Belluavir Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. Stef always says not to take his word for it, not to just assume that whatever he says is true and sometimes he provide citations to verify his claims. I understand why he and anyone else would do that and I'm not saying that that shouldn't be the case. But what I'm having trouble is that if I click that citation and read the article or look at the graph or whatever it may be, I now I have to take the author of that article's word for it. If I read their citations, I have to take the authors of those articles at their word and so on. If a subject is outside of my direct experience, don't I, at the end of the day, have to take someone's word for it? I understand that there is a matter of trust and I can use logic to an extent to discern truth from falsehood, but it's still the case that I have to just accept what certain people say about certain things. I find this very bothersome, while I feel like it's not quite right, I can't get it out of my mind.
MrCapitalism Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Yep. What is your opinion of the validity of sense perception?
Belluavir Posted March 26, 2013 Author Posted March 26, 2013 I find the senses to be very valid. Your senses don't lie, only your brain can misinterepret their findings.
Guest darkskyabove Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 ...that I have to just accept what certain people say about certain things. Excellent point. Not necessarily completely true. Part of the problem, and I deal with it still, is the work involved. I don't have time to read everything. But, if I read someone's words and simply accept or reject them, I have done no work. Might as well relegate myself to the status of...Baaaaaa! (Translated from Sheepish to mean: I'll do whatever you say.) Human understanding of the truth appears to be a process rather than an absolute. That does not mean that the truth changes. Human understanding can change. It takes work. What was accepted as truth yesterday, gets dissected today, and may, or may not, remain accepted tomorrow. One of the things that helps me is to apply the "consistency" test: If a person, and the sources they may quote, retain a large degree of consistency (I never expect perfection, except from my arrogant self), while their detractors are inconsistent (and once one crosses into inconsistency the entire gamut of fallacious reasoning lies spread out like Tarot cards), it appears relatively easy to tell which side is "closer" to the truth. This test requires extra effort in that it requires me to read the words of people who turn out to be irrational, in some form or other. This leads to the second test: "Emotionality". Rationality and emotion are not opposites, but they do have different purposes and differing methodologies. My limited, but still growing, understanding of fallacies leads me to think (I try never to say "believe") that most are rooted in tapping into emotion, rather than rational thought. If a person's words speak to my mind, while another's speak to the heart, there it is. Beware: irrational speakers have learned how to use rational-sounding arguments and become insidious in their use of well-disguised fallacies. Again with the work. Tracing a rational person's sources leads to rational people; tracing an irrational person's sources, no matter how rational they appear, ultimately, leads to irrational sources. In conclusion, I would suggest that I, and you, have access to one of the best examples of productive anarchy yet: the Internet. The "Truth" is now subjected to rigorous debate, almost instantaneously. Yes, "Non-Truth" still abounds. But, the tests for Consistency and Emotionality can weed out most of the garbage that common sense might miss. And you are at one of the best places to practice.
MrCapitalism Posted March 26, 2013 Posted March 26, 2013 Perhaps what you're looking for is results. Those are easier to judge than an endless chain of citations.
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted March 27, 2013 Posted March 27, 2013 I think "Don't take my word for it" can be translated as "Don't accept my authority on this. The process by which I came to this conclusion is valid and you can replicate it".
Recommended Posts