Thoughts in a Haystack

I recently gave another example of the Discovery Institute using Thomas Nagel's recommendation of Stephen Meyer's book, Signature in the Cell in the Times Literary Supplement for publicity purposes. In particular, Robert Crowther cited to an article at Lew Rockwell's libertarian site by David Gordon. A commenter, calling himself only "David," but writing as if he is Mr. Gordon, responded to the post and, on the presumption that he is Mr. Gordon, it is only fair to move his reply to the top of my blog.

First of all, here is the criticism I made of Mr. Gordon's article:

[A]s Gordon notes, Nagel doesn't claim knowledge of biology, much less theories of prebiotic chemical evolution. That simply raises the question why Nagel felt competent to pronounce Meyer's book to be a "detailed account of the problem of how life came into existence from lifeless matter – something that had to happen before the process of biological evolution could begin." Gordon's response that "Both Leiter and the chemist [Stephen Fletcher, Department of Chemistry, Loughborough University, who wrote a Letter to the Editor of the TLS] ignored the fact, much emphasized by Meyer, that such resorts to natural selection are controversial."

But it is Gordon who misses the point. As Nagel was competent enough to recognize, Meyer's "argument" is a conceptual one, that "argues that the available evidence offers no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause." In short, Meyer is making a "just not so" argument, much like Behe's "irreducible complexity." Behe and Meyer are both claiming that, because they (supposedly) can't think of any way for some organ or structure to arise naturally, we should stop looking. A fully adequate response is "we can think of a way." And it doesn't matter if Meyer thinks prebiotic chemical evolution is "controversial." Neither Nagel nor, as far as I can tell, Gordon have the expertise to tell how accurate or honest Meyer's account is ... something of great importance, given the DI's penchant for quote mining and other dishonesty.

Nor is there any scientific reason to assume we won't find some other, presently unknown, route to the origin of DNA. Meyer is pushing an argument from ignorance that pales in comparison to the spectacular success science has racked up with the assumption -- methodological naturalism -- that natural phenomena, such as the chemistry of DNA, have natural explanations.

Which brings us to what Gordon calls "the attempt by Leiter and others to block inquiry that challenges naturalism." Really? Criticism is an attempt to block inquiry? That's a strange position for a libertarian to take. Not to mention that, since Gordon is criticizing Leiter and others who defend the scientific process, he must be attempting to block scientific inquiry.

Here is "David's" reply in full:

If I missed the point, I don't think that it's in the way suggested here. In his TLS letter, Stephen Fletcher criticized Nagel for denying that natural selection can be used to explain the origin of DNA. Fletcher said that the RNA World model shows that natural selection exists in the pre-organic world. I am entirely incompetent to evaluate the truth of Fletcher's claim, and I made no attempt to do so. But Meyer has a chapter in his book criticizing the RNA World, to which Fletcher makes no reference. This suggested to me that he hadn't read the book. Had he done so, he would have said, "Meyer wrongly denies that the RNA World establishes the existence of natural selection in the pre-organic world", or the like.

In similar fashion, Meyer discusses the claim made here that he is arguing from ignorance. But Mr. Pieret makes no reference to this. Once more, I am not concerned to defend Meyer, but rather to raise a question about the extent to which a critic is familiar with the book he purports to examine.

I certainly do not believe that criticism blocks inquiry; quite the contrary, criticism is essential. But it seems to me that the verbal assault on Nagel, a philosopher of great distinction, was excessive. Professor Leiter was certainly within his rights in assailing Nagel, from a libertarian standpoint, and I recognize that he feels strongly about the Discovery Institute. But I wish that he had expressed his views without disparaging Nagel.

I still don't think David is getting the point. Whether or not Fletcher has read Meyer's book, Nagel was in no position to judge Meyer's account of the RNA World model and was apparently unaware that scientists don't think it is conceptually bankrupt, though some may not think it is well supported or prefer some other model (of which there are several). And yet Nagel (foolishly, in my opinion) expressed an opinion that Meyer has credibly argued that there is "no prospect of a credible naturalistic alternative to the hypothesis of an intentional cause." Doing that in the popular press is not likely to spark truly academic debate on reductionism but is likely to mislead the vast majority of people who read his recommendation.

I freely admit that I haven't read Meyer's book but I have great familiarity with the arguments Meyer and other Discovery Institute PR hacks make. It's not like this stuff is anything new.

I am glad that David will grant that Brian Leiter is not trying "to block inquiry" but, as a Ph.D. himself, I'm somewhat amused that he is surprised at the venom that can arise between academics.
.