Last Friday I did a short (15-minute) podcast on Skype with Steve Platek, professor of psychology at Georgia Gwinnett College, editor of Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience and co-editor of Evolutionary Psychology; he also is one of the editors of the evolution website This View of Life.
I can’t remember what I said, and I can’t bear to watch myself on video, but offer it for your delectation/amusement/repugnance.
Wow, that was wonderful! I really felt as if I were meeting you face to face. Don’t worry about what you look like on video or sound like on broadcasts; you look and sound wonderful. You look confident and comfortable, and you appear to be really enjoying talking to/with Steve Platek.
Jerry,
During the discussion there was a brief mention of the extremely low percentage of the population in the US who accept evolution in the strictly scientific sense. Rightly, you pointed out that there wasn’t much of a problem in the UK. You went on to say that you didn’t have feedback from countries into whose languages your book “Why Evolution is True” had been translated and that you had only recently got into the position of having the book translated into Arabic.
I would just like to mention that this happy state of affairs is beginning to deteriorate in the UK and that the disease of creationism is widespread in Canada (parts of which are as bad as the average figures for the US) Australia & New Zealand.
I think they have just got shriller.
Listening to the podcast now while trying to figure out what the molecule on the bible in the website’s colophon (?) is, or is meant to be. I suspect it’s not a complete molecule. Or a polyheterohalogenated di-ether? Or just made up.
Yeah, the christian holey bible and I don’t understand why a professional would use the evilution pronunciation, seems to be stepping right into the shit pile. Of course, being an uneducated layman maybe I wouldn’t understand such things.
Yes, I find that pronunciation quite off-putting. Had thought it was solely related to a specific Brit accent (in which it’s maybe not quite so grating…think Dawkins).
Otherwise I felt Platek was an excellent interviewer, actually listening to the answers JAC was giving and following up on specific points he made, but mostly for just sitting back and letting Jerry have his (educational, enjoyable, charming, & witty) say.
OK, thanks for setting me straight on the British pronunciation, looked it up at Macmillan Online Dictionary, there it was in all its evil glory sending ouchies to my poor innocent ears. You are also correct that Platek and Coyne both did very well. So, in the future I’ll try to withhold comment on “evilution” but like you I’m not going to be liking it.
However, I think it was used during the interview so, I’m still battling to get “lack” withheld from descriptions of atheism. It is religion that lacks reasonable support for any of their various gods, not atheism lacking reasonable support. Nor do I think the great and vast majority of atheists “lack belief”, most have rejected It because It lacks sufficient reasonableness in practice, theory or, deed.
I’ve commented several times on the definitions of “lack” in the American dictionaries, so this time I will show the definition from Macmillan:
Lack – a situation in which you do not have any, or enough, of something that you need or want.
Although I’m not one, there may be atheists that wish there were some or any god(s) to worship but, even if that is so I don’t think they are wanting for belief. I think they have noticed the lack of reasonable evidence or even reasonable stories that they can believe in. The lacking is on the part of the religious not on the part of those who don’t accept the claims of the religious. If that weren’t so the religious wouldn’t keep making stuff up that has no basis within their holey handbooks, the religious are clearly the puppet masters of their god’s ideas.
Your argument against “lack” is one I’ve seen time and again on various atheist lists over the years. While I can definitely see your point, and readily agree that one definition of “lack” implies insufficiency, it is also true that there are other defs that merely entail “nonexistence of.”
After witnessing flame war after flame war over mere semantics, I’ve personally concluded that these ‘battles’ are a waste of time. It is true that the other side is ready to pounce on us for just such grey areas, but the proper response to that, IMO, is a humorous headshake at such obvious ploys, with perhaps a suggestion that they visit a dictionary.
Via natural linguistic evolution many words have multiple defintions, and until we admit as much, and stress that fact that context should indicate just what definiton we’re employing, we’re stuck in games we can’t win, trying to claim that our def is THE important one, almost invariably a losing battle.
There is also a difference between off-the-cuff interviews and carefully edited publications. Anyone who would zero in on the casual use of “lack” (as in “lack of belief,” I assume) by Coyne, Dawkins, etc., is totally ignoring a huge corpus of publications, lectures, other interviews, etc., that very clearly spell out their positions vis-a-vis supernatural belief.
That said, I do think it is important to keep pointing out how relatively innocent uses of casual terminology can and will be jumped on by the not-so-loyal oppposition…I just don’t think this is the biggest battle to fight. And as it’s one I’ve seen create more strife between atheists themselves rather than between atheists and believers, I think we need to agree to disagree sometimes, on matters purely semantic. Infighting can get in the way…
Diane G., sorry to have been so long before replying but I wanted to check the dictionaries at the library.
I haven’t been able to find any definitions of the word lack that don’t imply wanting or needing something that is desired or desirable. Often the definitions imply wanting and needing to the point of desperation. Have you ever tried looking? Could you point me to the source of your “merely nonexistence of” definitions? I’m not trying to be difficult, I really want to know if there are any, I have attempted, several times, to find it.
A couple of years ago there was agreement by some in the atheist community that using the word spiritual was OK because it can mean a feeling of awe instead of in reference to spooky ghosts. However that was turned against atheists by christians claiming that even atheists agreed that spirituality was part of being human therefore a christian god exists, which of course is incorrect. So currently most atheists avoid using spirituality to describe awesomeness, in my opinion that is awesome and I hope there is never a reversion.
There is recently (although it is not a new concept) an airing mostly by christians that everyone has a built-in need for faith. In the mildest form it is a claim that no one can know everything so one must have faith in someone with expertise to describe and understand complex processes. But, it is more hideous when christians use that construct of faith to teach children that all humans have a built-in need and wanting for faith in a christian god. So from my point of view I see the use of “lacking faith” as a double whammy, I hope I have explained coherently enough so you can understand why.
Much more to write but I should stop. However, I would like to see what you can come up with regarding definition of lack, if it isn’t too much of a bother.
One other thing though, words actually do matter. If a presenter really cares about the listener’s understanding of what is being described, then words must be chosen that the given audience will be able to comprehend in the way the presenter intends.
A very brief look online suggests you’re right. However, of the two dictionaries I have at home, 50% of them allow for my meaning. From The American Heritage College Dictionary:
Note the “ors.”
To be fair, tho, it also goes on to say, under Synonyms:
Note that “especially” doesn’t mean always…
I lack belief in the tooth fairy, but I’m not too bummed out about it.
I’ve just gotten tired of semantic purists over the years, when I think there are bigger fish to fry, and when I think a speaker’s meaning can be clearly perceived through context. But good luck with your cause. (And if you’re a grammar nazi, I’m with ya!)
Good conversation ~ thank you Steve/Jerry
Can anyone here point me to a non-technical treatment of kin versus group selection?
Also I’m looking for something on genetic drift. It’s covered in WEIT, but I’m looking for more detail
Cheers
I second that request.
It was also good to hear your nuanced and
evolving views on evolutionary psychology; your lack of black-and-white thinking is refreshing.
Your speaking voice was fine on this podcast. I’ve seen videos of some of your presentations where it’s a little difficult to make out your words, but this was perfectly easy to understand. Maybe you were a little more relaxed? I hope you can do more informal interviews like this.
My goodness. Lawrenceville, Ga., Gwinnett County! When I was in a Gwinnett highschool during the late 50s, it was a hotbed of apartheid and racism. Georgia Gwinnett College is a pleasant surprise. There are even courses in Evolution and Tropical Biology (Galapagos)!
Jerry briefly mentions the limits of what sequence data can tell us about speciation. Is this because he’s more interested in hybrid crosses and what they can tell us about genic incompatibilities than genome architecture and structural variation between or within groups? This isn’t a criticism; I’m just curious. For instance, copy number variation is typically confined to human populations and disease models and model organisms but seems a real gold mine of information if massive parallel sequencing technology is applied to adaptive radiation and species limits questions on wild populations.
correction: that should read “species delimitation…”