Intellectual rationality
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:17 pm
So, This is an open-ended question for anyone who would like to comment.
It seems that our approach to knowledge, as individuals, is predominantly about finding data and information, ideologies, what have you, that fit into our preconcieved notions, rather than collecting information and using that to construct our intellectual schemas. Certainly in a political or religious discussion, frequently we see individuals only arguing and finding ideas that support their already-formed beliefs, rather than try to understand which viewpoint has the most support.
As a side note, it seems that this frequently opens up ad-hominem arguments. (Personal anecdote: my sister the BYU professor recently sat in for a forum about racial bias in the workplace. Afterward, all attendees were asked to rate professors on percieved bias about the specific topic, and my sister, guilty of no personal agenda, was found to have one, most likely for simply being a woman and Hispanic. This seems to suggest that one cannot argue for the merits of one's own position, support must come from outside sources).
Lastly, this seems very counter-intuitive from an LDS perspective. While we believe that God is the repositor of all knowledge, and that there is more knowledge available now than ever before, we also believe that reason and logic are God-given tools to help us acquire more knowledge, and that there is far, far more knowledge that we have yet to acquire than our current understanding comprises. Yet we seem as susceptible to this trap, if not moreso, than anyone else.
Anyone care to add any thoughts to my inane ramblings? Do my observations have any merit?
It seems that our approach to knowledge, as individuals, is predominantly about finding data and information, ideologies, what have you, that fit into our preconcieved notions, rather than collecting information and using that to construct our intellectual schemas. Certainly in a political or religious discussion, frequently we see individuals only arguing and finding ideas that support their already-formed beliefs, rather than try to understand which viewpoint has the most support.
As a side note, it seems that this frequently opens up ad-hominem arguments. (Personal anecdote: my sister the BYU professor recently sat in for a forum about racial bias in the workplace. Afterward, all attendees were asked to rate professors on percieved bias about the specific topic, and my sister, guilty of no personal agenda, was found to have one, most likely for simply being a woman and Hispanic. This seems to suggest that one cannot argue for the merits of one's own position, support must come from outside sources).
Lastly, this seems very counter-intuitive from an LDS perspective. While we believe that God is the repositor of all knowledge, and that there is more knowledge available now than ever before, we also believe that reason and logic are God-given tools to help us acquire more knowledge, and that there is far, far more knowledge that we have yet to acquire than our current understanding comprises. Yet we seem as susceptible to this trap, if not moreso, than anyone else.
Anyone care to add any thoughts to my inane ramblings? Do my observations have any merit?
