|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
 Posted - 01/03/2002 : 12:46:53
|
These questions are for myself, too; they are the rough outlines of recent late night thoughts.
Why do we (skeptics) get upset when others profess unfounded beliefs? Even if we demonstrate that the beliefs are misguided, wrong, and harmful, so what?
Is there an evolutionary purpose behind our desire to correct these misconceptions? How does it benefit me or my progeny to debunk Geller or more accurately to demonstrate to friends that Geller is a fraud?
So long as the believers steal no bread from my table and draw no blood from my veins, what reason can I have for the ire I feel when those close to me fall for what I see as obvious chicanery?
I'll stop.
My kids still love me.
|
|
|
Marc_a_b
Skeptic Friend
USA
142 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 13:58:33 [Permalink]
|
Maybe because it does eventualy get back to us.
"So long as the believers steal no bread from my table"
They 'steal our bread' when our taxes pay for government psychics, when our insurance premiums cover homeopathy. It 'draws blood' from us when the people who will be doctors in our old age try to adjust our chakras and have don't understand what evolusion is or how it applies to bacterial infections.
I have heard that Stalinist Russia suffered terrible setbacks in food production because of following a nonsence version of evolutionary theory. Something that contributed to the lack of bread on many people's tables for decades.
|
 |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 14:09:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They 'steal our bread' when our taxes pay for government psychics, when our insurance premiums cover homeopathy. It 'draws blood' from us when the people who will be doctors in our old age try to adjust our chakras and have don't understand what evolusion is or how it applies to bacterial infections.
Well, of course I can see this objectively, but is it what drives the urge to combat pseudoscience and nonsense? Normally, I do not think on this level when I get the visceral urge to respond to a believer; I do not think "My taxes are being usurped and I am in future danger of my health if this goes unchallenged." No, what drives me at the moment is simply a visceral urge. An urge, I might add, that on casual reflection does not seem to have great benefits over belief when it comes to natural selection.
But I haven't thought this thing through really, so I'm undoubtedly missing something.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 14:21:52 [Permalink]
|
For me, it's my overwhelming desire for Truth.
But this doesn't answer your question, as I don't know why I have an overwhelming desire for the truth...
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 14:40:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why do we (skeptics) get upset when others profess unfounded beliefs? Even if we demonstrate that the beliefs are misguided, wrong, and harmful, so what?
Is there an evolutionary purpose behind our desire to correct these misconceptions?
There definitely is an evolutionary reason for our hositility to irrational beliefs, and it is a matter of life and death. Timothy McVeigh was neither stupid nor, in most respects, ignorant. Yet, he blew up 169 people because he lacked the critical thinking faculties to see through the propaganda that portrayed government misconduct at Waco as a vast, unified and deadly conspiracy. Millions around the world believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a real document, and that the Israeli Mossad carried out the September 11 attacks. In this case, the inability to analyse a self-serving claim excuses and empowers mass murder.
Other millions, in this country, are convinced that Constitutional liberties and the secular state are the real causes of crime and terrorism, and that a peaceful and prosperous society can be achieved by a return to authoritarian theocracy. These people vote, and politicians must consider their views in everything they do.
This has little to do with prophets, necromancers, and tarot card readers; or does it? The common factor in all of these is the rejection of rational analysis, by either ignorance or design. Once critical thinking itself is rejected, any kind of horrific belief can flow unhindered into the minds of the victim/believers. This is the "assumption of the consequent", something we see every day among conspiracy believers in particular.
There is always a conspiracy. If the powers that be, in the form of the scientific community, can hide the reality of psychism, what could other elements of that establishment do? If they can fake the moon landings, why can't they similarly fake the origins of terrorist attacks?
If the President of the United States consults an astrologer, why can't the CIA benefit from these same powers? If valid results are obtained, as many claim, why not use them to target missiles and bombs?
A New Dark Age is staring us right in the face, and I, personally, will either stop it or die trying.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 14:49:58 [Permalink]
|
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
Let's assume you're correct, Piltdown (and I believe you are). Given that skeptics seem to be in the minority, does it bode well for skepticism as a trait to be naturally selected? Is the percentage of skeptics or rational thinkers as part of the overall population growing, shrinking, or remaining static?
If static, what questions does that raise about natural selection? (I admit freely that I am not even remotely a scholar on this subject--just a bit better versed than the average layman).
Here's one of my points which may be old hat to those of you familiar with the topic: If skepticism remains at a static level throughout the ages in comparison with irrational thinking (in the broadest, undefined terms) does that mean then that natural selection can be said to work on a group level in addition to the individual level? Does society seem to require both belief and skepticism with belief holding, by necessity, the dominant role in terms of numbers?
I'll stop again. All off the top of my head, and I have to apologize for heading out for several days so I won't see replies for a while, but I had an itch so I scratched it.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 15:58:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
Let's assume you're correct, Piltdown (and I believe you are). Given that skeptics seem to be in the minority, does it bode well for skepticism as a trait to be naturally selected? Is the percentage of skeptics or rational thinkers as part of the overall population growing, shrinking, or remaining static?
If static, what questions does that raise about natural selection? (I admit freely that I am not even remotely a scholar on this subject--just a bit better versed than the average layman).
Here's one of my points which may be old hat to those of you familiar with the topic: If skepticism remains at a static level throughout the ages in comparison with irrational thinking (in the broadest, undefined terms) does that mean then that natural selection can be said to work on a group level in addition to the individual level? Does society seem to require both belief and skepticism with belief holding, by necessity, the dominant role in terms of numbers?
I'll stop again. All off the top of my head, and I have to apologize for heading out for several days so I won't see replies for a while, but I had an itch so I scratched it.
My kids still love me.
This raises some very difficult questions, questions that nevertheless have to be addressed. I don't believe that skepticism is necessarily an inherent trait. It certainly wasn't for me: I was a fanatical fundamentalist till I was about 30 years old. Others in this group were, in fact, "born skeptics" however. The potential for skepticism is always there, and it probably varies from person to person; but the real tools of skepticism, critical thinking and logic, are acquired skills.
History is not my field, but I have studied the history of science and technology in some depth. For nearly a thousand years, skepticism grew steadily with the rise of science. Skeptics were always a small minority, but they held increasingly disproportionate power in society. This is closely related to public respect for science, which I believe probably peaked in the decade before World War 2. In recent decades, probably since 1945, this trend has reversed itself.
The horrors produced by science (and, by extension, secularism in general), atomic bombs and such, have led to widespread disillusionment. Those who might benefit from this have capitalized on it and demanded a return to non-rational standards of action, belief, and decision making.
The problem here, of course, is that atomic bombs, the internet, communications satellites, and other examples of scientific
power, cannot be abolished. They will remain, and they will be under someone's control. The issue now is whether that control will lie with rationalists, or with hate-mongering superstitionists and post-modern druids.
The secular, scientific worldview can be suppressed. The power it has created cannnot be. In the New Dark Age, we will face a situation in which the instrumentality of scientific power, the product of rationality, has fallen into the hands of non-rational forces.
This is a real threat to human survival. Ronald Reagan wouldn't have launched a nuclear strike on the advice of his astrologer. We know this because it didn't happen. Will we be so lucky next time a believer acquires this kind of power?
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 18:52:14 [Permalink]
|
Not that I disagree with you guys, but it seems to me there's a certain amount of selective pressure for irrationality too. After all, somebody's got to be crazy enough to run up to a mammoth and stick a spear in it; if nobody does it, everybody starves.
So, like so much else in evolution, it's a balancing act: as a species, we have to be both rational enough and nuts enough to survive.
Eh what? 
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 21:52:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
Let's assume you're correct, Piltdown (and I believe you are). Given that skeptics seem to be in the minority, does it bode well for skepticism as a trait to be naturally selected? Is the percentage of skeptics or rational thinkers as part of the overall population growing, shrinking, or remaining static?
If static, what questions does that raise about natural selection? (I admit freely that I am not even remotely a scholar on this subject--just a bit better versed than the average layman).
This would suggest to me that rationality is largely an environmentally caused variable. I am no longer a scientist, and I never was an evo-biologist or a cultural anthropologist, so take that (and anything else I say that seems mildly technical) for what it's worth.
quote:
Here's one of my points which may be old hat to those of you familiar with the topic: If skepticism remains at a static level throughout the ages in comparison with irrational thinking (in the broadest, undefined terms) does that mean then that natural selection can be said to work on a group level in addition to the individual level? Does society seem to require both belief and skepticism with belief holding, by necessity, the dominant role in terms of numbers?
Dawkins has quite a bit to say about 'species selection,' although I doubt rationality as a selective criterion could singlehandedly cause 'speciation.' I think 'species selection' is rather important in Gould's punctuationism as well. I am skeptical that anything but the greatest extremes in rationality/skepticism would confer much of an individual selective advantage. That said, if rationality/skepticism is strictly or mostly genetically caused, we might expect to see long[er] term up-down population trends based solely on genetic drift.
Now, following is something I actually know something about, so pay attention  
It is widely recognized that the human brain is, at least partially, a patterning machine. That is, compare unfamiliar things to familiar things in order to speed comprehension. Problem is, the brain has a limited input processing capacity. There are several theories to account for what exactly the brain is likely to process, but it is safe to say that much, perhaps even most of the information that our senses are being bombarded with is not consciously recorded. At the micro level, a multitude of rather basic experiments can show that the brain 'unconsciously' (I'm not altogether fond of that word) fills in gaps in consciously retained information, especially if that information is subject to recall shortly thereafter. What's interesting is that supernatural thinking looks something like a macro version of unconscious gap-filling. This makes a lot of sense to me, with the caveat that it seems too... complex? overreaching? to be a purely unconscious process. I am more fond of the idea that supernaturalism is a conscious representation of an unconscious (dammit, I hate having to use that word but 'subconscious' is too Freudian) information gap. I think the unconscious is probably unable to fill in the gap because there is no implicit or learned god-pattern, nothing to compare. Further, I think this gap is implicit in philosophy. There will always be more 'why' questions than answers, unless we accept axioms and brute facts which even I admit is sometimes damn tough to do.
Hm, that was more than I had planned to write. Thoughts?
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob
Edited by - PhDreamer on 01/03/2002 21:58:24 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2002 : 06:46:10 [Permalink]
|
There are, it seems to me, three questions here. It may not be grammatically correct to put these statements in quotes, as this is not exactly what you said, but "Why do we get upset?" is one question. "Why do we (assuming that you do) prefer reality over rejecting reality?" is another. "Why do we prefer that others prefer reality over rejecting reality?" is another.
I think a decision to grasp reality is a decision to live. Reality is life. When I am afraid of reality, I am afraid of life and while I may not die, I don't fully live. When others reject reality, they may not present an immediate danger, but I've learned from experience that those who think that something else is better than reality have a tendency to want others to share their misery.
Getting upset about the whole thing is something we've discussed before. Sometimes people want to be better than others in order to gain (or hold onto) their self worth. Some want to make sure they go to heaven while others don't. Some want to make sure there is a "moron of the year" that they can laugh at while attempting to build themselves up. Being "upset" doesn't change reality. It is understandable, and we all do it, but it isn't rational.
quote:
These questions are for myself, too; they are the rough outlines of recent late night thoughts.
Why do we (skeptics) get upset when others profess unfounded beliefs? Even if we demonstrate that the beliefs are misguided, wrong, and harmful, so what?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 01/04/2002 07:06:38 |
|
|
|
Dog_Ed
Skeptic Friend
USA
126 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2002 : 20:05:08 [Permalink]
|
Really nice topic, guys. I'm impressed by all the responses. Why did I spend several days pursuing an online argument with a guy who thinks crackpot inventor John Newman is a new Einstein and Newman's over-unity electrical motors will revolutionize the world? I dunno. Sure didn't make me feel good. Sure didn't change his "mind" (and I use the term advisedly). Sure didn't teach me anything I didn't already know. Sheesh, it was a losing proposition all the way around. But it's almost addictive: He's WRONG, I know it, and JUST ONE MORE POST will show him the error of his ways!
For me, there's a big psychological component. But maybe there's a societal dynamic in which group-think confers certain benefits: you have the social support network(Southern Baptist Bookburners, for instance), and the psychological support of being with people who think like you do. But whenever the beliefs of a group get too entrenched and out of touch with reality some people become skeptical (Atheistical Barstid Bookreaders) and voila! Societal conflict.
Nice thread.
"Even Einstein put his foot in it sometimes" |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2002 : 20:38:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Really nice topic, guys. I'm impressed by all the responses. Why did I spend several days pursuing an online argument with a guy who thinks crackpot inventor John Newman is a new Einstein and Newman's over-unity electrical motors will revolutionize the world? I dunno. Sure didn't make me feel good. Sure didn't change his "mind" (and I use the term advisedly). Sure didn't teach me anything I didn't already know. Sheesh, it was a losing proposition all the way around. But it's almost addictive: He's WRONG, I know it, and JUST ONE MORE POST will show him the error of his ways!
Don't beat yourself up too bad. Debate skills are dynamic and need to be honed regardless of the outcome. Besides, I think a great many of us here can attest to the general inefficacy of advocating rationality, skepticism and critical thinking. Nevertheless, we still do it. We all seek the holy grail, to witness someone lose his credulity before our eyes, because of our efforts. For some, it never happens.
quote:
For me, there's a big psychological component. But maybe there's a societal dynamic in which group-think confers certain benefits: you have the social support network(Southern Baptist Bookburners, for instance), and the psychological support of being with people who think like you do. But whenever the beliefs of a group get too entrenched and out of touch with reality some people become skeptical (Atheistical Barstid Bookreaders) and voila! Societal conflict.
Atheistical Barstid Bookreaders of America. What a great name for my new band! Kind of unwieldy, though. Maybe if I just use the acronym? Think anyone would mind?
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
|
hatten_jc
New Member
Sweden
44 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2002 : 02:00:52 [Permalink]
|
The prize fore freedom is constant viglance.
there are always power hungry and chort sightid force out to destroy freedom often its driven by religius belife or power hungry dictatorships.
The only deffens agienst the religus part of the forces that destroy freedom is reviling there lie and deceptions in time.
quote:
These questions are for myself, too; they are the rough outlines of recent late night thoughts.
Why do we (skeptics) get upset when others profess unfounded beliefs? Even if we demonstrate that the beliefs are misguided, wrong, and harmful, so what?quote:
If they do it on there own place I dont mind at al.
But when they dragg in propaganda twist truth in order to promot THERE belife.
Then its an attach on freedom itself.
As most religus groops like to have a sociaty creatid after the laws of the bibel/Korranen/Torah/Upanishader/Dao De Jing/
And i dont like to live in a sociaty dictatid by some priest.
Is there an evolutionary purpose behind our desire to correct these misconceptions? How does it benefit me or my progeny to debunk Geller or more accurately to demonstrate to friends that Geller is a fraud?
So long as the believers steal no bread from my table and draw no blood from my veins, what reason can I have for the ire I feel when those close to me fall for what I see as obvious chicanery?quote:
The danger is not what THEY do the danger is what the followers do.
Specily religus gropps
I'll stop.
My kids still love me.
Never underestimate a human's capacity for active stupidity.
Sorry about my lousy English ? can we talk in Swedish :) |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2002 : 05:05:38 [Permalink]
|
Okay. Just back, and this demands more time than I have at the moment, but thanks for thoughts.
PhD, I especially like the pattern-recognition tie-in; it has led to some speculations that are still too nebulous to type.
As I said, I'm not a scholar on this topic. I had never even heard of Dawkins until I joined this board last summer and only recently bought my first book by him which I have yet to read.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2002 : 07:45:56 [Permalink]
|
I think it's important to speak because sometimes someone may be listening but not responding. If something appears to be unchallenged, I think it makes it more likely that more people will go along.
Also, even when you don't seem to be making a dent in someone's head, they still may be learning. I don't always let people know right away when I've learned something from them or when I agree with them. Often, I even forget who said what to change my point of view or who helped me to improve how I'm saying what I want to say.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2002 : 08:07:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PhD, I especially like the pattern-recognition tie-in; it has led to some speculations that are still too nebulous to type.
I'm sure someone has done some actual work on it, but my conclusions are largely inductive. It makes sense to me because pattern-recognition underlies just about the entirety of cognitive psych, so I'm just doing a logical-extension kind of thing. This works for me because we also have good reason to think that religion/supernaturalism is a cognitive phenomenon. I'll have more to say as I do some catch-up research.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
