A friend of mine (at the University of Chicago) recently recorded a very interesting podcast/interview on the role of experimental methods in answering some of the most profound questions that human beings have been able to devise.
Click here to check it out.
Enjoy! :-)
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
The Real Lesson Of "Climategate"
As a philosopher and historian of science, I believe the real lesson of “Climategate” isn't what it reveals about the practices of climate researchers (as media perspectives on both sides of the issue have largely assumed), but what it reveals about the beliefs of those criticizing these researchers…
“Climagate” began in Nov. 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, leading to the dissemination of thousands of emails and other primate documents. On the basis of those emails and documents, it has been alleged that climate researchers withheld scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process, deleted emails and raw data, and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
This isn’t the first time that scientists have felt challenged by outside (non-scientific) authorities. Copernicus did not publish his work in astronomy for fear of persecution from the Church, and Galileo was placed under house arrest by the Pope in 1632 when he defended some of Copernicus’ ideas.
Nor is it the first time that non-scientific authorities have tried to overturn widely held scientific beliefs. In 1897, the Indiana House of Representatives passed a bill that “defined” π to be a rational number (only to have the bill die in Senate). And the opposition to evolutionary theory in the 1920s (culminating in the Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’) was led by a group whose most impressive scientific authorities were a Canadian surgeon, a homeopathic medical-school dropout turned Presbyterian surgeon, and a science professor whose highest degree was a master’s awarded for a thesis on penmanship in Midwestern public schools.
Unlike the skeptics in the Indiana and Scopes cases, however, the skeptics of climate research have accused an entire scientific community of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.
Of course, CRU is just one of many climate research institutes claiming to have produced evidence of global warming, leading climate researchers to claim that whatever happened at CRU does not undermine the underlying scientific basis for global warming.
So then how do skeptics arrive at their conclusion that what happened at CRU undermines the scientific basis for global warming? They rarely spell out their argument in full. Here's my best attempt to reconstruct the sort of argument they appear to have in mind:
1. There is evidence that a number of climate researchers arrived at their conclusions with the help of subjective biases and deceptive manipulation of the data.
2. Good science involves a mode of inquiry that’s free of subjective bias and questionable manipulation of the data. (implicit premise)
3. Therefore, what a number of climate researchers have been doing doesn’t count as good science.
Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that “a number of climate researchers” referred to in premise 1 includes not only researchers at CRU, but also researchers at some of the other climate research institutes claiming to have arrived at the same basic conclusions regarding global warming.
Moreover, let us also assume that the subjective biases and deception of these investigators really did have an impact on the scientific conclusions they reached.
Even granting all of that, however, we would still need to make an additional assumption, along the lines of premise 2, in order to infer 3, the conclusion. But premise 2 is based on a highly questionable picture of how science works.
A different (and more realistic) picture of science is one that acknowledges that scientific investigators are human; and as such, are inevitably influenced to some degree by subjective biases (such as saving their professional reputation, ambition, grants and funding, commitment to a particular research program, and the like).
Once we acknowledge these subjective elements within the history of science, we must reject premise 2. Good science is not simply a function of the method followed by individual investigators but, rather, of the combined results of a community of scientists; fully objective science occurs when the vast majority of individual scientific investigators all reach the same conclusions, despite their subjective biases and attempts to manipulate the data in accordance with their various research agendas.
Of course, the scientific community could be wrong, as they have been in the past. But let’s not repeat the mistakes of the Pope in 1632 and the State of Indiana in 1897. The way to criticize science is not by attacking or ignoring the scientific community (or hacking into their email accounts), but through doing better science.
“Climagate” began in Nov. 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, leading to the dissemination of thousands of emails and other primate documents. On the basis of those emails and documents, it has been alleged that climate researchers withheld scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process, deleted emails and raw data, and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
This isn’t the first time that scientists have felt challenged by outside (non-scientific) authorities. Copernicus did not publish his work in astronomy for fear of persecution from the Church, and Galileo was placed under house arrest by the Pope in 1632 when he defended some of Copernicus’ ideas.
Nor is it the first time that non-scientific authorities have tried to overturn widely held scientific beliefs. In 1897, the Indiana House of Representatives passed a bill that “defined” π to be a rational number (only to have the bill die in Senate). And the opposition to evolutionary theory in the 1920s (culminating in the Scopes ‘Monkey Trial’) was led by a group whose most impressive scientific authorities were a Canadian surgeon, a homeopathic medical-school dropout turned Presbyterian surgeon, and a science professor whose highest degree was a master’s awarded for a thesis on penmanship in Midwestern public schools.
Unlike the skeptics in the Indiana and Scopes cases, however, the skeptics of climate research have accused an entire scientific community of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.
Of course, CRU is just one of many climate research institutes claiming to have produced evidence of global warming, leading climate researchers to claim that whatever happened at CRU does not undermine the underlying scientific basis for global warming.
So then how do skeptics arrive at their conclusion that what happened at CRU undermines the scientific basis for global warming? They rarely spell out their argument in full. Here's my best attempt to reconstruct the sort of argument they appear to have in mind:
1. There is evidence that a number of climate researchers arrived at their conclusions with the help of subjective biases and deceptive manipulation of the data.
2. Good science involves a mode of inquiry that’s free of subjective bias and questionable manipulation of the data. (implicit premise)
3. Therefore, what a number of climate researchers have been doing doesn’t count as good science.
Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that “a number of climate researchers” referred to in premise 1 includes not only researchers at CRU, but also researchers at some of the other climate research institutes claiming to have arrived at the same basic conclusions regarding global warming.
Moreover, let us also assume that the subjective biases and deception of these investigators really did have an impact on the scientific conclusions they reached.
Even granting all of that, however, we would still need to make an additional assumption, along the lines of premise 2, in order to infer 3, the conclusion. But premise 2 is based on a highly questionable picture of how science works.
A different (and more realistic) picture of science is one that acknowledges that scientific investigators are human; and as such, are inevitably influenced to some degree by subjective biases (such as saving their professional reputation, ambition, grants and funding, commitment to a particular research program, and the like).
Once we acknowledge these subjective elements within the history of science, we must reject premise 2. Good science is not simply a function of the method followed by individual investigators but, rather, of the combined results of a community of scientists; fully objective science occurs when the vast majority of individual scientific investigators all reach the same conclusions, despite their subjective biases and attempts to manipulate the data in accordance with their various research agendas.
Of course, the scientific community could be wrong, as they have been in the past. But let’s not repeat the mistakes of the Pope in 1632 and the State of Indiana in 1897. The way to criticize science is not by attacking or ignoring the scientific community (or hacking into their email accounts), but through doing better science.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Is Religion Harmful?
A number of recent authors have argued that it is. Sam Harris, for example, in The End of Faith, argues that religious belief -- particularly theistic belief -- is anything but benign. His claim isn't just that it is lible, when misinterpreted or abused, to lead to atrocities; rather, it is that religious belief -- even in its most reasonable form -- has a devestating effect on society.
I find the ideas of Harris, and many of the other 'New Atheists', quite provocative. Moreover, they argue at at level of rigor and detail that very few contemporary defenders of Theism even come close to.
Some recent experimental work at the University of Miama, however, suggests that religious belief actually leads to much more good than harm. Click here to read more on the study.
What do you think?
I find the ideas of Harris, and many of the other 'New Atheists', quite provocative. Moreover, they argue at at level of rigor and detail that very few contemporary defenders of Theism even come close to.
Some recent experimental work at the University of Miama, however, suggests that religious belief actually leads to much more good than harm. Click here to read more on the study.
What do you think?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Why Twitter Splintered into Two Polarized Groups Last Night
An interesting thing happened on Twitter last night, as Obama gave his first prime-time news conference.
People were completely polarized in their reactions. On the side, people were saying things like:
@singlegirl: "Whoa. Our Prez is volunteering info and explaining what he means - coherently - to a reporter. Still not used to that."
@prunedaler: "Wow -- measured, thoughtful answers, in complete sentences -- who IS this guy?"
On the other side, people were saying things like:
@swaynette:“WOW! could he actually say something?! It would also be great if he could talk in more than four-word sentences and fewer ums!”
@susan_s_smith:“he has been fumbling over quite a few words”
Moreover, when these two sides noticed that the other side was viewing things so differently, they responded with exasperation:
@ BlondeBlogger: “Am I watching the same conf? RT @alejandroalton: It's so nice to see a leader who doesn't fumble over his words and is confident”
@cgrin: “Are you guys even watching the same speech?”
@rpeete: “we are definitely watching different broadcasts.”
I’m less interested in figuring out who’s right and who’s wrong in this dispute, and more interested in figuring out why these two sides were SO polarized that they disagreed on even some of the most basic facts.
Of course, many on each side will be tempted to just dismiss the other side as ideologically-driven and blinded.
However, that analysis comes too cheap. Both sides can make it. And once each side realizes this fact, it’s obvious how unsatisfying it is.
In my view, there are a couple factors that help explain this polarization:
1. The first is that, in the context of political disagreements, people are much less “objective”, “neutral” or “rational” than they think.
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen offers substantial evidence that voters perceptions are usually determined, not by dispassionately weighing facts, but on the basis of emotional factors.
In one study, Westen’s research team used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to investigate a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the 2004 presidential election. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate, and fMRI was used to see what parts of their brain were active.
According to Westen, "we did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning. What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
2. The second thing to note is that, even when we ARE being "rational", different individuals are often relying on completely different "evaluative standards" in judging the success (or failure) of a political speech.
To illustrate, let’s return to the dispute about whether Obama was fumbling over his words.
According to one side, the “ums” and frequent pauses were evidence of his speech being labored and unconvincing.
According to the other side, the very same “facts” are a consequence of his speech being thoughtful and convincing.
Professional academics and intellectuals, for example, who are used to the regular occurrence of “ums” and labored pauses in academic talks, are more likely to see things the second way, and judge the speech on the basis of intellectual criteria such as: Do the details in Obama’s answers provide good evidence for his stated conclusions?
Others, meanwhile, are deeply suspicious of intellectuals and their standards. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh, speaking for many Americans, has gone on record, saying “universities are just indoctrination centers for liberal ideology.”
But then, absent intellectual standards, the number of “ums” and pauses – features that even a six year-old could recognize – become increasingly relevant.
The reason for such widespread distrust of universities and intellectual standards is a story for another day. The point here is simply to highlight the role that emotions and background standards play in our evaluation of political speeches.
People were completely polarized in their reactions. On the side, people were saying things like:
@singlegirl: "Whoa. Our Prez is volunteering info and explaining what he means - coherently - to a reporter. Still not used to that."
@prunedaler: "Wow -- measured, thoughtful answers, in complete sentences -- who IS this guy?"
On the other side, people were saying things like:
@swaynette:“WOW! could he actually say something?! It would also be great if he could talk in more than four-word sentences and fewer ums!”
@susan_s_smith:“he has been fumbling over quite a few words”
Moreover, when these two sides noticed that the other side was viewing things so differently, they responded with exasperation:
@ BlondeBlogger: “Am I watching the same conf? RT @alejandroalton: It's so nice to see a leader who doesn't fumble over his words and is confident”
@cgrin: “Are you guys even watching the same speech?”
@rpeete: “we are definitely watching different broadcasts.”
I’m less interested in figuring out who’s right and who’s wrong in this dispute, and more interested in figuring out why these two sides were SO polarized that they disagreed on even some of the most basic facts.
Of course, many on each side will be tempted to just dismiss the other side as ideologically-driven and blinded.
However, that analysis comes too cheap. Both sides can make it. And once each side realizes this fact, it’s obvious how unsatisfying it is.
In my view, there are a couple factors that help explain this polarization:
1. The first is that, in the context of political disagreements, people are much less “objective”, “neutral” or “rational” than they think.
In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen offers substantial evidence that voters perceptions are usually determined, not by dispassionately weighing facts, but on the basis of emotional factors.
In one study, Westen’s research team used functional neuroimaging (fMRI) to investigate a sample of committed Democrats and Republicans during the 2004 presidential election. The Democrats and Republicans were given a reasoning task in which they had to evaluate threatening information about their own candidate, and fMRI was used to see what parts of their brain were active.
According to Westen, "we did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning. What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."
2. The second thing to note is that, even when we ARE being "rational", different individuals are often relying on completely different "evaluative standards" in judging the success (or failure) of a political speech.
To illustrate, let’s return to the dispute about whether Obama was fumbling over his words.
According to one side, the “ums” and frequent pauses were evidence of his speech being labored and unconvincing.
According to the other side, the very same “facts” are a consequence of his speech being thoughtful and convincing.
Professional academics and intellectuals, for example, who are used to the regular occurrence of “ums” and labored pauses in academic talks, are more likely to see things the second way, and judge the speech on the basis of intellectual criteria such as: Do the details in Obama’s answers provide good evidence for his stated conclusions?
Others, meanwhile, are deeply suspicious of intellectuals and their standards. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh, speaking for many Americans, has gone on record, saying “universities are just indoctrination centers for liberal ideology.”
But then, absent intellectual standards, the number of “ums” and pauses – features that even a six year-old could recognize – become increasingly relevant.
The reason for such widespread distrust of universities and intellectual standards is a story for another day. The point here is simply to highlight the role that emotions and background standards play in our evaluation of political speeches.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
The Secret Behind the Secret: Scientific Fact or Fabricated Myth?
A number of years ago, I invited a friend over to my place to watch The Secret with me. Neither of us knew much about the film, only that it came recommended to us by a number of friends who share our interest in philosophy, science, religion and self-improvement.
The central claim of the film, largely influenced by Wallace Wattles’ 1910 book The Science of Getting Rich, is that there exists a universal law of nature called “the law of attraction” (or “LOA” for short). According to this law, you can attract anything into your life you want using just your thoughts.
Moreover, LOA is said to be a completely universal law: it works everytime, in any place, and with every person; there are no limitations to what you can attract.
Indeed, a pantheon of people explain how you can use LOA to attract money, relationships, and even happiness itself, into your life.
Sound too good to be true? Wait! We’re assured that it’s based in science, and hence must be true no matter how strange it might seem.
Unfortunately, many of the “scientific” claims the film makes seem questionable. For example:
1. “Now if you don’t understand [LOA], it doesn’t mean you should reject it. You don’t understand electricity probably… no one even knows what electricity is.” And here I thought physicists understood a great deal about electricity.
2. Our physiology creates disease to give us feedback, to let us know we have an imbalanced perspective, and we're not loving and we're not grateful." Those ungrateful cancer patients! (credit here to Michael Shermer)
3. “It’s been proven scientifically that a positive thought is a hundred times more powerful than a negative thought” Um, no.
4. “Every thought has a frequency.... If you are thinking that thought over and over again you are emitting that frequency." Well, the brain does emit electrical activity, but the resulting magnetic fields are extremely tiny and do not extend very far.
Now, science has shown that positive thoughts can be a factor in shaping what happens (as in the “placebo effect”). However, there’s a giant leap from that to the conclusion that your thoughts are the only factor in determining what happens to you.
Just consider the tortured Jews in Nazi concentration camps, the enslaved African-Americans and the victims of 9/11. If LOA were true, then these people all had it coming; they simply failed to control their thoughts.
Defenders of LOA may well bite the bullet on this one. Indeed, those of my friends who’ve defended The Secret often speak of it in terms of a revelation: once you open your eyes to its truth, everything confirms it, and every objection can be explained away.
At first glance, it might seem that it’s precisely this feature – that everyting confirms it, and nothing could disconfirm it – which disqualifies it from being science. After all, isn’t the very point of science to make predictions which could turn out to be false?
This is too quick. Even textbook cases of theories from the history of science often fail to be “falsifiable” in this sense.
Take, for example, Newton’s three laws of motion and the law of gravitation. One might think that this bit of theory makes all sorts of empirical predictions (e.g. if an apple dropped from a tree directly above Newton’s head, it would fall on his head), which could confirm or disconfirm it.
But this picture is too simple. If the apple didn’t fall as predicted, one could easily “save” the theory by positing other forces that overcame the force of gravity. It is only in conjunction with other assumptions (e.g. that for certain systems the effects of forces other than gravity are negligible) that we get falsifiable empirical predictions.
Similarly, if LOA seems to fail in certain cases, its defenders could (and do) make additional assumptions (e.g. that there’s an unspecified time delay, or that people aren’t doing it correctly) to explain away all these apparent failures.
But it’s precisely here that The Secret parts ways with science. When, for example, the orbit of Uranus was observed to diverge from the predictions of Newton’s theory, astronomers did not simply explain it away. Rather, this observation lead to a detailed research program and a new set of puzzles to solve: old observations were re-examined, new measurements were made, various theorical adjustments were considered, and so on. In the end, the sources of difficultly with the Newtonian paradigm proved too great, and it gave way to Einstein’s theory.
The situation with LOA is quite different. The assumptions deployed to save this theory help sustain a general worldview, or “ethos,” and a set of “craft rules.” But no research puzzles have emerged. In this respect, The Secret is more akin to astrology or ancient Greek mythology.
No doubt, some proponents will continue to insist on the science label (especially if it increases sales copy conversion!), and to make claims of scientific objectivity without the sweat of honest toil. But that’s at best a verbal victory, and at worst a deceptive marketing scheme.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
How's your philosophical health?
I just found a cool, short online quiz that tests for "philosophical health." It's very similar to the one that I give students in my intro level philosophy courses.
A central task of philosophy is to examine the relations between our beliefs on various issues, and to expose tensions and contradictions.
Students are often shocked by their results.
However, I'd like to get feedback on the test from a larger sample size of people (not just the students who take my classes!)
If you'd like to help with this "social experiment", then:
1) Go to http://tinyurl.com/5kmvt and take the test. It should only take a few minutes to complete. Don't overthink your answers. Just go with your initial responses.
2) Press "submit" and see your results.
3) Post a comment to this blog with your reactions. Were you surprised by the results? Did you learn anything about yourself? What do you think of the test?
Thanks!
A central task of philosophy is to examine the relations between our beliefs on various issues, and to expose tensions and contradictions.
Students are often shocked by their results.
However, I'd like to get feedback on the test from a larger sample size of people (not just the students who take my classes!)
If you'd like to help with this "social experiment", then:
1) Go to http://tinyurl.com/5kmvt and take the test. It should only take a few minutes to complete. Don't overthink your answers. Just go with your initial responses.
2) Press "submit" and see your results.
3) Post a comment to this blog with your reactions. Were you surprised by the results? Did you learn anything about yourself? What do you think of the test?
Thanks!
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Stewart and Colbert as Socrates
"You know, Comedy Central is now a big hit, Stewart and the Colbert guy. … They make a living putting on video of old ladies slipping on ice and people laughing. That’s their life. That’s their life. They exist in a small little place where they count for nothing.” - Geraldo Rivera
Some have accused Stewart and Colbert of trivializing the news, of shirking journalistic responsibility and aiming at the lowest common denominator.
I believe this accusation is profoundly mistaken.
At first glance, it seems to assume that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report share the journalistic aims of, say, Fox News or CNN. But it's difficult to fathom why anyone would confuse Comedy Central for a journalistic news station. I mean, for goodness sakes, the lead-in to The Daily Show used to be Crank Yankers, a show about puppets making crank phone calls.
Perhaps the assumption is that these shows nevertheless should shoulder more journalistic responsibility. But why? Is serious journalism the only legitimate mode of inquiry?
Let's call this view 'journalistic monism.'
I believe the journalistic monist misses the role that comedy often plays within culture. Let me focus on one interesting historical example: the ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates. Anyone who’s read Plato’s dialogues is familiar with Socrates’ characteristic use of humor and irony to criticize Greek society and discover important political and moral truths.
One of my favorite examples occurs during his trial, just after the guilty verdict is handed down. Meletus, the prosecutor, proposes the death penalty. But as was the custom, Socrates is given the opportunity to offer a counter-proposal. Precisely here his irony shows through. Since he believes he has benefitted the people of Athens more than Olympic champions, he proposes he should be treated to a victory celebration feast. The remark is ironic precisely because it is the opposite of what would be expected here: Socrates proposes a reward instead of a punishment. His point is to expose the absurdity of the Greek judicial system, a system that wishes to punish someone for having lived a just life.
In a similar way, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert use comedy as a vehicle for cultural criticism. Socrates’ criticism was chiefly directed at the Sophists, self-proclaimed experts in rhetoric (the art of persuasion), who offered to teach others how to win political and legal arguments (for a fee). The Sophists were both the first politicians and the ancient Greek version of modern day self-help gurus. Stewart and Colbert, meanwhile, aim their criticism at politicians and the media.
On their shows, Stewart and Colbert are unrelenting in their ironic (and often hilarious) assaults, highlighting how politicians sacrifice their morals to win elections, and how media sophists sacrifice their journalistic responsibility for ratings.
Of course, the latter is the very charge raised against Stewart and Colbert. Ironically, their comic efforts actually serve to highlight the failure of media sophists to whom this charge correctly applies.
To this end, Colbert helped popularize the satirical term “truthiness” to describe claims that a person claims to know intuitively or “from the gut” rather than on the basis of evidence or logical argument. With that term in mind, he called out George W. Bush in his now-famous speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner:
It is my privilege to celebrate this president, ‘cause we're not so different, he and I. We both get it. Guys like us, we're not some brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut. Right, sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.
and
Most of all, I believe in this president. Now, I know there are some polls out there saying that this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Of course, this is intended as comedy, with a critical edge. Like Socrates, Colbert is using comedy to expose the absurdity of certain aspects of the then-current political regime.
The parallel between Socrates and these two comedic figures goes even further. Socrates was highly popular among the youth in Athens, so much so that one of the main charges in his trial was that he corrupted the youth with his philosophizing. Similarly, both Stewart and Colbert have a young demographic, and have been accused of targeting “stoned slackers.”
Moreover, the way that guests on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are interviewed is often quite reminiscient of the “Socratic method.” Socrates famously questioned the so-called experts of his day, not by directly challenging their authority, but by assuming their expertise for the sake of the argument, and then asking a series of subtle “clarificatory” questions that exposed the absurdity of their claims to knowledge. A similar style of questioning is often taken by Daily Show “correspondents.” For example, following the legalization of gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts, Daily Show “correspondent” Ed Helms interviewed conservative activitist Brian Camenker:
Helms: “So you’d say legalized gay marriage has affected the quality of life in Massachusetts?”
Camenker: "Yeah"
Helms: "Has homelessness gone up? Is crime on the rise? Is the air quality diminishing?"
Camenker [similing as he saw where Helms was heading]: "I could probably, you know, find some way of connecting the dots to gay marriage to all of these if I had enough time and I did some research.”
Helms [sarcastically]: "Yeah, why take time to do the research when saying it is so much faster!"
And later on in the interview...
Camenker: "gay activists use a lot of the PR tactics and propaganda tactics that the Nazis used."
Helms [with a deadpan]: "That comparison is a bit extreme, don't you think? I mean, what did the Nazis do that was so bad?"
Helms’ line of questioning is, of course, entirely tongue-and-cheek. The point is to call into question Camenker’s position, not by directly challenging him, but through tongue-and-cheek agreement and "clarificatory" questions that expose certain absurdities within his position.
In addition, Stewart, like Socrates, is centrally concerned with whether an action is right or just, and critical of those only concerned with furthering their own careers. A major theme in Plato's earlier dialogues is Socrates' emphasis on the pursuit of the good/just over concerns of expedience and self-interest. And he was willing to stand up for these convictions when it mattered the most. During his trial, he notes that he was a member of the council in Athens, and that he stood up for what he thought was just, even if this meant standing alone in opposition to the rest of the council members, and thereby risking prosecution.
A similar theme runs through The Daily Show. A good example of this is Stewart's hilarious and insightful interview with Chris Matthews (host of the show Hardball), following the release of Matthew’s book Life's a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success. Through comedy, Stewart was able to make the point that Matthew’s book seems to emphasize doing what will make one successful over what one believes is right.
An even more impressive example occurred when Stewart called Crossfire hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala "partisan hacks" on their own show, and pleaded with them to “stop hurting America” and raise the level of discourse on their show beyond sloganeering. Yet, even here, Stewart managed to deliver his message with razor-sharp barbs and impeccable comedic timing. And indeed, it is difficult to imagine his message having the impact it did without its comic packaging.
For further parallels between Socrates and Stewart, see, for example, Judith Barad’s paper "Stewart and Socrates: Speaking Truth to Power" (in The Daily Show and Philosophy, edited by Jason Holt. Blackwell, 2007, pp. 69-80).
One criticism that could be leveled against this comparison is that neither Stewart nor Colbert write all their own material, and so don’t deserve the sort of credit that Socrates deserves. Indeed, both rely on a team of writers (though that fact doesn’t distinguish them from television newscasters). A similar question can be raised about Socrates, however. Socrates didn’t write anything, in fact. So then we might ask: how much of Plato’s writings about Socrates reflect Socrates’ original thought, and how much of it is Plato’s adaption of Socrates’ ideas? This is a thorny issue in Plato scholarship. But whatever the case may be, we can side step such disputes by talking about Socrates qua the character given to us in Plato’s dialogues. Similarly, we can talk about Stewart and Colbert qua the characters given to us on Comedy Central.
Of course, I am not claiming that Stewart and Colbert are exactly like Socrates in every respect. However, I do think that the charge that they are appealing to the lowest common denominator profoundly underestimates what can be achieved through comedy.
Some have accused Stewart and Colbert of trivializing the news, of shirking journalistic responsibility and aiming at the lowest common denominator.
I believe this accusation is profoundly mistaken.
At first glance, it seems to assume that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report share the journalistic aims of, say, Fox News or CNN. But it's difficult to fathom why anyone would confuse Comedy Central for a journalistic news station. I mean, for goodness sakes, the lead-in to The Daily Show used to be Crank Yankers, a show about puppets making crank phone calls.
Perhaps the assumption is that these shows nevertheless should shoulder more journalistic responsibility. But why? Is serious journalism the only legitimate mode of inquiry?
Let's call this view 'journalistic monism.'
I believe the journalistic monist misses the role that comedy often plays within culture. Let me focus on one interesting historical example: the ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates. Anyone who’s read Plato’s dialogues is familiar with Socrates’ characteristic use of humor and irony to criticize Greek society and discover important political and moral truths.
One of my favorite examples occurs during his trial, just after the guilty verdict is handed down. Meletus, the prosecutor, proposes the death penalty. But as was the custom, Socrates is given the opportunity to offer a counter-proposal. Precisely here his irony shows through. Since he believes he has benefitted the people of Athens more than Olympic champions, he proposes he should be treated to a victory celebration feast. The remark is ironic precisely because it is the opposite of what would be expected here: Socrates proposes a reward instead of a punishment. His point is to expose the absurdity of the Greek judicial system, a system that wishes to punish someone for having lived a just life.
In a similar way, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert use comedy as a vehicle for cultural criticism. Socrates’ criticism was chiefly directed at the Sophists, self-proclaimed experts in rhetoric (the art of persuasion), who offered to teach others how to win political and legal arguments (for a fee). The Sophists were both the first politicians and the ancient Greek version of modern day self-help gurus. Stewart and Colbert, meanwhile, aim their criticism at politicians and the media.
On their shows, Stewart and Colbert are unrelenting in their ironic (and often hilarious) assaults, highlighting how politicians sacrifice their morals to win elections, and how media sophists sacrifice their journalistic responsibility for ratings.
Of course, the latter is the very charge raised against Stewart and Colbert. Ironically, their comic efforts actually serve to highlight the failure of media sophists to whom this charge correctly applies.
To this end, Colbert helped popularize the satirical term “truthiness” to describe claims that a person claims to know intuitively or “from the gut” rather than on the basis of evidence or logical argument. With that term in mind, he called out George W. Bush in his now-famous speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner:
It is my privilege to celebrate this president, ‘cause we're not so different, he and I. We both get it. Guys like us, we're not some brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut. Right, sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.
and
Most of all, I believe in this president. Now, I know there are some polls out there saying that this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias.
Of course, this is intended as comedy, with a critical edge. Like Socrates, Colbert is using comedy to expose the absurdity of certain aspects of the then-current political regime.
The parallel between Socrates and these two comedic figures goes even further. Socrates was highly popular among the youth in Athens, so much so that one of the main charges in his trial was that he corrupted the youth with his philosophizing. Similarly, both Stewart and Colbert have a young demographic, and have been accused of targeting “stoned slackers.”
Moreover, the way that guests on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are interviewed is often quite reminiscient of the “Socratic method.” Socrates famously questioned the so-called experts of his day, not by directly challenging their authority, but by assuming their expertise for the sake of the argument, and then asking a series of subtle “clarificatory” questions that exposed the absurdity of their claims to knowledge. A similar style of questioning is often taken by Daily Show “correspondents.” For example, following the legalization of gay marriage in the state of Massachusetts, Daily Show “correspondent” Ed Helms interviewed conservative activitist Brian Camenker:
Helms: “So you’d say legalized gay marriage has affected the quality of life in Massachusetts?”
Camenker: "Yeah"
Helms: "Has homelessness gone up? Is crime on the rise? Is the air quality diminishing?"
Camenker [similing as he saw where Helms was heading]: "I could probably, you know, find some way of connecting the dots to gay marriage to all of these if I had enough time and I did some research.”
Helms [sarcastically]: "Yeah, why take time to do the research when saying it is so much faster!"
And later on in the interview...
Camenker: "gay activists use a lot of the PR tactics and propaganda tactics that the Nazis used."
Helms [with a deadpan]: "That comparison is a bit extreme, don't you think? I mean, what did the Nazis do that was so bad?"
Helms’ line of questioning is, of course, entirely tongue-and-cheek. The point is to call into question Camenker’s position, not by directly challenging him, but through tongue-and-cheek agreement and "clarificatory" questions that expose certain absurdities within his position.
In addition, Stewart, like Socrates, is centrally concerned with whether an action is right or just, and critical of those only concerned with furthering their own careers. A major theme in Plato's earlier dialogues is Socrates' emphasis on the pursuit of the good/just over concerns of expedience and self-interest. And he was willing to stand up for these convictions when it mattered the most. During his trial, he notes that he was a member of the council in Athens, and that he stood up for what he thought was just, even if this meant standing alone in opposition to the rest of the council members, and thereby risking prosecution.
A similar theme runs through The Daily Show. A good example of this is Stewart's hilarious and insightful interview with Chris Matthews (host of the show Hardball), following the release of Matthew’s book Life's a Campaign: What Politics Has Taught Me About Friendship, Rivalry, Reputation, and Success. Through comedy, Stewart was able to make the point that Matthew’s book seems to emphasize doing what will make one successful over what one believes is right.
An even more impressive example occurred when Stewart called Crossfire hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala "partisan hacks" on their own show, and pleaded with them to “stop hurting America” and raise the level of discourse on their show beyond sloganeering. Yet, even here, Stewart managed to deliver his message with razor-sharp barbs and impeccable comedic timing. And indeed, it is difficult to imagine his message having the impact it did without its comic packaging.
For further parallels between Socrates and Stewart, see, for example, Judith Barad’s paper "Stewart and Socrates: Speaking Truth to Power" (in The Daily Show and Philosophy, edited by Jason Holt. Blackwell, 2007, pp. 69-80).
One criticism that could be leveled against this comparison is that neither Stewart nor Colbert write all their own material, and so don’t deserve the sort of credit that Socrates deserves. Indeed, both rely on a team of writers (though that fact doesn’t distinguish them from television newscasters). A similar question can be raised about Socrates, however. Socrates didn’t write anything, in fact. So then we might ask: how much of Plato’s writings about Socrates reflect Socrates’ original thought, and how much of it is Plato’s adaption of Socrates’ ideas? This is a thorny issue in Plato scholarship. But whatever the case may be, we can side step such disputes by talking about Socrates qua the character given to us in Plato’s dialogues. Similarly, we can talk about Stewart and Colbert qua the characters given to us on Comedy Central.
Of course, I am not claiming that Stewart and Colbert are exactly like Socrates in every respect. However, I do think that the charge that they are appealing to the lowest common denominator profoundly underestimates what can be achieved through comedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)