The diversity of ideas reflects (1) the diversity of experiences and (2) the development of consciousness (both individually and as a species). The bias is only natural, given that we (3) love truth, (4) resent being proven wrong and (5) use knowledge -- and the reputation of knowledge -- as social markers for excellence.

So what makes these debates we have on forums of any value besides exposing our past experiences in indirect forms by talking about our opinions (or better said, preferences)?

Where is the absolute truth?

Debates are quite useful, but not for approaching discursive truth :D.

They are useful for teaching humility and tolerance. They are useful for teaching good practices (organization of ideas, methodical reasoning, politeness).

All of these, perhaps, are shades of truth.

I concur, and if I may add something more. Discussing in forums is entertaining. Hmm, maybe the absolute truth and reality is.. entertainment. Nothing really serious to take from here as this is all a make-believe. Who knows?

Absolute truth is a mythical bird you'll never catch.

The value of debates though:

If we're just exposing our past experiences through debates, it's possible that one of us could benefit from exposure to said experiences IF said experiences somehow demonstrate or reflect reality more effectively.

Say we debate a historical narrative, and you share experiences containing evidence which proves your point to be true beyond reasonable doubt, I would go away with a more accurate view of history (which might be useful?).

The last paragraph is a nice consequence of sharing commentaries, I agree.

But for philosophical argument I would like to go to your second paragraph, "reflect reality more effectively". If absolute truth is ellusive (mythical bird), isn't every opinion just subjective and relative. If the absolute truth is unfathomable, like infinitely distant, doesn't any truth get equally distant to the absolute?

So why bother, even if truth is backed by fact. Meaning is in the end, also only subjective.

Absolute truth may very well exist out there (since I believe there is a hard external world, the truth of it's particulars is what I might believe it to be) but I will never be able to be absolutely certain that I've got my hands on it.

I can use experience to become more and more certain of things (induction), and the likelihood that my conclusions are accurate increases (along with their precision and predictive power), and that's generally the utility of reason. It's primarily a mistake to label your own truth as ultimate because when you then to go update it one-day you look really silly ;) . We might have very strong and valid assessments of the external world, but we cannot be sure they're perfect.

Thank you for your comments I'm enjoying reading :) we have derailed a bit the initial question, my bad. I ask too many questions all at once ahahah. No problem...

It's your thread and you can derail it if you want to ;)

But we are brushing up against something very related to bias.

Especially in philosophy, sometimes undue credit is given to basic suppositions which are used to guide and create schools of thought (which generally pertain to particular fields of inquiry like existentialism or morality). From within these schools of thought, sometimes "truth" merely becomes a reflection of the basic assumptions inherent in the very structure of their arguments.

For example: I subscribe to agnosticism (the belief that knowledge pertaining to god(s) is unattainable). The degree to which I subscribe to this rather fundamental assumption affects renders me more and more skeptical when I encounter someone claiming to have actual knowledge of god (especially as it colors my perception of their claims at the outset). This is a bias I employ frequently, and to overcome it requires a bit of focus on my part...

It takes constant work to overcome these biases, and it's often worthwhile!

I understand and I too am biased in certain worldviews (taoism and agnosticism). But I wonder why we instinctively or not, tend to be partial. Why is it that we cannot care less about this or that? Because caring equally about everything would be an impossible feat?

The explanation I came up with is that by confining appreciation to certain aspects that life experience gives, we can relate to alikes. This is probably better than no tight relation with any human, in the case if we would be homogeneous in terms of caring about every ideology, and so every person equally, diluting our own attention for tight and meaningful relationship.

Right now I see a group of capoeira practicioners in the garden. It is a group with specific characteristics. And it seems to me that meaning for each one of them is increased when they share their own identity with each other, because they can see their own reflection on his and her friend that is practicing too.

Right now I see a group of capoeira practicioners in the garden. It is a group with specific characteristics. And it seems to me that meaning for each one of them is increased when they share their own identity with each other, because they can see their own reflection on his and her friend that is practicing too. — oranssi

That's really lovely.

Why are we all so biased?

We are biased because we are alone. We are imprisoned in our little boxes – isolated – solitary confinement. We yearn for company, but we only get a facsimile of it. We laugh, talk and hold hands, but it is not quite a unified experience. Our bias is what we think we are. We want the impossible. We want to be in another’s consciousness and we want to be separate at the same time. Maybe – someday?

So what makes these debates we have on forums of any value besides exposing our past experiences in indirect forms by talking about our opinions (or better said, preferences)? — oranssi

I like the graffiti metaphor. Sure, we might get lucky and have a rewarding interaction. But perhaps we mostly just want to scratch our version of events into the wall. I freely admit that I've been articulating the same basic ideas for years now here and there on the internets. Practice makes perfect. Sometimes I'm inspired by what I see as another's "error" (relative to my prejudices) and write when I otherwise might not. I've also "known" or believed for years now that there's a certain "aloneness" that "ought" to be embraced. Anyone (so runs my belief) with a sufficiently rich inner life is going to have incommunicable complexes of thoughts and feelings that no other human is likely to "get" in an absolutely satisfying way. Every once in a while, someone really shares an important "complex" with us, and that's a great intellectual joy. I'm presupposing that these "complexes" are big, beautiful thoughts or realizations. I don't bother to address the less than noble need to share "misery" complexes. I also write "complex" rather than thought because the feeling toward the thought is as important as the thought. Someone who blandly understands without passion doesn't really "get" it in a way that scratches the intense-for-some desire to share beautiful thoughts.

And this was my naive or falsely innocent hope for philosophy forums once. Yet I'm a killer of this dream like everyone else, stubbornly closing my heart to the jingles that others prefer and insisting on the superiority of my own. I now know that I want to snort and stomp my hooves in the dirt as much as I want to share beautiful thoughts. A certain kind of hatred and suspicion is natural. Maybe we beat it back in the pursuit of this or that goal, but I think we have a tendency to articulate our superiority. And my willingness to articulate this tendency is one more articulation of this kind. It's the result of asking questions about the kinds of questions we ask conspicuously. It's a shift of focus from topic of the conversation to the motives driving the conversation, etc. I don't pretend to exhaustively describe what goes on in debates, but only to point out what I'm surprised to find overlooked.

that I want to snort and stomp my hooves in the dirt as much as I want to share beautiful thoughts. A certain kind of hatred and suspicion is natural. Maybe we beat it back in the pursuit of this or that goal, but I think we have a tendency to articulate our superiority. — visit0r

A keen insight.

I don't know.

I just wish everyone would come around and agree with my excellently reasoned viewpoint.

Another way to put this question could be: why is there diversity amongst humanity in terms of ideas, and why do we adhere so much to one or two particular ideas?

I think we share a bias based on the cultural theme of unending, unlimited progress (kinda of a continual capitalistic dream}, a bias towards the future, and we automatically seek the best options for going forward, which are typically limited in number; we choose based on what we have experienced, know, trust or believe.

To my way of thinking, bias is rooted in self-preservation and vested interests. Once a person has committed to something, be it an idea, a social group, an occupation, or any other investment of time and resources, the notion that those choices could be wrong becomes threatening. The natural reaction to a threat is to defend ourselves by whatever means is necessary to avoid a catastrophe. Generally speaking, we are naturally averse to the destabilizing effect of having to correct our choices or reverse our commitments.

why is there diversity amongst humanity in terms of ideas, and why do we adhere so much to one or two particular ideas? — oranssi

I don't think that's how bias is defined: diverse ideas can be compatible and adherence to particular ideas can be uncontroversial.

So what makes these debates we have on forums of any value besides exposing our past experiences in indirect forms by talking about our opinions (or better said, preferences)? — oranssi

They're valuable because they promote the consolidation and exchange of ideas but I too am disgruntled that they don't produce any dependable conclusions. And I think this has to do with the very bias of the debaters that don't seek any other conclusion than the confirmation of their particular ideas.

The explanation I came up with is that by confining appreciation to certain aspects that life experience gives, we can relate to alikes. — oranssi

I'd argue that selfism is a biased worldview where you relate to none else.

Why are we all biased?
Am I biased? Perhaps, but I refuse to label myself that way because I do my best to unbias myself.

I have some principles to help me do that:
The one you should doubt and challenge the most is none other than yourself.
Seek your views to be challenged so that you can perfect your outlook.
(and plain and simple) Avoid extreme views.

I have even a method of removing bias:
take opposing worldviews egoism & altrusim
identify the common denominator action according to common interest
universalize and dynamize it action according to any common interest that proves greater at the time

But why are people generally biased?
Because people are generally immature, they don't have their own personal and specific viewpoints.

Think of the saying: I want to be part of something greater than myself!.

Think of kids, playing and choosing sides, ending up in stupid conflicts because of that, yet none forced them to spend time with each other. Why do they choose sides, why they even play? Think you're a kid: who are you? You think you know but you don't know how to express it. The only apparent choice you have is to define yourself by your relation with your group, the other kids you know, which is formed through interaction and bias because, as a kid, you're only able to judge appearences, unable so to reason beyond the immediate.

But still bias is not age specific so I blame ignorance of social dynamics. We no longer live in close-tight groups where everyone knows everyone, where all the preferences, needs, abilities and viewpoints are common knowledge, we brought about society which by its very nature confronts us with diverging and foreign ideologies, people find that overwhelming and so they fool themselves into thinking they know what's all about.

Every partisan thinks they knows exactly what the party, cause, person they support intends and why all the other opposing partisans are wrong, this strucks me everytime!
We have a clear agenda, we know what needs to be done, all the others are off the point!


Bias... It helps people cope with their own failings* when they shouldn't tolerate them!