4 ms·

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, the

by 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.
- jamesbritt 16y ago
  "... as long as they're capable, ..." But that's the whole point. Dawkin's argument seems to be that, while a YEC may at first glance seem adequately skilled, their manifest disregard for scientific evidence means that they cannot be trusted to do the job correctly. "Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results." Aren't results facts? Or, put another way, how does someone determine that they are getting results? I don't see how the willingness to try things in the absence of facts is non-Western. It sounds a lot like experimentation. The issue here isn't the absence of facts, it's the ignoring of facts (by YECs and their ilk).
  - jimbokun 16y ago
    "But that's the whole point. Dawkin's argument seems to be that, while a YEC may at first glance seem adequately skilled, their manifest disregard for scientific evidence means that they cannot be trusted to do the job correctly." The problem with the particular case he cites is that this person seemed to have a well demonstrated history of doing his job correctly.
knieveltech 16y ago
"A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect science." I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The whole Science VS Faith thing is a false dichotomy, the two are not inherently incompatible except in the minds of unfortunate extremists on both sides of the argument. Implying that they are ignores the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of science has been performed by so-called "creationists". Society simply didn't tolerate atheism prior to say 1960.
- jmillikin 16y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The whole Science VS Faith thing is a false dichotomy, the two are not inherently incompatible except in the minds of unfortunate extremists on both sides of the argument. Faith is, fundamentally, the process of maintaining beliefs in the face of 1) absent evidence and 2) conflicting evidence. Science is the process of discovering evidence. While theoretically compatible, in practice, people performing science often discover evidence that conflicts with widely-held beliefs. When those beliefs are part of an ongoing faith, the faith-holders usually react violently against the scientists. Implying that they are ignores the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of science has been performed by so-called "creationists". Society simply didn't tolerate atheism prior to say 1960. I'm not sure what you're arguing here, since it seems to go against your main point.
  - jstrate 16y ago
    I agree that science and faith are theoretically compatible, but you intentionally omit that they have been compatible in practice for hundreds of years. I would say that the evidence that they are compatible is overwhelming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_s...
    - sirrocco 16y ago
      For that list to have any significance you'd have to put it side by side with a list of people who didn't have faith . You would also have to remove many of the believers on the list because being a person without god in 1400 would probably have made you a witch and you'd probably burn at the stake or something.
jmillikin 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. Most human reasoning is not based in reality. It is very difficult for a well-educated and intelligent person to even approximate rational thought; see sites like < http://lesswrong.com/ http://lesswrong.com/ > to see how much effort is required. All claims to reality-based reasoning should be regarded as suspect, unless accompanied by sufficient evidence.
- lutorm 16y ago
  I'm in complete agreement that it's difficult. But to give up trying virtually ensures failure.
  - jmillikin 16y ago
    I don't advocate giving up, merely pointing out that being afflicted with a few particularly strong beliefs is not cause to reject all of that person's opinions. An astronomer afflicted with creationism is no different from an oncologist afflicted with leukemia.

by lutorm 16y ago

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.
jamesbritt 16y ago
"... as long as they're capable, ..." But that's the whole point. Dawkin's argument seems to be that, while a YEC may at first glance seem adequately skilled, their manifest disregard for scientific evidence means that they cannot be trusted to do the job correctly. "Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results." Aren't results facts? Or, put another way, how does someone determine that they are getting results? I don't see how the willingness to try things in the absence of facts is non-Western. It sounds a lot like experimentation. The issue here isn't the absence of facts, it's the ignoring of facts (by YECs and their ilk).
- jimbokun 16y ago
  "But that's the whole point. Dawkin's argument seems to be that, while a YEC may at first glance seem adequately skilled, their manifest disregard for scientific evidence means that they cannot be trusted to do the job correctly." The problem with the particular case he cites is that this person seemed to have a well demonstrated history of doing his job correctly.

knieveltech 16y ago

"A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect science." I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The whole Science VS Faith thing is a false dichotomy, the two are not inherently incompatible except in the minds of unfortunate extremists on both sides of the argument. Implying that they are ignores the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of science has been performed by so-called "creationists". Society simply didn't tolerate atheism prior to say 1960.

jmillikin 16y ago
I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The whole Science VS Faith thing is a false dichotomy, the two are not inherently incompatible except in the minds of unfortunate extremists on both sides of the argument. Faith is, fundamentally, the process of maintaining beliefs in the face of 1) absent evidence and 2) conflicting evidence. Science is the process of discovering evidence. While theoretically compatible, in practice, people performing science often discover evidence that conflicts with widely-held beliefs. When those beliefs are part of an ongoing faith, the faith-holders usually react violently against the scientists. Implying that they are ignores the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of science has been performed by so-called "creationists". Society simply didn't tolerate atheism prior to say 1960. I'm not sure what you're arguing here, since it seems to go against your main point.
- jstrate 16y ago
  I agree that science and faith are theoretically compatible, but you intentionally omit that they have been compatible in practice for hundreds of years. I would say that the evidence that they are compatible is overwhelming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_s...
  - sirrocco 16y ago
    For that list to have any significance you'd have to put it side by side with a list of people who didn't have faith . You would also have to remove many of the believers on the list because being a person without god in 1400 would probably have made you a witch and you'd probably burn at the stake or something.

jmillikin 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. Most human reasoning is not based in reality. It is very difficult for a well-educated and intelligent person to even approximate rational thought; see sites like < http://lesswrong.com/ http://lesswrong.com/ > to see how much effort is required. All claims to reality-based reasoning should be regarded as suspect, unless accompanied by sufficient evidence.

lutorm 16y ago
I'm in complete agreement that it's difficult. But to give up trying virtually ensures failure.
- jmillikin 16y ago
  I don't advocate giving up, merely pointing out that being afflicted with a few particularly strong beliefs is not cause to reject all of that person's opinions. An astronomer afflicted with creationism is no different from an oncologist afflicted with leukemia.