In writing about God, Jesus and faith, I have raised at one time or another several questions. All of these are related to how I reason about problems. I want to give a couple of examples, and then raise questions that trouble me.
I was a veery late non-believer in Santa Claus. As I recall, I was 8 or even 9 years old. My father, who never much liked American Christmas, came into my room to talk to me about Santa Claus. He asked me if Santa existed, and I told my father he did. My father asked me where the presents came from, and I told him Santa’s workshop at the North Pole. He asked me how Santa’s sleigh could carry all the toys, and deliver them down a chimney, all homes in one night. I had no reply to this except to repeat that I thought Santa was real. He then showed me an item on my shelves which I had received from Santa. He asked me why, if Santa had delivered it, there was the name ‘Hasbro’ on it, with a copyright mark. It was only then that I realized he was telling the truth, and that Santa was not real.
Unlike my father, I love Christmas. I love the lights, the tree, the decorations, the weather, the happy, peaceful family times, the special meal items. I love the stories about Santa, and watch ‘A Christmas Carol’ every year.
We have extensive ‘evidence’ of the existence of Santa Claus. He is based in a real man and saint, St. Nicholas, or in Dutch Sin Niclaus, and thus Santa Claus. We have volumes of works written about him, and the images of Christmas and Santa are largely set in the poem ‘The Night Before Christmas’. My enjoyment of the season has nothing to do with the ‘reality’ of Santa, while having everything to do with what the season represents, and its avatar in Santa.
The reclassification of the Earth element into three forms of earth, one of them flammable, led to the phlogiston theory. Phlogiston has had various forms and characteristics over its 150 year reign as the explanation of combustion. Neither nitrogen, carbon dioxide or oxygen had yet been discovered, and phlogiston explained why elements burned in air. The theory was challenged when more accurate measurements found that some elements gained mass while burning, an idea inconsistent with the consumption of phlogiston. In trying to perpetuate the theory, some even suggested that phlogiston had a negative mass, a sort of Aristotelian version of anti-matter, I suppose. Finally, careful weight experiments showed the conservation of oxygen mass in combusted metals, and the idea of phlogiston was dead. It is quite impressive to me that a completely false idea reigned as scientific reason and truth for 150 years.
I give these two examples of false reasoning because they represent two types of error. My belief in Santa is an example of refusing to accept data in the face of fixed belief. Phlogiston is an example of how hard humans try to explain that which they do not understand, even when data and reason contradict the belief or theory.
Beyond these examples, there are a couple of errors of reasoning. One is generalization from the particular to the universal. Another is circular thinking, in which the base assumptions guarantee the ‘conclusion’. Both my Santa story and phlogiston are examples of the latter. It is quite remarkable how many ‘scientific’ papers are nothing more than circular reasoning. Goldstein’s papers on estrogens and breast cancer are an immediate example. He has in every paper the phrase ‘we know estrogens cause cancer’. What do you think the results of his ‘research’ are?
I will use these examples and ideas to raise some questions that continue to trouble me.
Ted
I was a veery late non-believer in Santa Claus. As I recall, I was 8 or even 9 years old. My father, who never much liked American Christmas, came into my room to talk to me about Santa Claus. He asked me if Santa existed, and I told my father he did. My father asked me where the presents came from, and I told him Santa’s workshop at the North Pole. He asked me how Santa’s sleigh could carry all the toys, and deliver them down a chimney, all homes in one night. I had no reply to this except to repeat that I thought Santa was real. He then showed me an item on my shelves which I had received from Santa. He asked me why, if Santa had delivered it, there was the name ‘Hasbro’ on it, with a copyright mark. It was only then that I realized he was telling the truth, and that Santa was not real.
Unlike my father, I love Christmas. I love the lights, the tree, the decorations, the weather, the happy, peaceful family times, the special meal items. I love the stories about Santa, and watch ‘A Christmas Carol’ every year.
We have extensive ‘evidence’ of the existence of Santa Claus. He is based in a real man and saint, St. Nicholas, or in Dutch Sin Niclaus, and thus Santa Claus. We have volumes of works written about him, and the images of Christmas and Santa are largely set in the poem ‘The Night Before Christmas’. My enjoyment of the season has nothing to do with the ‘reality’ of Santa, while having everything to do with what the season represents, and its avatar in Santa.
The reclassification of the Earth element into three forms of earth, one of them flammable, led to the phlogiston theory. Phlogiston has had various forms and characteristics over its 150 year reign as the explanation of combustion. Neither nitrogen, carbon dioxide or oxygen had yet been discovered, and phlogiston explained why elements burned in air. The theory was challenged when more accurate measurements found that some elements gained mass while burning, an idea inconsistent with the consumption of phlogiston. In trying to perpetuate the theory, some even suggested that phlogiston had a negative mass, a sort of Aristotelian version of anti-matter, I suppose. Finally, careful weight experiments showed the conservation of oxygen mass in combusted metals, and the idea of phlogiston was dead. It is quite impressive to me that a completely false idea reigned as scientific reason and truth for 150 years.
I give these two examples of false reasoning because they represent two types of error. My belief in Santa is an example of refusing to accept data in the face of fixed belief. Phlogiston is an example of how hard humans try to explain that which they do not understand, even when data and reason contradict the belief or theory.
Beyond these examples, there are a couple of errors of reasoning. One is generalization from the particular to the universal. Another is circular thinking, in which the base assumptions guarantee the ‘conclusion’. Both my Santa story and phlogiston are examples of the latter. It is quite remarkable how many ‘scientific’ papers are nothing more than circular reasoning. Goldstein’s papers on estrogens and breast cancer are an immediate example. He has in every paper the phrase ‘we know estrogens cause cancer’. What do you think the results of his ‘research’ are?
I will use these examples and ideas to raise some questions that continue to trouble me.
Ted
It's nice to have something to believe in even when deep down we know it's not real or just a fantasy. Without that, the world would be a pretty boring place.
ReplyDelete