Self-examination and revision of opinion. Does it happen and with whom?

[Jim]

It is not just knowing what I know, because my personal knowledge and perspective has its limits too. But that there is something to know that goes beyond the emotional need to support what is believed and seeking any remedy to provide that support. The belief I am talking about are those concepts associated and often in opposition to concepts where there is a strong base of known information that has logical and rational explanations. Using those things closest to me, I see people making assertions that have no factual basis to counter issues that are based in facts. In addition, the logic of the thinking employed to support those assertions is often flawed and full of fallacies. The appearance is that these people feel their core belief is being challenged and out of fear, ignorance and desire, will readily accept information that is erroneous. They want to believe it, because they see it as opposing a view they consider to be dangerous. Considering how often the same erroneous information resurfaces makes it difficult to accept that it has been reviewed and compared to what is known in science. In most cases, it is also clear that proponents of that propensity do not understand the science they are in opposition to or that it really says nothing about their core beliefs.

Discussions and debates are supposed to help inform us and when one side is repeatedly suggesting to the other side that they need to seek better sources to base their arguments on, and this is so obviously rejected without review it can be frustrating.

My concern over this and the problems it causes are the perpetuation of erroneous information and that it is perpetuated by, perhaps well-intentioned, people that keep the cycle of ignorance alive by continually turning to it.

Common sense and popular knowledge have their place and are sometimes useful sources of thinking and information, but they can also be places were a lot of poor logic and false ideas thrive. Often popular knowledge about historical figures or events does not reflect information that is the result of scholarly research. Washington did not chop down a cherry tree. Billy the Kid was not a criminal mastermind that had shot 21 men before he was 21.

Perhaps much of this information has no direct impact on our daily lives and a person can live successfully without ever knowing much science or specific facts of science, but the process of replacing valid knowledge with erroneous information does not stop in one place and can take place at any level. Even levels that do impact the daily lives of people. Really, there is no way to stop it, but there are ways to manage it and minimize it. Getting people to think about the information that they believe to be true and review it for verification is one way to do that.

I think the problem is far larger than getting people to know what I think I know. I do not think that it stops with me, just because I think I know something.

I will probably have to leave it here for now and come back later to add more.

I’m still interested in this, but I’m taking a break from the forums for now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m still interested in this, but I’m taking a break from the forums for now.

Sounds good. We can pick it up at any time. I'll use this to review your remaining posts and provide some response.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m ready now to try to answer your question. I’ve been thinking about times when I had a theory, and I didn’t like seeing possible counter-examples. For example, most of my life I’ve had some kind of theory about Who Rules The World. If I saw something poking holes in my theory, all I wanted to do was try to patch them up. The reason for that might have been because I liked my story, and maybe I was proud of it. I feel like there was more to it than that, but I can’t find words for it.

Another possible reason I see for people clinging to their views is because sometimes they use them to excuse unloving attitudes and behavior towards others, and giving up those views would mean some things they said and did were wrong.

Another reason I see for people clinging to their views is that they think they have to endorse those views, to feel welcome in some social circle.

A few days ago I had some new ideas about why people do what they do, and a thought came to me that I will never stop having new ideas about it. I need to learn to think about what to, without knowing everything there is to know about that.

I like the examples you have come up with and they are some of the same thoughts for reasons that I have on the subject.

I suppose the problem that I see is not the existence of beliefs that are different for everyone, but how those beliefs are applied to the world. When I see people claiming knowledge that they obviously do not possess, I find that troubling, since there are those that may not recognize the lie and think that they are receiving information from an authoritative source. Another instance is where very old and widely-refuted assertions and arguments are brought to bear on a current issue as if they have never before been seen. Clearly, the person is unfamiliar with the entire debate and has not even bothered to evaluate the information they are using. Another instance is when someone is making things up out of nothing. Not as common as an entire argument, but I have seen pieces of arguments that were clearly fabrications spun out on the fly.

I am not interested in trying to show that someone's religious or political beliefs are wrong. There is no way I could do that, nor would want to do that. It is the application of those beliefs that is of interest to me. Especially where they are applied to subjects that are well supported and logically sound.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think some people take their opinions much too seriously. Opinions are just opinions, they can and should change in the light of new experience. They don't define who a person is.

Some people do. Even I do.

I agree. Opinions should be supported, updated, revised, or rejected on new information. It is that change that is important to me and why some do not seem to change their opinion in light of any information.

That is a great point, but I think for some people they feel that rejection of an opinion is rejection of their entire way of believing and them as a person too. It shouldn't be, but that it seems to be is illustrated regularly in all walks of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If that was part of some honest and responsible research, I wouldn’t object to it. I will say though, that I don’t think that any honest and responsible research would have any interest in defining groups of people that way. I still don’t see how defining groups that way is relevant to how to communicate with people when their attachment to their views is getting in the way. In fact, I think that it creates useless distractions fro that purpose. Besides, I wasn’t objecting to grouping people according to how they use information, what that information is and how they apply it. What I was objecting to was imagining some groups of people who hold views based on evidence, and some other groups of people who hold views based purely on faith, picturing them as mutually exclusive and opposed to each other, and inviting people on your side of an imaginary dividing line to make depreciating speculations about the character and capacities of people on the other side.

I do not think they have to be mutually exclusive. They would not be for me. But the issue remains that for some people, these are mutually exclusive. Why that is, is of interest to me. What can be done to reach people with that view is also of interest. Is it even possible? Is just ignoring them and letting them publicize obvious misinformation the best or only way to deal with them rationally. Personally, I think presenting valid information in response to them and staying on point is the best way to go. But I am a person too and subject to my own frailties. Also, I have seen that some people intentionally derail the conversation in order to portray themselves as some sort of victim, when it is they that have created the atmosphere they are whining about. You may find that my choice of words, "whining", is objectionable, but I do not know of any better description for what I have seen.

When a question concerning people is asked, studied and observations are made, the responses or behaviors observed can often lead to comparisons that lead to natural groupings. This is not malicious, but the objective results of observation and evaluation. In taking a political poll, there will be natural groupings that appear based on the responses to the poll. Noting this is not irresponsible in my opinion. What is done with this information is where responsibility is important. It should not be used to abuse any particular group. That would be irresponsible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville Just now I went back and read all the posts in this thread, and now I’m regretting what I said about my objection to some things you said.

I am not sure that regret is in order, but I will leave that for you to decide. I think you are doing exactly what is at the core of my questions. You are reviewing your work and revising it as you see is fit.

Personally, I have found your comments stimulating to my thoughts even where we seem to disagree. It would hardly be of any use to either of us, if we were just giving each other props and no constructive review.

 

[Jim]

I am not sure that regret is in order, but I will leave that for you to decide. I think you are doing exactly what is at the core of my questions. You are reviewing your work and revising it as you see is fit.

Personally, I have found your comments stimulating to my thoughts even where we seem to disagree. It would hardly be of any use to either of us, if we were just giving each other props and no constructive review.

Mostly what I was regretting was saying that your OP was inviting people to make depreciating speculations about a category of people. I don’t see that actually happening in this thread, so it looks like I had no reason to be concerned about it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mostly what I was regretting was saying that your OP was inviting people to make depreciating speculations about a category of people. I don’t see that actually happening in this thread, so it looks like I had no reason to be concerned about it.

I admit that an attempt at arguing science with a creationist inspired me to post my thoughts and questions, but these were questions and a topic I had previously recorded in a list of topics for threads. It is not my intention to attack people, but to understand why they persist on making claims with obviously poor information where they can check that information for themselves. Or where numerous people have tried to explain where the information is flawed.

As I have said, I have no way to question a person's religious, political or economic views, just to challenge the claims that they make. I also would not want to. Mine are the only personal views I can question and that is part of my being here in the first place.

 

[Jim]

... to understand why they persist on making claims with obviously poor information where they can check that information for themselves. Or where numerous people have tried to explain where the information is flawed.

Do you have any more thoughts or questions about that?

A few days ago I was thinking more generally that people aren’t living the best lives they can, because instead of trying to learn all they can about their best possibilities in life, and reaching for them, they’re letting their desires, impulses and reflexes make their decisions for them. Instead of using their minds to find better things to do and better ways of doing them, they use them to make up reasons for what their desires, impulses, reflexes and other unconscious processes have already decided for them to do.

 

[Jim]

... to understand why they persist on making claims with obviously poor information where they can check that information for themselves. Or where numerous people have tried to explain where the information is flawed.

There might be no end to the possible reasons for people clinging to their views. I’m wondering if part of what you’re wondering about is why people sometimes don’t seem to care what science says. I don’t care what science says, so maybe I can help you with that.

 

[Jim]

@Dan From Smithville More precisely, I don’t care what anyone in media stories or Internet discussions, or any number of people with science degrees, say that science says.

 

[Jim]

Is it simply that we have to recognize that some people do not evaluate the information they use and will use anything, so we just ignore them?

That’s the position I see myself in with people on all sides of the debating. It looks to me like people on all sides are debating about a world that they see in some media and faction stories, and no one cares how much or how little that world resembles the offline world of actual experience. The debating is an end in itself, for socializing and recreational purposes, without anyone expecting or hoping for it to have any consequences in the outside world. After butting my head against that for more than fifteen years, I’ve decided now to just talk to each person within their own imaginary world. Now that I think of it, that might be just as good for all of my purposes in Internet discussions, or maybe even better. I’m surprised now that I never thought of that before.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s the position I see myself in with people on all sides of the debating. It looks to me like people on all sides are debating about a world that they see in some media and faction stories, and no one cares how much or how little that world resembles the offline world of actual experience. The debating is an end in itself, for socializing and recreational purposes, without anyone expecting or hoping for it to have any consequences in the outside world. After butting my head against that for more than fifteen years, I’ve decided now to just talk to each person within their own imaginary world. Now that I think of it, that might be just as good for all of my purposes in Internet discussions, or maybe even better. I’m surprised now that I never thought of that before.

I have appreciated our discussions. They have been fruitful to me. Clearly, it is easy to write these questions and try to address them in a way that could be interpreted as an attack. I see that as useful to awareness and review. Even if it does not address the questions, it is still important to be aware of that.

I cannot bring myself to cater to the fantasies of people that are using poor information or purposefully trying to misinform, when they appear to know better. But I kind of see your point. They are probably not going to change and we are back to my original point of posting the best information one has available and then ignoring those people that are not going to change no matter what information is made available.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville More precisely, I don’t care what anyone in media stories or Internet discussions, or any number of people with science degrees, say that science says.

I care that they get it right to the best of my knowledge. When they are clearly posting false information or way over their heads, that should be made clear. Even if they do not intend to listen or to carry on some sort of perverted debate that is just a propaganda campaign.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There might be no end to the possible reasons for people clinging to their views. I’m wondering if part of what you’re wondering about is why people sometimes don’t seem to care what science says. I don’t care what science says, so maybe I can help you with that.

Why do you not care what science says on a subject within its realm?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you have any more thoughts or questions about that?

A few days ago I was thinking more generally that people aren’t living the best lives they can, because instead of trying to learn all they can about their best possibilities in life, and reaching for them, they’re letting their desires, impulses and reflexes make their decisions for them. Instead of using their minds to find better things to do and better ways of doing them, they use them to make up reasons for what their desires, impulses, reflexes and other unconscious processes have already decided for them to do.

I think that is precisely one of the main drivers behind clinging to poor information when better information is available. They have an emotional attachment to a larger position and see anything that might impact that larger position as a threat and respond emotionally, rather than rationally. I have a passion for science, that is emotion, but it is tempered and managed. I do not place that passion over information that may support my position or lead to a revision or rejection of it. Like anyone, I do not want to reject that which I have long considered to be the best information, but as a scientist, I realize I have to keep that possibility in mind and follow through when it becomes an actuality. The problem I encounter are people that insist the science should be rejected, when they clearly have no understanding of it and are demanding rejection based solely on their emotions.

 

[Jim]

Why do you not care what science says on a subject within its realm?

I revised that, and I see that I need to revise my revision. I thought that part of what you were wondering about is why people sometimes don’t seem to care if they’re contradicting what science says. I’m saying that I don’t care either if I’m contradicting what science says. If the results of some research looked to me like a counter-example to some theory of mine, I would want to revise my theory, but I don’t think that’s ever what anyone means by “what science says.” It looks to me like what people mean by “what science says” is whatever their favorite media and faction sources say it says, which is always a misrepresentation of the personal opinions of some people with science degrees. What I’m saying is that I don’t care if I’m contradicting some misrepresentations of the personal opinions of some people with science degrees.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I revised that, and I see that I need to revise my revision. I thought that part of what you were wondering about is why people sometimes don’t seem to care if they’re contradicting what science says. I’m saying that I don’t care either if I’m contradicting what science says. If the results of some research looked to me like a counter-example to some theory of mine, I would want to revise my theory, but I don’t think that’s ever what anyone means by “what science says.” It looks to me like what people mean by “what science says” is whatever their favorite media and faction sources say it says, which is always a misrepresentation of the personal opinions of some people with science degrees. What I’m saying is that I don’t care if I’m contradicting some misrepresentations of the personal opinions of some people with science degrees.

I have not run across a lot of people that are educated in science and/or practicing science that are spouting personal opinions about the science. At least not in the sense that you may mean it. Perhaps it would be clearer if you would elaborate on that.

A scientist is a person and does have personal opinions about things, but when the topic is a science topic, every effort should be made and I think here it is made to promote the best available knowledge on that subject. There personal opinion may be that they have no reason to believe in God or that they are Christian, but that is immaterial to the subject being debated and discussed. Is that the kind of personal opinion you mean?

 

[Jim]

I cannot bring myself to cater to the fantasies of people that are using poor information or purposefully trying to misinform, when they appear to know better. But I kind of see your point. They are probably not going to change and we are back to my original point of posting the best information one has available and then ignoring those people that are not going to change no matter what information is made available.

What I’m thinking now is that the other person and I can get some good ideas and encouragement from each other, in a discussion about their imaginary world, and that will do both of us, and the world, more good than either ignoring them, or trying to drag them into my imaginary world, against their will. I will tell them about my imaginary world, if I see a possibility that it might interest them, but if it doesn’t, I’ll go into their world with them, for purposes of discussion. Even if the world we’re discussing is purely imaginary, we might still get some useful and beneficial ideas and encouragement from each other.

 

[Jim]

I have not run across a lot of people that are educated in science and/or practicing science that are spouting personal opinions about the science. At least not in the sense that you may mean it. Perhaps it would be clearer if you would elaborate on that.

A scientist is a person and does have personal opinions about things, but when the topic is a science topic, every effort should be made and I think here it is made to promote the best available knowledge on that subject. There personal opinion may be that they have no reason to believe in God or that they are Christian, but that is immaterial to the subject being debated and discussed. Is that the kind of personal opinion you mean?

It might help to consider a specific example. I’m not sure, but I’m thinking that you might be wondering why people arguing for creationism don’t care if they are contradicting what science says. If that’s part of what you’re wondering about, what do you think that science says, that you think contradicts creationism? For example, if you think that science says that the earth is more than 6000 years old, where do you see science saying that?