One's Own Theory

Not always but we are not blank slates and more often than not we will approach a subject from some sort of preconceived position that is directly or near directly relevant. So in short - Almost always yes. Purely logically? No. Purely rationally? No. Realistically and bearing in mind human nature? All but inevitably yes. Should we fight this? Perhaps controversially I don't think so. We are not robots. We all have to have a belief basis in something. It is how flexible and open to rationality that this belief basis is that counts I guess. Phew! Huge. Probably. But where beliefs are just wrong confrontation of the truth will trump confirmation bias ultimately. I know this because I have faith Taking part in places like this if nothing else makes you think about what you believe. That can only be a good thing. Even if some still are in denial and use it as a form of unjustifiable confirmation bias. At least they are exposing themselves (and I include myself here) to the alternatives. Good question. And yes sometimes I think we all are. But ultimately the evidential foundations are not there for ID. That cannot be ignored even if we are all tempted to ignore that and just "have a go" for arguments sake sometimes. Another fine question. I think we are. Those with much scientific knowledge definitely. Those of us who are not scientists are arguing the evidence as best we can. Again I would say that the reality is that ID cannot even hold a candle to science in terms of logic, rationality and above all evidence. But unless actively engaged in that evidence some sense of taking things on authority is inevitable. I hope so. My favorite lectures at Uni were from an inspirational and leading QM gravitist of the time who happened to be a Christian. He interspersed his lectures with all sorts of personal thoughts on the nature of reality, the role of consciousness, the point of physics and the like. Never preaching, always making clear what was evidenced or accepted and what was his personal speculation. But riveting stuff for that willingness to expound in this way. I guess what I am saying is that "coloring" lectures in such ways is fine (even desirable) as long as it is done consciously and in such a way as to make the students aware as to where the dividing lines are.But WTF do I know? I am someone who found QM lectures "riveting". If that doesn't tell you I am an irrepressible geek whose views are not to be trusted then I don't know what does Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well I'm honoured. I think......? Well good for you. But as largely anti-religionist as I appear to be I would never claim that this is a purely a problem with religion. Just, perhaps, more obviously where faith is actively promoted as a good thing. Fair point. But it is not unheard of. It is also, arguably at least, more prevalent in science than most other areas of human endevour. Science, at least in theory, holds evidenced "truth" above all else. Including opinion. Indeed it bases it's entire authority on that. So even those determined to prove themselves right attempt to do so based on evidence. And more to the point those that are determined to prove themselves right must convince others with their evidence in the long term. Short term obstinacy is just human nature. In the short term I think you have a point. But longer term denial of evidence is not consistent with scientific endevour. And I think history shows this. Science progresses on that basis.Religious thought is much more obstinate in this regard. Surely? Dude only you genuinely know the personal honesty with which you have determined your results. But even if you are blinded by your own bias science has methods of weeding that out. No? Peer review? Repetition of results? The fact that any scientific paper worth it''s salt considers it's own shortcomings in a way that no other discipline insists upon.If your conclusions are correct you will be verified and deemed as having done good work. If wrong you will be denigrated as a biased scientist whose results are not to be trused. At least in theory... Fair point. Uni studes are also far more critically proficient. Or at least one would hope so. Likewise UK. In fact up until 11 you get essentially one teacher teaching everything. Then in secondary school (11 - 16 or 19 if you want) you get specialist teachers per subject. But only one per subject (unless you get a student teacher - which can be fun)

Very sensible indeed. Whether you believe it or not - Me too. But the same issues are somewhat inevitable even if I don't want to drag you or I into that specific disagreement. Because (I think) they lie at the heart of all that is discussed here at EvC in some ways. Well this is where I disagree.If we follow the empirical evidence and application of logic we should end up with the conclusions of science. Right? Conclusions regarding the age of the Earth, the origin of species etc. etc.To come to the conclusion that an invisible man (or whatever) whooshed everything into existence 10,000 years ago requires some other form of "knowing" that is not derivable from the empirical evidence.With things like creationism or ID or your Mormon example the implict acceptance of empirical evidence as the most reliable means of determining "truth" that we all apply in our everyday lives suddenly goes out the window. Instead it is replaced by something that cannot be justified in the same way. Not philosophically. And not in any practical sense that is demonstrably superior to guessing (surely a minimum criterium for the meaningful use of the term "evidence")I am simply saying that we are all more than happy (if sane) to treat empirical experience of the world as the most reliable indicator of external reality without thinking twice about it in our everyday lives. AND that if we do stop and think about this question in any detail there are very good practical justifications for this approach. Practical reasons that amount to far more than "just knowing" that our empiricaly based epystemology is valid. I don't see how the consistent acceptance of empirical evidence as the most reliable means of drawing conclusions can result in the conclusion that magical invisible beings are doing anything at all. How could it? Well you may possibly be right in terms of the individual knowledge and arguments bought to bear by individuals here. But as a body of knowledge that isn't true (I hope we can agree?)And I would argue that an understanding of that superior methodology and resulting body of knowledge is behind the otherwise unjustifiable laziness of those of us that argue against creationists on this basis (i.e without taking the full evidential context of the question at hand into account as we should do)I agree that this approach isn't justifiable in terms of any individual discussions. But nor is it the same as just saying "I am scientific you are not. Therefore you are wrong" on some sort of meaningless world view basisWhich you seem to be implying?

It's Friday. I'm a bit beered up (again). Don't even get me started.... Well I like to help where I can......OK. I get what you are saying. The problem with creationists in particular is that it does lie behind pretty much everything that they say here. No. Your example (as agreed earlier) was a true example of what you are saying here. I agree with that. But isn't that relatively rare? And hardly enough to base your whole argument here upon? Yes. In the instance you cite. Yes. But generally those who advocate evolution here without having direct bio research knowledge do so (I think) on the basis of advocating empirical understanding as superior to any other form of evidencing physical reality.Yes - We all get caught up in stupid debate nonsense - But ultimately I think it is this that seperates the evos from the creationists. Individual extravagances apart. Fair play. And on that score I think I have agreed with you. I think the "arrogance" of evos comes from an empirical epystemological point of view that is justified even if individual declarations of superior argument are not warranted (or helpful) in specific contexts. Well that is where I continue to disagree to some extent. I still think this is about consistently applying the superiority of empiricism to understanding the physical world. Is that just a "world view"? Maybe so? But is it a rationally justifiable "world view" in the way that creationism is not? I would say - Yes.Individuals and individual debates may not make that clear. But ultimately that is what distinguishes those who advocate a creationist viewpoint with those who advocate an evolutionary argument. Regardless of specific scientific expertise.I am no biologist. It may be that the whole evolutionary paradigm is just an anti-god construct manufactured to fool me and people like me. There could be a vast anti-Christian conspiracy going on. This is a possibility.But to me (albeit lacking bio research expertise of any sort) this seems desperately unlikely given the evidence I have seen and given what I know about science, scientists and (ultimately) the methods of scientific empirical investigation.To accept the creationist conclusions I need not only accept a huge scientific conspiracy/mistake is in play, I need also accept that their form of "knowing" (i.e. biblical, subjective experience of the divine - or whatever).So I disagre when you say that I (or those other non-bio research literate evos amongst us) are just "believing in" or subscribing to a world view in the same way that the creos are.Because I think anyone with even an adequate laymans understanding of science, philosophy of science, logic and knowledge in general can see that some forms of "knowing" are superior to others. Even if we (perhaps unjustifiably) assume that the word of "experts" in such areas is derived from this (wholly philosophically justfified) form of "knowing". A form of "knowing" that we do "believe in". To use your words. That is the differnce.Does that make sense?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I meant to say this to you some time ago. But our recent spat got in the way. I wanted to say that my experience in the What exactly is ID? thread (particularly the posts up and down thread from Message 873) suggested that despite my protestations you might be right about those who deny on principle.But I (obviously) still don't think of myself as one of those idealogue maniacs.