Common Sense: Part II

(See my previous post for the comments I'm responding to)

Ahhh ... Erin ... much like the person whose original post started this discussion, you too have the nasty habit of ignoring or avoiding the lion's share of what I write and simply pressing on with telling me what you think ... regardless of whether or not it's related. For instance, I notice you continue to insist that words mean whatever you think they do, and although you approach it in a different manner, you're still insisting that formal education is somehow negative. Plus, you have a real knack for invoking logical fallacies. I notice this time the ad homenim fallacy is particularly prevalent, so let's start there.

While it's totally irrelevant to how science works, or what the scientific evidence says, or the existence of a magical sky-god of some sort, my life is neither sad nor empty. I'm also not at all angry that someone disagrees with me. I'm used to being disagreed with. In fact, I encourage my students to disagree with me ... especially if they can sustain and back up their positions with logic, reason and valid, objective evidence. Nonetheless, in a country where roughly 90% of the population believes in a magic sky-god, has minimal understanding of science, and votes either Demopublican or Republicrat - I'm usually solidly in the minority. Yet I continue to indulge in discussions like this one. I actually kind of enjoy them. It's one of my many satisfying hobbies.

Now, continuing on the ad hominem theme, accusing me of being an "elitist" doesn't change that a.) the majority of the population is intellectually average or worse (the Bell Curve) b.) the majority of the population makes very poor decisions on the whole (look at levels of household debt, irresponsible breeding practices, electing Clinton, Bush & Obama, pop music, network television, etc.) and c.) appears to put more thought into the car they drive or the clothes they wear than they put into their theological or political perspectives. Truth is not a democratically arrived at thing, and neither is logic or science. It doesn't matter what people think: evidence is the what makes or breaks a position.

And speaking of evidence, I'd love to see something other than hyperbole to support your claim that "alternative" medicine has a solid basis in science. A fair bit of stolen taxpayer loot is funneled into the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine every year, and yet when push comes to shove, it always turns out the same: if a natural thing can be proven, under controlled, replicable scientific conditions, to be effective in treating a given ailment or condition, it becomes medicine. If it can't, it's just magical thinking. In fact, this is where your profound ignorance of science and the scientific method becomes readily apparent: no reputable scientist would object to any new herb / leaf / root / practice if it could be proven to work according to the scientific method. Pharmaceutical companies would like it too -- because they could produce it and sell it (and if you really want a surprise, look at how many big pharmaceutical companies also manufacture a lot of the herbs, supplements and other products that the "alternative" folks hawk). Just to repeat myself again, science isn't a belief ... it's a methodology. But when something that is demonstrably nonsense (i.e. homeopathy) and has been repeatedly proven to be nonsense continues to be trotted out as "alternative" medicine, don't be shocked if it's called nonsense. But if you can produce actual studies (or links to actual studies) of some kind of magic thinking that you consider to be "scientific", I'd happily look them over.

Another thing that you obviously fail to grasp about science is that anecdotes do not make science (they don't stand up in court either). Knowing a person or two who have had a particular experience establishes at most one thing: the person you know has had a particular experience. That's all an anecdote proves ... if it hasn't been colored or filtered through a particular perspective. Statistical relevance requires more than a few carefully chosen examples. Otherwise, you're just cherry-picking to prove your point. For instance, as a libertarian, I absolutely support the right of the individual to choose whatever treatment they wish to undergo, from whomever they wish to receive it from. If you wish to trust a physician who believes in both "alternative" medicine and a magic sky-god ... be my guest. But that hardly proves the validity of a person's credentials or the extent of their abilities. That could only be established by doing research into the status of their medical license, the results they've had, the complaints filed against them, etc. While belief allows one to simply decide what is or is not true on the spur of the moment, a reasoned approach takes time and effort.

And speaking of taking time and effort, I fully understand (as someone who does a lot of writing), that in the draft phase of any writing project, one simply tries to get ideas onto the screen before they evaporate. This happens to me all the time as well. But one of the many signs of both education and attentiveness to detail is putting in the extra effort to actually use the spell-checker, as well as to re-read and edit what you've written. It not only makes it easier for your readers to follow your argument, but it lends credibility to your position if only because it makes you sound like a literate person instead of someone who just sat down at the computer and rambled. Perhaps this too is elitist of me ... but then again ... it is a part of the formal education I've received: the same one for which you have so much disdain.

Finally, I must chuckle at your need to make political threats against me regarding what the heroic conservative movement is going to accomplish in 2012 and how it's going to fix my wagon. As with so much of your thinking, you obviously really don't have a clue what a libertarian is, or that the libertarian position simply does not lend itself to being pegged on the traditional right-left spectrum. Should you be interested, a simple illustration can be found here. But in a nutshell, libertarians value both personal and economic liberty, and hence oppose the welfare-warfare state as it currently exists. Moreover, if in days like these, when our currency is being debased, our liberties are being eroded, and our economy is poised to crash and burn ... your biggest concern is overturning Roe vs. Wade, well ... it explains much to me about why you believe in magical sky-gods, magical "alternative" medicine charlatans, and the wisdom of the common people.

Common Sense: I Don't Know Too Much ... But I'm Sure I Know Enough

As many readers of this blog (all three of you) well know, I can't resist engaging in the verbal thrust-and-parry of a good argument from time to time. I admit it's usually an exercise in working through things in my own head ... I don't really delude myself that I'm having the impact on society of a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens ... but it's fun and occasionally it results in my clarifying something in my own thinking.

A few days ago, I decided to post a few critical thoughts on someone's Facebook page about a quote attributed to Mother Theresa. This resulted in no actual meaningful dialogue with the poster ... unless one would consider angry scolding "dialogue". But a friend of the poster (hereafter FOP) did respond in at least a civil and pleasant manner, and as a result I endeavored to lay out a brief summary of why I have serious doubts about the existence of any kind of magic sky-god, a soul, or an afterlife (while this post isn't exactly the same thing I wrote, it conveys the same general idea). Yesterday I received a response from FOP, and it inspired me to post a far more detailed response here than would be practical on Facebook. But I will be posting the link to this blog entry, just in case FOP would like to continue the discussion. Also, instead of having to type (sic) repeatedly, I'll just mention that all comments from FOP are in italics and reproduced exactly as FOP typed them. This discussion begins by FOP elaborating on how "too much college" makes people ... well ... less likely to know things:

"... it is the kind of education one recieves that is important. i prefer the real world kind and i also prefer the commonsense kind. when i say "too much college" i'm taking about people who have too much formal education and not nearly enough street smarts. i'd pick street smarts anytime between the two."

Now this is a common lament. It's so common in fact, that I've heard it from Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Communists, Socialists, religionists, new agers, homeopaths, anti-vaccine activists, non-dairy raw foodists, etc. etc. etc. Essentially, "common sense" is a magical phrase that appears to actually mean "whatever I want to be true". As far as I can tell, it's a combination of two common logical fallacies: the appeal to authority, and the appeal to popularity. The underlying premise is often that the world (and universe) are inherently simple, or at least can be made inherently simple, by forcing everything into a black & white, good & evil paradigm.

"Street smarts" is another phrase that seems to mean whatever the speaker wants it to. For instance, when I think of "street smarts", I think of thugs, con men, common thieves, drug dealers and their addicts, etc. In other words, to me it means people who live on the streets in a bleak and stark fight for daily survival. But I suppose "street smarts" could also mean a slick businessman, a savvy door-to-door salesman, or an ethically challenged used car salesman.

However, I think it's pretty obvious that FOP is using these two terms simply to draw the contrast between the common folk and those who have had too much "formal education". This has always amused me, because it's essentially asserting that people with less formal education are somehow smarter because they're ... well ... uneducated. Yet one only needs to understand a Bell Curve to realize that the majority of people are at best of middling intelligence, and a fair portion of them are below average. So if "common sense" and "street smarts" are valuable because they are rooted in the opinions, perceptions and experiences of the majority, it would probably be best to avoid them.

For instance, I'd wager that FOP wouldn't want a surgeon who relied on street smarts and common sense, or -- for that matter -- a mechanic, a pharmacist, a bridge engineer or a computer programmer. I'd bet FOP would like a highly educated, formally trained expert -- especially if FOP's life, job, or economic future depended upon it. It's just for the big questions ... like the magic sky god, that common sense are reliable I suppose.

Moving right along ....

"...most of what you learn in college, as in any formal schooling, is what you are being force fed by a person that wil add his slant to it.

While this is a favorite claim of conservative talk radio hosts, it's only partially true. Yes, there are cases where leftist professors attempt to turn their classes into socialist indoctrination centers ... especially in the Humanities (and, for the record, I am employed as an instructor by a major American university ... and I'm a libertarian ... and I've seen it and experienced it). But it's a gross overgeneralization and oversimplification. I suppose in this case FOP is using it because I had argued that science provides evidence-based answers to the big questions while religion is just a bunch of made-up stories. Hence, the only way to defeat science (without bothering to actually learn it and understand it) is to reduce it to the same level as religion: simply a matter of opinion. This is a common tactic used by creationists as well.

"... as you said, you don't believe any of the scientific stuff because you don't have true evidence.

My actual comment regarding science and belief was: "Now -- I don't BELIEVE any of this. Belief is the acceptance of something without evidence. I provisionally accept it for the time being because the preponderance of evidence supports it." In other words, I was attempting to refute the religionist claim that everything is simply a matter of belief, and underscore that science requires evidence. Apparently FOP is not only challenged when it comes to spelling and punctuation, but also doesn't read very carefully .......

"... i think that believing in the science of how the world began, is much more of a myth and fairy tale than anything the God theory prvides. i'm sorry that you don't have any proof for your theory. it must be hard living in a world that is so accidental.

Now this is classic creationism. FOP ignores my overt rejection of belief as the basis of scientific inquiry, pushes the requirement for evidence aside, and then totally misrepresents evolutionary theory by invoking "accident" as the driver of the evolutionary engine. This is truly a classic strawman fallacy: First set up a wholly oversimplified, false, and absurd view of evolution, then proceed to attack it while ignoring all of the actual arguments and evidence.

Now it just becomes fun:

"... i, on the other hand, do have much proof that their is a higher power. because of my commonsense, i can look at a 70 foot tree, that grew from a very tiny seed and can conclude that this was no accident. even if it had been an accident, would it happen over and over again? i think not!"

Indeed it isn't an accident. The seed of the tree contains the necessary DNA and genetic code to grow into a tree. It happens all the time ... over and over again. While this is splendid proof of how DNA and reproduction function, it offers no evidence of a magic man in the sky.

"... then i can look at my grandbaby and conclude that this is one of the greatest of miracles of all. but, then again, because of my pesky commonsense, i have to ask myself, could this of happen by chance? then comes the answer, "how could this be chance, when there are millions of grandmas beore me that have had one of these pefect humans in their lives and wondered the same thing?""

A common definition of "miracle" is as follows: "a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency." Millions of babies are born every day. Many of them are not perfect ... some are retarded, some have birth defects, some have congenital disorders. It's just how life works. There's nothing special or miraculous about it. If birth is a miracle, so is urination. Moreover, no evolutionary biologist would ever claim that all this happend by chance. But, again, to know this one would have to actually take the time to read what evolutionary biologists really assert and put forth the effort to understand it. Religionists are not only poor logicians, they're also often intellectually very lazy.

"... how about all the plants that have just the right vitamins and nutrients that we humans need to survive, could that be by chance also?

Ummm ... no ... but I think it should now be clear that it's not all about "chance". Plus, lots of plants are poisonous to us. Certain species die as environmental conditions change. Some plants are quite pleasant, but eating too many of them is unhealthy. And, of course, there are the ever evolving and improving sciences of botany and animal husbandry which improve the quality of food produced and increase the quantity. There'd be a whole hell of a lot fewer of us if we had to depend upon the mythical sky god to provide enough wild food.

"... i could go on for days about all the miracles that sit before you but you would not change your mind because you have been "educated" to believe in science when admittedy, you have no proof!"

As I've said repeatedly, I don't "believe" in science, nor have I been educated to "believe" in science. One of the key differences between science and religion is the way they process evidence. Science gathers evidence, forms hypotheses, tests hypotheses, and ultimately draws conclusions that are technically provisional (i.e. new evidence could augment, update or disprove them) but for all practical purposes are "true". Religion begins with conclusions, and then does anything necessary to justify and rationalize those conclusions. New evidence is simply not allowed, because the underlying conclusions cannot be challenged. I honestly doubt that even if FOP did bother to learn biology, or evolutionary theory, or enough astronomy and physics to understand how the universe really works it would make any difference: the underlying conclusions are sacrosanct, evidence is irrelevant, and "common sense" trumps reason and logic.

But I don't want to convey the impression that I'm posting this just to argue with FOP, because I'm not. I'm posting it because I hear this kind of argument on a weekly basis from all sorts of FOPs out there. This deification of "common sense" and folk wisdom and corresponding rejection of science and education is found in so many different places: creationism, the anti-vaccination movement, so-called "alternative" medicine, conspiracy theories ... the list goes on and on. And underlying it all is ignorance and profound resentment of education, science and the scientific method.

This is probably why we get the government that we do: the sheeple want good education, but not too much, and certainly not enough to challenge their silly beliefs, irrational superstitions, and precious status quo.