tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post8788454033949685670..comments2024-03-28T00:17:55.823+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom… If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise (in relation to the example of Richard Dawkins)Bruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-1794900896513666442019-10-07T12:28:17.185+01:002019-10-07T12:28:17.185+01:00@S -1. I used to agree, but not now. Science must,...@S -1. I used to agree, but not now. Science must, in practice, be able to trust the motivations of the proposer, and also evaluate the comptenece - or else the signal will be swamped by noise (from liars and incompetents). In other words, there is no 'scientific method' that can grind truth out from mostly-nonsense. <br /><br />2. Intelligent women, as well as those with prolonged education. I am citing two cohort studies of intelligence measured in childhood, when the kids were followed up for a few decades. The first was by Terman - done in California from the 1920s. ie. before modern contraception. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-87636496274831509452019-10-07T11:11:07.372+01:002019-10-07T11:11:07.372+01:00I'd respond:
1. The truth value of a proposit...I'd respond:<br /><br />1. The truth value of a proposition is independent of the genetic predisposition of the mind considering it - I think Bertrand Russell said something to that effect about this.<br /><br />2. Is it intelligent women who have this low birth rate, or merely ones who have had an extended period of formal education? Possibly some of the cleverest have kept their light under a bushel and selected good mates and providers early.Sackersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17284329249862764601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-61327722973944918792017-06-08T07:03:39.130+01:002017-06-08T07:03:39.130+01:00@Ben - Yes, for me a long and extraordinarily slow...@Ben - Yes, for me a long and extraordinarily slow process... But on the plus side, I do therefore understand many facets of what we are up against!Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-5232140229065754182017-06-08T02:40:47.815+01:002017-06-08T02:40:47.815+01:00I came to belief in a similar way I think.
Unedu...I came to belief in a similar way I think. <br /><br />Uneducated atheist within very atheist surrounding --> angry at the affect of the dishonesty on me personally --> not wanting to appear a hypocrite, mulishly stuck to philosophical integrity --> followed atheism in this way as much as possible --> found the abyss at the end of this and then had proper, true, religious experiences. <br /><br /><br />Bennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-53217199432557853612017-06-06T06:36:17.805+01:002017-06-06T06:36:17.805+01:00@WmJas - Dawkins has argued that a Christian *soci...@WmJas - Dawkins has argued that a Christian *society* is a bad thing for science, reason, and morality. This is why he is an active and evangelical atheist - he wants to destroy the credibility of all religions, because they are supposed to be harmful to the things Dawkins most values. <br /><br />SO, he clarly believes that a Christian society is damageing to the conduct of science. My point - which was intended to open the discussion, rather than to settle it - is that apparently the larger residuum of Christianity in the US culture did not significantly damage science - indeed, on the face of it, it looks as if it supported science; since US exceptionalism includes (or did 15 years ago) both exceptional science and Christia practice. <br /><br />I agree, that a counter argument could include that the most religious people, and regions of the US, are the least scientific. But even this admission weakens the overall imperative to annihilate religion; since it would then seem there would therefore be a possibility of productive coexistence between the religious and the scientific/ atheist. <br /><br />If the coversation happened now; I would also have mentioned that nearly all the great scientists were brought-up as Christians or observant Jews, even when these ideas were later abandoned or rejected; at the very least this did not perceptibly harm their scientiific abilities. Later generations raised atheist cannot match their achievements. (Charles Murray gave me this idea - reading Human Accomplishment - I had not read this at the time I met Dawkins, but I had already published an article about the decline of genius). Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-29840500831569289252017-06-05T20:21:27.158+01:002017-06-05T20:21:27.158+01:00I know this is getting off your main point, but do...I know this is getting off your main point, but do you have an answer to the question that you and Dawkins posed together? Why would not-very-Christian members of very-Christian societies tend to make the best scientists? No simple assertion that Christianity is either "good for science" or "bad for science" seems to do justice to the facts.Wm Jas Tychonievichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07446790072877463982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-87045791954967679002017-06-04T16:49:21.295+01:002017-06-04T16:49:21.295+01:00@Anon 14:32 - Thanks for your comment. In future p...@Anon 14:32 - Thanks for your comment. In future please use a pseudonym, since I seldom print comments from Anonymous. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-77599574253067169292017-06-04T14:32:00.628+01:002017-06-04T14:32:00.628+01:00Building on your idea. The devil's primary bu...Building on your idea. The devil's primary business model becomes clear. It is reassurance. The feedback that would lead to correction and wisdom, must be processed. The defenses in the stages of grief model just begin to hint at the depth of the toolkit available. <br /><br />Thank you for your honest walk.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-30781465180457081772017-06-03T09:31:01.697+01:002017-06-03T09:31:01.697+01:00I seldom publish Anonymous comments - are you asha...I seldom publish Anonymous comments - are you ashamed of your question? <br /><br />The answer is that - if Natural Selection is the ultimate explanation; then general intelligence is evolved to enhance differential reproductive success under contingent, historical, time-bound circumstances. <br /><br />There is no reason why intelligence would lead to truth (rather than reproductive success) - indeed (if variation is undirected/ 'random') there are an infinite number of ways intelligence would not be true, and only one way that it would be true (by sheer chance, I mean). <br /><br />So the probablity of intelligence being true is infinity divided by one - which is still infinity. Why would we assume it was true? Obviously (by this reasoning) intelligence is merely a temporary cobbled-together expedient that happened to be useful for reproduction at some point in our evolutionary history. <br /><br />Indeed, in the modern world, higher intelligence is strongly damaging to reproductive success, esepcially in women. Typically, the most intelligent women have only about a quarter of minimum replacement fertility (i.e. half a child on average) and are therefore rapidly going extinct. This underlines that level of intelligence is contingent on specific evolutionary situations - hence is not always adaptive, hence cannot be justified as necessarily truth-generating On Evolutionary Grounds. (ie Intelligence does not Necessarily lead to improved reproductive success.)Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-73841526544627055822017-06-03T09:12:41.748+01:002017-06-03T09:12:41.748+01:00"For example, if natural selection is primary..."For example, if natural selection is primary; the theory of natural selection destroys its own validity; all scientific theories being merely side-effects of the process of enhancing differential reproductive fitness."<br /><br />How do you figure? If we have evolved general intelligence then surely we can trust logic *within that framework*? Or do you mean to say that the logic-capability we have evolved is of some lesser sort, geared only at survival & reproduction, and therefore we lack access to some unfathomable higher logic which we would need to be able to postulate something like natural selection? Just trying to understand here...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com