I think that many kids now are being taught about how they (and people like them) are oppressors and have XYZ privilege, being that they are kids and are not oppressors or tools of the heterosexist white supremacist patriarchy they cannot reconcile this and find themselves being drawn to identities that they are taught garner more sympathy and have less power.
What role do you think this type of CRT/ DEI education has on young people who are increasingly adopting identities that allow them to have some alignment with the oppressed and not just as the role of the oppressor?
(fwiw I think the impact this has cannot be overstated and teaching our children they are "bad" has lead them to adopt identities that can provide them redemption)
The proposition: truths that have strong evidence are a subset of all truths that exist.
The question: do you strongly agree, agree, slightly agree... ? What should we do about the conclusion that you draw regarding this proposition when engaging in truth-seeking? If you agree, what should we do about the possibility that some truths do not have evidence?
(I thought of this after learning about Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem from Youtube, which apparently is itself provable, which states that not all true mathematical statements can be proven)
My daughter, a teacher, believes that school voucher programs would lead to lower teacher pay and foster lesser credentialling standards. Is she right?
Did you know that breast implants have to be replaced every 10 years. The trans "community" demands to have these repeat surgeries covered by govt. entitlements/insurance companies. Do you believe repeat implant surgeries should be an entitlement for those who ideate an opposite sex persona?
Thank you for hosting the AMAs, I look forward to them each month! My question this month is about scientific consensus.
Suppose there is scientific consensus originating from a variety of scientific disciplines on a particular topic. If one where to find a set of failed predictions in one’s own discipline, it seems reasonable to consider one might be mistaken in some way or missing part of the bigger picture, since there is consensus between the other disciplines on the same topic. Therefore, searching for an additional auxiliary theory to explain the apparent inconsistency would seem to be a reasonable and perhaps more reasonable course of action, than rejecting the scientific consensus. How does a scientist progress beyond this psychological hurdle and determine if the consensus is wrong or only appears to be?
Context:
There is the famous Darwin quote where he lays out the disconfirmation conditions for Darwinism.
"If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin.
However, since Darwinism is scientific consensus, finding an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications would not cause the theory of evolution to break down.
In other words, he recognized the existence of such an adapter should disconfirm his belief in Darwinism. Even though the adaptor now known as messenger RNA was eventually identified, due to scientific consensus Watson is not only able to dismiss his own disconfirmation conditions, but he can also confidently publish a book admitting it 30 years after the disconfirmation conditions are met. The only way this makes sense to me is if he thinks he is justified in assuming the disconfirmation is only apparent and eventually new discoveries will resolve the apparent contradiction in his thinking.
Peter I know you're a friend of Michael Shermer and his skeptical group and also a fan of Richard Dawkins. Here's my question for you. I believe that both skeptics and those who are called new atheists are not really driven by philosophical positions as much they are psychological ones. I always noticed that they prattle on about intellect and how intelligent they are or how ignorant the religious are or those that might believe and something that's considered paranormal. I look as both movements as a kind of cult of intellect. as opposed to people who are non theists such as myself (Philosophical Buddhist ) pratityasamutpada and so forth. Or agnostics who are sceptical but not a"sceptic" .
This opinion was solidified after reading Attachment Evolution and the Psychology of Religion by Lee a Kirkpatrick who argues that religion instead emerges from numerous psychological mechanisms and systems that evolved for other functions and also apostacy or the sceptic position as wel is driven by such mechanisms. Also Scientist as Subject: The Psychological Imperative (Foundations of Psychology).
I think that many kids now are being taught about how they (and people like them) are oppressors and have XYZ privilege, being that they are kids and are not oppressors or tools of the heterosexist white supremacist patriarchy they cannot reconcile this and find themselves being drawn to identities that they are taught garner more sympathy and have less power.
What role do you think this type of CRT/ DEI education has on young people who are increasingly adopting identities that allow them to have some alignment with the oppressed and not just as the role of the oppressor?
(fwiw I think the impact this has cannot be overstated and teaching our children they are "bad" has lead them to adopt identities that can provide them redemption)
The proposition: truths that have strong evidence are a subset of all truths that exist.
The question: do you strongly agree, agree, slightly agree... ? What should we do about the conclusion that you draw regarding this proposition when engaging in truth-seeking? If you agree, what should we do about the possibility that some truths do not have evidence?
(I thought of this after learning about Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem from Youtube, which apparently is itself provable, which states that not all true mathematical statements can be proven)
My daughter, a teacher, believes that school voucher programs would lead to lower teacher pay and foster lesser credentialling standards. Is she right?
Did you know that breast implants have to be replaced every 10 years. The trans "community" demands to have these repeat surgeries covered by govt. entitlements/insurance companies. Do you believe repeat implant surgeries should be an entitlement for those who ideate an opposite sex persona?
I realize this AMA is already passed but I wanted to put this question down before I forgot about it.
I think I know what you are going to say to this Pete, but if love to hear your direct response to a quote from Daniel Dennett.
"There's simply no polite way to tell people they've dedicated their life to an illusion." How does the supply to street epistomology.
What did you mean by "epistemological delusion" in the interview with Keri Smith?
What conclusions should be drawn from the Justice Department's investigation of the Minneapolis police department?
Thank you for hosting the AMAs, I look forward to them each month! My question this month is about scientific consensus.
Suppose there is scientific consensus originating from a variety of scientific disciplines on a particular topic. If one where to find a set of failed predictions in one’s own discipline, it seems reasonable to consider one might be mistaken in some way or missing part of the bigger picture, since there is consensus between the other disciplines on the same topic. Therefore, searching for an additional auxiliary theory to explain the apparent inconsistency would seem to be a reasonable and perhaps more reasonable course of action, than rejecting the scientific consensus. How does a scientist progress beyond this psychological hurdle and determine if the consensus is wrong or only appears to be?
Context:
There is the famous Darwin quote where he lays out the disconfirmation conditions for Darwinism.
"If it could ever be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." - Charles Darwin.
However, since Darwinism is scientific consensus, finding an organ that could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications would not cause the theory of evolution to break down.
As an example, James Watson, co-discoverer of the double-helix structure of DNA, claimed the undiscovered adaptor mechanism proposed by his friend Francis Crick seemed “too complicated to have ever evolved at the origin of life”. https://archive.bookfrom.net/james-d-watson/page,16,511378-genes_girls_and_gamow.html
In other words, he recognized the existence of such an adapter should disconfirm his belief in Darwinism. Even though the adaptor now known as messenger RNA was eventually identified, due to scientific consensus Watson is not only able to dismiss his own disconfirmation conditions, but he can also confidently publish a book admitting it 30 years after the disconfirmation conditions are met. The only way this makes sense to me is if he thinks he is justified in assuming the disconfirmation is only apparent and eventually new discoveries will resolve the apparent contradiction in his thinking.
What could citizens have done in Italy and Germany in the 1930 to have prevented Mussolini and Hitler from taking power?
Peter I know you're a friend of Michael Shermer and his skeptical group and also a fan of Richard Dawkins. Here's my question for you. I believe that both skeptics and those who are called new atheists are not really driven by philosophical positions as much they are psychological ones. I always noticed that they prattle on about intellect and how intelligent they are or how ignorant the religious are or those that might believe and something that's considered paranormal. I look as both movements as a kind of cult of intellect. as opposed to people who are non theists such as myself (Philosophical Buddhist ) pratityasamutpada and so forth. Or agnostics who are sceptical but not a"sceptic" .
This opinion was solidified after reading Attachment Evolution and the Psychology of Religion by Lee a Kirkpatrick who argues that religion instead emerges from numerous psychological mechanisms and systems that evolved for other functions and also apostacy or the sceptic position as wel is driven by such mechanisms. Also Scientist as Subject: The Psychological Imperative (Foundations of Psychology).
So what do you think about theses concepts?