Methodologism
In general... I just cant feel like i'm actually objective and correct about things... I know that even the best in history have continuously failed - often not because they had too little information or skill - but because they were biased... The only solution I have come up with to make me as sure as possible that I didn't do mistakes like that is methodology.
In general, my generic definition of methodology is: a predefined system that tries to produce predefined results. A good methodology is a predefined system that successfully produces predefined results.
When you have an argument about politics for example... if you end up disagreeing, most usually both will at least in their minds accuse the opposition of bias... But how can we determine that objectively? I think that by concentrating less on the end results of human thinking and beliefs and more on the methodology of how one should think, agreement could be found more easily.
We talk a lot about arguments for and against specific issues, but in order to actually convince someone, its usually fruitless if they have a biased way of thinking about things in the first place. The problem is not usually in the people not knowing the data and arguments... The problem is in how they analyze the arguments... And because I think that its usually fruitless to even try to educate externally everyone about everything and it would be more efficient to just make everyone god tier capable and interested in educating themselves... We should probably concentrate more than anything on the methodology of how to think.
My proposition: Make critical thinking, objectivity and methodology for example by going through their history in different cultures a new separate subject that is as big as mathematics in general education... I'm a very secure student of history in my claim that nothing close to this has ever actually even been tried on a meaningful and functional scale... Why? Its an obvious thing to at least try. If it didn't work... the world would learn and so on. If it worked... Democracy would most probably make better decisions and the country that tried it first just got a big victory... very nice!
In general, my generic definition of methodology is: a predefined system that tries to produce predefined results. A good methodology is a predefined system that successfully produces predefined results.
When you have an argument about politics for example... if you end up disagreeing, most usually both will at least in their minds accuse the opposition of bias... But how can we determine that objectively? I think that by concentrating less on the end results of human thinking and beliefs and more on the methodology of how one should think, agreement could be found more easily.
We talk a lot about arguments for and against specific issues, but in order to actually convince someone, its usually fruitless if they have a biased way of thinking about things in the first place. The problem is not usually in the people not knowing the data and arguments... The problem is in how they analyze the arguments... And because I think that its usually fruitless to even try to educate externally everyone about everything and it would be more efficient to just make everyone god tier capable and interested in educating themselves... We should probably concentrate more than anything on the methodology of how to think.
My proposition: Make critical thinking, objectivity and methodology for example by going through their history in different cultures a new separate subject that is as big as mathematics in general education... I'm a very secure student of history in my claim that nothing close to this has ever actually even been tried on a meaningful and functional scale... Why? Its an obvious thing to at least try. If it didn't work... the world would learn and so on. If it worked... Democracy would most probably make better decisions and the country that tried it first just got a big victory... very nice!
Comments (17)
You wouldn't be the first person to recommend a radical program of critical thinking amongst their fellow creatures. Privileging a methodology for correct thinking will sound programmatic and dictatorial to many and is unlikely to gain adherents who may consider such an approach a technocratic imposition upon their worldview. In my view it is not the methodology of argumentation that is the issue, it's that people inhabit different worlds and simply don't apprehend things in the same way. I doubt that this is something that can be overcome readily using a process for thinking. I would also be skeptical of the idea of an 'objective' view of many subjects like politics - these are values derived and based upon the interpretive perspectives of human beings.
I wonder if this would backfire. Learning how to think, in my experience, comes from realising that an opinion you’ve held - one that was important to you or that you took for granted - is wrong. Perhaps if you taught a load of people a “methodology of how to think” they’d wind up believing anyway whatever was popular, and how could they possibly be wrong: “We know how to think; we learned it in school!”
I read a suggestion once that we could do well by teaching young pupils only Latin and Ancient Greek: they take discipline to learn, they incorporate history and literature, and you don’t learn from them *what* to think; students can decide on that for themselves by studying other subjects separately, and later as specialisations when they reach adult education.
I can't see this working. The so called scientific method is problematic even to philosophers of science. This is a worldview - you affirming its value is just you valuing what you already value. Teaching people the right way to think implies there is a right way to think. (It also has Stalinist overtones) The matter of divergent views is considerably more nuanced that this.
That's my point. It can't be done. Your whole project is predicated on a critique of people's current worldview and values. This is bound to generate resentment.
Why not provide an example of your idea in action because so far it is just a series of not so clear principles. Let's take one issue, let's say a political issue. Can you drill down into this and demonstrate how it would work? How would you balance out a religious worldview - perhaps Evangelical Christianity versus a scientific view?
Quoting Qmeri
What you’re saying here seems incongruous, like you’re advocating first *against* and then *for* having a particular methodology for arriving at our beliefs.
I think most of what you say here sounds dubious. Here are some problems:
Quoting Qmeri
You are not going to get agreement on what objective facts are. Even the term 'objective facts' is a contestable anachronism.
Quoting Qmeri
This seems naïve.
Quoting Qmeri
Current teaching does not say this. Some teaching says, 'creationism is right. science is wrong.' Reconcile this? We are back to world views and ways of seeing.
Quoting Qmeri
You haven't provided a method yet or substantively addressed my question. You seem to be just making claims or motherhood statements about education which are not backed up with a method.
If you hand students a methodology that when followed brings them to the conclusion that creationism is wrong and mark them on how well they follow this methodology/reach its conclusion, then really you’re teaching them *what* to think, not *how* to think. It’s just that the ‘what they should think’ now includes this methodology you’ve given them.
Keeping with the example of creationism, someone might simply choose to believe this because it comes with a community and a sense of purpose; people have always told fables as a source of inspiration and a way of seeing the world more richly. Science is a purposefully blinkered subject and is brimming with political and ideological bias—to teach according to its methodologies (which is what I interpret you as proposing) seems to be just another bias.
Sure, given the way you describe your view here I have some sympathy for it.