SGU Episode 5: Difference between revisions
(First part of the Shermer interview) |
(Add interview segment on revisionism; don't know who "Vickland" might be) |
||
Line 294: | Line 294: | ||
M: So, that's, you know, that's the problem, and the ID guys come off pretty good; they sound-- I thought they sounded better than our side in the testimony, frankly. They come off very reasonable, you know, "shouldn't students hear both sides of the issue?" Seems reasonable, and gosh, aren't-- "shouldn't they be-- shouldn't they hear the criticism?" Well, they should; they should already be hearing that, in fact, they do if the teacher's doing their job. A teacher will say, "these are the areas where we don't have much data" and "there's two or three theories, there's the theory of gradualism and the theory of punctuated equilibrium" or "there's the theory of natural selection vs. group selection" or there's this or that. Those kinds of debates are very real and they should be pretty well known to most biologists who teach, so if they're teaching properly they're already teaching the controversy. | M: So, that's, you know, that's the problem, and the ID guys come off pretty good; they sound-- I thought they sounded better than our side in the testimony, frankly. They come off very reasonable, you know, "shouldn't students hear both sides of the issue?" Seems reasonable, and gosh, aren't-- "shouldn't they be-- shouldn't they hear the criticism?" Well, they should; they should already be hearing that, in fact, they do if the teacher's doing their job. A teacher will say, "these are the areas where we don't have much data" and "there's two or three theories, there's the theory of gradualism and the theory of punctuated equilibrium" or "there's the theory of natural selection vs. group selection" or there's this or that. Those kinds of debates are very real and they should be pretty well known to most biologists who teach, so if they're teaching properly they're already teaching the controversy. | ||
S: Well, the issue of-- getting back a little bit to the so-called "ivory tower syndrome"; that the people in academia don't really understand one concept and that is that a lot of cranks and charlatans and true believers and pseudo-scientists are not playing by the rules of fair and honest intellectual discourse. So they'll often completely underestimate, really, the deception and distortion of facts that the other side will use and that applies across the board. One area where I think, Michael, you've personally encountered a lot is the area of revisionist history, or specifically Holocaust denial. I recently came across an article on the internet where somebody really feigning to be or-- just a reasonable person who went to great lengths to explain that he was not a Nazi or not a Holocaust denier in fact attempted to tear down piece by piece the components of the Holocaust. What has been-- and you wrote-- this has been a large part of your book ''Denying History'', correct? | |||
M: Right. So, although these guys have kind of fallen out of the limelight since [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving David Irving] lost his libel trial in England against Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/article/0,,181049,00.html</ref>. They sort of lost that big battle and that was the turning point for them and they've lost a lot of membership and their impact has gone down considerably, so that's good. | |||
S: That's good. They're marginalized? | |||
M: I think so. You know, they're not like the creationists. Creationists had something else going for them and that's the evangelical support from the right and that's a far bigger threat I think than-- I mean, revisionist history in general has broader potential problem for how things are written; how the war in Iraq is going to be-- is perceived and will be perceived. There you have much touchier subjects of what constitutes revisionist history. | |||
S: Right. | |||
M: Or free speech issues like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill Ward Churchill], professor at Colorado University, Boulder said yesterday that Iraqi-- that American soldiers in Iraq should be shot, or they should shoot-- | |||
P: Should shoot their officers, I think is what he said, Michael. | |||
M: Yeah, shoot their officers, right. | |||
P: Yeah, I think that's what he said. | |||
M: So, you know, gosh, maybe we've played out the Holocaust revisionist game, but there's-- the whole subject of history is not a science. Well, this came up in the Kansas hearings as well, that history's not a science. there's only one kind of science; that's experimental science, laboratory science, and anything that doesn't do that isn't science and therefore it's open and fair game. Well, to that, you just say, "OK, so my theory that the Holocaust didn't happen is equal to your theory that it did"? "Well, no, that's ridiculous." "Well, why is that ridiculous? "Well, because we have rules of evidence for historical events." "Oh, we do? You just said it wasn't a science!" So in fact, there's two kinds of sciences: there's laboratory and field science or something like that but there's also historical science and experimental science. Historical science is done slightly differently. You use different types of comparisons and convergences and like a crime detector, a CSI-kind of scientist, what you're looking for is a convergence of evidence from different inquiries, signs of inquiry, that point to a particular conclusion and you just go along until one kind of pops out and that's what detectives do. That's what historians do and really, evolutionary theory is that; it's pieced together from all these different lines of inquiry, such that when a creationist says-- points to some small anomaly that doesn't seem to fit, he thinks that that's going to bring the whole edifice tumbling down. It won't, because that's not what the edifice was built on in the first place. You'd have to take down all 10,000 bricks before it would come tumbling down. So, I mean-- and it is testable; another thing that came out of that Kansas thing is that history is not testable. Yes it is! If you found-- I predict-- here's a testable hypothesis: that you'll never find mammal fossils in a trilobite bed, a Cambrian trilobite bed that's 500 million years old. You never will find mammals. And if you do? Well, maybe there's one accidental one from an intrusion, from an earthquake or something, and it kind of washed down there. But OK, dismissing that, if you found a lot of them in different areas, well then something would be seriously wrong with the theory of evolution. So there's a testable hypothesis; you can go out and test it, keep digging, keep looking and tell me if you find anything. Of course, that's what paleontologists do and they never find that exception. So that's an experimental test and you can apply that to anything: the Holocaust, the Civil War, whatever, any kind of event that happened where none of us were there to witness it. | |||
S: That's right; that's a strategy of the deniers in general; specifically, to narrow the scope of what is acceptable as science in such a way as to specifically exclude whatever it is that they don't want to be scientific, whether it's creationists trying to exclude evolution or revisionists trying to exclude some particular aspect of history. | |||
M: I guess what's so bothersome is when the people on the other side are not willing to admit that they were wrong when it's pointed out and it's obvious and they don't change their tune. You see this with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe Michael Behe], with his example of the mousetrap in the bacterial flagellum, in which he claims these are irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. Well, there's been books and web pages and articles and it's all over the net; you can't miss it and he's-- it's there; you're wrong, yes I'm wrong, but why doesn't he say publicly "OK I was wrong; I have to revise my theory" which is what any scientist would do but he's not a scientist. | |||
S: Right, he's not being scientific. | |||
M: Same thing with David Irving. David Irving got his hat handed to him in this trial where he claimed certain things about Auschwitz that were just not true and there's "here's the photograph, Mr. Irving, here you can see the holes right here, OK I was--" | |||
E: Like there were no gas chambers, right? | |||
M: Right. So he stands there in court and says "OK I was wrong". But then I saw him a couple of months ago, he gave a talk and he didn't admit any of that, he just went on toeing the party line that he always used to say. No holes, no Holocaust, that business. And (chuckles) that's dishonest. | |||
S: Because they're not engaged in an honest discourse; they're not searching for truth, they're defending a position that they hold and will not let go of. So when arguments they're using-- | |||
M: Scientists do that too. Scientists do that too. But the difference is that eventually they have to change their mind or else they just get dropped out of the whole system. | |||
S: They get marginalized, right. | |||
M: The science just moves on without them if they don't adjust their views to the evidence. And I saw this nice example of this. I wrote a column about this<ref>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/10/i-was-wrong/</ref> with Vince Sarich, who is a pretty dyed-in-the-wool multiregionalist, that is, there is multiple origins of humans, current humans, races from around the world. Well, then the new mitochondrial DNA came in a few years ago and the evidence was just overwhelming that every single one of us on the planet comes from a single population out of Africa, therefore supporting the "out of Africa" hypothesis. And he just stated publicly in ''Science'' right there "I was wrong; I thought this was the theory but the new evidence comes in and OK, the other theory's right. So, I was wrong." Well, gosh darn, that's how it's supposed to work, and usually it does. | |||
S: Right. Usually it does, and those that stick to their guns despite the evidence are really marginalizing themselves out of the mainstream and out of science. | |||
M: Like the guy that promotes facilitated communication with autistic kids, Vickland(?). He won't change his mind. The evidence is just overwhelming and it's been overwhelming for over ten years now. | |||
S: Right. Now, facilitated communication is basically holding the hand of a child who has some communication disorder or autism or mental retardation and they essentially point out or spell out words on a letter board. And it's been shown repeatedly, very reliably, that this technique is just the ideomotor effect; it's basically the facilitator is the one who is guiding the hand to the letters and the subject, the mentally retarded child has no awareness of what's going on. But the true believers, you cannot convince them with evidence that it's not true. | |||
P: Very sad, very sad to watch those people at work. Facilitated communicators. | |||
M: Shows you the power of belief. It's pretty strong. | |||
S: It's very very strong. All of these-- sometimes we can laugh at how silly people can be, but they all have a dark side if you look for it, like with the facilitated communication, there are many cases of estranged spouses using facilitated communication to accuse their ex-spouse of sexually abusing the mute child. People have actually spent time in jail based upon such spectral evidence. So the gullible underbelly of human nature can have a very, very malignant dark side to it. | |||
P: Hear, hear. | |||
{{Transcribing}} | {{Transcribing}} | ||
== Follow-up <small>(43:57)</small> == | == Follow-up <small>(43:57)</small> == |
Revision as of 02:03, 31 May 2012
Work in progress -- Av8rmike (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Introduction
S: Hello and welcome to The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, President of the New England Skeptical Society. And with me, as always, is my panel of skeptics: Perry DeAngelis,
P: Hello, everyone.
S: Evan Bernstein,
E: Hi, all.
S: And Robert Novella.
B: Good evening, everyone.
S: This week we have a special guest with us: Dr. Michael Shermer. Dr. Shermer is the director of the Skeptics Society, the publisher of Skeptic magazine, he is also the author of a column in Scientific American called-- can you guess what it's called? Skeptic. He is the author of many books: The Science of Good and Evil, The Borderlands of Science, Denying History, How We Believe, and I believe, his first skeptical book, Why People Believe Weird Things; still a classic in the genre. Hello and welcome, Michael.
M: Hi, good evening.
S: Thanks for joining us this week.
M: You're welcome.
S: So i thought that we would-- since we're dealing with an expert skeptic, that we would do our Science or Fiction segment with the guest and Michael agreed to play along. So we'll start off with that segment, but first a little bit of follow-up from last week. Now if you'll remember, the first Science or Fiction segment that we did, my fake science news item was that NASA scientists had discovered an Earth-sized planet. And within a few days, NASA discovered an Earth-sized planet[1].
E: I remember.
S: You remember that. We joked about how prophetic that was. Well, last week, you guys remember the fake story from last week was that scientists had successfully frozen a dog in order to test medical technology. This week, reported on June 27[2], was that US scientists had succeeded in reviving dogs after three hours of clinical death[3]. They brought them down to near-freezing temperature; they didn't quite freeze them, but they did bring their body temp down to a few degrees Celsius. So I'm two-for-two on predicting future news stories.
P: Don't appreciate your own power of pre-cognition, obviously.
S: Obviously not.
B: Better give Randi a call, Steve.
S: Well, I hope you'll support my application to Randi's million-dollar giveaway.
B: Good luck repeating it.
S: This week, there's an animal theme to this week. I'm going to give you three amazing animal facts and you have to tell me which one of the three is not real.
B: Ooh
S: Are you ready?
B: Yep!
Science or Fiction (2:54)
S: It's time to play (echoing) Science or Fiction
S: Topic number one-- or claim number one is that koala bears never drink. I'll name all three and then we-- I'll let you guys tell me which ones you think are real and fake. The second one is that a bird by the name of the sooty tern can remain aloft for up to ten years at a time; eating, drinking and even sleeping on the wing. Topic number three is that chimpanzees have been observed communicating with each other in written symbols. Those are your three amazing animal facts. Who would like the first crack at it? Bob? You've been two-for-two so far.
B: We'll let Michael go first.
M: I'll take number one, Alex.
(laughing)
S: You think number one is the fake one?
M: Yeah.
S: So, you think that "koala bears never drink" is fake and the other two are real. What's the reason for your choice?
M: Well, number three is true, and number two seems so improbable that you wouldn't have made that one up. Too improbable.
(laughter)
P: That's sound reasoning.
M: (inaudible) so it must be true.
P: Now the first one's not a trick question, Steve, you're not talking about booze.
B: (laughs)
S: No, it's not a trick; they never drink.
P: Period.
S: Period.
P: I don't know, I think that it's possible an animal can get enough liquid from what it eats. I mean, I guess it's possible. Number two sounds way out there. Number three seems reasonable. I'm not a creationist, so it's somewhat reasonable. I'll say number two is not real.
S: OK. you think number two is not real. Bob?
B: I think I agree; I think I read somewhere that koalas never drink so that seems pretty-- doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. Ten years at a time aloft; I've heard of some long-duration flights for certain species, but ten years I think is really pushing it. I'm going to go with that one.
S: OK. Evan?
E: Well, Michael, I'm sorry; I hate to leave you alone with your choice of number one, but I'm afraid I have to choose number two, for the-- because that one just sounds a lot more improbable, I think, than number one.
M: I agree.
E: Perry, you observed what, that it would get the food from-- water from the food? I think that-- that's reasonable?
P: I think that's feasible.
B: People don't realize how much water we consume in our food. Just a slice of bread, you would think, "oh there can't be too much water in bread" but a slice of bread is like, you know, 30, 40% water. So you can get a lot of water from these things that don't seem like there's really any water in them. So, that makes sense to me.
E: So there you go, I'll choose number two.
S: So you're all going to abandon our guest for this week. Well, all right, so--
P: With all due respect...
E: I have to make amends for last week for getting the question wrong. Getting-- choosing the wrong one.
S: Let's start with number one: Koala bears never drink. That is, in fact, true. They do get all of their fluid, all of their water from the eucalyptus leaves that they eat. So that one is true. That is an amazing but true animal fact. Number two-- now who said that number two was wrong?
E: I said that number two was wrong.
P: The three of us.
S: All three of you did. Number two was the reason why I used this theme for this week. Number two is correct.
P: What?!
B: Ten years?
S: Ten years, between three and ten years as sub-adults; they only land when they mature and it's time to breed.
E: How do they observe that?
S: The sooty tern. Some guy sat there--
E: Exactly right.
S: They tagged them.
E: They tagged them?
P: I want to see a ten-year video of that.
(laughter)
E: That's the only good enough proof, yes.
P: All right.
S: You're skeptical of that, are you? Number three, now, I always try to cut it close to the edge. Now certainly chimpanzees communicate with each other, and in the laboratory they have been taught sign language, but in the wild, they do not use written symbols to communicate with each other. Michael, you said that you thought that was true.
M: Yeah, I guess I didn't hear you say "in the wild". Did you say "in the wild"?
S: I did not say "in the wild". I did not say "in the wild".
M: Well, yeah, because Koko has communicated with symbols to Michael the gorilla in the lab using sign language; that's symbolic communication between two gorillas--
S: Well, actually I did say "written symbols". "Written symbols".
M: You didn't say "written". You just said "symbols".
S: I did say "written". But that's OK, that was a tough one. It was-- the devil is in the details. I do have "written" in front of me; I thought I read it, you know, word for word what I wrote down.
M: You started to say "written" and then you said "symbols" and maybe it just cut off in my phone, anyway, it's all right.
S: Maybe. OK. I know I'm dealing with a tough crowd here; I'm not going to get easy ones past you guys, so I always have to take it one sliver beyond--
(agreement)
E: Steve, I really like this exercise because it points out a lot of different things and the thing that strikes me the most is that three plausible things-- I mean, how are the average people on the street gonna know the difference, how do they tell the difference between what's real and what's not? Anything that they're fed by the media, people will absorb, and the majority of it just happens to be wrong.
S: Psychology experiments show that people believe anything they're told unless it contradicts something they already believe.
E: Correct.
S: But number two is tough; I tell you, when I first heard it I didn't believe it. I had to really verify it before I would accept that one.
B: Ten years...
S: I knew that would be the one that would get you guys. I was shocked, shocked. But I guess-- you figure, once they can-- if they can stay aloft for a few days, you know, eat and sleep on the wing, then they can do it indefinitely, right? Once you get past that threshold of being able to fly asleep, I guess you could stay aloft forever.
B: Yeah, that's a big threshold.
S: It sounds dramatic, but once you think about it that way...
B: I wonder how they do it; I wonder if it's like dolphins that actually-- half their brain sleeps at a time. So they're like minimally awake but they are resting at least one hemisphere at a time of their brain. Maybe it's similar--
S: I don't know, that's a good question, what's the neurology of this. The other possibility would be that they have some sub-hemispheric, some primitive neurons in their brain stem that just turn on and enable them to hold tone in their wings and keep them aloft, even when they're not conscious, basically. That's an interesting question. So, I did get you guys, finally. Thanks for playing, Michael; thanks for being a good sport. So, you have just returned from--
M: Now, what if Jane Goodall's team observes this this week?
B: (laughs)
S: Right, right.
M: Written communication in the dirt out in the plains of Africa. Wouldn't you be surprised?
S: If they do, then on next week's show, I'm going to predict that some billionaire dies and leaves billions of dollars to the Skeptic's Society. That will be my next prediction.
B: And make it your only prediction.
(laughing)
Interview with Michael Shermer (10:00)
S: So, as I was saying, you just returned from a trip to the Galápagos Islands?
M: Yes.
S: Tell us about that; it sounds interesting.
M: Oh, well, there was a conference there: the world summit on evolution held on Cristóbal, which is the island that Darwin first landed on. So, they thought that would be an appropriate place to hold a conference on evolutionary theory. So they had all the big guys there, and since I was going to speak, Frank Sulloway and I decided we'd go ahead and put on a tour of, an 8-day tour of the islands and take all these scientists. So, that's it, just kind of a tour and lecture.
S: What did you talk about?
M: Oh, creationism and intelligent design theory. My usual stuff.
S: You-- at one point you debated the infamous Dwayne Gish. I think I believe I heard a recording of that debate. That's true, right?
M: (laughs) No, that's false. Sorry, you missed point number three. Yeah, I've debated Gish twice, actually.
S: Oh, was it twice? What do you think about that? 'Cause you know, the conventional wisdom among skeptics is that it's really pointless to debate creationists in an open forum.
M: Well, the creationist himself isn't going to change his mind and the true believers that are in the audience aren't going to change their minds. And the skeptics already agree with me, but it's the middle group of people, the people that have not made up their minds yet--
P: You were able to defend against the Gish Gallop, Michael?
M: Oh, it's no problem. You just use humor and if you're a public-- if you're a professional public speaker you can match his wit and humor and all that kind of stuff. That's not hard to do. It's really just kind of getting the point across for those who have not made up their minds--
S: I agree, I think it's a very tough thing to do, and I think unfortunately, people who are very good scientists who know evolutionary biology and natural history intimately think that that will carry them through such a debate; they get suckered into it but they're not public speakers or debaters and they don't know what they're up against. And they get sucker-punched. But you know, that's I think why the marriage of being not only scientifically literate but also skeptically literate and being a polished public speaker is what it would take, I think, to stand toe-to-toe with somebody like Dwayne Gish. You agree with that, basically?
M: I think that's right. You have to have the knowledge and information not necessarily just about evolutionary theory but you have to know what it is they are arguing, what their points are, so that's why we publish in Skeptic and in our little "how to debate a creationist" kit exactly what their arguments are and what the counter-arguments to those are so that people can be informed on, not evolutionary theory, you can get that from textbooks, but what it is they're doing, which is different, not science, it's something else.
P: Was there a lot of talk at the conference, Michael, about the things that are happening with the school boards, such as currently in Kansas?
M: Yes, it's a concern; people that work in the field find it difficult to believe that anyone can doubt what it is that they're studying. But they're academics, isolated in universities, which are very different environments from the rest of the country. As noted, politically as well. In these Midwestern towns where there's a university located, the entire town will be surrounded by Bush/Cheney bumper stickers but the university is chock-a-block full of Kerry bumper stickers, and that tells you something right there. It's not a normal environment; it's not a slice of Americana, it's a very slanted view of the world. So, they don't really know what people are thinking out there.
P: Is that a phenomenon of the United States alone? School boards trying to--
M: Yeah, primarily it is. Well, creationism, you mean.
S: Are you talking about the "ivory tower" syndrome or of creationism, Perry?
P: Creationism. School boards trying to change, to water down Darwin.
B: It's starting to be exported now, England-- I think England is seeing some of it now.
M: A little bit, New England-- sorry, New Zealand a little bit, Australia a little bit but it's primarily an American phenomenon.
B: Right.
S: The soil is not as fertile over there; it's not going to ever grow to the same proportions as it is here.
B: Right. Michael, what did you think of the strategy of the scientists in not-- in not debating the creationists?
M: Yeah, well, I respect it, but I think it would've been to have at least somebody there for the school board members to hear explain why--
B: I agree.
M: The attorney that they had defending the current standard was OK; he gave an impassioned speech, but his interviewing of the experts on the other side was a little aggressive; it was kind of hostile and it didn't come off well in my opinion. You can download the entire transcripts-- I'm sorry, the entire proceedings on tape, on digital, from audible.com.
B: Oh, great website. I love Audible.
M: There's probably twenty hours, maybe twenty-five hours worth of listening.
B: Oh wow.
M: So if you have a lot of free time you can just put it on your iPod, which is what I did; I listened to the entire thing. And, basically the crux of it was that-- two things: one was that evolution is like a religion that is dogmatic and close-minded and no criticism is allowed, and two: that science doesn't allow anything but natural explanations and that that's too limiting and that science should be redefined to include other explanations other than natural. So those are the two things that came out of that twenty hours of testimony. One of the points I made in my write-up for Scientific American on that evolution conference I went to in the Galápagos is that in fact the field is full of disputation and criticism and denunciations of different theories and arguments and debates and it's not that evolutionary theory's not open to criticism or that scientists are close-minded or dogmatic or "circle the wagons" or speak with one voice, it's just that the creationists have nothing important to say about the science itself. So that's why they don't get heard; that's the problem.
S: Yeah, it's a pretty-- it's a cheap shot to say that a scientific consensus is, by definition, dogma. Sometimes, it's just a consensus of opinion based-- because the facts are overwhelming. The fact that evolution occurred is pretty well established.
M: Well, some of their criticisms, they claim, are not being entertained by scientists, but that's just not true, like for example, their criticisms of theories on the origins of life. Well, the origins of life science is pretty wide open and there's no general consensus on how it happened. So, there's lots of different theories and these guys all argue amongst themselves; all the big guns were down there at this conference and there was no agreement. So, when the creationists say "oh, they have this theory, this Darwinian theory", well, that's really not true. In fact, Lynn Margulis was there and she was arguing that Neo-Darwinism is dead; it doesn't explain anything in her world that she works in, so she has her theories on abiogenesis. So, it was anything but a close-minded, dogmatically everyone's-going-to-agree-with-each-other kind of conference. So that's just not true. Of course, they feel that way because they're not being heard, but the problem is they're not offering any scientific, testable hypotheses, which gets to the second point, which is that science only allows natural explanations. Well, it's not like there's a committee that allows or disallows by some rulebook; there's nobody doing that, it's just that anything other than natural explanations just don't produce any testable hypotheses. There's nothing to do with them; there's no science to be done. So, when you say "I think it's a non-natural explanation for X", whatever the mystery of X is, well what does that mean? What do you mean, non-natural? Supernatural? Paranormal? Intelligent Design? God? What do you mean? And there they don't offer any opinions, they just say "well, we don't have that theory yet", "we don't have a theory of that yet". Of course, they don't want to use the "God" word, because then the gig is up.
B and S: Right.
M: So, really, if you press them-- you don't have to press very hard-- you hit the wall pretty quickly; the answer's "I don't know". "Well, do you have any speculation?" "Nope." "Do you think it was done-- how did the intelligent designer do it? Did he use gravity, electromagnetism, chemical bonding portions? How did he do it?"
P: Massimo said last week, he asked-- the gentleman's name escapes me-- he said "if you were given a grant to study creationism, what experiments would you do?" Who'd he ask that to, Steven?
S: I don't recall who it was, it was some ID proponent.
P: He said, "OK if we give you a grant to study, what would you do with it?" The guy couldn't answer; there's no experiments to be done.
S: Because, bottom line, it's not science. And yes, you're right, it's not by choice, it's necessity of the very nature of science itself.
M: Right.
P: Yeah. There's just nothing to do there.
M: So, that's, you know, that's the problem, and the ID guys come off pretty good; they sound-- I thought they sounded better than our side in the testimony, frankly. They come off very reasonable, you know, "shouldn't students hear both sides of the issue?" Seems reasonable, and gosh, aren't-- "shouldn't they be-- shouldn't they hear the criticism?" Well, they should; they should already be hearing that, in fact, they do if the teacher's doing their job. A teacher will say, "these are the areas where we don't have much data" and "there's two or three theories, there's the theory of gradualism and the theory of punctuated equilibrium" or "there's the theory of natural selection vs. group selection" or there's this or that. Those kinds of debates are very real and they should be pretty well known to most biologists who teach, so if they're teaching properly they're already teaching the controversy.
S: Well, the issue of-- getting back a little bit to the so-called "ivory tower syndrome"; that the people in academia don't really understand one concept and that is that a lot of cranks and charlatans and true believers and pseudo-scientists are not playing by the rules of fair and honest intellectual discourse. So they'll often completely underestimate, really, the deception and distortion of facts that the other side will use and that applies across the board. One area where I think, Michael, you've personally encountered a lot is the area of revisionist history, or specifically Holocaust denial. I recently came across an article on the internet where somebody really feigning to be or-- just a reasonable person who went to great lengths to explain that he was not a Nazi or not a Holocaust denier in fact attempted to tear down piece by piece the components of the Holocaust. What has been-- and you wrote-- this has been a large part of your book Denying History, correct?
M: Right. So, although these guys have kind of fallen out of the limelight since David Irving lost his libel trial in England against Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin[4]. They sort of lost that big battle and that was the turning point for them and they've lost a lot of membership and their impact has gone down considerably, so that's good.
S: That's good. They're marginalized?
M: I think so. You know, they're not like the creationists. Creationists had something else going for them and that's the evangelical support from the right and that's a far bigger threat I think than-- I mean, revisionist history in general has broader potential problem for how things are written; how the war in Iraq is going to be-- is perceived and will be perceived. There you have much touchier subjects of what constitutes revisionist history.
S: Right.
M: Or free speech issues like this Ward Churchill, professor at Colorado University, Boulder said yesterday that Iraqi-- that American soldiers in Iraq should be shot, or they should shoot--
P: Should shoot their officers, I think is what he said, Michael.
M: Yeah, shoot their officers, right.
P: Yeah, I think that's what he said.
M: So, you know, gosh, maybe we've played out the Holocaust revisionist game, but there's-- the whole subject of history is not a science. Well, this came up in the Kansas hearings as well, that history's not a science. there's only one kind of science; that's experimental science, laboratory science, and anything that doesn't do that isn't science and therefore it's open and fair game. Well, to that, you just say, "OK, so my theory that the Holocaust didn't happen is equal to your theory that it did"? "Well, no, that's ridiculous." "Well, why is that ridiculous? "Well, because we have rules of evidence for historical events." "Oh, we do? You just said it wasn't a science!" So in fact, there's two kinds of sciences: there's laboratory and field science or something like that but there's also historical science and experimental science. Historical science is done slightly differently. You use different types of comparisons and convergences and like a crime detector, a CSI-kind of scientist, what you're looking for is a convergence of evidence from different inquiries, signs of inquiry, that point to a particular conclusion and you just go along until one kind of pops out and that's what detectives do. That's what historians do and really, evolutionary theory is that; it's pieced together from all these different lines of inquiry, such that when a creationist says-- points to some small anomaly that doesn't seem to fit, he thinks that that's going to bring the whole edifice tumbling down. It won't, because that's not what the edifice was built on in the first place. You'd have to take down all 10,000 bricks before it would come tumbling down. So, I mean-- and it is testable; another thing that came out of that Kansas thing is that history is not testable. Yes it is! If you found-- I predict-- here's a testable hypothesis: that you'll never find mammal fossils in a trilobite bed, a Cambrian trilobite bed that's 500 million years old. You never will find mammals. And if you do? Well, maybe there's one accidental one from an intrusion, from an earthquake or something, and it kind of washed down there. But OK, dismissing that, if you found a lot of them in different areas, well then something would be seriously wrong with the theory of evolution. So there's a testable hypothesis; you can go out and test it, keep digging, keep looking and tell me if you find anything. Of course, that's what paleontologists do and they never find that exception. So that's an experimental test and you can apply that to anything: the Holocaust, the Civil War, whatever, any kind of event that happened where none of us were there to witness it.
S: That's right; that's a strategy of the deniers in general; specifically, to narrow the scope of what is acceptable as science in such a way as to specifically exclude whatever it is that they don't want to be scientific, whether it's creationists trying to exclude evolution or revisionists trying to exclude some particular aspect of history.
M: I guess what's so bothersome is when the people on the other side are not willing to admit that they were wrong when it's pointed out and it's obvious and they don't change their tune. You see this with Michael Behe, with his example of the mousetrap in the bacterial flagellum, in which he claims these are irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved by Darwinian mechanisms. Well, there's been books and web pages and articles and it's all over the net; you can't miss it and he's-- it's there; you're wrong, yes I'm wrong, but why doesn't he say publicly "OK I was wrong; I have to revise my theory" which is what any scientist would do but he's not a scientist.
S: Right, he's not being scientific.
M: Same thing with David Irving. David Irving got his hat handed to him in this trial where he claimed certain things about Auschwitz that were just not true and there's "here's the photograph, Mr. Irving, here you can see the holes right here, OK I was--"
E: Like there were no gas chambers, right?
M: Right. So he stands there in court and says "OK I was wrong". But then I saw him a couple of months ago, he gave a talk and he didn't admit any of that, he just went on toeing the party line that he always used to say. No holes, no Holocaust, that business. And (chuckles) that's dishonest.
S: Because they're not engaged in an honest discourse; they're not searching for truth, they're defending a position that they hold and will not let go of. So when arguments they're using--
M: Scientists do that too. Scientists do that too. But the difference is that eventually they have to change their mind or else they just get dropped out of the whole system.
S: They get marginalized, right.
M: The science just moves on without them if they don't adjust their views to the evidence. And I saw this nice example of this. I wrote a column about this[5] with Vince Sarich, who is a pretty dyed-in-the-wool multiregionalist, that is, there is multiple origins of humans, current humans, races from around the world. Well, then the new mitochondrial DNA came in a few years ago and the evidence was just overwhelming that every single one of us on the planet comes from a single population out of Africa, therefore supporting the "out of Africa" hypothesis. And he just stated publicly in Science right there "I was wrong; I thought this was the theory but the new evidence comes in and OK, the other theory's right. So, I was wrong." Well, gosh darn, that's how it's supposed to work, and usually it does. S: Right. Usually it does, and those that stick to their guns despite the evidence are really marginalizing themselves out of the mainstream and out of science.
M: Like the guy that promotes facilitated communication with autistic kids, Vickland(?). He won't change his mind. The evidence is just overwhelming and it's been overwhelming for over ten years now.
S: Right. Now, facilitated communication is basically holding the hand of a child who has some communication disorder or autism or mental retardation and they essentially point out or spell out words on a letter board. And it's been shown repeatedly, very reliably, that this technique is just the ideomotor effect; it's basically the facilitator is the one who is guiding the hand to the letters and the subject, the mentally retarded child has no awareness of what's going on. But the true believers, you cannot convince them with evidence that it's not true.
P: Very sad, very sad to watch those people at work. Facilitated communicators.
M: Shows you the power of belief. It's pretty strong.
S: It's very very strong. All of these-- sometimes we can laugh at how silly people can be, but they all have a dark side if you look for it, like with the facilitated communication, there are many cases of estranged spouses using facilitated communication to accuse their ex-spouse of sexually abusing the mute child. People have actually spent time in jail based upon such spectral evidence. So the gullible underbelly of human nature can have a very, very malignant dark side to it.
P: Hear, hear.
This section is in the middle of being transcribed as of {{{date}}}. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe this section while this message is displayed. |
Follow-up (43:57)
S: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe is a production of the New England Skeptical Society. For more information on this and other episodes, see our website at www.theness.com.
References
- ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Earth#First_super-Earth_found
- ↑ http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2005/Dead-Dogs-Safar29jun05.htm, original stories archived
- ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_animation#Experiments
- ↑ http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/article/0,,181049,00.html
- ↑ http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/10/i-was-wrong/