[Vision2020] Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

[Art Deco]

Again:  Reading comprehension:

I wrote [emphasis added]:

"It's not enough to express skepticism *without giving reasons.*  Any fool
can do that.

If you want to exhibit more than arrogance, *criticize the experimental
design* of the multiple studies cited."

A asserts "X is true" giving reasons Y.  B says "I don't think X is true"
giving no reasons.  That's not skepticism, that's being foolishly,
playground contrary.  "Are not."  "Am so."

A asserts "X is true" based on several time consuming studies published
after peer review, B says "I don't think X is true" without giving reasons
why the the experimental design is flawed or any other cogent reasons
That's self-centered arrogance, and also shows lack of intellectual
integrity, to wit, dishonesty.

A skeptic C would say "X is doubtful because Z" where Z is an informed
critique of the experimental design and/or other cogent reasons why C
thinks the conclusions are in error..

C exhibits healthy, rational skepticism, the kind that advances knowledge;
that's the way science and everyday knowledge acquisition (and a
conscientious jury) works.  B exhibits blind skepticism, no different than
blind faith -- an assertion without evidence or justification.  Vigorously
encourage the former, reject the latter.

w.

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Thank you for your kind rebuke, but I did read the entire post.  I get
> that you wanted Chas to look at the study before being critical of it.  I
> wouldn't mind hearing his take on the details as well.  I'm telling you
> that being skeptical *before* you look at a study is proper and is not
> foolish or arrogant.
>
> Both you and Mr. Hansen indicated I needed to be more "honest".  What,
> exactly, do you think I'm lying about?
>
> The word "skepticism" has gotten a bad rap lately.  It doesn't mean that a
> person is completely against an idea, it just means that there is now a bar
> that the idea or study has to get over.  Assuming they do this, then the
> person who was previously skeptical could now become one of the study's
> main proponents.  I would blame the AGW community for the co-opting of
> "skepticism" into a dirty word, but they would just blame me for Not Being
> a True Skeptic or some such nonsense.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On 05/02/2012 10:00 AM, Art Deco wrote:
>
> This should be three first things on your to-do list:
>
> Reading Comprehension
> Read Entire Post Before Making An Ass of Yourself
> Honesty
>
> w.
>
>
> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>>  When did people start conflating skepticism with arrogance and
>> foolishness?  It should be the default outlook when anyone tells you
>> anything that is in any way surprising.
>>
>>  Paul
>>
>>    ------------------------------
>>  *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
>>  *Sent:* Wednesday, May 2, 2012 9:19 AM
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Highly religious people are less motivated
>> by compassion than are non-believers
>>
>> It's not enough to express skepticism without giving reasons.  Any fool
>> can do that.
>>
>> If you want to exhibit more than arrogance, criticize the experimental
>> design of the multiple studies cited.  Such design are open to criticism as
>> is any early experimental works on particular subjects.  In this case the
>> lack of clear and precise definitions make unclear what is being measured.
>>
>> However, as with many pioneering experimental work, the results are
>> suggestive.  Now the methodology needs to be refined, and further, broader
>> experiments pursued with more care and rigor.  That's how science works.
>> In the case of social and behavioral sciences, the struggle for clearer
>> definitions and results is much more difficult than in the physical
>> sciences because of the number of variables involved and the difficulty of
>> isolating the variables.  That doesn't mean, however, that the search for
>> knowledge in this area should be abandoned.
>>
>> w.
>>
>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Donovan Arnold <
>> donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Yes, Chas, it seems far-fetched that such values could be so easily
>> quantified and measured with any scientific accuracy or validity.
>>
>> Donovan Arnold
>>
>>    *From:* Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com>
>> *To:* Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>
>> *Cc:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <
>> vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 1, 2012 8:33 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Highly religious people are less motivated
>> by compassion than are non-believers
>>
>>  The study looked at generosity and charity, and tried to determine the
>> motives behind those behaviors. It decided that the highly religious were
>> driven towards acts of generosity and charity less often by empathy and
>> compassion than were the non-religious/less religious. I'm skeptical
>> that such a determination can legitimately be made.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>
>>  =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
>


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120503/09e5efa0/attachment-0001.html>