So Expelled has been causing a little bit furor over its unremitting and unending stupidity. And, I want to be quick to point out, that stupidity does NOT have to do with the content of its underlying "science," creationism (which, for the record, is pretty stupid). The stupidity comes from its false dichotomy and its insistence that there's some sort of Great Atheist Conspiracy to suppress creationism.
But I have a slightly different question, since I'm not by any means a science blogger - I'm at best a law blogger who sometimes forays into religion or politics. Anyway, my question is this:
How are we supposed to ensure that only science is science?
This isn't as glib a question as it might seem. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 states that
"if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case."
What does that mean? Basically, it means that experts in some "specialized" field can explain what their field says the facts of the case mean (i.e., offer an opinion as to the outcome, which is normally the exclusive province of the jury), if and only if they have sufficient facts (i.e., the same record the jury has), if their expert opinion is based on a process that is reliable, and they can show that they haven't screwed up at some point in the process.
The basic process for assessing expert testimony within a motion to exclude a given expert's testimony was laid out by the Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In Daubert, the Court laid on the shoulders of trial judges the burden of determining whether the expert's testimony was based "reliable principles and methods." In short, as one of my classmates put it:
Daubert means that only science that's science gets called science in court.
But what the hell is "science that's science?" Daubert lays out five factors intended to guide courts: first, the testability of the expert's technique (in other words, can we reproduce the process and see if it gets the same result?); second, peer review and publication (does the expert's scientific community think this is something that might be real?); third, known or potential rate of error (how likely is it that something can or will screw up?); fourth, standards and controls (does somebody other than the expert determine when someone is doing this right?); and finally, "general acceptance in the scientific community."
Later, the Court said that these aren't exhaustive or dispositive, so courts are still left going, what the hell is "science that's science?"
The real bugaboo is "general acceptance," and it's this that worries me. Let me explain. In Kitzmiller, a Pennsylvania district court sternly admonished a local school board for attempting to "teach the controversy" between intelligent design and evolution. Although Judge Jones did not do a Daubert analysis to determine in that case whether intelligent design was "science that's science," someday a judge might have to do just that. Why?
In a Kitzmiller-like case, the basic problem that the fact-finder has to pass on is whether intelligent design or creationism or whatever the hell it's called by the Ministry of Truth these days is, in fact, religion or science. So how can a jury decide that? By hearing experts testify as to the scientific basis supporting the basic hypothesis of the system. In other words, the basic question in these cases is a Daubert hearing on intelligent design itself. But what happens when the creationist forces convince people who make decisions in courts of law (that would be judges and juries, for those keeping score) that the scientific community is "conspiring" unfairly to keep creationism out of the scientific discourse?
The answer, of course, is that "general acceptance" will stop meaning anything. Since courts get to decide within their discretion what constitutes "science," a judge who regards "the scientific community" as incapable of objectively examining a particular technique may admit it over the objections of scientists.
Lakoff writes about "strategic initiatives," efforts on one front that cascade down to create more favorable conditions for future battles. Tort reform is the classic example - in addition to immediately making life easier for corporations, it cuts into the revenue streams of plaintiff's lawyers, who tend to support Democrats, making it more difficult to undo tort reform.
Expelled itself may represent one prong of a strategic initiative. What's the cascade, you ask, and the long term goals? The long-term goal, quite frankly, is a reversal of court decisions that have forced public schools to get out of the churching business. By introducing into the mainstream this idea of an "atheist conspiracy," they suggest that there really is no way to determine the validity of their ideas by reference to any sort of outside measure.
In other words, our ideas are valid because we say they are, and any efforts to suggest otherwise are just part of a conspiracy to shut us up and shut us out.
And that's a scary thing - because once you say that Daubert doesn't apply because the relevant community is literally attempting to suppress a valid idea, you imply that there is no such thing as "science that's science." At that point, how do we decide what experts get in? What method do we use? The current idea of "science" in law is built on the assumption that scientists, at least, can be trusted to play by their own rules, including the one that says that they evaluate each other's work without fear or favor, and based solely on the merits. When triers of fact become convinced that that assumption is false, who do you trust to decide what's science? And it's back to the 12th Century we go....
What is to be done? Bueller, Bueller...?