Discouraged, Disgusted, and Sad...

[badrescher]

I have been avoiding "Expelled" for no reason in particular except
that fighting ID has not been a priority for me.

However, I have a student this semester who asked me to watch it for
the purpose of "healthy debate".

Oh. Someone's. God.

I guess I was expecting pseudoscience, but what I got was propaganda
of the worst possible kind.

For those who have not seen it, it's incredibly offensive in addition
to being incredibly stupid.

Why should I care?

Because a student who has been sitting in my experimental methods
class for the past 12 weeks thought it was "very well done" and,
amazingly, it did not occur to her that I might find it offensive.

I have failed. I have failed miserably.

Putting the offensive stuff aside, the biggest flaws in the film's
flimsy argument are misinterpretations of fundamental scientific
principles. Principles that I emphasize. How could she have missed
that?

I repeat the more important questions in this class on several exams
and quizzes, and thus far my students have been asked to describe the
canons of science (parsimony & falsifiability apply here) on at least
4 occasions.

I have covered the process of peer-review and consensus. I have
discussed the ways in which people misunderstand probability. And a
CORE concept of the course is VALIDITY.

All of it, apparently, went over her head.

I feel as if I keep spinning my wheels and nothing sticks. I often
feel this way, but this is such a horrible example that I am beginning
to doubt that it is possible to bring people into the land of reason.

If you'd like to mourn with me, yell at me, or console me, it would be
nice to have some chatter in the group...

- Barb

[cste...@yahoo.com]

We can't give up. The spread of this kind of thinking will only
accelerate without people doing what you do. Hang in there!

> However, I have a student this semester who asked me to watch it for
> the purpose of "healthy debate".

I'm glad that you watched it so that you can discuss it with your
student(s). However, in no way should it be as a debate. A debate
supposes that there are valid viewpoints to be discussed. Would you
debate if the holocaust happened or not, if the earth revolves around
the sun or the sun around the earth, etc? When the IDers in Kansas
wanted to debate the evolutionists, people urged the scientists to
boycott the "debate". (Per a speaker at the Sigma Pi Sigma Congress
just past.)

> I feel as if I keep spinning my wheels and nothing sticks. I often
> feel this way, but this is such a horrible example that I am beginning
> to doubt that it is possible to bring people into the land of reason.

You don't know how many people you help. Not everyone will come to
"the land of reason". Their upbringing, their brain "wiring", etc. may
make it too difficult to apply your teachings to their lives at this
time. Some may not ever be able to and some others will respond later
to the seeds you plant now. If you want any additional resources or
just to know there are others out there that feel like you do, check
out the website that my husband told me about, expelledexposed.com. It
is maintained by the NCSE.

Please use this experience to make you even more determined to carry
on.

cstein

[kil...@gmail.com]

 If you want any additional resources or
just to know there are others out there that feel like you do, check
out the website that my husband told me about, expelledexposed.com. It
is maintained by the NCSE.

There's also the recent ep of the Skeptic Zone podcast (www.skepticzone.tv), where we interview Eugenie Scott of the NCSE? That's out on iTunes. Will write more in the morning, don't give up! :)

[badrescher]

On Nov 17, 7:47 am, cstein...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm glad that you watched it so that you can discuss it with your
> student(s). However, in no way should it be as a debate. A debate
> supposes that there are valid viewpoints to be discussed. Would you

Well, I disagree with you on this one. Debate is necessary to point
out the validity (or lack thereof) of the points made. In fact,
refusal to debate this issue is the major premise of the movie - that
scientists are close-minded and do not tolerate dissent. This is far
from true. There are debates involving ID all of the time. A good
portion of Shermer's schedule is devoted to it.

The problem is, and this is what I find so disappointing, the movie
offers nothing to debate.

It wasn't pseudoscience. It was propaganda.

> out the website that my husband told me about, expelledexposed.com. It
> is maintained by the NCSE.

Oh, that was my first stop afterwards! I don't like to be biased by
others' opinions, so I stay away from discussions of things that I
know I will eventually examine on my own. So, I had not read any of
the blogs or reviews of Expelled with the exception of PZ Myers' blog
about the deceptive interview. However, once I'd finished my own
notes, I was very pleased to find so many other reviews that were
nearly identical to mine. It is comforting. But it's also
discouraging. We're preaching to the choir.

> Please use this experience to make you even more determined to carry
> on.

As discouraged and depressed I am about this, I think my anger trumps
it.

Thanks for the shot in the arm!

-Barb

[victori...@uconn.edu]

I think for the most part we *are* preaching to the choir. There are,
however, those who are on the fence about using reason and logic to
examine things instead of purely faith, and those are the people you
will likely change. That's why you need to keep doing what you're
doing.

As a college student, I am often shocked by what I hear come out of
the mouths of fellow students. This is supposed to be a place where
people are getting an education, how can they be so close-minded?
Unfortunately, there are people like this everywhere and probably
always will be. But as a professor, you have the power to help inform
your students. And even if only one of them takes away the lessons you
teach and brings scientific reasoning into their everyday lives,
that's already an accomplishment.

Vicky

[Matt Lowry]

Barb et al,

I suggest the following website. It's a great exposure of not only
the pseudoscience of "Expelled" and ID in general, but also of the
various lies espoused by the "Expelled" gang...

http://www.expelledexposed.com

Cheers - Matt

[Mike....@csiro.au]

Oh, Barb. :(

The part that dismays me the most is the sense of failure. Although I
can totally understand it.

So...let's go over the basics.

1) Humans are not a special, enlightened species. We have brains
evolved to work well in social groups, and to deal with a very different
environment to the one we currently live in. It did not evolve to
contemplate evolution, sub-atomics, particle duality, electron orbitals
or what the producers of Lost were ever thinking. The fact we can
contemplate those things is due more to a neurological accident (I dare
to call it a 'spandrel' behaviour...sorry Mr. Gould).

2) There is no 'winning' in this. Critical thinking consists of a
number of small skills and cultural quirks. If we can get some students
to adopt even some of these skills and values, we've made progress. It
feels like such tiny steps are being taken, but then I'm sure when
Thales, the oh-so ancient philosopher, first told his students 'you
know, maybe there's something to this 'thinking' thing - you should try
it', he also thought it was pointless and philosophy would never take
off.

3) Success, if we can call it that, might not be immediately apparent.
This child may well make several connections in years to come, inspired
by your teachings.

4) Films like this one will always exist. Yet the fact that it is
virtually ignore in countries like Australia (I'm not even sure if it is
showing here...I sure haven't seen it advertised) should give some small
hope.


5) Umm...I just wanted a fifth point. So...yeah...go team!

Barb, it's hard dealing with human nature. But for every one of those
girls who you feel frustrated by, it pays to keep in mind the other 10
who, without you, would have been the same.

Mike


Mike McRae
Science by Email, CSIRO Education
PO Box 225, Dickson ACT 2602
Phone: 02 6276 6291 Mobile: 0423 596 774
Email: mike....@csiro.au | Web: www.csiro.au/education

[kil...@gmail.com]

Thankfully, the film COMPLETELY bombed in the US, but I guess the worry is the dvds now. Eugenie Scott addressed this in the podcast and the website is attempting to be first in 'hits' when people Google the film. Every bit helps. You're part of that, Barb! :)

[badrescher]

Thanks for the interactions, guys. I really think I needed some social
interaction on the topic.

K - Australians seem to be, per capita, much more intelligent than
Americans. I can't figure out why, but I worry that it's true.

On Nov 17, 7:18 pm, <Mike.Mc...@csiro.au> wrote:

> 1)  Humans are not a special, enlightened species.  We have brains

> evolved to... It did not evolve to contemplate evolution...

Good point. I tell my students this ALL of the time; it seems to ease
their minds a little as a they struggle through the tough classes.
It's just so blasted frustrating.

Related to this is at least one silver lining - in my note-taking and
reading while preparing my response, I formed a more solid idea of a
part of my dissertation - the probability problem. People have an
extremely difficult time with probabilities and I was focused on the
problem of joint probability understanding. However, at the very core
of ID is the concept that complex life could not have arisen by
chance. Regardless of the fact that evolution is not random, the
fundamental problem in the post-hoc argument is much simpler.

I had a difficult time coming up with a way to adequately describe it
after the Skeptic's Conference, but a very simple one bubbled up while
typing my notes:

Ask someone to pick a number between 1 and 900 billion. When they tell
you their answer, respond with, "God must have whispered that in your
ear. Why? Because the probability that you would have chosen that
number is 1 in 900 billion!"

I think I can work this into some usable scenarios for testing
hypotheses about probablistic reasoning...

> This child may well make several connections in years to
> come, inspired by your teachings.

Oh, if only she was a child! She's probably in her 30s. I really doubt
I've made an impact, judging by the very brief unchecked facial
expression when I said that Darwin was a humanist today.

I do learn more about the way she thinks every time we talk, though.
In reading the unedited version of Darwin that was misquoted in the
film, her response to the discussion of the effects that prosocial
behavior has on the gene pool was, "Don't you find that disturbing?"
and she simply could not understand my response, which was that the
truth is not always pretty, but that does not make it less truthful.

She simply could not understand my stance that truth and validity are
not value; that one's dislike of, or discomfort with, the knowledge we
acquire does not give us license to make up our own reality...

-Barb

[cste...@yahoo.com]

> > I'm glad that you watched it so that you can discuss it with your
> > student(s). However, in no way should it be as a debate. A debate
> > supposes that there are valid viewpoints to be discussed. Would you
>
> Well, I disagree with you on this one. Debate is necessary to point
> out the validity (or lack thereof) of the points made. In fact,
> refusal to debate this issue is the major premise of the movie - that
> scientists are close-minded and do not tolerate dissent. This is far
> from true. There are debates involving ID all of the time. A good
> portion of Shermer's schedule is devoted to it.
>
> The problem is, and this is what I find so disappointing, the movie
> offers nothing to debate.
>
> It wasn't pseudoscience. It was propaganda.
>

I suspect we have a bit of connotation/denotation issue over the word
debate. If not, we will continue to agree to disagree at the end of
the day. I finally had the time to consult a Merriam-Webster
dictionary to see if the distinction in my mind between discussion and
debate was at all credible. As I posted previously, I think ID should
be discussed but not debated. You stated that scientists' refusal to
debate was a major point of the movie. You followed this by stating
that the movie offered nothing to debate. A later post of yours makes
me think that you will not refuse to talk with your student about the
movie, but I must presume that you won't be debating it with her, per
the post I am replying to. As for how Merriam-Webster defines these
words and for good measure, arguement:

de·bate Pronunciation: \di-ˈbāt, dē-\ Function: noun Date:13th
century
: a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a
motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of
parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition
between two matched sides

dis·cus·sion Listen to the pronunciation of discussion
Pronunciation:\di-ˈskə-shən\ Function:noun Date:14th century
1 : consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate
2 : a formal treatment of a topic in speech or writing

ar·gu·ment Pronunciation:\ˈär-gyə-mənt\ Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin argumentum,
from arguere Date:14th century
1obsolete : an outward sign : indication2 a: a reason given in proof
or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade3 a: the act or process
of arguing : argumentation b: a coherent series of statements leading
from a premise to a conclusion c: quarrel , disagreement4: an abstract
or summary especially of a literary work <an argument preceded the
poem>5: the subject matter especially of a literary work6 a: one of
the independent variables upon whose value that of a function depends
b: a substantive (as the direct object of a transitive verb) that is
required by a predicate in grammar c: amplitude 4

How do these definitions relate to the point I was trying to make
about engaging in discussions but not debates with creationists? When
I discouraged debate, I was thinking of something along the lines of b
in the definition of debate and 3b in the definition of arguement. The
definition of discussion does include "informal debate". To me, this
part of the definition connotes something much less formal than b and
3b that I referenced above. It is my view and others that if ID is
given formal debate opportunities, such as we do with candidate
debates, that you give legitimacy to their cause or give them another
platform from which to preach. This was touched on in an article in a
local newspaper today, http://www.star-telegram.com/news/columnists/bud_kennedy//story/1046804.html
.

Let me say that I can agree wholeheartedly that we must respond to the
comments that the Discovery Institute and the like put out about ID. I
think the scientific community has been doing this, so for them to
whine about a lack of feedback is disingenuous propaganda. What also
irritates me is that they seem to think that scientists don't
regularly rethink scientific theories such as evolution or the big
bang or hypotheses. Does anyone remember ether? Physicists thought
this hypothetical, odorless, colorless material was the substance
through which electromagnetic radiation propagated, until they
eventually proved themselves wrong. People without scientific training
need to leave science to the scientists. This doesn't mean that
scientists should retreat to an ivory tower to do their work. They
should always look for ways to communicate with the public. They
should even listen to ideas that the general public thinks up, decide
if that thought is worth pursuing and communicate their conclusion.

When asked about it, my son thought that there would be no harm in
teaching creationism (ID). He thought that by presenting ID in the
classroom (to the harsh light of day) that the lack of substance would
expose it for what it is and it would wither and die. Unfortunately,
while in a perfect world, this should happen, in reality it hasn't
after all of the court battles that have ruled against it. So I do
think everyone should engage with people and try to educate people
about ID when appropriate. I also think that it is important to be
careful so that the specific act of engagement does not serve to
legitimize turning science into a specific religion's propaganda tool.

[badrescher]

On Nov 19, 8:47 am, cstein...@yahoo.com wrote:

> It is my view and others that if ID is
> given formal debate opportunities, such as we do with candidate
> debates, that you give legitimacy to their cause or give them another
> platform from which to preach.

I hope you know that I love you dearly, but I can't get on board with
this. I've heard it before, and I understand and would LIKE to agree,
but I can't.

It's hypocritical to criticize people for trying to spread their
religion as absolute truth, then refuse to even hear arguments that
counter our own views. True skepticism is open-minded, and arguments
must be evaluated on their own merits.

Although I agree that ID has been evaluated and fails, to ignore it is
to prove the arrogance they ascribe to us. Addressing it may appear to
give it credence, but it IS the "right" thing to do.

That said, this student is ill-equipped to debate the issue. We did,
however, have a great discussion about religion and science. I think
that she was misled by the film because she did not know the extent of
the lies told in it, but she IS looking to philosophy and science for
answers, hoping to reconcile them with her faith.

> Let me say that I can agree wholeheartedly that we must respond to the
> comments that the Discovery Institute and the like put out about ID. I
> think the scientific community has been doing this, so for them to
> whine about a lack of feedback is disingenuous propaganda. What also
> irritates me is that they seem to think that scientists don't
> regularly rethink scientific theories such as evolution or the big
> bang or hypotheses.

Oh, I don't believe that those running the DI actually believe the BS
they are dishing out. I have never been one to believe in
conspiracies, but there is a pretty convincing pile of evidence that
points to a struggle to get religion back into the public schools.

> When asked about it, my son thought that there would be no harm in
> teaching creationism (ID). He thought that by presenting ID in the
> classroom (to the harsh light of day) that the lack of substance would
> expose it for what it is and it would wither and die.

My own kids laughed at the idea that the Big Bang didn't happen and
that Jonah knew dinosaurs, but I have enough education and knowledge
to be able to teach my children HOW to think so that, when told these
things, they can decide for themselves WHAT to think. Unfortunately,
my situation is not typical. Children in public schools need to know
the difference between faith and empirical evidence and keeping
religion where it belongs - a matter of choice - is necessary to
accomplish that.

- Barb

[Mike....@csiro.au]

I thought some might be interested in the proposed National Curriculum
in Australia for science.

While it's not quite worth celebrating yet (as we all know, there is a
long way to go between having something suggested in a curriculum and
having it properly taught in a school), it is nice to see the following
embedded in it;

"By the end of the compulsory years of school science it is intended
that students should be able to be demonstrate:

an interest in and understanding of the natural world

the ability to engage in communication of and about science

scepticism and questioning of the claims made by others

identification and investigation of questions and drawing together
evidence-based conclusions

the ability to make informed decisions about the environment, and
their own health and wellbeing."

The rest can be read here:
http://www.ncb.org.au/verve/_resources/National_Science_Curriculum_-_Fra
ming_Paper.pdf

[Joe Anderson]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike....@csiro.au
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 10:18 PM
To: critical...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [Critical Teaching] Re: Discouraged, Disgusted, and Sad...

Oh, Barb. :(

The part that dismays me the most is the sense of failure. Although I
can totally understand it.

So...let's go over the basics.

1) Humans are not a special, enlightened species. We have brains

evolved to work well in social groups, and to deal with a very different

environment to the one we currently live in. It did not evolve to

contemplate evolution, sub-atomics, particle duality, electron orbitals
or what the producers of Lost were ever thinking. The fact we can
contemplate those things is due more to a neurological accident (I dare
to call it a 'spandrel' behaviour...sorry Mr. Gould).

2) There is no 'winning' in this. Critical thinking consists of a
number of small skills and cultural quirks. If we can get some students
to adopt even some of these skills and values, we've made progress. It
feels like such tiny steps are being taken, but then I'm sure when
Thales, the oh-so ancient philosopher, first told his students 'you
know, maybe there's something to this 'thinking' thing - you should try
it', he also thought it was pointless and philosophy would never take
off.

3) Success, if we can call it that, might not be immediately apparent.

[The entire original message is not included]

[cste...@yahoo.com]

On Nov 19, 11:37 pm, <Mike.Mc...@csiro.au> wrote:
> I thought some might be interested in the proposed National Curriculum
> in Australia for science.

> ...

> The rest can be read here:http://www.ncb.org.au/verve/_resources/National_Science_Curriculum_-_Fra
> ming_Paper.pdf
>
> Mike McRae

Mike,

I finally had a chance to scan the link that you provided. If it would
be appropriate, I would like to pass the link on to some people
working on the Texas science curricula. The structure of Australia's
curricula seems more open ended than what we have in the US, but I
think that it would be a great resource for the science minded on
Texas' State Board of Education, if the National Curriculum Board
doesn't object to sharing.

Also, an update on the voting from the Sigma Pi Sigma conference.
Since we were unable to complete the voting at the congress in the
time allotted, SPS is in the process of collecting votes on the
recommendations from the congress attendees. The first recommendation
is, "SPS should expand its outreach efforts on the nature of science,
critical thinking, and the scientific method." Voting closes on Dec.
7, I'll keep everyone updated.

cstein

[cste...@yahoo.com]

I would like to start by acknowledging that this form of communication
has limits and my communication skills are not always up to the task.
I may be misinterpreting posts; my posts may not be understood. I also
want to say that I am not trying to be argumentative or disrespectful
to others that disagree. When opinions are presented on topics, even
open-minded, rational people are likely to form different opinions. I
believe that give and take, in order to make one’s viewpoint
understood, is important. Being understood is not the same as having
others suddenly agree with you.

After Barb’s last post, I was feeling misunderstood. I felt that I was
being told that I was suggesting that IDers be ignored by the science
minded and should not be given a chance to discuss their views in any
way. (Maybe I misread the post?) So I asked my husband and my college
age son to read the thread about debating creationists and asked them
to give me feedback. From this feedback, I found that even the people
that know me best didn’t totally get the point I was trying to make,
but after we talked they understood. (Verbal give and take has its
benefits.) My husband started making suggestions of things for me to
write. I asked him to please write up something instead, since he has
been recognized in his work for having the ability to communicate in
such a way so that different groups (such as techies and business
types) actually understand each other.

His comments can be found below. I offer them and this post for that
matter as a final attempt to be understood. If I am understood great,
if not, oh well. If any of you understand my point but continue to
disagree, trust me, that is ok.

Larry’s thoughts:

I don't think Cathy and Barb are that far apart, and you both are
certainly encouraged to correct me if I mischaracterize your
positions.

I think Cathy was speaking specifically about not wanting formal,
moderated debates under time restrictions with little or no room for
rebuttal. Such debates are generally poor formats for "deciding" the
validity of scientific concepts. Science is decided upon through
research, publication, replication of results, and critical review.
While the concepts can be summarized, the evidence can rarely be
condensed to a sound bite. In my opinion it is unfair to the audience
to let them come away from a debate feeling one side won because of
the oratory or debate skills rather than the evidence.

Creationists and IDers (and dishonest debaters) sometimes use a tactic
now referred to as the Gish Gallop. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Duane_Gish#Debates), in which the debater spews out far more topics
and incorrect points than his opponent can possibly address in an
hour, much less the time allotted. The audience is left with the idea
that the scientific position was 1) unable to refute the "arguments"
brought up and 2) buried under a volume of "evidence" for ID.

There are scientists on both sides of the fence as to whether IDers
should be engaged in formal debates. Both positions are personal
value judgements. Dr. Shermer relates his experience debating
creationists in chapter 9 of Why People Believe Weird Things. I think
Cathy's point about not wanting to give IDers "a platform from which
to preach" was specific to the formal debate format. I in no way see
it as hypocrisy to feel that scientific information is better
presented and received in other formats than the formal debate. I
don't think anyone here has said they will not listen to the IDers or
that they should in any way be prevented from presenting their ideas.

[badrescher]

Cathy,

I am very sorry that you felt misunderstood and, again, I hope you
know that I respect you a GREAT deal. You're a "do-er" and bring more
to this "forum" that you probably know.

I do not think it was a matter of misunderstanding you, though. I
think it is an issue about which we disagree, even if we are only
disagreeing on some of the details. I also understand that there are
many very intelligent scientists and philosophers who agree with you
or go beyond (saying we shouldn't even listen), so you are in good
company.

If we all agreed, we'd have nothing to talk about and our
conversations would be pathetically boring.

Issues like this NEED to be discussed, because they MATTER (I know you
agree with me on that). We need to be able to discuss them rationally
and without concern that the discussion will turn to personal attacks
and propaganda (what keeps me from participating in forums).

I think this particular issue is very important. The only reason I
have refrained from discussing it in more detail is that I am not
certain that more than our brief notes on it is helpful to this
specific group.

I do need to find a more active forum to "vent" on broader topics, so
if any of you have suggestions, I'd love to hear them. I have not
spent much time in the skeptic forums, but my experiences with other
moderated forums makes me wary. Commenting on others' blogs feels like
intrusion and prompts others to discuss forum-style. I may just have
to start my own blog...

[badrescher]

A bit of an update:

The student and I have had a few conversations since I watched the
film. Every time I speak with her, I learn a little more about the
mindset of the fanatical and more about her specific mindset. Our
conversations have been educational, fun, and fulfilling.

I do not believe that the Fundamental Christian is in agreement with
her own, and I think she will drop the ID beliefs soon. She is
certainly tenacious in her religion and believes that God will appear
before me someday to make me a believer, but she is doing her best to
reconcile science, philosophy, and religion. Since the ID agenda is to
eradicate science, this quest can only lead her to to the truth about
the ID movement and, ultimately, to incorporating evolution into her
understanding of God's methods.

Another encouraging note: my kids are getting the straight stuff in
school with no "filtering", so we appear to be winning the war in
science education, at least in my neighborhood. I ordered some DVDs
for my science-freak kids (one of whom is addicted to educational
films of all kinds) and when the NOVA program on Origins (hosted by
Niel de Grasse Tyson) my oldest had already seen part of it - just
last week, in fact.

And I HIGHLY recommend the NOVA on the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial
(Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial). It's not just a great
documentation of the trial; it has some of the best and most clear
explanations of the fundamental flaws in the ID argument that I have
seen and the science is cool.

One thing I would like to turn to research-wise in the not-too-far
future is the role of childhood spiritual education in critical
thinking later in life. I am not convinced that the influence is as
strong as many believe (i.e., I don't think that spiritual teaching
steers kids away from critical thinking). However, I think there is a
great danger in the reverse - turning children away from critical
thinking out of fear of derailing spiritual teachings, which is what
ID attempts to do.

I'll step down from my box now...

-Barb

[Phranq Tamburri]

I completely agree.