Friday quote: The politicized scientist
by KrauzeCritics of intelligent design often want scientists to become involved in the political process to prevent the "forces of darkness" from turning the US into a theocracy. It goes without saying that any political decision should receive appropriate input from those knowing the facts of the matter. But what should the scientist do if the facts of the matter don't quite manage to convince the decision-makers to make the decisions he wants them to make? Professor of philosophy Philip L. Quinn takes an interesting approach. Pointing out that decision-makers can be "prejudiced or even stupid", he goes on to suggest that academics use misleading arguments, but only some of the time, so as not to get their hands soiled:
"My colleague, Dan Brock, suggests that academic philosophers should only get involved in the policy-making arena on a temporary, short-term basis. Maybe this is a way in which we could manage to have our cake and eat it too. For a short period one might engage in giving bad effective arguments without being thoroughly corrupted. Then one could retreat back to the academy to wash one's moderately soiled hands. After having one's intellectual integrity restored and reinforced, one might then be ready to repeat the cycle."
Philip L. Quinn, "Creationism, Methodology, and Politics", in Michael Ruse (ed.), But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy (Prometheus Books, 1996), p. 397
Oh yes, those poor scientists and philosophers, having to soil their hands by giving the public bad arguments. Good thing we have academia, that bastion of morality, in which to wash the dirt off. Why, if it weren't for these self-sacrificing heroes, there would be no one to stop the creationists from using science to further their own agenda.
January 19th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Darwinism always leads to expediency over morality. So we should not be surprised to see Darwinists openly advocating lying in order to achieve an expedient political goal.
Comment by Jehu — January 19, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
January 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
What are some of the bad arguments, I wonder, that they would like to assert? Were there any examples given?
Comment by chunkdz — January 19, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
January 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Hi Chunk,
Quinn doesn't give any examples, although it is interesting to note that he places the section right after a section criticizing Michael Ruse's expert testimony to Judge Overton in the 1982 "creation science" trial in Arkansas.
Comment by Krauze — January 19, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
January 19th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
chunkdz:
Those would be "the usual." You know, assertions that the NDS is falsifiable (but has never been falsified), that "missing links" constructed of single pig or horse teeth or portions of monkey jaw establish a direct line of descent from apes to humans, that genetics has "proven" the phylogeny scenario just as cladists have supposed all along, etc., etc., etc. Your basic "We know for a fact we're absolutely correct," "there are no questions," "all scientists agree," ad nauseum.
Ruse is a prime example of how well that works in a court of law, even though it requires testimony that is known (by the witness) to be false. Questions of morality or ethics are easily shunted aside in matters of political expediency. We've always known that.
Comment by Joy — January 19, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
January 19th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
I always wonder why ID fans cite only Laudan and Quinn's critiques of Ruse, when in fact this was just a piece of a range of responses to Ruse's testimony that were published in Science, Technology, & Human Values — some of which, unlike Laudan and Quinn, actually attempted to wrestle in a realistic way with the constraints on experts and judges in a trial situation.
PS: I hear this book is #3 on amazon.com. For a second I thought it might be Mike Gene's book, finally published. But sadly, no:
The Divine Matrix: Bridging Time, Space, Miracles, and Belief by Gregg Braden.
Comment by Nick Matzke — January 19, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
January 19th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Hi Nick,
Do you feel any desire to "wrestle" with the implications of Quinn's argument? Or are you just here to spin up some dust?
Comment by Krauze — January 19, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
January 19th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Nice find, Krauze. This looks like another example where the end justifies the means.
Comment by MikeGene — January 19, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
January 19th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
That's a weird complaint. Who cares who is cited and who is not cited? The issue Krauze raised was what Quinn wrote. Quinn admits a willingness to inject bad arguments into the larger social arena because they are "effective." He then rationalizes this behavior by retreating to the Ivory Tower to wash away his sins. That's amazing.
Comment by MikeGene — January 19, 2007 @ 10:53 pm
January 20th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Quinn is basically characterizing Ruse's McLean testimony, as Krauze says in the comments. Quinn basically says in that passage that making "bad effective arguments" might be justifiable when battling creationists, but (he adds a bit later) it should leave a bad taste in philosopher's mouths.
My beef is that ID fans continually cite Laudan and Quinn over and over, as if their characterizations of Ruse's testimony and the judge's summary (basically as a "bad effective argument") were the only ones in play. In fact, there were a range of reactions. I favor the ones that acknowledge that:
* The purpose of the McLean court, or any court, is to reach a decent decision in the short time available and the specific situation before it.
* The judge does not have to achieve an expert level of knowledge on any given topic, rather he has to hear expert testimony (always just a summary of their lifetime of experience on the issue) from both sides and gather a layman's understanding of the issues, and thereby arrive at a decent first approximation of the truth — for example, a general understanding of what science is and whether or not "creation science" fits.
* And this is exactly what Judge Overton did in McLean, and admirably so.
Criticizing a legal decision, or expert testimony, for not being a philosophy paper, which is what Quinn is doing, is like criticizing a map of the U.S. for leaving out state highways. Such a map is not a "bad effective map", it is a "good first approximation."
Comment by nickmatzke — January 20, 2007 @ 2:14 am
January 20th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I asked:
"Do you feel any desire to "wrestle" with the implications of Quinn's argument?"
I guess the answer is no. Nick is just here to spin up dust.
Comment by Krauze — January 20, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
January 21st, 2007 at 2:41 am
The most shocking thing about that quote is that Quinn is actually being honest.
Men who love their status, place, and reputation do not enjoy the luxury of seeking the very truth, wherever it leads.
Most men free from such constraints don't take advantage of their freedom.
It's sad.
Comment by Paul Stringini — January 21, 2007 @ 2:41 am