Do you Compartmentalize?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2016, 03:26 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(09-05-2016 09:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  One common allegation often leveled at theists and their ilk, is compartmentalization, especially when it comes to smart religious folks. And my question is primarily for those who often subscribe to this view.

Do people who compartmentalize know they're compartmentalizing? Or is it a process they're not consciously aware of engaging in?

Do you believe you compartmentalize? Or would you say you don't know whether you do or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmen...sychology)
I'd say that people probably aren't aware of their own compartmentalisation.

However, I would have thought that religious scientist are somewhat aware.
For example, if they are aware of the issues in discovery of knowledge based on the need for evidence, to avoid personal biases, to test ideas rather than simply believe. They why do they go down the religious path where faith is needed? For this to work they have to throw their epistemology out the window and become sloppy floppy brained, and just believe whatever an "authority" tells them.

They have to be willing to believe in magic and believe in special stories of magic without demanding any evidence.

Are they aware of this compartmentalisation? You would think that they would be.


Do I compartmentalise? Possibly, I try not to.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2016, 03:30 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(09-05-2016 10:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I don't dismiss my understanding of science when I'm in religious discussion with religious people. Instead, I try to make a case why both the bible and the science are true in hopes that I can open someone's mind to new interpretations and new avenues of thinking.
Hmmm, I don't think I've come across you before in this forum.

You sound considered.

I'd love to know how you make a case for biblical truth, or for the existence of supernatural entities and powers.

Is it based on faith or is there another method of discovery behind this case?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2016, 03:55 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(09-05-2016 02:13 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-05-2016 01:58 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Tommy Boy never heard of it either, until I gave the name and the link last week.

While I'll credit you for inspiring the OP, you were merely the last person here who made the claim, but that's about it.

Oh really. How about you list *all* the others, and where, if ever, you mentioned it once, before.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
09-05-2016, 04:06 PM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
I would say I compartmentalize my work persona and my private persona. I have to maintain a certain distance from my beliefs, opinion and revendications when I teach else I could expose myself to a whole lot of trouble with many parents and some of my older students might very well lose a portion of respect for me (and my position).

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2016, 06:23 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(09-05-2016 03:26 PM)Stevil Wrote:  However, I would have thought that religious scientist are somewhat aware.
For example, if they are aware of the issues in discovery of knowledge based on the need for evidence, to avoid personal biases, to test ideas rather than simply believe.
Are they aware of this compartmentalisation? You would think that they would be.

I see little reason to believe that any particular scientist is aware of his biases anymore so than anyone else. Nor do I see any reason to believe that by simply desiring to put your biases aside, makes you aware of your biases, and allows you to dictate to your thought process to put them aside.

Quote: if they are aware of the issues in discovery of knowledge based on the need for evidence

How much does evidence weigh? What it's height? It's physical properties? Can evidence be anything that elicits a sensory response? Are all things evidence? Is evidence a property of an object, or defined by use? If I say something is evidence, and you say it's not, is there a device we can use that will settle the matter?

Evidence means a variety of different things for different people. The broad meaning, is pretty much anything and everything a person uses to infer what's true. Someone on the autistic spectrum might need a different set of "evidence" to infer social cues, understand metaphors etc... than others. You might need to know you wife's exact whereabouts at any particular time of day to infer that she's not cheating on you, others might depend on what they understand about their wives character.

You should perhaps consider applying the thought process you often resort to, to question the meaning of moral and immoral, the meaning of good, to the meaning of evidence.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2016, 06:53 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
Actually, evidence is quite clearly defined:

Scientific Evidence
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

Empirical Evidence
Empirical evidence, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.

Science makes an effort to eliminate prejudice and bias. It is not always successful, but the process is set up to minimize it as much as possible.

If a body of evidence can be interpreted differently by different people, then the evidence is weak.

A person's acceptance of evidence has little relevance to the validity of the evidence itself. There are people today who:

Believe that the Earth is flat.
Believe that Evolution is false.
Believe that the Earth is 6500 years old.

Does this change the validity of the accepted/mainstream understandings?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
10-05-2016, 07:47 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 06:53 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Science makes an effort to eliminate prejudice and bias. It is not always successful, but the process is set up to minimize it as much as possible.

I never understand why people such as your self often attempt to anthropomorphize science. What you should be saying is not science makes an effort, but scientist make an effort to eliminate prejudice and bias. When stated accurately, it's perhaps not as true as you like, if a particular scientist has an invested interest in the results being presented in such a way, such as from the pressures to get published, monetary incentives, etc... than they're inclination to eliminate unfavorable biases are likely not as present as you would like. Or perhaps you'll now appeal to some version of the no true scotsman fallacy, were dishonest scientists are not scientists, etc...

What folks such as yourself and others have done to science, rather than humanize a purely human endeavor, you mythologized it. And behave a bit like inerrantist do, when contradictions are pointed out to them.

Quote:If a body of evidence can be interpreted differently by different people, then the evidence is weak.

Except of course the people disagree about the meaning of evidence routinely, even here. Nor do I think the strength of any particular piece of evidence, is merely a matter of a consensus. Interpretations are always at risk to all the flaws and prejudices of being human, and depending on prevalence of such factors, question the merits of any consensus. The consensus in fact could be deluded.

Quote:A person's acceptance of evidence has little relevance to the validity of the evidence itself.

Agreed, though that seems to somewhat contradict what you stated above.

Evidence is an abstract concept.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2016, 08:09 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-05-2016 06:53 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Science makes an effort to eliminate prejudice and bias. It is not always successful, but the process is set up to minimize it as much as possible.

I never understand why people such as your self often attempt to anthropomorphize science. What you should be saying is not science makes an effort, but scientist make an effort to eliminate prejudice and bias. When stated accurately, it's perhaps not as true as you like, if a particular scientist has an invested interest in the results being presented in such a way, such as from the pressures to get published, monetary incentives, etc... than they're inclination to eliminate unfavorable biases are likely not as present as you would like. Or perhaps you'll now appeal to some version of the no true scotsman fallacy, were dishonest scientists are not scientists, etc...

What folks such as yourself and others have done to science, rather than humanize a purely human endeavor, you mythologized it. And behave a bit like inerrantist do, when contradictions are pointed out to them.

Quote:If a body of evidence can be interpreted differently by different people, then the evidence is weak.

Except of course the people disagree about the meaning of evidence routinely, even here. Nor do I think the strength of any particular piece of evidence, is merely a matter of a consensus. Interpretations are always at risk to all the flaws and prejudices of being human, and depending on prevalence of such factors, question the merits of any consensus. The consensus in fact could be deluded.

Quote:A person's acceptance of evidence has little relevance to the validity of the evidence itself.

Agreed, though that seems to somewhat contradict what you stated above.

Evidence is an abstract concept.

"I never understand why people such as your self often attempt to anthropomorphize science. "

Because science is performed by HUMANS. This is NOT the same as anthropomorphizing something that exists or occurs without humans (like gravity or evolution), because science is a HUMAN invention utilized by HUMANS.

YOU don't understand because you don't know what science is, nor do you understand scientists. (you also don't understand evidence. But none of these are new revelations)

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
10-05-2016, 08:23 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I never understand why people such as your self often attempt to anthropomorphize science.
Your lack of understanding is none of my concern. There was no anthropomorphizing in my statement. By saying "science" I was including scientists and the scientific establishment in one word. It's a fairly common practice. Like saying "the media" in regards to media companies and the people that work for them.

Are word games the best argument you have?

(10-05-2016 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What you should be saying is not science makes an effort, but scientist make an effort to eliminate prejudice and bias.
Do not ever tell me what I should be saying. There are rules and procedures that are integral to the scientific process that are designed to eliminate or reduce personal biases and prejudice. That counts as science as well as scientists.

As has been pointed out multiple times: You do not get to make my arguments for me, nor put words in my mouth.

(10-05-2016 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  When stated accurately, it's perhaps not as true as you like, if a particular scientist has an invested interest in the results being presented in such a way, such as from the pressures to get published, monetary incentives, etc... than they're inclination to eliminate unfavorable biases are likely not as present as you would like.

Your insistence on interpreting my mindset is interesting, as is your inability to do so. My interest and reliance on science is directly related to the effectiveness and reliability of science itself.

So, let's take a look at a very famous example. Andrew Wakefield.
Andrew Wakefield

He falsified a scientific study for financial gain. This goes a bit beyond prejudice, it was outright fraud. However the example is still valid. But I digress...

Who exposed Wakefield? Religion? god? Preachers?
Scientists.

Did they pray over the results? Ouija boards? Divine revelations?
They used the scientific method.

Did they move Wakefield to another lab? Allow him to participate in further studies?
No. He has been criminally charged and stripped of all credibility. No scientific group would even consider working with him.

(10-05-2016 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or perhaps you'll now appeal to some version of the no true scotsman fallacy, were dishonest scientists are not scientists, etc...
I'll skip that one thanks. You make enough logical fallacies. No need to add my own.

(10-05-2016 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What folks such as yourself and others have done to science, rather than humanize a purely human endeavor, you mythologized it. And behave a bit like inerrantist do, when contradictions are pointed out to them.

And science is now our religion... Spare me your bullshit.

Science is not a religion. It is however, the only method of investigation and discovery that provides consistent results.

(10-05-2016 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Except of course the people disagree about the meaning of evidence routinely, even here. Nor do I think the strength of any particular piece of evidence, is merely a matter of a consensus. Interpretations are always at risk to all the flaws and prejudices of being human, and depending on prevalence of such factors, question the merits of any consensus. The consensus in fact could be deluded.

That is a semi-valid smokescreen, at best.

Yes, evidence can be debated and contested, up to a point. When new evidence is presented this is true. What determines a Consensus is also rather ambiguous and at times, the Consensus has been wrong.

When the geocentric consensus was proven wrong, what did so?
Religion? Prayer? Divine Revelation? Nope. Science.

When Pasteur & Koch proved the Germ Theory, what did they use?
Religion? Prayer? Divine Revelation? Nope. Science.

When we landed on the moon, did they fucking pray that rocket into space?
No.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
10-05-2016, 08:30 AM
RE: Do you Compartmentalize?
(10-05-2016 08:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Because science is performed by HUMANS. This is NOT the same as anthropomorphizing something that exists or occurs without humans (like gravity or evolution), because science is a HUMAN invention utilized by HUMANS.

Yes, perhaps not the most accurate use of the term anthropomorphize.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: