Slashdot Mirror
The "Scientific Impotence" Excuse
chichilalescu writes "I've had the feeling for a long time that people refuse to listen to scientists. The following is from an article on Ars Technica: 'It's hardly a secret that large segments of the population choose not to accept scientific data because it conflicts with their predefined beliefs: economic, political, religious, or otherwise. But many studies have indicated that these same people aren't happy with viewing themselves as anti-science, which can create a state of cognitive dissonance. That has left psychologists pondering the methods that these people use to rationalize the conflict. A study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology [abstract here] takes a look at one of these methods, which the authors term "scientific impotence" — the decision that science can't actually address the issue at hand properly.' The study found that 'regardless of whether the information presented confirmed or contradicted [the subjects'] existing beliefs, all of them came away from the reading with their beliefs strengthened."
Look up Canon and from there move on to the proto- and deuterocanonical books and the various councils in which the church decided which book was inspired and therefore part of the bible and which was not and therefore excluded. Early christianity was a weird mixture of mystics, gnostics, hundreds of sects soon considered to be heretics and finally groups that would be considered mainstream today.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Faith makes a virtue out of not thinking.
That would be a surprising deduction to monks, theologians, and apologists of many faiths throughout the ages. Reason and rational thought are not the sole province of science. In fact, before the Enlightenment (in Europe), reason and rational thought were believed to be the province of priests and lawyers. Logic deals only with deduction based upon accepted assumptions. Assumptions about metaphysics are unprovable/unfalsifiable, so science can say nothing about it (the very topic of this article). Some people with faith will determine scientific results differently than some people without faith because certain assumptions (about which science has no say) necessarily creep into the logic. In short, there _is_ thinking on the part of the faithful, and to disparage them by claiming they are unreasoning fools, fit only for padded cells is short-sighted at best.
Unblinking rationalism will cause you to lose the ability to appear reasonable to other people.
*appear* reasonable is the key phrase there. The rational always appear unreasonable to the irrational. Is it the rationalist's fault that others don't think enough?
You won't want to compromise, because you think your belief is the only right belief.
Unless presented with evidence otherwise. That's the core of rationalism.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Evolutionary biology does? Really? I think what you've done is exhibit another aspect of psuedo-skepticism, the reading of headlines and assuming you've gained some understanding of underlying concepts. There are aspects of the theory, such as sexual selection, which can explain certain facets of behavior in generalistic terms, but you'd have to go to neurology and evolutionary psychology to find attempts to move beyond a very "big picture" notion of any species' behavior to specific claims, and indeed, plenty of biologists have some problems with the way that evolutionary concepts are extrapolated to explain specific behaviors. Indeed, one of the chief criticisms of Dawkins' memes is that it takes phenomena that are at best analogous to the genetic aspects of evolution and taking the analogy too far (something Dawkins himself consistently warns against throughout his publications for the layman).
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.