Scientific Atheism: The Religious Left
Jerry Kraus
largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
years -- I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
debators on the Global Warming side of the issue. They weren't really
debating. They were screaming. They were denouncing. They were
emoting. They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
be the case -- their facts had been accurate. The notion that global
warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
pain, to the point of inducing madness.
At the time, I thought that, perhaps, this reflected the development
of a new kind of religion based on nature worship and
environmentalism, perhaps focused on the International Green Party,
and harkening back to the nature worship of the Druids and the
polytheists. It appeared to have a fundamentally irrational basis,
indifferent to scientific reality logic or fact, attaching great
emotional significance to powerful totemistic symbols such as the
Nobel Prize and "scientific concensus" without any real interest in
whether they reflected any fundamental, underlying reality.
Lately, I have been debating so-called, self described "atheists".
Peronally, I doubt it is possible to truly be an atheist: we all have
to believe in something, after all. We all must have some sense of
purpose, if only to feed our bellies. Some may have a more complex
sense of purpose and structure to things than others, but, we all have
some sense of structure and purpose. In the case of modern, American
"atheists", this structure and purpose is what they call "science".
It has, of course, nothing to do with "science" in the normal sense of
the term, which is the pursuit of knowledge. Rather, it represents an
attempt to find a simple solution to the complexities of life, by
assuming that if something called the "scientific method" is applied
to them, all complexities will, magically, disappear, and everything
will be simple and clear, easily understood and controlled.
"Great Scientists" are perceived by these "atheists" as Saints and
Martyrs to humanity, above and beyond all material and practical
considerations, Saviours to humanity. Exactly who these people are,
or why, is not well understood. Many Nobel Prize winners would,
presumably qualify, since the Nobel Prize is one of their great
totemistic symbols. Many University Professors would also qualify,
since Universities are another of their totemistic symbols. They
would be less inclined to support professional scientists working in
Industry, because they see Business as evil, and are somewhat
socialistic in their leanings. But, some inventors would qualify, as
well.
Whence comes this new religion, and why? I would suggest that it is
related to the current social and economic difficulties in the United
States, and is largely an American phenomenon. People are looking for
simple solutions, and science and technology have, in the past,
provided solutions. But, rather than focusing on actual progress in
science -- which is difficult and complex -- the intention is to focus
on the symbols of science as an emotionally reassuring manifestation
of progress, whether any progress is actually made or not.
I suspect we are at something of a watershed in Science, at the
moment, and this religious manifestation indicates the likelihood of a
fundamental change in the way science is done. Computer technologies
allow the control and analysis of such huge quantities of data, now,
that some systematic method of selection, evaluation and
interpretation beyond conventional peer review and committee methods
is necessary. Some truly "scientific" method of determining which
data is important, and why.
Christopher A. Lee
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
>largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
>years -- I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
>debators on the Global Warming side of the issue. They weren't really
>debating. They were screaming. They were denouncing. They were
>emoting. They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
>far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
>supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
>practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
>be the case -- their facts had been accurate. The notion that global
>warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
>pain, to the point of inducing madness.
Liar.
>At the time, I thought that, perhaps, this reflected the development
>of a new kind of religion based on nature worship and
>environmentalism, perhaps focused on the International Green Party,
>and harkening back to the nature worship of the Druids and the
>polytheists. It appeared to have a fundamentally irrational basis,
>indifferent to scientific reality logic or fact, attaching great
>emotional significance to powerful totemistic symbols such as the
>Nobel Prize and "scientific concensus" without any real interest in
>whether they reflected any fundamental, underlying reality.
Liar.
>Lately, I have been debating so-called, self described "atheists".
>Peronally, I doubt it is possible to truly be an atheist: we all have
>to believe in something, after all. We all must have some sense of
>purpose, if only to feed our bellies. Some may have a more complex
>sense of purpose and structure to things than others, but, we all have
>some sense of structure and purpose. In the case of modern, American
>"atheists", this structure and purpose is what they call "science".
>It has, of course, nothing to do with "science" in the normal sense of
>the term, which is the pursuit of knowledge. Rather, it represents an
>attempt to find a simple solution to the complexities of life, by
>assuming that if something called the "scientific method" is applied
>to them, all complexities will, magically, disappear, and everything
>will be simple and clear, easily understood and controlled.
Liar.
>"Great Scientists" are perceived by these "atheists" as Saints and
>Martyrs to humanity, above and beyond all material and practical
>considerations, Saviours to humanity. Exactly who these people are,
>or why, is not well understood. Many Nobel Prize winners would,
>presumably qualify, since the Nobel Prize is one of their great
>totemistic symbols. Many University Professors would also qualify,
>since Universities are another of their totemistic symbols. They
>would be less inclined to support professional scientists working in
>Industry, because they see Business as evil, and are somewhat
>socialistic in their leanings. But, some inventors would qualify, as
>well.
Liar.
>Whence comes this new religion, and why? I would suggest that it is
>related to the current social and economic difficulties in the United
>States, and is largely an American phenomenon. People are looking for
>simple solutions, and science and technology have, in the past,
>provided solutions. But, rather than focusing on actual progress in
>science -- which is difficult and complex -- the intention is to focus
>on the symbols of science as an emotionally reassuring manifestation
>of progress, whether any progress is actually made or not.
Liar.
>I suspect we are at something of a watershed in Science, at the
>moment, and this religious manifestation indicates the likelihood of a
>fundamental change in the way science is done. Computer technologies
>allow the control and analysis of such huge quantities of data, now,
>that some systematic method of selection, evaluation and
>interpretation beyond conventional peer review and committee methods
>is necessary. Some truly "scientific" method of determining which
>data is important, and why.
Liar.
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
Chris is a pretty good example of the kind of person I have in mind,
here.
Christopher A. Lee
Liar.
JohnN
> During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
> largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
> years --
Not where I live.
> I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
> debators on the Global Warming side of the issue. They weren't really
> debating. They were screaming. They were denouncing. They were
> emoting. They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
> far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
> supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
> practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
> be the case -- their facts had been accurate. The notion that global
> warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
> pain, to the point of inducing madness.
Just like the Religious Reich when they claim to debate human rights
for homosexuals and abortion. Religion has dogma. Dogma can never be
questioned without destroying the dogma and the deity who created
it.
Science has no dogma, it has process. The process does not change but
the evidence uncovered by the process is discovered and clarified.
The evidence leads to theory which in turn leads to more research and
more evidence. Science can, and does, change.
As a consequence, the religious can not debate as their position can
not change.
JohnN
Jerry Kraus
Oh, I believe in true science. But, it's not that all common. Most
professional scientists are, quite naturally, more interested in
earning a living than in knowledge. Understandable, but, unhelpful.
One wouldn't expect most professional scientists to acknowledge this
obvious fact, of course, even to themselves!
Religion has its uses though. It provides a source of creativity as
an alternative to conventional approaches in science and other aspects
of society. It's not rational, it's not supposed to be. But, all of
our new ideas ultimately come from irrational sources we don't fully
understand.
Is there at least one Republican who thinks independently?
You have made several errors in your post, the first being that it was
the Republicans who first started the screaming when the scientists
started predicting global warming. It wasn't the warming that
bothered the Republicans. It was the theorized reason for the warming
that made the Republicans go into hissy fits. The scientists were
studying the data and make predictions without any political motives.
The Republican response was all about politics.
Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
Your "truly scientific method of determing which data is important and
why" is already built into the system. Scientists construct theories
from data and then use more data to determine if the theory is
accurate. Unlike religious dogma, scientific theories are tested
rigorously against data by thousands of scientists. Scientists don't
ignore data if that data doesn't fit the theory. Instead, the theory
is thrown out or modified if it doesn't fit the data. In religion,
the dogma never changes so the data has to be changed or tossed out or
ignored. Science goes from data to idea. Religion goes from idea to
data.
Lastly, atheists aren't in search of something to replace god. That's
the misperception of people who believe in a god. I started out in
life as a Christian who loved science. Even as a young boy, I could
see the fundamental differences between science and religion. I
became an atheist once my mind started thinking logically. It wasn't
the theory of evolution or of the Big Bang that turned me towards
atheism. It was cold, logical reasoning. I used my understanding of
science and logic upon proving or disproving god. I quickly
determined for myself that god couldn't be disproved through logic.
But I also knew that god couldn't be proven, either. So, left with
the conclusion that god couldn't be either proven or disproved, I
chose to not believe in god until proof of its existence made itself
available to me.
There was a time, a couple of millenniums ago, that religion was a
science. God or gods were a theory explaining how the universe
worked. Over time, these "theories" became religious dogma,
unyielding to observations. These theories were considered the truth
and all observations were made to fit this truth.
This cannot happen to science as long as theories have to stand up to
observations.
Angus Rodgers
>Lately, I have been debating so-called, self described "atheists".
>Peronally, I doubt it is possible to truly be an atheist: we all have
>to believe in something, after all. We all must have some sense of
>purpose, if only to feed our bellies.
Which one of the major religions is implied merely by someone having
a sense of purpose? If none, what would you say IS implied, and how
would you sketch the argument from somebody's sense of purpose to an
implicit theism?
(I'm singling this bit out to reply to, because it is relevant to
alt.philosophy, and because your argument as a whole attacks many
people who do not seem to me to be natural bedfellows at all, and
seem only to represent an amalgam of your personal pet hates. Of
course, I could be wrong, as I don't know you! I don't disagree
with everything you wrote; I just don't want to get into a widely
crossposted argument about lots of different things at once.)
>Whence comes this new religion, and why? I would suggest that it is
>related to the current social and economic difficulties in the United
>States, and is largely an American phenomenon.
By attacking so many unrelated targets at once, you have made it
almost impossible to discuss "this new religion", but, insofar as
there is something like a "new religion" in the air, it is a much
less parochial and more respectable phenomenon than you suggest.
>People are looking for
>simple solutions, and science and technology have, in the past,
>provided solutions. But, rather than focusing on actual progress in
>science -- which is difficult and complex -- the intention is to focus
>on the symbols of science as an emotionally reassuring manifestation
>of progress, whether any progress is actually made or not.
(One could turn this argument against medical psychiatry, but that's
another thread in alt.philosophy.) :-)
>I suspect we are at something of a watershed in Science, at the
>moment, and this religious manifestation indicates the likelihood of a
>fundamental change in the way science is done. Computer technologies
>allow the control and analysis of such huge quantities of data, now,
>that some systematic method of selection, evaluation and
>interpretation beyond conventional peer review and committee methods
>is necessary. Some truly "scientific" method of determining which
>data is important, and why.
I think that's a crazy idea - science turning and feeding on itself.
Ugh! I'm reminded of how candidates for certain academic positions
in science have on occasion been assessed by literally /weighing/
their publications. (Sorry, I haven't got a reference - so I can't
prove that this isn't apocryphal, perhaps starting life as a joke.)
It certainly looks like something worth debating, however, and I
don't claim to have provided any real argument against it.
On a purely practical level, there are citation databases, with
numerical measures of importance based on frequency of citation
(presumably weighted - as in Google's system for weighting Web
pages). But I don't know much about this; anyway you seem to be
proposing something much more radical (and insane!), perhaps a
mechanistic form of final assessment, not merely a provisional
but helpful heuristic guide to likely importance and validity.
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are oversimplifying on a number of levels, because of your
religious attachment to conventional scientific thinking. True
science is, as you say, not a religion. But, saying that conventional
approaches to the pursuit of science are perfect, forever, and cannot
be improved upon in any way, ever, is religious thinking. It is blind
faith. It assumes that conventional approaches are perfect, and, of
course, nothing is. You are turning conventional science into a
religion by this approach. Theologians would call it idolatry. Ask
them, if you don't believe me.
Obviously, given the enormous amount of data currently being analyzed,
some improvements could be made in our technology of analyzing and
understanding it. Just saying "it must stand up to scrutiny" means
absolutely nothing. Scrutiny can be more or less systematic, more or
less "scientific". That is the issue.
cop...@yahoo.com
independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
> beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
> angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
Brandon
Is there at least one Republican who thinks independently?
By the way, I apologize for my rambling post...I'm operating on an
hour and a half of sleep.
Of course I'm oversimplifying. Science is self-righting. It is
constantly evolving. The methodology and theories change whenever the
data indicates change is needed. Blind faith has nothing to do with
it at all. Data, not faith, informs us if science is correct.
Science isn't perfect, of course, but it's evolving towards
perfection, which it will never reach, perhaps but it's improving.
Religion doesn't improve.
I think I'm going to have to come back to this...ha ha ha. I just
can't focus my thoughts. I need sleep.
Thanks for this post, though. It's got my brain working even though
it's tired. Few posts here make one think. It was a pleasure to read
and debate your post.
Jerry Kraus
That's precisely what he's saying. Like most supposed "atheists" he
is, totally, and completely, ignorant about the nature of religion.
He attaches to word to Bible Belt American Christians, and not much
else. Who, ironically, don't consider themselves to be religious!
They say they "have a relationship with Jesus", and that they "hate
religion". Just like "atheists" , have a "belief in science" and
"hate religion". Actually, American Atheists and Bible Belt
Christians have a great deal in common. They oversimplify like crazy!
Christopher A. Lee
Both deism and theism are attributes of theistic religion, but not
religions in themselves. It's hard to be theist and not have a
religion, because gods are religious artifacts.
Atheism is the simple demographic absence of these attributes. And not
a religion either.
Some religions like certain sects of Buddhism, and the Nastika schools
of Hinduism are atheistic in the sense that they have nothing to say
about gods.
Which the atheists here wouldn't either, if theists didn't push their
religion where it is neither wanted nor needed, and if they didn't
misrepresent atheists to our faces to the point of bigoted lies about
us.
>Brandon
Christopher A. Lee
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 11:04 am, "cop...@yahoo.com" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
>>
>> independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
>> > theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
>> > beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
>> > angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
>>
>> Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
>>
>> Brandon
>
>That's precisely what he's saying. Like most supposed "atheists" he
>is, totally, and completely, ignorant about the nature of religion.
Liar.
>He attaches to word to Bible Belt American Christians, and not much
>else.
Liar.
> Who, ironically, don't consider themselves to be religious!
Only those who pretend Christianity isn't a religion.
>They say they "have a relationship with Jesus", and that they "hate
>religion". Just like "atheists" , have a "belief in science" and
>"hate religion". Actually, American Atheists and Bible Belt
>Christians have a great deal in common. They oversimplify like crazy!
Liar.
Jerry Kraus
On Apr 11, 10:56 am, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
We have a mechanistic, mathematical technology for experimental
design, why not a mechanistic, mathematical technology for
experimental interpretation? Would speed things up a bit, wouldn't
it?
With computers, we can store and analyze all data and information
relevant to any experiment. Why not do it systematically, instead of
by guesswork?
Mike Painter
> During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
> largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
> years
He's right.
In an unreleased, unwritten, and unspoken TOP SECRET memo, EAC scientists
have not revealed they can now control the weather and are lowering global
temperatures (to the good countries)
"The solution was simple and staring us in the face", an unnamed scientist
didn't say.
"All you need are a handful of strange attractors who know which butterflies
to kill."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080116114150.htm
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
> Some religions like certain sects of Buddhism, and the Nastika schools
> of Hinduism are atheistic in the sense that they have nothing to say
> about gods.
>
> Which the atheists here wouldn't either, if theists didn't push their
> religion where it is neither wanted nor needed, and if they didn't
> misrepresent atheists to our faces to the point of bigoted lies about
> us.
>
Uh...Brandon...your position on "God" doesn't seem to be entirely
neutral...if you'll forgive me saying so...
Immortalist
... we seem to have lost sight of the core issue of this warming
debate; "Greenhouse_Gases" ...those gases present in the atmosphere
which reduce the loss of heat into space and therefore contribute to
global temperatures through the greenhouse effect. They are
irrefutably essential to maintaining the temperature of the earth;
without them the planet would be so cold as to be uninhabitable. An
excess of greenhouse gases can raise the temperature of the planet to
lethal levels. Since Greenhouse gases are produced by many natural and
industrial processes, and industril processes are increasing globally,
it is obviously a very important issue, however clownish the current
intereted groups seem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
> ...this reflected the development
> of a new kind of religion based on nature worship and
> environmentalism, perhaps focused on the International Green Party,
> and harkening back to the nature worship of the Druids and the
> polytheists. It appeared to have a fundamentally irrational basis,
> indifferent to scientific reality logic or fact, attaching great
> emotional significance to powerful totemistic symbols such as the
> Nobel Prize and "scientific concensus" without any real interest in
> whether they reflected any fundamental, underlying reality.
>
Just as the brain has probably innate structures that aid the
acquisition of language. More recent work by evolutionary
psychologists indicates that it is not only language we are probably
endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of right and
wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible principles of
action, a universal moral grammar, built into the brains of all
humans. Similarly religion is probably a by-product of the way our
minds evolved to negotiate the natural and, more importantly, the
social world.
Human beings may need a creed, the absence of which would likely
result in all kinds of social corruption, this may be part of our
instinctual drive towards reciprocity, fairness and the social
contract. Human beings may have an inborn drive producing the need for
worship and devotion as well as the performance of a number of rites
and a complex sense of institutional arrangements and social
conventions of daily life.
Compte came to the conclusion that the human being needed a creed, the
absence of which results in all kinds of social corruption. According
to him, past religion (Catholicism) is not adequate enough for modern
mankind.
...He said that Catholicism belonged to the human being's supernatural
thinking and this is not acceptable to the person of the scientific
age. His invented religion however, lacked an occult root, but he
accepted all the traditions and rites which existed before, and even
proposed having priests in this new creed, presenting himself as its
prophet, but a prophet without a god. They say about him that he got
his rites from Catholicism and he was criticized for this since he
disbelieved that religion but imitated and adopted its ceremonies and
traditions.
He was right in one thing, that the human being needs worship and
devotion as well as the performance of a number of rites.
The Religion of Humanity becomes in the author's intentions the true
Positive religion, the only one capable of replacing Catholicism. Like
the Catholic religion, Positivism will have its cult, its dogmas, its
ceremonies, its "consecrations" or "social sacraments" by which to
sanctify "all present phases of private life, systematically tying
them to public life" (Positive Catechism). Months will take the
meaningful names of Positive religion and the days of the week will be
consecrated each to one of the seven sciences. Lay temples will be
built (scientific institutes) and a Positive pope will exercise his
authority on those who will be committed to the development of
industries and to the practical use of discoveries. In Positive
society woman will become the guardian and the source of the
sentimental life of Humanity.
Humanity will be the Great Being, space will be the Great Environment,
and the earth the Great Fetish: this is the trinity of the Positive
religion....
http://www.najaf.org/english/book/8/2.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=comte+%22religion+of+humanity%22
http://membres.lycos.fr/clotilde/etexts/harrison/religion.htm
Evolutionary psychologists like Pascal Boyer, Dan Sperber and Justin
Barrett are beginning to provide an explanation as to why certain
religious ideas, specifically, the personal nature of "spirit" persist
in cultures worldwide. These explanations have to do with the evolved
structure of the brain and how this translates to the kind of concept
that is attractive to the mind. That is, there are certain concepts
that our minds easily entertain. Much like language acquisition, the
mind automatically receives certain concepts more readily than
others.
Since Chomsky's work in the late 60s linguists generally acknowledge
that the brain has innate structures that aid the acquisition of
language. More recent work by evolutionary psychologists indicates
that it is not only language that is facilitated by innate brain
structures. Indeed it seems that these structures are responsible for
all cognition, including the elaboration of religious ideation. This
work explains why supernatural realities are always imagined to be
personal because the brain is specifically structured to deal with the
personal. In other words, evolution has provided us with specific
adaptations that are unconscious, mandatory and fast and respond when
we are dealing with others. These adaptations are intimately involved
in religious ideation: that is why "the force" will never be a key
religious concept.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2002/aug02/Sellick.htm
Across the globe and throughout history, human beings have engaged in
a variety of religious practices and have held a diversity of
religious beliefs. These phenomena have been explained in a variety of
different ways by anthropologists, psychologists, and other scholars,
as well as by religious practitioners themselves, with varying degrees
of success. Perhaps more puzzling, and just in need of an explanation,
is the fact that human beings have religion in the first place.
...Religion is a by-product of the way our minds evolved to negotiate
the natural and, more importantly, the social world. Evolutionary
Psychology's naturalistic and cognitivist approach is at variance with
many established traditions in the study of the religion and his
approach may seem wrong-headed to many...
http://www.semcoop.com/detail/0465006965
"The Swiss Army knife is a flexible tool. Its flexibility is not the
result of having just one tool that is applied to all problems.
Instead, it is a bundle of tools, each well-designed for solving a
different problem - scissors for cutting paper, corkscrew for opening
wine, toothpick for cleaning teeth. Each solves a different problem
well, thereby providing flexible problem solving ability. Similarly,
the human mind does not have just one blunt tool for solving all
problems - and if it did, we would be very limited indeed. Each human
mind contains a large number of programs, each well-designed for
solving a different adaptive problem: choosing a good mate, caring for
children, foraging for food, avoiding predators, navigating a
landscape, forming coalitions, trading, defending one's family against
aggression, and so on. We are flexible problem solvers in part because
our minds contain so many well-engineered tools."
- - Leda Cosmides
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/ledainterview.htm
...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar,
built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of
principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of
action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language
faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible
languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a
universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/marc-hauser-mor.html
Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal
Sense of Right and Wrong - by Marc Hauser
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703
Angus Rodgers
>We have a mechanistic, mathematical technology for experimental
>design, why not a mechanistic, mathematical technology for
>experimental interpretation?
In a sense, that's what statistics is, isn't it? And of course it
is very useful (indeed indispensable), but it is not, and cannot be,
the whole of scientific method.
>Would speed things up a bit, wouldn't it?
So would casting dice, or consulting birds' entrails. :-)
>With computers, we can store and analyze all data and information
>relevant to any experiment. Why not do it systematically, instead of
>by guesswork?
That sounds like an eminently practical suggestion, and indeed I
would be surprised if something like it doesn't already exist.
(I'm not a working scientist.) People certainly already perform
"meta-analyses" of large numbers of related experiments - this is
routine.
I got the impression that you were suggesting something much more
far-reaching. I'm not sure if the context of your original article
as a whole provides a clue. You wished to discriminate between
genuine and ersatz science. It looks as if one idea you have for
making science more genuine is to make it more systematic, in every
respect, even down to deciding which theories to believe in, on the
basis of an automated analysis of experiments. As I have suggested,
statistical inference is already a limited realisation of that idea.
Artificial intelligence is another. I cannot see either of these,
or anything resembling either of them, as a total replacement for
science itself, which is (or should be) an expression of human
reason.
I'm vaguely reminded of Joseph Weizenbaum's arguments in "Computer
Power and Human Reason: From Judgement to Calculation" - which I
read ages ago, and liked a lot, but can't now remember very clearly.
I just don't think that in general, formalisation, mechanisation,
and calculation, however marvellous they are, and however far they
are taken, ever can or should replace the faculty of reason itself,
however messy and fallible and regrettably human that faculty is.
(I'm not sure how relevant this is to what you are saying! Bit of
a hobby horse of mine, I'm afraid. One reason I've started reading
alt.philosophy is to see if I can learn to debate things instead of
only brooding, and occasionally ranting, about them. Mistakes will
happen.) :-)
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> >With computers, we can store and analyze all data and information
> >relevant to any experiment. Why not do it systematically, instead of
> >by guesswork?
>
> That sounds like an eminently practical suggestion, and indeed I
> would be surprised if something like it doesn't already exist.
> (I'm not a working scientist.) People certainly already perform
> "meta-analyses" of large numbers of related experiments - this is
> routine.
>
Yes, they do "meta-analyses", but intuitively. There is no standard,
accepted methodology for doing so. That's what I'm proposing. Models
for meta-analyses as systematic as the models for controlled
experiments we currently have. Scientists, of course, don't like
having their options restricted, that's just human nature. But,
saying "I'm a tenured professor, I can ignore any results I want",
which they do, is not very scientific. Some accepted controls over
this type of behavior need to be put into place.
Christopher A. Lee
Good thing that's just your stupid, dishonest, pig-ignorant straw man
then, isn't it?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Elegantly put, Brandon.
cop...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>
> <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
> >independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
> >> theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
> >> beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
> >> angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
>
> >Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
>
> Both deism and theism are attributes of theistic religion, but not
> religions in themselves. It's hard to be theist and not have a
> religion, because gods are religious artifacts.
Well, many (most?) deists base their belief in God on rational study
and experience of the world rather than a reliance on revelation and
miracles.
Brandon
cop...@yahoo.com
I think you mean "Chris", because I never said my position was
neutral.
Brandon
Christopher A. Lee
An admission you couldn't refute it.
Angus Rodgers
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Just as the brain has probably innate structures that aid the
>acquisition of language. More recent work by evolutionary
>psychologists indicates that it is not only language we are probably
>endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of right and
>wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible principles of
>action, a universal moral grammar, built into the brains of all
>humans. Similarly religion is probably a by-product of the way our
>minds evolved to negotiate the natural and, more importantly, the
>social world.
There is some kind of infinite regress here. This kind of argument
would dispose of scientific reason itself just as easily as it tries
to dispose of ethics.
>Human beings may need a creed, the absence of which would likely
>result in all kinds of social corruption, this may be part of our
>instinctual drive towards reciprocity, fairness and the social
>contract. Human beings may have an inborn drive producing the need for
>worship and devotion as well as the performance of a number of rites
>and a complex sense of institutional arrangements and social
>conventions of daily life.
Perhaps they (i.e. we) do, perhaps they (i.e. we) don't. But you,
the individual scientist, or believer in science, eventually must
decide what you think is right or wrong; and no amount of standing
back and observing the peculiar rites of these evolved apes on this
planet will ever substitute for the need to find ground to stand on.
>Compte came to the conclusion that the human being needed a creed, the
>absence of which results in all kinds of social corruption. According
>to him, past religion (Catholicism) is not adequate enough for modern
>mankind.
>
>...He said that Catholicism belonged to the human being's supernatural
>thinking and this is not acceptable to the person of the scientific
>age. His invented religion however, lacked an occult root, but he
>accepted all the traditions and rites which existed before, and even
>proposed having priests in this new creed, presenting himself as its
>prophet, but a prophet without a god.
Yeah, right, great idea: throw out the baby and keep the bath water! :-)
>They say about him that he got
>his rites from Catholicism and he was criticized for this since he
>disbelieved that religion but imitated and adopted its ceremonies and
>traditions.
>
>He was right in one thing, that the human being needs worship and
>devotion as well as the performance of a number of rites.
I'd say he's wrong in that. What people need is faith in something
real. (My own personal feeling about all the "worship and devotion"
stuff is that it is glorified anthropoid pack behaviour, which should
be got rid of - but I'm not offering this as a serious analysis! The
forms of organised religion just make me want to puke, that's all.)
>The Religion of Humanity becomes in the author's intentions the true
>Positive religion, the only one capable of replacing Catholicism. Like
>the Catholic religion, Positivism will have its cult, its dogmas, its
>ceremonies, its "consecrations" or "social sacraments" by which to
>sanctify "all present phases of private life, systematically tying
>them to public life" (Positive Catechism). Months will take the
>meaningful names of Positive religion and the days of the week will be
>consecrated each to one of the seven sciences. Lay temples will be
>built (scientific institutes) and a Positive pope will exercise his
>authority on those who will be committed to the development of
>industries and to the practical use of discoveries. In Positive
>society woman will become the guardian and the source of the
>sentimental life of Humanity.
>
>Humanity will be the Great Being, space will be the Great Environment,
>and the earth the Great Fetish: this is the trinity of the Positive
>religion....
>
>http://www.najaf.org/english/book/8/2.htm
>http://www.google.com/search?q=comte+%22religion+of+humanity%22
>http://membres.lycos.fr/clotilde/etexts/harrison/religion.htm
Interesting. Thanks for the references (which I haven't looked at
yet, but will).
>Evolutionary psychologists like Pascal Boyer, Dan Sperber and Justin
>Barrett are beginning to provide an explanation as to why certain
>religious ideas, specifically, the personal nature of "spirit" persist
>in cultures worldwide. These explanations have to do with the evolved
>structure of the brain and how this translates to the kind of concept
>that is attractive to the mind. That is, there are certain concepts
>that our minds easily entertain. Much like language acquisition, the
>mind automatically receives certain concepts more readily than
>others.
>
>Since Chomsky's work in the late 60s linguists generally acknowledge
>that the brain has innate structures that aid the acquisition of
>language. More recent work by evolutionary psychologists indicates
>that it is not only language that is facilitated by innate brain
>structures. Indeed it seems that these structures are responsible for
>all cognition, including the elaboration of religious ideation. This
>work explains why supernatural realities are always imagined to be
>personal because the brain is specifically structured to deal with the
>personal.
The really weird thing is how believers in science as a total
cosmology are able to imagine that the personal can be treated
as if it were impersonal! Presumably that can also be explained
on the basis of brain structure. (But is anybody even trying?)
>In other words, evolution has provided us with specific
>adaptations that are unconscious, mandatory and fast and respond when
>we are dealing with others. These adaptations are intimately involved
>in religious ideation: that is why "the force" will never be a key
>religious concept.
>
>http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2002/aug02/Sellick.htm
>
>Across the globe and throughout history, human beings have engaged in
>a variety of religious practices and have held a diversity of
>religious beliefs. These phenomena have been explained in a variety of
>different ways by anthropologists, psychologists, and other scholars,
>as well as by religious practitioners themselves, with varying degrees
>of success. Perhaps more puzzling, and just in need of an explanation,
>is the fact that human beings have religion in the first place.
>
>...Religion is a by-product [...]
Then so is science. If that observation does not invalidate science,
then neither does it invalidate religion.
>[...] of the way our minds evolved to negotiate
>the natural and, more importantly, the social world.
>
>[snip]
>
>...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
>right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
>principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar,
>built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of
>principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of
>action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language
>faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible
>languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a
>universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.
>
>http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/marc-hauser-mor.html
This argument must surely apply exactly as well to the human faculty
of reason. What follows from this? That's not intended as a merely
rhetorical question. My rhetorical point is that you can't simply
single out ethics and/or religion as targets for objectification:
science and reason themselves must come under science's own lens.
(Where to go from there is an open question.)
>[snip]
Both you and Kraus have attacked a lot of targets, and I'm afraid
I have replied with much rambling myself. The focus of my thoughts
- which probably isn't at all clear from what I've written - is the
question of what comes next in our future history, after religion
and scientism. Is there something that combines the best of both?
Christopher A. Lee
<cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 11:15 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>>
>> <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
>> >independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
>> >> theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
>> >> beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
>> >> angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
>>
>> >Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
>>
>> Both deism and theism are attributes of theistic religion, but not
>> religions in themselves. It's hard to be theist and not have a
>> religion, because gods are religious artifacts.
>
>Well, many (most?) deists base their belief in God on rational study
>and experience of the world rather than a reliance on revelation and
>miracles.
No, because there is nothing that leads to it as a conclusion.
It's what's left when you start off theist and remove everything
natural from it. The ultimate god of the ever decreasing gaps.
>Brandon
Christopher A. Lee
If he meant me then he can't read for comprehension.
>Brandon
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:13:19 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
What's to refute, Chris? You haven't said anything all day.
Jerry Kraus
Yes Brandon, sorry about that. Chris is rather the touchy and
unstable one, isn't he? Although, his irrational behavior did give me
the idea for this piece, of course! Nuts have their uses. They're
very nutritious.
Christopher A. Lee
Apart from pointing out your lies about science, scientists and
atheists.
Christopher A. Lee
The only nut here is yourself, the serial liar who lies about science,
scientists and atheists.
thomas p.
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:04c29556-3451-49c9...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
Starts out with lie - no point in continuing
snip of very long additional nonsense.
chibiabos
<04c29556-3451-49c9...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lately, I have been debating so-called, self described "atheists".
> Peronally, I doubt it is possible to truly be an atheist: we all have
> to believe in something, after all.
Language isn't your first language, is it.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
thomas p.
On Apr 11, 10:25 am, JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:39 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
>
> Not where I live.
>
> > I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
> > debators on the Global Warming side of the issue. They weren't really
> > debating. They were screaming. They were denouncing. They were
> > emoting. They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
> > far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
> > supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
> > practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
> > be the case -- their facts had been accurate. The notion that global
> > warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
> > pain, to the point of inducing madness.
>
> for homosexuals and abortion. Religion has dogma. Dogma can never be
> questioned without destroying the dogma and the deity who created
> it.
>
> Science has no dogma, it has process. The process does not change but
> the evidence uncovered by the process is discovered and clarified.
> The evidence leads to theory which in turn leads to more research and
> more evidence. Science can, and does, change.
>
> As a consequence, the religious can not debate as their position can
> not change.
>
> JohnN
Oh, I believe in true science. But, it's not that all common. Most
professional scientists are, quite naturally, more interested in
earning a living than in knowledge. Understandable, but, unhelpful.
One wouldn't expect most professional scientists to acknowledge this
obvious fact, of course, even to themselves!
Religion has its uses though. It provides a source of creativity as
an alternative to conventional approaches in science and other aspects
of society. It's not rational, it's not supposed to be. But, all of
our new ideas ultimately come from irrational sources we don't fully
understand.
Nope. You are still a liar and possibly a fool
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
I think he gets his "science" from Rush Limbaugh, or one of the other
talk radio whores for the neocon business interests.
thomas p.
On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
plonk
thomas p.
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mm3vv31hl14bkk0nb...@4ax.com...
Plonk him. You are not going to get even a pretense at a sensible answer.
He is useless.
cop...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:19:27 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
> <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 11, 11:15 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>
> >> <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
> >> >independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
> >> >> theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
> >> >> beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
> >> >> angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
>
> >> >Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
>
> >> Both deism and theism are attributes of theistic religion, but not
> >> religions in themselves. It's hard to be theist and not have a
> >> religion, because gods are religious artifacts.
>
> >Well, many (most?) deists base their belief in God on rational study
> >and experience of the world rather than a reliance on revelation and
> >miracles.
>
> No, because there is nothing that leads to it as a conclusion.
Sure their is. My study and experience have just led me to a different
conclusion than you. You'll get here eventually; I'll wait.
Brandon
Christopher A. Lee
<cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 12:27 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:19:27 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>>
>>
>>
>> <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 11, 11:15 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>>
>> >> <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
>> >> >independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
>> >> >> theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
>> >> >> beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
>> >> >> angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
>>
>> >> >Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
>>
>> >> Both deism and theism are attributes of theistic religion, but not
>> >> religions in themselves. It's hard to be theist and not have a
>> >> religion, because gods are religious artifacts.
>>
>> >Well, many (most?) deists base their belief in God on rational study
>> >and experience of the world rather than a reliance on revelation and
>> >miracles.
>>
>> No, because there is nothing that leads to it as a conclusion.
>
>Sure their is. My study and experience have just led me to a different
>conclusion than you.
Then provide this alleged evidence and the reasoning that leads from
it to conclude a deity. Instead of just saying there is.
But you can't.
Because there isn't any.
> You'll get here eventually; I'll wait.
Arrogant stupidity.
>Brandon
Angus Rodgers
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Nuts have their uses. They're
>very nutritious.
Careful - you are what you eat!
Sanity's Little Helper
878e-46d...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com to alt.atheism on 11 Apr
2008:
<snip tirade of downright lies, misconceptions and other assorted efforts
at feigning intellect>
> I suspect we are at something of a watershed in Science, at the
> moment, and this religious manifestation indicates the likelihood of a
> fundamental change in the way science is done. Computer technologies
> allow the control and analysis of such huge quantities of data, now,
> that some systematic method of selection, evaluation and
> interpretation beyond conventional peer review and committee methods
> is necessary. Some truly "scientific" method of determining which
> data is important, and why.
>
>
>
I smell loony. Can we cut him up and see what's inside?
--
David Silverman D.B.E.
BAAWA
aa #2208
Lord Mayor of Dis
Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack".
Holder of rights to the stage musical "The Shining".
Not authentic without this signature.
Jerry Kraus
Immortalist
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> >Just as the brain has probably innate structures that aid the
> >acquisition of language. More recent work by evolutionary
> >psychologists indicates that it is not only language we are probably
> >endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of right and
> >wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible principles of
> >action, a universal moral grammar, built into the brains of all
> >humans. Similarly religion is probably a by-product of the way our
> >minds evolved to negotiate the natural and, more importantly, the
> >social world.
>
> There is some kind of infinite regress here. This kind of argument
> would dispose of scientific reason itself just as easily as it tries
> to dispose of ethics.
>
Examples of Biased Inference as an Evolutionary Adaption
[1] - Error Management Theory
[2] - The Probability Instinct
[3] - Pascal's Wager
[4] - Over-Sensitive Agency-Detectors
##################################
[1] - Error Management Theory
##################################
A new theory of cognitive biases, called error management theory
(EMT), proposes that psychological mechanisms are designed to be
predictably biased when the costs of false-positive and false-negative
errors were asymmetrical over evolutionary history. This theory
explains known phenomena such as men's overperception of women's
sexual intent, and it predicts new biases in social inference such as
women's underestimation of men's commitment.
For example in an uncertain world, consider two potential errors in
thinking:
Partner is having an affair (but isn't)
Partner isn't having an affair (but is)
The cost of making those two errors are very different. Those making
the first error have less cost (from a reproductive success
standpoint) than those who make the second. Theoretically we evolved
toward vigilance and are more likely to make [adaptive_error.]
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/media/releases/2002/pr020103.cfm
Humans live in an uncertain world. We rely on our senses to pick up
information from the world, and then use our information processing
capacities to make inferences about the true state of the world. Real
threats to our survival and relationships are not always readily
apparent, given the ambiguity and uncertainty of the information.
Consider a relatively simple problem of walking through the woods and
fleetingly sensing a slithering object scurry underneath some leaves
in the path directly in front of you. There are two possible states of
reality: either there is a dangerous snake in your path or there is
not a dangerous snake in your path. Given the incomplete and uncertain
information that you have percieved, there are also two inferences you
could make. There is indeed a dangerous snake, and you act to avoid
it. Or you could conclude that there is no snake and continue walking
down the path.
There are also two possible ways that you could be wrong. You could
believe that there is a snake when in fact no snake exists. Or you
could believe that no snake when in fact a venomous rattler is lurking
right in your path. The costs of these two types of errors, however,
are vastly different. In the first case, your belief causes you to
incur the trivial metabolic cost of taking an unnecessary evasive
action. By giving a wide birth to the area that you believe harbors a
snake, you have merely gone out of your way a little, incurring a
minor delay in your walk. In the second case, however, failing to
detect a snake that is in fact lurking in your path can cost you your
life. The two ways of being wrong carry substantially different costs.
Now imagine that this scenario not only repeats itself thousands and
thousands of times in your liftime, but billions and billions of times
over human evolutionary history. Those who made the first kind of
mistake tended to survive, whereas those who made the second kind of
mistake tended to die. As a result, modern humans have descended from
a line of ancestors whose inferences about the uncertain world erred
in the direction of believing that snakes existed more than they do.
These can be called adaptive errors.
The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy Is As
Necessary As Love and Sex - by David M. Buss
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684850818/
##################################
[2] - The Probability Instinct
##################################
It looks as if Kant, who thought our minds structure our perceptions,
was right. Probability was built into our minds. Our minds, the
electrochemical symphony that our narrowly evolved neural ganglia
play, impose an infrastructure on our thinking. The mind imposes a
background of time and space and causal connectedness. Scientists have
never seen a "causality" in the wild. They have seen, and they
predict, only space-time events that follow space-time events. Apples
on the tree, then apples in the air, then apples on the ground.
Equations and correlations have replaced causes, just as science has
largely replaced philosophy and religion as a theory of things. No
causal germ in one event unfolds into another event. But the mind, as
eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume observed, makes it seem so
and inserts the causal links in the event chain.
Probability seems to be part of the same mental infrastructure. It
forms part of our mental background or viewing screen along with time
and space and causality and similarity and the topological notions of
continuity and connectedness. We see probability everywhere because it
lies in our glasses.
I believe that probability or "randomness" is a psychic instinct or
Jungian archetype or mental trend that helps us organize our
perceptions and memories and most of all our expectations. Probability
gives structure to our competing causal predictions about how the
future will unfold in the next instant or day or season or millennium.
Probability ranks or weights the future alternatives. Our expectations
then blend or average these future alternatives into a single
probability-weighted average. The probability weights do not exist
outside our minds. They have no physical reality but have a powerful
psychological reality rooted in our neural mi-crostructure. Hume also
thought that we make up probability as we go and use it to fill in
gaps in our mind schemes or world views: "Though there be no such
thing as chance in the world, our ignorance of the real cause of any
event has the same influence on the understanding and begets a like
species of belief."
This probability instinct seems to cut across cultures and may cut
across species. Besides the probability-laden psychology of scientists
and most nonscientists, the widespread gambling and games of chance in
primitive and modern cultures suggest that probability "reasoning" may
be a cultural constant like hero worship or fertility rituals or
incest and adultery taboos. A cultural constant suggests a biological
substrate, and that requires an evolutionary history.
Ranking future alternatives can help pass on genes. Those who could so
rank may have eaten those who could not. It allows us to bet before we
act and improve the outcome of acting. That forward-looking ability
has supreme survival value in biological evolution, the genetic
variation and selection in the last few million years that has finely
sculpted our brains and minds, and in the prior evolution that
sculpted the brains and minds of our mammalian ancestors in the last
220 million years. Natural selection filters out organisms as they
cross the fuzzy line from the present to the future. Natural selection
favors brain mechanisms that help an organism make its next move in a
changing and dangerous world. These forward-looking brain mechanisms
may run deep in the structure of mammalian and even reptilian brains.
Future studies may find that the brains of chimps and apes and lesser-
brained mammals house a forward-looking probability instinct. At the
other extreme we should not be surprised that scientists have exalted
probability ranking into their grand organizing principle of maximum
probability. Scientists follow their probability instincts as their
hominid forefathers followed theirs. Scientists just know more math.
Fuzzy Thinking - The New Science of Fuzzy Logic
Bart Kosko
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/078688021X/
##################################
[3] - Pascal's Wager
##################################
"Pascal's Wager" posits that it is a better "bet" to believe that God
exists than not to believe, because the expected value of believing
(which Pascal assessed as infinite) is always greater than the
expected value of not believing. ...even under the assumption that
God's existence is unlikely, the potential benefits of believing are
so vast as to make betting on theism rational....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
##################################
[4] - Over-Sensitive Agency-Detectors
##################################
Humans routinely attribute intentions, beliefs, and desires in order
to interpret the behavior of others. Other humans are seen as agents,
that is, as entities that pursue goals in accordance with their
beliefs and desires. Attributions of agency are so ubiquitous that
they are typically taken for granted in everyday life. These
attributions are not always correct in identifying the beliefs and
desires that underlie a specific action of an agent; yet, if people
did not see others as agents, the capacity to understand their
behavior would be severely impaired. For example, people would be
surprised when others got up and moved. Abundant research documents
children's acquisition of human agent concepts over the first several
years of life (Astington et al., 1988; Perner, 1993; Wellman, 1990),
but there is little work available on the development of non-human
agent concepts. Yet, people often attribute intentions, beliefs and
desires to animals as well as to ghosts, gods, demons, and monsters.
...Why are we humans predisposed to have only these kinds of religious
concepts? Boyer's answer, in brief, is that our brains have been
"designed by evolution" to employ particular cognitive systems that
help us to make sense of "particular aspects of objects around us and
produce specific kinds of [inferences] about them."
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0201/reviews/griffiths.html
Evolutionary Reasons For Humans To Be "Over-Sensitive Agency-
Detectors"
Now, an agent is just some entity that is moved or guided by its own
awareness and goals; for humans, other human beings are among the most
important agents in our environments, but there are also the various
non-human animals. Given that the presence of other agents (and what
they are doing) matters to our prospects for survival and
reproduction, why would we be over-sensitive to their presence?
Consider predators. 'Detecting' a predator that is not there is not a
terribly bad thing; failing to detect a predator that is there is much
more serious. And something very similar goes for prey: Detecting
lunch that isn't there is much less serious than failing to detect
lunch when it is there. In both direction, our capacities for agency
detection should be tuned to generate more false positives than false
negatives. For evolutionary reasons, we should expect to 'detect' some
agents which are not there. Is the perception of (accidental) patterns
of cues in our environment at the root of the detection of
supernatural agents, of gods? That cannot be the whole story, for
there would be no general evolutionary pay-off for over-sensitive
agency detection unless we could rapidly drop mistaken conclusions
about the presence of predators or prey as new evidence comes in. (You
can starve while looking for the lunch that is not there or while
cowering in hiding from the predator that is not there.) Even if
initial detection of supernatural agents is a function of over-
sensitive agency detection routines, something else is needed to
explain what stabilizes belief in such agents.
Religion Explained: The Evolutionary
Origins of Religious Thought - Pascal Boyer
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465006965/
http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/log2002.html
> >Human beings may need a creed, the absence of which would likely
> >result in all kinds of social corruption, this may be part of our
> >instinctual drive towards reciprocity, fairness and the social
> >contract. Human beings may have an inborn drive producing the need for
> >worship and devotion as well as the performance of a number of rites
> >and a complex sense of institutional arrangements and social
> >conventions of daily life.
>
> Perhaps they (i.e. we) do, perhaps they (i.e. we) don't. But you,
> the individual scientist, or believer in science, eventually must
> decide what you think is right or wrong; and no amount of standing
> back and observing the peculiar rites of these evolved apes on this
> planet will ever substitute for the need to find ground to stand on.
>
...genes and culture are held together by an elastic but unbreakable
leash. As culture surges forward by means of innovation and the
introduction of new ideas and artifacts from the outside, it is
constrained and directed to some extent by the genes. At the same
time, the pressure of cultural innovation affects the survival of the
genes and ultimately alters the strength and torque of the genetic
leash.
...Gene-culture coevolution is a radical process. The differences
among individuals made possible by higher intelligence and culture
enormously increase the potential for natural selection and genetic
evolution. No longer do the genes dictate one or a very few behaviors--
instead the mind intervenes decisively. Ranging widely, it creates a
much greater array of actions. It permits each combination of genes to
have multiple expressions and offers alternative solutions to most
problems within a single lifetime. Because the mind judges the
circumstances of the moment and reflects on the broader implications
of its own decisions, it can address the ordinary contingencies of
life with greater moment-to-moment competence than the tightly
programed responses of animals. In effect, the mutation rate of
behavioral responses is vastly increased, and the genes that
capacitated the responses are tested more rapidly than in ordinary,
instinct-guided species.
As a result, evolution is accelerated. The genes continue to hold
culture on a leash; in each generation the prevailing epigen-etic
rules of mental development affect which cultural innovations will be
invented and which will be adopted. Yet culture is not just a passive
entity. It is a force so powerful in its own right that it drags the
genes along. Working as a rapid mutator, it throws new variations into
the teeth of natural selection and changes the epigenetic rules across
generations...
...Society, through its laws and institutions, already regulates
behavior. But it does so in virtual blind ignorance of the deep
reaches of human nature. By relying on moral intuition, on those
satisfying visceral feelings of right and wrong, people remain
enslaved by their genes and culture. Their minds develop along the
channels set by the hereditary epigenetic rules, and while they
exercise free will in moment-by-moment choices, this faculty remains
superficial and its value to the individual is largely illusory. Only
by penetrating to the physical basis of moral thought and considering
its evolutionary meaning will people have the power to control their
own lives. They will then be in a better position to choose ethical
precepts and the forms of social regulation needed to maintain the
precepts.
Social engineering has the potential of profoundly altering every part
of human behavior. It will not always affirm the status quo, as in the
case of incest avoidance. Some very human propensities, which may have
been of great adaptive value in the stone age, are now largely self-
destructive. The most virulent of these, aggression and xenophobia,
can be blunted. Other equally human propensities for altruism and
cooperation might be enhanced. The value of institutions and forms of
government can be more accurately judged, alternative procedures laid
out, and steps cautiously suggested. Economists and corporate
planners, once aware of the facts of human nature and measuring more
than material transactions, should be able to devise more effective
policies.
Close self-examination and the planned manipulation of values can be a
distasteful exercise. But in a world growing steadily more complicated
and dangerous, the alternatives are not promising. A society that
chooses to ignore the existence of the innate epigenetic rules will
nevertheless continue to navigate by them and at each moment of
decision yield to their dictates by default. Economic policy, moral
tenets, the practices of child-rearing, and almost every other social
activity will be guided by inner feelings whose origins are beyond
comprehension. Such a society cannot effectively challenge the ancient
hereditary oracle dwelling within the epigenetic rules. It will
continue to live by the "conscience" of its members and by "God's
will." Such an archaic procedure just might, by fantastic good
fortune, lead in the most direct and untroubled manner to a stable and
wholly benevolent world. More likely, it will perpetuate conflict and
continue to drag humanity relentlessly along what is at best a
tortuous and agonizing path.
On the other hand, the deep scientific study of the epigenetic rules
will call the oracle to account and translate its commands into a
precise language that can be understood and debated. People who know
human nature in this way are more likely to agree on universal goals
within the constraints of that nature and recognize absolute ethical
truths, if such can be shown to exist. And though societies cannot
escape the inborn rules of epigen-esis, and would lose the very
essence of humanness if they even came close to succeeding, they can
employ knowledge of the rules to guide individual behavior and
cultural evolution to the ends on which their members may someday
agree.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
> >Compte came to the conclusion that the human being needed a creed, the
> >absence of which results in all kinds of social corruption. According
> >to him, past religion (Catholicism) is not adequate enough for modern
> >mankind.
>
> >...He said that Catholicism belonged to the human being's supernatural
> >thinking and this is not acceptable to the person of the scientific
> >age. His invented religion however, lacked an occult root, but he
> >accepted all the traditions and rites which existed before, and even
> >proposed having priests in this new creed, presenting himself as its
> >prophet, but a prophet without a god.
>
> Yeah, right, great idea: throw out the baby and keep the bath water! :-)
>
...if people were somehow raised from birth in an environment devoid
of most cultural influence, they would construct basic elements of
human social life ab initio. In short time new elements of language
would be invented and their culture enriched. Robin Fox, an
anthropologist and pioneer in human sociobiology, has expressed this
hypothesis in its strongest possible terms. Suppose, he conjectured,
that we performed the cruel experiment linked in legend to the Pharaoh
Psammetichus and King James IV of Scotland, who were said to have
reared children by remote control, in total social isolation from
their elders. Would the children learn to speak to one another?
I do not doubt that they could speak and that, theoretically, given
time, they or their offspring would invent and develop a language
despite their never having been taught one. Furthermore, this
language, although totally different from any known to us, would be
analyzable to linguists on the same basis as other languages and
translatable into all known languages. But I would push this further.
If our new Adam and Eve could survive and breed -- still in total
isolation from any cultural influences -- then eventually they would
produce a society which would have laws about property, rules about
incest and marriage, customs of taboo and avoidance, methods of
settling disputes with a minimum of bloodshed, beliefs about the
supernatural and practices relating to it, a system of social status
and methods of indicating it, initiation ceremonies for young men,
courtship practices including the adornment of females, systems of
symbolic body adornment generally, certain activities and associations
set aside for men from which women were excluded, gambling of some
kind, a tool- and weapon-making industry, myths and legends, dancing,
adultery, and various doses of homicide, suicide, homosexuality,
schizophrenia, psychosis and neuroses, and various practitioners to
take advantage of or cure these, depending on how they are viewed.
In 1945 the American anthropologist George P. Murdock listed the
following characteristics that have been recorded in every culture
known to history and ethnography:
Age-grading, athletic sports, bodily adornment, calendar, cleanliness
training, community organization, cooking, cooperative labor,
cosmology, courtship, dancing, decorative art, divination, division of
labor, dream interpretation, education, eschatology, ethics,
ethnobotany, etiquette, faith healing, family feasting, fire making,
folklore, food taboos, funeral rites, games, gestures, gift giving,
government, greetings, hair styles, hospitality, housing, hygiene,
incest taboos, inheritance rules, joking, kin groups, kinship
nomenclature, language, law, luck superstitions, magic, marriage,
mealtimes, medicine, obstetrics, penal sanctions, personal names,
population policy, postnatal care, pregnancy usages, property rights,
propitiation of supernatural beings, puberty customs, religious
ritual, residence rules, sexual restrictions, soul concepts, status
differentiation, surgery, tool making, trade, visiting, weaving, and
weather control....
From On Human Nature by Edward O Wilson
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid%3D1036537594/
> >They say about him that he got
> >his rites from Catholicism and he was criticized for this since he
> >disbelieved that religion but imitated and adopted its ceremonies and
> >traditions.
>
> >He was right in one thing, that the human being needs worship and
> >devotion as well as the performance of a number of rites.
>
> I'd say he's wrong in that. What people need is faith in something
> real. (My own personal feeling about all the "worship and devotion"
> stuff is that it is glorified anthropoid pack behaviour, which should
> be got rid of - but I'm not offering this as a serious analysis! The
> forms of organised religion just make me want to puke, that's all.)
>
...innate censors and motivators exist in the brain that deeply and
unconsciously affect our ethical premises; from these roots, morality
evolved as instinct. If that perception is correct, science may soon
be in a position to investigate the very origin and meaning of human
values, from which all ethical pronouncements and much of political
practice flow.
Philosophers themselves, most of whom lack an evolutionary
perspective, have not devoted much time to the problem. They examine
the precepts of ethical systems with reference to their consequences
and not their origins. Thus John Rawls opens his influential A Theory
of Justice (1971) with a proposition he regards as beyond dispute: "In
a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as
settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political
bargaining or to the calculus of social interests." Robert Nozick
begins Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) with an equally firm
proposition: "Individuals have rights, and there are things no person
or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong
and far-reaching are these rights they raise the question of what, if
anything, the state and its omcials.may do." These two premises are
somewhat different in content, and they lead to radically different
prescriptions. Rawls would allow rigid social control to secure as
close an approach as possible to the equal distribution of society's
rewards. Nozick sees the ideal society as one governed by a minimal
state, empowered only to protect its citizens from force and fraud,
and with unequal distribution of rewards wholly permissible. Rawls
rejects the meritocracy; Nozick accepts it as desirable except in
those cases where local communities voluntarily decide to experiment
with egalitarianism. Like everyone else, philosophers measure their
personal emotional responses to various alternatives as though
consulting a hidden oracle.
That oracle resides in the deep emotional centers of the brain, most
probably within the limbic system, a complex array of neurons and
hormone-secreting cells located just beneath the "thinking" portion of
the cerebral cortex. Human emotional responses and the more general
ethical practices based on them have been programmed to a substantial
degree by natural selection over thousands of generations. The
challenge to science is to measure the tightness of the constraints
caused by the programming, to find their source in the brain, and to
decode their significance through the reconstruction of the
evolutionary history of the mind. This enterprise will be the logical
complement of the continued study of cultural evolution.
Success will generate the second dilemma, which can be stated as
follows: Which of the censors and motivators should be obeyed and
which ones might better be curtailed or sublimated? These guides are
the very core of our humanity. They and not the belief in spiritual
apartness distinguish us from electronic computers. At some time in
the future we will have to decide how human we wish to remain-in this
ultimate, biological sense-because we must consciously choose among
the alternative emotional guides we have inherited. To chart our
destiny means that we must shift from automatic control based on our
biological properties to precise steering based on biological
knowledge.
Because the guides of human nature must be examined with a complicated
arrangement of mirrors, they are a deceptive subject, always the
philosopher's deadfall. The only way forward is to study human nature
as part of the natural sciences, in an attempt to integrate the
natural sciences with the social sciences and humanities. I can
conceive of no ideological or formalisric shortcut. Neurobiology
cannot be learned at the feer of a guru. The consequences of genetic
history cannot be chosen by legislatures. Above all, for our own
physical well-being if nothing else, ethical philosophy must not be
left in the hands of the merely wise. Although human progress can be
achieved by intuition and force of will, only hard-won empirical
knowledge of our biological nature will allow us to make optimum
choices among the competing criteria of progress.
On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
>
>
>
>
> >The Religion of Humanity becomes in the author's intentions the true
> >Positive religion, the only one capable of replacing Catholicism. Like
> >the Catholic religion, Positivism will have its cult, its dogmas, its
> >ceremonies, its "consecrations" or "social sacraments" by which to
> >sanctify "all present phases of private life, systematically tying
> >them to public life" (Positive Catechism). Months will take the
> >meaningful names of Positive religion and the days of the week will be
> >consecrated each to one of the seven sciences. Lay temples will be
> >built (scientific institutes) and a Positive pope will exercise his
> >authority on those who will be committed to the development of
> >industries and to the practical use of discoveries. In Positive
> >society woman will become the guardian and the source of the
> >sentimental life of Humanity.
>
> >Humanity will be the Great Being, space will be the Great Environment,
> >and the earth the Great Fetish: this is the trinity of the Positive
> >religion....
>
> >http://www.najaf.org/english/book/8/2.htm
> >http://www.google.com/search?q=comte+%22religion+of+humanity%22
> >http://membres.lycos.fr/clotilde/etexts/harrison/religion.htm
>
> Interesting. Thanks for the references (which I haven't looked at
> yet, but will).
>
http://www.corliss-lamont.org/philos8.htm
> >Evolutionary psychologists like Pascal Boyer, Dan Sperber and Justin
> >Barrett are beginning to provide an explanation as to why certain
> >religious ideas, specifically, the personal nature of "spirit" persist
> >in cultures worldwide. These explanations have to do with the evolved
> >structure of the brain and how this translates to the kind of concept
> >that is attractive to the mind. That is, there are certain concepts
> >that our minds easily entertain. Much like language acquisition, the
> >mind automatically receives certain concepts more readily than
> >others.
>
> >Since Chomsky's work in the late 60s linguists generally acknowledge
> >that the brain has innate structures that aid the acquisition of
> >language. More recent work by evolutionary psychologists indicates
> >that it is not only language that is facilitated by innate brain
> >structures. Indeed it seems that these structures are responsible for
> >all cognition, including the elaboration of religious ideation. This
> >work explains why supernatural realities are always imagined to be
> >personal because the brain is specifically structured to deal with the
> >personal.
>
> The really weird thing is how believers in science as a total
> cosmology are able to imagine that the personal can be treated
> as if it were impersonal! Presumably that can also be explained
> on the basis of brain structure. (But is anybody even trying?)
>
David Hume qualified his own Scepticism by pointing out that to live
at all we have perpetually to make choices, decisions, and this forces
us to form judgements about the way things are, whether we like it or
not. Since certainty is not available to us we have to make the best
assessments we can of the realities we face - and this is incompatible
with regarding all alternatives with equal scepticism. Our Scepticism
therefore needs to be, as he put it, mitigated. It is indeed doubtful
whether anyone could live on the basis of complete Scepticism - or, if
they could, whether such a life would be worth living. But this
refutation of Scepticism, if refutation it is, is not a logical
argument.
In practical life we must steer a middle course between demanding a
degree of certainty that we can never have and treating all
possibilities as if they were of equal weight when they are not.
Story of Philosophy
by Bryan Magee
http://www.amazon.com/Story-Philosophy-Bryan-Magee/dp/078947994X
>
>
>
>
> >In other words, evolution has provided us with specific
> >adaptations that are unconscious, mandatory and fast and respond when
> >we are dealing with others. These adaptations are intimately involved
> >in religious ideation: that is why "the force" will never be a key
> >religious concept.
>
> >http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/2002/aug02/Sellick.htm
>
> >Across the globe and throughout history, human beings have engaged in
> >a variety of religious practices and have held a diversity of
> >religious beliefs. These phenomena have been explained in a variety of
> >different ways by anthropologists, psychologists, and other scholars,
> >as well as by religious practitioners themselves, with varying degrees
> >of success. Perhaps more puzzling, and just in need of an explanation,
> >is the fact that human beings have religion in the first place.
>
> >...Religion is a by-product [...]
>
> Then so is science. If that observation does not invalidate science,
> then neither does it invalidate religion.
>
Inquiry is any proceeding or process that has the aim of augmenting
knowledge, resolving doubt, or solving a problem. A theory of inquiry
is an account of the various types of inquiry and a treatment of the
ways that each type of inquiry achieves its aim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry
A hypothesis consists either of a suggested explanation for a
phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation
between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the ancient Greek,
hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific
method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists
generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on
extensions of scientific theories.
Evaluating hypotheses. The hypothetico-deductive method demands
falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that the scientific
community can prove them false (usually by observation). (Note that
confirming (or failing to falsify) a hypothesis does not necessarily
prove that hypothesis: the hypothesis remains provisional.)
As an example: someone who enters a new country and observes only
white sheep might form the hypothesis that all sheep in that country
are white. It can be considered a hypothesis, as it is falsifiable.
Anyone could falsify the hypothesis by observing a single black sheep.
Provided that the experimental uncertainties are small (for example,
provided that one can fairly reliably distinguish the observed black
sheep from (say) a goat), and provided that the experimenter has
correctly interpreted the statement of the hypothesis (for example,
does the meaning of "sheep" include rams?), finding a black sheep
falsifies the "white sheep only" hypothesis. This sort of example
provides perhaps the easiest way to understand the term "hypothesis".
According to Schick and Vaughn (2002), researchers weighing up
alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:
Testibility (compare falsifiability as
discussed above)
Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's
Razor", discouraging the postulation of
excessive numbers of entities)
Scope - the apparent application of the
hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis
may explain further phenomena in the future
Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing
recognised knowledge-systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
A verificationist is someone who adheres to the verification
principle, a criterion for meaningfulness that requires a non-
analytic, meaningful sentence to be either verifiable or falsifiable,
though it was hotly disputed amongst verificationists whether this
must be possible in practice or merely in principle. For example, a
claim that the world came into existence a short time ago exactly as
it is today (with misleading apparent traces of a longer past), would
be judged meaningless by a verificationist because it is neither an
analytic claim nor a verifiable claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmability
Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves
two components: (1) the logical property that is variously described
as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that
counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible, and (2) the
practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such
counterexamples if they do exist. In short, a hypothesis is testable
if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of
real experience. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses
rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be confirmed or
falsified by the data of actual experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testable
In science and the philosophy of science, falsifiability, contingency,
and defeasibility are roughly equivalent terms referring to the
property of empirical statements that they must admit of logical
counterexamples. This stands in contradistinction to formal and
mathematical statements that may be tautologies, that is, universally
true by dint of definitions, axioms, and proofs. Some philosophers and
scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that no empirical
hypothesis, proposition, or theory can be considered scientific if it
does not admit the possibility of a contrary case.
Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable,
it must be possible in principle to make an observation that would
show that the proposition was false, even if that observation is not
actually made.
For example, the proposition "all swans are white" would be falsified
by observing a black swan, which would in turn depend on there being a
black swan somewhere in existence. A falsifiable proposition or theory
must define in some way what is, or will be, forbidden by that
proposition or theory. For example, in this case the existence of a
black swan is forbidden by the proposition in question. The
possibility in principle of observing a black swan as a counterexample
to the general proposition is sufficient to qualify the proposition as
falsifiable.
The property of being contingent, defeasible, or falsifiable is a
logical property. Thus, for example, to show that a physical law is
falsifiable, one is not required to show that it is physically
possible to violate it -- that would defeat its status as a physical
law -- one need only show that an exception to the law is logically
possible. Moreover, the logical property of falsifiability, as a
criterion of empirical propositions, has nothing to do with the
practical, psychological, or rhetorical task of convincing an
individual person that a proposition may have counterexamples.
Scientific propositions have nothing to do with those sorts of
individual idiosyncrasies.
Finally, falsifiability is a necessary property of empirical
statements -- it is not a sufficient property. This means that it takes
more properties for a proposition to qualify as being empirically
meaningful. Strings of words may fail to form any proposition at all,
and even when they do, they may fail to rise to level of a proposition
that can participate in a scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
>
>
>
>
> >[...] of the way our minds evolved to negotiate
> >the natural and, more importantly, the social world.
>
> >[snip]
>
> >...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
> >right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
> >principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar,
> >built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of
> >principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of
> >action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language
> >faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible
> >languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a
> >universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.
>
> >http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/marc-hauser-mor.html
>
> This argument must surely apply exactly as well to the human faculty
> of reason. What follows from this? That's not intended as a merely
> rhetorical question. My rhetorical point is that you can't simply
> single out ethics and/or religion as targets for objectification:
> science and reason themselves must come under science's own lens.
> (Where to go from there is an open question.)
>
I agree. Sorry about the excessive use of astounding quotes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=q1pv2Bws2lQ
> >[snip]
>
> Both you and Kraus have attacked a lot of targets, and I'm afraid
> I have replied with much rambling myself. The focus of my thoughts
> - which probably isn't at all clear from what I've written - is the
> question of what comes next in our future history, after religion
> and scientism. Is there something that combines the best of both?
>
Hopefully Utopia.
Scientific & Technological Utopianism
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/SF/chrono.html
Scientific and technological utopia are set in the future, when it is
believed that advanced science and technology will allow utopian
living standards; for example,
the absence of death and suffering;
changes in human nature and
the human condition.
These utopian societies tend to change what "human" is all about.
Technology has affected the way humans have lived to such an extent
that normal functions, like sleep, eating or even reproduction, has
been replaced by an artificial means.
Other kinds of this utopia envisioned, include a society where human
has struck a balance with technology and it is merely used to enhance
the human living condition (e.g. Star Trek).
Opposing this optimism is the prediction that advanced science and
technology will, through deliberate misuse or accident, cause
environmental damage or even humanity's extinction. Critics advocate
precautions against the premature embrace of new technologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia
Technological utopianism derived from the belief in technology --
conceived as more than tools and machines alone -- as the means of
achieving a 'perfect' society in the near future. Such a society,
moreover, would not only be the culmination of the introduction of new
tools and machines; it would also be modeled on those tools and
machines in its institutions, values and culture
...More clearly, more methodically and more intensely than any other
group, the technological utopians espoused positions that a growing
number (even a majority) of Americans during these 50 years were
coming to take for granted, or wanted to: the belief in the
inevitability of progress and the belief that progress was precisely
technological progress.
...The utopians were not oblivious to the problems technological
advance might cause, such as unemployment or boredom. They simply were
confident that advancing technology held the solution to those
problems and to other, chronic problems, including scarcity, hunger,
disease and war. In addition, they assumed that technology would solve
the psychological problems that were increasingly worrisome, such as
aggression, crowding, rudeness, and social disorder.
...Despite its basis in modern technology, technological utopia was
not to be a mass of sooting smokestacks, clanging machines, and
teeming streets. The dirt, noise, and chaos that invariably
accompanied industrialization in the real world were to give way in
the future to perfect cleanliness, efficiency, quiet and harmony
...Connecting all sectors of the technological utopia would be
superbly efficient transportation and communication systems, powered
almost exclusively by electricity. These systems would enable widely
dispersed citizens to live and work wherever they might choose. As one
of them puts it, 'we have practically eliminated distances.' The
specific means of transportation would include automobiles, trains,
subways, ships, airplanes, even moving sidewalks. The means of
communication would include pneumatic mail tubes, telephones,
telegraphs, radios, and mechanically composed newspapers.
http://web.mit.edu/m-i-t/science_fiction/jenkins/jenkins_1.html
> --
> Angus Rodgers
> (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
> Contains mild peril- Hide quoted text -
>
cop...@yahoo.com
Far more eloquent deists have written on this topic, so I point you to
their works.
> > You'll get here eventually; I'll wait.
>
> Arrogant stupidity.
Note that I I could have said this about your lack of belief in God,
but I have chosen not to.
Brandon
Christopher A. Lee
Why do you repeat this lie, liar?
Christopher A. Lee
<cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Translation, you can't.
Besides which, you made the claim here. So YOU have to support it
instead of expecting me to do your work for you.
>> > You'll get here eventually; I'll wait.
>>
>> Arrogant stupidity.
>
>Note that I I could have said this about your lack of belief in God,
>but I have chosen not to.
If you had you would have been lying.
Because once again, there is a real world beyond your religion, in
which your god is merely one of hundreds of different god beliefs
which are only taken seriously by their believers.
To everybody else, whether they are atheists or believers in other
deities, it is merely "somebody else's religious belief".
I really don't understand why so many believers have so much
difficulty grasping this.
>Brandon
Angus Rodgers
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 11:52 am, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
>
>> >With computers, we can store and analyze all data and information
>> >relevant to any experiment. Why not do it systematically, instead of
>> >by guesswork?
>>
>> That sounds like an eminently practical suggestion, and indeed I
>> would be surprised if something like it doesn't already exist.
>> (I'm not a working scientist.) People certainly already perform
>> "meta-analyses" of large numbers of related experiments - this is
>> routine.
>>
>
>Yes, they do "meta-analyses", but intuitively. There is no standard,
>accepted methodology for doing so. That's what I'm proposing. Models
>for meta-analyses as systematic as the models for controlled
>experiments we currently have.
I'm no expert, but for what it's worth, I imagine that no standardised
methodology for meta-analysis could have general validity. Reality is
just too complicated for there to be no need for creative and fallible
thinking in science (as if its elimination would be a good thing, any-
way!) unless we somehow manage to invent artificial intelligences more
creative than our own.
>Scientists, of course, don't like
>having their options restricted, that's just human nature. But,
>saying "I'm a tenured professor, I can ignore any results I want",
>which they do, is not very scientific. Some accepted controls over
>this type of behavior need to be put into place.
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
It is not sufficient to have a system for controlling behaviour -
human beings are very creative at coming up with those, and sticking
with them, come what may, however crazy they are! - it is necessary
to have some sort of demonstration of the validity of such a system.
And who judges its validity? And who is to say that there might not
be another and better system for general meta-analysis? Isn't this
just pushing the problem of science up one level, from theories to
meta-theories? It always comes down to fallible and controversial
human judgement in the end, doesn't it?
Angus Rodgers
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 1:06 pm, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> > That sounds like an eminently practical suggestion [...]
>>
>Yes, they do "meta-analyses", but intuitively [...]
Your post of this at 18:00 BST did reach Usenet, and indeed it
was replied to, although not (yet) by me. I'm not sure what's
happened here, as this one appears as a followup to a different
article ... OK, I've replied to the first posting now.
Jerry Kraus
>
You could say exactly the same thing about controlled experimental
design. But, scientists are required to abide by it. Casual
observations can't be published. Controlled experiments are
required. Perhaps, we need to to push the problem of science up to
meta-theories, given the new computer analyses. And standardize it,
as with experimental design.
raven1
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lately, I have been debating so-called, self described "atheists".
>Peronally, I doubt it is possible to truly be an atheist: we all have
>to believe in something, after all.
I believe in plenty of things. God/s are not among them.
raven1
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 11:04 am, "cop...@yahoo.com" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
>>
>> independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
>> > theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
>> > beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
>> > angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
>>
>> Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
>>
>> Brandon
>
>That's precisely what he's saying. Like most supposed "atheists" he
>is, totally, and completely, ignorant about the nature of religion.
>He attaches to word to Bible Belt American Christians, and not much
>else. Who, ironically, don't consider themselves to be religious!
>They say they "have a relationship with Jesus", and that they "hate
>religion". Just like "atheists" , have a "belief in science" and
>"hate religion". Actually, American Atheists and Bible Belt
>Christians have a great deal in common. They oversimplify like crazy!
Methinks you're oversimplifying more than a little bit.
raven1
Poppycock. Citations please.
> is not very scientific. Some accepted controls over
>this type of behavior need to be put into place.
We have one already: it's called "peer-review", and it's very
effective.
Christopher A. Lee
This idiot can't grasp that scientific explanations are accepted
because they work predictably and predictively. And that every time
they do, confirms them.
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:14:32 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 11, 1:06 pm, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 11, 12:00 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 11, 11:52 am, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
> >> > >With computers, we can store and analyze all data and information
> >> > >relevant to any experiment. Why not do it systematically, instead of
> >> > >by guesswork?
>
> >> > That sounds like an eminently practical suggestion, and indeed I
> >> > would be surprised if something like it doesn't already exist.
> >> > (I'm not a working scientist.) People certainly already perform
> >> > "meta-analyses" of large numbers of related experiments - this is
> >> > routine.
>
> >Yes, they do "meta-analyses", but intuitively. There is no standard,
> >accepted methodology for doing so. That's what I'm proposing. Models
> >for meta-analyses as systematic as the models for controlled
> >experiments we currently have. Scientists, of course, don't like
> >having their options restricted, that's just human nature. But,
> >saying "I'm a tenured professor, I can ignore any results I want",
> >which they do,
>
> Poppycock. Citations please.
>
> > is not very scientific. Some accepted controls over
> >this type of behavior need to be put into place.
>
> We have one already: it's called "peer-review", and it's very
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sounds like I'm talking to an actual member of the scientific
bureaucracy here, not a loony "true believer". That means you have a
vested financial interest in a thoroughly corrupt system, that exists
solely to perpetuate itself.
Your "peer review system" is a mutual admiration society designed to
minimize productivity and maximize income. Which is why a true
"science" of metatheoretical development is necessary to bring some
integrity back into the scientific research process. Sorry, Quack.
You need to be brought into line.
Christopher A. Lee
Liar.
>Your "peer review system" is a mutual admiration society designed to
>minimize productivity and maximize income. Which is why a true
>"science" of metatheoretical development is necessary to bring some
>integrity back into the scientific research process. Sorry, Quack.
>You need to be brought into line.
Liar.
Angus Rodgers
<reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(... a lot! ...)
>On Apr 11, 10:24 am, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>>
>> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Just as the brain has probably innate structures that aid the
>> >acquisition of language. More recent work by evolutionary
>> >psychologists indicates that it is not only language we are probably
>> >endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of right and
>> >wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible principles of
>> >action, a universal moral grammar, built into the brains of all
>> >humans. Similarly religion is probably a by-product of the way our
>> >minds evolved to negotiate the natural and, more importantly, the
>> >social world.
>>
>> There is some kind of infinite regress here. This kind of argument
>> would dispose of scientific reason itself just as easily as it tries
>> to dispose of ethics.
>>
>
>Examples of Biased Inference as an Evolutionary Adaption
>[...]
I'm afraid I haven't the appetite for so much copy-and-paste.
Could you boil some of it down a bit?
I'll snip, and skip, until I come to something that engages me ...
Ah, that's just where this argument goes astray! (I think it's an
interesting and important argument, though.) There is almost no
relation - except one of conflict! - between moral intuition, on
the one hand, and conformity to social norms (with or without
religious gloss), on the other. I believe this is the subject
of Henri Bergson's "Two Sources of Morality and Religion" (which
I really must get around to reading, one of these days ...) The
story of Abraham and Isaac seems to pose the problem pretty nicely.
>Their minds develop along the
>channels set by the hereditary epigenetic rules, and while they
>exercise free will in moment-by-moment choices, this faculty remains
>superficial and its value to the individual is largely illusory. Only
>by penetrating to the physical basis of moral thought and considering
>its evolutionary meaning will people have the power to control their
>own lives.
And this is the job of expert scientists, acting throughout as
ethically neutral pure observers? And until this "physical basis
of moral thought" is discovered, we are all morally rudderless?
And once it has been discovered, we are all morally in thrall to
its discoverers and interpreters? ... Remind you of anything? ;-)
>They will then be in a better position to choose ethical
>precepts and the forms of social regulation needed to maintain the
>precepts.
And pigs will fly, and Hell will freeze over.
>Social engineering has the potential of profoundly altering every part
>of human behavior. It will not always affirm the status quo, as in the
>case of incest avoidance. Some very human propensities, which may have
>been of great adaptive value in the stone age, are now largely self-
>destructive. The most virulent of these, aggression and xenophobia,
>can be blunted. Other equally human propensities for altruism and
>cooperation might be enhanced. The value of institutions and forms of
>government can be more accurately judged, alternative procedures laid
>out, and steps cautiously suggested. Economists and corporate
>planners, once aware of the facts of human nature and measuring more
>than material transactions, should be able to devise more effective
>policies.
I'm cautiously optimistic that moral progress can still be made,
and that science can act as an inspiring example. I just don't
believe for one moment that moral progress is the preserve of a
science that starts out with the protestation that moral values
are not its concern!
I don't just want to be negative about this, but I honestly quail
as the prospect of trying to say what I /do/ believe about moral
progress. Another time, perhaps! I'm just trying to learn to
argue about philosophy - it's a little early for me to start
preaching, or prophesying! :-)
I'll just say that I think we can start by thinking about our
moral intuitions and social norms, and notice where conflicts
arise.
>Close self-examination and the planned manipulation of values can be a
>distasteful exercise. But in a world growing steadily more complicated
>and dangerous, the alternatives are not promising. A society that
>chooses to ignore the existence of the innate epigenetic rules will
>nevertheless continue to navigate by them and at each moment of
>decision yield to their dictates by default. Economic policy, moral
>tenets, the practices of child-rearing, and almost every other social
>activity will be guided by inner feelings whose origins are beyond
>comprehension. Such a society cannot effectively challenge the ancient
>hereditary oracle dwelling within the epigenetic rules. It will
>continue to live by the "conscience" of its members and by "God's
>will." Such an archaic procedure just might, by fantastic good
>fortune, lead in the most direct and untroubled manner to a stable and
>wholly benevolent world. More likely, it will perpetuate conflict and
>continue to drag humanity relentlessly along what is at best a
>tortuous and agonizing path.
This seems spot-on, apart from its being based on some confused
notion of "innate epigenetic rules". There is /some/ valid idea
here.
>On the other hand, the deep scientific study of the epigenetic rules
>will call the oracle to account and translate its commands into a
>precise language that can be understood and debated. People who know
>human nature in this way are more likely to agree on universal goals
>within the constraints of that nature and recognize absolute ethical
>truths, if such can be shown to exist. And though societies cannot
>escape the inborn rules of epigen-esis, and would lose the very
>essence of humanness if they even came close to succeeding, they can
>employ knowledge of the rules to guide individual behavior and
>cultural evolution to the ends on which their members may someday
>agree.
I rather like these passages! Do I understand that they are
quoted from:
>Religion Explained: The Evolutionary
>Origins of Religious Thought - Pascal Boyer
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465006965/
>http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/log2002.html
(I originally snipped that attribution, as it wasn't clear to me
that you were about to start quoting, or where you were about to
start quoting from.)
Anyway, do please explain who wrote these words, if I've guessed
the attribution wrong. Although I disagree with the author, I'm
very interested in his point of view.
>Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
>Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
(Or was /that/ the intended attribution? Your reply is not only
very long, but also very confusing!)
[... very big snip, as I'm getting tired ...]
>> >...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
>> >right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
>> >principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar,
>> >built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of
>> >principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of
>> >action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language
>> >faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible
>> >languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a
>> >universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.
>>
>> >http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/marc-hauser-mor.html
>>
>> This argument must surely apply exactly as well to the human faculty
>> of reason. What follows from this? That's not intended as a merely
>> rhetorical question. My rhetorical point is that you can't simply
>> single out ethics and/or religion as targets for objectification:
>> science and reason themselves must come under science's own lens.
>> (Where to go from there is an open question.)
>>
>
>I agree. Sorry about the excessive use of astounding quotes.
>http://youtube.com/watch?v=q1pv2Bws2lQ
... OK ... <quizzical look>
(I haven't viewed the video yet, whatever it is - some verbal
explanation would surely have been in order.)
>> Both you and Kraus have attacked a lot of targets, and I'm afraid
>> I have replied with much rambling myself. The focus of my thoughts
>> - which probably isn't at all clear from what I've written - is the
>> question of what comes next in our future history, after religion
>> and scientism. Is there something that combines the best of both?
>>
>
>Hopefully Utopia.
I'd settle for something a bit saner than either.
cop...@yahoo.com
Translation: I won't waste my time trying to convince you because you
can't be convinced.
> Besides which, you made the claim here. So YOU have to support it
> instead of expecting me to do your work for you.
Why do I have to support it? I'm not trying to convert you.
> >> > You'll get here eventually; I'll wait.
>
> >> Arrogant stupidity.
>
> >Note that I I could have said this about your lack of belief in God,
> >but I have chosen not to.
>
> If you had you would have been lying.
Nope.
> Because once again, there is a real world beyond your religion, in
> which your god is merely one of hundreds of different god beliefs
> which are only taken seriously by their believers.
It may be one of hundreds of beliefs, but it is the only belief I
consider to be correct. If I didn't think the belief was correct, why
would I bother holding it?
Brandon
Syd M.
> On Apr 11, 9:50 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
> > <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
> > >debators on the Global Warming side of the issue. They weren't really
> > >debating. They were screaming. They were denouncing. They were
> > >emoting. They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
> > >far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
> > >supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
> > >practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
> > >be the case -- their facts had been accurate. The notion that global
> > >warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
> > >pain, to the point of inducing madness.
>
>
> > >At the time, I thought that, perhaps, this reflected the development
> > >of a new kind of religion based on nature worship and
> > >environmentalism, perhaps focused on the International Green Party,
> > >and harkening back to the nature worship of the Druids and the
> > >polytheists. It appeared to have a fundamentally irrational basis,
> > >indifferent to scientific reality logic or fact, attaching great
> > >emotional significance to powerful totemistic symbols such as the
> > >Nobel Prize and "scientific concensus" without any real interest in
> > >whether they reflected any fundamental, underlying reality.
>
> > Liar.
>
> > >Lately, I have been debating so-called, self described "atheists".
> > >Peronally, I doubt it is possible to truly be an atheist: we all have
> > >purpose, if only to feed our bellies. Some may have a more complex
> > >sense of purpose and structure to things than others, but, we all have
> > >some sense of structure and purpose. In the case of modern, American
> > >"atheists", this structure and purpose is what they call "science".
> > >It has, of course, nothing to do with "science" in the normal sense of
> > >the term, which is the pursuit of knowledge. Rather, it represents an
> > >attempt to find a simple solution to the complexities of life, by
> > >assuming that if something called the "scientific method" is applied
> > >to them, all complexities will, magically, disappear, and everything
> > >will be simple and clear, easily understood and controlled.
>
> > Liar.
>
> > >"Great Scientists" are perceived by these "atheists" as Saints and
> > >Martyrs to humanity, above and beyond all material and practical
> > >considerations, Saviours to humanity. Exactly who these people are,
> > >or why, is not well understood. Many Nobel Prize winners would,
> > >presumably qualify, since the Nobel Prize is one of their great
> > >totemistic symbols. Many University Professors would also qualify,
> > >since Universities are another of their totemistic symbols. They
> > >would be less inclined to support professional scientists working in
> > >Industry, because they see Business as evil, and are somewhat
> > >socialistic in their leanings. But, some inventors would qualify, as
> > >well.
>
> > Liar.
>
> > >Whence comes this new religion, and why? I would suggest that it is
> > >related to the current social and economic difficulties in the United
> > >States, and is largely an American phenomenon. People are looking for
> > >simple solutions, and science and technology have, in the past,
> > >provided solutions. But, rather than focusing on actual progress in
> > >science -- which is difficult and complex -- the intention is to focus
> > >on the symbols of science as an emotionally reassuring manifestation
> > >of progress, whether any progress is actually made or not.
>
> > Liar.
>
> > >I suspect we are at something of a watershed in Science, at the
> > >moment, and this religious manifestation indicates the likelihood of a
> > >fundamental change in the way science is done. Computer technologies
> > >allow the control and analysis of such huge quantities of data, now,
> > >that some systematic method of selection, evaluation and
> > >interpretation beyond conventional peer review and committee methods
> > >is necessary. Some truly "scientific" method of determining which
> > >data is important, and why.
>
>
> Chris is a pretty good example of the kind of person I have in mind,
> here.
What, the kind who won't accept a lie based on a lie?
Idiot.
PDW
Angus Rodgers
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Apr 11, 1:41 pm, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:00:18 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>> >Yes, they do "meta-analyses", but intuitively. There is no standard,
>> >accepted methodology for doing so. That's what I'm proposing. Models
>> >for meta-analyses as systematic as the models for controlled
>> >experiments we currently have.
>>
>> I'm no expert, but for what it's worth, I imagine that no standardised
>> methodology for meta-analysis could have general validity. [...]
>>
>> [...] it is necessary
>> to have some sort of demonstration of the validity of such a system.
>>
>> And who judges its validity? [...]
>
>You could say exactly the same thing about controlled experimental
>design. But, scientists are required to abide by it. Casual
>observations can't be published. Controlled experiments are
>required. Perhaps, we need to to push the problem of science up to
>meta-theories, given the new computer analyses. And standardize it,
>as with experimental design.
I don't want to suggest that established scientific procedures (of
which I have very little practical knowledge) are perfect, but, as I
vaguely understand it, the rationale for requiring controlled (and,
where required, double-blind) studies is that it is logically invalid
to claim experimental verification of (or failure to falsify) a causal
proposition unless controls are included. That is, there is /reason/
for requiring controlled studies: their imposition is not an arbitrary
rule. What would you say is the /reason/ for imposing a system of
meta-analyses of experiments, over and above what is currently done as
routine (I presume!) when papers are published which survey a field?
Also, it seems implausible to me (speaking as a non-statistician) to
say that there is no standard methodology (or, there are no standard
methodologies) for meta-analysis: surely there must be? Isn't this
a field of statistics just like any other? What I was saying was that
no standard statistical methodology for meta-analysis could serve as
an omnicompetent substitute for scientific method itself; I didn't
mean to say that there are no widely applicable standard methodologies
for meta-analysis at all.
Your analogy seems to hold: just as there is no single experimental
design appropriate for all scientific experiments, so there is no
single meta-analytic statistical protocol appropriate for surveying
all fields of science. But where reason requires it, rigorous meta-
analyses can and should be performed - and surely they already are?
Angus Rodgers
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sounds like I'm talking to an actual member of the scientific
>bureaucracy here, not a loony "true believer". That means you have a
>vested financial interest in a thoroughly corrupt system, that exists
>solely to perpetuate itself.
Looks like a no-win situation! :-)
>Your "peer review system" is a mutual admiration society designed to
>minimize productivity and maximize income. Which is why a true
>"science" of metatheoretical development is necessary to bring some
>integrity back into the scientific research process. Sorry, Quack.
>You need to be brought into line.
You should meet James Harris in sci.math. :-)
Christopher A. Lee
<cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Translation: you use a personal lie as a cop out after saying there
was evidence.
>> Besides which, you made the claim here. So YOU have to support it
>> instead of expecting me to do your work for you.
>
>Why do I have to support it? I'm not trying to convert you.
Because you begged the question.
>> >> > You'll get here eventually; I'll wait.
>>
>> >> Arrogant stupidity.
>>
>> >Note that I I could have said this about your lack of belief in God,
>> >but I have chosen not to.
The arrogant stupidity was your pretence that I would "get there
eventually".
Clue: this is the real world outside your religion.
>> If you had you would have been lying.
>
>Nope.
How the heck is not believing in the deity of somebody else's
religion, "arrogant", moron?
>> Because once again, there is a real world beyond your religion, in
>> which your god is merely one of hundreds of different god beliefs
>> which are only taken seriously by their believers.
>
>It may be one of hundreds of beliefs, but it is the only belief I
>consider to be correct. If I didn't think the belief was correct, why
>would I bother holding it?
Irrelevant.
It means you have no reason to expect anybody else to share your
belief, let alone accuse them of arrogance because they don't.
>Brandon
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I did graduate work for several years with future Nobel Prize
Winner in economics, Danny Kahneman (2002), back in the 1980's. I
eventually walked out, because he and his wife, Anne Triesman -- they
had a joint lab -- were quite open about the fact they neither knew
nor cared whether their work ever had the slightest practical
application to anything, or indeed represented any advance whatsoever
on existing knowledge. They just like to mess with people's heads, as
an end in itself. I realize you may feel I am exaggerating, but I am
not. Danny just goes from one theory of economics or psychology to
another, and points out that the models are imperfect. He draws no
inferences from this fact, or, at least none that aren't already well
known, nor does he develop alternative theoretical models, in
general. In other words, he is stating the obvious. In other words,
he is doing, quite literally, nothing! And, loving it. Hell, he's
won a Nobel Prize doing nothing. But, very stylishly. Danny grew up
as a Jew in Vichy France under the Nazis, so, from childhood,
manipulation of complex systems has been second nature to him, as a
survival skill. Interesting, no?
Bob T.
> On Apr 11, 11:04 am, "cop...@yahoo.com" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
>
> > independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
> > > theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
> > > beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
> > > angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
>
> > Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
>
>
> That's precisely what he's saying. Like most supposed "atheists" he
> is, totally, and completely, ignorant about the nature of religion.
> He attaches to word to Bible Belt American Christians, and not much
> else. Who, ironically, don't consider themselves to be religious!
> They say they "have a relationship with Jesus", and that they "hate
> religion". Just like "atheists" , have a "belief in science" and
> "hate religion". Actually, American Atheists and Bible Belt
> Christians have a great deal in common. They oversimplify like crazy!
There's something deliciously redundant about an oversimplified
accusation of oversimplification.
- Bob T.
Angus Rodgers
>Well, I did graduate work for several years with future Nobel Prize
>Winner in economics, Danny Kahneman (2002), back in the 1980's. I
>eventually walked out, because he and his wife, Anne Triesman -- they
>had a joint lab -- were quite open about the fact they neither knew
>nor cared whether their work ever had the slightest practical
>application to anything, or indeed represented any advance whatsoever
>on existing knowledge. They just like to mess with people's heads, as
>an end in itself. I realize you may feel I am exaggerating, but I am
>not. Danny just goes from one theory of economics or psychology to
>another, and points out that the models are imperfect. He draws no
>inferences from this fact, or, at least none that aren't already well
>known, nor does he develop alternative theoretical models, in
>general. In other words, he is stating the obvious. In other words,
>he is doing, quite literally, nothing! And, loving it. Hell, he's
>won a Nobel Prize doing nothing. But, very stylishly. Danny grew up
>as a Jew in Vichy France under the Nazis, so, from childhood,
>manipulation of complex systems has been second nature to him, as a
>survival skill. Interesting, no?
Damn! I've obviously missed my vocation.
I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of this to what we were talking
about, however. Something to do with the kind of science involved
in theories of climate change?
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:49:27 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I think I'm trying to make the general point that professional
science is extremely corrrupt and incompetent, and that professional
scientists really don't give a damn if they're doing anything useful
or not, so they regularly do useless research and/or make silly
interpretations of data on whim. That's why I'm arguing for a
"science" of metatheorizing to cut down on this nonsense a bit, and
make them a bit more honest and useful in their activites.
Angus Rodgers
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well, I think I'm trying to make the general point that professional
>science is extremely corrrupt and incompetent, and that professional
>scientists really don't give a damn if they're doing anything useful
>or not, so they regularly do useless research and/or make silly
>interpretations of data on whim. That's why I'm arguing for a
>"science" of metatheorizing to cut down on this nonsense a bit, and
>make them a bit more honest and useful in their activites.
I forget whose Law it is that "90% of everything is crap", but it
seems close to the mark. I have no real idea how much corruption
and laziness there is in science, although I do still remember my
feeling of alarm, during my one brief and quite ignominious stint
as a worker in a science lab, at how many of published papers I
had to peruse were ... well ... crap! I think it was my boss at
the time who quoted that "Law" to me, in response to my unease.
(I eventually quit that job, because, although I knew I had done
one useful thing while I was there, I knew that, apart from that
one good contribution, I was crap. They kept trying to persuade
me to stay on - weird! I may have been "depressed", but I wasn't
objectively mistaken about being crap at the job. I guess a lot
of people, who are crap at what they do, but aren't sufficiently
"depressed" about it, just carry on.)
I'm afraid I just don't know whether science as an institution is
particularly bad, in this respect; my feeling is that it is rather
better than most things. (The standard of work in pure mathematics
seems rather good, but I don't even know nearly as much about that
field as I'd like to.)
If you are right (which I doubt), the situation is hopeless, because
only scientists are competent to monitor themselves, and if they are
corrupt, they won't.
It's amazing anything ever gets done, really. :-)
Christopher A. Lee
<twi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>If you are right (which I doubt), the situation is hopeless, because
>only scientists are competent to monitor themselves, and if they are
>corrupt, they won't.
>
>It's amazing anything ever gets done, really. :-)
However scientific explanations are expected to work predictively and
predictably.
Frauds get found out when they don't work.
As do genuine mistakes like Fleischmann's and Pons' cold fusion. It
would be like the holy grail - but it wasn't reproducible.
Peer review is only an early stage. When something passes that and is
published, people try to replicate the results. Or refute them. And
human nature being what it is, people are eager to find fault with it,
especially when it is the work of somebody famous.
Cold fusion passed peer review. And was straight away tested. And
failed.
Uncle Vic
> On Apr 11, 10:25 am, JohnN <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 10:39 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
> > > largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
> > > years --
>
>
> > > I noticed a rather striking characteristic of many of the
> > > debators on the Global Warming side of the issue. They weren't really
> > > debating. They were screaming. They were denouncing. They were
> > > emoting. They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
> > > far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
> > > supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
> > > practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
> > > be the case -- their facts had been accurate. The notion that global
> > > warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
> > > pain, to the point of inducing madness.
>
> > for homosexuals and abortion. Religion has dogma. Dogma can never be
> > questioned without destroying the dogma and the deity who created
> > it.
>
> > Science has no dogma, it has process. The process does not change but
> > the evidence uncovered by the process is discovered and clarified.
> > The evidence leads to theory which in turn leads to more research and
> > more evidence. Science can, and does, change.
>
> > As a consequence, the religious can not debate as their position can
> > not change.
>
> > JohnN
>
> Oh, I believe in true science. But, it's not that all common. Most
> professional scientists are, quite naturally, more interested in
> earning a living than in knowledge. Understandable, but, unhelpful.
> One wouldn't expect most professional scientists to acknowledge this
> obvious fact, of course, even to themselves!
>
> Religion has its uses though. It provides a source of creativity as
> an alternative to conventional approaches in science and other aspects
> of society. It's not rational, it's not supposed to be. But, all of
> our new ideas ultimately come from irrational sources we don't fully
> understand.
You have no idea what you sound like to intelligent people, do you?
Hint: ignorance is not bliss, nor is it something you want to pass
down from generation to generation.
--
Uncle Vic
2011
Christopher A. Lee
He thinks he knows more than they do and is more intelligent than they
are. It's an archetype I sometimes call the supremely self-confident
incompetent.
raven1
Your silence in response to this speaks volumes.
>>
>> > is not very scientific. Some accepted controls over
>> >this type of behavior need to be put into place.
>>
>> We have one already: it's called "peer-review", and it's very
>> effective.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Sounds like I'm talking to an actual member of the scientific
>bureaucracy here, not a loony "true believer".
You're talking to someone who understands what it is that scientists
actually *do*. I'm apparently talking to someone who has no clue, and
is just making shit up as he goes along.
> That means you have a
>vested financial interest in a thoroughly corrupt system, that exists
>solely to perpetuate itself.
Wrong.
>Your "peer review system" is a mutual admiration society designed to
>minimize productivity and maximize income.
You base this ridiculous claim on what, specifically?
> Which is why a true
>"science" of metatheoretical development
Meaningless jargon. What specific proposals do you have in mind?
> is necessary to bring some
>integrity back into the scientific research process. Sorry, Quack.
>You need to be brought into line.
You seriously need to get a clue as to how science operates. The
peer-review system is used because it works. If you think that tenured
professors regularly ignore data simply by virtue of their tenure,
you're seriously misinformed at best, outright delusional at worst.
Preventer of Work
> On Apr 11, 9:50 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:39:54 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>>
>> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
>>> largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
>>> debators on the Global Warming side of the issue. They weren't really
>>> debating. They were screaming. They were denouncing. They were
>>> emoting. They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
>>> far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
>>> supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
>>> practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
>>> be the case -- their facts had been accurate. The notion that global
>>> warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
>>> pain, to the point of inducing madness.
I would agree with you that gainsayers are a problem.
Thee are a large number of people who flog AGW by saying things say
things like:
"Denier" This is ad hominem and has no merit.
"The science is settled" Science is never settled. Only religion is.
There are lots more of these, and lots of guilt-by-association arguments
put out by the fervent who have never so much as peaked at the IPCC
report. Easier to say anyone who is a "Denier" is really just a shill
for the evil empire known as "Big Oil" or is a religious conservative
nutter.
It's quite pathetic. If you read the IPC reports, you learn a lot of
interesting, useful and factual information. Some of it is up for
argument of course, this being a political as well as a science document
is some ways. And the science is never settled. Some of the IPCC output
depends on assumptioms that are less than perfect, but nothing
outrageously so. From the rather far fetched prediction of earlier
climate models and their true believers, we've come a long way. Data is
more available than ever, and if you agree or disagree with the A in
AGW, it has put a lot of fine scientific minds onto climate research.
You can also go to NOAA and other science-based sites to check on things
directly. Climate is a fascinating area.
So is the psychology of people in the whole climate thing. Expecially
the part where people tend to only listen to things they already believe
(confirmation bias). This feeds the shrill on both sides. Better to go
to real sources (IPCC and so on), but few ever do.
Getting info from Al Gore, David Suzuki, the media and websites by orgs
like Greenpeace, Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy is going to get
you ... nothing factual, just pumped up spin to make money. They offer
the flip side of the religous conservative nutters, both equally useless.
With real facts and research behind him, an AGW supporter would never
need grade school arguments to make the case.
Syd
Ahhh... Kind of like the current US president administration?
PDW
David Canzi
Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>During the debate over Global Warming over the past few years --
>largely dissipated now, since the world had its coldest winter in 100
>debators on the Global Warming side of the issue. They weren't really
>debating. They were screaming. They were denouncing. They were
>emoting. They appeared to have an emotional investment in the issue
>far out of proportion not only to the rather questionable factual base
>supporting the concept of global warming, but to any possible
>practical implications of global warming even if -- as appears not to
>be the case -- their facts had been accurate. The notion that global
>warming might not be important appeared to cause them actual physical
>pain, to the point of inducing madness.
>
>of a new kind of religion based on nature worship and
>environmentalism, perhaps focused on the International Green Party,
>and harkening back to the nature worship of the Druids and the
>polytheists. It appeared to have a fundamentally irrational basis,
>indifferent to scientific reality logic or fact, attaching great
>emotional significance to powerful totemistic symbols such as the
>Nobel Prize and "scientific concensus" without any real interest in
>whether they reflected any fundamental, underlying reality.
If you wanted to argue for your opinion about, let's say,
the temperature of the sun, how would you support that opinion?
Would you talk mostly about the results of various observations of
the sun, or would you talk mostly about the people whose opinions
differ from yours?
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
gud...@yahoo.com
> On Apr 11, 12:27 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:19:27 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Apr 11, 11:15 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>
> > >> >On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
> > >> >independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
> > >> >> theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
> > >> >> beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
> > >> >> angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
>
> > >> >Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
>
> > >> religions in themselves. It's hard to be theist and not have a
> > >> religion, because gods are religious artifacts.
>
> > >Well, many (most?) deists base their belief in God on rational study
> > >and experience of the world rather than a reliance on revelation and
> > >miracles.
>
> > No, because there is nothing that leads to it as a conclusion.
>
> Sure their is. My study and experience have just led me to a different
>
> Brandon- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -
You are free to post your objective evidence that led you to a
different conclusion.
gud...@yahoo.com
> On Apr 11, 1:01 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:55:10 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>
> > <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Apr 11, 12:27 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:19:27 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>
> > >> <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >On Apr 11, 11:15 am, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > >> >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:04:16 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>
> > >> >> <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >> >On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
> > >> >> >independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
> > >> >> >> theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
> > >> >> >> beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
> > >> >> >> angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
>
> > >> >> >Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
>
> > >> >> Both deism and theism are attributes of theistic religion, but not
> > >> >> religions in themselves. It's hard to be theist and not have a
> > >> >> religion, because gods are religious artifacts.
>
> > >> >Well, many (most?) deists base their belief in God on rational study
> > >> >and experience of the world rather than a reliance on revelation and
> > >> >miracles.
>
> > >> No, because there is nothing that leads to it as a conclusion.
>
> > >Sure their is. My study and experience have just led me to a different
> > >conclusion than you.
>
> > it to conclude a deity. Instead of just saying there is.
>
> Far more eloquent deists have written on this topic, so I point you to
> their works.
Either you have evidence or you do not. You made the claim.
>
> > > You'll get here eventually; I'll wait.
>
> > Arrogant stupidity.
>
> Note that I I could have said this about your lack of belief in God,
> but I have chosen not to.
As long as nobody provides objective evidence for such a thing, what
exactly is arrogant about not believing in it?
gud...@yahoo.com
Why did you make the claim? What do you have against supporting your
claim?
>
> > >> > You'll get here eventually; I'll wait.
>
> > >> Arrogant stupidity.
>
> > >Note that I I could have said this about your lack of belief in God,
> > >but I have chosen not to.
>
> > If you had you would have been lying.
>
> Nope.
That is correct; you could have said anything at all. However since a
lack of belief in something not supported by any evidence is not
arrogance, but your statement to Christopher was arrogant. Perhaps you
really do have what you imply (evidence), but, until you or somebody
provides it, it is hardly arrogant to continue not believing. Why do
you think it is - or is that another assertion you don't care to back
up with anything objective?
>
> > Because once again, there is a real world beyond your religion, in
> > which your god is merely one of hundreds of different god beliefs
> > which are only taken seriously by their believers.
>
> It may be one of hundreds of beliefs, but it is the only belief I
> consider to be correct. If I didn't think the belief was correct, why
> would I bother holding it?
Nobody questioned your right to believe whatever you want. You
implied that you had something that supported that belief and that
Christopher would eventually believe too. For some reason any request
for said support is answered by evasions.
Jerry Kraus
> On Apr 11, 8:33 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You have no idea what you sound like to intelligent people, do you?
> Hint: ignorance is not bliss, nor is it something you want to pass
> down from generation to generation.
Take your own advice, my friend.
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:59:59 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
...!!!Zero Content Alert!!!...!!!Zero Content Alert!!!...!!!Zero
Content Alert!!!...
Jerry Kraus
Dr. Suzuki IS an interesting case. He is a professional geneticist by
training, and did do some work as a real "scientist" at the University
of British Columbia before becoming a media star with the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation. Really, I don't think he's doing anything
much different from what most professional scientists are doing, he's
just higher profile. He's hustling, lying and producing propaganda
for money. What's the difference?
Jerry Kraus
> In article <04c29556-3451-49c9-878e-46d4a3aa1...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd refer to both observations and the opinions of people that
differed from my own. Both are highly relevant to an understanding of
reality, rather than just my particular view of reality. That's why I
like the internet. That's exactly what we have here.
Christopher A. Lee
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'd refer to both observations and the opinions of people that
>differed from my own. Both are highly relevant to an understanding of
>reality, rather than just my particular view of reality. That's why I
>like the internet. That's exactly what we have here.
Says the serial liar who is himself completely out of touch with
reality.
Syd
I suggest you take his advice first, "friend".
PDW
Syd
Well, it's not his fault that you cannot comprehend what he has just
said...
PDW
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nothing to comprehend. Sorry. Sorry you're too dumb to understand
that, also. Bye.
Jerry Kraus
Sorry Syd. My friends have brains. You don't.
raven1
Still no examples, I see.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > is not very scientific. Some accepted controls over
>> >> >this type of behavior need to be put into place.
>>
>> >> We have one already: it's called "peer-review", and it's very
>> >> effective.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Sounds like I'm talking to an actual member of the scientific
>> >bureaucracy here, not a loony "true believer".
>>
>> You're talking to someone who understands what it is that scientists
>> actually *do*. I'm apparently talking to someone who has no clue, and
>> is just making shit up as he goes along.
>>
>> > That means you have a
>> >vested financial interest in a thoroughly corrupt system, that exists
>> >solely to perpetuate itself.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> >Your "peer review system" is a mutual admiration society designed to
>> >minimize productivity and maximize income.
>>
>> You base this ridiculous claim on what, specifically?
No answer here either.
>>
>> > Which is why a true
>> >"science" of metatheoretical development
>>
>> Meaningless jargon. What specific proposals do you have in mind?
And no answers here.
>>
>> > is necessary to bring some
>> >integrity back into the scientific research process. Sorry, Quack.
>> >You need to be brought into line.
>>
>> You seriously need to get a clue as to how science operates. The
>> peer-review system is used because it works. If you think that tenured
>> professors regularly ignore data simply by virtue of their tenure,
>> you're seriously misinformed at best, outright delusional at worst.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>...!!!Zero Content Alert!!!...!!!Zero Content Alert!!!...!!!Zero
>Content Alert!!!...
Excuse me? I asked you to cite examples of a behavior you claim
tenured professors engage in, asked you on what you base your
criticism of the peer-review process, and asked what specific
proposals you have towards establishing "a true "science" of
metatheoretical development".
Your response to all three questions was silence, and the claim that
*my* post was content-free. Unbelievable.
Jerry Kraus
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:35:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Kraus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tbe behaviors I criticize are so well known that anyone claiming they
don't occur is simply a pathological liar, which, if you are indeed a
professional academic, you undoubtedly are. A bit like saying
politicians don't lie, cite some examples that they do to "prove it".
The notion that professional academics have a higher standard of
behavior than the rest of humanity is utterly ridiculous. The
existence of tenure makes their behavior, in fact, worse. As one
would reasonably expect.
The solution(s) could come in a wide variety of forms: computational
or mathematical systems to summarize existing knowledge bases and
apply them to specific experiments to ensure coherence with existing
bodies of knowledge; an encyclopediac checklist of existing fields of
knowledge, perhaps agreed to by committee, which would have to be
applied to all experiments by the experimenters, specifying which
branches of knowledge are related to the particular experiment, and
how. Obviously, these would be massive changes in current procedure,
if a genuinely standardized, comprehensive procedure were used, rather
than the current, intensely politicized "peer review" process. Oh,
yes, I know, university politics has no affect on scientific research!
raven1
Yet you can't provide a single example, much less demonstrate that
such behavior is routine, and throw a tantrum when asked to do so. Why
is that?
> which, if you are indeed a
>professional academic, you undoubtedly are.
Prejudiced much?
> A bit like saying
>politicians don't lie, cite some examples that they do to "prove it".
You are the one making a claim; the burden of proof rests entirely
with you. That *some* politicians routinely lie, or at least distort
the truth, as part of their campaigns is trivial to observe, that all
academics do so, (as your generalization implies), or deliberately and
routinely ignore data based on their tenure status is libel on your
part unless you can provide some concrete examples. Can you?
>The notion that professional academics have a higher standard of
>behavior than the rest of humanity is utterly ridiculous.
No less ridiculous than your claim that they are as routinely
dishonest as politicians. The problem with your thesis is that if an
academic was prone to routinely lying or ignoring data, the
peer-review process is exactly what would expose such behavior.
> The
>existence of tenure makes their behavior, in fact, worse.
Again, until you can provide even a single concrete example, there is
no reason to accept your claim.
> As one
>would reasonably expect.
What one would "reasonably expect", and what is, are often divergent
from each other. Again, back up your claims, otherwise, you're just
blowing smoke.
>
>The solution(s) could come in a wide variety of forms: computational
>or mathematical systems to summarize existing knowledge bases and
>apply them to specific experiments to ensure coherence with existing
>bodies of knowledge;
This would seem to rule out the acquisition of new knowledge, no?
> an encyclopediac checklist of existing fields of
>knowledge, perhaps agreed to by committee, which would have to be
>applied to all experiments by the experimenters, specifying which
>branches of knowledge are related to the particular experiment, and
>how.
Exactly what is this supposed to accomplish?
> Obviously, these would be massive changes in current procedure,
What do you think "current procedure" is?
>if a genuinely standardized, comprehensive procedure were used, rather
>than the current, intensely politicized "peer review" process.
What, to your understanding, does the peer review process involve? I
do not think it means what you think it means.
> Oh,
>yes, I know, university politics has no affect on scientific research!
Of course it does, in terms of what is researched (ie: what can be
funded to be researched), but its role in the findings of such
research is negligible at best.
cop...@yahoo.com
The laws of nature aren't something that just happened to shake out in
the aftermath of the Big Bang. They were planned and designed by some
greater being in advance of the creation of the universe. The universe
has developed following those laws and without meddling.
Brandon
cop...@yahoo.com
The arrogance by atheists that those who believe in God must prove his
existance, while the atheists must prove nothing. That is arrogance.
Brandon
Christopher A. Lee
>
>The laws of nature aren't something that just happened to shake out in
>the aftermath of the Big Bang. They were planned and designed by some
>greater being in advance of the creation of the universe. The universe
>has developed following those laws and without meddling.
Prove it or stop making baseless assertions in the real world outside
your religion's myths and legends, question-begging moron.
>Brandon
Christopher A. Lee
The lies by the pig-ignorant theist who is too stupid to think outside
his religion.
Look up "begging the question", moron.
You know that in the rest of the world outside your religion, it is
merely "somebody else's religious belief".
So stop being so deliberately, nastily stupid.
>Brandon
Immortalist
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:27:44 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (... a lot! ...)
>
> >On Apr 11, 10:24 am, Angus Rodgers <twir...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
>
> >> <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Just as the brain has probably innate structures that aid the
> >> >acquisition of language. More recent work by evolutionary
> >> >psychologists indicates that it is not only language we are probably
> >> >endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of right and
> >> >wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible principles of
> >> >action, a universal moral grammar, built into the brains of all
> >> >humans. Similarly religion is probably a by-product of the way our
> >> >minds evolved to negotiate the natural and, more importantly, the
> >> >social world.
>
> >> There is some kind of infinite regress here. This kind of argument
> >> would dispose of scientific reason itself just as easily as it tries
> >> to dispose of ethics.
>
> >Examples of Biased Inference as an Evolutionary Adaption
> >[...]
>
> I'm afraid I haven't the appetite for so much copy-and-paste.
> Could you boil some of it down a bit?
>
There was a reference to thinking and reasoning I think, so I put some
thoughts about the evolution of those kinds of neural structures.
> I'll snip, and skip, until I come to something that engages me ...
>
> >> >Human beings may need a creed, the absence of which would likely
> >> >result in all kinds of social corruption, this may be part of our
> >> >instinctual drive towards reciprocity, fairness and the social
> >> >contract. Human beings may have an inborn drive producing the need for
> >> >worship and devotion as well as the performance of a number of rites
> >> >and a complex sense of institutional arrangements and social
> >> >conventions of daily life.
>
> >> Perhaps they (i.e. we) do, perhaps they (i.e. we) don't. But you,
> >> the individual scientist, or believer in science, eventually must
> >> decide what you think is right or wrong; and no amount of standing
> >> back and observing the peculiar rites of these evolved apes on this
> >> planet will ever substitute for the need to find ground to stand on.
>
> >...genes and culture are held together by an elastic but unbreakable
> >leash. As culture surges forward by means of innovation and the
> >introduction of new ideas and artifacts from the outside, it is
> >constrained and directed to some extent by the genes. At the same
> >time, the pressure of cultural innovation affects the survival of the
> >genes and ultimately alters the strength and torque of the genetic
> >leash.
>
> >...Gene-culture coevolution is a radical process. The differences
> >among individuals made possible by higher intelligence and culture
> >enormously increase the potential for natural selection and genetic
> >evolution. No longer do the genes dictate one or a very few behaviors--
> >instead the mind intervenes decisively. Ranging widely, it creates a
> >much greater array of actions. It permits each combination of genes to
> >have multiple expressions and offers alternative solutions to most
> >problems within a single lifetime. Because the mind judges the
> >circumstances of the moment and reflects on the broader implications
> >of its own decisions, it can address the ordinary contingencies of
> >life with greater moment-to-moment competence than the tightly
> >programed responses of animals. In effect, the mutation rate of
> >behavioral responses is vastly increased, and the genes that
> >capacitated the responses are tested more rapidly than in ordinary,
> >instinct-guided species.
>
> >As a result, evolution is accelerated. The genes continue to hold
> >culture on a leash; in each generation the prevailing epigen-etic
> >rules of mental development affect which cultural innovations will be
> >invented and which will be adopted. Yet culture is not just a passive
> >entity. It is a force so powerful in its own right that it drags the
> >genes along. Working as a rapid mutator, it throws new variations into
> >the teeth of natural selection and changes the epigenetic rules across
> >generations...
>
> >...Society, through its laws and institutions, already regulates
> >behavior. But it does so in virtual blind ignorance of the deep
> >reaches of human nature. By relying on moral intuition, on those
> >satisfying visceral feelings of right and wrong, people remain
> >enslaved by their genes and culture.
>
> Ah, that's just where this argument goes astray! (I think it's an
> interesting and important argument, though.) There is almost no
> relation - except one of conflict! - between moral intuition, on
> the one hand, and conformity to social norms (with or without
> religious gloss), on the other. I believe this is the subject
> of Henri Bergson's "Two Sources of Morality and Religion" (which
> I really must get around to reading, one of these days ...) The
> story of Abraham and Isaac seems to pose the problem pretty nicely.
>
I don't think that the author means that genes or culture are to blame
but the "savanna principle" is probably the line of thought. This
stuff was written much later... It's not that one or the other are
good or bad but that they are mis-matched in many instances, for
example;
The Savanna Principle is a theory about the evolutionary roots of the
human brain. ...it asserts that the environment that molded the human
brain through natural selection is drastically different than the
world humans currently live in. This disparity between what man was
designed to do and what he currently can do leads to a host of
societal difficulties, according to the theory. For example, ancestors
who craved sugary and fatty foods lived longer and were healthier than
those who didn't, in a time that such things were relatively scarce.
Today, the abundance of such temptations leads to obesity and heart
disease.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savanna_principle
Evolutionary Psychology strongly rejects the view of the human mind as
tabula rasa, and avers instead that it is content rich and biased. The
human brain, and all of its psychological mechanisms, are adapted to
the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness) and are therefore
biased in favor of viewing and responding to the world as if it were
still the EEA. The psychological mechanisms we possess in our brain
today are still the same psychological mechanisms that we possessed in
the EEA, just as our hand and pancreas are still the same as they were
10 000 years ago. It is not impossible to overcome this bias through
conscious effort, but it is often difficult. This is why we still
respond to sweets and fats today as if we still lived in the EEA where
such high-calorie foods were rare and malnutrition was an imminent
problem for survival, and we have the strong urge to consume a large
quantity of sweets and fats (even though many of us can consciously
overcome the urge) (Barash 1982, pp. 144-147). It is my contention
that the human brain has unconscious difficulty comprehending and
dealing with entities and situations that did not exist in the EEA.
For instance, one of the entities that we know for sure did not exist
in the EEA is television. The fundamental principles of EP would
therefore imply that humans have difficulty recognizing and dealing
with TV. This indeed appears to be the case. People who watch certain
types of TV shows are more satisfied with their friendships, just like
they are if they have more friends or spend more time socializing with
them in real life. It appears that the human brain has difficulty
distinguishing between real friends and imaginary ones they see on TV,
because it did not exist in the EEA (Kanazawa, 2002). It is this
fundamental observation, that our brain and its psychological
mechanisms are strongly biased to view and respond to the environment
as if it were still the EEA, which leads to the Savanna Principle.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/MDE2004.pdf
Kanazawa (2004a) proposes that the human brain may have difficulty
comprehending entities and situations that did not exist in the
ancestral environment, and, as one empirical demonstration of this
Savanna Principle, Kanazawa (2002) shows that people who watch certain
types of TV shows are more satisfied with their friendships,
suggesting that they may have difficulty distinguishing TV characters
from real friends. In an entirely different line of research, Kanazawa
(2004b) advances an evolutionary psychological theory of the evolution
of general intelligence, which proposes that general intelligence
evolved in order to handle evolutionarily-novel problems. The logical
convergence of these two separate lines of research leads to the
prediction that the human difficulty in dealing with evolutionarily-
novel stimuli interacts with general intelligence, such that the
Savanna Principle holds stronger among the less intelligent than among
the more intelligent. Further analyses of the U.S. General Social
Survey demonstrate that less intelligent men and women may have
greater difficulty separating TV characters from their real friends
than more intelligent men and women.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/MES/pdf/JCEP2006.pdf
> >Their minds develop along the
> >channels set by the hereditary epigenetic rules, and while they
> >exercise free will in moment-by-moment choices, this faculty remains
> >superficial and its value to the individual is largely illusory. Only
> >by penetrating to the physical basis of moral thought and considering
> >its evolutionary meaning will people have the power to control their
> >own lives.
>
> And this is the job of expert scientists, acting throughout as
> ethically neutral pure observers? And until this "physical basis
> of moral thought" is discovered, we are all morally rudderless?
> And once it has been discovered, we are all morally in thrall to
> its discoverers and interpreters? ... Remind you of anything? ;-)
>
I think he means like a doctor will be in a better position to operte
on a patient with better technology. I think the author meant nothing
about elitism.
> >They will then be in a better position to choose ethical
> >precepts and the forms of social regulation needed to maintain the
> >precepts.
>
> And pigs will fly, and Hell will freeze over.
>
Same here, unless you wouldn't trust a doctor or some expert in
another field to perform their art. I doubt that the author meant that
the knowledge would be hidden and people will probably be able to
understand what has been discovered.
> >Social engineering has the potential of profoundly altering every part
> >of human behavior. It will not always affirm the status quo, as in the
> >case of incest avoidance. Some very human propensities, which may have
> >been of great adaptive value in the stone age, are now largely self-
> >destructive. The most virulent of these, aggression and xenophobia,
> >can be blunted. Other equally human propensities for altruism and
> >cooperation might be enhanced. The value of institutions and forms of
> >government can be more accurately judged, alternative procedures laid
> >out, and steps cautiously suggested. Economists and corporate
> >planners, once aware of the facts of human nature and measuring more
> >than material transactions, should be able to devise more effective
> >policies.
>
> I'm cautiously optimistic that moral progress can still be made,
> and that science can act as an inspiring example. I just don't
> believe for one moment that moral progress is the preserve of a
> science that starts out with the protestation that moral values
> are not its concern!
>
Can you point to the part that said morals is not the concern?
Please see the "Savanna Principle: above. ...the environment that
molded the human brain through natural selection is drastically
different than the world humans currently live in. This disparity
between what man was designed to do and what he currently can do leads
to a host of societal difficulties, according to the theory. For
example, ancestors who craved sugary and fatty foods lived longer and
were healthier than those who didn't, in a time that such things were
relatively scarce. Today, the abundance of such temptations leads to
obesity and heart disease.
> I don't just want to be negative about this, but I honestly quail
> as the prospect of trying to say what I /do/ believe about moral
> progress. Another time, perhaps! I'm just trying to learn to
> argue about philosophy - it's a little early for me to start
> preaching, or prophesying! :-)
>
> I'll just say that I think we can start by thinking about our
> moral intuitions and social norms, and notice where conflicts
> arise.
>
> >Close self-examination and the planned manipulation of values can be a
> >distasteful exercise. But in a world growing steadily more complicated
> >and dangerous, the alternatives are not promising. A society that
> >chooses to ignore the existence of the innate epigenetic rules will
> >nevertheless continue to navigate by them and at each moment of
> >decision yield to their dictates by default. Economic policy, moral
> >tenets, the practices of child-rearing, and almost every other social
> >activity will be guided by inner feelings whose origins are beyond
> >comprehension. Such a society cannot effectively challenge the ancient
> >hereditary oracle dwelling within the epigenetic rules. It will
> >continue to live by the "conscience" of its members and by "God's
> >will." Such an archaic procedure just might, by fantastic good
> >fortune, lead in the most direct and untroubled manner to a stable and
> >wholly benevolent world. More likely, it will perpetuate conflict and
> >continue to drag humanity relentlessly along what is at best a
> >tortuous and agonizing path.
>
> This seems spot-on, apart from its being based on some confused
> notion of "innate epigenetic rules". There is /some/ valid idea
> here.
>
I think he means "instincts" or "drives" whos paremeters or strength
or "accent" is set by the environment. Biases usually emotional;
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
http://tinyurl.com/eg0d
[1] Only a very small percentage of individuals prefer to have sexual
relations with brothers or sisters. They may harbor moments of inward
desire toward siblings.
[2] The learning of color vocabularies is also strongly biased and
hence falls in the category of gene-culture transmission.
[3] Infants prefer to look at objects that have particular shapes and
arrangements, and as time passes their choices change in a predictable
manner.
[4] Although facial expressions vary from one culture to the next,
strong tendencies exist that must be classified as gene-culture
transmission as opposed to a purely cultural form of transmission.
People around the world use a common set of expressions to register
fear, loathing, anger, surprise, and happiness.
[5] Newborn infants choose most kinds of sugars over plain water and
in this descending order of preference: sucrose, fructose, lactose,
and glucose.
[6] Anxiety in the presence of strangers occurs in very young children
in all the many cultures around the world studied by the German
ethologist Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt.
[7] The innate tendency for human beings to learn one thing as opposed
to another, in other words gene-culture transmission, is perhaps most
dramatically illustrated by the phobias.
Still we were able to locate published studies of twelve categories of
behavior that contain sufficiently precise measurements of the mode of
transmission. From this sample a remarkable result emerged: in every
case the behavior is learned through gene-culture transmission; mental
development appears to be genetically constrained. This result could
not have been the result of observational bias. The psychologists who
conducted the experiments were generally unaware of most of the other
work being conducted of similar nature. They had no visible
preconceptions about the mode of transmission; if anything, the
Zeitgeist of contemporary psychology for the most part favors a belief
in blank-slate minds. Yet the data from all the research programs
revealed gene-culture transmission, a partial automatic preference on
the part of the developing human mind for certain cultural choices
over others. Some of the more striking examples produced by these
pioneering studies entail the following familiar forms of thought and
behavior.
[1] Only a very small percentage of individuals prefer to have sexual
relations with brothers or sisters. They may harbor moments of inward
desire toward siblings. But the vast majority choose to mate with
persons raised outside their immediate family circle. Studies of the
origin of sexual preference in Israeli kibbutzim and Taiwanese
villages indicate that, even if other members of the society could
somehow be neutral or favorable toward sibling incest, young people
would still automatically avoid it in an overwhelming majority. The
aversion is based on an unconscious process in mental development.
Children raised closely together during the first six years of life
feel little or no sexual attraction toward each other when they reach
maturity, whether they are close relatives or not. As one
anthropologist put it, people who use the same potty when very young
do not marry when they grow up. The feeling has little to do with
culture or the classification of kin. Even if a society could somehow
begin anew with brother-sister incest as the norm, it would probably
develop a cultural antagonism toward the practice in a generation or
two. Eventually, the society would incorporate taboos in the form of
rituals and mythic stories to justify and reinforce the aversion. In a
phrase, the genetic leash pulls culture back into line.
[2] The learning of color vocabularies is also strongly biased and
hence falls in the category of gene-culture transmission. From infancy
onward, normally sighted individuals see variation in wavelength not
as a continuously varying property of light (which it is) but as the
four basic colors of blue, green, yellow, and red, along with various
blends in the intermediate zones. This beautiful illusion is
genetically programed into the visual apparatus and brain. Marc
Bornstein at Princeton University used special techniques that measure
attention span to show that four-month-old infants respond to
variation in wavelength as if they were discriminating the four adult
categories.
The same pattern occurs worldwide. At the University of California,
Berkeley, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay worked with the native speakers of
twenty languages, including Arabic, Bulgarian, Cantonese, Catalan,
Hebrew, Ibibio, Thai, Tzeltal, and Urdu. The volunteers were asked to
describe their color vocabulary in an unusually precise way: they were
shown a large array of chips varying in color and brightness, and
directed to place each of the principal color terms of their language
on the chips that came closest to their conception of what the words
mean. Even though the words differed strikingly from one language to
the next in origin and sound, they fell into clusters on the array
that correspond, at least approximately, to the principal colors
distinguished by Born-stein's infants.
The physiological basis of the partitioning in vision is partially
known. The color cones of the retina, which are the cells that
distinguish wavelength, are differentiated into three types that
approach but do not correspond exactly to the basic colors. These
cells are maximally sensitive to blue (440 nanometers), green (535
nanometers), and yellow-green (565 nanometers) respectively. In the
lateral geniculate body of the thalamus, one of the key relay stations
between the eye and the visual cortex of the brain, the visually
active nerve cells are divided into four types that appear to encode
the principal hues. The deeper mechanisms that translate these diverse
sensitivities into the conscious perception of color are under active
investigation. Few brain scientists doubt that a full explanation of
color vision at the levels of the cell and molecule will eventually
become possible. Furthermore, simple genetic changes in color vision,
creating the various forms of color blindness, occur widely through
human populations. They have been associated tentatively with the
malfunction of particular genes located on the X-chromosome.
The intensity of the learning bias was strikingly revealed by an
experiment conducted on color perception during the late 1960s by
Eleanor Rosch of the University of California at Berkeley. In looking
for "natural categories" of cognition, Rosch exploited the fact that
the Dani people of New Guinea have no words to denote color; they
speak only of "mili" (roughly, dark) and "mola" (light). Rosch
considered the following question: if Dani adults set out to learn a
color vocabulary, would they do so more readily if the color terms
correspond to the principal innate hues? In other words, would
cultural innovation be channeled to some extent by the innate genetic
constraints? Rosch divided 68 volunteer Dani men into two groups. She
taught one a series of newly invented color terms placed on the
principal hue categories of the array (blue, green, yellow, red),
where most of the natural vocabularies of other cultures are located.
She taught a second group of Dani men a series of new terms placed off
center, away from the main clusters formed by other languages. The
first group of volunteers, following the "natural" propensities of
color perception, learned about twice as quickly as those given the
competing, less natural color terms. They also selected these terms
more readily when allowed a choice.
[3] Infants prefer to look at objects that have particular shapes and
arrangements, and as time passes their choices change in a predictable
manner. From birth they gaze longest at pictures that are large,
contain numerous elements, and consist of curbed lines. Most of all
they favor figures whose outlines contain approximately ten
independent turns. By the age of eight weeks they also prefer bull's-
eye designs over parallel stripes, touching elements over those that
are separated, and irregular arrays of elements over those that are
perfectly aligned. These apparently innate biases parallel an early
preference for the abstract design of a normally composed human face
over various humanlike but scrambled designs. By twenty weeks the
infant shifts its attention increasingly to new designs and faces in
preference to those it has already learned, and as a result its visual
experience expands rapidly.
[4] Although facial expressions vary from one culture to the next,
strong tendencies exist that must be classified as gene-culture
transmission as opposed to a purely cultural form of transmission.
People around the world use a common set of expressions to register
fear, loathing, anger, surprise, and happiness. Paul Ekman of the
University of California at San Francisco tested the strength of this
predisposition in an elegant manner. He photographed Americans acting
out these emotions and New Guinea highland tribesmen as they told
stories in which similar feelings were emphasized. When individuals
from each culture (New Guinea or American) were then shown portraits
from the other culture, they interpreted the meanings of the facial
expressions with more than 80 percent accuracy. This was the case even
though the New Guinea tribesmen had been previously exposed very
little to the outside world, while the Americans who looked at the
pictures knew nothing of the Papuan culture.
The distinctive nature of the brain's program in facial recognition is
further illustrated by the rare medical condition called
prosopagnosia. When lesions occur on particular regions of the
undersurface of the temporal and occipital lobes of the brain, the
patient cannot identify other persons by their faces. In extreme cases
he is unable to recognize the features of even his closest relatives.
The disability is not due to a general loss of visual memory; the
patient can still identify objects other than faces by sight alone.
Nor is it due to an inability to remember different people; the
patient can distinguish them by their voices. The bizarre properties
of prosopagnosia demonstrate how the brain can be biologically
programed to follow specific sensory cues, especally when the category
of learning is concerned with the most pressing needs of social life.
[5] Newborn infants choose most kinds of sugars over plain water and
in this descending order of preference: sucrose, fructose, lactose,
and glucose. They also discriminate among substances that are acid,
salty, and bitter, reacting by twisting their faces into the
characteristic adult expressions of distaste for each substance. This
selectivity continues into childhood and has important effects in the
evolution of adult cuisines.
[6] Anxiety in the presence of strangers occurs in very young children
in all the many cultures around the world studied by the German
ethologist Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt. The baby turns away, buries its
face in its mother's shoulder, and often begins to cry. This
relatively complicated response first appears at six to eight months
of age and peaks sometime during the subsequent year. It does not
depend on previous unpleasant experience with strangers; nor does it
appear to be linked to crying and other signs of discomfort caused by
separation from the mother. The latter development is distinct in
appearance and first emerges when the infant is about fifteen weeks
old. Anxiety in the presence of strangers continues at a lower,
controlled level into childhood and even maturity. It slides easily
into fear and hostility, contributing to the tendency of people to
live in small groups of intimates. These responses are intensified
when strangers stare. Eyes and eye-like patterns have been found to
have a generally higher arousal effect on people of all ages than do
other facial features. They are also key elements in the attraction of
newborn infants to the face as opposed to other parts of the body, and
they play a central role in communication afterwards.
[7] The innate tendency for human beings to learn one thing as opposed
to another, in other words gene-culture transmission, is perhaps most
dramatically illustrated by the phobias. These are the extreme fears
into which people are plunged-- stricken by nausea, cold sweat, and
other reactions of the au-tonomic nervous system. Phobias typically
emerge fullblown after only a single unpleasant experience, and they
are exceptionally difficult to eradicate, even when the victim is
carefully reassured and coached by a psychiatrist. It is remarkable
that the phobias are most easily evoked by many of the greatest
dangers of mankind's ancient environment, including closed spaces,
heights, thunderstorms, rurming water, snakes, and spiders. Of equal
significance, phobias are rarely evoked by the greatest dangers of
modern technological society, including guns, knives, automobiles,
explosives, and electric sockets. Nothing could better illustrate the
peculiar and occasionally obsolete rules by which the human mind is
assembled, or the slowness of man to adapt to the dangers created by
his own technological triumphs.
For convenience we decided to label the various regularities of
development as epigenetic rules. Epigenesis is a biological term that
means the sum of all the interactions between the genes and the
environment that create the distinctive traits of an organism. Thus
the color vocabulary used by a person is based on the interaction of
genes prescribing color perception in his eyes and brain with the
environment in which he developed. This environment ranges from the
fetal conditions that produced his eyes and brain to his subsequent
enculturation. The epigenetic rules of color vision and classification
are stringent enough to direct cultures around the world toward the
central clusters of color classification as revealed by the Berlin-Kay
experiments. But they are not strong enough to impose completely
identical classifications on every culture and every person.
The epigenetic rules of mental development are a menagerie of diverse
but still largely unstudied phenomena. During the past twenty years,
psychologists and brain scientists have uncovered evidence of
developmental regularities in even the most subtle and complex forms
of mental activity. People follow unexpected and sometimes remarkably
inefficient procedures in the way they recall information, judge the
merits of other people, estimate risk, and plan strategy. Among the
peculiarities of decision making is the excessive use of stereotypes.
When observers are asked to guess the occupation of another person who
is shy, helpful, and obsessed with detail, they are more likely to
choose librarian over other occupations, even when their personal
experience runs counter to this conclusion. Most people, including
some trained statisticians, intuitively expect small random samples to
reflect faithfully the large population from which they are drawn,
although this is demonstrably untrue in a large percentage of the
cases. Other studies have revealed that human beings are also poor
intuitive statisticians when dealing with the major events of life and
death. They tend to equate events that have a low probability and low
consequence with events that have a low probability but important
consequence. As a result they underestimate the effects of
catastrophes. In particular, they consistently misjudge the future
effects of warfare, as well as floods, windstorms, droughts, and
volcanic eruptions, even when such events are repeatedly experienced
and remembered over many generations. Other examples of developmental
bias in language formation, logic, and basic arithmetic will be
described in the next chapter, when the evolutionary origin of the
modern mind is more fully examined.
Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
http://tinyurl.com/eg0d
> >On the other hand, the deep scientific study of the epigenetic rules
> >will call the oracle to account and translate its commands into a
> >precise language that can be understood and debated. People who know
> >human nature in this way are more likely to agree on universal goals
> >within the constraints of that nature and recognize absolute ethical
> >truths, if such can be shown to exist. And though societies cannot
> >escape the inborn rules of epigen-esis, and would lose the very
> >essence of humanness if they even came close to succeeding, they can
> >employ knowledge of the rules to guide individual behavior and
> >cultural evolution to the ends on which their members may someday
> >agree.
>
> I rather like these passages! Do I understand that they are
> quoted from:
>
> >Religion Explained: The Evolutionary
> >Origins of Religious Thought - Pascal Boyer
> >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465006965/
> >http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/log2002.html
>
> (I originally snipped that attribution, as it wasn't clear to me
> that you were about to start quoting, or where you were about to
> start quoting from.)
>
> Anyway, do please explain who wrote these words, if I've guessed
> the attribution wrong. Although I disagree with the author, I'm
> very interested in his point of view.
>
> >Promethean Fire - Reflections on the Origins of Mind
> >Charles J. Lumsdem - E.O. Wilson - 1983
> >http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1583484256/
>
> (Or was /that/ the intended attribution? Your reply is not only
> very long, but also very confusing!)
>
> [... very big snip, as I'm getting tired ...]
>
> >> >...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
> >> >right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
> >> >principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar,
> >> >built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of
> >> >principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of
> >> >action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language
> >> >faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible
> >> >languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a
> >> >universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.
>
> >> >http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/marc-hauser-mor.html
>
> >> This argument must surely apply exactly as well to the human faculty
> >> of reason. What follows from this? That's not intended as a merely
> >> rhetorical question. My rhetorical point is that you can't simply
> >> single out ethics and/or religion as targets for objectification:
> >> science and reason themselves must come under science's own lens.
> >> (Where to go from there is an open question.)
>
> >I agree. Sorry about the excessive use of astounding quotes.
> >http://youtube.com/watch?v=q1pv2Bws2lQ
>
> ... OK ... <quizzical look>
>
> (I haven't viewed the video yet, whatever it is - some verbal
> explanation would surely have been in order.)
>
> >> Both you and Kraus have attacked a lot of targets, and I'm afraid
> >> I have replied with much rambling myself. The focus of my thoughts
> >> - which probably isn't at all clear from what I've written - is the
> >> question of what comes next in our future history, after religion
> >> and scientism. Is there something that combines the best of both?
>
> >Hopefully Utopia.
>
> I'd settle for something a bit saner than either.
>
Technological solutions to many of the problems humans face?
> --
> Angus Rodgers
> (twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
> Contains mild peril
The Republican herd mentality.
> On Apr 11, 11:04 am, "cop...@yahoo.com" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 10:53 am, "Is there at least one Republican who thinks
>
> > independently?" <goofin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Secondly, science isn't a religion. Science is a system of evolving
> > > theories based upon observable data why religion is a dogmatic set of
> > > beliefs based not on observable data but upon the voice of god or
> > > angels or some other mythical being imparting "wisdom."
>
> > Err, are you saying that deism isn't a religion?
>
>
> That's precisely what he's saying. Like most supposed "atheists" he
> is, totally, and completely, ignorant about the nature of religion.
> He attaches to word to Bible Belt American Christians, and not much
> else. Who, ironically, don't consider themselves to be religious!
> They say they "have a relationship with Jesus", and that they "hate
> religion". Just like "atheists" , have a "belief in science" and
> "hate religion". Actually, American Atheists and Bible Belt
> Christians have a great deal in common. They oversimplify like crazy!
What is a supposed atheist? Just wondering.
I may oversimplify in my posts but I try never to oversimplify my
thoughts on any subject that I focus upon. Are you oversimplifying
about atheists and bible belt American Christians? I have no hate for
religion, just some of it's practitioners.
I admit that I didn't know much about deist until I started reading
about them just after reading the above post. Though from what I've
read of deism seems very appealing, I believe their principle tenet,
God exist, is a conclusion made before the evidence has been gathered
and studied.
I wish to illustrate the main difference between science and religion
by referring to the belief in aether of nineteenth century physics.
Though such a dogmatic belief in aether continued well past all of the
evidence that indicated that aether might not exist, many physicists
continued believing in it. They reworked their mathematical equations
to make aether work.
Then Einstein's Special Relativity hit the world. Einstein showed
that it was wrong to hold to a belief in aether when all of the
evidence ran counter to its existence. He washed away the dogma that
had taken hold in physics. Einsteined showed that a belief in aether
wasn't necessary--he didn't disprove it's existence; he just showed
that ignoring it led to a better understanding of how things might
work. The evidence outweighed the theories and beliefs. Physics,
driven by evidence, changed.
Religion holds to a belief in god. God is a theory that stands
regardless of if the evidence supports it or not. If the evidence
runs counter to the god theory, then either the evidence is wrong or
our interpretation is wrong.
I'm going to do a lot more reading about this subject. Though I will
never say god doesn't exist, until I get some conclusive evidence, I
will won't say that he does exist either.
Thanks for this topic.
I never proof-read my posts.
I just wanted to make one last point.
There is only one truth about the nature of this universe. Either
there is or isn't a god or gods. I believe that there isn't but
keeping with reason, I leave the door open for the possibility that
there could be. Give me proof of the existence of a deity or
deities. I'm willing to consider anything. Are you believers in
gods willing to consider anything? Can you?
cop...@yahoo.com
No.
Brandon
cop...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:21:15 -0700 (PDT), "cop...@yahoo.com"
>
> <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 12, 7:39 am, gudl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On 11 Apr., 20:30, "cop...@yahoo.com" <cop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> As long as nobody provides objective evidence for such a thing, what
> >> exactly is arrogant about not believing in it?
>
> >The arrogance by atheists that those who believe in God must prove his
> >existance, while the atheists must prove nothing. That is arrogance.
>
> The lies by the pig-ignorant theist who is too stupid to think outside
> his religion.
You've already said that deism is not a religion, so how could I
possibly be thinking inside a religion?
Or have you changed your mind?
> You know that in the rest of the world outside your religion, it is
> merely "somebody else's religious belief".
And it's wrong.
> So stop being so deliberately, nastily stupid.
Just what I should be saying to you.
Brandon
Syd
Your leaving?
PDW
Syd
Any friend of yours is not using their brains...
PDW