John S. Wilkins: Doxastic biases and arguments for religion (and other things)

a thoughtful web.

Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!

John S. Wilkins: Doxastic biases and arguments for religion (and other things) · 5

mk · 4443 days ago

Arguments about religion, like those about climate change, evolution or choice of Windows over Mac or Linux, are fruitless in ground level doxastic change.

tweet · print · htmlmarkup tips · 0

b_b · 4443 days ago · link ·

This is much more interesting as it relates to actionable knowledge, rather than whether God exists. Witches were burned at the stake, because it was "known" at that time that witches existed. We couldn't take any chances that the crazy adulterer down the street wasn't a witch...better put her through the high ordeal than be sorry you didn't.

Aristarchos was put to death in ancient Greece because he developed a heliocentric model of the universe. His argument, in retrospect, was pretty damn strong (and more correct). Strength or correctness of argument means jack shit when faced with certain knowledge. The examples throughout history are too numerous to recount.

+discuss+discuss

–

thenewgreen · 4443 days ago · link ·

certain knowledge is a terrifying thing to behold. When someone is certain that their viewpoint is without fallibility, might as well walk away. There's no room for discussion and soon they'll be filing you, and others like you in to concentration camps. Hyperbole? -I don't think so.

+discuss+discuss

–

b_b · 4443 days ago · link ·

I think certainty comes from insecurity. If someone challenges a viewpoint, but their new point of view is not meritorious, then there is no worry. When, however, the certainty of Maoist China's style of rule was challenged, we get Tienanmen Square; the Chinese were afraid of revolt due to the inclusion of new points of view in a system that would crumble under inclusiveness, not annoyed by students who didn't know what they were talking about. Same thing with heretics that were persecuted in Medieval Europe (or still are today in the Mid-East). Their views are dangerous because they're correct, or at least a viable alternative.

+discuss+discuss

NotPhil · 4443 days ago · link ·

All of this presumes that the point of making an argument is to convert instead of to express. I think reasoning (and there are a lot more forms of reasoning than the bare-bones deductive reasoning the logical positivists are fond of) is mainly useful for explaining ideas.

+discuss+discuss

–

mk · 4443 days ago · link ·

All of this presumes that the point of making an argument is to convert instead of to express.

I don't see it as that narrow. In fact, I think a point being made here is that when we are considering the foundation of our own beliefs (whether or not the motivation is to convert others), we lean on our argument's strength rather than its logical merit. i.e. "I believe the correct thing because my logic is convincing." rather than "I believe the correct thing because my logic is sound."

That's why he compares it to a choice in operating system. Most people cannot determine whether their choice of OS is sound, but they can make convincing arguments for their decision, and that they consider to be good enough. Which it very well might be, when it comes to OSes. I'm not sure about religion.