How I try to improve my judgment (thanks to Julia Galef and FLUS)

[thibr]

Why do we debate and reason often like imbeciles? Me the first! Let's see if we can do better!
The Flus service: https://www.flus.fr
Julia Galef's The Scout Mindset: https://juliagalef.com

[Christophe]

To be considered and applied by >80% of Internet users (including me at times)

And also 99% of politicians because in times of crisis they are more "contoutcour" than "conqueror"!

[Rajqawee]

Ah thank you ! I already practice all of these things, but it allowed me to put a name on certain things (the difference in the level of proof required according to our already established position, in particular), very useful.

Personally, I really do two things shown in the video:

-I'm trying to understand the full reasoning, the position being exposed, even if it is contrary to what I currently think. Often, we realize that there are few enlightened people, in reality, and rather a lot of people who have well-founded positions with arguments.

- I try to have the same requirement of the level of proof, no matter if it comforts me or if it "contradicts" me, roughly;
> if the statement seems sensible and logical, my level of requirement is relatively low (example = eating apples, it's good for your health. Runners have less stroke)
> if the statement seems to me, conversely, to be quite mind-blowing, my level of requirements is rising (example = eating apples can beat cancer. Runners have a life expectancy of 20 years greater than others) and there I look in the detail.

Finally, I always ask myself this question, regularly: is there any evidence, findings, studies, which could make me change completely on a question? If the answer is no, it is because I am in an ideology on this question. A deep conviction. This may be acceptable (for a moral issue, for example, such as the death penalty) or on the contrary problematic (for a more scientific question, such as the risk benefit ratio of a vaccine, global warming ... )

Voilou, my 2 cents.

Ps: yes, some recent events have allowed me to broaden my vision, especially on the climate issue, and I am no longer in an ideology on this subject, I think.

[Janic]

Ps: yes, some recent events have allowed me to broaden my vision, especially on the climate issue, and I am no longer in an ideology on this topic, I think.

the only way not to be in any ideology is not to be directly concerned by the subject, which should not be confused with a constantly changing opinion.

[Ahmed]

I am not sure that it is entirely possible, or even perhaps not entirely desirable, not to be within an ideology and the debate should rather be confined to being there as little as possible. Thinking that perfect objectivity would be possible is the surest way to fall (heavily!) Into the ideological rut ...
The universe is too complex for us to have a correct representation, which is why we can only try to get an approximate view; this leads to postulates and to build on them.
Rajqawee, you write:

Often, we realize that there are few enlightened people, in reality, and rather a lot of people who have well-founded positions with arguments.

However, whatever the quality of the logic deployed, everything depends on the validity of the initial postulates, but these quickly disappear out of sight ...

[Rajqawee]

I am not sure that it is entirely possible, or even perhaps not entirely desirable, not to be within an ideology and the debate should rather be confined to being there as little as possible. Thinking that perfect objectivity would be possible is the surest way to fall (heavily!) Into the ideological rut ...
The universe is too complex for us to have a correct representation, which is why we can only try to get an approximate view; this leads to postulates and to build on them.
Rajqawee, you write:

Often, we realize that there are few enlightened people, in reality, and rather a lot of people who have well-founded positions with arguments.

However, whatever the quality of the logic deployed, everything depends on the validity of the initial postulates, but these quickly disappear out of sight ...

Yes (a perfectly objective position is impossible. It is even undesirable, I would say).

For the quality of the logic deployed according to the initial foundations:
-Sometimes the initial assumptions are factually wrong. Despite everything, it allows you to understand the position of your interlocutor, and therefore, to discuss the real sticking point. The starting postulate. It therefore becomes possible to get his interlocutor to question this initial postulate, and to show him that if his initial postulate turns out to be erroneous, then his whole reasoning collapses in a cascade. If we can do that, we can then get our interlocutor to question his postulate, with factual elements.

-sometimes the postulate is questionable / defensible. In this case, we can point out its possible weaknesses, and the impact that these weaknesses can have on the complete course of the reasoning.

Obviously, in real life, cognitive dissonance plays a role, and it's not that easy. You have to accept that it takes time for your interlocutor!

[Ahmed]

You write:

It therefore becomes possible to get his interlocutor to question this initial postulate, and to show him that if his initial postulate turns out to be erroneous, then his whole reasoning collapses in a cascade.

The concern is that the postulate is often implicit and generally results from a pseudo reasoning which constitutes it and validates it a posteriori (in the intellectual process) and we are then faced with a circular system ... it also implied? Because he is immanent in (is within) the domain he claims to explore.

[Rajqawee]

You write:

It therefore becomes possible to get his interlocutor to question this initial postulate, and to show him that if his initial postulate turns out to be erroneous, then his whole reasoning collapses in a cascade.

The concern is that the postulate is often implicit and generally results from a pseudo reasoning which constitutes it and validates it a posteriori (in the intellectual process) and we are then faced with a circular system ... it also implied? Because he is immanent in (is within) the domain he claims to explore.

Absolutely, I am not contradicting you, unfortunately it is often the case. But not always, so it's worth a try. And then, at the very least, it allows you to focus your own energy only on the focal point (assuming you're right): finding convincing evidence that this assumption is questionable, if not false. It avoids being scattered about "details" in our search for arguments or useful information!

[Janic]

how to prove that a postulate is true or false when there is no element which allows to affirm it. Example:
the postulate of god;
that this god exists, there is no way to prove it (with our ridiculously simplistic material means of measurement)
that it does not exist; Same
How do we do then?
we could do the same thing on nothingness, infinity, the absolute, etc ... even chance or love!

[Rajqawee]

how to prove that a postulate is true or false when there is no element which allows to affirm it. Example:
the postulate of god;
that this god exists, there is no way to prove it (with our ridiculously simplistic material means of measurement)
that it does not exist; Same
How do we do then?
we could do the same thing on nothingness, infinity, the absolute, etc ... even chance or love!

Ah!

Regarding God, here is what I say.

Can a God (a higher entity with purposes of its own) exist? Sure. Can we understand it, guess its intentions? Write that in a .... book ?! That would be considered absolute? Seems very, very arrogant and outlandish to me. If I am told that a religious book is above all a message, an allegory, free to interpret, that suits me very well. It is therefore a vision of the world on subjects that we cannot prove, in short. If I am told that the truth is written in the book because it translates the will of God, I do not even try to argue! (but I've never been faced with this before, IRL)
I will qualify all the same by emphasizing the fact that if these texts have survived so long, it is good that they still have some virtues.

For the rest ... we have to accept that certain subjects are by our nature, unprovable, incomprehensible, subject to interpretation. You can't prove everything. And, maybe it's happy!