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/SvqUDHih/

Comments:

#53590: Keith Douglas — 12/12 at 05:15 PM
Not only is there protomorality in other animals, I think it is fair to say that the animals closest in relation to us (the chimpanzees) are the closest in morality to ourselves. This is precisely what one would expect evolutionarily, I suppose. There are also some interesting remarks in Michael Ruse's Taking Darwin Seriously about such matters. He points out that if we were intelligent termites, we'd probably have some religion or ethical code with a "thou shalt eat your neigbour's dung" as a crowning principle.

Worth thinking about. (Though I think his conclusions about epistemology go overboad, I might add.)

#53597: — 12/12 at 05:44 PM
"If the textbook quote of "Humans are fundamenally not exceptional" is accurate, then the writer crossed the line from science into philosophy."

PZ's answer to that misconception seems to be much too weak, as several commenters shows here. Not only must you show why the default answer is wrong. ("Humans are nonexceptional, since they obey the same biology as all others.")

And it seems to me the principle of 'extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence' should be applicable due to that commonality of biology.

But as several commenters say, we know that animals may show the same basic capabilities for moral behaviour, memes (passing on imitations), technology and language, so we have positive evidence for the rightness of nonexceptionality too.

"The truth is biased toward one side." LOLOL!

#53599: — 12/12 at 07:11 PM

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

"You're all individuals!"

"Yes, we're all individuals!"

"You're all different!"

"Yes, we're all different!"

"Um. I'm not.."

#53621: — 12/12 at 10:05 PM
"Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species,"

There is no need to qualify <i>fundamentally not expceptional</i> from biologically not exceptional since the description was provided in the context of evolution. No need to wonder about philosophy, or if humans are exceptional in some other context. In the context of the text book, the <i>mechanism<i/> of evolution is the same for humans as it is for all other life on the planet. In that respect humans are quite ordinary, typical and unexceptional.

#53628: — 12/12 at 11:12 PM

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.

Nonsense. It's much more complex than that - Denmark have very strong unions, and yet the unemployment in Denmark is much lower than in other countries.

#53643: — 12/13 at 02:51 AM
'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.'

Does that remind anybody else of Candide? Specifically, this woman seems to believe in Dr. Pangloss' proof of the world's perfection.

#53645: — 12/13 at 03:28 AM
"in a market based economy the jobs offered are the ones needed."

Which is why we have no worries whatsoever about having enough doctors to care for the aging Baby Boomers, right?

... wait.

#53646: Porlock Junior — 12/13 at 03:47 AM
Christopher cites the "slamming God" bit and is reminded of Candide. My own free association was different:

Sergeant Lumley inspected his kipper narrowly. ... He forked a large portion into his mouth without pausing to remove the bones, and was obliged to spend a painful minute rescuing them with his fingers. "Tcha! It beats me why Godamighty wanted to put such a lot of bones into them things."

[Police Constable] Eagles was shocked.

"You didn't oughter question the ways of Godamighty," he said.

"You keep a civil tongue in your head, my lad," retorted Sergeant Lumley ... "and don't go forgettin' what's due my position."

"There ain't no position in the eyes of Godamighty ... If it pleases 'Im to make you a sergeant, that's one thing, but it won't do you no good when you comes before 'Im to answer to the charge of questionin' 'Is ways with kippers."

Murder Must Advertise by Dorothy L. Sayers

So you see, it's not just knees. Kippered herring have their rights, too. But Milton ran out of time when he ought to have been justifying God's ways with kippers to man.

#53652: — 12/13 at 07:51 AM
Which is why we have no worries whatsoever about having enough doctors to care for the aging Baby Boomers, right?

We really don't have to worry. Unless you're saying you know of a reason that people will pass up good paying jobs in the future? Please let us know what it is.

#53653: — 12/13 at 08:01 AM
Well, hey, here in the UK, people have been passing up well paid jobs as dentists and nurses for years. AS a result we have a permanent shortage. Not to mention that most teachers are closer to retirement than college, and they are having trouble recruiting new ones.
Or in other words, its far more complicated than market fundamentalists would have us believe.

And relatedly, if your going to starve to death then you will likely take any job on offer. But if you are less likely to do so, people will frequently try and get the job they want. But what if the market is not offering their kind of job?
So much for freedom.

As for Doctors, do you want to be treated by one with 1 years doctoring education, or with 6 years? Theres a natural bottleneck that cannot be overcome, unless perhaps you can work out how to Taylorise the job. And when you do that, you'll realise how it is that so many alternative therapies are popular- its because people like to spend time talking about things with their doctors.

#53655: — 12/13 at 08:36 AM
It is more complicated, I agree. My preference is to let the market decide.

But what if the market is not offering their kind of job?
So much for freedom.

My first reaction would be "too bad, so sad". Yes, there could be a dearth of said jobs. But what's your solution? Create a job with no funds available to pay the wages?

#53677: Raven — 12/13 at 10:48 AM

It is more complicated, I agree. My preference is to let the market decide.

That would be the same market that provides financial incentives to for-profit insurers and HMOs to deny necessary care to patients, yes?

Right now, insurance is based on populations, because determining individual risk for specific conditions is not sufficiently reliable. However, as we learn more about the human genome, and the links between genotypes and phenotypes, we are approaching the day when we can reliably assign a cardiovascular risk, a cancer risk, and other risks to individuals themselves, based on their genetic makeup.

When that day comes, and the insurance market refuses to insure individuals who are genetically at demonstrably high risk for expensive treatment for these conditions, are you satisfied to just let the market write them all of them off as "uninsurable" because they get in the way of profits and leave it at that?

I'm hoping for a little more analytical depth in your response than just "too bad, so sad".

#53704: — 12/13 at 02:43 PM
In regard to health care, ultimatly you want everyone to get the health care they need. I hope that's the goal at least.

Trouble is, most aspects of health care require a great deal of resources. The training required to accuratly diagnose the wide variety of ailments our human flesh is heir to is time comsuming and expensive. Purchasing and maintainting specialized equipment and more effective treatment regimens also require investment. The rewards may be great, but the resources need to be invested first.

Medical insurance is a means to spread the cost of these resources across a large number of citizens. (The costs of innovation are not directly paid by the insurance companies, but the money paid for medical care by insurance companies is spent on maintaining and improving medical care.) The other main source of money for medical research is through grants, but it appears to me that grant money is often directly applied to developing new medical procedures and products, not in maintaining the current level of service.

So the insurance market, in each company's attempt to garner subscribers, is going to continue to pressure the care-givers to reduce the resources used to maintain the current level of service. In fact, they may even accept a degragation of service in order to provide a more attractive price to their customers. The individual insurance companies will also try to reduce the insurance costs to the majority of subscribers by eliminating those subscribers who are high uses of resources. Competition will also reduce the resources available for investment in new procedures. This seems to be a problem caused by, not fixed by, market pressures.

Preventing an insurance company from discriminating between customers by an act of law will only provide incentive for insurance companies to break that law. So long as there is competition in the insurance market, there will be pressure on insurance companies to provide the lowest cost to each consumer. Thus, information about individual consumers will continue being collected, whether it's legal or not.

Eliminating competition by fiat is not a good solution either. This would enable insurance companies to create a profit, but the insurance companies may choose not to invest in maintenance or development of medicine. This is true whether the insurance is provided by corporations or run by the government.

Is there a solution? I don't know. It's likely going to have to be some sort of compromise involving a regulated free market.

However, the basic idea of spreading the costs of medical treatment and research over most of society in order to benefit all of society is a very good one.

My $0.02

-Flex

P.S. For something completely different, maybe a peer reviewed grant donation website could be started. Where once the proposal has passed through a peer review process, private citizens could donate towards the research. Any researcher being funded in this way would have to be careful with the funds, what stikes the public fancy this year may not next. I don't have enough money available to give away to make even a small impact in the usual grant funds. (I could be wrong, but the hundred dollars I could contribute on an irregular basis sounds like it wouldn't make a difference to a researcher.) But there may be enough people willing to directly fund science experiments that some real research may be accomplished. I would insist on peer reviewed proposals simply because my understanding of the details of any field is meager enough to prevent me from accurately judging the value of the proposed research. -F.

#53714: — 12/13 at 03:53 PM
That would be the same market that provides financial incentives to for-profit insurers and HMOs to deny necessary care to patients, yes?

I think the health care market (in the US) as it stands now, is part market and part government controlled. It’s hard to point to any failure and say it’s caused by market forces because it’s not pure. As for denying care to patients, even “universal” coverage is guilty of that. There’s only so many resources to go around. How will it be allocated? Some will lose out.

When that day comes, and the insurance market refuses to insure individuals who are genetically at demonstrably high risk for expensive treatment for these conditions, are you satisfied to just let the market write them all of them off as "uninsurable" because they get in the way of profits and leave it at that?

No, I hope it doesn’t get to that. But people needing health care is a market, after all. There may be different ways to satisfy the demand than relying on the current paradigm.

I remember reading about doctors in the US who don’t have malpractice insurance. It wasn’t that they couldn’t get it, it’s just that it was too expensive. Not from any wrong doing on their part either. They can’t be part of hospitals with out Malpractice insurance. You know what they’re doing? Charging 20- 30 dollars (cash) for office visits and having the patients sign waivers. Guess who’s able to afford office visits now? This couldn’t have been done under a government controlled system. It can’t innovate like a market can.

#53724: — 12/13 at 05:55 PM
"We really don't have to worry. Unless you're saying you know of a reason that people will pass up good paying jobs in the future? Please let us know what it is."

Oh yes, I DO know of a reason. I actually know of several.

Have you heard of the concept of a "barrier to entry"? Markets naturally will create them, as they increase the profits of those already in the market, by reducing competition.

A doctor requires several years of medical school to acquire the necessary skills. This requires a LOT of money. People who want to make money do not always have enough money to spend to become a doctor, or a lawyer, or any other high-paying job.

And yes, we don't have a pure market. We never will, because pure markets mean the limited number of people in a position of advantage will control everything - and if it's not profitable to allow the majority enough food to eat, then people starve.
A pure market is antiethical to democracy.

#53736: — 12/13 at 11:22 PM
Licensing, inspection requirements, taxes and fees, bureaucratic red tape, and monopolies are just some of the ways governments can prevent someone from entering a market. Yes, businesses try to create barriers to increase profits. But governments create barriers on a whim.

We never will, because pure markets mean the limited number of people in a position of advantage will control everything - and if it's not profitable to allow the majority enough food to eat, then people starve.

You must have mistyped that first part, governments try to control everything.
I can only think the second part of that means you’ve taken leave of your senses.

I’m trying to imagine that world where markets allow people to starve. Where it’s profitable to allow the majority to starve, no less. And the business have set it up so no one can grow food. And only the rich can afford food. I can’t imagine it. You’ll have to help me out here.

A market is where people buy goods and services. It could be a market place or just a general description of the industry. (Automobile market, health care market, food market) So, you’re saying it’s in a markets best interest to shut buyers out of it?

I think you see boogey men where none exist.

#53737: — 12/13 at 11:23 PM
Re: Humans are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species.

"Nate said: So what HalF and Graeme W are saying is that, in a BIOLOGY textbook, the statement has to be modified so the children understand that it is in reference to biology and not some existential truth being expounded."

It is precisely because it is in a biology textbook that it should be modified. It is, if accurately quoted, poorly written and makes a philosophical claim that science is unable to decide. It crosses the line from methodological naturalism into philosophical naturalism.
I'm a philosophical naturalist and personally agree with the statement. But there are other philosophical systems that would interpret the fact of common descent differently.

I think PZ's rephrasing of it to "nothing exceptional in the biology of a human" is much to be preferred. It sticks to the facts and allows others the freedom to decide how to incorporate those facts into their own philosophical views.

#53740: — 12/14 at 01:47 AM
Read up on regulatory capture sometime.

Also, yes, it is in the interests of some markets to shut out some buyers.
A pure market only works if a couple conditions hold.

These conditions include:
1) All participants have the same amount of information. (Not skills, but information.)
2) All participants are fully rational.
3) Prices are fully elastic.
4) There are no barriers to entry.

Not a single one of those conditions holds in reality.

There are always barriers to entry.

And you can't envision a situation wherein it would be impossible for the average citizen to grow food? What if all the fertile land were already owned, and wasn't for sale for the price the average citizen had to pay?

Now yes, I was being a bit hyperbolic - but it remains true that IF such a situation were to the advantage of the people with the majority of the money (which is a hyper-minority of the population, remember, and probably always will be due to the power curve nature of the high end of the money distribution), then it would happen.

And it's definitely not in their interests for everyone to be able to eat - it's also not in their interests for everyone to be able to work. Unemployment forces the price of labor to the commodity level, which means all the power is in the hands of the few who have capital.

And if you think it's in the interests of, say, the fast food industry to allow everyone to eat, you're insane.

Governments regulate, yes, but regulation isn't the only barrier to entry.
There are plenty of markets you couldn't enter without advertisement. There are also markets that couldn't exist without regulation - how, precisely, would radio survive as a market without governmental protection against interference?

I also find it comical you seem to think an uncontrolled market achieves a state of near-perfection, while simultaneously believing evolution, which has the advantage of neither having to achieve perfection to fit the criteria of "working" nor the disadvantage of having obvious failures in the past. (Ever hear of robber barons? Is there a reason you don't live in a third world country with no functional government at all, if governments can do no good?)

#53746: — 12/14 at 10:37 AM
"It crosses the line from methodological naturalism into philosophical naturalism."

I do not see any observational difference between the two statements (same evolutionary mechanisms vs same biological mechanisms).

Neither is about philosophy since they are both readily observable.

By the same token they are both true. So if one wants to say that human differs in some essential aspect, one has a lot of work to do, ie come up with strong and reaptable experiments with positive results. The chance for that is IMO nil.

#53751: — 12/14 at 12:39 PM
I can always use a new economic term. I was familiar with the concept of “regulatory capture” but wasn’t aware they had a term for it. Interesting that you brought it up because that could be used to argue both our points. You say capitalists are evil because they thwart the regulation, I can say government regulation is evil because it lends itself to thwarting. When you regulate an industry you’ve got to have insiders to know what policies to set. What would you know about the flux capacitor market if Doc Brown didn’t help you out?

I’m not against all regulation. I think it should be limited.

I don’t know what orifice you got your list to describe how a “pure” market works, but it’s wrong. I think it’s a straw man. I can think of a “pure” market, it’s called a “flea market”. Do all participants have the same information? Not needed. All participants are fully rational? Unless you count the cat-lady selling catnip as fully rational. Prices are fully elastic. You should see the dickering. No barriers to entry unless you can’t afford the stall fee.

And if you think it's in the interests of, say, the fast food industry to allow everyone to eat, you're insane.

You’re still stuck on that.

There are also markets that couldn't exist without regulation - how, precisely, would radio survive as a market without governmental protection against interference?

You got me there. But this market is special because you have a limited public resource, radio frequency bandwidth, that needs to be allocated. This is one way to do it.

I also find it comical you seem to think an uncontrolled market achieves a state of near-perfection, while simultaneously believing evolution,

No, I don’t think they’re nirvana, but I don’t think they should be over-regulated.

(Ever hear of robber barons? Is there a reason you don't live in a third world country with no functional government at all, if governments can do no good?)

Be careful about buying in to the “Robber baron” meme. The term was used to sell newspapers. It wasn’t 100% accurate. Third world countries do have governments don’t you know. They are extremely corrupt.

#53776: — 12/14 at 06:37 PM
"There are also markets that couldn't exist without regulation - how, precisely, would radio survive as a market without governmental protection against interference?"

Why can't you substitute 'regulation' with 'policing' here? If someone owns a piece of bandwith in one area, interference should be interpreted as damaging property.

The difference would be, I think, that you need no specific regulation and less bureaucracy. Instead you need a market, records of ownership and giving the judicial system more resources (which could be payed by a market fee/tax). It would also constitute a move from central to distributed managing, which should mean smaller, faster and potentially more democratic structures.

#53779: — 12/14 at 08:18 PM
Torbjorn: And who, precisely, decides who should own a frequency in the first place?

Nature: Yes, I'm aware that (some) third world countries have governments. Did you notice the word "functional"?

Also, yes, a flea market is a pretty good instance of a pure market.
And actually, on the scale of a flea market, most participants are comparatively rational, in the technical economic sense. Nobody's compelled to participate, for one thing.
That said... do you really think you can apply the principles of a flea market, to, say, the computer hardware industry? I mean ... come on, now.

And you completely missed my point with regulatory capture. My point is not that "capitalists are evil" - indeed, I think that within the limits of the system, the actual participants are not evil at all, although they are quite selfish. My point with regulatory capture is that given how the influence of money weakens regulations ... how much worse would the influence of money be WITHOUT regulations?

#53780: — 12/14 at 09:55 PM
It is easy to think of markets that select against people eating.

The eviction of the Highland crofters to make way for sheepwalks is one; slave markets are another.

And the African slave trade in the early 18th century was as pure a market as any flea market ever was.

#53783: — 12/14 at 11:35 PM
do you really think you can apply the principles of a flea market, to, say, the computer hardware industry? I mean ... come on, now.

The computer hardware industry is a very competitive market. You can tell that by the high number of participants even though most have razor thin profit margins. I can’t think of many exclusive regulations that effect it. It’s a global market. Computer hardware per se is a wide market that includes computers, memory, hard drives and peripherals. What are the barriers to entry for this market? Nothing particularly special as I see it. It’s a very technical industry. Someone would have to have determination and capital. The capital they can borrow from banks or venture capitalists. The determination is their own. I’m not saying it’s easy, but the evidence of the constant influx of participants means these barriers are often surmounted.

…how much worse would the influence of money be WITHOUT regulations?

WHAT would the money influence if there were NO regulations? You know what I’m getting at? So instead of regulations, the market vendors have all this extra money. I would think they would use the money on their businesses or give it back to the shareholders.

Have you read up on regulation of the trucking industry? ( History of Trucking regulation ) It gave the ICC “ the authority to regulate motor carriers and drivers involved in interstate commerce by controlling operating permits, approving trucking routes, and the setting of tariff rates. The theory was that this prevented large shippers from receiving an unfair trade advantage due to lower freight costs from volume discounts.” Part of the theory was concerned with “economy of scale” that every other industry uses. Now that the industry is non-regulated (in these areas) has this perceived “unfair” trade hurt anyone? I think this is similar to your concerns.

#53784: — 12/14 at 11:54 PM
It is easy to think of markets that select against people eating.
The eviction of the Highland crofters to make way for sheepwalks is one; slave markets are another.
It was very interesting reading up on the Highland crofters. I don’t think you can blame that on markets though. There was the potato famine at that time, influx of soldiers from the wars, trade barriers. I don’t want to be seen as lax on slavery in this crowd, but I can’t see how a starving slave can be marketed very well.

Page 3 of 4 pages « First < 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