General > RANT

Why do otherwise bright people beleive stupid things?

<< < (2/8) > >>

EricL:

--- Quote ---Personal experience is the only undeniable truth. All else is faith.
--- End quote ---
Dan Dennett does a good job in the speech below of making the distiction between belief in the supporttable and belief in the unsupporttable.  If you can get past the first 15 minutes of award presentation who ha, the rest of speech is worth watching though not his best.  Ben Harris's speech from the same conference is the best of the lot.

I am not a chemist or biologist and have not studied the toxicity of lead poisioning personally yet I would bet a million dollars against your $1 that lead is indeed poisionus.  It is something I 'beleive' and to a certain extent take on faith, but I have very good reasons for beleiving it, a dependecy chain of experts who know more than I about the subject and their work and other experts who validate the results of those experts and so on through a process of scientific analysis I trust.   In today's age, those who do not beleive this are either ignorant or deluded.   The Druids above are ignorant but this does not change the fact that the lead is indeed poisionious.  The probability that lead will be found tomorrow not to be posionious (and thus that there is someone today who is both not ignorant and not deluded in their belief that lead is not toxic) while non-zero, is sufficiently close to zero that it can be ignored given the evidcence and thus I have the confidence to make this bet all day long.

By the same token, I would bet million dollars against your $1 that Testlund's medium did not actually communicate with the dead.  I have just as strong reasons for 'believing' that this cannot actually occur - a chain of experts and research and a consistant world model that makes this all but impossible.  In this day and age, someone who would take the other side of this bet is as above, either ignorant or deluded.

If you actually beleive there is a reasonable chance of life after death and that a medium can actually communicate with the dead, that this is possible or even likely given all we know about biology and science, then you should be equally afraid that all the oxygen molecules in the room will suddenly migrate to one corner and you will die of affixiation.  You should certainly never get on an airplane or in a car since the physics that hold the plane up or the car on the road might suddenly be shown to be false.  I don't understand those physics nearly as well as I once did personally and not nearly as well as others, but I beleive them in the same way I beleive lead is poisionious or that there is no afterlife, to the extent that I bet my life on them everyday.

I have a parlour trick I do at parties.  I set out 9 matches or sugar packets or whatever on a table in a 3X3 pattern and then turn away and ask someone to touch one.  I then turn back, pass my hand over each one and through "supernatural" powers, detect the 'aura' left by the tocuh and tell them which one they touched.  I can do this every time, quickly and without fail.  What always happens is a sequence of events.  First, people think I peaked, so they force me to leave the room before they touch one.  I come back in and easily detect which one they touched.  They make me leave again and touch two or none or all of them or have someone else touch one instead.  In every case, I come back in and am immedialy able to tell them which ones they touched or didn't or who else touched them and so on.  No one has ever guessed the trick.  
But make no mistake, it is a trick.   If I did not reveal it at the end of the party, I'm sure a few people over the years would take it as evidence of the existance of supernatural powers.  It's that convincing.

My wife or a friend watches what happens and then causally moves their waterglass to the position in front of them of the one touched.  There are other signals, all but undetectable by others, which indidate multiple touches, no touches, etc.

Palm readers, mystics, mediums and so on - they're all cons, some explicit, some unwitting or unknowing on the part of the medium (that is, some mediums really beleive their own bullshit).  Studies have demonstrated this and also demonstrated how easily people are taken in by parlour tricks.  But this doesn't change the fact that they are just tricks.   To believe otherwise is simply either ignorance or arrogance.


Dan Dennett award and speech at AAI 07

Numsgil:
But you're imposing your own values on to the idea of mediums, etc.  Reproducibility.  That's the defining hallmark of the science "religion".  But other "religions" could care less about reproducibility.  The defining virtue for spirituality might be a feeling of the profound.

Of course, that doesn't mean that non-science "religions" are more or less correct than the science "religion".  But they operate functionally very similarly.  Some scientist says something, and you believe them.  Some priest says something, and you believe them.  Some medium says something, and you believe them.

The one benefit of science as a religion over more traditional religions is that it's extremely egalitarian.  Anyone with the money and time can "commune with the divine" and reproduce any experiment that's been done before, and (hopefully) get the same result.  You don't need to explicitly be consecrated (though the way things are heading you do need a life time of training).

But ultimately, if you try to say "my religion is better than yours", ie: science can disprove your mysticism, you're imposing your own value system (reproducibility) to judge a religion that isn't based on that value system.  So that medium might not be science, or even reproducible.  But if the value that the other guy judges things with is a tingly feeling in the back of his spine, his mysticism is clearly superior to your science.

So ultimately it comes down to subjectivity based on your goals and desires.  And it's only the people who can understand this idea, that judgement (good, bad, harmful, etc.) requires subjectivity, that I trust.  When people stand up and say "this is true", or "This is good", I get turned off.  Whether in religion, science, or what-have-you.  Religion is good at the tingly feelings inside.  Science is good at understanding the physical laws we are all subject to.  The two aren't talking about the same thing, or even talking with the same language, and shouldn't be taken as some sort of either/or choice.

Trilobite:
There are some things I'd like to say, but it would probably be against the forum rules.

What I will say is that you don't have any right to call anyone arrogant based on their beliefs. Science can explain a lot, but it doesn't disprove all aspects of the supernatural or religion. (it can try to, but there are too many variables) If it can't disprove it, how can you say these people are arrogant? Because they believe in something you don't think is true?

I'm all for a little debate, but directly insulting someone just because of their perspective on the world is just downright wrong, and is just as bad as those folks who impose their religion on people who don't want to believe.

One can present their evidence, ideas, etc, without the insults. It can be done, believe it or not. With the sort of narrow-minded agression you portray, is there any wonder people don't want to talk to you on the subject?

EricL:

--- Quote from: Trilobite ---There are some things I'd like to say, but it would probably be against the forum rules.
--- End quote ---
This is the RANT forum.  Say anything you like.


--- Quote from: Trilobite ---What I will say is that you don't have any right to call anyone arrogant based on their beliefs.
--- End quote ---
Sure I do.  I have the right to call anyone anything I like to subject to the laws of the country I find myself in, particularly when I'm enguaged in a non-libelous, thougtful and logical argument.  So do they.  Whether my or their statements carry any weight or are worth listening to is another issue entirely.

I do find it interesting that beleifs in the supernatural have become such protected ground that they must be tread ever so lightly lest even the mearest hint of offense be given.  We debate sports and politics and education and such with such vigor and energy.  People are generally capable of divorcing their own self-image from their positions on those subjects and go home unoffended even after the fiercests of contests.   Yet it seems (to me at least) that even the most modest disagreement with another's supernatural views is taken as a personal attack, at least in the US.  How did we get this way?  Our beleifs dictate so much of who we are and the decisions we make, what could possibily be more important to subject to scrutiny?  Amazing.    



--- Quote from: Trilobite ---Science can explain a lot, but it doesn't disprove all aspects of the supernatural or religion. (it can try to, but there are too many variables)
--- End quote ---
Avoiding a digression into definitions of the term 'disprove' and 'religion' and such for a minute, I will in fact claim that science has in fact disproved the vast majority of testable claims for the supernatural (the remainder are generally too silly to be worth testing).  Pick any medium, mystic or palm reader you like.  Articulate their claims and/or powers, then test them.   It's been done many hundreds of times with the same results.  "Oh," but you might say, "it doesn't work like that."  Well then, how does it work exactly?  What is it they are claiming they can do that is supernatural?  Show me any claimed supernatural ability of any supposed value and I bet I can design an experiment that can test for it.


--- Quote from: Trilobite ---If it can't disprove it, how can you say these people are arrogant? Because they believe in something you don't think is true?
--- End quote ---
Because they believe with conviction things which are demonstrably contrary to overwhelming evidence yet are unable or unwilling to defend those beliefs.  Because by so believing, they casually dismiss without a moments thought the hard work of people who actually study the problem and devote their lives to finding actual answers through rational investigation.  The definition of arrogance is being so sure that you are right that you are unwilling to defend your beliefs or entertain evidence to the contary.   Undefended belief in the supernatural is either plain old ignorance or by definition, the epitomy of arrogance.

And, lest you accuse me of a similar fault, let me point out that I defend what I beleive (with evidence) and will gladly and willingly change the positions I hold in the face of appropriate evidence to the contrary.


--- Quote from: Trilobite ---I'm all for a little debate, but directly insulting someone just because of their perspective on the world is just downright wrong, and is just as bad as those folks who impose their religion on people who don't want to believe.
--- End quote ---
I have made no insults that I know of.  What I have done is make a rational argument.   I have made an observation, applied an appropriatly descriptive label to a catagory of people and provided a logical and rational argument as to why I think that label applies.   To call someone irrational or arrogant is not an insult if it is done as a factual observation with evidence.  People may still take offense I imagine, but their offense is unwarrented.

And to equate my rational observation with the unwilling imposition of religon is ridiculous and deserves no further comment.


--- Quote from: Trilobite ---One can present their evidence, ideas, etc, without the insults. It can be done, believe it or not. With the sort of narrow-minded agression you portray, is there any wonder people don't want to talk to you on the subject?
--- End quote ---
Well, aggressive might be appropriatly descriptive, but narrow-minded is not.   I am open to any and all evidence or rational arguments people may wish to make or provide.

Trilobite:

--- Quote ---Sure I do. I have the right to call anyone anything I like to subject to the laws of the country I find myself in, particularly when I'm enguaged in a non-libelous, thougtful and logical argument. So do they. Whether my or their statements carry any weight or are worth listening to is another issue entirely.
--- End quote ---

Yet you complain when people are offended when you insult them.


--- Quote ---I do find it interesting that beleifs in the supernatural have become such protected ground that they must be tread ever so lightly lest even the mearest hint of offense be given. We debate sports and politics and education and such with such vigor and energy. People are generally capable of divorcing their own self-image from their positions on those subjects and go home unoffended even after the fiercests of contests. Yet it seems (to me at least) that even the most modest disagreement with another's supernatural views is taken as a personal attack, at least in the US. How did we get this way? Our beleifs dictate so much of who we are and the decisions we make, what could possibily be more important to subject to scrutiny? Amazing.
--- End quote ---

That's not the point. I didn't say that there was anything wrong with debating. The point was you're insulting people, which is a different thing entirely.


--- Quote ---Avoiding a digression into definitions of the term 'disprove' and 'religion' and such for a minute, I will in fact claim that science has in fact disproved the vast majority of testable claims for the supernatural (the remainder are generally too silly to be worth testing). Pick any medium, mystic or palm reader you like. Articulate their claims and/or powers, then test them. It's been done many hundreds of times with the same results. "Oh," but you might say, "it doesn't work like that." Well then, how does it work exactly? What is it they are claiming they can do that is supernatural? Show me any claimed supernatural ability of any supposed value and I bet I can design an experiment that can test for it.
--- End quote ---

That would be interesting. But can you disprove all accounts of the supernatural, or religion for that matter? I agree that I would suspect most are bogus, but one can't rule out the faint possibility of some cases being genuine. The saying goes, just because it can't be disproven, doesn't mean it exists. But, I'd like to add, that it doesn't mean it doesn't exist either. I don't think its right to put your whole faith into - or even think about - something that probably doesn't even exist, but it works for some people, some people live by it. Don't they have that right?


--- Quote ---Because they believe with conviction things which are demonstrably contrary to overwhelming evidence yet are unable or unwilling to defend those beliefs. Because by so believing, they casually dismiss without a moments thought the hard work of people who actually study the problem and devote their lives to finding actual answers through rational investigation. The definition of arrogance is being so sure that you are right that you are unwilling to defend your beliefs or entertain evidence to the contary. Undefended belief in the supernatural is either plain old ignorance or by definition, the epitomy of arrogance.

And, lest you accuse me of a similar fault, let me point out that I defend what I beleive (with evidence) and will gladly and willingly change the positions I hold in the face of appropriate evidence to the contrary.
--- End quote ---

Your point is fair, but I do think it is just ignorance. For example, my boyfriend, who is religious, didn't believe in evolution when I first met him. But he was definately not arrogant, just ill-informed. I'm sure if I'd opened up with the same agression you exhibit, he wouldn't have continued the conversation. Instead I explained to him what I knew of theory - which was vastly different from what he had been poorly taught about it - and he's now very accepting of the theory. He may not believe in it, but he's accepting of the likelihood of it being true, and talks about it as matter-of-fact rather than "if it happened...".

I can tell you're much against the soft approach but if you want your evidence to be heeded, maybe you should use a bit less fire.

"I have made no insults that I know of. What I have done is make a rational argument. I have made an observation, applied an appropriatly descriptive label to a catagory of people and provided a logical and rational argument as to why I think that label applies. To call someone irrational or arrogant is not an insult if it is done as a factual observation with evidence. People may still take offense I imagine, but their offense is unwarrented.

And to equate my rational observation with the unwilling imposition of religon is ridiculous and deserves no further comment."

The bolded area is what I'm concerned about. See, the thing is there isn't evidence to say that these people are all arrogant. Saying so would mean that they all think they're superior in their beliefs, which is not true at all. Many are very open minded about it.

As for the last sentence in that quote, I could compare it by saying that hardly anyone can be forced into religion, unless by words. You are using words - insulting generalizations to accessorize your argument, rather than just biting your tongue and taking the civil approach without being so narrow-minded.


--- Quote ---Well, aggressive might be appropriatly descriptive, but narrow-minded is not. I am open to any and all evidence or rational arguments people may wish to make or provide.
--- End quote ---

Not narrow-minded in that way. Narrow-minded in the way that you can't see that not all people who believe in the supernatural or religion stick by their beliefs through pride alone. Many are simply ignorant to evidence, some already accept the evidence (but wuld still like to be keep to their religious beliefs in peace), at the end of the day, people don't deserve name-calling just because they won't change their views to suit you.

Besides - faith is a whole different world altogether. Faith is not about scientific evidence, it's about believing in something in the absence of evidence. Sounds silly to you? It does to me too! But for some people it's the very foundation of their lives, the way they can make sense of the world - in many cases alongside science - and why should they have to put up with prejudice just because of a lifestyle choice that harms nobody? (obviously excluding some pushy enthusiasts)

(by the way, I have an incidence I'd like you to comment on - about a psychic medium, if you don't mind, can I PM you? A second opinion from the other end of the spectrum would be nice)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page