jdworth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier posts in
> drawing the distinction I had intended. The story
> I mentioned was by no means the basis on which I
> have come to my present conclusions (always open
> to change given evidence), but merely a personal
> anecdote which the discussion reminded me of and
> which was related to what I was saying. What has
> made me shift my opinions is rather a growing
> number of polls (scientific and otherwise) which
> indicates such a groundswell is indeed taking
> place, but it is currently in its early stages. It
> could, of course, collapse. It could take the
> wrong path to clear this up and make things worse.
> Or it could, just maybe, succeed in helping to
> clear away some of this; enough to make even more
> people aware how much better things can be for
> them on multiple levels if they also take a
> different path.
If you are willing could you point to an example of the social change that may be a part of the groundswell to which you refer?
I'll make it clear and honest: we may disagree, but I will respect your opinions as well-informed and thoughtful. I enjoy exchanges in which there is mutual respect shown.
>
> What you refer to in the majority of your post is
> simply "confirmation bias", and is something we
> are all humanly prone to.
Very possible. I try to forcibly keep an open mind, but being a human, it has its inherent limitations.
> That is what has always made it difficult for
> people to change their minds on things,
> particularly if it is what is called a "core
> value", something which has become so important in
> someone's belief system that it is (emotionally,
> at least) tied in with their own self-image and
> self-esteem, their Weltanschauung, that the very
> idea of altering that belief becomes alien,
> threatening to their personal integrity, on one or
> more levels. What helps to combat that, is that it
> has become more and more recognized as a common
> trait to us all, whether it is linked to the
> so-called "Dunning-Kruger effect" or some other
> psychological term, and therefore one should use
> extreme caution in going with such a "gut"
> response.
All fine, so far, but I will let you know that for the better part of my life I tended to disavow the existence of intuition ("gut") as a pseudo-sense that may have some value in life;I thought it was superstitious self-delusion. I've come gradually to the belief that what is called intuition, or "gut" is an evolved ability to sense minor social signals, almost subliminally, and to be presented with a non-verbal evaluation.
At a certain point I began to do business-type negotiations, and it was during this period that I came to be aware that my "gut" was seldom wrong in detecting nervousness, anxiety, considered falsehood, etc., on the part of those with whom I was negotiating. So I've come to not only recognize it as an attribute, but to value it in certain situations.
> After all, one of the things we've
> learned as we've gone along is that much of what
> we thought of as "common sense",
We need to carefully distinguish "common sense" from "common knowledge". They are vastly different.
> or obviously
> right about the world and universe around us is
> simply the result of our evolving in an
> environment which does not obviously exhibit much
> of the minute causes underlying apparent
> phenomena, at least to a species with our sensory
> equipment -- something which itself evolved
> slowly, haltingly, in just efficient enough a
> manner to allow us to survive to this stage, but
> with no guarantee that we would make it any
> further. Whether we do or not may well depend on
> our ability to utilize our higher brain functions
> to go beyond what we might call the "usual senses"
> upon which we have relied throughout most of our
> history, and combine the two to understand our
> environment (and this includes the environment we
> have forged through whatever means, including
> legal and political, which is why these things, to
> me, really have taken on an importance I was
> initially thoroughly disinclined to give them, for
> a multitude of reasons) and adapt to it in one
> form or another.
This seemed a bit divergent, but what I'm getting seems like "common knowledge". This is the sum of all commonly collected observed phenomena and its interpretation by the vast majority of the society.
So, "All gypsies steal," is such common knowledge, but it's a flawed or exaggerated assumption that can be disproven by finding only one honest gypsy. And just to make things complicated, there most certainly are valid instances of common knowledge. But valid or invalid, it is essentially argument from authority, not independently arrived at.
"Common sense" is a personal extrapolation of inductive logic: "I've seen a cow jump when it touches this fence, and therefore I believe I would be hurt if I touch it." It's an attempt to circumscribe the effects of a newly encountered phenomenon or situation in terms of empirical knowledge, to the degree that it exists. It *is* independently arrived at, and is often ad hoc.
So yep, I do not trust common knowledge without independent verification. I frequently trust my own common sense.
>
> Part of that environment that we have, so far,
> neglected to come to terms with (though we were
> making some strides in that direction during the
> 1960s, 70s, and early 80s, and in some circles are
> still making such strides, though the news of
> these has largely been shunted aside in favor of
> more "sensational" news which also tends to be
> more simple-minded and easier to convey or
> understand, relying on aforementioned mental
> preconditioning) is our mental environment,
> recognizing it (the so-called "spiritual", for
> lack of a better term, being a large part of it)
> as a vital part of our functioning as human
> beings... or, as evidence begins to mount, any
> kind of sentient being. (See the research which
> has been done on the similarities between various
> other animals and ourselves, including many
> species having some form of a sense of fairness or
> "justice"; empathy; a number of emotions including
> genuine grief, etc. Some of this is actually quite
> revolutionary to normal thought, and yet the more
> sophisticated tools and techniques which we are
> now able to use makes it very hard to dismiss the
> results as bias on the part of the researchers,
> many of whom went into the field believing the
> exact opposite of that they found their results to
> indicate.) Ensuring our survival and ability to
> continue to adapt to an environment which, because
> of our growing awareness of things which would
> have seemed quite impossible to earlier
> generations as not only possible, but genuinely
> having existed all around us without our being
> aware of them, is going to require such shifts in
> thought, most importantly perhaps being the
> acceptance of our mental life as being an
> absolutely necessary part of our physical
> existence. This is going to be a very, very long
> road, taking (assuming we give ourselves what we
> need to survive that long) millennia at least...
> but it is my firm conviction, after much
> consideration, that making that shift is
> inevitably tied into said survival for much
> longer.
A lot of what you are raising seems related to the thoughts of Depak Chopra, and his ideas of consciousness.
>
> Fortunately, as I noted, I am seeing a growing
> number of pieces of evidence -- disparate and by
> no means always easy to find;
...and hopefully this evidence is not merely more formally constructed confirmation bias, as in the SRI parapsychology studies of the 1970s...
[
en.wikipedia.org]
And of course, when one obtains one's information from studies, one must always make certain that one is not indulging in one's own level of confirmation bias in accepting the results of the study. Another name for this is "evidence shopping".
> much of what I have
> found has been happenstance, and scattered
> throughout a wide variety of sources, from
> differing parts of the spectrum -- which indicates
> that such a thing just may be taking place;
> quietly and slowly at first (after all, it is a
> nascent field of study/thought, at least within
> the larger realm rather than the mystic or
> poetically inclined), but growing, as more people
> become aware of how shallow their lives are in
> comparison with what is simply waiting for them to
> investigate it.
Some actual, or even hypothetical concrete examples would be helpful here.
> I do agree, however, that (and
> this is part of my complaint against our
> educational system, which has by and large failed
> abysmally on this count) one of the primary keys
> to this process is the ability to think
> critically, and sift information with some degree
> of acumen.
By definition, this is unlikely to happen in a broad-based public education system because such systems must rely on the support of the community, and must therefore make an attempt to reflect its values, such as they are.
So I'm saying that while it may be good policy to hire teachers who understand and teach critical thinking skills, if this does not sit well with the public, it will not happen consistently, nor for very long.
> But, as I noted (I hope, cogently
> enough) this seems to be emerging alongside this
> shift.
If this is happening on a significant scale, I've not seen it. I *have* seen examples of critical thinking taught (and practiced by students) in fairly insular communities, however. For example, just as their are private schools that teach Creationism and the existence of divinity with no robust and repeatable independent proof (essentially arguments from authority), there are also schools that teach problem solving based on the scientific method, on dialectics, and on a fair level of historical inquiry in literary readings.
>It isn't entirely successful, as the
> current rise of such things as "flat-eartherism"
> or other long-exploded beliefs indicates; but it
> does seem to be gaining ground. Took me a long
> time to come around to that view... but I'm
> getting there.
Where is the "there"?
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~