I’ve been talking to Scott Lilienfeld, a scientist at Emory, about the psychology these conversations. He writes about a key fact, and gives an important term:
He talks about ‘surprising validators,’ and their importance. For example, when I argued on behalf of @Agauger and Buggs, that was an example of a surprising validation. Not many people expected that. If my position was “oppose ID on everything,” it would not have happened. Instead, it was rather to see what I could possibly affirm with integrity. @Agauger has been a surprising validator in the other direction, being kind to me both in public and private, even though I affirm evolutionary science. That sort of exchange is how our understanding moves forward, and we begin to trust each other.
Taking the mental short cut to say that ID is wrong on everything, or the YEC is wrong on everything, forecloses are opportunity to build bridges. It is a type of disconfirmation bias, and ends up perpetuating distrust is a clouding truth. It ultimately is a dead end, the dead end we are currently in.
Any how, @sygarte, I’m not sure you are saying to go out mainstream science. I think you are saying we need to
be willing to propose new ideas that challenge the consensus
risk validating people outside mainstream science when they have a good point
avoid the appeal to authority group-think that silences real inquiry
Is that it?
So TRUE.
I wonder if that is actually close the confusion I’ve had with BioLogos. I think they do not really know the rules, so they break them in some places, but are to cautious in others. Seems life a very difficult situation for them. Reminds me of a Proverb:
The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.
Proverbs 4:7
This exchange was very elucidating for both myself and @Patrick: