I do strongly feel that it is appropriate to judge an individual negatively for beliefs held when the path to the belief is blatantly without substance and is simultaneously used to control others. If someone choses to believe in a god but acknowledges that “normal” evidence, such as would be necessary for a falsefiable experiment, I have no particular problem with that. Personally I believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Milky Way. I recognize there is no falsefiable experiment currently and I would never use my belief to control anyone else. When a person “knows” there is a god and “knows” that this god requires some behavior of me (and “knows” he is an authorized agent of this god), I judge them negatively (and back way slowly).

I think anti-intellectualism is a natural, if unfortunate, outgrowth of being surrounded by and obligated to technologies that are entirely beyond 95+% of the public’s comprehension. It must be terrifying to need a car and have absolutely no understanding of its major elements. When the mechanic says your car needs a new camshaft position sensor and you have no idea what any of the words mean, much less whether it ought to cost $10 or $5,000, that has to be terrifying and infuriorating. Multiply that by smart phones, kitchen appliances, medical studies, climate issues, computers, food safety, and it’s easy to imagine that for a large fraction of the public, magic is as good an explanation for how things are as any other explanation. And in my opinion, institutions that the public turns to for guidance are grossly negligent and even perhaps criminally guilty of exacerbating all of this. Telling people to pray for a brighter future rather than mobilizing and educating the community is routine and a horrible betrayal of public trust.

Regarding the quality of research, it’s plummeting in most fields. The proportions of studies retracted due to both fraud and sloppy work has increased sharply in recent years. I think there are a number of factors involved, including the commercialization of science for both the purpose of competing for funding and efforts to make science more assecible to the masses. The publish-or-parish mentality in the tenure process doesn’t help. Only a dramatic culture shift can save it.

I was on a discussion panel at Dragon*Con a couple of weeks ago about what could end life as we know it. One thing that scares me probably more than anything else: the growth of narcissistic anti-intellectualism – too many think they know enough and don’t need to study, use precise language, or even think more deeply than they do.

“but I would never assume that someone’s “limited database” is the result of a closed mind.” It seems irrelevant to me why someone’s database is limited. If I don’t have a large vocabulary then I’m not going to be good at NY Times crosswords puzzles. Why my vocabulary is limited is irrelevant. There is no need to moralize about my vocabulary limitations, but it is a relevant fact and it plays as to my crossword puzzle “goodness.” Someone with a small database cannot be very good at skeptically evaluating a statement such as “the redshift associated with type 1A supernovas tends to confirm that dark energy expansion began 5 billion years ago.” Someone with a larger database would be better able to skeptically evaluate this statement and would potentially be a better skeptic. I certainly agree, as you pointed out earlier, that a large database is not sufficient. Terribly illogical thinking can and does sometimes come from people with enormous databases, but without a good database, skeptical thinking will be limited at best.

“The bottom line is that we cannot judge people based on their beliefs (per the link in my last comment).” I’m not sure the context of “judge”. If there is a moralistic component then the discussion is more complex. If judge means evaluate, as I try to do, then evaluating is entirely appropriate. People I encounter have said, “carbon dating doesn’t work to date carbon containing material”. I evaluate these people to have never read scholarly literature concerning the methodolgy for carbon dating. I further evaluate that they have no real interest in trying to understand the methodology (primarily because the information is readily available). Nor do they have a significant understanding of current nuclear theory. I speculate, based on other similar encounters, that they will not know about Greenland ice core dating, and likely will have little knowledge about plate tectonics. If important, I will ask about these speculations, but certainly a preliminary judgement falls from any assessment that their database is no large. Assessing others based on input is continuous and, when the assessment limitations are taken into account, quite appropriate.

“If you introduce examples in which you have more information about the individual’s process (e.g., they limit their exposure to information), then your basis for judgment is different and my original statement doesn’t apply.” Everyone, including me, limits exposure to information. It isn’t so much that limiting occurs (I do close my web browser from time to time and decide I just won’t pull up that last paper), rather it is the reason(s) behind the limiting. Again, it seems entirely appropriate to make assessments about others based on observed patterns in the other persons database (e.g., he is very knowledgeable about old testament, but knows next to nothing about DNA).

Well, of you’ve read this far I applaud you. I’ve tapped everything I’ve sent you one finger tap at a time on my iPad, and my finger is getting numb. Bob.

Regarding Medical papers, ive been digging into the literature in a few areas and am appalled at the poor quality of many, and especially appalled when they come from places such as Harvard and Yale. The term “risk factor” has become a real flag for me. Typically, early in a paper it will be used to mean associates with, then later, without explanation, to mean causes, and finally as a thing to be reduced or eliminated, usually with drug intervention. All this without ever even talking about designing an experiment. Also, I observe papers that seem to pick values of “p” that appear to have been calculated after the fact in order to make the results statistically significant. Writing to authors, editors and publishers seems to have no effect. Do you have ideas for increasing the discomfort level for those who write or publish such junk?

If I told you that I was an EBite and a skeptic, I think you could reasonably deduce that I could not be “good” at both, based on your understanding of what I most likely meant when I said easter bunny and your understanding, based on your lifetime of experience, about the absence of evidence to support such a belief.

I disagree. Is it reasonable to say that a six-year-old believes in the Easter Bunny because they are a bad skeptic? After all, how likely is it that they reasoned well from evidence? They wake up on Easter morning to find baskets of goodies that weren’t there before and colored eggs on the ground. Their parents tell them tales of seeing a giant bunny.

As I noted in this post, judgments about someone’s ability to reason which are made based solely on their conclusions are irrational. If we don’t know how some came to their beliefs, how can we judge that method?

If you have ongoing discussions concerning medical research and the misuse of associations to establish causation, I’d be really interested in connecting with that discussion. Thanks.

…well, is there a stronger term than ironic?

I haven’t found one. If you come across one, please share! “Ultimate irony” is getting a little tiresome.

Regarding your objective to the term “childish”, I used it because it’s descriptive. While I understand what you’re saying, “child” is a developmental stage, not a socially-constructed category separating people. Children do engage in behaviors which adults find unproductive and even silly. That is not an insult to children, nor is it an “othering” of them; we were all children once. Adults presumably have experience and knowledge (i.e., they know better) that children do not. That’s fact, not stereotyping.

I am certain you are correct about that. I would say I am completely certain and sure also but I am afraid I might burst from correctness.

What is it about certainty? The certainty one sees dramatized in the skeptic community blogosphere is……well, is there a stronger term than ironic?

Certainty is so appealing. I indulge it all the time, so I get angry when others do too.

It causes so much trouble, how can we raise a red flag high enough to be visible?

Thanks for your effort in this regard.

Joel

PS: (When I mention this folks often get upset, I don’t think you will). In your first paragraph you use “childish” as a pejorative. I don’t like this, I don’t think it is good for us or for children to use them as exemplars of behavior of which we disapprove. . There are many other similar terms of disparagement puerile, infantile, immature, adolescent, etc. We no longer use other groups in this way(blacks, gays, women etc), why is it still ok to use children? Is it that we, as adults must continue to celebrate that we are not like ‘them’, that we have arrived, have achieved maturity? Or what?