I recognize that your subject is the management of a public debate and not public education in this editorial. Yet where education is the subject of that debate, it can fuel public nonsense with its emotional charge, and even oblique references by scientists can either add fuel or add reason, I hope, depending on the terms in which they are couched. The condition of public debate along with the demise of the commercial news media in our country is horrible, just as you say, but that's a cause, not an effect of a poverty of public recognition of what science is. Rationality and reasonableness is an awful problem in democratic politics now in the USA. But that is a fact of which science is a casualty during depressed economic times with their greedy political haymaking hand in hand with defensive economic consolidation by the “haves” at the expense of the “have lesses."
Joseph E. Quittner
Cleveland Heights, OH
* * * *
As a teacher, I would take great care never to call what a student says nonsense, even if it is; that could be counterproductive and psychologically damaging. I would, however, try to lead him or her around to figuring that our for himself—and an important part of that process is not hesitating to call nonsense what it is when someone else presents it to the student as fact (and, of course, trying to show why it is nonsense).
* * * *
Dr. Schmidt,
Part of my pleasure in reading Analog since you became editor-in-chief is the Heidelberg connection—you taught there, my sister Kit attended, my mother and father met there, and my mother's father, H. D. Hopkins, taught speech and theater arts there before he departed to be the president of Defiance College.
Your essay in the June issue rang a whole carillon for me, with its subtle references to debate. Grandpa Hopkins had many tales to tell of trips connected to Pi Kappa Delta (the forensics fraternity) events. I know that at the time there was no Greek presence in the form of social fraternities and sororities at Heidelberg; rather, there were debating societies. My father, Ed Buhrer, was an EX whose paddle I recall without fondness. He departed Heidelberg in the middle of his senior year to join the Army Air Corps, and was teaching West Point Cadets how to fly B-17s when I was born there in 1943. Think “The Great Santini.” But I digress.
In my opinion, one of the vital things about forensics is the enforcement of rules and order by referees. It distinguishes debate from discussion and argument. There's nothing wrong with either discussion or argument, but the imposition of formal rules introduces a rigor and clarity to debate that are frequently lacking from them.
In the earliest Greek Olympics, debate and drama were competitive events with at least as much importance as athletic competition. What are the odds of re-introducing that tradition? What might be the consequences?
Eric Buhrer
* * * *
Salve, Stanlius, Editor
Analogis Fabulae Scientiarum:
In re thy editorial of the June 2006 issue, as regards those who argue against the evolution of life from the seeds first laid down by God, which I argued some time past, I have written that in matters that are obscure and beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, we should not rush in headlong and take our stand so firmly on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing Scripture to conform to our beliefs. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is disgraceful to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people think our sacred writers held such opinions. Reckless and incompetent expounders of Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their false opinions and are taken to task. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and untrue statements, they try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.” So perhaps thou mayest argue with them indeed, in their own terms, as I once did.
I must close now, as the Visigoths are at the gates, making many rude gestures and loud noises.
Aurelius Augustinus, Bishop
Hippo, Africa,
Imperium Romanorum
* * * *
Dear Dr. Schmidt,
The Kansas City Board of Education aside, one thing has always baffled me about the religion-in-schools debate: Given the attitude and knowledge-level of many teachers and administrators, why would any Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, or Taoist, or Satanist, or ... ) want them discussing religion in school? It seems to me that they would want to teach their religion to their children themselves, so as to present it with the attention and accuracy they may prefer.
Tim Preston
* * * *
Dear Stanley,
I've been reading in Analog and elsewhere the debate of including creationism in schools or not. I just finished reading your editorial, “Can't Argue With That,” and think you are exactly right. It is hard to have a meaningful discussion about a subject when views are so emotional, on either or both sides.
What I don't get is why isn't there room in this world for both views? Why does it have to be winner-take-all? Surely there are a lot of scientists who believe in God and lots of creationists who believe in science. (I'll leave to the reader's analysis as to which set has the highest percentage of a belief in both.)
The problem arises when one side refuses to let the other side have their view taught in the public schools. Our children spend many hours a week, nine months a year, being taught by teachers they love and respect. (Well, usually love and respect.) If the children are taught one side exclusively while being taught that the other view is wrong, that can undermine parents who teach their children the other view. Hence the emotions, since that can create tension in the home, which I hope we all can agree is bad for the children, parents, and society.
Right now, it's the creationists who feel their view is being slighted. If the roles were reversed, wouldn't those who believe that science is right and creationism is wrong feel just as slighted and do the same crazy things the creationists are doing in Kansas?
In fact, isn't that what led up to the Scopes trial of 1925? I'm no expert in that bit of history, but if I remember right, John Scopes was tried for teaching evolution in school. So today the pendulum has swung (maybe we should say, tongue in cheek, evolved) the other way.
I agree, science can be proved and creation can't. I also agree that we shouldn't welcome with open arms every idea that anyone cares to propound and that every opinion is not as valid as other, more provable theories. Since such a large proportion of people in all cultures, current and ancient, believe in a higher power, how can we just ignore it as we might ignore a idea propounded by a single person?
Our children can be trusted to make good choices if they hear both sides of this argument. So lets present both sides of this argument without denigrating the other side as being completely wrong. (This can be done without promoting religion in school.) Creationism probably shouldn't be taught in a science class, but the theory of creationism could be explored in our schools, perhaps as part of a humanities class or in a comparative religion class as long as atheism and “I don't know either way” are taught as some of the comparisons.
All children don't hear both sides at home. Some families ignore science, some families ignore theology (read creationis
m), and so we can't depend on our schools teaching one and the parents teaching the other. I think it would be a calamity if either subject were left out of our schools and was left to the parents to teach.
If either side postulates that the other side should be marginalized, well, a pox on them. John Scopes should have never been prosecuted for teaching evolution and should never have been told that he couldn't. Presented in the proper forum, neither should someone who teaches the opposite view.
Personally, I don't see a conflict. I think a creationist can teach science and a scientist can teach creation without tearing down the other side. Maybe that's why I am so mystified as to why it's such a polarizing subject.
Well, thanks for letting a old guy like myself have my say. I've subscribed to Analog for forty years and have seen editors come and go, but, so far, you have done the best job of keeping us informed and on our toes.
Tom Sawyer
* * * *
Dear Dr. Schmidt:
I am writing with regard to your editorial, “Can't Argue With That,” in the June 2006 issue.
I must pay you the highest possible compliment for work very well done.
Using the Kansas Board of Education as an example, you have isolated and characterized one of the more pervasive obstacles to the advancement of rational thought in the new millennium. Those of us who have been trained in science, or logic, or any discipline that involves the fact-based, truth-seeking pursuit of the actual nature of things regardless of what we might wish them to be, are aware that humanity at large is not a fact-based, truth-seeking species. There are forces rooted in our psychology that are stronger than the truth, and we as fallible men and women easily fall prey to them.
I am sure I do not need to point out to you that the very foundation of science is the awareness of our faults and fallibilities as human beings. We see what we want to see, and perceive what we want to perceive. The creation and development of the scientific method stems from the early awareness of the few enlightened individuals who recognized this human failing, and made a deliberate choice to devise a countermeasure—i.e. the scientific method—to protect ourselves against being deceived.
(It would be gratifying to ask those individuals who believe in intelligent design to address this subject from an engineering standpoint as a design flaw. Turnabout is fair play.)
Neither do I need to point out to you that the choice to pursue and accept the truth, even if the truth is difficult, or painful, or requires changing one's mind or abandoning a belief system, is one of the most difficult choices we as men and women face in our lives. Most people never accomplish it. It is amazing how many otherwise bright, capable individuals never make this step. Any mental health professional with clinical experience will tell you it is the number one reason for the misery in the world. ("What? Accept the truth about myself and deal with it? I would rather live and die in pain, burdened, unfulfilled and unhappy!")
In the end, training humanity at large to live truth-based lives is going to be as difficult as persuading substance abusers to give up their drugs. It is not until humanity at large achieves the not-very-likely epiphany that being unaware is akin to being stoned that the concept has much chance of success.
So what do we as truth-seekers do in the meantime?
We educate people and wait. We lead by example, and welcome those who make the choice to join in. And we use that very same scientific method to identify and expose.
Pursue this with me for a moment. Hypothesis and observation: among humanity at large, faulty, irrational, and even bogus ideas can achieve high levels of acceptance, not warranted by the quality of their content. Those who promote those faulty, irrational, or bogus ideas achieve acceptance and credibility through methods other than logic, reason, and the rational discussion of the merits of those ideas. These methods are amenable to study and analysis—their mechanisms, and their merits and faults, can be identified and disclosed.
As proponents of the scientific method, we acknowledge that by following this process we may uncover truths we don't want to see. Should that happen, we will accept those truths and change our minds.
We will not address the psychology of those individuals who choose to promote bogus ideas—just their methods.
We expose that the methods are adversarial: first, a choice is made that an idea is so. Then the adversary is identified (that's us) and analyzed. Methods are created, whose goal is to promote acceptance of the idea and undermine the adversary—not unlike what a good attorney does in a courtroom. Not only would a good attorney never let the truth get in the way of the interests the client, that attorney would also recognize if and when the facts lie with the other side and act accordingly.
This is where your editorial does such good service. We are all aware, at an intuitive level, that a valueless idea can be promoted in such a way as to make rational, fact-based discussion about it impossible. We are, perhaps, not as aware as we could be, that specific methods and techniques are afoot here—techniques that can be learned, and taught to others, who can then go on and promote other valueless ideas in the same manner. Without a clear understanding of those techniques, we are like deer in the headlights.
As a practicing physician in the area of the Nation's Capital, I am often faced with the necessity of debunking valueless ideas, in an effort to protect my patients against making poor decisions about their health care. The Kansas Board of Education is but one example of a pervasive process that can be found all over our society. On a daily basis, I find myself having to warn people about what I have named “Frankenstein logic": the deliberate and selective use of bits and pieces of the scientific method to promote a foregone conclusion. Something made up of strung-together parts of people is not a person, although it may masquerade as one.
Again, my compliments on a fine piece of work.
Dr. Steve Alcuri
Frederick, Maryland
[Back to Table of Contents]
UPCOMING EVENTS by Anthony Lewis
2—5 November 2006
WORLD FANTASY CONVENTION at Renaissance Hotel, Arboretum, Austin, TX. Guests of Honor: Glen Cook & Dave Duncan; TM: Bradley Denton; Editor Guest of Honor: Glenn Lord; Artist Guest of Honor: John Jude Palencar; Robert E. Howard Artist Guest: Gary Gianni. Registration: $125 until 31 July 2006; supporting $35. Info: www.fact.org/wfc2006/[email protected]; FACT, Inc., Box 27277, Austin, TX 78755.
10—12 November 2006
TUCSON 33 (Arizona SF conference) at InnSuites Hotel, Tucson, AZ. TM: Edward Bryant. Registration: $40 until 5 September 2006, then $45. Info: home.earthlink.net/~baska; [email protected]; TusCon, Box 2528, Tucson AZ 85702-2528; fax: (520) 571-7180.
10—12 November 2006
WINDYCON 2006 (Chicago area SF conference) at Wyndham O'Hare Hotel, Rosemont, IL. Guest of Honor: Jack McDevitt; Artist Guest of Honor: Stephan Martiniere; Editor Guest of Honor: Jacob Weisman; Fan Guests of Honor: Mark and Priscilla Olson; TM: Tom Smith; Special Guests: Barry Malzberg, Mike Resnick, Robert Weinberg. Registration: $45 until 13 October 2006, then $55. Info: www.windycon.org; chair06 @windycon.org; WindyCon 33, Box 184, Palatine, IL 60078-0184; (847) 310-0725.
17—19 November 2006
ORYCON 28 (Oregon SF conference) at Portland Marriott Waterfront, Portland, OR. Guest of Honor: Cory Doctorow; Artist Guest of Honor: Vincent DiFate; Editor Guest of Honor: Ellen Datlow. Registration: $45 until 31 October 2006, then $55. Info: Orycon.org/ orycon28; Orycon 28, Box 5464, Portland OR 97228-5464.
17—19 November 2006
PHILCON 2006 (Philadelphia area SF conference) at Franklin Wyndam Plaza, Philadelphia, PA. Info: www.philcon. org; [email protected].
24—26 November 2006
LOSCON 33 (Los Angeles area SF conference) at Los Angeles Airport Marriott, Los Angeles, CA. Theme: Exploring the Golden Ages of Science Fiction. Guest of Honor: William Tenn; Fan Guest of Honor: Fred Patten. Registration: $35. Info: www.loscon.org; [email protected]; Loscon 33, c/o Los Angeles Science Fantasy
Society, 11513 Burbank Blvd., North Hollywood, CA 91601.
Copyright © 2006 Anthony Lewis
* * *
Visit www.analogsf.com for information on additional titles by this and other authors.
Analog SFF, October 2005 Page 25
