The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Teachers first, scientists second

Posted 10 March 2015 by Matt Young

That is one of the disquieting results of a new survey, Enablers of doubt, by Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer. The two Penn State professors interviewed a total of 35 students on 4 Pennsylvania campuses in 2013. All the students were training to be biology teachers; many were not comfortable with the theory of evolution, and many were "concerned about their ability to navigate controversy initiated by a student, parent, administrator, or other members of the community." Indeed, instead of relying on their knowledge of biology, they intended to fall back on classroom-management techniques to deal with creationist students. Notably, these were not education students, but rather biology students who "take a set of required courses in educational psychology, classroom management, and methods of instruction." Their lack of expertise in science seems not to concern them; to the contrary, they thought they would use their skills at avoiding controversy to avoid any controversies. PT readers may remember Professors Berkman and Plutzer for their book, Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America's Classrooms, which we reviewed here a few years ago. The disquieting conclusion of that book was that only about 28 % of biology teachers actually teach evolution according to recognized standards. The present study may help explain why. The students, who attended a large research university, an institution that granted degrees at the master's level, a Catholic college, or a historically Black university (all unnamed), were interviewed in focus groups. The interviews lasted 50-65 min and were conducted by the authors. The focus groups do not provide a statistical sample, but the authors attempted to include several different kinds of educational institution, and they consider the findings "suggestive." Below the fold, some representative comments.

There is evidence to support evolution to the extent of how everything came from one cell. I don't know if I believe that. As far as adaptations and adapting to your environment, you can prove that with just microbial colonies. That's somethin' that I can look at and see that's true over a period of time. As far as everything coming from one cell, that's kind of hard for me to imagine. I'm not saying it's not true or it is true, 'cause there is a lot of scientific support for it. It's kind of back and forth in my mind.

–Student at "comprehensive state university"

[Student 1] Evolution . . . can work with creationism beautifully if you let it. . . . Darwin's works don't really contradict the Bible.
[Student 2] I went to Catholic school and um, we learned what evolution's ideas were and what creationism was. We learned that they can go together.
–2 students at a Catholic college

I think education in general, no matter what the content, is probably about 90 percent classroom management, the style of teaching, and about 10 percent content. Largely, especially because of the fact that you have so many teachers' manuals, and other resources, and stuff like that, you can learn content fairly easily. It takes training and skill to actually be able to teach that content.
–Student at historically Black university

Interestingly, and unlike practicing teachers whom the authors had previously surveyed, the students did not generally think that creationism or religion ought to be allowed into the classroom in fairness to an opposing point of view – but rather as a way to "connect" with students:

If you can open up a classroom discussion about what they feel and where they stand, and then looking for ways to bring those two together, those beliefs that, okay, there could be—or even just sharing the theory, I guess—I don't even wanna say it's a theory, but the potential of a deity or God working through evolution, something like that, I just think that would help diffuse situations. Even if don't believe in God or believe in faith, I think it's hard to refute the fact that that would make the teaching aspect of it better because your students won't be as much against it.

–Student at "comprehensive state university"

I mean I would present it as this is another belief, it's not the same thing as yours but just to be an informed person, you know like, you want to take a look at [it].
–Student from "research university"

For the last student, the authors note, "balance is achieved implicitly because evolution is just 'another belief,' even as she did not think she needed to present 'both sides' in the debate for reasons of fairness." They add that none of the students appealed to fairness, whereas many practicing teachers do so. Nevertheless, the students "foreshadow[ed] another type of behavior we previously identified as one that dilutes evolution instruction—the instinct to downplay certain aspects of evolutionary biology to avoid controversy and confrontation." Many of the students reported a conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs. Perhaps oddly, the least conflicted were the students at the Catholic college, possibly because their administration sees no conflict between science and religion. Additionally, the Catholic students study theology, whereas the others do not. The authors do not mention the beliefs of the single Jewish student or the 2 "other" students. Finally, the authors note that most of the students saw themselves as teachers, rather than scientists; few "expressed expressed a lifelong fascination with nature." They may want to know things, rather than discover things or figure them out, like the science students. Coursework did not stress "evolution [as] a consistent theme reinforced throughout the completion of a biology course of study." Indeed, the authors think that courses in pedagogy and the time spent practice-teaching may ultimately limit the students' understanding of science. They recommend strengthening coursework in biology and also providing opportunities for experience in real research laboratories, but they have no illusions about how hard that will be.
---------
The Berkman-Plutzer article is available free. It is part of a volume on "The Politics of Science," most of which seems to require a subscription. Science magazine, however, has saved you the trouble (and the money), with an article here.

81 Comments

DS · 10 March 2015

Well if they are studying to be teachers at the K-12 level, they are correct. They are going to be teachers not scientists. If however they plan on teaching at the college or university level, they are going to be scientists not teachers.

As far as challenging your students most cherished beliefs, that is your duty as a teacher at any level. I can understand if they don't want to do it, since that is apparently the role model they are trying to emulate, but that really is inexcusable at any level. That is your primary job as a a teacher. It is not enough to teach only convenient truths or comfortable truths, students could learn those on their own. What they need your help with are the inconvenient and uncomfortable truths. They would probably never learn those by themselves. If you are unprepared or unwilling to do that, find another job. Teaching is too important to do poorly.

John Harshman · 10 March 2015

If they're teaching at the college level, shouldn't they be scientists and teachers?

callahanpb · 10 March 2015

I think it's true that the primary skill of a K-12 teacher is being able to teach kids at that age and level of understanding, rather that being an expert in the subject matter. The term "classroom management" disturbs me, though, since it sounds less about communicating ideas and more about preventing disruption. I should probably look up what it actually means... here's a link http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept03/vol61/num01/The-Key-to-Classroom-Management.aspx and I'm not sure I'm that far off. Maintaining an appropriate learning environment is important, obviously, but it's only the beginning of being an effective teacher.

What I would like to see, if not specialized scientific knowledge, is an appreciation of the subject matter and an ability to convey enthusiasm. The best teachers have this, and the ones who don't will not do a great job at any subject. When I read the comments from the prospective teachers above, my worry isn't so much that they aren't scientists, but that they view the process in a way that sounds like it could sap the life out of any subject they choose to teach.

Matt Young · 10 March 2015

They are training to be secondary, not K-12 teachers. And, yes, I would prefer to learn science from someone who cares about the science more than the pedagogy -- someone who is a scientist first.

Also, the article seems to no longer be available free. I have no idea why I got it free in the first place.

bio.jones · 10 March 2015

How many of those teaching biology have a degree in Biology Teaching, and how many Biology Teaching departments require a course specifically in Evolution?

I took an upper-level Evolution course at a private religious university, and I imagine it was probably taught in a manner similar to the way it's taught in the Catholic university mentioned in the study. There is certainly an advantage to being able to learn about evolution while simultaneously learning that evolution's not a threat to your religious faith.

I don't see a way for public schools to really dig into that, especially with separation of church and state issues and with the fact that most students in a public university are going to come from a wide variety of religious and non-religious backgrounds, but I think if we really want to improve the teaching of evolution in public schools, we need to get science teachers to the point where they themselves don't see a conflict between their faith and evolution.

Joe Felsenstein · 10 March 2015

If asked, a lot of university teachers tend to say that evolution is no threat to religion. That's actually not how a reasonably large fraction of religious denominations see it.

I have been asked whether evolution is a threat to religion -- just a couple of times, once in an evening lecture about Intelligent Design, and once by some visiting high school students from a non-denominational private school. I have never been able to tell folks of any religion what their religion says about evolution, and if I try I get immediately contradicted. Far be it from me to interpret the texts of various religions, however obvious their stance seems to me.

So what I just say is that if your religion goes around saying that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or that evolution didn't happen, then it has a Big Problem with science.

That way I leave it to the questioner to do the theology and figure out whether I am talking about their religious beliefs.

callahanpb · 11 March 2015

Joe Felsenstein said: If asked, a lot of university teachers tend to say that evolution is no threat to religion.
It depends on the religion. If a 6000 year old earth and special creation are among your core beliefs, then yes it's a threat. Growing up Catholic, I never saw it as a threat. It was also covered at some level (a fairly short section contrasting Lamarck and Darwin) in 10th grade biology at a Catholic school I attended in the early 80s. It was never presented as controversial in any way. I would say that it is not the primary threat to most religions. The primary threat, as far as I see it, is simply the existence of so many religions with so many incompatible beliefs. From my perspective, the focus on evolution as a threat befuddles me. Your religion can be made compatible with all kinds of things as long as they don't conflict with core doctrines. But when religion looks like a human construct that varies by culture, it is hard not to view it as such. Note: the primary threat could be the lack of empirical basis, but a lot of people are happy to accept things without backing. Accepting contradictory claims is another thing entirely.

Ron Okimoto · 11 March 2015

I agree with Dr. Felsenstein, that you can't tell anyone what their religious beliefs are. Science doesn't deal with anyone's religious beliefs. Science is just the study of nature. It is up to the individual to take those simple facts about science and determine for themselves what their religious beliefs are and that it doesn't matter to science what those religious beliefs are. It may matter to the religious, but science is religion neutral. This doesn't mean that scientists can't have their own personality, but that personality isn't the final say in the quality of their science.

It is really up to the individual to determine what effect science should have on their religious beliefs. As far as I am concerned religious beliefs took the biggest hit centuries ago when everyone had to realize that the earth was not the center of the universe and that it wasn't necessary to have any gods or god to pull the sun and moon around the earth. Biological evolution, by comparison, is nothing. Religions obviously adjust. Education might speed up the process, but there is also a difference between science and education. You might claim that scientists should become better educators, but that is just lame. At some point individuals have to take their own life in their hands and be responsible for themselves. The plain and simple fact is that everyone should become better students.

harold · 11 March 2015

One possible solution for high school curricula would be to move toward a more "bottom up" discussion of biology.

Historically, we didn't know anything about molecular biology. You teach some anatomy and some physiology, and then you say "we see these high level relationships between lineages; the best explanation is common descent with modification. A major factor in the modification seems to be natural selection. But we don't know what is being inherited that causes the phenotypes on which selection acts".

Those days are over, and there is really no reason to use that approach as the introduction. We know what DNA is, we know how it replicates, and we know about epigenetics, too, and so, although there is always more to learn, we know what the major source of inherited variability actually is. Logically, if DNA replicates this way, we would expect life to evolve. We could start high school biology with that and then let them deny DNA replication of they want to deny evolution.

Another couple of points which may be worthwhile -

"You don't have to 'believe' anything to put the right answers on the tests, you only have to understand what the right scientific answers are and give them. You don't have to 'believe' basic mathematic axioms, for example, you only have to apply them.

Furthermore, you don't have to put the right answers on the tests if you don't want, either. Only attendance is mandatory. Graduation is not. You can simply put the wrong answers on the tests in protest, if you wish, and flunk.

So it's entirely up to you. All society requires for high school graduation is that you understand the science sufficiently to identify a minimum number of correct answers on the science tests. If you have determined in advance that you refuse to do that, that's fine. You won't graduate, but you are not required to graduate."

eric · 11 March 2015

callahanpb said: The term "classroom management" disturbs me, though, since it sounds less about communicating ideas and more about preventing disruption.
From talking with HS teachers, I think the two go together: you prevent disruption by one student (i.e. do classroom management) so that you can communicate the subject content to the rest of the class (and hopefully that student too). The quoted college students' attitudes towards creationism are a bit alarming, but I don't find anything particularly bad about the idea of using classroom management skills to deal with (disruptive) creationist students. Sure, answer a sincere question from a creationist student with mainstream biology; but if you think a student is not sincere or is unintentionally going down the road of a creationist infinite do-loop, you use classroom management skills to get the lecture back on track. 'Classroom management' isn't anything underhanded. When PT article writers move a troll's questions to the BW or add a comment suggesting the conversation get back on topic, that's a very similar form of conversation management.

callahanpb · 11 March 2015

harold said: Those days are over, and there is really no reason to use that approach as the introduction. We know what DNA is, we know how it replicates, and we know about epigenetics, too, and so, although there is always more to learn, we know what the major source of inherited variability actually is. Logically, if DNA replicates this way, we would expect life to evolve. We could start high school biology with that and then let them deny DNA replication of they want to deny evolution.
I can see some benefit to that approach, but it misses the big picture. Evidence for common descent is out there for anyone with open eyes. As you point out, the basic idea was already understood before anyone had a clue about the mechanism. Starting out with mechanisms of inheritance would leave out all the history. You can disagree about whether history is important, but more significantly, it suggests that there is some very subtle phenomenon going on that is only observable with advanced technology. I think it is not only important for people to accept the evidence for evolution, but also to understand that a lot of this evidence is readily accessible without specialized equipment. It seems like your proposal is to preemptively quash doubt over the science by presenting the most rigorous evidence first, rather than building up intuition by presenting the most visible evidence. If I thought that was the only way to fight creationism, I would accept it as a canny strategy. In fact, I am more optimistic than that, and would prefer that students start out as naturalists before becoming molecular biologists, much as history progressed. Even in physics, you start with simple demonstrations of, say, conservation of momentum before you start writing out Lagrangians for everything. There is more to teaching science than providing the most advanced tools. At the early stages, you need to make students feel empowered to think about science directly. There is not time to recapitulate all the detours and dead-ends of history, but I think the best approach is still ultimately historical, provided appropriate shortcuts are taken.

harold · 11 March 2015

Callahanpb -

You raise a very valid point about science education.

If we cut to the chase and give the current evidence, we leave out the history, and the understanding of the process of discovery.

In my experience, math and physical sciences are more prone to cut to the chase, whereas at the university and even medical school level, biomedical courses often discuss historical approaches and hypotheses. With many individual exceptions to this general tendency.

There is no perfect way.

I am inclined to think that we should teach biology from the bottom up. Obviously common descent with modification was inferred long, long before DNA was even found to be the genetic material. I do think that simply teaching that DNA replicates the way it replicates, and that to deny ongoing evolution you have to deny that, is a fairly good approach. It's easy for most people to understand.

However, I didn't mean that as some rigid, dogmatic suggestion.

Overall, I am a fan of including the history of the process of discovery in curricula. It is a matter of balance.

TomS · 11 March 2015

How do teachers introduce the idea of the heliocentric Solar System? Do the kids find that hard to accept? What kind of evidence is accessible to the kids?

gdavidson418 · 11 March 2015

Ignorance is IDist/creationist bliss.

Glen Davidson

harold · 11 March 2015

The fact is that at every level of education and training, those who teach are only slightly more advanced than those who learn. Neurosurgeons train high performing newly minted doctors to be neurosurgeons. Mike Elzinga taught advanced students in a special environment, but the main job of the high school teacher is to train the whole spectrum of students, not just the superstars. There is a natural gravitation of people who have the gifts to master high school, but not a great deal more, toward high school teaching. Of course some brilliant people do it, but so do many who are less than brilliant. This natural gravitation may not be a bad thing. Our high school system must train people of all levels of academic interest and ability. Just as brilliant star players often don't make the best coaches, academic stars may have a hard time identifying with the average or challenged student. Teachers simply need to impart the curriculum, maintain order, not violate rights, and not do anything to misdirect or hold back those who are more gifted. Let's look at this...
There is evidence to support evolution to the extent of how everything came from one cell.
Good start, simply make it "massive evidence from numerous independent sources" and you're doing great.
I don’t know if I believe that.
Disturbing, but irrelevant. Either the result of cultural bias or a flawed biology course curriculum somewhere. But it's okay as long as you understand that this is like "I don't know if I believe the Earth is round". Teach that, and you're fired. Keep it to yourself and teach the curriculum, and it's your own business. On the other hand, it sounds as if maybe this person is a creationist who's coming to see the light slowly, and if that's true, this is great.
As far as adaptations and adapting to your environment, you can prove that with just microbial colonies. That’s somethin’ that I can look at and see that’s true over a period of time.
Fine.
As far as everything coming from one cell, that’s kind of hard for me to imagine.
Irrelevant. It's hard for me to imagine how a number that represents a geometric ratio can have an infinite number of digits. Just keep your mouth shut about what you can "imagine" and teach the curriculum.
I’m not saying it’s not true or it is true, ‘cause there is a lot of scientific support for it. It’s kind of back and forth in my mind.
It really sounds as if maybe this person comes from a background of science denial but is coming around. At any rate, honestly, this may be a perfectly acceptable level of quality, at least for 21st century America. As long as this person doesn't violate anyone's rights and teaches an adequate curriculum, that's all we can ask. There is some ability to concede what the scientific evidence shows here. This isn't a hard core, dug in denier. In the end, not many people can be quantum physicists or even cardiologists. We need a good proportion of people with those ability levels to go into those jobs. We simply can't demand brilliant scientist high school teachers; there aren't enough potential brilliant scientists to begin with and if we make them teach high school, we won't have any working scientists, and we won't have enough teachers either. I believe there are something like 36,000 high schools in the US (more accurate numbers welcome). There are an estimated 3.7 million teachers.

Mike Elzinga · 11 March 2015

I could probably write a book on my experiences with teaching; but I won't. I was extremely fortunate in getting the opportunities I had; and I worked with some of the best researchers and instructors in the business. Looking back, I sometimes feel like I was sleepwalking and stumbling through treacherous territory and coming out the end of it unscathed.

I picked up a secondary teaching certificate in my undergraduate years almost as an afterthought, having already taken two majors, physics and math, and an undeclared third in electrical engineering. I had to work my way through college with electronic training I received in the Navy. It was a long haul, but I had some really good experiences along the way.

But as a result of taking the courses to get the teaching certificate, I was totally dismayed at the low quality of the education courses as well as the extremely poor attitudes of a very large percentage of the students in those courses. I vowed I would stay in research and never work among that cohort teaching in a high school.

Fortunately, I maintained my membership in the American Association of Physics Teachers and attended state and national meetings fairly regularly during my research career. That readjusted my attitudes toward teaching back to something less cynical.

It was only after a career in both pure and applied research and nearing retirement that I had an opportunity fall in my lap to teach in a special program for gifted high school students. That was a dream job in many ways; and my research career and experiences were invaluable in that teaching position. But, surprisingly, I may not have been offered the job had I not obtained that teaching certificate, a certificate I never used, many years earlier.

Part of that job involved being an educational consultant for teaching technology in the surrounding districts; and I gained a lot of insight into the problems many teachers face in just trying to teach subject matter. The entire culture of primary and secondary education in this country seems to be dominated by a subculture of "educational leadership" that is about as Mickey Mouse as it can possibly be. (Industry can be just as nuts.)

The people setting up and enforcing regular "professional development" for teachers are essentially political idiot ideologues and administrators who have absolutely no sense of what is involved in teaching in a classroom. None of them have any educational experience, and none of them can teach if their lives depended on it. Students roll their eyes when these characters come into a classroom and talk down to them. But it is these characters that set the agenda and standards for who teaches and what gets taught.

Until and unless we get politicians and administrators who understand and can actually DO the educational processes in the environments most teachers have to work in, we aren't going see much improvement.

Just Bob · 11 March 2015

30 years in the classroom.

Spot on, Mike.

Ron Okimoto · 12 March 2015

TomS said: How do teachers introduce the idea of the heliocentric Solar System? Do the kids find that hard to accept? What kind of evidence is accessible to the kids?
Most elementary school classrooms put up a mobile of the solar system. That is how it was when I was in elementary school in the 1960s. It signified the organization of the solar system. When I went to parent teacher nights for my kids their classrooms would have similaar planetary models, either posters on the wall or the old fashion mobile hanging from the ceiling. My guess is that to illustrate the points of planetary orbits they could likely run a video of the path something like Voyager took through our solar system. Start the video with all the planets positioned around the sun at launch and watch how the motion of the planets followed the expected orbital paths and how the space probe intersected the planets it encountered and used gravity to maneuver to the next target. It would likely be obvious to the students that the probe had to be aimed where the next target planet would be and not where it was. My guess is that the teacher might mention Copernicus, but they don't go into the religious objections to the model or the fear involved in going against the church. Most of the kids likely don't even know about the religious controversy because they likely are not exposed to it in Sunday school or any other religious education they may be getting at that time of their lives. Except for the diehard geocentric creationists, most religions accept that the planets orbit the sun, and they don't talk about how wrong they were in the past.

callahanpb · 12 March 2015

Today belief in the heliocentric solar system is deeply embedded in popular thought. I don't think that is because the direct evidence is really that accessible, but because the notion of earth as a planet comes up in films and news accounts so much that it is just hard to get away from it. I wonder when this changed. Anyone know? When did a globe become commonplace in the classroom?

60187mitchells · 12 March 2015

I was very fortunate in high school. (public HS, blue-collar Chicago suburb, mid 80's) My freshman Biology class followed the BSCS curriculum, soph/jr years were combined chemistry/physics, sr. year those of us in a college prep track took an AP science class of some sort (Bio, Chemistry, Physics) or a science elective (Ecology, Computer Science, whatever). The topic of creationism DID come up. In English class. My English teacher, not the popular, pretty one, but the 'experienced' one who had a reputation for being 'difficult', probably started teaching sometime in the 50's and was nearing the end of her career when I was her student. I think she was thumbing her nose at some segment of society because ALL of the books in the literature sections (I later leaned) were on the 'banned book lists'. So when we read To Inherit the Wind, creationism came up. But Biology class was firmly rooted in Evolution .

SLC · 12 March 2015

The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod only accepted the heliocentric Solar System in 1927. It is my information that the Wisconsin Synod has yet to accept heliocentrism.
callahanpb said: Today belief in the heliocentric solar system is deeply embedded in popular thought. I don't think that is because the direct evidence is really that accessible, but because the notion of earth as a planet comes up in films and news accounts so much that it is just hard to get away from it. I wonder when this changed. Anyone know? When did a globe become commonplace in the classroom?

eric · 12 March 2015

SLC said: The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod only accepted the heliocentric Solar System in 1927. It is my information that the Wisconsin Synod has yet to accept heliocentrism.
Those are the American fundie strains of Lutheranism. The mainstream lutheran church in the US is the ELCA, and it's not even YEC let alone geocentric. A brief googling tells me that 1,500 of ELCA's pastors and leaders signed the Evolution Weekend Clergy Letter supporting evolution as "a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children..."

TomS · 12 March 2015

SLC said: The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod only accepted the heliocentric Solar System in 1927. It is my information that the Wisconsin Synod has yet to accept heliocentrism.
callahanpb said: Today belief in the heliocentric solar system is deeply embedded in popular thought. I don't think that is because the direct evidence is really that accessible, but because the notion of earth as a planet comes up in films and news accounts so much that it is just hard to get away from it. I wonder when this changed. Anyone know? When did a globe become commonplace in the classroom?
I took a look at the website of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, wels.net, for what they had to say about "Galileo", and they seem to accept heliocentrism. They seem to be more interested in showing that the Lutherans were more open to heliocentrism than Catholics. As far as the globe: The shape of the Earth was well accepted long before heliocentrism. And nowadays one has plenty of photographs of a spherical Earth to made it easy to teach it. (I know that many people seem to think, unfortunately, that pictures will show that the Earth is in motion.)

harold · 12 March 2015

The shape of the Earth was well accepted long before heliocentrism
And the approximate circumference was decently understood as well. Medieval paintings repeatedly show kings, Baby Jesus, and other such figures holding small spheres. These "orbs" represent the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_cruciger While they are somewhat ambivalent and could symbolize either the Earth, or the "celestial spheres", the "celestial sphere" models are based on the idea of a round Earth (albeit in the center of the universe). One hypothesis is that the early American humorist Washington Irving invented the idea of opponents of Columbus arguing for a flat Earth.

Ron Okimoto · 12 March 2015

callahanpb said: Today belief in the heliocentric solar system is deeply embedded in popular thought. I don't think that is because the direct evidence is really that accessible, but because the notion of earth as a planet comes up in films and news accounts so much that it is just hard to get away from it. I wonder when this changed. Anyone know? When did a globe become commonplace in the classroom?
When I was a graduate student in Utah Arizona Governor Mecham was under fire. The Mormon tribulations were followed in the Salt Lake newspapers. It didn't help matters when Mecham's creationist secretary of education made the stupid claim that they should take globes out of the public school classrooms because they offended the religious beliefs of the flat earth church that they had in Arizona. So it isn't a joke that though globes might be common place there are idiots that would remove them just like they want evolution out of the public schools.

Jason Koskey · 13 March 2015

Honestly, it sounds like these students have adopted the exact position the NCSE recommend they adopt, which is fuzzy accommodationism. Conflict? What conflict? Science and religion are just different ways of knowing. You can think of evolution as God's way of creating, if you want. Doesn't that make everyone happy?

Carl Drews · 13 March 2015

Jason Koskey said: Honestly, it sounds like these students have adopted the exact position the NCSE recommend they adopt, which is fuzzy accommodationism. Conflict? What conflict? Science and religion are just different ways of knowing. You can think of evolution as God's way of creating, if you want. Doesn't that make everyone happy?
Everyone except Ken Ham and Jerry Coyne. I'm satisfied with that result.

Matt Young · 13 March 2015

Honestly, it sounds like these students have adopted the exact position the NCSE recommend they adopt, which is fuzzy accommodationism. Conflict? What conflict? Science and religion are just different ways of knowing. You can think of evolution as God’s way of creating, if you want. Doesn’t that make everyone happy?

Doesn't make me happy, and I do not think that reflects NCSE's position. Yes, you may believe that evolution is God's way of creating, but if you think he or she did it 10,000 years ago, you are flatly wrong. In other words, religious beliefs are OK until they conflict with known facts -- then they need to be reevaluated. The article is concerned with creationists, not Unitarians.

Mike Elzinga · 13 March 2015

Jason Koskey said: Honestly, it sounds like these students have adopted the exact position the NCSE recommend they adopt, which is fuzzy accommodationism. Conflict? What conflict? Science and religion are just different ways of knowing. You can think of evolution as God's way of creating, if you want. Doesn't that make everyone happy?
I suspect that the NCSE position pragmatically acknowledges that, for many people, religion is a community that provides a core of cohesion and support for most of the major events and milestones in people's lives. We can't just erase the effect of human history on our present culture; and we probably would loose important perspectives and lessons if we did. How any given individual deals with religious tenets and science is a matter of how much time and energy they have to pursue such matters within the daily rush of their lives. We all start at different places and progress at different rates in our understanding of science; and very few people are going to learn everything about everything in the course of their lives. So, in probably most cases, "accommodation" may be simply a place-holder for "I'll get to that later if I ever get the time and ability to address the issues that others say need to be addressed." It could also mean that the course of a given individual's life never crosses these issues, but nevertheless, they need to get on with their life in the best way they know how and within the community and traditions they have inherited. It is primarily the fundamentalist sectarian meddlers who always seem to have issues with everything and everyone else; and they make their problems everyone else's problems by way of politics.

harold · 14 March 2015

Jason Koskey said: Honestly, it sounds like these students have adopted the exact position the NCSE recommend they adopt, which is fuzzy accommodationism. Conflict? What conflict? Science and religion are just different ways of knowing. You can think of evolution as God's way of creating, if you want. Doesn't that make everyone happy?
What is the definition of "accommodationism"? What is the definition of "religion"? What is the definition of "science"? To me, there is no conflict between the abstract concepts of "religion" and "science". Sometimes, some people deny scientific reality. The ostensible rationale may be religious, as with evolution denial. Or it may not. Many climate deniers, cigarette/health deniers and vaccine deniers never mention religion when talking about those subjects. (In practice these types of denial tend to be found among the same group of people, granted, but only the evolution denial is strongly couched in religious language the majority of the time.) There is obviously conflict between science and denial of scientific reality, regardless of the motivation. There are two groups of people who make the deliberately vague and poorly defined claim that all "religion" is always in some way "in conflict with" all "science". One group is creationists themselves, who, while also often denying that they do it, repeatedly claim that since their own latter day politicized cult denies scientific reality, therefore science must be "atheistic" and false. The other group is internet atheists. As a citation supporting this, simply see the quoted comment by Jason Koskey above. For the record, I'm not religious, I will never "accommodate" science denial, and I don't think religion is a "way of knowing". I have seen people claim that someone somewhere says that science and religion are "equally valid ways of knowing". I have not seen this claim directly made, however. I have only seen Larry Moran, and now Jason Koskey, claim that someone somewhere makes this claim. Here is it strongly implied by Jason Koskey that this claim is made by NCSE. Jason Koskey, could you please provide a source for the direct claim that science and religion are both "ways of knowing"? A direct source of someone sincerely saying that they are, please. If it is not the NCSE, could you directly state that the NCSE does not make this claim? If it is the NCSE, I strongly agree in advance that they should not make such a claim.

harold · 14 March 2015

Perhaps I have found the source of the confusion.

Here is a quote from the National Academies of Science (not the NCSE) that says, perfectly correctly, that science is not the "only way of knowing and understanding". Concerns of religious people are also mentioned here.

However, there is not conflation of science and religion whatsoever in what I link to, nor is there the slightest "accommodation" of evolution denial.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html

TomS · 14 March 2015

These do not exactly answer your request:

There is the title of John Paul II's address about evolution: "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth".

There is Gould's slogan "Non-Overlapping Magisteria", meaning "teaching authorities".

harold · 14 March 2015

TomS said: These do not exactly answer your request: There is the title of John Paul II's address about evolution: "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth". There is Gould's slogan "Non-Overlapping Magisteria", meaning "teaching authorities".
I suspect I've gotten to the bottom of this rather trivial affair. Probably the NAS blurb I linked to, which has no doubt been up in some form for many years, was annoying to some highly motivated atheists. It violates the standard, important to some, that the word "religion" never be mentioned except in an emotionally negative and insulting context. It seems to have been distorted, with some claiming that somebody somewhere says that religion and science are equally good "ways of knowing", but it does not say that. What it actually does is say, correctly, that science is not the only human "ways of knowing and understanding" but then go on to explain what is unique about science. The NSA blurb is obviously influenced by Gould. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html

TomS · 14 March 2015

harold said:
TomS said: These do not exactly answer your request: There is the title of John Paul II's address about evolution: "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth". There is Gould's slogan "Non-Overlapping Magisteria", meaning "teaching authorities".
I suspect I've gotten to the bottom of this rather trivial affair. Probably the NAS blurb I linked to, which has no doubt been up in some form for many years, was annoying to some highly motivated atheists. It violates the standard, important to some, that the word "religion" never be mentioned except in an emotionally negative and insulting context. It seems to have been distorted, with some claiming that somebody somewhere says that religion and science are equally good "ways of knowing", but it does not say that. What it actually does is say, correctly, that science is not the only human "ways of knowing and understanding" but then go on to explain what is unique about science. The NSA blurb is obviously influenced by Gould. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html
I'd also mention the Wikipedia article "Double truth".

harold · 15 March 2015

TomS said:
harold said:
TomS said: These do not exactly answer your request: There is the title of John Paul II's address about evolution: "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth". There is Gould's slogan "Non-Overlapping Magisteria", meaning "teaching authorities".
I suspect I've gotten to the bottom of this rather trivial affair. Probably the NAS blurb I linked to, which has no doubt been up in some form for many years, was annoying to some highly motivated atheists. It violates the standard, important to some, that the word "religion" never be mentioned except in an emotionally negative and insulting context. It seems to have been distorted, with some claiming that somebody somewhere says that religion and science are equally good "ways of knowing", but it does not say that. What it actually does is say, correctly, that science is not the only human "ways of knowing and understanding" but then go on to explain what is unique about science. The NSA blurb is obviously influenced by Gould. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html
I'd also mention the Wikipedia article "Double truth".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_truth That interesting piece refers to supposed claims that Averroeism/Aristoleism and Medieval Christian Neo-Platonism can "both be true even if they come to opposite conclusions". That could be seen as loosely analogous to a claim that "science" and "religion" can "both be true" even if they come to opposite conclusions. However, if we follow the links, we see that Siger of Brabant may not have actually made this "double truth" claim directly, and that it may have originated as a paraphrase of his works by critics. Someone would have to read Siger more carefully than I have time to, to evaluate this. Meanwhile, the modern complaint that somebody somewhere says that "science and religion are 'equally valid' ways of knowing" seems to be - 1) Directly, an unfair distortion of the NAS blurb I linked to and... 2) Indirectly, and perhaps unwittingly, a complaint about Stephen J. Gould for not being sufficiently "against religion" (since the NAS blurb shows an unmistakble Gouldian influence).

DS · 15 March 2015

"Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations."

I submit that this is incorrect. Science is the only reliable way of knowing. There are other ways of deciding, but there are no other ways of knowing. A system that is not modified according to evidence is not a way of knowing, it is based on beliefs not knowledge. A system that relies on supernatural explanations is not a way of knowing, since it is based on faith, not evidence. Science and religion are indeed in different realms, but they are not both ways of knowing.

harold · 15 March 2015

DS said: "Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations." I submit that this is incorrect. Science is the only reliable way of knowing. There are other ways of deciding, but there are no other ways of knowing. A system that is not modified according to evidence is not a way of knowing, it is based on beliefs not knowledge. A system that relies on supernatural explanations is not a way of knowing, since it is based on faith, not evidence. Science and religion are indeed in different realms, but they are not both ways of knowing.
I've already stated above that I don't consider religion a way of knowing, so we agree on that part. As I noted above, the blurb does not state that religion is a way of knowing, either. It mentions ways of knowing and it mentions religion but it does not say they are the same. I most certainly don't agree that science is the only way of knowing. The only way to make it that would be to expand the definition of science to include all empirical and mathematical knowledge. Hunter gatherer people are invariably extremely knowledgeable about their environment. Ancient Greek mathematicians devised proofs that we still use today. Medieval master masons could design and build Gothic cathedrals. We could go back and retroactively describe all of this as "science", but that would just be saying "I define all accurate logical or empirical knowledge retroactively as 'science' and therefore 'science' is the only way of knowing". The definition of science is rather broad, so this may be one extreme but valid way of looking at it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Naturally, though, if someone takes the tack of declaring "all valid knowledge" to be "science", any disagreement with that NAS statement is purely semantic in nature. Such disagreement would hinge only on whether or not accurate but informal empirical knowledge, such as that possessed by hunter gatherer people, is "unwittingly science". I would personally view such a semantic stance as hair-splitting* and a bit biased. As an aside, arguments that make excessively fine distinctions "split hairs", the metaphor being that hairs are already thin. "Hare-splitting" is one example of a pun from a Bugs Bunny cartoon entering the general language and sometimes accidentally replacing the very figure of speech that the pun is based on.

DS · 15 March 2015

Harlod,

We basically agree, although I do tend to be a little more inclusive. However, the point is that religion is not based on empiricism and is not a way of knowing as the NAS article implies. If it were, there would not be thousands of mutually exclusive religions, all of which are incompatible and incapable of demonstrating any validity. If it were, religious arguments would not have to solved by violence. There may be other ways of knowing, at least by some definitions, but they are not as reliable as the scientific method and religion is definitely not one of them.

harold · 15 March 2015

DS said: Harlod, We basically agree, although I do tend to be a little more inclusive. However, the point is that religion is not based on empiricism and is not a way of knowing as the NAS article implies. If it were, there would not be thousands of mutually exclusive religions, all of which are incompatible and incapable of demonstrating any validity. If it were, religious arguments would not have to solved by violence. There may be other ways of knowing, at least by some definitions, but they are not as reliable as the scientific method and religion is definitely not one of them.
As you know, I massively agree with every word of this, except that to me, the NAS article neither states nor implies that religion is a way of knowing comparable to science.
Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations.
This does not create false equivalence, but rather, differentiates between science and other ways of knowing. We can dispute whether this "implies" that religion is a "way of knowing", but it certainly doesn't SAY that religion is a "way of knowing". The term "way of knowing" is exceedingly vague anyway. Bottom line, the uniqueness of science is highlighted here. No false equivalence with "other ways of knowing" is stated or implied.
Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.
Surely no-one would deny this.
Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith.
This is obviously what's pissing people off, but the NAS goes on to clarify exactly what they mean by "compatible". And in my view their usage is reasonable. Let's take a look at it in detail.
Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution.
These are simple empirical facts. The pope, the Dalai Lama, numerous Protestant theologians, numerous rabbis (mainly but not exclusively "reform" rabbis), at a minimum, have stated that they can be religious and fully accept the scientific evidence at the same time. Ken Miller, a major evolutionary biologist and effective opponent of ID, is a practicing Catholic. While I see no need for religion, clearly, one need merely stick to religious ideas that are not or cannot be directly contradicted by science, to avoid direct conflict with science. Doing so may well be in conflict with certain philosophical precepts, but is not in conflict with science itself. Philosophical objections, however valid, should not be conflated with scientific objections. Both religious authoritarians like FL and certain atheists spend a lot of time arguing that these people "should not be allowed to" be religious unless they deny evolution, but in practice, they are and they don't. When someone is about to do something that is obviously positive, ideologues sometimes try to stop them by arguing that doing one thing magically obliges doing something else that is much more difficult and controversial. For example, if someone tries to take up exercise and healthier eating, they're likely to be barked at by some that unless they fully commit to crossfit/paleo or ashtanga yoga/veganism or strength training on steroids or Iron Man triathalon training or some other competing more extreme lifestyle (all of which are actually great for those who take them up spontaneously), they "aren't allowed to" exercise and eat a healthier diet. This is totally illogical but highly effective, and millions of people are discouraged from a single positive step, on a regular basis, by the efforts of these ideologues. Likewise, the message that you can't engage in modest religious practice unless you deny scientific reality, or can't accept science unless you aggressively reject and antagonize all cultural religious practice, is illogical.
Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.
Does anyone disagree with this?
Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities.
Seems accurate to me.
Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.
And obviously, creationism, or any other denial of scientific reality on the basis of religious claims, is an effort to pit science and religion against each other. I really don't see the problem here. Science can't test religious beliefs unless they are set up in way to be testable by science. I don't have a problem with the NAS encouraging people to accept and learn about science, even people who don't decide to abandon their religion as a pre-condition. But the point I was making was more narrow than that. The NAS statement does not falsely equate religious knowledge with scientific knowledge. It cannot be fairly read as either stating, or implying, that creation myths are "as good as" science. It most certainly does not say that religion and science are "equally valid ways of knowing" about scientific topics. What it says is that if your religion doesn't deny science, science has nothing to say about your religion. I am not personally religious but don't have a problem with that.

TomS · 15 March 2015

DS said: "Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations." I submit that this is incorrect. Science is the only reliable way of knowing. There are other ways of deciding, but there are no other ways of knowing. A system that is not modified according to evidence is not a way of knowing, it is based on beliefs not knowledge. A system that relies on supernatural explanations is not a way of knowing, since it is based on faith, not evidence. Science and religion are indeed in different realms, but they are not both ways of knowing.
I wonder whether you count mathematics and logic as sciences. Linguistics? Sociology? What science is it that determines the answer to such a question? What science is it that determines that science is the only way of knowing?

DS · 15 March 2015

Math is a way of reasoning. I don't really see it as a way of knowing or as a kind of science. It is certainly necessary to do science oi almost any kind, but I don't consider it science in and of itself.

Linguistics is a way of studying language. It is probably a kind of science.

Sociology is perhaps a science, depending on how you do it.

Architecture is a way of building. It might be based on science, but it isn't necessarily a kind of science.

Folklore about the weather is not science, although it might be a kind of rudimentary attempt to use the methods of science, it certainly isn't the same kind of science as climatology.

Of course all of this is a little subjective, but the point still stands. Science is based on empiricism, religion is not. Religion is not a way of knowing.

As for how we know that science is special, philosophers study why it has such a special status, they really don't seem to question that it does.

Matt Young · 15 March 2015

What science is it that determines that science is the only way of knowing?

Ha ha! Interesting way to put it. I will get into trouble for the following, because, as I understand it, philosophers consider the problem of induction to be unsolved; nevertheless, I will argue that science is not the only way of knowing. Rather, empiricism is the only way of knowing. How do I know that empiricism works? I don't, but I will keep using it till it fails.

harold · 15 March 2015

DS said: Math is a way of reasoning. I don't really see it as a way of knowing or as a kind of science. It is certainly necessary to do science oi almost any kind, but I don't consider it science in and of itself. Linguistics is a way of studying language. It is probably a kind of science. Sociology is perhaps a science, depending on how you do it. Architecture is a way of building. It might be based on science, but it isn't necessarily a kind of science. Folklore about the weather is not science, although it might be a kind of rudimentary attempt to use the methods of science, it certainly isn't the same kind of science as climatology. Of course all of this is a little subjective, but the point still stands. Science is based on empiricism, religion is not. Religion is not a way of knowing. As for how we know that science is special, philosophers study why it has such a special status, they really don't seem to question that it does.
Nobody is questioning the special value of science; the point that came up is that the NAS isn't questioning it either, unsurprisingly. The term "way of knowing" is a vague term used for purely stylistic purposes at any rate. I don't have anything against religion but I agree that whatever religion is, it isn't a "way of knowing". Now, whether science is the "only way of knowing or not" is another question. It's a somewhat semantic and subjective question. I'm inclined to say that science isn't the only "way of knowing", but if someone else wants to say that it is, that's not a major deal for me. If you actually think that science is the only way of knowing, you do have a dispute with the NAS blurb I linked to. However, that would not justify claiming that the NAS equates science and religion as equal "ways of knowing", to be arbitrarily chosen between. That is not a fair paraphrase of what the NAS has said here. What the NAS actually says is that some people choose to set up a direct conflict between religious beliefs and science, but other religious people don't do that (my paraphrase).

Dave Luckett · 15 March 2015

Tricky. Depends on what you mean by "know". Matt rightly calls the only certain way of knowing a fact to be a fact "empiricism". But I know my wife loves me, even though I have never set out empirically to test the notion, because the test would be destructive, if for no other reason. So do I know that? How do I know it?

And so on. I suspect - I don't know - that everyone carries ideas, beliefs, understandings about with them that are either not possible to test empirically or which should not be so tested. Unlike some here, I am willing to include some religious beliefs in that category. I don't carry those beliefs myself, but I am happy to live and let live with others who do, until the day they try to impose them.

phhht · 16 March 2015

There's small choice in rotten apples.

If you want to know whether your wife loves you, or whether gods are real, or indeed whether most other alleged facts about the world are true - too bad. You can't know those things, not as facts.

There are only a few, a very few, things we can know, and all of them, every single one, we know to be true by empiricism. By science, broadly construed.

There is no other way of knowing, not one that works. Revelation doesn't work. Intuition doesn't work. Coin flipping doesn't work, nor does guessing or feeling or the wisdom of the ancestors.

All we've got is empiricism. That's it. That's all that works. Everything else is a rotten apple.

TomS · 16 March 2015

No point in asking someone who knows that he's right how he knows that he's right, because he knows that he's right. That's not just guessing or feeling, that's right. OK. Whatever you say.

harold · 16 March 2015

Dave Luckett said: Tricky. Depends on what you mean by "know". Matt rightly calls the only certain way of knowing a fact to be a fact "empiricism". But I know my wife loves me, even though I have never set out empirically to test the notion, because the test would be destructive, if for no other reason. So do I know that? How do I know it? And so on. I suspect - I don't know - that everyone carries ideas, beliefs, understandings about with them that are either not possible to test empirically or which should not be so tested. Unlike some here, I am willing to include some religious beliefs in that category. I don't carry those beliefs myself, but I am happy to live and let live with others who do, until the day they try to impose them.
Actually you guess, probably correctly, that your wife loves your, based on interpretation of cues from the environment. It's purely empirical, although the brain does it with intuitive heuristics that operate largely unconsciously. A more interesting question is how you know that you love your wife (assuming you do). But let's review the context. Someone claimed that the NCSE says that "science and religion are equally valid ways of knowing". In the process of demonstrating that that particular claim about the NCSE is bullshit, I explained that it's actually an unfair straw man distortion of a statement put out, not by the NCSE, but by the NAS. Now people are essentially trying to make strained semantic arguments that "way of knowing" and "science" should be synonymous. However, these arguments are not spontaneous. A couple of days ago nobody would have said that being able to use unconscious heuristics to interpret cues about another person's emotional state, something all healthy humans can do, and dogs can do too, was synonymous with doing science. Of course any knowledge that humans can agree on is empirical. Of course any empirical knowledge could hypothetically be confirmed with rigorous scientific testing. But that doesn't make every single bit of empirical knowledge "science". There is a social division within the scientific community. All honest and competent science supporters oppose dishonest science denial, whatever combination of political, economic, social, or religious factors motivate the denial. Some are also members of a separate but overlapping group, people who "oppose all religion". For them, the NAS statement simply isn't insulting enough to religious people. If you read it intelligently, it's clear that the statement treats creationist science denial with withering disdain, and is, despite its highly civil language, an intensely strong statement against creationist science denial. But the problem for some is that it doesn't engage with religious people who don't deny evolution. It doesn't delve into philosophical weaknesses of religion in general. It deals strictly with the theory of evolution. I believe the NAS was right to omit such sentiments, since they are a pointless distraction from the topic at hand. Others feel differently. Others feel that even to omit an insult directed toward "all religious people" simply "isn't atheist enough". That is a valid subjective disagreement. Even retroactively equating "science" with "only way of knowing", for the sole purposes of coming up with a disagreement with the NAS statement, is perfectly valid, if semantic. But what isn't valid is falsely claiming that the NCSE said something that is actually a straw man version of something that NAS said.

eric · 16 March 2015

Dave Luckett said: Tricky. Depends on what you mean by "know". Matt rightly calls the only certain way of knowing a fact to be a fact "empiricism". But I know my wife loves me, even though I have never set out empirically to test the notion, because the test would be destructive, if for no other reason. So do I know that? How do I know it?
Trying to define 'know' is a philosophical bugaboo with a lot of history behind it. Given the massive intellectual work done on the issue and only partial success to date, I doubt anyone here is going to resolve the issue in a post. But defining it is largely unnecessary for the purposes of comparing science with "other ways." If you want to figure out whether some belief should count as knowledge, it is often sufficient just to describe the methodology and data used. Then you can let each audience member come to their own conclusions about whether the final assertion counts as knowledge or not. "My wife loves me" may be an 'edge' case where different people can be given the exact same method and data description and disagree about whether the end result is knowledge or not. But that's also a bad example, as a lot of religious claims will likely not be edge cases: once the methodology and data are described, I'm guessing a lot of the potential audience would say "no, you do not know that."

eric · 16 March 2015

Just to add - I think sometimes theologians focus on the definitional debate intentionally so that they can avoid giving a simple description of their methods. There may be other ways of knowing depending on how you define 'know,' but its unlikely personal revelation or argument from authority are going to be seen as legitimate 'other ways.' So they don't discuss their actual other ways, they attempt to keep the discussion at the general level.

Its like someone with a crappy novel coming to you and definding it by saying "it could be the great American novel of our generation." Well yes, it could be. But if you actually let me read it and it turns out to be crap, then it isn't. Similarly, if some theologian proposes there are other ways of knowing, my likely response is, well yes, there could be. Lets examine your way and see whether most of us think its great or crap.

Just Bob · 16 March 2015

"Its like someone with a crappy novel coming to you and definding it by saying “it could be the great American novel of our generation.” Well yes, it could be. But if you actually let me read it and it turns out to be crap, then it isn’t."

Reminds me of Birdman winning the Best Picture Oscar.

fnxtr · 16 March 2015

Just Bob said: "Its like someone with a crappy novel coming to you and definding it by saying “it could be the great American novel of our generation.” Well yes, it could be. But if you actually let me read it and it turns out to be crap, then it isn’t." Reminds me of Birdman winning the Best Picture Oscar.
My step-daughter and her fiance raved about that movie. I got bored after about 15 minutes.

Just Bob · 16 March 2015

phhht said: There are only a few, a very few, things we can know, and all of them, every single one, we know to be true by empiricism. By science, broadly construed. All we've got is empiricism. That's it. That's all that works. Everything else is a rotten apple.
What if something we KNOW to be true, through empiricism, turns out to be WRONG through later empirical discoveries? Did we really 'know' it, or not? We once 'knew' there were lots of straight canals on Mars, through direct empirical observation by various observers. Can we really, finally KNOW anything, when a philosophical pillar of science is that what we consider to be facts may need to be discarded in the light of later discoveries?

DS · 16 March 2015

Just Bob said:
phhht said: There are only a few, a very few, things we can know, and all of them, every single one, we know to be true by empiricism. By science, broadly construed. All we've got is empiricism. That's it. That's all that works. Everything else is a rotten apple.
What if something we KNOW to be true, through empiricism, turns out to be WRONG through later empirical discoveries? Did we really 'know' it, or not? We once 'knew' there were lots of straight canals on Mars, through direct empirical observation by various observers. Can we really, finally KNOW anything, when a philosophical pillar of science is that what we consider to be facts may need to be discarded in the light of later discoveries?
This is a very good point. Science might be the best way of knowing, maybe even the only away of knowing, but it certainly isn't infallible. Still, that beats religion hands down because they not only believe they are infallible but no evidence will ever persuade them to change their minds about that.

callahanpb · 16 March 2015

What if something we KNOW to be true, through empiricism, turns out to be WRONG through later empirical discoveries? Did we really ‘know’ it, or not?
This is clearly a possibility. I don’t think anyone would say you knew it if it was wrong (but I’ll defer to philosophers) though you may have believed you did. This belief, though in error, could have been rational in the sense that you used methods ordinarily considered sound and applied your best effort. There’s no limit to the meta levels as far as I can tell. I.e., you came up with a seemingly sound argument for something and believed that it was sound. You believed that your ability to judge its soundness was also sound. You believed that the you were a competent judge of your own ability to think rationally, etc. In practice, people eventually stop somewhere. The reason I really don’t worry about any of this is because I mainly see belief as significant in how it affects behavior, and the consequences of the same behavior will be identical whether or not it was based on sound beliefs. It’s nice when you can nail something down as true “beyond all reasonable doubt” but I think it is unrealistic (and counter to empirical evidence about human cognition) to make this the standard for all beliefs. A lot of things amount to working assumptions (including ones about human affection, trustworthiness, etc.) and I am more comfortable thinking of them in these terms.

eric · 16 March 2015

Just Bob said: Can we really, finally KNOW anything, when a philosophical pillar of science is that what we consider to be facts may need to be discarded in the light of later discoveries?
This is a very good point. Science might be the best way of knowing, maybe even the only away of knowing, but it certainly isn't infallible. Still, that beats religion hands down because they not only believe they are infallible but no evidence will ever persuade them to change their minds about that.
I don't see even many science-bashers going the route of denying all knowledge. Typically they want to claim that religious and spiritual beliefs are rational or reasonable, not that no belief is rational. Sure you get some of those, but not many. So I think "what should count as knowledge" is a much crappier question and much more likely to lead you on a useless sidetrack compared to asking, fairly charitably, "how do you know." Once the "how" of a 'different way' is described, everyone can decide for themselves whether it leads to what they consider knowledge...or not.

callahanpb · 16 March 2015

So I think “what should count as knowledge” is a much crappier question and much more likely to lead you on a useless sidetrack compared to asking, fairly charitably, “how do you know.”
I almost agree, but I think the right question (though it may come off as tactless when stated this way) is "What causes you to believe that?" In practice, I believe a lot of things. Whether I "know" anything is besides the point. If I say "Jim likes his fried eggs done over medium." I might elaborate that I believe it because Jim told me this and I cannot think of good reason he would lie about it. But do I actually know? It doesn't matter. If am in a situation where I need to order fried eggs for Jim and don't have a chance to ask, I'll act on this belief. There are other beliefs that I feel I can establish more rigorously, but ultimately it doesn't really matter. I have a list of propositions in my head, ideally associated with some kind of justification. The justifications are not all equally valid, and some might be very hazy: "I am pretty sure I had a good reason to think this before, but I don't recall." Ultimately, a belief will either be inconsequential in practice or will be tested in practice. In the latter case, it's to your advantage if the belief is valid, but there's no shame in being mistaken as long as you're willing to adapt.

eric · 16 March 2015

callahanpb said:
So I think “what should count as knowledge” is a much crappier question and much more likely to lead you on a useless sidetrack compared to asking, fairly charitably, “how do you know.”
I almost agree, but I think the right question (though it may come off as tactless when stated this way) is "What causes you to believe that?"
Yep that's the basic gist. Reword it for audience appropriately, picking "how" vs. "what reason" vs. "why" and "know" vs. "believe" as needed. The point is to describe the basis and method, rather than arguing over whether the label "knowledge" applies ot it.

fnxtr · 16 March 2015

callahanpb said: (snip) A lot of things amount to working assumptions (including ones about human affection, trustworthiness, etc.) and I am more comfortable thinking of them in these terms.
Well, that's the key thing about science: it works.

TomS · 16 March 2015

eric said:
callahanpb said:
So I think “what should count as knowledge” is a much crappier question and much more likely to lead you on a useless sidetrack compared to asking, fairly charitably, “how do you know.”
I almost agree, but I think the right question (though it may come off as tactless when stated this way) is "What causes you to believe that?"
Yep that's the basic gist. Reword it for audience appropriately, picking "how" vs. "what reason" vs. "why" and "know" vs. "believe" as needed. The point is to describe the basis and method, rather than arguing over whether the label "knowledge" applies ot it.
Except that what causes me to believe that the Earth goes around the Sun is something in my history, and probably means nothing at all to anybody else. Somebody in my childhood whom I trusted told me that, for example. Or, for you super-materialists out there, beliefs in my brain are chemicals which are caused by chemical reactions, and those chemical reactions in my brain cannot cause anything to happen in your brains. Or for you super-spiritualists out there, God caused me to have that belief - (If you think I'm kidding - aren't there people who think that I have the right belief, the one that gets me into heaven, not due to me, but the "grace of God"?) - and there's telling whether he will cause you to have the same belief.

Dave Luckett · 17 March 2015

TomS said: (If you think I'm kidding - aren't there people who think that I have the right belief, the one that gets me into heaven, not due to me, but the "grace of God"?) - and there's telling (sic) whether he will cause you to have the same belief. (I think that should be "there's no telling whether he will cause you to have the same belief.")
That's for sure, only most of them will tell you that you actually do have the right belief, and you're just denying it out of sheer cussedness. Remember Biggy? He was absolutely sure that atheists actually do believe in God, and only falsely asserted otherwise. That's ridiculous, said Biggy. Everyone has faith. You do, too. You really do believe in God, you're just in rebellion against him out of pride and anger... It's a strange, strange world out there.

DS · 17 March 2015

TomS said: Except that what causes me to believe that the Earth goes around the Sun is something in my history, and probably means nothing at all to anybody else. Somebody in my childhood whom I trusted told me that, for example. Or, for you super-materialists out there, beliefs in my brain are chemicals which are caused by chemical reactions, and those chemical reactions in my brain cannot cause anything to happen in your brains. Or for you super-spiritualists out there, God caused me to have that belief - (If you think I'm kidding - aren't there people who think that I have the right belief, the one that gets me into heaven, not due to me, but the "grace of God"?) - and there's telling whether he will cause you to have the same belief.
Right. That's why "believe" and "know" are two different things. The only reason to believe is because you know. Believing things that you don't know is called faith. The problem arises when people believe that believing is the same as knowing. This is why science can reach consensus and religion cannot.

TomS · 17 March 2015

DS said:
TomS said: Except that what causes me to believe that the Earth goes around the Sun is something in my history, and probably means nothing at all to anybody else. Somebody in my childhood whom I trusted told me that, for example. Or, for you super-materialists out there, beliefs in my brain are chemicals which are caused by chemical reactions, and those chemical reactions in my brain cannot cause anything to happen in your brains. Or for you super-spiritualists out there, God caused me to have that belief - (If you think I'm kidding - aren't there people who think that I have the right belief, the one that gets me into heaven, not due to me, but the "grace of God"?) - and there's telling whether he will cause you to have the same belief.
Right. That's why "believe" and "know" are two different things. The only reason to believe is because you know. Believing things that you don't know is called faith. The problem arises when people believe that believing is the same as knowing. This is why science can reach consensus and religion cannot.
So, what is the cause of my knowledge that the Earth is orbiting the Sun? A) God B) Chemical reactions c) None of the above

DS · 17 March 2015

TomS said: So, what is the cause of my knowledge that the Earth is orbiting the Sun? A) God B) Chemical reactions c) None of the above
Well unless you have examined the evidence yourself, you don't really know. You might believe that others know because they have examined the evidence, but that is not the same thing. You might believe others if they show you the evidence and demonstrate that they are able to make accurate predictions based on their model, then you would know because you did look at the evidence yourself. In any event, the cause of knowledge is evidence and sound reasoning, not god.

Mike Elzinga · 17 March 2015

TomS said: So, what is the cause of my knowledge that the Earth is orbiting the Sun? A) God B) Chemical reactions c) None of the above
Actually it is quite easy if one is curious and engaged with the real world; you discover that you can check things out for yourself. Kids do this all the time if they are curious; I was just such a kid. Kids can validate the concepts in electromagnetism by playing with wires, coils of wire, magnets, charged combs picking up bits of paper, etc, etc, etc. This remains true for other areas of physics, chemistry, biology, geology, or any other science. The extrapolation from those direct, validating experiences to the reported experiences of other scientists then becomes a matter of being able to imagine how - given the time, money, and equipment - one can carry out those experiments and observations that others have done. This is what experience with the real world teaches you; you learn how to interrogate nature itself. Such a process sorts out the liars and pretenders from those that tell the truth about their experiences. It gives young kids the tools to be able to determine what is true and what is not. The intellectually deprived kids who grow up in authoritarian, ideological environments - learning to play word games with what they read or with what they are told - never learn what engagement with the real world is like. They grow up to become the denizens of UD, putting on airs and pontificating on all sorts of things for which they have no direct experience; and they are almost always wrong about everything and afraid to check out anything that they can't word-game into what they already believe.

eric · 17 March 2015

DS said: Right. That's why "believe" and "know" are two different things. The only reason to believe is because you know. Believing things that you don't know is called faith. The problem arises when people believe that believing is the same as knowing. This is why science can reach consensus and religion cannot.
I tend to think of knowledge more as a range or matter of degree than a binary category. My confidence in different claims varies; the ones I have high confidence in I generally say I "know" while the ones I have lower confidence in I don't, but there is no objective or even humanity-wide consensus cutoff. Different methodologies may come with some built-in levels (or lack of) confidence, but even within a specific methodology like empiricism, the amount of confidence you can have in a claim can vary from "I'd bet my life on it" high to "I wouldn't even bet a dollar at hundred to one odds on it" low. That's why the debate over what counts as knowledge is thousands of years old; because (IMO) we're trying to create a binary categorization out of what is in reality an analog range. And, to reiterate, arguing over how to define knowledge is exactly the sort of debate a theologian wants to have, because that's a theoretical or 'high level' sort of discussion. They don't have to discuss the nitty gritty of their particular, actual knowledge-gaining methodology - their "other way" - in a debate on how to define knowledge. Which is why I suggest we just ignore the temptation to get into such a debate. I don't care how someone defines knowledge. I don't care if we define it the same, or differently. What I care about is understanding what process you went through to gain confidence in the claims you assert are true. Once I understand that process, I will make my own subjective judgment about whether you "know" the claim or not. Think of this as analogous two research papers in front of you, a scientific one reporting the Higgs Boson energy to five sigma and a theological paper claiming to have empirical evidence of God to four sigma statistical confidence (I know that's somewhat nonsensical. Just roll with it as an example). The theologian wants to have this debate with you: is four sigma statistical confidence good enough? Is five? Should it be more? Are we being too stringent? But he very very much does not want to show you his methods section. In contrast, I do not care to have the "is x sigma enough" debate. Instead, I very much want to see his methods section. When you get into a "what counts as knowledge" debate, you are letting him hide his methods section in favor of debating how many sigma.

callahanpb · 17 March 2015

DS said: Believing things that you don’t know is called faith.
Most things people believe aren't backed up with a sound justification, or even an attempt at one. I don't think it's very useful to classify all unsupported beliefs as faith. Some are so intrinsic that very few people subject them to critical analysis. This includes correct beliefs: "I need water to survive", as well as incorrect ones: "Heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones." (in general, not just because of air resistance). Some beliefs are a matter of received wisdom (e.g., a set of suboptimal techniques learned from a master of a craft and followed without any improvement). Others are probably instinctive (I will die if I don't get a glass of water soon). Many of these beliefs are useful though flawed, and this explains why they are retained. They can be made more useful by applying critical analysis, but there is not always time or the means to do so. You could use the word "faith" as an umbrella term for all unjustified belief, but this does not seem like a very useful approach to me. It is conventionally restricted to unjustified beliefs about either religion, the trustworthiness of other people, or assumptions about unknowable future events (probably not an exhaustive list, but connotation is tricky). It is not usually applied to unjustified bits of conventional wisdom. Or how about "I will die if I don't get a shot of heroin"? Somebody might really believe that to the core of their being. It is probably not true in the short term. It is almost certainly not subject to critical analysis. I would call that an unjustified belief triggered by a dependency. I would not call it faith because that just doesn't seem like a conventional use of the term. Compare: I have faith in God. I have faith that my business partner won't cheat me. I have faith the the picnic will work out tomorrow even if the weather seems a little dicey right now. Those seem like conventional uses, but only cover a subset of unjustified belief.

TomS · 17 March 2015

I'd like to draw your attention that I asked for the cause for your knowledge about a particular point. That was the topic which one of you brought up. (Actually, the topic was about belief, but that seemed to change to knowledge. OK. Whatever.)

Whatever causes me to have a particular knowledge is something which is a matter of personal history. I really don't know how I came to realize that the Earth goes around the Sun. It was not because I measured a stellar parallax. I am guessing that even among those professional astronomers who know how to measure stellar parallaxes, that that is not the cause of their knowledge of the motion of the Earth. They knew, I guess, that the Earth was in motion in orbit long before they got that skill.

Mike Elzinga · 17 March 2015

Nobody would have any knowledge without any experience. Nobody lacking experience with the real world would have any knowledge about the real world.

Our neural systems are trained by the natural world as long as we allow ourselves to be immersed in it. This training begins even as our neural systems are forming. For example, our neural systems actually learn to see. Take away the stimuli and parts of our neural networks don’t develop even if after stimuli are restored

If you cut yourself off from the natural world and read only one book while allowing others to tell you how to interpret it, you become an idiot no longer capable of learning.

Just Bob · 17 March 2015

Mike Elzinga said: If you cut yourself off from the natural world and read only one book while allowing others to tell you how to interpret it, you become an idiot no longer capable of learning.
Gee, whom could you possibly be talking about?

fnxtr · 17 March 2015

Just Bob said:
Mike Elzinga said: If you cut yourself off from the natural world and read only one book while allowing others to tell you how to interpret it, you become an idiot no longer capable of learning.
Gee, whom could you possibly be talking about?
Twilight fans.

harold · 18 March 2015

TomS said:
DS said:
TomS said: Except that what causes me to believe that the Earth goes around the Sun is something in my history, and probably means nothing at all to anybody else. Somebody in my childhood whom I trusted told me that, for example. Or, for you super-materialists out there, beliefs in my brain are chemicals which are caused by chemical reactions, and those chemical reactions in my brain cannot cause anything to happen in your brains. Or for you super-spiritualists out there, God caused me to have that belief - (If you think I'm kidding - aren't there people who think that I have the right belief, the one that gets me into heaven, not due to me, but the "grace of God"?) - and there's telling whether he will cause you to have the same belief.
Right. That's why "believe" and "know" are two different things. The only reason to believe is because you know. Believing things that you don't know is called faith. The problem arises when people believe that believing is the same as knowing. This is why science can reach consensus and religion cannot.
So, what is the cause of my knowledge that the Earth is orbiting the Sun? A) God B) Chemical reactions c) None of the above
B) Chemical reactions. Choice "C)" is clearly wrong. Although "chemical reactions" is a terse phrase, to someone who isn't being deliberately obstinate, nervous systems work via specialized chemical reactions. These include reactions that occur due to environmental things like pressure and heat, but once the nervous system is involved, chemical reactions come into play. I'm counting net movements of ions, changes in protein configuration, and whatnot as chemical reactions, of course. Choice "A)" is wrong if interpreted as excluding choice "B)". You've left out choice "D)", which is "B is correct but I believe in God anyway, even though God's existence can't be tested". From my perspective, everyone who agrees that "B)" is necessary and sufficient has the correct scientific answer. Extraneous reference to deities or mysterious forces is simply irrelevant, if not constructed in such a way to deny that B is necessary and sufficient. Thus if choice D were included, I would give credit for either B or D. In science, Occam's razor is a valuable heuristic but not an absolute requirement. Philosophically D would seem to introduce items that are both irrelevant and unnecessary, but if it leads to the same scientific answer, it leads to the same scientific answer. Choice D is similar to but distinct from Last Thursdayism. Last Thursdayism says that science is wrong, but that God has set things up so that science "seems to be" right. Choice D, basically what is clumsily called "theistic evolution", simply says "I agree with all the science but I still think God is out there somewhere". I don't personally agree with it, but it isn't a scientific issue. You were correct to leave out choice D, because it is irrelevant. If you include it, you might as well include choices E and F, "B is correct but I like chocolate better than vanilla" and vice versa, and an infinite number of other questions with the construction "B is correct plus something irrelevant that can't be tested objectively". That's what the NAS is saying. An alternate "D", which would be even worse, would be "B is correct but if you choose B this is a betrayal of your culture, your family, your political ideology, etc". That's the creationist D. What the NAS is saying, as I understand their statement, and I agree with it, is "B is the correct scientific answer because it can be logically and empirically shown to be true about the human nervous system. For example if TomS is under total anesthesia and we tell him new facts, he won't easily remember them, but if he is conscious and able to pay attention he may, and we can fine tune this to a high degree and show that certain types of brain activity, which are indeed classifiable as electrochemical, are required. Thus B is the correct scientific answer, with no scientific controversy. If you feel that this impacts on your philosophy, deal with it on your own time".

Bobsie · 20 March 2015

harold said:
TomS said: So, what is the cause of my knowledge that the Earth is orbiting the Sun? A) God B) Chemical reactions c) None of the above
B) Chemical reactions. Choice "C)" is clearly wrong.
Someone explain to me but I always had the understanding that the orbit of the Earth about the Sun was explained by physics not chemistry. The physics of mass and motion. So I would have picked "C".

harold · 20 March 2015

Bobsie said:
harold said:
TomS said: So, what is the cause of my knowledge that the Earth is orbiting the Sun? A) God B) Chemical reactions c) None of the above
B) Chemical reactions. Choice "C)" is clearly wrong.
Someone explain to me but I always had the understanding that the orbit of the Earth about the Sun was explained by physics not chemistry. The physics of mass and motion. So I would have picked "C".
1) He didn't ask what the cause of the Earth orbiting the Sun is, he asked for the cause of his knowledge that the Earth orbits the sun. The Earth orbits the Sun whether he has knowledge of it or not. His knowledge is a function of his brain. 2) Anyway, there's no clear line between physics and chemistry (or either and biology). The Earth and the Sun have gravitational attraction to one another because they have mass. They have mass because of the kinds of particles that make them up. The particles are the basis of atoms and molecules.

harold · 20 March 2015

2) Anyway, there’s no clear line between physics and chemistry (or either and biology). The Earth and the Sun have gravitational attraction to one another because they have mass. They have mass because of the kinds of particles that make them up. The particles are the basis of atoms and molecules.
Of course physics and chemistry can be usefully separated despite the areas of overlap. If the question had been "Which branch of science is most associated with explaining and calculating planetary orbits, physics or chemistry?", then physics would be a better answer. But again, the question was about brain function. It could equally have been "my knowledge that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776", or even "my wrong knowledge about something".

Bobsie · 21 March 2015

Thanks Harold. I tripped on the question. Just to splits hairs for entertainment, I might say my knowledge is caused by electricity; electrical impulses throughout the cells of my brain. :)

Mike Elzinga · 21 March 2015

One of the best indicators of the fact that brain activity is physical and chemical comes from the phenomena of hypothermia and hyperthermia; which take place in warm-blooded animals below about 60 degrees Fahrenheit and above about 108 degrees Fahrenheit.

As most physicists and chemists who have worked with the properties of materials in the laboratory will know, varying the temperature of the material being studied is a common way to determine the magnitudes of the interactions of particles within the material. It is a direct measurement of the average kinetic energy per degree of freedom of the constituents of the materials. It gives a handle on the relative magnitudes of the thermal kinetic energies and binding energies of the constituents of the materials.

Also, physicists and engineers who work with the materials of electronic and photonic devices are well aware of the fact that these devices are designed to work within a temperature range in which the charge carrier mobility and the charge carrier density are optimal. Temperature has a huge effect on both; and the effects in living organisms are similar because temperature has a big effect on how tightly electrons and ions are bound within the neural networks of the organism. The thresholds for chemical activity are very sensitive to temperature. The soft matter of living organisms is condensed matter that is very near the threshold of coming apart; that's why it is soft.

A cold brain doesn't work very well; neither does an overheated one.

harold · 21 March 2015

Mike Elzinga said: One of the best indicators of the fact that brain activity is physical and chemical comes from the phenomena of hypothermia and hyperthermia; which take place in warm-blooded animals below about 60 degrees Fahrenheit and above about 108 degrees Fahrenheit. As most physicists and chemists who have worked with the properties of materials in the laboratory will know, varying the temperature of the material being studied is a common way to determine the magnitudes of the interactions of particles within the material. It is a direct measurement of the average kinetic energy per degree of freedom of the constituents of the materials. It gives a handle on the relative magnitudes of the thermal kinetic energies and binding energies of the constituents of the materials. Also, physicists and engineers who work with the materials of electronic and photonic devices are well aware of the fact that these devices are designed to work within a temperature range in which the charge carrier mobility and the charge carrier density are optimal. Temperature has a huge effect on both; and the effects in living organisms are similar because temperature has a big effect on how tightly electrons and ions are bound within the neural networks of the organism. The thresholds for chemical activity are very sensitive to temperature. The soft matter of living organisms is condensed matter that is very near the threshold of coming apart; that's why it is soft. A cold brain doesn't work very well; neither does an overheated one.
It's also quite sensitive to sudden acceleration and other such things. An interesting thing is that although the brain can conceive of purely abstract concepts, the conception only survives as long as a functional brain is around. Putting aside dolphins secretly doing mental math or something, if there were no human brains on Earth, there would be no conception of pi. And if you think that pi "really exists" somewhere (it may for all I know or care), just remember that you won't be "going" there. You can easily injure your brain enough to no longer be able to understand or remember the concept of pi, while still being a somewhat functional human being. You can lose the ability to understand pi but still remember who your wife is, or vice versa. Your entire self-conception is the brain, and every aspect of the brain can be destroyed by physical injury.

Mike Elzinga · 21 March 2015

harold said: It's also quite sensitive to sudden acceleration and other such things.
It has always been a curious argument on the part of ID/creationists that somehow the atoms and molecules of life don't behave in the way they do if they are the parts of other organic or inorganic structures. They don't obey the second law of thermodynamics and - just like junkyard parts and ASCII characters - they can't assemble into complex structures without the intervention of "intelligence." No matter what the molecules, the ID/creationist "information" of assembly is always minus log2(1/N L). ID/creationist chemistry and physics are simple(minded) compared to "materialist" physics and chemistry. This would also suggest that "other types" of atoms and molecules, in the form of neurotoxins, poisons, strong inorganic acids and bases, don't interact with the molecules of life in the way that they do with "ordinary types" of molecules. It would suggest that lead poisoning - either in the form of leaded paint or bullets - shouldn't have deleterious effects; after all, they are just inert random atoms or molecules that can't do anything without a blueprint and the intelligence behind a plan of attachment to the "living" molecules. A simple ID/creationist experiment should dispel the myth of the atomic and molecular "exclusivity" of living organisms; get bit by a deadly viper or plunge your hand into a strong acid or base or even into boiling water. Or try a swan dive off a tall building. But ID/creationists don't even think about experiments under any circumstances; the results might not come out as expected and might conflict with sectarian dogma. (You can probably guess that I have been occasionally looking in on the mind-boggling inanity and stupidity over at UD. It's painful to watch; yet it exists.)

Just Bob · 21 March 2015

harold said: It's also quite sensitive to sudden acceleration and other such things. An interesting thing is that although the brain can conceive of purely abstract concepts, the conception only survives as long as a functional brain is around. Putting aside dolphins secretly doing mental math or something, if there were no human brains on Earth, there would be no conception of pi. And if you think that pi "really exists" somewhere (it may for all I know or care), just remember that you won't be "going" there. You can easily injure your brain enough to no longer be able to understand or remember the concept of pi, while still being a somewhat functional human being. You can lose the ability to understand pi but still remember who your wife is, or vice versa. Your entire self-conception is the brain, and every aspect of the brain can be destroyed by physical injury.
But... but... the Bible says your mind and emotions are in your heart (and probably your soul, too). There's not the slightest hint that any bit of your cognition, consciousness, personality, or whatever has anything to do with your head, let alone a brain. IIRC, there's not even a mention of a brain in the Inerrant Bible.

eric · 23 March 2015

harold said: An interesting thing is that although the brain can conceive of purely abstract concepts, the conception only survives as long as a functional brain is around.
Arguably not even that long; if it's a pattern of neuronal activity, then it might disappear from your brain when you sleep. Memory is (re)constructive; not everything you remember is hard-coded into some pattern of physical neurons, some of its just activity. When the pattern changes or disappears, so does the memory. Arguably, every morning the person who wakes up in your body is a very slightly different person than the one who went to sleep...one who just thinks they are the same person. Mike:
This would also suggest that “other types” of atoms and molecules, in the form of neurotoxins, poisons, strong inorganic acids and bases, don’t interact with the molecules of life in the way that they do with “ordinary types” of molecules. It would suggest that lead poisoning - either in the form of leaded paint or bullets - shouldn’t have deleterious effects; after all, they are just inert random atoms or molecules that can’t do anything without a blueprint and the intelligence behind a plan of attachment to the “living” molecules.
I believe most mainstream mind/soul dualists today will acknowledge that biology influences our "immaterial" intelligence. I'm not sure how they account for the independent action of the soul other than with an even-shrinking god of the gaps argument (i.e., the action of the soul on the brain occurs wherever science can't yet explain something). It is theologically relatively easy to deal with "bad" physical influences like a bullet in the head or alcohol; you say that when we die, the soul doesn't carry those bad influences with it, they are left with the body. You are freed from your chemical limitations! But what about stuff like oxytocin? It makes us more trusting, honest, and cooperative. So when I die and I'm free of the chemical influence my body has on my soul, does that mean I become an untrusting bastard? :)

Mike Elzinga · 26 March 2015

eric said: So when I die and I'm free of the chemical influence my body has on my soul, does that mean I become an untrusting bastard? :)
Since, presumably, you no longer have any interactions with matter; you get to defy the second law of thermodynamics with impunity and no living individual will ever notice.