The Bigger Picture

williamgrogan

The Bigger Picture

I am 48. Since I was a teenager I have battled against religion, in particular the Catholic Religion into which I was "inducted" or is that abducted? In the 50's and 60's in Ireland books & movies were banned as was Playboy , contraceptives were outlawed, there was no divorce, the Church ran the schools, everyone went to Mass, virtually everyone believed in God....

I have seen this belief system virtually collapse over the last 20 years. The percentage of those attending mass in some parts of Dublin is down from 95% to 5% since the 70's. There is also a collapse in "vocations" and the Catholic Church's grip on society is just about prised from their clammy hands.

Great!

But it is being replaced by "New Age Religion".

Now 95% seem to believe in the following;

The benefits of Vitamin Supplements, Ghosts, communicating with the dead, Faith Healing, Reflexology, "Energy Channels", "Holistic Treatments", Rekki, Homeopathy, Acupuncture, "Their Spiritual Side" and are seriously frightened of computers, power generation, GMO's, nuclear powered spacecraft, electronic voting and even their tooth fillings

Is the human race doomed because of its genes to be illogical forever?

rodney.redneck

NO ONE HAS VOTED HA HA HA

IM NOT GOING TO EITHER

davros

Excellent - my first banning

Calibos

A question I have asked myself many many times WG.

I know Ecksor will come down on me like a ton of bricks but I really do have a deep disdain for the general populace! Anyone working in a public service industry can tell you that 90% of the general public are.....morons! No two ways about it! I have often thanked God (metaphorically of course) for the top 2 percentile of people who have managed to drag the rest of us morons into the modern age.

Like you I'm not sure if I can take solace in the fact that church attendance numbers are falling drastically. I'd wager a small percentage have come to a reasonably similar conclusion to ours. However I'd say most have merely rejected organised religion and still feel they are a spiritual being with a more personal relationship with God etc.

People can surprise you occasionally though. I was watching a multi denominational religious debate on TV chaired by Melvyn Bragg or Dimbleby IIRC. There was a catholic bishop, anglican bishop, Rabbi, Immam and a Pagan priestess. They went to the audience at one point and this frail little old lady began to speak. Bless her and her traditional beliefs I thought to myself. Turns out she was a 'devout' atheist and asked the panel when they thought the human race would rid itself of this superstitious nonsense. Oh how I LMAO! . Then a 50-60yo Irish woman got to speak. I thought oh hear we go! The same. Religion is all a superstitious legacy of our primitive past. Course most of the other hundred or so audience members were spiritual or religious to a lesser or greater degree.

davros

I'm not so pessimistic. Which of these is more logical:

1. To accept something at face value that you have seen repeated countless times, without contradiction, in the media; and which is supported by anecdotal evidence from friends, colleagues and family.

2. To arbitrarily deny the truth of something that is seemingly accepted without question by the rest of society.

We can't be sceptical towards everything we come across - there just isn't time. If I have never heard homeopathy questioned by a newspaper, TV show, politician, doctor, friend, etc., why would I not believe it?

It is entirely logical to believe in quackery. What is not logical is to continue to believe in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. But such evidence hasn't been presented to the public yet.

If you are looking to define what people believe in, try the pursuits of money and pleasure. The rest is up for grabs.

williamgrogan

I don't think you should have banned Rodney. I felt that he was like a bold brat running around under the legs of the grown ups and pinching fags.

He drinks in the Old Oak and I have fond memories of "hazy daze" there.

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I don't think you should have banned Rodney.

He wanted to be banned. He can PM me if he decides to give up his evil ways.

williamgrogan

There is a problem in so far as most people in the know will not put their head above the parapet. It is only recently that people started openly slagging religion. If you challenge any old nonsense remedy in a group you are looked at in horror .. omg .. you’re so cynical, open your mind, she’s entitled to her opinion, if it works for them so what?, you don’t know everything, Scientists are often wrong, they don’t know everything, it doesn’t do any harm, the doctors are only in it for the money ……………………….

I think you can embarrass people into stopping and thinking but I do think the polite stuff is for the birds. One of the biggest impediments to progress is this new concept of agreeing everything by consensus. I HATE that word.

Calibos

Nail, head, hit.

ecksor

Originally posted by Calibos
I know Ecksor will come down on me like a ton of bricks but I really do have a deep disdain for the general populace

I'm more inclined to dismiss this group/forum as being full of people who are not that much beyond the people they dimiss and yet feel superior for some reason. You managed to read 8 or 10 pages of one other thread and then wrongly summarise the points that we were trying to make. Who exactly are you superior to? Should I feel even more superior on the basis of that?

ISS == Irish Superiority Society?

I had a lot of hopes for this forum and the discussion that it would generate, but apart from one or two notable exceptions (sextusempiricus for example), I don't see much balanced discussion of scepticism, rather discussion of one dogma vs another dogma.

Calibos

I had a lot of hopes for this forum and the discussion that it would generate, but apart from one or two notable exceptions (sextusempiricus for example), I don't see much balanced discussion of scepticism, rather discussion of one dogma vs another dogma.

From the forum rules

This forum is for discussing and investigating remarkable claims of any kind. Sample topics of interest include dowsing, ESP, alien visitations, alternative medicine and creationism. Everyone's opinion is welcomed - skeptic, astrologer, reflexologist, etc.

This forum isn't for discussing scepticism or the nature of scepticism etc It is rather like discussion of one dogma versus another. Yes ie our dogma is to question everything including all the aforementioned dogma. Some of us question from personal experience and/or research. Some of us do hold more 'dogmatic' viewpoints in the conventional sense, I'll give you that. I am probably more dogmatic in that I do not investigate every claim to the nth degree before I decide I am sceptical of it. I might not necessarily make well written or researched points like most others here. So yes I am as dogmatic as a religious person for instance who takes the word of those in the know ie the church/pope etc. I take the word of the scientists(in the know) and people of greater intelligence than me. The thing is though I think I am more 'right' to take their word for it knowing their use of theory, experiments, peer review to back up their view than a religious person is for taking the word of the church with nothing but questionable history and a book to back up theirs. Likewise I think I am more right to dogmatically object to homeopathy having read only a small amount about it but knowing that double blind tests have been carried out rubbishing its claims etc...than a person who believes in homeopathy because of anecdotal evidence presented by their friend ie "we have to get back to traditional alternative medicines, modern medicine is bad, my friend was cured of her lumbago by homeopathy...ooh I must give that a try"

I'm sorry but I feel my 'dogma' has more behind it than theirs.

TBH if you thought this forum was just for discussing scepticism itself then you were wrong and shouldn't have given permission for its creation. Its all well and good taking the role of Devils advocate in every thread but sometimes certain dogma's are just wrong and you have to take sides. Slag our debating skills by all means and debunk some of our reasoning but for gods sake man.....take sides!! :D

......if you had read WG points about geneology, culture and evolutionary pressures you would know that my sense of superiority is innately bound to several dna sequences inherited from my parents and thus there is nothing I can do about it :D

ecksor

Originally posted by Calibos
This forum isn't for discussing scepticism or the nature of scepticism etc It is rather like discussion of one dogma versus another.

Ok ...

TBH if you thought this forum was just for discussing scepticism itself then you were wrong and shouldn't have given permission for its creation.

No, I didn't, but I would expect to see more of a sceptical mindset at work in the debates here, which I don't. The ISS aims are about promoting a sceptical mindset amongst other things, rather than just ridiculing people's opinions and trying to stamp out practices that you disagree with. Scepticism isn't a set of opinions, it is a mindset.

I find it ironic that the starter of this thread is posting on the e-voting forum criticising anybody who is sceptical of the proposed e-voting system, despite the fact that he admits that he has very little knowledge himself of the system being criticised. This is scepticism?

Calibos

I would expect to see more of a sceptical mindset at work in the debates here, which I don't. The ISS aims are about promoting a sceptical mindset amongst other things, rather than just ridiculing people's opinions and trying to stamp out practices that you disagree with. Scepticism isn't a set of opinions, it is a mindset

You don't see the sceptical mindset at work in the debates here because for the most part there have been no debates. We are all sceptical here and have not had to debate with the opposing viewpoints. We haven't all given our reasoning for our viewpoints because we are all in agreement most of the time so the subject naturally moves from...we're all in agreement to...how can they believe the crap they do to....what do we do about it? Maybe myself and WG are more dogmatic in our scepticism but I dont think we are as wrong to be dogmatic as the average homeopathy afficienado. As for everyone else, can you point out examples of other peoples dogmatism. I thought nearly everyone else made valid points in other threads worthy of the quality of debate you demand.

You are just being too PC about the whole thing...everyone is entitled to their opinion etc. They are, but conversely I am entitled to say they are idiots for having those opinions.

ecksor

Originally posted by Calibos
You are just being too PC about the whole thing...everyone is entitled to their opinion etc. They are, but conversely I am entitled to say they are idiots for having those opinions.

PC doesn't enter into this. I don't know why you think it does.

I'm not going to start picking out examples of dogmatism because
- you have already picked out the worst offenders.
- such an activity would lead to trouble.

The main point is that this is a public forum, not a private one. These discussions don't happen in closed groups, and most readers won't voice dissent if they disagree. As I said in the 'Irish Skeptics' thread that split off from the original forum suggestion, the society isn't generally viewed as a collection of truly sceptical people. I also said at the time that a lot of things that look bad in public don't necessarily look so bad amongst a collection of like minded people. I think it would be good to realise that this forum is a medium through which the society communicates with others, not just itself.

Calibos

the society isn't generally viewed as a collection of truly sceptical people

How do you define a true sceptic. Is it someone who goes into and explains all the minuatae of every point he makes. Is he wrong to be sceptical of something if only 90% of his reasoning behind his scepticism of a given subject is correct. Should he remain unconvinced either way until 100% of his reasoning is correct? Ok I'm not a true sceptic because A. I don't generally go into the minuatae and B. Half the time I dont even research the minuatae but rely on someone else having done so. (I've explained why I think this is a lesser evil than the dogmatic view of the opposing viewpoint)

Or is a true sceptic someone who is sceptical of everything even his own scepticisms.

Please define a 'true' sceptic for me.

jerenaugrim

Aam...sorry, I'm new around here...about the thread issue? Like, are humans inherently illogical? Well, yes. We're the first species that can actually consciously choose to evolve, yet many people still believe in various mindsets- religion, science, political systems...logically, humanity shd (I think) be turning its considerable powers of intellect and passion to seeing how far we can take ourselves towards, I dunno, our ultimate potential. Instead of killing and/or damaging each other for being different religions, sexualities, "races", or whatever.
That might not be very sceptical, tho'.

ecksor

In this context I would say that a sceptic is someone who doesn't accept something as true or probably true without thinking about it and questioning it.

I'm not going to get into an argument about day to day scepticism here (although it would be an interesting discussion in its own right). Whether you have internally justified your positions or not doesn't affect the outside appearance that I mentioned. Anyway, this is just my view and a little bit of anecdotal evidence from others that you would be right to be sceptical of, but might perhaps think about and examine. I'm quite happy to unsubscribe and let you conduct your business as you have done, I'm just offering a final view before I go.

Feel disdain all you wish (did I actually come down on you like a tonne of bricks after all?) but it won't help you to further the aims of the society (particularly if you are tactless enough to air those views publically and have them reflect upon the society). Perhaps you can start a thread asking if scepticism and political skills are mutually exclusive :rolleyes:

Typedef

I think only after you have had some sort of formal exposure to logic and the scientific method, can you begin to look at life in logical terms.

Before that, most people get too empassioned about being right, without being dispassionately objective and logical.
Most people, are much too emotional, to be logical and I'd say it's only through exposure to formal logic, that you can get people to take a step back from a given situation and apply logic, as opposed to a desire to be right, for any number of given problems.

williamgrogan

Re Ecksor's points

There is a well known and ongoing problem that if you are a "militant" skeptic that you will upset people. People do get very upset if you challenge their beliefs.

People get doubly upset (maybe quadruply upset) if you try and analyse why they are thinking as they are. I do this a lot so I know. But this is a perfectly valid approach.

I do not think I am dogmatic because if anything I believe is proved wrong then I will no longer believe in it.

On the forum re the E-Voting System.

I know and have asked people there to confirm and some grudging have that most of the attack against E-Voting is by people afraid of change and technology. This is extremely common and would have been predicted.

If you tell someone who fervently believes that we are going to damage or destroy our democracy that they don't really believe that, but that it is an hysterical reaction due to their their technophobia, they get upset. But if I am right should I still say it? Are you suggesting self censorship?

I am skeptic on the E-Voting thread but skeptical about the motives of the anti-E-Voting lobby. On a personal basis I am a programmer and meet these objections literally every day of the week when training people, designing systems and can see that most of the objections they make are simply wrong. I have said from the outset I know nothing about the specific system being introduced but I do know about systems. That gives me an insight. Most of their objections centre on the E-Voting system not spewing out paper. From a technical point of view this is incorrect. Paper is not the best way. However I do not deny it is a comfort factor and could be done but wasn't for probably very good reasons.

You can't be a public Skeptic and be PC.

Being PC helps maintain all the fraudulent practices.

Finally, it is very difficult not to feel superior to people who believe in water with memory, that massaging your feet cures liver cancer, that there are people who can plunge their hands into your body without a knife and pluck out the cancer, that you can talk to people who are dead etc by possibly 1000 examples.

Now wipe you eyes, stop blubbering and get stuck in again.

williamgrogan

To follow on what Typedef is saying. I think you have to think outside the box. In this case the box is your head.

I think most people cannot do this. They can't see the bigger picture. They can't think along the lines of, "why do I believe as I do". If everyone simple thought like this for 1 day all organised religion would collapse.

The ancient Greeks thought that not everyone was conscious. I think that consciousness comes by degrees. Cats have consciousness but say less than a dolphin which is less than say a retarded human, which is less than a normal human which is less than an intelligent human. But there may even be a form of consciousness that allows you to rise out of your own body and its experiences and analyse reality objectively. I seriously think a lot of people cannot do this.

Calibos

When I said disdain it was somewhat tongue in cheek, hence the smilie. I cant deny that I do feel superior intellectually to most people I come across though in everyday life. Do I have a right too. Well yes, if I am. Sure I'm not superior in most other respects. I lack the social skills,drive, ambition and confidence to turn my higher intelligence into a rewarding, high paying career etc so most are superior to me in that respect. Intellectually no, in most other respects Yes. I should have clarified that in that first post though ie not that I felt superior to most people in every respect but merely intellectually.

I've done many official and unofficial IQ tests. Some I've scored average ie 106, another I've scored 116, another 122. I found and did one last night 136. Hey for all I know the 116 one was a real test and the latest 136 one was just some fake test on the internet. I don't know. If my mean IQ based on all the results was 120 though I'd still be in a high percentile and would have every right to feel intellectually superior to 'most' because.... I would be.

BTW I am not a member of the sceptics society. (They probably wouldn't have me )I merely saw the request in the feedback forum and voted and gave my support. TBH I don't think we have seen many real members on the forums yet. I'd say half the posts are by existing boards.ie members.

sextusempiricus

Originally posted by ecksor
I had a lot of hopes for this forum and the discussion that it would generate, but apart from one or two notable exceptions (sextusempiricus for example), I don't see much balanced discussion of scepticism, rather discussion of one dogma vs another dogma.

Thanks for the encouragement.
All of us make many assumptions in life, most of these quite uncritically . A sceptical mind will examine more deeply these assumptions and be more prepared to listen to the arguments of others against even the most cherished beliefs she or he adheres to. Logic, of course, is merely one of the sceptic's tools. The sceptic hopes to back up his claims with scientific support realising that his theories may themselves be mere approximations to the truth. As the pre Socratic Greek writer Xenophanes stated

But as for certain truth, no man has known it, nor will he know it; neither of the gods nor yet all the things of which I speak. And even if perchance he were to utter the perfect truth, he would himself not know it; for all is but a woven web of guesses.

Dogma is inconsistent with the sceptical approach.
Some dogmas that might be worth examining
1) Genetic determinism.
2) Science can explain everything ( although this has been discussed on a previous thread somewhat hot-temperedly ).

williamgrogan

Nothing like a bit of 2,000 year old poetry to add clarity to a discussion.

williamgrogan

Genetic determinism.

Terribly frightening word that, determinism. Makes you feel that you have no choice. The only people I know that are in a bind with determinism are those who believe in an all knowing god.

The genes hold information, the information builds bodies and brains, the bodies and brains reproduce the genes – simple. No determinism because no plan. What will be will be.

Science can explain everything

Well so far it has explained a thousand times more than the ancient Greeks, the poets, the religious and the Philosophers put together. Roll on Spirit and Opportunity.

Myksyk

I had a lot of hopes for this forum and the discussion that it would generate, but apart from one or two notable exceptions (sextusempiricus for example), I don't see much balanced discussion of scepticism, rather discussion of one dogma vs another dogma.

Ok, it's important at this stage to clarify a few things. As I have said before, the views of the people posting on this site are not necessarily the views of the Irish Skeptics Society and a number of posts definitely do not reflect the position or views of the Irish Skeptics Society.

Nor would it be a particularly interesting forum if that were the case.

Obviously a person can come on and give an opinion, for example, on the undeniable validity of homeopathy ... or a person can post that they believe all religion to be waste of time and science is the only route to knowledge...or a poster might suggest that all the answers are in the crop circles. Does it really require pointing out that these views are the individual poster's views and do not necessarily reflect the ISS's views? Regardless of close or how far an individual's comments might be to those of the Society, they are [OBVIOUSLY] the individual's own.

williamgrogan

Is the above the view of the ISS?

sextusempiricus

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Nothing like a bit of 2,000 year old poetry to add clarity to a discussion.

The quote was in support of intellectual modesty which should be a prime value for the sceptic. In other words the atitude of reasonableness i.e I might be wrong and you might be right but let's look at the evidence and see which of our claims it favours.

PS
A good motto for the ISS might be that of the sixteenth century humanist and Catholic Michel de Montaigne (although I would hope his religion was as pragmatic as that of his friend King Henri IV who converted to Catholicism to enter Paris and cease the civil war in France and is reputed to have stated that 'Paris is worth a Mass')

'QUE SCAIS- JE?' (The 'c' was in the original)

Myksyk

I've done many official and unofficial IQ tests. Some I've scored average ie 106, another I've scored 116, another 122. I found and did one last night 136. Hey for all I know the 116 one was a real test and the latest 136 one was just some fake test on the internet. I don't know. If my mean IQ based on all the results was 120 though I'd still be in a high percentile and would have every right to feel intellectually superior to 'most' because.... I would be.

Why would anyone do 'many official and unofficial IQ tests???

We believe you Calibos ... you must be very smart.

Very sad .... but very smart.

Calibos

By official I meant one in school in sixth year in which I scored 122. By unofficial I meant 'test the nation' a few months ago in which i scored 116. I did one the other night because ecksors' points made me question my belief that I was intellectually superior to the average joe. It confirmed I was. Intellectually and in no other way better. I am a modest person and don't normally go round proclaiming how intelligent I am. I was just making a point that I cannot help but feal intellectually superior to someone who believes any old nonsense. I know IQ tests only measure (and imprecisely at that) a narrow range of mental abilities but it is a guideline. That guideline tells me that I am superior to the average Joe in some respects, the kind of 'respects' I believe that mean I don't believe 'any old nonsense'.

I never proclaimed myself to be a good sceptic either. I'll put a disclaimer in my sig :rolleyes: ie these views are not necessarily those of the sceptics society, I'm not even a good sceptic, I'm normally modest unless making a point........

:D

sextusempiricus

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Genetic determinism.

Terribly frightening word that, determinism. Makes you feel that you have no choice. The only people I know that are in a bind with determinism are those who believe in an all knowing god.

The genes hold information, the information builds bodies and brains, the bodies and brains reproduce the genes – simple. No determinism because no plan. What will be will be.

Science can explain everything

Well so far it has explained a thousand times more than the ancient Greeks, the poets, the religious and the Philosophers put together. Roll on Spirit and Opportunity.

By 'genetic determinism' I meant that a person's behaviour and fate was, accidents apart, determined solely by his genetic make-up. I was being provocative believing no-one was likely to wholeheartedly accept it. WG seems to come close if not entirely to this viewpoint. I was hoping to restart the old 'Nature versus Nurture Debate'. It was prompted not only by Prof. David McConnell's excellent lecture but after reading Thomas Nagel's essay 'Ethics without Biology' (in his 'Mortal Questions' p142). He writes

[Ethics] is the result of a human capacity to subject innate or conditioned pre-reflexive motivational and behavioural patterns to criticism and revision, and to create new forms of conduct. The capacity to do this presumably has some biological foundation, even if it is only a side-effect of other developments. But the history of the exercise of this capacity and its continual reapplication in criticism and revision of its own products is not part of biology. Biology may tell us about perceptual and motivational starting points, but in its present state it has little bearing on the thinking process by which these starting points are transcended.

In other words we should consider the interaction of our genes and the environment. In the latter I include our culture. I'm just as much opposed to the other extreme supported by behaviourists like B.F.Skinner who seemed to assume a person was a Blank Paper upon which social conditioning alone would be written to influence behaviour etc. As Mary Midgley in her 'Beast and Man' explains this doesn't convincingly explain the persisting motivations found in human beings such as raising a family, caring for a home, talking too much, playing (her examples). Cultural conditioning is inadequate as an explanation of these practices. She argues that it is like explaining gravitation by saying that whenever something falls, something else must have pushed it. If true then who started it? Nor, she explains, does it tell us why people ever
resist their families and why they do what everybody is culturally conditioning them not to do.

I have never seen a proper answer to that on the Blank Paper assumption, but I gather it would be expressed in terms of subcultures and cultural ambivalences, of society's need for a scapegoat, and the like. It is a pleasing picture; how do all the children of eighteenth months pass the news along the grapevine that now is the time to join the subculture, to start climbing furniture, toddling out of the house, playing with fire, breaking windows, taking things to pieces, messing with mud, and chasing the ducks?

People in other words do have a biological predisposition to do these things and this has a genetic basis. But again I stress that what is important is the interaction of this genetic basis and the cultural milieu in which we find ourselves.

Interesting that you say genetic information builds bodies and brains. No mention of 'minds'. Perhaps 'minds' are a bit more difficult to explain. I certainly don't have the ability to do it. But I do think 'minds' have an important role that isn't totally determined. I'm hoping by arguments to change your mind. In this I regard the future as open. You of course can try and change mine.
One last point in relation to science. I agree that science explains our world 'a thousand times more than the ancient Greeks, poets, the religious and the Philosophers put together.' Its the promotion of science that made me join the ISS. But it makes for a richer world intellectually to read them and 'wander off the tramlines'. You have dismissed philosophy in another thread and science has certainly eroded the influence of philosophy. Science presupposes the idea that the material or physical world is all there is. This view cannot be empirically proved. It is a PHILOSOPHICAL position that makes METAPHYSICAL claims about the nature of reality. Think about it.

sextusempiricus

Originally posted by Calibos
By official I meant one in school in sixth year in which I scored 122.
:D

Interesting that yourself and Myksyk at one time or another scored 122. James Watson in his recent book 'DNA' sneaked a quick look at a list on a teacher's desk when aged 11 and found his was 122. So you are both in good company. With a bit of luck and working with the right team at the right time he helped make the most important biological discovery of the 20th century. So who know's what you can achieve? GOOD LUCK.

PS Do determinist's believe in luck?

Myksyk

:eek: Pardon my indignation Sextusempiricus but I DID NOT mention my IQ score (I don't know what it is and am spectacularly uninterested in knowing) ... If you re-read my post you'll see I was quoting Calibos.

I will accept a pint of Carlsberg at the next public lecture as an apology.

Merci.

sextusempiricus

Originally posted by Myksyk
:eek: Pardon my indignation Sextusempiricus but I DID NOT mention my IQ score (I don't know what it is and am spectacularly uninterested in knowing) ... If you re-read my post you'll see I was quoting Calibos.

I will accept a pint of Carlsberg at the next public lecture as an apology.

Merci.

Apologies. I'll try and stay a bit longer after the next meeting to make amends.

Myksyk

I am just about over my indignation now and construct a rational post!!

I agree with sextusempiricus about the promotion of science point. In fact, the ISS is primarily holds an educational brief. It seems to me that WG and Calibos see this as an unimportant aspect of the society and that it is all about slamming the stupid unscientific people out there (Calibos, your idea that people believing weird things equates with lower intelligence reflects poor intellectual analysis of the causes of uncritical thinking ... IMHO).

Unless we want to spend our time in preaching to the converted ... a distinctly uninteresting prospect ... then we must set about changing minds or, more realistically, playing a small role in that process.

Let's be clear here ... this is an extraordinarily difficult business at the best of times and requires tact, patience, hard work and a committment to the idea that people are capable of understanding and accepting rational analyses of the natural world. But people must be led to such positions, not bullied, demeaned and laughed at for not immediately and impulsively changing long held beliefs. I find some of the attitudes expressed on this forum incompatible with this aspect of the society's raison d'etre. The ISS is interested in the promotion of science and critical thinking but not through the use of patently useless and self-defeating tactics. Can you imagine the scene ...

Skeptic: "I think the natural world is awe-inspiring and its truths and beauty can be best uncovered and understood through the scientific method"

Curious Joe: Ok ... sounds interesting ... tell me more"

Skeptic: Well before we start CJ, can we just agree that your current views and beliefs constitute the most horrendously steaming heap of B***sh1t imaginable and that you are clearly a unredeemable and despicable dipstick to believe what you currently do?

Curious Joe: (exit stage left)

Skeptic: Sigh ... I wonder why these plebs never listen ... If only they were more intelligent!

Yes indeed. :rolleyes:

williamgrogan

By 'genetic determinism' I meant that a person's behaviour and fate was, accidents apart, determined solely by his genetic make-up. I was being provocative believing no-one was likely to wholeheartedly accept it. WG seems to come close if not entirely to this viewpoint

I don’t know what you mean by “come close”. I most definitely do not believe that a person’s behaviour and fate is determined solely by his genes.

I suspect that a lot of people have a problem admitting to themselves what they really know to be true in this matter. No one likes to think that they are primarily a product of (actually someone else’s) genes but they are. Very few people would have a problem admitting that their height or the colour of their eyes or hair was related to genes but tell them they are “genetically mean” and they go apesh1t.

For example I think that you are born mean or generous. I think that your upbringing and other “accidents” can make you less mean or more mean but not generous if you are genetically born mean and visa versa. When we eventually understand all the genetic code for any creature there will be all sorts of classes of genes and how they produce the characteristics of the creature they do will be complex and different.

I was involved with a project to train programmers from disadvantaged backgrounds which was generously supported by Microsoft and they told us that in a very large study they conducted in the USA that innate abilities win out in the end. In other words to a large extent your economic “fate” is determined by your genes.

The mind is the software running in the brain.

I do not believe that there are genes that one can point to and say those genes make you generous and those make you mean. The genes were not designed. The survival of animals with certain traits meant that genes that gave rise to those traits for whatever reason survive and become more common and mutate further and confer further advantages.

I don’t think the genes are a blueprint either. In fact to think this is as ridiculous as thinking that there are genes that have the dimensions of your nose in inches. To grasp evolution you have to go right back to very primitive creatures and imagine how they functioned and how a small mutation give a small advantage to those with the mutation and how statistically that mutation meant that the genes were now different in successive generations but only in so far as the effect of that mutation resulted in a minor change in the animal and not that the gene necessarily encoded the change as a description of the change. (I actually find this much easier to imagine than explain.)

The genes contain information that causes effects that result in an animal with particular characteristics. The genes and the steps between “reading” the genes during whatever is the first step and building the adult animal need not follow in any sort of design/development sequence as understood by say an engineer. In fact the steps might be ludicrous if examined in this light.

The best way I can describe this is that a particular characteristic, such as say a sense of humour or a quick wit, might be increased in strength as a probability because a gene or genes led to a slight increase in the quantity of a protein in conjunction with other genes that at a particular time during the development of the fetus meant that another protein might be changed into something that meant that the way nerve cells joined together in the developing brain under the influence of another protein resulted in a section of the brain that was slightly different than it might otherwise have been and that as a result of this that the infant developed slightly differently under certain external stimulus and that as a result that another part of the brain was programmed differently and that as the child grew up a feedback mechanism caused him to behave slightly differently and consequently his brain development in one area drifted in a particularly direction that meant he spent more time thinking in a particular way about certain things that meant that he developed his mind in this area of his personality differently and that eventually when he was 2 years old, say, he was potentially going to be witty. Even the wittiness might be a manifestation/side effect of another trait that millions of years ago had completely different purposes.

What is important is that there are external, environmental factors but that ultimately the genes did start the ball rolling and that those genes being the way they were conferred a higher probability that they would survive because there was a higher probability that the adult with them would survive longer and procreate and pass on those genes.

When the genes mutate they don’t know what they are doing. The mutation can have no “meaning” in a design sense. It’s random but IF the ‘new” changed gene survives over many generations it must confer an advantage. That advantage and the mutation are so separated in most cases that we would find it hard to believe there was a connection.

PS

Another big problem is that it was fashionable to believe in nurture in the 50’s & 60’s when the likes of Dr Spock convinced parents that they could determine how their children turned out. It was all baloney. All those mechanisms for making your kids “smarter”, making them learn to count at 2 etc. are now discredited. Kids will turn out however they are “fated” to turn out with little or no connection between what their parents did. In fact the smarter innately the kids are the more this applies.

davros

Hmmm, I think we've had this discussion.

By the way, the more IQ tests one does, the better one's score gets. Interesting that.

Calibos

I am deeply embarressed for mentioning IQ results as I must conceed that it does make one sound conceited, which I can assure you I am not. Quoting results in the form of, 'slightly above average' or 'above average' would however be valid to the subject of the thread I believe, in that a significant part of the tests are deductive reasoning, logic etc. Qualities that help one to smell the bull**** so to speak. The fact that I score above average confirms that I am better at smelling the bull than the average Joe. I guarantee that all sceptics score higher than average as well but aren't silly enough to post the fact for the valid reasons your example illustrates.

Let's be clear here ... this is an extraordinarily difficult business at the best of times and requires tact, patience, hard work and a committment to the idea that people are capable of understanding and accepting rational analyses of the natural world. But people must be led to such positions, not bullied......

You are kind of agreeing with the fact that the average Joe's deductive reasoning is slightly inferior though ie. But people must be lead to such positions.... I wasn't led, you weren't led, Davros wasn't led, sextus wasn't lead etc etc etc

davros

Originally posted by Calibos
Davros wasn't led...

[cough] um, well... when I was young and naïve, I borrowed all the books on UFOs and psi from the local library. I assumed they were true since there were no books offering the sceptical viewpoint.

It was a fair bit later (though I was still young :-), after working my way through all of Martin Gardner's mathematical books, that I found one of his sceptical books in Hodges. Aha!

So, I'd have to say I was led to scepticism, even though I'm naturally scientifically inclined. All it took was the proper presentation of evidence (or the countering of supposed evidence) and the truth was clear.

williamgrogan

If Calibos said his height was measured and it was 6ft 11 3/4" would you be criticising him for saying so? There is a PC attitude to intelligence. You are nearly supposed to pretend you are stupid. It certainly applies to politicians. They would hardly ever get elected if they were seen as very intelligent. I thought he pointed out what he thought his IQ was in a matter of fact way. It does sound a bit naff discussing your IQ but it does have relevance to our discussion.

I do suspect that those with higher IQ’s are less likely to be conned and more likely to be doing the conning, less likely to believe in god and more likely to be Skeptics. People with very high IQ’s do most of the discovering and inventing. I believe that if we had had IQ tests way back through history and pre-history they would shown a very gradual increase over the millennia. I can’t be a co-incidence that we landed on the moon and not our African ancestors 100,000 years ago (and of course I realise that the gradual build up of knowledge is important too.). I can’t be a co-incidence that we are the most non religious and non superstitious people in history.

My mother bought a book on UFO’s when I was a teenager and I ate the head of her for insulting me. She thought that because I was “into” Science that I believed in UFO’s (as visitors from outer space.)

I remember arguing with a friend, who is now a Scientist (in fact the quality of your pint of Guinness is very much related to his work!), that keeping them in his cardboard pyramid would not keep his razors sharp as he supposed.

The founder(?) of the USA Skeptics is an ex-Theological student.

Repeatedly doing simple IQ tests will increase your score slightly but it levels out.

PS

I have never done an IQ test. I’d be terrified I’d score only 80, the average intelligence of a Sun reader & Homeopathic remedy user. (Actually now that I think of it when I was 20 I did an aptitude test for programming aptitude and came in the top 10 out of 300 who did it – so stick that up your PC correct bottom!)

Myksyk

You are kind of agreeing with the fact that the average Joe's deductive reasoning is slightly inferior though ie. But people must be lead to such positions.... I wasn't led, you weren't led, Davros wasn't led, sextus wasn't lead etc etc etc

I admit that the phrasing '...must be led ...' might be construed as patronising which was not my intention.

I don't agree I wasn't led, I was. As a teenager my natural curiosity was 'hijacked' by simplistic notions about the world - I was into the Bermuda triangle, UFOs and religion in a big way. My intelligence was not the problem ... I didn't become more intelligent when I adopted a more skeptical frame of mind!!

My contention is that it is not people's intelligence or curiosity that is the problem it is their critical thinking and often that's just a matter of who had the early influence (or the ongoing influence).

I think you are making a fundamental error in equating intelligence and critical thinking - I doubt that they are strongly correlated. Michael Shermer's book 'Why smart people believe weird things' addresses this.

I can't believe you think we weren't led. I think we are all led to a certain degree all the time. I was led by writings by Dawkins, Gould, Skinner, Pigliucci, Pinker, Fodor, Darwin, etc etc etc in various ways at various times. Davros alludes to the same experience. Our ideas come from somewhere and someone else most of the time.

sextusempiricus

Originally posted by Myksyk


My contention is that it is not people's intelligence or curiosity that is the problem it is their critical thinking and often that's just a matter of who had the early influence (or the ongoing influence).

I think you are making a fundamental error in equating intelligence and critical thinking - I doubt that they are strongly correlated. Michael Shermer's book 'Why smart people believe weird things' addresses this.

I can't believe you think we weren't led. I think we are all led to a certain degree all the time. I was led by writings by Dawkins, Gould, Skinner, Pigliucci, Pinker, Fodor, Darwin, etc etc etc in various ways at various times. Davros alludes to the same experience. Our ideas come from somewhere and someone else most of the time.

I agree. I suppose I was led by my professor of physiology to take an interest in the writings of Sir Karl Popper and his philosophy of 'critical rationalism'. So much of this was pure chance. I could easily have not taken 18 months out to do an extra B.Sc. degree and never discovered Popper. I could have had a professor who was more taken by Karl Pearson's inductive outlook. Our minds function, as I've already said before, in an intellectual milieu where they interact with the products of other minds whether in the form of conversations or in books or on the web. Statements are made and we respond according to not only our intelligence which helps us comprehend difficult arguments(and which is largely influenced by our genetic make-up) but our education (and here I include the influence of our favourite authors; let me here include not only Popper but idiosyncratically perhaps Montaigne, William Harvey, David Hume, Jane Austen, Charles Darwin and Peter Medawar). Discovering these authors was also largely by a series of accidents such as getting a set of Austen's novels cheap on joining a book club. We try and build on the ideas of others and this is largely by a 'trial and error' type process. Perhaps sometimes we are lucky and find out something useful. James Watson was lucky in helping to discover the structure of DNA. His IQ of 122 is, as he says himself 'respectable but definitely not stellar'. No doubt his intelligence helped his idea of pairing the nucleotides in DNA but it was still a lucky break that got him working with Crick in the first place. The important thing is to subject ideas to severe tests and most of us can learn to do this to a varying degree. I suppose education in critical thinking has to start in schools. I certainly do not agree that as a species we are intrinsically illogical and that such education is misconceived. I believe we can learn from our mistakes. I would be optimistic that we can solve problems and improve our lot (but perhaps that optimism is just a polygenic trait intrinsic in me).