On Ruse


Okay - People like Ruse (Boston Globe article) might have a point, which I will try to spell out better than he does; and if this isn’t his point, then I want to make it anyway: For many people, verbal acts are primarily social, not propositional.

Okay - I overwhelmingly disagree with Ruse (Boston Globe article) - but he might have a point, which I will try to spell out better than he does; and if this isn’t his point, then I want to make it anyway: For many people, verbal acts are primarily social, not propositional. In other words, let's say I utter the following sentence: "There is no evidence for creationism". Most of us here would see this as the simple declaration of a proposition, which we might reflect on for a second, then pass the judgement that the proposition is true. But many people (including, apparently, Behe, Dembski, et al.) instead identify it as a social act: an attack on their status, as sure as if we had physically pushed them around in public. The common response to status attacks is to attack back, not to reflect. People do not even engage with the content, which is why it is so frustrating to argue with creationists.

Do you see what I’m saying? I’m emphatically not agreeing with Ruse that certain people should watch what they say or that we shouldn’t attack -- I feel the need to disclaim because I’ve seen arguments erupt the moment anyone is perceived to be considering biting their tongue about evolution, which I definitely am not. Nor do I think we’re intentionally attacking anyone’s status. My point is just that humans have a several-million-year-old history of being social primates, and only a few thousands of years of being explicit logical thinkers (and then only a small minority of us). If people like Behe and Dembski can only interpret our arguments as status attacks and not logical arguments, what can we do?

I think the following is a valid question:
"Which strategy is likely to cause a greater increase in the percentage of people who accept evolution:
(1) Calling creationists stupid, and religion a virus; or
(2) Using subtler arguments specifically designed not to attack peoples’ status?".

(This question is orthogonal to the question of the truth of evolution, by the way - so people who ask it are not thereby saying anything about evolution itself.)

I know the immediate reaction to talk like this: “Why should I tailor my comments just because someone gets upset?”. But unlike Ruse, I’m not saying “should” here - say what you want, but you may just have to accept that if you say X, your audience will respond as if attacked, and that will have a certain effect, and it’s no use saying “They shouldn’t respond that way!”; just as it’s no use complaining that a little dog shouldn’t be barking at you because you smiled at it, baring your teeth.

Personally, I do choose (1), since I agree with both statements and I’m not going to hold my tongue about anything, and since I don’t know which strategy is better, I’m going to go with my instincts. But if some people answer (2), and say (or believe) the normal mealymouthed stuff about religion and science not conflicting, that doesn’t automatically mean that they think atheists should keep quiet as a matter of principle; they may just think that strategy (2) will garner a higher return. I don’t think Ruse sees it this subtly in terms of strategies; I think he’s said some pretty detrimental things too. (He doesn’t even consider what most of us probably think, that his strategy (3) of actually co-editing a book with Dembski is far worse than anything Dawkins has ever done!).

On a certain intarweb site, I will berate people who say religion and science don’t conflict, since it's an intellectual arena and I am vocal with my disagreements. I do not, however, take the further, unwarranted step of thinking that these people are having a net negative effect on the percentage of people who accept evolution. I don’t know if that’s true or not. And in public letters to the editor, etc, I’ll save most of the vitriol for the creationists, not mealymouthed scientists.

Posted: Mon - May 2, 2005 at 02:14 PM | | | |

©