You read that right! No reader of Dangerous Intersection, radical materialist or hard-bitten skeptic believes in science. To say otherwise is to give a false impression of what science actually is. Science is not something in which a person believes or does not believe. Science is not a belief system; it has no holy screeds or sacred tenets. It is merely a tool, a method of gleaning knowledge, and the language used in reference to it should reflect this.
What on earth am I ranting about? Well, it goes back a few years to the Discovery Institute, and spans all the way to the present with Ben Stein’s film Expelled. The intelligent design/evolution debate has become quite the pop topic, and hence, the endless battle of science vs. religion has come into everyday discussion as well. Everyday people in normal daily settings run through these issues, turning any public place into a potential battleground.
I’ve heard a lot of the less experienced science advocates say things about science that frankly aren’t accurate. While these people mean very well, they fail to frame their debates properly, and the content of the discussion suffers for it. Since science vs. religion has become as much a layman’s debate as an expert’s one, I think the time has come for those of us on the science side of things to agree on the language we should use.
I have no expertise in science, religion or philosophy, I have no refined understanding of the psychology of persuasion, and I am no orator. However, I still have the gall to make a few semantic suggestions for any person who plans to engage in a lengthy discussion on evolution, intelligent design, or the general clash between religion and science. My tips, and their justifications, are as follows:
- Don’t say you “believe in science”. As I described above, science as a concept does not deserve grouping or treatment as a “belief”. The term “belief” implies a personal decision and a leap of faith. Science serves as a tool and a method, and an advocate for science should try to distance science as far as possible from belief. Because beliefs have a personal basis, they all have the same value- that is, little to no value at all (in a debate, at least). Religious fundamentalists who do not take kindly to scientific evidence have an easier time brushing off scientific research and evidence if they can reduce all of science to a personal “belief”. Don’t let them.
- Don’t say you “believe in ______”; say that the evidence supports it. When it comes to a scientific issue, it doesn’t matter what you “believe” is true; what matters is the evidence in favor of it. Sure, you can say that you “believe” in germs, but what you probably mean is that the evidence in favor of germs is immense and well verified. It’s not just your fallible human opinion that germs are real; the research has led you to form this opinion. This point also works in the opposite case- don’t say you “don’t believe that vaccines cause autism” when you mean there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. It is much easier for an anti-science wingnut to ignore your facts when they can frame facts as more innocuous, flighty “beliefs” and “opinons”. Not all issues are matters of opinion, particularly issues involving science.
- Don’t use the term “Darwinist”. One of the most frequent religious criticisms of science is that science, like religion, is a faith-based belief system. Many an anti-science type throws around the words “Evolutionist” and “Darwinist” to imply that those who support evolution are as blindly faithful as any Christian. When a pro-science, evolution-supporting speaker parrots back these terms, calling themselves “evolutionists”, the religion vs. science debate sounds like the clashing of two equally stubborn, equally ignorant extremists. In reality, Darwinists do not exist. All that exists are people who recognize the immense empirical support of natural selection, and nothing more. These people do not belong to some strange psuedoreligious sect known as “Evolutionism” or “Darwinism”, for these people have no allegiance to Darwin’s theory. If new evidence flew in the face of natural selection, true science-minded people would abandon the theory. Only the faithful stick by statements of fact for which no evidence exists. Accepting branding as a “Darwinist” sends the message that science is a religion of its own.
- Don’t allow opponents to confuse fact with opinion. It strikes me as worthwhile to remember this point in any debate. When two opponents pose two conflicting statements of fact, someone has their facts wrong. It may seem more civil to chalk up the disparity to differing “opinions”, but that totally neglects the reality: someone has their facts wrong! To debate effectively, the person with the right facts must call out the person with the wrong facts and hold them accountable. “That’s just your opinion” is a cop-out. Not all opinions deserve equal weight at all times. Letting a phony fact slide by only promotes lazy thinking and shoddy discourse.
I should point out: following all these tips will typically result in a less pleasant discussion than you might otherwise have. I suppose I should provide a corollary: choose your battles carefully. If you feel inclined to give your opponent wiggle room, so as to stay on friendly terms, you probably shouldn’t debate such testy topics with that person at all.
Print this post [1]
[2]