If he was only addressing American matters, didn't that tip you off?
Not even the slightest? Not a single blip on your radar?
My responses to Michael Shermer
- Thread starter Diamond
- Start date
-
- Tags
- michael shermer
If he was only addressing American matters, didn't that tip you off?
Not even the slightest? Not a single blip on your radar?
I think this was interesting too
Shermee wrote
Not knowing is not knowing if there is or isn't. Just because one doesn't know, doesn't mean it necessarily makes sense to act as if there isn't.
Kind of like walking down a dark alley. I don't know if there is a thug around the corner, but acting like there isn't might not be the best of ideas. Or if there is a terrible glare from the sun while you're driving and you can't see the color of the approaching traffic light. It might not be the best of ideas to drive through it.
Best to keep an open mind and act accordinly without assuming as Shermer and others doo.
Shermee wrote
Not knowing is not knowing if there is or isn't. Just because one doesn't know, doesn't mean it necessarily makes sense to act as if there isn't.
Kind of like walking down a dark alley. I don't know if there is a thug around the corner, but acting like there isn't might not be the best of ideas. Or if there is a terrible glare from the sun while you're driving and you can't see the color of the approaching traffic light. It might not be the best of ideas to drive through it.
Best to keep an open mind and act accordinly without assuming as Shermer and others doo.
Hmm. I find those analogies odd. You don't assume the alley is safe because dark alleys have a proven reputation for being unsafe. The glare from the sun whilst driving is a known cause of accidents.
Both of these assumptions/precautions are to protect your own safety.
Are you saying we shouldn't dismiss the notion of God because it might be detrimental to our safety to do so?
That's not what Shermer says at all, and you know it. You deliberately took it out of context:
You are perfectly aware that Shermer argues that, since we haven't any evidence of an afterlife, we shouldn't live life as if there was an afterlife.
You never grow tired of your pathetic attempts of misrepresenting skeptics, do you? Regardless of what it means to your own credibility.
Not knowing is not knowing.
If I don't know A exists, why is it logical to therefore assume A doesn't exist?
It seems like it is truly logical to say "I don't know either way since I don't know."
You continue to leave out the pertinent part: That no evidence of A has been found.
True to form, you make it look as if Shermer jumps to an unfounded conclusion. He doesn't.
Yes, you're right. So where do you draw the line? You have to have a filter because otherwise you must assume that every idea conceivable might be true, and that's a pretty stupid way to live. You can be a skeptic, but you also have to be a functioning member of society.
I don't want to patronise you by mentioning, say, Santa Claus, but that would fall under your premise. True logic is fine as long as you allow it to remain theoretical and don't start a religion based on it.
Good example. T'ai Chi argues that it is logical to assume that Santa exists.
No, one does not. As mentioned, one can simply say
"I don't know either way since I don't know."
Not sure why one would have to come down on either side.
We believe Santa was made up, loosely based on the acts of St. Nicholas. We can trace the modern story to around the 1700s. In short, Santa is highly unlikely for these things that we know.
Now we don't know the same for god(s). We don't know it/their exact history and we haven't surveyed all of space and time to say anything about their non-existance as a fact. The best one is able to do is say that humans write about god(s). But since god(s) are typically credited with creation of the entire universe (not just delivering presents or coming down chimmineys or being fat or wearing red suits), it is infinitely more difficult to say something about.
But again, if there is no evidence of A, what logic tells you that there it is OK to assume A does not exist? By doing this one is really saying 'I believe A to not exist' or 'I don't want A to exist', or 'I cannot conceive of A existing' or 'I am biased against A'.
I have a box. There might be an item in it, there might not be. Sounds like some would say that because you cannot see inside the box, therefore it is OK to assume there is no item in the box. An equal but opposite error would be to say that there is an item in the box even though you cannot see inside the box. Seems to make more sense, logically, to say that one simply doesn't know what is or isn't in the box because one cannot see inside the box.
Allowing for the possibility by not coming down on any side isn't a hinderance; it is called keeping an open mind when you don't know something. Our minds aren't like stuffed attics where if we put something in we have to take something out.
Last edited:
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
I am pretty sure he knows that. Given that he has co-written a book about the holocaust.
It looks like you are miffed that he left out the situation in the rest of the world. It would have been nice to see that addressed, but is leaving it out worth the anger?
It is not as if he insulted the rest of the world. He only happened to address the problems the US is having.
I suspect the context of what has been written may be escaping a great many readers. There is an ongoing NPR feature called "This I Believe". It would appear that Shermer has written one but published it here. I suspect NPR may have turned him down on broadcasting it.
Even on it's face the anger here does not make any sense. Had he addressed the situation in Europe, he could probably have drawn the rath of some for discussing a situation that he does not have much expertise in.
What's your problem? Get over it. No, American is not the world and I even have a bumper sticker with ther American flag that says "These Colors do not Run the World"... but I live in America and so does Shermer and that's why we talk about America. Doh. You are the dumbass if you don't see that.
Brrrr… such a mean and nasty tone. Totally unnecessary IMHO.
However, I got a different sense of bias from Dr. Shermer’s intro. Is it my bias, his or both that causes this? (I admit, probably both).
Most notably, take the from the second sentence from his commentary:
“Specifically, I believe that biodiversity is a good thing and that we have been rapacious in our treatment of the environment, although I think the environmental movement has greatly exaggerated our condition and that the environment is a lot more resilient than most environmentalists believe.”
Isn’t this a subtle ad hominem attack?.
I’m not sure what he means by most environmentalists. Is he referring to the global warming debate? PETA? EPA? Greenpeace? NASA? For any group with over-exaggerated claims of problems arising from environmental changes, one can find plenty of groups with understated claims of affects of the change. After-all, we live under a corporate capitalist system. It is rich and powerful, much like the Catholic Church was in Europe in the middle ages. Is our present system anymore in agreement with reality than the Vatican was? I think the system we live under can bias the debate if we are lazy in our analysis. Some science states that we are in the midst of a period of extinction, not caused by a cataclysm, but by human activity. Here in Canada, there is clear historic evidence from numerous sources as to radical changes to the make up of the environment.
In my own anecdotal experience, there has been quite noticeable man-made changes to the environments I have lived in. For instance, I can’t find frogs where I used to in the area I grew up as a kid, as the forest & ponds there are now houses. People in my present neighbourhood tell me that they used to hunt deer where my house now stands. I don’t even know where I’d find the nearest deer. I’d assert the environmental change is real, but the conclusions one can draw from it are less certain. Are these changes a good thing, bad thing or indifferent is a much more difficult and complex issue. Personally, I don’t know how one can conclude that “the environmental movement has greatly exaggerated our condition and that the environment is a lot more resilient than most environmentalists believe.”
One thing I question from Dr. Shermer’s intro is - is he un-biased enough, (and therefore skeptical enough) to argue his case? I’d like to hear more about what conclusions he came to, and how he arrived at them. Maybe I should read his magazine more, (only thumbed through it so far), but am less inclined to now from his intro.
It’s an important point for me, as he’s touted as such a positive force in the so-called ‘skeptic community’ - (An oxymoron IMHO, and should be). There's lot's of sources of info out there with varying degrees of bias. Life's too short to keep reading political tracts when I crave science & discovery. I’m withholding judgement for now.
However, I got a different sense of bias from Dr. Shermer’s intro. Is it my bias, his or both that causes this? (I admit, probably both).
Most notably, take the from the second sentence from his commentary:
“Specifically, I believe that biodiversity is a good thing and that we have been rapacious in our treatment of the environment, although I think the environmental movement has greatly exaggerated our condition and that the environment is a lot more resilient than most environmentalists believe.”
Isn’t this a subtle ad hominem attack?.
I’m not sure what he means by most environmentalists. Is he referring to the global warming debate? PETA? EPA? Greenpeace? NASA? For any group with over-exaggerated claims of problems arising from environmental changes, one can find plenty of groups with understated claims of affects of the change. After-all, we live under a corporate capitalist system. It is rich and powerful, much like the Catholic Church was in Europe in the middle ages. Is our present system anymore in agreement with reality than the Vatican was? I think the system we live under can bias the debate if we are lazy in our analysis. Some science states that we are in the midst of a period of extinction, not caused by a cataclysm, but by human activity. Here in Canada, there is clear historic evidence from numerous sources as to radical changes to the make up of the environment.
In my own anecdotal experience, there has been quite noticeable man-made changes to the environments I have lived in. For instance, I can’t find frogs where I used to in the area I grew up as a kid, as the forest & ponds there are now houses. People in my present neighbourhood tell me that they used to hunt deer where my house now stands. I don’t even know where I’d find the nearest deer. I’d assert the environmental change is real, but the conclusions one can draw from it are less certain. Are these changes a good thing, bad thing or indifferent is a much more difficult and complex issue. Personally, I don’t know how one can conclude that “the environmental movement has greatly exaggerated our condition and that the environment is a lot more resilient than most environmentalists believe.”
One thing I question from Dr. Shermer’s intro is - is he un-biased enough, (and therefore skeptical enough) to argue his case? I’d like to hear more about what conclusions he came to, and how he arrived at them. Maybe I should read his magazine more, (only thumbed through it so far), but am less inclined to now from his intro.
It’s an important point for me, as he’s touted as such a positive force in the so-called ‘skeptic community’ - (An oxymoron IMHO, and should be). There's lot's of sources of info out there with varying degrees of bias. Life's too short to keep reading political tracts when I crave science & discovery. I’m withholding judgement for now.
But you don't know, do you? You don't know that Santa doesn't exist, do you?
Interesting that you refer to belief when it comes to Santa, but knowledge when it comes to god(s).
The difference is that we have peeked inside the box and discovered that there is nothing inside the box. So, your analogy only shows that your argument is wrong.
Anyways: Do you know that Santa doesn't exist?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,570
I live in Ohio. The leading candidate for governor is apparently enmeshed with a political organization posing as an evangelical crusade, run by evangelical preacher Rod Parsley. Church and state are melding in Ohio. It makes me quite uncomfortable.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/ohio_irs_inquiry_times_jan16_05.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Ohio Restoration Project
Everyone has the right to participate in politics. Churches acting as political action committees should be subject to the laws all political action committes are subject to.
The clerics who fan the flames of hatred by using the "Danish cartoons" as an excuse are not much different from the clerics who fan the flames of fear and loathing here in the United States of America. The difference is only one of degree. Here, the fearmongering focuses on evolution, homosexuals, and abortion. Lately, in Ohio, the religious groups support laws that target homosexuals. Soon there will be other targets.
The freedom protected by separation of church and state is freedom of religion. When the church is merged with the state, the state may then persecute all non-state religions.
Yes, many of us are tired of the kowtowing attitude toward the politically active evangelical Christians, and for my part, I am tired of it because it is the politics of division, not unity. I think it suits the purposes of the politicians to divide and polarize the country. When it no longer suits their purposes, the religious will find themselves excluded. Unfortunately, religion is a great tool for maintaining power.
Anyone who wonders why we are worried about the enmeshment of church and state need only look up the history of Anthony Comstock. That's how things were in this country when church and state were pretty much one.
http://www.theocracywatch.org/ohio_irs_inquiry_times_jan16_05.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Ohio Restoration Project
Everyone has the right to participate in politics. Churches acting as political action committees should be subject to the laws all political action committes are subject to.
The clerics who fan the flames of hatred by using the "Danish cartoons" as an excuse are not much different from the clerics who fan the flames of fear and loathing here in the United States of America. The difference is only one of degree. Here, the fearmongering focuses on evolution, homosexuals, and abortion. Lately, in Ohio, the religious groups support laws that target homosexuals. Soon there will be other targets.
The freedom protected by separation of church and state is freedom of religion. When the church is merged with the state, the state may then persecute all non-state religions.
Yes, many of us are tired of the kowtowing attitude toward the politically active evangelical Christians, and for my part, I am tired of it because it is the politics of division, not unity. I think it suits the purposes of the politicians to divide and polarize the country. When it no longer suits their purposes, the religious will find themselves excluded. Unfortunately, religion is a great tool for maintaining power.
Anyone who wonders why we are worried about the enmeshment of church and state need only look up the history of Anthony Comstock. That's how things were in this country when church and state were pretty much one.
Last edited: