Evolution and Wisdom of Crowds

[ShellyT]

Conventional wisdom says that the primary reason why so many people do not accept Darwin's theory of evolution is that they find it threatening to their religious beliefs. There is no question that religion is a big part of the reason behind the large number of people who reject evolution. But I am convinced that just as often, the cause and effect is reversed: people hold onto their fundamentalist religious beliefs because evolution by natural selection -- the strongest argument against an Old Testament-type creator -- is so counter-intuitive to so many.

I arrive at this conclusion in a somewhat roundabout way. I have long been fascinated with systems that tap into the "wisdom of crowds" -- systems that, in fact, have much in common with Darwinian evolution. Such systems doubtfully conflict with anyone's religion, and yet, I see the same sort of resistance to them as I see to evolution. The arguments against them are remarkably similar.

Link to the rest.

I think the lack of training in logical thinking in school plays a part. It should have been covered in a science class, but for most, a science class appears to be just a list of facts to learn. Which just reinforces the idea that science is just another form of faith.

[Alric]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Nov 28 2007, 10:37 AM) [snapback]545205[/snapback]</div>

I think the lack of training in logical thinking in school plays a part.
[/b]

Its the substitution of logical thinking for faith.

This permits statements like "Resurrection of humans is scientifically impossible so far. However, my faith allows me to believe that a human was resurrected 2000 years ago".

[hycamguy07]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 28 2007, 10:51 AM) [snapback]545212[/snapback]</div>

Its the substitution of logical thinking for faith.

This permits statements like "Resurrection of humans is scientifically impossible so far. However, my faith allows me to believe that a human was resurrected 2000 years ago".
[/b]

Alric~

What happens to you when you die? I mean what happens to your soul/spirit....? Do you just cease to exsist?

My faith has me believing That my soul will go to heaven.

I saw the bait in the headline and thought since I was hooked in the trolling lines, I would add my two cents

[Danny Hamilton]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

What happens to you when you die?
[/b]

You decompose and your component chemicals are reused by other living organisms.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

I mean what happens to your soul/spirit....?
[/b]

You are making an assumption and putting faith in that assumption without proof. That's kind of the point the original poster was trying to make. What makes you so sure you have a soul/spirit?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

Do you just cease to exsist?
[/b]

I think I need an explanation for the question. The component matter doesn't cease to exist unless it eventually ends up as part of a nuclear reaction (and even then it doesn't necessarily cease to exist, it is converted to energy). But certainly you cease to exist in in form you do right now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

My faith has me believing That my soul will go to heaven.
[/b]

No logical thinking or scientific process in that. Just a decision that you want it that way, so it must be so. Followed by another decision to accept your first decision as ultimate truth without any proof to support it.

[nerfer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 10:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

Alric~

What happens to you when you die? I mean what happens to your soul/spirit....? Do you just cease to exsist?

My faith has me believing That my soul will go to heaven.

I saw the bait in the headline and thought since I was hooked in the trolling lines, I would add my two cents
[/b]

Having a permanent soul is not connected to evolution, I don't understand how you made such a jump.

The wisdom of crowds works when the law of averages is beneficial - estimating the number of pounds a bull weighs or judge the popularity of a particular movie. If you have other methods of performing the same thing that are relatively straightforward and produce a clear result, then it makes sense to use them directly, such as using a scale to weigh the bull.

I'm not sure wikipedia is an example of wisdom of crowds. Basically that's allowing an open group of self-titled experts on a subject make comments on that subject, which are immediately under peer-review. Not too different from a consensus of scientists, except no credentials are supplied and independent research is not needed or even encouraged. It's the wisdom of a very select crowd - if some uninformed yahoo starts pushing a radical hypothesis, it's immediately purged, not averaged in. New ideas that aren't well-established in the community are also purged, it's a very conservative method of showing information.

But back to evolution - this is something that can be tested and deduced, and doesn't need to rely on opinions and law of averages. So the existence of evolution doesn't need to depend on the wisdom of crowds, but the acceptance of evolution does. There's no doubt that this does run counter to people who adhere to a narrow literal translation of the Bible or other religious sources, particularly the part where the Earth, inhabitants and the Universe was created in 6 days, each being 24 hours, even before the length of a day was created. There are also plenty of religious people who accept evolution without compromise, including my minister father, since we understand that the word day may not mean 24 hours (eg. 'in King Arthur's day' does not mean he was king for 24 hours). Furthermore, the general order of Genesis is not far from modern understanding (first a massless void, then light and dark, then stars and planets, then simple life, then humans). However, the latter group of people tend to not make such a public fuss.

My feeling is, how it was done can be explained by science, why it was done is best explained by religion. Leave each other's domain alone.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 08:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

Do you just cease to exsist?

[/b]

In a strictly scientific way the you of 20yrs ago is no longer here. Nearly all of the cells that composed your body back then have since died and been replaced. So in this way you could almost say that no one exists for very long even when they are alive.

Jared Diamond talked about this (the point of the OP) in "Collapse". That one of the contributing factors to the collapse of civilizations was their inability to jettison old values and replace them with new ones when circumstances change. Easter Island provides a good example of this with their building of extravagant Moi (statues) while simultaneously destroying their environment. I don't think having beliefs is a bad thing but one must be ready to cast off those beliefs and assume new ones if the situation calls for it. That is mental adapability.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Nov 28 2007, 09:22 AM) [snapback]545251[/snapback]</div>

My feeling is, how it was done can be explained by science, why it was done is best explained by religion. Leave each other's domain alone.
[/b]

I disagree with that. What gives religion the sole ownership of why? Why not leave it up to philoshopy or science or personal rational thinking? Religion has not earned any rights to the why of anything imo. Moreover; does there even have to be a why or it is our complex brains assume there has to be?

[nerfer]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 28 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]545255[/snapback]</div>

I disagree with that. What gives religion the sole ownership of why? Why not leave it up to philoshopy or science or personal rational thinking? Religion has not earned any rights to the why of anything imo. [/b]

IMO, philosophy is more related to religion than science. I'm not a philosopher, so I'm sure more learned people will disagree. As for keeping science out of the 'why's, I'm thinking of the Big Why questions - why are we are, why is there evil, etc. Why evolution has been so successful is more of a how question to me.

I was trying to make a nice clean statement, then we have to go and muddy the waters!

Moreover; does there even have to be a why or it is our complex brains assume there has to be?
[/b]

That is why I leave that question to religion. At least until science can get into the brain fully, and Discover magazine did have an interesting article suggesting that a need for religion is hard-wired into the brain. But you can just chase this down the slope - assuming they're right, would this cause us to invent a religion where none exists, or is it there because God wants us to seek Him? (capitalization included for monotheistic religions, the predominant kind on this board)

[burritos]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Nov 28 2007, 11:09 AM) [snapback]545221[/snapback]</div>

Alric~

What happens to you when you die? I mean what happens to your soul/spirit....? Do you just cease to exsist?

My faith has me believing That my soul will go to heaven.

I saw the bait in the headline and thought since I was hooked in the trolling lines, I would add my two cents
[/b]

Believing that you're going to go to heaven where all the good people are and eventually being reunited with your loved ones for eternity is a comforting belief especially when the alternative is that EVERYTHING with regards to you ends when you die. But because this belief is comforting doesn't make it true. If you had cancer and your doctor told you that your were perfectly healthy because it was comforting that wouldn't make it the right thing to do.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Nov 28 2007, 10:04 AM) [snapback]545274[/snapback]</div>

IMO, philosophy is more related to religion than science. I'm not a philosopher, so I'm sure more learned people will disagree. As for keeping science out of the 'why's, I'm thinking of the Big Why questions - why are we are, why is there evil, etc. Why evolution has been so successful is more of a how question to me.

I was trying to make a nice clean statement, then we have to go and muddy the waters!
That is why I leave that question to religion. At least until science can get into the brain fully, and Discover magazine did have an interesting article suggesting that a need for religion is hard-wired into the brain. But you can just chase this down the slope - assuming they're right, would this cause us to invent a religion where none exists, or is it there because God wants us to seek Him? (capitalization included for monotheistic religions, the predominant kind on this board)
[/b]

I feel there is just as much validity in scientific reasoning for our minds creating various religions as there is for religion itself. Until we can provide more susbstantial evidence for either I feel they are on equal footing and belong to philosophical debates. Although personally I do feel that neuroscience is gaining an edge.

Maybe religions are just another step in the evoultionary process. We started with none, then we added a ton of religious forms and deities, then we reduced them to one (in the case of Christianity) and some of us just went one step further like Dawkins said. He also stated that all of us are atheists for none of you truly believe in Baal, Zeus or Coyote.

I don't see how any of this can be "clean" as you put it because there is nothing in black and white.

[Darwood]

"What happens to you when you die? I mean what happens to your soul/spirit....? Do you just cease to exsist?"

All evidence point to yes, despite our desire for it not to be true. A 2000 year old book is not evidence to the contrary. Esp. since it is not the only book of its age and theme and they are all different in interpretation on this matter.

I actually have a problem with "the soul" itself. How do you define it? It's not something that can be measured, observed, or studied. In fact, as a neuropsychology major, I have not found any human trait that cannot be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry, and/or biology. This includes the near death "bright light" phenomenon, the illusion of free will (at least as it is understood), as well as the supposed soul. Technically, the conscienceness of humans is present in both halves of the brain, which would imply TWO souls, not one. By cutting the corpus collosum, you can achieve a brain that has two distinct lines of thoughts, desires, and emotions.

What happens when an embryo suddenly divides and becomes identical twins? Is this a soul that has split into 2? What about Dolly the sheep? Can you clone the soul? No fertilization has taken place, merely the harvesting of cells of a current "soul" and manipulation to begin as a new one. No wonder the ultra religious are so scared of cloning (not to say I support human cloning either). It throws the whole definition of the soul on its ear.