Reply
Sun 20 May, 2007 10:29 pm
Think about the socially and politically polarizing issues of which you've chosen a side (global warming, abortion, gay rights, etc.). Now, have you thought about what it would take to change your mind, to refute your belief?
I was debating global warming with a friend and, as I'm sure many here have experienced, we reached the point where we were just talking past each other. Neither of us was going to persuade the other. So I asked him, "What evidence would convince you that global warming was caused by human activity?" He could think of nothing that would change his mind on this issue. For me, a scientifically conducted survey of climatologists (with sound sampling and statistical analysis) showing that most climatologists rejected the theory of man-made climate change would probably refute my belief regarding that issue.
The specific issues and our positions on them are irrelevant for the purpose of this topic; what would change your position on a given topic?
Mills75,
I have argued elsewhere that a "self"
is"its beliefs" but more generally in the case of religious doctrines where "evidence" depends on the observer.
In the case of "global warming" my opinions
have changed significantly and I am much more sceptical of the significance of "the human fator". It may play a minor part, but it is clearly being manipulated at the level of politics and funding such that evidence of overriding solar activity is being played down. This "change" in me (or my beliefs) was triggered by conversations with an able philosopher who was discussing the influence of politics on scientific paradigms (as described by Kuhn). Once the seeds of doubt were sown I was more receptive to media presentations of the sceptical argument like the UK TV programme linked below.
In summary then I would say opinions are more likely to change by contact with "able" peers with whom the "social self" maintains its "integrity" rather than by impersonal data.
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Anyone who simply make up their mind on a subject
and refuse to look at the case from another perspective
is an idiot, plain and simple. I am always willing to bow
down for logic but to some it seems really hard to admit
a mistake.
Ditto. Whichever side makes the most persuasive case with the most compelling evidence is the side that has my vote. Over time, new evidence comes to light which changes the momentum of one side or the other, and I try to adjust accordingly.
How does one prove that gays should/shouldn't be married?
I really think this is an interesting question, what would make people refute their own beliefs in moral and political matters. In many cases I think that most people would do so if they were to find themselves or close friends in that particular problem. For example if a conservative politician who had been financially secure all his life suddenly found himself bankrupt with only the system to blame, might just find he had been wrong all along (also would work the other way around, I'm not making a political point here). The point being that we are all unbelievably biased.
I think there is such a thing as absolute truth, but I also this it is virtually impossible to find due to the biased nature of the human being. This is why we have debates, to try to get closer to this truth. But there will always be people who are stubborn enough to claim they knew the truth all along, effectively ruining the whole process.
Coolwhip wrote:How does one prove that gays should/shouldn't be married?
One can't. Ethical questions like these, unlike the more straightforwardly scientific ones that Mills was using as examples, don't appeal to evidence and do not purport to explain observed phenomena. (Some scientific ones don't either, for that matter.) The most one can do is make an argument one way or the other, which makes us more dependent on preconceived beliefs and assumptions than we might otherwise wish.
Re: What Refutes Your Beliefs?
Mills75 wrote:Think about the socially and politically polarizing issues of which you've chosen a side (global warming, abortion, gay rights, etc.).
Gay rights is a straightforward issue? Anyway it's beside the point and I agree with you. Perhaps it wasn't too clear in my somewhat murky reasoning in my previous post
Shapeless wrote:
Ditto. Whichever side makes the most persuasive case with the most compelling evidence is the side that has my vote. Over time, new evidence comes to light which changes the momentum of one side or the other, and I try to adjust accordingly.
Ditto for me too. Evidence.
I have to admit I'm sometimes surprised and annoyed with my tendency to be swayed by my portrayal of the groups/people involved (and the image I therefore want to be associated with) in an argument rather than just dealing with the cold, hard facts. It requires guarding against that's for sure.
All these claims for "evidence" and "hard facts" ignore a central issue that perception is active not passive. The very word "belief" implies that there is lack of consensus which in turn implies dfferences in "perceptual set" on the part of contestants. He who sees "the face of Jesus" in a cloud formation cannot "unsee" it.
Perceptual set can result from sociolinguistic conditioning and is also subject to peer pressure. In a classic experiment by Asch subjects were manipulated into denying clear visual evidence about the length of lines because to do so would mean disagreeing with fellow "subjects" who were really actors.
Does the unstable nature of evidence undermine its importance in assessing the validity of beliefs? Surely it's possible to recognize that we have an active role in deciding what is evidence and what is not, while still requiring that claims be founded on something, wouldn't you say, Fresco? If it weren't possible to have it both ways, then we wouldn't even be able to cite the Asch experiment in support of perceptual set.
Shapeless wrote:
Ditto. Whichever side makes the most persuasive case with the most compelling evidence is the side that has my vote. Over time, new evidence comes to light which changes the momentum of one side or the other, and I try to adjust accordingly.
Me too. On ethical questions, mainly my conscience.
Shapeless,
The point is that "perceptual set" is more problematic at the complex end of "belief". The Asch experiment demonstrates that if "conformity factors" can operate at the level of simple visual stimuli then by extrapolation they must be a more significant factor in "higher" cognitive functioning.
The most fundamental philosophical point is that "facts" have no independent existence to acts of observation, and that such observations are motivated by decision procedures with "social dimensions". For example, those who have been brought up to see immigrants "a problem" are likely only to observe those behaviours which confirm that conditioned category. "Beliefs" matter because they inform "acts" irrespective of whether there is vocalization/consciousness of accompanying "thoughts".
BTW, that "something" to which you refer rests at the lowest level on our common physiology as "observers". Comparison with other species points to the pitfalls of "naive realism".
fresco wrote:The point is that "perceptual set" is more problematic at the complex end of "belief". The Asch experiment demonstrates that if "conformity factors" can operate at the level of simple visual stimuli then by extrapolation they must be a more significant factor in "higher" cognitive functioning.
The most fundamental philosophical point is that "facts" have no independent existence to acts of observation, and that such observations are motivated by decision procedures with "social dimensions".
I don't doubt it. I guess my question is whether you think these points undermine the necessity of arguments to be founded on "facts" and "evidence," however self-fulfilling and socially contingent they might be. In your opinion, is there another and/or better way to process claims and arguments?
No better way.
At the end of the day disputes are settled by consensus as to "what works or will work" even if the mechanisms are not understood.(e.g. Quantum Theory) The problem with some beliefs (e.g. Religion) is that "what works" is social control but adherents have lost sight of that in pursuit of their personal "eternal insurance" claims.
Depends on what one believes about the idea of beliefs and where they come from.
fresco wrote:At the end of the day disputes are settled by consensus as to "what works or will work"
It's interesting you phrase it that way. Almost sounds like natural selection. Instead of survival of the fittest, it's survival of the most functional.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace