4 ms·

Let's not pretend that you can consider a persons actions completely in isolation. Your opinions and beliefs on other subjects cast a light on how you think cri

Let's not pretend that you can consider a persons actions completely in isolation. Your opinions and beliefs on other subjects cast a light on how you think critically as an individual. Believing that Obama murdered his pedophile accomplices seriously impacts a person's trustworthiness when it comes to making good decisions about _anything_.

roenxi 8y ago
We absolutely can, do and should consider a person's beliefs completely in isolation with regard to the task they are doing. Being able to do that is fundamental to how decent society is expected to hold together. Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindu* to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. It doesn't affect their ability to contribute and live properly. If we can't separate out people's irrelevant beliefs, the logical implications are not pretty. The reason this works is because we accept that people can be completely, catastrophically wrong about one thing and still muddle through as well as the rest of us at everything else. * Edited. ty.
- Lucadg 8y ago
  Religious beliefs are a funny thing: both apparently absurd and great metaphors of spiritual life. Much in the same way as a floppy disk icon on your PC is absurd (you are NOT clicking a floppy disk) and incredibly useful. So I think it's better to refrain to refer to religious beliefs as wrong. Disclaimer: I'm not religious.
- keerthiko 8y ago
  > Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindi to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. a) Theological beliefs are a fundamentally accepted divergence point in society's beliefs, when we decided to ratify secularism into most modern constitutions, or at least freedom of religious belief in most countries. One or some or (most likely) all of them can be wrong, but society does not need to have the same standard of acceptance for beliefs in all categories. Just because we allow Christianity and Hinduism and Judaism to coexist does not mean we should accept a flat-earther be placed in a position demanding critical analysis and long-term decision making for the good of society. It's one thing if they are merely seeking a faith for the unknowns of life (primary purpose and appeal of religious beliefs), it's entirely another if they are concocting or representing "alternate facts" for verifiable truths or accepted scientific standards, even if it's an "irrelevant belief". b) it's "Hindu", Hindi is a language, this might be an honest typo on your part, but I've seen/heard it as otherwise too often.
- skummetmaelk 8y ago
  I would consider the large religions to be exceptions because it is central to how most people are raised. Thus they are not something you really have much control over. You were taught from a very young age that things are in a certain way, we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age.
  - psychoslave 8y ago
    >we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. >We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age. What is the difference? Mature age doesn't mean society put a person in position of taking "reasonable decision", let alone engaging in ethical moves. It's not like human have a known general evolution of increased virtuousness over time. If blaming is believed an ethical efficient way to help others fixing behaviors that are judged even more harmful, then surely it should be used. Thus said, one should first look for psychological studies out there and see if they conclude that blaming is considered and efficient way to obtain a net positive outcome on this regard rather than generating more social trauma and drama.
    - skummetmaelk 8y ago
      Blaming may or may not be efficient in changing behaviour. That does not matter though. We cannot blame a person for being brought up in a certain way, but that does not mean we should give them carte blanche to control anything of importance if their views are so heinous to our sensibilities. If you were brought up to believe killing people is ok. I will not blame you for believing that, but I will also not let you watch my children alone. When it comes to the major religions, the views expressed by their followers are rarely so offensive to us that we wish to limit their practitioners from keeping important posts in society(1). That is the entire point of society accepting the religions. They are declared sacred, acceptable, and free from discrimination. Being a holocaust denier or similar should not offer you the same protection. (1): Whether this is a good thing or not is up for debate, but it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. The fact is that freedom of, and acceptance of, religion is central to western society.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
Looking back at a panel of experts from, say, one hundred years ago, would we discard all of the input from each person who held now-recognized false beliefs?
- skummetmaelk 8y ago
  Now-recognized being the key word there. Of course we should not, they were a product of their time. There is a difference between believing the earth is flat in 2019 and in 10000 BC.
thesz 8y ago
Define "critically", I implore you. I can suspect that your definition of criticality will include some form of groupthink. And as a counterexamples to your theory I would like to present to you Isaac Newton (obsessed with Bible) and, famous for equilibrium of his name and beyond, John Nash. You can use decisions and reasoning of people who are strange. You have to understand what they are saying and verify that.

roenxi 8y ago

We absolutely can, do and should consider a person's beliefs completely in isolation with regard to the task they are doing. Being able to do that is fundamental to how decent society is expected to hold together. Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindu* to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. It doesn't affect their ability to contribute and live properly. If we can't separate out people's irrelevant beliefs, the logical implications are not pretty. The reason this works is because we accept that people can be completely, catastrophically wrong about one thing and still muddle through as well as the rest of us at everything else. * Edited. ty.

Lucadg 8y ago
Religious beliefs are a funny thing: both apparently absurd and great metaphors of spiritual life. Much in the same way as a floppy disk icon on your PC is absurd (you are NOT clicking a floppy disk) and incredibly useful. So I think it's better to refrain to refer to religious beliefs as wrong. Disclaimer: I'm not religious.
keerthiko 8y ago
> Otherwise, how do you expect a Jew, an Atheist and a Hindi to operate under the same legal system? No joke; clearly someone in that crowd is badly, badly wrong about some of the most important assumptions in their life. a) Theological beliefs are a fundamentally accepted divergence point in society's beliefs, when we decided to ratify secularism into most modern constitutions, or at least freedom of religious belief in most countries. One or some or (most likely) all of them can be wrong, but society does not need to have the same standard of acceptance for beliefs in all categories. Just because we allow Christianity and Hinduism and Judaism to coexist does not mean we should accept a flat-earther be placed in a position demanding critical analysis and long-term decision making for the good of society. It's one thing if they are merely seeking a faith for the unknowns of life (primary purpose and appeal of religious beliefs), it's entirely another if they are concocting or representing "alternate facts" for verifiable truths or accepted scientific standards, even if it's an "irrelevant belief". b) it's "Hindu", Hindi is a language, this might be an honest typo on your part, but I've seen/heard it as otherwise too often.
skummetmaelk 8y ago
I would consider the large religions to be exceptions because it is central to how most people are raised. Thus they are not something you really have much control over. You were taught from a very young age that things are in a certain way, we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age.
- psychoslave 8y ago
  >we cannot blame a person for their upbringing. >We can, however, blame a person for deciding to believe insane conspiracy theories at a mature age. What is the difference? Mature age doesn't mean society put a person in position of taking "reasonable decision", let alone engaging in ethical moves. It's not like human have a known general evolution of increased virtuousness over time. If blaming is believed an ethical efficient way to help others fixing behaviors that are judged even more harmful, then surely it should be used. Thus said, one should first look for psychological studies out there and see if they conclude that blaming is considered and efficient way to obtain a net positive outcome on this regard rather than generating more social trauma and drama.
  - skummetmaelk 8y ago
    Blaming may or may not be efficient in changing behaviour. That does not matter though. We cannot blame a person for being brought up in a certain way, but that does not mean we should give them carte blanche to control anything of importance if their views are so heinous to our sensibilities. If you were brought up to believe killing people is ok. I will not blame you for believing that, but I will also not let you watch my children alone. When it comes to the major religions, the views expressed by their followers are rarely so offensive to us that we wish to limit their practitioners from keeping important posts in society(1). That is the entire point of society accepting the religions. They are declared sacred, acceptable, and free from discrimination. Being a holocaust denier or similar should not offer you the same protection. (1): Whether this is a good thing or not is up for debate, but it is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. The fact is that freedom of, and acceptance of, religion is central to western society.

HillaryBriss 8y ago

Looking back at a panel of experts from, say, one hundred years ago, would we discard all of the input from each person who held now-recognized false beliefs?

skummetmaelk 8y ago
Now-recognized being the key word there. Of course we should not, they were a product of their time. There is a difference between believing the earth is flat in 2019 and in 10000 BC.

thesz 8y ago

Define "critically", I implore you. I can suspect that your definition of criticality will include some form of groupthink. And as a counterexamples to your theory I would like to present to you Isaac Newton (obsessed with Bible) and, famous for equilibrium of his name and beyond, John Nash. You can use decisions and reasoning of people who are strange. You have to understand what they are saying and verify that.