No, flat earthers happen because of trusting people too much, not being sceptical. Scepticism gets you not knowing the shape of the earth, but thinking it fairly likely that it is round.
flat earthers happen because of trusting people too much
I think the reason they end up trusting other flat earthers is because they’re being skeptical of science and authority in the first place though. Since the majority of the trusts the world is round, if it were only a matter of too much trust they would have no issue trusting scientists. It is ironic they are sceptical to all kinds of scientific proof but not to this community of reality-deniers though.
It’s good to be sceptical of authority, and of the institution of Science with a capital S. Science is a method to find truth, not a system of experts and publications and exploitative journals. If you do your own experiments, you will find that the Earth is round, as in Behind The Curve. You can also trust the institution of Science, to a degree, bearing in mind the factors that cause bias within it.
Trusting a small group of leaders over the majority of people is a very common tactic in small cults, eg Flat Earthers, Antivaxxers, Radical Islam, Judaism, etc
There’s that–that kind of cult of personality mindset–but also I think they just choose which people they want to trust and call it objectivity. We all do it to an extent, it’s just a matter of how much intellectual and emotional legwork you put in before deciding which sources you trust (but I agree: conditionally, you should re-assess to what extend you trust your sources from time to time).
Don’t trust any sources unconditionally, to call it truth. You can decide for low stakes things, it can be worth it to act as though some things to trust are true, but all you can really know is that you exist as a thinking being. Practical knowledge which you use, in the basis of probabilities, to navigate the empirical world, is not synonymous with truth. And even in the empirical world’s practical knowledge, it is very low probability that the world is flat. The methods of science and experimentation are good methods for finding good probabilities for empirical knowledge, and they demonstrate that the Earth is very likely round.
I wouldn’t consider those examples to meet the definition of ‘critical thinking,’ from what I understand it to be. In fact, they’re kind of the exact opposite.
I would interpret those examples as just being “critical” or biased towards something.
OK so down the chain you clarified that you meant selective critical thinking. Sure, I mean, It’s not even just right wingers who do this; decent people do it too.
That being said, I think it’s inherent in critical thinking that it is not selective. That’s a fundamental feature. So I wouldn’t agree that critical thinking has gotten us into anything…
I think it depends on what your end goal is. Like if your ideal state is a world without pain or suffering, then you’re going to land at different points of the critical thinking investigation than if you’re xenophobic and can’t handle anyone but seconds cousins being in your vicinity.
So yeah, critical thinking is a great tool, but I agree doesn’t come with empathy built-in.
I dont know… Critical thinking has gotten us to some pretty dark times recently. It needs to be the right kind of critical thinking
You can’t think that mindlessly believing what people tell you is better than evaluating it for yourself.
Within reason of course. Going too far with trusting personal observations and second guessing all other information is how you get flat earthers
No, flat earthers happen because of trusting people too much, not being sceptical. Scepticism gets you not knowing the shape of the earth, but thinking it fairly likely that it is round.
Never. Unconditionally. Trust. Anyone.
I think the reason they end up trusting other flat earthers is because they’re being skeptical of science and authority in the first place though. Since the majority of the trusts the world is round, if it were only a matter of too much trust they would have no issue trusting scientists. It is ironic they are sceptical to all kinds of scientific proof but not to this community of reality-deniers though.
It’s good to be sceptical of authority, and of the institution of Science with a capital S. Science is a method to find truth, not a system of experts and publications and exploitative journals. If you do your own experiments, you will find that the Earth is round, as in Behind The Curve. You can also trust the institution of Science, to a degree, bearing in mind the factors that cause bias within it.
Trusting a small group of leaders over the majority of people is a very common tactic in small cults, eg Flat Earthers, Antivaxxers, Radical Islam, Judaism, etc
There’s that–that kind of cult of personality mindset–but also I think they just choose which people they want to trust and call it objectivity. We all do it to an extent, it’s just a matter of how much intellectual and emotional legwork you put in before deciding which sources you trust (but I agree: conditionally, you should re-assess to what extend you trust your sources from time to time).
Don’t trust any sources unconditionally, to call it truth. You can decide for low stakes things, it can be worth it to act as though some things to trust are true, but all you can really know is that you exist as a thinking being. Practical knowledge which you use, in the basis of probabilities, to navigate the empirical world, is not synonymous with truth. And even in the empirical world’s practical knowledge, it is very low probability that the world is flat. The methods of science and experimentation are good methods for finding good probabilities for empirical knowledge, and they demonstrate that the Earth is very likely round.
Yes, conditionally
No. I also said that it need to be the right kind of critical thinking. I didn’t say no critical thinking
What’s the wrong kind of critical thinking? ‘I did my own research’?
It’s when you have an agenda or only are critical towards opinions that don’t suit your situation or opinions
I think we’ve seen plenty of that recently
I wouldn’t consider those examples to meet the definition of ‘critical thinking,’ from what I understand it to be. In fact, they’re kind of the exact opposite.
I would interpret those examples as just being “critical” or biased towards something.
The issue is, where to draw the line and who shpuld do it. Most people who believe in conspiracies, consider themselves critical thinkers
Those people are incorrect.
Should i just accept this or maybe be critical of your opinion? /s
OK so down the chain you clarified that you meant selective critical thinking. Sure, I mean, It’s not even just right wingers who do this; decent people do it too.
That being said, I think it’s inherent in critical thinking that it is not selective. That’s a fundamental feature. So I wouldn’t agree that critical thinking has gotten us into anything…
I think it depends on what your end goal is. Like if your ideal state is a world without pain or suffering, then you’re going to land at different points of the critical thinking investigation than if you’re xenophobic and can’t handle anyone but seconds cousins being in your vicinity.
So yeah, critical thinking is a great tool, but I agree doesn’t come with empathy built-in.