Richard Dawkins: The Enemies of Reason

[Pangloss]

Pangloss, yes they were doing something wrong. They were operating under two false assumptions. Firstly that there mathematical models were an accurate representation of reality regardless of evidence to the contrary and secondly that those who gave contradictory evidence were not reliable witnesses.

 

That's not correct. Nobody assumes mathematical models are accurate. They simply represent the best verifiable information available at the time. What would be the point in adding unconfirmed personal opinions into a mathematical model? Doesn't it make more sense to just assume that the model only represents a known-to-be-imperfect degree of reliability?

 

You keep talking about those scientists as if they believed their model was 100% accurate. Why would they think that? Can you prove that statement? Where are some statements from these scientists insisting that their model is 100% accurate? Because I've never heard of ANY honest scientist doing that. Just because they don't include a specific piece of information -- that means they think their model is 100% accurate? Come on, that's not true and you know it. What's happened is that they've chosen to ignore certain inputs because they cannot be verified or their accuracy is questionable for some reason.

 

And you didn't answer my question: What do they do about the millions of other unverified inputs, the vast majority of which turn out to be false?

 

Your point seems to be that anybody who believes their data to be accurate must be assumed to be correct. Does that actually make sense to you? Really? My question deserves an honest answer. Can you do that, or will you ignore it again?

 

 

Strangely enough, when the QE2 comes to harbour with the bridge windows smashed in and the Captain and Officers describing a 95 foot wave doing the damage I would tend to believe them. Or you could go back to the "Michealangelo" in 1966, coming in with the aluminium plates ripped off her superstructure. This was clearly a case of holding on to a wrong theory in the face of contradictory evidence. We aren't talking about weekend sailors claiming they saw a mermaid here, we are talking about highly trained professional people returning to port with damaged vessels. The only way anyone could possibly have held to the old theory for so long is by ignoring the evidence.

 

Pliny the Youngers rather accurate description of the pyroclastic flow that wiped out Herculeaneum was ignored by Vulcanologists because he was a roman, and let's face it, they were just superstitious primitives at heart, weren't they? They had a plethora of Gods, so of course they couldn't accurately describe what they were seeing. It is the second part of the filter that allows us to easily dismiss evidence we don't agree with and provides us with a good excuse to do so.

 

This is the same sort of thing that the mass media does -- putting up singular examples and making people think that they represent common occurances. How do we know that the Titanic's captain didn't witness a once-in-a-lifetime event? We simply don't -- we have to guess. In this case the scientists guessed wrong.

 

And stop assigning emotional values to these scientific decisions -- you're just demonizing people you don't know from Adam. You're using the word "ignore" to mean "belittle". Just because piece of data isn't included in a mathematical model doesn't mean that people hate that piece of data and want to see it put before a firing squad. Emotion has NOTHING to do with science.

 

As a hobbyist in Roman history, it really irks me to see Pliny abused in this way.

 

 

Don't write off faith as useless, it somtimes let's us dream of what could be if we have faith in ourselves.

 

I don't think faith is useless. It's simply not relevent to science.

 

Eyewitness accounts (which aren't necessarily a matter of faith) are used in scientific research all the time. It's not accurate to imply that they are scorned in some way. Reality checks are done in science all the time. Nobody is more aware than a scientist of how useless an model is when it's not accurate. The difference is that a scientist knows that, depending on the type of model, singular exceptions don't necessarily render the model inaccurate.

 

A person who relies entirely on faith is incapable of understanding that. And the fact that you understand it doesn't mean that you appreciate faith more than scientists do, it means that you're not entirely a person of faith. You set faith aside when you need to. A rather obvious hypocrisy, wouldn't you say?

 

(PS, don't forget to answer my question.)

[Reaper]

Glider you are the psychologist not me but it has been my experience.....

 

 

I'm glad Glider wasn't my psychologist.

 

However' date=' where it does become a problem is when people become unwilling to review their beliefs in the face of new evidence and begin rejecting new (contradictory) evidence out of hand.

[/quote']

 

I agree with this point

Most decisions and beliefs made by the average person really aren't based on evidence, and various studies indicate that humans tend to make irrational decisions and/or decisions based on emotional appeal. Peer pressure is an excellent example of this.

 

Faith, however, isn't necessarily emotional, and there are varying degrees of it.

 

What you guys are mostly talking about are cognitive biases, in particular the Ambiguity Affect, Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Forer Effect. These are very problematic.

 

Emotion has NOTHING to do with science.

 

That depends on how it is used and in what context you are using it in. In psychology, emotion has everything to do with science.

[Pangloss]

Please don't change the subject. Give JohnB a chance to answer my question.

[Reaper]

I'm not changing the subject, I was just pointing out a situation in which your statement was false.

[Pangloss]

When applied to a different subject from the one we are discussing. It's not something I would disagree with anyway, you should KNOW it's not something I disagree with (from the context), and I think you either did it deliberately (to give JohnB a way out) or because you weren't paying attention to the discussion.

 

Either way it was unspeakably rude.

[Reaper]

When applied to a different subject from the one we are discussing. It's not something I would disagree with anyway, you should KNOW it's not something I disagree with (from the context), and I think you either did it deliberately (to give JohnB a way out) or because you weren't paying attention to the discussion.

 

Either way it was unspeakably rude.

 

Don't try to cop out. If that was not what you meant, then you should have been much more clear and/or more concise with your choice of words, because I took it to mean something else. There is a vast difference between the statements "Emotion has NOTHING to do with science", and "In such-and-such case/situation, emotion doesn't apply" or some other equivalent statement. The former is an over generalization (especially since you placed special emphasis on the word "nothing"), while the latter specifies when the statement applies or holds.

 

 

I was not trying to give JohnB a way out, and don't you accuse me of not paying attention because anybody here can plainly see that I am.

 

 

Being corrected is not an insult, and my response was never intended as such.

[Glider]

Ridiculous means "laughable". I accept that I could have phrased "taken leave of their intelligence" better.

 

 

The first is amenable to empirical study the second is not therein lies the difference.

Well, that's a difference between them, true, but I don't understand why this difference should halt conversation. I think the critical difference is the result of a long standing taboo that whilst it's ok to question all beliefs concerning reality, those based on religion are inviolable. And that's it, it's just a taboo that' these days, is extending into polical correctness. My point is that this is the only reason and so these beliefs are getting a free ride.

 

As to the concept of "respecting the beliefs of others" especially if the belief is considered to be the result of an "active process of non-thought". Glider you are the psychologist not me but it has been my experience with people over the years that "not respecting the beliefs of others" is a small step from "not respecting the right of others to have differing beliefs". I find this to be true of any extremist, atheist or theist. Any extreme actually, it doesn't matter what topic.

I do understand your point. For myself I think the difference between the two positions is profound, but that does require a little thought. However, I don't think the fact that that extremists and others utilising a 'mob mentality' are likely to confuse the two means that the difference does not exist.

 

This is your belief and as to the physical sciences, I couldn't agree more. I just believe that there is another, direction(?) as well. The two are not incompatable one is physical and the other is philosophical, they are two distinct areas of thought and modes of thought.

Well, not just the physical sciences. I think that discourse and the application of critical evaluation is absolutely necessary in all areas of life. If we put religion to one side for a moment, I can't think of a single area of human existence that doesn't require it in some way and that would not benefit from it being used more rigorously. Can you?

[JohnB]

This is the same sort of thing that the mass media does -- putting up singular examples and making people think that they represent common occurances. How do we know that the Titanic's captain didn't witness a once-in-a-lifetime event?

1933- Ramapo- 115 ft

1942- Queen Mary- 95ft

1966- Michelangelo- 80Ft high

1980- Esso Languedoc- 80 ft +

1995- QE2- 95 ft

1995- North Sea Oil Rig Draupner- 95 ft

2001- Bremen- 98 ft

2001- Caledonian Star- 98 ft

2005- Norwegian Dawn- 70 ft +

2005- Aleutian Ballad- 70 ft +

2006- Westwood Pomona- 70 ft

2007- Prinsendam- 70 ft

 

That list took about 15 minutes to do. I guess a lot of people had a "once in a lifetime experience".

 

If I may quote Wolfgang Rosenthal of the GKSS Research Centre: "Before, this was not accepted as a true science - study of freak waves or rogue waves......They automatically were put in the box of [sightings by] a drunken sailor"

And you didn't answer my question: What do they do about the millions of other unverified inputs, the vast majority of which turn out to be false?

5,000 up to millions. Sorry Pangloss, I did answer your question albeit obliquely. (Or I thought I did.) You can relatively safely write off the reports by sailors in small boats as it is impossible for them to accurately judge the height of a large wave or any other strange thing they may claim to see. (There is also the decided possibility of alcohol or other substances being involved. )

 

The reports of the Captain and crew of a modern cruise liner or other large vessel are another matter. They are stable, trained, professional people. The question to me is "If they come in with damage 80ft above the waterline and tell you it was a giant wave, why wouldn't you believe them?" Why were they not considered reliable witnesses? Their stories are backed up by physical evidence, the damage.

Your point seems to be that anybody who believes their data to be accurate must be assumed to be correct.

Not if their account isn't backed up by physical evidence and that is the difference. Tell all the stories you want, I might believe them, but show me some physical evidence to back up your story and you have a much better chance. And in these cases, there was a great deal of physical evidence.

 

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well. My point was that holding to the idea that an extrapolation (Theory) from data is correct in the face of contradictory data is intellectually dishonest. If your theory predicts that rogue waves occur once every 10,000 years or so and reliable records show that they occur with much greater frequency what should you do? Modify the theory to more closely fit the facts or ignore the records? It's the fact that the second rather than the first option was chosen that bugs me.

 

Put simply. If Joe Bloggs the weekend sailor comes in dismasted and says a 90 ft wave did it, the story might be worth a drink at the bar. He was possibly p*ssed and he couldn't tell the difference between a 30 ft wave and a 90 ft wave from a small boat anyway. Both would look bloody enormous. However if the Captain of a liner has his bridge windows smashed in 80 ft above the waterline it's a fair bet no 30 ft wave did it. I'd believe him.

Eyewitness accounts (which aren't necessarily a matter of faith) are used in scientific research all the time. It's not accurate to imply that they are scorned in some way. Reality checks are done in science all the time. Nobody is more aware than a scientist of how useless an model is when it's not accurate. The difference is that a scientist knows that, depending on the type of model, singular exceptions don't necessarily render the model inaccurate.

My point was that in this case they were scorned even when backed by physical evidence. Lumping the accounts into the same category as mermaids isn't treating them with anything but scorn. Also, as you say singular exceptions don't render a model inaccurate, but we aren't talking about singular exceptions here, are we? I used the Pliny example to simply illustrate that the same thing has happened elsewhere as well, nothing more.

What's happened is that they've chosen to ignore certain inputs because they cannot be verified or their accuracy is questionable for some reason.

Considering the existence of physical evidence and caliber of the witnesses, can you think of any reasonable cause to find the accounts questionable?

You set faith aside when you need to. A rather obvious hypocrisy, wouldn't you say?

Not really. It's simply saying "This thing I know and can say I know and this other thing I don't know but think it might be like this." It's not an all or nothing situation.

 

PS. If I seem to take a while to reply it's just the timezone difference between the US and Oz. Cheers.

 

Glider.

Well, that's a difference between them, true, but I don't understand why this difference should halt conversation. I think the critical difference is the result of a long standing taboo that whilst it's ok to question all beliefs concerning reality, those based on religion are inviolable. And that's it, it's just a taboo that' these days, is extending into polical correctness. My point is that this is the only reason and so these beliefs are getting a free ride.

So long as the questioning is courteous, I have no problem. I was trying, perhaps poorly to get across that the term "ridiculous" or laughable is an emotional value judgment and not really conducive to courteous debate, that's all. Perhaps "highly unlikely" would be a better and less emotive phrase? And don't get me started on the whole PC thing.

I do understand your point. For myself I think the difference between the two positions is profound, but that does require a little thought. However, I don't think the fact that that extremists and others utilising a 'mob mentality' are likely to confuse the two means that the difference does not exist.

The difference does exist but as you say, requires thought. Unfortunately I don't think that the majority of people are willing to put in the effort. That is why politicians and demagogues of all stripes are able to find a following. Once people are sufficiently polarised, (We are always right and they are always wrong) it is almost logical that since "their" opinions are always wrong then "they" shouldn't be allowed to have opinions. This is most obvious in the Left/Right thing in politics. Sad really.

 

The other way I find the process works is that if "I" accept that "they" might be right on one thing, then they might be right on other things too. If that's the case then "I" might be on the wrong side. This would lead me to reevaluate my beliefs. This is too much work so it's far easier to deny "them" the right to have an opinion thus saving "me" the effort of actually thinking for a change. Even sadder.

[Pangloss]

Don't try to cop out. If that was not what you meant, then you should have been much more clear and/or more concise with your choice of words, because I took it to mean something else.

 

Nonsense. You posted the intellectual equivalent of a spelling correction, and you know it.

 

 

1933- Ramapo- 115 ft

1942- Queen Mary- 95ft

1966- Michelangelo- 80Ft high

1980- Esso Languedoc- 80 ft +

1995- QE2- 95 ft

1995- North Sea Oil Rig Draupner- 95 ft

2001- Bremen- 98 ft

2001- Caledonian Star- 98 ft

2005- Norwegian Dawn- 70 ft +

2005- Aleutian Ballad- 70 ft +

2006- Westwood Pomona- 70 ft

2007- Prinsendam- 70 ft

 

That list took about 15 minutes to do. I guess a lot of people had a "once in a lifetime experience".

 

12 examples versus millions of bytes of data over decides' date=' if not centuries? You make my case for me. Is that really the best you can do, producing more singular examples that actually SUPPORT the notion of being careful about which data is selected for a STATISTICAL model? A model that's SUPPOSED to look at the big picture and ignore minor fluctuations? Really?

 

Your examples do not eliminate the possibility that such waves are rare events. They SUGGEST that they are not rare -- of course they do, and as we now know they aren't rare. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong about rogue waves, I'm saying you're ascribing incorrect motives and motivations to scientists, and suggesting a very poor course of action in trusting faith over evidence.

 

Let me give you a perfect example of something that YOU think we should ignore (and thus behaving exactly like the scientists you're criticizing):

 

You can relatively safely write off the reports by sailors in small boats as it is impossible for them to accurately judge the height of a large wave or any other strange thing they may claim to see.

 

This runs COMPLETELY IN THE FACE of what you claimed earlier -- it is an absolute contradiction on your part. You insisted that we accept the claims of ship captains and knowledgable sailors not because they were ship captains and knowledgeable sailors but because they had faith in what they had seen.

 

Now you're asking us to selectively ignore a different group of people who has exactly the same level of faith in what they've seen? What exactly are you trying to hawk here?

 

Your case has just completely fallen apart.

[Glider]

I'm glad Glider wasn't my psychologist.

Oi!

 

That depends on how it is used and in what context you are using it in. In psychology, emotion has everything to do with science.

Only as a subject of study. Emotion has nothing more to do with the process of study than in any other field.

[JohnB]

12 examples versus millions of bytes of data over decides, if not centuries? You make my case for me. Is that really the best you can do, producing more singular examples that actually SUPPORT the notion of being careful about which data is selected for a STATISTICAL model? A model that's SUPPOSED to look at the big picture and ignore minor fluctuations? Really?

As I said the list only took 15 minutes to compile.

 

Is not the test of a model the accuracy of it's predictions? The model predicts one such wave per 10,000 years or so. The list shows the model failed the test, something now accepted as true.

This runs COMPLETELY IN THE FACE of what you claimed earlier -- it is an absolute contradiction on your part. You insisted that we accept the claims of ship captains and knowledgable sailors not because they were ship captains and knowledgeable sailors but because they had faith in what they had seen.

Rubbish. I said we should at least give some credence to the claims of ship Captains and knowledgable sailors because they are professional people and if backed up by physical evidence. I never mentioned faith in this context.

I'm saying you're ascribing incorrect motives and motivations to scientists, and suggesting a very poor course of action in trusting faith over evidence.

That was my exactly point, having faith in a model in the face of compelling contradictory evidence is a poor course of action.

 

Having faith in anything in the face of contradictory evidence is a poor course of action, be it a spiritual belief or a scientific model.The only difference between these two examples is that a model is easier to check. In the case of a spiritual belief, while there is no physical evidence against the belief, there is also a total lack of confirming physical evidence too. Please note, I am not including creationists and their ilk in the above comment as they are the perfect example of choosing faith over evidence and are therefore morons.

 

I have reread my posts (concerning rogue waves) and can't find a single example where I ascribed motives and motivations to the Oceanographers except for the one use of the word "scorn" in response to your usage of the word. In all other cases I described what was done, not the motives behind the actions. Description of an act or action is not a description of motivation behind the action.

[Pangloss]

That was my exactly point, having faith in a model in the face of compelling contradictory evidence is a poor course of action.

 

Fine, if you want to amend your position, more power to you.

 

But you're flat-out wrong about this:

 

I have reread my posts (concerning rogue waves) and can't find a single example where I ascribed motives and motivations to the Oceanographers except for the one use of the word "scorn" in response to your usage of the word.

 

Here's where you did precisely that:

 

All the evidence for hundreds of years as to the existence of these monsters was ignored. It failed the filter firstly because Oceanographers were convinced that such waves would only occur once every 10,000 years or so (Their science said so) and secondly because the witnesses were sailors not Oceanographers and therefore their evidence could be classed as "anecdotal" and safely ignored. They were not "real".

[JohnB]

But you're flat-out wrong about this:

Okay, I missed that one. Conceeded, I did level a charge of intellectual chauvanism.

Fine, if you want to amend your position, more power to you.

I don't see how I've amended my position. I thought it a poor choice to defend a model in the face of contradictory evidence. I still do.

 

If you don't mind the digression, what do you mean by "a hobbyist in Roman history"? Literature, Architecture, the Rise and Fall or just the whole thing? I have a preference for ancient Egypt myself, I find their ways of thought fascinating and their Architecture truly mind boggling. Mind you, the Romans were no slouch either, the Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek proves that.

[Pangloss]

I agree that's a valid point. Certainly scientists should not ignore valid evidence.

 

In answer to your question I've been reading and studying Roman history for over 20 years, mainly focusing on pre-Empire eras. I'm currently reading Goldsworthy's "The Punic Wars" and slogging my way through Lombardo's modernist/conversational translation of the Aeneid (the one with the Vietnam Memorial on the cover). I'm particularly interested in the political legacy associations with Roman democracy made by 18th century philosophers at the dawn of the modern era (such as how the American founding fathers viewed themselves as modern versions of republican-era Romans), and how the downfall of the Republic compares with modern political situations.

[JohnB]

and how the downfall of the Republic compares with modern political situations.

Do you find any similarities? In my more pessimistic moments I find I think "Social Security"+ "Mass Media" rubbish entertainment = "Bread and Circuses".

 

Keep em dumb, fed and distracted and they won't actually care what else you do.

[Pangloss]

Sure, that's a comparison you hear a lot. Most early Americans who pursued higher education (even in math, science or engineering) also benefitted from classical studies, which is no longer the case. A typical university graduate then would have understood, for example, the specific paradox that Julius Caesar faced, and the collapse of the Roman Republic was front-end-center in the minds of the Founding Fathers in 1776. Today's university graduate MIGHT have heard of him, and thinks "Julius" was his first name.

 

(And by the way, the "friends of reason" are at least as responsible for this as the "enemies of reason" are. Who's controlled the higher education system for the last fifty years? The red-staters are busy farming and shooting things and voting for idiots, or so we are constantly instructed.)

[JohnB]

Hmmm, so it's not just down here.

 

I think the problem is that education especially gets kicked around by the latest "fad" in teaching. Fads that unfortunately seem to be based more in ideological theory than fact. (Or sometimes common sense.)

[Severian]

I am sitting here at my desk browsing the latest edition of Physics World, which is the monthly publication of The Institute of Physics (of which I am a member). There is an interesting article on Science and faith, by Alfred Goldhaber of the CN Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics, which I think is appropriate to this discussion.

 

In particular, his first sentence seems appropriate: "We need faith to do science - faith that nature obeys laws, and that with time we can lean ever more about these laws."

[gcol]

"We need faith to do science - faith that nature obeys laws, and that with time we can lean ever more about these laws."

 

Food for thought indeed. Does that mean I can no longer call myself an agnostic? But then as I still have doubts about Big Bang creationism, all may not be lost.

[YT2095]

I think we ALL need Faith to do Anything actually, whether I plant a packet of seeds and hope that my plants grow from them or you get into a car to go somewhere in the trust that you won`t be killed doing so.

[iNow]

Faith is a word which means different things in different contexts and to different people.

 

Two

To

Too

Also...

[YT2095]

Faith is a word which means different things in different contexts and to different people.

 

Two

To

Too

Also...

 

two, 2

to, for

too, very

Faith, Trust

 

 

like so

[Glider]

I think we ALL need Faith to do Anything actually, whether I plant a packet of seeds and hope that my plants grow from them or you get into a car to go somewhere in the trust that you won`t be killed doing so.

I don't really think that's faith. You know how seeds and plants work and so you know what conditions you have to provide to make them germinate (and also what conditions are likely to kill the seeds or stop them germinating) and using youre experience, you choose one over the other. So you have a reason to believe they'll germinate.

 

Same this with the car example. You've been places in your car before and know what you have to do to avoid an accident (and the kind of driving that's likely to lead to an accident) and you choose the one over the other. So again, you have reason to believe you'll make it this time.

 

If you had absolutely no reason to believe you'd survive the trip, I doubt you'd even get into the car (I wouldn't). Nothing is certain, but I think going with the balance of probability isn't really faith.

[Severian]

I don't really think that's faith. You know how seeds and plants work and so you know what conditions you have to provide to make them germinate (and also what conditions are likely to kill the seeds or stop them germinating) and using youre experience, you choose one over the other. So you have a reason to believe they'll germinate.

 

That is not true. You cannot extrapolate past events into predictions about future events without making an assumption about how the extrapolation should be made. Your belief that the conditions for germination will remain the same as they have always been is based on faith.

 

To put it another way: everytime you throw a ball in the air it comes down. Everytime anyone else has documented throwing a ball in the air, they report that it has come down. So you form a theory of gravity based on past events. But it could be that that theory is only applicable to these past events - you cannot prove that it will be applicable to future events - you take it on faith that it is. If you threw a ball in the air tomorrow and it didn't come down, your observation would still be consistant with your past observations - they just wouldn't be consistant with the theory you formed to make predictions.

 

This is the point that the scientist I quoted was making.

[gcol]

I am not convinced that many (all?) of the recent examples are really faith. I personally prefer to call them episodes of conditioned reflex. Everyday survival strategies. If a certain cause and effect happens often enough and regularly enough, we are conditioned to expect the same chain of events to happen in the future.

 

It would not be a sensible survival strategy to work out the sequence of cause and effect from first principles before taking any action whatsoever.

Pray to your faith first if you must, but your reflexes will get you out of the muck far quicker.