Interesting comment thread on the Collins appointment. Just a few.
P.Z. Myers bitterly attacks Kenneth Miller, who has provided expert testimony against “Intelligent Design” in court, as a “creationist.”
Perhaps Myers does so attack Miller somewhere, but in a posting this morning he speaks quite gently of Miller as a “friend” on evolution and a “worthy opponent on the issue of tactics in science education.” I understand Tom’s hostility to P.Z. (he has explained it to me very eloquently), but having — as Andrew says — no God in the fight, I don’t mind the guy. He’s on my Google Reader “subscriptions” list because he often says interesting things. He is of course a screaming lefty, but that’s probably due to some nutritional deficiency or digestive disorder.
the religion that created Western culture …
My impression has been that pagan Greece (philosophy, math, epic poetry, drama, military science, representative government, etc.), pagan Rome (law, engineering, military science, administration), and pagan Germany (moots and assemblies, loose kinship, naval technology, days of the week), had something to do with it. Christian solidarity got us through a nasty patch in the middle Middle Ages there, but for the rest, it was in the way at least as often as
not.
Newton was a Natural Philosopher. Scientists came later.
In 1833-34, according to Richard Holmes, whose new book The Age of Wonder I’ve just been reading (for review in the September issue of The New Criterion).
I can’t think of anything more unjust than taking tax-dollars from Christians to pay for a post they are excluded from by a religious test.
I can, without trying hard, think of several things more unjust. It’s a fair point none the less. There’s the thin end of a wedge peeping out from under it, though. The NIH Director has a job to do: disbursing public money to research projects in the human sciences. If a certain cast of mind is necessary for that job to be done properly, then its presence will be a legitimate qualification for, and its absence a legitimate objection against, appointment, regardless of the distribution of that cast of mind among the population at large. Strange, extremely non-modal casts of mind are often required in government work. Think of spies (and their bosses) or diplomats, or senior military men for that matter. You could add the average politician to that list — “an arse upon which / everything has sat, except a man,” if I remember my e.e. cummings correctly.
Further, the people most affected by Collins’ decisions will be working biologists — the least likely of all scientists to hold supernatural beliefs about human nature. (See here). Something is owed to them, too.
Now here comes Andrew himself:
[Harris] fails to make adequate allowance for the fact that all humans are a mix of the rational and the irrational, and, critically, that we are often quite skilled at understanding that fact about ourselves.
Agree with the first clause there but not the second. My own scattered readings in modern neuroscience lead me to suspect that we know next to nothing about ourselves, and just make up most of what we think we know. Our brains are terrible liars. The other week I was reading about a neurological condition called anosognosia, which is the condition of having neurological dysfunction but not knowing it. There are some very startling instances in the literature. You can, for example, be totally blind and not know it! Unable, because of some lesion, to process information from the eyes, your brain just makes up a visual field. You are, of course, stumbling over “invisible” furniture, but you can’t understand why.
It’s really amazing that we have any grasp of reality at all. With this understanding (supposing it to be a correct one) as a frame, the hopes of people like Dawkins and Harris for a coming reign of pure reason just look preposterously utopian. The beginning of wisdom is to see humanity plain.
Thus we ‘believe’ stuff and yet, at another level, we don’t.
Following Mr. Hume’s recommendation, I bought and read Jason Slone’s book Theological Incorrectness, which does a very good job in this area. I second the recommendation.
Collins’ beliefs are what they are, but I see nothing in them which is likely to prevent him applying the ‘scientific’ part of his mind to the science, and, for me, that’s what counts.
I’m afraid I disagree. There is a distinction to be made between science and high-level science administration. The average scientist works in a tiny patch of the garden, and doesn’t bother much with metaphysics or philosophy of science. As I’ve noted before, being interested in that stuff, and wanting to do science, are characteristic of two almost disjoint, only-just-barely-overlapping personality types. Supernatural belief or religious practice can easily be accommodated by such people, without any psychic stress at all, as Tom’s examples (Lemaitre, Mendel, Faraday) illustrate.
Director of the NIH is a very big Science-Administration post indeed, though. At that level, a candidate’s notions about science at large become salient.
Collins has nutty supernaturalist ideas about science at large. Sure, we all have nutty ideas; and sure, Collins’ particular brand of nuttiness should be discounted some on grounds of cultural/historical respectability. Making all allowances, though, I believe Collins is over the line of acceptable nuttiness for the position to which he’s been appointed. I think his ideas about science at large disqualify him.
Collins’ “sterling scientific credentials” make him a fine candidate for a position as a researcher, or supervisor of researchers, perhaps even director of a major lab. If I were running a lab, I’d hire him like a shot.
But … Top-of-the-heap NIH director dispensing tens of billions in research funding, most of it in the human sciences, which are (or soon will be) the last redoubt of supernaturalist pseudoscience? Collins would not have had my vote.
For Astronomer Royal, maybe.
Of course Western culture also reflects the legacy of the classical world and of the barbarian tribes. But it was the Christian church that preserved the legacy of the classical world and civilized the barbarian tribes. I happen to be skimming through Karl Polanyi’s “The Great Transformation,” and note that Polanyi, a non-Christian, described the Gospels as “the basis of our civilization.” In fact, Charles Murray, an agnostic, after his exhaustive study of human achievement, concluded that “it was the transmutation of [the classical] intellectual foundation by Christianity that gave modern Europe its impetus and that pushed European accomplishment so far ahead of all other cultures around the world.” By contrast, Jerry Coyne, on the board of Sam Harris’ “Reason Foundation,” just reiterated his view that all religion (including Christianity) is equivalent to “witchcraft.”
Tom: I must say, I think Polanyi’s statement is absurd. Charles Murray was attending Quaker meetings last time he said anything about it. And it is possible to acknowledge Christianity as a major organizing principle for Western Civ. while at the same time believing that its truth content has no more weight than has Wiccanism’s. Other civilizations have had other organizing principles, yet some of their dogmas contradict Christianity’s.
Again I point out, the problem with Collins is not that he is any kind of Christian, but that he is a typical “go with the flow” bureaucrat. There will be no effective developments out of NIH if he is in charge of it.
I can, without trying hard, think of several things more unjust.
Alright, you got me here, Bradlaugh. I plead guilty to rhetorical excess. My apologies.
It’s a fair point none the less. There’s the thin end of a wedge peeping out from under it, though. The NIH Director has a job to do: disbursing public money to research projects in the human sciences.
Yes, and he also has to justify that funding. Again, I agree with the philosophical inconsistency between theism and evolution, but as a practical matter you’re going to have to justify these projects to taxpayers–the overwhelming majority of whom are Christian–so I think it makes more sense to have as many as you can on the inside pissing out than the other way around.
Really, I’d think you should be relieved they picked Collins instead of some Gouldian disciple with a far stronger ideological commitment to suppressing any evidence of HBD.
I screwed up the italics. The second paragraph is Bradlaugh’s, the rest is mine. Sorry.
One other point, I remember reading Collins and Dawkins’ “debate” in Time a few years back. Collins stated that finding out that our morality was programed into us wouldn’t really bother him. He’s already gamed out that facet and has his religious rationalizations ready.
Re Newton, don’t forget he was an Arian heretic who dabbled in alchemy.
Andrew: [Harris] fails to make adequate allowance for the fact that all humans are a mix of the rational and the irrational, and, critically, that we are often quite skilled at understanding that fact about ourselves.
Bradlaughderbyshire: Agree with the first clause there but not the second. My own scattered readings in modern neuroscience lead me to suspect that we know next to nothing about ourselves, and just make up most of what we think we know. Our brains are terrible liars
I think Andrew is saying the we understand THE FACT THAT WE ARE CONFLICTED (sorry about allcaps – don’t know how to do italics here…), not that we necessarily understand ourselves.
It’s a quibble on my part, but I really do think that people instinctively understand that they are conflicted – the whole devil on the left shoulder, angel on the right shoulder, “my head say…, but my heart says….”
We’re good compartmentalizers and we know it.
Tom, enjoy your Christianity. But Christianity is, and always had been, a stumbling block to science. If you can’t acknowledge that fundamental fact, all the rest is a waste of breath (or bytes).
Pingback: What Psp Should I Buy For More Features – Slim Or Regular? | Used Review
Polichinello says:
Really, I’d think you should be relieved they picked Collins instead of some Gouldian disciple with a far stronger ideological commitment to suppressing any evidence of HBD.
What makes you think Collins isn’t a “Gouldian disciple”?
What we do and don’t know about ‘race’, ‘ethnicity’, genetics and health at the dawn of the genome era (PDF) by Francis S Collins
Also see “DNA Discoverer Apologizes for Racist Remarks/a>”:
“Jim has a penchant for making outrageous comments that are basically poking society in the eye,” Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said Thursday.
Collins, who has known Watson for a long time, said his latest comments “really … carried it this time to a much more hurtful level.”
In a brief telephone interview, Collins told The AP that Watson’s statements are “the wildest form of speculation in a field where such speculation ought not to be engaged in.”
Genetic factors for intelligence show no difference from one part of the world to another, Collins said.
Blargh, we really need a “preview post” button. Moderator(s), please delete previous post.
Polichinello says:
Really, I’d think you should be relieved they picked Collins instead of some Gouldian disciple with a far stronger ideological commitment to suppressing any evidence of HBD.
What makes you think Collins isn’t a “Gouldian disciple”?
What we do and don’t know about ‘race’, ‘ethnicity’, genetics and health at the dawn of the genome era (PDF) by Francis S Collins
Also see “DNA Discoverer Apologizes for Racist Remarks”:
“Jim has a penchant for making outrageous comments that are basically poking society in the eye,” Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said Thursday.
Collins, who has known Watson for a long time, said his latest comments “really … carried it this time to a much more hurtful level.”
In a brief telephone interview, Collins told The AP that Watson’s statements are “the wildest form of speculation in a field where such speculation ought not to be engaged in.”
Genetic factors for intelligence show no difference from one part of the world to another, Collins said.
/better work this time
“Our brains are terrible liars.” Nonsense. Our MINDS are liars but our minds are not in control of us. Our conscious brains are in control of our minds – or should be once you’re an adult.
I’m not a believer but I do wonder sometimes if professional atheists get tired of rattling around inside their own minds all the time instead of just taking a deep breath occasionally.
That said – you do do a good service slaying dragons.
BB,
In your first piece Collins wrote “…it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection.” That’s hardly wild-eyed Gouldianism. Yes, the article has the usual quota of squid ink you’d expect to find, and it’s hardly surprising that he joined in the chorus of Watson-bashing (after being sought out by the AP, mind you), and that he holds a conventionally liberal view is not surprising. Remember, we’re discussing an Obama Administration appointment. There are many far, far worse candidates Obama could have chosen.
It would seem to be more practical – as well as more honest – to deal with the external critics directly, rather than trying to dominate the “pissing content”, as you’ve so colorfully described it.
If performing science by federal organization requires subordinating it to the whims of the taxpaying masses, most of which are actively opposed to the methodology of science, that would seem to be an excellent argument in favor of NOT making scientific research a province of government.
Y’know, I’m getting very tired of that sort of comment.
The “you must respect religion!” precept is invoked as an example of the do-unto-others principle: if you don’t want people mocking and denigrating your stupid ideas, you should avoid mocking their stupid ideas.
But I don’t want to have any nutty beliefs, and when I find that I’ve accumulated some, I work hard to eliminate them. Frankly, I’m sick of being told that my judgments are equal in value to those of twits who neither know nor care about forensic standards or reason.
We should be ready to condemn irrational thinking whenever and wherever it appears – in others, and in ourselves. Not talking around or excusing the absurdity of others’ beliefs by referencing silly ideas that we supposedly possess. If I have any such beliefs, that’s my failure, and they should be pointed out as vigorously as I advocate the stupidities of others should be identified. Whether you or I are fatally flawed is irrelevant to the matter of how failure should be treated.
If performing science by federal organization requires subordinating it to the whims of the taxpaying masses, most of which are actively opposed to the methodology of science, that would seem to be an excellent argument in favor of NOT making scientific research a province of government.
I agree. That was the point I was trying to make in the original thread. Harris should have taken his logic to this conclusion.
What do you think of when you look at the cross and the crucifix? Do they hold sacred and religious value for you? After reading Ogechukwu’s book, your perception may change; the church’s use of these symbols has, for centuries, concealed facts regarding their true origins. Ogechukwu reveals those findings in this stunning expose.
His research includes historical accounts of Christianity’s conspiracy and divulges the true meaning of the cross—a satanic symbol.
Ogechukwu states:
“For centuries after Christ, the church and other religions that use cruciform symbols have misrepresented the physical nature of Christ’s death with a satanic symbol (cross), and a pagan idol (corpus). This secret has been concealed by the church for centuries after Christ.”
What reason did the church have for shifting the cross’ meaning from one of evil to one of goodness?
Learn more about the real nature of Christ’s death and religion’s role in the change in symbolism at
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/TheSecretBehindTheCrossAndCruifix.htm