Pharyngula::Bad journalism on Cobb County

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, December 12, 2005

Bad journalism on Cobb County

PZ Myers • 100 Comments (last page)

Chris Mooney finds fault with some bad journalism. He picks on this one sentence…

Like others who adhere to a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, Rogers, a lawyer, believes that Earth is several thousand years old, while most scientists, basing their estimates on the radioactive decay of rock samples, say the planet is billions of years old.

…which is clearly screwed up. Lawyer Rogers is basing her opinion entirely on dogmatic acceptance of ancient religious texts that contradict reality, yet her opinion is presented as if it were a reasonable alternative to that of scientists who base their ideas on legitimate evidence. Mooney rewrites the bad sentence and improves it greatly, but still, the problem is deeper than one sentence—the premise of the whole article is flawed.

It's about dueling neighbors in a Georgia suburb. The differences on evolution are treated with the same seriousness as the fact that people disagree on who to vote for, whether to open the County Board of Commissioners with a prayer, or what brand of car to drive. It's all a mere difference of opinion, you know. Marjorie Rogers is presented as someone trying sincerely to find the truth, when what she's actually doing is swaddling herself in ignorance and trying to force a similarly benighted state on the kids in her school district.

Sparked by her son's interest in dinosaurs, Rogers read several books casting doubt on evolution science, including "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells and "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson. Once she saw the textbooks under consideration, she was appalled.

Where's the critical evaluation of these books? The reporter presents it as if she had done her homework, when what she'd actually done was dig up some bad creationist pseudo-scholarship that reinforced her biases. When you read about her objections, you don't see any counterpoint to balance her raving nonsense.

"Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species," she read from one during an interview.

"That offends me," she said. "That has no business being in a science textbook. That's religion."

She points to another passage, in "Biology: Concepts & Connections," that she says is irreverent. The passage suggests that had human knees and spines been "designed" for our bipedal posture, rather than borrowed from four-legged ancestors, they probably would "be less subject to sprains, spasms and other common injuries."

Finding fault with the design of humans exasperates her.

"That's slamming God," she said.

Both of those passages are correct. There's nothing exceptional in the biology of human beings; every organism on the planet has its own unique suite of characters, and we can see how those characters are derived from its nearest relatives. We also see that many of those properties of all animals are cobbled together in a less than optimal way from ancestral states. We are good enough. We are not perfect.

Even within her own religious tradition, there are people who find nothing sacrilegious about that. Isn't everything on earth supposed to be the product of one god's hand, in her belief? Doesn't Christianity preach that every person is flawed, incomplete, and corrupted? When she goes to church and is told that we are all sinners, does she march up and bitch-slap the minister for insulting god?

If being apprised of the simple facts of reality is "slamming God", I think the problem lies with her simple-minded view of her God, not reality.

The reporter missed the real story. That people have different opinions is not newsworthy; that neighborhoods are infested with meddling kooks and journalists don't even notice…now that's an interesting story. I'd like to see a report on how 'objective journalism' has somehow been transformed into 'credulous journalism'.

Trackback url: http://tangledbank.net/index/trackback/3554/xJzjX2Fi/

Comments:

#53529: — 12/12 at 11:54 AM
Can anyone give me an example of something 'exceptional' in human beings?

Can you give us examples of other organisms that you consider exceptional? If you consider nothing exceptional, then it'll be really hard to give you an example.

#53530: — 12/12 at 12:19 PM
"Can you give us examples of other organisms that you consider exceptional? If you consider nothing exceptional, then it'll e really hard to give you an example."

I think that is PZ's point. There are no 'exceptions'. We are animals. We have traits. Ants are animals and they have a different set of traits. Yet, we do share some traits with other animals. We have unique traits too, but they aren't magical. They can be explained by the theory.

#53533: Kagehi — 12/12 at 12:33 PM

He was not "pandering" to a certain group, but as a reporter he was right not to make a value judgment about her beliefs -- that's for the readers to make.

And how exactly do they do that without having enough information, but instead only an unqualified statement of opinion?

PZ, which, if any animals do you consider moral actors.

Try reading some recent research on animals ranging from birds to monkeys. Here is a hint, some birds that are known for collecting shiny objects understand theft and trust, so drive away those that are untrustworthy, because they are thieves. Given a prisoner dilema type situation, even a monkey can figure out that helping the other monkey get some food means *they* will get some occationally, even if the tray the food is in isn't always theirs, but neither will eat if they don't work together.

If anything makes humans unique, its our ability to rationalize idiotic decisions to act in ways that undermine both our own and everyone else's survival, something the supposed non-moral actors you think animals are *don't* generally do, because the rest of their kind won't put up with them doing it.

Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proved innocent - Robert A. Heinlein

#53534: — 12/12 at 12:39 PM

Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species

This is just a vague, poorly written sentence. I hope that the surrounding context explains what characteristics are being considered under the notion of exceptional/unexceptional. Even PZ agrees:

...every organism on the planet has its own unique suite of characters...

So we're all exceptional. If we can express X and not X and claim them both to be true, then the sentence is basically meaningless.

I object to this sentence on aesthetic grounds.

#53538: Narc — 12/12 at 12:50 PM
Is there something special in human beings that allows them to be a "moral actor" that all other species palpably lack?

The soul. Really, that seems to me to be what this entire argument boils down to.

That this takes the discussion out of the realm of science is irrelevant. I don't think that most of the population makes a cut-and-dried distinctions between matters of fact and faith. Or rather, matters of their faith are, ipso facto, fact. Else, why have faith in them?

#53540: — 12/12 at 12:59 PM

I think that is PZ's point. There are no 'exceptions'. We are animals.

That would be considered a form of nihilism, wouldn't it?

#53541: Raven — 12/12 at 01:06 PM

That would be considered a form of nihilism, wouldn't it?

Only if you consider animals to be without essential value. Not everyone would agree with you on that.

#53542: — 12/12 at 01:21 PM

Finding fault with the design of humans exasperates her.

"That's slamming God," she said.

Translation: Humans are so perfect, we must have been designed by God. What? We're not perfectly designed? Why would you dare to insult God like that?

Some people are just stupid.

#53551: Linkmeister — 12/12 at 01:58 PM
Have y'all seen Charlie Pierce's article about "Idiot America?" It's a screed at ID and much more, concluding there's a segment of the population which will believe anything if it's on TV often enough.

#53552: — 12/12 at 02:05 PM
PZ, which, if any animals do you consider moral actors.

Many species have developed costly alarm-call signals or similar behavior in which an individual risks self-sacrifice to alert the group to a predator (or to signal to the predator that it has been spotted). Heck, even the lowly stickleback's reciprocal scouting behavior can be said to be "moral" in a game-theoretic sense.

#53554: — 12/12 at 02:12 PM
Kristine, that's OK, I set myself up for getting picked on, and I'm definately not doing a good job communicating my thoughts. I'm not saying that newspapers should never be in the business of presenting facts or trying to find the truth. What I'm saying is that in our stories, we should juxtapose beliefs with hard facts and point out when they run contrary to the evidence.

I'm against making blanket statements like "That is incorrect" about beliefs because while beliefs may be wrong-headed and untrue, they're personal viewpoints, and I think it is the journalist's job to explain why people believe the way they do even in the light of overwhelming evidence. (Plus, if a reporter has to point out something that should be glaringly obvious, then he or she isn't doing the job.) Doing otherwise smells a little too much like alternative weeklies in cities, where many "stories" are really nothing more than glorified op-ed columns that gloss over the downsides of the viewpoints they're promoting.

#53555: paperwight — 12/12 at 02:13 PM
That would be considered a form of nihilism, wouldn't it?

Er, no. To say that we are animals has exactly no normative consequences except for those sad people who apparently have to believe that we are *not* animals in order to keep themselves from enacting their abbatoir fantasies. Of course, I expect that those are the same people who (merely by way of example, and of course without reference to any public figures) torture frogs, vivisect cats, or offer apologia and applause for the torture of of the untermenschen who dare to cross the path of the righteous.

One hopes that NSM is not in that group, but given past comments showing a distinct lack of compassion, the hope is not as strong as one would like it to be.

#53558: paperwight — 12/12 at 02:21 PM
Doing otherwise smells a little too much like alternative weeklies in cities, where many "stories" are really nothing more than glorified op-ed columns that gloss over the downsides of the viewpoints they're promoting

Shorter Walter: "Views differ on shape of planet" is good journalism.

#53561: Phila — 12/12 at 02:40 PM
That would be considered a form of nihilism, wouldn't it?

No. There's no logical reason why animals can't evolve culture and moral values, or write symphonies, or worship Gods, or do whatever you think they need to do in order to be something other than "nihilistic."

IIRC, Aquinas said "All truth is God's truth," and it's hard to see how any honest religious person could disagree with that. If you want to be religious, you're intellectually obligated to start seeing the natural world as revelatory in itself, instead of insisting against all evidence that it conforms to some imaginary blueprint. If you can't or won't do that, don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously.

#53565: Kristine Harley — 12/12 at 03:00 PM
I just didn't want to hop on Walter for something that is bugging me in general, which is that the United States has become based on a concept of a verbally-based reality--and this affects science reporting, but it also affects everything else. By a verbal reality, I mean that movies have essentially become blow-by-blow descriptions of action with special effects added (watch a movie from the 60s and you realize how frenzied the so-called dialogue has become in films today), that television news is essentially radio with an attractive talking head (shown talking), with a few clips from the "field" thrown in (that, if you watch them with the sound off, really show nothing), that rumor and innuendo are reported as "fact," and that these contrived "controversies" drive the headlines. It works, it generated audiences, and holy toledo, it's not happening by accident. (Audience think that they see what they hear!)

We've gone from a nation that had strong labor unions to one that has to "create jobs," which means make people do things that don't need doing (because not enough people can make enough money doing things that we need to do, like teaching, being cops, being scientists, being firefighters, being a good gumshoe reporter, etc.) to a nation that essentially pays people (Coulter, O'Reilly, Rush) the big bucks to yell at us, and then tricks us into believing that democracy means yelling back in an e-mail, or on talk radio, rather than voting. Well, guess what, eventually even these conservative blowhards have found less and less to say about politics--so let's make science political.

It's not surprising that in this atmosphere, the world becomes whatever the American media say it is, that global climate change becomes dubious if we wish it away, that evolution suddenly becomes "unscientific" while supernaturalism becomes "scientific," and everything is up for debate, which is just a verbal fistfight. The "debate" has become the news story format, to the point that I'm not sure what people think is real anymore. "Balance" has become such a buzzword that people look shocked when I tell them, "The truth is biased toward one side."

#53567: Phila — 12/12 at 03:11 PM
NSM seems to have a fixed conception of what "animal" means: that which is other than human. When your definitions are flawed, your arguments are going to be flawed.

As for animals that are moral actors, In the Company of Crows and Ravens is a pretty interesting book, as is Helpers at Birds' Nests. These aren't examples of morality in the human sense, but they seem to work for the birds in question, which is all one could reasonably ask. Act utilitarianism isn't an ideal that ducks need to live up to, any more than post-hatch brood amalgamation is an ideal that humans need to live up to.

The point isn't that there's nothing that sets human beings apart from other animals; the point is that there's no evidence that that difference isn't or couldn't be produced by evolution. And unless I'm misunderstanding, that's the sense in which "exceptional" is used here: something requiring a mechanism entirely different in kind from those which we see in animals.

#53568: — 12/12 at 03:16 PM
The key point of Christian theology is that human beings are fundamentally not exceptional -- it is by the grace of God that we are saved.

It is the story of Jesus that uncommonly wonderful things can come from extremely humble beginnings.

To this Christian, evolution is quite a reification of my faith. Those who eschew evolution do the faith a grave, grave disservice.

Odd, ain't it, PZ? Your position is closer to traditional Christianity than the creationists. What a world.

#53569: — 12/12 at 03:23 PM
Moral actors? Have you never seen a tiny sparrow defend her nest against maruading ravens? A more noble defense of home cannot be made. Have you never seen a dog, willing to lay down its life in defense of its human master -- a different species, even?

Stories of animals doing wonderful things for their own species and for others abound in nature. This reinforces my impression that creationists have little to no experience in the natural world.

#53579: — 12/12 at 04:03 PM
#53555: paperwight — 12/12 at 02:13 PM
To say that we are animals has exactly no normative consequences except for those sad people who apparently have to believe that we are *not* animals in order to keep themselves from enacting their abbatoir fantasies

The only abattoir fantasies I have come from a Monty Python skit. (“Did you say knives? Yes, rotating knives”). Besides, I think scientists routinely torture frogs, vivisect cats, in the name of learning. I had a course in College, Biology for the non-major and we did torture frogs and dissect a (dead) cat. Religion had nothing to do with it.

#53561: Phila — 12/12 at 02:40 PM
No. There's no logical reason why animals can't evolve culture and moral values, or write symphonies, or worship Gods, or do whatever you think they need to do in order to be something other than "nihilistic."

I’m not sure what you mean here. But as far as we know, animals can’t do any of these things because they haven’t got the hardware.

If you want to be religious, you're intellectually obligated to start seeing the natural world as revelatory in itself, instead of insisting against all evidence that it conforms to some imaginary blueprint. If you can't or won't do that, don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously.

Again, I lost you.

#53567: Phila — 12/12 at 03:11 PM
And unless I'm misunderstanding, that's the sense in which "exceptional" is used here: something requiring a mechanism entirely different in kind from those which we see in animals.

You could be right that I misread what he meant.

I said nihilism because it seemed to fit in with “we humans are no different” Meme. That is, if you stop there. Humans are different beyond that.

#53582: Raven — 12/12 at 04:07 PM

I’m not sure what you mean here. But as far as we know, animals can’t do any of these things [evolve culture and moral values, or write symphonies] because they haven’t got the hardware.

Really? What hardware (by which I assume you mean specific brain anatomy) do humans have that other animals don't?

#53583: — 12/12 at 04:13 PM

We've gone from a nation that had strong labor unions to one that has to "create jobs,"

Kristine, you make some good points, but seen from the outside, the US never have had particularly strong labour unions. Certain work fields have had them, but as a general rule, the anti-Communism through the 20th century made it impossible for any union to actually make it.

#53585: — 12/12 at 04:22 PM

Really? What hardware (by which I assume you mean specific brain anatomy) do humans have that other animals don't?

I think our expanded frontal lobe gives us these abilities. For example, It's like a dogs sense of smell. There are many things a dog does behaviorally that we can't do because we haven't got it's abilities. It's hardware.

#53586: Raven — 12/12 at 04:37 PM

For example, It's like a dogs sense of smell. There are many things a dog does behaviorally that we can't do because we haven't got it's abilities. It's hardware.

I am reminded of an old joke about dogs which ends in the punchline "because they can", but that's neither here nor there.

But you are not arguing that humans cannot smell, just that we don't do it as well as dogs do. That is a quantitative difference, which is different from your earlier argument that humans were qualitatively different from other animals. In other words, olfactory abilities and resultant behaviors are on a spectrum, on which we're at the "less abundant" end, and dogs are at the "more abundant" end.

If you are arguing that because our frontal lobes are larger, there is a quantitative difference in these "moral" behaviors weighted this time in favor of humans, and thus such a spectrum for these abilities as well, then we actually agree on this. But that is not what you asserted before, when you asserted that humans were fundamentally (i.e., qualitatively) different.

#53587: — 12/12 at 05:01 PM
We've gone from a nation that had strong labor unions to one that has to "create jobs," which means make people do things that don't need doing (because not enough people can make enough money doing things that we need to do, like teaching, being cops, being scientists, being firefighters, being a good gumshoe reporter, etc.)

Strong unions “limit jobs”. How can they insure good wages otherwise? I hear it’s very hard to become an electrician. It may be fun to say what jobs are needed and what jobs aren’t but in a market based economy the jobs offered are the ones needed.

#53589: — 12/12 at 05:13 PM
If you are arguing that because our frontal lobes are larger, there is a quantitative difference in these "moral" behaviors weighted this time in favor of humans, and thus such a spectrum for these abilities as well, then we actually agree on this.

I'm glad we can agree on something and I've heard the joke you speak of. ;) It seemed to me the discussion on this thread was going in a different direction when I made that assertion.

Page 2 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 >

Next entry: Someone else is mired in grading

Previous entry: Send the Tangled Bank stuff!

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, December 12, 2005

Bad journalism on Cobb County

Info