I don’t like to discuss Conservapedia here. But engaging in a little schadenfreude never hurt anyone. You see, a group of scientists just published a paper which roundly debunks a common creationist claim – that evolution cannot create new, beneficial information, and cannot create new, beneficial mutations. The work of Blount, Borland, and Lenski has – in a not-so-shocking turn of events – blown it out of the water.
This event wouldn’t be so exciting if it weren’t for the fact that Andy Schlafly, raving creationist, anti-feminist, homophobe, racist bag of hate that he is, seized upon the opportunity and the authors’ willingness to answer “any questions” to try to turn the paper’s release into a political grandstanding event. You see, Schlafly challenged Lenski to produce his paper, whereupon Lenski challenged Schlafly… to read it.
This short little dialogue illustrates the fundamental difference between how Schlafly views science, and how the real world views science. Schlafly thinks of science – “evolutionism”- as something that can be met and debated away with the mere invocation of a talking point. In Schlafly’s world, one need not read books, and one need not read papers: since the truth is so obvious and plain in the Bible, any documentation on science is “elitist.” Expertise need not apply. So being forced to read a complex paper on a subject, before answering in a public debate, is the equivalent of a paradigm shift for Andy Schlafly. Since he’s being forced to debate on foreign soil – within the terms of science, rather than spin – expect the “dialog” page to be deleted and locked within days.
One closing point on the way Andy Schlafly thinks. Look at how he closed the first e-mail: “Andy Schlafly, M.S.E., J.D., Conservapedia.” I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again: trading on credentials in public fora in this manner is a sure sign of insecurity, and the e-equivalent of whipping it out and measuring it. Lucky for science, degrees don’t work like talismans: you have to use the knowledge you gained in their pursuit, not their titles, to gain their benefits. And that’s something Andy Schlafly will never do.
Update: Schlafly’s response? Scientific papers don’t contain data, ergo Schlafly claims that his request for data went unanswered. Ugh. My head.
Occasionally, I am treated to a piercing observation on the nature of Andrew Schlafly, instead of a simplistic dismissal of him as a loonie. This is one of them. Thank you Ames.
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | June 13, 2008, 11:39 pmIn Schlafly’s defense, internet debates about science do have to descend into arguments from authority at some point. One of the tragedies of modern life is that human knowledge has advanced far beyond any one individual’s ability to contain, and so the vast majority of us, no matter how intelligent, are simply unqualified to meaningfully comment on Lenski’s paper. We can read it, and we can be at least somewhat sure that we understand it, but the gold standard is always going to be commentary by a working evolutionary biologist.
Schlafly’s trading on irrelevant credentials, but that’s no reason to say that credentials don’t mean anything in public fora. They’re obviously useless when you’re anonymous, but I trust something that Richard Dawkins’ website says about biology not because I’m qualified to evaluate his claims but because Richard Dawkins is a biologist.
It’s as you say – we recognize that science admits of expertise, and an expert who has spent decades of his life doing active research in a field is simply a much, much more reliable source than someone unqualified, even if he can present an argument that sounds reasonable to laymen. Someone might show me a mathematical proof, and I might see no problems with it, but if a practicing mathematician were to tell me that it had a fatal flaw, I’d believe him.
Other than that last paragraph, I agree with you.
Posted by Gotchaye | June 14, 2008, 3:16 amBasically, talking up one’s credentials is only silly when you’re effectively anonymous. I can’t claim to have any degrees here because no one can verify that I have them. However, no one doubts that one of the participants on that dialogue page is Schlafly, and it’s quite possible to verify his credentials. They’re just irrelevant in this area, if not actually reason in themselves to discount what he’s saying.
Posted by Gotchaye | June 14, 2008, 3:20 amI agree with you on all points, Gotchaye. I don’t understand most of the mechanics of evolution, and don’t particularly care to, but when someone who has spent decades in the field of evolutionary biology says it works, I believe them purely as a matter of credibility.
I would like to point out that Andrew Schlafly’s crackpot legal beliefs (such as that wiki vandals can be prosecuted under internet criminal law and fall under FBI jurisdiction, or that an image can be used under Fair Use because he says so—that’s all I can think of; Ames could undoubtedly supply yet more examples) suggest that even in his supposed fields of expertise, Schlafly has no credibility whatsoever. That’s the one flaw with your variation of argument from authority: you have to be extra careful of educated crackpots.
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | June 14, 2008, 4:14 amIt’s even sadder when you realize that Schlafly went to Harvard.
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | June 14, 2008, 4:14 amYou can lean an ass to knowledge, but you cannot make him think.
Posted by lumbercartel | June 14, 2008, 4:30 pmSadly true.
Posted by Radioactive afikomen | June 14, 2008, 11:36 pmPZ Myers picked this up too – I’d like this cited as another example of me scooping Pharyngula.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/hubris_gall_arroganceinanity.php
Posted by Ames | June 19, 2008, 5:42 pmSmall correction, Schlafly only claims to be a B.S.E. (Bull Shit Expert?) rather than M.S.E. However, adding one’s rather lowly credentials is the equivalent of someone demanding that they be referred to as “Mister” So-and-so. I think that I once put B.Sc. (Hons) after my name but that was over thirty years ago just to see how it looked.
Schlafly is patently a jerk and even has the effrontery to admit that he merely skimmed Lenski’s paper.
Posted by Genghis | June 20, 2008, 5:13 am