# Of delusional believers and naive positivist scientism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 24, 2009, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529 "2009-08-24T18:05:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Maia\_s\_Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3bc359/32.png) [@Maia\_s\_Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maia_s_Well)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/21 "2009-08-24T21:15:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > I actually do not believe in the supernatural. 😉 If it exists, it’s natural. > > I’m pretty much an extreme skeptic in that I don’t put that much stock in belief beyond its utilitarian usage. For the most part I think human beings have very little clue about what the true nature of reality is and that all of our models even the best ones are woefully inadequate. That far from being at a level of high advancement in science we are actually at the toddler stage where we are just learning to walk and talk. Yes, yes, this! I appreciated what you wrote about direct experience, as well as what **the Hamster King** wrote about the problems with using, you know, words and all. I love it when people here are able to articulate thoughts I’ve had which I have not been able to articulate myself. And sometimes even give them names or identify a particular philosophy for me. More, please. How about this…Is it reasonable to think that, when millions of people believe something, there might just be a grain of truth buried in there somewhere? And by truth, I mean something along the lines of a common feeling or experience that most of that group have had? It seems to me that the fact that the conclusions folks might draw from this type of experience could be argued as illogical, but that doesn’t mean that the original experience they might have had was imagined or a result of mental illness, hallucination, or “imagination”. Here’s a made up example to try to make what I’m saying more clear. Lots of people have said they had the “experience” of being abducted, taken away, and “probed” under bright lights by beings with big heads and tiny mouths (or none at all). Many described these beings as talking without moving their mouths. These individuals relate these experiences and say that they were “abducted by aliens” (as their conclusion). Well, I’m not gonna sit here and say with complete and utter certainty that they weren’t, but it seems highly unlikely (seems like somebody official would’ve noticed alien spacecraft or someone might have had a decent camera handy). But what if what these folks are actually remembering is the moment of their births? Being “abducted”, laid out on a table, bright lights overhead, surrounded by figures that all look alike, whose mouths are all covered with masks, and getting something stuck up their butt (rectal themometer)? I’m not saying that I believe this either, but it seems far more likely to me. I just think when we throw out personal experience, we mebbe are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (which is likely to give the baby traumatic memories that will arise and go on Jerry Springer later). hee hee. In other words, is it possible that the science-minded might be missing out on a few possibilities? ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/22 "2009-08-24T21:34:29Z")
I would think part of your OP would be if reality is objective or subjective. Are human minds really incapable to record events as they happen, or are they capable but able to be coaxed to accept a single ‘group reality’ for the sake of being accepted, which is a strong human desire. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/23 "2009-08-24T21:38:51Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > If they are, it’s a mass delusion. By this, I mean, for most any belief, there are enough people telling you theat you’re right, that also believe the same thing, that I don’t really think the term “delusional” applies anymore. Yes and no. Meaning that while it is true that for _mainstream religious beliefs_ there are in fact, enough people involved that labeling them “delusional” loses its intended meaning. OTOH, I’d think you’d agree that Jim Jones’ followers were indeed delusional – even if there were more than 900 of them. > [@](#): > > _When your dog tells you to kill all the whores, generally, you’re not going to find a whole group of people to back you up. That makes you delusional._ I agree but nor for the reasons you give. For if two million people thought the same way they’d still be delusional. > [@](#): > > _Espouse a belief in reincarnation, say, and you got a couple billion backers. It’s hard to make the case that you’re “delusional” then._ Again, you’re using flawed logic here – it’s called an Appeal to Belief, close cousin of Ad Populum. * * * > [@mswas](#): > > _It depends on how much I am attacked by those who just wish to be mean as opposed to actually discuss the issue. We’ll see how that goes. I usually don’t discuss this issue because I am not interested in getting beaten up when I talk about personal things. It’s not one of those throwaway topics where I’ll wade into the fray not giving a shit._ First off, it is now obvious that the second topic in the OP is not what I thought it to be. So for that, apologies. But I’ll repeat what I wrote upthread: I have **no** interest in pseudoscience, New Age, woo, or whatever else you’d like to call it. If you want to talk about chi ([**Vitalism**](http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/)) or whatever other flights of fancy you have, open yet another thread – I assure you I won’t be posting to it thus you’ll need no cross to climb. As **magellan** suggested up-thread, believers = theists. No others need apply. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/24 "2009-08-24T21:53:30Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > First off, it is now obvious that the second topic in the OP is not what I thought it to be. So for that, apologies. But I’ll repeat what I wrote upthread: I have **no** interest in pseudoscience, New Age, woo, or whatever else you’d like to call it. If you want to talk about chi ([**Vitalism**](http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/)) or whatever other flights of fancy you have, open yet another thread – I assure you I won’t be posting to it thus you’ll need no cross to climb. > > As **magellan** suggested up-thread, believers = theists. No others need apply. Ahh I see, you want the thread to be so narrowly defined that it reinforces your beliefs. I apologize I will not sully it any longer. **Maia’s Well** if you want to start another thread, I will come and speak with you or you can PM me. **Jackmanii** It’s hardly climbing on a cross to believe that when someone Pits you all they want to do is make fun of you. As for your bit about having a problem with the scientific method that’s complete and utter bullshit. Unless you mean problem with the scientific method in that I have experienced a phenomena that _I_ personally cannot explain using it. I have no problem with it in the idea that it is very useful in explaining how the material world works. > [@](#): > > I do think it’s silly for people who have issues with the scientific method (when it conflicts with their preferred form of woo) to pretend that skeptics are engaging in a form of religion or groupthink or what have you. Insistence on a rational evaluation of phenomena employing the tools of science does not constitute a religious belief system, much as it may give you satisfaction to needle opponents in this way. If they are employing sloppy thinking to put down your beliefs, have at 'em. But you can’t logically embrace science only when it suits you, and exempt qi, shiatsu or other woo du jour. This of course is simply your own projections upon me and shows that you aren’t even willing to discuss what I wrote preferring to fixate on my comment regarding Shiatsu. Rendering this: I have no interest in trashing poor mswas . an absolute falsehood. That is your entire motive. Otherwise you’d talk about the substance of what I said, and not fixate on Shiatsu. My point about Shiatsu is that I cannot explain how it works, only that I have experienced that it does. Your use of the word ‘woo’ belies your agenda. So as the thread is going about the way I thought where my argument is summarily dismissed and ignored so that people can bash the woo, and as the OP has asked me not to post in his thread, this will be my last post here. Good day. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/25 "2009-08-24T21:59:50Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I would think part of your OP would be if reality is objective or subjective. Are human minds really incapable to record events as they happen, or are they capable but able to be coaxed to accept a single ‘group reality’ for the sake of being accepted, which is a strong human desire. Yes, very much so. In fact I wrote as much in my [second response](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11479132&postcount=13) to this thread. I think that is the one issue we need to agree on before proceeding. And if we can’t – game over. For the record I believe there’s an objective reality outside of subjective experience. Further, said reality applies to the natural world, and in it, there’s no room for the supernatural. Postmodern ideas stating that we create our reality leave me cold when they compare said creation to reality itself, or worse, when they deny objective reality. In short, fantasies can feel great, but as any other reality-altering form (drugs, booze, mental-health issues), over the long run they do far more damage than good. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/26 "2009-08-24T22:15:04Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Why should I clarify anything? **SenorBeef** and **RedFury** are both trying to read the tea leaves of my obscure in-jokes that I like to make to myself and that’s kind of amusing, but I’ll bite anyway. You can’t act as if it’s unreasonable that people misinterpreted “in jokes” with yourself. I [asked](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11434756&postcount=43) for clarification, to see if you were mocking the claims in that thread that Sylvia Browne was a fraud, and you chose not to respond. > [@](#): > > I actually don’t even really know what naive positivist scientism actually means in totality. I was cribbing it from [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11471472#post11471472) by **Maeglin**. As **Maeglin** and I are friends IRL and he introduced me to this message board I kind of assumed he was referring to my tendency to get annoyed at people using skepticism as a signifier of group identity rather than being a rational tool. Why can’t it be both? Philosophical outlooks are often both a world view/set of beliefs and social groups based on that outlook. > [@](#): > > **SenorBeef** couldn’t have gotten his analysis of me more wrong. I don’t have any problem with science, and in fact I can hang out with real scientists and have a grand old time. A friend of the family is one of the premier geneticists in the world and he and I stayed up drinking beer together last time I stayed at his home. It’s not him, it’s not **Maeglin** , it’s not **Sentient Meat** and it’s not **Voyager** who I have a problem with. I don’t think you reject science in its entirety. I think that you may be one of those people who feel that science is a fine tool in a limited scope, but it’s not any sort of authoritative source of objective truth - or at least there exist things outside of the scope which can be measured by science. Which can then be used to justify various forms of woo. > [@](#): > > It’s the dilettantes who want to associate with their betters, those who actually ARE skeptics and think that by calling themselves skeptics it magically makes them so. Could you give examples? Incidentally, the people who seem more interested in calling themselves skeptics are the least skeptical people - if you watch any sort of ghost hunter or cryptozoology show they’ll always start with “I’m a skeptic, but…” Sort of like those people who say “I’m not racist, but …” > [@](#): > > For the most part I don’t have a problem with **SenorBeef** ’s take on things, I agree with him a lot more often than I disagree with him. Yeah, I’m pretty awesome. > [@](#): > > I believe in Qi because I have worked with arts such as Shiatsu that base their premise off of Qi and it actually works. > > … > > So basically when people dismiss Qi they are expecting me to dismiss something that I have been on both the giving and receiving end of and know that there is SOMETHING there. I don’t try to explain it scientifically, I am perfectly comfortable with the fact that I cannot explain it scientifically, and that’s that. If it actually works, then there’s some physiological mechanism behind it that doesn’t rely on woo like vitalism. I mean - a shaman from a tribe that knew the fever reduction properties of willow bark might’ve thought it was a gift from the spirits, which doesn’t mean that it didn’t work - but his reasoning was flawed and relied on the paranormal when a measurable biological effect was the actual cause. > [@](#): > > What’s even more interesting about Shiatsu is that Qi skeptics often are not benefitted by it. This is like the “psychics”, who upon being asked to conduct their talents under blinded conditions, claim to be inhibited by a “negative energy field” generated by the skeptics. Funny, that - the trick only works on people who are willing to be fooled by it. > [@](#): > > So it tells me that there is some layer of belief in which it works. It doesn’t matter to me whether or not it’s psychosomatic, because I don’t put the same stock in the term ‘psychosomatic’ as a dismissal. Just because something is psychosomatic doesn’t mean it’s not real. There is a level where there is the power of mind over matter. The very existance of mind is the proof that mind over matter does exist. For instance I just picked up a pair of metal scissors on my desk and put them back down. I made a choice in my mind to manipulate iron molecules and transport them through space. My mind impacted the external physical world. This is the very essence of a placebo effect. No doubt that people’s expectations can change their perception of the effect of something. That doesn’t mean that there’s some nebulous hidden woo behind it - it is a well understood, well documented psychological effect. The more introspective and rational you are, the less such things work. This can be unfortunate sometimes when you can’t fool yourself into believing something that would ultimately be pleasant and beneficial to you. Which was part of what I was talking about in my previous post - often people feel better with a palatable reality they create for themselves and are hostile towards people who attempt as best they can to determine objective reality. > [@](#): > > As this applies to the Dope, I use the term, I think a lot of people around here have too high an opinion of their own ability to be rational. When I use the term scientism perjoratively I am referring to those who believe that science is something that belongs to them and not to others. This seems like a straw man to me - maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but I can’t think of any examples of behaviors that could be described that way by rationally inclined people. > [@](#): > > IE, **SenorBeef** engaged in the fallacy with his analysis of my thought process. He thinks that I have some problem with science itself, I don’t, not at all, none whatsoever. I didn’t engage a fallacy. I made a guess, based on what you’ve said on the board. I may be wrong, but I’m not claiming it to be rigidly logical or the absolute truth. I also didn’t mean to imply that you were against science entirely. I suspected (and you made it clear in this post) that you think science serves some role, but that there’s a metaphysical realm beyond the scientific. Effectively, this allows you to believe anything you want about existance while still claiming to believe (and probably actually believing in) the scientific process and scientific knowledge. So I was right - you don’t reject science, but you’ve decided whatever you believe is beyond the scope of science superscedes it in your world view. This can be used to justify lots of unscientific beliefs. > [@](#): > > What my problem is with people who use science as a totem for groupthink, as a way to cement belonging. They ridicule others, like myself in order to cement a bond with other individuals who share a similar outlook. This is the same sort of in-group/out-group behavior that characterizes any system of belief. Science is not a religion but Scientism IS a pseudo-religion. I partially agree with this statement. There is a tendency to relate to those with similar beliefs. And religion does serve as a way to socially bond and form communities. Atheists are left out in this regard - so it makes sense that they group with other likeminded people to form the same sort of social bonds. However, because they may be forming groups along the same lines for the same reasons does not mean the rationality of their beliefs is equal. If a group forms based on mutual interests in science and skepticism, it’s not like they suddenly lose their focus on rationality and empircism and blindly adhere uncritically to a group of beliefs. This, again, was what I posted about in my last post - trying to say “oh, those skeptics are the same as any believer, just with a different set of beliefs” > [@](#): > > In short scientism is a form of idolatry. It’s like the Groucho Marx joke, “I don’t know what is but I’m against it!”, well this is the inverse of that. “I don’t know what it is, but I’m for it! It’s Scientific!”, it’s like Science Fiction science. A love of science that treats it more like people treat mythology than as an analysis of cold hard facts. If I use the term scientism I am usually poking fun at people who think they are a lot smarter than they actually are. It’s incredibly conceited and all too common around here for people to conflate a problem I might have with a few individuals with science as though they = science. Maybe I’ll just call it trying to hide one’s idiocy behind the theory of relativity from now on. 😉 I might be able to agree or disagree if you provided examples. In general, I don’t see a lot of what you’re describing on this board. If anything, your post describes people who try to integrate scientific sounding language into their woo - like all the new age movements that attempt to use “quantum physics” to describe how their belief works - based on it sounding scientific and yet being confusing to almost everyone. Science is not a collection of facts, it’s an ideology and a method. It’s the best method we’ve devised to understand nature. Our information is incomplete and imperfect, and scientific knowledge changes to reflect that as we gain more information. I don’t think people who appreciate science essentially worship a set of facts and knowledge as sacred - I think they tend to be interested in knowledge and critical thinkers. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I’ll see how this progresses as I have very little faith that people actually wanted a serious discussion, they just wanted an excuse to talk trash about mswas and make fun of him for shit they don’t even understand and have made no serious effort to try to understand. Sir, I can assure you that I can talk trash to you and make fun of you while also giving a serious effort to understand 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Maia\_s\_Well](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3bc359/32.png) [@Maia\_s\_Well](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maia_s_Well)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/27 "2009-08-24T22:17:29Z")
**RedFury** , you just got 5000 posts! (just wanted to say yay) See, I understand what you’re saying to an extent, and I understand better what **mswas** was saying as well. I want to read more, so I think it’s a good idea to start with our understandings of what “reality” and “knowledge” as well. You mentioned above that “there is no room for the supernatural.” Didn’t **mswas** say almost the same thing? “I actually do not believe in the supernatural. If it exists, it’s natural.” That seems like some common ground to start with right there. If I may ask, also, when people claim to experience something which they can’t understand, certainly hallucination is a possibility (speaking from experience here). They may also be lying. In your belief system, are there other possibilities? If so, what are they? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/28 "2009-08-24T23:23:20Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I mean - a shaman from a tribe that knew the fever reduction properties of willow bark might’ve thought it was a gift from the spirits, which doesn’t mean that it didn’t work - but his reasoning was flawed and relied on the paranormal when a measurable biological effect was the actual cause. This is a useful example to illustrate the point that I (and I think **mswas** ) are trying to make. You refer to the “actual cause”. However neither you nor the shaman have access to the “actual cause” of the fever-reducing properties of the willow bark. All you have are subjective abstractions that correlate to a greater or lesser degree with the observable reality. So it’s not a simple case of “shaman wrong/SenorBeef right”. The Shaman’s model of reality is not wholly inaccurate; it does have some predictive value. Your model of reality is certainly MORE accurate, but the possibility remains that some future medical researcher will develop a more sophisticated abstraction that captures elements of reality that currently elude you. So speaking of the “actual cause” of the cure is a bit disingenuous. It sets up a spurious true/false dichotomy when actually you and the shaman merely have two different abstractions with varying degrees of correlation. Now in the case of you and the shaman, one abstraction is clearly far superior for most purposes. But it’s worth recognizing that when we, as materialists, say “the world is organized in such-and-such a way”, we’re actually constructing a fantasy. The fantasy we create may correlate with reality to a very high degree, it might be very beautiful or useful, but it isn’t reality. This extends to even the most fundamental elements of our cognition. I may say “I see a tree,” but “tree” is merely a fantasy I’ve \*constructed \*to encompass a particular configuration of matter. The individual molecules of the tree don’t contain any essence of “tree”. The “treeness” of a tree is a category that I IMPOSE on the universe around me as a way of dicing it up in manageable chunks. “Tree” is a human tool, not a fundamental element of reality. Naive positivism is a form of essentialism. It’s the implicit claim that one’s preferred abstraction IS the reality, rather than merely a particularly useful tool. And it’s a failure to recognize that other abstractions can still be useful tools even if they sometimes correlate poorly with reality. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2009, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/29 "2009-08-24T23:49:33Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > This is a useful example to illustrate the point that I (and I think **mswas** ) are trying to make. > > You refer to the “actual cause”. However neither you nor the shaman have access to the “actual cause” of the fever-reducing properties of the willow bark. All you have are subjective abstractions that correlate to a greater or lesser degree with the observable reality. So it’s not a simple case of “shaman wrong/SenorBeef right”. The Shaman’s model of reality is not wholly inaccurate; it does have some predictive value. Your model of reality is certainly MORE accurate, but the possibility remains that some future medical researcher will develop a more sophisticated abstraction that captures elements of reality that currently elude you. So speaking of the “actual cause” of the cure is a bit disingenuous. It sets up a spurious true/false dichotomy when actually you and the shaman merely have two different abstractions with varying degrees of correlation. Oh come on. To come up with a less ambiguous example: Some ancient people thought the Sun God propelled the sun through the sky every day. We know it’s because the Earth rotates. Because our perception of reality isn’t completely objective then both ideas have merit? After all, the idea that the sun god propels it across the sky every day has predictive value. > [@](#): > > Now in the case of you and the shaman, one abstraction is clearly far superior for most purposes. But it’s worth recognizing that when we, as materialists, say “the world is organized in such-and-such a way”, we’re actually constructing a fantasy. The fantasy we create may correlate with reality to a very high degree, it might be very beautiful or useful, but it isn’t reality. This extends to even the most fundamental elements of our cognition. I may say “I see a tree,” but “tree” is merely a fantasy I’ve \*constructed \*to encompass a particular configuration of matter. The individual molecules of the tree don’t contain any essence of “tree”. The “treeness” of a tree is a category that I IMPOSE on the universe around me as a way of dicing it up in manageable chunks. “Tree” is a human tool, not a fundamental element of reality. > > Naive positivism is a form of essentialism. It’s the implicit claim that one’s preferred abstraction IS the reality, rather than merely a particularly useful tool. And it’s a failure to recognize that other abstractions can still be useful tools even if they sometimes correlate poorly with reality. I can’t say I’ve ever liked these sorts of debates because it seems like some sort of philosophical masturbation where people try to show off with their deep thoughts about the nature of reality while ignoring the practical. It’s silly to pretend that all views on how the world works have merit. There is an objective reality. The biological nature of our minds limit our ability to see it in a completely objective way. There are cognitive biases, lack of intuitive understanding of the scope of the universe, things we wish to be true rather than observe, etc. Science is man’s best attempt at eliminating our limitations to understand the nature of reality. It comes to erroneous conclusions sometimes based on false premises or false or insufficient data, but it subjects itself to scrutiny and it’s self correcting. It’s our best attempt at describing nature with the best tools we and methodologies we know how to. It is superior to magical thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/30 "2009-08-25T00:28:45Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Now in the case of you and the shaman, one abstraction is clearly far superior for most purposes. But it’s worth recognizing that when we, as materialists, say “the world is organized in such-and-such a way”, we’re actually constructing a fantasy. The fantasy we create may correlate with reality to a very high degree, it might be very beautiful or useful, but it isn’t reality. Nor is it a fantasy; it’s a model. The difference is, a fantasy - like what the shaman believes - is disconnected from reality; given it’s religious nature there is an active hostility to truth in the shaman’s fantasy. A scientist’s model is imperfect, but it is going to be matched to reality as closely as possible. And when reality contradicts it, it will be changed or discarded. The two situations aren’t even close, and attempting to claim they are is simply an attempt to either make religion look less worthless than it is, or to drag science down to its level. > [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > And it’s a failure to recognize that other abstractions can still be useful tools even if they sometimes correlate poorly with reality. Only useful for predators; you are when you cut away the profound sounding language trying to claim that believing a falsehood is a good thing. It’s only good for people who want to excuse their own evil or stupid behavior, or for those who want to prey upon those who believe the falsehood. “Correlate poorly with reality” is just a fancy way of saying “wrong” or “deluded” or “lying”. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/31 "2009-08-25T00:32:12Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > Yes, very much so. In fact I wrote as much in my [second response](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11479132&postcount=13) to this thread. > > I think that is the one issue we need to agree on before proceeding. And if we can’t – game over. > > For the record I believe there’s an objective reality outside of subjective experience. Also I would like to point out the damage that can be inflicted to a person if reality is subjective and they refuse to conform i.e. believe the incorrect view of a objective reality. They know what they experience is real, and it is but society tried to force them to accept the incorrect view. > [@](#): > > Further, said reality applies to the natural world, and in it, there’s no room for the supernatural. Postmodern ideas stating that we create our reality leave me cold when they compare said creation to reality itself, or worse, when they deny objective reality. It a way we do create our own reality - if reality is subjective, we come up with ways to deal with what we perceive as real and what we are told as real. IMHO objective reality exists only in the supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/32 "2009-08-25T00:35:13Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Oh come on. To come up with a less ambiguous example: Some ancient people thought the Sun God propelled the sun through the sky every day. We know it’s because the Earth rotates. Because our perception of reality isn’t completely objective then both ideas have merit? After all, the idea that the sun god propels it across the sky every day has predictive value. The idea that the sun god pulls the sun across the sky has SOME merit precisely because it does have predictive value. It’s obviously far inferior as an explanation than the idea that the earth spins in space, but it’s not WHOLLY worthless. It’s like the creationist argument: “What use is half an eye?” The answer, of course, is that half an eye is better than none. > [@](#): > > I can’t say I’ve ever liked these sorts of debates because it seems like some sort of philosophical masturbation where people try to show off with their deep thoughts about the nature of reality while ignoring the practical. It’s silly to pretend that all views on how the world works have merit. Not all views have equal merit and no one is arguing that they do. > [@](#): > > There is an objective reality. The biological nature of our minds limit our ability to see it in a completely objective way. There are cognitive biases, lack of intuitive understanding of the scope of the universe, things we wish to be true rather than observe, etc. Science is man’s best attempt at eliminating our limitations to understand the nature of reality. It comes to erroneous conclusions sometimes based on false premises or false or insufficient data, but it subjects itself to scrutiny and it’s self correcting. It’s our best attempt at describing nature with the best tools we and methodologies we know how to. It is superior to magical thinking. No argument here. I doubt \*\*mswas \*\*would disagree with you either. The question is not “Is empiricism the only valid epistemology?” I suspect most of us would agree that it is. The question is “What is the nature of the truth that empiricism provides us with?” This is of particular importance with fields where the objects of study are more abstract. For example, with the proposition “the earth spins on its axis in space” each of the individual terms are relatively concrete and unambiguous. But what is the truth value of a proposition like “schizophrenia is a form of insanity”. The answer depends on how we structure “insanity” as a concept. The danger of naive positivism is treating “insanity” as a real thing rather than a theoretical construction in an of itself. Grouping behaviors into “sane” and “insane” certainly has predictive value; it’s a very useful tool for grappling with a complex set of behaviors. But behaviors themselves are not inherently sane or insane. It’s a organizing principle that we impose. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/33 "2009-08-25T00:43:06Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > “Correlate poorly with reality” is just a fancy way of saying “wrong” or “deluded” or “lying”. Isaac Newton was wrong, but his theories still had a great deal of utility within a limited domain. The point is not that all theories are equally valid, but that even very poor theories can have utility in limited domains. And, conversely, that our current theories are not reality, merely another more useful approximation. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/34 "2009-08-25T01:13:10Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > Isaac Newton was wrong, but his theories still had a great deal of utility within a limited domain. Only in the area of phsyics, where he was trying to match reality and did a good enough jobs that Newtonian physics is still useful. Where he acted like a “shaman” by going into alchemy he produced nothing of worth. Newton undercuts you argument, by demonstrating that even in the hands of a genius, such anti-scientific thinking is a waste of time. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/35 "2009-08-25T04:24:19Z")
> [@Maia\_s\_Well](#): > > …See, I understand what you’re saying to an extent, and I understand better what **mswas** was saying as well. I want to read more, so I think it’s a good idea to start with our understandings of what “reality” and “knowledge” as well. Sure. But I don’t want to get sidetracked into an ultimately futile philosophical argument on the nature or either one. So I think for the purpose of this thread we should use words as already defined. Thus “knowledge” simply means [the range of one’s information or understanding](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge) and/or [the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge). While “reality” is [the totality of real things and events](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality). I’d only add to the second what I said before. Namely that which exists objectively. Further, in so far as I know, the best way we have of acquiring/determining either one is the [scientific method](http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html). Now, if those _facts_ are in dispute, again, there’s no debate to be had – unless we’re privy to some wondrous revelation not known to man prior to this thread. But I am not holding my breath. > [@](#): > > _You mentioned above that “there is no room for the supernatural.” Didn’t **mswas** say almost the same thing? “I actually do not believe in the supernatural. If it exists, it’s natural.” That seems like some common ground to start with right there._ I can’t speak for **mswas** , nor would I want to, but no, that is not how I understand him at all. Seems to me he simply accepts as real (see his views on [vitalism](http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/)) that which he deems as such. I have a poor view of people that think that way, especially in health related fields. > [@](#): > > _If I may ask, also, when people claim to experience something which they can’t understand, certainly hallucination is a possibility (speaking from experience here). They may also be lying. In your belief system, are there other possibilities? If so, what are they?_ Sleep-deprivation, religious beliefs and perhaps even cultural mores in addition to the mind-bending substances I alluded to earlier. Besides what I think would be the most obvious explanation in my case – which is simply saying “such and such happened to me and I don’t understand how/why.” I don’t know why people (in general) seem to be so scared of admitting as much. Fact is most of us understand little of what surrounds us beyond basic detail. And yet we know quite a bit more about reality than did our ancestors of a short five centuries ago. Right. Done for the evening. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/36 "2009-08-25T05:51:26Z")
What happens when a brain scientist observes herself having a stroke? Does one hemisphere of the brain perceive one part of reality and the other hemisphere perceive another? Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor explains her [_Stroke of Insight_](http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html). (Less than twenty minutes long and well-told.) > [@](#): > > **RedFury** : …“reality” is the totality of real things and events. Getting to that totality requires that you remain an _open-minded_ skeptic. It seems to me that finding common ground and understanding is going to require that we stop judging each other’s motives. (This isn’t directed at you specifically, **RedFury**.) It certainly isn’t very scientific or productive. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/37 "2009-08-25T06:22:01Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > I can’t speak for **mswas** , nor would I want to, but no, that is not how I understand him at all. Seems to me he simply accepts as real (see his views on [vitalism](http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/)) that which he deems as such. I have a poor view of people that think that way, especially in health related fields. Why do you ask me not to post in your thread about something and then you attack me for it when I oblige you? That’s kind of dirty pool. Especially since you are misrepresenting me so disingenuously. I accept that Shiatsu is an effective form of massage treatment and that it is based on Qi and that it works, because I have experienced it firsthand. There is nothing unscientific about that view. I am not making any commentary about the effects it has, I am not making ANY claims. I do not claim Shiatsu is a medical treatment, I do not market it as such. So WTF is up with this bug up all you people’s asses? You seem like you are opposed to something you’ve never even tried, that you don’t understand that you can’t even define most likely. For some inexplicable reason Shiatsu is a fabulous form of massage, it feels great. Why I need to be consistently attacked and harangued for that I don’t fucking know. I’m getting pretty sick of your shit. Either include me in your fucking Pit thread that got moved to Great Debates, or don’t, but stop using me as your negative example if you don’t want to hear what I have to say. I take a dim view of people who dismiss things they can’t even define. It’s not very scientific. Your post has been reported. Hell you opened the floodgates so I’ll just paste my posts from the other thread here. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/38 "2009-08-25T06:31:06Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > and that it is based on Qi Don’t be stupid. Qi, Chi or Ki doesn’t exist. You’re arguing for something as archaic and backwards as medically treating the four humors. Pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/39 "2009-08-25T06:33:28Z")
[QUOTE=Maia’s Well] Yes, yes, this! I appreciated what you wrote about direct experience, as well as what the Hamster King wrote about the problems with using, you know, words and all. I love it when people here are able to articulate thoughts I’ve had which I have not been able to articulate myself. And sometimes even give them names or identify a particular philosophy for me. More, please. [/QUOTE] Thanks. > [@](#): > > How about this…Is it reasonable to think that, when millions of people believe something, there might just be a grain of truth buried in there somewhere? And by truth, I mean something along the lines of a common feeling or experience that most of that group have had? It seems to me that the fact that the conclusions folks might draw from this type of experience could be argued as illogical, but that doesn’t mean that the original experience they might have had was imagined or a result of mental illness, hallucination, or “imagination”. Yes, I think that there is truth to this. People get too caught up in the narrative. > [@](#): > > Here’s a made up example to try to make what I’m saying more clear. Lots of people have said they had the “experience” of being abducted, taken away, and “probed” under bright lights by beings with big heads and tiny mouths (or none at all). Many described these beings as talking without moving their mouths. These individuals relate these experiences and say that they were “abducted by aliens” (as their conclusion). Well, I’m not gonna sit here and say with complete and utter certainty that they weren’t, but it seems highly unlikely (seems like somebody official would’ve noticed alien spacecraft or someone might have had a decent camera handy). But what if what these folks are actually remembering is the moment of their births? Being “abducted”, laid out on a table, bright lights overhead, surrounded by figures that all look alike, whose mouths are all covered with masks, and getting something stuck up their butt (rectal themometer)? I’m not saying that I believe this either, but it seems far more likely to me. What I would say to this is I have no explanation. Maybe they actually were abducted by aliens. I do not know. > [@](#): > > I just think when we throw out personal experience, we mebbe are throwing out the baby with the bathwater (which is likely to give the baby traumatic memories that will arise and go on Jerry Springer later). hee hee. Yes, we tend to be antagonistic to personal experience. > [@](#): > > In other words, is it possible that the science-minded might be missing out on a few possibilities? I don’t think it has much to do with science but with the way people perceive themselves as being more rational. They believe themselves to be more rational by group affiliation. [QUOTE=SenorBeef] You can’t act as if it’s unreasonable that people misinterpreted “in jokes” with yourself. I asked for clarification, to see if you were mocking the claims in that thread that Sylvia Browne was a fraud, and you chose not to respond. [/QUOTE] I was mocking the whole thing. Basically how people get all upset that people believe in psychic phenomena. > [@](#): > > Why can’t it be both? Philosophical outlooks are often both a world view/set of beliefs and social groups based on that outlook. Yes, that is true, but it also happens where group affiliation supersedes the ideology. That happens quite commonly. In this case, people act as if they are skeptics by essence, instead of skeptics by the fact that they use skepticism as a tool. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you reject science in its entirety. I think that you may be one of those people who feel that science is a fine tool in a limited scope, but it’s not any sort of authoritative source of objective truth - or at least there exist things outside of the scope which can be measured by science. Which can then be used to justify various forms of woo. Nope. I don’t believe anything resembling this. > [@](#): > > Could you give examples? The debunkings of Shiatsu by people who don’t even know what it is. > [@](#): > > Incidentally, the people who seem more interested in calling themselves skeptics are the least skeptical people - if you watch any sort of ghost hunter or cryptozoology show they’ll always start with “I’m a skeptic, but…” > > Sort of like those people who say “I’m not racist, but …” I agree. But what I meant was that I wouldn’t have any problem rejecting the Qi explanation if a superior explanation came along. But right now, I know that Shiatsu has an effect, so I’ll run with it rather than trying to overthink it, I don’t claim it to have any western medical explanation. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I’m pretty awesome. Don’t ever change. > [@](#): > > If it actually works, then there’s some physiological mechanism behind it that doesn’t rely on woo like vitalism. I mean - a shaman from a tribe that knew the fever reduction properties of willow bark might’ve thought it was a gift from the spirits, which doesn’t mean that it didn’t work - but his reasoning was flawed and relied on the paranormal when a measurable biological effect was the actual cause. Yes, but I do not know what that physiological mechanism is, though I know some of the justifications used to explain it. You’ll notice I am not offering any of those justifications. > [@](#): > > This is like the “psychics”, who upon being asked to conduct their talents under blinded conditions, claim to be inhibited by a “negative energy field” generated by the skeptics. > > Funny, that - the trick only works on people who are willing to be fooled by it. > > This is the very essence of a placebo effect. No doubt that people’s expectations can change their perception of the effect of something. That doesn’t mean that there’s some nebulous hidden woo behind it - it is a well understood, well documented psychological effect. If it’s psychosomatic then why is that funny? My point is that just because something is ‘all in your head’ that doesn’t make it ‘not real’. Some things work by a relationship. It’s funny how love between two people can only work if both people believe in it right? Kind of convenient no? > [@](#): > > The more introspective and rational you are, the less such things work. This can be unfortunate sometimes when you can’t fool yourself into believing something that would ultimately be pleasant and beneficial to you. Yes, that’s an unfortunate circumstance, but people bring it upon themselves by needing an a priori explanation to every experience. Be open to something you can’t understand working for you, and it just might. It comes from people being too enamored with what they believe. They think that it’s a lot more important to know how things work than it actually is. > [@](#): > > Which was part of what I was talking about in my previous post - often people feel better with a palatable reality they create for themselves and are hostile towards people who attempt as best they can to determine objective reality. Yes, that is true, but just because you are atheist who likes to believe they are skeptical, that doesn’t mean that they are immune to this. > [@](#): > > This seems like a straw man to me - maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but I can’t think of any examples of behaviors that could be described that way by rationally inclined people. That’s a no-true Scotsman argument being used to rebut a straw man. Rationally inclined does not mean ‘rational’. There’s the rub. Everyone is irrational to some degree. I’ve yet to meet a person who is perfectly rational. Of course it can be claimed that I’d simply reject such a person if I met them but I don’t think that I would. > [@](#): > > I didn’t engage a fallacy. I made a guess, based on what you’ve said on the board. I may be wrong, but I’m not claiming it to be rigidly logical or the absolute truth. I also didn’t mean to imply that you were against science entirely. I suspected (and you made it clear in this post) that you think science serves some role, but that there’s a metaphysical realm beyond the scientific. Actually this is a fallacy. Metaphysics are beyond the realm of science ‘sort of’ in that conflicting metaphysical belief systems can be mutually exclusive and yet both work. Like thoughts are metaphysical. That doesn’t mean that they do not relate to the physical world, only that a thought can contain something that is not adequately described by it’s physical components. Telling me what neuroreceptors are firing doesn’t tell me whether or not I am thinking about antidisestablishmentarianism or Eve Online as both are likely to engage the same parts of the brain as both are intellectual pursuits. An EEG cannot tell you the contents of someone’s thoughts. Just because something is subjective doesn’t make it not really real. Our subjective experiences are a part of ‘objective’ reality. > [@](#): > > Effectively, this allows you to believe anything you want about existance while still claiming to believe (and probably actually believing in) the scientific process and scientific knowledge. So I was right - you don’t reject science, but you’ve decided whatever you believe is beyond the scope of science superscedes it in your world view. This can be used to justify lots of unscientific beliefs. No I do not, science is the study of the natural world, and nothing exists outside of the natural world. As I said before. Metaphysics are not supernatural, they are just not physical. The natural world contains more than that which is purely physical. > [@](#): > > I partially agree with this statement. There is a tendency to relate to those with similar beliefs. And religion does serve as a way to socially bond and form communities. Atheists are left out in this regard - so it makes sense that they group with other likeminded people to form the same sort of social bonds. > I disagree that atheists are left out in this regard. Atheists tend to cohere into groups the same as anyone else. One of the unique beliefs that is common amongst atheists is that atheists are less susceptible to group influence over their cognitive biases than others. That might be true to a certain degree, but atheists are not immune to groupthink. The lack of an official group does not mean that there are no groupings. > [@](#): > > However, because they may be forming groups along the same lines for the same reasons does not mean the rationality of their beliefs is equal. If a group forms based on mutual interests in science and skepticism, it’s not like they suddenly lose their focus on rationality and empircism and blindly adhere uncritically to a group of beliefs. This, again, was what I posted about in my last post - trying to say “oh, those skeptics are the same as any believer, just with a different set of beliefs” Well, that’s only because false equivalencies are useless. Atheists are susceptible to groupthink and irrational behavior. Trying to draw some equivalency is pointless. Some Christians are more rational than some atheists and some atheists are more rational than some Christians. I don’t think that one can really tell anything meaningful about a person’s level of rationality by their self-chosen ideological signifiers. > [@](#): > > I might be able to agree or disagree if you provided examples. In general, I don’t see a lot of what you’re describing on this board. Not going to call people out, otherwise people will come in and feel the need to defend themselves. I can understand why you’d like some examples, I hope you can understand why I don’t want to single anyone out. > [@](#): > > If anything, your post describes people who try to integrate scientific sounding language into their woo - like all the new age movements that attempt to use “quantum physics” to describe how their belief works - based on it sounding scientific and yet being confusing to almost everyone. Yes, it is much the same thing. Which is why I don’t even try to explain why Shiatsu works scientifically. If someone else figures it out that’s great, but I am fine performing it and having it performed upon me. > [@](#): > > Science is not a collection of facts, it’s an ideology and a method. It’s the best method we’ve devised to understand nature. Our information is incomplete and imperfect, and scientific knowledge changes to reflect that as we gain more information. I don’t think people who appreciate science essentially worship a set of facts and knowledge as sacred - I think they tend to be interested in knowledge and critical thinkers. Yes. I too think that, but I also think that the desire to engage in in-group/out-group behavior sometimes supersedes any rational motives. You and I used to play with this on #i knowingly and willfully when we would try to separate groups to pound on each other, or when we’d gang up on people together in order to mess with the groupings. Radar doesn’t work by lasers, but that was hardly the point was it? The point was making fun of the stupids and ultimately everyone there got a turn in the barrel. > [@](#): > > Sir, I can assure you that I can talk trash to you and make fun of you while also giving a serious effort to understand Yes, I know. You’re one of the good ones. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2009, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529/40 "2009-08-25T06:35:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Don’t be stupid. Qi, Chi or Ki doesn’t exist. You’re arguing for something as archaic and backwards as medically treating the four humors. > > Pathetic. Post reported for calling me stupid. Go get a Shiatsu from someone who can actually give one, not the rub and the tug lady and actually report back. Shiatsu feels fucking great. Until then don’t lecture me on science when you are dismissing something you don’t even know the first thing about. Stop stalking me it’s not cute anymore. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/of-delusional-believers-and-naive-positivist-scientism/507529.md?page=3)