There are two ways of thinking. One is objective logical and facts-based way of thinking and the other is subjective intuitive emotional way of thinking. I’ll call the first a thinker and a second an intuitor feeler. My sense is that each individual defaults primarily to one type or the other, with the other type certainly present but to a lesser degree. One has their rational skills dominant and the other has their intuitive skills dominant. It also depends on the how our opinions have been formed. The book The Righteous Mind states that most of our strong opinions about things are brought about by unconscious cultural processes and that we use facts and logic to then justify them. And, we can be logical and factual around some things and very emotional and intuitive and anti-factual about others. I realize that it is complicated. And of course, however one gets to one’s “truth” is right for them. But it does not make them actually right, particularly when they ignore facts.
But, as you will find as we go along in this blog, my default is toward an objective fact- based approach to thinking about things. And….I have as much bias as the next guy. I guess. And if you see bias in my writing, I invite you to challenge me.
The scientific method and evidence-based thinking has brought mankind into the modern world and expanded knowledge and ability to improve the quality of our lives beyond measure.
Anti-science thinking generated by other underlying motivations which are not factual or logical are bad. Examples are:
Denying climate change because of an unwillingness to address the economic costs of to address its issues.
Denying evolutionary theory and a geological record with the adoption of an anti-evolution regime because it contradicts the creation story in the Bible. Here is Biblical case for the Earth being 6000 years old. Pretty weird. You can decide whether the Earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 billion years old.
Being anti-vaccination because of a totally discredited article was submitted (and now withdrawn) to a medical journal whose author lost his medical license. Said article tied vaccinations with autism. The consequences are that there are now unnecessary outbreaks of measles.
Genetically Modified Foods
Being anti-GMO even though there is absolutely no evidence that consuming GMO foods has a negative impact on health. The position of anti GMO advocates is that the evidence has not yet been proven GMO’s to be safe, even though humans have been consuming genetically modified foods for hundreds of years. In fact, over 2000 studies have found GM food to be perfectly safe.
These are just a few examples of where evidence, facts and the scientific method are not considered when positions are taken. Opinions treated as facts are still just opinions. And if facts are ignored while only opinions and feelings are used to make decisions, then I have an issue.
How about you? Do you have an issue?
3 thoughts on “EVIDENCE BASED THINKING”
Glad to know I am a Thinker. Must be since I agree with everything you said in this blog.
I have a personal theory about the resistance to climate change science. It lies in bias against government. If there is a human impact on climate change, it’s a worldwide issue that could not be resolved by market forces. Addressing this level of global problem would necessarily require major government intervention and international collaboration that could generate restrictions on certain activities that might be characterized as freedoms. Anti government interests may think that claims about human impact on climate change are ruses for: (a) anti-capitalism or (b) part of a creeping movement toward socialism.
Just my theory. Thanks for your reflection.
“These are just a few examples of where evidence, facts and the scientific method are not considered when positions are taken.”
Any statement denying that an objective reality actually exists and that whatever we think of as that is a mere figment of our subjective or collective fantasy around which we build and construct of mere words that we think is reality….or any statement that asserts that if objective reality does exist, accurate knowledge of it is not possible.
BOTH statements require the truth of the premise they are attempting to deny, in order to claim themselves to be true. LOL