- Marxism used slogans and catchphrases such as "dictatorship of the proletariat," "opium of the people" (to refer to religion) and "Workers of the world, unite!"
- "Better dead than red" and "un-American activities" were slogans and catchphrases used by opponents of Marxism.
- Christianity has used many slogans and catchphrases such as "Jesus saves," "God wills it," "born again" and "God works in mysterious ways."
- "Black lives matter" and "we shall overcome" were effective slogans of political activists.
- "Manifest destiny" (and a very bad slogan about American Indians that I won't repeat) were important in the ideology of American expansionism that involved the original 13 colonies expanding to become a nation stretching from one ocean to another.
- Nazism used slogans and catchphrases such as "living space" (to refer to territory to be acquired by force), "blood and soil," and "master race."
- "Yes we can," "we demand better," "power to the people," "make love not war," and "the whole world is watching" were effectively used as slogans by various left-leaning groups or antiwar groups.
There are various slogans and catchphrases that are frequently used by materialists to spread their ideas. They include the following:
"There must be a rational explanation." This slogan is frequently evoked to try to suggest that anything but materialist explanations are irrational. So, for example, if someone reports seeing an apparition or ghost, some materialist may say, "There must be a rational explanation." But in this case there is a rational explanation that the materialist does not want to believe in: that humans have a soul, and that such a soul survives death.
"Natural effects require natural explanations." From a logical standpoint, it is by no means clear that "natural effects require natural explanations." This is a statement with the logical form of "X Y requires X Z," and statements with that form are not generally true. For example, it is not true that fat husbands require fat wives; it is not true that American men require American cars; and it is not true that smart students require smart clothes (mindless cotton clothes will work just fine for smart students). Particular effects typically or often regarded as natural (such as the origin of life or the origin of minds or the origin of the universe) may be impossible to credibly explain through any natural explanations, and may well require a supernatural explanation.
"Trust the science." This slogan is used to try to get you to believe anything that a scientist claims to believe in, some of which may be doubtful ideology that is not actually science (defined in the most rigorous way), such as the belief that your mind is merely the product of your brain. The word "science" can mean various things. The most stringent definition of "science" is one in which we define science as facts established by observation and experiment. You can call that "science with a capital S." But it also very common to use a much looser definition of science. Science will often be defined as the process of searching for truth by using experiments, observations and theorizing. That is what we can call "science with a small s." Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that "science with a small s" involves a large degree of error, often resulting in claims that are just plain false. For example, there are shockingly prevalent bad work habits in experimental neuroscience, such as the all-too-common use of way-too-small study group sizes. Such bad practices often lead to misleading and irreproducible experimental results. As for scientific theorizing, it includes a host of groundless speculations, and also some of the worst nonsense humans have ever thought up, such as the crazy morally destructive nonsense that is Everett's theory of parallel universes. So while we should trust "science with a capital S" (facts proven by scientists) we should be very wary and suspicious about "science with a small S," particularly doubtful ideas that scientists are trying to sell to us as science. So a simple rule of thumb "trust the science" is not a very good one. A more complicated rule is needed, such as "trust proven scientific facts, but be very wary and suspicious about scientist claims that are not proven."
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This slogan is used as a kind of club or cudgel to attack evidence of paranormal phenomena. From a logical standpoint, it is by no means clear that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This is a statement with the form "X Y requires X Z," and statements with that form are not generally true. For example, it is not true that British men require British books (as such men can enjoy reading American books); and it is not true that blonde husbands require blonde wives. The slogan of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is also very vague in an unscientfic way. The term "extraordinary evidence" is not even a term commonly used by scientists, and it has no clear meaning.
The slogan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is basically equivalent to the slogan "it doesn't count unless it's proof." Such slogans are science-stifling, and if people believe in them, scientific activity will be less likely to proceed as it should.
In the world of properly functioning science, it does not at all work that you ignore evidence until there's proof. Instead things work more like this:
(1) When there's no evidence for a possibility and no reason to believe in it, you say nothing in favor of the possibility.
(2) When there's a little evidence for the possibility and some small reason for believing in it, maybe you say that the possibility is barely possible.
(3) When there's substantial evidence for the possibility or a fairly good reason for believing the possibility is true, but not enough to show its likelihood, you say that the possibility might well be true.
(4) When there's sufficient evidence that the possibility is probably true or sufficient reason for thinking it is probably true, you say that the possibility is a likelihood.
(5) When there's sufficient evidence that the possibility is very probably true, you say that the possibility is very likely to be true.
(6) When there's sufficient evidence that the possibility is all but certain, you say that the possibility is almost certainly true.
(7) When there's sufficient evidence that the possibility is certainly true, you say that the possibility is an established fact.
This process is illustrated by the pyramid below. Through many long years of scientific effort, an idea may slowly move up this pyramid.
What's wrong with the slogan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? The slogan encourages an "ignore it if it's not proof" rule of thumb which is detrimental to the scientific process, a process that often involves slowly gathering evidence over many years, decades or centuries to reach higher and higher levels of confidence about such claims. When people are encouraged to follow principles such as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" or "it doesn't count if it isn't proof," they are less likely to do the hard groundwork that is necessary to lay the observational foundation that may eventually lead to confirmed scientific discoveries. Laying such a foundation often involves systematically and laboriously accumulating evidence that is not yet strong enough to establish likelihood or certainty.
We can imagine how the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" advice might have worked during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic:
First week of COVID-19 outbreak
Scientist John: Ten people have some strange sickness we can't explain. It might be a new virus.
Scientist Paul: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ignore it.
Second week of COVID-19 outbreak
Scientist John: 100 people now have some strange sickness we can't explain. It might be a new virus.
Scientist Paul: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ignore it.
Third week of COVID-19 outbreak
Scientist John: 1000 people now have some strange sickness we can't explain. It might be a new virus! We're in trouble!
Scientist Paul: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ignore it.
Fourth week of COVID-19 outbreak
Scientist John: 10,000 people now have some strange sickness we can't explain. We've genetically analyzed their blood, and proven it's a new virus!
Scientist Paul: Gee, I guess maybe we should do something.
No comments:
Post a Comment