The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#21
|
||||||
|
||||||
Re: Emergent Networks and Fine Art
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Carey N; June 3rd, 2006 at 12:56 PM.. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Emergent Networks and Fine Art
I previously have stated what I believe to be an axiom of human nature:
Quote:
That's why it is amazing to me that you can carry on a discussion with Fred and believe that he is lazy, or unwilling to do the reading to understand the most basic scientific explanations of biology. You said to Fred, Quote:
Fred can't do that for you - any more than he can for Tom (or me, chuckle). Fred believes in a fundamentally different meta-narrative of life and existence than you do. That narrative is guiding his mind - not reason - just as ultimately yours is guiding yours. For Fred, any evidence or argument that falsifies or even casts doubt on his narrative - must be rejected and ridiculed. Anyone attempting to falsify his narrative must be opposed. His large number of posts provide massive and incontrovertible evidence for that. Fred's very reason for being here is to carry on that mission in this particularly heretic rich environment. A narrative is a set of inter-related beliefs about the world that support each other and tell a larger story. A meta-narative is a set of inter-related narratives that support each other - like the Christian meta-narrative of why life exists and its purpose - as decribed in the many narratives of the gospels. The scientific meta-narrative that tries to address similar question using a different (and opposite) framework is Darwinian evolution.. I am not saying Fred is a bad or dishonest person - despite my frequent anger at him. We all start from a fundamental narrative of life and existence - and once that narrative becomes integrated into our identity we must defend it - just as Fred is doing. What makes one person different from another - in these discussions - are a few events in our early lives - probably in our teens - where we found we were more comfortable (we felt emotionally more satisfied) harboring a scientific vs. a theistic meta-narrative. Which side of this divide we decided to spend our lives on was not determined by our intelligence or honesty. It had to do with even earlier childhood experiences, our relationship with our parents and siblings, our friends and their parents and siblings, our church and school experience, etc. It was a purely emotional decision tied in the most intimate ways to our identity - to who we are - as all such crucial decisions are. Your meta-narrative, scientific naturalism, was not chosen because you were intelligent - any more than Fred's was. You are both well above average IQ, I am sure. It is an accident of your past that you ended up on the side of that divide that lends itself to justification according to relatively straightforward rules of scientific evidence. And it was a similar accident that now Fred needs to reach for more philosophically grounded justifications for his. That's even to his advantage in some ways because philosophic lemmas are neither easy to understand nor refute. My point is that there is no point - for persons with opposite meta-narratives to argue the relative merits of evolutionary explanations for life with each other. You both think you are arguing points about that topic but you are both incapable of violating your respective meta-narratives. Obviously, I made the choice long ago to go with the scientific (non-theistic) view. All that really means though, is that scientific ideas feel better to me when I consider them - and religious explanations feel coarse and uncomfortable in my mind. I have no emotional choice but to savor the former and expell that latter. When you argue with Fred, you are not arguing about the vailidity of evolution as you seem to think you are. You are both trying to falsify the other's meta-narrative. That could be an even more interesting discussion to follow if you had the inclination to do that directly - although equally futile - but there's no way you'll make progress discussing Darwinian evolution with Fred, or any other theist. I'm not pointing this out to show some shortcoming in either of your minds - I think they both work very well - but to use your discussion to illustrate that universal way that all our minds work, Quote:
Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; June 3rd, 2006 at 05:31 PM.. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Emergent Networks and Fine Art
Quote:
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Emergent Networks and Fine Art
Quote:
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Emergent Networks and Fine Art
Quote:
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Emergent Networks and Fine Art
Condensending? Like telling Fred that,
Quote:
My intention was to state that you can't argue identity beliefs with reason - and I was pretty clear about that. Neither of you will be able to accept a reasonable argument that negates your identity. I also put myself subject to those same limitations - so maybe I'm being condensending to myself. If you don't agree with what I said, just say so. Don't pretend it's condensending. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Emergent Networks and Fine Art
I could say that to Fred because it was actually true . . . perhaps he's read my posts more carefully now, but at the time, it was pretty clear that he hadn't. I don't think he's lazy for a moment, but I do think that, on occassion, he will pick up only on the parts of my posts that he wants to read and respond to them alone, rather than to the whole message.
You, on the other hand, wrote a long post describing how our discussion is essentially useless, for all of our core thoughts are governed by accidents of history, and neither one of us is really capable of changing his mind (what's the point of debating with someone who doesn't already share your belief system, then?). I like to think that I am open to change, even on the most fundamental of my "identity beliefs" . . . I'm not going to switch to deism any time soon, but I'm more than willing accept a fault in, say, natural selection, if someone has reasonably argued that there really is one. Fred has not done that to my satisfaction, hence the continuing discussion. Even if you're correct about meta-narratives and identity beliefs, we will continue to argue anyway because it's fun. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Emergent Networks and Fine Art
Quote:
BTW Carey, did you notice the similarity of JimB’s thinking to my own regarding the circularity thing—i.e., using his words, “‘If it's alive, it was selected,’ has problems?â€â€”But not to worry, you don’t need to apologize for your less than kind emotional outburst, in all caps no less, indicating that I myself was “THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS SO.†And besides Carey, I suspect that JimB probably still likes you best. Hugs and kisses. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Emergent Networks and Fine Art
Carey, Just when I think this forum has gone well beyond the point where anyone has anything interesting to say, someone comes up with a post that actually contains thoughts and ideas worth considering - like your post that this is in reply to.
I realize that what I am saying goes against the CW and also that any premise that demotes the role of intellect in human discourse will be seen as insulting to many. But, that only reinforces my contention that we all believe what feels good and use our brains to justify it. It doesn't feel good to violate the CW. We instinctively feel that others will ridicule us and say mean things to us - as you and Fred and JB do to me continuously. Likewise, it doesn't feel good to think that our logical arguments are often just extensions of our identity beliefs - made to defend them. It's interesting that my ideas violate different core beliefs in each of you and so you each try to attack me and my ideas from different positions - although you do gang up occasionally. You said, Quote:
No matter what Fred says that cleverly tries to make a toe-hold for such an explanation - you will find a rational way to discredit it. You think you are offering rational alternative explanations and giving Fred a lesson in evolutionary theory. Really though, there is nothing you could say that would shake Fred's belief in a theistic basis for human nature - his fundamental identity belief. And certainly by now, you know that. Note that your discussion with Fred is a microcosm of the ID debate raging elsewhere. While the audience is limited here, I believe the motives, the kinds of arguments and emotions being felt by both sides are quite similar. This similarity in patterns (emergent networks some might call them) tells me that something important about human nature is going on here.So, the interesting question to me is why do you persist? I propose it is because Fred's ideas violate your core belief in rationalism - and your answers are to provide you the emotional satisfaction of responding to that emotional insult. As a scientist you have the tools in your possession to do a pretty good job of that. But aside from the tacit approval of JB and perhaps Todd, and the emotional satisfaction that comes from that, you know your tools will do nothing to cause Fred to change his core beliefs. As you said yourself, Quote:
I am trying to get past that wall. I am finding however, that even in a forum supposedly dedicated to objective discussions of human nature and psychology, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to do. No doubt, much of that difficulty is the result of those times when I have responded angrily to what seemed like provocation at the time. As I have said before, usually right after I responded, I regret those and would retract them if I could. I still hope that we could discuss these things (that I believe are very important concepts) without the emotional discomfort that I know they produce. (I follow up on this on the other thread "Implications of Somatic Behavior Choice".) Link Margaret Last edited by Margaret McGhee; June 4th, 2006 at 04:45 PM.. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Emergent Networks and Fine Art
Quote:
|
|
|