I'd say you're right.

Yes, that (probably unconscious) bias, and primarily rhetorical, argument-winning-no-matter-what, purpose seems to always be present in metaphysical discussions. That just seems to be the way it is.

When I hear arguments against something I've said, I take them seriously enough to say, with as many words as necessary, how I answer it. ...to explain why I hadn't considered it a problem, &/or now don't.

But I don't want to give a rhetorical, trial-lawyier-like answer, playing to convince an audience, if there isn't a sincere reason why I really don't consider the objection a problem.

Michael Ossipoff

I get the impression from discussions on the internet and reading philosophers that people are not being honest or honest about their biases. — Andrew4Handel

What if they don't know what their biases actually are? They might not be dishonest -- they might not have adequately examined themselves. Biases, like a lot of other influences, operate subconsciously.

For instance, I have a bias in favor of theism; not just any old theism, but mainline Protestant theism. I am probably never really objective when it comes to the topic of God. Even though I claim to be an atheist, that theistic bias is still ticking away down there in level 93 of the subconscious, and I can't keep track of what all it's influencing, at any given moment.

they are not given equal weight to all arguments — Andrew4Handel

Not all arguments deserve equal weight.

For example I think discussions about the nature of mind can be influenced by peoples metaphysical commitments and to some extent they have ruled out alternatives and or are committed to rejecting alternatives. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, but what if there's good reasons for one's metaphysical commitments?

I suppose the difference is between looking for evidence of black swans — Andrew4Handel

But what would the black swans look like in the case of God? Would it look like the show Supernatural?

But to me Philosophy should be completely open minded and not based on preserving one's own world view.

A similar issue is with God debates. I think some people are so committed to favouring gods non existence that they are not given equal weight to all arguments (but they don't explicitly state this) — Andrew4Handel

Yes I'm surprised sometimes by the unrecognized, or at least unacknowledged, presuppositions people bring to the philosophical party.

But there are commitments one develops in one's life. I realized in a chat on the #metoo topic that I'm very committed to supporting a rather pedantic, anti-wishy-washy but pro-feminist viewpoint. I've loved and been loved by feminists, spent much of my working life among more women than men, read a lot in the subject area...so I find myself with baggage. Could I retrace my steps back to first principles in such debates? I believe I could, but it would take quite a long essay not a snappy forum response. And honestly, I've had such debates in the past, now I'm interested in other things.

So I move on. Gods are another case in point: I was brought up in an agnostic household so arguments in favour of a single capitalised God come to me as very much an intellectual exercise. I am interested in religious feeling, and I realize now I'm old that's partly because my parents had such feelings: but my Dad had lost his Catholic faith over the Pope's actions in the war and after, and my Mum's religion was one of practice rather than belief. So I can't help, because of my life, being 'committed to favouring gods non existence', at least compared to someone who was brought up with monotheism, or who thinks monotheistic 'belief' is something I should take more seriously. These things are dialectical rather than absolute, I suggest.

The areas I'm interested in, where I have less baggage - like philosophy of language, epistemology, and virtue ethics - there I have tried hard to strip away my presuppositions and be 'open-minded'. But one can't be vacuous in being open. One brings one's experience and understanding from elsewhere to bear on new topics. Open-mindedness then involves entertaining novel ideas, or new evidence, or challenges to one's preconceptions from surprising angles. But there must be qualifications to get through the gateway of open-mindedness. If other people show prejudice, or show what looks like a dodgy attitude to evidence, or adopt a bullying or self-justifying tone (I find that happens too much), then I'm liable to switch off and turn away. Unless I fancy the challenge!

Perhaps this is useful. You seem to be fretting about (or just objecting to) an impure source of ideas. The biased though-factory outputs bad ideas, you seem to be saying.

But we could also focus on criteria for testing ideas independent of their source. Popper comes to mind. With philosophy as opposed to science that is perhaps more difficult. For how are these criteria themselves justified?

On the other hand, why are we biased against bias to begin with? We probably think bias leads to an output that already fails a functioning if imperfectly articulated criterion.

If we want things other than unbiasedness, then we can just ideas roughly as more or less successful ways to get these things. We might also question whether we value unbiasedness directly or only secondarily. If the point is to make the world nice, then we might only care about accurately modeling the world so that we can effectively modify our experience or model of it. (This is admittedly tangled stuff, but I think looking at motives thins the fog a little bit.)

(Y) Great post.

To a very large extent Western academic philosophy is more of a game than an inquiry into nature the nature. Course work mundane relying mostly on studying the same philosophers over and over and use using the same game of logic to find "Truth", which of course everyone disagrees about.

Philosophy has lost its purpose because it has left itself no purpose. It has ceded all rights to inquire into the nature of nature to "science", having been taught (force fed) that only science has the real tools and knowledge to understand life. Hogwash. Science has the worse tools and the greatest biases, yet there is no one left to watch the hen house, while philosophers play their logic games. What philosophers should be doing is studying life, all of life, with a critical eye and revealing new ideas and thoughts about the nature of life. The Mind is constantly evolving. Where are the new thoughts? Suppressed?

There is inquiry going on here and there (e.g Stephen E. Robbins, Jimena Casales, Rupert Sheldrake) but it is quickly marginalized or quashed by the materialist police leaving philosophers only to play the game "Does God Exist?".

A similar issue is with God debates. I think some people are so committed to favouring gods non existence that they are not given equal weight to all arguments (but they don't explicitly state this). I suppose the difference is between looking for evidence of black swans and looking for evidence black swans don't exist (confirmation bias). — Andrew4Handel

The difference is the only evidence for God's existence are the words of human beings that have an emotional stake in their belief being true. Why don't we give equal weight to the positive claims of the existence of Thor, unicorns and Elvis being alive?

But a lot of debates or enquiries are not like this...... and so I think biases can be disguised. For example I think discussions about the nature of mind can be influenced by peoples metaphysical commitments and to some extent they have ruled out alternatives and or are committed to rejecting alternatives. But to me Philosophy should be completely open minded and not based on preserving one's own world view. — Andrew4Handel

A position, a belief, is not a bias. A gun rights activist is not rationalizing a bias, she is defending a position.

But a lot of debates or enquiries are not like this...... and so I think biases can be disguised. For example I think discussions about the nature of mind can be influenced by peoples metaphysical commitments and to some extent they have ruled out alternatives and or are committed to rejecting alternatives. But to me Philosophy should be completely open minded and not based on preserving one's own world view. — Andrew4Handel

Of course discussions about the nature of mind are influenced by people's metaphysical commitments. That's what metaphysical commitments are for, they provide an intellectual foundation on which our understanding of the world can be supported. The whole point of reason is to provide a place where we can all meet and lay our thinking out to be examined. That's why clarity is as important as truth.

Something I've been thinking about a lot - In my experience, the primary place where bias comes into play is in the choice of questions rather than the answers. Within a discussion of a particular issue, we can use reason to expose faulty assumptions and biases. A particular choice of an issue to be discussed is not generally examined in the way our positions are.

But what would the black swans look like in the case of God? — Marchesk

I didn't say that there was a black swan equivalent of gods but I was using that example of how the evidence in that case was misleading and favoured confirmation bias.
Also although the Black swan comment was attached to the gods comment I didn't intend it only to refer to that.This is hard for me to articulate as I would like to. However I'll try.

Because white swans existed that suggests that black swans (or green swans) are not a metaphysical impossibility. But every new white swan that appeared increased peoples certainty that being white was the hallmark of being a swan. It would have been hard for people to imagine any other type of swan because of over familiarity with one model.

In terms of evidence of gods. I think evidence of creation/creativity in human culture and volition, sentience and intelligence raise the possibility of an intelligent sentient volitional creator. If you only look for certain types of evidence or concept is it is going to rule our the possibility of gods. In short I don't think the evidence is transparent. (It is like looking for evidence of meaning in physics as opposed to a novel)

But overall I don't think it is healthy to approach an investigation attempting to only support, defend and prove your own preference. I am a kind of natural devils advocates who seems naturally contrary & not prone to revel in agreement.

A position, a belief, is not a bias. A gun rights activist is not rationalizing a bias, she is defending a position — T Clark

I feel that gun activists are rationalising a bias.

I don't think you could come to a position in a gun debate in the context of the United States culture simply on reason alone. If someone owns several guns which they have easy access to that does not seem to put them in a very objective position.

I am sure we all have to rationalise our biases. A bias may simply be personal experience but then you have to defend the applicability of generalising from personal experience.

I don't think you could come to a position in a gun debate in the context of the United States culture simply on reason alone. If someone owns several guns which they have easy access to that does not seem to put them in a very objective position. — Andrew4Handel

Based on the standard you seem to be applying, I can't think of any opinion that would be considered rational rather than biased. It seems as if you're saying that taking any position on a question exposes your prejudices. I think that's a misuse of the word. Having an opinion is not a bias.

The difference is the only evidence for God's existence are the words of human beings that have an emotional stake in their belief being true. Why don't we give equal weight to the positive claims of the existence of Thor, unicorns and Elvis being alive? — Harry Hindu

There was no evidence of black swans in Europe but absence of evidence didn't mean evidence of absence. I am not talking about giving equal wait to basic claims but to arguments.Arguments for gods like fine-tuning and first cause do not apply to unicorns etc.

The equivalent evidence arguments would be a paw print in the snow which is indirect evidence. Indirect evidence creates a weaker commitment in my opinion but some atheists seem only to be looking for direct immediate evidence of gods when there are other forms of evidence.

I have not ruled out unicorns but nothing important hinges on their existence. I find the ambiguity of evidence and a lack of knowledge unsettling personality I feel that positions of certainty may be defence mechanisms.

Based on the standard you seem to be applying, I can't think of any opinion that would be considered rational rather than biased. It seems as if you're saying that taking any position on a question exposes your prejudices. I think that's a misuse of the word. Having an opinion is not a bias. — T Clark

I do think reaching a position involves biases that is why it is important to examine all the evidence without bias and to resort to strict logical analysis.

I am not saying no one should have biases but that they shouldn't hide them and should also justify them.

As a Person living in the UK I have no vested interested in the American gun debates so it is hard for me to have a bias there because the outcome also doesn't impact me.

I do think reaching a position involves biases that is why it is important to examine all the evidence without bias and to resort to strict logical analysis. — Andrew4Handel

We are using the same words to mean different things. I like the way I'm using them. You probably like the way you are. There's nowhere for this to go.

examine all the evidence without bias and to resort to strict logical analysis. — Andrew4Handel

How does one examine without bias? Did you recognize your own in your OP?

Observing patterns allows for new insights into the nature of nature. We all carry our experiences (biases) into all inquiry. The trick is to observe them all.

The truth is nobody knows enough about the Universe and beyond to make concrete conclusions about metaphysical things. Until then, everybody is free to make preconceived beliefs about these topics.

Until then, everybody is free to make preconceived beliefs about these topics. — Starthrower

Of course people can hold whatever beliefs they have, and even burning at the stake may not change them (apparently).

But if one wishes to learn more about life and nature it may be possible to do so by developing greater skills in observation (not logic). With observation, one can recognize patterns and become more connected to the nature of life and the nature of nature. It's like being a detective.

I am not precluding the possibility that someone might choose to be dormant in life and just hope some epiphany may materialize, and if someone tried it out and it's successful, it would be great to hear about it.

This is what I read that triggered me to make the opening post. It is an introduction to a podcast.

"He defends a perspective on human morality that he describes as an “oughtology” based in naturalism, gleaned from comparing Western, Chinese, and Indian moral traditions. Flanagan, a professor of philosophy at Duke University, considers how diverse moral traditions converge on some features basic to moral psychology, such as compassion, yet differ in other ways, such as whether anger is a justified and beneficial moral emotion or whether it should be extirpated. He also examines different views of the self, including the Buddhist view in which there is no self."

http://newbooksnetwork.com/owen-flanagan-the-geography-of-morals-varieties-of-moral-possibility-oxford-up-2017/

I felt exasperated reading that because it seems like prevarication and someone trying to support a quite rigid metaphysical position with superficial fusion of suggestively similar ideologies.

I am going to listen to the podcast now but I avoided it before after reading the blurb.

I think moral nihilism is the default position that evidence needs to be brought against in moral studies as opposed to assuming there is a morality to be had and sewing something flimsy together.

I would call this jumping to conclusions. I read the synopsis quite differently. It sounds interesting and explorative in nature, inquiring into the similarities and differences of cultures which might lead to interesting new observations. As I said, we all have our own experiences (biases) and beliefs and philosophy leads one to recognize their own as well as others.

I would call this jumping to conclusions. I read the synopsis quite differently. It sounds interesting and explorative in nature, inquiring into the similarities and differences of cultures which might lead to interesting new observations. As I said, we all have our own experiences (biases) and beliefs and philosophy leads one to recognize their own as well as others. — Rich

I will listen to it and get back to you.

But I think that the roles of gods in morality should always be considered because that is one of the biggest sources of moral influence. It gives the impression he is going to pick and choose fairly arbitrarily from moral ideas he likes from sources he respects based on his leanings.

To me morality does not need to be incorporated into naturalism but defended in its own terms. I don't think religious or secular moralities stand up to scrutiny personally, so I don't think the debate should be in terms of a dichotomy between theism and atheism. The failure of religious morality does not in my opinion add any support to the success of a secular morality.

The truth is nobody knows enough about the Universe and beyond to make concrete conclusions about metaphysical things. Until then, everybody is free to make preconceived beliefs about these topics. — Starthrower

Yes but I don't feel people acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge.

For example I think freewill debates cannot be resolved until we have an explanation of consciousness which is the primary thing contributing to the notion of volition.

But I think that the roles of gods in morality should always be considered because that is one of the biggest sources of moral influence. It gives the impression he is going to pick and choose fairly arbitrarily from moral ideas he likes from sources he respects based on his leanings. — Andrew4Handel

I agree with you about the roles of gods. The speaker may pick and choose but it's of no matter. You aren't listening for indoctrination but rather to possible learn something new that will enhance your sense of nature. It is all about expanding ones own observations in all directions, not just the subject matter the speaker presents. My guess it will open paths into a new line of inquiry.

Of course discussions about the nature of mind are influenced by people's metaphysical commitments. — T Clark

I don't have any metaphysical commitments I am agnostic on a lot of things admitting insufficient knowledge to draw broad conclusions.

We are using the same words to mean different things. I like the way I'm using them. You probably like the way you are. There's nowhere for this to go. — T Clark

What I was saying about the gun debate is that peoples positions are fairly transparent. If someone defended gun ownership you would not be surprised if the owned some guns.

But in philosophy people should be rigorously examining arguments and evidence. A purely philosophical debate about gun control would be undermined if someone turned out to have a hidden cache of weapons (or had lost someone to gun violence and not revealed this.)

I am gay so if I am debating homosexuality I am happy to make that transparent and cite personal experience. So that people could challenge me on potential biases.

If I was religious (which I'm not) I would be really interested in the counter arguments to my position.

I am in favour of gun rights, and do not own a gun.
I am in favour of gay marriage, and I am not gay.
I am in favour of marijuana legalization, and do not use marijuana.

I could be wrong, but it seems like you're putting the cart before the horse. Owning guns likely means you're in favour of gun rights, but being in favour of gun rights does not likely mean you own guns.

But to the question at hand: nobody can be completely objective in their reasoning, it's not humanly possible, but some people try much harder than others to be as objective as possible. It all comes down to the attitude you choose to approach philosophy (or any discussion) with. Some people go into it with the intention to convince others their position is correct; to "win". Others go into it with the intention to learn. I choose the latter, and it helps me to be much more objective than those who choose the former.

I don't have any metaphysical commitments I am agnostic on a lot of things admitting insufficient knowledge to draw broad conclusions. — Andrew4Handel

I think saying "I don't have any metaphysical commitments" is meaningless. You can't communicate, think, without them. Here are some common and plausible general examples.

• The world exists independent of consciousness.
• I exist. I have an identity which persists.
• Other people exist independent of me.
• What I perceive more or less represents the nature of reality.
• There is an absolute standard of morality.
• The scientific method is a valid way of obtaining knowledge about the world.
• Humans are basically good.
• There cannot possibly be nothing. The concept is meaningless.
• Everything that happens is caused by something else.
• There is free will.
• The universe is made up of physical entities - matter and energy. That's it.

That's just a beginning. I don't necessarily buy into all of these. They're just examples. I'll lay out the most general metaphysical framework I use that I am aware of - There is no objective reality. Existence is an interaction between the unspeakable [ ] that is out there and our human minds. All concepts are a reflection of human values. Morality is also a reflection of human values. We were created as social animals and our values reflect that.

Not asking you to agree with that and parsing it out is not consistent with the original post. I'm only going through it to try to demonstrate that you can't get away from metaphysics. You can't be agnostic.

At the same time, a metaphysical position is not necessarily a bias. Let me think about that. Do I really think it's true? I'll think some more.

What I was saying about the gun debate is that peoples positions are fairly transparent. If someone defended gun ownership you would not be surprised if the owned some guns.

But in philosophy people should be rigorously examining arguments and evidence. A purely philosophical debate about gun control would be undermined if someone turned out to have a hidden cache of weapons (or had lost someone to gun violence and not revealed this.) — Andrew4Handel

I don't get this. When we lay our philosophical cards on the table, why does it matter why I believe what I do? Seems to me my argument should stand on it's own. If it's wrong, show me. Don't tell me "You just believe that because you were shot once."

I'm liberal. I don't own guns. I have no problem with reasonable restrictions on guns. On the other hand, we hunted when I was young. I'm comfortable with guns and don't think focusing a lot of attention on gun ownership will solve many problems. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution specifically protects personal gun ownership. I acknowledge the courts decision and it's authority to decide.

Until we can explain them, however, it’s still fun to theorize.

you can't get away from metaphysics. You can't be agnostic. — T Clark

Sure, I'd say that most people who claim to reject metaphysics actually espouse the metaphysics of Materialism.

Michael Ossipoff