And yes, that does make me wonder if I can trust that scientist’s opinions even in their own field—especially when it comes to any controversial issue, any open question, anything that isn’t already nailed down by massive evidence and social convention.
Not all scientists go around tallying up the expectations payed by their beliefs. If they have a freeloading belief they hadn’t examined, one that doesn’t affect their science, so what of it?
There’s something fundamentally different between a gambling economist and a theist scientist: the thinking required for economics constantly forces you to acknowledge that gambling is dumb (although...). The thinking required for most sciences barely ever runs into the problem of God / spirit world / other wacky nonsense.
Most scientific reasoning treats God as a non-agent while never actually claiming atheism. A scientist who’s never evicted a freeloading belief isn’t necessarily a bad scientist. Theism is a warning flag only when it causes real-life expectations.
Some profs showed it as an example of a utility function for which gambling would make sense, rationally. I’d say if your utility function looks like this, you have problems far worse than gambling.
Theism is a warning flag only when it causes real-life expectations.
To use slightly different language I would suggest it is always a warning flag but only an actual problem when it causes real-life expectations or field related claims. I say always a warning flag because the kind of brain that can maintain religious belief despite scientific education and experience tends to have traits that I distrust.
the kind of brain that can maintain religious belief despite scientific education and experience tends to have traits that I distrust.
Buster, that’s the kind of brain you have. We’re not built well, and not built too differently either. Even if you don’t believe in a big dude in the sky who will preserve your identity after your physical form is destroyed, you have a brain that is completely suited to believing that, and your non-belief is a sign of the particular experiences you have had.
The question is whether you believe that the set of experiences required to become a good scientist necessarily include those experiences that force one to adopt atheism. I think the number of important discoveries made by theists throughout history, and even in the modern day, indicates otherwise.
and your non-belief is a sign of the particular experiences you have had.
You may note that in the very sentence you quote I refer to experiences, a rather critical part of my claim.
While I am not inclined to go into detail on personality research right now there is, in fact, a relationship between the strength of a person’s compartmentalisation ability and other important traits. Genetics plays a critical part in the formation of beliefs from stimulus and there is some information that can be inferred from the expression of said beliefs.
I apologize, but I am also confused. Is this an issue with gender, formality, or something else? I feel like I should be able to generalize you taking issue with that to other things, and also avoid all of those, but it would be helpful for you to explain.
I still feel that, in MoreOn’s terms, P ( good science | scientist is theist ) is close enough to P ( good science ) that starting from the position of distrust is probably over-filtering. I don’t think that resorting to explaining the personality traits that might explain that relation are important, unless we know an individual’s traits well enough to use those to estimate the kind of science she will produce.
There is a positive correlation between an individual thinking well in one area and thinking well in another area, a relationship which I do not consider terribly controversial. A (loosely) related post is the Correct Contrarian Cluster.
Placing a warning flag onto a theist scientist’s work would only be justified if you had evidence in support of the claim: P ( good science | scientist is theist ) < P ( good science ) .
Less Wrong provides many excellent philosophical examples in support of that claim. But what about real world examples? Do theist scientists actually tend to do lower-quality science?
Do theist scientists actually tend to do lower-quality science?
I’ve see statistics showing that scientists tend to be less theistic than the general population and that the best scientists (National Academy members, for example) tend to be less theistic than scientists in general. So that provides the correlation you are asking for. But, I strongly suspect that in this case, correlation does not imply causation.
I have seen numerous examples, though, in which scientific enquiry with the choice of subject matter motivated by theism is of lower quality than science done without that motivation. However, the same kinds of bad results can arise from motivation by social activism or personal animosity or simply prideful intransigence.
scientific inquiry with the choice of subject matter motivated by theism is of lower quality than science done without that motivation.
Absolutely. Hence, the warning flag. A scientist expecting to find the evidence of God doesn’t just have freeloading beliefs, but beliefs that pay rent in wrong expectations. That’s akin to a gambling economist.
best scientists … tend to be less theistic.
I’d say it’s good evidence in favor of P ( good science | scientist is theist ) < P ( good science ) . Of course, your point about correlation not causation is very valid, too.
Someone in the discussion once said that atheism on average adds ~40 to IQ (I might be remembering incorrectly). I suppose high IQ is correlated with both excellence as a scientist and an ability to reconsider and abandon theism if the question ever arose.
My specific interest is whether or not atheism alone makes scientists better.
Not all scientists go around tallying up the expectations payed by their beliefs. If they have a freeloading belief they hadn’t examined, one that doesn’t affect their science, so what of it?
There’s something fundamentally different between a gambling economist and a theist scientist: the thinking required for economics constantly forces you to acknowledge that gambling is dumb (although...). The thinking required for most sciences barely ever runs into the problem of God / spirit world / other wacky nonsense.
Most scientific reasoning treats God as a non-agent while never actually claiming atheism. A scientist who’s never evicted a freeloading belief isn’t necessarily a bad scientist. Theism is a warning flag only when it causes real-life expectations.
AAaand the graph gives me a coughing fit. Good job.
Oh, trust me, I wouldn’t defend this one.
Some profs showed it as an example of a utility function for which gambling would make sense, rationally. I’d say if your utility function looks like this, you have problems far worse than gambling.
To use slightly different language I would suggest it is always a warning flag but only an actual problem when it causes real-life expectations or field related claims. I say always a warning flag because the kind of brain that can maintain religious belief despite scientific education and experience tends to have traits that I distrust.
Buster, that’s the kind of brain you have. We’re not built well, and not built too differently either. Even if you don’t believe in a big dude in the sky who will preserve your identity after your physical form is destroyed, you have a brain that is completely suited to believing that, and your non-belief is a sign of the particular experiences you have had.
The question is whether you believe that the set of experiences required to become a good scientist necessarily include those experiences that force one to adopt atheism. I think the number of important discoveries made by theists throughout history, and even in the modern day, indicates otherwise.
Do not refer to me as buster.
You may note that in the very sentence you quote I refer to experiences, a rather critical part of my claim.
While I am not inclined to go into detail on personality research right now there is, in fact, a relationship between the strength of a person’s compartmentalisation ability and other important traits. Genetics plays a critical part in the formation of beliefs from stimulus and there is some information that can be inferred from the expression of said beliefs.
I apologize, but I am also confused. Is this an issue with gender, formality, or something else? I feel like I should be able to generalize you taking issue with that to other things, and also avoid all of those, but it would be helpful for you to explain.
I still feel that, in MoreOn’s terms, P ( good science | scientist is theist ) is close enough to P ( good science ) that starting from the position of distrust is probably over-filtering. I don’t think that resorting to explaining the personality traits that might explain that relation are important, unless we know an individual’s traits well enough to use those to estimate the kind of science she will produce.
There is a positive correlation between an individual thinking well in one area and thinking well in another area, a relationship which I do not consider terribly controversial. A (loosely) related post is the Correct Contrarian Cluster.
Like being able to judge if some knowledge is dangerous and public relations?
Correlations. Not deductive certainties. A correlation that has perhaps been fully accounted for and then some in that case.
And do we really need to bring that up? Really, it’s all been said already...
Placing a warning flag onto a theist scientist’s work would only be justified if you had evidence in support of the claim: P ( good science | scientist is theist ) < P ( good science ) .
Less Wrong provides many excellent philosophical examples in support of that claim. But what about real world examples? Do theist scientists actually tend to do lower-quality science?
I’ve see statistics showing that scientists tend to be less theistic than the general population and that the best scientists (National Academy members, for example) tend to be less theistic than scientists in general. So that provides the correlation you are asking for. But, I strongly suspect that in this case, correlation does not imply causation.
I have seen numerous examples, though, in which scientific enquiry with the choice of subject matter motivated by theism is of lower quality than science done without that motivation. However, the same kinds of bad results can arise from motivation by social activism or personal animosity or simply prideful intransigence.
Absolutely. Hence, the warning flag. A scientist expecting to find the evidence of God doesn’t just have freeloading beliefs, but beliefs that pay rent in wrong expectations. That’s akin to a gambling economist.
I’d say it’s good evidence in favor of P ( good science | scientist is theist ) < P ( good science ) . Of course, your point about correlation not causation is very valid, too.
Someone in the discussion once said that atheism on average adds ~40 to IQ (I might be remembering incorrectly). I suppose high IQ is correlated with both excellence as a scientist and an ability to reconsider and abandon theism if the question ever arose.
My specific interest is whether or not atheism alone makes scientists better.
Don’t confuse a prior with a priori. ;)
Fixed. Thanks. I didn’t realize that my statement read, “A priori reasoning can only be justified if it’s a posteriori.”
Edit: so what about my actual statement? Or, are we done having this discussion?
That depends on whether you think a propensity to compartmentalize is a good thing or not.