addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Re: [atheists-27] You don't get to choose your own facts

From: Mathew G.
Sent on: Friday, July 26, 2013 2:59 PM
This the Telegraph, it is not a top quality source of commentary and we cannot expect much nuance here.  But it is better than the post-modernist tinged commentary on this same topic from the competing Guardian's Andrew Brown.  Andrew Brown's endorsement of beliefs of all sorts, his unwillingness to challenge unjustified beliefs, renders his feel good commentary vacuous and confused.  There should be some indignation, some fighting spirit, some worse and better judgment, in public policy related commentary.

On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Don Wharton <[address removed]> wrote:

Mathew, this is an excellent opinion piece by Tom Chivers.  What it does not say is that we have no clear way of differentiating valid science (and valid facts) from claims that are nonsense on a global basis.  Philosophers can call this the boundary problem.  The fact is that all valid scientific claims are still just text (a rather exotic variety perhaps including many equations).  And on occasion we have peer reviewed articles that make very false claims.
We do have robust descriptions of valid scientific inference and critical thinking.  When someone compares creationism with evolution we can point out how and where the creationism claims do not work.  However, there are area of science (especially the soft social sciences) were there is a lot that we do not know and much discourse effort goes into rough efforts to find out what may be true.

From: Mathew Goldstein <[address removed]>
To: [address removed]
Sent: Friday, July 26,[masked]:04 AM
Subject: [atheists-27] You don't get to choose your own facts

Recent article in the Telegraph 

You don't get to choose your own facts: however 'moving' you find the creation story, evolution is still true

By Tom Chivers Science Last updated: July 16th, 2013

We are all entitled to our own opinions, goes the old saw, but not to our own facts.
That was true up until around the 1960s or so, whereupon a variety of philosophers in major US universities, mostly French and led by Jacques Derrida, decided that we are, in fact, entitled to our own facts as well. Postmodernist “deconstructionism” began with the perfectly sensible and even banal observation that literature could not be discussed without acknowledging the cultural baggage of both author and reader, and that the meaning of a text was not something fixed and eternal but the product of the reader’s mind in conjuncttion with the author’s.
But its influence spread beyond literature, into other areas of study.  As Barbara Ehrenreich put it, “Students taking courses in literature, film, ‘cultural studies’, and even, in some cases, anthropology and political science, were taught that the world is just a ‘text’ about which you can say anything you want, provided you say it murkily enough.” She claimed that one of her children reported you could be marked down for writing “reality” without putting it in inverted commas. According to Francis Wheen, in his fantastic book How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered The World, science and politics fell under this reality-denying spell: it became impossible to critique either, since they were fictions, “like truth, justice, law and all other linguistic ‘constructs’”. Michel Foucault, another of the great deconstructionists, went to Iran and fell in love with the “beauty” of its savage theocratic regime. Wheen reports that, when asked about the brutal repression of dissidents and free speech in the country, Foucault replied “They don’t have the same regime of truth as ours.”
Politics is one thing, but scientific fact, even, somehow got perverted in this strange twilight world. Luce Irigaray, another postmodernist, described E=mc2 as a “sexed equation”, which “privileges the speed of light over other [less masculine] speeds that are vitally necessary to us”, and blamed the failure of science to successfully model chaotic turbulence on the fact that “men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, [whereas] women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids”.
The nonsense of all this is obvious, or it should be. How fast an object accelerates under gravity does not change according to whether or not the observer is a man or a woman. If you add magnesium to hydrochloric acid you get magnesium chloride and hydrogen gas, regardless of which “regime of truth” you happen to live under. If you doubt the existence of facts of the world, ask yourself whether you’d be happy to establish your own reality by exiting an airliner at 30,000 feet and walking home.
I’m saying all this because the internet has got a bit excited over a technology writer – a technology writer, someone who writes about the products of science – who has “come out” in her column at Yahoo News as a creationist. Virginia Heffernan said that she was “considerably less amused and moved by the character-free Big Bang story (“something exploded”) than by the twisted and picturesque misadventures of Eve and Adam and Cain and Abel and Abraham”. She went on, quoting the Life of Pi author Yann Martel: “1) Life is a story. 2) You can choose your story. 3) A story with God is the better story.”
And, defending her article in a conversation on Twitter with the heroically patient science writer Carl Zimmer, she added: “I'm a creationist on aesthetic grounds. Why bludgeon me with ‘But evolution is TRUE’? Believe your good beliefs; they're widely shared!”
I’m not going to debunk her utterly flatulent piece with its litany of non-sequiturs and logical fallacies. Others have done a better job of that than I could. But I am going to say that post-modernist “deconstruction”, the belief that we get to choose the reality we live in, is idiotic and harmful. It might be more aesthetically pleasing to you to think that Iranian dissidents aren’t oppressed, they’re just living under a different truth-regime which makes it OK to smash their ankles with hammers when they say things the ayatollahs don’t like. It might be more “amusing and moving” to you to hear a story in which a snake talks to a woman or a man flies on a winged horse than it is to read the careful breakdowns of why astrophysics points to a universe 13.8 billion years old, why the X-ray crystallography of genes, the geographic spread of species and comparative anatomy all point to the same history of evolution, why the heavy elements that make us and the Earth were created in supernovae billions of years ago. (Personally I find that all pretty moving, and utterly astonishing. But you are entitled to your opinions.) But your amusement does not make it true.
Humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees about 6.3 million years ago. A dozen strands of evidence point to this. How a grown-up can openly admit that they choose their facts on which ones they find more aesthetically pleasing I simply do not understand.

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Mathew Goldstein ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Mathew Goldstein, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Don Wharton ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Don Wharton, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy