Brent,
Thanks for these extensive comments.
I will address many.
Regarding consensus, scientific consensus is an important piece of evidence, but is not definitive. There are many examples where scientific consensus has turned out to be group think rather than reflecting reality. The causes of postpartum infections <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Postpartum-5Finfections-23-2522The-5FDoctor-27s-5FPlague-2522&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YB_wRVsc5fw5J-wQTqDIUBX2I3ywxZllAbiDkL8j8R8&s=mR3U12JiTb25y0vwvqAREErwxAbLtTsexzuZKRPR2ug&e= > , and the role of h. pylori <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Helicobacter-5Fpylori&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YB_wRVsc5fw5J-wQTqDIUBX2I3ywxZllAbiDkL8j8R8&s=lqhbd1GY7fGpjgIIFzFAYAKPI0t5-jOASm8bdJNVZcI&e= > in ulcers are two prominent examples. While popular opinions are vital in politics, they are often irrelevant and often misleading regarding matters of fact. The thinking scientifically course (linked from the essay) addresses the importance of openness (See: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiversity.org_wiki_Thinking-5FScientifically-23Openness&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YB_wRVsc5fw5J-wQTqDIUBX2I3ywxZllAbiDkL8j8R8&s=kUwy5FYM-Sq7ybEUiUI-ZKMqjtOFhk3Wyq2-k09cP80&e= ) including collaboration, peer review, publication, transparency, describing uncertainty, and reproducibility, which are all related to forming consensus.
Regarding expertise, you remind us that expertise is domain specific. I have updated the essay to say “relevant expertise” rather than simply expertise. Thanks for this improvement.
I agree that motivated reasoning is a prevalent distraction. I list it in the first bullet on sound arguments.
Thanks for mentioning the Wright brothers; I am a big fan. Prior to December 1903 claims about the possibility of powered flight were matters of conjecture and not matters of fact. I agree the Wright brothers were optimistic, enthusiastic, hopeful, driven, resourceful, pragmatic, and hardworking, but those mental states were irrelevant to the fact that flight had not yet been achieved. Many alchemists driven by the audacity of hope worked diligently yet failed to turn lead into gold. The laws of physics often prevail over the most diligent motivations.
I find it remarkable that when I ask someone “how do you know?” after they express some strongly held belief, they are often taken aback. People seem remarkably ready to strongly defend beliefs they have obtained rather arbitrarily. (A friend told me, everyone knows it, this makes me feel good, I have always believe this…)
Expecting people to describe “how they know” before they energetically work to defend their beliefs, may help us erode polarization.
Thanks,
Lee Beaumont
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Brent Allsop
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2020 6:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: How do you choose your beliefs?
Very nice piece on a critically important topic, Leland,
You have lots of popular great rules of thumb like:
* Evidence over ideology
* Expertise over authority.
But I expected to see at least something about consensus, at least of the scientific kind?
Also, there is the issue where one person’s “expert” is another’s ‘devil worshiper’, so trusted methods of determining expertise are needed.
Differences like those primarily come from different “motivated reasoning”, which is one of the most important things, to me, though it looks like motivation is not valued in this piece? For example, the strongest evidence is, and odds are, that nobody can live forever, because nobody ever has. Yet I remain faithful. Just like when the Write brothers had similar faith. They had the faith to go against all the odds, all the hard evidence, and all the skeptics claiming the truth is “man was not meant to fly” and due to their motivation, finally became the first to fly.
And, just like it shows in the TOC, truth depends on the level of detail you are interested in. For example, a quantum theorist’s description of truth about reality is quite different from the chemists, or the macro economist’s. In other words, like one person’s expert is another’s devil worshiper, the quantum theorist’s ‘expert’, has no reputation amongst macro economists, and other groups. So, a lot depends on what different people want, and what their different perspective is.
“Evidence over ideology” is great, but all current systems, including peer reviewed journals, everything on the web, and so on, only focus on what people disagree on. Everything polarizes people, ideologically, which is currently ripping apart all these ideals you value. Just saying you do not value it, doesn’t make it go away. And, again, at least to me, ideological motivation is the most important part. We need to find ways to bridle it, not devalue and destroy it. Sure, motivation can cause problems, but don't throw the baby out with the bath.
A good example is global warming. There is no rigorous or trusted (by the other side) way to measure exactly how much consensus there is on what. Today, no matter what you find on the internet, someone can claim that is ‘fake news’, so we are all clueless, morally, and can’t make any trusted argument on anything 'ideological'
We’re building the consensus building and tracking system at Canonizer.com with the goal of adequately dealing with all these kinds of problems and more. For example, the global warming theorists could start to build and track consensus around exactly what it is they are motivated about. Then the ‘deniers’ could create their competing camps around their motivations, and they could have their own ‘canonizer algorithm’ which they would trust, because it would only count the experts the ‘deniers’ trust, which would not be ‘fake news’ to them.
And as the adage goes, that which you measure, improves. If the experts can know exactly what all the ‘deniers’ currently believe and why, they can come up with specific experiments and arguments to address exactly those problems, to get everyone on board, and continue the measurable consensus progress.
The experts can work within what the denier’s experts trust, to communicate to them, from their point of view, and so on. (i.e. find things like: “Your trusted experts, who only support what is not fake news, believe ‘x’. then they can say that ‘x’ supports global warming in this way, and so on.
Today, everyone just collects and throws any argument they can find, most of which have no converting power at all, at the other side, over and over, forever, to nobody listening. Again, everything in use, today, just polarizes people like this. But with Canonizer, you can measure and track the converting power of the good arguments, so the ones with converting power can rise to the top, and then stop wasting everyone’s time on what doesn’t work.
Also, the super camp tree structure helps with building consensus. Today, when you find something anyone disagrees on, normally the edit/censor wars start polarizing everyone, and consensus is destroyed. The disagreements are almost always less important than what the consensus is being built around. So, with the tree structure, you can push these disagreeable things down to supporting sub camps, out of the way of building consensus, where they can still be tracked and valued.
The bottom line is, you need to build and track consensus, so you can know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone is motivated to want. And THAT, by definition, is consensus. No censoring required.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 3:16 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote:
Thank you, Lee.
Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD
(Perseveret et Percipiunt)
503.631.8044
Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)
On Jun 28, 2020, at 12:59 PM, Leland Beaumont <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > wrote:
TOK List,
With so much misinformation bombarding us, how do you choose your beliefs?
To answer that question I wrote an essay “Choosing my beliefs”.
See: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiversity.org_wiki_Knowing-5FHow-5FYou-5FKnow_gallery_Choosing-5Fmy-5Fbeliefs&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YB_wRVsc5fw5J-wQTqDIUBX2I3ywxZllAbiDkL8j8R8&s=fHRvq1NreAsWS6devzHLNJXUKiIlpEeOOqdod2us_pY&e= <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiversity.org_wiki_Knowing-5FHow-5FYou-5FKnow_gallery_Choosing-5Fmy-5Fbeliefs&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=F6WL4OjZjGNgjfAzixIejlmFxhpWUv7RDfKplajqQmw&s=SN3-dIxdoQBGkcT07Z8Oln-MTinrTjmxbd7aKP7WptQ&e=>
Reality is our common ground. If we can find reliable methods for discovering reality, than we can seek out that common ground.
This is helpful in resolving anger <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiversity.org_wiki_Resolving-5FAnger&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=F6WL4OjZjGNgjfAzixIejlmFxhpWUv7RDfKplajqQmw&s=ry2KMpQFiKzNZvta-04-AIeoLdaJEX7JibtBp637uVE&e=> , practicing dialogue <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikiversity.org_wiki_Practicing-5FDialogue&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=F6WL4OjZjGNgjfAzixIejlmFxhpWUv7RDfKplajqQmw&s=fvk37aGRkyCwHtgC7qR9z1awFZzajETrtdeW5xPPZts&e=> , and creating common ground <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=F6WL4OjZjGNgjfAzixIejlmFxhpWUv7RDfKplajqQmw&s=9RILoUXGOFGuKN-aNDjmy-UNu7v3O2RFWx_O7tJOAHk&e=> .
Differences of opinions are useful because they expose us to many point of view and the wide range of human experiences. Controversies are useful because they can motivate us to practice dialogue and attain new insights. Having a reliable method for choosing beliefs increases our contact with reality, helps determine fact or fiction, and helps us discover our common ground.
How do you choose your beliefs?
I welcome your comments on this, and encourage you to write down how you choose your beliefs.
Thanks,
Lee Beaumont
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link:http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> &A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> &A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1> &A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
