I was not referring to the quality of the writing, but to its content. I would be about the last person to praise or defend the quality of writing at ENV.
I was not referring to that specific article, but to a theme and idea has often been expressed by the DI over the years on ENV. Feel free to peruse at your leisure the articles my search turned up.
Again, you misunderstand what I wrote. I am not saying the the DI advocates racism. Rather, it implies, insinuates and at times explicitly claims that âDarwinismâ entails or encourages racism. I canât help notice that you have not in anyway contradicted what I actually wrote, seemingly because you did not bother to understand what I had written.
It does look like that was a sponsored add paid for by the Discovery Institute, especially because when you click on the picture at the bottom offering a free pamphlet, it links to a site where you can order that book on EN:
The DI also hosted a webinar on the same topic a few months after posting the add:
@Eddie I think you would agree that it is problematic to conflate the scientific theory of evolution with social Darwinism. While it is legitimate to discuss the history of social Darwinism, people who do so should be clear that using science to promote bad ideas is an illegitimate use of science: that is bad philosophy. The Discovery Institute does not make that distinction. Instead they seem to make the reverse bad and illogical argument, to try to say âsee social Darwinism is bad, therefore the science of evolution is wrong and we should distrust and reject scienceâ Of course they donât say that so directly. Instead they let that conclusion be implied and drawn in the minds of the readers by juxtaposing those ideas without discussing them directly and explaining the nuance. This is bad logic and leads to unclear thinking. It seems to even encourage conspiratorial thinking and is thus irresponsible and harmful.
These types of statements are very upsetting to me because I think this type of logic builds distrust, promotes the false science/faith warfare narrative that can ultimately lead to people not believing in the pandemic and fearing vaccines and refusing cancer treatments that are backed by evidence based medicine. Perhaps that is a stretch, because how people form their beliefs is complicated, but promoting such unclear thinking does harm
By promoting distrust and the science/faith warfare narrative these types of arguments are damaging both the the science and to the faith
That is indeed what it is. There is a small banner at the top that says âSponsored.â
Not everyone understands what sponsored content is:
Sponsored content is premium content that a sponsor pays a publisher to create and distribute. Itâs a type of native advertising that is consistent with the surrounding content on a webpage.
In other words, sponsored content is an ad that looks like itâs supposed to be there â it feels like a natural fit for a platform, instead of an invasive advertisement.
But as you just said, there is no connection. When people casually claim there is a connection they are implying that the theory of evolution actually does support racism and eugenics.
I never said that Weikart employed the naturalistic fallacy.
It sounds from your oblique statement as if you may not have read even one of his works all the way through. If thatâs so, you would be forming judgments based on an incomplete picture. And in any case, unless you have particular expertise in his area of European and German history, your statements about which works in the field are reliable and unreliable carry no weight. So by all means, let us know some of your publications in the area of European history, or tell us which historians in this area will vouch for your academic judgment.
Itâs evident that history is not your field. When a historian draws conclusions, he presents the evidence for those conclusions, along with his reasoning. He will quote from primary sources, or at the very least cite specific page references from the primary sources, to document his claims.
No, only on certain overclaims by some evolutionary biologists (actually, more often by other biologists who are not specialists in evolution, and by non-biologists). âEvolutionary biologyâ as such, I have not passed judgment on, or rejected.
Iâve read scores of articles in peer-reviewed journals that discuss various aspects of evolution, and consulted numerous others. The articles are written by people who claim expertise in this or that subject related to evolution, and have been reviewed, before being accepted in those journals, by others who are regarded as having expertise related to evolution. I donât much care whether you would classify these articles as âprimaryâ or not; if theyâre produced by professors of evolutionary biology at places like Harvard or Chicago, they purport to represent the most advanced thought on evolution. So I have some idea of what claims are being made.
Humour is largely a matter of taste. There are people (probably some here) who thought that Saturday Night Live and Second City were funny, whereas I thought that (with a few rare exceptions), those shows consisted of dull, unfunny (and in some cases vulgar and tasteless) skits, which in terms of both writing and acting were on the level of my high schoolâs Variety Night performances. But I would say to you and Michelle that itâs not inconceivable that someone would gently spoof views with which he or she is sympathetic. In fact, it happens all the time. Marvel Comics regarded their productions as valid works of comic art, yet they also published a title called Not Brand Ecch, in which they spoofed their own characters, writers, editors, etc. Iâve seen a theistic evolutionist making fun of some of the typical presentations of theistic evolution. A comedian who votes Democratic might well do a comic routine making fun of certain Democratic politicians or their arguments, and Iâve seen innumerable Jewish comedians making fun of aspects of Jewish life and culture. So sure, the Babylon Bee is sympathetic with ID, but that doesnât mean it couldnât produce a comical article, giving ID argumentation an affectionate jab.
And finally, yes, I did see the ad below that Michelle refers to, for an actual work by the DI, and yes, that ad was a serious endorsement of that work. That doesnât prove that the article above the ad wasnât light-hearted and playful. And indeed, I suspect that Discovery would not be offended by light satire of itself, if the satire was coming from a publication that was overall sympathetic, and I imagine they knew that their serious ad would be accompanied by a light spoofing piece. And certainly, in an actual Discovery article, e.g., on ENV, you would never see a real Harvard professor being quoted saying words he never actually said, as we see in the Babylon Bee piece.
The DI is really hammering on the theme. Surprise, surprise, now itâs David Klinghoffer.
Unlike Westâs article, however, I seen no qualification that it is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory to say that it supports racism. IOW, this is another example of the trend I described in my earlier comment.
Fine, but note that in that specific article West denies that evolution has necessary racist implications. I do not know what other columnists at ENV might have said (as I told you, I rarely read ENV), but do you see any columns by West where he claims that evolution has necessary racist implications?
Well, if it does, then you or others here can point out the instances when they occur. But I thought that this discussion (as indicated by its title â see the top of this page) was about one particular article by John West, and my point point was that in the article we are discussing West states explicitly that one can accept evolution without being a racist or murderer, and that the killer âmisusedâ evolutionary theory. So I think that West, at least in this article, is clear of the charge you are making â though I would argue that he should not have said âScienceâ in the title but rather âAlleged Scienceâ or âMisused Scienceâ or the like, in order to match what he actually says in the body of the article. I think it would be fair to object to the wording in his title.
Good. Iâm glad to hear that. There is some overlap of themes and ideas coming from different people in this discussion, which caused me to think you had Weikart in mind. My apologies for the misattribution.
I think we are talking past each other. I think you have in mind, e.g., writers of advocacy columns, whereas I am talking about academic historians of ideas. Advocacy columnists sometimes use âconnectionsâ in less than careful ways to imply logically necessary connections. Scholarly historians of ideas, in pointing out connections between ideas, donât always claim that the connections are necessary ones. Thus, such and such a statement in Plato may have greatly influenced the rise of dualistic thinking (regarding soul and body); but it might not follow that the only way of reading Platoâs statement is as an endorsement of dualism. A historian of ideas can note certain similarities, and even certain historical connections (e.g., where an author cites certain texts), between Nazi thought and evolutionary ideas, without concluding that evolutionary theory requires or necessitates adopting Nazi-like doctrines. I think you are worried about crude leaps from âthere are thematic similarities and historical connectionsâ to âevolutionary theory entails racism.â I would agree with you that the latter leap is unwarranted. In fact, Iâm not sure we are disagreeing about anything here. Iâve always maintained that the question âwhether evolution actually happensâ and the question âwhat are the moral and political implications, if any, of evolutionâ are two separate questions, and should not be conflated.
âNow, nobody likes a good laugh more than I do⌠except perhaps my wife and some of her friends⌠oh yes and Captain Johnston. Come to think of it most people likes a good laugh more than I do. But thatâs beside the point.â
Donât know, donât care. Why are you asking? Did I make a comment specifically about Westâs writing on ENV?
Anyone who regularly reads ENV will be very aware of such instances. You are not among them, so you are not aware. I would, however, presume that West is aware, since he is an active author on that website. So I find it a bit odd that, while he claims to be concerned about the widespread fallacy that âDarwinismâ supports or entails racism, he had nothing to say about the major role the DI, and ENV in particular, has played in promoting this fallacy.
Iâm not saying that the âarticleâ wasnât playful, but that it wasnât satirising the DI. Indeed I see no reason to think so. Not to mention the fact that the entire thing is an advert. Thatâs what âsponsored contentâ is.
If I wrote an article âHow the Bible is Connected to Racismâ I think you would see it as a misleading title. If I repeatedly stated that Bible is connected to racism in Nazi Germany, would you think that is valid description?
At least to me, terminology like âdoes not require or necessitateâ or âthere are connections throughout history between evolutionary theory and racismâ leaves the door open to people thinking evolutionary theory can be used to justify eugenics.
Correct. I have not read the entirety of any of Weikartâs books (though I have read the entirety of many of his articles). But itâs not necessary to read an entire book to know the author is an unreliable source. Itâs only necessary to read enough by them to hit a threshold number of fallacies and falsehoods.
You recommended I read Weikart. What are your own publications in this field? If you have none, your own criteria negate your own recommendation.
Youâve said you havenât read Weikartâs books - so you canât know whether he does that.
Yes, I would, especially in a popular setting, because I know that many readers would interpret âConnectedâ as an expression of hard causality, and would interpret the title to mean: âHow the Bible Causes Racism.â So if I were writing an article about ways in which racist writing sometimes employs themes and language that are found in the Bible, but was not trying to directly blame the Bible for racism, I would not choose the title you have suggested. I would choose a more guarded title, such as, âDo Racists Make Use of Biblical Themes and Language?â, which distances itself from a straightforward assertion of causality.
For this reason, as I stated above to one or two other people here, I think the title on Westâs article is misleading. It suggests that âScienceâ fuels white supremacy, whereas what the article actually says is that the shooter misused evolutionary science to justify himself. Therefore, Westâs title should have qualified the word âScienceâ in some way. The title should have been something more like: âWhite Supremacist Construes Evolutionary Science as a Justification for Racially Motivated Murder.â That would more clearly distance evolutionary science from the uses to which it is put.
So once again, I donât see that we are disagreeing on anything.
Again, are you talking about articles aimed at popular audiences, or scholarly audiences? Scholarly audiences understand the difference between possible connections and necessary connections, and they understand the need for caveats in all assertions of historical causality. I think perhaps you are getting too hung up on the word âconnections,â and reading more into it than I intended. If you like, substitute phrases such as âsimilarities in themeâ or âparallels in phrasingâ or the like. But there has to be some way of talking about perceptions of affinity. And there has to be a way of acknowledging that these perceptions of affinity were sometimes asserted by historical actors, e.g., if certain Nazi theorists read a lot about evolutionary theory and said that they done so, and consciously related their own ideas to their understanding of evolution. It has to be possible for a historian of ideas to address such similarities and such discoveries about who read what and how far it influenced them. If you fear the word âconnectionsâ I can find ways around using it, but there canât be a veto on the discussion of possible thematic parallels or historical borrowing. For the scholar, it has to be an open question whether or not Nazi theorists made use of evolutionary theory in their arguments.
Of course, if that question is answered in the affirmative, there is still the question of whether their use was valid. But the first step is to find out if they in fact made use of notions found in evolutionary theory, e.g., âsurvival of the fittest.â If they did not, the discussion ends. If they did, then the discussion can proceed to the second question.
I recommended that you read Weikart if you are interested in hearing the evidence for a connection between evolutionary notions and Nazi racism and eugenics. Weikart has spent years accumulating such evidence, and he knows a great deal about the relevant primary source texts. I did not say that Weikartâs conclusions based on those texts are correct or that you should accept them. In your language, I did not say that his conclusions were âreliable.â You, on the other hand, said that his conclusions (or his data, or perhaps both) were unreliable. Since I did not issue a judgment about the reliability of his work, I am not required to have expertise in his scholarly area. Since you did issue such a judgment, you are claiming competence to issue judgments that area, which is a highly specialized area of German/European history. I wanted to know where you acquired the competence in that highly specialized area, and whether any trained historians would vouch for that competence.
If you had said something more modest, such as, âIâm no expert on the period of German history Weikart covers, but from my laymanâs perspective his conclusions seem dubious,â my reaction would have been different. It was your declaration, as if from the top of the mountain, that his work was unreliable, that generated my remarks. As you should know by now, I generally issue challenges here when I think people are overclaiming, or are speaking with a confidence that goes beyond their level of expertise. When people keep their claims modest and guarded, my objections are much less frequent.
Youâre being silly. No historian could get his books and articles published if he didnât cite his sources. And all you have to do to verify that Weikart does this is to go to Amazon.com and select some of his books and use the âLook Insideâ feature. For example, in Chapter 1 of âHitlerâs Religionâ, the first two quotations are from Hitler and Goebbels, and both of them are followed by footnote numbers, indicating that the sources are specified later in the book. And that he uses sources is obvious from the Table of Contents, which lists a back-section called, âA Note on Sources.â But I donât think you really doubted that Weikart does this; your comment was therefore merely captious, an attempt to âcatch me out.â Your criticism of my writing rarely rises above this. (And I thought you said you werenât going to reply to me any further. If you could stiffen your resolve, it would make both of us happier.)
Because this discussion, as the title indicates, is about Westâs article and Westâs position.
The question is why anyone would regularly read ENV. Discovery publishes things much more important, and much more substantial, than the editorials on ENV. You seem to have infinite time to read ENV, but no time at all to read any of the books Discovery has published. Youâd get far more benefit out of reading the series of books by Denton than by reading ENV posts.
I think that since it is sponsored content, meant to accompany the ad, we can assume that the DI wrote it, intending it to be âsatire.â That it isnât particularly satirical or, for that matter, funny, is not really surprising. The DI also releases quite a lot of material which it claims is âscience,â after all. These people have a track record of gross inaccuracy to maintain.
