Intellectual humility

My disagreement was with the idea that the article is more applicable to parapsychology than any other field, not with its basic premise. It's not inapplicable to parapsychology, but I don't agree that it's especially so compared with other fields.

That's why I suggested that it may be particularly enlightening to discuss what makes a particular field susceptible to these problems. It sounds like it would surprise you to learn the extent to which parapsychology is susceptible.

Linda

My disagreement was with the idea that the article is more applicable to parapsychology than any other field, not with its basic premise. It's not inapplicable to parapsychology, but I don't agree that it's especially so compared with other fields.

Yes.

Before I started discussing psi or consciousness-related topics, I spent quite a few years inhabiting some other forums where more mundane, everyday topics were discussed. During those years I learned just how stubbornly some people would cling to their (mistaken) ideas or misunderstandings, regardless of evidence, explanation, practical demonstration and so on.

It was indeed a lesson in the need to be humble in how one approaches any topic, whether it be cookery or wave-particle-duality. Even well-understood topics have their share of fixed and immovable personalities. When one is a neutral onlooker, one is inevitably left feeling discouraged at human folly. Of course when one is in the thick of things, engaging in either supporting or opposing some idea, there is always the risk of ending with egg on one's face.

The question then follows, to what extent is this a deliberate act of will, and to what extent merely part of one's background. Certainly in the aforementioned mundane-topic forums I describe, there have been plenty of strong egos, to whom changing an opinion is akin to a great defeat in battle or on the sports arena, and for ego reasons there is no concession of ground. In other cases though there are those who arrive on the scene with a misunderstanding and depart with the same misunderstanding intact, remaining oblivious and not noticing anything. In those cases, it isn't ego, so much as disinterest or some other reason for lack of engagement.

Note that throughout this post, I don't refer to psi or the paranormal, only to ordinary activities.

The question then follows, to what extent is this a deliberate act of will, and to what extent merely part of one's background. Certainly in the aforementioned mundane-topic forums I describe, there have been plenty of strong egos, to whom changing an opinion is akin to a great defeat in battle or on the sports arena, and for ego reasons there is no concession of ground. In other cases though there are those who arrive on the scene with a misunderstanding and depart with the same misunderstanding intact, remaining oblivious and not noticing anything. In those cases, it isn't ego, so much as disinterest or some other reason for lack of engagement.

I wouldn't say those are the only reasons someone might refuse to back down from a mistake. The original article doesn't look at all the possible reasons why people wouldn't admit errors, but they aren't hard to guess - different shades of fear, embarrassment, stubbornness, ego, greed, confusion, etc. And I can say from experience that sometimes it's not that a mistake came to light that makes it hard to back down - it's the way it came to light. If someone's insufferably rude, patronizing, cruel, or just the type of person to rub you the wrong way, it's tempting to dig your heels in just out of spite - "they might be right, but they don't deserve to be with that attitude!"

From the OP article:

Studies have found that cognitive reflection — i.e., analytic thinking — is correlated with being better able to discern fake news stories from real ones. These studies haven’t looked at intellectual humility per se, but it’s plausible there’s an overlap.

"Better able to discern fake news". We might say that the opposite to this is gullibility and it is gullibility - or rather the fear of being considered gullible - which is the driving factor for the arrogance of many who are either in the public eye when it comes to science or are renowned skeptics. Not that it is reserved for the famous, of course. I know plenty of people who are only too ready and willing to sneer at the gullible and assert their own lack of gullibility. 

What being a scientist does for the ego-driven is add an air of authority which some play for all it's worth. "Look, I'm a scientist ..." or "I'm a scientist - I follow the evidence". These are familiar refrains which are intentionally unfinished. What's left off the end is "... so I can't be wrong". This veneer of infallibility is adopted by those not involved in the sciences. They proclaim their belief in science, as though science has become a faith (and maybe it has for some). They hide behind that veneer in order to sneer at the gullible. 

Here's the thing, from my point of view. Evidence leads to hypotheses which lead to theories which lead to conclusions. Any part of that chain can be a weak link. Theories might be testable by repetition but do the conclusions which follow necessarily hold? Often, theories are based upon axioms - what if the axiom is wrong? Many consider physicalism to be axiomatic. That, it seems to me, is a leap of faith. If the axiom is wrong, then the conclusion may be wrong even though the evidence might stand the test of repeatability. The testing of the evidence might be merely a local effect. 

I contend that certain scientists - we all know them - have deliberately fostered this illusion of infallibility in the public arena. So much so that the media and a huge section of the public believe it to be so and those who don't are dismissed as cranks or anti-science. Nevertheless, as the article points out:

The project is timely because a large number of scientific findings have been disproven, or become more doubtful, in recent years.

And it goes on to say, lending support to my point about stigmatising gullibility:

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.

We all have to use our judgement to determine which is news and which is fake news. Sometimes we need to do the same with scientific research. I come down on the side of climate science because my judgement tells me that the evidence really does point to the contention that humans are spoiling the eco-system. Conversely, I have doubts about neo-darwinism because I see evidence of intelligence in the system. If that offends the assumption of a pointless, unguided universe then so be it. Yet, like Laird, I've also swallowed some cranky theories and have been left to nurse my hurt pride in the face of taunts of gullibility. Nobody likes to be thought of as gullible but we should be prepared to admit when we have been as much as those who lay claim to the intellectual higher ground should admit that they too get it wrong sometimes.

Oh another let's beat up scientists and science thread. Does anyone know the moral of this story? It seems not. Well let me tell what it is. The moral is one of accountability and an exposé of how science is self correcting. These scientists were deservedly called to task. Gee, I wonder how philosophy and philosophers would standup and handle such scrutiny?

Sometimes we need to do the same with scientific research. I come down on the side of climate science because my judgement tells me that the evidence really does point to the contention that humans are spoiling the eco-system. Conversely, I have doubts about neo-darwinism because I see evidence of intelligence in the system. If that offends the assumption of a pointless, unguided universe then so be it. Yet, like Laird, I've also swallowed some cranky theories and have been left to nurse my hurt pride in the face of taunts of gullibility. Nobody likes to be thought of as gullible but we should be prepared to admit when we have been as much as those who lay claim to the intellectual higher ground should admit that they too get it wrong sometimes.

I find this to be one of the great challenges of our time. Anyone who has had cause to wonder about their own healthcare, for example, ends up reading up on research re: particular medications, treatment options, etc. This isn't to suggest one should just go "off the reservation" regarding such things but I do find having some information enables one to get better care or at least feel more at ease with the care they're getting.

Going beyond that, it seems navigating every proposition put before us increasingly requires knowledge of varied academic subjects as well as the ongoing contextual issues of the varied fields we expect to give us the best information.

OTOH, with regard to the question of the paranormal, there is another path - that of the direct seeker...but that's probably a subject for another thread...

Oh another let's beat up scientists and science thread. Does anyone know the moral of this story? It seems not. Well let me tell what it is. The moral is one of accountability and an exposé of how science is self correcting. These scientists were deservedly called to task. Gee, I wonder how philosophy and philosophers would standup and handle such scrutiny?

I would imagine some philosophers would admit mistakes gracefully, others reluctantly, still others would either refuse to admit mistakes or fail to recognize they were made, and still more others would opt for silence - the same range of reactions you could expect from any cross section of people in a given profession.

I would imagine some philosophers would admit mistakes gracefully, others reluctantly, still others would either refuse to admit mistakes or fail to recognize they were made, and still more others would opt for silence - the same range of reactions you could expect from any cross section of people in a given profession.

Of course, that wasn't my point though. Philosophers as a whole are never tasked. That's the point.

Yes, indeed it is, Sci. Grof actually got it wrong. He said (only) one of Sabom's patients described the resuscitation events very accurately, when in fact it was six.

It seems a good chunk of Grof's experiences with Sagan were excerpted with this permission for the publication Anti-Matters:

When Science Becomes Scientism - Carl Sagan and His Demon-Haunted World

Also, the old Skeptiko thread detailing questionable tactics used by skeptics (mentioned above) also had this piece on Sagan by RA Wilson:

http://www.rawilson.com/trigger3.html

(scroll down to THE ASTRONOMER WHO ABOLISHED GRAVITY)

If anybody possesses all the qualifications necessary for a fully ordained Expert in America today, Carl Sagan certaintly has that dizzying eminence. Through frequent appearances on TV and in Parade (a news magazine circulated through hundreds of newspapers in their jumbo Sunday editions), Dr. Sagan has issued Expert verdicts on every possible controversial issue in science, and in politics, and even in theology, for three decades now. And, like the Experts who authenticated hundreds-to-thousands of Elmyrs, he has never once admitted he ever made a mistake.

You may wonder how a man who only has qualifications in astronomy can also function as an Expert on everything in general. Well, I think it requires Sagan to have a lot of raw courage, in the first place, and a strong, well-founded confidence that those who don't believe his dogmas have much less access to the media than he does; if they answer him back, however effective their arguments, very few of his large, gullible audience will ever hear about it.

Let us see how Expertese works, by examining Dr. Sagan's long series of polemics against Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky.