Are Objectivists Mutants

Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 4 months 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?
SOURCE URL: http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/it-worked-for-my-aunt-tillie-is-not-evidence/

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 4 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 | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by philosophercat 4 years, 4 months ago
      Before science, the study of that which exists, you sat around a fire grunting and gesturing as most children and women died in childbirth and disease. Now you rely on science to write its denial. That is why Objectivism calls it a stolen concept. Read Atlas and learn why that is a fundamental enemy of reason. Almost every bird you eat and flower.you buy is GMO. Read Darwin and learn about speciation by breeding and Rand for reason and science. .
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 4 months ago
    adjective: mutant

    resulting from or showing the effect of mutation.
    "a mutant gene"

    noun: mutant; plural noun: mutants

    a mutant form.
    synonyms: freak (of nature), deviant, monstrosity, monster, mutation
    "is this insect some sort of mutant?"

    Top Definition. Mutant. 1.A hideously ugly, repulsive, decrepid, foul, grotesque, unsightly, horrid, ill-proportioned, mangy, haggard, crude, bloated or generally ...

    A permanent change in any life form to arrive at one of the above life forms as described as opposed to evolving by natural selection.

    The answer is No but socialists are.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 4 years, 4 months ago
      how easy to go to google and type in " 'Definition of ' insert word. One can get the answer in a multitude of answers.

      Or open up your nearest Dictionary ...Not Fictionary. DDD - Dictionary.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Temlakos 4 years, 4 months ago
    Let me remind everyone of Nathaniel Branden's experiences with hypnosis, in the face of Rand's dismissal of it as a fraud.

    Those who call themselves Objectivists, ought not trust what the article calls "science-based medicine" purely on the basis of the respectability of its sources. To do so is to fall into the logical fallacies Rand herself illustrated to so roundly condemn: argumentum ab auctoritate (or ab auctoritatibus), and argumentum a populo. I put it to this body that many of the vaunted "studies" are fraudulent, and that motives for fraud abound in the "scientific world." The motives go beyond one person and often reach into company board rooms. I can also cite my own experience in questioning authority and, by so doing, improving my own health.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo