DOCSLIB.ORG

Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, [email protected]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, Massimo@Platofootnote.Org Iowa State University Summer Symposium on 2012: Between Scientists & Citizens Science Communication Jan 1st, 12:00 AM Keynote Address—Nonsense on Stilts about Science: Field Adventures of a Scientist- Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci The Graduate Center at the City University of New York, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/sciencecommunication Part of the Other Rhetoric and Composition Commons, Rhetoric Commons, and the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Pigliucci, Massimo (2012). Keynote Address—Nonsense on Stilts about Science: Field Adventures of a Scientist- Philosopher. Jean Goodwin (Ed.), Between Scientists & Citizens. https://doi.org/10.31274/sciencecommunication-180809-112 This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Conferences and Symposia at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Iowa State University Summer Symposium on Science Communication by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Keynote Address Nonsense on Stilts about Science: Field Adventures of a Scientist- Philosopher MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI Philosophy Program, The Graduate Center at the City University of New York 365 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036 USA [email protected] ABSTRACT: Public discussions of science are often marred by two pernicious phenomena: a widespread rejection of scientific findings (e.g., the reality of anthropogenic climate change, the conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism, or the validity of evolutionary theory), coupled with an equally common acceptance of pseudoscientific notions (e.g., homeopathy, psychic readings, telepathy, tall tales about alien abductions, and so forth). The typical reaction by scientists and science educators is to decry the sorry state of science literacy among the general public, and to call for more science education as the answer to both problems. But the empirical evidence concerning the relationship between science literacy, rejection of science and acceptance of pseudoscience is mixed at best. In this chapter I argue that—while certainly important—efforts at increasing public knowledge of science (science education) need to be complemented by attention to common logical fallacies (philosophy), cognitive biases and dissonance (psychology), and the role of ideological commitments (sociology). Even this complex, multi-disciplinary approach to science education will likely only yield measurable results in the very long term. Meanwhile science remains, as Carl Sagan famously put it, a candle in the dark, delicate and in need of much nurturing. KEYWORDS: science literacy, science education, philosophy, psychology, sociology, pseudoscience. 1. INTRODUCTION: THE ACCIDENTAL PUBLIC INTELLECTUAL Most academics do not engage in public outreach, for a variety of reasons. First off, it is at least implicitly discouraged by the very structure of the academy, where one’s career is advanced (in decreasing order of importance, regardless of what anyone would tell you) by one’s success in research or scholarship (measured by peer-reviewed publications and grants), one’s teaching, and finally one’s service. It would be nice if at least the somewhat vague category of “service” included outreach lecturing and writing, but it is in fact pretty much confined to internal (and not really very useful) service, such as on departmental or college committees. Second, many of us are simply never trained for public outreach (or teaching, for that matter), and do not know how to relate in an understandable and engaging way to laypeople. Contra a popular academic myth, there is no particular reason for there to be a strong correlation between one’s scholarly excellence in a highly technical field of expertise and one’s ability to communicate in a non-technical matter about the broader context in which that scholarly work flourishes or makes sense (Sperber, 2001). Consequently, until 1997 I was yet another example of a non-engaged academic, pursuing my first tenure track job at the University of Tennessee, within the specialty field of Pigliucci, M. (2012). Nonsense on stilts about science: Field adventures of a scientist-philosopher. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Between scientists & citizens: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, June 1-2, 2012 (pp. 19-28). Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation. Copyright © 2012 the author(s). MASSIMO PIGLIUCCI evolutionary biology (and more specifically the study of gene-environment interactions in plant model systems). But then something happened that made me pay attention and turned me into the accidental public intellectual that I have become since. A few months earlier, in March 1996, the Tennessee state legislature had attempted to pass a bill that would have ensured equal time for creationism in science classes throughout that state’s public high schools. A New York Times article published at the time summarized the idea in this manner: “If evolution is true, then it has nothing to fear from some other theory being taught; the truth will prevail,” State Senator David Fowler, a Republican from Chattanooga, argued on the Tennessee Senate floor this week. “But if intelligent design is the truth, then God forbid we should not teach it to our children.” (Applebome, 1996) The bill actually died in committee (though, unfortunately, the TN legislators were at it again in 2012, this time successfully (Thompson, 2012)). But during those months I had awoken to a reality that perhaps should not have surprised me to begin with: I was now living (and operating professionally, as an evolutionary biologist!) in the middle of the Bible Belt, in a country characterized by one of the most religious-puritanical attitudes among modern advanced societies (Uhlmann Poehlmanb, Tannenbaumc, & Bargh, 2012). As a reaction, I started one of the very earliest “Darwin Day” events on campus, an outreach program aiming at explaining to the public the nature of science and at exploring the relationship between science and religion. It has since become a major international event, with hundreds of locations worldwide every year (darwinday.org). Once I got started, I realized that public outreach ought to be an important part of what academics should be doing, in part because they are among the best-positioned individuals in our society to function as public intellectuals, to aid the layperson—in the words of Noam Chomsky—in the pursuit of a course in “intellectual self-defense” (Baillargeon, 2008). This quickly led me to maintaining a blog devoted to science and philosophy for the public (rationallyspeaking.org), as well as to publish a number of advocacy books concerned with pseudoscience (Pigliucci, 2002, 2010). Most recently, and to my own amusement, my scholarship and outreach converged, with the co-editing of a new book on the philosophy, history, and sociology of the so-called demarcation problem (Popper, 1957), i.e. the conceptual divide between science and pseudoscience (Pigliucci & Boudry, 2013). What follows is a summary of the lessons I have learned while putting together the book and during the now more than fifteen years devoted to interacting with the public, initially as a scientist, and more recently as a philosopher. 2. NOT JUST SCIENCE EDUCATION It is common for scientists and science educators to bemoan the fact that the American public is not scientifically literate, a state of affairs that is often blamed for much misunderstanding of science and embracing of pseudoscience. Indeed, the American Association for the Advancement of Science thinks that science literacy is so crucial that they have launched an ambitious “2061” project to improve it substantially (www.project2061.org/publications/bsl). There are good reasons to think that scientific literacy matters (Hazen, 2002), including so that people can better appreciate the world around us and, most crucially, make intelligent decisions about their lives—including who they vote for when it comes to public issues informed by science. 20 NONSENSE ON STILTS ABOUT SCIENCE: FIELD ADVENTURES OF A SCIENTIST-PHILOSOPHER However, scientific literacy cannot be the whole story. A report by the National Science Foundation pointed out that both Americans and Europeans do not “have a firm grasp of basic scientific facts and concepts, nor do they have an understanding of the scientific process,” (2004, p. 7-15) which makes it puzzling why, for instance, denial of evolution is a popular stance in the US but not in Europe (Miller, Scott, & Okamoto, 2006). Indeed, a number of years ago one of my students and I carried out a preliminary study of the relationship between scientific literacy and belief in pseudoscience, and the results were not at all encouraging (Johnson & Pigliucci, 2004). For instance, while we found a (small, but statistically significant) effect of major (science vs. non-science) in the amount of factual knowledge of science that undergraduate students were able to master, we uncovered no significant differences between science and non-science majors in either conceptual understanding of science or belief in pseudoscience. (Interestingly, and contra popular lore, there was also no effect of gender on either science understanding or acceptance of pseudoscience.) A more recent and much larger survey confirmed our results (Impey, Buxner, Antonellis, Johnson, & King, 2011): 10,000 students taking astronomy classes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mapping the Creation-Evolution Debate in Public Life
    MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART (Under the Direction of Edward Panetta) ABSTRACT Evolution versus creation is a divisive issue as religion is pitted against science in public discourse. Despite mounting scientific evidence in favor of evolution and legal decisions against the teaching of creationism in public schools, the number of advocates who still argue for creationist teaching in the science curriculum of public schools remains quite large. Public debates have played a key role in the creationist movement, and this study examines public debates between creationists and evolutionists over thirty years to track trends and analyze differences in arguments and political style in an attempt to better understand why creationism remains salient with many in the American public. INDEX WORDS: Creation; Evolution; Public Debate; Argumentation; Political Style; Bill Nye MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART B.A., The University of Georgia, 2010 B.S.F.R., The University of Georgia, 2010 M.A.T., The University of Georgia, 2014 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS ATHENS, GEORGIA 2016 © 2016 Andrew Judson Hart All Rights Reserved MAPPING THE CREATION-EVOLUTION DEBATE IN PUBLIC LIFE by ANDREW JUDSON HART Major Professor: Edward Panetta Committee: Barbara Biesecker Thomas Lessl Electronic Version Approved: Suzanne Barbour Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2016 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would not have been possible without Dr. Ed Panetta pushing me down the path to study the creation-evolution debates and his work with me on this through the many drafts and edits.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation/Evolution
    Creation/Evolution Are the fossils in the wrong order for human evolution? Issue VIII CONTENTS Spring 1982 ARTICLES 1 Charles Darwin: A Centennial Tribute by H. lames Birx 11 Kelvin Was Not a Creationist by Stephen G Brush 14 Are There Human Fossils in the "Wrong Place" for Evolution by Ernest C. Conrad 23 Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating by Christopher Gregory Weber REPORTS .30 Creation-Evoiution Debates: Who's Winning Them Now? by Frederick Edwards 43 News Briefs LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED FORTHCOMING PROGRAMS PBS TV Program, "Creation vs. Evolution: Battle in the Classroom," airing Wednesday, July 7, at 9:00 PM Eastern time. This sixty-minute documentary ex- plores the growing war of litigation over creationism in the public schools with interviews of teachers, scientists, religious, and political leaders, students, and parents in the forefront of the battle. The program particularly examines the "two-model" approach used recently in Livermore, California, and gets the reac- tions of the principal individuals involved. The basic ideas of creationism and evolution are argued in a "point-counterpoint" segment between Duane Gish and Russell Doolittle. The age of the earth and universe are covered. Other per- sonalities featured include: Tim LaHaye; James Robison; Richard Bliss; Nell, Kelly, and Casey Segraves; John N. Moore; Bill Keith; and even Ronald Reagan. A featured representative on the evolution side is William V. Mayer. The docu- mentary is a production of KPBS, San Diego. 1982 Annual Fellows' Meeting at Guilford College, August 8-13, Greensboro, North Carolina. Of the sixteen programs, one is entitled "Religion and Science: The Creationist Debate." Contact John O.
    [Show full text]
  • CREATION SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Ray Mondragon (10/17, Rev 4/19)
    CREATION SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHY Ray Mondragon (10/17, rev 4/19) Note: This bibliography contains mainly the books that refute the evolution worldview and support the creationist young-universe view. There are only a few books from the old-universe view as noted at the end. CREATION vs. EVOLUTION Scientific Creationism, edited by Henry M. Morris, Institute for Creation Research, Master Books, 1974. Over 22 scientists with PhDs contribute a variety of scientific evidence supporting the creation view. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, Jonathan Wells, Regnery Publishing, 2000. The main evidence supporting the theory of evolution, “icons,” are explained and effectively refuted. The Lie: Evolution, Ken Ham, Master Books, 1987. The theory of evolution is refuted more philosophically than evidentially for a general audience. Biblical Creationism: What Each Book of the Bible Teaches about Creation and the Flood, Henry Morris, Baker Book House, 1993. The entire Bible is surveyed for passages referring to creation or God as Creator. Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny: A Critical Survey of the Principles of Evolution and Christianity, A. E. Wilder-Smith, Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1975. A professor with PhDs in organic chemistry and medical science supports the creationist position from both science and Scripture. This is an older but still a useful work. * The Creation of Life: A Cybernetic Approach To Evolution. A. E. Wilder Smith. Older but very valuable work by a British scholar who has a Ph,D in organic chemistry, a Doctor of Science in Pharmaceuticals from the University of Geneva, and a third doctorate from the E. T. M.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Origins Belief and Moral Views
    The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism Volume 4 Print Reference: Pages 437-450 Article 33 1998 Comparing Origins Belief and Moral Views Richard L. Overman Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Browse the contents of this volume of The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Recommended Citation Overman, Richard L. (1998) "Comparing Origins Belief and Moral Views," The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: Vol. 4 , Article 33. Available at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol4/iss1/33 COMPARING ORIGINS BELIEF AND MORAL VIEWS RICHARD L. OVERMAN, M.S. P.O. BOX 1853 ORANGE PARK, FL 32067-1853 KEYWORDS Worldview, origins belief, moral views, regression, AN OVA, correlation ABSTRACT: Does what you believe about origins affect your worldview? Do origin assumptions provide a foundation upon which important moral questions are answered? Many creationists have advanced the idea that what one believes about creation and evolution affects his or her worldview. Empirical studies in this area are, however, lacking. By advancing a hypothesis that does not have empirical support, creationists are seen by some in the "mainstream" scientific community as extreme and unscientific [1 OJ.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORY and ANALYSIS of the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY by William E
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF William E. Elliott for the degree ofMaster of Science in General Science presented on March 1, 1990. Title: History and Analysis of theCreation ltee Society Redacted for Privacy Abstractapproved: The resurgence of creationismthe past few years has been led by advocates of recent-creationism. These individuals, a minority among creationists in general, argue that the entire universe was created approximately 10,000 years ago in one six- day period of time.Recent-creationists support their position by appealing to the Genesis account of creation and scientific data. Their interpretation of Genesis is based on the doctrines of conservative, evangelical Christianity. Their interpretation of scientific data is informed by their theological presuppositions. The scientific side of recent-creationism is supported by several organizations, most of which had their origin in one group, the Creation Research Society. The CRS is a major factor in the rise of the modern creationist movement. Founded in 1963, this small (c. 2000 mem- bers) group claims to be a bona-fide scientific society engaged in valid scientific re- search conducted from a recent-creationist perspective. These claims are analyzed and evaluated. The Society's history is discussed, including antecedent creationist groups. Most of the group's founders were members of the American Scientific Affiliation, and their rejection of changes within the ASA was a significant motivating factor in founding the CRS. The organization, functioning, and finances of the Society are de- tailed with special emphasis on the group's struggles for independence and credibility. founding the CRS. The organization, functioning, and finances of the Society are de- tailed with special emphasis on the group's struggles for independence and credibility.
    [Show full text]
  • SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Vol
    SKEPTICAL INQUIRER Vol. 1818,, No . 2No. 2 ^^ Winter 1994 Winter / 1994/$6.2$6.255 Paul Kurtz William Grey THE NEW THE PROBLEM SKEPTICISM OF 'PSI' Cancer Scares i*5"***-"" —-^ 44 "74 47CT8 3575" 5 THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER is the official journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, an international organization. Editor Kendrick Frazier. Editorial Board James E. Alcock, Barry Beyerstein, Susan J. Blackmore, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Philip J. Klass, Paul Kurtz, Joe Nickell, Lee Nisbet, Bela Scheiber. Consulting Editors Robert A. Baker, William Sims Bainbridge, John R. Cole, Kenneth L. Feder, C. E. M. Hansel, E. C. Krupp, David F. Marks, Andrew Neher, James E. Oberg, Robert Sheaffer, Steven N. Shore. Managing Editor Doris Hawley Doyle. Contributing Editor Lys Ann Shore. Business Manager Mary Rose Hays. Assistant Business Manager Sandra Lesniak. Chief Data Officer Richard Seymour. Computer Assistant Michael Cione. Production Paul E. Loynes. Asst. Managing Editor Cynthia Matheis. Art Linda Hays. Audio Technician Vance Vigrass. Librarian Jonathan Jiras. Staff Alfreda Pidgeon, Ranjit Sandhu, Sharon Sikora, Elizabeth Begley (Albuquerque). Cartoonist Rob Pudim. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Paul Kurtz, Chairman; professor emeritus of philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo. Barry Karr, Executive Director and Public Relations Director. Lee Nisbet, Special Projects Director. Fellows of the Committee James E. Alcock,* psychologist, York Univ., Toronto; Robert A. Baker, psychologist, Univ. of Kentucky; Stephen Barrett, M.D., psychiatrist, "author, consumer advocate, Allentown, Pa. Barry Beyerstein,* biopsychologist, Simon Fraser Univ., Vancouver, B.C., Canada; Irving Biederman, psychologist, Univ.
    [Show full text]
  • Seminar Notebook
    Dr. Kent Hovind SEMINAR NOTEBOOK A resource designed to supplement the Creation Seminar Series NotebookSeminar 9th edition A resource designed to supplement the Creation Seminar Series Dr. Kent Hovind Creation Science Evangelism Pensacola, FL Previous Publications Are You Being Brainwashed? Claws, Jaws, and Dinosaurs Gap Theory Seminar Workbook Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, Florida 32503 © 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 by Creation Science Evangelism Permission is granted to duplicate for free distribution only. Published 2007 First edition published 1992. Seventh edition 2001. Eighth edition 2003. Ninth edition 2007. CSE Ministry Kent Hovind (Ho-vînd) 29 Cummings Rd Pensacola, FL [32503] 850-479-3466 1-877-479-3466 (USA only) 850-479-8562 Fax www.drdino.com ISBN 1-58468-018-0 Previous Publications Are You Being Brainwashed? Claws, Jaws, and Dinosaurs Gap Theory Seminar Workbook Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, Florida 32503 © 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 by Creation Science Evangelism Permission is granted to duplicate for free distribution only. Published 2007 First edition published 1992. Seventh edition 2001. Eighth edition 2003. Ninth edition 2007. CSE Ministry Kent Hovind (Ho-vînd) 29 Cummings Rd Pensacola, FL [32503] 850-479-3466 1-877-479-3466 (USA only) 850-479-8562 Fax www.drdino.com Sci•ence \ \n [ME, fr. MF, fr. L scientia, fr. s cient- , sciens having knowledge, fr. prp. ofscire to know; prob. akin to Skt chyati he cuts off, Lsciendere to split — more at SHED] (14c)1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study . the~ of theology b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a~ 3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation Science Assoc., Mid-America Lending Library
    CASE FOR A CREATOR – Lee Strobel (60 min) Based on CREATION SCIENCE New York Times bestseller, this is a remarkable film with mind-stretching discoveries from cosmology, cellular biology, ASSOC., MID-AMERICA DNA research, astronomy, physics, etc. leading to the Creator. LENDING LIBRARY CHEMICALS TO LIVING CELL: FANTASY OR SCIENCE? – by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (57 min) This Ph.D. VIDEOTAPES – AUDIO TAPES chemist shows how the laws of real chemistry prevent non- SLIDE SETS – FILMSTRIPS - BOOKS living chemicals from arranging themselves into living cells. Excellent resources for Schools, CLIMATE CHANGE AND CREATION – by John Mackay Churches, Home Schools, Bible Study (60 min) Is man causing global warming? Does the Bible speak about global warming? A picture of the world’s Library services are available on a free-will offering basis. weather from the Word of the Creator who was there, CSA LENDING LIBRARY CREATED COSMOS - designed by Dr. Jason Lisle (23 8904 Mastin; Overland Park, Ks 66212 minutes) Creation Museum planetarium presentation journeys (913) 492-6545 through the solar system to the edge of the known universe to email: [email protected] discover the magnitude of our universe and its Creator. Website: WWW.CSAMA.ORG CREATION ASTRONOMY: Viewing the Universe through Biblical Glasses – by Dr Jason Lisle (36 min) When Updated November 5, 2008 the evidence is properly understood, it supports the Biblical view of a supernaturally created universe only thousands of years ago versus from a ‘big bang’ billions of years ago. HOW TO USE THE CSA CREATION LENDING LIBRARY CREATION & COSMOLOGY – by Dr. Danny Faulkner (63 minutes) Dissects flaws in past and current big bang Audiovisuals from the Lending Library are available without models.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Evo Edu Outreach (2009) 2:176–177 DOI 10.1007/s12052-009-0121-8 INTRODUCTION Introduction Donald Ross Prothero Published online: 21 March 2009 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009 Overview and Whitcomb, Morris, Gish, and their ilk have advanced degrees in fields completely unrelated to paleontology. They The issue of evolution and creationism has a long history, may impress some of their audiences with the PhD after their but one of the central battles has long focused on the fossil names, but those of us within science recognize that the record of evolution. Even though Darwin (1859) had little advanced degree does not prove you are an expert in supporting evidence from the fossil record, by the late everything but only in the specialty in which you are trained. nineteenth century, examples such as Archaeopteryx and As I often point out to audiences, we would not trust these the evolution of horses had accumulated increasing support guys on their interpretations of music theory or auto for notion of evolution. In fact, the evidence of life’s mechanics (they are not trained in those fields either), so evolution as revealed in the fossil record was not disputed why should we listen to what they write about fossils? and seldom addressed by most creationists even into the Nevertheless, by boldly lying about and distorting the twentieth century (Numbers 1992). evidence of the fossil record, these impostors have managed This all changed with the more aggressive style of to convince a large percentage of the American population literalist “young-earth creationism” (Numbers 1992), pio- that the fossil record does not show evidence of evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Mill Creek 'BIGFOOT FOOTPRINTS'
    the Skeptical Inquirer Vol 13, No. 3 / Spring 1989 $6 Analyzing the Mill Creek 'BIGFOOT FOOTPRINTS' Levitation: Lore, Physics & Fantasy • Patent Myth • Shroud Lessons CSICOP Chicago Conference • Skepticism as Puzzle Solving Biology Teachers' Beliefs • More on MJ-12 Published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal THE SKEPTICAL INQUIRER is the official journal of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Editor Kendrick Frazier. Editorial Board James E. Alcock, Martin Gardner, Ray Hyman, Philip J. Klass, Paul Kurtz, James Randi. Consulting Editors Isaac Asimov, William Sims Bainbridge, John R. Cole, Kenneth L. Feder, C. E. M. Hansel, E. C. Krupp, David F. Marks, Andrew Neher, James E. Oberg, Robert Sheaffer. Steven N. Shore. Managing Editor Doris Hawley Doyle. Public Relations Director Barry Karr. Business Manager Mary Rose Hays. Assistant Editor Andrea Szalanski. Production Lisa Mergler. Chief Data Officer Richard Seymour. Computer Assistant Michael Cione. Typesetting Paul E. Loynes. Audio Technician Vance Vigrass. Librarian, Ranjit Sandhu. Staff Crystal Foils, Leland Harrington, Raymond Harrington, Lynda Harwood, Laura Muench, Alfreda Pidgeon, Kathy Reeves. Cartoonist Rob Pudim. The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal Paul Kurtz, Chairman; philosopher, State University of New York at Buffalo. Lee Nisbet, Special Projects Director. Mark Plummer, Executive Director. Fellows of the Committee James E. Alcock, psychologist, York Univ., Toronto; Eduardo Amaldi, physicist. University of Rome, Italy. Isaac Asimov, biochemist, author; Irving Biederman, psychologist. University of Minnesota; Susan Blackmore, psycholo­ gist. Brain Perception Laboratory, University of Bristol, England; Mario Bunge, philosopher, McGill University; Bette Chambers, A.H.A.; John R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Scientific Creationism in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Response
    The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism Volume 2 Print Reference: Volume 2:I, Pages 143-146 Article 26 1990 The Impact of Scientific Creationism in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Response A. James Melnick Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings DigitalCommons@Cedarville provides a publication platform for fully open access journals, which means that all articles are available on the Internet to all users immediately upon publication. However, the opinions and sentiments expressed by the authors of articles published in our journals do not necessarily indicate the endorsement or reflect the views of DigitalCommons@Cedarville, the Centennial Library, or Cedarville University and its employees. The authors are solely responsible for the content of their work. Please address questions to [email protected]. Browse the contents of this volume of The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism. Recommended Citation Melnick, A. James (1990) "The Impact of Scientific Creationism in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Response," The Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism: Vol. 2 , Article 26. Available at: https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/icc_proceedings/vol2/iss1/26 THE IMPACT OF SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM IN THE SOVIET UNION AND THE SOVIET RESPONSE A. JAMES MELNICK P.O. BOX 2567 SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22152 ABSTRACT Increasing references to scientific creationism in Soviet athei stic publications indicate that it is having an impact. Attacks on creationism in Soviet publications have not ended with gla snost', but concurrently, this policy-- which allows greater press freedoms and more ; mportat i on of mater; a 1 pub 1 i shed in the Wes t - -may eventua 11y expose more persons in the Soviet Union than ever before to the concepts of scientifi c creationism.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolved to Be Irrational? Evolutionary and Cognitive Foundations of Pseudosciences
    Published in The philosophy of pseudoscience. Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Edited by Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013, pp. 361-379. --------- Evolved to be irrational? Evolutionary and cognitive foundations of pseudosciences By Stefaan Blancke & Johan De Smedt Introduction People believe the weirdest of things. Forty percent of the US population endorses the claim that Earth and all life on it has been created by God six to ten thousand years ago (Newport, 2010); three in four Americans accept some form of paranormal belief such as astrology or extra-sensory perception (Moore 2005). Europeans are no less gullible: two Britons in five believe that houses can be haunted and one in five thinks that aliens have visited our planet at some point in the past (Lyons 2005). Pseudo-medical treatments such as homeopathy are widely practised and in some countries like Belgium even refunded by health care. Horoscopes can be consulted in numerous popular magazines and newspapers. In sum, there seems to be no end to the irrational propensities of the human mind. In this chapter, we intend to examine how an evolutionary and cognitive perspective might shed some light on the pervasiveness and popularity of irrational beliefs that make up pseudosciences. As such, this contribution will consist of four parts. First, we will set up the general theoretical framework, explaining what an evolutionary and cognitive approach entails. Second, we will explore how this framework adds to our understanding of why the human mind is so vulnerable to systematic reasoning errors. Third, we will demonstrate how concrete pseudosciences tap into particular cognitive dispositions.
    [Show full text]