These are good fundamentals for clear thinking, As for being cynical, there's good reason for it in this world, IMHO. "Trust but verify" comes to mind. Adults are not supbosed to be blank slates, we're supposed to have a grasp on reality that allows us to make important decisions quickly. If we're lucky, we were taught the skill of "clearing the slate" when we were young adults, it's rare for anyone to learn that in another stage of life.
What I mean by blank slate, is bias. Like a religious person. When a religious person who doesn't accept evolution looks at evidence for evolution, their ability to read that evidence will be coloured by their bias. However a scientist will approach evidence with a blank slate, and let the evidence shape their views. When I say blank slate, I mean let the evidence do the talking... not your biases.
Thank you for your reply, this could be a useful exchange. First, I agree that adherence to a religion can encourage sloppy thinking. (Actually, anyone can be a sloppy thinker, it's more common than disciplined thinking, in my experience.) I suspect that those inclined to sloppy thinking will do so in one way or another, with or without religion to "encourage" them. Let the evidence lead to its own conclusion, you suggest. That works well when all the necessary evidence is in view. That's not always the case. Every book or film in the mystery genre-all of them, every single one-includes best guesses before all the evidence is available. No one faults the detective for being "wrong" when he doesn't have all the facts. As for something like evolution, it's more complicated, there are assumptions and guesses and levels of abstraction at work. For instance, one assumption of evolution is that, given enough time, the nearly impossible becomes likely, then inevitable. I disagree with this, and for good reason, I believe. Maybe I should write a paper on it, but to be brief, it's my observation, and considered opinion, that nature's method of "cracking the code" to creating even the chemical precursors to life-enzymes and proteins-does not follow an efficient algorithm. At all. Every layer of structure becomes geometrically more sensitive to chemical and kinetic background noise, not to mention cosmic rays, which do not help any stage of life. At all. Life absolutely could not have developed as outlined in my high school biology book, not even in a well-protected primordial pool with the ideal chemistry. I agree that simply dismissing evolution out of hand is lazy thinking. There is much value to thinking carefully about the claims, assumptions, and evidence in the living world and in the fossil record. Everyone should seek out the available evidence and attempt to think carefuly and independently about evolution and many other matters. So, I agree with your video in the macro, though I disagree with you on evolution in particular.
These are good fundamentals for clear thinking,
As for being cynical, there's good reason for it in this world, IMHO. "Trust but verify" comes to mind. Adults are not supbosed to be blank slates, we're supposed to have a grasp on reality that allows us to make important decisions quickly. If we're lucky, we were taught the skill of "clearing the slate" when we were young adults, it's rare for anyone to learn that in another stage of life.
What I mean by blank slate, is bias.
Like a religious person.
When a religious person who doesn't accept evolution looks at evidence for evolution, their ability to read that evidence will be coloured by their bias.
However a scientist will approach evidence with a blank slate, and let the evidence shape their views.
When I say blank slate, I mean let the evidence do the talking... not your biases.
Thank you for your reply, this could be a useful exchange.
First, I agree that adherence to a religion can encourage sloppy thinking. (Actually, anyone can be a sloppy thinker, it's more common than disciplined thinking, in my experience.) I suspect that those inclined to sloppy thinking will do so in one way or another, with or without religion to "encourage" them.
Let the evidence lead to its own conclusion, you suggest. That works well when all the necessary evidence is in view. That's not always the case. Every book or film in the mystery genre-all of them, every single one-includes best guesses before all the evidence is available. No one faults the detective for being "wrong" when he doesn't have all the facts.
As for something like evolution, it's more complicated, there are assumptions and guesses and levels of abstraction at work. For instance, one assumption of evolution is that, given enough time, the nearly impossible becomes likely, then inevitable. I disagree with this, and for good reason, I believe. Maybe I should write a paper on it, but to be brief, it's my observation, and considered opinion, that nature's method of "cracking the code" to creating even the chemical precursors to life-enzymes and proteins-does not follow an efficient algorithm. At all. Every layer of structure becomes geometrically more sensitive to chemical and kinetic background noise, not to mention cosmic rays, which do not help any stage of life. At all. Life absolutely could not have developed as outlined in my high school biology book, not even in a well-protected primordial pool with the ideal chemistry.
I agree that simply dismissing evolution out of hand is lazy thinking. There is much value to thinking carefully about the claims, assumptions, and evidence in the living world and in the fossil record. Everyone should seek out the available evidence and attempt to think carefuly and independently about evolution and many other matters. So, I agree with your video in the macro, though I disagree with you on evolution in particular.