bookmark_borderTrumping Enlightenment Values

David Brooks is one of the few conservative pundits that I can read without nausea. He actually knows something and respects those Enlightenment ideals of free and open inquiry. Here is what he has to say about Enlightenment Values:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/28/opinion/the-enlightenment-project.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
As I see it, the lasting ideals of the Enlightenment are these:
 

  • Meliorism: Humans are not individually or collectively perfectible, but, through the conscientious and intelligent pursuit of human well-being we can make things better. The enemies of human happiness are what they have always been—ignorance, poverty, oppression, and injustice. We have already succeeded in eliminating some of the worst instances of these, at least in some places. The arc of history may not automatically bend towards justice, but we can make it bend that way.
  • Objectivity: Important questions are to be addressed using the most reliable and objective means of inquiry at our disposal. In other words, we practice and endorse the rigorous application of scientific and scholarly methods to arrive at truth. This means that we mistrust ideology and dogmas that dictate truth from a straitened or a priori perspective on reality. We are deeply skeptical of those who presume to speak for God or to possess esoteric knowledge.
  • Democracy: Government exists for the sake of and by the consent of the governed (Locke). All forms of autocracy, oligarchy, or absolutism are rejected as illicit and are to be opposed by any means necessary (Locke). There must be rule of law, not of human beings, and so there must be effective checks and balances to prevent hegemony by any individual, sect, or party. The rights of individuals should be explicitly stated and always vigorously defended.

 
Trump especially offends against the second and third of these. He is a pathological liar with no respect for science or expertise. He makes no practical distinction between objective reality and the self-serving fantasies dictated by his monstrous ego. Further, he is a would-be autocrat. Whether he actively connived with Putin to subvert the election is not established. What is clear is that he regards Putin as a kindred spirit, as someone who enjoys the autocratic privileges to which he aspires. Louis the Fourteenth said “I am France.” Donald the First says “I alone can fix things.” Scary.
 

bookmark_borderThe Harm of Junk “Studies”

As a cat lover, this article from Huffington Post caught my eye:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cats-mental-illness-toxoplasma_us_58adc06ae4b03d80af714072?
The “study” debunked here is just one example of many, many such junk “studies” that come out all the time. This junk science does enormous harm. There are all sorts of ax-grinders that sit in waiting for some purportedly scientific “study” to confirm their obsessions. Then we never hear the end of it, even after the junk has been thoroughly debunked. Consider the harm done by that one published anti-vaccine article some years back. Repeatedly trashed, debunked, invalidated, and scorned, it is still doing damage. Really, there should be some way to hold “researchers” responsible who do sloppy, irresponsible, egregiously incompetent and damaging “studies.” Maybe the American Association for the Advancement of Science or some such organization should have an annual “Razzy”-type award for the worst, junkiest “study” published that year.

bookmark_borderMore Dangerous Silliness from the Religious Right

I just got this in a message from the Center for Inquiry about measures before the Florida Legislature:
“Legislation that would grant special privileges to religious beliefs in public schools has been introduced by Florida Rep. Kimberly Daniels (D-Jacksonville), and Sen. Dennis Baxely (R-Ocala).
The sponsors of the “Florida Student and School Personnel Religious Liberties Act” (HB 303 and SB 436) claim the measures would protect the religious liberty of students, parents, and teachers. In fact, the proposals would place religion on a pedestal, allowing students and teachers alike to turn the classroom into their pulpit.
These religious privilege bills could:

  • Allow teachers to promote religious viewpoints to students (for example, telling LGBTQ students they are destined for Hell);
  • Allow students to demand teachers grade science papers based on religious ideas as if those claims are as legitimate as those based on science and evidence (for example, that God created all life in its present form 6,000 years ago);
  • Undermine efforts to stop the bullying of marginalized students;
  • Pollute the teaching of basic science and history with dogma and myth; and
  • Sanction school-sponsored and teacher-led prayers and religious meetings.”

What is really disturbing about this silliness, besides the fact that it would make a mockery of the teaching of science and history, is how it perverts the idea of religious freedom. Freedom of religion means the freedom to follow your conscience without fear or favor from the government. It does not mean that you have the right to co-opt public institutions (e.g. public schools) or public employees (e.g. public school teachers) to inculcate or affirm your religious convictions, to tun the classroom into a pulpit as it says above. The freedom of religion is far too important to be trivialized in this way. Though the sponsors claim to support religious liberties, in fact they undermine them by equating them with such silliness as being allowed to say in science class that the world is 6000 years old or talk about the parting of the Red Sea in history class.
The obvious corollary to these measures is that a Muslim or Hindu student should also expect to be graded in accordance with the teachings of the Quran or the Mahabharata. It would be fun to see how this would turn out and how the sponsors of the bill would react to that result.
 

bookmark_borderIntelligent Design: Get ready for another round

President Trump’s choice for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, is very likely a supporter of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools. Her husband, Dick DeVos, ran for Governor of Michigan in 2006 and explicitly stated his support for ID ( http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/09/21/devos-and-intelligent-design/ ). It is not unlikely, then, that ID proponents will be emboldened to make a fresh push to include it in school science curricula.
A key strategic claim for ID proponents is that ID is not merely a repackaging of creationism.
“The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. “ (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php)
The unstated details of ID tell another story, however. Here is why:
Consider one of the favorite examples of ID proponents – the bacterial flagellum. Some bacteria have a little whip-like tail that allows them to propel themselves forward like a little motor. Distilled to its essential core, the ID claim is that it is massively improbable that such a structure could have come about by purely natural means. But it is at least less improbable that it should have come about by supernatural means (intelligent agency). The claim is usually made using the term “design.” But this avoids the question of how, exactly, the design is implemented. That is, if the bacterial flagellum begins as a design in the mind of an intelligent designer, how does the designer get the flagella into the world?
Since ID rejects the claim that there is any natural pathway from flagella-less to flagella-ed bacteria, there are only a few apparent options. The designer could simply create flagella-ed bacteria were before there were only flagella-less bacteria. Or, the designer could start with a population of flagella-less bacteria and then create, by supernatural intervention, flagella for them (“let these bacteria become flagella-ed!”) and simultaneously modify their DNA so that their descendants would also be flagella-ed. Or, the designer could start with a population of flagella-less bacteria and only modify their DNA so that their descendants would be flagella-ed. Each these options postulates a miraculous intervention. (I suppose that the second and third options might not fit a narrow enough definition of creationism, but positing miraculous intervention is close enough.)
We could design experimental protocols that would test for each of these options. For the first, we could set up some sterile pertinent dishes devoid of any bacteria and periodically check to see whether any flagella-ed bacteria had appeared in them. Preferably, we would hope for a previously unknown strain. This should not be too unreasonable an expectation on the ID view, since according to ID, history contains many many instances – perhaps millions – of complex structures appearing in the world as a result of intelligent intervention. Why think the designer has permanently rested and no longer implements intelligently designed organisms? True, there is the religious doctrine that God is the designer and rested after the 6th day, where perhaps “resting” could be interpreted as being permanently finished, but this would be scientifically ad hoc, and ID is supposed to be a scientific (not religious) hypothesis that doesn’t invoke religious doctrines.
Or, we could stock some petri dishes with flagella-less bacteria and watch them carefully to see whether they become spontaneously modified to have flagella or suddenly produce offspring with flagella. Oddly enough, this is actually how many people commonly understand (or rather misunderstand) the naturalistic story to go, when in fact the naturalistic story involves much more gradual changes over very long spans of time. But if such a thing were observed, we would have to choose which of several competing hypotheses was the most reasonable: (1) An extremely unlikely natural event happened, or (2) spontaneous mutations resulting in complex structures are far more likely than we had previously thought, or (3) intelligent agency (design) is responsible.
We are also supposed to impose probability estimates in isolation from what would surely be relevant teleological questions in the case of intelligent agency. So, for example, we are supposed to consider the relative probabilities that an intelligent designer is responsible for the complexity of bacterium B without also considering the probability that an intelligent designer (who may or may not be God) would be responsible for the fact that B causes extremely unpleasant death for many of those who end up being infected by it. So if one were to take the view that intelligence and morality are correlated (a position I am not arguing for but which does have a rich historical pedigree), then instances of moral neutral or morally negative complexity would seem to count more strongly in favor of a naturalist explanation than an ID explanation. To those who say, “I don’t know who or what the designer is, but whatever it is must be intelligent” it seems fair to reply “I don’t know who or what the designer is, but whatever it is must be morally disinterested in what this complex bacterium actually does when let loose in the world.”
Of course, the strongest pushback of all against the ID strategy is to provide empirical evidence showing that (and how) the highlighted instances of complexity very plausibly can be built up stepwise by naturalistic evolutionary processes. The more often scientists can respond to the examples trotted out by ID proponents and say, “Sure this could come about naturally. Here’s how…” the weaker the ID case becomes.

bookmark_borderAnnouncing New Blog: “Opposing Trump”

I’m going to be spending less time blogging about the philosophy of religion in order to spend more time blogging about President Trump.
Since one can be a consistent atheist and a Republican–see, e.g., Robert Price–I am not going to mix anti-Trump politics with the atheistic focus of the Secular Outpost. Instead, I have decided to create a new blog which I am calling Opposing Trump, a new team blog which will feature writers from a broad spectrum of viewpoints, from atheist to Christian and from Libertarian to DemocratIf you’re interested in reading this new blog you can find it here:
https://opposingtrumpblog.wordpress.com/blog/
 

bookmark_borderA Qualified Defense of Contempt

I was pleasantly surprised to see an op/ed by a professional philosopher in Sunday’s (1/29) Houston Chronicle. Karen Stohr’s essay “Our new age of contempt is on full display,” was first published in the New York Times. Stohr is an associate professor of philosophy at Georgetown and a senior research scholar at Georgetown’s Kennedy Center for Ethics. Professional philosophers, like other academics, tend to communicate eagerly with their peers, less eagerly with students, and less eagerly still with the general public. This is too bad since the role of the public intellectual is a vital one.
Stohr argues that in the 2016 presidential election, contempt for the opposing candidate and his or her supporters became mainstream, no longer expressed privately, but blared across television, social media, and the Internet. Messages of vicious contempt even festoon wearing apparel (e.g., a T-shirt worn by one attendee at a Trump campaign rally: “Reporter, rope, tree. Some assembly required.”). Stohr argues that such pervasive and strident expressions of disdain are dangerous:
“…it [public expressions of contempt] threatens the foundations of our political community by denying the central moral idea on which that community is based—that everyone has a right to basic respect as a human being.”
The cure is not to return contempt for contempt, but to repudiate it entirely:
“The only real defense against contempt is the consistent strong and loud insistence that each one of us be regarded as a full participant in our shared political life, entitled to hold all others accountable for how we are treated.”
What makes contempt so dangerous? Stohr distinguishes between contempt and anger. Anger is directed at some specific action, aspect, or attitude of a person; contempt rejects the whole person. Even the most devoted couples are sometimes angry with each other. However, marriage counselors say that when genuine contempt crops up between spouses, a marriage has little chance of lasting. When you disdain someone you dehumanize and objectify that person, Stohr argues. You no longer regard him or her as a moral agent to be rationally engaged, but as an object to be scorned or an obstacle to be overcome. In a political context, you no longer regard the ones you scorn as fellow citizens, united, despite disagreements, in pursuit of common good, and approachable in good faith through open dialogue and debate. On the contrary, you despise them, and only want to see them beaten.
But why can’t those who have been the objects of contempt simply reciprocate the attitude? Why, for instance, should not refugees, immigrants, or transgender persons simply return the disdain in full measure towards those who have disdained them? Stohr argues that the contempt of the powerful is powerful, while the contempt of the powerless is negligible. To return contempt for contempt is a battle that the marginalized cannot win, and so they only hurt themselves if, by engaging in expressions of contempt, they help to legitimize such discourse. As Stohr puts it:
“In an environment where contempt is an acceptable language of communication, those who already lack social power stand to lose the most by being its targets.”
Don’t start a game of cat and mouse if you are the mouse.
So, reciprocation is not a winning strategy for those who have been marginalized by contempt. At a deeper level, as noted above, the expression of contempt in a public context is intrinsically objectionable. If we truly believe in democratic process in which all are to have a voice, then we will not use disdainful language to dismiss anyone from that process; rather, we will insist that all be included as participants. Therefore, Stohr says that we must work to banish all public expressions of contempt:
“Contemptuous political discourse, with its pernicious effects on mutual respect, should never have become mainstream. For the good of our country, we must make every effort to push it back to the shadows where it belongs.”
Disdainful language should be eliminated from public discourse and we should insist on respect for all.
All? Really? What about the white supremacists that scurried out of the woodwork in the wake of Trump’s election? We should express no contempt for these individuals (as I just did by implicitly comparing them to cockroaches scurrying out of the woodwork)? While I am absolutely as appalled as Stohr at the utter lack of civility often displayed in this last election season—typified by Trump’s mockery of disabled reporter Serge Kovalesky—I think that her eliminativist position goes too far. I hold this for three reasons: (1) It is impractical. (2) Contempt, in the form of mockery, ridicule, or satire is in fact a very effective weapon for good. (3) The truly contemptible have dehumanized themselves; in their disdain for basic human decency and respect they have disqualified themselves from the context of civil and rational discourse.
(1) Stohr seems to hold that expressions of contempt should be like discussions of sex between proper Victorians. Such discourse was to be conducted sotto voce behind locked doors so as not to scandalize the servants. It is OK to tell my wife, e.g., exactly what I think of Donald Trump, but not to post it in a context such as this.
It is indeed regrettable that the private/public distinction has so far decayed in our day, largely due to ubiquitous access to social media and the Internet. The nature of these media are such that they obviate the inhibitions that have long surrounded face-to-face communication. For instance, people responding to each other in online comments boxes regularly abuse and insult each other in the harshest terms, frequently using language not printable in a family newspaper. One may surmise that most of those who write thus scurrilously would never be so nasty in a FTF setting—if only because it might get them a knuckle sandwich. Inhibitions about revealing personal feelings in public have also atrophied.
Add to this the palpable coarsening of our public culture over the years. On a trip to the mall you can hear teenage girls using language that sixty years ago would have made a sailor blush. There are some cable TV programs that would have no dialogue at all if not for the “F” word. Again, one may regret these developments, but such regret does not return the genie to the bottle. Stohr’s admonitions to play nice might have been effective when conversations were held in drawing rooms between ladies and gentlemen, but now it seems far too little and far too late. We live in an age where harsh, bitter, and derisive comment is the norm.
We can (and should) individually resolve to rise above this abysmal norm in our communications, but the idea that decency will break out all over in the foreseeable future seems far-fetched. I devoutly hope for a return to a modicum of civility in our public discourse, and maybe this is all that Stohr really wants, rather than the unrealistic idea that the language of contempt can somehow be “pushed back to the shadows.” A more feasible aim would be to establish islands of civility in the seas of hostility, and work over time to increase the number and size of these islands. There is no question that the volume of vicious contempt in current public discourse is dangerous. When we cannot talk to each other, soon we fight.  However, it is not clear that the total elimination of contemptuous discourse is desirable, even if possible.
(2) In 2008 a distinct danger threatened The Republic. For some reason, Republican presidential candidate John McCain, a person capable of rational thought and sound judgment, picked Sarah Palin as his running mate. Palin, woefully vacuous and unqualified, would, if elected, have stood only a heartbeat away from the presidency. However, it was our very good fortune that talented comedian Tina Fey was a dead-ringer for Palin, and Fey’s wickedly effective impersonation on Saturday Night Live was both very funny (“And now I will entertain you with some fancy pageant walking…”) and right on the money. No editorializing by The New York Times or MSNBC would have been nearly as effective in revealing Palin’s inanity and incapacity. One horse-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms, as H.L. Mencken observed.
We do not know if Fey’s brilliant satire was instrumental in the defeat of the McCain/Palin ticket in ’08. (Alec Baldwin’s equally devastating portrayal of Trump, was, alas, clearly not sufficiently effective.) However, the self-important, the self-righteous, and the powerful always fear becoming the object of derisive laughter. The one thing that anyone who wants your respect cannot afford is be made to look ridiculous. Nothing punctures pomposity or pretension, or shines a brighter light on the squalid motives behind self-justifying rhetoric than trenchant satire. Satire does not tell us that someone is a hypocrite, fool, or rascal; it shows what they are and gives us that best of all laughs, the laugh that comes with the recognition of stark truth. Further, laughter gives you the courage and the hope needed to fight. No one trembles before a naked emperor.
And make no mistake, there is nothing nice about satire such as Fey’s and Baldwin’s. Such satire is ridicule. It holds its target up to derision. It is contemptuous. Can we have civility if we countenance such satire? I think so, if we follow some basic rules.
First, only satirize the powerful. Don’t make fun of the little guy. When it was learned that Trump’s election was largely due to rural whites, it was tempting to lampoon his supporters as rubes, rednecks, trailer trash, or slack-jawed yokels. Don’t. Lampooning big shots is a way of speaking truth to power; lampooning the little guy is only cheap and slimy. I loathed the scene in Bill Maher’s Religulous, where he ridicules a truck-stop chapel and its attendees. When an articulate, educated, and wealthy entertainer mocks the honest piety of simple people, he only debases himself.
Second, condemn in no uncertain terms any ridicule or derision directed by the powerful or privileged against the marginalized. When over-privileged white frat boys put on blackface and hold “ghetto” parties to ridicule inner-city black people, they are behaving contemptibly. Let one of those smartasses try to live in a mean-streets neighborhood, and suffer the thousand-and-one hassles inflicted on the poor, and let’s see how well he makes out.
Third, don’t ever make fun of something that somebody cannot help. If you laugh at ignorance, make sure it is the willful ignorance of the intelligent, not the ignorance that is imposed to oppress.
Finally, recognize that strong or even passionate disagreement is not a reason to disdain someone. Reasons and arguments that look knock-down to you will always appear weaker to someone with a different starting point. Also, mirabile dictu, you might be wrong. On most important issues rational disagreement is not only possible but to be expected.
3) Some people really are contemptible: The conman who cheats an elderly widow out of her life savings, leaving her destitute; a bishop who shields a pedophile priest, leaving him free to abuse again; a CEO that dismisses urgent safety concerns in favor of profits, resulting in the death or gruesome maiming of workers; educated, affluent, and articulate people who defend white supremacist or racist ideologies; demagogues who achieve power by cynically exploiting the fears, hatreds, ignorance, and prejudices of voters. Is it really desirable to be on civil terms with such persons? Some people do not deserve civility; they deserve contempt. We do not dehumanize such persons by regarding them with the contempt they deserve. They have already dehumanized themselves. By their monstrous callousness, utter selfishness, and disregard of the most basic principles of decency, they in effect remove themselves from the human moral community. For such persons, only the language of contempt serves to judge them fairly.
If, in our public discourse, we refrain from speaking of thoroughly contemptible persons in the language they deserve, and we do not also refrain from speaking about them at all, what do we say about them? Do we speak of them as merely misguided or oblivious? Do we say that they are well-intended but mistaken in how to achieve their laudable aims? Do we rebuke those who speak of them derisively? By our refusal of candor, how do we avoid appearing to extenuate contemptible behavior? True, there are times when excessive candor can be harmful. In a business meeting it is probably best to refrain from stating bluntly just how fatuous a colleague’s proposal sounds. Yet, there has to be a time and a place for candor, for calling things, and persons, by their correct names. Stohr would remove such candor from public discourse, and I see this as dangerous. My rule, then, is this: Start by treating everyone civilly. Continue to do so until they themselves reject civility by committing monstrously uncivil acts, and then speak of them as they deserve.