tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3654487187949262572..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The New Atheists and the Dunning-Kruger effectVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68808876466665344872013-06-04T18:56:45.455-07:002013-06-04T18:56:45.455-07:00I’m impressed. Very informative and trustworthy bl...I’m impressed. Very informative and trustworthy blog does exactly what it sets out to do. I’ll bookmark your weblog for future use.<br /><br />Pebbles<br />www.joeydavila.netAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24807479867443687492012-11-27T15:55:27.904-07:002012-11-27T15:55:27.904-07:00As far as the DK effect and atheism/theism goes, I...As far as the DK effect and atheism/theism goes, I wonder if it could be suggested that it's in play for the following sort of person:<br /><br />They express supreme confidence in the claim that God does not existence.<br />They are actually and admittedly ignorant of philosophical and metaphysical arguments for God's existence.<br />They are committed to atheism in a public way, such that being wrong and admitting their wrong would be a serious public liability.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41611699450146125852012-11-27T11:05:30.687-07:002012-11-27T11:05:30.687-07:00One of my favorite passages from that book:
"...One of my favorite passages from that book:<br /><br />"[T]he next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. ... [T]he popular critics of Christianity are not really outside it. They are on a debatable ground, in every sense of the term. They are doubtful in their very doubts. Their criticism has taken on a curious tone; as of a random and illiterate heckling. ... Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith." <br /><br />B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64717950272909402702012-11-27T10:57:21.672-07:002012-11-27T10:57:21.672-07:00Tony,
I am quite confident (and most certainly no...Tony,<br /><br />I am quite confident (and most certainly not overly so) that Mr. Loftus has a test in mind for your consideration.<br /><br />(HINT: It's the same test as described by G.K. Chesterton in his 1925 book <i>The Everlasting Man</i> - though just try and get Loftus to admit this!)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76106773210185226482012-11-27T09:41:26.362-07:002012-11-27T09:41:26.362-07:00Bob, you may possess some degree of confidence in ...Bob, you may possess some degree of confidence in your skills at arguing for theism, but I am not sure that the DKE could properly be invoked at your conclusions. (I can imagine a board, much like debate judges, scoring one's ability to address certain arguments according to historical standards and based on understanding of the concepts, etc.) <br /><br />Interestingly, at first I assumed that the DKE should not be properly applied to something like confidence in metaphysical beliefs (as opposed to confidence in how one scores in tests of skill). But now I wonder if it might actually have something to say about the confidence of theists as opposed to atheists (and their metaphysical conclusions), as well as introduce the question of how one might form an objective test for scoring how it is that one arrives at a conclusion of a particular religion or atheism. <br />Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81319658253833432132012-11-27T08:42:33.092-07:002012-11-27T08:42:33.092-07:00To return to the original OP, the key term in cons...To return to the original OP, the key term in considering the DK Effect is <i>over</i>confidence, and not just confidence, per se.<br /><br />I am in my 60's, and as Victor knows, have been considering the Big Questions for as long as I can remember. It seems to me that after decades of seeing all the arguments go a particular way, plus having access to 2000+ years of discussion on these same issues by men far more capable than myself, a bit of confidence in one's beliefs is quite justified.<br /><br />In fact, at this point a show of false humility or feigned uncertainty would be just as great an instance of intellectual arrogance as any "over"confidence.<br /><br />It's not some display of overconfidence for me to assert a heliocentric solar system, thanks to my accepting the conclusions of the experts on this subject. (After all, I didn't discover it!)<br /><br />My point is, let's be diligent in distinguishing between justified confidence and overconfidence. You can't just yell, "Dunning-Kruger" everything someone makes an assertion.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79074994613365714352012-11-26T22:35:55.481-07:002012-11-26T22:35:55.481-07:00>The task of actually thinking things through, ...>The task of actually thinking things through, investigating and discussing? That's not nearly as fun. In fact, it's pretty scary at times.<br /><br />I hear ya bro. Reasoning, logic & science are learned skills just because you deny gods doesn't automatically make you rational.<br /><br />(least anybody accuse me of thinking otherwise just because you believe in God or pray to St Thomas Aquinas doesn't automatically grant you knowledge of Thomism).<br /><br />Gnus like their religious fundamentalist counterparts act as if the mere denial of gods makes them instantly rational & scientifically competent. <br /><br />It doesn't. But I might call this phenomena "Cheap Rationalism".<br /><br />In ode to Bonhoeffer who coined the term "cheap grace" for Christian believers who thought answering some altar call or being baptized made them instantaneously Saints without having to work at it (James 2:24).<br /><br />There is nothing new under the sun. All is vanity.... Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5872476372715619892012-11-26T22:17:48.936-07:002012-11-26T22:17:48.936-07:00So Paps now thinks if he just says "Dunning_K...So Paps now thinks if he just says "Dunning_Kruger" instead of "Jewish Zombie" or "superstition" or whatever tedious bullshit he is prone to say that means what?<br /><br />It makes him look really smartly? <br /><br />He think real goodly Joe?<br /><br />Awesome!Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56363877973858889982012-11-26T20:29:04.638-07:002012-11-26T20:29:04.638-07:00Ben,
Well, the problem is what you're asking ...Ben,<br /><br />Well, the problem is what you're asking people to do is get beyond the slogans, cheerleading and the like. Honest to God, that's like 99% of it for some (many? most?) people. The task of actually thinking things through, investigating and discussing? That's not nearly as fun. In fact, it's pretty scary at times.<br /><br />Again, it ties back into science. Praising science, saying you 'believe science' is one thing. Actually doing science? That can actually be pretty hard. Which is why so many of the guys who talk it up, seem allergic to actually doing any.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18812314319590314642012-11-26T20:13:34.081-07:002012-11-26T20:13:34.081-07:00PapaL: "Crude. Do you actually believe that...PapaL: "Crude. Do you actually believe that a three-day old dead putrescent body revivified?"<br /><br />Crude: "You betcha."<br /><br />PapaL: "You do know that there has never been another case of a three day old corpse ever coming back to life, anywhere in history that has been verified?"<br /><br />Crude: "Yes, but jesus is different."<br /><br />PapaL: "Why?"<br /><br />Crude: "Because he was special. It's all in the bible."<br /><br />PapaL: "Despite the overwhelming evidence pointing to the likelihood of a three day old putrescent corpse coming back to life is nil?"<br /><br />Crude: "Yes."<br /><br />Dunning-Kruger in action.<br /><br />---------------------------------------<br /><br />PapaL: "Ben, You actually know that jesus rose bodily, physically, into the air up to heaven. Right?<br /><br />Ben: "Absolutely."<br /><br />PapaL: "There is no possibility of his body, skeleton etc being buried somewhere in Palestine?"<br /><br />Ben: "No."<br /><br />PapaL: "Did anyone witness this transcending?"<br /><br />Ben: "No."<br /><br />PapaL: "And how do you know this happened?"<br /><br />Ben: "Because scripture tells us that and the Magisterium has confirmed it."<br /><br />PapaL: "But how does the Magisterium know this if no one actually witnessed the ascension?"<br /><br />Ben: "Because the Magisterium has the final say and their word is absolute."<br /><br />Dunning_Kruger in rampant mode.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9065162761681140832012-11-26T19:27:42.718-07:002012-11-26T19:27:42.718-07:00OTOH Bob statement doesn't in itself prove Sci...OTOH Bob statement doesn't in itself prove Science is compatible with Religion but it is a superficial answer to superficial critics who claim it doesn't(like Dawkins). Which I think was his intent.<br /><br />One has to actually make the argument. Also even if we show Science & religion are compatible (which Dennett when pressed seems to concede) that has nothing to do with the actual philosophical arguments for the existence of God.<br /><br />Which is what we should deal with rather then pussyfooting around on non-issues.<br /><br />(Hmmmm didn't Bob suggest this before?)Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57061837518769588732012-11-26T19:15:09.461-07:002012-11-26T19:15:09.461-07:00@Matt
>This is like pointing out there are raci...@Matt<br />>This is like pointing out there are racists who are also Christian and concluding "Racism and Christianity are compatible!"<br /><br />Well they are compatible in the loose sense. Just as Atheism and Racism are compatible in the loose sense. H.P. Lovecraft for example was both an Atheist and a Racist. Obviously one can deny the existence of God & affirm their belief in the inferiority of non-White races or lack belief in any gods & affirm the same etc.<br /><br />So your answer to Bob needs to be qualified.<br /><br />>Human beings have a funny way of embracing (and/or associating themselves with) two seeming opposing ideologies. <br /><br />Well I recognize this is a subtle claim on your part Matt that Christianity is opposite to Racism. Thank you for the compliment to Christianity.<br /><br />Cheers for that.<br /><br />But OTOH it doesn't logically follow if Christianity(let's say Catholic Christianity whose Dogmas explicitly condemn Racism) is not compatible with Racism that therefore religion is also not compatible with science.<br /><br />Also if religion is compatible with Science it doesn't logically mean God exists nor does it have anything to do with the other reasons (historical, philosophical etc) one might have for believing in Theism or Christianity.<br /><br />Just to clarify the specifics. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17598999911249045522012-11-26T19:09:34.754-07:002012-11-26T19:09:34.754-07:00"I think it's a mistake to write off &quo..."I think it's a mistake to write off "science and belief in god being fundamentally incompatible" as somehow beneath serious discussion. (See Dennett and Plantinga's co-authored book, for example.)"<br /><br />As Crude pointed out, Dennett has conceded many times that they are compatible (though he thinks that this is trivial, since science is also compatible with things like 'Superman-ism'), so I'm not sure what you're saying here. <br /><br />Now sure, there is some room for serious debate, since there are a number of conceptions of 'science' and a number of conceptions of 'god' or 'religion,' and not all are going to be compatible; but then that wasn't my point (though, admittedly, I didn't make this clear). Rather, the point is that general claims, like "you have to choose between science and god" that do not then go on to clarify these terms (and that seem hostile to the request for clarification) are, well, beneath serious discussion.<br /><br />"However, this constant insistence on parity on the part of atheist commenters ('decry your atheist brethen!') to be silly. My comments were pointed at a specific trend on a specific blog. If you think that the comments were unwarranted, then let me know why."<br /><br />Fair enough. But It would help to know why you think they're warranted in the first place; you merely made the claim, you didn't defend it. <br /> <br />Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07391290689608586968noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4318118550400819272012-11-26T18:58:29.147-07:002012-11-26T18:58:29.147-07:00@Tony
>I asked VR for a citation. I am genuine...@Tony<br /><br />>I asked VR for a citation. I am genuinely curious and, among other things, I would be interested to have a dialogue with the kind of people that VR has characterized; I would agree with VR that they were wrong.<br /><br />Yet you clearly said you agreed with Zack(whom you now say is wrong?) & you didn't qualify your agreement with him in anyway?<br /><br />>The rest of your comment rises to your usual level. I will now return to my policy with your comments (same as with Crude) and respond to them with the attention they deserve.<br /><br />Whatever you need to do to save face at this point dude. You stepped in it.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54781594812131662852012-11-26T18:46:18.299-07:002012-11-26T18:46:18.299-07:00Crude: "I think saying 'citation please&#...<i>Crude: "I think saying 'citation please' is silly..." I read your comment as assessing my motives (as silly). Hence, my comment. </i><br /><br />Yeah, I think even you can understand how interpreting that as 'assessing your motives' is quite a stretch. Considering I didn't mention your motives at all, and just called request silly given the context.<br /><br /><i>Partly true. It also states, "The D-K Effect goes a long way toward explaining why those with the least competence in their religion are the most sure they are right about it." </i><br /><br />The only thing that illustrates is that the article author can't even comprehend the very statistics or ideas he's grappling with.<br /><br /><i>And I think you should look up the word "exclusvie." I do not think it means what you think it means.</i><br /><br />Again, what Victor said: "My point simply is that the D-K effect is brought up as if it somehow were a problem exclusively for theists, or that atheism can cure it."<br /><br />I provide an article which overwhelmingly gives the impression that, yes, the D-K effect is a theist problem. When he does mention atheists, he mentions them in the context of believing that their conversion shows they're overcoming the DK effect.<br /><br />Yes, when someone discusses the D-K effect, talking about how it's a problem that plagues Christians, making no mention of the D-K effect's presence with atheists save for at the end, when it's suggesting that atheism is evidence of overcoming the D-K effect... yeah, that's treating D-K as if it were a problem exclusive to theists. (And pointing out 'well, it vaguely mentioned some areas where the D-K effect can pop up that isn't due to theism' doesn't invalidate that, since the context simply suggests that theists have reasoning problems in other areas too.)<br /><br />Now, if that article mentioned that atheists, in their atheism, can also be subject to the D-K effect? Then we'd have a more balanced treatment of it. We'd also have an article with the wind knocked out of its sails, and with a sharply different direction.<br /><br />By the way, do you believe that atheists and naturalists suffer from the D-K effect, with regards to their atheism and naturalism?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57917362348726232182012-11-26T18:45:19.444-07:002012-11-26T18:45:19.444-07:00Ben, I asked VR for a citation. I am genuinely cur...Ben, I asked VR for a citation. I am genuinely curious and, among other things, I would be interested to have a dialogue with the kind of people that VR has characterized; I would agree with VR that they were wrong.<br /><br />The rest of your comment rises to your usual level. I will now return to my policy with your comments (same as with Crude) and respond to them with the attention they deserve.<br /><br />Cheers.Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8435672988147895502012-11-26T18:39:45.995-07:002012-11-26T18:39:45.995-07:00@Hoffman
>By "Citation please" I mea...@Hoffman<br /><br />>By "Citation please" I mean "Citation please." I love the irony here in that you both appear so confident in your assessment of my motives.<br /><br />Hey Tony if you are going to fire at a target at least Aim at the right one.<br />I am the one attacking your motives not Crude. After all it seems the thing to do. You said you agreed with Zack who said in the post previous to yours agreeing with him. Zack said "Victor is showing how he has gone downhill in his post,".<br /><br />Victor defends himself & instead of taking him at face value(which is what charity would demand) you want "proof" via a citation even thought you failed to show Zack's charge is in any way true with a citation from Victor.<br /><br />How many citations does the man have to give? Does he have to prove to the N'th degree with documentation he doesn't as a rule condemn all Atheists across the board?<br /><br />Like I said Victor is guilty till proven innocent from you guys. So it seems.<br /><br />Also I am not going to bite in your bid to change the subject.<br /><br />I OTOH did cite Victor's actual words and challenged how can be be accused of attacking all Atheists across the board.<br /><br />Ya gonna deal with that or try again to change the subject & hope in vain I will not notice?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68801585485659338402012-11-26T18:22:56.222-07:002012-11-26T18:22:56.222-07:00Crude, as is my usual policy I'm going to was...Crude, as is my usual policy I'm going to waste little more time responding to your comments and please interpret any subsequent silence regarding them as my assessment of their worth. However, I did address one of your comment above, so I will respond one more time (and more if you introduce something worth discussing).<br /><br />Crude: "Citation of me assessing your motives, please."<br /><br />Crude: "I think saying 'citation please' is silly..." I read your comment as assessing my motives (as silly). Hence, my comment. <br /><br />Crude: "It also states the portions I quoted, which applies the D-K effect to Christians, to the point of suggesting that people who become atheists are clearly getting over the negative portions of the D-K effect."<br /><br />Partly true. It also states, "The D-K Effect goes a long way toward explaining why those with the least competence in their religion are the most sure they are right about it." <br /><br />Crude: "If you can't read that linked article and regard it as presenting the D-K effect as if it were a problem exclusive to theists - when the entire thing is about how Christians are victims of the D-K effect, and ex-Christians and atheists are the ones who moved beyond it - the problem is on your end."<br /><br />And I think you should look up the word "exclusvie." I do not think it means what you think it means.<br />Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14178419155873935555noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77111040727387484972012-11-26T18:20:04.432-07:002012-11-26T18:20:04.432-07:00Human beings have a funny way of embracing (and/or...<i>Human beings have a funny way of embracing (and/or associating themselves with) two seeming opposing ideologies.</i><br /><br />Neither science nor belief in God is an ideology.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41980094889847818602012-11-26T18:16:16.744-07:002012-11-26T18:16:16.744-07:00When one considers for even a nanosecond the absol...<i>When one considers for even a nanosecond the absolutely amazing list of prominent scientists who are (or were, if they are dead) also believers (specifically Christians, and usually Catholics), then yes - the topic is indeed too ridiculous to merit any serious discussion whatsoever. The case for their compatibility is made on those grounds alone.</i><br /><br />This is like pointing out there are racists who are also Christian and concluding "Racism and Christianity are compatible!" <br /><br />Human beings have a funny way of embracing (and/or associating themselves with) two seeming opposing ideologies. Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81755898609349041282012-11-26T17:59:53.258-07:002012-11-26T17:59:53.258-07:00"I think it's a mistake to write off &quo..."<i>I think it's a mistake to write off "science and belief in God being fundamentally incompatible" as somehow beneath serious discussion.</i>"<br /><br />When one considers for even a nanosecond the absolutely amazing list of prominent scientists who are (or were, if they are dead) also believers (specifically Christians, and usually Catholics), then yes - the topic is indeed too ridiculous to merit any serious discussion whatsoever. The case for their compatibility is made on those grounds alone.<br /><br />To claim otherwise is no different than, after being shown a verifiable list of red-headed Americans, to continue to insist that being an American is incompatible with having red hair. B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27566185252966296712012-11-26T17:55:52.216-07:002012-11-26T17:55:52.216-07:00I think it's a mistake to write off "scie...<i>I think it's a mistake to write off "science and belief in god being fundamentally incompatible" as somehow beneath serious discussion. (See Dennett and Plantinga's co-authored book, for example.) </i><br /><br />Actually, that's not clear, at least going by David Marshall's estimation of that book: "As others observe, Dennett essentially concedes the purportive issue almost right away: yes, science and religion are compatible, at least on a bare theoretical level. (One reviewer then goes on to suppose that Dennett "won" the supposed fall-back debate on whether theism is probable: but in fact, there is no such fall-back debate, nor does Plantinga begin to address it.)"Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32020507760422821102012-11-26T17:49:26.001-07:002012-11-26T17:49:26.001-07:00Would you say that atheist blogs like Debunking Ch...<i>Would you say that atheist blogs like Debunking Christianity are taking a "downward swing" when they post ridiculous things about how believers are deluded, or about how science and belief in god are fundamentally incompatible?</i><br /><br />I don't read Loftus's blog very often, especially not since he invited other authors to contribute. I think some of his new writers are utterly ridiculous (i.e. 'Harry McCall'), and I can only stomach so much FTB melodrama. <br /><br />However, this constant insistence on parity on the part of atheist commenters ('decry your atheist brethen!') to be silly. My comments were pointed at a specific trend on a specific blog. If you think that the comments were unwarranted, then let me know why. <br /><br />I think it's a mistake to write off "science and belief in god being fundamentally incompatible" as somehow beneath serious discussion. (See Dennett and Plantinga's co-authored book, for example.) <br /><br />Matt DeStefanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408364244593519914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6974709985299512722012-11-26T17:25:13.562-07:002012-11-26T17:25:13.562-07:00Would you say that atheist blogs like Debunking Ch...<i>Would you say that atheist blogs like Debunking Christianity are taking a "downward swing" when they post ridiculous things about how believers are deluded, or about how science and belief in god are fundamentally incompatible?</i><br /><br />Ha. Ha!<br /><br />It gets far worse than that. Far worse. Personal insults, Cowboy Hat ranting about how all Christians are deluded and dumb, and more are extraordinarily common there.<br /><br />The worst comments on this site are on par with many of the actual *posts* at DC.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30186379533405247322012-11-26T17:14:42.574-07:002012-11-26T17:14:42.574-07:00"It seems that Victor now has much more in co..."It seems that Victor now has much more in common with the peanut gallery in this comment section than he does with any respectable a/theist bloggers that have commented in the past (BDK, Daniel V, etc.). The blog has certainly taken a downward swing."<br /><br />Would you say that atheist blogs like Debunking Christianity are taking a "downward swing" when they post ridiculous things about how believers are deluded, or about how science and belief in god are fundamentally incompatible? Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07391290689608586968noreply@blogger.com