Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Illusion Of Understanding...

Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 7:13:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
According to The Skeptic's Dictionary, "The illusion of understanding occurs frequently due to selection bias and confirmation bias. By selecting only data that support one's position and ignoring relevant data that would falsify or compromise one's position, one can produce a convincing but misleading argument. By seeking only examples that confirm one's belief and by ignoring examples that disconfirm [sic] it or reveal the insignificance of the data you've put forth, one can easily create the illusion of understanding."

I've noticed certain people on this forum repeatedly attack both religion and atheism over and over again, with never a positive point made for the other side. To me, this would clearly indicate an exceptionally biased personal agenda, which would likely promote illusions of understanding where they might otherwise never have occurred. Can a person truly be neutral in such a highly charged argument? Does the fact that they have an agenda negatively affect the veracity of their claims? Is this an argument doomed to last for an indefinite period without ever being satisfactorily resolved?
21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 8:41:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think people can be unbiased to some worthwhile extent. I've often been told that I rather good at remaining objective. It simply takes a lot of practice. The debates will never reach a satisfactory answer for either side because, simply, people are stupid. I have argued both views and, the only way to really remain objective is either agnosticism or a true understanding of wha faith is. Now, you may argue that I promote agnosticism because I'm agnostic (confirmation bias), but the actual bias would be in your claim, as I can support my position to the death. There is a point where something is factual or most logical, it is not biased for me to argue that the earth is round, that's a fact.
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 9:54:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 8:41:29 PM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
I think people can be unbiased to some worthwhile extent. I've often been told that I rather good at remaining objective. It simply takes a lot of practice. The debates will never reach a satisfactory answer for either side because, simply, people are stupid. I have argued both views and, the only way to really remain objective is either agnosticism or a true understanding of wha faith is. Now, you may argue that I promote agnosticism because I'm agnostic (confirmation bias), but the actual bias would be in your claim, as I can support my position to the death. There is a point where something is factual or most logical, it is not biased for me to argue that the earth is round, that's a fact.

So even though you are biased that's okay because your bias may be right? And my bias (that you are biased) would not be okay if I made it because it may be wrong? Isn't this the very kind of "reasoning" which leads to so much confusion? Adding the geometric shape of the Earth in there is a bit of a red herring, as it is a totally different kind of claim. Actually, I think that people can debate the existence of God without bias, except for the fact that it seems most of those who are interested in the argument already are biased. It's such a shame, too, because it makes worthy speculation on the matter almost impossible to find.
21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 11:33:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 9:54:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/28/2013 8:41:29 PM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
I think people can be unbiased to some worthwhile extent. I've often been told that I rather good at remaining objective. It simply takes a lot of practice. The debates will never reach a satisfactory answer for either side because, simply, people are stupid. I have argued both views and, the only way to really remain objective is either agnosticism or a true understanding of wha faith is. Now, you may argue that I promote agnosticism because I'm agnostic (confirmation bias), but the actual bias would be in your claim, as I can support my position to the death. There is a point where something is factual or most logical, it is not biased for me to argue that the earth is round, that's a fact.

So even though you are biased that's okay because your bias may be right? And my bias (that you are biased) would not be okay if I made it because it may be wrong? Isn't this the very kind of "reasoning" which leads to so much confusion? Adding the geometric shape of the Earth in there is a bit of a red herring, as it is a totally different kind of claim. Actually, I think that people can debate the existence of God without bias, except for the fact that it seems most of those who are interested in the argument already are biased. It's such a shame, too, because it makes worthy speculation on the matter almost impossible to find.

No no, a fact is not a bias. The flat earth example is a perfect exme. You could maybe argue that one is biased towards facts, but that'd be kind of pointless. Of course you can argue god without bias, I win bar bets picking a side hahaha. Bias comes in where something can be flawed, incomplete, wrong, in situations like the debate of God. When we take this type of argument and focus on the facts and such we can reach better conclusions. Look at logic itself; it is always correct if used properly, but we add biases and come to invalid or unsound conclusions. I agree with you that it is a shame people are so stubbornly biased.
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 12:32:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/28/2013 11:33:11 PM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
At 11/28/2013 9:54:36 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 11/28/2013 8:41:29 PM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
I think people can be unbiased to some worthwhile extent. I've often been told that I rather good at remaining objective. It simply takes a lot of practice. The debates will never reach a satisfactory answer for either side because, simply, people are stupid. I have argued both views and, the only way to really remain objective is either agnosticism or a true understanding of wha faith is. Now, you may argue that I promote agnosticism because I'm agnostic (confirmation bias), but the actual bias would be in your claim, as I can support my position to the death. There is a point where something is factual or most logical, it is not biased for me to argue that the earth is round, that's a fact.

So even though you are biased that's okay because your bias may be right? And my bias (that you are biased) would not be okay if I made it because it may be wrong? Isn't this the very kind of "reasoning" which leads to so much confusion? Adding the geometric shape of the Earth in there is a bit of a red herring, as it is a totally different kind of claim. Actually, I think that people can debate the existence of God without bias, except for the fact that it seems most of those who are interested in the argument already are biased. It's such a shame, too, because it makes worthy speculation on the matter almost impossible to find.

No no, a fact is not a bias. The flat earth example is a perfect exme. You could maybe argue that one is biased towards facts, but that'd be kind of pointless. Of course you can argue god without bias, I win bar bets picking a side hahaha. Bias comes in where something can be flawed, incomplete, wrong, in situations like the debate of God. When we take this type of argument and focus on the facts and such we can reach better conclusions. Look at logic itself; it is always correct if used properly, but we add biases and come to invalid or unsound conclusions. I agree with you that it is a shame people are so stubbornly biased.

Ahhhhh...so I misunderstood what you said. Tell me, do you think it's possible to win from either side just because people are "stupid," or do you think the argument might actually be so close that either side retains enough "evidence" to make its case sound convincing? There is no objective evidence for God, nothing that can be measured in a lab, but our lives aren't objective, they are totally subjective. Every one of us is subject to our own experiences and "gut-feelings." I know the balance can be so fine that long-time atheists often "discover" religion, and vice-versa. Science is convincing in the details, but a belief in God seems to have a greater appeal on the large scale, or so it seems to me from the study I've given the subject over the past year or so.
21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 12:49:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 12:32:00 AM, Idealist wrote:
Ahhhhh...so I misunderstood what you said. Tell me, do you think it's possible to win from either side just because people are "stupid," or do you think the argument might actually be so close that either side retains enough "evidence" to make its case sound convincing? There is no objective evidence for God, nothing that can be measured in a lab, but our lives aren't objective, they are totally subjective. Every one of us is subject to our own experiences and "gut-feelings." I know the balance can be so fine that long-time atheists often "discover" religion, and vice-versa. Science is convincing in the details, but a belief in God seems to have a greater appeal on the large scale, or so it seems to me from the study I've given the subject over the past year or so.

I definitely think the latter is the case, that arguments may be too close to call. With God it is not there there is enough evidence, rather that there is absolutely none on BOTH sides. However, I disagree in saying that our lives are totally subjective. Our experience is, yes, but objective reality affects us in ways we subjectively handle. For example, you and I are sharing this objective reality, perceiving each other subjectively. This is probably a different topic though haha.

I agree science is convincing, science gets us the closest to true, objective knowledge. I also agree that belief in God has a great appeal, and that is because there is power in that belief. The key that people miss (you might enjoy the thread I just opened within the hour) is that the key is the belief, not whether God exists or not.

All this aside, the topic was about biases if I remember correctly. When it comes to selecting whether God exists or not, in light of the lacking evidence and sometimes equally convincing arguments, a bias is what will push you one way or another. You need not pick a side though, I said earlier that I think agnosticism is rather unbiased. Somehow, here in the west, it has become almost politically incorrect to simply say "I don't know" or even "we can't know".
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 1:07:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 12:49:48 AM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
At 11/29/2013 12:32:00 AM, Idealist wrote:
Ahhhhh...so I misunderstood what you said. Tell me, do you think it's possible to win from either side just because people are "stupid," or do you think the argument might actually be so close that either side retains enough "evidence" to make its case sound convincing? There is no objective evidence for God, nothing that can be measured in a lab, but our lives aren't objective, they are totally subjective. Every one of us is subject to our own experiences and "gut-feelings." I know the balance can be so fine that long-time atheists often "discover" religion, and vice-versa. Science is convincing in the details, but a belief in God seems to have a greater appeal on the large scale, or so it seems to me from the study I've given the subject over the past year or so.

I definitely think the latter is the case, that arguments may be too close to call. With God it is not there there is enough evidence, rather that there is absolutely none on BOTH sides. However, I disagree in saying that our lives are totally subjective. Our experience is, yes, but objective reality affects us in ways we subjectively handle. For example, you and I are sharing this objective reality, perceiving each other subjectively. This is probably a different topic though haha.

I agree science is convincing, science gets us the closest to true, objective knowledge. I also agree that belief in God has a great appeal, and that is because there is power in that belief. The key that people miss (you might enjoy the thread I just opened within the hour) is that the key is the belief, not whether God exists or not.

All this aside, the topic was about biases if I remember correctly. When it comes to selecting whether God exists or not, in light of the lacking evidence and sometimes equally convincing arguments, a bias is what will push you one way or another. You need not pick a side though, I said earlier that I think agnosticism is rather unbiased. Somehow, here in the west, it has become almost politically incorrect to simply say "I don't know" or even "we can't know".

I think that's because people want to argue, and simply saying that there is not enough evidence yet to deduce an accurate answer is intellectually dissatisfying. I'm currently reading an excellent book titled Divinity of Doubt: God and Atheism on Trial by Vincent Bugliosi, a noted long-term prosecutor who claims to be able to effectively argue any position as right or wrong. I think that may be too grandiose a claim, but I'll see where he goes with it.
21st_Century_Occultist
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 2:17:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 1:07:33 AM, Idealist wrote:
I think that's because people want to argue, and simply saying that there is not enough evidence yet to deduce an accurate answer is intellectually dissatisfying. I'm currently reading an excellent book titled Divinity of Doubt: God and Atheism on Trial by Vincent Bugliosi, a noted long-term prosecutor who claims to be able to effectively argue any position as right or wrong. I think that may be too grandiose a claim, but I'll see where he goes with it.

I agree, and I also admit that I sometimes simply enjoy arguing as well, hahaha.

Bugliosi's claims is rather grand. I pride myself on being able to argue multiple viewpoints but to claim to be able to argue ANY seems a stretch haha. Let me know how it is, and nice to meet you!
The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 3:47:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 2:17:42 AM, 21st_Century_Occultist wrote:
At 11/29/2013 1:07:33 AM, Idealist wrote:
I think that's because people want to argue, and simply saying that there is not enough evidence yet to deduce an accurate answer is intellectually dissatisfying. I'm currently reading an excellent book titled Divinity of Doubt: God and Atheism on Trial by Vincent Bugliosi, a noted long-term prosecutor who claims to be able to effectively argue any position as right or wrong. I think that may be too grandiose a claim, but I'll see where he goes with it.

I agree, and I also admit that I sometimes simply enjoy arguing as well, hahaha.

Bugliosi's claims is rather grand. I pride myself on being able to argue multiple viewpoints but to claim to be able to argue ANY seems a stretch haha. Let me know how it is, and nice to meet you!

Will do. I got started on it a few days ago, but I can already tell that this one is going to take a while. lol