Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Fredrik

Theory of fundamentalist psychology

Recommended Posts

A brilliant blog entry by Scott Aaronson

Quote:

I hereby wish to propose a different theory of fundamentalist psychology. My theory is this: fundamentalists use a system of logical inference wherein you only have to apply the inference rules two or three times before you stop. (The exact number of inferences can vary, depending on how much you like the conclusion.) Furthermore, this system of “bounded inference” is actually the natural one from an evolutionary standpoint. It’s we — the scientists, mathematicians, and other nerdly folk — who insist on a bizzarre, unnatural system of inference, one where you have to keep turning the modus ponens crank whether you like where it’s taking you or not.

Share this post


Link to post

Lüt said:
Go Tim :P

Yeah, that is a actually a pretty interesting reply.

I also feel that the term "fundamentalist" is almost as politically suspect as "terrorist" nowadays. If you start with that word, you're bound to go the wrong way.

Share this post


Link to post

Fredrik said:
Oooh, someone took offense.

If to reply in disagreement it necessarily to "take offense", then the original post can't be anything but a troll. But that's just your inference.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

I also feel that the term "fundamentalist" is almost as politically suspect as "terrorist" nowadays.

hah, you make a good point. but i think there might be quite a few christian fundamentalists who might not dislike being called as such.

Share this post


Link to post

He did accuse Scott of "piling on Christians by insulting their intellectual rigor". If it is considered insulting to point out to someone that their intellectual rigor is lacking, then so be it.

Share this post


Link to post

Fredrik said:
If it is considered insulting to point out to someone that their intellectual rigor is lacking, then so be it.

Note that Tim doesn't even naysay the original blog, but points out how it's lacking in rigor in crucial respects. To me, pointing out that something is relatively stupid does not seem to be the same as being or feeling insulted (in the same way Scott could point out that Kurt's thinking was lacking).

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×