<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Pattern Behind Self Deception</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/</link>
	<description>The official blog of the Skeptologists</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 17:07:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: reference needed</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/#comment-24839</link>
		<dc:creator>reference needed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:13:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=8607#comment-24839</guid>
		<description>Would you please provide a reference for the statement &quot;the majority scientists believe in God&quot;?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would you please provide a reference for the statement &#8220;the majority scientists believe in God&#8221;?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Godwin</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/#comment-24838</link>
		<dc:creator>Godwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:10:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=8607#comment-24838</guid>
		<description>You might have had a point, but the bells and whistles that began sounding for activating Godwin&#039;s Law in your last sentence made me forget everything that came before it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might have had a point, but the bells and whistles that began sounding for activating Godwin&#8217;s Law in your last sentence made me forget everything that came before it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: two scoops</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/#comment-24837</link>
		<dc:creator>two scoops</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:05:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=8607#comment-24837</guid>
		<description>A skeptic doesn&#039;t have to be a cynic, and as you have just  demonstrated, a cynic doesn&#039;t have to consider himself a skeptic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A skeptic doesn&#8217;t have to be a cynic, and as you have just  demonstrated, a cynic doesn&#8217;t have to consider himself a skeptic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: two scoops</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/#comment-24836</link>
		<dc:creator>two scoops</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 21:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=8607#comment-24836</guid>
		<description>Commercials for Raisin Bran had the smiling sun with its two scoops of Raisins.  Every kid watching Saturday morning cartoons (before cable television) would have known that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Commercials for Raisin Bran had the smiling sun with its two scoops of Raisins.  Every kid watching Saturday morning cartoons (before cable television) would have known that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/#comment-22644</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:20:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=8607#comment-22644</guid>
		<description>Also, intelligent designers are not seeing a pattern that Darwinists see. In other words, I&#039;m not sure this is a type 1 error on their part. If they don&#039;t see a pattern that is (presumably) real (e.g., that time and chance are sufficient explanation for the complexity of life) then I think it is a type two error. Also, I&#039;m pretty sure that is what the scientific methods is supposed to be about, trying to disprove a hypothesis. Some people might be uncomfortable with the logical conclusion of throwing out Darwin, but that doesn&#039;t make intelligent designers akin to people who see conspiracies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also, intelligent designers are not seeing a pattern that Darwinists see. In other words, I&#8217;m not sure this is a type 1 error on their part. If they don&#8217;t see a pattern that is (presumably) real (e.g., that time and chance are sufficient explanation for the complexity of life) then I think it is a type two error. Also, I&#8217;m pretty sure that is what the scientific methods is supposed to be about, trying to disprove a hypothesis. Some people might be uncomfortable with the logical conclusion of throwing out Darwin, but that doesn&#8217;t make intelligent designers akin to people who see conspiracies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/#comment-22641</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 01:10:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=8607#comment-22641</guid>
		<description>He&#039;s got some interesting examples but I&#039;m not sure why he threw intelligent design in there with aliens and 911 truthers. There are hundreds of working Ph.D. scientists who openly state that Darwin&#039;s explanations can&#039;t account for the complexity of life. Additionally, the majority scientists believe in God. In contrast, very few are genuine atheists. From the standpoint of evidence, he used some great concrete examples and studies and then hastily extrapolated that to basically all religious beliefs. I mean, my gosh, it&#039;s called &quot;faith&quot; for a reason. We know it&#039;s a belief. He seemed to have a fairly low, condescending regard for people in general.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He&#8217;s got some interesting examples but I&#8217;m not sure why he threw intelligent design in there with aliens and 911 truthers. There are hundreds of working Ph.D. scientists who openly state that Darwin&#8217;s explanations can&#8217;t account for the complexity of life. Additionally, the majority scientists believe in God. In contrast, very few are genuine atheists. From the standpoint of evidence, he used some great concrete examples and studies and then hastily extrapolated that to basically all religious beliefs. I mean, my gosh, it&#8217;s called &#8220;faith&#8221; for a reason. We know it&#8217;s a belief. He seemed to have a fairly low, condescending regard for people in general.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gene</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/#comment-22635</link>
		<dc:creator>Gene</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:53:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=8607#comment-22635</guid>
		<description>Scientists may find philosophy interesting. Much of what I just read and heard in this interesting presentation is obvious - and I have no equations available, nor any jargon to foster. 

Animals have survival skills. This is clear to anyone watching. Humans are not gifted in most physical attributes, not a good actor in a fight with a big cat or bear. Humans, however, survive because of communal skills and the ability to recall and assemble data.  From infancy animals look and learn.  Humans are especially good at this and great at assembling lessons and teaching them to their young in an abstract way. We have become what I can call &quot;abstractors.&quot;

These abstractions are superb learning tools and permit us to leave the jungle. The more an abstraction works, the more we have faith in it.  If one is bad, we get eaten. 

Our problem is we tend to &quot;believe&quot; abstractions (&quot;science&quot; being one of them).  This would relate to the theme here. Our minds assemble, categorize and abstract. That is what we are. However, abstractions are not reality, if indeed anyone actually experiences that. We forget that and accept certain abstractions as &quot;fact.&quot; Others will call it a belief.

In the end, history becomes nothing more than the &quot;fight or flight&quot; instinct raised by contrary abstractions.  

I enjoyed the chimp segment.  I have seen &quot;bums&quot; select fine wines while yuppies pick the crap, which is also enlightening. 

In conclusion, I propose that those who fancy them &quot;scientists&quot; are creating an illusion for themselves. Science is a tool; theories are not facts. One isn&#039;t a hammer, so how is one a scientist?  Tools are survival mechanisms and will help, but they are not reality.  To smugly distain all from a &quot;scientific&quot; position is arrogance and a dangerous delusion if unchecked.  The NAZIs had great scientists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Scientists may find philosophy interesting. Much of what I just read and heard in this interesting presentation is obvious &#8211; and I have no equations available, nor any jargon to foster. </p>
<p>Animals have survival skills. This is clear to anyone watching. Humans are not gifted in most physical attributes, not a good actor in a fight with a big cat or bear. Humans, however, survive because of communal skills and the ability to recall and assemble data.  From infancy animals look and learn.  Humans are especially good at this and great at assembling lessons and teaching them to their young in an abstract way. We have become what I can call &#8220;abstractors.&#8221;</p>
<p>These abstractions are superb learning tools and permit us to leave the jungle. The more an abstraction works, the more we have faith in it.  If one is bad, we get eaten. </p>
<p>Our problem is we tend to &#8220;believe&#8221; abstractions (&#8220;science&#8221; being one of them).  This would relate to the theme here. Our minds assemble, categorize and abstract. That is what we are. However, abstractions are not reality, if indeed anyone actually experiences that. We forget that and accept certain abstractions as &#8220;fact.&#8221; Others will call it a belief.</p>
<p>In the end, history becomes nothing more than the &#8220;fight or flight&#8221; instinct raised by contrary abstractions.  </p>
<p>I enjoyed the chimp segment.  I have seen &#8220;bums&#8221; select fine wines while yuppies pick the crap, which is also enlightening. </p>
<p>In conclusion, I propose that those who fancy them &#8220;scientists&#8221; are creating an illusion for themselves. Science is a tool; theories are not facts. One isn&#8217;t a hammer, so how is one a scientist?  Tools are survival mechanisms and will help, but they are not reality.  To smugly distain all from a &#8220;scientific&#8221; position is arrogance and a dangerous delusion if unchecked.  The NAZIs had great scientists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Powers</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/#comment-22634</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Powers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:57:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=8607#comment-22634</guid>
		<description>Like say people who see a pattern of global warming caused by man in every weather event.  In spite of the clear proof the data is manipulated for finacial gain by the scientists and politicians behind it certain people believe because they have an irrational fear there is an ominous patter rather than just random events or innocuous changing weather patterns.  Good point.   Thanks for the insight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Like say people who see a pattern of global warming caused by man in every weather event.  In spite of the clear proof the data is manipulated for finacial gain by the scientists and politicians behind it certain people believe because they have an irrational fear there is an ominous patter rather than just random events or innocuous changing weather patterns.  Good point.   Thanks for the insight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/#comment-22550</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:46:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=8607#comment-22550</guid>
		<description>Would you care to actually provide the evidence?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would you care to actually provide the evidence?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticblog.org/2010/06/15/the-pattern-behind-self-deception/#comment-22549</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:41:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://skepticblog.org/?p=8607#comment-22549</guid>
		<description>Thanks for making that up!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for making that up!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

