In my series on promoting science using "demand-side reform", Steelman commented:
I usually try to understand others' points of view, especially when they seem rather misguided. That way I may be able to assess the roots of their false beliefs, and have some hope of convincing them to change their views. My wife, however, usually goes straight for name calling. She'll be delighted to know there's an ethical system that employs her preferred method of operation.
Nothing in this blog will condone the behavior of Steelman's wife, as described here.
In fact, the person who goes straight for name-calling is doing exactly that which I condemn in these posts, not that which I commend.
The moral crime is that of jumping straight to conclusions and disregarding evidence - of failing to take the effort to actually understand what one is talking about.
The person who "tries to understand other points of view" is the person engaging in evidence-based thinking (I hope - that this is a vital aspect of how he acquires understanding), and is the person who is to be praised. The person who "goes straight to name-calling" is the arrogant person who presumes a perfect understanding of a topic without actually studying it, and is the person to be criticized and condemned.
Furthermore, nothing that I have written recently shall be taken to contradict my earlier posts the accused deserve a presumption of innocence - the benefit of any reasonable doubt. It is up to the accuser to demonstrate that the evidence supports the conclusion that the accused is guilty - never the duty of the accuser to prove her innocence. And his method of proof of guilt shall be evidence-based.
So, while I advocate that it is legitimate to use criticism, condemnation, and ridicule against those who advocate evidence-free decision making (particularly on matters of public policy), the person who does the condemning must still show that the evidence supports the guilt of the accused.
In fact, the moral requirements that the accused is to be presumed innocent unless proven guilty, and that the proof of guilt is to be based on the evidence, are corollaries to the proposition that people have an obligation to base their decisions on evidence-based thinking. They are applications of that principle.
Ultimately, Steelman actually repeated the main point I have given in these articles.
I'm concerned that the supply side, the side that can educate the public on the differences between science and pseudoscience, is dwindling in response to low demand.
This is why we need demand-side reform. However, demand-side reform does not come from reason. It comes from the manipulation of desires through social tools such as praise, condemnation, reward, and punishment.
Stiffle and suppress demand-side reform - insist that the advocates of evidence-free thinking may not be criticized - those who demand evidence-free policy making . . . and we create an environment in which evidence-free policy making can grow and thrive.
That would be (and has been) a mistake.
In defense of Mrs. Steelman, I can understand why she is, at times, a bit of a cynic, especially when it comes to religious individuals. Her belief that the more religious a person is the crazier they tend to be, is substantiated by a mountain of anecdotal evidence. I've had a wider personal experience with religion and the religious than she, so I've had the pleasure of interacting with people who are both devout and rational (compartmentalized).
ReplyDeleteI can see, from her experiences, how she has formed such an opinion, how she feels she has already examined the facts, and has thereby drawn valid, evidence-based conclusions. She's an intelligent person who is willing to consider additional evidence (my positive experiences), but I can see how prejudices easily form.
"So, while I advocate that it is legitimate to use criticism, condemnation, and ridicule against those who advocate evidence-free decision making (particularly on matters of public policy), the person who does the condemning must still show that the evidence supports the guilt of the accused."
Like Mrs. Steelman, our non-liberally religious cultural competitors are also convinced they've examined the evidence, and therefore have no compunction when it comes to ridiculing and condemning atheists. Unlike her, however, they're not much interested in listening to additional evidence and argument from such an "obviously tainted" source as the godless.
So, don't we end up with the situation we already have? The most vocal members of both camps using the tool of verbal condemnation on one another, with both sides convinced they've done their homework on the issues beforehand. I'm not saying you shouldn't call'em like you see'em, and stand up for your rights, just that I think this becomes a situation where the loudest voices often prevail or, at least, one group continues to prefer the shouting on Fox News and the other receives their dose of raised volume vocalization from MSNBC.
Anyway, go science! And if you disagree, you're a big dummy. Really; I've researched it.
"The person who "goes straight to name-calling" is the arrogant person who presumes a perfect understanding of a topic without actually studying it, and is the person to be criticized and condemned."
ReplyDeleteAssuming the word "condemned" to be a form of degradation (such as name-calling) are you not doing a similar thing as those who are name callers? That is, you suggest the name callers are arrogant, and by doing so you are engaging in a similar activity as them, albeit from an opposite perspective.
Can you not see that?