Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
Well thought out and articulated question, Dan!
But how does [denialism] differ from the process of common consensus belief about what is factual when it comes to serving as the foundation of a claim that something is “true” - in fact, so undeniable true, that anyone who does not ascribe to it is a denier. Since scientific facts are provisional and often the result of consensus, they are represented with a confidence level (percentage of confidence in the conclusion). The larger the number of studies that support the consensus, the more scientific organizations that publicly support the consensus, the more time spent researching, the higher the confidence level... the more those who reject the consensus (for the wrong reasons... explained below) are engaged in denialism. Denianism goes beyond just denying facts; it is a psychological condition/mechanism that the person uses to avoid a distressing or uncomfortable reality. For example, people can simply be ignorant of the facts or led astray by misinformation. They can be victims of brainwashing, etc. While these people are often labeled "deniers," it is more of a colloquial use of the term. Often, like in the case of the flat earthers or other conspiracy theorists, the drive for being part of a movement that exposes the "truth" and fighting the lies of an evil adversary (government, scientists, big pharma, the Illuminati, etc.) instills a sense of importance and a life purpose so powerful that the acceptance of facts that go against their narrative would destroy them (psychologically). In many cases, the denialism is linked to an ideology, often religious or political where accepting the facts would mean that the individual's religious or political group would be wrong on the issue, which would mean a blow to their own ego. So it is not only about the level of consensus of the fact being denied, it has to do with the reasoning behind the denial. At one time, the civilized world believed the earth was flat. Those who didn’t believe that could have been called “flat world deniers.” Today, anyone who doesn’t believe the world is round would be called a denier. But at what point does the believer of the truth become a denier of the truth. The belief that the earth was flat was a result of limited observation and "common sense." The fact of the earth being spherical was the result of math and science. Like we see see today, one groups uses the scientific method and peer review to arrive at a conclusion, and the other group uses rhetoric and politics. Again, it is not just the consensus, it is the reasoning behind the consensus that really matters. A couple of related articles I wrote on this topic: Conspiracy Theorists: Although They Might Be Right, Why It's Reasonable To Assume They're Wrong<> The Psychology Behind the Anti-Vaccine Movement<> The Problem with Relying on Your Own Common Sense and Ignoring Scientific Consensus<> |
answered on Monday, Mar 11, 2019 07:25:33 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD |
Comments |
|
|
"But at what point does the believer of the truth become a denier of the truth?"
I think what you're talking about is a human cognitive mechanism adapted for other purposes rather than a specific error in reasoning or logical fallacy: Denialism, belief, misbelief, agency detection, animism, idolatry, mythology, etc. It is something we all do; be it putting off a nagging cough or dismissing a potential threat as harmless. We weigh possibilities and give credence to some while discounting others. Steven Pinker explains this reactive bias thusly: "Challenge a person’s beliefs, and you challenge his dignity, standing, and power. And when those beliefs are based on nothing but faith, they are chronically fragile. No one gets upset about the belief that rocks fall down as opposed to up, because all sane people can see it with their own eyes.? Not so for the belief that babies are born with original sin or that God exists in three persons or that Ali is the second-most divinely inspired man after Muhammad. When people organize their lives around these beliefs, and then learn of other people who seem to be doing just fine without them–or worse, who credibly rebut them–they are in danger of looking like fools. Since one cannot defend a belief based on faith by persuading skeptics it is true, the faithful are apt to react to unbelief with rage, and may try to eliminate that affront to everything that makes their lives meaningful." NO, You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.” theconversation.com/no-yo. . . via @ConversationEDU |
answered on Wednesday, Mar 20, 2019 06:36:54 PM by mchasewalker |
Comments |
|