Search the Community

I think we're all rationalists here in that we want our beliefs to be based on reason and empirical evidence rather than superstition or arbitrary assertion. But it's not always clear how to interpret the evidence, or even what counts as evidence at all. I've been reading a lot of books on how the mind works, and it seems to me clear that we have at least some instinctual beliefs which are the result of evolutionary pressure. For example, people (and primates in general) have an inborn fear of snakes. People who live their whole lives on islands where there are no snakes are afraid of snakes when they first encounter them, and chimpanzees in zoos who have never encountered snakes will freak out if they are exposed to hoses which resemble snakes. Does it seem reasonable that a widespread, seemingly inborn belief that certain things are good, bad, or dangerous is in fact fairly decent evidence (not proof) that those things are in fact good, bad, or dangerous, and that beliefs that such things are good or bad or dangerous are in fact based on empirical data?

Hi all, I am looking for links to the actual research that Stef eludes to regarding immigration. I am aware of his data driven presentations on it, but he does not provide all the links to back all those charts that he made. I believe him, I just wish he would cite his sources better. Screenshots of graphs from his presentation are worthless in debates.

"Psychologist Elizabeth Loftus studies memories. More precisely, she studies false memories, when people either remember things that didn't happen or remember them differently from the way they really were. It's more common than you might think, and Loftus shares some startling stories and statistics, and raises some important ethical questions we should all remember to consider." I think this stresses the importance of objective evidence over hearsay and even witnesses. The case of Michael Brown comes to mind where I heard witnesses changed their initial statements or told contradicting stories. They might not have done it with malicious intent or because they were under coercion, they might have just been telling the truth how they remembered it. Regarding the childhood abuse instances of implanted false memories. If our brain cannot differentiate between an implanted memory and a true memory, then it shouldn't matter for the victim whether it actually happened or not because for them the scars are real. However the perpetrator should still suffer consequences. Given that the damages are the same, should a person that implants a false memory suffer the same repercussions as an actual molester? What do you think?

Principles are found in Peace.Anarchy is the ULTIMATE respect for Humanity.

I'm concerned that some 'arguments from science' are often unscientific and dangerous and misguide people's behaviour. Such claims are often made to either prove a conclusion or gain some social, or financial interest. I hope to be true to reality ie an objectivist, but suspect people's argument from science is often false, specifically: 1. The "anecdotes are not evidence" argument. Say someone conducts a cruel/unethical experiment and brings an unknown liquid (acid) into a room of participants to test. The first person puts his finger into the liquid experiences pain and burning. Would the other (rational) participants do the same because the evidence is only anecdotal; a small sample, and inconclusive? 2. The "no evidence exists for" argument. For example, some people claim that fracking is dangerous, while others claim it is safe. Proponents argue that there is "no evidence for" fracking being dangerous, but:- Scientific studies are often carried out by vested interests (and are consequently biased), while opponents and sceptics often lack the funding to test the evidence or their theories. Even mainstream science is funded by the government whose interest is political not scientific truth, eg the anti-global warming scientists are dismissed from their posts, and notably the UK science advisor was dismissed for his anti-global warming message. Anecdotal evidence is often dismissed as unscientific yet the potential for harm from new technology or methods is often ignored or summarily dismissed risking costly and life-threatening consequences. Known benefits are stressed and unknown costs ignored. Real world testing over extended periods of time is the ultimate test, yet scientific knowledge progresses incrementally and partial knowledge can be worse than no knowledge if it leads us to take potentially costly or lethal risks. I'm not anti-scientific only sceptical of scientific claims especially when used for short term self interested goals, and not in the exploration and determining of truth from falsehood. Thanks for your thoughts, arguments and corrections!