5 ms·

Even if a doctor's belief in the stork theory of reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about hi

Even if a doctor's belief in the stork theory of reproduction is technically irrelevant to his competence as an eye surgeon, it tells you something about him. It is revealing. It is relevant in a general way to whether we would wish him to treat us or teach us. A patient could reasonably shrink from entrusting her eyes to a doctor whose beliefs (admittedly in the apparently unrelated field of obstetrics) are so cataclysmically disconnected from reality. This statement seems to work when applied to something like "babies come from storks", but it generalizes poorly. There are simply too many incorrect beliefs floating around; it's difficult to find someone who has resisted all of them. Would you refuse treatment from an ophthalmologist who believed: 1. The seasons are caused by Earth approaching and receding from the Sun? 2. Fixed-wing aircraft fly because air moves over and under the wing at the same rate? 3. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb? All of these are just as wrong as stork-babies or creationism, and all are just as relevant (ie, not at all) to ophthalmology. I don't demand that my doctor rigorously examine every belief they hold, merely the ones related to surgery. Frankly, a creationist surgeon is much less worrying than a surgeon who believes wi-fi causes cancer. My colleague takes the view that this YEC is entitled to a job as a professor of astronomy, because he keeps his private beliefs to himself while at work. I take the opposite view. I would object to employing him, on the grounds that his research papers, and his lectures to students, are filled with what he personally believes to be falsehoods. He is a fake, a fraud, a charlatan, drawing a salary for a job that could have gone to an honest astronomer. Moreover, I would regard his equanimity in holding two diametrically opposing views simultaneously in his head as a revealing indicator that there is something wrong with his head. There's an idiom that goes something like "reality is what keeps happening even if you don't believe in it". If a creationist is able to perform correct science, I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand. Especially considering the wide variety of creationist beliefs now extant in the US -- even if he believes Earth was created six thousand years ago, he may be willing to concede that the Universe is roughly fourteen billion years old.

kd0amg 16y ago
Would you refuse treatment from an ophthalmologist who believed: 1. The seasons are caused by Earth approaching and receding from the Sun? 2. Fixed-wing aircraft fly because air moves over and under the wing at the same rate? 3. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb? People generally expect a physician of any specialty to have a solid grounding in biology. The first two are cases of ignorance of physics; the third is of history. As such, you'll likely find more people willing to accept a physician's ignorance of them (more so the third, which is a matter of history, than the first two, which are about physics).
- jmillikin 16y ago
  Young-Earth creationism is ignorance of physics, not biology. If Earth were created 6000 years ago, then there has not been enough time for evolutionary pressure to significantly alter the human genome yet. It's entirely reasonable for a YEC to believe in evolution, while simultaneously believing the current forms of most species are not the result of evolution. Ignorance of biology gives rise to complete denial of evolution, which is a separate belief.
  - kd0amg 16y ago
    Young-Earth creationism is ignorance of physics, not biology. And you'll find a lot less objection to YEC physicians than to stork-theorist physicians (remember, the example Dawkins started with, and the one you quoted).
- iloveponies 16y ago
  Unrelated, of anyone in medicine, I think the only requirement I have of them is to believe in and uphold Hippocratic Oath and not let their personal beliefs interfere with performing their job or the oath. This example used, that of a person you would as a patient demand trust from more than a scientist (like an astronomer) is questionable fear mongering.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >I think the only requirement I have of them is to believe in and uphold Hippocratic Oath Have you read it? [In translation] "I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement: " Also no injected drugs to cause death or abortion might be a bar to some doctors.
    - iloveponies 16y ago
      I know of nobody who has not be sworn under any version except for the modern version, which makes no references to Greek mythology.
lutorm 16y ago
It's not so much the beliefs that people hold, it's whether or not they stick to those beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. If they do, then their reasoning is not based in reality, which makes any other reasoning they do that is also purportedly based in reality suspect. A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect science. I agree with Dawkins that this makes him suspect as a scientist, because we should base our beliefs upon facts.
- wisty 16y ago
  The last part is a very Western value set - that we should "base our beliefs on facts". Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results. Being dogmatic seems to date back to the Greeks, at least. Still both sides (the young earthers and the hard athiests) are both pretty dogmatic. I'd say that both sides should chill out. If a guy wants a job that they doesn't quite believe in, as long as they're capable, why stop them? On the other hand, if you can't get a job because you really don't believe in it, aren't there other jobs out there?
  - lutorm 16y ago
    It's not a "Western" value set, it's a value held by the scientific community he is desiring to enter. In any case, scientists are a lot less dogmatic than you seem to think. We willingly use theories as long as we get results, i.e. as long as the theories work. The point is that it's exactly there that Creationism fails. In that way, it's not "ignoring an absence of facts as long as you get results" and more akin to "ignoring an absence of results as long as they believe what they're doing". I don't think you can spin that any way that's positive -- sooner or later reality will bite back if that's how you go through life.
  - pjscott 16y ago
    > The last part is a very Western value set - that we should "base our beliefs on facts". Every culture bases most of its beliefs on facts. You just don't notice most of those beliefs because they're obvious. If you want bread, someone's going to have to grow grain. People fall when they jump off a cliff. I have hair. There are some beliefs that are not based on facts, and they have a survival advantage if they can convince people that facts should not apply to them. Therefore it really shouldn't be surprising to see anti-factual beliefs across a wide range of cultures. The only reason you can bring Western-centrism into this is because science had its really big success in the West. > Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results. Those results are, by definition, factual. I'm not sure what you're saying here. > Still both sides (the young earthers and the hard athiests) are both pretty dogmatic. Can you quantify the dogmatism here? Because you sound like you're conflating strong beliefs with an unwillingness to change them given sufficiently strong evidence.

kd0amg 16y ago

Would you refuse treatment from an ophthalmologist who believed: 1. The seasons are caused by Earth approaching and receding from the Sun? 2. Fixed-wing aircraft fly because air moves over and under the wing at the same rate? 3. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb? People generally expect a physician of any specialty to have a solid grounding in biology. The first two are cases of ignorance of physics; the third is of history. As such, you'll likely find more people willing to accept a physician's ignorance of them (more so the third, which is a matter of history, than the first two, which are about physics).

jmillikin 16y ago
Young-Earth creationism is ignorance of physics, not biology. If Earth were created 6000 years ago, then there has not been enough time for evolutionary pressure to significantly alter the human genome yet. It's entirely reasonable for a YEC to believe in evolution, while simultaneously believing the current forms of most species are not the result of evolution. Ignorance of biology gives rise to complete denial of evolution, which is a separate belief.
- kd0amg 16y ago
  Young-Earth creationism is ignorance of physics, not biology. And you'll find a lot less objection to YEC physicians than to stork-theorist physicians (remember, the example Dawkins started with, and the one you quoted).
iloveponies 16y ago
Unrelated, of anyone in medicine, I think the only requirement I have of them is to believe in and uphold Hippocratic Oath and not let their personal beliefs interfere with performing their job or the oath. This example used, that of a person you would as a patient demand trust from more than a scientist (like an astronomer) is questionable fear mongering.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >I think the only requirement I have of them is to believe in and uphold Hippocratic Oath Have you read it? [In translation] "I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement: " Also no injected drugs to cause death or abortion might be a bar to some doctors.
  - iloveponies 16y ago
    I know of nobody who has not be sworn under any version except for the modern version, which makes no references to Greek mythology.

lutorm 16y ago

It's not so much the beliefs that people hold, it's whether or not they stick to those beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. If they do, then their reasoning is not based in reality, which makes any other reasoning they do that is also purportedly based in reality suspect. A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect science. I agree with Dawkins that this makes him suspect as a scientist, because we should base our beliefs upon facts.

wisty 16y ago
The last part is a very Western value set - that we should "base our beliefs on facts". Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results. Being dogmatic seems to date back to the Greeks, at least. Still both sides (the young earthers and the hard athiests) are both pretty dogmatic. I'd say that both sides should chill out. If a guy wants a job that they doesn't quite believe in, as long as they're capable, why stop them? On the other hand, if you can't get a job because you really don't believe in it, aren't there other jobs out there?
- lutorm 16y ago
  It's not a "Western" value set, it's a value held by the scientific community he is desiring to enter. In any case, scientists are a lot less dogmatic than you seem to think. We willingly use theories as long as we get results, i.e. as long as the theories work. The point is that it's exactly there that Creationism fails. In that way, it's not "ignoring an absence of facts as long as you get results" and more akin to "ignoring an absence of results as long as they believe what they're doing". I don't think you can spin that any way that's positive -- sooner or later reality will bite back if that's how you go through life.
- pjscott 16y ago
  > The last part is a very Western value set - that we should "base our beliefs on facts". Every culture bases most of its beliefs on facts. You just don't notice most of those beliefs because they're obvious. If you want bread, someone's going to have to grow grain. People fall when they jump off a cliff. I have hair. There are some beliefs that are not based on facts, and they have a survival advantage if they can convince people that facts should not apply to them. Therefore it really shouldn't be surprising to see anti-factual beliefs across a wide range of cultures. The only reason you can bring Western-centrism into this is because science had its really big success in the West. > Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results. Those results are, by definition, factual. I'm not sure what you're saying here. > Still both sides (the young earthers and the hard athiests) are both pretty dogmatic. Can you quantify the dogmatism here? Because you sound like you're conflating strong beliefs with an unwillingness to change them given sufficiently strong evidence.