This reminded me of point #2 of a comment I just read [1] on mistakes journalists make:
> "Mention every possible debate on the subject, without attempting to either offer a conclusion or a new set of arguments for any of them."
Keeping your identity small may prevent you from participating in certain arguments but it doesn't make for a good story. I'd rather hear a spirited debate between proponents of radically different ideas than bland statements that scrupulously avoid engaging anyone's identy.
The more I think about it the more ridiculous it sounds to exclude things from one's identity. An exclusive identity is not any smaller than an inclusive one--it's just identified by its exclusions. Identity is who you are and thus can be no larger or smaller than the whole of you.
I think the real argument here is one for skepticism as can been seen in the second footnote:
> "A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it."
Really?? First, I don't think biblical literalism requires a rejection of natural selection (unless that's shorthand for a naturalistic origin of life). Secondly, this statement itself seems like a religious argument in the sense that it implies scientists are somehow more detached and objective than biblical literalists.
From context it's clear that by "scientist" pg means an idealized scientist, i.e. a disinterested empiricist. Actual scientists are fallible humans who may indeed get caught up by identity.
> "Mention every possible debate on the subject, without attempting to either offer a conclusion or a new set of arguments for any of them."
Keeping your identity small may prevent you from participating in certain arguments but it doesn't make for a good story. I'd rather hear a spirited debate between proponents of radically different ideas than bland statements that scrupulously avoid engaging anyone's identy.
The more I think about it the more ridiculous it sounds to exclude things from one's identity. An exclusive identity is not any smaller than an inclusive one--it's just identified by its exclusions. Identity is who you are and thus can be no larger or smaller than the whole of you.
I think the real argument here is one for skepticism as can been seen in the second footnote:
> "A scientist isn't committed to believing in natural selection in the same way a bibilical literalist is committed to rejecting it."
Really?? First, I don't think biblical literalism requires a rejection of natural selection (unless that's shorthand for a naturalistic origin of life). Secondly, this statement itself seems like a religious argument in the sense that it implies scientists are somehow more detached and objective than biblical literalists.
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6171593