Non-trivial? Seriously, it can't be more than a pittance; they just speak loudly in certain areas.

I wish you were right, but I'm not making that up. It's right around half, see this column for some more detail. I would say 45-50% can be classified as nontrivial.

On top of that I resent the implication that refusing to accept traditional evolutionary theory makes you scientifically illiterate.

Terribly sorry for implying it. Let me say it more clearly, then: If you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that humans resulted from evolution by natural selection, you either have a case for your own hypothesis that should be winning you a Nobel next year, or you are ignorant and scientifically illiterate, at least on that particular topic. If you've got the evidence, please direct me to the journal you published in.

There, no more implying it. Happy now?

Thanks for bringing up the Y2K bug! It's actually an excellent case in point.

The reason that Y2K wasn't a disaster is specifically because it was recognized and addressed in time. If it hadn't been, there would have been significant issues. Since it was, and reasonable steps were taken to ensure it wasn't a problem, it went out with a whimper. And now people assert there never was a problem in the first place.

I would love to see global warming addressed satisfactorily, the harm mitigated, and in a half a century people saying "See! It was never that bad!". Unfortunately, we might be in for a little harsher lesson this time around.

Weather is far from predictable-- as a pilot I find the weather predictions can rarely be trusted more than one day out... How can we possibly make predictions for *decades* in the future?

Weather != climate. Saying that Seattle has a wet climate is far different from saying it will rain in Seattle on Tuesday.

their religion is the failing point. it is not compatible with the modern age and this is 100% of the problem.

You added an extraneous "their". Religion is not compatible with the modern age, and it is a huge problem.

If you'd like to have the abortion debate, I'm game, but it'd be inflammatory and offtopic here. If you do want to, respond and I'll start a journal entry for the purpose.

Uh...I know a lot of people who have made shifts like that. And incidentally, it makes for a more pleasant life.

The only piece I really haven't done is "stop eating meat," I've tried vegetarianism, and even the suggested diet leaves me tired and hungry. As to the rest? I bike or take public transit almost everywhere-I still have a car, I think I put maybe 1500 miles on it last year. This year will probably be even less. I very rarely fly. If I need to log into a client's system to troubleshoot it, that's what remoting in is for. I don't need to personally be there.

As an added bonus, it's better! Biking is much more pleasant than sitting stuck in traffic, as is reading a book on the train, and the cycling part of it is good for your health to boot. Remoting in to a client's system rather than physically going out there saves the client paying for travel costs, and saves me having to deal with the hassle of it. Win-win.

Totally agreed on hybrid cars. If people want to make a difference, they don't need a different car, they need to drive the car less. Someone with the worst gas-guzzler SUV in the world that they rarely ever start is doing much more good than a Prius owner commuting in it daily. There is one thing, though, that encourages people (including the most ardent climate-change denialists) to leave that car in the garage more often-higher gas prices. I'm not sorry at all to see them rising.

When we have a nontrivial portion of the population who does not believe that humanity resulted from evolution by natural selection, and that the universe is less than ten thousand years old, did we really expect people to accept science that something bad is going to happen if they do not change their behavior?

Our failure to insist on scientific literacy rates as high as written-word literacy rates is going to be something that comes back to bite us, I'm afraid. I'm not sure there is anything to be done for the problem now, except educate as well as we can.

Maybe we can have some scientists say that a god revealed to them that it dislikes the smell of vehicle exhaust and is angrily heating up the planet as a result. Unfortunately, I'm only half-kidding.

The claim wasn't that you hold irrational beliefs, but that you held beliefs irrationally (beliefs without evidence).

I'm not clear on the distinction between the two. How would a belief held irrationally not be an irrational belief?

There is nothing irrational about saying "I don't know" -- but we're not talking about knowledge, we're talking about belief. In the case I mention, if you believe that the mind is a product of the brain, that belief is irrational as you don't have sufficient evidence to hold that belief to the degree that it is typically held. That you can also say "I don't know" is an entirely different matter. (emphasis in original)

In the particular case (mind as an emergent property of the brain), I would say the evidence is certainly leaning toward it, but we cannot yet assert it with certainty, so the answer is still "We don't know." That's both what I know and what I believe-again, I'm unclear on the distinction between the two. Young earthers "know" the earth was created 6000 years ago, and they also believe it. Their knowledge is faulty, but since they've shut out all correction, they're stuck "knowing," and believing, something inconsistent with reality.

If I don't know something for certain but have some evidence, I both know and believe that I cannot be certain but have some evidence. If I've no idea whatsoever, I both know and believe I've no idea whatsoever.

My contention was that you do hold beliefs without sufficient evidence to support them, you merely refuse to acknowledge them or believe that you have sufficient evidence even when this is not the case.

I will concede that this is probably true. I certainly do not have perfect knowledge in all cases, nor perfect analysis of what I do know. It is likely that I have some beliefs more strongly than the evidence warrants, others more weakly than the evidence would indicate, and in some cases, new evidence may require that I go a different direction entirely.

But if that scenario comes to my attention, I change my beliefs to fit reality, I do not try to deny reality to fit my beliefs. I suppose it would be better said that I endeavor to only have beliefs supported by sufficient evidence, that I'm usually pretty successful at it given the necessarily limited human intellectual capacity, and that I correct failures as soon as I learn of them.

It's a relatively new pseudo-intellectual movement prevalent in the atheist community. (Hence, the capital R. I assumed that you'd be familiar with it, given your post.) It's a misnomer, however, as many supposed Rationalists actually reject epistemological rationalism!

I vaguely recall hearing the term now that you clarify the context, but I've never looked them up. I may have to. If what you say is correct, a group calling itself "Rationalist" and basing itself upon irrational principles could be quite amusing.

If you are a functional human being you believe in things you have inadequate or no evidence for.

In some cases, we must, on the basis of risk-benefit analysis, act without sufficient evidence, because to fail to act would have worse consequences than even a poor action, or an act will benefit us greatly if it succeeds and cost little or nothing if it fails. But those aren't irrational actions at that point.

You just said you're married - do you have evidence that you picked the best spouse you could? Do you believe you did?

My evidence leading up to it was that we'd already lived together for several years by that point, and found ourselves to remain very compatible, and to have very little friction. There are, of course, no absolute guarantees in something like marriage, but that's about as good of a litmus test as you get. The evidence afterward, of course, is that after a couple of years so far, we still love each other very much and enrich one another's lives. Even if somehow that were to change and one day we split up, the time spent with her would be well worth the effort expended, and I had good indications that it would be so. So yes, I think that was a rational decision.

I don't think I could ever say with absolute certainty that I picked "the best I could," nor could she, as there just is no way to know something like that. What we can both say is that we're still very happy with the choice we made, we chose well, and we both approached the whole thing with eyes wide open and wanting to ensure we would be able to deal with the stresses of day to day life together. Once we determined we could (gathered evidence), we took the next step.

We're constantly making underdetermined but pragmatic decisions and then believing we actually made the optimum choice and not looking back.

I've made many far less than optimum choices, especially under time pressure. When I know I had to make a hasty decision on very little evidence, I always take a look over my shoulder afterwards. Figuring out what I anticipated or extrapolated incorrectly can prevent me from making the same mistake again. We'll always be forced into snap judgments by circumstances sometimes, but presuming you were right without looking back to see if you were is passing up a very valuable learning opportunity. If you were right, learn from that so you can do it again. If you were wrong, learn from that so you don't.

We make value and aesthetic judgements and believe them wholeheartedly. It's part of being human.

Of course! There's this perception that being rational makes one a robot, devoid of emotion or the ability to appreciate the world. It couldn't be farther from the truth-those things enrich our lives greatly, as well as contributing tremendously to our ability to think and act in creative and innovative ways, and giving them up entirely would be irrational on that basis. Rather, we must learn how to control our urges, and just as importantly, when to cut them loose and just enjoy a breathtaking sunset, or good sex, or a gourmet meal, or a complex painting, or whatever happens to appeal to you. Because yes, that is a part of being human, and a very valuable part. But if it leads you into trouble, like the appeal of one more score to the junkie, rationality has to step in front of that powerful urge. Nothing else will.

It's arrogant to assume that you don't believe in things that you have inadequate or no evidence for -- you just refuse to acknowledge those beliefs or assume that you have adequate evidence, even if that's not the case.

Well, I can't of course prove you wrong, and certainly I've been wrong before. But your attempt to provide an example, below, falls rather flat. If you could demonstrate that I do, I'd be forced to rethink my position, just like anything. But I'm not going to figure there must be something irrational in there somewhere, because you said it is so.

Go on, take a minute and you'll find that you have a ridiculous number of beliefs that have inadequate or no evidence. It's difficult to function day-to-day otherwise!

Just took a minute, and I can't think of how irrational beliefs would make it easier for me to function day to day. It seems rather the opposite.

Take something as simple as the belief that the mind is a product of the brain. Even if you're a credentialed neuroscientist, you notice immediately that this is based on a set of metaphysical assumptions and that you don't actually have adequate evidence to support such a belief to the absolute degree that that belief is held.

You're right, we don't fully understand the brain yet. The available evidence to date does support that the mind is an emergent property of the brain, but certainly, we have not conclusively nailed down how that works. So the answer is "We're not certain yet." That's the answer to a lot of things, and there's nothing irrational about saying "I don't know" if you lack sufficient evidence to come to a conclusion with reasonable certainty.

There's a reason that rational people stay away from the "Rationalists". They're typically the most irrational and poorly educated people you'll meet -- having little more than a superficial understanding of science and philosophy.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "rationalist" here. If you mean rational people stay away from people who lack irrational beliefs, then...well, this is a time to say I don't know, because I just don't know what to say to that one, except that it makes no sense at all.

I'm also not certain where you get "irrational and poorly educated," since as far as I know, superstition correlates very strongly with a lack of education and a poor understanding of science and philosophy.

The arrogance of this line of thinking always gets me. "I believe in things I have inadequate or no evidence for, so everyone else must too!"

It doesn't work like that, at least not for me. I got married on Friday the 13th and it didn't bother me a bit (and it went off perfectly), and while I do have some objects I like for no other reason than the memories they call to mind, I certainly do not think they are "lucky" or have any especial significance other than to me. Nor do I have any other beliefs based upon anything other than sufficient evidence to support them.

Not all of us are superstitious, just because far too many are.

I don't think using an occasional anthropomorphic expression in jest reflects "magical thinking." If you really believe that the car consciously dislikes going full throttle before getting warm, or the bottle has made a choice to hang onto the cap, that's magical thinking. But I don't think most who use those expressions mean them literally.

The Roman Empire didn't fall on its own.

No, but they never taught us it was brought down by zombies!

Where in the constitution is the federal government granted the authority to restrict to whom and how much corporations can give money?

The federal government has laws against bribery of federal judges, inspectors, law enforcement agents, the list goes on and on. Those laws are not remotely controversial, and constitutional challenges to them would be laughed out of court. Why should Senators/Reps get special dispensation to accept bribes, or corporations special dispensation to bribe them, when it's prohibited for every other type of federal official with no trouble at all?