Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
Nick said: 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. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Devil, Darwin, Death and Taxes
nothing is certain but i believe the comparison between not believing in god and not believing in evolution is immaterial (although the converse makes more sense). i don't believe in flying saucers, either, because the so called documented evidence is not subject to verification. evolution is, and the theory keeps 'adapting' as new discoveries are made. science progresses because of healthy scepticism. there are evil scientists and evil clerics, but the latter are more numerous...jon - Get easy, one-click access to your favorites. Make Yahoo! your homepage. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: 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. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. -- 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
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 4, 2007, at 9:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: 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. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. *Sigh* Saying the same thing over and over again is not the same thing as making a reasoned argument. Hence the question of the possible evil of religion remains open. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 4 Dec 2007, at 19:44, Dave Land wrote: On Dec 4, 2007, at 9:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: 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. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. *Sigh* Saying the same thing over and over again is not the same thing as making a reasoned argument. Denying the same thing over and over again is not the same thing as making a reasoned argument. Do you think people who act as if made up nonsense is true are not harmful? Or do you think all the nonsense is true? Because if you don't agree with one of those then you agree with me. Hence the question of the possible evil of religion remains open. Not really. -- 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
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 05/12/2007, at 4:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 04/12/2007, at 11:03 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: 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. If it's true scepticism, and not denialism. The US is a leader of science in spite of it's religiosity, not because of it. And the US is squandering its lead - Florida and Texas are both about to be hit by creationist school boards trying to get round prior rulings, and the only thing saving America from losing increasing chunks of its population to nonsense is the courts. It's a line that's holding, but a Supreme Court reversal would be a disaster. 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. The first of which is being restricted, the second is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 4 Dec 2007, at 20:32, Charlie Bell wrote: On 05/12/2007, at 4:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. But that's evil in itself! Dissenter Maru -- 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
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 4, 2007 12:47 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's true scepticism, and not denialism. The US is a leader of science in spite of it's religiosity, not because of it. It seems far more likely to me that the same freedoms that allow wacky religious ideas (which is what we're really talking about, not religion) to grow are the same soil in which scientific growth thrives. Maybe you can't get one without the other. This is not to say that I'm in favor of any of the ways in which some of the religious wackos try to suppress science or replace it with unscientific ideas. However, I think we would be wise to fear that any sort of repression of wacky religious ideas might also stifle the growth and development of less wacky ideas. Legislating what people are allowed to think, in any form, opens a very dangerous door, in my opinion. Fascism intended to suppress wacky religious ideas is no better than any other sort of fascism. Still, I'm entirely comfortable with aggressive criticism of wacky religious ideas, so long as the criticism is logical. Making illogical arguments against the illogic of the wacky ideas is worse than self-defeating, I think. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 4, 2007 12:32 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. I think this confuses a belief of certain religions with the general meaning of religion. Religions are belief systems having to do with spiritual or metaphysical matters. Unquestioning obedience is nothing more than a belief of the more cult-like religions. It certainly is not true of the major ones except in a very limited sense that by no means extends to scientific pursuits. It is only a minority -- a foolish, arrogant and disturbingly politically active minority -- that seeks such directions. In other words, I'm not denying that there are anti-science forces at work in some religions. But I fail to see any convincing argument that this has anything to do with religion in general. There is no human institution that is exempt from such corruption. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 05/12/2007, at 8:06 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 4, 2007 12:47 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it's true scepticism, and not denialism. The US is a leader of science in spite of it's religiosity, not because of it. It seems far more likely to me that the same freedoms that allow wacky religious ideas (which is what we're really talking about, not religion) to grow are the same soil in which scientific growth thrives. Maybe you can't get one without the other. Maybe you can't. But other countries with similarly advanced scientific research (the UK, Australia, Japan and so on) seem to get by with similar freedoms but with a lot less overtly religious nuttiness. This is not to say that I'm in favor of any of the ways in which some of the religious wackos try to suppress science or replace it with unscientific ideas. However, I think we would be wise to fear that any sort of repression of wacky religious ideas might also stifle the growth and development of less wacky ideas. Legislating what people are allowed to think, in any form, opens a very dangerous door, in my opinion. People can think what they like. But non-science should not be allowed to be taught as science. And non-medicine should not be sold as medicine. Fascism intended to suppress wacky religious ideas is no better than any other sort of fascism. I said nothing about suppression. I think the way to squeeze back the exploiters and loons is education. But in the US, the education system is being usurped. Still, I'm entirely comfortable with aggressive criticism of wacky religious ideas, so long as the criticism is logical. Making illogical arguments against the illogic of the wacky ideas is worse than self-defeating, I think. Sure. But if one thinks that all religious ideas are whacky, then it's hard to appear logical, because even engaging with nutty ideas can drag one to the same level. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On 05/12/2007, at 8:19 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 4, 2007 12:32 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. I think this confuses a belief of certain religions with the general meaning of religion. Religions are belief systems having to do with spiritual or metaphysical matters. Yes. Which you have to believe in order to be a part of that religion. If you question the basic tenets of the faith, you are not adhering to that faith and won't be part of it for long, unless as many people do, you hide your doubts and pay lip-service. Unquestioning obedience is nothing more than a belief of the more cult-like religions. There aren't many that aren't cult-like in at least some of their aspects. It took me a long time to extract myself far enough from the religious upbringing of my youth to see that. It certainly is not true of the major ones except in a very limited sense that by no means extends to scientific pursuits. It is only a minority -- a foolish, arrogant and disturbingly politically active minority -- that seeks such directions. I think it's a lot more prevalent than you think. In other words, I'm not denying that there are anti-science forces at work in some religions. But I fail to see any convincing argument that this has anything to do with religion in general. There is no human institution that is exempt from such corruption. Your last sentence I agree with. However, where we differ is that I've come to think that the special status accorded to religion in most societies catalyses and shelters a lot of the corruption. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Reading (was: Uplift at Yellowstone)
pencimen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Deborah wrote I recently finished _Inversion_, which I don't think is a Culture tale, but I found it compelling. Oh, but it is! 8^) Doug Prime Directive? Maru Charlie also corrected me; that was only my second Banks read, so at least I'm 'getting' his style, if not the Culture gist... I have, however, sworn off S. Donaldson, as he *really* has some issues with women and torture and helplessness...phphphth! I need only read a bit of news to get the same in reality. :/ Did I mention a book _Reliant_ this summer past? Now I can't recall the author, but I enjoyed the outcast-become-heroic (heroinec?) exploration. Debbi who recently finished _The Golden Compass_ since the fanatics labeled it 'evil' (I don't think so!) Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://uk.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=UKN2922875820071129 DALLAS (Reuters Life!) - More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll... snip snort Lookit th' evydents, boyo -- how else could Dick Cheney's heart keep beating!?! seriously Ask any Intelligent Designer why a 50%+ inherent abortion rate (of all human fertilised eggs) demonstrates divinty over 'survival of the fittest.' Debbi Heretic Lutheran Gaeian Deist Maru Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: snip There are iatrogenic illnesses, those that are caused by the healer. I have no doubt that there are parallels in religion, but just as we don't shut down hospitals because, for example, people pick up infections there, it is not a compelling argument for shutting down churches. Nobody is arguing that zero harm is done by religion. To me, there's a difference between hospitals and churches, though; hospitals are places where the rules and results of science-based research are applied. By and large it seems to me that churches aren't of that nature. grimace Well, we strive and hope for sound science in our medicine; unfortunately we have, IMO, a runaway for-profit frenzy. I am astounded at the continual bombardment of advertising to convince Americans that they need these pills, those injectables, that session-under-the-knife to be healthy, happy and *normal.* What a freak show. Then, of course, there are the take these natural compounds only hucksters -I mean, gurus- also eager to extract dollars from ignorant folks' pockets. I see a strong parallel between the desire for a simple set of rules to win the divine jackpot, and the desire to gain eternal youth by pills procedures. In neither case does one have to think or question or work for one's reward. Genuine spiritual growth and improved health require time, effort and dedication...with no guarantee of success in the conventional sense. Debbi Embrace The Journey (Like There's A Choice!) Maru Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
dogmatism v. pragmatism
snippits... Religions are belief systems... If you question the basic tenets of the faith, you are not adhering to that faith... Unquestioning obedience is nothing more than a belief of the more cult-like religions... There aren't many that aren't cult-like in at least some of their aspects... It certainly is not true of the major ones except in a very limited sense that by no means extends to scientific pursuits... there are anti-science forces at work in some religions, no human institution is exempt from such corruption... http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/03/golden.compass.religion.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest the battles between fantasy and religion would be hilarious if the pious theophiles were not deadly serious. religion and science are incompatible, for the most part, but we do need more ethics in science and more rationalism in religion. the continuing debate over evolution, especially in the 21st century, is ludricous, as is the suggestion that evolution is part of 'god's plan... the debate about global warming is also ludricrous. it doesn't matter if climate change occurs in cycles, it is still a fact that it is accelerated by human impact on the enviornment and is a threat to our civilization. - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
At 01:00 PM 12/4/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: snip You've set an impossibly high burden of proof by claiming that religion causes evil. You'll never prove it. I don't think that's the proper model. Evolutionary psychology states that *every* human psychological trait is either the result of direct selection or a side effect of direct selection. (With a bit of possibility of something being fixed due to random genetic drift.) I think we can agree that the psychological mechanisms behind religion are a species wide psychological trait. It's known from twin studies to be at least as heritable as other personality traits. You have a choice of directly selected (like the psychological mechanism behind Stockholm syndrome) or a side effect like drug addiction. (In the EEA being wiped out on plant sap was a formula for experiencing the intestines of a predator from the inside.) I favor direct selection via a primary mortality mode in the EEA, wars between groups of humans. Here is the background: http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf I have gone a little further than Dr. Gat and propose that the psychological mechanism leading to wars starts with a population average bleak outlook. Under circumstances where parents can see they won't be able to feed the kids through the next dry season, it makes genetic sense for an evolved behavioral switch to flip. So the future looks bleak enough, it is cost effective from the gene's viewpoint for a group of related males to go to war and take the high risk of dying. Of course genes want the tribe to go to war as a *group* because coordinated attacks on neighbors are a lot more likely to succeed. Even chimps agree on this point (see Goodall). I have proposed that the mechanism works thus: Detection of bad times a-coming turns up the gain on the circulation of xenophobic memes. The memes synch the tribe's warriors to make do or die attacks on neighbors, which (in the EEA) almost always solved the problem of a bad ratio of mouths to food. You ask: How do religions fit in here? What are religions? They are memes of course, but in particular religions are *xenophobic* memes. When times are good they are relatively inactive seed xenophobic memes. What we see today as religions are the result of evolved psychological mechanisms that induce groups to go to war as needed by conditions. By this model religions don't _cause_ wars. It's easy to see how religions and wars or other social disruptions are associated with religions because some meme (often a religion class meme) will be amplified up to serve as a synchronizing reason to go to war. Evil is a difficult concept in this model. Humans became the top predator a *long* time ago. So if conditions are such that a population anticipates a kill or starve situation, humans have to be their own predator. Do we consider lions killing zebras evil. If you consider killing people evil or at least undesirable, and want to get back to a cause, it's population growth in excess of economic growth. Malthus with method if you like. Religions are just xenophobic memes. When people feel the need to thin out the overpopulation, some meme (including memes like communism) will gain enough influence over enough people to serve as a reason for a war. Since they bear the children, you can blame women for wars. grin Of course you also have to give them credit for peace. In this model the low birth rate is the reason Western Europe has been so peaceful since WW II. If you wonder about the recent Sudan and the school teacher incident or the Danish cartoons a few years ago, it because population growth has generated a bleak future for these people. That turned up the gain on xenophobic religious memes. A substantial fraction of the population is now primed for war or related social disruptions. It wouldn't help if there were no religious memes circulating beforehand because some warrior synchronizing meme would be amplified out of the noise. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it means you're acting on faith in your intuitions and experience, not reason. Meanwhile, it's BORING to hear the same thing over and over. Do you really imagine that one day, anybody will be enlightened by your repetition? In hopes of going somewhere more interesting with this topic, let me offer this challenge -- can you (or anybody else who can stomach the subject) come up with external causalities when religion and evil co-occur? If we're going to argue about whether or not faith is anti-scientific, how about if we do so in a reasonably logical manner? It only seems fitting. Is this model logical enough for you? Keith Henson ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
Since they bear the children, you can blame women for wars. grin Of course you also have to give them credit for peace. In this model the low birth rate is the reason Western Europe has been so peaceful since WW II. Apart from Ireland and Spain... ;) Keith Henson Welcome back Keith. :-) Good post. Quite a bit to digest, I'll give it another read later. For now, I'm a bit out of it on codeine and so on. Had all four wisdom teeth out less than 48 hours ago. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
hkhenson wrote: ... I have gone a little further than Dr. Gat and propose that the psychological mechanism leading to wars starts with a population average bleak outlook. ... memes. The memes synch the tribe's warriors to make do or die attacks on neighbors, which (in the EEA) almost always solved the problem of a bad ratio of mouths to food. Keith-- Hey, good to hear from you! I just got done googling to figure out that EEA was environment of evolutionary adaptation. That's definitely a concept that deserves a word , but an acronym out of the blue? ... wouldn't help if there were no religious memes circulating beforehand because some warrior synchronizing meme would be amplified out of the noise. I like that, warrior synchronizing meme. I'll file that away next to subtractive volume renderer and other nice phrases... ... Is this model logical enough for you? Keith Henson You know, some of this could be tested. Has anyone done so? I do like the idea, and liked it last time you posted it. ---David Illegitimi non carborundum, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
Charlie Bell wrote: And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. Facts: (1) Most religions tell people to obey the higher authorities and don't question them. (2) Most people are stupid, and forced to think for themselves will opt for the most stupid and evil choices Corollary: Religion is not evil, because it prevents most people from being evil. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On 4 Dec 2007, at 23:40, Charlie Bell wrote: Since they bear the children, you can blame women for wars. grin Of course you also have to give them credit for peace. In this model the low birth rate is the reason Western Europe has been so peaceful since WW II. Apart from Ireland and Spain... ;) Keith Henson Welcome back Keith. :-) Good post. Quite a bit to digest, I'll give it another read later. For now, I'm a bit out of it on codeine and so on. Had all four wisdom teeth out less than 48 hours ago. I went partying after I had three out and scared people with my blood- filled smile. Black stool Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If so, then Microsoft would have great products. - Steve Jobs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On 4 Dec 2007, at 23:46, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Charlie Bell wrote: And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. I don't agree that religion is evil. It just opens a large door to evil by fostering unquestioning obedience. Facts: (1) Most religions tell people to obey the higher authorities and don't question them. (2) Most people are stupid, and forced to think for themselves will opt for the most stupid and evil choices Corollary: Religion is not evil, because it prevents most people from being evil. It may prevent most people from being evil some of the time but it also makes most people evil some of the time too. Catholic ideas about birth control are evil whenever applied. What about the various recent evil Muslim antics? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ You are coming to a sad realization. Cancel or Allow? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality (was Re: Poll finds more Americans believe in devil than Darwin)
On Dec 4, 2007, at 10:56 AM, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Dec 2007, at 16:26, Richard Baker wrote: Nick said: 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. It's not scepticism though. The people in the US who don't believe in evolution by natural selection by and large aren't saying we don't think evolution by natural selection is an adequate explanation for the extant biological diversity so for the moment we won't believe in it even though there are no plausible alternatives but rather we don't believe in evolution by natural selection because these fairy stories are so much more plausible despite the total lack of evidence for them! That's not scepticism, it's misplaced credulity. And people who think like that are dangerous to themselves and others. Hence religion is evil. No more nor less so than any other institution. The above sentence just doesn't qualify as a rebuttal to (for instance) the material I posted earlier. It's not an argument, and as declarations go, it's not even particularly valid. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007, at 4:46 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Facts: (1) Most religions tell people to obey the higher authorities and don't question them. Yes. (2) Most people are stupid, and forced to think for themselves will opt for the most stupid and evil choices No. It's a mischaracterization -- and unfair -- to assert that most people are stupid. Most people are not stupid. They make the best operational decisions they can given the information available to them. If most people were stupid, our species would have been extinct long ago. What many people might be is unused to the processes involved in rigorous logical thinking, which leaves them with little more than gut or instinct responses. In the wild, this is sensible. A reaction of fear toward a threat is a positive survival trait. In a society, not so much, because the reaction might be a fear to a *perceived* threat rather than an actual one. It takes training to respond with reason, and that is a training many people lack. To this unfamiliarity with reason we can add inadequate or insufficient information, which might be the result of willful stupidity or willful ignorance (in some cases I believe that's a valid charge to level); but I think many of us here can recall a time when we made poor choices -- or what are retrospectively poor choices -- because we simply did not have the information then that's available to us now. Does that mean we were stupid then, or that we just weren't adequately supplied wit the tools we needed to make more appropriate decisions? And what does that suggest about where any of us might be in ten years' time? Corollary: Religion is not evil, because it prevents most people from being evil. My suggestion is that religion is neither inherently good nor evil, but is actually an institution of abstractions that are more or less applied to the world by the religion's adherents. To the extent those abstractions comment on what seems to be reality, we can easily test to see if they make sense; if not, they should be discarded. To the extent that the abstractions apply to behavior, morés and social customs, we should probably remember that they're actually social artifacts themselves and therefore almost certain to change over time as things fall into or out of vogue. Where I see a big problem is when we try to take the latter type of declarations and behave as though they are incontrovertible, bedrock Truths. That's the part that can lead to evil behavior. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007, at 4:10 PM, hkhenson wrote: [long snip] Is this model logical enough for you? Can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's interesting as hell. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007 3:46 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Facts: (1) Most religions tell people to obey the higher authorities and don't question them. Really? Fact? Got a source for that fact? (2) Most people are stupid, and forced to think for themselves will opt for the most stupid and evil choices Most people are average, on average. Corollary: Religion is not evil, because it prevents most people from being evil. I don't see how you got to the corollary. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Correlation v. causality
It may prevent most people from being evil some of the time but it also makes most people evil some of the time too. Catholic ideas about birth control are evil whenever applied. What about the various recent evil Muslim antics? William T Goodall the original judeo religion which spawned christianity, and islam and all their schisms is far less evil and dogmatic in its campaigns against heretics. reform and reconstructionist jews are far more progressive than its conservative and orthodox forbears. some protestant religions and moderate muslims are improving, also, so tere is hope... i would not say that all evangelical fundamentalists are stupid, just ignorant. they often make a choice to ignore facts and are motived more by emotion than rational thought. people who are sceptical and free thinkers are probably more intelligent in general because they make a conscious choice to reject mystical superstition and creation mythos. jon - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007 3:10 PM, hkhenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:00 PM 12/4/2007, Nick Arnett wrote: snip You've set an impossibly high burden of proof by claiming that religion causes evil. You'll never prove it. I don't think that's the proper model. My argument there is really about the squishiness of psychology and sociology. Evolutionary psychology states that *every* human psychological trait is either the result of direct selection or a side effect of direct selection. (With a bit of possibility of something being fixed due to random genetic drift.) This is arguing from a conclusion. The conclusion is that everything that exists in living organisms arose via evolution, therefore everything has an evolutionary explanation. I'll certainly allow that it *may* be true, but it certainly isn't proved -- our understanding of evolution is far from complete. Furthermore, I think pure Darwinian explanations are generally wrong. Everything doesn't arise from competition and we have mathematics (complexity) that demonstrates that, or at least very strongly suggests that Darwinian models are substantially incomplete. (Nothing in this is an argument for or against God; like the majority of people, I don't think religion has anything much to say about evolution.) I think we can agree that the psychological mechanisms behind religion are a species wide psychological trait. It's known from twin studies to be at least as heritable as other personality traits. That's interesting and certainly speaks to causes. You have a choice of directly selected (like the psychological mechanism behind Stockholm syndrome) or a side effect like drug addiction. (In the EEA being wiped out on plant sap was a formula for experiencing the intestines of a predator from the inside.) I favor direct selection via a primary mortality mode in the EEA, wars between groups of humans. Here is the background: http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf I have gone a little further than Dr. Gat and propose that the psychological mechanism leading to wars starts with a population average bleak outlook. Under circumstances where parents can see they won't be able to feed the kids through the next dry season, it makes genetic sense for an evolved behavioral switch to flip. So the future looks bleak enough, it is cost effective from the gene's viewpoint for a group of related males to go to war and take the high risk of dying. Hmmm. Are you suggesting that this mechanism directly explains, for example, our invasion and occupation of Iraq? Or is war simply a leftover from a time of scarcer resources? You ask: How do religions fit in here? What are religions? They are memes of course, Ouch. Though I love the concept of a meme, it is at best vaguely defined. Clever, but not obviously useful, at least to me. So it's very little help to me to postulate that religions are memes. but in particular religions are *xenophobic* memes. When times are good they are relatively inactive seed xenophobic memes. What we see today as religions are the result of evolved psychological mechanisms that induce groups to go to war as needed by conditions. By this model religions don't _cause_ wars. How does this explain non-warring religions? How could they have anything meaningful left over? If you consider killing people evil or at least undesirable, and want to get back to a cause, it's population growth in excess of economic growth. Malthus with method if you like. Religions are just xenophobic memes. When people feel the need to thin out the overpopulation, some meme (including memes like communism) will gain enough influence over enough people to serve as a reason for a war. As I see it, one can substitute idea for meme in everything you've written here and it makes no difference in the meaning... I'm curious why you're using the word. Back to the point at hand, I smell the same argument from conclusion that you started with. I.e., if people kill each other, there must be an evolutionary explanation, since all behavior arises from evolution. Tempting, but tautological. I think it is tempting because we are hard-pressed to see any other mechanism at work. At some point, we have to explain all the ways that living things behave that isn't clearly competitive. War is rather obviously survival of the fittest, so it is no surprise that it fits neatly into Darwinian thinking. Is this model logical enough for you? It's great food for thought, but I'd still like to escape the circularity. Is it just politically incorrect to consider non-Darwinian explanations? And I mean *scientific* non-Darwinian explanations, not the non-thinking kind that some folks seem to think is all that fits in one's head if one chooses to have faith. For example, how does the anthropic principle (which I suspect the math of complexity hints at) fit into this discussion? Intuitively, I'm
Re: Correlation v. causality
Evolutionary psychology states that *every* human psychological trait is either the result of direct selection or a side effect of direct selection. (With a bit of possibility of something being fixed due to random genetic drift.) This is arguing from a conclusion. The conclusion is that everything that exists in living organisms arose via evolution, therefore everything has an evolutionary explanation. Well, everything that we understand so far has an evolutionary explanation, so it's a fair step to look first at evolutionary explanations. If one proves to be unsatisfying, then it will be discarded. I'll certainly allow that it *may* be true, but it certainly isn't proved -- our understanding of evolution is far from complete. Yours may be - that doesn't mean others don't have a far better grasp... Furthermore, I think pure Darwinian explanations are generally wrong. Good, 'cause so do most biologists. That's why the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and more recently other leaps in evolutionary theory, have prevailed. Everything doesn't arise from competition No, but competition does provide much of the direction. and we have mathematics (complexity) that demonstrates that, or at least very strongly suggests that Darwinian models are substantially incomplete. Which particular models are you thinking of? Ouch. Though I love the concept of a meme, it is at best vaguely defined. Clever, but not obviously useful, at least to me. So it's very little help to me to postulate that religions are memes. There we agree. I happen to think religion is an emergent phenomenon. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007, at 8:22 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: For example, how does the anthropic principle (which I suspect the math of complexity hints at) fit into this discussion? Intuitively, I'm tempted to believe that if Darwinism was all there is, we wouldn't be here to observe the universe. But how can one prove the anthropic principle without a few other universes available as examples? Anthropic principle aside, sexual selection might go a pretty decent way toward explaining why we have such vastly oversized brains with which to observe the universe, make deductions and inferences about it, and contemplate a nice cup of gyokuro tea. Sexual selection in birds, for instance, appears to be the reason for a peacock's tail; an analogous mechanism in primates might have led to a positive feedback loop that resulted in a ludicrously disproportionate enlarging of the brain. So, alas, size might matter after all. BTW, are you referring to the strong or weak anthropic model? -- Warren Ockrassa Blog | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/ Books | http://books.nightwares.com/ Web | http://www.nightwares.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007 7:39 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll certainly allow that it *may* be true, but it certainly isn't proved -- our understanding of evolution is far from complete. Yours may be - that doesn't mean others don't have a far better grasp... Ah, ad hominem. One doesn't have to be an expert in evolutionary biology to understand the state of knowledge. I'm not an expert software engineer, but I have a pretty good idea of what is possible and what isn't. Everything doesn't arise from competition No, but competition does provide much of the direction. And how do you know that? and we have mathematics (complexity) that demonstrates that, or at least very strongly suggests that Darwinian models are substantially incomplete. Which particular models are you thinking of? Darwinian ones, as I said. All of them. Complexity poses a serious challenge. I happen to think religion is an emergent phenomenon. Although emergent is a difficult term (and well-loved, yet ill-defined by the complexity folks), I suspect you're right. But calling phenomena emergent may be saying little more than this doesn't come about by any mechanism we can understand other than the way the universe operates. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007 7:55 PM, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, are you referring to the strong or weak anthropic model? Strong. And I just have to add, to be reasonably silly... the weak one is doomed -- survival of the fittest. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On 05/12/2007, at 3:04 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Dec 4, 2007 7:39 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll certainly allow that it *may* be true, but it certainly isn't proved -- our understanding of evolution is far from complete. Yours may be - that doesn't mean others don't have a far better grasp... Ah, ad hominem. Nah-ah. Just a fact. No-one knows everything in a field, and lay- people often think they have a far better grasp of a technical field than they do. One doesn't have to be an expert in evolutionary biology to understand the state of knowledge. I'm not an expert software engineer, but I have a pretty good idea of what is possible and what isn't. Really? I *am* a biologist, and I wouldn't claim to have a grasp on the state-of-the-art. What I meant was, it depends greatly on your sources, and what you're reading. Everything doesn't arise from competition No, but competition does provide much of the direction. And how do you know that? From doing a degree in the subject (specifically, Zoology, with my focus in my final year on evolutionary biology, ecosystems and artificial life), and looking at a lot of models. What causes variation is one thing, what provides direction is another. Competition can be interspecies, intraspecies, intergender, within sibling groups, across groups. Different circumstances can provide different strengths to these pressures, but if there's any distinct pressure, then competition in one of its many guises is a likely candidate for that pressure. In any system with finite resources, there will be competition. and we have mathematics (complexity) that demonstrates that, or at least very strongly suggests that Darwinian models are substantially incomplete. Which particular models are you thinking of? Darwinian ones, as I said. All of them. Complexity poses a serious challenge.\ Yes, you said Darwinian models. All of them is just side-stepping the question. I'm asking you to show a specific example of an incomplete model. Unless you actually mean Darwin's models? In which case, of course they were incomplete, it was 150 years ago. Your use of Darwinian sends up a red flag, 'cause the only people who use that are strict gradualists or old-school biologists like Dawkins who use it from habit from before it was hijacked, and creationists (and they're using it in rather a different way). In my opinion, complexity poses no real challenge at all, as emergence and chaos etc were being incorporated into models when I was graduating, and successfully, and that was over 10 years ago. So again, please enlighten me with a specific example of how complexity is troubling a Darwinian model. I happen to think religion is an emergent phenomenon. Although emergent is a difficult term (and well-loved, yet ill- defined by the complexity folks), I suspect you're right. But calling phenomena emergent may be saying little more than this doesn't come about by any mechanism we can understand other than the way the universe operates. It's defined well enough as complex-appearing behaviours or attributes which arise from a few simple rules or characteristics. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On Dec 4, 2007 8:33 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nah-ah. Just a fact. No-one knows everything in a field, and lay- people often think they have a far better grasp of a technical field than they do. Sure. But you don't know what I have or haven't studied about evolution and Darwinism, so there was no basis for you to evaluate what I said. The fact that I know how complexity relates to it might have suggested that I have a more than passing acquaintance... eh? One doesn't have to be an expert in evolutionary biology to understand the state of knowledge. I'm not an expert software engineer, but I have a pretty good idea of what is possible and what isn't. Really? I *am* a biologist, and I wouldn't claim to have a grasp on the state-of-the-art. What I meant was, it depends greatly on your sources, and what you're reading. You don't know which major questions have been answered and which haven't? You don't have a good overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the generally accepted theories? That's the sort of knowledge I'm talking about when I say that you don't have to be an expert to have a good idea of what is possible and what isn't. In any system with finite resources, there will be competition. You are correct of course. But you are correct in the way that television network explain their programming -- We only show what people want. Trouble is, it's not *all* they want. The fact that you can find competition happening doesn't mean other things aren't going on. But calling phenomena emergent may be saying little more than this doesn't come about by any mechanism we can understand other than the way the universe operates. It's defined well enough as complex-appearing behaviours or attributes which arise from a few simple rules or characteristics. But that explains EVERYTHING, so it is trivial. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Correlation v. causality
On 05/12/2007, at 4:02 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: Nah-ah. Just a fact. No-one knows everything in a field, and lay- people often think they have a far better grasp of a technical field than they do. Sure. But you don't know what I have or haven't studied about evolution and Darwinism, so there was no basis for you to evaluate what I said. Which is why I'm asking you some questions, to find out what you *do* actually know. The fact that I know how complexity relates to it might have suggested that I have a more than passing acquaintance... eh? Not necessarily. You could just be repeating buzz-words (in fact, complexity is a red-flag buzz-word in precisely the same way transitional fossils or macroevolution are - makes me think you're alluding to William Dembski, but I'd be shocked and disappointed if you were). Which is why I was asking for a more in-depth discussion of the perceived issues complexity has to a specific Darwinian model. If you can do that, then we can have a discussion. If you can't, or won't, then it's just a waste of time. One doesn't have to be an expert in evolutionary biology to understand the state of knowledge. I'm not an expert software engineer, but I have a pretty good idea of what is possible and what isn't. Really? I *am* a biologist, and I wouldn't claim to have a grasp on the state-of-the-art. What I meant was, it depends greatly on your sources, and what you're reading. You don't know which major questions have been answered and which haven't? Um? There are a lot of questions in a lot of fields. You don't have a good overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the generally accepted theories? That's the sort of knowledge I'm talking about when I say that you don't have to be an expert to have a good idea of what is possible and what isn't. I have a reasonable grasp of undergraduate evolution as taught 10 years ago (which encompasses about 5 textbooks and maybe a couple of kilos of journal offprints). But again, I'm not sure what specifically you're talking about, 'cause you're not telling me. I know quite a bit about the stuff I studied, and I know a smattering of other biology. Speaking in such general terms is simply not actually telling me anything about what you do or do not know, or even what we're actually talking about. If you actually ask a question, I may or may not be able to answer it off the top of my head, or go look to see what is known. You're talking about a huge field. Right now, it's all happening in evo-devo. Huge leaps are being made thanks to genome sequencing. The tree of life is mapped moderately well, although we're still shuffling branches. Molecular genetics has largely confirmed relationships to a high degree of confidence for many well-conserved genes (although there have been a few surprises along the way when comparing molecular trees against the trees derived from fossils and taxonomy). We know rather a lot about how cells work, but not enough to reliably predict the activity of all drugs. We know a fair bit about ecosystems and sustainability (but not enough about how to communicate this to people who set quotas, apparently). I could keep listing stuff I know, and stuff I know other people know, but this is missing the point. I'm trying to understand what you mean about Darwinian models and how complexity poses problems, and you're not helping me understand, you're either being deliberately obtuse, or you think it's something I ought to already know, or you don't actually know and you're smokescreening. Being charitable, I'll assume it's the middle of those, and ask you again to point out a specific example of how a Darwinian model is struggling with complexity. In any system with finite resources, there will be competition. You are correct of course. But you are correct in the way that television network explain their programming -- We only show what people want. Not quite, but I take the point. Trouble is, it's not *all* they want. The fact that you can find competition happening doesn't mean other things aren't going on. No, it doesn't. But in order to discuss it, you have to point out what else may be going on... But calling phenomena emergent may be saying little more than this doesn't come about by any mechanism we can understand other than the way the universe operates. It's defined well enough as complex-appearing behaviours or attributes which arise from a few simple rules or characteristics. But that explains EVERYTHING, so it is trivial. It's simply a definition of emergence, as opposed to simple causes - simple results (dropping something, say), complex start - simple results (bushfire maybe, or collapsing debris clouds), or complex cause - complex result (epidemiology, sociology). How it works requires a different field of study for whatever you're talking about.
