tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post3064511527269685422..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Penn & Teller: more Bullshit!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21675551013324966932009-10-18T15:04:36.251-04:002009-10-18T15:04:36.251-04:00Massimo,
I may be coming slowly over to your side...Massimo,<br /><br />I may be coming slowly over to your side, but I'm not there yet. <br /><br />Two points I think need to be made. <br /><br />Shermer's Libertarianism doesn't need to be scientifically based in order to apply scientific skepticism towards a public policy issue such as presented in his review of Moore's film. <br /><br />He can in fact apply the sciences to explain and understand his political and economic view points (can't we all - wouldn't be better if we did?).<br /><br />He is clearly applying skepticism towards Moore's film without running afoul of scientific skepticism. Skeptics often do this with religion. We can claim that scientific skepticism should only deal with testable claims (what is within science's purview, such as testing the claim of the age of the earth - 10,000 year old earth is "reality challenged"), but even that is more NOMA than NOMA (a point I've tried to make to other atheist friends of mine). <br /><br />My complaint here of Coyne and Dawkins should enlighten this point. What will happen often is to say, as Coyne has, that "supernaturalism" is within the realm of science". <br /><br />What is missing of course (beyond the fact that he's yet to substantiate his claim in any reasonable scientific fashion) is that we can treat the beliefs as natural phenomena. We are not dealing with the "supernatural" at all, science is not saying anything about the "supernatural" - science can say something about belief systems which are naturalistic (clearly groups of people claiming to believe something outside of purview of science and reason that is not testable can indeed be "reality challenged"). <br /><br />Of course some claim at this point that we can not define naturalism or "supernaturalism" clearly enough - so "supernaturalism" is still within the realm of science, - that my friend is a bullshit maneuver. <br /><br />My point here is that scientific skepticism should not leave out religious claims. Even ones that are not directly testable because we can study belief systems and offer scientific explanations for how and why people believe and behave as they do (applying scientific skepticism to beliefs). <br /><br />In the same way, scientific skepticism should not leave out politics or economics which not only touch on beliefs and values, but often have direct testable claims. <br /><br />Now, Shermer can claim his Libertarianism is science based, but I'm not sure what your point actually is here. So, the challenge is to show me how he is "very" close to saying it is and what it matters to his argument? <br /><br />Point being again, arguing from a more Libertarian point of view does not a priori place your argument beyond scientific skepticism. It does not tell us he is outside of science claiming science is backing up his skepticism of Moore.<br /><br />Or so I think.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40274599765881305292009-10-17T21:30:13.706-04:002009-10-17T21:30:13.706-04:00Luke,
I really don't find much to disagree wi...Luke,<br /><br />I really don't find much to disagree with in your latest posts. Of course there will always be grey areas, and I certainly wouldn't want a separation of science and public policy. But while science can inform policy, the latter is more complex because it includes issues of values, which certainly cannot be settled scientifically.<br /><br />>> They are outside of science claiming that science is explaining their position with regards to "supernaturalism". <<<br /><br />Right, but so are P&T and Shermer, if their claim is that libertarianism is scientifically based (Shermer comes *very* close to say so in his latest posts).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36541030020779093072009-10-17T12:24:11.457-04:002009-10-17T12:24:11.457-04:00I need to clarify that last sentence now (I luvs d...I need to clarify that last sentence now (I luvs da commentin biz). <br /><br />The idea here is that they are claiming that science and the supernatural can and do indeed overlap. They have not provided evidence of this claim outside of relating potential possibilities, which would be fine but they have not proposed a single one that adhears to what we understand thought science regarding reality.<br /><br />I could easily be mistaken in that sentence since I can say I hold no belief in the "supernatural" because of what I understand of reality through science. What they are doing is quite different, and in my opinion, incredibly dishonest and misleading. <br /><br />They have absolutely nothing that supports their claim outside of made up events. When it gets ugly is when they do apply philosophy by blurring the lines of definition to fit the "supernatural" within science.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4633517282108106742009-10-17T12:04:27.748-04:002009-10-17T12:04:27.748-04:00Need to correct final paragraph.
I do not agree t...Need to correct final paragraph.<br /><br />I do not agree that the discussion of the domain of skepticism (as in our example's of P&T) is the same as Dawkins' and now Coyne's mistakenly overlapping science and the "supernatural" (to put it simply). <br /><br />Even though I would say D&C are doing it from a biased perspective - what they have done goes beyond getting the science wrong and advocate a corrective measure. They are outside of science claiming that science is explaining their position with regards to "supernaturalism".Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76147864168662378382009-10-17T11:49:00.694-04:002009-10-17T11:49:00.694-04:00Massimo,
Thank you for your reply. I consider thi...Massimo,<br /><br />Thank you for your reply. I consider this a great honor to be able to have this discussion with you. <br /><br />I think we've hit on the cusp of the disagreement. <br /><br />However, with your explanation here I find it difficult to disagree with you. I am wondering if this is so primarily because we may share similar political ideals. <br /><br />Sticking with P&T may be worthwhile (though I will admit to not watching much of their show and find Penn to be an obnoxious gadfly at times). <br /><br />We seem to agree that global warming (GW) falls within the purview of scientific skepticism. It appears we may also agree that in doing so we approach the area of public policy - going where the evidence leads and perhaps advocating a corrective course. <br /><br />Outside of GW, this indeed has been the case in many instances. <br /><br />With P&T, two problems seem to arise - scientific ignorance and the corrective measure (and the twain have perhaps met - signaling bias dictating preordained outcomes). <br /><br />However, as I understand the argument, this does not preclude skepticism going into public policy areas or other domains either, such as economics. If indeed you felt P&T's science was correct on GW and the corrective measures reasonable, I doubt you would have not placed the issue of "global warming" outside of the listed areas for proper skepticism. <br /><br />It would appear then a question may have arisen of how is bias conflicting with skepticism at a time when skepticism is clearly moving beyond just paranormal and pseudo-medicine claims.<br /><br />I agree that Carl Sagan was careful with his science in public advocacy (he was indeed arrested in a protest against nuclear weapons). However, if my recollection is correct the paper he helped draft on a nuclear winter was in fact incorrect in many areas and some felt purposefully biased. Some have considered the episode of Carl's and Ehrilich's advocacy was an inappropriate meddling of science and politics (not skepticism and politics - I'd like to find skeptical literature from skeptic organizations that really took Carl to task on this - do I once again find bias?). <br /><br />The question then is getting the science wrong an argument for areas for skepticism in said area to be tossed? Is a perceived biased approach to a solution means to dismiss as an area for skepticism? (since we all seem to hold bias and scientific skepticism does not stick to the same protocol of proper science - Skeptical Inquirer is not Science magazine). <br /><br />I'm limited in space and my points are not fully explained. <br /><br />But, I would like to end by saying I disagree that what you perceive as the problem with P&T is not the same as what Dawkins and now Coyne have done with overlapping science with the "supernatural".Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66364501393764855022009-10-17T09:54:16.640-04:002009-10-17T09:54:16.640-04:00Luke,
thanks for the thoughtful post and the apol...Luke,<br /><br />thanks for the thoughtful post and the apologies. Don't worry, though, I have a pretty thick skin, otherwise I wouldn't expose myself to public abuse like this... :-)<br /><br />You raise an excellent point about P&T and global warming. But my point there was not that P&T shouldn't talk about it, because it is in fact a matter of testable claims, so within the purview of scientific skepticism. My beef in that case is that they get it completely wrong! They just don't seem to understand the science, which may imply that in a sense that topic is indeed out of their league.<br /><br />But of course, the problem is not (entirely, or just) that they don't understand the science, but that they are looking at it through their libertarian lenses. It is when they explicitly advocate a free market solution to the problem that they are leaving skepticism and entering social policy and political philosophy. (And, again, they are entitled to do so, just not qua skeptics.) Carl Sagan, to my recollection, was much more careful, sticking to the science and staying away from publicly endorsing a particular political framework (even though he was clearly a progressive liberal).<br /><br />We are in complete agreement with the problem of Dawkins and Coyne making (reasonable, mind you) philosophical statements and confusing them with science. To me that's just another aspect of the same problem.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64363483775191985222009-10-16T13:00:20.625-04:002009-10-16T13:00:20.625-04:00Massimo,
I sincerely apologize for my sarcastic r...Massimo,<br /><br />I sincerely apologize for my sarcastic remarks. <br /><br />I'm only going on what you've pointed out so far (so yes I've read your arguments). Also, I’d hoped it may appear obvious by now that I'm not in complete disagreement with you. My poorly made point is that I think I get it already, as wrong as I may be.<br /><br />Lets take one example. You placed global warming outside the domain of proper scientific skepticism. Or did you? Your argument seems to be that when P&T talk about it they are out of their league, but is that a proper way to make the argument for what is appropriate for skeptics to speak about in a skeptical forum? You seemed to emphasize this point when you brought in the qualifications argument. <br /><br />So, what side are you arguing? I am saying global warming, as shown in my many examples is well placed for skeptics and it is at times an important public policy issue discussion (here’s where I may start to argue what is happening may be more about cohesion since disagreements may arise – especially with economics). <br /><br />To clarify my above point a bit - lets stick with P&T. Are P&T out of bounds when they speak on scientific issues at all? They may get others to aid them in particulars, but are either qualified by scientific training (either one at any time a professor either? – BTW, this argument has been used against James Randi). So, we need to more precise I believe to argue how to limit their show to a certain criteria of how to apply scientific skepticism, skepticism in general and current affairs? <br /><br />They did a show on PETA, well, Skeptical Inquirer did a piece that dealt with animal rights extremist, so did Skeptic. <br /><br />I will point out again that Carl Sagan did in fact speak on public policy issues, publicly and directly. As a renowned scientist and skeptic, the forums he chose to do so varied. <br /><br />However, as I have pointed out, there should not be limitations when clearly empirical claims are being made. And that goes for public policy, atheism and economics (certainly global warming). I see some say that economics should be off limits because it is not scientific (enough), but so is religion and we love like hell to talk about it. They do make claims and the claims can be countered and there will be value judgments made. <br /><br />The argument then is well, we are limited only to what claims are testable, but we're not entirely (a point I also made), we can empirically show how and why people believe, or give empirically based explanations (even though I argue for NOMA, we are not out of bounds to do this and thus can return to the null hypothesis in our personal beliefs). We can gather hypothesis, testable and repeatable fact and theory based on religious beliefs by looking at the belief system (neurology, through EP etc.). Even with social anthropology, the new and improved approach (in my opinion) is never to take the "supernatural" claims as facts about anything, at first (to see the beliefs as purely a natural phenomena). <br /><br />Take for example - I resent like hell these "new atheist" drone followers who clog up comments with the idea that debunking such things as astrology, ESP, alt med etc. is somehow below them, they are above that mess because they deal with religion and are out to save the world for the rest of us. It's part of a "groupthink" bullshit that has a built up play book which includes the claim that "science can study the supernatural".<br /><br />On that last note. Here's where we agree completely and so would Shermer. Claims are being made by Dawkins and most recently Coyne on "supernaturalism" (and now hordes of do gooders) which are philosophical in nature but they have decided to blur the lines of definition to make claims about science and the "supernatural", and they are doing it apparently without realizing how idiotic it really is.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29499352877914464432009-10-15T21:42:36.659-04:002009-10-15T21:42:36.659-04:00Luke,
I'm not sure I deserve your sarcasm. On...Luke,<br /><br />I'm not sure I deserve your sarcasm. One more time, I am not try to censor anyone, just expressing, and defending, my opinions.<br /><br />You may think I have not given a shit of a reason for my political views, but I beg to differ, go back and re-read the posts and my commentaries.<br /><br />And no, this isn't an "old tired argument" about who is qualified to say what. I am not questioning either Shermer or P&T's qualifications, I am simply suggesting that there are significant differences among the three domains been discussed (again: atheism, skepticism and political philosophy), which means that one shouldn't glide from one to the other without realizing that one is doing somethin different (I don't think Dawkins, Shermer or P&T really see a discontinuity, they don't seem to be aware of it). And mine is by no means a particular heterodox position here.<br /><br />As for the forthcoming "incredible blog post," I'm afraid your expectations are so high now that you are bound to be disappointed. Oh well, that's life I guess.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18393161559604773442009-10-15T18:02:34.948-04:002009-10-15T18:02:34.948-04:00Massimo,
Well, I see. I think Shermer has made cl...Massimo,<br /><br />Well, I see. I think Shermer has made clear that when he speaks on SkepticBlog he may include economics, isn't that explicit enough for you? Maybe Skeptical Inquirer should give notice when they talk about religious claims.<br /><br />So, we get to "qualifications" now, and I'd like to yours on economics compared to say, I dunno, Shermer. Isn't this the tired argument that if one feels someone is outside of their domain they should remain silent. Since skepticism isn't really a domain, this is a wide net Massimo. This stuff deteriorates so fast, you mentioned "atheism", is Shermer qualified to speak on atheism, or chose people who are, how about religion (we'll simply ignore his training in economics or being a professor of). <br /><br />You said (strangly): "Moreover, I reserve the right to call whatever bullshit I see as such, of course, with arguments and in a reasoned way (I hope!), regardless of who writes or speaks it."<br /><br />Gee wiz, well ok - But, I'm calling you on your Bullshit. I didn't see you carrying on like this a decade ago, and you retain your right to change your mind, as you claim, but why now, you haven't provided shit for a reason. <br /><br />But, yes, we shall wait to see this incredible blog post that may just explain it all and why your "justification" and domain of skeptics arguments hold any water (which now I am seriously starting to doubt since you took great care in reading past me - like acting as if I've made all personal somehow).Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38879965856376610942009-10-15T17:37:22.861-04:002009-10-15T17:37:22.861-04:00This will have to be brief, I'm about to board...This will have to be brief, I'm about to board a plane.<br /><br />Jonathan, I completely understand your reasoning, but by the same token then shouldn't we reject the idea of "state rights" within the US (not a bad idea, if you ask me)? And internationally, what would you replace the UN system with? They could operate under a "constitution" of sorts (like the EU will do now) precisely to avoid the problems you mention.<br /><br />Luke, I'll say it once more: my intention is not to limit anyone's speech, nor to dictate who can write what where. Besides the obvious point that it would be useless to issue such dictates, it would be extremely presumptuous of me and completely antithetical to my principles.<br /><br />But I am arguing (and as I said, will do so in more detail shortly) that there *are* legitimate and important differences among atheism, skepticism and political philosophy. So, if the same person writes about them in the same forum (like I do here) that person ought to explicitly tell his/her readers that the forum is not just about skepticism, but includes politics, or religion, or whatever (again, just like it says at the top of this page). <br /><br />In other words, the beef may be with taking the mantle of skepticism - which P&T and Shermer have richly deserved to carry - and extend it without qualifications to areas where it doesn't belong or where it is stretched.<br /><br />Moreover, I reserve the right to call whatever bullshit I see as such, of course, with arguments and in a reasoned way (I hope!), regardless of who writes or speaks it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67635885257036749252009-10-15T17:18:34.226-04:002009-10-15T17:18:34.226-04:00This will be my last post on the topic you [Massim...This will be my last post on the topic you [Massimo]and I are (as well as others here) discussing. <br /><br />Take a look at the new issue of Skeptic.<br /><br />http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/index.html<br /><br />Here's a couple topics:<br /><br />"Atheism Rising<br /> Intelligence, Science,<br /> and the Decline of Belief"<br /><br />"Why Religions Turn Oppressive<br /> A Perspective from<br /> Evolutionary Psychology"<br /><br />I hadn't seen those before I started posting on this blog post. <br /> <br />I remember they published David Sloan Wilson's essay, Why Dawkins is Wrong About Religion, and recently a rebuttal to Wilson's "Stealth Religion" blogs. <br /><br />I think we can handle it, as we have for over 15 years Skeptic has been publishing. I think we can handle Skeptical Inquirer in its move stretching out a bit (its science and religion issues coming over a decade ago), and I certainly think we can handle areas of public policy and economics discussed by skeptics in skeptical forums. <br /><br />Take a look at Shermer's blog's on what can be considered economics from a Libertarian view. It appears a lot of people will say he's off limits, then say how crazy he is as a Libertarian and rants about how naive Libertarianism is.<br /><br />What can't be missed is how many are the one's most adamant about what shouldn't be discussed by skeptics on a skeptic forum are liberal's who expound "endlessly" on what's wrong with Shermer's views and what's right with their view. <br /><br />This is what I keep seeing and not just with Shermer (and what I've eluded above in other comments). I will go further here, not only will you see this type of double speak, but predictably by reading other comments, they will be some of the most out spoken liberal "atheist" in the crowed who complain about others telling them to "shut up". I just made a testable claim, and I stand by it. <br /><br />As I've mentioned, I am a liberal, a social democrat (living in the U.S. - N.Y.). I disagree a great deal with Shermer's Libertarianism, but I don't think he's off base to voice his views as a skeptic in a skeptical forum. He is often respectful and explains himself well. He does try to bring empirical analysis to his ideas, just as I see liberals doing with their views on economics (usually while saying you can't be scientific when discussing economics). <br /><br />It's odd (but predictable) that the liberalized skeptic/atheist point of view I have discussed would at once claim to be muted while trying to limit what is discussed. I firmly hold part of this stems from two points. One is to keep cohesion for the sake of how dangerous we view irrationality, mainly religion - second is that atheist/skeptics are usually and predictably very liberal and like to keep politics and economics as a side discussion because they like to hold that we should not allow for scientific rationality with its provisional nature of accepting claims into our discourse.<br /><br />Even you who has shown the problem of the argument of claims of "soft" and "hard" science.Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90618719564838861372009-10-15T15:50:35.920-04:002009-10-15T15:50:35.920-04:00Massimo,
I think you miss the mark w/ a 'one ...Massimo,<br /><br />I think you miss the mark w/ a 'one nation, one vote' idea. Nation-states aren't persons, and don't have legitimate interests *expect* insofar as the members of that state have interests. So there is no good sense in which states "deserve" to be treated as "equals" nor any good sense in which states qua states should have "rights" independently of the rights of their citizens.<br /><br />As a practical matter, it is very likely the case that *most* of the time, engagement and development are more effective at moving repressive regimes towards reasonableness, but that is a practical matter, not a matter of principle.<br /><br />But I can see no reason at all for broadly liberal nations (in the Millian / Rawlsian sense) to put important human rights issues to a vote! I honestly don't care if 90% of the nation-states have leaderships (or even populations) that support basing civil law on particular interpretations of religious texts -- doing so is wrong, wrong, wrong, and should be opposed. Our opposition should be measured, and proportional to our chances of doing good versus harm, etc., but it isn't a popularity contest.<br /><br />JonathanJonathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11364316598293820961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76395455170764878122009-10-15T13:56:48.145-04:002009-10-15T13:56:48.145-04:00Massimo,
Thank you for the responses (especially ...Massimo,<br /><br />Thank you for the responses (especially given that my post tend to appear fairly sloppy due to my bad habit of not proof reading and just hitting the submit button). <br /><br />I just want to clear one thing up, only because it's important to me (mainly due to my vast respect for you). I do believe you were surprised about the essay being published - I'm just pointing out that in my opinion it actually seems that it shouldn't have been a surprise at all given what had already been published in Skeptic.<br /><br />Within the first year or so of Skeptic I remember thinking that it was like a cross between Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry - I rejoiced in this fact and still do (though as has always been the case, Skeptic has not forwarded an ideology like humanism). <br /><br />My fear now is that the "traditionalist" view point may attempt to limit skepticism (which is after all a method) and argue that what falls short of proper use of skepticism, such as economics, will indeed end up to be a roadblock to progress as we attempt to apply empirical analysis to other areas outside the paranormal and pseudo-medicine. <br /><br />In this way a proper skepticism can also employ philosophical skepticism while recognizing areas to which science can not answer. Thus allowing for empirical based theory on why one would hold beliefs in areas that science has not shown or can not show to be reality. <br /><br />I also think there are ethical considerations that touch on public policy with such things as "alternative medicine" and this is (and should be) expressed by skeptics. One example being to shut down the NIH's department of "alternative and complementary" medicine, because it supports garbage and misappropriates valuable funds. <br /><br />I think the area of evolutionary psychology, which has been much maligned (sometimes for very good reason), will also open the door to a wider use of skepticism which should be shared by skeptics in skeptical forums (skeptics on occassion already attempt to debunk EP, but rarely use it when it appears like good science that may help to explain phenomena). <br /><br />In a way I could be seen as arguing a point you made in, The Case Against God, essay. In an area such as the science and religion divide, we must recognize the limits of science when dealing with claims, but that does not mean we are limited from talking about why and how the [false]-truth claims are made. <br /><br />BTW, I'd love to debate with you the most hated of all ideas to come from a renowned skeptic and scientist (or so it seems), Stephen's Noma. Which I think you are mistaken in describing. <br /><br />Strangely to some, given my arguments such as I have on this blog, I support NOMA and find arguments such as the boundaries are to ill defined, it gives all moral and ethical domains to religion, are a false reading. At bottom what I think is the hang up is that religion is given a magisteria when what we want is religion gone (thus it is seen to implicitly give religion staying power), plus many don't like to admit the limitations to science and will claim "science can study the supernatural", then they themselves blur the lines of definition (a very popular tactic lately and done as a direct result of Noma - thus it is said to give science a say in supernaturalism - thus they have confused it's essence and confused a proper understanding of science). <br /><br />The strange part is that I am arguing we can have a say in "supernaturalism", but only what can be understood scientifically and that includes refuting the claims with regard to nature and how and why people believe. My thinking is what Gould would clearly expect and had. He already welcomed Shermer's publication and supported it long after it published articles on religion, including yours (he wrote the forward to Why People Believe Weird Things).Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17106293299543458922009-10-15T13:03:38.018-04:002009-10-15T13:03:38.018-04:00"Boy, it's lonely out here!"
Is ..."Boy, it's lonely out here!" <br /><br />Is it really? <br /><br />"(And no, Cal, I don't need to be consoled, it was just a cute way to end my comment, I'm fine, really.)"<br /><br />Oh ok.<br /><br />World peace is possible only when people individually and personally acknowledge that there could be something in their own heart that makes them part of the problem. Stirring up envy between people groups and classes is no help to that cause AT ALL. Not to be redundant, but is truly not always those people "out there" doing something bad that makes world peace impossible. Its a problem that originates from the inside. <br /><br />Sorry that you're feeling lonely. Help people with us or some other org, you'll never feel alone again. Its the best thing in the world.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-920452950926566362009-10-15T12:56:53.123-04:002009-10-15T12:56:53.123-04:00Hmmm, I'm having comment problems too. Last ni...Hmmm, I'm having comment problems too. Last night I submitted a post just before Kimpatsu's that built on the parent conversation in a serious fashion. (Believe it or not, my primary purpose here is not to engage in border skirmishes with trolls. Honest!) Today I see that it has been "removed by the author" - yet, I assure you, I did not delete it...at least not knowingly.<br /><br />I'm also having other issues with my Google account today, such as being told I need to enable cookies even though they already are, and NoScript warning me of potential clickjacking when I perform certain routine actions on this page. Maybe they're related issues. In any event, I am going to cache my comments locally for the time being to make it easier to repost them if this continues to occur.<br /><br />What follows is the reconstruction of the now-deleted post, with some revision at the end.<br /><br />---<br /><br />Massimo, I agree that there is a pretty important distinction to be made between applying skepticism to the realms of science and political philosophy, and I look forward to seeing how you choose to pursue this subject.<br /><br />However, even though political philosophy (and the application thereof) is values-oriented, it still must rely on conformity to known facts for credibility. It's all well and good for an individual to be in favor of a policy - for example, abstinence-only education - on a values basis, but if the practice has been factually demonstrated to be ineffective in the past, those values should be insufficient as a basis for setting such a policy in the future. Ideally, once a policy is known to be ineffective, finding out WHY this is so (or more robustly, taking measurable steps toward isolating and establishing the specific factors that DO affect the behavior in question) should be a necessary precondition for enacting another iteration of such a policy.<br /><br />In other words, politics, the "art of the possible", becomes more subject to scientific skepticism as more things are tried and the possible is more clearly defined.<br /><br />As for atheism, I see this at its core as being solidly in the same camp with science - i.e. "There is no evidence for X, therefore there is nothing to say about X." Values only come into it in two secondary senses: (a) valuing skeptical inquiry itself, and (b) the reactions this view evokes within that subset of the non-skeptical, religious community which believes its values are (or at least should be) wholly separate from and immune to skeptical inquiry.<br /><br />Though the narrowly political or religious mind may deny it, values-based reasoning and skeptical inquiry are not altogether isolated from each other. Hence, even if the only conclusion a skeptic may legitimately draw on a values-related topic is "not enough data", it is still not inappropriate to apply skeptical inquiry. It may even be helpful as a step toward parameterizing the discussion so that at least some common ground can be established about what is known, what is unknown, and what <i>must be</i> known in order to enact policy or evaluate behavior in a meaningful way.<br /><br />I'd really like to delve into a discussion about how, specifically, the two forms of reasoning interrelate at some point, but that would be far too lengthy and involved a matter to segue into here in any depth, so I'll end with this mathematical metaphor:<br /><br />The touchstone for both the skeptical evaluation of values-based reasoning and the values-based evaluation of skeptical reasoning is a curve of intersection that includes the "greatest good/least harm" edict.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39986647624016538072009-10-15T12:42:12.874-04:002009-10-15T12:42:12.874-04:00Luke,
you make fair points, and I honestly don...Luke,<br /><br />you make fair points, and I honestly don't know what happened to your previous post, I certainly didn't delete it.<br /><br />At any rate, whether you believe or not that I was surprised by Michael's agreement to publish that essay is not really the point. The more interesting thing is that, if you recall, the essay was in fact about the different kinds of belief in god, and was arguing that some of those are more or less immune to empirical evidence, forming a sliding scale going from scientifically testable statements (the earth is 6000 years old) to vague hints at a prime mover that are the province of philosophy, not even skepticism.<br /><br />As for sliding back toward "traditionalism", what can I say, I'm getting older... :-) But in no way do I intend to "dictate" what others should write about. I am simply interested in not making confusions between things that are best understood as separate if related enterprises.<br /><br />Indeed, your concern about atheistic "groupthink" is precisely part of what is concerning me as well. I don't actually have much patience for the "accommodationists" a la Ken Miller, but I also think the scientistic arguments of Dawkins are off the mark (because they are not science, they are science-informed philosophy).<br /><br />Boy, it's lonely out here! (And no, Cal, I don't need to be consoled, it was just a cute way to end my comment, I'm fine, really.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70920733297956716222009-10-15T12:08:13.235-04:002009-10-15T12:08:13.235-04:00"...but the last time I did he/she/it re-resp..."...but the last time I did he/she/it re-responded with a not-so-veiled ethreat."<br /><br />Really!? And profs from the U of M don't always tell the truth either I see. <br /><br />Proof?calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17823240403594129952009-10-15T12:04:20.456-04:002009-10-15T12:04:20.456-04:00"Rather than envy, do you not think that some..."Rather than envy, do you not think that some people such as subSaharan farmers are righteously angry at being exploited by the 1st world, which forces them to have monocrop, export-led economies rather than the protections so desperately needed to raise their economies above subsistence level?"<br /><br />As a person who deals with a couple of third world countries and their struggles on a regular basis, most of the oppression and subjugation comes from the inside. And more often than not the oppressors are not WHITE. <br /><br />I know that tends to wreck a lot of "educated" peoples grand ideas about class warfare but it JUST ISN'T THE TRUTH. Guess it gives some people something seemingly meaningful to be angry over tho.calianahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702074438747578526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65341963242736753712009-10-15T11:57:02.298-04:002009-10-15T11:57:02.298-04:00I think my name will appear now, Luke Vogel, we...I think my name will appear now, Luke Vogel, we'll see. It showed as simply luke for awhile, then lukev_1. <br /><br />Massimo,<br /><br />Not sure what happened, but I see that you mentioned my point about Skeptic (Shermer) publishing your essay, The Case Against God, but my post with the point is gone? <br /><br />Oh, how I do love the commenting bizz. <br /><br />I also think my other points are good too, you know. Not only has Skeptical Inquirer done issues dedicated to science and religion, articles on energy policy, but I'm looking at one now on Sceince, God and [NON]Belief (which even has the sociologist, Mazur's, article on beliefs in genesis. Here's a lead story in another issue on animal rights extremists. Those are just two I've pulled at random from my pile.<br /><br />I don't mean to be a prick here, but the idea you were surprised Michael published your God essay is well, surprising. Up to that point Skeptic had already published many essays on belief, they had an entire issue dedicated to, The God Question, for petes sake. Also, in your essay you even mention other issues of Skeptic that dealt with Evolution Psychology (great issues by the way), which Skeptical Inquirer hadn't dealt with either (and still hasn't in any real way). <br /><br />I'm well aware of some the conversation on the parameters for proper skepticism and what she be placed in what publication. A kind of traditionalist vs. progressiveness argument (oddly you seem to have backslid into a traditionalist which I see a lot of these days, right down to dictating what is proper discourse when suddenly one finds others actually disagree). <br /><br />However, it's worth noting that those you say we should keep hammering on the the traditional aspects, such as alien abduction, alt med etc, are not being disagreed with and some come from the very place with a progressive approach is widely used, such as Daniel Loxton at Skeptic. <br /><br />One final note, which may seem a surprise. Even though I fully support an expanded approach to skepticism at large (which includes essays like yours on a Case Against God), I am fairly convinced that I'm in a time of "groupthink" atheism. On a regular basis I see blog post demanding a conformity (though they deny this, yet throw labels out willy nilly, like "accomodationism" as a dirty word). A legion of young "new atheism" disciples are arguing like morons about "science can study the supernatural". It has become an embarrassment and I hold many within the humanist and skeptic organizations responsible because they let greed get in the way of rationality and fortitude.<br /><br />BTW, in my post (from yesterday 11:13 PM). Here's how it should read.<br /><br />"I'm sensing is there is a liberalized "skeptic"/"atheistic" view of reminding those of what is NOT appropriate to talk about even though they will go ahead and talk about it, endlessly."<br /><br />Which I'm half expected you to do today. :-)Luke Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09658298504019203098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71977231763228881092009-10-15T09:01:38.706-04:002009-10-15T09:01:38.706-04:00Joseph,
while I agree with you that the one natio...Joseph,<br /><br />while I agree with you that the one nation = one vote system is far from ideal, it is no different from the way the European Union works. Oh, and the US Senate...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73686547919232571972009-10-15T09:01:05.375-04:002009-10-15T09:01:05.375-04:00You know I was going to respond to Caliana's t...You know I was going to respond to Caliana's trollish post, but the last time I did he/she/it re-responded with a not-so-veiled ethreat. So I better not and let christian love win the day.<br /><br />This post is a great reminder that just because someone espouses a position we are happy with does not mean all opinions espoused are valid (and highlights that the initial agreed upon opinions should be revisited frequently to determine if indeed they are still valid).The Loraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361004494346338824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71287716421772135422009-10-15T07:20:55.576-04:002009-10-15T07:20:55.576-04:00I don't think that giving each nation an equal...I don't think that giving each nation an equal vote is democratic in the normal sense of the term, because we're talking about the votes of nations rather than people. Angola and China do not hold nearly equal numbers of people. One might make a case for giving them an equal vote in the UN, but let's not say that that's the democratic choice.Joseph Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002838588050900281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73603773844261707452009-10-15T06:59:20.103-04:002009-10-15T06:59:20.103-04:00janimo,
I don't think your comment is fair, t...janimo,<br /><br />I don't think your comment is fair, though it seems to be a recurrent type of attack by some of my esteemed readers.<br /><br />No, my post doesn't mean that whoever disagrees with me is stupid and whoever agrees is funny. That would make for really boring reading, don't you think? For one thing, the post provides several of my *reasons* to think that P&T (or Shermer) are wrong, and then added more in the course of the discussion.<br /><br />Moreover, I do think there is an issue of partially but not entirely overlapping domains of skepticism which is intrinsically interesting, and perhaps even important for the community. Luke's point about my article on god being published years ago in Skeptic is interesting, but I do, in fact, remember being surprised that Michael would publish it. Besides, I am entitled to change my mind about some issues, so again, stay tuned for more on this soon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66516030283229722252009-10-15T05:02:01.550-04:002009-10-15T05:02:01.550-04:00So basically when you agree with what they say (ev...So basically when you agree with what they say (even if they are making fun of maybe clueless but otherwise well-intentioned people) they are intelligent, thoughtful and funny. When their oppinion is different from yours and they make fun or criticize another set of maybe not too competent but still well intentioned people they are not.<br /><br />Congratulations, you have just found out why people have different tastes in humor :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03310155721055383757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40740095627698772752009-10-15T01:20:02.780-04:002009-10-15T01:20:02.780-04:00Hear Hear! I second the Blogging man!Hear Hear! I second the Blogging man!Data-Successhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14775785848500425018noreply@blogger.com