Consider these comments by Anthony Fauci as reported in the linked article. Fauci proposes that there is an “anti-science” bias in the US. Here is what he says: (Try to think of these comments as the general comments they were; and not just specific to Covid-19 issues)

"One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are -- for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable -- they just don't believe science and they don't believe authority," Fauci said.

"So when they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it, who's talking about science, that there are some people who just don't believe that -- and that's unfortunate because, you know, science is truth," Fauci said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/anthony-fauci-warns-of-anti-science-bias-being-a-problem-in-us/ar-BB15GeBt?li=BBnb7Kz

What is your take on this? Is there really an “anti-science” bias in the US? Does it exist among the general population, or is it restricted to right-leaning “fringe” groups? How does this anti-science bias (if it exists) relate to the further claim that people react against scientific authority? Finally, what about Fauci’s claim that “science is truth?”

I suggest that there is a social dynamic and history at work in all of this that Fauci seems woefully ignorant of. It goes back to the so-called “science wars” of the 70s and 80s, where science, and in particular scientific “authority” was called into question—-not by the fringe right—-but by the academic left!

Arguably, this "anti-science" attitude started with Thomas Kuhn’s famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and its anti-Popperian rejection of objective rules, such as falsification. It continued with the critical assessment of scientific methodology by philosopher Paul Feyerabend. Then this “anti-science” trend was taken up by the social scientists and feminists of the 80s, eventually for a time dominating Humanities departments all across the country, in some cases in the form of hard-core “post-modernism.”

In very simplistic terms, this historical movement treated science as a social phenomenon, whose authority in defining ultimate “truth” was questionable at best, and illegitimate at worst. An important part of all of this history was the tension between science and human values that came about through modern genetics and in particular “eugenics” as well as the tension between scientific determinism and the humanist interest in restructuring society through the promotion of liberal (as opposed to religious) values.

Historically, science won this debate, and in the 90s the liberal academic element came back to science, and generally rejected anti-science post-modernism. Notwithstanding, the tensions between science, on the one hand, and human values on the other (whatever one’s political leanings) remained. Liberalism, however, came to recognize that science could assist in its agenda, and this evolved into a kind of solidarity between the left and science—the philosophical tensions noted above notwithstanding.

The gist of all this is that we have a tendency to see “anti-science” as isolated from the above described historical roots; and view it as a right-wing fringe phenomenon, which today perhaps it largely is. But the distrust of science in the US and elsewhere is much more socially and psychologically complicated than that. Moreover, the psychological resistance to science—-when it challenges one’s pet values—-is aided by the fact that historically the scientific consensus is often wrong, and that the conclusions of some forms of science—-in particular the social sciences—-is often agenda driven, muddled, and poorly supported by the "data."

Finally, please do not interpret this post as itself “anti-science.” I am one of those left-leaning progressives that place a high value on science—-particularly in the context of a pandemic or environmental crisis.

"anti-Popperian"?

Yes, we all know that Dick van Dyke's Cockney accent was horrible, but overall, it's a delightful film.

Sorry, that's all I've got....this morning's cup o' Joe hasn't kicked in yet, except to say that even with science one can play to the audience they want, i.e. flat earthers and "some day we'll find the Nephite artifacts."

"Dyke's Cockney" There is a joke here somewhere...

Most people I've wknown and worked with had never heard of or considered epistemology and how we know what we know.

A theory of knowledge eludes them. They rely on knee jerk instinct and feelings for most of what confronts them and are incurious about the rest.

This results in anti-science because they have no understanding between when an authority is likely reliable and when an appeal to authority is fallacious. The word "study" is magic truth because the news reported a usually preliminary study that is later contradicted and contradicted yet again. And so now science studies are meaningless.

If people understood how to know, the fake news claims would be untenable. Social media traffic would plummet and a big chunk of YouTube would be demonetized or deleted.

Most people I've wknown and worked with had never heard of or considered epistemology and how we know what we know.

COMMENT: Well, jargon aside, most people understand what science is generally about, and that it is a more or less formal attempt to discover the truth on an issue. Even though they may not know the details, they know that when science speaks, they should at least pay attention.
__________________________________________

A theory of knowledge eludes them. They rely on knee jerk instinct and feelings for most of what confronts them and are incurious about the rest.

COMMENT: Most people have some level of respect for scientific pronouncements, even if they do not understand the details behind such pronouncements. If they do not have a strong psychological commitment to the opposing view (usually from religion), I think they generally tend to accept the scientific consensus, if there is one.
_______________________________________

This results in anti-science because they have no understanding between when an authority is likely reliable and when an appeal to authority is fallacious. The word "study" is magic truth because the news reported a usually preliminary study that is later contradicted and contradicted yet again. And so now science studies are meaningless.

COMMENT: People look to science for validation; and they resist science that is invalidating to their preferred view. WE ARE ALL LIKE THAT TO SOME EXTENT. In that context, most people are NOT able to assess the details of science to sort out conflicting views. And, if they just want validation (the usual case), it only takes a small minority to provide it.

The fact that the general public is not able to sort out a scientific debate, does not make such debate meaningless; and does not mean there is no fact of the matter yet to be determined. Most importantly, it does not mean that the implications of competing theories are not socially important such that one theory should be given the benefit of the doubt over another.
_________________________________________

If people understood how to know, the fake news claims would be untenable. Social media traffic would plummet and a big chunk of YouTube would be demonetized or deleted.

COMMENT: There are cognitive tools that a layman can use to help determine what is "fake news" and what is actually true. Such tools do not require a scientific education. However, one first has to be open to the possibility that his or her favorite media source, and favored position, might just be wrong or biased on a particular issue.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> COMMENT: Well, jargon aside, most people
> understand what science is generally about, and
> that it is a more or less formal attempt to
> discover the truth on an issue.

Well, then most people are mistaken, just like schrodingerscat in mistaking science for truth. Science is system of constructing models for making testable repeatable, demonstrable and actionable predictions within the limits of our perceptions. Our perceptions are also only indirect.

We have no reality measuring stick and likely never will. And so will never know truth in the way you mention above. And for the public to think that is itself anti-science.


>
> COMMENT: Most people have some level of respect
> for scientific pronouncements, even if they do not
> understand the details behind such pronouncements.
To the extent it matches their worldview and that they even pay attention, probably so.

> If they do not have a strong psychological
> commitment to the opposing view (usually from
> religion), I think they generally tend to accept
> the scientific consensus, if there is one.

They rarely have any idea what it might be, generally speaking.


> The fact that the general public is not able to
> sort out a scientific debate, does not make such
> debate meaningless; and does not mean there is no
> fact of the matter yet to be determined. Most
> importantly, it does not mean that the
> implications of competing theories are not
> socially important such that one theory should be
> given the benefit of the doubt over another.

That was not my claim. And it drifts from the topic of the public understanding of science.

> _________________________________________
>
> If people understood how to know, the fake news
> claims would be untenable. Social media traffic
> would plummet and a big chunk of YouTube would be
> demonetized or deleted.
>
> COMMENT: There are cognitive tools that a layman
> can use to help determine what is "fake news" and
> what is actually true. Such tools do not require
> a scientific education.

That's what I already said. But it doesn't go to truth per se. It goes to what the best supported models can predict.

>>Moreover, the psychological resistance to science—-when it challenges one’s pet values—-is aided by the fact that historically the scientific consensus is often wrong...

You need a bullchip warning on that one. Because you said so?

Per something I once heard: "Conventional wisdom lags behind scientific wisdom." Too, your claim to be a "left-leaning progressive" is impeached by your rhetoric.

#Sputnik kid voice off

>>Moreover, the psychological resistance to science—-when it challenges one’s pet values—-is aided by the fact that historically the scientific consensus is often wrong...

You need a bullchip warning on that one. Because you said so?

COMMENT: I assume you are concerned with the last part of this statement. If so, my response is that this statement is a well-known fact. I assumed that everyone here would know that, because it is not controversial. Perhaps I should have known better. In any event, here is a source I think you can relate to. Some of these instances might be questionable as to "consensus", but as it states, all of these examples were arguably at one time "widely accepted by the scientific community."

Anyway, I think you get the idea.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science

+Henry Bemis:
">>Moreover, the psychological resistance to science—-when it challenges one’s pet values—-is aided by the fact that historically the scientific consensus is often wrong...

You need a bullchip warning on that one. Because you said so?

COMMENT: I assume you are concerned with the last part of this statement. If so, my response is that this statement is a well-known fact. I assumed that everyone here would know that, because it is not controversial. Perhaps I should have known better. In any event, here is a source I think you can relate to. Some of these instances might be questionable as to "consensus", but as it states, all of these examples were arguably at one time "widely accepted by the scientific community."

Anyway, I think you get the idea.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_theories_in_science
"

==That is a nice list but most of it is ancient stuff, from the 17th, 18th, 19th century.
How is "historical" science relevant to today?
I have seen young earth creationists refer to some of it when they have a need to invalidate science but for the rest of the people, they aren't bothered by 17th, 18th, 19th century science.

~~~~iceman9090

That is a nice list but most of it is ancient stuff, from the 17th, 18th, 19th century.

COMMENT: Most of it yes, but not all. And the most important one is 20th century--that of QM superseding Newtonian mechanics. Remember, this is NOT just a case where QM merely expanded upon and supplemented Newton; it was revolutionary (to use Kuhn's terminology). It is an example where what had been assumed by the scientific establishment for centuries, was overturned in one fell swoop!

Moreover, I would point out that the nature of this issue (Superseded theories) is historical. So, you have to expect that examples will be most often come from in the distant past. It is the height of arrogance, in my view, for 21st century scientists to think they are somehow immune from this phenomenon.
_____________________________________

How is "historical" science relevant to today?
I have seen young earth creationists refer to some of it when they have a need to invalidate science but for the rest of the people, they aren't bothered by 17th, 18th, 19th century science.

COMMENT: See comments above. Yes, the fact that history shows that science is vulnerable to dramatic change is often used to discredit science. That was my original point. It is perhaps too bad; but that doesn't change this historical fact about science. We cannot deny this fact just because we don't like how it is used sometimes to discredit science. It is what it is. (As they say)

And to your question about relevance, it is highly relevant to today's science, that it is vulnerable to error. More important than just "error" per se, however, is its vulnerability to new facts through technology that might show it to be radically incomplete. I think this was the main message of QM, and quantum field theory. There is a fine line between blatant "error" of a scientific theory and the distortion of reality that occurs when theories are shown to be incomplete. I believe that both QM and Relativity are incomplete in this sense. More bluntly, I agree with Roger Penrose's assessment that until science can understand consciousness--the basis for all scientific activity--it will be radically incomplete.

Where do I begin?

Flat earth
Young earth
No evolution or guided evolution
No climate change
Skin color changing overnight
Global flood and the ark
Two suns (worked with a lady who believed that)
Moon landings
Man and dinosaurs coexisted

Some things though are easier to understand like vaccinations.
There are vaccines I cannot take due to severe reactions. But I get those I can safely take. Others see this in their families and shun all vaccines. I can see their point.

Sometimes as we progress the "science" changes. Eggs were bad. Red meat was good. Etc.

The confusion on medications can be horrid. Meds we took for years are suddenly recalled.

The problem is particularly education. I have heard over and over that a person refuses to wear a mask because they're not afraid of getting sick. Not realizing they can spread the disease as well.

Other say the chance of getting sick is small and of dying even smaller so hey no worries.

I have a family member who stopped meds because it would make it easier for them to get Covid.

So...fun times!

All the "theories" you list are clearly wrong. The question is, were they ever "scientific"? Both have to be true to classify something as a wrong scientific theory.

Thor's hammer causing thunder was never scientific. Finding sea shells in rocks at the tops of mountains was the thinnest of ledges to hang the theory of Noah's flood on.

Astrology had scientific roots, in that predicting the position of the sun, which controlled the seasons, sort of, was a very useful trick. Predicting the positions of the planets was not a useful trick at all, except to impress the credulous. It was also a far more difficult trick, which was what impressed the credulous. Being able to predict an eclipse gave the sun-predicting priests serious credibility, and hence serious power and money. And all for complicated bunkum.

Just kidding in case anyone thinks I'm serious, and yes, shark's teeth have been found in the hills near Bakersfield, CA, but they stopped taking kids on field trips for a while because Valley Fever. I'm talking mid-1990s, so who knows what's going on now in Kern County?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2020 10:10PM by Beth.

Of course you’d say such things when Mercury is in retrograde.

You have to be kidding.

That is the most bizarre misreading of Kuhn I have ever seen. His argument was that science is not as scientific as it should be, that social views unduly influence science and hence that progress is choppy.

What he said was that scientists develop a consensus and then, like all humans, become resistant to new ideas that contradict the consensus. Take Clovis First. Scientists developed an orthodoxy and then resisted challenges to it way past the point of rationality. Then when the evidence becomes overwhelming, science experiences a "paradigm shift" whereby suddenly the entire field moves to a new consensus.

He was in no way rejecting or denigrating science. He was saying that scientists are human and hence self-interested and hence insufficiently scientific. For you to argue that he was "anti-science" is utterly absurd.

Do you think no one here has read Kuhn?

You have to be kidding.

That is the most bizarre misreading of Kuhn I have ever seen. His argument was that science is not as scientific as it should be, that social views unduly influence science and hence that progress is choppy.

COMMENT: You really need to read before your write. You should know by now that I always do my homework, and that if someone is in error, it is likely you and not me.

First, let's be clear. I did not say that Kuhn was anti-science. What I said was that he influenced the so-called anti-science attitudes that followed him as I described. But here are some quotes from Peter Godfrey-Smith, a well-established Stanford expert on the history and philosophy of science: (From his book, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. (In case you are wondering, I have read Kuhn's book, Structure, many times, as well as commentary about it and his views.)

"A common way of describing the importance of Kuhn's book is to say that he shattered traditional myths about science, especially empiricist myths. Kuhn showed, on this view, that actual scientific behavior has little to do with traditional philosophical theories of rationality and knowledge."

"The newer sociology embraced Kuhn, holism about testing, incommensurability, new ideas about observation, and various speculative views about scientific language. In fact, these ideas make up a kind of "anti-positivist" package that was accepted not just by sociologists, but also by many historians, feminist critics, and others concerned with science in the latter part of the twentieth century."

"Feminist thinking about science was often allied with work in the sociology of science, and Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Wittgenstein were also seen as helpful."

"It is familiar to think of truth as the goal that we set for our theories; a good theory is one that represents the world truly. But is the traditional concept of truth a coherent and useful one here? Does it help us to understand scientific progress at all? Kuhn believed it does not."
_________________________________________

Do you think no one here has read Kuhn?

No. Only that you haven't. Otherwise you would not have jumped all over me for only stating (rather casually) Kuhn's influence on later views. Kuhn was definitely NOT anti-science. But the point was that he was often interpreted as undermining the traditional scientific values associated with the objectivity of scientific methodology and "truth" that came before him.

Wow, what a stretch. You claim that anti-intellectualism in America has secular roots!

Wow, what a stretch. You claim that anti-intellectualism in America has secular roots!

COMMENT: A better way to put it is as follows:

"Anti-intellectualism currently existing in the United States has both secular and religious roots."

The reason for this post is to educate you and others that "anti-intellectualism" (including anti-science) is not *just* the brain-child of religion, as is commonly thought. (At least on the RfM Board!)

Now, do you really feel competent to unequivocally state that this is a "stretch." Maybe you should read first. Here is a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism

Quoting:

In The Campus Wars (1971), the philosopher John Searle said,

[T]he two most salient traits of the radical movement are its anti-intellectualism and its hostility to the university as an institution. ... Intellectuals, by definition, are people who take ideas seriously for their own sake. Whether or not a theory is true or false is important to them, independently of any practical applications it may have. [Intellectuals] have, as Richard Hofstadter has pointed out, an attitude to ideas that is at once playful and pious. But, in the radical movement, the intellectual ideal of knowledge for its own sake is rejected. Knowledge is seen as valuable only as a basis for action, and it is not even very valuable there. Far more important than what one knows is how one feels.[8]

"In Social Sciences as Sorcery (1972), the sociologist Stanislav Andreski advised laymen to distrust the intellectuals' appeals to authority when they make questionable claims about resolving the problems of their society: "Do not be impressed by the imprint of a famous publishing house, or the volume of an author's publications. ... Remember that the publishers want to keep the printing presses busy, and do not object to nonsense if it can be sold."

So, is this all a stretch too. Or was your comment just for my benefit?

Sorry, LW got me in a bad mood. Blame her :)

> The reason for this post is to educate you and
> others . . .

That says a lot.

Yes, it does.

It says that out of the countless people who post on this Board for the purpose of sharing information, or the knowledge they have, or think they have, on a given subject, it is all well and good -- unless it is HB, who immediately becomes an arrogant SOB and subject to attack, express or implied --and regardless of the truth or falsity, or even the interest, of the substance of what he says. So what's the problem? You tell me.

(1) Too much self-confidence? Too much knowledge? Too much information? Too many facts; Too much logic; Two many supporting citations and quotes?, or

(2) Too much of a challenge to favored points of view that readers are just sure are correct, but not able to source or defend. After all, they read it somewhere. How frustrating.

Now, maybe its

(3) HB is just wrong! O.K. then why not a civilized response pointing out just where and why he is wrong, and if helpful (God forbid) a quote or two. Too lazy? Too difficult? Just not equipped for such an exchange?

I never post anything on this Board that I cannot defend with facts and strict logic. NEVER! But I also recognize that there are different points of view; and that an opposing point of view might also be defended. So defend it! That will not bother me in the least. But when, instead of defending a different point of view, you succumb to general rhetorical denials of what I say, without a substantive factual logical refutation; or alternatively engage in personal attacks, that tells me that the negative reaction is not about me, it is about you.

I invite people to look at this post, carefully and objectively, and ask yourself, which of the above points is operative here? And then, think about how frustrating it is when you try to provide facts, arguments, and logic to your Mormon family members and friends and they blow YOU off for the very same non-substantive reasons.

I *am* here to educate people. I admit it. That is my main motivation. I think I am extremely prepared in this regard. I'm sorry if you, or anyone else, cannot handle that, because you think that makes me arrogant, condescending, or whatever. My credibility is in what I write, the knowledge I display of the subject matter, and my ability to defend it. If that is not enough, again, I'm sorry.

Finally, I am also extremely open to alternative points of view, and always treat such views respectfully--if presented respectfully. I learn from people on this Board--on a daily basis. I am also in recovery mode with respect to Mormonism, so I appreciate being here. But maybe it is not helpful, because try as I might, at age 70, I cannot change my style to make my contributions--if there is one-- palatable for those only seeking validation of their established, post-Mormon beliefs, and who are not interested in examining and expanding their worldview.

I don't know enough to discuss much of the general subject matter here but I do appreciate the contributions of all posters of good intent. I also recognize how damaging fundamentalist religion can be for a myriad of reasons.

I find that most posters make a contribution to the success of the board. Information, logic, personal experiences, life lessons, thoughts, questions, academics, humour and even math all make this a lively, fascinating place. It can be hard to quit RfM!

I hope nobody questions whether their presence is noticed and appreciated. I constantly notice amazing posts that inform or inspire me or make me laugh. Can't/don't thank posters often enough.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2020 09:11PM by Nightingale.

Henry Bemis, the OP, the way I'm reading things.

I think Henry’s point is that academia is set up as a Darwinian competition where the stronger philosophical arguments eat the weaker ones. This puts intellectuals on the defensive, much like triggering a Mormon’s persecution complex. They dig in their heels and grow increasingly outlandish in promoting their pet theories. Money just amplifies the problem because it rewards mental gladiator skills rather than utility or creativity. The abysmal pay at Universities guarantees a tough fight. This process undermines their credibility outside the academic world, as it probably should.

Maybe Prophet, Seer and Revelators can start talking about "So-Called Intellectuals" again?

Anti-science bias far predates Kuhn, Popper, and any other 20th century philosophers you care to dredge up.

Astrology. Goes back at least 3 or 4 thousand years, probably much longer in some form. Knowing when seasons start was useful info for an agriculture-based society. The planets influencing life, and the whole zodiac thing is nonsense. And a depressing large segment of society still give that nonsense significant levels of credibility.

Gematria, aka numerology.

Mormonism.

Seances. Americans used to be quite good at seances back in the late 19th century. We are not nearly as good at throwing a good seance now. Funny how that works.

Alien abductions, which replaced demonic possession in the pseudoscience hit parade.

More recently, anti-vaxxers, which seem to be more or less evenly split between the ideological left and right.

Climate change deniers, almost totally American, and almost totally on the right.

Anti-GMO, heavily European, and heavily left.

Anti-nuclear, much of the world, except China and to some extent India. France, cantankerous about all sorts of things, bucks most of Europe, and has considerable nuclear power.

And of course what started this thread, Covid-19. The Tangerine Twit Gut is anti-scientific, but Fauci couldn't say that.

Oy, I left out one of the anti-science biggies: Galileo and the Catholic Church.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2020 02:32PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Wish I had a moment. Glad you’re back, Henry. Don’t mind the assholery you too often find here from a mere handful.

Bit of slap-dash in place of my own wits:

“If you want to appear very profound and convince people to take you seriously, but have nothing of value to say, there is a tried and tested method. First, take some extremely obvious platitude or truism. Make sure it actually does contain some insight, though it can be rather vague. Something like “if you’re too conciliatory, you will sometimes get taken advantage of” or “many moral values are similar across human societies.” Then, try to restate your platitude using as many words as possible, as unintelligibly as possible, while never repeating yourself exactly. Use highly technical language drawn from many different academic disciplines, so that no one person will ever have adequate training to fully evaluate your work. Construct elaborate theories with many parts. Draw diagrams. Use italics liberally to indicate that you are using words in a highly specific and idiosyncratic sense. Never say anything too specific, and if you do, qualify it heavily so that you can always insist you meant the opposite. Then evangelize: speak as confidently as possible, as if you are sharing God’s own truth. Accept no criticisms: insist that any skeptic has either misinterpreted you or has actually already admitted that you are correct. Talk as much as possible and listen as little as possible. Follow these steps, and your success will be assured. (It does help if you are male and Caucasian.)”

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve

That's brilliant.

Did you learn it from a comedian like Jimmy Dore or come up with it yourself?

I think there has always been an anti-science strain, but in recent years it seems more noticeable. As a teacher, it hurts me to my core. I wonder, what is it that we are not teaching or communicating adequately? I wish I had the answers.

+summer:
"I think there has always been an anti-science strain, but in recent years it seems more noticeable. As a teacher, it hurts me to my core. I wonder, what is it that we are not teaching or communicating adequately? I wish I had the answers."

==Science is just about gathering knowledge. It is not about making some product, it is not about helping humanity or saving lives.
All the rest of that stuff is applied science, which is also called engineering and medicine.
So when the rest of that stuff fails, some people think the problem is science.

That's my guess. Sorry, I can't help you.

~~~~iceman9090

I wish I had the answers too. But, let me suggest this observation:

The most predominant scientific theory as taught in secondary education (through high school) is Darwin and evolution. When evolution is first presented to students it suggests a natural conflict with their religious and/or humanistic values because it portrays human beings as just another organism within the evolutionary tree. We do not always appreciate how startling this can be. Moreover, even though adults have somewhat reconciled this conflict over time; mostly by rationalizations, it still represents a stark, eye-opening contrast to the religious and/or moral understanding of human beings as students were brought up to assume--express or implied.

So, what this suggests is that educators need to make an effort to salvage human values (and even perhaps religious values) within the context of Darwinism in order to soften the radical conflict that evolution presents. (I am not suggesting Intelligent Design here, because that is a false theory.) The problem is philosophical. How *can* such humanistic values be rationally defended in the face of the scientific facts of evolution, which facts provide no place for such values, except as biological afterthoughts?

So, students are left with a choice. And since their religious and moral values as rooted in a belief of human specialness is what defines them, they often choose to reject Darwinism and evolution. And since Darwinism represents science, they might reject science too. And what happens when they accept Darwin and evolution without a theory of human values? What kind of person is left to navigate and engage society?

As a teacher, does that make any sense?

Evolution is only a challenge to values if your values are placed in divine command theory. There are books that discuss morality as part of evolution, evolutionary psychology.

The Moral Animal by Robert Wright for one.

Yes.

Also, less literal minded religious people the world over have no problem reconciling themselves to some form of theistic evolution, which views evolution as the means by which God brought about human beings and everything else besides.

The enemy is literal-mindedness, not necessarily religion per se.

Also, less literal minded religious people the world over have no problem reconciling themselves to some form of theistic evolution, which views evolution as the means by which God brought about human beings and everything else besides.

COMMENT: Yes, but for reasons stated above, even the most rational (non-literal) of theists will need some additional component(s) to establish moral values over and above biological evolution. One obvious such component is free will. But there also needs to be an additional component. There needs to be a rational (non-materialist) form of moral grounding. In short, morality (right and wrong; good and evil) must ultimately be in some sense part reality (Platonic?), which human beings freely can and should strive to meet. Its all metaphysics to be sure; but that will be what is required to make sense of morality. That is why God as a creator is a handy speculation as the ultimate creator of humans and the universe, if there indeed could only be some evidence for such a Being.
___________________________________

The enemy is literal-mindedness, not necessarily religion per se.

COMMENT: The "enemy" is a broader form of "literal-mindedness." It is a form that not only takes religion too literally; but a form that takes science too literally as well; that is a view that takes science as the end-all explanation of what it means to be human. Science is deterministic. Determinism cannot sustain free will; and morality cannot exist without free will. It is really that "simple!" :)

Your particular definitions of those are incompatible but they are not the only definitions nor are they universally accepted as THE definition.

Your particular definitions of those are incompatible but they are not the only definitions nor are they universally accepted as THE definition.

COMMENT: What definitions are you talking about? "Morality?" "Right and wrong?" "Free Will?" "Moral responsibility?" I think among the general public (exclusive of philosophers) these concepts are well-understood as related to what people can and should do as showing respect for other humans and animals in the world we all inhabit; imposed actions not intended for their own benefit; but for some higher "moral" good or purpose. So, what are the alternative definitions you propose?

You can define morality any way you wish. But if you define away such things as free will, right and wrong, and moral responsibility, by making them only by-products of the rote, physical, and deterministic processes of evolutionary biology, you have lost the essence of what you are trying to explain. Morality becomes a farce; an illusion; a game that we all play with no real, genuine, moral meaning.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
. Morality becomes a farce; an
> illusion; a game that we all play with no real,
> genuine, moral meaning.

Yes. A game with real rewards and penalties dished out by society as we evolved to do. But no meaning beyond what the individual ascribes to it.

>>But if you define away such things as free will, right and wrong, and moral responsibility, by making them only by-products of the rote, physical, and deterministic processes of evolutionary biology, you have lost the essence of what you are trying to explain.

Can I offer you a referral for that "straw man fetish" you seem to be putting on display? (That is in addition to some obvious "existential angst)

You know that one: Get a suit of old clothes, stuff liberally with straw, and fashion a head out of, say, an old pillowcase... Douse liberally with gasoline or other inflammable and apply a match.

Use the resulting illumination to claim victory for the forces of enlightenment...

SLC
Also channeling FlattopSF's ghost with that "because you say so?" observation

Look, Henry, your statement is an attempt to "define the meaning of life," and that's clearly above your pay grade, at least in my often not-so-humble opinion. Moreover, that attempt to foist it on others is unadulterated narcissism. Moreover,

>>free will, right and wrong, and moral responsibility, by making them only by-products of the rote, physical, and deterministic processes of evolutionary biology...

There's a strong "social element" to evolution that's clearly a blind spot within your perceptual reality, That is neither "physical" nor "deterministic" (Whatever that means. Some factors have obvious "survival value," but the outcome is unpredictable at the onset).

incompatible was an autocorrect on my phone. I don't recall my exact original word choice, but I meant to say something more like not universal.

HB's moral construct is likely internally compatible. Which also is a clunky contstruct. Damn you autocorrect!

Evolution is only a challenge to values if your values are placed in divine command theory. There are books that discuss morality as part of evolution, evolutionary psychology.

COMMENT: Yes, indeed, there are books--many books, all floundering mightily to salvage humanism in the face of evolution. But, the question is whether any of these books are successful in explaining what is essentially Moore's dilemma: How do you get an "ought" from an "is?" In my opinion they are not!

Now, as you suggest, you might very well explain how humans beings came to have moral intuitions by some evolutionary "just-so" story; but that is much different than explaining how and why such intuitions should be followed as a moral dictate, much less why they would have moral authority in general in dictating behavior; particularly the behavior of people that do not share them for one reason or another.

In short, there is nothing in biology or evolution that has anything do to with moral principles of good and evil, or right and wrong. This is a well-established fact! Everything else is philosophy--and bad philosophy at that.

Obviously, that is my opinion. It may be fun to address this issue in a separate post. I most certainly would welcome your presentation of an argument as to how moral judgments are rationally grounded through any kind of science or logic, including evolutionary psychology.

One only has to look at humanity to dismiss the very concept that moral dictates exist and apply in the way you present. Morality clearly changes with culture and time.

One only has to look at humanity to dismiss the very concept that moral dictates exist and apply in the way you present. Morality clearly changes with culture and time.

COMMENT: Moral *intuitions* and social practices related to them surely do vary with culture and time; and are influenced by a host of environmental factors. They are dynamic. But it does not follow that these moral intuitions are therefore not grounded in a deeper metaphysic that is more fundamental and stable. Even in physics we have extreme dynamic change at one level of scale, the human level, say, with a more fundamental underlying reality in the form of quantum fields. In other words, what we observe in science or in human experience does not tell us what explanations and ontology are at bottom. Thus, to suggest that cultural relativism precludes any deeper understanding of human nature and its relation to the world, is shortsighted in my view.

Also, notwithstanding such cross-cultural differences, commonalities in moral thinking do exist--however one may choose to explain them.

All that said, I admit that we can only speculate about such matters. My point to you was a negative one; which is that you cannot provide a meaningful, rational theory of morality with science alone; and more strongly science actually undermines the existence of such things.

I would not assert that morality is self-consistent enough to construct a meaningful rational theory about. Its very flexibility and inconsistency is at the heart of why I think it's evolved behavior about rewards within human society. And that what are often considered immoral behaviors are still evolutionarily advantageous at the long tails of the behavioral curve. That the evolved behavior is a set of behaviors from which we operate depending on the situation and available rewards.

For example, that people's behavior changes when they think they are observed or not, even if only by pre-priming them with a discussion of the police or god.

Yes. Legal rights are codified morality driven by how an individual wants to be treated.

I don't want to be killed. I agree to not kill you if you'll agree to not kill me. Killing is now a crime.

I don't want people to take my stuff. I agree not to steal your stuff if you'll agree not to steal mine. Stealing is a now crime.

That's why people buy in to recognizing other people's rights. Problems start when you leave the small sphere of what affects you directly and is applicable to your life, and contemplate extending rights to people who seem different to you. It's harder for some people and some societies to accept that outliers to their personal experience deserve equal treatment. I think it's all lizard brain stuff.

I think that's why certain societies develop their own norms and morals. Each person is trying to ensure that they can live, and reproduce, in this group of people in this location under these circumstances at this time.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2020 02:18AM by Beth.

The libertarian in me wants to say anything goes, let people believe whatever they want. However, the COVID19 epidemic has held up a mirror to the US and showed us our own “morality” and “ethics”. In spite of all of our medical technology and wealth, we have 5% of the world’s population and 30% of the COVID19 cases. But I don’t think you can really blame the populace. Corruption in the high levels of our government is so rampant that nobody believes a word they say. Obviously it’s not all bad, but that’s the perception. It’s played up for political reasons, leaving us jaded. So, I don’t think it’s an anti-science problem per se. It’s more a trust problem created by the divide and conquer approach to American politics.

We pretend we’re united but we’re really not. That’s why BLM has legs. Things need to change. We’re entering a brave new world.

Now to get back to the topic, I think, which has to with science and transcendent existence. The anti-science argument is a response to the physical materialism that conflicts with direct experience. Religion and other mystical thought systems provide access to a transcendent reality that science (or its fellow traveler Secular Humanism) flat out rejects. Since spirituality is big in America (politicized or not), that’s a problem.

> Religion and other mystical thought
> systems provide access to a transcendent reality
> that science (or its fellow traveler Secular
> Humanism) flat out rejects.

"Transcendent reality." That's a loaded phrase. What does it mean? How do you know it is "real?"

There’s the rub. If I am an idea inside my head, am I real? If those ideas were put there by my environment, what sense does “the judgement” make. I’m going to be judged on the fallout of some trauma that happened when I was four? The most reasonable explanation that I’ve come across is that the world is an illusion AND it’s real.

How can it be illusion and real at the same time? I think this cuts to the heart of Mormonism. It explains why you can have mystical experiences inside the manufactured illusion of Mormonism or any other religion. If you believe the illusion, it actually is real to you.

That line of reasoning is apropos to recovery from Mormonism. It doesn’t require you to write off your former self as crazy or deluded. You just believed and you experienced the consequences of belief.

We really don’t know whether there’s an actual God or an actual heaven. NDE subjects report seeing them, but only when culturally conditioned. That goes back to the illusion being real to them. I doubt your typical garden slug will have the same experience. Mormons say their illusion (overlooking their fundamentalism) has value. I say it’s not worth the price. I wouldn’t say they’re wrong, although I can see what they’re doing wrong now that I’m not caught up in it. There’s something compelling about a strong, simple faith. Unfortunately, you don’t see it much among Mormons due to said problems. I don’t care to fix their church for them.

I can’t say the same for all religions. They are as varied as plants in the forest. As far as explaining transcendent phenomena to Atheists, I don’t see the point. If your belief manifests in your experience, who am I to butt in on your experience?

Although this would seem to put Christianity in a positive light. If you believe that lights out really is lights out, harboring that illusion over something like the Christ illusion might not be such a good idea. I’m using Christianity as the example here because it’s what most of us were raised on. The iconography and mythology is what our brains are stuck with. I’m using illusion only in the literal sense. The historical evidence for the emergence of a Christ mythology is a lot stronger than evidence for an actual Christ who lived 2000 years ago in Jerusalem. Never mind if happened. Does it feel true? This is where the Mormons are right, the tricky fux. Never mind that too. If you believe it, it’s real to you. The kingdom of heaven is inside your own heart. Christ can take you there, in my opinion, which isn’t worth much to anyone but me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2020 03:08AM by bradley.

So when a schizophrenic or someone on hallucinogens hears the voice of God, that is real?

Now we’re getting into western attitudes on psychological dysfunction. In some cultures, schizophrenics are routed into shamanism because their mentality crosses into other worlds. Here, we aren’t equipped to deal with that cuz science. I would say that the voices in their heads are real. I would seriously doubt they come from God. From my experience with people who could see the dead, there are a lot here who haven’t moved on. They are attracted to those whose minds they can get into. How many psychiatric hospitals have an exorcist on staff? I’ll guess none.

+bradley:
"Now we’re getting into western attitudes on psychological dysfunction. In some cultures, schizophrenics are routed into shamanism because their mentality crosses into other worlds. Here, we aren’t equipped to deal with that cuz science. I would say that the voices in their heads are real. I would seriously doubt they come from God. From my experience with people who could see the dead, there are a lot here who haven’t moved on. They are attracted to those whose minds they can get into. How many psychiatric hospitals have an exorcist on staff? I’ll guess none."

==If you want to have an effective conversation with someone, you need to have the ability to understand what that someone means.

Just like you, he thinks the "voices in the head" are real. Just like you, he doubts that they come from a god.
When he says the voices aren't real, he means that the voices are present but they most likely don't come from a god.

It's different wording, same meaning.

~~~~iceman9090

Because guidance and advice from the mentally unsound worked out so well for these cultures.

> I would say that the voices in their
> heads are real. . . the dead. . . there are a lot here who
> haven’t moved on. They are attracted to those whose minds
> they can get into.

Did you mean to put this post in this thread? It seems like it would be a better fit in the Lori Vallow one--you know, where she talks about her kids' minds being taken over by zombies.

I ask this with sincere irreverence: Is being anti-science the same as being anti-abortion?

I gotz ta know!

+elderolddog:
"I ask this with sincere irreverence: Is being anti-science the same as being anti-abortion?"

==The goal of science is to gather data, evidence, to analyze it in order to understand the universe or some component in this universe. To built mathematical models, to build verbal law's, build graphs, 3D models, etc.
Why would someone be against knowledge about this universe?

anti-abortion: Perhaps you(or anyone) is against abortion bc it offends you, bc you feel that it is like killing a person. We have to also consider the life of this baby. Will he have a good life? Is this planet overpopulated?

In my case, I am an atheist and I am anti-abortion. I think abortion suggests that there are some major problems with society. I would qualify our society as f***ed up. I would like those problems fixed. An abortion to me means that humans have no value anymore.
But if someone really wants to have an abortion, I won't stand in her way.

~~~~iceman9090



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/20/2020 02:17PM by Tevai.

"Why would someone be against knowledge about this universe?"

Uh . . . religion,

and uh . . . those needing the religious to vote for them.

And uh, if you are already "really smart and already know everything and are really orange and you already know more than scientists, cuz we need to teach creationism in our schools dammit and we don't want that sciencie evolution taught cuz our kids might be smart enough to figure out which one makes sense and we can't have that. Cuz God!"

It's not rocket science!

+Done & Done:
"we don't want that sciencie evolution taught cuz our kids"

==I was following this stuff quite a lot on youtube for a while. The Discovery institute and the other clubs have changed strategies a few times. The last failure happened in the Denver Colorado trial of 2005 where it was decided that intelligent design is not a theory. At most, it is a hypothesis and it is non-falsifiable, non-testable, it does not have any predictive power. Most importantly, it is just creationism with the word god replaced with intelligent designer and creationist replaced with cdesign proponist.

In short, the trial lowered the pants of those creationists.

The next strategy is "teach the controversy". For the last 15 y, it failed to get any traction.

I don't have a problem with "teach the controversy". It belongs in a morals class and not in biology. Biology class is not a place to have religious debates. In Canada, we have morals classes where we learn a little bit about various religions and we can debate. We can talk about euthanasia, homosexuality since those are hot button topics in religion and morality.

~~~~iceman9090



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2020 09:35AM by iceman9090.

Shame that Fauci has to choose his words so carefully or believe he does in order to attempt some good. "Caught between an orange and hard place?"

The dude abides.

I think why many appear to be 'anti-science' is because of the 'clowns' mainstream media and I guess 'mainstream science quietness' allows!

Who does media give us for 'climate experts' ---- Al Gore, The Science guy, and Greta the mad European!! What a 'clown show' representing 'science'???

Fauci is another good example --- someone who came across as an 'expert' in an unknown disease and made so many 'errors and misstatements'!!!

Science needs to 'step up' with their best, or get out of the way or just admit 'we don't know'!

I actually have worked with scientists the last year on a project and 'know' some 'good science' is going on out there. However, the 'clowns' mass media put on as 'science' is embarrassing! Americans look at main stream science as just more main street media propaganda from people that have lost all respect of 'thinking Americans'!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2020 05:10PM by spiritist.

spiritist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Fauci is another good example --- someone who came
> across as an 'expert' in an unknown disease and
> made so many 'errors and statements'!!!
>
> Science needs to 'step up' with their best, or get
> out of the way or just admit 'we don't know'!


What are you referring to as being errors? The key is "unknown disease". I note that medical experts & scientists have recommended and implemented basic known public health measures, the latter to the best of their ability, often being constrained by outside influences in some locations. As experts learned more about the novel virus the info they shared and measures they recommended were updated. It may have seemed chaotic at times due to the fast-evolving realities but it was organized chaos, at least in their arena.

I have heard countless I don't knows from public health personnel. It's a learn as we go situation.

True enough, we're in different countries and our experiences differ. But in general public health experts have agreed, including Dr. F.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/21/2020 04:19PM by Nightingale.