|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
 Posted - 08/06/2005 : 22:42:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby
As you intimated, the "evolution" debate is a non-issue 'round these parts.
It doesn't appear on the radar of any discussion secular or otherwise.
This leads me to ask the very question that seems to upset you the most "Why should I care?"
Regarding that one issue - the creationism/evolution debate - perhaps you shouldn't give a flying fig. But that's not the point of my article, and it certainly didn't upset me. Your posts in this thread indicate that you were upset that people such as myself might have the nerve to ask you to profess your opinion on such matters. My first post here was an attempt to tell you that I - in particular - don't give a rat's patootie whether you profess your opinion on anything. I only care that you hold whatever opinions you do for the right reasons.
On the other hand, the religious fundamentalists are proving themselves adept at playing low-level political games. As the saying goes, "forewarned is forearmed." And given that the creationists have been active in Australia suggests that they may come back, once they get a good idea on how to game your governmental system. And so, just in case, if you've got some spare time you may want to figure out where you stand on that issue. Perhaps
I do indeed have an opinion on the one particular issue in question, but that opinion does not influence my decisions one jot.
At the very least, it is not an issue within my sphere of experience,so it rarely if ever is even raised.
I will get up tomorrow, and given that it is Monday and the Universe hasn't shifted on it's accsess this will be the case again.
If you are asking me for my opinion on this particular issue, then I would think that one of my options is to not express it.
I like to hear both sides of the argument, but I get real uncomfortable when the fighting starts.
Then I scramble back up on the fence for protection.
Having reread the article from which I originally quoted, I would have to say this, though.
I pretty much agree with evereything expressed in that article (not 100%), it was perhaps only the tone that I was responding to.
[Edited to fix quoting malfunction - Dave W.] |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/06/2005 : 23:15:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby
I do indeed have an opinion on the one particular issue in question, but that opinion does not influence my decisions one jot.
If you have no decisions which might be affected by that opinion, I understand your position. But if - hypothetically - a person running in a local election (local for you) advocated the elimination of evolution from school cirricula, would your opinion on the matter (whatever it is) really have no bearing upon how you choose to vote?quote:
If you are asking me for my opinion on this particular issue, then I would think that one of my options is to not express it.
Indeed it is. But that's not what my article is about.quote:
I like to hear both sides of the argument, but I get real uncomfortable when the fighting starts.
As do many people.quote:
Then I scramble back up on the fence for protection.
That is a different metaphor.quote:
Having reread the article from which I originally quoted, I would have to say this, though.
I pretty much agree with evereything expressed in that article (not 100%), it was perhaps only the tone that I was responding to.
Please, can you offer more details? Honest and forthright critiques of my work will be most appreciated. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 00:35:41 [Permalink]
|
With regards the way I chose how I vote,as you might be aware, it is compulsory for me to vote, so I am bound by law to have a say.
Being what I consider an informed voter, there are ,many things that contribute to how I make my decision.
If the issue in question was the only issue at hand then I would clearly know which side I would support,however the choice is rarely that simple.
There are the religious lobbies that campaign on all kinds of moral issues, no doubt creationism is in there somewhere, but they have very little influence, and are considered as extremists and a little bit if a joke.
Which leads me to a part of your article that particularly caught my attention.
"In other words, it is not good enough that there are lots of people who unquestioningly accept evolution as a fact. It is not good enough that there are lots of people who dismiss ghost stories out of hand. It is not good enough that there are lots of people who laugh at the idea of alien abductions. It is not good enough that there are lots of people who would avoid an “alternative health practitioner” like the plague."
If it is not enough to do these things (all which I enjoy doing) what more can a novice skeptic contribute?
I would greatly appreciate a clarification of this point.
|
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 19:52:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby
With regards the way I chose how I vote,as you might be aware, it is compulsory for me to vote, so I am bound by law to have a say.
Being what I consider an informed voter, there are ,many things that contribute to how I make my decision.
If the issue in question was the only issue at hand then I would clearly know which side I would support,however the choice is rarely that simple.
There are the religious lobbies that campaign on all kinds of moral issues, no doubt creationism is in there somewhere, but they have very little influence, and are considered as extremists and a little bit if a joke.
Yes, but their influence isn't zero.quote:
Which leads me to a part of your article that particularly caught my attention.
"In other words, it is not good enough that there are lots of people who unquestioningly accept evolution as a fact. It is not good enough that there are lots of people who dismiss ghost stories out of hand. It is not good enough that there are lots of people who laugh at the idea of alien abductions. It is not good enough that there are lots of people who would avoid an “alternative health practitioner” like the plague."
If it is not enough to do these things (all which I enjoy doing) what more can a novice skeptic contribute?
I would greatly appreciate a clarification of this point.
The entire "not good enough" paragraph works with those above and below it to say that simple agreement with a position shouldn't be acceptable to advocates of skepticism, since that agreement could be based upon flimsy reasoning and/or incorrect facts. Any opinion held through crappy thinking is unlikely to mean much.
For example, "evolution is a fact because my biology teacher told me so" should make a skeptic's skin crawl. Such a badly founded agreement with what we currently know screams - to me, at least - that the person making such a statement doesn't critically examine his/her own knowledge. I (and the SFN) have as a personal goal the equipping everyone with the tools needed to avoid this kind of thing.
In still other words, it doesn't sit well with me that there exist people in this world who don't have a good grasp on why they think something is true or not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 20:26:29 [Permalink]
|
When I read the article the first time around, I felt a personal discomfort because it was like the article was aimed at me and it seemed as though ".....I was being discussed as if I wasn't in the room".
That notwithstanding, in regards to the ".....not doing enough....." aspect, I feel that ridiculing something is a good way of nuetering an opinion, provided the ridicule is well considered and deserved.
It's always been a favorite weapon of mine and besides, it's not healthy to take yourself to seriously.
I'm all for thinking about thinking. It's the best thing to think about, I think.
I read somewhere that the definition of intelligence is to be able to hold two oppossing opinions in your mind at the same time.
I tend to agree with this. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2005 : 20:50:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby
When I read the article the first time around, I felt a personal discomfort because it was like the article was aimed at me and it seemed as though ".....I was being discussed as if I wasn't in the room".
Well, the article was a criticism of
A) people who categorize ideological conflicts as "true believers vs. the skeptics," like Shermer did, and
B) advocates for skepticism who feel their job is done when people agree with them about some point or other.
By necessity, the article therefore talks about every other person in the world: the "target" of skeptical advocacy.
I'm sure political strategists in Australia talk about you, too, in terms of "here's how we can get more people to vote the way we want." They're definitely talking about you when you're not in the room.quote:
That notwithstanding, in regards to the ".....not doing enough....." aspect, I feel that ridiculing something is a good way of nuetering an opinion, provided the ridicule is well considered and deserved.
I really don't understand what you're saying here, or in the rest of your post.
The closest I think I can come would make me respond, "but ridicule of position X is not a good reason to believe in position Y," and then talk about how the only thing the creationists and IDists have going for them is ridicule of evolutionary theory. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 04:35:28 [Permalink]
|
[quoteI really don't understand what you're saying here, or in the rest of your post.[/quote]
You're not playing the "What are you on about?" card, are you?
Say it aint so.
Never mind, we are seperated by a common language after all.
The original article was well reasoned and precise, and came with a very distinct agenda.....
.....and somewhere therein I feel, lies the misunderstanding.
On arguing from their side, the skeptic arrives with an agenda and stratedgy well considered in advance.
So to the table comes the other side of the argument, just as equally armed and just as equally ready to defend their chosen perspective.
The fence sitter arrives to consider the arguments with no agenda other than: "What best suites my long-term needs".
Your argument is strong and passionate, but no less so than the other side.
Except for the fact that your side carries the weight of reason, it is still a beleif that you are extolling.
In this case, the beleif is that the creation/ evolution question is important enough to rally to the cause.
I think what you are talking about is no less than the control of peoples beleif systems,and who should have accsess to that control.
A noble cause, to be sure, but a cause non the less.
And so the brick-bats fly overhead.
And fence sitters duck for cover.
You're talking about me, not to me.
You write about fence sitters, yet, it seems to me that you don't seem to have actually canvassed to many for their POV.
So, here I am.
As I have stated previously, enquiring about skeptisism is just as scarry as enquiring about religion the closer I get to the experts.
|
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 08:37:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think what you are talking about is no less than the control of peoples beleif systems, and who should have accsess to that control.
A noble cause, to be sure, but a cause non the less.
I'm going to jump in here for a few words (I think.) What we are advocating at SFN is a method for evaluating claims of fact. In order to assign a value to a claim there must be a workable method for doing that. While critical thinking may not be perfect, it is my belief that it is the best tool we have for getting the job done. We are not trying to control anyone's belief system. We are promoting tools that can sometimes alter what a person believes, but that result is incidental to our goal. We acknowledge that we all have a bias. So there needs to be a method for cutting through that bias, as much as that can be done. Again, critical thinking.
I would add that sitting on the fence is better than siding with any side of a debate for the wrong reasons. I would also add that skeptics may use the same method for evaluating claims, and while sometimes a good reason for a tentative conclusion will become so evident that we skeptics pretty much agree on that conclusion, the fact is we do not always agree.
We are pushing tools here, not belief control.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 09:26:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby
You're not playing the "What are you on about?" card, are you?
Say it aint so.
Well, if my telling you that I don't understand what you're trying to communicate is "playing a card," then I submit that we've got more than a language problem here.
Besides which, I still don't see the relevance of your "ridicule" comments to either my article, or your last post to me. In other words, if your last post was an attempt to clarify the meaning of your "ridicule" post, it didn't work (for me, at least - maybe someone else can help out).quote:
In this case, the beleif is that the creation/ evolution question is important enough to rally to the cause.
Not at all. The creation/evolution question is simply being used as an example, especially since Shermer's comments sparked my article.
Instead, my article criticizes a general attitude held by some skeptics which is particularly disturbing. Doesn't matter if the subject is evolution, UFOlogy, tarot cards, alternative medicine or what-have-you, discussing the issue as if everyone who agrees with you is "rational" is simply wrong.
Plus, in this country, the "call to arms" in the creation/evolution debate was sounded more than 80 years ago with the Scopes "Monkey" Trial. There are tons of web sites and articles which repeat this call, over and over, in the face of the threat of the political machine which has risen up with "intelligent design." And had all I been doing was repeating that call yet again, I would have put my article in the "Creation/Evolution" section.quote:
I think what you are talking about is no less than the control of peoples beleif systems,and who should have accsess to that control.
What Kil said.quote:
A noble cause, to be sure, but a cause non the less.
My "cause" is spreading the tools of critical thought to anyone who wants them. The evolution/creationism debate is simply rife with examples of poor skepticism and bad logic.quote:
You write about fence sitters, yet, it seems to me that you don't seem to have actually canvassed to many for their POV.
Given that Shermer's idea of a "fence-sitter" is a person who is squarely undecided about an issue, I don't see how polling them for their ideas on an issue could be at all helpful. It might be helpful if I were interested in finding an effective strategy for turning "undecided" people into pro- or con- folks, but that's not what my article is about, either.quote:
So, here I am.
And yet, you imply that you've got an opinion regarding the evolution/creation question, so per Shermer's use of the term, you're not a fence-sitter.quote:
As I have stated previously, enquiring about skeptisism is just as scarry as enquiring about religion the closer I get to the experts.
I believe you'll find that to be true of any endeavor. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 09:31:19 [Permalink]
|
| Here, Here Kil. Maybe a quick read on critical thinking itself wouldn't hurt: http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 15:56:16 [Permalink]
|
So, we are not talking about what to think, but how to think.
We do have more that a language problem here.
First I have to prove that I am capable of rationalising to an accepted standard (as set by you) and then maybe my opinion might be considered as approaching valid.
My reaction to your article was instinctive and visceral.
You ask me to explain my reaction and I have been trying, but to do so any further would be to venture into my psycological make-up and I'm not prepared to do that.
I'm not suggesting that you or any one here at SFN wants to control my, or anyone elses mind.
I'm suggesting that some people from both sides won't be happy unless and until I think exactly the way they do.
I may have an opinion, but I chose to take that opinion and sit on the fence with it.
Not taking sides: I thought that was the place of the fence sitter. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 17:56:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby
So, we are not talking about what to think, but how to think.
No, we're actually talking about self-criticism being a useful addition to one's intellectual armament.quote:
We do have more that a language problem here.
First I have to prove that I am capable of rationalising to an accepted standard (as set by you) and then maybe my opinion might be considered as approaching valid.
I don't know where you got that idea, and I don't know how many more ways I can think of to try to get my point across...
How about: holding an opinion, no matter what it is, for demonstrably bad reasons isn't a good thing. Even if that opinion agrees with my own opinion on the subject. We (the SFN) want people to be able to reason about subjects, no matter what they conclude after doing so.quote:
My reaction to your article was instinctive and visceral.
You ask me to explain my reaction and I have been trying, but to do so any further would be to venture into my psycological make-up and I'm not prepared to do that.
Well, I apologize for not grokking your explanations.quote:
I'm suggesting that some people from both sides won't be happy unless and until I think exactly the way they do.
I hope we don't come off as that sort of extremist group.quote:
I may have an opinion, but I chose to take that opinion and sit on the fence with it.
Not taking sides: I thought that was the place of the fence sitter.
You're talking about remaining neutral by choice, like Switzerland, no matter who's got the stronger force in the battle.
Fence-sitters, as defined by Shermer, don't take sides because they don't have an opinion, like some tiny Micronesian tribe which had never heard of the "Axis" or the "Allies." Or, fence-sitters don't take sides because they think - no matter what the reality - that both sides are equally matched.
But even that is taking the analogy too far, because in Shermer's mind (and many of the rest of us who talk of fence-sitting), the vast majority of the population isn't actually involved in the battle, but are just offering moral support through agreement with a position. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dry_vby
Skeptic Friend
Australia
249 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2005 : 18:20:49 [Permalink]
|
You certainly set my brain to thinking, for sure.
So much so that it gives me a head ache.
Skeptesism is damn hard work, and I don't know if I'm prepared to work that hard.
It's much easier for me to just accept things on blind faith, so why shouldn't I?
You must have heard that there are three truths, my truth, your truth and the actual truth.
I CAN know the first, I might know the second, but I can never know the third.
I sit on the fence because I can't be bothered doing anything else. |
"I'll go along with the charade
Until I can think my way out.
I know it was all a big joke
Whatever it was about."
Bob Dylan
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 08/09/2005 : 09:48:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dry_vby...
I would hazard a guess that just because people don't want to make a stand on moral issues does not mean that they agree with some outlandish proposition, but that they either don't want to get involved because the issue is to complex, or they are just plain lazy and selfish.
[...]
You certainly set my brain to thinking, for sure.
So much so that it gives me a head ache.
Skeptesism is damn hard work, and I don't know if I'm prepared to work that hard.
It's much easier for me to just accept things on blind faith, so why shouldn't I?
You must have heard that there are three truths, my truth, your truth and the actual truth.
I CAN know the first, I might know the second, but I can never know the third.
I sit on the fence because I can't be bothered doing anything else.
Indeed you have established a consistent and recurring theme in your responses to this thread. You believe some issues are too complex for you to bother with, and you are, by your own admission, just plain lazy and selfish. You are certainly entitled to take this position, but it would be a serious mistake to project your reasons for fence-sitting onto the rest of the undecided masses.
It might be beneficial to your future encounters with skeptics if you take this one thing away from this conversation: Your personal reasons for being a fence-sitter cannot reasonably be used to assess the positions of other people, particularly skeptics. While many skeptics have not planted their feet firmly on either side of the fence on certain issues, it is generally because they don't feel they've gathered the necessary evidence to accept either side as "fact". Their fence-sitting has nothing to do with a simple lack of desire to invest themselves in the process of thinking. For most skeptics, thinking is a pleasure not a pain.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
