|
On February 04 2012 02:36 bonifaceviii wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 02:26 Promises wrote:Ok, the title was perhaps too provocative (altho, again, that was the fucking point, the immediate resistance built up after reading something like that) altho the question mark is there for a reason. And the OP (me) said:
Now the main thing I'm interested in, and one of the main things he highlights, is how you feel yourself react to this. The second I read his intro I was building up resistance to the idea that fireplace's would be bad, and that it must all be overprotective bullshit etc. Weird, because the facts don't lie and if it were something else that I don't love as much as an open fire I wouldn't feel any of this resistance to take in the facts. If you're up for it; have a read and let me know how it registered with you =)
A part that people apparantly skipped over as soon as they started fuming at the mouth over the title =) It wasn't skipped over. You're simply projecting the effect this blog post had on you (you resisted the facts) on us (who took a look at the facts, assessed them, and found them unremarkable). I understand that the author of the blog post was trying to make a point about how people react when their irrational beliefs are questioned, but using the fact that fireplaces are dangerous (something society already takes seriously, as demonstrated by the regulations around them) is not the best way of making it.
And that would've been a perfectly reasonable response to the opening post. It answers the question for you; you didn't find yourself resisting so much, you knew of the risks and you find the analogy to religion thought to be bad. A response like "yes you moron, smoke is dangerous, live a little" completely misses that point and the question.
|
|
|
On February 04 2012 07:02 Klesky wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 05:10 Introvert wrote:Fundamental problem with analogy? The harmfulness of smoke is provable, atheism is not. The scientific process can show what in smoke is bad, science cannot disprove religion, or say how it is bad. That would be Philosophy. At one time, the two were closely linked, but no more. It seems that people such as Dawkins, Harris, and Co. are liked because, despite atheist claims, these men are very reliant on rhetoric, and the feeling that "this speaker makes me feel smart". They tell religion to stay out of science, and yet they won't keep science out of philosophy! (Though I don't believe the two disagree anyway.) These men love to attack general ideas and straw men, I've never once heard them say "(insert someone: Augustine, Calvin, etc.) is wrong about X because of Y". Atheists are human beings as well, and subject to the same effects when having their ego stroked, etc, as everyone else. Even in this article, he is catering to an audience. As for fires, I don't care. I like them, and will continue using them whenever I camp  Because nobody ever on this planet has been harmed by organised religion in any way right? That's why this analogy is invalid?
Do you know that's an irrelevant straw man or do you actually think you're refuting what he's saying with it?
|
I've thought about this for a while, because although I understand Harris is trying to illustrate the visceral reaction people feel when their core beliefs are challenged by evidence, I felt unsatisfied by his attempt to draw an analogy with religion. I think it's because the analogy is very imperfect. In religious debates, the existence of god is a purely a question of truth or falsity. The whole institution of science - the very idea that we can understand the way the world works by making observations - is wholly opposed to the institution of religion (so the new atheists assert). However, this is plainly untrue when it relates to the regulation of burning wood.
If Harris is merely suggesting that scientific evidence proves that burning wood is unhealthy for humans, then fine he has illustrated this point. If Harris is merely illustrating the resulting cognitive dissonance when presented with evidence contrary to commonly held beliefs, then fine he has also illustrated his point. But I feel as though Harris is suggesting something deeper. By drawing the analogy with religion that he is drawing, he appears to suggest that scientific evidence proves (or at least very strongly suggests) that burning wood should be regulated. It is as though he is saying a failure to agree with him about this point is a failure to come to terms with the scientific evidence. This is dangerous territory. In public policy debates, science is supposed to inform debates - not to settle them. Unlike religious debates (on the existence of god) where science can purportedly settle the debates as a matter of truth and falsity, it simply cannot do so in public policy debates. Issues relating to social convention, tradition, the reach of government are all relevant issues that need to be weighed before a public policy can be settled upon. In fact, Harris appears to acknowledge this point. He says:
Even if you reject every intrusion of the “nanny state,” you should agree that the recreational burning of wood is unethical and should be illegal, especially in urban areas. By lighting a fire, you are creating pollution that you cannot dispose. It might be the clearest day of the year, but burn a sufficient quantity of wood and the air in the vicinity of your home will resemble a bad day in Beijing. Your neighbors should not have to pay the cost of this archaic behavior of yours. And there is no way they can transfer this cost to you in a way that would preserve their interests. Therefore, even libertarians should be willing to pass a law prohibiting the recreational burning of wood in favor of cleaner alternatives (like gas).
Plainly, Harris is not making a scientific point. Whatever you think of the merits of what he is saying, the assertion that "Your neighbours should not have to pay the cost of this archaic behaviour of yours" is not a scientific assertion. And if Harris is asserting that there is some obvious pathway between scientific assertion and moral assertions (in spite of the very difficult is-ought problem), I think we at least deserve an explanation.
I think therefore that beyond illustrating the visceral reaction that someone might hear scientific evidence contradict their commonly held assertions (i.e. the commonly held assertion that burning wood is not dangerous), his more general points should be viewed with some suspicion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
