To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Does Baked-in Bias (ideology) Always Win?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, Other Sciences > Other Sciences

coberst
Does baked-in bias (ideology) always win?

Let’s examine one of the most perplexing and potentially dangerous problems that the world now faces.

Nuclear proliferation is high on the priority list facing Obama. The problem the haves (those who now have nuclear weapons) have is preventing the have-nots from becoming a member of the haves.

It is apparent to me that any fair-minded individual must recognize as fact that every nation will logically seek to obtain nuclear weapons and that every nation that has such weapons already, will seek to deter such a happening.


Fair-mindedness is the corner-stone of CT (Critical Thinking). Without fair-mindedness there is no Critical Thinking.

To be fair-minded one must be vigilant (consciousness plus intention) of the need to treat all viewpoints alike. This demands that we adhere to intellectual standards such as accuracy and sound reasoning, which are unaffected by self-interest.

A contrast with fair-mindedness is intellectual self-centeredness.

Fair-mindedness is a challenging task that demands a family of character traits: intellectual humility, courage, empathy, honesty, perseverance, and a confidence in the value of reason.

Our culture places maximum value not on fair-mindedness but upon self-interest, and maximizing production, and consumption.


Intellectual humility begins with the recognition that absolute certainty regarding any matter of fact is beyond human capacity. There exists no mind-independent reality that we have the capacity to know. We can know only that which is “colored” by our experiences and historical perspective.

Our common sense views, coupled with philosophical tradition and religious dogma, all teach us that such is not the case, that we can find absolute certainty. This cultural tradition works aggressively against our goal of intellectual humility thus demanding that we must become more intellectually sophisticated in order to gain the level of intellectual humility required.

Intellectual courage is a difficult assignment. We all tend to place great value on our own opinion, which is more often than not just something that we grabbed as it flew by. But this is even more of a problem when we are “wedded” to something that we have a strong commitment to, for what ever reason. Our political affiliation is one example.

Intellectual courage is especially difficult, and even dangerous to our well being when we hold ideas that society considers them to be dangerous; even though we are confident that they are rationally grounded. Society often punishes severely all forms of nonconformity; the execution of Socrates by the citizens of Athens might serve as a good example.

By developing this character trait of intellectual courage we will often be ostracized from a group or even a large community. Such an experience will give us incentive to recognize that most people live their lives in such a manner as to be secure in the middle of the approval of those about us.

Intellectual courage ain’t for sissies!

Intellectual empathy is a consciousness that one must engage the imagination in an effort to intellectually place your self into the shoes of another so as to comprehend that other person as well as possible. To accomplish this transaction we must try to learn as much as possible about the other person’s situation so as to reconstruct that person’s assumptions, premises, and ideas.

It appears to me that civilization is presently constructed on the firm foundation of baked-in bias, that is to say that religion forms the foundation of today’s civilization. If this is correct one might ask the question ‘can we construct a world on a foundation of reason when we begin with a world where the understanding of and confidence in reason is seldom observed’?

Many of these ideas were gleaned from the book Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life by Richard Paul and Linda Elder

RobDegraves
The funny part about that entire bit, apart from the vagueness of it's precepts, is that by formulating these various statements as axioms the authors contradict one of their own axioms... that of Intellectual Humility.
MjolnirPants
QUOTE (coberst+Jun 15 2009, 07:52 AM)
It is apparent to me that any fair-minded individual must recognize as fact that every nation will logically seek to obtain nuclear weapons and that every nation that has such weapons already, will seek to deter such a happening.

Incorrect.
There are many many logical reasons not to pursue nuclear weaponry.
  • Prohibitive costs
  • Ineffective allocation of resources
  • opposition from nuclear powers
  • opposition from non-nuclear powers
  • the appearance of war-mongering
There are more, those are just off the top of my head.
In fact, the primary logical reason to pursue the development of nuclear weapons is to either serve as a deterrent to hostile nations, or to possess the ability to destroy a hostile nation. Unless one of those two reasons is more important to a nation, then the pursuit of nuclear weapons is actually a highly illogical act.
RobDegraves
I have to agree with Mjolnirpants here.

I live in Canada. We neither have nor want any nuclear weapons. In fact, there was quite a bit of flak in the last decade when the US wanted to test some missiles over Canada and rather assumed we would be ok with that. We were not and to this day no flights are allowed over Canada that might carry nukes or any of the technology to deliver them.

It's not that we don't care to fight when we need to, we just don't like the dangers involved with nuclear proliferation.
jimdean
The thought of mutually assured destruction makes me wonder is there really a enemy to the human race still considered more universal than this one.I thought the guidelines were fundamental in understanding ourselves and others. It is the idea that with nuclear power comes domination that is so dangerous and false.
buttershug
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jun 15 2009, 05:32 PM)
I have to agree with Mjolnirpants here.

I live in Canada. We neither have nor want any nuclear weapons. In fact, there was quite a bit of flak in the last decade when the US wanted to test some missiles over Canada and rather assumed we would be ok with that. We were not and to this day no flights are allowed over Canada that might carry nukes or any of the technology to deliver them.

It's not that we don't care to fight when we need to, we just don't like the dangers involved with nuclear proliferation.

If my memory isn't totaly FUBAR then Brian Mulrooney had the States remove some nukes that were on Canadian soil when he took office.

And Ronald Reagan left the States with few nukes than when he took office.
Meem
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 15 2009, 11:26 AM)
Incorrect.
There are many many logical reasons not to pursue nuclear weaponry.
  • Prohibitive costs
  • Ineffective allocation of resources
  • opposition from nuclear powers
  • opposition from non-nuclear powers
  • the appearance of war-mongering
There are more, those are just off the top of my head.
In fact, the primary logical reason to pursue the development of nuclear weapons is to either serve as a deterrent to hostile nations, or to possess the ability to destroy a hostile nation. Unless one of those two reasons is more important to a nation, then the pursuit of nuclear weapons is actually a highly illogical act.

I would just like to point out an irony. I have no intention of commenting again on this thread and I won't.

I thought this was something science didn't do, but only "spiritual" types did.

Occidental
QUOTE

That must be something unique to your Rules of Spirituality. In science, definitions of words are decided upon beforehand, and not kept a secret like some kind of sacred knowledge only to be shared with those deemed worthy.


Anyways,

Have a nice day.
gmilam
QUOTE (Meem+Jun 15 2009, 09:33 PM)
I would just like to point out an irony. I have no intention of commenting again on this thread and I won't.

I thought this was something science didn't do, but only "spiritual" types did.

Occidental


Anyways,

Have a nice day.

That was pretty damn incoherent... blink.gif
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.