But for Piltdown Man, I was thinking of some other article I read once that talked about some of the reasons why scientists were so quick to embrace Piltdown Man, namely it went along with their preconceived ideas (biases) about how humans should have evolved: a big brain with an apelike jaw. Later evidence surfaced which forced them to question (and then reject) that model.

   0 likes

It seems similar, in part to those who say, “Oh, I’m just not going to be mad. I will recognize when I’m mad and then just choose not to be mad.”

I agree that it’s impossible to completely eliminate your own bias. Your entire comprehension of the world around you is based on your own perspective (and experience).

That said, I think people can make some non-trivial progress towards understanding their own biases and compensating for them. Some of the critical learning experiences of my life have centered around noticing assumptions I didn’t realize I’d had, and questioning them (and I’m not really talking about belief in God — that sort of thing is actually based on various assumptions/axioms that aren’t so hard to identify). This is something of a recurring theme on my blog — try googling terms like “perspective” and “bias” on my blog.

But I think that recognizing we are all biased should be used as a motivation for introspection and self-questioning. It should never be used as an excuse or justification for not questioning one’s own beliefs. If someone deliberately searches only for evidence to bolster what he wants to believe and deliberately avoids counter evidence — then justifies it by saying that everyone is biased — well, that’s disingenuous to say the least.

Regarding Piltdown Man: There’s a really interesting essay by Stephen Gay Gould about it here. (I remember it as being interesting, anyway — I read it back when I was a freshman at BYU. Now that I’ve found it again, I’ll re-read it when I get a minute…)

   0 likes

My answer to my father when he says things like, “There’s something that causes miracles and it can’t just be coincidence” is to always point out, “But if this miracle-making thing can eventually be pinpointed to rational cause-and-effect, then it’s not really a miracle anymore.”

For example, if science could find that there was something about praying that healed cancer reliably and repeatably (although, so far, no research suggests that it does)…then no longer would prayer healing be miraculous, because it wouldn’t be supernatural. It would be natural and ho-hum. Now, we can do a lot of amazing things that are natural and ho-hum, but they aren’t miracles. Just because we don’t know the causes of a certain phenomenon and we might happen upon this phenomenon by chance doesn’t make it miraculous, even if people think so.

P.S., yep, you’re right. The plural of hypothesis is hypotheses.

   0 likes

I was about to ask…what about people who pick and choose? I mean, even if slavery is still in this year’s edition of the bible, there are those who would still say, “Well, that’s just a different era!” or “that was a different time.”

But I won’t ask, because even I recognize one answer: religions *can’t* change and subject themselves to the same scrutiny as science (just in a different sphere, so apologists may describe)…because this would undermine claims of religions being the One And Only Truth…And even if they did, they’d soon start dropping the very things that made them “religions” because such things don’t hold up under scrutiny.

   0 likes

I dunno. I guess I just don’t put so much faith in the ability of people to consciously monitor their biases and mitigate them. It seems similar, in part to those who say, “Oh, I’m just not going to be mad. I will recognize when I’m mad and then just choose not to be mad.”

…But then again, I did watch a video (I really need to find that and link it sometime — it was like…an hour…but it was quite informative) that suggested that we *can* essentially break away from the grip of negative emotions.

I guess, then, I have no further questions down this line of reasoning.

   0 likes

   0 likes

I do think it’s important that we talk about what’s really being referred to in “spiritual” experiences. If we’re talking about things that can’t be explained, that may need to be further researched (through the scientific method) – I think that there are scientists who will look into those things.

I’ll give an example – someone is diagnosed with terminal cancer. They undergo treatment – perhaps trying some experimental treatment – but somehow, the cancer lessens or disappears. Could this be some sort of miracle? A person could view it that way. Could it be due to all sorts of other factors that can’t be explained? Yes.

As far as religions claiming that each one is “true” – many mainstream christian religions accept the baptisms from other religions. For example, if you are a methodist, and you decide to start attending the presbyterian church, they don’t make you get rebaptized (unlike the mormons).

   0 likes

do you really think that apologists are just saying “I can believe whatever I feel like, and it’s just as valid as any other belief?”

I think that the faithful would reel at such a characterization.

The whole discussion up until this point has been about how the apologist’s job is merely to prove their position “not impossible” — not to prove it reasonable or accurate. And then they throw in “Hey, you’re biased too!” to justify why that’s good enough. If they reel at what they’re really saying, then so much the worse for them.

And as much as I dislike calling rationalism or scientific thinking their own kinds of bias, I recognize I only cringe because of my own bias

Let’s take an example, that is commonly found in creationist literature to disprove evolution: Piltdown Man. This was discovered to be a hoax, and is obviously no longer part of any evolutionary theory. Now it no longer appears in science books, except as a historical point, to discuss how to avoid such errors in the future. By contrast, let’s consider another point that modern, thinking humans have (more or less universally) found to be wrong: slavery. Has this error in the Bible (the moral guide!) been fixed? Nope, slavery still condoned (even encouraged) in this year’s edition.

The entire point to the scientific method is to try to focus on objective measures of evidence in order to compensate for human bias and move towards the best approximation of reality that we humans can find. Are you seriously claiming that trusting in the scientific method as a good way to eliminate bias is just itself some sort of bias, no different than any other biased thinking?

I’m completely down with trying to understand other people’s perspectives, but there comes a time to cut the B.S. and recognize that some arguments really are more reasonable, more valid, and more evidence-based than others.

   0 likes

The apologist is the first victim of the apologist’s work.

I think the first step in overcoming bias is becoming aware of the myriad ways that we can be biased. Add in a little introspection and we can form a habit of noticing our own biases. I catch myself in confirmation bias more and more all the time. Once we notice that we’re being biased, it seems that our mind tries to cancel out the bias. Conscious awareness is the key.

We will never completely overcome our biases, but it seems worth the effort.

   0 likes

And as much as I dislike calling rationalism or scientific thinking their own kinds of bias, I recognize I only cringe because of my own bias

I find it funny, but my father told me he doesn’t understand how anyone can be atheist (so he thinks that I’m in a “phase” — his view of this is so precious!) but the reason why he says so is intriguing: he claims that whatever priesthood power is…is evidenced throughout history, cultures, etc., (he doesn’t take well to the One-and-Only-Truth idea…) To call it coincidence would be an error, he says (of course, I think this just points out a confirmation bias that he cannot see, but let’s just go with it!) So he *does* theorize that we could, as scientists, eventually come to explain this force through natural means, but just because we can’t now and it appears that these things are “paranormal” doesn’t mean we should believe these things are “chance” or “fraud.”

My dad is trying to compensate for biases in an honest way, but that doesn’t stop him from being mired in biases.

   0 likes