Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Apparently, scientists are the only ones exempt from the fact that we evolved to have biases…

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At Mind Matters News: Claim: If science were properly presented, trust would grow!:

The summary concludes with the view that science needs to be presented in the right, targeted learning style…

In the closing lines of this summary, we learn

“As much as we pride ourselves on being logical beings, in reality, we humans are animals with messy minds that are just as governed by our social alliances, emotions, and instincts as our logic. Those of us involved with science, whether as supporters or practitioners, must understand and account for this. – Tessa Koumondoros, “These 4 Factors Can Explain Why So Many People Are Rejecting Science” at ScienceAlert (July 16, 2022) the paper requires a fee or subscription.”

The underlying assumption is that “Those of us involved with science” are somehow exempt from the bias problem — even though they have the same biology as everyone else and biology is supposed to rule!

News, “Claim: If science were properly presented, trust would grow!” at Mind Matters News (July 23, 2022)

Also:

The Royal Society advocated a much sounder approach recently: Quit worrying so much about “misinformation.” That only makes people trust less.

Some tips for people worried about why we don’t “Trust the science!” now:

  • “Misinformation” is often just unwelcome information, not incorrect information. Get used to it.
  • Wuhan is not just a city in China. It stands for something.
  • Don’t depend on the legacy mainstream media to save you. They are very out of touch and less trusted than you.

and

Many people have noticed. Heck, they couldn’t help it.

News, “Claim: If science were properly presented, trust would grow!” at Mind Matters News (July 23, 2022)


Takehome: The ideas examined in these four short essays all assume that scientists are exempt from the bias and self-interest that governs everyone else.

We’re asked to believe that scientists are somehow exempt from the bias problem ingrained in our biology — yet they have the same biology as everyone else…

The paper, which requires a subscription, is “Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?” by Aviva Philipp-Muller, Spike W. S. Lee, and Richard E. Petty, July 12, 2022, PNAS 119 (30) e2120755119
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2120755119

Here are all four parts of the series:

  1. Why many now reject science… do you really want to know? COVID demonstrated — as nothing else could — that the “science” was all over the map and didn’t help people avoid panic. As the panic receded, the government started setting up a disinformation board to target NON-government sources of panic, thus deepening loss of trust.
  2. Researchers: Distrust of science is due to tribal loyalty. In Part 2 of 4, we look at a claim arising from a recent study: We blindly believe those we identify with, ignoring the wisdom of science. There seems to be no recognition that researchers, however fiercely competitive among themselves, also have a tribal loyalty that skews their judgment.
  3. Researchers: If we tell folks more about science, they trust less. Part 3: The researchers argue that doubts about science arise from conflict with beliefs. The many COVID-19 debacles suggest other causes… Generally, the remedy for loss of trust after widespread failures is reform of the system, not reform of its doubters. Post-COVID, scientists should take heed.

and

  1. Claim: If science were properly presented, trust would grow! The ideas examined in these four short essays all assume that scientists are exempt from the bias and self-interest that governs everyone else. We’re asked to believe that scientists are somehow exempt from the bias problem ingrained in our biology — yet they have the same biology as everyone else…
Comments
AF at 78, I got that news from someone living in Hong Kong, Meanwhile, I don't recall the Fox Spirit in D&D.relatd
July 31, 2022
July
07
Jul
31
31
2022
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT
@80 lol no problem I wondered if that would land correctly, but I couldn’t pass up on the sillinessAaronS1978
July 31, 2022
July
07
Jul
31
31
2022
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
I earned 3 experience points for destroying it.
Had to google that. Unlike you, young shaver, I have no experience of experience points or any other aspect of on-line gaming. I'm old, you know.Alan Fox
July 31, 2022
July
07
Jul
31
31
2022
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT
@78 NONSENSE! “Blasphemous nonsense. The Fox Spirit has always been benign, gentle, loving, and above all, completely imaginary.” The Fox Spirit is real! I know, I earned 3 experience points for destroying it.AaronS1978
July 31, 2022
July
07
Jul
31
31
2022
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
The Fox Spirit was responsible for some bad thing happening.
Blasphemous nonsense. The Fox Spirit has always been benign, gentle, loving, and above all, completely imaginary.Alan Fox
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
You must’ve missed my post at the “Goldilocks” OPchuckdarwin
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
And the evasion continues. That speaks sad volumes on disregard for first duties of reason.kairosfocus
July 30, 2022
July
07
Jul
30
30
2022
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
CD, i fin d it interesting that you tried a strawman knockover, then have been silent for a couple of days once I put up the summary of Plantinga's argument. KFkairosfocus
July 28, 2022
July
07
Jul
28
28
2022
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
"If you disagree with me then you have a negative-bias against my position". Proof? "Well, you're arguing against me, aren't you? Clearly you have a negative attitude against my view. All of your arguments are opposing mine! How much more obvious can it get. You've got something against my viewpoint. To be fair and get rid of that bias, you need to be more positive and affirming. Remove the bias and agree with me."Silver Asiatic
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
@70 WHAT!? Catholic answers. What a load I never use such a biased website for religious information. As if I’ve ever used them or read up on Trent Horne……….(apply ample amounts of sarcasm)AaronS1978
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
SA at 71, What? Again, where does this come from? In my study of Chinese mythology, including books obtained from Hong Kong, there was a god/deity for a lot of things. If you live in Hong Kong, and something bad happens, people still say Fox Spirit. The Fox Spirit was responsible for some bad thing happening. Your knowledge of belief systems is incomplete and simplistic.relatd
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
The movement away from monotheism was through bringing material items to replace spiritual. So, the worship of the sun or of trees replaced the worship of God as spiritual Being. Then there was worship of ancestors or fictional creatures as gods.Silver Asiatic
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
Hopefully, the following clarifies: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-all-religions-equalrelatd
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
@65 I get your objection, however that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It’s something we should study under greater scrutiny, but it does offer an explanation for why there are so many different ideas for God. But I was just giving AF an explanation that does answer for his objection. And think about it, Darwinists use the exact same logic for explaining the diversity of species throughout the entire world Just minor a little changes genetically over long periods of timeAaronS1978
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
SA at 67, Where the heck did you get this from? Not true. Any of it. God in Sanskrit? Seriously? Do you know the origin of Sanskrit? I sure hope you aren't reading Wikipedia regarding this. I think it's the only credible example of chimpanzees - or complete idiots - writing something.relatd
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
AaronS
Pretty sure this is answered by the phenomenon of when somebody tells a story and it changes slightly from one person to the next
A good example of this is in the name of God in different cultures. The Latin form "deus" is from an older term in Sanskrit: Div (the root of our word "divine"). From that the Roman god "Jupiter" takes its name. Jupiter is the god of the sky and king of all gods - so the monotheistic God was retained. Jupiter came from Diu pater. Bright father. Or Deus Pater - in the Catholic Creed "deus pater omnipotens" - God almighty father. So, the terminology changed over time - the root belief was retained even until today.Silver Asiatic
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Seversky at a number of places, Cut the crap! OK? You are just this person with a political obsessive-compulsive disorder. And a very wrong belief: GOD is just a MAN! Why won't anyone believe me? Because you're wrong?relatd
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
AS1978 at 64, I sincerely doubt that. We have the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran and the Tripitaka. Even a quick look will reveal some very large differences, not "Well, I though Bob said this... Oh well, I'll just write it down anyway."relatd
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
“OK. The main reason I find people talking about their religious ideas unconvincing is the complete lack of consistency. If there is one true God, why are there so many different stories?“ Pretty sure this is answered by the phenomenon of when somebody tells a story and it changes slightly from one person to the nextAaronS1978
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
SA at 62, The atheist is always looking for a way out. I have spent decades studying global belief systems. It does not matter where they come from but some are indeed myths. To put it another way, they can't all be wrong. If all of the stories were consistent, would the atheist automatically pick religion? I think not. The atheist needs a tangible reason but we are saved by faith through grace, not by constant study of mythology. Many atheists also believe that after death, nothing, so why bother with religion? In our Judeo-Christian Heritage, there is only one God - one true God. VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- 'No one should be afraid that God has allowed there to be different religions in the world, Pope Francis said. "But we should be frightened if we are not doing the work of fraternity, of walking together in life" as brothers and sisters of one human family, he said. As is customary, at his general audience April 3, the first after his March 30-31 trip to Morocco, Pope Francis reviewed his visit. "People might ask themselves, 'Why is it the pope visits Muslims and not just Catholics?'" the pope said. Catholics and Muslims are both "descendants of the same father, Abraham," he said, and the trip was another step on a journey of "dialogue and encounter with (our) Muslim brothers and sisters." The pope said he wanted to follow in the footsteps of two great saints: St. Francis of Assisi, who brought a "message of peace and fraternity" to Sultan al-Malik al-Kami 800 years ago, and St. John Paul II, who visited Morocco in 1985. Pope Francis said people also may wonder why God allows there to be so many different religions in the world. Some theologians say it is part of God's "permissive will," allowing "this reality of many religions. Some emerge from the culture, but they always look toward heaven and God," the pope said. "What God wants is fraternity among us," he said, which is why "we must not be frightened by difference. God has allowed this." But it is right to be worried when people are not working toward a more fraternal world, he added.'relatd
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
AF
OK. The main reason I find people talking about their religious ideas unconvincing is the complete lack of consistency. If there is one true God, why are there so many different stories?
In the historian Wilhelm Schmidt's, The Origin and Growth of Religion, he offers the argument that all of the original religions in the world were monotheistic. He traces stories from indigenous cultures and finds similarity in creation stories (one God creator) and the fall of humanity (original sin brought evil into the world) and divine justice (good is rewarded, evil behavior punished). From there, the religious views and stories began to devolve - mutated, so to speak, but not into more successful outcomes. A panoply of gods and myths came in - nature worship, totemism, idolatry, heroes and legends. So, in this view, polytheism is a degradation of the original monotheistic belief. But even with that Christian, Moslem and Jew all have the same root belief. Hinduism includes an all-powerful God, similar to those. To say then that there are "so many different stories" would mean looking at obscure, localized beliefs that often have no historical depth. So, one simple answer is: People can embellish and invent ideas to build on original revelations by God. This makes it difficult to sort out truth from fiction, but again as in Schmidt - there are core beliefs that are similar in all religions. That's what needs to be understood - the common belief in a transcendent creator, life after death, final moral accounting. Just because there are some differences in interpretation doesn't nullify the similarities.Silver Asiatic
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
PS, we also need to reckon with this, from Dembski:
In his Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius states the following paradox: “If God exists, whence evil? But whence good, if God does not exist?” Boethius contrasts the problem that evil poses for theism with the problem that good poses for atheism. The problem of good does not receive nearly as much attention as the problem evil, but it is the more basic problem. That’s because evil always presupposes a good that has been subverted. All our words for evil make this plain: the New Testament word for sin (Greek hamartia) presupposes a target that’s been missed; deviation presupposes a way (Latin via) from which we’ve departed; injustice presupposes justice; etc. So let’s ask, who’s got the worse problem, the theist or the atheist? Start with the theist. God is the source of all being and purpose. Given God’s existence, what sense does it make to deny God’s goodness? None . . . . The problem of evil still confronts theists, though not as a logical or philosophical problem, but instead as a psychological and existential one [as was addressed above] . . . . The problem of good as it faces the atheist is this: nature, which is nuts-and-bolts reality for the atheist, has no values and thus can offer no grounding for good and evil. As nineteenth century freethinker Robert Green Ingersoll used to say, “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments. There are consequences.” More recently, Richard Dawkins made the same point: “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” ["Prepared Remarks for the Dembski-Hitchens Debate," Uncommon Descent Blog, Nov 22, 2010]
kairosfocus
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
CD, you obviously did not do the courtesy of recognising that Mr Zacharias speaks to existential problems i/l/o his own experience, including a suicide attempt as a teen; and he is a lot better than you want to suggest. Further down, had you bothered, you would have found the summary from Plantinga et al:
Plantinga's free-will defense, in a skeletal form, allows us to effectively address the problem. For, it is claimed that the following set of theistic beliefs embed an unresolvable contradiction: 1. God exists 2. God is omnipotent – all powerful 3. God is omniscient – all-knowing 4. God is omni-benevolent – all-good 5. God created the world 6. The world contains evil To do so, there is an implicit claim that, (2a) if he exists, God is omnipotent and so capable of -- but obviously does not eliminate -- evil. So, at least one of 2 – 5 should be surrendered. But all of these claims are central to the notion of God, so it is held that the problem is actually 1. Therefore, NOT-1: God does not exist. However, it has been pointed out by Plantinga and others that: 2a is not consistent with what theists actually believe: if the elimination of some evil would lead to a worse evil, or prevent the emergence of a greater good, then God might have a good reason to permit some evil in the cosmos. Specifically, what if “many evils result from human free will or from the fact that our universe operates under natural laws or from the fact that humans exist in a setting that fosters soul-making . . . [and that such a world] contains more good than a world that does not” ? In this case, Theists propose that 2a should be revised: 2b: “A good, omnipotent God will eliminate evil as far as he can without either losing a greater good or bringing about a greater evil.” But, once this is done, the alleged contradiction collapses. Further, Alvin Plantinga – through his free will defense -- was able to show that the theistic set is actually consistent. He did this by augmenting the set with a further proposition that is logically possible (as opposed to seeming plausible to one who may be committed to another worldview) and which makes the consistency clear. That proposition, skeletally, is 5a: “God created a world (potentially) containing evil; and has a good reason for doing so.” Propositions 1, 2b, 3, 4, and 5a are plainly consistent, and entail 6. The essence of that defense is: “A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures . . . God can create free creatures, but he can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right. For . . . then they aren’t significantly free after all . . . He could only have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.” [NB: This assumes that moral good reflects the power of choice: if we are merely robots carrying out programs, then we cannot actually love, be truthful, etc.] [From: Clark, Kelley James. Return to Reason. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 69 – 70, citing Plantinga, God, Freedom and Evil, (Eerdmans, 1974), p. 30.] Nor is the possible world known as heaven a good counter-example. For, heaven would exist as a world in which the results of choices made to live by the truth in love across a lifetime have culminated in their eternal reward. This we may see from an argument made by the apostle Paul: Rom 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 78 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. [NIV] Anticipating the onward response that in at least some possible worlds, there are free creatures, all of whom freely do what is right, Plantinga asserts a further possibility: trans-world depravity. That is, in all worlds God could create in which a certain person, say Gordon, exists; then that person would have freely gone wrong at least once. And, what if it is further possible that this holds for every class of created, morally capable being? (Then, there would be no possible worlds in which moral good is possible but in which moral evil would not in fact occur. So the benefit of moral good would entail that the world would contain transworld depraved creatures.) Moreover, Plantinga proposes that there is a possible state of affairs in which God and natural evil can exist. For instance, if all natural evils are the result of the actions of significantly free creatures such as Satan and his minions, then since it is logically possible that God could not have created a world with a greater balance of good over evil if it did not contain such creatures, God and natural evil are compatible. At this point, albeit grudgingly, leading atheologians (Such as Mackie and Williams) concede that the deductive form of the problem of evil stands overturned. Thus, a new question is put on the table. It is: But what if the world seems to contain too much evil, and evil that is apparently pointless, i.e. gratuitous? First, the greater good “absorbs” at least some of the evils. To this, the Christian Theist further responds that there are goods in the world that are left out of the account so far; especially, that the fall of mankind led to the greatest good of all: that God loved the world and gave his Son, setting in motion the programme of redemption as a supreme good that absorbs all evils. That is, it is rational for a Christian to believe there are no un-absorbed evils, even though the a-theologian may beg to differ with the Christian’s beliefs. However, it should be noted that there is an existential or pastoral form of the problem of evil (as we saw above): where the overwhelming force of evil and pain brings us to doubt God. To that, no mere rational argument will suffice; for it is a life-challenge we face, as did Job. And, as a perusal of Job 23:1 – 7, 38:1 – 7, 40:1 – 8, 42:1 – 6, God may be more interested in exposing our underlying motives and calling for willingness to trust him even where we cannot trace him, than in satisfying our queries and rebutting our pained accusations. That is, it is at least possible that God is primarily in the business of soul-making. Where then does the problem of evil stand today? On balance, it is rational to believe that God exists, but obviously there are many deep, even painful questions to which we have no answers. And, those who choose to believe in God will have a radically different evaluation of evil than those who reject him.
Much more can be said, but that is enough for a 101 level outline. KFkairosfocus
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
KF, only in your circumscribed world of apologists. I click on your link and Ravi Zacharias appears.. Ravi Zacharias? You have got to be kidding…….chuckdarwin
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
AS78, we need to keep bringing back to focus. In this case, when scientists abuse their reason and institutional authority, then as the falsities are exposed they lose credibility. That is happening with energy, green agendas, pandemics and more. Indeed some of the anger at ID is because of what it shows. KFkairosfocus
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
Jerry, scientific bias is a part of the evils of our day. That said, it is obvious that too many objectors hope to side track. That they are trying to flog a dead horse just shows how little of substance they have. KF PS, I do note there are good definitions of evil and its derivative nature, privation of the good out of alignment with its due and often manifest end. Reason manifestly seeks truth with good reason to hold it credible. Abuse of reason through hyperskepticism, manipulation, fraud and deception frustrate that end and lead to chaos.kairosfocus
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
@ 51 KF I tried to keep it on topic back at 11 but Sev and his need to say the “Christian God” (aka God) sucks has kept it going At least I posted on 7 a prime example of science and political bias which actually leads to people mistrusting science but no one commented https://phys.org/news/2022-07-anti-abortion-beliefs-sexual-strategies.html?fbclid=IwAR3MVwj-Rt_p35m2TYZ5J9WPY3m6rc8h5N4cuhn5jzC3mT6HwggXtGESUJgAaronS1978
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
CD, nonsense, the logical demonstration is there (a defence not a theodicy so your disbelief or hyperskepticism etc do not break the argument), the theistic set is not inconsistent. That's over and was long since conceded. That you cling to it 50 years later shows that you don't have anything else. KFkairosfocus
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
07:12 AM
7
07
12
AM
PDT
the problem of evil
What has the concept of “evil” to do with the lack of bias of scientists? There have literally been tens of thousands of comments on other threads on this concept that no one can define.jerry
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus/29
Sev and AF, you both know that the problem of evils (sic) was decisively answered through a series of works by Plantinga some fifty years ago. Through, the free will defence, as opposed to theodicy.
Not that this thread has anything to do with bias within the scientific community, but this observation is misleading. We've also been down this road before, but Plantinga's grandiose claims to have "defeated" the problem of evil are a bit premature and overstated. A number of philosophers, including Graham Oppy, A. M. Weisberger and Raymond Bradley reject Plantinga's claims that he has put the problem to bed.chuckdarwin
July 26, 2022
July
07
Jul
26
26
2022
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply