Main Site

This is Gem Newman's blog. Return to the main site.

Quotation

03 November 2010

In which I complain about journalists...

...being journalists.

[Edit: I had initially misspelled the name of museum curator John Feakes. The text has been amended below.]

Later this month, the Winnipeg Skeptics will be visiting Winnipeg's very own Creation Museum.

The Uniter, the University of Winnipeg's student newspaper, recently did an article on the Creation Museum, and they interviewed both me and Winnipeg Skeptics co-organiser Ashlyn Noble for the piece.

After allowing museum curator John Freakes Feakes a few paragraphs to prove the Bible using the Bible, we're given our skeptical moment in the sun:

"Resistance to science and resistance to evolution is just a bad idea because you end up accepting a lot of ridiculous claims," said Gem Newman, 26, a computer scientist and the founder of Winnipeg Skeptics, a local secular group committed to the advancement of skeptical thinking.

"Creationists are often grossly uninformed."

Group members like Ashlyn Noble, a 22-year-old biology student at the University of Winnipeg, plan to confront Feakes during an upcoming tour of the museum.

"The goal is to reach the wider community," she explained, adding that several [members have signed up for a tour.]

I have several problems with that.

First, the obvious: the tail end of the last sentence was actually misplaced, and appears out of context in the middle of the article. Probably a copy-pasta error.

Second, I did not say that "creationists are often grossly uninformed": I said "creationists are often grossly misinformed". It's a subtle but (in my opinion) important difference. There are plenty of folks on both sides of the argument who are uninformed—maybe they're not interested in science. But we are in the midst of a concerted misinformation campaign that is being perpetrated by people who hold the absurdly indefensible position that the Bible is inerrant and literally true.

Third, we don't plan to confront Freakes Feakes during our tour—at least, I certainly don't. This is actually something that I tried (evidently to no avail) to get across in the interview. We want to hear what he has to say, and we want to understand what he thinks and why.

I got the impression throughout the interview that the student journalist was trying to push the conversation in a certain direction. He'd often ask leading questions that seemed designed to constrain my response to a narrative that he'd already outlined.

The quotations in the article attributed to me were actually paraphrased. So here's what I really want to say on the subject, in a scattershot sort of way.

First off, you have to understand that I'm not an expert: I'm simply an interested layman. That said, the evidence for evolution is legion, from multiple disciplines. Ontogeny and developmental biology, anatomical vestiges, transitional fossils, molecular and genetic evidence—hell, we've witnessed evolution in action! And were evolution false, it would be easily falsified. As Haldane is purported to have said, a single rabbit in precambrian strata would suffice.

Creationism is a form of science denial. We'd like to think that most creationists aren't dishonest, simply misinformed, and prone to the same cognitive pitfalls to which we all fall prey. People tend to reach for any evidence that they think will shore up their position, and we tend not to be picky as to the quality of that evidence. Confirmation bias means that we only look so far as the evidence that confirms what we already believe, rather than looking at the whole picture.

Minimization of cognitive dissonance is another major factor. Recent research has shown that, when presented with evidence that contradicts strongly-held ideas, rather than accepting the new data and changing one's mind, people are more likely to dismiss the evidence, many going so far as to claim that the idea in question cannot be adequately investigated by science.

As skeptics, we honestly want to understand what other people think and why. I personally find that examining the way that people think is fascinating. There are all sorts of logical pitfalls that we all make on a regular basis that most of us are complete unaware of.

I understand that these articles must remain relatively short and that they are often used to flesh out a previously-concocted narrative—and so it behoves me to point out that John Freakes' Feakes' (apparently ridiculous) position may also have been distorted.

I guess we'll find out.



Addendum: Apparently Feakes was also dissatisfied with the article.

I've since spoken with Mr. Cabel, and he's informed me that he used the word "confront" because he felt that it was common sense to assume that a group of well-informed skeptics would be going to a creationist museum to present the evidence for evolution.

And, you know, that's fair.

Even so, I still wouldn't have used that particular word—and, to his credit, Ethan apologised for doing so. He had also used another quotation from Ashyln ("I think it's important ... to bridge the gap between science and faith") to tie the article together at the end (and to balance the confrontation bit), but this was apparently missing or misplaced in the online version of the article.

I think that a fair bit of my frustration probably came from having a forty-five minute conversation condensed into two sentences. Ethan rightly points out that, given their word-count restrictions, I oughtn't have expected anything more.

Also fair.

In sober second thought, I find that my opinion has changed. I think that Mr. Cabel is probably a careful and conscientious journalist, and in a fit of pique I made a mountain out of a molehill. (Nah, that doesn't sound like me!)

In any event, based on our conversation, I think that Ethan is genuinely enthusiastic about getting the story right.

Thanks, Ethan!

6 comments:

  1. Yeah I was disappointed in the article as well. I have to say though, Ethan seemed to be trying very hard to ask unbiased questions when he spoke with me. I certainly did not say that we planned to /confront/ the guy either, and that was the part of the article that upset me the most. I don't want people to get the impression that we're heading over to gang up on him and ~show him the error of his ways~ or whatever.

    I also found it unfortunate that the one quote he used from me was something I hadn't considered much - what the "goal" of the outing was. Now that I've had the chance to think about it a bit, I'd have said that it's a chance for us to examine the evidence for and against for ourselves; to discuss it as a group and learn about the arguments that are used in the debate.

    I think ultimately he had good intentions, it just didn't come out well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Feakes, not "Freakes". Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ah, it's my old friend, parapraxis! Thanks for the correction, Rob!

    Although it would be fun to assume this is a Freudian slip, in my defence I used to think the word "foliage" was "foilage"—I read quite quickly, and not exceptionally carefully, it would seem. From Wikipedia:

    "In contrast to Freud and his followers, cognitive psychologists claim that linguistic slips can represent a sequencing conflict in grammar production. From this perspective, slips may be due to cognitive underspecification that can take a variety of forms – inattention, incomplete sense data or insufficient knowledge. Secondly, they may be due to the existence of some locally appropriate response pattern that is strongly primed by its prior usage, recent activation or emotional change or by the situation calling conditions (MacMahon, 1995)."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi there,

    This is Ethan Cabel from The Uniter. I saw the link to your blog post on the website and, considering that Mr. Feakes has also posted a similar criticism of the article, I feel obliged to respond.

    Keep in mind that I pride myself on being a fair and balanced journalist and that was my intention with this story. I am very sorry that you feel misrepresented.

    Here is my response:

    You quote from my story, which appeared rather jumbled on the website, with the following:

    "Resistance to science and resistance to evolution is just a bad idea because you end up accepting a lot of ridiculous claims," said Gem
    Newman, 26, a computer scientist and the founder of Winnipeg Skeptics, a local secular group committed to the advancement of skeptical
    thinking.

    "Creationists are often grossly uninformed."

    Group members like Ashlyn Noble, a 22-year-old biology student at the University of Winnipeg, plan to confront Feakes during an upcoming
    tour of the museum.

    "The goal is to reach the wider community," she explained, adding that several [members have signed up for a tour.]

    The rest of the article, which was misplaced in the online transfer,also quoted Ms. Noble saying the following as the final sentence of
    the article:

    “I think it's important...to bridge the gap between science and faith.”

    Your main criticism was with the word “confront.” I used that word because I felt that it was common sense to assume that a group of modern skeptics, who are ostensibly equipped with a great deal of evidence for evolution, are naturally going to confront a devout creationist with their evidence.

    I used the last quote from Ms. Noble in order to also show that the group was genuinely interested in listening to Mr. Feakes's argument.

    However, I was wrong to make that assumption and to use the word “confront.” And I apologize wholeheartedly for doing so.

    On your other point, which disputed the quote that says “creationists are often grossly uninformed,” I have written down that exact quote in my notes.

    Based on what I wrote down at the time of our interview, I did not misquote you.

    In terms of my personal demeanour during the interview, I do not feel that that is a valid criticism. If my questions were framed in a
    narrative, that is because a narrative is necessary in a piece constrained to 500 words.

    At the outset, I wanted to give the opinion of Mr. Feakes, the opinion of a biologist who also believes in evolution and the opinion of a
    skeptic and/or secularist group. It was meant to be a balance of opinions and perspectives. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to explore
    those opinions in as much depth as I would like because the piece was limited to 500 words.

    Your opinion was a small part of a narrative that is rather constrained by its very nature. If you wish to receive more in-depth
    coverage, I suggest you rigorously look into the eventual length of the article, and the publication in question, before agreeing to an
    interview.

    I am sorry for any mistakes that I made in this article. I appreciate your feedback and I promise to be more cautious in the future.

    Thank you for reading (I hope you will continue to read The Uniter and provide your feedback!) and for generously giving up your time for an interview.

    I will also be calling you and I hope we can settle this matter over the phone. I posted this in order to provide my side of the story, or to set the record straight as it were.

    Thank you again.

    EC.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've added an addendum to clarify some points based on communication with the author of the Uniter article.

    ReplyDelete