Note - when I wrote this, I was thinking more of society in general than this forum. I like this forum for its entertainment value... and many of you do a valuable service by refuting nutty ideas and saving the rest of us the time to do the thankless task. Yet here is what I think of the idea that being openminded is a virtue:

The Case For Prejudice
Last night I decided to do an experiment in prejudice. I changed the cat’s litter. I then put a wonderful Hershey’s chocolate bar in the microwave for a few seconds to make it look just about right, and then I set it out to cool. Once it had returned to its original hardness, I placed it in the Cat’s litterbox. Then I moved that litterbox out into the living room in where the rest of my family was calmly listening to the Art Bell show. No one ate the chocolate bar! None of them were able to set aside their prejudice and just taste – or even smell it for a second. Those bigoted Neanderthals just assumed that the chocolate bar was cat crud, simply because it sat in the litterbox. When I tried to point out the truth – they laughed at me. They even demanded that I move the litterbox back to the basement “where it belongs”, lest the cat poop (there wasn’t any yet!) stink up the place. When I suggested that someone should, every morning, sniff everything in the litterbox to make sure that there was no chocolate among the cat poop, they laughed at me and suggested I go and see a psychiatrist. They laughed even louder when I picked up the chocolate bar from the litterbox and ate it. These bigots were still not persuaded! One of them said my glorious discovery was simply a fluke, and carried the litterbox back down to the basement. And I still wonder why they don’t pay nearly much attention to what I say as they used to.
It is often said that while walking in the world of ideas, we need to always listen to others, make no unexamined assumptions, and be persuaded only by evidence. Prejudice is always a bad thing, so we say. This is the creed of the Art Bell show – which hosted a debate between someone who claimed we never went to the moon and another crank who believed we indeed went there but instead found alien cities. He has also hosted folks who believe in an Earth-centered universe. These characters claim, correctly, that there is no way to prove them wrong using observations not “tainted” by the scientific community’s prejudice. Yes, these crazies are even made fun of, ignored, and spat upon by people who have made no effort whatsoever to intelligently examine their claims. But there are very good reasons for this, as we shall see.
Art Bell is wrong. I intend to argue three points. The first is that it is impossible to think scientifically in the real world without using prejudice. The second is that the purpose of education is not to eliminate one’s prejudice, but to teach the mind to use prejudice logically. The third is that the unthinking quest to eliminate prejudice not only cannot work, but does great damage to science and society in general.
Science cannot survive without prejudice. There is simply not enough time to properly investigate every unlikely theory ever proposed, any more than there is time to check out each piece of cat poop in a litterbox, just in case some poor soul dropped some chocolate in there. Why don’t most scientists like to answer questions about the hollow earth, the lock nest monster, or Bigfoot? Because most theories of this type have no substance to them – and it would be a waste of time to prove that to be true with all but a tiny fraction of them.
Every once-in-awhile, someone does have the intuition to find a speck of mint in the pile of manure that theories like those mentioned above represent. But this is very rare. Historically, when an established scientific theory is proven wrong, it is usually proven wrong by the establishment itself. Copernicus showed that Ptolemy was wrong. Einstein showed that Newton’s laws were merely approximations. But Copernicus and Einstein were recognized in their day as experts in their field. Most of their peers believed that heliocentrism and relativity were worthy of respect and investigation. They had “peer review”. This is not true of the “Moon Hoax”, holocaust denial, most UFO claims, the “Bible Code” and the face on Mars. Such theories come from the cat’s litterbox.
When I say that these theories come from the cat’s literbox, I mean they did not come from thoughtful reflection upon the evidence. They come from people who exploit our culture’s natural suspicion of authority (the Moon Hoax). Or our natural tendency to see things in pictures that really are not there (the “Face on Mars”), Or our unscientific interest in anecdotal evidence (UFO’s), as opposed to hard observations and statistics. They exploit popular ignorance of statistics (the “Bible Code”), and the scientific method. The important common factor in all of the above theories is that they did not arise from reflection upon scientific facts. The nature of the arguments used to support them make this painfully obvious. This does not, in and of itself, mean there is no possibility that any of them could have some truth. An idea is not bad just because most arguments used to support it are bad, or because whoever dreamed it up did so for illogical reasons. But it does justify extreme prejudice against such ideas, and indicates that our scientist’s precious time and money are better spent investigating other things.
It takes skill to recognize what ideas come from the cat’s litterbox and which ones do not – acquiring this skill is what education is all about. Not all ideas that go against the mainstream of science come from the Cat’s literbox. There are a few researchers who believe that oil and gas do not come from decayed biological materials as now is believed, but instead come from newly discovered geological processes occurring deep within the earth. Although most geologists disagree with this theory, they treat its originator with respect and spend real time and money responding to his claims. Intelligent design theory (a broader form of Old-Earth creationism) is another such theory – it is gaining some respect in the scientific community not because most believe it is true, but because its originators have no obvious ideological motives and because the theory does not seem to have a special appeal to the ignorant.
A new scientist, indeed any newly educated person, must learn what kind of ideas to be prejudiced against and what to be open minded towards. He/She must learn the difference between observation and interpretation. One must understand the inherent biases of the culture one inhabits, in my case, the culture of American individualism. The mind has inherent biases in the way it perceives data even apart from culture – uneducated people are always seeing patterns where there are none, and familiar things where they are not. This is why most scientists like math so much – it offers a way to lessen the effects of such inherent biases. One must learn of the use and abuse of statistics, the nature of scientific credentials and the peer review process. And one must know something about the philosophy of science itself, of what possible biases there might be in the scientific community that prevent worthwhile ideas from being investigated. I do think that some of the disrespect shown to Old-Earth creationism by some scientists is a result of a cultural bias against anything that could be interpreted as support for religion. But despite disagreement about specific cases – scientists do agree that it is a waste of time to argue with people, or refute theories, that obviously show no respect for the way science operates.
That is why I, a creationist myself (Albeit an agnostic on the question of the Earth’s or the Universe’s age) do not begrudge the disrespect shown to young-earth creationism by most scientists. The whole creation/evolution debate is filled with ideological venom thrown about by all sides. Most Young-Earth Creationists themselves admit that creationism was created to defend the bible rather than explain observation. And many are even starting to realize that doctrinaire evolutionary theorists such as Dawkins are also arguing more from ideology than from evidence. The above are telltale signals to most scientists that the whole debate is not worth their time. Were this not so, science as we know it could not exist. Young Earth Creationists are in the position of someone who eats chocolate from the cats literbox – they may indeed be correct, but must not blame others scientists for there well-founded prejudice against them.
Ideas dragged out of the “litterbox”, such as most of those advanced on the Art Bell show, do society a great deal of harm. They have forced the scientific community to devote resources to unproductive efforts. Unscientific fears have greatly increased the costs and political difficulties associated with building nuclear power plants - a technology that could have eliminated virtually all pollution from power generation by now were it developed as it should be. Theories from the “litterbox” often cause people to avoid using scientifically proven medical treatments, and go instead to the quacks. The “Moon hoax” and ideas like it give ammunition to demagogues who care little for sound science, or for anything except their own advancement. Obviously bad science causes people to throw money into the hands of con artists and crooks like those who claim to have invented a perpetual motion machine. There is many a good idea out there, many of them no doubt opposed to existing theories. But if it comes from the “litterbox” – the chances of an idea being good are slim to none. Keep the litterbox in the basement where it belongs. Keep the kooks on the Art Bell show and out of the mainstream. Don’t eat cat poop. And for heaven’s sake, don’t demand that the scientific community, the government, or the educated public open our mouths and our wallets for it either. Because we’re prejudiced. And narrow –minded. And stubborn and proud of it.

What about Alfred Wegener? He was not an expert in geology or geophysics, but that is primarily what he is remembered for.

Well, I guess you are using the editorial we to speak for yourself. I personally think that being open-minded is a good thing. Characterizing scientific thought as narrow-mindedness is a ploy often used by its foes. I don't think just saying that that is a good thing helps.

I've got a recipe for litterbox cake somewhere, complete with half-melted tootsie rolls around the edges. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Hmm - wouldn't that go well with lemon jello in a bedpan with a Baby Ruth sitting in it?

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

It isn't bigotry to expect brown cylinders in a cat's sandbox to be cat crud. It's the voice of reason and experience. 99% of the time, it is cat crud. The only exception -- yours -- was a deliberate artifice. That sounds more like the Piltdown Hoax than like any real scientific observation.

If you're telling us to examine everything openly and acceptingly, even when it has every appearance of being crud -- nope. Can't do it. I don't have the time. I'll *sample* nearly anything, but when I've been served crud three or more times in a row (Van Daniken, for instance) I'm going to write the guy off as worthless.

You call it bigotry; I call it judgement.

Silas

Probably you should have sampled a bit more of the original post before you took the time to respond. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I think you've misjudged his intent--and he probably agrees with you.

Silas, I think you may have misunderstood his post. Actually, you're pretty much saying exactly what he is trying to point out (albiet your way is more succint).

W.

Not sure where you came up with this, but, to follow your analogy, it's just more cat poop being passed off as chocolate, and I don't think anyone in the science community takes it seriously. ID doesn't simplify anything. Even if you accept the premise, it raises more questions than it answers. How did the intelligence do it's thing? Why design some things and not others? How old is the intelligence and how did it come about?

These are non-trivial questions that follow any discussion of ID, but the proponents seem to think that saying "God did it" (which is what they are proposing, basically) is an answer. IT IS NOT. ID is a dodge, to get religion back in school. No reasonable person would spend more than a minute on it before realizing this.

I also take exception to your saying that "the young Earth creationists might be right". Sorry, no. Again, there is no theory based on the preponderance of the evidence here. There is fact is no evidence. "Let's assume that what we believe is right, then what do we need to do to force observations to fit with that?" That is not science.

I agree with much of what you say here, but I think you need a better summary, to make your point.

You don't want so open a mind that your brains fall out.

I think you are trying to find some balance here, and that perhaps is admirable, but science doesn't really need it. Take the best, simplist theory that fits known facts and makes verifiable predictions. When a better one comes along, then you have to change to that, sorry. And no harm in saying "I don't know yet."

Perhaps this is what upsets the "cranks" the most. "Why can't you have an open mind about this? I could be right." We got this kind of whinny crap from CosmicDave recently, right here on this board. We are being 'arrogant' and 'close-minded'.

No, we're not. We're being realistic. I mean, come on. Why would I ever even want chocolate that had been in cat litter? If you're going to give me chocolate, give me a Hershey bar, all wrapped up (e.g., publish your evidence in a scientific journal).

Or better yet, a chocolate covered donut! Mmmm, donuts...

[Fixed BBcodes]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: honestmonkey on 2002-06-05 12:52 ]</font>

Oops! I boobed! I read the OP and thought it was saying that we *should* be open minded toward the theory of finding chocolate in the kitty litter!

Smack me down with a haddock!

Silas

OK.



Here. Have some chocolate.

Tom

How did you make the haddok hit the smiley face?

Kitty Litter Cake. Yummy!

He used an animated GIF. If you right click the page, you can see the source code (you have to wade through a lot of bulliten board code to find it). It's just a link to a GIF file. Pretty cool though.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Espritch on 2002-06-08 13:28 ]</font>

On the original post Cloudy wrote:

"No one ate the chocolate bar! None of them were able to set aside their prejudice and just taste – or even smell it for a second. Those bigoted Neanderthals just assumed that the chocolate bar was cat crud, simply because it sat in the litterbox."

Assumption: Prejudice prevented 'those bigoted Neandertals' from eating the chocolate bar.

Error in logic: There is no other explanation than prejudice for this refusal.

Yechhhh! Would you eat a chocolate bar out of a cat litter box?

And if you think your family are 'bigoted Neandertals' maybe they have quit listening to anything you have to say.

We all view the world with some distortion that comes from our past experiences. That doesn't mean when the majority of the scientific community does not buy your theories, that the reason is their prejudice.

"Can you see the forrest for the trees?"

The illusion of the chocolate in the cat litter box seems a bit off the wall to me, too, but I can see the point Cloudy is trying to make about presumptions and prejudism. Oh, were did I throw away my psychology notes...?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece

BeSkeptical,

You are making the same error several other people - read a little farther down and you will see that I basically agree with you.

It is hard to satirize kooks nowdays because you cannot really make them look any worse than they make themselves look. I thought I had succeeded in doing so. Obviously, I have not. Perhaps, as another reader has pointed out, I should have given my point a bit more succinctly and a bit earlier.

BTW.. Intelligent Design Theory is nothing more than the premise that life on earth is so irreducably complex that it's evolution(or creation, or whatever) must have been directed by some sort of intelligence. Behe and many other microbiologists subscribe to this notion. There are even some atheist subscribers to Intelligent Design Theory - you do not need to think the designer is supernatural. Unlike Young Earth Creationism and Dawkin's Darwinism, there is no long list of orthodoxies to subscribe to. It is not linked to any political agenda except in the imagination of its oponents. It is a new and exciting field, like chaos theory is, so there are allot of unanswered questions. However, I do not think it comes from the Cat's literbox because it does not seem to me to bear the usuall marks of BS....

but I am to long winded as always. Thanks for your patience and your thoughtfull replies.

I'm certainly glad you don't really think your family are Neandertals. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Actually DNA evidence shows they were a side branch in the evolutionary tree and not our ancestors.

I think I see things a little more optimistically. Most people are influenced by their world perception, but I'm not sure it has such a great impact on everyone so as to make everyone dogmatic.

I don't know who Behe is, but let me put my foot in my mouth and say he/she might have an opinion on intelligent design, but not EVIDENCE nor a scientific argument for it.

Recent advances in DNA research show clearly how the evolution of life from inorganic chemicals to the organisms on the Earth today could have occurred by random natural processes. Every single step can be mapped out including the first RNA lifeforms.

If someone wants to add intelligent design to the mix because they feel better, so be it. But there is evidence intelligent design was not necessary, and no evidence it was.

As for being too long winded, I can relate. I know my posts are longer than some. I try to delete as much as possible after I write a point. And, spaces between paragraphs makes posts easier to read, for me at least.

Behe might claim that "many other microbiologists subscribe to this notion" but I suspect that if you took a pole of microbiolgist concerning this issue, the number that subscribe to ID would be statistically insignificant.

There was an article in my local paper a while back on ID. It included a quote from a congressman who had attended an ID presentation. He claimed that all the ID proponents wanted was a fair hearing for their theory (the implication being that the scientific community wasn't giving them a fair hearing). A few paragraphs later the article mentioned that ID proponents were working with other creationists to try to have courts rule that ID should be presented in public school classes as an alternative to evolution.

If the ID people were really serious about doing good science, they would submit their evidence and findings for peer review in scientific journals (and I don't mean creationist journals). Instead, they spend their time arguing their case to school boards, politicians, and law judges (i.e. everyone except those best qualified to judge the merits of their hypothesis - I won't dignify it by calling it a theory).

They clearly have an agenda and it clearly has nothing to do with science and everything to do with theology. You don't actually have to understand the specific flaws in their arguements to recognize that what they drug out of the kitty litter ain't chocolate.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Espritch on 2002-06-09 02:48 ]</font>

Well, the way you present your cases, you seem to know your stuff. So would you expound on this, please? What are these advances that give such clear evidence? And has anyone been yet able to recreate a living (self-sufficient with eating, excreting, reproducing abilities) cell? It had to have happened somehow, right?

__________________
"As I lay beneath the Southern Cross, the stars tell more than I could" . . . David Meece