Saturday, March 11, 2017

Dear Bill Nye the Science Guy, You don't understand philosophy.



Bill is a great guy, but severely mistaken about philosophy.



Dear Bill,


On one of your Big Think posts, you answered a question by a person called Mike about your thoughts concerning philosophy. Before I get to that, however, I want to say I am a big fan of your work. In my opinion, your ceaseless effort to make the world more scientifically literate, your environmental outreach, and tenure as the CEO of the Planetary Society are very admirable. I also love the respect and patience you show children (there is a reason why Bill Nye the Science Guy is still shown in schools) and think its awesome that you are willing to change your mind about GMO's. In my opinion, it takes a lot of chutzpah to admit when you are wrong. Given that you have the courage to reconsider your views, I decided to write you this letter. It contains commentary of your video and explains why I, a fellow skeptic, am troubled by your positions.

It is unfortunate that a really smart guy like you has, at least in my opinion, a profoundly uneducated view of philosophy. Given the nature of your thoughts on the subject, I would wager that you never took Philosophy 101 or have even read a beginners book like Philosophy: a Very Short Introduction by Edward Craig. It is not surprising that you have never studied philosophy. Many STEM programs, such as the one I am currently enrolled in, do not include philosophy courses as part of their track. I would not take offense to this lack of knowledge (there is nothing wrong with having different interests and priorities) if you had not made a video criticizing a field of study that you know close to nothing about. As a fellow skeptic, I think that it is very important to admit when we do not know something. In my opinion, you should have answered Mike's question with the following statement:

Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, I cannot provide an honest answer because I have never studied philosophy in any real depth. As an engineer, I was not required to take philosophy courses in college and have never been compelled to investigate it on my own. While many other people find value in studying it, I prefer to focus my time and effort on issues concerning environmentalism, sustainable energy, and bringing science to the masses.

This would have been a much more admirable answer. Unfortunately, however, this is not what happened.

Your lack of knowledge concerning philosophy became apparent as soon as you stated that you believe the conclusions of philosophers are unsurprising and abide by "common sense":


I’m not sure that Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins, two guys I’m very well acquainted with have declared philosophy as irrelevant and blowing it off in you term. I think that they’re just concerned that it doesn’t always give an answer that’s surprising. It doesn’t always lead you someplace that is inconsistent with common sense.


If you don't think philosophy (at least sometimes) leads us to conclusions that are counter to common sense, then you have literally never studied the history of philosophy. Since European philosophy began 2,600 years ago with Thales of Miletus (624-546 BC), it has made plenty of daring conclusions based on reason and evidence. Thales himself, for example, concluded that everything is made of water. In the Middle Ages, St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109 AD) put forth a logical argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by definition. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1697 AD), in his tome Leviathan, provided reasons why we should enter into a social contract with a sovereign and cede to it all power (barring it does not kill us). Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900 AD) famously (or infamously) argued that we need to cast off our traditional herd morality and live our lives as though they are a work of art. Recently, Peter Singer (b. 1946) argued that, if you are willing to ruin your jeans by saving a drowning child, then you should be willing to donate the cost of a pair of jeans to save children in the third world. These two deeds, Singer argues, are not fundamentally different.


Most ironically, many of the people who historians of science consider to be the founders of modern science were philosophers who saw themselves as putting fourth a new theory of epistemology (a theory of knowledge) that addressed the questions posed by the classical philosophers. Like Thales, they were trying to find out what the cosmos is made of and which principles govern it. The foundations of science were by no means obvious and it took a great deal of effort to found the scientific academies of Europe and win over the patronage of the aristocrats. Galileo Galilei (1534-1642 AD), for example, had to convince the Medici family of Florence that studying theoretical balls rolling down a friction-less incline tells you something about the actual world. It also took the persuasive writing talents of philosophers like Francis Bacon (1561-1626 AD) who argued in favor of the new scientific methods in print, to win the day.


And it gets back – it often, often gets back to this question. What is the nature of consciousness? Can we know that we know? Are we aware that we are aware? Are we not aware that we are aware? Is reality real or is reality not real and we are all living on a ping pong ball as part of a giant interplanetary ping pong game and we cannot sense it. These are interesting questions.


While it is true that many philosophers are interested in consciousness (so are many scientists for that matter), the rest of these questions are straw men of what philosophers address that make philosophy look like it has no ramifications for the real world. In addition to consciousness, some of the major questions that philosophy addresses are: Is there a god? What constitutes a sound or cogent argument? Do we have free-will? How should we organize our society? How do we justify our beliefs? How should we live our lives? What is the world made of? Is it ethical to eat meat? In what way do mathematical entities (numbers, shapes) exist? The answers to these have major consequences for how we live our lives and organize our society. For example, if there is no free-will, then how can we have a punishment-based criminal system? It doesn't seem right to punish people if they did not freely choose their actions.


Some philosophers have indeed discussed what it would be like if we were in a simulation (this thought experiment allows us to think about how we justify our beliefs. It is is seldom taken as something that is actually happening. Nick Bostrom, however, has interesting things to say about it), I have never heard the ping pong example before.


These are interesting questions. But the idea that reality is not real or what you sense and feel is not authentic is something I’m very skeptical of. I mean I think that your senses, the reality that you interact with with light, heat, sense of touch, taste, smell, hearing, absolutely hearing. These are real things.


Again, this is a strawman. Very few contemporary philosophers would say that the senses don't play a role in what we know. There is a strong tradition stemming from ancient Greece that takes our senses as the foundations of knowledge. This was most notably exemplified by the great Aristotle (384-322 BC). In fact, the most dominant school of philosophy in the English speaking world from the 17th century to the mid 20th century was empiricism (if you are curious, now naturalism is the perennial philosophy).


This school of thought contained John Locke (1602-1734 AD), Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753 AD), David Hume (1711-1776 AD), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873 AD), and the Logical Empiricists (flourished 1920's-post WWII). Although these thinkers differed greatly, they took the view that our senses are the only way we may get data and anything that goes beyond them is somehow (depending on the thinker) dubious. The Logical Empiricists, for example, held the radical view that the things beyond our senses are, at best, "useful fictions" used to predict patterns or, at worst, literally meaningless. The positivists used this view to dismiss things like morality, particles, and other things that are beyond the senses.

Another concern I have about your idea that the senses should be taken as real is that you may be going too far. There is no denying that we need our senses to get around, but there is a great deal of psychological research that has shown we have many cognitive biases and heuristics that lead us to have very distorted pictures of the world around us. Scientific skeptics like Benjamin Radford (b. 1970) have shown that otherwise rational people are deceived into believing that they saw things like bigfoot and the chupacabre. We also fall for magic tricks like Penn and Teller shooting each other in the face and catching the bullets in their mouths. The urban legends painstakingly chronicled by Jan Harold Brunwand (b. 1933) provide overwhelming evidence that our senses (even those of smart people) can be easily fooled.


And to make a philosophical argument that they may not be real because you can’t prove – like for example you can’t prove that the sun will come up tomorrow. Not really, right. You can’t prove it until it happens. But I’m pretty confident it will happen. That’s part of my reality. The sun will come up tomorrow.


What you are referencing here is David Hume's famous problem of induction. This conundrum that Hume articulated asks how we can justify inductive logic (scientific theories, probability statements, and everyday statements about what is probably going to happen). If we say that, as you do, we are confident that the Sun will come up tomorrow because it always has, then we are using an inductive claim to justify inductive claims. In other words, we have begged the question. What Hume was pointing out, however, is that inductive reasoning has no foundation. Not, as you suggest, that the Sun won't come up or that we should abandon inductive reasoning. Hume thought that we could navigate the world around us according to inductive reasoning (we don't have a choice) and that we should use our background knowledge to judge eyewitness testimony. This is certainly the case, Hume argued, when such testimony is used to support claims about miracles.  


And so philosophy is important for a while but it’s also I get were Neil and Richard might be coming from but where you start arguing in a circle where I think therefore I am. What if you don’t think about it? Do you not exist anymore? You probably still exist even if you’re not thinking about existence.


This is a profound misunderstanding of what Rene Descartes (1596-1650 AD) said and what he was trying to do with his famous cogito ergo sum argument. Descartes (and before him, St. Augustine, who made a very similar argument to refute radical skepticism) was demonstrating that our existence is the one thing we cannot doubt. This is because doubting requires use to think about if we exist. If we can think, however, then we exist exist by definition (we cannot have a thought if there is no us to think). Therefore, we exist. This in no way means that if you are not thinking about existing, then you don't exist (Descartes never said that). If you are thinking about anything at all, then you obviously exist.
And so, you know, this gets into the old thing if you drop a hammer on your foot is it real or is it just your imagination? You can run that test, you know, a couple of times and I hope you come to agree that it’s probably real. It’s a cool question.


The humorous part about your objection is that it is the same as the one made to Bishop Berkeley by the intellectual Samuel Johnson (1709-1784 AD). Berkeley argued in favor of a radical epistemology which states that our perceptions (our sense data) is all we can access. He then went on to eloquently argue that there is no such thing as matter and the sense data itself is controlled and caused by God. This was done to undermine what Berkeley thought was the creeping materialism caused by Newton's mechanical philosophy. Johnson famously tried to refute this idealism by kicking a rock. He proclaimed "I refute it thus!" The problem with this (or a hammer hitting your toe) is all you have is the sensation and this in no way defeats Berkeley's view. While I do not think the Bishop succeeded (few people do), it is funny that your counterargument is one that has been historically ridiculed for its failure.


It’s important I think for a lot of people to be aware of philosophy but just keep in mind if you’re spending all this money on college this also may be where Neil and Richard are coming from. A philosophy degree may not lead you to on a career path. It might but it may not.


This pragmatic objection is interesting for a few reasons.


For starters, many colleges spend virtually nothing on the liberal arts. Visit any medium sized university in the USA and, chances are, these departments are small and poorly funded. To me, this is unfortunate. As someone seeking a mechanical engineering degree (which is quite challenging. Hopefully, I can get through it), I get almost no exposure to topics like environmental or applied ethics. This is unfortunate because the students that are in my classes are going to build nuclear reactors, dispose of toxic waste, and build high tech weaponry. If anyone needs to think hard about these topics, it is the next generation of engineers, doctors (who, I have been informed, get more ethics training than engineers), biologists, chemists, and physicists.


Second, it simply isn't true that philosophy degrees lead to a doomed future. A philosophy degree makes one a killing machine at formal logic, debating ideas, digging arcane details out of texts, and conducting meaty research. All of these skills give philosophy students a big advantage if they want to pursue a career in law and, at least a proficient philosophy student, should blow the LSAT out of the water. When Marco Rubio made a similar argument when he was running for president, Thinkprogess and many other organizations pointed out that philosophy undergrads actually make really solid money. Being able to think out the box and research is a good job skill and liberals arts majors (including philosophers) can be found even in tech strongholds like Silicon Valley.


Finally, so what? If you found numerous people with bachelors degrees in biology who have little to no job opportunities, then would he object to studying biology? Of course not. Biology is worth studying because of its profound implications and because it is exceedingly interesting. This is true regardless of job prospects.


And keep in mind humans made up philosophy too. Humans discovered or invented the process of science. Humans invented language. Humans invented philosophy. So keep that in mind that when you go to seek an absolute truth you’re a human seeking the truth. So there’s going to be limits. But there’s also going to be things beyond which it doesn’t matter. Drop a hammer on your foot and see if you don’t notice it.


No one would doubt that human beings are the ones doing philosophy. In fact, this is why it is so necessary. Philosophy teaches us how to think carefully and avoid making sloppy arguments. This would not be needed if humans were not so fallible. One final point I want to make is that there is an underlying inconsistency of your entire exercise because, as it has been pointed out by SkepticallyPwnd, you do philosophy himself. For anyone who thinks about the world around them in an organized and logical manner, this is unavoidable. Philosophy is simply the art of thinking clearly about things like the questions mentioned above.

When you, for example, define your terms and uses logic to arrive at the conclusion that we need to preserve our environment (which you do quite well), you are doing philosophy. This is important to recognize because, if we are not careful, we can sneak on unjustified philosophical baggage that has not been critically examined. As Dan Dennett once said, "there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."

I hope you found this commentary to be constructive and not pedantic. If you read this and feel that I incorrectly stated your views or was not abiding by the principle of charity in my commentary, then please respond. I am always willing to revise my own positions.

yours truly,

Sagredo

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Pseudoscientist-in-Chief?





President Donald Trump possesses many characteristics that will make him a unique figure in American history. He, for example, is the first reality tv star and the only person without either political or military experience to get elected. He is also the first president in decades not to release his tax returns. My skeptical side, however, is far more interested in the next president's strange stances towards the sciences and critical thinking. This is because Mr. Trump, as others have put it, seems to bullshit on a level bordering confabulation (especially in regards to pseudoscience and conspiracy theories). 

To demonstrate why I think this, I decided to list five things that he has done that seem to put him in line with the David Ickes and the Jenny McCarthys of the world. Before I get started however, I want to note that I am only pointing out the five that I find to be the most concerning. There also many other examples of him seemingly embracing total bullshit. Some honorable mentions include his apparent rehashing of conspiracies about Hillary Clinton's health, Ted Cruz's citizenship, and Rafael Cruz (Sen. Cruz's father) assassinating JFK (which Trump later denied) and using Dr. Oz (lol) to calm concerns about his own health. 

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Satires of Intelligent Design

Teach the controversy. 


Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) seeks to (1) discover intelligently designed features of life and the cosmos and (2) attribute its features to an intelligent designer. This is done with the intent of overthrowing the "materialist" sciences like evolutionary biology and replacing them with a teleological view of the world. IDC advocates, however, have to face a dilemma when it comes to identifying this designer. If they say that it is a theistic God (like they would like to), then IDC appears to be nothing more than Old (or, in some rare instances, Young) Earth creationism. This would mean teaching it in public schools in the USA would be unconstitutional. If, however, they don't identify the designer, then their ideas have absolutely no explanatory content. 

One thing that many skeptics have done is to make satirical designers or other untestable entities to point out the absurdity and vapidity of both horns of this dilemma. Some of these predate modern IDC and others are a direct consequent of their cowardly unwillingness to disclose that the designer they have in mind is the god of the Bible. "If the designer could be many things," the skeptic argues, "then why not x?" Or, the skeptic argues, why should we prefer your intelligent designer to designer y?" 

To have some fun with this, I thought I would put together a list a few of the better satires of IDC's design hypothesis. If I missed one that you think is very good, then feel free to add it in the comment section and I will add it to the list. 

  • Flying Spaghetti Monster. Pastafarians argue that the FSM is the intelligent designer of the cosmos that IDC points to. They also argue that their ideas are on par with traditional religions that that they should be protected under the law in the same way.
  • Intelligent Falling is a design based alternative to gravity. Advocates of this new theory believe that the controversy about IF and gravity should be taught in the science classrooms and that the latter is a theory in crisis.  
  • Jibbers Crabst was proposed by The Oatmeal as the identity of the intelligent designer. Matt Igman, the creator of this comic, argues that it is a better account of nature than naturalistic theories like Darwinian evolution.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Ken Ham and low hanging fruit



Yesterday, the Ark Encounter theme park opened. This park, which consists of a 510 foot long "replica" of Noah's Ark, cost millions of dollars and took years construct. It was also (quite controversially) supported by the state government of Kentucky. Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis, the group which oversees the park, is notorious in scientific circles for promoting the teaching of the Bible in the science classroom and for operating the creationist "museum." Ken Ham and his organization teach that modern biology, astronomy, geology, and chemistry ought to be rejected in favor of the pseudoscience they display at their park and museum.

They also teach that the Bible is literally true, provides the foundation for all knowledge, and anything that disagrees with it can and ought to be rejected. As you can imagine, many skeptics and science advocates have been very critical of this theme park and the other activities of AiG. These people, which include Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill NyeMichael Shermer, and Phil Plait, have pointed out how strange and potentially harmful Ken Ham and his organization has been. I couldn't agree more with their criticisms.

When skeptics like myself publicly voice our criticisms of AiG, however, we are often told that we are picking "low hanging fruit." If we had any intellectual depth, our critics argue, we would instead contend with the philosophy of sophisticated theologians rather than worrying about fools like Ken Ham. Criticisms like these make is seem as though AiG and similar groups like Creation Ministries International are inconsequential, representative of only a few people, and diminishing in power. This, however, is profoundly wrong.

Creationists groups like Ken Ham's are incredibly well-funded and have succeeded in making creationism a growing, global phenomenon. Historian of science, Ronald L Numbers has painstakingly chronicled how creationism is now rapidly expanding in Australia, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. This is on top of the fact that, according to Gallup, somewhere between 40-50% of American are creationists. These organizations also have a lot of money to throw around. This is especially apparent when they are compared to skeptical and science groups like the Center for Skeptical Inquiry and the National Center for Science Education.

There is also the fact that what sophisticated clergy and theologians say is of little or no consequence to what the average American (or Earthling, for that matter) thinks about science or religion. Given that our goal is to promote science and critical thinking in the most effective way possible, it is a colossal waste of time discussing process theology and reformed epistemology. If a theologian like John Haught, however, wants to help defend science, then their help on this topic is appreciated and we can save the metaphysical conversations for when the wine is flowing.

The main reason, however, why skeptics should absolutely go after this strain of pseudoscience is that it is one of the most aggressive and expansionist kinds of baloney. The goal of the creationist movement is to remove modern science from the classroom and our culture and replace it with their own brand of nuttiness (or, when they cannot do that, to "teach the controversy"). The point about creationism being intellectually low hanging fruit (which it is) is irrelevant when they are actively trying to undermine the main goal of the skeptical and science communities and occasionally winning.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Dear History Channel


"Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat history class"


Dear History Channel,

For a very long time, you have been detrimental to the historical literacy of the United States. At a time when many of my fellow citizens are shockingly ignorant of geography (link), religion (link), and our constitution and government (link), you use your network and the clout that comes with its name to show pawn shops and conspiracy theories.

With the exception of holocaust denial, I have seen you air programs on virtually every kind of pseudo-history. This includes everything from claims about aliens building the pyramids to shows that seemingly treat the Bible in a literal manner. While it may be good for your ratings, this drivel has contributed to a deep confusion about the methods of historians and archaeologists. If this wasn't bad enough, the shows that you put on your networks which are supposed to be "historically accurate" sometimes contain egregious errors of their own.

An unfortunate example of this is The World Wars. This program, which contains some very cool reenactments, an awesome motion score, and many good historical explanations, contained a very historically inaccurate segment about Lenin's takeover of Russia. Rather than taking the 10 minutes needed to explain the actual history of these events, this program totally omitted the February Revolution and stated that Stalin and Lenin directly overthrew the Tsarist government of Nicholas II. This is a mistake that an A student in a World History class in high school would have caught.

As a citizen of the USA, I believe that you owe the American public an apology. Rather than focusing on swamp people and Bigfoot, you could focus on many other topics that are both interesting and historically accurate. In just about 2 minutes, I came up with the following list:

  1. A history of aviation from the Wright Brothers to the Apollo missions
  2. the role languages have played in the development of man
  3. the dropping and making of the atomic bomb
  4. Galileo's role in the Scientific Revolution
  5. the philosophical underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution
  6. a comparison and explanation of the major world religions
  7. a legitimate explanation of how the pyramids were actually built 
  8. an examination of the controversial Frontier Thesis
  9. a deep, long look at natural history 
  10. an explanation of the roots and interconnections of american music forms like Jazz and Rock and Roll.
While I understand that drivel may be a slightly easier sell, there are many historical topics like these that inform and entertain. Cosmos and Ken Burns' documentaries show that this can be done. If you were to focus instead on endeavors like these, you would be worthy of your name and would be providing a great service.

Thanks for your time,

a concerned historian

Monday, October 19, 2015

Conservative Talk Radio Case Study One: Sam Sorbo and Climate Change

To save you the trouble of listening to Conservative Talk Radio, I decided to occasionally publish an examination of the content that its hosts are spewing. Hopefully this will allow you to understand what those who object to scientific principles and ideas are coming from.

Case Study: Sam Sorbo 

A couple of weekends ago, CTR host Sam Sorbo (wife of Hercules actor Kevin Sorbo) was going off about the consensus on climate change. In her rant, Sorbo stated that she did not understand where the 97% consensus number came from and that consensus is irrelevant to science anyways. She illustrated this by explaining that 99.9% of scientists used to be geocentrists and that Copernicus was executed for his ideas about heliocentrism.


These statements will by mind boggling to anyone who has ever looked into the history and philosophy of science at all. For starters, Copernicus was not executed. De Revolutionibus was published when Copernicus was already on his way out. It is also a very big stretch to call geocentrism a scientific model.  This idea was held since ancient Greece when Aristotle argued in favor of it. Aristotle did so because it fit with his metaphysics and it explained many features of the world (example: heavy objects fall down because they have a natural tendency to move towards the center of the cosmos).

If you want to consider Aristotle a scientist, then fair enough. He, however, did not do anything resembling science as we have understood it since the dawn of the scientific revolution. His methods were deductive (not inductive), he did not use mathematics to explain models (he provided teleological answers instead), and he did not perform controlled or isolated experiments.

The people who opposed heliocentrism did so largely because it contradicted Dr. Angelicus. Since (at least) the time of his canonization in 1323, Thomas Aquinas' philosophy has been regarded as a definitive explanation of existence by the Roman Catholic church. A key feature of his philosophy is that it uses Aristotle's metaphysics and (by logical extension) and physics as its foundation. Without a lot of data, folk physics also seemed to provide a better explanation for why the world appears as it does. Keep in mind that, without a more complicated math and physics, heliocentrism did not have much more explanatory power than its rival. It, however, gained this evidence as it aged  and matured into a full fledged paradigm (thanks to the work of Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo).

If we want what happened during the dawn of the Scientific Revolution (with people like Copernicus, Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton) to influence how we understand the global warming "debate," then we must put these points to work. The first lesson is that we should not reject new ideas because we find them philosophically or theologically unappealing. The second lesson is that we should probably place our bets on those who have the evidence on their side. Unlike Copernicus who made appeals to simplicity, current climate science has robust evidence based on fundamental physics and chemistry (in other words, it is a mature science. Not a young one). This is the sort of thing that the geocentrists lacked and the heliocentrists eventually had. If we do this, then we ironically cannot help but come down on the side of the 97% consensus.

To preempt a possible objection Mrs. Sorbo might have, a scientific consensus is not a bunch of scientists deciding to cut off investigation. A consensus is when the experts in a particular field overwhelmingly agree to the extent that all of their independent and overlapping research comes to the same robust conclusion. This does not limit dissenters from publishing their ideas or other people from pursuing other lines of inquiry. In other words, a consensus is not a deductive argument from authority which states you must accept a science "because they said so." It is a strong inductive argument that states that we would place our bets on the people who know what they are talking about when they all come to the same conclusion.

This is the same reason why you get a surgeon to perform heart surgery and not your next-door neighbor. But where did that 97% come from? If Sam would have looked it up, she would have known that this estimate comes from a meta-analysis of over ten thousand peer-reviewed climate change articles (link). Out of these articles that stated an opinion one way or the other, 97.1% were in agreement that human driven global warming is happening.  If this is not enough, an analysis found that only 24 papers rejected this view in a span of twenty years (link) and yet another found that through 2012-13, only one paper rejected this consensus (link).

While I do not expect Mrs. Sorbo to read this or to change her mind, I just wanted to get it on the record that many of these radio personalities have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to science. I am by no means a prodigy (in fact, I just got stomped by a Calc III test today and I am going to have to put in some elbow grease to get a good grade out of the class), I do take the time to look stuff up and to see what the experts say. You do not have to be a scientist or a genius to do this. You just have to be curious and understand how evidence and expertise work.

While Sam may sound very outlandish and crazy, you need to keep in mind that the ideas she is proposing here are absolutely in line with the climate denial of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Michael Savage. I could have picked any of these hosts and they would parrot nearly the same talking points.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Conservative talk radio and why you should listen to it.

What its like to be a listener of CTR

Since I was a young child, I have been a listener of CTR (conservative talk radio). At first, I listened simply because I happened to be in the car when my father listened to Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy. As I grew older, however, I listened because I believed what they said. This belief was largely the result of two major factors that I think are true for many other fans of CTR:
  1. The GOP-fundamentalist worldview has mechanisms in it that allow you to discount the beliefs of outsiders. It teaches you that the people who disagree with you are trying to push a false philosophy so that they can remake the USA as an atheistic-socialist state without freedom. We know this because conservative intellectuals have pointed out these holes and have shown their motives. This is just as true for scientific ideas (especially evolution, global warming, and the big bang), they assert, as it is for things like gay marriage.
  2. The schools in the South and many other areas that are strongholds for GOP-fundie ideas do not teach critical thinking and science in any meaningful sense. Given this, I had no idea how evolution or any other major scientific theory worked until I was in college. This lack of education is the result of people who are convinced by factor 1 that we need to keep such things out of the public school system. The result of this is a feedback loop between factors 1 and 2. 
My interest in CTR, however, started to wane when I was in college. For the first time in my life, I took classes where my teachers were experts in both pedagogy and their subject matter. My Civ 1 professor taught "just the facts" of comparative religion and never stated what his own opinions were. This was the first time in my life that I was able to learn about religions without being told which one, if any, was right. My psych teacher (the experimental-biology kind) asked my class to write down any questions or objections we had about psychology or evolution. He then told us to hold on to them until after we covered the material. If we still wanted to ask them, then he would happily answer them (by the time this day arrived, almost all of these questions had either been answered or shown to be nonsensical). Experiences like these that are features of having a real education popped the bubble I was living in.

About a year ago, however, I started listening to it again. Unlike my first go around, I am not listening because I am a true believer. Instead, I tune in because I think that it is important to give people who disagree with you a chance to voice their opinions.  If you are a skeptic, this may sound like the worst thing ever. After all, a lot of what these people say is absolutely crazy.

Glenn Beck being Glenn Beck.


I certainly agree with this sentiment. As a listener to these people, I can name all sorts of nutty shit that they have said. Glenn Beck, for example, is legendary for the excrement that comes out of his mouth. A couple of days ago (8/11/15), he dismissed evolution, the big bang, and climate change.  His reasons for doing so were that Piltdown Man showed evolution to be false, scientists "used to think it was cooling," and scientists have now announced that the big bang never happened. This was done in a span of about 10-15 minutes. Today (8/13/15), he had on pseudohistorian David Barton to demonstrate that divine providence guides the USA and to argue against the separation of church and state. Neither one of these days was special or out of the ordinary. He pushes this sort of baloney every day.

With all of that said, I think that it is important that you fight these natural urges and listen anyways.This helps to prevent you from making a straw man out of other people's views. When you get your news of what someone you disagree with says from someone who is on your side, there is a good chance that you are going to get a straw man. This is very hard to do when you skip the middle man and get the ideas from the horse's mouth  It also prevents the type of cognitive closure that I experienced when I was a true believer. Regardless of what you believe, you do not want to live in a bubble where opposing views are sealed off from you. This has the potential of making you smug and cut off from the cultural zeitgeist.

Always keep in mind that CTR listeners are plentiful and passionate about voting. If you want to understand the electorate of the USA, then it is essential that you listen to the sources from which they get their information. We have a two party system and this is a way to tap into the minds of a voting block that has control over one of them. It also allows you to anticipate the type of complaints that GOP-fundies have and what their underlying moral concerns are. By getting the moral reasons why people like Beck and Mark Levin reject science, you can have more meaningful discussions with your family and friends. This is especially true of that uncle who you only see on Thanksgiving. You know the one I am talking about.

If you think that you are ready for this plunge, then I recommend that you listen to all of the normal guys such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck. Find the one of them that annoys you the least. After you build up a tolerance for them, then you can branch off. If you do not drive or have the time to listen to them on the road, then you can find clips of their "best" stuff online.