Some of my friends have been claiming things. I made this website for them really. These claims range from the supernatural to the extraterrestrial, they include government conspiracies, diet, and medicinal advice. They include positions on politics, and science; on which news sources are best, and which can't be trusted. These are people I like and care for. They believe these things, and want me to believe them too.
I think they are wrong. Not just a little bit, but as wrong as you can be. Could they be right? Sure. Are they? Nope. Pretty sure they aren't. It may seem confrontational to say that, which is what I want. I want to confront the beliefs my friends hold that I disagree with. They think they're right and I think that I'm right, so where does that leave us?
The most important thing about my view point is that it is evidence based. And with that comes the responsibility of changing beliefs to match the evidence. I tried to sum this up into the following statement:
If you don't know what it would take to change your mind; then you don't know why you believe it. If you don't know why you believe it, then you have abandoned the rational. To quote Plato quoting Socrates (probably) "The unexamined life is not worth living"
With that in mind I will now take to examining the beliefs put toward me by my friends and what it would take for me to accept those things. I will then examine their evidence and adjust my beliefs accordingly. I will ask them to do the same, if I find their worldview lacking and present a deconstruction or alternative.
I have already begun the work here in my series On the Nature of Discourse and Argument. And I would like to think of that as supplemental to the conversations I wish to have, they are the tools that I will use to support my specific ideas.
The importance of specifics cannot be stressed enough. Too often I have found myself in conversation where when I challenge any single idea or single part of an idea, I am told that that part doesn't matter or they personally don't believe that part. I will do my best to break ideas down into the premises which are necessary and the conclusions that are deductive or highly likely if inductive. This is where I start.
There's so much information available, from so many sources. One person might believe their opinion is evidence based; but another might believe that their evidence isn't valid because of the political or financial motives of the people or source that originally presented the information. Sorting through what is true and what isn't, always involves some examination, but ultimately, a source will seem questionable to a person if the information presented by that source seems to contradict their preconceived notions more than affirming them. This is where it's useful to examine those preconceived notions. But really, no news is unbiased, and even if particular stories are unbiased, no news SOURCE is entirely unbiased; even if it is not politically or financially gaining something; there will always be personal motives in there. You might think you're unbiased, but you are steeped in your own beliefs as much as anyone else. Sure- your beliefs might be well thought out, and examined thoroughly, which is wonderful. But the mention of "God," which is an absolute truth in the eyes of 95% of the world, will probably set off a flag in you that says "This source is biased" or "This argument can't be logical if it is being presented by the same person who believes in God" ... then you might be smart enough to examine the specific argument in spite of feelings or initial assumptions.... (or maybe that doesn't happen to you specifically, but it could happen to an athiest, for instance; whereas an article written by an athiest could affect a theist the same way) .....
ReplyDeleteBut every article is written from the point of view of SOMEONE, therefore, nothing is unbiased or accurate; so when arguing politics, determining who to vote for, or deciding who is worse than another, it could easily be said that two people who disagree are equally logical and examine their own beliefs equally, but have been attracted to certain news sources for reasons that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand.
Erii
It would depend on the argument presented. I am if anything more relentless and ruthless with my own beliefs than I am with those of others. While your comment is interesting it is beyond the scope of the introductory phase. It has to do with sources and ways of acquiring and testing knowledge. A very worthy topic to consider. The nature of discourse and argument series begins to address this and any elementary logic text should do so. It then comes down to premises or if you reduce it too far epistemological assumptions.
ReplyDelete