Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins) • Hacker News Board

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#71

Post by lutorm » Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 7:13 PM UTC

knieveltech wrote: post #58

lutorm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much the beliefs that people hold, it's whether or not they stick to those beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. If they do, then their reasoning is not based in reality, which makes any other reasoning they do that is also purportedly based in reality suspect . A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect sc…

"A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect science." I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. The whole Science VS Faith thing is a false dichotomy, the two are not inherently incompatible except in the minds of unfortunate extremists on both sides of the argument. Implying that they are ignores the fact that the vast overwhelming majority of sci…

You may think it's bullshit. I disagree.

It's true that in many cases, there is no conflict. There is no conflict (currently, at least) between believing that God was responsible for the Big Bang and belief in cosmology. In the case of believing that the Earth is I don't see how one can argue with that without resorting to contrived beliefs that God set up a huge hoax by making the Universe seem to be 14Gyr old. (That's not a disprovable belief, of course, so it could be the case.)

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#72

Post by jmillikin » Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 7:14 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #66

jmillikin wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much the beliefs that people hold, it's whether or not they stick to those beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. If they do, then their reasoning is not based in reality, which makes any other reasoning they do that is also purportedly based in reality suspect. Most human reasoning is not based in reality. It is very difficult for a well-educated and intelligent person to even approxim…

I'm in complete agreement that it's difficult. But to give up trying virtually ensures failure.

I don't advocate giving up, merely pointing out that being afflicted with a few particularly strong beliefs is not cause to reject all of that person's opinions. An astronomer afflicted with creationism is no different from an oncologist afflicted with leukemia.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#73

Post by mseebach » Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 7:14 PM UTC

JabavuAdams wrote: post #56

kldavis4 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that politician is truly representing his constituency, then he is not a fraud and is doing what he is paid to do.

So, because he does what he's told, that makes it alright? He has a choice not to represent that constituency. Let's take a different example. Suppose an American is being paid to do something that is actively bad for other Americans. Does "doing what you're paid to do" make it all right? There are no other considerations?

Presumably he's not doing "what he's told", he's doing what he thinks is the right thing.

Anyone pushing a policy they actually oppose is a fraud, gay or not.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#74

Post by khafra » Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 7:14 PM UTC

jasonlotito wrote: post #45

jimbokun wrote: post #10

This obsession with unearthing people's private beliefs and actively using them as grounds to discriminate against them, seems quite Orwellian to me. Why not just evaluate how well an employee does the job she is paid to do, and not worry about the ideas she expresses outside of work, or the activities she engages in? Dawkins simply seems to be looking for ways of making life more difficult for religious people. If t…

The article isn't about religion so much as it is about beliefs. Does being a religious belief make a belief better? The current laws seek to protect religious beliefs over non-religious ones. Basically, why is it okay to reject people based on some beliefs but not others?

In this case, as someone on Lesswrong pointed out, religious beliefs are a special category that people have historically proved adept at compartmentalizing so they don't get in the way of day-to-day life. As long as the algorithm constently outputs correct results, the fact that it includes unnecessary steps is only a small worry, not a big one.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#75

Post by pjscott » Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 7:15 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #42

lutorm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much the beliefs that people hold, it's whether or not they stick to those beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. If they do, then their reasoning is not based in reality, which makes any other reasoning they do that is also purportedly based in reality suspect . A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect sc…

The last part is a very Western value set - that we should "base our beliefs on facts". Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results. Being dogmatic seems to date back to the Greeks, at least. Still both sides (the young earthers and the hard athiests) are both pretty dogmatic. I'd say that both sides should chill out. If a guy wants a job that…

> The last part is a very Western value set - that we should "base our beliefs on facts".

Every culture bases most of its beliefs on facts. You just don't notice most of those beliefs because they're obvious. If you want bread, someone's going to have to grow grain. People fall when they jump off a cliff. I have hair.

There are some beliefs that are not based on facts, and they have a survival advantage if they can convince people that facts should not apply to them. Therefore it really shouldn't be surprising to see anti-factual beliefs across a wide range of cultures. The only reason you can bring Western-centrism into this is because science had its really big success in the West.

> Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results.

Those results are, by definition, factual. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

> Still both sides (the young earthers and the hard athiests) are both pretty dogmatic.

Can you quantify the dogmatism here? Because you sound like you're conflating strong beliefs with an unwillingness to change them given sufficiently strong evidence.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#76

Post by ugh » Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 7:18 PM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #12

A good scientist should be agnostic. In some ways, believing something accepted to be false in the scientific community is preferable to actually believing what is accepted to be true in the scientific community. If everyone starts with the same assumptions then the same assumptions are propagated through the literature without critical analysis. And sometimes, it may even be worthwhile to look at Mars with the eye o…

I don’t think many scientists believe that it is possible for us to know whether something is an inconvertible truth. Dawkins certainly doesn’t. But evidence, both past and present, matters. We may not be able to be absolutely certain but we can be pretty certain, extremely certain even.

The evidence for the universe being much older than 10,000 years is truly overwhelming and you don’t get to just discount that evidence. You have to find a theory that fits the existing evidence perfectly and you have to find new evidence that confirms your theory. Considering how extremely certain we are about the universe being much older than 10,000 years, you have to be thorough and your evidence has to be truly overwhelming [0], a daunting task, no doubt.

Some study with little evidence and an incomplete theory just won’t cut it if the topic of discussion is the age of the universe and its goal is to make the universe six orders of magnitude younger. Not all evidence and every theory is worth the same.

[0] Astrophysicists everywhere should jump out of windows and Nobel prizes should be thrown at you.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#77

Post by Luc » Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 7:19 PM UTC

I remember reading a story about an executive working for Warren Buffett, who cheated on his wife with a girlfriend in a different city. When Buffett found out, he fired the man, since he felt he couldn't trust this person in his business dealings, even if the error was made in a personal matter.

This feels the same way. Does the university really want to check up on this astronomer all the time, in case his irrationality carries over to his professional life?

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#78

Post by lutorm » Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 7:21 PM UTC

chegra wrote: post #49

In the past, a scientist religious belief didn't affect his contribution. I don't see how targeting them now will benefit the scientific community. Carl Gauss was a devote Christian; what are we suppose to do if he existed now, not recognize him? "I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife." - Godel Maybe Godel wasn't logical for his be…

Science comes into stark conflict with religion only in a few places. Your examples are about math, which makes no claims about the world at all. There is no conflict there.

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#79

Post by jamesbritt » Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 7:23 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #42

lutorm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much the beliefs that people hold, it's whether or not they stick to those beliefs in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. If they do, then their reasoning is not based in reality, which makes any other reasoning they do that is also purportedly based in reality suspect . A Creationist can not perform what he thinks is correct science without performing what the rest of the world is incorrect sc…

The last part is a very Western value set - that we should "base our beliefs on facts". Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results. Being dogmatic seems to date back to the Greeks, at least. Still both sides (the young earthers and the hard athiests) are both pretty dogmatic. I'd say that both sides should chill out. If a guy wants a job that…

"... as long as they're capable, ..."

But that's the whole point. Dawkin's argument seems to be that, while a YEC may at first glance seem adequately skilled, their manifest disregard for scientific evidence means that they cannot be trusted to do the job correctly.

"Other cultures are a lot less pragmatic, and are willing to ignore an absence of facts as long as they can get results."

Aren't results facts? Or, put another way, how does someone determine that they are getting results? I don't see how the willingness to try things in the absence of facts is non-Western. It sounds a lot like experimentation.

The issue here isn't the absence of facts, it's the ignoring of facts (by YECs and their ilk).

Re: Should employers be blind to private beliefs? (Richard Dawkins)

#80

Post by pjscott » Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 7:24 PM UTC

borism wrote: post #40

Here's favorite story of mine on this topic. My favorite philosopher Slavoj Zizek quotes this often as well in his Reality of the Virtual themed lectures (it is disputed whether the story itself is true or not): An American scientist once visited the offices of the great Nobel prize winning physicist, Niels Bohr, in Copenhagen. He was amazed to find that over Bohr’s desk was a horseshoe, securely nailed to the wall,…

Do you actually believe that Dawkins would do anything other than chuckle amicably in that situation?