Evidence And The "worldview Backfire Effect"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Will you understand all the complex medical data? Please translate this to English 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24480332

 

I can comprehend quite a bit. What is your point to this? That you should always go with the "consensus"? This will eventually make people useful idiots to do that.

[CA Steve]

TheSkepticChristian has asked me to start a topic on the relevance of evidence, and to show this video on the “Worldview Backfire Effect”:

 

https://youtu.be/CtSk03efSqQ 

 

TheSkepticChristian feels that this is “proof that evidence doesn’t matter,” for example, that it doesn’t matter to young-Earth creationists, to online critics, nor to supporters of the heartland theory of Book of Mormon geography.

 

Of course, evidence pro or con seldom matters to dogmatic and narrow-minded people, but TheSkepticChristian appears to be saying that it doesn’t even matter to the well-intentioned hoi-polloi.  After all, a typical jury will easily acquit someone who looks nice and seems innocent, regardless of evidence.  Indeed, the stronger the evidence against him, the more strongly people will believe him to be innocent.  This is the “backfire effect” described in the video.

 

So, does evidence matter?

I am not sure what you mean by "evidence" Robert.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree there are no absolute proofs, but there are best known explanations that many amateurs don't understand. 

 

PS You are a great example for the worldview Backfire Effect

How so? In what way is Erayer, when presented with evidence, goes exactly the opposite for no reason?

[ERayR]

I agree there are no absolute proofs, but there are best known explanations that many amateurs don't understand. 

 

PS You are a great example for the worldview Backfire Effect

 

And you are a good example of an arrogant elitist.

 

Don't return bad behavior for bad behavior. - mods

[jkwilliams]

I can comprehend quite a bit. What is your point to this? That you should always go with the "consensus"? This will eventually make people useful idiots to do that.

 

No, always going with the consensus would be stupid. Consensus backed up by experiment and evidence is pretty solid, but paradigm shifts can occur when the evidence requires it. The idea that everything is subjective, and nothing can be determined is postmodern nonsense that no one takes seriously.

[Kenngo1969]

... Of course, evidence pro or con seldom matters to dogmatic and narrow-minded people, but TheSkepticChristian appears to be saying that it doesn’t even matter to the well-intentioned hoi-polloi.  After all, a typical jury will easily acquit someone who looks nice and seems innocent, regardless of evidence.  Indeed, the stronger the evidence against him, the more strongly people will believe him to be innocent.  This is the “backfire effect” described in the video.

 

So, does evidence matter?

I don't quite have the wide-eyed faith in the justice system that I had before I went to law school, but I'm not sure even I'm jaundiced enough to believe that.  Does it happen in individual cases?  Probably.  But as even a general rule?  I have my doubts.

[Kenngo1969]

No, always going with the consensus would be stupid. Consensus backed up by experiment and evidence is pretty solid, but paradigm shifts can occur when the evidence requires it. The idea that everything is subjective, and nothing can be determined is postmodern nonsense that no one takes seriously.

Absolutely everything might not be subjective, but the fact of the matter is, we're all our own triers of fact with respect to faith claims: individually, we determine our own rules of evidence, what evidence we will admit and what evidence we will exclude, how much weight we will give to any particular piece of evidence, and so on.

[jkwilliams]

Absolutely everything might not be subjective, but the fact of the matter is, we're all our own triers of fact with respect to faith claims: individually, we determine our own rules of evidence, what evidence we will admit and what evidence we will exclude, how much weight we will give to any particular piece of evidence, and so on.

 

What we are talking about is established rules of evidence in scholarship and law. Do we see everything exactly the same? No, but there are established rules of evidence, or we could never agree on anything. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

How so? In what way is Erayer, when presented with evidence, goes exactly the opposite for no reason?

Nobody does the opposite for no reason, the human brain is good at looking for explanations and patterns that don't exist. 

 

 

I can comprehend quite a bit. What is your point to this? That you should always go with the "consensus"? This will eventually make people useful idiots to do that.

 

You should take the scientific and scholarly consensus seriously when the subject is too complex for non-experts to understand. 

The researchers do their homework for years, and with the best technology available. 

Can you explain post #21?

 

 

And you are a good example of an arrogant elitist.

 

No name calling please 

Edited July 30, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[ERayR]

Nobody does the opposite for no reason, the human brain is good at looking for explanations and patterns that don't exist. 

 

 

 

You should take the scientific and scholarly consensus seriously when the subject is too complex for non-experts to understand. 

The researchers do their homework for years, and with the best technology available. 

Can you explain post #21?

 

 

 

No name calling please 

 

PS You are a great example for the worldview Backfire Effect

 

I think it is spelled hypocrite.

[strappinglad]

I get so tired of this " flat earther " poopaganda . Just because someone questions a consensus theory of X , does not automatically mean that they would accept the flat earth as a viable position. It borders on Godwin's Law type of thinking.

[jkwilliams]

I get so tired of this " flat earther " poopaganda . Just because someone questions a consensus theory of X , does not automatically mean that they would accept the flat earth as a viable position. It borders on Godwin's Law type of thinking.

 

In the same way, I get very tired of people insisting that the mere act of disagreeing with consensus is somehow brave and evidence of great intelligence. If you are going to challenge the consensus, you need data that supports your challenge. A theory that challenges the consensus with no data to back it up can rightly be dismissed as a crackpot theory.

[Kenngo1969]

What we are talking about is established rules of evidence in scholarship and law. Do we see everything exactly the same? No, but there are established rules of evidence, or we could never agree on anything. 

I agree with you about the necessity of established rules of evidence in the secular, mortal realm for scientific and legal inquiry. However, while such inquiry might be systematized and standardized for scientific inquiry (yet even here there is a surprising diversity of opinion regarding various issues, since only tentative answers on the basis of the currently-available evidence are possible), it's possible for two juries to consider the same evidence, yet to reach differing conclusions based upon it.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

...............................................................................   

 

PS You are a great example for the worldview Backfire Effect

How do we know that we are not all exemplars of the Worldview Backfire Effect?

 

David Hume used to worry about the circularity of the human reasoning process, and the ultimate difficulty in getting outside ourselves -- the impossibility of ever having an objective view.

[rodheadlee]

Imagine if Medical doctors tell their patients "it is just an interpretation, and my peers disagree with me" 

 

Many interpretations is not good during medical surgery. 

 

It is easy to find many interpretations, but there is a best known explanation that explains all the data.

 

That's pretty naive. It happens all the time. Just in my personal experience. I've had doctors give my wife morphine and tell her " I'm sorry honey but you are going to die" . After reading her MRI. That was 5 years ago, 2 states and 3 doctors later she is fine.These were all American doctors, the diagnosis were all over the board.

Edited July 30, 2015 by rodheadlee

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not sure what you mean by "evidence" Robert.

It is not so much what I mean, as that I have presented this quandry on behalf of TheSkepticChristian and the video he recommends we view.  Do you have misgivings about the nature of the evidence being presented to various groups?  And their subsequent responses?

[Kenngo1969]

Imagine if Medical doctors tell their patients "it is just an interpretation, and my peers disagree with me" ...

 

You give medicine far, far too much credit for being an allegedly "exact" science.  It's at least as much an art as it is a science. Unlike my sailor friend Rod Headlee, I don't have any life-or-death stories to tell, but if I hadn't found a surgeon who was willing to buck the then-current medical consensus with respect to the condition for which he treated me (and to tell me exactly that), I wouldn't be walking today, and even if I were, I wouldn't be doing so relatively free of pain.  The medical consensus said that the best course of action was to try a procedure that had already failed (not just once, but twice) yet a third time, with a postoperative regimen of completely immobilizing already-severely-atrophied muscles in a spica cast for several weeks.  By contrast, while he did not and could not offer me a guarantee, he did offer me the possibility that, after he performed a radically different procedure (which other doctors apparently eschewed because it would shorten the affected leg slightly, but so friggin' what?  Due to congenital weakness on my left side and a neurological condition that nobody is going to cure, I walk with a pronounced limp when not using ambulatory devices anyway!) I could recuperate in a wheelchair.

 

He performed three procedures on me within a span of about eighteen months.  I wouldn't be walking at all today, let alone doing so relatively free of pain, had it not been for his "Maverick" streak.  So much for the medical "consensus"!

[jkwilliams]

You give medicine far, far too much credit for being an allegedly "exact" science.  It's at least as much an art as it is a science. Unlike my sailor friend Rod Headlee, I don't have any life-or-death stories to tell, but if I hadn't found a surgeon who was willing to buck the then-current medical consensus with respect to the condition for which he treated me (and to tell me exactly that), I wouldn't be walking today, and even if I were, I wouldn't be doing so relatively free of pain.  The medical consensus said that the best course of action was to try a procedure that had already failed (not just once, but twice) yet a third time, with a postoperative regimen of completely immobilizing already-severely-atrophied muscles in a spica cast for several weeks.  By contrast, while he did not and could not offer me a guarantee, he did offer me the possibility that, after he performed a radically different procedure (which other doctors apparently eschewed because it would shorten the affected leg slightly, but so friggin' what?  Due to congenital weakness on my left side and a neurological condition that nobody is going to cure, I walk with a pronounced limp when not using ambulatory devices anyway!) I could recuperate in a wheelchair.

 

He performed three procedures on me within a span of about eighteen months.  I wouldn't be walking at all today, let alone doing so relatively free of pain, had it not been for his "Maverick" streak.  So much for the medical "consensus"!

 

But what we're talking about is not challenging the consensus in favor of something less likely but known. We're talking about rejecting the consensus in favor of something with no evidence behind it. It would be analogous to not having your third procedure and instead going to someone like this:

 

[Kenngo1969]

John,

 

Don't tell me, I'm not the one who said, 

 

Imagine if Medical doctors tell their patients "it is just an interpretation, and my peers disagree with me" ...

 

[strappinglad]

Have we not learned ANYTHING at all from watching  the series " House " ???

[thesometimesaint]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

[jkwilliams]

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

 

The issue, of course, is when we conflate the two. Using science to bolster religious claims is just as foolish as using religion to bolster science. 

[KevinG]

Have we not learned ANYTHING at all from watching  the series " House " ???

 

I couldn't even tell the difference between Hugh Laurie and Ted Danson.

[jkwilliams]

I couldn't even tell the difference between Hugh Laurie and Ted Danson.

One of them is English.

[KevinG]

One of them is English.

 

Loved his role in Black Adder!