Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 455

What elements of fine-tuning of our universe (vs. the multiverse) would pass this test of science truth?

Given that we are said to live in a post-truth age, we ought to pay attention when an astrophysicist offers to explain what truth means to a scientist:

Even the most successful scientific theories imaginable will, by their very nature, have a limited range of validity. But we can theorize whatever we like, and when a new theory meets the following three criteria:

● it achieves all of the successes of the prevailing, pre-existing theory [in this case, no fine-tuning or a multiverse],

● it succeeds where the current theory is known to fail,

● and it makes novel predictions for hitherto unmeasured phenomena, distinct from the prior theory, that pass the critical observational or experimental tests,

It will supersede the current one as our best approximation of a scientific truth.

Ethan Siegel, “Ask Ethan: What Does ‘Truth’ Mean To A Scientist?” at Forbes

See also: Ethan Siegel 2014: The multiverse is not the answer

Ethan Siegel 2019 An Astrophysicist Makes Clear Why A Multiverse MUST Exist

How to talk yourself into believing in a multiverse Ethan Siegel edition, 2018

Logic vs. the multiverse: Gunter Bechly offers some insights

and

Ethan Siegel tackles fine-tuning at Forbes

Also: Is there life Post-Truth?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Study: Psychiatric diagnoses are “scientifically meaningless”

Further to “Psychology almost never gets religion right,” a new University of Liverpool study concludes that psychiatric diagnoses are “scientifically meaningless”:

“Although diagnostic labels create the illusion of an explanation they are scientifically meaningless and can create stigma and prejudice. I hope these findings will encourage mental health professionals to think beyond diagnoses and consider other explanations of mental distress, such as trauma and other adverse life experiences.” Lead researcher Dr. Kate Allsopp explains in a release.

John Anderer, “Study: Psychiatric Diagnoses Are ‘Scientifically Meaningless’ In Treating Mental Health” at StudyFinds

From the release:

The main findings of the research were:

• Psychiatric diagnoses all use different decision-making rules

• There is a huge amount of overlap in symptoms between diagnoses

• Almost all diagnoses mask the role of trauma and adverse events

• Diagnoses tell us little about the individual patient and what treatment they need

The authors conclude that diagnostic labelling represents ‘a disingenuous categorical system’ …

Professor Peter Kinderman, University of Liverpool, said: “This study provides yet more evidence that the biomedical diagnostic approach in psychiatry is not fit for purpose. Diagnoses frequently and uncritically reported as ‘real illnesses’ are in fact made on the basis of internally inconsistent, confused and contradictory patterns of largely arbitrary criteria. The diagnostic system wrongly assumes that all distress results from disorder, and relies heavily on subjective judgments about what is normal.”

Professor John Read, University of East London, said: “Perhaps it is time we stopped pretending that medical-sounding labels contribute anything to our understanding of the complex causes of human distress or of what kind of help we need when distressed.” More.

Paper. (open access)

People can certainly derive help from their relationship with a psychiatrist but that is an entirely different matter from saying that the science is sound. As science buckles under the strain of trying to be a secular religion, it pays to get things like this straight.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

See also: Tom Gilson: Psychology almost never gets religion right Some of us remember back when religious figures were urged to make some sort of accommodation with psychology. Now that psychology has largely become one big Sokal hoax, it’s hard to see why anyone would bother.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Tom Gilson: Psychology almost never gets religion right

If it’s a study, mistrust it, says an editor at The Stream, citing an example:

The example comes from PsyPost’s article last month on research that “indicates religious individuals are more likely to cheat,” but that “this tendency can be diminished by prayer.” Non-believers, in contrast, cheat more after they’ve prayed.

Tom Gilson, “When to Trust Reports on Psychology and Religion? Almost Never.” at The Stream

He lists six things that are quite wrong with the study, including,

First, the researchers assigned half of the subjects to “compose a prayer,” whether they believed in God and prayer or not. The assumption, apparently, is that everyone is doing the same thing when they “compose” their “prayers.” But believers who pray aren’t just “composing.” They’re connecting with God. Unbelievers? Not so much. The act of composing a prayer means something entirely different from one group to another.

Tom Gilson, “When to Trust Reports on Psychology and Religion? Almost Never.” at The Stream

You can read the other five. It would cost US$43 to reads the study.

Gilson concedes,

Once in a while you’ll run across a good one. There’s decent research (here’s an example) supporting a connection between faith and well-being, for example. So I’m not saying you should be unwilling to find an article to be honest, well-informed and balanced on matters of psychology and faith or religion. I’m just saying you should prepare to be surprised if you do.

Tom Gilson, “When to Trust Reports on Psychology and Religion? Almost Never.” at The Stream

Yeah. Some of us remember back when religious figures were urged to make some sort of accommodation with psychology. Now that psychology has largely become one big Sokal hoax, it’s hard to see why anyone would bother.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Also: “Motivated reasoning” defacing the social sciences?

At the New York Times: Defending the failures of social science to be science Okay. So if we think that — in principle — such a field is always too infested by politics to be seriously considered a science, we’re “anti-science”? There’s something wrong with preferring to support sciences that aren’t such a laughingstock? Fine. The rest of us will own that and be proud.

What’s wrong with social psychology , in a nutshell

How political bias affects social science research

Stanford Prison Experiment findings a “sham” – but how much of social psychology is legitimate anyway?

A BS detector for the social sciences

All sides agree: progressive politics is strangling social sciences

and

Back to school briefing: Seven myths of social psychology: Many lecture room icons from decades past are looking tarnished now. (That was 2014 and it has gotten worse since.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Religious Nones drawn to the occult (what did you expect?)

We’ve heard a lot about the Religious Nones but, whatever else, don’t mistake them for pure naturalist atheists:

The cause behind the spiritual shift is a combination of factors. In more than a dozen interviews for this story with people ranging in age from 18 to their early 40s, a common theme emerged: They were raised with one set of religious beliefs — Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist — but as they became adults, they felt that faith didn’t completely represent who they were or what they believed.

Millennials increasingly identify as “nones” when asked about their religious affiliation, according to a 2017 Pew survey: They are atheist or agnostic, or say they are “spiritual but not religious.”…

One of the big draws for younger people about spiritual practices is the ability to “pick and choose,” said Jim Burklo, a progressive Christian reverend who works with college students as the senior associate dean of the Office of Religious and Spiritual Life at USC. Spiritual practices appeal to the commitment-wary: You can get a little into crystals or astrology or tarot, or a lot into it. You can buy a few rose quartzes or light a few candles and if it’s meaningful for you, keep it; if not, it’s not like you went through a full religious conversion.

Jessica Roy, “How millennials replaced religion with astrology and crystals” at LA Times

This predilection for occultism over philosophically argued religion will, of course, impact the sciences. Indeed, it already does. Look at the number of stories we’ve been running here lately about science journals slowly making social justice warrior concerns equivalent to research. In the context of a public that doesn’t see much use in evidence-based thinking, one can predict that the trend will grow.

See also: Guardian axed science blog, spreads sciencey rumors instead It’s difficult for popular science media to be more interested in facts than the public or the science establishment is. If the Guardian readers would really rather hear about “toxic America,” the paper doesn’t need a science section.

When Medical Journals Get Woke…

Why has a historic medical publication gone weird

Sceptic asks, why do people who abandon religion embrace superstition? Belief in God is declining and belief in ghosts and witches is rising

and

Which side will atheists choose in the war on science? They need to re-evaluate their alliance with progressivism, which is doing science no favours.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Philosopher: Morality is merely community norms

So says neurophilosopher Patricia Churchland, in a new book:

In her new book, Conscience, Churchland argues that mammals — humans, yes, but also monkeys and rodents and so on — feel moral intuitions because of how our brains developed over the course of evolution. Mothers came to feel deeply attached to their children because that helped the children (and through them, the mother’s genes) survive. This ability to feel attachment was gradually generalized to mates, kin, and friends. “Attachment begets caring,” Churchland writes, “and caring begets conscience.”

Conscience, to her, is not a set of absolute moral truths, but a set of community norms that evolved because they were useful. “Tell the truth” and “keep your promises,” for example, help a social group stick together. Even today, our brains reinforce these norms by releasing pleasurable chemicals when our actions generate social approval (hello, dopamine!) and unpleasurable ones when they generate disapproval.

You’ll notice that words like “rationality” and “duty” — mainstays of traditional moral philosophy — are missing from Churchland’s narrative. Instead, there’s talk of brain regions like the cortex.

Sigal Samuel, “How your brain invents morality” at Vox

Presumably, you have to start by believing that rats and mice have a conscience.

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Francis writes to say,

In my book in a chapter on Nietzsche ( The Little Book of God, Mind, Cosmos and Truth), I argued against Churchland’s irrational findings; Darwin was quite clear that animals primarily live to survive and not seek truth; but would that include humans, especially philosophers making statements which they deem right (truthful?) and those seeking to become Supermen? Atheist philosopher Patricia Churchland said that as biological beings, we’re not hardwired to seek truth; rather we’re fundamentally hardwired by deterministic, materialistic forces to survive. But isn’t she claiming a truth value in that statement? Churchland says: ‘Boiled down to its essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting, and f*****g [reproducing] …Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.” (Patricia Churchland, ‘Epistemology in the Age of Neuroscience,’ Journal of Philosophy 84 (October 1987): 548-9

Why is it that the people most likely to be attracted to this sort of naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism,” also appear to be full of rage against what they perceive to be injustice, smashing stuff and people? And none of their theories about how they’ll make anything better sound very convincing.

See also: Rabbi Says, Flat-Out Materialist Patricia Churchland’s Thinking “Is A Moral Mess”

and

Selective Moral Doubt (Barry Arrington)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Claim: ET, if discovered, would change our morality

It would be evidence that humans are irrelevant to the purpose of the universe:

However, ubiquitous life would also create new and unexpected problems for theism, by undermining some traditional arguments for divine benevolence and thus making it harder to believe that God cares about us. Theists argue that the best explanation for the existence of this Universe is that it was created by a benevolent God. One prima facie counter-example is offered by widespread, apparently gratuitous evil. This suggests instead a creator who is indifferent to the fate of individual human beings. Theists reply that, unless we suppose that God cares about rationality, knowledge or intelligibility, we cannot explain why this Universe is governed by regular intelligible mathematical laws. The Universe appears to be designed to be understood by its own inhabitants. So far as we know, we are the only inhabitants who could possibly understand it. So we must be essential to God’s plan.

The discovery that life is ubiquitous weakens this argument. If the Universe is teeming with life, then there are many other candidates for the cosmically decisive role previously occupiable only by human beings. Perhaps God cares that there be some rational beings, but is indifferent to their species, identity or numbers. Or perhaps God cares only for creatures who reach some threshold of wisdom or intellect that humans could never attain. God cares for beings who are sufficiently rational, intelligent, free or lovable. But it is human arrogance to assume that we are among them!

Sam Dresser, “The ethics of ET” at Aeon

And so on. Despite the fact that we have never found evidence of a single microbe, not a single microbe, anywhere but Earth. Not even a virus.

Funny how all road leads in the same direction, isn’t it? If we don’t find extraterrestrial life, humans are just a cosmic blip. And if we do find extraterrestrial life, humans are just a cosmic blip.

Jathink some people are convinced that humans are just a cosmic blip for reasons that have nothing to do with the state of cosmology, extraterrestrial life, or space aliens?

File under: Aw fer cryin’ out loud… is what it’s come to?

See also: Tales of an invented god

and

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

J. P. Moreland: Anxiety and depression are largely habit

Continuing his conversation with historian Michael Keas, Philosopher, philosopher J. P. Moreland recalls what he learned from fighting his way through a devastating anxiety disorder:

Keas To what degree does thinking affect feeling? To what degree is this similar to what physiologists refer to as “muscle memory”?

Moreland: Ah, what a question! Actually, thinking can really trigger emotions. In fact, the way we engage in self-talk—which is the way we talk to ourselves—we beat up ourselves and talk about how scary the future is. A lot of the time, this self-talk is subconscious. We’re not aware of it because we’re busy doing other things and then we end up nervous and scared to death and anxious and wonder why. And it’s because our thoughts shaped the triggering of certain anxiety emotions. And emotions can affect thoughts.

If you are suffering from anxiety and depression, I want you to know that you can change. I want you to have hope because there are things you can do to get better. The second thing that is probably one of the most important ideas in the book is that anxiety and depression are largely—not entirely but largely—habit. And those habits are ingrained in the different members of our body… “Can fitter brains help us fight depression?” at Mind Matters News

See also: Moreland also discussed these issues in an earlier podcast with Sean McDowell and Scott B. Rae. See: Moreland Theologian, battling depression, reaffirms the existence of the soul J. P. Moreland reasons his way to the evidence and captures his discoveries in a book

and also J. P. Moreland’s Model of the Human Self Survived the Ultimate Field Test Could the Christian philosopher rely on his model to help himself heal from psychiatric disorder?

His most recent professional work is Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (2018); an outline is available here.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Carnivorous plants: Darwinian evolution would have to be a miracle worker to explain them

Marcos Eberlin, author of Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose, explains why:

Evolutionary scientists have not dared to propose that the Venus flytrap evolved these animal-like skills by taking genes from its prey, a nearly impossible feat since the prey is fully digested for food. Rather, they have suggested the plant modified and rearranged gene functions that all plants share. But this too lies well beyond the reach of a blind process that cannot predict future needs.

Carnivory is found in the animal kingdom and makes the most sense there. That’s why it’s so intriguing to find this behavior in the green branch of the tree of life, especially considering that most plants seem to thrive using just photosynthesis. If carnivory evolved here to provide more nutrients, why would natural selection reward the plants — apparently able to benefit from more nutrients — for expending some of the precious nutrients they already had to evolve a not-yet-useful new nutrient supply tool, and reward these supposedly evolving plants for their seemingly far-sighted efforts over countless generations stretching over long ages? That is, if the nutrition from the carnivorous action was just a non-essential bonus for the flower, then why would nature select for all the many intermediate steps of this complex bonus system during which the system offered no benefit — neither nutrition nor protection — and likely exacted a nutrient and energy cost at the risk of survival?

If it first evolved for protection and then later evolved to provide additional nutrients, we have the same problem: Why expend all the energy on the way to a functional protection system, before the protection system was at all functional? Natural selection does not look ahead to future payoff, remember. It’s all about “What have you done for me lately?” …

his challenge for Darwinism is only exacerbated by the fact that, if indeed they did evolve carnivory, these plants had to do so “independently at least six times in five angiosperm orders,” as Ellison and Gotelli explain.

Maybe one could grant the evolutionary miracle a single time, but six times?

Marcos Eberlin, “The Lovable Venus Flytrap: A Design Analysis” at Evolution News and Science Today

Remember when…? Carnivorous Plants: Darwinist Nick Matzke Is Latest To Put Darwin’s Theory “Outside Science”

Remember that Darwin-eating plant? Now threatening to eat Nick Matzke …

Carnivorous plants: After eating Darwin, they couldn’t resist further culinary adventures

The plants that eat vertebrate animals

Carnivorous plants: The 200-year headache.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Guardian axed science blog, spreads sciencey rumors instead

At one time, The Guardian had a respected science section but it was axed in 2018:

Then, apparently, they found a new moneymaker in spreading chemophobia and anti-Americanism with a new series titled “Toxic America.”

The section is every bit as dreadful as it sounds. Chemicals are everywhere, they’re killing you, and gun-toting Americans are to blame. That’s not hyperbole…

Every other article in the Toxic America series is similarly full of egregious half-truths and distortions. One particularly bad one claims that chemicals are costing Americans IQ points, disregarding the well-known observation that IQ has been rising over time, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. Besides, even if trace amounts of chemicals are making us dumber (an unlikely hypothesis), the IQs of Americans still seem to be increasing.

Alex Berezow, “Toxic America: The Guardian Spreads Chemophobia And Anti-Americanism” at American Council on Science and Health

But now, here’s a question: To what extent is The Guardian only echoing the science culture? Consider, for example,

When Medical Journals Get Woke…

Why has a historic medical publication gone weird

New England Journal of Medicine, seeking new editor, urged to get woke Journal editor: “The main job of journals will not be to disseminate science but to ‘speak truth to power,’ encourage debate, campaign, investigate and agenda-set — the same job as the mass media.

Lancet: Why has a historic medical publication gone weird?

and

Was Thomas Kuhn not so “evil” after all? Philosopher of science: If Errol or Kripke or anyone can tell me something absolutely objective and unchanging about what’s out there in the natural world, I sincerely want to hear and believe that. Maybe I should (re)turn to Jesus. (Huh?)

And this cultural change is overtaking journals, not popular newspapers.

It’s difficult for popular science media to be more interested in facts than the public or the science establishment is. If the Guardian readers would really rather hear about “toxic America,” the paper doesn’t need a science section; with so large a target as the United States, any good propagandist can score plenty of hits.

Berezow is right to call attention to the Guardian’s new focus but the problem seems to be broader and deeper/

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Research into Neanderthal toolmaking suggests that most were right-handed

And that they customized their tools hundreds of thousands of years ago:

Uomini’s work showed that the way in which a knapper struck the tool with a hammerstone to remove flakes was a good indicator of whether the tool was meant to be used by a right- or left-hander: The toolmaker removed flakes in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, depending on the handedness of the person for whom the tool was intended. The tools were also blunted on one side to make them more comfortable to hold by either a right or left hand—much as right- and left-handed scissors have different handle shapes.

Archaeologist Olaf Jöris, a colleague of Uomini’s, applied this research to an assemblage of Neanderthal stone tools from Germany and found that at least 85 percent of those tools were made for right-handers, while some appear to have been modified specifically for left-handers. That work hasn’t been published yet.

Anna Goldfield, “The Neanderthal Arm—Hints About Handedness” at Sapiens

These are not the Neanderthals of the late twentieth century. Those were incredibly stupid brutes. Funny how much Neanderthals have learned in only a couple of decades…

See also: Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

A deep and abiding need for Neanderthals to be stupid. Why?

and

Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana