Theists are too emotionally invested in their worldview to think clearly

MonkeyBalls

Humans are machines, designed in such a way that the clicks and whirs and nuts and bolts of our true nature - our hindbrain puppetmasters - are hidden behind a facade of delusional rationalisations, post hoc stories we tell ourselves to make sense of the random chaos of it all, while we all tread the same old route in search of status, endorphins, and meaningfulness. To some extent, we're all emotionally invested in certain ideas. But with the hardcore Bible thumpers, it's especially chronic. Scales made of granite, impervious to light, cover their eyes and cocoon them from the onslaught of reality.

The human mind goes to great lengths to avoid feeling
1. Stupid
2. Immoral
3. Hypocritical

To do this, it grows adept at filtering out evidence or observations that cause it cognitive dissonance - that is, that cause it to question its inherent intelligence, goodness, competency, and lack of hypocrisy.

Once we have an ideological position firmly entrenched in our minds - it becomes extremely difficult to change this viewpoint (it's quite a sicking feeling to realise your beliefs are built upon a foundation of bull$hit), even in the face of blatant evidence that contradicts it:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever of a god intervening in human affairs. Nor fairies, nor goblins.
That time some serendipitous coincidence made your day, don't invoke God. If he can't be bothered helping out AIDs-ravaged children in Africa, he's not going to help you do well in an exam. Plagues and earthquakes and tsunamis are not discriminating. Regardless, pattern-seeking primates will find a way of bringing God into the picture.

2. Evolution exhibits numerous examples of unintelligent design and monstrous (inherent) cruelty and indifference.
Eyes with blind spots, vestigal features such as the appendix, wisdom teeth, coccyx, the plica semilunaris in the eye, et al. The sun is going to expand and destroy earth in 5 billion years. The cruelty of the natural world doesn't bear thinking about. Life in nature is not a frolicing dance with unicorns on rainbow-lit meadows. The random and inexorable suffering in the world is not something that can be peripheralised to an extrinsic moral relativism, as theists are wont to suggest; that's a lazy and dishonest way of evading the problem of evil: the suffering built into the natural order is morally repugnant and exactly what we would expect from the indifferent, blind processes of evolution and natural selection, not the wand of some deity. Theists will reduce their cognitive dissonance by saying "you need evil for good to exist", or "pain on earth is not significant in the cosmic scheme of things".

3. Neuroscience shows that the mind (or "soul") is a manifestation of the physiological activity of neural tissue.
The neuroanatomy of the human brain can now be studied with incredible accuracy: every emotion, percept, and thought process emits physical signals (electrical, magnetic, metabolic) which scientists can precisely detect (using technologies such as positron emission topography, functional magnetic resonance imaging, electro-encephalography, and magneto-encephalography.) The "soul" is an illusion; it is purely physical and can be altered by physical processes. A change in the brain creates a change in your personality. This is about as controversial amongst scientists as the notion that the earth revolves around the sun.

And on and on it goes. Combine this imperviousness to reason with the natural human propensity towards religion (as distinct from fantasy), and you might as well be talking to a wall when you try to debate hardcore religious nuts. Their tried and tested tactic is evasion, slipperiness.

My question for you is this: what do you think is the best method of explaining evolution to someone who is deeply opposed to it on theological grounds?

Nemi

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

The human mind goes to great lengths to avoid feeling
1. Stupid
2. Immoral
3. Hypocritical

To do this, it grows adept at filtering out evidence or observations that cause it cognitive dissonance - that is, that cause it to question its inherent intelligence, goodness, competency, and lack of hypocrisy.

In that situation, why have you any confidence that your grip on reality is better than a young Earth creationist?

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

My question for you is this: what do you think is the best method of explaining evolution to someone who is deeply opposed to it on theological grounds?

Others might have enough to answer this question directly. I think a need a little more context.

In what circumstances would you be engaged in explaining evolution to someone who is deeply opposed to it on theological grounds?

Improbable

Most of them simply refuse to believe the evidence, i.e. speciation caused by macroevolution, transitional species fossils, etc. Even specific examples that I've tried to give such as the evolution of the current human chromosome 2 as a result of fusion from 2 ancestral chromosomes.

To be perfectly honest, if they are as deeply opposed to it as you say, they're basically brainwashed to deny the evidence because it conflicts with what they have been told. It's not just with regards to evidence about evolution but anything else as well that doesn't fit into their narrow view of existence. Nobody can say anything to convince them otherwise unless their faith is already shaky. And if that's the case, then they'll usually do the research and come to the conclusion that their religion was wrong all on their own.

Dades

Some good summations in that post, MonkeyBalls.

To address your question, I don't think there is a method. As they say, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

robindch

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

what do you think is the best method of explaining evolution to someone who is deeply opposed to it on theological grounds?

There isn't one.

Religion is political preference crystallized to the point of physics.

You might as well try convince them that up is down.

georgieporgy

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Humans are machines, designed in such a way that the clicks and whirs and nuts and bolts of our true nature - our hindbrain puppetmasters - are hidden behind a facade of delusional rationalisations, post hoc stories we tell ourselves to make sense of the random chaos of it all, while we all tread the same old route in search of status, endorphins, and meaningfulness. To some extent, we're all emotionally invested in certain ideas. But with the hardcore Bible thumpers, it's especially chronic. Scales made of granite, impervious to light, cover their eyes and cocoon them from the onslaught of reality.

The human mind goes to great lengths to avoid feeling
1. Stupid
2. Immoral
3. Hypocritical

To do this, it grows adept at filtering out evidence or observations that cause it cognitive dissonance - that is, that cause it to question its inherent intelligence, goodness, competency, and lack of hypocrisy.

Once we have an ideological position firmly entrenched in our minds - it becomes extremely difficult to change this viewpoint (it's quite a sicking feeling to realise your beliefs are built upon a foundation of bull$hit), even in the face of blatant evidence that contradicts it:

1. There is no evidence whatsoever of a god intervening in human affairs. Nor fairies, nor goblins.
That time some serendipitous coincidence made your day, don't invoke God. If he can't be bothered helping out AIDs-ravaged children in Africa, he's not going to help you do well in an exam. Plagues and earthquakes and tsunamis are not discriminating. Regardless, pattern-seeking primates will find a way of bringing God into the picture.

2. Evolution exhibits numerous examples of unintelligent design and monstrous (inherent) cruelty and indifference.
Eyes with blind spots, vestigal features such as the appendix, wisdom teeth, coccyx, the plica semilunaris in the eye, et al. The sun is going to expand and destroy earth in 5 billion years. The cruelty of the natural world doesn't bear thinking about. Life in nature is not a frolicing dance with unicorns on rainbow-lit meadows. The random and inexorable suffering in the world is not something that can be peripheralised to an extrinsic moral relativism, as theists are wont to suggest; that's a lazy and dishonest way of evading the problem of evil: the suffering built into the natural order is morally repugnant and exactly what we would expect from the indifferent, blind processes of evolution and natural selection, not the wand of some deity. Theists will reduce their cognitive dissonance by saying "you need evil for good to exist", or "pain on earth is not significant in the cosmic scheme of things".

3. Neuroscience shows that the mind (or "soul") is a manifestation of the physiological activity of neural tissue.
The neuroanatomy of the human brain can now be studied with incredible accuracy: every emotion, percept, and thought process emits physical signals (electrical, magnetic, metabolic) which scientists can precisely detect (using technologies such as positron emission topography, functional magnetic resonance imaging, electro-encephalography, and magneto-encephalography.) The "soul" is an illusion; it is purely physical and can be altered by physical processes. A change in the brain creates a change in your personality. This is about as controversial amongst scientists as the notion that the earth revolves around the sun.

And on and on it goes. Combine this imperviousness to reason with the natural human propensity towards religion (as distinct from fantasy), and you might as well be talking to a wall when you try to debate hardcore religious nuts. Their tried and tested tactic is evasion, slipperiness.

My question for you is this: what do you think is the best method of explaining evolution to someone who is deeply opposed to it on theological grounds?

Like, what do you mean? I don't get it.....

please elaborate

sonicthebadger*

georgieporgy wrote: »

Like, what do you mean? I don't get it.....

please elaborate

Evolution georgie, how would you go about explaining it to someone who is actively opposed to it rather than just ignorant of it? Jeez, read the post you quoted will you?

Mark Hamill

Nemi wrote: »

In that situation, why have you any confidence that your grip on reality is better than a young Earth creationist?

Well, firstly its a short step from recognising that the human mind doesn't like feeling stupid, immoral or hypocritical to recognising that most people will respond to even the hint of evidence that they are being stupid, immoral or hypocritical by being even more stupid, immoral or hypocritical.
By recognising this and by realising that feeling stupid and being stupid are not the same thing (I may feel stupid for making a mistake, but I only become stupid if I try to hide it because I dont want to feel stupid), you can just let go of the pride and arrogance that makes you want to avoid feeling stupid, immoral and hypocritical. Basically its the difference between saying "I have to be right" and "I have to know whats right" when entering a discussion.

Secondly, on a larger scale, peer review helps a lot. I make a paper based on research I do, and someone with no vested interest, either way, in my work evaluates it and makes sure I haven't lied or made mistakes. This helps to bring in a objectivity, which can avoid the influence that feeling stupid, immoral or hypocritical can bring. No matter how stupid, immoral or hypocritical i fell, it wont change the way the peer will view and evaluate my paper.

Nemi wrote: »

Others might have enough to answer this question directly. I think a need a little more context.

In what circumstances would you be engaged in explaining evolution to someone who is deeply opposed to it on theological grounds?

I assume MonkeyBalls means something like a thread on boards or something like that.

georgieporgy

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

Evolution georgie, how would you go about explaining it to someone who is actively opposed to it rather than just ignorant of it? Jeez, read the post you quoted will you?

I was only kidding (doing my Paris Hilton impersonation)

antiskeptic

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

My question for you is this: what do you think is the best method of explaining evolution to someone who is deeply opposed to it on theological grounds?

Dismantle their theological grounds I'd say.

A general error is to suppose your view (Scientism in your case apparently) on how one comes to know things is the only way that things can be known - and so you end up throwing ball bearings at the side of an ocean liner.

If you want to sink a ship, you've to hole it below the waterline with a torpedo of like currency.

antiskeptic

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

3. Neuroscience shows that the mind (or "soul") is a manifestation of the physiological activity of neural tissue.

What's the biblical definition of a soul. Does it match neurosciences definition of a soul?

Dades

antiskeptic wrote: »

A general error is to suppose your view (Scientism in your case apparently) on how one comes to know things is the only way that things can be known - and so you end up throwing ball bearings at the side of an ocean liner.

This kind of highlights Malty's dilemma.

How do you debate with someone who's using an entirely unsupported (i.e. made up) method of supporting their argument.
A method that's as much use in Real Life™ as a philosopher's fart.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

A general error is to suppose your view (Scientism in your case apparently) on how one comes to know things is the only way that things can be known

There may be more ways than Scientism to form an opinion, but Scientism is the one way that things can be actually known with any degree of accuracy, because its the only way thats actually interested in objective knowledge.

ColmDawson

Is everyone ready for another episode of 'Empiricism Isn't That Great', starring antiskeptic? :pac:

liamw

ColmDawson wrote: »

Is everyone ready for another episode of 'Empiricism Isn't That Great', starring antiskeptic? :pac:

I thought in the last episode we concluded that invisible flying yogurts would have as much credibility as Yahweh using antiskeptic's standards :rolleyes:

Nemi

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Basically its the difference between saying "I have to be right" and "I have to know whats right" when entering a discussion.

Grand, but I'm not sure that quite answers the point. What MonkeyBalls seems to be saying is that the human mind is an imperfect measure of its own performance. In that situation, I'm sure we can all convince ourselves that we're open-minded and giving a fair hearing to other opinions before dismissing them as they upset our mindsets too much.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I make a paper based on research I do, and someone with no vested interest, either way, in my work evaluates it and makes sure I haven't lied or made mistakes.

Firstly, is it fair to say that most of the time we're actually not operating on peer reviewed material.

Secondly, is it fair to say that the peer review process itself needs to be taken off the pedestal. Your peer will, I take it, be someone who has expertise in the discipline. Hence, its not the case that they have no vested interest. I'd suspect a diligent peer will simply validate your methodology. So its not that he's especially saying your paper is right. He's just saying the standard techniques of the discipline (which, you'll recall, he shares your vested interest in accepting) have been used competently.

I'm not saying that makes peer review valueless. But I am most certainly saying that all forms of human organisation, including peer review, need to be given a big thump with a reality stick every time they're wheeled out for our adoration. Let's not replace one legend of the Chimera with another.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I assume MonkeyBalls means something like a thread on boards or something like that.

Perhaps. If that's the case, I'd suggest he just starts such a thread and sees what happens. I suspect he might learn by doing.

Nemi

Did somebody say soul?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noJDCWOvzFQ

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dismantle their theological grounds I'd say.

A general error is to suppose your view (Scientism in your case apparently) on how one comes to know things is the only way that things can be known - and so you end up throwing ball bearings at the side of an ocean liner.

If you want to sink a ship, you've to hole it below the waterline with a torpedo of like currency.

You believe that God has switched on a previously inactive 6th sense in your brain that lets you now know that God exists.

How would "theological grounds" do anything to demonstrate to you that this wasn't the case?

You can't demonstrate a belief is wrong if the belief itself isn't based on anything that can be discussed, debated, verified, tested, argued etc.

Your belief in God is based solely on the fact that you believe he exists, on the idea that you know he is real and God switched that knowledge on for you.

It isn't a deduction from reason and thus there is nothing to argue over.

Turtwig

liamw wrote: »

I thought in the last episode we concluded that invisible flying yogurts would have as much credibility as Yahweh using antiskeptic's standards :rolleyes:

Ahh yes, but any good tv episode has got to have a twist.

Mark Hamill

Nemi wrote: »

Grand, but I'm not sure that quite answers the point. What MonkeyBalls seems to be saying is that the human mind is an imperfect measure of its own performance. In that situation, I'm sure we can all convince ourselves that we're open-minded and giving a fair hearing to other opinions before dismissing them as they upset our mindsets too much.

True, but if you can realise why its better to know what is right at the end of a debate, rather than just feel right from the start (basically change your priorities from "having to avoid feeling stupid/immoral/hypocritical no matter what the cost" to , "stop being stupid/immoral/hypocritical when its pointed out to you that you are")you can go a long way towards removing the motivators (pride, arrogance) that generally lead to people falling into the stupid, immoral, hypocritical trap. Its not perfectly easy of course, something that hits close to home can still make you stumble, but its a good start, at least on the personal level.

Nemi wrote: »

Firstly, is it fair to say that most of the time we're actually not operating on peer reviewed material.

Maybe not officially, but have you never asked a coworker or family member to read over something you wrote?

Nemi wrote: »

Secondly, is it fair to say that the peer review process itself needs to be taken off the pedestal. Your peer will, I take it, be someone who has expertise in the discipline. Hence, its not the case that they have no vested interest. I'd suspect a diligent peer will simply validate your methodology. So its not that he's especially saying your paper is right. He's just saying the standard techniques of the discipline (which, you'll recall, he shares your vested interest in accepting) have been used competently.

You really should try to learn something about peer review before you bad mouth so inexpertly. The only "vested interest" a properly appointed peer will have is in keeping the scientific integrity of the field he is reviewing. Sure you can have individuals who become stupid, immoral or hypocritical when peer reviewing something that challenges some idea they hold dear, but this just shows that the possible weak points in the system are the users of the system, not the system itself. Just like my inability to saw a straight line in a piece of wood shows a weakness in my saw handling skills, rather than a weakness in carpentry itself.

Nemi wrote: »

I'm not saying that makes peer review valueless. But I am most certainly saying that all forms of human organisation, including peer review, need to be given a big thump with a reality stick every time they're wheeled out for our adoration. Let's not replace one legend of the Chimera with another.

Again, all you are pointing out is that the human element is the weak poont in any system. So should we give mathamatics a big thump with a reality stick whenever someone doesn't add properly?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

You believe that God has switched on a previously inactive 6th sense in your brain that lets you now know that God exists.

How would "theological grounds" do anything to demonstrate to you that this wasn't the case?

The OP is addressing the issue of belief in evolution. Some Christians believe in evolution, others don't. If the basis for not believing in evolution is theological (as the OP suggests and I agree with) then you can presumably dismantle that theology - given the existance of an alternative theology which permits a belief in evolution.

I'm not quite sure how you'd dismantle a belief in God theologically but given that so much is based on remarkable biblical coherency, damage could be potentially infllicted that way. I say "potentially" because the vast bulk of attacks on the bible err towards the simplistic - indeed, following up a number of these over the years has only reinforced my belief in the weakness of the unbelievers case.

You can't demonstrate a belief is wrong if the belief itself isn't based on anything that can be discussed, debated, verified, tested, argued etc.

Your belief in God is based solely on the fact that you believe he exists, on the idea that you know he is real and God switched that knowledge on for you.

It isn't a deduction from reason and thus there is nothing to argue over.

A bit like the belief that reality is real huh? Nothing to argue over there either.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The OP is addressing the issue of belief in evolution. Some Christians believe in evolution, others don't. If the basis for not believing in evolution is theological (as the OP suggests and I agree with) then you can presumably dismantle that theology - given the existance of an alternative theology which permits a belief in evolution.

Ah right, got you. That wouldn't have been my experience with Creationists, so I think I was on a different page. Most Creationists I've encountered believe their interpretation because God has told them it is "infallibly true". And how the heck do you demonstate that isn't the case? :pac:

Nemi

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its not perfectly easy of course, something that hits close to home can still make you stumble, but its a good start, at least on the personal level.

I'm not sure you're actually addressing the point at all.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe not officially, but have you never asked a coworker or family member to read over something you wrote?

I'm sure I have, but I don't invest the process with a status.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The only "vested interest" a properly appointed peer will have is in keeping the scientific integrity of the field he is reviewing.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Particularly when some pretend there isn't a problem.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

all you are pointing out is that the human element is the weak poont in any system.

That's absolutely what I'm pointing out.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So should we give mathamatics a big thump with a reality stick whenever someone doesn't add properly?

The economy might be in better shape if more than a few mathematicians had been strapped to a reality stick and run out of town. You can ask after their scientific integrity in purporting to be able to see into the future.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah right, got you. That wouldn't have been my experience with Creationists, so I think I was on a different page. Most Creationists I've encountered believe their interpretation because God has told them it is "infallibly true". And how the heck do you demonstate that isn't the case? :pac:

Having seen the creationist arguments myself I'd be inclined to see this view as a bit of a misrepresentation.

Christian creationists, like Christian evolutionists, suppose the bible the inerrant (in original form) word of God. It's just that here and there, they suppose as literal that which evolutionists suppose to be allegorical. And whilst the Christian evolutionists would see Christian creationists as bending the mode of science to suit their theology, the creationists would see Christian evolutionists as bending the mode of bible interpretation to suit their science.

Given the difficulty even Christian evolutionists would have dismantling a creationists theology (and vice versa), I don't suppose an unbeliever (with the elsewhere-mentioned 1Corinthians-tinted blindfold on when it comes to understanding scripture) would have a snowballs chance in hell of doing same.

Theoretically possible, practically im.

antiskeptic

ColmDawson wrote: »

Is everyone ready for another episode of 'Empiricism Isn't That Great', starring antiskeptic? :pac:

Known alternatively as the "Empiricism (the undemonstrable philosophy) is a FACT" debate.

ColmDawson

antiskeptic wrote: »

Having seen the creationist arguments myself I'd be inclined to see this view as a bit of a misrepresentation.

Christian creationists, like Christian evolutionists, suppose the bible the inerrant (in original form) word of God. It's just that here and there, they suppose as literal that which evolutionists suppose to be allegorical. And whilst the Christian evolutionists would see Christian creationists as bending the mode of science to suit their theology, the creationists would see Christian evolutionists as bending the mode of bible interpretation to suit their science.

Given the difficulty even Christian evolutionists would have dismantling a creationists theology (and vice versa), I don't suppose an unbeliever (with the elsewhere-mentioned 1Corinthians-tinted blindfold on when it comes to understanding scripture) would have a snowballs chance in hell of doing same.

Theoretically possible, practically im.

To be honest, I have a bit more sympathy for creationists than I do for Christian evolutionists. At least they're being consistent.
I do, however, find it laughable that a grown person can feel ok with denying science based on their prior decision that the Bible is true.
As for unbelievers not having a chance of dismantling creationism: you're half right. To someone who's convinced that earthly facts come second to the text of the Bible, yes — their belief will remain intact. I don't envy them the mental gymnastics.

We see the extreme with J C: for him, there's one truth (the Bible). Any part of reality that doesn't clash with the Bible is fine, but anything that does becomes, in his mind, untrue. It doesn't matter to him how many facts he denies, the Bible wins every time.
When it comes to dismantling the concept of creationism (rather than someone's belief in it), well, there's nothing to dismantle. It's non-science. It conflicts with masses of evidence. It's worthless.

Do you read through the Creationism thread and think J C and wolfsbane are providing well-structured points that demonstrate evolution to be false?

antiskeptic

ColmDawson wrote: »

To be honest, I have a bit more sympathy for creationists than I do for Christian evolutionists. At least they're being consistent.

I wouldn't say that - whilst I don't agree with the Christian evolutionist theology, I can see how they would arrive at the point they do. My suspicion is though, that their theology is informed by a need to fit the current scientific view in - which means they are liable to change their theology if the current scientific view changes. Which is a little arse over tit to my mind.

I do, however, find it laughable that a grown person can feel ok with denying science based on their prior decision that the Bible is true.

It's a matter of priority: let the Bible lead the way or let science lead the way. Both are, in a sense, tentitive (theological finding/scientific finding).

As for unbelievers not having a chance of dismantling creationism: you're half right. To someone who's convinced that earthly facts come second to the text of the Bible, yes — their belief will remain intact. I don't envy them the mental gymnastics.

It's actually not all that difficult. The realm of the believer encompasses a reality in which something as defining (to the unbeliever) as scientific enquiry could well be as significant as a pawn - in that overarching game. I've often pointed to that simple optical illusion where the picture is interpreted as either an Old Hag or a Young Lady. The exact same data, the exact same evidence, pointing in two different directions.

Scientific facts can go that exact same way were such a mega-realm to exist. In a heartbeat in fact.

We see the extreme with J C: for him, there's one truth (the Bible). Any part of reality that doesn't clash with the Bible is fine, but anything that does becomes, in his mind, untrue. It doesn't matter to him how many facts he denies, the Bible wins every time.

When it comes to dismantling the concept of creationism (rather than someone's belief in it), well, there's nothing to dismantle. It's non-science. It conflicts with masses of evidence. It's worthless.

I can't say I'm all that impressed with creationist attempts to shoehorn the data into their position. This isn't to say a route isn't to be found - it's just that the way it's done isn't pretty.

Do you read through the Creationism thread and think J C and wolfsbane are providing well-structured points that demonstrate evolution to be false?

I don't really read it to be honest.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Known alternatively as the "Empiricism (the undemonstrable philosophy) is a FACT" debate.

Mark Hamill

Nemi wrote: »

I'm not sure you're actually addressing the point at all.

Of course I am. You pointed out that its very easy to make yourself believe that you are giving someone elses viewpoint the respect you should, when in actual fact you could be just ignoring the bits you dont like because you dont lik ethem. I am saying that you can help yourself at least somewhat overcome this by recognising that reality doesn't bend itself to your ego, that it wont change to stop you feeling stupid, immoral or hypocritical. I'm just presenting a viewpoint that I think helps keep people honest.

Nemi wrote: »

I'm sure I have, but I don't invest the process with a status.

I'm not sure what you mean here?
Look, I'm sure that you have at some stage must have written a cv and had someone look over it at somepoint? All that is is bringing in a little objectivity to the assessment of what you wrote. People are notoriously bad at assessing their own work, so we get others to do it for us if we can, in school teachers/tutors correct homework, not the students. Peer review is just that on a massive, offical scale.

Nemi wrote: »

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Particularly when some pretend there isn't a problem.

Who watches the watchmen? Other watchmen. Remember that peer review isn't a club house, or a social group like a police station or something, there is no great sense of comradery, the likes that lead to questions such as the latin ohrase above. Its just other scientists who happen to be in the field. Its of course going to fail at the human level from time to time, look at the mmr-autism debacle, but also see that that was debunked through the peer review process too.

Nemi wrote: »

The economy might be in better shape if more than a few mathematicians had been strapped to a reality stick and run out of town. You can ask after their scientific integrity in purporting to be able to see into the future.

I said mathematics, not mathematicians, dont try to twist what I say to fit some idea you want to espouse. I already agreed that people are the flawed part of every system, the mathematicians (bankers really) that caused this economic downturn might need a swift belt of a stick, but that doesn't mean you get to do the same to their calculators. Besides, I'm not aware of any peer review that the bankers did on their schemes they ran, are you? They ignored the data they didn't like and assumed reality would bend to keep filling their wallets.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

It seems to me that empiricism (in the sense that it is claimed to be the only way a person can know things) is a philosophy that can't be shown empirically to be true. Which means you can't know that the claim about empiricism is true. You can only believe it true.

Empiricism: a faith system

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seems to me that empiricism (in the sense that it is claimed to be the only way a person can know things) is a philosophy that can't be shown empirically to be true. Which means you can't know that the claim about empiricism is true. You can only believe it true.

Empiricism: a faith system

:rolleyes:
Everything arrived at empirically, tests empiricism. If empiricism wasn't true, then empiricism wouldn't work-things we have that we develop empirically (ie every working invention humanity has ever created) wouldn't consistently work. You can say its based on an assumption, but its an assumption on a par with assuming reality exists and we (and by we, I mean I, because I am the only person I know for sure that exists) aren't just plugged into the Matrix, ie one we have to make, in order to continue to advance in knowledge, but one that is actually tested by everything we do, albet in a very small way.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Everything arrived at empirically, tests empiricism. If empiricism wasn't true, then empiricism wouldn't work-things we have that we develop empirically (ie every working invention humanity has ever created) wouldn't consistently work.

I'm not saying that empiricism isn't true. I'm saying that empiricisms claim that it is the only way to know things can't be shown to be true. I know mathematics is beautiful but can't arrive at the knowledge empirically for instance

One day I was walking along the bank of a stream when I saw a mother otter with her cubs. As I watched, the mother otter dived into the water and came up with a plump salmon. As she ate it, while of course it was still alive, the body split and I remember to this day the sweet pinkness of its roes as they spilled out, much to the delight of the baby otters who scrambled over themselves to feed on the delicacy. One of nature's wonders, mother and children dining upon mother and children. And that's when I first learned about evil. It is built in to the very nature of the universe. Every world spins in pain. If there is any kind of supreme being, I told myself, it is up to all of us to become his moral superior. Terry Pratchett, edited from "Unseen Academicals"

Hasn't this man heard of the Fall - where nature came to reflect the inner heart of he who was given dominion over her, namely man.

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seems to me that empiricism (in the sense that it is claimed to be the only way a person can know things) is a philosophy that can't be shown empirically to be true. Which means you can't know that the claim about empiricism is true. You can only believe it true.

Empiricism: a faith system

Just step back inside the cave dear, its alright. There you go, have a sit by the fire.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm saying that empiricisms claim that it is the only way to know things can't be shown to be true.

That isn't the claim. The claim is that no one has come up with a better system or a system that reaches anywhere close to the same level of consistent accuracy. That can actually be tested by looking at the accuracy of claims reached through empiricism and claims reached through personal assessment.

Like I enjoy saying One theory of electromagnetism, Thousands of religions.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not saying that empiricism isn't true. I'm saying that empiricisms claim that it is the only way to know things can't be shown to be true. I know mathematics is beautiful but can't arrive at the knowledge empirically for instance

What Wicknight said.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hasn't this man heard of the Fall - where nature came to reflect the inner heart of he who was given dominion over her, namely man.

Nature came to relfect whatever it reflects because god decided thats what it would reflect. That god inflicts untold pain and suffering on the universe because of something that man did, just reasserts his moral inferiority.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nature came to relfect whatever it reflects because god decided thats what it would reflect. That god inflicts untold pain and suffering on the universe because of something that man did, just reasserts his moral inferiority.

The argument that we are to blame for sin in the world always reminds me of the Simpsons quote

Marge: So... you want to go on tour with a traveling freak show.
Homer: I don't think I have a choice, Marge.
Marge: Of course you have a choice.
Homer: How do you figure?
Marge: You don't have to join a freak show just because the opportunity
came along.
Homer: You know, Marge, in some ways, you and I are very different
people.

It is as if Christians believe God has no choice, he had to f**k up our world, it was out of his hands. Just following orders, as the Nazi's would say :rolleyes:

Nemi

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Of course I am.

Oh, no, you're not.

(This could go on for a while.)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean here?

That inviting an alternative opinion might be benefit. But its not a guarantee of certainty.

In any event, I don't think the comparison is apt. If I asked for an opinion, I'm looking for a view on the substance of the matter. Peer review (as I said) is more about whether the discipline is being used competently. The reviewer might think your conclusion is pants, but the focus of his review is just whether your method ticks all the boxes.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Its just other scientists who happen to be in the field.

Seriously, 'other scientists who happen to be in the field' isn't a disinterested group. Have a leaf through what Kuhn says about how scientific advances actually come about, or have a look at the difficulties that some say arise when you face a group of academics whose careers depend on the topic they built their expertise on not being deemed irrelevant (and some seem to be saying about String Theory).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I said mathematics, not mathematicians, dont try to twist what I say to fit some idea you want to espouse.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm sticking to the point I'm making, thank you very much.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not aware of any peer review that the bankers did on their schemes they ran, are you?

Oh, you poor deluded soul. Yes, the rating agencies absolutely do and did incorporate peer review into their processes.

Mark Hamill

Nemi wrote: »

That inviting an alternative opinion might be benefit. But its not a guarantee of certainty.

I never said it was.

Nemi wrote: »

In any event, I don't think the comparison is apt. If I asked for an opinion, I'm looking for a view on the substance of the matter. Peer review (as I said) is more about whether the discipline is being used competently. The reviewer might think your conclusion is pants, but the focus of his review is just whether your method ticks all the boxes.

And this is why I know you know nothing about peer review. If my conclusion was pants, then I couldn't get my paper past peer review (in a competent puplication anyway). You cant make an unsupported conclusion in a paper for peer review, my own boss rejected a paper he was given for review recently because it didn't have enough supporting material to support some of the conclusions being made.
I really think you need to learn more about the process before you contradict it, your ignorant accusations just make you look the fool.

Nemi wrote: »

Seriously, 'other scientists who happen to be in the field' isn't a disinterested group. Have a leaf through what Kuhn says about how scientific advances actually come about, or have a look at the difficulties that some say arise when you face a group of academics whose careers depend on the topic they built their expertise on not being deemed irrelevant (and some seem to be saying about String Theory).

Its as disinterested as you can get, and still be qualified enough to comment competently on the material. True, in small, uncertain, fields you are far more likely to fall afoul of people being stupid, immoral and hypocritical for their own interests, but this is still a problem of the people using the peer review system, not the system itself, and its still, by far, the best system we got (unless you know of another system that can completely remove human error?)

Nemi wrote: »

I'm not twisting anything. I'm sticking to the point I'm making, thank you very much.

So do we blame the calculator for the mathematician who cant/wont use it properly?

Nemi wrote: »

Oh, you poor deluded soul. Yes, the rating agencies absolutely do and did incorporate peer review into their processes.

Bankers had reliable peer review, that wasn't cooked, altered or picked-and-chosen in any way that said the housing market wouldn't collapse? That people would continue to pay stupid amounts of interest on stupidly large morgages for stupid lengths of time?

Nemi

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If my conclusion was pants, then I couldn't get my paper past peer review

You could, if its the right kind of pants.

I've a feeling you're actually the one who doesn't really appreciated what the process is about.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

this is still a problem of the people using the peer review system, not the system itself

I don't think you've quite got it. Without people, 'peer' review doesn't exist. Hence, the calculator analogy doesn't work.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Bankers had reliable peer review, that wasn't cooked, altered or picked-and-chosen in any way that said the housing market wouldn't collapse? That people would continue to pay stupid amounts of interest on stupidly large morgages for stupid lengths of time?

Without a decent rating, supposedly the product of a reputable process, banks would not have been able to obtain the money to lend for stupid purposes. Without petrol in the car, it could not have been driven off the cliff.

Yes, there were other processes at work. All the example of rating agencies demonstrates is that organisations whose only asset is the credibility of their assessment processes, who use cutting-edge mathematical techniques, some of which have won Nobel prizes for their authors, who had and have published policies aimed at addressing the human factor in analysis, still failed dismally.

Its like that old TS Eliot quote that's doing the rounds at present. "It is impossible to design a system so perfect that no one needs to be good.”

mohawk

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

My question for you is this: what do you think is the best method of explaining evolution to someone who is deeply opposed to it on theological grounds?

It is not possible they just won't hear it.
I once came across this on some creationist site (can't remember which one but the quote sticks in my mind)

Thinking is not a sense found in nature thus you can't use it for any basis for thought or logic.

So that say's it all really.

Mark Hamill

Nemi wrote: »

You could, if its the right kind of pants.

I've a feeling you're actually the one who doesn't really appreciated what the process is about.

At this stage you are just talking ****e about a system you dont like because you are a theist. You cannot pass peer review with conlcusions that aren't supported by the evidence, you simply cannot. That is the whole point of peer review, to stop people from making assertions based on inadequate study.

Nemi wrote: »

I don't think you've quite got it. Without people, 'peer' review doesn't exist. Hence, the calculator analogy doesn't work.

Mathematics wouldn't exist without people, do we blame mathematics when some fool adds 2 and 2 and gets 5?

Nemi wrote: »

Without a decent rating, supposedly the product of a reputable process, banks would not have been able to obtain the money to lend for stupid purposes. Without petrol in the car, it could not have been driven off the cliff.

So you are blaming the petrol in a car for the idiot who drove it off the cliff now? You are becoming more and more ridiculous.

Nemi wrote: »

Yes, there were other processes at work. All the example of rating agencies demonstrates is that organisations whose only asset is the credibility of their assessment processes, who use cutting-edge mathematical techniques, some of which have won Nobel prizes for their authors, who had and have published policies aimed at addressing the human factor in analysis, still failed dismally.

The people failed dismally, though, not maths. No one has come out afterwards and said "oh it turns out that in banking, 2+2 actually equals 5 (6 on saturdays), oh well we can blame mathematics for all our woes".

You nonsense arguments here actually reinforce the the point of this thread, that theists are two emotionally invested in their world view to think clearly, hence your desire to personalise and blame inanimate concepts. There is a saying I like "Its a bad workman who blames his tools"

rational

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

My question for you is this: what do you think is the best method of explaining evolution to someone who is deeply opposed to it on theological grounds?

Only fundementalist christian/muslims do not accept evolution. I dont see the point in even trying to convinve these people. The more you try the less they wull listen. Why bother I say.

rational

Mark Hamill wrote: »

At this stage you are just talking ****e about a system you dont like because you are a theist. You cannot pass peer review with conlcusions that aren't supported by the evidence, you simply cannot. That is the whole point of peer review, to stop people from making assertions based on inadequate study.

Sorry Mark but you accuse someone of making an inadaquate assertion and then claim that "You cannot pass peer review with conlcusions that aren't supported by the evidence, you simply cannot" Which is a pretty massive assertion in itself.

"Simply cannot"

it depends on a number of factors.
The quality of the peers reviewing the work.
The bias exibited by the peers etc
Who is funding the research undertaken and who supports the publication

There is more.

While the majority of peer review is sound. It is open to the same curruption as anything else. To say "simply cannot" is just as must as a wild assertion as your accusing the poster.

Mark Hamill

rational wrote: »

Sorry Mark but you accuse someone of making an inadaquate assertion and then claim that "You cannot pass peer review with conlcusions that aren't supported by the evidence, you simply cannot" Which is a pretty massive assertion in itself.

The difference is, what I am saying is true. Scientific peer review, by definition, wont allow papers to be published if they dont support their claims (remember that a scientific paper is just a claim, with supporting evidence, and peer review is an evaluation of that paper, ergo peer review is an evaluation of the claim being made, in terms of its supporting evidence)

rational wrote: »

it depends on a number of factors.
The quality of the peers reviewing the work.
The bias exibited by the peers etc
Who is funding the research undertaken and who supports the publication

While the majority of peer review is sound. It is open to the same curruption as anything else. To say "simply cannot" is just as must as a wild assertion as your accusing the poster.

Its not though. Yes, peer review is open to corruption, but once you corrupt it, its no longer peer review (just look at "creation science"). Labelling something as peer review and actually being properly peer review are not the same thing. You cannot blame a concept for when people abuses it - you cant blame maths when someone adds 2 and 2 and gets 5 (and in maths, you can say "you simply cannot add 2 and 2 and get 5).

Nemi

Mark Hamill wrote: »

At this stage you are just talking ****e about a system you dont like because you are a theist.

I'm an atheist. I think your posts just failed peer review.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Mathematics wouldn't exist without people

That's actually quite a deep statement you've made, and I'm not sure that you appreciate the consequences.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you are blaming the petrol in a car for the idiot who drove it off the cliff now?

That's not how I'd read the analogy.

rational

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The difference is, what I am saying is true. ).

What you were saying and I quote

You cannot pass peer review with conlcusions that aren't supported by the evidence, you simply cannot.

Now you claim to konw about peer review. The above statement is untrue. False. Not so.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Scientific peer review, by definition, wont allow papers to be published if they dont support their claims ).

Scientific papers have never been peer reviewed and published and then further research/review refute the published claims?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Labelling something as peer review and actually being properly peer review are not the same thing. You cannot blame a concept for when people abuses it - you cant blame maths when someone adds 2 and 2 and gets 5 (and in maths, you can say "you simply cannot add 2 and 2 and get 5).

Proves peer review is open to curruption and so your first claim i.e

You cannot pass peer review with conlcusions that aren't supported by the evidence, you simply cannot

is untrue.

Soul Winner

Few items of contention:

The statement that there is no evidence for a supernatural God is obviously debatable. Evidence for Supernatural things require supernatural evidence. Christians believe that this evidence was provided in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and was testified to by those who witnessed those events. The evidence and testimony for this Man's life have been in circulation for over two thousand years now. But to circumvent a debate on the truth or falsity of these claims let us be sure about just one thing. Most Christians who believe them based their beliefs on what they consider to be good evidence by thorough research and scrutinizing of the available facts. Now just because this evidence and conclusions based thereon are debatable does not mean that you can suddenly make the leap from that to the statement that Christians proceed by blind faith. So one of the foundation premises in the OP is very shakey indeed.

Plus: Was the knowledge of the statement:

"Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know." Bertrand Russell

attained by the scientific method?

If not, then by its own definition its not true and as such is a self refuting statement. Just like the statement: "There are no absolute truths." If that statement is true then is it absolutely true? If it is then the statement is false. Again a self refuting statement.

And lastly: Did the book: "On the origin of species." go through the peer review process?

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

And lastly: Did the book: "On the origin of species." go through the peer review process?

It's probably one of the most peer reviewed works of all time.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Did the book: "On the origin of species." go through the peer review process?

Was the bible reviewed by genuine historians, or was it a religious story written, edited and propagated by people who had an interest in pretending it was true?

Mark Hamill

Nemi wrote: »

I'm an atheist. I think your posts just failed peer review.

Either you are lying to try to appear more credible or you are just the perfect, yet rare, example of how athiests can be just as ignorant and blind as theists.

Nemi wrote: »

That's actually quite a deep statement you've made, and I'm not sure that you appreciate the consequences.

What mathematics represent exists, but mathematics itself is a human defined concept.

Nemi wrote: »

That's not how I'd read the analogy.

Its how you wrote it.

Mark Hamill

rational wrote: »

What you were saying and I quote

Now you claim to konw about peer review. The above statement is untrue. False. Not so.

Scientific papers have never been peer reviewed and published and then further research/review refute the published claims?

Proves peer review is open to curruption and so your first claim i.e is untrue.

Ok, you are doing what Nemi is doing, blaming maths for when someone adds 2 and 2 and gets 5. Peer review is no more open to corruption then maths, its a defined system and situations where published papers get retracted happen when people fail to adhere to the system (eg "creationist science", despite its claims, is not peer reviewed, its not honestly evaluated, but we dont blame peer review for creationists dishonesty.