Losing Objectivity

Hi, Ringo. I completely agree. As an example, I offer science.Individual scientists are brutal, arrogant people who generally always have an agenda to push, so anybody who thinks objectivity can be found at the level of individual scientists is a blissfully ignorant sap. "Big name" scientists become big name scientists by having a line to sell, not by doing good science.However, in the case of science, the community is not just the sum of its parts, and the collective activities of the community as a whole tend to approximate objectivity much better, even though none of the parts accomplish this.I'm a rather sensitive person when it comes to things like this, so I have to keep reminding myself that, in the long run, science will not suffer just because, e.g., some jackass editor insists that I can't say what everybody else who's read the manuscript---as well as the entire body of existing literature on the subject---agrees I can justify with my data.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

When you're physically ill, you need to recognize that you can't solve the problem by yourself. I'm not convinced that adding techniques for self-medication is a good idea. The more tools you have, the less likely you are to admit that you can't fix it yourself.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

All the time? Are you sure? Do you apply this all the time to yourself, even?
What if it's not all that serious?
What if you can actually solve the problem by yourself? I agree with you when talking about certain people.
But not all people.
I believe that a certain group of people exist that have enough self-control (in the form of self-honesty) that they can benefit from a personal, self-analysis such the one I discussed.

How many people die of a brain tumor because it was "just a headache"? Even doctors shouldn't medicate themselves. Every creationist on earth puts himself in that group. I prefer to stay out of that group.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

How many people clog the medical system by forcing a doctor to waste time focusing on their obviously minimal issues instead of actually helping people who need it?I'm not saying the side of the issue you're talking about doesn't exist. I agree with you that the method I'm proposing is A) minimally secondary and B) should be used with the utmost care.But if you're trying to say it's useless, you'll have to do more than simply assert that some people exist where it would be detrimental. And I'm saying, that this is impossible for some situations. There are people/situations that exist where double-checking with other people is not always an option.

The problem is that the people who are most likely to use your method are the least likely to use it with care. I don't believe in encouraging people to do what they're already doing too much. Then you can't expect to be objective in those situations.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

How so?I would argue that the people you're talking about don't care enough to investigate or attempt to understand the method I've described. I think they would just ignore such things all together.What makes you think that folk-who-think-they're-great-at-being-objective would waste their time investigating ways to be more objective?Isn't it more reasonable to assume that the only people who would search out and attempt to investigate this method would be those who are honest enough with themselves to understand that they may not know everything yet? And I believe in trying to help each and every one of us reach our full potential in any and all ways.If you have an idea on how my method cannot possibly help in any fashion, then I'm all ears.

But they think they're already doing it.You seem to be preaching to the choir. You're saying, "Well done, keep doing what you're doing," but the fellow with his hand in the poor box thinks you're talking to him.I'm not saying you shouldn't encourage the choir. I'm just saying that the negative effects might outweigh the positive.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

Well, I haven't lost my objectivity, but I have lost a lot of tolerance for things like denialism. It's one thing to not understand something, or being incapable of understanding something, or simply have a different take on something, but to simply deny it because you don't want to believe it when the real evidence and proof is there in front of your face.Basically, it's like watching Bait Car. A person is caught stealing a car on tape, and in some cases shown the tape and they still sit there and deny they stole the car. That kind of stupidity I no longer have any tolerance for. That's just the kind of thing one can't really be objective about. Not to mention dishonesty and dishonest tactics.For objectivity, I want to see real evidence, not just claims, anecdotes, and arguments. It's the evidence that will convince me of something is true or not.

Sounds rational. How does one go about doing this? Should you do this in public? In front of the police? My girlfriend?Should I join a different forum where I take on the role of creationist? Negotiate the price of my morning coffee with the young ladies at the QuickTrip? Refuse to acknowledge the usual and customary meaning of a stop light? Walk in and just set myself up in the president's office?How would one know if this "practice" is sufficiently irrational? Do I get arrested? slapped? And If I am not irrational enough to get in trouble for it how can I be sure I was really being irrational?Another problem, if you could, please. If I practice being irrational it is because I recognize what irrational is. If I have fallen into an actual bout of irrationality it is because I recognize my actions as being rational. Even after practicing being irrational and knowing it doesn't fell rational how would I even suspect?I'm thinking, rationally, that maybe I have no idea what you're getting at. Got any examples?

By being irrational on purpose, and making sure that you acknowledge it as such. You can do it wherever you like. I wouldn't recommend any of those later ideas, they all seem very extreme.
I'm sure that using your imagination to create a silly story, or choosing the blue t-shirt over the red one some generic morning would do just fine. The point is in acknowledging the irrationality and therefore helping your brain to identify it. The point is not to be so extreme as to break the law or disregard the rights of other people.You do understand that irrational things can be productive and good as well, right?
Things like poetry, art and guessing are irrational. It is sufficiently irrational if it is not objectively rational.
If you cannot identify rationality vs. irrationality without requiring some form of punishment, then this tool is beyond the point of helping you. I'm not claiming this as a method for becoming objective.
I'm claiming this as a simple tool for helping one stay objective. Not the best tool. Not the only tool. Just a tool.
This tool will never 100% prevent losing objectivity. And it's quite possible that the scenario you describe here could still happen none-the-less. I'm just saying that this is a viable possibility for helping.

Stile it sounds like you are trying to say that everyone should play "devils advocate" from time to time. I can live with that. I do so sometimes in order to see if I can find anything to support some peoples claims. But usualy all I do is reinforce my own beliefs.