Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Blatant Confirmation Bias and Gullibility of Materialists

Categories
Naturalism
Psychology
Science
Selective Hyperskepticism
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD regulars might want to check out this thread at The Skeptical Zone.

And follow it all the way through. In it you’ll get to see:

(1) EL make assertions (and doubles down on them) about a book she later admits she didn’t even bother to read, assertions which were demonstrable false;

(2) Keiths jump from the possibility of error/fraud in scientific studies on psi/the paranormal to the conclusion that the results must have been fraud/error;

(3) Countless groundless, blanket assertions best epitomized by Alan Fox’s blanket statement “It doesn’t happen”, who remains silent on how he knows psi events “don’t happen”;

(4) DNA_Jock completely misrepresent a past comment of mine on TSZ that concerned a video on spoon-bending saying I called it convincing evidence; I corrected him; he doubles down; I quote and link to the comment in question which explicitly proves him wrong (in fact, the opposite was true); and then he triples down on his misrepresentation.

(5) So-called “skeptics” defend as honest, good science the publicity-seeking, non-scientific antics of James Randi, a stage magician with deep, vested interests both professionally and financially in the outcomes of his “Randi Challenge” tests, who publicly and privately ridicules and attacks those whom he is supposed to be testing

Keep in mind that what I am ultimately doing in that thread (which at one point I explicitly explain, which doesn’t deter them one bit) is exposing their obvious, irrational confirmation bias and gullibility for all things that support their a priori materialist worldview.  These guys will swallow whole what any third-hand skeptical website or stage magician tells them as long as it confirms their materialist view; they will deny, misrepresent, mis-remember, ridicule and denigrate all information and scientific research that appears to conflict with their worldview.

The confirmation bias and gullibility of their mindsets runs throughout the entire thread and is, IMO, breathtakingly obvious to any objective observer.

Comments
WJM: Yes. I decided to add a 2000 yo parable that our civilisation seems hell-bent on living out, literally with nuclear fire in play. KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PST
A "good purpose" could only be "objectively true" if there were some objective methodology for discerning it. What is that methodology?Elizabeth Liddle
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PST
kf@36: In my personal life I've long recognized that a lot of people are wound up as your clip in #34 states and that there is no remedy for it - at least none that I can provide. The remedy always comes from within themselves and generally only after their proclivities have led them to a point where continuation of self as it is is no longer a viable option. At least, realizing the nature of their condition, I am better equipped to not take any of it personally or become angry & frustrated with them. What is appalling is those that actually believe they are serving a good purpose while denying that any sort of objectively true "good purpose" exists; they cannot complete the rational connection that if their belief is true, the only "good purpose" they can possibly be serving is their own selfish, subjective, personal desire.William J Murray
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PST
WJM: If it is possible - and I agree it is - to be so certain one is right that counter arguments appear ludicrous, even though to others they might seem to have merit, then do you have an objective methodology by which one can figure out whether or not one is in that grip of such a state? In other words, if I find myself convinced of a position, and that the rebuttals offered to that position are fallacious, how do I set about finding out whether the position I am convinced by is indeed correct and the rebuttals are indeed fallacious, or, alternatively, that I am so self-delueded that I am simply unable to see the force of the counterargument?Elizabeth Liddle
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PST
WJM, I hear you on the absurdities of selective hyperskepticism. I'd say, though, that when one leaps over a cliff and finds out by failing that flapping arms is not enough to fly, then goes CRASH one tends to wake up due to the pain . . . at least, when one recovers consciousness. But, the cost of that sobering lesson can be awful. Hence, the NT doctrine of metanoia -- repentance, change of mind rooted in profound sorrow over wrong -- and the famous parable of the prodigal son waking up when he was reduced to the pig pen. As an illustration, I see some pretty good economic perspectives these days in my homeland. Problem is, by follies in the 70's we threw away TWO generations of development and sowed a bitter crop we reap year by year. Forty more years in the wilderness to go. And, right now our civilisation is playing with fire in ever so many ways. KF PS: The parable, which speaks to us at ever so many levels in ever so many ways: >> The Parable of the Prodigal Son Lk 15:11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to[b] one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything. 17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’[c] 22 But the father said to his servants,[d] ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate. 25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’” >>kairosfocus
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PST
kf @34: There's no way, IMO, to penetrate self-deception from the outside. One must be willing to give up their self/world narrative - willing to admit their own foolishness - in order to even begin to evaluate their views honestly and objectively. Unfortunately, many "skeptics" are absolutely certain of their views and cannot even properly look from another point of view. One wonders why they should be so certain if they hold that their views are compulsed by the same blind chance and physics that produces opposing views, but the self-defeating nature of such a position apparently has no place in their minds to take root.William J Murray
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PST
WJM: I should also add that when I ran across a wiki -- of all places -- discussion of the lie, it was eye-opening: to speak in disregard to truth, in hopes that what is said or suggested is taken as true. This pivots on a duty of care to the truth in light of signs of what it is that are accessible and the consequences of promoting falsehood as though it were true. Self-delusion that irresponsible, patently absurd or unwarrantedly accusatory remarks are instead reasonable is not an excuse. And, of course the shoddy trick of projecting unwarranted, turnabout accusation compounds the problem. To the merits, we must always go. And, we must ever be aware of not only the abstract possibility of error, but of the inherent limitations of inductive reasoning. KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PST
WJM: I ran across a web clip of Paul & Elder's The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation. http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/SAM-Fallacies1.pdf Looks quite serious. Just the table of contents is already instructive, a rarity. Here is a clip:
The human mind is a marvelous set of structures and systems. It is a center of consciousness and action. It forms a unique identity. It creates a view of the world. Rich experience emerges from its interactions with the world. It thinks. It feels. It wants. It apprehends truths and suppresses errors. It achieves insights and fabricates prejudices. Both useful truths and harmful misconceptions are its intermixed products. It can as easily believe what is false as what is true. It can see beauty in right conduct and justify what is flagrantly unethical. It can love and hate. It can be kind and cruel. It can advance knowledge or error. It can be intellectually humble or intellectually arrogant. It can be empathic or narrow-minded. It can be open or closed. It can achieve a permanent state of expanding knowledge or a deadening state of narrowing ignorance. It both transcends the creatures of lessor ability and insults their innocence and nobility by its self-deception and cruelty. How can humans create within their own minds such an inconsistent amalgam of the rational and the irrational? The answer is self-deception.
Another:
The over-whelming preponderance of people have not freely decided what to believe, but, rather, have been socially conditioned (indoctrinated) into their beliefs. They are unreflective thinkers. Their minds are products of social and personal forces they neither understand, control, nor concern themselves with. Their personal beliefs are often based in prejudices. Their thinking is largely comprised of stereotypes, caricatures, oversimplifications, sweeping generalizations, illusions, delusions, rationalizations, false dilemmas, and begged questions. Their motivations are often traceable to irrational fears and attachments, personal vanity and envy, intellectual arrogance and simple-mindedness. These constructs have become a part of their identity . . . . There is a much smaller group of people who are skilled in the art of manipulation and control. These people are shrewdly focused on pursuing their own interest without respect to how that pursuit affects others. Though they share many of the characteristics of uncritical thinkers, they have qualities that separate them from uncritical persons. They have greater command of the rhetoric of persuasion. They are more sophisticated, more verbal, and generally have greater status. On average, they have more schooling and achieve more success than uncritical persons. They typically acquire more power and occupy positions of authority. They are accustomed to playing the dominant role in relationships. They know how to use the established structure of power to advance their interests.
For some days now, these thoughts have haunted me, sounding uncomfortably like what I have seen and challenged for decades. And yes, I can already hear the snidely dismissive "you're another"/ "he hit back first" rhetorical counter-attacks limbering up. I will say to such that I have long since paid my dues to be able to say what I have said, e.g. here and here [at root, those two are about 30 years apart in my life . . . ] and that the cynical resort to the turnabout, unwarranted projection is itself one of the nastiest propagandistic tricks out there. The pivotal issue here is that -- as Francis Schaeffer warned long ago now -- we need to wake up to the ways we can catch worldviews and embed them into our sense of personal identity and worth much like measles. And, to the fact that there are people who go about spreading worldviews measles to their advantage. Using of course, the weapons of rhetoric. That is why I have long called for us to understand rooted-ness and foundational faith-point commitments at the base of world views, and it is why I have called for thinking through in light of comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power and elegance: neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork. I note again, something I put up in a FYI-FTR, from Cicero in the opening words of his On Invention -- written when he was but one and twenty, which shows up in how he puts the matter:
I HAVE often and deeply resolved this question in my mind, whether fluency of language has been beneficial or injurious to men and to cities, with reference to the cultivation of the highest order of eloquence. For when I consider the disasters of our own republic, and when I call to mind also the ancient calamities of the most important states, I see that it is by no means the most insignificant portion of their distresses which has originated from the conduct of the most eloquent men. But, at the same time, when I set myself to trace back, by the aid of written memorials and documents, affairs which, by reason of their antiquity, are removed back out of the reach of any personal recollection, I perceive also that many cities have been established, many wars extinguished, many most enduring alliances and most holy friendships have been cemented by deliberate wisdom much assisted and facilitated by eloquence. And as I have been, as I say, considering all this for some time, reason itself especially induces me to think that wisdom without eloquence is but of little advantage to states, but that eloquence without wisdom is often most mischievous, and is never advantageous to them. If then any one, neglecting all the most virtuous and honourable considerations of wisdom and duty, devotes his whole attention to the practice of speaking, that man is training himself to become useless to himself, and a citizen mischievous to his country; but a man who arms himself with eloquence in such a manner as not to oppose the advantage of his country, but to be able to contend in behalf of them, he appears to me to be one who both as a man and a citizen will be of the greatest service to his own and the general interests, and most devoted to his country . . .
We are playing with fire, and our civilisation is liable to get rather badly burned indeed. (And, I dare suggest that we could do a lot worse than to start here again, with a now old old story that too many have been far too prone to deride and dismiss without good warrant.) KF PS: On the strength of that web clip I am recommending that book: http://www.amazon.com/Thinkers-Guide-Fallacies-Trickery-Library/dp/094458327X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0 PPS: I find it not a little ironic, to see how the likes of sparc have been ever so ready to dismiss FSCO/I as stillborn, in the face of refusing to properly regard actual demonstrative examples in front of them, not only say the Abu 6500 C3 fishing reel, or a petroleum refinery, but the very text strings they produce to object and the DNA code driven protein synthesis system and the wider cellular metabolism network. That is, functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information is real and relevant so no sound discussion of OOL or OOBP can proceed without taking it and its known adequate cause seriously. This is not something as exotic as spoon bending, it is something as familiar as the s-t-r-i-n-g data structures and the coded data in the text of posts in this thread. The hyperskepticism about something right there in front of us all, driven by the utter refusal to entertain the fact that such FSCO/I has only one actually observed adequate cause -- design, then forces hypercredulity on what one wishes were insted true. Cf here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/fyi-ftr-sparc-et-al-vs-the-patent-reality-and-relevance-of-wickens-organized-systems-which-must-be-assembled-element-by-element-according-to-an-external-wiring-diagram-with-a/kairosfocus
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PST
Seversky said:
Fine, then it should be a simple matter for you to approach some scientists with a view to demonstrating this abnormal phenomenon under controlled conditions. That’s the only way to settle the question of whether this is real or not once and for all., isn’t it?
Whether or not it's "real" is entirely irrelevant to me and any actual points I've argued when using that example.
What Shermer was demonstrating was how someone who knows the techniques of a stage magician or illusionist can fool an audience.
Shermer did no such thing. He merely attempted to explain what he himself (and others he was observing) was able to do by invoking adrenaline.
Do you really think that Shermer, as a professional skeptic, would not have rushed straight into the laboratory if he really believed he had discovered a hitherto unidentified “psychic force”? I know I would. It would be one of the greatest discoveries ever in science and pose as big a challenge for physics as a Cambrian rabbit would for biology.
I have no idea why Shermer does whatever he does; I only know what's on the video.William J Murray
May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PST
William J Murray @
All I have ever claimed about spoonbending is that quite a number of people have been involved in spoonbending parties that have accomplished the same thing that Shermer accomplished and that others at the same party accomplished, and which I also accomplished.
Fine, then it should be a simple matter for you to approach some scientists with a view to demonstrating this abnormal phenomenon under controlled conditions. That’s the only way to settle the question of whether this is real or not once and for all., isn’t it?
Shermer himself noted that he bent the spoon in a manner that seemed well beyond his normal physical strength and felt compelled to offer up an explanation – that the crowd chanting fired up his adrenaline and made him and others able to bend silverware he and others could not have otherwise.
What Shermer was demonstrating was how someone who knows the techniques of a stage magician or illusionist can fool an audience.
This means that even Shermer admits that spoons (and other silverware) were bent in a manner that requires some sort of an explanation, whether that explanation is “adrenaline”, “psi”, or something else. Since it was not established that adrenaline was in fact the answer, why would anyone conclude that “psychic” spoon bending was “impossible” after watching this professional skeptic admit that some sort of explanation was required?
Do you really think that Shermer, as a professional skeptic, would not have rushed straight into the laboratory if he really believed he had discovered a hitherto unidentified “psychic force”? I know I would. It would be one of the greatest discoveries ever in science and pose as big a challenge for physics as a Cambrian rabbit would for biology.Seversky
May 8, 2015
May
05
May
8
08
2015
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PST
Let's examine Barry's intentional misrepresentation at 22. It started when I commented on the following comment by Barry: "There is a genetic basis for numerous conditions that no one suggests are good. For example, sickle cell anemia has a genetic basis. No one argues that we should embrace and celebrate sickle cell anemia. Rather, it is regarded as a genetic defect." I pointed out that his example was probably not the best to get his point across because until modern medicine having the sickle cell gene could be advantageous because of its affects on contracting malaria. Did Barry acknowledge the point and thank me for pointing out his error as a mature adult would? No, he decided that it was better to call me a liar, stupid and an idiot. I stand by my point. And Barry can't explain why I am wrong. All he can do is demonstrate rudeness and bad manners. I should also point out that in the comment above Barry intentionally excludes the follow on sentence where I explain my statement. But I guess that context didn't fit with his story line so he left it out.Yarko Matkewski
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PST
KF,
DS, First, quite a number of people (including professionals) were present. Second, I would think that suppressing what was an obvious attempt to do full levitation, coming from the liberating power, was in the end far more significant and convincing. Yes, oddly the more powerful was He who in effect said thus far and no farther, followed by: OUT! And the inferior, stubbornly, sullenly, had to obey. Obey THAT NAME.
Well, all I can say is that a full levitation would have been much more impressive to me.
As to spoon bending or other forms of poltergeist phenomena, having seen what I saw, I have little doubt that they too can and on testimony I believe, have happened.
Okay, thanks.daveS
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PST
phoodoo @26: Well, you might be right. I probably try to be too forgiving/tolerant because I was once a materialist/atheist making many of the same flawed arguments, but certainly wasn't deliberately trying to deceive or harm. kf @27: One wonders why one would close ones mind to an idea at all - except, perhaps, the logically absurd leading to self-contradiction. Like the case of daveS:
But, back to my question, I have provisionally concluded that psychic spoon bending is impossible, with a high degree of confidence. Essentially because while a lot of people talk about it, nobody seems to be able to do it under controlled conditions. Seems like common sense to me. Is anything wrong with that?
It's not "common sense" to consider a thing "impossible" just because one hasn't yet seen any evidence they personally consider "compelling". What on earth would be the point? Watch the following video of Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, himself succeeding in a spoonbending exercise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3X9h1WlQpA All I have ever claimed about spoonbending is that quite a number of people have been involved in spoonbending parties that have accomplished the same thing that Shermer accomplished and that others at the same party accomplished, and which I also accomplished. Shermer himself noted that he bent the spoon in a manner that seemed well beyond his normal physical strength and felt compelled to offer up an explanation - that the crowd chanting fired up his adrenaline and made him and others able to bend silverware he and others could not have otherwise. This means that even Shermer admits that spoons (and other silverware) were bent in a manner that requires some sort of an explanation, whether that explanation is "adrenaline", "psi", or something else. Since it was not established that adrenaline was in fact the answer, why would anyone conclude that "psychic" spoon bending was "impossible" after watching this professional skeptic admit that some sort of explanation was required?William J Murray
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PST
DS, First, quite a number of people (including professionals) were present. Second, I would think that suppressing what was an obvious attempt to do full levitation, coming from the liberating power, was in the end far more significant and convincing. Yes, oddly the more powerful was He who in effect said thus far and no farther, followed by: OUT! And the inferior, stubbornly, sullenly, had to obey. Obey THAT NAME. As to spoon bending or other forms of poltergeist phenomena, having seen what I saw, I have little doubt that they too can and on testimony I believe, have happened. The more important issue, is by what hand. As for control experiments and the like as criteria of knowledge, those work to identify some limited instances, but the vast majority of real life experience is not like that and much of that is known to moral certainty. A lot more is known to sufficient likelihood that a prudent person would accept it. A lot more good history is more like this. So, I suggest, perhaps the criteria you apply are not apt. KF PS: My thoughts here, in reply to AS, may be helpful: https://uncommondescent.com/religion/as-vs-eyewitness-experience-non-testimonial-evidence-and-the-reasonableness-of-theism/kairosfocus
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PST
KF Fair enough. I believe I remember reading about the levitation incident earlier. Anyway, you saw what you saw, but the fact that the person was still pinned to the ground makes it quite a bit less compelling than it would have been if the subject had actually been suspended in midair (as the word "levitation" suggests), at least in my view. But, back to my question, I have provisionally concluded that psychic spoon bending is impossible, with a high degree of confidence. Essentially because while a lot of people talk about it, nobody seems to be able to do it under controlled conditions. Seems like common sense to me. Is anything wrong with that?daveS
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PST
DS, I spoke to the pattern that WJM described, one that is familiar to me -- starting with having had to deal with Marxists decades ago; later I learned they were not only doing courses but sitting exams in activism, including selling the party newspaper. Something that both amazed me and suddenly made a lot of things that had seemed odd chillingly clear. When it comes to what is called paranormal phenomena, I can speak as a witness in many ways. One particular case about a year past was semi-public levitation, pinned down by another liberating power, and leading to rescue and deliverance. I see no in principle reason why spoons cannot be bent by such means, similarly in contexts where no credible possibility of trickery obtains. There are more things in heaven and on earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy. KFkairosfocus
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PST
I think anytime you hear someone say the phrase "from an evolutionary perspective..." you already know that this is an orchestrated catch phrase that is code speak. Its not an accidental repeat phrase, it is someone who reads skeptic sites. It seeps into Huffpost, Abcnews, Cnn, Ny Times, BBC science, The Daily Show, NatGeo...."From an evolutionary perspective..."and the rest is just a talking robot who has no idea about evolution. Its such BS.phoodoo
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PST
KF,
you seem to be describing the fallacy of the closed, indoctrinated mind, a particularly virulent form of selective hyperskepticism.
Do you think the folks at TSZ are being selectively hyperskeptical with regard to psychic spoon bending specifically? Do you think that it's a real phenomenon?daveS
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PST
WJM, you seem to be describing the fallacy of the closed, indoctrinated mind, a particularly virulent form of selective hyperskepticism. Where, if one busily rejects what would be warranted absent such a lock-out, then one is forced to be hyper credulous regarding what one wishes were so instead. And of course when dealing with those who beg to differ it is so easy to drag or run after red herrings led out to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. And that is before we get to acting out the resulting dehumanisation, demonisation, stereotyping and scapegoating. Or, at minimum, enabling that. That pattern of behaviour becomes highly recognisable:
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Selective_Hyperskepticism.htm#clsdmind CLOSED-MINDEDNESS*: Stubbornly irrational, question-begging resistance to correction and/or alternative views. (Cf. a typical turnabout accusation on this, here.) This fallacy manifests itself in a habitual pattern of thought, feelings and argument that is: (a) question-beggingly committed to and/or (b) indoctrinated into thinking in the circle of a particular view or position and/or (c) blindly adherent to "the consensus" or vision and school of thought or paradigm of a particular set of authorities. [NB*: This last includes today's new Magisterium: "Science."] As a result, (d) the victim of closed-mindedness becomes unwarrantedly (i.e. fallaciously and often abusively) resistant to new or alternative ideas, information or correction. (NB: Cf. discussions on belief, knowledge, warrant and justification here, here [an excellent introductory lecture note], here, here, here, here and here [technical].) That is, it is not a matter of mere disagreement that is at stake here, but of (e) stubborn and objectively unjustified refusal to be corrected or to entertain or fairly discuss on the merits ideas or points of view outside of a favoured circle of thought. In extreme cases, (f) the closed minded person who has access to power or influence may engage in the willfully deceptive (and even demonic) practice of actively suppressing the inconvenient truth that s/he knows or should know. (By contrast, a properly educated person is open-minded but critically aware: s/he is aware of the possibility and prevalence of error, and so (i) habitually investigates and then (ii) accurately, objectively and fairly describes major alternative views, fact claims and lines of argument on a topic, (iii) comparing them on congruence to his/her real-world experience and that of others s/he knows and respects, general factual correctness, logical coherence and degree of explanatory power; thus (iv) holds a personal view that results from such a process of comparative difficulties, while (v) recognising and respecting that on major matters of debate or controversy, different people will hold different views.) _________________ * It is worth noting that it was unusually hard to find a serious, detailed, balanced and objective discussion of this key concept on the Internet; including in that well known generic reference, Wikipedia. It was therefore saddening -- but utterly revealing -- to then find the just following in that encyclopedia's discussion on indoctrination: " Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas." (This is of course precisely a case in point of diverting the naive reader from being critically aware on a significant and dangerous possibility for abusing science for indoctrination in various avant garde schools of thought that are often precisely capital examples of propagandistic advocacy, misleading or outright deceptive manipulation and indoctrination . . . )
The truly dyed in the wool indoctrinated will only wake up when their world collapses around their ears. Unfortunately, it is looking more and more like our civilisation will have to crash very badly indeed for that to happen. And we are obviously heading for the cliff. If you doubt me, reflect on what we are being warned a few nukes blown in space to trigger widespread EMP could do. Then, multiply by message dominance and a domineering spirit animated by systems of thought and life that have in them no foundational IS that can properly ground OUGHT. KFkairosfocus
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PST
William, Because I am well aware of the "skeptical" movement, and how they use all kinds of means to try to censor and manipulate mass media, I am less willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to them wanting to see and preach truth. They actively correspond on how to game the system. They do it on Wikipedia, they have groups which call themselves "guerilla skeptics" (what honest person would want to do this), they have podcast which intentionally give biased information, and they basically all work within the same community of deceivers. Its no coincidence that they are all over the media. These insincere scientists include Bill Nye, Seth Shostak, Michael Shermer, Coyne of course, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Novella, Rebecca Watson, DeGrasse Tyson, Neil Shubin, Don Prethero and virtually every science podcast you can think of are all connected into the same talking points. You can't as a curious person, know where to go to simply get truth, because virtually every source you can find easily is part of this same cult of codewords. They have stopped thinking about the issues long ago-they just repeat the same things they hear on skeptic sites. The more you know about these people, the more often you hear the same lies and distortions just repeated over and over (did you know they have already shown how the eye evolved)! Its truly disgusting when you hear these voices of people who the average listener thinks is talking truth. They are more like talking puppets than academics. Lizzie is just another in a long list of these mouthpieces.phoodoo
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PST
Aurelio Smith
I generally dip in to it when folks here quote some text reference. There’s a double irony with “mote and beam” which I find especially delicious when reading some comments here.
Which Biblical text reference did someone quote that you are responding to? What does "mote and beam" have to do with exposing confirmation bias?
If you think Murray has gone one step in the direction of “exposing confirmation bias”, you are more naïve than I thought you were.
Show me how I am being "naive." Where and how, in your judgment, did WJM pass moral judgment on anyone? Be specific.
Just checking my Bible. What did Jesus say about homosexuals?
I have a preliminary question about relevancy: What does Jesus and homosexuals have to do with WJM's arguments about Materialist gullibility and confirmation bias?StephenB
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PST
Barry #22, maybe some of this behavior can be explained by being accustomed to having bad or no arguments at all.Box
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PST
BA @ 22: I've spent now several years here and at TSZ and they never fail to astonish me. All evidence that contradicts their position is "non-evidence", "flawed evidence", or was research conducted by "non-scientists". Or material that was never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Or was only published in faux journals. Or was mistakenly published in reputable journals. Or was later debunked. Or contained potential holes in the protocols and must be fraudulent or erroneous. Or was promoted by people with ulterior motives. All criticisms of any non-materialist argument or evidences are taken as valid and as having the last word on the matter. And so all such non-materialist claims or evidences are considered "debunked" or "destroyed". Anyone with an open mind on the subject is "gullible". Materialists are comfortable making sweeping, categorical claims they cannot possibly support against any theistic or non-materialist views or claims. "There is no evidence of god"; "nothing paranormal or miraculous has ever occurred"; "They're all frauds and fakes"; "all paranormal events have been demonstrated fake or mistaken". These can only be statements of personal faith and expressions of a set of ideological commitments. It seems that for many of them, they simply cannot step outside of their own views for any duration and objectively evaluate those views or admit where there are problems. Some of the heavy hitters of materialism/atheism have at least been able to admit where their views necessarily lead: to a post-rational, post-scientific, post-morality redefinition of our entire existence establishing us as nothing more than delusional animated-matter brutes compulsed by physics to do whatever we happen to do and think whatever we happen to think.William J Murray
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PST
WJM @ 21. Here is an exchange from another thread that demonstrates the point you are making. YM:
Calling something a genetic defect (bad) is totally dependent on perspective.
Barry:
Really? Whether Cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, Alzheimer’s disease, Hemophilia, Huntington’s disease and Tay-Sachs are bad is totally dependent on perspective? Idiot
YM:
And some of your other examples do not reveal themselves until after reproductive years. So, again, whether or not they are defects (bad) depends on perspective.
And after all that Mark Frank and Aurelio Smith jump in. Do they bemoan the gobsmacking stupidity of YM's statements? Of course, not, they attack me. So let me get this straight, YM says something really stupid. I point it out. He doubles down on his stupidity. But I am the one who needs correction? Yes, I called him an idiot. I agree I should not have done that. It is an insult to idiots. As I said on the other thread, I should probably just ignore a lot of the idiocy that gets spewed into the comboxes on these pages. But in a classic example of the triumph of hope over experience, I assume that fools such as YM will respond to correction. I try to shame them into doing better. It pretty much never works, as the YM example above demonstrates. Yet, for some reason I still feel compelled to continue trying.Barry Arrington
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PST
phoodoo said:
I don’t think it should come as much of a surprise how biased, and dishonest the folks at TSZ are. Its not like they try to hide their lack of curiosity.
After all the time I've spent here and on TSZ, I don't think the bulk of such posters should be thought of as "dishonest". I think that most of them (perhaps by a slim margin) honestly believe that they are making good arguments and responding honestly. The problem, IMO, is their confirmation bias; their gullibility in service to their ideology; their cognitive dissonance that leads them to say very ill-advised things in defense of their views and reputation; their irrational, emotional commitment to their worldview and the identity they've forged for themselves under that worldview. It appears to me that this renders them incapable of properly understanding some very basic, straightforward statements of their opponents, which is why they often reply with complete non-sequiturs and cannot maintain a consistent focus on a train of thought that requires them to hypothesize a perspective outside of their own. This is why virtually no debate goes by without them inserting straw men and red herrings. Though I think KF is certainly correct that some of them are materialist agitators of certain political perspectives (who embrace dishonesty in service of their ideologies), I think most of them are just gullible, "useful idiots", so to speak. It's really amazing and at times astonishing to observe and, at times, wonder at some of the things they say. People can really make themselves believe **anything**.William J Murray
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PST
AS said:
If you think Murray has gone one step in the direction of “exposing confirmation bias”, you are more naïve than I thought you were.
I'm not sure how anyone can explain what occurred in that thread several times (especially with EL and DNA_Jock) other than as cases of blatant confirmation bias; I'm not sure how anyone can reasonably consider what Randi does as any sort of honest scientific endeavor unless one is incredibly gullible. Just in case you didn't get the memo: I'm not a Christian, and I don't hold myself up as a model of moral behavior.William J Murray
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PST
That's another interesting point phoodoo brought to light in that thread - materialists think that all evolutionary evidence supports Darwinism - the materialist characterization of evolution. This is part of their overwhelming confirmation bias and gullibility - they think that all the data that supports the changing of biological forms over time and adaptions over time via inheritance or horizontal transfer is data that supports Darwinistic evolution when it simply does not. As I said in that thread,
In order to provide such evidence as [phoodoo's] challenge calls for, it would require Darwinists to produce a ID/non-ID (or natural & chance/artifice) differential metric capable of describing what Darwinistic evolution is and is not capable of plausibly producing given the available time and resources. That differential matrix is something that Darwinists insist does not exist. IOW, [Darwinists] cannot demonstrate nature & chance forces & interactions categorically, causally sufficient to account for evolutionary product. [Darwinists have not] ruled out ID as a necessary causal contributor; [they] just assume its absence. While there may be an enormous amount of evidence for ["Evolution" as the variance of biological forms over time via heredity, and for some role for selection and mutation], there is, to my knowledge, no (or at least minimal) evidence for Darwinistic evolution [as a sufficient explanation].
William J Murray
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PST
Thanks William and Phoodoo.
“Oddly enough I have encountered more passion from adherents of the computational theory of the mind than from adherents of traditional religious doctrines of the soul. Some computationalists invest an almost religious intensity into their faith that our deepest problems about the mind will have a computational solution. Many people apparently believe that somehow or other, unless we are proven to be computers, something terribly important will be lost.” (Searle, 1997, p. 189)
Box
May 7, 2015
May
05
May
7
07
2015
02:50 AM
2
02
50
AM
PST
I don't think it should come as much of a surprise how biased, and dishonest the folks at TSZ are. Its not like they try to hide their lack of curiosity. I think Allan Miller summed it up best once, when responding to a new study in epigenetics which contradict Darwinian evolution claims. His response was : 1. Prove the study is authentic. 2. That is not what the study is saying 3. Even if that is what the study is saying, it doesn't effect evolution. 4. Evolutionists have known about this all along, its no new news. In ONE POST! The study is not real, prove it, that's not what it says, that is what it says, so what, we already knew, means nothing. Every possible denial, in one post. So this is exactly how Lizzie also talks, and the rest just play a dumb game of hand-waving. Lizzies hand-waving is just a lot more wordy, but no more intelligent or curious. She is a typical guerrilla skeptic type. Just try to flood the internet with typical bullsh*t propaganda. Just like they do on all their nonsense websites, like Wikipedia, pandasthumb, talkrational, EvC, Skeptics Guide to the universe, you name.... Anything with the word skeptic in the website, you know exactly the agenda they have. To BS and squelch curiosity. Atheism seems to be a hallmark of people who lack curiosity and a search for truth.phoodoo
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PST
Aurelio Smith
I know Mr Murray doesn’t read the Bible but let me suggest a glance at Matthew 7: 3-5
Apparently, you don't read the Bible very much either. Otherwise, you would know the difference between exposing confirmation bias and passing moral judgment.StephenB
May 6, 2015
May
05
May
6
06
2015
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PST
1 2 3 4 5