No neutral ground

[Tree of Life]

We are always operating within a belief system. Our system may not be very organized. We may not always be conscious of what we actually believe. But we all interpret data within a system of beliefs.

Sometimes our beliefs change. Sometimes our whole system changes - what Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift.

But it is altogether impossible to interpret data and "facts" in a neutral way. All the data that we receive comes to us through our belief system - pre-interpreted as it were.

Is this true? And if so, what are the implications?

 

[bhsmte]

We are always operating within a belief system. Our system may not be very organized. We may not always be conscious of what we actually believe. But we all interpret data within a system of beliefs.

Sometimes our beliefs change. Sometimes our whole system changes - what Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift.

But it is altogether impossible to interpret data and "facts" in a neutral way. All the data that we receive comes to us through our belief system - pre-interpreted as it were.

Is this true? And if so, what are the implications?

We are all prone to certain bias and this bias can impact us as we interpret information and no one is immune to it.

With that said, we also all have psychological needs, that are deep seated and some folks, fulfill this need in different ways. Some, have a need to roll over every rock and to make every attempt to make sure they are accurate. Others, are more prone to believe in certain things without rolling over every rock, because it is more important for them to believe it, than to question it.

 

[hedrick]

It's true in part. But still, that doesn't mean it's hopeless. People do change viewpoints. And over time we've developed safeguards to help people who want to be objective do better than simply operate within their existing prejudices. Admittedly these are most effective in limited areas, such as science. But it's still possible to be open to new evidence in most areas of our lives. And there are approaches to scholarship and other disciplines to help evaluate evidence.

The biggest problem isn't the impossibility of escaping our preconceptions but an unwillingness to do so. Many, probably most, Christians are committed to specific positions, and reject any evidence that might attack them. Consider the Catholic commitment to Tradition, and the conservative Protestant commitment to traditional Protestant standards. Protestants will claim to be open, but if you watch behaviors it's hard to believe that this openness is serious. Between KJV-only, inerrancy, anti-evolution, the unwillingness to accept any challenge to the Nicene Creed, and other such positions, it's usually pretty clear who is open to changing their views and who is not.

Of course Christians aren't the only people with such commitments. Other religions and many political ideologies have it too. Many well-known religions are at the equivalent of before the Enlightenment, and thus are in worse shape than we are.

But still, people do change, and their children often adopt new viewpoints. For those that want to look at evidence, it's there, and there are plenty who do. There is pretty much a single community of Biblical scholars, and allied disciplines. There's not a lot of difference between Christians from varying theological backgrounds, Jews, and agnostics, as long as we're dealing with people who don't have unchallengeable pre-commitments to a specific tradition.

 

[Tree of Life]

But still, people do change, and their children often adopt new viewpoints. For those that want to look at evidence, it's there, and there are plenty who do.

Facts and data are certainly "out there" to be experienced, but is it possible to interpret these facts "objectively"? I don't think so. It's hard to understand what this would even mean. All facts that we receive are interpreted through beliefs and values that we already hold.

 

[bhsmte]

Facts and data are certainly "out there" to be experienced, but is it possible to interpret these facts "objectively"? I don't think so. It's hard to understand what this would even mean. All facts that we receive are interpreted through beliefs and values that we already hold.

Some people are more prone to be objective in how they review facts and evidence. Analytical thinkers vs intuitive thinkers comes to mind and studies have supported this.

 

[Tree of Life]

Some people are more prone to be objective in how they review facts and evidence. Analytical thinkers vs intuitive thinkers comes to mind and studies have supported this.

What does it mean to objectively review a fact?

 

[jacks]

What does it mean to objectively review a fact?

I think of objectivity as a continuum. Nothing is totally objective, but we can travel down that continuum by analyzing and comparing the "fact" with previous experience. However, the only thing we really know is what we feel and even that is suspect!

 

[bhsmte]

What does it mean to objectively review a fact?

Verification, through proper methods is a big help. The scientific method is a good example of attempting to remove as much bias as possible and if bias creeps in, it is typically discovered by someone else verifying the same.

Using proven methods, outside of your own thought process, is a good equalizer.

 

[hedrick]

I think of objectivity as a continuum. Nothing is totally objective, but we can travel down that continuum by analyzing and comparing the "fact" with previous experience. However, the only thing we really know is what we feel and even that is suspect!

Right. We don't have to be perfect. We just have to be see something new occasionally. Small, steady progress. It's impossible to be completely objective, but it's not impossible to test our beliefs on an ongoing basis and see things that we need to improve.

 

[lesliedellow]

"The only really interesting facts in science are already interpreted facts," to quote a physicist.

Obviously an interpretation comes with no guarantee that it is correct. If somebody, or some group of people, have a commitment to a particular theory, then there is a good chance that they will try and interpret the evidence in support of that theory.

If some hypothesis is already the received wisdom, peer review won't necessarily act as much of a corrective.

 

[bhsmte]

"The only really interesting facts in science are already interpreted facts," to quote a physicist.

Obviously an interpretation comes with no guarantee that it is correct. If somebody, or some group of people, have a commitment to a particular theory, then there is a good chance that they will try and interpret the evidence in support of that theory.

If some hypothesis is already the received wisdom, peer review won't necessarily act as much of a corrective.

History has taught us, that bias regarding interpreting evidence in a certain light in science, has a shelf life. Far too many scientists out there, that would love to prove someone else wrong, by proving them wrong. Furthermore, holding onto a theory because it fits what you like, is a sure way for a scientist to get exposed, over time.

This is why theories are updated, as new evidence is discovered and verified. It is also why, you have a car that operates, heating and cooling in your home, television to watch, a computer to communicate with online and medicine, that can keep people healthy for a longer life. It works and it wouldn't work, if people were holding onto false theories for very long.

 

[True Scotsman]

Facts and data are certainly "out there" to be experienced, but is it possible to interpret these facts "objectively"? I don't think so. It's hard to understand what this would even mean. All facts that we receive are interpreted through beliefs and values that we already hold.

If you're saying that no one is capable of looking at the facts honestly I'd disagree. It does take an effort to overcome confirmation bias.

I'd say that new data should be integrated with, not filtered through beliefs that we already hold.

 

[lesliedellow]

History has taught us, that bias regarding interpreting evidence in a certain light in science, has a shelf life. Far too many scientists out there, that would love to prove someone else wrong, by proving them wrong. Furthermore, holding onto a theory because it fits what you like, is a sure way for a scientist to get exposed, over time.

This is why theories are updated, as new evidence is discovered and verified. It is also why, you have a car that operates, heating and cooling in your home, television to watch, a computer to communicate with online and medicine, that can keep people healthy for a longer life. It works and it wouldn't work, if people were holding onto false theories for very long.

If today something turned which could possibly, but not necessarily, indicate the existence of dark matter, how do you think that would be interpreted? Do you anybody would even bother looking for an alternative (possibly correct) explanation?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

If today something turned which could possibly, but not necessarily, indicate the existence of dark matter, how do you think that would be interpreted? Do you anybody would even bother looking for an alternative (possibly correct) explanation?

What do you have in mind?

 

[lesliedellow]

What do you have in mind?

Nothing in particular. I am just imagining a hypothetical situation.

 

[Eudaimonist]

We are always operating within a belief system.

Perhaps, but every belief system arises in some way from life experience and our natural ability to engage in rational (including critical) thought. That is our common ground.

I don't think that we are stuck in our own "universes". We can communicate, discuss our thought processes, and critically examine the way in which our life experiences translate to interpretations of reality.

I am an epistemological optimist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Nothing in particular. I am just imagining a hypothetical situation.

One thing: "Dark matter" is the name given to explain the curious motion of outer stars around a galactic core. After a certain distance they all rotate at about the same speed. Unlike planetary orbits which are slower and slower as you go out. So they posited "dark matter" is like a weakly interactive massive particle that accompanies regular particles. Like each particle has shadow wave form that exerts drag.

The odd thing is, the "shadow" is 5 to 6 times "heavier" than the particle. They calculate the galaxy needs that much more mass to account for stellar rotation beyond the mass they estimate is present.

That make about a 26% inward gravitational pull force, but there is an expansive force of 74% called dark energy. They are still working the numbers. I've seen as low as 68%

 

[DogmaHunter]

We are always operating within a belief system. Our system may not be very organized. We may not always be conscious of what we actually believe. But we all interpret data within a system of beliefs.

Sometimes our beliefs change. Sometimes our whole system changes - what Thomas Kuhn called a paradigm shift.

But it is altogether impossible to interpret data and "facts" in a neutral way. All the data that we receive comes to us through our belief system - pre-interpreted as it were.

Sure. For example, someone who believes in ghosts is far more likely to attribute the observation of a slamming door to be the work of a ghost, while someone who doesn't believe in ghosts will assume that there is some logical explanation for why the door was slammed... Like wind for example.

Likewise, if you believe in gravity and see a rock falling, you'll attribute it to gravity and not pink graviton fairies.

So the real question is if you are justified in believing what you believe.
If you are, then interpreting data within that justified framework is in fact justifiable. If not, then it isn't.

That's not to say that your beliefs can't be wrong even when you are justified in holding them. That's where intellectual honesty comes in...

Before the facts were known about the solar system, people were justified in believing in geocentrism. It was the result of real observation: the sun comes up on one side, moves accross the sky and goes down at the other side. This is perfectly compatible with the idea that the sun moves around the earth.

When new observations were made about the stars and the other planets, they tried to interpret that data within the framework of geocentrism. The result of which was that it didn't add up. It made no sense. So they changed their beliefs.

It's fine to try and interpret data in context of a framework of beliefs - as long as you remember that your beliefs can be wrong and that the beliefs need to match the observations, not the other way round.

 

[KCfromNC]

If today something turned which could possibly, but not necessarily, indicate the existence of dark matter, how do you think that would be interpreted?

I'm not sure why this is a hypothetical - it has already happened. When the evidence for dark matter started to appear, scientists proposed a number of different testable ideas for what other properties it had and started testing those ideas. They shared the results with other scientists who critiqued their work in an attempt to refine the ideas into better, more useful models.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I'm not sure why this is a hypothetical - it has already happened. When the evidence for dark matter started to appear, scientists proposed a number of different testable ideas for what other properties it had and started testing those ideas. They shared the results with other scientists who critiqued their work in an attempt to refine the ideas into better, more useful models.

The current leading candidate for dark matter are WIMPs. Weakly interactive massive particles. WIMPS and the Mystery of Dark Matter - TIME