Specifically, the more people communicate with each other with people with different ideas, then the more open-minded people will be. Alas, people have the tendency to isolate themselves.
If only there were some way for people to become social communities, who otherwise would have been isolated and separate, then much close-mindedness would disappear. Religion, of course, is hardly way to do this: it brings people together solely on the premise of having a single idea. Perhaps art and culture could do the job, but unfortunately, at this moment in time, art and culture is not nearly social enough.
Jadehawksays
that was a good one. I really wish people wouldn’t use “openminded” to mean “uncritical” and then think it’s a good thing.
Odonatasays
Fantastic video! Great explanation of open-mindedness and close-mindedness. Atheists so often hear that they are close-minded. Now I’ll have a way to counter it when it comes up in discussion.
“that was a good one. I really wish people wouldn’t use ‘openminded’ to mean ‘uncritical’ and then think it’s a good thing.”
Well, at least they acknowledge open-mindedness as a good thing, — the closed-minded thus have to resort to stealing phrases from the open-minded, to appropriate them and twist it to suit themselves, to gain any sort of validity.
“Now I’ll have a way to counter it when it comes up in discussion.”
Indeed, perhaps it might go like this:
“You are so close-minded for not believing in ghosts.”
“No, I do think that ghosts can exist, if only you show me the evidence. I think that both possibilities are possible, but that the non-existence of ghosts is more probable given the evidence out there. You are the one who is close-minded for not considering both possibilities of existence and non-existence of ghosts equally.”
Sastrasays
Excellent video, and it focuses on one of my pet peeves: equating skepticism with being ‘close-minded.’ Having an open mind isn’t about believing in the “right” things: it’s about how you hold your beliefs, and knowing what it would take to change your mind. I’ve asked people who ‘know’ that psychic powers are real because of some personal experience of theirs, what it would take for them to reconsider their interpretation of their experience, and change their mind over whether it was genuinely psychic or not. The usual answer is “nothing.” They know what they know. And there they will stick — in the “open-minded” position.
I’ve been asked several times what it would take for me to become skeptical of science. After all, I don’t want to be dogmatic, do I? What if “some other way of knowing” is the right one, and following intuition or tradition or little voices in my head which go against the consensus of experts in a scientific field is the best path to truth? What would make me take it?
That’s an interesting question. And any skeptic ought to be prepared with some kind of answer.
Bottom line, the scientific method helps us to weed out personal bias. So, in order to reject it, you have to believe that personal bias is going to work in your favor. With the scientific method, you can’t give yourself some special status, a position where you can just “know” things that can’t be demonstrated to others. You always have to be prepared to be able to change your mind any time you’ve made an interpretation, because that interpretation could be wrong.
So I suppose that, in order to become skeptical of the scientific method itself, I would have to be infused with the sense that I’m different and special. I would have some absolute, certain way of knowing that I cannot make a mistake in interpretation — even in an area where other people can make a mistake. And there I would hold. “I know what I know.”
That sort of complete confidence in one’s own self is the opposite of humility. Refusing to change one’s mind is the definition of dogmatism.
So, in order to become skeptical of careful, cautious, disciplined scientific methods, I answer that I’d need to become more arrogant, and dogmatic — and now there’s a moral conflict with my values.
Theirs, too. Of course. People who’ve asked me that question generally don’t like that answer, because they were trying to make the point that science is dogmatic and arrogant.
“I’ve been asked several times what it would take for me to become skeptical of science.”
You could answer, “whatever it would take for me to be skeptical of skepticism. Science is empirical skepticism.”
Smidgysays
Nice video. It is a far better and more complete answer than what I had been giving folk to the allegation of me being ‘close-mided’. What I had been saying was, “well, if I am ‘close-minded’ for not ‘opening my mind’ to the possibility X is true, aren’t you just as ‘close-minded’, if not more so, for not ‘opening your mind’ to the possibility X isn’t true?”
You could answer, “whatever it would take for me to be skeptical of skepticism. Science is empirical skepticism.”
What, you’ve never encountered the Skeptical-of-Skepticism folks? They’re the ones who approach you with a smug little smile, and say “I’m a skeptic, too…. I’m skeptical of skepticism!!” Because they know that some form or other of unsupported pseudoscientific woo-filled spiritual bullshit is true! And the so-called experts are closing their minds to personal anecdotes and heartfelt certainties! There are ‘other ways of knowing.’ Gotcha there, skeptic person.
Being ‘skeptical of skepticism’ is like arguing that groups who promote tolerance are really just being intolerant of bigots. So, with everything leveled down to being nothing more than personal bias and whim, pick your own poison.
What always impresses (and depresses) me about believers in the supernatural is not the feebleness of their evidence but the banality of their ideas. Heck, if they really did come up with something I hadn’t heard or thought about, I’d be more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since, as a general rule, I’d rather be bamboozled than bored. Never happens. A general lack of imagination seems to go along with enthusiasm for esoterica. There are exceptions–some of the notions of the Medieval Kaabalists, for example, have some aesthetic merit as sheer conceptual surrealism–but the usual run of ghosts, magic crystals, and reincarnated in-laws has the an aroma of mildew like the Metaphysics section of a used bookstore.
Thank you for posting this. It should have been shown to all those state legislators that saw Expelled and its “academic freedom” hooey.
David Marjanović, OMsays
Great video, especially at 8:10 :-D
I didn’t find the voice annoying, but I find it very hard to get used to the British spelling “sceptical”.
I don’t – what surprises me is that he doesn’t stay consistent and pronounce it that way. He pronounces it with [k]. That requires cognitive dissonance.
(Well, with [g] actually, but never mind. That’s not surprising.)
I was going to ask if it isn’t “closed-minded”, which would make a lot more sense. Apparently it is (comment 19).
Ploonsays
#19:
Hear hear. Drives me nuts!
Which brings me to the following question: does calling someone a grammar/spelling nazi constitute a Godwin?
The voice reminds me a touch of Bill Bryson, though not quite up to that quality (which is a tall task).
tacitussays
Great video. I didn’t find the voice annoying, but I find it very hard to get used to the British spelling “sceptical”.
You think that’s hard? Try living in both the UK and the USA for an extended period of time and then having to remember which spelling is the correct one for which country.
Silisays
I’m pretty sure LanguageLog had a discussion of the close/closed thing not too long ago, but the words are too common for my weak googlefu to find it.
So how would you spell it, David? “Scheptic” like “scheme” and “schedule”?
NemoUtopiansays
the man has a damn fine voice
Utakatasays
Anyone know anything about the author of that video?
…and lol @ those who hate the narrator’s voice. It’s one of the inoffensives voices I’ve heard in a long time. Perhaps you would like a parrot impersonating Roseanne Barr instead.
Levi in NYsays
Brilliant! I think this video ought to be translated into as many languages as possible.
Jadehawksays
no, “skeptic”, like “skewed”
“sceptic” to me sounds like “scissors” or “scene”
Pierce R. Butlersays
Sastra @ # 18: …What, you’ve never encountered the Skeptical-of-Skepticism folks? They’re the ones who approach you with a smug little smile, and say “I’m a skeptic, too…. I’m skeptical of skepticism!!”
Yeah, I’ve “encountered” them.
Hadn’t realized there were any survivors.
My apologies for the sloppy work; will confirm the casualties next time…
NewEnglandBobsays
Great audio but the pictures were juvenile.
Murraysays
I liked the illustrations. I thought the whole thing was very well done, including the visuals.
I guess i would kind of agree with this video on some points. If someone presents something to you without evidence and calls you closeminded for not accepting it that would be stupid.However if his person presents you with good arguments and evidence for something but you still deny i without presenting any kind of plausible counterargument or counter-evidence,but still deny it because of your belief in metaphysical naturalism or materialism, I think the charge is more fairly placed.
One example was when William Lane Craig (a Chrisian philosopher) rebutted Daniel Denett’s assertion that the universe caused itself and presented his Kalam Cosmoligical argument. Denett responded (paraphrasing) that when you have an argument that follows from its premises and its premises are probable , but the argument leads to an implausible conclusion you should go back and try to deny one of the premises. It is plain to me what he meant. He acknowledged that Craig’s argument was valid and sound and plausible ,but felt that because of his belief in metaphysical naturalism that belief in supernatural beings such as God was implausible and he could not accep the conclusion.
I think that is where the charge of close-mindedness should be leveled.
One particular pet peeve of mine is when skeptics try to smuggle in positive claims under the guise of skepticism.
One can be skeptical of supernatural beings but one cannot assert that supernatural beings do no exist or we should rule out such explanations or beings a priori without taking up a burden of proof.
AdamKsays
“Sceptic” looks like a misspelling of “septic.” I want to be one, but not the other.
But just try teaching the English language to a Brit. Hopeless.
blueelmsays
I loved this! That is my biggest pet peeve with people. It doesn’t just apply to religion or woo. It even applies to methods of management, whatever you may be discussing. Some one will tell you the way they feel, and if you don’t suspend all sense of reality and conform to their feeling then you are being close-minded. My only argument has been to ask them why it is close-minded to ask them to consider another idea or explanation than the one their comfortable with.
I especially like the images and color scheme, very retro. I like his voice, it reminds me of someone I knew from New Zealand.
AdamKsays
Facilis, the word “supernatural” is the problem. It doesn’t mean anything. If anything, it boils down to a hand-waving synonym for “nonexistent.”
If a supernatural thing exists, can it interact in some way with nature?
If so, it’s natural, not “super”natural at all.
If not, there’s no way to determine that it exists; it’s utterly indistinguishable — it has no distinguishing properties. It’s made-up; fantastic; fictional; not real.
Thank you for being less of an idiot than you might otherwise have been.
@#34 Facilis
“Denett responded (paraphrasing) that when you have an argument that follows from its premises and its premises are probable , but the argument leads to an implausible conclusion you should go back and try to deny one of the premises. It is plain to me what he meant. He acknowledged that Craig’s argument was valid and sound and plausible ,but felt that because of his belief in metaphysical naturalism that belief in supernatural beings such as God was implausible and he could not accep the conclusion.”
I think that you missed his point. Yes, you would be right if Denett had no grounds for rejecting the conclusion. However, that is not the case. Denett had ample grounds for rejecting the conclusion; he did not reject it due to his “belief in metaphysical naturalism,” but rather due to the evidence that already points to it. Even if the logic is valid and correct, it would still have to overthrow all the other arguments. For example, if there is a new experiment the results of which contradicted all previous scientific theories, then the first step would be to see if the experiment was good in the first place and to examine it more carefully to see if it was done correctly. Only after a thorough and complete examination of the experiment can the final observations be accepted, at which point, only then should the scientific theory be revised.
Facile Princepssays
Facilis, the word “supernatural” is the problem. It doesn’t mean anything. If anything, it boils down to a hand-waving synonym for “nonexistent.”
I’ll stop using it if it is such a problem
If a supernatural thing exists, can it interact in some way with nature?
I don’t see why not
If so, it’s natural, not “super”natural at all.
I don’t follow.
Usually materialists/naturalists hold that everything is made of matter and only things made of material and things that possess physical properties( eg. volume, density, weight..etc) are the only things that exist.
As opposed to this I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties.
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
I don’t follow.
We know, you have no logic and reason.
Sir Craigsays
I’ll throw my two cents in: Friends and acquaintances who know I am an atheist have a hard time reconciling the fact that I also believe in ghosts. Now, before anyone goes on a tear and starts accusing me of self-contradiction, let me say that I don’t believe ghosts are supernatural: As AdamK stated:
If a supernatural thing exists, can it interact in some way with nature? If so, it’s natural, not “super”natural at all. If not, there’s no way to determine that it exists; it’s utterly indistinguishable — it has no distinguishing properties. It’s made-up; fantastic; fictional; not real.
I believe in ghosts because of personal experiences, but by no means am I close minded to the possibility what I experienced wasn’t caused by something mundane that I might not have noticed, akin to the heater-fan parable in the video. The possibility I find fascinating is ghosts may be a natural product of electro-magnetism that has gone unnoticed – it’s not like history isn’t replete with tons of examples of scientific properties discovered later on to be the cause of otherwise “supernatural” events like St. Elmo’s Fire. But as I said, I don’t believe my experiences touched on anything that could be classified as “supernatural.”
That said, it amused me that it took as long as it did for the narrator to finally get around to using the “G” word – gullibility is all I’ve learned to expect from the woo crowd.
Perhaps someone could show me evidence to the contrary..?
@#39 Facilis
“As opposed to this I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties.”
Under your definition, light is a “supernatural being.”
@#41 Sir Craig
“I’ll throw my two cents in: Friends and acquaintances who know I am an atheist have a hard time reconciling the fact that I also believe in ghosts.”
Define the word “ghost.” Do you mean some kind of intelligent mind? If so, does it have spacial existence? If it is not intelligent, then what exactly do you mean?
Sastrasays
Facile Princeps #39 wrote:
Usually materialists/naturalists hold that everything is made of matter and only things made of material and things that possess physical properties( eg. volume, density, weight..etc) are the only things that exist.
No, that’s not a good definition of materialism or naturalism, because it has the naturalist flatly denying the existence of things like thoughts and values, which would just be silly. Nonreductive materialist naturalism accounts for nonphysical things as ultimately supervenient on the physical. I like how Richard Carrier explains it:
“‘Naturalism’ means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, ‘supernaturalism’ means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things.”
A materialist would argue that, given two hypothetical universes which were 100% physically identical, every fact in those two universes would be exactly the same.
AdamKsays
I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties.
How would you know it’s there?
What is an example of a property “distinct from physical properties”? Do you mean thoughts or feelings? Those are only in your head. They’re subjective. That’s not supernatural.
Don’t forget to take your pill.
Owlmirrorsays
If a supernatural thing exists, can it interact in some way with nature?
I don’t see why not
If so, it’s natural, not “super”natural at all.
I don’t follow.
Usually materialists/naturalists hold that everything is made of matter and only things made of material and things that possess physical properties( eg. volume, density, weight..etc) are the only things that exist.
No, I think you need to look up metaphysical naturalism and read it more carefully. Physical matter is obviously not the only thing that exists, however, for everything that exists, there is evidence for it existing. Even if it is not matter itself, it interacts with matter. Radio waves are invisible electromagnetic energy, but they are something that interacts with matter in a predictable and falsifiable way.
As opposed to this I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties.
So you’ve created two problems for yourself (1) demonstrate that a non-material being is is possible in the first place (2) show how this non-material being interacts with th material world such that it can be tested.
You’ve obviously missed the obvious implication of earlier times this question was raised: If God exists as a person, then God should at the very least have the qualities of persons, as we know they exist. Even if God is non-physical, God should not be silent; refusing to demonstrate his existence — because persons for which we do have evidence do not behave like that. Unless they are defective in some way, of course.
Voldemort13says
I like the video but I have to ask, are you calling your commenters closed minded? Because I would guess that the people who are following your blog are more likely to be open-minded then the general public.
Trucklesays
I have been subscribed to QualiaSoup for ages, check out the rest of his back catalogue, it is awesome.
This video is excellent. Though anyone who needs this video would do well to watch The Ascent Of Man.
Sastrasays
Owlmirror #46 wrote:
If God exists as a person, then God should at the very least have the qualities of persons, as we know they exist.
Right — and this ought to head off those attempts to slide God into the same category as abstractions, numbers, emotions, qualities, values, and so forth and so on.
Those arguments often begin by pointing out that you can’t see, smell, taste, feel, or measure (love/ honesty/the number 5) — but they “exist.” You can’t hold ‘Beauty’ in your hand, can you? Do you deny the existence of beauty? Or a hopeful attitude to the world? No? Can you see love under a microscope, Mr. Smarty Pants Scientist? No?
Well, then, God is like those things. Real, but not physical or material. Oh. And also a person.
God exists the way the number 5 exists — only it’s as if the number 5 puts 2 and 3 together by an act of intentional will, and is also a friend who loves you and talks to you by directing thoughts into your head. There you go. Nonmaterial personhood.
And they think atheist materialist naturalists have literal minds.
AdamKsays
Shastra, are you saying 5 isn’t my friend? Now I’m really sad.
@#47 Voldemort13
“I like the video but I have to ask, are you calling your commenters closed minded?”
I think that PZ Myers thinks that it is a good tool in case a commenter gets into an argument with someone who levies the charge of “close-mindedness.”
Rick Rsays
Sastra- “Well, then, God is like those things. Real, but not physical or material. Oh. And also a person.”
I see what you did there…;)
AdamKsays
Sashtra — no disrespect to your handle with that misspelling thing going on there. (It was the Rev. BDC directing thoughts into my mind.)
Josh Westsays
QualiaSoup has done some fantastic work, always good to hear from him.
Lord Zerosays
Its a great video. I gonna use it.
Sums our way of thinking really nicely
and is very appealing to the eye too.
You need to be open minded to learn new things
but not so much than your brain falls out.
facilis – we are not at the centre of the universe. The universe is not produced for us, we are a product of the universe – just like those 10 million other species that currently live. The universe contains ~1023 stars, the majority very much like our sun. The universe has been around for 13.7 billion years while homo sapien has been around for ~150. We have existed for 0.001% of the entire history of the universe. So why, if there is a god, would that God reflect one species of billion that have ever walked on this planet? Only a fool would these days think that the universe was designed for us.
Is it just me, or do those two guys in the still from the video look as if they’re two people in a clichéd movie scene that starts with them arguing vehemently and ends with them flinging themselves at one another and doing things that make Baby Jesus cry?
Just me? Okay, then.
The trouble with spelling “skeptic” as “sceptic” is that there are no words in English that begin with “sce-” and pronounce the “-c-” as a “-k-“, excepting the oddball “sceptic”. As far as I know, “sceptre”, “scene”, and “scent”, plus their offshoots, all soft-c words, are the only “sce-” words in English, if you don’t count the little-known “scend”, and even that has a soft “-c-“. “Sceptic” looks to North American eyes as if it ought to be pronounced like “septic”.
Blame Latin. The Greeks spelled it “skeptikos”: the Romans, who didn’t like the Greek “k”, changed it to “scepticus”.
You may now return to your usual whatever.
'Tis Himselfsays
Kel,
The universe has been around for 13.7 billion years while homo sapien has been around for ~150.
A few zeros seem to have fallen out of your description about how long Homo sapiens have been around.
OK, it all made sense, nice summary for remembering during those arguments and I guess somebody needs it, but mostly I was waiting for Thor the Thundergod and/or the Fantastic Four to leap out of the blank background. I did enjoy the whirly eyes tho’.
Wowbagger, OMsays
A few zeros seem to have fallen out of your description about how long Homo sapiens have been around.
Maybe he meant Homo sapiens darwinii – apes who think about Darwin…
Sorry if I butchered that – I admit I’ve no real understanding of that kind of nomenclature. But I couldn’t help trying to think of something that fit in the 150 year period…
I use sceptic when talking about scepticism (being an Aussie), and skeptic when I talk about the modern movement. Though that has no foundation anywhere outside my head.
You should check out QualiaSoup’s other videos. He has some really great ones on par with Thunderf00t, but it’s topics like these on logic and faith and such.
I’ve been subscribed to him for a long time and it’s always great when he comes out with a new video.
Maybe he meant Homo sapiens darwinii – apes who think about Darwin…
lol, humanity was born when Darwin laid out the theory to explain man. I like it!
Owlmirrorsays
Blame Latin. The Greeks spelled it “skeptikos”: the Romans, who didn’t like the Greek “k”, changed it to “scepticus”.
Actually, the original of “sceptre” was Gk. “skeptron” (σκήπτρον), and the original of “scene” was Grk. “skene” (σκηνή). So two of those other “sc” words were mangled by Latin.
“Scent” looks to be Anglo-Saxon, though.
nick nick bobicksays
Slightly off topic, but important: Just before coming here I read an AP (Associated Press) story on a 72 yr old bigot (Elwin Hope Wilson – google him) who is sick and trying to buy a Get Out of Hell Free card by now apologizing for all is ugly actions of the past. He was a violent and nasty racist and acted on it often.
Sure enough, tons of newspapers have picked up this “feel good” story and the religious hypocrites are out in force telling Wilson how wonderful he is for apologizing to those he hurt in the past.
Talk about a lack of critical thinking skills. I am astounded that people don’t see through charades like this.
@#59 pyramus
“As far as I know, ‘sceptre’, ‘scene’, and ‘scent’, plus their offshoots, all soft-c words, are the only ‘sce-‘ words in English, if you don’t count the little-known ‘scend'”
Scenario, scenic, scena (a scene in an opera). I guess you could count them as “scene,” though.
The pelagic argosy sights landsays
Sceptic bothers me, and I’m British (septic tanks spring to mind). It’s one US spelling I wouldn’t mind adopting. Close-minded (-headed, -lipped, etc.) bothers me not at all. Like “sceptic” it has a long history, going back at least to the 15th c., and is accepted by major dictionaries on either side of the pond. It also doesn’t look like it should be something smelly, and is easier to say.
Nixsays
Oh, that video was a complete hoot. The visuals are like corporate presentations gone into overdrive.
I’m unclear, though: is it being a sceptic that gives me scary contrarotating swirly eyes, or is it being credulous, or are scary contrarotating swirly eyes signs of some sort of evil persuader?
AdamKsays
Pyramus, I’ve sceldom sceen such a scensible sceries of scentences.
ppohly@yahoo.comsays
Well done PZ.
Thanks you for posting this video
jellaysays
Great video. I was actually accused of closed-mindedness for simply asking why a friend was following kosher/halal laws. The friend then refused to discuss it.
whitebirdsays
Man, I have three friends (who think of “Coast to Coast” the same way I think of “All Things Considered”)who need to see that video STAT! Of course, they would probably say that the aliens/knights Templar/Rothschilds put it out themselves, you know, cause the less that’s know about them, the better…
Also,I could listen to that bumper music all 80’s-science-educational-video-ing day!
Newfiesays
As opposed to this I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties.
made of hopes, dreams, wishes, and myth
clinteassays
Great video,slightly creepy voice.
There is a difference between sceptic and skeptic??
teammartysays
Lord Zero @ 57
You better use it soon before someone complains and gets it taken off because it’s offensive to religionists.
Newfiesays
sceptic or US skeptic [skep-tik]
Noun
1. a person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs
2. a person who doubts the truth of a religion [Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon]
sceptical or US
skeptical adj
sceptically or US
skeptically adv
scepticism or US
skepticism n
@#72 Nix
“Oh, that video was a complete hoot.”
“Hoot”? You mean like “Hoot! Hoot!”?
@#69 nick nick bobick
“I read an AP (Associated Press) story on a 72 yr old bigot (Elwin Hope Wilson – google him) who is sick and trying to buy a Get Out of Hell Free card by now apologizing for all is ugly actions of the past. He was a violent and nasty racist and acted on it often.
Sure enough, tons of newspapers have picked up this ‘feel good’ story and the religious hypocrites are out in force telling Wilson how wonderful he is for apologizing to those he hurt in the past.”
What can I say? Religious people are shallow and superficial.
cactusrensays
Wowbagger @64:
Maybe he meant Homo sapiens darwinii – apes who think about Darwin…
Sorry if I butchered that – I admit I’ve no real understanding of that kind of nomenclature.
Haha…I love this idea, Wowbagger! Though that name would translate as “Darwin’s wise man”. (Yes, Homo sapiens is often translated as “wise ape”, but homo literally means man.) So, for a name to translate as “apes (men) who think about Darwin”, it would need to be something like Homo sapiens cogitantdarwinum. That seems a bit cumbersome, though. Maybe darwinii is the way to go after all…
Newfiesays
sceptic or US skeptic [skep-tik]
it’s like colour and color
or check and cheque Did you see that check that the defenseman threw? He really earns his cheque.
cactusrensays
Gah…thinking too much about Latin => blockquote fail. That second paragraph was part of Wowbagger’s quote, as well.
Mr. Fsays
That guy qualiasoup makes incredible videos. I am a huge fan of his work – best free-thinker videos on youtube
tmaxPAsays
One can be skeptical of supernatural beings but one cannot assert that supernatural beings do no exist or we should rule out such explanations or beings a priori without taking up a burden of proof.
One can assert easily and correctly that supernatural beings do not exist. My evidence is that they have been ruled out of explanations of science for centuries, and science still works. From it, we get technology. Ergo, if you were to assert that any or any one supernatural being does or even can exist, the burden of proof would be yours. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
On the question of ‘what would it take to convince me to be skeptical of science’, the answer is ‘when the universe stops working according to the laws Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein provided us, and someone explains how cell phones work based on tiny invisible creatures.’
On open-mindedness itself, I’ve often used the line “I am being open-minded – that doesn’t mean you get to make me stupid.”
amhovgaardsays
pyramus@59: no, it’s not just you.
Mark A. Siefertsays
Jim Harrsion #20
“…but the usual run of ghosts, magic crystals, and reincarnated in-laws has the an aroma of mildew like the Metaphysics section of a used bookstore.”
@#34 Facilis
“One can be skeptical of supernatural beings but one cannot assert that supernatural beings do no exist or we should rule out such explanations or beings a priori without taking up a burden of proof.”
Why do not you define the word “supernatural” first off?
John Moralessays
Great video.
10ch,
Why do not you define the word “supernatural” first off?
Supernatural literally is beyond nature – self-defining by contrast to natural. The concept is clear, and I don’t see how any empirical claim can possibly meet that criterion.
Of course you can’t rule out the supernatural, but making it beyond testing makes it impossible to rule in. We are natural being an all our senses are natural. Yet what we are alleged to perceive that is considered natural comes through our senses – either externally or internally. Taking away any ability to test the supernatural takes away any ability to detect the supernatural and thus any claim of supernatural is completely indistinguishable from something imagined.
You can’t have it both ways facilis. Either the supernatural is untestable and therefore unknowable, or it is testable and in the absence of evidence there is no reason to consider it.
@#90 John Morales
Of course, I do not quite know what “natural” means either. Does it mean a “part of our world, interacting with it?” If so, then nothing that can interact with our world can ever be supernatural, or, if a supernatural thing ever did interact with our world, then it would become natural. If some kind of “ghost-entity” ever did interfere with our world, then it would be natural, not supernatural under this definition.
I’ve been saying things like “There is no such thing as a ghost” and “There is probably intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but they don’t come here and abduct rednecks.” According to this video, I’m expressing those ideas in a closed-minded way. Will someone please tell me what the right way is?
Sarah
Sastrasays
John Morales #90 wrote:
Supernatural literally is beyond nature – self-defining by contrast to natural. The concept is clear, and I don’t see how any empirical claim can possibly meet that criterion.
No, it’s not quite clear. I wish it were. The trouble is that this way of defining ‘supernatural’ goes nowhere and tells us nothing, because there’s no fixed anchor here on what is “natural.” What is Nature? Is it that which isn’t Supernature?
Unless there are some specific ground rules on what makes something natural or “in Nature,” the borders of the supernatural turn out to be more or less infinitely flexible. People will use the concept of “Nature” as a wedge towards acceptability.
God exists — but God is Natural. Ghosts exist, and so do immortal disembodied souls. They’re natural, too. Vitalistic energy fields, angels, magical correspondences, psychic powers, and you-name-it any-bit-of-woo are regularly labeled by their advocates as “completely natural.” So not to worry. It’s all in Nature. It belongs.
Natural = reality. Or natural = normal. Or natural = good. Nature = everything.
If that’s the case, then sure, by default there is no supernatural. But that’s a completely empty semantic victory, since nothing normally considered “supernatural” is being ruled out.
We don’t want to rule out “the supernatural” by word play. We want to be able to claim that, though it may be possible, there’s not enough good evidence which supports it. Or, from its advocates, that there is. So I think we need a better, clearer definition than “that which is beyond nature.”
John Moralessays
Sastra,
We don’t want to rule out “the supernatural” by word play. […] So I think we need a better, clearer definition than “that which is beyond nature.”
No, and yes.
Well, much though it’s dissed, there’s always Wikipedia: supernatural.
cactusrensays
Sarah Trachtenberg @ 94:
I’ve been saying things like “There is no such thing as a ghost” and “There is probably intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but they don’t come here and abduct rednecks.” According to this video, I’m expressing those ideas in a closed-minded way. Will someone please tell me what the right way is?
That’s a good point, Sarah. I would say something like: “I don’t believe in ghosts”, or “I am skeptical of the existence of ghosts”, or “I don’t know of any empirical evidence supporting the existence of ghosts. If this exists, could you please show it to me?” (Obviously, you could also substitue alien abductions/angels/god/auras etc. in place of ghosts.)
Sastrasays
Sarah Trachtenberg #94 wrote:
Will someone please tell me what the right way is?
Oh, that’s easy. “There’s almost certainly no such thing as a ghost” or “ET’s probably don’t come here and abduct rednecks.”
Do we really have to go through such hoops, and hedge everything with particular caution? Not always. Depends on the audience, I guess, and the situation. Is it casual, or are you dealing with a true believer and having a serious discussion?
If it is a true believer, be aware that they will jump with glee and triumph on any absolute statement you make — or seem to make — just as the video shows. You don’t always have to be cautious and throw in the “probably” and “it is unlikely that” and “not yet up to the level of credibility” and so forth — but ‘it’s unlikely that’ you’ll ever have to backtrack from being too guarded, and technical.
Sastrasays
John Morales #96 wrote:
Well, much though it’s dissed, there’s always Wikipedia: supernatural.
I just looked through the entry quickly, and it seems to do a fairly good job at showing how muddled the definition is. I think that, if nothing else, any discussion on the supernatural should start off with everyone agreeing on what they mean by the term in the first place — or else it will get sidetracked with misunderstandings.
hjesays
There’s always the possibility that something could appear–by our current understanding– inexplicable in material terms–in the sense that Arthur C. Clarke expressed in the oft-quoted “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” If physicists like Alan Guth can imagine “creating a universe in your basement,” it is possible that some civilization millions if not billions of years advanced of ours might have acquired the means to do so. They could be material beings but still seem god-like from our perspective.
However it seems unlikely that any such superior beings would be interested in blood sacrifices or an individual’s sexual proclivities (apart from dissertation work for an alien astrosociology major).
Anyone every read the book “Superior Beings. If They Exist, How Would We Know?: Game-Theoretic Implications of Omnipotence, Omniscience, Immortality, and Incomprehensibility” by Brams? I remember it was published when I was in high school, but there is now an updated edition.
Larrysays
OK, open minded people. What do you think of this?
No, that’s not a good definition of materialism or naturalism, because it has the naturalist flatly denying the existence of things like thoughts and values
“Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.”
Also read PZ’s discussions where he talks with a non-materialist neuroscientist named Michael Egnor. Egnor asks about ides and concepts like altruism and PZ says altruism is just found in the material in someone’s brain.
So as I said as long as it is not matter or energy or physical in nature, we would say it is supernatural.
Liberal Atheistsays
Great video, explaining things very clearly. Thanks!
Sastrasays
Facile Princeps #102 wrote:
Also read PZ’s discussions where he talks with a non-materialist neuroscientist named Michael Egnor. Egnor asks about ides and concepts like altruism and PZ says altruism is just found in the material in someone’s brain.
So as I said as long as it is not matter or energy or physical in nature, we would say it is supernatural.
If PZ is explaining how ideas and concept like altruism arise from material processes, then he’s not denying that they exist. Nor, of course, is he claiming that something like ‘altruism’ is supernatural.
Many theists have a bad habit of confusing materialism or naturalism with an interpretation that’s been called greedy reductionism. That’s the belief that higher-level things like altruism (or minds, beliefs, and emotions) can all be explained at the physical level. As Michael Egnor sees it, a materialist should expect to open up a person’s brain and have the thoughts fall out like marbles. No. That’s not materialism. Or, at least, that’s not what most materialists believe (it’s the internet, never say never).
I think what’s supernatural depends on the assumption that mind and mind-products don’t just supervene on the physical, but stand prior to, apart from, and above the physical. Supernaturalism also grants a primary, central place in the cosmos to human beings and our concerns.
String Theory, for example, is weird, and involves multiple non-physical dimensions which may be beyond science’s ability to study — but nobody calls it supernatural. Why not? Because there’s nothing mind-like about it, and the hypothetical superstrings don’t somehow make everything meaningful and vibrate love or something.
There’s also a problem with classifying things when people talk about “spiritual energy.” Is that supernatural or naturalistic materialism? I’d classify it with supernaturalism — even though it’s energy. Ditto with spiritual ‘substances’ like ectoplasm.
People used to think air, fire, smoke, and light were forms of the supernatural or spirit. Then they pushed that back to thoughts and feelings. Now, with neurology, it’s pushed back into just being vague.
bootsysays
Thoughts ARE physical natural things, just like light is a physical natural thing. Just because you can’t point to single, discrete nodule of something, doesn’t make that thing supernatural.
Gotchayesays
Facile Princeps: That probably works as shorthand, but only if it’s understood that “matter or energy” includes the physical laws that govern matter and energy and things that supervene on matter and energy. As your quote makes explicit, the authors don’t deny the existence of the subjective experience of thought.
‘Supernatural’ is tricky. I think that part of the reason for the confusion surrounding the concept is that it’s often used in at least three completely different ways.
Sometimes, ‘the supernatural’ refers to mental activity that isn’t dependent on bodies in the usual way. This kind of supernaturalism is testable and is not on-face absurd. If experiments in quantum mechanics consistently showed particles possessing spins so as to spell out intelligent messages in binary over repeated experiments, that’d be pretty good evidence that quantum mechanical effects are somehow caused by a mind, and this causal mechanism would be thought to be supernatural. ESP is an example of something that, if it were real, would be supernatural in this sense. Likewise the usual kind of ghosts.
Then there’s the miraculous sense of ‘supernatural’. Here supernatural is just a way of saying that something is true even though all of the evidence is against it (or just that there’s no evidence for it). It’s used in reference to claims that the seemingly impossible has occurred, and is meant to explain them and make them plausible. Stuff that’s supernatural in this sense is stuff that you ought to be thought crazy for believing and which you can’t possibly demonstrate, but which is still coherent. Water into wine is an example, as is the Resurrection, or anything else that Hume’s “On Miracles” might apply to. This is a much sillier kind of supernaturalism to use in discussions with other people, but it’s not the worst kind.
Finally, there’s the nonsensical meaning of ‘supernatural’, which is the sort of word salad that Sastra talked about earlier. “The number ‘5’ is also a person” is an example. The nonsensical supernatural is stuff that can be falsified purely logical grounds or which can’t possibly be grasped by the human mind. The Trinity is an example.
There’s trouble when people start sliding among the various uses of the word. Most people’s baseline idea of God falls under the first sort of supernatural – there can actually be evidence one way or the other for what they believe, but what they believe is that there’s a disembodied mind controlling things. When shown evidence against their belief, they slide into nonsensical supernaturalism to talk about what their God is like and they use miraculous supernaturalism to talk about their beliefs about the past.
This lets the epistemologically irresponsible or the intentionally deceptive claim that atheists are wrong to reject the (nonsensical) supernatural from the start because the (disembodied mind) supernatural is clearly logically possible.
JackCsays
“The number ‘5’ is also a person”
Of course, 5 was just his nickname, his full name was 555 95472.
No, I don’t view ghosts as possessing intelligence – I see them as an intriguing question. To dismiss them out of hand is arrogant, especially as there is so much we have yet to understand about our reality, but I know there is an answer to these sightings that has nothing to do with souls or an all-powerful sky daddy. So to answer your question, ghosts are just another name for something that has yet to be fully explained.
Jimmysays
I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties.
By George, I think I’ve got it! Supernatural beings must surely be composed of dark matter! Doesn’t that fit the definition above? Could be I just don’t grasp the gravity of the situation.
JackCsays
Jimmy@109 – dammit, I was trying to think of how I would broach dark matter/energy here.
It makes up more than 75% of the universe
We cannot see it
We cannot sense it
We know it is there
It DOES interact with matter, but we are not sure how
We don’t know what it is.
It is the closest thing I can come to something actually “paranormal” – although of course it really isn’t.
It is also what I usually bring up when others bring up super-natural concepts.
JC
wolfwalkersays
Intriguing video. Wrong in several places, with several unspoken flaws in its own reasoning, but still interesting. And amusing, to see it being discussed favorably by this blog’s owner and many of its regular commenters when they themselves often show the same behavior being criticized. The very idea of a militant anti-religionist, who regularly writes blogposts declaring that gods do not exist and religion is inherently evil, lecturing anybody about open-mindedness is laugh-out-loud funny.
Are you going to show the flaws of the videos, or simply assert it and use the support of it as a means to attack atheists?
John Moralessays
wolfwalker:
Wrong in several places, with several unspoken flaws in its own reasoning, but still interesting.
Care to share your basis for this allegation?
Snoofsays
Uh… astrophysicists _are_ sure how dark matter interacts with the regular stuff. It’s via gravity.
Dark energy’s the tricky one. Really, the phrase “dark energy” is a short way of saying “something which changes the way the expansion of space happens from what you’d expect if there was only matter and dark matter”. Of course, it has measurable consequences, and it shows up in independent observations.
Also read PZ’s discussions where he talks with a non-materialist neuroscientist named Michael Egnor. Egnor asks about ides and concepts like altruism and PZ says altruism is just found in the material in someone’s brain.
So as I said as long as it is not matter or energy or physical in nature, we would say it is supernatural.
Yet our brains are just matter and energy. Everything about our brains screams that they are material. Thoughts are patterns of brain activity. Of course such a claim is testable and falsifiable, so we can look to brain injuries and see how they inhibit thoughts. We can look to brain scans and see how the brain works in creating thoughts. The mind is material, and if you would ever stop to realise that the DI is nothing more than a propaganda machine, you’d see that you are talking absolute bullshit!
Wowbagger, OMsays
wolfwalker,
The very idea of a militant anti-religionistanti-unicornist, who regularly writes blogposts declaring that godsunicorns do not exist and religionThe Church of Unicorns is inherently evil, lecturing anybody about open-mindedness is laugh-out-loud funny.
Fixed it for you. No, that’s okay – I’ll start a tab.
Owlmirrorsays
We don’t want to rule out “the supernatural” by word play.
I don’t think it’s “word play” to point out that a definition is incoherent. A contradiction in definition like “triangular pentagon” or “square circle” is obvious because the shapes have clear definitions that make no sense when combined. For a word like “supernatural”, the incoherence is a little trickier to show — depending on what is meant by “natural”.
Metaphysical naturalism asserts a logical equivalence between nature and reality. I suppose the countering view would be assert that reality is composed of the natural and the supernatural.
Yet, if we go with that, what then? The natural can be tested and interacts with matter; that’s granted. So the supernatural … does not interact with matter(?) and cannot be tested(?) Or the supernatural does interact with matter, but in a way that cannot be tested(?) Or the supernatural does not interact with matter, but in a way that can indeed be tested(?) And if the supernatural does interact with matter and can be tested, then how does it differ from the natural?
As you note, it’s indeed vague.
Sometimes theists laugh and ask how a test for God is supposed to be made. I don’t know how they conceive of God that that counterargument is supposed help make God seem real (regardless of how supernatural is defined) — especially when I bring up my argument that God is supposedly defined as being a person, according to the usual theistic religions.
JackCsays
Snoof@114: I was using shorthand, but yes, the only way we CAN observe dark matter is through it’s gravitational influence.
However: We don’t understand what it IS that we are observing. We observe an influence and we postulate “dark matter” – we do not see it, we do not understand it’s nature. We “create” it because it must be there to explain our observations, as we don’t understand the observations to be incorrect.
Shorthand aside, yes, you are correct. It doesn’t diminish the fact that the composition of dark matter or energy is unknown. Some theories have it as simply an incorrect use of current theories of gravitation (for matter) or as you point out, a way of looking at things.
It meets my criteria of an observable phenomenon we cannot currently explain. It has the benefit of being verifiable by various sources. In that, it succeeds over any other super-normal phenomena yet discussed.
JC
Larrysays
Aren’t minds wonderful; closed or opened? I believe we all should be thankful we have a mind. So many humans in the world do not seem to possess much of one. Sad.
I installed a multi-position switch in my mind yonks ago. One position, Ventilate, raises the evidence filter and lets a nice breeze blow through. This feels good and collects various ideas. Most of which are dust and need to be flushed out.
Another position is Isolate. No breezes here, nothing gets it. Tends to overheat and damage the evidence filter.
A third position is Chicken Soup. Sometimes called Chocolate. For when I’m not feeling too good. Particularly recommended after bouts of headdesking, facepalming, and other encounters with trolls and nasty germs. I’m considering renaming this position Bacon.
There are other positions, some unlabelled. I’m a bit hesitant to go flipping through the further-out positions. One time I did that I imagined(?) I was actually agreeing with the “maggie”. Scary!
p.s. That was a brilliant video. Clear, well-presented, and I didn’t have any problems with the voice or graphics or spellings.
Rick Schauersays
Just yesterday, my sister called me closed-minded…I just sent this video to her. Thanks for sharing, PZ.
John Scanlon, FCDsays
Facile Princeps who wrote
One can be skeptical of supernatural beings but one cannot assert that supernatural beings do no exist or we should rule out such explanations or beings a priori without taking up a burden of proof,
let me show you my sc/kepticism. I can assert that supernatural beings do not exist, it’s up to you to prove if they do (good luck with that), and meanwhile FUCK OFF.
Curtsays
Incredible video. Would love to see more from them/him. It was very well crafted and very clear in message. Kudos to whoever made it.
Larrysays
Someone above mentioned “greedy reductionism”. That’s straight out of Daniel Dennett.
One thing I noticed in an interview with Dennett is that he said he didn’t distinguish between “Naturwissenschaften” and “Geisteswissenschaften”. This is where materialists are most vulnerable. You guys don’t address the strongest arguments made against you made by people like Charles Taylor and Keith Ward, who have a grounding in the German idealist tradition.
Larrysays
…and meanwhile FUCK OFF.
If PZ Myers had painted The School of Athens it would be a bar room brawl, with Aristotle giving Plato the finger.
New Atheism is pretty much Bertrand Russell with brass knuckles, and Kant and Hegel painted out of the picture.
Curtsays
A quick scientific inquiry revealed what others already know about the authorship of the video :)
This video is definitely being embedded in the lecture notes for the first lecture of my colloquium. Thank you for posting it!
shonnysays
…and meanwhile FUCK OFF.
Take that one to heart, Larry, because from what you display above, it includes you as well.
A closed mind is very much like having no mind at all.
There are those who think that they can learn too much, and usually they have stopped learning while they were way short of even knowing a little.
Lastly, we are here to vent frustrations with IDiots and the like as well! So, if you don’t like, don’t look.
MartinDHsays
Good video on opened vs. closed mind. I think it was Granny Ogg who said “I don’t want to be so open minded that my brain leaks out of my ears and I can tie it under my chin”.
BTW The pictures seem to be by Jack Kirby…I think I recognize some early Fantastic Four stuff.
—
MartinDH
Larrysays
Take that one to heart, Larry…
You just said “fuck off” to someone who’s not even Chistian.
Oh, well. Par for the course…
AdamKsays
I thought the pictures looked like Kirby as well. I wonder if they’re actual quotes or homage.
Dennis Murphysays
I sent a link for this video to my nephew who is a senior at Boston College High School (No not the vampire school) and here’s his response:
> that video is fucking brilliant, i’m going to use this to troll my religion teacher for my senior
> project, thanks bro.
Many thanks!
shonnysays
Larry, xians don’t have a monopoly on trolling or being morons, or for that matter being the ones accusing others of having closed minds. They just have a lot more practice.
And being ‘understanding’ ain’t getting you nowhere here, lad!
Owlmirrorsays
One thing I noticed in an interview with Dennett is that he said he didn’t distinguish between “Naturwissenschaften” and “Geisteswissenschaften”.
Given that Dilthey himself appears to have thought that “”spirit” (Geist) has a social rather than an occult meaning. It is not an abstract intellectual principle or a disembodied entity but refers to the individual’s life in its concrete social-historical context.”, I don’t see why Dennett (or anyone) should distinguish between them, at a fundamental level. Dilthey is putting “spirit” firmly in the realm of the natural and material as something that emerges from the material and can be falsifiably tested. The concept is still perfectly monistic.
This is where materialists are most vulnerable. You guys don’t address the strongest arguments made against you made by people like Charles Taylor and Keith Ward, who have a grounding in the German idealist tradition.
I have not read and understood everything they wrote, but if they are not positing something completely separate from the natural world, then they just are arguing semantics and definitions with regard to “materialism”.
Zmidponksays
Larry #127, what you’re missing is that is an example of religious people who are, indeed, open-minded, and are willing to change many of the underlying tenets of their religion in the face of evidence, and only keep the absolute central thesis of their religion (ie that God exists, in some form), mainly because nebulous claims like that are absolutely and totally impossible to disprove. In my experience, this is the exception, not the rule, amongst religious folk.
The kind of person that this video addresses is the kind of person who goes, “I am right because this ‘holy text’/some random piece of incredibly circumstantial evidence/me says so and if you have solid evidence that proves I’m wrong, I’m going to stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and go ‘la, la, la’ very, very loudly, then accuse you of being closed-minded.” A very good example of this latter group is the creationist/ID crowd.
…mainly because nebulous claims like that are absolutely and totally impossible to disprove.
Lots of things in life are impossible to disprove. Back to the “Naturwissenschaften” and “Geisteswissenschaften” distinction: It’s easy to prove/disprove the objective. Much harder to prove the subjective. But we deal with the subjective all the time. A lot in life is about dialectics between minds–Plato’s side of the School of Athens. Plato doesn’t say “the nature of ‘the good’ is 42.”
Because it’s something you have to keep asking and a tidy answer is impossible.
Not everything is like the physical sciences…
jeffsays
I posted this video on my Facebook page. I thought some might be amused by a reply I got from “Angry Catholic Lawyer”. As follows:
“wow, this was so unbelievably bad. I want my 9.40 minutes of my life back. This guy is seriously lacking in an ability to present a consistant argument, I would embarras him so bad if i cross examined him. While getting past his juvenile straw-man arguments, I can think of at least 5 blatant contradictions in his own position. But essentially, … Read Morethe hypocracy can be summed up like this..”I am a open minded scientist. I know God does not exist. Regardless of the evidence presented to me, including eyewitness testimony and written documentation from numerous independant sources that a man named Jesus was publicly executed and then returned to life and performed numerous other miracles I know this can not be the case. They are obviously wrong, lying, insane or misquoted. I am open minded. God can not exist.” He should stick to being an associate biology professor because he can’t argue worth a damn.”
?????
He must have watched a totally different movie. I’m curious why he didn’t post it here directly but Im happy to do it for him. What a fruitcake….
My reply:
“1-PZ didn’t make that movie. He just posted it. 2- There is nothing about God or Jesus in that movie. You are ranting against something else. It is about critical thinking, something you don’t demonstrate in this post. It is almost like you didn’t even watch it. And that’s funny because it describes you to a T.”
Juliansays
“Not everything is like the physical sciences…”
No. In some fields you’re allowed to make whole volumes of shit up.
Sorry but I had to get that off my chest. Since the people here have decided not to ignore you, I figure I might as well get an insult in. Have fun being a passive aggressive twit.
Larrysays
I figure I might as well get an insult in
Yeah, like I said, it’s par for the course.
There is some open minded conversation here. Not a lot.
And it’s not about “making volumes of shit up.” Or if it is, every single figure in this painting except for a few, just “made volumes of shit up.”
Not everybody, but quite a few people on this board act like they’re like, 15.
Aquariasays
#141:
It would be a good thing if you would come up to that age level, rather than like a 4 year old who wants everyone to do things his way–in someone else’s house.
You would be happier at Matt Nisbett’s blog. You’re made for each other.
Google the name, and relish in your mutual, pompous, faux intellectual control freak tendencies to your hearts’ content.
Larrysays
Whatever. Enjoy your community of mutually-reinforcing “open minded” people.
Dennis Murphysays
I sent a link for this video to my nephew who is a senior at Boston College High School (No not the vampire school) and here’s his response:
> that video is fucking brilliant, i’m going to use this to troll my religion teacher for my senior
> project, thanks bro.
Many thanks!
Zmidponksays
Larry #138:
Lots of things in life are impossible to disprove.
Yes. And a lot of them, as Julian put it, are ‘made up shit’.
Back to the “Naturwissenschaften” and “Geisteswissenschaften” distinction: It’s easy to prove/disprove the objective. Much harder to prove the subjective.
But it can be very easy to disprove it. Which is probably one of the reasons why science functions by trying to disprove hypotheses, rather than trying to ‘prove’ them. Indeed, it is quite often held that it is impossible to ‘prove’ anything in science, short of directly observing it is true. This is why, for example, despite the huge amounts of evidence indicating that life evolved, in this regard, evolution is still regarded as a ‘theory’, rather than a proven ‘fact’.
However, something else that science needs is objective evidence. Part of this is because, if a hypothesis is based on subjective opinions/experiences rather than verifiable fact, you can come up with a ‘hypothesis’ that is impossible to disprove, but is blatently absurd.
But we deal with the subjective all the time. A lot in life is about dialectics between minds–Plato’s side of the School of Athens. Plato doesn’t say “the nature of ‘the good’ is 42.”
And what, precisely, the nature of the good is, Plato, his contemporaries and successors never managed to agree on at all. Nor could they actually agree that such a thing as ‘the good’ actually existed. Aristotle, for example, thought that ‘universals’ were not independant, but were simply properties of things. The main reason for this disagreement was the fact they were arguing about something which wasn’t based on any kind of evidence.
Because it’s something you have to keep asking and a tidy answer is impossible.
A ‘tidy’ answer isn’t what’s being looked for. There’s plenty of things in science that isn’t ‘tidy’.
Thoughtful Guysays
The video makes a good point. It was fairly well done. There are varying degrees of being open-minded and closed-minded. Most scientist are open-minded when it comes to things that can be explained using empirical evidence. We expect nothing less from them. Some do become rigid with their own pet theories. They tend to be closed-minded with anything dealing with what they perceive as “woo” or superstition. If it can’t be proven scientifically then it simply isn’t true and that’s where they become closed-minded to any other possibilities.
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
that’s where they become closed-minded to any other possibilities.
If the other possibilities can’t be shown to exist, why should they be believed? The woo meisters want us to disprove them (proof negative-almost impossible to do sometimes). As a skeptic, I say “show me the evidence” (proof positive-easy to do).
SeanJJordansays
I’m just stunned at how well the video was put together. Using Jack Kirby-style artwork to talk about skepticism? I would have never connected the two, but it’s absolutely inspired. I’m going to have to check out more of these.
Thoughtful Guysays
As a skeptic, I say “show me the evidence” (proof positive-easy to do).
If a person refuses to believe something, no amount of evidence will convince them.
What makes it even more difficult is if the experience that proves something to be true requires an open-mind to experience it in the first place.
At one time we could not experience viewing microbial organisms under a microscope. If someone refused to accept the idea, no amount of debate would have convinced them.
Joshsays
They tend to be closed-minded with anything dealing with what they perceive as “woo” or superstition.
That’s not really fair. Very few people are “open minded” to all superstition/religion/woo/whathaveyou. People just draw the line in different places.
People who believe passionately in Christ and get their panties in a bunch at the mere existence of atheists seem to have no problem being passionately atheistic about Odin. I have a friend who gets annoyed with my skepticism of ghosts, but has no problem mocking people who think that the Lock Ness monster is real.
If it can’t be proven scientifically then it simply isn’t true and that’s where they become closed-minded to any other possibilities.
Science doesn’t prove in the sense that I suspect you’re thinking; it can only disprove. This statement isn’t accurate.
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
If a person refuses to believe something, no amount of evidence will convince them.
Hmm… All I said is that proof positive should be supplied. No statement about not believing if appropriate evidence is supplied. Most woo supplies no evidence. Ergo, it can dismissed out of hand. For example, if you want me to believe in homeopathy, show me using proper double blind studies where homeopathic remedies give a better response than the wonder drug PlaceboTM. (The studies were run, and came up the same as Placebo, ergo homeopathy uses the placebo effect.) A true skeptic will change his mind with proper evidence.
Thoughtful Guysays
@Josh,
I did say there are varying degrees of closed-mindedness.
Some people believe in in UFOs but not God. Some people believe in God but not space aliens. Many skeptics dismiss both because they don’t have enough evidence for either.
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
Many skeptics dismiss both because they don’t have enough evidence for either.
A proper response. The evidence for both is either extremely weak or non-existent. This does not imply closed minded.
Thoughtful Guysays
A true skeptic will change his mind with proper evidence.
Can you cite an example where you were skeptical of something, you previously dismissed as superstitious woo, when you were presented with evidence?
Sastrasays
Thoughtful Guy #149 wrote:
What makes it even more difficult is if the experience that proves something to be true requires an open-mind to experience it in the first place.
I think you are confusing the ability to be convinced with the desire to be convinced. When people have the desire to be convinced, they are too easily persuaded. They look for confirming evidence, and dismiss other possibilities too quickly — especially the possibility that they just don’t know enough to say anything, or that their recall of the events is not as accurate as a video camera.
I’ve noted that this is a kind of code meaning for the words “open-minded” or “seeking” among my woo-friends. From the scientific or humanist perspective, being open-minded means being willing to analyze something critically. You seek to find truth by trying to be as objective as possible. An open-minded person would welcome debate — hearing an opposing view, and trying to counter it.
To the spiritually-inclined, however, being “open to the possibility” of ghosts or psychic powers means welcoming the possibility like a beloved friend, and seeking to find evidence for it as if you were looking for pieces of gold. An open-minded person would never try to debate anyone — nor would they want to be debated with — because they’re accepting of their own experience, and want others to be accepting, too.
But if you need to be the Will to Believe in order to experience something, then it is much too likely that you’re falling for the errors involved in biased forms of subjective validation. Science forces you to constantly ask yourself “if I were wrong, how would I know?” Those other ways of knowing tend to focus on “If I am right, aren’t I special?”
AnthonyKsays
Lock Ness monster
No such thing – but I wonder if denying this beast has any effect on the reality or not of the Loch Ness monster?
re scepticism :I’ve just had a bad-tempered argument with a friend who has only just had her 12-year-old daughter vaccinated for MMR. She’s cross with me for being arrogant for, like, knowing shit by means of like, finding out; and I can’t understand why she isn’t angry with the people who told her it was risky in the first place.
She’s cross with me for pointing out that her ignorance could have led to her child’s illness! Oh well, at least the child’s vaccinated now.
Endorsays
“Can you cite an example where you were skeptical of something, you previously dismissed as superstitious woo, when you were presented with evidence?”
This seems like an oddly loaded question. If Nerd can’t come up with such an example (presumably because “superstitious woo” typically has no evidence that would change a skeptic’s mind), does that make him close-minded?
Joshsays
No such thing – but I wonder if denying this beast has any effect on the reality or not of the Loch Ness monster?
Goddamit.
Smidgysays
Thoughtful Gut @ #149
If a person refuses to believe something, no amount of evidence will convince them.
This is true. A good example would be young Earth creationists who believe the Bible is absolutely true, so the Earth was created in 6 days around 6000 years ago, and disregard any evidence indicating this is not the case.
What makes it even more difficult is if the experience that proves something to be true requires an open-mind to experience it in the first place.
Yes, it requires an open mind to experience it, and a skeptical one to examine that experience to see what truly caused that experience, and what that experience actually means. So an open-minded skeptic is what you should really be.
At one time we could not experience viewing microbial organisms under a microscope. If someone refused to accept the idea, no amount of debate would have convinced them.
True – if someone point-blank refused to accept this idea, no matter what, then they wouldn’t accept it regardless of the debate and evidence. However, if someone accepted something that had no evidence whatsoever, they would accept all sorts of utterly absurd things, perhaps to the point of rejecting something else that contradicted it, but was correct – a point that is explicitly made by this video.
Oh, and your example of microbes isn’t exactly a great example of something people wouldn’t accept. Microbes, or something like them, were hypothesized as far back as the 1st century BC (for example, the scholar Marcus Terentius Varro warned about ‘certain minute creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes, which float in the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and there cause serious diseases’). Microscopes weren’t invented until near the end of the 16th century AD, and the first actual microbes weren’t observed until three-quarters of the way through the 17th century.
Smidgysays
Damn. My post at #159 should quote ‘Thoughtful Guy’ not ‘Thoughtful Gut’. Woops, sorry. Anyway:
Thoughtful Guy #154:
Can you cite an example where you were skeptical of something, you previously dismissed as superstitious woo, when you were presented with evidence?
This wasn’t addressed to me, but, no, I can’t – mainly because I haven’t had anything I had previously dismissed as ‘superstitious woo’ being backed up by solid evidence. I can cite an example of the reverse, though – dismissing something I previously held to be true because evidence indicated it probably wasn’t. You see, I wasn’t always an atheist.
Thoughtful Guysays
There is a certain amount of healthy skepticism that is key to being able to objectively analyze and make an accurate assessment of a given subject.
A typical young earth creationist has too much skepticism of science to objectively estimate the age of the planet. Indeed, they are being closed-minded.
When you automatically dismiss something out of hand, you deny yourself the opportunity to experience it. For this reason, a young-earth creationist will likely never experience the “ah ha” moment of real science. There may also be “ah ha” moments of metaphysics that many skeptics will never allow themselves to experience.
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
Can you cite an example where you were skeptical of something, you previously dismissed as superstitious woo, when you were presented with evidence?
What woo has been shown to have real evidence for it? Very few, which is why they are still woo. And once there is evidence, it is no longer woo.
Off the top of my head, acupuncture has been shown to have a mild effect for pain in some patients, but it appears to be totally a placebo effect. It doesn’t matter if traditional spots are used, or whether the skin is actually punctured or not. Just that the patient thinks they were treated. The whole woo surrounding acupuncture is wrong, even if it has a mild placebo effect.
frogsays
Sastra: So I suppose that, in order to become skeptical of the scientific method itself, I would have to be infused with the sense that I’m different and special.
That’s great. Ultimately, it’s about a personal orientation. Most folks are terribly unaware of (or dishonest about) this — that reasons for a system is primarily epiphenomenon, underneath it all is simply your orientation to the world.
Which is not to say that some orientations aren’t deeply preferable, much more pleasant, and much more aligned with the external, global, objective world.
It’s also why you can’t argue someone out of a religious viewpoint, unless they already don’t believe and are looking for an excuse. You have to re-orient them. You have to teach them humility about their own mental faculties.
frogsays
Nerd: The whole woo surrounding acupuncture is wrong, even if it has a mild placebo effect.
Specifically why? Are you claiming that lack of evidence is evidence of lack? Or are you just saying that many woo-masters are lying about the science (by commission or omission)?
I don’t see any problem with woo, as long as everyone recognizes it’s lack of evidentiary value. In many areas, it is difficult or even practically impossible to have sufficient evidence to honestly, scientifically, come to any conclusions (I’m looking at a lot of medicine here, even when gussied about with “epidemiological studies”). Then you’re left with either taking no action, or taking whichever action you prefer on other principles such as internal consistency, as long as you don’t forget that it’s just a personal or cultural preference.
If you feel better going to psychotherapy, go ahead and do it. If you want to have a shaman treat your untreatable migraines — what do you have to lose but your cash?
frogsays
wolfwalker: The very idea of a militant anti-religionist, who regularly writes blogposts declaring that gods do not exist and religion is inherently evil, lecturing anybody about open-mindedness is laugh-out-loud funny.
Now, here’s a good contra-example of the one of the video’s point: the video claims you can believe you’re opponent is wrong, without having a basis for claiming that he’s closed minded. Wolfwalker appears to not have understood the video.
Being a “militant atheist” is completely orthogonal to begin open-minded. It’s LOL funny that someone is too slow to get that.
Sureiblsays
Really enjoyed this video, succinct description of the correct way to think.
One part I disagree with, however: I do not think it is closed-minded to say that, for example, ghosts/UFOs/Loch Ness Monster/Santa Claus/fairies don’t exist, simply because by ‘don’t exist’ I mean ‘there is not sufficient evidence at present to convince me of the existence of …’. In the same vein, I and (I suspect) most here would be comfortable in saying that, for example, gravity exists or evolution happens without specific qualification most of the time.
It seems to me that by stating fact (of existence, non-existence, whatever) we are actually claiming that a particular ‘fact’ is backed up by objective evidence, thus do not need to say ‘because the evidence backs it up’ as that would be merely a tautology. We only need to state that when whoever we are talking to doesn’t seem to appreciate it in the specific context on the discussion.
It is certainly difficult to see how, for example, ‘gravity exists’ or ‘fairies don’t exist’ could mean anything other than ‘I think that the evidence supports the existence of gravity’ and ‘I think that there is insufficient evidence for fairies’. I don’t like just saying ‘I don’t believe in fairies’ because it seems to me belief is something utterly subjective, like liking or disliking a painting, and generally we are debating objective fact.
I don’t see any problem with woo, as long as everyone recognizes it’s lack of evidentiary value.
But the woo relies on the placebo effect, so having everyone recognise it’s lack of evidentiary value would mean that the practice has no evidentiary value.
Facile Princepssays
Yet our brains are just matter and energy. Everything about our brains screams that they are material. Thoughts are patterns of brain activity. Of course such a claim is testable and falsifiable, so we can look to brain injuries and see how they inhibit thoughts. We can look to brain scans and see how the brain works in creating thoughts. The mind is material, and if you would ever stop to realise that the DI is nothing more than a propaganda machine, you’d see that you are talking absolute bullshit!
But is it not only the DI who does question materialism. For example , David Chalmers, Director of the Centre for Consciousness at ANU who is a critic of ID and not a theist http://fragments.consc.net/djc/2008/10/the-problem-of-consciousness-meets-intelligent-design.html
Even he feels that conciousness refutes materialism. Let us all keep in mind that Egnor is an expert. HE LITERALLY DOES BRAIN SURGERY!!! I’m sure he would know if there was a piece of material called altruism hiding in your material brain.
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
Yawn. Facilis the Fallacious Fool wrong again. Nothing new. Simply no logic and reason, just presuppositions.
OH and just one question for people here.
Does anyone have any positive arguments FOR MATERIALISM? I heard some arguments against theism and against God but haven’t seen any arguments that actually prove materialism is true.
A couple of people say consciousness refutes material = facilis being convinced. A whole body of evidence that suggests otherwise (go check out the blog neurologica where there’s a lot summarised) but because there are at least a couple of “experts” that agree with the point of view that facilis takes, it has to be that it’s refuted…
facilis, you cherry-picking fool. The problem of consciousness hasn’t be solved yet. But by studying sentient animals, by studying the brains of humans, by all indications consciousness is material. Have you read Dan Dennett – Consciousness Explained yet? Or are you just going to keep pointing to scientists as if being one is an authority as proof that your position is truth? How about you actually read what the “other side” has to say before you jump on it…
Given your record with evolution (being suckered by Ben Stein – poor form) why should we think that you are capable of understanding even the basic arguments on this platform? Hell, even when it’s demonstrated that you are wrong all you do is shut up as opposed to admitting fallibility.
Search for “egnor.” You’ll find several dozen refutations. The discussions in the comments are interesting as well. You can also search more generally for “dualism” while you’re there.
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
Facilis, your presupposition is that atheists and scientists are wrong. Until you change your presupposition, your chances of anybody seeing you as anything other than an ignorant troll are small. Scientists are right far more often than godbots since they have physical evidence to back them up.
Does anyone have any positive arguments FOR MATERIALISM?
For materialism?
Material objects have been observed. Nothing else has been observed. So we know the material exists, we have no idea whether the immaterial exists.
2. The brain works before consciousness. In experiments, they have shown that the brain makes a decision before the person is aware of making that decision.
The brain is an evolved organ. All processes of the brain are extensions of processes that came before. We can see various stages of brain activity throughout the animal kingdom, which suggests that there’s nothing about our brains that isn’t explainable
Sentient animals. There are many animals that are self-aware. They’ve even done tests on apes where the creature would bet on not whether they knew the answer, but whether they knew that they knew. There was even an ape that upon getting it wrong, threw it’s head back and slapped itself on the forehead
Problem solving. There are animals that fashion tools, animals that experiment to come up with new solution, and these things are learned the same way that humans do. We can even teach certain animals abstract language in order to communicate
Brain injury. Injure certain parts of the brain, and lose particular abilities. Brain activity is directly tied to ability
among other things too. But that should be a good start for you facilis. Not that I ever expect you to learn anything, hell even when you are backed into a corner you refuse to take on board the possibility that you were wrong.
@ Nerd of Redhead
Not all scientists believe in materialism like you do. (In fact 40% believe in theism which means at least 40% think materialism is false.) I am not tralking about science. I am talking about people who believe in materialism.
@SC
I’ve already read Neurologica’s and PZ’s responses to Egnor and found them quite poor. I think he makes vague appeals without really answering Egnor’s questions. I also found him inconsistent in his argumentation. For example he says that he is allowed to use Ockam’s razor (even though Ockham was a dualist) because a principle is valid no matter who invented it however he says to Egnor that he cannot use arguments from David Chalmers( because Chalmers is not a substance dualist).
What a surprise, facilis has found the arguments someone arguing against his position quite poor. Nevermind that Novella is a neuroscientist, but you are only an expert in facilis’ eyes if you also work for the DI… Have you read Dan Dennett’s Consciousness Explained yet?
I’ve already read Neurologica’s and PZ’s responses to Egnor and found them quite poor.
You listen to Ben Stein, you have no grounds to ever call someone else’s arguments poor. You have not shown you have even the slightest ability to listen to what other people are saying if you already disagree with them. Why should this matter be any different Mr. “How can you say my position is circular when you can’t account for circular logic”? Mr. “2 + 2 = 4 only if you recognise that God makes it so”? Mr. “science is persecuting anyone who speaks out on darwinism”?
Just remember facilis. A couple of weeks ago, I announced that I was getting three books: Why I Became An Atheist by John Loftus, Breaking The Spell by Dan Dennett and Only A Theory by Ken Miller, and challenged you to read them alongside me. After all, you complain about the scholarship of the “new atheists” yet haven’t read them (and these two you’d be hard pressed to criticise) and you believe that intelligent design is being unfairly suppressed. So surely you could see that reading those 3 books might increase your knowledge on the matters. Why haven’t you jumped at it? Why haven’t you read Consciousness Explained? Why do use our knowledge as the grounds for whether the knowledge exists?
It doesn’t matter whether we can give a good account of materialism or not, but it does matter that you are using that to feel better about your own worldview. If I can’t name the fossil species that led to cetaceans, it doesn’t mean that the fossils are not discovered.
Facile Princepssays
@Kel
What a surprise, facilis has found the arguments someone arguing against his position quite poor. Nevermind that Novella is a neuroscientist, but you are only an expert in facilis’ eyes if you also work for the DI… Have you read Dan Dennett’s Consciousness Explained yet?
1) I agree Novella is an expert too. But so is Egnor.
Please just look at the 6 arguments Egnor presented, then go through Novella’s post. Ask yourself which of the arguments you think he has addressed. Ask yourself if he really does answer the “hard problem”.
I’m not saying that materialists cannot answer them, just ask if Novella answered.
And no, I haven’t read Denett’s book.
Just remember facilis. A couple of weeks ago, I announced that I was getting three books: Why I Became An Atheist by John Loftus, Breaking The Spell by Dan Dennett and Only A Theory by Ken Miller, and challenged you to read them alongside me.
I don’t have much time to read right now (I’m also reading “The Selfish Gene” now too)
After all, you complain about the scholarship of the “new atheists” yet haven’t read them (and these two you’d be hard pressed to criticise)
I have read Dawkins and Harris.
and you believe that intelligent design is being unfairly suppressed.
Okay I think I admitted this before, but Ben Stein may have exaggerated the events a lttle. I don’t think there is a full-scale persucution going on but there is an unfair bias.
(I was just joking abut the whole VenomfangX thing though)
It doesn’t matter whether we can give a good account of materialism or not, but it does matter that you are using that to feel better about your own worldview. If I can’t name the fossil species that led to cetaceans, it doesn’t mean that the fossils are not discovered.
I never said ” Your worldview is wrong therefore mine is right” and I doubt Egnor ever said hat. I just wanted to point out some problems in materialism.
Okay I think I admitted this before, but Ben Stein may have exaggerated the events a lttle. I don’t think there is a full-scale persucution going on but there is an unfair bias.
No! Intelligent Design advocates are not doing science. Every single person who was featured in Expelled was not fired for advocating ID, but for other reasons. Intelligent Design is a dead idea, the few ideas it did have were promptly refuted. Yet those scientists who promote ID have ignored any chance to have a dialogue in science about it.
I just wanted to point out some problems in materialism.
Problems are an absence of knowledge. materialism is still the only worldview that has any validity as it’s the only thing we know exists. Everything is made up of atoms. If you think otherwise, demonstrate it.
Please just look at the 6 arguments Egnor presented, then go through Novella’s post. Ask yourself which of the arguments you think he has addressed. Ask yourself if he really does answer the “hard problem”.
I just checked this post by neurologica and I found he refutes Egnor quite well. There’s no evidence for dualism, it’s just a god-of-the-gaps argument. Novella sums it up well with this: But as I stated above – we have lots of information that leads to the conclusion that certain parts of the brain are necessary for consciousness. Being necessary for consciousness is a very strong indication that their function contributes to consciousness, and taken together they are consciousness. There are interesting and viable theories about what exactly is different about those parts of the brain that contribute to consciousness. I think it has something to do with attention – which parts of the brain are actively participating in a self-generating loop of receiving and manipulating information.
But clearly it is more complex than that. At this point, we simply don’t know. But it is an active area of research. That does not translate into, as Egnor wants you to believe, that materialist neuroscience is “collapsing”, anymore than disputes over the mechanism of evolution means evolutionary theory is “collapsing.”
This sounds like a reasonable position to me. What is wrong with it?
Please just look at the 6 arguments Egnor presented, then go through Novella’s post.
Done, I’m surprised that you were convinced at all by Egnor’s arguments. It seems that Egnor’s arguments boil down to: I have subjective experience, that causes meaning, you can’t measure it; therefore Dualistic mind. QED
Yet just think about it from a physicalist perspective. The brain is first built as per instructions in our DNA. Then as we live our lives, our brain is shaped by the experiences we have. Since each of us has unique experiences, each of our brains will be unique. Thus purely by existing we should expect to find that there’s no truly objective way of looking at the world.
Consider further that the mind is an evolved organ. Surely we should see the stages of consciousness in other animals with smaller brains. Would a chimp having self-awareness mean that the chimp has a dualist mind? Would it mean the same for an octopus? Or a cetacean? When all the stages of the brain can be seen throughout the animal kingdom, what is left that needs explaining?
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
Facilis, you are still operating under your presuppositions. You think science and materialism is wrong, and you will find anything that seems to refute the fact that they work and try to present it to us. We know better. You are dealing with very smart well read people here, and we see through your assinine arguments devoid of reason and logic. You are a proven Truther. That means you have spead enough lies across your posts to bring everything you say into question. We consider you wrong until you prove yourself right. And so far, you have failed to do so.
Wowbagger, OMsays
Nerd,
Technically it’s asinine – one ‘s’ – but for facilis, assinine is an acceptable (and accurate) variation…
David Marjanović, OMsays
So how would you spell it, David? “Scheptic” like “scheme” and “schedule”?
ARGH! No, with k, if that’s how you pronounce it. If you pronounce it “septic” (as I, apparently wrongly, thought people who spelled it with c most likely did), and wish to keep it visually distinct from “septic”, then use the c.
(That was a question only a Dane can ask ;-) )
Scheme and AFAIK schedule actually come from Greek words with χ.
In German, it’s skeptisch and Skeptiker, despite Szene, (S)zepter, and so on (which are pronounced with [sts]).
One example was when William Lane Craig (a Chrisian philosopher) rebutted Daniel Denett’s assertion that the universe caused itself and presented his Kalam Cosmoligical argument. Denett responded (paraphrasing) that when you have an argument that follows from its premises and its premises are probable , but the argument leads to an implausible conclusion you should go back and try to deny one of the premises. It is plain to me what he meant. He acknowledged that Craig’s argument was valid and sound and plausible ,but felt that because of his belief in metaphysical naturalism that belief in supernatural beings such as God was implausible and he could not accep the conclusion.
Please present Craig’s argument, so we can see for ourselves if it’s valid (in which case you of course have a point) or not.
Usually materialists/naturalists hold that everything is made of matter and only things made of material and things that possess physical properties( eg. volume, density, weight..etc) are the only things that exist.
Matter is just another form of energy.
Or in philosophical terms: The world doesn’t consist of objects, it consists of facts. “The world is all that is the case.”
homo sapien
Homo sapiens. Genus name with a capital letter, the -s is the nominative singular ending, and the whole thing should be in italics.
Most scientist are open-minded when it comes to things that can be explained using empirical evidence. We expect nothing less from them. Some do become rigid with their own pet theories. They tend to be closed-minded with anything dealing with what they perceive as “woo” or superstition. If it can’t be proven scientifically then it simply isn’t true
Most scientists, unlike you, know that science cannot prove, only disprove…
A typical young earth creationist has too much skepticism of science to objectively estimate the age of the planet.
No. A typical YEC has too little knowledge and too much fear of learning to evaluate what the data say. The fear of learning comes from being dogmatic, not from being skeptical.
Let us all keep in mind that Egnor is an expert. HE LITERALLY DOES BRAIN SURGERY!!! I’m sure he would know if there was a piece of material called altruism hiding in your material brain.
Altruism isn’t a part of the brain. It’s an activity of the brain.
Moron!
Egnor just proves that it’s possible to be an… egnorant brain surgeon. That’s unfortunately all.
Does anyone have any positive arguments FOR MATERIALISM?
The principle of parsimony. Also known as Ockham’s Razor… have you watched Conan the Barbarian? The scene where they stand in the steppe and defend themselves using ridiculous weapons, in particular a huge ax that’s fixed to the handle in two places? That’s Ockham’s Razor.
I heard some arguments against theism and against God but haven’t seen any arguments that actually prove materialism is true.
Logic: ur doin it rong.
As I just said, science cannot prove, only disprove.
Technically it’s asinine – one ‘s’
Because it comes from asinus, “donkey” in Latin… which is of course where the other English word spelled “ass” comes from.
Nerd of Redhead, OMsays
Nerd,
Technically it’s asinine – one ‘s’ – but for facilis, assinine is an acceptable (and accurate) variation…
Close-mindedness is a cultural problem, I think.
Specifically, the more people communicate with each other with people with different ideas, then the more open-minded people will be. Alas, people have the tendency to isolate themselves.
a very good video. I don’t believe it.
If only there were some way for people to become social communities, who otherwise would have been isolated and separate, then much close-mindedness would disappear. Religion, of course, is hardly way to do this: it brings people together solely on the premise of having a single idea. Perhaps art and culture could do the job, but unfortunately, at this moment in time, art and culture is not nearly social enough.
that was a good one. I really wish people wouldn’t use “openminded” to mean “uncritical” and then think it’s a good thing.
Fantastic video! Great explanation of open-mindedness and close-mindedness. Atheists so often hear that they are close-minded. Now I’ll have a way to counter it when it comes up in discussion.
An excellent video! It would seem that the narrator and I both have had similar experiences in being falsely accused of close-mindedness.
“that was a good one. I really wish people wouldn’t use ‘openminded’ to mean ‘uncritical’ and then think it’s a good thing.”
Well, at least they acknowledge open-mindedness as a good thing, — the closed-minded thus have to resort to stealing phrases from the open-minded, to appropriate them and twist it to suit themselves, to gain any sort of validity.
“Now I’ll have a way to counter it when it comes up in discussion.”
Indeed, perhaps it might go like this:
“You are so close-minded for not believing in ghosts.”
“No, I do think that ghosts can exist, if only you show me the evidence. I think that both possibilities are possible, but that the non-existence of ghosts is more probable given the evidence out there. You are the one who is close-minded for not considering both possibilities of existence and non-existence of ghosts equally.”
Excellent video, and it focuses on one of my pet peeves: equating skepticism with being ‘close-minded.’ Having an open mind isn’t about believing in the “right” things: it’s about how you hold your beliefs, and knowing what it would take to change your mind. I’ve asked people who ‘know’ that psychic powers are real because of some personal experience of theirs, what it would take for them to reconsider their interpretation of their experience, and change their mind over whether it was genuinely psychic or not. The usual answer is “nothing.” They know what they know. And there they will stick — in the “open-minded” position.
I’ve been asked several times what it would take for me to become skeptical of science. After all, I don’t want to be dogmatic, do I? What if “some other way of knowing” is the right one, and following intuition or tradition or little voices in my head which go against the consensus of experts in a scientific field is the best path to truth? What would make me take it?
That’s an interesting question. And any skeptic ought to be prepared with some kind of answer.
Bottom line, the scientific method helps us to weed out personal bias. So, in order to reject it, you have to believe that personal bias is going to work in your favor. With the scientific method, you can’t give yourself some special status, a position where you can just “know” things that can’t be demonstrated to others. You always have to be prepared to be able to change your mind any time you’ve made an interpretation, because that interpretation could be wrong.
So I suppose that, in order to become skeptical of the scientific method itself, I would have to be infused with the sense that I’m different and special. I would have some absolute, certain way of knowing that I cannot make a mistake in interpretation — even in an area where other people can make a mistake. And there I would hold. “I know what I know.”
That sort of complete confidence in one’s own self is the opposite of humility. Refusing to change one’s mind is the definition of dogmatism.
So, in order to become skeptical of careful, cautious, disciplined scientific methods, I answer that I’d need to become more arrogant, and dogmatic — and now there’s a moral conflict with my values.
Theirs, too. Of course. People who’ve asked me that question generally don’t like that answer, because they were trying to make the point that science is dogmatic and arrogant.
“I’ve been asked several times what it would take for me to become skeptical of science.”
You could answer, “whatever it would take for me to be skeptical of skepticism. Science is empirical skepticism.”
Nice video. It is a far better and more complete answer than what I had been giving folk to the allegation of me being ‘close-mided’. What I had been saying was, “well, if I am ‘close-minded’ for not ‘opening my mind’ to the possibility X is true, aren’t you just as ‘close-minded’, if not more so, for not ‘opening your mind’ to the possibility X isn’t true?”
I’ve got to be honest, I hate his voice. The content is fine, but that voice has so much whispery pretension it hurts my ears.
Evidence. What a novel idea!
Liked the video, but do have to agree with DonRocko @ 13, that voice, ugh!
That was a great li’l video.
Great video. I didn’t find the voice annoying, but I find it very hard to get used to the British spelling “sceptical”.
http://www.10ch.org #11 wrote:
What, you’ve never encountered the Skeptical-of-Skepticism folks? They’re the ones who approach you with a smug little smile, and say “I’m a skeptic, too…. I’m skeptical of skepticism!!” Because they know that some form or other of unsupported pseudoscientific woo-filled spiritual bullshit is true! And the so-called experts are closing their minds to personal anecdotes and heartfelt certainties! There are ‘other ways of knowing.’ Gotcha there, skeptic person.
Being ‘skeptical of skepticism’ is like arguing that groups who promote tolerance are really just being intolerant of bigots. So, with everything leveled down to being nothing more than personal bias and whim, pick your own poison.
CloseD-minded, dammit. CLOSED-minded.
What always impresses (and depresses) me about believers in the supernatural is not the feebleness of their evidence but the banality of their ideas. Heck, if they really did come up with something I hadn’t heard or thought about, I’d be more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since, as a general rule, I’d rather be bamboozled than bored. Never happens. A general lack of imagination seems to go along with enthusiasm for esoterica. There are exceptions–some of the notions of the Medieval Kaabalists, for example, have some aesthetic merit as sheer conceptual surrealism–but the usual run of ghosts, magic crystals, and reincarnated in-laws has the an aroma of mildew like the Metaphysics section of a used bookstore.
Thank you for posting this. It should have been shown to all those state legislators that saw Expelled and its “academic freedom” hooey.
Great video, especially at 8:10 :-D
I don’t – what surprises me is that he doesn’t stay consistent and pronounce it that way. He pronounces it with [k]. That requires cognitive dissonance.
(Well, with [g] actually, but never mind. That’s not surprising.)
I was going to ask if it isn’t “closed-minded”, which would make a lot more sense. Apparently it is (comment 19).
#19:
Hear hear. Drives me nuts!
Which brings me to the following question: does calling someone a grammar/spelling nazi constitute a Godwin?
The voice reminds me a touch of Bill Bryson, though not quite up to that quality (which is a tall task).
You think that’s hard? Try living in both the UK and the USA for an extended period of time and then having to remember which spelling is the correct one for which country.
I’m pretty sure LanguageLog had a discussion of the close/closed thing not too long ago, but the words are too common for my weak googlefu to find it.
So how would you spell it, David? “Scheptic” like “scheme” and “schedule”?
the man has a damn fine voice
Anyone know anything about the author of that video?
…and lol @ those who hate the narrator’s voice. It’s one of the inoffensives voices I’ve heard in a long time. Perhaps you would like a parrot impersonating Roseanne Barr instead.
Brilliant! I think this video ought to be translated into as many languages as possible.
no, “skeptic”, like “skewed”
“sceptic” to me sounds like “scissors” or “scene”
Sastra @ # 18: …What, you’ve never encountered the Skeptical-of-Skepticism folks? They’re the ones who approach you with a smug little smile, and say “I’m a skeptic, too…. I’m skeptical of skepticism!!”
Yeah, I’ve “encountered” them.
Hadn’t realized there were any survivors.
My apologies for the sloppy work; will confirm the casualties next time…
Great audio but the pictures were juvenile.
I liked the illustrations. I thought the whole thing was very well done, including the visuals.
I guess i would kind of agree with this video on some points. If someone presents something to you without evidence and calls you closeminded for not accepting it that would be stupid.However if his person presents you with good arguments and evidence for something but you still deny i without presenting any kind of plausible counterargument or counter-evidence,but still deny it because of your belief in metaphysical naturalism or materialism, I think the charge is more fairly placed.
One example was when William Lane Craig (a Chrisian philosopher) rebutted Daniel Denett’s assertion that the universe caused itself and presented his Kalam Cosmoligical argument. Denett responded (paraphrasing) that when you have an argument that follows from its premises and its premises are probable , but the argument leads to an implausible conclusion you should go back and try to deny one of the premises. It is plain to me what he meant. He acknowledged that Craig’s argument was valid and sound and plausible ,but felt that because of his belief in metaphysical naturalism that belief in supernatural beings such as God was implausible and he could not accep the conclusion.
I think that is where the charge of close-mindedness should be leveled.
One particular pet peeve of mine is when skeptics try to smuggle in positive claims under the guise of skepticism.
One can be skeptical of supernatural beings but one cannot assert that supernatural beings do no exist or we should rule out such explanations or beings a priori without taking up a burden of proof.
“Sceptic” looks like a misspelling of “septic.” I want to be one, but not the other.
But just try teaching the English language to a Brit. Hopeless.
I loved this! That is my biggest pet peeve with people. It doesn’t just apply to religion or woo. It even applies to methods of management, whatever you may be discussing. Some one will tell you the way they feel, and if you don’t suspend all sense of reality and conform to their feeling then you are being close-minded. My only argument has been to ask them why it is close-minded to ask them to consider another idea or explanation than the one their comfortable with.
I especially like the images and color scheme, very retro. I like his voice, it reminds me of someone I knew from New Zealand.
Facilis, the word “supernatural” is the problem. It doesn’t mean anything. If anything, it boils down to a hand-waving synonym for “nonexistent.”
If a supernatural thing exists, can it interact in some way with nature?
If so, it’s natural, not “super”natural at all.
If not, there’s no way to determine that it exists; it’s utterly indistinguishable — it has no distinguishing properties. It’s made-up; fantastic; fictional; not real.
Thank you for being less of an idiot than you might otherwise have been.
@#34 Facilis
“Denett responded (paraphrasing) that when you have an argument that follows from its premises and its premises are probable , but the argument leads to an implausible conclusion you should go back and try to deny one of the premises. It is plain to me what he meant. He acknowledged that Craig’s argument was valid and sound and plausible ,but felt that because of his belief in metaphysical naturalism that belief in supernatural beings such as God was implausible and he could not accep the conclusion.”
I think that you missed his point. Yes, you would be right if Denett had no grounds for rejecting the conclusion. However, that is not the case. Denett had ample grounds for rejecting the conclusion; he did not reject it due to his “belief in metaphysical naturalism,” but rather due to the evidence that already points to it. Even if the logic is valid and correct, it would still have to overthrow all the other arguments. For example, if there is a new experiment the results of which contradicted all previous scientific theories, then the first step would be to see if the experiment was good in the first place and to examine it more carefully to see if it was done correctly. Only after a thorough and complete examination of the experiment can the final observations be accepted, at which point, only then should the scientific theory be revised.
I’ll stop using it if it is such a problem
I don’t see why not
I don’t follow.
Usually materialists/naturalists hold that everything is made of matter and only things made of material and things that possess physical properties( eg. volume, density, weight..etc) are the only things that exist.
As opposed to this I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties.
We know, you have no logic and reason.
I’ll throw my two cents in: Friends and acquaintances who know I am an atheist have a hard time reconciling the fact that I also believe in ghosts. Now, before anyone goes on a tear and starts accusing me of self-contradiction, let me say that I don’t believe ghosts are supernatural: As AdamK stated:
I believe in ghosts because of personal experiences, but by no means am I close minded to the possibility what I experienced wasn’t caused by something mundane that I might not have noticed, akin to the heater-fan parable in the video. The possibility I find fascinating is ghosts may be a natural product of electro-magnetism that has gone unnoticed – it’s not like history isn’t replete with tons of examples of scientific properties discovered later on to be the cause of otherwise “supernatural” events like St. Elmo’s Fire. But as I said, I don’t believe my experiences touched on anything that could be classified as “supernatural.”
That said, it amused me that it took as long as it did for the narrator to finally get around to using the “G” word – gullibility is all I’ve learned to expect from the woo crowd.
Perhaps someone could show me evidence to the contrary..?
@#39 Facilis
“As opposed to this I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties.”
Under your definition, light is a “supernatural being.”
@#41 Sir Craig
“I’ll throw my two cents in: Friends and acquaintances who know I am an atheist have a hard time reconciling the fact that I also believe in ghosts.”
Define the word “ghost.” Do you mean some kind of intelligent mind? If so, does it have spacial existence? If it is not intelligent, then what exactly do you mean?
Facile Princeps #39 wrote:
No, that’s not a good definition of materialism or naturalism, because it has the naturalist flatly denying the existence of things like thoughts and values, which would just be silly. Nonreductive materialist naturalism accounts for nonphysical things as ultimately supervenient on the physical. I like how Richard Carrier explains it:
“‘Naturalism’ means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, ‘supernaturalism’ means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things.”
A materialist would argue that, given two hypothetical universes which were 100% physically identical, every fact in those two universes would be exactly the same.
How would you know it’s there?
What is an example of a property “distinct from physical properties”? Do you mean thoughts or feelings? Those are only in your head. They’re subjective. That’s not supernatural.
Don’t forget to take your pill.
No, I think you need to look up metaphysical naturalism and read it more carefully. Physical matter is obviously not the only thing that exists, however, for everything that exists, there is evidence for it existing. Even if it is not matter itself, it interacts with matter. Radio waves are invisible electromagnetic energy, but they are something that interacts with matter in a predictable and falsifiable way.
So you’ve created two problems for yourself (1) demonstrate that a non-material being is is possible in the first place (2) show how this non-material being interacts with th material world such that it can be tested.
You’ve obviously missed the obvious implication of earlier times this question was raised: If God exists as a person, then God should at the very least have the qualities of persons, as we know they exist. Even if God is non-physical, God should not be silent; refusing to demonstrate his existence — because persons for which we do have evidence do not behave like that. Unless they are defective in some way, of course.
I like the video but I have to ask, are you calling your commenters closed minded? Because I would guess that the people who are following your blog are more likely to be open-minded then the general public.
I have been subscribed to QualiaSoup for ages, check out the rest of his back catalogue, it is awesome.
Well done.
This video is excellent. Though anyone who needs this video would do well to watch The Ascent Of Man.
Owlmirror #46 wrote:
Right — and this ought to head off those attempts to slide God into the same category as abstractions, numbers, emotions, qualities, values, and so forth and so on.
Those arguments often begin by pointing out that you can’t see, smell, taste, feel, or measure (love/ honesty/the number 5) — but they “exist.” You can’t hold ‘Beauty’ in your hand, can you? Do you deny the existence of beauty? Or a hopeful attitude to the world? No? Can you see love under a microscope, Mr. Smarty Pants Scientist? No?
Well, then, God is like those things. Real, but not physical or material. Oh. And also a person.
God exists the way the number 5 exists — only it’s as if the number 5 puts 2 and 3 together by an act of intentional will, and is also a friend who loves you and talks to you by directing thoughts into your head. There you go. Nonmaterial personhood.
And they think atheist materialist naturalists have literal minds.
Shastra, are you saying 5 isn’t my friend? Now I’m really sad.
@#47 Voldemort13
“I like the video but I have to ask, are you calling your commenters closed minded?”
I think that PZ Myers thinks that it is a good tool in case a commenter gets into an argument with someone who levies the charge of “close-mindedness.”
Sastra- “Well, then, God is like those things. Real, but not physical or material. Oh. And also a person.”
I see what you did there…;)
Sashtra — no disrespect to your handle with that misspelling thing going on there. (It was the Rev. BDC directing thoughts into my mind.)
QualiaSoup has done some fantastic work, always good to hear from him.
Its a great video. I gonna use it.
Sums our way of thinking really nicely
and is very appealing to the eye too.
You need to be open minded to learn new things
but not so much than your brain falls out.
facilis – we are not at the centre of the universe. The universe is not produced for us, we are a product of the universe – just like those 10 million other species that currently live. The universe contains ~1023 stars, the majority very much like our sun. The universe has been around for 13.7 billion years while homo sapien has been around for ~150. We have existed for 0.001% of the entire history of the universe. So why, if there is a god, would that God reflect one species of billion that have ever walked on this planet? Only a fool would these days think that the universe was designed for us.
Is it just me, or do those two guys in the still from the video look as if they’re two people in a clichéd movie scene that starts with them arguing vehemently and ends with them flinging themselves at one another and doing things that make Baby Jesus cry?
Just me? Okay, then.
The trouble with spelling “skeptic” as “sceptic” is that there are no words in English that begin with “sce-” and pronounce the “-c-” as a “-k-“, excepting the oddball “sceptic”. As far as I know, “sceptre”, “scene”, and “scent”, plus their offshoots, all soft-c words, are the only “sce-” words in English, if you don’t count the little-known “scend”, and even that has a soft “-c-“. “Sceptic” looks to North American eyes as if it ought to be pronounced like “septic”.
Blame Latin. The Greeks spelled it “skeptikos”: the Romans, who didn’t like the Greek “k”, changed it to “scepticus”.
You may now return to your usual whatever.
Kel,
A few zeros seem to have fallen out of your description about how long Homo sapiens have been around.
Oh shit, I meant 150,000.
Thanks, pyramus, for the linguistics lesson.
OH NOES FISHBONES IN MA HAAAAAAAAAID!
OK, it all made sense, nice summary for remembering during those arguments and I guess somebody needs it, but mostly I was waiting for Thor the Thundergod and/or the Fantastic Four to leap out of the blank background. I did enjoy the whirly eyes tho’.
Maybe he meant Homo sapiens darwinii – apes who think about Darwin…
Sorry if I butchered that – I admit I’ve no real understanding of that kind of nomenclature. But I couldn’t help trying to think of something that fit in the 150 year period…
I use sceptic when talking about scepticism (being an Aussie), and skeptic when I talk about the modern movement. Though that has no foundation anywhere outside my head.
You should check out QualiaSoup’s other videos. He has some really great ones on par with Thunderf00t, but it’s topics like these on logic and faith and such.
I’ve been subscribed to him for a long time and it’s always great when he comes out with a new video.
lol, humanity was born when Darwin laid out the theory to explain man. I like it!
Actually, the original of “sceptre” was Gk. “skeptron” (σκήπτρον), and the original of “scene” was Grk. “skene” (σκηνή). So two of those other “sc” words were mangled by Latin.
“Scent” looks to be Anglo-Saxon, though.
Slightly off topic, but important: Just before coming here I read an AP (Associated Press) story on a 72 yr old bigot (Elwin Hope Wilson – google him) who is sick and trying to buy a Get Out of Hell Free card by now apologizing for all is ugly actions of the past. He was a violent and nasty racist and acted on it often.
Sure enough, tons of newspapers have picked up this “feel good” story and the religious hypocrites are out in force telling Wilson how wonderful he is for apologizing to those he hurt in the past.
Talk about a lack of critical thinking skills. I am astounded that people don’t see through charades like this.
@#59 pyramus
“As far as I know, ‘sceptre’, ‘scene’, and ‘scent’, plus their offshoots, all soft-c words, are the only ‘sce-‘ words in English, if you don’t count the little-known ‘scend'”
Scenario, scenic, scena (a scene in an opera). I guess you could count them as “scene,” though.
Sceptic bothers me, and I’m British (septic tanks spring to mind). It’s one US spelling I wouldn’t mind adopting. Close-minded (-headed, -lipped, etc.) bothers me not at all. Like “sceptic” it has a long history, going back at least to the 15th c., and is accepted by major dictionaries on either side of the pond. It also doesn’t look like it should be something smelly, and is easier to say.
Oh, that video was a complete hoot. The visuals are like corporate presentations gone into overdrive.
I’m unclear, though: is it being a sceptic that gives me scary contrarotating swirly eyes, or is it being credulous, or are scary contrarotating swirly eyes signs of some sort of evil persuader?
Pyramus, I’ve sceldom sceen such a scensible sceries of scentences.
Well done PZ.
Thanks you for posting this video
Great video. I was actually accused of closed-mindedness for simply asking why a friend was following kosher/halal laws. The friend then refused to discuss it.
Man, I have three friends (who think of “Coast to Coast” the same way I think of “All Things Considered”)who need to see that video STAT! Of course, they would probably say that the aliens/knights Templar/Rothschilds put it out themselves, you know, cause the less that’s know about them, the better…
Also,I could listen to that bumper music all 80’s-science-educational-video-ing day!
made of hopes, dreams, wishes, and myth
Great video,slightly creepy voice.
There is a difference between sceptic and skeptic??
Lord Zero @ 57
You better use it soon before someone complains and gets it taken off because it’s offensive to religionists.
sceptic or US skeptic [skep-tik]
Noun
1. a person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs
2. a person who doubts the truth of a religion [Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon]
sceptical or US
skeptical adj
sceptically or US
skeptically adv
scepticism or US
skepticism n
@#72 Nix
“Oh, that video was a complete hoot.”
“Hoot”? You mean like “Hoot! Hoot!”?
@#69 nick nick bobick
“I read an AP (Associated Press) story on a 72 yr old bigot (Elwin Hope Wilson – google him) who is sick and trying to buy a Get Out of Hell Free card by now apologizing for all is ugly actions of the past. He was a violent and nasty racist and acted on it often.
Sure enough, tons of newspapers have picked up this ‘feel good’ story and the religious hypocrites are out in force telling Wilson how wonderful he is for apologizing to those he hurt in the past.”
What can I say? Religious people are shallow and superficial.
Wowbagger @64:
Haha…I love this idea, Wowbagger! Though that name would translate as “Darwin’s wise man”. (Yes, Homo sapiens is often translated as “wise ape”, but homo literally means man.) So, for a name to translate as “apes (men) who think about Darwin”, it would need to be something like Homo sapiens cogitantdarwinum. That seems a bit cumbersome, though. Maybe darwinii is the way to go after all…
it’s like colour and color
or check and cheque
Did you see that check that the defenseman threw? He really earns his cheque.
Gah…thinking too much about Latin => blockquote fail. That second paragraph was part of Wowbagger’s quote, as well.
That guy qualiasoup makes incredible videos. I am a huge fan of his work – best free-thinker videos on youtube
One can assert easily and correctly that supernatural beings do not exist. My evidence is that they have been ruled out of explanations of science for centuries, and science still works. From it, we get technology. Ergo, if you were to assert that any or any one supernatural being does or even can exist, the burden of proof would be yours. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
On the question of ‘what would it take to convince me to be skeptical of science’, the answer is ‘when the universe stops working according to the laws Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein provided us, and someone explains how cell phones work based on tiny invisible creatures.’
On open-mindedness itself, I’ve often used the line “I am being open-minded – that doesn’t mean you get to make me stupid.”
pyramus@59: no, it’s not just you.
Jim Harrsion #20
“…but the usual run of ghosts, magic crystals, and reincarnated in-laws has the an aroma of mildew like the Metaphysics section of a used bookstore.”
Oh that! That’s just the stink of patchouli oil.
@#34 Facilis
“One can be skeptical of supernatural beings but one cannot assert that supernatural beings do no exist or we should rule out such explanations or beings a priori without taking up a burden of proof.”
Why do not you define the word “supernatural” first off?
Great video.
10ch,
Supernatural literally is beyond nature – self-defining by contrast to natural. The concept is clear, and I don’t see how any empirical claim can possibly meet that criterion.
Of course you can’t rule out the supernatural, but making it beyond testing makes it impossible to rule in. We are natural being an all our senses are natural. Yet what we are alleged to perceive that is considered natural comes through our senses – either externally or internally. Taking away any ability to test the supernatural takes away any ability to detect the supernatural and thus any claim of supernatural is completely indistinguishable from something imagined.
You can’t have it both ways facilis. Either the supernatural is untestable and therefore unknowable, or it is testable and in the absence of evidence there is no reason to consider it.
Facilis needs to watch again, this time for comprehension. He didn’t get it the first time through.
Got evidence? Logik: u duz it rong.
The MadPanda, FCD
@#90 John Morales
Of course, I do not quite know what “natural” means either. Does it mean a “part of our world, interacting with it?” If so, then nothing that can interact with our world can ever be supernatural, or, if a supernatural thing ever did interact with our world, then it would become natural. If some kind of “ghost-entity” ever did interfere with our world, then it would be natural, not supernatural under this definition.
I’ve been saying things like “There is no such thing as a ghost” and “There is probably intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but they don’t come here and abduct rednecks.” According to this video, I’m expressing those ideas in a closed-minded way. Will someone please tell me what the right way is?
Sarah
John Morales #90 wrote:
No, it’s not quite clear. I wish it were. The trouble is that this way of defining ‘supernatural’ goes nowhere and tells us nothing, because there’s no fixed anchor here on what is “natural.” What is Nature? Is it that which isn’t Supernature?
Unless there are some specific ground rules on what makes something natural or “in Nature,” the borders of the supernatural turn out to be more or less infinitely flexible. People will use the concept of “Nature” as a wedge towards acceptability.
God exists — but God is Natural. Ghosts exist, and so do immortal disembodied souls. They’re natural, too. Vitalistic energy fields, angels, magical correspondences, psychic powers, and you-name-it any-bit-of-woo are regularly labeled by their advocates as “completely natural.” So not to worry. It’s all in Nature. It belongs.
Natural = reality. Or natural = normal. Or natural = good. Nature = everything.
If that’s the case, then sure, by default there is no supernatural. But that’s a completely empty semantic victory, since nothing normally considered “supernatural” is being ruled out.
We don’t want to rule out “the supernatural” by word play. We want to be able to claim that, though it may be possible, there’s not enough good evidence which supports it. Or, from its advocates, that there is. So I think we need a better, clearer definition than “that which is beyond nature.”
Sastra,
No, and yes.
Well, much though it’s dissed, there’s always Wikipedia: supernatural.
Sarah Trachtenberg @ 94:
That’s a good point, Sarah. I would say something like: “I don’t believe in ghosts”, or “I am skeptical of the existence of ghosts”, or “I don’t know of any empirical evidence supporting the existence of ghosts. If this exists, could you please show it to me?” (Obviously, you could also substitue alien abductions/angels/god/auras etc. in place of ghosts.)
Sarah Trachtenberg #94 wrote:
Oh, that’s easy. “There’s almost certainly no such thing as a ghost” or “ET’s probably don’t come here and abduct rednecks.”
Do we really have to go through such hoops, and hedge everything with particular caution? Not always. Depends on the audience, I guess, and the situation. Is it casual, or are you dealing with a true believer and having a serious discussion?
If it is a true believer, be aware that they will jump with glee and triumph on any absolute statement you make — or seem to make — just as the video shows. You don’t always have to be cautious and throw in the “probably” and “it is unlikely that” and “not yet up to the level of credibility” and so forth — but ‘it’s unlikely that’ you’ll ever have to backtrack from being too guarded, and technical.
John Morales #96 wrote:
I just looked through the entry quickly, and it seems to do a fairly good job at showing how muddled the definition is. I think that, if nothing else, any discussion on the supernatural should start off with everyone agreeing on what they mean by the term in the first place — or else it will get sidetracked with misunderstandings.
There’s always the possibility that something could appear–by our current understanding– inexplicable in material terms–in the sense that Arthur C. Clarke expressed in the oft-quoted “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” If physicists like Alan Guth can imagine “creating a universe in your basement,” it is possible that some civilization millions if not billions of years advanced of ours might have acquired the means to do so. They could be material beings but still seem god-like from our perspective.
However it seems unlikely that any such superior beings would be interested in blood sacrifices or an individual’s sexual proclivities (apart from dissertation work for an alien astrosociology major).
Anyone every read the book “Superior Beings. If They Exist, How Would We Know?: Game-Theoretic Implications of Omnipotence, Omniscience, Immortality, and Incomprehensibility” by Brams? I remember it was published when I was in high school, but there is now an updated edition.
OK, open minded people. What do you think of this?
http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/2008/09/02/buffered-and-porous-selves/
That is exactly what materialists do!!!
Look at the American atheists site
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
What is Atheism
“Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.”
Also read PZ’s discussions where he talks with a non-materialist neuroscientist named Michael Egnor. Egnor asks about ides and concepts like altruism and PZ says altruism is just found in the material in someone’s brain.
So as I said as long as it is not matter or energy or physical in nature, we would say it is supernatural.
Great video, explaining things very clearly. Thanks!
Facile Princeps #102 wrote:
If PZ is explaining how ideas and concept like altruism arise from material processes, then he’s not denying that they exist. Nor, of course, is he claiming that something like ‘altruism’ is supernatural.
Many theists have a bad habit of confusing materialism or naturalism with an interpretation that’s been called greedy reductionism. That’s the belief that higher-level things like altruism (or minds, beliefs, and emotions) can all be explained at the physical level. As Michael Egnor sees it, a materialist should expect to open up a person’s brain and have the thoughts fall out like marbles. No. That’s not materialism. Or, at least, that’s not what most materialists believe (it’s the internet, never say never).
I think what’s supernatural depends on the assumption that mind and mind-products don’t just supervene on the physical, but stand prior to, apart from, and above the physical. Supernaturalism also grants a primary, central place in the cosmos to human beings and our concerns.
String Theory, for example, is weird, and involves multiple non-physical dimensions which may be beyond science’s ability to study — but nobody calls it supernatural. Why not? Because there’s nothing mind-like about it, and the hypothetical superstrings don’t somehow make everything meaningful and vibrate love or something.
There’s also a problem with classifying things when people talk about “spiritual energy.” Is that supernatural or naturalistic materialism? I’d classify it with supernaturalism — even though it’s energy. Ditto with spiritual ‘substances’ like ectoplasm.
People used to think air, fire, smoke, and light were forms of the supernatural or spirit. Then they pushed that back to thoughts and feelings. Now, with neurology, it’s pushed back into just being vague.
Thoughts ARE physical natural things, just like light is a physical natural thing. Just because you can’t point to single, discrete nodule of something, doesn’t make that thing supernatural.
Facile Princeps: That probably works as shorthand, but only if it’s understood that “matter or energy” includes the physical laws that govern matter and energy and things that supervene on matter and energy. As your quote makes explicit, the authors don’t deny the existence of the subjective experience of thought.
‘Supernatural’ is tricky. I think that part of the reason for the confusion surrounding the concept is that it’s often used in at least three completely different ways.
Sometimes, ‘the supernatural’ refers to mental activity that isn’t dependent on bodies in the usual way. This kind of supernaturalism is testable and is not on-face absurd. If experiments in quantum mechanics consistently showed particles possessing spins so as to spell out intelligent messages in binary over repeated experiments, that’d be pretty good evidence that quantum mechanical effects are somehow caused by a mind, and this causal mechanism would be thought to be supernatural. ESP is an example of something that, if it were real, would be supernatural in this sense. Likewise the usual kind of ghosts.
Then there’s the miraculous sense of ‘supernatural’. Here supernatural is just a way of saying that something is true even though all of the evidence is against it (or just that there’s no evidence for it). It’s used in reference to claims that the seemingly impossible has occurred, and is meant to explain them and make them plausible. Stuff that’s supernatural in this sense is stuff that you ought to be thought crazy for believing and which you can’t possibly demonstrate, but which is still coherent. Water into wine is an example, as is the Resurrection, or anything else that Hume’s “On Miracles” might apply to. This is a much sillier kind of supernaturalism to use in discussions with other people, but it’s not the worst kind.
Finally, there’s the nonsensical meaning of ‘supernatural’, which is the sort of word salad that Sastra talked about earlier. “The number ‘5’ is also a person” is an example. The nonsensical supernatural is stuff that can be falsified purely logical grounds or which can’t possibly be grasped by the human mind. The Trinity is an example.
There’s trouble when people start sliding among the various uses of the word. Most people’s baseline idea of God falls under the first sort of supernatural – there can actually be evidence one way or the other for what they believe, but what they believe is that there’s a disembodied mind controlling things. When shown evidence against their belief, they slide into nonsensical supernaturalism to talk about what their God is like and they use miraculous supernaturalism to talk about their beliefs about the past.
This lets the epistemologically irresponsible or the intentionally deceptive claim that atheists are wrong to reject the (nonsensical) supernatural from the start because the (disembodied mind) supernatural is clearly logically possible.
Of course, 5 was just his nickname, his full name was 555 95472.
But then, you knew that, right?
JC
http://www.10ch.org:
No, I don’t view ghosts as possessing intelligence – I see them as an intriguing question. To dismiss them out of hand is arrogant, especially as there is so much we have yet to understand about our reality, but I know there is an answer to these sightings that has nothing to do with souls or an all-powerful sky daddy. So to answer your question, ghosts are just another name for something that has yet to be fully explained.
I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties.
By George, I think I’ve got it! Supernatural beings must surely be composed of dark matter! Doesn’t that fit the definition above? Could be I just don’t grasp the gravity of the situation.
Jimmy@109 – dammit, I was trying to think of how I would broach dark matter/energy here.
It makes up more than 75% of the universe
We cannot see it
We cannot sense it
We know it is there
It DOES interact with matter, but we are not sure how
We don’t know what it is.
It is the closest thing I can come to something actually “paranormal” – although of course it really isn’t.
It is also what I usually bring up when others bring up super-natural concepts.
JC
Intriguing video. Wrong in several places, with several unspoken flaws in its own reasoning, but still interesting. And amusing, to see it being discussed favorably by this blog’s owner and many of its regular commenters when they themselves often show the same behavior being criticized. The very idea of a militant anti-religionist, who regularly writes blogposts declaring that gods do not exist and religion is inherently evil, lecturing anybody about open-mindedness is laugh-out-loud funny.
Are you going to show the flaws of the videos, or simply assert it and use the support of it as a means to attack atheists?
wolfwalker:
Care to share your basis for this allegation?
Uh… astrophysicists _are_ sure how dark matter interacts with the regular stuff. It’s via gravity.
Dark energy’s the tricky one. Really, the phrase “dark energy” is a short way of saying “something which changes the way the expansion of space happens from what you’d expect if there was only matter and dark matter”. Of course, it has measurable consequences, and it shows up in independent observations.
Yet our brains are just matter and energy. Everything about our brains screams that they are material. Thoughts are patterns of brain activity. Of course such a claim is testable and falsifiable, so we can look to brain injuries and see how they inhibit thoughts. We can look to brain scans and see how the brain works in creating thoughts. The mind is material, and if you would ever stop to realise that the DI is nothing more than a propaganda machine, you’d see that you are talking absolute bullshit!
wolfwalker,
The very idea of a militant
anti-religionistanti-unicornist, who regularly writes blogposts declaring thatgodsunicorns do not exist andreligionThe Church of Unicorns is inherently evil, lecturing anybody about open-mindedness is laugh-out-loud funny.Fixed it for you. No, that’s okay – I’ll start a tab.
I don’t think it’s “word play” to point out that a definition is incoherent. A contradiction in definition like “triangular pentagon” or “square circle” is obvious because the shapes have clear definitions that make no sense when combined. For a word like “supernatural”, the incoherence is a little trickier to show — depending on what is meant by “natural”.
Metaphysical naturalism asserts a logical equivalence between nature and reality. I suppose the countering view would be assert that reality is composed of the natural and the supernatural.
Yet, if we go with that, what then? The natural can be tested and interacts with matter; that’s granted. So the supernatural … does not interact with matter(?) and cannot be tested(?) Or the supernatural does interact with matter, but in a way that cannot be tested(?) Or the supernatural does not interact with matter, but in a way that can indeed be tested(?) And if the supernatural does interact with matter and can be tested, then how does it differ from the natural?
As you note, it’s indeed vague.
Sometimes theists laugh and ask how a test for God is supposed to be made. I don’t know how they conceive of God that that counterargument is supposed help make God seem real (regardless of how supernatural is defined) — especially when I bring up my argument that God is supposedly defined as being a person, according to the usual theistic religions.
Snoof@114: I was using shorthand, but yes, the only way we CAN observe dark matter is through it’s gravitational influence.
However: We don’t understand what it IS that we are observing. We observe an influence and we postulate “dark matter” – we do not see it, we do not understand it’s nature. We “create” it because it must be there to explain our observations, as we don’t understand the observations to be incorrect.
Shorthand aside, yes, you are correct. It doesn’t diminish the fact that the composition of dark matter or energy is unknown. Some theories have it as simply an incorrect use of current theories of gravitation (for matter) or as you point out, a way of looking at things.
It meets my criteria of an observable phenomenon we cannot currently explain. It has the benefit of being verifiable by various sources. In that, it succeeds over any other super-normal phenomena yet discussed.
JC
Aren’t minds wonderful; closed or opened? I believe we all should be thankful we have a mind. So many humans in the world do not seem to possess much of one. Sad.
I installed a multi-position switch in my mind yonks ago. One position, Ventilate, raises the evidence filter and lets a nice breeze blow through. This feels good and collects various ideas. Most of which are dust and need to be flushed out.
Another position is Isolate. No breezes here, nothing gets it. Tends to overheat and damage the evidence filter.
A third position is Chicken Soup. Sometimes called Chocolate. For when I’m not feeling too good. Particularly recommended after bouts of headdesking, facepalming, and other encounters with trolls and nasty germs. I’m considering renaming this position Bacon.
There are other positions, some unlabelled. I’m a bit hesitant to go flipping through the further-out positions. One time I did that I imagined(?) I was actually agreeing with the “maggie”. Scary!
p.s. That was a brilliant video. Clear, well-presented, and I didn’t have any problems with the voice or graphics or spellings.
Just yesterday, my sister called me closed-minded…I just sent this video to her. Thanks for sharing, PZ.
Facile Princeps who wrote
let me show you my sc/kepticism. I can assert that supernatural beings do not exist, it’s up to you to prove if they do (good luck with that), and meanwhile FUCK OFF.
Incredible video. Would love to see more from them/him. It was very well crafted and very clear in message. Kudos to whoever made it.
Someone above mentioned “greedy reductionism”. That’s straight out of Daniel Dennett.
One thing I noticed in an interview with Dennett is that he said he didn’t distinguish between “Naturwissenschaften” and “Geisteswissenschaften”. This is where materialists are most vulnerable. You guys don’t address the strongest arguments made against you made by people like Charles Taylor and Keith Ward, who have a grounding in the German idealist tradition.
…and meanwhile FUCK OFF.
If PZ Myers had painted The School of Athens it would be a bar room brawl, with Aristotle giving Plato the finger.
New Atheism is pretty much Bertrand Russell with brass knuckles, and Kant and Hegel painted out of the picture.
A quick scientific inquiry revealed what others already know about the authorship of the video :)
http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup
It’s interesting how different the attitudes are among educated atheists in Germany. Certainly not like the kind of adolescence we see on New Atheist blogs.
This video is definitely being embedded in the lecture notes for the first lecture of my colloquium. Thank you for posting it!
Take that one to heart, Larry, because from what you display above, it includes you as well.
A closed mind is very much like having no mind at all.
There are those who think that they can learn too much, and usually they have stopped learning while they were way short of even knowing a little.
Lastly, we are here to vent frustrations with IDiots and the like as well! So, if you don’t like, don’t look.
Good video on opened vs. closed mind. I think it was Granny Ogg who said “I don’t want to be so open minded that my brain leaks out of my ears and I can tie it under my chin”.
BTW The pictures seem to be by Jack Kirby…I think I recognize some early Fantastic Four stuff.
—
MartinDH
Take that one to heart, Larry…
You just said “fuck off” to someone who’s not even Chistian.
Oh, well. Par for the course…
I thought the pictures looked like Kirby as well. I wonder if they’re actual quotes or homage.
I sent a link for this video to my nephew who is a senior at Boston College High School (No not the vampire school) and here’s his response:
> that video is fucking brilliant, i’m going to use this to troll my religion teacher for my senior
> project, thanks bro.
Many thanks!
Larry, xians don’t have a monopoly on trolling or being morons, or for that matter being the ones accusing others of having closed minds. They just have a lot more practice.
And being ‘understanding’ ain’t getting you nowhere here, lad!
Given that Dilthey himself appears to have thought that “”spirit” (Geist) has a social rather than an occult meaning. It is not an abstract intellectual principle or a disembodied entity but refers to the individual’s life in its concrete social-historical context.”, I don’t see why Dennett (or anyone) should distinguish between them, at a fundamental level. Dilthey is putting “spirit” firmly in the realm of the natural and material as something that emerges from the material and can be falsifiably tested. The concept is still perfectly monistic.
I have not read and understood everything they wrote, but if they are not positing something completely separate from the natural world, then they just are arguing semantics and definitions with regard to “materialism”.
Larry #127, what you’re missing is that is an example of religious people who are, indeed, open-minded, and are willing to change many of the underlying tenets of their religion in the face of evidence, and only keep the absolute central thesis of their religion (ie that God exists, in some form), mainly because nebulous claims like that are absolutely and totally impossible to disprove. In my experience, this is the exception, not the rule, amongst religious folk.
The kind of person that this video addresses is the kind of person who goes, “I am right because this ‘holy text’/some random piece of incredibly circumstantial evidence/me says so and if you have solid evidence that proves I’m wrong, I’m going to stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and go ‘la, la, la’ very, very loudly, then accuse you of being closed-minded.” A very good example of this latter group is the creationist/ID crowd.
Posted by: Zmidponk | April 5, 2009 3:59 PM
This video addresses everyone, to some degree, I’ll bet.
…mainly because nebulous claims like that are absolutely and totally impossible to disprove.
Lots of things in life are impossible to disprove. Back to the “Naturwissenschaften” and “Geisteswissenschaften” distinction: It’s easy to prove/disprove the objective. Much harder to prove the subjective. But we deal with the subjective all the time. A lot in life is about dialectics between minds–Plato’s side of the School of Athens. Plato doesn’t say “the nature of ‘the good’ is 42.”
Because it’s something you have to keep asking and a tidy answer is impossible.
Not everything is like the physical sciences…
I posted this video on my Facebook page. I thought some might be amused by a reply I got from “Angry Catholic Lawyer”. As follows:
“wow, this was so unbelievably bad. I want my 9.40 minutes of my life back. This guy is seriously lacking in an ability to present a consistant argument, I would embarras him so bad if i cross examined him. While getting past his juvenile straw-man arguments, I can think of at least 5 blatant contradictions in his own position. But essentially, … Read Morethe hypocracy can be summed up like this..”I am a open minded scientist. I know God does not exist. Regardless of the evidence presented to me, including eyewitness testimony and written documentation from numerous independant sources that a man named Jesus was publicly executed and then returned to life and performed numerous other miracles I know this can not be the case. They are obviously wrong, lying, insane or misquoted. I am open minded. God can not exist.” He should stick to being an associate biology professor because he can’t argue worth a damn.”
?????
He must have watched a totally different movie. I’m curious why he didn’t post it here directly but Im happy to do it for him. What a fruitcake….
My reply:
“1-PZ didn’t make that movie. He just posted it. 2- There is nothing about God or Jesus in that movie. You are ranting against something else. It is about critical thinking, something you don’t demonstrate in this post. It is almost like you didn’t even watch it. And that’s funny because it describes you to a T.”
“Not everything is like the physical sciences…”
No. In some fields you’re allowed to make whole volumes of shit up.
Sorry but I had to get that off my chest. Since the people here have decided not to ignore you, I figure I might as well get an insult in. Have fun being a passive aggressive twit.
I figure I might as well get an insult in
Yeah, like I said, it’s par for the course.
There is some open minded conversation here. Not a lot.
And it’s not about “making volumes of shit up.” Or if it is, every single figure in this painting except for a few, just “made volumes of shit up.”
Not everybody, but quite a few people on this board act like they’re like, 15.
#141:
It would be a good thing if you would come up to that age level, rather than like a 4 year old who wants everyone to do things his way–in someone else’s house.
You would be happier at Matt Nisbett’s blog. You’re made for each other.
Google the name, and relish in your mutual, pompous, faux intellectual control freak tendencies to your hearts’ content.
Whatever. Enjoy your community of mutually-reinforcing “open minded” people.
I sent a link for this video to my nephew who is a senior at Boston College High School (No not the vampire school) and here’s his response:
> that video is fucking brilliant, i’m going to use this to troll my religion teacher for my senior
> project, thanks bro.
Many thanks!
Larry #138:
Yes. And a lot of them, as Julian put it, are ‘made up shit’.
But it can be very easy to disprove it. Which is probably one of the reasons why science functions by trying to disprove hypotheses, rather than trying to ‘prove’ them. Indeed, it is quite often held that it is impossible to ‘prove’ anything in science, short of directly observing it is true. This is why, for example, despite the huge amounts of evidence indicating that life evolved, in this regard, evolution is still regarded as a ‘theory’, rather than a proven ‘fact’.
However, something else that science needs is objective evidence. Part of this is because, if a hypothesis is based on subjective opinions/experiences rather than verifiable fact, you can come up with a ‘hypothesis’ that is impossible to disprove, but is blatently absurd.
And what, precisely, the nature of the good is, Plato, his contemporaries and successors never managed to agree on at all. Nor could they actually agree that such a thing as ‘the good’ actually existed. Aristotle, for example, thought that ‘universals’ were not independant, but were simply properties of things. The main reason for this disagreement was the fact they were arguing about something which wasn’t based on any kind of evidence.
A ‘tidy’ answer isn’t what’s being looked for. There’s plenty of things in science that isn’t ‘tidy’.
The video makes a good point. It was fairly well done. There are varying degrees of being open-minded and closed-minded. Most scientist are open-minded when it comes to things that can be explained using empirical evidence. We expect nothing less from them. Some do become rigid with their own pet theories. They tend to be closed-minded with anything dealing with what they perceive as “woo” or superstition. If it can’t be proven scientifically then it simply isn’t true and that’s where they become closed-minded to any other possibilities.
If the other possibilities can’t be shown to exist, why should they be believed? The woo meisters want us to disprove them (proof negative-almost impossible to do sometimes). As a skeptic, I say “show me the evidence” (proof positive-easy to do).
I’m just stunned at how well the video was put together. Using Jack Kirby-style artwork to talk about skepticism? I would have never connected the two, but it’s absolutely inspired. I’m going to have to check out more of these.
As a skeptic, I say “show me the evidence” (proof positive-easy to do).
If a person refuses to believe something, no amount of evidence will convince them.
What makes it even more difficult is if the experience that proves something to be true requires an open-mind to experience it in the first place.
At one time we could not experience viewing microbial organisms under a microscope. If someone refused to accept the idea, no amount of debate would have convinced them.
That’s not really fair. Very few people are “open minded” to all superstition/religion/woo/whathaveyou. People just draw the line in different places.
People who believe passionately in Christ and get their panties in a bunch at the mere existence of atheists seem to have no problem being passionately atheistic about Odin. I have a friend who gets annoyed with my skepticism of ghosts, but has no problem mocking people who think that the Lock Ness monster is real.
Science doesn’t prove in the sense that I suspect you’re thinking; it can only disprove. This statement isn’t accurate.
Hmm… All I said is that proof positive should be supplied. No statement about not believing if appropriate evidence is supplied. Most woo supplies no evidence. Ergo, it can dismissed out of hand. For example, if you want me to believe in homeopathy, show me using proper double blind studies where homeopathic remedies give a better response than the wonder drug PlaceboTM. (The studies were run, and came up the same as Placebo, ergo homeopathy uses the placebo effect.) A true skeptic will change his mind with proper evidence.
@Josh,
I did say there are varying degrees of closed-mindedness.
Some people believe in in UFOs but not God. Some people believe in God but not space aliens. Many skeptics dismiss both because they don’t have enough evidence for either.
A proper response. The evidence for both is either extremely weak or non-existent. This does not imply closed minded.
A true skeptic will change his mind with proper evidence.
Can you cite an example where you were skeptical of something, you previously dismissed as superstitious woo, when you were presented with evidence?
Thoughtful Guy #149 wrote:
I think you are confusing the ability to be convinced with the desire to be convinced. When people have the desire to be convinced, they are too easily persuaded. They look for confirming evidence, and dismiss other possibilities too quickly — especially the possibility that they just don’t know enough to say anything, or that their recall of the events is not as accurate as a video camera.
I’ve noted that this is a kind of code meaning for the words “open-minded” or “seeking” among my woo-friends. From the scientific or humanist perspective, being open-minded means being willing to analyze something critically. You seek to find truth by trying to be as objective as possible. An open-minded person would welcome debate — hearing an opposing view, and trying to counter it.
To the spiritually-inclined, however, being “open to the possibility” of ghosts or psychic powers means welcoming the possibility like a beloved friend, and seeking to find evidence for it as if you were looking for pieces of gold. An open-minded person would never try to debate anyone — nor would they want to be debated with — because they’re accepting of their own experience, and want others to be accepting, too.
But if you need to be the Will to Believe in order to experience something, then it is much too likely that you’re falling for the errors involved in biased forms of subjective validation. Science forces you to constantly ask yourself “if I were wrong, how would I know?” Those other ways of knowing tend to focus on “If I am right, aren’t I special?”
No such thing – but I wonder if denying this beast has any effect on the reality or not of the Loch Ness monster?
re scepticism :I’ve just had a bad-tempered argument with a friend who has only just had her 12-year-old daughter vaccinated for MMR. She’s cross with me for being arrogant for, like, knowing shit by means of like, finding out; and I can’t understand why she isn’t angry with the people who told her it was risky in the first place.
She’s cross with me for pointing out that her ignorance could have led to her child’s illness! Oh well, at least the child’s vaccinated now.
“Can you cite an example where you were skeptical of something, you previously dismissed as superstitious woo, when you were presented with evidence?”
This seems like an oddly loaded question. If Nerd can’t come up with such an example (presumably because “superstitious woo” typically has no evidence that would change a skeptic’s mind), does that make him close-minded?
Goddamit.
Thoughtful Gut @ #149
This is true. A good example would be young Earth creationists who believe the Bible is absolutely true, so the Earth was created in 6 days around 6000 years ago, and disregard any evidence indicating this is not the case.
Yes, it requires an open mind to experience it, and a skeptical one to examine that experience to see what truly caused that experience, and what that experience actually means. So an open-minded skeptic is what you should really be.
True – if someone point-blank refused to accept this idea, no matter what, then they wouldn’t accept it regardless of the debate and evidence. However, if someone accepted something that had no evidence whatsoever, they would accept all sorts of utterly absurd things, perhaps to the point of rejecting something else that contradicted it, but was correct – a point that is explicitly made by this video.
Oh, and your example of microbes isn’t exactly a great example of something people wouldn’t accept. Microbes, or something like them, were hypothesized as far back as the 1st century BC (for example, the scholar Marcus Terentius Varro warned about ‘certain minute creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes, which float in the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and there cause serious diseases’). Microscopes weren’t invented until near the end of the 16th century AD, and the first actual microbes weren’t observed until three-quarters of the way through the 17th century.
Damn. My post at #159 should quote ‘Thoughtful Guy’ not ‘Thoughtful Gut’. Woops, sorry. Anyway:
Thoughtful Guy #154:
This wasn’t addressed to me, but, no, I can’t – mainly because I haven’t had anything I had previously dismissed as ‘superstitious woo’ being backed up by solid evidence. I can cite an example of the reverse, though – dismissing something I previously held to be true because evidence indicated it probably wasn’t. You see, I wasn’t always an atheist.
There is a certain amount of healthy skepticism that is key to being able to objectively analyze and make an accurate assessment of a given subject.
A typical young earth creationist has too much skepticism of science to objectively estimate the age of the planet. Indeed, they are being closed-minded.
When you automatically dismiss something out of hand, you deny yourself the opportunity to experience it. For this reason, a young-earth creationist will likely never experience the “ah ha” moment of real science. There may also be “ah ha” moments of metaphysics that many skeptics will never allow themselves to experience.
What woo has been shown to have real evidence for it? Very few, which is why they are still woo. And once there is evidence, it is no longer woo.
Off the top of my head, acupuncture has been shown to have a mild effect for pain in some patients, but it appears to be totally a placebo effect. It doesn’t matter if traditional spots are used, or whether the skin is actually punctured or not. Just that the patient thinks they were treated. The whole woo surrounding acupuncture is wrong, even if it has a mild placebo effect.
Sastra: So I suppose that, in order to become skeptical of the scientific method itself, I would have to be infused with the sense that I’m different and special.
That’s great. Ultimately, it’s about a personal orientation. Most folks are terribly unaware of (or dishonest about) this — that reasons for a system is primarily epiphenomenon, underneath it all is simply your orientation to the world.
Which is not to say that some orientations aren’t deeply preferable, much more pleasant, and much more aligned with the external, global, objective world.
It’s also why you can’t argue someone out of a religious viewpoint, unless they already don’t believe and are looking for an excuse. You have to re-orient them. You have to teach them humility about their own mental faculties.
Nerd: The whole woo surrounding acupuncture is wrong, even if it has a mild placebo effect.
Specifically why? Are you claiming that lack of evidence is evidence of lack? Or are you just saying that many woo-masters are lying about the science (by commission or omission)?
I don’t see any problem with woo, as long as everyone recognizes it’s lack of evidentiary value. In many areas, it is difficult or even practically impossible to have sufficient evidence to honestly, scientifically, come to any conclusions (I’m looking at a lot of medicine here, even when gussied about with “epidemiological studies”). Then you’re left with either taking no action, or taking whichever action you prefer on other principles such as internal consistency, as long as you don’t forget that it’s just a personal or cultural preference.
If you feel better going to psychotherapy, go ahead and do it. If you want to have a shaman treat your untreatable migraines — what do you have to lose but your cash?
wolfwalker: The very idea of a militant anti-religionist, who regularly writes blogposts declaring that gods do not exist and religion is inherently evil, lecturing anybody about open-mindedness is laugh-out-loud funny.
Now, here’s a good contra-example of the one of the video’s point: the video claims you can believe you’re opponent is wrong, without having a basis for claiming that he’s closed minded. Wolfwalker appears to not have understood the video.
Being a “militant atheist” is completely orthogonal to begin open-minded. It’s LOL funny that someone is too slow to get that.
Really enjoyed this video, succinct description of the correct way to think.
One part I disagree with, however: I do not think it is closed-minded to say that, for example, ghosts/UFOs/Loch Ness Monster/Santa Claus/fairies don’t exist, simply because by ‘don’t exist’ I mean ‘there is not sufficient evidence at present to convince me of the existence of …’. In the same vein, I and (I suspect) most here would be comfortable in saying that, for example, gravity exists or evolution happens without specific qualification most of the time.
It seems to me that by stating fact (of existence, non-existence, whatever) we are actually claiming that a particular ‘fact’ is backed up by objective evidence, thus do not need to say ‘because the evidence backs it up’ as that would be merely a tautology. We only need to state that when whoever we are talking to doesn’t seem to appreciate it in the specific context on the discussion.
It is certainly difficult to see how, for example, ‘gravity exists’ or ‘fairies don’t exist’ could mean anything other than ‘I think that the evidence supports the existence of gravity’ and ‘I think that there is insufficient evidence for fairies’. I don’t like just saying ‘I don’t believe in fairies’ because it seems to me belief is something utterly subjective, like liking or disliking a painting, and generally we are debating objective fact.
But the woo relies on the placebo effect, so having everyone recognise it’s lack of evidentiary value would mean that the practice has no evidentiary value.
But is it not only the DI who does question materialism. For example , David Chalmers, Director of the Centre for Consciousness at ANU who is a critic of ID and not a theist
http://fragments.consc.net/djc/2008/10/the-problem-of-consciousness-meets-intelligent-design.html
Even he feels that conciousness refutes materialism. Let us all keep in mind that Egnor is an expert. HE LITERALLY DOES BRAIN SURGERY!!! I’m sure he would know if there was a piece of material called altruism hiding in your material brain.
Yawn. Facilis the Fallacious Fool wrong again. Nothing new. Simply no logic and reason, just presuppositions.
OH and just one question for people here.
Does anyone have any positive arguments FOR MATERIALISM? I heard some arguments against theism and against God but haven’t seen any arguments that actually prove materialism is true.
A couple of people say consciousness refutes material = facilis being convinced. A whole body of evidence that suggests otherwise (go check out the blog neurologica where there’s a lot summarised) but because there are at least a couple of “experts” that agree with the point of view that facilis takes, it has to be that it’s refuted…
facilis, you cherry-picking fool. The problem of consciousness hasn’t be solved yet. But by studying sentient animals, by studying the brains of humans, by all indications consciousness is material. Have you read Dan Dennett – Consciousness Explained yet? Or are you just going to keep pointing to scientists as if being one is an authority as proof that your position is truth? How about you actually read what the “other side” has to say before you jump on it…
Given your record with evolution (being suckered by Ben Stein – poor form) why should we think that you are capable of understanding even the basic arguments on this platform? Hell, even when it’s demonstrated that you are wrong all you do is shut up as opposed to admitting fallibility.
FP,
Go here:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/
Search for “egnor.” You’ll find several dozen refutations. The discussions in the comments are interesting as well. You can also search more generally for “dualism” while you’re there.
Facilis, your presupposition is that atheists and scientists are wrong. Until you change your presupposition, your chances of anybody seeing you as anything other than an ignorant troll are small. Scientists are right far more often than godbots since they have physical evidence to back them up.
For materialism?
among other things too. But that should be a good start for you facilis. Not that I ever expect you to learn anything, hell even when you are backed into a corner you refuse to take on board the possibility that you were wrong.
@ Nerd of Redhead
Not all scientists believe in materialism like you do. (In fact 40% believe in theism which means at least 40% think materialism is false.) I am not tralking about science. I am talking about people who believe in materialism.
@SC
I’ve already read Neurologica’s and PZ’s responses to Egnor and found them quite poor. I think he makes vague appeals without really answering Egnor’s questions. I also found him inconsistent in his argumentation. For example he says that he is allowed to use Ockam’s razor (even though Ockham was a dualist) because a principle is valid no matter who invented it however he says to Egnor that he cannot use arguments from David Chalmers( because Chalmers is not a substance dualist).
What a surprise, facilis has found the arguments someone arguing against his position quite poor. Nevermind that Novella is a neuroscientist, but you are only an expert in facilis’ eyes if you also work for the DI… Have you read Dan Dennett’s Consciousness Explained yet?
You listen to Ben Stein, you have no grounds to ever call someone else’s arguments poor. You have not shown you have even the slightest ability to listen to what other people are saying if you already disagree with them. Why should this matter be any different Mr. “How can you say my position is circular when you can’t account for circular logic”? Mr. “2 + 2 = 4 only if you recognise that God makes it so”? Mr. “science is persecuting anyone who speaks out on darwinism”?
Just remember facilis. A couple of weeks ago, I announced that I was getting three books: Why I Became An Atheist by John Loftus, Breaking The Spell by Dan Dennett and Only A Theory by Ken Miller, and challenged you to read them alongside me. After all, you complain about the scholarship of the “new atheists” yet haven’t read them (and these two you’d be hard pressed to criticise) and you believe that intelligent design is being unfairly suppressed. So surely you could see that reading those 3 books might increase your knowledge on the matters. Why haven’t you jumped at it? Why haven’t you read Consciousness Explained? Why do use our knowledge as the grounds for whether the knowledge exists?
It doesn’t matter whether we can give a good account of materialism or not, but it does matter that you are using that to feel better about your own worldview. If I can’t name the fossil species that led to cetaceans, it doesn’t mean that the fossils are not discovered.
@Kel
1) I agree Novella is an expert too. But so is Egnor.
Please just look at the 6 arguments Egnor presented, then go through Novella’s post. Ask yourself which of the arguments you think he has addressed. Ask yourself if he really does answer the “hard problem”.
I’m not saying that materialists cannot answer them, just ask if Novella answered.
And no, I haven’t read Denett’s book.
I don’t have much time to read right now (I’m also reading “The Selfish Gene” now too)
I have read Dawkins and Harris.
Okay I think I admitted this before, but Ben Stein may have exaggerated the events a lttle. I don’t think there is a full-scale persucution going on but there is an unfair bias.
(I was just joking abut the whole VenomfangX thing though)
I never said ” Your worldview is wrong therefore mine is right” and I doubt Egnor ever said hat. I just wanted to point out some problems in materialism.
No! Intelligent Design advocates are not doing science. Every single person who was featured in Expelled was not fired for advocating ID, but for other reasons. Intelligent Design is a dead idea, the few ideas it did have were promptly refuted. Yet those scientists who promote ID have ignored any chance to have a dialogue in science about it.
Problems are an absence of knowledge. materialism is still the only worldview that has any validity as it’s the only thing we know exists. Everything is made up of atoms. If you think otherwise, demonstrate it.
I just checked this post by neurologica and I found he refutes Egnor quite well. There’s no evidence for dualism, it’s just a god-of-the-gaps argument. Novella sums it up well with this:
But as I stated above – we have lots of information that leads to the conclusion that certain parts of the brain are necessary for consciousness. Being necessary for consciousness is a very strong indication that their function contributes to consciousness, and taken together they are consciousness. There are interesting and viable theories about what exactly is different about those parts of the brain that contribute to consciousness. I think it has something to do with attention – which parts of the brain are actively participating in a self-generating loop of receiving and manipulating information.
But clearly it is more complex than that. At this point, we simply don’t know. But it is an active area of research. That does not translate into, as Egnor wants you to believe, that materialist neuroscience is “collapsing”, anymore than disputes over the mechanism of evolution means evolutionary theory is “collapsing.”
This sounds like a reasonable position to me. What is wrong with it?
Done, I’m surprised that you were convinced at all by Egnor’s arguments. It seems that Egnor’s arguments boil down to: I have subjective experience, that causes meaning, you can’t measure it; therefore Dualistic mind. QED
Yet just think about it from a physicalist perspective. The brain is first built as per instructions in our DNA. Then as we live our lives, our brain is shaped by the experiences we have. Since each of us has unique experiences, each of our brains will be unique. Thus purely by existing we should expect to find that there’s no truly objective way of looking at the world.
Consider further that the mind is an evolved organ. Surely we should see the stages of consciousness in other animals with smaller brains. Would a chimp having self-awareness mean that the chimp has a dualist mind? Would it mean the same for an octopus? Or a cetacean? When all the stages of the brain can be seen throughout the animal kingdom, what is left that needs explaining?
Facilis, you are still operating under your presuppositions. You think science and materialism is wrong, and you will find anything that seems to refute the fact that they work and try to present it to us. We know better. You are dealing with very smart well read people here, and we see through your assinine arguments devoid of reason and logic. You are a proven Truther. That means you have spead enough lies across your posts to bring everything you say into question. We consider you wrong until you prove yourself right. And so far, you have failed to do so.
Nerd,
Technically it’s asinine – one ‘s’ – but for facilis, assinine is an acceptable (and accurate) variation…
ARGH! No, with k, if that’s how you pronounce it. If you pronounce it “septic” (as I, apparently wrongly, thought people who spelled it with c most likely did), and wish to keep it visually distinct from “septic”, then use the c.
(That was a question only a Dane can ask ;-) )
Scheme and AFAIK schedule actually come from Greek words with χ.
In German, it’s skeptisch and Skeptiker, despite Szene, (S)zepter, and so on (which are pronounced with [sts]).
Please present Craig’s argument, so we can see for ourselves if it’s valid (in which case you of course have a point) or not.
Matter is just another form of energy.
Or in philosophical terms: The world doesn’t consist of objects, it consists of facts. “The world is all that is the case.”
Homo sapiens. Genus name with a capital letter, the -s is the nominative singular ending, and the whole thing should be in italics.
Most scientists, unlike you, know that science cannot prove, only disprove…
No. A typical YEC has too little knowledge and too much fear of learning to evaluate what the data say. The fear of learning comes from being dogmatic, not from being skeptical.
Altruism isn’t a part of the brain. It’s an activity of the brain.
Moron!
Egnor just proves that it’s possible to be an… egnorant brain surgeon. That’s unfortunately all.
The principle of parsimony. Also known as Ockham’s Razor… have you watched Conan the Barbarian? The scene where they stand in the steppe and defend themselves using ridiculous weapons, in particular a huge ax that’s fixed to the handle in two places? That’s Ockham’s Razor.
Logic: ur doin it rong.
As I just said, science cannot prove, only disprove.
Because it comes from asinus, “donkey” in Latin… which is of course where the other English word spelled “ass” comes from.
Point conceded after consulting my dictionary.