Last week I discussed the notion of folk science as an approach to understanding creationism. The basic idea is this: folk science is science-talk which can be of any degree of accuracy and that has the sole purpose of supporting an already established world-view. As such, folk science does not seek to inform; it seeks to encourage, and any accurate information transfer is incidental. Folk science is employed by people of various persuasions; I used The God Delusion and an especially misleading blog post from Reasons To Believe as two examples. I asked for feedback, and I got some very interesting and provocative responses.
By way of rejoinder, let me state some principles that should stand alongside any use of the folk-science construct in the analysis of creationist or ID claims. Some of these were contained in the original post (or seemed obvious to me), others I've gleaned from the commenters (with gratitude).
1. Identifying a piece of commentary as folk science does not rule out duplicity on the part of the author or speaker. Some folk science is almost certainly deliberately dishonest. For example, earlier this year David Menton of Answers in Genesis wrote a blurb about the famous transitional fossil Tiktaalik, in which he made claims that seem to be clear fabrications. His work is pure folk science, but it appears also to be disgracefully dishonest. Here, the folk science context provides explanation for his behavior, but of course does nothing to excuse it.
2. Identifying a folk scientific claim as false — no matter how ludicrously so — does not necessarily imply dishonesty on the part of the author or speaker. Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe claims that speciation has recently ceased on earth. This claim is utterly preposterous, but Ross probably believes it to be true. He's not (necessarily) being dishonest. We can and should identify this as foolish and careless behavior (considering that the writer has a Ph.D. in science), we might conclude that the writer lacks credibility, we might use the term 'misconduct'. (I would. I will.) But dishonesty? Probably not.
And of course, people routinely promulgate falsehoods without knowing their statements are wrong. Sometimes this error is wholly excusable, sometimes it's indicative of irresponsible credulity or some other form of intellectual sloth. The guy who cooked it all up may very well be a liar, but his dupes ought to get the benefit of the doubt, at least at first.
3. The capacity for self-deception in humans is not to be underestimated. See Siamang's fantastic comment in the previous post.
4. BUT...while some people get a pass, at least in their first at-bat, others must be held to a higher standard. A scientist who identifies himself as a "scholar" at a "think tank" that hosts regular radio shows, and who travels the globe giving lectures on creationism and faith, and who publishes a book every year or so, and who holds a Ph.D. in, say, physics or astronomy or chemistry, must be expected to adhere to minimal standards of scholarly rigor. Manufacturing folk science, in my opinion, is already outside these minimal bounds, and when that folk science is grossly inaccurate then the "scholar" is not just disreputable — he's engaging in serious professional misconduct. (Some would argue that I'm overly generous in my continued inclusion of such an individual in the scholarly community.) This, I think, is the principle that both Henry Neufeld and Steve Martin are employing in their excellent comments.
For more reaction to the folk science concept, go to Threads from Henry's Web, Beyond The Firmament and An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution. It's good to see that I'm not the only one who's frustrated and not a little ashamed.
Siamang probably thinks I'm wasting my time, but I want to document RTB's errors, some of which are jaw-dropping. Siamang is surely right when s/he claims that many "ain't listening to the science," but the topics are interesting in their own right, and I think anyone who "ain't listening to the science" ain't readin' my blog. :-)
First topic on which you can't believe Reasons To Believe: "junk DNA."
7 comments:
A problem with the notion of "folk science" is that the "folk" appellation can be easily applied to anyting anyone believes outside an area in which they are particularly specialized. It can become a way for specialists to enforce their disciplinary and methodological presuppositions against everyone else -- a way of totalizing epistemology under the tent of a given specialty.
For example, professional social psychologists and sociobiologists dismiss almost all day-to-day beliefs held by ordinary people as "folk psychology." Think you're reading this with some level of objectivity and responding to it with some degree of freedom and reason? Think again, say the social psychologists and sociobiologists. That's just folk psychology.
And how about "folk theology?" On an older post here, I asked, concerning the problem of evolution and the atonement: I wish some good reasonably conservative reformed and evangelical theologians and Biblical scholars would start to take this on, but I don't see that happening -- do you know of any? It seems that most of the theological speculation comes from scientists, which can be as bad as theologians doing science.
In other words, so far, almost all the theology I've seen concerning theistic evolution in the Amercian evangelical / conservative reformed community is folk theology by scientists (e.g., Collins, Falk). And most of it is pretty ugly.
Now, there is some good theology out there that could resonate with American evangelicals and conservative reformed types but doesn't explicity get to a TE position -- e.g., Alister McGrath's Scientific Theology series. And there's quite a bit of serious TE theology that falls pretty far afield of the conservative evangelical and reformed traditions -- e.g., Wentzel Van Huyssteen, Ted Peters.
But are we left with this: go "liberal," accept the folk theology of the evangelical scientists, or accept the folk science of the evangelical theologians?
dbecke, thanks for another thoughtful comment.
I agree that some might use the "folk" designation to unfairly dismiss worthy ideas, but my definition of folk science is specific (wrt its purpose, which is world-view warranting) and grants that folk science need not be inaccurate.
The risk, as noted by several commenters here and elsewhere, is not that I would "totalize epistemology" but that I would grant near-respectability to shameless lies. The RTB post to which I linked in the previous article is a disturbing piece of misinformation. Calling it "folk science" is generous. It was my intention to make room for something other than an outright charge of duplicity. Other commenters, such as agnostics_r_us, have noted this.
I'm not crazy about the Hobson's choice at the end. I'll take door #3, even though you didn't offer it.
I just wanted to point out that what you guys are talking about is very much overlapping with Apologetics, in this case, using science. In general, an apologist is perfectly happy to use accurate and up-to-date information if it upholds their worldview/creed. But if it does not, this is not a big problem either. Apologists may be seen "lying for God" and/or "stalling for God" or "creating doubt about scientific theories for God."
I think most people recognize what the variety of motivations are for someone engaged in an apologetic enterprise. Also, people recognize the strategies of a defense lawyer. Lawyers play on the jury's perceptions (based on knowledge and ignorance) about the law as well as the evidence and other matters in a case.
I think 'folk science' can be a useful concept, but 'scientific apologetics' or some other phrase would seem to work as well.
agnosis is right -- the problem is that we're not really talking about "science" at all, we're talking about "apologetics." The apologetics in question is a brand of populist evidentiary apologetics that requires scientific proof of theological propositions. It's inevitable that this kind of apologetics cherry picks things from the domain of science to make its case.
Steve, I think what you're really getting at is the intellectual depth of populist evangelicalism. We all know it's typically pretty shallow. As a law professor, I could give equally eggregious examples of "folk lawyering" from the populist evangelial public policy organizations. I often cringe at both Focus on the Family and Sojourners.
But, there are many people writing serious theological work on law and public policy from evangelical / reformed / Catholic / radical orthodoxy, and other perspectives. Specialists like me can try to connect and contrast that serious work with the "folk" stuff and hopefully help the Church to continue on the pilgrimage towards building the Kingdom.
So I have to ask again here about Christians who specialize in the natural sciences. You can deconstruct some of the folk apologetics -- fine. But where are the richer positive theological resources to which you can reconnect and refresh the Church? I like Francis Collins, and it's useful to write a book showing the validity of common descent, but it's irresponsible to then to waive the hand and suggest in a sentence or two that all of the Biblical creation and fall narratives are "allegories," when no responsible exegete would make that broad a statement.
I sense within evangelicalism that Christian natural scientists are getting bolder about common descent. There are at least 4 or 5 new books coming out by evangelical scientists on this in 2008, and big publishers like IVP are interested in it. But you guys have to start a serious dialogue with our theologians so that this work is contextualized in a way that is true to God's word and beneficial to the Church. Otherwise, you're leaving lots of us with our theological rear ends hanging out bare.
Interesting Stephan. I'm wondering more about your definition of "folk science."
I'm wondering if all persuasive uses of scientific data can fall under this term, or if it's just the unsupported data?
For example, the recent Nova special on the Dover trial. In one sequence, the discovery of the tetrapod fossil Tiktaalik is explained to be a confirmation of the predictive power of the fossil record, evolution, geological timekeeping, etc.
Now, I'd consider it true that Tiktaalik was found. I consider it true that without the tools of the fossil record and the rest of it, nobody would know where to dig for such a thing. And I also consider it true that without the notion of evolution, we wouldn't know to look for a fish with feet any more than we would want to look for a snake with branches and leaves.
But the use of these facts about Tiktaalik, in a persuasive mode, seems to me to be meant more to encourage than to educate.
Tiktaalik's discovery wasn't because the researchers set out to "prove" evolution, nor does it specifically do anything of the sort. No individual factoid can do anything but provide support.
If the amazing happens, and someday we find evolution or our understanding of it to be in error, then the marshalling of the anecdote of Tiktaalik in support of it would rightly be seen as overreaching from what the data actually supported.
I guess what I'm asking is if the definition "folk science" requires a cavalier desregard for the facts (or a deliberate misrepresentation of the same) or if the definition can sweep in any instance where claims are factually true, the conclusion is factually true (as far as we know), but the facts don't lead irrevocably to supporting the conclusion. In my mind, this puts at risk any extrapolation from data to theory.
Or is wanton disregard (intellectual sloth, etc) required for the "folk science" distinction?
Siamang--
This distinction might seem subtle to some, but I think it's significant: folk science (as defined here) involves warranting of a world-view, not merely persuasion. RTB is abusing science to make themselves and their followers feel comfier with a cosmos in which God performs "creation miracles" to generate taxa (families? genera? species? beats me) out of nothing. That's their world-view, and their world-view is nonscientific (in my view).
Now, in a limited sense one could claim that their world-view is scientifically verifiable, and RTB claims exactly that. The idea is that radical discontinuity in natural history would be evidence of supernatural causation. If we found evidence of such discontinuity, we might consider supernatural (or, say, super-alien) activity, and we might go back and look at the work of RTB and re-categorize it, from folk science to: once-in-a-millenium, super-brilliant, prescient, way-beyond-Nobel-prizewinning, holy cow, like we just don't have the superlatives for the historic dimensions of this kind of intellectual achievement. :-)
And why don't I think this is likely? Because their world-view is, at best, just another view of natural history, and one that produces (at best) zero explanatory resources. It's not an explanatory framework, not even a crappy one. It's a religious world-view. (And a crappy one, IMO.)
So, even if RTB told the truth about evolutionary science and natural history, their "model" is nothing more than a world-view claim that miracles have happened a zillion times in the past, and even cherry-picked but accurately-reported science would be folk science in support of that world-view.
I'll stop and see if this is clear and see what you think.
Steve, if folk science means "warranting a worldview," what scientific activity would be excluded from the definition? Not to be snarky, but this definition of "folk science" seems like "folk philosophy." :-)
All human activity of any kind is based on some worldview presuppositions or another. It's utterly naive to assume that real scientists are thoroughly objective. True objectivity is simply not humanly possible.
Now, it may be true that the typical scientific researcher is not self-consciously seeking to "prove" a particular worldview. Clearly, most research scientists are not setting out to prove atheism or disprove Christianity or something along those lines, though a few probably are. Nevertheless, from the determination of which experiments are likely to be "important," to determinations of government and university funding, to departmental and tenure politics, to peer review, human worldview value judgments shape scientific research. Therefore, "normal" science also in some respects is conducted in a way that is at least implicitly designed to provide warrant for certain worldview assumptions. (This is not, BTW, intended to be an ID rant about bias againt ID or something like that. I don't think ID arguments are "science" so much as "philosophy." It's simply an acknowledgement of the human, tacit side of science, as Polanyi and others have pointed out.)
It seems to me that your real, valid concern is with the way in which RTB and similar organizations communicate with the non-scientific public. They tend to emphasize factoids their consuming public is likely to want to hear, and to ignore contrary information, often without providing the full context.
But then again, can't we often say the same thing about the reporting of normal science to the general public? How often do I read in the Economist or the Wall Street Journal science pages that some new study "proves" a human practice such as sex-marriage-mating taboos, or religious practice, is fully reducible to natural selection for some supposed primate/hominid behavior? Why is Richard Dawkins' book arguing that "science" disproves theism a runaway best-seller? At least RTB is upfront about its (mistaken, IMHO) belief that the Bible is laced with specifically "scientific" statements that should be confirmable by contemporary scientific research.
Post a Comment