Are Objectivists Mutants
Posted by Zenphamy 8 years, 11 months ago to Philosophy
Although the linked article discusses the topic of critical thinking from the viewpoint of science based medicine vs. 'complementary and alternative medicine, I find a great deal of similarity to my thoughts concerning being an Objectivist in life as well as a member of this site, lately. From childhood till now as an senior, I've often thought that there was just something different going on in my mind than that in others' minds. I've found a very few in my life that think much like I do, but they are rare.
From the Article: All emphasis added.
"There is a huge disconnect between what science-based medicine calls evidence and what alternative medicine and the general public call evidence. They are using the same word, but speaking a different language, making communication next to impossible."
"“Alternative medicine,” along with “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) and “integrative medicine,” is not a meaningful scientific term, but a marketing term created to lend respectability to things that we used to call by less respectable names like quackery, folk medicine, and fringe medicine." (Add Like Politics, Conservatism, Progressivism, Religion, etc. etc.)
"Today we have more sources of information, but our minds still work the old way. We prefer stories to studies, anecdotes to analyses. We see patterns where none exist. We jump to false conclusions based on insufficient evidence. Emotions trump facts. If your neighbor had a bad experience with a Toyota, you’re likely to remember his story and not buy a Toyota even if Consumer Reports says it’s the most reliable brand. That isn’t logical, but humans are not Vulcans. When we act illogically, we’re just doing what evolution has equipped us to do. It takes a lot of education and discipline to overcome our natural tendencies, and not everyone can do it."
"Ray Hyman is a psychologist and one of the founders of modern skepticism. When I asked him why some people become skeptics and others don’t, he said he thinks skeptics are mutants: something has evolved in our brains to facilitate critical thinking."
So, are we mutants? If we are, will we succeed into the future and become a successful branch of humanity? Or will we continue helping our non-mutated cousins not face extinction, even if inadvertently?
From the Article: All emphasis added.
"There is a huge disconnect between what science-based medicine calls evidence and what alternative medicine and the general public call evidence. They are using the same word, but speaking a different language, making communication next to impossible."
"“Alternative medicine,” along with “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) and “integrative medicine,” is not a meaningful scientific term, but a marketing term created to lend respectability to things that we used to call by less respectable names like quackery, folk medicine, and fringe medicine." (Add Like Politics, Conservatism, Progressivism, Religion, etc. etc.)
"Today we have more sources of information, but our minds still work the old way. We prefer stories to studies, anecdotes to analyses. We see patterns where none exist. We jump to false conclusions based on insufficient evidence. Emotions trump facts. If your neighbor had a bad experience with a Toyota, you’re likely to remember his story and not buy a Toyota even if Consumer Reports says it’s the most reliable brand. That isn’t logical, but humans are not Vulcans. When we act illogically, we’re just doing what evolution has equipped us to do. It takes a lot of education and discipline to overcome our natural tendencies, and not everyone can do it."
"Ray Hyman is a psychologist and one of the founders of modern skepticism. When I asked him why some people become skeptics and others don’t, he said he thinks skeptics are mutants: something has evolved in our brains to facilitate critical thinking."
So, are we mutants? If we are, will we succeed into the future and become a successful branch of humanity? Or will we continue helping our non-mutated cousins not face extinction, even if inadvertently?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
For me, living in Oregon now, it is almost as if I have landed on a different planet (compared to flyover country), and I grow increasingly aware of two very different species of people out there. I hate to say "us vs. them" but that's how it seems. And "they" are winning.
Those who call themselves Objectivists, ought not trust what the article calls "science-based medicine" purely on the basis of the respectability of its sources. To do so is to fall into the logical fallacies Rand herself illustrated to so roundly condemn: argumentum ab auctoritate (or ab auctoritatibus), and argumentum a populo. I put it to this body that many of the vaunted "studies" are fraudulent, and that motives for fraud abound in the "scientific world." The motives go beyond one person and often reach into company board rooms. I can also cite my own experience in questioning authority and, by so doing, improving my own health.
On the other hand, I have a lower confidence in "studies" because both one of my old bosses and I have each had about 50% success in reproducing experiments that we have read in the scientific literature. I have become more skeptical via experience, rather than being skeptical by default.
With regard to anecdotal evidence regarding alternative medicines, I am skeptical, but not immediately dismissing. I am quite sure that most people in Galt's Gulch Online are more immediately dismissive of partial, but inconclusive, evidence than I am.
Most of today's pharmaceuticals were originally plant extracts, and some still are, for example. Your point regarding the nature of evidence, and how to act on it, is a good one.