Does baked-in bias (ideology) always win?

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

Lots of layers to this onion. One could say that, because I own a gun that, in the interest of fairness, that everyone should own a gun. That's fair, right?

Well, what if someone else has a history of violence? Is it still fair for everyone to own a gun, regardless of their history of violence?

Is ideology just one layer of the onion? Or, when examining the issue of "fairness", at what point does one decide where all relevant considerations have been appropriately vetted?

A fairminded person evaluates all ideas equally. That does not mean that a fairminded person accepts all ideas to be equal.

quote:

---

Does baked-in bias (ideology) always win?

---

If the winner is always a product of one ideology or another then, yes, ideology always wins, by definition. Other than that, seems it would depend on what "winning" means to the entities capable of conceiving of the notion.

"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'?"

We all begin in a world (childhood) where the understanding of and confidence in reason is seldom observed.
Is it your experience?
Your experience should be proof that it can happen--it happened to you!(if it happened)

Can our civilization survive much longer if our citizens fail to become more intellectually sophisticated? Presently it is apparent to me that few citizens have any idea of the problems that we face. If the citizens do not comprehend what is going on they certainly will be unwilling to make the sacrifices required. I see CT as fundamental to increasing our level of sophistication.

While it's true that there are at least some folks who make the transition between relatively non-critical thinking and critical thinking -- thereby "proving" that it can be done -- it nonetheless appears to me that we're breeding people faster than they can be educated, and that problems directly resulting from population growth itself is adding to the number of things that folks need to be educated about. This means that we're not gaining on the "critical mass" necessary to effect change on the scale necessary to avert the predictable consequences of those problems, and the collective IQ is already well below that necessary to avert some kind of dramatic "correction" in the relatively near future.

The gap between what needs to be done and what we have the will or can muster enough support to do in this intellectually deficient environment is too great -- and growing.

No one said evolution would be pretty.

"No final destination, nothing of any value"-Ikkyu

The road never ends. Life can have no final destination because that would make it death. Life knows only life!
Saving creates value, without saving what would have value?
Banks are considered very valuable, they have everyones savings invested in them!
What would you do by getting to a destination?





Why not relax and enjoy the now-here.