Teleological thinking - common link between conspiracies and creationism

[essentialsaltes]

What ob earth does that have to do woth creationism and classic teleology?

Maybe nothing. The study correlated agreement with statements like “the sun rises in order to give us light” or “the purpose of bees is to ensure pollination”, which were characterized as "finalism" with agreement with other statements indicative of 'creationism' or 'conspiracism' or 'animism'.

I think an interesting result is the strong correlation between conspiracism and animism.

 

[juvenissun]

News article

“Although very different at first glance, both these belief systems are associated with a single and powerful cognitive bias named teleological thinking, which entails the perception of final causes and overriding purpose in naturally occurring events and entities.

In practice, a teleological approach means someone will agree with statements such as “the sun rises in order to give us light” or “the purpose of bees is to ensure pollination”.”

Research Article

"Teleological thinking — the attribution of purpose and a final cause to natural events and entities — has long been identified as a cognitive hindrance to the acceptance of evolution, yet its association to beliefs other than creationism has not been investigated. Here, we show that conspiracism — the proneness to explain socio-historical events in terms of secret and malevolent conspiracies — is also associated to a teleological bias. Across three correlational studies (N > 2000), we found robust evidence of a teleological link between conspiracism and creationism, which was partly independent from religion, politics, age, education, agency detection, analytical thinking and perception of randomness. As a resilient ‘default’ component of early cognition, teleological thinking is thus associated with creationist as well as conspiracist beliefs, which both entail the distant and hidden involvement of a purposeful and final cause to explain complex worldly events."

All these depends on how do you evaluate the origin of human being. If you think we are just another animal and is a product of evolution, then you are right. If you think human is anything more than just that, then you are wrong. Just look at the current earth, I think the answer is trivial.

 

[mark kennedy]

Maybe nothing. The study correlated agreement with statements like “the sun rises in order to give us light” or “the purpose of bees is to ensure pollination”, which were characterized as "finalism" with agreement with other statements indicative of 'creationism' or 'conspiracism' or 'animism'.

I think an interesting result is the strong correlation between conspiracism and animism.

I really don't think so, in fact I see no correlation whatsoever. Since being on C.F. I have digested mostly

Maybe nothing. The study correlated agreement with statements like “the sun rises in order to give us light” or “the purpose of bees is to ensure pollination”, which were characterized as "finalism" with agreement with other statements indicative of 'creationism' or 'conspiracism' or 'animism'.

I think an interesting result is the strong correlation between conspiracism and animism.

I dont think so. Ive spent most of my time on C.F. absorbing genetics a philosophy. Whatever that study it had nothing to do with teleology or creationis.

 

[AV1611VET]

Teleological thinking - common link between conspiracies and creationism.

Scientific thinking - common link between fetus and scalpel.

Drinking milk - common link between strong bones and heroin addiction.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I really don't think so, in fact I see no correlation whatsoever.

Perhaps you don't when you look within yourself or the people around the room with you, but that's why the researchers took results from 2000 people and found these statistical correlations.

 

[Sanoy]

This reminds me of a study I did back in '89

I sought to investigate whether logical thinking could underlie and be associated with false beliefs. According to a poll I did, surveying people who use logic and have false beliefs, I discovered that logic is an underlying factor to false belief. Other variables, like poor education, the lack of philosophy classes, mental derangement, cognitive impairment, and other irrelevant factors were not included.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to a poll I did, surveying people who use logic and have false beliefs,

Like Clyde Tombaugh and Percivall Lowell?

The creators of Thalidomide?

Those who tended the Challenger before it went boom?

Those who said it was okie-doke to go back home to L'Aquila?

Those who ordered the occupants of the twin towers in NY to stay in their offices?

Those who were partying aboard the Deepwater Horizon?

Other examples of scientific logic: Titanic, Hindenburg, Chernobyl, and OB/GYiNfanticide?

Not to mention that "life saver" in Florida?

 

[mark kennedy]

Perhaps you don't when you look within yourself or the people around the room with you, but that's why the researchers took results from 2000 people and found these statistical correlations.

I say nothing in the study indicating a standard for correlation, a survey is only as good as the questions ask. Teleology and creationism I know are related but some convoluted conspiracyism, that's just out in left field. I think they were just pandering to an antireligious bias, telling people want they like to hear, knowing they won't look to closely at the substantive elements.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I [see] nothing in the study indicating a standard for correlation

A standard? They used a Pearson correlation test, a standard statistical measure. As stated in the study. If it's positive, the two factors are positively correlated. It's just math.

a survey is only as good as the questions ask.

And what do you know about the quality of the questions in the survey? Did you read the Supplemental Information, which showed that they used questions from The Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale, published a few years ago by other researchers? Have you evaluated the statements there to determine whether they effectively measure conspiracy-mindedness?

I think they were just pandering to an antireligious bias, telling people want they like to hear, knowing they won't look to closely at the substantive elements.

I think you're just pooh-poohing a study without any real reason.

 

[mark kennedy]

A standard? They used a Pearson correlation test, a standard statistical measure. As stated in the study. If it's positive, the two factors are positively correlated. It's just math.



And what do you know about the quality of the questions in the survey? Did you read the Supplemental Information, which showed that they used questions from The Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale, published a few years ago by other researchers? Have you evaluated the statements there to determine whether they effectively measure conspiracy-mindedness?



I think you're just pooh-poohing a study without any real reason.

A standard? They used a Pearson correlation test, a standard statistical measure. As stated in the study. If it's positive, the two factors are positively correlated. It's just math.



And what do you know about the quality of the questions in the survey? Did you read the Supplemental Information, which showed that they used questions from The Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale, published a few years ago by other researchers? Have you evaluated the statements there to determine whether they effectively measure conspiracy-mindedness?



I think you're just pooh-poohing a study without any real reason.

I have a reason, conspiracies is a bogus concept. I've read a little about teleology and Creationism and is some pretty interesting philosophy, basically metaphysics. The is no substantive drawn between the concepts involved. It reminds of this biology professor who was always citing the paper that said the more ignorant a person the less aware they are of their ignorance.

This isn't my first rabbit hole, I've played this game before and it a presuppositional merry go round.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have a reason, conspiracies is a bogus concept.

No, conspiracies actually do exist. But one should lend credence to the existence of a conspiracy only on sufficient evidence.

This isn't my first rabbit hole

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, conspiracies actually do exist. But one should lend credence to the existence of a conspiracy only on sufficient evidence.

Conspiracies do exist, that's why there is a legal definition that makes it synonymous with aidin, abiding or attempting by taking a substantial step. The vast majority of conspiracy theories but, Trum and collusion allegations, that's a conspiracy theory.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.

Oh please, there is no correlation of creationism and conspiracy theorists, fake moon landing hoac, or suppression of alien evidence. Its no different. I'm not defending conspiracy theories but unlike the vast majority of evolutionists, I actually learned what the evidence actually is, and this study is a presuppositional farce.

Go ahead and buy into it, but the creationist will get you if you dont watch out, keep your tin foil hat handy.

 

[pitabread]

Oh please, there is no correlation of creationism and conspiracy theorists, fake moon landing hoac, or suppression of alien evidence. Its no different. I'm not defending conspiracy theories but unlike the vast majority of evolutionists, I actually learned what the evidence actually is, and this study is a presuppositional farce.

What is your objection to the study though? Is there a problem with the methodology?

 

[mark kennedy]

What is your objection to the study though? Is there a problem with the methodology?

They didnt make a direct connection between conspiracy theories, creationism, and teleology. This whole issue is philosophical not statistical, and I've seen entirely too much of this kind of equivocation to take it seriously. I admit I found the study interesting which often they are. My objection is creation is a religious doctrine, teleology is a very old and very interesting philosophical point of discussion and conspiracy theories are something else entirely.

 

[essentialsaltes]

They didnt make a direct connection between conspiracy theories, creationism, and teleology.

Do you understand the phrase "correlation is not causation"?

The study showed a correlation. The end.

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you understand the phrase "correlation is not causation"?

The study showed a correlation. The end.

Sure, but not seeing it substantively, that's all. Not enough of the philosophical and theological and way to much on conspricyism,whatever that is. I'm not buying it because it's disjointed and far to common. No big deal, just don't see the conection, that's all.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Sure, but not seeing it substantively, that's all.

Asked and answered.

 

[pitabread]

They didnt make a direct connection between conspiracy theories, creationism, and teleology.

So? They're simply showing that there is a correlation between belief in one with belief in another.

This whole issue is philosophical not statistical, and I've seen entirely too much of this kind of equivocation to take it seriously.

I don't know what you think is being equivocated here. They are simply investigating if there is a correlation in belief of different ideas. And for which they have found a positive correlation.

My objection is creation is a religious doctrine, teleology is a very old and very interesting philosophical point of discussion and conspiracy theories are something else entirely.

But what does that have to do with the results of the study?

 

[Sanoy]

If "promiscuous" teleology can lead to "Conspiracism", I wonder if teleological "blindness" can lead to not recognizing when a conspiracy is true and avoid it's consequence?

 

[essentialsaltes]

If "promiscuous" teleology can lead to "Conspiracism", I wonder if teleological "blindness" can lead to not recognizing when a conspiracy is true and avoid it's consequence?

There is always a tension between Type I and Type II errors.

"More simply stated, a type I error is to falsely infer the existence of something that is not there, while a type II error is to falsely infer the absence of something that is. "