h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

TRiG said it better than I, but:

<>

If a nuclear scientist professes to believing in a sky fairy, does that make his work invalid? Is he not a credible source on nuclear energy?

PBS believes in conspiracy theories. Does that mean his views on Muslims in Mosques are invalid?

"If a nuclear scientist professes to believing in a sky fairy, does that make his work invalid? Is he not a credible source on nuclear energy?"

Yes, it makes it pretty suspect, because he threw out the scientific method when he started beleiving in a sky fairy.

PBS beleives in *racist* conspiracy theories. That means he subscribes to a form of prejudice. Does that mean his views on sexist prejudice are invalid? Yes.

Well I dont think anyones views are invalid. Not even Della's but some peoples are worth treating with a greater degre of sceptiscism than others and at the same time there shouldnt be anyone whose views arent held up to critical analysis.


even mine

<>

Show me someone who doesn't believe in prejudice to some point, way or degree.

You are prejudiced against theists without any supporting evidence to say there is no God. Show me the evidence there is no God.

Granted, I see no evidence that there is a God but without definitive proof on either side, I'll keep an open mind.

>>"You are prejudiced against theists without any supporting evidence to say there is no God. Show me the evidence there is no God."

It's pretty evident that the evidence for any particular deity is minimal to nonexistent. Centuries of interChristian warfare were seeming based on differing interpretations which any worthwhile evidence could have settled. If evidence only makes sense to a believer, it's not worthwhile evidence.

Since most theological systems seem inconsistent, most must be human inventions. If most are human inventions, the odds are any individual one is. If there's no evidence to suggest it isn't, it's reasonable to suppose that it is.
The odds that any individual theist is wrong in believing their God[s] exist in reality are rather larger than 50%.

Keeping an open mind doesn't mean some 50/50 fence-sitting, it's being prepared to be convinced in the [unlikely?] event that any evidence turns up.

Furthermore, if I see there isn't any openly available evidence for something, yet someone insists that there is, I'm allowed to reach a conclusion about their deductive processes and their capacity for judging evidence.

Isn't that confusing religion with God though?

>>"Isn't that confusing religion with God though?"

How?
You're the one who brought up evidence for god[s] existing, and linked that to people's opinions about theists.

What I said was dismissing someone's opinions on the grounds of their beliefs in unrelated areas is nonsensical, which has led us into the religion cul-de-sac.

Arnie appears to reckon that a belief in conspiracy theories renders someone unworthy of respect in any way. He's linked that, rightly or wrongly, with racism to further justify his stance. This attitude was mirrored at the start of the thread with the jibes at Kilroy Silk.

I reckon that's Boswolox. Were we to follow this chain of thought nobody would be talking to each other.

What happened to seeking out common ground? I might think Blicky talks out his ar$e about Positive Action and we have opposing views about it, but I'll quite happily talk to him about working with kids.

Ed might hold an entirely opposite political view to me, but I can respect his input on surveys and polls. I don't barge into a conversation about statistics and start yelling "Socialist Socialist!"

I http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/Online
Who is Onlinecan see the point in being *extra cautious* about someone's conclusions or data if there's evidence that they either absorb and regurgitate nonsense, that they come to ridiculous conclusions, or that generally-available information appears not to have reached them.

I might seriously disagree with someone's conclusions yet still trust their reliability as a data source, and even with much of their reasoning processes.

However, I may be sufficiently suspicious of someone to take anything they say as at best a spur to research, or an attempt to replicate their reasoning.

At the extreme, I may be sufficiently doubtful of someone as to even doubt claims they make to be an authority on some subject or another.

There are limits though surely. SWL would you feel able to converse with David Icke?

I certainly would begin to fear for my sanity were I to find common ground with him.

I'm not sure how that stuff got inserted at the front of that last post.

>>"This attitude was mirrored at the start of the thread with the jibes at Kilroy Silk."

Thing is, Kilroy Silk is a smug, opportunistic piece of ****.
That's not prejudice based on him being a politician, it's my opinion based on all I know about him as an individual. I respect him to *some* extent, but to a markedly lesser extent than an average person about whom I know nothing whatsoever.

Though I accept that he may be right on occasion, I still think distrusting him on principle is the most sensible first reaction.

You had me confused and a little paranoid there Potholer

Well, I've been chatting to PBS here and elsewhere for some time now. I'm convinced he is who he says he is and I see no reason to doubt his credentials.

I'm not as quick as some to pigeon-hole an individual and use that as an excuse to attack them at every turn.

Abraham Lincoln kept slaves and supported a far slower period of emancipation than that which actually transpired. Does that make him an unworthy person?

That's why it would be helpful if PBS himself would explain why he posted such anti semitic stuff, instead of denying he was an anti semitist at all.

>>"Well, I've been chatting to PBS here and elsewhere for some time now. I'm convinced he is who he says he is and I see no reason to doubt his credentials."

Neither do I, but I'm pointing out one of the difficulties of online interaction at the extreme end.
There have been people on h2g2 who posted as an authority on X, or as someone who'd had life experience Y who clearly had no such experience.

>>"Abraham Lincoln kept slaves and supported a far slower period of emancipation than that which actually transpired. Does that make him an unworthy person?"

I have to appreciate what he did do, and I honestly don't know if he or anyone else could have actually done much better at the time. I guess I might have a firmer opinion one way or another after deeper research, assuming I could sufficiently trust the sources, which might depend whether I thought *they* had a particular agenda (I'd suspect that some would have).

SWL, "You are prejudiced against theists without any supporting evidence to say there is no God."

No, I'm not. I think that certain ones have obviously thrown out the scientific method, and therefore I question their ability to use the scientific method. There is *no* pre-judgement in this process. I've observed them not using the scientific method, or abusing it, and therefore I've reached the conclusion that the specific theist in question is unsuitable for science.


"Arnie appears to reckon that a belief in conspiracy theories renders someone unworthy of respect in any way. He's linked that, rightly or wrongly, with racism to further justify his stance."

Wrong. The conspiracy was about racism. I didn't make that connection. The connection I made is that I wouldn't ask a racist to enlighten me about women's rights.


Blicky, you got me there. I shouldn't have said invalid. I meant "credible".

I won!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/dna/h2g2/alabaster/U1540982/ext/_auto/-/http://www.qwantz.com/index.pl?comic=237

So this is the scientific process in action is it?

Subject displays behaviour x in situation a.

Therefore in situation b, because of the behaviour x in situation a, behaviour y = behaviour x.

Are all racists also sexist?

Notwithstanding the observation that believing a conspiracy theory does not correlate with racism. Are all conspiracy theorists racist, or just the ones that single out a specific conspiracy theory. Perhaps from a scientific perspective, it would be pertinent to ascertain if PBS believes in other conspiracy theories or just the one.

It strikes me as evidence of unsound scientific thinking to reach a conclusion without gathering evidence. Using your own methodology Arnie, would I now be entitled to yell "Yah boo sucks" at any and all scientific posts you make?

too late, I already won.

but...

"Are all racists also sexist?"

Where did I say this? I just said *I* wouldn't go asking a racist for advice on the feminist movement, and/or women's rights.


"Are all conspiracy theorists racist, or just the ones that single out a specific conspiracy theory."

I think if "subject x" propose a racist conspiracy theory, then it's safe assumption that "subject x" is a racist. Why do you have so much trouble with this simple idea? I've never said conspiracy theorist are racist. I've merely said that "subject x" who proposes a racist conspiracy theory is racist. Why is this trivial relationship so difficult for you?


"Perhaps from a scientific perspective, it would be pertinent to ascertain if PBS believes in other conspiracy theories or just the one."

More importantly, are they racist theories? Again, you neglect the key connection.


"It strikes me as evidence of unsound scientific thinking to reach a conclusion without gathering evidence."

And you're right!! Except that doesn't apply to this case. We have evidence - ample evidence - of a racist conspiracy theory proposed by "subject y". What more evidence do you require?


"Using your own methodology Arnie, would I now be entitled to yell "Yah boo sucks" at any and all scientific posts you make?"

You have yet to demonstrate the faintest glimmer of understanding of my methodology. Perhaps when you do, you will be able to answer this question yourself.


So, to summarize
racist conspiracy theory = racist.

You will get a nice shiny banana if you can remember that.