An Old Friend Gets Scammed
I have a friend, an older Jewish guy whom I have known for many years. Bernie is now retired and living in Florida (I think there's a law in the Torah requiring it). Now, I like old Jewish guys and hope to be one myself someday. However I hope to be a little less credulous than my pal Bernie.
I think “brutalizing” is an exaggeration. No one who had his/her contract dropped had any particular reason to expect their contract to be renewed in the first place. In any case, in a scientific context, if anti-scientific views are not a sufficient reason for non-renewal for a scientist’s contract, what would be an acceptable reason? If my doctor decided that the germ theory of disease (“only a theory,” mind you) was untrue, not only would I drop him, but so would every insurer, not to mention the AMA. Such a view in a medical doctor would be considered professional incompetence.
As for the existence of intelligence design, long before I even heard of the term, from my studies way back in high school physiology I determined that the remarkable systems functioning throughout the human body didn’t simply evolve.
Not based on science, you didn’t. Only on your personal amazement. That is highly subjective, and by definition unscientific.
No one has yet convinced me otherwise and the more I learn about our own bodies that there had to be an ingenious creative designer affecting our evolution.
Ah, here’s the problem—this is the logical fallacy known as “argument from personal incredulity.” Personally, I can’t figure out how antibiotics work, but when I get an infection, I make sure to take the stuff the doc gives me, exactly as he tells me to. The fact that I don’t get it would not cause me to second guess an entire field of study that has amassed a tremendous body of data in support of its conclusions. And I don’t take whatever my cousin the homeopathic “doctor” recommends. Homeopathic “prescriptions” are based on wishing and magical thinking, and never stand up to scientific scrutiny. I always go with evidence-based medicine, not prescientific silliness.
I hope you will spend the money to see the movie. For entertainment value alone it is worth it.
Eventually I will see it, but not for money. I cannot find it entertaining when its purpose is to deceive.
Bernie is one of those people who "discovered" the internet when he retired and is now a target for all the foolishness that floats around out there. Frequently, he goes around with the internet equivalent of a "kick me" sign taped to his back. Bernie falls prey to every e-mail urban myth that hits his inbox. He doesn't do shady financial deals with west African banks, but he does forward every chain letter and repeat every unsubstantiated rumor about Barack Obama and the North American Union. (I have an e-mail form letter I send to people with the snopes.com link in big bold type. He has received it from me at least a dozen times.)
Bernie also likes to start internet crap by emailing every human being he knows on Earth with his opinion on whatever is chapping his ass this week. I know. I'm on his list.
I guess I should have seen it coming. A religious Jew, elderly, credulous, with a broadband connection and a lot of time on his hands—it can only lead to one thing: Ben Stein.
Here's the email I got from Bernie on Wednesday:
Dear PF,
I saw the movie Expelled at Movico in Boca last evening. It was the most thought provoking and enthralling movie I have seen in a long time. Ben Stein shows how the science community brutalizes anyone who even brings up the subject of intelligent design. In a documentary style, Ben searches for truth by interviewing scientific leaders, professors, authors, and journalists; visiting appropriate locations throughout the world; contrasting old film footage to dramatize his points. I urge you to see it.
Bernie
Most of us who have been following the "Expelled" story would think Bernie was a little late to the party. Nevertheless, as my friend he is deserving of the benefit of my vast knowledge and experience, so I fired off a reply as quickly as I could:
Dear Bernie,
Ben Stein is a liar and good example of a smart person believing a stupid thing. The producers of "Expelled" committed fraud and possibly plagiarism to make the movie. Intelligent design is not a science, and there is no scientific controversy about whether evolution is true. The ID lobby are trying to have the Bible taught as science. The people portrayed in the move grossly misrepresented themselves and the things that happened to them.
You can find out a lot more about the truth behind this work of bad fiction at http://www.expelledexposed.com. I wouldn’t put a dime in the pockets of the liars who made this movie.
Your Friend,
PF
Back came Bernie's reply, which he really did send in blue, for some reason:
Dear Fool,
I doubt whether you have seen the movie. If you had, you wouldn’t have made these statements. This documentary movie interviews proponents of both sides of the argument…whether well qualified scientific experts have the right to mention the existence of the idea of intelligent design in their writings. For this, they were expelled from their positions. Stein interviewed those who fired them and promoted their firing. Personally, I believe in evolution and I believe in intelligent design because neither is mutually exclusive. That is not the point. The point is the wanton destruction of the careers of well meaning people.
Bernie
Those of us who regularly conduct online debates will recognize the pattern here. Simply put, "it's on." My response:
Dear Bernie,
And I doubt whether you have looked on the web site I mentioned at the back-stories on the people who claim to have been “expelled.” The truth about these stories is very interesting. The producers did a real Michael Moore on a lot of them. A number of those who claimed to have been fired simply did not have their contracts renewed Others continued to teach or work uninterrupted and unimpeded in any way. Still others were contract employees who were never on any tenure track to begin with. The producers made a story where there was none.
ID and evolution are not compatible. They are mutually exclusive on a number of significant points., points which are fatal to the ID cause. A scientist who gives credence to ID is akin to a doctor who prescribes leeches and cupping. Whether such people are “well-meaning” is irrelevant; a witch doctor may have the best intentions, but his science is flat-out wrong.
You say you “believe in” evolution. That is also irrelevant. Evolution does not ask you to believe in it. It is demonstrated fact. “Believing in” evolution is akin to “believing in” the multiplication tables. Such things are not matters of belief, but of fact.
ID, on the other hand, positively requires belief, for the simple reason that it has no evidence behind it. Not one scientific study supports it, no peer-reviewed work, nothing. It is religion masquerading as science. The judge’s decision in the Kitzmiller case ( http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf) stated this beautifully, and I suggest you read it. This is not a conservative vs. liberal matter; it is demonstrated fact vs. Bronze Age myth.
And don’t fall for that old “evolution is only a theory” trick. I hear this one every day. In a scientific context, the word “theory” has a very specific meaning that has the same weight as the word “fact” does in ordinary parlance. A theory is not a guess; it is a systematized way of approaching and explaining the body of data we have. A theory is only as good as the data on which it is based and the theory’s ability to predict related future events and conditions. In the case of evolution, we have enormous amounts of high quality data, and the theory’s predictive abilities are excellent. But you won’t get such a definition of “theory” from IDers, simply because it the truth is contrary to their interests, which are religious rather than scientific. As Isaac Asimov said, “Creationists (which is what IDers are) make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”
ID has no data and no predictive value. Yet we are asked to consider it scientifically viable.
You are right that I have not see the movie yet. But I have seen subsequent interviews with some of the actual scientists interviewed for the film, and I know that the producers (and Stein) lied to get their interviews, and lied more afterwards to try to do damage control as the truth came out. As I said, I doubt whether you have looked at the web site I mentioned, however you can be sure I will eventually see this deceptive movie. What I won’t do is pay for the privilege. On the other hand, you can look at expelledexposed for free. What about it?
You have emailed me quite a few interesting pieces over the years, and on many occasions I have had to show you how with a little digging the deceptive nature of these items comes to light. Because I have been burned in the past myself, I have made it my business to become an expert in how people get fooled. Smart people believe incorrect things all the time. Ben Stein is an extremely intelligent person (albeit a highly arrogant and self-important one), but intelligence is no vaccine against unsupported belief. As Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Please don’t be taken in by this deceptive movie.
ID and evolution are not compatible. They are mutually exclusive on a number of significant points., points which are fatal to the ID cause. A scientist who gives credence to ID is akin to a doctor who prescribes leeches and cupping. Whether such people are “well-meaning” is irrelevant; a witch doctor may have the best intentions, but his science is flat-out wrong.
You say you “believe in” evolution. That is also irrelevant. Evolution does not ask you to believe in it. It is demonstrated fact. “Believing in” evolution is akin to “believing in” the multiplication tables. Such things are not matters of belief, but of fact.
ID, on the other hand, positively requires belief, for the simple reason that it has no evidence behind it. Not one scientific study supports it, no peer-reviewed work, nothing. It is religion masquerading as science. The judge’s decision in the Kitzmiller case ( http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf) stated this beautifully, and I suggest you read it. This is not a conservative vs. liberal matter; it is demonstrated fact vs. Bronze Age myth.
And don’t fall for that old “evolution is only a theory” trick. I hear this one every day. In a scientific context, the word “theory” has a very specific meaning that has the same weight as the word “fact” does in ordinary parlance. A theory is not a guess; it is a systematized way of approaching and explaining the body of data we have. A theory is only as good as the data on which it is based and the theory’s ability to predict related future events and conditions. In the case of evolution, we have enormous amounts of high quality data, and the theory’s predictive abilities are excellent. But you won’t get such a definition of “theory” from IDers, simply because it the truth is contrary to their interests, which are religious rather than scientific. As Isaac Asimov said, “Creationists (which is what IDers are) make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.”
ID has no data and no predictive value. Yet we are asked to consider it scientifically viable.
You are right that I have not see the movie yet. But I have seen subsequent interviews with some of the actual scientists interviewed for the film, and I know that the producers (and Stein) lied to get their interviews, and lied more afterwards to try to do damage control as the truth came out. As I said, I doubt whether you have looked at the web site I mentioned, however you can be sure I will eventually see this deceptive movie. What I won’t do is pay for the privilege. On the other hand, you can look at expelledexposed for free. What about it?
You have emailed me quite a few interesting pieces over the years, and on many occasions I have had to show you how with a little digging the deceptive nature of these items comes to light. Because I have been burned in the past myself, I have made it my business to become an expert in how people get fooled. Smart people believe incorrect things all the time. Ben Stein is an extremely intelligent person (albeit a highly arrogant and self-important one), but intelligence is no vaccine against unsupported belief. As Richard Feynman said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Please don’t be taken in by this deceptive movie.
PF
(I should mention here that I have a variety of email sig files that get rotated at random. Each one includes a skeptical quotation, and the one that appeared at the bottom of this email was the (perhaps apocryphal) one by Albert Einstein: “Two things are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity. And I’m not sure about the universe.” I hope he didn't take that personally.)
Despite the tone of my email (and the thoughtlessness of the Einstein quote), I knew Bernie was the kind of guy who would read carefully and think things over. Here's his last reply:
PF,
I appreciate greatly the care and attention you have given this issue. I did view Expelled/Exposed and was particularly interested in the comments from both sides following the presentation. There is real controversy here. Make sure you read all of them because they are very insightful. Again, my primary concern is the silencing of discussion and the brutalizing of scientific academicians. I am aware that some were not fired but had their contracts not renewed. However, I don’t believe that these people were not allowed to teach unimpeded. I heard their words from their own mouth and I think you should as well. As for the existence of intelligence design, long before I even heard of the term, from my studies way back in high school physiology I determined that the remarkable systems functioning throughout the human body didn’t simply evolve. No one has yet convinced mt e otherwise and the more I learn about our own bodies that there had to be an ingenious creative designer affecting our evolution. So, yes, I am one of those, but to me this is not the issue here. I admit that I have not as yet checked on the back stories of those that had been expelled, but I promise that I will do so. I hope you will spend the money to see the movie. For entertainment value alone it is worth it.
Bernie
So now he touts "Expelled" for its entertainment value instead of as the most thought-provoking and enthralling movie he had seen in a long time. He hasn't exactly come around, but now he has had a little bit of balance added to his views. And I have no doubt some of the points I have made to him in this email exchange will find their way into future discussions with his other friends, both online and in the analog world.
Here was my last salvo. Bernie's quotes are in blue, my responses in black italics:
Dear Bernie,
Again, my primary concern is the silencing of discussion and the brutalizing of scientific academicians. I am aware that some were not fired but had their contracts not renewed. However, I don’t believe that these people were not allowed to teach unimpeded.
I think “brutalizing” is an exaggeration. No one who had his/her contract dropped had any particular reason to expect their contract to be renewed in the first place. In any case, in a scientific context, if anti-scientific views are not a sufficient reason for non-renewal for a scientist’s contract, what would be an acceptable reason? If my doctor decided that the germ theory of disease (“only a theory,” mind you) was untrue, not only would I drop him, but so would every insurer, not to mention the AMA. Such a view in a medical doctor would be considered professional incompetence.
As for the existence of intelligence design, long before I even heard of the term, from my studies way back in high school physiology I determined that the remarkable systems functioning throughout the human body didn’t simply evolve.
Not based on science, you didn’t. Only on your personal amazement. That is highly subjective, and by definition unscientific.
No one has yet convinced me otherwise and the more I learn about our own bodies that there had to be an ingenious creative designer affecting our evolution.
Ah, here’s the problem—this is the logical fallacy known as “argument from personal incredulity.” Personally, I can’t figure out how antibiotics work, but when I get an infection, I make sure to take the stuff the doc gives me, exactly as he tells me to. The fact that I don’t get it would not cause me to second guess an entire field of study that has amassed a tremendous body of data in support of its conclusions. And I don’t take whatever my cousin the homeopathic “doctor” recommends. Homeopathic “prescriptions” are based on wishing and magical thinking, and never stand up to scientific scrutiny. I always go with evidence-based medicine, not prescientific silliness.
I hope you will spend the money to see the movie. For entertainment value alone it is worth it.
Eventually I will see it, but not for money. I cannot find it entertaining when its purpose is to deceive.
PF
I haven't heard back from Bernie on any of this. Of course, today is Saturday, a day when most religious Jews wouldn't think of touching their computers.
Then again, perhaps he is busy evolving.
On the other hand, I may have been expelled.
I'll find out next time Microsoft starts offering to pay people to forward emails.
Comments