generalizations
Allan Adler
avoid generalizing about Christians and other arbitrary groupings of
people. To fail to make that effort is to risk being bigots in the
worst cases and, at best, just to be wrong and indifferent to being
wrong. In my criticisms of individual postings on this group, I insist
on the following standards and it is reasonable for me to do so:
(1) clarity in one's writing
(2) adherence to logical principles
(3) proof, when proof is required
(4) genuine attempts to get to the bottom of questions
(5) avoidance of even the appearance of bigotry
It is up to individuals whether they want to meet those standards. I'm
not the moderator of this group and my criticisms of other people's postings
do nothing to prevent them from posting their opinions. So, people who
don't like it when I point out the shortcomings of their postings shouldn't
pretend that they are being persecuted in some way when they are criticized.
I don't do it maliciously but as a way of improving the often low caliber of
postings to soc.atheism. Even if it does nothing to change the output of
the writers I complain about, at least it serves to document that there
are some people, some atheists, who do not, by their silence, assent to
bigotry and stupidity.
When I was in college, it was popular among my friends to talk about
astrology. They knew they tended to like people with certain signs and
to dislike people with other signs. When I told them they were being
stupid, they often reacted as though they were being subjected to
unreasonable standards. They didn't care what was true and what was
false, as long as it made social sense for them to have such conversations.
I don't want soc.atheism to be the kind of place where it makes social
sense to talk about Christians and other arbitrary groupings of people as
though they had something in common beyond the mere fact of having been
collected. It is pure ignorance and, indulgence in that practice opens the
door to bigotry.
This is a group for discussion of atheism. It isn't a hate group against
Christians. Get that straight and you'll find me a lot easier to get along
with. Maybe at this moment no one is throwing mud at Christians but discussing
them as though they were somehow homogeneous is just one step away from that
and I will have none of it. You might as well be talking about the collective
behavior of Geminis for all the sense it makes.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <a...@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
Earle Jones
Allan Adler <a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
*
On the other hand, Alan:
"When a proposition is ludicrous enough, we lend it undeserved
credibility when we respond too politely."
--Robert M. Price
earle
*
Allan Adler
> On the other hand, Alan:
> "When a proposition is ludicrous enough, we lend it undeserved
> credibility when we respond too politely." --Robert M. Price
Now, Earle, I know you've been saving that quote up for a special occasion
and I don't want to spoil the fun of having trotted it out. And I must say
it is more appropriate than the usual discussions of moonshine. I'll just say
that I think your point is that, if Christians are going to believe in perfect
nonsense, then it is right to make fun of them for it. Am I interpreting your
intentions correctly?
If so, then I think it is also correct to point out the difference between
criticizing the religious beliefs of Christians, politely or otherwise,
and simply making arbitrary generalizations about Christians, generalizations
that, strictly speaking, don't have anything to do with Christians'
individual religious beliefs. It is the practice of making arbitrary
generalizations about groups of people that I am complaining about. And I
think you secretly agree with me on that; you just saw an opportunity to use
the quote and couldn't resist.
There are some people here who regard logic and rigor with the same disdain
that some fascists have for the Constitution, when they write it off as a
"technicality". When they invent their spurious generalizations about
religious or other groups, they somehow believe that their generalizations
are really true and that the necessary proof for them is just so much
paperwork standing in the way of progress. It is regrettable that we have
such people on soc.atheism; they do as much disservice to atheism as
stupid advocates of religion do to religious perspectives.
There was a thread here called, "bein targeted cus im atheist", wherein
an atheist complained to us about the stereotypes with which he was being
received by religious friends. We sympathized with him for that because we
felt it was wrong, not just that it is wrong when it is done to atheists.
That being the case, let's not let intellectual laziness or simple prejudice
be an excuse to generate or propagate stereotypes of religious people.
Question: If I find your quotation ludicrous, but you agree with it,
does that mean you think I should be rude in my reply to you?
Anyway, I got sidetracked some time ago after I started reading a book on
methods of social science research in the wake of a thread on soc.atheism.
Now I'm reminded that I have to get back to work on it.
More when I know more.
Earle Jones
Allan Adler <a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> > On the other hand, Alan:
> > "When a proposition is ludicrous enough, we lend it undeserved
> > credibility when we respond too politely." --Robert M. Price
>
> Now, Earle, I know you've been saving that quote up for a special occasion
> and I don't want to spoil the fun of having trotted it out. And I must say
> it is more appropriate than the usual discussions of moonshine. I'll just say
> that I think your point is that, if Christians are going to believe in perfect
> nonsense, then it is right to make fun of them for it. Am I interpreting your
> intentions correctly?
***
You're pretty close! I think it is the frustration speaking for me.
But I also believe, from a practical point of view, that impoliteness
does not build bridges. In fact, it probably widens the gap. I am
willing to try to find discussion topics with creationists, but it is
difficult to do so. I have the feeling that the creationist hypothesis
is: God created everything. And the conclusion is: Therefore
everything must conform to that. Whatever 'evidence' comes into
conflict with that must be incorrect.
That is hard for me to swallow.
***
>
> If so, then I think it is also correct to point out the difference between
> criticizing the religious beliefs of Christians, politely or otherwise,
> and simply making arbitrary generalizations about Christians, generalizations
> that, strictly speaking, don't have anything to do with Christians'
> individual religious beliefs. It is the practice of making arbitrary
> generalizations about groups of people that I am complaining about. And I
> think you secretly agree with me on that; you just saw an opportunity to use
> the quote and couldn't resist.
***
You know me too well!
***
>
> There are some people here who regard logic and rigor with the same disdain
> that some fascists have for the Constitution, when they write it off as a
> "technicality". When they invent their spurious generalizations about
> religious or other groups, they somehow believe that their generalizations
> are really true and that the necessary proof for them is just so much
> paperwork standing in the way of progress. It is regrettable that we have
> such people on soc.atheism; they do as much disservice to atheism as
> stupid advocates of religion do to religious perspectives.
>
> There was a thread here called, "bein targeted cus im atheist", wherein
> an atheist complained to us about the stereotypes with which he was being
> received by religious friends. We sympathized with him for that because we
> felt it was wrong, not just that it is wrong when it is done to atheists.
> That being the case, let's not let intellectual laziness or simple prejudice
> be an excuse to generate or propagate stereotypes of religious people.
>
> Question: If I find your quotation ludicrous, but you agree with it,
> does that mean you think I should be rude in my reply to you?
>
> Anyway, I got sidetracked some time ago after I started reading a book on
> methods of social science research in the wake of a thread on soc.atheism.
> Now I'm reminded that I have to get back to work on it.
>
> More when I know more.
***
I am an engineer (SRI for many years -- BSEE Georgia Tech; MSEE
Stanford. For a while I was VP for the Advanced Technology Division,
which included Nils Nilsson's AI Center, which you probably know.
Anyway, be as rude as you want to be -- I have relatively thick skin! I
know nothing of social science research. My reading of Edward O.
Wilson's "Consilience" put me off such research. He believes that
Social Scientists are out of touch with real science.
Me, I don't know.
Best,
earle
*
PS: As an Electrical Engineer (EE), remember this:
You can't spell GEEK without a double E!
Ian Smith
> I think that people on this newsgroup should make more of an effort to
> avoid generalizing about Christians and other arbitrary groupings of
> people. To fail to make that effort is to risk being bigots in the
> worst cases and, at best, just to be wrong and indifferent to being
> wrong. In my criticisms of individual postings on this group, I insist
> on the following standards and it is reasonable for me to do so:
> (1) clarity in one's writing
> (2) adherence to logical principles
> (3) proof, when proof is required
> (4) genuine attempts to get to the bottom of questions
> (5) avoidance of even the appearance of bigotry
Whilst I agree with the intent of your views, it appears to me as
though you are peeing in the wind.
People will write as clearly as they are capable of doing. We can't
ban people who have a lower IQ than you and I, they still have views
and a right to express them.
What is logical to you and I isn't necessarily logical to someone
brought up from early childhood with superstition.
There is no such thing as absolute proof in this context, outside of
a mathematical domain. Overwhelming evidence, maybe.
regards, Ian
David V.
> I think that people on this newsgroup should make more of an effort to
> avoid generalizing about Christians and other arbitrary groupings of
Isn't that a generalization from you about others?
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
Dag Yo
their beliefs. If we come across as people who mischaracterize
Christian beliefs in a discussion, the Christian is at least partially
to blame for such confusion.
Allan Adler
> People will write as clearly as they are capable of doing. We can't
> ban people who have a lower IQ than you and I, they still have views
> and a right to express them.
As I explained clearly in my posting, I'm not talking about preventing
anyone from posting. That is the moderator's job and according to entirely
different criteria. I'm talking about criticizing errors in writing, logic
and policy.
The goal of doing so is not necessarily to change the person who makes
such errors, although that might be a desirable outcome in certain cases.
The goal is to contribute to the discussion in which the errors are posted;
it is also to contribute to the education of readers of this group.
There is nothing in the concept of atheism that makes it necessary for
an atheist to be less stupid than his religious counterparts, but it is
still something to strive for.
> What is logical to you and I isn't necessarily logical to someone
> brought up from early childhood with superstition.
I'm not sure whom you are referring to. At any rate, I agree that there
are some people who are not trained in logical habits of thinking. When
they turn up on soc.atheism and write pure nonsense as a result, it is
appropriate to try to educate them or, at least, to point out their errors.
The logical issues don't simply go away when someone doesn't happen to
understand them.
> There is no such thing as absolute proof in this context, outside of
> a mathematical domain. Overwhelming evidence, maybe.
Of course, but one can make a clear distinction between what has been
proved, and how overwhelmingly, and what has not. Are you saying that
every statement has to be given equal weight just because nothing outside
of mathematics can be proved absolutely? I don't think that is your position.
Allan Adler
> Allan Adler wrote:
> > I think that people on this newsgroup should make more of an effort to
> > avoid generalizing about Christians and other arbitrary groupings of
> > people. ....
>
> Isn't that a generalization from you about others?
What an interesting question! What do you think the answer is, and why?
Allan Adler
> I posit that Christians are all too vague when it comes to expressing
> their beliefs. If we come across as people who mischaracterize
> Christian beliefs in a discussion, the Christian is at least partially
> to blame for such confusion.
First of all, please don't top post.
As for what you write, of course the beliefs of Christians and other religious
doctrines are fair game for criticism. The point of my posting is to denounce
generalizations about Christians and other groups when those generalizations
have nothing to do with their individual beliefs. Where do you stand on that
issue?
Allan Adler
> You're pretty close! I think it is the frustration speaking for me.
> But I also believe, from a practical point of view, that impoliteness
> does not build bridges. In fact, it probably widens the gap. I am
> willing to try to find discussion topics with creationists, but it is
> difficult to do so. I have the feeling that the creationist hypothesis
> is: God created everything. And the conclusion is: Therefore
> everything must conform to that. Whatever 'evidence' comes into
> conflict with that must be incorrect. That is hard for me to swallow.
Lots of issues and subtleties here. Here are some distinctions that might
be helpful in talking about it:
(1) between "creationists" and Christians in general;
(2) between creationists as people who hold certain "metaphysical" positions
and creationists as people who are trying to accomplish certain political
changes such as changing the school science curriculum;
(3) between
(a) trying to talk to someone who holds a "metaphysical" position
different from yours about the "metaphysical" position
and (b) trying to talk to someone with whom you are involved in a political
contest about the political contest.
(4) between:
(a) talking to atheists about the beliefs and actions of creationists;
(b) talking to creationists about the beliefs and actions of creationists;
(c) talking to people other than atheists and creationists about the
beliefs and actions of creationists;
(5) between different flavors of creationists, from flat earth enthusiasts
to "scientific" creationists.
(6) between disliking a person and dislinking the problem that a person is
causing you.
Personally, I have no desire to talk to creationists about their beliefs.
In the context of (3)(b) and fights over school curricula, the contest itself
creates the need to talk. When you describe your frustration, I'm not sure
what you are referring to, but I would guess that it is (3)(a), rather than
(3)(b), although the stimulus for the discussion might find come from
news about the political activities of creationists. Is that correct?
One of the ways that such distinctions are useful is that they suggest a
number of ways to provide more information and nuance to the problem. For
example, a lot of religious people do believe in evolution, don't believe
in creationism and don't want creationism to be part of the curriculum and
do want evolution to be taught without warning labels stamped on the
textbooks. Have you talked to them about how they feel about creationists
and their activities? This could shed some light on the problem that the
creationists present.
Allan Adler writes:
> > Anyway, I got sidetracked some time ago after I started reading a book on
> > methods of social science research in the wake of a thread on soc.atheism.
> > Now I'm reminded that I have to get back to work on it. More when I know
> > more.
> I am an engineer (SRI for many years -- BSEE Georgia Tech; MSEE
> Stanford. For a while I was VP for the Advanced Technology Division,
> which included Nils Nilsson's AI Center, which you probably know.
Actually, I don't know anything about it.
> I know nothing of social science research. My reading of Edward O.
> Wilson's "Consilience" put me off such research. He believes that
> Social Scientists are out of touch with real science. Me, I don't know.
I haven't read his book. I just now took a look at the Wikipedia age on
Consilience:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience
The wikipedia page suggests that Wilson's book is a reply to C.P.Snow's book,
"The two cultures and the scientific revolution" (1959). So, it might be
necessary to look at that book too. But in any case, the issue seems to be
the divergence between the cultures of the sciences and that of the humanities.
According to the wikipedia page:
* Wilson's assertion was that the sciences, humanities, and arts have a common
* goal: to give a purpose to understanding the details, to lend to all
* inquirers "a conviction, far deeper than a mere working proposition, that
* the world is orderly and can be explained by a small number of natural
* laws." This is the essence of consilience.
So, this looks to me like it might be a somewhat schematic attempt to achieve
some synthesis of essentially different subjects. An author of such a work
might be strongly tempted to reject Social Sciences on extrinsic grounds,
i.e. because they don't fit well into his proposed synthesis, and not
necessarily because of intrinsic flaws in their methodology.
> PS: As an Electrical Engineer (EE), remember this:
> You can't spell GEEK without a double E!
You should take a look at Shel Silverstein's poem, "Important?":
Important?
Said little a to big G,
Without me,
The sea would be
The se,
The flea would be
The fle.
And Earth and Heaven couldn't be
Without me.
Said big G to little a,
Even the se
Could crsh and spry
Nd the fle would fly
In the sme old wy,
Nd Erth and Heven still would be,
Without thee.
I don't think I knew you are an electrical engineer. I'm interested in
some topics related to EE but it isn't something I consider myself to be
very good at.
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Allan Adler wrote:
>>
>>> I think that people on this newsgroup should make more of
>>> an effort to avoid generalizing about Christians and other
>>> arbitrary groupings of people. ....
>>
>> Isn't that a generalization from you about others?
>
> What an interesting question! What do you think the answer is,
> and why?
Of course the answer is yes, but I don't think you'd agree with that.
Why? That's for you to answer.
Cuthbert Thistlethwaite
> that I think your point is that, if Christians are going to believe in perfect
> nonsense, then it is right to make fun of them for it. Am I interpreting your
> intentions correctly?
Not in this interesting ng, to which I am new anyway, but in real life,
I sometimes can't help myself. My intention, however, is to use humor
to try to help sharpen the focus of the deluded, so that they can step
back and see nonsense for what it is.
The exchange might go something like this (based on an actual event):
ME So all this was in the 1820s, you say?
THEM Yup.
ME Less than 200 years ago?
THEM Yup.
ME It was a child, a magical salamander, an Italian angel, gold plates,
and a reader thing?
THEM Yup.
ME Can I see the reader thing?
THEM Nope, we lost it.
ME How about the plates, can I see the plates?
THEM Nope, we lost them, too.
ME You lost them in less than 200 years?
THEM Yup.
ME Both the golden plates and the plate reader? Both lost?
THEM Yup.
ME You lost the most important objects ever possessed by mankind, by
your account at least, in less than 200 years?
THEM Yup. We managed to lose them in less than 100 years, actually.
ME Well, we have the Magna Carta . . . hell, we have receipts for beer
shipments in Sumeria, but you, you have no more to say about your golden
plates from less than 200 years ago than that they are missing and you
have no clue what happened to them?
THEM Yup.
ME OK, you lose and have to pay for all this beer now.
Ian Smith
> Of course, but one can make a clear distinction between what has been
> proved, and how overwhelmingly, and what has not. Are you saying that
> every statement has to be given equal weight just because nothing outside
> of mathematics can be proved absolutely? I don't think that is your position.
No, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying that use of the word 'proof' in this context is digging a
hole for yourself...
The theists can't prove that their god exists.
But we can't 'prove' evolution either. A good example (and a useful
comparison with our knowledge of evolution) is gravity...
Gravity exists. If you drop and ball (I keep a soft ball by the door
to explain this to the JWs) and try to predict which way it will go,
up or down, they would be mugs to predict that it will go upwards.
However, we can't prove gravity, we can't absolutely guarantee that
the ball will go downwards on the next drop, and we certainly don't
fully understand how gravity works.
However gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact - to deny
evolution is about as sensible as denying gravity.
I usually conclude my discussion with a JW by saying "Talking about
evolution, as we were, which way do think this ball will go then?"
regards, Ian
Steve Kelley
I am amazed. In a discussion (by email) with my brother about global
warming and man's contribution to it I used the same ball and gravity
analogy to illustrate how we base understandings on correlations. Your
wording is so close to mine that I'm wondering where you saw my text ;-)
--
Steve Kelley
Allan Adler
> Allan Adler wrote:
> > "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >> Allan Adler wrote:
> >>> I think that people on this newsgroup should make more of
> >>> an effort to avoid generalizing about Christians and other
> >>> arbitrary groupings of people. ....
> >>
> >> Isn't that a generalization from you about others?
> >
> > What an interesting question! What do you think the answer is,
> > and why?
>
> Of course the answer is yes, but I don't think you'd agree with that.
> Why? That's for you to answer.
Thanks for confirming that, when you asked your question, you were really
making an assertion. That being the case, the obligation to support your
assertion is yours, not mine.
Allan Adler
> > I'll just say that I think your point is that, if Christians are going to
> > believe in perfect nonsense, then it is right to make fun of them for it.
> > Am I interpreting your intentions correctly?
>
> Not in this interesting ng, to which I am new anyway, but in real life,
> I sometimes can't help myself.
Not to change the subject or anything, but do you sometimes imagine that
you are Earle Jones? The reason I'm wondering is that the quote you are
referring to in my posting was in reply to him, the word "your" referred
to Earle Jones, etc.
> My intention, however, is to use humor to try to help sharpen the focus of
> the deluded, so that they can step back and see nonsense for what it is.
Interesting. Tell me, do your friends ever complain that they never know
whether you are being serious?
>
> The exchange might go something like this (based on an actual event):
> ME [snip] THEM [snip] ME [snip] THEM [snip] ME [snip] [...]
> Me OK, you lose and have to pay for all this beer now.
Over my head...
Maybe it will make more sense if you relate the circumstances rather than
the dialogue out of context.
Allan Adler
> Allan Adler wrote:
>
> > Of course, but one can make a clear distinction between what has been
> > proved, and how overwhelmingly, and what has not. Are you saying that
> > every statement has to be given equal weight just because nothing outside
> >of mathematics can be proved absolutely?I don't think that is your position.
>
> No, I'm not saying that.
>
> I'm saying that use of the word 'proof' in this context is digging a
> hole for yourself...
I might, if I meant by proof what proof means in mathematics. But proof is
also a word in common parlance and in several other contexts, including in
law and, speaking of the bar, in connection with liquor, and people don't
dig holes for themselves by using it.
[stuff that would be relevant if I were talking about mathematical proof
deleted]
Ian Smith
>>
>> I'm saying that use of the word 'proof' in this context is digging a
>> hole for yourself...
>
> I might, if I meant by proof what proof means in mathematics. But proof is
> also a word in common parlance and in several other contexts, including in
> law and, speaking of the bar, in connection with liquor, and people don't
> dig holes for themselves by using it.
If you haven't yet, you will. You're debating with creationists
here. You'll have the same problem with the work 'theory'.
regards, Ian
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> Allan Adler wrote:
>>
>>> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Allan Adler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think that people on this newsgroup should make more
>>>>> of an effort to avoid generalizing about Christians
>>>>> and other arbitrary groupings of people. ....
>>>>
>>>> Isn't that a generalization from you about others?
>>>
>>> What an interesting question! What do you think the answer
>>> is, and why?
>>
>> Of course the answer is yes, but I don't think you'd agree
>> with that. Why? That's for you to answer.
>
>
> Thanks for confirming that, when you asked your question, you
> were really making an assertion.
Just like when you commented on generalizations you were also
making a generalization.
Allan Adler
> Just like when you commented on generalizations you were also
> making a generalization.
I guess you are not going to justify your assertion by any direct
reference to what I wrote. That sounds like you have no arguments,
other than repetition, in support of what you are saying. I'm not
going to waste any more time on your comments.
Allan Adler
Actually, I was talking with you, not with creationists. Let's try again.
You seem to be saying that, if I were talking to a creationist instead of
with you, I would have trouble finding common ground in terms of language.
That might be true, depending on the creationist, and might not.
I recall watching Nightline one night when Ted Koppel was still on the
show. I think it was during one of the fights with creationists over the
school board. Some were pretty impossible for Koppel to talk to. Others
were much more subdued and he actually managed to elicit some useful
information about how they look at things. Here, I'm not referring to
theology, but to their perception that people who disagree with them
think they are idiots. On that, the interviewee had a valid point, even
though he needed Koppel to articulate it for him.
Let me put it this way: do people here think that they are somehow smarter
than religious people? Do they think that, the more they disagree with the
religious and political doctrines of certain religious movements, the stupider
the people in those movements must be?
In the particular case of arguing with creationists (if one has time for that),
do you think that the difficulties of doing so arise from:
(a) their inherent stupidity, or
(b) because they aren't arguing in good faith, or
(c) because they start from such different premises, or
(d) for some other reason?
RonnHammonn
>
> >>>> Allan Adler wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> ... people on this newsgroup should...
> >>>>> ... avoid generalizing
snip
> Just like when you commented on generalizations you were also
> making a generalization.
>
It is to laugh.
RonnHammonn
David V.
> "David V." <sp...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> Just like when you commented on generalizations you were
>> also making a generalization.
>
> I guess you are not going to justify your assertion by any
> direct reference to what I wrote. That sounds like you have no
> arguments, other than repetition, in support of what you are
> saying. I'm not going to waste any more time on your comments.
>
already know what you wrote. I found it strange that you even asked.