Rewriting History Books

People love an idea revolution. There’s an old framing trick used by cranks (and marketers) to sell their idea: pretend your theory Y (a slight modification of the established theory X) is actually a revolution, and you’re David coming up against an entrenched, dogmatic Goliath of X. Often this is done by exaggerating the hell out of X in your refutation of it. (This last trick is a framing device for a strawman fallacy). The New Testament portrays Jesus’s ideas as revolutionary even though most were already in the Hebrew Bible (eg. love your neighbour as yourself comes not from “nice” Jesus but from “nasty” Leviticus).

Alas, public intellectuals aren’t immune to pretending they’re rewriting history books. A huge offender was Stephen Jay Gould, the uber-famous evolutionary biologist. I love reading him: it combines wonder at his poetic explanation of the deeper meanings of biological processes with incensed rage at some of his ideological drivel (sometimes in the course of 1 page). Here are some examples just from the first 2/3 of Ever Since Darwin:

• As a trusting student, I had assumed that such constant repetition must be firmly based on copius data. Later I discovered that textbook dogma is self perpetuating; therefore three years ago I was disappointed, but not really surprised, to discover that this widely touted explanation was based on no data whatsoever. (p. 85)
• For although rapid bursts of evolution and massive waves of extinction are not inconsistent with Darwinian theory, a deeply rooted bias of Western thought predisposes us to look for continuity and gradual change: natura non facit saltum (“nature does not make leaps”), as the older naturalists proclaimed. (p. 120)
• Most scientists maintain — or at least argue for public consumption — that their profession marches towards truth by accumulating more and more data, under the guidance of an infallible procedure called “the scientific method”. (p. 161)

Playing up conflict between your ideas and “the establishment” is a good way to add a spark to your work. But when some point is reached, it’s just dishonest. The 1st quote plays up a flaw in textbooks by using weasel words like “dogma”. (Gould as Crusader against Entrenched Establishment.) The 2nd quote makes a bold claim about the sociology of science as an obvious, given fact. (Gould as Uncoverer of Conspiracy.) The 3rd quote is the most eggregious. I’ve never seen any real statement that’s remotely like the one he caricatures. Anything close to it is accompanied with a thousand buts and on-the-other-hands. It’s so over the top, he must have known it won’t be taken literally. Still a poor use of exaggerated conflict. (St Gould as the Contrarian Who Dares Speak Truth).

Gould does get it right too. Talking about Velikovsky: “[a] man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right”. (p.154) Whenever someone paints themselves as a revolutionary, or says the books will need rewriting, or says the establishment is dogmatic, this should set off a red flag. It’s more likely than not a rhetorical device. For every Galileo there are 1000 Velikovskys (and even Galileo’s rightness was far from clearcut).