Reality Through Values
Current Affairs, Psychology, Science February 25th, 2010I have had a few recent experiences with people cherry picking evidence for arguments and I was interested in reading Dan Kahan view:
“Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values,” says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project.
Kahan says people test new information against their preexisting view of how the world should work.
“If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way,” he says.
And if the information doesn’t, you tend to reject it. NPR
AC1
February 25th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
“Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values,”
This seems pretty self-evident.
‘Kahan says people test new information against their preexisting view of how the world should work.’
Could get into a discussion on scientific method here – depending on the status of the “information” do we mean “information” as in experimental confirmation of a hypothesis (aka data), or simply just a hypothesis (theory)? Both are types of information and I would have thought the status of these different types of information profoundly affect the way in which people react to it…
“If the implication, the outcome, can affirm your values, you think about it in a much more open-minded way,” he says.
And if the information doesn’t, you tend to reject it’
This is an interesting post. I must read more of this guy.
I pretty much agree with that which he says but I worry a little bit about it being a value judgement…
Like I said need to read more, but what does he class as “information”?
Furthermore what kind of person is ideal? Someone who perpetually has an open-mind for new information?
If so such a person who is ready to dismiss old previously accepted information with new more value affirming information (and i’m actually thinking somewhat in a scientific sense here) must de facto be prepared to devalue the status of “information” from objective to some form of subjective/relative … or objective pro tempore (for the time being until “better” information comes along).
There is nothing wrong with this style of thinking (i.e. open minded) but it is a double-edged sword, the open-minded person can be ironically closed-minded when confronted with non-open-minded people (i’m thinking evolutionists vs creationists) whereby it is the open-minded who control and define what is and what isnt “information” and to what extent that information is valid, valuable and admissable.
It is a great pain when the closed-minded can’t see the error of their ways and submit to the new “information” (tongue in cheek) for they are apostates from what is rational and sane (and by implication good).
On a different note:
“I have had a few recent experiences with people cherry picking evidence for arguments”
Is not all argument so presented? (Note I am dissillusioned with the classic argument style in philosophy hence my cynicism).
Every argument (including logical ones) are closed systems operating according to rules and functions of their own, no argument can ever by definition be universal for it would have no coherent structure, no direction (and all argument is is guided debate, even when sincere, it is still coercion really)… thus I reject arguments as being worthless, they are nothing more than rhetorical theatre, designed to win over opponents on grounds of style much more than substance.
p.s. I dont want to argue about this … lol
March 1st, 2010 at 8:53 am
Happiness ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, New Scientist
March 1st, 2010 at 11:19 pm
I finished On the Origin of Species… review, from a philosophical perspective pending…
AC1