Locking yourself into error

I got in a rather interesting -- well, I suppose you could call it a "discussion" -- with a Trump supporter yesterday.

It came about because of recent posts here at Skeptophilia that have been pretty critical of the president, his appointees, and their decisions.  After a few minutes of the usual greetings and pleasantries ("You're a liberal lackey who sucks up what the lying mainstream media says without question!", stuff like that), I asked her what to me is the only pertinent question in such situations:

"What would it take to convince you that you are wrong?"

"I'm not wrong," she said.

"That's not what I asked," I responded.  "I asked what would it take to convince you that you are wrong.  About Donald Trump.  Or about anything."

"What would it take to convince you?" she shot back.

"Facts and evidence that my opinion was in error.  Or at least a good logical argument."

"People like you would never believe it anyway.  You're swallowing the lies from the media.  Thank God Donald Trump was elected despite people like you and your friends in the MSM."

"And you still haven't answered my question."

At that point, she terminated the conversation and blocked me.

Couple that with a second comment from a different person -- one I elected not to respond to, because eventually I do learn not to take the bait -- saying that of course I have a liberal bias "since I get my information from CNN," and you can see that the fan mail just keeps rolling in.

Of course, the question I asked the first individual isn't original to me; it was the single most pivotal moment in the never-to-be-forgotten debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye over the theory of evolution in February of 2014, in which the moderator asked each man what, if anything, would change his mind.  Nye said:

We would need just one piece of evidence.  We would need the fossil that swam from one layer to another.  We would need evidence that the universe is not expanding.  We would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but are not.  We would need evidence that rock layers could somehow form in just 4,000 years…  We would need evidence that somehow you can reset atomic clocks and keep neutrons from becoming protons.  Bring on any of those things and you would change me immediately.

Ham, on the other hand, gave a long, rambling response that can be summed up as "Nothing would change my mind.  No evidence, no logic, nothing."

The whole thing dovetails perfectly with a paper released just two days ago in the journal Political Psychology.  Entitled "Science Curiosity and Political Psychology," by Dan M. Kahan, Asheley Landrum, Katie Carpenter, Laura Helft, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the paper looks at the connection between scientific curiosity and a willingness to consider information that runs counter to one's own political biases and preconceived notions.  The authors write:

[S]ubjects high in science curiosity display a marked preference for surprising information—that is, information contrary to their expectations about the current state of the best available evidence—even when that evidence disappoints rather than gratifies their political predispositions.  This is in marked contrast, too, to the usual style of information-search associated with [politically-motivated reasoning], in which partisans avoid predisposition-threatening in favor of predisposition-affirming evidence. 

Together these two forms of evidence paint a picture—a flattering one indeed—of individuals of high science curiosity. In this view, individuals who have an appetite to be surprised by scientific information—who find it pleasurable to discover that the world does not work as they expected—do not turn this feature of their personality off when they engage political information but rather indulge it in that setting as well, exposing themselves more readily to information that defies their expectations about facts on contested issues.  The result is that these citizens, unlike their less curious counterparts, react more open-mindedly and respond more uniformly across the political spectrum to the best available evidence.

And maybe that's what's at the heart of all this.  I've always thought that the opposite of curiosity is fear -- those of us who are scientifically curious (and I will engage in a bit of self-congratulation and include myself in this group) tend to be less afraid about being found to be wrong, and more concerned with making sure we have all our facts straight.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

So I'll reiterate my question, aimed not only toward Trump supporters, but to everyone: what would it take to convince you that you are wrong?  About your political beliefs, religious beliefs, moral stances, anything?  It's a question we should keep in the forefront of our minds all the time.

Because once you answer that question with a defiant "nothing could convince me," you have effectively locked yourself into whatever errors you may have made, and insulated yourself from facts, logic, evidence -- and the truth.

Debate debacle

I have a particular aversion to seeing people humiliate themselves.  I remember as a kid watching sitcoms on television, and when I knew a character -- even one who richly deserved it -- was going to be put in an embarrassing situation, I often couldn't bear to watch it.

Still, there are certain exceptions.  I have to admit to experiencing an emotion that can only be described as "glee" when I heard that Sarah Palin was going to debate Bill Nye on the topic of climate change.

What, it wasn't bad enough that Ken Ham had his ass handed to him in a debate with Nye?  Ham at least is somewhat articulate, even if he doesn't seem to understand the concept of "evidence."  Palin, on the other hand, often seems to be speaking in some weird dialect that involves replacing every third word with a randomly chosen noun or verb.

Either that, or she does her speeches while drunk.

[image courtesy of the Wikimedia Commons]

So a Nye vs. Palin debate would basically be Godzilla vs. Daffy Duck.  It would be worth watching purely for the comedic value.

However, I did wonder what Nye thought he stood to gain by debating her.  When your opponent has a fourth grade vocabulary and thinks that saying "You betcha" followed by a finger-gun constitutes a valid talking point, there's nothing much you can do that will have any effect.  Especially given that the topic is science.

So it was with combined disappointment and relief -- along with saying, "Aha.  That makes better sense" -- that I found out that Nye isn't actually debating Palin.

Palin is debating clips from speeches on climate change Nye has made.

So in effect, she'll have a cardboard cutout of Bill Nye standing there, play some carefully chosen sound bites, state her rebuttals, and declare victory.

The whole spectacle is set to coincide with the release of the petroleum-industry-sponsored propaganda piece Climate Hustle, which will be about as scientifically valid as Andrew Wakefield's anti-vaxx film Vaxxed that caused such a kerfuffle when it was pulled from showing at the Tribeca Film Festival.  The difference is that the anti-science climate change deniers and Tea Party right wingers like Sarah Palin are being funded by people like the Koch brothers, who have considerably deeper pockets than the anti-vaxxers do, and therefore far more influence.

Despite my reluctance to watch a long exercise in self-humiliation, I might watch the Sarah Palin climate change "debate."  If for no other reason, to pick up a few more lines like the following, part of a speech in 2011 in which she was trying to talk about the bravery of Paul Revere:

He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't gonna be takin' away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells, and um, makin' sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be sure and we were going to be free, and we were going to be armed.

Yeah!  Right!  What?

So I wonder what she'll have to say about anthropogenic climate change.  And whether she can pronounce "anthropogenic."  My advice: tune in on May 2.  When else will you have the opportunity to watch the spectacle of a person being defeated in a debate by someone who isn't, technically, there?

22 questions, 22 answers

So the Ham-on-Nye debate is history, and we science-minded types are breathing a sigh of relief that it went as well as it did.  As I pointed out six months ago, Bill Nye had every reason to refuse to debate Ken Ham.  In fact, it's misleading to call it a debate in the first place, as Ken Ham doesn't accept hard evidence as the sine qua non of understanding.  He said as much, during the question-and-answer period, when he was asked "What would it take to change your mind?" and he answered in what may have been the most telling quote of the entire evening:

Well, the answer to that is that is that I'm a Christian, and as a Christian, I can't prove it to you, but god has shown me very clearly through his word, and he has shown himself in the person of Jesus Christ, that the bible is the word of god.

I admit that this is where I start from.  I can challenge people, that you can go and test that, you can make predictions based on that, you can check the prophecies in the bible, you can check the statements in Genesis.  I did a little bit of that tonight.

I can't ultimately prove that to you, all I can do is to say is to say to someone, "Look, if the bible really is what it claims to be, if it really is the word of god (and that's what it claims), then check it out, and the bible says that if you come to god believing that he is, he will reveal himself to you and you will know.

As Christians, we can say that we know, and so far as the word of god is concerned, no, no one is ever going to convince me that the word of god is not true.

Contrast that to what Bill Nye said, to the same question:

We would need just one piece of evidence.  We would need one fossil that swam from one layer to another, we would need evidence that the universe is not expanding, we would need evidence that the stars appear to be far away but are not.

We would need evidence that the rock layers could form in just years as opposed to an extraordinary amount of time, we would need evidence that you can reset atomic clocks and and keep neutrons from becoming protons.

Bring on any of those things and you would change my mind immediately.

So it really wasn't a debate.  Further, it has the possible downside of giving the impression to anyone on the fence that there is controversy over the issue; as I've said many times before, there is far more controversy, in scientific circles, about the ultimate explanation for gravity, and the means by which it operates, than there is over evolution.

So the Great Debate was really preaching to the choir, as it would inevitably have to be.  Still, most folks I've seen seem to think that Ken Ham had his ass handed to him -- even a poll over at Christian Today gave Nye the win, with the final tally being a decisive 92%-8%.

This hasn't stopped the creationists from singing Ham's praises, of course, which is pretty much what I expected.  There was a post over at Buzzfeed that's been making the rounds, wherein writer Matt Stopera asked 22 creationists what message they had for the evolutionists.  And despite my stance that arguing with these folks is generally fruitless, I felt obliged to respond largely because of the level of derp evident in so many of these statements.

So here they are -- the 22 statements from creationists, and my 22 responses.  Just so I don't have to write "sic" a hundred times, you'll just have to trust that I'm copying them with the spelling and grammar as written (or click on the Buzzfeed link and verify it for yourself).

1.  Bill Nye, are you influencing the minds of children in a positive way?

My answer: Damn skippy he is.  I'll take a rational, evidence-based understanding of the world over Bronze-Age mythology and magical thinking any day of the week.

2.  Are you scared of a Divine Creator?

My answer:  Are you scared of Frost Giants?  Why would I be scared of something I don't believe in?

3.  Is it completely illogical that the Earth was created mature?  i.e. trees created with rings...  Adam created as an adult...

My answer:  Yes, it is.  If you're accepting that, then how do you know you weren't created five minutes ago by Zeus, with your memories as-is?  If you don't buy that we understand the world through logic, reason, and the information from our senses, and accept that the world acts in a regular, understandable way, you have to throw out all of science, not just evolution.  Interesting, isn't it, that questions like yours -- that undermine our ability to know the universe -- could equally well be applied to chemistry, but no one ever frames them that way?

4.  Does not the Second Law of Thermodynamics disprove evolution?

My answer:  Fer cryin' in the sink, take a fucking physics class.  The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in a closed system, entropy (disorder) always increases.  The Earth is not a closed system, therefore there can be local and temporary decreases in entropy.  There is no conflict between thermodynamics and evolution.

5.  How do you explain a sunset if their is no God?

My answer:  The Earth rotates.  q.e.d.

6.  If the Big Bang theory is taught as science along with evolution, why do the laws of thermodynamics debunk said theories?

My answer:  See #4, especially the part about taking a fucking physics class.

7.  What about noetics?

My answer:  What about it?

8.  Where do you derive objective meaning in life?

My answer:  The meaning in my life comes from my connections to my family, friends, vocation, pets, and community.  I don't need a magical sky guy to give my life meaning; I create meaning for myself.

9.  If God did not create everything, how did the first single-celled organism originate?  By chance?

My answer:  Pretty much, but the chance was really high.  Organic compounds are common in the universe, can readily be created by abiotic processes, and will self-assemble into cells.  Life is probably abundant in the universe.  Once again: no need for the hand of a magical sky guy.

10.  I believe in the Big Bang Theory.  God said "BANG!" it happened!

My answer:  How nice it must be for you to have an understanding of the universe that doesn't require you to do any hard work.

11.  Why do evolutionists/secularists/huminists/non-God believing people reject the idea of their being a creator God but embrace the concept of intelligent design from aliens or other extra-terrestrial species?

My answer:  Whatever drugs you have been ingesting, can I have some?

12.  There is no inbetween... the ONLY one found has been Lucy and there are only a few pieces of the hundreds necessary for "official proof..."

My answer:  You seriously think that the only hominid fossil is Lucy?  And that scientists have a numerical threshold for "official proof?"  "Nope, sorry.  We've only got 99 pieces of data supporting the existence of velociraptors.  If only we had one more... but for now, we'll have to classify them as "imaginary."

13.  Does metamorphosis help support evolution?

My answer:  Of course it does.

14.  If Evolution is a theory (like creationism and the Bible), then why is it taught as fact?

My answer:  Creationism (and the bible) are not theories.  Theories are testable models of how the world works.  Saying "god did it" is not a testable statement.  "Theory" doesn't mean "it could just as easily be false as true."

15.  Because science is by definition a theory -- not testable, observable, nor repeatable -- why do you object to creationism and intelligent design being taught in school?

My answer:  See #14.  And I object to it for the same reason that you would object if your child's chemistry teacher taught him that you can convert base metals into gold via alchemy; because it's wrong.

16.  What evidence has science discovered that evidences an increase of genetic information seen in any genetic mutation or evolutionary process?

My answer:  Three examples out of hundreds known: Chromosome duplication and subsequent divergence.  Segment and polarity genes in arthropods.  Allopolyploidy.  All of which are excellent supports for evolution and speciation, so thanks ever so much for asking.  (For a wonderful take-apart of the so-called "information problem," go here.)

17.  What purpose do you think you are here for, if not for Salvation?

My answer:  If you mean Purpose, capital "P," then I think there isn't one, an idea that seems to terrify religious people and doesn't bother me at all.  I don't really feel the need for there to be a Cosmic Reason for Everything.  As far as my more immediate purpose; to teach, learn, love, enjoy, grow, experience.  And that's enough to satisfy me.

18.  Why have we found only 1 "Lucy" when we have found more than 1 of everything else?

My answer:  That may be one of the dumbest questions I've ever read.  How do you manage to remember to walk without dragging your knuckles on the ground?

19.  Can you believe in the "Big Bang" without "faith?"

My answer:  Science doesn't require faith; science and faith are opposites.  (Unless you're talking about my faith that science actually is a valid way of knowing the universe; if that's what you mean, then we can talk, but I don't think that's what you're asking.)  The Big Bang is a model that explains the evidence we see; faith is the belief in things not seen.  It takes no more faith to "believe in" the Big Bang (although I hate using the word "belief" referent to a scientific model) than it takes faith to "believe in" genes, or atoms, or stars, or the core of the Earth.

20.  How can you look at the world and not believe Someone Created/thought of it?  It's amazing!!!

My answer:  Ah, yes, the Proof from Incredulity.  "I can't imagine this, so it must be god."  Well, yeah, okay, the world and all of the life in it is pretty amazing.  That I feel that way is why I became a biologist.  But it's also pretty crazily thrown together, too, which is why "intelligent design" doesn't work.  Take the human male reproductive apparatus, for example, which has to be one of the most oddly "designed" organ systems in the animal kingdom.  We have two extremely sensitive structures that have to be positioned outside of the abdominal cavity in order to work, right at a position where they are easily kneed, kicked, and head-butted by small children and large dogs; the sperm-delivery device is fused to the urinary system, thus (as a friend of mine put it) being the equivalent of running a sewer pipe directly through a playground; and the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, which is unusually likely to become cancerous and squeeze the whole thing shut.  If a deity planned all of that, he has a really twisted sense of humor.

21.  Relating to the big bang theory... where did the exploding star come from?

My answer:  If you can't be bothered to take a fucking physics class, will you people please at least read the Wikipedia article on a topic before you ask moronic questions?

22.  If we come from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

My answer:  If my ancestors came from France, why are there still French people?


So, anyway, there you have it; my response to the Nye/Ham debate, and the 22 questions from creationists.  My head now hurts from all of the faceplants I did reading those, and I suspect yours might, too.  So, as my gift to you for making it all the way to the end, here's a Klingon facepalm, to show you that Worf is on our side.

Nye vs. Ham, and the futility of debating creationists

Most of you probably heard that last month, Bill Nye made a short film called Creationism is Not Appropriate For Children, lambasting creationists for holding back the progress of science in America, and for brainwashing children:

Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology... it's very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates.  You're just not going to get the right answer...  Once in a while, I get a person who says, "I don't believe in evolution."  And I say, "Why not?"  Your world just becomes fantastically complicated if you don't believe in evolution.  Here are these ancient dinosaur bones... here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star except at a different point in their life cycle.  The idea of deep time, of billions of years, explains so much of the world around us.  If you ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, it becomes untenable.  And I say to the grown-ups, if you want to deny evolution, if you want to live in your world that is inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that's fine.  But don't make your kids do it, because we need them.  We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers in the future, we need engineers.

Well, of course the creationists weren't going to take that lying down.  First, Dr. David Menton and Dr. Georgia Purdom of Answers in Genesis crafted a video responding to Nye, claiming (without any apparent sense of irony) that Bill Nye doesn't understand science.  (If you watch their video, note that Purdom has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics, which I'm not sure isn't the thing about all this that appalls me the most.  How someone could achieve doctoral level work in molecular genetics without accepting evolution seems to me not just astonishing, but nearly impossible.)  Purdom explains that she teaches her young daughter about evolution "so that she can see the problems with it, which include a complete lack of a genetic mechanism which allows organisms to gain genetic information and go from simple to complex over time."

So far, other than Purdom's Ph.D., none of this is particularly surprising.  After all, we knew that Nye was a scientist, and we know that anyone working for Answers in Genesis has already decided that a Bronze-Age document written down in pieces three-thousand-odd years ago supersedes all of modern science.  But now, Ken Ham, CEO of Answers in Genesis, has jumped in... and (brace yourself for the shock) he also claims that Nye doesn't understand science:

Bill Nye has an agenda to teach children not to believe in God, to teach them that they came from evolutionary processes, that they came from slime over millions of years.  In fact, Bill Nye doesn't really understand science...  He says that we shouldn't teach children evolution, because we need engineers... What does engineering have to do with evolution?  Bill Nye wasn't a scientist, he studied mechanical engineering, and he worked for Boeing at one point.  I hope he didn't apply his evolutionary principles to any of Boeing's airplanes, because if he did I wouldn't want to fly on one.  I wouldn't want to fly on anything that was built by chance and random processes.  What does he think, that all the parts are just laid out on the runway, and they just come together or something?...  Bill Nye is implying that if we want to teach children creation, that it's really a form of abuse...  I'll tell you what is abuse, what is inappropriate for children, it's when you take generations of children, and teach them that they're just animals...  Who determines right and wrong?  You do.  Who determines good and bad?  You do.  What is marriage?  Whatever you want to make it.  It's people like Bill Nye who are actually damaging the kids.  Creationists are telling children that they're special, that they're made in the image of God, and giving them a basis for knowledge, that we can trust the laws of logic, that we can trust the laws of nature...  (Nye) doesn't teach children how to think critically, he doesn't teach them how to think about science, he wants to teach them what to think.  If evolution was true, it would be totally obvious to kids.  The way to convince kids about evolution is that you've got to do what Bill Nye the Humanist Guy wants to do.  You protect them from hearing anything about creation, you totally indoctrinate them, you brainwash them, you don't teach them to think critically at all.

And once again, my general reaction was: *yawn*.

But now, the people at Answers in Genesis have thrown down the gauntlet and challenged Nye to a debate.  Dr. Georgia Purdom, the aforementioned creationist molecular geneticist, stated in an interview in the Christian Post that a debate between Nye and Ham "could be held at a public university, using an impartial moderator.  I would think that someone as polished and charismatic as Mr. Nye would relish the opportunity to debate a creationist.  In addition, since Nye will soon be hosting a new science program, I would think he would like to see the publicity generated by his participation in a major public debate."

And here's where I sat up and took notice.

There is no way in the world Nye should accept this offer.  Evolutionists have nothing to gain by debating with creationists, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with being afraid we're going to lose.  (Note that this hasn't prevented me, more than once, from doing just that; in fact, I was once a panelist on a debate between young-earth creationists, intelligent-design proponents, and evolutionists.)  The reason that Nye would be a fool to accept this challenge is that it implies that there is something to debate -- that scientists and creationists actually accept the same ground rules, the same methods, the same standards for evidence.  When you start out from the standpoint of saying, "I believe what this book says because this book says it, it's the word of god," you have trumped any other argument right from the get-go.  You have abandoned the principles of scientific induction and the basis of logical argument.  A "debate" with you would be about as productive as a discussion between two people who are speaking mutually unintelligible languages.

It's easy enough to get needled by the arrogant certainty of the creationists, by their steadfast blindness to mountains of evidence that would be absolutely convincing in any other field.  It's tempting to think, "If I just present it a different way, they'll understand."  The fact is, any debate with creationists only serves to legitimize their views -- and to further convince the public that there is doubt in scientific circles that evolution occurs.  As such, Nye should respond to Purdom, Menton, and Ham with one of his characteristic little smiles, and say, "No, thanks.  But do let me know if you ever come to your senses.  Then we can talk."