'isms' and ideology - or, is critical reasoning under assault? [discussion]

[memimemi]

Racism, Sexism, Marxism, Feminism, Objectivism, Idealism, Realism, [blank]-ism, -ismism....

I contend that the truest threat to Post-Enlightenment society is the proliferation of dogmatic 'isms' - at the expense of reason and fact.  I posit that the root cause of dogmatic thinking is a mixture of confirmation bias, ingrouping, and a liberal helping of tyrannical altruism.

Yes, tyrannical.  Yes, altruistic.

As examples, I offer: Feminism's opposal to a deep reading of statistical evidence; Objectivism's opposal to the value of collective action; Racism's common ignorance of basic biology.  I could go on, but these three should be contentious enough points to lead to a lively discussion.

Note, a discussion - not necessarily a debate.  In fact, what I propose is that our (as a society, not necessarily only/always on this particular forum) public discussions are derailed from an adult exploration of reality, and the theorizing that springs therefrom, by the incessant, childish ramblings of dogmatic 'ists' - the struggle between 'I honestly don't know, but let's find out' and 'Just-So stories.'

From my examples, for those who may disagree: What is 'patriarchy,' and what predictive power does the conjecture hold, to be tested and weighed, in order to elevate the assumption to a theory? (Feminism)  What makes the hero a desirable goal for human society?  (Objectivism)  What does the proximity of one's grand-sires to the equator have to do with anything whatsoever?

These are merely examples.  There are many more - I invite everyone to add their own examples, and refutations thereof.

Side note - things we never hear of: Skepticists, Logicalists, Reasonableists. . . .

Thank you in advance, to those who choose to participate - regardless of whether *I* agree.

[sixers]

When we label someone as a "Realist", "Nominalist", "Idealist" we have to do it in a specific context. A person might be a "realist" in terms of believing in ethical objectivity, but not a realist when referring universals in a Platonic sense.

That being said, if someone identifies them self with a sort of tradition, it should be up to them to lay out which parts of the tradition they accept and reject. Today, it's so easy to lump in any sort of belief to any kind of name.   That's why in discussions we are so worried about defining our terms properly and explaining that we are "this" kind of "-ist" and not "that" kind.

Also, this is why we try to not generalize too much in discussions and try to really see exactly where the other person is coming from and what they are really trying to say.

[Savage]

Feminism's opposal to a deep reading of statistical evidence

I do ask you clarify this as I think that feminism's main goal is something that should be adapted (I say those against the core of feminism are those which lack basic biology).

Now, I do agree all these 'isms' are causing a bunch of non-sense.

I can talk about racism first though. Although it is stupid and culturally ingrained into people, pro-racists have been trying to find evidence outside of biology. Example: back in the 1800s, one anthropologist attempted to use skull sizes to show white's were superior (didn't go so well).

[memimemi]

When we label someone as a "Realist", "Nominalist", "Idealist" we have to do it in a specific context. A person might be a "realist" in terms of believing in ethical objectivity, but not a realist when referring universals in a Platonic sense.

That being said, if someone identifies them self with a sort of tradition, it should be up to them to lay out which parts of the tradition they accept and reject. Today, it's so easy to lump in any sort of belief to any kind of name.   That's why in discussions we are so worried about defining our terms properly and explaining that we are "this" kind of "-ist" and not "that" kind.

Also, this is why we try to not generalize too much in discussions and try to really see exactly where the other person is coming from and what they are really trying to say.

Welcome to the thread!

Good point.  So, I'll clarify: I speak in the academic sense.  'Realism' meaning 'there is no possiblity for metaphysics.'  'Feminism' meaning 'proponent of the existence of a patriarchy; fundamentally interpreting society and history as the tale of oppression of women (qua women).'  'Idealist' meaning 'one who espouses, in word or deed, the notion that there exists an Ideal, or perfect, state of affairs/being, which is knowable and/or realizable.

The common thread I see in ideological thinking is that it's a bundle of question-begging: one must put on the glasses the idealogue wears, in order to see the same world; as opposed to all of us taking off the shades and asking about what's actually out there.

Feminism's opposal to a deep reading of statistical evidence

I do ask you clarify this as I think that feminism's main goal is something that should be adapted (I say those against the core of feminism are those which lack basic biology).

Now, I do agree all these 'isms' are causing a bunch of non-sense.

I can talk about racism first though. Although it is stupid and culturally ingrained into people, pro-racists have been trying to find evidence outside of biology. Example: back in the 1800s, one anthropologist attempted to use skull sizes to show white's were superior (didn't go so well).

My exact point, well elucidated.  Phrenology, as a whole, is demonstrably bad science.  This was known, even during its heyday (ca. 1900-1910), but still phrenology was used as the basis of racialist and eugenic <ahem> theories.

I posit that Feminism (as defined, above) does the same.  Often, figures are thrown around willy-nilly, without any actual examination of the facts (in raw data form).  Then, misread/poorly designed studies are used to bolster the basic ideology of patriarchy.  If one questions the use of the studies, they're wrong to do so - because patriarchy!  If one questions the use of bad science to support the ideology of racism, they're wrong to do so - because 'mongrel-loving!' 

This is where I'm heading with this discussion.  I find it interesting that you support 'feminism;' if you'd like to move that exploration to another thread, I'd be glad to join you in it!

-------------------------------

I'd still prefer it, personally, if anyone out there who thinks that dogma is beneficial would speak out - echo chambers are no fun.

[OldTrees]

I'd still prefer it, personally, if anyone out there who thinks that dogma is beneficial would speak out - echo chambers are no fun.

I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone who considers it wise to establish a set of beliefs as undoubtedly true without the beliefs being necessarily true.

So the most likely source of disagreement is whether there is an increase in dogmatic positions or if there has been a constant or even decreasing amount of dogmatic positions.

[Savage]

Ok, I will start a new thread for that...although from your mysterious post: I am unsure if you are against it or are for it or were pointing out issues with both sides. I am also unsure on how to continue talking here. Do you want to discuss isms or discuss stereotypes of them or what? I am confused.

[cometbah]

'Ism's are, in my opinion, simply tools to facilitate efficient communication by making use of shared understandings.

Some 'ism's can appear 'dogmatic' because they denote the acceptance of some set of axioms; when one identifies as a

• ist, (s)he is essentially claiming to accept the corresponding set of assumptions.

Examples:
Feminists are those who accept the arguably unprovable axiom that 'patriarchy is not good.'
Transhumanists are those who (amongst other possible beliefs) accept the arguably unprovable axiom that 'becoming posthuman is good'.

Having axioms with which to work, however, isn't always a bad thing. For instance, most people I know go by the axioms of 'being alive is good', 'experiencing happiness is good', and so forth.

All of mathematics are built upon axioms. In fact, there are plenty of 'ism's in mathematics, simply because different mathematicians choose to work with different sets of axioms.

[Savage]

Okay, that makes more sense, but not sure what to say. Usually there is an argumentative point involved for discussion. You said certain isms are dogmatic, but do you want to discuss certain ones to see what they are really about and possibly how they have become dogmatic?

[cometbah]

I suppose the argument can be:

Belief (without reason) in certain things is not necessarily unwise, and can in fact be constructive in many situations.

Problems with dogmatic systems can arise when:
1. Believing without reason in the face of evidence against the belief.
2. (as sixers had already mentioned) When people use the same word to mean different things, but assume that they are talking about the same things.

[sixers]

The common thread I see in ideological thinking is that it's a bundle of question-begging: one must put on the glasses the idealogue wears, in order to see the same world; as opposed to all of us taking off the shades and asking about what's actually out there.

Hm, I don't think that's really true. You maybe have to temporarily "put on the glasses" of someone else, to understand where they are coming from and understand their point of view, but one should be able to retain the information and the position when the glasses are [ silly metaphoric example ] "taken back off."

So I think we are constantly asking what's going on in the world, and it sometimes helps to understand many different points of view in order to better your own position.

[Jyiber]

Well memimemi, if you haven't majored in philosophy yet, do so now.

I've always thought that labeling a person or thing under a classification is waste of time. The fact is that everything is way more complicated than that. I never liked people who used this mode of thought because they tend to be opinionated to the point of being blind to truth.

Don't get me wrong, there are people who fit inside these stereotypes almost perfectly. Most people just want to organize the world so that it makes sense to them based on what their surroundings are.

It's also true that authoritarian rule is the most common teaching method around. Someone tells you how it is: you believe them. Thus conflicting axioms are born.

[OldTrees]

@Jyiber
If you were looking for a constellation in the sky, would you find it faster or slower if I first told you roughly where it was? This is a beneficial role archetypes can play in communication. However I agree that archetypes are useless in communication if the audience does not realize they are only an initial approximation and not the final answer.