wintler2 wrote:'Conspiranoia' obviously happens here. <snip> If anyone has thoughts on preventative medicine and a vaccine, i'm all ears.
Actually, there is a vaccine against personal sloppy thinking and societal mental manipulation ... it is called the Trivium.
The Trivium is the root of classical education that is no longer taught except in some private schools and in ivy league level universities. It's purpose is to set forward a system and set of rules for learning a subject and determining the validity of claims to truth. Jan Irvin at GnosticMedia calls it his "bullshit detector".
http://www.triviumeducation.com/When a person makes a case for why they believe something is true ... or why you should listen to what they are saying ... their argument must be logically sound. When a person regularly uses logical fallacies to make their case, you are justified in considering their information and/or motives to be questionable. It might even be a wise use of time and attention to simply ignore someone whose information regularly contains fallacies.
Lists of logical fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... ments.htmlThe Trivium is not a reductionist tool ... it is a tool for getting at truth and weeding out nonsense. Consider the difference between Jeff Wells and Alex Jones. These guys are dealing with similar information ... but one is making appropriate use of logic and rhetoric to communicate his message and the other is just making a mess. After hearing the message, you walk away smarter in one case and dumber in the other.
On message boards, there are no "rules" requiring someone to make a coherent argument. There is no judge around to evaluate who is winning or losing an argument. In fact, anyone can say anything at all. As a result, the primary voices are often those who have the most deeply held convictions or the most combative personalities. But just because someone passionately believes their cause is just and their ideas are sound doesn't make those ideas true. Asking someone to provide evidence for their personal convictions is not necessarily a personal attack.
Along the same lines, Rigorous Intuition makes use of intuition to gather diverse information and to use intuitive insights to form hypotheses that can be then be tested to see if they are consistent with logic and facts. This is not at all the same thing as gathering diverse information to see if it resonates or not. I think that is an important distinction.
Finally, Dorothy Sayers has written the classic essay on how our education system has failed to teach us how to learn in
The Lost Tools of Learning ... it is definitely worth the time to read it:
http://www.triviumeducation.com/texts/T ... arning.pdfRegards,
-ST