Day 4: Thursday 11

So now, science courses should include a liberal dose of respect for differing "worldviews", according to none other than the Royal Society's education adviser.  Ted Nield has difficulty believing his ears.

Geoscientist Online 11 September 2008

The Rev. Professor Michael Reiss, who advises the Royal Society on matters educational, told journalists yesterday that “Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism can be seen as inhabiting a non-scientific worldview, a very different way of seeing the world.”

He says he tried to convince creationist pupils, when he used to be a biology teacher, and failed to sway their beliefs by rational argument - surprise surprise.  I wonder why he bothered.  But let us move on.  Reiss told journalists at a briefing that he reached this conclusion as a result of his experiences. He feels that to hold creationist views up to ridicule in class merely reinforces intransigence and entrenches the pupils’ dislike of science. He suggests that a culture of respect on both sides can be achieved by treating these pupils as having a fundamentally “non-scientific world-view” in the hope that they will then learn more science - while not of course accepting it.

I would like to suggest that we run a few other subjects on the same basis, and extend our culture of respect a little beyond creationism. We could teach French in such a way that the alternative view of that language expressed in Miles Kington’s seminal linguistic texts Lets parler franglais and Lets parler franglais encore was accorded proper respect. We shall teach chemistry with a proper regard for phlogiston theory, and accord the historical acknowledgement surely due to believers in miasmas and the ether. Aristotelian pupils can be allowed to be made aware of Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev, but not be required to believe in the Periodic Table. That way we can accord proper, liberal respeck to those who see the world differently, bless ‘em.

OK, enough of being flippant.  Let's consider respect.  Forgive me if I sound a bit precious about the way in which I choose to accord respect, but to me it (especially in matters intellectual) is something that has to be earned - and when it is, is lent to the bearer on the understanding that it can be easily revoked at short notice. I admit to a perhaps unfashionable dislike for granting “respect” willy-nilly, as advocated by such naturally forgiving people as populate the religious meeting-places of England. In my view this concept of respect merely confuses that solemn thing with mere politeness. I like to think that being stingy with my respect has the effect of not devaluing the currency. Why should I value the respect of someone who bestows it promiscuously upon everyone?

Scientists believe that they have all the philosophy they need in Dr Johnson’s famous argumentum ad lapidem, and I have made fun of this lack of sophistication elsewhere. But one thing is certain – there are no “schools” in science. Science is not like literary criticism or architecture or poetry or indeed philosophy. Every bit of it has to confirm every other bit. It is if you like, a supercontinent. Occasionally it breaks up under the heat of an awkward idea – but sooner or later after a bit of drift, all the continents must anneal once again.  On its own turf, namely the literal truth about the natural world, science does not - indeed cannot - respect other "worldviews". If they stray into science's rightful territory, then they are shown to be in error.  That's the liberating power of it.  

None of this affects the fact that people remain free to believe what they like.  That isn't the point, and Professor Reiss seems to muddy the issue of education in science by confounding learning about things with believing in them.  When I was in school, I learned all about the Miracle of the Gadarene Swine, and quite a few other choice bits of the Testaments, to boot.  I had to, so that I could pass exams in Religious Knowledge.  But I never believed a word of it as literally true, nor did my Reverend teacher expect me to.  I don't see why, if I could learn about miracles without believing in them, pupils with creationist beliefs cannot be expected to do the same with evolution, or any other part of science, without demur.

The QCA document is to be applauded for its straightforward view that creationism is not science.  But with due respect to the Rev. Prof., the only respect there is room for in a science lesson is for teacher by pupil.  Even that is only there to make the process work efficiently.  And just as French lessons are for teaching French, science lessons are for the teaching of science.  And nothing else. 

But on a wider issue, there is surely no room for the respect of dogma by anyone claiming to be an intellectual. Another word for respecting such oppressive worldviews is “appeasement” – a policy whose political record should be well known to all. The paradox of liberal democracy is that it can only survive by vigorously oppressing those who would exploit its freedoms. If you are in any doubt of this, read Max Frisch’s The Fire Raisers.

The motto of the Royal Society is nullius in verba – or loosely translated, "take nobody’s word for it". It enshrines a scientist's essential culture of disrespect for “authority”. Not that it will worry them I am sure, but if the RS really backs this lunatic idea, then they can kiss goodbye to my respect for good.

• See GeoNews
• The report in question can be downloaded from http://www.qca.org.uk.

Geoscientist Online 29 September 2008

And of course, the rest is history.  Shortly after that piece was [posted (though not, I hope, as a result) The Royal Society accepted Professor Reiss's resignation on the grounds that the coverage damaged the Society's reputation.  This despite a number of letters and statements in support of the Professor... Sir Roland Jackson (Chief Executive of the BA) deplored the sacking, saying the Royal should rather have supported their man - as did Lord Winston.  

Others were less charitable.  The Science Media Centre at the Royal Institution rounded up quotes from a number of science heavyweights who queued up to heap ordure on what Reiss was supposed to have said at the meeting.  Others weighed in later with jointly signed letters of condemnation to Sir Martin Rees.

Professor Reiss claimed he was misrepresented by the media.  He had some grounds for this grievance.  Many pieces written about the views he was said to have expressed got the story right, but were alas betrayed by crass and misleading headlines along the lines of "Teach creationism says top scientist".  Others were indeed not a fair reflection of Prof. Reiss's actual meaning, which was nothing more nor less than the Royal Society's policy.  If creationist pupils raise the issue, explain without ridicule why creationism is not science.

But am I sorry he resigned? Well, frankly no.  I have little sympathy with people who manage to get themselves misquoted - and none at all for those who get misquoted despite a) a written press release b) a lecture and c) several briefings with journalists.  Such a person seems to be to be clearly not safe to be let out on their own.  

I agree with Sir Roland Jackson that the Royal should have offered their man more support.  But in view of his being unsafe alone on the streets, this support should have been before, not after, the fact.  That is, after all, why the world has people called press officers whose job includes trailing round after spokesmen and women, making sure they don't get their elbows and their fundaments confused when under questioning from the media.

I met the good Professor at the BA.  On my way to the loo, I found him wandering lost in the dark back corridors of the Media Centre (an apt metaphor for the whole debacle) and in need of rescue.  He asked me if by any chance I was "James of The Guardian".  I had to disappoint him, but showed Daniel into the lion's den - where he afforded yet another media briefing.  Perhaps I shouldn't have been so helpful. Perhaps I should have taken him in hand, and led him to safety.  But I suspect that even that would not have been enough.