Sociologist here.

The part when Vi mentions that she "just assumed everyone felt like I did"..

Is a well-known cognitive bias termed the False-consensus Effect.

Literally everyone is blinded by this bias at some point in our lives.


When you combine this with the fact Conservative vs. Liberal brains are fundamentally different..

It can lead to the crazy wars of attrition that tend to divide the country at every turn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD6qtc2_AQA

You're right, I am making an argument about you. This has always been about you. I don't care about the whole god argument, I care about why you believe what you believe and that is what I'm talking about. I could care less about what you believe, the 'why' is far more significant.

It took you an hour to throw all of those quotes together to make a case. Based on that, do you really expect me to believe that you're not just quote mining from some general creationist website somewhere? Do you really expect me to believe that you've actually studied the subjects that you're presenting as evidence for your claims? You are by definition, cherry picking. You are not taking into account the whole of scientific findings, you are ignoring the information which dis-confirms your existing views, and you are unknowingly misrepresenting the facts. If you were well read on any of the subjects of physics or evolutionary biology then you'd completely understand where I'm coming from.

You are trying to make a case for the existence of a god but the only thing that you can say about this god that you believe in is that it basically follows the christian mythos.

"The God I believe in is a personal God who created us for a purpose. His desire is for us to know Him personally and attain to eternal life through His Son Jesus Christ. I believe He is the true God because He transformed my life and being, made me whole by His love, and because I received the direct witness of the Holy Spirit. Everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will receive the witness of the Holy Spirit and then Gods existence will become undeniably true. God Himself provides the evidence if you approach Him in faith."

That's you, you said that. Why do you believe those things? Are you willing to attempt to prove yourself wrong? Are you willing to work to subdue cognitive biases in order to be as certain as you can be that you aren't mistaken? How can you say that your god is the correct one and all of the rest are incorrect? How can you justify a jump from the idea that we don't understand entirely how a system works to, there must be agency behind it? That is exactly what you are asking everyone to do. That is a huge leap and it does not directly follow. Extraordinary claims such as a personal god, require extraordinary evidence. You can't simply suggest that because we don't understand something that there must be agency there, that is not how logic works nor science. You can say nothing about the true nature of something if it requires faith in order to have evidence.

The thing is, I am in doubt about you. I am in doubt about your sincerity for meaningful investigations into reality. I am in doubt that you have actually read any scientific material in their entirety. I am in doubt that you value critical thinking. I am in doubt that you understand what a logical fallacy is or how they work. I am in doubt that you are doing anything more than attempting to justify a belief that you already hold by attempting to give legitimacy in the face of dissonance.

This was always about you. Your belief is based on quotes taken out of context and stitched together to weave a picture that conforms to what you already believe in while ignoring all of the information that doesn't agree with you. This is called a confirmation bias. You wont know how unconvincing your statements and claims are until you get past that kind of bias and seek to prove what you believe wrong to see if it actually holds water.

Seek to prove your beliefs wrong before convince yourself that you are correct.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.
You obviously don't think it is true if you reject it. I don't reject ideas I think are correct. What exactly is your position?
Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.
The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.
You realize that your entire reply could be summed up thusly "nu uh". Just stating that you're right and I am wrong doesn't advance your argument. You don't even have an argument. Everything you've said here is logically fallacious. If you think what I've said is wrong, or cherry picked, address it directly and demonstrate why. I don't think you really understand the subject matter which is why you're trying to make the argument about me instead.
I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.
And this is why I don't think you understand the subject matter, because your statement that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to biological systems shows a total lack of research.
John Ross, Harvard University, Chemical And Engineering News, p.40 July 7, 1980, "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."
Arnold Sommerfel, "...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Thermodynamics And Statistical Mechanics, p.155
There is no such thing as negative entropy. Everything is always trending towards disorder.
The 2nd law equally applies to living systems:
Harold Blum, Prinston Univ., "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." Time's Arrow and Evolution, p.14
Everything is technically an open system in nature.
Richard Morris, "An isolated system is one that does not interact with its surroundings. Naturally there are no completely isolated systems in nature. Everything interacts with its environment to some extent. Nevertheless, the concept, like many other abstractions that are used in physics, is extremely useful. If we are able to understand the behavior in ideal cases, we can gain a great deal of understanding about processes that take place in the real world In fact treating a real system as an isolated one is often an excellent approximation.", Time's Arrows, p.113
The argument is that the energy of the sun is what is overcoming the entropy, but that doesn't explain information. Just putting power into something does not magically create organization:
George Gaylord Simpson & W.S. Beck, "But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.", An Introduction To Biology, p. 466
But there is no mechanism for information to spontaneously arise by itself, overcoming entropy in the system, and we know information comes from minds.
Charles J. Smith, "Biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.
This is why a Creator agrees with the evidence more so than evolution. Was this quote cherry picked?:
G.J. Van Wylen, Richard Sonntag, "...we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe." Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985, p.232.
Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.
I'm looking forward to your point by point refutation of my argument, with sources. Thanks.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.

You obviously don't think it is true if you reject it. I don't reject ideas I think are correct. What exactly is your position?

Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.

The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.

You realize that your entire reply could be summed up thusly "nu uh". Just stating that you're right and I am wrong doesn't advance your argument. You don't even have an argument. Everything you've said here is logically fallacious. If you think what I've said is wrong, or cherry picked, address it directly and demonstrate why. I don't think you really understand the subject matter which is why you're trying to make the argument about me instead.

I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.

And this is why I don't think you understand the subject matter, because your statement that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to biological systems shows a total lack of research.

John Ross, Harvard University, Chemical And Engineering News, p.40 July 7, 1980, "Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."

Arnold Sommerfel, "...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not." Thermodynamics And Statistical Mechanics, p.155

There is no such thing as negative entropy. Everything is always trending towards disorder.

The 2nd law equally applies to living systems:

Harold Blum, Prinston Univ., "No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living world." Time's Arrow and Evolution, p.14

Everything is technically an open system in nature.

Richard Morris, "An isolated system is one that does not interact with its surroundings. Naturally there are no completely isolated systems in nature. Everything interacts with its environment to some extent. Nevertheless, the concept, like many other abstractions that are used in physics, is extremely useful. If we are able to understand the behavior in ideal cases, we can gain a great deal of understanding about processes that take place in the real world In fact treating a real system as an isolated one is often an excellent approximation.", Time's Arrows, p.113

The argument is that the energy of the sun is what is overcoming the entropy, but that doesn't explain information. Just putting power into something does not magically create organization:

George Gaylord Simpson & W.S. Beck, "But the simple expenditure of energy is not sufficient to develop and maintain order. A bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it requires information on how to proceed.", An Introduction To Biology, p. 466

But there is no mechanism for information to spontaneously arise by itself, overcoming entropy in the system, and we know information comes from minds.

Charles J. Smith, "Biological systems are open and exchange both energy and matter. This explanation, however, is not completely satisfying, because it still leaves open the problem of how or why the ordering process has arisen (an apparent lowering of the entropy), and a number of scientists have wrestled with this issue. Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology." Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

This is why a Creator agrees with the evidence more so than evolution. Was this quote cherry picked?:

G.J. Van Wylen, Richard Sonntag, "...we see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing work of a creator, who also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe." Fundamentals Of Classical Thermodynamics, 1985, p.232.

Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.

I'm looking forward to your point by point refutation of my argument, with sources. Thanks.



>> ^IAmTheBlurr

I said that God doesn’t exist? Oh yeah? Where exactly did I say that? The last time I checked, saying that I reject an idea isn’t the same as saying that the idea isn’t true. Get your facts straight.

Saying “god did it” doesn’t answer anything. It doesn’t answer any question about mechanism and until someone can come up with a testable model of how god interacts with the universe which we can then make accurate predictions with, it’s a useless and meaningless statement. It doesn’t help us expand the frontiers of our understanding of reality.

The fact of the matter is that it is you who is fundamentally uneducated in everything that you mentioned and that is made obvious by your inability to form your own arguments; you’re just cherry picking quotes that support you’re cognitive bias.

I love it when people like you pull out the second law of thermodynamics card because I know that you can’t name or explain the rest of the laws of thermodynamics without copy and pasting them from Google search. Life isn’t a closed system and the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The 2nd law has nothing to do with anything biology or the existence of complex organisms, get your facts straight. If you had any respect for truth, you wouldn’t be making so many entirely misinformed and uneducated statements.

Because I know that none of this is actually going to matter to you, go ahead and enlighten us with more of your church-pamphlet science.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Do you know what "the burden of proof" means?
Yes, and you said that God doesn't exist. You have your own burden of proof.
I realize that you're a christian so I've decided to keep this a bit short for the sake of simply providing you with a potentially new view that isn't your own. You may reject it but hopefully you will at least understand how someone else might think about this topic.
I grew up without any religion and was previously agnostic, so I understand both sides of the argument. I used to have many of the same objections that you and others have raised against the existence of God.
One reason that I reject the notion of designer deities is because the question becomes infinitely regress-able; it explains nothing, it helps clarify nothing, and it opens up more questions than it answers. The notion of a designer god begs the question, who or what designed the designer, then that designers designer, and most importantly, how do these gods operate, by what laws?
The answer is that no one designed God. He is an eternal being and has always existed. A created god isn't really a God. God is the one whom no one else created.
This is actually a problem for your side of the fence, unless you believe that something came from nothing, which would be worse than magic. Since the Universe has a beginning there must either be an eternal first cause or else you are left with an infinite regress of causes.
Suggesting that a creator exists because something doesn't make sense to you isn't a valid way of forming believes if your goal is truth.
I don't believe in God because the world doesn't make sense to me. I believe in God because the evidence points to His existence.
The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science.
Actually, to believe that systems become more ordered over time is a fundemental misunderstanding of scientific laws, specifically the second law of thermodynamics. Sir Arthur Eddington says
"...if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.", p.74 Nature of the Physical World.
The second law states that systems become more disordered over time and there is no known exception to this rule. Everything is breaking down and becoming more disorganized. Evolutionary theory claims the opposite, that systems are getting more complex and highly organized over time. This clearly violates the 2nd law, which is why Ilya Prigogin said this:
LIFE WON'T "FORM" Ilya Prigogin (Nobel Laureate) "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred." Physics Today, Vol.25, p.28.
True, we do have gaps in our knowledge about systems and mechanism but those gaps should remain gaps instead of prematurely filling them with god fluff. But, you are a believer, and believers do not make critical thinkers.
Again, God is a better explanation according to the evidence, such as the information in DNA, the fine tuning in the universe, and the appearance of design in biological systems. It is not a gap theory, it is a better theory.
I just hope that you come to understand that the answer "A creator did it" isn't an intellectually honest way of thinking.
There is nothing intellectually dishonest in believe that God created the Universe. Did you know that nearly half of biologists, mathematicians and physicists believe in a personal God? To dismiss the possibility is what is intellectually dishonest.
>> ^IAmTheBlurr

This is what Matt Damon is referring to by MBA thinking. Some people are defined by their jobs, some people aren't. I always thought it was rather insulting when people want to find out "Who are you?" in the sense of more than just your name, they ask "What do you do?" in the sense that your job/daily activity is the end all be all of what you contribute.

You are essentially saying that if you find a spot in a career path that you enjoy, excel at and are love to do and are still there 5 years later, you are doing nothing with your life. Even if you raise a family, volunteer, involve yourself in other people's lives........instead of spending your time looking for career advancement because that's what we should value. It's not specifically a bad thing, but it's something a lot of people would be utterly miserable doing. Live to work versus work to live type mentality.

Besides there are jobs that have to be done in society for it to run that are seen as menial "do nothing" jobs. With one hand you are accepting the services they make possible and with the other you are slapping them in the face and telling them their contribution is nothing. Waste management (Garbage truck operators (lots), landfill operations (few)), Waste Water Treatment facilities, road crews, farmers, etc. All of these jobs their progress and contribution to society can be measured daily if so desired, and the majority of those jobs are looked down upon and seen as unskilled labor. Yet they are necessary for the "noble"/desirable/rich professions of doctors and lawyers to even function. They would do away with those jobs if they could, but instead they work to cut the costs associated with them.....no matter how necessary they are. Earnings and cost are something to be considered, but they are not the end all be all of what keeps a society functioning. There are a lot more grunt jobs than there are management/white collar jobs.

>> ^chilaxe:

It's not that my lazy liberal friends are living up to human potential in less economically rewarding ways, it's that they're doing nothing with their lives and they're almost exactly the same as they were 5 years ago.
What they don't understand is that building an extraordinary career is our greatest intellectual challenge and the only reliable way to consistently grow via real, sink-or-swim personal challenges.

Regarding the women in this video... I think it's a cognitive bias (that I've been prone to in the past) to view women having sex outside of committed relationships as being 'more immoral' than when men do it. The women are free agents able to do their own cost/benefit analysis, and young rationalists would seem to have incentive to trade erotic entertainment for economic and personal resources.
Personally, I enjoy dating older women because they're more advanced in life and career and thus have more stimulation to offer. I've noted in the past that young women seem to have an advantage in this regard over young men... it's easier for young women to date older, more advanced men and thus they can grow as individuals faster.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner "Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

It's not that my lazy liberal friends are living up to human potential in less economically rewarding ways, it's that they're doing nothing with their lives and they're almost exactly the same as they were 5 years ago.

What they don't understand is that building an extraordinary career is our greatest intellectual challenge and the only reliable way to consistently grow via real, sink-or-swim personal challenges.



Regarding the women in this video... I think it's a cognitive bias (that I've been prone to in the past) to view women having sex outside of committed relationships as being 'more immoral' than when men do it. The women are free agents able to do their own cost/benefit analysis, and young rationalists would seem to have incentive to trade erotic entertainment for economic and personal resources.

Personally, I enjoy dating older women because they're more advanced in life and career and thus have more stimulation to offer. I've noted in the past that young women seem to have an advantage in this regard over young men... it's easier for young women to date older, more advanced men and thus they can grow as individuals faster.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^chilaxe:
@NetRunner "Why should [economic efficiency] get such a powerful say in what sorts of intellectual pursuits I can engage in?"

You're free to follow whatever pursuits you wish, as long as YOU pay your own way.
My lazy liberal friends who majored in "feel-good" subjects and are doing nothing with their lives aren't living up to their human potential, so I think your philosophy of potential is backwards. I have an upcoming reunion, and I'm kind of dreading it because I know they all live unchanging lazy liberal lives, and I've been constantly personally and intellectually challenged through pursuing an ambitious career.

Again, you're not seeing my point. Economic success != living up to human potential in my book.
These young women are maximizing their economic potential by whoring themselves out. Are they maximizing their human potential by doing so? I don't think so.

@chilaxe, I'm beginning to grow tired of having you try to beat everyone down with this accusation of tribalism and cognitive bias.

Since you are immune to the pull of these forces, please enlighten us, is global warming real or fake?

Is ACORN a criminal institution, or was the video published by James O'Keefe unrepresentative of the organization?

Once you work those two to a definitive conclusion, I have two more:

Who was telling the truth to the best of their ability about climate change, the scientists at East Anglia, or the people on Fox who reported that it was a hoax?

Who was telling the truth about ACORN to the best of their ability, James O'Keefe, or the people who said it did a lot of good for communities?

Finally, if your answers to those questions are, respectively, global warming is real, O'Keefe's video was unrepresentative, the East Anglia scientists, and the people who said it did a lot of good, wouldn't you be mad about the way in which the media has portrayed these events?

I think many of the shortcomings of the education system are shortcomings on the part of the academics who design the curriculums. Problem solving in the sense of how to optimally manage our intelligence would be a great thing to teach. Even PhDs don't get taught that, though.

Teaching these areas would be a great start : Cognitive science, decision theory, intelligence research, game theory, behavioral economics, risk management, cognitive bias, and rationalism.

(Wikipedia links on those subjects are here: http://www.videosift.com/video/For-all-my-Athiest-friends-on-The-Sift?loadcomm=1#comment-744091)

I also highly recommend Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers. (People who like reading books on their computer could find the PDF here)

^I don't find fault with Maddow's overall thesis, only with the details.

It's flimsy to defend our usage of "Nazi!" as harmless metaphor, while presenting our opponents' usage of "Nazi!" as literal and frightening. Naomi Wolf wasn't speaking metaphorically when she was certain that as of Oct 1, 2008 (~3:35) the Bush administration had launched a coup, and we were now living under martial law and a fascist state, and Obama wouldn't be elected.

Partisanship and political wishful thinking become a cognitive bias with significant costs when you're raging against even people whose only concern is a scientific understanding of the world.

You and I still have a bet going that Peter Schiff's certitudinous claim of an immanent end of the world as we know it won't be occurring by the end of 2010.

I know progressives are good people trying to do the best thing, and I do appreciate our debates, though

What I mean is that I think these areas are fascinating! Cognitive science, decision theory, intelligence research, game theory, behavioral economics, risk management, cognitive bias, and rationalism.

>> ^Lieu:
This is why we humans fail so much. "...any evidence I could have gotten to prove death of hypothermia is out the window."
Talk about confirmation bias.
What an idiot. This guy decided long before the autopsy what the cause of death was. The autopsy, the best method by far of establishing unknown death, says uterine toxity from death of kittens? Too bad, there's no changing his mind now. Intuition and cognitive bias "triumphs" yet again. Intuition says cold = hypothermia. How about after any cause of death metabolism stops and the body cools to its surroundings? How about looking at all explanations objectively?
Depressing. Now Joe Average will watch this and think automatically the airline must have "done" something to the cat and pay no attention to the actual vet's diagnosis.



Dude, give it up. you can't prove the cat died of hypothermia, but you also can't prove it didn't, either.

The only thing the guy has to go on is that it was sent to a vet that he doesn't know, who said the most likely cause of death was uterine toxity. Now, many things could've happened there.

We don't know what made the kittens die, maybe it was complications, maybe it had something to do with why the cat froze to death, too.

The ONLY thing's we know about this video, guy sends a healthy pregnant kitty to someone else on a plane. Cat gets put on plane. Cat is dead and frozen (Twice) upon arrival. There's no middle ground there, we have no information on what happened while it was in the cargo hold of the plane, so for all we know, the landing gear didn't fully close and caused a small draft, at that altitude, the temperature would already be incredibly low, not to mention that it's winter.

Now, if it was ME in this situation, and I not only sold a cat to someone for $2500, but one that I'd loved and had for years, I'd probably be pretty pissed off too. And being as the cat was healthy THAT MORNING, the only logical explanation is that something happened to it, more then likely while it was in the planes care. And if they can't prove misconduct on the airlines part, I believe they forfeit any rights to sue for the loss of not only his money, but his pet. So, yeah. I'd want my own autopsy on it, too.

This is why we humans fail so much. "...any evidence I could have gotten to prove death of hypothermia is out the window."

Talk about confirmation bias.

What an idiot. This guy decided long before the autopsy what the cause of death was. The autopsy, the best method by far of establishing unknown death, says uterine toxity from death of kittens? Too bad, there's no changing his mind now. Intuition and cognitive bias "triumphs" yet again. Intuition says cold = hypothermia. How about after any cause of death metabolism stops and the body cools to its surroundings? How about looking at all explanations objectively?

Depressing. Now Joe Average will watch this and think automatically the airline must have "done" something to the cat and pay no attention to the actual vet's diagnosis.