Hi Lee,
My analysis of the BEVI is complicated. Moreover, I no longer work much with Craig Shealy, and I know it as evolved some, but I can’t really comment much on where it is or respond to these questions with any authority.
But I do have some thoughts about these issues. From where I sit (i.e., my scientific, humanistic metapsychology theory of knowledge) I sometimes find that you attempt to apply a model of scientific realism to all domains of human belief, but that feels to me inadequate. Indeed, much of human activity, engagement, fighting about what is real, take place in domains that are not amenable to being analyzed via a scientific realist onto-epistemology. The reason is because the onto-epistemological belief-value subjective networks are all tied up with the issue at hand.
Here is blog that gets at what I mean that enters the world of couple’s therapy<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201504/your-version-reality-and-mine>. Note, it incorporates Shealy’s Version of Reality concept that was discussed in that paper.
I agree that a scientific realist onto-epistemology can provide a frame for the couple. But I don’t think it is adequate for much of the work. Take the husband’s claim: “You are a liar”. Is that a fact that corresponds to reality? I don’t think there is a simple answer here (e.g., a case could easily be made that the wife exaggerated and misrepresented and sometimes “lied”, but does that justify the trait-based claim? What is the reality here? It is not like the shape of the Earth). This is why I think you need more of a humanistic, values-based, relational developmental social construction of reality frame to deal with issues like this. The reality of the relationship is constructed by their actions and justifications. Thus, the observer of an independent reality that is the supposition of a scientific realism does not work very well in everyday, idiographic, interpersonal engagements. I am guessing that this is why the professional/practicing psychologists found your very interesting take to be insufficient to deal with the subjective and value-based intersubjective domains that are so apparent in the therapy room.
Love to get your take on this.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Leland Beaumont
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 11:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reevaluating Beliefs
Thanks Rob,
I enjoyed watching your google talks video (twice!) I am looking forward to your forum presentation.
At 39:50 in the video you use the phrase “useful truth” and then go on to say that “truth is weird”.
In my “seeking real good” talk I stated that “truth corresponds to reality”. I also mentioned that reality is vast, complex, and dynamic.
When we get a chance, I would like to discuss the distinctions between “useful truth” and “correspondence to reality” especially in considering the question of “Where was Barack Obama born?”
Gregg, thanks for the EI, BEVI paper; it is very helpful.
I notice the paper lacks explicit reference to reality as a primary and unifying frame of reference for acquiring, assessing, and accepting or rejecting beliefs. On page 95 it is claimed the counselor has an “…ethical obligation to adopt client's values and beliefs.” I argue there is an obligation (perhaps even more compelling) to assess and influence those beliefs toward true beliefs, consistent with our best understanding of reality. Also the 10 process scales from the BEVI lack an item for "cognitive contact with reality" – reflecting the relevance of empirical evidence in forming beliefs. (e.g. I believe the earth is nearly spherical because in fact (based on the correspondence to reality, learning that expert exploration of the earth provides representative evidence that the earth is nearly spherical) the earth is nearly spherical.) (P99) It also does not (explicitly) address "personal epistemology" –what is the process you use to choose your beliefs.
Eric, thanks for identifying the importance of Post-Traumatic growth.
Lee Beaumont
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of easalien
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 6:16 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Reevaluating Beliefs
Hey Leland, Having been on both sides of the equation, I can say change is often a response to trauma, real or perceived. It’s a form of adaptive behavior driven by adverse circumstances. Very rarely do comfortable people change.
Most of you I’m sure have heard of PTSD. The other side of that is Post-Traumatic Growth. This article sums it up nicely:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/post-traumatic-growth-finding-meaning-and-creativity-in-adversity/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.scientificamerican.com_beautiful-2Dminds_post-2Dtraumatic-2Dgrowth-2Dfinding-2Dmeaning-2Dand-2Dcreativity-2Din-2Dadversity_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=FE9YjbAkxcapLo-BOfWURIZDgaGBWZfogomrcPeIbAA&s=4tUV_boJFf2CL2mhoj_hZSXigbj4OUass2CL2U93atY&e=>
With the clusterf*ck that is 2020, cherished beliefs are challenged and people are retreating into entrenched ideologies or opening up to the truth, which must be experienced a posteriori. Otherwise, it’s like a scholar “explaining” war to a veteran. It rings hollow.
Personally, abandoning unverified belief in exchange for verifiable truth has brought a remarkable sense of balance. It’s taught me empathy and gratitude as well as peace with uncertainty. With the world as it is, maybe we need to take our philosophy and let it go.
Eric S.
On Thursday, September 17, 2020, Leland Beaumont <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
ToK Forum Members,
Intrigued by questions that were raised when I presented Seeking Real Good to this forum, I am researching the topic of “Reexamining Beliefs”. I have recently read several books that pertain to forming beliefs and defending long-held beliefs. What I am still curious to understand is the triggers and introspective processes that result in people changing deeply held beliefs. For example, why do some people reflect on their religious beliefs and become non-theists? Why do people switch political parties, what triggers the shift from “love you forever” to “divorce you now”, why did some people shift from never Trump to Trump forever while Michael Cohen turned against him? Why do some people leave cults and others double down? What attracts people toward conspiracy theories and then what changes that causes people to abandon those theories?
I would like to be able to describe a process each of us would be motivated to use to reexamine our beliefs and progress toward true beliefs.
I will appreciate it if you can recommend reliable references on this topic.
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&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&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&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
|
