"If bias affects anyone then it affects everyone. So if bias is an obstacle to knowledge of objective truth, then we can't know truth."
That's the argument now.
Three quick notes.
That's the argument now.
Three quick notes.
First, at least we're contemplating the possibility that bias is a problem. I'll take it, I guess.
Second, bias most certainly affects every human, and it most certainly presents an obstacle to knowledge of objective truth.
So, by this logic, it follows that we can't know truth.¹
So, by this logic, it follows that we can't know truth.¹
This is the conservative evangelical caricature of postmodernism: skepticism, nihilism, and relativism all running amok in the absence of objective truth.
And *obviously* postmodernism is false. (That's an axiom of the culture war.) So bias must not be a serious problem.
And *obviously* postmodernism is false. (That's an axiom of the culture war.) So bias must not be a serious problem.
This kind of argument is called a 'reductio ad absurdem' (i.e., reduce to absurdity):
"If bias is really a ubiquitous problem then [insert boogeyman here] must be true.
But clearly [insert boogeyman here] is false!
So it must be false that bias is really a ubiquitous problem."
"If bias is really a ubiquitous problem then [insert boogeyman here] must be true.
But clearly [insert boogeyman here] is false!
So it must be false that bias is really a ubiquitous problem."
Prepare yourself for some exquisite irony in 3... 2... 1...
It's just a fact that bias interferes with cognition. You can't brush facts aside with a reductio argument.
That's not how logic works.
It's just a fact that bias interferes with cognition. You can't brush facts aside with a reductio argument.
That's not how logic works.
If P is a fact, and P entails that Q is true, then Q is true.
How you feel about Q is perfectly irrelevant.
In other words, facts (and logic) don't care about your feelings. 😎
How you feel about Q is perfectly irrelevant.
In other words, facts (and logic) don't care about your feelings. 😎
So (ironically) by maintaining that the ubiquity of bias entails [postmodern boogeyman], folks who argue this way have--whether they like it or not--committed themselves to embracing their very own [postmodern boogeyman].
Because the ubiquity of bias is a fact (like it or not).²
Because the ubiquity of bias is a fact (like it or not).²
Third, I can safely reject [postmodern boogeyman], because I reject the notion that acknowledging bias is incompatible with embracing truth.
"But how could that be?!" you ask. 😲
Prepare to be astonished.
"But how could that be?!" you ask. 😲
Prepare to be astonished.
Christian morality actually offers resources for overcoming bias. (Are there other routes? Sure. But I'm a Christian. So I'll start there.)
Here are two, straight from the Bible (on any remotely plausible reading):
Here are two, straight from the Bible (on any remotely plausible reading):
1. Listen to other people and do everything you possibly can to acknowledge the truth contained in their perspective--as if that person is made in the very image of God.
2. Seek to put others' interest before your own. Make a habit of it, cognitively and socially.
2. Seek to put others' interest before your own. Make a habit of it, cognitively and socially.
¹ I hasten to emphasize: *by this logic*--i.e., according to the material conditional (the 'if... then' statement) at the core of the argument. The antecedent (between the 'if' and the 'then') is most certainly true.
So if, as they claim, the conditional is true, it follows that the consequent (the part after the 'then') must be true.
² I'm perfectly aware that the argument will change next week or next month, and my interlocutors will forget that they ever committed themselves to this entailment. c'est la vie.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
