# How often do you question what you think?



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I pride myself, rightly or wrongly, on forming my world-view in accordance with evidence. Even so, no one mind is capable of substantiating everything, so, like everyone else, I necessarily trust in things and believe in ideas that I could not argue from an empirical standpoint (usually because someone else has already done the work for me, but also on complex political or moral questions where I certainly view some things based on intuition, though I am always open to having my intuition shown to be wrong).

It seems to me that the best way for somebody to live their life and form their opinions is to often undertake a systematic questioning of everything they think and why they think it. How often do you defer to authority, to consensus, to hear-say, to culture? If you were really pressed on an idea, could you at least give a coherent account of the underlying principles? Have you gone in search of data and peer-review of your own accord, or are you taking the word of usually trustworthy sources? These questions are applicable to absolutely everything you think - political, religious, moral, ethical, scientific, aesthetic, etc.

I think always being aware of the need for this is important because no matter what framework you use to assess the world, whether you pride yourself on rationality or not, we all have the potential to default to a lazy, trusting routine, forming opinions in accordance with a familiar group rather than on first principles, extrapolating from previous knowledge and experience instead of challenging ourselves every step of the way. Particularly recently, whenever any thought has come into my head, I've made a habit of thinking, "but _why_ do you think that? Where's the evidence? What's the rationale?" Sometimes I help myself form a more nuanced perspective by arguing with myself. Sometimes I simply can't answer and so realise that I need to hunt for more information.

How often do you force yourself to be aware of your limitations, your reliance on others for your opinions, and of the need to constantly ask yourself how and why you think what you think, and believe what you believe?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> [...]
> How often do you force yourself to be aware of your limitations, your reliance on others for your opinions, and of the need to constantly ask yourself how and why you think what you think, and believe what you believe?


No one I know more than casually does the survey you describe (though some of them ought to). Personally, I am so near to perfect as to make no difference.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Sometimes you have to dispense with all of the abstractions and just get on with the business of living. I'm well aware of my limitations, and I do often question my beliefs, attitudes, intentions, but I'm not obsessed with it. There's a time for reflection and contemplation, but one needs to make time for just being in the moment without too much thinking.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I pride myself, rightly or wrongly, on forming my world-view in accordance with evidence.


Was this idea (forming your world-view in accordance with evidence) formed in accordance with evidence as well? Or was it in accordance with aesthetics? 



Polednice said:


> It seems to me that the best way for somebody to live their life and form their opinions is to often undertake a systematic questioning of everything they think and why they think it.


I agree, but it's also important to question the fact that you're questioning things, as well as the fact that you're questioning the fact that you're questioning things, and so on.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

I overdo it. I question what I think and why I think it all the f*ing time, which is why I can rarely win arguments. Sometimes I just have to go do things that don't let me think too much so as not to go crazy. But I think that rigorously analyzing the reasons behind my beliefs is usually a good thing to do, as it makes me slightly less apt to inadvertently do harm by basing my actions on false, under-examined premises.

Polednice, have you read Descartes' _Discourse on Method_? You've reminded me of it now. Which then reminded me that this video exists:


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Dodecaplex said:


> I agree, but it's also important to question the fact that you're questioning things, as well as the fact that you're questioning the fact that you're questioning things, and so on.


An _excellent_ way to paralyze yourself completely.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Meaghan said:


> I overdo it. I question what I think and why I think it all the f*ing time, which is why I can rarely win arguments.


You beat me to it. But I think you also beat me at it.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Meaghan said:


> An _excellent_ way to paralyze yourself completely.


Reminds me of a story I read about Wittgy and Bertie Russell: one day at 5 AM, Wittgy barges into Russell's house, screaming and yelling about some mistakes Russell has made in the Principia. Russell soon tells him that the way he was driving himself, he (Wittgy) will probably go insane if he doesn't stop. Wittgy then raises his arms in a solemn manner and declares: "God, prevent me from sanity!"


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Sometimes you have to dispense with all of the abstractions and just get on with the business of living. I'm well aware of my limitations, and I do often question my beliefs, attitudes, intentions, but I'm not obsessed with it. There's a time for reflection and contemplation, but one needs to make time for just being in the moment without too much thinking.


That's the lesson I've slowly been learning.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I try to understand the opposite position to mine and especially try to understand the strongest arguments of that position. In my mind I lay out my arguments against those opposing arguments. I usually quickly determine whether my arguments really address the opposing position's counter-arguments. If so, great. If not, I have work to do. I find myself evaluating my positions quite often.

Here's a question that is a specific subset of the OP. There has been a clear societal movement towards more liberal views over time. The vast majority of today's conservatives would be flaming liberals 100s of years ago. Assuming a continued trend toward more liberal thinking, today's consensus on social issues will be hopelessly outdated in the future. Now most people here are more liberal than the consensus, but will the future social consensus be more liberal than your views? I often ask myself which of my views will be considered hopelessly outdated in the future. For example, would I be considered prejudiced in some ways? Would laws I believe are sensible be considered laughable?

One possibility concerns illegal drugs. I believe most drugs should be legalized (maybe all drugs), but I have never taken drugs that are illegal. I have not abstained from drug use because it's illegal but rather because I feel the effect on my brain is negative. Will future people routinely use drugs like LSD, variants of speed, and other of today's illegal drugs for specific purposes _and_ believe that their drug use is clearly better than not using those drugs?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I do question my thinking & I try to improve it by reading things that interest me. Eg. in the case of music, esp. classical music, I like to read books to get more information, which inevitably challenges what I think about certain composers and their music.

Of course, there can be a matter of questioning thinking too much. In practical terms, that's where political correctness comes in, which I dislike if it's restraining people from expressing their opinions. I think this is linked to this topic?

I like to converse with people basically to hear what they think about certain things. Things that have meaning, eg. not just shallow things like the weather. So with that I expand my worldview, hopefully learn something, etc.

So basically, I do challenge my thinking. Sometimes it translates to action, sometimes it doesn't, or takes ages to (humans are innately uncomfortable with & tend to resist change). But I don't think it's other's job to say how I should think. They can open up doors and give me insight into other ways of thinking, eg. give options, not say take it or leave it, similar to what Stalin said "Those who aren't with us are against us." Don't get me started on rubbish false dichotomies like that, it comes from insecurity...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Was this idea (forming your world-view in accordance with evidence) formed in accordance with evidence as well? Or was it in accordance with aesthetics?


It's an interesting question which I entertained myself with in the shower this morning! I wouldn't ever go so far as to say that a particular framework for viewing the world has _intrinsic_ value, but my initial response in support of the superiority of empiricism is that evidence _works_. We are so often complacent about the things we use every day - TV, computers, transport, the internet, mass production, food - that we forget that these were all brought to us courtesy of the scientific method. Evidence uncovers the mechanics of the world, and delivers us a better life. No other mode of thought has done nearly so much, if anything at all.

It is, of course, more difficult to apply this to moral questions. However, if we begin with the reasonable assumption that happiness is important, we can move from that to viewing happiness as a product of the mind, and the mind as a mechanical object which can be understood in mechanical terms (we don't yet have a full explanation, but I see no reason to believe why it is not theoretically possible). Of course, at this time, we don't even need a full understanding of the brain to be able to measure happiness. And so when we are faced with difficult moral questions, I think it is absolutely imperative that we abandon our intuitions, set about collecting data, and say, "well _this_ is what would maximise happiness according to the evidence."

And that's another reason for it: intuition. Our bodily senses, our innate reasoning capacity, and our self-awareness all give us a supreme confidence in our experience and understanding of the world - but, in reality, they are absolutely _dire_ tools. They managed to get our ancestors to survive, but that's it. We see a pitifully narrow band of the light spectrum, we hear hardly anything of the full range of sounds, our sight is easily fooled, our touch easily deceived, our idea of time and space woefully minuscule. Evidence is our prime method of transcending our corporeal limitations, and it is beyond the reproach of saying, "well it's a _human_ tool so must have _human_ flaws", as it can indeed be abused by humans, but, as above, we _know_ that evidence works, because it is the one thing that has allowed us to take technological advantage of the fundamental physical laws of our universe. It is the one thing that allows us to see and feel things beyond the tools bestowed upon us by evolution.

I see no reason why I should trust anything but evidence. People wrongly see this as a cold way of living, but that's another discussion.



Dodecaplex said:


> I agree, but it's also important to question the fact that you're questioning things, as well as the fact that you're questioning the fact that you're questioning things, and so on.


Indeed, and my answer as to why I am questioning what I know is that my mind is a deterministic object that has been implanted with a questioning-meme, and my answer as to why I am questioning that I am questioning what I know is that my mind is a deterministic object that has been implanted with a self-recursive questioning-meme.



starthrower said:


> Sometimes you have to dispense with all of the abstractions and just get on with the business of living. I'm well aware of my limitations, and I do often question my beliefs, attitudes, intentions, but I'm not obsessed with it. There's a time for reflection and contemplation, but one needs to make time for just being in the moment without too much thinking.


I don't deny that, but I don't think I presented a world-view that is obsessive.



Meaghan said:


> Polednice, have you read Descartes' _Discourse on Method_?


I haven't, but thanks for suggesting it. 



mmsbls said:


> I try to understand the opposite position to mine and especially try to understand the strongest arguments of that position. In my mind I lay out my arguments against those opposing arguments. I usually quickly determine whether my arguments really address the opposing position's counter-arguments. If so, great. If not, I have work to do. I find myself evaluating my positions quite often.


Yes, this is tremendously important as well - thanks for mentioning it.



mmsbls said:


> Here's a question that is a specific subset of the OP. There has been a clear societal movement towards more liberal views over time. The vast majority of today's conservatives would be flaming liberals 100s of years ago. Assuming a continued trend toward more liberal thinking, today's consensus on social issues will be hopelessly outdated in the future. Now most people here are more liberal than the consensus, but will the future social consensus be more liberal than your views? I often ask myself which of my views will be considered hopelessly outdated in the future. For example, would I be considered prejudiced in some ways? Would laws I believe are sensible be considered laughable?


This is something I think about often. If I were to make conjectures, I would say that we will eventually become either completely ethical farmers, or totally vegetarian (I am not a vegetarian myself, and I openly admit that I have no ethical excuses for it - I am a despicable slave to convenience and taste). I think that our marriage laws will become even laxer, perhaps entirely replaced with civil agreements, and may allow room for relationships of any size, number, and gender (I have no problem with this myself). After reading much about it this week, I also think that we ought to instil conscientious values about family size in order to bring the world population into a stasis. It may well end up being taboo to have more than one or two children (two may even be disagreeable given the rise in average age).



mmsbls said:


> One possibility concerns illegal drugs. I believe most drugs should be legalized (maybe all drugs), but I have never taken drugs that are illegal. I have not abstained from drug use because it's illegal but rather because I feel the effect on my brain is negative. Will future people routinely use drugs like LSD, variants of speed, and other of today's illegal drugs for specific purposes _and_ believe that their drug use is clearly better than not using those drugs?


I too am of the opinion that drugs should be legalised, both for medical and criminal reasons, the whole "war" being a pathetic charade. Personally, I have never taken drugs and have never even had alcohol, both because of severe health concerns, and also because I don't want to have even an hour where my consciousness is unnecessarily compromised. I would say, though, that I might be more open to the experience with legalisation, as a major concern for me at the moment would be chemically unsafe cuts with other substances that would not be present in a legalised manufacture.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I try to understand the opposite position to mine and especially try to understand the strongest arguments of that position. In my mind I lay out my arguments against those opposing arguments. I usually quickly determine whether my arguments really address the opposing position's counter-arguments. If so, great. If not, I have work to do. I find myself evaluating my positions quite often.


That seems like a useful procedure for a scientist among scientists. Opposite positions to mine are usually held by people who have formed them by osmosis, and are thus unamenable to argument.



> Here's a question that is a specific subset of the OP. There has been a clear societal movement towards more liberal views over time. The vast majority of today's conservatives would be flaming liberals 100s of years ago. Assuming a continued trend toward more liberal thinking, today's consensus on social issues will be hopelessly outdated in the future. Now most people here are more liberal than the consensus, but will the future social consensus be more liberal than your views? I often ask myself which of my views will be considered hopelessly outdated in the future. For example, would I be considered prejudiced in some ways? Would laws I believe are sensible be considered laughable?
> 
> One possibility concerns illegal drugs. I believe most drugs should be legalized (maybe all drugs), but I have never taken drugs that are illegal. I have not abstained from drug use because it's illegal but rather because I feel the effect on my brain is negative. Will future people routinely use drugs like LSD, variants of speed, and other of today's illegal drugs for specific purposes _and_ believe that their drug use is clearly better than not using those drugs?


I'm assuming that those future people will have had the benefit of scientific studies of the drugs and their effects - and side effects. Personally all I can say is that a little pot is better than a lot of pot.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I haven't, but thanks for suggesting it.


Yeah, your OP was super Descartes-y. Though he's got some silly bits, I think you'd mostly dig it.

In other news, DID YOU WATCH THE FUNNY VIDEO?


----------



## lou (Sep 7, 2011)

Every Day


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2012)

Polednice said:


> I see no reason why I should trust anything but evidence.


Well, if you postulate a reality "out there" that's independent of observers.... But is there? Everything that is "evidence" is something that someone has observed. The observing is part and parcel of the reality. So trusting "evidence" means also trusting observing, trusting the observer. But observers are notoriously untrustworthy. As is observing.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> Well, if you postulate a reality "out there" that's independent of observers.... But is there? Everything that is "evidence" is something that someone has observed. The observing is part and parcel of the reality. So trusting "evidence" means also trusting observing, trusting the observer. But observers are notoriously untrustworthy. As is observing.


Hence the scientific method.  This above is precisely what I considered in the rest of the post that you quoted from.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Meaghan said:


> Yeah, your OP was super Descartes-y. Though he's got some silly bits, I think you'd mostly dig it.
> 
> In other news, DID YOU WATCH THE FUNNY VIDEO?


I HAVE NOW. THANK YOU.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I HAVE NOW. THANK YOU.


Sorry, I didn't mean to shout.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Meaghan said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to shout.


I actually didn't realise it was a funny video until you prompted me - I originally thought it was an instructional one, so I'd bookmarked it for a later time. I liked it though!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

If the guy had made it '4 minute philosophy' he could have spoken slower, eh?


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2012)

Polednice said:


> Hence the scientific method.  This above is precisely what I considered in the rest of the post that you quoted from.


Um, not really, Mr. rolleyes. Which is why I wrote what I wrote.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

some guy said:


> Well, if you postulate a reality "out there" that's independent of observers.... But is there? Everything that is "evidence" is something that someone has observed. The observing is part and parcel of the reality. So trusting "evidence" means also trusting observing, trusting the observer. But observers are notoriously untrustworthy. As is observing.


Notoriously untrustworthy? Even if there is only one person on the planet who loves cacophonic random mumbo-jumbo industrial chainsaw noise which some cite as "sufficient evidence" that there is nothing wrong with the piece of music bla-bla-bla ... you know the rest.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> Um, not really, Mr. rolleyes. Which is why I wrote what I wrote.


Um, yes really, Mr. guy. You think you made a good point, but you really, really didn't.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Just to get us back to non-vindictive reasoning, there is a problem saying that the objective fact is that there are no objective facts - the reality [out there] is that there is no reality [out there] - and so on.

The reasonable point is that it's often or maybe even always hard to know the truth, and that we're often wrong when we think we're right. Somehow people can't settle for this.

The consequence of all that post-modern stuff is that contemporary big time journalists, who were educated under Ivy League post-modern professors, are scared pooless of saying that anything is true or that anything is a lie, reporting based on anything like facts or reality has gone the way of the mountain gorilla, reporters are only willing to do "he said / she said" reporting, and therefore the media no longer even begin to hold politicians and partisans responsible for their lies, and therefore lies proliferate throughout our society more easily than they ever did before that post-modern nonsense took the universities. "So Democrats continue to deny it, but the tea party insists that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist who wants to create a death-panel for seniors. Now for the weather."

So nonsense in high places has consequences.

The good news is, post-modernism is intellectually dead in high places - I know barely a handful of intelligent people under 50 who take it very seriously, and even the media are beginning to see the error of their misbegotten ways.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Notoriously untrustworthy? Even if there is only one person on the planet who loves cacophonic random mumbo-jumbo industrial chainsaw noise which some cite as "sufficient evidence" that there is nothing wrong with the piece of music bla-bla-bla ... you know the rest.


So you don't like his music and he doesn't like yours. You think he's ridiculous. Ok, we get it. I hope that someday he will be able to post on _some_ topic without you bothering him about that stuff.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

some guy said:


> Well, if you postulate a reality "out there" that's independent of observers.... But is there? Everything that is "evidence" is something that someone has observed. The observing is part and parcel of the reality. So trusting "evidence" means also trusting observing, trusting the observer. But observers are notoriously untrustworthy. As is observing.


Have to start from somewhere, don't you? As Bertrand Russell wrote, 'universal scepticism is irrefutable but barren...and, while admitting the elegant terseness of its philosophy, we proceed to the consideration of other hypotheses which, though perhaps not certain, have at least as good a right to our respect as the hypothesis of the sceptic.'


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2012)

Yes, and I start from the premise that the observed and the observer are inextricably intertwined.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Throughout most of my life I have torn myself apart to the core many times over and have questioned everything. This went on really up until maybe five years ago or so. I can't really say what changed, if anything, or if something happened but I don't anymore. Sometimes I do feel like the song as if I were comfortably numb but when I play I'm alive as ever so this can't be true. Maybe I just did so much questioning and breaking it down since so early that I'm perfectly comfortable with who I am; how many of us actually might be in here. So, yeah...no more questioning for me. For now, at least.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

kv466 said:


> Throughout most of my life I have torn myself apart to the core many times over and have questioned everything. This went on really up until maybe five years ago or so. I can't really say what changed, if anything, or if something happened but I don't anymore. Sometimes I do feel like the song as if I were comfortably numb but when I play I'm alive as ever so this can't be true. Maybe I just did so much questioning and breaking it down since so early that I'm perfectly comfortable with who I am; how many of us actually might be in here. So, yeah...no more questioning for me. For now, at least.


Yep, once you have it right, leave it alone.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

Since I am always right, the question does not apply.


----------

