In recent years, the label ‘Geek’ has shaken off its previous negative connotations and many have adopted it as a badge of honour. The movement has been spearheaded by the likes of Mark Henderson, author of ‘The Geek Manifesto’, along with a whole host of scientists, authors and comedians. Science comedy duo Brian Cox and Robin Ince recently co-wrote an editorial in the New Statesman arguing that ‘politicians must not elevate mere opinion over science’.
With a physics degree and a love of data, I could easily be described as a ‘Geek’ myself. Yet I find the Geek movement to be highly troubling, and would like to distance myself from it. Many Geeks also self-identify as ‘rationalists’ or ‘skeptics’, and Mark Henderson has spoken at countless Skeptics in the Pub events to preach to the choir.
I have a number of problems with the Geek movement, not least of all the implicit arrogance of the thing. In the New Statesman article written by Ince and Cox, they compare science to ‘mere opinion’ in the headline, and continue to assert that science provides the only valid form of evidence, and is ‘the only way we have of exploring nature’. This fundamentally closed-minded attitude appeals to badge-wearing Geeks, but will only alienate the audiences who don’t already agree.
The Geek movement also seems to have subsumed the atheist movement, with some rather unhealthy outcomes. Neil deGrasse Tyson, a well-known darling of the Geek movement, found himself ‘constantly claimed by atheists’ and had to publicly distance himself from the atheist movement. The commonly-claimed link between science and atheism is harmful to the image of science, and to scientists such as DeGrasse Tyson.
It is worth noting that many proponents of the Geek movement such as Mark Henderson and Robin Ince are not themselves scientifically trained. This is not to say that they are not qualified to comment on or campaign for science, but there is a tendency for Geeks to worship an idealised notion of ‘science’. As a result, science and scientists are elevated to a privileged position of assumed authority, and Geeks will happily promote anything with a whiff of ‘science’ or ‘rationalism’.
At a Science Communication conference in September, sociologist Steve Fuller described the Geek movement as the ‘new petite bourgeoisie’. Although the session drew to a close before the concept was discussed in depth, I would be tempted to agree with Fuller’s assessment. The term petite bourgeoisie refers to a social class who seek to emulate the traditions and values of the higher (upper-middle class) ‘bourgeoisie’. We might therefore label a Geek as a ‘petit scientiste’, since many Geeks lay claim to some idealised version of the scientific method. As Fuller pointed out at the conference, many Geeks are ‘computer jocks’ with no real experience of science in practice.
So what’s the problem? If we have this movement of Geeks, rationalists, skeptics, atheists – whatever they choose to call themselves – are they really harming anyone? It is my view that the movement is inherently damaging to science as it becomes characterised by the more sneering, self-righteous elements. The tone of superiority adopted by many Geeks, including Ince and Cox, does little to persuade those who are not already ‘converted’. Instead, it fosters a thoroughly masturbatory environment in which Geeks congratulate Geeks for promoting Geek philosophies. I do not find such circle-jerks particularly constructive, but they are all too common in the science communication world.
Following that rant, you could be forgiven for thinking that I am in some way against evidence-based policy, good scientific advice or anything else championed by the Geek movement. I am not. I am strongly in favour of improving the handling of science in Westminster, but would like to see more reasoned discussion around the issues. Scientific evidence is not the only type of evidence that politicians should consider, and to dismiss anything else as ‘mere opinion’ prevents any meaningful dialogue. No ‘anti-science’ politician is going to be won over by derision; insulting their intelligence is more likely to cement their position. I would like to see a more measured response, where Geeks present evidence in a more measured and tolerant way.
In November, I organised an event with the Society of Biology to question the notion that Parliament would be improved if we stuffed it full of scientists. In an online poll before the event, 96% of people wanted to see more scientists in Parliament. Following a measured discussion between the panellists, the final percentage was closer to 60%. Jack Stilgoe and Evan Harris argued against the motion, and Stilgoe subsequently posted an excellent summary of the arguments on his blog.
This is the sort of discussion that I would like to see more of in the mainstream media. Give me Stilgoe and Harris over Ince and Cox any day. To me, those who make reasoned arguments to doubtful (or even hostile) audiences are far more valuable than those who bask in the approval of a homogenous Geek community.
sci2pol 
I think this critique of the Geek movement is right on the money.
There are some key features that mark the Geeks as ‘petite bourgeoisie’, and the historical precedent is not encouraging. The petite bourgeoisie were historically the shopkeepers who felt that their own progress was held back by politicians trying to please everyone. In contrast, they admired the great capitalists who cut through the red tape to enforce their vision on the world by the efficient organisation of labour and capital. Thus, for the petite bourgeoisie, Henry Ford and Benito Mussolini basked in each other’s reflected glow in the 1920s.
The relevant contemporary analogue here is the emphasis that Geeks place on scientists as a presumptive ruling class – rather than, say, some conception of scientific inquiry – as the route to salvation. The issue then quickly becomes about who is fit to govern rather than how one should think. Thus, no surprise that the Geeks showcase their movement with a debate about whether more scientists should be in Parliament. I’m surprised that they didn’t call for a scientific supreme court capable of overruling Acts of Parliament that seem to jeopardise the long-term well-being of the planet. At least the Green Party has the courage of its convictions on this score: http://www.greenhousethinktank.org/files/greenhouse/home/Guardians_inside_final.pdf
Moreover, the Geeks are aided by influential philosophers of science who fancy themselves as having taken a ‘sociological’ turn by defining ‘science’ not in terms of this or that preferred methodology but in terms of a ‘scientific consensus’ whose collective judgement lays down the law over various potentially contestable domains. This ‘new look of scientism’ has been recently subject to a penetrating critique: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism. It would be deeply unfortunate if the main legacy of the sociological turn in science studies is the public acceptance of a new power politics of scientific authoritarianism, now led by an indifferent comedian and a telegenic space cadet.
Thanks, Steve, for the thoughtful post. A good history lesson on the proper literature behind this as well, none of which made it into my provocatively trite little blog post!
As a sociologist, I fear you have attracted some Science Wars -esque wrath here and on Twitter (as have I!). It’s interesting to see how people react to things like this, and it looks like the Geeks are out in force this evening. As ever, I’m sure that much of what you’ve said is intentionally provocative, like your descriptions of ‘scientific authoritarianism, now led by an indifferent comedian and a telegenic space cadet.’ (!)
I agree with some of this post actually – particularly about “movements” of any sort, which almost always tend towards navel-gazing and masturbation, if those are simultaneously possible. But regarding the specific critique of the New Statesman editorial, I think there are inaccuracies in your interpretation.
You write that we “… continue to assert that science provides the only valid form of evidence, and is ‘the only way we have of exploring nature”
Yes, I do think that the scientific method is the only way we have of exploring nature, by which I mean the physical world, but I don’t think it is the only valid form of evidence. I’m not a positivist, as some of my philosopher friends assert; rather my positivism is limited to the physical sciences. I do not think that the scientific method can necessarily be applied to sociology and other disciplines about which I am relatively ignorant! This is important, and is reflected in the article in the following section
“the choice of policy response itself is not a purely scientific question, however, because it necessarily has moral, geopolitical and economic components.”
“Elected politicians are free to disregard [science’s] findings and recommendations. Indeed, there may be good reasons for doing so” – by ‘good reasons’ I mean the above. e.g. in drug policy, there may be policing issues which run counter to the science, if the science is solely concerned with measures of harm.
However, I continue – “but [politicians] must understand in detail what they are disregarding, and be prepared to explain with precision why they chose to do so.”
I think this is reasonable.
Also, I write
“there must be a place where science stops and politics begins, and this border is an extremely complex and uncomfortable one. Science can’t tell us what to do about our changing climate. It can only inform us that it is changing (this is a statement based on data) and tell us the most probable reasons for this given the current state of our understanding. The choice of policy response itself is not a purely scientific question, however, because it necessarily has moral, geopolitical and economic components.”
Which is I think what you also think!
Brian
Hi Brian,
Firstly, thank you for the well-thought-out reply to my original post. I must confess that the main themes I express in the post are things that have been floating around my mind long before the New Statesman article. I have been thinking about starting a blog for a while to talk about this sort of thing, and when I read the New Statesman piece I saw an opportunity to make it topical.
I certainly don’t have anything personal against yourself or Robin Ince – I am a fan of the Infinite Monkey Cage, and will be joining you for the End of the World in Hammersmith tomorrow!
It is difficult to direct criticism against whole movements, and many of my criticisms (as Mark Henderson rightly points out) are really against those of your fans who take the more extreme and arrogant views which sully the image of the movement as a whole. I know that yourself, Mark Henderson and Robin Ince are fully aware that, as you write:
“the choice of policy response itself is not a purely scientific question, however, because it necessarily has moral, geopolitical and economic components.”
This is made very clear in your writing, and indeed in The Geek Manifesto. I do not object to many of the arguments that any of you make; rather, I object to the ways in which certain elements of the movement will shed the vital nuances that you include, and argue aggressively against the ‘anti-scientific’ lobbies. I think that some people are more anti-‘anti-science’ than they are just pro-science. I mean this in the same way that many atheists are anti-religious rather than just pro-secular. I’m sorry if that’s unclear, but I hope you get where I’m coming from. When I say ‘anti-science’ in inverted commas, I am referring to the way certain people will brand a politician (for example) who makes decisions against the ‘scientific consensus’.
I apologise if you feel I have misrepresented your views, and hope you feel you have been able to exercise your right to reply. A desire to keep the blog post as short (and perhaps provocative) as possible prevented me from emphasising such nuances in the original post. As you correctly surmise, I think we probably agree more than we disagree!
Harry
The whole virtue of the “geek movement” is, for me, that it isn’t a movement at all. There are no rules. It’s gloriously anarchic. Just agood bunch of individuals with some things in common and many differences.
I haven’t joined any movement. I just write about things that matter to me (and have made many good friends in the process). In one or two small areas, I may even have had an effect in the real world. That’s certainly been the aim anyway.
I think it is quite wrong to say that ridicule doesn’t work. You can’t have a rational argument with a homeopath, and, more importantly, it’s rarely possible to influence a vice-chancellor by going through the “proper channels”. But they really don’t like being laughed at.
I don’t think that sociologists have anything very useful to say about it. Let’s just get on with the job, in our own individual ways.
Although ridicule may work in certain circumstances, I think there are limits. For example, jokes about homoeopathy on the Infinite Monkey Cage are directed at a specific audience. There’s nothing wrong with that – it doesn’t really encourage or discourage dialogue, and is just good (perhaps occasionally lazy) comedy.
I am thinking of a somewhat different situation. I am thinking of those who insult the users of homoeopathic remedies as ‘brainwashed morons’ without trying to explain why conventional medicine is a better option. I suppose it depends on if you define a ‘homeopath’ as a user or peddler of the stuff – the former are likely more receptive to rational argument. I personally find that any statement beginning ‘You can’t have a rational argument with a ____’ is an admission of defeat, which marks the closure of any potential doors to dialogue.
Although not a sociologist myself, I most certainly take issue with the following statement: ‘I don’t think that sociologists have anything very useful to say about it’. To write off any group of people entirely seems to be inherently counter-productive, and again closes down any potential for engagement or resolution.
I wonder how many conversations you have had with homeopaths? I’ll bet it’s near zero. I’ll always talk to anyone, but there is little possibility of dialogue when one party doesn’t accept the basic rules of rational argument. It’s made worse that they often make money from homeopathy so their income would vanish if they accepted your arguments.
The users of homeopathy are a different matter altogether. I’ve never met anyone who’d call them brainless morons in public. The recent Neon case is a good one -every skeptic I know wants to reach out to the mother.
The atheism argument is reminiscent of the Mooney vs Dawkins argument. The fact of the matter is that the argument got nowhere until Dawkins, PZ Myers etc put the matter bluntly. They’ve had huge influence and changed minds in a way that the accommodationists could never achieve.
I suspect the real difference is not between “geeks” (whatever they are) and moderates, but between activists and those who prefer a more passive approach. It’s activists who bring about change and I’m happy to be described that way. As i have already said, I don’t think geek is a useful description.
I suspect that this whole argument is about straw men. All we have is a bunch of disparate people, trying, in a million different ways, to improve things. It doesn’t need any sociological theory. Just get on with it.
I’m not entirely sure I would pay a lot of attention to Steve Fuller’s views – this is a gentleman who has some very screwy notions about science and “intelligent design”, but that’s by the by and a rather hilarious part of the Kitzmiller record.
For my part, I’m the organiser of the “GeekManifulster” pledge which will (shortly) put a copy of Mark Henderson’s book “The Geek Manifesto” in the hands of every member of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly. I’m concerned that science is being misrepresented from very many quarters, in particular from postmodernist wafflers who regard it as simply one more narrative option among many others, including creationism/intelligent design (and we’ve seen that at the Giant’s Causeway), homeopathy, crystal-rubbing, aliens, but also in less-obviously-crackpot areas such as populist politics, fear-stoking, identity-clashing – and boy are we getting a heaping helping of that right now in Northern Ireland.
Yes, the world of wider “geekdom” (and I admit a certain reticence about the label too, as well as that of “skepticism” with a k) ebbs and flows, and some of the utterances of people aligned with this view are perhaps less than helpful at times, but there is at least an acknowledgement that evidence should be at the heart of things.
Furthermore, we do need politicians and rhetoricians and dramatists and musicians and all the rest – Henderson, Cox, Ince and others have never argued otherwise. But we also need the scientists and indeed the “geeks”. We need the evidence-nuts and data-nerds. We are a distributed-labour species, dammit, and we neglect the skills of any group at our peril, but that’s nothing to the peril we risk if we ignore evidence, or if we can’t assess what that evidence is telling us.
So am I proud to be a geek? I don’t really know. But I’m damn proud to be a scientist, and I’m damn sure I want the politicians representing me in the Legislative Assembly and Parliament (and elsewhere) to be aware that I am watching them and assessing them. Does that make the “geek movement” bad for science? No. It’s correcting a historic imbalance that gives undue influence to mere sociologists and wafflemongers while letting vested interests and populist rabble-rousers off the hook.
Harumph.
Thanks for the comment, Shane, much of which I wouldn’t strongly disagree with. I do, however, take issue with a couple of your points.
If you’re interested in science being attacked by ‘postmodernist wafflers’, you might like to check out the Science Wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars
I certainly wouldn’t say that postmodernists are meaningfully connected to any prevalence of ‘creationism… homeopathy, crystal-rubbing, aliens’. If you can point to any specific examples linking sociology papers to such ‘unscientific’ endeavours, I am very willing to concede the point.
Much of your argument is reasonable, but I think it is undermined somewhat with talk of ‘mere sociologists and wafflemongers’. Are you saying that sociology is in some way inferior to natural sciences? (For the record, I have a BSc in physics, not a social science!) It is my view that the social sciences are those which need to be exploited more in evidence-based policy, and suspect that Mark Henderson would agree. I would be happy for him to correct me if I’ve misinterpreted the book, but from my reading of the Geek Manifesto there is a call a greater input from social scientists into policymaking.
Harry
“I certainly wouldn’t say that postmodernists are meaningfully connected to any prevalence of ‘creationism… homeopathy, crystal-rubbing, aliens’. If you can point to any specific examples linking sociology papers to such ‘unscientific’ endeavours, I am very willing to concede the point.”
Seeing as you asked:
Sociology and homeopathy:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9566.00319/pdf
“it is argued that complementary medicine and alternative
medicine are both rather unfortunate terms for studying homeopathy
in micro-sociological settings. Heterodox medicine is favoured”
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/socabs/docview/1222900661/13B29DC5E0B46B2555E/1?accountid=14755
“the rhetoric of insufficient scientific evidence of homeopathy still prevails within the medical establishment. ”
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/socabs/docview/61729253/13B29DC5E0B46B2555E/15?accountid=14755
“Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) systems such as Homeopathy, Ayurveda, and Chinese Medicine adopt the holistic approach to health. Thus the phenomenological model of illness enables the physician to provide the quality of care the patients deserve and expect from modern Western medicine. ”
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/socabs/docview/61650805/13B29DC5E0B46B2555E/24?accountid=14755
“In the future, it may be to the state’s advantage to modify the overall shape of health care to include alternative paradigms of healing along with conventional medical care. Such a shift would put complementary and alternative medicine occupations in a better position to advance professionally and become formal elements of the established health care system. ”
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/socabs/docview/61568496/13B29E1335957910E92/41?accountid=14755
“Contemporary feminist homoeopathy can be considered a form of feminist medicine because it successfully addresses the dualism & power concerns raised by second-wave feminist health activists.”
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/socabs/docview/61336530/13B29E1335957910E92/50?accountid=14755
“The means by which Benveniste’s results were deemed unscientific are examined, & it is shown how patterns of power inscribed in the relationship of humor & rhetoric operate within the scientific community.”
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/socabs/docview/61716946/13B29E1335957910E92/52?accountid=14755
“Since “alternative medicine” is defined residually as anything not regular medicine, it is not a useful category. Further specification is needed to facilitate investigation of the many varied types of health practices it denotes, eg: primitive, folk, herbal, homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy, & faith healing. An earlier classification (“Limited Marginal and Quasi-Practitioners” in Freeman, Howard E., Levine, Sol, & Reader, Leo G. [Eds], Handbook of Medical Sociology, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963) of ancillary, limited, marginal, & quasi practitioners is fruitful for studying their relationship with organized medicine, & movement from one status to another, eg, osteopathy from marginal to orthodox & chiropractic from marginal to a limited medical progression. In the quasi professional group — faith healers, folk & primitive healers, & out-&-out quacks — are distinguished, along with those who use natural vs supernatural forces or entities.”
Then there is this terrible PhD thesis. http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/2577/ (Which I find baffling that anyone would accept as of a high enough standard for a doctoral degree!)
There is one hit for crystal healing: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/socabs/docview/964196772/13B29E64E5491A1702/2?accountid=14755
I’m sure Steve Fuller could provide and cite examples of sociological criticisms of the theory of evolution. Having written many.
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.stir.ac.uk/socabs/docview/758121258/13B29E7719255678E92/4?accountid=14755
“In this discussion, Steve Fuller’s book Dissent over Descent is criticized mainly because he draws conclusions from wishful thinking and uses ancient and medieval scientists as well as theologians in his efforts to invalidate the theory of evolution. He is also criticized for drawing universal conclusions from a Eurocentric version of history.”
That’s just to make the point that sociology can and does blithely discuss scientific and medical domains without concern for the logical structures and methods that are appropriate for these discussions. But it is not to say that all sociology is blithe about all subjects it confronts and deals with.
Though personally, as a former social constructionist/post modernist, I find the theories and ideas more self perpetuating and about intellectual nuance than discovery and understanding.
A distinction here between sociology and other disciplines is I feel unhelpful. It would be better to discuss quant and qual methods.
For determining if something works or how common something is some form of quantative method is required. For determining why something happens or to explore a minority opinion, experience or issue qualitative methods are vastly superior to quant.
What people should be worried about is what works best where. Which tool is best for the job at hand. Not pitching tents in one camp or another and loudly declaring that the other side is completely wrong and has nothing to offer. Quant and Qual tools are best used where they are best suited. A qualitative study would not be much use in determining the efficacy of a particular treatment. It could however tell you why an effective treatment was resisted by patients and patient groups.
In an ideal world a study, say on a new mechanism to deliver insulin to diabetics, would involve both quant methods (to determine efficacy) and qual methods (to address patient concerns and issues).
I would think the majority of reasonable researchers are heading towards a kind of limited pragmatism. One that circumnavigates epistimological concerns at higher levels and treats methods equally. In the sense that each method and approach is a tool and using the most appropriate tool is better than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
1. You seem to be attacking The Geek Movement about its simplistic portrayal in the mainstream media. The mainstream media prefers to frame discourses as binary oppositions rather than as ranges of positions, and science communicators can either operate through it or be silent.
2. You (including Cox’s reply) seem to be conflating ontological subjectivism and epistemological subjectivism. Opinions, although subjective, can count as evidence, but only to the extent that they are epistemologically objective: how else could they be communicated to others in order to “count”?
3. Neither you nor Cox goes into any detail about what these other forms of evidence might be, or what the boundary conditions are for when certain forms of evidence are appropriate. You do state that you think evidence should be presented politely though.
4. In opposing the mainstream media formulation of The Geek Movement, you reify it. At the moment there are a few science communicators being “thoroughly masturbatory” (is there any other kind of masturbation?) (sorry not to let that metaphor go uncommented-on), and there are others (e.g. Tim Minchin) taking rather breathless pot shots at theism and name-checking Ockham’s razor. This latter trend is contra Fuller’s point about personalities over method, and perhaps it is what you refer to as being “scientifically trained.” But singling out the “right” way to be a geek is bound to sound a lot like the original movement you were attacking.
5. Fuller’s opposition between consensus and method clouds the water a bit. He suggests (simultaneously disparaging a variety of scholarly work) that method is the main distinctive feature of science and that consensus cannot be primary, but presumably this doesn’t apply to the matter of scientists in parliament where consensus is constitutionally guaranteed to trump method? Are you blaming Cox/Ince for democracy?
There’s a good debate to be had about whether a “geek movement” is helpful or not, and whether people who care about science should be more politically active. I’ve been having it actively for the past seven months, since The Geek Manifesto came out — and in many more places than “preaching to the choir” at Skeptics in the Pub
But this isn’t it. As Brian says above, I think this post mischaracterises the argument that he makes in his New Statesman piece, and I make in the book. As Brian’s extracts make clear, what he (and I) argue for is decidedly not technocracy, or “scientists as a presumptive ruling class”, as Steve Fuller absurdly claims. We make a much more limited proposition than that — that the approaches (yes, plural) of science have much more to contribute to public policy than they do at present, and that while evidence is hardly ever sufficient for good policy-making it is usually necessary. Politicians are elected, and have every right to reject scientific advice, but it would be better if they explained why when they do so.
The relevant section of my book is published freely online here, in reply to another critic who seems to have overlooked what I actually wrote: http://geekmanifesto.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/a-straw-man-criticism-of-the-geek-manifesto-and-a-supporting-extract/
I’m not actually sure what this post is arguing. If the argument is that my book (or indeed Brian and Robin Ince’s article) promotes rule by scientists, or that science is “elevated to a position of assumed authority”, it is wrong — as I hope my link above demonstrates. If it is that others have interpreted it that way, to promote that agenda, then it it should at least do me the service of pointing out that I have been misinterpreted.
The atheism is another red herring, at least where my book is concerned — it doesn’t even touch on the subject, so much so that Nick Cohen’s generally positive review specifically called me out for “not doing God”! http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/may/25/geek-manifesto-mark-henderson-review
I do think some critics of the “geek movement” are too keen to criticise a viewpoint that few people who would like a more considered and influential role for science and evidence in politics and public policy actually hold.
Hi Mark,
Apologies for the delay in replying, and for any misrepresentation that I may be guilty of. I will admit that the ‘preaching to the choir’ line was a shameless cheap shot, but I speak as a member of that choir! As I mentioned, I disagree with very little of your Geek Manifesto book (which you signed at a Skeptics in the Pub I attended back in July!). I wrote this post rather to question the direction of the movement beyond your control, and the misinterpretations of your book and/or speeches.
However, I do think that in your comment you are perhaps guilty of putting words into Steve Fuller’s mouth. He never claims (absurdly or otherwise) that you argue for “scientists as a presumptive ruling class”. Rather, he was guilty of the same ambiguity that I confess to – referring to ‘Geeks’ without specifying. I cannot speak for him, of course, but I did not read that as a personal attack on your character. Rather, I read it as a hyperbole on how some elements of the movement may view things.
I avoided specifically mentioning your book too much, since as you say it is not really guilty of promoting the negatives that I attribute to the Geek movement. For example, I did not actually relate the atheism point to your book. The title of your book draws inevitable links to the ‘movement’, and I apologise for not explicitly distancing you from many of the points.
I certainly support the idea that those with an interest in science should be all means be politically active. As I tried to make clear towards the end, I would simply like to see a less dogmatic approach to it. I would like to see much of what you promote in your book – people talking to their MPs at surgeries, arguing for what they believe in. I would just like to see more ‘Geeks’ trying to reason with homeopaths and climate change ‘sceptics’ in a measured fashion, without resorting to hyperbole or derision – I find that such tactics tend to close debates and foster only hostility.
It is therefore with regret that I see that you seem to have interpreted my blog post as being hostile to you personally, which was absolutely never the intention. I was rather criticising certain elements of a movement with which you are inevitably associated, and will amend the top line to make this explicit.
Harry
I agree with some of what you’ve said, but think it’s simply human nature to form cliques, jump on bandwagons and seek others who help confirm a world view. By way of example – in a post extolling the problems of navel-gazing mutual masturbation, it’s somewhat ironic that the first comment is from someone you’ve quoted extensively, essentially lending you a hand, looking firmly at a midriff 🙂
Public engagement in science currently seems to riding high. If a band of ‘Geeks’ or ‘Skeptics’ who possibly tend to see things as a little black and white and preach a bit is the price of that, it’s certainly one worth paying.
For reference, I’m both a scientist and a bit of a ‘computer jock’. Gets a bit uncomfortable straddling those pigeon holes.
What I love most (for which read “least”) about science is how even when discussing the ongoing attacks it endures from various quarters, it has a tendency to end up with scientists squabbling amongst themselves.
Just like everyone else, then. Even all those apocalypsians who think that today is their last day can’t agree how the world will end. Take one Church and you’ll soon have several sects and a few heresies. Politicians of every hue argue with their colleagues more than the opposition.
As far as science is concerned, at least each conflict has a chance of being resolved once the evidence is clear.
I think you’re a smart lad and when i grow up, i want to be a geek
The individuals currently making science understandable, accessible and popular again are using every method available to them to reach the widest possible audience and are actively targeting the most resistant as well as wooing the most malleable.
They are in every way the exact opposite of the mutual masturbators that you accuse them of being.
I appreciate Brian Cox’s civil reply but I do think that ‘Geek’ has become a bandwagon for lots of different attitudes that are exemplified in these responses:
1. Politicians already take scientists pretty seriously but as several of you point out, they weigh the evidence in light of a range of considerations. Sometimes the conclusions are to the scientists’ liking, sometimes not. That’s what happens when politics is run by democratically elected officials and not a scientific elite. Do Geeks contest this state of affairs? Some of the rhetoric suggests that they do. Otherwise, why the need for a ‘Geek Manifesto’?
2. The atheism issue arises maybe because the Geek Manifesto has attracted the interest of Robin Ince and the light entertainment end of the British Humanist Association, which tends to see theism/science as an either-or proposition.
3. If ‘science’ is to have the Enlightenment-style effects that everyone would like to see, then it cannot be as closely identified with the existing scientific community as Geeks tend to do. ‘Science’ should be seen more as akin to ‘rule of law’ and ‘scientists’ like the politicians and administrators who enforce it. They are not above the law and the law is not identical with them. That’s the only way to avoid the intellectual thuggishness of some of the comments, which nakedly appeal to authority (i.e. X knows what he’s talking, Y doesn’t know what he’s talking about). Such thuggishness simply invites a general distrust in the scientific community to enforce its own principles.
I felt the key line in this post was “It is my view that the movement is inherently damaging to science as it becomes characterised by the more sneering, self-righteous elements. “, this resonates with me for my experience with atheists in the US and I worry that it could happen with Geeks in the UK. The trick is surely to make sure that “sneering, self-righteous elements” don’t dominate.
I enjoyed reading Mark Henderson’s book and happily sent a copy off to my MP. To my mind, the balance of that book is about right and doesn’t push a strong technocratic agenda nor pretend to a certainty about the role of science in society. I contrast that with the books of the New Atheists – Dawkins and Harris when writing on religion – which are deliberately antagonistic in nature and tend to present their ideas as the one true set of ideas. I’m an atheist, but I find that attitude deeply off-putting and saw it reflected in the audience at many Skeptic meetings in Boston and LA. If practicing science has taught me anything, its the need for and challenge of juggling deep humility with total self-confidence. Humility to accept one’s own ignorance and the tentative status of one’s premises; bone-deep confidence to then take a blank sheet of paper and believe that you can answer a question no one else has solved. The balance between those two is hard to maintain internally and easily spills over into excessive certainty, easily read as arrogance, when criticised or threatened. The same seems to be true in politics and arrogant certainty is deeply unappealing in a movement, especially one that claims to be enlightened. It would be a shame if the Geek movement went in that direction.
Personally, I think there is a problem with the extent to which knowledge of science is distributed around society. The same could be said of many other areas of technical knowledge – sociology or economics for example – but I’m a physicist so science is closer to home. I’d like to see those making decisions be more aware of the operation of science, so that when they weigh different inputs they can do so in an informed way. I think there’s a deep current of anti-intellectualism in the UK that shows itself not as a lack of respect for things like science or art, but as a lack of respect for the need to understand science or art. I personally would love it if fewer people worshiped at the altar of science and more sat down with curiosity to read, tinker, and learn how things work.
Brave first post!
Thanks for this, Jonathan – it’s always good to get a wider perspective on these things. I also think you’ve chosen a salient line to pick out, which neatly sums up the direction I was intending this to go. It seems a lot of people read it very differently, and I was starting to worry that few people actually got what I was trying to say! You have expressed this central concern much more eloquently than I was able to do, so thank you for the post!
With regards to ‘bravery’ – hmm, yes, quite! I may have shot myself in the foot somewhat with the Science Communication industry, but we’ll see how it all pans out. As an unemployed and technically homeless graduate, this perhaps was not the wisest move!
Perhaps both sides in this little spat could relax a bit and attend to the arguments at stake. My first reaction was to reject the Cox/Henderson piece as another version of technocratic thinking (and there are undoubtedly elements of that, but this is not all).
Being a sociologist and siding with Steve Fuller would be expected. But I am not sure if ‘petite bourgeoise’ is a helpful term here. It is, and always has been, a derogatory term. In terms of historical analogies, Trotsky thought their uprooting and radicalisation led to the rise of fascism. Not sure of Steve would go as far as that when it comes to historical precedents…
But if we accept the equation geek movement=petite bourgeoise for a moment, the implication is sociology=asylum seekers, isn’t it? It is clear that Sociology is not allowed at the table. Science, on the other hand, already has quite a good attendance record at the table, even at high table.
The real question is this: would political decisions be better if there were more scientists in parliament or government? And would more and better science lead to better policies? {as an aside: Are Thatcher and Merkel better than leaders with a non-science background? Some evidence would be good 😉 }
As soon as we discuss such questions we realize that much depends on the definition of good policies. And this definition in itself cannot be evidence based, otherwise you end up in a circle and just prefer evidence based policies because they are rational, which is a value commitment and not an evidence based argument.
And this is where I think Brian has something useful to say (a point I have been making frequently):
http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item6812145/?site_locale=en_GB
“Science can’t tell us what to do about our changing climate. It can only inform us that it is changing (this is a statement based on data) and tell us the most probable reasons for this given the current state of our understanding. The choice of policy response itself is not a purely scientific question, however, because it necessarily has moral, geopolitical and economic components.”
Well, he missed out on the social, cultural and political components but overall acknowledges that science is the wrong kind of tool to develop good policies.
The comments to this blog are going in circles a bit. I think what you really mean (maybe) can be boiled down to 2 main points.
Firstly, the people who self-identify as geeks sometimes assume that there are only two types of people: rationalists/atheists/skeptics and homeopaths/crystal healers etc – this ignores that there are many publics with a range of attitudes to science. While Mark Henderson and Brian Cox wouldn’t fall into this trap (as you say, the Geek Manifesto is quite nuanced when talking about the use of science in policymaking), other high-profile people like Ricky Gervais seem to do it all the time, and this risks alienating a large section of the public, who might end up thinking science is off-bounds for people like them, so won’t engage.
Secondly, the geek movement risks becoming like the Judean People’s Front, with this bunch of people – who know they’re right but don’t really understand the underlying reasons why – dominating the debate.
But, hey, maybe I didn’t get it either?
Sounds like a fair reading to me, and I would certainly go along with both of your points. I might go slightly further, but doing so has already landed me in a sufficient quantity of hot water – on the plus side, this supply will keep my energy bill down over the winter.
Splitter!
Sorry. Couldn’t resist. We geeks often have a childish streak…but then, who doesn’t.
Actually, Rainer is right about the historical precedent I had in mind with regard to Geeks. Of course, I don’t mean all self-avowed Geeks. Nevertheless, there is a militant tendency that seems to think that certain segments of the population (sociologists, theists, homoeopaths, etc.) stand in the way of science leading society in a ‘rational’ direction. Whatever may have been Mark Henderson’s intentions, the declaration of a ‘Geek Manifesto’ gives support to this tendency, which invites the intellectual thuggishness I mentioned above.
If the basic point is that science has an important place in democratic decision-making, then no one would disagree, and it’s already the case. But once again, there may be a deeper grievance — that perhaps scientists shouldn’t have to muck around with democratic processes the way everyone else does. This is when people rightly object.
There is some validity in what you say here, Harry, as with any ‘movement’, cause, group etc extremists can damage the public image of the whole group through actions which don’t necessarily reflect the thoughts or purpose of the majority of the group.
However, I don’t think it’s something we (as scientists, or science communicators) need to be worried about yet. I am willing to bet that if you took a sample of the general public (or even just politicians), they would not be aware of a ‘Geek Movement’, by which I mean there would be no common response or definition for it.
With that in mind I am inclined to agree with Brian and Mark- let’s worry about getting science properly represented in the right areas of society first, and then some of your points around extremists (at a general level, not any of the specific examples you use) will be worth worrying about.
What I love most (for which read “least”) about those who seem to want to downplay the role of science in politics—both present day and historic—is the fact that they are happy to do so using Internet technology, a mere 130 years since Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism were formalised.
The situation is actually worse than described here: not only are a group of mainly non scientists promoting the idea of scientists as a ruling class, they are in some cases starting to believe that their political opinions should carry the same weight as science (because they support both…)
This is the source of much ‘drama’ amongst geeks/rationalists/skeptics, with various factions wanting to claim those labels as representing their subjective political views, as well as representing science. Said drama never seems to diffuse, because how can a person who considers their own ideology to be a scientific consensus ever admit to being wrong?
As is so often the case a clear point worthy of discussion has to an unnecessary extent been passed over due to people taking umbrage.
Take Jack’s summary of his point: ‘It is my view that the movement is inherently damaging to science as it becomes characterised by the more sneering, self-righteous elements’.
What has happened is many people have taken issue with whether there is a movement at all, or whether it has such elements, rather than consider what the damage to science might be. I’m thankful for those whose contributions have done the latter.
Amusingly it’s a microcosm of the wider point; you don’t convince people of your viewpoint if the way you do it includes a perceived attack on them.
The one thing I am in skepticism to try to understand is how to influence. It is my firm belief that one cannot change someone’s mind, only they can do that. What someone who wishes to influence another needs to do is provide them with a way to move their position with the least injury to their pride. I really wish there was more work on this, and that those of us who think changing minds is important would pool our resources on that.
I think Jack’s blog is at least a start on that, though I wish it could have been a better one.
I was ignorant of the Geek Manifesto so far and I am surprised – not sure if I should say ‘shocked’ – that being a geek now denotes a serious ideology or weltanschauung.
Though I have studied physics I have probably spent too many years in IT. I had associated being a geek primarily with a twisted and self-ironic sense of humor. I was not aware that ‘geek’ is used in a sense that is not a tongue-in-cheek stereotype synonym for a tech freak indulging in Star Trek and being able to hack into the FBI’s network from his iPhone.
So I am really reconsidering to call myself a geek then – despite the fact that I would most likely agree with many points raised in the Geek Manifesto.
Geeks as I had used and understood the term so far do not take themselves too seriously.
Thanks for the comment. As mentioned by Mark Henderson and others, there is really no homogeneous movement. Rather, there are disparate elements of a wider, broader ‘movement’, some of which I find deeply troubling.
If you are able, perhaps check out a Skeptics in the Pub meeting – they’re frequent, and spread across a lot of the UK. I can’t claim an all-encompassing knowledge of the movement, but most of the ‘Skeptics’ I have ever interacted with have been single-minded and dogmatic in their approaches to issues. Balance is rare, and often you’ll get a room full of half-pissed men (there are typically few women) aggressively agreeing with one another about how right they are and how wrong the government is. Like the Guardian readers of Yes Minister, the meetings are attended by ‘the people who think they ought to run the country’.
Perhaps I should have directed more of the original argument to these ‘skeptics’ rather than lumping them in with the ‘Geeks’, but there is so much overlap it’s really hard to say who calls themselves what!
Also, as a physical scientist, I’d just like to thank you for not dismissing all sociological arguments on the basis of elitism!
I’m a patron of Westminster Skeptics in the Pub. I’ve never seen any drunk men, and there are plenty of women. The people are far from homogeneous in their opinions too. There really is no such thing as a movement. You seemed to have an opinion on the basis of little real experience.
You talk of dogmatism, but again that’s not really my experience. Most people there have a rational mind set, even though many are not practising scientists. If they are presented with evidence they will change their minds. That’s how it works.
The more I read your piece, the more it seems to me that you are, by nature, not an activist, and are rather worried by people who feel passionate about things. That’s fine, but it’s not a reason for criticising those of us who want to change things.
Just have to take this opportunity to say that the City of Dreams Skeptics in the Pub meetings (that’s Newcastle upon Tyne, obviously) really aren’t like the OP’s description at all, but I suspect derailment into anecdotes about SITP meetings isn’t going to help discussion at this point.
Carry on.
I am unable to reply directly to your comment due to WordPress limits, David, but this is intended to address your above post:
I’ve been to a fair few Skeptics in the pub meetings, at Soho, Westminster and Chalk Farm. It is certainly highly possible that my experiences have all simply been unfortunately coincidental exceptions. I didn’t go in with a negative attitude, at least the first few times, but never really found them to be particularly engaging. We have clearly had different experiences, so let’s just leave it at that for now.
You speak about activism, but you misread my personal stance on this. One thing I do not care for is futile activism. You may argue that no activism could ever be truly futile, but that doesn’t seem like your position. Since you assert that arguing with homoeopaths is futile, you must concede that some forms of activism are.
So I would ask exactly what activism the Westminster SitP has actually engaged in. What have you changed? I would be delighted if you could prove me wrong here, as I would like to believe that the movement is a fruitful one. Do you have any evidence of influencing policy decisions, or anything else that the group campaign for?
On Westminster Skeptics and activism: The Libel Reform campaign comes to mind straight off the bat.
On UK Skepticism and wider activism Ten23, The Nightingale Collaboration and the Good Thinking Society are worthy of mention.
But I should say why conflate SitP with activism? It isn’t activism. It’s a monthly pub meeting of like minded (and sometimes less like minded) people who come together to here people talk. Some SitP groups have supported activism, some have initiated it, others simply have members who have been involved in activism and have no direct involvement. To complain that SitP groups don’t engage in activism is somewhat akin to blaming model train enthusiasts for the failings of railtrack.
Overall I find your criticism of SitP and geek meetings in general to jar completely with my experience of SitP and geek events. Indeed to the point whereby your comments are borderline (if not just plain) insulting.
Now I do not contest that there are loud mouthed and unpleasant skeptics. That there are those whose skepticism exists as a form of misguided sciencism. But that in my experience is far from the majority.
And round and round in circles we go. I still think the OP had an interesting point about the more dogmatic of the self-identified geeks/skeptics/whatever serving to disengage the rest of the public from science. While this point was expressed polemically (and maybe a bit dickishly, according to Martin Robbins), I think it’s worthy of further investigation. I’m always uncomfortable when I hear high-profile self-identified skeptics like Ricky Gervais or Stephen Fry using their platform to promote *science*, but in the process really just promoting things that are a bit leftwing, or conflating science with atheism – does this make people with different political or religious views less likely to engage with, e.g. climate change, because they’re being told science is off-limits for people them?
I find it ironic that all of us geeks/scientists (I’m not a scientist) here are reverting to the “in my experience” this always happens/this has never happened when I go to Skeptics in the Pub argument. At some point we need to go beyond anecdotes and research whether all this “age of the geek” stuff is actually having any wider impact on public attitudes, and maybe even evaluate its impact on policy (beyond more anecdotes). BIS carries out a Public Attitudes to Science study ever 3 years and the next one is likely to take place next year, so maybe the impact among the wider public can be explored as part of that? (I was part of the team that worked on the 2011 study.)
Astute comment, and you pick up on a lot of concerns which I failed to articulate clearly.
I’m curious about the BIS survey, as I’m a great believer in the value of qualitative data. You mention your connection to the 2011 survey – are you in contact with anyone who will be carrying out the next one? I would be interested in getting in touch.
BIS haven’t announced who’s conducting the next PAS study or when exactly it’s happening yet, but they may do so early next year. It’s always had a substantial qualitative element (which makes it stand out from all the other big tracking surveys done on public engagement with science, e.g. Eurobarometer).
This has been posted elsewhere. Posting it here for completeness and to see if it motivates any discussion.
One of the oft repeated things you hear from science communication types is that there are multiple publics and that each of these needs to be interacted in different ways.
Yet a grassroots movement doing a form of science communication is derided and dismissed as putting a monolithic public off science. Ignoring a rather glaringly obvious thing: SitP and the Geek events so derided in posts such as this are, in the main, run by volunteer members of the public. They are representative of and meet the demands of one aspect of the publics need for science communication.
It seems somewhat hypocritical for a discipline supposedly sensitive to and concerned with engaging multiple publics and audiences to turn to one section, one audience, one public and tell them they are doing it wrong.
Hi Harry, I want to quickly add a response to Brian Cox’s comment. Brian says he is not a positivist, but he seems to me like a Science (with a capital S) purist. Its like there is Science, and then everything else, including “society”. One of the biggest findings for me of Science Studies is the one about how Science, in practice, is a social activity, like everything else. Science is made by people, who have nationalities, genders, races/ethnicity etc, and the accompanying biases, inclinations, limitations and so on. There is no reason to believe that Science, stands “outside” of society, immune to whatever considerations apply to any other collective social endeavor.
The problem may lie in those who think the term “scientific argument” is an oxymoron. There is a (natural) societal laziness in gravitating to pre-formed opinions rather than building ones own, subjective opinion by assessing various lines of evidence (including their weaknesses). While not wishing to put words in his mouth, I think perhaps David Colquhoun’s spirited defense of “activism” may in part be that too many of we scientists fall back on prefabricated statements without researching the constituent parts and thence are poor protagonists that embolden the quacks. Careful research effort may remind us that we, too, horror of horrors, are guilty of the transgressions that we accuse the other “side” of committing (selectivity, oversimplification, dismissal, arrogance, etc). The problem with sole reliance on scientific fact is that one cannot be in the slightest selective of evidence but we also know that science is a work in progress, subject to some interpretive error. Hence, the conundrum and reason why science cannot be rested upon as a self-evident truth. Instead, it requires accurate, honest support – it needs to be effectively argued and not expected to be taken for granted.
Personally, I think the fact that the editorial by Cox and Ince touched so many nerves indicates they struck close to their target, but their role was to ignite debate, not to shut it down.
Always remember that this geek thing is just a fad brought on by the big bang theory et al. Let it run it’s course and all will be forgotten in a few years time.