Lecture 1: Science, Non-Science, and Nonsense: From Aliens to Creationism
Monday, 15 March 2010
The distinction between science and fiction and between sense and nonsense has become blurred in popular discourse.
In the United States, in 2008, three Republican Presidential Candidates indicated that they did not believe in evolution and at least one of them indicated he was not willing to come down on the side of an earth that was older than 6000 years old – joining the majority of Americans.
Most recently, the popular debate about the teaching of intelligent design in public schools presents a perplexing quandary for scientists and policy makers. These misconception may affect the teaching of science, but other confusions, about climate change, and nuclear weapons, affect the peace and security of the whole world.
In this lecture Professor Krauss will explore examples from government and the media to explore these issues. He will also address the important issue of what science is, and what it is not.
Date: Monday, 15 March 2010
Time: 5:30pm – 6:30pm
Audience: Public
Location: St David Street Lecture Theatre, Cnr St David Street and Castle Street
Cost: Free
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/events/otago007286.html
And if you like that one, there’s a second lecture by Dr Krauss the following day, same time, University of Otago College of Education Auditorium.
The Dunedin School 
Cool! IsProf Krauss coming to Auckland?
yes, he is near the end of the week
Pingback: Lawrence Krauss Free Public Lecture in Auckland! « earth is my favourite planet
I have to say, having just gone to his talk, that I am disappointed. For someone who wants to stress the importance of critical thinking and honesty he sure used a lot of polemic and rhetoric. I was hoping for some good philosophy of science but just got another Dawkinesque evangelist. Sigh.
I disagree. Polemic is greatly underrated for dismissing foolishness.
If Krauss were discussing the reality of multiverses in front of a specialist audience, then I’d expect a thoroughgoing critical approach. But in dealing with the ignorance of creationists and global warming deniers at a public lecture, he chose the better approach – a brief outline of the facts, proceeded by ridicule. The ideas of creationists and global warming deniers are at such a retarded level of stupidity, that one cannot engage them without sinking to their level – which is best avoided.
Prooftext: Proverbs 26:4-5.
Zool seems to be labouring under the all-too-common illusion that people are rational, which is, if modernity has taught us anything, simply not the case. Most people, especially on matters like creationism and climate change, are motivated by things other than logic – fear, guilt, too many hours spent watching Fox News, etc. – and the only way to speak to people like this, if there is any profit in speaking to them at all, is to likewise appeal to things other than logic or rational critical discourse. This is the state of things. That is it tragic makes it no less true.
Tyrone, is ‘a retarded level of stupidity’ a brilliant use of deliberately ignorant language for the sake of polemic, or is it simply a mistake?
I agree that rhetoric has its place – and it can convince people to do/think all sorts of things. But when you are giving a lecture trying to encourage people to think clearly and see through propaganda and rhetoric you might want to take MJ’s advise and take a look at the man in the mirror.
As for the “illusion that people are rational” – perhaps it is an illusion – but it is the VERY THING which Krauss *claimed* he wanted to encourage… how do you encourage people to look at the facts and think rationally by showing them that ridicule and rhetoric are such powerful tools?
If you sink to using ridicule – you are doing exactly what you r opponents are doing. So who will win? Whoever has the more charismatic preachers, or the most money…. and guess what. It isn’t Krauss’ team. As such he is probably shooting himself in the foot by sinking to the level of his opponents.
I guess the irony was lost on most people.
Nah – you haven’t convinced me at all, Zool.
For there are – on the one hand – ideas which are debated within the rules of science, and which deserve the rational approach that scientists (including Krauss) stipulate. These ideas have to get through the gates of tested hypotheses, scientific articles, peer-review, and a body of resulting scientific literature. And – on the other hand – there are ideas like creationism, flat earthism, global warming denial, alchemy, and astrology, which don’t even get in the door of scientific discourse. They never pass the scientific tests which are met by solid facts such as evolution and global warming. There is no ground to treat creationist ideas as a serious contender for “fact”. But there is such for evolution. Creationism doesn’t even get in the door.
If, on the other hand, creationism (aka ‘Intelligent Design’) did produce testable hypotheses, scientific tests, and peer-reviewed articles, then I agree that other scientists should treat it without undue rhetoric. But, as it stands, Intelligent Design just doesn’t stand on the same stage. It is nonsense.
So, to be fair, we should not pretend that Intelligent Design is making a scientifically sound argument at all, but point out how it fails to enter into rational discourse – and then we should, quite fairly, proceed to give it the mocking disrespect it so richly deserves.
And again, to be fair, we should admit the solid scientific standing that evolution has achieved, as a result of 150 years of scientific testing, and its place as the basis for current biological science – and discuss this topic somewhat more rationally than, say, the Kansas State Board of Education.
Um, imitatively dumb-sounding phrase, meaning “ideas so stupid that they fall within the lower (retarded) levels of intelligence”.
Tyrone… I find your response odd as it completely misses the point I was making.
Of course “creationism, flat earthism, global warming denial, alchemy, and astrology” don’t pass muster – but that is not what I was concerned about at all!
The point I was making was that .. oh never mind. It was obvious the first time I said it.
Apparently not …
Well depending on the reader I guess… obvious to those who are not have a “retarded level of stupidity.” There you go Tyrone – I took your advise and sunk down to the level of simple insults and ridicule… maybe you will find that appeals more to your taste? ;)
Who are you, by the way?
http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Zuul
But from your comments you seem to be a film buff so you probably knew that already.
Ah – but you’ve got to show discernment for when to simply insult and snub, and when to engage intelligently: Proverbs 26:4-5.
Zool,
I’m a mere scientist, so perhaps I don’t understand the complete meaning of what it you’re saying, but as I understand it polemic means “making an argument’ and rhetoric means “using words skillfully”. I can’t imagine why you shouldn’t skillfully argue that stupid people are stupid.
I’m with Tyrone, from my seat I though Krauss ridiculed people who don’t play by the rules of science (which he summed up by borrowing from Feynman’s famous lecture). I don’t think I would have enjoyed the talk anywhere near as much if he’d held forth on Popper Lakatos and Kuhn’s theories of science.
David: first, may I suggest you buy yourself a thesaurus to help you understand some of the e different nuances which words in the English language can convey.
That aside: Yes I agree that the talk was enjoyable – he was a charismatic and at times humorous man. But the point I am making is this: he has now taught people to accept ridicule. mockery, and humor as legitimate ways to argue ….
(which is the opposite of what he claims to believe in by the way…. Tyrone: if you give a talk which mocks and ridicules people I would have no issue with it at all. My main quibble is the fact that he himself was so against this way of arguing)
…. what do you think will happen when people now go look up some anti-science website (or go to a talk) and find the speaker there is equally skilled at mocking his opponents and using witty humor and amusing video clips? They will now have to choose which of the two clowns put on the best show… and experience tells me that physicists (sorry guys…) just don’t put on the best shows.
I’m a scientist. We just make shit up.
But besides that, I’m with Zool. If Krauss is trying to promote critical thinking, he should lead by example.
And also, let’s not be naive about the science-pseudoscience distinction. Anyone remember the Duhem-Quine thesis? (Hurry, do a wikipedia search. I’ll wait.) Mainstream scientific theories are no more falsifiable than hocus-pocus, if we’re going to be strictly logical about it. And Popper knew it too. And we scientific realists who believe that science tracks truth and that current theories are better (in this sense) than previous theories better worry about justifying this belief and having a theory of verisimilitude (or “closeness to the truth” or “partial truth” or something). We don’t have the latter, at least not one that any of us understand. Unless you’re an Eastern European logician/philosopher of science.
OK, back to making data up…
A “scientist”? And I thought you were a psychologist.
I go by “cognitive scientist” these days. It’s in the title, it must be so.
Jonathan,
Do you really think Krauss’ talk would have done a better job of taking on pseudo-science if he stopped to talk about Duhem-Quine thesis? Of course there’s a place for those kind of ideas, but is really in a one hour public talk? Especially it’s really no relevant to whether ID and climate change denialism is a stinking pile of stupid…
The talk was at a University to a supposedly educated audience (although I begin to have my doubts)… it was not on Campbell Live. Saying “Nah Nah Nah – look at these idiots!” and then presenting a selection of misquotes and misrepresentation is what I expect from the Kent Hovinds of this world… and that, at the end of the day, is all Krauss really amounts to when he *tries* to do philosophy.
No, the Duhem-Quine thesis stuff was about this blog, rather than Krauss’s performance. I don’t think WE should be naive about science. Re: Krauss, I don’t think Krauss to employ the same rhetorical tactics as his opponents; he is not merely concerned with the content of their beliefs, but also their method. He says so himself; I was at the table next to him when he was interviewed for Critic (see this week’s issue). And if he cares about method, he shouldn’t be sloppy himself.
(I am sure he is a brilliant physicist – just as Dawkins is a skilled zoologist… but they are both laughable when they try to do philosophy. Lesson: Stick to your own field or you may end up looking rather foolish…)
If Krauss had gone quote mining, or had “tried to do philosophy” then you might have a point.
Good! So you concede I have a point! Modus ponens right? ;)
Check you assumptions
Nice catch phrase (Ayn Rand liked to say that too) But what assumptions? I am going on observation….
Besides which you have changed your stance… just up there ^^^^ you admit that he does not (nor needs to) use reason… but rather ridiculed his opponents because this was not the forum for a rational debate (being a University and all…)
I don’t think anyone was denying that Krauss did a bad job of demonstrating critical thinking or philosophy of science. The question was whether he OUGHT to have done a good job at critical thinking or philosophy of science. I think he ought to have done, but perhaps not to the extent of discussing Duhem-Quine; and I think he ought because he claims to be concerned with method, not just content.
Anyone who searches youtube for the most ridiculous straw-man version of the people they are trying to discredit and uses it in their talk is… how can I put this nicely…
Is is all very odd (and the treading makes comments v. skinny so I’m heading back to a new thread).
Krauss was giving a public lecture, hosted by a university but not a departmental seminar. His stated goal was to show how pseudoscience and nonsense prevented society dealing with scientific problems and debates. Given his goal, and his audience, I think he did an excellent job of showing how movements like ID and climate change denialism don’t play by the rules of science and it was reasonable therefore to laugh at those people. You don’t need much philosophising to do that.
He played the Ray Comfort video to highlight the fact NZ is not immune for these nutcases. In fact, he presented the most cutting edge ID arguments, it’s not his fault the best ID argument amounts to “it’s like, really, really complex”. With climate change he showed the data that makes their PR strategy vacuous.
I just don’t agree with you that Kruass “tried to philosphy” or that the over all effect of his talk was simply ‘rehetoric’ without the argument that validated it.
And with that I’ll back away slowly and leave the last word to you.
I guess we went to different talks David.
There were so many stories around, it was almost inevitable some of them would turn out to be true.