A skeptical critique of self proclaimed skeptics
Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 11 months ago to Science
While I agree with the tone of this article, I cannot claim enough knowledge of all the topics covered. I hope to hear competent rational rebuttals as well as confirmation to this article (which is not as detailed as I would prefer, although it does provide bibliography for further study.).
Zenphamy got it in fewer words than me - 'socialist' 'progressive' 'idiot'.
John Horgan appears to favor religion over atheism and rationalism (his term--does that mean he is against Reason?). That he abhors war and wants to end it is at least a recommendation. It will take a whole lot of us to keep spreading that message to excavate that egregious defect from human software. Neuroscience is, in fact, making inroads into understanding the mechanics of how ideas infiltrate the human thinking apparatus. Give them credit for effort and a bit of progress.
All learning is cumulative and gradual. The mind that has attained a sufficient level of rationality can become self-correcting much as the scientific method provides for overriding previous concepts when those are proven wrong. It’s a pity that most minds are so highly resistant to correction and cling to denial even when incontrovertible evidence piles up.
Now why humans divide into clans, tribes, us and them, my speculation is that the DNA has built in a mate selection algorithm that differentiates between similar and too-dissimilar potential partners. And this algorithm has evolved to make too fine distinctions and has opened the door to rejection on even spurious grounds like minor physical and mental differences, such as color, cultural aspects and belief systems. And that prejudice enables regarding “them” as of such lesser value as to justify destroying them instead of incorporating them on a higher level of community.
Please don’t come at me with the objection that communities are collectivism. It takes community to develop division of labor, diversification of skills and an environment for innovation and trading partners. In fact, this is a good time to examine your own premises and see why you hold or reject certain ideas.
Did anything I have written here rub one of your internalized notions the wrong way? Does even the word “notion” rather than theory or well-founded belief sound like an insult or put-down? If yes, bear in mind that there is no conflict of interest between rational individuals. Any apparent discord comes from faulty premises.
Let’s find the points of convergence, and we’ll see that war and enmities are a horrendous error in the system. Then maybe we can start eradicating those deadly memes.
!) I'll take some exception to your belief in genes only determining physical form, while experience (gained or taught) alone forms behavior. Tabula rasa or a blank biological computer, simply doesn't match up with my personal experience as one of 9 sons or as a father of 2. Although that's a popular belief and is regularly taught in many fields, it rejects many findings that many genes turn on and off during the life of a human dependent on environment and experience encountered and some of those genes are involved in mental behavior and capability. That's particularly evident in studies and treatments of certain mental disorders and neurological systems, ie, PTSD, sympathetic/para-sympathetic nervous system, various autistic spectrum disorders, bi-polarism, schizophrenia, etc. I'll leave it that there remains much to be learned and determined in the field of genetics vs experience.
2) IMHO, any person favoring mysticism and rationalization as a way of gaining knowledge is of necessity opposed to reason. .
3) As to the author's beliefs and feelings about war, he simply illustrates to me an emotional response to the destruction of war without considering the self defense concept or even the economic and political gains achieved. He certainly isn't taking into consideration the historical and anthropological evidence of the nature of man, either individually or collectively. I say that from the standpoint of not liking war (I personally didn't get a lot of enjoyment from it), but in recognition that many humans seem to see that path as the way to obtain whatever it is that they want. Can't We All Just Get Along., Give Love A Chance., Make Love-Not War., Think Of The Children, just never has worked and I question that it ever will.
4) As to tribalism and racialism, I wonder how early humans dealt with crossbreeding with Neanderthals and Dinesovans.
5) Community, communism, communication, commune, commons--good and/or bad. I personally hold that maintaining individualism within community is a natural right. I don't understand a need at this point to re-examine my premises. I really don't work well with notions as a means to deal with reality. I may suspect something, but I hold off integrating it till I see or determine proof. As to ideas, as long as I'm comfortable that they derive from rational logical reasoning, I'm happy. Examination of ideas is an on-going activity in my life and has been as long as I can remember. I'm afraid that my total rejection of beliefs without repeatable proof or based on only partial data has severely impacted my socialization activities, but I accept that and just think of myself as selective and picky.
6) Convergence is an interesting way to not say that evil word compromise. There is right/wrong, true/false, provable/not provable, real/unreal. I'll stick with those, particularly in regards to my individual rights and the Objective morality.
7) As to memes, I'm not a fan of that idea. I think that Dawkins did a disservice to the old game of rumor (?) A circle of people passing a story from one to the next in whispers and the comparison to what comes out at the end vs. what went in at the start. My experience informs me that it's not a very reliable means of information transmission. Do they exist--I guess if you're easily influenced or like the magazines at the checkout stands.
His argument about US health care is flawed though. The conclusion may be correct, but arguing about the cost and lifespan ignores the two main contributors to long life 1) genes and 2) fitness. Health care is a distant factor once basic cleanliness, food availability and societal features (e,g, war) are managed, as in most modern countries.
Our health care is too expensive and has other limitations imposed by government regulation, but lifespan/cost is not the right measure.
Be skeptical. Be more skeptical of people asserting conclusions taking away rights and property.
skeptic
1
n
someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs
Synonyms:
doubter, sceptic
Types:
doubting Thomas
someone who demands physical evidence in order to be convinced (especially when this demand is out of place)
pessimist
a person who expects the worst
defeatist, negativist
someone who is resigned to defeat without offering positive suggestions
Type of:
intellect, intellectual
a person who uses the mind creatively
Buit then some of us are skeptical realists and have to test 10,000 times before concluding incandescent bulbs do indeed produce light.
Which means candescent sources cannot?
read it and weep
candescent
Definitions of candescent
1
adj
glowing from great heat
Synonyms:
light
characterized by or emitting light
I am no longer skeptical. having seen the light!
Another modern error is the string theory idea of oscillating strings as being fundamental to the existence of matter and radiation. They cannot be the fundamental building stuff of everything because oscillation or waviness implies relationships of parts of something in the movement, thus implying something even more fundamental.
I also have dislike of writers who indicate that energy is some kind of stuff rather than a relative relationship between different pieces of matter or radiation.
Let's just say I'm going to take the author's advice - just to be critical of his own claims.
Ever since his space-time proposition was proved by bending light, science came unhinged. Up until then, everything was, to most scientists, neat and orderly. A+B=C. All the time. It worked so why look any deeper? But along comes Albert and poof! everything changes. As scientists get deeper into the world of quantum, more things seem to become unhinged, and those poor big-brains formulate theories that try to reconcile it with the reality that is undetectable even with special instruments. I think I might succumb to that great philosopher Ebenezer Scrooge before he became converted to nice: "Bah, Humbug!"
If you think Einstein shook things up...wait to till the dust settles from the Electric Universe Theory.
When perceptually discovering something in reality that seems to call into question one's understanding of some aspect(s) of the rest of reality, check your premises - even or especially if you call yourself a "quantum scholar."