Science, Faith, and Intellectual Dishonesty

Eh, sorry for the long delay in posting.

After almost a decade are we actually reaching agreement on the science as a religion question? That is cause for astonishment. I'll agree with you that the titular heads of the two schools of debate are not normally in the same league wrt intellectual honesty. I also recall, to reuse the stem cell example, that the major proponents caveated their arguments. However, they were perfectly happy to allow others to make more exorbitant claims (an argument I advance for the simple reason that the public debate does not and never has been as nuanced as were the proponents of the research in their public statements).

That leads to another line of thought, and one I'd like to get your opinion on. When you were discussing the Mos Def/Christopher Hitchens smackdown, and Ta-Nehisi Coates' assault on the the failure of the 'elder' generations to educate the younger ones and force them to grow intellectually, you also seemed to promoting the utility of using those who agree with you, but for the wrong reasons to advance your own stance.

I'm not sure where you stand on this, but the thing is, once I thought about it, I realized that I agree with both of the assertions I thought you made. In other words, I'm a hypocrite on this issue (though not a delestivus, since I'm acknowledging it :) ). I get intensely agitated when someone makes a statement without backup; the bar mentality that you expect out of undergrads and the uneducated. Into this category I place such pearls of wisdom as "The Republicans just want the oil", "Democrats want to take our guns", "Dick Cheney controlled the White House, because Bush is a moron", and "Of course there was a conspiracy [9-11, Kennedy, whatever]. The [insert favorite group here] was behind it all".

A brief aside is in order here, one which ties together the current discussion as well as the science as a religion tangent. I was recently out in the field with a coworker when she started talking about a test that you can have done for ~$125 that the Discovery Channel has been hawking for several years now. It involves swabbing your mouth to get some genetic samples and then sending them off for testing. The results will then tell you your genetic history.

Allright, cool. Interesting idea. I raised the point though that only a few years ago, there was a mini-controversy when it was revealed that the several companies involved in this business tend to provide different histories for the same genetic sample. In other words, the science isn't complete yet on this one, as we're still developing our collective understanding of humanity's genetic history. When I raised this point, my coworker said, and I swear this is almost verbatim, "Yeah, that's true, but I trust them, and you have to start somewhere." I asked why I should trust the results from her company and not some other company, to which she replied that these guys were professionals. Pressing her further, she explained that she's read up on this topic and has experience that I lack which makes her more trusting of the results. This experience, I shit you not, is a couple of undergrad courses in genetics she took...over 25 years ago. It's equivalent to my asserting a detailed knowledge of Gregor Mendel because I completed a worksheet on the genetic qualities of peas in a High School chemistry class. I about lost it, and actually accused her of treating science as her own religion, as we've been discussing.

The main point of this story is that I agree that we have an obligation to educate those who might agree with us, but for the wrong reason. In fact, I agree that genetic testing can reveal our deepest ancestry. I don't think we can tell with any deep degree of accuracy exactly where we come from yet (nor do I particularly care about the results myself, but that's a different rant), but I've little doubt a consensus will be reached fairly quickly on how to proceed. However, I also follow your other line of argument in my daily life. That people are better off holding the point of view I hold, even if it's for the wrong reasons, than following the alternative.

In other words, like you say, "as long as they're voting the way I want them to", I don't argue that much. I've displayed this tendency in arguments with you in the past. We'll be discussing something, and a third party will agree with some contention I'm making, but for reasons that I don't think are particularly compelling (this has been the case with Q on a couple of occasions). I don't break and say "yeah, you're right, but at the same time you're wrong". No, no I continue to hammer my point home, using the support of the third party to wear down my opponent. It's intellectually dishonest, and something I really need to address in the future.

- DH

P.S. I really wish I could come up with something quantifiable to back up my still gestating assertion that a majority (or at least a plurality) of people in this country treat scientific work with the reverence normally reserved for the supernatural, but I haven't yet managed to do so. If you come across any evidence, either for or against, I'd be very interested in seeing it. I really dislike making unsubstantiated claims based only on my gut, and this one's definitely a doozy.

Science as Religion II

Once again, I'm operating on not enough sleep, am in an earlier time zone, and wasted critical time that could have been devoted to this posting about the computer.  Standard irrational-messy thinking caveats apply.

DH, you framed the Science as Religion discussion much the way I frame the discussion about subscribing to religion being stupid.  Hats off!  "On one side there are smart people who believe in gawd and use religion/spirituality as moral compass so to speak.  And then you have fundamentalists, and they got to go."  And, as you have framed the science as religion discussion I may agree with you....

Wha wha WHAT!?!!?!?!?!!?

Some people put there faith in science the way some people put there faith in relgion but (playing devil's advocate) the difference in degree is staggering.  The people who were drivingthe stem cell truck, as much as I can remember, always caveated with, the discoveries may not happen in this lifetime but if we don't start now it might be two lifetimes and needless millions dead.  Contrasted with a faith healer or people who refuse medical attention and substitute it with prayer.  

I've only ever cared about what people's perceptions of things are in as much as it matters in real outcomes.  As you know, I've never been an Obama sucker because I thought he was the 2nd coming of Christ, or super liberal (which wouldn't be a good thin anyway), or 'not a politican.'  But as long as the masses thought that, who am I to tell them he's not??? Especially when the mass was rooting for the guy I wanted in office.  

The same can be said for science as religion.  I don't know if your assertion about most people treating it like religion is true.  This is a neat new twist you've put on our discussion so I'll have to let it roll around in my brain for while.  But it doesn't matter.  Science ISN'T a religion, no matter how many people treat it that way.  And if they want to do that, I'm not gonna stop them, as long as they're voting the way I want them to.  Sure I'd love it if more people critically analyzed issues before forming concrete opinions. I also wish hot chicks would dig smart guys instead of assholes.  I digress.  Think of a political discussion with two other people and one's a moron.  The three of you have unique views but on any POLAR issue, it must be 2 v 1.  And some issues, you're going to agree with the moron.  And the moron is gonna go unhinged at the other person and you have to chime in and say, "Well......you're right...but not because of what you just said."And then you take 'em to school.  That reminds me of an episode of Real Time from a season or two ago.  Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic brought this up when talking about how Hitchens raped MosDef on Real Time a couple weeks ago.  

To be clear, I DO NOT advocate taking advantage of people who are too stupid to know any better.  But sometimes it can't be helped.  If anything, Obama toned down the hopeful rhetoric as the campaing progressed, even though that was the thing that made Will.i.am and Scarlett Johansen cream their pants.  

And, let's say people are treating science as a religion...thye're better off than they otherwise would be.  If they were/ would otherwise be making decisions based on a "conversation" they had with gawd, they are most certainly better off making decsions based on reality / evidence.  

Ok, looking back over this, this seems jumbled.  I hould have planned better.  Too late now.  I'm exhausted. I'll probably post tomorrow evening.

Peace

BHO & Congr. Leadership Parte Tres

It's been a while, so let's see if I can do this without rambling incoherently for two or three pages. Here goes!

On Part the First, P, you're absolutely right; as I recall, you were postulating that President Obama's popularity, in conjunction with his obvious intelligence and (I think) even-handedness would ensure that he would hold the upperhand in the never ending contest between the Executive and Legislative branches. I admit that I hadn't viewed the administration's having the bill wholly crafted by the House in the same light as you P. I can see where you're coming from though, even if my gut tells me that my original interpretation seems more likely. I suspect that's because of the different lenses through which we each view Obama so early in his Presidency, before he's really had a chance to define himself. As an aside, I tend to believe, as you do, that he truly does want Republican support for his measures. My imagined rationale for that urge is however filtered through the same aforementioned lens, so I tend to view that in a more cynical light. Does he want their input, or is he trying to avoid conflict for it's own sake?...Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. After eight years of on-high pronouncements from the White House, I welcome a move in the opposite direction.

Moving on to the second point, the work of Deng Xiaoping should be required study at the undergraduate level for any liberal arts student. I may have issues with some of his political decisions (I hail from a nation that prizes individual liberty and free choice, so I'm naturally going to be condemnatory on issues ranging from Tiananemen to Tibet), but his economic policy directions were foresighted and help lift, in a very real way, hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. But I digress.

President Obama is a pragmatist, he's not a raging lefty and, you're right, he makes me look exciting. He's an incredibly boring 40-something with a beautiful family whose greatest political aspect is that he's got the charisma of Bill Clinton, without the sleaziness...also, it helps that he's never performed an exorcism. I still believe that the existing evidence points to his being too pragmatic. That being said, your defense of his career from the 2004 convention forward during our drink at that restaurant following the Maher/Coulter smackdown was well thought out, and I freely admit that his only real 'sin' since that time has been hubris which, again, is needed in a politician and is after all what's brought us to this (happy) day. I think the greatest threat at this point is that the President begins to believe his supporters' claims that he rose clean and pure from the depths of the political cesspool, held aloft by the seraphim of Hope and Change. He doesn't seem to be falling into that trap though, much to his credit.

On the final point, thanks for your perspective there P. Truly; I appreciate it. On the God front, I've been trying to refine that argument of late, figuring that after nearly a decade, it was getting a bit stale. I readily admit that science, in its pure form, is not a faith. Aristotle, al-Haytham, Bacon, Galileo, and so many others made sure of that over the long and arduous development of the scientific method. However, just as no rational third party observer would equate the religious thought and depth of Thomas Aquinas with that of Joe the Plumber, neither do I think that you can honestly equate the stereotypical faith the majority of the population seems to place in scientific achievements with the steadied rationality of the men and women working to make the discoveries and inventions that add to the collective body of human knowledge.

Two examples to try and better articulate that. The recent stem cell debate has been led in large part by those claiming that the things are likely to be a panacea for all manner of ills, from Alzheimer's to paralysis to retinal degeneration. They're a blank slate onto which people pour their hopes and dreams. Talk to the men and women in the field, and the response is far more measured. They believe in the technology (as do I), but also believe it has firm limits. But that's not what people want to hear. They want to believe that 'scientists' will be able to use this latest alchemical concoction to cure whatever ails or may ail them. You find a similar mentality in the less urgent realm of climate change. Republican or Democrat, both firmly believe that science will magically find a way to solve the issue by devising new economically sound power generation tools; the foolishness over 'clean coal' springs immediately to mind.

Humans crave certainty. Even those who believe in a higher power tend to attribute to modern science abilities it is not likely to possess. In this way, science is treated as a religion, with 'scientists' taking on the role of the High Priests. We ask the priests to solve our problems, and offer up tithings to them as they beseech the Gods. Is this a perfect analogy? No, of course not. Science actually stands a chance of succeeding in solving whatever issue it's attacking, wheras Zeus and Ahura Mazda very rarely bothered to stop the plague or bestow more advanced defensive weaponry on their worshippers. But my contention, poorly worded though it may be at 2:00 in the morning, is that this is how science is treated and viewed by the vast majority of the population. Thoughts?