Apologies to Jerry Coyne (et al.)

By Massimo Pigliucci

I was having dinner with a friend and colleague of mine a few nights ago, and the discussion veered on to the notorious debates amongst accommodationists and new atheists, to which I have been a contributor over the past several months. From there, we quickly moved on to talk about my rivalry with biologist Jerry Coyne, which has objectively taken an increasingly nasty turn of late, on both sides. The conversation then broadened again to a discussion of the difference between substantive disagreement and personal opinions of people's motives and characters. Which led me to admit that — despite my honest best intentions to the contrary — I have occasionally been guilty on this blog of making remarks about motives and character that had no logical connection to the substance of the arguments being discussed. This is not why I write blogs, articles and books, so some self-reflection was in order.

As a result of this reflection, I would like to publicly apologize to Jerry, as well as to anyone else (including some of my readers) about whom I've made — incidentally or not — comments that were not constructive within the realm of intellectual discourse. This apology comes with a pledge, within the possibilities of human frailty, to refrain from committing that blunder again.

Let me be clear about this: Jerry and I disagree on many substantive issues, both in science and in philosophy. Scientifically, for instance, he thinks that the biological species concept is the way to go, that allopatric speciation is the dominant mode of formation of new species, and that the Modern Synthesis of the 1930s and '40s is an adequate framework for evolutionary theory. I think that a more pluralistic species concept is in order, that sympatric speciation happens much more often than some people are willing to acknowledge, and that an Extended Synthesis in evolutionary theory is both necessary and in the process of happening.

Philosophically, Jerry's concept of science is extensive, to the point of application to supernatural phenomena and even extends, in some of its attributes, to plumbing. I think that plumbing is not science, and more importantly that science has nothing to say about the supernatural because the latter is too vague to constitute anything like an explanation of any sort, let alone a scientific one.

But none of the above justifies the sort of sniping we have been engaging in on our respective blogs for months now. Whether Jerry has any formal training in philosophy or not is no reason for me to discount his philosophical opinions, nor are his motivations to expand the limits of science relevant or, indeed, known to me. Similarly, I sincerely hope he doesn't really believe that I am as arrogant and narrow minded as he has occasionally portrayed me to be.

In fact, Jerry (or PZ Myers, or Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris) and I agree on much more than we disagree. We all feel that there is too little reasonable discourse in our society; that science is taken for granted and not taken seriously enough; that irrationalism wastes a lot of time and resources that humanity could use in far better ways; that ideology of any kind, religious or not, is the enemy of reason and a much better candidate for being the real root of all evil; that people can agree to disagree on substantive issues as long as they respect each other's position, and that therefore the only intolerable thing is intolerance itself.

We will likely continue to disagree on the specifics, and there is no requirement for us to be friends. But there is a necessity for us to be civil, to both our friends and our intellectual antagonists, because once civility goes out the window, intolerance comes through the door, and all hope for reason and progress is soon extinguished.

In this spirit, then, I apologize to Jerry for the form of some of my comments, and I pledge to keep any future commentary focused on the substance of our disagreements, in the true spirit of the motto of the Rationally Speaking blog, David Hume's contention that truth springs from argument amongst friends, or at least from civil argument amongst colleagues.