4 ms·
It seems that there’s a unspoken presupposition of “evolutionists = reasonable person” vs. “creationist = unreasonable extremist” The issue with this presumpti
by _benj 5y ago
It seems that there’s a unspoken presupposition of “evolutionists = reasonable person” vs. “creationist = unreasonable extremist”
The issue with this presumption is that it is the exact same cognitive deficiency usually attributed to creationists or religious extremists for that matter, that is lack of critical thinking.
It seems to me that whatever idea/ideology that is religiously accepted without any critical think, let it be a story about origins, political beliefs, or even OOP, is as pernicious.
In the spirit of avoiding an echo chamber a book comes to mind: “Where the conflict really lies” by Alvin Plantinga, award winning American philosopher, where he shows some areas in which religious attachment to evolutionism, that is, the application of the theory without critical thinking can actually stagnate scientific progress by closing paths of the exploration even before they are considered.
Let me be clear that I’m not arguing for evolutionism or creationism or anything, just pointing out a cognitive bias we can fall when something is accepted without critical thinking
- mhh__ 5y agoWhat you say is potentially true, but I feel like this line of inquiry can lead to being so open-minded that your brain falls out i.e. I'm sure there are very fastidious and rigorous creationists out there, but they're still wrong. Not all reasoning is valid
- junon 5y ago> being so open-minded that your brain falls Incredibly well put.
- hcta 5y agoTrue, but all other things being equal (in particular, controlling for people's innate level of dogmatism), a world where more people accept the best available theory represents progress over one where they espouse an outdated/discredited one. edit: Or maybe not? I guess my concrete question to you would be what balance of E/C believers do you think would be ideal?
- _benj 5y agoI completely agree with you. Honestly I don’t about an E/C ideal ratio. My only fear is an ideology becoming so popular to the detriment/exclusion of anything else. One slightly distressing example is our belief of the inherent value of all humans while our naturalist view points towards natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Say, in a plane accident giving preference to the weakest, i.e. disable, goes against the natural selection scenario that would benefit the species, given that those that are being giving preference are the ones with the least probability of survival, and from a purely naturalistic point of view, it should be the strong and healthy that should exit the plane and survive since that would equate to the greatest net benefit to the survival of the human species. This is, for example, one of the things that bothers me.
- mcphage 5y ago> My only fear is an ideology becoming so popular to the detriment/exclusion of anything else. Is this concern attributable to any particular real event?
- erik_seaberg 5y agoI keep thinking back to the theories before relativity and quantum mechanics. Practitioners had to grudgingly accept they were fundamentally wrong after decades of useful results. Even Einstein was troubled by QM after proving relativity.
- hcta 5y agoAgreed that it's bad for science and for society when we start ascribing moral orientation to the two sides of a question of scientific truth. These days people seem to do it often on the question of efficacy of preventive measures against COVID, also climate change, and biological correlates of intelligence.
- kevinventullo 5y agoI agree that believing in evolution is not a sufficient condition to demonstrating critical thinking skills, but I do think it is a necessary one.