Strong beliefs [was: RE: Martin Taylor's Essay: Re Prediction]

[From Bruce Nevin (2007.05.30 22:44 EDT)]

Bill Powers (2007.05.28.0825 MDT)

···

This is stated in terms of faith but as we have often observed applies equally to resistance to change within science.

http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png

/Bruce Nevin

Re: Strong beliefs [was: RE: Martin Taylor’s Essay:
Re Pre
[Martin Taylor 2007.05030.23.06]

[From Bruce Nevin
(2007.05.30 22:44 EDT)]
Bill Powers (2007.05.28.0825 MDT)

This is stated in
terms of faith but as we have often observed applies equally to
resistance to change within science.
http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png

/Bruce Nevin

The only real problem with this picture is on the “Faith”
side there’s a box called “ignore conflicting evidence”.
Surely “conflicting evidence” is a logical impossibility?
Whatever evidence is perceived, either that’s the way [dominant
entity] made it, or that’s the way [evil entity] makes you see it.
Neither yields the possibility of contradiction.

Oh, and isn’t the “Science side” remarkably idealistic,
not just because of resistance to change? Has any science ever worked
as the diagram suggests?

Martin

Oh, and isn’t the “Science
side” remarkably idealistic, not just because of resistance to
change? Has any science ever worked as the diagram
suggests?
[From Bill Powers (2007.05.31.0129 MDT)]

Martin Taylor 2007.05030.23.06]

It’s a reference condition, with real science as practiced approaching it
to varying degrees since even scientists can’t travel without baggage.
Same for the other side of the diagram: ideally, the person of faith
accepts what is Given. In practice, doubts arise because one can’t really
turn the brain all the way off and remain alive.

My queries about the Rules of the Game were about reference conditions. I
don’t expect anyone but me to be perfect. Haven’t seen anything from the
Alexander camp yet.

As to the copies of communications from that camp, my only comment is
that all methods work, because the work is really done by the client who
has a problem, not the method. The method of levels is an attempt to do
the minimum necessary on the part of the guide and therefore allow the
client to solve the client’s problem instead of the guide’s. Being
grateful to a method seems rather pointless.

Best,

Bill P.

Re: Strong beliefs [was: RE: Martin Taylor’s Essay: Re Pre
[Bruce Nevin 2007.05031 10:25 EDT]

Martin Taylor 2007.05030.23.06–

Surely “conflicting evidence” is a logical impossibility? Whatever evidence is perceived, either that’s the way [dominant entity] made it, or that’s the way [evil entity] makes you see it. Neither yields the possibility of contradiction

Astute as usual, Martin. Ignoring the contradiction would be more like it – good old resistance of disturbances.

isn’t the “Science side” remarkably idealistic, not just because of resistance to change? Has any science ever worked as the diagram suggests?

Looks like more ignoring of evidence that conflicts. But adding the messy complexity of actual practice would not serve the purpose, which appears to be to ridicule by drawing a sharp contrast.

Likewise, the “Faith” side omits a lot of complexity.

IMO the creationists display a remarkable lack of faith in the God in whose creative reality in the world they profess to believe. Real faith confidently expects the investigations of science eventually to disclose that reality, and patiently waits out the apparent contradictions.

This does not work for those many who have no patience whatsoever with contradiction, ambiguity, anything unresolved.

What we perceive as intolerance for uncertainty is (I believe) what it looks like to an observer when a person controls a perception of being right. Being found out to be wrong is a frightening thing to sadly many people. Being wrong brings punishment, being right brings reward, and being uncertain is just another level of being wrong because it shows that you’re defective. In this way of experiencing things, everybody should know right from wrong, and if you don’t you should get punished for your own good until you figure out how to tell the difference between right and wrong.

Don’t take my word for it. Consult Dr. James Dobson, founder of that bastion of certainty and rightness Focus on the Family (centered in Colorado). He has organized the counterswing to Dr. Spock, and has millions of followers. To him, a child is its parent’s adversary, whom he calls names like tyrant, dictator, little spitfire, terror, brat, rebel, tornado, “little fat-fingers”, “fat little legs” and “spindly legs.” His biggest concern is defiance. “You have drawn a line in the dirt, and the child has deliberately flopped his bony little toe across it. Who is going to win? Who has the most courage? Who is in charge here? If you do not conclusively answer these questions for your strong-willed children, they will precipitate other battles designed to ask them again and again.” “If discipline begins on the second day of life, you’re one day too late.” Parents must not “yield authority to their infants.” “A child’s resistant behavior always contains a message to his parents, which they must decode before responding. That message is often phrased in the form of a question: ‘Are you in charge or am I?’ A distinct reply is appropriate to discourage future attempts to overthrow constituted government in the home.”

Defiance calls for corporal punishment using paddle or switch, not the hand, starting as young as 15 months. He recommends that “spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause genuine tears.” Afterwards when the child crumples “to the breast of his parent, he should be welcomed with open, warm, loving arms." “Tell him how much you love him.” “Nothing brings a parent and child closer together than for the mother or father to win decisively after being defiantly challenged.”

Have we looked into what is being controlled in the socalled Stockholm syndrome? Hazing?

Here’s what it looks like to me. Children of such parents reorganize to control staying on the “good side” of authorities who control perceptions of right and of punishment and reward. One way to get on their good side is to demonstrate control of right and wrong as perceived by those authorities. One way to demonstrate control of right and wrong is to call out someone else as being wrong, and either invoke or administer punishment. Being judged to be wrong is itself a punishment. “By learning to yield to the loving authority… of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life—his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dobson

Lots of quotations at http://www.stoptherod.net/dobson.html

This applies to scientism as well as religious fundamentalism.

/Bruce Nevin