Op-tion-al il-lu-sions

[coberst]

Op-tion-al il-lu-sions

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

Do you agree that ‘hold’ should be the option of choice in almost all occasions?

 

[Dancing David]

I would use the word "provisional' or 'tentative', that way you can accept or reject based upon the available evidence.

The hold position is not one for sceptics, if there is no data then it is speculation or theory, if the data is inconclusive then it is still speculation or theory.

Sorry Coberst, it is not an age thing it is a sceptic thing, there are so many whacked out philosophies that there is not 'hold' for the sceptic.

 

[coberst]

I would use the word "provisional' or 'tentative', that way you can accept or reject based upon the available evidence.

The hold position is not one for sceptics, if there is no data then it is speculation or theory, if the data is inconclusive then it is still speculation or theory.

Sorry Coberst, it is not an age thing it is a sceptic thing, there are so many whacked out philosophies that there is not 'hold' for the sceptic.

When you make a decision without reasoning you create a big problem for yourself. At some later date you may comprehend matters and when you do you face the problem--you cannot argue down that which has never been argued up.

 

[Meffy]

Patent rubbish.

First, discarding a supposition for which there is no evidentiary support is NOT "making a decision without reasoning." Reason tells us that without evidence there is no justification for supposing. (By "us" I mean me and other skeptics; YMMV.*)

Second, comprehension does not spring full-grown from the forehead of Zeus as Athena did. It comes from reasoning and from evidence. If that reasoning and evidence overrides an earlier decision, it overrides it. This is called "changing your mind based on new evidence" and it happens not that infrequently. Capisce?

Why in the world do you keep trying to make simple things seem complicated and difficult? Bad case of philosophitis? Just naturally contrary and unwilling to see the forest for the trees? Playing silly games? Come on. Get real.
______________________

[edit] * As well, your mileage may vary from ours with respect to allowing ego to dominate over proof. I have no problem with admitting I've been wrong... when sufficient evidence is provided. Have you?

 

[gdtbiker]

I'm making a wild guess here, this may not be anywhere near Coberst's original post idea, but his third option of "hold" reminds me of my own pet principle of a Third Option:

When the company I worked for changed ownership, I was given 2 choices: 1) sign an intellectual property form giving the company full and total rights to any idea/invention/innovation I came up with while employed by them (and remain an employee); 2) be fired by not agreeing to sign the form

Now, this might seem like an X or Y proposition, but I came up with the Third Option: I modified the form such that anything I worked on within my own non-paid time was mine and mine alone but whatever I produced on company time was theirs.

In many situations, including debate, where there initially appears to be only an "affirm" or "deny" choice, there is often a 3rd option that may not be obvious but which is still valid. That specific option would, of course, be different according to the specific situation.

Coberst's use of the "hold" option reminds me more of "reserving judgement" in the case of realizing that you may not know all (or enough of) the facts yet and need further evidence to form a solid opinion. For example, person X can say that ghosts exist, person Y can say ghosts do not exist, while person Z could "hold", or "reserve judgement" on whether ghosts exist or not simply because there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that ghosts exist nor is there enough evidence to prove that ghosts do not exist. In a way, doesn't Randi's million dollar challenge do this? He doesn't necessarily have to deny that paranormal phenomenon exist, he doesn't accept that paranormal phenomenon exist, but he reserves judgement or "holds" until somebody wins his million.

 

[Meffy]

To me, reserving judgement is in effect the same as denying acceptance. The difference is of degree, not of kind.

[edit] Anyone who hires me had better not try pulling the "it's ours or you're fired" trick. :-D Not that they ever would. What I write on my time is mine, what I write on company time is theirs, and ne'er the main shall tweet.

 

[RandFan]

When I use the term "hold" I mean that I hold it tentatively.

Talkorigins

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world.

Perhaps the word "hold" is imprecise and we should state that we "hold provisionally" but if we should then perhaps we should also state that "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty".

 

[Apathia]

Op-tion-al il-lu-sions

Accept or reject are not the only options one has. The most important and generally overlooked, especially by the young, is the option to ‘hold’.

It appears to me that many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true.

When a person takes a public position affirming or denying the truth of ‘Y’ they are often locking themselves into a difficult position. If their original position was based on opinion rather than judgment their ego will not easily allow them to change position once they have studied and analyzed ‘Y’.

The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment. Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position.

Our options are reject, accept, and hold. I think that ‘hold’ is the most important and should be the most often used because everyone is ignorant of almost everything.

Do you agree that ‘hold’ should be the option of choice in almost all occasions?

It's a wordy complaint that most times if a person makes a philosohical assertion on these boards, other than anything that's immediately recognized as Skepticism, it becomes a skeet shoot with people (of all ages I should mention) firing away at every assertion, explanation, or even qualification that follows. Coburst would someone to explore the idea with him, rather than just dismiss it outright.

This is a Skeptics board, and the function of a skeptic is to pull out her rifle and fire away. There are people who undertand this and post their ideas precisely because they want them in a firing line where they can refine them or even discard them in the light of sound argument. On that score the majority of the gunners miss the mark or shoot at scarecrows, but nevertheless I've gotten good input myself when putting up ideas to be shot at. Ignore the poor shots and inexperiencede shooters and benifit from the public examination of your ideas.

I haven't had a contention with Coberst because most of what he's saying isn't a kind of red flag to attract my attention. It's pretty much stuff I find agreeable, so I move on. If it were in areas I'm personally exploring right now, I'd explore with him and would do some seet shooting as well.

This isn't much of a place for like minded people unless you're a Skeptic minded person.

I bet if you framed what you were saying differently, as a criticism of specific popularly held notions, the skeet shooters would be firing at your designated target rather than you.

 

[coberst]

gdbiker

Right on the mark. To make a decision when not required is foolish if you are not prepared to make it, remain silent and await a time when you may comprehend the matter much better.

 

[RandFan]

It's a wordy complaint that most times if a person makes a philosohical assertion on these boards, other than anything that's immediately recognized as Skepticism, it becomes a skeet shoot with people (of all ages I should mention) firing away at every assertion, explanation, or weven qualification that follows. Coburst would someone to explore the idea with him, rather than just dismiss it outright.

This is a Skeptics board, and the function of a skeptic is to pull out her rifle and fire away. There are people who undertand this and post their ideas precisely because they want them in a fireing line where they can refine them or even discard them in the light of sound argument. On that score the majority of the gunners miss the mark or shoot at scarecrows, but5 nevertheless I've gotten good input myself when putting up ideas to be shot at. Ignore the poor shots and inexperiencede shooters and benifit from the public examination of your ideas.

I haven't had a contention with Coberst because most of what he's saying isn't a kind of red flag to attract my attention. It's pretty much stuff I find agreeable, so I move on. If it were in areas I'm personally exploring right now, I'd explore with him and would do some seet shooting as well.

This isn't much of a place for like minded people unless you're a Skeptic mindes person.

I bet if you framed what you were saying differently, as a criticism of specific popularly held notions, the skeet shooters would be firing at your designated target rather than you.

Great post, I tend to question arguments that I think are poorly constructed or downright fallacious even when I agree with the overall sentiment of the post. Sadly my style can be provocative and I end up spending too much time debating minutiae rather than getting to the substance of my objection. Ego, ain't it a bitch?

I agree with you and I confess to having missed the mark by responding viscerally based on what I perceived and not what was meant on many occasions. I think it appropriate to challenge poorly constructed arguments but to also try and understand the reasoning behind the argument and whether it has any merit. Asking questions and or focusing on the argument in a non-confrontational way and doesn't attack the person making the argument and putting the person making the argument on the defensive seems a better strategy for me.

Thanks Hyparxis.

 

[coberst]

RandFan

When the operator puts you on hold you expect it is not the end of the matter.

I cannot stand to listen or watch Bush thus when he comes on TV I mute it because I do not want to be biased in evaluating his idea later. At least I won't be as biased as if I had watched him.

 

[gdtbiker]

When I use the term "hold" I mean that I hold it tentatively.

Quote:
Talkorigins

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world.

Perhaps the word "hold" is imprecise and we should state that we "hold provisionally" but if we should then perhaps we should also state that "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty".

Are you absolutely certain of the fact that you made that post, or will you be "holding" on that?

 

[coberst]

Hyparxis

What is your definition of a skeptic?

It seems to me that a skeptic takes the contrary position and if so, just for the fun of it, that is fine. It is when you take the contrary position and lock yourself into a situation unfounded on reason that you get into a bind.

I generally am not interested in an emotional spitting contest. There are generally more worthy ways to spend one's time.

 

[RandFan]

Are you absolutely certain of the fact that you made that post, or will you be "holding" on that?

I'm not absolutely certain of anything. I take Descartes hyperbolic doubt a step further. That I think is not proof that "I" exist.

 

[davefoc]

I think what Coberst is alluding is a critical issue when attempting to understand human disagreements and conflicts.

Human thinking is polluted with confirmation bias. Hearing things that agree with our preconceived notions makes us feel good. Hearing things that we don't agree with makes us feel uncomfortable and even unhappy. Hence humans have a built in hysterisys mechanism for opinion formation. That is forming an opinion takes much less information than changing that opinion.

There are, I think, several reasons why humans have evolved to think like this. For one thing if we sat and vascillated back and forth about which path to take when there is not sufficient information to make a rational choice we might wait too long before doing anything. For instance, shall I pick up that stick and fend the lion off with it or shall I climb the tree and hope to avoid him that way. Either way might work, but picking one way and getting completely focused on that way might provide a critical advantage over the guy who is sitting there debating the relative merits of sticks versus climbing while he is being eaten by the lion.

More importantly, the hysterisys of learning (as I call it) promotes group think. Although, generally considered a bad thing, it actually gives a huge advantage to one population that can unite behind a cause over another population with a bunch of skeptics who can't agree on anything.

Of course, if truth is the goal of an individual or a group, group think is a problem. Coberst, I think, is suggesting a mental device to try to reduce the effect of group think. It seems to me that in some shape or other every person that is a skeptic uses at least a variation of the approach.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Hyparxis

What is your definition of a skeptic?

It seems to me that a skeptic takes the contrary position and if so, just for the fun of it, that is fine. It is when you take the contrary position and lock yourself into a situation unfounded on reason that you get into a bind.

I generally am not interested in an emotional spitting contest. There are generally more worthy ways to spend one's time.

It seems to me that your definition of a skeptic is a bit of a straw man. You are implying that the skeptics here often disagree with you simply because of a childish desire to be contrary. Skeptics do not simply "take the contrary position and lock [themselves] into a situation unfounded on reason". Quite the opposite, in point of fact. A skeptic is one who demands supporting evidence of a claim before accepting it as true. The evidence required varies with the likelihood of the claim. For instance, when my best friend told me that he and his wife are expecting their first child I didn't challenge him to provide empirical evidence because his claim was not extraordinary and his word is all the evidence I need in this case. Now if someone said to me "I've created a machine that generates vast amounts of energy with nothing more than sunshine and farts." I would be inclined to disbelief unless he could provide strong, repeatable positive evidence for his claim. It's not that I have a desire to disbelieve him, it's simply that, as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Skepticism is not cynicism. A good skeptic is not "locked in" to disbelief. If someone could provide sufficient evidence that psychic phenomenon exist or that a VCR sized unit could power my house with nothing more than sunshine and my own farts then I would believe, just as I now believe that invisible forces are powering the ceiling fan above me as I type this or that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Virtually everything that scientists today accept was once greeted with skepticism. Skepticism is a very important part of the methodology for uncovering the truth.

Steven

 

[Apathia]

Hyparxis

What is your definition of a skeptic?

It seems to me that a skeptic takes the contrary position and if so, just for the fun of it, that is fine. It is when you take the contrary position and lock yourself into a situation unfounded on reason that you get into a bind.

I generally am not interested in an emotional spitting contest. There are generally more worthy ways to spend one's time.

Being skeptical is more a skill than it is worldview position. As I said, some aren't as skilled on the firing range and and do, as you point out, back themselves into corners with false either-ors.
In fact most of us go through life shooting ourselves in the feet with unreal either-ors.

Sure, there are some people here who shoot blindly and then do personal attacking. If I'm flammed that way, I don't flame back. I just put that name on ignore. There are number of names you may consider putting on ignore.

But it's pretty much a given that skeptics will put an idea to attack. Appriciate those who do it well. Ignore those who are loose cannons.

 

[drkitten]

It's a wordy complaint that most times if a person makes a philosohical assertion on these boards, other than anything that's immediately recognized as Skepticism, it becomes a skeet shoot with people (of all ages I should mention) firing away at every assertion, explanation, or even qualification that follows. Coburst would someone to explore the idea with him, rather than just dismiss it outright.

I would love it, too.

But for that to happen, Coberst needs to stop presenting ideas that cannot be explored.

I refuse to have a discussion with an amateur biologist about the reasons why crocodiles are mammals. It's simply not possible to explore that idea, because it hinges on an underlying, wrong, assumption -- to wit, that crocodiles are mammals. It's the same problem as the complex question -- "Do you still beat your wife?"

Even the OP makes this mistake. He's attributing the rejection of his ideas to a theory that "many young people consider that ‘to be negative is to be cool’. This leads them into responding that ‘X’ is false when responding to an OP that states that ‘X’ is true."

Okay, so we start out with a bit of the fallacy of the complex question (he's assuming an unproven fact as a base for future discussion). Add a pinch of well-poisoning ("The moral of this story is that holding a default position of ‘reject or accept’, when we are ignorant, is not smart because our ego will fight any attempt to modify the opinion with a later judgment." -- Obviously, people who reject his ideas are simply "ignorant"), pour into a casserole dish and bake half-way.

To quote him further, "Silence, or questions directed at comprehending the matter under consideration, is the smart decision for everyone’s default position." This might, in fact, be reasonable -- except that there is no reason to approach his philosophical musings ab initio, since many of them have been hashed out by other amateur philosophers for centuries. Usually to their detriment.

If he says something that everyone already understands, the "default position" should be to point him to the well-established line of thinking on the subject. If for some reason his ideas differ in a substantial way from those lines, he can then point out the differences. In fact, since he understands his own ideas better than anyone else, he's in the best possible position to point the differences out and explain how his ideas are not the sophomoric gibberish to which they bear such a suspicious, if superficial, resemblance.

Or, alternatively, he could acknowledge that he's not thought his position out far enough and go do some more background reading.

But the problem isn't that people don't understand his ideas. It's that they do....

 

[Apathia]

I think what Coberst is alluding is a critical issue when attempting to understand human disagreements and conflicts.

Human thinking is polluted with confirmation bias. Hearing things that agree with our preconceived notions makes us feel good. Hearing things that we don't agree with makes us feel uncomfortable and even unhappy. Hence humans have a built in hysterisys mechanism for opinion formation. That is forming an opinion takes much less information than changing that opinion.

There are, I think, several reasons why humans have evolved to think like this. For one thing if we sat and vascillated back and forth about which path to take when there is not sufficient information to make a rational choice we might wait too long before doing anything. For instance, shall I pick up that stick and fend the lion off with it or shall I climb the tree and hope to avoid him that way. Either way might work, but picking one way and getting completely focused on that way might provide a critical advantage over the guy who is sitting there debating the relative merits of sticks versus climbing while he is being eaten by the lion.

More importantly, the hysterisys of learning (as I call it) promotes group think. Although, generally considered a bad thing, it actually gives a huge advantage to one population that can unite behind a cause over another population with a bunch of skeptics who can't agree on anything.

Of course, if truth is the goal of an individual or a group, group think is a problem. Coberst, I think, is suggesting a mental device to try to reduce the effect of group think. It seems to me that in some shape or other every person that is a skeptic uses at least a variation of the approach.

This is a Grade A post in my estimation!

 

[AmateurScientist]

This is a Skeptics board, and the function of a skeptic is to pull out her rifle and fire away. There are people who undertand this and post their ideas precisely because they want them in a firing line where they can refine them or even discard them in the light of sound argument. On that score the majority of the gunners miss the mark or shoot at scarecrows, but nevertheless I've gotten good input myself when putting up ideas to be shot at. Ignore the poor shots and inexperiencede shooters and benifit from the public examination of your ideas.

Well put. That's pretty much a good description of peer review by scientists. I have no beef with it.

AS