Scientists, Religion and the Dunning-Kruger effect
What is true?
1. Some old mythology books tells you its fairies or something like that.
2. A scientist tells you it's confirmation bias.
3. Another religion tells you that directed meditation and focus allowed clarity of thought to access your memories by placing trust in a higher consciousness.
4. Your monotheistic parent tells you its inspiration from God.
How do you know which one is correct?
You don't. Welcome to earth. But here are some methods people have used:
1. Whatever most trustworthy (intelligent/sane/good) people believe is most likely correct. (appeal to authority)
2. Whatever most people experience is most likely correct. (argumentum ad populum)
3. Whatever I experience is most likely correct, so If I didnt experience it then its likely not correct (argument from ignorance).
4. Who knows, but whatever it is seems to work when I have given up all hope (pragmatic approach).
I think most people appeal to authority figures of some kind for most things. Their authority figure just shifts from their parent, to their friends, to their college professor, to scientists in general, or a religious figure-- as they get older.
In my experience, most of the scientists work that I have read on the subject of theology are completely ignorant of any kind of spiritual experience themselves and yet speak with authority as if they have the capacity to make some kind of informed opinion on a subject that they are utterly ignorant of any experience with... that's what we call the dunning-kruger effect in full swing (https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740).
Because the dunning-kruger effect seems to be so prevalent as a general rule, I tend to generally trust scientists in their specific field of expertise, but when they branch out from their field and start spewing out their uninformed opinion on subjects with which they have no experience, I tend to weigh their opinions very low.
So instead, I have tried to identify people who have experience in the field I am researching-- in this case, you brought up prayer-- so religion is the topic.
Among people who claim some kind of religious experience, if you want to try and determine what is most likely accurate, you can see where the most circles overlap-- that area has the highest probability of being accurate. (see below image and notice that this is method is actually a combination of all methods people try to use to determine if something is true)
This whole approach may not mean as much if you have experienced something of a controversial nature for yourself-- but can be very validating, when you have and then discover that many others experiences strongly overlap your own-- though some of the conclusions that they have come to may differ based on culture.
There are other ways of obtaining personal experience but it requires a lot more time and dedication, than most are willing to give.
Without personal experience, one might reasonably conclude that the red area is most likley correct, But with personal experience, it may be reasonably concluded that the green area is correct. As your personal experience expands, more area becomes green.
Could it all still be delusion? Of course! This blog post could be a figment of your imagination.
...But there comes a point where it is most pragmatic to assume that something is what it seems to be, especially when it strongly overlaps with the experiences of others... Especially when other options that contradict your personal experience and contradict the experiences of others, appear to be dominated by experience-ignorant people under huge sway of the dunning-Kruger effect.
Here is a link to an analysis of a presentation by such a person:
https://truthprocess.blogspot.com/2020/05/evaluation-of-michael-shermers-atheism.html
1. Some old mythology books tells you its fairies or something like that.
2. A scientist tells you it's confirmation bias.
3. Another religion tells you that directed meditation and focus allowed clarity of thought to access your memories by placing trust in a higher consciousness.
4. Your monotheistic parent tells you its inspiration from God.
How do you know which one is correct?
You don't. Welcome to earth. But here are some methods people have used:
1. Whatever most trustworthy (intelligent/sane/good) people believe is most likely correct. (appeal to authority)
2. Whatever most people experience is most likely correct. (argumentum ad populum)
3. Whatever I experience is most likely correct, so If I didnt experience it then its likely not correct (argument from ignorance).
4. Who knows, but whatever it is seems to work when I have given up all hope (pragmatic approach).
I think most people appeal to authority figures of some kind for most things. Their authority figure just shifts from their parent, to their friends, to their college professor, to scientists in general, or a religious figure-- as they get older.
In my experience, most of the scientists work that I have read on the subject of theology are completely ignorant of any kind of spiritual experience themselves and yet speak with authority as if they have the capacity to make some kind of informed opinion on a subject that they are utterly ignorant of any experience with... that's what we call the dunning-kruger effect in full swing (https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740).
Because the dunning-kruger effect seems to be so prevalent as a general rule, I tend to generally trust scientists in their specific field of expertise, but when they branch out from their field and start spewing out their uninformed opinion on subjects with which they have no experience, I tend to weigh their opinions very low.
So instead, I have tried to identify people who have experience in the field I am researching-- in this case, you brought up prayer-- so religion is the topic.
Among people who claim some kind of religious experience, if you want to try and determine what is most likely accurate, you can see where the most circles overlap-- that area has the highest probability of being accurate. (see below image and notice that this is method is actually a combination of all methods people try to use to determine if something is true)
This whole approach may not mean as much if you have experienced something of a controversial nature for yourself-- but can be very validating, when you have and then discover that many others experiences strongly overlap your own-- though some of the conclusions that they have come to may differ based on culture.
There are other ways of obtaining personal experience but it requires a lot more time and dedication, than most are willing to give.
Without personal experience, one might reasonably conclude that the red area is most likley correct, But with personal experience, it may be reasonably concluded that the green area is correct. As your personal experience expands, more area becomes green.
Could it all still be delusion? Of course! This blog post could be a figment of your imagination.
...But there comes a point where it is most pragmatic to assume that something is what it seems to be, especially when it strongly overlaps with the experiences of others... Especially when other options that contradict your personal experience and contradict the experiences of others, appear to be dominated by experience-ignorant people under huge sway of the dunning-Kruger effect.
Here is a link to an analysis of a presentation by such a person:
https://truthprocess.blogspot.com/2020/05/evaluation-of-michael-shermers-atheism.html
Comments
Post a Comment