Intelligent Dilbertism

[viscousmemories]

This could just as easily go in the Politics forum, but anyway...

In his blog entry Intelligent Design, Part One, Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) asserts that people on both sides of the ID/evolution debate have good and bad arguments for their position, but that neither side understands or fairly characterizes the other - leading to a dearth of clear and reasonable information for the layman to judge the merits of either view.

Not surprisingly, biologist and vocal pundit PZ Myers took Adams to task for using his bully pulpit to muddy the already murky water of the issue by (albeit probably inadvertently) regurgitating creationist propaganda in the guise of argumentation.

Somewhat surprisingly (to me, anyway), Adams struck back in a blog entry all about PZ. Basically his whole argument amounts to the claim that despite being a highly intelligent and educated biologist, PZ is a non-credible source of information about evolution because he allegedly mischaracterized Adams' comments in his blog entry and attacked strawman arguments.

Here's an interesting exchange Adams had with one of the people who commented on his blog entry:

Scott, if your main concern about the scientific viewpoint is the existence of credible proponents of evolution, may I suggest a couple of well known authors. I have been very impressed with the credible arguments of Stephen Jay Gould and also of Richard Dawkins. [...]

[Thank you for suggesting I read the work of people who earn a living by supporting a particular viewpoint. You have low standards of credibility. -- Scott]

I'm not at all passionate about the subject of creationism and/or intelligent design, but the politics of this whole issue fascinate me. Both PZ and Adams have received hundreds of comments on their blog entries (even on PZ's response to Adams' entry about him), and flames are flying all around. Frankly I've been thoroughly unimpressed by Adams' reasoning and responses like the one I quoted above are downright scary (if professionals in the field are assumed to have no credibility, does that mean only laypeople are credible sources of information in a given field?), but it's good reading anyway.

[The Lone Ranger]

I've noticed the occasional anti-science comments in Dilbert from time to time, and I've seen one or two cartoons that outright mocked evolutionary theory, implying that it was unscientific. Not like B.C., which openly mocks evolutionary theory and promotes creationism, but still ... I read one of Scott Adams' books once (the name escapes me, but I'm sure I could find out with a quick search), and was thoroughly unimpressed.

I don't read Dilbert anymore unless I happen to pick up a paper and see it. (That is, unlike strips like, say, Foxtrot, I don't actually go to the trouble of looking for it.) That's basically because I made the mistake once of sitting down and reading through a "Dilbert" collection. Reading several months' worth of cartoons at once gave me the distinct impression that Dilbert has a rather mean-spirited streak to it that I didn't care for, and so I lost interest in the cartoon.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Frankly I've been thoroughly unimpressed by Adams' reasoning and responses like the one I quoted above are downright scary (if professionals in the field are assumed to have no credibility, does that mean only laypeople are credible sources of information in a given field?), but it's good reading anyway.

That's one of the impressions I got from reading his book -- that he has a profound disliking of and distrust for "experts." Certainly, just because someone's an expert in a given field doesn't mean that their opinions are guaranteed to be correct, but if I have to choose between the informed opinion of an expert and the totally uninformed opinion of someone pulled off the street at random, well, I think I'll bet on the experts, thankyouverymuch.



Cheers,

Michael

[Ari]

I've noticed only people who don't understand the issue claim both sides have good and bad arguments. When challenged it normally comes out that they either haven't done any research and are just repeating what they heard someone on TV say or they have read an IDist book and repeat old dead arguments. I think I have heard a total of one person (now an evolutionist I believe) who said both sides have good and bad arguments and was able to show a correct understanding of evolution. Seriously, if you don't understand one or both sides, how can you say they both have good and bad points?

Adam's refuses to read any viewpoint that someone makes a living on? What a stupid claim. I guess he hasn't read a single ID or creationist book then. Unless he is a hypocrite. In which case, what is he talking about something he knows nothing about?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's one of the impressions I got from reading his book -- that he has a profound disliking of and distrust for "experts." Certainly, just because someone's an expert in a given field doesn't mean that their opinions are guaranteed to be correct, but if I have to choose between the informed opinion of an expert and the totally uninformed opinion of someone pulled off the street at random, well, I think I'll bet on the experts, thankyouverymuch.

You and me both.

In his latest entry (Who is Credible to Me?), Adams says:

I would consider credible anyone who didn't have a preconcieved notion or a financial/career incentive. When you're talking about the cause of life itself, I submit that no one can pass that test (especially people who write books on the topic). That has been my point all along.

It's not enough to understand what the experts tell you. You also need to understand cognitive dissonance to understand how the experts and even you could be completely wrong about something that seems so completely true.

Of course I agree with the latter paragraph, but his "point all along" was that nobody is a credible source of information about the origin of life? I have to admit I didn't get that from either of his blog entries on the subject, and I really don't think that's the result of cognitive dissonance.

[The Lone Ranger]

Speaking of "cognitive dissonance," I think he totally misunderstood and/or misinterpreted PZ's response. Oh, the irony!

And am I mistaken, or is Adams basically claiming that he's not even going to bother to pretend to listen to anyone whose opinions on the matter he disagrees with -- despite his admitted ignorance?

Cheers,

Michael

[Ari]

Since it appears he has a preconcieved notion that no one can pass the test before he ever looked at the evidence, doesn't that just rule him out as someone credible based on his own criteria?

[JoeP]

I read every Dilbert cartoon I can get and I enjoy the books, although not always as much. But I think Scott Adams should stay in humour, and should stick to office and business subjects (especially consulting - as a consultant I love his attitude). When he gets serious he looks like a pretty strange person.

[erimir]

Scott Adams is a tard.

Does he think any scientist is credible then? It would seem not, since he criticizes someone who recommends he read actual scientific studies for accepting sources he deems non-credible. And he basically admits that while their arguments might have merit, since he considers them to be "non-credible" he isn't going to bother listening to them. He even attacks teachers.

So, since all sides are non-credible, and he isn't going to bother actually reading any of them, he's not going to ever have a position. What an argument. In this way, we can render all of science non-credible arguments for a position that the person has a stake in arguing for, and so it can't be trusted. And since we (or rather Scott) are incapable of evaluating arguments without this "credibility" shit, we must remain agnostic on all issues.

And he (and his fans) talk about it being a joke. I fail to see how it could be funny, even to someone who agrees with him.

[Dragar]

Normally I appreciate humour, but creationism is something of a serious area with me right now. The implications for scientific research down the line, should ID become standard in America (or even other countries where it is beginning to make a move, such as Australia or the UK), frightens me.

[Roland98]

Adams is a strange case. I actually agree with him, somewhat, in his original post about mischaracterization of the "other side." Certainly many evolution supporters lump all creationists together--YEC, OEC, ID, etc.--and take one aspect of their ideas and use it to beat all of them (using the age of the earth against an IDist who accepts an old earth, for one example). Creationists do it as well, accusing all who accept evolution of being atheists. I hate this and think it makes "my side" look bad, so I agree with Adams that his point 1 happens. Problem is, though, that he lumps everyone on either "side" into these groups. I think I'm pretty fair, and have often corrected people at II who mischaracterize a creationist viewpoint--and I'm certainly not the only one who does this, on either side. So it's strange Adams would rule out *everyone* as being credible, when not everyone uses the behavior he's speaking out against.

I could also agree with him about the credibility/financial reward aspect--but again, he's creating a fallacy: because *one* person (or entity) does that, *all* must, therefore "trust no one." I'm a professional scientist, and obviously that's how I earn my living. But I have no financial reason to support evolution. I'm not paid by the NCSE, and indeed, the time I take to educate others about evolution and science in general actually detracts from my "real" job of doing research.

I dunno, but maybe I'm just misunderstanding and/or mischaracterizing him. He seems to mention that a lot, but doesn't really clarify his views to show *why* it's a mischaracterization. I've always hated that as a debate technique.

[Sock Puppet]

I don't think Adams is a tard. But he's nothing more than a pundit. He's good at making a lot of people laugh, which makes people more likely to be open to what he has to say. It grants him the illusion of authority and validity. I'll have to reread Clutch's treatise on critical thinking to see if he included a section on the likeability bias; I don't remember one offhand.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Reading several months' worth of cartoons at once gave me the distinct impression that Dilbert has a rather mean-spirited streak to it that I didn't care for, and so I lost interest in the cartoon.

The animated version (a show that lasted a half-season or, at most, one full season) was even more sarcastic and acerbic than the strip. I rather liked it for that, but I can understand why many folks wouldn't.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Roland98

I could also agree with him about the credibility/financial reward aspect--but again, he's creating a fallacy: because *one* person (or entity) does that, *all* must, therefore "trust no one."

That doesn't appear to be the argument in his second blogging: he says that PZ (one person) commits the errors(1) Adams asserts therefore he (one person) can't be trusted with his other claims(2).

(1) If they are not errors of misrepresenting the other side, then PZ is not talking clearly, and all bets are off:

PZ’s misrepresentations of my views are incredibly clever. (He’s a smart guy.) And he uses quotes from my writing to make it seem impossible that he’s misinterpreting me. Here are just a few examples.

I said it’s POSSIBLE for scientists to have herd mentality. PZ interprets that as if I’m saying scientists DO. Then he attacks the misrepresentation. (How much credibility can you have if you argue it’s not POSSIBLE for scientists to have herd instinct on this issue?)

I said I DON’T believe in Intelligent Design and PZ attacks me because I "blindly accepted the claims of the Designists." Then he attacks Intelligent Design as if it were my view.

PZ declares that no one has EVER argued against the young earth argument to refute ID, except for uninformed people. My very POINT was that that argument comes from uninformed people, by definition. And I’ve heard it three times in the past month. If he’s wrong about this, and completely certain of his rightness, how can I trust his certainty on any other topic even when he IS right?

I said that Intelligent Design proponents allege that experts in various science fields are not convinced that their own field supports Darwin’s version of evolution. PZ turns that into MY opinion (not the Intelligent Design people’s allegation as I clearly state) and then refutes it.

(2) This is pretty shaky. I find Pharyngula a fascinating blog and the content and the author are credible to me, despite PZ possibly falling into errors in one place or another. I think I can distinguish them. Maybe Adams can't, and maybe many people feel this way, because the ID vs evolution arms race has escalated to very powerful arguments on both sides (I was going to say intelligence but Intelligent Design doesn't seem to have provided its proponents with much intelligence ).


Curiously, I find myself agreeing more with Adams' views having re-read the entries. As I think I've mentioned elsewhere, I have an automatic mistrust of people who believe they are right so passionately that they are prepared to attack other people. I won't reject what they say, but I do have to do more work to decide for myself what statements to filter out.

Here I wonder if I share something with Adams: an instinctive laziness, and a facility for justifying it (just not at the moment). To quote Dogbert: "Nah, couldn't be bothered."

[viscousmemories]

For what it's worth, I agree with some of Adams' points too. I've butted heads with PZ on more than one occassion because I thought his aggressive treatment of contradictory opinions was counterproductive, particularly regarding religious debates here and at IIDB.

I also agree that it's difficult to know who to trust when looking for information about ID and evolution, and that people who have a vested interest in the promotion of a view can reasonably be assumed to be biased. I don't think that interest has to be financial, either. It could be a desire for fame, power, or even just self-satisfaction as well.

But I strongly disagree with his apparent position of "if the messenger isn't a thoroughly non-biased source, the message and messenger have no merit." If I can read between the lines at Pharyngula, talk.origins, IIDB and other sources of information and do a reasonably good job of distinguishing the science from the beliefs, I think Scott Adams (and others) can too. I don't see any reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[erimir]

That's my problem.

All scientists who support evolution are not credible, because he assumes that they have a financial interest in doing so. Which is of course ridiculous - they might be slightly biased because of that, but it doesn't mean that they're not credible - that implies that what they say is false or lies, or what have you.

When they've got the data to back them up, where the hell does the credibility issue come in? If the data is factual, then what argument can be made? On what the evidence means. And if Scott Adams isn't smart enough to actually think about the arguments, then that's his problem.

I admit that people misrepresent either side (esp. on the ID/Creationist side) but he acts as if this means that not only can it be hard for some uninformed people like him to make a decision, but he seems to be saying that no informed person CAN make a definite decision (without being intellectually dishonest, anyway).

Ok, I can get that he doesn't know enough about science to make a decision, that's fine. He's uninformed. But he acts like that means that not making a definite decision is the only intelligent thing to do (b/c nobody at all has any credibility, apparently) which, is, imo, a stupid and anti-science argument.

[erimir]

Ok, the most laughable thing was a comment on one of Adams's posts that said "check talkorigins.org to see HOW MANY objections there are to evolution"

Bwahahahaha... doesn't he realize that all of the objections on there are debunked?

*edit* also, actually, one of the major problems with Adams's argument is that he conflates bias with credibility.

Credibility is whether there is reason to believe, bias is that they have some slant to the writing. But being biased (which is what he is really talking about) does not automatically make one non-credible.

He also seems to think that one can't really believe a source that is not, in his opinion, "credible" but he also claims that when he says that they're not "credible" that he isn't commenting on the truth of the argument, or calling them liars.

It's largely a big conflation of terms.

[Ari]

It would seem it's all a justification for not doing the research.

If everyone who has a financial interest in someone is no longer credible then maybe the moon landing was a hoax. NASA had a huge financial interest in the moon landing, thus their trejectory math isn't credible.
Of course, a fact is a fact is a fact, doesn't matter who is saying it or supporting it.

[The Lone Ranger]

One big problem with Adams' logic is that he has things completely backwards. Scientists don't win fame and "fortune" by going with the status quo -- quite the opposite.

Suppose I were to find legitimate proof that modern evolutionary theory is completely wrong -- suppose I found human artifacts in paleozoic rock, for example; suppose I found proof that there are genetic barriers which sharply limit how far a group can change and that the creationist concept of "kind" actually had some meaning; suppose I found that all organisms share a genetic sequence that, when decoded, read "Copyright God, Inc., 4004 BCE"; suppose I found genetic sequences and organs that really couldn't have been produced by evolution, and must have been created -- then what? First of all, the point is that it would be quite easy to cast serious doubt upon evolutionary theory or even completely discredit it if contrary evidence existed. That some 150 years of diligent searching has failed to produce any such evidence is quite telling.

But it's always theoretically possible that someone will produce it. What will happen to that person? Well, I can pretty-much guarantee that said person will win the Nobel Prize and instantly become the most famous and lauded scientist of our time.


The scientific community is somewhat conservative in the sense that anyone who claims to be able to discredit older ideas is met with skepticism. That's only proper, however, since it's up to the claimant to show that his data really do discredit the older ideas. For every Einstein, there are a thousand cranks. The reason Einstein, for example, was taken seriously when he claimed he could show that Newton's ideas were wrong (well, incomplete, anyway), was because he produced the goods.

All someone has to do to become the most lauded and widely-respected scientist alive is provide an actual theory of Creationism or Intelligent Design and demonstrate that Creationist or Intelligent Design theory explains the natural world better than does evolutionary theory.

If Adams truly understood how science works, he'd know this.


Cheers,

Michael

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I read one of Scott Adams' books once (the name escapes me, but I'm sure I could find out with a quick search), and was thoroughly unimpressed.

God's Debris was his first non-Dilbert book. He wrote a sequel, for reasons I can't imagine considering how poor the first one was, and I can't be bothered to look that up either.

I love Dilbert and I think Adams has a great sense of humor. But when he tries to get all serious, he completely turns me off.

On the other hand, Great Thread!

[The Lone Ranger]

In my experience, an awful lot of biologists don't take ID or Creationism seriously. Some of them find it incomprehensible that any intelligent person could mistake either for legitimate science, and so dismiss them as fringe ideas. That's a big mistake, I think.

I've encountered this attitude frequently among my colleagues. Every time there's a story in the paper about how Creationists/ID "theorists" are trying to get their beliefs into the schools, they shrug it off and insist that it's just a "lunatic fringe" that'll go away if they're ignored.

They're wrong, I fear.


The opposite extreme is those who become so outraged at the mere thought that believers in Creationism or ID even exist that they lose all ability to behave civilly. I've also known a fair number of these people -- people who simply cannot believe that any remotely intelligent or honest person could promote Creationism or ID. These people tend to treat anyone who promotes Creationism or ID very rudely, on the assumption that any such person must be an idiot and/or a liar.

Sadly, it's because of the frequency of the latter attitude that I rarely go to or post at IIDB.



I'd like to suggest that one of the reasons that Creationists and Intelligent Design "theorists" have been so successful is because we as scientists and educators have done a poor job of educating the public.

I suppose it's true in other fields, but one of the more common -- and truly frustrating -- attitudes I've encountered at the university level is that good scientists don't "waste" their time and talent teaching. I've been flat-out told on occasion that my interest in teaching is somehow "improper" and a "waste of talent."

Part of this, of course, is because university scientists can potentially gain much more fame and prestige through research than through teaching. So, research-oriented universities tend to put much more emphasis on research than on teaching. I've known truly dedicated teachers who were refused tenure because they "spent too much time on teaching and not enough on research."


Okay, so we certainly need researchers. No arguments there. But it frustrates me that there's a pervasive attitude among many scientists that educating the public about what science is and how it's done is a waste of time and talent. And these are the same people who then turn around and complain about how poorly-educated the general public is on scientific matters!



Of course, given how "controversial" the subject of evolution is -- though not within the scientific community, as Creationists and IDers would have you believe -- it's taught poorly or not at all in the primary and secondary schools. So college professors find themselves confronted by students who are shockingly ill-informed, and who are very frequently shockingly misinformed on the subject of evolution.

One approach that I've generally found to be successful in Introductory Biology classes is to point out to them that one can accept the fact of evolution without throwing away one's religious beliefs. As I'm careful to point out to them, evolution is as well-established a fact as we're ever likely to get, but if you choose to believe that it's due to "God's Will" or whatever, that's your business. Many of them find this to be a genuinely eye-opening experience, because they've been taught all their lives to believe that "evolutionism" and "atheism" are more or less synonymous.



Is it really so surprising that so much of the American public can't distinguish between ID and legitimate science? Considering that we do such a poor job of teaching what science is and how it's done, I don't think so. That's one of the reasons why I spend so much time in my introductory-level classes emphasizing scientific principles and methodology.


Cheers,

Michael

[erimir]

Oh, so that's why every science class I've been in takes me through a review of what an experiment is.

It's like, I learned this shit in high school. Why am I learning this in a second level psychology course (as opposed to the intro course)?

[The Lone Ranger]

Ideally, you would learn that in high school! Unfortunately (or such has been my experience), that's all-too-often not the case. Sadly.

Life would be so much easier for college/university professors if they didn't have to spend half of every Introductory-level course teaching people things they should have learned in high school. As I've found time and time and time again, you just can't assume that students know what an experiment is, or why scientists are so keen on performing them.


Cheers,

Michael

[Roland98]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But it's always theoretically possible that someone will produce it. What will happen to that person? Well, I can pretty-much guarantee that said person will win the Nobel Prize and instantly become the most famous and lauded scientist of our time.

Yep. Look at Marshall and Warren, who just won the Nobel for their (unconventional) hypothesis that Helicobacter is a cause of ulcers.

I suppose it's true in other fields, but one of the more common -- and truly frustrating -- attitudes I've encountered at the university level is that good scientists don't "waste" their time and talent teaching. I've been flat-out told on occasion that my interest in teaching is somehow "improper" and a "waste of talent."

Part of this, of course, is because university scientists can potentially gain much more fame and prestige through research than through teaching. So, research-oriented universities tend to put much more emphasis on research than on teaching. I've known truly dedicated teachers who were refused tenure because they "spent too much time on teaching and not enough on research."

Okay, so we certainly need researchers. No arguments there. But it frustrates me that there's a pervasive attitude among many scientists that educating the public about what science is and how it's done is a waste of time and talent. And these are the same people who then turn around and complain about how poorly-educated the general public is on scientific matters!

I think more and more are starting to wake up to this irony. I know it was hard as hell getting profs at my grad school institution interested in the intelligent design mess that was Ohio in 1999. But over the last couple months here in Iowa, I've put together a citizens for science group (http://www.iowascience.org) and have found professors from all over the state who are very interested in getting involved. We're still in the early stages of planning anything, but we'll likely put on some cafe scientifique events around the state. We're also discussing events for Darwin Day in secondary schools or local libraries, to get kids interested in evolution. It still might cost me my tenure by spending too much time on issues other than research; only time will tell. But if it will help get the next generation interested in science, IMO it's worth it. ('course, my opinion may change in 6 or so years if I'm given da boot....)

[viscousmemories]

The drama continues...

In his moderated entry "Why I'm Stupid", Adams is now accepting and responding to direct challenges or criticisms of anything he has asserted in his two blog entries on ID. PZ has an unmoderated companion thread going at Pharyngula (very slow due to the increased traffic).

And Roland, nice new site you have there but given your productivity level I'm afraid I can no longer believe that you're a human being. I advise against answering the door to any men in black suits carrying small metal cylinders.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In my experience, an awful lot of biologists don't take ID or Creationism seriously. Some of them find it incomprehensible that any intelligent person could mistake either for legitimate science, and so dismiss them as fringe ideas. That's a big mistake, I think.

Only in the United States. I think it's no mistake to dismiss such ideas in other countries. And so a big concern is that the US's ability to produce scientists (and not just evolutionary biologists) is going to be harmed by this fringe nonsense.

eta: Except in Iowa. Great stuff Roland98!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Only in the United States. I think it's no mistake to dismiss such ideas in other countries. And so a big concern is that the US's ability to produce scientists (and not just evolutionary biologists) is going to be harmed by this fringe nonsense.

I tell ya, New Zealand is sounding better all the time!

Cheers,

Michael