The New York Times science section is all about evolution today.
(registration may be required, but its free, and they don’t spam your email)
It starts off strong:
The idea that human minds are the product of evolution is “unassailable fact,” the journal Nature said this month in an editorial on new findings on the physical basis of moral thought. A headline on the editorial drove the point home: “With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”
Or as V. S. Ramachandran, a brain scientist at the University of California, San Diego, put it in an interview, there may be soul in the sense of “the universal spirit of the cosmos,” but the soul as it is usually spoken of, “an immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans — all that is complete nonsense.” Belief in that kind of soul “is basically superstition,” he said.
This accurately reflects the current scientific thinking about the idea of a human “soul”. Why can’t the article leave it at that?
The article continues:
Dr. Haught, who testified for the American Civil Liberties Union when it successfully challenged the teaching of intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism, in the science classrooms of Dover, Pa., said, “The way I look at it, instead of eliminating the notion of a human soul in order to make us humans fit seamlessly into the rest of nature, it’s wiser to recognize that there is something analogous to soul in all living beings.”
Does this mean, say, that Australopithecus afarensis, the proto-human famously exemplified by the fossil skeleton known as Lucy, had a soul? He paused and then said: “I think so, yes. I think all of our hominid ancestors were ensouled in some way, but that does not rule out the possibility that as evolution continues, the shape of the soul can vary just as it does from individual to individual.”
Why give equal time to superstition and treat the statements of the superstitious with credulity, placing them on equal footing (even though they are not) with the statements of actual neuroscientists?
Why does the writer feel the need to provide an opposing point of view, especially one that is entirely without scientific merit? Conflict spices up a story, but is it appropriate to invent the false impression of a scientific conflict just to make an article more readable?
Journalism in general has fallen victim to the fallacy of “balance”. Its sad that science journalism is also giving in.
So true. But let me say that balance was not achieved since the “looney”’s comments don’t counter-weigh the statements of the Neurologist.
And if there were enough Pastafarians in high places, they’d have to add another statement defending that his noodleness made soul from his meatballs, or something like that.
“Balance” should be reserved for instances where there are two or more legitimate sides to an issue.
The author attempting to introduce balance, to create a sense that both sides being presented are equal in merit. The obvious fact that one side isn’t, is the actual problem I’m trying to get at. False balance is the problem.
Yes, I agree with you completely. No doubt about it. But it’s all over the place now.
Either taking both sides as equal or presenting nonsense as facts is just as bad.
Ah yes, the ongoing debate about “balance” in science journalism. This article may not have been the best example to use in this debate, because it’s an article about spirituality and the soul, a topic which does involved areas outside of science, such as theology. Although this article quotes mainly scientists and is in the science section of the newspaper, I don’t think it’s bad for it to quote a theologian (Haught) or a philosopher. In fact, a story about the soul that doesn’t quote nonscientists would be, I would argue, bad journalism. It’s stated quite clearly that these views are that of a theologian and not a scientist, and so I would think (hope!) that NYT readers would be smart enough to know that he’s not expressing scientific views.
The problem is when ‘scientists’ are quoted as giving ‘scientific’ views, when in fact those views aren’t scientifically based (IE intelligent design). Now that’s bad.
hmmm… well, I think the subject of the article is evolutionary biology, the physical bases for emotions, and the essential destruction (by science) of old philosophy that insists on claiming that mind and body are two separate things.
Why the need to quote a theologian (who thinks all humans and animals are “ensouled”) if you aren’t attempting to create false balance or add false conflict to your story?
I think this story is meant to be much more contemplative and broad, more of a science-and-society piece and not meant to be strictly about the latest scientific findings in evolutionary biology or neuroscience. Science doesn’t exist in a vacuum and I think some of the best science stories bring in perspectives from other parts of society (eg philosophers, ethicists, lawyers, and yes, even theologians), where appropriate…especially stories that discuss science and emotions, moral reasoning and the soul.
I don’t think this piece sets up any kind of false balance/conflict. Again, I think NYT readers are smart enough to realize that you can’t directly pit a theologian’s ideas against a scientist’s ideas. The piece just presents views from people with very different backgrounds.
The false balance problem comes in when you pit one lone, fringe scientist’s view (eg global warming isn’t being caused by humans) with the consensus view of thousands of other scientists.
You’ve been tagged. Don’t blame me. I’m just following orders.