wenglund wrote:guy sajer wrote:wenglund wrote:guy sajer wrote:wenglund wrote:I'll re-ask this question since it went unanswered the first go-around:Sethbag wrote:Yes, you're right. There ought to be another one.
5. There is plenty of evidence showing that believing in things for which there is no evidence undermines one's critical and rational thinking faculties and proves, one way or another, to be detrimental in our society.
What studies does Dawkins supposedly site in support of this assertion?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
That strikes me as the null hypothesis. What we should be looking for is studies demonstrating that it doesn't undermine one's critical and rational thinking facilities.
What you just suggested strikes me more as the "null hypothesis" (the word "doesn't" being the biggest clue). Either way, I am interested in reading the so-called "plenty of evidence" for Dawkins alleged main point #5 above.I wonder, would insertion of religious dogma into mainstream science curricula be determinental to society?
Do we really need a study to demonstrate this before we start to worry about it?
I think that depends upon which "dogma" is being inserted (As a Special Ed instructor in the public school system, I have incorporated religious precepts "such as the Golden Rule" into my behavioral rules, to the demonstrable benefit of all parties, and I also believe the religiously motivated interjection of the notion of sexual abstinence taught to teens during health sciences, has had a positive social effect) where in the curricula and/or how closed one's mind is to subject. ;-)
What pre-study worries do you have?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
The golden rule is not religious dogma but has roots going back a long, long way. It is a common sense moral rule that captures the importance of empathy, which is, I believe, the basis for human moralit (in a non-religious way). Nor is the golden rule a scientific principle, unless one is looking at evolutionary explanations for human morality.
I'm talking more about inserting junk science, such as Intelligent Design, or generally teaching that feelings/faith can and do trump evidene or that gaining knowledge can be done via questionable epistemic methods (which includes pretty much all religious belief).
The null hypothesis states, to put it simply, the "current state of knowledge" that one wants to disprove. I think that the current state of knowledge at the very least anecdotally shows clearly the deletrious effect of magical and superstitious thinking on human behavior and the capacity to reason (one case in point, witch hunts). As I see it the burden of proof is solidly on you to demonstrate the converse, if that's what you're arguing.
The interesting thing is that religious adherents are likely to agree with this argument in just about every other context, except religious belief. To shift the burden of proof, or null hypothesis, to their opponents, they need to demonstrate why religion is a unique case. I don't think they can do that; at least I've never seen a compelling argument in this direction.
I have simply asked to see the "plenty of evidence" that is claimed to be in support of Dawkins argument #5 (Please note that I am talking here not about some supposed religionist counter-argument, but the argument that Dawkins is alleged to have made, which argument bears the burden of proof). If that can't be done, then just say so--your ironic and misguided attempts at shifting the burden of proof to religionist notwithstanding.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade, you obviously do not understand how to do empirical research. If we place the burden of proof on Dawkins viz #5 above, this means that the null hypothesis is either:
a. Believing in things for which no evidence exists improves one's critical and rational thinking faculties
b. Believing in things for which no evidence exists has no impact one's critical and rational thinking faculties
I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that either of the above should stand as the null hypothesis given the veritable tons of historical anecdotal and experiential evidence to the contrary.
There’s no way in hell anyone (outside of persons of questionable reasoning ability, such as yourself) would adopt a as the null hypothesis; at best you’d get b as your starting point.
There exist literally mountains of casual empirical evidence pointing toward the deleterious effects of magical and superstitious thinking on human reasoning capacity and performance that it’s beyond silly that you’d even suggest that the contrary assertions are on the same value.
Let’s set up one experiment. Choose two jury pools. One pool listens to the evidence and makes a decision viz guilt vs. innocence based on evidence. The other prays, or uses some other form of divination, to determine guilt vs. innocence. Let’s run this experiment a number of times.
Or, choose two groups and present to them a complex problem they need to solve. One group is given background and supporting evidence. The other group prays or uses some other form of divination.
Which methods above do you think are more likely to produce systematically better results?
Once you’ve answered this question honestly, perhaps then you can begin to see through the religious fog that clouds your brain.