Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 2:21 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
#11
RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
(March 15, 2018 at 8:24 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(March 15, 2018 at 8:17 am)Grandizer Wrote: And from the second Wikipedia link, a paragraph which serves as a good response:


Of course, I have biases, and of course, I will never be able to control for all of them satisfactorily. But it does make a difference to acknowledge that one has biases and make an effort to address them. Besides, the question was about whether or not it is the "heart" that leads to the formation of beliefs, rather than the "head". One could be utterly biased, and yet still have their "head" do all the "talking".

Yeah, I read that.  I have to wonder how persistent the effect of that education is, and whether or not the corrective effect does not wane with time.  Regardless, the bulk of people lack such education and are thus not benefiting from any correction effect.

It seems like these studies apply to the general population, but I wonder what the outcome would be if it was theists in one group and atheists in the other. I do suspect there will be differences, maybe not in terms of one group handling biases better than the other, but in terms of having different sets of priorities (which may imply different sets of biases).

Quote:In case I wasn't clear, the heart/head dichotomy was just a metaphor for the dichotomy between non-rational and rational processes of belief formation and development.  In that sense, no, one could not be biased and still have the head do all the talking as it is a part of the definition of bias that it is not a rational process/influence.

So, if I understood you correctly, by "non-rational", you mean "driven by biases overruling logic/reason" rather than "emotional". So this means one can't be "biased for logic/reason" in this sense. Fair enough.
Reply
#12
RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
(March 15, 2018 at 8:51 am)Grandizer Wrote:
(March 15, 2018 at 8:24 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: In case I wasn't clear, the heart/head dichotomy was just a metaphor for the dichotomy between non-rational and rational processes of belief formation and development.  In that sense, no, one could not be biased and still have the head do all the talking as it is a part of the definition of bias that it is not a rational process/influence.

So, if I understood you correctly, by "non-rational", you mean "driven by biases overruling logic/reason" rather than "emotional". So this means one can't be "biased for logic/reason" in this sense. Fair enough.

To be completely clear, I'm including both the effects of emotion and feelings as well as cognitive biases, as both are non-rational influences on our decision making and reasoning.
[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]
Reply
#13
RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
The fact that we realize we have such biases gives us the chance to try to counterbalance them, if we so desire. I think I do a pretty good job of being sceptical of my own intuition and memories, in particular. I try to "attack" my own beliefs whenever possible, to make sure they are supported by evidence, and aren't some snap judgement or "feeling".

I find this hardest to do with regard to other people, because I have a tendency to simplify them in my mind to try and justify emotions I may have about them. I know I've failed here before.

I certainly notice that I often decide what I want to do, and then try and rationalize why I should do it. I make efforts to combat this, but I'm aware I'm only partially successful.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.

Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Reply
#14
RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
(March 15, 2018 at 6:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: The question I'd like to ask today is, if we form beliefs initially for non-rational reasons (as a consequence of the feelings of the heart, or whatever), and we then develop rationalizations based upon our initial belief, selective appraisal of the evidence, confirmation bias and so on (methods which undermine the rationality of our conclusions), are then our beliefs not ultimately lacking in rational justification and thereby inherently unreliable?

If the head follows the heart in matters of belief, instead of unbiased reason, is our certainty in our conclusions undermined?  I suppose a related question is, given we follow the same psychological limits in acquiring and shoring up our beliefs as theists, are we in any sense justified in believing that our positions are rationally better justified than theirs?
The whole point of rational inquiry is that we understand and accept that we possess these limitations, all of us.  The system is meant to shore up our inherent and well demonstrated weaknesses in cognition.  If we didn't possess these we could assert the contents of our intuitions without reservation.  

A belief formed and held on a-rational grounds,  then rationalized, based upon selective appraisal of evidence, confirmation bias, and so on is categorically a-rational (and borders on the irrational).  The first part is just a statement of historical fact regarding the belief or position, though.  That it was initially formed a-rationally.  That doesn't matter much today unless it's still in that unjustified state.  The qualifiers that followed that statement of historical fact are far more relevant to any current appraisal of the position. 

I can tell you with certainty that my atheism formed a-rationally.  I was making macaroni necklaces..not considering the reality of the divine or the esoterica of material implication.   It wasn't a belief for my heart to follow, or based upon any selective appraisal of evidence, nor was there anything to confirm by bias or otherwise.   Still, though, categorically a-rational.  We all start our lives in this meaningful state of forming a-rational positions.  My position then was self evident..I didn't believe in gods.  That being said....my position on this matter...like most matters (and like most people), is not the same as it was when I was four years old.

The relative quality of rational justification isn't a matter determined by belief or assumption. It's a fundamentally simple declaration of whether or not some position meets the requirements of a specified system. So, no, there's no reason to assume as much, it's often not the case, and it can only be decided one way or the other -after- consideration. Consider every atheist kindergartner in the world. Do we expect their rationalizations..if they even possess them, to be "better"..somehow, than the rationalizations of adults who...it has to be said..may be wrong, but at least know how the game is played and are aware of and fully acknowledge their cognitive limitations? OFC not.

We do get the odd nutter (believer and non-believer alike) who somehow manages to outperform children for a-rationality, though.....and that's when it gets really impressive... Wink
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#15
RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
I just believe that I am following reason. I can't explain it.[/hahah]


Good topic. But off to the gym now. Maybe I'll have some thoughts about it there which I can rationalize later.
Reply
#16
RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
(March 15, 2018 at 6:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Well, perhaps the axiom question is best left for another day.  The question I'd like to ask today is, if we form beliefs initially for non-rational reasons (as a consequence of the feelings of the heart, or whatever), and we then develop rationalizations based upon our initial belief, selective appraisal of the evidence, confirmation bias and so on (methods which undermine the rationality of our conclusions), are then our beliefs not ultimately lacking in rational justification and thereby inherently unreliable?  If the head follows the heart in matters of belief, instead of unbiased reason, is our certainty in our conclusions undermined?  I suppose a related question is, given we follow the same psychological limits in acquiring and shoring up our beliefs as theists, are we in any sense justified in believing that our positions are rationally better justified than theirs?

Interesting question. I would posit that reason is a tool for meeting a goal. A very very powerful tool, which is why it appeals to us.

What that goal is is not something I think pure rationality can determine. I don't think there's an answer in the stars for that. So it's not so much that the head is following the heart, but that the heart determines our objectives. The head then gets us there. If one ignores reason, by relying on prayer for example, they are less effective at meeting their goals. So this is why I would not support that irrational behaviour. When it comes to our feelings and desires, though, I don't know why you assume it is possible or preferable to determine these with pure reason.
Reply
#17
RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
(March 15, 2018 at 12:08 pm)shadow Wrote:
(March 15, 2018 at 6:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Well, perhaps the axiom question is best left for another day.  The question I'd like to ask today is, if we form beliefs initially for non-rational reasons (as a consequence of the feelings of the heart, or whatever), and we then develop rationalizations based upon our initial belief, selective appraisal of the evidence, confirmation bias and so on (methods which undermine the rationality of our conclusions), are then our beliefs not ultimately lacking in rational justification and thereby inherently unreliable?  If the head follows the heart in matters of belief, instead of unbiased reason, is our certainty in our conclusions undermined?  I suppose a related question is, given we follow the same psychological limits in acquiring and shoring up our beliefs as theists, are we in any sense justified in believing that our positions are rationally better justified than theirs?

Interesting question. I would posit that reason is a tool for meeting a goal. A very very powerful tool, which is why it appeals to us.

What that goal is is not something I think pure rationality can determine. I don't think there's an answer in the stars for that. So it's not so much that the head is following the heart, but that the heart determines our objectives. The head then gets us there. If one ignores reason, by relying on prayer for example, they are less effective at meeting their goals. So this is why I would not support that irrational behaviour. When it comes to our feelings and desires, though, I don't know why you assume it is possible or preferable to determine these with pure reason.


Sounds like the will question.  We're free to will what we like but not free to choose the likes that determine the targeting of what we will.  So we can wield reason to justify what we believe but we may not have so much freedom in choosing the beliefs we exercise reason to shore up.  I'm not sure if the seeming paradox is in the language we have available to express these ideas and the situation is more mundane than it sounds, or, if the seeming contradiction goes alarmingly deep. But I don't find myself getting alarmed.  Must have a properly basic belief that my ordinary perceptions in all this can and will win out.
Reply
#18
RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
(March 15, 2018 at 1:23 pm)Whateverist Wrote:
(March 15, 2018 at 12:08 pm)shadow Wrote: Interesting question. I would posit that reason is a tool for meeting a goal. A very very powerful tool, which is why it appeals to us.

What that goal is is not something I think pure rationality can determine. I don't think there's an answer in the stars for that. So it's not so much that the head is following the heart, but that the heart determines our objectives. The head then gets us there. If one ignores reason, by relying on prayer for example, they are less effective at meeting their goals. So this is why I would not support that irrational behaviour. When it comes to our feelings and desires, though, I don't know why you assume it is possible or preferable to determine these with pure reason.


Sounds like the will question.  We're free to will what we like but not free to choose the likes that determine the targeting of what we will.  

In the last few years I have been increasingly encountering a similar problem in my personal philosophy and actions, and I find it incredibly frustrating.


Quote:So we can wield reason to justify what we believe but we may not have so much freedom in choosing the beliefs we exercise reason to shore up.  I'm not sure if the seeming paradox is in the language we have available to express these ideas and the situation is more mundane than it sounds, or, if the seeming contradiction goes alarmingly deep. But I don't find myself getting alarmed.  Must have a properly basic belief that my ordinary perceptions in all this can and will win out.

This is a really good comment. Could elaborate on what you meant with the bolded, though? It's interesting but I don't really understand what you're referring to.
Reply
#19
RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
IDK that it's a paradox at all.  We may not have any meaningful control or choice over the beliefs we rationalize, but the strength of our justification for a given belief isn't determined by or predicate on our having that sort of control or choice.  Only that whatever we've done with whatever belief we hold adheres to the standard of a system.  In short, we don't have to choose it for it to be true.  

I think that we all hold a properly basic belief that our ordinary senses* can provide the sort of information required to form conditional statements, at least.  

*

I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#20
RE: Does the head follow the heart in matters of truth?
[Image: Faith-and-Hope-Quotes-52552-statusmind.com.jpg]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What Is The Truth. disobey 81 6491 August 21, 2023 at 2:15 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  What is truth. deepend 50 2893 March 31, 2022 at 10:18 pm
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  The Truth deepend 130 4553 March 24, 2022 at 8:59 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  The Truth about Ethnicity onlinebiker 41 2608 September 2, 2020 at 3:03 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  ...Truth? Definitely Disillusioned 93 18824 June 30, 2017 at 7:26 pm
Last Post: The Industrial Atheist
  The Nature Of Truth WisdomOfTheTrees 5 1043 February 21, 2017 at 5:30 am
Last Post: Sal
  Is there objective Truth? Soldat Du Christ 455 46515 November 7, 2016 at 5:39 am
Last Post: GUBU
  A question for those who believe truth is not absolute GrandizerII 92 7755 July 21, 2016 at 5:39 pm
Last Post: quip
  Liking your Truth henryp 39 8266 January 4, 2016 at 1:39 am
Last Post: Heat
  Truth is Stranger than Fiction ILoveMRHMWogglebugTE 6 2736 July 22, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Last Post: Pyrrho



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)