4 ms·

Perhaps we should come up with better methods that people can use to critique/improve their own epistemology as needed, and spread the idea that it is highly wo

Perhaps we should come up with better methods that people can use to critique/improve their own epistemology as needed, and spread the idea that it is highly worthwhile to do so? The mindset that "realizing you are wrong" can be a joy, not something to fear. After reading Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions", it seems to me this difficulty could also be described as people operating from different base layer paradigms. E.g. "Natural laws are sufficient to explain everything we see" vs "A supernatural element is needed". Or "Power dynamics are the primary force that steer human activity" vs "There are many important factors to consider".

whatshisface 9y ago
>"Natural laws are sufficient to explain everything we see" vs "A supernatural element is needed". Both of those positions share the base epistemology of seeing and explaining, fortunately for discussions between the two very large groups that believe each of them.
- WalterSear 9y ago
  Except pragmatically, one is a conclusion based on observation and the other is driven by a willful need to make reality meet emotional needs. Religious people, by and large, do not respect observation as much as dogma. There's no commonality to be found with that.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - nradov 9y ago
    It depends on the religion. The modern Catholic Church now accepts that evolution through natural selection occurs, and they no longer claim that the Earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago.
    - dwaltrip 9y ago
      Is that an official position? I knew they were more accepting of it in general.
      - gt_ 9y ago
        If it isn’t, it will be. Religious texts can be revered studied like mythology (because they are). Critiques of biblical literalism are already fairly old-fashioned and surprisingly unnecessary. I have a very religious family, which was uncomfortable for me when I was younger. But, that didn’t last long. Once I began studying more art history, mythology and theology, the ‘Us vs. Them’ around the topic has largely dissipated. I participate in all the happenings and have helped my cousins of similar age in contextualizing it all. I feel like I am ushering a healthy shift forward and new atheism now feels old. I’m open to critique of this, of course.
      - mamon 9y ago
        Yes, it is official position, confirmed in a few documents by Pope John Paul II (google "Fides et ratio"). But of course you can still many priests arguing against that :)
notduncansmith 9y ago
This exactly. Critical thinking, psychology, and interpersonal communication (with emphasis on building shared understanding) need to be explicitly taught in schools. We already have children memorize state capitals: they can memorize cognitive biases, mental models, meta-models/heuristics, empathy/communication techniques, and the a basic explanation of the psychology/neuroscience that backs them up. This will allow children to effectively deal with their own flaws, and those of others. Combining that with practical online/offline research skills and more hands-on experience of macro/microeconomics would leave children much more equipped to deeply and intuitively understand people and the world. It's definitely not beyond their capacity either, all children figure out a smattering of these for themselves anyways, they just don't learn the names. Even the rather sharp ones only have a few more, or maybe one especially-honed one, but that's all it takes to make a big difference. "A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points" - Alan Kay As an aside, children that develop significantly advantageous models early on often end up over-relying on them later, another potential-wasting issue we could avoid by making those children aware of what's going on in their brains.
- jacobolus 9y ago
  > they can memorize cognitive biases, mental models, meta-models/heuristics, empathy/communication techniques, and the a basic explanation of the psychology/neuroscience that backs them up. This will allow children to effectively deal with their own flaws, and those of others. This reads like a parody. Memorizing a list of definitions isn’t going to accomplish much of anything, any more than memorizing a list of equipment names will turn someone into a doctor or engineer. These are tricky concepts/tools, and wielding them properly takes serious expertise. Students need (years of copious) experience reading, making, and analyzing increasingly subtle and sophisticated arguments with significant amounts of feedback from other students and expert teachers/mentors to come to a journeyman-level understanding of logic and rhetoric. Critical introspection is even harder; adults have trouble with it after decades of liberal arts education, professional school, work, personal relationships, meditation, therapy, ....
  - ewjordan 9y ago
    Adults have trouble with all this stuff because mostly they don't learn it at all, even with a liberal arts education or any of the other things you mention. The entire rationalism movement is essentially founded based on the fact that ostensibly educated people don't realize how badly their brains work by default. The greatest superpower we have as humans is that we have the ability to introspect, and second guess our immediate responses in light of what we've learned. That allows us to jump to conclusions much quicker on shoddy evidence, because we can course correct later as we gather more, and it's super effective as a learning strategy. Learning how to better correct our initial hypotheses helps us perform even better, but it requires us to actually study the things that humans tend to get wrong. Most education, professions, and life experiences do not support that goal, so it's an easy win if you go outside the system to do so.

whatshisface 9y ago

>"Natural laws are sufficient to explain everything we see" vs "A supernatural element is needed". Both of those positions share the base epistemology of seeing and explaining, fortunately for discussions between the two very large groups that believe each of them.

WalterSear 9y ago
Except pragmatically, one is a conclusion based on observation and the other is driven by a willful need to make reality meet emotional needs. Religious people, by and large, do not respect observation as much as dogma. There's no commonality to be found with that.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 9y ago
  It depends on the religion. The modern Catholic Church now accepts that evolution through natural selection occurs, and they no longer claim that the Earth was created in 6 days a few thousand years ago.
  - dwaltrip 9y ago
    Is that an official position? I knew they were more accepting of it in general.
    - gt_ 9y ago
      If it isn’t, it will be. Religious texts can be revered studied like mythology (because they are). Critiques of biblical literalism are already fairly old-fashioned and surprisingly unnecessary. I have a very religious family, which was uncomfortable for me when I was younger. But, that didn’t last long. Once I began studying more art history, mythology and theology, the ‘Us vs. Them’ around the topic has largely dissipated. I participate in all the happenings and have helped my cousins of similar age in contextualizing it all. I feel like I am ushering a healthy shift forward and new atheism now feels old. I’m open to critique of this, of course.
    - mamon 9y ago
      Yes, it is official position, confirmed in a few documents by Pope John Paul II (google "Fides et ratio"). But of course you can still many priests arguing against that :)

notduncansmith 9y ago

This exactly. Critical thinking, psychology, and interpersonal communication (with emphasis on building shared understanding) need to be explicitly taught in schools. We already have children memorize state capitals: they can memorize cognitive biases, mental models, meta-models/heuristics, empathy/communication techniques, and the a basic explanation of the psychology/neuroscience that backs them up. This will allow children to effectively deal with their own flaws, and those of others. Combining that with practical online/offline research skills and more hands-on experience of macro/microeconomics would leave children much more equipped to deeply and intuitively understand people and the world. It's definitely not beyond their capacity either, all children figure out a smattering of these for themselves anyways, they just don't learn the names. Even the rather sharp ones only have a few more, or maybe one especially-honed one, but that's all it takes to make a big difference. "A change in perspective is worth 80 IQ points" - Alan Kay As an aside, children that develop significantly advantageous models early on often end up over-relying on them later, another potential-wasting issue we could avoid by making those children aware of what's going on in their brains.

jacobolus 9y ago
> they can memorize cognitive biases, mental models, meta-models/heuristics, empathy/communication techniques, and the a basic explanation of the psychology/neuroscience that backs them up. This will allow children to effectively deal with their own flaws, and those of others. This reads like a parody. Memorizing a list of definitions isn’t going to accomplish much of anything, any more than memorizing a list of equipment names will turn someone into a doctor or engineer. These are tricky concepts/tools, and wielding them properly takes serious expertise. Students need (years of copious) experience reading, making, and analyzing increasingly subtle and sophisticated arguments with significant amounts of feedback from other students and expert teachers/mentors to come to a journeyman-level understanding of logic and rhetoric. Critical introspection is even harder; adults have trouble with it after decades of liberal arts education, professional school, work, personal relationships, meditation, therapy, ....
- ewjordan 9y ago
  Adults have trouble with all this stuff because mostly they don't learn it at all, even with a liberal arts education or any of the other things you mention. The entire rationalism movement is essentially founded based on the fact that ostensibly educated people don't realize how badly their brains work by default. The greatest superpower we have as humans is that we have the ability to introspect, and second guess our immediate responses in light of what we've learned. That allows us to jump to conclusions much quicker on shoddy evidence, because we can course correct later as we gather more, and it's super effective as a learning strategy. Learning how to better correct our initial hypotheses helps us perform even better, but it requires us to actually study the things that humans tend to get wrong. Most education, professions, and life experiences do not support that goal, so it's an easy win if you go outside the system to do so.