> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:53:30 -0700 (PDT), turtoni
>
>
>
>
>
> fastmail.net> wrote:

>>"There are several possible reasons that beliefs persevere despite
>>contrary evidence. Embarrassment over having to withdraw a publicly
>>declared belief, for example, or stubbornness or hope. Tradition,
>>superstition, religion, worldview, or ideology can allow a believer to
>>give a greater weight to some data over other data.

>

>>One explanation may lie in the workings of the human sensory system.
>>Human brains and senses are organised in such a manner so as to
>>facilitate rapid evaluation of social situations and others' states of
>>mind. Studies have shown that this behaviour is evident in the
>>choosing of friends and partners and houses, even though it is largely
>>subconscious. Although it can be a very fast process, the initial
>>impression has a lasting effect as a byproduct of the brain's tendency
>>to fill in the gaps of what it perceives and the unwillingness of the
>>believer to admit a mistake."

>

>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

>
> That is an interesting citation. I was just discussing this with
> someone else who claimed that I could not be convinced by any facts.
> But as it turns out, he is the one who cannot be convinced, and my own
> views turn around not so muchon empirical ("hard") evidence as they do
> on pointing to those presuppositions which make some facts more
> apparent or more relevant than others. For instance, when my
> interlocutor writes without showing evidence for
> what is or is not relevant, this is obviously due to a closed-minded
> and dogmatically-held bias on his part.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
>
> In his case, the closed-minded dogmatism is the effect, not of any
> fact, but of a theory known as scientism. And I have tried to argue
> that he would only consider those facts relevant to scientism's
> presuppositions, even when I offer citation after citation
> demonstrating to him that he has been partially blinded by these
> dogmatic presuppositions. And in fact his apparently great respect
> for the facts is not based upon any facts at all, but on a kind of
> science-worshipping religion.
>
> But the Scientism article cited above points out a possible fallacy in
> employing it merely as a pejorative label. It would of course be
> necessary to prove scientism, and fortunately this is very easy to do.
> One can easily see the scientism in efforts to merely dismiss
> contrary, or perhaps just novel, ideas as irrelevant with the mere
> "wave of a hand": philosophy -- "irrelevant"; religion --
> "irrelevant"; any opinions besides my own -- "irrelevant."
>
> The danger with simply using the term "scientism" pejoratively is the
> fact that science has many brilliant and astoundingly good things to
> say -- except when it engages in scientism, where it then brings
> itself down to the intellectual level of the simple-minded and
> religious, and what passes for philosophy, the highest of all the
> sciences and the apex of reason itself, becomes nothing more than a
> few tidbits of childish rationalizations passed down from father to
> son or from professor to student.

> --
>
> " If I had remembered that the name 'Galt' appears
> in one of her books, I would have chosen a different
> name for my character."
>
> Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -