Saturday, March 26, 2011

Further reflections on the intellectual condition of Darwinists

In my previous post on what I considered the rational shortcomings I thought were displayed by the group of regular Darwinist commenters on my site, I had used the term "Peanut Gallery" to refer to this group, and also used the term "intellectual inbreeding" to describe the cause of their logical troubles.

But "Ozziejoe," a new commenter as far as I can tell, took the exact wording of a criticism I had previously made of another blogger and turned it around on me:
To call those with whom you disagree "Peanut Gallery" and "intellectual equivalent of the (inbred) Hapsburgs" is a clear example of the ad hominem fallacy, which involves a personal attack on the person you disagree with. I don't think Martin means this in any hostile way (in fact, I think he is partly just poking fun), but it is still a logical mistake--and one that has little to do with the merit of whatever position someone holds.
This was clever, I'll have to admit. My hat is off to him (her?).

But he should probably know that I do not use the term "Peanut Gallery" as a term of derision. In fact, I don't know that it was ever much used that way. The "Peanut Gallery" here is a group of hardy secularist souls who stop in almost daily so they can heckle, hoot, and catcall, and I give them pretty wide latitude to do so. I think it is essential to the roisterous ambiance here at Vital Remnants. I use it with a sense of affection.

I don't know what I'd do without them.

These are all people who, if they lived closer, I would be glad to invite over to smoke cigars and argue--something I would enjoy even more, I admit, if they were nonsmokers.

Also, the term has no logical role in my argument. I did not say that they were wrong because they were members of the Peanut Gallery. I merely used it to identify the group to which I was referring. So it could hardly be considered a logical fallacy.

I also said that I thought they suffered, like Darwinists in general, from the ill effects of "intellectual inbreeding," and compared them, metaphorically, to the Hapsburgs, the Austrian noble house that ruled until the mid-18th century who, because of marrying their cousins and other close relations, accumulated a number of interesting genetic defects, including hemophilia, sterility, and the "Hapsburg lip," a malady that prevented Charles II from chewing.

I don't have anything against the Hapsburgs. I'm sure they were very nice people. It's just that, when you bumped into them, they bled all over you.

I was not referring to any moral shortcomings on the part the part of the august members of the group of Regulars here, but merely to the intellectual habit Darwinists generally seem to possess whereby they dismiss the views of those who aren't intellectually close to them out of hand, and refuse to seriously consider the nonconsanguinous ideas of those outside their immediate intellectual relations. A habit that results in a strange kind of intellectual sterility. As far as I know, they are all still able to chew, in an intellectual sense, but their intellectual systems have a hard time dealing with unfamiliar ideas.

This was on evidence in the post I referred to when they refused (with the possible exception of Art, who stepped entirely out of his scientistic zone and gave me a syllogism which, however, led nowhere) to offer clear reasons why anyone who held to a creationist position could possibly be considered a critical thinker, other than that they thought creationists were mistaken in their positions.

Again, I was offering this as a metaphorical description of the situation; it was not part of the main argument of my post.

30 comments:

KyCobb said...

Martin,

How about this: because young earth creationists uncritically accept the Book of Genesis as being literally true, they are not critical thinkers, regardless of whether they are right or not.

KyCobb said...

No-one has yet pointed out a flaw in my argument; does that mean I got it right?

Lee said...

What assumptions do you uncritically accept as true, KyCobb?

One Brow said...

Lee,

Every science makes a few basic assumptions and accepts thenm uncritically. to of the more imprtant ones are homogeneity (things basically behave the same in the same conditions) and isotropy (measurements look the same when made in the same way).

Did you have other assumptions in mind?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I assume that I am not a brain in a vat, imagining the universe, since I have no way of testing such a hypothesis.

It has been several days, and so far, no-one has pointed out any flaw in my premise that YECs are not critical thinkers, so it appears logic teacher Martin has to give me a passing grade.

Lee said...

KyCobb, why are those basic assumptions which you accept uncritically beyond reproach?

Can you specify what they are?

And if the universe is simply an accident, why are they true?

Some folks believe that truth does not exist, and logic is not valid, unless somehow it transcends humanity. Count me as one of those.

Otherwise, don't you have it to explain? In a materialist universe, matter and energy collides and stuff happens.

For the benefit of us non-critical thinkers, please derive transcendent truth from matter and energy colliding.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I told you what my assumption is. I have no "transcendent truth" to offer you, only Gouldian facts. If you want "transcendent truth" go talk to the pastor, priest, rabbi, imam or shaman of your choice, and one of them will be happy to share their "transcendent truth" with you.

Lee said...

Well, then, if there is no transcendent truth, then what good are facts? What kind of truth do facts serve?

And why should anyone bother to listen to the ones you tout?

One Brow said...

Some folks believe that truth does not exist, and logic is not valid, unless somehow it transcends humanity.

With regards to logic, that is complete load of trash. Logic is a tool that we create for our own benefit, to help us analyze the world. When we desire, we alter it to suit our needs or our whims. It is nor more transendent fo us that a car is transcendent of us.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

Without facts, you could not post your message on this blog, because your computer and the internet would not exist. Furthermore, I didn't say there is no transcendent truth. There are lots of transcendent truths, and there are many people who want to share theirs with you; I'm just not one of those people.

Lee said...

> There are lots of transcendent truths

So then, back to my earlier question: please derive for us transcendent truth from matter and energy colliding.

> Without facts, you could not post your message on this blog, because your computer and the internet would not exist.

Aren't facts just attributes of the truth?

Could facts possibly be worth anything if they weren't true?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I've already told you twice that I'm not the person to give you transcendent truth. Go to one of those people I have already mentioned who are eager to share transcendent truth with you.

"Could facts possibly be worth anything if they weren't true?"

To an extent. Newton's theory of gravity isn't as accurate as Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it is still accurate enough to be useful in most circumstances.

Lee said...

> I've already told you twice that I'm not the person to give you transcendent truth.

Really? I would say that you are *implicitly* offering statements of transcendent truth. I'll try to state them for you fairly.

They go something like this:

1. Logic and facts are very important things.

2. It is very bad to ignore logic and facts and to do so earns derision and scorn.

I'm not denying the truth of these statements. I'm just wondering how you arrive at these, er, transcendent truths from a position of materialism.

If you arrive at these transcendent truths from a position of materialism, then please explain how you do so.

If you arrive at these transcendent truths but not from a position of materialism, how do you get there?

If they are not transcendent truths, what are they? Your preferences? If so, why are your preferences so important, and why should other folks be concerned when they do not adopt your preferences?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

I find facts to be useful, that's just my personal preference. If you want to ignore facts, more power to you. I didn't say YECs should be derided or scorned, I just wanted to see if I could provide Martin with a clear reason why YECs aren't critical thinkers.

Lee said...

That's fair, KyCobb.

Do you think YECs create their own set of facts, or that they interpret the same facts everyone else has at their disposal differently (and, in your view, incorrectly)?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

YECs have a set of what they consider to be facts from the Bible which are different from everyone else's facts.

Lee said...

> YECs have a set of what they consider to be facts from the Bible which are different from everyone else's facts.

That's not what they say. They say, everybody has the same facts, it's the interpretations that differ.

Do mainstream scientists ever make up facts to explain something they cannot otherwise explain?

Lee said...

> With regards to logic, that is complete load of trash.

To view a position as a complete load of trash, it seems to me that either one is expressing a personal preference, or else is appealing to a transcendent value of goodness or rightness, of which this trash has somehow fallen short.

> Logic is a tool that we create for our own benefit, to help us analyze the world.

I'm not the expert Martin is, but it is my understanding that logic is a vast area, like math, from which only a little of it is practically applicable. So it would seem to exist on its own, regardless of whether it applies or not.

What you are saying, though, is that it is a mere tool for making our lives better. Let's assume for the sake of argument you are right about that. Does that mean, therefore, that logic is to be tossed out whenever applying it makes our lives worse?

KyCobb said...

Lee,

For YECs, the Bible is reality. Observations of the natural world are just pesky things which have to be interpreted in the light of biblical reality. Thus their "interpretations" are often a nonsensical mishmash because developing a coherent understanding of the world isn't a priority for them.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

"Do mainstream scientists ever make up facts to explain something they cannot otherwise explain?"

Are you referring to developing hypotheses? They aren't "facts" until the evidence in support is so strong that it would be perverse to deny them provisional assent.

If you are talking about manufacturing false evidence, that is something some scientists have done, because they are only human. That is why repeatability of observations is an important part of science.

One Brow said...

To view a position as a complete load of trash, it seems to me that either one is expressing a personal preference, or else is appealing to a transcendent value of goodness or rightness, of which this trash has somehow fallen short.

I do have a personal preference for not deluding myself into thinking a human tool is somehow transcendant, yes.

So it would seem to exist on its own, regardless of whether it applies or not.

Much like music, for example, another human creation.

Does that mean, therefore, that logic is to be tossed out whenever applying it makes our lives worse?

Humans disregard logic when they don't like the implications. However, I don't see how logic can make a life worse. Do youhave an example?

Lee said...

There are lots of times someone's life can be made better by ignoring logic.

Hucksters who exploit emotional vulnerabilities in their prey are far better off ignoring or overcoming logical objections.

Lawyers who must defend a client when the logical conclusion is that he's guilty.

Even happily-married men had to fly in the face of the simple truth that the institution of marriage and the legal system are stacked in favor of the woman. It is not logical for men to marry, but they still do and many are better off for it.

So my question is, are they justified in ignoring logic in such case? Can we somehow blame them?

And can we also conclude that logic was just invented for our benefit? At times, it seems it was invented for anything but that.

Lee said...

Sorry, didn't mean to kill the conversation.

I guess my final point is this: if personal preferences are all there is, then there really is nothing wrong with Answers in Genesis's crusade. It's not wrong from AiG's perspective because they believe they're right and they are commissioned by God to inform us of this fact; and it's not wrong from OneBrow's perspective because it is only his personal preference that they shut up about it.

Again, in the world where only personal preferences matter, OneBrow prefers logic because it makes his life better, and AiG prefers whatever it is that they practice because that makes *their* lives better.

So there you go, OneBrow. Don't know why you get so outraged by AiG, though, given that this is where your philosophies lead.

Singring said...

'if personal preferences are all there is, then there really is nothing wrong with Answers in Genesis's crusade.'

Well, that depends on whether you personally prefer to trust in models of reality that fit the available evidence or not.

If you personally prefer to believe in nonsense that has not even the most tenuous empirical support, you are more than welcome to do so and I have no doubt you will fit right in with the crowd at AiG.

But understand this:

1.) Others who have a preference for beliefs that actually match our observations of the natural world will at best not take you seriously and at worst mock and ridicule you. Especially if you betray a lack of understanding of the evidence or its interpretation.

2.) If any organisation like AiG tries to foist its absurd fables and fairytales on unsuspecting children and openly promotes the teaching of their unfounded personal beliefs in school, a lot of people who hold beliefs rooted in reality will oppose that and try to stop any such attempts, in an effort to avoid society taking great harm.

Lee said...

> Others who have a preference for beliefs that actually match our observations of the natural world will at best not take you seriously and at worst mock and ridicule you.

Perhaps you mean to say, others who really believe in an ordered universe and an objective reality outside their minds will ridicule those who only profess to do so.

All I'm pointing out is that, personal preferences aside, the ridicule is uncalled for, because (the materialist worldview, not mine) there is nothing wrong with holding viewpoints that are contrary to reason and evidence.

In fact, indulging in such ridicule makes no sense, because there is no transcendent "right" or "wrong" to be offended. The ridicule looks silly, when taken in context. It's just a mental form of self-gratification.

In the grand scheme of things, there is no grand scheme of things, and someone who holds to the Book of Genesis for an absolute truth that doesn't exist is in the same boat with someone who thinks he has it all wrong.

And I actually have evidence to the fact that belief in Genesis is making someone's life richer. A fellow from AiG spoke at our church a couple of years ago, in fact did a series on their outlook on science. He drove a new Lexus. Now, I'm not one of those folks who think that religious people should never drive nice cars, but it did occur to me the fellow was doing quite well for himself.

So presuming you and OneBrow are right about the objective legitimacy of his claims, it seems to me you still have no reason to fault him. If logic only exists as a tool for finding a better life, without any sort of transcendent value, then all he did was make his life better without using it. You may not like it, but like or dislike has nothing to do with truth, justice, or any other transcendent value.

> in an effort to avoid society taking great harm.

I'm sorry, is there something wrong with harming society? Aside from your personal preferences, I mean.

Singring said...

'because (the materialist worldview, not mine) there is nothing wrong with holding viewpoints that are contrary to reason and evidence.'

Lee, you seem to be hopelessly confused. You seem to believe that just because someone claims there are no absolute, transcendent truths (at least none that we can identify) they automatically adopt an 'anything goes' attitude. This is complete nonsense. I can hold any personal view I wish and have a strong desire that this view also be adopted by others, without having to appeal to some transcendent law or rule that justifies it. The difference is that I actually havce to convince people with arguments and evidence, while you and your brethren can just lean back and say : 'The Bible says it? Must be so!'

'And I actually have evidence to the fact that belief in Genesis is making someone's life richer.'

Believeing that little gold fairies will leave ten million dollars on my doorstep tonight would make my life richer - but it wouldn't make it true.

Appealing to wishful thinking really is the weakest of all arguments.

'He drove a new Lexus.'

So now you're telling me that not only do we measure the 'richness' of a life by the make of car one drives, you also seem to believe that beliefs, not acts, garner income? You might want to rethink that bit.

'...it seems to me you still have no reason to fault him.'

I personally believe that lying about science is wrong and therefore, I would like society to oppose it. Therefore, it is perfectly alright for me to fault this guy, I just can't call upon some higher power to conbvince you that you should to, I have to call upon arguments and evidence to do so. Something tells me that will be a lost cause.

'I'm sorry, is there something wrong with harming society? Aside from your personal preferences, I mean.'

My personal preference is for there be the least amount of avoidable harm to society. When will it seep into your brain that the denial of transcendent, absolute standards does not equate to the denial of personal standards?

But let me ask you: Do YOU believe that there is something wrong with harming society?

Lee said...

> Lee, you seem to be hopelessly confused.

Mois?

> You seem to believe that just because someone claims there are no absolute, transcendent truths (at least none that we can identify) they automatically adopt an 'anything goes' attitude.

Only if someone wishes to be intellectually consistent.

> I can hold any personal view I wish...

And so can the AiG folks.

>...and have a strong desire that this view also be adopted by others...

And so do the AiG folks.

> ...without having to appeal to some transcendent law or rule that justifies it.

What need do the rest of us have to adopt Singring's personal preferences as our moral and intellectual compass?

> The difference is that I actually havce to convince people with arguments and evidence, while you and your brethren can just lean back and say : 'The Bible says it? Must be so!'

Liking arguments and evidence are your personal preferences. Why is, "Because Singring said so" a more valuable reason than "Because the Bible said so?"

> Believeing that little gold fairies will leave ten million dollars on my doorstep tonight would make my life richer - but it wouldn't make it true.

You missed the point I was making.

> So now you're telling me that not only do we measure the 'richness' of a life by the make of car one drives...

Can you please explain why, from a materialist perspective, being materially better off isn't better than not being materially better off? Aside from your personal preferences. And remember, pointing to a transcendent value of any sort is cheating! ;)

> I personally believe that lying about science is wrong and therefore, I would like society to oppose it.

That's nice. I like trombone-playing, myself.

> Therefore, it is perfectly alright for me to fault this guy...

Of course you can. Since there are no transcendent principles, it's up to you whether you want to be intellectually consistent.

> I just can't call upon some higher power to conbvince you that you should to, I have to call upon arguments and evidence to do so.

Arguments and evidence are nice, but there is no transcendent principle enshrining them as authoritative in this or any discussion. Is there?

> My personal preference is for there be the least amount of avoidable harm to society.

Where did this "harm to society" thing come from? Where is it written that harming society is bad? I mean, of course, aside from your personal preferences.

> When will it seep into your brain that the denial of transcendent, absolute standards does not equate to the denial of personal standards?

Why should the rest of us care about your personal standards?

> But let me ask you: Do YOU believe that there is something wrong with harming society?

Since I believe in transcendent truth, why, yes, I do. I don't mind being inconsistent with your principles.

Singring said...

'What need do the rest of us have to adopt Singring's personal preferences as our moral and intellectual compass?'

If you don't find the arguments and evidence I provide compelling, then none whatsoever.

'Why is, "Because Singring said so" a more valuable reason than "Because the Bible said so?"'

I never claimed my standard was 'more valuable' than your Bible. I simply ask you and others to evaluate my claims by their merit, not just accept them because some fantastical literate wrote them down in ancient Greece.

You see, this is where you make the mistake: I don't claim that my standards are based on transcendent truths and that they therefore automatically, by feat, apply to everyone and that everyone must follow them. You seem to steadfastly insist that I do, no matter how often I point out this fallacy to you.

When you appeal to the Bible, all you ever can do is make claims from 'transcendence' (for which, of course, you have not a chred of evidence).

'Can you please explain why, from a materialist perspective, being materially better off isn't better than not being materially better off?'

I never made that claim. I simply pointed out that you appear to believe that the make of car or how much money one has is clear evidence of how 'rich' their lives are.

'That's nice. I like trombone-playing, myself.'

Good for you. I'm more of an axeman.

'...it's up to you whether you want to be intellectually consistent.'

Can you please point out where this supposed inconsistency lies?

'Arguments and evidence are nice, but there is no transcendent principle enshrining them as authoritative in this or any discussion. Is there?'

So apparently you place no value on arguments and evidence? Then why on earth are we having this diuscussion? Why on earth would you trust any court's decision? Why on earth would you get in your car in the morning when you have no reason to expect it to start?

'Why should the rest of us care about your personal standards?'

I woudl say argument and evidence, but then again, you don't even seem to believe that the earth is a sphere since those don't count.

'Since I believe in transcendent truth, why, yes, I do.'

And which transcendent principle are you basing this judgement on?

One Brow said...

Lee said...
There are lots of times someone's life can be made better by ignoring logic.

I believe that agrees with what I wrote. How does that imply that logic is causing harm?

So my question is, are they justified in ignoring logic in such case? Can we somehow blame them?

There are many situations where logic is unsound, unreliable, or even more frequently out-of-scope.

... and it's not wrong from OneBrow's perspective because it is only his personal preference that they shut up about it.

From my perspective, it's wrong to lie, quote-mine, cherry-pick, and engage in other deceptive practices. If I am a lone voice in that, so be it. However, since many other people feel the same way, I try to help people see organizations like AiG as they are.

While I would prefer they shut up, I have no expectation they will do so, and would not want any other entity to shut them up. I prefer to combat misinformation with good information.

Lee said...

I like your style, OneBrow. :)