It is my concern, that this vital-isticwayofthinkingabouthuman behavior—astyle of thinkingthatis present throughout our scientific institutions—serves only tohinder what should be a major onslaught on determining themolecular genetic and chemical basis of human behavior.
If humans could accept that we are nothing more than another animal, then maybe people would be able to accept that free will is not real.
In the meantime it would be prudent toassume (in keeping with the thoughts of William of Occam, whereone always adopts the simplest of competing hypotheses)
idea that it is nonsensical to believe in the concept of free will because it is more concrete/parsimonious to believe that our 'choices' are a result of chemistry and biology of the brain is valid. however, just because there is no direct evidence for free will, does not mean it doesn't exist. there is no concrete evidence disproving free will, so although it may be unlikely, we cannot dismiss it all together.
“If free will is anillusion and each of our actions is determined by unconsciouscognitive processes in response to external stimuli, why should ourbrains delude us into thinking otherwise?”(30). A variation on thisquestion is: what is the evolutionary selective advantage of con-sciousness?
interesting question -- may be due to the human tendency of wanting to be in control? -- every other animal seems to act out of instinct, but because humans have the capacity for higher level thinking... maybe our brains developed an ingrained concept of free will through evolution?
Finally, even if the properties ofmatter are confirmed to be inherently stochastic, although this mayremove the bugbear of determinism, it would do little to support thenotion of free will: I cannot be held responsible for my genes and myenvironment; similarly, I can hardly be held responsible for anystochastic process that may influence my behavior!
True that the development of neural connections is partly a stochastic process, however what people choose to learn and unlearn can arguably be a choice (for example, people can break habit of something like smoking, or children learning specific behaviors that are good and bad through discipline) -- through conditioning, people can be trained and therefore it is not exactly a random process of which neural connections someone makes
Rather, thereis a trinity of forces—genes, environment, and stochasticism(GES)—that governs all of biology including behavior, with thestochastic component referring to the inherent uncertainty of thephysical properties of matter.
The component of stochasticism is very interesting-- may explain why no one will ever be able to determine if nature or nurture effects development most
If all movement is always interconnected, thenew arising from the old in a determinate order—if the atomsnever swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snapthe bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect—what is the source of the free will possessed by living thingsthroughout the earth?”
sounds similar to the question: how did the universe start? what was the catalyst that started it all?
Here I propose thatthe time is opportune for society to reevaluate our thinking con-cerning the concept of free will, as well as the policies of thecriminal justice system.
There are many issues with our criminal justice system, not only in regard to the free will debate but due to the unreliability of eye witness testimony. However, in light of this, we cannot simply get rid of the justice system all together. If we choose to not rely on eye witness testimony and choose to no longer accept the concept that humans have free will, then how will we hold people accountable for their actions? people need to develop another plan before they scrap the current one
So personal death is not banished, but it does lose its poignancy because death by submergence into the memory pool is reversible in the short run
So death will be final, but the consciousness lives on? Physical death must go hand in hand with intellectual death -- if consciousness knows it will live on forever to be addd to the 'memory pool' then no one really dies. And who will have access to this 'memory pool'?
Our genes and our culture pass continuously from one generation to the next, subject only to incremen-tal alterations to meet the continuous demand for new world records in the cosmic games.In the very long run the ancestral individual is always doomed as its heritage is nibbled away to meet short term demands. It slowly mutates into other forms that could have been reached from a range of starting points; the ultimate in convergent evolution. It’s by this reasoning that I concluded earlier that it makes no ultimate difference whether our machines carry for-ward our heritage on their own, or in partnership with direct transcriptions of ourselves.
Technically we already are immortal in how we pass on our genes, and I believe it is good that we do not reproduce exact versions of ourselves. The difference with machines being incorporated into what being a human means is that the involvement of machines suggests that people will literally live forever. No one should live forever because then people lose motivation to make their one chance at life meaningful.
Body identity assumes that a person is defined by the stuff of which a human body is made. Only by maintaining continuity of body stuff can we preserve an individual person. Pattern identity, on the other hand, defines the essence of a person, say myself, as the pattern and the process going on in my head and body, not the machinery supporting that pro-cess. If the process is preserved, I am preserved. The rest is mere jelly.
I do not like this concept because if people become synonymous with pattern identity rather than body identity, humans will lose their motivation to live their best life because they will no longer have to worry about the condition of their one body.
People knowing that they have to take care of their body because it is the only one they get forces them to try to practice self-love, practice self-acceptance, and have motivation to keep themselves healthy in an effort to live a long life. If we could just transfer our consciousness between different things, then there is no reason to have discipline or practice a healthy lifestyle; you would always have do-overs/could live forever so what is the point.
This process, possibly occur-ring now elsewhere, might convert the entire universe into an extended thinking entity, a probable prelude to greater things.
Is the universe already its own 'thinking entity? (in reference to the reproducing universe hypothesis)
Our culture could be fused with theirs, we could incorporate each other’s memories, and the species boundaries would fade. Non-intelligent creatures could also be popped into the data banks. The simplest organisms might contribute little more than the information in their DNA. In this way our future selves will benefit from all the lessons learned by terrestrial biological and cultural evolution. This is a far more secure form of storage than the present one, where genes and ideas are lost when the conditions that gave rise to them change
Being able to understand the world through every species POV is dangerous -- no one would be able to be happy because you cannot please every species without the expense of another. Also, how would evolution take place if every human had the knowledge of every other species?
Merging should be possible not only between two versions of the same individual but also between different persons.
Would it be a curse that people lose their individuality or a blessing that people would have the potential to have intense empathy by 'walking in each other's shoes'?
This is an understandable misconception based on the intimate association of a person’s identity with a particular, unique, irreplaceable piece of meat.
Quite a morbid way of viewing people's relationships to their bodies, but he's not wrong. Do you have to think of your body as a non-essential part of existence for the procedure to be completely successful? Do people lose part of themselves in the transfer from body to computer? Will the computers holding people's consciousness feel?
Though you have not lost consciousness, or even your train of thought, your mind (some would say soul) has been removed from the brain and transferred to a machine
If you no longer have a soul, then do you not longer have a motivation to follow your conscience?
There are certainly borderline cases about which reasonable people can disagree, but there are also clear-cut cases where disagreement would be irrational.
The ability to agree to disagree is healthy, but within reason -- some things are simply not debateable
We must first establish that a person was the cause of something before we can accept a personal explanationof it.
Humans may try to blame some sort of 'person' on the creation of the universe because of our tendency for pareidolia and anthropomorphism
Some believe that scientists’ rejection of the supernatural is dueto their irrational faith in materialism.7Our analysis suggests, on the contrary, that it’s due to their unwavering search for understanding.
Scientists do the best they can with what they currently have at their disposal to make observations -- science relies on falsifiability so that hypothesis with the 'best explanation' can be revised if a better explanation eventually comes along due to, for example, better technology
e. “Ad hoc” is Latin for “to that” or “to the fact.” An ad-hoc explanation is one that is constructed solely to save a hypothesis from the facts; it has no independent justification.
The creator of ad hoc hypotheses sounds like they are 'winging' their argument
Believing that one is destined for great things may help one achieve greatness.
self-fulfilling prophecy
causal determinism
like self-fulfilling prophecy?
Not only does the cause of the universe not have to be God, it does not have to be supernatural.
Does it have to have intelligence?
Before we can accept the Bible as a source of data, we need some reason for believing it to be true.
SO TRUE-- "just because someone consistently believes something doesn't mean that it's likely to be true"... "even if a large number of people consistently believe something, its credibility may be negligible" 1.
1) Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 84, e-book.
Aquinas took God to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and allgood. But from the existence of the universe, we cannot conclude that its creator had any of these properties.
Can the image of God that religion assumed be revised? should it be ?
Most of us have no trouble conceiving of the universe existing infinitely into the future. Similarly we should have no trouble conceiving of it existing infinitely intothe past
good way of putting it! but does this idea of an infinite future depend on the existence of humans? once our world ends, does that mean that the universe ends because things will be thrown off kilter?
The most telling criticism of this argument is that it is self-refuting. If everything has a cause other than itself, then God must have a cause other than himself. But if God has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false.To save the argument, the first premise could be amended to read:1'. Everything except God has a cause other than itself.
sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis to me! assuming too much
Everything is caused by something other than itself.2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be afirst cause.5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely God.
Logical, but creates more questions than it answers, like who/what is god? did someone create god? is the god that supposedly created the universe the same god that religion references (are their powers the same)?
The goodness of an explanation is determined by the amount of understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding an explanation produces is determined by how much it systematizes and unifies our knowledge.
"In medical research, clinical studies offer the strongest and clearest support for any claim that a treatment is effective because they ca establish cause and effect beyond a reasonable doubt"
Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 171, e-book.
Yes it can, but only by showing that it is more likely to yield justified beliefs than any other methodology. Thus the real issue is not whether a belief is scientific or pseudoscientific but whether it is justified or unjustified
The reliability of the scientific method is what makes it able to justify a claim, or show that a claim is unjustified. Without the scientific method, we would have no way of universally establishing how the world works
If what we perceive is determined by the paradigm we accept, then it should be impossible to perceive anything that doesn't fit our paradigm. But if it’s impossible to
The whole point of science is to research and understand the world around us. New discoveries are things that do not 'fit our paradigm'. It does not make sense to say it is impossible for there to be any anomalies because there already have been. Anomalies validate the need for scientific research and the importance of progress.
Finally, he claimed, no universal generalization can be conclusively confirmed, for we can never be sure that we have examined all the relevant data.
True, however "to minimize this potential for error, inadequacy, or fraud, medial scientists seek replication- they repeat the experiment to see if they get the same result"
Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 173, e-book.
Because most scientists can't justify their methodology, Feyerabend’s claims have gone largely unanswered.
All scientists base their methodology off of the same principals because it works --> "1.observe, 2. Induce general hypotheses or possible explanations for what we have observed, 3. Deduce specific things that must also be true if our hypothesis is true, 4. Test the hypothesis by checking out the deduced implications"
Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 169, e-book.
But just as government has no business teaching religion in the public schools, it has no business teaching science either.
But if we couldn't use religion or science to explain things and had to rely on our own chosen evaluation system, then there would be no common understanding of the world. so if not science and religion, wouldn't some other concept need to come about?
There is a view abroad in the land that science is more of an ideology than a methodology, and thus that it cannot legitimately claim to have a corner on reality.
"the scientific method is the most powerful tool we have for acquiring knowledge"
Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 166, e-book.
No scientist will admit that voting plays a role in his subject.
I feel like most would though... it would be ignorant to think that you are not subject to your own bias that can then affect your research.
what he thinks suits him best.
So wrong -- in order to be a mature citizen, a person needs to be able to think critically. If he did just what suits him best, then he would be selfish and would not have the foresight to see how his actions/choices would affect others. Holistic, reasonable, informed thinkers are critical to a successful society -- fallacies come into play and subjective biases
Everywhere science is enriched by unscientific methods and unscientific results, while procedures which have often been regarded as essential parts of science are quietly suspended or circumvented.
proposition = beyond reasonable doubt when it provides the best CURRENT explanation of something-- since those now outdated methods are not longer the best explanations for things, that is why they were once accepted but no longer are.
We see: facts alone are not strong enough for making us accept, or reject, scientific theories, the range they leave to thought istoo wide;logic and methodology eliminate too much, they aretoo narrow.
range being too wide is most likely due to the power of relativism, HOWEVER --> "BUT THE TRUTH OF THOSE STATES OF AFFAIRS ISN’T RELATIVE"
Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 322, e-book
We shall not permit them to teach the fancies of science as if they were the only factual statements in existence
“Science is our most reliable means of establishing an empirical proposition beyond a reasonable doubt”
Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 232, e-book
The similarities between science and myth are indeed astonishing
The similarities between science and myth are astonishing, but not really surprising. Many ideas that were once myths turned out to be real/proven by science. Thus, the difference between science and myth is the component of research. --'evolution predicted novel facts that have since been verified'1
1)1) Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 197, e-book.
Initial difficulties caused by the change are defused byad hoc hypotheses,which thus turn out occasionally to have a positive function; they give new theories a breathing space, and they indicate the direction of future research.
I feel like ad hoc hypotheses could never have a positive function -- they are usually used when people run out of ways to be right in their argument so they 'wing it' as they go. However, their argument was likely a bit of a stretch to begin with. --> "desperate attempts to save a theory from the facts" 1
1) Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 180, e-book.
pernicious,
Definition: causing insidious harm or ruin
So in place of Scott's definition of science, I offer the following: science is the attempt to explain the real world by means of real processes. This doctrine may be called "methodological realism" and is a more plausible conception of science than methodological materialism.
Completely agree -- realism addresses the supernatural controversy because no one knows if it's 100% real or fake, they only have faith that it is. 'Real' is a more accurate term to use than 'material'. It could be that the supernatural IS in fact material, but that humans just have not been able to prove that it is real in terms of our current understanding of reality because of limited technological abilities.
Further, maybe we should say that "science is the attempt to explain the real world by means of real, widely used *processes that have proven to be reliable and valid
"all that exists are material objects and processes."2That doctrine is known as "philosophical materialism" and is not entailed by methodological materialism. From the fact that one cannot scientifically investigate the supernatural, it doesn't follow that it doesn't exist. So in Scott's view, one can be a scientist without being a philosophical materialist.
I believe Scott's view is reasonable. A person could be a scientist and reasonably believe in methodological materialism because it describes some sort of mean to an end. Philosophical materialism, however, leaves many unknowns/speculations available, thus making this doctrine unappealing to scientists.
All of this is not to say that science is without presuppositions. Science presupposes at least three things: (1) that the world has a determinate structure, (2) that we can know that structure, and (3) that this knowledge is available to everyone. If the world had no determinate structure--if it were formless and nondescript--it couldn't be understood scientifically because it couldn't be explained or predicted. If we couldn't know that structure--if none of our faculties put us in touch with it--then, again, there could be no science. Finally, if this knowledge were not publicly available--if it were not open to public scrutiny--there would be no way to test its validity. So science does make certain presuppositions, but none of them are ontological. It is not committed to any particular view of what there is.
A more in depth explanation of idea from pg. 167 in textbook
Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 167, e-book.
Scott is wrong in believing that scientists qua scientists cannot make claims about the supernatural. Science does not and should not wear any metaphysical blinders. Consequently, there is no limit on what science can investigate or on what sort of explanations it can construct.
True, however anytime science investigates a construct about the supernatural it never fails to be disproved, not only because of a lack of data/solid evidence, but also lack of it being the most reasonable explanation according to the criteria of adequacy. I think that Johnson and Scott are saying that scientists shouldn't waste their time on something they know will not end up being the most adequate explanation.
What she offers," he says, "is peace on conqueror's terms," for science "will take the entire realm of objective reality for its share, thank you very much. The only problem is how to keep the conquered theists acquiescent by re-assuring them that their cherished God will be allowed to exist harmlessly in some sanctuary."4
Love this -- the theory of God should not be allowed to exist just because it will appease believers; as long as there are believers, there will be people trying to use religion rather than science to explain the world. Believers need to face the facts and be willing to admit that God is simply an unreliable theory to believe in.
Because creationist explanations appeal to supernatural objects and processes, they are not scientific, and thus do not belong in science classes.
YES-- not to mention that evolution meets more criteria of adequacy and is able to logically refute creationist claims. Also, because creationism depends on supernatural assumptions, it is based on unreliable ad hoc hypotheses and raises more questions than it answers.
ut essayslike Lewontin’s and books like Behe’s demonstrate that honest thinkers onboth sides are near agreement on a rede nition of the con ict.
I disagree that they are 'honest thinkers' -- I appreciate their initial ideas and their want to continue investigation, however Behe's hypothesis has already been rationally refuted by science (pg. 201 of Weird Things textbook) rather than by use of ad hoc hypotheses.
Shouldskeptics accept such persons as impartial fact- nders? Lewontin himselfknows too much about cognitive elites to say anything so naive, and so inthe end he gives up and concludes that “we” do not know how to get thepublic to the right starting point.
Everyone is biased to some degree -- seems very unlikely that a perfect panel of people can be created to evaluate a situation or controversy. But having a panel of mixed views is a good place to start.
If eminent experts say that evolution according to Gould is too confusedto be worth bothering about, and others equally eminent say thatevolution according to Dawkins rests on unsubstantiated assertions andcounterfactual claims, the public can hardly be blamed for suspecting that
Two major points to be reminded of: 1) There is good reason to doubt a proposition if it conflicts with expert opinion 2) Just because someone is an expert in one field doesn't mean they are an expert in another
1)Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 82, e-book. 2)Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 83, e-book.
. Just to ll outthe picture, however, it seems that admirers of Dawkins have as low anopinion of Gould as Lewontin has of Dawkins or Wilson.
This quote was comical to me. Of course there will be a divide in alliance's between opposing beliefs. It is surely influenced by people's tendency to have confirmation bias. It makes sense that confirmation bias would affect who we choose to be our friends with and support because it is logical to want to befriend like-minded people.
but having reasons is not the same as having proof.
true, HOWEVER, if an argument is the most rational explanation of something beyond a reasonable then it is worth investing in. In other words, "if we have no reason to doubt what's disclosed to us through perception, introspection, memory, or REASON then we're justified in believing it" 1. People must refer to the criteria of adequacy.
1) Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 87, e-book.
came to see the issue as essentially one ofbasic intellectual commitment rather than factual knowledge.
It sounds here like Sagan is being accused of belief perseverance. This is not the case, however, because everything Sagan believed was based on the best explanations beyond a reasonable doubt, not to mention the beliefs based on scientific evidence and data. It would be belief perseverance if Sagan refused to change beliefs if presented with new, more convincing and important information. But this was not the case; creationism has been disproved in most if not all arguments that try to defend it.
The appropriatecomparison would be between the theory of evolution and the acceptedtheory of the origin of the solar system.
This passage reminded me how important/impactful phrasing is when presenting an idea to someone. Phrasing can be important to reduce things like priming/leading questions. What people interpret as the most salient information/details to pay attention to varies, so the creator of something like a debate question should try to intentionally make certain salient parts so everyone interprets it in the same way.
"If we want people to accept science,... we should allow them to make their religious accommodations to it" paragraph 9
This last sentence doesn't make much sense to me. I feel like accommodating peoples beliefs will trivialize the actual truth and accuracy. Allowing people to make their religious accommodations would allow them the opportunity to skew/portray science to how they see fit, which will then not be science but opinion.
"Religious scientists... can look at the same data and theory that I look at and see evidence of God's handiwork" paragraph 8
This is just ignorance to me. It goes along with belief perseverance in which people will believe what they want to no matter how much valid, conflicting evidence is presented. In other words, "any hypothesis can be maintained in the face of seemingly adverse evidence if we're willing to make enough alterations in our background beliefs"1.
1) Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 175, e-book.
"I can say wearing my scientist hat that I don't see evidence of supernatural interference in nature... but I cannot as a scientist say "There is no supernatural interference in nature" " paragraph 7
This passage reminded me of the argument that keeps the investigation into parapsychology alive. Scientists have disproved claims that would otherwise have supported parapsychology. But, "that's not to say that psi is unreal, however. No amount of evidence (or lack of it) could prove that, because it's impossible to prove a universal negative"1
1)Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 213, e-book.
"and, in fact, any scientist who goes to church has to "check his brains" at the door" paragraph 4
I agree with this quote because any explanation that religion may offer does not subsequently offer a way to test that explanation/prediction. Put simply, "for a hypothesis to increase our knowledge, there must be some way to test it, for if there isn't, we have no way of telling whether or not the hypothesis is true"1
1) Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 180, e-book.
" "the universe cares nothing for us and we have no ultimate meaning in life" paragraph 4
I am happy that science shows the above quote. There is an overwhelming amount of contradictions and multiple fallacies in the argument for the existence of God (as demonstrated through this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3OkCxhjDmQ. These reasons make it quite irrational to believe that God, let alone that he gives everyone a meaningful purpose.
Epistemic alertness is a muchmore precious virtue today than it ever was, since the need to sift through conflictinginformation has exponentially increased, and the risk of becoming a vessel of credulity is just afew taps of a smartphone away.
Today with fake news, people can always find 'reliable evidence' to support their belief. Admitting whether that evidence is real/logical is where morality comes in.
f you still believe this is an exaggeration,think about how beliefs fashioned in a cave in Afghanistan lead to acts that ended lives in NewYork, Paris and London.
Beliefs are not just about one person, it's about how that person's believes will affect others
Clifford gives three arguments as to why we have a moralobligation to believe responsibly, that is, to believe only what we have sufficient evidence for, andwhat we have diligently investigated
Nevermind morality, but why would people want to believe in anything but evidence-based arguments?
It is unquestionable that religious belief may affect their motives for right doing in various and potent ways, but to say that apart from such beliefs we should have no ground for discriminating good from evil, right from wrong, is irresponsible.
YES-- people should be held accountable for deciding the morality of their decisions. Religion can enhance people's moral compass but religion can also be misinterpreted by people to justify their bad morality
To think is to try to get at the truth, and the person who professes to bedoing that will be a dupe if he consciously allows any thought of his own or other people's advantage to affect his conclusions
Very wise and insightful --> reliability of truth can be suspicious if someone is biased or has personal motives
And of course that would be the rule if we were in a position to know what was true and what false. But the whole difficulty arises from the fact that we do not and often cannot. What is to guide us then? Sometimes what seems to us true conflicts with what authority says is true; sometimes what the evidence suggests as true is something that will make ourselves and others very unhappy; sometimes on pressing issues the evidence is conflicting. In such cases what are we to believe?
Finding the balance between true/false and right/wrong is very tricky
This is a very strong case. Grant Torquemada his premises, and the conclusion follows irresistibly that torturing and burning people may be a duty and a kindness. You can hardly say he was a wicked man for living up more courageously than others to what he and they believed in common, or for acting sincerely in what he believed to be the interest of his victims. We cling, nevertheless, to our conviction that he did wrong, and atrocious wrong. And the question presses more urgently than before, where does the wrongness lie?
Very interesting perspective -- this reminded me of Donald Trump and what people reference as the 'silent majority'. I think that where the wrongness lies can be subjective based on morals; some people are willing to overlook more controversial choices than others are which is where a divide is created
Again, in insisting on fidelity to truth, we are not insisting on fidelity to truthfulness.
This concept is confusing... I feel like there should always be a fidelity to truth, what is the difference between truth and truthfulness?
This principle is simple and sweeping: Equate your assent to theevidence
It really is as simple as this! It is important to base opinions on evidence because if there is no evidence, one is no justification. Plus, inaccurate beliefs = inaccurate conclusions = inaccurate actions.
Everybody's entitled to their own opinion' goes the platitude, meaning that everybody has the right to believe whatever they want.
Sure everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it doesn't mean they're right. People that refuse to reconsider their stance on opinions, even in the wake of new evidence, are doing themselves a disservice.
and were convinced that there could be no real opposition between reason and faith.
However, we now know that "in the case of faith, the gap between belief and evidence is filled by an act of will".
Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 87, e-book.
When pressed to describe specifically what they believe in, the average person only can repeat claims about God's actions, or about God's love for humanity. Even assuming that said actions actually happened, or that said relationship actually exists, this says little about the nature of God; it really only tells us about a particular historical incident, or about how people describe their relationship to the divine.
Interesting that instead of people admitting their beliefs are ultimately unjustified due of the lack of evidence, they instead try to explain their rationale -- is a direct example of "Just because someone consistently believes something doesn't mean that it's likely to be true"1. This scenario could also quickly become an example of the unacceptable premise "begging the question"2.
1) Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 84, e-book. 2) Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 51, e-book.
.Theproblemswit h bot h casessuggest that thereis somethingbadlyamis s in the appli -cationof the proceduresusedby th e Ca tholicChurchfor declaring something a miraclecureat Lourdes. Anapparentlyquestionablediagnosis of Perrinand an un -substantiatedjudgmentaboutthe cureinvolvedin thesixty-third officialmiraclewereacceptedby the Lour desmedicalbureauand the international com mit t
False claims = loss in credibility = loss in support from public
“Thereis still another hypothesis th at is a riv alto the miraclehypothesis.Allegedmiracles may no t bedue to sometrickor fraud,but to misperce ptio ns basedon re ligiousbias.A personfull of religious zeal may seewhat he or she wantsto see, not whatis real ly there.We knowfromempiricalstudiesthatpeo pl e’ s beli efsand prejudicesinfluencewhatth ey see and rep ort. Itwouldnot be surprisingth at religiouspeop le wh o re -po rt thattheyhaveseenmiraculou s eventshavepro -jectedth ei r biasesontoth e actu al ev
Such an articulate passage. People should strive to keep an open-mind and challenge themselves to think critically. Remaining curious is what allows people to progress and improve.
did? The hypothesisth at Jesuswas a magi -cian has beenseriouslycon sideredby som e bi bl icalschol ars. The successof somecontemporary‘f aith heal -ers’ and ‘psychicwonders’in con vincingthe pub lic of‘miraclecures’by the use of deceptionan d fraudind i-cates that it was possiblefor Jesus,if he was a magician,to do the sam
I am so glad he was brave enough to say this. Magicians prove how powerful sleight of hand can be, why wouldn't Jesus be able to master such skills as well?
“However,my main argu men t is th at in ordertocl ai m thata mirac le has occurred,rivalhypothesesmustbe sho wn to be less probable thanthe miraclehy -poth e
"Just because a claim hasn't been conclusively refuted doesn't mean it's true" --
Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 22, e-book.
Ho w-ever , the positionthatyou takein th e repo rt is quiteunacceptableto the Churchbecauseit confl icts withour doctrines.It wouldbe un fortunateif it ev er becameknown tha t the Churchhad actuallysponsored th is re -port.So I mustask you to refrainfromever revealing—an d I underlinethe word‘ever ’— that it was sponsoredby this officeor by any office of the C
This passage reminded me of the quote "When people learn no tools of judgement and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown" -- Stephen Jay Gould.
If the miracles atLourdesare foundto be suspicious,therewi ll be go odreasonto be suspiciousof otherallegedmi racleswh ichhave not beenso rigorouslyinvestigated
Since one's actions are based on their beliefs, debunking suspicious miracles would be a service to the community in that people would not be putting their faith in something that actually has a logical explanation -- truth matters!
Th e Churchhas vigorously re -ject ed the viewso pop ular sinceth e nine teenthcen tu ryth at miracles are impossibl e
It is logical to claim that God can perform miracles so long as those miracles seem physically impossible, not logically impossible.
However, it should be noted that events deemed to be miracles in the Bible could have simply been "a result of our lack of knowledge about the event" (Schick, "Readings and Videos - Miracles" assignment page) therefore making it seem as a violation of physical law.
us. Ex -posing FatherColli ns’s ‘exorcisms’as fakesis the finestpieceof sleuthingI havehad the privilegeof seei ng inal mosttwentyyearsin this job. Mindyou, manypeoplein th e Churchhierarchydo not like
It is scary that even the Church can be guilty of greed/fraud. This reality further emphasizes why critical thinking matters; "the quality of your life is determined by the quality of your decisions, and the quality of your decisions is determined by the quality of your thinking."<br> -- Theodore Schick Jr., Lewis Vaughn, How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age, (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2019), 13, e-book.
in Ep is -temology
definition-- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
“Whycou ldn’ t theyjust admitth at theywerelyingfor a goodcause?”
Lying to people, no matter how good one believes a cause may be, will always result in negative consequences. An example of this is the Peter Popoff scam. Encouraging people to keep their heads in the sand/indulge in wishful thinking is dangerous!