Intellectual humility

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.

You're the who's convinced of being right and convinced you have the evidence. It's not for to stipulate what that should be. Do you see why?  Anyway I'll restate the question. How do you know you are not wrong?

[Laird]

You're the who's convinced of being right and convinced you have the evidence.

You seem to be convinced that you're right that I don't...

Anyway I'll restate the question. How do you know you are not wrong?

If I'm wrong, then I'm open to being shown how. Are you?

To repeat my own question more specifically: can you link me in to an occasion on this forum (preferably, but on any other forum if necessary) on which somebody has shown you a piece of evidence and you've either been convinced by it or supplied a thoughtful and detailed explanation as to why you weren't convinced? Dismissive one-liners don't count.

Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong

That's a good article.

It would be interesting to think of ways to change the bias against being wrong. I try to think of it as, "if you're never getting it wrong, you're not trying hard enough." For example, if a surgeon isn't sometimes removing a healthy appendix, that's a bad sign with respect to whether or not they are missing appendicitis (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_looku...d=1586087&).

Linda

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

You might get more traction with this if you talk about how you found out something you believed was wrong.

Linda

You might get more traction with this if you talk about how you found out something you believed was wrong.

Linda

A good idea FLS.

I think Uri Geller is a good example. When I was young and first saw him i was impressed, but then this fellow named Randi showed up.... Then as time went on I started to wonder why this man only bends easily bendable metals?  Then I saw Uri on the Johnny Carson Show. Uri agreed beforehand to do what he claimed live. However, and perhaps unknown to Uri Johnny was an amateur magician, anyway Uri had performance issues while on stage but oddly was able to bend a key backstage beforehand. Over the years I've seen other unimpressive Uri vids and as the years passed with him using the same shtick I've concluded he was hoodwinking everyone from the getgo.
Another example would be ancient astronauts popularized by Von Daniken.
It made a lot of sense but as I read what expert archeologists had to say and astrophysicists too coupled with the copious lack of knowledge and highly speculative theory made from whole cloth Von Daniken demonstrated I realized he was blowing smoke from... That's not to be misconstrued that aliens do not exist or have not visited Earth.

You seem to be convinced that you're right that I don't...


If I'm wrong, then I'm open to being shown how. Are you?

To repeat my own question more specifically: can you link me in to an occasion on this forum (preferably, but on any other forum if necessary) on which somebody has shown you a piece of evidence and you've either been convinced by it or supplied a thoughtful and detailed explanation as to why you weren't convinced? Dismissive one-liners don't count. 

You've given a thumbs up to the article yet you failed to see how it could apply to you.  I had to drag it out from you for you to admit you could be wrong. That Laird was the question the entire time. This question applies to everyone on this forum who knows they have the correct answers.

Interesting article. I especially liked these bits:

Plus that evocative image from the tweet. Brilliant!

The commitment to old ways of thinking despite evidence was interesting:

Even among scientists — people who ought to question everything — intellectual humility is hard. In some cases, researchers have refused to concede their original conclusions despite the unveiling of new evidence. (One famous psychologist under fire recently told me angrily, “I will stand by that conclusion for the rest of my life, no matter what anyone says.”)

Beyond my old Skeptiko thread examining the numerous flaws in science as practiced the article reminded me of this remark by a skeptic:

"When discussion was opened to the floor, Bharati rose and screaming and waving his hands in the air, said to Emerson “You’re either lying or cheating... I simply don’t believe you... it can’t happen... I don’t care what kind of evidence you’ve got.”


Bharati had now dismissed the work of both Eisenbud and Emerson, but it was the way in which he had done it that caught attention most. The contradiction between Bharati’s emotional outburst and his paper, which called for objective (etic) standards to be applied to any research involving parapsychology and anthropology, was not lost on the audience. One woman anthropologist in a stage whisper that could be heard by all nearby said to her companion, “How much more emic can you get than ‘I simply won’t believe it?’”

What surprised me then, although it wouldn’t today, was how much his disparagement lacked substance. Emerson’s reports of the Iroquois work, emphasized location information that had been tested by the spade, and found to be accurate. Archaeology, could provide clear, indisputable, testable information, in a way that the Castaneda work never could that something worth study was going on. Shamanism may be subject to several interpretations, but whether an artifact is where a psychic says it is, is identified as described, and is positioned as Remote Viewed is not.

The viewer is either right or wrong. Bharati – and everyone else – instinctively recognized this. Every question from the floor was addressed to Emerson. Only his paper was discussed."
 -Boulders in the Stream: The Founding of the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness

Of course not all skeptics are like this - I've appreciated Sam Harris, the only New Atheist horseman with a neuroscience PhD, coming out and admitting materialism is nonsensical.

And Shermer going from a materialist/atheist/determinist to agnostic in all these matters.

[Laird]

My positions are open to revision. That doesn't need to be dragged out of me. That said, as the article itself notes:

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.

In my words: have the courage of those of your convictions which are reason and evidence-based unless or until you find good reason or evidence to overturn them.

This question applies to everyone on this forum who knows they have the correct answers.

So, it very much applies to you.

You've now dodged my request three times. It seems that you have no evidence based on past exchanges that you're open to being convinced by evidence or to explaining in detail why it fails to convince you, which is what I expected.

Re von Daniken, I was similarly seduced for a while by his ideas. Crash Go The Chariots dispelled them for good.

My positions are open to revision. That doesn't need to be dragged out of me. That said, as the article itself notes:


In my words: have the courage of those of your convictions which are reason and evidence-based unless or until you find good reason or evidence to overturn them.


So, it very much applies to you.

You've now dodged my request three times. It seems that you have no evidence based on past exchanges that you're open to being convinced by evidence or to explaining in detail why it fails to convince you, which is what I expected.

Re von Daniken, I was similarly seduced for a while by his ideas. Crash Go The Chariots dispelled them for good.

Changing the subject I have on Skeptiko posted many research articles showing how the brain which is made of matter produces consciousness. At times I've thought of posting such here but always stop short because it all falls upon blind eyes. In case you are confused in thinking I was talking about psi in general let me clear any confusion you may have by  saying I was not.

I suspect Steve001 wonders the same thing as me, whenever someone posts an article like this on Pscience Quest, of all places.

Why post an article whose message is far more acutely relevant to the field of parapsychology than to any other field of science?