To answer this one, we need to go as far back as Aristotle’s The Rhetoric some 2300 years ago.
In this verbal self-defense classic — as in: “you gotta know what can be done, how, if you are to effectively defend yourself . . . ” — on what has aptly been called the devilish art of persuasion by any means fair or foul, Aristotle (left, courtesy Wiki, public domain) found this key answer to the question “How do arguments work to persuade us?” in Book I Ch 2:
“Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . .”
Now, of course, as clever ad men and smart politicians have long since known, the most persuasive form of argument is the appeal to our emotions and underlying perceptions. Unfortunately, how we feel about something or someone is no more reasonable or accurate than the quality of the facts beneath our perceptions.
But, what does this dusty quip by a long since dead philosopher have to do with science and getting rid of creationists and their dishonest attempts to push in the supernatural into science by the back door?
A lot, and indeed that artfully cultivated and widely spread perception that we are dealing with “a war between religion and science” is at the heart of the problem.
For, if clever but willfully deceptive rhetors — Ms Forrest, B, with all due respect; sadly, this means you — can get away with strawmannising and dismissing design thinkers as “Creationists in cheap tuxedos,” where it has already been firmly fixed in the public mind by other clever rhetors — Mr Dawkins, CR, with all due respect; sadly, this means you — that Creationists are “ignorant, stupid, insane and/or wicked,” and that such are fighting “a war against science” and want to impose “a right-wing theocracy” (presumably complete with Inquisitions and burnings at the stake) then we can be distracted from the issues on the merits and be lured into burning ad hominem- soaked de-humanised creationist strawmen.
That’s how we come to the way a priori evolutionary materialism is now often presented as if it were the defining essence of science, “science” in this sense being taken for granted as the defining essence of “rationality.”
This last is why, in his 1997 NYRB review of Sagan’s last book, Lewontin notoriously said:
. . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test . . . .
As in: fallacy of the question-begging materialist assumption and the resulting materialism-indoctrinated, closed mind presented under false colours of science, anyone?
ID thinker, Philip Johnson’s reply that November was therefore richly deserved:
Let’s set a contrast, by proposing a definition of science as it should be at its best, one rooted in classic definitions of science and its method (i.e. those from the days before methodological naturalism was being artfully pushed into such definitions):
science, at its best, is the unfettered — but ethically and intellectually responsible — progressive, {U/D, 06:02: observational evidence-led} pursuit of the truth about our world (i.e. an accurate and reliable description and explanation of it), based on:
a: collecting, recording, indexing, collating and reporting accurate, reliable (and where feasible, repeatable) empirical — real-world, on the ground — observations and measurements,
b: inference to best current — thus, always provisional — abductive explanation of the observed facts,
c: thus producing hypotheses, laws, theories and models, using logical-mathematical analysis, intuition and creative, rational imagination [including Einstein’s favourite gedankenexperiment, i.e thought experiments],
d: continual empirical testing through further experiments, observations and measurement; and,
e: uncensored but mutually respectful discussion on the merits of fact, alternative assumptions and logic among the informed. (And, especially in wide-ranging areas that cut across traditional dividing lines between fields of study, or on controversial subjects, “the informed” is not to be confused with the eminent members of the guild of scholars and their publicists or popularisers who dominate a particular field at any given time.)
As a result, science enables us to ever more effectively (albeit provisionally) describe, explain, understand, predict and influence or control objects, phenomena and processes in our world.
So, plainly, no authority — even one wearing The Holy Lab Coat — is better than his or her facts, assumptions and reasoning.
As just one instance, why is it that we so often see the contrast, natural vs supernatural, when in fact ever since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, what design thinkers have put on the table is first of all the question of inferring on observable and reliable empirical signs (and this link has a counter to yet another red herring-strawman distractor) to nature vs art?
So also, we must never forget: only an argument that focuses on the merits of the well-warranted material facts — the facts that make a difference to the conclusion — and on correct reasoning about those facts, can hope to properly warrant a conclusion. Just so, we must also recognise that when we come to matters of fact and observation, such warrant will always be provisional. That’s why Physics — the senior science — has undergone two major revolutions within 250 years.
When we deal with origins science issues, a further factor comes in: we are now dealing with the model, reconstructed remote past beyond observation and record. A model past that serves as a worldview foundation for many. And, since evolutionary materialism is inherently relativistic and amoral — it has in it no grounding is that can ground ought (cf. here) — we are thus right back at the force of Plato’s warning in Bk X of The Laws:
To all of this, we must add the baneful and growing influence across our civilisation of the neo-marxist (and yes, he was just that — cf. RFR’s prologue here and a survey of Marxism here) radical, Saul Alinsky. For instance, in his Rules for Radicals, we may read the following observations, recommendations and thoughts:
“The end is what you want, the means is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work. … The real arena is corrupt and bloody.” p.24
“The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns…. All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new.” p.116
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
[Of course, here — even at the rhetorical risk of inviting the onward tactic of deflecting a well-warranted point by using turnabout accusation — I can only speak as one finite, fallible, fallen sinner in recovery through grace to others who may access the same grace: moral struggle is a key characteristic of any serious attempt to walk in virtue. But if you go for the polarising credibility kill of characterising the other side as all hypocrites, in the end, you face the issue of the plank in your own eyes. So, while there is no immoral equivalency, this point cuts just as sharply on both sides of any issue, including this one. Let us all therefore turn from such destructive, even demonic tactics. Far better is to accept that we all struggle and must try to help one another (even when neighbour love calls for frank correction), instead of playing at dehumanising finger-pointing games compounded by the cruel tactic of incendiary ridicule. He who plays with rhetorical matches may set a fire that blazes beyond his ability to contain.]
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” . . . .
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. [NB: Notice the evil counsel to find a way to attack the man, not the issue. The easiest way to do that, is to use the trifecta stratagem: distract, distort, demonise.] In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…
“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’
“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pp. 127 – 134.)
The cynically amoral and polarised rhetorical pattern, sadly, is instantly recognisable from the tactics commonly used to oppose design thought in the public and in the policy making arena.
It even creeps into Faculty Seminar rooms and scientific institutions. But, in the end, if we begin to think and act like this, it will do no one any good.
Far better, is to take the stance of Aristotle, where one studies rhetoric for self-defense, to the intent of exposing evil counsel, and calling the public and policy makers to a better way: building bridges, not walls.
It is high time that the debates over design theory and thought moved on beyond the destructive rhetoric of the trifecta fallacy: red herring subject-changing distractors, led away to caricatured and deceitful strawman misrepresentations of design thought, soaked in ad hominem false accusations and ignited through snide or incendiary rhetoric.
For, if such rhetoric and incivility are unchecked, the temporary advantage of clouding issues, poisoning and polarising the atmosphere will be bought at the bitter price of a breakdown of our character and the foundational mutual respect that is needed if we are to build a future worth having.
Materialists and fellow travellers: victory at any price may be bought at a price so dear as to be ruinous. END
_________
F/N: News, in a new post, highlights a key example of the unfortunate red herring, strawman, ad hominem distortions we discussed above, in this case, from P Z Myers. And, as for the comments section . . .