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…)
Communicating complicated scientific issues to the public is becoming increasingly vital to democracy, especially as science becomes more complicated and more intrusive upon traditional values. With global warming becoming a valence issue, though, I think it’s time to pay credit where credit is due to those who so effectively educated the public on the myriad threats to our environment.
I refer, of course, to none other than Al Gore and the heroes behind Futurama.
Well, I might have to eat my hat on this one. It looks like Schlafly has finally read Lenski’s study, and he still doesn’t like it. Okay, I don’t actually know much about science. Unlike Schlafly, I know my limitations (to see Schlafly countermand a doctor on a medical issue, click here). So could someone who does know science rebut Schlafly’s attempted rebuttal?
That said, I’m already noticing one error. Schlafly notes, in point #2, that Lenski may have erroneously included in his studies a bacteria group already known to possess the Cit+ ability, thus (accordingly to Schlafly) stacking the deck in his favor by putting the desired result in the initial sample group. That’s a hell of an allegation! Of course, it doesn’t bear out: if you read Lenski’s paper, in the very first page, Lenski explains that the bacteria group that Schlafly thinks is a polluter (in generation 31,500) was the result of Lenski’s experiment, not a preexisting sample inserted to deceive. Schlafly might be confusing retesting with the initial experiment.
In any event, we now know that Schlafly’s not going to let this one go. He’s even willing to READ to win this argument, thus disobeying the Conservapedia commandment, “don’t read a book to learn, write a book to learn” (I’m serious about that one). But I think I know the secret to his persistence Aside from his earnest desire to please mommy, Schlafly is a recent convert to young-earth creationism. Though this shouldn’t come as a shock, Schlafly’s mind is impressionable. If Schlafly were to lose this debate… and allow himself to recognize and try to cope with the loss… he might begin to question young-earth creationism itself.
A side point. Why is Lenski getting all the name recognition and play on this issue? There were two other scientists, you know, on this paper…. Blount and Borland. Poor guys. I guess they’re the Collins and Aldrin to Lenski’s Armstrong.
Another side point. Conservapedia is dying. If the health of a wiki can be measured in the time it takes for 50 changes to accrue on its “Recent Changes” list, Conservapedia is varying between 6 and 11 hours. In contrast, it takes RationalWiki 5 hours at a slow time of day, CreationWiki 2 days (read: mostly dead), and Wikipedia 1 minute. I’ve predicted it before, but I think Schlafly has alienated or blocked most of the people he cares for exploits.
Our friend the Lay Scientist is getting some well-deserved diggs for this assessment of Andy Schlafly’s gambit in the Lenski affair, a.k.a., When Homeschoolers Attack. L.S. (as he shall henceforth be known) theorizes that Schlafly needn’t, and doesn’t plan to, win the scientific argument. Rather, he supposes, Schlafly is just trying to leverage the fact that Lenski won’t disclose his data - and in fact, can’t disclose his data, since Schlafly won’t ever say exactly what he wants - into a mistrust of science. I think that’s spot-on accurate.
L.S. worries that this gambit may eventually win the day; but I think, there, he overestimates Schlafly’s reach. As L.S. points out, bloggers like myself and P.Z. Myers don’t have much reach or appeal beyond the choir of people who already agree with us (although I’m very proud of this site’s bipartisan appeal), but he stops short of making the further connection, that Conservapedia doesn’t reach beyond its own choir, either. Conservapedia - and especially Schlafly’s stance on the Lenski affair - have largely both becoming laughingstocks. As of now, Schlafly is deserted by even his own sysops (can’t link - the site is down - but even hard-line creationists have abandoned Schlafly and reminded him that they told him to avoid this in the first place). I think he’s managed to alienate even those that have rallied to him when none others will. As of now, his “point” about mistrust of science will only be picked up by other creationists as a cautionary tale, not to go head-to-head with real scientists. And THAT, as we say in the business, is an epic fail.
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?”
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.
Welcome, everyone, to NYU Law’s scenic Tishman Auditorium. Kirby’s introduced by Mary Holland, one of our great lawyering program professors. Before going any further, I’d like to emphasize how great this law school is. Holland is part of one of the more unique programs at the law school, one of the programs that really makes the school stand out (come to NYU Law, kids, seriously). Anyways, Professor Holland studies the legal controversy, and follows Kirby to stay up-to-date.
Note - his slides are on his website. iPhonePhotoBlogging doesn’t make for good pictures. My rough transcript is below. I’ll post after the lecture with comments for some go-to moments. For now, I’ll just say “6:57.” I’d also appreciate it if some awesome people with scientific knowledge could take my journalism and turn it into commentary.
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.
If you want to see what happens when an intelligent, polite man meets an ideologically-driven unread boor, look no further than the continued correspondence between Andy Schlafly, pundit and bigot extraordinaire, and Dr. Richard Lenski, biologist. This little battle has become somewhat of a cause celebre, so I’m happy to revisit the debate. For those of you just joining us, here’s the story as it stands now (fuller recap on earlier developments here):
Richard Lenski published a scientific study proving, again, that evolution can generate new information and beneficial mutations, thus disposing of a common creationist canard.
Andy Schlafly, creationist pundit and proprietor of Conservapedia (the “trusworthy” encyclopedia) couldn’t stand science beating his beloved ideology (creationism), so he wrote Lenski and complained: “show us your data!”
Lenski replied, “please read the paper, it’s all there.” My last post left off at this point.
Although Schlafly could have read the paper to get the important data, Schlafly instead replied in true lawyer fashion (I can mock my profession!), dodging the issue on the merits and instead demanding that Lenski produce all twenty years of his research leading to his conclusions - i.e., an impractical amount of data - for Schlafly’s review.
There’s a trick to that last request: it’s a particularly evil modern lawyer move called “burying the opponent in discovery.” You demand that the other guy show you an impossibly large amount of vaguely important or tenuously related documents, thereby abusing notions of procedural fairness to waste everybody’s time, rack up your bills, and hopefully run the little guy out of the process if he can’t afford the cost of sending you the documents. Ideally, this trick forces settlement, thus avoiding a substantive debate that you might *gasp!* justly lose. Although Schlafly’s not billing, he presumably thought that he could claim the high ground by demanding that Lenski show him twenty years worth of data, and mocking him when he didn’t or couldn’t do so.
To be clear, real lawyers frown on this tactic: it’s immoral and against professional ethics. But that won’t stop a man like Schlafly from trying it, so demand he did. Lenski, Schlafly assumed, wouldn’t waste his time, and Andy could claim victory not because he’d won on the battlefield of ideas, but because he’d tuckered his opponent out by focusing the debate on posturing & style, instead of substance.
If that was Schlafly’s idea, it didn’t work. Lenski saw the trap and avoided it. He again replied by challenging the political paradigm into which Schlafly was trying to shoehorn the debate, demanding instead that Schlafly debate him on the scientific merits, or not at all. Lenski also played within the Schlafly paradigm insofar as necessary to defuse it: “If any such request [for production of scientific data] requires substantial time or resources… then of course I would expect the recipient to bear those costs.” There goes the lawyering trick.
In short, Andy Schlafly just lost on his own turf, and will lose in a debate on the actual science of the issue, if he chooses to engage in one. Don’t expect him to do so, though. Expect a few more tricks that will just make us good lawyers look bad.
Progressive political thought, spin, and a reaffirmation of the foundational values of equal justice and reason.
Ames Grawert is a law student at NYU and a New Yorker. His experience ranges from law to ancient history, and includes a tiny bit of science.
R. Timothy Brady is a composer and a New Yorker. He has written an award-winning opera, Edalat Square, which will be performed in Houston, Texas this summer. He is also the founder of the Soulbird Music Project, a collaborative charitable organization focusing on the nexus between music and human rights.
Senator John McCain sharply increased his spending in June as he ramped up his campaign and his presumed Democratic opponent became clear, according to new filings with the Federal Election Commission.
Stumble It!