May 31 2012
Richard Leakey, Evolution and Motivated Reasoning
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Richard Leakey, Evolution and Motivated Reasoning”.
18 Responses to “Richard Leakey, Evolution and Motivated Reasoning”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I agree that it is nearly impossible to change someone’s mind that has a deeply rooted belief such as creationists and antivaxxers. However, I wonder if Leakey meant that if the evidence continues to mount then there will be some fence sitters, shruggies, etc that join the side of science as the anti-science folk fade into obscurity. In the last hundred years or so we have seen animal rights, environmental rights, women’s rights and civil rights all gain significant traction despite very entrenched positions. How were beliefs and ideas changed in those situations?
I agree that the creationist position can be marginalized, even if we can never eradicate it. That may be a generous interpretation of what he said.
When I saw Leakey’s statement I though he was being naive too. Maybe he was thinking of this quote from Planck.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – M. Planck
The new beliefs that bluedevil mentions didn’t arise because of new data.
Belief in Genesis didn’t arise because of any data. Those beliefs occurred because someone made them up and told them as if they were true and people believed them because it ingratiated them with the people who were in power who were telling the stories.
If we can produce a disconnect between believing stories that someone tells and acquisition of power and authority, then maybe there will be a way to move society to more science and reasoning based.
I also think 15-30 years is a bit generous on his part. I can only hope it takes that little time, but I sincerely doubt it. It is going to take many great science educators to serve as catalysts by bringing the evidence for evolution to the public. I know many people that lack strong science backgrounds and are completely unaware of hominin fossils other than Lucy. This is a serious barrier to the acceptance of evolution. That being said, there are clearly many people like Wendy Wright who are lost causes. The “backfire effect” study is very interesting and I think it applies to people like her. So I guess the real question is how many people that have doubts about evolution are hardline creationists and how many are just following what someone else has told them without really thinking.
On making the next generation grow up with the ideas, I suppose one way to do it would be to spread the use of genetic algorithms or generally make them more visible. If the theory of evolution, working through genetic algorithms, produces readily visible results for “mundane” purposes and kids are made aware of the process, they’d probably be more inclined to believe it.
I agree with Steve! The key is to teach critical thinking skills. I think we should be making it a serious, pervasive and ongoing part of education from kindergarten through graduation. We are so upset that people don’t know basic facts when they get interviewed on the street. I think we should be more upset that people are at a complete loss as to how to think logically.
There is some value to debunking bad thinking as skeptics do. But the hard fight is going to be in raising a generation of kids that think instead of believe. We need to be actively campaigning to change school curriculums. To promote more critical thinking reality shows, to make thinking an issue in the first place.
I try very hard not have a belief. I define belief as an idea that I have become emotionally entrenched in. I try to keep myself to ideas that I want to learn more about. Its hard to do. For example the skeptical community has several ideas that could easily become entrenched, making me lose that critical edge. But just because an idea is good, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be open to change upon evidence coming in.
If we change the cultural norm to thinking critically a whole lot of issues will cease to be problematic. For example politicians would have to present a real platform with plans that have evidence for working. Imagine who would run then.
Great post!
I’ve recently been having arguments with a few friends of mine who I was surprised to find out they didn’t believe in evolution, so this post was relevant to me as well.
I took my first philosophy critical thinking class as a “general education” paper in my first year of uni (Now I’m on my second) and I loved it. It made me wonder something; why isn’t critical thinking introduced as a major subject in early education? If throughout high school we had been taught Maths, Science, English WITH Critical thinking as compulsory subjects, then maybe we would be surrounded by a smarter world which doesn’t feel that an ‘argument’ is an aggressive conflict. I’m from New Zealand – so maybe its different around the world and in the States, but I would say that critical thinking should really be a subject that’s put on a pedestal.
Thanks again Steven Novella, I really enjoy this part of the web.
Agreed. Those of that ilk, in particular YECs who insist upon encroaching established science with false determinations, based on their preconceptions. But those who are open to teleological possibilities, but based on supportive data only, are well within the scope of objective scientific perusal. And to assume a BFF conflation of the two [Barbara Forrest Façade] are simply employing politics to further their own a priori agenda.
Or, they may simply modify their view of life in a way that no longer holds to dated creationist precepts. But regarding those who may go with a total rejection of a purposeful realm, and a [in-part] designed biosphere in toto, I would add a note of caution. If truly objective [critical] thinking is on the table, neither hard theism nor hard atheism need be. Neither embody truly ‘rational thought.’
I’ve been called a Creationist, but there is no one I’ve come across who is more of a skeptic than me, having flunked American History twice due to disagreements with the biased and Chauvinistic text, and both Profs. Ed Downey and Dick Joranko [Royal Oak Dondero HS, 1957]. I sided with the Brits, the French and the Indians on more than one occasion, but based on the facts, rather than a self-serving agenda, which was viewed as un-patriotic. I currently hold to a liberal ID view, but based only on observable data, and on some experiments I did in the 60′s. And my conclusions are subject to change with renewed data.
That said, and as I believe that commenter Sara stated, critical thinking is the key to objective science. The cultural [and purported anti-science] wars in progress benefit no one, and in particular degrade rather than defend science. I side with a skeptical position in regard to aspects of science not readily empirically testable, and there are many such areas of various ancillary views [consciousness as an agency/ entity, not just an effect].
And by ‘testable’, I’m referring to objective and unbiased analyses of test results, which are sometimes skewed by a priori [firmly in-place] premises. It’s fine to make and hold to predictions, but not to embed them in the foundational theories they only seek to reinforce.
Me Too!
The term ‘overwhelming’ does indeed refer to the data; but not in regard to unalterable conclusions. So yes, let us work to encourage unbiased and objective perusal of science, but with a de-emphasis on established premises, however widely accepted.
I was waiting for Steve to write about this story – it seemed right up his alley.
I think the opposite of what Dr. Leakey predicts will occur – science education is dropping off in many parts of the world, especially in the US. There has been a constant battle to sow “doubt” about evolution as a theory, much like there has been for global warming. Sowing this doubt is the most effective way of undermining the general public’s support for scientists and science in general. When the general public does not support science, populist politicians get elected on anti-science, pro-religion platforms and they begin to develop public policy that is bad for science education. With fewer people getting good science education, less people support scientists and science in general and more populist politicians get elected…. and there goes the cycle. So, it is not the scientific theory of evolution that is having problems, it is the populist view of evolution that is problematic.
Can someone tell me what critical thinking really means?
I hear those words thrown around a lot around these parts – it seems that most of y’all think it has something to do with the elucidation of facts via scientific methodology. However, if I were with friends who do unconventional warfare (special forces) they would define critical thinking as the strategy employed to kill the most people with the fewest bullets in the shortest time.
Seems like everyone wants critical thinking…including skeptical enemies
At last after thousands of years of civilization we have arrived at that point in mankind’s history where the truth has become accessible. Our scientific and materialist methodology is sound, there can be no question that at last we can forge ahead to banish superstition, new age drivel and, most importantly, their progenitor – religion. And we are acquiring the means to accomplish our goal of establishing critical thinking and disestablishing the illusion based belief systems that have caused so much suffering in our past.
We see our way clearly ahead of us. Neuroscience is slowly but surely giving us the means to alter people’s brain states – chemical and mechanical interventions will become the norm to establish the norm, our norm that we know with all of the certainty of critical thinking to be the true ‘way humans should be’ norm. It cannot be beyond our capabilities to eventually develop a pill that will chemically adjust the brain to accord with this norm that will of course be based on proper DSM standards.
In tandem with this great enterprise we will build machines that will operate on a purely rational basis. We may even be able to make these machines sentient. At the very least they will provide us with a template upon which to model our new society.
Evolution has brought us to this glorious point in our history – we cannot afford to let the opportunity slip by us.
PhysiPhile.
I think Wikipedia has a decent review of it. I summarize it for friends as using evidence and careful logic to evaluate ideas. Humans are hard wired to make assumptions and we often take that ability too far and come to false conclusions. It important to recognize that and stick to evidence whenever possible.
At last after thousands of years of civilization we have arrived at that point in mankind’s history where the truth has become accessible.
Pssshh..arrived? No way! What do you mean by truth? You act like there is “a truth” to the universe. What makes you so sure? Yeah, there’s definitely a consistency to the universe. We invent ideas then test them against observation – if they fit we see if they can predict something more then we have a better understanding but you make it seem as though we running full speed towards some truth. Truth is, there could be just a shit load of perspectives and no absolute truth. Much of science thus far has delt with a linear type of reductionism but [opinion] most of the good things in life [/opinion] is not amendable to such analysis. We occupy such a small slice of time that I am skeptical of anyone who claims that we are at some critical point of scientific inquiry or realization.
“We see our way clearly ahead of us.”
Bullshit
“chemical and mechanical interventions will become the norm to establish the norm, our norm that we know with all of the certainty of critical thinking to be the true ‘way humans should be’ norm.”
And what is this “norm” shit? You almost sound like a hardcore religious person when you talk is some terms like that. Evolution doesn’t give a shit about norms…it wants variability to select phenotypes that increase bio mass.
“In tandem with this great enterprise we will build machines that will operate on a purely rational basis.”
Uhhh hows is that different than any computer? What’s hard is the nonrational human part.
Steven Novella: “If simply providing more and more evidence for the fact of evolution is not going to change the minds of people like Staples, then what will?”
The elephant in the room: RELIGION.
Forget facts.
Forget critical thinking.
Religion trumps both.
It will take the marginalisation of religion for the populace to accept evolution.
And it is already happening.
There is a graph somewhere showing religious belief and acceptance of evolution is countries around the world. The least religious are also the most accepting of evolution. The USA comes second only to Turkey in relgious belief and rejection of evolution.
daedalus: ““A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – M. Planck”
The battleground is therefore the children of religious parents.
The stradegy is to loosen the grip of the parent’s religion on their children.
The rest will be child’s play.
Well, it worked for me anyway.
We should emblazon above the gate into our brave new world, “Critical Thinking Will Set You Free”.
All memory of Max Planck will be obliterated in our brave new world. His thoughts might contaminate our youth. How dare he assert:
‘All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.’
SARA, your definition is close, but rather than being based on “evidence” it should be based on data, or facts. Testimony about something can be considered “evidence”, but that testimony may be false.
It is a subtle point, but using “evidence” as the standard allows one to differentially weigh that evidence based on subjective criteria. That is all that the YECs are doing, they are weighing the “evidence” and awarding enormous weight to handed down traditional stories of illiterate bronze age nomadic shepherds.
It is a fact that certain traditional stories of illiterate bronze age nomadic shepherds assert things about the creation of the Earth and about reality. Many of those stories are not consistent with other data and facts that are easy to observe and measure today. The stories and the present data are both “evidence”, but the data that can be measured and remeasured today has higher reliability than stories of uncertain origins.