John West wrote:

Brian wrote:

I suspect in the Christian Middle Ages or in pre-communist China you would find a similar sort of provincialism from Christians and Confucians.  It seems to be a natural result of being part of a majority worldview for many people.  It may be exaggerated in atheists because of the natural hubris that accompanies humanism/atheism, and I don't necessarily mean that in a judgmental way.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that monks were better behaved than contemporary academics but, also, they could, with subjects like God and the soul, stop works that were too radically against the grain from being published or even accuse their authors of heresy. I wouldn't expect as much invective in the middle ages as today.

I see this much more as a problem of democracy than of atheism.  If we lived in a society where every idiot child wasn't told that their opinions and beliefs are as beautiful and valid as anyone elses, then it wouldn't matter that people were provincial because they wouldn't be as inclined to speak up with their uninformed opinions.

I suppose, but I'm not sure silencing opponents is much of a solution either. (I know you're probably thinking of an ideal society where only the truth is permitted or something, but I also know you don't think that is practically possible. In actual practice, probably most of the people here would get silenced.)

Well to be fair, I don't think you find provincialism as such among the majority of ademics.  You might find stubborn refusal to take an author seriously, or a faddish dedication to sone inferior philosophy, but even staunch atheists teach some weak version of the proofs of God's existence to their students.

I don't see any reason to equate democracy and freedom of speech.  I wasn't actually talking about suppression, I was referring to a society that is obsessed with opinion, while simultaneously hostile to the idea of expertise.  The solution is not su

I am not extremely well read on this topic, but I think the smoking gun would be to witness evolution of one natural-kind to another in the lab, or in a closely monitored environment.  Insofar as the scientist's species are not the same as the natural kinds of common-sense, a lot of people call what we have witnessed "evolution" on account of of two species of fruit fly being produced in the lab or something like that.  But of course when kids ask the question "why are there different animals?"  They don't mean why are there different types of fruit fly.  They mean why are there lady bugs and seagulls and dogs.

Insofar as science has a methodological commitment to naturalism, and we have no philosophy of nature to govern over the sciences, it seems almost inconceivable that any significant number of scientists would abandon the theory,  because to do so would seem to abandon something of science itself.  I'm not convinced either way on whether evolution is true or false, but those are just some thoughts on the topic.  There are a lot of subsidiary issues that people don't take into account in popular discussions of evolution.

That's an interesting site.  I'm also quite skeptical of the "addiction" model.  There are a lot of interesting studies involving animals and addiction that seem to show that animals voluntarily lose their habit/addiction given the right socialization and opportunities.  If that process works for humans as well, "addiction" is the product of our demented, fragmenting social practices, not availability of drugs or weak-will or anything like that.

There's also a lot of anecdotal evidence that supports this.  There are vast quantities of relatively well-adjusted people who at some point did a lot of drugs and never became an addict or anything like it, myself included.  There are also many addicts who got hooked after using some particular drug once or twice.  The difference often seems to be the state/upbringing of the person involved more than anything else.

Dry and Uninspired wrote:

Well, for example, do you think there is any merit to the notion of functions?

Supposedly I’m an INFP, meaning my dominant function is introverted feeling, followed by extroverted intuituion, and so on. Are these functions in any way real and meaningful?

 
Functions are definitely meritorious as ideas.  It seems obvious to me that some people approach the world fundamentally through reason while others approach it through emotion.  When I consistently get labeled an "intellectual" or "reason" type, it accounts for why I like philosophy, and chess, and many of the other things I enjoy, and why I don't "get" certain things, like the novel Wuthering Heights, to use an example that just came to mind. 

A good question that I think is not at all settled is what causes one function to dominate the others in a particular individual.  Some people think it is a defense mechanism (perhaps I am reasonable but emotionally cold because it protects my emotional health).  Others think it is innate character (the traditional Indian Castes were originally designed to accommodate different temperaments of people in a way similar to this.)

As a mere description, I think these types makes sense and have empirical support.  Jung, however, was interested in what he called Individuation, which is like his version of spiritual realization.  To achieve individuation, one must recognize one's own lopsided functions, and find ways to let the neglected functions have their proper role in your life.  Contrary to what Seigneur says, I have never seen Jung claim that these different functions are hierarchical (but Jung does sometimes flat out contradict himself, so maybe we are both correct).  Rather, we all have a dominating function, and to truly become a unique individual, we can't be molded into a type, but must use all our capacities.  If it is possible to become fully Individuated, I think that person's MB test would come back totally

What do you mean by valid?  Most personality quizzes latch onto real properties, but I think the question has more to do with how we delineate among "natural kinds" of personality if there are such things.  I am/used to be very interested in Jung, and so have a peripheral interest in typology, if you'd care to discuss the topic further.