I have recently had an experience that I would like to share. I have drawn some conclusions that I would also like to share and get feedback on. As you all know I am an Atheist. In fact, I am what you might refer to as an "Out and Proud" Atheist. In the spirit of that I have a bumper sticker on my car that says "Proud To Be An Atheist."
A few days ago I went shopping with my sister. Now you must understand that she is a very religious person. She subscribes to some kind of New Age Christian-esk spiritualism as peddled by the "psychic medium" Sylvia Browne. Note that I do intend to devout an entire post to that vindictive old harpie in the future. Sylvia Browne is by far one of the most despicable people alive and I will elaborate further at a later time. However, the point is that my sister is a devout follower of this woman and believes everything she says.
Now my sister refuses to ride in my car because of the Atheist bumper sticker. Not on principle or in a display of disapproval, but because she will be, and I quote, "struck down". To me this sounds like she is making a prediction or hypothesis based in her analysis of the situation. So therefore I treated it as such. Here was my argument.
First, I restated and clarified her hypothesis. She believes that if she were to ride in my car with the Atheist bumper sticker that some negative repercussion would likely result. Therefore, I assumed that she felt the odds of the repercussion occurring as being greater than 50%. She concurred that the odds would be 50% or more. I also assumed that she believed that the repercussion would be the direct result of retaliation from a supernatural entity. She also agreed with that.
Now if her risk is as least equal to 50% simply riding in the car then it stands to reason that my risk should be even greater. After all I am the one who purchased the sticker, placed it in the window and drove the car. Also, I spent much more time in the car with the sticker. If we assume that there is at least a 50/50 chance of "supernatural retaliation" based simply on riding in the car then my risk should well exceeded 100%. Therefore, her hypothesis should have been verified several times over given my risk factor and the amount of time I spend in the car. I have yet to be "struck down" therefore her hypothesis has been falsified. Correct?
No such luck. Now confronted with these new results she went on to fiddle the original hypothesis. Now she changed it to 'she might be struck down sometime in the future'. She also, said that my case does not apply because I don't believe in the god and therefore am exempt from retaliation. (Don't even ask me where that logic comes from!) I tried to explain to her that she cannot go back and twiddle the hypothesis to avoid falsification after the fact. All I get is a blank stare.
This brings me to my point. How are people so dense to the concept of rational, orderly, logical thought. How is this concept that I find so straightforward unimaginable to some? I can understand some people might not go right through all the steps I have just outlined intuitively, but after I walk them through it how can they not "get it"? This is truly a puzzler to me!
I went on to giver her an example of what I was trying to say. I said it was the equivalent of hypothesizing the existence of land mines in a hallway. She says their are land mines down the length of the hallway and it is impassable. I tell her there are not because I walked down the hallway many times in the past week. I then demonstrate this by walking down the hallway and back, proving there are no obstacles, explosive or otherwise. She still refuses to accept the fact that the hallway is not mined and invents new terms and conditions to explain why her hypothesis failed. The mines are on a delayed reaction and I will now spontaneously combust at some time in the future. I didn't expect the mines to detonate so I was immune to them. All of these new predictions are based on nothing, except the need to abstract the original prediction out of falsification.
How can anyone, especially someone who is of a perfectly respectable intelligence, hoodwink themselves into this kind or ridiculous, irrational and circular thought. I have spent a great deal of time in contemplation of this. I can honestly say that I haven't a clue.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Monday, June 8, 2009
Good & Bad Speculation
Having started this blog, and speaking of memes and The Selfish Gene, has made me think about the second chapter of that book called The Replicators. This has aways been a topic of some interest for me as it largely unknown. After that first self replicating molecule is assumed natural selection can take off and we can basically map it out from there. However, that is a BIG assumption to make. To have a theory, in this case Evolution by Natural Selection, based on the existence of something, in this case a self replicating molecule, who's existence you cant explain is a little troubling.
Dawkins tackles this problem in a somewhat satisfying way in the aforementioned chapter. He lays out a plausible scenario for how a self replicating molecule could arise. As any reader will quickly realize, and Dawkins is the first to point it out, the scenario is a pure speculation. However, it is what I refer to as a "good" speculation. What is a good speculation? It is a possible scenario that, like all speculation, is not formally grounded in observation or evidence but follows certain rules that some other types of speculation do not. For example, a good speculation should of course follow the rigors of logic and reason. It should also make as few assumptions as possible. It should fit with other observed phenomenon and know laws of nature and physics, building upon what is known. When all of these criteria are met it can, in my opinion, be called a "good" speculation.
If one has made a good speculation there should be no reason that events could not have unfolded as described. This is exactly what Dawkins does regarding the origins of the self replicating molecule. He takes what is known from chemistry, physics, and biology and constructs a plausible scenario. Note that I say plausible and not possible. This is a very important distinction. Many things are possible that are not probable. Due to the fact it is a speculation we should not hope for probable. We need to find something in between possible and probable. I believe we should be looking for a plausible speculation.
Using what we expect the early earth might have been like Dawkins creates a model that introduces amino acids into the environment. Using what we know about how protein molecules coil up into a stable state he constructs a model for how amino acids might have linked into simple proteins. Using what we know about RNA, its similarities to both protein and DNA, he constructs into his model the arrival of the replicators.
What is of importance here, and what I hope you will take away from this post, is the value of making these kinds of good speculations. Aside from the obvious reasons of advancing thought and making new models to be empirically tested to find truth there is another important role. That is to usurp "bad" speculation. Once we have a plausible and natural account of how something might have happened we can automatically throw out the implausible models. It is of supreme indifference if the good speculation is true or not. It doesn't make a bit of difference if self-replicating molecules did arise as Dawkins suggests. What matters is that they COULD have arisen as Dawkins suggests. Once you have a good speculation that follows all the "rules" I outlined above you have to discard any previous speculations that did not follow the rules. You only fall back on bad, wild or improbable speculation when there is no way to account for something in a plausible way. It is true that when you have eliminated all possibilities whatever is left, no matter how improbable must be the truth. However, you can only go to the improbable once the probable and plausible causes are either ruled out or nonexistent.
This is something that seems like common sense to me but many people miss it entirely. They are all to willing to jump right to the end of the road, the improbable, without ever casting a glance at the good speculations they passed along the way. They seem to be possessed of the notion that because they are all speculation they are all equal and can be chosen from at will. As I hope you will see this is a fundamentally flawed way to go about it. While speculation should be lower down the intellectual ladder than fact or strongly supported theory it is essential that it is placed higher on the ladder than bad speculation.
Dawkins tackles this problem in a somewhat satisfying way in the aforementioned chapter. He lays out a plausible scenario for how a self replicating molecule could arise. As any reader will quickly realize, and Dawkins is the first to point it out, the scenario is a pure speculation. However, it is what I refer to as a "good" speculation. What is a good speculation? It is a possible scenario that, like all speculation, is not formally grounded in observation or evidence but follows certain rules that some other types of speculation do not. For example, a good speculation should of course follow the rigors of logic and reason. It should also make as few assumptions as possible. It should fit with other observed phenomenon and know laws of nature and physics, building upon what is known. When all of these criteria are met it can, in my opinion, be called a "good" speculation.
If one has made a good speculation there should be no reason that events could not have unfolded as described. This is exactly what Dawkins does regarding the origins of the self replicating molecule. He takes what is known from chemistry, physics, and biology and constructs a plausible scenario. Note that I say plausible and not possible. This is a very important distinction. Many things are possible that are not probable. Due to the fact it is a speculation we should not hope for probable. We need to find something in between possible and probable. I believe we should be looking for a plausible speculation.
Using what we expect the early earth might have been like Dawkins creates a model that introduces amino acids into the environment. Using what we know about how protein molecules coil up into a stable state he constructs a model for how amino acids might have linked into simple proteins. Using what we know about RNA, its similarities to both protein and DNA, he constructs into his model the arrival of the replicators.
What is of importance here, and what I hope you will take away from this post, is the value of making these kinds of good speculations. Aside from the obvious reasons of advancing thought and making new models to be empirically tested to find truth there is another important role. That is to usurp "bad" speculation. Once we have a plausible and natural account of how something might have happened we can automatically throw out the implausible models. It is of supreme indifference if the good speculation is true or not. It doesn't make a bit of difference if self-replicating molecules did arise as Dawkins suggests. What matters is that they COULD have arisen as Dawkins suggests. Once you have a good speculation that follows all the "rules" I outlined above you have to discard any previous speculations that did not follow the rules. You only fall back on bad, wild or improbable speculation when there is no way to account for something in a plausible way. It is true that when you have eliminated all possibilities whatever is left, no matter how improbable must be the truth. However, you can only go to the improbable once the probable and plausible causes are either ruled out or nonexistent.
This is something that seems like common sense to me but many people miss it entirely. They are all to willing to jump right to the end of the road, the improbable, without ever casting a glance at the good speculations they passed along the way. They seem to be possessed of the notion that because they are all speculation they are all equal and can be chosen from at will. As I hope you will see this is a fundamentally flawed way to go about it. While speculation should be lower down the intellectual ladder than fact or strongly supported theory it is essential that it is placed higher on the ladder than bad speculation.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Hello & Welcome to Atheist Memes!
I am so glad you have happened into my new blog! Keep coming back! Trust me there will always be something new to read and discuss! Okay, so lets jump right in.
First I would like to take a moment to touch on the title I am sure you have already read, Atheist Memes. As I explained in the header a meme is an idea, belief, cultural phenomenon, ect. that replicates and propagates by Natural Selection much like genes in a gene pool. This idea was first proposed by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene". By the way that is a MUST READ! Memes can be used to explain much about the cultural and social interactions of humans where Darwinian Evolution gets out of its depth. So, I just wanted to clear that up for anyone who was a little ambiguous about the title. There is a wealth of information on Memetics to be had and it is a fascinating area to look into.
I started this blog, first and foremost, as a way to raise awareness about Atheism in America. We are a group that is abused, neglected, ignored and discriminated against on a massive scale. Recent polls show we are the "most hated" minority and it is almost impossible for an Atheist to be elected to public office.
In spite of all of this, the non-religious is the fastest growing segment of the American religious population. The number of those who mark "none" under religion on their census is up to 16.1% in 2009. That is the 3rd largest "religious" segment of the American population behind Protestants and Catholics. Larger than the Jewish population. Larger than the Mormon population Larger than the Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist population combine! Larger than the African American Minority. Larger than the Hispanic Minority. What I am trying to say is that this is no small segment of the population. This is not the fringe of the census with some .01% at the bottom of the list. This 4,800,000 people!
Also, consider that it is a growing population with a positive trend! The number is up from 8% in 1990 to 16.1% in 2009. That is a 100% increase in 19 years. The religious majorities would (and have) killed for that kind of growth rate! With all this size and momentum under the Atheist/Non-Religious sails you think that it would be a very visible force on the social and political battlefield. If you think that you would be wrong.
Atheists have no voice in government. No elected officials save for a couple here and there. No political lobby. (I think I heard someone has been trying to get an Atheist lobby together but I am uncertain if it is still in the works or what.) No presence in the media or television. How can almost 5 million people be invisible? Call the church, I think we have some kind of miracle here!
I have heard the idea that herding Atheists is like trying to heard cats. I'm not sure if I buy that. I think it is much more a "peer pressure" problem. I would have to say that many people fear being ostracized from their family or community. I think the statistic that Atheists are the "most hated" minority is a lot more factual than many might like to admit.
It is because of this that I have felt compelled to start this blog. I hope to get a dialog going between Atheists, and between Atheists and the Religious. The issue is not so much to convert anyone as it is to get the discussion going and make these 5 million people drop their cloak of invisibility. To do what Richard Dawkins' Out Campaign is trying to accomplish. To...
First I would like to take a moment to touch on the title I am sure you have already read, Atheist Memes. As I explained in the header a meme is an idea, belief, cultural phenomenon, ect. that replicates and propagates by Natural Selection much like genes in a gene pool. This idea was first proposed by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene". By the way that is a MUST READ! Memes can be used to explain much about the cultural and social interactions of humans where Darwinian Evolution gets out of its depth. So, I just wanted to clear that up for anyone who was a little ambiguous about the title. There is a wealth of information on Memetics to be had and it is a fascinating area to look into.
I started this blog, first and foremost, as a way to raise awareness about Atheism in America. We are a group that is abused, neglected, ignored and discriminated against on a massive scale. Recent polls show we are the "most hated" minority and it is almost impossible for an Atheist to be elected to public office.
In spite of all of this, the non-religious is the fastest growing segment of the American religious population. The number of those who mark "none" under religion on their census is up to 16.1% in 2009. That is the 3rd largest "religious" segment of the American population behind Protestants and Catholics. Larger than the Jewish population. Larger than the Mormon population Larger than the Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist population combine! Larger than the African American Minority. Larger than the Hispanic Minority. What I am trying to say is that this is no small segment of the population. This is not the fringe of the census with some .01% at the bottom of the list. This 4,800,000 people!
Also, consider that it is a growing population with a positive trend! The number is up from 8% in 1990 to 16.1% in 2009. That is a 100% increase in 19 years. The religious majorities would (and have) killed for that kind of growth rate! With all this size and momentum under the Atheist/Non-Religious sails you think that it would be a very visible force on the social and political battlefield. If you think that you would be wrong.
Atheists have no voice in government. No elected officials save for a couple here and there. No political lobby. (I think I heard someone has been trying to get an Atheist lobby together but I am uncertain if it is still in the works or what.) No presence in the media or television. How can almost 5 million people be invisible? Call the church, I think we have some kind of miracle here!
I have heard the idea that herding Atheists is like trying to heard cats. I'm not sure if I buy that. I think it is much more a "peer pressure" problem. I would have to say that many people fear being ostracized from their family or community. I think the statistic that Atheists are the "most hated" minority is a lot more factual than many might like to admit.
It is because of this that I have felt compelled to start this blog. I hope to get a dialog going between Atheists, and between Atheists and the Religious. The issue is not so much to convert anyone as it is to get the discussion going and make these 5 million people drop their cloak of invisibility. To do what Richard Dawkins' Out Campaign is trying to accomplish. To...
Come Out, Reach Out, Speak Out, Keep Out & Stand Out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)