RE: Be an Intelligent Skeptic, not a Conspiracy Theorist
I'm a big fan of School of Life. So many great videos there. Thank you for sharing this. Resteemed.
Intelligent Skeptic may be new favorite term. I've been wanting to write on this topic for a while now related to many in the voluntaryism/anarchist community who are convinced everything bad in the world is a government conspiracy, even if that means leaving some logic, reason, and evidence at the door. I love this description as well: an "emotional wound that overpowers the facalties of the mind." That's pretty consistent with what I've seen as well among those who aren't as much intelligent skeptics as they are die-hard conspiracy theorists.
Epistemology wasn't mentioned in the video, but I think that's a key to being one or the other. Having a good mechanism for determining if what you're "learning" is actually "knowlege" is so important. Knowing the logical fallacies is a good step in the right direction.
I think there's also a lot of ego and tribal identity wrapped up in this stuff. It's hard to "graciously and uncomplainingly abandon" an idea as the video says if doing so means you lose a part of how you view yourself. This, I think, is why confirmation bias is so strong among those who hold to their views even if evidence suggests they aren't accurately describing reality.
Sadly, this video exemplifies the exact type of irrational mindset it purports to be against. I have broken what I mean by this down in detail in the following post (not trying to spam, just think subtle half-truth vids like this need to be addressed and called out):
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@kafkanarchy84/examining-a-popular-video-choc-full-of-logical-fallacy-thinly-veiled-agenda-and-attempted-marginalization-of-thinking
I read your post and didn't think there was much value in responding to it as you seem pretty set in your opinions. The School of Life is anything but a scientism channel. It talks about philosophy, relationships, and human interactions, and I've enjoyed it quite a bit.
Whether you like it or not, "Conspiracy Theorists" as a term in popular use has gained a reputation for tin-foil hat wearing silliness. To me, the point isn't about CIA involvement in that process but about helping the most number of people find truth. If changing language is required to do that, so be it, just like focusing on "voluntaryism" over "anarchy" because the word anarchy is so misunderstood. If "intelligent skeptic" is a more useful term, that's what I'll use.
I have met a number of people who, IMO, have poor epistemologies. I recognize this because I also had a pretty poor epistemology for most of my life. They rely on their own experience and intuition instead of reason, logic, evidence, and skepticisms. They have made certain truth claims part of their identity so confirmation bias is in full swing, preventing them from easily and quickly changing their positions if given more convincing evidence.
One thing I was curious about after reading your post is what you mean by
How do you see the appeal to authority fallacy? I've asked you this before, but I don't think I got a clear response. Saying, "Hey, this authority on this topic has this well supported opinion" is not an appeal to authority fallacy. As explained here:
I've got much love for you, Graham, but I disagree with you on some aspects of how you come to knowledge via epistemology (from my perspective). You seem (to me) to put more trust in personal experience and intuition whereas I've done enough study on the human brain to think these things are not reliable. I'm not mad at you or judging you, I just recognize we have a different process which, given the same inputs, come up with different outcomes.
Right. I never present evidence. Only personal experience. Amazing how blind you are to how dismissive you are of any information that doesn't match your preconceived ideas. I say this with respect to you as a human, but this quality of blind dismissiveness is intolerable to me as a logician. I think it is good we clash.
To me, it comes down to what you and I consider evidence. If you submit what you consider a valid, peer-reviewed scientific paper and I show it to be otherwise, you don't accept that but instead change the topic and talk about how flawed the scientific process of peer-review is and how studies which you agree with were probably retracted based on prejudice instead of scientific rigor. That's difficult for me to work with if we can't agree on the mechanisms for how we come about knowledge over opinion (i.e. epistemology).
I'm not saying you don't submit evidence. I'm saying that when I bring significant doubts the validity of that evidence and you don't seem to be phased, that puts me in an awkward position wondering how I should proceed next time, if at all.
Either way, I agree, I do think it's good that we clash so we can keep each other sharp and question our assumptions in order to come to a better understanding of what is.
I have submitted vaccine inserts, direct statements from the CDC, and also documented evidence that the journals you reference are subject to massive compromising conflicts of interests. You have dismissed all of these, and have only replied with "my friend says this study is not reliable."
I would like to have a debate on a fair playing field, where "status quo" is not assumed to be an authority of some sort.
If you can pick a moderator I would be more than happy to formally debate this on either my YouTube channel, or a forum of your choice.
Graham, I haven't made this topic part of my identity. I'm willing to go wherever the data leads me, but I don't feel you're genuinely in the same position. From my perspective, you've tied this topic to your voluntaryist identity meaning there isn't much chance you'll easily change views on it as it would involve redefining yourself.
If I link to sources like this, I'm told the CDC isn't a valid source because they all lie. And yet the inserts and statements by the CDC are valid evidence? That's confusing. Inserts for all kinds of medications people consider safe include lists of possible side effects which are either really rare or possibly not connected directly to the drug at all, but listed because they were experienced at the same time the drug was taken during a study.
I mentioned a study of over 95k kids (among other studies), but it seems to me you're attacking the source, not the argument (genetic fallacy). I asked you as we've discussed this privately to provide me with your best, peer-reviewed paper explaining your position. What you gave me directly says right in that paper "there is no research data..." to support your claims. I pointed this out to you and you changed the subject and started talking about how the research process is flawed, how funding doesn't happen for the studies that would show the risks, etc.
This isn't worth my time because it's not a topic I care enough about. What I do care about is having a solid epistemology and properly understanding and avoiding logically fallacies. I've asked you a couple times to explain how you understand and use the appeal to authority fallacy and I'm still not clear on your answer. Talking about epistemology and use of fallacies is interesting to me because it helps me improve my thinking which I use in my every day life. Arguing about fields of study I have no training in isn't very interesting to me. It only matters up to the point where our decisions on the topic impact human wellbeing. It's a difficult topic for us indvidualist thinkers because of the emergent properties of our actions and how those could harm others. I haven't discussed with you your claims about herd immunity because I've looked into it myself, found problems with the evidence you've linked to in the past, and didn't want to go through another frustrating conversation. It's exhausting to bring these to your attention because, from my perspective, you've already made up your mind and the burden of proof (from your perspective) seems to lie with those who trust the research data that does exist instead of with those who are claiming it's all flawed without having solid peer-reviewed evidence to believe so.
So from my perspective, I'd rather move on to topics we both enjoy discussing. Maybe some day the research in this area will be even more clear and then it will be much easier for us to be on the same page for this specific issue.
Much love, Graham. :)
Evidently, the emotional wounds go pretty deep, to the extent of delusion. Even basic facts are ignored, while random patterns are misinterpreted as "fact" or "evidence". I think it would be healthy to engage with people and groups and find out exactly why they are so vehemently distrustful of everything, even cold hard evidence. Of course, they don't see it and won't believe anything you or I say, but with time and persuasion, I think they'll see the bleeding obvious. Alain is spot on - these are otherwise intelligent people who somehow seem to shut down their logic when it comes to some matters.
Yeah, it can be frustrating at times. I wonder, also, the impact of various chemicals on the brain (such as psychedelics) in connecting hemispheres in such a way to see patterns even where they don't exist. I get how that could have been an evolutionary advantage, even believing things which were not true, in order to survive and spread the genes, but I wonder how useful it is today.
Thanks again for sharing this.
Indeed, crucial for survival in the Savannahs a hundred thousand years ago. Today, not so much :)
@berniesanders mocks people for being sexually abused when they were children. Community remains silent.
Flagged for spamming.