â„–76730[Quote]
In the modern Western world, there is an implicit belief that an argument can only be correct if it is supported by empirical sources, and that an argument with more empirical sources is more correct. I disagree with that, and although I think that empiricism is valuable, I think that it also contributes to a lack of critical thinking
This fetishization of empiricism appears to have come from the Enlightenment (17th to 18th century). Century Europe) and surprisingly remained at the forefront of Western thought.
In the formal education system, students are told to choose a thesis for an essay and from there use sources to prove the thesis: Yes, they are told to recognize the other side, but this is limited to deception:
One should recognize the other side tactically, but downplay in terms of how superior one's own thesis is. It may well be that during this process you find that the other side makes more sense than your own thesis, but you should stick to your thesis and defend it. This basically means starting with a conclusion and then defending it no matter what.
Or the students are taught and encouraged to choose one side and argue it against another side with the help of empiricism. Or, for example, they are told to have debates in which one student has to show why bringing laptops to class is good, and the other student is assigned to the category "laptops in class are bad". Starting from this conclusion (remember: they start with a conclusion here…) they must then use empiricism to substantiate their points and "win" the argument against the "other side". Although this exercise is helpful in developing arguments, I think that by and large it does more harm than good, as it does not necessarily agree with the search for the truth. It's like drawing on a generation of mercenary lawyers. It is not surprising that the legal system in Western countries is the same: whether a person is found guilty or not has nothing to do with justice or whether he has actually committed a crime or not, but rather a function of who has a better lawyer who can use empiricism to win the "case".
â„–76731[Quote]
On the other hand, in critical thinking, we start with a plausible hypothesis, with minimal bias, and then use the scientific method and empiricism to test it, being aware of bias. The goal is to get to the "truth", not to "defeat" the "other side". Well, empiricism is not mutually exclusive. Of course, empiricism should be used whenever possible.
I think the world would be much better off if we focused on minimizing prejudices and starting with hypotheses/preliminary conclusions that are as unbiased as possible, and then using logical conclusions to either substantiate them or find a more plausible hypothesis in the process. This would make it more likely to get closer to the truth.
Nevertheless, I consider empiricism to be overrated.
Keep in mind that the quality of the sources is typically far from 100%, and most people themselves are full of cognitive distortions and emotional reasoning. Just because you use a number of sources, even if they come from "renowned" sources, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can
"Truth" is closer than someone who uses intuition.
A highly rational person with strong abilities in critical thinking can sometimes use his intuition as a substitute for empiricism. A highly rational person with strong critical thinking skills can sometimes use his intuition as a substitute for empiricism. There is this erroneous assumption that "intuition" is not "true"
"Can". That's not true. Intuition is not
"Empirical" in the sense that it can be proven, but it can be true. The "intuition" of a highly rational critical thinker will be different from the intuition of the majority. It will be based on automatic, unbiased pattern recognition and connection of concepts, basically rational thinking, as opposed to cognitive distortions and emotional reasoning. Perhaps those who automatically dismiss the intuition of other people and cannot operate outside the limits of empiricism confuse their own intuition with that of others.
We see it on Reddit and pretty much everywhere all the time. "What are your sources?" "Where is your proof?". The fact is that many things are not easily measurable, so sometimes intuition is required: this does not necessarily mean that intuition is incompatible with the truth. In my personal experience, the level of critical thinking of the person who puts forward the argument/hypothese takes precedence over the sources used in order to get closer to the truth.
There is also an interesting paradox that I see constantly on Reddit:
Person A: Argument (consisting of many interconnected points and lines of argument that flow logically and support each other)
Person B: No source? Therefore, you are wrong.
Person A: I have used my intuition, I have minimized my bias, I have been right about many similar concepts, I have thought about them for many hours, I am generally a rational thinker, I have connected concepts and use rational thinking to come up with the most plausible hypothesis or preliminary conclusion, and I am willing to change my position when rational reasons that contradict mine are put forward. You did not mention any specific points to refute my arguments.
Person B: You use x/y/z bias/you say and think you know everything, so you are wrong.
Note the paradox: person B does the same thing she accuses person A of, and she doesn't even use sources to refute person A's arguments.
Basically, I think it comes down to this: The most important thing is to teach people to use critical thinking instead of prejudice. If there were no prejudices, there would not be so much need for empiricism.
But the way our institutions are currently structured, they do not do this: they do not teach critical thinking, but teach only empiricism
â„–76733[Quote]
i aint readin allat
â„–76740[Quote]
https://lukesmith.xyz/articles/in-defense-of-pseudoscience/I appreciate your perspective. You might like this article.
â„–76742[Quote]
Read allat but you have no proof o algo