Re: Query

From: Pax Cosmos (pax_cosmos_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 12/21/04 

Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:49:35 +0000 (UTC)

Malcolm wrote:
> "Pax Cosmos" <pax_cosmos@hotmail.com> wrote
> >
> > It seems to me that the refusal to accept certain
> > scientific theories based on solid evidence is not random, but is
in
> > some way systematically related to a person's underlying belief
system.
> >
> Generally scientific evidence isn't easily available to the
layperson. For
> instance I can see a fossil in a museum labelled "ammonite, a marine
> mollouc, Cretaceous". However for all I know it is actually a plant
from the
> late Permian. If I read somewhere that, actually, all the fossils
were laid
> down a few thousand years ago in the flood, then I must choose which
> authority to believe, the museum curators or the the authors of the
book.

Yes. I've noticed this too. And when it comes to supernatural claims
that contradict scientific theories, I think this "choosing which
authority to believe" is a big part of the problem with creationism.
The primary audience of the creationists are not scientists, but are
laymen who are used to "choosing the authority" of the Bible teacher or
minister, based on prior experience and training. So that when an
authority respected by them tells them that "the science books have it
all wrong; listen to me instead," they usually do.

> > And like you said, it's not a phenomenon limited to people who
believe
> > in the supernatural. Like with your citing of the "HIV causes
AIDS"
> > or "Holocaust denial" examples. It's a matter of the human
cognitive
> > process, and how opinions are formed, and sometimes clung to, in
spite
> > of later evidence that contradicts those established opinions.
> >
> I think this is a slightly diferent phenomenon. When someone invests
a lot
> of reputation in arguing that, for instance, AIDS wasn't caused by
HIV,
> which may not have been clear in the early stages of the epidemic,
they are
> then very reluctant to admit to being in error. John Wilkins broke
his
> silence to criticise me on applying this to the scientific
establishment,
> but in evolutionary biology at least this has been the case. It has
been
> obvious to me since I first read Edward Wilson as an (English
literature)
> undergraduate that he was right and his critic were wrong. Those
critics
> were largely Marxists, and Marxism has since been totally discredited
as an
> economic theory. At Leeds, "evolutionary psychology" is now offered
as an
> elective to psychology students, and sociobiology is being taught as
an
> established fact. In a few years time it will be a compulsory course.
The
> old guard will just retire, but not recant.

This is another example of the same cognitive phenomenon, IMO. I think
their reluctance to admit their error, for the sake of their
reputation, is accompanied by a genuine reluctance to admit the error
to themselves. They get into a certain mindset where their
self-identity is somehow wrapped up with their being right on the
issue, and so they grasp at straws to cling to their position. There's
still a lot that we need to learn about how this works at the cognitive
level.

> > Perhaps if we understood the psychology of rational (and
irrational)
> thought
> > better, we could improve our educational system to some degree, in
> > order to decrease the amount of irrational thought in the world.
It's
> > just an idea.
> >
> We should be sceptical that increasing the amount of rational thought
will
> do any good. You will increase people's ability to compete for the
limited
> resources available for reproduction, but you won't necessarily
produce any
> greater harmony.

You may be right. But I think it would still be a good idea if we
understood more about the operation of this sort of subjective bias in
scientific terms. It's hard to fight against rhetoric that exploits
this human tendency if we are largely in the dark about how it
operates. And while increasing the amount of rational thought in the
world may not do much good, helping to prevent the spread of the sort
of irrationalism that led to the rise of Nazism or Stalinism, etc.
would be a very good thing, IMO. We certainly could do with less of
that!

Pax

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
    ... > There are a lot of scientists that would disagree with you. ... Red shift is NOT evidence of an expanding universe, ... > for photons of different speeds. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... inference and not just a sophomoric fallacy. ... the works of several hundred scientists identified with the concept ... Appeal to authority, appeal to numbers, ... It says you have no evidence to support your silly, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Stop It!!
    ... scientists and other humans are too selfish to exclude themselves from anywhere. ... Where does this evidence come from if the hypothesis hasn't been ... That, in the absence of humans, wildlife would ... ... > .differing levels of disturbance with equivalent natural habitats to ...
    (sci.bio.ecology)
  • Re: comp.programming and the Hackers thread.
    ... > from authority" means appeal to ANY authority, ... If there is *no* evidence, any scientist that took a position on the matter ... This is because science is not guided by scientists, ... As to astrology, and again to repeat a bit of evidence that you have ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... "spark of life" which separates living from non-living things. ... It's only a blurred line to scientists who keep changing the ... alone supported your calculations in any way with evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast