Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   On Objectivity and the Mindless Middle
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 1 of 2 (549198)
03-04-2010 7:11 PM


On this forum, as on any debate forum, the topic of objectivity vs. subjectivity is often raised. Some of us try to maintain objectivity in our arguments; others make no claims of objectivity at all. Some members adhere rigorously to facts; others are convinced that religious experiences and dogma show that the "facts" have been misinterpreted. In all of these cases, we all fight (or attempt to fight) the innate problems of human bias, the inevitable coloring of our interpretation of facts by our own already-established opinions.
And then there is the Mindless Middle.
quote:
Objective
5. Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased
Maintaining objectivity in an argument is the practice of arguing on facts and logic alone, with no input from personal emotions or opinions. The focus is on that which is objective, that which exists outside of the mind. None of us are perfect at this; some of us don't even try.
The human mind is influenced to an unbelievably large degree by our subconscious, a creature that has evolved to deal not with a world of logic and reason, of statistics and mathematics and observations, but rather a world of immediate action, of real predators that may be lurking in the shadows, and a world that was impossible to control to any great degree.
Our subconscious mind makes snap decisions for us; decisions we are not consciously aware of, but that we feel as a sort of "gut instinct." While our conscious mind is fully capable of rationality, or impassionate logic and reason, we are constantly assailed by the immediate conclusions of our subconscious mind - conclusions that are based not on facts and evidence, but on previous personal experience and instinct.
This emotional mind colors our perceptions. It can cause us to recognize false patterns and "see" something out of the corner of our eye - a useful survival instinct when there may, in fact, be a predator lurking in the shadows (it's not paranoia, after all, if they really are trying to eat you), but significantly less so when testifying in a trial as to the identity of the person you barely glimpsed. Our subconscious mind considers events of significant emotional impact (things we desire greatly, like wining the lottery, or fear greatly, like terrorism) to be more likely or at least worthy of a response than events of low emotional impact (traffic fatality statistics). Our subconscious cannot even differenciate between fantasy and reality; to the subconscious mind, a dream and a memory create equal familiarization - an emotionally charged dream will color our "gut feelings" more than a bland but detailed memory.
Most relevant in here, however, is our innate desire for fairness. It doesn't matter whether this is the result of cultural influence or an actual built-in instinct. The fact is, most of us have a tendency to prefer solutions that we consider "fair." Unfortunately, our subconscious mind, as earlier noted, doesn't even pretend to try to obtain all (or even any) of the facts before making its decision. Instead, it takes what is immediately available in terms of information, previous experience, and even fantasy.
The result is the Mindless Middle - the position that interprets "objectivity" as maintaining "fairness" to all parties - regardless of factual accuracy. That sense of fairness, like our other subconscious "gut feelings," has its place (for example, choosing a fair punishment for a crime), but only when guided by the rational, conscious mind.
"Teach the Controversy" is one of the results of Mindless Middle arguments. The thought is that by "telling both sides," objectivity is maintained. This, of course, is false: objectivity is maintained only by impassionately following the available facts to whatever logical colcusions they may lead, regardless of emotional impact, personal preference, or human bias. In teh case of the Evolution vs. Creation debate, available scientific facts and theories lead inexoribly to an old Earth in an older Universe, where life has increased in diversity over time through descent with modification guided by natural and sexual selection and genetic drift. Fairness is propagated by "telling both sides" of the Evolution vs. Creation dispute, but Objectivity gets the short stick.
In any given dispute, the Mindless Middle tell us that "truth" lies somewhere between both extremes.
The facts tell us otherwise: sometimes one side is completely wrong; sometimes one side is compeltely right; and sometimes nobody is even close.
We see this effect in politics as well. Many people consider both Republicans and Democrats (here in the US, anyway) to be examples of two extremes, and that the "Correct" course of action lies somewhere in betweenthe right and left.
There is no analysis of fact in such a position. In any given debate (say, raise taxes vs. lower taxes), very few people even look at the budget and create a cogent, logical, and factually-supported arguemnt. Instead, either personal preference takes over ("it's MY money, you can't have it,") or the Mindless Middle ("maybe we should compromise, and do a little of each") typically hold sway. No facts are investigated, but the Mindless Middle considers itself to be "objective" because it didn't "take sides."
This is not to say that one "side" or another is always right, and the other always wrong. In the real world, binary debates are rare; even in the Evolution vs. Creation debate we don't have two sides - instead we have Theistic, Atheistic, and Agnostic Evolution supporters who will each argue amongst themselves even if they all support the Theory of Evolution (see Straggler and RAZD's famous arguments as an example). On the otehr side we have Old and Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design proponents (who may or may not classify themselves with or against the Theory of Evolution), a multitude of different religious perspectives, and all manner of other "sides" that flavor the debate.
In this case "objectivity" is not some philosophical chimaera made from every point of view. Only an emotionless analysis of the facts can grant an objective conclusion.
The Mindless Middle is so named because, at it's core, it is the thoughtless "gut feeling" that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I say "thoughtless," and I mean that term quite literally - there is no thought performed, no analysis of fact, that leads to the conclusion. In a debate on whetehr the Earth is flat or round, the Mindless Middle wouldn;t even attempt to look at orbital photographs or mathematical derivations of the curvature of the planet, but would isntead say that the Earth is something between flat and round (perhaps a square? More likely a hemisphere).
How to we avoid the Mindless Middle and maintain real objectivity?
By paying attention to the definition of the word "objective" (specifically, definition 5).
"Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased"
We maintain objectivity by shunning emotional reactions, including the emotional preference for "fairness." We maintain objectivity by focusing on the facts available to us, and only the facts, and drawing logically consistent conclusions. We maintain objectivity by disregarding the number of proponents and opponents involved, the number and degree of other conclusions, and remembering that not all conclusions and positions are mutually exclusive. Perhaps most importantly, we maintain objectivity by acknowledging that which we do not know, because otherwise our subconscious mind will fill in the unknowns for us, and it is always possible that all of us are wrong because we do not have all of the facts.
This is why the scientific method includes the reproduction of results and peer review. Peer review is not a popularity contest, as some people seem to believe. When we say that there is a "scientific concensus" that a given model is accurate, it has nothing to do with the number of people involved. Instead, it means that many independant minds attempted to objectively analyze the theory, and were unable to find any logical inconsistencies in teh conclusion, any errors in the methodology, and that the results were readily repeatable on demand. By asking multiple independant teams for criticism, we attempt to eliminate any inherent personal bias.
Why by objective in the first place?
Hoping, wishing, dreaming, fearing, and believing have nothing to do with whether a given statement is true or not. Despite what Oprah and some of her guests say, "positive thinking" by itself will do nothing. You can't wish yourself into a winning lottery ticket; no matter how badly a starving man in the desert wants food, his desires do nothing.
Whether we believe that life's variety is the result of evolution, or special Creation, or an extraterrestrial High School genetics project gone wild, has absolutely no relevance as to which one (if any) has any degree of accuracy.
Only objectivity allows us to be reasonably assured that our conclusions accurately reflect the real world external to our minds. If wishes were wings, we wouldn't need airplanes.
EDIT - "Is it science?" I should think.
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 2 (549234)
03-05-2010 5:39 AM


Thread Copied to Is It Science? Forum
Thread copied to the On Objectivity and the Mindless Middle thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024