我们似乎知道很多关于我们自己和我们周围世界的事实，即使还有很多我们不知道的事实。但是我们怎么知道我们所相信的是真的知识呢?我们的信仰是否既正确又真实，但仍然不能算作真正的知识?如果是这样，那么我们到底应该对自己的信仰有多少信心呢?有没有一种方法可以在麻痹的怀疑主义和教条的信念之间取得平衡?John and Ken know that their guest is Baron Reed from Northwestern University, co-editor ofSkepticism: From Antiquity to the Present.
Part of a six-part series onIntellectual Humility.
How can we avoid dogmatic arrogance but also avoid the paralysis of doubt? We ought to avoid cutting ourselves from opposing viewpoints, but at the same time we ought to avoid becoming susceptible to invalid viewpoints -- like those of climate denial. How can we balance skepticism and dogmatism?
John and Ken are joined by Baron Reed, associate professor of philosophy at Northwestern University and author of The Long Road to Skepticism. Baron discusses his early fascination with David Hume’s skepticism and how his line of questioning radically destabilized people’s worldviews and sense of reality. Baron also argues that there are varying kinds of knowledge and how competence in one kind does not transfer onto others.
Ken brings into the conversation recent psychological research that appears to demonstrate that the human brain is not wired to accept new points of view. Baron, however, responds that this impulsive nature to close our minds can be overcome, especially if one pays attention to instances when we have to rethink our positions.
Baron further argues that knowledge need not be defined in terms of absolute certainty, as you could claim to have knowledge even if there is potential room for doubt. This is important when it comes to issues that are complicated by “merchants of doubt,” like organizations that deny climate change or the harmful effects of smoking. In these cases, it’s not always 100% provable without any sliver of doubt, but that does not mean that the positive claims put forward are valid.
In this domain, philosophy can be understood as one of the most practical fields of study, as it trains individuals to come up with the best possible argument for a given point of view and to thoroughly address an opposing argument in its most convincing form. Philosophy in this sense is less an accumulation of doctrines and more an attitude and orientation of questioning toward the world.
Comments(4)
Harold G. Neuman
Friday, September 6, 2019 -- 8:08 AM
This entire subject reminds这整个主题让我想起了现在著名的唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德对“已知的已知”的解释;“未知的事情”;"未知的未知"之类的。当他完成关于这一切的长篇演说时，我非常确定他的分析是虚假的——试图听起来很有学识，但却把情报、反情报和反反情报的主题弄得越来越浑(有点像比尔·盖恩斯的《疯狂杂志》里的间谍大战间谍)。在休谟之前和之后，哲学家们都告诫我们要清楚我们所知道的东西，而不是在缺乏充分和无可争议的证据的情况下相信我们知道一件事。不幸的是，这说明了决策者在设计马时所面临的困境(参见之前的PT文章，关于做出决定的困难程度)。公共知识分子受到了无数的批评，因为他们所拥护的思想和支持的事业在某种程度上没有达到诚实的标准，这让我很高兴没有站在他们的立场上。撇开大脑神经网络的研究不谈，我喜欢挑战自己，把那些难以“理解”的事情“拼凑”出来。通过这种“跳出空间”的方法，我(尽可能地)避免了先入之见和其他形式的偏见，使我能够考虑不可能或不太可能的想法和结果。我很感激道格和丹给了我这个顿悟。 An open mind is a terrible thing to eschew.
Harold G. Neuman
Friday, September 6, 2019 -- 8:13 AM
Sorry for the confusion (ifSorry for the confusion (if there was any...). The third part of the 'knowns' portion of the first sentence in my comment should have read: 'unknown unknowns'. I have edited that accordingly. It didn't look right in the first place, but I was in a hurry---not usual for me...
Harold G. Neuman
Friday, September 20, 2019 -- 12:17 PM
I looked at the 2017 post onI looked at the 2017 post on this subject and tried to tie all of it together, particularly the piece on intellectual humility. Reading Wilfrid Sellars for the past week of so helped me some because of his updated take on a remark originally made by Kant (the likes of which escapes me right now). Anyway, Sellars said: "Philosophy, without the history of philosophy, if not empty or blind, is at least DUMB" (emphasis mine). Your earlier post, regarding disregarding 'the Canons', led me to the response I gave on that one, which, was more-or-less, the same thing Wilf said. Intellectual humility is another matter, and one which has plagued philosophers since at least the Enlightenment. They were, as you know, prone to refer to common folk as 'the vulgar'because of their decided lack of intellect. This, of course, would have not been endearing (putting it mildly).
In another sense, Kant's questions come back to mind: What can I know?; What must I do?; What may I expect?; What is man?. Herr Kant clearly wanted to know all he could about everything he could know about. He was not necessarily being intellectually arrogant, but neither was he humble. But, if we consider that last question we must wonder how it fits with the first three? If Kant could get good answers to those, the final question would have answered itself. And so, perhaps intellectual humility is, itself, a conundrum?...If we know more than, as a practical matter,we need to know, are we over-stepping our dance-card? Intellectual humility may come with knowing when to keep one's mouth shut.
RepoMan05
Friday, September 27, 2019 -- 8:32 AM
You cant know what you dontYou cant know what you dont know. Not usually, anyway.
还有，真的有什么办法可以既不侮辱智商呢?我认为没有。每一个字对他们自己来说都是大众谬误的论据。
People just have to accept that being offended isnt a right.
Government cant and shouldnt stop anyone from being offended.
Remember smokey bear.