|
This topic concerns two topics that I find interesting, (1) ontology of god (2) the visualization of opinions. I came across the page on a friend's facebook page, however, the creator is not someone I personally know (they are a friend of a friend). That said, I like the graphic they made and would like to share it with others and add a few comments of my own.
The author has created a 2D graph that plots where people stand with regards to their opinion on the existence of god and, suprisingly, their opinion of evolution. Firstly, I have to admit that this particular arrangement isn't one I had ever considered before. That said, it is certainly an interesting one to ponder. I've written about the political compass before and I have mentioned (but not posted) that I've thought extensively (and written down on paper) about how to properly a political compass from first principles, that is to ask about the rules governing such a graph.
The graph has been uploaded/ created on Prezi, this isn't a site I'm familiar with but I am now intrigued by it. Click here to view.
The author's description of his own graphic:
A humble attempt to place the main proponents of the evolution/creationism debate in a chart - open to changes
I will split my comments into two sections, the first will deal with the content of the graph and the second will deal with the visualization. I have more to say on the latter as it is something close to heart, the first is an overly debated topic that I now simply regard as futile.
Section 1 : The content of the graph
The question of god's existence is in my (less than humble) opinion a waste of time. Actually, let me restate that: debating god's existence with *most* people is a waste of time. Seldom do I meet people that are able to debate the subject matter in a truly philosophical and scientific manner. Prejudices and politics always come into play, personal ideology takes over and the debate descends into a clash of ideologies = TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. I've posted on this subject matter before and tried my best to point out the inherent problems of the logic used. Science should embrace its limitations in order to figure out how to improve them, that is my naive view of how science should be done at least. /rant
As stated above, it wasn't my first thought to plot the amount of theism versus the amount of creationism. In retrospect it makes a lot of sense. People can believe in god but also evolution, or not believe in god but also wholly refute evolution. However, those that wholly refute the current theory of evolution may not necessarily be creationists. They would, then of course, require a seperate theory (whatever they are).
My own bias is that evolution is our best theory with regard to that subject matter however I'm rather unconvinced on the ontology of god (from a purely philosophical perspective). I have no interest in the politics that follows on from that.
Section 2 : The visualization of the content
This graph is excellent and actually a necessity for debating the subject matter. If not this particular version of it then at least a version that debaters can agree upon before moving forward. The axis of theist / atheist is a great start, it immediately allows people to fall into a category that isn't binary 'yes' or 'no'. I don't think I can understate the importance of that. It is my frustration with d ebating in general that people fall into the simple trap of binary thought patterns.
The arrangement of the people on the graph requires further scrutiny. The placement of the content is the most crucial part of this graph, this is what determines whether I, or anyone else, will believe it and hence agree with the conclusions presented. Some questions worth asking are: Why these particular axes? And how did you place the names where you did?
I've already covered the first question so I leave that as rhetoric, it is a question that all people should ask before creating a similar graphic. One should properly understand how the system (the graph) is defined before attempting to populate it with content. The second question concerns just, if we can assume that the graph has logical / well defined rules then just how do we go about populating it in a way that conforms to said rules. Much like a Jungian personality test, there should be a set of questions and answers that probe the possible solutions of the graph. That is to say: Why is Dawkins placed where he is? Is there a quantitative answer that places him where he is on the graph or is it just guess work. The political compass asks users to fill in a questionaire but how your answers relate to the final graph is (IMO) quite suspect.
At the time of writing (6th Dec 2011), the arc of people in the upper left quadrant appears quite arbitrary. I'm suspicious that it forms such a smooth arc and it suggests to me that the placement of the people has been guesswork (albeit intuitive guesswork). Despite this criticism I have to admire any attempt to break down binary modes of thought in debate as well as all attempts to help visualize opinions. I hope to write more on these topics in the future. I have a lot down on paper but it my thoughts were largely too abstruse for others to follow what I was saying.
|
