Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [email protected]
>>> "Mike Palij" <[email protected]> 03-Oct-09 8:56:25 AM >>> On Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:11:01 -0600, Michael Smith wrote: > Feeling a bit verbose, a few notes about what Mike P wrote. This was posted after I hit my 3 post limit yesterday, so I had to wait until today to provide a response. I was curious about what kind of responses Prof. Smith's comments would elicit and I remain curious. I had planned on making one of my verbose responses to Prof. Smith's points but I now think that there would be little point is doing so. Via con Dios folks. JC: Like Mike P. I'm skeptical of the consequences of responding, but here's a few thoughts. Mike S: > I doubt whether any psychologist could assess the validity of the > evidence for Ardi, we would simply be trusting the authority of the > people working on it. JC: Might authorities differ in credibility to those committed to science and reason. For example, is a geologist stating that the earth is 4.5 billion years old no more credible / trustworthy / "likely to be correct" than a minister / priest / ... stating that the earth is 6 thousand years old? Is a social psychologist stating that people who are similar to one another are attracted no more credible than a self-proclaimed marriage counsellor on CNN stating that opposites attract? Isn't the critical question the kind of evidence being appealed to by the authority, rather than simply that they are an "authority"? It would seem completely unreasonable to say that we should accept as truth ONLY those things that we can personally validate as true. For one thing, I would never fly again or even drive again if I operated by that rule. Mike S.: > I doubt the "6000 year old universe people" would claim it's a fraud. > Probably, that the dating etc., is mistaken. JC: I don't see a huge difference between these rationalizations, nor that they are mutually exclusive. The second (dating mistaken) might appear more polite, but when thousands of geologists attest to the methods how else could the "mistake" be shared and perpetuated except through some grand conspiracy to advance the secular world view or a complicit educational system bent on the same end? And of course the credibility of the person claiming that the methods are mistaken will depend upon their expertise, returning us to the preceding point. Ultimately, the question is whether the young earth types would EVER accept ANY evidence for the ancient age of the earth (other than perhaps a revelation of some sort from on high). Mike S.: > Shouldn't scientists "work to counter" claims of fraud from any group? > (And I would say just by doing good scientific work.) > Why focus on "religious" grounds for claims of fraudulance? JC: Perhaps it appears to young earth / religious advocates that they are being persecuted (and it certainly helps their public / political case to make such claims), but this is a false claim. First, skeptics do indeed take issue with all sorts of diverse false claims. Simply read any issue of Skeptical Inquirer, or visit any of the skeptic websites. Sadly, there is no shortage of unsubstantiated claims floating around. The Skeptics Dictionary might be a good place to appreciate the broad range of issues examined by skeptics. http://skepdic.com/whatisthesd.html Second, except perhaps in academia, it is the skeptical / questioning worldview that is discriminated against in politics and the wider public (at least in USA). Indeed, a case can be (and has been) made that atheists are the most despised group. See: http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm Take care Jim --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
