Mod+ 262. WILL STORR ON THE ENEMIES OF SCIENCE

David Eire said:
Another good interview Alex. Thank you.

I agree with Will's position on the pros and cons of the scientific method, and on maintaining awareness of one's own fallibility, and that of others.

To answer your teed-up question; I try to maintain the position that on most matters my opinions are best personal guesses based on the available data and so therefore not infallible. I am not privy to the ultimate truth of Reality, and I try never to forget that.
My opinion is; perception is interpretation, and our fundamental view of the world arises from our soul-level or soul-age, which we bring to the world with us at birth; and we use reason, in so far as we are able, to justify that intuitive perception or interpretation.
In other words, people do not reach their fundamental view of the world by means of reason, but rather they use reason to justify what they instinctively tend to believe; or what they have been conditioned to believe.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that, is that I feel that my views have moved massively from those I had in my youth - both in science and in politics. I am sure I am typical of a lot of Skeptiko folk.

I am also conscious of various points in my life when my previous belief in something began to crack. For example, there was the morning when I was in the bathroom and the radio was on. One item of the news was explaining that a large collection of emails between climate change scientists had been 'hacked' and was now stored in WikiLeaks. I felt a sudden sense of unreality - why would an organisation that stores evidence of torture in Iraq and billion dollar bank frauds really care about the minutiae of climate science?

Another occasion was when I saw a documentary about the paranormal, and a sceptical scientist (I can't remember who) said,"There is no scientific evidence for paranormal phenomena!". I felt the only reasonable interpretation of that statement, was that there were no peer reviewed papers that claimed evidence for paranormal phenomena. I knew that was false, and I instantly realised that this was more of a propaganda campaign - intended to mislead the average viewer - than dispassionate science.

David
 
Last edited:
Psiclops said:
One point where I think Will was wrong was his belief that the anti-gay creationist was born that way and then looked to the Bible to confirm his prejudice.
More likely surely that he came from the Bible belt and it was the church's anti-gay teachings which created his prejudice?
Click to expand...

I know there has been some research that shows that men who are homophobic tend to be excited by homosexual pornography as compared with non-homophobic men - in other words they are themselves somewhat gay, and can't come to terms with that aspect of themselves. This certainly explains the various preachers (mainly in the US, I think) who have ranted on this subject and then been found with gay prostitutes! It also explains why some anti-gay types talk as if men chose to be gay.

The New Testament barely mentions homosexuality, and it isn't a big theme in the Old Testament, so I think it is plausible that the Church drifted into this issue because it appealed to a certain kind of person.

David
 
Alex's questions at the end of the podcast:

Do you have a way of checking whether others, or you yourself, are going too far in support of favoured beliefs? Of evaluating whether emotion rather than evidence is the driving force? Do you have any recommendations for avoiding "crossing the crazy line"?
 
Do you have a way of checking whether others, or you yourself, are going too far in support of favoured beliefs? Of evaluating whether emotion rather than evidence is the driving force? Do you have any recommendations for avoiding "crossing the crazy line"?

I enjoyed this podcast: it's in line with something I recently suggested to Alex about having more people on the show who weren't completely committed either way; I doubt that's why he had Will Storr on--it's probably just a happy coincidence--but regardless, it's appreciated.

My impression of Storr is that he's a mirror image of me: he's an agnostic, like I am, but he seems to lean currently more to materialism, and I, more to its falsity. We also share the experience of having been indoctrinated as Catholics and of rejecting that in favour of materialism. In time, I in turn rejected materialism, and since he appears still to be quite a young man, it's possible he will too. I note how he wasn't aware of, and seemed somewhat surprised by, studies indicating that psychedelics lessen rather than increase brain activity, which is in line with NDEs occurring during periods of little to no measurable activity. You might have already done it, Alex, but if not, I'd suggest sending him links to information about that, and maybe also point him to your podcasts where that has been discussed.

I suppose my way of checking myself arises naturally from my being an agnostic. I'm not aware of that being a conscious choice, but I suppose that people could consciously cultivate agnosticism if they wanted. A start could be to sit down and think about what one actually knows beyond any doubt.

First, one finds that a lot of what one thinks one knows is actually received wisdom: stuff one has accepted on authority. All that should be regarded with suspicion and categorised as a possibility rather than a certainty. Second, one finds that what one actually knows for certain comes only from personal observation and/or experience, and there's precious little of that kind of knowledge. This applies as much to scientists as anyone else, though within their probably quite narrow specialisations, they may have made a lot of first-hand observations. Third, even if one is certain about something, say the occurrence of a particular phenomenon, there's still the question of how to interpret its meaning, and that's a highly subjective thing. An honest investigation should prove to be very humbling: I'll bet most of us know sweet Fanny Adams.

Storr's point that we all seem to need to have some framework of beliefs to work within is well taken. Agnostic or no, I think we all need such frameworks, but that needn't be totally restricting as long as we recognise consciously what those beliefs are, and above all, that they are beliefs and not facts. If one is going to become passionate about something, I think it would be best if it was about developing an appropriate (based on honest personal review) agnostic attitude to thinking about the world.

IMO, Storr is right: a lot of us are too attached to, and passionate about, beliefs that we elevate to the status of certainties. The scientific method, properly followed, is meant as an antidote to imposing beliefs on reality, and one does occasionally come across scientists who are quite good at doing that. The big breakthroughs in science often come from those who question received wisdom, and not infrequently, they may be ridiculed and lambasted until eventually their ideas are accepted; now and then, one or two of them may even end up with a Nobel prize.

I appreciate that many may not like or even be readily able to adopt a generally agnostic outlook (the original Greek philosophical school, the Skeptikoi, according to Wikipedia, comprised those who asserted nothing, which IMO jibes with such an outlook); wouldn't know how to live without tidy and comforting certainties that they may share with others, thereby being able to bolster their self-confidence. I'd agree with Storr that this can happen on all sides of any given debate. I sometimes come across (in my view unwarranted) certainty on the part of psi proponents on this forum: and that's no different in principle from the unwarranted certainty of ideological sceptics.

I'd just like to add that the modern scientific method isn't much different than approaches adopted in some spiritual traditions that have been around a lot longer. Acolytes are advised to question everything they are taught and wherever possible to personally verify its truth or falsity: until and unless they can, judgement should be held in abeyance. I think cultivating this kind of attitude can lead to freedom of thought and action: to true open-mindedness and humility. One day I hope to get there myself.
 
Last edited:
Jim_Smith said:
What do the people who run the world from behind the scenes know that they don't want the rest of us to know?
Click to expand...
This is my hunch.

I don't think they know that much more, but as they see it, they know of various troubling unsolved anomalies - such as the nature of UFO's - that they have gradually chosen to hide from the public. It is more that after you haven't been candid with the public, you need more lies to cover up the first set, and so on.

Part of the reason I think that way, is that something like that seems to have happened in medicine, in relation to saturated fats. They knew the evidence against SF's came from a bogus graph created by a guy called Ancel Keys, who became quite a well known figure, partly on the basis of his 'discovery' about SF's! I guess it would have been relatively easy to stop the nonsense when the bogus nature of that graph was exposed, but as time went on, the shock of exposure, and the sense of distrust that this would have generated in the public increased - so we got to where we are today!

Likewise, my guess is that a lot of people near the top of the science community wish they hadn't let the CAGW rabbit run, but they don't know how to stop it without big consequences for the credibility of science.

I guess I feel that a lot of 'conspiracies' are glued together by confusion and muddle!

David
 
Michael Larkin said:
Do you have a way of checking whether others, or you yourself, are going too far in support of favoured beliefs? Of evaluating whether emotion rather than evidence is the driving force? Do you have any recommendations for avoiding "crossing the crazy line"?
Click to expand...
I hadn't expected to enjoy this interview, but in fact it held my attention all the way through. In places, I felt Storr simply needed more information, but my guess is that he took a lot away from his conversation with Alex - I hope he comes and talks to us here - perhaps Alex could prompt him in that direction.

As to the questions. I am not sure Storr's emotionality test always works. I mean, like you, I think there is good reason to doubt CAGW, but I do get emotional about that because I feel the whole scientific method is being distorted to accommodate this nonsense. For example, particular computer models are repeatedly quoted to 'explain' the warming pause, but without the necessary context - how many scenarios were run to obtain the one that gets quoted, and was the supposed extra heat injected into these models as an assumption.

One way to remain sane, is to realise just how much of history has been governed by false, stupid ideas - now is no different. Imagine the men going off to WW1, convinced that they were fighting the war to end wars, and would be home by Christmas! Imagine the people who were half bled to death to cure all sorts of ailments, or the time when the Church could order someone to be burned to death! Modern life is saturated by myths that are just as stupid IMHO. Listing all these seems to help to keep me sane, because it makes me realise that we are simply uncovering a little of the insanity that has always plagued human societies!
I suppose my way of checking myself arises naturally from my being an agnostic. I'm not aware of that being a conscious choice, but I suppose that people could consciously cultivate agnosticism if they wanted. A start could be to sit down and think about what one actually knows beyond any doubt.

First, one finds that a lot of what one thinks one knows is actually received wisdom: stuff one has accepted on authority. All that should be regarded with suspicion and categorised as a possibility rather than a certainty. Second, one finds that what one actually knows for certain comes only from personal observation and/or experience, and there's precious little of that kind of knowledge. This applies as much to scientists as anyone else, though within their probably quite narrow specialisations, they may have made a lot of first-hand observations. Third, even if one is certain about something, say the occurrence of a particular phenomenon, there's still the question of how to interpret its meaning, and that's a highly subjective thing. An honest investigation should prove to be very humbling: I'll bet most of us know sweet Fanny Adams.

Storr's point that we all seem to need to have some framework of beliefs to work within is well taken. Agnostic or no, I think we all need such frameworks, but that needn't be totally restricting as long as we recognise consciously what those beliefs are, and above all, that they are beliefs and not facts. If one is going to become passionate about something, I think it would be best if it was about developing an appropriate (based on honest personal review) agnostic attitude to thinking about the world.

IMO, Storr is right: a lot of us are too attached to, and passionate about, beliefs that we elevate to the status of certainties. The scientific method, properly followed, is meant as an antidote to imposing beliefs on reality, and one does occasionally come across scientists who are quite good at doing that. The big breakthroughs in science often come from those who question received wisdom, and not infrequently, they may be ridiculed and lambasted until eventually their ideas are accepted; now and then, one or two of them may even end up with a Nobel prize.
Click to expand...

Being agnostic about a lot of stuff is certainly hard, but I don't think it makes sense to only believe stuff one knows by direct experience - because you are left with whatever portion of maths you happen to know and nothing else! Even a research chemist normally relies on the purity of the starting materials he uses, and we all rely on masses of electronics and software. We can, at best, explore a minute subset of that world.

That means that to me, we do have to believe stuff that we don't know first hand, but we probably need to qualify those beliefs with a probability. So basic chemistry seems pretty reliable to me, but if I don't decide it is 100% reliable, I have some room to believe that a substance diluted 10^60 fold (C30 homoeopathy) might do something real. My mental probabilities shift downwards massively when I find evidence that people are cheating. I think cheating is particularly significant when it comes from those who seem to occupy the high ground in an argument. So for example, the occasional example of psychic cheating is worrying, but when I discover that Wiseman cheated to cover up his failure to debunk Sheldrake's work, I see that as a much bigger issue - particularly when the rest of the science community doesn't seem to call him out as being dishonest.

David
 
alex.tsakiris said:
Will just sent me this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...andi-debunking-the-king-of-the-debunkers.html

Amazing :) I love the part about Randi claiming that he was self-taught from the age of 12 due to the special library access he was given. Sadly, I'm not sure we all understood the joke he's been playing on us... or maybe he's been playing it on himself.
Click to expand...

From the article:

As I read deeper into Randi’s vast cuttings file I began to discover one or two oddnesses. Take, for example, his early life. Randi claims to have been born with an IQ of 168 which would comfortably make him a genius, the generally accepted lower limit being 125. He reckons he was so intelligent that, as a young boy, he was given a special pass by the authorities that said he wasn’t required to attend school. Instead, he educated himself in the Toronto Public Library and the Royal Ontario Museum.

Over the course of many interviews, Randi told journalists that, by the age of 12, he’d taught himself geography, history, astronomy, calculus, psychology, science, mathematics and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Click to expand...

... And then he joined a traveling circus at the age of seventeen.

Does this sound to anyone else like the type of bio other frauds, charlatans, and cult leaders have (eg L Ron Hubbard and others)? They were always gifted or genius children; they managed to teach themselves highly complex subjects; they go on to have unusual experiences through travel at young ages, etc. (Really, I should compile a list, now that I think about it.)

Have any of these claims by Randi been verified? Sure, I can accept he may have run away with a circus, but has he demonstrated any of these abilities, like translating Egyptian hieroglyphics?

Just curious. Even when I was a skeptic, I couldn't stomach Randi. He always rubbed me the wrong way.
 
Jim_Smith said:
The problem is not science, it is some scientists.
Be especially suspicious of people who resort to ridicule rather than reason.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Why simply prove your opponent wrong when you can prove them wrong and hurt their feelings? I would not be suspicious of people resorting to ridicule if the ridicule is sprinkled with reason. Often times a short argument can be misconstrued as a weak argument. This is where reason seasoned ridicule can prove quite useful. Fill in that extra space with some attacks at the man. After all, it's your opponent's fault. If he wanted to walk away with his dignity intact, he should've had enough self respect not to be so stupid in the first place. And if in the end it turns out that you're wrong, well you didn't really lose because you succeeded where it's most important.
 
David Bailey said:
Being agnostic about a lot of stuff is certainly hard, but I don't think it makes sense to only believe stuff one knows by direct experience - because you are left with whatever portion of maths you happen to know and nothing else! Even a research chemist normally relies on the purity of the starting materials he uses, and we all rely on masses of electronics and software. We can, at best, explore a minute subset of that world.
Click to expand...

I don't think I said one should believe the stuff that one knows by direct personal experience (after all, if one knows something, it isn't belief). My point is that though we all have beliefs and probably can't avoid that, we should know the difference between what we actually know through personal experience, and what we merely believe. It's not nearly so problematic to have beliefs and recognise that's what they are, retaining detachment from, and preparedness to abandon, them in the face of new evidence, than it is to accord beliefs the status of knowledge. What you or I know for certain could probably be written on a postage stamp.

For example, it's true enough that no one knows how the heck QM works, but doubtless some physicists have their favoured ideas. It's fine if they have those but retain the ability to be open to refuting evidence. My beef is that science these days is rigged in a number of areas and there are fashionable views that one can safely express, and others that are beyond the pale and liable to get people blackballed. I am astonished how members of the scientific establishment, generally intelligent and well-educated, either toe the line or elect to keep quiet (at least in public) about this kind of thing. It goes to show, I suppose, that they are as human as the rest of us, and as likely to cower into submission when their livelihoods and/or funding are threatened.

I agree that Climate science is probably the most egregious example, and I too get annoyed about it. But you know, if tomorrow my belief that the global warming issue is vastly over-hyped is proven wrong, I like to think I'd be able to change my mind. I'm aware that I don't know, but rather believe what I do about AGW. I think I have strong evidence to support my case, but it isn't knowledge, any more than is the opinion of AGW supporters. In due course, particularly if the hiatus continues, temperatures begin to fall, or the dire predictions fail to materialise, nature will deliver its verdict. At that point, I may well have popped my clogs, but if not, then I will know rather than believe I am correct.
 
Michael Larkin said:
I agree that Climate science is probably the most egregious example, and I too get annoyed about it. But you know, if tomorrow my belief that the global warming issue is vastly over-hyped is proven wrong, I like to think I'd be able to change my mind. I'm aware that I don't know, but rather believe what I do about AGW. I think I have strong evidence to support my case, but it isn't knowledge, any more than is the opinion of AGW supporters. In due course, particularly if the hiatus continues, temperatures begin to fall, or the dire predictions fail to materialise, nature will deliver its verdict. At that point, I may well have popped my clogs, but if not, then I will know rather than believe I am correct.
Click to expand...

I agree, but if tomorrow we were proved wrong about CAGW, it would still be true that the evidence as of Dec 10 2014 was not worth anything.

David
 
Doppelgänger said:
Does this sound to anyone else like the type of bio other frauds, charlatans, and cult leaders have (eg L Ron Hubbard and others)? They were always gifted or genius children; they managed to teach themselves highly complex subjects; they go on to have unusual experiences through travel at young ages, etc. (Really, I should compile a list, now that I think about it.)

Have any of these claims by Randi been verified? Sure, I can accept he may have run away with a circus, but has he demonstrated any of these abilities, like translating Egyptian hieroglyphics?
Click to expand...

all indications are that he's a charlatan who made all that stuff up.
 
Saiko said:
I just looked up Mr Storr and now I'm wondering what was the point of interviewing him. He's written many books in this area, all of which can be summed up as "mainstream science good, other approaches bad." Nothing new.
Click to expand...
I think it's more complicated. I think a lot of folks find themselves in Will position... at the edge of the crevice, but unable to make the jump.
 
David Bailey said:
I hadn't expected to enjoy this interview, but in fact it held my attention all the way through. In places, I felt Storr simply needed more information, but my guess is that he took a lot away from his conversation with Alex - I hope he comes and talks to us here - perhaps Alex could prompt him in that direction.
Click to expand...

If there is any consistency, Will's opinions would be consigned to the CD sub forum.
 
Do you have a way of checking whether others, or you yourself, are going too far in support of favoured beliefs? Of evaluating whether emotion rather than evidence is the driving force? Do you have any recommendations for avoiding "crossing the crazy line"?
Click to expand...

Perhaps we should ask ourselves the question: "Can I still esteem myself or can my life still have meaning and purpose if this belief I have turns out to be untrue?" If we feel like we are our beliefs, then I think we have long, long ago crossed "the crazy line." We need to be able to still get out of bed in the morning if we discover an idea we've held is wrong. To the extent that we feel like we couldn't do this if we discover we are in error is the degree to which we're probably maladaptively enmeshed with "sacred cows," so to speak. Just a thought. However, should total materialism ever be proven true I know I would be answering my own question with a resounding "No!" So... LOL... perhaps I'm a bit of a motivated disbeliever in it. What can you do when you gotta have some sort of motivation to get out of bed in the morning?
 
Oh, P.S. What was up with Storr insinuating that Rupert Sheldrake is emotional about his ideas? I always have felt that Sheldrake comes across as calm and extremely reasonable when he speaks. The guy never seems to say anything at all without doing so in a logical and coherent manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top