| | It can be a slippery slope, and I'll risk being accused of dismissing people out-of-hand in certain cases when so many others claiming the same thing were wrong before - ESP, PK, or most commonly, religious adherents who claim you can't really be an atheist since you haven't studied their religion.
I've done that too. Sometimes, badly. And with horrid results. I know that I will try not to, but not that I will *never* do it again. I just have to know myself better and try to know what kinds of reaction that I have to things. I call that self-knowledge... maybe others call it something different. For me, self-knowledge allows me to self-rule.
Adherents & atheism: It's true that one can only study so much. I'm not pleading for omniscience. I've had the same questions asked of me about atheism; however, I've had a rather unfortunate education in theology, so I can say that I *did* study the Bible extensively [w/in the Torah]-- I've read 90% of it, and about 25% of it more than once. Shortest verse in the Bible? John 11:35, "Jesus wept". ;) I've also read a textbook on Buddhism, the Mahabharata [w/in it the Bhagavad Gita], the Tibetan book of the Dead, the Tao Te Ching, and grew up with Chinese god/goddess stories. I don't have a degree or even a major in comparative religion, but I feel comfortable knowing that I at least made an honest effort to know. Once you read enough of this stuff, you can notice a trend. Also, I'm somewhat internet savvy and I realize how powerful a tool it is to find information. The Koran and the Book of Mormon is next on my list.
As for ESP, etc.-- this is what I do: I look at evidence (like on theism), on both sides of the issue. It means reading about it on pseudoscience sites, reading peer-reviewed research articles, testing, and making as wise a judgement I can based on what I've found. This particular subject may use up only an hour or so b/c of my background; for non-scientists there are articles, books, Google Scholar, Skeptic Magazine, etc. Ultimately one must make up their own mind, no one else can choose for you, or me. Good judgement isn't *always* a snap judgement (well, ESP to me is more 'snap' than other subjects-- by dint of my education).
Reverence for Newton's work made it an uphill battle for those treating light as waves, Einstein's resistance may have delayed some acceptance of QM, and undoubtedly some other cases - but in general I don't think right ideas get ignored for long.
Newton's stuff is the first thing taught in general physics (I know this b/c I took physics last year). I think Einstein was a little 'stuck' in Newtonian mechanics (I wrote an essay summarizing his theories of relativity), but again, I'm not a physicist. Also, my philosophy of physics prof wasn't afraid to say "Einstein was wrong." and to show us why. I've had more than one physicist make a difference to me about microscopic vs. macro. It's size context. Accpetance of QM is still hard, given that it's relatively new, & currently counterintuitive, compared to Newton's Laws. But ultimately, if it hits both truth and evidence, it'll let us know by the results:
Much of modern technology operates at a scale where quantum effects are significant. Examples include the laser, the transistor, the electron microscope, and magnetic resonance imaging. The study of semiconductors led to the invention of the diode and the transistor, which are indispensable for modern electronics. Wikipedia: quantum mechanics
I can't say no to QM due to the relevance it has to MRI machinations-- what I will be using to do research on brains:
Only one in a million nuclei align themselves with the magnetic field. Yet, the vast quantity of nuclei in a small volume sum to produce a detectable change in field. Most basic explanations of NMR and MRI will say that the nuclei align parallel or anti-parallel with the static magnetic field; however, because of quantum mechanical reasons beyond the scope of this article, the nuclei are actually set off at an angle from the direction of the static magnetic field. Wikipedia: MRI technique
Rand also held that ALL emotions can be programmed (in other words, controlled in some manner) by conscious thinking.
If Rand said this, then it's an inaccurate statement-- emotions *can* be consciously directed to some extent in everyone, *but* with constraints dependent on brain physiology, neurotransmitter relevance, brain blood flow, neural networking, brain development, genetics, nutrition, pathology (if any), and/or childhood/adulthood psychological/psychiatric influence.
The underside is that she assigned reason to areas (like the subconscious, or in causing/preventing cancer) where it does not work, at least not in the manner she postulated.
I put Rand in context of what she knew and during what time period she lived. She was no cognitive neuroscientist, and it shows, even to a student of cog. neurosci.
But she did ground philosophy in a lot of fundamental levels that allow for rationality, individualism, growth, and progress; the trick is is to understand her on a "life" level rather than just at a "words" level.
|
|
