Why the obsession with everybody having correct/accurate cognitions?

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Us beings known as humans sure spend a lot of time obsessing with making sure that everybody's mind is filled with nothing but correct/accurate cognitions. We sure spend a lot of time, energy and other scarce resources correcting anybody who has any cognition that is not considered to be correct/accurate. Either that or we laugh at, make fun of, tell him he is mentally ill, etc. anybody with incorrect/inaccurate cognitions.

If somebody thinks that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream we apparently have nothing better to do than correct that person and make sure that he/she knows that the moon is really made of rocks, soil, water, gases, etc.

I suppose that somebody is going to say something like, "If someone believes that 4 + 4 = 10 then we do not want him being an engineer. The cars that he designs will not be safe". My response would be that if somebody does not conform to the accepted thinking of the engineering profession, including 4 + 4 = 8, then he/she is highly unlikely to end up being an engineer anyway, let alone designing cars.

So what is the harm in people having cognitions that could be proven to be incorrect/inaccurate? I can't think of anything that justifies our obsession with everybody at all times having only pure, correct thinking.

 

[quatona]

As long as those persons with their incorrect/inaccurate notions aren´t obsessed with propagating them as correct/accurate/true/True/TRUE, and as long as they don´t postulate that everyone should base their conclusions on those incorrect/inaccurate notions, these incorrect/inaccurate notions don´t seem to be any skin off my nose.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I would argue that having incorrect/inaccurate/wrong cognitions is a normal part of being human, not a malady that absolutely must be eradicated.

We can't really appreciate truth/reality if we do not have non-truth/non-reality to contrast it with.

 

[Paradoxum]

Part of it could be valuing truth in itself, not as a means to anything else.

Perhaps more important is that falsity and faulty thinking can lead to immorality. If you don't know that water can naturally create a rainbow in a sprinkler, you might think that there is a government conspiracy to mess with your water, and then vote based on that (I saw such a video).

If you don't know what mental illness if then you might exorcise you kids to death (which has happened). You don't accept global warming then you could contribute to the death of millions.

The problem is the to make moral decisions (in the day to day, and in voting) you need correct belief and good reasoning. If too many people fail at this then it is likely than many people could suffer.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So what is the harm in people having cognitions that could be proven to be incorrect/inaccurate?

Incorrect cognitions can kill, damage, or stunt lives. Perhaps some such cognitions are harmless, but if people just don't care about adopting falsehoods, that too can lead to great harm.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

Incorrect cognitions can cause damage, as Eudaimonist said. But correct cognitions can and have been used in very terrible ways. Take scientific advances regarding nuclear physics and, more benignly, forms of technology which impute impulsivity and screw up with the neurobiology of society.

The question isn't whether a type of rationality involves validity or truth; the real question is whether we're using our truths (or falsities) in good or bad ways. Truth has no value in itself. Value stands outside of truth, and in this larger sphere is where happiness or misery lie.

 

[bhsmte]

I would argue that having incorrect/inaccurate/wrong cognitions is a normal part of being human, not a malady that absolutely must be eradicated.

We can't really appreciate truth/reality if we do not have non-truth/non-reality to contrast it with.

You are correct that it is normal to have inaccurate cognitions/perceptions or whatever you want to call it.

Here is where the difference comes in between a psychologically healthy person and one that is not:

The healthy person will recognize (eventually) and accept that the cognition/perception was wrong - usually when additional experiences have been attained and or evidence is present that is clear.

The unhealthy person, will not only accept these cognitions to be absolutely correct (even when evidence and common sense would prove otherwise) and hold on to them for dear life. Also these folks may manufacture false cognitions/perceptions based on a faulty basis of reality around them in their brain and the process keeps magnifying out of control.

Fortunately, most people have the ability to recognize when they are perceiving the world around them in a false manner. But, when you come up on someone who does not have this ability - look out below when it comes to dealing with that person and they are more common than most think.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Incorrect cognitions can cause damage, as Eudaimonist said. But correct cognitions can and have been used in very terrible ways. Take scientific advances regarding nuclear physics and, more benignly, forms of technology which impute impulsivity and screw up with the neurobiology of society.

The question isn't whether a type of rationality involves validity or truth; the real question is whether we're using our truths (or falsities) in good or bad ways. Truth has no value in itself. Value stands outside of truth, and in this larger sphere is where happiness or misery lie.

I do not follow your reasoning on truth and value. I tend to think that truth is valuable simply because it is true. Value, being a subjective concept, however, as opposed to truth which is objective ( by truth I am meaning actual truth not simply perceived truth) , may be where I am not following your line of reasoning. It is certainly possible to see no value in truth but I do not understand why one would not find intrinsic value in knowing that a thing was objectively true.

 

[quatona]

We can't really appreciate truth/reality if we do not have non-truth/non-reality to contrast it with.

And when people indeed appreciate accuracy/truth over inaccuracy/non-truth you start asking why. Doesn´t make much sense, does it?

On another note, if we all had it right there wouldn´t be any need to appreciate truth/accuracy, in the first place. To appreciate a problem because else we couldn´t appreciate the solution (which wouldn´t be needed if the problem didn´t exist, to begin with) is nonsense.

Of course, we can abstractly and theoretically acknowledge non-truth, bad, disease, suffering (now that they are there) as being the necessary contrasts to truth, good, health and joy - however, that doesn´t mean that we do not prefer the latter over the first. Au contraire, this very reasoning implies that we do.

It´s a bit like trying to give consolace to the guy who lost the tennis game by saying: "Well, someone must lose so that someone else can win and can appreciate his victory." (Except that truth vs. non-truth isn´t even a zero sum game as is tennis).

Anyway, it´s funny to hear this line of reasoning from a Christian. For all I have heard the God of your concept doesn´t seem to appreciate "sin" as the necessary contrast of goodness, seems to be "obsessed" with goodness, and is about to eradicate everything that gets in the way of perfection.

 

[bhsmte]

I do not follow your reasoning on truth and value. I tend to think that truth is valuable simply because it is true. Value, being a subjective concept, however, as opposed to truth which is objective ( by truth I am meaning actual truth not simply perceived truth) , may be where I am not following your line of reasoning. It is certainly possible to see no value in truth but I do not understand why one would not find intrinsic value in knowing that a thing was objectively true.

I tend to agree with your response.

IMO, when it comes to the value of truth, I believe a percentage of people have a strong appetite to identify the objective truth, while others are more comfortable with perceived truths.

Some of this comes from being either an "intuitive thinker" or an "analytical thinker" and is likely pre-wired in our brains. Other individual psychological motivations can be present as well.

 

[quatona]

I do not follow your reasoning on truth and value. I tend to think that truth is valuable simply because it is true. Value, being a subjective concept, however, as opposed to truth which is objective ( by truth I am meaning actual truth not simply perceived truth) , may be where I am not following your line of reasoning. It is certainly possible to see no value in truth but I do not understand why one would not find intrinsic value in knowing that a thing was objectively true.

Well, we may find intrinsic value in knowing that something is objectively true (although this wording is sort of an oxymoron - but I´ll let that slip for the time being) - however, we may find that the importance of this intrinsic value fades compared to values we regard even higher/more important/more significant.

 

[Received]

Well, we may find intrinsic value in knowing that something is objectively true (although this wording is sort of an oxymoron - but I´ll let that slip for the time being) - however, we may find that the importance of this intrinsic value fades compared to values we regard even higher/more important/more significant.

This. I'll give up all the philosophy texts and knowledge in the world for a good acoustic guitar, a good wife, good weather, qualities of care and warmth, ad infinitum. Truth is an instrument; it has secondary value to happiness. And it so happens that I do value truth, only because I can use truth in good ways, and because the very process of finding truth in *certain* subjects is stimulating and rewarding intrinsincally to me.

 

[Received]

I do not follow your reasoning on truth and value. I tend to think that truth is valuable simply because it is true. Value, being a subjective concept, however, as opposed to truth which is objective ( by truth I am meaning actual truth not simply perceived truth) , may be where I am not following your line of reasoning. It is certainly possible to see no value in truth but I do not understand why one would not find intrinsic value in knowing that a thing was objectively true.

Because, as I said, known things can and have been used in terrible ways. Because of this, it isn't about being truthful in itself but *how* truth is used that's the ultimate question -- and that is a question of value. This goes back to value: we can use science, e.g., for good or bad, in either case regardless of truth being the case with either way we use it.

If truth were everything, we would have as much appreciation for reading Hegel all day long (boring!) as we would for watching a good movie or going on a nice date. Life is more than thinking about life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Incorrect cognitions can cause damage, as Eudaimonist said. But correct cognitions can and have been used in very terrible ways.

Note that what you write above is also a correct cognition, and a valuable one!

the real question is whether we're using our truths (or falsities) in good or bad ways.

Using truths (or lies) requires correct cognition. We need to understand whether or not we are acting in good ways. This understanding is an essential part of acting in good ways. It is only someone who understands that they are achieving good that are good persons. So, rationality is a basic virtue, and that involves rejecting miscomprehensions.

Truth has no value in itself.

I'm not so certain that truth is the pure means you make it out to be. Our natural function involves the cognitive process of discerning truths, i.e. reasoning. Truth may be an end in itself if it is an aspect of the process of actualizing our rational natures. In other words, a virtuous pursuit of truth may be a constitutive means, not an instrumental one. That is, a means that is part of the end, and not something fully separate and merely preliminary.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well, we may find intrinsic value in knowing that something is objectively true (although this wording is sort of an oxymoron - but I´ll let that slip for the time being) - however, we may find that the importance of this intrinsic value fades compared to values we regard even higher/more important/more significant.

I do not see the term "objectively true" as being an oxymoron. "Subjectively true" perhaps, but if anything the term "objectively true" is somewhat redundant. Does what we decide to value either more or less actually coincide with the actual value of that which we have taken the decision to value. Is it not possibly the case that things have value outside of our opinion of them? Why do you propose that the opinion, of a person or group of people, about the value of a thing is of greater importance than the intrinsic value of that thing apart from its utility to a certain class of living beings?

 

[grasping the after wind]

This. I'll give up all the philosophy texts and knowledge in the world for a good acoustic guitar, a good wife, good weather, qualities of care and warmth, ad infinitum. Truth is an instrument; it has secondary value to happiness. And it so happens that I do value truth, only because I can use truth in good ways, and because the very process of finding truth in *certain* subjects is stimulating and rewarding intrinsincally to me.

Must all value be centered upon your own well being? Cannot a thing have value in and of itself apart from its effect upon you?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Cannot a thing have value in and of itself apart from its effect upon you?

It may have value for someone, just not for you.

But if you are suggesting that something can have value apart from its relation to any living being, I'd wonder just what you mean by "value". It doesn't make any sense to me to view value as something that exists "in and of itself". If something is a value, it is always a value for someone and for some purpose.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think it's important (at least for me) to believe as many true things, and to disbelieve as many false things as possible.

Correct knowledge about the world around us can provide large benefits. The more people who understand how things actually work, makes the pool of people larger who can contribute new advances to society as a whole.

So, there's a clear advantage from a societal perspective for proper education. Furthermore, providing someone with nothing but accurate information isn't going to harm anyone either. If I am mistaken about a point and someone corrects, me, that's something I appreciate. There's no reason to be upset.

So in short, I don't really see what your point is.... Education is a benefit, and knowledge provides more opportunities than ignorance. It's to everyone's benefit to be as well educated as possible.

 

[Davian]

Us beings known as humans sure spend a lot of time obsessing with making sure that everybody's mind is filled with nothing but correct/accurate cognitions. We sure spend a lot of time, energy and other scarce resources correcting anybody who has any cognition that is not considered to be correct/accurate. Either that or we laugh at, make fun of, tell him he is mentally ill, etc. anybody with incorrect/inaccurate cognitions.

If somebody thinks that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream we apparently have nothing better to do than correct that person and make sure that he/she knows that the moon is really made of rocks, soil, water, gases, etc.

I suppose that somebody is going to say something like, "If someone believes that 4 + 4 = 10 then we do not want him being an engineer. The cars that he designs will not be safe". My response would be that if somebody does not conform to the accepted thinking of the engineering profession, including 4 + 4 = 8, then he/she is highly unlikely to end up being an engineer anyway, let alone designing cars.

So what is the harm in people having cognitions that could be proven to be incorrect/inaccurate? I can't think of anything that justifies our obsession with everybody at all times having only pure, correct thinking.

There is a web page dedicated to tracking the harm that results from "less than correct" thinking.

What's The Harm?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I have not seen one response to the question of why people are obsessed with everybody having only pure, correct/accurate cognitions at all times.

My observation is that if Person A at X point in time has the belief that the Earth's moon is made of marshmallow cream the attitude and response of almost everybody is that Person A is somehow flawed and that he/she must be corrected by somebody who knows that the Earth's moon is not made of marshmallow cream.

At any given time probably everybody has incorrect cognitions. For various reasons--such as nobody being conscious of or aware of the incorrect cognitions, the person being in isolation, etc.--no correcting is done. Yet, neither life, society, civilization or the world comes to an end. I would even say that life, society, civilization and the world do not miss a beat.

Also, it seems that we assume that if a person has an incorrect/inaccurate cognition that he/she is being deceived (by him/herself or others) or has been misinformed. Hence, we proceed to correct things with different information. The fact that we do not really know why the person has that cognition--it could be due to countless other things such as the structure of his/her brain--does not ever seem to be taken into account. Apparently the business of correcting everybody who has an incorrect/inaccurate cognition absolutely must be done and there is no room for investigating the source of the issue.

Several responses in this thread have been people asserting that they have the best grasp of the realities of reality. Well, they do not seem to be acquainted with the reality that having incorrect/inaccurate cognitions is part of being human (see the third paragraph above). If having incorrect/inaccurate cognitions is harmful then being human is harmful.

Marshmallow cream sounds tastier than rocks anyway, so I would not be in any hurry to correct everybody.