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
Sev, why do you continue to try to taint the design inference as religion not science; especially when there is clear evidence of a priori evolutionary materialistic bias fatally undermining not only origins science but credibility of mind? Could it be, that that is a backhanded way to avoid admitting that the design inference on tested, reliable sign is literally backed by a world of evidence but may point where you desperately wish not to go? Your answer to the decades long discovery that there is string data structure code [so, language] in the cell is ______ ? Similarly, to the recognition that protein synthesis uses said codes in algorithms [so, goal directed process] is ______ ? What evidence of observation do you have, that blind chance and/or mechanical necessity can create FSCO/I beyond 500 - 1,000 bits _______? (Truthful answer, nil, it is all imposed speculation once we saw what was going on in the cell.) KF PS, Nope, all serious work involving logic and warrant towards knowledge is inextricably entangled with philosophical issues, considerations and frames from logic, logic of being, epistemology. It is thus simple nonsense to try to cut science off from its roots, put it on a pedestal even as it begins to wither for want of nourishing support and pretend that it is more successful than the roots that would otherwise support and sustain it. Crooked yardstick thinking, as I am currently highlighting in L&FP 57, scientism fails. So does evolutionary materialism.kairosfocus
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
By the way sev you never answered my question. I’m not exactly certain you answered any of my questions. But I did explained myself, now why do you pretend you can understand what any type of Omniscient being is doing? Try not to answer by simply rephrasing what you stated earlier as question. If it helps I’ll rephrase my question, do you think you are smarter then an omniscient being of any type? Yes or noAaronS1978
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT
Hmmm that was BA77 long :P unlike BA77 mine is not fully proof read lolAaronS1978
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
@Sev “Is the Christian God bound by the same objective moral code as we are? For example, is He forbidden from killing as much as we are? Does he have a moral duty, since He is presumed to have the power, to prevent harm to His allegedly beloved creatures?“ There are a couple ways of answering this first of all, but I am abrasive like sand paper so here I go. God is God, God is subject to nothing. Literally nothing, if God deemed that you and every creature on this earth and everywhere in the known universe were to melt into a horrific pile of flesh, forever alive and yet never capable of death while wracked with perpetual pain, God could do so. God is the creator of all that exists and all that exists owes their existence to God. God owes no one or anything. So God is capable of making the rules, reinforcing the rules, changing his mind and breaking his rules. He made them Now I hope you understand that because that’s just the basic facts of reality we are at God’s mercy at anyone given moment no matter what, whether you believe in God or not. But let’s just say for the sake of this conversation God exists because that’s what we’re trying to discuss correct Now God, Christian or whatever, can do has God pleases, so keep that in mind and being upset about it really means nothing. God created everything good, evil, every creature, every disease, and everything in this universe. God created everything So for all the things you bemoan about reality that god created, all the bad stuff, god has also created the answer to those things and all the good stuff as well. People have a tendency to pick and choose want parts of reality they want to praise or accuse God of, which makes me giggle because both sides do it. Now in your case you blame God for all the deaths and misery in the world, so you have specifically chosen that he is the creator of all that is evil therefore he if exists he’s a horrible bully. That said God didn’t kill any of the people in your example. God didn’t come down and say “and you have the plague, and you have the plague, you’ve all got the plague Hooray for Yahweh”. (Again I emphasize God created disease and God created the means to cure it as well, God created the problem and the answer in the existence God created) Now here’s the deal, God also gave you freedom, and he gave his entire creation freedom, the freedom to exist, including the disease, whether it be good, bad, wonderful, or awful we have that freedom and so does everything else So God didn’t come down and murder millions of people like you accused God of doing. God had nothing to do with it short of it was part of the existence he created. It was a disease living its existence and a series of events that took place that brought that disease to people who are susceptible to it. God didn’t come down and wipe them out instantaneously or slowly torture them to death. None of that took place except for maybe in your head So God, which has no reason to keep us in existence or any other part of creation, not only created us but gave us the freedom, all of us, the freedom to exist. And with that freedom we can make our own choices including denying him. God did give us some basic introduction before leaving earth, and has since then left us alone except for the occasional subtle intervention here and there. And why is there an earth when there’s a heaven, because he is testing us. Which is, if I’m not mistaken, stated in the the Bible multiple times. God gave us freedom and God wants to see what we will do with it. But wait are you about to say “well God wouldn’t need to test us god already knows the outcome, god can do anything and knows everything so God creating us to test us seems silly” At first you might think you found a logically fallacy with God Not really because God’s ability to do everything and anything answers your own issues. God doesn’t have to know the outcome and if God is giving us freedom, to protect that freedom, God will deny himself the knowledge of that outcome and will not directly interfere with the outcome. Logically if God can create the universe, God can easily stop himself from reading the final chapters of this book. Now I’m not saying that God hasn’t intervened before or that God is not capable of killing loads of people if God deemed it necessary. Do you remember Sodom and Gomorrah, God had no issues vaporizing them. Also apparently, it possibly did happen, because there’s scientific evidence that a meteorite flew over the area the cities would have been and exploded. That explosion was strong enough to wipe out a city the same way a nuclear explosion would have. So again we are 100% at God’s mercy if God is the living breathing universe around us. Now I feel I might’ve wasted my time trying to explain these things to you as we are literally arguing the glass is half empty versus the glass is half full. I actually explain these matters much better in person. I am sorry you feel every tragedy is God’s fault because apparently he created it and therefore he can’t exist because the author of creation also created the possibility of tragedy. But there are necessary evils and you need evil to appreciate good, you need determinism to appreciate freedom, there are so many things in this world that you just can’t have one without the other because you need both to know that either exist But the reality of it is, our universe has freedom and instead of being a marinette, can actually have the ability to disagree with how God runs the show versus, God just makes you agree with God. Now you can always believe in super determinism which is effectively God dressed up as determinism but that’s an entirely different conversation. Now I’m gonna share a little something with you and I hope not everybody gets really upset at me when I say this but I actually don’t like the concept of heaven. The idea of heaven upsets me because it seems to me that once someone makes it to heaven all they do is sit there and praise God’s glory That worries me because I really like my freedom and as much as I want to be with the almighty, I still want my freedom to explore and be me. I don’t think heaven would be very enjoyable if all I do is praise God for the rest of existence (not that God doesn’t deserve it) It’s an honest concern of mine and that’s not to say I would actually go to heaven, I don’t think myself good enough to have that privilege, but I really do enjoy this little blue marble with everybody on itAaronS1978
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
@sev
Yes, we all die eventually. If your God exists, try asking Him why He did that to us.
Based on your impeccable spelling, grammar, and vocabulary, it seems you are of above average intelligence. Yet your theological education seems to have halted at the age of four, and you have steadfastly resisted learning anything since. We don't have to ask why death entered the world. It is stated quite clearly, and is one of the elementary tenets of Christianity: "through one man [that is, Adam] sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned". Romans 5:12. How is it that you can keep commenting here year after year without learning even the most rudimentary basics of the faith you are criticizing?Just Another Commenter
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
@sev, am I misunderstanding you, or are you actually using 1 John 5:14 to support the idea of God as a "wish-granting machine"? In fact, this verse says the opposite. The key phrase is "according to his will". I will leave the implications of that as an exercise for you.Just Another Commenter
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic/12
That’s not a scientific statement. The fact is, we can’t do science outside of a philosophical structure. Saying that science is “better than” that which it depends upon doesn’t make sense. It’s not a competition.
It's the observation that science has proven to be much more fruitful then any other "way of knowing". For example when it comes to the understanding of disease or the ability to send a space probe to rendezvous with a planet, for example, where it will be a decade in the future or predict the existence of and then detect a sub-atomic particle, billions of which are passing through every square inch of our bodies every second completely unbeknownst to us. Yes, science operates within philosophical, social, financial and political contexts which inevitably influence what research is allowed to be conducted. Scientists are probably more aware of that than the rest of us. And there is competition when religiously-inspired Intelligent Design is pitted directly against the theory of evolution.
So, the alternative to science is a belief in God? Let’s not forget about the thousands of scientists who do believe in God.
No, belief in God is not an alternative to science but there are those in the Christian community who would like science subordinated to their religious beliefs to the extent that they would be at risk of a sort of religious "Lysenkoism" where only science that would be deemed consonant with those beliefs would be approved. In other words, religion would take precedence over science.
Aside from that, you present science as it if is the noble rebellion against God – scientists worked diligently to find cures for disease and, supposedly, God didn’t do anything to help.
No, more like humanity slowly realizing that if they want certain things done they are going to have to do it for themselves. They can't rely on a Creator who may not be there.
How about this? Your life has been saved already millions of times. God prevented your death from countless accidents, viruses, diseases, threats, hostilities that could have happened.
Yes, we're the lucky ones. Shame about the millions of the unlucky. What do we chalk them up to?
But more importantly, science did not save the life of anyone. They’re all dead. And that’s the point you’re missing. If there’s no life after death, then “saving a life” is merely a matter of adding some years. Were those good or bad years? No matter – all of those people died.
Yes, we all die eventually. If your God exists, try asking Him why He did that to us. If He doesn't, if this short life is all we have, doesn't it make sense to stretch it out as long as we can?
A science-alone philosophy is not only self-refuting but it ends with absurd and useless conclusions.
Nobody is suggesting a science-alone philosophy. There are so many questions that science is unable to answer yet neither can it offer the comfort and support in times of crisis that religion can. That said, we would be very foolish to discard it as a tool.
Science has not stopped anyone from dying, ultimately.
No, it hasn't. But, if your God exists, the fact that everyone does die is His will. That is how He has arranged things so He is ultimately responsible for all these deaths. In effect, He kills us all eventually.Seversky
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Relatd/9
This version of God reduces Him to a wish-granting machine. ‘Hey God. I want this. Hey God. I want that.’ And God gives it to you.
Isn't that what He wants?
1 John 5:14 “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:”
Seversky
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
AaronS1978/8
@sev why do you pretend you can understand what any type of Omniscient being is doing?
Is the Christian God bound by the same objective moral code as we are? For example, is He forbidden from killing as much as we are? Does he have a moral duty, since He is presumed to have the power, to prevent harm to His allegedly beloved creatures?
Why do you keep asking for heaven on earth?
If there is a heaven, why bother with Earth at all?
If you are a Star-trek fan you understand why God doesn’t beckon to everyone’s call like a genie.
Yet that is exactly what Christianity implies by its emphasis on prayer. Why bother praying unless you believe that calls for help will be answered?
By the way the discovery of Penicillin kind of fits your example of God giving us the means of handling diseases. *sarcasm needed* I’m also sure that if God provided penicillin back in the days of black death that there would be ZERO repercussions to too it effectiveness today #ARB *cough* *cough* suppose God could just keep fixing every new problem created from fixing the last and we don’t have to do anything but wait for our owner to come feed us
If God created Homo Sapiens then He also created Yersinia Pestis and all the other micro-organisms that make people sick and/or kill them in such large numbers. Now, tell me, why would He do such a thing?
Amazing those people faced such hardship yet were infinitely more grateful and faithful then Sev. Surprisingly during the times of the plague the Jewish population seemed much less effected by the plague. This is attributed by their practices of hygiene and burying the dead quickly, which according to them were instructions handed down to them by God
That's nice but it would have been a lot better if He hadn't created the plague at all.Seversky
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT
Relatd/6
Back to reducing God to just another human being.
No, that's not what I wrote or intended. I take Christianity at its word that its God is the greatest of all possible beings but also that we are made in His image, whatever that may mean. It also means that if there are objective moral standards then your God is as much bound by them as we are. A God that allows people to die when He could prevent the cause without any cost to himself or others is guilty at least of negligence.
Have you ever personally dealt with scientists and those trying to cure disease? I have. And they are not the terribly flawed people you make them out to be.
Again, that's not what I wrote or intended. Like any other population of human beings, scientists are a similar mixture of good, bad and indifferent. As a body, they are not terrible although they may include a small number of terrible individuals. Rather, since they aspire to the ideals you mention, if anything they may be credited with leaning towards the better end of the moral spectrum.Seversky
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
Seversky
Science is far from a perfect process but it is better than anything else we have for trying to understand the nature of this reality.
That's not a scientific statement. The fact is, we can't do science outside of a philosophical structure. Saying that science is "better than" that which it depends upon doesn't make sense. It's not a competition. So you offered a strange response. The series is questioning why there is distrust of science. You reply by saying that scientists are human and can make mistakes but their work is superior to any other in understanding reality. That's highly debatable, as above - but ok. But then, you shift gears and drive headlong into this:
If there is a Creator think of the untold billions of lives that could have been saved if He/She/It had handed down to us knowledge of what causes illness in people.
So, the alternative to science is a belief in God? Let's not forget about the thousands of scientists who do believe in God. Aside from that, you present science as it if is the noble rebellion against God - scientists worked diligently to find cures for disease and, supposedly, God didn't do anything to help. Again, that's a strange way to look at things. You speak of the "untold billions of lives" that could have been saved. How about this? Your life has been saved already millions of times. God prevented your death from countless accidents, viruses, diseases, threats, hostilities that could have happened. But more importantly, science did not save the life of anyone. They're all dead. And that's the point you're missing. If there's no life after death, then "saving a life" is merely a matter of adding some years. Were those good or bad years? No matter - all of those people died. They died by the plague, of cancer, of accidents, or physical failure, of violence - the list goes on. Without God, it doesn't make sense. Science makes no sense of this at all. A science-alone philosophy is not only self-refuting but it ends with absurd and useless conclusions. None of it matters. The fact that you're concerned and pointing blame to God actually wouldn't make sense in that view. Science has not stopped anyone from dying, ultimately.Silver Asiatic
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
Now when it comes to presenting science and the OP I think that scientists should first attempt to be politically neutral especially since they seem to understand tribalism. But if you constantly try to support your tribe with your science, then the other tribe might start suspecting that you are not being forthright with your findings Point in case what I posted @7 It’s kinda common sense really So if you claim to be unbiased and then take a very biased stand while doing science that specifically puts the opposing view in a bad light, don’t be surprised if people stop trusting you.AaronS1978
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
What Sev is describing is a caretaker pet relationshipAaronS1978
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
AS1978 at 8, "... we don’t have to do anything but wait for our owner to come feed us." This version of God reduces Him to a wish-granting machine. 'Hey God. I want this. Hey God. I want that.' And God gives it to you. Our relationship with God means an actual relationship. If Seversky reduces God to another man followed by not being sure anything like God even exists then why bring Him up at all?relatd
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
@sev why do you pretend you can understand what any type of Omniscient being is doing? Are you a god of any kind with absolute knowledge of everything? Why do you keep asking for heaven on earth? If you are a Star-trek fan you understand why God doesn’t beckon to everyone’s call like a genie. By the way the discovery of Penicillin kind of fits your example of God giving us the means of handling diseases. *sarcasm needed* I’m also sure that if God provided penicillin back in the days of black death that there would be ZERO repercussions to too it effectiveness today #ARB *cough* *cough* suppose God could just keep fixing every new problem created from fixing the last and we don’t have to do anything but wait for our owner to come feed us Amazing those people faced such hardship yet were infinitely more grateful and faithful then Sev. Surprisingly during the times of the plague the Jewish population seemed much less effected by the plague. This is attributed by their practices of hygiene and burying the dead quickly, which according to them were instructions handed down to them by GodAaronS1978
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Speaking of biased lol check this out *lather on the sarcasm* this was not at all done by politically left scientists https://phys.org/news/2022-07-anti-abortion-beliefs-sexual-strategies.html?fbclid=IwAR3MVwj-Rt_p35m2TYZ5J9WPY3m6rc8h5N4cuhn5jzC3mT6HwggXtGESUJg Come join me on commentary for this lovely post https://m.facebook.com/story/graphql_permalink/?graphql_id=UzpfSTE0MjYxOTc4MTM6Vks6ODA2NDUyOTQ2MDIzMTMzMw%3D%3DAaronS1978
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
Seversky at 5, Back to reducing God to just another human being. That's irrational. How is God God if he's just like you or the guy down the street? 'Oh God is just terrible !!! He allows disease and suffering !!! He should have given us ALL the answers long ago !!! He's a terrible human being !!!' Have you ever personally dealt with scientists and those trying to cure disease? I have. And they are not the terribly flawed people you make them out to be. They might live in your imagination but not in real life. I've seen their dedication, their willingness to learn and apply what they learn. Their lives, which may be imperfect in some areas, are lives dedicated to others.relatd
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Scientists are just human beings like everyone else with the same flaws as everyone else. They aspire to ideals of dispassionate objectivity, ruthless honesty, logic and rigorous application of the scientific method. But being human they don't always live up to those ideals. They make mistakes, they even commit fraud but the hope is that, over the long haul, the process will eventually expose the mistakes and the frauds. Science is far from a perfect process but it is better than anything else we have for trying to understand the nature of this reality. If there is a Creator think of the untold billions of lives that could have been saved if He/She/It had handed down to us knowledge of what causes illness in people. For example, the Black Death wiped out at least half the entire population of Europe in the 14th century. I leave you to imagine how many prayed desperately for help which never came. It took plodding human science more than three hundred years to uncover the existence of micro-organisms like bacteria and viruses and then begin to develop vaccines and drugs to treat the illnesses they cause. We have to assume that, if there was such a Creator, he/she/it would have had all that information at the time but chose not to share it. So much for benevolence and loving His creatures.Seversky
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT
Jerry at 2, Who died and who put you in charge? "They too will be irrational and villainize when it’s necessary to protect these biases." How did you arrive at this astonishing conclusion? Phone survey? Paying a professional survey company? Your imagination?relatd
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Supplemental trivia, postmodern pragmatism, and its stranglehold on education in America today is, unsurprisingly, the fruit of Darwinism,
How Darwinism Dumbs Us Down – Nancy Pearcey Excerpt: The gist of my talk was that Darwinism undercuts the very possibility of rational truth–an argument that seemed unsettling to atheist students who had organized a group specifically to promote rational thought! To understand how Darwinism undercuts the very concept of rationality, we can think back to the late nineteenth century when the theory first arrived on American shores. Almost immediately, it was welcomed by a group of thinkers who began to work out its implications far beyond science. They realized that Darwinism implies a broader philosophy of naturalism (i.e., that nature is all that exists, and that natural causes are adequate to explain all phenomena). Thus they began applying a naturalistic worldview across the board–in philosophy, psychology, the law, education, and the arts. At the foundation of these efforts, however, was a naturalistic approach to knowledge itself (epistemology). The logic went like this: If humans are products of Darwinian natural selection, that obviously includes the human brain–which in turn means all our beliefs and values are products of evolutionary forces: Ideas arise in the human brain by chance, just like Darwin’s chance variations in nature; and the ones that stick around to become firm beliefs and convictions are those that give an advantage in the struggle for survival. This view of knowledge came to be called pragmatism (truth is what works) or instrumentalism (ideas are merely tools for survival). Darwinian Logic One of the leading pragmatists was John Dewey, who had a greater influence on educational theory in America than anyone else in the 20th century. Dewey rejected the idea that there is a transcendent element in human nature, typically defined in terms of mind or soul or spirit, capable of knowing a transcendent truth or moral order. Instead he treated humans as mere organisms adapting to challenges in the environment. In his educational theory, learning is just another form of adaptation–a kind of mental natural selection. Ideas evolve as tools for survival, no different from the evolution of the lion’s teeth or the eagle’s claws. In a famous essay called “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” Dewey said Darwinism leads to a “new logic to apply to mind and morals and life.” In this new evolutionary logic, ideas are not judged by a transcendent standard of Truth, but by how they work in getting us what we want. Ideas do not “reflect reality” but only serve human interests. To emphasize how revolutionary this was, up until this time the dominant theory of knowledge or epistemology was based on the biblical doctrine of the image of God. Confidence in the reliability of human knowledge derived from the conviction that finite human reason reflects (to some degree at least) an infinite divine Reason. Since the same God who created the universe also created our minds, we can be confident that our mental capacities reflect the structure of the universe. In The Mind of God and the Works of Man, Edward Craig shows that even as Western thinkers began to move away from orthodox Christian theology, in their philosophy most of them still retained the conception that our minds reflect an Absolute Mind as the basis for trust in human cognition. The pragmatists were among the first, however, to face squarely the implications of naturalistic evolution. If evolutionary forces produced the mind, they said, then all are beliefs and convictions are nothing but mental survival strategies, to be judged in terms of their practical success in human conduct. William James liked to say that truth is the “cash value” of an idea: If it pays off, then we call it true. Pragmatism Today This Darwinian logic continues to shape American thought more than we might imagine. ,,,, If James’s religious pragmatism has become virtually the American approach to spirituality today, then Dewey’s pragmatism has become the preferred approach to education. Virtually across the curriculum–from math class to moral education–teachers are trained to be nondirective “facilitators,” presenting students with problems and allowing them to work out their own pragmatic strategies for solving them. Of course, good teachers have always taught students to think for themselves. But today’s nondirective methodologies go far beyond that. They springboard from a Darwinian epistemology that denies the very existence of any objective or transcendent truth. Take, for example, “constructivism,” a popular trend in education today. Few realize that it is based on the idea that truth is nothing more than a social construction for solving problems. A leading theorist of constructivism, Ernst von Glasersfeld at the University of Georgia, is forthright about its Darwinian roots. “The function of cognition is adaptive in the biological sense,” he writes. “This means that ‘to know’ is not to possess ‘true representations’ of reality, but rather to possess ways and means of acting and thinking that allow one to attain the goals one happens to have chosen.” In short, a Darwinian epistemology implies that ideas are merely tools for meeting human goals. Postmodern Campuses These results of pragmatism are quite postmodern, so it comes as no surprise to learn that the prominent postmodernist Richard Rorty calls himself a neo-pragmatism…. I once presented this progression from Darwinism to postmodern pragmatism at a Christian college, when a man in the audience raised his hand: “I have only one question. These guys who think all our ideas and beliefs evolved . . . do they think their own ideas evolved?” The audience broke into delighted applause, because of course he had captured the key fallacy of the Darwinian approach to knowledge. If all ideas are products of evolution, and thus not really true but only useful for survival, then evolution itself is not true either–and why should the rest of us pay any attention to it? Indeed, the theory undercuts itself. For if evolution is true, then it is not true, but only useful. This kind of internal contradiction is fatal, for a theory that asserts something and denies it at the same time is simply nonsense. In short, naturalistic evolution is self-refuting. https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/how-darwinism-dumbs-us-down/
bornagain77
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
The OP is missing the key element of this distrust. People don’t reject science which if done correctly is just facts. They reject the interpretation of these facts. The key phrase above “Misinformation is often just unwelcome information, not incorrect information.” That’s why ID is rejected, not because it is based on non facts. It’s not. People don’t like the obvious interpretation of the facts. Anti ID people are irrational as is obvious here on UD. That’s why we get the clowns making snarky remarks about religion. They have no rational objections so they insult and mock. ID supporters are no different. They have their pet opinions that are susceptible to the same biases. They too will be irrational and villainize when it’s necessary to protect these biases.jerry
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT
As to: "Scientists Are The Only Ones Exempt From The Fact That We Evolved To Have Biases" Got to love how Evolutionists always manage to exempt themselves from, and/or think that they are somehow above, the implications of their own theory.
"Darwinism self-destructs when evolutionists argue that ideas gain currency not because they are true, but because they help us survive and reproduce. In this case, how can Darwinism claim to be true? Postmodernism is self-defeating, too, because it makes truth claims while simultaneously denying the very possibility of objective truth. Everyone wants to exempt a favored worldview from the debunking directed toward others." https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/worldviews-commit-suicide-when-they-subject-other-philosophies-to-a-critique-that-they-cannot-withstand-themselves/
also see:
Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself - Nancy Pearcey - March 8, 2015 Excerpt: An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value. But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality. The reason so few atheists and materialists seem to recognize the problem is that, like Darwin, they apply their skepticism selectively. They apply it to undercut only ideas they reject, especially ideas about God. They make a tacit exception for their own worldview commitments. https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/ Darwin’s Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona/ 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. - Existential Argument against Atheism - Jason Petersen
bornagain77
July 24, 2022
July
07
Jul
24
24
2022
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply