Lawrence Krauss - Seducing for Science
December 28th, 2007
Lawrence M. Krauss is Ambrose Swasey Professor of Physics, Prof of Astronomy, and Director of the Center for Education and Research in Cosmology and Astrophysics at Case Western Reserve University. The author of 7 popular books including international bestseller, The Physics of Star Trek, and the award winning, Atom, and his newest book, Hiding in the Mirror: The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions from Plato to String Theory and Beyond, Krauss is also a regular radio commentator and essayist for newspapers such as the New York Times, and appears regularly on television. He is the only physicist to have been awarded the highest awards of the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics, and is a Fellow of the American Physical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has been particularly active leading the effort to defend the teaching of science in public schools, and to help define the proper limits of both science and religion, as well as defending scientific integrity in government. His essay in the New York Times on Evolution and Intelligent Design in May 2005 helped spur a recent controversy that has helped refine the Catholic Church’s position on evolution.
In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Lawrence Krauss discusses the role scientists should serve in our society. He also details the sorry state of scientific literacy in America today, as well as some strategies for confronting the problem. He makes a case for why learning the methods and outlook of science is important in our democracy, even if it undermines society’s basic beliefs about religion or the paranormal. And he challenges Richard Dawkins’ methods of communicating the implications of science, even while applauding Dawkins for defending the place of the nonreligious in society.
Toward the end Krauss and DJ talk about Richard Dawkins’ impact and mention a debate the two once had. Krauss cautions that as a writer and teacher he is fully aware that “What I say and what people hear are two different things.” And DJ concurrs, saying that one should strive to avoid being misunderstood.
Unfortunately, this is a biggie. Anyone who has ever discussed things with deeply religious people has probably had this experience. (I should add that this is a general phenomenon, not confined to religious people).
How do we deal with that? Anyone here has an elderly mother or mother in law whose biggest talent is to misconstrue banal and harmless acts or words as mortal insults directed at her?
There are people who are incapable of engaging in an argument - especially one that hits close to home - without distorting what they heard.
Does it make sense to water down, disguise, sweeten an issue just so you get a feeble shot at “reaching” such people?
I’m not so sure.
In some ways, however, this is a mute point because there will always be many voices advancing our arguments, some conciliatory, some acidic, some - wishy washy. I just hope they have substance.
Perhaps we need a new book series: Secular Humanism for Wussies.
Furthermore, the discussion styles differ in countries. In Britain or France, in my experience, bluntness is nothing that would disqualify you, but look at the way Democrats have ‘defended’ themselves against filthy, evil campaigns of lies and innuendo. Swiftboating is now a verb! And yet, the campaign advisers felt that their constituents would hold it against the attacked if he so much as raised his voice. ‘It wouldn’t be polite’.
Lawrence Krauss - Seducing for Science
December 28th, 2007
. . . And he challenges Richard Dawkins’ methods of communicating the implications of science, even while applauding Dawkins for defending the place of the nonreligious in society. . . .Toward the end Krauss and DJ talk about Richard Dawkins’ impact . . . [agreeing that] one should strive to avoid being misunderstood.
Unfortunately, this is a biggie. Anyone who has ever discussed things with deeply religious people has probably had this experience. (I should add that this is a general phenomenon, not confined to religious people).
The interlocutors are worried about dawkins, so it’s interesting that you turned it around to the other side. You’re right, it is a general problem; But Dawkins (and Dennet, and Owen Flanagan, and Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, and so on) are belligerent and obviously enjoy a fight, they style themselves as experts, and they are allegedly to be held to some code of teacherly professionalism too - at least Dawkins and Dennett and Flanagan, who are professors and teachers, or were at one time.
But why be vague? Look through the first 40 pp of *The God Delusion*. There’s the multiple ‘I’ statements (evidence a man is full of himself); name-dropping of honored and conveniently dead people (look for ex his reference of Sagan), the straw-man arguments he *sometimes* corrects later on - so he gets the pleasure of using an axe, then occasionally apologizes to the majority of intelligent religious who got axed unjustly. Sometimes we have had to wait for him to admit this in a later interview. And then he does it again! His website - his official one - has the old man striking heroic poses, which look a lot like Prez Bush with ‘victory’ and flags floating behind him. He and this crew savage people who are their allies with them on major and important issues - Stephen Jay Gould comes to mind, who’s been in the targets of Dawkins and Dennett for decades, even after death, and who’s done more paleontology than both of them combined, and who’s spread more evolutionary theory better than either of them.
Hm. This criticism isn’t about his content - not about his actual arguments, w/ all the hype and mean-spiritedness boiled off. it’s about his style. It is not a good guide to conversing with others. He’s not someone to *emulate*. Is it any surprise people get riled hearing him? Would you stand for it if you were on the other end? Should you stand for it?
Is there *good* excuse for the way he and the others mentioned write? They’re *supposed* to be professionals - I’m very sorry if Dr. Dawkins is hard-pressed by nutters, but his style is hardly professional, and doubtfully useful to changing people’s minds. Altho I doubt that religious fundamentalists really annoy him - he’s rather like the man who beats unpleasant children at checkers, and then crows about it later.
How do we deal with that? Anyone here has an elderly mother or mother in law whose biggest talent is to misconstrue banal and harmless acts or words as mortal insults directed at her?
There are people who are incapable of engaging in an argument - especially one that hits close to home - without distorting what they heard.
If you like the person, you’ll be patient. You’ll pick your fights; suggest where you might be able to push, and push where you might be able to ‘beat’ the other guy. You’ll stop arguing for a while if she doesn’t get something; you’ll reconsider what your own words might mean. You’ll use the principle of charity as applied to dialogue: assume that she knows how to reason, and that her mistake is only factual or conceptual. You’ll work hard. Dawkins long ago stopped working hard. He got tired and maybe a bit bitter - it happens when you have year after year of having to do exactly the same thing, over and over (intellectual production-line work is a good way to describe teaching as a career). He’s an old man now, and he’s had a long run, so it’s no bad reflection that he’s gotten tired.
Does it make sense to water down, disguise, sweeten an issue just so you get a feeble shot at “reaching” such people?
That’s a curious way of putting it. All those terms sin against the principle of charity. Some people need each step of the proof laid out. ‘Sweeten’ suggests Dawkins isn’t being actively *sour*. The material is hard enough without using a spiked club. If you cannot oblige with digging out the particular error of your opponent, then you’re not ready to argue with that particular person. No big deal tho. It’s just not your turn today.
Dawkin’s and Hitchens’ style may be culturally on-spot, but that’s irrelevant to how to change people’s minds. What catches more flies?
As for being ‘polite’ or not on TV: show me the millions who learned how to argue about science, ethics, free-will and the like from TV. It’s *TV*. Dawkins knows how to really argue a point. He just doesn’t care to do it the right way anymore, perhaps out of disgust with the usual crowd who oppose him.
Sorry, you hit a nerve. None of this opposes his content, just his style. I’d say, go back to reading Russell (for athiest-friendly philosophy) and Stephen Jay Gould (for the paleontology and evolution); then go forward and read Sobel’s articles, and books by Michael Ruse (Rethinking Darwin, i think is the title), Alan Gibbard (Thinking How to Live, a full take on non-realistic morals), Kornblith (on ‘naturlizing epistemology), Bonjour (who once was a naturalist about knowledge, but changed his mind). I’m sure Doug has an even better list. The *early* books of Dawkins aren’t so mean-spirited.
How about we start recommending books that do the same work as Dawkins without the nasty style?
How about we start recommending books that do the same work as Dawkins without the nasty style?
I heartily agree with this suggestion! I am a newcomer to the atheist/secular worldview (relatively), and feel a huge difference when listening to someone like Dawkins, compared to the Ann Druyan interview on this site. I really like both, actually, but only as something to listen to. I personally at this point, try very hard not to talk to people the way Dawkins does - I would be very lonely. But I love the authors and speakers who inspire me in my worldview because of the view itself, without having to call Christians non-sensical and disillusioned. This is how we referred to atheists when we were in church! When I first started exploring this world view, I remember thinking - “Really? Is this all it is, I’ve just changed sides? Saying all the same things but just from the other side of the fence… how pointless”.
That said, I do really love outspoken people who do not care what will be thought by others about their style, words, etc. I absolutely love Madonna, and people like her who are willing to get out there and stir the pot even if it looks totally ridiculous to some, and maybe even most - it’s nonetheless inspiring to others in a different sort of way. But at the same time, she is not a particular role model for me in the same way that Dawkins is not - excpet for that I want to be abandoned and passionate about who I am and what I believe in the same way that they are,,, but staying true to my own personality.
Why limit the style of discussion to one type? A blunt style will appeal to some people and a gentle style will appeal to others. Some people want a high-level overview. Others want detailed evidence. There’s room for various styles (as long as the content has substance).
I am intrigued by moreover’s suggestion that cultural factors may also have significance here. Do British listeners find Dawkins to be harsh?
Why limit the style of discussion to one type? A blunt style will appeal to some people and a gentle style will appeal to others. Some people want a high-level overview. Others want detailed evidence. There’s room for various styles (as long as the content has substance).
Yeah, exactly. Even if it isn’t my style, I enjoy listening to those personalities quite different from my own for saying what I wouldn’t say. It would just be nice to be aware of some of the ‘nicer’ guys/gals out there educating on this stuff, if for no other reason than that I would have someone to recommend to others that are especially sensitive and will just shut out anything slightly offensive to them in tone. And also to change it up a little to counteract cynicism when it creeps in to dominate the way I view the world and my fellow creatures.
Why limit the style of discussion to one type? A blunt style will appeal to some people and a gentle style will appeal to others. Some people want a high-level overview. Others want detailed evidence. There’s room for various styles (as long as the content has substance).
Yeah, exactly. Even if it isn’t my style, I enjoy listening to those personalities quite different from my own for saying what I wouldn’t say. It would just be nice to be aware of some of the ‘nicer’ guys/gals out there educating on this stuff, if for no other reason than that I would have someone to recommend to others that are especially sensitive and will just shut out anything slightly offensive to them in tone. And also to change it up a little to counteract cynicism when it creeps in to dominate the way I view the world and my fellow creatures.
When I think of someone with a “gentler” approach, I think first of Carl Sagan. I just did a quick search at Amazon and found a book with the title The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God. Although I haven’t read it, the description and the reviews make me think this might be one option to investigate. The list of books I’ve read on this topic is admittedly short, so perhaps someone else can provide an author/title?
Barbara, as it happens Ann Druyan talked about that very book by her late husband Carl Sagan (it was published posthumously from long lost manuscripts) right here on POI, a very worthwhile show.
As for your earlier point: about different styles for different people. That is correct. Educational psychology latches on to empirical evidence with regard to different learning styles more and more.
The problem that my respondent addressed was that some styles, like Dawkins’, are unlikely to persuade or convince anyone, and that given his prominence, he’d well advised to change his act.
But persuasion is not typically what academics are good at, or have any training to do. And Dawkins was a prodigy who became famous at age 27, that probably did a number on his already highly developed self esteem.
I recently listened to the God Delusion on CD (having read it when it first came out). I like it and take occasional diabolic pleasure from passages that take no prisoners.
That said, I do hope other authors advance similar argument in a way that is more palatable, and I’ll certainly grab some of the books that my respondent mentioned.
But one last thing: I’m all for triage. There is a huge segment of society that we will never reach. Period. They are full of it - their irrational ideology. They have their own media, their own schools, their own books, their own enclaves. Screw them. Don’t waste your breath except for practice purposes or to gather information on them.
Then there’s another huge segment of moderates who are philosophically lazy. They may claim to believe but often they only believe that they believe.
What are the chances that some wishy washy ‘sermon’ shakes them up to make changes? Probably not high. But a bombshell dropped by Dawkins may just be capable of cracking their cocoon. Because once you stop making excuses for the awful bibles, once you start realizing that a father figure god who has a plan for everybody that is indistinguishable from shit happening without cause or merit, you are one step further to realize that the Deist god who got the universe started and has not intervened since is morally irrelevant. Whether or not such an act or entity happened, nothing follows from it.
Then you are free.
In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Lawrence Krauss discusses the role scientists should serve in our society. He also details the sorry state of scientific literacy in America today, as well as some strategies for confronting the problem. He makes a case for why learning the methods and outlook of science is important in our democracy, even if it undermines society’s basic beliefs about religion or the paranormal.
At the beginning of this podcast, and also within it, there is reference to Professor Krauss’ WSJ op-ed and the ScienceDebate2008 topic. We discussed this a little on another thread below
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/3437/
I think science and technology are important to the country’s future, but I think this is just one feature we are looking for in the election.
Krauss and D.J. raise a lot of great points in this interview and one of interest is the complicated fallacy that all scientific or pseuo-scientific positions deserve an equal hearing in the spirit of a democracy. I would like to see some of the candidates coached away from this view. However, we see it not just in politics but also in the courts, where both sides bring expert witnesses to argue persuasively that science supports ‘their side’. Krauss is a very good writer and perhaps at some point he could help clarify the distinction between science forever allowing new information to challenge the status quo, and this notion that
‘science’ is not democratic…
Barbara, as it happens Ann Druyan talked about that very book by her late husband Carl Sagan (it was published posthumously from long lost manuscripts) right here on POI, a very worthwhile show.
I wonder if that was the one show I missed. One of her interviews had poor audio quality and I couldn’t hear her comments well enough, so I skipped it. (It’s the only show I’ve missed!)
As for your earlier point: about different styles for different people. That is correct. Educational psychology latches on to empirical evidence with regard to different learning styles more and more.
The problem that my respondent addressed was that some styles, like Dawkins’, are unlikely to persuade or convince anyone, and that given his prominence, he’d well advised to change his act.
In my opinion, I wouldn’t advise that he “change his act”. He certainly won’t persuade some people. Maybe, as you say, he is unlikely to persuade anyone (though I suspect there are a small number of fence-sitters who actually are persuaded, based on my perusal of the book reviews at amazon.com). However, there are people like me who don’t really need to be persuaded, but who are instead inspired by his talks and writing and who, as a result, want to learn more in order to someday (perhaps more gently) persuade others.
I recently listened to the God Delusion on CD (having read it when it first came out). I like it and take occasional diabolic pleasure from passages that take no prisoners.
I’m listening to it now too and enjoying it very much.
Furthermore, the discussion styles differ in countries. In Britain or France, in my experience, bluntness is nothing that would disqualify you, but look at the way Democrats have ‘defended’ themselves against filthy, evil campaigns of lies and innuendo. Swiftboating is now a verb! And yet, the campaign advisers felt that their constituents would hold it against the attacked if he so much as raised his voice. ‘It wouldn’t be polite’.
D.J. asked something like why scientists, secularlists, and rational people are typically Democrats. There is some diversity as well as [demogoguery] in both parties.
Perhaps the fact that I am a high school physics teacher and an avid reader of the writings of Lawrence Krauss makes what he says resonate so well with my point of view. My goal with my students is to get them to adopt a skeptical approach to investigating scientific claims made by both scientists and non-scientists. I teach skepticism as a method of investigation and warn against approaching investigations from a dogmatic position. Of course, being a public school teacher, I actually have to disguise what I’m putting forth for fear that some religious fanatic will try and get me fired. I simply tell the kids that when someone makes a claim, check the evidence and then I point out what constitutes evidence and warn against logical fallacies. I never mention “the skeptical movement” or “secular humanism,” but I do point out that science is based on evidence and religion is based on faith. I know when I’ve got through to them when they, without any prompting from me, tell me that they’re just not buying the claims about the paranormal, hyped commercial products, John Edwards and intelligent design, but that they remain open to compelling evidence. That is the kind of thinking in which the average voter needs to be proficient and I applaud the efforts of those like Krauss as well as Dawkins in promoting such thinking. I also applaud the efforts of CFI and the producers of Point of Inquiry for doing the same.
Maybe this is the wrong discussion to bring this up, but it seems somewhat relevent. I was just chatting with a friend about global warming and she is attending a local university where she says she is being taught that global warming is simply not true. Her professor believes and teaches that temperatures climb and fall in bits resembling a Christmas tree type shape - so temperatures climb for a few decades or centuries, I’m not sure which, drop for one or so decades/centuries - peak - and then drop for a few centuries/decades, climb for one, etc. And we are in the middle of a number of decades where there is a slight increase, but overall, going down the one side of the christmas tree if that makes sense. And christmas tree isn’t the exact right shape, because there are inclines and declines on both sides - does this make sense? Either way, she is also teaching that 30 years ago, scientists were predicting an ice age, not a global warming. I find this so bizarre, that one university professor is claiming an opposite view to the vast majority of scientists. She is teaching a course in basic science and my friend is working on her degree to become an elementary school teacher.
This seems like such a prime example of students being taught that science is a political/controversial type discussion. But at the University level it seems quite strange to me.
This seems like such a prime example of students being taught that science is a political/controversial type discussion. But at the University level it seems quite strange to me.
Thoughts?
I have to assume this teacher gets her information from conservative news outlets, and likely is quite conservative herself, since she seems to be swallowing the industry-fed smokescreen on global warming. What is she a professor of? And what university does she teach at?
I can understand someone saying that the evidence is somewhat murky at this point, and that there may be a certain amount of error in the predictions. But to go beyond that is IMO unwarranted.
Incidentally there is no guarantee even at the best universities that you won’t have tenured professors who are off their rockers. It does happen. Even Harvard had John Mack and his UFO abduction theories ...
This seems like such a prime example of students being taught that science is a political/controversial type discussion. But at the University level it seems quite strange to me.
Thoughts?
I have to assume this teacher gets her information from conservative news outlets, and likely is quite conservative herself, since she seems to be swallowing the industry-fed smokescreen on global warming. What is she a professor of? And what university does she teach at?
I can understand someone saying that the evidence is somewhat murky at this point, and that there may be a certain amount of error in the predictions. But to go beyond that is IMO unwarranted.
Incidentally there is no guarantee even at the best universities that you won’t have tenured professors who are off their rockers. It does happen. Even Harvard had John Mack and his UFO abduction theories ...
Krauss brought up this subject (of global warming and science in general ) so I think it fits. Global warming is an example where there is not unanimity of opinion, either on the cause or what to do about it. Even if a scientist agrees that the effect of humanity is what has caused global warming, it does not follow that all of the proposals for solving the problem are feasible. As to the cause, we have had “little ice ages” in the past, the Vikings did colonize Greenland, so this teacher’s ideas are not as outlandish as people living in a hollow earth or a denial that astronauts went to the moon. It might be an untimely combination of humanity’s effect plus a natural warming etc. But I think this teacher is way off base to just tell this one explanation no one has heard of.
Krauss did a pretty good job balancing the two features of science, that (a) anyone can challenge the status quo (unlike religion) and (b) the view of science eventually established by a consensus of scentists, providing some stability—the main point being that it is self-correcting.
I just finished listening to Krauss’s episode. He really needs to decide if he is going to be a “nice guy” or start making some sense. Half of the episode regarding science vs religion was just pure babble.
I just finished listening to Krauss’s episode. He really needs to decide if he is going to be a “nice guy” or start making some sense. Half of the episode regarding science vs religion was just pure babble.
Could you elaborate on what you found difficult to understand?
He really needs to decide if he is going to be a “nice guy” or start making some sense. Half of the episode regarding science vs religion was just pure babble.
