Wilson L. Deaton
6th February 2007, 12:00 PM (12:00)
Several different discussions have caused me to begin philosophizing on how we modern humans process data; most recently the link Scott posted on the global warming thread. I asked myself why would he accept that article while dismissing the U.N. report. From there I expanded my question to the more general notion of why any of us accepts one idea while rejecting another. I began to question the way we humans process data in general.
(Admittedly, my musings were precipitated by my own frustration with those who take and promote the view opposite mine. Thus, those areas are the areas I will use for examples. However, continued debate on the examples I mention should probably be restricted to the appropriate threads. In other words, don't debate global warming here. Do that on the global warming thread. Here, let's discuss how we evaluate not just global warming, but that and every other issue.)
Having said that, here is my social theory of human data processing.
We have lost the ability to interpret data subjectively. We have created so many “filters” that we can not recognize truth when we see it.
We proof-text: We can read 100 points of view and we’ll latch on to and quote the ones that support what we already believe while dismissing the ones with which we disagree. We do this regardless of source and credibility.
(Ironically and admittedly, I still maintain my opinions, but I’m going to use myself as the bad example here.)
The political filter: We read something that is disagreeable to us and immediately dismiss it as misleading or fabricated to further a political agenda. William Hunter and I have discussed and disagreed on the relationship between terrorists and Muslims. William says that the Koran, and Islam in general, is a religion of violence and hatred and that all true Muslims want to kill Christians. I disagree, so when I read something he posts on the topic I’m thinking that person who wrote it just wants to further the war effort, etc., and is just saying that stuff to enhance that position.
The financial filter: I accept that climate change is taking place and that we humans are causing it. Stan posted a column debunking the theory and I immediately latched on to the fact that it was sponsored by oil and therefore couldn’t be trusted. Meanwhile the gist of the article was that we who claim climate change is happening are doing so for the profit to be gained by the fear.
This same principle has been discussed with regard to Biblical interpretation for years. Develop any theological system and you will then read the Bible through that theological lens. Adherents to non-violence (like myself) will tend to downplay Old Testament war stories based on progressive revelation, etc. (and of course we think we are valid in doing so) while those who don’t accept non-violence will latch on to those Old Testament stories as normative while interpreting Jesus’ statements as being figurative language, etc.
Take global warming as another example. Thirty years ago we dismissed scientists who warned of this as being fringe extremists trying to make a name for themselves and that we should stick to the conservative majority. Now that climate change is the majority position of mainstream science we say it is some kind conspiracy theory aimed at furthering a political agenda or profiteering. The political filter applies as well. I honestly believe that there are people who will dismiss climate change for no other reason than that Al Gore says it is true.
When we read a report on global warming, or “facts” on some economic trend, or a commentary on the war, or a theological theory, etc. we immediately form an opinion. What we need to learn to do is to analyze why we formed the opinion we formed. Did we really consider the credibility, the logic, etc., or did we just run it through our conditioned filters?
Suppose the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had issued a report that said global warming is a myth and the perceived warming is a temporary result of natural cycles. Questions: Would everyone currently accusing them of political or economic conspiracy be touting them as being authoritative? Would people like me read the report and accept that we’ve been wrong? In other word do we judge the veracity of reports like this on some basis other than what we already believe?
(Let me reiterate that actual discussion on Muslms, global warming, etc. belong on those particular threads while we should limit comments here to the general concept of how we process data.)
Wilson
(Admittedly, my musings were precipitated by my own frustration with those who take and promote the view opposite mine. Thus, those areas are the areas I will use for examples. However, continued debate on the examples I mention should probably be restricted to the appropriate threads. In other words, don't debate global warming here. Do that on the global warming thread. Here, let's discuss how we evaluate not just global warming, but that and every other issue.)
Having said that, here is my social theory of human data processing.
We have lost the ability to interpret data subjectively. We have created so many “filters” that we can not recognize truth when we see it.
We proof-text: We can read 100 points of view and we’ll latch on to and quote the ones that support what we already believe while dismissing the ones with which we disagree. We do this regardless of source and credibility.
(Ironically and admittedly, I still maintain my opinions, but I’m going to use myself as the bad example here.)
The political filter: We read something that is disagreeable to us and immediately dismiss it as misleading or fabricated to further a political agenda. William Hunter and I have discussed and disagreed on the relationship between terrorists and Muslims. William says that the Koran, and Islam in general, is a religion of violence and hatred and that all true Muslims want to kill Christians. I disagree, so when I read something he posts on the topic I’m thinking that person who wrote it just wants to further the war effort, etc., and is just saying that stuff to enhance that position.
The financial filter: I accept that climate change is taking place and that we humans are causing it. Stan posted a column debunking the theory and I immediately latched on to the fact that it was sponsored by oil and therefore couldn’t be trusted. Meanwhile the gist of the article was that we who claim climate change is happening are doing so for the profit to be gained by the fear.
This same principle has been discussed with regard to Biblical interpretation for years. Develop any theological system and you will then read the Bible through that theological lens. Adherents to non-violence (like myself) will tend to downplay Old Testament war stories based on progressive revelation, etc. (and of course we think we are valid in doing so) while those who don’t accept non-violence will latch on to those Old Testament stories as normative while interpreting Jesus’ statements as being figurative language, etc.
Take global warming as another example. Thirty years ago we dismissed scientists who warned of this as being fringe extremists trying to make a name for themselves and that we should stick to the conservative majority. Now that climate change is the majority position of mainstream science we say it is some kind conspiracy theory aimed at furthering a political agenda or profiteering. The political filter applies as well. I honestly believe that there are people who will dismiss climate change for no other reason than that Al Gore says it is true.
When we read a report on global warming, or “facts” on some economic trend, or a commentary on the war, or a theological theory, etc. we immediately form an opinion. What we need to learn to do is to analyze why we formed the opinion we formed. Did we really consider the credibility, the logic, etc., or did we just run it through our conditioned filters?
Suppose the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had issued a report that said global warming is a myth and the perceived warming is a temporary result of natural cycles. Questions: Would everyone currently accusing them of political or economic conspiracy be touting them as being authoritative? Would people like me read the report and accept that we’ve been wrong? In other word do we judge the veracity of reports like this on some basis other than what we already believe?
(Let me reiterate that actual discussion on Muslms, global warming, etc. belong on those particular threads while we should limit comments here to the general concept of how we process data.)
Wilson