Intellectual Honesty
Finding truth is a never-ending pursuit. It is the ultimate (at least in the ideal) goal of philosophy, science, jurisprudence and journalism. Truth is the light that guides our path, enabling us to make our best-informed decisions. Yet truth is often cavalierly discarded when it conflicts with one’s short term goals or worldview.
We are the most advanced reasoning species on the planet, yet we have constructed all sorts of mechanisms to ignore or suppress truth. We often 'kid' ourselves by stubbornly holding to a position we desire even if that runs counter to facts and reason.
Truth is often an inconvenient barrier to what we desire. It is also sometimes difficult to face. But in all cases, truth is persistent; one can evade truth, but there is no escaping it.
Teasing out Truth
Critical thinking is the key discipline to counteract our natural tendency to believe that which is most comforting rather than truth. But critical thinking is difficult. It takes practice to learn how to quiet the noise of one’s emotions (desires, fears, etc.) and objectively follow the evidence to wherever it leads. It is, nonetheless, a discipline that we all can use to ensure our knowledge is based more on what is true and less on what we merely wish were true. It is intellectual honesty practiced in the privacy of one’s own mind.
| Even with a discipline of critical thinking, the truth Is often difficult to find. Many are highly motivated to misinform others. Our public information sources cannot be trusted at face value. To find the truth we need to be skeptical and issue challenges – force supporting facts and reasons before we accept a proposed ‘truth’. | Example of misinformation: Ken Ham has devoted his life to arguing that the Bible necessarily preempts science and devotes his considerable resources trying to discredit biochemical evolution, dating, etc. while promoting nonsense such as a 6,000-year-old Earth. |
Conflict is one of the key mechanisms for teasing out truth. In social media venues, it is the dialectic method that can best yield truth. This is the familiar reasoned debate based on a pro statement (proposition) and a con statement (counter-proposition). The purpose is for both sides to argue and challenge with facts and reason to expose the truth of the proposition, the counter-proposition or to formulate a better proposition based on the arguments.
This principle of constructive adversarial dynamics is visible at the heart of our judicial system and in science. Truth in justice is approximated by pitting a prosecutor against a defender – each seeking to destroy the other’s case. Truth in science is approximated with theories so well supported by evidence that they survive perpetual scrutiny by ambitious scientists seeking to prove them wrong.
Properly done, the challenge-based method of the dialectic exposes flaws in facts and reasoning and rewards us by advancing closer to truth. The key problem with the dialectic method is that it depends upon intellectual honesty.
Intellectual Honesty
Briefly, intellectual honesty is a result of someone seeking the truth even if the pursuit violates one’s beliefs. This is at the core of one of the most successful approaches for systemic intellectual honesty: the scientific method.
A scientist (proper) will follow the evidence to wherever it leads. If a scientist has formulated an hypothesis, the scientific method encourages the scientist to aggressively try to shoot holes in the hypothesis. This might seem counterintuitive, but it mitigates human bias. If one is trying to find the holes in one’s work (rather than be publicly humiliated by another scientist finding the hole in your published results) one will be more likely to follow the evidence to where it leads and not to where one wishes it would lead.
Crucial to the scientific method, then, is the challenge (the essence of teasing out truth). Every theory of science is subjected to review by fellow scientists (and beyond). The theory will be challenged, and it is up to the proposing scientist(s) to answer the challenge with well founded, verifiable facts and reason. No games will work with this audience. The challenge is either addressed with full intellectual honesty or the theory suffers diminished credibility.
In this way, the scientific method almost forces intellectual honesty. This has been demonstrated repeatedly for decades. Even when a scientist successfully fools all others (e.g. discovery of the Piltdown man), this is typically short-lived because the theory (if interesting) will continue to be challenged by ambitious scientists looking to make a name for themselves.
Dishonest Discourse
Normal discourse, however, does not have a systemic method to ensure intellectual honesty. Social media sites supporting debate, for example, typically have rules of conduct to mitigate abrasive behavior but rarely enforce truth. It is up to the participants to identify dishonesty and falsehoods. And this is a challenge because there exist all sorts of deceptive tactics for pushing a falsehood as truth. But these are well understood tactics that can be nullified by informed and attentive participants.
[ When illustrating tactics, the interlocutors Amy and Bif will be used. Amy represents intellectual honesty while Bif illustrates the intellectual dishonesty being discussed. ]
One of the most common affronts to intellectual honesty is the practice of cherry-picking (also called quote-mining). This is selecting bits (even individual words) from the argument of another and presenting them out of context to misrepresent the interlocutor (the other person in the debate). Take for example the following cherry-picking:
- Amy: A bakery should have the right to choose what type of products it sells; but what it makes available to one customer must be available to any customer.
- Bif: You support a bakery refusing to make a gay wedding cake? That is discrimination.
- Amy: I stated that a bakery must not discriminate.
- Bif: You believe a bakery has the right to pick the products it sells!
Bif apparently has the objective of painting Amy as a bigot. This type of dialogue would normally appear towards the end of a longer debate at the point where Bif has resorted to intellectual dishonesty.
A more blatant variant of cherry-picking is to simply ignore what a person writes:
- Amy: James Madison might have favored a national election for President, but he proposed a system based on state representation.
- Bif: Madison says in his notes that he favored the PotUS be picked by national vote.
- Amy: And at the time he may have favored that, but he did not act on this view and instead proposed the Virginia plan where the legislation (which was itself based on state population) would elect the PotUS.
- Bif: Wrong! Madison clearly wrote in his notes that he prefers direct national vote for PotUS.
This is a particularly obnoxious tactic. Bif ignores Amy’s rebuttals (as if not even written) and apparently thinks readers will do likewise.
Cherry-picking is also the basis for confirmation bias. This is where one accepts only that which supports their worldview and rejects (ignores) everything else. Confirmation bias yields an increasingly biased, deeply held belief.
Another common tactic is the strawman argument. This tactic is both dishonest and cowardly. Instead of facing up to an interlocutor’s argument some create a strawman argument – a distorted and much weaker variant of the argument – and argue that instead.
- Amy: The God of the Bible never condemns the practice of owning other human beings as property; in fact, it makes rules for proper enslavement. In this regard, God is setting a horrible moral example.
- Bif: The ancient Hebrew people did not consider slavery immoral; to them it was all they ever knew.
- Amy: True but God ostensibly knows that slavery is immoral and never provided this moral instruction in His word (the Bible) and thus it exists today without a single condemnation of the practice and, arguably, condoning it.
- Bif: You cannot condemn the ancient Hebrews for immorality; slavery was their economic system.
Bif wants to argue how unfair it is to consider the ancients immoral by modern standards. That is a much easier argument. It is also a strawman since Amy was illustrating the moral failings of the Bible as it applies today and not the morality of the ancient people themselves.
Strawman arguments are sometimes accidental – based on misunderstanding. Typically, however, they are malicious:
- Amy: An omnipotent entity can do anything it wants.
- Bif: False, it cannot make a rock so big that it could not lift it.
- Amy: Agreed, but that is logically impossible; I am only talking about what is logically possible. Omnipotence is not defined as the ability to do the impossible.
- Bif: You said ‘anything’ so that includes the impossible too.
- Amy: That makes no sense. The word ‘anything’ as used implicitly means ‘anything that is logically possible’. It is absurd to posit that an omnipotent entity could, for example, make an entity more powerful than itself.
- Bif: An omnipotent entity cannot do anything it wants. You are wrong.
Bif ignores the immediate qualification from Amy and tries to hold Amy to Bif’s extreme initial interpretation. In effect, Bif is arguing a strawman. Trying to win a ‘gotcha’ game using an argument that Amy never made while stubbornly ignoring all attempts by Amy to correct Bif’s wrong interpretation of her argument. Bif clearly is not interested in teasing out truth.
While not possible to discuss (or even list) all the dishonest tactics, a few of the more common ones are:
- Equivocation: Bif uses vague, weasel word language; hiding behind ambiguity to avoid a direct challenge by Amy.
- Obtuseness: Bif pretends to not understand (or to misunderstand) Amy’s point rather than engage her.
- Gibberish: Also known as word salad, Bif replies to Amy with a bunch of words that at face value appear to be a genuine reply but when parsed the words are meaningless.
- Redefinition: Bif creates his own meaning for particular words/phrases to, in effect, change the meaning of his argument.
- Fabrication: Bif makes ‘facts’ up from whole cloth. Basically, this is inventing one’s own’s facts. (This is lying.)
- Projection: Bif accuses Amy of the tactics that he is using. This is often an attempt to preempt or defend from being called out on the tactics.
- Personal: Usually when all else fails, Bif will resort to name-calling and other personal derogatory methods. Attacking Amy as a person instead of standing up to her argument.
Encouraging Intellectual Honesty
For some, intellectual dishonesty is their modus operandi. They are incorrigible. If someone is content to repeatedly lie and cheat in debate it is best to cut them off and move to someone worth your time.
Most people, in my experiences, try to engage in honest debate. They will toss in the occasional dishonest tactic but for the most part are interested in convincing people that their position is correct (rather than trying to ‘win’ at all costs). And, as noted upfront, the ideal mindset is to put forth one’s best argument and accept when one’s interlocutor has made a good point that has changed your mind. If participants operated in this fashion, debate would be far more productive and valuable for the participants (and the audience).
In the meantime, one of the best ways to encourage intellectual honesty is to set the example. If your interlocutor goes dishonest, point out the problem (e.g. that is not my argument) without getting personal and then try to provide a redirecting comment (e.g. I am arguing “…”, not “…”). And if you have the patience, you could simply repeatedly correct. When your interlocutor misrepresents your argument (even if repeatedly) you could calmly correct this misrepresentation (repeatedly).
With some, the debate will slowly get back on track. Others who have malicious intent will increase their use of dishonest tactics. At this point one might expose the dishonesty in a summary fashion and leave. Why waste time with someone who is so intellectually dishonest? Some, like me, when faced with an individual who is clearly malicious might double down on exposing their intellectual dishonesty until they realize their game will not work. The intent, of course, is to dissuade others from using these tactics.
There are many ways to deal with intellectual dishonesty. While attempting to combat these tactics remember that the goal is to encourage a dynamic where the participants are adversarial but polite, focused on content (reason and facts) and are attempting to tease out a good approximation of truth.
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
I suspect most readers detect intellectual dishonesty. Best to focus on making a good argument rather than a good deception.
Unfortunately, those who prefer or utilize intellectual dishonesty will probably not care about a good argument. But rather, avoiding or twisting an argument to support their own biases or beliefs.
Tru dat. But I think it is good sometimes to talk about the ugly tactics some use and to offer a perspective which (hopefully) convinces people that intellectual honesty is the way to go.
If someone isn't sure that honesty (intellectual or otherwise) is the way to go, then they're probably beyond help or don't care enough anyway to change. But hopefully, some will realized intellectual honesty is preferred and at the very least, more easily spot and call out those who clearly are intellectually dishonest.
Well we see it all the time. People who make comments that are clearly dishonest but intended to promote their agenda, support a friend, attack an enemy, etc.
What is particular interesting to me are those who serve as cheerleaders for an obviously lost argument (intellectual dishonesty completely proved). Not only is the cheerleading dishonest, but the cheerleader almost certainly does not have a clue about what actually took place in the argument.
This is true. people who are intellectually dishonest are either intentional about it, or too ignorant to realize it. Even worse when their dishonesty is pointed out nd explained to them, they continue to utilize such a tactic. And yes, we certainly do see that all the time. But we don't have to name names.
Those folks make me think of the schoolyard bully's smaller, weaker sidekick. This is the face I see in my mind every time they pile on:
To me they are the perfect sycophants.
I've always wondered if those, who I call 'fellow travelers' ever acknowledge, even to themselves, that they supported a falsity.
I see little to no evidence of that here on NT. Members give kneejerk thumbs up to comments from their 'fellow travelers' yet after that comment is rebutted with facts they don't retract their support.
It makes me wonder whether the gaslighters here have prevailed and no matter what facts are presented, the gaslightees are deperate to remain so.
That's were the confirmation bias kicks in and it's become a support group here on NT. One of the gaslighters posts a seed or starts a thread and the fellow travelers all join the chorus. They've ceased being individuals and follow the leader, either through ignorance, laziness or fealty.
Not everyone is a reader, not everyone follows or reviews the facts. Some people need some help teasing out the truths. There are members here, like you, that try to explain issues in laymen's terms or connect the dots or relate an experience from their POV that helps all of us to do just that.
That is why my biggest issue is with the gaslighters, who KNOW better yet who intentionally mislead their 'fellow travelers', who could use 'leaders' that 'tease out the truth' rather than promulgating intellectually dishonest propaganda.
It divides us in a different way than politics. Those who attempt to be intellectually honest in their arguments and those whose goal in dishonest discourse is to gaslight and distract.
For some, I am convinced that they do not even read the comments they are supporting. It is more about group-think and ' the enemy of my enemy is my friend ' sentiment.
I get a kick out of comments whose entire content is: ' Excellent response. Everything you wrote is perfect and exactly correct.
' and equivalent.
That said, I will sometimes vote up comments with which I am not in complete agreement. It depends on the circumstances. For example, I often vote up comments on my articles when the comment content is relevant even if I disagree. I am thanking the comment author for participating in a constructive manner. But in normal discourse if someone writes something that I mostly agree with I likely will give a vote up. In contrast, if someone writes something I mostly agree with but includes a poison pill, I will refrain from the up vote.
So I do not read much into the votes; it is the comments by supporters that are more relevant to me.
That's true for those that DO comment. What I notice is that many of the 'fellow travelers' almost never actually comment, they just cheer.
Or make comments that are at best platitudes.
The cheering makes sense. That, in a nutshell, is the dynamic behind group-think. Do not think critically, merely support the group position.
Yes and I do so love the 'proclamations' which are never supported but seem to be meant to be the last word on the subject.
Something like: "I stand behind every word I wrote." ?
Or "I stand by everything in the article and the author is 100% correct'. Then when called to defend any statements made by the author in the article, 'I didn't say it the author did'. Lately, I've had some 'champions' step in and defend the non-defender. It's sad.
Yeah, that's a good one. Some people rally around someone whom they think shares similar views, without actually reading or understanding what is being said. It's as if certain individuals have no independent or rational thought of their own. They just want to parrot someone else.
I sometimes give comments that are (in entirety) "Spot On". By "spot on" I am emphasizing my up-vote. That and what you wrote is different than what I was describing. Compare our comments with:
"Excellent response. Everything you wrote is perfect and exactly correct."
I think it depends upon an individual's values, what is their motivation for participating in online "discussions". In my experience, the vast majority of users of social media log on to prostelytize. Some are actually religious evangelicals and want to push their religious views (or "Atheistic evangelicals" who are equally obsessed with pushing their Atheistic dogma.
But the majority of social media users log on mainly to push their political views-- regardless of which side of the aisle they are on.(Well, OK-- some are just classic "trolls"-- their main motive for logging on is to provoke arguments-- they like pissing off people,)
Only a very tiny minorty are open to new ideas. The rest are evangelical missionaries of one sort or another-- their main goal is to "convert the heathen" (figuratively speaking-- but that's how they look at their reason for being online-- to convert the "non-believers", whether they don't have the "correct" religious views or political views.
I really like this cartoon-- IMO it captures the nature of the majority of social media users:
(It's from xkcd )
In my experience that's more often the case...in mosst discussion on Social Media sites such as NT.
And I've also noticed that having little or no knowledge of the subject being discussed more often than not does not stop people from discussing it...
Me too. As an INTJ, I have been driven to read, review and reflect as a reason for existence. Social media can be a fascinating place to be until it becomes endlessly redundant.
I ordered xkcd's books "How To" and What If" for my teenaged granddaughter's Christmas present. She is taking accelerated classes so I am hoping that she finds something that interests her in these books.
Me too. As an INTJ, I have been driven to read, review and reflect as a reason for existence.
Which is one of the things we like about online discussion sites-- they present a great opportunity to learn stuff due to the large numbers of different types of people.There's something to be learned from everyone.
Of course one of things that bothers us about these sites is that the majority of people seem to have no interest in truth-- or actual facts.It's frustrating for NT's to interact with them.
(BTW it seems obvious to me that TiG is obviously an "NT type"-- my guess would be that he's an INTJ).
Me too. As an INTJ, I have been driven to read, review and reflect as a reason for existence.
I ordered xkcd's books "How To" and What If" for my teenaged granddaughter's Christmas present. She is taking accelerated classes so I am hoping that she finds something that interests her in these books
Thanks for mentioning tose books, I'll have to check them out.
Social media can be a fascinating place to be until it becomes endlessly redundant.
I've been on social media for a long time, probably longer than anyone on this site. (Well, maybe except for Perrie?). I don't remember the year-- I believe I started in the late 1970s or very early 80's (I was using a 286 than a 386 computer-- in DOS!).
And I've had a similar experience--at first it was fascinating, I learned so much every time I logged on.But over time there's very little that's new....
I ordered xkcd's books "How To" and What If" for my teenaged granddaughter's Christmas present. She is taking accelerated classes so I am hoping that she finds something that interests her in these books
The odds are if she's an _NT_ type she will!
P.S: What MBTI types are your daughters? IIRC one of them (the younger one?) is an INTJ--- you don't know the type of the older one but from what you had said about her she sounds like she might be an INFP? (They're very idealistic in their own unique way-- can also be very stubborn,, very unrealistic and impractical-- tend not to be logical, more driven by emotions. They can drive very rational, "thinking types" crazy,
P.S: Over the years I have decided that INFP's are usually very good people, and tens to have noble ideas and are very kind. But we "T" types often have trouble relating to them because on a very deep level we are so very very different then they are....
If anyone is unfamiliar with the term "alternative facts" I believe its relatively new. I could be wrong but I believe the phrase was invented (on the spur of the moment) by KellyAnn Conway in January of 2017.
I've known about alternative facts all my life. Here is an example the glass is half full. The alternative fact is the glass is half empty.
Or, it's at the halfway point.
Actually that's not an alternative fact. Rather, its the same fact expressed in two different ways!
(Actually I'm surprised you didn't realize that).
Nancy: "I'm Catholic", don't HATE.... But "Impeach Trump....since I've been "Praying" and don't religiously HATE, 'cause I'm Catholic".
Does that " Tactic" work with-in your "Logical mindset" ?
Or
Does The Religious stuff Nancy used in her "I am religiously mournful",go against everything "Logically"you espouse to !
What does impeachment have to do with hate?
I would say that it's intellectually dishonest to equate enforcing the Constitution with hate.
Obama and company, does a non-binding "Quid-Pro-Quo" with Iran to get a non-binding signature on a non-binding piece of paper (without Congressional Approval), and your wondering if this "Impeachment" is Hateful ?
You're just kidding....right ?
Was Obama asking Iran to aid him personally?
None of that makes any sense nor has any relevance to my post.
YES !
"I'll release your bucks if you sign this crap, so I can look good "!
Duh !
You've conveniently forgotten your own "Logical"
rants on the subject I put forth ? 
Oh, and release some prisoners. I'm sure they didn't feel they received any benefit from no longer being imprisoned by Iran.
This wasn't for personal gain, outside of the gain any other president would receive from being successful in some aspect of foreign policy.
It certainly wasn't equivalent to trying to have a foreign government fabricate negative stories about a political opponent.
Another false equivalence. Intellectually dishonest.
"NON-BINDING" isn't a " Gain ".
Any blowhard can get you to sign something that means.....NOTHING …. when your "Mega Bucks" are dangled in your face for release !
" It certainly wasn't equivalent to trying to have a foreign government fabricate negative stories about a political opponent."
Joe is only a political opponent to other "Democrats" running for office right now.
Did Joe already get the nomination to run against Trump in 2020 ?
The only one ranting here seems to be you. Perhaps you would care to address the points made rather than engage in juvenile games!
Is that an " Intellectual Honest " statement ?
That is a logical assessment of your statements.
"Logic" dictates....and this is just basing my "Logic" on the comments I've actually read, as actually posted by YOU to date on "Religion" v. "Logic" areas.....
......... Bad Religion is only Bad, if it's spouted by someone you don't like.
Am I being "Intellectually Dishonest" when I note that ?
By the way...."Logic" also tells us, and this is just going by what your responses have been on this so far on THIS article, meaning this actual article noted as "Intellectual Honesty"....... You "Won't Respond" to the actual subject I put forth, will you !
Might your "Intellectual Honesty" answer..... actually show your hypocrisy ?
Is it Bad for "Speaker Nancy Pelosi" to Use Religion to make an argument you like ?
Nancy Pelosi isn't the topic nor did I bring her up. It's nothing more than a Red Herring on your part. And feel free to specify where I said or even implied religion is bad if its spouted by someone I don't like! Otherwise, you either have no idea what I'm saying or you're lying! Which is it?
That seems to be the Republican fish of choice these days. Every time a fact about dishonest Donald is brought up they go into action throwing out their stock of red herrings, many curtesy of RT and the Russian State controlled media.
He has no idea
That is quite obvious.
"Intellectual Honesty" covers ………………. Everything ...... Doesn't it ?
And feel free to specify where I said or even implied religion is bad if its spouted by someone I don't like!
Reference your comments in general.....about Religion.
Do you ALWAYS conveniently forget your OWN words on that subject ?
"Merry Christ mas" Gordy !
Or
Is that just an "Illogical Wish" to you on my part ?
... and @1.1.48
These two comments are simply trying to stir up trouble that has subsided.
Let's not do that.
To be "Intellectually Honest"...I wasn't here for a couple days to respond.
I now have responded to the comment !
So your comment wasn't really "Intellectually"...... HONEST ….. was it !
"TiG…..Trolling"
Let's not do that !
My comment was "Intellectually Honest"....and "Factual" !
"Intellectual Honesty"..... really just a "One Way" Street TiG ?
Specify precisely where I said/implied: "religion is bad if its spouted by someone I don't like!"
Happy Holidays.
1.2.2 seeder Gordy327 replied to Greg Jones @ 1.2 - "The majority of Americans support abortion rights. Bills like this one only seem to come from the more conservative/religious minded states ( no surprise there )."
Did that help you ?
Now....back to Pelosi using her " Faith " as a go to.
Your thoughts on her (Liberal/religious mind set) using " Faith " as a "Reason" for what she wants to occur AGAINST the (Winning) President ?
She is Praying this after all !
No. That statement doesn't say religion is bad if it's by someone I don't like. That statement is true: most Americans support abortion rights and opposition does indeed come from religiously conservative states. It says nothing about whom I like or dislike, especially due to their religious beliefs. Nice try, but fail!
Which is still irrelevant to the topic!
So? An exercise in futility or wishful thinking. Nothing more.
So you "Like" conservative/religious types ?
"Which is still irrelevant to the topic!"
"Intellectual Honesty" is the topic, based on your comment above:
"people who are intellectually dishonest are either intentional about it, or too ignorant to realize it. Even worse when their dishonesty is pointed out nd explained to them, they continue to utilize such a tactic. And yes, we certainly do see that all the time."!
The "Intellectual Honest Topic" I put forth to you was Pelosi and her religion (Your love of subject) use.
She's "Catholic" and she "Doesn't lie because she's "Catholic".
Do you have an "ACTUAL" Thought on her using "Religion" for her "Agenda" ?
Whom I like or dislike is not the topic. And your claim that I said religion is bad if it's by someone I don't like is untrue, as I never said any such thing. Your attempts to twist things around to corral me into saying something to suit your ends is both obvious and laughable.
Nancy Pelosi is not the topic. You injected her into the discussion out of nowhere. I'd say you're veering off topic at this point.
That's nice. Your point?
How is Pelosi part of the topic?
Nope. Next!
That was quite the stretch. Total failure, but I'd give you 5 points for the attempt. If you're still not understanding how far off you were, please re-read the quote from Gordy and tell us where it says that anything is "bad" at all. He makes two clear factual statements in that quote. 1. " The majority of Americans support abortion rights." and 2. "Bills like this one only seem to come from the more conservative/religious minded states "
"Currently, 61% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases"
" R epublican-led states have been whittling away at the right to choose since the Supreme Court technically reaffirmed that right in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Casey upheld that core concept of Roe v. Wade —that women had a right to privacy over their reproductive choices—but invented a new standard that allowed states to severely restrict women’s options and autonomy over their own bodies."
So he was quite correct. Not sure why you felt he was calling anyone "bad" as he never used those words in his comment or even inferred any good or bad motive.
People can pray for others even if the others imagine themselves winning. I'm sure it would be difficult, but a victim might even pray for their rapist who during the act no doubt thinks he's 'winning'. I'm just a little surprised by those Americans who look up at dishonest Donald's sweaty face heaving over America as he unceremoniously grunts away, telling us it will all be over soon and to just be quiet and let it happen... "If you scream, I'm just going to call you a whore and say it was all your fault. You shouldn't have been holding that torch and the declaration of independence while wearing such a revealing toga...".
Just because Trump can assault over two dozen women, use his office to pressure other governments to help him in his upcoming election, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep porn stars quiet about his numerous illicit affairs where his co-conspirator in such campaign finance fraud is already serving time, has at least 10 clear counts of obstructing justice spelled out in the Mueller report, and still not be in jail, that does not define "winning". Just because you get away with something for a while doesn't mean the facts and the law won't eventually catch up to you.
Comment 1.1.54 proves otherwise !
"I'd say you're veering off topic at this point."
The topic of the article is just a general drawn out thing on an "Intellectual Honesty" thing !
I decided to throw in an "Intellectually Honest" topic !
If I stayed "General" , would that unclench your behind and make it easier for you ?
It's really funny when so-called "Saviors" come out for a "Rescue", and LEAVE THEE REST OF THE ACTUAL STATMENT OUT !
( no surprise there )
Doesn't the article point something like that out as a problem to "Intellectual Honesty" ?
Not very "Intellectually Honest"....is it ?
Do you really believe that tripling down on fantasy is the way to debate this? I guess if your only goal is to troll others then it wouldn't matter, but this is an actual seed about intellectual honest of which you're now showing a complete lack just to poke Gordy in the ribs about something he didn't say.
Those weren't my words (read comment # 1.1.60
)....so what really is the fantasy ?
You don't want Honesty?
OR
You're just looking for dishonesty ?
OR
Both ?
Not even a little.
That's funny, considering you engage in dishonest tactics like attributing something to me that I did not say.
I see you can't debate the topic itself so you make thigs personal. TiG is right as usual: you just want to stir things up and not actually discuss the topic in any meaningful way.
Your erroneous claim that I said something that I did not. Even Patriot sees it.
What "IS" your summation of the " Topic " again ?
"Your erroneous claim that I said something that I did not. "
Those weren't your own words, and yours alone ?
Your Words?
"people who are intellectually dishonest are either intentional about it, or too ignorant to realize it."
Was your persona' hacked at one point or another ?
You stated I said "religion is bad if its spouted by someone I don't like!" That is demonstrably false! SO no, those weren't my words and you have yet to specify precisely where I said that. You seem to want to misquote what I actually said or take it completely out of context.
Juvenile taunts doesn't help your argument and only makes you look foolish and trollish.
I'll ask again...basing the question on YOUR OWN WORDS NOTED:
Do you like conservative/religious people ?
Since ....in your own words....you used the words ( no surprise there ) ! 
What did " No Surprise there " refer too ?
You can use "Others" words, if it can calm you down enough to be "Intellectually Honest".
Almost forgot:
What "IS" your summation of the " Topic " again ?
I'm only asking, since your still commenting on my supposed "Off topic" comments.
Does "Off Topic" really bother you ?
And you took that to mean I said I didn't like religion if it was by someone I didn't like? Seriously?
That's a loaded question.
It means that anti-abortion laws have typically been proposed or passed by religious/conservatives in certain states. That's simple fact and it's what we've seen as of late when the abortion issue comes up. I thought that was clear.
And you can stop playing your juvenile games and attempts at taunting.
Just read my earlier posts. Again, they seemed quite clear.
Off topic is just that, getting off topic and brings the discussion to a halt. Some use it to divert attention away from the topic or avoid challenges against them, things like that. It also risks running afoul of the CoC. It can be an annoyance.
As do idiotic emojis.
If my question is "Loaded", was your statement of conservative/religious ( No Surprise )…. "Loaded" ?
"It means that anti-abortion laws have typically been proposed or passed by religious/conservatives in certain states."
Are you sure they are all …… religious ….. or just assuming ?
There are Democrats that don't like abortion either.
Now....again ….. back to religious Pelosi...… the "Topic" I started this conversation with.
Since your into "Just the Topics" thing that is !
Pelosi said:
She's "Catholic" and she "Doesn't lie" because she's "Catholic".
"She's "Praying" for the country and this impeachment process."
Do you have an "ACTUAL" Thought on her using "Religion" for her "Agenda" ?
Is she just a little Religious, but still able to make a secular decision ?
None of that makes any sense nor has any relevance to my post
His comment being, ironically, yet another example of the lack of intellectual honesty in these types of discussions!
Sometimes I think that on social media sites such as NT-- comments that neither make any sense nor have any relevance seem to be the norm-- rather than the exception.
And often, no matter how inane or unrelated to the discussion, some of the more "mentally challenged" here will vote them up-- or as previously mentioned post their favourite smiley:
Do you know what a loaded question is? My statement is an observation, and one which can be generally verified.
You can look up the states attempting to pass such laws and see the demographics for yourself.
Which is veering off the topic TiG started.
I would hope any politician can make a rational secular decision separate from religious belief.
Indeed. And what makes it funny is that he doesn't even seem to realize it.
I find that those who choose to resort to lies and deception as opposed to the truth are those who are not fully informed on the subject they are discussing, or are deliberately spreading false information.
Also, if one takes the time to watch the person's eyes as they speak it is relatively easy to determine if they are actually telling the truth or trying to deceive.
Some people choose to only use their ears when conversing with someone and not their eyes as well. Body language is another good way to determine if what is being said is true or not when someone is speaking.
However, a good many people are not attentive enough to employ the subtle ways to separate fact from fiction, thus, their own outlook on the topic can become confusing.
Yes, we lack the many clues of body language on social media sites.
I am extremely patient with ignorance. I am not so patient with willful ignorance. I can tolerate dishonesty. But repeated, obvious intellectual dishonesty is a problem.
True. But, here again there are ways to figure out if someone is telling the truth or trying to deceive people.
It's in the way a person writes that can give them away. There is a Native American saying that says it all;
But sometimes it takes a lot of effort to expose tricky lies.
Agree. It takes a good deal more effort to take down a professional liar than one who simply lies out of habit, or just can't accept the truth.
I think in many cases it depends upon the motive. Some people are really curious-- they want to know what's really going on, they want to know the facts. (And in some cases they even want to know the facts even if the actual facts don't support their biases).
Others remind me of religious fanatics-- all they want to do is convert "the heathen". the "non-believers'-- and if that means lying, (or believing obvious lies) its fine with them.
Welcome to the Internet!
Unfortunately it seems to have become the norm on social media sites.
(Some people like to blame Trump for that-- but I've seen it start long before Trump was elected).
And often when you do, rather than admitting the truth, the liar will resort to diversionary tactics in a deliberate attempt at obfuscation.
Which immediately lowers the level of the conversation, if not actually derailing it completely.
Some common online tactics used, all used in an attempt to get the discussion off track (in hopes people will fall for the specific lie that was just told and/or the total dishonesty of their "modus operandi").
1. " Whattaboutism"
2. Introducing the "Bright Shiny Object"
3. Good 'ole fashioned acting dumb!
And perhaps the all time favourite of trolls everywhere-- change the discussion away from the topic they lied about by resorting to the ever popular tactic of making Personal Attacks!
(These are just a few that immediately come to mind-- I'm sure people can think of others)
God is the creator and the source of all four of the character traits on your sign picture.
If you are going to proselytize on the article's picture you could at least add something relevant to the article. Start by reading the title.
... and his loudest devotees are among the blatant defilers of those character traits.
That's nice. Prove it! Otherwise, you're just proselytizing, which I think is frowned upon on this site.
Not only is it frowned upon, I believe it is also against the CoC.
But I am not concerned about a single comment; it is a problem IMO only if repeated.
That's what I was inferring. I was just being polite about it. Lol
Comments such as HA's are oft repeated on other threads too. It might be a single comment here (for the time being), but there are multiple and cumulative comments all over NT. This is not an isolated comment or event.
... and I like that the comment stands for all to see along with the responses to that comment which illustrate how inappropriate it was.
Not proselytizing at all. Just stating who it is that is the source of all things...
That's just a baseless claim at best. And unless you can actually prove it, then it is proselytizing.
Fair enough. Not that the commenter actually cares about how it's viewed or that it is intellectually dishonest (and lazy) in itself.
That is equivocation (read the article). You are redefining the word 'proselytize'. When you 'advocate or promote (a belief or course of action)' you are proselytizing. This is especially true if you come into an article on Intellectual Honesty and comment not on the content, not even on the title, but on the picture and somehow find a way to talk about God on a picture that is devoid of any religious elements.
Another tactic described in this article is obtuseness wherein someone pretends to not understand the obvious. Your comment @1.3.9 exemplifies this.
If you wish to continue, please avoid inserting your religious views in this article.
Honesty is a trait straight from God, the source of all that is good. As to intellectual he gave us the ability to choose whether to go with the theory that human intellect and logic is all that there is and nothing beyond our power to comprehend can exist or we can use our intellect to accept that a higher power exists and does so in realms beyond our logic, wisdom, and understanding. I chose the latter path and a reasoned faith.
I will assume you did not read my comment @1.3.12 due to the timing. But this comment is a perfect example of what NOT to do here.
As opposed to His detractors who outside of Him hold none of those traits.
Spoken by one who wishes the site to be the next Atheist Oasis....
Simply saying God exists is not proselytizing. As to my point of view as to the source of all that is and you not liking it here then don’t come on my seeds on these kind of topics with your pond scum evolved from and originating limited logic and knowledge.
Fine. If you don’t want me on your human centric intellect and logic seeds, don’t come on to my theistic centric seeds on intellect, origins, etc., a quid pro quo.
Ooopps! I forgot to put on my 'Polite' hat this morning.
That's ok Raven. We won't hold it against you, lol
Indeed, as it then becomes a deliberate distraction, and there are some who deliberately use the same comments in the same articles, and others throughout the site, to disrupt the discussions.
Well, religious proselytizing seems to be frowned upon-- political proselytizing...perhaps so much (?)
Proselytizing in general should be frowned upon. Especially the religious variety.
Link?
Thanks TiG. First article I have read in its entirety in a while.
I have grown tired of reading articles, and comments, on this and other sites. I still do, obviously. Let me applaud you, because it has been my experience that you conduct yourself on this site, from what I have seen, in conformance with the above.
I appreciate that Transyferous Rex. I certainly agree that there is a lot of nonsense to wade through in social media sites. Wish I knew how to attract more serious content providers.
The cynical side of me thinks that attracting more serious content is a lost cause. Rigorous debate? Not anymore. What do we expect from a society that largely gathers most of everything it knows from a meme depicting a cat and blonde haired woman being restrained by her friend? (may be an example of gibberish there)
But don't let my negative attitude dissuade you. Keep up the good fight. As an aside, I had to look up the referenced meme. I thought it was Cameron Diaz. To my surprise, not Cameron Diaz.
Honest, thoughtful debate is indeed rare. It does happen at times but I agree it is sporadic and short-lived.
Agree. I find that even when two or more people are engaged in a civil and productive debate/discussion, there are those who seem unable to leave it alone, and jump in with their personal attacks, stupid nonsense wise cracks and derails that are meant to disrupt and deter any chance of meaningful conversation.
But, as you say, there are times when meaningful and beneficial discussions can take place, and they are very much appreciated.
I agree. I know I always see this one poster that drops some snark or leaves a comment "Pot...….Kettle" that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion at hand.
Simply stated, it can't be done in an open discussion like this on a social media site such as this.
In my experience, there are only a few ways to do it:
1.On a site such as NT the only way to do it successfully is start a private group. You could only admit people with the same political/religious/philosophical views-- but that gets boring.
IMO the best way to do it is create a private group allowing in people with diverse views-- but only those who continue to respect people with differeing opinions.
BTW this only works if you are firm about kicking out people who show they aren't capable of respecting alternative viewpoints.
2. Start another site, and run it as mentioned in #!. However since NT allows private groups that isn't necessary.
3, Start a private group here or anothert website and only allow people with similar views. .
It is mostly a function of the interlocutors.
To some degree.But even if they are fine people...you can only put so much lipstick on a herd of pigs!
(To mis-coin a phrase?)
.you can only put so much lipstick on a herd of pigs!
Or, for those "of a certain age":perhaps this one is better understood:
You can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear”
Those sorts of people are turned off by dishonesty-- and stupidity. I've seen then appear from time to time-- in my (very long!) experience on Internet sites.
usually what they do is realize that there are sites that permit the b*llshit-- but there are a few that don't permit it. So they leave and go to a site that doesn't permit it.
It is tiresome to observe and even participate in many of the 'arguments' on social media. On that I agree with your premise that people misuse the truth.
The evidence that Donald Trump is unfit for office is overwhelming. Yet no Republicans , or almost none of them, among the 250 or so of them that sit in Congress are going to vote for impeachment and then removal.
Why is that? I see two reasons. The first is that they are afraid of him in the political sense in that he seemingly has the sway with Republican voters to have those Republicans defeated in primaries when they run for re-election. The second is that the Republican Party, and almost all of his voting base, want him to run for re-election next November. So, the evidence of his unfitness is disregarded because Republicans both fear him and want him to be kept in a good position to run for re-election.
Is there any intellectual honesty in this?
We have had for a long time in this country an element of people, usually very intelligent and often pretty articulate, who insist on "seeing" the "value" in both sides of an issue.
Looking at "both sides" of the Trump issue often results with the thinker deciding that the proper course is to let the public be the judge and jury and sort it all out in the next presidential election.
Personally, I question the intellectual honesty of some of the people who present that as their argument.
I guess this brings us to my question. Does "truth" tell us anything about right and wrong?
During World War II the United States and the rest of the "good guy" nations took part in extensive propaganda against their enemies. Most propaganda , I think, violates your rules of fair play in argument. Did the allies commit intellectual dishonesty, or were they in the right?
Does the 'truth' trump right and wrong? (pun semi intended)
Per your point, you are observing the dynamic of confirmation bias (recognizing only that which supports one's beliefs and denying that which does not). On top of that, we have the case where priorities (with some people) lead them to trash on truth to achieve their short term goals. This is typical of politics: the ends justifies the means. And this is one of the main reasons I avoid partisan debates; they are typically irrational and more a game of slimy debate tactics rather than a dialectic designed to tease out truth.
In short, partisan debates trend towards winning at all costs with truth as an early casualty.
LOL. I hope your ivory tower lasts.
There is nothing irrational about what I said , although I suppose some eggheads can pretend otherwise.
I did not claim that you wrote anything irrational in your comment John. Read my comment again, I was talking in general about partisan debate.
Confirmation bias?
Ok, if I slightly misunderstood your first sentence I apologize.
Nonetheless, the "truth" about Trump's fitness does not lie in the dialectic. His support is mainly based on bamboozling, lying, misdirection, and creating a show that confuses people.
My point is that it is intellectually dishonest to say that he should be allowed to succeed in his bamboozlement by granting him a chance to be re-elected.
When you take a "both sides" approach he will get his chance to lie his way into office again and wreak havoc on the country for four more years. Although Trump is not Hitler or Mao or the like, there was a both sides argument for them and for all leaders who ended up abusing their office.
In theory there is a both sides argument for everything. For example, without societal norms and standards, there is nothing objectively wrong with stealing, or beating up another individual for that matter. It is simple might makes right and personal preference. One can actually make an intellectual argument that sick children should be euthanized, that animals should be worked to death , and that profit should take priority over workers safety. All of those things have another side intellectually. Should they be brought to a "middle ground"?
Personally I tend to like propaganda (Michael Moore for example) when it is used in a good cause.
My opening sentence was noting that what you observe with die-hard Trumpers is based on confirmation bias. They support the R and will find ways to support the R no matter who the R is and what (within some limits I suppose) the R does. And yes partisan blindness applies to some Ds as well.
That is true, but what you leave out is that the two political parties are not interchangeable, therefore there are reasons that Democrats will always or almost always support Democratic positions and vice versa for the Republicans. There are some positions that both parties support (most of our foreign policy, general support for capitalism, basic constitutional rights) but for the most part there are actual differences between the parties on particulars.
What the hell would you know about it ? , lol.
You have illustrated the cowardly tactic of equivocation. Making a derogatory personal comment with vague justification.
You made a claim and provided no supporting reasoning. This, likely, is to prevent people from challenging your reasoning.
First you presume prima facia without having clue one about what underlies my opinion.
Second, prima facie commentary (had I made it) is not ipso facto intellectually dishonest. Intellectual dishonesty is the deliberate attempt to deceive.
What, specifically, is a non-sequitur and why?
I was asking what you were specifically referring to as a non-sequitur in my comment. And I was asking you to explain why you feel it is a non-sequitur.
No. I just asked you to be clear about what you were referring to. To not be vague. To take an actual stand.
That you seem to think that there is some kind of truth in your position on Trump and none in that of his supporters reasons why he should be our President is like saying we are limited in intellect, logic, wisdom, honesty to only what we humans can understand on our own and that there is no honesty, intellect, wisdom, or logic in believing that a higher power exists that we can’t possibly comprehend.
Mega dittos! 👏👍🇺🇸😎
Equivocation. What a surprise.
It's rather funny Tig that you write an (excellent) article on intellectual dishonesty and even explain the tactics used for such arguments, only to have certain individuals demonstrate those tactics in use for all to see here. Even funnier that they don't seem to realize it too.
I know, right? I just finished with another one.
I am convinced some realize what they are doing. IMO some people are willing to appear entirely obtuse if doing so allows them to be obnoxious.
either way, it's still intellectually dishonest.
Speak plainly, please. It is dishonest (and rude also) to talk around people while in their midst, because you do not grant an opening for a decent reply. While I do not think you are directing your comment at me, I am not sure of that either.
Gordy replied to TiG on a thread in which you never made a comment, until the one to which I am replying. There is absolutely no reason to think he is directing his comment to you.
I was plain. And I was addressing TiG. So what are you talking about?
Gordy was definitely not referring to you here CB.
You're mistaken, friend Sandy. My comments help "populate" many threads for many hours throughout this day. It is not easy to narrow any of this down to a specific thread. Thank you for your insight, nevertheless. It can only help.
I am talking about getting a clarification. You need not feel pushed up against a wall. This thread is in many ways about understanding other people's perspective. So if I ask for clarity, it is proper to extend it as I would do to you.
Moreover, a blast from the past, I am sure you have at least once clarified for me how these are open comment boards and anybody can address an otherwise open comment.
Thank you, TiG. Much appreciated.
What do you need clarified specifically? I thought my comments were clear.
Tig has clarified it for me @2.1.28. But, thank you for asking. (Smile.)
Good. Problem solved then
⇧
LOL
How many comments you've made elsewhere isn't relevant. Since you haven't commented here, there's no reason to think that Gordy or anyone else is targeting you, especially since that comment was specifically about members who had already participated in the seed.
"Elsewhere" as in on this seed (as to many hours throughout Sunday.) My comment to Gordy is 17 hours old. My oldest comments, plural, on this seed are dated with a timestamp of "yesterday" right now.
Friend Dulay, I have settled this issue with Gordy, Tig, and maybe even Sandy, so why 'light a fire' under it again?
As was pointed out to you multiple times, the comment in which you took umbrage, was the first in this seed.
I'm not privy to your private conversations with others CB.
So all is now settled.
I agree.
Although I would add something-- IMO this applies not only to debates on social media where the topic is politics-- but also where the topic is religion/Atheism...
In other words... you tend to like it when it confirms your own beliefs...confirms your own opinions.
(?)
Unfortunately true but the religious questions and impact is far more important.
I'm not sure if I agree. perhaps the relative degree of importance of each depends upon the situation. Or the life experiences of the victims of these sorts of the narrow minded prostelytizing.
Most of the people I see online who spend a lot of time discussing the dangers of religious prostelytizing (or other evils imposed upon others by religious fanatcs).are those who have been personally abused and or victimized by religious fanatics-- or have experienced theri excesses frequently. (Often but not always the people who expeience this the most have mainly lived in somewhat rural areas the South or Midwest.
My way of looking at it is that its a fanatical adherence to some extreme belief system resulting in the need to convert others is what causes the most harm. The obsession with "being right"-- and the obsessive need to make others adopt their belief system.
Whther the belief system is religious or political. (or, in some cases, even a pschological or supposed "scientific" system)
As a person who has had dialectical training, I can tell you that most people don't have that skillset since it does take some training to learn it. I don't count on that ever entering the equation.
But to me, confirmation bias is probably the biggest problem in having a discussion. Even when a person is willing to go back and look for more information, they will go to sources that reconfirm what they believe, while ignoring anything else. From there everything else deteriorates.
Being open minded is probably the hardest skill to learn.
I agree. We are all biased by default. We need to recognize this and work hard to approximate objective reasoning. Not easy and (from what I have observed) most people do not put forth much effort in this regard.
Tig, objective reasoning is wonderful and most of life should be about it. I could say more about this reasoning, but I want to get to another point.
If somebody were to say to me that 99 percent of what works for me in life is actually delusional, I might agree after hearing their reasoning. At the same time, I might choose to continue running in my delusion that has found its workable space in the real world. That is, it makes life work for me or someone else.
People settle and find meaning in a host of different factors, ideas, and worldviews. For instance, most holidays mean little to nothing to me. I reason them to be "put up jobs" —for a variety of reasons from rest and excitement to driving commerce to sacred remembrances. I largely live to get past that particular 24 hours on the clock. (That includes my own birthday by the way.) It's true. I have deduced all the 'hype' and feelings invoked in such days as mere indulgences.
Still, I recognize the value others can place on days, weeks, and months. Sometimes I allow myself to indulge (enjoy myself) for their sake. What these people are doing is in fact projecting a delusion that makes life work for them.
Quickly, if we were just to live life objectively, we would lose some of its dynamics. I remains to be determined if emotions and feelings are utterly a gross waste of intellect and time.
NOTE: To be clear, despite the 'push' of this comment; I do not down-play the need for emotions and feelings in and of themselves!
I do not either. Emotions are part of being human and many of them are quite desirable.
The ultimate problem with demanding a middle position is that you become in danger of creating a standstill.
What is the middle position on civil rights? Slavery? Child labor? Inflammatory public rhetoric?
People will always present "confirmation bias" when they argue one side of an argument, because people will not argue against their own position. When you talk about how great New York is you are inevitably leaving out the other side of the story. When I argue against Trump it is true that I do not present my opponents arguments as if they have much validity. Why would I? The overwhelming evidence is that he is unfit for office. Is someone who led a racist conspiracy theory, falsely claiming that the first non -white president was illegitimate, fit to be president of the United States? Is someone who defrauded hundreds of people through a fake university fit to be president? Is someone who has lied to the public thousands of times fit to be president? It is absurd. Yet the "intellectual" argument presented is we have to listen to "both sides". Both sides of what?
If I ever exhibit "confirmation bias" in arguing against Trump, it doesnt bother me at all.
I don't see any such demand.
You're kidding, right?
Try to not turn my article into a Trump fest.
You got it. Feel free to delete anything you think is off topic.
Independent does not mean middle. Even moderate doesn't mean middle.
Those are 4 very different topics with very long answers. None of them have "middle" positions, but all of the have nuanced positions.
And I think that is a huge problem because there is always room to look at any position and adjust it.
I prefer to not take any action. And I am very accommodating with off-topic comments but they need to be at least in the neighborhood of the topic.
Our first minority president as you refer to him was in fact literally quite illegitimate, a literal bastard in fact. That didn’t take away from the fact that he met the constitutional requirements to be president.
lol. Do you feel smarter now?
I am going to let that one slide since this is not a politics thread. Back to the topic I go.
You are so right. I have always prided myself on being non-partisan, never belonged to either party and have always looked at the issues first and foremost and voted across party lines. But as the partisan divide has grown I've felt it more difficult to stay unbiased. Sometimes it takes a ton of fortitude to look at 'your' side with a critical eye, I find it harder and harder as I see what is happening. It's one thing to look for information that confirms a bias, its a whole other thing to make up lies and push them as truth. It makes me want to go double against the lies, which makes it seem like picking a side, but sometimes that side is truth. Sometimes we see how a fake narrative takes hold and eventually people believe it. I do think we are seriously lacking in critical thinking skills though. Its easier to just repeat bullshit instead of address the deeper aspects of a problem. I'm forcing myself to look at things I don't like to read so I have a better understanding of what people are thinking and believing.
I so get where you are coming from. It is very hard to get into the heads of others, yet I feel that if we don't, we will ultimately be at odds with almost everyone. So just like you, I read everything, even stuff that I don't agree with, in the hope that there is insight and also maybe something that I have never thought of before. Believe it or not, it has happened.
Same here. I like to do my best to keep an open mind for the same reasons you mention.
While I may not change my opinion or mind about a subject, I can still learn from others by keeping an open mind. It can often help me understand others and why they think or feel the way they do.
IMHO, learning from others is a very valuable part of life, as it can often open doors to insights we may not otherwise gain.
You're right! Conservatives do have a worldview, and it is not necessarily all wrong. There was time when the moderate position was broad and expansive and many people enjoyed it. What may have changed is both sides are trying to wipe away the moderate middle. It ought to not be a desirable place to go. Not in politics. Not in church versus state. Not in world religion versus science.
Right or wrong, the one-size fits all (intellectually and emotionally) approach is going to fail in our country. We're simply too dynamic a set of creatures.
We, people, have emotions. Those emotions are threaded thoroughly and purposely throughout our flesh. Moreover, we don't always, every time, want what is best for us. Sometimes we want to in an orderly society run around stupidly buck naked physically and mentally. Sometimes we will ourselves to stay the course of dealing with truth; by the way, truth is not to be confused with what is all the time real-world. (As many here certainly know.)
I try to keep in mind, the "Vulcan experience" is theoretical: Humans are real. Our emotions are commonplace, organic, and continue to last for a life-time.
I think it depends on the person.
After all, people are different.
It depends on their core values, which leads to their motivation.
Some people are looking for validation-- they frequently enagage in approval-seeking behaviour. Others (a minority) are extremely curious by nature-- they want to know facts.
Or to put it another way-- some folks are motivated primari;y by a need to prove that they are "right".
(See cartoon in comment # 1. 1. 19 )
You are a good person to know...you never can tell when you might need some electrical work done!
And of course you would want one who arrives promptly-- without having to wait around for hours!
Humans are problem solvers. Humans are innately engineers and not scientists. The inherent intellectual ability of humans is based upon beginning with a goal or conclusion; a solution for a problem. Humans naturally discard any knowledge or information that does not contribute to developing the desired solution and achieving the desired goal.
Is that confirmation bias? Technically, yes. But solving a problem or achieving a goal by cherry picking what contributes to achieving the goal is not intellectually dishonest. I contend that is simply human nature. That behavior is the principle basis for sports and games. The human behavior displayed in sports and games is not consistent with the scientific method.
Tool making was not the result of the scientific method. Humans had specific desires or needs and utilized what had been observed to satisfy those desires or needs. The important aspect was not the observation to acquire knowledge but the application of knowledge to achieve a predetermined goal. Humans are natural engineers.
I suggest that the dissonance we observe in modern society is the result of attempting to achieve differing goals. The human proclivity toward achieving goals naturally relies upon a confirmation bias that favors the goal. However, that is not intellectually dishonest.
Nerm, you are not talking about cherry-picking but rather focus. It is not cherry-picking for an architect to focus on materials, human factors, environmental factors, costs, time, etc. while designing a new office building. It is not cherry-picking for baseball players to focus on the stats of their next opponents.
Cherry-picking is reaching or affirming a position based on accepting only that which supports a preconceived notion and ignoring that which challenges the notion.
The focus is on the objective, on the goal. In your example, the objective is to design a new office building. The architect will cherry pick from everything that is available to achieve that goal.
The process of problem solving only accepts that which contributes to achieving the objective. And that objective is predetermined. Baseball players cherry pick available information about opponents to focus on achieving an objective. Baseball players aren't interested in buying habits, food preferences, social interactions, or religious beliefs of their opponents. Ball players cherry pick available information to focus on game stats that contribute to achieving a predetermined goal.
I suggest that understanding competing objectives and goals is far more important than 'facts'. Human nature focuses attention on the objectives and goals since humans are problems solvers. Only 'facts' that contribute toward achieving objectives and goals are likely to be accepted.
Other than trying to gratuitously redefine the slimy debate tactic of cherry-picking, what are you trying to accomplish with this?
I am pointing out that confirmation bias is an evolved trait inherent to humans. Humans are evolved to be biased towards solving problems and achieving goals.
I am not redefining 'cherry picking'. I am pointing out that cherry picking is the natural result of evolved human behavior to only accept that which contributes to achieving objectives and goals that satisfy predetermined desires or needs. Humans are not motivated by questions; humans are motivated by results.
Let me ask you about a contentious subject, as an example. What problem is artificial intelligence supposed to solve? It seems rather apparent that developing artificial intelligence satisfies a desire among those interested in such things. Intellectually it seems easy to understand that there are more humans on the planet now than ever before. An intellectually rational analysis would suggest that humans provide the most capable and efficient means of understanding and satisfying human desires and needs. Why does humanity need AI to replace humans? Those with a confirmation bias toward AI as a desired goal will cherry pick information that contributes to that goal while dismissing information that does not contribute to that goal.
Confirmation bias does seem to be part of our nature. And we are problem solvers. I am not convinced that the two are as intertwined as you suggest. Focusing on relevant facts pursuant to a problem is not cherry-picking and is not confirmation bias.
You are muddying the distinction between focusing on relevant facts and accepting only that which supports one's bias. The former is relevancy (critical to getting anything done) and the latter is cherry-picking.
I believe I get exactly what you are saying. Without stirring too much in the current political sediment, I need to touch it to make this point. Cherry-picking occurs in politics as a means to an end. The end is usually not conductive to both sides. It may not be a win-win ending. However, we see it happening in stark relief in our country. That is, a course has been mapped out, a path is being followed to accomplished a set goal (return to a by-gone era in the U.S.), the players are on the field, a blocking of extraneous 'unsettling' and 'uncomfortable' happenings is occurring, and the objective truth is thrown out of bounds.
People are deliberately supporting their fears, hopes, and expectations, truth that goes against those are casted down. This is all I want to say about the political aspect.
This is true. We see it in stark relief in public hearings. A law has been broken. However, the argued solution coming entirely from one side is to ignore it in favor of returning to a by-gone era under a man as leader who seeks to do so by disregard for our shared Rule of Law. In other words, the goal is to follow the man-thus breaking the law-to accomplish his goals.
Note: I am actively going to try to steer this away from politics. For I have another set of points I want to offer up. I will see how I fare in doing so. (Smile.)
Facts or ideas that support a bias are relevant to that bias. Facts or ideas that do not support a bias are ignored because they are not relevant to the bias.
Cherry picking is all about relevancy. Arguing that a particular point of view is universal or objective is, itself, a biased argument.
Baseball players have a specific bias towards baseball and focus on facts relevant to that bias. That doesn't make specific facts about baseball universal or objective; facts about baseball are only relevant to baseball.
No, the cherry-picking tactic is not about relevancy. It is about ignoring facts that run contrary to one's desires and picking only those facts that support one's desires.
Correct. The baseball example is about focus, not cherry-picking. I am done repeating myself. This concept is too simple to spend this much time explaining it.
Isn't politics really about achieving political goals? It seems to me that a lot of politics is about creating a solution that satisfies a desired political goal and then cherry picking facts to establish the importance of the problem to be addressed by that political solution. It seems that in politics, many problems are not identified as problems until a political goal has been established.
What happens when a politically identified problem isn't accepted as sufficiently important to require a solution? The political debate often seems to devolve into cherry picking facts concerning the importance of problems. But the confirmation biases, cherry picking, and intellectual dishonesty is really about relevance to a political goal rather than identifying and solving problems.
In the United States the population and problems are too diverse to be considered universal. Problems that are limited to small portions of the population or country don't require universal solutions. Often a solution applied universally to address specific, limited conditions creates many more problems; the political solution is not addressing a universal problem and the solution, itself, becomes a problem.
Politics is about achieving political goals. Correct. However the methods that drive the process can derail over into intellectual dishonesty when fair-mindedness is deliberately ignored or dismissed (for instance, by choosing expediency). A quick example comes to mind: Senator Graham has-get this- "truthfully" declared he will not review the House witnesses testimonies and documents. He simply don't trust witnesses to tell a government committee (he works in the same government facility) truth under oath! This is a portion from the political world of the larger point Tig is addressing, in my opinion.
Alas, there is intellectual dishonesty occurring in our religious community when spiritually "matured" individuals set aside their stated convictions in order to promote and expedite an otherwise slow and tedious process.
Whatever ones convictions are they should range across the spectrum in a consistent manner. They do not when dishonesty is involved.
That is a circular statement that contradicts itself.
The focus is only relevant to baseball. The bias is indicated by accepting that baseball is sufficiently important to merit attention. So, the focus is determined by relevancy toward a particular bias.
Here is one :
Here is another :
Inventing your own meaning for common terms is the Redefinition tactic.
Who determined that the problem is sufficiently important to need a solution? In the particular example you are citing: there was no cover up since everyone knew about what was going on, the ongoing communication between the parties was made through regular diplomatic channels, and according to testimony the quid pro quo was limited to political favors between politicians.
What has been disclosed is how business-as-usual is conducted between governments and politicians. Much of the information disclosed during the public hearing reveals the amount of internal politics that occurs within the diplomatic corps and intelligence community toward attempting to persuade (or coerce) a President to conform to particular policy biases.
Is it appropriate for Sen. Graham to challenge the biases involved in determining whether or not the events are actually important? Democrats are claiming to have presented facts. But the reality is that those facts are only relevant toward Democrats' biases. As usual, politicians are cherry picking to establish the importance of a problem to apply a predetermined political solution.
The partisan debate is really about convincing the public that the predetermined political solution addresses a real and significant problem. It's a political search for a problem to achieve a political objective.
Nerm, your discussion is not my argument. I am developing an intellectual dishonesty instance occurring in plain sight. It has no other bearing on the rights and wrongs of this impeachment scenario. In other words, I am not interested in arguing impeachment on this thread. (Smile.) Intellectual honesty would require Senator Graham to serve his duties by reading with a mind toward the truth what the witnesses have shared with the House committee.
Yes, those are the definitions applicable to my comments. Making a claim and arguing to support that claim indicates a bias. As your definitions state, cherry picking only accepts information relevant to supporting a claim; which is ultimately only relevant to supporting a bias. That's what I have stated.
Attempting to counter a claim by misstating the claim and appealing to authority is also an intellectually dishonest debate tactic. No intellectually objective debater (no true Scotsman) would engage in such tactics, would they?
You claim the above yet you wrote this:
This is your claim that baseball players engage in the cherry-picking tactic (the fallacy). You insist that baseball players focusing on facts relevant to baseball is cherry-picking. That is focus on a domain. You have not claimed that they ignore facts in the domain that go against their beliefs. You are claiming that they focus on baseball rather than get distracted with politics, for example. That, Nerm, is not cherry-picking and I am pretty sure you know that.
Cherry-picking by a baseball player would be something like a pitcher arguing that he can strike out a player by citing only the player's weaknesses while ignoring his strengths. Or possibly a fan recognizing only the great plays by his team and ignoring the failures. It is a fallacious act of kidding oneself. Focusing on a particular domain of interest like baseball, politics, architecture, art, etc. is not cherry-picking. When I focus on developing software I am not engaging in cherry-picking.
Cherry-picking is ignoring facts that one dislikes and only accepting facts one likes.
whence i get to pick em
i get picked last, like pic axed to cut into a place i'd prefer to brake away from, but my engineering keeps veering off track and turning my already extremely dyslexic world, inside out while upside down while viewed through a mirror to reverse the images that are in overdrive, as overdriven is my confined mind, that i hope you don't, as just needing a vent to release much pent after one of the longest toughest daze of my life, as was yesterday for me.
I pre apologize for off topic, but
today i'm just off
all apologies, carry on with the water, and the good fight they can't carry, like that water
Within the scope of your context, yes, baseball players engage in cherry picking because the focus is on weaknesses of opponents and strengths of team mates. A ball player does not play to the strengths of opponents and weaknesses of team mates. The predetermined objective of baseball imparts a bias and the stats are cherry picked to support that predetermined objective.
My comments are directed toward a broader context. The stats are relevant to baseball, that is the focus you are claiming. And, as I have explained, that focus really does cherry pick facts to support a predetermined goal according to a bias. However, when those stats are used outside of baseball (for product endorsements, as an example) then the stats are being used in an intellectually dishonest manner. A ball player's ability to play baseball doesn't have anything to do with promoting razors, BBQ grills, or pickup trucks.
But that is exactly what happens within the domain of baseball. And that is exactly what happens when developing software. The goal imparts a bias and dictates focus (using your term). Whatever contributes to achieving the goal is accepted; whatever does not contribute to achieving the goal is ignored. That is a process of selection, acceptance, and rejection according to a bias.
Would human progress have been possible without cherry picking? History is replete with examples of human endeavors that ignored direct evidence of many prior failed attempts. Even today people are still trying to create a perpetual motion machine; people are cherry picking exceptions that defy the evidence.
Nerm, what motivates you to make up such outrageous nonsense?
Baseball players (based on awesome stats, predictive analytics and the insight gained from AI algorithms) make tactical decisions based on the strengths and weaknesses of their opponents and the strengths and weaknesses of their own players.
Well, let's revisit your original comment @4.1.10. You stated:
"A quick example comes to mind: Senator Graham has-get this- "truthfully" declared he will not review the House witnesses testimonies and documents."
That presents information that can be directly verified. The claim is that Graham made a declaration which can be verified or refuted. (I am not going to do fact checking; I accept that the fact can be verified. I recall Graham making some sort of statement to that effect.)
Then you state:
"He simply don't trust witnesses to tell a government committee (he works in the same government facility) truth under oath!"
That presents information that cannot be directly verified unless Graham explicitly told the public he distrusts the witnesses testimony to be correct. Did Graham make such a declaration?
The first statement is obviously using facts in a biased manner; the facts are correct but presented in a manner to support a bias. One possible intent for presenting facts in a biased manner is to convince people that accepting the fact also implicitly accepts the bias. The second statement is a conclusion that supports the bias of the first statement but does not present information that can be verified; there isn't a claim that Graham declared distrust of the witnesses. If the second statement had made the claim "Graham said he don't trust witnesses ..." then the second statement could be tested and verified.
The only fact presented in the two statements that can be tested and verified is that Senator Graham declared he will not review the House witness testimonies and documents.
By mixing facts and biases, both statements are intellectually dishonest. That is a safe debate tactic since refuting a fact doesn't address the overlaid bias and verifying the facts can be claimed as support for the bias.
That's a fair argument. My counter argument is that predictability is a weakness in baseball. As you stated, predictability allows players to adjust according to the fielder's, batter's, or runner's past performance that follows distinct trends.
Your 'counter argument' is to state one of my premises.
No more bias than stating what the man said. A statement which shocks me, because it makes no damn sense for an impartial sitting senator who is supposedly going to need all of the testimonies he can get to make an informed decision. Neither would it make sense to ignore partisan testimonies, which Graham has in spades from members on the republican Intel panel. Review it all. Not simply what confirms his trust in Donald Trump.
Frankly, I only included Senator Graham in this discussion, because his dishonesty in intending to render a vote in a trial setting on his high-office friend the president, while beforehand making it plain to the media/public his interest is not piqued by any testimony coming from democrats and witnesses in the Impeachment Hearing, is obvious and can not be treated as honest.
If sitting Senator Graham does not evaluate the witness testimonies even if only for accuracy, if he comments, "I don't care what a bureaucrat thinks." Without hearing what a "bureaucrat testifies under oath, sitting Senator Graham has formed a conclusion based on improper information.
That is intellectual dishonesty, plain and simple. Maybe at its deliberate finest. Nerm, I have no interest in debating the finer points of republican politics on this thread overlong. For me, it would be a gross digression if dealt with too deeply here.
Please, read my original comment @4 again. I have contended that humans are problem solvers; humans have evolved to be engineers and not scientists. The natural tendency is for humans to establish an endpoint or a goal and seek information that contributes to achieving that goal while discarding information that does not contribute to achieving that goal.
You are arguing that the evolved problem solving ability of humans is not intellectually honest. That's technically correct. Humans begin with a confirmation bias and cherry pick information to support that confirmation bias. I am contending that is an evolved human trait favoring problem solving. Humans have not evolved to be objective or intellectually honest.
Sen. Graham's endpoint is not the same as Democrats' endpoint; they are pursuing different goals. Both sides have a different confirmation bias and both sides are cherry picking information to support their differing biases. Technically both sides are not intellectually honest. But that is human nature.
Moving swiftly forward: Does your argument entail ends justifying the means - facts and truth need not apply? Yes or No.
The ends justifying the means is a method of doing something considered wrong to achieve a goal that is considered right. As an example, Adam Schiff's staff advising the whistle blower on how to prepare the initial complaint to prompt and justify Congressional investigation was a self-serving conflict of interest.
Another example of ends justifying means would be poisoning the well, as in the case of Marie Yovanovitch's testimony. The testimony of Marie Yovanovitch may well have been truthful but was not relevant to allegations of a 'bribery' scheme.
Yet another example of ends justifying the means would be a gish gallop, as in the case of witnesses only providing hearsay evidence which would not be allowed or considered during a trial.
Very little of the public testimony during the House investigative hearings meet the qualifying criteria for evidence to be considered during judicial proceedings. Why should Senators be forced to review material that can't be used as evidence? Is the expectation that Lindsey Graham review all the testimony from the House investigation (including testimony that cannot be used as evidence) intellectually honest?
Just because the testimony was truthful does not mean the testimony is useful or relevant.
I apologize, because despite myself I seem to be having multiple discussions on different tiers. I seem to be engrossed (dragged in or otherwise, not clear now) in impeachment politics with you and spiraling ever deeper.
Maybe, I need a reset. I don't wish to be duly checked by the author, for being un-tethered to the proper subject matter.
Tig are you willing to let political discussion track long on this article? If you are willing, I have some things I can share/explore without hesitating with Nerm. That is, with permission to speak freely.
Feel free to get your point across CB. You know I support people following their train of thought even if it veers off topic. But try to keep your discussion at least weakly related to the notion of intellectual honesty, good debate practices, etc.
1. Prove this happened. I have no idea what you are bringing out.
A. I need direction to a written rule, policy, or law which states help with preparation is disallowed or questionable.
2. Miss Yovanovitch's testimony was not used to explain Trump's bribery; it was to show a larger effort to dislodge and repositiion non-compliant personnel (ie, herself) without reasonable explanation; or to demonstrate the issuance of a lie or set of lies.
3. Witness testimonies can be collateral, circumstantial, cumulative to explain an act, activity, or conspiracy. Plus, the witnesses all were present, sworn-in, and cross-examined by the Intelligence Committee. Impeachment Hearings are not trials.
4. Sitting senators with a vote to deliver for or against impeachment of a sitting president; should be properly informed. If not so, then any or all such senators will be improperly informed.
5. The testimonies are useful, relevant, and testified under oath to be true.
What is intellectually dishonest is for House republicans to enter the "proceeding" bringing up subject matter not associated with the reason for convening an impeachment hearing. Berating witnesses, character assassinations, holding a 'sub-hearing' on the Bidens, these activities were wrong-headed.
However, they are allowed, because the House Impeachment Hearings are not judicial proceedings. They are political proceedings. Sadly, dishonesty reared its ugly head in them.
Also, the Biden's were not included in the hearings. No witnesses on behalf of the Biden's were called under oath. No documents were admitted for or against the Biden's. Proof the proceedings were not intended for the former Vice-President or his son Hunter.
What evidence do you have of that claim? Please be specific.
Au contraire. Marie Yovanovitch was evidenced of the beginning of the story. She set the stage for the way shit is supposed to work and showed the EFFECT of Trump's 'policy' on Americans who were ACTUALLY fighting corruption on behalf of the nation. Yovanovitch's removal proves that this didn't start with the call, it started MONTHS before that.
All that comment proves is that you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to hearsay evidence, which IS allowed and considered during trials regularly.
There is a REASON why the founders chose to give the House the sole power for impeachment and NOT the judiciary. I suggest you review those reasons before you make further ridiculous statements.
WTF are you babbling about?
WTF does Lindsey Graham have to do with it?
We're talking about Yovanovitch's testimony here and it was all of the above.
Now we are drifting into an argument about the details of impeachment which was not the intent or the context of my comments. You introduced the topic into the discussion and I have been using that topic to (attempt to) illustrate points relevant to the author's topic.
Keep in mind that Committee Chair Adam Schiff read his version of the phone call into the record (claiming to have captured the essence) and Speaker Pelosi announced an impeachment investigation before the official summary of the call was made public. What has transpired since has been to support Schiff's version of what transpired and has not been the result of following evidence. What has transpired has been collection of politically useful information, most of which cannot be used as evidence during a judicial proceeding.
Ambassador Gordon Sondland acting as an official envoy to the Ukrainian government is a regular diplomatic channel. Marie Yovanovitch was not in the loop and did not need to be brought into the loop. Yovanovitch testified she was ordered to leave the country for security reasons; supposedly her life was in danger. Yovanovitch is claiming she was treated unfairly; not that her recall was illegal or that she could have stopped Gordon Sondland or Rudy Giuliani.
As you point out, the House proceedings are an investigation. And investigations can review gossip, hearsay, and circumstantial information. But not all of that information meets the criteria for evidence. An impeachment trial is a judicial proceeding presided over by the Chief Justice. The rules of evidence are more strict for judicial proceedings. Senators act in the role of a jury. And attempting to influence a jury before a trial is tampering which is not legal.
So, what has been shown the public conforms to a predetermined goal established before evidence was obtained. That predetermined goal has established a confirmation bias for the proceedings that has resulted in cherry picking information that supports the bias and not allowing introduction of any exculpatory hearsay or circumstantial information that would not contribute to achieving the predetermined goal.
The public conflict and debate is over the predetermined goal. Those favoring the goal will use the information as supporting 'evidence' while disregarding information that does not support the goal. Those not favoring the predetermined goal will simply disregard the whole thing as being unimportant and not worth any consideration. The predetermined goal has established confirmation biases for those favoring the goal and those who do not favor the goal.
I have contended that such behavior is consistent with human's evolved problem solving ability. I contend what we are seeing is human nature in action. Some have claimed that innate problem solving behavior is itself a problem but they, too, have exhibited the same behaviors in attempting to address their identified problems associated with problem solving.
The context of your comments were indeed about the details of the impeachment inquiry.
Which doesn't prove your claim about the whistleblower being advised by Schiff.
What point are you trying to make with that statement?
Are you aware of the other events that took place between Sept. 9th and Sept 25th when Speaker Pelosi announce the inquiry?
Do you believe that the witness list came out of thin air? The WB complaint and the call summary were the initial evidence and that is what Schiff was addressing in his statement. That was before the Impeachment inquiry was opened.
All of the information gathered during the inquiry will be reviewed while deciding what to include in the Articles of Impeachment.
Sondland was acting as Trump's bagman. He is NOT an official envoy to the Ukraine and he was working OUTSIDE of regular diplomatic channels.
Yovanovitch actually WAS the official envoy to the Ukraine and WAS the regular diplomatic channel. She knew damn well that Rudy et al was up to something as early as Nov. 2018.
Actually, she testified that was the EXCUSE she was given for having her leave forthwith.
So did EVERY other diplomat that testified, including the ones that the GOP called.
Well based on his public statements and his 'dossier', it sure as hell looks like Giuliani wanted her out of the way and the fact that she wasn't replaced for a month gave him and the 3 Amigos carte blanch to act without 'adult' supervision.
Nope. The rules of evidence in the Senate trial are what the Senate SAYS are the rules of evidence. The House managers have the full authority to present whatever evidence they see fit.
As Rehnquist ruled during the Clinton trial: 'the Senate is not simply a jury; it is a court in this case'.
So then Trump should stop throwing money at Senators and having GOP Congressional outings at Camp David.
The WH chose to deny the testimony of multiple principle witnesses. If they had anything 'exculpatory' Trump would have offered them up right quick.
Just as the Senate is the court/jury, the House is the Grand Jury which ONLY hear from the prosecution.
BTW, GOP Congressman TRIED to get exculpatory evidence from witnesses and there is NONE.
I disagree. The conflict and debate is over the facts as they exist and those that deny that they exist at all.
That merely illustrates your confirmation bias. Throughout, you've pretended that Schiff somehow knew that all of the witnesses would corroberate his 'version', the whistleblower and each other.
There is NO way that Schiff could have known that and despite your claim, early witnesses brought witnesses to light that Schiff didn't even know about. Holmes is a perfect example of that fact.
While ignoring one very pertinent thing, IMHO. Many of the Congressmen on the Intel Committee have the highest level 'problem solving ability' and they have the ability to subdue their own 'confirmation bias' for the good of the country if anyone in America does. All too many people forget that the members of the intel committee are privy to the highest level of Top Secret information in this country. We the People literally put our national security in their hands.
In short, they're not all the schmucks you seem to be claiming they are.
Sorry! I can not process any of that. It's too 'corrupted.' I'm out.
Then let's attempt to uncorrupt the concepts I'm presenting. A debate is an adversarial presentation of information supporting different (often opposing) claims and goals. The purpose of debate is not for the debaters to switch positions. A debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham isn't about Nye or Ham adopting their opponent's position. A debate isn't about achieving agreement or consensus among the debaters. Each debater has a confirmation bias supporting their point of view. Each debater is motivated to only present information supporting their point of view and disregarding information that does not support their point of view. The debaters are not objective or disinterested in presentation of their viewpoints so, consequently, the debaters cannot be intellectually honest.
The goal of debate is for opposing viewpoints to present information supporting their respective points of view and attempt to persuade disinterested (or objective) observers to agree with one of the presented points of view. And those presenting differing viewpoints engage in a variety of debate tactics (including logical fallacies) to be more persuasive.
The nature of the problem is to persuade disinterested (or objective) observers and achieving a solution to that problem establishes a confirmation bias for the debaters attempting to be persuasive.
The House impeachment investigations have been conducted in a manner to persuade the public to accept a partisan point of view. The investigators are not disinterested or objective observers; they are the debaters. The goal to persuade the public to agree with one partisan point of view has established a confirmation bias. The partisan participants in the debate are not going to be intellectually honest. Expecting partisans to be objective and intellectually honest while attempting to persuade the public to their point of view is unrealistic. That's the nature of the beast resulting from evolved human problem solving ability.
The public is in the role of disinterested or objective observer which means the public must be the critical thinkers and must be intellectually honest. The partisan debaters won't be intellectually honest because they are pursuing partisan goals that impart a confirmation bias.
That is usually true, but not necessarily true. Nonetheless, the adversarial nature of debate will often mitigate this as long as the interlocutors are able to rebut each other.
And that is slimy. It is quite possible to present one's positions without resorting to intellectually dishonest tactics. Indeed, I would argue that it is far superior to make an honest, logical, factually justified case rather than attempt to trick the audience. It amazes me how some think that lame tactics such as faux obtuseness, ignoring (cherry-picking), projection, strawman arguments, etc. actually fool the observers. Anything will fool the casual observer but those who are paying attention will likely not be fooled (and it is really the folks paying attention who matter).
Forgive me for being so forward, but that is utter nonsense, in my opinion. If this is how you see confirmation bias, then I question your use of the House Impeachment Hearings as your example.
For my part (above), I focused on a single (potent) statement by Senator Lindsay Graham who precisely stated he would not listen to the House testimonies/transcripts borne out of the Impeachment Hearings. Graham's statement means he will passed judgement on two weeks of verbal testimonies (under oath) unheard or not 'ingested' by a Senator holding an official vote on the position of this president—were he to follow through on the 'threat'.
Graham's rationale: He has heard from "testimony" (not under oath) of two presidents (Trump and Zelinsky), who stated and I paraphrase, 'This did not happen. It is not quid pro quo.' Which ignores the "rank and status" imbalances of the two presidents. Moreover, it ignores the dubious "mountainous" record of lies by our president.
I assert that Graham's intellect and experiences in life and in government across many years, inform him that this is not a situation where you can glean an impression from two world leaders who are not out of balance in rank, stature, and one have a desperate need.
Senator Graham golfs and interacts with his American president friend; he shares party politics with his American president friend; The American president holds immense "pull" over Graham's state electorate; he is up for reelection at the same time his president friend and 'co-worker' in 2020.
Thus, Senator Graham is demonstrating confirmation bias to tolerate error and not strive to find the truth. Graham, effectively has stated he will side with one-way communication when the time comes for the Senate Hearings. Effectively allowing, "Trump is always right."
That is confirmation bias, which is different from intellectual honesty.
Intellectual honesty 'labors' to listen to both or all sides of an argument and after the give and take facts and opinions, decides on the right course of action (in this case under rules, policies, and Rule of Law).
When the goal is to persuade a disinterested party (an audience or the public) to adopt a point of view then that establishes a confirmation bias to utilize methods that enhance persuasion. Facts, evidence, and information that supports an alternative point of view will not contribute to achieving the desired goal.
When the goal is to arrive at a consensus or compromise then that establishes a confirmation bias to scrutinize facts, evidence, and information to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable. All parties involved in solving the problem of achieving compromise utilize methods to identify what is acceptable to everyone engaged in the process.
Stating a goal defines the problem of achieving that goal. Solving the problem of achieving a goal establishes a confirmation bias that self regulates the process. Critical thinking and intellectual honesty in stating the goal guides the entire process. The process of solving the problem is biased toward achieving the stated goal. Critical thinking and intellectual honesty will not alter the stated objective once the problem solving process has begun.
Perhaps that is 'slimy' but I am contending that is the nature of the beast. Problem solving is what makes humans human.
As I said elsewhere, an important aspect of the scientific method that is often overlooked is the necessity of properly formulating questions. Critical thinking and intellectual honesty are required to properly formulate goals. The goal defines the problem and establishes the confirmation biases involved in the process of achieving the goal.
Great thinkers ask great questions. Anyone with analytical problem solving skills can contribute to answering a question. Critical thinking and intellectual honesty is requisite for asking great questions and properly formulating goals. The problem solving process of achieving a goal is self regulated by biases; that is the nature of the beast.
That's impossible because much of your concepts, as stated, are based on falsehoods.
Interesting that you acknowledge that while not practicing it.
Or in the instance of the content of your comments, to gaslight.
False. We each create our OWN confirmation bias, it's not contagious or unwillingly transmitted.
While that may be true in college debates, it ain't happening here in the real world. Proof or that is the misinformation that you posted and your unwillingness to either defend it or admit it was bullshit.
The final fact is that your 'debaters' scenario falls apart when you add witnesses into the mix. Debaters plan their argument and control it's content. That's impossible when witnesses are added to the mix. Proof of that is that multiple witnesses revealed information in their open testimony that was never mentioned in their deposition.
Even further proof is the fact that the GOP ran out of arguments and scrambled for something to ask the witnesses that wouldn't make their position worse than it already was.
Another goal is to engage in debate to tease out the truth. That form of debate is inherently more formal and intellectual than what is normally observed on social media. But it is, as I noted, a form where intellectual honesty is valued and objective critical thinking is a priority.
It takes two to have a debate, especially that type of debate. Unfortunately, NermL has refused to participate and prefers to pontificate and gaslight.
This is an issue I have come up against on a regular basis recently. Since there is so much documented evidence, it's become difficult to obfuscate the facts. It's all there in black and white and it looks to me like every day it's getting harder for Trump supporters to defend a position that has no foundation.
No doubt you see this all the time because I certainly do. Even when the facts are undeniable, denials occur. Even when the reasoning is spot on, some will employ tactics rather than acknowledge the point. The 'win at all cost' debate style is what Nerm is describing. While most social media debates do seem to take that form, there are the occasional gems (including good portions within net bad 'debates') which make suffering through the nonsense worthwhile.
Which is exactly the issue I have with NermL's tactics.
Though Nerm isn't achieving it.
Posting a proclamation and bailing isn't a debate style, IMHO it's cowardice.
This 'tactic' will become more dangerous as time goes on in the Impeachment inquiry. There are facts on the table that some here have denied or proclaimed are lies. Even worse is the claim that 'well it was a liberal source so it can't be the truth'. Facts have no 'source' they're either facts or they aren't.
Unless and until we get back to agreeing that facts are facts, the nonsense will continue.
Using debate to 'tease out the truth' requires a disinterested or impartial moderator, referee, or judge. The attorneys involved in a judicial proceeding are not impartial. Even science utilizes peer review as an impartial referee to avoid bias.
An adversarial means of 'teasing out the truth' still involves setting a goal for each of the adversaries. The goal establishes a confirmation bias that regulates each of the adversaries.
I have no desire to engage in your gish gallop tactics. So, responding with your typical gish gallop will not illicit a response from me.
The impeachment process began with a grievance based upon indirect or hearsay evidence. Adam Schiff began the process by questioning DNI Maguire about the whistle blower complaint and Schiff reading his version of the phone call into the record before any direct evidence of the call was available. And the whistle blower complaint did not provide sufficient information for Schiff to 'reconstruct' a conversation between Trump and Zelensky. Schiff did not 'reconstruct' the conversation based on available evidence therefore he must have had another source of information. Adam Schiff revealed his bias to act as prosecutor rather than impartial referee before Speaker Pelosi announced the change in status for the investigations to be directed toward impeachment.
News reporting indicated that the whistle blower had communicated with Congressional aides reporting to Chairman Schiff. The rational conclusion is that the discussions between the whistle blower and Congressional staff included details that were not included in the complaint and the Congressional staff provided Adam Schiff with those details. Another reasonable conclusion derived from information that has been reported is that either the whistle blower was attempting to influence the opening of an investigation (as James Comey had done to influence appointing a special counsel) or Congressional staff was attempting to influence the complaint to achieve similar ends.
Nope, just requires interlocutors who are intellectually honest. The goal is to approximate the truth, not to win. This is rare, but it certainly occurs.
Isn't your statement pointing out that the goal establishes the biases that regulate the process of achieving the goal? The active participants in the process have accepted a common goal so the participants are regulated by a common bias.
The formulation of the goal at the beginning of the process directly affects how the participants engage in the process. The formulation of the goal establishes whether or not the process will be adversarial or cooperative.
What you are describing is a congenial debate where intellectually honest participants each have the ability to present both sides of any issue. Intellectually honest debaters are not biased towards any side of an issue or any particular outcome. Intellectually honest debaters don't play favorites, do they?
You are not using the term correctly.
Its obvious that you are not aware of the actual meaning of the term "cherry picking".
I suppose I could explain it to you, but my guess is you wouldn't listen, so its not something thatI wish to waste time on.....
Oddly, you have cherry picked one sentence from my comment and have ignored the context.
Cherry picking is choosing what is most relevant to achieving an objective or goal. Someone constructing a building in the tropics will not consider the properties of ice as a construction material because that information is not relevant.
In a political debate the objective is to persuade the public to support a point of view. Cherry picking in political debate would be choosing arguments, information, or evidence that is most persuasive in garnering support for a point of view. The goal of persuading the public has established a confirmation bias and defined relevancy for cherry picking.
It's intellectually dishonest to proclaim that my replies to your comments are inaccurate. You've had abundant time to refute me and instead continue to prove that you're clueless about the events about which you pontificate ad nauseam. I'll illustrate that below.
False. The Impeachment process didn't start with the compliant, it started with the DOJ/OLC and WH refusal to allow the ICIG to forward the complaint to the House Intel Committee. The TRUE whistleblower IMHO is the ICIG because he sent the letter to the Intel Committee informing them of the existence of the Whistleblower Complaint, the refusal of the DNI to release it and explaining why he felt it was the wrong decision and unprecedented.
False again, see above.
That's THREE false statements in a row. The call summary was released on Sept. 25th and the hearing Chaired by Schiff was held on Sept. 26th.
So the rest of that paragraph is utter bullshit and adds many more false statements in a row.
Who's 'gish galloping' now Nerm?
So what?
It's not rational or reasonable to make unfounded conclusions based purely on your animus toward Schiff or Democrats.
Do explain how the goal of the truth establishes biases?
I made no such claim that your replies are inaccurate. That allegation is intellectually dishonest.
You consistently tear apart comments into a string of factoids that cannot be addressed with a cogent, coherent response. That's a gish gallop.
By your own admission the impeachment process began with the whistle blower complaint. You claim that the process began with the ICIG refusing to forward to the whistle blower complaint to the intelligence committee. Your version of events lends support to the suggestion that Adam Schiff was aware of the contents of the complaint and needed the complaint to justify the political process of an impeachment investigation. Schiff's reading of his version of the phone call into the record before the official summary was released suggests that Schiff was provided detailed information before any evidence was obtained. And Shiff's actions prior to initiating the proceedings suggest a bias towards achieving a political objective.
The circumstantial evidence suggesting that Adam Schiff decided the outcome before beginning the process cannot be ignored. And Adam Schiff's subsequent performance as chairman of the proceedings lends more support to the suggestion that Schiff began a biased process to achieve a political objective.
Nope. You claimed I was gish galloping and that means in part being inaccurate.
Nope. Gish gallop involves overwhelming your opponent with as many arguments as possible, with no regard for the relevance, validity, or accuracy of those arguments.
Your allegation that I was gish galloping is overt bullshit since my comments contain ACCURATE VALID FACTS.
Nope and continuing to make that proclamation merely chips away and your dwindling credibility.
No I did NOT. READ MORE CAREFULLY.
Frist of all, it's not MY version. I posted the factual timeline of events.
So on the planet that YOU live on, the 25th is AFTER the 26th.
Seriously, repeating lies does not make them truth.
You're utterly clueless about that Schiff's actions were prior to Pelosi opening the Impeachment inquiry and the fact that you aren't curious enough to review the FACTS before spewing your proclamations just proves to me that you have no intention of being intellectually honest about the issue.
Oh and BTFW, I note that you evolved from 'indications' and 'conclusions' to 'suggestions'. Perhaps if you pursued some facts, your evolution would continue in the right direction.
You are not using the term correctly.
Its obvious that you are not aware of the actual meaning of the term "cherry picking".
I suppose I could explain it to you, but my guess is you wouldn't listen, so its not something thatI wish to waste time on.....
Oddly, you have cherry picked one sentence from my comment and have ignored the context.
Cherry picking is choosing what is most relevant to achieving an objective or goal. Someone constructing a building in the tropics will not consider the properties of ice as a construction material because that information is not relevant.
In a political debate the objective is to persuade the public to support a point of view. Cherry picking in political debate would be choosing arguments, information, or evidence that is most persuasive in garnering support for a point of view. The goal of persuading the public has established a confirmation bias and defined relevancy for cherry picking.
Nerm:
There's an olde saying that is quite relevant here-- advice you may want to heed:
If you're in a hole-- stop digging!
Your knowledge of olde sayings is laudable but may not be relevant.
Funny thing about holes is that they can either be caused by digging down or by piling up dirt on firm ground. Looking at the hole isn't as relevant as observing how everyone is using their shovels.
I think this might be too much a superficial view of this to be useful. Generally, you may be right. However, where confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty comes into play is when an individual not only desires something for themselves, but those around them. Take the debate over socialism vs capitalism, for instance. Both sides tend to argue their side based on the concept rather than observable phenomena. That is, they tend to argue the ideal and tend to ignore or distort reality that doesn't confirm their position.
That said, and not directed at you but, rather, the discussion as a whole, critical thinking is one of the best skills a person can have, but it will not ipso facto lead to truth in all cases. I'm not saying that anyone has made such a claim but it is important to know what critical thinking's limitations are or we could be in danger of thinking we have arrived at a truth (as opposed to an opinion) using critical thinking. For instance...
Amy: An electron has a charge because it is intrinsic to it's nature.
Bif: An electron has a charge because God was pleased that it should have one and He maintains that charge from one moment to the next.
Amy: There is no evidence for your view, Bif.
Bif: What would that evidence look like, Amy?
Amy: I don't know and I don't need to provide it. It is your claim that God is responsible so it's your burden of proof.
Bif: Okay, but by your own argument it is your argument that an electron has a charge because it's intrinsic to it's nature. Can you prove this?
Amy: Yes. It's obvious it has a charge.
Bif: Yes, but can you prove it's because it's intrinsic to it's nature and that God can not be responsible? All you can actually prove at this time is that it has a charge.
Amy:....
Critical thinking doesn't lead us to a truth here, although I doubt either Amy or Bif would agree. To each, it feels like truth. But critical thinking would mean that each recognize that while it may feel like the truth, neither can present their conclusion as an inarguable truth. Instead, they should recognize that, concerning what each believes about the nature of the electron is what they believe to be true.
To be clear, having critical thinking skills is one of the most important skills one can have but it isn't a cure-all. It's thinking critically to recognize that it has limitations.
This is the key point in your example. Amy claimed that an electron has a charge because it is intrinsic to it's nature. The word 'because' actually makes no sense in this context. It is equivalent to saying that an electron has a charge because that is how an electron is constructed. A correct 'because' should answer why the electron is constructed with a charge.
We could say that the USA constitution is secular because it is intrinsic to it's nature. Well, sure the CotUS is secular. But the reason it is secular is because the framers saw the problems that occurred when the powers of church and state were intertwined (case in point England at the time). So the CotUS is secular because the framers expressly sought to separate church and state due to the historical problems they witnessed.
So Amy's claim is nothing more than stating the definition (well, in part) for the scientific observation known as the electron. Her phrasing was improper because it looked as though she was making a claim when in reality she was simply citing a definition.
Note also that Amy never claimed that the electron's charge did not come from God. Amy simply pointed out to Bif that his claim was unevidenced. Very big difference. And Bif does have the burden of proof because the reason he posited (God) has not been established as true.
…(sigh)...
However, both of you (NT) have expressed important points for consideration.
Why (sigh)?
I offered you a detailed explanation. Amy would have the burden of proof if she had claimed something that was not established. It is by definition than an electron has a charge. What is not by definition is why it has a charge. If Amy had claimed something like 'an electron has a charge because its underlying strings have low entropy' then she would have the burden of proof. Simply stating a defining characteristic of an electron is not a claim; she just phrased her observation with poor language.
Bif, in contrast, gave a reason (God) that is itself an unevidenced claim.
While I have only selected your opening remark for brevity, my response is directed toward your comment as a whole.
Consider that religion arose as a solution to a problem. Since disparate groups of people have established religions it would be reasonable to suggest that the problem addressed by religion is fundamentally shared by humanity as a whole. The fundamental problem addressed by religion would be an universal truth for humanity. And religion would appear to be a viable solution since so many disparate groups of people have established religions.
Since there is such a large variety of religions then a reasonable explanation would be that the fundamental problem shared by humanity is nuanced by specific circumstance. Disparate groups of people 'cherry picked' from the general concepts of religion to develop a specific religion as a solution for specific aspects of a shared fundamental problem inherent to humanity as a whole.
One explanation would be that disparate groups of people have always shared ideas throughout human existence, which seems unlikely. Another possible explanation would be that the nature of a problem directs human problem solving ability toward similar solutions. Fundamental problems more broadly shared by humanity would result in the independent emergence of similar solutions. We can observe the same sort of outcome for government, economics, law, and, even, social conventions.
To me it seems that solving a problem requires a confirmation bias that accepts the need for a solution. Humans could simply accept conditions as they are and make no attempt to alter conditions; humans could just adapt to conditions as does most of life on the planet. I am contending that confirmation bias and cherry picking are intrinsic traits of humans; that is the nature of humans as problem solvers.
I am suggesting that complaints about confirmation biases, intellectual dishonesty, and cherry picking are really complaints about what makes humans human. We can't eliminate those traits nor should we want to.
This one is diabolical (evil) and a damn waste of all that is good and perfect. It does not reside in the heart of those who properly mean well. It is to omit truth and commit deceit all balled into one act. Thus, I disagree it is inherent to humanity. It is a thing in the world and people 'walk by it' and pick it up and try it on. (Smile.)
I don't think I can agree with that. That is, I do recognize that they are human traits, but I disagree that they are desirable as such. While we can't eliminate such traits, it behooves us to mitigate them as much as possible. Doing otherwise leads to things like this , in my opinion, the more such traits are indulged. Another example of an extreme non-critical thinker, one who may exemplify all of those traits might be Hitler.
Hitler? Really?
What role did Nikola Tesla play in causing climate change that threatens the planet? Aren't defenders of today's technological society exhibiting a confirmation bias based on cherry picking facts about technological progress and ignoring the consequences of Nikola Tesla's remarkable achievements?
Nikola Tesla may well have inadvertently killed more people than any despot or dictator. Critical thought has proven to be no less dangerous than non-critical thought.
How are the people in the linked YouTube video a threat to humanity? Are they polluting and consuming the planet? The people shown in the video are only expressing the same spiritual concerns as do many indigenous people who are more closely attuned to the environments in which they live. The behavior may seem alien and out of place in a technological culture but, I suggest, the response should include some introspection about the confirmation biases within that technological culture. Critical thought also creates problems by cherry picking measures of progress that are only relevant to a particular bias.
Yes, really. Many of his decisions were based on what he wanted to be, not what was. He wanted Jews to be inferior so his confirmation bias, intellectual dishonesty and cherry picking made it so in his view and he pressed that view on his people. He believed that spirit and willpower were sufficient to overcome any obstacle and so he often refused to allow his commanders in the field to retreat in spite of the tactical stupidity of not doing so. There are many examples that can be given of this type.
We have to be careful here to identify what exactly we are talking about. I doubt anyone in Tesla's day had a thought about climate change so we can't really address it concerning critical thinking. One cannot think critically about what one isn't aware of.
As to today's defenders of tech a case can be made for not thinking critically, but that isn't really the point being discussed. The point is whether or not intellectual dishonesty, confirmation bias and cherry picking are desirable traits in humans.
More or less what I was trying to point out in the portion of my post you didn't cover. No matter how critically one thinks, it is based upon some bias, assumptions or beliefs. Critical thinking by itself is not a panacea. Critical thinking may lead to a better computer but it doesn't necessarily lead to a justification of it's existence. That depends upon the goal with which one starts.
Aren't political decisions based upon what is wanted and not what is? That's what problem solving is about, creating what is wanted regardless of what is. Problem solving depends upon some degree of confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. Hitler may exemplify an extreme example that more easily illustrates inherent human nature. But today's politics of income disparity and taxing the rich really only differs from the example of Hitler by degree but not in method.
1896. That's the year Svante Arrhenius and Arvid Högbom determined that carbonic acid in the atmosphere influenced the earth's climate and warned that human emissions of CO2 would eventually warm the planet. But they also showed that the low rate of human CO2 emissions at that time meant that the warming would not occur until far into the future. Their work did not account for increasing human emissions and their warning was forgotten as human emissions increased.
Did Tesla know? Probably not. Tesla's confirmation bias was toward his work. But that is true of today's developers of technology, as well. Whether or not Tesla was aware of the evidence likely would not have affected his work any more than it affects the work of today's developers of technology.
I am contending that confirmation bias and cherry picking are a natural part of problem solving. Humans are evolved problem solvers; humans have not evolved to be objective or intellectually honest. I further contend that problem solving would not be as effective or efficient without confirmation biases and cherry picking. So, yes, I contend that humans' natural intellectual dishonesty is desirable because that is what makes humans human.
Consider that critical thinkers are better at cherry picking information. Doesn't that suggest that critical thinking results in confirmation biases and intellectual dishonesty? At least anecdotally, experts seem to exhibit a higher degree of confirmation bias and greater ability to cherry pick information than those with less expertise.
Well, I suppose we could devolve this discussion to what is vs what should be, but I'll pass on that : )
But would you argue that the current political climate (or probably nearly any other period of history) is a good thing? I agree that our situation is a product of confirmation bias, intellectual dishonesty and cherry picking. In fact, I think these things are probably responsible for more suffering and destruction than probably anything else we do as a species. Because we don't think critically about what we do.
And I'm not sure it's correct to describe this as confirmation bias. For that to be applicable, Tesla would have to be presented with opposing ideas concerning what he was trying to do and be shown he was suppressing data and facts that would detract from his desired outcome and only accepting data and facts that seem to support it. That would be confirmation bias or intellectual dishonesty, depending on whether it was deliberate or not.
You appear to be using confirmation bias in the sense that, since we are such limited beings, we cannot take everything there is into consideration at once and therefore we only focus on what we desire or have an interest in and ignore the rest. I'm not sure that's an accurate description of the word.
Well, we have differing opinions as to why our nature is such, but I can't see these traits as something desirable. As I said, I think they chause more suffering and destruction than about anything else I can think of. They are, to my mind, extensions of selfishness rather than selflessness.
Thanks for the conversation but I am going back to work in a bit and I'm done here. Have a nice day.
Spot on.
I am contending that what we are observing is evolved human nature in action. I have stated that the human nature we are observing is due to the evolved problem solving abilities of humans. Humans predetermine objectives and goals which establishes a confirmation bias and humans then cherry pick information that supports that bias. That is 'what is'.
Identifying problems resulting from that problem solving nature defines a 'what should be' goal or objective and establishes a confirmation bias. That also illustrates that cherry picking is also used to elevate the importance of objectives and goals to achieve a greater consensus. Cherry picking problems associated with 'what is' contributes to the confirmation bias favoring a solution to achieve 'what should be'. While that may sound contrived or circular, I contend that is a human nature associated with evolved problem solving ability.
A confirmation bias disregards opposing ideas or information. I am contending that the confirmation bias is established by the objective or goal being pursued. Nikola Tesla bankrupted himself by attempting to transmit electrical energy through the air instead of over a transmission grid. Tesla cherry picked information by pointing to his small scale demonstrations while disregarding information showing the impracticability of transmission through the air.
I am claiming that setting a goal or objective establishes a confirmation bias. I contend that addressing confirmation bias as a problem requires scrutiny of the goal or objective being pursued that established the confirmation bias.
Yes, this would be a fair example of confirmation bias. However, confirmation bias goes deeper than simply ignoring opposing ideas or information. It actually influences how you view the ideas or information one does accept. That is, one's beliefs shape how one views facts and data rather than facts and data informing one's beliefs.
While what you say here can, and often is true, I do not think this is necessarily so, and is the argument behind critical thinking. Critical thinking can prevent one from conformation bias when establishing a goal.
Imagine an architect desiring to build a bridge that would be both functionally safe and a work of art. The architect already has a vison of what she wants it to look like. What she has in mind would be amazingly beautiful. But would what she conceives of be functionally safe?
Without critical thinking, she may be tempted to focus on the vision of beauty to the extent she stints on safety. In order to make an aspect of the bridge work, in her mind anyway, she may discount data by claiming her data shows that it isn't a valid concern, when really, her data doesn't really fit the situation.
With critical thinking, she is less likely to do this. She is more likely to accept that, in spite of how grand the vision, limitations in current material technology and engineering may not make a functionally safe bridge and her vision possible at the same time.
I suppose one could argue, as you seem to be doing, that establishing a goal of a bridge that is both a work of art and functionally safe is establishing a goal that is confirmation bias, but I think that would be outside of the intended meaning of the term. Confirmation bias is, essentially, imposing meaning on facts, information and data based on belief rather than those things informing belief. In other words, making facts, information and data mean what you want them to mean rather than accepting what they indicate.
Precisely. Nikola Tesla believed that application of electrical power was vitally important and worked toward achieving that goal. That was Tesla's fundamental confirmation bias.
An often overlooked aspect of the scientific method is the necessity of properly formulating questions. Answering a question creates a goal and establishes a confirmation bias. Critical thinking and intellectual honesty is required to properly formulate questions and goals. Once the goal has been established, the process of achieving that goal is self regulating. Achieving a goal may require creativity, analytical skills, and careful consideration but the goal has established a filter (a confirmation bias) for accepting or rejecting information.
I contend that critical thinking and intellectual honesty is required to formulate goals and that the process of achieving that goal is self regulated by confirmation biases.
Yes, that states my contention fairly well. However, I suggest that the process of achieving a goal requires a confirmation bias. The underlying belief is that the goal is of sufficient importance that it must be fulfilled.
Would you agree that problem solving is a self regulating process?
This is a somewhat different statement than the one you made earlier to which I was referring, but that's okay, I can work with this one as well. I can understand why you are claiming confirmation bias. Tesla would naturally disregard anything that would tend to dismiss the application of electrical power as less than vitally important and promote anything that supported his view. In fact, I doubt the idea that power transmission was not vitally important would even occur to him or his contemporaries. And even if it had, it's pretty likely that confirmation bias would have occurred due to the perceived benefits of successful power transmission. That is, had someone tried to argue that transmitting power should be avoided, it would have been ignored and/or suppressed.
However, it should be noted that having the goal of power transmission or believing it is necessary isn't confirmation bias in itself. Confirmation bias only occurs when you ignore or reject arguments against it out of hand or data that legitimately opposes the view.
I don't understand your reasoning on this. To oversimplify, Newton is reported to have pursued gravity because having seen an apple fall from a tree. The question was, why? What governed it? Asking the question created the goal, not the answer. The answer was the goal. In pursuit of that answer it is difficult to see confirmation bias, but I don't know the history well enough to say there wasn't.
Agreed, but it seems axiomatic that pursuing the answer would require the same amount of critical thinking and intellectual honesty. I cannot think of a way confirmation bias, given it's definition, would be a benefit. To say so, to my mind, would be saying that, whatever the reason I think the apple fell to the ground would be the actual reason, regardless of how silly. My confirmation bias would prove it.
I do not deny that this occurs. However, the best example that comes to me off the top of my head concerning such is the Nazi's attempt to prove Jews to be subhuman. A perfect example of confirmation bias. But I must point out that this discussion is not that people tend toward confirmation bias but, rather, that critical thinking is superior.
Um, not, in my opinion. Nazi's came up with the goal by confirmation bias. They didn't achieve it through it. In fact, they may have used critical thinking in order to achieve a goal arrived at through confirmation bias. I'll have to give that some thought.
Since I'm not sure what you are referring to, it's hard to say. However, based on what the question means to me as written, I would say, generally, no. Oh, it's probably true enough on a low enough level but I think the more complex the problem the less it is true. If it were self regulating, the world would not be in the condition it is now.
To me that is attempting to narrow the scope of confirmation biases to fit specific examples.
Some claim that bigotry and hate are perpetuated by confirmation biases; evidence is either interpreted to confirm the bigoted belief or the evidence is simply ignored. But love, friendship, and loyalty are also perpetuated by confirmation biases. Parents of a mass murderer will very likely continue to love and defend their child. Marriages can and do survive infidelity.
You point out that Newton asked the question 'why?' But didn't Newton really describe how gravity works? Newton did not ask why there is gravity in the universe. Newton asked what would cause an apple would fall to the earth and then proceeded to describe the cause and how that causality works. Wasn't Newton's confirmation bias to ask and answer questions in terms of causality?
Pursuing good depends upon a confirmation bias toward a belief in what is good. A goal of being virtuous establishes a confirmation bias that favors virtue and results in interpretation of evidence to support a belief in virtue. As I stated above, love is perpetuated by a confirmation bias.
But not everyone was a Nazi. The Poles and French were not Nazis yet they voluntarily participated in the Holocaust. The Nazis established a goal and others who were not Nazis engaged in process to achieve that goal. The Holocaust extended well beyond the Nazis but our modern confirmation biases allow us to overlook the evidence.
Thinking about it, it seems to me that it is more about whether one believes there is an objective true and false, good and bad and from what angle one views such things, as your next two paragraphs may illustrate.
Bigotry and hate can rationally be claimed to involve confirmation bias because, at least in this day and age in most educated cultures, it is recognized on some level that these are bad things. However, defining those terms has become problematic in that how those terms are even defined today often involves confirmation bias. For instance, whether one supports or opposes a particular social policy is often the determining factor in whether or not one is considered a bigot or hater, rather than whether or not a particular social policy is correct to begin with or whether someone who opposes it does so in a literally bigoted or hateful way.
It is more difficult to defend confirmation bias with love, friendship and loyalty. To make such a claim one must believe that these aren't any more objectively valid than hate, enmity and faithlessness. A difficult proposition, in my opinion. While each of these things can be warped into something monstrous, generally you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue that these things are not objectively good in the main. That is, they do not depend upon one's bias but, rather, are self evidently desirable conditions of mankind.
In any case, it seems to me that you are more demonstrating that humans are very good at confirmation bias. At this point I feel it necessary to remind you of what I am debating with you about. That confirmation bias is a desirable trait in the human condition in some manner. Unless one takes the position that there is no actual good or bad, right or wrong, true or false, the debate, to my mind at least, isn't whether or not confirmation bias, intellectual dishonesty and cherry picking exist or are more pervasive than most realize, but, rather, are desirable traits that should not be eliminated as they have some positive benefits.
I do not disagree that we are all likely more saturated with those traits than we'd like to believe but the debate is about critical thinking over confirmation bias as desirable. But it seems to me we can't even discuss this meaningfully unless we acknowledge that there is objective right and wrong. True and false. Good and bad. There must be a framework against which confirmation bias can be compared to in order to identify what it is.
Point. However, the question began with why. Undoubtedly, Newton was aware of ideas concerning gravity that proceeded his work. He was the first to successfully describe why and market it.
Not in a way I can think of, no.
Not something I can agree with in general. In order for what you say here to be true, there cannot be a definitive, objective good or bad, right or wrong or true or false. In anything. One cannot say that they believe mass A is attracted to mass B due to properties of gravity, for instance and it be considered something that is simply true. Rather, one can only claim it is true because that is their bias. This makes little or no sense to me.
The same with love. Unless one is a sociopath or psychopath, it is difficult to imagine someone not recognizing love as objectively good. By love, I am not strictly referring to the emotion, but rather, the action. The act of putting someone before yourself for their good. While such may be described as confirmation bias, it would be hard to argue that love is not objectively good and desirable. If it is, how can it legitimately be called confirmation bias?
I admit, I want love to be true and right. In that much I do have confirmation bias of a sort. But, really, if loved is true, right and good objectively, at what point does it stop being confirmation bias and simply adherence to what is true? Put another way, is love being true, right and good due to my desire (confirmation bias) that it should be so or is it simply true, right and good simply because it is those things and my desire is happily fulfilled concerning those things?
I think you may be expressing a bit of tunnel vision, here. Being a card carrying Nazi isn't relevant. Agreement with their goals is what is relevant. For all intents and purposes, anyone who agreed with their goals and intents were effectively Nazis.
And yet I have known people who do not function using "confirmation bias". That are intellectually honest. And don't engage ib cherry picking. (I am using the correct meaning of the tem "cherry picking"-- not the inaccurate way in which you are using it>
In addition to a few people I know personally whom I just described, people who choose certain occupations and are successful in the do not tend to only agree with information which proves (or agrees with) any "preconceived notions" they may have. And yet-- they are human!
For example, successful scientists. Not only do they overcome the limits of "confirmation bias"-- but they actually actively seek out theories and concepts that disagree with the "conventional wisdom.
And yet-- they are definitely Human!
Well, I am sure!
And, briefly stated-- its not.
Nerm is using his own definition of the phrase "Confirmation Bias".
And it happens to be incorrect . . .
That's quite an over- generalization!
(In fact, I once knew a human who was an actual scientist!)
Are you saying that heredity doesn't play a role in pre-disposing one to a certain degree of intellectual ability?
I hope this will work on this article. I have to order some nice speakers for my car, so I can install them. No rap music for me, but I spend a lot of time in that automobile and it's time to make it a little more pleasant while I'm driving along. So, I read the article and read about half the comments. There are so many places I could stop along the way and comment, but honestly, I really don't have the desire to spend any more time than necessary to make my point.
I know the article is about intellectual honesty and critical thinking, so to speak, but let's face it, today we are should be aware of major changes in this country and why people have become so biased in their opinions and how we arrived here.
It's a good idea to make the YouTube video below full screen.
I will agree on moderation, if only because it keeps the peace between political 'warring' sides. I did take great exception to Beck comparing Barack Obama to Donald Trump (intellectual integrity vs intellectual dishonesty). Barack did not set the intent of his presidency to 'best' George Bush. Although, it was necessary to work to alleviate the great recession under his administration. Donald could have come in simply to build to the best of his ability leaving whatever undone to the next president. Instead, Trump shows up with a: Start gun; a belt; a chair to poke people.
Do keep in mind that nobody is ever going to approximate perfection between two extremes determined to grab away the country to its values (stop the pendulum from winging back).
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have moderation, but moderation was yesterday and yesterday is gone. That swing of the pendulum was 10 to 20 years ago when both parties supported such things as marriage between a man and a woman.
CB, I didn't interpret the comparison Beck made between Obama and Trump having anything to do with intellectual integrity vs intellectual dishonesty.
Now if you want to compare the possibility of 'Smooth Con Artist' vs 'Brash Con Artist', I think there is some integrity and dishonesty in both of them we could discuss sometime.
We can swing the pendulum back to "yesterday" sixpick, by re-newing moderation. This time around we can let moderation involve more of the citizenry with its diversity. That is what this nation is after all diverse.
There are no perfect people, and there will be no perfect politicians—especially so when the citizenry is constantly pulling politicians in opposing and contradictory directions!
I can not accept Barack Obama as a deliberate obstructionist, and not even his biggest critics ever considered impeaching him, because he never gave them cause. But, should you wish to discuss it sometime: By all means look me up! (Smile.)
the "overton window" is very real.
the left pulled the country so far left under obama that even 7 million obama supporters voted trump.
that is called right lash... LOL
IMHO what's gone is our ability to agree on the facts and it's all about confirmation bias.
One of the Watergate lawyers said that it was much easier to agree on the facts then because we had 3 networks and THEY all reported the facts. During the Senate hearings, commentators were doing a play by play and during the news, they helped the viewers connect the dots. There was no such thing as 'alternative facts' or 'both sides of the truth'.
None of us who are old enough can imagine 'Uncle Walter' spewing bullshit conspiracy theories to gaslight anyone.
Where did you get that number from?
I'll give you 3 guesses and the last two don't count.
Former President Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett said Tuesday she doesn’t mull over the reasons why many Obama supporters voted for President Trump in 2016 because the reality is “too painful.”
“They were looking for change,” Ms. Jarrett said on “Morning Joe” on MSNBC. “I really can’t spend a lot of time looking backward, it’s too painful for me.”
About 7 million voters who supported Mr. Obama in 2012 abandoned Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 and instead voted for Mr. Trump.
I'd have given you ten guesses and bet every single one would be wrong... LOL
I first heard of The 'Pendulum Theory 'many, many, years ago. And I think there's a great deal of truth to it.
Incidentally I've heard it used to describe other trends besides political ones.
For example, in fashion. Supposedly re: what lengths of women's skirts are in fashion. Supposedly that swings back and forth between relatively long and short over time...even what hairstyles are in vogue supposedly follows the Pendulum Theory..
(And I've heard that as the fashionable length of woman's skirts changes, some on Wall St believe that there's a correlation between that and whether or not the stock market rises or falls that year--- but knowing about that is above my pay grade-- and in any event a bit off-topic
Glenn Beck is a nut (my opinion comes from years of watching him, not from this video.) In this video, his examples are far too specific and do not correlate with Beck's demonstrated prescience. In other words, Beck is simply not that good at predictions.
I agree with Beck that the pendulum swings but disagree both with his specific predictions and in the degree of the shift. The pendulum could just as easily relax from the Trump extreme to something more moderate. Take, for example, the scenario of Biden or Bloomberg winning the presidency.
I belive Trump is a moderate.
Trump certainly is not extreme right (I was using Beck's characterization because I was making a different point) but he does not strike me as a moderate. He holds positions such as denial of any AGW factors, no regard for renewable energy, environment (air, water, food, etc.), pro-life, pro capital punishment, anti-gun-control, no serious movements towards social programs in healthcare, education, etc.
Here' s a satirical video re: Glenn Beck that I "cherry-picked" from the gazillions of videos on The "Net.
(Anyway who hasn't actually seen Glenn Beck's's shenanigans will not appreciate it).
I believe the Moon is made of Bleu Cheese.
I have heard many people say Trump is a Conservative. (Mostly liberals say this).
But he's not.
One of the key conservative beliefs is that less government is better, and that the government should be smaller. But Trump continually seeks to gain power and have a much bigger gov't role in our lives. (His push to have the government increase in size so it can interfere in our lives more-- for example in outlawing an individiuals right to make their own decision re health (for example having the government decide whether an individual can choose whether or not to have an abortion.
Conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility-- yet under Trump's policies the national debt is exploding at a YUGE rate.
Conservatives believe in a strong defense--- yet Trump is alienating our allies, and trying to make decisions(totally uninformed) that attempt to over-rule the military leaders;
See, for example, this seeded article:
Worry Rises In Military Over Trump's Decision-Making
If we want to have intellectual honesty, then we have to produce something with some evidence and CNN rarely has any evidence of the BS they produce or in this case they may have evidence of disgruntled political officers who are use to doing exactly what they want to do without anyone questioning them about it. I don't doubt they are worried, but I think a more appropriate word would be pissed off.
CNN from which your article comes from...
And then there is this article below with the rating from our favorite Liberal rating service, located in the most liberal city in North Carolina, Greensboro. Looks like the Obama Administration with all their spying on the defense.
Prosecutors Received Awards After Navy SEAL Was Found Not Guilty of Murder
I don't blame you for going to CNN. They are constantly making the news, not reporting the news. Everyone is anonymous, in the know, behind the scenes, familiar with the situation, you know the drill.
As do I.
Actually I didn't "go to CNN". Rather it was the first place I saw the article. When I googled for other sources, many had it-- but upon inspection they were merely "seeding" the article from CNN!
I didn't feel the need to fact check it because I had previously heard that sort of information previously from various sources (on TV).
But if you don't accept CNN as a valid source-- do you actually believe that Military Times is some sort of dishonest publication-- and one with a leftist bias?
Since the topic here is "intellectual honesty" and apparently my "honesty" is being question-- take a look at this article & decide yourself -- the following is from Military Times, (Here's the LINK) .
Election 2018
Support for Trump is fading among active-duty troops, new poll shows
How do troops feel about President Trump?
We asked our active duty readers about everything from Space Force to their support of the president and whether we should keep sending forces to Iraq - and here's what they said.
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s approval rating among active-duty military personnel has slipped over the last two years, leaving today’s troops evenly split over whether they’re happy with the commander in chief’s job performance, according to the results of a new Military Times poll of active-duty service members.
(Cont'd at the linked article from Military Times).
The article makes two important points. Not only is his support slipping, but the other p[oint that Military Times makes is that there is a significant difference in the level of support for Trump between officers and enlisted men:
The new survey results also show sharp divides within the ranks. Enlisted men show Trump the most overwhelming support . . .
Officers still have a lower opinion of his presidency than enlisted troops.
Now why is his support significantly lower amongst officers? I wasn't at all surprised art that and I'm pretty sure I know why.
But before I explain why, I's like to hear other peoples' thinking on why Trump's support is significantly lower amongst officers than it is amongst enlisted men.
"Social media sites supporting debate, for example, typically have rules of conduct to mitigate abrasive behavior but rarely enforce truth. "
"Finding truth is a never-ending pursuit. It is the ultimate (at least in the ideal) goal of philosophy, science, jurisprudence and journalism. Truth is the light that guides our path, enabling us to make our best-informed decisions. Yet truth is often cavalierly discarded when it conflicts with one’s short term goals or worldview."
Seems stifling truth …. works better to further an "intellectual dishonest" goal !
Yet truth is often cavalierly discarded when it conflicts with one’s short term goals or worldview."
You're just discovering this now???
This article was posted 2 weeks ago-- and it mentioned-- and explained!-- the same thing!