Steven Willing writes:
Late in life, atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell received this challenge: if, after death, he found himself face to face with God, what would he say? Russell replied, “I probably would ask, ‘Sir, why did you not give me better evidence?’”¹
Theists contend that though evidence for God is both present and sufficient, bias can fog even brilliant minds like Russell’s. It’s possible that bias could explain Russell’s atheism, but is the accusation of bias merely an ad hominem counter argument? We often assume that human beliefs arise from the application of reason to facts and experience; that we are, in effect, Homo rationalis (rational man). If Russell were objectively rational after considering all the evidence, then his defense is valid. His unbelief would signify failure on God’s part.
Homo rationalis is widely embraced and resonates with our self-perception. We always think our own beliefs are based on facts, reason, and experience.
Social scientists in the 1970s broadly accepted two ideas about human nature. First, people are generally rational, and their thinking is normally sound. Second, emotions such as fear, affection, and hatred explain most of the occasions on which people depart from rationality.²
However, the Christian Scriptures reject the doctrine of Homo rationalis, instead predicting that people would refuse to believe in the face of overwhelming evidence. In a parable recorded in Luke 16, Jesus says, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” And in Romans 1:21, Paul writes, “Because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
In recent decades, researchers from a range of disciplines have investigated the nature of human belief. The results of this research enable us to test which is more correct, Homo rationalis or the biblical perspective.
Finding #1: Relying on Heuristics
Humans routinely sift through mountains of information to make even simple decisions. Ideally, a person one would take accurate, complete data and apply reason to reach a logical and correct conclusion. Reality is not so cooperative; we often lack both time and desire for exhaustive analysis, even if perfect information were available. Instead, we make the best possible decisions based on imperfect, incomplete data.
Heuristics are those mental shortcuts people use for deciding as efficiently as possible given the information on hand. We all use them, several times a day. Heuristics are quite helpful, actually. If you encounter a shadowy figure in a dark alley with something shaped like a gun in his hand, the “representativeness” heuristic would recommend avoidance. Logic would be useless until you determined beyond all doubt that (1) yes, it was a gun, and (2) the bearer had malicious intent—which could be too late.
Unfortunately, heuristics are often wrong and used as a substitute for thoughtful reflection. In his book Thinking Fast and Slow, renowned psychologist Daniel Kahneman offers a comprehensive portrayal of how our minds work and how an expanding catalog of cognitive biases and faulty heuristics routinely and predictably lead us astray. Heuristics are automatic, quick, and effortless. Kahneman labels this “System 1” thinking. Thoughtful reflection (“System 2” thinking) yields better decisions at the cost of time and effort. What Kahneman and his collaborators found was that our minds are naturally lazy so we rely on System 1 as much as possible: “System 1 is gullible and biased to believe, System 2 is in charge of doubting and unbelieving, but System 2 is sometimes busy, and often lazy.”³
Cognitive biases are tendencies deeply embedded in our subconscious that lead us to err in predictable ways. Almost two hundred have been described in the literature. Many serve to enhance our own self-image or minimize emotional tension. For example, confirmation bias is the tendency to assign greater significance to evidence that supports our preexisting opinion. Heuristics and biases are closely intertwined. One way to understand the connection is that heuristics represent a shortcut to decision making, but are neutral regarding outcome. Biases push those decisions in certain (somewhat) predictable directions. Having invested a lifetime researching heuristics and biases, Kahneman concluded that “the human mind is not bound to reality.”4
Finding #2: Emotional Influences
It would be a sorry state of affairs if we regarded tragedy and suffering with cold indifference. But to what extent do emotions determine our beliefs? Is it merely an occasional exception or do emotions undermine the validity of Homo rationalis? In recent decades, a clear picture has emerged. It began with the observation that patients with specific brain injuries lost all capacity for emotion. The surprising consequence, though, was that such patients also lost the ability to make decisions. They could analyze a problem all day long without ever forming a conclusion. Dr. Antoine Bechara summarized the outcome of this research in 2004: 5
The studies of decision-making in neurological patients who can no longer process emotional information normally suggest that people make judgments not only by evaluating the consequences and their probability of occurring, but also and even sometimes primarily at a gut or emotional level. (emphasis added)
Now, this is far from saying that every decision is purely or primarily emotional nor that emotions inevitably lead to flawed conclusions. But when it comes to objective analysis or honest truth-seeking, emotions may not merely impede our progress; they can propel us right off the cliff. Consider the emotional fervor over certain political, social, religious, and even scientific issues. It is easy to believe the issues inflame our passion; more often it is our passions that inflame the issue. Despite the evidence, few will admit to thinking emotionally rather than logically. Most likely we don’t even know we’re doing it.
In 2015, Jennifer Lerner of Harvard University reviewed 35 years of research on the role of emotions in judgment and decision making.6
The research reveals that emotions constitute potent, pervasive, predictable, sometimes harmful and sometimes beneficial drivers of decision making. Across different domains, important regularities appear in the mechanisms through which emotions influence judgments and choices.
Finding #3: Social influences
If Homo rationalis existed, then we could completely trust expert opinions. But there are two obvious problems. First, experts often disagree. Second, recent history shows that experts sometimes fail spectacularly. The bandwagon effect inclines people to conform their opinions to the perceived majority position. This may occur either to enhance one’s own conformity and social acceptance, or because one sincerely (perhaps naively) trusts the wisdom of the majority.
When formulating an opinion on a complex subject, rarely do people rely on their own analysis. For example, on initial consideration, Professor B may consider Professor A’s opinion. The opinion of Professor A will be treated as additional data, sometimes prompting Professor B to reach the opposite conclusion from what he might have reached independently. Professor C then comes along and, rather than seeing disagreement between Professors A and B, she sees unanimity. If she trusts her colleagues, the inclination toward agreement becomes ever greater. This is the mechanism by which information cascades develop. In an information cascade, the early deciders have a disproportionate impact over equally qualified experts who arrive later. When a cascade has occurred, the majority viewpoint of 100 experts may be completely opposite to the opinion of the same 100 experts analyzing the data independently, blinded to the opinions of their colleagues.
Finding #4: Intelligence and Religiosity
There is no evidence that more intelligent or better educated individuals transcend their own emotions and biases or are less susceptible to peer pressure. In Kahneman’s collaborative research, it didn’t matter whether the subjects were average high school students or Ivy League undergrads. Highly intelligent and educated people are more confident,7 making them less likely to doubt their opinions or change their minds. Rather than pursuing truth wherever it may be found, smarter people channel their energy toward arguing and reinforcing their preexisting opinions.8
Belief Formation Research Supports Scripture
While Bertrand Russell, and many others, may attribute unbelief to lack of evidence, the Bible declares that belief is a choice. Research on human decision making has demonstrated that we are heavily influenced by nonrational factors that can lead to faulty decisions and incorrect belief (or unbelief). It seems the Bible’s view is well supported. To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn, the dividing line between fact and fancy cuts through the mind of every person, believer and skeptic alike.
Reasons.org
The conclusions of this article indicate the importance of continuing to strive to evaluate the available evidence rationally and objectively.
“the Bible declares that belief is a choice.”
I think some people like to deny they make choices to maintain or change or discard beliefs. They can then try to deny responsibility for stuff they think and do. It’s really a selfish and immature illusion to cling to for some kind of emotional habit.
Andrew
I think I’m confused here. It seems as if the argument is that the psychology and neuroscience of reasoning and decision-making shows that we’re not innately good at epistemology, and that supports a Scriptural view about the nature of faith. I’m having a hard time seeing how those two are supposed to be connected.
PM1 at 2,
Do you believe for a reason? Ask yourself, why do I believe?
@3
What you mean by “believe”? I have reasons for my belief that my wife loves me, reasons for my belief that my car needs to be taken to the shop, etc. I assume that’s not what you mean by “believe”, right?
PM1 at 4,
You read the article above, right? What are your thoughts?
@5
I expressed my thoughts in my comment (2) above. It seems as if the article is taking some research in the psychology of reasoning and decision-making, pointing that that we’re not innately good at epistemology, and then concluding that this somehow supports a Biblical view of human nature.
If I’m reading it right, the author is saying that from the fact that there are lots of non-rational factors that affect judgment and decision-making, it follows that belief in God is a choice. (The technical term here is doxastic voluntarism.)
I just don’t see how the role of various cognitive heuristics and emotional biases to decision-making are supposed to support doxastic voluntarism. To me it looks like one big non sequitur. That’s why I’m asking for clarification.
Descartes’ formulation should have, to be empirically consistent, gone “I think therefore I thought.”
I think. The rest is just thoughts.
PM1, the issue is, that our biases and emotive reactions plus our bounded rationality are often self-serving. If it were merely that we were poor at epistemology, our thought and beliefs would be all over the map, but what is there is a systematic bias or cluster of biases. In short, we tend to self-servingly fail duty to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence etc, even while our reactions to others shows, consistently, that we expect them to fulfill same (especially where such would benefit us) . . . save when we have reached despair. Maybe, we could call this the [short-sighted?] selfishness warping effect thesis? That sort of debased mindset sounds suspiciously like what the Bible terms sin or folly or in extreme cases the reprobate mind, contrasted with godly wisdom. Thoughts? KF
Seversky at 8,
You should write a book. Random Thoughts by Seversky.
Or you could collect some of your more incendiary posts here and release Rants and Raves by Seversky.
CD, I think we have a game of galloping tenses there, which is interesting. I read Descartes as being in the act of deep, self induced existential doubt. However, even as he doubts he is in another mind, recognising that the very act of doubting is an expression of a going concern mind in action. But that is not non-being, non-existence, it is something and something recognisably oneself. So, the race sees this recognition pulling away and winning the inner conflict. Even to doubt like this, I must be and so I am. KF
Sev, kindly see the just now. KF
@9
Those seem like importantly different cases to me.
The first kind of case concerns our epistemic deficiencies: the kinds of case where we tend to ignore discomfirming evidence or commit a certain widespread informal fallacy (the sunk-cost fallacy, for example). There’s some research in the psychology of reasoning which indicates that reasoning is a fundamentally social activity: we’re just not great at being solitary reasoners, though of course it is possible to become better at reasoning by internalizing the strategies that have been collectively developed.
The second kind of case concerns our ethical deficiencies: our tendency to put our needs, interests, and desires ahead of those of others, and even a willingness to use others as mere means for our ends. I guess I think of that as a failure of love (agape) more than a failure of reason.
But, though distinct, it’s not hard to see how they might be connected.
So here’s one way of seeing a connection: reasoning as a social practice, reasoning in concert with others, requires that we make our beliefs available to the criticism of others, just as we criticize them.
This will require acknowledging other people as having an epistemic authority equal to our own, such that they can be acknowledged as possible sources of criticism and correction.
And that in turn requires according to others a certain baseline level of respect — one will ignore the criticisms one receives from people one does not respect.
So in that sense, I can see how the failure to respect others as members of one’s community (a failure of agape?) can lead to failures of reasoning correctly, because the egotism has deprived someone of the possibility of corrective feedback — one ends up stuck, quasi-solipsistically, in one’s own cognitive biases.
The more interesting and difficult problem arises when it comes to group-level biases: if everyone in a community has the same biases, then no one can get corrective feedback from anyone else. In cases like that — cases of ideology, of echo chambers, bubbles, etc. — there are really only two options: (1) figuring out how to actually test one beliefs against how the world really is (science) and (2) learn how to communicate and cooperate with someone from outside one’s own culture, which in turn involves recognizing our shared humanity.
PM1, yes there are several points there, however there are two distinct types of ignorance, individual and collective. Primary, due to lack of reasonable access to relevant well warranted information, to which the due response is to calibrate the new information and on good info, to acknowledge it. Secondary, we may lock out good information we do have adequate access to but which does not match well with our preferences etc. The latter is a whole lot less innocent, but may pretend that warrant is missing or the matter is falsified or dubious etc. Guilty ignorance, see what the White Rose martyrs had to say to Germany in the 1940’s. KF
Pyrrho @6: It seems the author is merely saying that in comparing the “homo rathionalis” assumption and the Bible’s view of man, the latter provides a better model for how humans make decisions. This is probably a false dilemma, but presumably is intended to bolster belief in the Bible.
@ 10
Don’t jab
I’m only saying this because I’ve been on CD’s case for similar remarks and Sev hasn’t posted anything to warrant that. Not to mention I noticed CD’s last couple of comments have not been down right trolls of the op and ID
as to:
In confirming the biblical principle that people are very biased in how they form their beliefs, It is also very interesting to note that the biblical principle that people are “heavily influenced by nonrational factors” in forming their beliefs also played a very large role in Francis Bacon formulating the inductive methodology that lies behind the scientific method.
In short, Francis Bacon was driven to formulate the inductive methodology that lies behind the scientific method as check and balance against man’s fallen, sinful, nature.
As Emily Morales, via Peter Harrison, noted, “It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology,,, Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement”,,,
And here is how Meyer summed it up in his book, “Return of the God Hypothesis”, “on the one hand, that human beings could attain insight into the workings of the natural world, but that, on the other, they were vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and prematurely jumping to conclusions.”
Bacon’s inductive methodology, which he introduced as a check and balance against humanity’s fallen sinful nature, was a radically different form of ‘bottom up’ reasoning that was completely different than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks which had preceded it. A form of ‘top-down’ reasoning in which people “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
This new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, was championed by Francis Bacon over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks in 1620 in his book that was entitled ‘Novum Organum’. Which is translated as ‘New Method’.
In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work ‘Organon’, which was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, ‘Organum’ was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.
And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was specifically and directly championing a entirely new method of ‘bottom-up’ inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning, (where one’s apriori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.
And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon in his inductive methodology, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from the ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominant form of reasoning up to that time.
And, (in what should not be surprising for anyone who has debated Darwinists for any length of time), it turns out that Darwinian evolution itself is not based on Bacon’s Inductive form of reasoning, (which is too say that Darwin’s theory itself is not based on the scientific method), but Darwin’s theory is instead based, in large measure, on the Deductive form of reasoning that Bacon had specifically shunned because of the fallibleness of man’s fallen sinful nature.
As Dr. Richard Nelson noted in his book ‘Darwin, Then and Now’, Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”
In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce any “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.
In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”.
And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.”
Moreover, Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”
And it was not as if Charles Darwin himself was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book.
Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, honestly confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”
In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
And now, over a century and a half later, the situation of ‘the facts won’t fit’ still has not changed for Darwinists. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true (or even, given the extreme rarity of functional proteins, that it is even remotely feasible),
As Dr Richard Nelson further noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”
In fact, in further proving that Darwinism is not based on Bacon’s inductive form of reasoning, (and as anyone who has debated Darwinists for any length of time knows), there is simply no way that one can go about falsifying Darwin’s theory via empirical observation.
As Denis Noble noted in his little confrontation with Darwinists, “If, as the commentator seems to imply, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
And in my years of debating Darwinists, I have compiled a list of many lines of experimental evidence that directly falsify core presuppositions of Darwin’s theory,,,, empirical falsifications that Darwinists simply ignore as if they do not matter
Darwinists simply refuse to ever question the presupposition of methodological naturalism, (and/or atheistic naturalism), that serves as the primary premise of their worldview.
As Richard Lewontin stated, “It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.,,, Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
In fact, in the infamous Dover trial, Darwinists went so far as to claim that the presupposition of methodological naturalism, (i.e. the presupposition of atheistic naturalism), is the quote-unquote ‘ground rule’ for doing science,
Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that science was born out of, and is still based on, essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions
In fact, far from the a-priori assumption of methodological naturalism, (i.e. atheistic naturalism), being the ‘ground rule’ for doing science, presupposing naturalism, (instead of assuming Christian Theism), as being true beforehand drives science itself into catastrophic epistemological failure.
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Moreover, Darwinian evolution, (besides being falsified by many lines of empirical evidence that they simply ignore as being inconsequential)), is simply not needed in as a guiding principle, and/or as a heuristic, in biology. (i.e. it turns out that Darwinian evolution is not even needed in science as a primary presupposition within the ‘top-down’ Deductive form of reasoning that the ancient Greeks used).
Scientifically speaking, Darwinian evolution has simply been a bust. Even Jerry Coyne admitted as much
In fact, in so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle and/or heuristic in science, it had grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, such as with its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, with eugenics, i.e. ‘selective’ abortion, with etc.. etc…
In fact, it is also very interesting to note that Francis Bacon, (who was, again, the father of the scientific method), in his book “Novum Organum”, also stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’.
Specifically Bacon stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”
And in regards to society at large, and 150 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, (as atheistic philosophy masquerading as an empirical science), and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinian ideology, we can now accurately surmise that, Darwinian ideology has been a complete and utter disaster for man that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.
In short, and to repeat, Darwinian evolution, instead of ever producing any ‘good fruit’ for man, (as true empirical sciences normally do), has instead produced nothing but unimaginably horrid consequences for man.
Verse:
@17, 18, 19: “I think, therefore I spam. “
SG: You do realize that you just confirmed the thesis of the OP do you not? 🙂
Ba77,
Your lengthy and informative replies plainly reveal the lack of evidence for Darwinism. However, it has proven useful in promoting certain ideas and these ideas have led to the deaths of millions. During the Second World War, Polish General Anders was being escorted by Russian guards to Lubyanka prison, a former luxury hotel. His Blessed Virgin Mary pin fell to the ground. One guard said to him, “Do you think that *itch is going to help you in here?” He was kept with other ‘special’ prisoners. The various aggressions of the Soviet Union during the 20th Century were motivated by an atheist State committed to ‘exporting the revolution’ and gaining as much land and resources as possible. I watched it fall in the early 1990s.
It may interest you to know that Jesus sent His mother Mary to give this warning at Fatima:
‘Mary continued: “If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world. In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.”
This is a false dichotomy:
The author’s patronizing (and gratuitous) claim that Russell’s “bias” caused foggy thinking, is laughable and pathetic. Russell made a conscious choice, as does any conscientious agnostic or atheist, as to his atheism. He outlines his thinking very carefully and succinctly in “Why I am not a Christian” which was published in 1927. The quip about his encounter with God is classic Russell. Like many great thinkers, Russell had a gift for aphorism, one of his best being:
Indeed, indeed………..
re 20: 🙂
ChuckyD claims, via Bertrand Russel, that “:wiser people” are “full of doubts.”
And by ‘wiser people’ Russell, (and ChuckyD) apparently mean atheists such as themselves. Yet, the one thing that sticks out about atheists, especially Darwinian atheists, is their complete lack of skepticism, and/or doubt, about Darwinian evolution itself.
As Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, authors of “What Darwin Got Wrong”, noted, “Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin’s account of evolution is hardly considered. … The methodological skepticism that characterizes most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.”
And as Jonathan Wells pointed out, Darwinian evolution is assumed to be fact despite all the evidence that comes forward to the contrary.
ChuckyD, as should be needless to say, this IS NOT atheists being “full of doubts” about their worldview. It is the complete opposite. It is atheists holding onto their worldview no matter what the empirical evidence says to the contrary. And as should also be needless to say, this complete lack of ‘doubt’ on their part towards Darwinian evolution, IS NOT science.
In short, the complete lack of ‘doubt’ that atheists display towards Darwinian evolution is confirmation of the thesis that has been succinctly outlined in the OP. Namely people in general, and atheists in particular, “are heavily influenced by nonrational factors that can lead to faulty decisions and incorrect belief”.
Of note,
Ba77,
I’d like to repeat the observation that atheists being wedded to Darwinism has nothing to do with the following:
“In short, the complete lack of ‘doubt’ that atheists display towards Darwinian evolution is confirmation of the thesis that has been so outlined in the OP. Namely people in general, and atheists in particular, “are heavily influenced by nonrational factors that can lead to faulty decisions and incorrect belief”.’
This desire, by the usual suspects here, to promote Darwinism is part of a commitment to the Pro-Darwin Advertising Program here. Much like Communists in the United States promoted their ideas in the past. In the end, both Darwinism and Communism, were interested in only one goal: converts who would in turn repeat the same things. Both Darwinism and Communism were good things. History has shown that to not be the case. I don’t think the facts are lost on them.
SG, you have made grave accusations, answered with a challenge to you here https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/what-must-we-do-when-the-foundations-are-being-destroyed/#comment-768554 I still await your response, on pain of showing yourself an irresponsible false accuser. KF
@14
I like the distinction between innocent ignorance (due to lack of access to relevant information) and culpable ignorance (due to refusal to consider and evaluate relevant information to which one does have access). But I would say that both of those can take individual and collective forms.
One distinction I like is between epistemic bubbles and echo chambers. Epistemic bubbles are social groups in which conflicting beliefs and ideas are simply not present to members of that group. Echo chambers are social groups in which conflicting beliefs and ideas are actively excluded, usually (but not always) by calling into question the character or motives of the sources of those conflicting ideas.
For example, the Amish people of Pennsylvania are an epistemic bubble. They are aware of ‘the outside world’ with its gadgets and distractions, and they will adopt technology when, after much deliberation, they agreed that it is consistent with their values. By contrast, a cult is an echo chamber: going outside of the cult for information is actively discouraged by sanctions, withholding affection, and sometimes punishments.
@18
It is true that Darwin’s method in Origin of Species is not inductive, and you’re right to point out that he was painfully aware of that fact, and that is why he was anxious that perhaps his theory was not genuinely scientific by the accepted standards of his time.
However, Darwin’s method was not deduction from first principles as Aristotelian science (if we can call it that!) was. Aristotle’s general method (in Physics and De Anima, for example) is to contrast what others have said with his own observations, consider what is “in agreement with reason”, and come up with a view that makes the most sense. (For example, he argues that the world must have always existed, since if did not, then there must have been a time before time began, and that is absurd.)
Darwin’s method is hypothecio-deductive: he advances a specific hypothesis, infers what must be the case if that hypothesis were correct, and shows that what can be observed in the world is consistent with the deductive implications of that hypothesis.
Specifically, the Darwinian hypothesis is this (paraphrasing):
Darwin then draws out the implications of this hypothesis for embryology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy, and so on. His goal in doing so is to demonstrate consilience: a hypothesis that, if true, unifies a great deal of disparate lines of evidence that otherwise wouldn’t make sense.
It should also be pointed out that the hypothetico-deductive method describes what scientists do far better than Baconian induction. Not only biology but chemistry, physics (including quantum mechanics), astronomy, and to a lesser extent the social sciences all make use of the same general hypothetico-deductive method that Darwin used. His method was neither Baconian induction nor Aristotelian deduction but the method that is today widely recognized as a centerpiece of scientific reasoning.
PM1, yes, that is why I spoke to the individual and the collective; there can even be a guilty culture or civilisation. You are also pointing to the groupthink problem and onward to cultic — or by free extension ideological — brainwashing and polarisation. Having dealt with cases, I can testify that “brainwashing” (a bad translation and poor term, but it’s what we have) is all too real and results when one is isolated, disoriented and immersed in a manipulative environment; I allude to the unfreezing, changing, refreezing scheme here. There are some things we cannot not know, there are others we have a duty to acknowledge, there are first duties of reason that are too often ducked, there is a right to innocent reputation and a correlative duty of basic respect. KF
Well PMI, none of what you say takes away from the fact that Darwinists stubbornly fail to ever take empirical falsification into account.
Moreover, to get a bit more specific in exactly what type of reasoning that Darwin used, Stephen Meyer, (who has a PHD in the philosophy and history of science from Cambridge, Newton’s alma mater), points out that Darwin, (since Darwin was, first and foremost, dealing with historical science, and not real-time empirical science), used ‘”the method of multiple competing hypothesis” and/or ‘inference to the best explanation’, (which is part and parcel to Bacon’s inductive methodology), as his method of reasoning. Moreover as Dr. Meyer further pointed out, ID uses the same exact method of reasoning that Darwin used and, (via the empirical evidence that we now hove in hand 160 years hence Darwin), comes to a far more robust conclusion, i.e. a far better ‘inference to best explanation’, for Intelligent Design creating life, than Darwinists can infer for unguided material processes creating life.
PM1, on scientific reasoning, I tend to go with the modern sense that inductive arguments are those that support conclusions rather than deductively entailing them. Therefore I see abduction as in effect a major province of inductive reasoning, particularly inference to the best [current] explanation. In that context, on comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balance of explanatory power, we examine competing explanations and their implications towards best so far status. Thus, accepting that we cannot simply reverse an implication, affirming the consequent, but recognising that empirical reliability, predictive power, coherence and elegance of explanation count as powerful support. Such, even as we must be humbled by the pessimistic induction. Further to this, that is a context for my accepting that common day to day, managerial and scientific knowledge are a weak sense: warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief, obviously open to growth and correction. Credibly true marks a key difference from a model which is known to be a simplification thus strictly false though reliable — models of electronic circuitry are a key case I have in mind here. KF
PS, the well founded empirical reliability of theories such as Newtonian dynamics in their range of validity is itself an observable that is morally certain, stronger than the theory itself.
PMI claimed that “embryology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy” provides “consilience” for Darwin’s theory.
I beg to differ.
And in case PMI tries to claim, “Well. DNA provides evidence for Darwin’s theory”, I’ll throw this in,
The fraud perpetrated by the publication of Haeckel’s embryos in 1868 continued until 1997. This supports the idea that ‘evolution’ was used as a strong counter to the involvement of God in Creation and required the use of false evidence to support it.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo18785800.html
Ponder, is the issue want of evidence and reason, or our tendency to hyperskepticism and to reject what fails to line up with our preferred, but crooked, yardsticks?
@35
I tend to think that there’s a pervasive epistemic posture in our polarized and polarizing political culture, which I like to call “dogmatic skepticism”. Dogmatic skepticism consists in both mechanically and unreflectingly posing skeptical challenges to “the other side”, ignoring all responses that would address the challenge if it were offered in good faith, while at the same time refusing to acknowledge any challenges to one’s own entrenched position, and mechanically repeating one’s own preferred talking points, regardless of challenges.
It’s an almost Brechtian parody of dialogue.
And I think one can see it in almost every issue that comes up for discussion: evolution, climate change, fraud in the 2020 presidential election, the successes and failures of one’s preferred political party, policies, and candidates. It’s the epistemic posture of a society that is so deeply divided that there’s increasingly less sense of a shared reality.
It’s why liberals and conservatives increasingly see “the other side” not as fellow citizens with whom there’s reasonable disagree but as beyond the scope of rationality, as out of touch with reality, and in the most extreme cases, as existential threats.
As I see it, either there’s the possibility of reasoned dialogue between people who adhere to really different world-views, or there isn’t. If there isn’t, then we might as well go back to burning each other at the stake and do that for a few hundred years, since apparently we forgot the lessons of why that didn’t work out the first time.
PM1 at 36,
Why have Ultra-Orthodox religions when you have politics? You bring up nothing new.
The following applies to all points mentioned:
“… beyond the scope of rationality, as out of touch with reality, and in the most extreme cases, as existential threats.”
Threats to “science.”
Threats to “my country.”
And what drives this today? A little history:
1965 Hippies begin publishing “underground newspapers” that are outside of the so-called “mainstrem press.” Why? To create confusion. To expose people to Marxist-Communist-Anarchist-Atheist ideas. To try to convince them that these ideas are somehow valid. They weren’t.
1967 Hippies start showing up in our neighborhoods. They try to convince us to live with and have sex with our girlfriends without benefit of marriage, and to use illegal drugs. Most of us reject this.
Today. The descendants of these people are using (non) social media to do the exact same thing. That is why I refuse to use the following:
Snipchat
Tweeter
Instantgram
TakTik
and others.
These new distractions try to convince the foolish and the naive and too trusting that they are somehow legitimate. They aren’t.
A new development on cable TV is the “commentator.” These all appear to be actors selected for their looks, accent and mode of dress. All to convince people who know better that they are “one of us.” They aren’t.
PM1, that is why we need to go back to self evident first truths, to warrant for the core and perhaps most of all to what we could call Ciceronian first duties of responsible reason (and first, built in law), as are outlined in the introduction to De Legibus:
It is in that context that maybe a critical mass can be built to turn back from the current, manifest voyage of civilisation level folly. Some lessons from history might help, some worldviews analysis, some waking up to the truly absurd. If for instance, the Reichstag fire incident and lessons on how a fledgling democratic republic fell to lawless ideological oligarchy could be drawn, that would help, as would deeper echoes from Ac 27 on how bought and paid for technical opinion and money led to a disastrous voyage. From there a step to the Peloponnessian war and the Sicilian expedition might wake a few up. KF
@37
I don’t know if perhaps you misunderstood or just wanted to ignore my point. But, to reiterate: I think it is incredibly foolish and dangerous for anyone to believe that the people who disagree with them are existential threats. I think that attitude is going to take us back to the wars of religion that choked Europe in blood and fire. It took us hundreds of years to get to the point where could accept that our fellow citizens, friends, and neighbors could have really different worldviews and yet we can all get along. Do we really want to abandon that hard-won legacy?
P.S.: I love that you misspelled every social media site!
PM1, what do you think marxism — including in neo forms — is about but the idolatry of political messianism and associated demonisation of the targetted other, who will then be subjected to he hit back first if he tries to defend himself? The past 100+ years, for cause, have been the bloodiest, all time. KF
PS, the variants may have been deliberate, for example fakebook.
@38
Right. And I would like to underscore that these are duties are worldview-neutral. We have epistemic obligations to other persons, regardless of how our preferred worldview explains the origins of these obligations. A Christian and an atheist would not agree on how to explain the origin of these epistemic obligations, but they can agree that we all have them.
PM1 at 39,
Do you get your version of reality from The Media or reality? I talk about things with actual people. I spend very little time on various “social media” sites.
You need to remember, both sides can’t be right. And a “divided nation” is getting a lot of airplay in The Media.
Who or what influences you?
Your attempt at an apocalyptic reality has no basis in fact. As in, let’s go back to burning each other at the stake. That’s not rational.
In the real world, most people go to work, come home, spend time with family and friends, and live among actual real people.
“wars of religion”? Seriously?
I want to get along with everybody. I really do. At the same time, I’m not going to be pulled into a fake, media created non-reality that they want me to engage with. My goal has been to treat people, including strangers, well. The deficiency of the internet is that everyone sits in a black room and we can only communicate by keyboard. I prefer interacting with actual people.
@40
If I were to discuss this issue at all on this site, I would insist on beginning with a distinction between what Marx actually said and the many actions committed in the name of “Marxism.” If we’re not going to talk about what Marx actually claims in his writings, then I’m not interested in talking about Marxism.
PM1, they are self evident, branch on which we all sit duties. That is for example seen from how objectors cannot but appeal to them in their objections. However, that did not stop objectors, as the root of the objections was anything but a matter of logic. That’s because, such duties are NOT worldview neutral, they require a reality root and structure in which responsible rational freedom is possible, and on which duty, goodness, the right etc find grounding. With the riot of the mutinous academics of recent generations, that has been lost and there has been a fundamental polarisation that sadly fits Plato’s parable all too well. We really need a reformation. KF
PM1, marxism and its neo-forms have some roots back to Marx but are also cultural forces we have to deal with on their own weight. KF
@44
That’s where I would disagree. As far as I can tell, if an atheist had reasons from within her own worldview for why she is willing to acknowledge and uphold her epistemic duties, nothing more could be expected of her.
@45
They have certainly taken on a life of their own.
PM1, there has been quite the needless debate here at UD on this ground, and it was clear that it was the agenda not the logic. Which, sadly, obtains for too many issues of civilisational significance. That is fact in the record. However, kindly provide for me a solution to the sort of dilemma that, say, Provine et al put up on rational responsible freedom under evolutionary materialistic scientism. KF
PS, here is a clip, from Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Address at U Tenn:
@47
Needless to say, I think Provine was quite mistaken as to the implications of evolutionary theory.
Be wary PM1, KF’s “quote” of Provine is stuffed with KF nonsense in square brackets. The link is also broken.
KF does love him some Provine. What KF can’t accept is that there are lots of other metaphysical ways to understand the world, including evolution and the five issues Provine mentions, and that Provine is not the definitive spokesperson for anything or for any group of people.
I also note that on the key issue, KF truncates what Provine wrote: it would be nice to see more but, as AF points out, the link to the speech is broken, which prevents us from seeing more of what Provine said.
Provine is quoted as saying “I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices, “ which is the same thing a number of us said in a long thread on free will a while back. That position can be defended from a number of metaphysical viewpoints, not just Provine’s.
AF,
your now usual, uncivil projections appear.
Wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070829083051/http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/Archives/1998ProvineAbstract.htm
It is quite clear that the citation is accurate, does not twist the meaning and it is highly fair comment to note as I identified already. For cause, on track record, I no longer expect serious commentary from you, let this stand as an exposure of your attitude.
Now, I comment on snippets:
>>”Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” (Abstract) Dr. William Provine Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration University of Tennessee, Knoxville Feb. 12, 1998>>
1: Context and its significance are as already noted.
>>Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.>>
2: The issues are as noted. He implies fundamental atheism, materialism, ethical nihilism, metaphysical/existential nihilism and denial of freedom, precisely as advertised.
3: Your attempts to taint my earlier quote are shown to be out of order and without foundation, they seem to be an attempt to push away concerns you have no serious substantial answer to.
4: Notice, the lack of responsible, rational freedom undermines credibility of mind to even think his own thoughts.
>>Free Will>>
5: How horrible, I left out a section title, horrible distortion! NOT.
>>The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication.>>
6: He admits the disquiet, but of course, this is driven by the intuitive recognition that if we lack responsible rational freedom, this seriously and for cause undermines confidence in our minds, arguments, theorising etc.
7: There are those who try to argue otherwise but they have to deal first with the self referentiality then with the implications highlighted by Reppert and many others:
8: Notice, I used ellipses and notified internal notes, also a clarifying [But], how horrible, quote mining! NOT.
>> I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices.>>
9: With a spot of generosity, include the stochastic, humans are here seen as in effect dynamic stochastic computational substrates, whereby choices are programmed and/or random. That is, “choice” is redefined as not being an aspect of freedom.
10: If Provine’s conclusions are driven by blind mechanical necessity and/or stochastic patterns, i.e. causal rather than rational processes, they are of absolutely no credibility.
>> They have, however, no free will.>>
11: Directly stated.
>>Without free will, moral responsibility seems impossible. But I will argue that moral responsibility is actually based upon the lack of free will.>>
12: Intellectual responsibility also, and no we cannot found responsible rationality on its denial.
>>Free will is a disastrous and mean social myth. Using free will as an excuse, we condone a vicious attitude of revenge toward anyone who does wrong in our society.>>
13: He tries to redefine justice as revenge dressed up. Fail.
14: Without justice as due balance of rights, freedoms and duties, a frame of responsible lawful government collapses. He does not realise it but he is opening the door to lawless ideological oligarchy and its results as we have consistently seen since the French Revolution.
>> Most of the movies in a video store are based upon getting even with some nasty person. This attitude leads to a gross ly expensive and hopeless systems of punishment in America , though much the same attitude can be found in most countries around the world.>>
15: This sets up and knocks over a strawman, ducking the nihilistic implications of undermining justice. Plato rightly warned long since in The Laws Bk X, c 2360 BC:
16: This is what Provine needed to answer instead, along with the course of history since 1789 and especially since 1917 and 1933.
>>Without free will, justification for revenge disappears and rehabilitation is the main job of judicial systems and prisons. We will all live in a better society when the myth of free will is dispelled.>>
17: Not on evidence, and we again see the strawman twisting of justice into revenge.
18: We could go on but the point is clear enough.
KF
PM1, kindly, provide a cogent summary, not that many do not accept the sort of conclusions a Provine or many like him draw, but good reason to reject these as logical consequences of evolutionary materialistic scientism and/or fellow travellers. In particular, on such, how do we become morally governed, that does not end in undermining morality; including justice. KF
VL, I continued the quote, giving wayback machine. You will see it only gets worse. Nor is Provine an isolated case, Plato was already highlighting the problem 2360 years ago. The root is the IS-OUGHT gap, and the second issue is undermining the credibility of reason, knowledge, mind. KF
KF, thanks for linking to the abstract of the speech, but that’s not the speech itself. In the abstract, he says, “But I will argue that moral responsibility is actually based upon the lack of free will”. My guess is that I would disagree with some substantial parts of his argument (I am not a Provine fan, nor have the same metaphysical viewpoint as he does), but it would still be interesting to see what the argument is.
More importantly, Provine wrote, “3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists;”
Your response was to label these “ethical nihilism, metaphysical/existential nihilism.”
For the record, I disagree that what Provine said implies what you said. You and I have discussed this more often than I care to recount, but I thought I’d remind readers of my position here.
Will Provine died from brain cancer in 2015 at the age of 73. His Wikipedia entry mentions his being a determinist and thus rejecting libertarian free will. This is a position Jerry Coyne also holds. I don’t find it convincing myself. Interestingly, Wikipedia tells us
A lesson there for those wishing to polarize any debate.
Your eccentric style maybe isn’t intended to mislead (that is certainly it’s effect). But to avoid confusion, you should keep quotations separate from your own comments. I guess it stems from laziness, copying and pasting stuff you have written previously elsewhere.
Maybe you are in some kind of competition with BA77.
One piece of advice, check your links before posting. I always do. It avoids the embarrassment of having to correct oneself.
AF, There is demonstrably no misquoting or quoting out of context. There is a source link, thanks for pointing out a fairly common problem, but remedy was also common, first link at web archive, searched through the original URL. Next, ellipsis is commonplace and appropriate rather than including secondary or extraneous material. Clarifying words in square brackets is standard. My own comments are there, a compressed form of the clip in parts and comment on points that I subsequently made. None of that is misrepresented as part of the original source. You are making a distractive, often personality laced objection. KF
As I said, your eccentric style leads to a perception of, shall I say, lack of professionalism. It may lead to people scrolling over your comments, as most seem to do with BA77’s comments. Why post at all if your views are not read, not noticed, not taken seriously? Look at the relationship between Provine and Johnson. Maybe just discussing differences in world-view civilly without impugning the integrity of those with whom you disagree might be more effective. We all have to live together on this Earth, after all, no matter some of us live on small islands or deep in rural backwaters.
That’s not what you do. You interpolate criticism. That is not standard and is misleading. It’s a shame Provine died prematurely. I’m sure his defence and clarification of his own position and your criticism of it would have made for an interesting discussion.
VL, yes this is Provine’s abstract, which counts as a valid part of his speech as published online.
The arguments are his, the failures are patent.
He is not being idiosyncratic, he is drawing out fairly serious and fairly widely understood issues of modernism and postmodernism as influenced by evolutionary materialistic scientism and fellow travellers. He seems to be aware of some of Darwin’s stated civilisational intentions, as can be documented from his letters.
Now, I did summarily label his denials as forms of nihilism. That can be readily shown to be a correct assessment. Wikipedia’s confession:
Provine’s views as asserted as if they were scientifically grounded facts, clearly fall in this spectrum. Plato, long before, pointed to much the same consequences. And, Provine’s attempt to relabel justice as little more than revenge, is tellingly indicative of the hazards in play.
Now, you disagree as does PM1, no one denies that. The issue is, Dawkins’ acid that allegedly makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist — though in fact what is self referentially incoherent cannot be true. Is there a logic of argument or rhetoric, a logic of invited or enabled trend/agenda and institutional power in this thinking that points and pushes in that direction. Clearly, yes.
People recoil from it, as Provine admitted as to responsible rational freedom, but it is there.
We can see many attempts to rescue “values” and sound social order, all failed or visibly failing as we see with say the USA. As for the mind and responsible, rational freedom, the issues have been highlighted since Haldane, 1927. Reppert is just drawing out the problem [at book length BTW], there really is a trend to see mind as an epiphenomenon of dynamic-stochastic computation on a wetware substrate, with claimed incremental programming and condition tracing to non-rational sources. Reppert, as was Lewis before him, is correct to point out the sharp difference of identity between blind dynamic-stochastic processes and rational inference on insight and recognised principles of right reason.
Do I need to point to the problem of consciousness — embedded in Reppert’s point — as summarised by say Bloch? As in:
https://web.archive.org/web/20060305010539/http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/ecs.pdf
In short, an acknowledged, real and “unsolved” central problem. Or, perhaps, that’s because it is actually a fatal crack, a point of self defeating self referentiality that therefore points outside the box we are told we must stay in. The suspicion grows as one sees attempts repeatedly fall into the sort of self defeating claim made by Crick:
The problem in this was highlighted by the late Philip Johnson, who aptly replied that the equally late Sir Francis should have therefore been willing to preface his works thusly: “I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” Johnson then acidly commented: “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [Reason in the Balance, 1995.]
Others have sought an emergent mind, but that generally falls into poof word magic.
By now it is a Sci Fi trope how some complex AI falls into becoming self aware and boom we have a mind and character like David Weber’s Dahak and his Athrawes. I am not sure if HAL becomes self aware in 2001. Such are fantasies. And emergentism has simply failed to show a means to transcend the GIGO barrier of computationalism, as the more serious literature will show.
Such emergentism or evolutionary confidence is an unstable point, it either dissolves into computationalism or it explodes into admitting mind by the back door. Typically, unreflectively. This is actually what Provine was trying to overturn.
Then, there are those who try to turn the tables, challenging that some cartesian dualistic mind or soul as ghost in the machine of the body has no basis to influence the material world. So there, you dualists have an even bigger problem.
Nope, not in an information age.
Information is routinely expressed or embedded in matter-energy constructs, is thereby measurable etc, but it stubbornly refuses to be reduced to matter and energy. That is, we see a major phenomenon that points beyond this ghost in the machine challenge. An obvious context is quantum influence given the issue of observer effects etc. That’s pretty messy and hairy in itself but it does help open our thinking. I have suggested that Eng Derek Smith’s two tier interactive controller with an interface shared memory space is a good first point for onward discussion.
Reality, at its root, cannot be material, as, such is inherently contingent, just ponder E = m*c^2 on this. So, we need another order of existence that can have necessary beings. Historically, that has been termed the spiritual realm and candidate no 1 for reality root necessary being and creator of the material world is God. (To be explored later on.)
What of mind and soul?
A serious answer has been, the interface between the two realms.
We face a mystery highlighted in that classical era work that is the most commonly published book:
I cite these not as proof but as outlining that there is a longstanding alternative in our civilisation that still has a message for us. One, worth pondering i/l/o the issue of being and root of reality, where to ponder with any credibility we must have minds that are rationally, responsibly, credibly significantly free to act as Reppert summarised.
KF
AF, did you pause to see that there are two very distinct things I have done, one, use ellipses and clarifying words in brackets to focus a linked or referenced discussion. Second, in a compressed form, comment similar to what I did above by snipping apart Provine line by line and adding more detailed points. I am after all quite intentionally making a critique [where there is no provision for marginalia], in a compressed way, under doctrine of fair comment. Normally, clarifying remarks are as so: [But] and a critical comment is like [–> comment] and if extended will be indented. You are trying to make a distractive mountain out of a mole hill. The substantial matter is in the critique, shown to be connected to the source, and it is clear you have tried to dismiss with contempt on the zero concessions, hyperskeptical principle, and have failed on substance. There is no reasonable doubt that Lehninger et al, leaders in Biochemistry education for nearly 50 years, agree with the consensus that D/RNA has in it coded instructions for stepwise construction of AA chains in protein synthesis. Your attempted dismissal on claimed superior knowledge of biochem failed and exposed you as trying to pose on an authority you demonstrably do not have. You subsequently played the quotation is quote mining accusation, equally failed. Now, you are trying to suggest that an embedded critique is wrong and misleading when it is clearly distinct from what it comments on and is obviously a markup, regrettably we do not have access to different text colour or the like that would give another level of distinction. In short, your argument fails. KF
If Provine’s views on free will and determinism are correct, then can we be held accountable for holding someone else accountable? Or for enjoying revenge-based movies? And if this is a stupid comment on my part, then my defense is that I didn’t have a choice in making it.
I’m not making an argument. I’m just observing that your style of presentation distracts from any argument you may be making. You are welcome to ignore my observation, of course.
F/N: To move the matter forward, here is a clip from MIT Open Courseware, on computationalism and brain neural networks. Remember, taught, graded and put in transcripts as Science:
We see here the fleshing out of the focal issue on neurological basis as suggested core to the hard problem of consciousness.
Weighted sum gates are powerful and chaining allows for very interesting properties but these are fundamentally GIGO limited computation on a dynamic-stochastic substrate. Analogue or digital signal processing does not assign meaning, insight, intentionality, reference, logical inference in accord with sound principles, weighted support, warrant, knowledge.
We have ontological issues on the table here, logic of being, characteristics, distinction and more.
KF
AF, you have been making a series of attacking arguments for months. They fail, one by one. We can notice that on the current case you cannot show misquotation, twisting of meaning by out of context quotation, or even that the consequences and issues I raised were irrelevant or readily and cogently answered. That is pivotal. KF
PS, let’s roll the tape on what you tried to attack as an alleged nonsensical critique:
My pointing to IEP was on target and is a comment clearly marked out from the main summary assertion. You clearly have no ready, cogent answer to my onward point about the self referential incoherence and grand delusion. And, history confirms what manipulators did, listen to 100 million ghosts of victims. And yes there was a decayed link, thanks; replaced from Wayback. As to venue and significance i/l/o the Scopes publicity stunt and trial gone sour, that is invited by the circumstances.
In short, hardly nonsensical [as you tried to dismiss] and I would argue clear enough for someone not measuring with crooked yardsticks and demanding conformity to same.
@64
We need to make a few additional distinctions here.
Firstly, we need to distinguish consciousness from cognition. Consciousness in the sense of awareness, of being sentient, is different from cognition, in the sense of having thoughts or mental contents. (If these weren’t distinct there would be no sense to the idea of “unconscious thoughts”.)
Computational neuroscience does not, generally speaking, try to be a theory of consciousness. It is a theory of cognition: of perception, inference, decision, and action. More specifically, it is a theory of how the brain contributes to perception, inference, decision, and action. The basic idea is that one of the main things that brains do is perform computations. (This is not all that brains do, of course!)
But even if that’s right (and I think the evidence is overwhelming that it is), that doesn’t solve the GIGO problem: a program can, of course, transform meaningless strings into other meaningless strings, as long as it does so in accord with rules. And computational neuroscientists know this perfectly well. So the claim is not that neural computations are sufficient for cognition but only that there are necessary. They do not, by themselves, solve the problem of content. (For a recent attempt at a solution to the problem of content from a neuroscientific perspective, see “Situated Neural Representations” by Piccinini, 2022.)
interestingly, Piccinini thinks that neural computations are neither digital nor analog but sui generis. His main reason is that neural computations consist of rates of spike trains, which are neither as discrete as digital computations nor as continuous as analog computations.
Needless to say, even if something like computational neuroscience were basically right about the role of brains in cognition, it wouldn’t solve the problem of consciousness — not even if one dismisses the hard problem.
Well, I did initially come on this last visit to point out to Upright Biped that his semiotic argument had a few holes in it. He seems to have withdrawn from commenting and, unfortunately, I have continued to post comments as the mood takes me and time permits.
The fact is that “Intelligent Design” has declined into obscurity. It was founded in an attempt to circumvent US laws on church/state separation, at which it has proved singularly unsuccessful. Harrisburg should have been the end of it. But, now the Supreme Court has been stacked with religious reactionaries, the church/state separation laws are being ignored. Another nail in ID’s coffin.
So my current impression is that “Intelligent Design” has failed: failed to achieve the level being
a genuinely scientific approach. I’ve asked several times for some evidence that ID actually has some scientific merit, a genuine alternative to evolutionary theory. The silence is deafening.
KF quotesWikipedia about nihilism. The quote mixes two different meanings of the word nihilism.
1. One meaning, which Provine states, is a philosophical view that rejects “objective truth, knowledge, morality, values, or meaning.” We have discussed, somewhat interminably, what objective might mean here, but I think the meaning here is ontologically objective.
2. The second meaning mentioned is this: “Other prominent positions within nihilism include the rejection of all normative and ethical views (§ Moral nihilism), the rejection of all social and political institutions (§ Political nihilism), the stance that no knowledge can or does exist (§ Epistemological nihilism).”
This is different. Just because one rejects ontologically objective meaning, values, etc does not mean one rejects all ideas about the existence and value of meaning, morals, society, knowledge, etc. All those things can be grounded in human experience without any need to reference ontological objectivity
Your quote says, “The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence or arbitrariness of human principles and social institutions.”
That is definitely not a necessary consequence of rejecting ontological objective meaning et al.
“So my current impression is that “Intelligent Design” has failed:”
AF,
Then why are you obsessed with ID? It appears you spend most of your waking hours here opposing something that’s already dead. Why do you continue wasting everyone’s time?
Andrew
PM1, I would note that in effect a smoothly varying pulse rate signal is actually an analogue signal, here, roughly inputs/outputs to/from a relaxation oscillator, but that is just a note. Digital means discrete state, not level. I point to consciousness as meaning based awareness is involved in volitional, rational inference; freely chosen principles guided inference on intersection of meanings is not to be equated to dynamic-stochastic processing of signals as cause-effect chains, computational signal processing. And, the meaningful content and the programming of neural networks or other styles of computational signal processing have to be adequately explained. KF
VL, it seems to me Provine expresses and credits to Darwin’s legacy, various forms and aspects of nihilism. I should add, evisceration of meaning, responsible rational freedom and knowledge undermine credibility of mind across the board. Despair, death wish, desperate sensualism, impulses to destroy whatever angers one etc flow from it. Nero reminds that a sort of existential numbness leads to desperate thrill seeking, e.g. his reported going around at night as a common robber. KF
@70
I’m no expert — just a random person on the internet — but I’m pretty sure that David Chalmers would say that even zombies can do all that, even though they lack qualia.
KF, I know lots of people who do not believe in ontological objectivity (nihilism in the first sense) that do not at all feel “despair, death wish, desperate sensualism, impulses to destroy whatever angers one” flowing from that. The second is not a necessary correlate of the first.
@53
There’s no way that Plato could have been talking about evolutionary theory, since it didn’t exist in ancient Greece. He does allude to the influence of the ancient Greek atomists (though never mentions them by name, which is kind of interesting in itself), and he does suggest that ancient Greek materialism was a threat to the public good. But his arguments are really hard to decipher, and I won’t want to make too much rest on them.
This whole “is-ought gap” is itself really unclear: like, what is the gap supposed to be, even?
One influential source is Hume, who writes:
This “deduction from others” is the decisive point. His point is that there is no deductively valid argument that contains only descriptive claims in all the premises and a prescriptive claim in the conclusion, nor are the rules of deductive inference sufficient to explain the insertion of a prescriptive claim in the premises arbitrarily.
Hume is, I think, entirely correct about this.
But what follows from this? Not much, I think! For all that Hume is committed to is that there’s a logical fallacy in a certain kind of deductive argument that’s supposed to generate normative conclusions.
Nothing in that argument entails that we cannot, for example, explain the origins of ethics from other, older kinds of primate social behavior.
Now, it’s quite true that even if we had a good explanation of the origins of ethics, that by itself would not allow us to settle any questions about how we ought to behave, or answer questions of ethics. It couldn’t, because of the crucial difference between justification and explanation. No explanation of the origins of morality could function as a criterion of moral goodness or rightness.
PM1, for cause, I am a believer in taking people at their words, in historic context, letting that inductively shape and constrain the broad lines of any synthetic view we form. In the Laws, Bk X, it is quite clear that Plato was targeting rather cynical materialistic sophists and their influences on the young of Athens, likely in the context of the Peloponnesian war, finally lost a generation before he wrote as a relatively old man. He describes them as attributing root causal factors to “fire and water, and earth and air, [that] all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only.” This is not a Darwin-Wallace evolutionary scheme, nor is it scientific, but it is a philosophical frame that is materialistic and unfolding by time, chance and necessity seen as defining all of reality. Where, unfolding is the root meaning of evolution so it is an evolutionary and materialistic view. Somewhere in there of course lurks Alcibiades. He offers no detailed summary of mechanisms of how things “come” from such, but he implies some dynamic, non intelligent process, explicitly locking out art, techne, and he is mainly interested in the onward unfolding into radical relativism, factions and nihilistic will to power; but in countering will make the first cosmological design inference on record. He says these teachers reduce justice and law to in effect social imposition, going on to declare “that the highest right is might” — the nihilist credo. He points to resulting ruthless, lawless and incompetent factions (ghosts of the Sicilian expedition all the way to the final debacle at Aegospotami would doubtless agree). The key point here is, when a world vision has no root level is that can bear the weight of ought, there is an historically demonstrated road open to this sort of lawless domineering and resulting chaos. As for the is-ought gap, I suggest this is one of the absolute core all-time issues of philosophy and is closely related to the issue of the one and the many. I do not agree with key aspects of this short discussion but it is a start. KF
PS, I disagree regarding roots of ethics and law. Here is part of why: