Kamm on Levitt on Fuller

Oliver Kamm writes about Steve Fuller, and the review of his latest book by Norman Levitt which I posted about here.

[T]here is one issue, to do with his political analysis, on which I take issue with Levitt. He notes "Fuller’s utter failure to come to terms with the political nature of the Intelligent Design movement", i.e. Fuller is a populist of the Left who overlooks the right-wing theocratic inspiration of Intelligent Design. Levitt doubts that "any large segment of the science-studies community, nor of the larger 'academic left' will join [Fuller] in the attempt to find comrades-in-arms in such venues as the Discovery Institute or the wider Intelligent Design movement".

I'm not convinced Fuller is as much of an outlier - in political debate, at least - as is here claimed. The notion that people's deeply held beliefs are entitled to respect is common, and it's not such a great step from that misconception to the principle that those beliefs are entitled to protection. It's unusual to find a professed left-winger (if that is indeed Professor Fuller's position) applying the principle to Protestant fundamentalism, but it's inherently no odder than (to take an entirely typical example) the insistence of my sometime debating opponent Jeremy Corbyn MP, at a rally against "Islamophobia", that: "We demand that people show respect for each other's community, each other's faith and each other's religion."

It's possible that I'm not fully appreciating what he's saying here (it wouldn't be the first time), but I think this is wrong. Fuller didn't testify in the Dover-Kitzmiller case because he believed that we should respect fundamentalist beliefs. He testified because he's a social constructionist. He believes that Darwinism - the theory of natural selection - is in the ascendant in the world of biology simply through the greater power of the evolutionists, who've managed to monopolise scientific discourse by demonising their adversaries.

According to Fuller, what does and does not count as science is the result of a power struggle between the evolutionists, who control the scientific establishment, and a marginalised ID community with a large religious following. "I see myself in an affirmative action position, voicing a point of view that would otherwise be systematically excluded," he says....

For Fuller, religion and science are compatible. He complains that evolutionary theory is being taught as dogma. It needs a "critical foil" and ID satisfies that function as well as anything else.

Although he identifies himself as a secular humanist, Fuller likes to push this line that the separation of science and religion is arbitrary and counterproductive:

In today's secular culture, Darwin is more readily embraced than Newton as a scientific icon although Newton remains unquestionably the greater scientist. The American Museum of Natural History has an exhibit devoted to Darwin's life that includes a reconstruction of his home. This is not surprising. Darwin's biography projects the politically correct image of a Christian who loses his faith through scientific inquiry. We are unlikely to see a similar exhibit for Newton because his life teaches that the Bible can provide a sure path to great science.

So Fuller's support for Intelligent Design is an intellectual support. He's coming from a post-modernist and overwhelmingly leftist tradition (as Levitt notes in his Amazon review, Fuller was a contributor to the famous Social Text issue which contained Alan Sokal's famous hoax article), yet he ended up testifying in court on behalf of the ID crowd. This is why Levitt can write of Fuller's "utter failure to come to terms with the political nature of the Intelligent Design movement". He agrees with the ID line that Darwinism is "just" a theory. He rejects the view that science emerged from the pre-scientific fog of religion to provide us with a clearer picture of reality: we're still in the fog according to him, and we'll always be in the fog; it's just that we're telling ourselves different stories nowadays. This is not at all the same as the position of someone like Jeremy Corbyn, advocating respect for other people's religions in a misguided effort at multiculturalism. Corbyn's concern for Islam, I think it's fair to say, wouldn't go so far as defending the teachings of the Koran: he's interested only in respecting beliefs. Fuller, for reasons of his own, is actually in agreement with much of what the ID crowd are saying.

Comments

[TDK]

But Mick Darwinism IS "just a theory".

Its strength is that is the best fit for the evidence, not that it is deemed to be the truth. The scientific method is better than received truth precisely because no statement concerning the workings of the universe can be immutable (or sacrosanct). If a better theory than Darwin's came along then we would abandon Darwin. In point of fact there are some neo-Darwinists who claim that rather than gradual evolution, the evidence better fits the idea of sudden leaps followed by long periods of relatively slow change. Some disagree. The fact that Darwin is constantly subject to revision is the best proof we have that evolutionary science is strong. Received truth is the reverse - no theory can be abandoned, rather evidence must be dismissed. Once we say the science is settled it ceases to be science and becomes faith.

Post Modernism suggests that everyone is entitled to their own version of the truth. Fuller is at least honest and consistent when he suggests that ID advocates are as entitled to their version as anyone else. I would suggest that most PMs pay only lip service to this absolute relativism. They would privilege the narrative of say some Palestinian terrorist because his anti-western worldview coincides with their own. Most do not support the ID movement for precisely the reasons specified by Levitt.

There's an interesting post on this subject (Creationism) at Unenlightened Commentary http://fountain.blogspot.com/2007/12/politics-threats-to-science.html

"This encapsulates a lot of the problems I have with those who sneer about the views held by certain people about creationism, usually they are just as ignorant and misguided about the science as the creationists themselves. The likes of Peretz who don't understand evolution but know that they are passionately supportive of it aren't a huge concern in any practical sense, they're just annoying. The real danger to evolutionary science comes not from creationists or the Peretzs of this world but rather from those who claim to believe in evolution but try to silence anyone who proposes that it may apply to humans as much as any other species."

I think there's some truth in that. I recall the absolute horror of research into IQ when I was at university. I also note the common assumption that Eugenics was a movement of the right, which is an exact reversal of the history. The clearest example today is the attempt to shut down debate on AGW.

[Mick H]

Darwinism is a theory, but it's also the truth. That's the way it is. We don't just speculate that evolution happened - we know it happened. The whole of biology is based on that fact. All that punctuated evolution stuff from Gould et al is entirely compatible with natural selection. Yes, we don't know all the details, obviously, and the origins of life are still mysterious, but there's never going to be a point when biologists turn round and say, OK, now we know we were wrong, and evolution doesn't happen.

[TDK]

Let me separate your response into two parts: the nature of truth and the specifics of a particular theory being supplanted.

I think Evolution is a true theory because it fits the evidence best. I cannot conceive a better theory to explain the evidence. That is to say my criteria for truth is contingent upon the theory and the evidence. The corollary is that I am loyal to a method of determining the truth not a particular version of it. It doesn't matter that I can't conceive a better theory only that I be prepared to change to it. Statements such as "That's the way it is" suggest that your version of the truth is received; this is a statement that would not be amiss in the mouth of a creationist. It suggests that you would not change your view even if a better theory arose, merely because you can't conceive it. Is this correct?

Scientific theories are rarely completely reversed. More usually they are refined. Thus Newtonian Mechanics explains the movement of objects in the everyday world but fails to explain subatomic particles. In the same way I doubt that Evolution will ever be fundamentally rejected. I note however, that the science that operates at sub atomic levels seems pretty bizarre even today. The ideas of string theory or Schrödinger's cat seem fantastic. Therefore I don't dismiss the notion that Biology will develop in unexpected ways.

I would note this. Darwin didn't discover evolution or species mutability. The ideas date back to at least the Greek cities. Darwin proposed a mechanism that would drive the process - natural selection. He was a definite believer in gradualism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradualism Therefore Gould's theory must be viewed as (at least in part) contrary to Darwin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium Furthermore, whilst Darwin explains why certain mutations will survive and hence drive species change, this doesn't explain why mutations occur and in particular why the apparent rate increases dramatically at various times. This means that say, the pre-Cambrian explosion, doesn't prove Darwin wrong but does prove his theory inadequate.

Thus whilst Darwinism, in the sense of a popular shorthand for Evolution, is unlikely to be replaced, we already see evidence that Darwin in certain particulars has already been subject to revision.

[Mick H]

Well...clears throat...I'm quite happy to say "that's the way it is" about evolution because we know evolution happens. It's no longer deniable. There are all kinds of debates still possible, about whether the locus for evolution is at the gene level, whether group selection can happen, whether culture might have some effect, whether all that supposed junk DNA really is junk, and so on and so on. But evolution happens. We know that. It's a confusion to think that because we talk of the "theory" of evolution, that it's just a piece of speculation that could be superceded by something else. It isn't going to be. It's true. I think we should be quite unashamed of talking about truth here. It's that weaselly link between theory and speculation that allows the creationists to creep in and argue that it's not certain, that we don't know for sure. Well yes, it is certain. We do know for sure.

The analogy with physics seems to me a poor one. If there's an equivalent in physics to the Darwinian revolution, I'd say it was more like the change from astrology to astronomy - or alchemy to chemistry. It's the birth of (a) science. Biology before Darwin (simplifying, of course, but in general) wasn't so much a science as a classification system. Now we've moved from fixed god-created species to our current understanding of mutable life forms adapting to their environments with different levels of success - and there's no way back.

As for the punctuated equilibria stuff, I'm entirely unpersuaded that there's anything in it that's in any way a challenge to Darwin, as I believe Dawkins et al argued at the time. Which isn't to say that Darwin got everything right: of course he didn't.

[TDK]

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I'm attempting to place Darwinism into the Theory of Knowledge and would use Popper and the notion of falsifiability to demonstrate its truth, which would not apply to Creationism. The Scientific method stands or falls on its openness to challenge. That's my fundamental objection to your defence of evolution.

I think your analogy of astrology vs. astronomy is a useful one. Copernicus gave us heliocentrism, which I suggest equates to Darwin. Biology's Kepler will inevitably come along and it would be no less wrong to defend every syllable of The Origin of Species as to defend the Biblical account of Creation.

Have a good new year.

[TDK]

Let me come back on one point.

"It's that weaselly link between theory and speculation"

I'm aware that Creationists use the word theory in that way. If I've written so badly that you assume that is my intention, I'm sorry. From the point of view of the Scientific method, a theory can be treated as a fact. I don't regard Creationism as being a valid competitive science, not because it doesn't fit the evidence, but because it is a pseudo science. A theory that ultimately rests upon magic can't be disproved.

[Steve Fuller]

In light of this discussion, you might want to see my response to Levitt's review:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-01-16.html