Diverse Viewpoints: Should we be open?

There are lots of different factors in not only theory acceptance but also in accepting and maintaining various beliefs. One is acquiring relevant information about the topic. Another is acquiring and assessing different interpretation of that information. Another is comparing the theory or belief with other theories and other beliefs to see if they fit together well. In some cases, embracing a new idea or theory requires changes in one’s existing beliefs, and sometimes those changes seem too drastic. If embracing theory T means I have to change my belief that 2+2=4, then I ain’t embracing T. That seems perfectly rational. What theories should we really seriously consider? By that I mean, give them serious thought, and be open to changing our minds. Are there ideas, views, theories, that we should not give any serious attention to, even if they have defenders? 

We mentioned the Alien-laser theory of drunk driving, but that is not defended by anyone as far as I know. 

Are there ideas, views, theories that it would actually be wrong for us to take seriously? There are defenders of pedophilia. There are books defending it, articles defending it, and even organizations. Should we give them a fair hearing? What does a fair hearing amount to? Does it mean that we are willing to change our minds? How about child sacrifice? Or racism? Or genocide? Or slavery? Are some of these ideas, views, theories so bad that seriously entertaining them is itself bad and reveals something bad about us? 

Note that I am not asking if just having a thought about the above things is wrong. Obviously, it is not. I have the belief that rape is wrong (one of the worst acts possible in fact). That is a true belief, and in having the belief I have to think it at some point. I am asking if I should ever seriously, honestly, openly consider the belief, view, theory that it is not always wrong. Or is doing so itself wrong?

Comments

  1. Zach NelsonMarch 1, 2019 at 4:21 PM

    Seriously considering whether or not loving our neighbor is a good thing seems to involve doubt, just like considering if rape is wrong. But doubting I don’t think is morally wrong. Doubting logical facts like 2+2=4 needs to be thought of in a different light, since doubting them doesn’t seem to involve morality. Doubting moral facts seems to imply that you think the other alternative moral view is possible. If that happens, then your original belief looses some integrity and you can’t hold your original position with the same confidence as before.
    So if doubting rape as wrong, then you are entertaining the idea that rape is good. That seems to be morally wrong.
    But I’m not sure if doubting can be used the same as seriously considering the truth of a moral claim.

    ReplyDelete
  2. M. E. G.March 4, 2019 at 7:43 AM

    Oooh this is a good question. I'm unsure if the actual questioning of your belief of something being right or wrong is necessarily wrong. I believe it depends on the circumstance. If you're talking to someone with the opposite belief and attempting to see it from their side, that's a different situation than thinking over it and actually switching your viewpoint or even just deeply thinking about it. I also think it depends on the intensity of the belief, such as something like rape is wrong, that contextual can be agreed upon in normal circumstance. Things like that probably should not need to be rehashed. In my own personal viewpoint, there are certain ideas and beliefs that we shouldn't hear the other side too -- at least, the side of it being right. We can look at the person believing it and feel sympathy for why they are feeling that way or why they make those actions without actually challenging the belief itself.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lakatos and Thagard: Demarcation Problem

Lakatos-Falsification and Methodology Naïve Falsificationism (NF): Rules of Acceptance:  if T is falsifiable, the T is scientific. Rules of Falsification:  If some observation statement conflicts with T, then T is falsified. Sophisticated Falsificationsim (SF):  Rules of Acceptance:  T is scientific only if T has more empirical evidence than some other T* Rule of falsification:  T is falsified iff some other theory T* has greater predictive and explanatory power than T and is confirmed to some degree. Theoretically Progressive:  T is TP if T purports to take in more empirical data than some other theory T*. Empirically Progressive:  T is EP if T is TP and some of the excess empirical data is confirmed to some degree. Progressive Problemshift:  both TP and EP If a Problemshift is TP, then it is scientific, if not TP, then it is pseudoscientific So, some theory T is  pseudoscientific  if T is an alter...
Read more

Defeaters

Undercutting : where  E  is evidence for  H , an undercutting defeater is evidence which undermines the evidential connection between E and  H .  Rebutting : is evidence which prevents  E  from justifying belief in  H  by supporting not- H  in a more direct way.  In general: a. Moving from believing that p to believing that not p requires a rebutting defeater b. Moving from believing that p to not believing that p requires an undercutting defeater Note the difference between the scope of the 'not' in a. and the scope of the 'not' in b. In a. one believes something, namely, not p. In b. one does not believe something. The 'not' in b. is negating the believing, whereas the 'not' in a. is negating the thing that is believed.  Ok, given all of that, you should be able to explain the relevance of the following cases that Plantinga brings up in Chapter 6. Are they examples of undercutting or rebutting defe...
Read more