Slashdot Mirror
New Documentary Chronicles Road Tripping Scientists Promoting Reason
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Dennis Overbye reports in the NY Times that two years ago Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss set off on a barnstorming tour to save the world from religion and promote science. Their adventure is now the subject of The Unbelievers, a new documentary. 'If you think a road trip with a pair of intellectuals wielding laptops is likely to lack drama, you haven't been keeping up with the culture wars,' writes Overbye. The scientists are mobbed at glamorous sites like the Sydney Opera House. Inside, they sometimes encounter clueless moderators; outside, demonstrators condemning them to hellfire. At one event, a group of male Muslim protesters are confronted by counterprotesters chanting, 'Where are your women?' 'Travelogue shots, perky editing and some popular rock music, as well as interview bits with such supportive celebrities as Woody Allen, Cameron Diaz, Sarah Silverman and Ricky Gervais, shrewdly enliven the brainy — but accessible — discourse,' writes Gary Goldstein in the LA Times, 'but mostly the movie is an enjoyably high-minded love fest between two deeply committed intellectuals and the scads of atheists, secularists, free-thinkers, skeptics and activists who make up their rock star-like fan base.' The movie ends at the Reason Rally in Washington, billed as the largest convention of atheists in history. Dawkins looks out at the crowd standing in a light rain and pronounces it 'the most incredible sight I can remember ever seeing' and declares that too many people have been cowed out of coming out as atheists, secularists or agnostics. 'We are far more numerous than anybody realizes.'"
Many of [the Muslims I know] are very bright, except for one thing - you just can NOT discuss religion (or faith) thing with them.
To be fair, that's not exclusive to religious people. I've found strong narrow-mindedness in ivory towers as well.
As a personal anecdote, I chatted up a researcher from the VLA last August about his dark matter research. Big mistake. He could entertain no notions that weren't scientific dogma, but at the same time he couldn't cite experiments to refute anything in conflict with it. I was astonished at his certainty of belief - enough to remember the incident among a week's memories of Burning Man.
If you want your own anecdote, log on to the #statistics chatroom and ask any question that tugs at the foundation of why some things are the way they are. For example, ask why regression minimizes the squared error and not some other measure. The historical reason might surprise you, but check out the tone of the responses you get!
If you have been keeping track, many religious zealots post to slashdot. Ask economists to explain why "a little" inflation is good and what the optimum value should be without glaring flaws in the assumptions or "proof by opinion" or "proof by telling a story". Read any [scientific] article about obesity and survey the responses - many schools of thought are argued with rabid certainty, and no consensus.
Taking a completely evidence-based stand is really hard. Is free access to guns good for a society? The evidence-based answer is particularly well hidden because of framing, misused statistics, and emotional appeal.
I don't think anyone makes completely rational choices, myself included. It's mostly "strength of belief", that you get from listening to others, who themselves don't make rational choices.