Re:Ideology Impairs Sound Reasoning
by TheOtherHobbes on Tuesday January 15, 2019 @03:46AM
(#18909708)
Geocentrism vs heliocentrism was actually a proxy debate between religious authoritarianism and the first stirrings of scientific empiricism.
You buy ideology wholesale, and ideological thinking is essentially authoritarian. It means you can hide behind something that you assume is bigger than yourself to make your beliefs more plausible and your arguments more convincing.
You can see this reduced to bare essentials when you talk to religious types who "prove" everything with a bible quote. If you don't believe in the authority of the bible this seems ridiculous, and if you do it's completely authoritative.
But science has similar issues. It's not unusual to see "You can't argue with me, I'm a scientist" being used in the fringes of science where it isn't truly justified empirically or theoretically. It's even more popular among technical types who aren't scientists at all, but who use "science" to dismiss opinions they disapprove of as "woo".
Ideology is essentially just people not-thinking in a herd. You can buy your value system wholesale, have it justified by the size and heft of your herd, and persuade yourself that your beliefs make sense - and even that they can't be argued with.
The authoritarian part comes from the political reality that political "morality" is about power, status, and credibility, not about facts or accuracy. In a political moral framework you score points by destroying the power, status, and credibility of your opponent using any means possible - including outright lies and character smears.
Humans seem much more likely to "prove" a point politically than empirically and with intellectual humility and integrity - which is fatal for real knowledge, because making and admitting mistakes in a political frame is a strongly losing move.
You buy ideology wholesale, and ideological thinking is essentially authoritarian. It means you can hide behind something that you assume is bigger than yourself to make your beliefs more plausible and your arguments more convincing.
You can see this reduced to bare essentials when you talk to religious types who "prove" everything with a bible quote. If you don't believe in the authority of the bible this seems ridiculous, and if you do it's completely authoritative.
But science has similar issues. It's not unusual to see "You can't argue with me, I'm a scientist" being used in the fringes of science where it isn't truly justified empirically or theoretically. It's even more popular among technical types who aren't scientists at all, but who use "science" to dismiss opinions they disapprove of as "woo".
Ideology is essentially just people not-thinking in a herd. You can buy your value system wholesale, have it justified by the size and heft of your herd, and persuade yourself that your beliefs make sense - and even that they can't be argued with.
The authoritarian part comes from the political reality that political "morality" is about power, status, and credibility, not about facts or accuracy. In a political moral framework you score points by destroying the power, status, and credibility of your opponent using any means possible - including outright lies and character smears.
Humans seem much more likely to "prove" a point politically than empirically and with intellectual humility and integrity - which is fatal for real knowledge, because making and admitting mistakes in a political frame is a strongly losing move.