3 ms·
I used to be the way you describe, and I found it left me without any convictions. I used to think that was okay, because I reasoned with myself that convictio
by ModernMech 5y ago
I used to be the way you describe, and I found it left me without any convictions. I used to think that was okay, because I reasoned with myself that convictions are irrational if not backed by data.
Then I got older and realized how easy it is to frame and manipulate data and “facts” to achieve any desired result on the part of the person disseminating the facts. I realized that having some base convictions was a way to defend against people using data in unscrupulous ways, to convince me of things I didn’t want to believe.
So now I do both. I have some points of view that I can’t defend with data and science and peer review studies. They are grounded in my own observations of the world and how they make me feel. I won’t let anyone tell me what my lying eyes see, that’s for me to determine. But for what I can’t see I try to follow data where I can.
Does this mean I may be living under some incorrect convictions? Sure! But it’s far better than floating like a leaf in the wind, blowing wherever someone spouting some “data” would want to take me.
Irrationality is okay because the world and humans are irrational. You can’t operate in a pure mentat/vulcan mode under such conditions.
- ahelwer 5y agoYou may be interested in the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Pretty impressive you’ve come to the conclusions you have, I’d say. I suspect many of us choose these points of view by their explanatory power. There will always be some social phenomena that elude explanation by any given point of view, of course.
- ModernMech 5y agoThanks for the recommendation I will check it out! Although I can't say that I've come to these realizations all on my own -- I've had a lot of great mentors, friends, and therapists help me on the way.
- Linosaurus 5y ago> So now I do both. I have some points of view that I can’t defend with data and science and peer review studies. I do like it when people point out which part of their advice is supported by established science, and which is not. Both can be useful.
- jiggunjer 5y agoI'd say your own observations constitute valid (albeit suboptimal) data, to which you apply the scientific method. Peer review isn't part of that method, it's just a useful mistake/fraud filter. I don't need a textbook to tell me objects fall downwards, I've been collecting that data since I was born.