Human Inquiry vs Everday Assumptions

Kathryn Schulz argues in “Evidence”, a chapter of her book called Being Wrong, that we need to “learn to actively combat our inductive biases: to deliberately seek out evidence that challenges our beliefs, and to take seriously such evidence when we come across it” (Schulz, 377”). By attending to counterevidence we can avoid making errors in our conclusions.

Postmodernists argue that because modern science was developed by a group of people which were ensconced in a European culture, they carried their subjective biases and prejudices into the scientific inquiry. By this logic, science does not seem like an objective method through which to investigate the world, but rather an enterprise that serve to adhere to a particular socio-political agenda. To elaborate, they believe that science, in its contemporary state, does not produce objective facts, but rather it offers a limited manner through which to cultivate the world. Specifically, a white-masculine-elite view of the world. This means that new types of epistemologies—such as the feminist epistemology—should be introduced to paint the full picture of reality. Thus, science seems to offer a one-dimensional narrative that needs the perspectives of so-called marginalized, oppressed groups to be complete. This line of reasoning is intrinsically flawed for a multitude of reasons. First

As groups continue to use science against one another, stereotypes are taking over the world and creating negativity within society. As women are being told they are not smart, African Americans are being told they are unequal, and Muslims are being told they are all terroristic by nature based on the science that claims their inferiority and stereotypes; peace cannot prevail and war cannot contain. Scientific research and social correlations are not viewable through the same ideas, or else stereotypes continue to rampage on claiming proof through science; and ultimately groups will continue to prove their stereotypes wrong through violent and hysteric means. Inaccurate scientific research is encouraging the social beliefs of the inferiority of certain groups, and creating an unjust and socially biased

Jonathan Vogel wrote Skepticism and Inference to the Best Explanation as a solution to accept the real world hypothesis over any skeptical hypothesis. Vogel presents a compelling argument for a definitive reason to accept that the world we are experiencing is in fact the real world. I believe that Vogel’s argument falls short of proving a reason for accepting the real world hypothesis over a skeptical one. In this paper I will clearly explain Vogels argument, explain some important concepts to understand, and attempt to refute the argument.

Isaac Asimov said, “Your assumptions are your windows on the world. Scrub them off every once in a while, or the light won’t come in.” Everyday people perceive things based on assumptions. Why is that? Is it because of the norms, rules, or stuff we see on television? You could probably say that. Society over the years has taught us many ways to see eye to eye on different issues. Clifford D. Simak illustrates many ways to differ perception from reality in “Desertion”.

Humans are naturally curious creatures. One’s inquisitive mindset might lead to all sorts of discoveries or answers to cosmic questions. However, the world and the life one lives inside the world are not always as they seem to be at first glance. What one does know about the world is based solely on their perception of reality and one person’s perspective will differ from the next. How does one know when they look at the blue sky or the green grass that the other people around them are witnessing the same scene they are experiencing? Should the stranger on the street fear another stranger simply because they are unable to know for absolute certainty that other is not a deranged, cannibalistic murderer?

Not only do we have a tendency to ignore and misinterpret evidence that conflicts with our own views; we also have tendency to look for and recognize only evidence that confirms them. We tend to look for confirming rather than disconfirming evidence, even though the latter can often be far more revealing.

Since the beginning of time, humans have searched for truth. Reality. Verity. Truth about why we do the things we do, how the Earth came to be what it is, how we have evolved, and where we started so long ago. It’s only when we find our truth, we want more, and we’re thirsty for more. We search for alternate certainties, different perspectives. Quickly we come to conclusions, which turn to rumours, theories… Ideas have been built up, until they are towering conspiracies, quickly turning to turmoil under the media’s sharp wit. I have been absorbed in theories on the deepest oceans, deaths, murders, untold truths that have been hidden away deep down.

The Western thought functions through strongly rooted beliefs that have been prevalent for so long, that the accuracy goes unquestioned. But just because it has gone on for so long, does not mean it is the most efficient way of processing the world. The basis of biological determinism is used to interpret and understand members of society, using predetermined categorizes to comprehend identity. Furthermore, it is important to realize that using such a methodology for judgment leads to perceiving race, gender, sexuality, and other identity markers in such a way that is exclusive and unjust. Viewing society in regard to biology has various ramifications that impact the lives of every individual.

There remains doubt in how much the human mind really knows; what is known and how the mind is capable of knowing it. In philosophical skepticism, it is asserted that we know little to nothing about the world external of our senses. Anything claimed to be knowledge retains the possibility of doubt, even that which is used as justification for obtaining that piece (or pieces) of knowledge. There is a problem that arises when considering the external world, which is of obtaining and being able to offer sufficient justification for “commonsense” belief.

Our place in the world is something that many scholars and people discuss. We want to know what our purpose is. A lot of the time, people spend their time looking for something to motivate them and show them the right path for their life. Our brains remember sixty five of what we see. Because of this, people base many of their opinions and thoughts on things we see. Our place is a complex thing. And we go about finding our place,

We invent our explanations, and then they invent us. It is a book about how we create our virtual worlds – the habitat of our minds – by how we explain things. It is a book about how our explanations get embedded in the stories we tell and ingest – from gossip to advertising to the pernicious “social media.” It is a book about how everything we say or do or have is an explanation. Whatever we say or do or buy explains who we are. We multifariously explain ourselves to ourselves and to others. We talk, we daydream, we do, we feel: all evolves from how we explain things. Our explanations are the seeds from which everything human and social sprouts and evolves. They are the sources and the sinks of how we live our lives. It is a book that offers a non biological and thus a superior theory of the human trajectory, of specifically human and social evolution. We have turned our lives over to our pundits our “experts,” our celebrities, our advertisers and entertainers. We invite them to tell us what’s what, and how to live. They are our predators. We are their prey. It is an unprecedented change for civilization. As our lives go, so goes our civilization. We evolve out of our explanations of things. But to what end? Everything is deserving of an explanation. Thayer says that it is dangerous. I think we should just accept what is, and use that to shape our culture. There is no wrong or

ignorance of a belief to discover the “true” natural cause. This is a continuation of a theme

Our existence and cause for placement has been pondered and debated since the beginning of time. A significant period that which said thinking occurred was the Enlightenment, a time where new ideas were being discovered and discussed. During this era, science and mathematics were exploding, with people including Isaac Newton, Gotfreid Leibniz, and Tycho Brahe revolutionizing what we thought we knew. Their works revealed a scientific approach rather than a religious one, indicating an intellectual revolution. The thinkers of this time began to consider how humans inherently behaved and thought, otherwise known as our human nature. Among the most notable authors and their works representing this is: Thomas Hobbes’ ¨Leviathan¨. Andrew Marvell´s

In the modern age of technology we suffer from a Huxleyan abundance of information. Even the most crucial of discoveries are put on the same pedestal as trivial gossip and humorous stories. Every piece of knowledge can simply be dismissed with a flick of the mouse; every community formed by like-minded individuals is quickly turned off-limits for outsiders, with all or most dissent silenced by its moderators. This is why I think it is most crucial that every individual can rely on his/her own when it comes to deciding what’s right and what’s wrong – not on confirmation bias or other traps of our mind, but following clear guidelines as to what can be considered plausible or even possible.