Shermer gives the name “patternicity” to our tendency to find patterns whether or not there are really there, and goes on to show why the cost of creating false negatives (believing there is no pattern when in fact there is one) can cost far more than creating false positives (which is the opposite illusion). He believes this, combined with the tendency of stress to increase patternicity, explain why we (as a species) are so credulous.

I have a few doubts about his hypotheses. Firstly, although he shows that we tend to see false positives in split-second, potentially life or death situations, he does not show why we should tend to perceive false positives (e.g., the ridiculous [to me] idea that the universe has been designed, and has one designer) when we are not under such stress, or were not under such stress when the belief was first presented to us. It seems to me likely that habit-forming reinforcement of (for example) religious beliefs would play a large part in their retention, and make them so difficult to overcome (unless critically engaged with – perhaps when still quite young). Secondly, if it is generally better in evolutionary terms for us to generate false positives rather than false negatives, why do we experience the latter at all? Thirdly, he draws huge conclusions from what look like fairly limited and context-specific data – which leads me to my fourth concern, below.

My fourth worry is that it seems difficult to actually test Shermer’s hypothesis: what predictions could it make that might be tested or disproved? If it can’t be disproved in principle, then we should treat it with the same suspicion due astrology, psychoanalysis or any other self-contained belief system that doesn’t make testable predictions – on the face of it, we would have no more reason to believe Shermer’s view here than to believe any of these other self-contained systems, which are often incompatible with each other (The philosopher Simon Blackburn raises worries about evolutionary psychology in general here, in the second part of his review of psychologist Steven Pinker’s book, The Blank Slate).

Nonetheless, Shermer gives an interesting, thought-provoking and entertaining talk. I hope you enjoy watching it.

Fascinating TED talk below on how we can create a richer democratic debate by engaging people with the Aristotelean ideas of an activity’s essential qualities, and debating which of those qualities deserve to be honoured and respected.

Sandel also talks briefly at the end, to much whooping, about his vision of a “global classroom” of many people from across the globe debating their ideas with each other. It is an exciting idea.

Enjoy!

Russell Blackford at Embiggen Books, from Embiggen Books on Vimeo.

Postscript
Tim Dunn keeps an interesting blog here, called “Ockham’s Beard” (well, that made me smile) and subtitled “philosophical adventures in a complex world.”

I should also like to know how the “con” side would answer Dawkins’ challenge that they are being patronising by apparently asserting both that there really is no God and also that belief in God is a key means of promoting moral action. Another great problem for the “cons” is this: if there is no God, then surely, as the truth is that there is no God, then we would of course be better off without religion, as it presents a lie (whether a lie to believe in or just to follow as per one’s religious traditions).

A lovely diagram you are free to interpret as you will (be careful, though – one of the data sources for this infogram says the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the volcano is between 150,000 and 300,000 tons per day, which is quite a huge difference).

Art from informationisbeautiful.net.