Open-mindedness and pseudoscientific beliefs

I saw this video some time ago.

While I really like the way it lays out the rational arguments, it has definite flaws.

Unfortunatley it does not just stick to irrational beliefs, but gets pretty quickly into the area of tolerance of others' beliefs, which is a completely different matter.

Ascribing all the rudeness, intolerance and irrational thinking to the straw person who coincidentally hold certain beliefs muddies the issue, because really it is about ways of thinking and relating to others, not whether these beliefs have any foundation or not.

To portray the non-scientific believers as rude and intolerant strawfigures who are defeated by a rational, benign protagonist was clearly necessary for the exercise, but it is hardly a perfect reflection of reality.

That is why it gets confusing to bring in actual beliefs and social issues without a bit of context. I can see the point in making some references, but to do so was risky at best. I think the piece took no steps to temper the association between these beliefs and rude and stupid behaviour, and even with threats to our health and finances.

Intolerance, smugness and closed-mindedness do not have a direct correlation with any world view, and we all behave in ways which are much more nuanced and paradoxical than the models presented.

To imply that whole groups of people think in a certain way (which the piece certainly did) is both irrational and unfair. And it does a disservice to what is otherwise a good argument.

Plus, there are a couple of things in there that make no sense themselves. There is no such thing as a purely rational person, nor a completely irrational one. And that "evidence filter" is great, and as a model I get it, but no one's mind actually works like that.

In fact I like most of the video as a theoretical exercise. It's the possibility that some might think it is a direct reflection of reality that concerns me.

"i can't explain something therefore i can explain it"  that is the crucial one for me here.  So many people jump to conclusions about this kind of stuff, and this contradiction is a great example of the odd logic employed by people with spiritual beliefs.  

i also agree with the part about how a statement of non belief is not an assertion that something can't be true.  This is like the 9/11 thing, or existence of gods.  people often assume because you aren't buying it that you must mean it "can't" be true, when really all you're saying is "you haven't convinced me, yet"

I also think a lot of people on babble should take something from this in regards to how to have a sane debate.  So many times when someone disagrees here, people start jumping to all kinds of conclusions about them and start freaking out, without actually presenting facts or a decent counterpoint to influence them.

that would be great, but that would mean people would have to think rationally which doesn't happen much, especially when you're talking about people in a position of power.

But the invasion of iraq/afghanistan/pakistan/yemen etc. has less to do with an actual belief that they were involved and more to do with using 9/11 as a pretext to invade because they wanted to for other reasons.  Truthers and god believers are actually convinced for real that they know the truth and have the facts on their side.  sure, it's a possibility, but it's far from a sure thing. 

Sorry.... I didn't realize I had stumbled into a tributary of The Great 9-11 Debate.

Fidel wrote:

But the real truth movement is saying that there has been a concerted government cover-up of the facts and nothing more. Nothing about who is responsible for 9/11.

If this were true there would be very little opposition to the "real truth movement".

If this were true there wouldn't be millions of people who confidently proclaim that 9/11 was an inside job.

If this were true there wouldn't be billions of words written, setting out in detail all the supposed facts that the government is concertedly trying to cover up (evidently without success, according to the truthers, who see all, know all; the U.S. government is apparently incredibly efficient at carrying out bizarre, detailed scenarios that would make a hack Hollywood writer blush, but utterly incompetent at covering them up, even though not one single person among the tens of thousands who were in on the supposed charade has actually come forward.)

So pardon me if I call bullshit on your statement.

Brian White wrote:

The world stood still for a few days following 911 but then we just got on with our lives.

Yes, because to do otherwise, as we heard repeatedly at the time, would be to let the terrorists "win." Much better than pause and reflection. Plus it would have fucked up the daily flow of capitalist consumerism.

M. Spector wrote:

If this were true there wouldn't be billions of words written, setting out in detail all the supposed facts that the government is concertedly trying to cover up (evidently without success, according to the truthers, who see all, know all; the U.S. government is apparently incredibly efficient at carrying out bizarre, detailed scenarios that would make a hack Hollywood writer blush, but utterly incompetent at covering them up, even though not one single person among the tens of thousands who were in on the supposed charade has actually come forward.)

So pardon me if I call bullshit on your statement.

And the truth is that they have not succeeded in covering up 9/11 in order to fool everyone. Not all of us believe the in crazy George II version of 9/11 events. And I think it's a good thing.

As for protracted, rambling, open-ended 9-11 speculations (not unlike the widespread suspension of disbelief vis-a-vis the Warren Commissions's report and summary of the Kennedy assassination); perhaps this thread's title should read:  "Hard-headedness and prototypical reactions". 

To conclude that an insider conspiracy, with its requisite, investigative follow-up, exists because the officially assembled (dissembled for some) scientific evidence is itself questionable, inconclusive, and most likely contrived, is, for me, akin to the ongoing belief of creationists, despite the weight of evolutionary theory.

It's also not unlike some of the dissonance surrounding the climate change debate, as "Mama Grizzly" and her deniers' implore: "Drill baby, drill!", belief, in this instance, clings to an obdurate faith in what deniers refuse to acknowledge, despite the melting glaciers of evidence.

The reason for such fric and frac (from what I've read somewhere), is that all executive decisions are  basically emotional, by the nature of brain functioning.  If that's true, wouldn't an abiding faith in reason necessitate an emotional appeal to those analytical processes that McLullan cautioned were the basis for communicating (dissembling) propaganda (hence, the inherent vulnerability of the literate mind to the emotional persuasion of rhetoric)?  Seduce me, passionately, with your argument!

For me, I suppose it comes down to either what my brain wants to believe, or disabuse itself of (depending on what's whispered in my ear).  No doubt, others have more reasonable and scientific thoughts on the subject.

My point, I think, is: how does the brain choose to believe whatever reinforces certain paradigms that it has decided are ratioinal, yet are basically emotional?  Can reason really subdue passion without first seducing emotion? If not, how might one's brain expect another's to break faith with a belief system, that it believes is threatening or repugnant, by appealing solely to reason?

So, evolutionary theorists, are we hard-wired to survive as individuals, or as a species?  How does altruism and self-sacrifice square itself when confronted with hard-boiled objectivism?  If we believe that everything contains within itself the seed of its own opposite (the negation of the negation, or yin and yang, if one prefers), then cognitive opposition is diametrical only in its obversity.  Can this be explained genetically? Is the DNA of Tea Partiers different fom that of Dippers? Who's more passionate?

autoworker wrote:

As for protracted, rambling, open-ended 9-11 speculations (not unlike the widespread suspension of disbelief vis-a-vis the Warren Commissions's report and summary of the Kennedy assassination); perhaps this thread's title should read:  "Hard-headedness and prototypical reactions". 

- you wanna explain to me how buying a ludicrous conspiracy theory that is full of obvious nonsense and lies is 'hard-headed'? (oh wait, I just got it - rocks for brains - sorry - )

I think a lot of these comments actually are a testament to the power of pseudo-science to sway public beliefs, when people can make such pronouncements having done no study of their own and basing their arguments entirely on personal incredulity. Isn't this exactly what the video attempts to counter? "I don't believe it" = "It's not true".

autoworker wrote:

siamdave wrote:

autoworker wrote:

As for protracted, rambling, open-ended 9-11 speculations (not unlike the widespread suspension of disbelief vis-a-vis the Warren Commissions's report and summary of the Kennedy assassination); perhaps this thread's title should read:  "Hard-headedness and prototypical reactions". 

- you wanna explain to me how buying a ludicrous conspiracy theory that is full of obvious nonsense and lies is 'hard-headed'? (oh wait, I just got it - rocks for brains - sorry - )

Indeed, I was thinking of something obtuse...like a bowling ball, that reason cannot penetrate.  BTW, I'm glad that you "got it" ...eventually.  Apology accepted.

- I've been getting a lot of stuff for quite a long time, general patterns are pretty clear here outside the box - not sure about the rest of you chaps - remember, now, it's *you* with the pretty tinhatty conspiracy theory about religious nuts in a cave shutting down the entire US Air Defence Network for a couple of hours, and little fires causing the collapse of highrise buildings EXACTLY like controlled demolition but OH NO NOT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION@!!! and etc - me, I just think that kind of thinking shows a seriously limited ability to question things that quite obviously need to be questioned ... sort of a 'hardheaded' resistance to considering things other than what you're told to consider by whoever you hold in positions of authority etc ....

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well aside from the fact that "little fires" made made my eyebrows go up (how much high-octane fuel is in a fully-tanked plane?).....

.....

- most of that fuel went up in the fireball. The buildings were constructed of steel and cement, which does not burn too well. Office furniture does not normally make for big fires. Do you want to get on the list of people who call these fires

something besides little?

- from the other side -

- now don't be shy - tell me out loud you find it perfectly reasonable that those fires ('massive'??) are very plasuibly the cause of this -

- within the next few minutes.

Seriously?

Plane crash? Well, since the thread started with 'science', here's a fact for you - the planes that crashed into the WTCs weighed in at about 100 tons. The WTC buildings weighed in at about 500,000 tons - just be sure you understand this, a one hundred ton plane flying into a five hundred thousand ton building. A building that was built to withstand gale force winds along the whole area of any side for hours at a time, and did so with no problems for 30 years. A building that was actually designed with the understanding that a remote possibility was an aircraft impact.

There is just no place for you official conspiracy theory supporters to hide anymore - those buidlings did NOT fall because of that relatively small aircraft impact and those relatively small fires. Everything you believe is a lie. And we have been turning into a fascist society for the last ten years based on this lie.

But you apparently find comfort in conspiracy theories about religious nuts in caves and buildings falling that defy all the laws of common sense and science.

Your grandchildren are going to have questions.

Me, I'm just completely disgusted and appalled at the gullibility of so many of my fellow citizens, and your complete refusal to challenge the blatant lies of the people who are stealing our entire society from us.

autoworker wrote:

To conclude that an insider conspiracy, with its requisite, investigative follow-up, exists because the officially assembled (dissembled for some) scientific evidence is itself questionable, inconclusive, and most likely contrived, is, for me, akin to the ongoing belief of creationists, despite the weight of evolutionary theory.

It's also not unlike some of the dissonance surrounding the climate change debate, as "Mama Grizzly" and her deniers' implore: "Drill baby, drill!", belief, in this instance, clings to an obdurate faith in what deniers refuse to acknowledge, despite the melting glaciers of evidence.

- this is very definitely mixing apples and oranges. The evidence for evolution is strong, the evidence for human-induced climate change is strong - but the 'evidence' for the Official Conspiracy Theory is so weak as to be laughable - the OCT is comparable to creationism or the climate-change deniers, in their exaggeration, their ignoring of devastatingly "inconvenient" facts, etc. You simply cannot read the work of someone like David Griffin and then the Popular Mechanics defence of the OCT and come to any other conclusion other than the whole OCT is a great lie.

I suspect, however, that very, very few OCT supporters have any idea of the great mass of evidence out there pointing out the flaws and inconsistencies (to be polite) in the OCT - and then they have the gall to start threads like this, accusing those of us who are very familiar with not only your OTC, but how very flawed it is, of 'pseudoscience' - when the reverse is the actual case.

C'mon now - have you ever read any of the Griffin essays?

siamdave wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-W43OWu6LIg

 

Sorry for the poor quality. I think the message is clear enough.

That is distressingly clear. Your masters, of course, are pleased.

How high sir? yes sir.

Look. I think those wars were a shitty idea, so whether you are right or wrong is actually irrelevant to the final outcome. So you can keep your assumptions about my loyalties to yourself.

And secondly, It's not my place to tell you what to post, but if you're going to hijack one that started on another topic I reserve the right to call you on it, especially since it is a subject that has been beaten to death.

And on that note, it is going to be enough of a chore having to clear my inbox of what is now a pointless thread. The less effort I have to expend on it the better.

[url=http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html][color=blue]Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery[/color][/url]

Quote:

[u]We'll See...[/u]

There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit.

"Such bad luck," they said sympathetically.

"We'll see," the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses.

"How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed.

"We'll see," replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

"We'll see," answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

"We'll see" said the farmer.

I also think any look at beliefs needs to include a look at how much of out thinking is irrational. There have been several books published recently, including Stephen Pinker's "How The Mind Works" which claim that many of our decisions, values and beliefs have no basis in evidence whatsoever, and that we not be able to function and make decisions were it not for our irrational side.

Not that I think irrational thought should go unchallanged, of course. But it is often not a black and white situation on either side.

[url=http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/i-sisnews11-14.php]Corporate Science[/url] Is it still science?

@ Sineed

In the first place, I didn't bring up the point in the middle of an argument over the truth of something, but rather as a way of recognizing that our minds don't work in a strictly rational way.

And I take that notion a bit more seriously when it comes from a psychologist who bases his opinion on the scientific method we rationalists all respect so much.

And really, it makes a bit more sense than a theoretical world which is divided into those with "belief in pseudo-scientific ideas" and those with "no belief in pseudoscientific ideas".

But you should note in my last paragraph that I don't think ideas should go untested. The only difference is I think there are ideas which we all hold that don't have a rational foundation regardless of that fact.

it's too bad people seem to be so black and white on this issue, since you can be both someone who uses rational observation in their decision making without losing the feeling of awe at the world kind of thinking people like chopra seem to like so much.

the problem is when to use each way of looking at things in a "rational" way.  so if i'm trying to figure out if i need to pray several times a day and worship some all knowing being, i can use rational evidence based thinking to figure out that that's a bad idea based on flawed thinking and a lack of rational evidence based thought.

however i can still hang out with my friends and hypothesize that the human species is like a virus that has infested planet earth, cause if you look at how human cities look from  space it looks like a cancer on the planet or something.  That doesn't mean i'm going to proclaim i know it to be true and claim to "believe" it, because my rational side says it's a total guess...

i don't think it's an either/or type of thing.  humans seem quite capable of doing both simultaneously.  Just that some seem to do it in the wrong circumstances.

Yes, human beings are a virus on the earth. I think agent Smith from the Matrix and Phil Windsor are the same person, or something.

We have to cull the herd if we want to continue plundering the world's resources and polluting hell out of it.

It's either that or swear off capitalism for a few centuries and pursue something sustainable in the mean time. It's all about choices really.

Aw c'mon, get back to talking about 9-11 again.

Belief in the OCT/pancake theory is a psuedo-scientific belief, no fair calling out of bounds.

Did you know a 757 holds about as much fuel as would fit in an average-sized above-ground swimming pool ?

500 thousand tons of steel and concrete.

Nothing supernatural about it.

There are two separate things here which should not be confused.

Ideas can be tested and taken apart to see if they are true, false, or if they cannot be proven.

People, on the other hand, are in part rational, and in part not rational, and are going to hold some irrational beliefs no matter how much of a foundation they have. Some irrational beliefs are as benign as "your favourite colour" or as malignant as racism. But there is a wealth of evidence and scientific opinion that it is hard-wired into us.

The reason why I mentioned it was not to say that we can't prove anything because we are all irrational - again, ideas are just ideas and are not tied to people's irrational thinking. Some can be proven and some not.

I am saying that people, in opposing ideas they see as irrational, sometimes display some fairly irrational thinking themselves:

The notion that you can stop someone from being irrational simply by demonstrating the truth or falsehood of something.

The reduction of whole belief systems to one single theory - creationism, for example - and refusal to look at how those systems work  and the reasons why people actually believe in them. Another example is the concept of "memes" which is an interesting model and convenient shorthand, but it is a simple model for one small part of a very complex thing. Memes are not real things at all.

The notion that all belief is just different foms of the same thing - that reform religion is to fundamentalism as marijuana is to heroin (to make a comparison to another false comparison).

The false belief held by some people (which is included in this video) that some people are rational and other people are not is itself an irrational idea, one which probably prevents some of us from looking at our own ways of thinking.

What if the USA's FPTP phony majority machine was broken for some reason in 2000, and Ralph Nader and the Green Party were elected by mistake instead of either wing of the Wall Street war party before 9/11 happened? Would more people be saying things like, Well lookit here eh, there are 9/11 Commishs and Congress people themselves saying there is a cover-up of the facts?  

Somehow I think there would be as long as their favourite war party in Warshington was clear out of harm's way and in no possible way culpable of covering up an inside job perp'd by the shadow gov. I think that in this impossible scenario where the usual cosmetic government choices for war party numero uno or dos somehow screwed up and whose election was not pre-paid prior to 9/11 occurring, Ralph Nader and his Green congress people would have a lot of explainin' to do to mobs wanting to impeach/lynch the US  government. Sorry, Ralph, but you wouldn't have stood a chance.