A Lesson in Self-Deception
by BradfordI'm an atheist and scientist. I don't believe anybody without good evidence.
Who said that? The sentiment is fairly commonplace in forums where intelligent design is discussed. Those people of reason are amazing are they not? They remind me of Mr. Spock wannabes. So logical and sciency and unlike people of faith, right? Here's the link.
PZ does not believe anyone without good evidence. Unlike many of us he has never been short changed in a business or consumer transaction because he is no doubt scrupulous in getting solid evidence before making a purchase. It must be nice to be able to support all your beliefs with good evidence. Did he believe the claims about transparency in government or vote for the one who promised it while thinking the promise insincere? And PZ, remember this?
The movie has been criticized by those interviewees who are critics of intelligent design (P.Z. Myers, Dawkins,[68] Shermer,[30] and National Center for Science Education head Eugenie Scott), who say they were misled into participating by being asked to be interviewed for a film named
January 24th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
This could explain alot about PZ.
He must have hated growing up, and going to school.
All those authority figures telling him to believe things and him without any means to verify or falsify what they were telling him.
I wonder if he still doubts that 2+2=4.
Comment by Mung — January 24, 2010 @ 2:58 pm
January 24th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
[...] A Lesson in Self-Deception [...]
Pingback by Darwiniana » Darwinism, and the lack of evidence — January 24, 2010 @ 2:59 pm
January 25th, 2010 at 1:43 am
While these "skeptical" comments are common occams razor cuts against materialism. On what basis are we to believe in the existence of a material world? On material evidence? That's circular. material evidence cannot use to prove the existence of a material world. The existence of a material world must be taken on FAITH. On the other hand we have tons of evidence that the world is orderly bound by laws (such as the laws of physics). As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as "a material world."
Comment by William Brookfield — January 25, 2010 @ 1:43 am
January 25th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
By adding the qualifier "good", PZ makes the issue a subjective one.
What qualifies as "good" evidence in PZ's mind? Surely not the evidence cited by Creationists!
The fact that it must be "good" (according to PZ) tells us that there is evidence that he doesn't consider "good".
The adjective takes it out of the realm of objectivity and allows PZ to keep his biases by choosing what evidence he considers "good".
Comment by Daniel Smith — January 25, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
January 25th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Some seriously remind me: doesn't PZ believe in memes, despite no substantial evidence for the term let alone the full-blown theory?
It doesn't take long to figure out that PZ doesn't have much of a grasp of anything outside of biology; his understanding of philosophy or the humanities is, at best, an undergraduate understanding (No joke). When he talks about evidence, proof, or things like explanation, I just tune him out. The guy is irrationality embodied.
Comment by dantedanti — January 25, 2010 @ 7:54 pm
January 26th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
Comment by chunkdz — January 26, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
January 26th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
"I don't believe anybody without good evidence."
This is simply the logical positivist criterion for meaning (or in this case, beliavability) again. As always with logical positivism the statement itself is void of good evidence for it so it should be rejected by its own criteria.
Though it should probably be formulated as:
"Statements from people should never be believed without good evidence."
for the point to be clear.
Comment by Heuristics — January 26, 2010 @ 5:04 pm