Re: [asa] A graduate student speaks out

Jim,
You've made a good point. There are additional examples that occur to me.
Someone has written that there are four consistent philosophical systems,
with consistency being the sole ultimate test of such systems. One of
these is materialism, with roots in some of the earliest philosophical
systems. The only theistic materialistic system I know is Hobbes, and I'm
not sure he's consistent.

I note that there are three major geometrical systems which include a
parallel postulate. It was once believed that only Euclidean geometry was
true, but relativity theory demands Riemannian geometry. Whitehead tried
to rewrite Einstein's work in Euclidean terms, and partly succeeded, as
Eddington showed. But Whitehead's view could not cope with later
observations confirming Einstein.

Aristotelian logic and contemporary mathematical logic are not
compatible. "All dragons breathe fire" is demonstrably true in modern
logics, but Aristotle would deny it. Also, "if p then p" is true in
virtually all logics currently being used, but cannot apply within causal
claims. In one of the last classes E. John Lemmon taught, he noted that,
to work out a certain advanced modal logic, he had to include the
Aristotelian restriction.

There seem to be no end of medical treatments that seemed plausible but,
in time, were shows to be badly mistaken. Prefrontal lobotomy is perhaps
the most obvious example.

I have no idea how many other areas may be cited.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:19:40 -0700 Jim Armstrong <jarmstro@qwest.net>
writes:
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 > 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 14:06:39 2008