Apologies if this has been referenced before, but I was channeling my inner Merv, and listening to this podcast, which seems to fit well with our times and the forum. It was released to the open public forum from the formerly subscribers area, so should be available to all. It references several subjects we have discussed here over the years.
I thought it interesting how the story of the blind man in John 9 gave a response from the Pharisees that has been observed and published by social sciences today. and how the response of the church in the 1700ās to Ben Franklinās lightening rods is much the same as science deniers today.
Of course, the irony of my listening to podcasts I tend to agree with is not totally lost on me.
Yeah - it was good to see them make this episode public! I forget who all I may have shared (or tried to share) this one with - but now people can actually reach it. Itās worth a listen.
And while I certainly agree with Skyeās observations about the connection between certainty and stupidity, I would love to have extended conversation over this that allowed for some push back too - or maybe not so much āpushbackā as allowances and caveats.
For example, āhaving confidence in proportion to the evidenceā is also a thing; which means that there are some things that we have such high confidence about (round, moving earth, germ theory, etc) that our confidence would be (rightly) indistinguishable from what most would just call certainty. In other words, there does come a point after so much history of successfully accumulated evidence, that we cease to seriously entertain or spend time on crackpot ideas that purport to undermine those established things. And that isnāt the same as being impervious to new evidence - quite the opposite in fact. Itās steadfastly staying committed to all the evidence that is already there, and therefore being in need of quite extraordinary new contrary evidence (both in quantity and quality) which would somehow have to also still explain what all the already existing evidence already so successfully explains. And since no conspiracy theorists ever come close to producing much any standing evidence at all, it wouldnāt seem to be misplaced confidence to presume they just continue to be wrong at every turn.
I donāt think Skye would disagree, but heās just speaking into a different context. So Iām just suggesting that itās also helpful to think of it as a probability continuum rather than a binary.
I listened to this to the end even, though I think it could have been a bit more concise. It makes some good points though. It fails to mention some of the obvious connections between the desire for certainty and less innocent motivations like the power of authority and thus the use of religion for power over others.
Iād want to do some investigation before trusting the claims about lightning rods; I have only seen them in a context that was promoting science-faith warfare myths. Consider vaccination - the Puritan authorities in New England approved of Jennerās new idea of inoculation, but Richard Franklin scoffed at it in his newspaper. This prompted a temporary ban on Richard publishing. He inserted his younger brother Benās name as the āpublisherā and kept on going. Of course, the church has not always guessed correctly as to whether a particular new scientific idea will pan out, but the warfare myth still peddled by so many isnāt true.
I seem to remember back from my electrical engineering school days (several decades ago) hearing from at least one ostensibly trustworthy source that the main point of a lightning rod was to prevent a lightning strike in the first place. I.e. - itās the (always sharpened) point on these rods that does a good job of discharging the excessive local charge which is what attracts the lightning in the first place. (Itās a well known principle that sharp edges leak off charge into the air - which is why Vandegraaf generators need to have smooth round balls in order to successfully build up static charge). So - on that understanding - if the building was struck, then the lightning rods already failed in their purpose.
But I also see (from brief perusal on the net more recently) that the channeling of a strike into the ground (diverting the current away from more vulnerable parts of the building) seems to also be widely accepted as the main function. So Iām actually not entirely sure now. One presumes that electrical engineering professors should be good authorities on this - but I know they arenāt infallible. Would be interesting to see research and statistics on how often lightning rod-protected structures still get struck. It should be a simple distinction (I should think) to see if the structures are struck less often (favoring the earlier hypothesis I mentioned) vs. are they struck with the same frequency as before - but just protected then by the diversion of the current (favoring the currently voiced thoughts as shared in this episode.) I donāt know that Iāll take the time to look into that - but if anybody already has, Iāll read with interest.
Yeah - and likewise with airplanes. Which I understand are just designed to tolerate such inevitable strikes and keep vulnerable electronics protected within.
I trust almost nobody would take that myth seriously any more (which is why it ought to make for a constructive comparison - for those who can see it.) It would be as silly as me insisting that I shouldnāt look both ways before crossing the road because in doing so, I might be thwarting Godās will that I need to be hit by a truck right then.
