Thanks Francis - I'm altogether too lazy on posting links - because I haven't learned how! Must do better!
On 30 Jan, 09:53, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > For those not prepared to do the work (:-)) , here's the link to the > blog Neil referred to: > > http://www.overcomingbias.com/ > > Francis > > On 30 Jan., 03:49, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You would be accused by academics of very naive relativism here chaps. > > These Oxford boys are very elitist, though I have to admit it is a bit > > of a holiday to be amongst people who have read widely sometimes > > (though I go to Cambridge for this). I haven't come across anyone in > > here (not a regular anyway) who really believes in relativism. Lee > > (thank goodness!) certainly doesn't. Holding to our own views and > > respecting others is something there is plenty of - but what happens > > at that point where we can't just ignore or laugh with others over > > differences? The Oxford people tend to compress lots of learning and > > science into a few words (as in the opener to this thread) - then the > > debate spews open into all kinds of difficult to access material - and > > dialogues like ours would get scant attention other than to be graded > > as undergraduate fumbling. We might feel rather naked amongst this, > > left only with our two archery fingers! I can give a very direct > > example of the kind of truth the Oxford lot take for granted. This > > would be about giving people the choice of sitting in the spaceship > > designed at NASA or the one made in my shed that appeared to be a load > > of wood with a bit of blue touch-paper sticking out of it. A no- > > brainer I would think. Most of the Oxfordists would want to show us > > that our own arguments (including Lee on the brilliant contrast > > between groupthink and belonging needs) can usually be reduced to no- > > brainers once our own incompetence in argument is revealed. We might > > yawn and begin to exercise the archery fingers in our pockets as we > > are all-too versed in histories of elite groups coming up with "truth" > > - but I have to say, in the end, I think most argument is pre- > > practised and about world-views rather than amenable to truth-seeking > > (Quine's ideas). If Craig finds me hard he should go to the Oxford > > blog. What would be important to me would be another form of "talking" > > that is smarter than we manage in our down time in here, hopefully as > > friendly (without being smarmy) and which could avoid both chronic > > elitism and a chronic lack of failures to recognise our own > > incompetences. We manage something like this from time to time, but I > > can't get a grip on its structure. I'm not sure what I'm on about is > > understood here - this isn't that important to me. The aim is to move > > beyond simple statements of relativism that start off sounding > > tolerant and yet lead eventually to the impasse, "I think this and you > > think that - I'm bigger than you" - American dogma if we want to tease > > Craig - from everyone to their own to might is right. I'm just > > finishing an academic paper on this (first started 1999). I can't > > explain quickly, but some of the better scientific material (Darwin in > > particular) is really good at making the genuine reader feel that the > > truth is not about beating other people with certain claims, not about > > regimes of truth but admissions of uncertainty, speculation and so on. > > Maybe I should send Craig a signed copy for all his straining to (mis) > > understand me already! I'm not on about totalising truth - this is the > > kind of truth under critique in postmodernism, but I do now think I am > > on about a madness that denies truth at the very moment it puts > > emphasis upon it. People's thinking, after all, is very different > > under different concentrations of blood testosterone and cortisol. I > > shall no doubt be round, resplendent in my white lab coat, German > > scientific accent and with two jackbooted rottweilers, to take samples > > soon! > > On 29 Jan, 12:18, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Exactly Craig. > > > > In my youth I quickly worked out that the maxim 'well it my not be > > > right for you but it is right for me' has more thruth in it than many > > > others. > > > > Indeed, I still live by it, as is evidenced by my lack of > > > prophlatising and conversion attempts. > > > > Another such truth I wholehartedly belive in, and one that gets me > > > into all sorts of arguments is that patriotism harms more than it > > > helps. > > > > Yet I can quite understand the need to belong, this is my opinion and > > > whilst it may differ from others I would be hard pressed to say which > > > one is correct. > > > > On 29 Jan, 01:14, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Neil, > > > > I have to confess that I have to read your posts more than once to get > > > > your drift. It appears that you are espousing a certain type of > > > > pragmatism. You are accepting the fact that truth is elusive, and yet > > > > hoping that we can believe in something that works. But before we can > > > > start talking about what is practical we have to decide what our aim > > > > is. What is it that we are hoping works? What are we trying to > > > > obtain? Can we all agree on what we are trying to obtain? Is > > > > consensus necessary? > > > > > On Jan 28, 4:04 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > This is quite subtle Oxford shit Lee - we are mere oiks - yet I like > > > > > the notion that we could better believe in what is true. > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 17:20, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey Neil, > > > > > > > Perhaps until we can answer the question, what is true? We are all > > > > > > quite doomed! > > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 00:04, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > How can we better believe what is true? While it is of course > > > > > > > useful > > > > > > > to seek and study relevant information, our minds are full of > > > > > > > natural > > > > > > > tendencies to bias our beliefs via overconfidence, wishful > > > > > > > thinking, > > > > > > > and so on. Worse, our minds seem to have a natural tendency to > > > > > > > convince us that we are aware of and have adequately corrected for > > > > > > > such biases, when we have done no such thing. > > > > > > > > There's a blog on this at Oxford University's Future of Humanity > > > > > > > Institute (easy to google). Sad stuff on my brief scan, though I > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > return. The question seems key and I wondered whether we could do > > > > > > > better with it. My own views include a notion of relativism that > > > > > > > recognises realism is implied and non-philosophic tropical fish > > > > > > > realism. I won't bore on this in here - at a somewhat more > > > > > > > practical > > > > > > > level I think we are in a plight that involves trauma and a need > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > believe we can live more rationally and justly in public affairs. > > > > > > > This involves not using argument as a weapon and accepting some > > > > > > > stuff > > > > > > > is intolerable. I would see this as key to a future for humanity. > > > > > > > Obama is a bit of a hope here, but only if we can gather round.- > > > > > > > Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
