tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post1569264187678158177..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Satan's SlavesAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-34192031736935970832010-03-15T19:02:19.654-04:002010-03-15T19:02:19.654-04:00Of course the existence of God could be the most i...Of course the existence of God could be the most important topic of all, and glory to the max for any scientist who ever proves the existence of (a kindly, heaven-providing) God! <br /><br />But so far, most scientists would say simply that there is no acceptable evidence and that, to quote Laplace to Napoleon "Sire, I have no need for that hypothesis" <br /><br />But the fact that we think there's insufficient evidence doesn't disprove the hypothesis. It doesn't in itself warrant the assertion that atheism is true. Those who choose to cling to the God hypothesis can always resort to the things we can't yet explain, or to the evidence of personal testimony. Science doesn't accept the latter, but that's a decision on the part of science.<br /><br />Of course agreement doesn't necessarily imply group think. But in our view tribalism is rife even in science, and we think it shouldn't be. By tribalism we mean unification under a particular world view that is suspicious of any dissension, especially when in response to some opposing group. When that happens, we believe it stifles advancement that would occur if the group's ideas could be open to question--which, of course, could end up supporting the ideas.<br /><br />Also, agreeing that people should think critically--which we certainly do--should not mean that 'critically' means agreeing with the group's views or agreeing to denigrate some other group's ideas.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-11251902436244046572010-03-15T18:36:02.712-04:002010-03-15T18:36:02.712-04:00"It's more of the same 'freethinking&..."It's more of the same 'freethinking' ideology that you find all over the web, often in blogs that start out as science, and then get derailed (in our view) by the creation/evolution 'debate' into the fervent defense of atheism. These blogs have lots of followers -- but they are no longer doing science. They're advocating another ideology."<br /><br />I'm not sure if you meant to imply this, but the above quote sounds like you're saying that questions about the existence of god are not scientific ones. The existence of god is, of course, a scientific hypothesis and fervently arguing against it does not place one outside of scientific discourse.<br /><br />Also, agreeing with a group of people does not equate with uncritical groupthink - especially when what you're agreeing with is that people should think critically.Michaelhttp://www.goodbadandbogus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-89602875316555492162010-03-15T17:10:58.935-04:002010-03-15T17:10:58.935-04:00If we carry your argument to at least one of its l...If we carry your argument to at least one of its logical conclusions, RBH, we would not be allowed to question the party line on evolution. It would be considered an unchallengeable axiom of biology -- in terms of formal theory, not logically different from Genesis being axiomatic to creationism. We're a bit sensitive on this subject because we do just that in our book -- question the primacy of natural selection as the ubiquitously important force of evolutionary change. This means we also question the centrality of competition, but fortunately for us a lot of people are seeing cooperation where they used to see only competition, so this wasn't a problem. Of course we could be wrong, but not because we question accepted theory per se, only if it can be shown that our reasoning or interpretation of data is incorrect.<br /><br />In fact, our questioning of natural selection gave us some trouble getting our book accepted for publication. One reviewer for the press (Harvard University Press) said that we were giving ammunition to creationists, and didn't want Harvard's name associated with our book. Fortunately for us, others didn't see it that way, and of course we do nothing of the sort. But apparently we're not supposed to venture beyond Darwin, even 150 years later.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-48611975732437557102010-03-15T16:37:04.765-04:002010-03-15T16:37:04.765-04:00The problem is that everyone (who is sincere--and ...The problem is that everyone (who is sincere--and it's unclear about some young-earthers) believes his own view is the truth. Polarized antagonisms don't help solve any issues that might actually be discussable between sides. <br /><br />We may both agree about 4.5 billion years, and in a specific dispute (i.e., vis-a-vis 6000 yr) there should be a resolution--an actual truth. But (again if we assume both parties' sincerity), hardened positions don't let this happen. 2.5 Bn is a compromise which may be fine in politics but not in this kind of specific dispute.<br /><br />We think it's a fact that often typifies science, that people have the same data but may selectively use it to back their point of view. We are not advocating tribalism, we're saying it exists and isn't good.<br /><br />You may not agree, but we think a lot of the more strident libertarianism or atheism these days is tribal in the sense we wrote about. We didn't comment on what constitutes truth and how in a given situation one can know it so surely as to be closed to other ideas.<br /><br />By the way, we happen to think 4.5 Bn is a lot better than 6000! And we don't agree that freethinking is sin, either!Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-65711782388450944702010-03-15T16:29:53.527-04:002010-03-15T16:29:53.527-04:00Hm, slammed for things we didn't say. Such as...Hm, slammed for things we didn't say. Such as that facts need to compromise with fantasy.Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-86067124825649640462010-03-15T16:12:46.933-04:002010-03-15T16:12:46.933-04:00The stronger a view is held, especially against ot...<i>The stronger a view is held, especially against other views, the more it becomes hardened and uncompromising.</i><br /><br />Aw. Well, I guess I'll have to try to reduce my uncompromising attitude toward the young earth creationists who are trying to pollute my local school district with their nonsense. After all, as Ken Ham always, YECs and evolutionists are looking at the same data, but reach different conclusions because of their different presuppositions. Oh! That's what you said, too, no? Sure enough:<br /><br /><i>These are issues that data should support or not, but often the two sides are looking at the same data and interpreting them differently.</i><br /><br />Hm. Perhaps we could compromise on an earth that's just 2.25 billion years old, rather than 6,000 or 4.5 billion. Think Ham would go for that?RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-9710643058910836342010-03-15T08:26:34.477-04:002010-03-15T08:26:34.477-04:00like ;)like ;)Holly Dunsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260104967932801186noreply@blogger.com