Posted by Helen on: 06.21.2006 /
Yesterday I posted a quote from a Christian speaker telling me what God says about capital punishment. He didn’t say ‘maybe’. He said it with certainty. He seems sure he knows what God’s opinion on the matter is.
Over the last few years I got very used to Christians telling me things with certainty which I didn’t agree with. From their certainty I concluded, rightly or wrongly, that it would be impossible for anything I could say to change their minds. To me they seemed closed to the possibility they could be wrong.
Yesterday in comment #9 of Should Hemant Teach Intelligent Design? Siamang wrote:
And by true, I mean exactly that. It is true that human beings have evolved from earlier forms of animals. It is true that all animals share a common ancestry.
Just as I can say that it’s true that anything at all is true. Science has a methodological process that would say “this theory best fits the evidence.”
I am not science. I am a human being, and as such I have no trouble talking like a person and not like a robot.
I’m always willing to hear any evidence to the contrary, at which time I’ll change my position. But just as it’s a true thing that the sun will shine on the earth tomorrow, and it’s a true thing that ice floats and lead sinks, it’s a true thing that chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor.
Some of what Siamang wrote comes across to me as having the same certainty as the Christians have. On the other hand he says he is willing to hear evidence to the contrary.
I want this discussion to be about how we use and interpret language (rather than about Siamang or the truth of evolution). If I’m using or interpreting it differently from the way most other people do I’d like to be aware of that.
What I’d like to know is: when you hear someone say “Such-and-such is true”
Also,
Comment by: Julie Marie
1 06/21/06 7:52 AM | Comment Link |I had assumed that such and such is true meant strongly convinced but open to evidence to the contrary, but I’ve learned (ouch!) not to make that assumption any more. I need to do two things: learn to discern how open people are to even considering there might be creditable evidence to the contrary before I get bitten and scratched, and also become more comfortable with others bad opinions of me! (this is hard for a woman who likes to please :))
I’ve learned to be very careful how I use the word “True.” When I do let it slip out, I mean I’m strongly convinced but open to well substantiated evidence. I don’t see this as being open minded, actually, I see this position as being realistic.
Comment by: Pam Hogeweide
2 06/21/06 9:46 AM | Comment Link |when i was younger i would argue with anybody about anything in an arrogant attempt to bring their perspective into agreement with mine. over the years, as i’ve hopefully matured, i can now hear a contrary view without a compulsive need to set the person straight, particularly if it’s about religion, and more specificially if it’s about Christianity.
Having said that, I have to say that passionate conviction back with reasonable evidence gets my respect, even if I don’t agree. It’s not very interesting to me if someone sounds like a beauty pageant contestant dodging a position on anything in order to not offend anyone. I’d much rather know what you believe and be offended than have you lack conviction and spin your ideas like a politician garnering votes.
My husband and I have argued about this a bit. Over the years he has pointed out my tendency to be opinionated. Though it’s true that time has mellowed me out I am still a strong minded woman who holds fiercely to my perspective. The things I am convinced about, like the existence of God for example, cannot be undone in me. Is this a stubborn position making me vulnerable to delusion? Perhaps. However, I cannot bear the alternative, to go through my life with no convictions and avoid commiting my mind and heart to something that requires a degree of faith.
Certainty in life about those things that cannot be unequivocally proven is acceptable to me. Otherwise, life would be like a drab textbook full of facts. Facts are good, but mystery is good too.
Comment by: jim
3 06/21/06 11:00 AM | Comment Link |Because I have come to trust Siamang I lean toward believing him when he says he is open to new evidence but if I wasn’t predisposed to believing that and I read this I probably wouldn’t based on the degree of certainty he expresses.
I am also too lazy to research all of this (making me like most people) and as a result cannot intelligently interact around the issue (it just doesn;t interest me) Consequently I am left to base my hunches on trusted guides (like your favorite mechanic who you know won’t rip you off but will tell you the truth).
Frankly I find it very diffifcult to believe that Siamang can prove his claims beyond a shadow of doubt. I think if it were THAT true more people would have come to accept the reality and place it in the same category as lead, gravity,sunrise etc etc. But then again there are a lot of things that were discovered to be true only after centuries of denial so I could be wrong.
In the end it doesnt matter to me (although it would to many Cs to be sure which is where Simang gets his heat around the issue I presume) It does have the same “ring of certainty” I am more accustomed to hearing from Conservative Cs and was surprised to hear from As but have come to understand as them just being human and wanting certainty as badly as the rest of us.
Comment by: Julie Marie
4 06/21/06 11:49 AM | Comment Link |I used to assume that people held beliefs but were open to evidence to the contrary. I’ve learned this is not always the case, so now I try not to assume. For the times I misjudge, I am working on developing thicker skin. Its not easy for a “pleaser” like me to accept that people will have a bad opinion of me because of what I believe (or don’t believe). But that comes with the territory.
I’m usually open to convincing new evidence. But I don’t see this as open minded per se, I see it as realistic.
Comment by: Doreen
5 06/21/06 12:50 PM | Comment Link |The more I learn, the less I know.
I try not to make assumptions when someone says “such and such is true” as to whether they are open to “such and such” being false. It’s best to ask.
I only say “such and such is true” when I’m 99% sure I’m right. Otherwise I say “I think such and such” so I hope that tells the person I may be wrong.
Comment by: Eliza
6 06/21/06 4:58 PM | Comment Link |I have been surprised and somewhat disilliusioned by what seems like a blanket negative response to science and scientists from some Christians on sites linked to this one lately. I feel myself getting more reactive, wanting to state my positions (around science) more firmly. I am a scientist (though now I practice medicine, a pseudo-science) and grew up in a family of scientists. I know that Siamang, though not specifically educated as a scientist, has a really firm grasp on the best science has to offer, and also the pitfalls it can run into, and suspect he may be stating things with more emphasis, as am I, to try to get his point across in some way…when more give-and-take discussion doesn’t seem to be doing the trick.
Comment by: Eliza
7 06/21/06 5:27 PM | Comment Link |Second set of comments, on certainty/uncertainty.
I don’t know how my opinions have come across here, but in other areas of life I think I’m open to, and comfortable with, uncertainty.
In clinical medicine (my day job), uncertainty has a major presence everyday. Essay upon essay has been written about uncertainty in medicine, including (for example) this one. Some physicians are more comfortable with uncertainty than others, and some let their discomfort or comfort show more than others. But it’s something we have to face every day, repeatedly, in so many of the decisions we make with and for patients.
Often times, physicians like to talk with other physicians about cases they’re not certain about. For many docs, this is a big plus to a group practice. Once in a while, or every day, a physician might stop a colleague in the hallway and say, “Can I run this case past you?” or “Could you look at this rash for me?” I round with residents and students on the medicine wards of a local university hospital, and alot of what we talk about is stuff like (senior physician asking more junior physician or student): What do you think is going on? How likely is that, compared with other possibilities? Would you want any more information (tests, etc) to be more certain of your diagnostic impression, or are you ready to move ahead with treatment? (And then, the senior physicians step in with teaching points, and to make sure the team is proceeding on a reasonable course & not just doing “every test known to man” - a stock phrase in medicine.)
When any 2 docs talk about cases, they are kind of checking even the “known, true” information with each other, and correcting it based on old and new findings and publications. “I stopped [medication name] because his kidney function worsened.” (implied meaning, that’s what we always do when the kidney function test worsens on any medication, so I bet you agree with what I did). “Actually, there was a recent study showing the blood test for kidney function can worsen by 10% on this particular type of medication without any actual change in kidney function. It was in [name of major medical journal]. They recommended continuing the medication, even though the test worsens a bit, and just following the kidney function closely.” “Oh, really? That’s interesting. I’ll look that up.” And so on.
Also, one key teaching point I took away from my undergraduate education (at a science-heavy school) was that there could always be some possibility you haven’t thought of yet. I feel like I always include this when I’m running through the list of possibilities: it could be A, or B, or C, or it could be something I haven’t thought of. (Which is not always the same as realizing it could be Not A ;) ). But I think that has also been very useful at keeping my mind open. But hopefully not so open my brain falls out ;) .
So, I think I would phrase it, “there’s alot of data that supports the theory of evolution” and “I don’t see [believe? allow?] data that supports an alternate theory as accounting better for the observations.” Of course, it could have been God, just planting fossils to fool us, or aliens I suppose, or I could all be hallucinating that this life is real, but those latter 2 explanations especially seem silly and not valid for serious consideration.
Comment by: Lisa W.
8 06/22/06 3:30 PM | Comment Link |Jim said,
I think this is spot on.
As Humans we want to relyon a way of thinking about something in order to give our lives a certain balast.
Comment by: Helen M.
9 06/22/06 6:38 PM | Comment Link |Speaking for myself, I’m fine with that phrasing. It allows room for me not being convinced. It doesn’t tell me I’m wrong.