Re: [asa] A graduate student speaks out

You know, I just have to speak up here. I just don't know that it is
fair to characterize self-deception as a form of dishonesty. One's
internal compass may rest easy in a context of a well-integrated inner
self (worldview; belief system), or, it may be at rest in a context of
competing/conflicting/inconsistent ideas (more often the case, if my own
experience is any indication). The fact that one might believe a
particular position to be "right" has mostly to do with the net
positioning of that inner compass, and unless there is deliberate
conscious misleading going on, we are guided by the concepts or
integrations that serve us best; make the most sense (at the moment at
least) to us.

Even in the first science instance you cite, there is an trial
hypothesis, or perhaps at worst case, a hope that is leading them on.
Good science includes a lot of dead ends based on erroneous hypotheses,
and "crazy" hypotheses that turned out to be correct. Who can say how
"wasteful" that part of the process is?

I love that microwave example you cite, where some part of the fellow
manages to just ignore the power input from the huge microwave generator
which gives rise to the dissociation, or perhaps even a plasma! But
unless he's an outright snake oil salesman, he might (at least at first)
really think he had found something. He is likely operating without any
sense of conservation of energy to serve as an internal alert that
something may be wrong with his assessment of what's happening. In any
case, this is probably a rabbit track away from the starting point.

So back to the original point, unless a person is a compulsive liar (or
some other such psychological issue is involved), I would be hesitant to
characterize self-deception as dishonesty. They are operating out of
their belief system which is characterized by integrity, (it works, for
them!) even if such integrity is idiocentric, pragmatic, and subjective,
and even if another person could legitimately critique that
worldview/integrity. To characterize something that rises out of that
integrity as dishonesty probably does a disservice to the individual,
and cannot possibly be a constructive perspective when in conversation
with such a person. Worst case, such characterization may even be
dishonest in itself.

Or so it seemeth to me.

JimA [Friend of ASA]

Iain Strachan wrote:

> Thanks, David for the thoughtful and considered response. My replies
> interspersed with original
>
> On Jan 18, 2008 12:59 AM, David Campbell <pleuronaia@gmail.com
> <mailto:pleuronaia@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > I've said it before and I'll say it again, of all the
> creationists I've met, including Andy McIntosh, none of them I
> would say were deliberate liars. Yes they are willfully
> self-deluded, because they can't reconcile what science tells them
> with their faith.<
>
> There are occasional young earth arguments for which I am unable to
> find an honest explanation, but delusional seems more appropriate as a
> general characterization (of course, the average person in the pew is
> merely misled.) Nevertheless, they are still in violation of the 9th
> commandment-presenting wishful thinking as legitimately researched
> claims (cf. I Ti 1).
>
>
> True indeed - self-deception is clearly a form of dishonesty, and
> one's faith ought to guide one to seek the truth. And yet clearly
> what you describe happens in science a great deal. I think a lot of
> scientists, especially when they want to get funding for their
> research, are almost certainly guilty of "seeing what they want to
> see". The classic example would be cold fusion. A considerable
> amount of money was wasted at AERE Harwell attempting to replicate
> Pons and Fleishmann's claims, which were released before they had done
> proper scientific scrutiny. The bigger the stakes the more likely
> this kind of wishful thinking goes on. The stakes don't get much
> bigger than solving the world's energy needs with an inexpensive
> technology. (Well, maybe "proving" that the universe is 6000 years
> old is an even bigger deal).
>
> A similar thing cropped up recently on various popular science
> websites. An inventor found a way to make water burn. A salt water
> solution was irradiated with high intensity microwaves, and was found
> to ignite when a spark was applied. The inventor is pursuing funding
> to make the process more efficient and a source of energy; even
> releasing a video of a small turbine being powered from the heat of
> the flame of the burning water. A small amount of thought shows that
> it's impossible to make it energy positive; the microwaves cause the
> H2O to break up into hydrogen and oxygen, and the combustion is simply
> the recombination of the two. Therefore impossible to have an energy
> gain out of a process that ends up where it started (with H2O).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > This was, it turns out a big mistake, and lost me a good deal of
> > credibility, because it seems that you had already sent Anderson a
> > couple of unsolicited emails in your usual vein, which he considered
> > so appalling that he doubted that you were even a Christian! He
> had
> > considered posting them on his blog, but thought better of it
> because
> > he considered what you had written to be a disgrace to the
> service of
> > Christ.
>
> While admitting that Michael is not always the most tactful person in
> the world,
>
>
> that's the understatement of the year!
>
>
> young earth and antievolutionary claims frequently contain
> attacks on anyone who disagrees with them.
>
>
> I agree completely, but that wasn't the point I was making. Anderson
> wasn't attacking me personally, but any attempts to use Michael's
> excellently researched information on McIntosh's geological howlers
> were undermined by the way Michael had behaved towards Anderson. Now
> admittedly Anderson had made some disparaging comments about Michael
> on his blog, but not in the same vitriolic manner to which we're all
> accustomed. Furthermore, Michael himself had made some pretty
> disparaging comments about the BCSE ( a British anti-Creationism
> website with a high proportion of Dawkins-style atheists), on either
> the ASA list or the Christians-in-Science list.
>
> Double standards all round, then, it seems.
>
>
> Unless Anderson objects to
> those, too, I think he has a problem. This is why the defense of YEC
> with "are you accusing someone who professes to be a Christian of
> dishonesty" offends me. Yes, I am accusing someone who accuses me of
> dishonesty of dishonesty. If you don't like anyone accusing a
> professing Christian of dishonesty, you should not be happy with
> almost anything from creation science or popular ID.
>
>
> No, I'm not.
>
>
>
> Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 18 10:20:56 2008