Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1282.1 | -27.1 | -2.07% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2076.9 | -42.0 | -1.98% |
| Oil (WTI) | 83 | -3.5 | -4.08% |
| LIBOR | 0.468 | 0.001 | 0.21% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 83.31 | 0.266 | 0.32% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.46% | -0.10% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | 177.4 | -0.1 |
Ugly. That is all you can say this morning. Equity markets are reeling after a slew of disappointing economic reports this morning. The 10-year is trading at 1.46%. MBS are trading higher as well. The German 2-year bund actually has a negative yield.
The unemployment rate ticked up to 8.2% and the economy added just 69,000 jobs last month. The labor force participation rate rose to 63.8%, reversing April’s decline. The average workweek declined, which bodes ill for future hiring.
With the massive rally in the 10-year, you would think Operation Twist would be put on the back burner. You would be wrong. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston head Eric Rosengren is advocating continuing Operation Twist (where the Fed buys long-dated bonds and sells short-dated paper in an attempt to lower long-term rates). Given the massive rally we have experienced in the 10 year, May’s jobs report should have been great. Anyone think June’s report is going to be great?
Facebook’s IPO is instructive in that it shows how the relationship between issuer and bank has become more important than the relationship between investor and investment bank. Many moons ago, when I was in business school, we used to ask why IPOs popped so much on day 1. A pop in the stock meant that issuers were leaving money on the table. One explanation was that while an investment bank would get a deal from an issuer maybe once every few years, they had to deal with their buy-side clients every day. So they were more interested in keeping Fidelity happy than they were in keeping XYZ.com happy. Which meant IPOs were usually under-priced.
Fast forward to today: Facebook was a disaster if you were an investor. But the investor’s loss was Facebook’s gain. The banks managed to sell as many shares as possible at as high a price as possible. What has changed? IMO commissions and spreads. When I started in the business, institutions paid a nickle a share to trade a stock. Bid/Ask spreads were 1/8. Sales and trading was a lucrative business that was conducted over the phone. Nowadays, you can trade inside the penny spread, and commissions are 1/4 of a cent a share. Everything is automated. Sales and trading is a loss-leader business, which means banks are more interested in keeping issuers happy than they are keeping investors happy. If Fidelity is mad, who cares? Morgan Stanley isn’t making anything from them anyway…
Filed under: Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Ok, who wants a mortgage under 3%? Don’t crowd now, plenty for everybody.
LikeLike
under 3% — for a 30 year fixed?
LikeLike
If you are a lender, you are getting about 2.5% right now on a mortgage backed security.
That said, lenders are loath to lower rates – the delta between mortgage rates and the 10 year has fallen precipitously during this rally.
LikeLike
Yes I was being facetious, although we’re so far through the looking glass on Trreasuries now, what is really off the table impossible?
LikeLike
the talking heads on Bloomberg TV are talking about coordinated action by the central banks over the weekend, as if the problem is that rates are too high…
LikeLike
Wow, it’s really ugly out there this morning. Everyone’s definitely piling on the negativity. I’m just glad I don’t live within shouting distance of the EuroZone. Luckily, I sold most of what little bits of stock I had left last week. I only kept a very small footprint in two stocks I’ve made quite a bit of money on, the rest……………..buh bye.
LikeLike
Does anyone have a clue as to whether WMR as POTUS would really try to implement the FP positions that he has staked out in the campaign? I think they reek, frankly, and the costs would be unbearable except by the continued creation of funny money. I am among those who have no idea whatsoever what WMR stands for longer than a fortnight at a time. If John Bolton is truly his trusted advisor I would fear the worst for our FP. I am with Brent Scowcroft and James Baker on FP, as y’all know.
This musing is brought on by my view that POTUS only truly matters in FP and that today’s numbers make WMR as POTUS a bit more likely. If you are the person who has the clue I am looking for, thanks in advance.
LikeLike
The Panama Canal is being prepared for bigger ships that only the Houston and New Orleans ports can take. Port Authority of Houston and the 3 PAs of southern LA [together] are already twice as big as the next largest American port. Thus the huge Gulf Coast ports will have more Asian trade, inevitably, and PA Houston must deepen the Ship Channel. Again.
The ports are a federal responsibility as are the inland waterways. Two problems for PA Houston arise:
1] The ACE thinks they can get a round tuit in 11 years; and
2] PA Houston sends the federal gummint 5x what the fed gummint spends on PA Houston.
So as with the storm damage in 2001 from Allison and the rescue of 200K New Orleans’ refugees during Katrina, 125K of whom have remained, Houston will pay for its PA expansion locally. I truly believe that Houston is the only city in America that remains willing and able to do these monumental efforts on its own. Some others are able, but not willing. And some others are willing, but not able.
I guess living in a swamp with perpetual 100% humidity breeds community spirit, right George?
LikeLike
Mark:
If John Bolton is truly his trusted advisor I would fear the worst for our FP.
Why?
LikeLike
John Bolton has been calling for a direct US attack on Iran since 2004, IIRC. To be consistent, he has also called for a direct US attack on NK. There are folks who see the military as the last line of diplomacy (and some who see its use as the failure of diplomacy) and then there is John Bolton.
LikeLike
mark:
This musing is brought on by my view that POTUS only truly matters in FP…
I think this should be the case, but unfortunately i don’t think it is the case. The most consequential (for good or ill) domestic legislative effort of the last 20 years, ACA, wouldn’t have happened without Obama in the White House.
LikeLike
Haven’t been able to keep up, so I apologize if this is a re-link:
“European Central Bank President Mario Draghi warned in Brussels on Thursday that he considered the euro zone’s current structure “unsustainable,” and said the region’s governments must surrender far more budget and regulatory power to a central authority if the currency union is to be saved.”
Sounds bad for the Eurozone.
LikeLike
With Romney, nothing in either direction is off the table. If he becomes president that would certainly mean a GOP Seante as well. So on election day plus 1, the infighting between tea party and mainstream Republicans would begin.
LikeLike
If he becomes president that would certainly mean a GOP Seante as well.
I don’t think that follows, but without 60 votes, unless the rules change, we remain in domestic gridlock. My Q. is specific about FP. I hear you saying what I think – nothing in either direction is off the table. But he has not asked James Baker or Brent Scowcroft or George Schultz to advise as far as I know and I keep reading about Bolton.
LikeLike
I won’t vote for Romney under any condition, specifically because he might be easily manipulated into a land war with Iran, by Israel.
That being said however, I do think that the only silver lining I get from today is that the airstrike against Iran might be off the table now. If they believe they will get Romney in November, it makes a boatload of sense for the Israelis to wait until then.
LikeLike
banned:
specifically because he might be easily manipulated into a land war with Iran, by Israel.
So do you think Obama is simply too smart to be “manipulated” into a war by those sly Jews, or just less easily so?
LikeLike
Agree with Banned, sly Jew that I am. OK, not so sly.
But BHO will not go to war with Iran on an Israeli timetable b/c his FP is based on Baker-Scowcroft cautious incrementalism and heavy diplomacy, quietly backed by weapons. That is, each decision is incremental and based on serious extended negotiations. We could go wrong in increments, but it is easier to correct, in increments, too.
That was certainly true while Gates was SecDef – I think Panetta is not Gates, but he has the same sense of direction. If BHO wins, it will be interesting to see who succeeds HRC. She has greatly exceeded my low expectations for her, but there are others who can do that job as well.
LikeLike
“I guess living in a swamp with perpetual 100% humidity breeds community spirit, right George?”
My faith in the residents of Houston was forged in the two weeks after hurricane Ike. Several million people w/out power for almost two weeks. There is a reason the rest of the Country is completely unaware of this. How do you think Chicago or LA would have fared?
In all honesty there is a belief here that nothing is impossible.
And zoning is for losers.
LikeLike
George, as you can tell, no one is a bigger fan of Houston’s “can do” spirit than I, but no one is a bigger detractor about its weather. And the things that crawl out of Braes Bayou.
LikeLike
I agree with the idea that if WMR wins, the Senate goes GOP.
Going into the elections, we’ve got a floor of 30 D and 37 Rs.
ND and NE look like they’re going to switch = 30 D and 39 R
Romney in OH? — does he have the coattails to sink Brown, who’s holding on right now? I think that’s the barometer race. It’s a lean D. but if WMR wins Ohio and Brown loses, look for all those toss up races — VA, WI, MI, MO to start breaking R.
But even if all the leaners and toss-ups break R that won’t get you to 60. 58-59 tops.
LikeLike
I had no idea Houston was impacted like that.
LikeLike
scott:
“sly Jews” I’ve written nothing to deserve that.
LikeLike
banned:
Perhaps i jumped the gun a bit, and so please accept my apologies. But I do think talk of Israel “manipulating” American politicians carries the faint whiff the age-old Jewish conspiracy, and if memory serves this is not the first time you have you have initiated the notion of Israel corrupting the American political process for their own war-like aims.
And still, my question stands. Why do you think WMR in “manipulable” by Israel but Obama is not?
LikeLike
Is a sustained bombing campaign (missiles first then bomber) the same as a “land war?” Even the most hawkish NeoCon is advocating that. Can you point out any National, influential Republican advocating the invasion of a Country with a population of, what, 80 million?
LikeLike
Banned, you are willing to write that Israeli’s will manipulate the US into war, implying malice on their part, but won’t commit to saying whether or not the Israeli’s actually believe they face a serious and imminent threat from a nuclear Iran.
LikeLike
scott
I do not conflate the Israeli foreign policy and Judaism.
Yes AIPAC donates enormous sums to certain members of Congress, but they do so for influence, not to help Jewish politicians.
It’s the same old argument that to disagree with Israel is to be anti-Semitic.
LikeLike
banned:
It’s the same old argument that to disagree with Israel is to be anti-Semitic.
You are correct. Again, my apologies for the unfair insinuation.
Why do you think WMR will be “easily manipulated” into acting against the interests of America but in the interests of Israel, while Obama will not be?
LikeLike
george:
I have no idea whether Iran will develop nuclear weapons, but I know that the only way to actually stop them is to do another Iraq, except on a much larger scale.
We were afraid of the Soviets for 40-50 years, but we didn’t conduct airstrikes against them. We have lived with a nuclear N Korea for nearly 10 years without striking them.
It’s the same old argument
We in the US are rational, and our opponents in the non-Western world are irrational and violent, so we must cause the deaths of great multitudes of them, just to prove how irrational and violent they are.
LikeLike
Mark, I would think Houston’s current experience with the EPA would change your mind about the power of POTUS.
LikeLike
Banned, my questions stand, do the Israeli’s fear a nuclear Iran? Are there prominent Republicans advocating a land invasion of Iran?
Also, do you not know if Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon? Or, if they will be capable of building a nuclear weapon?
LikeLike
We have evidence of the last 3 years that Obama is very reluctant to march in lockstep with Israelis foreign policy. Of Romney, if we may take him at his word (ahem) he will not be reluctant at all to be use the military in foreign adventures.
Plus, his FP advisors are the very same 2nd and 3rd team Bush people who were so wrong last time.
That may not be enough for you, but I think that Romney can be more easily manuvered into believing that he must appear “strong”
LikeLike
banned:
We have evidence of the last 3 years that Obama is very reluctant to march in lockstep with Israelis foreign policy.
So is it your contention that whenever the FP of an American president is aligned with Israel and it’s FP, that means that the president is “marching in lockstep” to a tune called by Israel? Or is it possible that an American president might, of his own accord, believe that a particular foreign policy is in the interests of America even though it is also in alignment with Israeli FP?
If the latter, how can you tell whether a president is being “manipulated” by the Israelis or whether he has come to agreement with the Israelis without being “manipulated” by them?
LikeLike
george:
I can’t answer for what the Israelis themselves fear. There are many prominenet Republicans who advocate support for any actions that the Israelis propose to take vis a vis Iran (and many Democrats too)
If you start the war with airplanes and missiles, there’s no guarantee that it will stay that way. Anybody recall how Bush campaigned against nation building and then somehow we wound up involved in a redesign of the Iraqi flag and teaching them how to build a stock market!
LikeLike
“I can’t answer for what the Israelis themselves fear.”
What other motivation might explain Israeli actions?
Are there prominent Republicans advocating a land invasion of Iran like there were ( along with Democrats) advocating for the invasion of Iraq, post 9-11?
Also, do you not know if Iran is seeking to build a nuclear weapon? Or, merely if they will ever be capable of building a nuclear weapon?
LikeLike
Changing subject, I can’t recall if we ever discussed it here, but there was a lengthy discussion in Ezra’s column and a bit in Greg’s about the borrow a trillion at incredible low rates now and invest infrastructure, debate for the spillover in the economy blah, blah..
Of course I took the it doesn’t work that way side and got the usual smacking around.
A bigger man would be satisfied in knowing he was right and let it go.
I am not that bigger man!
“Bay Bridge Project: Lost Opportunity for US Jobs?”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47631526
It’s actually an excellent piece about what happens on building large infrastructure porjects in this country decision day plus 1 through infinity.
LikeLike
“I had no idea Houston was impacted like that.”
There were other distractions in late September 2008. That, and since there was no looting or rioting, just neighbor helping neighbor, there were no good “visuals.”
LikeLike
george:
It’s not just about what a nation fears, but whether that fear is objectively reasonable. It is certainly reasonable to assume that Iran can obtain nuclear weapons over an unspecified period of time. It is not however in my opinion reasonable to believe that the Iranians are ready to not only commit to the suicide of millions of their own people, but also to the end of Shia Islam which probably cannot exist in world where Iran effectively speaking no longer esists. by using nuclear weapons on Israel.
LikeLike
scott:
from what I have seen heard and read, Romney has had little interest in the world outside the US before now. In that he is very similar to W Bush, but the oppostie of HW Bush. I can’t prove to your satisfaction that make him vulnerable as W certainly proved to be, to manipulation. However I believe that like Obama on financial and economic matters, if it ain’t your thing, expecting a president to be able to tell good advice from bad is a suckers bet.
LikeLike
banned:
vulnerable as W certainly proved to be, to manipulation.
Are you saying that W was “manipulated” by the Israelis? Into doing what, and how so?
LikeLike
Banned,
I would think California’s high speed rail boondoggle would be enough to convince anybody. Plus, given the environmental studies required before even rebuilding, say, a bridge, it would literally be at least a decade before any of the construction jobs would start.
LikeLike
shovel ready means burying the money
LikeLike
“It’s not just about what a nation fears, but whether that fear is objectively reasonable.
I think it often is about what a nation fears, particularly when there is a rather long history of attempted annihilation influencing present conditions. Are the Greeks unreasonable in fearing the tender mercies of a German economic administration?
LikeLike
Stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon appears to be the bi-partisian consensus across the foreign policy establishment. I don’t see either Romney or Obama sending in ground troops to Iran. I could see either ordering air strikes were Iran to take further provocative actions, or to give tacit approval to Israeli strikes.
Glenn Greenwald on Romney vs Obama in foreign policy:
“Last week, the journal Foreign Policy published an extraordinary article – not extraordinary because of what it says, but because of who said it. It was written by Aaron David Miller, a lifelong D.C. foreign policy bureaucrat who served as a Middle East adviser to six different Secetaries of State in Democratic and GOP administrations. Miller’s article, which compared Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on foreign policy, was entitled “Barack O’Romney,” and the sub-headline said it all: “Ignore what the candidates say they’ll do differently on foreign policy. They’re basically the same man.” It began this way: “If Barack Obama is reelected, he ought to consider making Mitt Romney his new secretary of state” because “despite his campaign rhetoric, Romney would be quite comfortable carrying out President Obama’s foreign policy because it accords so closely with his own.””
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/obama_the_warrior/singleton/
Article Greenwald references:
“Barack O’Romney
Ignore what the candidates say they’ll do differently on foreign policy. They’re basically the same man.
BY AARON DAVID MILLER | MAY 23, 2012”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/05/23/barack_oromney
LikeLike
If you want to end a nation’s nuclear weapons program that may or may not eixist, airstirkes is an excellent way to prove to them that they NEED a nuclear weapons program. We’ve been pretty damn careful with Pakistan, now haven’t we?
also, from what I’ve read, nothing from the air can do more than delay such an attempt. If anybody has better info, than please step up to the plate.
LikeLike
scott:
W certainly was manipulated by Ahmed Chalabi and the Iranians. Now how much of the massively incorrrect inteligence info they received came from Israel and how much from Chalabi or was home grown is a matter of much debate. We are not known for having good human intell in the MIddle East.
currently for instance the Israelis have been spreading around the think tanks that Iran will have an ICBM to hit us with in about 2-3 years. They are the ONLY source for that info, and certainly have a strong reason to lie about the same.
LikeLike
don’t look now but massive bets being placed today in the commodities markets on some form of intervention with a short time frame, before Sept.
LikeLike
“If you want to end a nation’s nuclear weapons program that may or may not eixist”
Do you really have serious doubts that the Iranians are pursuing nukes?
And what’s wrong with delaying the obtaining of a nuke? Isn’t it worth trying to stop the Iranians from getting one?
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on June 1, 2012 at 11:47 am said: Edit Comment
If you want to end a nation’s nuclear weapons program that may or may not eixist, airstirkes is an excellent way to prove to them that they NEED a nuclear weapons program. We’ve been pretty damn careful with Pakistan, now haven’t we? ”
The Iranians are pursuing nuclear weapons because they have decided that acquiring them is in their national interest. The contrast between the examples of Libya and North Korea may inform their decision making process. The United States opposes this because multiple administrations have decided that a nuclear armed Iran is not in the United States national interest.
The current bipartisan foreign policy consensus is that Iran will not be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon. A true policy difference would be if one candidate was advocating containment of Iran if they were to acquire a weapon (i.e. like North Korea).
LikeLike
jnc:
Then you must invade, unless you have a source that says it can be stopped forever without doing so.
LikeLike
george:
Now YOUR turn. Why do you believe the Iranians are capable of massive suicide in the millions? They don’t even use their own people as suicide bombers.
LikeLike
“currently for instance the Israelis have been spreading around the think tanks that Iran will have an ICBM to hit us with in about 2-3 years. They are the ONLY source for that info, and certainly have a strong reason to lie about the same.”
You could also argue that if the Israeli’s truly fear a nuclear Iran it would be important for them to know the progress of Iran’s attempt at obtaining it. With that in mind, wouldn’t they therefore have the best intelligence about it? Again, what else explains Israeli behavior other than their fear of a nuclear Iran?
“Why do you believe the Iranians are capable of massive suicide in the millions? They don’t even use their own people as suicide bombers.”
Is it your opinion that the Iranian are governing rationally? Many argue that the Soviets, or the Chinese were rational, even the Germans, but did it not stop them from “committing national suicide?” How many died during the Cultural Revolution? Why would you trust the Mullacracy with nukes?
LikeLike
george :
see my post above. they’re violent and irrational and that’s why we must kill them.
No I don’t mean going to war and losing or killing your political opponents like the nations you mentioned.
I mean using a nuclear weapon against a nation that has ballistic missile submarines in the water that will ensure your immediate and total destruction in retaliation.
You also didn’t address why they would want to end Shia Islam because without Iran it succumbs to Sunni
LikeLike
“I mean using a nuclear weapon against a nation that has ballistic missile submarines in the water that will ensure your immediate and total destruction in retaliation.
You also didn’t address why they would want to end Shia Islam because without Iran it succumbs to Sunni”
Well, it seems patently obvious to me that slaughtering millions of your own citizens is “national suicide.”. There are many examples of countries doing that.
I’ve seen no reason given that Iranians should be trusted with nukes. I also believe that the Iranians know the Israeli’s will do anything to stop them, hence their (Iranian) subterfuge. And yet they are still pursuing nukes. That is not rational behavior.
Again do you really have doubts about Iranians pursuit of nukes?
LikeLike
I am willling to be believe that they are, and that will be no more likely to use them than all the othr nations that have them.
No, there is no example of any nation using a nuclear weapon in history except our own, not even the “crazy” N Koreans.
You are comparing appes and oranges. The total conflagration of your nation and your people in a matter of hours, guaranteed.
LikeLike
so where is the market toalk on a day like today?
LikeLike
Chalabi was known liar back in 2000. That his evidence was given any validity at all tells just how desperately we were searching for pretexts.
LikeLike
From the Anecdotal Evidence of Recovery Department: A coworker just put in an offer on a bigger house in the neighborhood he lives in. He got pre-approved for a 95% loan and made a full price offer with an escalation clause. And he got out bid.
LikeLike
yellow … you’re DC area, right?
LikeLike
I guess Saddam’s own General’s shouldn’t have put all their eggs in the Chalabi basket.
“The Iraqi dictator was so secretive and kept information so compartmentalized that his top military leaders were stunned when he told them three months before the war that he had no weapons of mass destruction, and they were demoralized because they had counted on hidden stocks of poison gas or germ weapons for the nation’s defense”
But George Bush (and Bill Clinton before him) should have known bettert than the people closest to him?
LikeLike
Banned,
Again, it seems obvious that a rational person would know that slaughtering hundreds of thousands, if not millions of your own citizen’s, whether it occurs over weeks with machete’s (as occurred in Rawanda) or within minutes with nukes is “national suicide.” To think that it is not, or that it is survivable or that the Israeli’s would not do anything, including nuking you first, to prevent you from getting nukes is not rational. And yet the Iranians still are pursuing nukes. Given their irrational behavior, their eliminationist rhetoric to date then, why would they behave rationally with them?
LikeLike
george :
Before launchng a war that cost more than a trillion dollars and the lives of hundreds of thousands? Are you serious?
LikeLike
The above was in answer to this:
But George Bush (and Bill Clinton before him) should have known bettert than the people closest to him?
LikeLike
But George Bush (and Bill Clinton before him) should have known bettert than the people closest to him?
Yes, they should have. That Hussein was willing to be deluded by his lackey yes-men should not have kept us from figuring out independently his actual capability. There were people that knew the emperor had no clothes (or WMDs).
LikeLike
you’re DC area, right?
This was in an older established neighborhood of single family homes in Baltimore. (Don’t believe everything you see on The Wire. Well, believe most of it.)
LikeLike
george :
You can do this all night, but you will still be wrong.
The Iranians are no more irrational for wanting nukes than the Israelis are for having 300-400 of them,
and yes, there is a tremendous difference between conducting policies like Stalin did that kill millions of your own people that you consder your enemies over a period of of a decade or more and using a nuclear weapon that will cause the retaliatory deaths of the majority of your people, before the sun sets that day.
LikeLike
Banned,
If the only person that knew definitively that there were no Iraqi WMD’s was Saddam himself, and that he already demonstrated a proclivity in using them (as have the Iranians have as well if I’m not mistaken, during the Iran – Iraq war) isn’t that a little like trying to prove a negative?
LikeLike
“and yes, there is a tremendous difference between conducting policies like Stalin did that kill millions of your own people that you consder your enemies over a period of of a decade or more and using a nuclear weapon that will cause the retaliatory deaths of the majority of your people, before the sun sets that day.”
Would you consider both behaviors irrational? I would.
I wasn’t, nor am I comfortable with Russian or Chinese nukes. I am not fearful however of Israeli nukes.
LikeLike
there are some great neighborhoods in Baltimore. best of luck to your friend.
LikeLike
I wasn’t, nor am I comfortable with Russian or Chinese nukes. I am not fearful however of Israeli nukes.
If you were Iranian, you would say the opposite if you were being rational.
The Israelsi do not recognize any form of international law and act in whatever manner they deem in their national interest including assasination and the poetntial use of nuclear weapons.
Anbody else who acts in the exact same manner is guilty however of being an irrational Muslim.
LikeLike
“The Israelsi do not recognize any form of international law and act in whatever manner they deem in their national interest including assasination and the poetntial use of nuclear weapons.”
We part company here, Banned. ‘Goose will tell you that her run ins with Israeli officers did not include meeting ones who favored violating international law and using their nuke arsenal, but she knew parallel Pakistani officers who thought of nukes as just bigger bombs. Right, Kelley?
Israel has recognized the Geneva Convention and the laws of war and has a decent record of following them.
Bolton’s best idea (perhaps his only good idea) about the Middle East was that the West Bank should revert to Jordan and the Gaza Strip to Egypt. Too bad Jordan and Egypt don’t want them.
Between here and a rational solution Israel must dismantle the West Bank settlements the way they did the settlements in Gaza. The Palestinian leader who has done the most for the West Bank and knows how to make it a viable state, Fayyad, is so reviled among Arabs that he survives only with American protection. He is a ‘Horn and I have heard him speak in Austin and he is the real thing. Israelis know this but cannot appear to be favoring Fayyad lest Fayyad be assassinated. While I have despaired of Israel ever dismantling the WB settlements, my cousin who served 4 years in the IDF, 3 in the WB, and now does security work in Bel Air, CA, says the IDF can remove all the settlers in 2 weeks if the order is given. Makes me think Israel is still thinking in terms of bargaining chips, when it is apparent to me that Israel withdrawing settlements from the WB unilaterally would be to Israel’s advantage, as securing those communities would become unnecessary. But I am an American, so it is easy for me to talk – a lot of the settler movement is based on religious fundamentalism and as with all fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists are not pragmatic. One of them shot Rabin, after all.
The Israeli right has been saying “Iran will have an A-bomb in months” since the 90s, so there are two camps – those who believe that Iran will have an A-bomb in months and those who think the Israeli right is crying wolf. A lot of the security and defense establishment in Israel think the right is crying wolf.
I am critical of Israel and of American blind support of Israeli policies that are counterproductive for America. I think Bush 41 was right to pressure Israel on the settlements and I think BHO is right to pressure Israel now. But Israel has been a respecter of the laws of war, not a scofflaw [like Saddam was].
LikeLike
“If you were Iranian, you would say the opposite if you were being rational.”
If I were an Iranian, and understood the irrational behavior of my government, I to would be afraid of Israeli nukes.
“The Israelsi do not recognize any form of international law and act in whatever manner they deem in their national interest including assasination and the poetntial use of nuclear weapons.”
Are you arguing that they should not behave in a way that supports their national interest?
LikeLike
“Anbody else who acts in the exact same manner is guilty however of being an irrational Muslim.”
Is it your position that the Iranian government is acting in a rational manner?
LikeLike
I could be misremembering, but I don’t believe Iran used chemical or biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. They behaved far more rationally during that than Saddam did.
And, frankly, nukes in the hands of the Pakistanis scares me far more than Iranian ones would.
LikeLike
According to Wiki (take it for what it’s worth), there were accusations of Iranian WMD usage but n definitve proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_chemical_weapons_by_Iraq
I am equally fearful of both Iranian, Pakistani and NORK nukes. I am not fearful of Israeli or Indian nukes however.
LikeLike
Why not Israeli or Indian nukes? They don’t behave any more rationally than their neighbors that they’d be likely to lob them at, AFAIC.
LikeLike
Troll:
Is it your position that the Iranian government is acting in a rational manner?
What exactly are you talking about when you are referring to the Iranian government being irrational? Just the idea of pursuing nuclear weapons in the face of a potential Israeli threat? Or is there something else too?
LikeLike
“What exactly are you talking about when you are referring to the Iranian government being irrational? Just the idea of pursuing nuclear weapons in the face of a potential Israeli threat? Or is there something else too?”
For starters, rigging elections and murdering your own citizens when they complain about it is not, in my opinion, rational. Hoping a non-neighboring country is eliminated based on their differing religion is not, in my opinion, rational. Pursuing nuclear weapons knowing the Israeli’s will nuke you first to prevent you from getting one is not, in my opinion, rational.
What potential Israeli threat to Iran is there absent Iranian support of terrorists like Hezbolla, a stated desire that the Country of Israel be wiped off the map and the building of nukes to counter a, er, Israeli threat?
LikeLike
Mark:
‘Goose will tell you that her run ins with Israeli officers did not include meeting ones who favored violating international law and using their nuke arsenal, but she knew parallel Pakistani officers who thought of nukes as just bigger bombs. Right, Kelley?
Correct. However, I’m not so copacetic about the current Israeli ruling party.
LikeLike
Iraq did not have nukes and we invaded it. North Korea has nukes and we have never done anything stronger than a wristslap. There are, of course, vast other differences in the two countries. But a rational nation would realize which situation is more favorable to them. That Iran does not act in our best interest does not make them irrational.
LikeLike
” That Iran does not act in our best interest does not make them irrational.”
Is it your position that the Iranian government is behaving rationally?
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on June 1, 2012 at 2:59 pm said:
…
The Israelsi do not recognize any form of international law and act in whatever manner they deem in their national interest including assasination and the poetntial use of nuclear weapons.
Anbody else who acts in the exact same manner is guilty however of being an irrational Muslim.”
Or the USA.
LikeLike
banned:
The Israelsi do not recognize any form of international law and act in whatever manner they deem in their national interest including assasination and the poetntial use of nuclear weapons.
Any government which ignores the interests of the people it represents simply in order to follow so-called international law is not doing its job.
jnc:
Or the USA.
I certainly hope that if/when international law conflicts with the interests of the people of the US, our government chooses to pursue our interests and not international law.
LikeLike
None of the countries in the Middle East meet my standard for rationality as they are all hereditary feudal states, theocracies, authoritarian dictatorships or combinations of the above. I’m rather fond of capitalist representative democracies of which Iran is perhaps ironically the closest thing to one between Turkey and India.
I’m just saying they are not necessarily irrational. There is a continuum. I much more fear the Pakistanis with The Bomb because I have never seen strong evidence of good governance from them.
LikeLike
Or the USA.
We’re #1!!
LikeLike
“I’m rather fond of capitalist representative democracies of which Iran is perhaps ironically the closest thing to one between Turkey and India. ”
Did you intentionally exclude Israel? It’s still more of a “capitalist representative democracy” than the rest, despite it’s various internal problems.
LikeLike
Troll:
I’m not as confident as you are that Israel would resort to a pre-emptive nuclear first strike on Iran without concrete evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons. And perhaps that is also the view of the Supreme Council.
All this stuff (nuclear program, Hezbollah/Hamas, oil) is bargaining power. It’s a question of when Iran will cash the chips in and what they want in return.
LikeLike
Totally changing the topic (although it’s been an interesting conversation): I have to say that some of the comments on this piece from 2009 make me despair.
LikeLike
Michi:
I’ll do you one better.
LikeLike
Mike:
I’ll do you one better.
I wonder why we should care about the percentage of people who are evolutionists, or creationists, or something in between. Why does it matter whether 10%, 50%, or 80% of people believe in one or the other? The vast majority of people have done virtually no independent investigation into the matter themselves at all, and so their “belief” is just a reflection of the people in their lives they trust as an authority on the matter. Why should I care whether or not my neighbor trusts Richard Dawkins more than the bible on the matter of evolution?
LikeLike
Why should you care about your neighbor’s knowledge, creativity, intelligence, honesty, diligence, health, or any other of her personal characteristics? She has nothing to do with you. You can get along quite well without her or her sniveling children and her alky brother. You are not a cipher. You are an independent unit. You are a mover and a shaker. People who know nothing are nothing. All 10% or 90% of them.
LikeLike
Mark:
Sorry, but I don’t understand your post, which seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. Your introduction of “sniveling” children and an alky brother seem particularly bizarre. Unless you are suggesting that we should concern ourselves with and try to correct every perceived fault or lack of ability/knowledge in our neighbors, then I really don’t get the point of your apparent sarcasm.
(BTW, did you mean to imply that people who believe in creationism “know nothing”? Given the context of the discussion which prompted this comment from you, it’s hard for me not to conclude so.)
LikeLike
I was exaggerating to make a point.
I do care what sort of citizens my neighbors are. I especially care about their creationist views.
With regard to creationism, the neighbors who vote for School Board members to teach fundamentalist religion in the biology classes hurt my children, if their candidate wins, or at least force me to provide substitute biology classes for them. I will teach my kids Bible and religion, but I want the public school to teach biology, because I cannot do it as well. I consider the creationists who vote their folks onto the school boards “know nothings”, in the historic political context. Those who believe in any of the literal creation myths but are satisfied to keep them out of the biology class have a friend in me.
Mythology and science do coexist. They should not be confused with each other. When a scientific hypothesis fails it is because better scientific observation, or experimentation, has changed the understanding of the part of the universe being studied, not because of myths.
When you questioned why anyone would care if their neighbor were a Creationist, I reacted strongly because I have been through these school board fights. The TX State School Board was in the grip of creationists for a period until 2010, and it has effective veto power on school text books used throughout America. This is not a little thing, Scott.
Addendum: The sniveling kids were to represent exaggerated disinterest in the public school system and the alky was to represent exaggerated disinterest in safe streets. I see that the sarcasm works better without these additional characters.
LikeLike
Mark:
I do care what sort of citizens my neighbors are.
So do I, but my original comment had nothing to do with what kind of citizen my neighbor is, so unless you equate creationist views with being a troublesome citizen, again your comment strikes me as a complete non sequitur.
Mike’s link suggests that roughly 50% of the population has some kind of creationist belief. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that 50% of the population advocates for the elimination of standard high school biology and the implementation of creationism. So I think it is quite a leap to have read my question, particularly in context, and linked it to your concern about what gets taught in public schools.
Although I will add that creationists are tax payers too, so I don’t see any particular reason why your view (or my view) of what should be taught in high school ought to trump theirs. This is one of the main problems with the “public” part of public education.
LikeLike
Glenn Greenwald on the manipulation of the media via the recent disclosures on drone strikes & Stuxnet.
“Friday, Jun 1, 2012 06:22 AM EDT
Tough Guy Leaking: Iran edition
A White House obsessed with secrecy and punishing whistleblowers loves classifed disclosures that glorify Obama
By Glenn Greenwald”
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/01/tough_guy_leaking/singleton/
LikeLike
jnc:
Thanks for the link. I thought this was interesting.
“Isn’t it amazing how the U.S. is constantly the world’s first nation to use new, highly destructive weapons — at the same time that it bombs, invades, and kills more than any other country by far — and yet it still somehow gets its media to tell its citizenry that it is America’s Enemies who are the aggressors and the U.S. is simply a nation of peace seeking to defend itself.”
There was this as well.
LikeLike
Mike and JNC, thanks. There is also this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-petraeuss-first-year-at-the-cia/2012/06/01/gJQAjWmq7U_story.html?hpid=z3
In the bigger picture, I think it was smart to move the CIA Director to DOD and “retire” our senior General to CIA because there had been a failure of communications between CIA and DOD that seemed beyond fixing. This simple management decision seems to have done more to change that history than any protocol or procedure any Administration has tried in my lifetime.
But the leaks – politically self serving or not – have definitely had negative consequences.
LikeLike
Scott:
I wonder why we should care about the percentage of people who are evolutionists, or creationists, or something in between.
I agree that it has little direct effect on your life whether your neighbor is an atheist or a young Earth creationist. But to me, there are two issues here. First, science is not a belief system. It is a series of predictions based on rules (“laws,” “theories”) derived from empirical evidence. You don’t “believe” in these rules; you either accept that the rules have a real basis in fact or not. If you do not accept the validity of the rules, then you should provide evidence that they are not correct. Mysticism and passages from a book are not evidence.
Which brings me to my second point. The fact that such a large percentage of our population does not “believe” in evolution suggests that our critical thinking skills (as a whole) are not very good. This is a problem in any field — banking, law, as well as STEM fields. As you well know, the inability to separate what you believe from what is actually the case can lead to disastrous results (or an excellent opportunity for someone else). If the US is going to be able to outcompete in the global market, education/critical thinking are going to be, er, critical.
Evolution and Christianity don’t have to be at odds (the NIH director is a strong Evangelical). But science is science and faith is faith. The two should not be confused.
LikeLike
Mike:
First, science is not a belief system.
Perhaps, but, again, for the vast majority of people polled about evolution, even those who accept evolution as fact, the question is a matter of belief or faith, not science. Specifically it is a question of which authorities they have faith in, because almost none have ever or will ever conduct an independent, scientific inquiry into the question.
Asserting that what scientists say should be believed simply because they are scientists, which is the implication of what you say above, is sort of begging of the question. Scientists can be and have been wrong about all kinds of things throughout history. A lack of faith in what scientists proclaim to be true at any given time is not in and of itself irrational.
The fact that such a large percentage of our population does not “believe” in evolution suggests that our critical thinking skills (as a whole) are not very good.
I don’t see why you think the former suggests the latter, unless you think that faith in the proclamations of scientists is required by good critical thinking skills, a faith which I actually think is the exact opposite of good critical thinking skills.
If the US is going to be able to outcompete in the global market, education/critical thinking are going to be, er, critical.
The economic prominence of the US on the world stage began sometime in the late 1800’s, and it’s global economic preeminence was firmly established by the 1950’s. Do you think that during that time the percentage of Americans who believed in evolution was significantly higher than it is today, and that the percentage of creationists was significantly lower? Intuitively, I suspect exactly the opposite was the case, suggesting to me that a belief in evolution has been, and likely will be, entirely unrelated to US economic success in the world.
LikeLike
Mike:
Let’s look at this in a slightly different way. According to the Gallup poll you linked to, there is roughly a 50% chance that the guy who came to fix my air conditioner yesterday is a creationist. Should I have been concerned that, if he is, the chances of him discovering the problem and fixing it were much lower due to his apparent lack of critical thinking skills? Given the fact that he was able to fix it, should I conclude that he probably believes in evolution because he obviously possesses the critical thinking skills necessary to his trade?
Do you generally concern yourself with the evolutionary beliefs of people you deal with in endeavors which require critical thinking skills (which is most things, I suspect)?
LikeLike
“Which brings me to my second point. The fact that such a large percentage of our population does not “believe” in evolution suggests that our critical thinking skills (as a whole) are not very good.”
Isn’t this really about feeIing superior to someone else? Many, if not all “evolutionists” are so because of religious faith. Aren’t you therefore obligated to say that religious faith is the problem? What do you say then about highly educated but devout Catholic priests that are top level astronomers? What if they believe that a superior being, God, literally created the earth in six days? Should we worry that they want that belief propagated?
LikeLike
Isn’t this really about feeIing superior to someone else?
Nope.
Many, if not all “evolutionists” are so because of religious faith.
Got any empirical evidence of this or are you just making a blanket assertion without basis?
Aren’t you therefore obligated to say that religious faith is the problem?
Nope. I’m saying that the conflation of faith and science is the problem.
What do you say then about highly educated but devout Catholic priests that are top level astronomers?
Good for them. I repeat, the NIH director is a devout Evangelical and a fantastic scientist.
What if they believe that a superior being, God, literally created the earth in six days?
Then they are not very good scientists.
Should we worry that they want that belief propagated?
No. Again, science is science and faith is faith. But good critical thinking would find a way to reconcile the two in one’s mind. An example.
LikeLike
Worth checking out:
“Richard Koo Presentation On The Global Economic Crisis”
http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-koo-the-world-in-balance-sheet-recession-2012-4?op=1
LikeLike
Krugman debating austerity on the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18281669
Regardless of which side you are on, I do think the BBC format is considerably better than what passes for “debate’ on the Sunday talk shows in the US.
I’d love to see Krugman and Ken Rogoff debate in a similar format.
LikeLike
“With regard to creationism, the neighbors who vote for School Board members to teach fundamentalist religion in the biology classes hurt my children, if their candidate wins, or at least force me to provide substitute biology classes for them. I will teach my kids Bible and religion, but I want the public school to teach biology, because I cannot do it as well. I consider the creationists who vote their folks onto the school boards “know nothings”, in the historic political context. Those who believe in any of the literal creation myths but are satisfied to keep them out of the biology class have a friend in me.”
Not to get to far afield here but there is a simple solution to this, Vouchers. That way, parents can decide what their children should learn without forcing their ideas on your children (and you won’t force your ideas on theirs.). Unless the point of not having vouchers is to force ideas on children without regard to their parents wishes.
LikeLike
Pity Romney is ill equipped to make this case:
“The Mortgage Fraud Fraud
By JOE NOCERA
Published: June 1, 2012”
…
“Second, though, it seemed incredible to me that with all the fraud that took place during the housing bubble, the Justice Department was focusing not on the banks that had issued the fraudulent loans, but rather on those who had taken out the loans, which invariably went sour when housing prices fell.
As I would later learn, Charlie Engle was no aberration. The current meme — argued most recently by Charles Ferguson, in his new book “Predator Nation” — is that not a single top executive at any of the firms that nearly brought down the financial system has spent so much as a day in jail. And that is true enough.
But what is also true, and which is every bit as corrosive to our belief in the rule of law, is that the Justice Department has instead taken after the smallest of small fry — and then trumpeted those prosecutions as proof of how tough it is on mortgage fraud. It is a shameful way for the government to act. ”
…
“Think back to the last time the federal government went after corporate crooks. It was after the Internet bubble. Jeffrey Skilling and Kenneth Lay of Enron were prosecuted and found guilty. Bernard Ebbers, the former chief executive of WorldCom, went to jail. Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco was prosecuted and given a lengthy prison sentence. Now recall which Justice Department prosecuted those men.
Amazing, isn’t it? George W. Bush has turned out to be tougher on corporate crooks than Barack Obama. ”
LikeLike
George W. Bush has turned out to be tougher on corporate crooks than Barack Obama.
I hope you published that link for Bernie at PL.
LikeLike
Scott:
First, the easy thing — your air conditioner repairman example. I have already conceded that it doesn’t really matter what he believes as long as he does his job well. To wit, my exact words at 8:48 am were:
“I agree that it has little direct effect on your life whether your neighbor is an atheist or a young Earth creationist.”
I’m baffled why you won’t accept that concession. I didn’t even go to the second order effect of voting for school board like Mark did.
Second, you don’t have to take what a scientist says on faith. You can go ahead and critically evaluate his methods and data. Our results are all out in the public domain. If you don’t think our interpretations of our results are correct, come up with a better hypothesis to fit the data. If you think the results or methods are unsound, design your own experiment to refute our results. If you think that the idea that God created the universe in 6 Earth days is factual, show me the data. If you can’t, then it isn’t science, it’s faith. And again, faith is not incompatible with science. But they aren’t the same thing.
Third, acceptance of evolution is merely a symptom of the lack of importance of critical thinking and scientific method. It is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest to compare acceptance of modern evolution theory now to understanding of theoretical biology in the 1800s. “Origin of Species” wasn’t published until 1859 and modern evolutionary theory wasn’t really developed until the 1950s. And certainly, there have been leaps and bounds in our understanding of evolution/natural selection even since then. I assume that we are much better educated overall than we were in the early 20th century. But I also assume that our competition in the world is also much better educated.
In evolution theory, there is a principle called the “Red Queen” hypothesis, based on Lewis Carroll’s character from Alice in Wonderland. The basic idea is that there is adaptation and counter-adaptation in order to maintain relative fitness between competing organisms — running in place. If we don’t continue to get better at least at the same rate as our competitors, then we’ll lose.
LikeLike
Mike:
I’m baffled why you won’t accept that concession.
I’m happy to accept it. But if a belief in creationism is not an indicator of a lack of critical thinking in ordinary, every day interactions with people, then I don’t know why you conclude that it is in indication of a lack of critical thinking skills for a population as a whole.
Second, you don’t have to take what a scientist says on faith.
Actually, as a practical matter, most people do. The vast majority of people have neither the time, the inclination, nor the knowledge base to independently verify all the claims that scientists make about this or that. The fact of the matter is that vast swaths of things that we as individuals claim as knowledge is actually assertions that we have taken on faith, assuming that they can be and have been proven by others without actually verifying it ourselves.
Third, acceptance of evolution is merely a symptom of the lack of importance of critical thinking and scientific method.
You’ve already asserted this, but it seems to me to be nothing more than that, ie simple assertion. What evidence do you have that a belief in creation is indicative of a lack of critical thinking skills or a rejection of the scientific method? Maybe it is so, but you seem to simply assume it is so as, er, an article of faith. Indeed, it seems to me that the whole intelligent design movement, however questionable the science underlying it may be, necessarily implies an acceptance of, not a rejection of, the scientific method. IDers do not claim evolution is wrong because the scientific method is not reliable. They claim that evolution is not supported by the science. (Again, whether or not they are correct or even honest about it, their claims still implicitly accept, not reject, the usefulness of the scientific method.)
LikeLike
Scott:
the whole intelligent design movement, however questionable the science underlying it may be,
There is absolutely NO science underlying the ID movement.
LikeLike
Mich:
There is absolutely NO science underlying the ID movement.
Be that as it may, IDers would claim otherwise, demonstrating an implicit acceptance, not rejection, of the authority of science.
LikeLike
Scott:
if a belief in creationism is not an indicator of a lack of critical thinking in ordinary, every day interactions with people, then I don’t know why you conclude that it is in indication of a lack of critical thinking skills for a population as a whole.
You mistake problem solving for critical thinking. Any number of animal species can solve problems. Critical thinking, on the other hand, is something completely different.
The fact of the matter is that vast swaths of things that we as individuals claim as knowledge is actually assertions that we have taken on faith
That’s why we have this thing called a “society.” We are all specialists at this point. I take on faith that what you are teaching me about interest rate swaps is true because I assume you are more knowledgeable in this area than I am. Not trusting expert consensus in a field based on empirical evidence is irrational, unless you have reason to suspect there is malevolent intent. Maybe scientists are trying to make everyone nonbelievers.
What evidence do you have that a belief in creation is indicative of a lack of critical thinking skills or a rejection of the scientific method?
I cannot say it any better than Judge Jones.
LikeLike
Mike:
You mistake problem solving for critical thinking.
I thought you had conceded (your word, BTW) that in terms of everyday interaction with others, a belief in creationism was not indicative of a lack of critical thinking. Are you now withdrawing that concession and saying that it is? If so, how so?
I take on faith that what you are teaching me about interest rate swaps…
Exactly my point. You take it on faith. And a poll in which 50% of those polled express belief in creationism does not indicate to me a rejection of critical thinking or of science. It simply indicates to me a lack of faith in the proclamations of scientists with regard to the origins of life.
I cannot say it any better than Judge Jones
Well, if you can’t say it better than Judge Jones, perhaps you could at least repeat whatever he said that you think is responsive to the question rather than expecting me to search through a 139 page legal document in search of where his sage answer might be buried.
LikeLike
Critical thinking is not synonymous with the scientific method as described by Mike.
And the inference that much of the population lacks critical thinking skills because they believe we are created is a simple non sequitur.
LikeLike
My problem with Intelligent Design is that is such a flagrant end run in trying to dress up religious dogma as scientific theory. There are no underlying scientific process underneath the concept other than reaching an a priori conclusion.
I place a lot of ‘faith’ in the scientific method in that I have nether the training, inclination, or time to confirm or reverify all scientific principles but I have confidence that the process has been followed. For this reason I have greater confidence in my doctor than a random internet web page writer. Scientific precepts can be proven and that is creates trust in the system.
‘Faith’ in the religious context by definition is the acceptance of dogma without proof. If proof is available, faith is unnecessary. I am not a trained theologian and I am still notionally a Catholic. To that end I have a lot of trust in the moral principles promulgated by The Church in that they have been debated and refined over centuries. But I don’t trust religious figures to speak authoritatively about scientific issues.
LikeLike
Judge Jones was not persuasive. If Mike can’t do better than that, then perhaps that is indicative of a problem.
Scientists are often passionate, partisan, invested, etc. I used to read AGW scientists for a period. They clearly “know” more than me, but, using my own critical thinking skills, just as Mike described above, I concluded that they were in fact ideologues defending a hypothesis to the death.
But, to Mike, that no doubt makes me somewhat irrational, since I am not deferring to (that particular group of) the scientists, even though I am in fact using my critical thinking skills to evaluate what some scientists are telling me to take on faith (in them).
LikeLike
Scott:
I thought you had conceded (your word, BTW) that in terms of everyday interaction with others, a belief in creationism was not indicative of a lack of critical thinking.
Sorry, I simply will not allow you to put words in my mouth. I said, at 1:54pm:
“I have already conceded that it doesn’t really matter what he believes as long as he does his job well. To wit, my exact words at 8:48 am were:
“I agree that it has little direct effect on your life whether your neighbor is an atheist or a young Earth creationist.””
This comment was in response to your wondering why we should care about how many people are creationists. Do you understand now? There’s no use going further if you can’t or won’t understand this simple statement.
LikeLike
Mike:
Sorry, I simply will not allow you to put words in my mouth
Not trying to do that. Just explaining how I interpreted what you said.
Do you understand now?
I’m not sure. Is it or is it not your belief that my repair man’s belief (or lack thereof) in evolution is indicative of his critical thinking skills (or lack thereof)?
LikeLike
Critical thinking is not synonymous with the scientific method as described by Mike.
QB, Master of the Obvious ….
And the inference that much of the population lacks critical thinking skills because they believe we are created is a simple non sequitur.
… and only the Obvious, apparently.
LikeLike
Mike has reminded me why I started losing interest in atim.
I would suggest that if you go back over your various statements here and apply critical thinking to them, you would find them to be logically inconsistent. That don’t see that tells me that perhaps you are not in a position to condemn others. Indeed, your failure to recognize your central contention as a non sequitur is a good indicator.
I happen to think that most people are poor critical thinkers. But mere skepticism about human evolution does not evidence a deficiency. Scott has been giving you one simple reason why, and you just ignore it. You are just as guilty of dogmatic thought as the people you put down.
LikeLike
If a person is willing to unconditionally accept the opinions of people interpreting a centuries old religious tome in a particularly literal fashion in lieu of recognizing the expertise of people trained in a particular field, it does give pause when evaluating their reasoning process for systems and processes which aren’t subject to verification through the scientific process.
LikeLike
yello:
If a person is willing to unconditionally accept the opinions of people interpreting a centuries old religious tome in a particularly literal fashion in lieu of recognizing the expertise of people trained in a particular field…
The contrasting language you use to describe two identical leaps of faith is notable. I’m pretty sure that those who accept the word of their pastor/bishop/pope consider them experts trained in a particular field. And someone who accepts the word of, say, a high school biology text simply because it lays claim to being science is also “unconditionally accepting” something.
As I said to Mike early on in the discussion, I don’t think the poll that he finds disturbing shows what he thinks it shows. Since the vast majority of people have no personal, independent experience with the science underlying evolution, their belief (or not) in evolution merely reflects their trust in different sources of information, not a rejection of science or an inability to think critically. I suppose I can understand why it might be irritating to a scientist to discover that scientists (at least in a particular field) are not considered a trusted authority by so large a number of people, but that doesn’t justify the conclusion that those who don’t trust scientists are rejecting science or cannot think critically.
LikeLike
It seems to me that it comes down to an acceptance of expertise and training or faith. Those of you on the Right are arguing that faith should win. I disagree. I will go with empiricism over theology as a system of proof every day of the week.
LikeLike
Mich:
Those of you on the Right are arguing that faith should win.
I’ve never argued any such thing, nor have I seen anyone else here do so.
LikeLike
Scott:
I’m not sure. Is it or is it not your belief that my repair man’s belief (or lack thereof) in evolution is indicative of his critical thinking skills (or lack thereof)?
My contention is that your repairman’s lack of acceptance of the scientific consensus in evolution is indeed indicative of his critical thinking skills. My concession was that it does not matter whether he has critical thinking skills or not to perform his job ably (i.e., fixing your air conditioner). Critical thinking is not required for that particular task. Problem solving, yes. But there is nothing innovative or scientific about fixing an air conditioner.
Is that clearer?
LikeLike
Mike:
Is that clearer?
Sure. So the question now is, what leads you to conclude that a disbelief in evolution, or more accurately a greater faith/trust in what a religious leader says than in what a particular scientist says, isindicative of a lack of critical thinking skills?
LikeLike
The contrasting language you use to describe two identical leaps of faith is notable.
The leaps of faith are not identical. As I mentioned earlier, the ‘leaps of faith’ from scientific inquiry are based on a large base of existing knowledge and subject to independent verification.
Religious leaps of faith are based on interpretations of divinely revealed words, often time ones hitherto unknown (eg. Joseph Smith and his magic dishes) which cannot be argued or disputed. All cults are based on a single man coming up with some new interpretation or message and people unconditionally following them.
LikeLike
yello:
The leaps of faith are not identical.
Sure they are, or at least can be. Someone who unconditionally accepts what a scientist says is engaging in exactly the same act of faith as someone who unconditionally accepts what a priest says.
BTW, it’s not clear to me that “unconditionally accepts” is necessarily a proper characterization for either group of people, ie those that believe, say, Richard Dawkins or those that believe their local priest. But you introduced the term and, to the extent that it applies to one, it is certainly possible to also apply to the other.
LikeLike
So here’s a question, do people with religious faith lack critical thinking skills, or are deficient in critical thinking skills versus a atheist or agnostic? Or is it just those that believe in creationism or ID?
LikeLike
McWing:
If I understand Mike correctly, it is just people who believe in creationism. He mentioned earlier a scientist whom he seemed to respect who was also an Evangelical.
Although one of the most prominent scientists advocating for evolution, Richard Dawkins, clearly views anyone who believes in God at all with contempt. He obviously thinks that the science of evolution can lead only to a disbelief in God. So I wonder whose critical thinking is more lacking, those who think science and a belief in God are reconcilable, or those who, like Dawkins, proclaim that atheism is implied by science.
LikeLike
do people with religious faith lack critical thinking skills, or are deficient in critical thinking skills versus a[n] atheist or agnostic?
A logical question.
I rate atheism as a form of true belief. I rate certainty of faith as a form of true belief. I rate faith with doubt, or agnosticism, as consistent with critical thinking. Critical thinking requires a level of skepticism, after all, doesn’t it?
In my own experience I have made faith based decisions, as I do claim faith in God, albeit with doubts thrown in. I have made faith based decisions based on no more than heartfelt prayer and what appeared the clearest path afterward. I will readily concede that I had not enough information to make a critical thinking decision at those times. I will readily concede that my faith based decision making was not what I would recommend to someone who had sufficient information. But it was all I had and I remain thankful that I had it.
There is a Jesuit expression that when science and faith collide, faith must yield. So it must be, I think.
LikeLike
“Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on June 3, 2012 at 7:57 am said:
So here’s a question, do people with religious faith lack critical thinking skills, or are deficient in critical thinking skills versus a atheist or agnostic? Or is it just those that believe in creationism or ID?”
I’d argue that they don’t lack them, but simply chose not to apply them with regards to certain subjects.
LikeLike
jnc:
I’d argue that they don’t lack them, but simply chose not to apply them with regards to certain subjects.
Very possible, and a charge I think probably applies to all kinds of people, even scientists.
LikeLike
It doesn’t particularly affect me personally one way or another whether my neighbors or my plumber deny science and yet have abundant faith in their religious views. What bothers me is when legislators deny science and evidence that could be important to the future of not only my family but my neighbor’s family as well. I also believe that many people have a difficult time reconciling their religious views with science so it’s more convenient to disregard science rather than question or analyze their conundrum.
After a state-appointed board of scientists determined that a one meter rise in sea level is likely by the year 2100 — echoing the scientific consensus on the issue — a coastal economic development group called NC-20 decided to push back against the results. They are upset that such an estimate would thwart development along the coast, as it would be illegal to build in the “flood zone” where there is under one meter of elevation.
So, with NC-20′s support, Republican lawmakers circulated Replacement House Bill 819. The key language can be found in section 2, paragraph e:
[Rates of sea level rise] shall only be determined using historical data, and these data shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900. Rates of seas-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise.
Scientific American‘s Scott Huler explains why this is completely insane:
North Carolina legislators have decided that the way to make exponential increases in sea level rise – caused by those inconvenient feedback loops we keep hearing about from scientists – go away is to make it against the law to extrapolate exponential; we can only extrapolate along a line predicted by previous sea level rises.
Which, yes, is exactly like saying, do not predict tomorrow’s weather based on radar images of a hurricane swirling offshore, moving west towards us with 60-mph winds and ten inches of rain. Predict the weather based on the last two weeks of fair weather with gentle breezes towards the east. Don’t use radar and barometers; use the Farmer’s Almanac and what grandpa remembers.
LikeLike
lms:
What bothers me is when legislators deny science and evidence
What bothers me is when people pretend that their political preferences are scientific conclusions, and thus that those who disagree with them politically are somehow denying science. Science doesn’t, and indeed cannot, tell us what to value or what legislation should look like.
LikeLike
Scott:
what leads you to conclude that a disbelief in evolution, or more accurately a greater faith/trust in what a religious leader says than in what a particular scientist says, isindicative of a lack of critical thinking skills?
I would say that critical thinking involves careful evaluation of the sources and quality of information and how the conclusions drawn square with empirical evidence. A critical thinker would know to have more faith/trust in what you about interest rate swaps and what I say about viruses, and not the other way around.
I’m willing to go along with jnc’s formulation of willful suspension of credulity for some, but not all, of the creationists. But that is perhaps more troublesome, that science and empiricism is dropped so easily in favor of faith and mysticism particularly by people who have the ability to think critically.
The Catholic Church has been reconciling the Gospel and science for centuries. Popes Pius XII and John Paul II have tackled the reconciliation of Catholicism and evolution, in part by separating the physical body and the soul or divine spirit. Perhaps this nuance doesn’t show up with a blunt instrument like a poll.
LikeLike
Mike:
Apologies for the delay. Somehow I missed this reply from you yesterday.
I would say that critical thinking involves careful evaluation of the sources and quality of information and how the conclusions drawn square with empirical evidence.
Sure, but there are only so many hours in a day, and people have priorities. I don’t think that a decision not to spend much, or even any, time carefully evaluating the sources and quality of information over a topic so utterly unimportant to the every day life of the average person as evolution vs creationism can be taken as any kind of evidence regarding their general thought process.
I actually agree with qb that most people are probably not very good critical thinkers in some or perhaps even many areas of their lives. But singling out a single answer to a poll question about evolution as being particularly indicative doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
But that is perhaps more troublesome, that science and empiricism is dropped so easily in favor of faith and mysticism particularly by people who have the ability to think critically.
Again, you are drawing a conclusion not merited by the evidence. An answer to a single poll question about a topic so unimportant to the daily lives of the average person (not to mention counterintuitive to their actual experience – how many of us have ever actually seen one species turn into another?) cannot sensibly be used as an indicator about how they generally approach or think about things.
LikeLike
Science doesn’t, and indeed cannot, tell us what to value or what legislation should look like.
I’m sure the tobacco companies would certainly agree with this statement.
LikeLike
Does science tell us how to legislate about tobacco or even whether we should?
LikeLike
lms:
I’m sure the tobacco companies would certainly agree with this statement
I’m sure anyone who understands the role that law plays in society along with the limits of what science can and cannot tell us would agree with it.
LikeLike
Apparently a lot of cities have decided that science dictates whether people can or cannot smoke in restaurants, bars, on the beach or in public buildings and stadiums. I doubt it’s just a whim that so many smoking bans are in effect across the country. Of course it’s not just smoking, but many chemicals, additives, processes etc. have been kept out of the food, water, air and pharmaceutical supplies based on science. Maybe some of you don’t agree with the bans but I think it would be difficult to deny that science alters our behavior either as individuals or as legislative bodies.
I guess the question is whether religious belief should have as much or less influence. As a personal matter, and when making personal decisions, I consult my inner spirituality, but for most public safety and health matters, I trust science infinitely more.
LikeLike
lms:
Apparently a lot of cities have decided that science dictates whether people can or cannot smoke in restaurants, bars, on the beach or in public buildings and stadiums
I can’t speak to what a lot of cities have decided or why, but any city that has decided as you claim is either fooling itself or trying to fool someone else. Science tells us nothing whatsoever about whether a city should or should not ban smoking in various places. Science can inform us about the risks of smoking, and the probability that those risks will be realized under certain conditions or in certain places. But it cannot and does not tell us what laws should be passed regarding smoking. That depends entirely upon the relative weight that people place on various competing values. Again, it is both a conceit and a deceit (self-deceit or otherwise), oddly common among people on the left, to proclaim that one’s political values are nothing more than what “science” has dictated.
LikeLike
Saw a really interesting graph showing a correlation between the reduction in smoking with the increase in obesity. Wouldn’t it be interesting if we found out the te long term costs to care for an aging, obese population are higher than for an aging, smoking population?
I can’t find the graph now, and not saying there’s a causality. I just find te possibility tantalizing.
I suppose though, if we’re faced with having to pay for everybody’s healthcare, there really isn’t anything we, the government, order someone else eat, exercise, what have you.
LikeLike
McWing:
Wouldn’t it be interesting if we found out the te long term costs to care for an aging, obese population are higher than for an aging, smoking population?
I am fairly certain I have seen studies (scientific studies!) in the past showing that, overall, in fact smokers actually are net revenue producers, not a net cost, to government because they tend to die before collecting back all of the taxes, (including cigarette taxes) that they have paid into the system over their lifetime. I suppose this means that a policy requiring people to smoke in order to lower the deficit is required by science, and anyone opposed to such a policy is denying science.
LikeLike
Found it, here’s the link.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/02/cigarette-smoking-another-factor-in.html?m=1
LikeLike
Scott:
I’ve never argued [that faith should win over expertise and training], nor have I seen anyone else here do so.
Then you haven’t taken your fellow Right-wingers at their word.
He [Mike] mentioned earlier a scientist whom he seemed to respect who was also an Evangelical.
He was referring to Francis Collins, the head of the NIH and one of the founders of the Human Genome Project. The man isn’t just some scientist who Mike “seems” to respect, he’s one of our leading lights and highly respected within the life scientific community as a whole. We couldn’t care less what his religious beliefs are because they have never interfered with his scientific judgement. He has been very forceful in both arenas and I respect him for it.
Although one of the most prominent scientists advocating for evolution, Richard Dawkins
I’ll let the other scientists on the blog speak for themselves, but while Mr Dawkins has a DPhil in ethology I consider him more of a scientific philosopher than a scientist. To the best of my knowledge he’s never done scientific research so much as mulling about life, the universe, and everything.
What bothers me is when people pretend that their political preferences are scientific conclusions
Well, then, we agree about what is wrong with many Republican politicians.
LikeLike
Mich:
Then you haven’t taken your fellow Right-wingers at their word.
Please cite or link to the words of which you are speaking.
Well, then, we agree about what is wrong with many Republican politicians
Which one’s, and which of their political preferences do they pretend are scientific conclusions?
LikeLike
So, are we no longer thinking that belief in Creationism / ID is indicative of a lack of critical thinking skills? Or is it?
LikeLike
One of the revenue sources for Hillary Clinton’s health care plan back in the 1990s was to be a tax on cigarettes but it costed out as net negative cash flow for exactly the reasons Scott noted. Perhaps if we are really interested in slashing Medicare costs we should stop government subsidized anti-smoking campaigns.
Bloomberg who started the ball rolling on smoking bans in bars (and if NYC can go smoke free, anywhere can) is now attacking soft drink portion sizes and their effect on obesity rates. It’s a rather quixotic struggle which has been the subject of much ridicule, but it does fall on the nanny state side of the debate in the war between personal responsibility and public good.
LikeLike
Troll/George:
So, are we no longer thinking that belief in Creationism / ID is indicative of a lack of critical thinking skills? Or is it?
Yes, it is. It is an act of faith, not thinking.
LikeLike
Mich:
Yes, it is. It is an act of faith, not thinking.
So just to be clear, you think anyone who engages in acts of faith are indicating a lack of critical thinking skills?
If so I guess you must think, then, that over 90% of your fellow Americans, along with the previously mentioned Francis Collins, are deficient in their critical thinking skills. Interesting.
LikeLike
Yes, it is. It is an act of faith, not thinking
So now it has gone from bad thinking to not thinking. And this is supposed to be a demonstration of rigorous thinking?
Does it ever occur to you why people might not be inclined to accept your edicts, no matter how many times you assert that they are privileged knowledge claims? That’s probably rhetorical; I’m sure it doesn’t.
LikeLike
yello
I agree that many of the bans are getting ridiculous, but I think the ban on smoking was more for the protection of others via second hand smoke than what we as individuals put inside our own bodies. I don’t think you can legislate broccoli or soda personally. In my opinion the science behind second hand smoke justifies segregating smokers, although I could personally care less if that’s what they want to do and it’s still legal anyway. Maybe some of my opinion is formed from the personal experience of having a child with, at times, life-threatening asthma however.
Also, just as a counter point, I read somewhere that obesity is related to poverty for the sake of argument.
LikeLike
Scott:
An answer to a single poll question about a topic so unimportant …
Were this question about whether we should intervene militarily in Syria, I would agree with you. But evolution isn’t just some random topic that is unimportant to our daily lives; it’s a hot button issue. Also, evolution is supposedly taught in science class in the schools, so people should have had plenty of exposure to it. How well it is taught or even if it is taught is related to the second part of my contention, which we have not yet touched on — the quality of science education.
But just so I’m clear. My two main contentions (from my post at 8:38 am on June 2) were that “science is not a belief system” and that “[t]he fact that such a large percentage of our population does not “believe” in evolution suggests that our critical thinking skills (as a whole) are not very good.”
When you say “I actually agree with qb that most people are probably not very good critical thinkers in some or perhaps even many areas of their lives”, it sounds to me that you are agreeing with the second part of my second contention, that our critical thinking skills as a population are not very good. So you are arguing that the lack of acceptance of evolution is not suggestive at all of this deficiency, keeping in mind that I am referring to the population as a whole and not to individuals? That, in fact, it really means nothing? Because the alternative hypotheses to me are that we are good critical thinkers and either choose not to employ it with regards to evolution or choose to reject evolutionary theory and the science behind it.
cannot sensibly be used as an indicator about how they generally approach or think about things.
Again, I’m not talking about individuals, but our general population. Let me ask you this: if you had to choose, would you think that a person that didn’t accept the scientific validity of evolution was a good or poor critical thinker?
LikeLike
Mike:
But evolution isn’t just some random topic that is unimportant to our daily lives; it’s a hot button issue.
Sure, it’s a hot button issue, but that doesn’t make it important, and I would contend that as a practical matter it is almost entirely unimportant. I’d venture to guess that outside of a very small number of science and religious fanatics, the amount of time spent by the average person considering the origins of life is, roughly speaking, zero except when a pollster happens to call to ask them about their beliefs. And their lives are hardly the lesser for it.
So you are arguing that the lack of acceptance of evolution is not suggestive at all of this deficiency, keeping in mind that I am referring to the population as a whole and not to individuals?
Correct. I have experienced plenty of people who accept evolutionary theory who are not very good critical thinkers.
Because the alternative hypotheses to me are that we are good critical thinkers and either choose not to employ it with regards to evolution or choose to reject evolutionary theory and the science behind it.
My alternative hypothesis is that most people are not very good critical thinkers regardless of what they believe about evolution, and that most people spend almost no time thinking about evolutionary theory in any event, so how they happen to respond to a question about what the believe about it is not particularly indicative about the way they think.
Again, I’m not talking about individuals, but our general population.
I confess I don’t quite know what you could mean by this. I don’t know how you can describe a population without intending to describe at least some subset of individuals within that population.
if you had to choose, would you think that a person that didn’t accept the scientific validity of evolution was a good or poor critical thinker?
Given my experience, I would say the odds are that he is not a good critical thinker no matter what he believes about evolution, and whether or not he believes in evolution won’t change the odds much either way.
LikeLike
Mike:
My two main contentions (from my post at 8:38 am on June 2) were that “science is not a belief system”…
You may be interested to read this NYT op-ed from a few years ago, Taking Science on Faith, by Paul Davies whose bona fides suggest to me some measure of critical thinking skills.
LikeLike
“Again, I’m not talking about individuals, but our general population. Let me ask you this: if you had to choose, would you think that a person that didn’t accept the scientific validity of evolution was a good or poor critical thinker?”
I wouldn’t make a judgement about their critical thinking skills based on that, nor on, for example, based on an acceptance of AGW, or GW for that matter. I think, as a scientist, you’re sensitive to that, biased if you will.
I think you have to look at the totality of their lives, their level of happiness, their self perception of their level of success in life. I’ve met PhD’s in the hard sciences who are rabid,conspiracists on topics like Diebold and the Kennedy assasination. If I looked at their critical thinking skills based on, what I consider nonsense, i would think their CT skills are poor, but their achievements in life reflect otherwise.
LikeLike
Scott:
I don’t have time to go too much in depth, but I wanted to respond to two things.
the amount of time spent by the average person considering the origins of life is, roughly speaking, zero except when a pollster happens to call to ask them about their beliefs
I might not go that far — I’m sure that many sermons touch on Creation. But regardless of the amount of time spent thinking about it, would you say that the average person knows that the vast majority of scientists think that evolution is basically correct and that the idea God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years is derived from the Bible?
I don’t know how you can describe a population without intending to describe at least some subset of individuals within that population.
We’ve come up against this roadblock before. I will try to explain it in a different way this time, but it is the principle of mass action. When you talk about a wave coming into the beach, you are describing the average motion vector of X number of water molecules. The actual motion vector of each individual water molecule might not be exactly in the direction of the beach, but when averaged together, results in the wave coming in. When I talk about a population, I’m talking about the average [whatever] of that population and not what each individual is doing, is capable of.
Somehow, I don’t think that will clear things up, but I can’t think of anything better off the cuff.
LikeLike
Mike:
…would you say that the average person knows that the vast majority of scientists think that evolution is basically correct and that the idea God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years is derived from the Bible?
I honestly don’t know. I would guess that most people know that high school science texts teach evolution. But whether that is interpreted by them as something that “most” scientists think, I don’t know. BTW, when you say “most scientists”, do you mean most scientists with special knowledge and expertise in evolutionary biology, or do you mean all scientists including those with no particular expertise in evolutionary biology whatsoever? It’s just a guess, but I would suspect that most people who call themselves scientists actually work in fields other than evolution-related fields, and so when they say the “think” something about evolution, they are just accepting on faith what trusted fellow scientists with evolutionary expertise are saying.
When I talk about a population, I’m talking about the average [whatever] of that population and not what each individual is doing, is capable of.
I understand. Saying that the average Asian scores higher on the SAT than the average caucasian doesn’t mean that you are saying a specific individual Asian has scored or will score higher than a specific individual caucasian. That’s fine. But still there are probablistic implications for individuals. According to you, an individual believer in evolution is more likely to have better critical thinking skills than an individual dis-believer. That may be true, but it is not self-evident to me, as you seem to think it is. For one thing, a believer in evolution who is blindly accepting and parroting what he read in some science text is displaying no better critical thinking skills than a disbeliever who is blindly accepting and parroting what he read in some religious tract. The fact is that we have no idea what thought process has led the people in this polling sample to respond as they did, nor do we know if the thought process is typical of their thinking in general or specific to this particular topic which, as you have pointed out, is a politically charged issue. There is no justification for your conclusion which, it seems to me, is not particularly, er, scientific.
LikeLike
And I’ll try to read the op-ed at some point …
LikeLike
Really interesting link about Science literacy and global warming concern.
This stood out for me as it is relevant to our discussion:
“Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.”
LikeLike
Really interesting link about Science literacy and global warming concern.
This stood out for me as it is relevant to our discussion:
“Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.”
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1
LikeLike
McWing:
I read through your link and have been pondering it. It is interesting, but I think the authors’ conclusions are not entirely justified by the study. To be sure, the study suggests, as they say, that polarization over the politics of climate change (and, implicitly, other issues) does not derive from an incomprehension or rejection of science. But I don’t know why they introduce the notion of a conflict between personal interests and a “collective” interests. Nothing in the study establishes that any particular stance on climate change is or is not a “collective” interest.
LikeLike
McWing:
Another thing, not directly related to the study you linked, but still somewhat tangentially related. I also think that both scientists and liberals who like to throw around the anti-science charge to dismiss political opposition are actually conflating, deliberately or not, the scientific process with what scientists say. A distrust of the proclamations of scientists, particularly with regard to highly politicized issues, does not equate to a distrust of the scientific process.
LikeLike
Scott:
Sorry, still not much free time, but I should give you a quick response.
I honestly don’t know. I would guess that most people know that high school science texts teach evolution.
Well, the point of the question was if you thought the average person knew that evolution was science and the Genesis story was faith.
BTW, when you say “most scientists”, do you mean most scientists with special knowledge and expertise in evolutionary biology, or do you mean all scientists including those with no particular expertise in evolutionary biology whatsoever?
I mean evolutionary biologists and those who work on aspects of evolution theory but wouldn’t necessarily call themselves evolutionary biologists.
There is no justification for your conclusion which, it seems to me, is not particularly, er, scientific.
Actually, it is science. We have observed a phenomenon (that a plurality of the respondents to the Gallup poll favor Creation as the explanation for the origin of life) and I have proposed a testable hypothesis (that the results suggest a deficit overall in critical thinking). You disagree with my hypothesis, but, as you point out, the actual experiment investigating the critical thinking of each poll respondent hasn’t been done. The only (relatively weak) correlate of critical thinking from the poll is level of education, where the higher the level of education, the greater the acceptance of evolution.
LikeLike
Mike:
Well, the point of the question was if you thought the average person knew that evolution was science and the Genesis story was faith.
I would surmise that most people understand that evolution is a scientific theory. I don’t know, however, whether or what proportion of people know the, er, genesis of Genesis. It is possible that some (many?) people assume there is a scientific underpinning to the story.
BTW, I don’t think it is a good assumption that the 50% of people from the poll you linked to are necessarily expressing an acceptance of the full story of Genesis. At most they have expressed a belief that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. And I would even discount the import of the 10,000 year bit, which is a detail that I would guess most people placed no import on at all. The relevant claim is that God created humans in their current form, ie humans have not evolved. I imagine that if you changed the option to read some time in the last 5 million years, or the last 5,000 years, the results would not change significantly at all.
Actually, it is science.
Certainly science includes coming up with hypotheses to be tested, but simply proposing one is not, in and of itself, what I would call science. And in fact I think that, at least originally, you weren’t so much proposing a hypothesis to be tested as simply assuming the truth of it.
LikeLike
Thought you might be interested in this –
https://texasexes.org/events/register.asp?event=ESUPD2012
because Michael Starbird, a fantastic mathematics teacher, is teaching this module:
10:30 – 11:45 am “Five Elements of Effective Thinking.”
Michael Starbird, PhD, Department of Mathematics, College of Natural Sciences, Member of the Academy of Distinguished Teachers
Just an hour and fifteen minutes and we could become effective thinkers!
I have room for one of you and significant other in our guest suite, so you won’t have to stay at the San Jacinto dorm with the hoi polloi.
LikeLike
Scott:
And in fact I think that, at least originally, you weren’t so much proposing a hypothesis to be tested as simply assuming the truth of it.
My exact words (again) were: “The fact that such a large percentage of our population does not “believe” in evolution suggests that our critical thinking skills (as a whole) are not very good.”
If I were “assuming the truth of it,” as you say, then I would have said: “The fact that such a large percentage of our population does not “believe” in evolution shows that our critical thinking skills (as a whole) are not very good.”
“Suggests” = indication of doubt. “Shows” = definitive statement.
I don’t think it is a good assumption that the 50% of people from the poll you linked to are necessarily expressing an acceptance of the full story of Genesis.
I was just using “the Genesis story” as short hand so I didn’t have to write out “God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years.” I was in a rush and figured you’d understand what I meant.
LikeLike
Mike:
My exact words (again) were…
I was actually referring to your original comment.
LikeLike
This part of the link Mike provided was interesting:
“That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution. Thirty years ago, 44% of the people who responded said they believed that God created humans as we know them today — only a 2-point difference from 2012.”
Along with this:
“The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.”
Mike, would you say that 85% of American’s lack critical thinking skills?
LikeLike
Scott:
Sorry, you’ve lost me. My “original comment” was the post linking to the CNN story about the Gallup poll? In response to Michi’s link to the Neil deGrasse Tyson’ story? I don’t see where I said anything about critical thinking there. I’m pretty sure that my first mention of critical thinking on this thread was the sentence I’ve previously quoted.
The purpose of posting the poll was to show Michi that it wasn’t just a few people on a blog from Texas that didn’t accept evolution, it is actually a plurality of Americans. But if I included a hidden reference to critical thinking that I don’t know about, feel free to point it out.
LikeLike
Mike:
Sorry, you’ve lost me.
Mich expressed “despair” at the comments she linked to, and I inferred from your response that you shared in that despair as a result of the poll results. I think subsequent comments have confirmed it was a reasonable inference. There was really nothing on the face of the results to despair about so you must have had believed that they were indicating something to despair about. You’ve since clarified what that belief was, and while you have acknowledged that the belief has not been established beyond doubt, that you must have assumed it to be true when sharing in Mich’s despair seems pretty clear to me.
LikeLike
Troll:
would you say that 85% of American’s lack critical thinking skills?
Could be more if some of those evolution “believers” are just taking it on faith, as Scott has mentioned. Could be less if some of the people who believe God made man in present form within the last 10,000 years have willfully suspended their critical thinking skills in this instance, as jnc has postulated.
LikeLike
What if they believe in “guided evolution?” Could that be indicative of a problem with CT?
LikeLike
Scott:
Well, now this discussion is taking a turn to the ridiculous. It’s not worth my time refuting your speculation as to what I was thinking when I was posting three days ago. So, I’m going to sign off. But it was interesting before the last few posts.
LikeLike
Mike:
Well, now this discussion is taking a turn to the ridiculous.
I agree. I was just explaining the impetus for my comment. I wasn’t looking to argue about it.
In any event, I think it was/is clear that, at the beginning of this discussion you took it as a given that a poll-initiated expression of disbelief in evolution is an indication of an lack of critical thinking skills. If you are saying that wasn’t the case, I guess others who even care will just have to judge for themselves.
LikeLike