Pharyngula

Posted by: www.10ch.org | April 4, 2009 3:16 PM

Specifically, the more people communicate with each other with people with different ideas, then the more open-minded people will be. Alas, people have the tendency to isolate themselves.

Posted by: www.10ch.org | April 4, 2009 3:19 PM

If only there were some way for people to become social communities, who otherwise would have been isolated and separate, then much close-mindedness would disappear. Religion, of course, is hardly way to do this: it brings people together solely on the premise of having a single idea. Perhaps art and culture could do the job, but unfortunately, at this moment in time, art and culture is not nearly social enough.

Posted by: Odonata | April 4, 2009 3:23 PM

Fantastic video! Great explanation of open-mindedness and close-mindedness. Atheists so often hear that they are close-minded. Now I'll have a way to counter it when it comes up in discussion.

Posted by: www.10ch.org | April 4, 2009 3:25 PM

"that was a good one. I really wish people wouldn't use 'openminded' to mean 'uncritical' and then think it's a good thing."
Well, at least they acknowledge open-mindedness as a good thing, -- the closed-minded thus have to resort to stealing phrases from the open-minded, to appropriate them and twist it to suit themselves, to gain any sort of validity.

Posted by: Sastra | April 4, 2009 3:35 PM

Excellent video, and it focuses on one of my pet peeves: equating skepticism with being 'close-minded.' Having an open mind isn't about believing in the "right" things: it's about how you hold your beliefs, and knowing what it would take to change your mind. I've asked people who 'know' that psychic powers are real because of some personal experience of theirs, what it would take for them to reconsider their interpretation of their experience, and change their mind over whether it was genuinely psychic or not. The usual answer is "nothing." They know what they know. And there they will stick -- in the "open-minded" position.

I've been asked several times what it would take for me to become skeptical of science. After all, I don't want to be dogmatic, do I? What if "some other way of knowing" is the right one, and following intuition or tradition or little voices in my head which go against the consensus of experts in a scientific field is the best path to truth? What would make me take it?

That's an interesting question. And any skeptic ought to be prepared with some kind of answer.

Bottom line, the scientific method helps us to weed out personal bias. So, in order to reject it, you have to believe that personal bias is going to work in your favor. With the scientific method, you can't give yourself some special status, a position where you can just "know" things that can't be demonstrated to others. You always have to be prepared to be able to change your mind any time you've made an interpretation, because that interpretation could be wrong.

So I suppose that, in order to become skeptical of the scientific method itself, I would have to be infused with the sense that I'm different and special. I would have some absolute, certain way of knowing that I cannot make a mistake in interpretation -- even in an area where other people can make a mistake. And there I would hold. "I know what I know."

That sort of complete confidence in one's own self is the opposite of humility. Refusing to change one's mind is the definition of dogmatism.

So, in order to become skeptical of careful, cautious, disciplined scientific methods, I answer that I'd need to become more arrogant, and dogmatic -- and now there's a moral conflict with my values.

Theirs, too. Of course. People who've asked me that question generally don't like that answer, because they were trying to make the point that science is dogmatic and arrogant.

Posted by: Smidgy | April 4, 2009 3:49 PM

Nice video. It is a far better and more complete answer than what I had been giving folk to the allegation of me being 'close-mided'. What I had been saying was, "well, if I am 'close-minded' for not 'opening my mind' to the possibility X is true, aren't you just as 'close-minded', if not more so, for not 'opening your mind' to the possibility X isn't true?"

Posted by: billfromdover | April 4, 2009 3:55 PM

Evidence. What a novel idea!

Posted by: TheThomas | April 4, 2009 3:58 PM

That was a great li'l video.

Posted by: Sastra | April 4, 2009 4:09 PM

www.10ch.org #11 wrote:

You could answer, "whatever it would take for me to be skeptical of skepticism. Science is empirical skepticism."

What, you've never encountered the Skeptical-of-Skepticism folks? They're the ones who approach you with a smug little smile, and say "I'm a skeptic, too.... I'm skeptical of skepticism!!" Because they know that some form or other of unsupported pseudoscientific woo-filled spiritual bullshit is true! And the so-called experts are closing their minds to personal anecdotes and heartfelt certainties! There are 'other ways of knowing.' Gotcha there, skeptic person.

Being 'skeptical of skepticism' is like arguing that groups who promote tolerance are really just being intolerant of bigots. So, with everything leveled down to being nothing more than personal bias and whim, pick your own poison.

Posted by: Jim Harrison | April 4, 2009 4:17 PM

What always impresses (and depresses) me about believers in the supernatural is not the feebleness of their evidence but the banality of their ideas. Heck, if they really did come up with something I hadn't heard or thought about, I'd be more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since, as a general rule, I'd rather be bamboozled than bored. Never happens. A general lack of imagination seems to go along with enthusiasm for esoterica. There are exceptions--some of the notions of the Medieval Kaabalists, for example, have some aesthetic merit as sheer conceptual surrealism--but the usual run of ghosts, magic crystals, and reincarnated in-laws has the an aroma of mildew like the Metaphysics section of a used bookstore.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | April 4, 2009 4:29 PM

Great video, especially at 8:10 :-D

I didn't find the voice annoying, but I find it very hard to get used to the British spelling "sceptical".

I don't – what surprises me is that he doesn't stay consistent and pronounce it that way. He pronounces it with [k]. That requires cognitive dissonance.

(Well, with [g] actually, but never mind. That's not surprising.)

I was going to ask if it isn't "closed-minded", which would make a lot more sense. Apparently it is (comment 19).

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | April 4, 2009 4:36 PM

The voice reminds me a touch of Bill Bryson, though not quite up to that quality (which is a tall task).

Posted by: Sili | April 4, 2009 4:45 PM

I'm pretty sure LanguageLog had a discussion of the close/closed thing not too long ago, but the words are too common for my weak googlefu to find it.

So how would you spell it, David? "Scheptic" like "scheme" and "schedule"?

Posted by: Utakata | April 4, 2009 4:58 PM

Anyone know anything about the author of that video?

...and lol @ those who hate the narrator's voice. It's one of the inoffensives voices I've heard in a long time. Perhaps you would like a parrot impersonating Roseanne Barr instead.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | April 4, 2009 5:02 PM

no, "skeptic", like "skewed"

"sceptic" to me sounds like "scissors" or "scene"

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | April 4, 2009 5:11 PM

Great audio but the pictures were juvenile.

Posted by: Facile Princeps | April 4, 2009 5:26 PM

I guess i would kind of agree with this video on some points. If someone presents something to you without evidence and calls you closeminded for not accepting it that would be stupid.However if his person presents you with good arguments and evidence for something but you still deny i without presenting any kind of plausible counterargument or counter-evidence,but still deny it because of your belief in metaphysical naturalism or materialism, I think the charge is more fairly placed.
One example was when William Lane Craig (a Chrisian philosopher) rebutted Daniel Denett's assertion that the universe caused itself and presented his Kalam Cosmoligical argument. Denett responded (paraphrasing) that when you have an argument that follows from its premises and its premises are probable , but the argument leads to an implausible conclusion you should go back and try to deny one of the premises. It is plain to me what he meant. He acknowledged that Craig's argument was valid and sound and plausible ,but felt that because of his belief in metaphysical naturalism that belief in supernatural beings such as God was implausible and he could not accep the conclusion.
I think that is where the charge of close-mindedness should be leveled.
One particular pet peeve of mine is when skeptics try to smuggle in positive claims under the guise of skepticism.
One can be skeptical of supernatural beings but one cannot assert that supernatural beings do no exist or we should rule out such explanations or beings a priori without taking up a burden of proof.

Posted by: blueelm | April 4, 2009 5:30 PM

I loved this! That is my biggest pet peeve with people. It doesn't just apply to religion or woo. It even applies to methods of management, whatever you may be discussing. Some one will tell you the way they feel, and if you don't suspend all sense of reality and conform to their feeling then you are being close-minded. My only argument has been to ask them why it is close-minded to ask them to consider another idea or explanation than the one their comfortable with.

I especially like the images and color scheme, very retro. I like his voice, it reminds me of someone I knew from New Zealand.

Posted by: www.10ch.org | April 4, 2009 5:42 PM

@#34 Facilis
"Denett responded (paraphrasing) that when you have an argument that follows from its premises and its premises are probable , but the argument leads to an implausible conclusion you should go back and try to deny one of the premises. It is plain to me what he meant. He acknowledged that Craig's argument was valid and sound and plausible ,but felt that because of his belief in metaphysical naturalism that belief in supernatural beings such as God was implausible and he could not accep the conclusion."

I think that you missed his point. Yes, you would be right if Denett had no grounds for rejecting the conclusion. However, that is not the case. Denett had ample grounds for rejecting the conclusion; he did not reject it due to his "belief in metaphysical naturalism," but rather due to the evidence that already points to it. Even if the logic is valid and correct, it would still have to overthrow all the other arguments. For example, if there is a new experiment the results of which contradicted all previous scientific theories, then the first step would be to see if the experiment was good in the first place and to examine it more carefully to see if it was done correctly. Only after a thorough and complete examination of the experiment can the final observations be accepted, at which point, only then should the scientific theory be revised.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 4, 2009 5:58 PM

I don't follow.

We know, you have no logic and reason.

Posted by: www.10ch.org | April 4, 2009 6:17 PM

@#39 Facilis
"As opposed to this I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties."
Under your definition, light is a "supernatural being."

Posted by: Sastra | April 4, 2009 6:20 PM

Facile Princeps #39 wrote:

Usually materialists/naturalists hold that everything is made of matter and only things made of material and things that possess physical properties( eg. volume, density, weight..etc) are the only things that exist.

No, that's not a good definition of materialism or naturalism, because it has the naturalist flatly denying the existence of things like thoughts and values, which would just be silly. Nonreductive materialist naturalism accounts for nonphysical things as ultimately supervenient on the physical. I like how Richard Carrier explains it:

"'Naturalism' means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, 'supernaturalism' means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things."

A materialist would argue that, given two hypothetical universes which were 100% physically identical, every fact in those two universes would be exactly the same.

Posted by: Owlmirror | April 4, 2009 6:28 PM

If a supernatural thing exists, can it interact in some way with nature?

I don't see why not

If so, it's natural, not "super"natural at all.

I don't follow.

Usually materialists/naturalists hold that everything is made of matter and only things made of material and things that possess physical properties( eg. volume, density, weight..etc) are the only things that exist.

No, I think you need to look up metaphysical naturalism and read it more carefully. Physical matter is obviously not the only thing that exists, however, for everything that exists, there is evidence for it existing. Even if it is not matter itself, it interacts with matter. Radio waves are invisible electromagnetic energy, but they are something that interacts with matter in a predictable and falsifiable way.

As opposed to this I suppose a supernatural being would be one that is not made of matter and possesses properties distinct from physical properties.

So you've created two problems for yourself (1) demonstrate that a non-material being is is possible in the first place (2) show how this non-material being interacts with th material world such that it can be tested.

You've obviously missed the obvious implication of earlier times this question was raised: If God exists as a person, then God should at the very least have the qualities of persons, as we know they exist. Even if God is non-physical, God should not be silent; refusing to demonstrate his existence -- because persons for which we do have evidence do not behave like that. Unless they are defective in some way, of course.

Posted by: Truckle | April 4, 2009 6:37 PM

I have been subscribed to QualiaSoup for ages, check out the rest of his back catalogue, it is awesome.

Posted by: Kel | April 4, 2009 6:43 PM

This video is excellent. Though anyone who needs this video would do well to watch The Ascent Of Man.

Posted by: AdamK | April 4, 2009 6:47 PM

Shastra, are you saying 5 isn't my friend? Now I'm really sad.

Posted by: Rick R | April 4, 2009 6:49 PM

Sastra- "Well, then, God is like those things. Real, but not physical or material. Oh. And also a person."

I see what you did there...;)

Posted by: Josh West | April 4, 2009 6:52 PM

QualiaSoup has done some fantastic work, always good to hear from him.

Posted by: Kel | April 4, 2009 6:56 PM

facilis - we are not at the centre of the universe. The universe is not produced for us, we are a product of the universe - just like those 10 million other species that currently live. The universe contains ~10²³ stars, the majority very much like our sun. The universe has been around for 13.7 billion years while homo sapien has been around for ~150. We have existed for 0.001% of the entire history of the universe. So why, if there is a god, would that God reflect one species of billion that have ever walked on this planet? Only a fool would these days think that the universe was designed for us.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | April 4, 2009 6:59 PM

Kel,

The universe has been around for 13.7 billion years while homo sapien has been around for ~150.

A few zeros seem to have fallen out of your description about how long Homo sapiens have been around.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | April 4, 2009 7:02 PM

Thanks, pyramus, for the linguistics lesson.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 4, 2009 7:09 PM

A few zeros seem to have fallen out of your description about how long Homo sapiens have been around.

Maybe he meant Homo sapiens darwinii - apes who think about Darwin...

Sorry if I butchered that - I admit I've no real understanding of that kind of nomenclature. But I couldn't help trying to think of something that fit in the 150 year period...

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | April 4, 2009 7:10 PM

You should check out QualiaSoup's other videos. He has some really great ones on par with Thunderf00t, but it's topics like these on logic and faith and such.

I've been subscribed to him for a long time and it's always great when he comes out with a new video.

Posted by: Owlmirror | April 4, 2009 7:16 PM

Blame Latin. The Greeks spelled it "skeptikos": the Romans, who didn't like the Greek "k", changed it to "scepticus".

Actually, the original of "sceptre" was Gk. "skeptron" (σκήπτρον), and the original of "scene" was Grk. "skene" (σκηνή). So two of those other "sc" words were mangled by Latin.

"Scent" looks to be Anglo-Saxon, though.

Posted by: www.10ch.org | April 4, 2009 7:32 PM

@#59 pyramus
"As far as I know, 'sceptre', 'scene', and 'scent', plus their offshoots, all soft-c words, are the only 'sce-' words in English, if you don't count the little-known 'scend'"
Scenario, scenic, scena (a scene in an opera). I guess you could count them as "scene," though.

Posted by: Nix | April 4, 2009 7:33 PM

Oh, that video was a complete hoot. The visuals are like corporate presentations gone into overdrive.

I'm unclear, though: is it being a sceptic that gives me scary contrarotating swirly eyes, or is it being credulous, or are scary contrarotating swirly eyes signs of some sort of evil persuader?

Posted by: ppohly@yahoo.com | April 4, 2009 7:45 PM

Well done PZ.
Thanks you for posting this video

Posted by: whitebird | April 4, 2009 7:52 PM

Man, I have three friends (who think of "Coast to Coast" the same way I think of "All Things Considered")who need to see that video STAT! Of course, they would probably say that the aliens/knights Templar/Rothschilds put it out themselves, you know, cause the less that's know about them, the better...

Also,I could listen to that bumper music all 80's-science-educational-video-ing day!

Posted by: clinteas | April 4, 2009 8:05 PM

Great video,slightly creepy voice.
There is a difference between sceptic and skeptic??

Posted by: Newfie | April 4, 2009 8:08 PM

sceptic or US skeptic [skep-tik]
Noun
1. a person who habitually doubts generally accepted beliefs
2. a person who doubts the truth of a religion [Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon]
sceptical or US
skeptical adj
sceptically or US
skeptically adv
scepticism or US
skepticism n

Posted by: cactusren | April 4, 2009 8:29 PM

Wowbagger @64:

Maybe he meant Homo sapiens darwinii - apes who think about Darwin...

Sorry if I butchered that - I admit I've no real understanding of that kind of nomenclature.

Haha...I love this idea, Wowbagger! Though that name would translate as "Darwin's wise man". (Yes, Homo sapiens is often translated as "wise ape", but homo literally means man.) So, for a name to translate as "apes (men) who think about Darwin", it would need to be something like Homo sapiens cogitantdarwinum. That seems a bit cumbersome, though. Maybe darwinii is the way to go after all...

Posted by: cactusren | April 4, 2009 8:32 PM

Gah...thinking too much about Latin => blockquote fail. That second paragraph was part of Wowbagger's quote, as well.

Posted by: tmaxPA | April 4, 2009 8:35 PM

One can be skeptical of supernatural beings but one cannot assert that supernatural beings do no exist or we should rule out such explanations or beings a priori without taking up a burden of proof.

One can assert easily and correctly that supernatural beings do not exist. My evidence is that they have been ruled out of explanations of science for centuries, and science still works. From it, we get technology. Ergo, if you were to assert that any or any one supernatural being does or even can exist, the burden of proof would be yours. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

On the question of 'what would it take to convince me to be skeptical of science', the answer is 'when the universe stops working according to the laws Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein provided us, and someone explains how cell phones work based on tiny invisible creatures.'

On open-mindedness itself, I've often used the line "I am being open-minded - that doesn't mean you get to make me stupid."

Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | April 4, 2009 9:04 PM

Jim Harrsion #20

"...but the usual run of ghosts, magic crystals, and reincarnated in-laws has the an aroma of mildew like the Metaphysics section of a used bookstore."

Oh that! That's just the stink of patchouli oil.

Posted by: John Morales | April 4, 2009 9:37 PM

Great video.

10ch,

Why do not you define the word "supernatural" first off?

Supernatural literally is beyond nature - self-defining by contrast to natural. The concept is clear, and I don't see how any empirical claim can possibly meet that criterion.

Posted by: The MadPanda | April 4, 2009 9:41 PM

Facilis needs to watch again, this time for comprehension. He didn't get it the first time through.

Got evidence? Logik: u duz it rong.

The MadPanda, FCD

Posted by: Sarah Trachtenberg | April 4, 2009 10:08 PM

I've been saying things like "There is no such thing as a ghost" and "There is probably intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, but they don't come here and abduct rednecks." According to this video, I'm expressing those ideas in a closed-minded way. Will someone please tell me what the right way is?
Sarah

Posted by: John Morales | April 4, 2009 10:25 PM

Sastra,

We don't want to rule out "the supernatural" by word play. [...] So I think we need a better, clearer definition than "that which is beyond nature."

No, and yes.

Well, much though it's dissed, there's always Wikipedia: supernatural.

Posted by: Sastra | April 4, 2009 10:26 PM

Sarah Trachtenberg #94 wrote:

Will someone please tell me what the right way is?

Oh, that's easy. "There's almost certainly no such thing as a ghost" or "ET's probably don't come here and abduct rednecks."

Do we really have to go through such hoops, and hedge everything with particular caution? Not always. Depends on the audience, I guess, and the situation. Is it casual, or are you dealing with a true believer and having a serious discussion?

If it is a true believer, be aware that they will jump with glee and triumph on any absolute statement you make -- or seem to make -- just as the video shows. You don't always have to be cautious and throw in the "probably" and "it is unlikely that" and "not yet up to the level of credibility" and so forth -- but 'it's unlikely that' you'll ever have to backtrack from being too guarded, and technical.

Posted by: hje | April 4, 2009 10:54 PM

There's always the possibility that something could appear--by our current understanding-- inexplicable in material terms--in the sense that Arthur C. Clarke expressed in the oft-quoted "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." If physicists like Alan Guth can imagine "creating a universe in your basement," it is possible that some civilization millions if not billions of years advanced of ours might have acquired the means to do so. They could be material beings but still seem god-like from our perspective.

However it seems unlikely that any such superior beings would be interested in blood sacrifices or an individual's sexual proclivities (apart from dissertation work for an alien astrosociology major).

Anyone every read the book "Superior Beings. If They Exist, How Would We Know?: Game-Theoretic Implications of Omnipotence, Omniscience, Immortality, and Incomprehensibility" by Brams? I remember it was published when I was in high school, but there is now an updated edition.

Posted by: Facile Princeps | April 4, 2009 11:29 PM

No, that's not a good definition of materialism or naturalism, because it has the naturalist flatly denying the existence of things like thoughts and values

That is exactly what materialists do!!!

Look at the American atheists site
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/
What is Atheism

"Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own."

Also read PZ's discussions where he talks with a non-materialist neuroscientist named Michael Egnor. Egnor asks about ides and concepts like altruism and PZ says altruism is just found in the material in someone's brain.

So as I said as long as it is not matter or energy or physical in nature, we would say it is supernatural.

Posted by: Sastra | April 5, 2009 12:23 AM

Facile Princeps #102 wrote:

Also read PZ's discussions where he talks with a non-materialist neuroscientist named Michael Egnor. Egnor asks about ides and concepts like altruism and PZ says altruism is just found in the material in someone's brain.
So as I said as long as it is not matter or energy or physical in nature, we would say it is supernatural.

If PZ is explaining how ideas and concept like altruism arise from material processes, then he's not denying that they exist. Nor, of course, is he claiming that something like 'altruism' is supernatural.

Many theists have a bad habit of confusing materialism or naturalism with an interpretation that's been called greedy reductionism. That's the belief that higher-level things like altruism (or minds, beliefs, and emotions) can all be explained at the physical level. As Michael Egnor sees it, a materialist should expect to open up a person's brain and have the thoughts fall out like marbles. No. That's not materialism. Or, at least, that's not what most materialists believe (it's the internet, never say never).

I think what's supernatural depends on the assumption that mind and mind-products don't just supervene on the physical, but stand prior to, apart from, and above the physical. Supernaturalism also grants a primary, central place in the cosmos to human beings and our concerns.

String Theory, for example, is weird, and involves multiple non-physical dimensions which may be beyond science's ability to study -- but nobody calls it supernatural. Why not? Because there's nothing mind-like about it, and the hypothetical superstrings don't somehow make everything meaningful and vibrate love or something.

There's also a problem with classifying things when people talk about "spiritual energy." Is that supernatural or naturalistic materialism? I'd classify it with supernaturalism -- even though it's energy. Ditto with spiritual 'substances' like ectoplasm.

People used to think air, fire, smoke, and light were forms of the supernatural or spirit. Then they pushed that back to thoughts and feelings. Now, with neurology, it's pushed back into just being vague.

Posted by: Gotchaye | April 5, 2009 1:11 AM

Facile Princeps: That probably works as shorthand, but only if it's understood that "matter or energy" includes the physical laws that govern matter and energy and things that supervene on matter and energy. As your quote makes explicit, the authors don't deny the existence of the subjective experience of thought.

'Supernatural' is tricky. I think that part of the reason for the confusion surrounding the concept is that it's often used in at least three completely different ways.

Sometimes, 'the supernatural' refers to mental activity that isn't dependent on bodies in the usual way. This kind of supernaturalism is testable and is not on-face absurd. If experiments in quantum mechanics consistently showed particles possessing spins so as to spell out intelligent messages in binary over repeated experiments, that'd be pretty good evidence that quantum mechanical effects are somehow caused by a mind, and this causal mechanism would be thought to be supernatural. ESP is an example of something that, if it were real, would be supernatural in this sense. Likewise the usual kind of ghosts.

Then there's the miraculous sense of 'supernatural'. Here supernatural is just a way of saying that something is true even though all of the evidence is against it (or just that there's no evidence for it). It's used in reference to claims that the seemingly impossible has occurred, and is meant to explain them and make them plausible. Stuff that's supernatural in this sense is stuff that you ought to be thought crazy for believing and which you can't possibly demonstrate, but which is still coherent. Water into wine is an example, as is the Resurrection, or anything else that Hume's "On Miracles" might apply to. This is a much sillier kind of supernaturalism to use in discussions with other people, but it's not the worst kind.

Finally, there's the nonsensical meaning of 'supernatural', which is the sort of word salad that Sastra talked about earlier. "The number '5' is also a person" is an example. The nonsensical supernatural is stuff that can be falsified purely logical grounds or which can't possibly be grasped by the human mind. The Trinity is an example.

There's trouble when people start sliding among the various uses of the word. Most people's baseline idea of God falls under the first sort of supernatural - there can actually be evidence one way or the other for what they believe, but what they believe is that there's a disembodied mind controlling things. When shown evidence against their belief, they slide into nonsensical supernaturalism to talk about what their God is like and they use miraculous supernaturalism to talk about their beliefs about the past.

This lets the epistemologically irresponsible or the intentionally deceptive claim that atheists are wrong to reject the (nonsensical) supernatural from the start because the (disembodied mind) supernatural is clearly logically possible.

Posted by: Sir Craig | April 5, 2009 1:43 AM

www.10ch.org:

No, I don't view ghosts as possessing intelligence - I see them as an intriguing question. To dismiss them out of hand is arrogant, especially as there is so much we have yet to understand about our reality, but I know there is an answer to these sightings that has nothing to do with souls or an all-powerful sky daddy. So to answer your question, ghosts are just another name for something that has yet to be fully explained.

Posted by: JackC | April 5, 2009 2:06 AM

Jimmy@109 - dammit, I was trying to think of how I would broach dark matter/energy here.

It makes up more than 75% of the universe
We cannot see it
We cannot sense it
We know it is there
It DOES interact with matter, but we are not sure how
We don't know what it is.

It is the closest thing I can come to something actually "paranormal" - although of course it really isn't.

It is also what I usually bring up when others bring up super-natural concepts.

JC

Posted by: Kel | April 5, 2009 2:16 AM

Are you going to show the flaws of the videos, or simply assert it and use the support of it as a means to attack atheists?

Posted by: Snoof | April 5, 2009 2:23 AM

Uh... astrophysicists _are_ sure how dark matter interacts with the regular stuff. It's via gravity.

Dark energy's the tricky one. Really, the phrase "dark energy" is a short way of saying "something which changes the way the expansion of space happens from what you'd expect if there was only matter and dark matter". Of course, it has measurable consequences, and it shows up in independent observations.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 5, 2009 2:26 AM

wolfwalker,
The very idea of a militant anti-religionist anti-unicornist, who regularly writes blogposts declaring that gods unicorns do not exist and religion The Church of Unicorns is inherently evil, lecturing anybody about open-mindedness is laugh-out-loud funny.

Fixed it for you. No, that's okay - I'll start a tab.

Posted by: JackC | April 5, 2009 2:38 AM

Snoof@114: I was using shorthand, but yes, the only way we CAN observe dark matter is through it's gravitational influence.

However: We don't understand what it IS that we are observing. We observe an influence and we postulate "dark matter" - we do not see it, we do not understand it's nature. We "create" it because it must be there to explain our observations, as we don't understand the observations to be incorrect.

Shorthand aside, yes, you are correct. It doesn't diminish the fact that the composition of dark matter or energy is unknown. Some theories have it as simply an incorrect use of current theories of gravitation (for matter) or as you point out, a way of looking at things.

It meets my criteria of an observable phenomenon we cannot currently explain. It has the benefit of being verifiable by various sources. In that, it succeeds over any other super-normal phenomena yet discussed.

JC

Posted by: blf | April 5, 2009 4:30 AM

I installed a multi-position switch in my mind yonks ago. One position, Ventilate, raises the evidence filter and lets a nice breeze blow through. This feels good and collects various ideas. Most of which are dust and need to be flushed out.

Another position is Isolate. No breezes here, nothing gets it. Tends to overheat and damage the evidence filter.

A third position is Chicken Soup. Sometimes called Chocolate. For when I'm not feeling too good. Particularly recommended after bouts of headdesking, facepalming, and other encounters with trolls and nasty germs. I'm considering renaming this position Bacon.

There are other positions, some unlabelled. I'm a bit hesitant to go flipping through the further-out positions. One time I did that I imagined(?) I was actually agreeing with the “maggie”. Scary!

 p.s.  That was a brilliant video. Clear, well-presented, and I didn't have any problems with the voice or graphics or spellings.

Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | April 5, 2009 7:33 AM

Facile Princeps who wrote

One can be skeptical of supernatural beings but one cannot assert that supernatural beings do no exist or we should rule out such explanations or beings a priori without taking up a burden of proof,

let me show you my sc/kepticism. I can assert that supernatural beings do not exist, it's up to you to prove if they do (good luck with that), and meanwhile FUCK OFF.

Posted by: Larry | April 5, 2009 9:19 AM

Someone above mentioned "greedy reductionism". That's straight out of Daniel Dennett.

One thing I noticed in an interview with Dennett is that he said he didn't distinguish between "Naturwissenschaften" and "Geisteswissenschaften". This is where materialists are most vulnerable. You guys don't address the strongest arguments made against you made by people like Charles Taylor and Keith Ward, who have a grounding in the German idealist tradition.

Posted by: Curt | April 5, 2009 9:53 AM

A quick scientific inquiry revealed what others already know about the authorship of the video :)

http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup

Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | April 5, 2009 9:59 AM

This video is definitely being embedded in the lecture notes for the first lecture of my colloquium. Thank you for posting it!

Posted by: MartinDH | April 5, 2009 12:04 PM

Good video on opened vs. closed mind. I think it was Granny Ogg who said "I don't want to be so open minded that my brain leaks out of my ears and I can tie it under my chin".

BTW The pictures seem to be by Jack Kirby...I think I recognize some early Fantastic Four stuff.

--
MartinDH

Posted by: AdamK | April 5, 2009 1:01 PM

I thought the pictures looked like Kirby as well. I wonder if they're actual quotes or homage.

Posted by: shonny | April 5, 2009 3:42 PM

Larry, xians don't have a monopoly on trolling or being morons, or for that matter being the ones accusing others of having closed minds. They just have a lot more practice.
And being 'understanding' ain't getting you nowhere here, lad!

Posted by: Zmidponk | April 5, 2009 3:59 PM

Larry #127, what you're missing is that is an example of religious people who are, indeed, open-minded, and are willing to change many of the underlying tenets of their religion in the face of evidence, and only keep the absolute central thesis of their religion (ie that God exists, in some form), mainly because nebulous claims like that are absolutely and totally impossible to disprove. In my experience, this is the exception, not the rule, amongst religious folk.

The kind of person that this video addresses is the kind of person who goes, "I am right because this 'holy text'/some random piece of incredibly circumstantial evidence/me says so and if you have solid evidence that proves I'm wrong, I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears, close my eyes, and go 'la, la, la' very, very loudly, then accuse you of being closed-minded." A very good example of this latter group is the creationist/ID crowd.

Posted by: Larry | April 5, 2009 9:34 PM

...mainly because nebulous claims like that are absolutely and totally impossible to disprove.

Lots of things in life are impossible to disprove. Back to the "Naturwissenschaften" and "Geisteswissenschaften" distinction: It's easy to prove/disprove the objective. Much harder to prove the subjective. But we deal with the subjective all the time. A lot in life is about dialectics between minds--Plato's side of the School of Athens. Plato doesn't say "the nature of 'the good' is 42."

Because it's something you have to keep asking and a tidy answer is impossible.

Not everything is like the physical sciences...

Posted by: Julian | April 5, 2009 10:10 PM

"Not everything is like the physical sciences..."

No. In some fields you're allowed to make whole volumes of shit up.

Sorry but I had to get that off my chest. Since the people here have decided not to ignore you, I figure I might as well get an insult in. Have fun being a passive aggressive twit.

Posted by: Aquaria | April 5, 2009 11:21 PM

#141:

It would be a good thing if you would come up to that age level, rather than like a 4 year old who wants everyone to do things his way--in someone else's house.

You would be happier at Matt Nisbett's blog. You're made for each other.

Google the name, and relish in your mutual, pompous, faux intellectual control freak tendencies to your hearts' content.

Posted by: Dennis Murphy | April 6, 2009 7:00 AM

I sent a link for this video to my nephew who is a senior at Boston College High School (No not the vampire school) and here's his response:

> that video is fucking brilliant, i'm going to use this to troll my religion teacher for my senior
> project, thanks bro.

Many thanks!

Posted by: Thoughtful Guy | April 6, 2009 9:29 AM

The video makes a good point. It was fairly well done. There are varying degrees of being open-minded and closed-minded. Most scientist are open-minded when it comes to things that can be explained using empirical evidence. We expect nothing less from them. Some do become rigid with their own pet theories. They tend to be closed-minded with anything dealing with what they perceive as "woo" or superstition. If it can't be proven scientifically then it simply isn't true and that's where they become closed-minded to any other possibilities.

Posted by: SeanJJordan | April 6, 2009 9:41 AM

I'm just stunned at how well the video was put together. Using Jack Kirby-style artwork to talk about skepticism? I would have never connected the two, but it's absolutely inspired. I'm going to have to check out more of these.

Posted by: Josh | April 6, 2009 9:49 AM

They tend to be closed-minded with anything dealing with what they perceive as "woo" or superstition.

That's not really fair. Very few people are "open minded" to all superstition/religion/woo/whathaveyou. People just draw the line in different places.

People who believe passionately in Christ and get their panties in a bunch at the mere existence of atheists seem to have no problem being passionately atheistic about Odin. I have a friend who gets annoyed with my skepticism of ghosts, but has no problem mocking people who think that the Lock Ness monster is real.

If it can't be proven scientifically then it simply isn't true and that's where they become closed-minded to any other possibilities.

Science doesn't prove in the sense that I suspect you're thinking; it can only disprove. This statement isn't accurate.

Posted by: Thoughtful Guy | April 6, 2009 10:03 AM

@Josh,

I did say there are varying degrees of closed-mindedness.

Some people believe in in UFOs but not God. Some people believe in God but not space aliens. Many skeptics dismiss both because they don't have enough evidence for either.

Posted by: Thoughtful Guy | April 6, 2009 10:13 AM

A true skeptic will change his mind with proper evidence.

Can you cite an example where you were skeptical of something, you previously dismissed as superstitious woo, when you were presented with evidence?

Posted by: AnthonyK | April 6, 2009 10:24 AM

Lock Ness monster

No such thing - but I wonder if denying this beast has any effect on the reality or not of the Loch Ness monster?

re scepticism :I've just had a bad-tempered argument with a friend who has only just had her 12-year-old daughter vaccinated for MMR. She's cross with me for being arrogant for, like, knowing shit by means of like, finding out; and I can't understand why she isn't angry with the people who told her it was risky in the first place.
She's cross with me for pointing out that her ignorance could have led to her child's illness! Oh well, at least the child's vaccinated now.

Posted by: Josh | April 6, 2009 10:29 AM

No such thing - but I wonder if denying this beast has any effect on the reality or not of the Loch Ness monster?

Goddamit.

Posted by: Smidgy | April 6, 2009 10:39 AM

Damn. My post at #159 should quote 'Thoughtful Guy' not 'Thoughtful Gut'. Woops, sorry. Anyway:

Thoughtful Guy #154:

Can you cite an example where you were skeptical of something, you previously dismissed as superstitious woo, when you were presented with evidence?

This wasn't addressed to me, but, no, I can't - mainly because I haven't had anything I had previously dismissed as 'superstitious woo' being backed up by solid evidence. I can cite an example of the reverse, though - dismissing something I previously held to be true because evidence indicated it probably wasn't. You see, I wasn't always an atheist.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 6, 2009 10:56 AM

Can you cite an example where you were skeptical of something, you previously dismissed as superstitious woo, when you were presented with evidence?

What woo has been shown to have real evidence for it? Very few, which is why they are still woo. And once there is evidence, it is no longer woo.

Off the top of my head, acupuncture has been shown to have a mild effect for pain in some patients, but it appears to be totally a placebo effect. It doesn't matter if traditional spots are used, or whether the skin is actually punctured or not. Just that the patient thinks they were treated. The whole woo surrounding acupuncture is wrong, even if it has a mild placebo effect.

Posted by: frog | April 6, 2009 11:39 AM

Nerd: The whole woo surrounding acupuncture is wrong, even if it has a mild placebo effect.

Specifically why? Are you claiming that lack of evidence is evidence of lack? Or are you just saying that many woo-masters are lying about the science (by commission or omission)?

I don't see any problem with woo, as long as everyone recognizes it's lack of evidentiary value. In many areas, it is difficult or even practically impossible to have sufficient evidence to honestly, scientifically, come to any conclusions (I'm looking at a lot of medicine here, even when gussied about with "epidemiological studies"). Then you're left with either taking no action, or taking whichever action you prefer on other principles such as internal consistency, as long as you don't forget that it's just a personal or cultural preference.

If you feel better going to psychotherapy, go ahead and do it. If you want to have a shaman treat your untreatable migraines -- what do you have to lose but your cash?

Posted by: Sureibl | April 6, 2009 7:52 PM

Really enjoyed this video, succinct description of the correct way to think.

One part I disagree with, however: I do not think it is closed-minded to say that, for example, ghosts/UFOs/Loch Ness Monster/Santa Claus/fairies don't exist, simply because by 'don't exist' I mean 'there is not sufficient evidence at present to convince me of the existence of ...'. In the same vein, I and (I suspect) most here would be comfortable in saying that, for example, gravity exists or evolution happens without specific qualification most of the time.

It seems to me that by stating fact (of existence, non-existence, whatever) we are actually claiming that a particular 'fact' is backed up by objective evidence, thus do not need to say 'because the evidence backs it up' as that would be merely a tautology. We only need to state that when whoever we are talking to doesn't seem to appreciate it in the specific context on the discussion.

It is certainly difficult to see how, for example, 'gravity exists' or 'fairies don't exist' could mean anything other than 'I think that the evidence supports the existence of gravity' and 'I think that there is insufficient evidence for fairies'. I don't like just saying 'I don't believe in fairies' because it seems to me belief is something utterly subjective, like liking or disliking a painting, and generally we are debating objective fact.

Posted by: Facile Princeps | April 6, 2009 10:07 PM

Yet our brains are just matter and energy. Everything about our brains screams that they are material. Thoughts are patterns of brain activity. Of course such a claim is testable and falsifiable, so we can look to brain injuries and see how they inhibit thoughts. We can look to brain scans and see how the brain works in creating thoughts. The mind is material, and if you would ever stop to realise that the DI is nothing more than a propaganda machine, you'd see that you are talking absolute bullshit!

But is it not only the DI who does question materialism. For example , David Chalmers, Director of the Centre for Consciousness at ANU who is a critic of ID and not a theist http://fragments.consc.net/djc/2008/10/the-problem-of-consciousness-meets-intelligent-design.html Even he feels that conciousness refutes materialism. Let us all keep in mind that Egnor is an expert. HE LITERALLY DOES BRAIN SURGERY!!! I'm sure he would know if there was a piece of material called altruism hiding in your material brain.

Posted by: Facile Princeps | April 6, 2009 10:25 PM

OH and just one question for people here.
Does anyone have any positive arguments FOR MATERIALISM? I heard some arguments against theism and against God but haven't seen any arguments that actually prove materialism is true.

Posted by: SC, OM | April 6, 2009 10:28 PM

FP,

Go here:

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/

Search for "egnor." You'll find several dozen refutations. The discussions in the comments are interesting as well. You can also search more generally for "dualism" while you're there.

Posted by: Kel | April 6, 2009 10:35 PM

Does anyone have any positive arguments FOR MATERIALISM?

For materialism?

1. Material objects have been observed. Nothing else has been observed. So we know the material exists, we have no idea whether the immaterial exists.
2. 2. The brain works before consciousness. In experiments, they have shown that the brain makes a decision before the person is aware of making that decision.
3. The brain is an evolved organ. All processes of the brain are extensions of processes that came before. We can see various stages of brain activity throughout the animal kingdom, which suggests that there's nothing about our brains that isn't explainable
4. Sentient animals. There are many animals that are self-aware. They've even done tests on apes where the creature would bet on not whether they knew the answer, but whether they knew that they knew. There was even an ape that upon getting it wrong, threw it's head back and slapped itself on the forehead
5. Problem solving. There are animals that fashion tools, animals that experiment to come up with new solution, and these things are learned the same way that humans do. We can even teach certain animals abstract language in order to communicate
6. Brain injury. Injure certain parts of the brain, and lose particular abilities. Brain activity is directly tied to ability

among other things too. But that should be a good start for you facilis. Not that I ever expect you to learn anything, hell even when you are backed into a corner you refuse to take on board the possibility that you were wrong.

Posted by: Kel | April 6, 2009 10:44 PM

What a surprise, facilis has found the arguments someone arguing against his position quite poor. Nevermind that Novella is a neuroscientist, but you are only an expert in facilis' eyes if you also work for the DI... Have you read Dan Dennett's Consciousness Explained yet?

Posted by: Kel | April 6, 2009 11:11 PM

Just remember facilis. A couple of weeks ago, I announced that I was getting three books: Why I Became An Atheist by John Loftus, Breaking The Spell by Dan Dennett and Only A Theory by Ken Miller, and challenged you to read them alongside me. After all, you complain about the scholarship of the "new atheists" yet haven't read them (and these two you'd be hard pressed to criticise) and you believe that intelligent design is being unfairly suppressed. So surely you could see that reading those 3 books might increase your knowledge on the matters. Why haven't you jumped at it? Why haven't you read Consciousness Explained? Why do use our knowledge as the grounds for whether the knowledge exists?

It doesn't matter whether we can give a good account of materialism or not, but it does matter that you are using that to feel better about your own worldview. If I can't name the fossil species that led to cetaceans, it doesn't mean that the fossils are not discovered.

Posted by: Kel | April 7, 2009 12:06 AM

Okay I think I admitted this before, but Ben Stein may have exaggerated the events a lttle. I don't think there is a full-scale persucution going on but there is an unfair bias.

No! Intelligent Design advocates are not doing science. Every single person who was featured in Expelled was not fired for advocating ID, but for other reasons. Intelligent Design is a dead idea, the few ideas it did have were promptly refuted. Yet those scientists who promote ID have ignored any chance to have a dialogue in science about it.

I just wanted to point out some problems in materialism.

Problems are an absence of knowledge. materialism is still the only worldview that has any validity as it's the only thing we know exists. Everything is made up of atoms. If you think otherwise, demonstrate it.

Posted by: Kel | April 7, 2009 12:43 AM

Please just look at the 6 arguments Egnor presented, then go through Novella's post.

Done, I'm surprised that you were convinced at all by Egnor's arguments. It seems that Egnor's arguments boil down to: I have subjective experience, that causes meaning, you can't measure it; therefore Dualistic mind. QED

Yet just think about it from a physicalist perspective. The brain is first built as per instructions in our DNA. Then as we live our lives, our brain is shaped by the experiences we have. Since each of us has unique experiences, each of our brains will be unique. Thus purely by existing we should expect to find that there's no truly objective way of looking at the world.

Consider further that the mind is an evolved organ. Surely we should see the stages of consciousness in other animals with smaller brains. Would a chimp having self-awareness mean that the chimp has a dualist mind? Would it mean the same for an octopus? Or a cetacean? When all the stages of the brain can be seen throughout the animal kingdom, what is left that needs explaining?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | April 7, 2009 9:28 AM

Nerd,

Technically it's asinine - one 's' - but for facilis, assinine is an acceptable (and accurate) variation...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | April 9, 2009 4:53 PM

Nerd,

Technically it's asinine - one 's' - but for facilis, assinine is an acceptable (and accurate) variation...

Point conceded after consulting my dictionary.