Jump to content

'Lazy learner'


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

No.  People can have their own views without offending me.  And I think in this case, inviting someone to work at the gospel, gently chiding the lazy learners among us isn't inviting gullibility.  It is asking those who are struggling to work a little harder.  I don't know President Nelson personally but I assume the "lazy learner" quote comes from a good place.

Is 15 years being a so called lazy learner, and still wearing my "g's" enough? What I've learned is that I am so LDS that even if I don't believe it all, I can't leave it. 

Link to post
31 minutes ago, Zeniff said:

I like how I can understand without having to see something.  And I like a lot of lazy forms of learning.  Learning while sitting in a chair while watching TV is one of them

I guess then the tv would be turned off? 

Link to post
3 hours ago, ttribe said:

But seriously, what's with the name change(s)?

Maybe Ahab realized many had him on “ignore user”?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You have no understanding of these branches of the philosophy of science and are simply displaying that.  The cognitive science and psychology of belief is highly complex and nuanced and your ham fisted approach is inappropriate.

You are examining a spiderweb with a blowtorch.

Your first introduction would be to study Radical Empiricism, which is now about 120 years old, and has been developing all that time while you are still stuck on positivism.

You are a very intelligent person, but your arguments are not relevant today.

We are all trying to tell you that, but you won't listen.

I suggest you ponder that in relation to the OP

I have raised an important intellectual, moral, and epistemological issue. It is rather straightforward and can be addressed straightforwardly.

 

Link to post
16 hours ago, bluebell said:

I apologize for my part in that.  I think some of it may be from your misunderstanding of what constitutes "intellectual honesty".  

What do you think I misunderstand about it? The description of intellectual honesty that has been shared here is that it is an intentional process that makes effort to avoid personal bias.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Intellectual honesty is not making an effort to avoid personal bias, but avoiding a personal bias causing someone to omit outcomes that don't support the bias. 

Intellectual honesty is making sure "one's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;" and that "relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions." 

Having a personal bias towards an outcome does not make someone intellectually dishonest.  Someone has to actually do something deceptive to warrant the application of the term.

If you allow your bias to deceive yourself, then the term certainly applies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

If you allow your bias to deceive yourself, then the term certainly applies.

So one has to be infallible, right?

Sure.  How would you know if that was happening?  Your biases are invisuble to you because ...... they are BIASES!

One would have to know the absolute truth of every proposition - independent of human perception or interpretations, therefore being infallible,  for your statement to be correct.

Human perception and thefore biases- are inescapable.

Period.

  • Like 1
Link to post
11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I have raised an important intellectual, moral, and epistemological issue. It is rather straightforward and can be addressed straightforwardly.

 

 

How is that in anyway relevant to the discussion?  And the more important these issues are the less "straightforward" they become.

It's ok I am as tired of this interchange as you are.

Link to post
On 4/12/2021 at 1:46 PM, mfbukowski said:

Which holds, in radical empiricism,  based on the experience of millions.

There is ample evidence for its effectiveness in people's lives, and experience

So personal experiences are evidential for truth?  And how about the billions of others whose experiences would refute the truth claims of the LDS church. As well as the evidence of their own "truth" for effectiveness in peoples lives?


These are not objective measurements of truth. Why are the personal LDS peoples experience more valid than that of a Buddhist?  Or a Muslim?  Amway gives many people wonderful experiences and effectiveness in their lives as well.  So should we all join Amway?  This approach is really fairly nonsensical as it can be applied to almost anything.  Hard core white supremacists may feel their experience is wonderfully valid therefore the way to live.  If not why would they pursue it?  Effectiveness in someone lives is not a proof of any truth claim.  All sorts of BS and bad stuff may lead people to thing their lives are gloriously wonderful.  Does not make it true.

Link to post
23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So personal experiences are evidential for truth?  And how about the billions of others whose experiences would refute the truth claims of the LDS church. As well as the evidence of their own "truth" for effectiveness in peoples lives?


These are not objective measurements of truth. Why are the personal LDS peoples experience more valid than that of a Buddhist?  Or a Muslim?  Amway gives many people wonderful experiences and effectiveness in their lives as well.  So should we all join Amway?  This approach is really fairly nonsensical as it can be applied to almost anything.  Hard core white supremacists may feel their experience is wonderfully valid therefore the way to live.  If not why would they pursue it?  Effectiveness in someone lives is not a proof of any truth claim.  All sorts of BS and bad stuff may lead people to thing their lives are gloriously wonderful.  Does not make it true.

The bold is true. Both for members and for those who leave.

But sometimes it’s all we have to work with:  how we feel and the long term fruit in our lives.  It would be easier in some ways if all of this was provably right it or provably wrong.  But it’s neither. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Intellectual honesty is not making an effort to avoid personal bias, but avoiding a personal bias causing someone to omit outcomes that don't support the bias. 

Intellectual honesty is making sure "one's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;" and that "relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis; Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions." 

I've agreed with definition already, not sure why you do not see it as an intentional effort to avoid personal bias. By that I certainly did not mean we cannot have bias.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Having a personal bias towards an outcome does not make someone intellectually dishonest.  Someone has to actually do something deceptive to warrant the application of the term.

Again, having bias is not dishonest. But intellectual honesty requires an effort to avoid letting personal bias interfere with the discovery of truth.

 As I said in my first reply about a "more honest approach:"

_________________

"What he does not acknowledge though, is that doubt can be a legitimate product of earnest faith and diligent work. A person can doubt the truth claims of the church in complete integrity and sincerity. One can even make an argument that complete integrity requires doubt in those claims.

In the long run, it is religions in general who are asking diligent learners to leave some of their diligence aside to invest in trying out their own specific hypotheses. But they do this while often treating those who refuse to leave that diligence aside as lacking in integrity or worthiness. This can create tremendous conflicts in individuals and interpersonal conflicts in relationships.

A more honest approach would be to say something like, "Doubting Person A is making a completely legitimate choice if they choose to not invest in our hypothesis. In doing so they do not forfeit the ability to find truth or goodness, and we can accomplish a lot with the doubters when we work together in forwarding our common values.""

__________________

I understand that you appreciated his message. I can relate to the feeling of hope and relief of discovering how I have been doing something wrong, because maybe then I can make a course correction. That's a great feeling!

But it can be terrible when that is a misdiagnosis. When something is not an answer and to be told endlessly that it is can be very damaging and discouraging.

President Nelson teaches that the answers he provides work for everyone and all life's obstacles. He might know that for himself but he does not know it for everyone. But claiming it does causes harm.

 

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to post
30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The bold is true. Both for members and for those who leave.

But sometimes it’s all we have to work with:  how we feel and the long term fruit in our lives.  It would be easier in some ways if all of this was provably right it or provably wrong.  But it’s neither. 

Don't you ever say to yourself that you could be wrong and others could be right? That you cannot be completely sure about the efficacy of the gospel for everyone else because you do not know that answer for them?

Link to post
5 hours ago, ttribe said:

If you allow your bias to deceive yourself, then the term certainly applies.

Unbelievers are setting themselves up for a lifetime of frustration as long as they continue to participate on this board because Mormonism is a religion based fundamentally on the existence of a just God whose reality and divine attributes can only be known through personal spiritual communication with him. In fact, the prophets freely admit that the only way one can know of a surety that God exists is through a means of discovery that deliberately sidesteps the traditional methods of scientific inquiry. In addition, the prophets readily admit — and do so without the least degree of embarrassment — that God’s ordained method for the discovery of transcendent truth will unavoidably appear to be totally illogical and utterly ridiculous to those whose who believe the scientific method is the only reliable way to discover truth.

It seems to me that in order to avoid the inevitability that their participation on this board is only going to end up being an exercise in futility is for the unbelievers to find some points of common ground on which to build constructive dialogue with the believers. Perhaps the starting point is for both the believers and unbelievers to admit they don’t know everything and therefore a deep sense of humility and mutual respect is required on both sides.

Edited by teddyaware
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Unbelievers are setting themselves up for a lifetime of frustration as long as they continue to participate on this board because Mormonism is a religion based fundamentally on the existence of a just God whose reality and divine attributes can only be known through personal spiritual communication with him. In fact, the prophets freely admit that the only way one can know of a surety that God exists is through a means of discovery that deliberately sidesteps the traditional methods of scientific inquiry. In addition, the prophets readily admit — and do so without the least degree of embarrassment — that God’s ordained method for the discovery of transcendent truth will unavoidably appear to be totally illogical and utterly ridiculous to those whose who believe the scientific method is the only reliable way to discover truth.

It seems to me that in order to avoid the inevitability that their participation on this board is only going to end up being an exercise in futility is for unbelievers to find some points of common ground on which to build constructive dialogue with believers. Perhaps the starting point is for both the believers and unbelievers is to admit they don’t know everything and therefore a deep sense of humility and mutual respect is required on both sides.

Oh Teddy you never fail to disappoint and demonstrate how zealous dogma is really a bad thing. whenever I think I want to go back the sitting in the LDS Ward pews I jus need to come here and see your comments and others like you to tell me...umm...no...don't do it!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Perhaps the starting point is for both the believers and unbelievers is to admit they don’t know everything and therefore a deep sense of humility and mutual respect is required on both sides.

That I can agree with. 

But I would remind you that the purpose of this board is to discuss Mormonism. Believers can be equally frustrated by participating on this board since it does not require belief in the LDS Church.

And though people may abstain from participating here, the ability to withdraw from communities of Mormonism is not as simple. I think we could do well to extend your above statement--the part I quoted--to the larger communities, too. 

Link to post
8 hours ago, bluebell said:

Only if you purposeful allow yourself to be deceived.  It has to be on purpose.  Someone who is sincerely wrong, is not intellectually dishonest.  Dishonesty requires intent.

I agree there is an element of intent in play, but I don't know that it has the bright line of the typical notion of honesty between two, or more, parties.  Realizing I am a sample size of 1, let me give you a personal example:  5 years into my career I decided to go back to school to pursue a doctorate (which I didn't finish...but that's another story).  My minor in my PhD program was Judgment & Decision Making; as such, I spent a great deal of time studying research on cognitive biases and how they effect us.  During this time period, I was very much a believer.  In fact, in retrospect, I might say that the strength of my belief was second only to my mission in terms of periods of my life.  I had just lost my dad and I very much wanted to know I would see him again.  In the course of my studies on bias and the evaluation of evidence leading to decisions, I distinctly recall thinking that these biases didn't apply to my testimony of the Church due to the fact that I believed, very strongly, that I had received answers to prayers regarding the Church's truth claims.  I built a wall between my spiritual beliefs and my academic learning.  I did it intentionally, although I don't know that I would have admitted it at the time.

After leaving my PhD program to pursue a career in forensic accounting, I received a significant amount of training in investigations and evaluation of evidence.  I embraced a relatively concrete set of steps encompassing a process for evaluating evidence and rendering opinions which were suitable for a court of law.  But, once again, I built a wall between my spiritual beliefs and my professional learning and experience.  I did this intentionally, telling myself that the spiritual elements of the Church's truth claims overrode the temporal ones (e.g. the actual occurrence of events critical to the Church's claims of a restoration).

As the years wore on, and for reasons I am not comfortable discussing here, those walls started to break down.  I began re-evaluating old evidence in the combined light of new evidence as well as old knowledge and skills I'd not yet applied to my spiritual beliefs.  Those walls crumbled quickly and the flood gates opened.  Despite trying for an extended period of time, with all the energy I had left, to convince myself to believe in the Church's truth claims, it simply wasn't sustainable. 

I hadn't been intellectually honest with myself when I built those walls. If I really believed in the validity of the research on cognitive biases and on the investigatory steps I was practicing, then I should have applied them across the board in my life.  But, I didn't and went merrily on my way until circumstances changed.  So, yes, I engaged in an act of self-deception, but I did so with the best of intentions and with (long-term) disastrous outcomes.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So one has to be infallible, right?

Sure.  How would you know if that was happening?  Your biases are invisuble to you because ...... they are BIASES!

One would have to know the absolute truth of every proposition - independent of human perception or interpretations, therefore being infallible,  for your statement to be correct.

Human perception and thefore biases- are inescapable.

Period.

I don't follow your point on infallibility.  I can simultaneously accept that I am fallible and do everything in my power to remain intellectually honest.

As to the inescapable nature of bias, you are correct in so far as we are talking about our own individual susceptibility to bias, but I do not agree with your assertion that their invisibility is a necessary condition to their existence.  My studies of the research tells me that we can become aware of our biases, but still be victimized by them.  Nevertheless, increasing our awareness of personal biases can have the effect of reducing the impacts of those biases on our decision making.

Edited by ttribe
  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Don't you ever say to yourself that you could be wrong and others could be right? Thatft you cannot be completely sure about the efficacy of the gospel for everyone else because you do not know that answer for them?

The persistent problem you’re going to have to deal with is there isn’t a strong motivation for believers to want to go over to the side of the unbelievers. If the gospel is true - and I believe it is - in spite of its challenges life is filled with deep meaning, wonderful purpose and an unimaginably glorious and joyful life beyond the grave. Meanwhile what do the unbelievers have to offer the believers? The satisfaction of knowing life is ultimately meaningless and futile, and that all that exists beyond the grave is is the oblivion of nonexistence? “Hot dog! I think I’’ll choose meaninglessness and nonexistence!”

Link to post
11 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The persistent problem you’re going to have to deal with is there isn’t a strong motivation for believers to want to go over to the side of the unbelievers. If the gospel is true - and I believe it is - in spite of its challenges life is filled with deep meaning, wonderful purpose and an unimaginably glorious and joyful life beyond the grave. Meanwhile what do the unbelievers have to offer the believers? The satisfaction of knowing life is ultimately meaningless and futile, and that all that exists beyond the grave is is the oblivion of nonexistence? “Hot dog! I think I’’ll choose meaninglessness and nonexistence!”

Engaging in reductionism like this is not a good faith method for promoting a discussion which leads to understanding.

Edited by ttribe
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Engaging in reductionism like this is not a good faith method for promoting a discussion which leads to understanding.

Yup. Statements like that and “I’d be an alcoholic murderer without the gospel” make me wonder at how anyone can live their life in such fear of their own souls. I certainly don’t want to be around these would-be criminals teetering on the edge of a meaningless abyss. Such folks scare the bejeebus out of me. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

I agree there is an element of intent in play, but I don't know that it has the bright line of the typical notion of honesty between two, or more, parties.  Realizing I am a sample size of 1, let me give you a personal example:  5 years into my career I decided to go back to school a pursue a doctorate (which I didn't finish...but that's another story).  My minor in my PhD program was Judgment & Decision Making; as such, I spent a great deal of time studying research on cognitive biases and how they effect us.  During this time period, I was very much a believer.  In fact, in retrospect, I might say that the strength of my belief was second only to my mission in terms of periods of my life.  I had just lost my dad and I very much wanted to know I would see him again.  In the course of my studies on bias and the evaluation of evidence leading to decisions, I distinctly recall thinking that these biases didn't apply to my testimony of the Church due to the fact that I believed, very strongly, that I had received answers to prayers regarding the Church's truth claims.  I built a wall between my spiritual beliefs and my academic learning.  I did it intentionally, although I don't know that I would have admitted it at the time.

After leaving my PhD program to pursue a career in forensic accounting, I received a significant amount of training in investigations and evaluation of evidence.  I embraced a relatively concrete set of steps encompassing a process for evaluating evidence and rendering opinions which were suitable for a court of law.  But, once again, I built a wall between my spiritual beliefs and my professional learning and experience.  I did this intentionally, telling myself that the spiritual elements of the Church's truth claims overrode the temporal ones (e.g. the actual occurrence of events critical to the Church's claims of a restoration).

As the years wore on, and for reasons I am not comfortable discussing here, those walls started to break down.  I began re-evaluating old evidence in the combined light of new evidence as well as old knowledge and skills I'd not yet applied to my spiritual beliefs.  Those walls crumbled quickly and the flood gates opened.  Despite trying for an extended period of time, with all the energy I had left, to convince myself to believe in the Church's truth claims, it simply wasn't sustainable. 

I hadn't been intellectually honest with myself when I built those walls. If I really believed in the validity of the research on cognitive biases and on the investigatory steps I was practicing, then I should have applied them across the board in my life.  But, I didn't and went merrily on my way until circumstances changed.  So, yes, I engaged in an act of self-deception, but I did so with the best of intentions and with (long-term) disastrous outcomes.

I don't follow your point on infallibility.  I can simultaneously accept that I am infallible and do everything in my power to remain intellectually honest.

As to the inescapable nature of bias, you are correct in so far as we are talking about our own individual susceptibility to bias, but I do not agree with your assertion that their invisibility is a necessary condition to their existence.  My studies of the research tells me that we can become aware of our biases, but still be victimized by them.  Nevertheless, increasing our awareness of personal biases can have the effect of reducing the impacts of those biases on our decision making.

Very thoughtful post, thank you. 

Link to post
1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Thank you for saying so.

Thank you for posting it. I’m always struck at how much people like you (and me) wanted to make belief work and how hard we tried to hold on. Your post just reminds me that you are a man of integrity. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...