Silly Ideas

Silly (euphemistically speaking) ideas, for the purposes of this blog, are either
● irritatingly illogical inaninities that are repeated ad nauseam by their devotees
● strongly held opinions about cause and effect that ignore or are ignorant of the facts and that run counter to widely known expert opinion
● ideas that have proved deleterious to their holders or others

● Many if not most ideas connected to an insistence on the 'existence' of one non-existent deity or another are illogical because they insist upon belief despite the lack of supportive empirical evidence when there ought to be empirical evidence. After all, if a purported deity actually created the universe, with or without interference in daily events, then there ought to be unequivocal evidence that links the physical with said deity – just as there is abundant evidence to link known physical laws with the origin of the universe and evolution.

There is no evidence of a deity unless one chooses to label physical laws as being God and to designate scientists as being the true theologians. That is, it is illogical to insist that there is a Creator of the Physical Universe, Life, and Us in the absence of any unequivocal evidence of a single entity capable of creating these tangibles. This illogic includes most perniciously, of course, the various ridiculous forms adopted by insistence upon literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth.

● Fantasies, such as the supposed existence of the 'soul' or an 'afterlife' that run counter to all that science reveals about the inextricable connection between a functioning assemblage of chemicals and operation of the brain. There is neither evidence for–nor logical grounds for–any claim that the 'soul' has existence outside current-conscious-thought.

● Claims that 'God is Consciousness', such that some cosmic consciousness directs all that transpires in the universe, or even merely here on Earth, are akin to nonsensical claims for brain-independent souls and an afterlife. Those who believe that the sole motive force is 'thought' have applied very little–or nothing–in the way of analytical thought to their illogical beliefs. The meaning of 'thought' inherent in such illogical equivocation must necessarily be so broad as to bear no resemblence to the accepted meaning of 'thought' or of 'consciousness'.

● Insistence by Bible Thumpers on their holier-than-thou, unethical, absolute moral values that were supposedly dictated by their non-existent deity-of-choice. By unethical, I refer to those illogical attacks that harm others who do not fit into the rigid black and white box dictated by the thumpers' dogma-of-choice. While it is reasonable to decry as immoral any action that deliberately harms others, it is immoral to harm others by censuring activities that harm no-one.

● Denial of the fact of global warming despite the agreement of experts (earth and climate scientists) that rising levels of greenhouse gases (fact) attributable to our burning of fossil fuels (fact) have elevated average temperatures (fact) and increased frequency of extreme weather events (fact).

That'll do for starters!

ɷ All Concepts are NOT created Equal
ɷ Anti-Stupidity Quotes
ɷ Autovaccinism
ɷ Behe Retreats
ɷ Besottism
ɷ Black Sheep are Sheep Too
ɷ Canadians Can be Stupid Too
ɷ Claims that Scientists find Extraterrestrial genes...
ɷ Complexity Reductio
ɷ Free Speech or Propaganda of Hate?
ɷ Numbers Games
ɷ Pet Peeves
ɷ Pseudoscience Chicanery
ɷ Shun Spam
ɷ Statistics on Stupidity

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

Black Sheep are Sheep Too

Aginners who hold ridiculous beliefs that run counter to received wisdom often cite the fact that others agree with their opinion, claiming that those who concur with the fact-logic-based knowledge of experts are easily-fooled sheep. In other words, other black sheep agree with their anti-expert prejudices.

If one wishes to hold a correct position, one must practice critical thinking, which is not to say that one must be negative about any propositions originating with an expert.

"Critical thinking involves assessing the authenticity, accuracy, and/or worth of knowledge claims and arguments. This process requires careful, precise, persistent and objective analysis of any knowledge claim or belief to judge its validity and/or worth."

It is folly to make the automatic assumption that those who are experts in empirical fields are necessarily, or even likely to be, incorrect in their assertions. Value-based disciplines such as politics are obviously much more vulnerable to personal biases, so the opinions of experts in these fields may be more suspect. Nevertheless, few individuals have the time or luxury to assess all available information in a value-based area, and we must rely upon the expertise of those who have expended considerable time and thought.

The more education one receives, the more that one realizes how little one knows, and the more that one must rely upon received wisdom. Still, one must assess the level of expertise and level of bias of those who pass opinions. It is not wise to trust opinions posted on a website that has been set up for the express purpose of attacking the opinions or positions of experts. (It could be argued that, in our disgruntlement, we attack the opinions of hate-tankers, junk-tankers, and those who display cognitive disorders. However, our criticisms are directed at illogic and misinformation, certainly not at expertise.)

Credible experts possess the following attributes:
1. sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
2. claims made are within area(s) of expertise.
3. adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
4. not significantly biased by subjective motivations or prejudices.
5. expertise within a legitimate area or discipline (related to the subject matter).
6. the authority must be identified.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...

un-designed intelligences

In my opinion, the concept quoted below warrants lower case and reaction to the concept ought to evoke UPPER case refutations.

"Objectivity results from the use of the scientific method without philosophic or religious assumptions in seeking answers to the question: Where do we come from?"

So far, so good. This is the whole point of scientific investigation as embodied in numerous branches of empirical and experimental investigation. The trouble is that the writer is not really interested in learning where we come from, rather he or she is interested only in promulgating an older-than- two-thousand-years creation myth.

Of course, the above quote would not have evoked mimbling if subsequent statements were not contradictory:
"We promote the scientific evidence of 'intelligent [sick] design' because proper consideration of that evidence is necessary to achieve not only scientific objectivity but also constitutional neutrality."

There is no scientific evidence that points directly and incontrovertibly to the operation of an "intelligence" behind the evolution of biological complexity. Creationists choose to interpret the physical evidence as sign of the operation of a deity, just as the creators of other creation myths have done.

However, mainstream science involves not merely collection of data, it also demands that acceptable inferences be made from the data toward expert-scrutinized scientific hypotheses, theories, and laws that reasonably explain physical mechanisms. Most creationists appear to be ignorant of the content and the process of science. Merely discussing science, as I am here, does not constitute science.

Science, by definition, can only investigate the physical, and scientists can only speculate about the natural world in light of physical principles. The purpose of science is the elucidation of mechanisms that operate in the physical world, so legitimate science speculates neither on the supernatural nor on the existence or nonexistence of purported deities.

This said, unbiased, scientific understanding objectively points away from the existence of a supernatural intelligent designer toward mechanisms that select blindly for inherently successful mechanisms. If this were not the case, Christian literalists would not attack scientific understanding of the origins of life and the evolution of biological complexity, instead they would espouse mainstream science.

Further, "neutrality" behooves a lack of bias, a lack of ulterior motive or hidden agenda. No matter what their duplicitious protestations may be, those who promote the concept of "intelligent" design do have an agenda that is unrelated to scientific objectivity – they wish to promote creationism and their right-wing social agenda by pushing thinly disguised religion into the science classroom. It is a credit to many American parents, educators, and judges that the invidious inroads of ‘intelligent [sick] design' propagandists are being overthrown.

It has been my unhappy observation that few people know more than a smattering of scientific facts and even fewer understand scientific principles. However, many reasonable thinking Christians are not so closed-minded as to deny the expertise of scientists in order to protect their emotional need for a belief in a deity. Recognition of biological evolution does not preclude personal religious belief. Religionists, however, exhibit not only different sectarian beliefs they also exhibit different degrees of obtuseness.

Quo Vadis?
...section index...