I assume your Truly Open Perspective means considering all sources. That’s step 1 in Critical Thinking. You don’t just choose sources that confirm your feelings, you look at information from both sides of the argument.
What do generalizations like poor sources or unreliable sources tell you about someone’s prejudice exactly? That they discern information? That is reasoning and evaluation.
Again, this is what critical thinking is about. You don’t just dismiss something immediately. But when it proves to have misleading information, use fear mongering, and various fallacious tactics it doesn’t get another try. It already proved it was a poor source.
Yes, we really all can do more critical thinking in life. It’s not easy to do, it requires someone to try to put aside their bias. It sometimes requires you to accept information that doesn’t support your worldview and update it accordingly. And it also requires more effort.
Here’s an example: A study comes out in a news article claiming fake sweeteners give you cancer. Someone takes the time to say what is the source of the study, who paid for it? And if you find out it was a sugar company who would benefit financially by people fearing fake sweeteners, now you have reason to doubt the study. The next step would be to find out how many people were involved in the study, what types of methods they used to get this data, whether it has been peer-reviewed, whether it has been repeated and shows up across other sources. Once you do that, then you might have a good idea of whether you want to trust that study or not.
I know you are not asking, but yes, absolutely. But notice how you ‘assumed’ something, without seeking out clarification and clarity?
This ‘assuming’ before obtaining clarity is NOT ‘looking from’ a Truly Open Perspective.
I agree that neither assuming nor believing absolutely anything is the first step to being Truly Open and in critical thinking.
Nor your thoughts, pre/assumptions, and beliefs either.
To me, there are NO “sides” to arguments.
Either one has formulated and is presenting a sound and valid argument, and if so, then it is irrefutable, or they are just presenting ‘an argument’ only. And, to me, all arguments that are not sound and valid are not worth repeating, unless, of course, one is demonstrating how not to formulate an argument.
To me, there are NO “sides” in Life. There are either Truths or Falsehoods. The Universe presents to ‘us’ irrefutable Facts and proof; ‘we’, however, can all too easily and quickly misconstrue and misinterpret what is presented to ‘us’.
What those generalisations tell me is nothing about people’s prejudices, exactly. What those generalisations tell me is that those people could have prejudices.
If someone tells me that a source is “poor or unreliable”, then that is perfectly fine and okay with me, just along as that one provides the irrefutable proof/s that backs up and supports their belief and/or claim.
No. Again, they could be making the claim based on their own prejudices.
Every adult human being I have heard speak ‘discern information’, but just ‘discerning information’ never ever implies that one is ‘discerning’ it in the True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct way at all.
So, when the theist claims any information disputing God created the Universe ‘discerns’ ‘that information’ as being “poor or unreliable” is ‘reasoning and evaluation’, right? Or, when an “atheist” or “scientist” claims any information disputing that the Universe began with a big bang ‘discerns’ ‘that information’ as being “poor or unreliable”, is ‘reasoning and evaluation’ also correct?
If yes to both, then as ‘we’ can clearly see here ‘discerning information’ and ‘reasoning and evaluating’ is not necessarily the True, Right, nor Correct way to go about uncovering and finding the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct conclusions and answers, in Life.
Now, if a person makes the generalization that ‘that’ is poor or unreliable information, then they may well be expressing an irrefutable Fact, but I will not know this until the proof is provided. After all, it might be fair enough to say ‘we’ all here have experienced someone disagreeing with something, although ‘that information or source’ is irrefutable.
People who ‘discern information’ as being “poor or unreliable” based on absolutely nothing but their own preexisting beliefs and assumptions, and reasoning and evaluations only, are themselves not necessarily the most reliable sources of information.
I, for One anyway, NEED to ‘see’ the proof before I agree with and accept absolutely anyone’s claim of “poor or unreliable sources”.
I think we have not been in disagreement with anything so far.
But, to me, it is extremely simple and easy.
After I removed the very thing that made critical thinking hard or impossible, critical thinking became and remained extremely simple and easy.
This was also absolutely simple and easy to do, on the main. But, on the lesser old habits still do “kick in” sometimes.
Again, removing ‘the barriers’ allows things to change, for the better, so much simpler and easier.
I found less effort to be the Truth.
To me, it takes more effort to ‘try to’ support a view that is untrue than it is to support a view that is irrefutably True.
Okay, but I found out that what the answers are, and the Truth is in relation to the Truly meaningful things in Life, then these far less important things really are very trivial.
For example, just everything about that study has to do with money, people’s concerns about money, and/or the money that it cost to do that study. Which, in Truth, is of no real concern about Life, living, and well-being. Now, of course, I would have to go into this in much more detail to be fully understood.
I presume this is going to reduce to a semantic difference.
For myself, I feel that the word “Objective” (capital “O”) has no raison d’etre if it does not retain its most absolute meaning. Once it leaves ‘mind-independent correspondence with that which actually is’, its journey achieves little except confusion. Exactly what level of objectiveness is intended? It’s often unclear, maybe deliberately so (by those seeking the endorsement authority of Objectivity for their outpourings).
It is my view, and my understanding, that God’s Eye View is a wholly Objective view of anything and Everything.
So perhaps our difference here is simply down to semantics?
The bit in italics is a commonly-seen (on philosophy forums), and widely accepted and used, definition of “Objective”.
See above.
Were my words really so unclear?
******************
The difference is that you have substituted a consensus of humanity for a hypothetical omni-everything God. They are not equivalent, on any level. So when you said this:
We have a semantic disagreement, whether you can see it or not. Your words in the above quote are contradictory, according to the usual accepted (philosophical) meanings of “subjective” and “objective”.
“Everyone” is not equal, or in any sense equivalent, to an omni-everything “God”.
Well, obviously I could not until you express ‘it’ here so that I can then ‘look at’ ‘it’.
Yes I knew that already. But, remember, it is with the so-called “usually accepted (philosophical) meanings” that you people are still searching for the same thousands of years old questions.
Now, to demonstrate WHY human beings, hitherto, when this was being written, had, relatively, really not progressed in philosophical discussions at all, HOW is ‘objectivity’ recognised, realised, or known, exactly?
Are you talking individually or collectively here?
And, if you are talking about the latter, then why not, exactly?
What do you imagine the words “omni-everything God” is even referring to, exactly?
The very reason WHY human beings are still searching for answers/resolutions for philosophical (the meaningful) questions, in Life, is because of the Wrong meaning/s’ that they have given and that they have been using for words.
Change ‘the meaning/s’, then ‘the answers and solutions’ come to light, and very quickly, simply, and easily I will add.
Even the resolution for ‘What came first, the chicken or the egg?’ came to light very quickly, simply, and easily when HOW ‘the meanings of words’ come about was realised and understood.
