POP GOES THE 'WEASEL' (WORDS, THAT IS)!

Vox Day, who has commited himself to an indepth exchange of views next month on evolution, has a revealing little piece on his blog called "Talk Origins, talk fast". He raises an interesting little muddle when he remarks that:

"But I have to say, the more I read on the pro-evolution side, the weaker their case looks. I mean, economists know that they don't understand everything about how the economy works, even though we have a pretty good understanding of certain processes. We have no problem admitting some of the things that we don't know... but I've never read more weasel phrases like "may be caused" and "might explain" and "could be attributed to" than in my recent perusal of various evolutionary papers."

I left a little response for Vox in the comments section that I thought might provide some badly-needed context, and I thought I would share that here as well:

With respect to the term 'weasel phrases', I'm afraid these are pretty typical of science writing, especially parts which discuss the merits of a hypothesis. Scientific generalizations are always held tentatively----even a statement previously regarded as a 'law' (such as, say, Mendel's principle of segregation) may be modified or rejected in the light of new data.

A failure to appreciate the tentative nature of scientific claims invariably leads non-scientists (including journalists) to make all sorts of errors in evaluating scientific claims. But here's some striking examples of that tentativeness, from one of the most important scientific papers ever written, the original Nature article by Watson and Crick. Key expressions of that tentativeness are highlighted by yours truly.

The article begins with: "We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.)."

A bit later, it remarks: "The previously published X-ray data on deoxyribose nucleic acid are insufficient for a rigorous test of our structure. So far as we can tell, it is roughly compatible with the experimental data, but it must be regarded as unproved until it has been checked against more exact results."

Finally, in the well-known conclusion: "It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material."

Wow, look at all the 'weasel words'! Let me suggest that some posters here might have habitually misread such statements, possibly due to a lack of understanding of the nature of science.

DISFAVORED SON

My distaste for this man grows day by day. Ruben Navarette has been busy carving out a career as a contrarian Latino, and he does have the distinction of being a local boy (Sanger High) who made good, earning his master’s at Harvard and writing a book, in part to explain why he didn’t, ultimately, finish a doctorate there. He’s accomplished and syndicated in nearly 200 papers nationally, so he needs no further accolades from me.

He goes too far, however, in this column, wherein he not only generously describes the disaster which is NCLB as "educational reform" but tips his increasingly-conservative hat to the desirability of including vouchers in future revisions of that law. Of course, his take is that teachers oppose this because we are afraid of being accountable.

That’s nonsense, Mr. Navarette. I’m not afraid of being accountable, but I want the community as a whole to be accountable for poor academic performance, rather than just teachers. I want students who are held accountable by parents. I want parents who are held accountable by community leaders. As a member of my community, I am concerned that sacrificing increasing chunks of instructional time to test preparation may actually detract from, rather than improve, educational performance. How can I call myself an effective science educator when I spend less and less time actually doing science?

To put it another way, Mr. Navarette, should individual members of the media be held accountable for the largely-unreported story of widespread teacher disenchantment with NCLB? Frankly, I have a test I’d like to give you. You’re a Harvard man, so I’m sure you can guess that if you had to spend more and more time taking tests that this might actually take time away from being a journalist.

THE POTTERVERSE EXHALES

Like the proverbial 'eye of the storm', the worldwide Harry Potter fan base doubtless moves toward a moment of relative calm: after a whirlwind week in which the film accounted for 90 percent of Fandango's weekly ticket sales, the most devoted of fans no doubt had their thirst for all things Potter slaked by the midnight premiere.

(ahem) I'm afraid that I don't count as excessively devoted, inasmuch as I didn't wear a costume or attend the mad affair with a horde of shriekers. However, I did arrive home after 3:00 in the morning, so my thoughts on the film are fresh.

The film begins unsettlingly: not only is the dementor's attack on Harry sudden and unnerving, but it is in a gritty visual style very different from past films. This creates a sense that, at any moment, anyone could be attacked again. The comic touches which have typically defined the opening set pieces of past HP films are almost entirely lacking; in fact, the reactions of the Dursleys evoke a genuine sympathy for characters who have mostly served as contemptible comic foils.

Action as the film moves back to Hogwarts is at a faster pace, and more heavily-telescoped than in past films, which no doubt reflects the difficulty of adapting the longest of Rowling's works. Many treasured subplots and details are omitted or referred to so cryptically that only devoted readers of the books will notice them. Much of this works beautifully: an extended montage of the growing dictatorial powers of new villian Dolores Umbrage framed by a series of ever-more imperious decrees from the Ministry touches just the right note, and a similar whirlwind treatment of the education and development of 'Dumbledore's Army' is similarly effective.

I would say, however, that the film would've benefited from a more deliberate pacing after the initial shocks in the first hour. Opportunities for fuller character development were set aside, particularly in the conflict (now largely implied) between Snape and Sirius. A few minutes more of the tense, beautifully done ensemble work of the Order attempting to pull its headquarters and its spirits together would have provided important context for the revelation (during Occlumency lessons) that Snape was victimized by Harry's father. This could've led to a more intelligible account of the Sirius/Harry relationship, which seems hurried and a bit glib.

Finally, I regret the film's ending. The book ends with a rather distinctive symmetry, when the team of Aurors that rescues Harry in the beginning returns him to his relatives, implicitly recognizing his growth in their estimation. This would've been tricky, as there would've been a danger of an anti-climatic thud, but by focusing attention on the Order itself this would set the stage for the war that is coming. Instead, a new scene is crafted on the Hogwarts grounds, where Harry acknowledges the power of love and friendship that has pulled him through. The camera zooms out to reveal the many members of 'Dumbledore's Army' following the Trio (Harry, Hermione and Ron) to the train station, with the implication that they will continue to follow Harry's leadership---and that Harry is no longer alone. It's a good scene, but perhaps one that hints more as to what might be revealed in Book Seven than in setting up the mystery, heavily padded with backstory, of Book Six.

Speaking of which, this feeling of relaxation in the Potterverse is temporary. Tension will build to an even greater pitch within days, as the final Book is released. My (ahem) copy has already been ordered. This tension, the way that Rowling has drawn so many people into a world with characters that you desperately care about, beggars similar fan interest in fantasy films: remarkable!