay attention, so send in the biggest gift you can so we can continue to work to restore academic integrity to American schools by teaching both sides of this crucial issue."

#37450: — 08/25  at  11:32 AM
Jon

"I'm more optimistic than that. When someone proposes an invalid idea, you ought to be able to show that it's invalid."

Ha, that's funny coming from you, Jon.

I have shown why your ideas about how to debate creationists are invalid, Jon, but you keep reciting the same garbage in response! Kind of reminds me of a certain group of charlatans ...

"I honestly don't think it's going to win us many friends just to call the ID folks liars. They are definitely slippery, and they are in some wierd company, but I have no trouble believing that some of them genuinely think they are on to something, and that they're actually sincere; that rather strange kind of sincerity that comes from valuing faith over logic."

The same can be said of of holocaust deniers, the Swift Boat liars, and the people who advocate that slaves had it good, Jon.

What you have "no trouble believing" is irrelevant. The people at the Discovery Institute are NOT telling the truth. They are NOT interested in the truth. They are interested in confusing people and undermining science in the country. They are on the record about this strategy.

"It would be a poor outcome if we spend our time yelling about liars, while they patiently and politely take over the school boards."

Yeah, it would be a poor outcome. Of course, you are once again attacking a strawman, Jon -- a dishonest practice, I might add.

I never proposed merely yelling that the ID peddlers are liars. That is merely the easily remembered talking point that must be driven home to the rubes. The facts which justify this conclusion are readily available to anyone, including strawman-attacking creationist-appeasing types such as yourself. Go visit the TalkOrigins website for starters.

#37451: — 08/25  at  11:40 AM
Just in case you're still confused, Jon, which I'm pretty sure you are:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/25/102654/270

"Bob Davidson is a scientist -- a doctor, and for 28 years a nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school.

He's also a devout Christian who believes we're here because of God. It was these twin devotions to science and religion that first attracted him to Seattle's Discovery Institute. That's the think tank that this summer has pushed "intelligent design" -- a replacement theory for evolution -- all the way to the lips of President Bush and into the national conversation.

Davidson says he was seeking a place where people "believe in a Creator and also believe in science.


"I thought it was refreshing," he says.

Not anymore. He's concluded the institute is an affront to both science and religion.

"When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution. It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating a conflict between science and religion."

Davidson began to believe the institute is an "elaborate, clever marketing program" to tear down evolution for religious reasons. He read its writings on intelligent design -- the notion that some of life is so complex it must have been designed -- and found them lacking in scientific merit.
-------------------------------

Get it, Jon?

That's it. That's the whole story. The rubes need to know nothing more. But they need to hear this story loud and clear and they need to hear it in a way that is easily memorable.

What they don't need to hear is which of those "scientific ideas" "lacks merit."

I hope you understand why, Jon.

And you should understand by now. It's been carefully explained to you in plain English.

#37452: PZ Myers — 08/25  at  11:40 AM
Hold it. I think BOTH strategies are crucial. We need the quiet activists who appeal to the sensible but uninformed segment of the population to win them over, but we also need the firebrands to make it clear that the ID gang are a crop of liars and theocrats.

What makes for bad tactics is when the persuaders damn and disown the firebreathers, and the firebreathers call the persuaders appeasers and apologists. That's wrong, wrong, wrong.

#37478: — 08/25  at  02:18 PM
"Jon, I wasn't around for the relativity debates, but they sound interesting. Know of any good books that discuss them?"

Here's a place to start. It's a very typical situation. On one side scientists who know what they are talking about, but who can't quite explain it to lay people. On the other side people trying to say something about a highly technical issue, but saying it in everyday language, and ending up misleading themselves and one anothe.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_paradox.html

#37479: — 08/25  at  02:22 PM
"Jon, if evolution is wrong and the theory that living things were designed is right, you couldn't design new organisms, as we are now doing."

Ah, if only it were so simple. The classic creationist response to this, which long predates ID, is to say that the "designer" anticipated that we would someday need these mechanisms, and so built them in.

What you've got here is an argument that we contain everything need for bio-tech to work, but not that we evolved rather than were designed.

Oh, and I think you are on weak ground pointing out that we use these mechanisms to design new life forms. I have a mental image of the creationists licking their lips over the confusion they can wreak with that idea.

#37504: — 08/25  at  03:36 PM
Jon, Bio-tech is reaching a point where we are not only understanding how living organisms work, but we are modifying them (like gene therapy) and designing new ones (like phosphorescent fish and Round-Up resistant soya). Even more exotic organisms designed for utilitarian purposes are around the corner. Our growing familiarity with designing living organisms surely must devaluate the concept of a designer god. I am sure in 10 -15 years the idea will seem ludicruous.

Regarding the idea that all was set and arranged for our benefit, well, it is a very primitive impression of the world and unsustainable in view of the persistent indifference of nature to our existence.

What I am trying to say is that our mastery of bio-tech is bound to annihilate the idea that living organisms are so complex and misterious that only an Intelligent Designer could have made them. That will push the debate about God out of the biological field.

Dembski is able to talk about complexity only because there are vast areas of biology that have yet to be explored and understood. Once we master the field, complexity will give its place to simplicity.

If I were Dembski, I would be looking for a more obscure and uncomprehensible place for God than biology, because soon he/she will be chased out of this field.

#37521: ekzept — 08/25  at  05:09 PM

Where would you situate the Supreme Designer in relation to gravity? I cannot find a job for him/her to do in the gravity business.

never claimed there was a role for a "Supreme Designer" in any business, jaimito. what i claimed was that as much as we are familiar with gravity, including being able to make detailed predictions of its effects and even of its reletavistic effects, we don't have a mechanism or particle for it. that isn't to doubt it's science. it's just that, as i understand it, Dembski and company assert standards for statisfactory explanation based upon plausibility of such explanation. we don't have it for gravity. thus, per Dembski, gravity is not sufficiently explained and demands an Intelligent Designer. rubbish. we simply don't know. and any appeal to another power for explanation is not science, it's an exercise in impatience.

#37522: ekzept — 08/25  at  05:13 PM

Ah, if only it were so simple. The classic creationist response to this, which long predates ID, is to say that the "designer" anticipated that we would someday need these mechanisms, and so built them in.

that "classic creationist response" does not address the question of whether or not the "Supreme Designer" is or is not subject to Their own laws. if not, as most Believers seem to feel, then this kind of counter-preparedness within counterprepared text is a problem, for if it were so, it would stand out in the text quite markedly. if, rather, the "Designer" is subject to Their own law, then, as observed, one would expect each degree of removal to correspond to an increasing degree of inaccuracy or ambiguity. we don't see that either in the so-called "sacred texts".

#37523: ekzept — 08/25  at  05:22 PM

Dembski is able to talk about complexity only because there are vast areas of biology that have yet to be explored and understood. Once we master the field, complexity will give its place to simplicity.

i'm a total heretic on this point, jaimito, but i believe biology limits itself in its determinations and theories because of a wholly stylistic bias. if it were to embrace the mathematics of differential equations more, it could achieve a great deal more. i say that not, as some mathematico or engineering or physical sciences wonk against a perceived "soft" biology. my own discipline is computer science. frankly, i see little if no difference between the results achieved in comp sci from those achieve in logic, electrical engineering, or applied mathematics, apart from style of proof texts. those use different techniques, valid as they are, but the results could also have been obtained using proofs and techniques of maths, or engineering, or even theoretical physics.

#37552: — 08/25  at  08:34 PM
Thanks, Jon. I filed it under I for Information.

#37696: — 08/27  at  03:22 AM
This is one of the reasons I no longer read the NYT. You had to go skipping into the nether regions of that article before you encountered the remarks cited by Mr. Chang above. Most readers, as statistics consistently show will just never read the entire article. They'll read what's on the front page, and maybe later get around to the wrap on the last bit or paragraph. That's the way most newspapers are read. In such a massive piece, Chang, yes lovingly presented this claptrap as being worthy of equal consideration to real science. He does so for most of the length of the article.

I'm sorry, but in the 21st century, this is NOT acceptable. Not for the 'newspaper of record', and not even for a street corner free rag. We are trying to educate our kids to be competitive in the world that's now beating our brains in with regards to Stem Cell research which has been prohibited by similar effects of state imposed Lysenkoism, and all the NYT can do is offer this idiocy? The NYT is consistently trying to appease people who are NOT their readers. They are trying to be 'fair' to 'flat earthers'. That's what these people's claims amount to. This IS religion. It is an inherently religious claim. This is nothing but a religious and a political dispute, and yet this fact, although acknowledged, is subsumed by Chang's & the NYT's efforts at political correctness in the age of Bush. This is wrong. This is wrong for too many reasons to mention, but suffice it to say, it's one more reason I can no longer trust the Times. ON ANYTHING. You people have not only lost my respect, you should have lost the respect of your loyal readers years ago. It's the lies fellas, the blatant, manipulative, crass political lies you keep on telling us. We no longer can tolerate it.

ID is NOT a 'scientific endeavor'. Never has, never will be. It does not need to be critiqued as a 'scientific theory' as it does not function as one. Anywhere. Sure this might not have applied in the 18th century, but again, this is the 21st. We are doing incalculable damage to our scientific base of knowledge and support and our collective futures by pretending otherwise. Giving a 'sop' to the right wing evangelical crowd with this sort of stuff is not worthy of your efforts, and certainly not of your readership.

Perhaps you may not comprehend this now, but maybe you'll live long enough to regret such foolish and idiotic approaches to essentially a religious form of warfare. Your piece almost singularly neglects this aspect of the 'debate'.

I saw your piece in an airport kiosk and was disgusted. I felt shame for you. I know you nor anyone else at the Times never have any remorse over anything you've ever printed and are as infallible as our dear Pontiff, but you should know that the reason your circulation numbers never get any better is that people are getting smarter, not dumber. The NYT is not keeping up on that end either.

Reagrds, 'VJ', Ga.

#37703: — 08/27  at  08:05 AM
In my first post, I wrote,

If you hear people saying, "I read that Times article and now intelligent design seems much more reasonable and there are so many problems with evolution," then I agree with all of your criticisms, because that was not the intended take home message.

I seriously meant that.

With so many of you pissed off and supposedly thousands or millions of readers misled, surely someone should have an anecdote along the lines of, "I was talking with a non-scientist friend of mine who read the Times article and then started asking why we biologists are so dismissive of intelligent design. Sheez!"

Rather, the criticism has been almost entirely of the deconstructive sort, about the order of paragraphs and the counting of words, discounting what the words actually say. VJ above says, basically a) most people only read the first few paragraphs of a newspaper story and b) the first few paragraphs of the story were about Behe so therefore c) most people will come away with a overly favorable opinion of Behe and I.D. A not unreasonable sounding hypothesis. But is it true?

If even a few postings had pointed out incidents where non-scientists came away with a false sense of I.D. as viable science -- that is, real-world examples of the damage you've been worrying about -- I would have thought, "Oh crap, they're right." and felt bad about the story. I haven't seen any such anecdotes here or on the other blogs. (Maybe I missed them; I'm sure someone will point them out.) I have not received any email relating such incidents.

Meanwhile, here are a couple of counter-anecdotes.

A Times reporter -- not a science person, a very good reporter, someone I do not know well -- came up to me on Thursday and told me that he really liked the article. He said the explanation of Behe's blood clotting example was very clear, and as a result, he was surprised at how weak the argument was. I told him about the pummeling I've been getting on the blogs, about how I had given the impression that evolution and I.D. were on equal ground. He said he didn't get that impression at all, and the text made it clear that evolution and I.D. were not equivalent theories. He said he now felt informed about an issue that he had not followed closely.

On the day the article came out, an editor -- who has filled in on the science desk at times, but she's a bit of a science phobe -- emailed me, "I very much enjoyed your piece on intelligent design - I read every word, and understood every word too!"

These are *exactly* the sort of responses you want -- from intelligent, non-science people.

I can't say these responses are typical, but I've received other feedback along these lines, and they suggest that many, many readers of the New York Times walked away with opinions that you would consider beneficial. I don't have any evidence of anyone walking away with the wrong impressions. I'm sure there are some people, but I don't think it's widespread.

Maybe, just maybe, the article did not have the calamitous effects you predicted.

#37880: — 08/29  at  05:44 AM
Let me get this straight Mr. Chang. You pen a loving tribute to the ID crowd, present their arguments as broadly equivalent to a scientific endeavor that's about as well tested as any in modern science, and you want folks here to come up with qualified critiques that DO NOT INCLUDE *ANY* science, but just reactions from the great unwashed, uneducated public, (which by in large DO NOT READ the NYT)? Is that it? Can you make your horrible position any more completely damnable for the NYT and yourself? Well you have appeared to do so.

So you asked some pals at the Times to back you up. You've done a swell job. All that CONSISTENT & OVERWHELMING criticism you've gotten from anyone WHO KNOWS what they're talking about, that's all just irrelevant to the Times no doubt. Why is this? EXACTLY for the reason I stated above.

It's now the consistent policy of the Times to bow to the state imposed conception of what science is and what it should be. And now you want us to supply you and the NYT on some feedback on how your Lysenkoism for the new age is going down with people NOT familiar with the argument. Just perfect Mr. Chang. You've made your editors so very proud, our fearless leaders will reward you for your fealty and service to the cause of advancing their agenda.


Where are the FACTS Mr. Chang? Do they matter any more to the NYT? Do they matter as concerns policy and well Reality? No, you want to play with what's acceptable as far as a PC statement on a social movement that's Posing as science. This is simply reprehensible, and there's no excuse for it.
If you have any sort of science degree from any reputable University, (which I'm doubting at the moment), I'd personally petition for them to rescind it
given just the evidence you have supplied in defense of your very silly but ultimately seriously harmful attempt to balance this absurdist attack on the very foundations of biology. It's what makes it possible for you to eat today and will hopefully cure you of disease in the future, if we are still allowed by the government to conduct any sort of useful research in the US. This is what's ultimately at stake here. I'm sorry but your search for self serving Anecdotes just won't cut it Mr. Chang. Facts do and should be applied in science and reporting of same. In this you have failed miserably as have the NYT. Again. I guess we have settled one point here. You have no shame, and neither does the Times, but we knew that. May you or your family of Times 'yes' men and women never need the miracle of modern medicine, because you and your pals just helped to persecute it out of existence in this country. Just like they did in the Old USSR during the 1950's-1980's. That's a long time to wait for any real cure, right?

Yes, I'll never buy the Times again, and yes, you're a good reason why this is a very good idea. You people are a sad pathetic excuse for what the 4th estate has become.

Regards, 'VJ'

#37957: — 08/29  at  04:26 PM
Dear Mr. Chang,

First, I'd like to thank you for responding here. It would be easy for you to remain an impersonal NYT byline, and I applaud your willingness to engage your critics.

You're right, I cannot point to any people misled by your article, but I think that is beside the point. Certainly people have been misled by the ID movement, and it has now received support the President of the United States, the U.S. Senate majority leader, and many others. There are good reasons for concern about how this important subject is covered by the media.

Setting your article aside now, I would say that any newspaper that does not address the crackpot nature of the intelligent design movement is doing its readers a disservice.

The United States remains extraordinarily competetive economically, militarily, and scientifically, but competetiveness in all of these areas depends on virtuosity in the natural sciences, and there is concern that the country's abilities are flagging. In an era of DNA economies and bioterrorism, it's just crazy to to treat any crackpot science with a jot more respect than it deserves. Hey, unless I'm totally wrong—if the President and Senate leader would like equal time for ID, maybe we should ask DARPA to use ID as part of our biodefense strategy. Is that a sound idea?

Charges of Lysenkoism about ID have been raised, which though dramatic, have eery parallels with current events. Consider the description of Lysenko given in David Joravsky’s The Lysenko Affair (Harvard University Press, 1970) in Chaper 3 titled “Harmless Cranks”:

Lysenko … had the benefit of education, but the peasant style of thought survived the years he spent at the Kiev Agricultural Institute. What he did learn very well—unless it was the gift of his genes—was the art of self-advertisement. In 1927, when he was only twenty-nine years old, working at an obscure experiment station is Azerbaidjan, he managed to get a boost from Pravda itself. A feature article said he had “solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals.” …

… [T]he young man’s masterful way with journalists, his skill at using newspapers to make scientific discoveries of great practical importance, this was not ephemeral. It would be a constant feature of Lysenko’s entire career, from the Pravda article of 1927 until the end of 1964, when Pravda and all the other newspapers would finally turn against him.

The reporter of 1927 confessed that he stared at Lysenko’s notebook with ignorant awe. He did not understand the “scientific laws” by which the barefoot scientist had quickly solved his problem, without trial and error. … He made a primitive error in statistical reasoning, and he paid almost no attention to the lessons learned by previous investigators of this problem. …

Lysenko then revealed another of his chief and lasting characteristics: a total, angry refusal to give any thoughtful consideration to criticism.