World views, paradigms and cognitive stubbornness I would argue that the several known bias and logical fallacies that permeate our cultures are responsible for the “Argumentum ad populum”, as it is easier and cognitively more economical to ascribe “absolute reality” to the general consensus of our group of choice than to have to continually re-evaluate our stance. Now, it is interesting to find that every group, no matter if it is a religious group, a political party, new age practitioners or believers in direct realism, share more or less the same core assumptions, like that there are enough “facts” (understood as indisputable objective truths) to confirm their central views, or that if any external individual approaches and intelligently use logic and common sense, it would reach the same conclusions they have. For a working hypothesis, I would claim that this is because we are biologically biased to believe that our particular World View is, essentially, correct, and thus it serves as a platform to act in the world. In this scenario, anyone who doesn’t believe what we do is potentially a threat, and I believe we are biologically driven to exert pressure on such “anomalous cases”, we must “convert them” in order to restore the feeling of our group as “the only one which is right”, otherwise we feel the obligation to “kill” the outsiders, as they are a threat to our group. Of course, the kill part is almost a relic from the past, but it was more widely used (and accepted) in past cultures like, for example, the Inquisition. Unfortunately, it is still with us, as this is still happening nowadays, but the main belief behind the behavior is elaborated as a form of patriotism, with the resulting wars. Anyway, the instinct (to call it someway) is still there, thats why you find so groups of avengers who like to call idiots to anyone who doesnt believe what they believe. Where can we fit? I know what you are thinking… YOUR view is definitely superior to any other view. You and your group are CORRECT. Your views represent FACTS no vague ideas, your views can be taken as TRUE, no further questions. Anyone with a mediocre intelligence and some education would have to reach the same conclusions you have. Thing is, as I initially stated, every group will claim exactly the same (fact that I find rather interesting BTW). It is my belief that if we become aware of this fact, and if we are honest, a question arises in our head; How can I get out from this “cognitive stubbornness” (assuming for a moment that it is possible at least theoretically), that my group is not correct, and reach a “real truth”? For the present text, this “higher truth” would be a better paradigm or world view, which is able to describe a broader set of observations. But what is a “World View”?, is a set of theoretical models that work in conjunction to form a fairly coherent stand from where one can interpret facts and act in the world, either making predictions or being causative in the environment. FACT: what is that? Most of the misunderstandings among believers can be traced to this word. A religious person will claim as “fact” something that a naïve materialist would claim is a mere anecdotal account, void of any value. This is because they give a different meaning to the word, and without noticing, they disqualify each other’s arguments without realizing they are talking about different things. A naïve materialist will claim that the world is composed by objects, measurable energy fields and forces with certain properties, and that science is how we find about the universe and establish universal laws, which can be considered the pillars where objective knowledge is raised. What he believes is true. Period. But of course, problems arise from this position too, and it is as questionable as any other belief. Because, like them, is based on beliefs, on concepts, on assumptions. For the purpose of having a well-defined meaning for this key concept (fact), I would choose the best definition we currently have. Note: it comes from science (not philosophy): Fact is a verifiable observation. Some argue that if something is a fact, then is true, but that scenario opens more problems than what it solves, as it requires an ontology and any ontology can be labelled as naïve. Ontologies are a way to see the world, we have to take for granted that the stuff around us is really stuff, and the constancy of some percepts makes it obvious that we are dealing with something that can be labelled, as “real”. What is missing in that account is that our bodies present us such continuity, our senses are designed to give the organism survival abilities, and so we can only perceive things that give us survival advantages. Radio waves, infrared light and other aspects of what we now call reality were found recently, as some instruments were able to provide us more information than the one we can attain with our senses. Still, the results from those instruments (the facts) are verifiable observations. In other words, radio waves have to be transformed from what they “are” to what we can perceive, in order for us to establish them as facts. Well, I can continue but I believe there is enough here to start a discussion. Please, save your time if you want to read in any of this that I will somehow introduce anything supernatural, if you believe you have intelligent arguments against what I say, I would be delighted to try to tackle them and, if I cant, to learn from you.
Posted on: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:11:15 +0000