Comments on: Truth Optional

By: Austin Dude

Austin Dude — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:20:59 +0000

I thoroughly enjoyed this thought-provoking article. I believe it is not harmless to perpetuate memes in which one doesn’t fully believe just because they are “useful”. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. How much death and strife in the name of G-d does it take to outweigh the societal benefits? What will be the unexpected negative impacts of “green” initiatives? Why do we have to choose sides and become militant evangelists for memes which are unproven or purely spiritual?

By: Phil Bowermaster

Phil Bowermaster — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:05:01 +0000

Shrinkwrapped –

I believe that the only truly scientific response to the question of G-d is to remain a confirmed agnostic … but I could be wrong.

Perhaps, but then again maybe a non-scientific response is called for in some situations. I don’t take a particularly scientific approach to forming relationships with others, for example. And there’s nothing scientific about the Santa Claus thing, but it’s fun.

MikeD –

Happy New Year back at you! Yes, I would agree that the usefulness = truth (if predicting future outcomes is roughly congruent with “truth”) formulation is more straightforward in the hard sciences than elsewhere, but even there politics and our desire for the world to work a certain way sneaks in, as MDarling points out.

MDarling –

Good points. I was assuming honest people acting in good faith. Clearly, people who don’t fit that description knowingly spread false memes all the time.

By: MDarling

MDarling — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 10:13:50 +0000

Nice start to the new year.

It depends on what you mean by “truth content.”

“One of the most important things to remember about these self-reproducing ideas is that it is not their truth content that makes them successful. To give just one example, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that childhood vaccinations cause autism, and yet look at how successfully that idea has been transmitted all over the world. But I wouldn’t suggest that the folks spreading that meme actually believe it to be untrue.”

I know verifiably untrue memes that get spread all the time. I’m thinking mortgage sales reps at the moment- but there are other snake oil salesmen.

But the connection between “truth content” and “scientific evidence” is only sometimes part of the memetic transfer power. Hook – or sustain-ability. (I checked Grant’s meme lexicon*- hook is closest)

I’ve had this heuristic argument for more than twenty years. I believe that the line between what we “know” and what we “believe” is a lot flimsier than many would prefer. And it’s not just religion, it’s “science” too. Can you imagine a world class physicist circa 1920 thinking quantum results are anything but faith?

And so I argue the power of a hook is the perceived or even desired truth content.
I’m a good poker player. I believe because I want it to be true and I kicked some tails on a web poker game. But I’m smart enough- or scared enough- not to fall for my own press clippings.

*http://www.istop.com/~ggrant/memetics/memelex.html

By: MikeD

MikeD — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:49:34 +0000

The latest scientific theory gains support because it is useful. We assume a more useful Theory of Everything is necessarily more correct. How does science measure useful theory? …By how many questions it can answer consistently before it breaks down. Many of the social science questions are barely well-formed, so almost anything can answer them. ..for example: http://www.google.com/search?q=the+secret

btw, Happy New Year

By: ShrinkWrapped

ShrinkWrapped — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:58:45 +0000

The human brain/mind is arranged in such a way as to find patterns and impose meaning on those patterns, even when the patterns do not exist. Whether it is the fervent belief of those non-scientists who claim AGW is destroying the planet, the equally fervent belief of those who are certain MMR vaccines cause autism, or the equally fervent belief of those who are certain G-d designed man, all such beliefs lack scientific certainty. I would suggest that buying into a traditional belief system that has worked very well (subsumed under the heading of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of which ever variety one prefers) may be much wiser than many of the available alternatives, none of which have any advantage in terms of the scientific data. Among other reasons, it was the Jewish/Christian belief in a rational G-d, a belief structure painfully and slowly acquired by the human race, that allowed scientific inquiry to arise in the first place. We might be wise to continue to acknowledge that faith occurs on a different continuum than science; as the comment goes, those who don’t believe in G-d will not believe in nothing but will believe in anything. Sadly, that remains true even for the most enlightened and rational.
I believe that the only truly scientific response to the question of G-d is to remain a confirmed agnostic … but I could be wrong.