When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

[Native]

Bias is helpful when it is rational. I have a bias against drunk driving based on experience, based on comparing it to sober driving. Eliminating bias is not a goal. Eliminating irrational bias is.

How would you use this your method on cosmological ideas which cannot be causally and rationally explained? For instants Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy?

 

[Native]

Science gave us this vaccine. It's changed my life from shut-in to somebody that can go out again. It's saving lives. But I guess because of consensus and bias and not achieving truth according to you, you think that we should disesteem it like you do.

IMO you´re a victim of the medical bias which claims to rescue your health which initially and basically depends on your actual immune system and if this is optimized by natural means or not.

You can ask yourself why it is that lots of persons aren´t affected at all by covid vira. This was/is the question the medical scientists should/could have asked themselves instead of blindly worshipping their biased virologic consensus group thinking and the belief that everything can be cured by vaccines.

 

[Native]

Again, so you say without evidence.

We have another person here on RF who posts like you do. He likes to tell skeptical empiricists that their not as reasonable as they think, never seeing his own arguments in that light. He will tell you that whatever your opinion, it is invalid because because you don't know how badly people really think, never seeing that he disqualifies his own opinions. I assume that he thinks that he is above the illusion that the rest of us allegedly suffer from that we can come to sound conclusions applying reason to evidence, and that this is a superior method for deciding what is true about the world. This is you as well - others are blinded by cognitive biases, which you see clearly and without bias.

He also never offers evidence, just pronouncements.

Apparently you cannot differ between philosophical arguments from other debaters against the standing scientific methods and the biased scientific belief system.

Again this is a question of being able to think independently outside the standing group thinking black box - and this is also way you´re having troubles understanding opposite arguments and evidences/indications. It simply requires alternate philosophical thinking and changes of paradigms.

 

[Native]

I'm not seeing the bias. We learn by adding on new information to what we previously had. If the new information is consistent with the previous theory, there is no need to update it. If the new information is NOT consistent with the previous theory, the theory needs to be updated.

It all depends on whether the prime assumed theory is firmly based - which it isn´t when it needs further assumptions. If not being revised or abandoned when contradicted, it leads to further biased assumptions.

 

[Native]

Not true. I have considered the opposing viewpoints, and have asked what evidence supports them and how their ideas can be tested. No sufficient response was ever offered, which led me to discount those ideas.

Not true either. You have considered opposing viewpoints according to your biased perceptions, which is why you reject most of the viewpoints. You´re are to a certain degree stuck in the consensus group thinking which is useless when it comes to find new solutions to long time cosmological inconsistencies.

 

[Native]

We try to push every edge to see if it gives. We test to see if the next decimal place is off from reality as determined by our observations. We learn when the old approximations work and when they fail.

"WE" = The scientific group thinkers very seldom changes anything. Those "WE" rather prefer to add more assumptions to the initial ones.

 

[Native]

Subject: Ancient consensus group intuitive senses instead of thinking.

In this Religious Forum it should be publically known from studying Comparative Mythology and Religion that the ancient Stories of Creation is very similar in all cultures.

This "group thinking" derived from observation of the seasons on the Earth, on the observation of the Sun, Moon, Planets, Stars, Star Constellations and on the observation of the Milky Way contours.

Our ancestors didn´t differ between physical and "spiritual" observations as much of their correspondence with nature on and above the Earth came by intuitive skills and senses and provided a cosmic knowledge in large.

- When leaving this natural connection, the human knowledge became very fragmented and more and more based on measurements and technological instruments.

The ancient cosmological conviction that everything is cyclic, has now become a linear time scale perception of the Universe - and to lots of speculations of how everything once came to be.

The fact that such a linear idea doesn´t obey the law of energy conservation, doesn´t seem to bother the modern speculators the least.

This - and lots of other modern speculative cosmological issues - was of course not a problem for the consensus cyclical group intuitive feelers in ancient times.

 

[blü 2]

Apparently you didn´t get the basic message: To think outside the squared black box in order to prosper in general. I took this message also to count for long time standing problematic theories in modern astrophysics and cosmology.

I think his message was very slim on substance, and he could greatly have strengthened whatever he was trying to say by backing it with evidence. His neglect to do so is glaring.

The real problem isn't new ideas or thinking outside the box, it's fear of being the exception. And of course new ideas don't come with a warranty that they're winners. They may well be winners only for particular personalities in particular circumstances having particular kinds of good luck.

Regarding cosmology, I think you have to differ between direct cosmological observations and indirect cosmological assumptions of which much, for instants, are ascribed to "dark cosmological issues" which mostly/only fits the theoretical thoughts in hypothesis and not are confirmed by direct observations.

You're being rather unfair to the cosmologists, who detected the problem and have been more than frank about what they don't know, even as they search for answers.

 

[Native]

I think his message was very slim on substance, and he could greatly have strengthened whatever he was trying to say by backing it with evidence. His neglect to do so is glaring.

As pointed out, his purpose was the philosophical question of changing attitude and method in order to gain new advances. You have to find the examples yourself.

You're being rather unfair to the cosmologists, who detected the problem and have been more than frank about what they don't know, even as they search for answers.

My critical points are not against those who discover a problem, but on those scientists who don´t revise or abandon the former theoretical assumptions connected to the problem.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How would you use this your method on cosmological ideas which cannot be causally and rationally explained? For instants Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy?

What I wrote was, "Bias is helpful when it is rational." It's not a method.

IMO you´re a victim of the medical bias which claims to rescue your health

My opinions about the ability of the current vaccines to protect those willing and able to take them don't come from anybody else's opinions. They come from the data telling us how the vaccinated and unvaccinated are faring. So far, the instances of severe disease, some leading to death, are overwhelmingly more likely to occur to the unvaccinated. I don't know what you mean by bias other than that you won't accept what the data suggest, but those are the kinds of things that I base my opinions on, and when I conclude that A is better than B, which is a bias, it is based in the proper application of reason to those data.

The indiscriminate use of the word bias in an unapproving manner to imply that all bias is problematic is a logical error. There surely are good and very helpful biases. If you disagree, please explain why a bias against pedophilia is a problem to you. I have thousands of biases. I won't eat food I find on the sidewalk. Does that bias make me a bad person in your eyes?

Again this is a question of being able to think independently outside the standing group thinking black box

Anybody can do that, but few can do it well. You seem to think that just being able to think differently is a virtue. Being different in and of itself is not a virtue:

this is also way you´re having troubles understanding opposite arguments and evidences/indications. It simply requires alternate philosophical thinking and changes of paradigms.

First, you have not offered any evidence that I have trouble understanding anything relevant to this discussion. Rejecting claims is not the same as not understanding them.

Also, I'm not interested in any type of thinking that circumvents reason applied to evidence. No other "philosophical thinking" generates useful ideas about reality, by which I mean ideas that accurately map some aspect of reality sufficiently well to be able to anticipate outcomes accurately while navigating it. If your way can't deliver that, it can't compete with mine.

What else matters in a belief other than that it can do that? If it can't do that, it doesn't matter whether you hold it or not.

Think about all of things that people believe that can't be used to make life better, safer, longer, more gratifying, more comfortable, or whatever it is that one seeks. Assuming that they don't do the opposite, say make one less safe, for example, then they are pointless beliefs. If they do, they are harmful beliefs

How do I justify stating the fact that we are innately biased by our chosen concept of 'reality'? How could we possibly NOT be?

It doesn't matter to me how you do so, only if you do so. If you cannot support your claims with compelling argument, then they are just opinions, even if they happen to be correct ones. Somebody might actually tell me what tonight's winning lottery numbers are, but without also offering a compelling argument why his claim should be believed, it's simply another opinion like all of the wrong guesses.

How does our being innately biased "disqualify all thought"?

As you use the word, it deforms all thought. You use the word as if it were a defect of thought rather than one of the principal reasons that intelligent animals can distinguish between exploitable opportunities and pitfalls. As I use the word, bias can be a virtue if it is rational, if it is a bias against that which does harm.

What evidence do you need beyond your own fallible cognitive capabilities? AND your own denial of them!

I need compelling evidence before believing. Unsupported claims can't accomplish that.

Well, they aren't. That's a fact.

You're usual compelling argument: 'Here's my opinion. Believe it. It's a fact.' Sorry, but one of my rational biases is to not accept such claims. It protects me from from useless and bad ideas to have a valid criterion for which to believe. It's why I'm vaccinated. And an atheist.

Because if one is making that assumption (and many here do make that assumption) then science is failing at that, miserably, and obviously. ... And often.

Science has been stunningly successful. You seem to be unaware. This is what I have been calling the cult of anti-scientism - an irrational verbal assault on science as a tool for discerning what is true about reality, generally in the defense of faith-based alternatives that science fails to support if not actually contradict. I asked you to demonstrate useful knowledge obtained by any other method than empiricism (experience), and I got crickets. What other choice do you have apart from offering some idea believed by faith that was somehow useful for something. Think of astrology. Think of climate deniers. Think of theology. How about the flat earthers? This is what I mean by useless, sterile thought - unable to generate a single idea that can be used to help make correct decision.

So the "dicta of science" being consistently wrong is how it shows itself to be more reliable that faith, intuition, fantasy, etc.,? Science constantly has to "modify it's narrative" because it's consistently wrong. Yet somehow you imagine that this makes it less wrong than any other method we humans use to try and gain some understanding of truth. And even as you write this lunacy, you still can't see that it is lunacy! It's amazing!

The dicta of science are not consistently wrong. What a bizarre comment. You are using science now to communicate your thoughts. Are you unaware? Are you unaware that the dicta of science employed to make that possible are correct?

What is your criterion for truth, fact, or knowledge? Mine is empirical. If an idea doesn't accurately map a portion of reality such that I can use it to successfully navigate that terrain, then it is useless and cannot be included in any of the categories named above. Much like a literal map, where "ideas" are the lines showing roads or railroads or shorelines or whatever the terrain actually entails. If one follows such a map, one can only call it truthful if it conforms to the reality it intends to represent. If it gets you to your desired destination efficiently, it is a true map, a factual map, and can be considered knowledge.

If that's not your epistemology, then some or all of your beliefs will be faith-based, meaning that nothing generated by assuming them as truth, fact, or knowledge will be of any use. And if your method of deciding what is true is not reason and evidence based (faith based), then there is no means for resolving our differences. I have nothing else to offer in defense of my beliefs that might contradict yours, and if that doesn't inform your belief on the matter, then what is there left to discuss? Consider this from Sam Harris:

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, "Well, that's not how I choose to think about water"? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn't share those values, the conversation is over."

So once again, as I have done with those asserting that they are accumulating spiritual wisdom following some program or method, I challenge you to present any useful idea you gleaned using any method other than empirically (scientifically, experientially). If you can't, maybe it's time for you to retire the idea that empiricism isn't the only path to truth, fact, and knowledge.

 

[PureX]

Most responses so far ... "I'm not going to even consider the validity of your proposition until you overcome my determined bias against there being any validity to it with evidence that I shall demand the right to define (dismiss) according to my own biased paradigm. (But I am not biased, because I'm willing to change my 'truth' paradigm to accord with new information!)

It's exhausting. Like beating one's head against a wall of insanely willful and blinding ignorance.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human experiments to understand by forcing it involving change and destruction...intelligence says it is your actual research.

As natural in any form was not invented by a human thesis.

Natural exists for observation and science says it begins with observation. The equal exact answer.

Which is natural.

Lying does not give you truth.

Science is an employment.

 

[cladking]

Most responses so far ... "I'm not going to even consider the validity of your proposition until you overcome my determined bias against there being any validity to it with evidence that I shall demand the right to define (dismiss) according to my own biased paradigm. (But I am not biased, because I'm willing to change my 'truth' paradigm to accord with new information!)

It's exhausting. Like beating one's head against a wall of insanely willful and blinding ignorance.

This has always been a problem but it is obviously getting a lot worse as time goes by. People seem to believe that by questioning assumptions and dogma of science that technology might suddenly evaporate And we'll wake up to find ourselves back in the cave. Very few people have any clue how and why science works so they're afraid to question results and beliefs for fear science requires human approval and worship. Schools no longer teach critical thinking or metaphysics.

We are likely entering a new dark ages where "science" is unquestioned and experiment gives way to consensus and political expediency. Instead of truth setting us free dogma it will shackle most of mankind as the few determine the "truth".


19th century scientists were a remarkable collection but unfortunately they are the basis of most modern scientific belief and every experiment shows they were wrong.

 

[cladking]

Being able to modify ideas and obtain more accuracy over time is what shows itself to be reliable, yes.

I believe it is only natural that when a process can be isolated and measured that the techniques used to do this should get increasingly accurate even where the nature of the phenomenon is not understood. A balance beam scale works even if one doesn't understand the nature of gravity or its acceleration.

Technology arises virtually spontaneously from the lab. Many people are capable of seeing a new force or concept and applying it to existing tools and machines to extent their function. Even brand new machines can be envisioned. Technology, accuracy, application, etc do not show that science is correct; it shows experiment is correct.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Most responses so far ... "I'm not going to even consider the validity of your proposition until you overcome my determined bias against there being any validity to it with evidence that I shall demand the right to define (dismiss) according to my own biased paradigm. (But I am not biased, because I'm willing to change my 'truth' paradigm to accord with new information!) It's exhausting. Like beating one's head against a wall of insanely willful and blinding ignorance.

I told you what it takes to persuade, and you never delivered. All you offer are unsupported claims.

You need evidenced, fallacy-free argument to persuade. You still haven't demonstrated any reason why you should be believed. It's not that your evidence is being rejected. You offer none. It's not that your arguments are being rejected. There are no arguments. Just words like "it's obvious" or the opposite, "you just don't see it because you're biased."

See what? Your opinions. Sure I saw them. I just am not interested in what you believe, only what you know and can demonstrate. You've been asked repeatedly in vain to provide such things if you want to be believed, and you steadfastly fail to do so. The most likely reason is because you are wrong.

Heck, why don't I do what you do - just make unsupported claims and expect you to believe them, then show exasperation when you don't: You're wrong. It's obvious. You'd see it if you weren't biased and throwing up a wall of insanely willful and blinding ignorance.

There. There's my whole case. Persuaded yet? If not, read it again and yet again if still not convinced so I don't have to incur a skull fracture repeating the same empty words to you again trying to get you to believe my unsupported opinions.

 

[Polymath257]

Technology arises virtually spontaneously from the lab. Many people are capable of seeing a new force or concept and applying it to existing tools and machines to extent their function. Even brand new machines can be envisioned. Technology, accuracy, application, etc do not show that science is correct; it shows experiment is correct.

That is why experiment is the basis of science.

 

[paarsurrey]

When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

It is the weakness of the humans, if one could make a mistake the same way a group of humans together could make a mistake.
The only correct source of knowledge I understand, is pristine secure and truthful Word of God/Allah/YHVH, if correctly understood, please.
Right?
I don't agree that group thinking is entirely useless.

Regards

 

[PureX]

I told you what it takes to persuade, and you never delivered. All you offer are unsupported claims.

Many times. And yet you still can't see the incredible bias behind that demand. You actually think you are being open-minded.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I told you what it takes to persuade, and you never delivered. All you offer are unsupported claims.

Many times. And yet you still can't see the incredible bias behind that demand. You actually think you are being open-minded.

So you choose to respond to, "All you offer are unsupported claims" with yet another unsupported claim. I don't believe this one, either.

But I also don't say it is incorrect. I am only telling you what I have told you all along - you cannot persuade a critical thinker with empty claims. I don't read your every word, so it's possible that you have provided an evidenced argument somewhere in the three pages of this thread, but if you had, wouldn't I be looking at it now as the evidence that I missed that you say delivered "many times." Please provide the corresponding several examples of evidenced argument in these 58 posts with quotes and a link if they exist as you insist they do. If you're just bluffing, then you won't be able to do that, will you? That will be the evidence that you can't.

And yes, I do have an incredible bias in favor of evidence over empty claims as a criterion for belief. Bizarre that you would object to the request so vehemently.

And you apparently don't know what an open mind is. It's one like mine that asks you to provide your evidence in support of your claims, willing to evaluate it critically if it exists. What an open mind is not is one that passively imbibes what it is told to believe by faith as you would have me do here. Refusing to accept unsupported claims is what an open mind does after considering them and seeing that they are just opinions. The mind is only open as far as the evaluation room. To get into the vault of beliefs, it has to be supported with sufficient evidence. Without that, the open mind rejects the empty idea.

 

[paarsurrey]

@ post # 59
Sorry to intervene, please tell him of your own understanding of the word "evidence ",please. Right?
Regards