Quoting Russ Abbott circa 09-12-02 04:14 PM: > I guess it becomes almost tautological. Someone is wacko if they are > "absolutely CERTAIN, with no doubt at all, that your beliefs are true and > nothing anyone around you says will ever shake your unwavering confidence." > > Wacko becomes more or less synonymous with mental rigidity. I'm not sure I > would use the term "wacko" for that. I would include in the category of > wackos people whose beliefs vary from moment to moment for no apparent > reason.
No. It's not about mental rigidity. It's about certainty. One can be rigid in their skepticism, for example. But a skeptic is, almost by definition, not a wacko. Arrogance and hubris are examples of putting just a little bit too much stock in one's own beliefs. Wackos put _complete_ stock in their own beliefs. Rigidity is orthogonal to the degree to which you believe your own rhetoric. > But if we just focus on mental rigidity, that would presumably include most > people of faith--by which I mean people who believe things that by > definition are immune to evidential analysis. So anyone who hold a belief > "on faith" is wacko according to your perspective. No. Only people who are _certain_ about their faith are wackos. If they never doubt their belief, then they're wackos. Many of the people of faith I know doubt themselves on a regular basis. This means they're sane. > So does that mean that every sincerely > religious person disqualified in your view from being acceptable as a > consultant? No. Only people who never doubt their own opinions are disqualified. Anyone, including the most radical weirdos I've ever met are qualified consultants as long as they caveat their opinions with something like: "On the other hand ..." or "Of course I could be wrong ...". > But then what about atheists? Are they disqualified also because they > believe that religious propositions are false? Atheists who never doubt themselves are disqualified. For example, I would never take advice from Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers on metaphysical issues. They're clearly unqualified to render opinions on the subject. Why? Because they never express doubt of their own opinions. On the other hand, I may well take advice from, say, a priest on quantum physics, as long as he caveats his opinions with "Of course, I could be wrong." Even if I didn't take the advice, I'd at least listen to him. > But since these propositions > are immune from evidential analysis that belief too is on faith. One could > argue that they don't believe religious propositions are false, only that > they are meaningless. Is that better? Probably not good enough. They would > have to say simply that they do not understand the religious propositions. > Then they would not be holding a belief on faith. Again, you're playing a shell game with the words. If an atheist claims that metaphysical propositions are meaningless, and she is CERTAIN that she is right, then she's a wacko. If, however, she admits that they might have some meaning she just doesn't understand, then she's not a wacko. > Another aspect of the issue of mental rigidity: how rigid is rigid? Is there > really anyone who is totally immune from having his beliefs changed? I > would suspect not. So there are probably not very many people in the world > about whom on can be sure that absolutely nothing with ever change their > beliefs. So where does that leave us? That leaves your focus on rigidity at a dead end. But I'm not talking about rigidity. I'm talking about certainty. I actually know people whose minds change on a regular basis. One time I meet them, they're a new ager fixated... CERTAIN ... that yoga will save your life. The next time I meet them they're in a snake cult or speaking in tongues CERTAIN that they now have access to the truth. Well, these people are wackos even though they're not very rigid. > The category of wackos becomes vanishingly small. I suspect that most of > the people who followed Jim Jones to Guyana might have changed their minds > if given enough of an opportunity. As I recall, some tried to resist at the > end. What does one say about them? No. The category of wackos is actually very large. I am surprised almost every day by new wackos. Wackos who think they KNOW how to proceed in Afghanistan. Wackos who are CERTAIN that a public healthcare option is an instance of socialism and wackos who are certain that if we don't "reform" healthcare we're all gonna suffer some horrible end. Wackos who are certain that anthropogenic global warming is true and wackos who are certain it's a hoax. I have family members who are certain that Latinos are lazier than whites and blacks are genetically more athletic than other races. And they'll claim this even after I point out that they don't even know what a "gene" is! I call "wacko". [grin] Of course, there's a question as to whether or not someone is a wacko about everything. E.g. Perhaps I can trust Richard Dawkins to give me a humbly justified opinion, including caveats about, say, the theory of evolution. But I can't trust him to give me a humbly justified opinion about, say, whether God is a unit or a panoply. Perhaps. But, in general, good skeptics exhibit their skepticism on a wide range of issues, not just a few. So, I'd tend to avoid Dawkins' advice on anything because of his fanaticism regarding metaphysics. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
