Pharyngula

Posted by: Wim | August 6, 2009 7:43 AM

This link worked for me:
http://www.reasonproject.org/archive/item/the_strange_case_of_francis_collins/

Posted by: SEF | August 6, 2009 7:53 AM

I see other people have already noticed the link fault (there were 0 comments when I orginally got the page!). PZ has just stuffed a "2" into the URL near the end of it - perhaps in a failed attempt to put quotes around it for the anchor tag.

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 8:40 AM

From Collins:

As believers, you are right to hold fast to the concept of God as Creator; you are right to hold fast to the truths of the Bible; you are right to hold fast to the conclusion that science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence; and you are right to hold fast to the certainty that the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted…. (Collins, 2006, p.178)

Are believers right to hold fast to these beliefs -- or are scientists right to hold fast to these beliefs, from the standpoint of their advocacy and practice of science?

If Collins means only the first, then it really does mean nothing to say that "believing scientists" are perfectly justified in holding fast to these beliefs. Only if they forget the scientist part of their identity, compartmentalize their lives and intellectual rigor, and put on their Person-of-Faith outfit. That's not an achievement of genuine harmony -- that's like a scientific chemist- homeopath claiming that the 'memory of water' system is simply another system of chemistry he also makes use of, with no internal sense of contradiction. He's fine with it.

Harris also I think does a good job addressing the problem of so-called 'accomodationism.'

The goal is not to get more Americans to merely accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reasoning and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory. Doubt about evolution is merely a symptom of an underlying problem; the problem is faith itself—conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas occluded by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc. Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to imagine that we can get people to value intellectual honesty by lying to them.

I also love

While it is invariably advertised as an expression of “respect” for people of faith, this accommodationism is nothing more than naked condescension, motivated by fear.

Posted by: JBlilie | August 6, 2009 9:14 AM

Harris is eloquently devastating. I highly recommend that entire article (with the exception of the quotation from Polkinghorne.)

"they were simply empty minds waiting to be filled with religion"

Undoubtedly true.

At the end of Harris's essay, where he lists the truth claims of Christianity and the evidence Collins cites for his faith, is just beautiful.

Posted by: Jim | August 6, 2009 9:26 AM

Now I'll wait for someone to show up saying they don't understand the problem with Collins. It won't matter that the reasons given are explicit and specific. They will claim to be atheists (or agnostics), but will say they just want to be "fair," give him a chance, and not impose a "religion test." And I will chew the air in frustration.

Posted by: Mobius | August 6, 2009 9:31 AM

I just finished reading Harris's editorial. Good stuff. He does make some devastating arguments against Collins.

Collins is a good example of the fuzzy thinking associated with religion. I have to agree with Harris that Collins claim to being a converted atheist appears false. His misunderstanding of what atheism is, and the ease with which he "converted" makes me think that he likely had a lot of religious indoctrination in his background. I recognize the symptoms, having been heavily indoctrinated with those ideas as a youth.

While overall a fan of Ken Miller, I think we see in him a problem with many theists...that legitimate critiques of religion are automatically rejected, often without giving the arguments any thought.

I recently had a rather serious argument with a friend over PZ's criticism of Collins. She is deeply Catholic and a big fan of both Collins and Miller. While she is a researcher in cancer cures, and is usually quite rational, the perceived attacks on her Catholic faith led to some rather (to me, at least) unusual rants. Another case, I think, where religion clouds the mind. I am still uncertain how our friendship will have been effected by the argument.

BTW, Sastra...good post.

Posted by: CalGeorge | August 6, 2009 9:32 AM

"Collins’s claim to have been an atheist seems especially suspect, given that he does not understand what the position of atheism actually entails."

Don't knock it 'til you try it, Francis.

Posted by: Ray Ingles | August 6, 2009 9:43 AM

MadScientist - C.S. Lewis isn't completely worthless. There are a few insights about how people relate to each other in "The Screwtape Letters". They're framed in a Christian worldview, but once you clear off the cruft they can be useful.

A truly rigorous thinker he wasn't, but he did have some talent for writing.

Posted by: John | August 6, 2009 9:57 AM

The "intellectual suicide" bit was just beautiful to read.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 6, 2009 10:25 AM

I think it is fair to say that Sam Harris' article utterly eviscerated the position of Francis Collins on the 'compatibility' of science and religion. He also demolished the positions of evangelical Christianity in general and that of the accomodationalists. The article was one tightly argued, rational rebuttal of superstition after another. It is a pity that most theists will not listen to what he says. He will be demonised not as an atheist who does not believe in god due to a paucity of evidence for god, but as an 'anti-theist' who supposedly has a personal axe to grind against Christians.

Whenever I hear theist arguments about the proof of god it always occurs to me to wonder how they would feel if one took the same arguments and simply replaced god with a different mythological creature. Preferably one with a degree of social and cultural resonance and a long standing folk lore history. I like to call this mode of thought religi-logic(tm). For example lets say . . . vampires. No sane person believes in the literal existence of walking dead-but-not-really corpses that drink blood do they? However, if we apply a little religi-logic(tm) a very different, and quite terrifying, picture emerges.

One can neatly ignore all arguments from biology about the impossibility of a state of being between life and death that rule out the undead. Vampires are, of course, beyond nature and so beyond the ability of science to disprove their existence. In any case, science is only one way of knowing and the fact that people are afraid of the dark means there must be a cause for this fear, and being drunk down like a cold brewskie on a hot day by an undead monster is scary, no?

People might also argue that if Vampires existed there would be physical proof of the fact. In a modern, high tech society we would know about them by now. However, what if the vampire's civilisation is like the Vampire Houses in Blade? Using money and political connections and bribing prominent humans with the promise of immortality to hide their existence from the bulk of humanity? If someone did stumble onto their existence, whose to say that Vampires cannot simply wipe their memory or control their minds? Or use their influencial connections to discredit them? Or simply kill them and make sure that no serious effort is ever made to find the body.

When talking about evidence, lets not forget the weight of folk lore and anecdotal evidence. If one broadens the terms of reference from the word Vampire and its mittle European language origins and looks at more general mythology dealing with creatures that can extend their lifespan or acheive immortality and garner supernatuiral powers through the consumption of human blood then every culture ever known to exist in the history of mankind has had a varient of the Vampire myth, every one! Ancient Arab cultures believed in a type of Djinn that drank blood, South American tribes believed in blood drinking forest spirits, Zora Astrian (apologies for spelling) demons liked a tipple of the red stuff. The list goes on ad infinitum. They can't all be wrong, can they?

The prevelence of historic Vampire mythology and contemporary Vampire subculture must have a basis in fact. Once you start to apply religi-logic(tm) it all becomes so clear. We are all in terrible danger. The legions of the undead are abroad. Do not go out after dark. Keep your garlic, crucifix and sharpened hawthorn, ash or oak stake handy. Don't say I didn't warn you . . .

Unless, of course, there is somekind of hole in religious logic when applied to the undead. If so, then there is no need to panic and we can appreciate the beauty of a sunset rather than running to get our crossbows in terror. If, however, we accept the limitations of religi-logic(tm) when applied to vampires, then why is different when it is applied to an invisible sky fairy? I await a credible counter argument.

Posted by: Tulse | August 6, 2009 10:34 AM

Vampires? Heretic! Everyone knows that zombies are the one true shambling supernatural horror. (And that's right, I said "shambling", you "fast-zombie" cultists!)

Posted by: Bill | August 6, 2009 10:58 AM

What events in Collins' professional history as a scientist suggest that he is a poor choice to lead NIH? What is the objective evidence that he has done bad science? More to the point of this conversation, what is the objective evidence that his religious beliefs have caused him to do bad science, or even not to do good science?

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 6, 2009 11:06 AM

Tulse @ 22;

So . . . we have a low down stinkin' zombie lover do we? they are not all clean and pale and sexy like vampires you know. Oh no, they are decaying brain eating monstrosities, and worse than that I heard they are all atheists too! I bet you think those disgusting walking pus bags should be allowed to get married don't you? And adopt children? You sir, are a threat to civilised values everywhere! If only we could declare proper fatwa's like the muslims, we'd fix your zombie lovin' ass good and proper! Everyone knows civilised folks prefer vampires. Just ask Anna Paquin.

Posted by: Thanny | August 6, 2009 11:10 AM

The claim that race is not a scientific concept is not a scientific concept. The notion of race wasn't created in a vacuum. Everyone recognizes differences in race, even when modern interbreeding has diluted them significantly.

Different groups of people who have been in reproductive isolation for hundreds or thousands of generations (Australian aborigines were cut off from the rest of humanity for at least 2000) will accrue differences. The visual differences we all know and recognize. I happen to think most of them are driven by sexual selection, though it's clear that some are normal natural selection (melanin concentration in the skin being one of the obvious ones).

Why is it outrageous to think that the brain is not excluded from changing over those periods of seclusion as well?

It's an inescapable fact that if you were to tot up the average intelligence of two different races, you're going to get two different numbers, no matter how you do the measurements. You'll also get two different numbers if you do the same tests on a single race divided arbitrarily in half.

There are two questions, once you accept this inevitable result of probability.

First, are the differences significant? Possibly. It's also quite possible that different types of intelligence tests would produce opposite results (i.e. one race does non-trivially better on one type, and vice-versa).

Second, given non-trivial differences, what do you do about it? Those who most vocally assert an answer in the affirmative to the first question believe it justifies substandard treatment of the losers (so long as the appropriate tests are considered, so the correct race comes out ahead). Those who vociferously deny the first question also deny that there are any differences at all. These people seem to have better motives, but they are implicitly agreeing with the first group, that the existence of differences would justify disparate treatment.

The morally correct answer is that we deny no opportunity to any race, regardless of how the numbers fall. The sooner this is understood as the only allowable position, the sooner we can get the facts without ruffling the feathers of the second group mentioned above.

After all, denying opportunities is only the bad side of the coin. What if one race has a significantly higher risk for dyslexia? Children of that race can be monitored a bit more closely for signs of the problem when learning to read. How about a race with a higher risk for myopia? Just as with a kid whose two parents both wear glasses, you'd want to be more vigilant about looking for signs of degrading vision.

What about risks for specific types of cancer or other disease? Wouldn't you want to know if people with your genetic heritage are more prone to developing Nasty But Treatable Chronic Condition X, so you could be on the watch for the appropriate symptoms? This kind of thing is already practiced to some extent, perhaps most notably by Ashkenazi Jews who frequently test for Tay-Sachs (one of those double-dose genetic diseases that's a cruel infant death sentence), since it's so much more prevalent in their population.

Granted, if we all interbred freely, the overall human gene pool would be greatly improved. Until that day comes (if the opinion I share is correct - that many racial traits are sexually selected - that day may be far off), isn't it better to become fully informed so we can minimize suffering wherever possible?

Posted by: AwesomeRobot | August 6, 2009 11:13 AM

I'm going to take issue with something Harris said.

"Watson’s opinions on race are disturbing, but his underlying point was not, in principle, unscientific. There may very well be detectable differences in intelligence between races. Given the genetic consequences of a population living in isolation for tens of thousands of years it would, in fact, be very surprising if there were no differences between racial or ethnic groups waiting to be discovered."

1: Our populations didn't live in total isolation for 10s of thousands of years. Our DNA is so similar that we resemble an endangered species, meaning that our population was very small at one point. Also, there is a lot of evendence of more-than-occasional interbreeding between the continents for a long time. The outward difference in our appearance is mostly due to selective pressures of the climate. Intelligence is helpful in any climate, and variation in intelligence is wide in any race.

2: The IQ variation among individuals, whatever their race, it greater than the IQ difference between any 2 races, meaning race is a poor predictor for IQ.

3: While Harris is correct that it could be /possible/ that races had different average intelligence, he's incorrect in assuming Watson had a scientific reason for the hypothesis. Watson said about the question of equal intelligence "people who have to deal with a black employee find this not true". That is anecdotal evidence filtered by confirmation bias. And the tests he talks about showing Africans are of lower IQ can much more realistically be explained by childhood malnutrition than any genetic reason. In short, Watson had no scientific basis for what he said, and Harris was stupid for going down that road. Taking an article on how religion is bad for science into a detour towards racism apologetics is bafflingly counter-productive!

Posted by: Bill | August 6, 2009 11:20 AM

"Would you ask the same questions if Collins were a devout practitioner of voodoo? Or a Scientologist? Or a homeopath?"

I see your point, but I'm not sure it negates the validity of my question.

What events in Collins' professional history as a scientist suggest that he is a poor choice to lead NIH? What is the objective evidence that he has done bad science? More to the point of this conversation, what is the objective evidence that his religious beliefs have caused him to do bad science, or even not to do good science?

Are we Sotomayoring Collins?

Posted by: Tulse | August 6, 2009 11:26 AM

The notion of race wasn't created in a vacuum. Everyone recognizes differences in race, even when modern interbreeding has diluted them significantly.

"Everyone recognizes" a lot of things that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. It turns out that, for example, there are more genetic differences between certain groups of dark-skinned African populations than there are between some of those groups and light-skinned "Europeans", belying the whole notion of naive racial groupings.

Furthermore, most of the more socially-relevant qualities that "race" researchers focus on are clearly influenced by far more than genes. For example, although "race" researchers talk about "racial" differences in intelligence, the finding that IQ has generally increased by 3 points per decade over the past while (the Flynn Effect), and that the increase has been most marked in those with more melanin in their skin, seems to defy any sort of reasonable genetic argument.

Are there groups of people with some specific genetic propensities, such as genetically-based diseases? Sure there are. But those groups do not necessarily track with naive notions of race, and in any case, genetic testing allows us to focus on individuals and their actual genetic makeup, rather than a naive notion of ethnic-based probabilities.

Don't try to argue for such an unsophisticated notion as "race" on a biology blog -- it's undignified.

Posted by: Richard Eis | August 6, 2009 11:34 AM

For all his science, Collins needs a serious lesson in human psychology.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 6, 2009 11:37 AM

thanny @ 28 and Tulse @ 34;

Tulse may be a low down zombie lover, but he or she is still right in this instance. As Tulse points out, the liklihood of the relative intelligence of different ethnic groups being a primarily genetic factor is low. There are a huge range of other possible factors. It can be argued that intellect is a mode of thought. A skill that is primarily learned as opposed to being an innate characteristic. There is evidence that any child of any race with normal brain function can be trained into a child prodigy with sufficient effort. There is no huge genetic gulf between ethnic groups and variation between individuals within a group is often greater than variation between individuals from different groups. It is well known that nutrition in childhood plays a major part in cognative development.

Arguments for difference in intelligence between entire ethnic groups are scientifically weak and sociologically extremely harmful.

Posted by: Bill | August 6, 2009 12:00 PM

@#35

Well, I could say I asked first, but moving on, I'll answer yours and raise you one:

"Would you ask the same questions if Collins were a devout practitioner of voodoo? Or a Scientologist? Or a homeopath?"

Ten years ago - no.
One year ago - probably not.
Now, and especially having been informed by this discussion - I would hope so.

And the raise: How do you do that pseudo-threaded stuff with the nested side bars in your comment?

Now, back to the meat:

What events in Collins' professional history as a scientist suggest that he is a poor choice to lead NIH? What is the objective evidence that he has done bad science? More to the point of this conversation, what is the objective evidence that his religious beliefs have caused him to do bad science, or even not to do good science?

Posted by: JBlilie | August 6, 2009 12:08 PM

What events in Collins' professional history as a scientist suggest that he is a poor choice to lead NIH? What is the objective evidence that he has done bad science? More to the point of this conversation, what is the objective evidence that his religious beliefs have caused him to do bad science, or even not to do good science?

Are we Sotomayoring Collins?

Actually, I think you are missing one Harris's major points. The NIH position is not a scientist position. It is a management and spokesperson/public-face position.

The issue is: Do we want a public spokesman for a huge chunk of our scientific community, one who has charge of a very large budget for funding scientific research, who publicly proclaims his belief in such anti-scientific beliefs as were clearly shown in his 2008 lecture at Berkeley? I think we wouldn't want that.

At risk of flogging this to death, would you want a national spokesman (with impeccable resume and no indications of doing bad science) for science to give public lectures on his personal belief in witchcraft and how we need to reach out to witches and warlocks and how the beliefs of witchcraft are entirely compatible with the findings of science?

Collins' Christian truth claims hold up as well to scientific scrutiny as do the truth claims of witchcraft. The only difference is political: Collins believes in a widely accepted and typical kind of superstition. His public statements are equally as worthy of ridicule as would parallel statements on witchcraft (or Norse mythology, or Olympian mythology, or "Scientology", or any other superstition.)

Harris and others are not claiming that Collins will do bad science. They are claiming that having a publicly endorsed/paid science leader who publicly proclaims woo is bad for science. This seems valid to me.

Harris is also concerned that Collins' public position on human origins may bias his support for certain scientific study areas. This seems like a perfectly valid concern as well. Do you really think Collins is without bias? Although his position on embryonic stem cell research is an improvement over the Bushies, it's still logically suspect as Harris's dissection of it shows.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | August 6, 2009 12:35 PM

The NIH position is not a scientist position. It is a management and spokesperson/public-face position.

It is worth remembering that the directorship of the NIH is not an autocratic position; Collins' influence on actual policy matters would likely get jumbled in with that of all the other people who have a hand in making policy. When it comes to squeaking his clown shoes in public, though, no one will stop him.

Harris and others are not claiming that Collins will do bad science. They are claiming that having a publicly endorsed/paid science leader who publicly proclaims woo is bad for science.

And, secondarily, they've been observing that anyone who had been equally evangelical for any other religion — or for atheism — would never have gotten the job. That's not so much a problem with Collins as an individual, as it is a systemic issue with American politics.

Harris is also concerned that Collins' public position on human origins may bias his support for certain scientific study areas. This seems like a perfectly valid concern as well. Do you really think Collins is without bias? Although his position on embryonic stem cell research is an improvement over the Bushies, it's still logically suspect as Harris's dissection of it shows.

Part of Collins' job will be to advocate for science. I think it's a legitimate concern that he may be a poor advocate for certain areas of legitimate research. As we've never actually seen Collins supervise an organization which funds those research topics, we're kind of working with insufficient data. If he's always been operating within his own personal comfort zone, how would we know what he does when pushed beyond it?

Posted by: Lynna | August 6, 2009 12:58 PM

When I read the editorial in the NYT, I could feel the constraints Sam Harris placed on his prose, as well the space restrictions imposed by a newspaper's editorial page. Now Sam is out of the corral and running free.

This new, longer presentation is excellent. "Academic defenestration" sticks in the mind, and has me smiling still. And the "echo chamber of evangelical Christianity" is the most precise and poetic evocation I've read of that content-empty space where inanities are endlessly repeated.

Mr. Harris wields a rapier-sharp pen.

In case you are reading your critics here, Mr. Harris, I'll point out a typo. In this sentence, "way" should be "a way"; or rewrite to read "in ways that respect":

Lord Vishnu sustains it and tinkers with our DNA (in way that respects the law of karma and rebirth)...

This essay made my day. Here is the antidote to Wendy Wright!

Posted by: Bill | August 6, 2009 1:08 PM

@#42

"Actually, I think you are missing one Harris's major points."

Actually, I think Harris missed it, too. He does not say Collins will put a bad public face on NIH because of his convictions. Harris instead raises the concern that Collins' convictions will "affect his judgment [i.e., his work] at the NIH" - in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Harris is condemning Collins, much like Watson was condemned, not because his science is unsound but because his opinion is unacceptable.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 6, 2009 1:15 PM

Dildo, you are adding nothing to the discussion. You need to apologize to the atheists for your misplaced concern.

Posted by: Grant N | August 6, 2009 1:19 PM

Since it was posted the link has alternated back and forth between the deuce and dueceless version. Not sure what's up at the Reason Project.

Same as I posted at WEIT:

The fact that Collins, as both a scientist and as an influential apologist for religion, repeatedly emphasizes the silly fiction of Jesus’ singular self-appraisal is one of many embarrassing signs that he has lived too long in the echo chamber of Evangelical Christianity.

Bingo…

Miller and Brown seem to think that bad ideas and disordered thinking should not be challenged as long as they are associated with a mainstream religion and that to do so is synonymous with bigotry.

Bongo…

Mooney and Kirshenbaum seem to imagine that we can get people to value intellectual honesty by lying to them.

Bango…

You’ve really got to appreciate it when Sam Harris uses his contemplative abilities to pull the deluded, the disingenuous and the liars out of their hats.

Same as I posted at the Reason Project:

I’d say simply, that this is a ‘slam-dunk’ ‘three-pointer’.
Or, an ‘outta the parking-lot homer’.
And I don’t even like b-ball.

More preferentially, it is like a ‘goalie scoring an empty netter’. Now there’s a real sport.

What can I say? I’m from north of the 49th, eh?

Posted by: tsg | August 6, 2009 1:32 PM

What events in Collins' professional history as a scientist suggest that he is a poor choice to lead NIH? What is the objective evidence that he has done bad science? More to the point of this conversation, what is the objective evidence that his religious beliefs have caused him to do bad science, or even not to do good science?

Your entire line of questioning is an assertion that only his actions as a scientist are pertinent.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I find concerns over the person who has been selected to manage, plan and coordinate what research gets done by the NIH making public statements that there are "questions science can't answer" and taking "God's plan" into account when considering some areas of research to be entirely valid.

Posted by: Bill | August 6, 2009 1:42 PM

@#45

How do you do that pseudo-threaded stuff with the nested side bars in your comment?

I use the "blockquote" HTML tag, nesting those as necessary.

Thanks! You have restored my faith in the essential goodness of mankind (as well as my ability to ask directions at a gas station). I demonstrate my growing proficiency, n'est-ce pas?

...it is profoundly troubling to have the leader of a major government science agency, who should represent the best science has to offer, publicly promoting views about the physical world that are clearly non-scientific.

Ah, the crux of the matter. You believe these are mutually exclusive attributes - I do not. It is my sincerest wish that we will agree to disagree on that point and part as friends well met.

Posted by: JBlilie | August 6, 2009 2:12 PM

Bill @48:

"Actually, I think you are missing one Harris's major points."

Actually, I think Harris missed it, too. He does not say Collins will put a bad public face on NIH because of his convictions. Harris instead raises the concern that Collins' convictions will "affect his judgment [i.e., his work] at the NIH" - in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

At the beginning of his essay, Harris states the following:

But as director of the institutes, Collins will have more responsibility for biomedical and health-related research than any person on earth, controlling an annual budget of more than $30 billion. He will also be one of the foremost representatives of science in the United States. For this reason, it is important to understand Collins’ religious beliefs as they relate to scientific inquiry.

[my emphasis]

Seems pretty clear to me.

He then proceeds, using Collins' own words, to show what Collins publicly purports to believe (in his lectures and books) and how these stands are ridiculous from a scientific standpoint. To wonder about the bias of a person who holds such anti-scientific views seems a perfectly valid thing to do. To wonder about how science will be received and understood when coming from a vendor of woo is also a valid concern.

Would you say the same thing if Collins were proclaiming virtues of witchcraft? My previous comment about both of these being equally well supported (his Christian truth claims and the truth claims of witchcraft) by science still stands. As does the point that the only reason people give Collins a pass on this is political.

Collins is probably a past master at compartmentalizing his thoughts: Science on this side, woo on this side. But why not choose some one who isn't so compromised?

Obama is a master politician and I know this is all politics. He probably chose Collins because he's an outspoken Christian. Obama, perhaps alone amongst to Democrats, has learned how to play the religion card. Although I understand the reasons for this, I still don't like it. Not that my concern will have any impact on the situation ...

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 6, 2009 2:54 PM

Harris is condemning Collins, much like Watson was condemned, not because his science is unsound but because his opinion is unacceptable. - Bill

Watson's opinion was based not on science, which has not shown any differences between members of the social categories called "races" in average intelligence, but on anecdote - as Awesome Robot@30 noted: Watson said about the question of equal intelligence "people who have to deal with a black employee find this not true". Like Collins, he voiced his irrational, anti-scientific prejudices, and rightly paid the penalty.

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 3:17 PM

And Watson as well -- a breath-taking ignorance.

Maybe that's the essential problem of science, and human society in general. To succeed to high levels, requires a focused ambition early on in one's career, which is extremely detrimental to actually being properly educated.

That leads the leadership in every field basically ignorant buffoons, masters of one tiny sliver of human knowledge, yet having power over a wide-array of issues. Physicists know next to nothing about biology -- biologists can barely add (to be hyperbolic!) -- judges are know-nothings, except for technical issues of the law -- political leaders lack any understanding of economic, or climatology or ...

Folks who have taken the time to at least have some understanding of a variety of fields are middling level in their field of choice -- an associate professor, a local lawyer, a small town politician -- because of the time "lost" in actually learning a little about their world.

Posted by: AJ Milne | August 6, 2009 3:22 PM

Regarding the significance this particular position in terms of being a spokesperson, it does strike me, too, that there is something incredibally politically ugly about the appointment. The material concerns with respect to this candidate's ability to pass reasonable judgement on projects that might be looking at naturalistic (read: worth actually investigating) originations of morality, etc. given his stated views are one thing, and I'd buy that's valid, but apart from that, it really does strike me as an incredibly tone deaf move...

Repeating: PZ, of course, was never in the running, and, no offense intended to our gracious host, it was probably never especially likely on any number of grounds, many of them probably quite valid, and many of them having nothing to do with his stated views on religion. But then, I do also rather suspect that someone of similarily definite opinions on religion as his and with the requisite administration experience and profile would absolutely never have been considered, just on the basis that such a figure would be considered 'divisive' by any number of parties for those views...

And yet somehow Collins, who, frankly, really is an incredibly insulting little ass in his own dazed little way, too*, and obviously pretty divisive, too, can get the nod...

Moral, again: say anything, insulting or no, that lines up with a prevailing superstition? No worries, we'll consider you, that'll fly just fine. But then, say something that offends it? As if. Back of the line, thanks.

(/And rationale, yet again: we're counting the votes. And we figure the atheists will vote for us anyway, 'cos it ain't like their other options are any prettier...)

*See, among others, atheism is 'blind faith', same as any number of epistemically challenged asshats have contended in fora much like this one, lacking, apparently, even the most modest pretensions to intellectual honesty. Right. Fuck you, too, asswipe. And y'know, y'ain't just insulting my intelligence, but hey, that'll do for starters...

Posted by: davidm | August 6, 2009 3:26 PM

The answer is yes.

When it comes to an appointment like this, I like to look at the actual track record of the candidate doing, you know, work related to the work he'd be expected to do for the position. Note how neither Harris nor Myers can point to any objective evidence based on how Collins has performed in the past as either a scientist or an NIH administrator to show that he has ever let his religious views color the science he does, the science he supports, or the science he chooses. They dance around this question; they oh-so-piously opine about how it is not about Collins' evangelical Christianity. But in the end they cannot show any objective evidence that Collins has ever in his career let his religion color his science to the point where he would run the NIH poorly based on his religion.

Of course!

And this has been pointed out again and again. P.Z. and his mob have never once shown how Collins' metaphysical views have adversely impacted his practicing of science. They can't because that's never happened.

P.Z. and his mob are bigots, that's all. They hate Christians and their hatred is akin to racism and anti-semitism. It's disgusting and appalling that a Web site devoted to the advancement of science would give a platform to this hate-filled dishonest bilge.

Posted by: tsg | August 6, 2009 3:35 PM

Shorter davidm:

"You hate Christians!!!" *fingers in ears* "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA LA"

Posted by: SC, OM | August 6, 2009 3:50 PM

And yet somehow Collins, who, frankly, really is an incredibly insulting little ass in his own dazed little way, too*, and obviously pretty divisive, too, can get the nod...

Yeah, it's interesting how it doesn't seem to be noted how alienating and offputting his public statements could be to the large number of nonbelieving (never mind non-Evangelical Christian) scientists and medical professionals the organization employs and primarily works with.

***

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 6, 2009 3:52 PM

@66: Collins has already claimed that morality and altruism cannot have evolved and must be gifts from God. He's _already_ allowed his theology to interfere with his science by pre-judging the outcome of any possible enquiry into the origins of those human behaviours.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 6, 2009 4:02 PM

It's disgusting and appalling that a Web site devoted to the advancement of science would give a platform to this hate-filled dishonest bilge.

And not uniquely American I might add :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States

And fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, constitutionally protected free thought and speech. If you better educated, you wouldn't be so retarded.

Collins brings the woo woo into science. Now is the appropriate time to tell this story about Charlie Bolden, the new NASA administrator. The very first thing he said one the first day on the job, I can't remember the exact quote, but it was something like 'You just got to acknowledge the force and power of God, even if you don't believe.'

I'm pretty sure he meant 'nature', but he did remark that he was Episcopalian (I had to wiki it), and since in his introduction newscast he did warn everybody that 'Charlie' was ok but 'Chuck' was verboten, and that he would undoubtedly be making numerous 'faux pas' in the coming months as he learned the job, I cut this gentleman a whole lotta slack on the god and nature interchangeability thing.

After the webcast was over the very first thing the introducer said was 'Thank you Chuck ... er ... Charlie'.

Charlie's the man. I even have a 'little' more respect for Bill Nelson now too. But I'll be watching him carefully more for job performance and less about what faux pas he makes.

Francis Collins regularly publishes scientific faux pas of enormous proportions.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 4:36 PM

Collins brings the woo woo into science. Now is the appropriate time to tell this story about Charlie Bolden, the new NASA administrator. The very first thing he said one the first day on the job, I can't remember the exact quote, but it was something like 'You just got to acknowledge the force and power of God, even if you don't believe.'

I can't help but think Obama missed an opportunity with NASA. Now, if you really want to know who urgently wants to keep track of all the planets, it's an astrologer. And hey, astrologers still acknowledge that Pluto is a planet! Perhaps a Rosicrucian. They keep some amazingly accurate ephemerides. And hey, who doesn't enjoy reading their horoscope daily? Wouldn't it be so much better if its accuracy were guaranteed by NASA?

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 4:58 PM

david m #66 wrote:

P.Z. and his mob are bigots, that's all. They hate Christians and their hatred is akin to racism and anti-semitism. It's disgusting and appalling that a Web site devoted to the advancement of science would give a platform to this hate-filled dishonest bilge.

Religious beliefs are not like race or nationality, an inherent feature of identity. They are conclusions which are arrived at, and held, through a process of reasoning. All a person has to do to become a Christian is to read about it (in the Bible or other sources), think about the matter very deeply, consider it, and come to the conclusion that it makes sense, and is probably right. And all a person has to do to stop being a Christian is to come to the opposite conclusion, and change their mind.

Just as one may change their mind on politics, or science, or economics, or social theory. This puts religious belief on the same ground level of debate as beliefs in those areas. And this means that charges of "bigotry" become much more difficult, and require much more extreme condemnation in areas which are outside of the intellectual issue.

PZ and his minions (the more accurate term, btw) are analyzing religious beliefs as rational conclusions derived from the evidence. Collins is advocating what we see as a form of pseudoscience, and inserting it into scientific areas -- his perceived "gaps" in neurology, human biology, and cosmology. But he's left the genome alone. That is, as long as you don't trace it back to how it was "planned in advance."

Posted by: speedweasel | August 6, 2009 5:17 PM

I’ve heard it said that, ‘a conclusion is simply the place where you got tired of thinking.’

I wonder how many other geneticists, after a lifetime of wrestling with that gigantic tangle of info-string, throw their hands in the air and claim, “Enough already! Goddidit!”

Posted by: Paul | August 6, 2009 5:26 PM

This does not mean that Harris's and PZ's concerns about Collins aren't legitimate. But in real life few if any senators will have the same concerns.

Even if they did have the same concerns, voicing them would mean they're out the next election cycle. So while I like to give our good senators the benefit of the doubt regarding their personal concerns (they are just people, after all), I'd never expect them to actually do something in this case. They're bound by the rules that keep them in the job -- that is, never openly do anything that might offend Christians, act tough on crime, and don't say anything negative about the running of the armed forces.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | August 6, 2009 5:49 PM

"Many religionists still feel that their religion is like your nationality -- they know in their hearts that they didn't choose to be X, but it was chosen for them by their social group."

In other words - can't well all just belong!

I know the feeling, but I have overcome it with the power of my secret magic brain waves. (wink wink, nudge nudge).

Posted by: Holbach | August 6, 2009 5:59 PM

"Tis Himself @ 79

Your last sentence reveals the shame and frustration of it all. Unavoidable, but still shameful.

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 6:12 PM

heddle:

Who gives a damn about peer-review in a field which isn't driven by formal systems? They all fall along the lines of literary analysis anyhow. It's like demanding a peer reviewed journal article in non-analytical philosophy (or theology, for that matter).

But yes, pull up Altermeyer on RWA. Or Rappaport's work on ritual. Or any ethnology of evangelical groups. Or Durkheim.

Yes, you're just an apologist -- you're dishonest to your opponents, and probably dishonest to yourself as well.

And if you want to argue that faith is rational -- please give us a peer-reviewed journal article that supports that. You've been pushing that line for years, yet have never come up with what you demand from others -- peer-reviewed journal articles; if that's your standard, please be the first to stand up and deliver.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 6, 2009 6:17 PM

Heddle, I spent a lot of time in Sunday school, and church, and bible camp, when I was a kid. There was a lot of singing. Chanting. Repetition. Not a lot of rational enquiry. I'm with frog on this one.

Posted by: Holbach | August 6, 2009 6:28 PM

heddle @ 85

We can prove your god exists in your head and that it will cease to exist if your head was cut off. Try it and we will know for sure. But you will never know, that's for sure.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 6:33 PM

You say it with such certainty I'm sure you are just quoting the conclusion of a data-driven peer-reviewed paper on the subject (which you forgot to reference) and not just speakin' out your butt.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 6, 2009 6:39 PM

So heddle admits that his faith is irrational. At least he's honest about something.

I could rationally defend my theology from scripture.

In other words, you can rationally defend irrationality. I can rationally defend the darkon theory of light but that doesn't mean the basis is anything but fiction.

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 6:49 PM

heddle: That's a lie. I have said many times on this blog that my conversion was not rational, but in fact it was supernatural. That God chooses believers, not the other way around. What I have said is rational was limited to this: that I could rationally defend my theology from scripture. Get your story straight, dude.

So then what's your damn problem? You just repeated what I said, but with a positive spin instead of a negative one.

Should I demand journal articles to support that? It would be damn silly -- it's obvious to you, it's obvious to every semi-honest religionist, it's all over the literature for a hundred years now.

And your Dembski comment is just idiotic. You know what a formal system is -- so all I can assume is that you're trying once again to prove your inherent dishonesty and bad faith argument.

For those who missed that, Dembski is arguing for precisely an undefined mathematical concept in a hard science -- he's not arguing from some kind of symbolic analysis, or any other softy, non-formal approach, but is trying to bullshit math (a formal system).

Once again, heddle, you are a beautiful example of exactly the kind of contemptible apologist I was describing -- reason used in the service of the irrational as a post-hoc rationalization is despicably bad faith. Reason isn't a mere tactic, a rhetorical device you use to mislead your opponents and the audience.

You're lower than a lawyer -- an intellectual mercenary.

Posted by: heddle | August 6, 2009 6:58 PM

frog,

You're lower than a lawyer -- an intellectual mercenary.

Coolness--when do I get paid?

In terms of peer-review your comments are bullshit. Every professional field I know--regardless of the "formal system" diversion, has peer review.

Though I will grant that if unfalsifiable assertions you made in #83 (disguised as hard facts) make it through the process then it's not worth much in the mumbly-jumbly fields, as Sokal demonstrated. And in that sense you are quite right--who gives a damn about peer review?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 6, 2009 7:02 PM

And you know this, how? - heddle

Well if there had ever been even the slightest hint of it, people like you would never shut up about it. I guess I don't know it, in the same sense that I don't know no-one has ever been given a pot of gold from the end of the rainbow by a leprachaun.

More fairly

Bwaw-haw-haw!

--there is nothing in my theology that says people who have never heard anything about God/Jesus can't be converted/regenerated.

I know there isn't, shit-for-brains. That's my point. If God were real and Christianity were true, you'd expect it to have happened frequently that the first Christians who did hear about Christianity by non-supernatural means
to reach a distant place, would have found Christians already present (presumably, with the correct Calvinist theology), and reported the same. It never happened. Not once. Why - it's just as if Christianity were a bunch of silly stories with no relation to reality whatever.

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 7:12 PM

heddle: Though I will grant that if unfalsifiable assertions you made in #83

Except that the assertion that I made was supported by you, you over-educated moron. You agreed with it -- and yet you continue to pretend that you disagree with it. You're a scumbag liar.

And I did give you a list of authors to look up. No, most of the soft-sciences are not journal driven, but book driven; they may have journals, but their primary production isn't journal articles which are generally summaries of sections of books currently being developed.

Funny you bring up Sokal -- you could do the same with any kind of theology (including yours) you brought up.

It's the problem with fields that haven't developed a formal basis -- which is why they try to develop one as soon as is feasible. Sociology, for example, is a mix that has been trying to find a formal footing for the last century.

But your bullshit has had millenia to try, and has failed, because there's nothing there to formalize. The Greeks actually honestly tried to develop a formal system for it -- but it failed -- because it's all bullshit you're making up. At about the intellectual par with Marxism which has failed in the same way after a century and a half, and Libertarianism that explicitly rejects any attempts to put itself on a firm formal footing.

See, that's what honest fields do -- they work, sometimes over centuries, to move from mouthing arguments towards setting up mathematical structures. Dishonest fields run from formal systems like a Christian from honesty -- because all they have is platitudes and verbal diarrhea. You intend to never put your arguments into a testable form -- not as a temporary measure until you develop testable forms, but forever and ever.

As you said, it's a rational excuse for an irrational position; you can "support it from scripture", given that you already assume your faith in interpreting what scripture is, how it developed, and what it means. What a trick!

And if I start with 1=0, I too can "prove" anything I want. The fact that you know math, once again proves your deep, deep dishonesty in trying that.

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 7:20 PM

This is the perfect example why it's a terrible idea to argue rationally with someone for whom rationality is just a tactic to advance an irrational point.

They're not tied to the same concept of intellectual honesty that rationalists are -- rationality itself only has value for them insofar as it supports the irrational.

It's like going into a boxing ring against a guy who's keeping a gun in his shorts. They don't care about where rationality and empiricism leads -- it's just a temporary expedient to advance their irrational agenda. They'll inject some position they know is irrational whenever it works rhetorically; they'll lie, cheat and steal, and only stop if it threatens their agenda -- which is orthogonal to rationality.

They're not working in good-faith. You can never treat your opponent as honest if they're a used car salesman or a Christian apologist.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 6, 2009 7:23 PM

It's the problem with fields that haven't developed a formal basis -- which is why they try to develop one as soon as is feasible. Sociology, for example, is a mix that has been trying to find a formal footing for the last century.

Um, no. Some sociologists are interested in such a project. The rest of us are quite happy with saying ours is a field in which questions are investigated via systematic empirical methods and arguments assessed on the basis of the quality of the data-gathering and evidence adduced. We are also careful (unlike you) about over-generalization and suspicious of Grand Theoretical claims.

***

http://saltycurrent/blogspot.com/

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 7:33 PM

SC: The rest of us are quite happy with saying ours is a field in which questions are investigated via systematic empirical methods and arguments assessed on the basis of the quality of the data-gathering and evidence adduced

As soon as you attempt to convert sentence into numbers you are turning your ideas into formal theories, whether or not it's a Grand Theory in the tradition of physics, or merely a set of correlations.

And it's always much stronger if your "arguments" are amenable to formal relations between your data sets -- if some sociologists are happy with bullshitting about numbers, with no attempts to formalize these arguments, well... they might as well be over-generalizing -- because you can never confirm whether or not you've over-generalized without a formal system.

If the verbal arguments aren't intended to ultimately produce a formal description -- whether in the next paper or as part of a multi-generational project -- well, it's just not science. Data + words != science (except as a temporary expedient in the early stages of developing a new field).

Posted by: E.V. | August 6, 2009 7:37 PM

TL;DR translates to "I have the attention span of a four year old with ADHD and the sum depth of my understanding is typified by People magazine's articles."

*blank stare & gum cracking optional*

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 7:42 PM

Sastra: If you can reason your way out of it, then people trying to get you to do so by telling you your opinion sucks are not being bigots.

Oh, I agree. If you can reason yourself out of it, if you were allowed to, then it's not bigotry to attack it. It's bigotry to attack someone for being born in country X -- it's not bigotry to attack their feelings of nationalism, though (for example).

I still think it's a mistake to think of it in terms of reason. They didn't get there because of reason -- and I wonder how often reason is what drives them out. I'd bet that it's not usually reason that drives you away from religion -- but something much more mundane such as "everyone in church are such hypocrites" (driven by a specific social event which screwed you or a friend). Reason can then be used to support that movement away. I'd be damned surprised if you were able to record someone "falling away" from a church, that you wouldn't find that the social elements precede the rational elements. By falling away, you are then freed to reason, instead of regurgitating slogans and mistaking that for reason.

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 7:55 PM

Sastra: But even for you, theism is not some sort of raw, irreducible, uninterpreted subjective experience like a headache or seeing the color red: it's a rational interpretation drawn from experiences and evidence.

No, no, no... It's like Collins and the three-frozen streams. Collins didn't interpret that as a sign from god -- he didn't analyze all the possible meanings.

He saw it immediately, like seeing the color red. It's pre-rational -- the experience comes first, then the words are applied to rationalize the experience.

It may be produced by your emotions, your experiences, your study of scripture, your study of theology, your community, your upbringing, etc. -- but it's not a rational summation of them, but a subjective product of them. Collins and heddle didn't sit down and work through the implications of a belief -- it's always describe as "coming in a flash". It's something they know, down to their bones, into their sinews.

Saying that they believe by some rational process is like saying that you love your mother due to some rational process. Sure, your love for your mother can be rationally explained -- but that's not why you love her. You just do (or don't as the matter may be).

Posted by: Brownian, OM | August 6, 2009 8:04 PM

Ha, that dumb Myers -- how can he argue against our position when even we don't know what it is! Triumph!"

Ha! That's a great description, Tulse, but you forgot the codas:

"Man, God is just so damn mysterious! Awesome!"

Or, if you prefer:

"Stupid science. We're answering the big questions."

Posted by: SC, OM | August 6, 2009 8:18 PM

BTW, heddle, Sokal's hoax didn't demonstrate anything about peer review in any fields. Social Text was not a peer-reviewed publication.

***

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 8:23 PM

Sastra: Their emotional state is unmistakable and needs to be taken at face value: the way they frame how they felt is an interpretation. Interpretations require reason.

It's the difference between knowing what a headache feels like, and knowing what a brain tumor feels like. It is possible to blur the two together, and insist that your pain in your head means that you have a brain tumor, and you didn't reason that out -- you felt it. You feel the brain tumor directly, and nobody can tell you that you don't know what you feel. You felt God's hand on your heart, and, because it was your experience, it can't be denied by anyone, least of all you.

Here's where I think you have it wrong (even though we're very close). In the religious experience, the "interpretation" and the "experience" are the same (at least they think it is).

The booming voice says "I am God" or the image that appears to them is Jesus-as-a-frozen-stream. They refuse to interpret further than what what the experience itself claims to be -- it's not an object of empirical research, but an experience associated with a belief. They don't "figure out" that it's God-speaking-to-them -- they know it immediately.

Otherwise, what sensible person in this day and age assume that the "experience" is anything but a very small aneurysm? Collins isn't some kind of caveman for whom demons causing visions is a natural interpretation. No, he just knew that it was a message from God, a direct revelation of God.

All the words afterwards are rationalizations; and yes, that makes them appear to be a rational product. But I don't think we should treat them that way -- they sure don't, or else you could just say to Collins "Hey, you know about schizophrenia, mini-strokes, etc. Isn't the scientifically humble interpretation just that you had a bit of a neural overload caused by combining physical exertion with the natural human response to natural beauty?"

I'm sure he'd just stare at you, thinking that you just don't get it. And he'd probably be right.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 8:33 PM

you could just say to Collins "Hey, you know about schizophrenia, mini-strokes, etc. Isn't the scientifically humble interpretation just that you had a bit of a neural overload caused by combining physical exertion with the natural human response to natural beauty?"

But even heddle acknowledges that insanity is a possible explanation for his miraculous-god-diddling/demon-possession/brain-death event that saved him from the curse of atheism and enabled heddle to experience the divine wisdom of God's infinite mercy of eternal hell-fire for the unbelievers--it's just that his Zaphod Beeblebrox-dwarfing ego won't allow him to apply parsimony to his own rationalizations.

Collins would just accuse you of scientism. It's a good thing NIH will be free from the curse of it. It's a good life.

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 8:41 PM

SC: What I object to is the idea that history and the social sciences differ fundamentally from the sciences, as "informal disciplines that produce books and lots of words since they lack a formal basis." From my previous interactions with you, you don't appear to have a clue what we really do. Sure, there are sociologists who produce lots of words and lots of numbers and weak arguments that they don't really support. Others of us don't.

Are we talking about the same "formal systems"? I mean mathematical formal systems.

If you put your arguments into a system of squiggles that can be mechanically transformed to produce a theorem, you have a formal system. Otherwise, you have a bunch of words and numbers.

I don't think that means that your arguments must be weak or lack rigor. Biology is also in a half-way state, attempting to develop the proper formalisms; Darwinian theory wasn't formal until the 1930's -- but that doesn't mean that it wasn't rigorous or weak, just embryonic at that stage.

It wasn't likely to fall for a Sokal-type hoax, for example. But it's much, much better off for the firm formalisms of the synthesis -- now, it's much easier to firmly falsify or support than it was in the late 19th century, and turn of the century biologists were reasonable to look for alternatives that might be more formalizable.

An argument that can be reduced to a formal prediction -- if I have measured X parameters, then I can mechanically produce a set of numbers Y and compare them to an experiment or some other measurement Z -- is much better than I have these numbers and I can say that my measurements should be "higher" or "lower" or somesuch.

What I'm distinguishing isn't "good" or "bad" science, but "primitive" or "advanced" science. Durkheim had all kinds of arguments and data on social networks -- but it's much better to have some kind of graph-theoretical approach that allows you to quantify a social network and it's behaviors. Not because Durkheim was a bad scientist -- but because he was breaking ground that allowed the later application of mathematical techniques to social networks.

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 9:03 PM

EV: When you're raised from infancy to expect God you tend to attribute anything you can as evidence...

I'd agree almost completely -- except that I don't think that the phrase "attribute as evidence" really captures it, at least some of the time.

At least intermittently, the direct subjective experience is "of God" -- it's not just evidence of it, it's the thing itself (due to all the causes you mention).

It's like Kuhn's ideas about "paradigms". When you have a certain structure in your head, you don't just collect data as evidence of that structure -- the structure itself helps determine what you "see" -- not just what you believe it means, but how you directly perceive it.

But other than that, I agree. I just think that detail is important -- in the end, you can't simply argue them out of it, you have to find some way for them to actual experience a world without God. That implies to me that arguments are of lesser value here than art, for this particular goal. It's different from a scientific shift, in that scientists are at least nominally directly working on the equipment of measurement -- you can always say -- "Just look at my new tool, dissassemble, reassemble it, and use it yourself".

That's also why I think scientist should, as much as practical, build their own equipment, and stay "close to the metal".

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 9:18 PM

Sastra: Their refusal to pick apart, analyze, and interpret further is not due to the fact that their belief isn't rational or empirical -- it's a dereliction of duty on their part, and a laying down of the responsibility and obligation of rational beings to consider other options. They are being irrational about a rational matter.

Ok, now I'm clear on where we "disagree". By saying that religion is rational -- you're not saying that they believers are using a rational method to gain their belief, just that they should.

Yes, they are being irrational about a matter that is amenable to rational analysis. That doesn't mean though that confronting them with reason will help -- they are irrational about the matter, which means that any reason in their case will start with an irrational assumption (1=0).

That's why I think that the most practical attack is art. Watching a satire is more effective than reading a philosopher; beholding the beauty of the evolutionary process in visual form is more powerful than reading arguments about teleology by Meyer; having atheist friends is more efficacious than reading Dawkins.

The religionists know this -- that's why they often ask their sheep to be "examples to the heathens". They know that the most powerful argument is the social/aesthetic/experiential one, not the rational one.

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 9:22 PM

heddle: I said that people who have never heard of Jesus might be regenerated—God is sovereign

In short, anything is possible, in ways that are completely immeasurable, right? You can't possible know whether someone is "regenerated" -- that's known only to the sky-fairy.

So something invisible happens invisibly via invisible methods. Sometimes you may have "signs" -- but the signs are neither necessary nor sufficient.

Nice theoretical structure there. If you were allowed to argue that way in physics...

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 9:33 PM

EV: No matter what their level of religious belief is, a majority of everyone I know argues that we have souls.

And even when they rationally reject souls, they often still have a now disconnected cartesian dualism floating around in their minds, like a ghost; I don't know how many times I have to remind people that there's no difference between a "psychological" mental problem and an "organic" one -- they're all organic. Some take a hammer to fix, and some take tweezers, but they're all disorders of neuronal architecture that are self-propagating.

Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was the reference I was making. It's a nice riposte to the vulgar positivism of the early 20th century. It's just terribly that his phrase "paradigm" has been stolen and rendered meaningless.

Posted by: Sastra | August 6, 2009 9:45 PM

frog #130 wrote:

Yes, they are being irrational about a matter that is amenable to rational analysis. That doesn't mean though that confronting them with reason will help -- they are irrational about the matter, which means that any reason in their case will start with an irrational assumption (1=0).That's why I think that the most practical attack is art.

It's one approach, yes. I think that there's a wide range of differences not only between the creeds, but between individuals. What works for one, may not work for another (and hard to argue with that.)

Where I may still disagree just a bit is in the value of promoting a rational world view through deliberate appeals to emotion. I'm going to go back to the article that started this post, by Harris (oh yeah, that):

The goal is not to get more Americans to merely accept the truth of evolution (or any other scientific theory); the goal is to get them to value the principles of reasoning and educated discourse that now make a belief in evolution obligatory. Doubt about evolution is merely a symptom of an underlying problem; the problem is faith itself—conviction without sufficient reason, hope mistaken for knowledge, bad ideas protected from good ones, good ideas occluded by bad ones, wishful thinking elevated to a principle of salvation, etc.

For "evolution," substitute "atheism." As Harris has stated elsewhere, the goal shouldn't be to get people to become atheists: the goal is to persuade them to become more reasonable. Atheism is simply a byproduct of the humanist approach.

Now I don't think you're actually advocating getting people to renounce their religion and become rationalists by appealing to their aesthetic senses, or telling them they'll have lots of friends. Those are, of course, only reassurances: they won't lose their sense of wonder, their ability to form friendships, etc. I think perhaps you're only talking about finding the right 'wedge' to start the process of critical thinking.

But I worry that if we abandon the idea that theists are rational people who care about truth, and just see them as dupes who need to be shaken out of their stupor, we will lose the firm ground we stand on, and start looking like another ideology in competition for members.

There's an old trope about "you can't reason someone out of anything they didn't reason themselves into." But I'm not so sure that's always true -- nor am I sure that the majority of religious believers didn't reason themselves into their present beliefs, and that they will now hold onto their views in the teeth of any and all evidence, so hit the Feelings. I suspect most theists are more intelligent than we give them credit for, or, at least, more ordinary. They have a nuanced faith. They often do see or sense a disconnect about the way they think about God and religion and spirituality -- and the way they think about everything else. They live in the same world we do, and you usually can't tell whether someone is religious or not unless you ask them (may not apply in certain areas.)

I don't think it's a bad idea to at least initially approach people in 'good faith' -- on the assumption that they want to ground their supernatural beliefs as firmly as they ground other beliefs, and would not only be able, but would want to change their minds if they discovered they were mistaken. When it comes to looking at the larger context, we share more common ground than not.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 6, 2009 9:45 PM

Are we talking about the same "formal systems"? I mean mathematical formal systems.

Then no. But then you really don't know what you're talking about when you say

It's the problem with fields that haven't developed a formal basis -- which is why they try to develop one as soon as is feasible. Sociology, for example, is a mix that has been trying to find a formal footing for the last century.

"Sociology" in no sense has been trying to do this. Certain individuals are quantitatively and/or Grand-Theory obsessed, but this has not been something the majority in the discipline have been striving at - quite the contrary.

If you put your arguments into a system of squiggles that can be mechanically transformed to produce a theorem, you have a formal system. Otherwise, you have a bunch of words and numbers.

See, this is your obsession. Either a formal system in the mathematical sense or "a bunch of words and numbers." It has nothing to do with the actual practice of sociology.

I don't think that means that your arguments must be weak or lack rigor.

My point is that your suggestion that these disciplines are "primitive" and have only "a bunch of words and numbers" is dismissive of the real methods and standards of evidence that characterize them.

Biology is also in a half-way state, attempting to develop the proper formalisms; Darwinian theory wasn't formal until the 1930's -- but that doesn't mean that it wasn't rigorous or weak, just embryonic at that stage. It wasn't likely to fall for a Sokal-type hoax, for example.

No discipline fell for the hoax. The editor of a specific (non-peer-reviewed) journal did. This is an important distinction. As Sokal pointed out, there's very good work in the sociohistorical study of science, and many of us laughed at the examples he and Bricmont offered in their book, as we had before the hoax.

But it's much, much better off for the firm formalisms of the synthesis -- now, it's much easier to firmly falsify or support than it was in the late 19th century, and turn of the century biologists were reasonable to look for alternatives that might be more formalizable.

Sociology is not biology. History is not biology.

An argument that can be reduced to a formal prediction -- if I have measured X parameters, then I can mechanically produce a set of numbers Y and compare them to an experiment or some other measurement Z -- is much better than I have these numbers and I can say that my measurements should be "higher" or "lower" or somesuch.

That would be a Grand Theory or set of Laws of Social Behavior. The problem is that experiments in the social sciences create highly artificial conditions. They are also subject to the culture and historical period in which they are undertaken. They are used very little in sociology, and I've never known a sociologist who held what you suggest as a goal. Your idea that this is "much better" in sociology is simply the result of a certain prejudice on your part. What I'm saying is better in the social sciences is a matter of evidence that your claims map to (some portion of) the real social world.

What I'm distinguishing isn't "good" or "bad" science, but "primitive" or "advanced" science.

No. You're setting a personal standard of "advanced" research for disciplines rather than appreciating good solid work done in them on their own terms.

Durkheim had all kinds of arguments and data on social networks -- but it's much better to have some kind of graph-theoretical approach that allows you to quantify a social network and it's behaviors.

You're lacking an appreciation of what is lost in quantification in the social sciences. It isn't "better" because it's quantified or abstracted.

Not because Durkheim was a bad scientist -- but because he was breaking ground that allowed the later application of mathematical techniques to social networks.

Actually, having read much quantitative work in sociology, I'm of the view that later heavily-numerical analysis are far more suspect than earlier ones.

Durkheim's contribution wasn't about the application of mathematical techniques to social analysis, but that he helped to show how the social world could be understood through systematic empirical investigation.

If you think the project of developing general social laws is a worthwhile one and should be important to social scientists, fine. (I think any general social laws that could be developed would be so general that they wouldn't tell us anything useful at all about any real-world phenomenon.) Just don't suggest that all we have are competing bunches of words and numbers. That's fundamentally misrepresenting the nature of the enterprise and the people engaged in it.

***

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 6, 2009 10:03 PM

regenerated

ah the cosmic karmic circle...

wait, what religion is this again?

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 6, 2009 10:06 PM

And though it is unfalsifiable, unscientific, late-night hashish-induced dormitory crapola, I can pretend it actually means something.

says the man who hasn't the slightest clue whether or not science HAS ever been done to test relevant theories about it.

ever read this one, Heddle?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996

you should.

Posted by: heddle | August 6, 2009 10:10 PM

Anton Mates,

And conversion does mean that you acquire knowledge of whatever it is you're converted to.

No it doesn't. Regenerated and converted are synonymous--and closely related to justified which itself is synonymous with saved.

That is--you are converted/regenerated without any contribution from yourself--although you generally have (again, in the normative sense) a working knowledge of doctrine—but not necessarily so. At the same time this conversion leaves you justified--presentable to a holy God--that is you are saved.

Again--babies can be converted without ever acquiring knowledge of what they are converted to. So you are simply wrong.

You are using, I think, converted in the sense of a voluntary switch from one religion to another. As in "I converted to Catholicism." I am using it in a soteriological sense--in which, again, it means "regenerated."

Posted by: heddle | August 6, 2009 10:17 PM

Ichthyic,

regenerated

ah the cosmic karmic circle...

wait, what religion is this again?

Christianity--although I feel your pain. "Regenerated" sounds a bit like "reincarnated" -- but that would be Harris's bailiwick, not mine.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 6, 2009 10:21 PM

Christianity--although I feel your pain.

no, you couldn't have the slightest idea the pain your inane screeds causes me.

everytime you write, someone pokes me in the shoulder, hard.

...with a pitchfork.

just...

go away, eh?

Posted by: heddle | August 6, 2009 10:25 PM

Anton Mates,

Then you're using "converted" in your own special sense. Again, that's fine if you warn us, but the rest of us speak English.

From dictionary.com:

----------------------
con⋅ver⋅sion  /kənˈvɜrʒən, -ʃən/ –noun

1. the act or process of converting; state of being converted.

2. change in character, form, or function.

3. spiritual change from sinfulness to righteousness.

4. change from one religion, political belief, viewpoint, etc., to another.
----------------------

The first definition is generic. Definitions two and three are consistent with how I used it. Definition four is how you used it (I guess that's the "English" definition.) It is nice of dictionary.com to give my "special" definition such high billing.

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 10:28 PM

'Tis Himself: A physicist can run an experiment over and over again, changing one parameter each time, and derive general statements from the series of experiments. You and I can look at real life situations and try to explain why the people involved in those situations acted the way they did. But those particular situations will never be duplicated with only one parameter changed.

I'm not sure that's quite the proper analogy.

Look at compressed fluid physics. There's no attempt to track trajectories of a particular element -- you attempt to create a stochastic model, and find the invariants of the system (radial distribution, etc). You don't look for the unfindable -- you try to re-formulate the problem in terms of what can be found.

For many of the problems you are trying to solve, much of it isn't amenable to experiment. Some of the parameters are, and some of the underlying behaviors are -- but the particular work has to be done purely theoretically, then you take your theory to some border case that can then make experimentally testable predictions.

You should be able to apply the "stochastic physics" approach to every field -- given enough time to think, enough data to use, etc. Ultimately, you should be able to find measures for groups of people and individuals, that under some contexts, describe a probabilistic envelope of behaviors.

Of course, you can't predict whether, when you kick a dog it'll bite you, run away, or lick your hand. That just means that the question is being asked incorrectly.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 6, 2009 10:40 PM

Look at compressed fluid physics. There's no attempt to track trajectories of a particular element -- you attempt to create a stochastic model, and find the invariants of the system (radial distribution, etc). You don't look for the unfindable -- you try to re-formulate the problem in terms of what can be found.

Why, frog, are you trying to engage the heddle about physics, or engineering, or simulation? Why? He only plays a physics teacher on scienceblogs long enough to tell us he's smarter than the average atheist because he's been touched by God's magic spooge, and we haven't.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 6, 2009 10:43 PM

frog #147

It's objectively better to put an argument in a formal notation (in a mathematical system) than just in words.

That's pure prejudice on your part. You're used to having phenomena described mathematically. However there are some things that do not lend themselves to mathematical description. Interactions between people fall into this category.

No matter how hard you try to be rigorous and test your ideas -- if you can't put them into a formal notation that can, in a sense, be "simulated", you have a relatively smaller ability to ascertain how closely you hit the mark, you have less predictive power, and you lack, relatively, the ability to spot errors in the argument. It's simply not as clear.

People don't work that way. It's quite impossible to reduce human interaction to a formula. So while your prejudice damns social scientists for not servicing your desires, a little thought would tell you that you're demanding something that can't be done and whining because your scientific bias isn't catered to.

If you can reduce this post to mathematical statements, then you'll have a legitimate argument. Until then, you're just piqued because your preconceptions aren't supported by reality.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 6, 2009 11:01 PM

No it doesn't. Regenerated and converted are synonymous--and closely related to justified which itself is synonymous with saved.

Do you have a reference for that?

It's not a personal standard.

Yes, it is, when applied to the social sciences.

It's objectively better to put an argument in a formal notation (in a mathematical system) than just in words.

No, it isn't objectively better at all. It depends on the nature of the phenomena you're talking about and the sort of argument you're making. Much can be lost in the social sciences in the process of quantification and abstraction; it's not inherently more precise, and can dilute the usefulness of the ideas.

No matter how hard you try to be rigorous and test your ideas -- if you can't put them into a formal notation that can, in a sense, be "simulated",

Good luck with that.

you have a relatively smaller ability to ascertain how closely you hit the mark, you have less predictive power, and you lack, relatively, the ability to spot errors in the argument. It's simply not as clear.

That's not so. Translating a social phenomenon into numbers does not necessarily make it more clear or improve a theory's explanatory or predictive powers.

That doesn't mean you have to produce a "Theory of Everything" -- a "Grand Unification". It's nice when you can, but in many sciences you also develop contextual systems -- like Kirchoff's law, that only apply for artificial circuits, or Maxwell's Law in Dielectrics which is actually an approximation of Maxwell's Law with simplified dipole behavior.

What we are doing with mid-range theory is like this. However, these are not local "laws" or local differences in the working of general laws.

Yes, that was the first part of my point. The second part is that such a social analysis is improved if it can be transformed from verbal arguments to mathematical arguments.

You keep asserting this, but you haven't backed it up with anything.

It's not something that I expect can be "fully" done this century, or the next -- but I would hope that would be the ultimate goal;

There's no good reason to hope that.

Yes and no. You have specific theories and specific data, which folks are trying their hardest to keep robust and precise.

I have no idea what this means.

Perhaps you could use a concrete example in the social sciences. You've argued that:

Watching a satire is more effective than reading a philosopher; beholding the beauty of the evolutionary process in visual form is more powerful than reading arguments about teleology by Meyer; having atheist friends is more efficacious than reading Dawkins.

....the most powerful argument is the social/aesthetic/experiential one, not the rational one.

You seem to believe the social sciences, lacking "formal systems," are fields in which existing disciplinary standards aren't important ("Who gives a damn about peer-review in a field which isn't driven by formal systems? They all fall along the lines of literary analysis anyhow."). How would you go about advancing these ideas into a formal system?

***

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com

Posted by: SC, OM | August 6, 2009 11:29 PM

Yes, I understand perfectly well that those statements aren't ready for publishing in a journal article.

But let me see -- what percentage of assertion on any given thread are cited with full experimental verification -- let me see, let me see...

frog, you've suggested above that peer-review in the social sciences themselves is a silly notion - not simply that blog comments shouldn't be subject to the same standards.

And as I long tried in vain to explain to heddle (and to you above), "experimental verification" is not the gold standard in the social sciences. Nor is it synonymous with evidence.

I was trying to get you to see that if you're arguing in a compressed, public, amateur forum -- you don't get to just use "that's uncited" as a rhetorical device.

You do get to request evidence in support of claims, of any sort. And should. The problem would be solved in your case if you presented your ideas more tentatively.

I can't even remember the last time I saw you make an assertion that was fully cited and/or had scientific rigor.

What is that supposed to show? That I haven't provided evidence to back up my claims? I guess the probably thousands of links to books and studies I've provided have been invisible to you.

Anyway, you've provided clear evidence here and elsewhere that you don't have the slightest idea what scienctific rigor means in the social sciences, so you're not exactly qualified to judge that. But I fully expect people to ask for empirical support for claims I'm making, and I try to provide it when asked (sometimes it involves my own research, which makes it impossible), and also to avoid doing what you do.

It's not fair to demand that from comments you just don't like while not offering either a counter-argument (which is at the same evidentiary level) or a reference to a creditable scientific source (which wins the fight).

Even if that were my usual practice, which it isn't, it would still be perfectly fair.

Particularly when you are, ahem, highly selective about it.

Fuck you.

I've commented on it when PZ has made claims about atheists that I would very much like to be true. You have a terrible habit of throwing out unsubstantiated claims, and have said or implied on more than one occasion that you believe that's OK because they're just social claims.

If a creationist comes and says "X", it's not fair to just simply say "did you do the experiment" -- you have to either show that X is unreasonable, or reference research that shows the opposite of X.

No, you don't. You can ask how the person knows that - what the evidence is for that contention.

And I rarely see that being the case -- almost always someone makes a counter-argument, or directs the creationist to the proper reference that shows that not true.

That's useful, but simply asking for evidence for a contention is a perfectly valid way to proceed.

Creationist says "macro-evolution has never been seen" -- people don't just say "Not True! Not True! Prove It! Nannynanny-booboo". They point out the longitudinal experiments done that have developed completely new traits.

That's a specific case. You can't recognize that?

***

http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com/

Posted by: frog | August 6, 2009 11:54 PM

SC:

Look at every post you've made -- take #158. Show me one place where you've substantiated anything you've said other than by argument or personal authority.

Just give me a break. Turn the damn mirror around and look at yourself. Where's your specific cases, and not just vague statements and assertions about what's "possible" or what "the field believes"? We've been arguing about your field -- yet you can't be bothered, even once, to give a clear example with a source, and yet you continue to demand it from others.

That's a cheat. If you're going to make ideological pronouncements -- even heddle is allowed. None of your postings would even get a C as a short answer essay in class -- and yet you complain about others.

As I said, give me a break. Don't rant and rave about other folks ranting. The fact you don't like my tone is neither here nor there -- that's just a whine, the same whine that the religionists give saying "the pharyngulites are just so mean".

The day you start actually using evidence (even some simple counter-examples) to undermine my claims I'll shut up. Otherwise, all I see from you is the exact same level of claims here -- just assertions from experience and logic. The day you give me an "A" posting, I'll slink away with my tail between my legs.

You'd think this would be easy, if I offend so much -- and yet you fail to do the simple thing that would shut me up, that would lead me to tip my hat to you (as I've done to others) and defer to your expertise.

Show me

Posted by: Feynmaniac | August 7, 2009 12:54 AM

My take: it's nice to have theories that take an exact mathematical form. Physics indeed has shown the power of this method. However, we can't expect this method to succeed in all areas. It may not be possible or even ideal. In physics experiments which are repeatable and have only a few variables can routinely be done. Human beings on the other hand are incredibly complex. In any given situation there are dozens and dozens of factors involved. Sometimes things are near impossible to test, like "The French revolution would have turned out differently if X". Even if there exists some sort of Seldon statistical laws of sociology it may be we don't have the mathematical techniques to solve problems in it or even describe it.

Just because you don't have exact mathematical model of a system however doesn't mean you can't say a lot about it. You take a look at societies, maybe you'll see some patterns and you'll be able to make some general claims. Any claims about the real world should be tested against empirical evidence. Otherwise, you become Walton ignoring all history and evidence while trying to set up a libertarian utopia where the inhabitants don't remotely resemble human beings.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 7, 2009 1:25 AM

By the way,

Once you drop the assumption of wisdom and sanity -- and analyze the ff's as you would any other arbitrary group of politicians -- you find good and bad -- like any other group of politicians. I see neither great wisdom nor great stupidity, but men trying to rig the system to their personal advantage, sometimes terribly short-sighted and sometimes with a bit longer sight.

I'm not a fan of the faith of Americanism, inasmuch as it looks like any other religious faith (to me, of course). Which of course leads to a tendency towards being a "provocateur", since that's the only game to play when you're poking at a universally (in the US in this case) accepted faith -- you push the argument to it's logical limit to find where your opponents are correct and empirically-based, and where they may be purely arguing from faith.

In other words, you're an asshole who assumes (s)he's above the faithful masses and can see with clearer vision. There is no such "universally...accepted faith" in the US (and in case you didn't notice, Bill Dauphin pointed out the problem with your allusions to "faith" and how it allegedly influenced your interlocutors' views below on that thread).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Beard

Beard's book came out in 1913. Its thesis came to be very widely accepted. It was one of many books in this vein.

Much more recently, I've recommended this a few times:

http://www.marcusrediker.com/Books/The_Many_Headed_Hydra/Synopsis_Hydra.htm

Posted by: Anton Mates | August 7, 2009 5:26 AM

heddle #150,

Yes, it's silly of us to think that definitions like
-------------------------
4. change from one religion, political belief, viewpoint, etc., to another.
5. a change of attitude, emotion, or viewpoint from one of indifference, disbelief, or antagonism to one of acceptance, faith, or enthusiastic support, esp. such a change in a person's religion
--------------------------
might be relevant to a discussion about conversion to Christianity.

Of course, getting back to your "special" definition, dictionary.com defines "righteous" as
--------------------------
1. characterized by uprightness or morality
2. morally right or justifiable
3. acting in an upright, moral way; virtuous
4. Slang. absolutely genuine or wonderful
--------------------------

Is that really applicable to babies? Maybe dctionary.com's not the best place to go here.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 6:37 AM

But if heddle's righteous God decides to roast a few babies in Hell for eternity, that's morally right or justifiable in heddle's eyes too.

Posted by: JBlilie | August 7, 2009 8:33 AM

If babies can be converted (by what, saying a magic spell over them?) then it's logically consistent that they can be de-converted by saying a different magic spell over them.

What nonsense, when referring to a pre-conscious being.

If "conversion" in the Christian sense (and most Christian churches require that you go through extensive training before you are officially accepted, to ensure that you understand and are freely choosing their rules and metaphysics) doesn't mean conscious choice, then it falls into the same category as the Mormons "posthumously baptizing" people into their superstition. It becomes the blatantly naked woo of the witch doctor.

Of course this magic spell: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," is the right magic spell. Obviously.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2009 8:43 AM

"Far away across the field
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees
To hear the softly spoken magic spells."
Breathe (reprise), Dark Side of the Moon. Pink Floyd

Posted by: Anton Mates | August 7, 2009 3:38 PM

Accordingly, if they and you are right, the idea that anyone, atheists included, reaches conclusions about God (or anything else) through some reasoning process is incoherent. Cause and effect is relentless.

I'm pretty happy with a reasoning process that occurs via cause and effect, personally.

Posted by: Robocop | August 7, 2009 3:56 PM

176: "I'm pretty happy with a reasoning process that occurs via cause and effect, personally."

I'd rather be able to cause, choose and create. I'd rather a reasoning process that's more than a post hoc rationalization. I'd rather be truly human.

Posted by: Anton Mates | August 7, 2009 6:15 PM

JBlilie,

If babies can be converted (by what, saying a magic spell over them?) then it's logically consistent that they can be de-converted by saying a different magic spell over them.

That doesn't apply to Heddle, though; he's a Calvinist. He doesn't think babies (or anyone else) can be converted by baptism or any other human action. All conversions are done directly by God.

It is logically consistent; it's just completely opaque to empirical investigation.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 8, 2009 5:34 AM

Accordingly, if they and you are right, the idea that anyone, atheists included, reaches conclusions about God (or anything else) through some reasoning process is incoherent. Cause and effect is relentless. - Robocop

Er... no. There is no reason something cannot be both a causal process and a reasoning process. Let's take a slightly different example, so (hopefully) you can see the point without your philosophical prejudices getting in the way. When a computer program multiplies two numbers, this is a causal process. It is also a mathematical calculation. In more complex cases, a chess-playing program can select a move, an expert system can provide advice, which can be criticised as a good move or piece of advice, or a bad one. Now to forestall you quite forseeable move, I am not saying we are digital computers; I am simply pointing out that a causal process can also have other valid descriptions.

In the human case, I find that I am generally better at reasoning when I am alert and sober than when I am sleepy or drunk. Now this difference in my performance is certainly a matter of cause and effect. Similarly, I am more likely to get a long division right if I use paper and pencil than if I do it in my head - and the same if I am attempting some more complex form of reasoning: the difference depends on the physical "hardware" used. The idea that there is some Platonic ideal me that does the reasoning, distinct from the physical world and its chains of cause, effect and (possibly) irreducible chance, is initially highly intuitive, but becomes increasingly incredible as one studies cognitive processing.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 10, 2009 10:07 AM

Which means, if you are correct, that so-called "reasoning" is merely (at best) ex post facto rationalization, - Robocop

No it doesn't. I suggest you look up what "ex post facto rationalization" means.

Posted by: Robocop | August 10, 2009 11:11 AM

"If, for example, one group reasons in a way which is valid (i.e., guarantees that if the premises are true, the conclusion is true), while the other does not, the first are being more rational, and whether or not the processes used are deterministic is simply irrelevant to this judgement. Similarly, if I have two calculators, both deterministic let us say, but one uses arithmetic algorithms which always give the right answer, while the other uses algorithms that gives wrong answers, the first is a better calculator than the second."

The concept of rationality implies a process of reasoning involving real choices (could have done otherwise) among real alternatives. Since you posit a process without real choice (and with determined outcomes -- in the same way Calvinism offers "choices"; it's just that no one "chooses" otherwise), it's incoherent to claim that it's rational somehow. It may perhaps be more correspondent to reality (though, how would you know? -- your perceptions about the process are fundamentally in error the entire time), but, even if so, its users don't deserve any credit for what amounts merely to better programming.

Posted by: Robocop | August 10, 2009 12:20 PM

KG -- The concept of choice is so embedded in us that I'd be shocked if a dictionary mentioned it. It is always assumed. We look at menu items and wonder what we'd like to have. We consider public office candidates and (at least sometimes), struggle over which choice is best. For example, read the comments here at Pharyngula at random and see how often the minions here assume it (even though, theoretically, most should reject it), most prominently when they puff themselves up as better than those fools who don't see things the same way.

Posted by: Robocop | August 10, 2009 12:42 PM

"Yes, and of course we make choices: your error there (and it is an error shared by some determinists) is to think this is incompatible with determinism."

I understand the argument, but I think Dennett-ish compatibilism is simply dressing up the same-ol' stuff in a nicer suit.

Posted by: Anton Mates | August 10, 2009 1:24 PM

I understand the argument, but I think Dennett-ish compatibilism is simply dressing up the same-ol' stuff in a nicer suit.

That's not really an argument against it.

Posted by: Anton Mates | August 10, 2009 7:27 PM

Robocop,

Were you to visit your local ice cream parlor and ask those who buy whether they could have chosen something else, how many do you think would have answered "No"?

Probably a reasonable fraction of the clientele; I live in a college town. In any case, how would their response (whatever it was) support your claim that reason requires countercausal free will?

As many have interpreted Libet, the choice is made even before that.

That may well be the case, which further supports the idea that our experience of making a choice doesn't conflict with determinism.

As it pertains to volition, random doesn't provide freedom any more than determined does.

If you want to come up with a self-consistent definition of free will as neither random or determined, and then provide some evidence that such a thing actually exists in the human mind, feel...free.

You're free to reject the idea of cause and effect, of course.

Like I said, you don't have to be a determinist to be a materialist. There are non-materialist atheists--many Buddhists, for example--and non-determinist materialists, like most people who accept a Copenhagen-ish interpretation of quantum theory. Materialism, atheism, and determinism are all independent.

It's a notation of the dishonesty in calling determinism freedom.

What dishonesty? Compatibilist writers generally do a good job of explaining what they mean by freedom. You may prefer a different definition, but they're not obligated to use it.

Posted by: Anton Mates | August 11, 2009 6:01 PM

Robocop

I tried it in Berkeley last night (perhaps the quintessential college town) and was 15 for 15 before I finished my float.

I see.

It wasn't related to the general claim. You questioned my statement about the embedded consensus.

Your statement was about an embedded consensus that reason requires countercausal free will. "The concept of rationality implies a process of reasoning involving real choices (could have done otherwise) among real alternatives," you said, and subsequently claimed that the dictionary didn't back you up on this because it is "always assumed."

It doesn't necessarily conflict, but evolution suggests that our senses are generally reliable.

If it doesn't conflict, the reliability of our senses is irrelevant, because they don't tell us anything on this particular question. Our perception that we cannot predict our own behavior may be perfectly accurate, but it doesn't tell us whether another could do so. We don't have a sense for that.

You're free to advocate whatever inconsistent nonsense you wish.

You believe quantum theory to be inconsistent nonsense?

And war is peace; freedom is slavery. Lewis Carroll would be pleased.

Lewis Carroll subscribed to Ingsoc? You learn something new everyday.

Posted by: Brian | August 15, 2009 5:13 PM

"Watson's opinion was based not on science, which has not shown any differences between members of the social categories called "races" in average intelligence"

This is simply not true. The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)."

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/

Also, read the Snyderman/Rothman survey of 661 members of the Behavioural Genetics Association and American Psychology Associations.