Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Here's how I envision things. Skeptics and scientists would say that through experimentation and falsification we make gradual progress towards modeling objective reality more and more closely.
Click to expand...

So would postmodernists, though. The difference is that the postmodernists would not want to take the publications at face value, but would want to consider social context.

Let me give you an example within the natural sciences... according to the literature, acupuncture works really well in China but very poorly elsewhere. This seems unlikely to represent an underlying reality based on analysis and review of a wider body of literature and our knowledge of how political power and personal expecatations distort content. So the best explanation is that it's an artefact of the culture that produced the publications.

Tsukasa Buddha suggested that "The notion of simple biases is not the exclusive domain or scope of postmodernism..." and I half agree - what's happened is that contemporary science has absorbed and adopted key postmodern concepts and they are important parts of examining scientific claims.

The progress has been gradual, though: Drs. Novella and Hall are certainly model skeptics, and this higher-level analysis is the underlying motive for pushing "science based medicine" as an augmentation of "evidence based medicine" - it's an acknowledgement that the scientific literature can't be taken at face value, but has to be analyzed in social context.
 
blutoski said:
So would postmodernists, though. The difference is that the postmodernists would not want to take the publications at face value, but would want to consider social context.

Let me give you an example within the natural sciences... according to the literature, acupuncture works really well in China but very poorly elsewhere. This seems unlikely to represent an underlying reality based on analysis and review of a wider body of literature and our knowledge of how political power and personal expecatations distort content. So the best explanation is that it's an artefact of the culture that produced the publications.

Tsukasa Buddha suggested that "The notion of simple biases is not the exclusive domain or scope of postmodernism..." and I half agree - what's happened is that contemporary science has absorbed and adopted key postmodern concepts and they are important parts of examining scientific claims.

The progress has been gradual, though: Drs. Novella and Hall are certainly model skeptics, and this higher-level analysis is the underlying motive for pushing "science based medicine" as an augmentation of "evidence based medicine" - it's an acknowledgement that the scientific literature can't be taken at face value, but has to be analyzed in social context.
Click to expand...
IMHO, we would be better to consider the problem as an epistemic one rather than a relative one. Truth doesn't change based on perception (leaving aside the collapse of the wave function for now) but our ability to model reality is limited by the limits of our imagination and competence. I think Plato's Cave allegory more enlightening as to the problem. It's not that facts are bending to cultural perception but that culture, coupled with the placebo affect are changing perceived outcomes as opposed to actual ones (acupuncture cannot regrow limbs. The efficacy of acupuncture is similar to faith healing). The difference can be accounted for scientifically based on our current models of biology and psychology. I think it would be fair to state that any differences of opinion in the literature are the result of human error.

Assuming I've not misrepresented your position. In which case I apologize.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
Let me give you an example within the natural sciences... according to the literature, acupuncture works really well in China but very poorly elsewhere. This seems unlikely to represent an underlying reality based on analysis and review of a wider body of literature and our knowledge of how political power and personal expecatations distort content. So the best explanation is that it's an artefact of the culture that produced the publications.
(...)
The progress has been gradual, though: Drs. Novella and Hall are certainly model skeptics, and this higher-level analysis is the underlying motive for pushing "science based medicine" as an augmentation of "evidence based medicine" - it's an acknowledgement that the scientific literature can't be taken at face value, but has to be analyzed in social context.
Click to expand...
I think this is a profound misunderstanding of science and scientific literature. There is no "social context" that needs to be considered. All that matters is scientific rigor, something Postmodernism falls far short of.

Your example of acupuncture in China is also fails. The best explanation is not that it's an artifact of culture. The best explanation is that it's most prevalent in China due to an accident of history making China the origin of the practice, and the lack of scientific rigor in the studies that supposedly show its efficacy. It's only cultural in that China does not have the tradition of objective observation and experimentation that has formed the foundation for Western scientific exploration since the Enlightenment. However, many of the studies which found greater efficacy were not necessarily Chinese in origin; but were conducted by westerners who also lacked the necessary scientific rigor; and their findings fit well within a Postmodernist framework.

Postmodernism is, at it's core, a rejection of pure objectivity, or at least a de-emphasis on the possibility of objectivity and focus on subjective experience. The problem with trying to define Postmodernism beyond that is there is no coherent philosophy or methodology to rely on. No set of core philosophies or methodologies that one can point to to differentiate "real" Postmodernists from outliers. In fact, the very foundation of Postmodernism denies such a foundation is even possible; and "outliers" are simply taking principles to their logical conclusion.

The skepticism you've claimed as the purview of Postmodernists did not originate with the movement, but in fact originated with the Enlightenment and came into prominence with 17th century Rationalism. Postmodernism did not contribute the concept of skepticism, that originated in Enlightenment thought. What Postmodernists did was misappropriate the concept, and re-defined it to mean a rejection of the possibility of objective observation and evaluation of claims and assertions, in favour of a subjective focus on the claimant entity itself. Postmodernist "skepticism" is the opposite of scientific skepticism, the entire purpose of which is to minimize, if not fully eliminate, the effect of observer bias and subjectivity, and arrive as close to objective truth as is humanly possible; re-evaluating conclusions only as measurements become more accurate, and observations more objectively demonstrable.

That is why Postmodernist thought has grown up primarily in the Humanities, where subjectivity has free reign. It has managed to infiltrate the "soft" sciences, where objective observation and metrics are more difficult to obtain; but has been soundly rejected by the "hard" sciences.
 
blutoski said:
The progress has been gradual, though: Drs. Novella and Hall are certainly model skeptics, and this higher-level analysis is the underlying motive for pushing "science based medicine" as an augmentation of "evidence based medicine" - it's an acknowledgement that the scientific literature can't be taken at face value, but has to be analyzed in social context.
Click to expand...

OT: But I don't think social context has much to do with SBM vs EBM. Here's what they say:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/about-science-based-medicine/

Good science is the best and only way to determine which treatments and products are truly safe and effective. That idea is already formalized in a movement known as evidence-based medicine (EBM). EBM is a vital and positive influence on the practice of medicine, but it has limitations and problems in practice: it often overemphasizes the value of evidence from clinical trials alone, with some unintended consequences, such as taxpayer dollars spent on “more research” of questionable value. The idea of SBM is not to compete with EBM, but a call to enhance it with a broader view: to answer the question “what works?” we must give more importance to our cumulative scientific knowledge from all relevant disciplines.
Click to expand...
 
kellyb said:
OT: But I don't think social context has much to do with SBM vs EBM. Here's what they say:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/about-science-based-medicine/
Click to expand...

Yes, but don't fish around for buzzwords... just have a look at what they're doing. They're MDs and have not spent much time discussing the philosophical underpinnings of what is essentially the contemporary approach to evaluating medical literature. I've had face to face conversations with Dr. Hall and she has no philosophy background and would be the first person to admit it.

This is what I meant in an earlier post about most of philosophical postmodernism being mundane and for the most part self-evident here in 2013. It's a description of our era and baked into what we do. Most people don't recognize the tools for what they are, and this contributes to the conflation of terminology.

I had some time to explore this with other skeptical MDs (my wife is an MD so most of my skeptical friends are also MDs) and they eventually have to admit that they're not very familiar with philosophy and gleaned what little they know from reading a paragaph of Dawkins 20 years ago, and something about the Sokal Hoax. Upon review, the only aspects of philosophical postmodernism they really object to are the outrageous and absurd claims that appear to have been popular with a fringe element that is pretty harmless and mostly disappeared from academia. There are maybe ten authors in total, and probably half haven't published since the early 1990s.

On the other hand, their legacy lives on in some fringe groups or communities, and it's possible that they have sunk their teeth into PZ and that we may see him making genuinely questionable claims at some point.

In the meantime, I interpret his post to be saying that skeptics tend to conflate all of postmodernism with its slice of fringe postmodernist philosophy, and that this has led to confusion. I agree with that. I don't think PZ is any more an expert on philosophy than other scientists, so chalk this up to even a broken clock is correct twice a day.


ETA: probably a good read on this particular conflation problem is discussed by Massimo Pigliucci in Nonsense on Stilts. I think he is quite correct that scientists are not usually aware of the philosophy of science, but rather they are methodological experts.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
Yes, but don't fish around for buzzwords... just have a look at what they're doing. They're MDs and have not spent much time discussing the philosophical underpinnings of what is essentially the contemporary approach to evaluating medical literature. I've had face to face conversations with Dr. Hall and she has no philosophy background and would be the first person to admit it.

This is what I meant in an earlier post about most of philosophical postmodernism being mundane and for the most part self-evident here in 2013. It's a description of our era and baked into what we do. Most people don't recognize the tools for what they are, and this contributes to the conflation of terminology.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt what you're saying about the strongest aspects of postmodernism being "worked in" to contemporary medical science. I'm just saying that doesn't have hardly anything at all to do with SBM vs EBM.

The SBM bloggers tend to be biased in favor of medical recommendations coming out of US institutions, which are sometimes in conflict with Cochrane (EBM) reviews and non-US standards.

See: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/new-aap-policy-on-circumcision/
 
The Ilk shirts that Grimalkin designed for Greta and Jen fans now have the non-able bodied version. Those are crutches, just in case you thought they were ski poles. I know I did.

So now we have:

Skinny/Athletic
Chubby/Hugely-Bosomed
Disabled/Ski Bum

They'll have massive numbers of lucky recipients going to Skepticon in no time with fundraisers like this!
 
Last edited:
Empress said:
The Ilk shirts that Grimalkin designed for Greta and Jen fans now have the non-able bodied version. Those are crutches, just in case you thought they were ski poles. I know I did.

So now we have:

Skinny/Athletic
Chubby/Hugely-Bosomed
Disabled/Ski Bum

They'll have massive numbers of lucky recipients going to Skepticon in no time with fundraisers like this!
Click to expand...

Or Greta can buy more shoes!!!
 
tsig said:
A song with only one note soon becomes boring.
Click to expand...

Down in joes garage
We didn't have no dope or lsd
But a coupla quartsa beer
Would fix it so the intonation
Would not offend yer ear
And the same old chords goin over n over
Became a symphony
We would play it again n again n again
Cause it sounded good to me
One more time!
We could jam in joes garage
His mama was screamin,
Turn it down!
We was playing the same old song
In the afternoon n sometimes we would
Play it all night long
It was all we knew, and easy too
So we wouldn't get it wrong
Even if you played it on a saxophone
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Down in joes garage
We didn't have no dope or lsd
But a coupla quartsa beer
Would fix it so the intonation
Would not offend yer ear
And the same old chords goin over n over
Became a symphony
We would play it again n again n again
Cause it sounded good to me
One more time!
We could jam in joes garage
His mama was screamin,
Turn it down!
We was playing the same old song
In the afternoon n sometimes we would
Play it all night long
It was all we knew, and easy too
So we wouldn't get it wrong
Even if you played it on a saxophone
Click to expand...

Nominated!
 
I'm curious here: There was some discussion, and it's been mentioned here, about points regarding certain atheist stuff against Islam as being "racism" and "colonialism". What exactly was going on with that? Is it "racism"/"colonialism" for someone who takes a naturalistic/purely science-based view of reality to claim that there is no more objective scientific evidence for the existence of God as thought of in Islam as there is for God as thought of in Christianity? If they commit to a naturalistic-scientific world view, then does avoiding "racism and colonialism" mean that if pressed on what they believe about the God of Islam, they have to contradict themselves? If a Muslim preacher tries to use upon them some kind of argument that they discover is lacking in scientific merit, then is it racism and bad for them to point out the scientific shortcomings? Is it bad/racist for them to subject the claims and texts of Islam to rationalist/critical analysis like they would for anything else? If yes, then doesn't that mean they have to betray their world view?
 
Last edited:
You can't criticise Islam because it's a "religion of brown people". Or at least, if I remember the thread in question well enough, you can't criticise Islam or Muslims unless it's a criticism which can also be applied to Christianity and Christians and you explicitly mention that it applies to both.

And, yes, that's because you're white and from America and therefore to make a comment about Islam which doesn't also apply to Christianity is racist.
 
Interesting point Mike I've often wondered the same myself. I think it comes down to intent. Take for example the act of punching someone in the face. That could be self defense, it could be assault on another person for any number of reasons but if the reason happens to be racial hatred then the law will tend to take a dimmer view still than it does for assault with another motivation.

The law has trouble here because intent cannot be objectively measured. Sometime the assaulter will declare their intent but in many cases it must be inferred from less definitive circumstances.

The same goes with an attack upon somebody's beliefs. I've observed that people give widely different amounts of damn regarding mere words. From those who don't give one at all asserting that so long as there's no threat of physical violence; "who cares if someone's feelings are hurt;" to those who feel that emotional bullying can be just a severe and have just a serious effects as the physical kind.

Bored as I am of that argument I will simply accept the free speech claim and divorce it from the racism claim. The proud racism who only hurt's people's feelings has nothing to fear from this post.

So apologies then for picking an analogy involving physical violence. Duh!

So Dawkin's defense against islamophobia is that if you criticize Christians you're accused of going after a soft target: "Bet you wouldn't say the same about the Muslims" they chide. Then when you do take on Islam you're accused of being racist. A bit like the "I'm not racist I hate everyone" argument. Except for Dawkins we substitute "superstition" for "everyone." Obviously each of us makes our own judgement about what Dawkins intent might be. I know there are some who accuse the good Doctor of rampant islamaphobia yet to me he seems quite sensible in the way he apportion's his criticism of religion according to identified contemporary harm. I personally have nothing against his intent. And yet the influence the same words have put into a different context can easily be profoundly racist. Here the leader of the far-right English Defense League retweets Dawkins in saying that Islam is one of the great evils in the World. Exactly the same words just as true (or not) in both cases but my subjective opinion is that the intent behind those words was different between when Dawkins said them and when Tommy Robinson repeated them.

Dawkins by my estimations considers himself to be defending science and rationalism from a powerful threat. Robinson on the other hand gives the impression of co-opting those ideas because he doesn't like foreigners coming over here and stinking up the place with their alien culture. Maybe I'm wrong and Dawkins a secretly evil mastermind hiding behind a mask of avuncular bonhomie whilst Robinson is a decent bloke who can't shame off the mantle of Football Hooligan.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
You can't criticise Islam because it's a "religion of brown people". Or at least, if I remember the thread in question well enough, you can't criticise Islam or Muslims unless it's a criticism which can also be applied to Christianity and Christians and you explicitly mention that it applies to both.

And, yes, that's because you're white and from America and therefore to make a comment about Islam which doesn't also apply to Christianity is racist.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. SJ exists solely to criticize out own society so bringing up a topic like shark finning would immediately be shot down as racist with a derail into how bad "we" are screwing up the planet. Well, in theory at least..if they had anybody actually posting there.

Speaking of criticizing Islam I guess we could call Jen McCreight, a racist ) if we wanted to work within the SJW framework ) for creating boobquake.

Speaking of..anybody catch this post where Jen goes on about her phone anxiety and is joined by a chorus of "me too"s in the comment section. Come on Jen, what's the matter, can't you handle conversations where you haven't written the script ? Sounds like basic control freak behavior to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom