On 4 Dec 2007, at 00:03, Nick Arnett wrote: > On Dec 3, 2007 11:02 AM, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> >> >>> This demonstrates that skepticism leads to better science, right? >> > >> >> You're arguing that evolution is bad science? > > > No. > > I'm pointing out that there's a correlation between skepticism about > science > and good science. The country that includes a lot of skeptics about > science > is the same country that excels in science. Therefore, one may leap > to the > conclusion that skepticism about science causes good science. Or > one can > think more rationally and realize that there are other factors, such > as > freedom or wealth, that cause both science and skepticism to thrive.
But America is losing its excellence in science. One of the tables I quoted showed that American high schools now produce kids with a significantly below average grasp of science. > > > My point is that co-occurrence and correlation should never be > mistake for > causality. I have a theory, evidence and Occam's razor. If you want to posit an extra factor that causes both evil and religion it's up to you to come up with it. And if there is such a factor than reducing it will reduce both evil and religion :-) > > >> >> >>> You have to show causality -- that religion *causes* evil, no just >>> that they >>> co-occur. The theory is that religion causes evil by clouding minds. That's the causality. The correlation is there. QED. >>> >> >> You sound like the tobacco lobby claiming that cigarettes don't cause >> cancer! >> > > And if I sound like them, surely I must be just as venal. I'm not > sure if > that's better described as a red herring or just a stupid argument by > analogy, but in either case, it is illogical. Don't you think it's > a bit > hypocritical to abandon logic when arguing that religion causes > people to > believe unscientific ideas? > I was pointing out that you are following a typical pattern of denial. > > When people are encouraged to believe any old nonsense they choose as >> a matter of 'faith' it is not surprising that they lose the ability >> to >> discriminate in other areas too. > > > It'll be just fine with me if you never trot out that particular > straw man > again. It's not a straw man. How can people partition their thinking so that they abandon reason in just one area without it polluting their thinking about other matters? How can they have superstitious beliefs that don't conflict with reality on occasion? > > > You've set an impossibly high burden of proof by claiming that > religion > causes evil. You'll never prove it. I have proved it. > -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
