Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:23 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Some thoughts on reason and morality 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Some thoughts on reason and morality
I think most people would say that their morality is based on reason rather than emotion, but perhaps we are all biased. A few things come to mind:

Thinking about how my own political/moral/religious views developed, it was certainly not merely copying my parents or other family, as they are quite different, and have changed since childhood. So I'm wondering how much I can attribute to reasoning, or perhaps I was prepared to be influenced by those particular views. So far in Haidt any theory or evidence on the origins of peoples' views seems to be lacking (maybe he will address this more later).

Also, should we strive to override these moral prejudices that we might have? For example, I don't consider myself left-wing, but I sympathize with their reaction against such characteristics of the right as blind patriotism and their opposition to gay marriage. Obviously, those holding such views do not see them as something to be overcome. So where does that leave us? What is the role of reasoning then, which according to the evidence is so subordinate to the emotion center of the brain?



The following user would like to thank Dexter for this post:
DWill, Interbane, johnson1010, LevV
Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:05 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Freshman

Silver Contributor

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 220
Location: Gatineau, Quebec
Thanks: 94
Thanked: 164 times in 127 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Canada (ca)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
Well said, Dexter. I think it makes perfect sense that, in most cases, we would believe that our views are based on sound clear reasoning. After all, we reinforce our beliefs in so many ways. We tend to read the books that support our views, we spend more time with people who think as we do, and apparently, we focus on anything we see and hear that supports our views, while dismissing or playing down anything we disagree with.
At this point, Haidt is helping me to understand the development of other people's belief systems. I look forward to seeing what else he has to say about riding that elephant.l



The following user would like to thank LevV for this post:
DWill, johnson1010
Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6361
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1850
Thanked: 2037 times in 1542 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
Dexter wrote:
I think most people would say that their morality is based on reason rather than emotion, but perhaps we are all biased. A few things come to mind:

Thinking about how my own political/moral/religious views developed, it was certainly not merely copying my parents or other family, as they are quite different, and have changed since childhood. So I'm wondering how much I can attribute to reasoning, or perhaps I was prepared to be influenced by those particular views. So far in Haidt any theory or evidence on the origins of peoples' views seems to be lacking (maybe he will address this more later).

Also, should we strive to override these moral prejudices that we might have? For example, I don't consider myself left-wing, but I sympathize with their reaction against such characteristics of the right as blind patriotism and their opposition to gay marriage. Obviously, those holding such views do not see them as something to be overcome. So where does that leave us? What is the role of reasoning then, which according to the evidence is so subordinate to the emotion center of the brain?

Thanks for opening this thread. Of course, Haidt has thrown out the reason-emotion dichotomy, and the science appears robust enough to allow him to do this. There is almost nothing that we perceive that doesn't produce an affective nudge in our brains--or an affective boost in many cases. So he probably would want to qualify your statement about the reasoned base of morality. He chose the elephant to represent our unconscious processes not only because its size was right for the relative size of the unconscious vs. the evolutionarily later conscious thought, but because an elephant is smarter than some other animal we might ride, like a horse. Haidt stresses the power and intelligence of the automatic processes. Therefore I'm not sure he would object to anyone saying that his moral position is "based on reason," since we can see reason, of a sort, in something like our our intuitive reaction to stealing. Sometimes our moral reasoning, what he calls "strategic reasoning," is a gloss on our intuitions that actually holds up. It's just the priority of intuition that he insists on. He's more concerned with the nature of the process. Intuitions come first.

Looking at the incest scenario again, he wasn't trying to prove that many of the condemners of Mark and Julia had no good basis for disallowing incest, just that their particular rational arguments concerning what the brother and sister did were flimsy due to the provisos in the story. But these subjects felt they had to insist on a logical, consequential reason for strategic purposes. We usually don't like to admit that we can't put our finger on why we don't like something.

That's a great question you end with. I don't know how I'd like to answer that now. I'm sure it'll be coming up again.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
johnson1010
Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:04 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5831
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2289
Thanked: 2216 times in 1675 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
LevV wrote:
Well said, Dexter. I think it makes perfect sense that, in most cases, we would believe that our views are based on sound clear reasoning. After all, we reinforce our beliefs in so many ways. We tend to read the books that support our views, we spend more time with people who think as we do, and apparently, we focus on anything we see and hear that supports our views, while dismissing or playing down anything we disagree with. At this point, Haidt is helping me to understand the development of other people's belief systems. I look forward to seeing what else he has to say about riding that elephant.l

This claim that most people believe their views are based on sound reasoning is not true. Most people actually have other motives for belief, including blind loyalty to what their community and family believe, and what they think will serve their personal interests. Any match between these motives and logical reasoning is a bonus.

In religion, politics and morality, most people are of the view that it is best not to think too much about their views, as that involves the risk of giving credence to dangerous ideas. George Orwell explained this well in his novel 1984, where he describes the irrational psychology of protective stupidity as follows:
George Orwell wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimestop
Crimestop is a Newspeak term taken from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. It means to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts, i.e., thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the Party. This way, a person avoids committing thoughtcrime. In the novel, we hear about crimestop through the eyes of protagonist Winston Smith: "The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak. He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions -- 'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water' -- and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. Orwell also describes crimestop from the perspective of Emmanuel Goldstein in the book The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism: Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:30 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Aficionado

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1774
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 733 times in 551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
Robert Tulip wrote:
This claim that most people believe their views are based on sound reasoning is not true. Most people actually have other motives for belief, including blind loyalty to what their community and family believe, and what they think will serve their personal interests. Any match between these motives and logical reasoning is a bonus.

In religion, politics and morality, most people are of the view that it is best not to think too much about their views, as that involves the risk of giving credence to dangerous ideas.


It may be true that people have blind loyalty and do not think about their views, but I doubt if people would see it that way. Don't you think religious believers would say that they have good reason to believe what they do, that it is consistent with the evidence? They're not going to say, "well, it conflicts with logic and evidence, but I believe it anyway." People with certain political beliefs are not going to say "I believe this because it's in my self-interest."



Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:15 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5831
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2289
Thanked: 2216 times in 1675 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
Dexter wrote:
Don't you think religious believers would say that they have good reason to believe what they do, that it is consistent with the evidence? They're not going to say, "well, it conflicts with logic and evidence, but I believe it anyway." People with certain political beliefs are not going to say "I believe this because it's in my self-interest."


What and why people believe is only grounded in logic within scientific culture. In traditional culture, people often have not thought about why they hold beliefs. They believe what they are taught. This is a basic issue with the scientific revolution, which remains very partial.

False religious beliefs such as the virgin birth, miracles, the existence of heaven and hell, even the existence of Jesus, Moses, Abraham and God, do not stand up to any evidentiary scrutiny. Their apologists start to duck and weave as soon as any scientific logic is applied. They hold these beliefs as part of a fallacious acceptance of the teachings of cultural authority, not because of reason.

The other big factor is hypocrisy, where people say they believe something but actually don't. Hypocrisy is remarkably widespread. When people secretly hold beliefs that would cause arguments or ridicule if expressed, they conceal them with evasion and rationalization. Politeness means that people can avoid being pressed on their inconsistency and irrationality.

You are right that no one ever admits to believing something despite knowing it to be untrue (well hardly ever). But psychologically and politically, people display immense skill and cunning to avoid getting to this simple end game where a belief is shown to be illegitimate. Hope and ingenuity spring eternal when it comes to clinging to pleasant fictions.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


The following user would like to thank Robert Tulip for this post:
johnson1010
Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:05 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Freshman

Silver Contributor

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 220
Location: Gatineau, Quebec
Thanks: 94
Thanked: 164 times in 127 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Canada (ca)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
Continuing this theme of knowing or not knowing what one believes to be untrue. What are we to make of the spin doctors, advertisers etc. who make a career of manipulating language and ideas to sell a product or politician. I wonder what it might be doing to my conscious and unconscious mind as I listen to endless hours of people, not searching for truth, but trying to persuade me that black is white.



Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:39 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6361
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1850
Thanked: 2037 times in 1542 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
Robert Tulip wrote:
What and why people believe is only grounded in logic within scientific culture. In traditional culture, people often have not thought about why they hold beliefs. They believe what they are taught. This is a basic issue with the scientific revolution, which remains very partial.

False religious beliefs such as the virgin birth, miracles, the existence of heaven and hell, even the existence of Jesus, Moses, Abraham and God, do not stand up to any evidentiary scrutiny. Their apologists start to duck and weave as soon as any scientific logic is applied. They hold these beliefs as part of a fallacious acceptance of the teachings of cultural authority, not because of reason.

This is giving far too much credit to people based merely on their belonging to a 'scientific culture,' as if that would give them immunity from the influence of their intuitions. Even if you eliminate Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. beliefs in the supernatural, you're still left with many possibilities for motivated thinking. On a scale of potential harm, it's not clear that belief in the virgin birth or Buddhist reincarnation have an especially harmful result.



Last edited by DWill on Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:01 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4396
Location: NC
Thanks: 1866
Thanked: 1937 times in 1450 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
DWill wrote:

Thanks for opening this thread. Of course, Haidt has thrown out the reason-emotion dichotomy, and the science appears robust enough to allow him to do this. There is almost nothing that we perceive that doesn't produce an affective nudge in our brains--or an affective boost in many cases. So he probably would want to qualify your statement about the reasoned base of morality. He chose the elephant to represent our unconscious processes not only because its size was right for the relative size of the unconscious vs. the evolutionarily later conscious thought, but because an elephant is smarter than some other animal we might ride, like a horse. Haidt stresses the power and intelligence of the automatic processes. Therefore I'm not sure he would object to anyone saying that his moral position is "based on reason," since we can see reason, of a sort, in something like our our intuitive reaction to stealing. Sometimes our moral reasoning, what he calls "strategic reasoning," is a gloss on our intuitions that actually holds up. It's just the priority of intuition that he insists on. He's more concerned with the nature of the process. Intuitions come first.

Looking at the incest scenario again, he wasn't trying to prove that many of the condemners of Mark and Julia had no good basis for disallowing incest, just that their particular rational arguments concerning what the brother and sister did were flimsy due to the provisos in the story. But these subjects felt they had to insist on a logical, consequential reason for strategic purposes. We usually don't like to admit that we can't put our finger on why we don't like something.


I'm vicariously enjoying this book discussion.

It's my sense that our "reasoned base of morality" is no more than post hoc rationalization of the way we already are. We have an instinctive disdain towards killing or at least towards killing those in our in-group. But because we sometimes need to kill (during war, for example), we can rationalize that someone is less than human or demonize them in some other way to make it okay to kill them. I would imagine we have an instinctive disdain towards incest as well, although there are probably instances of state-sanctioned incest such as in cases of keeping the royal line pure. I would suspect that all of these "instinctive" feelings conferred a survival advantage at some point in our past. And because we are storytellers, we come up with "just-so" stories to explain it. Many people believe our goodness stems from God or our religious beliefs, but at most religion reinforces the way we already are. Our mutual beliefs or shared stories also provide group cohesion.

Bruce Hood, a British psychologist, coined the term "supersense" to describe this instinctive underlay that helps us make sense of the world while also giving us a propensity towards supernatural explanations. Our "supersense" explains why, for example, why we might be hesitant to wear a sweater that belonged to a mass murderer (even if we know the sweater was never worn during an actual murder). We might explain this natural aversion as we don't want to touch something that was so closely associated with "evil." But perhaps it's basically an aversion to touching something that may be contaminated. Such an aversion may have conferred a survival advantage in the past by keeping persnickety people away from germs or other contaminants like Bubonic plague and small pox.

This article explains how "supersense" is akin to biological essentialism or as Dawkins likes to call it, "the dead hand of Plato."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-hoo ... 16869.html


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
DWill, Saffron
Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:24 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6361
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1850
Thanked: 2037 times in 1542 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
Moral reasoning as a type of story-telling is something I didn't think of. But this might parallel the myths that we created by taking measure of the way our world is (or the way we want it to be), and forming a story that gave with great authority the original reason for the world we found ourselves in.



Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:59 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Getting Comfortable


Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 8
Location: San Tan Valley, AZ
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 8 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States Minor Outlying Islands (um)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
So Haidt's position on reason is that rational thought is never really rational and is always based on self interest. In fact he states:

the rider acts as the spokesman for the elephant, even though it doesn’t necessarily know what the elephant is really thinking. The rider is skilled
at fabricating post hoc explanations for whatever the elephant has just done, and it is good at finding reasons to justify whatever the elephant
wants to do next. Once human beings developed language and began to use it to gossip about each other, it became extremely valuable for
elephants to carry around on their backs a full-time public relations firm.

This does sound like "just so" story telling is a critical skill for all of us not only to justify our behavior to others but to explain it to ourselves as well. Psychology is replete with studies demonstrating the distortions and blindness to contradictory evidence to which each of us falls victim.

Later, he will argue that our intuitive moral beliefs are based upon a limited set of "moral foundations" which seem to be affective predispositions to respond positively or negatively to others behavior. Most of these seem to have been shaped by our evolutionary history and are incorporated into the stories we tell ourselves as we live. I am reminded of Hamlet's comment, "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."



The following user would like to thank scotchbooks for this post:
DWill, johnson1010
Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:19 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6361
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 1850
Thanked: 2037 times in 1542 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
scotchbooks wrote:
So Haidt's position on reason is that rational thought is never really rational and is always based on self interest. In fact he states:

the rider acts as the spokesman for the elephant, even though it doesn’t necessarily know what the elephant is really thinking. The rider is skilled
at fabricating post hoc explanations for whatever the elephant has just done, and it is good at finding reasons to justify whatever the elephant
wants to do next. Once human beings developed language and began to use it to gossip about each other, it became extremely valuable for
elephants to carry around on their backs a full-time public relations firm.

This does sound like "just so" story telling is a critical skill for all of us not only to justify our behavior to others but to explain it to ourselves as well. Psychology is replete with studies demonstrating the distortions and blindness to contradictory evidence to which each of us falls victim.

Later, he will argue that our intuitive moral beliefs are based upon a limited set of "moral foundations" which seem to be affective predispositions to respond positively or negatively to others behavior. Most of these seem to have been shaped by our evolutionary history and are incorporated into the stories we tell ourselves as we live. I am reminded of Hamlet's comment, "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

I keep thinking that it's important to specify that Haidt is talking about moral reasoning, just so people don't get the impression he would say that Charles Darwin, for example, was influenced by self-interest in his study of life. Reasoning is still the valuable, essential skill that everyone thinks it is. Our minds don't face a divide like that between the rider and the elephant at all times when reasoning is in play, such as when figuring a math problem, trying to understand our new smart phone, or working on a committee that wants to build a new school. But when it comes to that large area of our social lives that involves morality or reputation, reasoning does tend to be self-serving. I think you're right that Haidt takes that view. My own observation is that when we're with people we know well, in other words when the public aspect is removed, we are a lot more willing to be honest about our moral feelings, not dressing them up with specious reasoning nearly as much as we do when we're in a more public eye.



Fri Jul 13, 2012 5:40 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5831
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2289
Thanked: 2216 times in 1675 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
DWill wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:
What and why people believe is only grounded in logic within scientific culture. In traditional culture, people often have not thought about why they hold beliefs. They believe what they are taught.

This is giving far too much credit to people based merely on their belonging to a 'scientific culture,' .


I'm defining scientific culture as "basing opinions on evidence". As Saint Paul said in Romans 3:23 "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Even scientists have prejudice, and fall short of logical standards of evidence in the formation of their opinions. But to the extent people base opinions on evidence, they do not rely on intuition. There is a continuum from 100% evidence to 100% intuition.

The most moral position would seem to be 100% evidence, except that we often find ourselves in situations requiring judgment, and therefore have to base decisions on intuition and the synthesis of prior evidence.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:41 am
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5831
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 2289
Thanked: 2216 times in 1675 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
DWill wrote:
when it comes to that large area of our social lives that involves morality or reputation, reasoning does tend to be self-serving.

This is precisely the point that I find so disturbing about this whole discussion. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations said the butcher and baker look to self interest in selling meat and bread, and are self-serving in their commercial reasoning. But really, that is not the whole of value theory. People do not simply equate self interest with the good. They also accept that rule of law is an objective good, where their personal interests may be reasonably constrained. The larger public interest of the common good are served through stability, fairness and other matters which inform legal precedent and which conflict with selfish reasoning.

Self-serving reasoning asks 'what can I get away with?' Objective reasoning asks 'what is the public good?' The latter is Kant's categorical imperative of duty. Haidt seems very nihilistic, like Hume, lacking any comprehension of duty.

Haidt's discussion of Plato and Glaucon seems to neglect this distinction between public and private good. But I will have to look further at Plato's Republic again before commenting further on this one.


_________________
http://rtulip.net


Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:03 am
Profile Email WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Getting Comfortable


Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 8
Location: San Tan Valley, AZ
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 8 times in 5 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States Minor Outlying Islands (um)

Post Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality
First a thank you to DWill. I genuinely appreciate your prompt replies to contributors and the way you frame your responses to stimulate further discussion while still expressing your own opinions. Thanks! In fact the overall tenor of these discussions is quite rational :wink:

You are right of course, the risks of motivated thinking are most evident in beliefs about politics, religion and morality. But they also contaminate our thinking about issues where scientific knowledge should be dominant cf:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e1547.html

Scientists are held to standards of inquiry and observational verification not only by training but by their reference groups, professional organizations,peers, and journal review. This does not always prevent them from falling prey to confirmation bias or other errors but it does make it less likely. An imperfect system but the best we have. Don't get me wrong, motivated thinking does not equate to intellectual dishonesty. We are not dissimulating when we believe in ghosts, or adhere to prejudices. We are simply being human.

I keep thinking of Barbara Kruger's artful use of language: Belief + Doubt = Sanity. Whenever we are certain of our position we are most at risk of error.



The following user would like to thank scotchbooks for this post:
DWill
Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:28 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 36 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:


Recent Posts 
• Naked Ambition: A Male Stripper’s True Account of Making Girls Behave Badly

Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:18 pm

stefandiamante

• The Depopulation Agenda - war on humanity

Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:19 am

DWill

• Seeking reviews for my adventure book called Truth Come to Light

Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:39 am

AuthorTaryn

• A Wintry Tale of Music, Adventure and Lost Love

Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:56 am

kl07-04

• promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:28 am

person123

• The Coup against Donald Trump

Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:36 pm

KindaSkolarly

• Science Fiction Reviewers Needed - Okuda!: A Dryden Universe Corporate Wars Novel

Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:06 pm

BookBuzz

• The Galaxy Series by Renee Steffan

Wed Dec 04, 2019 11:28 am

Steffanrenee

• "That Feeling When You Know You're Doomed" is now $0.99 on Amazon until Dec. 10.

Wed Dec 04, 2019 9:17 am

JamesGBoswell

• "It’s 2039, and Your Beloved Books Are Dead"

Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:37 pm

LanDroid

• When Dreams Come to Pass volume 1 & 2 available for $1 each on Amazon in US

Tue Dec 03, 2019 11:59 am

Dave

• Seeking Reviewers - Contemporary Holiday Romance - Snowflake Wishes, Christmas Kisses

Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:51 pm

josette

• Seeking Reviews for the YA Romance Novel - Street Magic By Taylor S Seese

Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:50 pm

josette

• 173 Declared Democratic Presidential Candidates

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:57 pm

KindaSkolarly

• Children's Book Reviewers Wanted - Meeting Kaia (Kaia the Fairy in the Garden)

Mon Dec 02, 2019 8:18 pm

AdrianvAuthor


Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank