The Fight of Words

In the battle against Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates, who together are part of the larger American traditional of anti-intellectualism, and the cult of ignorance that, as Isaac Asimov said, misunderstands democracy to mean "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge", we who stand with evidence and with reason must realize that we are not fighting enemies who will agree to our terms. We ask for evidence and they respond with ad hominem attacks. They create false dichotomies, and defend themselves by endlessly moving goal posts and asserting that there is no true scotsman. Their weapons are not facts--they have none--but words.

Reality is on our side. Pragmatism favors us overwhelmingly (ID does not enhance science's ability to do anything). But I for one desire a stronger, swifter victory. To quote Isaac Asimov again

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.

To accomplish this, we must recognize the linguistic nature of this battle, and we must equip ourselves accordingly.

Some language we cannot help. The false dichotomy drawn between "Fact" and "Theory" is simply a misunderstanding (or deliberate muddling) of otherwise clearly distinguishable scientific nomenclature. Fact is not a higher order of truth than theory. Fact is simply a piece of data. A Theory is an idea, generated and supported through repeated demonstration and testing, and forever buffeted by the storm of peer review. A Law, just to clarify, also does not trump a theory. It is not any truer. Rather, a law is a simple concept (relatively speaking) that can be expressed in a formula. Newton's law of motion (F=MA), the ideal gas law (PV=nRT). Theories have a larger scope and cannot be quantified into an equation. Aside from Evolution, notable theories (which are not laws) include: the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Planetary Motion, the Theory of Electromagnetism, and so on. These facts should be common knowledge. That they are not testifies to the present inadequacies of our education system.

In other areas of language, we can make clear gains over our opponents. We need simply wake up. For example, we must cease using the word Worldview immediately. We must forever strike that hideous construction from our thoughts and name it anathema. We will do this because we understand the way the human mind works.

Some of my friends swear by IPods. Others by Zunes. If I call them both MP3 Players, I bestow some measure of equality on them. I place them on equal footing. And in response to this, both sides of the debate would protest and declare their side superior.

To call both modern science and Pastafarianism worldviews places them on equal standing to those not familiar with their intricacies. This particular case is obviously and intentionally absurd. But it is directly analogous to what happens when well-meaning scientists talk about the scientific worldview while the Discovery Institute speaks of the Intelligent Design worldview, and postmodern thinkers start to classify everything from Christianity to Astrology to Nihilism as worldviews. Equality is created where it does not belong. Irredemably foolish notions like "In the lab, my Christian worldview is as good as your science" start to make sense.

Let the IDiots and the Fundies talk about worldview all they wish. Let the postmoderns put more and more under its arms. But for us, who call ourselves rational and who place our trust in evidence, in reality, let us take a stand against nonsense and irrationality and refuse the label.

Science is not a worldview.

The Problem with "Worldview"

It is a word whose construction I like. Worldview, derived from "view of the world", follows a trend I like. Much as in German (a language I love unashamedly) it is a simply constructed compound. It is similar to a word I did not come up with, but which I use in my writing and thus hope to win it acceptance: mindstate (i.e. "state of mind").

But the word worldview, like all words, is more than its construction. Worldview matters because of how it is used. And it is in some of these uses that I find a problem.

I am a freethinker. Unapologetically so. If you are ever going to see the world as it really is (or as close as human perception and faculties can facilitate) you must step outside your preconceived notions and inherited prejudices and opinions. An analogy: from the moment you were born your parents put a pair of goggles over your eyes. You have spent your life seeing the world through those goggles. They have colored your every experience. And that's fine. But. If you want to know what the world really is and how it really works, you have to take those goggles off. Moreover, you have to try looking through other sets of goggles and from the input create a composite image of the world (especially of the people who inhabit it).

Here the concept of worldview complicates matters. Worldview, as a notion, is is the result of a well-intended effort. In the vein of thinking (mis)labeled as post modernism, worldview is an attempt to understand that we all have lived different lives, we are characters in different, sometimes overlapping narratives, and we need to recognize and accept this aspect of our interactions if we are to begin to understand each other. To this end we categorize similar narratives under headings that we call worldviews. The problem arises when we make the mistake of assuming from this process that all these worldviews are equally legitimate, that they all have, more or less, the same justifications and qualifications. This is just not the case. Some worldviews are based on the world, on experience of the real thing. And many others are based, self-evidently, on fantasy, delusion, wish-thinking, and plenty of flawed logic. The danger of worldview as an idea is its power to place all points-of-view on a level playing field and thus destroy all standards of legitimacy and realism.

And because of this, people mistakenly think they really understand the world even though they've never taken off those goggles. Since it's all just a question of worldview, why does it really matter which ones you pick? And why does it matter how many lenses you've tried?

That is the problem with worldview.