Egregious Special Pleading: Why You Should Be Skeptical Of John W. Loftus, III
Posted in Debunking Loftus, John W. Loftus on | 5 minutes | 36 Comments →
I realize some of you are probably as bored of this as I am, but, I need to take a few moments to add to the record here. Over at Victor Reppert’s, John implied that he banned me because I violated his comment policy [comment February 16, 2011 5:50 AM]. I’d like to take a few moments to point out the problems with this claim, and cite them as further evidence in support of my claim that you should be skeptical of John W. Loftus.
Of course, we’ve already touched on the first problem, which is the inconsistency between John claiming that we should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true on the one hand, then turning around and littering the internet with unsupported claims on the other. As you might expect, he continues this trend when he accuses me of violating his comment policy while failing to include even a single link that would substantiate his claim.
Alas, from Loftus’ comment policy:
This blog is open to comments by anyone interested, provided: (1) the comments are civil in tone, (2) they speak directly to the issues discussed, (3) they are not spam-like sermons, or book length comments; (4) they don’t monopolize the discussion or repeatedly offer ignorant off topic comments; and (5) they come from Blogger profiles that are make public.
Now, unlike Loftus, I happen to be a fan of including links to substantiate my claims whenever possible. What is my claim? John W. Loftus holds believers to different standards than he holds himself and his atheist comrades to. For example, from Loftus, in violation of (1) and (2), when I simply expressed concern over the fact that neither his conversion nor his deconversion resulted from the OTF:
How old are you CL? I’d guess you have not yet experienced much life. I’d say you were under the age of 21, too young to be here. I don’t give a damn what you think of me of my deconversion at all. You’re too stupid to realize that regardless of it you must deal with the arguments in the book. They are leading people away from you faith. [source]
Was that comment civil in tone or related directly to the issue? From Loftus, again in violation of (1) and (2), when I simply mentioned that I’d wrote this in response to his claims about science debunking Christianity:
cl, before even reading what you wrote please tell me of your credentials. Prediction: whenever you ask a non-credentialed hack this question he’ll respond that credentials don’t matter. [source]
Was that comment civil in tone or related directly to the issue? From Loftus, again in violation of (1) and (2), when I asked him to reconcile his claim that we should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true with his claim that science has shown there was no Exodus:
I’m seriously considering banning you cl, as I’ve heard you were banned on other sites. You are much too ignorant for us to have a reasonable discussion. You need to learn from your side why your arguments are ignorant. You won’t listen to us. [source]
Was that comment civil in tone or related directly to the issue? From articulett, both in violation of (1):
Learn to have fun eviscerating the religiotard blowhard. [source]
…I’m glad that suckers like cl believe in them. I aim to support those who are trying to break free. To me, cl is like the Scientologist I linked who was posting at an ex- Scientolgoist site–trying to sucker others back into the fold. These people always seem so slimy to me… [source]
Were those comments civil in tone or related directly to the issue? From Cipher, after he engaged me on the question of science’s proper scope, in violation of (1) and (2):
Just who in the bloody hell do you think you are, you Christian piece of garbage, to come here barking out orders? You’re an arrogant, condescending piece of shit. You seem to think you’re an intellectual of sorts, when all you are is a Christian who’s read a few books. John, everyone, this really is the limit. BR, I’m more than a little annoyed that you continue to engage him. I’m out of here. I have better things to do than to waste my time with these cretins. [source]
Was that comment civil in tone or related directly to the issue? From Gandolf, in response to the aforementioned transaction with Cipher, in violation of (1):
Types like ci [sic] will not likely disappear anytime soon.I understand you getting sick to death of their endless bullshit. But if we don’t tackle dealing with them, they`ll be out there busily crowing that its all because we cant deal with them. Theists like ci [sic] purposely hope to split the ranks. Divide and rule was their motto, just how they did within religion with use of shunning and seperation [sic]. F**k em. [source]
Was that comment civil in tone or related directly to the issue?
Did Loftus ban himself? No.
Did Loftus ban articulett? No.
Did Loftus ban Gandolf? No.
Did Loftus ban Cipher? No, in fact, Loftus replied with an apparent nod of approval and a wink:
cipher, how unlike you! ;-) [source]
So, unless he’s blatantly guilty of the most egregious special pleading ever, why did John W. Loftus really ban me? Might it be because, like I said yesterday, we should be skeptical of John W. Loftus because he holds believers to different standards than he holds himself and his atheist comrades to? Might it be because of my persistent questioning and demanding that he reconcile the inconsistencies in his arguments? Might it be because, at the behest of my persistence, at least one of his precious atheist comrades couldn’t take the heat and left John’s blog for good? I’ll let you decide.
Let me know if any links are broken.
bossmanham
says...You’ve done a fine job in your critique, CL. Very good responses, and you’re providing some good general info for anyone who might encounter these canards.
dguller
says...Unfortunately, a double standard seems to be evident.
cl
says...dguller,
Would you care to elaborate?
bossmanham
says...Heh, I wouldn’t count on it, CL. He’s learned from good ol’ Johnny Loftus. Why elaborate when you can make unbacked assertions and get your peeps to laugh it up?
dguller
says...Evident in Loftus’ differential treatment of rude theists versus rude atheists, that is. Elaboration enough?
cl
says...dguller,
Yes, thank you, that’s plenty. I just wasn’t sure whether you were referring to a double standard on my part, or Loftus’. My gut told me Loftus’, but, I didn’t want to assume.
Thanks again.
cl
says...Although, now I have to ask: do you think I was rude to John? I have no problem admitting to being firm or harsh, but I don’t think that’s the same thing as being rude. I associate rude behavior with name-calling, taunting, etc.
dguller
says...I didn’t feel that you were particularly rude, actually. Certainly, no more rude than many atheists there.
You were snarky and sarcastic, perhaps, but that can be an appropriate rhetorical tactic in a discussion, especially to bring out the absurdity and contradictions in your opponent’s positions.
So, I actually thought it was wrong of John to ban you. You bring good points, which is why I’m here. I hope we can have the discussion that I was hoping would happen at DC.
cl
says...Actually, bossmanham, dguller has been nothing but cordial in our interactions, so I think that was a presumptuous cheap shot. Further, dguller elaborated, and actually agrees with us that John shows preferential treatment towards rude atheists, so… I think you blew it.
BTW, did you ever get your hands on a copy of Lee Martin’s Quakertown, like I had suggested? It really is an excellent historical novel.
bossmanham
says...Meh. I was a little presumptuous. Not entirely unjustified as it seemed he was defending Loftus by charging you with a double standard.
I honestly have never had an issue being strong, harsh, pointed, or using irony in making a point. I didn’t call him names. Frankly, my defense would parallel yours.
Isn’t dguller charging you with a double standard? Has he backed up his claim? So what if he agrees with you on Loftus. The first post he made on this post was a charge of a double standard, and that’s what I was commenting on.
bossmanham
says...Actually, I forgot you even suggested that book, cl. School just started up for me again, and I’m working and going to an unpaid internship on the days I’m not scheduled. I’ve been having trouble remembering some stuff lately.
I’ll go add it to my Amazon wishlist so I won’t forget it again. Thanks for the suggestion.
dguller
says...Bossmanham:
No worries, my friend. I would have assumed the same, if I were you, especially since my post was somewhat ambiguous. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify what I meant. ☺
And I do not know cl sufficiently to know if he has a double standard. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. I have no idea, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he did, and only because he is a human being, and it is virtually impossible to be without any preferences and subtle biases that can affect our thoughts. I know I have them!
cl
says...Glad you two seemed to have worked this out.
bossmanham,
Come to think of it, I’m not sure if it was you that I recommended that book to or not, so, unless you were the one asking for good historical novels a few months back, you might not want to spend the money! Also, sorry if I came at you harshly for jumping on dguller. The only reason I did is because I want people like dguller to stick around, and I think we all need to treat each other fairly and avoid jumping to conclusions.
dguller,
Recently I stated at DC that we are all hypocrites in one regard or another. We all operate under masked double standards, as you said. Though, provided we’re honest enough, we can help each other spot them, too–that’s the upside, and I’m looking forward.
Ana
says...cl,
I think that after this incident, and after having experienced my own frustrations in regards to the hostile atmosphere at DC, I will no longer leave comments on that blog. I will still read John’s posts, and if I feel prompted to give my perspective, I’ll just stick to my own writing space, instead of DC because I just don’t see DC being reformed any time soon.
By the way, it is neat you keep an index. You never know what other accusations will come your way, in which having that index will come in handy.
bossmanham
says...dguller,
Thanks for your understanding. I do apologize for jumping to conclusions. It can get confusing on the internet when dealing with these kinds of things.
cl
says...Ana,
Well hello, and welcome. I’m glad you came by, because I was dying to get a message to you. I just didn’t know how. I wanted to thank you for getting my back over there. I think you were right on the money when you corrected John about his errors, i.e., his thinking your call to “deal with my claims” referred to the OTF bit, when it actually referred to the “positive evidence” bit. I realize that sentence may be a little cryptic to the uninvolved, and I apologize. Tomorrow’s post explains this in greater detail. A few things in particular:
While I fully respect your desire to jump ship over there, may I ask you to wait on deciding, at least until tomorrow’s post comes up?
Beautiful. articulett is severely, severely bent against theism for some reason, and she would literally troll every thread I participated on, the entire time I was there. Alas, that’s old news, and beside the point. When you say,
…no offense, but I don’t think that’s the best way to go. I think the best way to go is to press on the double-standard, for that is undeniable. John can argue with us on whether or not the the standard is self-defeating. He cannot–at least not successfully–argue with us on the double-standard charge, for, the evidence is right there to accuse him. That said, let me just finish by saying that before you pull the plug on DC completely, consider tomorrow’s post. I’ve got a slight request in there, one you may or may not be willing to grant.
Thanks again, and I hope you stick around! I promise it’s not venomous here!
dguller,
Continuing from the discussion at DC… Regarding everything that preceded,
I disagree, but that’s beside the point for now. My gripe was the second part of that claim, made at Reppert’s, which I’ve bolded:
John offers NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE, and, much like the situation with the Exodus and the Merneptah stele, IGNORES POSITIVE EVIDENCE that challenges his claim. I’m not sure if you read it or not, but this was all covered here. So, in short, I feel like you’ve overlooked my point, even though your response was appropriately framed for Ana’s point.
Also, I think you are to be commended for speaking up regarding special pleading and John’s comment policy. I saw that. Thank you.
dguller
says...cl:
I disagree with John that miracles only convince those who already believe. Certainly, if a miracle is witnessed by a believer, then it will bolster their faith. I doubt that they will engage in skeptical questioning about it. However, I can imagine an unbeliever who does not have adequate critical thinking skills or skeptical attitude being convinced by a miracle that the supernatural is real.
Ana
says...Very kind words cl, thanks.
After he had banned you, it struck me as rather incredible, really, that no one was bringing attention to what you said about John not applying his own (positive evidence ) standard to himself. I wondered, did they read that part? Did they just gloss over that it? Do they even care if John applies his standard unevenly?
“…no offense, but I don’t think that’s the best way to go. ” (in regards to my comments about the standard being self-defeating)
I see your point cl. The reason I made that included that in my comment is because articulett had said:
The “double standard” is in your head. It doesn’t translate to anything coherent
I don’t know why I let that comment bother me. It’s not the first time she sees something I say as not being “coherent”.
I gave up on articulett when, after the last comment I wrote on the thread, she responded with:
” I can’t make sense of what you are talking about– maybe some one else can sum you up. What double standard is John engaging in? Cut and paste to show evidence.”
And that comment came right after I had given an example ( a statement John made concerning miracles).
I was getting the sense that perhaps articulett pre-rejects my comment?
Sure cl, I’ll hold off on my decision until your next post.
Ana
says...oops, forgot to add “(emphasis mine)” after quoting articulett.
Ronin
says...dguller writes:
Why is that? And, can you give me the definition(s) of what it means to “engage in skeptical questioning”? Thanks.
You also wrote:
I can imagine certain things as well, and they may be true or they may not be true. So what? Are you saying that if an unbeliever believes in a miracle his “critical thinking skills” are by default inadequate? *If* that is what you are saying you will do well to explain how you would venture to examine such a task. *If* that is NOT what you are saying, what are you trying to communicate with your post?
dguller
says...Ronin:
>> Why is that? And, can you give me the definition(s) of what it means to “engage in skeptical questioning”? Thanks.
Sure. It means to recognize that our personal experiences are loaded with underlying biases, cognitive and perceptual distortions, and confounding factors that we are typically oblivious about. There are a number of excellent books out lately that delineate this phenomenon. That being said, when something atypical or extraordinary occurs that holds a significant amount of salience for us, we should be cautious about taking it at face value, and make a good faith effort to consider alternative possibilities to explain its occurrence.
>> I can imagine certain things as well, and they may be true or they may not be true. So what? Are you saying that if an unbeliever believes in a miracle his “critical thinking skills” are by default inadequate? *If* that is what you are saying you will do well to explain how you would venture to examine such a task. *If* that is NOT what you are saying, what are you trying to communicate with your post?
I would believe that their critical thinking skills ARE defective, but that is just a general statement about mankind in general. MOST people have awful critical thinking. If this was false, then the advertising industry would be completely ineffective and people would not be manipulated by frauds and hucksters.
Furthermore, by what possible line of reasoning could one go from “an unusual and inexplicable natural event has occurred” to “a divine deity has intervened in the natural world and generated this event”? Isn’t it more likely that such an event never occurred at all, or it did occur, but has been distorted by the witness due to underlying psychological factors? I mean, people see things that aren’t really there very often, but we don’t feel that they are somehow tapping into a hidden supernatural realm that eludes natural science.
Finally, what would even count as a miracle? Unexpected and remarkable things happen all the time. People are miraculously cured of cancer in a spontaneous fashion for reasons that are inexplicable to modern medicine, for example. That does not imply that God cured them. One has to look at base rates of an event in addition to the probability of the event itself. For example, it is incredibly improbable to have a royal flush when playing poker (1 in 650,000 odds), but when you consider the millions of people playing poker at this very moment, then it becomes inevitable that someone somewhere will have a royal flush. However, we are biased towards the saliency of a single event, especially one that is improbable, and we forget about the actual statistics involved, mainly because most people are awful at intuitive probability calculations.
cl
says...dguller,
Well, that’s good. However, do you agree with me that, 1) John failed to provide a lick of positive evidence for his claim that miracles only convince those who already believe; 2) that I provided positive evidence which challenges John’s unsupported claim here; and, 3) that John’s failure to support his claim with positive evidence is in direct contradiction to his previously stated standard?
I would love to debate the rest of your comment, but I need three clear “yes or no” answers followed by explanation where necessary before I can proceed. Besides, I gotta run. Gotta pay those bills, and there are some other comments I’ve not yet got to from previous days. :)
Ana,
If they did read it, they either glossed right over it, or, flat-out don’t care about equality in inductive standards. I suspect the latter. Debunking Christianity is a textbook example of fundamentalism in reverse. A few days ago, I wrote the following comment at Common Sense Atheism, and I think it’s entirely fitting for reproduction here:
As far as articulett goes,
She pulled the same stuff with me. Remember when I called her on the argument from ignorance? She replied, “cut and paste.” I did, and, of course, she continues to deny. You see, denial isn’t hard. Anyone can draw a line in the sand and be a denialist. As even GearHedEd, another atheist who comments over there said, he “sometimes cringes” at some of her posts because they seem “more emotional than analytical.” Despite the thin veneer of rationality, people like her don’t realize they’ve fallen prey to fundamentalism in reverse, mere pseudoskepticism that is arguably more crippling and paralyzing than the most rabid form of religious dogmatism. And yes, I can provide citations for all of this, lest anyone crucify me for failing to include links. At the moment, I don’t have the time or patience to wait while DC loads and loads and loads just to prove this point.
I know. I saw that, and, she did the same thing to me. The illogic is so thick that I think natural means will not suffice, if you get my drift.
dguller
says...cl:
>> Well, that’s good. However, do you agree with me that, 1) John failed to provide a lick of positive evidence for his claim that miracles only convince those who already believe; 2) that I provided positive evidence which challenges John’s unsupported claim here; and, 3) that John’s failure to support his claim with positive evidence is in direct contradiction to his previously stated standard?
Re: (1): Yes, he failed to do so.
Re: (2): Yes, you did provide positive evidence.
Re: (3): Yes, it is a contradiction of his standard.
Regarding this whole issue, John definitely is wrong if he meant to say that ALL people who believe in miracles already believe in the underlying religious faith involved. Of course, you just have to come up with a single counter-example to falsify that universal claim, which you did.
However, would you disagree that MOST people who believe in miracles already believe in the underlying religious faith involved? Now, if that is true, then it may be true for a number of reasons. First, most people in the world are religious to begin with, making it much more likely that if a miracle occurred, then it would occur to a religious person. Second, there may be a confirmation bias present that subdues a religious individual’s critical thinking when faced with a miraculous event that supports their underlying beliefs, especially if those beliefs are wavering, I think. (This is not specific to believers, but is present in most human beings who hold a series of beliefs of enormous salience to them, for whatever reasons.)
I think that a far more nuanced discussion can be had along these lines than nitpicking John’s admittedly exaggerated statements.
Ronin
says...dguller writes:
You did not answer my first question. Here is what you wrote (emphasis mine):
The “they” being believers, right? Now, would you please explain to me why you think believers will not engage in this “skeptical questioning” about their religious experiences? You can then go into the detail(s) of how you came to that conclusion. Did you gather some sort of data and put it through the scientific method, or is this one of those instances were your biases could have clouded your conclusion?
Regarding your “explanation” of critical thinking: okay we should be “cautious” about our biases, then what? In other words, when should we stop doubting our biases? Should we doubt ad infinitum? Should we doubt that we doubt? I certainly cannot operate like that, because I would never be able to come to any conclusions.
I will get to your second post once we get through this one. I rather not obfuscate this post with more random thoughts. Thanks.
dguller
says...Ronin:
>> The “they” being believers, right? Now, would you please explain to me why you think believers will not engage in this “skeptical questioning” about their religious experiences? You can then go into the detail(s) of how you came to that conclusion. Did you gather some sort of data and put it through the scientific method, or is this one of those instances were your biases could have clouded your conclusion?
Mainly, because believers are human beings and human beings have a tendency to prefer salient individual experiences to rational investigation, especially when those experiences confirm their prior belief system. That is a well documented fact of cognitive psychology. I would imagine that believers would be less likely to skeptically question their religious experiences, because it is a part of their belief system that they are valid. Similarly, I wouldn’t expect an evolutionary biologist to skeptically question the discovery of a new species as a suspicious event.
Now, do I have any hard scientific data on this? No, I do not, and you got me there, which means that this is speculation on my part. Perhaps I’ll look into whether there are any studies done on religious individuals to assess their degree of skepticism regarding religious claims.
>> Regarding your “explanation” of critical thinking: okay we should be “cautious” about our biases, then what? In other words, when should we stop doubting our biases? Should we doubt ad infinitum? Should we doubt that we doubt? I certainly cannot operate like that, because I would never be able to come to any conclusions.
Okay. We all have a tendency towards a confirmation bias. That means that we see evidence that supports our beliefs as more secure and evident, and that we either ignore contradictory evidence altogether by refusing to perceive it, or to distort it in such a way as to falsify it (which would be fine, except that this method is not applied to evidence that confirms our beliefs). So, what is the solution? An infinite regress? No. It is to apply the same standards to ALL the evidence presented, and it actively seek ALL the evidence that one can.
Look at a meta-analysis, for example. A standard is set at the start regarding what studies will be included, and they typically only include double-blinded randomized controlled trials. Why? Because these studies have the least amount of bias in them, compared to the others, and thus have the highest likelihood of being true. Then one actively seeks out ALL the RCT studies relevant to the clinical question, including all the positive and negative ones. THEN one applies a statistical analysis of ALL the RCT’s – positive and negative – to see if the tendency is more towards the positive or the negative.
That is the general model that I am talking about. An active engagement with all the relevant evidence and utilizing strategies to minimize bias, distortion, confounding factors, and chance. Now, does this mean that the consequence of this process will provide you with the unvarnished truth 100% of the time? Of course not. New evidence may be forthcoming in the future. Old evidence may contain fraudulent data. Does that mean that we should not make any decisions, because of the underlying uncertainty in our information? Of course not. Decisions have to be made, and made on the basis of the best information we have, but we have to do our best to ensure that our information IS the best we have and as free from bias and distortion as possible.
Not the “as possible”. You appear to be looking for a computational procedure that will spit out 100% truth every time, a necessary truth machine, if you will, in your request for necessary and sufficient conditions of a completed investigation. I try not to deal with absolutes, because life is probability, risk and chance, and one is never 100% certain of one’s beliefs (except that one will die one day, of course). So, it is about MINIMIZING as much as possible the chance that there is an error in our thinking without ever eliminating it. Overall, this method has a better chance of getting at the truth, than simply following whatever agrees with your previous beliefs.
To summarize, I think that it is reasonable to, first, recognize that we may be deceived in our opinions, and to have some knowledge about the common mechanisms of self-deception. Once we have that general framework, then you can approach your individual beliefs to see if they contain any logical fallacies that invalidate them, any evidence to support them, any evidence that oppose them, weigh the respective evidence, and see if it is more likely that they are true or false, given the total set of information provided.
I hope this helps.
cl
says...dguller,
Thank you. I really, really respect a person who can give straight answers like that. In my experience, (a)theist discussion tends to be full of wishy-washiness, and quite frankly, I can’t stand it. So, kudos to you for bucking the norm in that regard. However, that said…
…well, if you wish to persuade me, or even have a non-confrontational conversation, breaking out words like “nitpicking” certainly isn’t going to help your cause. What you apparently see as “nitpicking” I see as holding John accountable to his own standard. After all, you just admitted that his statements were exaggerated, and that he contradicted his own standard, so, it seems to me that even by your standard, I have some degree of warrant for pointing these things out.
I define “nitpicking” as purposely avoiding the meat of an argument in favor of a minor detail that does not address the argument. Of course, purposely avoiding is the key word here. Recall that in this particular exchange with John, my primary focus–i.e., my “meat”–was holding him accountable to his standard, not necessarily “addressing the meat” of what he was saying. Further, I am not purposely avoiding the “meat” of his argument. I’ll gladly address the “meat” of these claims; it’s simply the fact that doing so has not been my primary motive thus far in the exchange.
In fact, I’ve already begun my next response. I just want to get some closure on whether or not you think it’s “nitpicking” to point out the inconsistency between what John says and what John does regarding positive evidence.
cl
says...dguller,
In fact, I’ll go ahead and post my response without first hearing your answer to the above question, although, I would still like clarification on that question.
You wrote:
I don’t have any data to draw from, so, I’m hesitant, because… I just don’t know. If I had to pick an answer besides that, I’d say it was probably true.
While I see the logic you’re going for, and I think there’s some grain of truth there, I don’t think it’s as easy to come to this conclusion as you do. Not all religious people believe in miracles. It seems to me your only point here is that by sheer numbers, a religious person is more likely to witness a miracle than a non-religious person. Again, while probably true, I don’t really see what that fact accomplishes.
Certainly, but, as you rightly note, this applies equally to non-religious people, too. Confirmation bias can subdue a skeptic’s critical thinking when faced with an event that strongly challenges their underlying beliefs, especially if those beliefs are rigid.
In what way do either of your statements advance the discussion?
Ronin
says...dguller writes:
Actually, you made an audacious claim without having a single ounce of evidence, but hey, perhaps we should call that “rational thought or critical thinking.”
You also wrote:
I admit that at the very least we need some sort of standard which will give us truth (i.e. the law of non contradiction), but why should we accept the law as self evident (keeping in mind how you have presented human nature thus far)?
dguller
says...Ronin:
>> Actually, you made an audacious claim without having a single ounce of evidence, but hey, perhaps we should call that “rational thought or critical thinking
Nope, you can call it “error”. I know, it’s shocking that a human being can make a mistake. I suppose that since I made a mistake while defending the scientific method, then we should just chuck the scientific method altogether, right? Jeez. Falling short of standards on occasion does not falsify the standards. Genetic fallacy?
>> I admit that at the very least we need some sort of standard which will give us truth (i.e. the law of non contradiction), but why should we accept the law as self evident (keeping in mind how you have presented human nature thus far)?
Seriously? That’s all you have to say in response to my comment? Nothing about the fact that due to the fact that human beings have multiple cognitive biases that we should be careful to minimize them? Nothing about the fact that science explicitly acknowledges these tendencies towards error, and utilizes methods to minimize the error, such as controlling for confounding factors, blinding observers, and so on? Just some philosophical mumbo-jumbo that you learned in Philosophy 101?
And why should we accept the scientific method? Because it WORKS. Because it is the best means that we have at uncovering how the world works. Is it perfect? No. But it is the best method we have.
dguller
says...cl:
>> In what way do either of your statements advance the discussion?
I don’t know. I suppose that I am being extremely charitable towards John. I find it hard to believe that he honestly meant what he wrote, and was probably just exaggerating for rhetorical effect. If his claim was closer to what I stated above, then perhaps the two of you are closer to being in agreement on this specific subject than you realize.
Anyway, this is a red herring, as is your desire to clarify my use of the word “nit picking”, and not what I want to discuss anyway.
My real question is what methodology you utilize to differentiate between different supernatural hypotheses, and which addresses the issues of our human tendency to deceive ourselves secondary to multiple cognitive biases and distortions. How do you know when you have arrived at a true conclusion?
And why is it more likely that there is a supernatural realm that we somehow are able to access than that our perceptions and thoughts about the supernatural are byproducts of underlying cognitive processes that are rooted in biological and cultural history?
Ronin
says...Oh, so it’s an error now and not some speculation on your part, okay.
Hopefully, you are not implying that I am insinuating mankind should toss the “scientific method.”
You wrote:
What do you want me to say? Yes I agree humans make mistakes and have biases. And, a self correcting model is extremely useful in helping us organize and discern. However, you appear to be putting forth some sort of pragmatist model. Well, here is what Pierce says about doubt:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/#SkeFal
I don’t have a real reason to doubt the law of non contradiction, because it seems to be self evident to me. You, on the other hand seem to be putting forth an infinite regress model though you say you are not. As far as I can tell you can’t ground jack. I get it though, science is not perfect but it’s the best we have. If that is the thrust of your argument(s), thanks for sharing. I like science too…
dguller
says...Ronin:
>> Oh, so it’s an error now and not some speculation on your part, okay.
Actually, an error is WORSE than speculation, because speculation may turn out to be true, but an error is automatically false. So, I was harder on myself than you think.
>> Hopefully, you are not implying that I am insinuating mankind should toss the “scientific method.”
You pointed out the fact that I made a mistake, and failed to live up to the standards of critical thinking and scientific inquiry. There are two possible implications from this, as far as I can see.
One, that critical thinking and scientific inquiry are not to be adhered to, because even an advocate for their use fails to adhere to them. That would be fallacious reasoning. Two, that you were just insulting me.
I preferred to assume that you were just engaging in fallacious reasoning than insults, but I am open to other possibilities.
>> I get it though, science is not perfect but it’s the best we have. If that is the thrust of your argument(s), thanks for sharing. I like science too…
Do you agree that “science is not perfect, but it’s the best we have”? And if it is the best method we have for uncovering the truth about how the world works, then shouldn’t we accept its conclusions, even when they disagree with our deeply held beliefs?
cl
says...Hey there fellas. I realize these things get heated, and Lord knows I’ve been there, but, I’m really a fan of trying to find the common ground, and I don’t think the three of us are that far off.
dguller,
You stated many things above, and we seem to have established a lack of clarity regarding how some of them advance the discussion. Without more precision, it’s hard for me to know what you’re alluding to when you say, “closer to what I stated above.” Would you care to elaborate?
My request for your clarity is not a red herring. Again, I ask: if consistency was my primary concern in engaging John, is it “nitpicking” to point out the inconsistency between what John says and what John does regarding positive evidence? I think it’s wholly reasonable of me to ask for clarity here, but, if you don’t want to clarify, I’m not going to twist your arm.
Well, it depends on the nature of the “supernatural” hypothesis in question. If we’re talking about miracles, as I’ve alluded to before, we do the best we can with the same methods of inquiry we use to establish truth in every other corner of the world. Although, as I’ve said, these methods can only take us so far. Much like any other claim, we can analyze witnesses; we can question their credibility; we can note whether the witnesses qualify as independent or not; we can scour for agenda; we can use science to see if any known laws of nature appear breached; etc. Even in those instances where this multi-pronged effort seems to affirm the miraculous, we’re still left with the unfortunate fact that we can only go so far. Again, take NDE’s as an example. It’s one thing if a handful of people in an isolated culture report some subjective visions that can’t be corroborated by any outside means. It’s another thing entirely when people across all cultures report similar experiences with recurring veridical documentation to back them up.
Personally, I’m willing to accept that humans cannot attain omniscience. As far as our tendencies to deceive ourselves, well… that’s precisely the reason for the aforementioned multi-pronged approach. Logic, reason, science, philosophy… these are our tools. They rarely–and I mean rarely–entail 100% certainty in any field, mathematics being an exception that comes immediately to mind.
I’m pretty sure that if you scour my claims in this thread, you’ll find a distinct absence of that claim. Though I certainly make them where I feel it appropriate, I generally avoid claims of the nature, “X is more likely than Y” without any sort of math or data to back it up. All I’m saying is that if, in investigating the supernatural, we use the same standards of inquiry and skepticism that we apply to the natural, we can arrive at justified, tentatively reliable conclusions. Do you agree?
To Ronin, you wrote:
Yes. The way I see it, science disagrees more with the metaphysical naturalists than those like myself. I’ve already alluded to partial reasons above, and, several posts throughout this blog go into greater detail. BTW, did you ever read the post on Marianne George that I tossed your way? If you did and you responded, I’ve yet to get back to your response. If not, I’m quite interested in hearing how you’d parse it.
Ronin,
While I agree with you that dguller took far too much liberty in some of his opening claims about believers and their willingness to think critically, personally, I’d take what I can get. Not many atheists or theists can frankly admit to error as dguller has in the issue you brought up. As he said and I agree, he’s actually holding himself to a rigorous standard. :)
Yes, I agree, this is exactly what I was getting at in my “multi-pronged approach” snippet above.
dguller
says...Cl:
>> Well, it depends on the nature of the “supernatural” hypothesis in question. If we’re talking about miracles, as I’ve alluded to before, we do the best we can with the same methods of inquiry we use to establish truth in every other corner of the world. Although, as I’ve said, these methods can only take us so far. Much like any other claim, we can analyze witnesses; we can question their credibility; we can note whether the witnesses qualify as independent or not; we can scour for agenda; we can use science to see if any known laws of nature appear breached; etc.
Right.
>> Even in those instances where this multi-pronged effort seems to affirm the miraculous, we’re still left with the unfortunate fact that we can only go so far.
How could this approach “affirm the miraculous”? As far as I can tell, the most that your method could show is that there are no good current explanations for some unexpected natural phenomena. How does one go from that to the validation of the supernatural?
>> Again, take NDE’s as an example. It’s one thing if a handful of people in an isolated culture report some subjective visions that can’t be corroborated by any outside means. It’s another thing entirely when people across all cultures report similar experiences with recurring veridical documentation to back them up.
First, what “recurring veridical documentation” are you referring to?
Second, just because some subjective experience is common across all cultures does not mean that it is OF something. We all have a blind spot, but our brain fills in our vision to mask this. Hence, we ALL see something in our vision that is not really there.
>> Personally, I’m willing to accept that humans cannot attain omniscience. As far as our tendencies to deceive ourselves, well… that’s precisely the reason for the aforementioned multi-pronged approach. Logic, reason, science, philosophy… these are our tools. They rarely–and I mean rarely–entail 100% certainty in any field, mathematics being an exception that comes immediately to mind.
Agreed.
>> All I’m saying is that if, in investigating the supernatural, we use the same standards of inquiry and skepticism that we apply to the natural, we can arrive at justified, tentatively reliable conclusions. Do you agree?
Give me an example.
>> BTW, did you ever read the post on Marianne George that I tossed your way? If you did and you responded, I’ve yet to get back to your response. If not, I’m quite interested in hearing how you’d parse it.
It’s late, so I only gave it a cursory read, but the fact that some dreams can accurately refer to information that the dreamer could not possibly know is not particularly impressive to me.
I think that it is reasonable to assume that, given the billions of human beings who dream dreams on a nightly basis, someone somewhere will have a dream about something that they could not know. Unless they could demonstrate that they could do so reliably and better than chance, I would have to conclude that such events, although they carry enormous salience, are sheer chance occurrences.
I’ll give you an example. Have you ever thought of someone, picked up the phone to call them, and then they happen to call you at the same time? It’s happened to me, and let me tell you, it is quite dramatic and vivid an experience. Hell, I can see how someone might conclude that something mysterious and spooky was going on. Until I reflect upon the fact that of all the billions of phone calls in a given day, someone somewhere will experience that very occurrence.
Perhaps Marianne George’s study addresses this concern, but if it does not, and is simply a series of anecdotes that only describe positive instances and do not take into account the possibility that such instances could be secondary to chance, then it is in the same category as astrology to me.
Ronin
says...dguller,
Um, initially you claimed it was speculation on your part—only after I pushed the issue you changed the labeling to an error. So, you were “harder” on yourself later not before which was my point, actually.
Actually, I was being sarcastic towards you. If it offended you or it offends you now [after my clarification] I apologize.
A total grand dodge of what I stated towards the end of my post.
For what its worth, what “conclusions” are you talking about? Are you talking about evolution? I believe in evolution. Are you talking about an old universe, earth, etc.? I believe in an old universe “formation.” Is/are there some other “conclusion(s)” you would like to add?
dguller
says...Ronin:
Okay.
We agree that scientific inquiry is the best method human beings have to discover the truth of how the world works.
We agree that in my speculations, I was in error, because I speculated without any evidence. And that I initially took it easy on my mistake, but later — after relentless prodding by you — owned up to the full enormity of my error, and now sit in penance.
And as for the “conclusions” that I mentioned, I refer to those that contradict supernatural and superstitious claims that the majority of human beings believe.