tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post2365355628124323139..comments2024-03-12T12:23:10.033-04:00Comments on Secular Perspectives: Understanding Confirmatory Bias and Dead End ArgumentsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-71855976187651161132012-05-15T09:33:15.870-04:002012-05-15T09:33:15.870-04:00"Chris Mooney focuses on people being closed-..."Chris Mooney focuses on people being closed- minded, and if the standard is only advocating what is acceptable to closed- minded conservatives then that is ridiculous, there is no way that is a sensible standard."<br /><br />I wouldn't say that is the position argued here. I'm not a big fan of a broad "only" one argument to be made. There are some people who are so closed minded that you might waste your time. There is a larger group of people with positions that may be influenced, but are less likely to listen to rational only or strong styles. They may have their consciousness raised and minds opened by other approaches such immediate experience rather than abstract argument, for example. It has been widely argued that as people have been exposed to openly GBT people at work and in their neighborhood their initial dislike and bias softens. This argues for a more mixed and situation appropriate approach and not an absolute either-or. Shows the alternative styles to influence people is not to say that there isn't a role for forceful argument when appropriate and their is always a value in having clear statements on positions. These can be stated positively.Gary Berg-Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00104267265989624672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-72372495249611567372012-05-14T23:12:33.070-04:002012-05-14T23:12:33.070-04:00Matthew (Explicit Atheist), I want to make it clea...Matthew (Explicit Atheist), I want to make it clear that advocating for explicit atheism is something that I want centrally included as something that is done on this blog. Beyond that we are having a new high page view rate of 8,600 per month. Your posts are a very appreciated part of this wonderful success. <br /><br />Passionate discussion is also part of this blog and anyone who posts here can expect countervailing views to also be aarticlated. This post and the comment stream is just an excellent example of what works in a successful blog that our community wants to see.<br /><br />I love and so should everyone participating in it.Don Whartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11874733311091724239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-77912159882809060692012-05-14T19:49:06.121-04:002012-05-14T19:49:06.121-04:00I have no problem with setting priorities. I have...I have no problem with setting priorities. I have a big problem with saying that people should not advocate for and defend atheism because that is counter-productive or because doing that interferes with higher priorities. I cannot blog for any group that cannot stomach atheism advocacy. It is one thing to say that we should not advocate for lawsuits that we cannot win, it is altogether different to say that people cannot politely voice opinions because atheism upsets other people. Chris Mooney focuses on people being closed- minded, and if the standard is only advocating what is acceptable to closed- minded conservatives then that is ridiculous, there is no way that is a sensible standard. Furthermore, when a legal decision is favorable, and all I do is express kudos to the judges, if that is unacceptable, then there is no way this is a group where I can function. That is far too restricted, in far too peculiar a way. And given the contents of other blog posts here, I have a very difficult time accepting this kind of standard being applied to me as being reasonable in any way or form.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-53536871245487272862012-05-14T14:40:48.500-04:002012-05-14T14:40:48.500-04:00Hos said, "If prominent scientists and scienc...Hos said, "If prominent scientists and science journalists refused to take Templeton's money it would become a pariah like Discovery. "<br /><br />I'm not sure what Discovery you are referring to. Discovery channel doesn't seem to qualify based on such as "Is Discovery Channel pushing the Atheist Agenda?"<br />http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fanswers.yahoo.com%2Fquestion%2Findex%3Fqid%3D20110605161754AAIKm98&ei=v0-xT6GUMs-36QHHqZTDCQ&usg=AFQjCNECimBNMuRX0_JMRvA2duaiHkFtig&sig2=appQBZbcqmiGZasl3MJwNQ<br /><br />Discovery magazine doesn't seem to qualify for such a label either. <br /><br />Discovery Institute is not a friend of Mooney as demonstrated by this:<br /><br />"In his book The Republican War on Science, Chris Mooney declares war on intelligent design, calling it a “reactionary crusade” promoted by “[s]cience abusers.” Discovery Institute now responds to Mooney’s war on intelligent design (ID) by publishing a detailed report, “Whose War Is It, Anyway? Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design,” documenting 14 major errors Mooney makes when writing about ID in his book."<br /><br />So what am I missing about Mooney and Discovery?Gary Berg-Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00104267265989624672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-18606496028188712522012-05-14T12:06:12.860-04:002012-05-14T12:06:12.860-04:00Templeton gets its reputability in the scientific ...Templeton gets its reputability in the scientific circles from the likes of Mooney. If prominent scientists and science journalists refused to take Templeton's money it would become a pariah like Discovery. <br />Mooney IS dishonest in making claims way beyond what is justified by evidence. He usea evidence from psychology to take cheap shots at people who are fighting the good fight-the "gnu" atheists. But his claim that psychology justifies his approach is totally bunk. He fails to look at the historical record which suggests Dawkins' approch may work better.<br />As for evidence that he is a defender of religion and wants religion and science to mix-look no further than the title of his blog: "interface", that being the interface of science and faith.Hoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922760916006173291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-4618417961325629702012-05-14T09:56:23.538-04:002012-05-14T09:56:23.538-04:00What is the evidence that Mooney is a defender of ...What is the evidence that Mooney is a defender of religion or that he wants to live in a world where science and religion are merged? He argues that some new atheist actions are counterproductive and we can debate the short and long-term effects of that on particular groups. <br /><br />On speaking the truth issue, here a bit of what Mooney said based on discussion in a secular humanist panel appearance.<br /><br />"I gave a response to this line of argument–about “truth”–on the panel and on the latest Point of Inquiry. Of course truth is important. However, practically speaking, we also have to pick and choose where we can set the record straight–there is a vast amount of nonsense out there, religiously impelled and otherwise, and it doesn’t go away easily, if at all. There is far more of it than any single person can argue with or refute, and not all of it is equally damaging or pernicious.<br /><br />In this context, setting priorities is not dishonest."<br /><br />See http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/10/16/the-new-york-times-on-atheist-infighting/ for the quote and<br />http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/16/us/16beliefs.html?_r=1 for a report in the NYT on the panel debate...Gary Berg-Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00104267265989624672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-46459956581485259132012-05-14T07:26:08.959-04:002012-05-14T07:26:08.959-04:00Maybe, you and Chris Mooney and lots of other peop...Maybe, you and Chris Mooney and lots of other people prefer that we lived in a world where science and religion merged, like the world of 600 hundred years ago. In that world things naturally existed in a state of no movement and god pushed the earth to make it circle the sun. It is important to understand that that could have been the way the world works. If it were then we would have discovered that the world works that way and our science would have determined that materialism/ naturalism was useless and that to understand the world we needed supernaturalism/gods/religion. Science and religion would be the same if that was the world we lived in. to understand the world we would pray and meditate and worship god and we would receive revelation. THAT COULD HAVE BEEN THE WORLD WE LIVE IN, BUT IT IS NOT. This is the conclusion of hundreds of years of collective human effort, of the science as it actually happened and unfolded here in this world that we live in It does no good to try to deceive people and defend and protect their fantasy that we live in some other world in the name of attacking scientific illiteracy. That is two self-contradictory and internally inconsistent goals.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-6885772453467463362012-05-14T06:42:34.038-04:002012-05-14T06:42:34.038-04:00Another way to understand this: you are confusing...Another way to understand this: you are confusing the easier way with the better way. The easier way is not the better way. It is easier to not do software configuration managemt, but it is better to do software configuration managent. Think about all of the contexts where people have a tendency to mistaken the short term easier way for the better way.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-8315404698897547822012-05-14T00:39:06.196-04:002012-05-14T00:39:06.196-04:00Let me put it this way: Atheists are 100% allies ...Let me put it this way: Atheists are 100% allies with the scientific community, but people like Chris Mooney keep falsely claiming that atheists are the enemy and the problem. That is inside out, upside down, backwards, slander. Until he stops claiming that people like Dawkins, Coyne, etc. are enemies of science he has no credibility. Someone who calls allies enemies is speaking for some political agenda, or self-serving agenda, or something or other. The problem of scientific illiteracy is not a problem for which atheists hold any blame. On the contrary, anti-atheist bigots are much more responsible for scientific illiteracy. Stop this blame the victim idiocy. If you think that atheists have some obligation to shut up to appease that anti- atheist bogitry then I think you are very very wrong. Wrong pragmatically, wrong ethically, wrong strategically, wrong in every way.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-69965343601334689702012-05-14T00:22:00.635-04:002012-05-14T00:22:00.635-04:00HONESTY says that seeking and overcoming skepticis...HONESTY says that seeking and overcoming skepticism in an evidence first approach is the only way that produces results for understanding how the world works. That places science squarely in conflict with religion's faith first approach, which has been proven over hundreds of years to be completely useless and therefore is out of bounds within any scientific activity. Chris Mooney claims to be a defender of science, but he is a protector of religion, and the two roles are in conflict, as is his taking Templeton money when Templeton's sole purpose is to deny the very real conflict between religious faith and our modern understanding of the world, including our understanding of what method is successful and what methods are useless in acquiring information about how the world works. When it comes to scientific illiteracy, Chris Mooney is part of the problem, he is committed to obfuscation, he is a "framer" who not only works hard to deny that religious faith based method of asserting knowledge is itself in conflict with modern knowledge, but who tries to discredit people who dare to,point out this fact.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-63926362660125384442012-05-13T10:43:58.488-04:002012-05-13T10:43:58.488-04:00Explicit atheist's example of subjective views...Explicit atheist's example of subjective views of dreams entities vs. a scientific understanding allows we to make a point. It is not always useful to see the arguments dichotomous. There are people on the 2 sides, but many people may have a foot in each camp and hold conflicting ideas. Reaching this group to move them in a less muddled and empirical direction is important. If it means that some people get a chance to move this way by hearing Mooney via a Templeton Foundation that might be good. Why cede the floor on issues to them when people may not understand what Science says about a topic like dreams or empirical tests of dream interpretation? The question is whether people like Mooney will self censer and compromise their science rather than package it in a form that people can assimilate. We may honestly disagree about individual people's interests and integrity, but we might agree on what strategies make sense and are worth trying.Gary Berg-Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00104267265989624672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-38673361362759875012012-05-12T23:07:39.634-04:002012-05-12T23:07:39.634-04:00And I meant to say "former argument" in ...And I meant to say "former argument" in the subsequent two sentences also.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-55062215793130831742012-05-12T23:05:50.305-04:002012-05-12T23:05:50.305-04:00I meant to say "than to convince people that ...I meant to say "than to convince people that the former is false"Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-14872753547000468852012-05-12T20:27:54.247-04:002012-05-12T20:27:54.247-04:00An example of how the goal of bridging divides can...An example of how the goal of bridging divides can interfere with the integrity/quality of the argument is a situation where there are two opposing views, for example the view that the existence of entities is revealed by dreams and personal interpretations of personally experienced feelings and the view that the existence of entities is determined with intersubjective empirical evidence. It is easier to convince both people that the latter is true than to convince both people that the latter is false. So in the interest of bridging differences the latter argument is criticized as being counter-productive and said to be out of bounds. But are we really bridging differences or just papering-over and refusing to deal with the differences? Are we really understanding each other better or just refusing to address the disagreement? How is it productive for the side that is wrong on the merits to be given a monopoly to loudly and publicly tout their views while the people who are correct on the merits must shut the fuck up to not upset anyone? How does that do anything other than promote unbalance? THERE IS NO WAY, FORGET ABOUT IT, THAT ATHEISTS ARE GOING TO PUT THEIR ATHEISM IN A CLOSET TO APPEASE OR SATISFY ANTI-ATHEIST BIGOTRY IN NAME OF BRIDGING DIFFERENCES. NO WAY NO HOW. <br /><br />What is needed are more people to challenge anti-atheist bigotry, we don't need people arguing why we must appease and surrender to it and excuse it and refuse to judge it negatively in the name of being positive and constructive. Phooey on that. If that is your idea of being constructive and positive and strategically smart than shame on you.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-31111481094484844812012-05-12T19:21:03.948-04:002012-05-12T19:21:03.948-04:00Talk about bridging divides does not necessarily e...Talk about bridging divides does not necessarily evoke in me the creation of distorted thinking. It may of course and lead to unworkable compromises, but honest conversations may serve to educate. Socratic dialog might be thought of as one mechanisms to bridge differences due to lack of understanding.Gary Berg-Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00104267265989624672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-90897370399262940002012-05-12T15:37:36.390-04:002012-05-12T15:37:36.390-04:00I am talking about that earlier book, not his late...I am talking about that earlier book, not his latest book. It appears that his new book may be motivated in part as an effort to respond to some of the criticisms of that earlier book. But I can tell you that earlier book didn't help his reputation and that I share the perspective of those who criticized that earlier book.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-59097002458035557522012-05-12T15:14:29.193-04:002012-05-12T15:14:29.193-04:00The book and its argument are fundamentally politi...The book and its argument are fundamentally political rather than epistemological, and they are political in a very particular way. There is much talk throughout of the need to ‘bridge divides,’ and this creates a basic distortion of the thinking. If the overarching goal is to bridge divides (as they at least once say it is), then differences must be papered over or ignored – and that is simply not compatible with free inquiry.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-44888875107492942552012-05-12T14:56:10.883-04:002012-05-12T14:56:10.883-04:00Absolutely, arguments are to be judged on their me...Absolutely, arguments are to be judged on their merits, not on the messenger. In that regard, I consider Chris Mooney to be both worth listening to, and to have a mixed record. In particularly, I think his blaming scientists for scientific illeteracy (a major thesis of his book Unscientific America) in the US is mistaken. The statistics on science illiteracy, which show that it hasn’t changed much in thirty years, count against the author’s thesis that it is not only a growing problem but one that was once palpably improved by science popularizers but is now exacerbated by atheists.<br /><br />Chris notes in that book that ". . college-educated Democrats are now more than twice as likely as college-educated Republicans to believe that global warming is real and is caused by human activities.". <br /><br />But If science illiteracy is due to this Cool Hand Luke (CHL) Effect—the failure to communicate—have the facts about climate change been communicated more effectively to Democrats than to Republicans? Chris doesn't seem to notice this conflict between the evidence and the conclusion he is arguing for in that book.<br /><br />Over at her website, Christina Pikas adduces some data showing the opposite, that it is not the lack of scientific knowledge that explains “why the public doesn’t support some scientific endeavors” like genetic engineering or stem-cell research. Clearly, before we can fix the problem, we have to properly diagnose the problem.<br /><br />M&K claim repeatedly that the problem of scientific illiteracy is getting worse, e.g.: "For all these reasons the rift between science and mainstream American culture is growing ever wider.". But again, this conflicts with the evidence, which is that the prevelance of scientific illiteracy has been more or less unchanged for a long time.<br /><br />The fact is that his book is full of strong assertions and very short on evidence backing up those assertions. And it fits very nicely with Templeton agenda of avoiding placing the blame where the evidence actually does point: Religious belief.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-59417479968996846652012-05-12T12:37:05.986-04:002012-05-12T12:37:05.986-04:00I don't trust the Templeton Foundation and res...I don't trust the Templeton Foundation and respect people like Dennett for rejecting their approaches. Mooney has explained his position in a Discover magazine Intersection article "On “Accommodationism” and Templeton"<br /><br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/07/12/on-toleration-not-accommodationism-and-templeton/<br /><br />This includes a link to a podcast where he explains his position at length http://doubtreligion.blogspot.com/2010/07/episode-70-accommodationism-with-guest.html<br /><br />I would be disappointed of people who have accepted some support like Mooney, Haidt, Dacher Keltner (researcher in positive psychology), evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson or researchers such as Herb Gintis (a leading game theorist and behavioural economist) and Michael Gazzaniga (one of the world’s most famous neuroscientists) are compromised. They have participated in some degree of Templeton projects or fellows. But I'm willing to listen to their argument and judge their behavior as I see it.Gary Berg-Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00104267265989624672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-75001286764901267122012-05-11T20:21:33.208-04:002012-05-11T20:21:33.208-04:00Chris Mooney is a Templeton Fellow in journalism, ...Chris Mooney is a Templeton Fellow in journalism, he takes their money. Dan Dennett has integrity, he won't lend his name to their efforts.Explicit Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501109533475045969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-63147580382983139812012-05-10T05:51:56.764-04:002012-05-10T05:51:56.764-04:00Chris Mooney is no more than a fence sitter for ac...Chris Mooney is no more than a fence sitter for accommodation. If people just sit there and do nothing and accommodate other than take action religion would still have it's Iron Heel on society and we would be as backwards a society as when religion ruled for a 1000 years of dark ages.Carlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-77726626913089036282012-05-09T10:10:39.161-04:002012-05-09T10:10:39.161-04:00I would argue that Chris Mooney is trying to expla...I would argue that Chris Mooney is trying to explain how to be understood and effective without intellectual accommodation. He is more interested in understanding why thing happen than committed to an ideology. The Templeton foundation on the other hand seems to have a different and partially hidden theist agenda. It is for this reason that people like Dan Dennett won't play their game of saying nice things about God and religion(see http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110407062345AA8EJpT). Mooney is just not into such agendas.Gary Berg-Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00104267265989624672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10856048.post-2788798508441867152012-05-08T12:13:54.955-04:002012-05-08T12:13:54.955-04:00Of course the main point missed in this post, as w...Of course the main point missed in this post, as well as in Ms Hippolitus's earlier one, is that the point in using arguments and mockery is not necessarily to convince your opponent, but expose their shoddy and baseless claims for anyone else that could be watching. For example, when Bobby Henderson sent his tongue in cheek letter to Kansas board of education, of course he knew they would never give the Flying Spaghetti Monster equal time to creationism, and that was never the point. Chris Mooney is not the only one pursuing the path of accomodationism. The Templeton foundation (whose chair is a supporter of Rick Santorum) has poured millions into this ideology and there is absolutely nothing to show for it.Hoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15922760916006173291noreply@blogger.com