Quote of the week

50 thoughts on “Quote of the week”

1. Great quote, tho I can guess how you’ll likely review the book.

2. Sub

3. Great quote of Wilson, although I think his interpretation of that “different ways of knowing” idea is somewhat flawed as it only emphasizes the horns of the dilemma without offering much in the way of a way off them. Seems to me that it – along with Gould’s “Non-overlapping majesteria” – is a serious stumbling block and a significant contributing factor to the problematic “Two Cultures” phenomenon described by C.P. Snow.

   But unless the religious can prove that their minds – or rather brains – use some different processing techniques from those afforded to we lesser mortals – maybe “God” only transmits on the 10-meter band which only their brains are tuned to receive – it is more reasonable to assume that we all use the same methods. More specifically, I would say that we all – scientists and historians and plumbers and philosophers and architects and librarians: virtually every classification in society – use, apparently, the same basic “toolkits” composed, largely, of both inductive and deductive reasoning or, somewhat equivalently, hypothesis generation and testing – to a greater or lesser extent depending on training and discipline. One might argue, as the British scientist and Nobel Laureate P.B. Medawar in effect argued in his Two Conceptions of Science, that the “same imaginative and critical acts which unite to form the hypothetico-deductive method” are the same ones used by every one of us – to a greater or lesser degree and effect – to generate information, data and solutions of varying degrees of accuracy and utility. It is just that the religious – and the humanities in general, particularly theology – have little more than “just-so stories”: heavy on the hypothesizing – “making stuff up”, but very light on the deductive and empirical testing.

4. Well, whatever he says about group selection, he got this right! Nice quote!

5. Just a comment that I don’t think Einstein was that soft on the idea of a deity either (if by that one means any sort of intelligent, purposeful being), and his use of religious language was metaphorical (and political, not wanting to cause trouble for religious Jews, at a time when his standing and profile was exceptionally high).

6. A fantastic book, written by a true living legend.

   Tomorrow starts my church’s VBS (that’s Vacation Bible School, for you people not from the South). The theme? “God made the world in 6 days, not 6 billion years.”

   Is it even LEGAL to get 300 children together inside a church and have the church leaders tell them “believing” in Evolution will send them to hell?

   I’d pass out copies of Wilson’s book and WEIT to the church staff, but it’s pretty obvious they haven’t read a book in the last 50 years…or ever passed a science class.

   1. Why would you be a member of such an organization?

   2. I think that perhaps Mr. Wilson believes what I believe: there is a God, but the vast majority of all organized religions have nothing to do with her/him. Organized religion is a tool (and a very useful one) that allows one or a group of leaders to control people effectively, efficiently and economically by exploiting humanity’s need to understand this world and our place in it.
      And just to be fair to all sides, I was raised in a Roman Catholic household and spent the first 12 years of my education in private Catholic schools. In addition, I spent a couple of weeks each summer with my Southern Baptist grandmother, who sent me to vacation bible school (trying to mitigate the ‘papist’ pollution of my soul, I would guess.) In all of these educational settings I was taught not only the current evolution theories and introduced to all the sciences, I was taught that the Old Testament was for the most part metaphoric (especially the 2 different accounts of the creation of the world) and written so those who read or told it could understand it, much the way Jesus spoke in parables.

      1. I believe that there are invisible pigs living in the tree in front of my house.

         1. If you can document any of this, you could make a fortune. Although it might be difficult to get a conventional photo, you might try thermal imaging, ALS (or some other applied science. Once you have the data documented, you should claim your rights, and make a fortune. What this has to do with the existence of God, I don’t see.
            I have made a couple of responses to a few of the posts here. Some I have agreed with, some I haven’t. But I have always been polite and respectful. You haven’t had the same courtesy. You all appear to be rude, arrogant and unwilling to examine any view but your own. Since the bulk of you are obnoxious fools, I won’t bother reading your post any longer. While there is extreme danger of future leaders being vulnerable to ideas of rabid religious fundamentalists, there is equal to the danger of atheist fundamentalists trying to beat down the 10 thousand years (at the very least) of human’s faith in something greater than himself. You are, at the very least propagating “facts” that cannot be proven in any scientific way. You are a bunch of intolerant, biased NON- scientist who refuse to accept any teaching not your own. I have never found such a bunch of implacable idiots anywhere. Luckily for me, I live in a world of REAL scientists who don’t restrict their beliefs to anything without proper investigation and who don’t refuse to take a look at anything that might endanger their beliefs. One thing you might want to look at all the times where scientist has turned out to be simply WRONG or mostly wrong. It is sad to see in our age of information people who still blindly follow their own bigoted and blind ‘leaders.’

            1. These pigs don’t produce any thermal signature. Mysterious, I know.

               Yes, we are pretty much all rude, obnoxious fools here.

               Thank you for sharing.

            2. Yes, we are pretty much all rude, obnoxious fools here.

               Rude mostly towards those who, as Dennett said in his immortal tribute to Hitchens, “expect to be treated not just with respect but with a special deference that is supposedly their due because the cause they champion is so righteous.”

            3. Luckily for me, I live in a world of REAL scientists who don’t restrict their beliefs to anything without proper investigation and who don’t refuse to take a look at anything that might endanger their beliefs.

               Just out of curiosity, since I at least found that a little hard to parse, what do you mean by it? Which “REAL” scientists would you be referring to? Which “UNREAL” scientists are restricting their beliefs without proper investigation? And which “UNREAL” scientists are refusing to look at something that might endanger their beliefs?

               In addition, which “facts” do you think are being “propagated that can’t be proven in any scientific way”? Also, what specifically do you think is the “something” that is being beaten down that humanity has supposedly had faith in during the “last 10 thousand years (at the very least)” which is supposedly
               “greater than himself”?

            4. Just because you asked, I will tell you. I almost cut my connection to this site after being attacked so rudely simply because I mentioned that I believe that there is a god. What I believe about god does not coincide with any church I have ever investigated, and I generally keep it to myself. I have often declared that organized religion is the greatest evil that mankind has ever conceived. I have also stated that religion has very little to do with god and everything to with acquiring wealth and power and total control of one’s subjects. And I have never discussed my belief with anyone and obviously have never tried to force them on anyone.
               I was raised in a very devout Catholic family who was and is made up mostly scientist and engineers. Although my believe system has changed, very few of my large devout and scientific family have no problem with juggling the two. I know for an absolute fact that they and all their associates are truly gifted intellectually and artistically and religion has not rotted their brains. In my education in Catholic schools for 12 years I was never taught that science and religion were in any way contradictory. We were taught all the sciences, including evolution, geology, physics, chemistry, et al, without the bible or creationism ever being mentioned. My comments were made first to let you know that there are very many brilliant and accomplished scientists who have no difficulty acknowledging both and do not endanger the world. As far as your last questions, my REAL scientist, as is necessary for anyone to study god, view it as something we cannot subject to scientific test; that is beyond our capacity and so must be taken in simple faith. Those things of our world that require study, they do under all the serious and rigorous protocols that any atheist scientist would. And lastly just about any anthropologist and they will tell you every human society has had some type of religion whether original perhaps to explain the power or nature Humans from their very beginning have had this feeling or weakness, some would say, that there is something ‘greater’ out there, which has made them easy prey.

            5. The fact that some people are capable of partitioning their brains to allow them to perform as scientists in some contexts and completely anti-scientifically in other situations (Francis Collins is a classic specimen) does NOT demonstrate that these ideas are compatible. To suggest that it is reasonable to believe in something for which there is not a shred of evidence and yet be scientific IN THAT CONTEXT is totally (pardon me here) ridiculous. All it demonstrates is that people are capable of maintaining two mutually incompatible ideas in their heads at one time.

               Oh… and speaking as a recovered Anthropologist/Archaeologist myself, yes, it is true that religion is has been a theme throughout human history. This fact is no reason to seek to maintain the practice. Rape and murder have also featured prominently in human societies. I’m willing to wager that you would be fine if they were eliminated from our world.

            6. lisa,

               Thanks for taking a stab at answering my questions – some of which still seem to be unanswered – and sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Although I seriously question your arguments in response, starting with this:

               I know for an absolute fact that they and all their associates are truly gifted intellectually and artistically and religion has not rotted their brains.

               Just because we can see well in some areas does not mean that we don’t have blind spots. Refusing to see or concede that point tends suggest if not rot then at least some reduced function.

               My comments were made first to let you know that there are very many brilliant and accomplished scientists who have no difficulty acknowledging both and do not endanger the world.

               The first part is addressed by the concept of blind spots, but that “endanger the world” is a rather subjective and questionable argument. That fundamentalists might represent some odious tips of the iceberg does not at all preclude the ship of state being holed by what’s below the water line. For example, you might be interested in this article (but probably not) titled The Bloody, Awful, Horrible Catholic Church by Joseph Hoffmann written in the context of Rick Santorum’s volte-face relative to Kennedy’s more sensible position on the separation of church and state. His closing point in particular bears some reflection:

               And how much guilt does the Church bear for encouraging this treason against the first principles of American democracy by egging on the clods?

               But the following is, I think, the crux of the problem and a very serious if not fatal flaw in your argument:

               As far as your last questions, my REAL scientist, as is necessary for anyone to study god, view it as something we cannot subject to scientific test; that is beyond our capacity and so must be taken in simple faith.

               But your premise there – an article of faith as you concede, but really only a hypothesis – is that god is something – someone? – that actually exists. However, that there are probably “people, places and things” that we simply cannot “subject to scientific test” is certainly a plausible conjecture, but to dogmatically assert the existence of any one of them a priori is the very antithesis of a scientific philosophy.

               Seems to me that any REAL scientist is going to admit that their hypotheses are entirely contingent – not something that the facts have to be massaged and twisted out of all semblance of truth to correspond to or to be consistent with.

7. As an engineer, I’m very disappointed to read that Wilson lumped engineering (and medicine) with theology.

   We engineers might not all understand as much science as scientists do, but we depend on it completely and use it extensively in research.

   Theology, on the other hand, is philosophizing about fairy tales.

   1. A fair point. Medicine and engineering are basically applied science, with a necessary dose of professional judgment in the face of impossible complexity and our collective ignorance about things, while theology is just, well … philosophizing about fairy tales.

      I’ll bet Wilson knows that though. He’s probably just trying to be nice to the theologians.

   2. More precisely, it is philosophizing about *religious* fairy tales.

      The rest is non-theological philosophizing.

   3. Point well taken. It felt odd to me too. Was it a spoonful of sugar tossed to any religious readers, to help the medicine he was administering go down?

      1. Spoonful of sugar? More like a pint of gasoline thrown at engineers & doctors. Followed by a lit match. A-la Lisbeth Salander.

         1. More like a pint of gasoline thrown at engineers & doctors.

            If Jerry can argue – as he has done, and quite reasonably so in his “definition of scientism” post – that “plumbing is a form of science” then that statement looks a little over-the-top.

            Seems to me that the problem – which many people seem to manifest, including Massimo Pigliucci – comes from a too narrow definition of the word “science” which Wikipedia defines as:

            Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

            By which token what doctors, lawyers, philosophers, scientists, engineers and, probably, Indian chiefs do – at least to the extent they use the “hypothetico-deductive method” – is still science. For instance, doctors are, in many cases, starting from a hypothesis as to the cause for a particular disease and who then proceed to do empirical tests to confirm or refute it.

            And even theologians might also be considered to do that as well except that their premises – their hypotheses – and rules of inference haven’t progressed much past the level of astrology; overly, if not desperately, attached to them, I think.

   4. My interpretation is that he means that science is in a different category than specific disciplines such as engineering, medicine and theology. That he is saying that science is a more general methodology. As in mammal is a more general category than cat, human or bat. I don’t think you need to be offended by this. He is not comparing engineering and medicine to theology, except at the very basic level. Instead of listing all the multitude of specific disciplines that humans study, he gave three examples.

      I agree completely with his thinking on this. The successful methods for sussing out useful information about reality, that we have formalized as “the scientific method”, are absolutely generally applicable and should be the basis, or at least part of the basis, of any more specific discipline.

      1. With respect, I don’t buy it. Science is more than just the scientific method. And engineering and medicine are more than just “specific disciplines.” A lot of science happens in engineering; a lot of engineering happens in (some types of) science. Ditto for medicine. Theology, on the other hand – well, one of these things is not like the others.

         1. No worries, but I think you are misinterpreting what Wilson is trying to say.

            “Science is more than just the scientific method.”

            Couldn’t agree more. Actually I think that fits very well with what Wilson is trying to convey. Engineering and medicine, for example, are more specific disciplines compared to the methods of interrogating reality that, when formalized, are generally referred to as the scientific method. This is as much like a world view as a field of study.

            Engineering and medicine do certainly overlap into “interrogating reality” on the research side, but in general these fields are focused on the application of what has been learned by the previous use of the “methods of interrogating reality.” The difference is that science is nothing but figuring out how reality functions. And you don’t have to have “science” in your title to do science.

            I don’t want to put words in Wilson’s mouth, and I certainly could be wrong, but that is my take on it.

            1. I don’t want to hog this thread, so I’ll just give this one last comment.

               I see what you’re suggesting about some kind of primacy of science. Fine. The real bee in my bonnet is to confound engineering and medicine with theology.

               I noted that there’s lots of science in engineering and vice versa. (Ditto with medicine, depending on context.) Taking that one step further, I would suggest that it’s *very* hard to tell the difference between engineering and science (and medicine and science); they both have huge “gray areas” – boundary layers where they mix together richly.

               There’s no such boundary layer between science and theology. Yet grouping them together (not so subtly) implies some kind of connection that I just refuse to accept.

            2. I agree. I may be mistaken, but I believe he’s grouped them together only for the purpose of exposing what he views as a category error. Science is categorized as a “way of knowing” and plumbing, theology, medicine, marketing, astrophysics and engineering are “disciplines”. For my own purposes I’m defining “discipline” as a branch of study or human endeavor that seeks to find out about the world and (usually) apply this information in some meaningful way. To that end, each discipline will have to employ a “way of knowing” (or several, although, as it happens, I agree that the only reliable “way” that is deserving of the title is science, broadly construed). Of course, the degree to which each of these disciplines employs science as its methodology varies considerably, and of course medicine and engineering are more exact (and useful) disciplines than, say, theology, but that’s irrelevant; he’s only trying to underline the difference between categories (“ways” and “disciplines” in my own terminology), not compare within disciplines.

   5. When I was learning about what science is and how scientists think, my first role model was my father, a mechanical engineer and an atheist. He has varied interests that also include history and music (he plays several instruments). It did not occur to me that he might NOT be considered a scientist until I was in college and studying geology, a field that tends to ridicule engineers but also overlaps with some types of engineering.

      Anyone who has a lot of experience with doctors knows that much of medical practice is “enterprise”, as Wilson calls it; there is also a lot of ritual, assumption-making, and even superstition. The “science” of medicine happens in the research lab, where new discoveries and treatments are studied. Most of it doesn’t translate to everyday care for patients except indirectly as products or services; the doctor is most definitely NOT a scientist.

      I don’t see a way to put theology in the same category as science, any more than buying My Little Pony is going to teach you how to ride a horse.

      The US Forest Service (and sometimes BLM) uses “ologist” to describe all professional employees of a certain grade. It says nothing about their education or qualifications, since they’re “agency qualified” and may or may not have a degree that matches the job, or even any degree at all. Some of the jobs are truly scientific positions and some aren’t. So don’t be overawed by a suffix – “theology” is just another attempt to legitimize religion.

   6. And I’m disappointed that wacky theologians with a bible degree are addressed “doctor”.

   7. “As an engineer, I’m very disappointed to read that Wilson lumped engineering (and medicine) with theology.”
      Well, Wilson isn’t here to clarify what he meant, but you are, so: do you object to the assertion that there is a category that includes both engineering and theology? Wilson is contrasting a general epistemology with specific subject matters. Presumably, he includes both engineering and theology not because he thinks they are similar, but precisely they are so different. It’s like saying “From A to Z” or “From sea to shining sea”.

      And I think people seriously overestimate how scientific doctors are. Here’s an exercise: find 100 doctors and see how many get the following question right “Patients drawn from a population with an HIV infection rate of 0.1% are given an HIV test with a 97% accuracy rate. If there are 300 positives, how many would you expect to actually be HIV positive?”

      1. Well said. Perhaps I should’ve read all the way down before posting my own explanation.

8. Wilson is a Euatheist.

9. Reblogged this on emmageraln.

10. I recall watching a televised interview with Wilson around the time that The Creation was published, while Wilson was in the midst of his effort to reach out to religious adherents over ecological concerns.

    He described himself then as a “seeker” (presumably meaning one who thirsts after knowledge, rather than a member of the Sixties Australian pop-folk group best known for the title tune from the movie Georgy Girl) and compared his reaction, as a native Alabamian, to a well-crafted sermon by a Baptist preacher to what an Italian must experience while listening to a Verdi or Puccini opera being performed.

    But even then Wilson made it clear he rejected the truth claims of religion, and referred to the major religions as “iron-age superstitions.”

11. Off topic, but not sure how else to contact:

    I thought Jerry would appreciate the title of this paper in EPSL.
    “Peregrinations of the Greenland Ice Sheet divide in the last glacial cycle: implications for central Greenland ice cores”
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X00001084

    Scott

12. I’m with Wilson if he’s unwilling to bash believers. I disagree with them, but feel it’s not necessary to insist they’re wrong.

    They find comfort in the thought that rightousness in this world will earn a reward in the next. If they leave me alone, I’m more than happy to let them believe whatever helps them make it through the night.

    1. The problem here is that they are very rarely willing to leave you alone. At the very least they indoctrinate their children with those wrong ideas.

       And it’s not as matter of bashing believers. It’s their beliefs that we should bash, and should continue to bash, if they are wrong and if they cause harm to those indoctrinated with them.

    2. “I disagree with them, but feel it’s not necessary to insist they’re wrong.”
       If they bring up their beliefs, then to a certain extent, I think that we do have an obligation to point out that they’re wrong. And the word “evangelist”, by definition, refers to someone who DOESN’T leave other people alone. We have God in the Pledge, on our money, and pretty much every State Republican Party. Christians are trying to push their views on birth control, homosexuality, creationism, etc. on other people. Obama even threw in a gratuitous swipe at atheists in his speech announcing Osama’s death.

    3. What does “insist they’re wrong” mean? If a person comes up to you and tells you that the sun spins around the earth wouldn’t you insist that they were wrong?

       Do you think it is unseemly to insist than believers are wrong when they try to get creationism taught in science class?

13. This ‘ways of knowing‘ nonsense is one of the more common slights of hand performed by theists, and some philosophers. This and those other two religious con tricks: the hidden presuppositions of God that are used to ‘prove’ God, and the abuse of language that results in Dennett deepities, pretty much covers religious belief.

14. Once awe and some knowledge about the cyclical movements of the planets, moon, stars, comets, eclipses, etc. was co-opted and anthropomorphized by the control freak/ pedophilic clergy and utilized to instill fear, subjugate, control and exploit their fellow primates, religion became poison. It was poison then, it’s poison now. Religion, at best, is like reading a sixth grade science book from thousands of years ago. It was a view of life based on fantasy and ignorance, perped and exploited by the priesthood and royalty and enforced by warriors. Sound familiar?

    1. It always breaks my heart (metaphorically) when supposed adults cannot have a respectful, meaningful dialogue. Since I was forced to be housebound I try to ‘stay connected’ to the world by keeping up with very diverse websites and blogs. I initially thought this one represented both hard science and atheist points of view. Now I’m desperately hoping that you aren’t a representative. All of my postings are always polite and respectful. None of you have ever managed either. Most of what I posted agreed with yours.I did not ever ask or even indicate that you must change your belief system to mine. I only offered another point of view, hoping for a spirited debate. I have agreed But you are so narrow minded and totally close-minded that I have a hard time believing you are scientists. You people are so full of rage that I truly worry about you.

       1. “You people are so full of rage…”

          Oh, give me a break. Make your case if you have one. If you require special kid-glove treatment, some other website might be more comfy for you. Ideas get challenged here and if that makes you sad, well….

       2. “You people are so full of rage…”

          Oh, give me a break. Make your case if you have one. If you require special kid-glove treatment, some other website might be more comfy for you. Ideas get challenged here and if that makes you sad, well….

          1. I never criticized the exchange of ideas, just the rude and/or snide remarks made by those who post comments here. And I really meant that I was concerned for the health of some of them. The rage is palatable; it cannot be good for them. Skim through several comments made by atheists to any idea that involves religious belief. Many of them (not all, maybe not most, but several) spout ridicule as zealously as any bible thumping fundamentalist preacher. And with just as much willingness to allow any other point of view. I can’t tell much difference. I’m sure I will spend eternity roasting over a Bunsen burner.
             I would also prefer that no one sacrifice some sweet little cabrito for protecting hands.

             1. Rage? Really? I think you are confusing ridicule with rage. They are entirely different. And, I’d say, ridicule is entirely appropriate when it comes to the ridiculous.

             2. Ridicule and rage are really good buddies, and they are very adept at making the person to which they are projected to either to slink away feeling stupid and humiliated or become loud,obnoxious and insulting.It is never necessary to be rude, obnoxious or ridiculing when exposed to a different opinion. Even when attacking such an idea, it isn’t hard to be certain that you attack the idea, not the person. If your debate partner does not feel humiliated, there is always the chance you can make them willing to listen and even persuaded to you opinion.

             3. I don’t know if it is ever _necessary_ to use any particular style of conversation. But that does not rule out the value of ridicule: of some bad ideas, and some public figures.

                There are people who are willfully ignorant. There are others who make deceptive arguments. And there are, in fact, truly ridiculous ideas floating around in public. Ridicule is entirely appropriate for these sorts of situations. (Indeed, the art of political comics is often at its best when deploying ridicule.)

                Whether the target of ridicule appreciates it or not is not a particularly good reason to avoid using ridicule. Very often the beneficiaries of the technique are third party observers. If ridicule targeted at, say, Glenn Beck results in a single bystander recognizing him for what he is, then it is ridicule well worth having been employed.

                None of that is equivalent to “rage”.

15. Theology is more like Engineering or Medicine? I can go with that.

16. I never doubted his views on religion were agin it, it was just the co-operation / group selection thing that has led me to have doubts about his views.

Comments are closed.