Wikipediatricians -- what a concept!

Caught an interesting post from Dr. James McGrath and his blog "Religion Prof". Professor McGrath is Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature at Butler University in Indianapolis.  While his blog isn't one you might think I read regularly, it certainly is.  I find his posts thought provoking, and this one certainly is:  "Wikipediatricians and Ways of Knowing".

Let's talk about Wikipedia for a moment.  I use it often and have also run up against criticism of it, usually from people who don't like their policies.  Yes, unlike what some people would like to believe, you just can't publish anything you want on Wikipedia.  There are processes, editorial policies, and rules that apply no only to those editing information, but what information can be included.  In other words, just like Encyclopedia Britannica, there are processes that must be followed.

For some background, I grew up with two sets of encyclopedias in the house and many an evening you could find my siblings and I huddled over one volume or another compiling information for school.  When I was in grade school -- even high school, I rarely questioned the encyclopedia.  However, once in college I used an encyclopedia reference in a paper just once and you would have thought the world had ended from the reaction of the professor.

That's where I got my first lesson in what an encyclopedia really was, a compilation of research, not an authoritative source -- and that you have to go to the source material for understanding.  While they are generally regarded as acceptable knowledge, when it comes to actual research and references, they are second or even third-hand information.

As a result, when I first saw Wikipedia, one of the benefits I saw was the live links to the source material supporting the articles. but I was curious as to how it stacked up against the gold-standard of encyclopedias "Britannica".  What I have found is that Wikipedia does have a slight bias to the left, especially in pages concerning corporations and governments, but, in my opinion, it wasn't a significant bias -- which may relate to my own biases; however, in scientific/technical subjects, it was as accurate as Britannica.  In some ways it is more current than a published encyclopedia because the editing is much more recent. Of course Britannica is also available online, but the currency issue still leans in favor of Wikipedia.

In 2005 Nature did a study comparing the two and found that all-in-all, they were pretty much on par as information sources:

"In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site [Wikipedia and Britannica]."

Nature didn't mention any bias, but Forbes did later in a 2015 study -- but like me didn't see it as significant.  In fact one of the findings I found fascinating in the Forbes study:

"Perhaps the most interesting finding of Zhu and Greenstein's research is that the more times an article is revised on Wikipedia, the less bias it is likely to show—directly contradicting the theory that ideological groups might self-select over time into increasingly biased camps."

Yes, the most times an article is edited, the less bias is present.  Which I find very interesting since the groups that seem to whine about Wikipedia most often are groups with an ideological bone to pick, as noted in Wikipedia deserves an Award! They Annoyed the DI! Yea!.

OK, back to Professor McGrath, now that you know where I stand on Wikipedia itself.  It's not the source of information that may be problematic, but, as he puts it:

" . . . a failure on the part of readers to understand how summaries relate to the processes whereby academic conclusions are drawn."

Encyclopedias, whether print or online, are simply summaries from a wide variety of other source materials.  They are compiled by writers and editors that probably do not have the same level of expertise as the original writers.  That doesn't mean encyclopedias should be discarded.  What it means, especially in this environment of distrusting experts and the Internet's apparent democratizing of every opinion, we still need to understand that our own perspective is limited and that any single individual or group might understand some things differently than we do.  We need to grasp those not just as limitations, but as strengths.  I am not a doctor, so a doctor's medical opinion is going to be better than mine . . . and equating such expertise to an unsupported opinion on the Internet can be both dangerous and foolish.  Multiple doctors opinions would weigh even more heavily.  That's how it should be!

Like Wikipedia. the best information seems to be when it is confirmed by multiple reliable sources.  I am not talking about when all Fox News talking heads agree, but if Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are presenting similar stories, you can more than likely rely on them.  But when one source is leaning hard in one direction and the majority of the other news sources have an opposing view, you can be pretty sure the one is 'showing their slip', so to speak.  As you look at a variety of sources, you will come to find ones that tend to be more objective than others, like MSNBC and NPR over Fox News or Breibart.  But you have to experience multiple sources to figure that out.

Academic consensus, including scientific consensus, isn't the voice of one person, but the collaboration and confirmation by multiple people with a particular expertise.  If you distrust it, you always have the option to examine the source of the material yourself.  Wikipedia makes it easy, as does Google.  But do not let your perception be stuck in a rut with one source.  Branch out, you might learn something!

One of my friends is a hard-line conservative, and as the years have gone by become much more conservative than I am comfortable with.  His favorite news sources include Fox, Limbaugh, and a few specific websites.  When he tells me anything, I head out and check carefully.  As much as he will dislike reading this, I usually find his information to be biased to the extreme and often outright wrong.  Sometimes it's just a little twisted, but all too often it's simply a lie.  He doesn't seem to like it when I call him on it and he gets rather defensive -- OK more than just 'rather defensive'.  But until he figures out his usual sources aren't particularly honest, we will keep playing this game.

But therein lies the problem.  He has very few sources of information and gets told by those sources that any other sources are 'fake news', and he buys into it.  He's not learning anything, all he's doing is getting reinforcement for his own prejudices.  That's the dangerous point.

It's not Wikipedia that's a problem, but how we take information, regardless of source, and use it.  Are we learning or are we reinforcing beliefs we already have? Are we getting information from authoritative sources, or are we assigning our own form of democratizing and thinking authoritative sources and alternative sources are equal?  A doctor v. Hollywood celebrity on vaccines?  A spokesman paid for by the oil companies v. actual scientists who study climate change?  A biologist v. a lawyer?

You really need to think about who is more likely to give you good information rather than tell you something you might want to hear!

Further Evidence of the Myth of Biblical Literalism

I haven't posted about Biblical Literalism lately, there really hasn't much to say.  However, today, over on one of the other blogs I read regularly, "Religion Prof: The Blog of James F. McGrath" is a new post which drives home one of the many issues with Biblical Literalism "The Bible is Getting More Loving".

The issue I am talking about is something often denied by literalists, on how the Bible changes with the various translations.  Yes, the Bible changes, much more often than people realize!  Today's post is a clear demonstration of that:

Original Source

As you can see the Bible is constantly changing . . . evolving, you might say if you really want to annoy most literalists.  One of the common themes of such literalists is doing their best to ignore many of the more uncomfortable parts of the Bible.  As Prof McGrath posted back in 2008, and I discussed here, a recipe for Biblical Literalism:

"Take one part overly-familiar Bible verses. 

Repeat these verses over and over again until a thick, opaque layer is formed. Use this layer to cover the remaining 39 parts consisting of Bible verses that do not talk about the same subject as those more familiar verses, verses which seem to disagree with them, as well as verses you don't understand, verses you understand but do not put into practice, and any other verses you could happily live without. Bake until the lower verses are obscured from view.

Avoid stirring and serve."

Prof McGrath closed this latest post with::

"It illustrates the way translations reflect linguistic, cultural, and theological changes."

I think he missed one, 'political', because many of the changes noted in the King James Version (KJV) were specifically designed to deal with some of the political issues facing the King.  Imagine what the Bible would look like if a certain hampster-haired serial liar and misogynist got to direct a re-write?  Scary, huh?

And so we close another chapter on the ongoing myth of Biblical Literalism!

Skepticism vs. Scholarship (From James F. McGrath)

Very interesting post from The Religious Prof, aka Professor James F. McGrath.  It discusses the difference between Scholarship and Skepticism:

There is an unfortunate tendency in many circles to suppose that critical scholarship consists of pronouncing negative judgments on early Christians’ own self-understanding of their origins. I would suggest that this is a misunderstanding of what it means to be a critical historian. The critical historian is one who formulates a question, attends to the data relevant to answering that question, weighs possible answers, and then affirms that answer which handles the relevant data best. Sometimes that will much resemble early Christians’ self-understanding of their own origins; sometimes it will be remarkably at variance therewith. The skeptic supposes programmatically that the best answer will be at variance with traditional narratives. That is bias, the bias known as skepticism, which takes as its sinister twin the bias known as credulity: the programmatic supposition that the best answer will be fully congruent with traditional narratives. Both arbitrarily close off possible answers before the investigation even begins. As such, the spirit of critical thought is programmatically opposed to both. (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2017/01/skepticism-vs-scholarship.html)

I underlined what I think are the takeaways, at least for me.  It reminded me of an episode of the Mary Tyler Moore show.  Eric Braeden, who had played one of my favorite characters from an even older show "The Rat Patrol",  played a critic who had joined the staff at Mary's television studio.  He was a critic who was critical of absolutely everything, nothing was good in any form and he never said a positive thing about anything.  As with this TV character, I've often found critics focusing on the negative, looking for the perceived problems with no regard for anything positive.

When it comes to being critical of science, the above quote really hit home.  How many critics of current science are not 'critics' at all, but skeptics or out-and-out deniers?  They enter into any area with the automatic assumption that science, and scientists, are already wrong and come into the conversation with a different 'answer', even ones that do not align with any of the evidence.

Look at the Discovery Institute (DI), my favorite target.  How much evidence have they offered supporting their pet religious concept Intelligent Design (ID)?  Absolutely none, and yet they are intensely skeptical of any science that doesn't have a religious imprint.  As new scientific discoveries are made, you can bet that shortly thereafter they will try and put an ID spin on it, regardless of the fact the discovery doesn't support it.

Look at little kennie ham and his Answers in Genesis (AiG) ministry, another favorite.  How skeptical is ham and Co. of real science, and yet again offers nothing but belief in his version of the Bible in return.  Both the DI and AiG cloak their skepticism/denial as if they are being critical, but since they already have their 'answer', they aren't!

If you doubt that, look at the tactic commonly referred to as their "Academic freedom campaign", a campaign that has nothing to do with academic freedom and everything to do with protecting any teacher who teaches Creationism/ID in science class, cloaking their religion under the guise of academic freedom.

They have even started another petition the poorly named "Academic Freedom Petition".  Right on the first page they highlight four 'martyrs' for the cause, yet they have to lie about them to sell their story.  Here's what the DI says on their petition site:

• In Washington state, high school teacher Roger DeHart was driven from his public school because he wanted students to learn about both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution discussed in science journals.
• In Minnesota, Rodney LeVake was dismissed from teaching high school biology after expressing doubts about the scientific evidence for Darwin’s theory.
• In Texas, biology teacher Allison Jackson was ordered to stop presenting students with information critical of key aspects of modern Darwinian theory.
• In Mississippi, chemistry professor Dr. Nancy Bryson lost her job at a state university after she gave a lecture criticizing Darwin’s theory to a group of honors students.

Yet the truth is Roger DeHart was always an old fashioned Creationist and latched onto ID late in his public school teaching career.  he wasn't 'driven away', but was re-assigned teaching duties that didn't involve teaching his religion -- eventually he resigned and started teaching at a Christian school. 

Rodney LeVake wasn't dismissed either.  After it was made clear that LeVake was refusing the teach the prescribed curriculum in 10th grade biology, he was also re-assigned to 9th grade general science which did not include any evolutionary theory.  He sued the school district and lost as every turn.

I can't find much about Allison Jackson, other that the DI's own comment about her being ordered to stop teaching her religion.  I would have to say she was probably doing exactly what the others were doing and got caught.  There is an Allison Jackson who is now associated with:

"The Society for Classical Learning (SCL) has existed since the mid-1990s to facilitate and encourage thinking and discussion among professionals associated with Christ-centered education in the liberal arts tradition."

My further guess would be that the DI wants to present her as another martyr for the cause, but the reality is she got caught between her professional responsibilities and her religious beliefs and made the choice to abandon her responsibilities.  What did I say just a few posts back (Religious Beliefs vs. Personal and Professional Responsibilities) about what to do when you are caught in such a predicament?  Either accept your responsibilities or get out of the situation.  It looks like Allison got out, but not until she was disciplined for failing in her duties.

As for Dr. Bryson, exactly how and why she left her teaching position at the Mississippi University for Women is unclear, there are conflicting reports, including hearings and a change of heart by the administration after announcing her contract wouldn't be renewed.  But even she admitted that her views on Evolution were based on religion and not science.  Here is a very small part of Dr. Bryson's testimony during the Kansas Hearings from 2005.  Pedro Irigonegaray, a Topeka lawyer is asking the questions, Dr. Bryson is answering:

Q. Now, that opinion that you have about intelligent design, that's not based on science, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. That's based upon your theistic views?
A. Correct.
Q. And you would agree with me that religion has no place in science?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would agree with me that in a science curriculum religion should not be included, correct?
A. Correct. 

So you see, this isn't critical thinking, or really any scholarship involved, just pure and simple dishonesty.  I would have respected any of the 4 who decided to resign their positions BEFORE abdicating their responsibilities.  But if they had, the DI wouldn't be declaring their martyr-hood.
Does anyone every see any signs of scholarship from the DI?  What we get is skepticism and denial-ism and a bunch of creative writing purposefully designed [pun-intended] to disguise their religious beliefs.

The original quote, at the top of this post, discusses biases.  The DI consistently accuses the scientific community of being biased against their pet ideas.  Yet, who is actually being biased?  Look at their four martyrs, can anyone explain how they are the victim of bias, or are their students and the schools  that hired them the victims of their bias in favor of their religious beliefs.

Kennie Ham is Pissed!

You gotta love it.  While I didn't predict how nasty he would get, I was waiting for little kennie ham to respond to the Newsweek article I posted about in "Newsweek looks at Ham's Folly 2" and he finally did.  Tracey Moody over on Pathos saw it before I did, "Ken Ham is Wrong; Newsweek’s Article About His Noah’s Ark Theme Park was Accurate" and James McGrath linked to her post on Facebook.  You really have to read Tracey's post, she's been tracking AiG and the ark park in far more detail than I have.  But, you know me, I had to read kennie's response.

Oh, is he pissed off.  I did say that his delayed response might have been to let his blood pressure drop a bit.  I don't think it reached normal when he penned this up, "Newsweek or “News-Weak”?"  At first he tries to blame the report on his ark park as part of an overall editorial bias when covering Christian news items.  Little kennie LIES about following the legal hiring laws of a for-profit business wanting State incentives . . . and when called on it, it's a biased against all Christianity in the news?  Really, kennie?  Regardless of whether or not such a bias exists it doesn't address the issues the article raised.

After that spitball, he denigrates their journalistic integrity and compared Newsweek to British tabloids and claimed the reporter was a commentator more than an actual reporter.  Oh yea!  Little kennie is having a tantrum!  I can even picture him laying on his back kicking his feet and waving his arms!  Now there is a mental image I could do without.  When is someone going to invent 'brain floss'?  The reporter, who he doesn't even bother naming, has a Masters degree in publishing and magazine writing from Emerson College.  Lindsay Tucker is her name and while kennie might not ever say it, I think it's a name he will never forget!

Then he quotes a bit of scripture and rationalizes what he's done based on his fairy tale estimates of attendance at his newest ministry.  As reported a couple of years back, the Creation 'Museum' is in trouble due to declining attendance.  It's also been reported that for the past 4 years, attendance continually drops and that the estimates for ark park keep being adjusted down AND that ark park officials inflated attendance projections . . . yes, those are the projections little kennie is counting on to not drop a big bill on the taxpayers of Kentucky.  See what I mean by a fairy tale!  Then he really loses it with this:

"Noah’s Ark was a vessel of salvation and today we are using it as a picture of salvation in Jesus Christ. Those who went through the door to the Ark over 4,300 years ago were saved. On the other hand, the Titanic ended up being a vessel of death and those like Bill Nye who reject the modern-day Ark of Salvation, Jesus Christ, will sadly experience what the Bible calls a “second death”: eternal separation from the Lord Jesus Christ. AiG is building the Ark to do our best to throw a “life jacket” to people like the Newsweek commentator and Bill Nye so they will be saved from the Titanic of death." 

And here we have the  . . . last refuge  . . . the threat!  Here is the most incomprehensible part of kennie's belief set, if you don't fall in line, you experience "second death".  Of course, most Christians and Christian Scholars debate exactly what that means, but you know kennie, he's going to cherry picks the parts of the Bible he likes and prefers the whole fiery lake of burning sulfur second death from Revelations.  Yes, that's how you keep people in line, you threaten them with stories.

As an afterthought, little kennie's editor 'explained' why kennie was extremely rude when meeting with the reporter, claiming the reason kennie didn't stand to greet her was because he has chronic back problems.  Maybe it's the Aussie in him, but when I have a condition making me act rude, I always explain it to the person there and then instead of something excusing it after the fact.  But then I guess I was raised differently and aren't I glad!.

Psuedo-Scholarship

Caught an interesting post from Dr. James F. McGrath's 'Exploring Our Matrix' blog, "Defining Pseudoscholarship".  We've discussed Pseudoscience many times, but I thought the perspective here was interesting.  He quotes a commenter, Peter Regnier, on one of his other blog posts.  Paul defines Pseudo-scholarship like this:

Pseudo-scholarship tends to

1. Denigrate entire scholarly fields
2. Largely ignore established academic channels
3. Largely ignore or parody academic conventions
4. Reflect a narrow range of ideological perspectives
5. Reject entire meta-narratives, not points within them
6. Make sensationalist claims
7. Appeal to dubious methodological privilege BUT
8. In reality employ flawed methods
9. Rely on supernatural over natural explanations
10. Be developed and supported disproportionately by non-specialists.

Let's see how well any of these apply to the whole idea of Creationism/Intelligent Design.  Since we have to narrow the field a bit, let's be a little more specific and consider the Creationism/Intelligent Design outflow from the Discovery Institute:

1.  Denigrate entire scholarly fields.  How often have I, and many others, asked that the Discovery Institute support their own ideas rather than denigrate biology and evolution?  Often in their meanderings, you cannot find a single item of substance supporting their own ideas, but only attack after attack on biology and history.  Yes, remember their Nazi and Darwin conspiracy ideas are laughed at by biologists and historians. 
   
2.  Largely ignore established academic channels.  While the Discovery Institute whines and complains about not being able to get published in established academic channels, the issue isn't they do not, the real issue is that they don't seem to be trying.  They don't seem to make any effort for a very simple reason, they refuse to follow the same rules and guidelines for submitting their work as actual scientists.  To quote Dr. Mark Chancey again (Chair of the Religious Studies Department at SMU) " . . . When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day." 
   
3.  Largely ignore or parody academic conventions.  I think they parody more than ignore.  Isn't their pet lab, the wholly owned Biologics Institute, whose contact information and address is the Discovery Institute, a parody of a real lab?  Isn't their own journal and publishing house set-up as a parody of an actual scientific journal and publisher?  They comply with none of the standards such professional journals and publishers have for vetting and supporting the work they publish, yet they claim things self-published are peer-reviewed.  Sounds like a parody to me.  As for ignoring, how about any aspect of scientific methodology?  Dressing up in a lab coat does not make you a doctor.  Dressing up ideas in one doesn't make your idea a scientific theory.
   
4. Reflect a narrow range of ideological perspectives.  Regardless of how often the Discovery Institute, and their various mouthpieces, claim that Intelligent Design is not a religious proposition, each and every examination shows it's religious underpinnings.  It was found to be religious by a Federal Judge.  They constantly give presentations to religious audiences and at the invitation of religious groups and organizations.  Their own strategy document, the Wedge Strategy, makes the connection quite clear.  Yet they continue to verbally deny while their actions support a very narrow range of ideological perspectives.
   
5. Reject entire meta-narratives, not points within them.  Now this one I am not sure how to address, exactly what is a meta-narrative?  I checked a few definitions and see that it's a 'narrative about other narratives', or a comprehensive explanation overarching other more narrow explanations.  OK, that works because isn't the modern theory of evolution an overarching explanation consisting of many other much more specific theories?  Doesn't the DI make sweeping characterizations to reject the majority of evolutionary theory?  Even the whole idea of micro-evolution v. macro-evolution is nothing more than a way to try and reject a large portion of evolutionary theory.
   
6. Make sensationalist claims.  How many can we name?  Dembski's 'Design Filter' which is supposed to be able to detect intelligent design in nature, but doesn't seem to do much of anything?  How about the constant claim of the demise of evolution?  That's been going on for decades, and the DI keeps harping on it.  I think it was Dembski (again) who predicted a 5 year period that would spell the end of evolution and I think we are a decade past that.  Or the annual Paul Nelson Day as we still wait for his detailed exposition of “ontogenetic depth" as a way of measuring complexity.  I think we are about the decade past the due date on that one as well.
7. Appeal to dubious methodological privilege BUT
8. In reality employ flawed methods.  I have to tie these two together because I'm not sure they mean much apart.  The key here is their flawed methodology.  A lack of falsifiability, the use of straw-man arguments, inability to test, reliance on testimonials, the assumption that if science hasn't addressed something it must be a deity's action, refusing the consider conflicting data, the list goes on.  Yet for all their methodical errors, they insist their pet idea is the equal to a real, valid, viable scientific theory and they demand a spot on the science lectern, a privilege they have yet to earn!
   
9. Rely on supernatural over natural explanations.  That's all they rely on!  They try and cover their supernatural explanations with more innocuous words like 'Designer', but they are talking about a deity.  Their own words and actions reveal more than their official denials.  They are desperate to deny their dressed-up version of Creationism, but they never can separate themselves from it and they never will.  Once their efforts fail, they'll find another lab coat.  Creationism in school changed to Creation Science which became Intelligent Design.  They'll be something else once this one is realized to be futile.  But at the core of all of the comments, tactics, and strategies lies their supernatural ideas and desires. 
   
10. Be developed and supported disproportionately by non-specialists.  When you look at the Discovery Institute and their popular authors, posters, and bloggers.  You find lawyers, philosophy majors, historians, but very few biologists of any sort.  Do they do the science to persuade other biologists?  No, they target politicians, school boards, and every Christian group they can find.
    Hmm, let's bring up something we haven't discussed in a while, their 'list' of 700+ 'scientists who 'dissent from Darwinism'.  Remember that list?  I think they finally topped 800.  If I recall the last check, less than 20% of the list were people in biology-related fields and none were in any field that related in any way to evolutionary biology.  There were chemical engineers, self-taught rocket scientists, a guy who writes books on butterflies,  . . . you get the idea?  Sure didn't take aim at scientists and biologists, did they?

Well, it certainly looks like the pseudo-science promulgated by the Discovery Institute is certainly an excellent example of pseudo-scholarship!