Should We Engage with Pseudoscience?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Good questions @paul.b.rimmer, especially because they reveal some practical questions you are working through.

Here is the starting point of my thoughts:

How We Engage Matters

Your question was if we should or not. The question, as I see it, is very different. We should engage, but only in effective ways. Engaging in ways that reinforce the problem should be avoided. Engaging in ways that open new ways forward should be done where-ever and whenever we can.

Take a Trust Building Approach, Rather Than Knowledge Deficit

There is an immense amount of work done on how to do effective public engagement on science. I encourage you to look some of it up.

@swamidass

Scientists in Civic Life by AAAS. The AAAS is the worlds largest association of scientists. They articulate evidence-based guidelines for engaging the public with science, advocating a trust-building model over a “knowledge-deficit” model of engagement. The data clearly indicates that it is not enough to be right, we also have to be trusted.

@swamidass

Shaping Science with Rhetoric by Leah Ceccarelli. Dr. Ceccarelli is a professor of rhetoric, specializing n the rhetoric of science. This book articulates pragmatic principles in building rhetorical bridges between disciplines to foster collaboration and understanding.

We’ve been putting this into practice here. This is one reason that many scientists engage deeply at PS. Here are some examples that some have considered effective public engagement.

@swamidass

The Genealogical Adam and Eve by S. Joshua Swamidass. Dr. @Swamidass is a scientist and physician, and founder of Peaceful Science. Chapter 1, 2 and 18 of this explain our eight values and virtues in more detail. Chapters 1 and 18 are free to download here.

USA Today Oped by Nathan Lents. Dr. @NLents is an atheist scientist, and he explains in this article why he endorsed The Genealogical Adam and Eve , in service of the common good. The values he articulates here are our values too, guided by the trust-building model of public engagement we advocate.

See here too: Behe and Swamidass: Texas A&M on Feb 20, 2020. @art had some comments here I’d hope he would share.

Don’t Call Them Pseudoscience

We should not call ID and YEC “pseudoscience”, even if you are convinced its true, for four reasons.

1. Some of their claims are not pseudoscience. Calling a whole movement “pseudoscience” paints with too broad a brush because some of their claims are often legitimate. Some of their hypotheses are worth testing. It is better to use higher granularity in discussing their claims and actions.

2. They will never accept the term "pseudoscience for themselves, but they will accept other terms. For example, most will agree that “the vast majority of scientists disagree with them” and that “they are outside the mainstream view” in science. That is a critical concession that they will agree to and we want them to say to their base.

3. Using the term “pseudoscience” reinforces their persecution narrative (which is critical for their survival) and supporting their goals it destroys trust with their base. In the end, being right is just not enough. You also have to be trusted. That is why these groups make trust-oriented arguments all the time, and why they are so difficult for more fact-oriented groups to engage.

4. There are better alternatives. In addition to “outside mainstream science,” in focused cases, where you can justify it, it is also valid to call it “bad science” or based on bad information, etc. @jammycakes’s work here is really good.

Relationships with Thought Leaders Matter

With McDowell, see how my relationship developed with him:

1. McDowell and Swamidass: The Proper Relationship Between Science and Theology

2. Sean McDowell Endorses the Genealogical Adam and Eve

3. McDowell, Rana and Swamidass: Livestreamed on Sunday

And now he is deeply motivated to understand where I am coming from and and to put me in dialogue with ID.

@Nlents, also, has dug deep, attending several events with leaders in ID and OEC. His comments, I am sure, will be helpful too.

So Engage, Rightly

So, in summary, you should certainly engage. Just do it the right way. One reason PS exists is to serve as a community of practice where you can learn how to do just this.