okay, in your first paragraph you made an ad homimen fallacy ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... ), and a rather aggressive one at that.
then you have a fallacy of causation - i forget what it's called, but essentially you're implying that something is false because some ways that people react to it might not be all that appealing. some unholy combination of post hoc fallacy and appeal to emotion fallacy.
and then i'm not exactly sure what you mean by "you don't have any room to browbeat religious people.", nobody is "browbeating". what may seem like "stern or abusive words" to religious people who play the victim card is simply logic that doesn't agree with their cherised beliefs. and they're pleading "intimidating" to provide an emotionally pursuasive way for them weaseling out of accepting that they've been believing a bunch of ridiculous baloney that's easily - EASILY - discredited. and instead of accepting that they made a mistake and moving on like a rational person would do, they double down on their delusions and get even more stupid.
Bob is letting an unfounded assumption about the nature of the universe rule over evidence and reason gathered from that very universe that says something very contrary to his unfounded assumption. That is exactly within the realm of science and exactly unscientific. Through and through.
* His religion beliefs are statements about the nature of the universe. That puts them firmly in the realm of science. * A scientific approach would be to _not rely on unfounded assumptions_.... so already he is being unscientific * the principle of parsimony rules out the existence of dieties, so already bob has violated the principle of parsimony. etc.
i could go on, but why? you get the picture. The disagreement is inside the realm of science. And Bob is not being scientific.
I believe you are confusing faith with trust and/or confidence.
I have trust and/or confidence in my beliefs because they are justified by observation and reason. I don't take them on faith. In fact, when observation and reason justify changing them, i change them. If i took them on faith, then contrary observation and reason would not cause me to change them.
My beliefs are _justified_ by evidence and reason. That is the _opposite_ of taking things on faith.
"Rather it is the belief that all life can be traced back to a single population of life forms." that's not the theory of evolution, then. if people say they don't believe in evolution because that's what they think it is, that only proves that they don't know what evolution is. which only proves that they are scientifically illiterate.
if one does not believe in evolution than it follows necessarily that they do not understand it. (or much at all about science, for that matter.) however, believing in evolution does not imply that one understands it.
no. the theories are not theories in the sense that you are implying. a scientific theory is something very different than the layman's meaning of theory.
"In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement “It’s not a fact, it’s only a theory.” True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis."
what you are describing when you say "but the theories remain theories" -- you are actually referring to hypothesis, not theories. and the statement is incorrect. they do not remain mere hypothesis, they get tested. rigorously. continuously.
and they never become theories. a scientific theory is a mathematical model that conforms with all observed phenomena, and makes testable predictions, thus allowing it to be proved false.
the laymen's definition of a "theory", as far as ontology goes, is below that of a scientific theory, it is below that of an observation, it is even below that of a hypothesis.
so you know that what you said is incorrect then. humans are animals. and so are their ancestors. (well... up to near the root of the evolutionary tree.)
so you have admitted that you were wrong. i applaud that. it takes intellectual courage to admit you are wrong.
ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF! it is a lack of belief. atheists also do not believe in unicorns or faeries, either. they simply don't feel that worth mentioning.
you cannot know evolution and not believe it. not believing evolution is proof that you do not understand it, and proof that you don't understand science, either. there are not any rational arguments against evolution, and there is no counter evidence. and there are no -- absolutely zero -- religious folks who refuse to entertain thoughts irrationally.
Neither. He is not talking about the findings of the study. He is talking about the author's interpretation of the findings. He is demonstrating that they are incorrect. They are incorrect. As he has demonstrated.
As to "it is quite another to stipulate that that mouse arose from a lizard by many tiny changes over eons." fortunately no part of the theory of evolution specifically mentions mice and lizards, so it is not neccessary to observe that to verify it.
However, speciation does not need eons to occur. It can happen rather quickly. Speciation of a variety of species, spanning from dogs to bacteria to fruit flies,etc. has been observed, both in the lab, and outside of it.
as a programmer i have to say that that's false. belief in creationism would negatively impact your ability to write a program, as it's allowing fanciful and and unfounded thoughts to cloud rational/analytic thinking. that means your deductive, inductive, and reductive reasoning is going to be slower, more confused, and more error-prone. and that means your ability to write a program is compromised.
That may be true. But a _Science_ question that directly challenges a known tradition makes a particularly good and indicative _science_ question, esp in regard to how deeply a person knows and understands the _philosophy of science_.
Kind of like how a math problem that is counter-intuitive makes for a particularly good math problem.
Oh it is without a doubt true that different people think different things are ethical. This is easily shown just by considering that different people are at different stages of moral development.
However, this says nothing about whether or not there are basic fundamental human rights. Just that if there are, not everyone respects them. Which is a "well duh!" That is true regardless of whether or not there are basic fundamental human rights. It's a non-sequitor. Yes, we have criminals and psychopaths and people with behavioral issues and people who just don't have a lot of compassion and all that. That means that people think different things are ethical.
Despite these differences,
"There are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident, and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commossion of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. The non-aggression principle is considered to be the central principle from which all other universal ethical principles are derived. Most cultures also have some version of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.[2]A practicable Code of Universal Ethics was proposed by Enno Winkler.[3]
There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence, and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it's better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society's government or its dominant ideology."
wrong. if someone doesn't believe in evolution, that proves they don't know what it is. if you really understand it there's no way that you don't believe it. people not believing it is proof that they don't understand it. and that they don't understand science.
it's like 2+2=4. you're statement is like "just because people know math, doesn't mean they believe that 2+2=4" no. people that don't believe 2+2=4 simply don't know math.
Review * ""Drawing on a growing body of empirical research, he provides an intelligent, nuanced and persuasive account of how conservatives and liberals tend to differ at the level of psychology and personality"" (Financial Times, April 2012)
From the Inside Flap
Why do so many Republicans believe man-made climate change is a hoax? The two most common explanations are that the deniers are uninformed or that they have been bought off by corporate money. Bestselling author Chris Mooney isn't buying either of those arguments. In fact, as he points out, the better educated a conservative is, the more likely he is to dismiss climate change concerns. How can that be? Part of the answer lies with motivated reasoning—the psychological phenomenon of preferring only evidence that backs up your belief—but in The Republican Brain, Mooney explains that is just the tip of the cognitive iceberg. There is a growing body of evidence that conservatives and liberals don't just have differing ideologies; they have different psychologies. How could the rejection of mainstream science be growing among Republicans, along with the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy, and much more? Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts? Increasingly, the answer appears to be: it's just part of who they are.
Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.
The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance, people more wedded to certainty tend to become conservatives; people craving novelty, liberals. Surprisingly, openness to new experiences and fastidiousness are better predictors of political preference than income or education. If you like to keep your house neat and see the world in a relatively black and white way, you're probably going to vote Republican. If you've recently moved to a big city to see what else life has to offer, you're probably going to vote Democrat. These basic differences in openness and curiosity, Mooney argues, fuel an "expertise gap" between left and right that explains much of the battle today over what is true.
Being a good liberal, Mooney also has to explore the implications of these findings for Democrats as well. Are they really wishy-washy flip-floppers? Well, sometimes. Can't they be just as dogmatic about issues close to their hearts, like autism and vaccines, or nuclear power? His research leads to some surprising conclusions.
While the evolutionary advantages of both liberal and conservative psychologies seem obvious, clashes between them in modern life have led to a crisis in our politics. A significant chunk of the electorate, it seems, will never accept the facts as they are, no matter how strong the evidence. Understanding the psychology of the left and the right, Mooney argues, should therefore fundamentally alter the way we approach the he-said-he-said of public debates.
Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.
Bestselling author Chris Mooney uses cutting-edge research to explain the psychology behind why today’s Republicans reject reality—it's just part of who they are. From climate change to evolution, the rejection of mainstream science among Republicans is growing, as is the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy and much more. Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts?
Science writer Chris Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas and less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.
Goes beyond the standard claims about ignorance or corporate malfeasance to discover the real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history—as well as many undeniable policy facts (e.g., there were no “death panels” in the health care bill). Explains that the political parties reflect personality traits and psychological needs—with Republicans more wedded to certainty, Democrats to novelty—and this is the root of our divide over reality. Written by the author of The Republican War on Science, which was the first and still the most influential book to look at conservative rejection of scientific evidence. But the rejection of science is just the beginning Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.
Slashdot Mirror
okay, in your first paragraph you made an ad homimen fallacy ( https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... ), and a rather aggressive one at that.
then you have a fallacy of causation - i forget what it's called, but essentially you're implying that something is false because some ways that people react to it might not be all that appealing. some unholy combination of post hoc fallacy and appeal to emotion fallacy.
and then you follow that up swiftly with a straw man fallacy https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... which is also a non sequitor.
and then i'm not exactly sure what you mean by "you don't have any room to browbeat religious people.", nobody is "browbeating". what may seem like "stern or abusive words" to religious people who play the victim card is simply logic that doesn't agree with their cherised beliefs. and they're pleading "intimidating" to provide an emotionally pursuasive way for them weaseling out of accepting that they've been believing a bunch of ridiculous baloney that's easily - EASILY - discredited. and instead of accepting that they made a mistake and moving on like a rational person would do, they double down on their delusions and get even more stupid.
so forgive me if i'm not all that sympathetic.
Bob is letting an unfounded assumption about the nature of the universe rule over evidence and reason gathered from that very universe that says something very contrary to his unfounded assumption. That is exactly within the realm of science and exactly unscientific. Through and through.
* His religion beliefs are statements about the nature of the universe. That puts them firmly in the realm of science.
* A scientific approach would be to _not rely on unfounded assumptions_.... so already he is being unscientific
* the principle of parsimony rules out the existence of dieties, so already bob has violated the principle of parsimony.
etc.
i could go on, but why? you get the picture. The disagreement is inside the realm of science. And Bob is not being scientific.
I believe you are confusing faith with trust and/or confidence.
I have trust and/or confidence in my beliefs because they are justified by observation and reason.
I don't take them on faith. In fact, when observation and reason justify changing them, i change them.
If i took them on faith, then contrary observation and reason would not cause me to change them.
My beliefs are _justified_ by evidence and reason. That is the _opposite_ of taking things on faith.
"Rather it is the belief that all life can be traced back to a single population of life forms." that's not the theory of evolution, then. if people say they don't believe in evolution because that's what they think it is, that only proves that they don't know what evolution is. which only proves that they are scientifically illiterate.
The belief that $DIETY even CAN be factual is in itself a measure not only of science illiteracy, but outright delusion.
but evolution does not include abiogenesis, so most people would be wrong.
you're basically saying that most people in the USA are scientifically illiterate.
unfortunately i'd have to agree.
if one does not believe in evolution than it follows necessarily that they do not understand it. (or much at all about science, for that matter.)
however, believing in evolution does not imply that one understands it.
no. the theories are not theories in the sense that you are implying. a scientific theory is something very different than the layman's meaning of theory.
"In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement “It’s not a fact, it’s only a theory.” True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis."
what you are describing when you say "but the theories remain theories" -- you are actually referring to hypothesis, not theories. and the statement is incorrect. they do not remain mere hypothesis, they get tested. rigorously. continuously.
and they never become theories. a scientific theory is a mathematical model that conforms with all observed phenomena, and makes testable predictions, thus allowing it to be proved false.
the laymen's definition of a "theory", as far as ontology goes, is below that of a scientific theory, it is below that of an observation, it is even below that of a hypothesis.
more detail available here: http://thinking-critically.com...
WOW - beg the question much? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
so you know that what you said is incorrect then. humans are animals. and so are their ancestors. (well... up to near the root of the evolutionary tree.)
so you have admitted that you were wrong. i applaud that. it takes intellectual courage to admit you are wrong.
ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF! it is a lack of belief. atheists also do not believe in unicorns or faeries, either. they simply don't feel that worth mentioning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
http://atheism.about.com/od/de...
you cannot know evolution and not believe it. not believing evolution is proof that you do not understand it, and proof that you don't understand science, either.
there are not any rational arguments against evolution, and there is no counter evidence. and there are no -- absolutely zero -- religious folks who refuse to entertain thoughts irrationally.
no, the study did not test anything related to what he said. the study was quite simply a factor analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
as you put it, it inferred the empirical statistical correlation of correct / incorrect answers.
the study showed only that the question about evolution was a relatively independent component. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
the rest of the article was the author's unfounded -- and as almost everyone in this forum has demonstrated, wrong -- inferences.
the study did not establish - at all - what is or is not part of scientific literacy.
what is or is not part of scientific literacy is established by the _philosohpy of science_.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/P...
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/art...
Neither. He is not talking about the findings of the study. He is talking about the author's interpretation of the findings. He is demonstrating that they are incorrect. They are incorrect. As he has demonstrated.
As to "it is quite another to stipulate that that mouse arose from a lizard by many tiny changes over eons." fortunately no part of the theory of evolution specifically mentions mice and lizards, so it is not neccessary to observe that to verify it.
However, speciation does not need eons to occur. It can happen rather quickly. Speciation of a variety of species, spanning from dogs to bacteria to fruit flies,etc. has been observed, both in the lab, and outside of it.
Invariably the reason is because they have some misconception about it, and/or an even deeper misconception about science.
belief in evolution does not indicate science literacy, but disbelief in evolution does indicate science illiteracy.
yes.
literacy _implies_ belief.
disbelief _implies_ illiteracy.
it does seem a lot more fitting.
as a programmer i have to say that that's false. belief in creationism would negatively impact your ability to write a program, as it's allowing fanciful and and unfounded thoughts to cloud rational/analytic thinking. that means your deductive, inductive, and reductive reasoning is going to be slower, more confused, and more error-prone. and that means your ability to write a program is compromised.
That may be true. But a _Science_ question that directly challenges a known tradition makes a particularly good and indicative _science_ question, esp in regard to how deeply a person knows and understands the _philosophy of science_.
Kind of like how a math problem that is counter-intuitive makes for a particularly good math problem.
Oh it is without a doubt true that different people think different things are ethical. This is easily shown just by considering that different people are at different stages of moral development.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
However, this says nothing about whether or not there are basic fundamental human rights. Just that if there are, not everyone respects them. Which is a "well duh!" That is true regardless of whether or not there are basic fundamental human rights. It's a non-sequitor. Yes, we have criminals and psychopaths and people with behavioral issues and people who just don't have a lot of compassion and all that. That means that people think different things are ethical.
Despite these differences,
"There are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident, and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commossion of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. The non-aggression principle is considered to be the central principle from which all other universal ethical principles are derived. Most cultures also have some version of the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.[2]A practicable Code of Universal Ethics was proposed by Enno Winkler.[3]
There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence, and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it's better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society's government or its dominant ideology."
--from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
Any person who views evolution as some sort of "God process" instead of a natural process do not understand evolution, by that fact alone.
wrong. if someone doesn't believe in evolution, that proves they don't know what it is. if you really understand it there's no way that you don't believe it. people not believing it is proof that they don't understand it. and that they don't understand science.
it's like 2+2=4. you're statement is like "just because people know math, doesn't mean they believe that 2+2=4"
no. people that don't believe 2+2=4 simply don't know math.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Repu...
Review
* ""Drawing on a growing body of empirical research, he provides an intelligent, nuanced and persuasive account of how conservatives and liberals tend to differ at the level of psychology and personality"" (Financial Times, April 2012)
From the Inside Flap
Why do so many Republicans believe man-made climate change is a hoax? The two most common explanations are that the deniers are uninformed or that they have been bought off by corporate money. Bestselling author Chris Mooney isn't buying either of those arguments. In fact, as he points out, the better educated a conservative is, the more likely he is to dismiss climate change concerns. How can that be?
Part of the answer lies with motivated reasoning—the psychological phenomenon of preferring only evidence that backs up your belief—but in The Republican Brain, Mooney explains that is just the tip of the cognitive iceberg. There is a growing body of evidence that conservatives and liberals don't just have differing ideologies; they have different psychologies. How could the rejection of mainstream science be growing among Republicans, along with the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy, and much more? Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts? Increasingly, the answer appears to be: it's just part of who they are.
Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas; are less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.
The answer begins with some measurable personality traits that strongly correspond with political preferences. For instance, people more wedded to certainty tend to become conservatives; people craving novelty, liberals. Surprisingly, openness to new experiences and fastidiousness are better predictors of political preference than income or education. If you like to keep your house neat and see the world in a relatively black and white way, you're probably going to vote Republican. If you've recently moved to a big city to see what else life has to offer, you're probably going to vote Democrat. These basic differences in openness and curiosity, Mooney argues, fuel an "expertise gap" between left and right that explains much of the battle today over what is true.
Being a good liberal, Mooney also has to explore the implications of these findings for Democrats as well. Are they really wishy-washy flip-floppers? Well, sometimes. Can't they be just as dogmatic about issues close to their hearts, like autism and vaccines, or nuclear power? His research leads to some surprising conclusions.
While the evolutionary advantages of both liberal and conservative psychologies seem obvious, clashes between them in modern life have led to a crisis in our politics. A significant chunk of the electorate, it seems, will never accept the facts as they are, no matter how strong the evidence. Understanding the psychology of the left and the right, Mooney argues, should therefore fundamentally alter the way we approach the he-said-he-said of public debates.
Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Repu...
Read it.
Or prove it. (and/or i should say)
Book description:
Bestselling author Chris Mooney uses cutting-edge research to explain the psychology behind why today’s Republicans reject reality—it's just part of who they are.
From climate change to evolution, the rejection of mainstream science among Republicans is growing, as is the denial of expert consensus on the economy, American history, foreign policy and much more. Why won't Republicans accept things that most experts agree on? Why are they constantly fighting against the facts?
Science writer Chris Mooney explores brain scans, polls, and psychology experiments to explain why conservatives today believe more wrong things; appear more likely than Democrats to oppose new ideas and less likely to change their beliefs in the face of new facts; and sometimes respond to compelling evidence by doubling down on their current beliefs.
Goes beyond the standard claims about ignorance or corporate malfeasance to discover the real, scientific reasons why Republicans reject the widely accepted findings of mainstream science, economics, and history—as well as many undeniable policy facts (e.g., there were no “death panels” in the health care bill).
Explains that the political parties reflect personality traits and psychological needs—with Republicans more wedded to certainty, Democrats to novelty—and this is the root of our divide over reality.
Written by the author of The Republican War on Science, which was the first and still the most influential book to look at conservative rejection of scientific evidence. But the rejection of science is just the beginning
Certain to spark discussion and debate, The Republican Brain also promises to add to the lengthy list of persuasive scientific findings that Republicans reject and deny.
this "take it figuratively" b.s. is known as "special pleading"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
and "moving the goal posts"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...