Wednesday, May 21, 2008

The Marketplace of Ideas

I realize that with a second post on the topic of the bookstore mischief saga, I risk typecasting myself as "the bookstore guy." Still, there were a lot of responses to the whole thing on Tall Penguin's blog, and an unbelievable number on PZ's.

There's one subset of those that I'd like to address.

When DK and I moved those bibles, it was done less as a political statement or some opening salvo in a campaign of petty bookstore terrorism, but more for sheer shits and giggles. We'd just come out of
Harold and Kumar 2, and were in an insolent sort of mood.

There are some, however, who feel that there's another subtopic which is more systematically misplaced in bookstores. Many comments on Pharyngula suggested that Science shelves should be bereft of such gems as Michael Behe's intelligent-design manifestos, or any any book on new-age pseudoscience.

It's with this that I must take issue. When, in my email to Dr Myers, I referred to the democratic marketplace of ideas, I was not paying lip service. It is a fundamental tenet of western democratic society that as long as nobody is literally hurt, every opinion has a right to be heard. I'm not saying that every opinion is worth the paper it's written on, just that anyone has every right to make their case. This is especially the case in the rigours of the scientific process, where any theory - new or old - is continually vetted by a process of peer review and critique.


I
n the case of Behe's ID idiocy and New-Age acupressure guides, they belong squarely in the science section. The questions that they address (Who are we? How did we get here? How can the flow of Chi affect my basement grow-op?) are fundamentally scientific ones. Just because a particular author's answer to a real scientific question is completely insipid does not mean that it does not belong on the Science shelf.

Call me
Naïve, but I truly want to believe that in the great marketplace of ideas, theories will ultimately rise and fall on their own merits.

If you want to rid your local science section of wastes of wood-pulp like Behe's books on Intelligent Design, here's how to do it.

Let his opinion be heard.

There is only one appropriate response to a ridiculous proposition, and that response is thorough ridicule. Give Behe and his ilk a seat at the table. Engage him. Expose his ideas for the unscrupulous shams that they are. I'm not advocating that anyone treat fools with kid gloves - far from it. All I'm saying is, give these people just enough intellectual rope to hang themselves with, then help them build their gallows.

4 comments:

  1. Give Behe and his ilk a seat at the table. Engage him. Expose his ideas for the unscrupulous shams that they are. I'm not advocating that anyone treat fools with kid gloves - far from it. All I'm saying is, give these people just enough intellectual rope to hang themselves with, then help them build their gallows.

    Done, done and been done.

    Now can we move it off the science shelf?

    ReplyDelete
  2. yes, but science is not a democracy. not all ideas are equally valid, they must provide sound evidence and successfully pass peer-review. let behe have his word - but NOT on the SCIENCE shelf. that's the point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The questions you posed 'who are we?' 'where did we come from?' could also be described as philosophical questions.

    My freshman philosophy teacher explained it thusly: philosophy is how we study the questions which we don't have sciences for. Many fields of science were once fields of philosophy (alchemy/chemistry, astrology/astronomy).

    Intelligent Design attempts to take the process backward---it posits a speculative, philosophical, and ultimately supernatural explanation for natural phenomena based on the DENIAL of scientifically-gathered information. That is the essence of 'irreducible complexity.'

    ....and it's ultimately why it doesn't belong on the science shelf. ID and the kinds of 'answers' it generates are out-dated, a relic from before the Scientific Revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I could have been more clear on that, John.

    I mean "who are we" and "where do we come from" in more of a taxonomical and evolutionary sense. Interpreted more in the meaning of "why are we here," it would unequivocally fall within the realm of philosophy.

    Maybe it's time for a bit of a Neville Chamberlain approach. Let Behe's type carve out a subsection of the Science shelves. It will be labelled "Wishful Thinking."

    Anything that purports to address scientific questions, but utterly fails to use real scientific method, will be banished to the kiddie table.

    ReplyDelete