Critical Thinking, reductionism, epistemology RI megathread

[hanshan]

...
.

barracuda:

The agenda on "my side" (whatever that means, didn't know I had one) is about understanding the world. The agenda of the Discovery Institute is spreading right-wing Republican poison. Yes, they are disqualified for me, sorry. But it's nice to finally see which "side" you have chosen to support. I understand your position much better now.

Not bad. Not bad a'tall. 11 PGS.

understanding the world... may take a little longer


...

[Wombaticus Rex]

Science according to Wombaticus Rex, you mean.

This did exasperate me. Sure, I am talking to you from an avatar named Wombaticus Rex, so every single word bracketed within my posts is most assuredly "according to Wombaticus Rex." If you think that savvy point is actually enough to deflect my train of thought, then congratulations on a job well done.

I don't think you were trying to make a point, though, it reads more like a reflexive response. So let me elaborate.

When I talk about teachers in the US being frustrated with their inability to teach science -- any science at all -- to their studients, what I'm really talking about isn't schools, it's about Americans suffering from scientific ignorance on an epic scale. This is not a new problem, this is a 100 year trend. As human knowledge (exponentially) increases, our ability to learn and retain that knowledge appears to trend in the opposite direction.

(Hopefully not exponentially, at least. "May our march to the New Dark Ages be logarithmic!" proclaimed the dread Secret Chief of the Scientismologists. "Let this be thy creed. In hoc signo vinces, go forth and destroy thy Enemy's tenures and careers." )

Classic 2005 article that bears heavily on this here standup routine:

Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

"Our best university graduates are world-class by any definition," he said. "But the second half of our high school population - it's an embarrassment. We have left behind a lot of people."

Now personally, I think if they had a direct survey question about the Earth's orbit around the Sun, well...I probably would have deliberately answered that one wrong out of contempt, too. Just the same, based on the interactions I have every day, I'm willing to admit it's possible that statistic reflects reality.

I'm also willing to admit that people are getting sniped over politics in academia. Shocker, huh? Shit, I happen to think we were designed by aliens who left behind a pervasive nanotech layer of surveillance / control technology that's responsible for UFO encounters and most God myths, too -- and I see how eager young biologists who discover some Maker's signature and want to ask Big Questions about it would get lumped into the Intelligent Design crowd and booted out forthwith. It's not all Christians who ask these questions, I know that. Shit, Carl Sagan managed to speculate at length on Intelligent Design and the Anthropic Principle and dozens of other "psuedoscience" topics and he never lost any jobs that I'm aware of...

Here's my core problem, CW. Most of what you've said so far in this thread is, whether you know that or not, in line-for-line accordance with the scripts that the Discovery Institute uses to promote this stuff. Full Disclosure: I've done some writing work for them in the past and that's why I'm so familiar with their copy and their branding. They are funded by religious organizations to make Intelligent Design into a high-profile and contentious issue by any means necessary. They go about this exactly like any other advertising firm or sales corporation would -- designing the propaganda, doing media buys in the national and local markets, tailoring the message to the target audience again and again.

Intelligent Design is a focus-tested product whose goal is to disrupt the progress of science in rolling back the foundations of religion. It's so effective because it's not using scripture -- instead it's a carefully cultivated selection of actual scientific questions and terms, presented as if it was an overall case when it's really just a two step process getting repeated with every available round of factual ammunition.

Science asks all the same questions -- only their second step is different. They use the questions as a basis for further questions. ID advocates use the questions as proof that Science, as a whole, is fundamentally corrupt and factually wrong and we should be looking Elsewhere for our answers.

Your whole role in this thread reminds of trying to explain to a family friend that Narconon was more than just a clinic for helping people out and she should just find a different clinic to work in if "helping people" was her only real goal. She lasted less than a month because of course, Narconon has that extra step that always leads back to the same book: Dianetics.

The Discovery Institute line always leads back to the Bible, and it's the same line you're advancing here. I'm kind of amazed you've been doing it for so long, too. So when I say that Americans are not learning science, no, I don't mean science according to me. I just mean Science, any old science, any semblance of the facts whatsoever, any available slice of the Big Picture that's available to more educated (and curiously, better off) Americans who did learn science, Science science, not "science according to me" because they know far, far more than I could conceive of.

This is exactly the exasperating re-tread conversation I dreaded it would be. I should stick to my "Post Once" policy more rigorously.

[justdrew]

Here's how it goes for some people, and I'm literally amazed that they can't see it, or even let themselves try to examine it:

1. I have ultimate faith in science and scientists.
2. Darwinian Theory is unquestionable because all scientists say so.
3. To remain a scientist of good reputation a scientist must advocate statements 1 and 2.
4. If a scientist does not advocate statements 1 and 2 they are no longer scientists of good reputation and therefore statements 1 and 2 remain true*.

*Here's where my problem with 'true' comes in.

go to hell.

[norton ash]

As if the study and acceptance of science, or finding the big bang or evolution the most convincing theories we have, precludes a belief in god, spirituality or faith. Such bullshit.

The Ann Coulter lalala-i-can't-hear-you wedge nonsense is what C_W does, mes amis.

[Canadian_watcher]

When I talk about teachers in the US being frustrated with their inability to teach science -- any science at all -- to their studients, what I'm really talking about isn't schools, it's about Americans suffering from scientific ignorance on an epic scale.

I feel the same way about art but thankfully the internet and cameras are giving young people more and more creative options with which to express themselves. We could argue all day and night about what is more important, art or science, or if they are actually not really the same thing in different media. But I hear what you are saying and of course I agree that we must teach the fundamentals before anything else.. before alternative, complex theories their little minds can't process properly. And, of course, I agree that scientific fundamentals and the scientific process are important to out species.

I'm also willing to admit that people are getting sniped over politics in academia. Shocker, huh?

no it's NOT a shocker [i]at all but I am very glad that you aren't stubborn enough to hold back on saying it just because I appear to represent the Christian Right of the USA somehow.

-- and I see how eager young biologists who discover some Maker's signature and want to ask Big Questions about it would get lumped into the Intelligent Design crowd and booted out forthwith. It's not all Christians who ask these questions, I know that.

Here's my core problem, CW. Most of what you've said so far in this thread is, whether you know that or not, in line-for-line accordance with the scripts that the Discovery Institute uses to promote this stuff. They are funded by religious organizations to make Intelligent Design into a high-profile and contentious issue by any means necessary. They go about this exactly like any other advertising firm or sales corporation would -- designing the propaganda, doing media buys in the national and local markets, tailoring the message to the target audience again and again.

That may be true. But I kind of think of it like this:
Margaret Sanger was a jerk. She helped to bring abortion to the US. I support abortion rights.
What should I do about this? Should this cause me sleepless nights? Am I going to hell? Am I going to be banished by BOTH sides of this because I can separate out the sources of something good from the thing itself?
Has there never been a weapon designed by our enemies that hasn't been used against them?

By the way, I've asked the National Science Whatever whatever org for a list of their funding sources. I couldn't find it after a quick check of their web site.

Science asks all the same questions -- only their second step is different. They use the questions as a basis for further questions. ID advocates use the questions as proof that Science, as a whole, is fundamentally corrupt and factually wrong and we should be looking Elsewhere for our answers.

Where can I verify that?

Your whole role in this thread reminds of trying to explain to a family friend that Narconon was more than just a clinic for helping people out and she should just find a different clinic to work in if "helping people" was her only real goal. She lasted less than a month because of course, Narconon has that extra step that always leads back to the same book: Dianetics.

funny, because you just said that you did work for the Discovery Institute. How on earth did you get out of that without turning into a Right Wing Christian Fundie?

The Discovery Institute line always leads back to the Bible, and it's the same line you're advancing here.

absolutely totally false. That is your prejudice making that erroneous observation. I'm actually leading you back to the Quran. j/k - but I might be. What evidence is there that I'm doing the former and not doing the latter?

This is exactly the exasperating re-tread conversation I dreaded it would be. I should stick to my "Post Once" policy more rigorously.

someone in that movie said this: "Questions that do not get properly answered never go away."

[Canadian_watcher]

Kay, here come the insults and attacks. (again.)
You win.
I'm out until the people you don't shit on (who all happen to be males) come back around.

EDIT: It should be absolutely obvious to people that are capable of thought that I am not in any way saying science precludes a belief in God. Absolutely not. Fundamentally unfair to categorize me that way.

[Wombaticus Rex]

As if the study and acceptance of science, or finding the big bang or evolution the most convincing theories we have, precludes a belief in god, spirituality or faith. Such bullshit.

The Ann Coulter lalala-i-can't-hear-you wedge nonsense is what C_W does, mes amis.

...the Wedge is exactly what it was called @ Discovery Institute, hilariously enough.

"I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. One very famous book that's come out of The Wedge is biochemist Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, which has had an enormous impact on the scientific world." Phil Johnson

I have a huge Skilluminati article in the scrap heap about them. Maybe I should polish that up for 2011. They were a most illuminating case study.

[American Dream]

but you fail to see that your side has an agenda, too. everyone has an agenda, 'cuda.

Here's the M.O. i'm seeing:


Align your "New Age" spiritual feelings with a particular right wing Xtian cause. Find a suitable piece of propaganda from someone upholding a reactionary position in line with this.

When people complain or disagree, post more stuff and starting framing things in terms of "black vs. white". When folks continue to disagree try as hard as possible to align them with the "black" cause and tell them that' they're doing it wrong and that "your people" (on the black side) are marginalizing, censoring, repressing all us open-minded inquirers on the "white" side.

Repeat endlessly.






.

[norton ash]

I'm out until the people you don't shit on (who all happen to be males) come back around.

'Til then, rest easy as a feminist in the arms of the Christian right.

[Wombaticus Rex]

funny, because you just said that you did work for the Discovery Institute. How on earth did you get out of that without turning into a Right Wing Christian Fundie?

As is your style, your answer is contained within your question. Obviously, I got out by getting out. I am urging you to do the same here.

[barracuda]

Here's how it goes for some people, and I'm literally amazed that they can't see it, or even let themselves try to examine it:

1. I have ultimate faith in science and scientists.
2. Darwinian Theory is unquestionable because all scientists say so.
3. To remain a scientist of good reputation a scientist must advocate statements 1 and 2.
4. If a scientist does not advocate statements 1 and 2 they are no longer scientists of good reputation and therefore statements 1 and 2 remain true*.

*Here's where my problem with 'true' comes in.

go to hell.

Justdrew, there's no reason to bring religion into it. You've just added another stigmata to her martyrdom.

I'm out until the people you don't shit on (who all happen to be males) come back around.

Again with the gender attacks. I really don't get this part.

[hanshan]

...

Wombaticus Rex:

High Priest of Scientismology wrote:

Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

"Our best university graduates are world-class by any definition," he said. "But the second half of our high school population - it's an embarrassment. We have left behind a lot of people."

snip

They are funded by religious organizations to make Intelligent Design into a high-profile and contentious issue by any means necessary. They go about this exactly like any other advertising firm or sales corporation would -- designing the propaganda, doing media buys in the national and local markets, tailoring the message to the target audience again and again.

Intelligent Design is a focus-tested product whose goal is to disrupt the progress of science in rolling back the foundations of religion. It's so effective because it's not using scripture -- instead it's a carefully cultivated selection of actual scientific questions and terms, presented as if it was an overall case when it's really just a two step process getting repeated with every available round of factual ammunition.

Unfortunate.


...

[hanshan]

...

Here's how it goes for some people, and I'm literally amazed that they can't see it, or even let themselves try to examine it:

1. I have ultimate faith in science and scientists.
2. Darwinian Theory is unquestionable because all scientists say so.
3. To remain a scientist of good reputation a scientist must advocate statements 1 and 2.
4. If a scientist does not advocate statements 1 and 2 they are no longer scientists of good reputation and therefore statements 1 and 2 remain true*.

*Here's where my problem with 'true' comes in.

go to hell.

Justdrew, there's no reason to bring religion into it. You've just added another stigmata to her martyrdom.

I'm out until the people you don't shit on (who all happen to be males) come back around.

Again with the gender attacks. I really don't get this part.

...

[seemslikeadream]

Justdrew, there's no reason to bring religion into it. You've just added another stigmata to her martyrdom.

[Canadian_watcher]

I can't keep things civil all by myself.
I believe the deal I made was that I would "help you" to keep it civil.

Thanks for your time.