by VorJack
This morning I went looking for my keys and couldn’t find them. I was convinced that I’d left them on the desk. I had the memory of tossing them there, it made sense for me to do that and I could almost remember hearing the clatter they made as they hit the surface. But my keys weren’t there. They were on the other side of the room.
We’re all very familiar with this kind of thing. Perhaps I was actually thinking back to a few days ago when I actually had left them on the desk. Maybe last night I had a dream in which the memory was dredged up, and that dream confused my brain. Maybe it was just a stray neuron firing. But still, I was convinced …
This is the kind of thing that I think about whenever I’m dealing with a believer, particularly the liberal persuasion, who wants me to understand why they believe in some higher power or alternate reality that we might call God or spirit. I hear a lot about trusting the inner conviction or listening to that still small voice. Yes, our minds might be wrong about where we left the keys last night, but somehow our instincts are better equipped to tell us about this higher reality.
It may be worse for me, because my family has a propensity to manic depression and related mental illnesses. I’ve dealt with people having odd convictions, compulsions and the rare hallucination. It was brought home to me early that our brains are not perfect instruments, and that we are prone to any number of illusions, fallacies and errors.
One of the reasons I like the scientific enterprise is that we’ve spent generations honing the process to try and weed out as much human error as we can. As Robert Feynman said, “Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.” Everything from the peer review process to the collective and combative nature of the enterprise works to try and cancel out these problems. If it still fails on occasion, well, that gives you some idea of what we’re up against.
Tyler!: Sooooo who exactly are they taking our country back from??? And i am in the process of moving so... 
NoYourGod: Yerp – nuthin’ saiz “patriotic” like “love it or leave... 
LawnBoy: Gee.. when exactly was this golden age of pureness in politics and the reign of common sense? 
Daniel Florien: So why aren’t you out in Montana with a bomb shelter, stocked food, and tons of ammunition? 
nazani14: Things that can’t go on forever don’t. Following the record heat, the power outages in the D.C.... 
Nelly: my apologies for using “duplicate” way too many times………..I really wish... 
Ty: Please. A moon hoaxer talking about good science? “I personally do not believe that we can prove that... 
59 Comments
I have this amazing ability to visualize–like a memory–myself placing a lost object in any place I look. It gets to be so bad that I sometimes have to give up the search for a while, because I can remember putting it everywhere.
“Richard” Feynman, maybe?
No, his younger brother Bobby.
This is interesting. I have never thought about how easily our minds fool us into believing many things. I know the feeling that you had when looking for your keys and it is even worse when you had a few beers the night before. This is when I am more likely to leave my keys somewhere I normally don’t.
This happens to the best of us… I’m currently reading a fantastic book, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. They offer some excellent scientific explanations for why our brains tend to fabricate “memories” to help us ignore dissonant feelings and behaviors. You might want to check it out.
It’s really the house gnomes! They derive infinite pleasure from displacing wallets and keys (especially just before appointments). The best bet (after making a big show of searching) is to declare loudly in the middle of the room “Ok guys, you really got me this time!” , sensing victory they then usually replace the McGuffin in an easily found location.
Preemptively you can leave a small saucer of reasonable Scotch out at least once a week. The dog seems to favour this approach.
“Everything from the peer review process to the collective and combative nature of the enterprise works to try and cancel out these problems.”
Ah, the unassailable peer review process. Too bad it didn’t help keep us from “fooling ourselves” when it comes to climate science.
Denialism is the idea that common sense is more believable than evidence.
The methods of science aren’t unassailable but they’re the best guide to truth we have. As a non scientist it’s best to believe the consensus on any given topic. That’s not to say the minority position in automatically wrong but until it becomes mainstream science it should be suspect.
Hi Brian,
“As a non scientist it’s best to believe the consensus on any given topic. That’s not to say the minority position in automatically wrong but until it becomes mainstream science it should be suspect.”
The heart of scientism – the new secular religon. It’s ironic how skeptics have merely traded bishops and priests for PhDs, and happily check their skepticism at the door when it comes to the fringes of science.
Did you read what you just quoted? It does not appear to be written by someone checking their scepticism at the door, rather by someone willing to admit they don’t have all the answers and those who are actively looking for them are more likely to have them, yet still acknowledging that blind belief is not a good thing.
Thanks John. Spot on.
Faith in science is the polar opposite of faith in religion. I put my faith in the process of science not in any particular dogma.
While I agree that they are distinct when one pays attention, I somehow doubt that most people who are non-scientists who believe in the conclusions that scientists come to are doing so because they have faith in the process or really have an inkling of an understanding of what that process even is. The folks who take their metaphysical narrative from the reports of scientists without knowing the first thing about science are engaging in scientism, and that is a real problem for robust ideological skepticism.
Whether a layperson understands the scientific process or not is irrelevant. It would be nice but it’s beside the point. Science doesn’t need your proper understanding to function properly.
You’re missing my point. I’m not saying it is important for the functioning of science for people to understand its process. I’m saying that people believing in science without understanding what science is or what it does are engaging in *the same error* that empiricists routinely lambaste people for who turn to religion for answers or rely on their own (un)common (non)sense.
I would say it’s a similar error but not of the same magnitude. Putting your faith in science isn’t the same as putting your faith in a sky god. Science has taken us to the moon and given us the internet. The proof that science can explain the the way the world works is all around us. You don’t have to have thorough understanding of the process to think science has a little more going on.
No such thing as a ’sky God’, Christ didn’t model that actually quite the opposite. And ‘religion’ has absolutely nothing to do with things, is a man-made institution, is a bondage, has nothing to do with Christ who saved his harshest rebukes for the ‘religious’ leaders.
Not quite sure what you’re getting at here. Rebuking religion sounds good though.
@Brian
“Science has taken us to the moon and given us the internet. The proof that science can explain the the way the world works is all around us.”
The problem is that religion can make some seriously grand claims about what it has achieved … solving the meaning of life and the human condition for example. Unless you have an understanding of how these conclusion where reached then, yes you are putting faith in something you don’t understand.
You really think religion has solved the meaning of life and the human condition? Religion in general, or a particular religion? They all offer different prescriptions on how to live based on a variety of metaphysical mechanisms. You’ve got body thetans, karma, transubstantiation, astrology, virgin births etc.. It’s all woo that lacks a wit of evidence.
I don’t have to understand how an internal combustion engine works in order to drive a car. I don’t ponder whether a car is going to work every time I get in one. I can see that cars work. Science is the same. You don’t have to understand it. It’s demonstrable.
“You really think religion has solved the meaning of life and the human condition?”
Where did I say that. I stated it claims to have solved this problem not that it has solved this problem.
“I don’t have to understand how an internal combustion engine works in order to drive a car.”
That again is not what is being said.
“Science is the same. You don’t have to understand it. It’s demonstrable.”
And lots of people will make the same claims about religion. The Earth was created it’s obvious, you just have to look around you.
Unless you have some understanding of where these conclusions have come from them is starts to look very much like faith.
Saying the Earth was created IS obvious. And irrelevant. It doesn’t prove or imply anything about religion. Saying a car, or the internet exists does imply something. It implies the field of study that produced these things has some weight to it when it claims to know something.
You’re still not getting the point that was made by Elem … so I’ll repeat it again:
“I’m saying that people believing in science without understanding what science is or what it does are engaging in *the same error* that empiricists routinely lambaste people for who turn to religion for answers or rely on their own (un)common (non)sense.”
I’m not missing the point. I just disagree. I think it only sounds like the same error. I don’t have to understand exactly how the neutrino was discovered to believe it was. Science has a track record of being able to do these things.
Well two things. Religions will also claim that they have a track record of solving problems and secondly science also has a track record of getting it completely and utterly wrong … if you have no basis in deciding which you should trust more then why not just flip a coin to deciding who’s right and who’s wrong when science and religion clash?
the first time I see a monk levitate up to the moon I’ll start giving religion a little more respect. Theologians can speculate all they want but have yet to prove any of their crazy notions about the nature of the universe. Noah’s flood is just as fantastical as saying we live on the back of a turtle.
Given the choice I’m going to place my trust in a methodology with a track record of uncovering how the world actually works. You can say religion has solved some problems. I don’t know what that might be. Some vague ideas about morals probably. I see a lot of things science has produced for our benefit. Religion hasn’t given us anything to compare.
Science gets it wrong sometimes. Sure. The genius of it is that self correction is built into the methodology. But I don’t have to know that to weigh their relative track records.
Putting trust in science when it makes a claim just isn’t the same error as trust in religion.
“the first time I see a monk levitate up to the moon I’ll start giving religion a little more respect.”
That’s just showing a bias towards science. It’s easy to respond with “when science can tell us why we’re here then I’ll start giving it a bit of respect.”
“Theologians can speculate all they want but have yet to prove any of their crazy notions about the nature of the universe.”
What’s proof got to do with it? You are know dismissing religious claims because that don’t fall under the umbrella of science. As I said before if you have no understanding of where different claims come from them on what basis are you dismissing them i.e. the fact that you say because they have no proof means something?
” Noah’s flood is just as fantastical as saying we live on the back of a turtle.”
Yet you find a number of people who not only believe in Noah’s flood but also believe they have the evidence to back it up. Again, on what basis are you going to decide who is right and who is wrong?
“Given the choice I’m going to place my trust in a methodology with a track record of uncovering how the world actually works.”
… and as has been pointed out many times, religion will claim that if does have a track record in working things out and also that much of science has been shown to wrong.
“Science gets it wrong sometimes. Sure. The genius of it is that self correction is built into the methodology. But I don’t have to know that to weigh their relative track records.”
Well yes you do as religious claims are often unfalsifiable which gives it a big advantage over science.
“Putting trust in science when it makes a claim just isn’t the same error as trust in religion.”
If you understand how they work you’d be right but otherwise you’re basing it on faith …
“I see a lot of things science has produced for our benefit. Religion hasn’t given us anything to compare.”
Forgot that one, religions will claim the same thing … access to an enternal life in paradise/heaven etc. would seem to be to our benefit.
Whether or not Brian believes in science or not really isn’t an issue here. The whole point of this website is to point out that religion, in all forms, is irrational.
Even otherwise very intelligent people become stubborn, ignorant, and volatile when the subject of religion comes up.
How can you find this website, get to the forums, and not see that the arguments here are logical, sane, and altogether morally and intellectually superior to those of religious persons?
You may be able to function in your day-to-day life as a normal human being, but if you really can’t see why everything you believe in is wrong, then you’re either delusional, or a sick, twisted individual.
Of course, making claims like,
Means you don’t really understand what a “big advantage” is.
Let’s try this one:
1) John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
2) Then take a coin in your hand at shoulder height. Ask him to make the coin fall upwards instead of to the ground. Open your hand, allowing the coin to fall whichever way it might. (up, or down, move your hand from under and above it. let’s be fair about this)
3) Do this as many times as necessary to prove your religious claim wrong.
4) Then read up on this new science “theory” called the “theory of gravity”
5) You might actually find that you can PROVE that one. (hint: you can)
6) Bill Nye close-up “ScIeNcE!!!”
7) Any questions?
@Nzo
Please do try and read my posts before your reply …
So what do you think my position is with science vs. religion?
@Nzo
The whole point of this website is to point out that religion, in all forms, is irrational.
Well, actually this website is about religion, science and skepticism (says so right at the top!), and my original point (which Jabster very effectively explicated and defended) was about skepticism. A point which you and Brian both are having some trouble with, it seems.
Even otherwise very intelligent people become stubborn, ignorant, and volatile when the subject of religion comes up.
Some do. Some others become touchy when folks point out uncomfortable things about science and the scientific method and how science is perceived and utilized by the wider non-scientific culture.
How can you find this website, get to the forums, and not see that the arguments here are logical, sane, and altogether morally and intellectually superior to those of religious persons?
LOLOLOL. Notwithstanding any other points (including the fact that I tend to think the folks who frequent here, theists and atheists both, are a cut above the herd), the chair of the Philosophy department at the school that I attended was a very religious man, and he could *eviscerate* anyone here in argumentation, including me, without breaking a sweat. Religious belief, or its lack, is not causally indicative of intelligence, or its lack.
Bravo Elemeno, well said. All the best.
Ahh, hey guys. Let’s just say last night had me inebriated beyond recognition. I don’t even recall how I got home last night, much less how I made it to my bed. I’m a belligerent drunk, so forgive me for that post.
On a side note, could anyone recommend a good uhh… computer-security breathalyzer? … and a REALLY good headache medicine?
LOL … I’m old enough and wise enough to now realise that drink and the internet don’t mix. I’m also old enough to realise that drink also makes you phone ex-girlfriends to show them just what they’re missing … somehow that never quite works out as you thought it would!
-Jabster
This sub thread started off talking about climate science then went on to argue over whether believing religion or science on any given issue was the same error. I’ve assumed we’re still talking about the physical world.
If we are then science has a long track record of understanding and manipulating the physical world. Religion has a track record of coming up with stories like noah’s flood or that we’re all living on the back of a turtle. Science has since demonstrated the world is round and that plate tectonics shaped the world. Religion has failed to explain one thing about the world that can be proven.
If we’re not limiting this to the physical world then you just can’t compare science and religion. Science isn’t just another belief. Because the word belief is the wrong word. Science is a quest for knowledge not belief. It’s limited to what can be demonstrated with evidence.
Religious claims are just things someone tells us or we read in a book. If you discount anecdote and the idea that people from the bronze age understood the universe better than us than religion has nothing left. Science is the opposite. We can go see for ourselves.
@Brian
“Religious claims are just things someone tells us or we read in a book. If you discount anecdote and the idea that people from the bronze age understood the universe better than us than religion has nothing left.”
Therefore you are basing your choice on the method of religion vs. the method of science. You can’t do this without understanding the method behind either. That has been the point, in at least this part of the thread.
Yeah, you’d be amazed at what can happen when a butterface with a nice rack finds out from your friend that you’re a lightweight.
@Nzo
No probs, dude.
… and a REALLY good headache medicine?
What I find works really well is 800 mg of Ibuprofen and some pickle juice. I shit you not, the electrolytes in dill pickle brine are perfect for replenishing fluids that your body loses when alcohol triggers diuresis and diaphoresis.
—————
@ Brian
Religious claims are just things someone tells us or we read in a book. If you discount anecdote and the idea that people from the bronze age understood the universe better than us than religion has nothing left. Science is the opposite. We can go see for ourselves.
No, “we” really can’t. The average guy can’t check the latest tweaks to quantum chromodynamic theory with a magnifying glass and a pad of paper. Most modern claims made by science are not duplicable by the average Joe, either because they require extensive equipment and training, theoretical knowledge, or both. Most claims in many scientific areas cannot feasibly be checked by anyone not already in the discipline, and so it really does boil down to “just trust us, we wrote it” for people not in the field or already well versed in its concepts.
There’s lots of basic science that can be checked. Add to that the long track record of actual discoveries and inventions and you’ve a reasonable case that science isn’t full of shit on a particular issue.
There’s lots of basic science that can be checked.
There is no such thing as “basic” science. The explanations for phenomena as they are currently understood are immensely complicated. If you want to test “basic science” (that is, things that are readily replicable with basic tools and observable with unaided senses) you will merely create the empirical results that have been known for centuries, each of which fits a countably infinite possible number of schemata of explanation. There is no experiment you could do in your living room that would show Einstein’s theory of general relativity as a superior explanatory framework to Newton’s theory of gravity.
Even this discounts how much each scientific discovery depends absolutely on other, sometimes quite disparate, scientific theories. Good luck demonstrating anything about general relativity without astronomy, Snell’s law, a Michelson-Morley experimental analogue, and a host of other explanatory hypotheses. And each of those, in turn, depend on other quite complicated and intricate theories and observations.
Add to that the long track record of actual discoveries and inventions and you’ve a reasonable case that science isn’t full of shit on a particular issue.
All this proves is the instrumentality of science, *not* its truth content. And you really don’t want to get into a battle about pragmatic instrumentality with religion; on those grounds, you would lose right out (remember, the battleground is showing a person unfamiliar with scientific methods the superiority of the scientific episteme over the religious one).
In my head the argument sorta went like this.
Fundies – “God is real”
Atheists – “Prove it”
Fundies – “Bible says so”
Atheists – “Give me a reason to believe the bible is credible”
Fundies – “God says so”
Atheists – “Prove god is real”
etc…etc… Them floundering around to prove that their document is real, or that their “millions of witnesses to miracles” are real. Probably somewhere resulting in their claim that other works of the time mention the events described in the bible. When asked to produce those works, they are unable to do so.
Fundies – “Evolution is false”
Atheists – “Science tells us different”
Fundies – “Science is all BS” or “Scientists are liars”
-Note here, the “everything about science is fine except evolution and the big bang” arguments can be taken care of a little later-
Atheists – “Then why don’t we put it to the test with something as simple as a child’s textbook. We’ll perform any of the experiments in this book you wish, then you are welcome to do the same to make sure the outcome is the same.”
Hell, let’s send the fundies a shopping list of materials so they don’t think we’re trying to trick them, they can bring their own!
Perhaps you saw it differently than I. It’s merely oversimplifying for the sake of argument. I see no reason why this would be doing a great disservice to what science really is. It shows;
So many arguments can easily be built upon this. “My book has been correct in all these areas, proved in front of everyone here; Why, then, would you believe that more advanced science would somehow be a lie?”
-For the “science is fine save evolution and the big bang”, the argument here would merely be, “My book was right, in everything here. Your book has no evidence whatsoever to back anything claimed in its pages. Which do you think is more logical to believe?”
The possibilities for arguments based on what was actually proved during that debate seem endless. But then, I could be wrong.
If I’ve properly explained myself, I don’t believe the “detoxify” experiment really would hold any kind of weight, nor would it have been introduced in this situation for any reason. This isn’t an argument between science and pseudoscience.
Yes, science is a better guide to truth claims because of it’s superior track record and superior methodology.
If there’s a methodology to that applies to all religions then please enlighten us.
The point is that the vast majority of people are not aware of the scientific methodology, so they *have no grounds* for privileging scientific claims over other epistemic claims. They, quite literally, believe in science the way a Christian believes in God.
Hate to try and rejoin this particular thread, but can’t it be a bit more simple than that?
A christian can carry a bible to the table.
A uhm… science-believer can carry a science book to the table.
The christian can make his/her arguments, show god is real however they choose.
The science-believer can perform experiments in the book…
That smacks of pilkintonianism
That smacks of pilkintonianism.
What does that even mean?
ricky gervais show
Yes, I know he’s a guy on the Ricky Gervais Show, but having not watched the show (and currently cannot, being at work) could you describe exactly what “Pilkintonianism” is?
@Nzo
The problem is that making “doing science” in to just experiments does a great disservice to what science really is and why it is the best method we have yet come up for to determine the “truth” about the world in which we inhabit. I can show you experiments that prove a magic liquid and an electric current in a foot spa can detoxify the body when you place your feet in it. It’s only if I actively try and disprove this that it all falls apart i.e. repeat the same experiment but do put my feet in!
Brad – are you a joke or did you take too much cough syrup this morning? The scientific method means that a hypothesis is provable, to one degree or another. And that you can repeat the same experiment more than once to bear out the results. And that the scientist has little or no bias – that the facts will speak for themselves (as much as humanly possible), and that scientists change their position as new facts reveal themselves. What are you trying to say? That the good ol’ boys & their common sense know better? Or that jesus does? You are not making any sense.
Then there are those who subscribe to neither facts, evidence, science, or common sense. It’s known as “the gut” (credit goes to George Dubbilya). That’s when you REALLY KNOW. How? Ya JUS’ DO. Cuz the gut tolja. Any second thoughts? No. Wait a minutes, what is that word, “thoughts”??? Never mind. Let’s go invade Iraq :)
A bit of snow in winter trumps decades of research every time.
Exactly! The great unwashed has only enough intelligence to perceive the immediate. “Duhhh it’s cold today, so much for ‘global warming’ duuhh huh huh huh.”
“There can’t be discrimination against women in industry. My aunt made a killing.”
“You sound like a fag” -The idiots in “Idiocracy”
This creates the best effect with a picture of Homer Simpson or Butthead making “air quotes” with his fingers.
lol that’s perfect! Or maybe Joey from Friends….
Troll. Kindly frak off.
There was a study last year that demonstrated that every time you call up a memory it get’s altered. So that every consecutive recollection is slightly different. Like playing telephone with yourself.
Not only are we prone to illusion and self deception but our brains are largely oriented to modeling the behavior of other humans. When we use that brain to try to understand the world around us it shouldn’t come as any surprise that we anthropomorphise everything.
Our brains are like a vast unknown ocean. We are all on the Nina, Pinta or Santa Maria. Some day I’d like to ride on one of those submersibles that take us into the Pacific trench of the mind.
Well, yeah, I used to be delusional when I was single. I used to be sure the guys were staring at and in love with me. But they were usually after the friend next to me.
Personal convictions often have nothing to do with facts.
I used to be a paranoid schizophrenic, but now we’re just paranoid.
Oh, no, it’s not fallacies and delusions. I believe now. I’m becoming a Christian. I see clearly now. God fucked up and lost my car keys!