I pointed out his disingenuousness in confronting one of the top scholars in the country and one of the best universities in the world with some hack opinion about their lack of research acuity.
A Time to Shrug
I really don’t think evidence is needed for this.
I noted his deceitfulness in alluding to men brilliant because of their belief in creationism.
Isn’t this self-evidentiary?
Perhaps he needs evidence proving the earth is round and revolves around the sun, and the mythology of dragons.
Two Peas in a Pod
Written by S.E.Harrison
As mentioned in a previous article in thefrontpageonline.com (“The Immorality of Bad Logic”), good reasoning skills act as a safeguard against injustice and oppression.
It is therefore always a little scary to be reminded that these skills are not commonly taught in our culture.
Instead of being protected by good reasoning skills, our society is left vulnerable by a lack thereof.
A good such reminder was Stephen Fry’s letter to the editor (see below) regarding my article (“More Pseudo-Science at Stanford”) that appeared last Friday in thefrontpageonline.com.
My Contentions
In this article, I pointed out that — contrary to former Stanford president Don Kennedy’s assertion that creationism “deadens” curiosity — the historical evidence indicates that the most curious and brilliant minds have been creationists.
I also pointed out that Don Kennedy offered no evidence whatsoever for his position. In short, I presented a supported argument against an unsupported one.
I guess that situation was upsetting to thefrontpageonline.com reader Mr. Fry, because he felt the need to attempt to respond to my article, accusing me of being “disingenuous” and “deceitful”.
And here’s why Mr. Fry’s letter is so scary:
Where’s the Beef and the Evidence?
In attempting to disprove my charge of a lack of evidence, Mr. Fry himself provides no evidence.
He commits the same error as the one I pointed out in the first place. Indeed, Mr. Fry doesn’t even seem to understand what a lack of evidence means.
That, folks, is scary.
If Mr. Fry had wanted to show my position to be wrong, he could have done at least one of two things:
- Showed my evidence — the fact that Newton, Edison and company were creationists — was false or irrelevant or
- Provided counter-evidence.
The first course is unavailable to Mr. Fry because Newton, inter alia, really was incomparably brilliant and really was a creationist.
But the latter course could have been taken by Mr. Fry.
For instance, Mr. Fry could have trotted out the names of several extremely dumb, non-curious creationists to counter-balance the extremely smart ones whom I cited.
He could have then said, “See, look at these dumb, non-curious people. That’s creationism for you!”
Assertions vs. Evidence
But, instead, Mr. Fry provides us nothing.
He simply asserts that I am “deceitful” and “disingenuous,” and we are supposed to believe him.
Sound familiar? Yes, in that way, Mr. Fry and Mr. Kennedy are two peas in a pod, because neither of them feel the need to support their case with any evidence whatsoever.
But, like Kennedy’s speech, Mr. Fry’s letter gets worse:
No Insightfulness
In order to be “disingenuous,” I would have to hold one point of view and assert another point of view.
I would have to take a position that was not my real position.
But Mr. Fry gives us no insight as to why he thinks I am disingenuous.
Moreover, being me, I can’t think of anything in the article that I don’t believe to be true.
Lack of Support
Thus, we are again left scratching our heads and staring at another completely unsupported fantasy.
And the Fry letter continues to get worse: in order to be “deceitful,” I would have to be intentionally making assertions that were false.
I would have to say one thing and know that another thing were true.
Absence of Evidence
But Mr. Fry doesn’t give us any information at all regarding how, when, where or why my article was deceitful. Instead — as though listening to a broken record — we have fantastical assertions for which no evidence at all is presented.
And that, of course, was the whole point of my Stanford/Kennedy article.
Thus, not only has Mr. Fry missed the point, he has duplicated the very error committed by Kennedy in the first place.
How to Gain Evidence
Kennedy could have conducted a study with a control group of students who were not exposed to creationism and an experimental group of students who were exposed to creationism.
If the creationism-exposed students were “deadened” by such exposure, Kennedy would then have evidence for his position. But, instead, Kennedy gives us nothing.
In that way, Mr. Fry and Kennedy together are really very good examples — evidence — of what is so scary in our culture.
Way It Should be, Way It Is
Where there should be reason, we have myth. Where there should be science, we have fantasy. Where there once was the scientific method, there is now Science a la Stanford.
I’m sorry that Mr. Fry didn’t attend Stanford; sounds like he would have fit in well.
Essayist Is Challenged On Lack-of-Evidence Charge
Written by Stephen M. Fry
I often read opinions in thefrontpageonline.com which do not reflect my own but I usually applaud the thinking process and our differences.
However, I cannot let S.E. Harrison’s diatribe (see below) against Stanford University and Prof. Don Kennedy’s lecture at the School of Education pass without comment.
I didn’t attend Stanford. But I earned degrees at U.C. Riverside, Claremont Graduate University and USC.
My oldest son earned his Ph.D at Stanford, and he works there. I’m familiar with the university.
His Credentials
Prof. Kennedy, who has served as President of Stanford, is currently the editor-in-chief of Science, and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and many prestigious institutes. He has credentials.
Mr. Harrison was referring to Prof. Kennedy’s lecture April 4, in which he addressed society’s concern that students are losing interest in the study of sciences as they grow older.
Kennedy discussed how kids might be stimulated to maintain their interest in science by learning “how things work,” rather than by rote memorizing.
Disingenuity
He discussed current and past methods of science education, and also increased efforts by Christian conservatives to challenge the teaching of evolution, which, like rote learning, seemed to dull students’ interest in science.
This was the context of Prof. Kennedy’s remarks.
It is disingenuous of Mr. Harrison to conclude that there is no evidence for Kennedy’s remarks — science education is a field of his research — and that this is an “increasingly common” occurrence at Stanford.
Partisanship and Deceit
It is outright deceitful for Harrison to flaunt Newton, Michelangelo, Jefferson, and Edison as brilliant minds because they were creationists.
We learned through science that the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, the earth isn’t flat, and that there are no dragons.
More Pseudo-Science from Stanford
Written by S.E. Harrison
My alma mater seems to have fallen on dark times these days. I think it’s a hubris thing: all that high-flying dot-com money seems to have gone to their heads.
But, whatever the reason, the "scientists" at Stanford continue to dish out wild, sweeping, unexamined, unchallenged and unsupported claims.
Blind Whack at Creationism
In a recent talk at the Stanford School of Education, former Stanford president Don Kennedy asserted that providing students with the creationism alternative "intercept[s] and deaden[s] curiosity" of students, and he elaborated at length on that theme. In other words, Mr. Kennedy’s position is that creationism diminishes mental capacity.
As is increasingly common at Stanford, no evidence whatsoever is cited for this proposition. No study has been conducted to demonstrate that mere exposure to the idea of creationism deadens a brain. No facts, figures, data or empirical observations of any kind. Just sheer speculation by another would-be scientist from my alma mater.
On the Contrary
To make matters worse, the historical record argues extremely persuasively against Mr. Kennedy’s dream-child. Consider the most curious, imaginative and stunningly brilliant minds of all times, and you will find that list to be populated primarily with individuals who had not only been exposed to creationism but actually believed it. As a very short version of that list, take examples such as:
- Newton–father of calculus, forerunner of modern physics, and towering intellect
- Michelangelo–probably the greatest fine artist in European—if not world—history, one whose curiosity drove him to dissect corpses when such a practice was frowned upon
- Jefferson–America’s foremost thinker and probably the Enlightenment’s greatest mind
- Edison–the most prolific and influential inventor of all time
They were all creationists. And they are far from alone.
Has Anyone Seen Evidence?
If Mr. Kennedy wishes to demonstrate that creationism deadens brains, he will need some serious evidence to counter-balance the indisputable weight of history’s greatest minds. Unfortunately, no such evidence, good or bad,—indeed, no evidence at all—is provided. Just another Stanford hoax. Out here in the real world, we prefer the scientific method to the Stanford hubris factory. Experiments are conducted according to established practices of control group, experimental group, hypothesis, double-blind, and company. Does Mr. Kennedy recall those days, or has he outgrown such trivia?
Is There an Answer?
Further questions arise, such as: Why is Mr. Kennedy even commenting on this subject? When did his background as a biologist endow him with special insights into how the human mind learns? Are we to believe that—as a biological matter—creationism disables the human brain? Because if not, Mr. Kennedy is no more "expert" than anyone else on the subject.
Or is Mr. Kennedy simply "makin’ sh*t up", as we Stanford kids used to say?
Unless there are some very interesting studies coming forth, he is. Let’s call his new creation, "Science á la Stanford: a mythological system for the 21st century."
