It seems to me that the idea of truth you subscribe to ultimately requires simultaneous conviction in the same interpretation of sensory experience and the obviousness of some logical ideas by all interlocutors, which isn't automatic. — simeonz

Hi Simeonz,
I don't know why you think that. To me, truth is completely independent of any person's mind. In fact, it may be the case that in many cases, the truth is not known or held by any person. That is why I many times say that the steps I suggest can help us get closer to the truth, not necessarily attain it.

For example, you are suggesting that statements are either corresponding with facts or not corresponding with facts, which implies that the properties of the universe cannot be counterfactual and we don't know this for sure. A probabilistic world, for example, may at least be admitted the possibility of counterfactual definiteness of its propensities, even if their actual form cannot be concluded with certainty. — simeonz

The properties of the Universe are the ultimate fact. As humans, we are navigating blindly through the fog of our limited understanding and comprehension of this amazing universe. We may never reach the complete knowledge and comprehension of how everything works and why, the ultimate truth. But, that does not mean we cannot continue to learn about it and get closer to the truth. The truth is there, we are just trying to reach it.

The same applies in many other aspects of our lives. The facts are many times hard to establish, but they are there. As we uncover evidence, we can get closer to the facts, the truth, as long as we analyze it correctly.

I would dare say, the very claim you make can be considered rather unfalsifiable and thus reliant on spontaneous agreement of convictions. — simeonz

Yes, I am modestly proposing those steps for your and everyone's consideration. But, the idea that a methodology for countering bias is needed seems to me to be rather evident.

I agree with all your other statements.

I will read your expose part by part over time. It appears to have some length to it, but seems also rather informative. Thanks for the contribution ..to the debate. — simeonz

Thank you for your time. I value your opinion.

I don't see where to disagree with you. Therefore, I agree, I think. ;-)

Is there a meta ritual which helps someone know when to go through the rationality ritual? — fdrake

I wouldn't call it a ritual. I would call it good practice. ;-)

Let's further propose that, in practice, the person who had that account of the bare minimum couldn't consistently apply it. So if they did not behave in accordance with the bare minimum at all times, the bare minimum could be used to selectively reject things the person was disinclined to believe anyway. — fdrake

By definition, no one can be completely unbiased at all times. It requires a special effort to do so. There needs to be a strong motivation required for putting oneself through the painful process of the steps I have proposed.

Some of our beliefs are, by necessity going to have to go unchecked. Many times we are just going to have to rely on authority. Other times, especially when we have reason to distrust those feeding us authoritative information, we may prefer to go with our gut. But, for important issues, ones where the truth matters, going through those steps will be handy.

Discussions which aim at getting to the truth require humility, patience and introspection - none of which are features of debate. Participants in open discussion recognise that the truth is not an argument but a collaboration. To eliminate bias, we need to be prepared to understand an alternate perspective as a contribution, and then critically evaluate our own from that position - not in order to tuck our ‘weaknesses’ or biases away, but to bring these errors to light, dismantle them, and collaborate towards the truth.

Agree completely. The problem is that many times one thinks that one is engaging in this type of discussion, but end up debating instead. The real target audience in a debate are the third party listeners. That is why a two person debate is pointless.

When agreeing to honest discussion, participants should be cognizant and honest about their biases, both known and unrecognized. Agreeing to collaboratively taking the steps suggested would likely help them all arrive at the goal of getting closer to the truth.

I discuss the issue of truth in my second entry, "Denying the truth". Therein I quote Bertrand Russell who said in part:

“… a believe is true when there is a corresponding fact, and it is false when there is no corresponding fact. […] What makes a belief true is a fact, and this fact does not (except in exceptional cases) in any way involve the mind of the person who has the belief.”

I also provide this as my take on what I mean by "truth":

"Just so you know where I stand on this, to me a belief is true when it does not contradict reality. As simple as that. Of course, the question is then, how do we know what is reality? And I guess the answer is that many times we do not know. For example, we may know that a window was broken. We may suspect who did it, and we may express that as a belief. But whether that belief is true or not we may never find out. Does that mean that our statement was not true or false. No, our statement was either true or false, depending on whether it contradicted reality or not. We may just simply never know it."

Arguing beyond that is pointless, in my opinion.

The object of the classic debate is to win the argument, not to get to the truth. However, if there was a generally accepted set of steps to demonstrate due diligence in countering bias, such as the ones I have proposed, part of the debate could be the need for each opponent to demonstrate that they have gone through them. Negligence in doing this, or refusal to do so, could automatically disqualify the debater loosing the argument by default.

In the post entitled "Denying the truth", I discuss how there are many people not interested in finding the truth. I found it incredible that my own mother thought that what the government representatives, mentioned therein, did the wrong thing in revealing the truth to those young Argentinians. She thought that they were rude and that they should have left things well alone. For her, living a happy life is worth more than knowing the truth. So, there you go. Not all people value the truth enough to do what it takes to seek it.

I believe that awareness of our biases is very helpful in arriving to accurate knowledge. It informs us of the need to, as you say, ameliorate, or compensate for them. That is why I believe a process, a method, with some essential steps to go through is required. I think that the steps I proposed are the bare minimum. They don't assure that we will arrive to an accurate conclusion, especially when the evidence we have is lacking or defective, but it will surely help.