= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JamesCole comments on A social norm against unjustified opinions? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (158)
I think a norm is likely to be a product of the solution, not the solution itself.
So the problem is we have a lot of people who don't appreciate what constitutes a reasonable foundation for an opinion. They think they can just say what they feel. To put it one way, they have a poor understanding of the nature of evidence.
I don't think a norm like you describe could have any effect on anyone like that who had a poor understanding of evidence. Those people would just think the norm was wrong or ridiculous.
If they were to come to better understand the nature of evidence, they would be more receptive to the norm. But if they were to undestand evidence better then simply from this fact you'd get the desired result of people not mouthing off as much with "ignorant opinions".
So it the solution has to involve getting people to better understand the nature of evidence (or however you want to describe what is missing from their mental toolkit).
If you were to get enough people to understand the nature of evidence, that could lead to the creation of such a norm. I doubt it could happen the other way around.
Caveat: I'm not 100% confident the above story is true, but I think there's at least and element of truth in it.
People should be able to consider what they feel, it's valid rational evidence, it may just not be the best that can be done in a given situation, when better evidence is available.
I agree, I probably just didn't explain myself very well. I was just trying to talk about the situations when people express an opinion without really giving any consideration to why they think it is true.
I would say people should even explain why they think something is true, which would of course force them to consider it. And then, of course, those who disagree can and should explain in detail what they think is wrong.
Do you mean something like:
If being merely informed becomes the norm before rational reasoning is a norm, you just end up with the case of more informed political subjects becoming more polarized and more certain of their views. Badly calibrated and worse off than when they started.