>"There are several possible reasons that beliefs persevere despite
>contrary evidence. Embarrassment over having to withdraw a publicly
>declared belief, for example, or stubbornness or hope. Tradition,
>superstition, religion, worldview, or ideology can allow a believer to
>give a greater weight to some data over other data.
>
>One explanation may lie in the workings of the human sensory system.
>Human brains and senses are organised in such a manner so as to
>facilitate rapid evaluation of social situations and others' states of
>mind. Studies have shown that this behaviour is evident in the
>choosing of friends and partners and houses, even though it is largely
>subconscious. Although it can be a very fast process, the initial
>impression has a lasting effect as a byproduct of the brain's tendency
>to fill in the gaps of what it perceives and the unwillingness of the
>believer to admit a mistake."
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
That is an interesting citation. I was just discussing this with
someone else who claimed that I could not be convinced by any facts.
But as it turns out, he is the one who cannot be convinced, and my own
views turn around not so muchon empirical ("hard") evidence as they do
on pointing to those presuppositions which make some facts more
apparent or more relevant than others. For instance, when my
interlocutor writes
without showing evidence for
what is or is not relevant, this is obviously due to a closed-minded
and dogmatically-held bias on his part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
In his case, the closed-minded dogmatism is the effect, not of any
fact, but of a theory known as scientism. And I have tried to argue
that he would only consider those facts relevant to scientism's
presuppositions, even when I offer citation after citation
demonstrating to him that he has been partially blinded by these
dogmatic presuppositions. And in fact his apparently great respect
for the facts is not based upon any facts at all, but on a kind of
science-worshipping religion.
But the Scientism article cited above points out a possible fallacy in
employing it merely as a pejorative label. It would of course be
necessary to prove scientism, and fortunately this is very easy to do.
One can easily see the scientism in efforts to merely dismiss
contrary, or perhaps just novel, ideas as irrelevant with the mere
"wave of a hand": philosophy -- "irrelevant"; religion --
"irrelevant"; any opinions besides my own -- "irrelevant."
The danger with simply using the term "scientism" pejoratively is the
fact that science has many brilliant and astoundingly good things to
say -- except when it engages in scientism, where it then brings
itself down to the intellectual level of the simple-minded and
religious, and what passes for philosophy, the highest of all the
sciences and the apex of reason itself, becomes nothing more than a
few tidbits of childish rationalizations passed down from father to
son or from professor to student.
--
" If I had remembered that the name 'Galt' appears
in one of her books, I would have chosen a different
name for my character."
Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"
