|
|||||
|
Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/459418289 From Less Wrong: we need to study the cognitive sciences, figure out the way our intuitions work and how we might correct for mistakes. Above all, we need to learn to always question the workings of our minds, for we need to understand that they are . . . → Read More: Your intuitions are not Magic Photo credit http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaptainkobold/3930503347/ While composing this post on No Agenda Forums, an interesting problem came up. How can I show someone their own biases? They are obvious to me, but (by definition) the other person’s entire system of thinking is arranged in such a way as to find their biases valid. After coming to understand the limitations . . . → Read More: What sort of mirror?  Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/somerslea/321513270 Note: I addressed the following essay to the general population of the No Agenda Forums, a community that I cherish despite frequent frustration. It is peopled by many conspiracy theorists and champions of various “alternative” things, such as alternative explanations, alternative medicine, etc. In short, people I cannot really reach on a level of reason. What I say may not do any good, but if even one in a thousand of those readers can see the light, then I am proud to have played a small part in the emergence of a rational mind.  Image credit: flickr.com/photos/markfbennett/2223565383 DebatingLike most sports, I’m not much good at debate. I say it’s a sport because it’s a competition with a winner and loser where the participants’ skills have the largest bearing on the outcome. I think that most people casually lump debate and argument into the same mental bin; if not as exact synonyms, then as different degrees of the same thing. But they are really quite different! A debate has almost nothing to do with logic or the correctness of stated facts, but these things are crucial to the outcome of an argument.  Photo credit: garryknight from flickr We suck at thinking, all of us– humanity. It’s poetically tragic given that we haven’t met any life forms who can do a better job of it yet. We skeptics enjoy thinking of ourselves as rational and reasonable, smugly superior among a vast sea of credulous, closed-minded believers. But we’re not nearly as clever as we think, nor are we very different from the true believers.
I was somewhat surprised by this finding, and look forward to follow-up research as well as independent confirmation. But most of my surprise was not due to the study itself, but rather how the results were interpreted as evidence against the existence of free will.
I spent rather a long time contemplating the creation of this site. There seem to be many good reasons not to bother, including but not limited to:
I’ll try not to be pretentious, and as for my writing I will consider it a victory if I can communicate without you dosing off or becoming irate too often. |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2010 Born again Skeptic - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
As we learn more about how brains work, traditional views can be called into question. 