Submitted to a Candid World

Editor’s introduction: I would like this post to become the first in a series about the nature of science, and its intersection with law and public policy. I have a great deal of interest in the subject - in fact, my note for my Journal is on this very subject - and I think some of the readers here have the same interest. Since it’s an ongoing series, please leave a comment if you like the topic, don’t like the topic, or have an idea for the way the topic should go.

The Problem of Pseudoscience

Science is dangerous. In the context of a public policy debate, the invocation of science to justify, oppose, or recontour the issue in controversy either removes an element of the debate from contest, or elevates it to another level, where (ideally) objective fact must be met by objective fact, subject to the procedural rigors of the scientific method. In most cases, though, proffered scientific arguments are accepted at face value: science connotes objectivity and trustworthiness, and requires expert training to give it a closer look. Since most of us lack that level of training, we must trust the expert’s assertion that the science is correct: the use of science to debate public issues, then, carries with it an implicit promise that the expert’s scientific knowledge is being used correctly, in good faith, and with the benefit of experience. The scientist has to act as the fiduciary of the public, leading the untrained wisely and without prejudice or bias. In return, in the abscence of proof to the contrary, we assume good faith on the part of the social-minded scientists.

Thus, the problem of pseudoscience. While we in the public sphere are conditioned to trust science, and scientists, the potential for largescale abuse of trust lurks just beneath the surface. As Answers in Genesis and Expelled have shown us, dressing anything up as “science” automatically puts your opponent on weaker footing, because they then have to rebut the contention of special expertise or disprove the “science” scientifically, before even addressing the merits of the underlying argument. While science may be a wise policy guide, to the unprincipled, it can become a shield for bad ideas. (more…)

If you’ve ever argued with someone on the far right, the type that drinks daily from the cup of Human Events and WorldNetDaily, you’ve likely heard and become familiar with the argument that Darwin and Margaret Sanger were racist eugenecists; ergo evolution, abortion, and family planning are racist and evil. Sadly, these bits of spin have become “mainstream,” through such breathtaking works of staggering genius as Expelled, and bear commentary.

Let’s pretend this is a motion for summary judgment, and accept all of “plaintiff’s” allegations of fact as true, just for the sake of argument. So, let’s assume that Sanger and Darwin were both monsters who wanted to “select” or “engineer” away other racists. What of it?

The answer is, nothing. Especially in the case of science, where the idea evolves exponentially beyond its original conception, a “founder’s” personal beliefs are practically meaningless. More generally, there’s no concept “original sin” in philosophy; provided a belief system does not retain the bigoted beliefs of its adherents, it retains none of the guilt for the same. If a philosophy, like a snowball rolling down the incline of history, gathered all the scum of its adherents, no idea would be innocent. All of Christianity would be counted a murderer (the Crusades), all of Islam the same (the wars of expansion), and even democracy and America would be irredeemable (the Indian wars). The mere fact of the continuance of history requires us to forgive the sins of our ideological fathers, and focus on the present. Since conservatives so readily agree that historical revisionism is a flawed way of looking at the world, it’s odd (or, unsurprising) that fundamentalist conservatives forget that simple truth when it comes to ideas they don’t like.

The rhetorical trick known as the slippery slope argument - by which one person argues against another’s idea by theorizing that it leads inexorably to the end of the world - is the darling of creationists and conservative jurists alike. Like its rhetorical brother, the empty appeal to tradition, it’s a way of saying something when there’s nothing left to say: if you don’t have anything concrete left to say about the evils of gay marriage, you can always argue that it inexorably leads to marrying toasters.

Along those lines, we’ve most recently we’ve heard from none other than the Discovery Institute (friend of John McCain!) that evolution, working together with the animal rights movement, calls into question the brightline definition of “humanity,” causing us to devalue humanity, inexorably causing genocide, abortion, and euthanasia. Wrong. On multiple levels.

Not human, but pretty damn cute.

First, the argument assumes that when the definition of “human” becomes open to debate, that the legal protections afforded humans must equalize down to the level of animals, protecting less and less life. But, if evolution & animal rights work together to blur the line between species, they do not necessarily cause a race to the bottom. In fact, it can lead to a race to the top, and a recognition of the profound value of life in increasingly more and more organisms. We can always respond to the similarities between man and animal by raising animal rights up, perhaps not on par with our own, but at least partially, in recognition of our partial similarities.

The Discovery Institutes’ argument assumes that granting rights to animals - or, partially equalizing up - is simply not an option. That assumption betrays a shocking lack of respect and perspective. If we’re the only thing that matters - if the Discovery Institute won’t even entertain the idea that there’s any value beyond human life - we’re not only ignoring the Biblical injunction that mankind protect wildlife (let’s play on their court!), but we might as well also repeal anti-animal cruelty legislation. While there are huge problems with some animal rights regimes, to answer those problems by ignoring animals is simply evil.

Second, like all slippery slope arguments, the Discovery Institutes’ argument relies upon an assumption of a failure of will. The argument proceeds along these lines: if man and animal are legally and scientifically blurred, there is literally nothing stopping us from concluding that man is worthless. The slippery slope posits that no-one will stop, think, and reason out a principled way to avoid that philosophical conclusion. It poses a line-drawing question - where do we draw the line on what rights animals get? - and then refuses to answer the question. Like so much of creationist spin, indeed like intelligent design itself, the slippery slope argument poses a problem and then simply gives up on finding a solution.

We are in charge of our own legal, philosophical, and moral destinies. If a legal or philosophical position potentially leads us down a slippery slope of reasoning towards a dismal outcome, we have vested in ourselves the reason and the capacity to draw the line, and solve the problem. While “ideas have consequences,” no idea has bad consequences unless we let it, and at that point, our personal failures become complicit in, and superseding causes to, the evil inherent in the idea. Ideas don’t kill people; jerks who don’t think straight kill people.

Hucka-being John McCain

While our friend Progressive Conservative at “The Big Stick” wondered aloud today whether the maverick spirit of 2000’s John McCain lives on in 2008’s Candidate McCain, the man himself continued his sell-out to the fundamentalist wing of the Republican party by pulling out the Republican Party’s perennial election year distraction: the danger posed by The Gays. This time the issue was adoption: guess where McCain stands.

McCain’s defense of his opposition to gay adoption is right out of the “family values” theo-conservatives’ playbook - “we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so” - and it has always struck me as odd in the extreme. The appeal is essentially only to tradition, without any attempt to grapple with the real reason behind the issue: we’ve always done it this way, so we ought to continue. What is tradition, but a shield to hide behind when all other arguments fail? That we a nation should turn away willing parents when children languish in orphanages, to the detriment of their futures, is an appalling disgrace.  When a “pro-family” position requires one to sacrifice the best interests of the child at the altar of the Old Testament’s outdated Levitical morality, “family values” cease to be about the family, and become solely about the politics.  The greatest ruse ever pulled on the American voter was to convince him that defending the family meant being an evangelical Christian, ergo a Bush/Huckabee Republican.  In time, ridiculous contradictions like this one will give the lie to that old canard.

And it’s downhill from there.  While one side of McCain’s mouth casts him as a practical, thoughtful, reasoned and progressive conservative like Teddy Roosevelt, the other pulls creationism into the public school classroom.  “[Teaching evolution is] up to the school boards,” he has said on the issue. “That’s why we have local control over education.”

No.  It isn’t.  Local control over education is meant to allow schools to tailor their curriculum to subjective beliefs and standards, to allow them to teach local history, languages, and literature.  Science is not a subjective belief.  It is an objective methodology geared to uncovering the facts that knit the universe together, and as such it does not vary based on locale.  Gravity works the same in Louisiana as it does in Manhattan, and it ought to be taught as such.  McCain’s subtle endorsement of creationism is just the latest in a swing right on that issue.  Take McCain’s recent keynote speech at the Discovery Institute.  This is the man who reluctantly campaigned at Bob Jones University, now embracing his role as the avatar of theocratic religion.

McCain attempts to mask his endorsement of the religious right mainline by couching it in the rhetoric of “local control” - let the states/cities/towns decide issues like abortion, gay rights, and science.  This is a thinly veiled attempt to pass the buck, and a tactic commonly used by McCain to exculpate himself from endorsing far-right positions by nominally devolving the issue to others who he knows will make the (religious-)right decisions.  McCain won’t destroy women’s rights: his Supreme Court appointees will.  McCain won’t endorse homophobic bigotry.  But he will idly stand by states do it.  McCain won’t teach creationism.  But he will subtly endorse it, and let others teach it if they want to.  Make no mistake: McCain may interpose a middleman between him and some radically theocratic positions, but the result is the same.  Invoking states’ rights on issues of federal constitutional law only absolves him of the responsibility for the decision, a cop-out I frankly didn’t expect from Senator John McCain, straight-talking maverick extraordinaire.

And that’s the real story.  McCain is no longer his own man.  We get our term “candidate” from the Roman rite by which the politician, prior to an election, donned a white robe to symbolize his purity of mind and devotion to justice.  It may be true that no candidate ever has, then or now, maintained that purity in fact.  As for McCain at least, his white robe has already been blackened by the dirty hands of a million special interests, not the least of whom sit happily in their megachurches and marvel at the speed and grace with which they turned the politician who once called them “agents of intolerance” so firmly into their man.

I’m no fan of Bobby Jindal.  But I am a fan of The Economist, especially when they trash Bobby Jindal.  If Jindal is out of the running as McCain’s running mate, though, it may not be for the reasons that we would like.  Quite apart from his bizarre anti-science worldviews, Jindal has gone back on some campaign promises regarding legislative pay-raises, rendering him dead in the water… at least until he replenishes his political capital, and credibility with both the legislature and the voters.

A very astute commenter - forgive me, I forgot who, and can’t find it now - pointed out that McCain has to hit a “home run” with his VP pick.  Quite so.  While McCain stands head and shoulders above the other Republican candidates the party could have put forward (President Huckabee?!?), he has noticeable gaps in his appeal to key Republican demographics.  And - not to be morbid - but McCain is getting on in years.  In a very real way, his vice president will have to be ready to step into the Oval Office itself, and the electorate will scrutinize his pick accordingly.

Nominating Jindal would have gone a long way to supplementing the McCain ticket.  McCain does not have much credibility with the religious right - especially since he accurately portrays its leaders as “agents of intolerance” - and adding Jindal to the ticket would’ve mitigated that weakness.  But that ship has sailed, and none of the other names bandied about as McCain running mates (save Huckabee, but get real) are capable of bridging the evangelical divide.  We’re looking at a candidate who will have to go into the general election without the explicit and conspicuous support of America’s religious right.  And that is a comforting thought indeed.

Dammit.  I hate it when I’m right.  Andy Schlafly of Conservapedia is planning on suing Lenski.

About a week ago, I predicted that Andy Schlafly may consider suing Lenski to get access to the data from his e. coli citrate experiment: despite Lenski’s willingness to give his data to a certified biologist, since Schlafly’s pride is now in issue, Andy wants a personal victory, and he’ll do anything he can to get it.  Well, now Schlafly has issued the first “Conservapedia challenge,” urging his crack squad of stormtroopers homeschoolers to look for a way to sue Lenski into giving his data to someone who won’t understand it.  Personally, I don’t think there’s a way: Lenski’s not a “public agency” within the meaning of FOIA (5 U.S.C. 522).  But, for the sake of those of you that care, I’ll do some research on my own time and report back.  Stay tuned.

In the meantime, look out world.  Andy Schlafly, armed with legal knowledge, a personal score to settle, and NO sense of honesty whatsoever, is a scary thing.  He has no honor and, as I’ve said, regardless of whether he has a case, he won’t hesitate to use his limited grasp of law to bludgeon you.  He may be all bark and no bite, but a lawyer’s bark has been known to cost money in and of itself.

Update: the debate rages.  It seems Schlafly’s just bluffing… again.  I’m SHOCKED!  If you’re just coming to this post, please take a look at the comments: as one of the posters there points out, Schlafly’s intense desire to stare down anyone that looks at him - evinced in this whole Lenski debacle, and his conduct at Conservapedia - can all probably be explained by his ardent desire to please mommy.  He is the last of three boys, a second-career lawyer who abandoned a good electrical engineering job… it all screams “LOOK AT ME, MOM.  AREN’T I GOOD?”

Don’t worry; I won’t let this site become a Conservapedia blog. After all, Conservapedia is ably covered in more detail by other internet venues. But, as a case study of creationism and extremist theocratic politics in action (”Idiots in the Mist,” if you will), Conservapedia has a lot to teach us, and when those case study moments crop up, I will gleefully report on them. So, wherever Conservapedia flops at making creationism intellectually respectable, I’ll be there. Wherever Conservapedia proves, in an exceptionally egregious way, the evil of theocratic conservatism, I’ll be there. And wherever Andy Schlafly makes a huge jerk of himself, I’ll be there, too.

It’s to the second of those points that I turn your attention today. Background: Conservapedia is run by a small group of people who believe that difference is to be corrected, that dissent is irrelevant, that power is best concentrated, that there is one Truth and other ideologies are malicious lies, that compromise is futile, and that the enemy is everywhere. Even though the Conservapedia administrators are working together towards a common goal, these ideological commitments that nominally bring them together have caused Conservapedia’s leaders to react with predictable animosity even towards each other. After all, where an intolerant man meets another intolerant man, even if they agree on 90% of the issues, they’ll kill each other over the last 10%. Put simply, the history of Conservapedia’s leadership is one of bigotry, anger, violence, and paranoia.

Let’s push the Jane Goodall metaphor a little farther. In the jungle of Conservapedia, last year, researchers were afforded a rare glimpse at the site’s “silverbacks” when, for a short period of time, the administration’s top-secret, password-protected Google Group became temporarily visible, exposing the group’s dirty laundry - and some personal secrets - for all the world to see.  When I came upon the newly public group, it was like looking into the smoke-filled backroom of a small spin-off Soviet nation, suffering from delusions of grandeur.  Everything was there: the draconian, imperialistic trappings (the group ominously styled itself either the “Special Discussion Group,” or “The Ten”), the persecution complex (every time the wiki software hiccuped, they blamed invisible hackers), the black ops mission reports (”I have successfully infiltrated RationalWiki”), the intricate grandoise plots for revenge (The Ten frequently considered suing “liberals” for merely posting on Conservapedia, and tried to report “vandals” to the FBI), and the backstabbing.  Tellingly, not all Conservapedia administrators were in the Special Discussion Group, and those that weren’t - even some of the most active administrators - were constantly either suspected of being ‘double agents,” mocked, or plotted against.  It was a poisonous atmosphere of hate, and distrust.

Moving from the general to the specific, and from external to internal tensions, even the story of how the Special Discussion Group became temporarily public is fascinating for the light it sheds on Conservapedia’s internal discord. The Group was co-owned by one high-ranking Conservapedia sysop who, growing disillusioned with his place in the pecking order, decided to expose the group’s secrets in an act of petty vengeance.  Suspicious, authoritarian personalities - shockingly - do not play well with others.

We need not turn only to private groups for gossip, either.  Although The Ten tried to hide all internal discord, a good deal of it managed to leak into public view.  Among a history of hatred, a couple particular schisms come to mind.

First, the religious. Latent antisemitism at Conservapedia (come on, don’t act surprised) turned away one conservative, creationist, Messianic Jewish administrator, and distrust of Mormons nearly caused the group to lose one of its more active members. And although I can’t cite to it for privacy reasons, Andy Schlafly’s unconcealed distrust of even adherents to different forms of creationism led to him repulsing more than one trusted and active administrator. Apparently xenophobic bigots can’t keep it in long enough even to get along with their allies.

Second, the ideological. By steadfastly sticking to the old lie that Barack Obama is Muslim, the site lost its one evenhanded captain, who just couldn’t take the lying anymore, and the same event has nearly alienated some other senior administrators. While about half of the Conservapedia leaders - and especially the ones in charge - are fine with “lying for Jesus,” the remainder apparently have some problems with blatant smear campaigns.  The Lenski affair has provoked the latest division, alienating the more thoughtful and friendly creationists on the site, who knew that Schlafly was fighting a battle that he was bound to lose.  Those administrators are now seeing that to Schlafly, ideology comes before tact, and even before intelligence.

The failings of Conservapedia are the failings of every tyranny and every theocracy that’s ever existed.  The site has, throughout its existence, tried to maintain an aggressive, theocratic, xenophobic party line, opposed to all things that the Fearless Leader (Andy Schlafly) deems “liberal” (ergo evil), regardless of the objective merits of the idea.  Just like dictatorships that try to maintain their own hard & fast ideological grounds, the rigid demands of obedience and unity in Conservapedia’s case functioned to exclude, alienate, and ultimately expel the talented, moderate, and intelligent contributors (the veritable canaries in the mine), creating a leadership group dominated by forceful and dogmatic individuals, which naturally fostered paranoia and suspicion.  By swearing itself to an ideology of hate, Conservapedia long ago sowed the seeds of its own destruction, which are even now blooming.

Bobby Jindal, a potential pick for John McCain’s running mate, has chosen to sign into law Louisiana SB 733, yet another of Trojan horse for creationism. As friend-of-the-site PZ Myers points out, Jindal has (hopefully) committed political suicide. If McCain picks a confirmed creationist for his slate, he’ll at once win a small group, and lose a big group by proving that he is, in fact, another right-wing religious avatar. Apparently, the bill was controversial in Louisiana, and Jindal chose to ignore one controversy, while teaching the other. The mere fact that McCain was considering this man as a running mate ought to tell us enough about him. Let’s hope this is as far as Jindal goes in American politics.

I’ve enjoyed our brief popularity during the rush to see, and shudder at, Andy Schlafly’s battles with Dr. Richard Lenski. On Conservapedia, the battle continues: Schlafly still hasn’t read Lenski’s relatively short paper, and yet continues to attack its conclusions and call for “information” that he wouldn’t have the tools to analyze. Sigh.

But, more importantly, the Lenski debacle has focused the talents of many on understanding the phenomenon that is Conservapedia, with some success: among the best, check here, at “Lay Science,” to understand where Conservapedia’s web traffic really comes from. The story? It’s mostly gawkers, with serious contributors few and far between. No surprise there.

A recent post to Andy Schlafly’s talk page on Conservapedia suggests that we’ve not yet heard the last from him on the Lenski debate. In fact, it almost sounds like Andy’s preparing to sue - or, rather, threaten to sue - Lenski, just to possibly make a point. Given the turn that events could take, it’s important to remember that Andy Schlafly approaches law as a political tool, to use to get what he wants, regardless of whether he’s right, or even honest.

Schlafly’s past and potential future use of sketchy lawyering tactics against Lenski is by no means the first time he’s stooped to abuse of legal knowledge to make his case. Andy views law not as a profession in service of the public, but rather as another weapon to use to wound his ideological opponents, without regard to professional ethics. Another example:

Last year, Conservapedia’s mortal enemy, RationalWiki, posted a side-by-side, point-by-point refutation of one of Conservapedia’s articles. The RationalWiki refutation article obviously included Conservapedia content, and employed it towards the end of comparison and criticism, which is clearly fair use within United States copyright law. When Andy saw RationalWiki’s article, though, and its appropriation and critique, he threatened to sue, asserting that his “copyright” on the Conservapedia material was infringed by its reproduction and critique. To say that Andy was wrong is to understate the point: it’s unclear whether Conservapedia, an open-source encyclopedia, even has a copyright, and even if it did, copying to critique is clearly fair use. Andy’s position was so wrong that he could not have even entertained the possibility that he was right. He threatened civil litigation knowing the law wasn’t on his side, hoping his legally unsophisticated opponent didn’t know enough to fight him. Threatening civil litigation in bad faith is bad enough; using a bad faith threat to exploit a legally unsophisticated party is even worse.

We law students - as future lawyers - get a bad rap because of people like this. Law is a powerful tool: it turns knowledge into power quicker than almost any other skill set, and in the wrong hands it can be a frightening weapon. The power that lawyers wield can only be justified by adherence to a strong code of ethics. Despite protestations of his Christian morality, Andy lacks this requisite professional moral code. So if you find yourself in a debate with him, and he threatens you with a lawsuit or starts to use legal reasoning against you, (1) be suspicious, and (2) be afraid. Weave a circle ’round him thrice and close your eyes in holy dread. He won’t hesitate to lie or abuse his power to beat you down.

Oh, and Andy, if you’re thinking of suing over this post, just remember that truth is a complete defense.