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

[kaempfer13]

@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.

But the thing is (figuratively speaking) once you were shown only one of the constellations you will always look for it first, not giving the other constellations (and other possible constellations that share stars with the former one) enough attention.

[Jyiber]

@OldTrees
I didn't say they weren't useful, I'm just saying that when it comes down to things that are more grounded in opinions than facts, it's sometimes better to create your own starting point. The axioms that are closer tied to a human element tend to be like this. The stars don't change, but people do.

[memimemi]

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.

People who tend to establish claims of truth, then seek corroborating evidence, as opposed to seeking evidence, then formulating truths, are all around us.  A short, non-comprehensive list would include:

- Creationists (or, if you prefer, 'Intelligent Design Theorists');
- 9/11 'Truthers' (or, if you prefer, insert fashionable conspiracy in place of 9/11);
- Aristotelian ethicists (teleology as ideals, anyone?);
- Socialists (USSR didn't work?  China only started thriving only after loosening social restrictions?  *No TRUE Scotsman!*)
- There are plenty more, but you get the picture.

To rehash a dusty old meme, it's more likely than you think.

'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.

There is a difference between the reasonable position you're portraying here, and the actual practicalities of life.  Mathematicians don't claim any absolute truths (outside of a few, I'm sure) - it's simply *IF* -> *then*.  If an axiom is found to be factually untenable, it's discarded (along with the logical superstructure built therefrom).  The difference between a mathematician and a dogmatist is the existence of 'if.'  'If 2 may sometimes = 3, then 2+2 may = 5,' is different in kind from 'it is so that 2 = 3, therefore 2+2 = 5' - when it fits with the rest of the theoretical structure.'

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?

I seek simply to explore the notion that I hold (possibly too dogmatically!), that dogma is antithetical to reason, learning, and the creation of new knowledge.  I likewise seek confirmation, or better yet, refutation, of the idea that dogmatic thinking (intellectual shorthand, perhaps?) is becoming either more prevalent in the modern West, or has remained constant despite our growing illusion of progress past it.

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.

That's fine and dandy, when dealing with reasoned arguments based on factual models of the world.  The thing is, the information retained when the glasses are removed often evaporates, as it's not so much information as bundles of assumptions based on unexplored (generally unquestionable without sanction) axioms ('dogma.')  Say I were to have lunch with a Lord of the Rings literalist (there are many books that *are* taken as THE Truth; insert your favourite here).  In order to have a pleasant lunch, I smile and nod as she recounts the great truth of Frodo's sacrifices to save the whole of Middle-Earth, and consequently all of mankind.  Dutifully putting on my LOtR true believer glasses, I hungrily eat up all of the implications of Saruman's betrayal, the madness of Denethor, the flight of Gwailor, and a million other details besides.

My question to you, sixers, is this: what of that information should I retain as useful, when I remove the lenses and accept that LotR is a work of fiction?  When I realize that my friend is wasting her life away, searching for ents?  Seems silly?  Is it still silly if we swap out LotR for, say, the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, or the Communist Manifesto? 


So glad to see the variety of folks interested in this sort of thing!

[OldTrees]

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.

People who tend to establish claims of truth, then seek corroborating evidence, as opposed to seeking evidence, then formulating truths, are all around us.  A short, non-comprehensive list would include:

- Creationists (or, if you prefer, 'Intelligent Design Theorists');
- 9/11 'Truthers' (or, if you prefer, insert fashionable conspiracy in place of 9/11);
- Aristotelian ethicists (teleology as ideals, anyone?);
- Socialists (USSR didn't work?  China only started thriving only after loosening social restrictions?  *No TRUE Scotsman!*)
- There are plenty more, but you get the picture.

To rehash a dusty old meme, it's more likely than you think.

Sorry for being unclear.
Most of those groups do not take the general position that I described (instead they grant their beliefs special privilege).
More importantly, have any of them showed up on this thread? No. So it is hard to find one that would come here for the discussion.

[sixers]

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.

That's fine and dandy, when dealing with reasoned arguments based on factual models of the world.  The thing is, the information retained when the glasses are removed often evaporates, as it's not so much information as bundles of assumptions based on unexplored (generally unquestionable without sanction) axioms ('dogma.')  Say I were to have lunch with a Lord of the Rings literalist (there are many books that *are* taken as THE Truth; insert your favourite here).  In order to have a pleasant lunch, I smile and nod as she recounts the great truth of Frodo's sacrifices to save the whole of Middle-Earth, and consequently all of mankind.  Dutifully putting on my LOtR true believer glasses, I hungrily eat up all of the implications of Saruman's betrayal, the madness of Denethor, the flight of Gwailor, and a million other details besides.

My question to you, sixers, is this: what of that information should I retain as useful, when I remove the lenses and accept that LotR is a work of fiction?  When I realize that my friend is wasting her life away, searching for ents?  Seems silly?  Is it still silly if we swap out LotR for, say, the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, or the Communist Manifesto? 

Well it's surely different when comparing say the Bible to the communist Manifesto.  If someone bases their world view around a literal ( or even figurative) interpretation of the bible, then I whole heartedly agree that maybe not much progress will be made in discussing important issues. Though, there are surely some important lessons that you can still get out of it. You may be able to see why people hold such beliefs, and why people do base their whole "ideology" around something so silly or seemingly trivial. And that might help you to understand their point of view. And you may be able to understand their arguments and deconstruct them in a way that are sensible even without ill-rooting.

But as you said, it works alot better when both parties are working with "factual interpretations of the world." Even if both people stand drastically opposed to the other's point of view, as long as we are both interpreting the same set of evidence to get to our respective conclusions, then I definitely think a lot of important discussion can be had, that will benefit both parties.

(sorry for my run on sentences, kinda rambling)

[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.

There is a difference between the reasonable position you're portraying here, and the actual practicalities of life.  Mathematicians don't claim any absolute truths (outside of a few, I'm sure) - it's simply *IF* -> *then*.  If an axiom is found to be factually untenable, it's discarded (along with the logical superstructure built therefrom).  The difference between a mathematician and a dogmatist is the existence of 'if.'  'If 2 may sometimes = 3, then 2+2 may = 5,' is different in kind from 'it is so that 2 = 3, therefore 2+2 = 5' - when it fits with the rest of the theoretical structure.'

I agreed in a previous post that continued belief in an axiom in the face of evidence against it is problematic. Claiming that '2=3' and trying to fit it into the 'normal' mathematical system is as absurd as claiming that 'jumping off the Grand Canyon will not kill you' and trying to fit that statement into a world with our sort of physics.

However, it can often difficult to find evidence against the 'coloured glasses' of many 'isms'.

Mathematical intuitionists, for example, see the world of mathematics from behind the 'coloured glasses' of a certain kind of constructivism, namely, with the assumption that mathematics is something created, not discovered. The mathematical system can looks very different from their perspective (stronger proofs are needed for many things, for example, and some generally accepted theorems no longer appear valid - e.g. double negation elimination), but, with these 'coloured glasses' on, they do not derive anything inconsistent (such as "1+1=3"). It is therefore difficult and, arguably, unreasonable to claim that their belief of mathematics being something purely subjective is 'wrong'.

Similarly, Marx (for example) recognized, by putting on certain coloured glasses, the concept of 'capital' as the alienation of value. The world looks different from this perspective: just as the intuitionist sees all mathematics as mental constructions, the Marxist suddently sees all capitalist economic relationships as alienated labour. Just as the intuitionist does not derive anything 'odd' by holding on to his/her belief, the Marxist does not come up with conclusions that are clearly contradicted by reality. And so, just as it is difficult to claim that intuitionists are wrong, it would be difficult to claim that Marxists are wrong.

[memimemi]

Well it's surely different when comparing say the Bible to the communist Manifesto.  If someone bases their world view around a literal ( or even figurative) interpretation of the bible, then I whole heartedly agree that maybe not much progress will be made in discussing important issues. Though, there are surely some important lessons that you can still get out of it. You may be able to see why people hold such beliefs, and why people do base their whole "ideology" around something so silly or seemingly trivial. And that might help you to understand their point of view. And you may be able to understand their arguments and deconstruct them in a way that are sensible even without ill-rooting.

But as you said, it works alot better when both parties are working with "factual interpretations of the world." Even if both people stand drastically opposed to the other's point of view, as long as we are both interpreting the same set of evidence to get to our respective conclusions, then I definitely think a lot of important discussion can be had, that will benefit both parties.

(sorry for my run on sentences, kinda rambling)

You're describing empathy; not truth.  Even without 'putting on the glasses' (I agree, poor metaphor, but I'm running with it anyways XD), of a, say, post-structuralist, I am not a priori incapable of both understanding and rejecting hir basic premises.  I, personally, go one further: it is impossible to properly refute a claim, without first understanding it.  That has nothing to do, however, with the actual value of the information contained in the dogma/ingrained thought structure/what have you. 

The difference between [you and I looking at the same facts, and disagreeing on their interpretation] and [you and I looking at different datasets, as filtered through already-existant assumptions as to what qualifies as a 'fact'] is wide.  Basically put, one can debate a person; not an ideology.  Ideology is either accepted, or not - a binary decision.  Interpretation of factual evidence is somewhat more nuanced.  As an example - you can debate a fundamentalist swami on what the *meaning* of religion is; good luck, however, on successfully presenting the evidence that Yoga is neither better nor worse than any other form of stretching, when it comes to one's well-being.  You can debate a Bible literalist as to *which* translation of the Bible is 'true;' the option 'none of the above' tends to be left off the docket, however.

My claim: the advances you see in such encounters happens *despite* ideological shadings - and only if the advances happen within proscribed spheres of knowledge.

Similarly, Marx (for example) recognized, by putting on certain coloured glasses, the concept of 'capital' as the alienation of value. The world looks different from this perspective: just as the intuitionist sees all mathematics as mental constructions, the Marxist suddently sees all capitalist economic relationships as alienated labour. Just as the intuitionist does not derive anything 'odd' by holding on to his/her belief, the Marxist does not come up with conclusions that are clearly contradicted by reality. And so, just as it is difficult to claim that intuitionists are wrong, it would be difficult to claim that Marxists are wrong.

Of course it's difficult to claim that Marxists are wrong - that option is left out of the debate, once the lenses are put on.  If Marxism could possibly be wrong, why is it so successful at explaining things when the Marxist goggles are in use? 

Quick answer: question begging, mingled with confirmation bias.  Your paragraph shows hints of both, as being valid ways of categorizing and interpreting facts.  “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” -Karl Marx, Friederich Engels, The Communist Manifesto.  Contrast that with '“A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.' -Karl Popper.  [it's Karl Day, I s'pose!]

One is the argument of the idealogue; one is not. 

Sorry for being unclear.
Most of those groups do not take the general position that I described (instead they grant their beliefs special privilege).
More importantly, have any of them showed up on this thread? No. So it is hard to find one that would come here for the discussion.

Ah, but my claim is that the granting of one's own biases special privilege is the hallmark of ideology, as contrasted with non-idealogical thinking.  The examples I listed were crude and obvious; the tricky part is examining the ideologies that not only grant themselves special, unquestionable truth values, but also have the same granted them by society as a whole.  In, say, theocratic Taliban Afghanistan, the claim 'Allah is Great' would be an example of the latter.  Or, more locally, the claim that 'the history of the West is the history of colonial oppression, and the reaping of the rewards thereof.'  [Yes, I've heard this one.  I'm sure you have, as well, in some form or another.]

As to your 'more important' claim, I can PM you the names of various dogmatists you've discussed things with, on these very fora.  I'm not out to publicly shame or denigrate anyone, but there is existential disproof of this claim.

[cometbah]

Of course it's difficult to claim that Marxists are wrong - that option is left out of the debate, once the lenses are put on.  If Marxism could possibly be wrong, why is it so successful at explaining things when the Marxist goggles are in use? 

Quick answer: question begging, mingled with confirmation bias.  Your paragraph shows hints of both, as being valid ways of categorizing and interpreting facts.  “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” -Karl Marx, Friederich Engels, The Communist Manifesto.  Contrast that with '“A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.' -Karl Popper.  [it's Karl Day, I s'pose!]

One is the argument of the idealogue; one is not. 

I agree that self-validating systems are problematic.

This progression, for example, would be highly problematic:

capitalism is alienating ---> alienating systems experience class struggles ---> there will be class struggle in capitalism ---> the existence of class struggle in capitalism indicates that capitalism is alienating

This, however, is not:

capitalism is alienating ---> alienating systems experience class struggles ---> there will be a class struggle in capitalism ---> I choose to support the revolutionary side in this struggle because I think capitalism is alienating and I don't like alienating systems

The first progression goes from 'I think capitalism is alienating' to 'I have proven capitalism is alienating', whereas the second goes from 'I think capitalism is alienating' to 'I don't like it', which is, I think, perfectly fine.

[OldTrees]

@cometbah
Most systems both have self checking premises and further conclusions drawn from those premises.

So the progression would be similar* to:
capitalism is alienating ---> alienating systems experience class struggles ---> there will be class struggle in capitalism
---> the existence of class struggle in capitalism indicates that capitalism is alienating*
and
 ---> I choose to support the revolutionary side in this struggle because I think capitalism is alienating and I don't like alienating systems

It is important to note that the first progression you listed does not go from 'I think capitalism is alienating' to 'I have proven capitalism is alienating' it goes from 'I think capitalism is alienating' to 'I have proven "capitalism is alienating" is self consistent'.

*The example used is slightly off since we do not have a valid circular logic. Probably because it was simplified. However with the pattern of conclusions arising from your premise you should be able to uniquely identify your premise given enough of its conclusions provided it is self consistent.

[Jyiber]

The root of the problem is that everything "makes sense" if you have it explained in a logical way. The problem is identifying the errors of the key points in the said argument.

For instance, communism looks awesome on paper. However, the error in the logic is thinking that the implementation of such an awesome looking plan wouldn't be riddled with the same problems, namely, human self interest. Why has no communist government ever reached it's final stage of "everyone owns everything" and "everyone is treated fairly"? The transition phase of the plan get locked up when the ruling military decides it likes being on top.

Let's look at North Korea. The rich ruling class gets to be well fed and have luxuries, the obedient citizens get just enough food not to die of starvation, and unlucky people, as well as opposition, get to die in concentration camps. There's definitely no alienation in that system, is there?

Welcome to capitalism, where we accept the fact that people in general are greedy and/or looking out for themselves. Then we give everyone the opportunity to make it to the top (assuming they can be cutthroat enough).

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of some forms of socialism. There is that one irrational argument  that socialists are communists in disguise, which is stretched argument at best. I think there are many governments that function fine on a capitalist/socialist hybrid.

[OldTrees]

The root of the problem is that everything "makes sense" if you have it explained in a logical way. The problem is identifying the errors of the key points in the said argument.

True. However it is important to note that in more cases (especially the case you gave) the errors occur downwind of the base premises. As such you can correct such argument while still granting the base premises. (Aka "With the glasses still on", "Speaking the same language", "On the same page" ...)

So while the naive argument for communism does forget implementation issues, the more sophisticated arguments specifically address implementation issues. (Successfully or not is another topic)

[Jyiber]

True. However it is important to note that in more cases (especially the case you gave) the errors occur downwind of the base premises. As such you can correct such argument while still granting the base premises. (Aka "With the glasses still on", "Speaking the same language", "On the same page" ...)

So while the naive argument for communism does forget implementation issues, the more sophisticated arguments specifically address implementation issues. (Successfully or not is another topic)

Also true. But even when you circumvent for those issues, there still lies the possibility of the infamous human error. I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be done because it never worked before, I'm just arguing that all the other guys said "that won't happen to us".

It's to be noted, that a common problem is for the subject to respond in an irrational way to your valid argument. This usually manifests as them ignoring it. Seeing this from their point of view can help get the argument across, but you can debate irrational.