News Bias . . . Yes, this is a real thing!

A recent conversation came to mind when I saw Prof McGrath's post "What's your Source".  I loved the opening sentence:

"Does it match your perception of these sources?  If not, do you assume that the issue is with the chart, or with your perception?"

Here's the chart in question:

The conversation was mercifully brief with someone who considers CNN a liberal partisan news organization and Fox News as the bastion for truth.  I wish I had this graphic with me during that brief, but memorable conversation.

For me, I find the graphic very close to my own perceptions.  I might have moved the Huffington Post a bit lower on the Journalistic Quality axis and maybe NPR a tiny bit more to the left on the Partisan Bias axis, but for the most part the only thing I really have trouble with is the oval that contains Fox News reaching nearly to the Analytical.  I don't watch much of Fox News, so maybe there is a Fox show or two that lean that way, but my experience would have ruled against that.  The shows I have seen fall much further to the right and at best would rarely come under the heading of 'Meets High Standards".

In fact of all the news organizations, Politifact usually measure Fox News much lower on any scale of truthfulness, rating their average at 60% being untruths, or as I was brought up to call them, lies.  CNN, the news service much maligned by most of the conservatives that I know, came in at 20% untruths.  If you wonder about what political ax Politifact grinds, you might do some homework and find that unlike Fox News, Politifact doesn't seem to care about content, only how the content relates to the actual facts.

So there you have it.  I would be interested in feedback and where you would rate your usual sources for news, as compared to this chart.  So, if you feel like it, leave a comment or two.  My usual sources are NPR, NBC, my local paper (Dayton Daily News -- which my much more right-leaning spouse calls the 'Dayton Daily Liberal'), and Google News.  But, unlike some, I try and trace information back to sources rather than just accept the headlines as gospel.  For example if Fox has a story and cite Reuters, I nearly always find the Reuters story and rarely find it says what Fox News said it did.  But that's just me!  It's not just "What are your Sources", but checking your source material as well.

As for my own political leanings, I would have said more of a Centrist for years, even though I was a Republican.  But recent Republican activities over the past couple of decades has made me an independent.  I still lean a little left on social issues, right on fiscal conservation, and most interested in accuracy from my news sources than any sort of spin.  Which is why my expectation of Fox News, in particular, is pretty low . . . and they seem to meet that expectation quite regularly.

Human Nature, another thing the Discovery Institute knows little about!

In a post I read this morning, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, one of the more prolific Discovery Institute (DI) talking heads, says something incredibly foolish. Here's his post "Intelligent Design and Human Exceptionalism" and here is the quote:

"Here's an analogy. Let's say you know two very wealthy people. One came by his wealth via a lottery, a blind process, and he sees no purpose or intention behind it. It was the luck of the draw. The other, whether he inherited his wealth or came by it through enterprise, perceives it as a gift motivated by an underlying design. His fortune is not by the luck of the draw. It was given to him on purpose.
Both individuals are exceptionally wealthy. Which is likelier to use his money to advance good causes, to share it with others, to see himself as, in some sense,deputized to put his fortune to noble uses?"

I underlined the two interesting phrases.  My comment to klingy it simple, isn't he making an awfully wild assumption here?  Does someone who wins the lottery required to see no purpose?  Is someone who inherits, or gains though enterprise, going to perceive it as a gift motivated by some underlying design?  Really?

Now I am not yet addressing the purpose of the article, I am focused on his statement.  It's an analogy klingy is using the try and force a square peg, Intelligent Design (ID), into a round hole, Human Exceptionalism.  But just look at his analogy.  His answer to his own question is, of course, the person who inherited or came through his work through enterprise is much more likely to put his fortune to noble uses.  This way he can try and create a relationship between ID, as he characterizes as inherited/enterprising, and evolution, which he characterizes as blind process.

Now here comes the human nature part of the equation that klingy ignores.  Do you agree that someone who inherits money, or comes to it through enterprise, is more likely to put that money to noble purposes?  And do you also agree that a lottery winner would be selfish and not share his money?

See what I mean?  I don't have statistics to support either answer, and I am sure that klingy doesn't either or he would have been spouting them.  He's expressing a point of view as if it's reality in order to spin things the way he wishes.  Think about it, how many spoiled, self-entitled brats have you read about who inherited their fortune?  We have names for them, 'trust fund babies/brats/bums'.  We read about them in the paper all the time.  Rich kids who flout the law because of their entitlement and wealth -- even self-made people who are horrendous examples of human beings.  As tempting as it would be to name a few names, I'm pretty sure you can think of a number of your own examples.  It is a pretty big leap to assume they are more likely to be using their fortune 'to noble uses'.

On the other hand, can you think of lottery winners who donates part, a majority, and even all of their winnings to charity?  That one is easy to Google and you see hundreds of examples.  Some people didn't need the money, others used a small part and donated the rest to avoid the issues that have been popularized by reports in the news and on TV of how 'The Lottery Ruined My Life.".  There were several examples of people donating their entire winnings away to one or more charities!  So, to me, it's an equally big leap to assume someone who won a lottery is more likely to not use that money for anything noble!

One a personal note, I am not wealthy, in the terms of money in the bank.  I have neither won the lottery nor inherited any great wealth.  While it might be interesting to win a lottery and see if it actually ruins my life, regardless, I am a donor to a number of charities.  I donate to charities that have affected myself, my family, and my friends personally.  For example charities related to heart, cancer, MS, diabetes, and Parkinson's diseases.  I also donate to some organizations like Goodwill, Vietnam Vets, Boy and Girl Scouts, Special Olympics and my local PBS/NPR station.

Do I give a sizable percentage of my income?  I'm not sure of the exact amount, but in all honesty, I doubt it.  I would be shocked if I even hit 10%, let alone anything sizable.  But then, I don't have a great deal of disposable income.  Like many people my most sizable expense each month is a mortgage and car payments and they take up a pretty big chunk.  After that its living expenses, like food, utilities, insurance, and retirement.  Followed by savings and a small emergency fund.  While you may or may not agree, I place those things well ahead of any charitable donations.  Does that make me 'noble' in some way?  I never thought of it that way . . . and I still don't.  I know that I don't feel 'deputized', I just behave in the way I was raised, and that included my charitable donations.

It's not based on the source of your money, donating is a personal decision and one I believe is more based on who you are than what you have.  Yes, a wealthy person can give more than I can, but they give not because they got it from a particular source, they give because of who they are!

As for the rest of the article, it's nothing more than another effort to make the idea of human exceptionalism into something more than it is.  It is a belief, most often based on religion (man is made in the image of one deity or another . . .).  Of course klingy tries to use such beliefs as justification for ID.  He also mis-characterizes ID as:

"On the other hand, against a backdrop of intelligent design, which is a scientific not religious argument for purpose behind nature . . ."

His misspelled 'science', when used in conjunction with ID, the correct spelling is 'pseudo-science'.  But then, this is what the DI does, they spin!  How many times have I, and many others have, pointed out examples.  This is clearly another one!  I honestly think they could spin any subject and find a way to make it sound as if it support ID.  Look at how many they have already spun.  As long as the donations come in, the spin will continue to entertain us.

The Discovery Institute is begging again

Panda's Thumb is reporting that the Discovery Institute is fund raising again, although this time with a slightly off-kilter message. (Does the DI’s latest Fund Raising Appeal Cross the Line?) Here is the text from the reported fund raising letter:

Dear {Insert name of email recipient here}: 

Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, originator of modern quantum theories and 1918 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, was quoted as saying, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” 

Here in Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC), we are living proof that no matter how powerful an idea is–and the idea of intelligent design (ID) is truly a powerful one–there is some truth to Planck’s statement. It is not just about convincing opponents about the merits of ID. While books such as Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt have been met with critical acclaim, there is still a long way to go.

Thanks to your generosity, we aren’t simply waiting for our opponents to die.

Since its inception almost 10 years ago, visionary CSC donors have enabled us to focus on educating young people through our Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design and C.S. Lewis Fellows Program– programs designed to raise up a new generation of scientists and scholars who are not afraid to follow the evidence wherever it leads. These programs are made possible by those who recognize that science needs an infusion of new minds and ideas. 

We need your support to continue and expand these programs. Our summer programs attract students from the United States and around the world, including Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, Central and South America, and the Middle East; more than we can admit. Most of these students cannot attend unless we pay their expenses.You can help with your gift of any amount.

• $75 will pay for the cost of ground transportation for one student.
• $200 will provide books and other curricular materials to one student.
• $800 will pay to house and feed one student for the entire program.
• $2,500 will cover the full cost for admitting an additional student into the program.

Donate now to the Summer Seminar campaign and be a part of the transformation of science and culture, one student’s life at a time!

Note the sentence in bold -- and to be clear -- I am not sure the original letter from the DI had that line in bold or the folks at Panda's Thumb did it.  For some reason I guess I'm not on the DI's mailing list for donation requests so I didn't get my own letter.  I think they are one of the few organizations that doesn't have me on their list based on the amount of junk mail I get.

But that line does tie into the Max Planck quote (which I provided the underlining), but does the DI think that is the reality of how science works?  Do they believe people think that way, or is it an excuse for their lack of any actual progress? Just how many of their 5 and 20 year goals have they hit since formation?  In case you aren't familiar with their goals, here is a list:

Five-Year Goals: 

• To see Intelligent Design as an accepted alternative and actual scientific research being done from the perspective on 'design' theory
• To see design theory influencing other spheres other than natural sciences
• To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal, and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda

Twenty-Year Goals:

• To see Intelligent Design as the dominant perspective in science
• To see design theory being applied in any specific fields, in and outside of the natural sciences
• To see design theory permeating our religious, cultural, moral, and political life

Pretty poor showing, 20+ years and haven't even reached any of their 5-year goals.  I would seriously re-consider any donation if I were you.  Their track record makes them look more like a money sink than any form of investment.

Do new ideas only gain acceptance as the adherents in old ideas finally pass away?  That would imply that new ideas ONLY get accepted at least one generation away from their inception.  While I am sure there are instances of that, but are there also more instances of new ideas being much more rapidly accepted.  There are also instances of being accepted multiple generations later.  What tends to lead to acceptance anyway?

As we have stated many times, what leads to acceptance in science is not the passing of the 'old guard', but the discovery of evidence supporting new ideas.  Regardless of how much or how little time has passed between inception and acceptance -- the key is the evidence that supports new ideas. For example Plate Tectonics and Continental Drift did have approximately two generations between the idea and the acceptance within scientific circles, but that wasn't because of the passing of any particular group, but because the technology needed to confirm it hadn't been invented yet.  We didn't have satellites capable of incredibly precise measurements in the 1920's.  Yet approximately two generations later we did and what was once dismissed became the preeminent theory!

The DI's agreement with Max Planck quote, in  that scientific concepts change based on the adherents passing doesn't appear to be valid.  Evolution has certainly survived multiple generations, as do many of the theories we use regularly today.  How many generations have we been using thermodynamics in multiple forms, even well before we even understood much of the science behind it.  Other theories gain rapid acceptance -- again based on evidenciary support.  No deaths required.  Now, how many discredited ideas have fallen by the wayside and completely disappeared once their promoter passed away?  I would think that list would be considerably longer.  How long will the modern Intelligent Design Movement last once the DI closes its doors?  I would say not very long.  I mean look how often people use the phrase 'Creation Science' today, and it was a popular one right up to the point where it got shredded because it wasn't actual science.  Any modern proponents?  I haven't heard of anyone trying to pass any laws regarding it since the 1980's.

Now . . . religion . . . does seem much more impacted on generational changes. Recently reported by NPR ("More Young People Are Moving Away From Religion, But Why?"):

"One-fifth of Americans are religiously unaffiliated — higher than at any time in recent U.S. history — and those younger than 30 especially seem to be drifting from organized religion. A third of young Americans say they don't belong to any religion."

We discusses this in "Ken Ham goes of the deep end . . . again" where he blamed everyone but his own closed-mind as reasons for young people leaving his straight-jacketed version of a religion. Personally I think his behavior, and similar behaviors from Evangelicals, drive people away precisely as predicted by St. Augustine:

"Augustine took the view that, if a literal interpretation contradicts science and our God-given reason, the Biblical text should be interpreted metaphorically. While each passage of Scripture has a literal sense, this "literal sense" does not always mean that the Scriptures are mere history; at times they are rather an extended metaphor" (Wikipedia:  Augustine of Hippo)

How many churches are closing down as their parishioners basically die off.  I have heard that the church I attended as a child . . . yes, I did go to a parochial school as well . . . has closed and the parish merged with another because the population of supporters slowly dwindled -- however the population of the local area actually increased from when I lived there as a child.  Max Planck's quote seems to be more applicable to religious organizations than scientific theories.  If you go back in history you can see that it is littered with the ghosts of one deity or another as their adherents died out. The DI might have to watch out, as a ministry, this might hit pretty close to home -- especially if their fund-raising is as successful as their science.

I do want to address a few more lines from their letter begging for financial help.

"It is not just about convincing opponents about the merits of ID. While books such as Stephen C. Meyer’s Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt have been met with critical acclaim, there is still a long way to go."

Since they have not been able to convince anyone of the merits of ID, it comes as no surprise that instead of trying to develop actual merits, they simple try and look like they are changing tactics and aiming at something other than selling ID.  Plus I would say Meyer's books have not met with critical acclaim, that has a very positive connotation.  More accurately his books have met with harsh criticism, so much so they wrote a second book (Debating Darwin's Doubt) to address these criticisms, which they seem to have forgotten to actually address.

Here is another line and to go with it, a description of the enrollment criteria for the DI's summer program:

"educating young people" (From the above letter)

"You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director." (Summer Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences)

One more time with feeling, if the DI is not advocating the teaching of ID in schools, why do they have these programs aimed at students to generate support for ID?

These programs are made possible by those who recognize that science needs an infusion of new minds and ideas.

But according to the DI, isn't ID an old idea?  They keep moving the goal posts.  Are they disavowing Anaxagoras, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher already?  They only drafted him as an ID proponent just a few weeks ago.  

OK, I think that's enough for now.  Actually maybe the best course of action for the DI is to wait a generation or two and see if evolution has suffered major set-backs as the preeminent theory of biology.   Certainly all the efforts of the DI to damage science and scientific education has had little impact.  Maybe Max's quote is the only possible chance for Intelligent Design to gain more notice than a passing footnote in the history of biological thought -- that is if the DI survive themselves.