05-07-2016, 12:00 AM
On the subject of right and wrong...
I've spent some time considering this. What makes a person "right" or "wrong"? If I believe something that turns out to be untrue, does that make "me" wrong? As I do not identify with my beliefs, I don't see how one of my beliefs being wrong can make me wrong. Further, I don't identify others with their beliefs, I think it's a dangerous habit that many people do which leads to fanaticism. Since I don't do that, I don't see other people as "wrong" either.
So.... what about the rightness and wrongness of beliefs? Well that's difficult because we never know for certain that any belief is true. There are assumptions contained in all of them. Don't buy into the myth that "assumptions are bad". Assumptions are unavoidable. I assume I had a steak for dinner. I don't know it, because my memory might not be correct. Perhaps I've been hypnotized into believing that and programmed to forget the hypnosis. Do I think that happened? No, I think that's very, very improbable. But to say that I know that I had steak for dinner does make the assumption that the hypnosis thing didn't happen. There is an assumption (usually several) in every belief. Granted I will occasionally use the phrase "I know" and speak about things as fact due to social convenience, but when I do that I am aware that I am doing it for that reason alone.
So then, am I saying that no beliefs are right or wrong? No. I think some things are true. It's just unfortunate that I don't know what all of them are. I'm pretty sure that some of the things I think are true are in fact false, but I don't know which ones they are, (or else I wouldn't think they were true). I think probably everyone I've met is also in this same state. Since we never know for certain what is true, the best that we can do is to recognize what is the most likely possibility according to the evidence we've seen. In my experience, people have no trouble doing this when they do not care what the answer is but just want to get the truth. They do, however, make it incredibly difficult for themselves when they have other motivations they hold above truth in determining their beliefs.
Currently, that's how I rate myself as being right or wrong in believing something. If I believe it because it's most likely true based on the evidence I've seen (and I'm not cherry picking my own evidence), then I say I'm right to do so. If I'm not doing that but believing something for other reasons, then I'm wrong in believing that. Note that this is different than simply saying "I am wrong" or "I am right". Also, it could be that the thing I believed according to the evidence I'd seen at the time later is shown to be more likely untrue based on future evidence. This doesn't mean I was wrong in believing it previously though. Similarly, in the opposite situation, (where I believe something that goes against the evidence I've seen and later evidence comes in showing that belief to be more likely true), I was still wrong in believing it when I did. Granted, sometimes the evidence is pretty close between different views, but the main idea is recognizing just how strong the case for a belief is.
So, what happens when someone proposes a statement that disagrees with one of my beliefs which is based on the evidence I've seen? Well, first I realize that this person has probably not seen exactly the same evidence I have. They may have seen all that I've seen plus one more piece of evidence that tilts the balance of likely truth to what they've proposed. Or they may have seen some things I've seen, but not all, and some things I haven't seen.
There's a few common closed-minded and arrogant responses I often see made immediately after a person has proposed a statement that contradicts another's belief and before they have time to provide the support for it. "That's ignorant" or "You're ignorant" can come up immediately. That simply assumes that the person making the accusation has more evidence for their side than the other person does before giving the other person a chance to present their evidence. Caricature-based reasoning will also often show up immediately. "You sound like a (insert caricature here)". A third common one tends to allow the person to just start explaining their reasoning and cuts them off with "I've heard your arguments before". Again, this is arrogantly assuming that the person has heard ALL of the evidence which is contrary to their belief, rather than the more realistic view that they've only heard SOME of that evidence and they don't know if the person they're arguing with has more evidence they haven't considered or not. There are many more ways that people can be closed minded and shield their beliefs from the possibility of outside evidence making them look more likely to be false, but I'd rather focus here on what a better thing to do would be. And that is simply ask for the evidence.
If someone suggests something to me that disagrees with my current belief, I'll often ask them for evidence to support their view, usually phrased as "Why do you think that?" or something similar. Even if it's something that sounds unlikely as the statement that 2+2=5 I'll still give them a chance to present their case. Now I doubt they will be able to provide a stronger argument for that than the evidence I've seen which says otherwise, but there's no reason not to give them the opportunity to try. Besides, there is a chance, (no matter how small), that they might be right. It could be that I only believe 2+2=4 as a result of a long series of highly improbably coincidences. I don't frame things in the ego-based way that "I've been so wrong" about things, rather I frame them in what appears both a more accurate and pleasant framework that if 2+2=5 I've merely been fooled by a massive conspiracy, no shame in that. So, I'll give the speaker a fair chance to demonstrate such.
So to summarize..
1. We are always right, regardless of our beliefs.
2. We are always right in our beliefs when we recognize what view is best supported by evidence, and how strong that evidence is.
3. We are always wrong in our beliefs when we believe things for reasons other than a desire to believe what appears most likely true.
4. We haven't seen the exact same evidence for our views as others we come into contact with, and when they state opposing views we should let them present their evidence for such.
By following these rules, I can remain a super-genius and still manage to disagree with the common folk without belittling them.
More to the point though, it offers a way to disagree with people without the belittling aspect of telling them they are wrong or trying to "correct" them. Asking them why they think what they do or "Well how does your view account for this evidence?" seems to be to be a better way to handle it, provided one is sincere and open-minded to hearing them out. Of course some people don't go for these things either, in which case I simply stop disagreeing with anything they say, unless there's consequences to not doing so I'd rather avoid.
Of course my way of doing things regarding this has an unfortunate side effect, in that many people seem to feel if I'm always questioning them it's a sign that I don't respect their intellect, while if I don't disagree with them I do. In truth this is backwards; it's the people whose intellect I like the most that I want to probe.
I would liked to have wrapped this all up and come to a nice neat point at the end here that relates back to the discussion at large, but I guess that didn't happen. Ah well, maybe next time.
I've spent some time considering this. What makes a person "right" or "wrong"? If I believe something that turns out to be untrue, does that make "me" wrong? As I do not identify with my beliefs, I don't see how one of my beliefs being wrong can make me wrong. Further, I don't identify others with their beliefs, I think it's a dangerous habit that many people do which leads to fanaticism. Since I don't do that, I don't see other people as "wrong" either.
So.... what about the rightness and wrongness of beliefs? Well that's difficult because we never know for certain that any belief is true. There are assumptions contained in all of them. Don't buy into the myth that "assumptions are bad". Assumptions are unavoidable. I assume I had a steak for dinner. I don't know it, because my memory might not be correct. Perhaps I've been hypnotized into believing that and programmed to forget the hypnosis. Do I think that happened? No, I think that's very, very improbable. But to say that I know that I had steak for dinner does make the assumption that the hypnosis thing didn't happen. There is an assumption (usually several) in every belief. Granted I will occasionally use the phrase "I know" and speak about things as fact due to social convenience, but when I do that I am aware that I am doing it for that reason alone.
So then, am I saying that no beliefs are right or wrong? No. I think some things are true. It's just unfortunate that I don't know what all of them are. I'm pretty sure that some of the things I think are true are in fact false, but I don't know which ones they are, (or else I wouldn't think they were true). I think probably everyone I've met is also in this same state. Since we never know for certain what is true, the best that we can do is to recognize what is the most likely possibility according to the evidence we've seen. In my experience, people have no trouble doing this when they do not care what the answer is but just want to get the truth. They do, however, make it incredibly difficult for themselves when they have other motivations they hold above truth in determining their beliefs.
Currently, that's how I rate myself as being right or wrong in believing something. If I believe it because it's most likely true based on the evidence I've seen (and I'm not cherry picking my own evidence), then I say I'm right to do so. If I'm not doing that but believing something for other reasons, then I'm wrong in believing that. Note that this is different than simply saying "I am wrong" or "I am right". Also, it could be that the thing I believed according to the evidence I'd seen at the time later is shown to be more likely untrue based on future evidence. This doesn't mean I was wrong in believing it previously though. Similarly, in the opposite situation, (where I believe something that goes against the evidence I've seen and later evidence comes in showing that belief to be more likely true), I was still wrong in believing it when I did. Granted, sometimes the evidence is pretty close between different views, but the main idea is recognizing just how strong the case for a belief is.
So, what happens when someone proposes a statement that disagrees with one of my beliefs which is based on the evidence I've seen? Well, first I realize that this person has probably not seen exactly the same evidence I have. They may have seen all that I've seen plus one more piece of evidence that tilts the balance of likely truth to what they've proposed. Or they may have seen some things I've seen, but not all, and some things I haven't seen.
There's a few common closed-minded and arrogant responses I often see made immediately after a person has proposed a statement that contradicts another's belief and before they have time to provide the support for it. "That's ignorant" or "You're ignorant" can come up immediately. That simply assumes that the person making the accusation has more evidence for their side than the other person does before giving the other person a chance to present their evidence. Caricature-based reasoning will also often show up immediately. "You sound like a (insert caricature here)". A third common one tends to allow the person to just start explaining their reasoning and cuts them off with "I've heard your arguments before". Again, this is arrogantly assuming that the person has heard ALL of the evidence which is contrary to their belief, rather than the more realistic view that they've only heard SOME of that evidence and they don't know if the person they're arguing with has more evidence they haven't considered or not. There are many more ways that people can be closed minded and shield their beliefs from the possibility of outside evidence making them look more likely to be false, but I'd rather focus here on what a better thing to do would be. And that is simply ask for the evidence.
If someone suggests something to me that disagrees with my current belief, I'll often ask them for evidence to support their view, usually phrased as "Why do you think that?" or something similar. Even if it's something that sounds unlikely as the statement that 2+2=5 I'll still give them a chance to present their case. Now I doubt they will be able to provide a stronger argument for that than the evidence I've seen which says otherwise, but there's no reason not to give them the opportunity to try. Besides, there is a chance, (no matter how small), that they might be right. It could be that I only believe 2+2=4 as a result of a long series of highly improbably coincidences. I don't frame things in the ego-based way that "I've been so wrong" about things, rather I frame them in what appears both a more accurate and pleasant framework that if 2+2=5 I've merely been fooled by a massive conspiracy, no shame in that. So, I'll give the speaker a fair chance to demonstrate such.
So to summarize..
1. We are always right, regardless of our beliefs.
2. We are always right in our beliefs when we recognize what view is best supported by evidence, and how strong that evidence is.
3. We are always wrong in our beliefs when we believe things for reasons other than a desire to believe what appears most likely true.
4. We haven't seen the exact same evidence for our views as others we come into contact with, and when they state opposing views we should let them present their evidence for such.
By following these rules, I can remain a super-genius and still manage to disagree with the common folk without belittling them.
More to the point though, it offers a way to disagree with people without the belittling aspect of telling them they are wrong or trying to "correct" them. Asking them why they think what they do or "Well how does your view account for this evidence?" seems to be to be a better way to handle it, provided one is sincere and open-minded to hearing them out. Of course some people don't go for these things either, in which case I simply stop disagreeing with anything they say, unless there's consequences to not doing so I'd rather avoid.
Of course my way of doing things regarding this has an unfortunate side effect, in that many people seem to feel if I'm always questioning them it's a sign that I don't respect their intellect, while if I don't disagree with them I do. In truth this is backwards; it's the people whose intellect I like the most that I want to probe.
I would liked to have wrapped this all up and come to a nice neat point at the end here that relates back to the discussion at large, but I guess that didn't happen. Ah well, maybe next time.