Steve Fuller, or: How to Ignore an Argument
by machtIt's been fashionable to ignore and mock Steve Fuller (or, at least, his arguments) but rarely have I seen any good commentary that actually examines the content of his arguments (Judge Jones, in his Dover decision, briefly mentioned Fuller's argument but didn't engage it at all). I've written about Fuller's argument for teaching ID in schools before, but I'm going to repeat it here for a couple of reasons. First, it has virtually been ignored despite the dearth of arguments against it (and if somebody knows of an argument against it, I'd love to know about it). Second, people have been talking about Fuller recently, due to his post at Crooked Timber. Third, a little controversy never hurt anybody.
The answer to "What should be taught in science class?" most commonly seems to be a "Won't somebody please think of the children?!?!?" argument where allowing ID into schools will mark the end of civilization as we know it. More charitably, this argument is that we should only teach good science (just the facts, ma'am) in science class because that's what children need to know to be good, well-informed, modern citizens of the United States of America. Not only that, but how can we train the next generation of scientists if they are learning pseudoscientific garbage at an early age. As I mentioned in my other post, this is a very Kuhnian way of looking at things, where school teaches children to think within the current paradigm and solve the puzzles that are relevant to that paradigm.
Fuller's argument is, roughly, that science benefits from a proliferation of theories. Fuller thinks that the purpose of school is to teach children to think critically about ideas and ought to "stimulate ideas." And in order to think critically about ideas, we have to "see what a competitor might look like." Now, as far as I can tell, Fuller isn't advocating that current evolutionary theory and ID be presented as two theories that are on par with each other and that the evidence equally supports either. All he is saying is that by introducing something like ID at, say, a high school level, it might get students to think critically about some of the foundational ideas in current evolutionary theory and possible encourage them to pursue those ideas later on. And this, he says, will ultimately benefit science as a whole, for the reasons talked about in the above-linked-to article on proliferation.
Love him or hate him, Fuller's argument isn't bad. It is at least worth looking at and considering (although that hasn't seemed to have happened much yet). It isn't even predicated on the truth (or possible truth) of ID.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Hi Macht,
I think that the best argument against Fuller's proposition is that there are plenty of legitimate controversies about evolutionary theory which could be discussed in science class to achieve the purposes Fuller wants to promote without resorting to teaching the bogus controversies promoted by IDists. Students could discuss controversies such as the "Out of Africa" vs. multiregional theory of human evolution, the relative importance of natural selection, genetic drift and other evolutionary mechanisms, whether selection occurs primarily at the genetic, individual or even species level, and many others. With so much legitimate scientific controversy to discuss to excite students with questions still to be answered, it doesn't make much sense to waste valuable classroom time beating long dead horses.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 29, 2006 @ 9:44 am
March 29th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Macht,
I agree with Aagcobb's comments.
There's another aspect of Fuller's argument that you did not mention, which is that a nascent theory will never gain acceptance without "recruits" to develop it first. Based on his Dover testimony, he seems to believe that without bringing ID into the public school classroom, it will never garner these recruits and will languish undeveloped.
I have never heard him explain why other initially unpopular theories (like plate tectonics) have prevailed without the aid of this sort of "affirmative action".
Comment by keiths — March 29, 2006 @ 11:38 am
March 29th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Aagcobb,
I don't think Fuller has problem with those "controversies" within current evolutionary thought. But that kind of misses the thrust of his argument, which is that while there are a lot of different theories within evolutionary thought, science would also benefit from people trying to develop other theories that differ in their basic assumptions (teleology, for example).
You do bring up the issue of practicality (teachers barely have enough time in biology class as it is), though, which is probably the best argument I thought of before writing this blog post. But it isn't about "beating long dead horses." It is about continually being open to new (and old) ideas and not promoting a science education system that (passively) promotes dogmatism.
Comment by macht — March 29, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
keiths,
I did mention that part of his argument was to encourage kids to possibly pursue the ideas mentioned in class later on.
Fuller's argument isn't that this has to happen in order to develop ID. His argument is that a proliferation of theories is a good thing for science and he sees ID as a good candidate for the job, so to speak.
Comment by macht — March 29, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Macht:
don't think Fuller has problem with those "controversies" within current evolutionary thought. But that kind of misses the thrust of his argument, which is that while there are a lot of different theories within evolutionary thought, science would also benefit from people trying to develop other theories that differ in their basic assumptions (teleology, for example).
If the point is to equip students with a generalized ability to think critically about scientific theories, then the specific controversies involved are not so important, and AagCobb's examples would be at least as useful as introducing ID into science classes.
Trying to develop new theories is a separate issue. If the idea is to get people trying to develop new theories, then the schools are the wrong place to try. One can't develop new theories until one has mastered the data that underpins the old theory. Graduate seminars and research labs would be the appropriate place to develop a theory of ID.
Fuller's argument isn't that this has to happen in order to develop ID. His argument is that a proliferation of theories is a good thing for science and he sees ID as a good candidate for the job, so to speak.
If I remember Fuller's contributions to Michael Berube's blog correctly, Fuller was very enthusiastic about the proliferation of competing theories, and very coy about why he thought ID (as opposed to any other competing idea) was a good candidate for the job. He personally was convinced that ID might someday be a viable competitor with evolutionary biology; his reasons for that conviction were vague.
Fuller's argument seemed to boil down to affirmative action for ID, rather than a strategy to get students to think critically.
Comment by Nick — March 29, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Nick:[quote]Trying to develop new theories is a separate issue. If the idea is to get people trying to develop new theories, then the schools are the wrong place to try. One can't develop new theories until one has mastered the data that underpins the old theory.[/quote]
As a seven times patented inventor, I must whole-heartedly disagree. Though there certainly is value for some in knowing the status quo well before reaching out, I have found that for some, such as myself, if I get to know the ways and thoughts of the others, I get trapped into their group-think. Sometime it is better to start a new thread of thought, and come at a problem with eyes that have not been filtered by the old thread. I really believe that we need two kinds of explorers, those who get to know the old theory first, and those who explore the territory without the filter of the old knowlege.
Comment by bFast — March 29, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
bFast:
I really believe that we need two kinds of explorers, those who get to know the old theory first, and those who explore the territory without the filter of the old knowlege.
Invention is an imperfect analogy for the study of natural science. In the context of science, "exploring the territory" doesn't just involve mastering a body of data, the territory is that data. You seem to be suggesting that it would be beneficial for kids to speculate about inheritance before learning Mendelian genetics or molecular biology. Perhaps that would have some limited pedagogical value, but the idea that it might lead to valuable new competing theories seems to me completely ludicrous. The primary reason why so many internet discussions about ID/evolution derail is that, too often, people attempt to theorize without bothering to study the field they are theorizing about.
So, I agree with Fuller and Macht that there is probably some educational value in teaching about scientific controversies in science class, although in the earlier years that will necessarily take a back seat to learning enough of the data/facts to actually understand the controversies. However, I am not convinced that the ID/evolution debate is particularly useful controversy in that respect. I do not think that trying to develop new theories with different assumptions is a valid reason for teaching ID in K-12 schools.
Comment by Nick — March 29, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
If taught properly, the ID/Darwinian debate would present the perfect issue for letting students think about the question, What is science?
Comment by Bilbo — March 29, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Actually there is plenty of evidence that inheritance goes beyond the molecular mechanisms of DNA / Mendelian genetics.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 30, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Maybe Fuller's right, but there's no reason to single out evolutionary theory; other theories ought to be challenged as well, just in case they are wrong. Why, for example, shouldn't students learn about geocentrism? It might inspire one of them to show the sun really does revolve around the earth!
Comment by Aagcobb — March 30, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
If it was an astronomy class, I think it would be imperative for them to learn the geocentric theory, and how it was repaired for centuries. And also why the Greeks (especially Aristotle) rejected heliocentrism — no one could envision the earth spinning so quickly without everybody falling off. And how this continued to be the major objection to it. So that until Newton came up with a new physics, geocentrism continued to be the accepted theory.
But if this is a biology class, I think ID would be the showcase theory. We would want to make sure arguments for and against it's being a scientific hypothesis are presented. And we would want the students to have to really think it through. I don't know if high school biology teachers would be sophisticated enought to present both sides. So I don't know if it could be properly taught. Another reason to wait until college. Or homeschool.
Comment by Bilbo — March 30, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
I agree.
You laugh, but there are plenty of good reasons to teach about geocentrism and other items in the history of science.
Comment by macht — March 30, 2006 @ 4:41 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Hi macht,
You're right, the history of science should be taught, but should geocentrism be taught as though its possible that the sun really is revolving around the earth? Similarly, Paley's arguments should be taught, but in a historical context, in which Darwin carefully studied them and demonstrated why he was wrong. If we teach children that the sun really might revolve around the earth, or that ID is an alternate explanation to evolution, we're just filling their minds with junk.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 30, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Aagcobb: "If we teach children that the sun really might revolve around the earth, or that ID is an alternate explanation to evolution, we're just filling their minds with junk."
The difference is that geocentrism has been falsified. ID hasn't been.
Comment by Bilbo — March 30, 2006 @ 4:58 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Geocentrism should be taught from the perspective of the people who believed it, giving the reasons why it was believed. Then the arguments for current theories can be given in the proper context. If you are worried about children believing in geocentrism after hearing these things then perhaps the evidence/arguments for heliocentrism aren't as strong as I thought. I'd say the same thing about ID.
Comment by macht — March 30, 2006 @ 5:30 pm
March 31st, 2006 at 12:56 am
Laff.
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 31, 2006 @ 12:56 am
March 31st, 2006 at 2:46 pm
What is it about Aagcobb that reminds me of Julbon in reverse? I wonder if they're the same age.
Comment by Bilbo — March 31, 2006 @ 2:46 pm
April 4th, 2006 at 10:49 am
Hi, Bilbo
ID is careful not to propose any falsifiable theories; that doesn't make it science. For example, the eminent IDist Robert Newman hypothesized that a demon can control one pig, but unless he can obtain the cooperation of a demon, I don't know how that hypothesis could be tested.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 4, 2006 @ 10:49 am
April 21st, 2006 at 12:05 am
"For example, the eminent IDist Robert Newman hypothesized that a demon can control one pig, but unless he can obtain the cooperation of a demon, I don't know how that hypothesis could be tested."
Pigs are hard to control. I've tried.
Comment by Douglas — April 21, 2006 @ 12:05 am
April 23rd, 2006 at 3:18 am
The real problem with applying Fuller's recognition that science benefits from a proliferation of hypotheses that are well grounded (not theories, if you're talking about the unproven stuff), and a proliferation of theories (when you get to the 'stuff proven so well we don't need testimony on it anymore'), is that intelligent design is quite the opposite of a good hypothesis, and especially theory. ID doesn't stimulate ideas. ID is like a wet blanket on a thin flame of just-lit piece of kindling.
Teaching kids to pose idiocy, wild-fliers or WAGS to oppose well-proven theory that all kids should know, is proven to make them stupid. If there IS a proliferation of hypotheses, teach them. But it is pedagogic malpractice to teach hooey just for the sake of suggesting criticism. Teaching false critique is not the way to learn good critique.
Fuller's argument would make sense were he talking about well-evidenced and well thought out contests, like the fight between Steady State and Big Bang prior to Wilson's and Penzias's fortuitous discovery of the echo that disproved Steady State and supported Big Bang.
Intelligent design so far is vacuous as hypothesis, and completely dead as theory. If Fuller's argument is correct, ID still doesn't get in the door — it doesn't measure up to Fuller's standards.
Comment by edarrell — April 23, 2006 @ 3:18 am