> It's not logical to assume that it goes both ways. One could say only 1% of our biases are unsuited for modern times and as a result of this not even worth co

> It's not logical to assume that it goes both ways. One could say only 1% of our biases are unsuited for modern times and as a result of this not even worth considering as a general fact. This is a real possibility. Yes, but we don't know, right? That's what I was saying when I was saying it goes both ways "then". On this basis, if I cannot defend my side against biases, you can't argue for biases neither. Okay, I think I get your point, I'm not sure we are speaking about the same things. I would not put "emotionally invested" for instance in the category of biases I was referring to. By being emotionally invested in a subject, I'll be motivated to dig deeper. I wont dig into a subject I don't care about. I might also have some biases that make me want the truth to be one side or another. That is a bias I should be careful about / could take advantage of (by being all the more careful about arguments that validate "my" side for instance). There are the cognitive biases that might make me do errors of logic, them I want to avoid too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases says: > "Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm and/or rationality in judgment" I want to avoid these biases if I want rationality or emit judgment. Those are the biases I'm speaking about. Of course, in the situation you expose, truth is all of a sudden not a priority anymore and I'll seek survival instead, but that's not a normal situation. Obviously I'll do whatever I can to avoid danger and will probably be in very fast thinking mode in case of immediate danger. But most of the time this is not a situation I'm into. And if I need to believe in flat world to avoid dying, unfortunately I'll probably die. I'd prefer not to but, if I can lie, I don't know a solid way of forgetting facts at will. > It seems, part of your identity is invested in "truth seeking" so for me to say you're not biased can in itself trigger another bias in you [...] It's also possible that you might get defensive over what I'm saying My identity is kept small, but thanks for worrying. I'm happy to be proven wrong any time. > I don't even take pride in "truth seeking" that most science believers like you believe in There we are. "science believers". Science is not belief. It's shared knowledge, obtained with shared and agreed upon methods and protocols (the reality is definitely flawed, and of course knowledge always has some level of uncertainty except maybe mathematics, but that's the best we have), and shared known unknowns too. If you are not into this, we'll definitely have to stop discussing because we'll go nowhere together. There is no way one will be able to change the mind of the other so continuing to discuss is pointless since readers of this discussion probably also have their mind set. By the way, you can't state that anything is proven or unproven if you think science is belief. That's either meaningless or dishonest. Because science is the only way anything could possibly be proven or proven wrong and you'll reject this as belief into which you apparently don't buy. This also makes our entire discussion quite irrelevant, since its premise that you set is that the goodness or badness of biases in the modern world is unproven. I should have asked you if you took science as belief earlier. And I don't "take pride in 'truth seeking'". You really do make a lot of assumptions about me in this discussion. I think I've said everything anyway. No hard feelings :-) I guess thanks for the ride. I'll probably stop replying here. My absence of further answers cannot be interpreted in any way.