A correct idea and an incorrect one - how are they different?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We talk about truth, fact, and knowledge. I would suggest that these all refer to what we also call correct ideas. My question is, what are the qualities of a correct idea that distinguish it from an incorrect idea and allow us to call one correct and the other incorrect?

This is a trivial question when discussing things such as what the capital of Peru is, or whether somebody is still alive or not.

But how about when we say that evolution or creationism is a correct (or incorrect) idea? How about when somebody says a deity exists (or doesn't)? Exactly what do we mean when say that that is correct? Does it mean more than that is what we choose to believe?

When we say that man is a spiritual animal (or not), what exactly do we mean by saying that that is correct beyond that we choose to believe that? Or when was say that man is not an animal or an ape. What exactly are we saying if we say that that statement is correct beyond that that is what we choose to believe?

One definition of correct might be the quality possessed by an idea that accurately allows us to predict outcomes. Consider directions for getting somewhere. It's pretty easy to define the difference between correct directions and incorrect ones. Any set of directions that gets one to the desired destination is correct, albeit some routes may be less efficient than others. Incorrect directions are any that don't work, that get you to an undesired destination if followed. Most people would agree after a demonstration whether a given set of directions was correct or not.

Now consider two other kinds of situations:

[1] Atheists are people who don't believe in a god versus atheists are people who say that there is no deity. Which of these are correct? Which is incorrect.

[2] Man has an immortal soul that distinguishes him from the beasts. Correct or incorrect?

Why isn't the matter of correctness as easily resolved with these two as the driving instructions? Why is it that we seldom come to consensus the way we can with the driving instructions? What exactly are we saying analogous to "I say these directions are correct because they will get you to your destination" when we say that either of these other examples is correct or not?

I have opinions, but will save them until others have given theirs.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Why isn't the matter of correctness as easily resolved with these two as the driving instructions? Why is it that we seldom come to consensus the way we can with the driving instructions? What exactly are we saying analogous to "I say these directions are correct because they will get you to your destination" when we say that either of these other examples is correct or not?

I think it's because those are ceiling / above ceiling level problems for the human mental capacity to tackle. You know, a cat can get confused by a play of light, or a flick of yarn or something. It's the same the thing as man getting confused when the big ideas get tossed around little. He doesn't get confused by directions. That's probably part of what he evolved to solve far, in a more direct way. So there is no controversy when it comes to figuring out how to get to city x or y.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think it points us at the differences between objective and subjective and how those two things might (or might not) be modified by our own goals and ascriptions to the situation. Definitely a set of directions is "correct" if it gets you to "city Y", where getting to city Y is implicitly the stated goal - and when that goal is added, then an objective determination about whether or not we successfully meet that goal can be reached. However, add just a smidge of ambiguity to the situation (as in - remove the implicit goal or leave a subjective opening), and you're left with variable subjective assessments.

For example, the directions from city X to city Y may be varied and many, and if all you say is "give me the best route to city Y from city X" ("best" being an ambiguous qualifier) then you may get a variety of answers in return. All of them may get you to city Y in the end, but the determination of "the best" is now being done by the person you requested the information from, and is entirely subjective. So let's say a few of the people you asked added these specific criteria on their own:

1. The route that gets me there the fastest
2. The route that gets me there while also hitting as many possible Taco Bell's as I can hit on the way
3. The route that costs me the least due to avoiding toll roads

Adding any of those criteria brings forward one, specific route that is, objectively , "the best-fit" for the stated goal, but minus the stated goal, "the best" in the question put forth is allowed to take on any flavor.

I think this is pretty much where the conversation about some of the subjects you listed as being "problem areas" end up often lacking. Sometimes there can be no "stated goal" - because we may not even have enough information available to us to compare something against an objective criteria (like God, or "spirits"). And sometimes people want to claim that the stated goals are conspiratorially crafted by actors of ill-will, or they want to claim that "everything is subjective" and that even "goals" themselves are subjective (missing the entire point of attributing the goal in the first place), by which they hope to steer the conversation back toward the subjective free-for-all that they are more comfortable dealing with because they don't have to do any work to try and find that "one best route" nor defend their notions that theirs is "the best" by any specific criteria.

 

[Secret Chief]

We talk about truth, fact, and knowledge. I would suggest that these all refer to what we also call correct ideas.

I'm not sure those three words are synonyms though. Under oath, I might stand up in court and recount something which I believe to be the "truth", as I perceived it. That is not necessarily "fact", it is certainly not "knowledge."

The three words do not, imo, necessarily all refer to "correct ideas."

 

[Stevicus]

Now consider two other kinds of situations:

[1] Atheists are people who don't believe in a god versus atheists are people who say that there is no deity. Which of these are correct? Which is incorrect.

[2] Man has an immortal soul that distinguishes him from the beasts. Correct or incorrect?

Why isn't the matter of correctness as easily resolved with these two as the driving instructions? Why is it that we seldom come to consensus the way we can with the driving instructions? What exactly are we saying analogous to "I say these directions are correct because they will get you to your destination" when we say that either of these other examples is correct or not?

I have opinions, but will save them until others have given theirs.

Well, if it's a matter where there's no reliable way of determining the answer one way or another, then it would neither be "correct" or "incorrect," but simply "unresolved" or "undetermined."

When it comes to driving instructions, I never really ask for or rely upon others to give directions for driving somewhere. I just prefer to have an accurate map and figure out the way on my own. I'm not even a fan of the directions provided by Google Maps most of the time. Some routes may be shorter, but they take you through clustered intersections which can get a bit aggravating.

But either way, one will still be able to get to one's destination. I guess that's a key difference, if people can actually see the results in real time.

That may also be a key difference with some scientific topics, such as evolution. If it's not something that people can see happening before their eyes - or if it's something more abstract or can't really be easily understood by laymen - then people may resist it.

 

[F1fan]

This is an easy thread for certain types of thinkers. There are pretty easy conclusions for many discussions about binary sets of ideas like evolution versus creationism. The fuzziness for rational minds is when there is sets of evidence that do not allow a mind to make an easy or clear conclusion, namely like the guilt or innocence of people accused of crimes. We could examine cases where a person or people were convicted of crimes and later exonerated and see what went wrong with the cases.

But going back to the point of the thread many issues are easy for critical thinkers, the dilemma tends to be those folks with a bias, and this bias is either deliberate or unconscious. To my mind this is what interferes with many folks rejecting what is very well evidenced conclusions, like evolution. What causes a biased mind that is blind to convincing evidence?

 

[Nakosis]

We talk about truth, fact, and knowledge. I would suggest that these all refer to what we also call correct ideas. My question is, what are the qualities of a correct idea that distinguish it from an incorrect idea and allow us to call one correct and the other incorrect?

This is a trivial question when discussing things such as what the capital of Peru is, or whether somebody is still alive or not.

But how about when we say that evolution or creationism is a correct (or incorrect) idea? How about when somebody says a deity exists (or doesn't)? Exactly what do we mean when say that that is correct? Does it mean more than that is what we choose to believe?

When we say that man is a spiritual animal (or not), what exactly do we mean by saying that that is correct beyond that we choose to believe that? Or when was say that man is not an animal or an ape. What exactly are we saying if we say that that statement is correct beyond that that is what we choose to believe?

One definition of correct might be the quality possessed by an idea that accurately allows us to predict outcomes. Consider directions for getting somewhere. It's pretty easy to define the difference between correct directions and incorrect ones. Any set of directions that gets one to the desired destination is correct, albeit some routes may be less efficient than others. Incorrect directions are any that don't work, that get you to an undesired destination if followed. Most people would agree after a demonstration whether a given set of directions was correct or not.

Now consider two other kinds of situations:

[1] Atheists are people who don't believe in a god versus atheists are people who say that there is no deity. Which of these are correct? Which is incorrect.

[2] Man has an immortal soul that distinguishes him from the beasts. Correct or incorrect?

Why isn't the matter of correctness as easily resolved with these two as the driving instructions? Why is it that we seldom come to consensus the way we can with the driving instructions? What exactly are we saying analogous to "I say these directions are correct because they will get you to your destination" when we say that either of these other examples is correct or not?

I have opinions, but will save them until others have given theirs.

To be "correct" something has to be testable. You have to be able to verify the claim.
It can't be proven incorrect. You have to try to prove an idea is untrue or the opposite is true.
Some ideas can be superficially correct. Correct enough or correct in circumstances that are assumed to remain constant.

However, circumstances are constantly changing so one has to be willing to test or be aware that circumstances may change so what was previously accept as correct may no longer be so.

For example an earthquake might damage the road so previously correct directions may no longer work to get you to the required destination.

I suppose the point is that what is correct is dynamic.

For [1] both can be correct depending on various circumstances.
For [2] I don't see this as something that can be tested. One can believe whichever but I don't think the claim can be made whether it is correct or incorrect.
Well, one can still make the clam but it is a claim based on belief.

Personally, I would not make any claims about the correctness of what I believed.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not sure those three words are synonyms though. Under oath, I might stand up in court and recount something which I believe to be the "truth", as I perceived it. That is not necessarily "fact", it is certainly not "knowledge."

The three words do not, imo, necessarily all refer to "correct ideas."

Witness testimony is the worst kind in court cases, yet is often the most compelling to juries. Misidentification is one of the biggest reasons people are wrongly convicted. Psychology has done a lot of study to examine and identify witness bias, and it is almost unethical, to my mind, to allow certain witnesses to give testimony because they can truthfully believe false things. This means they aren't committing perjury. There have been cases where a witness couldn't identify a person immediately after an incident but weeks or months later could make a positive identification. This suggests some fishy goings on. Defense attorneys have to be careful not to badger witnesses because it can be seen by juries as a negative. Once people make up their minds that their judgment is true it becomes harder and harder for them to adjust back to uncertainty. This enters the phenomenon of false memories.

 

[Secret Chief]

Witness testimony is the worst kind in court cases, yet is often the most compelling to juries. Misidentification is one of the biggest reasons people are wrongly convicted. Psychology has done a lot of study to examine and identify witness bias, and it is almost unethical, to my mind, to allow certain witnesses to give testimony because they can truthfully believe false things. This means they aren't committing perjury. There have been cases where a witness couldn't identify a person immediately after an incident but weeks or months later could make a positive identification. This suggests some fishy goings on. Defense attorneys have to be careful not to badger witnesses because it can be seen by juries as a negative. Once people make up their minds that their judgment is true it becomes harder and harder for them to adjust back to uncertainty. This enters the phenomenon of false memories.

This is all true (haha!) but I don't see it as relevant to my point - the use and meanings of the three words and the fact (haha again) that they do not all essentially mean the same thing.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thanks for this input. I agree with most of what I have read so far.

My answer is that by correct, I mean demonstrably correct. Of the three ideas given as examples, only the directions can be said to be correct or incorrect. I appreciate the comment from @A Vestigial Mote that some directions are better than others, but regarding being correct, I'm going to say that any directions that get me to my desired destination are correct if it can be shown that following them yields the desired outcome.

I reserve the word correct for ideas that are demonstrably correct, meaning that they accurately map some aspect of reality in a way that allows one to successfully anticipate outcomes. Regarding @Secret Chief 's comment, yes, if you call ideas that are not demonstrably true, then the words correct, truth, fact, and knowledge need not knit together in a seamless way. But if one reserves what one calls true to the demonstrably true, they're all the same thing: truth is quality facts possess, facts being sentences that accurately and demonstrably map an aspect of reality and allow one to predict outcomes, knowledge being the collection of such ideas - one's fund of knowledge. The value in this formulation to me is that it is clear what can be called any of these and what cannot, and that the ideas relate to one another coherently.

For completeness sake, I'll add that when I say belief, I mean any idea considered correct, which includes ideas that can be called correct by the empiricist definition of correct/true/fact/knowledge just offered, but also those that cannot. I distinguish between the two by calling the former justified belief, and the latter unjustified belief, which is also my definition for a faith-based (in the religious sense of the word) belief. Thus, I don't include belief with the other ideas, just justified belief.

The problem with the definition of atheist is that definitions cannot be correct or incorrect. They are arbitrary constructs. Neither definition of atheist above can be demonstrated to be correct or incorrect, because they are not anchored to observation/experience/empiricism. There is nothing to show. I choose to define atheist as anybody with no god belief because that is the group of people I want to distinguish from all others in discussions like these most of the time, and separating those who affirm god's don't exist and calling only them atheists just isn't helpful.

And as a few have suggested, the problem with the immortal soul claim is once again related to the inability to demonstrate the correctness or incorrectness of the idea, making it an unjustified belief if it is believed. That claim comes from the world of unsupported belief - ideas not derived empirically and therefore not demonstrable empirically. These are the ideas at times also called unscientific, unfalsifiable, or "not even wrong."

This is the basis of a strictly empiricist epistemology. Correct mean demonstrably correct. Other ideas should not be considered correct. Which is what I believe that @F1fan meant by, "many issues are easy for critical thinkers." The critical thinker will be a skeptic and reject unsupported claims. He will also be an empiricist, accepting only demonstrable claims, and considering only beliefs acquired by that method justified, or correct.

 

[Audie]

We talk about truth, fact, and knowledge. I would suggest that these all refer to what we also call correct ideas. My question is, what are the qualities of a correct idea that distinguish it from an incorrect idea and allow us to call one correct and the other incorrect?

This is a trivial question when discussing things such as what the capital of Peru is, or whether somebody is still alive or not.

But how about when we say that evolution or creationism is a correct (or incorrect) idea? How about when somebody says a deity exists (or doesn't)? Exactly what do we mean when say that that is correct? Does it mean more than that is what we choose to believe?

When we say that man is a spiritual animal (or not), what exactly do we mean by saying that that is correct beyond that we choose to believe that? Or when was say that man is not an animal or an ape. What exactly are we saying if we say that that statement is correct beyond that that is what we choose to believe?

One definition of correct might be the quality possessed by an idea that accurately allows us to predict outcomes. Consider directions for getting somewhere. It's pretty easy to define the difference between correct directions and incorrect ones. Any set of directions that gets one to the desired destination is correct, albeit some routes may be less efficient than others. Incorrect directions are any that don't work, that get you to an undesired destination if followed. Most people would agree after a demonstration whether a given set of directions was correct or not.

Now consider two other kinds of situations:

[1] Atheists are people who don't believe in a god versus atheists are people who say that there is no deity. Which of these are correct? Which is incorrect.

[2] Man has an immortal soul that distinguishes him from the beasts. Correct or incorrect?

Why isn't the matter of correctness as easily resolved with these two as the driving instructions? Why is it that we seldom come to consensus the way we can with the driving instructions? What exactly are we saying analogous to "I say these directions are correct because they will get you to your destination" when we say that either of these other examples is correct or not?

I have opinions, but will save them until others have given theirs.

A good start is looking at whether the ideas
are based on emotions, or facts.

"I' ve a feeling that there is soething beyond..."
( and hence evolution is wrong) is entirely about
feelings, basically, self indulgence.

As Ben Franklin would say, " Emotions rule, but not well"

 

[Windwalker]

My question is, what are the qualities of a correct idea that distinguish it from an incorrect idea and allow us to call one correct and the other incorrect?

This is a trivial question when discussing things such as what the capital of Peru is, or whether somebody is still alive or not.

But how about when we say that evolution or creationism is a correct (or incorrect) idea? How about when somebody says a deity exists (or doesn't)? Exactly what do we mean when say that that is correct? Does it mean more than that is what we choose to believe?

Doesn't it depend upon the complexity of it? If you are dealing with concrete-literal objects, such as a rock vs. a stalk of celery, the answer is easy. We easily can easily identify certain objects with language, because that's simple. But if you were to ask does the rock or stalk of celery have a sense of self anywhere in its composition, or 'does life have purpose', the questions are enormously more abstract. So simple answers are going to not be as easily possible as when the possible understandings are simple.

When we say that man is a spiritual animal (or not), what exactly do we mean by saying that that is correct beyond that we choose to believe that?

It would be correct, or incorrect in accordance with the system of terms we are using to define these things. But since the word spiritual is understood in a lot of ways, you're not going to have an easy consensus. Just this morning in another thread, I had asked someone to explain what spiritual meant to them, for point of reference. They referred to it in terms of "spirit world", and as cognitive in nature, since they believed animals are incapable of thinking in those terms. That of course is not my understanding or use of that word.

So the question is, whose understanding is "correct", or is there even a correct understanding to be had? Considering it is an abstraction, like "love" for instance, it is by its very nature going to be anything but black and white easy things to examine. They are full of subtleties and nuance, influenced by experience, exposure, culture, and perception.

The real challenge is therefore not which one is correct, but how are each one correct in their own understandings? That is in reality, much more the way reality actually is. Only the most simplistic ways of perceiving things can be reduced down to black and white understandings.

One definition of correct might be the quality possessed by an idea that accurately allows us to predict outcomes.

I have no issue using that language when it comes to limited variables, such as directions to the store being accurate or inaccurate. But saying all of life can be reduced down to such simple variables, is frankly wishful thinking. It's a bit of an illusion seeking a sense of security in a reality that is staggeringly beyond comprehension in its complexities. That's what fundamentalists do with religion. That's what some modernists seek to find in science as well, which is a discussion we've had in the past.

There's a great quote from this essay I think of in saying this: Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance – Religion Online

The literal imagination is univocal. Words mean one thing, and one thing only. They don’t bristle with meanings and possibilities; they are bald, clean-shaven. Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty. Literalism pays a high price for the hope of having firm and unbreakable handles attached to reality. The result is to move in the opposite direction from religious symbolism, emptying symbols of their amplitude of meaning and power, reducing the cosmic dance to a calibrated discussion.

One of the ironies of biblical literalism is that it shares so largely in the reductionist and literalist spirit of the age. It is not nearly as conservative as it supposes. It is modernistic, and it sells its symbolic birthright for a mess of tangible pottage. Biblical materials and affirmations -- in this case the symbolism of Creator and creation – are treated as though of the same order and the same literary genre as scientific and historical writing. “I believe in God the Father Almighty” becomes a chronological issue, and “Maker of heaven and earth” a technological problem.​

The same thing applies to the modern atheist as it does to the religionist. Each falls victim to the same literalist trap. So when people speak of "spirit" or "God", they want something concrete and literal, something that is either correct, or incorrect. This is not what reality beyond measuring weights and distances and speeds of planets can be approached with. It is rather "incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy."

[1] Atheists are people who don't believe in a god versus atheists are people who say that there is no deity. Which of these are correct? Which is incorrect.

A better question is how are these both correct? Should we look at these things as "either/or", or should we consider them as "both/and"? Either/or thinking is limiting. Both/and thinking is liberating. It's a good practice to get into.

[2] Man has an immortal soul that distinguishes him from the beasts. Correct or incorrect?

From certain perspectives it can be true. From other perspectives it may not be. I think both can be true.

Why isn't the matter of correctness as easily resolved with these two as the driving instructions? Why is it that we seldom come to consensus the way we can with the driving instructions? What exactly are we saying analogous to "I say these directions are correct because they will get you to your destination" when we say that either of these other examples is correct or not?

I have opinions, but will save them until others have given theirs.

It really depends on how limited the variables and complexity of what is being asked is. While we can have a million opinions on what love is, when it comes to "is the gas tank full of gas or not", there really is only two possible answers.

 

[PureX]

We talk about truth, fact, and knowledge. I would suggest that these all refer to what we also call correct ideas. My question is, what are the qualities of a correct idea that distinguish it from an incorrect idea and allow us to call one correct and the other incorrect?

1. The idea 'works' when applied to actual circumstances. Theory: my car will be found where I last parked it. I go there. The car is found there. So the theory is deemed "correct" and will then be presumed correct in the future.

2. The idea makes "logical" sense given the information from which it has been derived. Bob bought a widget from Walmart and attached it to his lawnmower and his lawnmower now runs much faster and smoother than before. If I go buy one of those widgets at Walmart and attach it to my lawnmower, it will also run much faster and smoother than before.

3. The idea must be accepted as correct, in advance, by necessity. Everyday I wake up not knowing what the day will bring. Yet every day I plan an itinerary that presumes to know what the day will bring. And that itinerary then dictates, to a significant degree, what the day brings, for me.

4. The idea is accepted as true because it's not false, and I (we) want it to be true. My dog loves me.

There are probably more examples, but these are what came to mind just now.

This is a trivial question when discussing things such as what the capital of Peru is, or whether somebody is still alive or not.

But how about when we say that evolution or creationism is a correct (or incorrect) idea? How about when somebody says a deity exists (or doesn't)? Exactly what do we mean when say that that is correct? Does it mean more than that is what we choose to believe?

Honestly. I never hear anyone say such ideas are "correct" or "incorrect". What they almost always say is that they "believe" them, or don't. And unfortunately, they almost never actually clarify what they mean by that. Do they mean they believe it comports with actual historical fact? Or just that it's true according to their own conceptual ideal of truth? Do they mean they are choosing to assume it's the way things are until they find out otherwise? Or do they mean something else that I am not imagining? And do they even know what they mean?

When we say that man is a spiritual animal (or not), what exactly do we mean by saying that that is correct beyond that we choose to believe that? Or when was say that man is not an animal or an ape. What exactly are we saying if we say that that statement is correct beyond that that is what we choose to believe?

Again, no one ever says that such a statement is "correct". (Except you, just now.) And if they do not clarify what they mean when they say "I believe ...", then we don't really know what they mean. Because they could mean a lot of very different things by such a vague, incomplete statement.

Almost all the difficulty and disagreement around here is due to exactly this kind of vague statement-making. And a lot of it is being generated by minds that are themselves very vague and unclear. Such that to ask for clarification and better articulation, is hopeless.

One definition of correct might be the quality possessed by an idea that accurately allows us to predict outcomes.

Yes, that is one. But it is only one. And it's not the only one. Just sayin'.

Now consider two other kinds of situations:

[1] Atheists are people who don't believe in a god versus atheists are people who say that there is no deity. Which of these are correct? Which is incorrect.

Both are incomplete and therefor vague and inarticulate. Until the people making such statements are able to clarify and articulate the particulars of the idea that they are supposedly proclaiming, then there is no way for us to know.

[2] Man has an immortal soul that distinguishes him from the beasts. Correct or incorrect?

Again, until the ideal behind the statement is clarified and articulated properly, we can't know what "correctness" would even have to do with it. "Correct" according to what?

Why isn't the matter of correctness as easily resolved with these two as the driving instructions? Why is it that we seldom come to consensus the way we can with the driving instructions? What exactly are we saying analogous to "I say these directions are correct because they will get you to your destination" when we say that either of these other examples is correct or not?

Because our interaction with the world around us in not always a matter of the physical facts. It's also very much a matter of our interpretation of the facts, both physical and circumstantial. And for us to effectively communicate these interpretations to each other, we have to take the time to think them through, and articulate them fully and properly. And most of the time, we don't bother to do that. So we create confusion and then exacerbate it by trying to defend ourselves when even we don't know what we're saying.

 

[Stevicus]

Witness testimony is the worst kind in court cases, yet is often the most compelling to juries. Misidentification is one of the biggest reasons people are wrongly convicted. Psychology has done a lot of study to examine and identify witness bias, and it is almost unethical, to my mind, to allow certain witnesses to give testimony because they can truthfully believe false things. This means they aren't committing perjury. There have been cases where a witness couldn't identify a person immediately after an incident but weeks or months later could make a positive identification. This suggests some fishy goings on. Defense attorneys have to be careful not to badger witnesses because it can be seen by juries as a negative. Once people make up their minds that their judgment is true it becomes harder and harder for them to adjust back to uncertainty. This enters the phenomenon of false memories.

Some of the thoughts you raise here had me thinking about the Asch Conformity Experiments (Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia). It showed how subjects can be made to yield or give in to peer pressure and end up conforming to and/or believing erroneous, incorrect information.

It seems that there might be any number of ways people who might be stronger-willed can manipulate, trick, or compel others to go along with them. Prosecutors or police officers might be able to use it with witnesses or suspects. Politicians use it with constituents. Journalists, salespeople, advertisers can do it at times.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We talk about truth, fact, and knowledge. I would suggest that these all refer to what we also call correct ideas. My question is, what are the qualities of a correct idea that distinguish it from an incorrect idea and allow us to call one correct and the other incorrect?

Pain is the #1 quality which causes people to identify a correct versus and incorrect idea. The reason is found in child development courses. The infant begins with no identity, eventually separating from its mother, then begins to differentiate the two mothers (one good one bad), then the two worlds (one good one bad) and eventually begins to understand that the two are not separate but are one experience. It should not be surprising that our ideas of good and evil are easily confused with beautiful and ugly, with pain and pleasure, stinky vs fragrant, hard versus easy. We begin with this very concrete foundation. That which is easy we tend to call 'Good'.

Why isn't the matter of correctness as easily resolved with these two as the driving instructions? Why is it that we seldom come to consensus the way we can with the driving instructions? What exactly are we saying analogous to "I say these directions are correct because they will get you to your destination" when we say that either of these other examples is correct or not?

Emotions overwhelm people, particularly mothers and fathers. They lose themselves in the process of parenting. The same can be said for people in other extreme conditions such as slavery or other levels of oppression. You're talking about a level of abstraction which is discouraged in nature. Maslowe's Hierarchy of needs shows this.

 

[QuestioningMind]

We talk about truth, fact, and knowledge. I would suggest that these all refer to what we also call correct ideas. My question is, what are the qualities of a correct idea that distinguish it from an incorrect idea and allow us to call one correct and the other incorrect?

This is a trivial question when discussing things such as what the capital of Peru is, or whether somebody is still alive or not.

But how about when we say that evolution or creationism is a correct (or incorrect) idea? How about when somebody says a deity exists (or doesn't)? Exactly what do we mean when say that that is correct? Does it mean more than that is what we choose to believe?

When we say that man is a spiritual animal (or not), what exactly do we mean by saying that that is correct beyond that we choose to believe that? Or when was say that man is not an animal or an ape. What exactly are we saying if we say that that statement is correct beyond that that is what we choose to believe?

One definition of correct might be the quality possessed by an idea that accurately allows us to predict outcomes. Consider directions for getting somewhere. It's pretty easy to define the difference between correct directions and incorrect ones. Any set of directions that gets one to the desired destination is correct, albeit some routes may be less efficient than others. Incorrect directions are any that don't work, that get you to an undesired destination if followed. Most people would agree after a demonstration whether a given set of directions was correct or not.

Now consider two other kinds of situations:

[1] Atheists are people who don't believe in a god versus atheists are people who say that there is no deity. Which of these are correct? Which is incorrect.

[2] Man has an immortal soul that distinguishes him from the beasts. Correct or incorrect?

Why isn't the matter of correctness as easily resolved with these two as the driving instructions? Why is it that we seldom come to consensus the way we can with the driving instructions? What exactly are we saying analogous to "I say these directions are correct because they will get you to your destination" when we say that either of these other examples is correct or not?

I have opinions, but will save them until others have given theirs.

It all comes down to verifiable evidence and withholding belief until such verifiable evidence is available. That means having to accept I Don't Know as the answer at times, something than many people find very difficult. They'd rather take a stance based on unverifiable evidence than accept that they simply don't have enough evidence to make a definitive claim.

 

[F1fan]

Some of the thoughts you raise here had me thinking about the Asch Conformity Experiments (Asch conformity experiments - Wikipedia). It showed how subjects can be made to yield or give in to peer pressure and end up conforming to and/or believing erroneous, incorrect information.

It seems that there might be any number of ways people who might be stronger-willed can manipulate, trick, or compel others to go along with them. Prosecutors or police officers might be able to use it with witnesses or suspects. Politicians use it with constituents. Journalists, salespeople, advertisers can do it at times.

Those are excellent studies, along with the Milgram studies about compliance to authority.

From having discussed evolution with theists for many decades it seems to me a number of influences and phenomenon at work. They really think their religious views have authority and truth, and this gives them a reason to question science. But they don't seem to understand how they are being manipulated, thus don't realize they have an option. They really feel powerless to question their religious dogma but have no hesitation to question science. I suspect these believers are bowing to the authority of those in religious power, whether that be their "God" or rather the middlemen to God.

 

[PureX]

Those are excellent studies, along with the Milgram studies about compliance to authority.

From having discussed evolution with theists for many decades it seems to me a number of influences and phenomenon at work. They really think their religious views have authority and truth, and this gives them a reason to question science. But they don't seem to understand how they are being manipulated, thus don't realize they have an option. They really feel powerless to question their religious dogma but have no hesitation to question science. I suspect these believers are bowing to the authority of those in religious power, whether that be their "God" or rather the middlemen to God.

Interestingly, I see the same being true, in reverse. That there is an increasing number of people, mostly anti-religious atheists, for whom to question the methodology of science is beyond comprehension. Very much like the theists, they have deemed their 'scientific' methodology sacrosanct. Unassailable. They wouldn't even know how to go about doubting it. To suggest such a thing to them is literally incomprehensible to them.

As an excellent example of this, see the very next comment, below ...

 

[F1fan]

Interestingly, I see the same being true, in reverse. That there is an increasing number of people, mostly anti-religious atheists, for whom to question the methodology of science is beyond comprehension.

This statement of yours implies science is faulty in some way. It's vague and offers no evidence or examples. This is the type of confusion and misinformation theists try to employ in discussions to muddy any sort of real discussion. Let's note that science has to police science. Peer review helps provide an ethical core to science.

Very much like the theists, they have deemed their 'scientific' methodology sacrosanct. Unassailable. They wouldn't even know how to go about doubting it. To suggest such a thing to them is literally incomprehensible to them.

This is a type of poisoning the well fallacy that tries to discredit science and atheists. It's a vague accusation and offers no serious explanation nor examples, yet again. This smacks of habitual bias.

 

[F1fan]

1. The idea 'works' when applied to actual circumstances. Theory: my car will be found where I last parked it. I go there. The car is found there. So the theory is deemed "correct" and will then be presumed correct in the future.

The word theory as you use it here is confusion and a poor option. Of course this definition of theory means guess, or speculation, or expectation. It has no relation to the word used for a scientific theory.

We have to be very careful about word usage by theists and they can often be trying to be misleading. I always wonder if it's a bad habit, or if theists are aware and deliberate when they are trying to commit this language fraud.