24 July 2011

Conversing with Casey Luskin

Last month I wandered over to Evolution News and Views (ENV), a Discovery Institute (DI) blog, and read a piece by Casey Luskin on the topic of human/chimp common ancestry. I saw some stuff I didn't like, and left a comment, and an interesting exchange ensued. You can read it yourself, but here are some of my comments.

1. I think I was able to communicate the nature of my disagreement with Casey, namely that I object to misleading portrayals of science but not to efforts to emphasize design perspectives and theories. I've said all that before, but I really want to emphasize it in future discussions with design theorists. Unlike many critics of ID, I don't think that design concepts are ridiculous and I don't believe that wondering about design is the same as advancing "creationism." But I also have serious criticisms of some of what is said and written by DI thinkers.

2. Casey identified mistakes on my part (in some of my characterizations of his writing and his positions), corrected one error of his (and I applaud that action), and acknowledged the explanatory power of common descent. Those were all constructive aspects of our conversation.

3. We both said we'd like to have lunch sometime. I think it will happen; I'm not sure where or when.

4. Casey wrote something really important that summarizes what I hope will become the central theme of all future discussions between the thinkers of the DI and me:
Everyone makes errors sometimes. Isn’t it better to ‘judge not’ and simply rebut the arguments of one’s opponent rather than making constant accusations of general incompetence? Let’s take a more civil approach where we just critique one another’s arguments and not constantly allege intellectual or moral failings of our opponents.
I wholeheartedly agree, and in fact I'll go a little further and make it a commitment. Let me close with one caveat and then point to another example of how the conversation should go.

The caveat is this, and I know it sounds trite: it will be difficult at times to avoid the appearance of alleging intellectual or moral failure. For example, when/if I suggest that a DI commentator has significantly misunderstood a scientific concept or a report in the literature, it may seem that I am accusing that person of an "intellectual failing." (And the same applies to my critics when/if they suggest that I don't understand something.) If/when I do seem to make that accusation, I will apologize. But I think we will all have to tolerate that kind of criticism, then rebut it (or correct our own errors) without objecting to imputations of intellectual incompetence. Specifically, alleging that someone is badly mistaken, or even suggesting that they have failed to adequately study an issue on which they are writing/speaking, is not the same as accusing that person of stupidity or indecency. After all, as Casey rightly notes, we all make errors sometimes.

I hope that was clear. I will seek to err on the generous side, and will be quick to apologize and move on. I'm sure there will be problems, but I'm also sure that Casey Luskin really does want to have a productive conversation, and it sure does seem that we can disagree politely and honorably.

Finally, I will credit Reed Cartwright – an evolutionary biologist and fellow blogger at Panda's Thumb – with opening another productive and respectful exchange with Casey Luskin, also at ENV. The topic was statistics and modeling, and while I think Reed was right and Casey was mistaken, I also think that the discussion focused on rebuttal without ad hominem.

Let's shoot for that. It won't be easy, and there will be mistakes. But the goal is a worthy one.

14 comments:

Nick Matzke said...

I gave up on Luskin somewhere between his attempt to argue that Pandas wasn't creationism, that Behe/Minnich actually knew their stuff about the flagellum homologies, and that explaining the evolutionary origin of new genes with standard mutational and selection processes was invoking "magic."  How much of this kind of thing does one have to observe before descriptors like "pseudoscientist" and "creationist" become simply accurate descriptions rather than ad homs?

SteveMatheson said...

In the conversation I had with him discussed above, he referred to a description of basic population genetics as an "ad hoc epicycle." Yes, I know what I'm up against here.

But look, my goal is pretty modest: rebuttal without ad hominem. Do I think Casey Luskin is a creationist? Yes, of course I do. Do I think his posts are frequently misleading? Yes, of course I do. Is that relevant when discussing genetics and development in the context of common ancestry? I'm not so sure. And more to the point: is the effectiveness of my rebuttal diminished by harsh rhetoric? I think it is.

So look at what Reed did. He engaged Luskin. He even invited DI folks to collaborate. (I've done this too.) And Reed was sincere. Call me naive, but that's the way I want to go. I don't see how it can be a bad move.

Let Cornelius Hunter and Michael Egnor carry on as they do, and let Casey's own ad hominem tendencies belong to him. They don't have to dictate my responses.

Todd Wood said...

It's an admirable goal, and one that I strive for, but let me reframe Nick's question: What about a person that isn't incapable but has a documented track record of persistent misquoting scientific literature?  This person writes, "Smith (1999) says X," but when I read Smith (1999), there's no mention of X at all.  I think you know what organization I'm talking about here.  It's nearly impossible to discuss these errors without sounding like I'm questioning their basic reading comprehension (which I guess I am).

Frankly, I don't see a way to address errors without sounding a little condescending and insulting.  It's human ego to be embarrassed and offended when we discover we're wrong.  I think that those who arrogantly assert erroneous claims have just as much responsibility to be humble about correction as those who try to correct their errors.   It's a two-way street.

SteveMatheson said...

Well said. Of course. Let me just add that there is a place to say, "Hey, I think you should know that when you write things like that it makes you look bad." I can think of several examples of behavior by the DI and by RTB that make the writers look bad, and I will occasionally need to point that out.

And I'm sure not going to avoid the implications of outing someone. If an RTB scholar writes a six-part series on Alu elements without once mentioning that they're known to be transposons, I'm practically obligated to respond in a way that creates the strong impression that the author is either incompetent or has engaged in misconduct. Ditto for Casey's labeling of basic genetics as an "ad hoc epicycle." Like I said, yes, of course it's not easy to do this "without sounding a little condescending and insulting."

But come on, let's take Mr. Luskin seriously when he calls for a discussion focused on rebuttal and debate and not on the deliberate casting of aspersions. If and when he's being dishonest or arrogantly reckless, it will be apparent and it will be his problem. My job is not to accuse anyone, nor is it to expose evil motives. My job (and yours) is a harder one: the fair and clear exposition of scientific findings and the nature of their explanatory power. When I do that effectively, then point to what the DI and RTB have written on the same subjects, readers may very well conclude that something is amiss. That's good enough for me.

Dave Miller said...

Steve, I'd like to commend you for the approach you've taken here. I think it will serve you well in the long run...and it will also provide a service to those of us who are basically interested bystanders.

You wrote, "And more to the point: is the effectiveness of my rebuttal diminished by harsh rhetoric? I think it is."

Yes, I think it is, too. It requires discipline to avoid harsh rhetoric, but I believe it also pays dividends.

Dave Miller said...

Steve, I'd like to commend you for the approach you've taken here. I think it will serve you well in the long run...and it will also provide a service to those of us who are basically interested bystanders.

You wrote, "And more to the point: is the effectiveness of my rebuttal diminished by harsh rhetoric? I think it is."

Yes, I think it is, too. It requires discipline to avoid harsh rhetoric, but I believe it also pays dividends.

SteveMatheson said...

Dave, I hope you read the fine print before you posted your comment. You are now obligated to provide feedback to me by private email, on every post.

Seriously, thanks for the support and please do offer feedback whenever you can.

Hugo P said...

Ijust finish reading this detailed discussion you had with Mr. Luskin and I wanted to both congratulate you and thank you for taking some of your precious time to discuss the issue.

Because of the large number of "followers", discussing ID is a painful but useful task. You said you were done so I can only say that I wish you would adress his last comment!

Have a nice day!

SteveMatheson said...

Thanks for the extensive comment, Nick, and you're right about everything. Your last two paragraphs encapsulate the whole message, although I would add that politeness (I'd prefer to call it decency or honorable conduct) might be valuable for reasons other than expediency.

Rest assured that I'm not hoping to help Casey Luskin or Hugh Ross or Steve Meyer; I'm aiming to educate those who read their work.

And this quote almost belongs in the original post: "...they certainly don't get politeness because they've earned it by acting as responsible, conscientious scholars." Thanks for the feedback.

SteveMatheson said...

Hugo, the last "comment" was 5000 words long. Anything in particular you'd like me to address?

J.Stevens. said...

There are infinitely more productive pursuits than engaging the Discovery Institute; be it politely or not. The very fact you are in discussion with Luskin is enough for them. They couldn't care less whether their arguments hold water, as long as they can get real scientists to humour them they'll continue on their stated mission to replace science with a Christian-friendly imposter.

Steve, spend a moment to peruse the corpses of ID around the web. Blogs, forums, journals, clubs....all dead. I think there's only everyone's favourite cess-pool, Uncommon Descent still twitching. 

Trust me on this - if you continue to converse with Luskin in a polite and friendly fashion he will waste no time in posting a page lamenting the rude manners of  internet 'Darwinists' while holding you up as a paragon of virtue. That's Luskin's schtick, and he's been doing it for years.

No one needs the laughably named 'Discovery Institute' except those on the payroll. So let them fade into deserved obscurity.

SteveMatheson said...

Hey J, yes that's a good point, namely that "engaging the Discovery Institute" can provide them credibility that they don't deserve. I really don't intend to "engage them" if by that you mean some kind of regular dialogue, although I will respond to reasonable queries or requests from anyone.

My goal is much more modest: rebuttal without ad hominem. That's all. Some people might not even notice, but I think the change is important. Let Casey and Steve and Jonathan and Hugh and Fuz worry about whether they have been dishonest, and let their readers decide whether they can be trusted as scholars or commentators. My posts will not speculate about motives, or moral or intellectual competence. Is that clear?

chunkdz said...

And just what the hell am I supposed to do with $300 worth of pirate accessories?

SteveMatheson said...

Surely Disney still needs extras?