[–] Chinchorro ago
Yes, just last week I completely changed my mind about GTA. GrapplingIgnorance did a video in defense of the game, his video was well spoken and had valid points.
People seem to demand you take every source as equally valid, which is something I don't do. I am not going to waste my time researching prager university's statements, I know they are unreliable and have a major bias. But I will always listen if a trusted reliable source like GrapplingIgnorance makes an argument, I am not scared to change my mind.
In soft sciences ( economics, politics, sociology etc) there are no axioms and soft science is where i spend most of my time, since i have no clue when it comes to positive sciences (physics, mathematics , biology) i always accept scientific evidence .
I consider having a strong opinion in a subject i do not understand well as a kind of personal theology that contradicts my atheist nature.
[–] thenthingsgotworse 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I expect to have confirmation bias in any matter I don't fully understand.
I always have expectations, and it's always jarring to have them proven wrong. Being an actual honest critical thinker means you set things up so you can confirm your hunch unambiguously, and adjusting your beliefs as soon as you're unambiguously proven wrong.
It's a very painful process at first, and a lot of fondly held beliefs just plain die because of it. But the rewards can be gigantic, since you gain new knowledge with which to live a better life.
[–] 1572886? 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Very few of us have the knowledge to personally "peer review" scientific findings, or laboratory facilities to replicate (or not) the results. Whether you're religious, or scientific-minded, we humans rely much more on a web of trust than we do actual critical thinking, unless something happens to intersect with our specific expertise and we can then effectively evaluate. In the christian world-view, they believe that they are critical thinkers, because it matches what they believe. That's confirmation bias, yes, but confirmation bias feels like critical thinking. When it comes to accepting scientific findings and theories, similarly, we rely on a web of trust that certain journals are reputable and have effective peer review etc. One difference is that if there is a new theory or empirical finding in science that appears to be accepted as potentially true, we are likely to keep that idea alive rather than reject it out of hand just because it doesn't match our previous ideas. Witness everything from the ideas (that seem ridiculous on their face) like string theory, many worlds, or even quantum physics itself that flies in the face of daily sensory experience. Even the ideas of atoms having mostly space and magnetic fields giving the illusion of materials being solid when we touch them, defy common sense, yet we embrace them out of trust in the science.
[–] shortass 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
yes. confirmation bias is a flaw in the human mind, i try to avoid it and think openly and freely. as for your last question it depends how much knowledge and experience i have on the subject. if the sciences are way beyond me. for example if they found a new up down left right anti quark. then i would be inclined to trust their judgement. but usually new discovery's almost always make sense and go with my gut feeling anyway.
[–] Calorie-Kin [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
A round earth was probably not inline with most people's gut feelings.
How can we then, as logical people, avoid confirmation bias? Do you notice when you're biased? How then can we expect others (this includes religious people) to stop for a second and re-evaluate their beliefs, when we ourselves react emotionally and not always objectively to things that aren't inline with our reasoning.
[–] shortass 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
you avoid a confirmation bias by being ready at the drop of a hat to change what you understand/believe the moment new evidence arrives. it also helps if you can evaluate evidence objectively that takes practice.
as for changing peoples minds, just be honest when answering questions. if you don't know the answer say you don't know. don't get angry.. just explain the argument calmly and carefully.
i don't think i managed to change anyone's minds despite my best efforts. religion offers people without critical thinking skills a comfort which i cant replace.
[–] BusyBody ago (edited ago)
Nobody avoids confirmation bias. The best we can do is to cultivate our critical thinking and try to counter such things that are part of the human experience. To ask this is like asking if we avoid being influenced by others.
I'd hope I'd be open minded, and I try to be that way by looking for evidence for claims. Is rape wrong? The gut instinct for most people is to agree that it is very wrong, but why is it wrong? You sit down and think about it, and maybe employ some tools. Consider the veil of ignorance, where you would design a society in which you have no idea which position you'll occupy. How would I feel if I were in a position where I could freely be raped? I'd feel pretty bad, and I can imagine most others would. We can show evidence to support the claim that being assaulted is not nice, and I can speak from personal experience of having had a bottle over my head. Rape is a type of assault, so I can argue that it's wrong. For whatever pleasure some may gain from it, the act comes at a great cost to others.
I think it's questioning things, following a logical process, and looking for evidence for the claims. This is how we try to avoid going for things just because they feel like the right choice. It's also why we need free and open discussion because we should be able to question anything, no matter how minor or offensive it may seem, so we can properly decide. Of course it can be difficult when we're simply not equipped to know the subject. How about climate change? I'm no scientist, so I instead have to look at the arguments and evidence being presented and observe how the experts respond.