By no means do I consider myself a "philosopher". I am just a layman with a few thoughts. — EusebiusLevi
4.- Don’t judge me just because I’m biased — EusebiusLevi
5.- Steps for countering bias when evaluating evidence — EusebiusLevi
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. — EusebiusLevi
issue of truth — EusebiusLevi
1.- How do you know? — EusebiusLevi
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. — EusebiusLevi
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. — EusebiusLevi
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.
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
But, for important issues, ones where the truth matters, going through those steps will be handy. — EusebiusLevi
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. ;-) — EusebiusLevi
I don't see where to disagree with you. Therefore, I agree, I think. — EusebiusLevi
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
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
I would dare say, the very claim you make can be considered rather unfalsifiable and thus reliant on spontaneous agreement of convictions. — simeonz
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.