Have you ever, while conducting street epistemology, changed your mind entirely on the topic of conversation from where you began, or decreased your confidence in order of magnitude? If so, what was the topic of conversation? What did your mind (or confidence) change from and to?
question for Peter Boghossian: Today, Dec. 12, on MSNBC, Nicole Wallace specified Gays Against Groomers as a "hate group" and implied they are in the same category as Nick Fuentes, who is apparently a white supremacist. Gays for Groomers is a group of homosexuals, both men and lesbians, who are working to expose groomers, true sexual predators, like Jeffrey Marsh, ( a tiktok-er who tells children in the online audience that he will "be your family") and Sam Brinton, alleged thief of women's luggage who's given talks about "unusual' sexual practices on college campuses. How can safeguarding groups protect themselves from attacks by Nicole Wallace, MSNBC?
Ute Heggen, author, In the Curated Woods, True Tales from a Grass Widow (iuniverse, 2022)
Thank you for answering my previous questions and the opportunity to ask more! The behavior you are modeling is rare, and honorable. Thank you, Gina, for asking and considering my questions!
Question #1: Other than Evolution and wokeism (and maybe climate change?), what examples could you name, where very large percentages of the American population do not want a subject taught to their children in public schools, and NPR frames the subject as fact vs belief, rather than competing viewpoints?
Context for Question #1: No further context
--------------------
Question #2: [If it could be proven] that an alien with genetic-engineering skills was responsible for creating life on earth, would an article making this case survive peer-review? Would scientists be permitted to discover and pursue such a truth?
Context for Question #2: The question was inspired by a Michael Shermer quote:
“I contend that if the intelligent design program is successful, what it will succeed in doing is discovering an extra-terrestrial intelligence, who can do really cool genetic engineering. I think that's actually really a cool thing, if we did.” - Michael Shermer
In an interview with Richard Dawkins, you asked him, “what would it take for you to believe in God?”
Dawkins mentions that he used to believe that a personal physical experience with God would convince him, but now believes the more probable explanation would be that he is hallucinating. So, he is uncertain that his beliefs would change (not based on evidence).
An audience member during the Q&A portion of a presentation by Paul Nelson at Ohio State University, ask Paul, “if you were to find concrete evidence of God, how would that affect your faith?”
Nelson says he is uncertain that it would have any effect on his beliefs (not based on evidence). Paul even provides one of the same reasons as Dawkins for why the question is difficult to answer (such an experience could always be dismissed as a hallucination) and ultimately concludes that he doesn't know how to answer the question. What I find interesting is that both people (Nelson and Dawkins), with strong disagreement about a belief in God, say that they are uncertain if having concrete evidence for God would have any effect on their belief in God.
--------------------
Question #4: Can you think of an example where someone said in public discourse, that they don’t believe in an example of micro-evolution, such as birds producing various birds, bacteria producing various bacteria, or siblings looking different from each other?
Context for Question #4: I read your recommended book, “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne. In his book, Jerry defines micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Yet in his book, he only provides evidence for micro-evolution. The only attempt at addressing the problem of macro-evolution was to claim that the fossil record is undeniable evidence that macro-evolution occurred. I grew up in a religious home that attended church regularly. I also moved around every 3 years as my father was in the Army, so I have known plenty of Christians from most regions of the United States, and I have never heard of a single instance of anyone believing micro-evolution was false, the contention has been universally with macro-evolution. So, a book that you recommend, as the most important book ever written on Evolution in terms of its accessibility to a wide audience, only provides evidence for an idea that is already universally accepted. In other words, the intended audience of the book, is a strawman. I find that very odd. If an author writes a book intended to present evidence for an idea that is not universally accepted, but the book only contains evidence for a different idea which is already universally accepted, what would that indicate about the author’s knowledge of differing viewpoints on the initial idea?
Thank you for your questions! I can share my thoughts about your first question now but would prefer to wait to answer the second question, until after Peter answers my 10-minute question. Afterwards, I can share my elevator pitch and my reason for withholding until then.
Here is the way I think about aliens and predictions. When I say alien, I mean extra-terrestrial or more specifically, non-human intelligence. If aliens exist, what could I expect to see, or predict will be found? I like to use Stonehenge to help me think about this. Regardless of my religion, creed, or lack thereof, if I were to stumble across Stonehenge, I would ask myself, “who built that?” I happen to believe Stonehenge was built by average-sized humans, but the three main suggestions I’ve seen floated online are: humans, giant humans, or aliens. The reason I think they fall into these categories is, they all have the requisite level of intelligence to desire to build such a structure. Humans would need to use some level of technology to move such large stones (even if the technology is a sled or raft), giants could rely on their strength more than technology, and if it wasn’t humans of any size, then it would logically be a non-human intelligence. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would think that one should explore possible natural causes for Stonehenge, yet to be discovered. So hypothetically, to prove Stonehenge was made by aliens, I would have to rule out human causation. So, the predictions for finding aliens in space look the same as predictions of what I would find if humans developed space flight and escaped the extinction event of the dinosaurs and landed on another planet. If I were to find a structure that would not exist absent intelligence, such as a Stonehenge-like structure, on another planet, the most reasonable inference would be humans built it. Otherwise, I would have to show that it could not have been humans, such as finding non-human DNA that I can clone and discover it is a non-human intelligent being. So, the prediction is: that I would find evidence of intelligent causation and evidence that humans could not have been responsible, like in the previous DNA example. The best evidence for a non-human intelligence, if it were to exist, would be evidence that humans themselves were designed by an intelligent being, because I would then know that such a being could not be human.
Thanks again for your questions and any follow-up thoughts! Cheers!
The major religions of the world often try to recruit martyrs. I know that Wokeism is always recruiting potential Revolutionaries, and wants the world to be in a perpetual state of Revolution.
Does Wokeism try to recruit martyrs? Does it glorify martyrs? How does it define martyrdom, and how does it use that (if it does at all) in its propaganda?
I am asking because I went to elementary school in China. We got some of the indoctrination that we see in the North American Paulo Freire schools, except from what I recall there was a lot of martyr porn. Just absolutely violent material such as communist martyr children being beheaded or disemboweled. I left school when I was nine.
Should a high school AP Literature take a classic from the 1890s and talk about how the main character could be a metaphorical lesbian? And then the teacher had the students pick out characteristics that are lesbian and those that are straight. She then tells them she’s lesbian and only a lesbian knows whether someone else is and straight can’t do that. Then she had them divide up into groups of their choosing so 3 kids who were white armenian or Italian grouped together bc parents knew each other then Asians together gays together and browns ( Indians ) as they call themselves. I think she’s dividing everyone more. What would you say? And how does this help them pass the AP literature test in May? I don’t get what’s happening. Then another class they listed characteristics of a male and all were negative. Horrible.
Is there a reason why you’ve stopped doing the critical thinking exercises on YT?
Context: I completely understand if it’s utterly degrading lol. I would like to learn how the exercise is done exactly so I don’t make myself look stupid when I attempt to do it in public myself
I am surprised but then someone could say it’s brilliant profiting off of Christians by marketing your book for Christmas as an atheist Do you share the birth of Jesus Christmas customs with your side of the family as they died because they were different than the Turkish people?
Madam, I saw the raw video and the interaction you are talking about! And I understand what you are going through, I am experiencing it myself. I don't believe intelligence is an antidote to this. I think it comes down to the premises people accept--and then the rest cascades. The premise can be faulty through lack of information or a moral impulse. I can't wait to hear what Peter has to say about this!
Have you ever, while conducting street epistemology, changed your mind entirely on the topic of conversation from where you began, or decreased your confidence in order of magnitude? If so, what was the topic of conversation? What did your mind (or confidence) change from and to?
question for Peter Boghossian: Today, Dec. 12, on MSNBC, Nicole Wallace specified Gays Against Groomers as a "hate group" and implied they are in the same category as Nick Fuentes, who is apparently a white supremacist. Gays for Groomers is a group of homosexuals, both men and lesbians, who are working to expose groomers, true sexual predators, like Jeffrey Marsh, ( a tiktok-er who tells children in the online audience that he will "be your family") and Sam Brinton, alleged thief of women's luggage who's given talks about "unusual' sexual practices on college campuses. How can safeguarding groups protect themselves from attacks by Nicole Wallace, MSNBC?
Ute Heggen, author, In the Curated Woods, True Tales from a Grass Widow (iuniverse, 2022)
Thank you for answering my previous questions and the opportunity to ask more! The behavior you are modeling is rare, and honorable. Thank you, Gina, for asking and considering my questions!
Question #1: Other than Evolution and wokeism (and maybe climate change?), what examples could you name, where very large percentages of the American population do not want a subject taught to their children in public schools, and NPR frames the subject as fact vs belief, rather than competing viewpoints?
Context for Question #1: No further context
--------------------
Question #2: [If it could be proven] that an alien with genetic-engineering skills was responsible for creating life on earth, would an article making this case survive peer-review? Would scientists be permitted to discover and pursue such a truth?
Context for Question #2: The question was inspired by a Michael Shermer quote:
“I contend that if the intelligent design program is successful, what it will succeed in doing is discovering an extra-terrestrial intelligence, who can do really cool genetic engineering. I think that's actually really a cool thing, if we did.” - Michael Shermer
https://youtu.be/5zXSyBFH6HM?t=3298
https://michaelshermer.com/media/paul-nelson-debate/
I have my doubts that such a discovery would survive peer review, because the design hypothesis is perceived as religious.
Follow-up Question: If I could prove to you within 10 minutes, that such an extra-terrestrial intelligence exists, would you be interested?
--------------------
Question #3: If you were given concrete evidence for God, how would that affect your beliefs?
Context for Question #3:
https://youtu.be/RoQurwEZmmQ?t=750
In an interview with Richard Dawkins, you asked him, “what would it take for you to believe in God?”
Dawkins mentions that he used to believe that a personal physical experience with God would convince him, but now believes the more probable explanation would be that he is hallucinating. So, he is uncertain that his beliefs would change (not based on evidence).
https://youtu.be/waR4_TktMvQ?t=5849
An audience member during the Q&A portion of a presentation by Paul Nelson at Ohio State University, ask Paul, “if you were to find concrete evidence of God, how would that affect your faith?”
Nelson says he is uncertain that it would have any effect on his beliefs (not based on evidence). Paul even provides one of the same reasons as Dawkins for why the question is difficult to answer (such an experience could always be dismissed as a hallucination) and ultimately concludes that he doesn't know how to answer the question. What I find interesting is that both people (Nelson and Dawkins), with strong disagreement about a belief in God, say that they are uncertain if having concrete evidence for God would have any effect on their belief in God.
--------------------
Question #4: Can you think of an example where someone said in public discourse, that they don’t believe in an example of micro-evolution, such as birds producing various birds, bacteria producing various bacteria, or siblings looking different from each other?
Context for Question #4: I read your recommended book, “Why Evolution is True” by Jerry Coyne. In his book, Jerry defines micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Yet in his book, he only provides evidence for micro-evolution. The only attempt at addressing the problem of macro-evolution was to claim that the fossil record is undeniable evidence that macro-evolution occurred. I grew up in a religious home that attended church regularly. I also moved around every 3 years as my father was in the Army, so I have known plenty of Christians from most regions of the United States, and I have never heard of a single instance of anyone believing micro-evolution was false, the contention has been universally with macro-evolution. So, a book that you recommend, as the most important book ever written on Evolution in terms of its accessibility to a wide audience, only provides evidence for an idea that is already universally accepted. In other words, the intended audience of the book, is a strawman. I find that very odd. If an author writes a book intended to present evidence for an idea that is not universally accepted, but the book only contains evidence for a different idea which is already universally accepted, what would that indicate about the author’s knowledge of differing viewpoints on the initial idea?
Thank you for your questions! I can share my thoughts about your first question now but would prefer to wait to answer the second question, until after Peter answers my 10-minute question. Afterwards, I can share my elevator pitch and my reason for withholding until then.
Here is the way I think about aliens and predictions. When I say alien, I mean extra-terrestrial or more specifically, non-human intelligence. If aliens exist, what could I expect to see, or predict will be found? I like to use Stonehenge to help me think about this. Regardless of my religion, creed, or lack thereof, if I were to stumble across Stonehenge, I would ask myself, “who built that?” I happen to believe Stonehenge was built by average-sized humans, but the three main suggestions I’ve seen floated online are: humans, giant humans, or aliens. The reason I think they fall into these categories is, they all have the requisite level of intelligence to desire to build such a structure. Humans would need to use some level of technology to move such large stones (even if the technology is a sled or raft), giants could rely on their strength more than technology, and if it wasn’t humans of any size, then it would logically be a non-human intelligence. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would think that one should explore possible natural causes for Stonehenge, yet to be discovered. So hypothetically, to prove Stonehenge was made by aliens, I would have to rule out human causation. So, the predictions for finding aliens in space look the same as predictions of what I would find if humans developed space flight and escaped the extinction event of the dinosaurs and landed on another planet. If I were to find a structure that would not exist absent intelligence, such as a Stonehenge-like structure, on another planet, the most reasonable inference would be humans built it. Otherwise, I would have to show that it could not have been humans, such as finding non-human DNA that I can clone and discover it is a non-human intelligent being. So, the prediction is: that I would find evidence of intelligent causation and evidence that humans could not have been responsible, like in the previous DNA example. The best evidence for a non-human intelligence, if it were to exist, would be evidence that humans themselves were designed by an intelligent being, because I would then know that such a being could not be human.
Thanks again for your questions and any follow-up thoughts! Cheers!
Hello,
A question from the younger ones in my immediate circle of conversationalists.
"Since your book about Conversations AND Cynical
Theories has been already read.
Great books , Thank you.
What 3rd and 4th books to read, would you feel gives a young person better communication and reasoning skills?"
Context: High School Senior.
Again to all that put the effort and heart into this Substack. Thank you.
Could you consider more long-form talks/interviews where we can do a deep dive, or a series of deep dives on these subjects?
The major religions of the world often try to recruit martyrs. I know that Wokeism is always recruiting potential Revolutionaries, and wants the world to be in a perpetual state of Revolution.
Does Wokeism try to recruit martyrs? Does it glorify martyrs? How does it define martyrdom, and how does it use that (if it does at all) in its propaganda?
I am asking because I went to elementary school in China. We got some of the indoctrination that we see in the North American Paulo Freire schools, except from what I recall there was a lot of martyr porn. Just absolutely violent material such as communist martyr children being beheaded or disemboweled. I left school when I was nine.
Should a high school AP Literature take a classic from the 1890s and talk about how the main character could be a metaphorical lesbian? And then the teacher had the students pick out characteristics that are lesbian and those that are straight. She then tells them she’s lesbian and only a lesbian knows whether someone else is and straight can’t do that. Then she had them divide up into groups of their choosing so 3 kids who were white armenian or Italian grouped together bc parents knew each other then Asians together gays together and browns ( Indians ) as they call themselves. I think she’s dividing everyone more. What would you say? And how does this help them pass the AP literature test in May? I don’t get what’s happening. Then another class they listed characteristics of a male and all were negative. Horrible.
What future predictions do you have for Twitter and the consequences of it being a more open platform?
Is there a reason why you’ve stopped doing the critical thinking exercises on YT?
Context: I completely understand if it’s utterly degrading lol. I would like to learn how the exercise is done exactly so I don’t make myself look stupid when I attempt to do it in public myself
These questions are amazing!
I am surprised but then someone could say it’s brilliant profiting off of Christians by marketing your book for Christmas as an atheist Do you share the birth of Jesus Christmas customs with your side of the family as they died because they were different than the Turkish people?
Madam, I saw the raw video and the interaction you are talking about! And I understand what you are going through, I am experiencing it myself. I don't believe intelligence is an antidote to this. I think it comes down to the premises people accept--and then the rest cascades. The premise can be faulty through lack of information or a moral impulse. I can't wait to hear what Peter has to say about this!