|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ambiguity-uncertainty-vagueness the key to resistance against the idea of evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: It is certainly "softer" data than, say, a blood test analysis, but it is useful nonetheless. I mean, if you reject surveys as scientific evidence, then do you reject the information in the national census?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Holmes writes: Indeed what is constituted as evidence and so information can and will be discarded by people and so we can never really "know" what level of information is actually out there or being discarded by anyone... most especially ourselves. Try to see this as a relative problem. Since we are limited by our senses, an absolute worldview is unattainable for anyone. But when two worldviews are contrasted, and the evidence from both is mutually evaluated, one of the two may need to deny more of the other's evidence than vice versa. The one that has to do more denying could be regarded as the lesser worldview. It all comes down to bookkeeping.
In some cases your opponent does not even see it as rejecting information, just as you don't see it when you do it. But I can see it when they do it, and they can see it when I do it. The art of the game is then to deny as little as possible of your opponent's claims, and to spot as many denials of theirs as you can. May the best worldview win. "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
It is certainly "softer" data than, say, a blood test analysis, but it is useful nonetheless Definition of "soft science": psuedo-science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Why do you reject the theory of evolution?
a. It's just a "theory."b. I don't like being told that my ancestors were dirty, smelly monkeys. c. It conflicts with Genesis. d. It smells of atheism e. I never saw a dog give birth to an otter. f. I have a fear of ambiguity Thank you for your participation in this survey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Funkaloyd Inactive Member |
robinrohan writes: Definition of "soft science": psuedo-science. Ok, it's not the most reliable of data gathering techniques, but what do you suggest? That science ignores thoughts and emotions altogether? Maybe you'd prefer that we left the study of human thoughts to philosophers and theologians? Didn't think so
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Obviously some surveys are not useful, and the results of such surveys are scrutinized on the basis of the validity of the data collection methods, the number of respondents, the number of repeat questions, participant fatigue.
For example, a survey which interviews 10,000 brain cancer patients, has 100% respondents and finds that 53% of them felt happier if they listened to their favourite music during treatment, and this was compared to a finding that feeling happier during treatment can improve healing rates...then we have ourselves a valuable piece of information. I wrote an article that touches on the lengths survey makers go to to ensure accurate results. You might argue that the data is not 'scientific' but it can be statistically significant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
parsomnium writes: Try to see this as a relative problem. Since we are limited by our senses, an absolute worldview is unattainable for anyone. But when two worldviews are contrasted, and the evidence from both is mutually evaluated, one of the two may need to deny more of the other's evidence than vice versa. The one that has to do more denying could be regarded as the lesser worldview. It all comes down to bookkeeping It all comes down to the constraints within which the game is played, I think. If a persons worldview is one whereby "how objectively demonstrable the view is evidenced" is the measure of greater or lesser, then the worldview which is best supported by the objective evidence 'wins'. But the basis for deciding that "how objectively demonstratable the view is evidenced" is the absolute constraint within which the game is played, would have to be established in order to say one particular world view is lesser. Failing that, the best one can say is that it could be regarded as the 'lesser' worldview within the constraints chosen. Seeing as it is relative to something not yet established.
Since we are limited by our senses, an absolute worldview is unattainable for anyone. This is a statement of someone who considers themselves limited to their senses. Not of someone who isn't. Consequently, a venture in to absolute worldview cannot be so simply excluded.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Hi, RAZD. I enjoyed your "through a haze darkly" insights, and I think they are valid. The "information denied" index seems like a variation of Occam's razor...
I would like to offer a related thought. When we debate evolution with creationists, we are debating with those who have already embraced belief-without-reason, i.e., faith. They are a preselected population. Moreover, that embrace often occurs during an intense psychological experience, a sort of meltdown/recrystallization process, where the person despairs of making sense of or coping with life without the intercession of a larger force. Althouth this is not the only path to religious belief, it is the one most frequently followed by the evangelical fundamentalists who most adamantly deny evolution and refuse to address the evidence. What headway can reason and data make against that sort of experiential intensity and investment? "World view" is entirely too dry and abstract to describe the consequences. They have been saved, not just from a bad afterlife, but from a chaotic world of despairing meaninglessness. To attain that state, they have accepted much without evidence or reason; to hold firm against both, when it means continued safe harbor from the end-stage hopelessness they were saved from, is a trivial act compared to the initial investment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Omnivorous writes: they have accepted much without evidence or reason On that note, you could say that the world doesn't have much to do with their view. There goes the game. "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I wrote an article that touches on the lengths survey makers go to to ensure accurate results. don't you mean the lenghts good survey makers go to the ensure accurate results? the number of bad surveys you see is really astounding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Ok, it's not the most reliable of data gathering techniques, but what do you suggest? That science ignores thoughts and emotions altogether? We just want to be clear that there is a difference between real science (hard science) and this stuff that parades as science, like psychology and sociology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
we are debating with those who have already embraced belief-without-reason, i.e., faith Their world view includes supernatural as well as natural. This is what I believe iano was refering to:
iano msg 112 writes: This is a statement of someone who considers themselves limited to their senses. Not of someone who isn't. and rejected by Parasomnium:
Parasomnium msg 114 writes: On that note, you could say that the world doesn't have much to do with their view. While I believe it is possible to stand solidly in the natural world and allow for supernatural connections, things we don't know if we can validate but which we also cannot invalidate.
... occurs during ... a sort of meltdown/recrystallization process ... I think we will see some results from neuroscience and pschology of cognition that will show some of this tendency to be {chemical\brain} induced. The god-helmet is a clue in that direction. We will also see some genetic repairs to disfunctional brains, like parkinsons and alzheimers, in very the near future. What will be of interest to me is that when such cures become more commonplace, whether there will be some side-effects from such cures to cognition in other areas.
seems like a variation of Occam's razor... That was the intent. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
But when two worldviews are contrasted, and the evidence from both is mutually evaluated, one of the two may need to deny more of the other's evidence than vice versa. The one that has to do more denying could be regarded as the lesser worldview. It all comes down to bookkeeping. Oh dear, this is definitely going the wrong way. Occam's razor explicitly chooses the theory with less "evidence", and thus the one which denies more of the evidence. For example, the theist may see lots of evidence that an athiest would simply not count as evidence, and thus the atheist's worldview would be lesser? One might also add that this would not exactly have helped heliocentrism. One of the biggest things heliocentrism denies is our very experience of the world and universe and that's pretty much "evidence". Everything really does go around the earth. Only some good mathematical modeling much later made it look better, simpler. This all sounds good, but it simply isn't a practical or realistic way to be judging anything.
The art of the game is then to deny as little as possible of your opponent's claims, and to spot as many denials of theirs as you can. How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? That magnified by the number of pins on this planet will potentially be standing against you with an opponent who has a different worldview. More elegant theories may actually remove vast quantities of what could potentially be considered evidence to others. I don't believe this is a relative problem, it is a practical one. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
We just want to be clear that there is a difference between real science (hard science) and this stuff that parades as science, like psychology and sociology.
I agree that there is a substantial difference between soft science and hard science. However, I disagree with what I take as Robin's conclusion. There really is some genuine science done by psychologists and by sociologists. At one time, I had the opinion that there was probably some good science in psychology, but none in sociology. With experience, learning more about what is done, I have had to revise my view. There really is some good science being done in sociology. And while I was right that there is some good science being done in psychology, I have come to recognize that there is less of it than I once assumed. To be fair to the social scientists, their subject matter behaves far less predictably than do atoms and molecules. They really do have a harder time of it. Incidently, we are drifting off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
To me, the measure of the validity of the world views is the level of information that has to be denied to maintain it: the higher the level of denial needed the lower the validity. Maybe "utility" instead of "validity" and I could agree. But otherwise, this seems not only totally arbitrary, but totally wrong. I think a person's world view should be judged soley on it's ability to allow them to work with others. Anything beyond that... who cares? Can you give any justification for using "validity" here? Ben P.S. Remember, you're not using "world view" to mean just an understanding of this world, but you're using "world view" to mean the total sum of a person's faith, beliefs, entire mental experience PLUS their view of how the world works. Just thought I should mention it in case somebody reads this without reading your original post.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024