that's really a tough one. If I'm honestly skeptic even about my own position, then it's taken as a weakness by naive idiots.
Approaches depend on audience: discourse face to face with a believer may be amusing if you have free time, but probably will not change anything. Discussion for/in front of an audience: reveal delusions and false arguments rationally, or by mockery/ridicule - you've done both above.

Another interesting and thought provoking post Dave. An idea that we might consider is how do we unpack the social network that surrounds the village idiot. It seems that everyone knows who the idiot is, and while a few people are sympathetic and may support him in limited ways, most don't confront him on the square. There is behind his back a wispering campaign; or a not so subtle shunning. In essence, there is a lot of communication about him. Seems that most of that dialogue is invisible when we look at the idiot in isolation.

I seem to be constructing an argument that coherence lies in the bubble that surrounds the idiot. Are you making a case that wikipedia makes it easier for the idots to assemble together than it does for the various villages to connect with each other to exchange their observations?

I'm not sure Philosophers merit discussion or consideration of any serious thought. Most of them are confused and don't have a firm grip on reality so why would I care if they included someone or didn't. That's the problem with Wiki. They don't know who is important or not. They just choose to use their own established criteria. When one sets the criteria anything can be proved or disproved.

People who should know better (so-called scientists) make this problem worse by using the phrase "no scientific evidence". For example "no scientific evidence that eating infected meat carries any risk to humans" or "no scientific evidence that mobile phones cause headaches".

This creates the impression that there may actually be lots of evidence, but we can safely ignore it because it hasn't been collected or approved by somebody in a white coat.

Your frustration with the arguments around 'intelligent design' and the philosophy of Ayn Rand sounds familiar. Those of us who have worked in planetariums spend a great deal of time with the public's interest in UFOs, astrology, and more recently the concepts expressed in the film, 'What the Bleep Do We Know!?' In the 70s I can remember the days of research I did to respond to the widespread concerns raised by John Gribbon and Stephen Plageman following the publication of their book, 'The Jupiter Effect.' It predicted that an alignment of the planets in 1982 would cause global disasters including a major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault. (There were also the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich Anton Paul von Däniken that consumed lots of my time.) Our community seems willing to accept concepts that feel good, and folks are unwilling, or unable, to work through the logic of an argument. When the (in these cases) the scientific community dismisses these specious concepts quickly, members of the public interpret that to mean that the dismissal is due to these 'advanced' concepts failing to agree with the scientists' belief system. Science has a way of submitting theories to a process of presentation and critical review. When new data no longer supports the hypothesis the hypothesis is expendable. These other arguments are presented directly to the public, who then (may) want an expert opinion. Is the public entitled to a cogent response in the public press? Is that really possible, and will the public accept what is presented if they don't like how it feels?

Dave,

I had two thoughts after reading your latest post (well, more than two - but two I would like to share).

The first is who cares? If a global-village idiot believes that up is down because there is no proof otherwise, then why should we worry? As you said Dave, mostly harmless. Some dissent is healthy (even the nutty kind) if for no other reason than it reminds us to teach our children well.

And if village-idiots assemble online that only makes their arguments more insidious if we don't meet the challenge of providing wiki-facebook-magnets-cure-hemorrhoids-literacy to those we care about.

My other thought was about Faith. Certainly a church is no more than group celebration of negative-evidence. My guess is that many who read your blog continue to tolerate if not promote such things. Are there different classes of unfounded-group-think and indeed in village-idiocy?

Building on Robert's comments--I work in a high tech industry and we've discussed a situation in which an employee concludes that a decision is unsafe. He brings it up internally to management, a check is made and the decision is upheld. The employee raises the issue outside of their home org with other experts, who also uphold the decision. The employee next writes to the company CEO with their concerns. The CEO calls for an expert review and, yet again, the decision is upheld.

The employee, now convinced that they are correct, resigns and calls a press conference where they announce that the company is covering up potentially dangerous decisions.

The question is, who will the public believe: the management and their so called "experts" of a corporation (and we all know about corporate ethics) or a courageous individual on a righteous campaign who has resigned in order to make the truth available to the public?

If you get the chance you'd enjoy True Enough by Farhad Manjoo which I am currently listening to on Audible http://tinyurl.com/c5hghv

Since when is the merit of thought a function of (academic) consensus and popularity? If you want to discuss the worth of anyone's thoughts, please explain and discuss those thoughts, not the encyclopaedia's they do or don't figure in. Thanks!

Hello,

I read your blog (for its thoughtfulness and sophistication) and think ID has a stg to offer.
Of course I am not someone convinced by the logic above, but I don’t think that is the way the most intelligent and sophisticated proponents of I.D. handle the issue. What you are dealing with is the mere “soundbyte level” found in the more mainstream media outlets. It is there that I think I.D.ers may play a game something like this, in order to get their case a hearing (since they need to keep it simple for the masses).

I suggest you read all the opinions here, and perhaps do a re-write. I really appreciate how many different views are expressed here:
http://www.templeton.org/belief/

I understand that many probably want to keep the spheres of science and religion, for example, completely separate. I really don’t think you can do that though.

For example, let’s look at this from another angle: scientists who think belief in an “Intelligent Designer” has nothing to do with their work inconsistently (they are consistently inconsistent) consider the world like “as if” it were a deliberate work of genius -having depth, harmony, precision, intelligibility, elegance, beauty, order, meaning - i.e. having an underlying natural order. They seek for all this much like the careful reader of Shakespeare who searches diligently for layers of meaning. Given the premise that “science” properly defined only includes natural causes - which is exactly what those opposing the Intelligent Design movement believe - this seems a little strange, don’t you think?

It seems to me that the ardent materialist is like a man who, after receiving crucial radio communication that helps him to navigate his surroundings, claims that he has obtained nothing but atmospheric noise.

This, is what the “best of the ID movement” (those more concerned with truth than politics) is ultimately trying to show, I think.

~Nathan

Thanks to everyone for comments - I will pick up several in a blog later this week.
Nathan, I'm sorry but while I see no incompatibility with science and religion (the web site) and I plan to write on this shortly and I am am (with others) organising a retreat on this in June/July. However I see a total incompatibility between ID and reason, and also religion has to be understood as a product of reason, it cannot be faith alone.

...I see no incompatibility with science and religion...

...I see a total incompatibility between ID and reason, and also religion has to be understood as a product of reason, it cannot be faith alone...

I'd be eager to read your writing on this. Will you be posting it on this site?

Thanks,
Nathan

I note that a reference to major American philosopher Ayn Rand has been removed from the Wikipedia article on a minor European philosopher called Aristotle. However, a reference to another major American philosopher remains in the Aristotle article, namely the fictional psychotherapist Frasier Crane. Surely it would be unfair to regard Ms Rand as being any less deep and self-important than Frasier Crane?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aristotle#Ayn_Rand

Given that Ms Rand did not believe in fairness it is surely an inappropriate question?

The CEO calls for an expert review and, yet again, the decision is upheld.

The employee, now convinced that they are correct, resigns and calls a press conference where they announce that the company is covering up potentially dangerous decisions.