Why Are Typical Arguments Between Earthians like That?
Since we came to the Bias planet, I have heard some arguments between Earthians, but I wonder why they are like that . . .
Like what?
Futile! Neither party of the argument has any intention of changing their minds. There is no possibility of their understandings' being improved by the argument. They have already-fixed beliefs system, and just repeat their own logic based on their beliefs.
Ah, beliefs . . .
They don't care what contradictory evidences against their conclusions are raised by the other party. Their logic is, "My beliefs system is correct; so my conclusions deducted from my beliefs system are correct. Period."
The direction of their thinking processes is the problem. We have to start from inputs, and improve our hypotheses system, but they start from their already-fixed beliefs systems, and deduce conclusions from the beliefs systems. What if there is a evidence that contradicts their conclusions? They just ignore it.
To argue against a person of such a thinking process is futile. Why do many Earthians do such obviously futile things?
Ah, you don't understand the usual meaning of arguments on the Bias planet. They usually don't argue to persuade the other party. Even they should know that the other party won't be persuaded, . . . I guess.
. . . Then, why will they argue?
They are showing their arguments to audiences. Some in the audience who don't have fixed beliefs about the issue yet may be influenced.
Ah-ha . . .. The purpose of their arguments isn't to improve their understandings or even to persuade the other parties, but to win audiences over to their sides.
In most cases, it seems so. That's the rule of the game. Someone who understands the rule well, and also understands well that the majority of people aren't influenced by truths but by emotional stimulants, wisely concentrates on working on the majority's emotions. Such a wise person is called a demagogue on the Bias planet.
. . . I heard that the most prevalent political system on the Bias planet is a peculiar system called democracy. Aren't rises of demagogues inevitable results of that political system? I mean, demagogues are just following the rule of the game, wisely.
As far as the majority of Earthians don't have intentions to remedy their biases, rises of demagogues will keep being inevitable results in that political system.
Having Any Beliefs System Is the Problem
The difference between whether we have a beliefs system or we have a hypotheses system is crucial. Once we have a beliefs system, our progress in understandings is stopped there. . . . Our understandings are certainly skimpy, but as far as we progress, our understandings will become better and better, and eventually, better than understandings of anyone who stopped the progress.
Yes. We have to evolve, not to fossilize, our understandings.
But our natural urge is that we don't want to admit our own faults.
We have to understand that modifying hypotheses isn't admitting faults: hypotheses, by nature, exist to be modified. As you mistake to insist that something is an absolute truth, not a hypothesis at the beginning, you corner yourself not to be able to retract your claim.
Ah, modifying hypotheses isn't a defeat or a shame, but a natural and inevitable process of improving our hypotheses system. We feel being defeated because we mistake to have a beliefs system while we should have a hypotheses system.
Logically speaking, yes. Still, even if you understand the logic, you may feel being defeated, but that's a work of the intuition. As I frequently say, the intuition is a major stumbling block. We have to be wary of the intuition.
Our principle that we have to maintain the hypotheses system, is that a belief?
Hmm, you must understand that any principle isn't about truths: any principle is a matter of taste. Our proposition is that 'if we try to remedy biases, our only option is to maintain the hypotheses system'. That proposition is about truths. . . . Do you understand the difference?
Ah, that proposition discusses causality, which can be argued whether it's true or false. For example, a proposition that 'if we try to fly a rocket to the moon, our only option is to ignite the engine' is about truths: we can argue whether it's true or false. . . . However, does one have to ignite an engine? We can't say that someone has to ignite the engine if he or she doesn't want to fly the rocket, which is a matter of taste.
Yes.
Anyway, is our proposition a belief?
Well, I don't think so. Considering physical laws, the fact the human is just a species that recently branched off from the common ancestor with the monkey, the inaccuracy of human intuitions, etc, we have reached the very likely hypothesis. We haven't adopted that proposition baselessly from vacuum. A belief is a belief because it's held on to regardless of the existence of contradictory evidences against it. That is the case with a belief that one can know something for sure without inputs. . . . That isn't the case with our proposition.
So, it's a hypothesis, not a belief.
Yes. We will modify the hypothesis, if there is any input that prompts us to do so. Now we can't think of any hypothesis that can substitute for our hypothesis.
