So its ok to sell the books that contain information that meet your litmus test for not being junk science? Isn’t that giving the opinion on that side of the issue more weight than the other side? Now we are simply turning the issue around 180 degrees and saying that only the scientific viewpoint is valid. It seems like the same issue in reverse to me. I say put both kind of books on the shelf and let the individual decide for themselves.
Err . . . yeah, actually. My “litmus test” is the “scientific method.” Books that claim to put forward a scientific theory written by scientists ought to adhere to the scientific method, if they’re gonna be sold in Park Service stores, IMO.
Sure is. It’s giving more weight to the side that’s not engaging in a con job, that’s not selling snake oil, that’s not dishonestly putting shoddy science forward. I can live with that.
That’s not at all what we’re saying. We’re saying that, when putting forth scientific theories in a scientific context, only the scientific viewpoint is valid. Once again, I’ve got no problem with the Park Service stocking inspirational books that don’t claim they’re putting forth a scientific theory.
My problem is with putting books on the shelves that contain demonstrably false information. I think doing so undercuts the Park Service’s educational mission.
Daniel
You once again raised some valid points there but this particular phrase reveals one of the central problems with the issue. If anyone on the other side of this issue dared to use such inflamatory language they would be branded intolerant, close-minded, and over-zealous, but when the non-religous side of the issue uses these phrases they get a pass.
As incredible as it may seem there are actually people who sincerley and geniuely believe the things written in this book. They see the more scientific books as man’s attempt to disprove the existience and necessity of their God. They hold their beliefs (however silly you may see them) as near and dear to their heart as you do. You ask them to accept the books contrary to their beliefs without question, but you refuse to do the same in return. Think of times when there have been fundamentalist Christians protesting textbooks that teach evolutuion. When these happen the media paints them an intollerant, stupid goons whose minds are so close-minded the bolts have rusted shut. They are teased, belittled, and mocked. But when the scientifc community does the exact same thing to their beliefs in reverse nothing is said. That’s a double standard isn’t it?
I just see it as inherently unfair to ask that the opposing material be removed. You may write it off as “junk science” but shouldn’t the rest of us get the opportunity to decide for ourselves and not just get the viewpoint that those who worship at the altar of the first church of scientific method say we should?
The equivalent to this book would be one called *Heaven: an Alternative Viewpoint," in which 50 “Christian theologians” argued that the Bible proved that Heaven was nonexistant.
And I wouldn’t want that book to be in the Park Service bookstore, either.
The problem isn’t that the Creationist point of view is false; for all I know, it may be right. The problem is that science absolutely does not support the YEC theory. Whether YEC is true is debatable; whether YEC is supported by the scientific method is not debatable by honest, informed people.
You can decide for yourself elsewhere. I’m not saying these books should be removed from public bookstores, or even from libraries. I am saying that people have, and legitimately have, an expectation that their purchases of scientific books at a Park-services store will contain real science, not a con-job.
And make no mistake: while there are theological reasons to believe YEC theory, there are not scientific reasons to believe it, any more than there are scientific reasons to believe that the earth was licked from the primordial ice by the cow-god Ymir. I would have exactly the same objections to a book in which “scientists” argued for the cow-lick theory.
Daniel
Err, sorry about that. Ymir was the giant whose body became the world. The cow-god was Audhumla. Nonetheless, I don’t want books in which “scientists” argue for Cow-God Creation (CGC) theory in my Park Service bookstore, pointing to large quantities of lactic acid in the oceans as their proof.
Daniel
I agree with your stance here, but just becase Fiver in one of the earliest posts of this thread made the comment “The Noah’s Flood explanation for the Grand Canyon is favored by ‘young Earth’ creationists, who believe the Earth isn’t old enough for geological forces to have formed the Canyon.” doesn’t 100% prove that this particular book takes a total YEC perspective. Perhaps the book sees the flood involved in the forming of the canyon in a different way than the YEC crowd does…have you read the book? I haven’t, and I must admit that I would like to see just what the book is teaching. Perhaps a review of this book may sway me to oppose its inclusion in the park’s giftshop, but in general I don’t like one group kicking another’s viewpoint out of the market. I realize that the park has an educational responsibility, but there are parnets out there who want their children taught one way, and no other way. Who among us gets to decide what a federally funded park gets to teach and no teach to the masses at large?
Easy: the Park doesn’t get to favor any religion over any other. Other than that, they should be neutral to religion. This book puts itself forward as a scientific book. There are two possibilities, the way I see it:
- It really is a scientific book. Fine–in that case, it’s shitty science, and shouldn’t be sold.
- It’s a religious book masquerading as a scientific book. Fine–in that case, it’s deliberately deceptive, and still shouldn’t be sold.
As I said before, on the off-chance that this book ISN’T shitty science, I retract what I’ve said. However, by all indications, that’s exactly what it is.
Openmindedness does not extend to having government institutions shelve blatantly false information next to strongly supported information at National Parks. We don’t want to open them so far, the cliche goes, that our brains fall out. Religious books that are not masquerading as science volumes are not objectionable per se; scientific books that contain well-supported science are not objectionable.
But this book, by all appearances, falls in neither category. As such, the only reason I can see for a bookstore’s carrying it is to give favorable treatment to a specific religious theory, and THAT is pretty dang objectionable.
Daniel
Favorable to one religion? This argument holds no weight unless there is evidence the park disallowed other books containing other religion viewpoints, but let this one in. Of course, maybe no other religions viewpoints published any books on the canyon or its origin. Just because it may be the only book in the store with a religious viewpoint doesn’t prove the park is favoring one religion over another.
If I were running the park I would want any book ever written about the canyon in the store. Let people see the fascination people have had over the years with the canyon. Let them learn of various theories people have had about it. Its one of the wonders of the world and mankind has long tried to explain it. We can’t let ourselves get so high and mighty in our viewpoints that we say that other opinions that may be wrong should not even see the light of day. You said you would not object to it being sold in a bookstore outside of the park, but I don’t see the difference. Sure this is a federally funded park, and the YEC’ers tax dollars pay for it just as much as yours did. Shouldn’t they have an equal say as to what is sold there? You may see it is wrong and misleading and you may think that the book being presented as “non-fiction” is insulting. Well, the YEC’ers see the books using the blessed “scientific method” (which requires as much faith as most religions I might add) as incorrect junk science. Are your tax dollars worth more than theirs?
The “litmus test” you mock is in fact the tried and true process of peer review by mainstream scientific institutions.
It amazes me that there rubes who assume science can get so many things right, from amazing feats of engingeering to incredible developments in medical science to amazing insights into the world of phyiscs, among hosts of other things, and yet they somehow think that scientists somehow get the age of earth and origin of life totally wrong.
Suffice it to say, I thank goodness that scientists determine what works in terms of automobile engineering, for one example among millions, and that competing design texts–with some sort of loony point of view contrary to science, similar to that which Toby-T describes for geology–don’t exist for laypeople to decide for themselves which is correct.
Science isn’t about allowing popular opinon or popular mythology to determine fact.
To compare the process of scientific peer review to the faith required by adherents of religion is intensely idiotic. Again, I am so very grateful that all scientific understanding of things that effect the real world, and thus my life, go through this peer-review process, and are not tested against religious doctrine of any kind.
Heck, if religious doctrine won out, we wouldn’t have airplanes, we’d think the earth was flat, we’d think the sun and stars revolved around us, etc., etc.
After years and years of life in Christianity, it is hard for me to see that religion leads to anything other than delusion.
Not true. Popular books, even in the science section of a good bookstore, do not have to meet the rigors of a peer review scientific journal. In fact, where do you think you’ll find books on YEC-- right in there with Darwin, Gould, etc.
I’m not defending YEC views (I’m an atheist), but I think you’re overstating the case for what gets sold in a typical bookstore. I don’t view the concession stand at a public park the same way I’d view the curiculum of a public school.
That’s the difference between us. If I were running the park, I would want the bookstore to serve, in part, an educational mission; to that end, I wouldn’t allow books that appeared educational to be sold in the bookstore if they were either:
- Grossly incompetent, or
- Deliberately deceptive.
As I said earlier, this book falls under one of these two categories. If it didn’t claim to offer a scientific explanation of events, it might not; but it does, so it’s either deliberately false, or accidentally false. Offering such a book would violate my educational mission.
Opinion=something nonfalsifiable. “Ice cream is tasty” is an opinion.
Belief=something falsifiable. “The scientific method suggests that the Grand Canyon was formed by millions of years of geological activity”= a belief.
I’m not saying that some opinions shouldn’t see the light of day; I’m saying that a government-sponsored bookstore with an educational mission shouldn’t disseminate information that will lead to demonstrably false beliefs.
Please tell me, in your own words, what I described as the difference above. I’ve described it four or five times, and I don’t see the value in describing the difference yet again–I don’t see how many different ways I can say it.
No they don’t: if the YECers saw the scientific method as junk science, they wouldn’t keep claiming their beliefs were supported by the scientific method. This is not that difficult a point to get.
Look. I’m a big basketball fan*. I’m not going to go onto a golf course and start hollering at people about how they’re supposed to be dribbling the ball, goddammit. But if some golfer comes onto the basketball court with a golf club, I’m going to tell him to put it away. If he keeps trying to knock the ball with the club in order to get it into the goal, I’m going to call him a shitty basketball player.
That’s the problem here. The YECers are fine as long as they don’t try to play by the rules of science: on a theological court, I can’t contradict them. If the book were written by theologians and described how we could see the Grand Canyon as Biblical proof of the Great Flood, I wouldn’t have the same objections to it.
But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re claiming, falsely, that the tools of science support their claims. They don’t reject science; they lie about it.
And there’s the rub. I don’t think that a government-sponsored bookstore with an educational mission should contain information that is either deliberately misleading, or is absolutely incompetent science.
Daniel
*This is a lie–I don’t like basketball. I’m just making an example.
Then again, just because they appear at the bookstore rather than in a scientific journal does not make them exempt from peer review. Scientists read books, too. And they delight in pointing out where an author may have gotten something wrong.
And need I point out that such cornerstones of modern science as The Origin of Species were published in a “popular book” format? And I think we all know how much scientific scrutiny that’s been put through…
I guess this is the fundamental difference between us. I don’t see the park service as having the sacred educational mission that you seem to. I don’t think the park service itself sees its role as you do. Their mission statement states:
“National Park Service Mission: To conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”
They seem to see themselves as having more of a conservation/helping the public see & enjoy nature role, and that is exactly what I think their role should be. Education should be left to parents and teachers. Take the kids to see this marvels of nature, then take them back to their classroom to learn about it, or have the teacher teach them on site, but either way it isn’t the park service’s job to do the actual teaching. It never has been, and it never should be. You mentioned the CDC in an earlier post. This was a poor comparison. The CDC has a job to inform and protect the public from disease. The park service has no such role…not even anything close. They protect nature itself, and make it as accessible to the public as possible so that we may be to see and enjoy it. If I agreed with you on the role of the park service perhaps I would be more inclined to agree with your stance on the book, but I just see it differently than you.
Maybe it comes from being married to a museum professional, but I see education as part of their mission. Having been to lots of national parks and having seen lots of plaques around that perform an educational function, I believe they see that as at least part of their mission, and I think the bookstore serves that function.
But yeah, that does seem to be the crux of our disagreement. If the bookstore’s mission is simply “make money,” then I’d withdraw my criticism–or, rather, redirect it to suggesting that it should have a different mission.
Daniel
Just for the record, I don’t see their mission as making money. I did voice some of my free-market viewpoints in segments of this thread, but I don’t see a national park as a for-profit organization by any means. As I said earlier, I see it as primarily a conservation mission, which in my opinion is a critical and important role.
As you said, the crux of disagreement was the role of the park service. So, let me ask you this: If this book, or one like it, were for sale in a giftshop in some other federal property that had, in your viewpoint, no such educational mission, would you be opposed to its inclusion based on the whole “favoring one religion” or “government establishment of religion” argument? That is more the question at hand in this thread. I think we both went off on a small tangent.
Toby-T, I’m curious where you found that mission statement.
According to the Department of the Interior National Park Service orientation page, the NPS mission statement is
(bolding mine)
Looking around, I found a statement on the Yellowstone web site that includes your quotation, but notes through ellipses that your statement (as well as the quote on the site) are, in fact, abridged versions. However, the Yellowstone site goes on to reference the National Park Service Organic Act, 16 U.S.C.1. which includes the bullet
One cannot educate about history and common heritage by presenting myth as physical history.
I found it on the park service website, but I apologize. The page that I found it on did not indicate that it was an abridged version of the mission statement. I was not purposefully leaving a section out, and was not intending to mislead. It sounds like they do include education in their view of their role, but I still see the educational aspect as secondary at best. Conservation is their key role. It’s the one thing they do that no one else does. Even conceding the point that part of their responsibilities is education I still do not object to the book. I get squeamish at any move that censors, removes, or blocks any words, whether spoken or written no matter how outlandish the idea being promoted. Its just a touchy issue for me.
Anyway, you didn’t respond to the question I posed. I was just curious what your viewpoint would be if this were a government agency that does not have an educational responsibility.
You capacity for being obtuse is reaching a new high.
While popular books for laypeople are themselves not usually submitted for formal peer review (although informal peer review almost always occurs), the information within them undoubtedly was, and probably multiple times.
Toby-T was putting the peer-review process on a par with religious faith, a ludicrous and ignorant position. Hence my response. Almost no information in a YEC text has ever been submitted to and survived a rigorous peer review by a mainstream scientific institution.
Basically, the litmus test for non-“junk science” is scientific peer review. That is the context for my post.
For an opinion to carry authority and scientific validity, indeed it must pass a peer-review process. Otherwise, “junk science” is one of the kinder things one might say. Things are intended for eductation of the general population should meet a high standard for scientific validity. Anything else is deceit, something YEC types are very good at.
I never defended their “science”, just their right to have their viewpoint, and promote it.