The "Pro-Science/Pro-Reason" Barkers
by MikeGeneI submit there is an important lesson that Telic Thoughts readers can get from the Moreno-Riaño et al. article.
Note that it is a paper published by two social scientists and a historian that is also published in the very same journal that published Paul's study.
So here's the lesson. Why didn't any of the pro-science blogs inform you about this article? Why didn't any of the skeptic organizations inform you of this? Why didn't any of the defenders of science inform you of this? Why didn't any of the promoters of science and reason inform you of this? Why did you have to find out about it here? And only here?
Of course, someone might say, "But Mike, no one knew about this study. You can't really expect people to follow the pages of that obscure little religion and history journal, now can you?" And I would respond, "Yes, but a true "pro-science" person would have recognized some of the fundamental flaws in that study and would at least suspected that a response article would eventually be published." If ignorance is the justification, it looks as if the "pro-science" people were simply engaged in confirmation bias and not thinking like scientists.
If you read the article, it politely takes Paul to the woodshed to give him the basic lessons of Social Science 101 (remember that Paul has no training in the social sciences). Yet not only have the "pro-science" people remained silent about the obvious fundamental flaws of the study, not only have they failed to inform you about this article, some have actually circulated the flawed study.
I think it is becoming increasingly clear that a large number of people who posture as defenders and promoters of science and reason are doing little more than that "“ posturing. They prop themselves up as if they have a monopoly on scientific thinking and reason, yet in reality, they are simply shouting slogans as part of a campaign to intimidate those who think differently.
People who are truly "pro-science and pro-reason" would not need to draw attention to such positions with bombastic, in-your-face rhetoric, spin, and cherry-picked examples that make "their side" look good. They would not be trying to inflame emotions and tribalism. They would simply let reason and science lead them in their stated opinions.
In other words, they would lead by example.
Thus, beware of someone who is quick to loudly self-identify as "pro-Science" or "pro-Reason." Why do they have to be so loud about it? Chances are that they are selling something, somewhere, that's not science and not reason.
January 11th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Good post. I completely agree with this and it's something i've noticed over many years of reading blogs / forums / websites — especially in relation to topics that touch our deepest emotions. (ie God & religion, Evolution vs Design).
The smartest cookies i've met and spoken to have not been the loudest! Think of the kung-fu master sitting quietly in the corner — He knows he can kick your arse if he has too.
Comment by Plump-DJ — January 11, 2007 @ 12:25 am
January 11th, 2007 at 12:54 am
But Mike, you did inform us.
Why would you expect a bunch of fundy religious zealots out to establish an atheocracy with a new inquisition to inform you of this ?
Comment by thesciphishow — January 11, 2007 @ 12:54 am
January 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
for decades scientists ignored creationism. "Don't dignify it with a response, it just gives them the attention they crave." When I started this conversation with creationists more than a decade ago on talk.origins there were no scientists in sight. It was just the creationists and people like me, the science buffs–the people who used to watch all the Disney nature documentaries as a kid, never missed an episode of Mr. Wizard, eagerly devouring everything Stephen Jay Gould wrote. When a creationist would say "there's never been a beneficial mutation." I was stumped. There was no scientist to say "the nylon bug."
For 30 years the creationist propaganda mill had been cranking. Gish was galloping all over the country talking in churches. Henry Morris was practically a rock star. The Genesis Flood was a quiet best seller. All while the scientists were not dignifying it with a response. Creationist schlock was the only thing people learned about evolution. Then on talk.origins and elsewhere science grad students were jumping into the conversation. Eventually people started noticing that the average age of scientists was 45, then 55. Most new scientists were foreign-born, in America for training and planning to take that training back to India or Singapore. You see, nobody had noticed that Kent Hovind had replaced Mr. Wizard.
Now you have their full attention. Those grad students of yesteryear are full-fledged scientists and they grew up battling creationism. Science education in this country is in the toilet and circling the drain. Don't expect the pro-science, pro-reason folks to ever sit down quietly ever again and allow pseudoscience to go unopposed. Not going to happen. Expect them to keep being loud about it. Selling something? You bet. Science and reason.
Comment by MrsCogan — January 11, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
January 11th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Would someone like to tell me what relevance the previous comment had to the topic discussed in the post? I just want to make sure that I'm not the only one who's wondering why such vitriol was necessary.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 11, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
January 11th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Science education in this country is in the toilet and circling the drain. Don't expect the pro-science, pro-reason folks to ever sit down quietly ever again and allow pseudoscience to go unopposed.
Can't let this urban legend pass by without comment. Test scores and education standards declined in the USA decades ago. They declined across the board. Lowering of test scores was not limited to the sciences. That says volumes about the attempt to link criticism of mainstream theories to the decline of education in America. There are reasons of course and the decline is more likely linked to factors like the decline of two parent households in America, the rise of out of wedlock births, particularly among the very young and the necessity for most households to have two working parents when two parents are there. Children need parental attention and where it is lacking so too is attention to studies.
Comment by Bradford — January 11, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
January 11th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Hi MrsCogan,
"Don't expect the pro-science, pro-reason folks to ever sit down quietly ever again and allow pseudoscience to go unopposed."
So why is it that the "pro-science, pro-reason folks" have let the Gregory Paul pseudoscience go unopposed?
Comment by Krauze — January 11, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
January 11th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Exactly which is why a pro-science pro-reason person like Mike has brought this atheistic propoganda to everyones attention.
Nobody wants to see pseudo-scientific dreck passed off as science by a pack of religious fanatics.
The sooner these pseudo-scientific atheists are done away with and their unreasoning and idiocy passes onto the ash heap of history the better.
Jason
Comment by thesciphishow — January 11, 2007 @ 5:01 pm
January 11th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
atheocracy, eh? I'll use that term now, I'm sure…
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — January 11, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
January 12th, 2007 at 12:48 am
If it wasn't for talk.origins, we'd all be the creationists' concentration camps?
Comment by MikeGene — January 12, 2007 @ 12:48 am
January 12th, 2007 at 1:04 am
I know Salvador is building his for when the revolution finally comes.
Comment by thesciphishow — January 12, 2007 @ 1:04 am
January 12th, 2007 at 8:54 am
It illustrates the point. "Pro-science" and "pro-reason" MrsCogan stopped evolutionary development of her sociological and psychological skills. At least in her case Dr. Davison is correct, Evolution reached a dead end!
Comment by inunison — January 12, 2007 @ 8:54 am
January 12th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Apparently the fact that Paul's study wasn't intended to be rigorous and the fact that it was not rigorous are old news.
From Wikipedia:
"Additionally, Gregory S. Paul has authored a paper, *Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look. Paul says in the introduction that the paper is "not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health." This paper has been criticized on several statistical grounds, such as its seemingly arbitrary sampling of 18 countries out of over 193 for examination, its indirect measure of "religiosity" (the author's term) and its "chi-by-eye" interpretation of scatterplots rather than quantified measures."
"Would someone like to tell me what relevance the previous comment had to the topic discussed in the post?"
This remark "Why do they have to be so loud about it?" Had a "sit down and shut up" flavor that sparked my response. My main focus is the evolution/creationism debate so that's how I framed it.
Comment by MrsCogan — January 12, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
January 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
No one is claiming that the Moreno-Riaño et al. paper is some sort of startling revelation. The significant point is that despite the Paul paper now being thoroughly refuted in the academic literature rather than just Internet discussions, the Usual Suspects are still trumpeting it for the Usual Reasons in contradiction to their posturing as Champions of Science. Further, the fact that it "wasn't intended to be rigorous" is all the more damning because the Usual Suspects ran with it regardless!
Comment by Varenius — January 12, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
January 12th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
So you picked out one remark that was suggestive of the previous point – that the "Pro-Science, Pro-Reason barkers" were heralding a study that was neither scientific nor rational – and decided to go off on a diatribe about how they have to be loud about being "Pro-Science" and "Pro-Reason" because of what they're combatting? That's barely relevant at all and more likely just a convenient excuse for the vitriol, which was my suspicion when I made my first comment.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 12, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
January 13th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Hello MrsCogan,
You write:
Well that's odd. My blog had nothing to do with the "evolution/creationism" debate. As for the "flavor," that, like the focus your brought to the table, existed only in your own mind. As for counter-arguments to my point?
None.
But what about the science education in this country being in the toilet and circling the drain? I suppose when the "pro-science" people peddle flawed studies because it serves their social agenda, we could have a problem. But as for the chicken little concern, critics do have a tendency to traffic in fear, as this emotion, along with rage, tend to be the mechanisms they use to spread science and reason. And of course, when you traffic in fear and rage, history has shown us that there is nothing more handy than a scapegoat and the critics can't get by without one. So let me guess. I suppose you want to blame the creationists for the state of science education? But don't despair. While the pro-science/pro-reason barkers are unlikely to draw much attention to this (it steps all over the emotions of fear, rage, and hate), there is some good news out there. So be happy.
Comment by MikeGene — January 13, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
January 16th, 2007 at 4:07 am
I blogged about this previously; Paul's "study" has been debunked by a real statistician.
Comment by obrienr — January 16, 2007 @ 4:07 am