4 ms·

I think it is entirely possible for people on one side of a particular discussion to be on more epistemologically solid ground than people on another side of a

by sofal 9y ago

I think it is entirely possible for people on one side of a particular discussion to be on more epistemologically solid ground than people on another side of a discussion in a general sense. If I'm reading you right (which I may not be) it seems that you're saying this is not the case. It's not a controversial or particularly interesting fact that everyone is human and therefore prone to weaknesses in reasoning that they will never be 100% free of, but it is also true that one can make a moderately successful effort to reduce these weaknesses somewhat through disciplined practice in critical thinking, and that there are people who can therefore reason better than others. Additionally, the scientific method itself is engineered to reduce the effect of these natural human biases that will always plague the scientists themselves. Religions, on the other hand, consistently enhance and exploit these biases to promote their narrative.

cookiecaper 9y ago
>I think it is entirely possible for people on one side of a particular discussion to be on more epistemologically solid ground than people on another side of a discussion in a general sense. Sure, that's possible and common. But it's still just as easy to mislead secular persons as it is to mislead religious people. >one can make a moderately successful effort to reduce these weaknesses somewhat through disciplined practice in critical thinking Yes, I agree and I think that's important, but it should be acknowledged that wherever you're dedicating energy to this effort, it's coming out of something else, and that when you're not aware, you are basically falling back to default decision-making and credibility determination mechanisms. One should not make the mistake of believing that because they are good analysts, their decisions automatically qualify as more deliberate. >Additionally, the scientific method itself is engineered to reduce the effect of these natural human biases that will always plague the scientists themselves. Religions, on the other hand, consistently enhance and exploit these biases to promote their narrative. This is where you're starting to lose me. Academia is just as vulnerable to bias and groupthink as anything else. It is laughably naive to say that the principles of the scientific method keeps academia more objective than any other field. In fact, the opacity and density of academic papers will frequently be used to obscure what is otherwise plainly false information, allowing it to be weaponized into propaganda (with varying degrees of subtlety) that common sense and/or decency would not allow people to accept any other way. "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics", as the saying goes. "The diocese says..." and "the university says..." are identical lines of thought, applied to a different authority. In both cases, the technical background behind the proclamations from either institution is serious and well outside the grasp of the average devotee or proselyte. You may be operating under the belief that religious proclamations occur based on the whims of religious leaders, but this is no more true than the claim that academic proclamations occur based on the whims of academic leaders. Both groups have significant influence and control, but people do not just follow these things without an apparent technical/rational justification, and credible religious edicts are works of real and serious scholarship.
- sofal 9y ago
  Academia is just as vulnerable to bias and groupthink as anything else. I don’t equate “academia” with the scientific method. In fact, the two are often opposed to each other. But since that is where you want to go with it, I would question this sentence of yours as a false equivalency. I submit that “academia”, as much as you can think of it as a single institution (of dirty liberal elites or whatever), is definitely vulnerable to bias and groupthink (even to an astonishing amount, depending on your preconceptions), but your idea that it is just as vulnerable to bias and groupthink as literally anything else is not true. For example, I can substitute “flat-earthers” for your “anything else” and it becomes very clear that flat-earthers as a group are much more susceptible to bad ideas than “academia” as a group. Merely pointing out the failings of scientific practitioners, of which there are copious amounts, is not an argument for putting the scientific method on equal ground with religion. Appeals to authority is not equivalent to the scientific method, and it is not the only reason why one would trust it over the declarations of religions. Perhaps you might be one of those people who thinks that because science refines its scientific theories over time, that they are “always changing their minds”, rather than creating more accurate models. Maybe you might be one to say that evolution, for example, is “just a theory”? One can easily see the kind of bullshit that exists within the scientific community without being so unwise as to think that makes it just as credible as any other source of information. I could talk your ears off about what annoys me about the research community, but you’re probably fairly well versed in that, since you make it an important part of discrediting them as a whole. Ultimately what annoys me about them is precisely the ways in which they deviate from the scientific method in order to advance their goals of getting published and recognized. There are bad incentive systems in place in academia that make it so that papers with no real substance get published; negative results are polished like turds to pretend like they were looking for a different result the whole time. Bad statistical methods are used to obfuscate; no actual reproduction of results are being done in large swaths of the field; scientific journalism hypes single paper results to the detriment of science in the public’s eye. I could keep going. Yet still these failings do not even hold a candle to the actively misleading aspects of religion. You may be operating under the belief that religious proclamations occur based on the whims of religious leaders, but this is no more true than the claim that academic proclamations occur based on the whims of academic leaders. Many religious proclamations actually are made up whole cloth by religious leaders. Take Joseph Smith, for instance. When someone invents their own religion, it is called a cult in the beginning, but that pejorative eventually goes away after the founder dies and the organization evolves and achieves more mainstream success. However, it isn’t terribly important whether religious proclamations come freshly made up from a single person or if they are evolved from legends and handed down from earlier generations. What’s important is their epistemological foundation. “God says so” seems to be the sum of it. The evidence? Emotional reasoning and appeals to just having faith. credible religious edicts are works of real and serious scholarship. I don’t know what “scholarship” is supposed to mean in this sentence. Just because a person studies something does not mean that the studying was done properly or that the subject matter or learned material has any merit whatsoever. I’m not aware of any religious edicts that have revealed any new knowledge to the world and have met their burden of proof. I am aware of a whole lot of edicts that have not.

by sofal 9y ago

cookiecaper 9y ago

>I think it is entirely possible for people on one side of a particular discussion to be on more epistemologically solid ground than people on another side of a discussion in a general sense. Sure, that's possible and common. But it's still just as easy to mislead secular persons as it is to mislead religious people. >one can make a moderately successful effort to reduce these weaknesses somewhat through disciplined practice in critical thinking Yes, I agree and I think that's important, but it should be acknowledged that wherever you're dedicating energy to this effort, it's coming out of something else, and that when you're not aware, you are basically falling back to default decision-making and credibility determination mechanisms. One should not make the mistake of believing that because they are good analysts, their decisions automatically qualify as more deliberate. >Additionally, the scientific method itself is engineered to reduce the effect of these natural human biases that will always plague the scientists themselves. Religions, on the other hand, consistently enhance and exploit these biases to promote their narrative. This is where you're starting to lose me. Academia is just as vulnerable to bias and groupthink as anything else. It is laughably naive to say that the principles of the scientific method keeps academia more objective than any other field. In fact, the opacity and density of academic papers will frequently be used to obscure what is otherwise plainly false information, allowing it to be weaponized into propaganda (with varying degrees of subtlety) that common sense and/or decency would not allow people to accept any other way. "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics", as the saying goes. "The diocese says..." and "the university says..." are identical lines of thought, applied to a different authority. In both cases, the technical background behind the proclamations from either institution is serious and well outside the grasp of the average devotee or proselyte. You may be operating under the belief that religious proclamations occur based on the whims of religious leaders, but this is no more true than the claim that academic proclamations occur based on the whims of academic leaders. Both groups have significant influence and control, but people do not just follow these things without an apparent technical/rational justification, and credible religious edicts are works of real and serious scholarship.

sofal 9y ago
Academia is just as vulnerable to bias and groupthink as anything else. I don’t equate “academia” with the scientific method. In fact, the two are often opposed to each other. But since that is where you want to go with it, I would question this sentence of yours as a false equivalency. I submit that “academia”, as much as you can think of it as a single institution (of dirty liberal elites or whatever), is definitely vulnerable to bias and groupthink (even to an astonishing amount, depending on your preconceptions), but your idea that it is just as vulnerable to bias and groupthink as literally anything else is not true. For example, I can substitute “flat-earthers” for your “anything else” and it becomes very clear that flat-earthers as a group are much more susceptible to bad ideas than “academia” as a group. Merely pointing out the failings of scientific practitioners, of which there are copious amounts, is not an argument for putting the scientific method on equal ground with religion. Appeals to authority is not equivalent to the scientific method, and it is not the only reason why one would trust it over the declarations of religions. Perhaps you might be one of those people who thinks that because science refines its scientific theories over time, that they are “always changing their minds”, rather than creating more accurate models. Maybe you might be one to say that evolution, for example, is “just a theory”? One can easily see the kind of bullshit that exists within the scientific community without being so unwise as to think that makes it just as credible as any other source of information. I could talk your ears off about what annoys me about the research community, but you’re probably fairly well versed in that, since you make it an important part of discrediting them as a whole. Ultimately what annoys me about them is precisely the ways in which they deviate from the scientific method in order to advance their goals of getting published and recognized. There are bad incentive systems in place in academia that make it so that papers with no real substance get published; negative results are polished like turds to pretend like they were looking for a different result the whole time. Bad statistical methods are used to obfuscate; no actual reproduction of results are being done in large swaths of the field; scientific journalism hypes single paper results to the detriment of science in the public’s eye. I could keep going. Yet still these failings do not even hold a candle to the actively misleading aspects of religion. You may be operating under the belief that religious proclamations occur based on the whims of religious leaders, but this is no more true than the claim that academic proclamations occur based on the whims of academic leaders. Many religious proclamations actually are made up whole cloth by religious leaders. Take Joseph Smith, for instance. When someone invents their own religion, it is called a cult in the beginning, but that pejorative eventually goes away after the founder dies and the organization evolves and achieves more mainstream success. However, it isn’t terribly important whether religious proclamations come freshly made up from a single person or if they are evolved from legends and handed down from earlier generations. What’s important is their epistemological foundation. “God says so” seems to be the sum of it. The evidence? Emotional reasoning and appeals to just having faith. credible religious edicts are works of real and serious scholarship. I don’t know what “scholarship” is supposed to mean in this sentence. Just because a person studies something does not mean that the studying was done properly or that the subject matter or learned material has any merit whatsoever. I’m not aware of any religious edicts that have revealed any new knowledge to the world and have met their burden of proof. I am aware of a whole lot of edicts that have not.