Humans and apes

[john Grehan]

>Brian O'Meara wrote:

>However, we should not sacrifice a great deal of accuracy (goal #1)
>to meet goal #2. For any explanation or hypothesis that is currently
>broadly accepted in science (continental drift, the importance of
>natural selection in explaining the origin of many adaptations, etc.)
>there will always be at least a handful of scientists who will not
>accept these ideas. In almost all cases, these widely-accepted ideas
>have a great probability of being correct;

In most cases perhaps. But 'broadly accepted' does has no necessary
equation with being the best answer. If this were the case there would be
no progress in science since much of science is about less accepted ideas
overthrowing the more accepted ideas. Continental drift is a case point.

>the multiple alternative
>ideas, given current observations, experimental results, and other
>information, have a very low chance of being correct, at least
>according to most scientists in the field.

This becomes a bit circular. The less accepted views are less likely to be
correct in the opinion of the majority to support the more accepted views.

>However, this information would be lost if we present the dispute as a
>"debate".

The 'information' being referred to above appears to be just that there is
an opinion about popularity being equated to most correct.

>Also note that if the field has continued to develop with the
>well-accepted idea as
>a given, debate between the two camps could be said to be dead -- no
>active argument over the idea occurs any longer between the two camps
>as the minor camp might be completely ignored by the majority
>[whether or not this is justified or a good way to do science is a
>separate issue].

This may occur. In the case of the orangutan hypothesis it is certainly
ignored by many - particularly those writing more popular articles where
the goal often appears to be more about propaganda rather than presenting
the status quo of a science. Statements, for example, that the chimps are
our nearest living relatives is simply not true. It would be true with the
caveat that the great majority of primate systematists accept the chimps
(plus or minus gorilla) as our nearest living relatives. However, the
orangutan hypothesis is not ignored by all those in the discipline of
primate systematics who oppose it.

>  By attempting to be agnostic in its presentation, especially by focusing
> on a "debate", the museum
>actually risks elevating the stature of the alternative hypothesis,
>contrary to the opinion of the vast majority of scientists [who,
>everything else being equal, are more likely to be right].

The latter part of this statement about the majority being more likely to
be right flies in the face of the history of science where progress is
about the opposite.

>The museum, in effect, takes a partisan position in favor of the far less
>likely idea by giving both ideas equal weight. This grossly misleads
>the public about our current state of knowledge.

Only if the exhibit failed to mention which view is currently the most
popular. All scientific presentations have a bias of one sort or another -
its the human condition.

>It seems possible to prevent this when designing an exhibit, yet
>still recognize scientific uncertainty. For example, if it truly
>seems to the vast majority of relevant scientists that the available
>data tends to support Homo-Pan, the exhibit could have most of the
>displays focusing on this hypothesis and its implications, and
>limitpossible alternative hypotheses to only a portion of one display.

Only if the status quo is taken to be the most important issue in a science.

>Thepublic would get the impression that most of the emphasis is on
>Homo-Pan, but there's a small chance that another hypothesis may be
>right instead. If it currently seems to be equally likely that orangs
>or chimps are our sister clade, then it may be appropriate to focus
>on each hypothesis equally.

And how does one know whether alternatives a 'equally likely'? It would
seem to come down to personal judgement.

>In deciding to create an exhibit, exhibit designers necessarily
>believe that they can in some way determine what information in
>science is relevant for their presentation, how ideas relate to each
>other, what the key concepts are, etc., perhaps in consultation with
>competent scientists. Given this assumption of knowledge, designers
>cannot then claim ignorance when deciding which hypotheses in a field
>are overwhelmingly supported, which ones are still under active
>debate by a significant portion of interested scientists, and which
>ones are held to by a fringe group unlikely to be correct. They must
>design exhibits taking all this information into account or else risk
>misleading the public.

I don't see how there is any suggestion on my part about being ignorant of
the field. Since I am the one designing the exhibit I will certainly be
open to any criticism one may wish to throw at me for the way I do it. It
certainly true that it will be upsetting to people like Brian O'Meara that
I give more attention to a less popular hypothesis. The orangutan
hypothesis has been published in Nature, for example, and as such its
stature as an alternative hypothesis is certainly not at the fringes of the
discipline. If its good enough for Nature then its good enough for the
museum (I know, I know, Nature is not necessarily the last word on
scholarship).

John Grehan

Dr. John Grehan
Director of Science and Collections
Buffalo Museum of Science
1020 Humboldt Parkway
Buffalo, New York 14211-1293
Voice 716-896-5200 x372
Fax 716-897-6723
jgrehan at sciencebuff.org