Today’s New York Times has an interesting article about Marcus Ross, a paleontologist who earned his degree at the University of Rhode Island, Believing Scripture but Playing by Science’s Rules. There’s nothing particularly interesting about his dissertation (at least to me), but what is generating some controversy is his methodology—you see, he wrote a perfectly normal thesis about paleontology, separated from his religious beliefs. Or, as the NYT tagline puts it: “As a paleontologist and a creationist, Marcus R. Ross has produced academic work that contradicts his own beliefs.” I wonder if this article raises any thoughts for us about the ethics of positioning ourselves in academic discourses, of “passing,” to borrow a term from critical race studies, in order to get degrees, jobs, grants, promotions, etc. when we know that full disclosure (i.e. “I graduated from Wheaton College”) would be, as they say, the kiss of death.
Some excerpts:
“Dr. Ross is hardly a conventional paleontologist. He is a “young earth creationist” — he believes that the Bible is a literally true account of the creation of the universe, and that the earth is at most 10,000 years old.
“For him, Dr. Ross said, the methods and theories of paleontology are one “paradigm” for studying the past, and Scripture is another. In the paleontological paradigm, he said, the dates in his dissertation are entirely appropriate. The fact that as a young earth creationist he has a different view just means, he said, “that I am separating the different paradigms.”
“He likened his situation to that of a socialist studying economics in a department with a supply-side bent. “People hold all sorts of opinions different from the department in which they graduate,” he said. “What’s that to anybody else?””
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Can you fill in the term "passing"--I'm not familiar with it.
However, regarding the concept of "full disclosure"--in a strange way, it appears as though Ross has fully disclosed himself. Or, more properly, himselves. His Profs. didn't appear surprised at the news of his beliefs--they were just happy with the way he did the science. So, it seems we can assume he was up front about his belief system from the get-go. Thus, Ross appears to fully believe he can honestly work within two logically contradictory frameworks and yet retain ethical integrity. Perhaps he gets away with this in his own mind by detaching Science from "Truth," and approaching each sub-system within Science only from the perspective of logical coherence to a given starting-point. Thus, in his mind, his science would be be something like a highly complex brain teaser: where resolution in a given set is the goal, not some search for actual truth out there. Anyway, my main question in all this has to do with whether self-disclosure is the heart of the tension here...
Oops, realized your point about passing has nothing to do with Ross's particular actions. Sorry for the misdirect.
I think he's full of shit. Wait, let me rephrase that.
This is a question that would have interested me a couple of years ago. I'm not really worried about "passing" (though the potential trivialization of that metaphor makes me a little uneasy) these days. But, for me, I don't worry about someone finding out I'm an evangelical because I'm not an evangelical anymore. If someone has a problem with Wheaton College, chances are that I have the same problem with it. That makes the issue quite a bit simpler. As for "full disclosure," I don't make a concerted effort to make sure everyone knows I'm an Episcopalian and am active in my parish, but I'm also not running a double standard or a double life. I don't work on things I don't believe in. I don't fake intellectual positions for the sake of professional advancement. This is where I think the gentleman from Andy's story has a serious case of bad faith that, if not unethical, is at the very least stupid. Why anyone would think it a good idea to spend his life (and the time, energy, stress, pain, poverty, etc of graduate work) on something that he believes is misguided bullshit escapes me. I think Dave's post points out the degree to which that is a farce or a travesty. It doesn't make any more sense to me than a priest who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ. Actually, it makes less sense than that because the Church could be seen as a powerful social movement, but I can't figure out the rationale behind doing scientific research that you think is totally fallacious.
End diatribe.
Again, sorry for the misdirect.
Ahhh… it’s been far too long since we heard a good rant from Coye. I’m glad that that ridiculous pseudo-scientist was able to channel some of that angst into productively entertaining blog posting. You post things, and then you wait, and you hope… and sometimes your wishes come true. Thanks, Coye.
With somewhat less angst, I largely agree with Coye on this one—why would someone invest so much time and energy, for economic and social incentives that aren’t that huge (we’re not exactly CEOs here), in research they believe to be false? And think of the cognitive gymnastics that must be involved! You study, you read, you look at soil samples and fossils, or whatever paleontologists do these days (my uneducated guess is that the field has, culturally at least, fallen on hard times since Ross on Friends demonstrated how a complete moron could be a respected paleontologist—that sort of thing doesn’t do much for morale), and you form conclusions. This or that is true—or, at least, constitutes the best explanation for the evidence we have (we’ll leave the issue of truth claims in science to the side for now). Then, you write said conclusions in a nice paper, probably give it at a conference, answer questions about it, publish it eventually. All the while, you know in your heart that it cannot be true—at least, if your literal “young earth” reading of Genesis is true. I’m all for people of faith entering the public sphere and contributing to knowledge and scientific discourse, but Mr. Ross (ironic how his name conjures images of the character from Friends, isn’t it? And you thought I just threw that allusion in up there for kicks…) finds it necessary not only to check his religious beliefs at the door on his way into the academic public sphere, but also to violate and betray them actively once he’s inside. Paul has some pretty harsh things to say about false teachers in his letters, and one could make a pretty good case, I think, for such warnings to apply to teachers outside the church, as well.
Suppose you have someone in Biology who has the same contrasting set of operating principles. On the one hand, she believes in a young earth and non-evolutionary biology. On the other hand, she's an incredible student of biology, quickly grasping the way the root system of evolutionary biology as taught and practiced by the scientific community. As she hasn't been given any mental model (or even encouragment to adopt a mental model) to reconcile her desire to honor the scriptures, she simply progresses into a strange paradox.
Consider further that she finds the evolutionary system extremely coherant and useful within its right. She dosen't attribute this to "truth" per-se, she simply attributes it to coherance within the set. She loves the way the science "works"--and indeed, for her it does work. Let's say she goes on and makes startling medical breakthroughs using techniques founded on evolutionary biology. Again, she would attribute her findings to a coherant system that works, and she would leave it at that.
All the while, she comes to Genesis 1 and can say nothing other than "this is literal truth." Her believing community gives her no other options, and she has no deeper reasons to leave the community; and in fact, she agrees with them (at least she experiences the same sort of belief in the literal truth of six day creation). She may or may not have an urge to find scientific ways of proving or speaking of her belief. In any case, she's content finding useful solutions with her system that works while maintaining a belief system in an account of the past which has little scientific value.
Is such a person a moral repugnance? Is there something about science (which, generaly speaking, can stand on simple pragmatics more than, say, the humanities) which allows its practitioners to stand at a distance from its underlying theories (in terms of their personal beliefs)? Can someone hope to progress through an alien system simply becase it works, it has logical consistancy? Must we attribute the desire to "make it," to get the degree, etc. as the only varible in this person's motives?
In any case, must science be grounded in "truth"? Eventually, this question morphs into, Must science shape or beliefs about the world? and consequently, Must science play the central role in shaping our beliefs about the world?
Finally, the article also brings up the uses of science. This has to do with the ethics of science and, ultimately, the philosophy of science. These are seperate disciplines that don't belong to science proper. Perhaps, in the end, this is the nub of the issue--for it quickly brings us past issues of pragmatics.
well, there are issues about the relationship of truth and scientific fact, but I don't know that that plays as much a part in this question as his relationship to scripture. A good number of physical scientists these days admitt that scientific models are historically generated cultural expressions of our understanding; there are still scientists who think they are dealing with pretty much unmediated truth; and there are a number of positions in between. None of these seem to be incompatible with the work of science. What our friend Ross is claiming is very different from any of these. In an analogy so flawed as to be laughable, he compares himself to an economist working in a department that has a different theoretical bent than his own. The problem is, both socialists and supply-side economists share underlying beliefs in the principles of economics. He would be more like an epidemiologist who doesn't believe in the germ theory of disease. Ludicrous. And why, pray tell, would anyone make such an ass of themselves?
Oh wait, I think it might be the untennable position that scripture is the divinely inscribed foundation of the Church rather than the textual expression of a living religious tradition-- combined with really, really terrible reading. The two pillars of American fundamentalism. Ahhhhh. It's nice to have a magic book that gives you all the answers without the need or responsibility for thinking about why you believe what you believe and how you live your life. And none of that pesky interpretation, either. Yep. The very Word of God (wait, I though Christ was the Word-- shut up, you-- aaghhhhfff).
You're the expert on the relationship between texts and communities. Why don't you tell us why he's making such an ass of himself.
But, yes, I do find it extremely odd that Ross would develop an interest, and want to pursue a degree in, a branch of science that is most divergent to his religious beliefs. It just doesn't make any sense. It would be like a man born blind developing an interest in color theory.
Yeah, the guy seems dodgy, but I think I get the "paradigm" thing. I'm certainly not up on recent paleo-trends or anything, but for the sake of whatever, isn't it possible to use the tools of the trade as (possibly arbitrary) measuring sticks while not necessarily agreeing with the agreed upun scale? That is to say, as far as I know there are established standards for carbon-dating or what have you that may point to conclusions contradictory to one's beliefs, but in the end that's the only true standard there is in the scientific community. It's just the currency you have to deal in, the lingua franca as it were.
Has a legitimate, scientifically valid method of dating been developed by young earth scientists? I'm not aware of any accepted alternatives.
So if the standard tells this Ross bloke that his Compsognathus pelvis is 42.8 fajillion years old, couldn't he use that as a sort of euphamism or scaled-up measurement for something that he actually believes?
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, and as I said, the man is pushing it, but I think I can sort of see where he's coming from.
I always love it when "pelvis" and "euphamism" are used in the same sentence. Fajillion.
Josh's example gets to one of the important issues in all of this, it seems to me, when he asks: "So if the standard tells this Ross bloke that his Compsognathus pelvis is 42.8 fajillion years old, couldn't he use that as a sort of euphamism or scaled-up measurement for something that he actually believes?"
I don't think it's intellectually honest to say, in essence, we have a method for dating that gives a firm answer (42.8 fajillion years old), and I am going to say something is this old, even though I believe that this is not the case. A similar argument could be made for a measuring device that proves that the sun rotates around the earth. Either the result is valid, and one's beliefs must adapt to this reality, or the method is flawed and should be abandoned for one that yields good data.
Calling bad data good just because everybody else believes it's good is just bad science. And a lie.
It's bad science and bad theology. Six-day creationism has as little to do with Christianity as it does with paleontology. Mr. (Dr?) Ross has found himself in this remarkable situation because of his/his Church's position towards scripture. Why does he feel the need for these epistemelogical gymnastics? I can't speak with certainty about Mr. Ross's motivations, but I think I can make a damn good guess (and one that does apply to thousands of "young earth" folks). For instance: if we doubt the biblical account of creation, what keeps us from doubting the biblical account of the flood or of Moses or of the incarnation, deat and resurrection of Jesus? I've heard this hundreds if not thousands of times in my life. Apart from the problem of reading different genres, this is based on really, really bad theology. The motivation behind a rationale like this is a fear-driven desire for certainty. It wants a book to give us all the answers in a way that cannot be questioned and therefore doesn't need to be questioned: here we see the desire to escape responsibility and accountability (the desire to be a low level beaurocrat of religion-- just following orders). We simply take the book, the whole book and (in many cases) nothing but the book. I don't have to worry about how I (for instance) treat homosexuals because there's one verse in Romans that condemns homosexuality; that's it! that's the Word of God so let's pass legislation to suppress homosexuality. Yes I'm a paleontologist and have a 14 fajillion year old fossil, but the earth is at most ten thousand years old because that's what it says in the book. The case of the paleontologist is a farce; it's relatively harmless (if stupid) and is actually pretty funny (unless we consider the poor man who must be suffering more internally than he lets on with this ridiculous scenario). The problem is that this same crippled and crippling theological position towards scripture underlies really reprehensible positions towards homosexuals, towards Palestinians, towards women, etc. that are enacted in the dogmas of various churches and even in the official policies of the United States.
Christianity is about faith motivated by love and moving towards justice. It is not about abdicating responsibility through fear-motivated certainty. That's just bad theology. And a lie.
I think you summed it up pretty well, Coye, but in one last exercise I'll attempt another defense of the guy.
Let's say Ross' field is religion, and he has an interest in the fundamentalist Mormon church. Isn't it possible for him to write about how the Fundamentalist Church of LDS believes that Black people are the source of all of Satan's influence on the world without actually believing it himself?
Couldn't he be saying "this is what modern paleontology 'believes'"?
Just a thought, and not one I necessarily agree with. And a lie.
Aeijtzsche is making a valiant attempt to rehabilitate Ross’s position (perhaps that Beach Boys gig was all a sham, and he has actually been studying paleontology all this time. Have you noticed how he asserts his ignorance of the field, “I'm certainly not up on recent paleo-trends or anything,” but then starts dazzling us with technical vocabulary like “carbon dating,” “lingua franca,” “Compsognathus pelvis,” “fajillion,” and so on? I believe he’s holding out on us… could he be Ross himself by another name?!?), and this most recent foray is an interesting attempt. It is entirely possible that Ross could be studying how scientists behave, interact, and derive their (irreparably flawed, according to young earth folks) theories—but if this were the case, he would be in another field, like the philosophy of science, sociology of science, or science studies. It’s this type of social scientist that tends to attempt meta-theoretical explanations for what happens in the lab, or out on a dig.
Unfortunately for Aeijtzsche/Ross (or Hross, for short), he is not involved in this higher-order theorizing, but rather in the day-to-day production of scientific knowledge. This being the case, he cannot just say that he’s describing what scientists believe, because he’s one himself. When he asserts that the results of the carbon dating analyses and other tests he might conduct accurately reveal a bone to be millions of years old, or even more, at that moment he is either denying his philosophical position that the earth is 10,000 years old and no older (by saying that the bone in question is literally impossibly old), or willfully misleading his colleagues by presenting data he believes to be inaccurate (I know/believe this bone is 3,000 years old (and won’t say how), but I’m going to say it’s millions instead, because that’s the sort of language you scientists understand).
All this makes Hross’s analogy above more complicated, but I’ll try to stick with it. Rather than the outside observer of the Church of LDS posited in the analogy, we have instead a member and true believer who says and believes one thing at the temple, and another, diametrically opposed thing elsewhere. OK, I’m done with that example—it’s just going to get less lucid as we go on. Dave is right that the church doesn’t often provide us with good mental models for thinking theologically and academically at the same time, so it is perfectly possible for someone (like his hypothetical medical student) to hold opposing beliefs without recognizing the tension. But isn’t this a sad state of affairs? Surely, the God of the universe, who created human beings with the ability and desire to generate knowledge and discover more about the natural, social and cultural worlds in which they find themselves, not to mention fantastically complex natural, social and cultural environments/networks, intends for those human beings to engage what they find there with all of their faculties. Settling for less may be easier, may even be quietly encouraged by churches that want easy answers, but it’s shortchanging everyone along the line—society, the church, the individual researcher, and God himself. Oh, yeah, and it’s a lie.
Hross! Hra!
AHHH!!! Even though Aeijtzsche used to advocate my being banned from this site (and even prompted my name change after he talked Dave into the unforgivably fascist censoring of my posts), I cannot believe the accusations above!!! And on such tenuous evidence!!! Aeijtzsche, I would never support eliding your name into Hross!!! Have some RESPECT!!!
Well, truth be told, I actually am both Aeijtzsche and Ross, but you failed to grasp the true depth of my being.
In fact, I am an entity known as Xerxumisto, and have been alive since the mid 1500s. To stay alive, I must dine upon other creatures, such as humans, and when I do this, their personalities are assimilated into my own. I have dined on over 20 million humans, including Aeijtzsche and Dr. Ross, as well as many well known historical figures, such as President James Garfield and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
After I eat the human subject, I excrete their empty shells of bodies, which I then re-animate using an elaborate shamanistic ritual.
I then control their actions in remote, so it appears to the outside world that nothing has changed.
I just thought you might like to know.
You may be next.
Tata.
This discussion has taken an unexpected turn... AHHH!
this actually explains a lot of stuff.
Also, Xerxumisto, it's high time you start working on the next great novel. Seriously. Here's how to do it; start a new blog, start writing chapters as entries. Also, it would be super cool if every word was also a link to some online shopping portal.
Is anyone else here also Xerxumisto? Just curious. It would be kind of like when Sri Vishnu in the form of Parasurama was going to kill Sri Vishnu as Rama after Rama broke Shiva's bow but recognized him as another form of Sri Vishnu, or when Homer's brain released endorphines as a bribe for Homer to pay for a phone call to Australia that Homer's brain couldn't remember if they had made.
Post a Comment