Intellectual humility

Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong

The project is timely because a large number of scientific findings have been disproven, or become more doubtful, in recent years. One high-profile effort to retest 100 psychological experiments found only 40 percent replicated with more rigorous methods. It’s been a painful period for social scientists, who’ve had to deal with failed replications of classic studies and realize their research practices are often weak.

It’s been fascinating to watch scientists struggle to make their institutions more humble. And I believe there’s an important and underappreciated virtue embedded in this process.

Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong

I wonder how this can be applied to people that assume all manner of psi is a reality?

[Laird]

I wonder how this can be applied to people that assume all manner of psi is a reality?

So do I - I guess you'd have to ask them. I couldn't do that for you because I tend to associate instead with people like those on this forum who don't assume but rather investigate the evidence.

So do I - I guess you'd have to ask them. I couldn't do that for you because I tend to associate instead with people like those on this forum who don't assume but rather investigate the evidence.

Okay, but when investigations have gone on for over 40 years and no materialistic explanation has been discovered, when is one allowed to tentatively call it ? Never ? Why do we still have to pretend there might be a brain based explanation ?

[Laird]

Okay, but when investigations have gone on for over 40 years and no materialistic explanation has been discovered, when is one allowed to tentatively call it ? Never ?

I've called it. I agree with you that the evidence is in.

Why do we still have to pretend there might be a brain based explanation ?

The brain has something meaningful to do with consciousness, but that's as far as we need (and ought) to go in our philosophical commitment. We should also recognise that consciousness is a basic feature of reality and not one derivative of matter.

Edit: tim, for clarity, the focus in my initial reply was on the word "assume".

I've called it. I agree with you that the evidence is in.


The brain has something meaningful to do with consciousness, but that's as far as we need (and ought) to go in our philosophical commitment. We should also recognise that consciousness is a basic feature of reality and not one derivative of matter.

Edit: tim, for clarity, the focus in my initial reply was on the word "assume".

Psi like all sociological research is a soft science. For you to declare consciousness is not derived from matter requires hard evidence. Do you have any?

[Laird]

I'd need evidence that you would accept it if I provided it. Do you have any?

[Laird]

Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong

Interesting article. I especially liked these bits:

Intellectual humility is simply “the recognition that the things you believe in might in fact be wrong,” as Mark Leary, a social and personality psychologist at Duke University, tells me.
But don’t confuse it with overall humility or bashfulness. It’s not about being a pushover; it’s not about lacking confidence, or self-esteem. The intellectually humble don’t cave every time their thoughts are challenged.
Instead, it’s a method of thinking. It’s about entertaining the possibility that you may be wrong and being open to learning from the experience of others. Intellectual humility is about being actively curious about your blind spots. One illustration is in the ideal of the scientific method, where a scientist actively works against her own hypothesis, attempting to rule out any other alternative explanations for a phenomenon before settling on a conclusion. It’s about asking: What am I missing here?
It doesn’t require a high IQ or a particular skill set. It does, however, require making a habit of thinking about your limits, which can be painful. “It’s a process of monitoring your own confidence,” Leary says.

We need more intellectual humility for two reasons. One is that our culture promotes and rewards overconfidence and arrogance (think Trump and Theranos, or the advice your career counselor gave you when going into job interviews). At the same time, when we are wrong — out of ignorance or error — and realize it, our culture doesn’t make it easy to admit it. Humbling moments too easily can turn into moments of humiliation.

For a democracy to flourish, Lynch argues, we need a balance between convictions — our firmly held beliefs — and humility. We need convictions, because “an apathetic electorate is no electorate at all,” he says. And we need humility because we need to listen to one another. Those two things will always be in tension.

Plus that evocative image from the tweet. Brilliant!

I'd need evidence that you would accept it if I provided it. Do you have any?

Dodging the question indicates you have no evidence handy and you are unable to find any which means that you've paid nothing more than lip service to what the article cautioned against even though you quoted from it.

[Laird]

Dodging the question

I didn't dodge the question, I inquired as to whether it was worth my time to compose and supply a meaningful answer. You dodged that inquiry. To repeat: do you have any evidence that you would accept a valid answer? I have plenty of evidence to the contrary.