|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 3, 2015 0:05:52 GMT 5
I admit that bashing topics are getting overused, but most of us for some reason must complain or impress the others with something incredibly stupid we found.
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240 
|
Post by Deathadder on Jul 3, 2015 0:52:26 GMT 5
I agree. but I meant I hate that there are people who believe this nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 3, 2015 2:03:19 GMT 5
I see. I can understand that the lack of general knowledge is quite sad, but after all, the world doesn't collapse because of it. In fact, educated people who spread dangerous and/or stupid stuff because of unexplainable reasons (probably bias) worry me more than some uninformed children stating BS. The fact that so many statements of the former group of people float through the web is the reason why I'm working on a blog series that collects such arguments and refutes them. I'm going to post it in one of those threads when it is finished.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 3, 2015 3:40:57 GMT 5
creature386I’d say both are not that easy to separate, actually. For example, would you say creationists deny evolution because they don’t understand the science, or because of their fanaticism? Usually a bit of both (partly based on religious feelings/tradition, but also simply mislead by the popularized arguments that can convince people as long as they have absolutely no clue about the subject). Otherwise I simply can’t explain how such large percentages of people in developed countries still don’t accept evolution, and it is consistent with how little they generally appear to know about science, regardless of whether it’s religious doctrine (I don’t know any religion that dictates that electrons are larger than atoms, for example, and yet many people believe it). In the prominent examples (you know, the guys who make videos and stuff), it’s obviously mostly fanaticism, although they are still remarkably uninformed on top of that. But who knows, would they have become fanatics in the first place if they had been educated properly and spent their time in (a proper) science class instead of at church? Has anyone ever made an effort to determine how many people are "ignorant-creationists" vs "fanatic-creationists"? For example by asking evolution deniers "Why not", giving them a sound, easy to understand scientific explanation and then checking how many of them change their opinion? Nice idea, that blog series!
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jul 3, 2015 4:43:17 GMT 5
For example, would you say creationists deny evolution because they don’t understand the science, or because of their fanaticism? Usually a bit of both I think for most it is neither. I think you are living in a high IQ bubble where intellectual reasoning ala "I believe this because of reason A, B, C" is far more common than in the general population. In my experience the process how beliefs enter most people's minds is more convoluted... |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 3, 2015 7:04:26 GMT 5
lol I might live in an "intellectual bubble", at least my guts tell me that most people I know could find Ukraine on a map, and I'm pretty sure that less than 40% of them are creationists (the term "intellectual" sure isn't what it used to be), but "I believe because of a reason" is not overly intellectual. Even small children and cephalopods can follow basic causal connections. It's just that the reasons those people give for their beliefs aren't necessarily straightforward or even logical, and of course they likely do not know the reasons an atheist would presume (such the reasons I gave).
Anyway, those convoluted reasons you mention are part of what I was talking about, e.g. the reasons why religious fanatics (but of course also generally decent people who just happen to have strong religious beliefs) habe such strong beliefs are not very tangible. They believe in something intentionally, but without a reason founded in logic, as do certain creationists.
The other possibility I outlined is that someone believes something without having given more than superficial thought to it. Those people can thus be expected to be easily swayed in their opinion once they are given a reason to do so (a sort of threshhold energy if you will), such as an argument to not believe it.
In terms of religion vs science, I can really only see people who favour religion falling into one or both of these categories, feeling-whatever-related conviction or lack of information, and possibly one based on the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jul 3, 2015 12:07:47 GMT 5
I think religious fanaticism is more intellectual than the actual reasons. In fanaticism you a have a distinct epistemological structure where truth depends on religious authority and the reasoning of the fanatics is indeed consciously along this line. In most creationists you have no reasoning at all - the idea of evolution feels uncomfortable and counter intuitive, tastes a little like an insult ("my ancestors were like chimpanzees?"), and the person having theses feelings often has no idea about how to make inferences in a general way and is therefore rejected on an emotional level, without intelletual engagement at all. This is why we get a lot of the very poor reasoning often so soundly mocked - it is constructed post hoc, in the moment; Someone asks them to provide evidence and they are a, not used to tink in these modes of thought, and b, have never thought about the problem at all. This is also why the agument of credulity ("I just don't believe that..") is so common with them. It is their complete mental state.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 3, 2015 15:52:46 GMT 5
That may well be the case, you can do complex stuff for stupid reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 3, 2015 16:42:04 GMT 5
creature386I’d say both are not that easy to separate, actually. For example, would you say creationists deny evolution because they don’t understand the science, or because of their fanaticism? Usually a bit of both (partly based on religious feelings/tradition, but also simply mislead by the popularized arguments that can convince people as long as they have absolutely no clue about the subject). Note that I wasn't talking about the comprehension of science (which often goes more in depth), but about general knowledge as in facts everyone should learn at school. Has anyone ever made an effort to determine how many people are "ignorant-creationists" vs "fanatic-creationists"? For example by asking evolution deniers "Why not", giving them a sound, easy to understand scientific explanation and then checking how many of them change their opinion? It sometimes can be determined by their academic achievements. For example Vodmeister once mentioned a person (forgot his name) who has a PhD in geology, yet is a Young Earth Creationist. Similarly, I know YEC's who claim to have studied physics and use complex scientific terminology to support their bollocks. I know many examples of bollocks in a lab coat. An example is Intelligent Design. This is a nice example of lab coat creationism: answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/allosaurus-creationists-best-friend/?utm_source=facebook-aig&utm_medium=social&utm_content=allosauruscreationistsbestfriend-18999&utm_campaign=20150703Obviously written for misleading an uneducated audience, but that doesn't mean that the authors were uneducated. But you are right that it is often a mix of both. Nice idea, that blog series! Thanks, I already have an entry about PRATTs (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), the next is going to be about straw man arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 3, 2015 17:10:33 GMT 5
Yes, most of these probably are creationists mostly because of their religious fanaticism, not because they just don’t know any better. But usually those academic achievements tend to fall apart on closer inspection, e.g. when it turns out they studied at some creationist institute instead of a real university.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 6, 2015 2:13:52 GMT 5
Thanks, I already have an entry about PRATTs (Point Refuted A Thousand Times), the next is going to be about straw man arguments. I think I can already post that one here, as I need some feedback: carnivoraforum.com/blog/entry/3838574/161562/It is kind of a construction site, as I add something new all the time. I am not really satisfied with it, as I have too many examples that are not actually straw men, but just stupid arguments or stupid conclusions and for some reason all the categories that are not related to science are a bit empty. |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Jul 6, 2015 2:41:05 GMT 5
A few suggestions for your list:
"he reason for the rarity of transitional forms is that they are often short-lived and that most of extinct animals don't have many known species due to the way fossilization works."
I would add here that we have many transitional fossils, especially for hominids.
With the mitochondrial eve I would explain what really happens when you go back in time.... if you have a sample, like the sample of all modern humans, as you get back in time their lines of ancestry begin to merge, because for each pair of them there is some instance in the past where the two descent from a single individual. If you go back this happens so long until only one is left.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 6, 2015 2:47:45 GMT 5
A few suggestions for your list: "he reason for the rarity of transitional forms is that they are often short-lived and that most of extinct animals don't have many known species due to the way fossilization works." I would add here that we have many transitional fossils, especially for hominids. I know, but the creationist demanded millions. With the mitochondrial eve I would explain what really happens when you go back in time.... if you have a sample, like the sample of all modern humans, as you get back in time their lines of ancestry begin to merge, because for each pair of them there is some instance in the past where the two descent from a single individual. If you go back this happens so long until only one is left. Thanks for the suggestion, I added this by saying that the only similarity between it and creationism is the belief in a common ancestor of all humans. |
|
drone
Junior Member Rank 1
Posts: 53
|
Post by drone on Jul 6, 2015 4:41:00 GMT 5
Stated by many creationists, seems like they equate "evolutionist" with "an atheist who believes in evolution and the Big Bang".
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 6, 2015 16:29:09 GMT 5
Both examples you suggested got added, though I took a more specific one for democrats. P.S. It was not a bad idea to write that blog entry, my section on straw evolution already refutes most of the new Answers in Genesis article: answersingenesis.org/apologetics/evolution-vs-god |
|
