Re: Roger Ebert comes out of the closet!!

On Sep 1, 2:30 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
el cid wrote:
On Sep 1, 10:53 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
snex wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:28 am, snex <x...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 1, 7:37 am, Robert Grumbine <b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <h7i5kd52...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:03:46 -0400, nmp wrote
(in article <4a9c1e92$0$192$e4fe5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):
J.J. O'Shea wrote:
nmp:
J.J. O'Shea wrote:
[..]
Believe what you  want, it doesn't affect me in the slightest. Trying
to push your beliefs on me will tend to result in my pushing back.
It's good that you said this. Now perhaps you will also understand why
some atheists choose to express themselves like they do. I'm not
counting Snex, but some of the more serious ones. You know, those
"shrill", "offensive", "militant" atheists like Dawkins et al, who get
accused of pushing or forcing their viewpoints upon the poor
defenseless theist people.
Not the same thing.
Then what are we talking about, really?
If the only example you can give of "atheists attacking" is Snex, there
really isn't a problem worth mentioning.
He's merely the most prominent and easily spotted. He's not the only atheist
I've killfiled for the same reason. I don't care for fundies, of whatever
persuasion.
  Fundamentalists can be ok.  One of my neighbors, and he was a good one,
called himself a fundamentalist.
  _Evangelicals_, on the other hand, ...  unless you're also of the same
belief system as them, not so good for neighbors.  viz. snex.
francis collins is a self-described evangelical. when are you going to
criticize him?
in fact, scientists are evangelicals too. they are all trying to
convince everybody else that they are correct. why dont you likewise
tell them to sit down and shut up and let us form our own beliefs?
I actually wonder about hits. Are scientists really concerned about
"beliefs"? I'm not sure (not a rhetorical question). When I had science
examinations as a student, I was asked to perform certain operations,
calculate values of equations and all that. At no point was I asked: and
do you actually _believe_ it?  That would have been seen as an
inappropriate question, left for the colleagues in philosophy

The confusion between the two actually matters - a particularly good
example is Larry Laudan's article on "reasonable doubt" in criminal law
("Is reasonable doubt reasonable") where he shows quite convincingly in
my opinion that the legal concept got badly confused when people thought
about it as an expression of an inner belief of the juror, when really
it shoudl be about an external evaluation of the evidence for which
internal belief states do not matter.

Some time back there was a professor in TX who advertised
a policy regarding letters or recommendation. He said he
would ask a student 'How do you think the human species
originated?' The student was required to affirm a scientific
explanation. There was a great deal of back and forth on
the issue of a student who could correctly relate all
of the scientific position but held a different belief
about humans. It seems that many feel that you have to
do more than understand the scientific argument, you
also have to believe it. The professors name was Dini,
it was around 2002 and he taught somewhere in Texas.

Some of the heat may have arisen from rather poor choices
in wording by Dini.
Here's an ancient summary.
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/techprofessor020203.htm

It was discussed in some heated detail on talk.origins.

How wonderful, thanks! Pity I missed that debate, but I hazard the guess
that the fundies on both sides would have engaged in self-contradiction
and strategic dishonesty from the word go.

After all, we are dealing here with someone who claims to uphold
standards of scientific rationality and honesty in a process that is
_designed_ to be unscientific, irrational  and dishonest.

The only purpose to keep the pre-modern system of recommendation letters
is after all to allow appointment committees to disregard the objective,
verifiable evidence and  go by the hunches and subjective impressions of
someone they know to be a "good chap" - the gatekeepers of the system
who ensure that the person you hire is someone you like to drink with in
the senior common room.

"On a personal level, she is a very popular and  energetic young woman
with many outside and social interests, and capable of building deep and
loyal bonds to people" code for: She will get pregnant half way through
the grant, leaving you with the work, and worse she's faithful to her
boyfriend and won't even let you shag her. Avoid. Hire my nephew
instead, who is truth to be told a bit of a numbnut but will make a
valuable addition to your department's cricket team. See you at the
external examiner banquet..."

Of course, you are not supposed to talk about it, which is what happened
here, so strategic dishonesty is required:

  "He adds that it is easy to imagine how physicians who ignore or
neglect the "evolutionary origin of humans can make bad clinical decision.."

Really? Now I do teach evidence also to students who study medical
malpractice litigation, and I always thought I'm pretty up to date with
the available scientific literature that looks at the causes of bad
clinical decisions. There is E. Nilson's 2003 article in the Annals of
internal medicine, Woolf et all's paper in the Annals of  Family
Medicine from 2004;  several articles, unsurprisingly in the
International Journal for Quality  in Health Care, e.g.  A. Chang's et
all 2005 meta study, and with a focus on education Shojania,  Fletcher
and Saint on "Graduate medical education and patient safety. (Ann Intern
Med 2006; 145(8): 592 - 598.) To name but a few. Strangely though, I
must have missed the one that correlates bad clinical decision with
religious beliefs or belief in the origins of species.

So what is the rational, scientific status of this assertion, or did the
good  Professor have a spiritual insight?

Reminds me of my failed attempt to get from snex scientific, objectively
verifiable evidence for the claimed correlation between religious
beliefs in competent scientists and their  inability to run a large
research institution. In the absence of a published scientific study,
i'd have settled for strong anecdotal evidence but somehow, these are
things "everyone knows" and "stand to reason" and therefore not in need
of evidence.

The situation for the other side is hardly better. After all, they _do_
typically claim that the internal, subjective belief is what matters.
There is especially in Christianity a long and horrid history of
prosecution of people suspected to "just go through the motions" and not
"truly" belief in god - see the prosecution of Jews who converted to
Christianity in Spain,. That was what led to the inquisition. So they
shoudl feel instinctively at home with the unscientific, inquisitorial
attitude taken by  Dini....

Oh my, I do think I like you. I recall the time my ex was applying to
med school. She was doing open heart surgery on bunnies that some of
the fellows she worked with could not seem to get right so was not
only bright but talented in other ways. We also had 2 young kids.
The one of her bosses who was writing a letter had us over for dinner
and was very troubled. He wanted to include in her evaluation that
she was not only bright, industrious, talented, intuitive etc., but
he was simply amazed at her time management skills, revealed in
always getting her work and more done while successfully raising
2 young kids. His wife was also an MD and he also had 2 kids. It was
some of the highest praise he could think of and yet he knew it would
likely be misunderstood. As it turns out, I got a report on her
evaluation because I knew some folks on the admissions committee.
She got panned by a guy who was convinced medicine was going downhill,
becoming a profession of dabblers, largely due to women dropping
off to have babies once they got their degree. The dinosaur was
due to retire the next year (and did) so people let him get away
with it rather than fight. Bad luck on who did the primary review.
The LoR systems remains a classic example of parochial elitism
--- trust us, we know what's best, ignore the man behind the
curtain. Oh it works 70 to 80% of the time and the rest? Well
we can't interfere with the fiefdoms of other faculty who are
known scalawags, we must protect the holy sanctity of academic
freedom. Bit hyperbolic but you got me going.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Gould vs. Dawkins
    ... and am told by scientists that that is beyond knowing. ... that opinion in the light of evidence. ... what are called beliefs, which are actually opinions. ... science, then tell me what causes a thought, give me a scientific ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Roger Ebert comes out of the closet!!
    ... to push your beliefs on me will tend to result in my pushing back. ... in fact, scientists are evangelicals too. ... The only purpose to keep the pre-modern system of recommendation letters is after all to allow appointment committees to disregard the objective, verifiable evidence and go by the hunches and subjective impressions of someone they know to be a "good chap" - the gatekeepers of the system who ensure that the person you hire is someone you like to drink with in the senior common room. ... (Ann Intern ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: creation and evolution as the origin of life
    ... My theories on translation have not yet been articulated formally. ... their way to demonstrate moral superiority to creationists in some way ... beliefs, which is that actions come from beliefs, so that in the absence ... scientists can get along, and are often the same people, creationism is a ...
    (talk.origins)