3 ms·
I think at some level for certain topics and areas there is a minimal level of knowledge and information you need to know in order to evaluate or even understan
by zaphar 3y ago
I think at some level for certain topics and areas there is a minimal level of knowledge and information you need to know in order to evaluate or even understand advanced arguments about the topic. In a sense you won't become closer to the truth until you reach that minimum level of understanding and before that you will just ping pong between positions without a real understanding of whether you are correct or not.
Many arguments especially advanced ones are building on a presumed level of knowledge that many people do not have or are even aware that they should have. Doing the work to adequately evaluate an argument in every domain is probably not worth their time.
- twelfthnight 3y ago> you won't become closer to the truth until you reach that minimum level of understanding This might be my misunderstanding of the article. How do you gain knowledge at all without considering new arguments you hear? > Doing the work to adequately evaluate an argument in every domain is probably not worth their time Sure, but why not admit you just don't know then instead of "sticking to your prior" and believing something you have no evidence to believe?
- zaphar 3y agoIf you "admit" you don't know then you by definition aren't convinced by the argument and thus not falling into the trap. But it doesn't help you make decisions any easier for stuff that is relevant to you and therefore requires you to make a decision. In that case you are going to have take a leap of faith so to speak. And choosing the way you leap might be better informed by consensus by experts in the field rather than speculative investigations on the fringe. You might still be wrong but your chances are probably improved in the correct direction most of the time.