13

Are Objectivists Mutants

Posted by Zenphamy 8 years ago to Philosophy
109 comments | Share | Flag

Although the linked article discusses the topic of critical thinking from the viewpoint of science based medicine vs. 'complementary and alternative medicine, I find a great deal of similarity to my thoughts concerning being an Objectivist in life as well as a member of this site, lately. From childhood till now as an senior, I've often thought that there was just something different going on in my mind than that in others' minds. I've found a very few in my life that think much like I do, but they are rare.

From the Article: All emphasis added.
"There is a huge disconnect between what science-based medicine calls evidence and what alternative medicine and the general public call evidence. They are using the same word, but speaking a different language, making communication next to impossible."

"“Alternative medicine,” along with “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) and “integrative medicine,” is not a meaningful scientific term, but a marketing term created to lend respectability to things that we used to call by less respectable names like quackery, folk medicine, and fringe medicine." (Add Like Politics, Conservatism, Progressivism, Religion, etc. etc.)

"Today we have more sources of information, but our minds still work the old way. We prefer stories to studies, anecdotes to analyses. We see patterns where none exist. We jump to false conclusions based on insufficient evidence. Emotions trump facts. If your neighbor had a bad experience with a Toyota, you’re likely to remember his story and not buy a Toyota even if Consumer Reports says it’s the most reliable brand. That isn’t logical, but humans are not Vulcans. When we act illogically, we’re just doing what evolution has equipped us to do. It takes a lot of education and discipline to overcome our natural tendencies, and not everyone can do it."

"Ray Hyman is a psychologist and one of the founders of modern skepticism. When I asked him why some people become skeptics and others don’t, he said he thinks skeptics are mutants: something has evolved in our brains to facilitate critical thinking."

So, are we mutants? If we are, will we succeed into the future and become a successful branch of humanity? Or will we continue helping our non-mutated cousins not face extinction, even if inadvertently?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by strugatsky 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is a question of balance. An extreme in either direction is detrimental to success. For example, being able to judge human intentions falls predominantly into the intuition category. Of course, if a person displays a chain of certain decisions (good or bad), they can be assessed empirically with a high degree of confidence; but what do you do when you don't have that empirical chain? As a logical person, I've learned over the years that in certain areas (not all - knowing limitations is the key) my less logical wife is consistently a better judge of character than I am. Try to define it mathematically!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Buyer Beware! The heart of laissez faire free market.

    But it remains that adequate evidence and repeatable experiment by critical thinkers has given us the level of medical care we have today.

    My grandmother was the local herbalist and mid-wife in Arkansas consulted by neighbors, because there wasn't readily accessible Medical care of any other kind. I had wounds treated by her with kerosene, sugar, and spider webs, drank a lot of sassifras root and willow bark tea, cod liver oil, castor oil, Denver mud on infections, chewed tobacco on wasp stings, had warts removed with a penny put in a hollow stump on the full moon, and suffered the indignities of enemas. When more Drs. became available and better transportation to them, her neighbors as well as she, and thankfully me, went to the Drs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, I was referring to that. The brain is mathematical, but we don't (yet) know how to describe the process exactly and we certainly cannot repeat it reliably. By the classical definition of a scientific method and as determined by the American Medical Association, intuition would be considered quackery.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If one could go as a free individual in a free market opportunity, what a better place to be a part of rebuilding? I'm afraid that few of the people there now could accept those two conditions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I've experienced a lot of 'Aha' and 'light bulb' moments in my life, but invariably I've sat down and found the traceable path that led to it, even if sub-consciously arrived at. I've known some that used 'intuition' and relied on it. I've never known anyone that could progress in their knowledge relying on their 'intuition' or be constant in their performance. Sometimes with drastic consequences to themselves or others.

    Luck or bad luck.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by blackswan 7 years, 12 months ago
    When I was in ELHI, I remember reading about how English sailors were cured of scurvy by eating limes, hence the term "limey." Today "scientific" medicine consigns such stories to the non-scientific realm of folklore and bs, asserting that the only thing that cures disease is drugs. On the face of that assertion, I must say that the so-called scientific approach is where the bs lives. So much these days are called "scientific," when in reality, they are merely prejudices dressed up in white coats. It's also interesting that the "scientists" refuse to test their assertions in direct product to product, truly scientific comparisons, like the GMO argument, for example. All that would be necessary is for the lab work to be done over the time period where the various diseases occur, rather than the shorter time period in which the diseases don't occur. If that were done, then we could see, "scientifically," what the issues are, and whether or not there is truly a risk. Given the GMO manufacturers' reluctance to pursue this avenue, I can only be skeptical about their claims. And it's not just GMOs that claim "science," but "climate change," evolution, and a host of other items that really have little or no support for such a stance, and in fact is nothing more than a model based on a bunch of assumptions. I go with Joe Friday, just the facts, ma'am.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, recent studies have revealed that the human brain is a bit more mathematical than previously suspected. What we call "intuition" or "gut feel" turns out to be a process of statistical analysis.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by tdechaine 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Relatively few Z. Most people just don't try because they have never been trained or are lazy and see the Leftist theme (e.g. redistribution) satisfactory.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ CBJ 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would agree with you if medicine was in anything resembling a free market. Many of these advances occurred decades ago, when the health care market was much more free than it is now. Many people are alive today thanks to taking responsibility for their own health care and using "alternative" therapies when appropriate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 7 years, 12 months ago
    Anyone ever read "Gulf" by Robert Heinlein? Great story about "mutants"
    Edit: clarity
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Herb; excellent comment. Txs. 100+yrs later and we're still testing his theory. Mutant? I think so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Are they 'winning' or are they just out-breeding us or subsisting from our efforts?

    I too spent a lot of time in Oregon, and I'm really pleased to be away from all of that.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    td; but my thought is that there are some/many born without the 'wiring' to learn critical thinking. Education and nurture can't do it all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And, yes, an education and a degree in NO way confers ability. I am astounded at the number of doctors and dentists :) who take what the drug reps say as truth and treat their patients accordingly. It is crucial that all of us use critical thinking to determine our own care. I just want my patients to not believe things just because it's on the Internet!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is in mutant Objectivists' best interest to let non-mutant humans fall to the side. Anything else would be altruism. This is a small part of why I thought that the return to greater society at the end of Atlas Shrugged was not the proper ending. If the situation got as bad as Venezuela is now, does anyone think that producers would go to rebuild Venezuela?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 7 years, 12 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh, Zen, I couldn't agree more. I will NEVER take statins. Actually, the scientific studies show that the ONLY group that statins have been shown to extend the life of is middle aged or older men with a history of a previous heart attack. So to me it is unconscionable that so many docs have put so many people on statins. No, my skepticism extends to "traditional medicine" as well as the pseudo science crap that is out there. For example, I will also NEVER take a bisphosphonate drug (so called bone builders).
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo