Science=Whipped Cream (w/poll)

Todays NYTimes brings us another brilliant observation from their house lunatic (no, not Judy!), John Tierney. Follow me below to find out how he makes the title equation work:

Tierney (I don't know if this link will work, it's first time I've tried to link to the new "exclusive" Times) has a high opinion of Howard Stern's decision to move his shows to satellite radio and cable TV, rather than continuing to invite six-figure fines for indecency:  

...soon Stern will be free to broadcast as much flatulence as he wants. In January he takes his show to satellite radio and pay-per-view cable television, both beyond the F.C.C.'s censors. His new studio, as Jacques Steinberg reported in The Times, features a pole for strippers and a water-resistant corner for activities involving whipped cream. While Stern said he would put some limits on the new show - he promised there would not be weekly beheadings - he said he might use the microphones and cameras to broadcast live sex.

Tierney finds this a vast improvement over Stern's previous belligerent attitude towards the powers-that-be in DC, and makes the following modest proposal:

If Democrats followed his example and stopped trying to win culture wars in which they're outnumbered, they could accomplish more by fighting less.

Consider the battles in public schools over whether to teach intelligent design theory, which history textbooks to use and whether to offer sex education or mandate the Pledge of Allegiance. The fights are inevitable because these school systems are products of the Progressive Era's fondness for large centralized bureaucracies.

No matter how smart or well-intentioned the school administrators are, they can never please everyone. No matter how much scientific evidence there is against intelligent design, a majority of parents tell pollsters that they want it taught alongside evolution, which just infuriates the sizable minority that sees it as thinly veiled creationism.

But suppose the tax dollars now going to public school systems went directly to students in the form of vouchers. The conservative parents passionately in favor of intelligent design could use vouchers to send their children to private schools of their liking. School boards would be under less pressure to please religious conservatives - but even if the boards gave in, the liberal parents could use the vouchers to send their children to private schools of their liking.

(emphasis mine)

So, let's get this straight: if most parents (and I'd love to see his data on this!) think intelligent design is as valid as the theory of evolution, and fit to be taught in science classes, then the sore-losers in the reality-based community can just take their marbles and leave, right? Let them go sulk in their elitist private schools, and leave the public schools for the real 'Murkins, who've always known that a theory's just a theory, and so one's as good as another. It's simply a matter of differing opinions, see? One man's all-girl mud-wrestling is another man's science!

Well, no, I don't see. And so I wrote the following letter to the  Times (not that I think it will do any good):

John Tierney (column, Oct. 22) suggests that liberals take their decadent insistence on evolution to the private sector so conservatives can send their children to public schools, comfortable in the knowledge that their religious beliefs will be taught in science classes. I presume he would also be satisfied with the United States being in second, or sixth, or nineteenth place in the world in research and technological innovation, because that will be the result of such an education policy.

Scientific truth is determined by the scientific method, not by public opinion or faith. When we see double-blind peer-reviewed studies in support of intelligent design published in recognized scientific journals, it will merit inclusion in a school science curriculum. I suspect we will sooner see pigs fly.

I never thought I'd say this: I miss William Safire.

•  Let's apply some of John's logic!

  Most parents think their kids are geniuses, so we should do away with all regular classes and put every kid in the gifted and talented program.

  Most parents think their kid is a born athlete, so it's advanced PE for all of them too.

  Magically, we will become a nation of incredibly athletic geniuses overnight! John has solved all of our problems for us!

  by Arken on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 08:59:31 AM PDT

  •  As a matter of fact, most kids

    respond well to "gifted" programs, regardless of grades or test scores. (Anecdotal, from teachers.)
    Lake Wobegon must be nice in the fall.

    by melvin on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:04:35 AM PDT

    •  Including the ones with

      severe learning disabilities?

      by Arken on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:05:56 AM PDT

      •  Good question. n/t

        by melvin on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:14:54 AM PDT

      •  Melvin said "most", give him a break

        and most kids respond better to teaching that assumes the best of them, rather than limiting expectations.

        by sidnora on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 10:35:17 AM PDT

•  Dada lives in your title!

  On vouchers, all together now: no, no, no, no.
  This conjures a vision of two Americas we really don't need.

  by melvin on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:02:15 AM PDT

•  isn't it wonderful

  that john tierney & david brooks & tony snow, etc. want to give advice to us?
  out of curiousity i'd like to know what to call this time period, you know, the one that followed the "progressive era?"

  by rasbobbo on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:02:56 AM PDT

  •  Lately I've been calling it

    The Pre-Dark Ages.

    by sidnora on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:24:38 AM PDT

•  Does Tierney

  actually link poll results?  If not, I'd like to know where he gets the impression that most parents support the teaching of ID in science class.  If so, I'd like to know what % of the people voting in favor of teaching ID actually know what ID is and that it is hostile to evolution.

  My thinking is that the majority of the people out there believe in the theory of evolution and further believe that some type of supreme being is guiding the process.  A significant portion of the people polled probably believe that's what ID theory is.  It isn't.

  by GTPinNJ on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:20:16 AM PDT

  •  No, he does not

    and I agree with you.

    by sidnora on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:26:24 AM PDT

•  Pragmatism

  I don't know anything about John Tierney, so I can respond only to the case as you present it. First, your assertion that Mr. Tierney equates science with whipped cream has no foundation in any of the material you present; it is a non sequitur.

  Second, although I cannot pinpoint the source, I too have seen polling data on American views towards education, and the datum I recall seeing was that 65% of Americans want to see intelligent design taught alongside evolution in high schools.

  Third, the tone of his commentary appears to be pragmatic rather than ideological. He suggests that there are some fights liberals cannot win, and so they would be better off not fighting them. I agree with his overall strategy, but disagree with its application here. The teaching of intelligent design is a violation of the First Amendment, and will be determined by judicial means, not electoral means.

  However, there is some truth in his commentary regarding school vouchers. He is obviously in favor of school vouchers, but the key idea here is that the eventual result of these battles will be a greater inclination towards school vouchers, which in turn will lead to undesirable results.

  All in all, I think that you are reading him in the worst possible light, and overlooking some of the more useful logical subtleties here.

  by Erasmussimo on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:27:45 AM PDT

  •  Poll link

    I found one source for this information: link to poll

    It's depressing reading. 55% of Americans think that God created humans in their present form. It is somewhat reassuring to learn that Bush voters were much stronger in this belief than Kerry voters.

    The data is worse than my earlier representation. 65% of Americans want creationism taught alongside evolution, not just intelligent design. 37% of Americans want creationism taught instead of evolution.

    Americans sure are dumb.

    by Erasmussimo on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:37:28 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for the link

      however depressing it may be. Unlike Mr. Tierney, I take my facts straight up, no whipped cream on top.

      by sidnora on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 10:41:42 AM PDT

  •  Why science = whipped cream

    Tierney presents Stern's show as appealing to some tastes and not to others, and so he (Stern) has chosen not to make his career a battle against the forces of public decency. This is fine with me, I don't think anyone needs to see Howard Stern, and I don't think it's discriminatory to require people to pay for the (dubious) privilege. It's entertainment.

    But Tierney chooses to equate that freedom of choice with the freedom of the majority to decide what constitutes fact. If followed to its logical conclusion, his argument can leave us with a national public-school network in which intelligent design is presented as a scientific theory, while scientific truth would be taught at a group of private schools patronized only by liberals. I'm sorry, but however many things the tyranny of the majority may have power over, it does not have power over reality. If 99% of Americans believe that the sky is green rather than blue, that doesn't make it so unless it can be proven through experiments that follow the scientific method, and it doesn't make it legitimate to teach the "green sky theory" in science classes. You don't get to opt for a green sky the way you can choose Howard Stern's whipped cream.

    Even the other way around, with conservatives using vouchers for private schooling,
    you'd still have taxpayer dollars -my money - paying to teach children non-science, undermining the nation's ability to compete internationally in science and technology, breaching the church-state boundary, and contributing to the increasing fragmentation of the country's sense of itself.

    As to what sort of writer Tierney is, I'd describe him as a hit-and-run conservative/libertarian provocateur. I've been reading him since he took over Safire's slot on the Times' op-ed page. I suggest you try some of his previous columns, a few of which have been diaried here recently. I can assure you he doesn't deserve the benefit of your doubt.

    by sidnora on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 10:07:42 AM PDT

    •  Hmm...

      I don't see where Tierney "chooses to equate that freedom of choice with the freedom of the majority to decide what constitutes fact". Yes, he suggests that majority might well push in the direction of its preferences, but he does not explicitly declare this proper and correct; he seems to be pointing out a political reality rather than a moral propriety. I'm splitting hairs, I admit. And I'm certainly willing to take your word that this guy has written lots of reprehensible things in the past. I'm just being scrupulously correct.

      by Erasmussimo on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 10:47:59 AM PDT

•  Wrong wrong wrong!!!

  Science = Twinkies :)

  by cskendrick on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:30:16 AM PDT

•  So majority rules, eh?

  Since Catholics by far form the largest denomination in this country, we need to go ask the Pope what he thinks should be taught in the schools.

  There you go, Mr. Tierney. Like that any better?

  by elmo on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 09:37:12 AM PDT

•  glad God designed swimming rats

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4356980.stm

  If he hadn't, one rat in particular wouldn't be out looking for some cheap sex.

  by tmay on Sat Oct 22, 2005 at 10:08:21 AM PDT