Dumb as we wanna be

Tagged:
It has been a while since I have gotten on the soap box, but the way Americans seem to think everything is a "debate" just chaps my hide, so here goes.

Everything is NOT a debate. At least not in the sense that most people that question scientific evidence mean it. Here I am talking about global warming, evolution, vaccines, and every other such fact ignorant people choose not to "believe." It's not about belief jackass, it's about evidence, and science, and frankly, reality.

Here is an excellent video that does a much better job than I can, of explaining what I mean:

If you feel we should "question conventional wisdom," and by that you mean, just make shit up and search for stuff on the interwebs that agrees with you, and from there buy in to conspiracies and theories that are based on no evidence at all (but happen to make you feel better by validating a current behavior or belief you already have), then you are profoundly ignorant at best.

Science matters, it is our only real view of truth. It's not a perfect view, no, but that is by design, there is no perfect. Even so, there is overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that, just for a few examples: global warming is real and is caused by man, evolution is a fact and humans have a common ancestor with apes and monkeys and shrews and worms, and childhood vaccines save lives and protect entire populations and there is no evidence whatsoever that they "cause" autism.

Yet people not only feel free to "question" these things without bothering to even attempt to understand the science. They also feel so confident about it that they espouse these views openly. And not just everyday joes (for whom there is still no excuse, by the time you are about 10 years old you should understand how to process information, most of it in the world being bullshit, and form an informed point of view), but congresspersons, "journalists," pundits, and so on. It's ludicrous. It's one thing to question something and say "I am not sure about that, I would like to find out more about it," and another to take the opposite stance of the overwhelming majority of science, and call something into question in public from a point of influence or power.

The recent Wired Magazine article on vaccines, and the responses they got, are what set me off on this rant (this time). One responder put it much more eloquently than I can:

“It’s about what Tom Friedman calls the modern American ‘dumb as we wanna be’ attitude, which combines stunning intellectual laziness, the erroneous concept that all information is equal, and the Internet to create a witches brew we’re using to commit national suicide. Vaccines are just the tip of the iceberg. The same mentality has led to catastrophic stasis—or at best tepid action—on the key issues of our time: climate change and health care reform.”

Nail, meet head. "Stunning intellectual laziness" - that is what I mean by people don't bother to try to check in with reality. Combined with "the erroneous concept that all information is equal" - exactly, it's not, and at an early age people should be able to tell that.

I think part of it is cognitive dissonance. Part of it is wanton ignorance, Part of it may also just be stupid, but lazy is more comfortable for me. People aren't really that dumb, they are just that lazy. Either way though, it's very dangerous.

Why is it dangerous? Well, if you don't believe in vaccines you endanger the rest of the herd (people even responded incredulously to the Wired article saying "I don't see how I am endangering you" - exactly, you don't see). If you don't "believe" in evolution and you want to change school curriculums to put in equal time for bullshit like "Intelligent Design" you are at best wasting everyone's time, and at worst dragging learning within society backwards. If you don't "believe" in global warming you probably contribute to more of it and you aren't willing to help put forth the political will to do something about it and that puts others at risk as well.

Keep in mind, these are just three examples off the top of my head, the bigger issue is the entire culture of intellectual laziness - there are many more issues just like these where people are choosing to ignore evidence.

Comments

Hitchens touched upon this at the end of his reddit interview...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78Jl2iPPUtI He noted the difference between American "debate" and the approach that the English approach to debate - Oxford-style debates. I think there is a resurgence of interest in these, more formal modes of debate in recent years as more and more people start to realize that our "public dialog" has been hijacked by cable news stations chasing ratings. I'd be much happier if NPR stations ran something like Intelligence Squared once a night and if they turned it into a format that would run debates about local and regional issues. We *should* be constantly arguing with one another, we shoudl be constantly engaging one another.... but we are not. Even in the software industry, I write for a company that competes in a marketplace. Whenever we bring up indisputable facts and evidence, we are attacked for not being "team players". I believe that this stems from the fact that we have make real debate, real disagreement isn't acceptable. Everyone "gets along" and accepts everyone else's "opinion". There, I'll get of the soapbox now. Sorry.

Re:Oxford style debates

I have always wanted to see a candidate debate that is actually a "Lincoln-Douglas" debate. Either the actual format they used, or the 45 minute format-per-topic that students use. Frankly that would be better SUCH an improvement over what we generally get in The States, it would be breathtaking. The problem is, though, all our arguments in the US now boil down to "fundamentals." This default reductionism is certainly easier on the debaters, but leads us farther away from *policy* arguments that derive from facts, and more towards appeals to emotion. "The government that governs best, governs least." OK, even if I take that as axiomatically true, barring a slippery slope fallacy, it has no place in a discussion of Net Neutrality, since it doesn't delineate a hard and fast rule on WHERE government should govern. There is also the problem of "journalism" today. "Journalists" consider it their responsibility to report what each side of an "argument" says, rather than discern to the best of their ability what is true, and tell people the facts. Modern "balance" is "Side A says the sky is orange, others disagree." That kind of journalism, combined with, lets call them authoritative arguments from emotion -- arguments from cliche anyway -- lead to a world where there are no facts.

I was with ya, right up until

I was with ya, right up until you started bashing intelligent design. This brings to mind a disagreement between Newton and Leibnitz. Newton said that God must occasionally add extra momentum to keep the world moving, while Leibnitz maintained that God is a good enough "watchmaker" that He does not have to "wind the watch" anymore. Point being that Science used to be OK with a belief system. We have laws that state matter can not be created nor destroyed which contradict any possibility as to how that matter came into being. Perhaps intelligent design and Religion ARE compatible.....we just haven't found out how to interpret the data yet.

Intelligent Design deserves

Intelligent Design deserves all the bashing it gets, and a little more. ID is not science, it's not reason, it's faith. But, it's not willing to admit that, instead it wants to parade as if it is actual information but not be held up to any scrutiny. That falsehood, claiming to be science-like, is worse than just saying "we don't believe your science, we want our faith." There is incontrovertible and overwhelming evidence of evolution (on MANY levels, not just the fossil record, but yes INCLUDING the fossil record, get over that already) and the age of the earth and that no "design" is present beyond natural selection and evolution. You may choose to ignore or dismiss that, but you should at least do it honestly and say it is because of your ideology or religion - not pretend to be science. Also, I assume you meant ID and science are compatible there, not ID and religion are compatible, because ID and religion are the same thing. In all, ID is another example of the bullshit machine trying to create fake debates and is *exactly* the problem I was talking about.

WHAT???

Oh my... Another ID zombie. ID and Religion are the same. The data that you are trying to interpret is nothing else than telling fairytales. Why are dino bones older than the predicted age of the earth? Because scientifically proven test methods are flawed? Or even better: Because God hid them to test our faith! Yeah... that is way better an explanation for us than Darwin's theory. Please, stop mixing ID with a few scientific lines to make it sound more sciency! If you want to "believe" then do it. But do not mix it with science, since these to things do not go well together. In fact, medicine suggests that religiuos beliefs are in fact a malfunction of the brain. Which makes sense... or do you believe in the easterbunny? No? Of course not, it is ridiculous. Have you seen one, yet? But you believe in a virgin giving birth to a god, who was his own father, who decided to be human, was killed and then resurrected three days later? Yeah... that makes sense... in your world...

I am not sure who that

I am not sure who that comment was directed at, and personally would not be that harsh, but basically, yeah, I agree. Science and ID are completely separate, ID is faith, and faith and science are by definition entirely opposite things.

intelligent design

i have no problem with intelligent design, i believe the evidence shows that it exists ( in nature ). but the evidence that "God" exists seems lacking. ( babel-fish, anyone? ) otoh, the Darwinian model is in need of serious revision... charles zeitler

Intelligent design, evidence,

Intelligent design, evidence, nope. Sorry, but there is absolutely ZERO actual scientific evidence that ID "exists" or has any basis in any fact whatsoever. Despite what Behe and Dembski have said and published from the Discovery Institute (creationism advocacy group) pulpit. None of that is accepted peer reviewed valid science, none. No matter how much anyone wishes it were, it's not, science isn't about personal biases and wishes. The scientific community would welcome any actual contribution to the debate about how species evolve, or biology in general, but the ID movement is not interested in that. Instead they are interested in a mythical imaginary friend that "created" species, they offer no evidence as to who said creator is, they offer no counter evidence to the mountain of science backing up all of biology - evolution and natural selection, and instead their stated goal is to get creationism back into schools (DI memos and internal documents prove that in court cases). (And EVERY scientific theory "needs serious revision" that is the point of science -- though I would argue natural selection is one of the most solid theories we have ever had, concerning anything in terms if evidence and empirical tests backing it up. But that is a SEPARATE debate.)

evidence & debate

when i said "intelligent design" i didn't mean Intelligent Design(c). and Darwins work is seriously flawed. (as he himself pointed out). charles zeitler

There is no distinction

There is no distinction between "Intelligent Design(c)" and intelligent design. Trying to make one is pretty ridiculous. The DI came up with the term, and with all the arguments for it, and everything behind it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Every actual scientific review has deemed it pseudoscience. You can believe in cryptozoology, esp, ghosts, id (and other creation myths), and whatever other made up stuff you *want* to believe in, for your own reasons, but that doesn't make any of it science.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.