---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ShunkW <shunkw@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:09 AM
Subject: Flaws in Reasoning and Arguments: Economy with the Truth
To: ShunkW <shunkw@sbcglobal.net>
Flaws in Reasoning and Arguments: Economy with the Truth
Selectively Withholding Embarrassing Evidence
By Austin Cline <http://atheism.about.com/bio/Austin-Cline-5577.htm>
Everyone wants to be right - this is a truism which hardly seems to need
repeating, but it is a vital motive which does need to be addressed. Our
participation in debates and discussions is often predicated upon this
motive - we want to learn what is right, we want to convince others that we
are right, and/or we we want to get others to believe the same correct
things we already believe. Unfortunately, this motive can also lead us to
engage in practices which are not entirely proper.
Sometimes, it is possible for a person to lie outright in order to get
others to believe their claims; although it happens much more often than it
should, it still does not appear to occur constantly. Much more common is a
form of deception that can be more difficult to detect: selectively
withholding information which might tend to support others' ideas and
critiques.
Known as Economy with the Truth, it doesn't involve saying anything which is
clearly untrue. Indeed, a person whose arguments suffering from this flaw
may not be acting thus out of a deliberate intent to deceive. Although such
intent is common, it should not be assumed to be the case in all instances.
Remember, a primary motive which people have in these situations is to be
right. If we assume that a person is deliberately trying to deceive others,
we must also conclude that the person probably doesn't really believe what
he is arguing - possible, but maybe not the case. At least as likely is the
possibility that he has "deceived" himself.
What this means is that he may well have managed to ignore various
uncomfortable facts even in his own reasoning process which he has relied
upon, focusing only on the things which support his Confirmation Bias and
not at all upon the ideas and arguments which speak against it - a process
known as Subjective Validation. Thus, his being economical with the truth
when it comes to his discussions with others is simply a manifestation of
his having been economical with the truth for himself.
The flaw in such economy should be obvious: if our beliefs are to be sound,
justified, and rational, then they must fully take into account all
available and relevant information. When something important is left out of
our reasoning process, then we run the risk of unnecessarily incorrect
conclusions. Of course, because we are not omniscient, there will also be
information we don't have and cannot incorporate; however, there is really
no good excuse not to take into account information we do have and are aware
of.
When such an omission is deliberate, whether it occurs in the context of our
discussions with others or simply in our own private deliberations, there
seems to be little that can distinguish it morally from outright lies. The
intentional concealment of information which is relevant and necessary is
really no better than falsifying nonexistent information and pretending that
it is true.
Unfortunately, slight unintentional economy with the truth is probably much
more common than people might want to believe. Again, we are all motivated
to be right and no one wants to think that they have believed things that
are untrue. The selective use of information to buttress what we already
believe is a relatively common feature of human thinking - we focus on that
happens to coincide with our prejudices while ignoring that which might tend
to undermine our confidence.
Understanding that this is a part of our psychological makeup is a necessary
step if we are to have any chance at correcting it, just as the
acknowledgment that we all have prejudices is necessary in order to overcome
those prejudices. When we realize that we have an unconscious inclination to
use information selectively, we will have a better chance at recognizing and
utilizing the material
wehttp://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/economytruth.htm?nl=
1 might have overlooked - or that others have overlooked in their attempts
to convince us of something.
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/economytruth.htm?nl=1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World_Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to world_politics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to world_politics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world_politics?hl=en.
From: ShunkW <shunkw@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 5:09 AM
Subject: Flaws in Reasoning and Arguments: Economy with the Truth
To: ShunkW <shunkw@sbcglobal.net>
Flaws in Reasoning and Arguments: Economy with the Truth
Selectively Withholding Embarrassing Evidence
By Austin Cline <http://atheism.about.com/bio/Austin-Cline-5577.htm>
Everyone wants to be right - this is a truism which hardly seems to need
repeating, but it is a vital motive which does need to be addressed. Our
participation in debates and discussions is often predicated upon this
motive - we want to learn what is right, we want to convince others that we
are right, and/or we we want to get others to believe the same correct
things we already believe. Unfortunately, this motive can also lead us to
engage in practices which are not entirely proper.
Sometimes, it is possible for a person to lie outright in order to get
others to believe their claims; although it happens much more often than it
should, it still does not appear to occur constantly. Much more common is a
form of deception that can be more difficult to detect: selectively
withholding information which might tend to support others' ideas and
critiques.
Known as Economy with the Truth, it doesn't involve saying anything which is
clearly untrue. Indeed, a person whose arguments suffering from this flaw
may not be acting thus out of a deliberate intent to deceive. Although such
intent is common, it should not be assumed to be the case in all instances.
Remember, a primary motive which people have in these situations is to be
right. If we assume that a person is deliberately trying to deceive others,
we must also conclude that the person probably doesn't really believe what
he is arguing - possible, but maybe not the case. At least as likely is the
possibility that he has "deceived" himself.
What this means is that he may well have managed to ignore various
uncomfortable facts even in his own reasoning process which he has relied
upon, focusing only on the things which support his Confirmation Bias and
not at all upon the ideas and arguments which speak against it - a process
known as Subjective Validation. Thus, his being economical with the truth
when it comes to his discussions with others is simply a manifestation of
his having been economical with the truth for himself.
The flaw in such economy should be obvious: if our beliefs are to be sound,
justified, and rational, then they must fully take into account all
available and relevant information. When something important is left out of
our reasoning process, then we run the risk of unnecessarily incorrect
conclusions. Of course, because we are not omniscient, there will also be
information we don't have and cannot incorporate; however, there is really
no good excuse not to take into account information we do have and are aware
of.
When such an omission is deliberate, whether it occurs in the context of our
discussions with others or simply in our own private deliberations, there
seems to be little that can distinguish it morally from outright lies. The
intentional concealment of information which is relevant and necessary is
really no better than falsifying nonexistent information and pretending that
it is true.
Unfortunately, slight unintentional economy with the truth is probably much
more common than people might want to believe. Again, we are all motivated
to be right and no one wants to think that they have believed things that
are untrue. The selective use of information to buttress what we already
believe is a relatively common feature of human thinking - we focus on that
happens to coincide with our prejudices while ignoring that which might tend
to undermine our confidence.
Understanding that this is a part of our psychological makeup is a necessary
step if we are to have any chance at correcting it, just as the
acknowledgment that we all have prejudices is necessary in order to overcome
those prejudices. When we realize that we have an unconscious inclination to
use information selectively, we will have a better chance at recognizing and
utilizing the material
wehttp://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/economytruth.htm?nl=
1 might have overlooked - or that others have overlooked in their attempts
to convince us of something.
http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/economytruth.htm?nl=1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World_Politics" group.
To post to this group, send email to world_politics@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to world_politics+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world_politics?hl=en.
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment