tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post7039077203894414817..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: Why science has to fight an uphill battleRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57252822840570168062007-06-04T13:21:00.000+10:002007-06-04T13:21:00.000+10:00Russell, I unreservedly agree that these are ideas...Russell, I unreservedly agree that these are ideas/theories worthwhile exploring. If only I had more time! But I will comment briefly on a few points you raised.<BR/><BR/>The experience of the Ionians and Periclean Athenians indicates that even socialization or innate propensities don't automatically trump "outside the box" thinking.<BR/><BR/>Dualistic thinking is relatively easy to understand: the division between Self/Like Self and Other.<BR/><BR/>Intelligent agency explanations are satisfying because they validate our desire for centrality, significance, meaning. The anthropic principle is an extension of that. It is bleak to realize that the universe is profoundly indifferent to us and that we don't continue as individuals past our death. In the end, we are mammals who crave warmth -- metaphorically as well as literally.Athena Andreadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650180659001228746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-36660007381829840452007-06-02T13:04:00.000+10:002007-06-02T13:04:00.000+10:00Turtle theory isn't intuitive to us, but then agai...Turtle theory isn't intuitive to <I>us</I>, but then again we've been socialised into a lot of beliefs that are inconsistent with it. It might seem much more intuitive to someone socialised into it from childhood in a pre-industrial culture where turtles figure prominently in the environment, and in which the body of uncontroversial background beliefs that kids are exposed to is all consistent with turtle theory.<BR/><BR/>Almost any belief can seem commonsensical given the right socialisation. I suppose it may turn out that this study - the one I discuss in my post - is barking up the wrong tree, or betting on the wrong turtle - but it does seem useful to me for psychologists to carry out research to investigate whether there are any innate propensities in what we tend to find commonsensical, cross-culturally, and hence above and beyond what is taught to kids who are socialised in culturally-specific ways. <BR/><BR/>Admittedly, there's a lot more research that needs to be done, and as with anything else we need to scrutinise whatever findings emerge, but I think it's an important research program.<BR/><BR/>The idea that I'm pretty convinced of at the moment is that humans beings are primed (though not necesarily by something like a specific cognitive "module") to think in dualistic terms, and to accept answers in terms of intelligent agency as satisfying and final - even though we now know that they are not final at all. It's difficult to get any definitive corroboration, but I think there's a pretty impressive circumstantial case that cries out for more precise investigation. For example, my experience is that even people who do think very deeply about such things tend to find such explanations satisfying. I even observe it in myself: when I think about some of the typical theistic arguments I can see how they are psychologically very satisfying, even though they don't stand up logically. <BR/><BR/>E.g. there's a temptation to explain the fine-tuning of the constants in terms of the operation of intelligent agency, and to be satisfied with such an explanation. Even for me it takes a bit of wrench to think, "But intelligent agency, in our experience, is something that also needs to be explained, and seems to be dependent on great material complexity." For a lot of people, that next step just doesn't seem to be something they "get".<BR/><BR/>Back to you, Athena, and anyone else. I think this is worth kicking around, even if some are not ultimately convinced by the approach of Bloom and Weisberg ... or by my speculative riffing on it.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-81850105168831382382007-06-02T04:00:00.000+10:002007-06-02T04:00:00.000+10:00Hmmm… believing that the earth is held up by eleph...Hmmm… believing that the earth is held up by elephants or turtles is not necessarily high on the scale of common sense, nor are many traditional teachings intuitively obvious. I suspect the strongest reasons are that 1) people don’t think much of these issues unless they directly impinge on their lives and 2) most people are content to go with the majority.Athena Andreadishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07650180659001228746noreply@blogger.com