|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
 Posted - 01/07/2002 : 12:54:34 [Permalink]
|
I think we skeptics on this board are a particular brand of skeptic who may be a bit more argumentative than other brands of skeptics. This is part of the reason we're here. So maybe the responses to your question will be a bit skewed because you don't have a truly representative sample of skeptics.
Having said that, I am driven by a survival instinct. If someone is mistaken, it could jepordise me, my family, or others. Therefore, I will attempt to place the things I know in front of them in hopes of correcting them. At the very least, I attempt to get them to learn to think things through, and reduce my risk of one of their half baked ideas harming me or my family. I think this is what motiviates public displays of "correction" such as debunking hoaxers, and other people full of BS in magazines, on tv, radio, books, chat rooms, the street. If we make a public display, maybe others besides the ill informed person we're directing our corrections to will learn something and thus help preserve our own survival as well.
When things get as intense as you describe, Dog_Ed, and you know the brick wall is not coming down, no matter how hard you hit it with your head let your thoughts run to the movie Soylent Green (sp?) in which it is finally discovered that the unfit are being turned into food for the fit. You want Fava beans and a fine Chiante with that?
The above is a bit harsh, but I don't think we're so far removed from natural selection as we would like to think. Technology can cloak us somewhat, but remember the Donner party, and the Rugby team from Argentina (the book/movie Alive).
My opinions based on introspection and anecdote.
Just because we're hypnotized, that don't mean we can't dance. - Tonio K. |
 |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2002 : 06:34:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dog_Ed:
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?
Was that you on JREF? Excellent job. I find I learn more from those posts on JREF and your posts on BA than most any other. Good job of making the arcane accessible.
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer:
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.
I suppose it's time I step back and recognize the very large time-frames in which natural selection works and the very short time-frame that skepticism and belief have been at loggerheads.
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer:
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.
I'm not sure these are the same as my original nebulous thoughts on this comment, but here are some questions this brings to mind:
1. Is it only humans who engage in this gap-filling?
2. If so, is it this gap-filling that has provided our evolutionary advantage, assuming we have one?
3. Again, if so, does it lead to the conclusion that skepticism and belief are indeed in competition as opposed to being symbiotic components of the species? I ask this because it appears that both skepticism (with the resulting science) and belief (or supernaturalism) are attempting to fill the gaps, merely by different mechanisms.
>>Warning: thinking while typing. Following comments may be illucid.
Now I'm not sure that skepticism and belief are both attempting to fill the gaps, at least not to the same degree. Skeptics/scientists openly acknowledge the gaps and accept them.
So now I'm not sure which side I come down on regarding if skepticism and belief are in competition or are necessary parts of the whole.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2002 : 09:43:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer:
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.
I suppose it's time I step back and recognize the very large time-frames in which natural selection works and the very short time-frame that skepticism and belief have been at loggerheads.
The important dynamic, IMO, is if humanity is becoming more polarized or more centrist, or if the curve is just shifting.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by PhDreamer:
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.
I'm not sure these are the same as my original nebulous thoughts on this comment, but here are some questions this brings to mind:
1. Is it only humans who engage in this gap-filling?
I doubt it. It seems to be do-able at something other than the fully-conscious level. It works in many different situations, from picture-recall to metaphysics.
quote:
2. If so, is it this gap-filling that has provided our evolutionary advantage, assuming we have one?
Well, first there must be recognition that there is a gap to be filled. If we assume, as is common, that consciousness is (or includes) self-awareness and the ability to contemplate one's origin, then gap-filling is just a functional extension of an existing attribute and anything that lacks consciousness also by extension lacks this particular gap-filling ability.
quote:
3. Again, if so, does it lead to the conclusion that skepticism and belief are indeed in competition as opposed to being symbiotic components of the species? I ask this because it appears that both skepticism (with the resulting science) and belief (or supernaturalism) are attempting to fill the gaps, merely by different mechanisms.
This is interesting. I think it may be telling that the average person tends to carry a belief system that is somewhere in the middle of pure skepticism/pure supernaturalism. We would probably find that the skepticism/supernaturalism scale maps to a bell curve. In population genetics at least, bell curves have a tendency to shift but rarely change shape. Depending on the degree of genetic influence, it might be that skepticism and supernaturalism will never get together fully, but what we consider strong skepticism now will become absolute naturalism and strong fundamentalism will become moderate credulity (god-of-the-gaps if you will). I think this is the most likely scenario in a technologically advancing society.
quote:
>>Warning: thinking while typing. Following comments may be illucid.
Now I'm not sure that skepticism and belief are both attempting to fill the gaps, at least not to the same degree. Skeptics/scientists openly acknowledge the gaps and accept them.
I wouldn't say 'accept.' Skeptics may be said to be working consciously at gap-filling, whereas believers are content to allow for processes that are unobservable and unverifiable, but comforting.
quote:
So now I'm not sure which side I come down on regarding if skepticism and belief are in competition or are necessary parts of the whole.
With any luck, I have added to that confusion.
Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things. - Silent Bob
Edited by - phdreamer on 01/08/2002 09:45:01
Edited by - phdreamer on 01/08/2002 09:46:00 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2002 : 04:23:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So now I'm not sure which side I come down on regarding if skepticism and belief are in competition or are necessary parts of the whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With any luck, I have added to that confusion.
So you're the one responsible for all the doubts in my life? For shame....
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2002 : 06:37:08 [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?
I can't answer that question for anyone other than myself, nor would I care to dwell on the biological/environmental reasons. All I know is that if someone chooses to accept unfounded and unsupported beliefs, it does affect my life, and the the lives of others. For instance, if someone thinks that abortion doctors are evil, and a threat to their perfect society, then they will have little problem going to the next level with their resistance to abortion.
People's views shape their actions.
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2002 : 13:09:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All I know is that if someone chooses to accept unfounded and unsupported beliefs, it does affect my life, and the the lives of others. For instance, if someone thinks that abortion doctors are evil, and a threat to their perfect society, then they will have little problem going to the next level with their resistance to abortion.
People's views shape their actions.
I'm not disagreeing, and still haven't thought this completely through, so take with a grain of salt.
However, I could slippery slope this pretty much forever. Of course views shape actions. Shall we now take our own action based upon the potential of someone else's views?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2002 : 13:27:20 [Permalink]
|
Of course. Don't we often try to teach people that certain ideas are better than others? Isn't that taking action about the potential of someone else's views?
quote:
I'm not disagreeing, and still haven't thought this completely through, so take with a grain of salt.
However, I could slippery slope this pretty much forever. Of course views shape actions. Shall we now take our own action based upon the potential of someone else's views?
My kids still love me.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 01/09/2002 : 14:19:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course. Don't we often try to teach people that certain ideas are better than others? Isn't that taking action about the potential of someone else's views?
Yes, but (and keep in mind this is still top-of-the-head stuff), there is an important distinction between mental action and physical action (or maybe there isn't; who the heck knows; blame PhD).
And even if this is true, doesn't it reinforce the original questions about evolutionary reasons?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 03:35:29 [Permalink]
|
I must confess. I was not completely honest with my earlier post, though I do not retract my earlier statement. Let me explain...
I have a co-worker whose sins have been washed away in the blood of Christ, and he is certain of his fate. As a matter of fact, he is so certain of his fate that he is content to wait on the return of the Messiah, which, incidently, will - most assuredly - occur in his/our lifetime. He looks forward to being with his Saviour, and I have no problem with this.
I do have a problem with the fact that my co-worker cares nothing about the world around him, because Redemption is so near. He works to feed, cloth and house himself and his wife, and does the occassional good deed to satisfy his contract with the Lord. However, he cares nothing of the problems of the world, because addressing those problems are meaningless. (Yes, he does, at least, vote, but only for the anti-abortion candidate) You see, the return of Jesus makes the idea of saving our planet futile.
Here, my co-workers views clearly affect his actions, but what makes me see red is the fact that without the slightest bit of evidence, other than God tapping him on the shoulder to give instruction, he is absolutely correct, and nothing can change his mind. Because of his correctness, my life, and my benevolence, and my humanitarian ideals have no meaning in his eyes. Between us, with two opposing views, only one can be right, and I sure as hell don't want to be wrong. But that GOD DAMNED smugness about his own near perfection, and self-perceived superiority bugs the HELL out of me.
To make a long story even longer, pride is one of the main reasons I lose it with these people, and that, I think, has evolutioary roots. Afterall, I am an extremely competetive male, and isn't that just another way of attempting to illustrate my dominance. Let's face it, my goal is to be like the proverbial old bull that walks down the hill, and takes 'em all!
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 04:59:39 [Permalink]
|
I think you can learn to perceive yourself and your situation differently and lose that anger. It's my insane hypothesis that anger is based on our beliefs about anger and ourselves.
Regarding the instinct for survival. I have never been faced with death personally. I do, however, make the decision to live or die every day. There were some days when that decision seemed more literal than others. Do I really have a choice to make or is that "instinct" that makes the choice for me? It seems that others kill themselves, or when faced with death give up the struggle to live.
I think it's more a matter of perceptions and choices than instincts. Even if we have some instincts, it seems that they can be overridden to some degree.
quote:
To make a long story even longer, pride is one of the main reasons I lose it with these people, and that, I think, has evolutioary roots. Afterall, I am an extremely competetive male, and isn't that just another way of attempting to illustrate my dominance. Let's face it, my goal is to be like the proverbial old bull that walks down the hill, and takes 'em all!
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 01/10/2002 06:06:49 |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 08:46:21 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
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. [quote]
What evidence do you have, in a rational sense, that my "moron of the year" string had any such motive? How do you justify comparing this to a smug belief in heaven? You are presuming a level of clairvoyance and godlike authority here that is, frankly, as irrational and absurd in its authoritarian little way as anything that led to the nominations in that string. I have spelled out what my motives are. If you have some disagreement with them, say so, but do not presume to know that I have falsely stated them, unless, of course, you can present some convincing evidence of the power to read minds.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 08:58:41 [Permalink]
|
What is your definition of "moron?" Is there some clinical definition that I'm not aware of? Are you saying that you know the IQ of these people?
I'll have to re-read what you said about your motives.
quote:
What evidence do you have, in a rational sense, that my "moron of the year" string had any such motive? How do you justify comparing this to a smug belief in heaven? You are presuming a level of clairvoyance and godlike authority here that is, frankly, as irrational and absurd in its authoritarian little way as anything that led to the nominations in that string. I have spelled out what my motives are. If you have some disagreement with them, say so, but do not presume to know that I have falsely stated them, unless, of course, you can present some convincing evidence of the power to read minds.
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 09:01:00 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, Piltdown. I don't see anything written about your motives. Maybe you could tell us your motives.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 14:13:48 [Permalink]
|
If so, is it this gap-filling that has provided our evolutionary advantage, assuming we have one?
The "gap-filling", or even knowing that there are gaps at all, is merely an evolutionary side effect. We developed large brains, it is presently thought, as a sexual display. A way to attract mates. Cognitive thinking was a lucky bonus that came along with the package.
Again, if so, does it lead to the conclusion that skepticism and belief are indeed in competition as opposed to being symbiotic components of the species? I ask this because it appears that both skepticism (with the resulting science) and belief (or supernaturalism) are attempting to fill the gaps, merely by different mechanisms.
But does belief actually attempt to fill any gaps?
I don't think that that is its actual purpose.
All of the major and most of the minor religions present explanations of natural occurrences that are designed solely to reinforce the belief system. No consideration is made for them being an actual representation of facts. These are only cover-ups of questions that are embarrassing to the belief system. If actual answers are found that contradict the cover-ups (like a heliocentric solar system or natural selection) they are considered attacks upon the faith. There is no consideration given to if they are the true explanation or not. That is why I think that belief has no interest in filling the gaps.
Skepticism and belief are at cross-purposes. Skepticism seeks facts so that one may have as clear an understanding of the world as possible; enabling you to be as free as possible. Belief seeks the control of the "mob". Facts, truth itself, are of no importance. Personal freedom is an anathema.
One of the advantages (perhaps the only) of age is "maturity". Maturity seems to be the loss of the need, which young people have, about having everyone like them. No longer am I vain enough to think that if someone is angry with me that there must be something psychologically wrong with that person. Nor do I attempt to analyze the angry that I might feel towards others.
Believers attempt to impose their beliefs on the rest of society (including me and mine) and thereby curtail their intellectual (and in some cases physical) freedom. It would speak poorly of me as a man (Hell, it would speak poorly of me as a mammal) not to feel anger towards them.
And if they are angry with me (and some of them are) then I'll take that as a compliment.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2002 : 14:23:43 [Permalink]
|
These are your beliefs about anger, and do not necessarily represent facts about anger. Just because someone is irrational, does not mean that there is something psychologically wrong with them. Just as when someone does something that I consider "stupid" does not make them a moron, or when they do something that I consider "insane" does not mean that they have a medical problem.
Your beliefs about what makes you a "man" are what makes you angry and not what other people do.
quote:
One of the advantages (perhaps the only) of age is "maturity". Maturity seems to be the loss of the need, which young people have, about having everyone like them. No longer am I vain enough to think that if someone is angry with me that there must be something psychologically wrong with that person. Nor do I attempt to analyze the angry that I might feel towards others.
Believers attempt to impose their beliefs on the rest of society (including me and mine) and thereby curtail their intellectual (and in some cases physical) freedom. It would speak poorly of me as a man (Hell, it would speak poorly of me as a mammal) not to feel anger towards them.
And if they are angry with me (and some of them are) then I'll take that as a compliment.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
