If you have pondered how intelligent and educated people can, in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, believe that evolution is a myth, that global warming is a hoax, that vaccines cause autism and asthma, that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush administration, conjecture no more. The explanation is in what I call logic-tight compartments—modules in the brain analogous to watertight compartments in a ship.
The concept of compartmentalized brain functions acting either in concert or in conflict has been a core idea of evolutionary psychology since the early 1990s. According to University of Pennsylvania evolutionary psychologist Robert Kurzban in Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite (Princeton University Press, 2010), the brain evolved as a modular, multitasking problem-solving organ—a Swiss Army knife of practical tools in the old metaphor or an app-loaded iPhone in Kurzban's upgrade. There is no unified “self” that generates internally consistent and seamlessly coherent beliefs devoid of conflict. Instead we are a collection of distinct but interacting modules often at odds with one another. The module that leads us to crave sweet and fatty foods in the short term is in conflict with the module that monitors our body image and health in the long term. The module for cooperation is in conflict with the one for competition, as are the modules for altruism and avarice or the modules for truth telling and lying.
Compartmentalization is also at work when new scientific theories conflict with older and more naive beliefs. In the 2012 paper “Scientific Knowledge Suppresses but Does Not Supplant Earlier Intuitions” in the journal Cognition, Occidental College psychologists Andrew Shtulman and Joshua Valcarcel found that subjects more quickly verified the validity of scientific statements when those statements agreed with their prior naive beliefs. Contradictory scientific statements were processed more slowly and less accurately, suggesting that “naive theories survive the acquisition of a mutually incompatible scientific theory, coexisting with that theory for many years to follow.”
Cognitive dissonance may also be at work in the compartmentalization of beliefs. In the 2010 article “When in Doubt, Shout!” in Psychological Science, Northwestern University researchers David Gal and Derek Rucker found that when subjects' closely held beliefs were shaken, they “engaged in more advocacy of their beliefs ... than did people whose confidence was not undermined.” Further, they concluded that enthusiastic evangelists of a belief may in fact be “boiling over with doubt,” and thus their persistent proselytizing may be a signal that the belief warrants skepticism.
In addition, our logic-tight compartments are influenced by our moral emotions, which lead us to bend and distort data and evidence through a process called motivated reasoning. The module housing our religious preferences, for example, motivates believers to seek and find facts that support, say, a biblical model of a young earth in which the overwhelming evidence of an old earth must be denied. The module containing our political predilections, if they are, say, of a conservative bent, may motivate procapitalists to believe that any attempt to curtail industrial pollution by way of the threat of global warming must be a liberal hoax.
What can be done to break down the walls separating our logic-tight compartments? In the 2012 paper “Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing” in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, University of Western Australia psychologist Stephan Lewandowsky and his colleagues suggest these strategies: “Consider what gaps in people's mental event models are created by debunking and fill them using an alternative explanation.... To avoid making people more familiar with misinformation..., emphasize the facts you wish to communicate rather than the myth. Provide an explicit warning before mentioning a myth, to ensure that people are cognitively on guard and less likely to be influenced by the misinformation.... Consider whether your content may be threatening to the worldview and values of your audience. If so, you risk a worldview backfire effect.”
Debunking by itself is not enough. We must replace bad bunk with sound science.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE
Comment on this article at ScientificAmerican.com/jan2013
This article was originally published with the title Logic-Tight Compartments.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
73 Comments
Add CommentYou are absolutely right. You have a skeptic's perspective and that will influence your thinking.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for a wonderful article. It helps me to understand why evolutionists don't believe in God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, start with the idea that there is no God. That way any evidence that leads in that direction is automaticly rejected. Any gaps in evidence for evolution are filled in with the understanding that the gaps are there because we don't know all the facts yet but we will eventually. Thus the gaps are not important and can safely be ignored.
The only thing left is to label any one that doesn't believe (in evolution) as naive or a crank and you have effectively sealed yourself off from any other kind of thinking.
One trait that great innovators have is the ability to change perspectives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople can think of the world with God and then think of the world without God. By doing that they can see the strengths and weaknesses of both view points.
But most off all they can understand how important perspective is to understanding.
Dear Michael Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for nice presentation of individual’s compartmentalised mind. Unfortunately, your concluding sentence (“We must replace bad bunk with sound science.”) - stopped you in your tracks towards the next logical step...
We do not have compartmentalised minds of individuals only. We also have compartmentalised cultures - “Logic-Tight Compartments” (printed title) in the science. Unfortunately, what used to be the science (with its disciplines) is now a cluster of loosely related, but quite separated sciences. And evidence from one is ignored or attacked in another - whenever beliefs are in conflict...
For example, 17th century picture of the cause and effect driven universe is still maintained; especially in physics. Simply speaking, such belief does not allow for free will. And I have suffered quite a bit of personal attacks for offering the empirical evidence to the contrary:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/
Now, one would expect empirical evidence to be offered against mine. Instead, all I was getting were very emotional expressions of believes that there must be some “hidden” causes. If you really believe in the science (as I do) - you must take this step. The cognitive dissonances in the science must also be addressed - for science's sake...
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
Michael Shermer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour item on Logical Compartments in the Brain is sadly 'right on the money' but does not go far enough to show the dangers that this 'compartmentalization' allows to persist.
For continued reading I recommend Keith Sewell's 'Leaving Truth'.
Keep up the good work!
Don't forget that for many people there is a fear of being wrong. Some people, and this includes those who think that science backs them up, will not admit error because they are afraid of the attitude of others to their admission of mistake. It has poisoned scientific inquiry for centuries, it has poisoned debunking of claims for about as long. (See "sasquatch DNA" for an example of both, and be sure to follow the controversy wherever it leads
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut always remember, simply because you don't like a finding or result does not mean it has to be erroneous.
This article would be interesting except for two things, the beginning and the end. In the first paragraph Mr. Shermer lists the notion that "9/11 was an inside job" as an idea for which there is overwhelming contradictory evidence. In fact, the opposite is true, though this author has closed the water-tight doors in his mind to the concerns raised by many professionals (including over 1,700 plus architects and engineers calling for a new investigation of the collapses that occurred on 9/11). The irony of his closed-minded approach to the events of 9/11 undermines the relevance of most of the rest of the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, it is the article's ending paragraph that would be hilarious in its lack of anything close to advocating a scientific dialog, if it were not so egregious. As strategies for breaking down the opinions of people holding different opinions, he offers—as I read them—the following advice:
• Offer alternative solutions aimed at the weaknesses of your opponents arguments
• Don't repeat any part of the other person's argument so as to not give it any weight
• Emphasis (I read this as, "shout") your facts instead of theirs
• Warn listeners/readers that the other guy's opinion is just myth
• Arm yourself with the knowledge that the other guy probably can't agree with your arguments because your arguments threaten his world view, not because of any inherent weaknesses in your observations
Three steel-frame structures (the first in history to fall symmetrically with a near free-fall level of acceleration to the ground) collapsed on 9/11 into their own footprints. Various "one of" answers have been put forward regarding these irregularities. However, the cumulative probability of never-before-seen-and-never-likely-to-be-seen-again events occurring independently all on the same day at the same site demonstrates exactly how weak the government's story about the events of that day really are. Mr. Shermer's article here and Scientific American Magazine general response to the scientific study of the events of 9/11 appears to have been to use the strategies promoted in this article for putting-down opposing views instead of dealing with the physical and probabilistic questions that are undisputed about the collapses.
Oh, and Mr. Shermer's (and the government's) version of the events (for which largely there is no publicly visible evidence) is a myth.
@Andy Swamp, facts and reason cannot cannot cure paranoia, only pharmaceutics and therapy. The article clearly explains your mental challenges but instead of seeing yourself in the mirror you see Michael Shermer as part of the conspiracy. That is one of the biggest challenges when treating the mentally ill, they don't see themselves as ill.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, a unified, logically consistent, world view can force everything into its model of reality. This in turn leads to individuals selecting and rationalizing everything to confirm their bias. I actually think the compartmentalization of the brain helps counteract its story telling, forced information coherence tendencies that lead to otherwise inaccurate beliefs about reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat the paranoid should realize is that everyone lies, including your own mind!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is using a series of stooge cases to underpin a furtive doctrine of enforcement in other subjects. Of course the 9/11, evolution, vaccine conspiracies are bunk. But Mr. Shermer uses these example cases as Stooge Posing, to legitimize an unethical method of cultivated ignorance on other subjects. He could care less about 9/11, vaccines, and evolution. These are simply shills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStooge Posing: "Why do Celebrity SSkeptics Debunk Easy Things"
http://theethicalskeptic.wordpress.com/?s=stoog+posing
This article is using a series of stooge cases to underpin a furtive doctrine of enforcement in other subjects. Of course the 9/11, evolution, vaccine conspiracies are bunk. But Mr. Shermer uses these example cases as Stooge Posing, to legitimize an unethical method of cultivated ignorance on other subjects. He could care less about 9/11, vaccines, and evolution. These are simply shills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStooge Posing: "Why do Celebrity SSkeptics Debunk Easy Things"
http://theethicalskeptic.wordpress.com/?s=stoog+posing
Facts and reason carry no truth of their own; we interpret facts and create reasons justifying that interpretation. Even if I don't agree with 9/11 conspiracy folk, I'd hardly call them 'mentally ill.' Not only is that an incredibly demeaning label to be throwing around it is also dangerous. We know nothing about that person other than a single one of his beliefs based on the facts he is apparently working with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I think about it, I think what you just did is the intelligent man's equivalent of calling someone 'retarded' on a youtube comment.
Even the most tightly compartmentalized brain accepts the fact that our planet is warming - the conflict is the cause of that gradual warming. Is it man made or natural? The compartmentalized brain knows that evolution is a fact; things do evolve. However, that same brain questions and doubts that man evolved as depicted in the theories expounded by the politically correct scientists of today. To truly believe that all of humanity evolved from two African monkey-like pigmies just because some wing-nut scientist developed that as a theory of man's origins is insane. Perhaps those promoting that theory evolved in that manner but not I. As far as vaccines are concerned, various substances used basically as preservatives in vaccines are a serious problem and do cause genetic deformity and even death. Those knowledgeable persons promoting vaccines don't deny that fact but claim that the statistics are loaded in favor of using those vaccines nonetheless. Those with a logically compartmentalized brain choose to not become a static. The author's use of the 9/11 tragedy as an example of a conspiracy theory is totally out of place and in poor taste. Conspiracies do exist - the demonization of President Bush by the liberal Marxist media is a good example. Conspiracies of one kind or another are all around us - some are small and inconsequential to the reasonably alert individual and others are really BIG and beyond individual control. Thank God my logic-tight, compartmentalized brain is working correctly and providing me with appropriate insight into all that I might be exposed to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Further, they concluded that enthusiastic evangelists of a belief may in fact be “boiling over with doubt,” and thus their persistent proselytizing may be a signal that the belief warrants skepticism."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey may indeed, from which, would it not be reasonable to conclude that the anti-religious crusade of the evolutionist Richard Dawkins and the incessant proselytising of figures such as Al Gore and the more catastrophising of climatologists is motivated not by inescapable fact but pure unadulterated fear of the opposite case proving to be true? In which case, it may well be that it is not after all so dissonant or crazy to conclude that the likes of global warming or simplistic evolutionary theory (Dawkins' forte) are severely lacking in credibility.
In any case, even if global warming by human hand were an incontrovertible, cast-iron fact (and it is far from that!), that would not mean for one second that paranoia about the exploitation of that fact was no longer justified. Only a fool would accept the notion that being correct prevents anyone using fact as a weapon to serve exploitative and manipulative agendas. There simply is no such thing as a politically neutral 'science' as long as it is the preserve of human beings. So it is only natural that sometimes fact (or rather as near a facsimile of it as we are capable) remains literally unbelievable!
Maybe you come from some other part of the world. But here in New England almost everyone starts with a world view that revolves around their families Church, synagogue or temple. Our days and weeks were punctuated by those times spent in church, catechism, special days of holy obligation, Yeshiva study, fasting, grace before dinner, prayers before bed, celebrating our holidays and observing the rituals of death. Of all the families I grew up around only one was self identified as Agnostic and they eventually joined the Unitarian Universalists. I do not know where one would find thousands of infant scientists being raised as hard core Atheists; even the overtly Atheistic, Communists have failed to either stamp out religion or upgrade the capacity for reason among their populations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you must be misinformed if you believe that faith and reason are incompatible. My own church, Roman Catholic, like most older faiths i.e. at least a couple thousand years old, have long since gotten used to the fact, that new information will keep turning up. There is no use pretending that the sun goes around the earth, in a world full of smarty pants armed with telescopes and pencils. Might as well just accept that the universe or universes are just too vast and wonderful for us to hold in our imaginations. And they were certainly too much for an illiterate Middle Eastern goat herder to adequately understand or a Dark Age theologian to explain.
It's dogma that is incompatable with reason and it isn't good for real faith either.
@Bawabus, "Even if I don't agree with 9/11 conspiracy folk, I'd hardly call them 'mentally ill.'" extreme paranoia is certainly a indicator for mental illness and while I did not state that I was diagnosing the troll with a mental illness I did assert that being possessed with a mental illness such as paranoia would make employing the techniques Shermer speaks about in his article ineffectual. I have dealt with people suffering from paranoid delusions on a number of occasions and as a result have done a little research in abnormal psychology, enough to be dangerous I suppose, so I know that you can't cure paranoia with facts. The Troll displayed classic signs of paranoia to the point of including Shermer in the government cover-up of the 9/11 conspiracy. That is typical behavior for those suffering from paranoia, anyone who argues against the conspiracy is part of the conspiracy, which is why when dealing with paranoid people you should not try to assure them they are safe and no one is trying to hurt them because that just proves to them that you are part of the agency that is against them. The Troll may or may not be "mentally ill" but his attack on Shermer's article was ironic at best and pathological at worst. I had no interest in arguing his facts because he has none, I just wanted to point out that while the article was very informative, sometimes the reason people think the way they do is because of an underlying pathology and so self-help will not work, sometimes clinical intervention is required and as they say, "there are more out than in."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@littleredtop, I doubt that the one or two compartments in your brain are at all conflicted. It seems that on every subject you take the intellectually easy way out and quote conspiracy, fallacy and misinformation to justify the most ridiculous claims. It takes someone of pretty extreme ignorance to see the world in those terms. And you demonstrate that every time you post. "humanity evolved from two African monkey-like pigmies", is a perfect example of the type of asinine comment you regularly make. Please show me in which paper that assertion is made because I can't find it in any of the publications I have on human evolution. If you can't find it perhaps that should be an epiphany to you that perhaps you have no clue what you are talking about... about anything. I would suggest that you actually make an effort to understand how science works and basic logic, then trying to understand the subjects you rant on about before you make a fool of yourself, but it is clear that you will not even consider anything that does not already conform to your twisted world view. Even when presented with the peer reviewed science you just parrot the same B.S. Please look up Dunning-Kruger. You are a sad example of what happens when you give an uneducated person a soapbox to stand on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When I think about it, I think what you just did is the intelligent man's equivalent of calling someone 'retarded' on a youtube comment." LOL, ya, that's about right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJeepers, I thought everything was defined, now I have think though space and time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear all,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is ironic how comments here turned into conspiracy against sanity. As if conspiracy theorists have compartmentalised mind while others do not. This is to a great degree author’s fault, for he obviously believes that his own mind is not compartmentalised...
I’ll illustrate this with my own case when I was six. As Croatian child, all I knew was Croatian. And when teachers started to torture me with strange words and sentences they called English --- my “natural” conclusion was that it must be a “conspiracy”. After that, I learned about other “conspiracies” like Latin, for example. And, frankly speaking, now I know that there are plenty of such “conspiracies” in the world we live. The trouble is, that there are too many other people maintaining these “conspiracies” and when I wish to tell them something I must articulate myself within their “conspiracy” so that they might make sense of what I’m saying. In general, a language itself is a compartment with its own logic...
Now, the recent flood of epithets, claims and counterclaims has completely lost the major (but not well articulated) point. We can be sceptical about practically everything. In this, we may have support of one or more groups of people who think similarly. In this we may also have opposition of other groups who think differently. This is also one, unfortunate, manifestation of our compartmentalised mind...
Now, at this, rather amateurish level --- such conflicts are historical and often bloody facts. Even today we have people blowing themselves up to “prove” their point!
While such fanaticisms might become a thing of a past one day --- we will still need to manage compartmentalised minds in physics, for example. This is the real point about which this article should be about. The compartmentalised minds in the science are the real problem. If we do not start to identify them and start resolving them --- the science will lose all of its hard earned credibility.
So, stop chasing and psychoanalysing each other. You are starting to remind me of myself of sixty years ago...
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/
Don't think you know what the word "conspiracy" means.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The compartmentalised minds in the science are the real problem. If we do not start to identify them and start resolving them --- the science will lose all of its hard earned credibility." what? Look around you. Every man made thing you see gives science credibility. The "compartmentalised" minds in science have given us better health, a high standard of living, a tremendous understanding of the universe and a noble way in which to live one's life, in pursuit of knowledge and the betterment of humanity. What the heck are you talking about?
"Simply speaking, such belief does not allow for free will. And I have suffered quite a bit of personal attacks for offering the empirical evidence to the contrary:" you need to prove the existence of free will before you can compel other theories to be consistent with it. As one with some knowledge of one branch of neuroscience I am unaware of any evidence of "free will" but am aware of a number of findings that indicate that there is no such thing. The onus is on you to prove your hypothesis it is not everyone else's responsibility to prove you wrong. That might be the source of your "suffering".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear R Schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can prove your free will empirically to yourself:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/
If you can offer me empirical evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly revoke my opinion.
I am glad that we have scientific enthusiasts like you. What troubles me is amateurish acceptance of everything without ability to think on your own...
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
Where is the overwhelming evidence that the Bush Administration didn't orchestrate the 9/11 attacks?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI believe the FBI specifically was prohibited by Bush Appointees from carrying out investigation to any of the Bin Laden family, despite the fact that the largest building in Mecca was built by Osama Bin Laden's father. Prince Al-Waleed tried to give Guiliani 10 million dollars after 9/11, and is now contracting with the Saudi Bin Laden Group. The ties between the Republican Party and Saudi Royalty as well as the refusal to suspect any of them are TOO STARK to ignore in the face of the death of Special Agent John O'Neill under the direction of Thomas Pickard.
There are a number of studies that cause one to question free will. First it is important to define free will. In the context to which I am referring it is defined as non-caused behavior, i.e. behavior that arises spontaneously without being influenced. So if I choose to eat something spontaneously, then that is free will, but I choose to eat something because I am hungry or because when I see something that looks delicious I anticipate the good feeling I will have when I eat it then the choice is caused and therefore not free will.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first science I saw regarding this was at the Neural Information Processing Symposium where a presenter talked about his experiment in which a person had to hit a button on the left or right side of a keyboard while their brain activity was being monitor.
http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide
This is similar to the Libet experiment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ4nwTTmcgs
I attended another workshop at the same conference in which we discussed free will starting at the level of individual neurons up through neural networks, then on to behavior and public policy. The conclusion was that there was no evidence of free will, but we need to proceed as though there is. Because if one believes they are not responsible for their actions, they will act irresponsibly.
There is a phenomenon called blindsight in which a person has lesions in their primary visual cortex which is responsible for giving one the experience of sight. Other visual processing centers remain fully functional. When a subject is shown an image to their "blind" eye and they are asked what it is they answer; I don't know, I didn't see it. When asked to take a random guess they are correct surprisingly often. The subject thinks they are making a random choice, but it isn't random at all. Their subconscious knows the answer but because they didn't experience it they are unaware that it influenced their choice.
This isn't my area so I am sure there is more out there. It would seem though that our experience of consciousness instead of being like a driver of a bus, is more like being a passenger, and because the bus is going where we want it to go we are under the delusion that we are somewhat in control.
Mr. Schmidt accomplished one thing with his comments, he has turned the discussion here from the facts I presented to a question of my sanity. I'll be glad to concede that my mental capacity for reason may well not match his own, my brain may even be misfiring on most levels. However, three steel-frame buildings (the first ever to fail to meet events they were designed to survive) fell symmetrically straight into the path-of-most-resistance at (or near) free fall speed. Each of the three buildings fell into its own footprint. That has never happened before in 110 years of building steel frame buildings. The odds of that happening even once are incredibly long, but for that to happen to three buildings, on the same day, at the same site in the manner described by the 9/11 Commission (twin towers--fire weakening steel at the crash site followed by gravity collapse) and NIST (Building 7—failure of a single column leading to catastrophic collapse) is beyond possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Schmidt declares that I have no facts and that he will not respond to what I've put forward as fact. I submit that the lack of response is not because I don't have any facts, but because there actually is no scientific answer consistent with the government's conspiracy theory to the facts I've presented. However, I could be wrong. Perhaps Mr. Schmidt could put aside name-calling for a few minutes and the attacks on my mental ability and use his superior mental powers to say how steel superstructure buildings collapse on themselves in this manner. A good answer here will go a long way toward curing my paranoia. Thanks in advance.
@bloomingdedalus, that is how paranoid delusions work. Anything that can be construed as evidence no matter how twisted the route is proof positive of guilt. And any lack of evidence or evidence that contradicts the delusion is proof of the conspiracy to cover up or distort the evidence. That is called a non-falsifiable hypothesis. In other words, no matter what evidence is or is not presented it leads to the same conclusion. That is invalid in science and should be in a court of law though it seems to be a valid defense strategy over the last few years. Your own comment contains no evidence at all, just innuendo and filaments of connections between the parties. You don't know what it is like to be in the upper echelons of power and wealth. They all know each other. You can find connections between all of them. I am not there myself but I know some who are so I myself am 1 or 2 people away from the President, the Pope and the former Shaw of Iran. Should the CIA be tapping my phone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor any hypothesis to become a theory it must be supported by ALL the evidence. What's more, it cannot be contradicted by any of the evidence. You don't get to pick and chose which evidence you want to agree with and which you get to discard. That is called confirmation bias and conspiracy theorists practice an extreme form of it.
If you find that you are haunted by conspiracies, believing people are out to harm you or your "world" you should take some time to understand simple logic. But while you are at it, it may be best to see a psychiatrist. You may have a treatable condition.
Dear R Schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have also read and discussed such studies. There are even books written about how we do not have free will. However, if you think that scientists are immune to the compartmentalised mid --- think again...
In 2003, Nancy Kanwisher (cognitive psychologist) excitedly wrote how she can deduce from brain activities what the subjects were imagining or actually seeing. However, she failed to notice that there were no differences. In other words, the richness of visual sensations was absent from brain scans. After noting this, she devised another experiment --- and surprised herself by confirming my theory...
Dr Benjamin Libet did ground-breaking work by measuring when we become conscious of an urge to deliberately lift a hand. This was a major reason for many to argue how we do not have free will. However, all of them failed to take into account the framework under which experiments were performed. And the framework was simple: Lift a hand whenever you want. With this framework, there was always intent in the subject’s mind as a precursor to a deliberate act:
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/_master/The%20Joke%20(Draft%201.1).pdf
Now, I have simply reversed the logic. What if we give up (or somebody take away by force) our free will? Obviously, our behaviour will change! The experiment is easy to replicate and behavioural changes are obvious. You can even add a third or fourth person to dictate changes randomly...
Do you like it or not, you can only speculate about “hidden causes” --- but you cannot produce anything like empirical evidence to support your speculations. The Joke is now almost two years old. I have passed it to quite a number of “names”. As yet, nobody came to me with a counterargument...
Thinking within the box (compartment) is unfortunately widespread phenomenon. That is why physicists do not talk to biologists, for example. In fact, even physicists do not talk to each other --- in particular particle physicists, theoretical physicists and astronomers do not really talk to each other. You know, there is a huge chasm in between they simply do not have a clue how to bridge...
Now, you are free (free will) to think differently. But there is a catch 22: Think, do not blindly repeat what others say...
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/
@Andy, "That has never happened before in 110 years of building steel frame buildings." so since you are aware of the entire 110 year history of steel frame buildings perhaps you could share with us what actually did happen in all the other cases where large, fuel laden aircraft were flown into buildings of similar size and structure as the world trade center. You are so confident in your findings that there must have been many similar incidents so that you could rule out outliers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"no scientific answer consistent with the government's conspiracy theory to the facts I've presented" This is what understand. I am not an engineer. The aircraft were full of fuel, that is why they were chosen. The fire caused by the impact and fuel weakened the structure. The floors above the impacted floors collapsed. The weight and momentum of the collapsing floors caused the floors below them to collapse, thus adding more weight and momentum to the falling mass. I believe this is called a cascade failure. One failure causes the next. If you look at the aftermath of earthquakes you will also see structures that surprisingly endured and others that surprisingly failed. This is chaotic phenomenon. There are no absolutes only probabilities.
What conspiracy theorists cannot explain is how some dark agency managed to rig the building with explosives without anyone seeing. Also, explosive residue for an explosion of that magnitude would not only be found in the debris, but in the clothes of the rescuers and in the dust that settled over the city. You couldn't hide it if you tried. But conspiracy theorists have lots of excuses for why their evidence doesn't match up. Strange that they don't give the same consideration to those they accuse.
Andy, I was being flippant when I suggested you were insane. But I am only somewhat sorry for it. I really do think you need to question either; your ability to make judgments about such technically complex matters if you have not done any research and/or you don't have a background in science, law and/or engineering; and/or you should question your mental state. If you are seriously plagued by such ridiculous conspiracies I would be really concerned that you may be somewhat psychotic. But don't go by what I say, get professional help. That is why I am somewhat sorry, because if you really do need help I shouldn't be so sarcastic about it, but if you don't then perhaps you need a friendly kick in the butt to bring you back to your senses.
@Damir, "However, if you think that scientists are immune to the compartmentalised mid --- think again..." sorry but I don't buy that. This article talks about errors in thinking. I am talking about scientific research. The reason we have science is to overcome human failings. We have instruments that give us a somewhat objective view of the world, we have peer review to check our work, we have formal processes and standards for guiding our research. If you have specific arguments against the science I presented then I would be interested to hear it but I will not accept the dismissive statement you just made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"with this framework, there was always intent in the subject’s mind as a precursor to a deliberate act:" intent is not the choice to commit the act. I have an intent to go to sleep, but if you were to scan my brain you would not find me sleeping, well maybe a little.
"Thinking within the box (compartment) is unfortunately widespread phenomenon." sorry but I really have to disagree with that one. Scientists do not make a name for themselves by agreeing with each other. The scientists at the LHC are not hoping that they can write yet another paper about how the standard model works. They want to expose the cracks in the standard model and discover something new. That is how it is throughout science. It is nothing more than a conspiracy theory to suggest that the reason the scientific community hasn't taken notice of you is because they are closed to anything new. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You need to stop blaming the scientific community for your failure to prove your hypothesis. I would encourage you to either redouble your efforts or accept that you were wrong and move on.
"Think, do not blindly repeat what others say" well as I mentioned I actually do look at this in some depth. I don't do science in this area myself so I really am limited to what claims I can make. I try to temper my level of belief with the strength of the evidence provided. Repeating what others have said does not make me blind, it means I accept my limitations. Thinking differently is a good way to start an inquiry but to cling to an idea that has no support is just stubbornness, and that serves no one.
Dear R Schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not dismissive of anything. However, you do seem dismissive of empirical evidence. I cannot explain your refusal to perform the experiment and prove it to yourself.
I applaud your idealistic view of the science. However, I do not know of any scientist who does not belong to human race. I also personally know many scientists with idealistic pictures of themselves. In other words, they are blissfully unaware of perceptual and other biases they might have as human beings...
Peer-review is good. However, do you know of any particle physics paper reviewed by anthropologists, for example? Unfortunately, this ideal is lately compromised. Peer-reviews are usually done by same-thinkers within the same box...
Now, I do not say that there is no good science. However, experience tells me to think twice whenever there are obvious contradictions...
As you can see, I am not trying to “sell” you an idea. I am offering you empirical evidence. You can even test it on your own. However, you are free to dismiss it. How people blind themselves is well explained in the article itself...
Decision is yours!
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/
@Damir I don't think I can help you. You seem to think that you can use conspiracy theory to dismiss the entire scientific community. The sad thing is, while you are claiming that ideas have been compromised, peer reviews are only performed by co-conspirators, scientists are human therefore everything is corrupt which somehow changes the results of an fMRI, you are also complaining that they are totally wrong in not accepting what you say without question. So there is nothing the scientific community can possibly do to validate their work and there is nothing you have to do to validate yours. Sounds fair.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI looked at you paper and your proposed experiment and can't understand what you think that proves? That isn't science, not by a long shot. The fact that you would think that could pass for science tells me that you really don't understand how science works, which is probably why you are not finding any success in it.
Again, you and I have reached an impasse. Best of luck.
Michael,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike you, I was once a "believer" and fully convinced in what my fundamental religion leaders told me. I was a slow learner, but I was finally able to shake loose of their cords of mental bondage from my head. I am thankful for learning critical thinking skills, skepticism, and independent thought. The people I left behind only have the freedom to agree or feel guilty for unfaithful thoughts. I do not try to argue or reason with them because I know from experience how hard they reject anything that is contrary to their beliefs. I am happy to discuss nearly anything, but I will not claim to be right, I will not be dogmatic, and I will not get stuck in useless arguments.
Mr. Schmidt. Thanks for the efforts at correcting my attitude. A little backwards perhaps, but thanks just the same. However, you seem to have overlooked a couple of things. First, I didn't point out that free fall speed of collapse is inconsistent with a floor-by-floor gravity-driven collapse. In that scenario there would be pauses slowing the collapse as each floor receives the weight and (in your theory) is overcome by it, Not only are there no such pauses visible in the collapses, but the overall speed of each collapse says there were none (or very close to none). Further, there is the push-down, push-up problem. As the top 13% of a tower falls down and destroys a lower floor, it is also destroyed. How does 13% of a tower fall and crush the other 87% of the tower.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd then there is Building 7. No plane hit it and the official explanation is that the failure of a single column caused the total symmetrical collapse of the building into its own footprint. One column fails and the whole building falls down and this happens symmetrically? The NIST report acknowledged that it doesn't know how that happened and it also says the probability of that happening is low.
Finally, there is the question of corroborating evidence. There is lots of it. Witnesses, dust, total shut-downs of critical security systems at odd times are all out there. But, the critical evidence is not on the periphery. It is what everybody in the world witnessed that is important: three steel frame buildings fell symmetrically into their own footprints at (or near) free-fall speed of collapse. These points are not really arguable and as I've already mentioned they are inconsistent with the government's theory of the collapses. Once we can all agree that the official story of what happened is wrong, perhaps a real investigation (like the ones the NY Police and Fire departments were not permitted to do) can tell us how it was done and, more importantly, who did it.
@Andy, again, you are not an engineer. You are quoting sound bites. "in that scenario there would be pauses slowing the collapse as each floor receives the weight and (in your theory) is overcome by it" who says? The weight was extreme, it takes alot to stop a mass as large as that even more so since it was not a solid mass but rather a layer cake falling on top of another layer cake. So, you are telling me you are right because when you "watch" the video it doesn't look like you think it should? Well I guess it is good then that scientists and engineers don't base their conclusions on what they see on youtube.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No plane hit it and the official explanation is that the failure of a single column caused the total symmetrical collapse of the building into its own footprint." sure, why not? You are aware that gravity pulls downwards aren't you. This isn't a kid on a pogo-stick falling over, this is a massive structure that got one of its legs kicked out. The other legs gave way. It falls down.
"Witnesses, dust, total shut-downs of critical security systems at odd times are all out there." the world is a complex place. We are talking about the world trade center in new york. There were alot of things in motion that day. Conspiracy nuts look at all the noise and cherry pick the select bits that confirm their delusion. That isn't science. It isn't forensics. It is confirmation bias.
"Once we can all agree that the official story of what happened is wrong" why do you think you can speak for anyone but yourself?
Andy, It is pretty telling that you really did not address the questions I raised but instead moved on to even flimsier evidence, if that is possible. The issues I mentioned are actually rather simple to confirm. Can you show me a gas chromatograph that proves an explosive was used? As I said, should be easy to find. Can you prove that it was impossible for the buildings to collapse the way they did, not that the probability was low, not that it looked funny on youtube, that it was physically impossible for them to collapse as indicated? What you need to do is not find even more coincidences and distortions but find compelling evidence that the evidence that supports the investigators findings is wrong, fabricated or misinterpreted. No one has done that.
I'm sorry Andy but you are compelling me to lean towards my original hypothesis, that you are a little psychotic. Your delusions seem quite elaborate and extreme. The evidence you think supports your claim is speculative, coincidental and anecdotal yet you think it is more reliable than the scientific investigation that likely involved hundreds of people and labs across the country, maybe even in other countries. There is a saying, the only way for two people to keep a secret between them is for one to kill the other. A cover-up of that size when the evidence is scattered all over the city is not even remotely possible. The problem with people who believe in conspiracies, well one of the many, is that they look at the problem opposite to the way science does. Science looks at the evidence then comes to a conclusion. Conspiracy theorists start with the conclusion then look for the evidence to support it. That was the way the church conducted witch trials. It is the way religion justifies its existence. It has no place in modern society. Do yourself a favor, first study the scientific process, then study critical thought, finally try to understand the subject in which you are interested, within the constraints of science and logic. Finally, come to a conclusion that agrees with all the evidence. One rule of thumb, if you find a theory that confirms your prejudices, try very hard to prove it wrong, rather than prove it right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear R Schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“The sad thing is, while you are claiming that ideas have been compromised, peer reviews are only performed by co-conspirators, scientists are human therefore everything is corrupt which somehow changes the results of an fMRI, you are also complaining that they are totally wrong in not accepting what you say without question.”
I did not realise that you cannot even read what is written. What I wrote is: “In 2003, Nancy Kanwisher (cognitive psychologist) excitedly wrote how she can deduce from brain activities what the subjects were imagining or actually seeing. However, she failed to notice that there were no differences. In other words, the richness of visual sensations was absent from brain scans. After noting this, she devised another experiment --- and surprised herself by confirming my theory...”
I have also asked you about paper in physics reviewed by anthropologist or any scientist from any other discipline. You seem to be deaf to such questions.
I also do not complain that my work is not accepted. There are quite who that accepted my argument. In addition, tell us the questions they might be asking me. I am quite interested since nobody came to me with a single one.
I am also not happy when illiterate people start telling me that I said what I did not even dream of saying: “So there is nothing the scientific community can possibly do to validate their work and there is nothing you have to do to validate yours. Sounds fair.”
To improve your literacy I state: The science can do a lot to improve its work. The first step is interdisciplinary approach to which we mostly pay lip service only. The next step is to recognise that all scientists are human. Knowing that, many human biases could be taken into account and possibly avoided. As for your failure to understand, please try to understand that this is not my failure...
As you can see, I do not take scientists as ideal. I am trying to be more realistic. In my opinion, this is the only way to get closer to the ideal you seem to be taking for granted...
Unless you start commenting on what I wrote and start answering questions --- further correspondence does not make sense. I also do not appreciate calling upon other people telling you what to think. I always held that using your own head is critical. The rest are just footnotes to real science.
There is not an impasse. There is only (deliberate?) misunderstanding.
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/
It looks like I may have struck a nerve - interesting response. Let me guess, you evolved from mud-puppy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI used to subscribe to Scientific American years ago but it has been dumbed down so much that it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. As far as Psychology goes Dr. Shermer is merely expousing 19th century mechanistic drivel and that paper is utter nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter O'Rourke
B.A. Psychology
I used to subscribe to Scientific American years ago but it has been dumbed down so much that it isn't worth the paper it is printed on. As far as Psychology goes Dr. Shermer is merely espousing 19th century mechanistic drivel and that paper is utter nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter O'Rourke
B.A. Psychology
re: "There is no unified “self” that generates internally consistent and seamlessly coherent beliefs devoid of conflict. Instead we are a collection of distinct but interacting modules often at odds with one another. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's a somewhat different point of view. It is based on the premise of interacting neural networks carrying different kinds of non-exclusive information which ultimately power the body electric to induce bio-chemical releases which convert into mental and muscular activity resulting in work toward some task with efficacy, efficiency, and power based on attention, focus, and intention. While the functional brain has different task areas, the idea of modules and compartments suggest places and spaces and such is just not the case in the holographic mind.
The self is better understood as the point of unification of understandings, beliefs, and intentions which may or may not be in conflict and therefore short of perfect in the areas or attention, focus, and intention. The power available to any task is parsed by the self according to the generative convergence and coherence of related understandings, beliefs, and intentions. High conflict weakens effort typically resulting in failure of one form or another. Skeptics aside, muscle testing and mental imagery research demonstrates this phenomenon fairly conclusively. Superior performers recognize that focus and flow are most powerful when action is taken toward an outcome about which the self has empowered perception coupled with congruent beliefs and powerful intentions. The point and purpose of creating corporate vision and mission statements and rewriting the corporate story and dialog are all about achieving the same effect, reducing conflict, increasing coherence, and creating the circumstances for greater success.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ joenn
Why are you bringing the discussion of a supernatural deity to a scientific website?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you are thrashing the entire magazine based on one article you happen to disagree with?
"I used to subscribe to Scientific American years ago" is a tactic used by the anti-scientific american fanatics. There are people with an ideological opposition to sciam so they come here and post B.S. like that on every article. Just idiots with nothing better to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Schmidt. You are good. The written word is clearly a strength for you. But browbeating is not the same as science or even the same as putting forth a good argument. Three steel-frame buildings fell symmetrically into their footprints at nearly free fall speed to the ground. The "free fall speed" thing means that the top of the building accelerated toward the ground at the same speed as a weight thrown off the top of the building with nothing between it and the ground. A twin tower had 70,000 tons of undamaged steel and concrete between the crash point and the ground. That should have slowed down the falling debris. There has been no collapse like that ever in 100 years of building steel frame buildings. On September 11th it happened three times.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I have also asked you about paper in physics reviewed by anthropologist or any scientist from any other discipline." you don't even seem to understand how peer review works, here's what Wikipedia says, "Peer review means that an action of an individual person may be looked at again (reviewed) by someone of similar competence in that activity - a peer." Please note: similar competence. An anthropologist does not have a similar competence to a physicist in the subject of physics. Furthermore, how is the Anthropologist going to replicate the physicist's experiments? That is often part of the peer review process. The world wide web was created in part for researchers at particle accelerators around the world to replicate and verify each others work. How would an anthropologist do that? If you are just talking about reviewing each other's papers, they can do that anytime. Again, you obviously don't understand science so I find it rather ridiculous that you would think you know how to "fix" it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I also do not complain that my work is not accepted.” Your quote, “And I have suffered quite a bit of personal attacks for offering the empirical evidence to the contrary:"
"The next step is to recognize that all scientists are human." Certainly but perhaps you should direct that at yourself. You don't seem to understand science or the scientific process. Your impressions about science are coloured by your own prejudices. Please look up Dunning-Kruger for a better explanation of why you disagree with the scientific community.
Again Andy you have refused to address the questions I raised and insist on repeating the same distortion. That is clearly irrational thinking. You are desperately grasping the one piece of "evidence" you think proves your delusion while ignoring anything that might prove you wrong. That isn't science. It is denial. Get help.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRSchmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey claim that SciAm has dumbed down, but I think that the exact opposite is true, and that's the only reason the anti-science sheep come here and spread their religious agendas and ignorance in the first place.
Mr. Schmidt. Comments from a pseudo-skeptical point of view, the holier-than-thou attitude, the great writing skills, and the personal nature of your defense of this article suggest that perhaps all this time I've actually been communicating with the great Dr. Shermer himself? Thanks for having this conversation, Doc. It has been interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell ALL dog breeds came from the Wolf, so.......I think it's called evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear all,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if this article did not produce enough evidence for compartmentalised mind theory --- the heated debate that followed did. Epithets and claims of ignorance of others were flying almost at the speed of light. In this, everybody thought that only he or she is absolutely right and everybody else insane for not acknowledging this “fact”. Also in this, no one demonstrated an effort to actually read and try to understand what others have to say. Believe it or not, this discussion is in principle the same as discussions at: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/.
Usually, attacking others (ad hominem) is a big no-no in a civilised discussion. However, I was, for example, personally attacked as entirely ignorant about peer-review process. In essence, the claim was made that only physicists may peer-review a paper on physics --- others, like biologists, are disqualified...
The science used to be one with many disciplines. Claims in one had to hold water in others also. In theory, research in physics should be verifiable in chemistry, biology etc. etc. Unfortunately, this is currently impossible. And the reason is quite simple: After spectacular failures to derive sweetness of sugar from properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, for example --- physicists simply gave up...
The simple (and sad) fact is that we now have shattered science in which disciplines rarely, if at all, talk to each other. The parallel with compartmentalised mind seems quite obvious. And how many conflicting beliefs might be hidden in this mess is anybody’s guess...
I do hope that this “discussion” will end now, but my experiences tell me otherwise...
Have a nice day,
Damir Ibrisimovic
http://home.pacific.net.au/~damir-dsl/
That 911 is so early mentioned in the piece tends to place it at the point of instruction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what is the problem with its insistence? That organized intelligent human beings the world over recognize the explosive demolition of the WTC complex and are discussing its place in a world of professional liars, its place in a history of covert actions designed to promulgate war by deception?
The article is familiar by its division and identification of malady, by its association. We are being directed to understand any expression counter to the official 911 narrative as a mental illness rather than its opposite; a genuine expression of outrage at high and mighty lawlessness; an illumination of sinister conspiracy leading our generation into the illegal and immoral mercenary WARS of the present century.
Cass Sunstein would be more appropriate to reference in conversation here.
I just wanted to say that it was jarring to read this article right after the article on the way the brain combines the inputs from the senses. That article talks about how the old view of the brain as a swiss army knife is being replaced by a newer one, then this one talks about how the brain is like a swiss army knife.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn any case, this article unfortunately ignores other influences, like distrust of the source of the information, esp if he may appear to be financially or politically motivated (e.g. climate researchers).
It also explains why bible thumpers continue to deny the possibility of evolution. Do they ever stop to consider that may be the method god chose to "design" humankind?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt also explains why bible thumpers continue to deny the possibility of evolution. Do they ever stop to consider that may be the method god chose to "design" humankind?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's an evolutionist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's an evolutionist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoincidentally, I have been recently emphasizing on these issues, like the conscious coexistence of two antagonistic alternatives to choose from, one resting on objective metaphysical logic analysis and the other one rooted on strictly biopsychosocial (BPS)adaptive survival where emotions are immanently more valuable now than transcendental reasoning impact later. See last 3 articles on : <http://angelldls.wordpress.com/>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the last paragraph...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSuggesting what to do, without offering AT LEAST one example of how to do it, seems to leave the concepts in this article hanging in the wind. Unfinished. Non-illustrated with a real world, specific example of how to "... break down the walls separating our logic-tight compartments".
This article is pseudo-science, and it's propaganda, which also advances a political agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact there is good evidence connecting vaccines with adverse health impacts (autism), and also that Bush/Cheney were "in" on 9/11. The author tries to dismiss these things as absurd, and anyone who believes such is maybe a kook, a conspiracy theorist who has a mental pathology called "compartmentalization" to "ignore evidence".
You know what? I don't especially like PSYOPS, nor pushy people. If you HAVE such evidence, you should present it, and not be so pushy. I do not accept your premises without PROOF, and DEMAND that you see and acknowledge MY EVIDENCE to the Contrary.
This is how science works, not by pushy people misusing science to advance an agenda.
I am skeptical of the first paragraph in its didactism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhoops! "didacticism"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article ignores the obvious corollary that someone can be predisposed in their “religious preference module” toward an atheistic, materialistic, or naturalistic view of the world. Of course, they will tend to distort or deny any evidence that contradicts this view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe current definition of science precludes any supernatural explanations for observed phenomena or facts. But this is not a scientific statement. There is no scientific basis for claiming that supernatural causes are not real. That is a philosophical belief.
Most if not all of the authors published in Scientific American and other mainstream publications start with the assumption that there are not and cannot be any supernatural explanations for what we observe. Therefore, they will systematically ignore or any evidence that contradicts evolution for example. So any examples of intelligent design, for example, will be ignored or ridiculed.
A huge amount of anti-evolution scientific evidence exists but is systematically suppressed and censored by the scientific community. Many scientists and teachers who express doubts about evolution are censored or fired.
As an engineer, I know that highly complex systems do not occur by chance. I fail to see how belief in naturalistic evolution has anything to do with applied science or technology. Why bother to design anything, if the natural tendency is for things to evolve toward higher complexity?
I don't need Genesis to inform me that unguided Darwinistic evolution is impossible.
No scientist has ever shown that life can or did arise from non-living matter. Consider the complex mechanisms of even a single cell bacterium, plus the immense amount of data contained in the DNA. Francis Crick realized the problem and proposed that life was brought to earth by aliens from a distant galaxy. Is this where "true" science leads us?
Nobody has shown how complex organs and systems could really evolve by random chance. All we hear are fairy tales and imaginary scenarios.
No scientist has explained how animal instincts evolved. How did fish, birds, and butterflies learn to migrate thousands of miles? Where are the gene mutations that produce instinct evolution?
Consider also that most of the early fathers of science were Christians and believed in creation. Belief in supernatural creation is not anti-science. It is only anti-naturalistic-science.
The famous atheist Anthony Flew renounced his atheism in light of the evidence of intelligent design.
Ref. “Censored Science: The Suppressed Evidence” by Bruce Malone.
You can't start with the idea that there is no god: first you have to have the idea of a god- which can then be rejected for the lack of evidence. The study of evolution is likewise based on evidence: belief or disbelief in supernatural entities is irrelevant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere is God mentioned?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVoted up; @Andy Swamp exhibits the same zeal as the religious bigot- belief in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"To truly believe that all of humanity evolved from two African monkey-like pigmies just because some wing-nut scientist developed that as a theory of man's origins is insane."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Mr. Schermer and wrt his thesis: The above = QED.
UM...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As far as vaccines are concerned, various substances used basically as preservatives in vaccines are a serious problem and do cause genetic deformity and even death."
Please show your work: provide legitimate, scientifically-sound data that shows this is even close to be true. Otherwise, it's just an opinion, borne out of a logic-tight mind. Again, QED, re: Schermer's points.
Where's that darn "Like" button?...;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, some evolutionists to believe in God and vice-versa. They believe that God started the whole evolution process and it's taken to here. They may feel that the traditional biblical account was a complex metaphor or they may not believe all of the bible in the realization that it's a man-made compilation of texts that say different things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecareful of your stereotypes. An evolutionist or a believer in God will hold numerous beliefs that don't quite fit. This is why holding stereotypes, especially when you try to stigmatize and marginalize others, may be so unfair.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConfirmation bias obfuscates your logic on the global warming hoax. You accept the premise despite the scientists who disprove it. You suggest those who disagree hold a false consciousness via cognitive dissonance. That is not being skeptical. Since when do prognostications usurp scientific method?
Geology tells us the climate changes. We can only hypothesize its causes. We cannot make theory on what we don’t fully understand and presume future effects. It is intellectually irresponsible, and unscientific.
Conservatives are not merely rightwing religionists who refute evolution. Conservatives believe in conserving nature for man. Liberals believe in liberating nature from man. Motivation reasoning allows you to bask in the pool (religion) of leftism and disparage those who are skeptical of its supposed homeopathy. You are an ideological evangelical of leftism. Your faith blinds your reasoning. Sound familiar?
To illustrate the point I paraphrase slightly the opening sentence of the article :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you have pondered how intelligent and educated people can, in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence, believe that gassing of millions in Auschwitz happened..."
There are many, the former inmates of the concentration camps included, who persistently challenge the official prevalent narrative of the 'mass extermination of Jews' that allegedly happened during the Second World War. The simple answer to silence those who claim that the number of 'the holocausted' had been greatly exaggerated would be to prove scientifically that the official fable of the history is in fact true. That means the presentation of the all possible forensic evidence that is required by law in any murder trial. That has not happened at all regarding 'the Holocaust'claims and in 'the Holocaust' trials. Children in schools and the society at large are victims of propagandists who concocted a tale of Auschwitz gas chambers that was based on hearsay. The few scientists who tried to analyze the alleged Zyklon B deposits on the walls of the alleged gas chambers were arrested and jailed. The scientific community shamelessly kept silent and did not defend the rights of any scientists to submit a claim or a proposition to a test of veracity. The politically and financially profitable, to one supremacist group, tale of the gasings of millions of Jews in Auschwitz continues to nest like a cuckoo hatchling in the minds of the simple people.
Here is a challenge for the scientists, the law enforcement specialists, the skeptics, the curious and the truth seekers, the manipulators in the mass media who claim to present facts and not fiction, the philanthropists and others of good will to finally organize and undertake the gathering of the forensic data relating to 'the Holocaust' tale. Let them prove to the world that the Holocaust happened as it is being claimed it happened. Let us see the proofs to discredit the so-called Holocaust deniers. Let us see that the official version of history is the factual truth, let us see that the Holocaust is no exception to being scientifically verified, that it has no privilege of unchallenged credulity like the miracles of biblical Israelites, otherwise the mountain of tall tales of Auschwitz will erode away.
This is the SCIENTIFIC American website where one is not supposed to be afraid to ask questions and seek truth, isn't it ?