Critical Thinking, reductionism, epistemology RI megathread

[Searcher08]

Can you humilate an idea?

Humiliating ideas is a fine way to make progress. Some ideas need to have their pants pulled down and be stood in the village square where other ideas can stroll by and snicker.

I respectfully challenge this.
It applies to ideas the same treatment given to an Iroquois prisoner. If he is still standing after walking down a line of warriors being clubbed, then obviously he's ok (assuming he survives)

To me this is a sort of unexamined 'memetic social Darwinism' going on here.

This is the 'critical thinking' of testing an idea to destruction to see if it is any good.

Ridiculing an idea is different than ridiculing a person. 2nd one hurts.

The first one hurts as well, if the idea is held as forming an integral part of one's personal being.

An 'integral part of ones being' is a sliding scale from something one might mildly agree with to something one would happily gives ones life for.

Whether YOU YOURSELF agree or find value in another's idea - surely there is another thing to take into account - which is they acknowledgement that THEY DO.
It doesnt mean they are 'objectively right'.

Someone please let me know if the thread gets intelligent again.

Please send up a balloon should that unlikelihood actually transpire.

Passivity * Sneering = Cynicism

Ridiculing something is an act of power , power over whether it is women, gays, Irish, animals or ideas.

Thinking at all is an act of power. Consider the various metaphors we use for consideration: "get a grasp on", "wrap your mind around", etc. Attempting to understand is attempting to control.

Faith is an even more powerful power mechanism, as it makes real and material the ineffable.

Christ, every act is an act of power, including the act of submission.

What you describe as metaphors, I use the NLP language of representational systems - what you have given in that frame are examples of kinesthetic representations a la "I am in touch with" "I have a handle on" etc

I would say that attempting to understand is not just an attempt to get control but also to get a perspective on something. I see understanding as a dynamic on-going process rather than a one-off state that one enters into.

What I wanted to communicate though was about

ridicule as power OVER

When an idea is ridiculed, particularly in a group situation, more attention is often given to denigrating the person who puts the idea forward than the idea itself.

If anything , it tends to reinforce groupthink. By looking for the value in an idea that you intitally consider crap, you may find HUGE value that outweighs every bad thing you first thought of. Critical thinking is based on evaluation - so if you have already evalueated that the idea is crap, you will see no reason to look for value in it.

I would suggest that ridiculing is very poor thinking, because it is actually a somewhat arrogant response based on a partial assessment that doesnt include humane respect for the person having it.

Amputation is a shocking and humilating procedure as well, but it's performed in the hope of future wellness.

Interesting metaphor from surgery -
This comes back to the memetic Darwinism mentioned previously

Looking at it from the "Language of the Feminine" a la the Mysogyny thread
You subject ideas to

ridicule, humiliation, amputation, for their own good

Ridiculing an idea is a weak aspect of critical thinking.
Why? Because thinking stops at this point. It denies an entire aspect of thinking which is that of Movement - where does this idea lead TO.

The avenues of exploration opened up by abandoning an idea are just as numerous as those made available by accepting one.

The issue is abandoned after what process? Having a culture of ridiculing 'bad' ideas will tend not to create a climate where people feel confident about putting them forward. This is a huge weakness of 'critical thinking'

"WELL WHO HAS A GREAT IDEA?"
What about X
"THATS THE STOOPIDEST THING I EVER HERD!!!!"
>silence ensues tumbleweeds blow across the floor<

Why the silence? Because people do not want to be treated like a dick because their idea might need improvement.

I have seen creative problem solving sessions totally stymied by a (self-styled) critical thinker 'assessing' every idea as it came up.

"7. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

The end result of Ludwig's process is action, not further discourse.

The end result of ridiculing ideas is that you ridicule people, reduce creativity, decrease communication between people and turn innovation into an ordeal which is not a good thing in the broader global context of 2011.

[MacCruiskeen]

You're making it too simple, Searcher. Of course some ideas need to be, and deserve to be, ridiculed.* Otherwise you are asserting that all satire is, especially when effective, both morally wrong and intellectually counterproductive.

I strongly disagree.

I can list many very different examples from many different eras if you want. I am sure you can find many more of your own.

*And of course ideas are only ever embodied in, and given voice to by, people.

[justdrew]

Thought this was pretty funny..

yeah, ouch! when it's put that way it sure does look like pure ugliness, I have to admit.

ok, I'm back. sorry I told you to go to hell, you really got my goat with that ben stein crap though. As for the above picture... well, that's the deal. That is what the proponents of "teaching 'both sides'" are all about. Do you see that? Do you see that that it is not appropriate to equate some story from an old book, misunderstood at that, with multiple-lifetimes of hard human work that has gone into our ever changing body of scientific knowledge? That one is just a story in an old book, and misunderstood at that, and the other is bankable useful information that one can use to make testable predictions with? That those few so-called-christians' views on creationisms even conflict with the pope? If gawd created the world and life, he did it via evolution over the course of billions of years. That shouldn't challenge anyone's faith, unless it's a faith based on nonsensical "literal" interpretation foolishness. Agree?

[Canadian_watcher]

You're making it too simple, Searcher. Of course some ideas need to be, and deserve to be, ridiculed.* Otherwise you are asserting that all satire is, especially when effective, both morally wrong and intellectually counterproductive.

I strongly disagree.

I can list many very different examples from many different eras if you want. I am sure you can find many more of your own.

*And of course ideas are only ever embodied in, and given voice to by, people.

With respect, I view this as muddying the waters at this point of the discussion, Mac. The context I believe we are addressing in this little part of the thread is not the stage or television screen, but here and now. Are you of the opinion that what went on in the Theophobia thread or earlier in this thread was satire?

In the context of how ridicule came up here and now, I agree with Searcher completely. The tumbleweeds portion, I think, is particularly illustrative of what's going on or what could go on if the personalities involved are more timid.

[Canadian_watcher]

Thought this was pretty funny..

yeah, ouch! when it's put that way it sure does look like pure ugliness, I have to admit.

ok, I'm back. sorry I told you to go to hell, you really got my goat with that ben stein crap though. As for the above picture... well, that's the deal. That is what the proponents of "teaching 'both sides'" are all about. Do you see that? Do you see that that it is not appropriate to equate some story from an old book, misunderstood at that, with multiple-lifetimes of hard human work that has gone into our ever changing body of scientific knowledge? That one is just a story in an old book, and misunderstood at that, and the other is bankable useful information that one can use to make testable predictions with? That those few so-called-christians' views on creationisms even conflict with the pope? If gawd created the world and life, he did it via evolution over the course of billions of years. That shouldn't challenge anyone's faith, unless it's a faith based on nonsensical "literal" interpretation foolishness. Agree?

Glad you're back. I was really taken by surprise by all the reactions.. like I've said I think there was a cultural disconnect which, I guess, is particularly jarring when it comes between people who seemingly are in the same milieu. Obviously as far as religion in society goes Canada and the US are a trillion miles apart.

Anyway as to the poster, yes, that did illustrate for me the danger beneath some ideas.
I also think I have more trust in people to be able to learn about different myths and not latch on to them as if they were.. erm.. gospel. I went to Sunday School and yet married an atheist from an atheist family - my mother, who was a Sunday School teacher is an atheist now.. my step father the same. And I do not take the Christian faith as my own. So - to me people come at this stuff from all different perspectives and, it is my experience, that they can deal with it.

The last part - I do believe that evolutionary change happens *and* I think there is a 'god' thing over-arching power force designer being-but-not-as-we-understand-being entity-ish indescribable and unknowable force that made 'life' happen in the first place. I have never understood why one doesn't just flow from the other in the minds of most people. They don't seem to contradict each other, IMO.

[barracuda]

Searcher:

All ideas are not created equal. Some ideas are dangerous, some are harmful, some are propaganda, some are lies. There is no reason that all ideas ought to be treated with respect. Ideas are not Iroquoi. To confuse ideas with the people that hold them is the main problem I have with your perspective here.

Ideas which cannot stand up to agressive critique have demonstrated an inherent weakness. Once that weakness is addressed, the value in the idea can be taken to the next level. Every idea is not suseptible to ridicule. But if people get upset because their ideas are indefensible in the face of a mere joke, the problem is not with the joke.

The philisophical tradition of ridiculing ideas goes back to Diogenes and beyond. It is a completely valid method of getting beyond the ridiculous to the sublime.

Critical thinking is based on evaluation - so if you have already evalueated that the idea is crap, you will see no reason to look for value in it.

If you'd like to spend your time looking for value in crap, no one is stopping you. Some things - anti-semitism, Intelligent Design, etc. - are crap. Plenty of places exist where they can be meticulously examined for their worth, and this is one of them. Thank goodness it is also a place where those ideas can be ridiculed in the hopes that they will not poison the conversation terminally.

Having a culture of ridiculing 'bad' ideas will tend not to create a climate where people feel confident about putting them forward.

First of all, satire of a sort is the culture here, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty oif ideas - Intelligent Design being a fine example - I would rather people have little confidence in putting out.

It takes strength to fight for your ideas, for your position, for yourself. Mollycoddling is counterproductive, and acceptance of ideas without testing them creates a weak, dilutionary climate, where each notion, no matter how absurd, is deserving of, at the very least, respectful and thoughtful consideration. This is exactly the greatest hope of those who would poison discourse with diversion.

[MacCruiskeen]

C_w: "The context I believe we are addressing in this little part of the thread is not the stage or television screen, but here and now."

In fact, C-w, and demonstrably: We -- to be exact, Searcher08, barracuda and now I (so far)-- are addressing the topic of ridicule and whether it is ever morally justified or indeed epistemologically useful, in any context, historical or contemporary. Which has been a very large part of the point at issue, for about a gazillion pages (so far).

And, with respect, you are in fact muddying the waters yet again by entirely missing the point - just as you muddied the waters by bringing up ID when you did, in that way, and to no good purpose I could discern, except possibly to annoy people pointlessly and unnecessarily, maybe because the weather's so damn hot. But mere contrarianism is a pain in the arse, best left to Christopher Hitchens and his cackling acolytes.

PS I hope I will defend people against bullying whenever I notice it and am capable of doing something about it. That does not oblige me to join the victim's football team, to share his politics, or to call him the Debate Champ even when he's talking nonsense. (As you correctly point out. this is not about personalities, at least not exclusively. Or at the very least, it shouldn't be.)

[norton ash]

A delicate genius wrote:

Obviously as far as religion in society goes Canada and the US are a trillion miles apart.

Obviously. Look at our government, what they're doing, and who got them there. Or at all the naive dupes in our respective societies.

Something less than a trillion miles, I'd posit.

[Canadian_watcher]

Five years ago, when I created this website, I never thought it would last for more than a few months. I wanted to share a few of my opinions on my hometown, and to my surprise, people actually took notice.

As anyone who knows me well can attest, I’ve never been afraid to speak my mind, even when it gets me in trouble or causes controversy. I’ve always attempted to be respectful and purposeful, but I’m definitely not perfect. Still, I know that if you’re going to dish it out, then, as the adage goes, you better be able to take it. I like to believe I’ve handled criticism with some degree of aplomb, though it hasn’t always been easy. I may have thick skin, but I’m not made of kevlar.

If you’ve read this site during the last two years, you probably know that I’ve earned the ire of a man named Greg Aymond, a lawyer and former member of the Ku Klux Klan who publishes a blog called Central LA Politics. I’ve written far too many responses to him on this blog. Some people tell me to simply ignore him completely. By even mentioning him, they say, I’m giving him exactly what he wants: attention and recognition. I can’t know what motivates someone like Greg Aymond, but again, the internet is written in ink. Greg Aymond has written about me nearly every single week for the last year, sometimes posting as many as four articles a week. When I post something on this site, within a few hours, Greg Aymond usually responds, and more often than not, he distorts my words in order to promote some ridiculous lie about me. I’ve said before, it’s sometimes disconcerting to me. Sometimes, it’s not just weird; it seems creepy and strangely obsessive, particularly when I consider the hours he’s spent changing photographs of me (and others).

Today, in response to my post about my friend and colleague Joe Page, Greg Aymond published his latest depiction of me:



He named the file “Freddy the Gimp.” He explained:

Freddy White, the the best blogger in Cenla, unofficial mouthpiece for Alexandria Mayor Jacques Roy, Publicist for the City of Alexandria who blogs on City time, our resident pinko left-winger, and ofay who has done nothing for real for Black people except mouth off, today attacked Town Talk reporter Bret McCormick and community activist Gayle Underwood for daring to exercise their freedoms of speech.

I call Freddy a gimp and place his photo in a wheelchair because he uses his disability for sympathy (no matter what he says). Freddy was probably hired by City Hall for his liberal ways and his disability. It couldn’t have been for his knowledge or experience because he had none. Many of us, including me, have disabilities, but we do not use them to further our own agendas like Freddy does.

First, obviously, I did not attack anyone’s freedom of speech rights. That’s absurd. I questioned Mr. McCormick’s editorialization, and I pointed out that Ms. Underwood has appeared on Channel Four more than anyone else outside of city government, often to express her own political views.

I’ve been called a “gimp” before, of course. The word has several different definitions, but when it’s hurled at someone with a disability, it’s intended to be an insult, an offensive slur, a word that can be hurtful and dehumanizing. Still, I’ve grown accustomed to Mr. Aymond’s spiteful and blindly hateful name-calling. I would never expect him to understand how the word “gimp” can be an instrument of hatred or how profoundly painful it can be for a ten-year-old boy with cerebral palsy or a sixteen-year-old girl with muscular dystrophy. I know Mr. Aymond intends to be hurtful; likely, he believes that attacking me for being disabled is his best line of attack. It’s pathetic.

Unlike Mr. Aymond, I’ve lived with a disability for my entire life. It does not and has never defined my identity, but it certainly helps inform it. How could it not? Although I don’t want to get into some sort of ad hominem attack, I know this: Today, even for someone confined to a wheelchair, it is possible to adapt; it is possible to live a normal life- to go to school, to make close friends, to become gainfully employed, to get married, and to have kids. But when you’re paralyzed by hatred and anger, you suffer from a disability that is far more devastating than anything else.

Mr. Aymond may claim that he’s simply being satirical, playful; if pressed, he’d probably argue that he has the right to satirize me because he probably thinks of me as a public figure. But make no mistake: This is not satire. It is not playful criticism. It is intended to be personal; it is intended to inflict pain; it is intended to dehumanize me, to reduce me to a slur; and it is intended to discredit my intellect, to make me appear as nothing more than an untalented, unqualified, and unintelligent opportunist who has coasted through life because of the sympathy of others. This isn’t satire; it’s hate speech.

http://cenlamar.com/2011/02/17/satire-versus-hate-speech/

[Canadian_watcher]

*sigh*

Searcher08 - I don't know if what you posted was in an attempt to clear up some of the problems with the way 'dialogue' has been happening here on this thread or not. But again I find myself apologizing to you.

I see I've managed to offend someone else now, obviously still sore from my ID mistake, which apparently I must be punished for by each and every person who reads it whether or not I've already taken my lumps and admitted that it was a 'shitpile.'

I believed that you were reaching for understanding, and I believed that introducing satire as a defense to HURTING PEOPLE with vitriol (let's not forget, we're not public figures here) was going to derail the excellent points you made.

Now, of course, it will be me who takes the blame for derailing it.

Sorry, Searcher. I'm not going to make contributions any more and so the conversation should move easily along now.

[barracuda]

Perhaps this would be a good time to discuss the epistemological aspects of disengagement.

[The Consul]

But if you would rather come at me about how this type of thing is like talking to a bird or a boat, then call yourself a boat.

I am not coming at you. I am not an intellectual linebacker doing tongue twisters of Lyle Lovett lyrics backwards to satiate my incoherent hypergraphia. Honestly, I swear!
And if we are brainwashed how do we know that any way in which we talk about the brainwashing isn't part of being brainwashed? Seriously, no one here is going to determine the guilt or innocence of Julian A let alone determine what plane of logic is acceptable to do so; people are going to have different viewpoints and different interpretations, whether one is a retired NSA widgeteer or a laid of school marm. So people come to be known for what they put forth in this constant "you misunderstood me" misunderstanding that is just a wink and a wish away from playing stick man on postage sized sticky notes with someone else's personality, if such a thing exists from looking at a flat screen. It seems to me to go to the point of the esoteric, which I love, really, but the estoric can be dangerous when it insists not only on being about something, but being right. Hurt follows fallow words that end in suspended threads, the egocentric reverse polarity of consciousness kicks in and the wrong things are not ignored while the right things remain coins, mere coins spent to score points. Who was it said "the more I know, the more I can't"?
Other than that, I love it all.

[Searcher08]

Searcher:

All ideas are not created equal. Some ideas are dangerous, some are harmful, some are propaganda, some are lies.

Unanswered questions
Equal as decided by whom?
Decided as harmful by whom?
Propaganda as decided by whom?
Lies - in what system? These are really important questions that require dialogue - otherwise what changes?

Some of the amazing results that Marshall Rosenberg (NVC) has got in conflict resolution have been PRECISELY because he did NOT focus on evaluation.

There is no reason that all ideas ought to be treated with respect. Ideas are not Iroquoi. To confuse ideas with the people that hold them is the main problem I have with your perspective here.

I think it is important to look at the ecology, the interacting system of (Person + Idea). You yourself identified that ideas can have a relationship with identity. It is also important to create a distinction between the idea and an evaluation of it.

Ideas which cannot stand up to agressive critique have demonstrated an inherent weakness. Once that weakness is addressed, the value in the idea can be taken to the next level.

Listen to the patriarchal language - it is that of debate, of the lawyer, the politician.
Of stripping away in order to reveal "The Truth".
Reductionist. Analytical Aggressive critique Inherent weakness Weakness addressed

This sort of thinking is fine for dealing with finding heretics or finding errors.
Now if Im writing aviation tracking software, is it important to find flaws and inconsistencies? Too Fucking Right!! As a former software tester, I was paid to look for faults and errors.

The issue is that THIS TYPE OF THINKING ISNT ENOUGH. Its like a one wheeled car.

Every idea is not suseptible to ridicule. But if people get upset because their ideas are indefensible in the face of a mere joke, the problem is not with the joke.

WHO DECIDES which ideas are suseptible to ridicule?

The context of satire is often one of sketching power dynamics, of saying the unsaid, or portraying it in cartoonish qualities. I personally greatly appreciate good satire - however 'bad' satire goes very directly into vk's Skeptic Astronomer video of "Dont be a Dick".

Mel Brooks satirizing the Nazis is a universe away from being a JREF Skeptic Being A Dick.

The philisophical tradition of ridiculing ideas goes back to Diogenes and beyond. It is a completely valid method of getting beyond the ridiculous to the sublime.

...and utterly pants at helping create new ideas and constructive approaches.

Critical thinking is based on evaluation - so if you have already evalueated that the idea is crap, you will see no reason to look for value in it.

If you'd like to spend your time looking for value in crap, no one is stopping you.

Well if you want to put every concept through a reductionist mental mincing machine and think that gets you somewhere, have at it.

The Alchemist might say that spiritual development is about precisely about looking for value in crap. The pearl in the oyster.

Also, you didnt address my point. There are ideas that one may not like at all initially at a feeling level or see any value in. If one deliberately spells out the values and benefits of the idea, your perception of it may change.

Just looking for faults is very limited thinking.
You have never heard of the Yorkshire phrase "Where theres Muck, theres Brass"?

Some things - anti-semitism, Intelligent Design, etc. - are crap. Plenty of places exist where they can be meticulously examined for their worth, and this is one of them. Thank goodness it is also a place where those ideas can be ridiculed in the hopes that they will not poison the conversation terminally.

As I said before I am not well informed regarding either the politics or beliefs around ID, but this is not a place where those things are examined for their worth. The issue around Darwinian orthodoxy certainly has not been addressed here- it has been subjected to what I would describe as 'bad' satire -point me in the direction of where scientists who think Darwin is not the end of the story have a voice? If you were editing an Evolutionary Biology journal, they wouldnt get through the front door, never mind have their ideas looked at, because they are "thinking wrongly".

Having a culture of ridiculing 'bad' ideas will tend not to create a climate where people feel confident about putting them forward.

First of all, satire of a sort is the culture here, don't you think?

Secondly, there are plenty oif ideas - Intelligent Design being a fine example - I would rather people have little confidence in putting out.

First: If the people who ridicule ideas are also willing to spell out the benefits of those ideas and also to look for alternatives to those ideas, no problem.
However, from what you say, they are not.
Second: Wanting to decrease another person's confidence is a trixy business

It takes strength to fight for you ideas, for your position, for yourself.

Mollycoddling is counterproductive, and acceptance of ideas without testing them creates a weak, dilutionary climate, where each notion, no matter how absurd, is deserving of at the very least, respectful and thoughtful consideration. This is exactly the greatest hope of those who would poison discourse with discursion.

Who DECIDES 'no matter how absurd'?

Your idea development culture is a MONOculture, rather than an ecosystem.

The aggressive, adversarial system is great for fighting against something - there is a target, a focus which can be attacked. However it is very poor for coming up with alternatives.

Characterising "looking for value and spelling out the benefits" as 'mollycoddling'
is nonsense. Looking for features and benefits of an idea is a valuable mental process. A large part of good teaching and learning and training is precisely ABOUT looking for the best.

The Kid age 3 Hey, Dad. I have decided to just sit for the rest of my life.
Dad Why is that?
The Kid age 3 Well, I have attempted to stand up on 4 distinct occasions and have decided that, based on the existing evidence base, I will not be able to stand.
Dad Well assessed! Good critical thinking!

It takes personal power to stand up and put forward something different because the default response of a social group inculcated with this type of toxic, patriarchal aggressive adversarial approach to new ideas is to activate a type of cognitive immune system, with a great big NO! - REJECT! - ENEMY!
The quieter people in groups, or those whose voice may traditionally not be heard
and, even, dare I say it, for WOMEN - this is a real issue.

I find this picture really ironic, as your model for the development of ideas can best best expressed by "Survival of The Fittest" and "Being Right is Might". It is a way of thinking that is very poor at constructing a way forward and creating new approaches.

"Will those who know what cannot be done please stop interfering with those of us doing it."

[American Dream]

Personally, I found your approach to engaging with me around David Icke baffling. You were very focused on getting a very clear binary response from me (it felt like someone nose to nose going ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!) The things was - after that you just stopped - nothing.

Searcher- does these words from me to you qualify for the binary approach to David Icke which you are referring to?

I do agree that what some may call "critical thinking" can have its own limitations and sometimes provide cover for dogmatic belief.

Now, to begin the process for me, I am going to state that I have a hunch- an intuition if you will, that you do to some degree support David Icke's Reptilian Theory. My further hunch is that I could never in a million years guess the subtleties of which parts you believe, which parts you don't and everything in between.

What is the truth regarding you and Reptilian Theory?

To use your own words:

"The things was - after that you just stopped - nothing."

[Searcher08]

I shall return - I need to eat before passing out