Chiropractic & Atheism

[Angrboda]

Well, we could debate the evidence for and against the validity of it until the cows come home. A few things from this and other threads (not trying to derail, honest).

First, there's a demarcation problem. There is no clear way to define what does and does not qualify as good science, or alternately, what qualifies as bad science or pseudoscience. So there's no 10 step process that a person can use to give the thumbs up or the thumbs down. And it can take a lot of expertise and knowledge (and experienced judgement) to come to a reliable conclusion about this or that particular "science." Pseudoscience really pisses me off, but I'm a lot more tolerant of somebody believing in bad science or medical claims, than I perhaps am when people buy into bad religious arguments. Should I treat them differently? There are powerful market and psychological forces conspiring to get people to buy both, so why am I more willing to give being taken in by pseudoscience a pass when I wouldn't be as accepting of religious claims?

It brings to mind a related question that I've been asking myself over the past few days (and whateverist has made some good stabs in.... I believe his "why do we need a case" thread). The question is what motivates the intense debates such as occur between atheists and theists. I'm sure some are sincerely trying to change minds, but I don't think that is what really drives these encounters. I generally go to psychology and evolutionary psychology to explain human behavior, and likewise, I'm trying to place this in that framework. People debate someone like "Muslim Scholar" ad nauseum, with great fervor, and yet, it's clear that the people debating him know he's not competent enough to have a substantive discussion, and his views are not going to change. But having been there, I know the emotions generated are at odds with the simple knowledge of the futility of the exercise. So my question has become, why do we do it — not what is our immediate motivation, but what is the evolutionary story that underlies that response? (Or other explanation.) The best I've been able to come up with so far is that demonstrating our superiority and vanquishing foes is a part of the competitive drive that has evolved to separate desirable mates from less desirable ones; we compete because sex and reproduction is, in effect, on the line. I'm not sure I find this explanation all that fulfilling.

(Addendum: Are there particular features about, say, bad religion, which are more emotionally provocative than those about bad medicine? Are the evolutionary consequences of reacting to one more vital than reacting to the other?)