eliminate psychological bias from their thinking. — clemogo

The whole scientific method was designed to get around bias. It is the best we have i guess.

This has got me thinking: Does my individual psychology (which has accrued various arbitrary biases based on my genes, upbringing, books I've read, etc.) limit what philosophical theories I can consider to be good/true? — clemogo

If those philosophies do not have undeniably solid backing, then I would say yes. Without near solid logic, we are left with our whims. I think philosophy tries to create situations that have solid logic. Philosophy also constantly challenges us out of our comfort zone. Perhaps a person may choose philosophy A on a whim, but a good argument from philosophy B might inspire a person to think deeper about A. They still may stick with A, but might be compelled to give a greater reason then their whims. Sometimes this is enough for someone to break from their whim, and choose something that has a more logical foundation.

Does my individual psychology (which has accrued various arbitrary biases based on my genes, upbringing, books I've read, etc.) limit what philosophical theories I can consider to be good/true? — clemogo

No. Quite the opposite. Your environment limits what philosophical theories you can consider to be good or true. (By environment, I don't mean the 5 square miles of what your brain could reach. Your environment should include the galactic size of everything)

Often there is no definitively rational reason to prefer one philosophical theory over another (all theories have their pros and cons), and so, in the end, perhaps it is my deep psychological biases that choose which theory I subscribe to. — clemogo

And yet here you are trying to make a theory of your own -- is it your deep psychological biases that make the decision? If this is your conclusion, then what reasoning did you use? How did you reach this conclusion?

So, does this mean that philosophers are fooling themselves if they don't think that the only reason why they subscribe to the theories that they do is because of their personal arbitrary biases? — clemogo

Not at all. They are pretty much aware of biases. Rawls had driven this problem to the ground. (Veil of ignorance or the original position).

Look at it this way. Up until the 19th century and extending to the now we were too busy finding solutions to problems that were physical - diseases, hard labor, to name two. From then we've achieved some level of peace and comfort to focus on our mental wellbeing and one beneficial outcome of that was the discovery of so-called cognitive biases. Psychology is in its infancy, there's still a lot to learn in my humble opinion. At this juncture, just realizing that we could be biased/prejudiced is a giant leap for mankind!

There'a also the matter of whether bias is wholly a bad thing. At the very least, it adds color to our lives notwithstanding that most opine that the price for this is a slew of problems, even bloody wars. Gotta take the bad with the good? :chin:

And yet here you are trying to make a theory of your own -- is it your deep psychological biases that make the decision? If this is your conclusion, then what reasoning did you use? How did you reach this conclusion? — Caldwell

My conclusion comes from 2 observations:

1. It's impossible to know that we have overcome our biases because some of our biases may be unconscious.

2. Within any given topic in philosophy, there are multiple different theories, each with pros and cons. It's very rare that there is a consensus on the 'correct theory'. (Consider theories about probability, reference, causality, free will, etc.)

So, my question is what causes philosophers to disagree? My thinking is It's actually these deep, unconscious biases which are ingrained in one's mind from their genes, upbringing, life experiences, etc. If this is true, then it means that what we believe is ultimately kind of arbitrary, and based on things that happened to us that were outside our control.

@clemogo

This is a quote from German Philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte: “What sort of philosophy one chooses depends, therefore, on what sort of man one is; for a philosophical system is not a dead piece of furniture that we can accept or reject as we wish, it is rather a thing animated by the soul of the person who holds it.”

Philosophers, just like anyone else are children of their time. It is impossible to overcome every bias and indeed, what you hint at with 'you can never know if you have overcome your biases' is known also as the problem of self reflection. We might engage in self reflection but we need self reflection to know if the self we are refecting on is really accurately represented, an infinite regress.

However, I think you push the envelop too far when you say that "the only reason they ascribe to these theories is because of their personal arbitrary bias". They base themselves on arguments and these arguments themselves have their base in logic or in any case on some intuitive level that people grasp through a certain like mindedness. We are all biased, but we also have a lot in common. It is through this commonality (of having a world for instance, of being placed in time, of having bodily needs and desires, of recognizing the laws of logic etc) that philosophers construe arguments. So while one has to be as far as possible be aware of bias, this needs not be absolutized into full blown relativism.

Indeed many philosophers have tried to come up with non contextualized systems and arguments, Rawls for instance and Kant. They are not the be all and end all of philosophy or impervious to critique, but their arguments still appeal to us, even though we live in a different time from them. At the same time one can have more affinity with a Rawlsian line of reasoning, or with someone like McIntyre. We all have philosophical tastes, but that is no problem as long as our arguments are sound and persuasive.

This is a great answer, thank you :)

Under the assumption that doing philosophy is not the same as philosophizing, at the most fundamental level, as individuals, the consequence of the inescapability of biases on our philosophy, is that they become indistinguishable.

Philosophy proper is the a priori organization of cognitions, biases are cognitions, so.....

What exactly does bias mean? From a book on critical thinking: A person is biased on a given issue when he's not interested in the truths that pertain thereof but in something else (money, influence, basically personal gain of any kind).

Bias needs to be distinguished from persepective. The latter is a nod to complexity and nuance, two things good philosophers always keep an eye out for.

If you become aware of a bias you have begun to mitigate it. So even if bias can't be eliminated, this does not mean we should not attempt to minimize it.

https://effectiviology.com/cognitive-debiasing-how-to-debias/

Does my individual psychology (which has accrued various arbitrary biases based on my genes, upbringing, books I've read, etc.) limit what philosophical theories I can consider to be good/true? — clemogo

This is why proper upbringing, and education are imperative. One's way of thinking is no less of a habit than other activities which we engage in. Learning to overrule whatever biases one is inclined toward due to genetics or predisposition, is part of a proper education. How to proceed with an open mind is something which must be learned, because it is impossible that it could be hereditary. This is the concept of free will, to free your decision making from such influences which force your decision making in one way or another irrationally.

In Darwinian terms, cognitive biases may be as critical for survival as even air. Why else are there so many and active as ever in our thought processes? Are they on their way out...only vestigeal remnants of an older version of the brain? More intriguingly, are they on their way in(to our lives)...are our minds just getting the latest updates/upgrades?

If you ask me, the existence of a rich set of cognitive biases bespeak what I've been suspicious of for a long time: truth is great but there are things (e.g. life) more important than truth. Gennaion pseudos (noble lie); Socrates was onto something

This is why proper upbringing, and education are imperative. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

Learning to overrule whatever biases one is inclined toward due to genetics or predisposition, is part of a proper education. — Metaphysician Undercover

My education sucks. I have this bias, this predisposed inclination, to detest beheadings that I haven’t learned to over-rule.

So I can assume that you wouldn't have taken a spectator's seat at the guillotine in the French Revolution. Maybe what you've learned to over-rule is the inclination to enjoy beheadings.

No fair. If I’m transported to a time not my own, I should be classed accordingly. If a mere paysan I might grab a seat, if I’m a Rousseau/Voltaire-type, I might not. Louis’ cousin.....I’d beat a hasty retreat to Quebec. One could argue it was the degree of exploitation, rather than education, which determines attendance. All quite irrelevant regardless.

Still...can a innate predisposition, as such, be subjected to over-ruling, whether by education or otherwise? And what of a good bias? Should my innate predisposition to help the proverbial lil’ ol’ lady cross the street be educated out of me?

You made no distinction between the relative values of our individual biases, grouping them all as biases in general, the compendium of which we can be taught to overcome. To that alone, I make objection.

Bias, schmias.

That we have biases is undisputed; a truism, really. But too much is made of this by some, perhaps many, to raise doubt regarding our ability to make sound judgments, just as the fact that we're undoubtedly human, and have the characteristics of humans (in terms of perception), is used to raise doubts regarding our ability to know the existence or nature of the world. There are ways to mitigate bias, just as there are ways of confirming perceptions. So, we should try to do that, and see what the results are, and act accordingly.

Still...can a innate predisposition, as such, be subjected to over-ruling, whether by education or otherwise? And what of a good bias? Should my innate predisposition to help the proverbial lil’ ol’ lady cross the street be educated out of me?

You made no distinction between the relative values of our individual biases, grouping them all as biases in general, the compendium of which we can be taught to overcome. To that alone, I make objection. — Mww

There is no doubt in my mind, that some innate biases can be overcome. The more pertinent question is as you say, "what of a good bias?" And of course the related question of how do we decide which are good, bad, or indifferent.

What you seem to object to is the idea that all biases ought to be overcome, even ones which might be good. The reason for this, and this takes us right to the foundation of skepticism, is that we cannot properly distinguish between good and bad biases, when we are already biased. This means we must rid ourselves of all biases, form an open mind, then reassess all those dismissed biases from this newly established position.

Skepticism instructs us to doubt everything, and this is because what appears to be knowledge appears to be knowledge, regardless of whether it is true or false knowledge. So we cannot distinguish between true knowledge and false knowledge by its appearance because it all appears to be knowledge. Therefore we must subject anything which appears as knowledge, to doubt. And this is a similar principle to rejecting all biases, because from the position of holding a bias one cannot properly distinguish which biases are good, and which are bad.

....some innate biases can be overcome. — Metaphysician Undercover

True enough, if one accepts that biases are innate. I don’t think I’d go that far, and apparently, neither do you, because you said, “inclined toward due to genetics or predisposition”.

we cannot properly distinguish between good and bad biases, when we are already biased. — Metaphysician Undercover

We naturally have feelings, but can certainly distinguish a good one from a bad one. It follows that how we feel about a bias may be exactly how we distinguish them from each other, by how the object of each affects us.

This means we must rid ourselves of all biases, form an open mind, then reassess all those dismissed biases from this newly established position. — Metaphysician Undercover

And this prevents us from just going right back to a new bias, a new inclination of a different color, but inclination nonetheless? Hell.....even the claim of having an open mind is a bias of its own.

Skepticism instructs us to doubt..... — Metaphysician Undercover

True, but it serves no purpose to doubt ourselves into oblivion. If humans are naturally inclined to biases and cognitive dispositions, it seems rather futile to effect their collective demise. Besides, I suspect there are some biases we refuse to over-rule, and in conjunction with them, the innate predispositions we couldn’t over-rule without destroying the manifest identity to which they belong.

Therefore we must subject anything which appears as knowledge, to doubt. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ehhhh.....rational criticism, perhaps. Doubt implies dismissal Without the opportunity for correction.

I get what you’re saying; I just think you’ve gone too far with it, in terms of practical purposes and the consequences for philosophy.

This means we must rid ourselves of all biases, form an open mind, — Metaphysician Undercover

Go ahead, express something that is not already seated somewhere, somehow, someway. The notion of the ridding of all is absurd - impossible. One may attempt to identify biases and to work with, around or through them, but every gesture is biased is some way. Do you care to retreat from the categorical to something (more) reasonable?

Well, these things are inescapable. One thing is to claim neutrality from bias, another thing is to not have any, which is likely not possible.

It makes sense to think that personality factors into one's choice of accepted approaches to philosophy. How far does this factor alone determine these things, is likely not possible to say.

True enough, if one accepts that biases are innate. I don’t think I’d go that far, and apparently, neither do you, because you said, “inclined toward due to genetics or predisposition”. — Mww

Oh yeah, you can see right through me. Not. If one is naturally inclined in one way rather than another, that's a bias. But being inclined in one way or another does not necessitate behaviour in that way because we have the will power to resist such inclinations. So any bias can be overcome, that's the nature of free will, and will power. But just because these inclinations (biases) can be overcome, does not mean that they are not biases.

We naturally have feelings, but can certainly distinguish a good one from a bad one. It follows that how we feel about a bias may be exactly how we distinguish them from each other, by how the object of each affects us. — Mww

I don\t agree that we can "certainly distinguish a good feeling from a bad feeling". Sometimes the distinction is easy, other times not so easy. And if we start to analyze the criteria of what distinguishes the good from the bad, then sometimes we find out that some of the ones we have taken for granted as good or bad, have been misjudged.

And this prevents us from just going right back to a new bias, a new inclination of a different color, but inclination nonetheless? — Mww

Yes, but the decision is made from a more fully developed intellect, so it is more rational. That's the whole point. Biases developed when we are children are positions of judgement accepted by a juvenile mind, which has not necessarily developed the full potential of rationality. And innate biases are even less rational. So as we grow older, and develop the full capacity of logical reasoning, which is proper to an educated human being, we need to reassess any biases developed when we less capable of such reasoning. This is simply a matter of introspection, to distinguish bad habits from good, and use the will power required to reject the bad,

The problem is that one's own ways of thinking are always assumed to be good, or else the person wouldn't be thinking that way. And the same will power, or more, is required to break a good habit as is required to break a bad habit. But in the case of ways of thinking, the habit can only be judged as a bad way of thinking if one is not thinking that way at the time. So each way of thinking, be it good or bad, must be prevented before it can be properly judged as good or bad.

That we return to a "bias" after such a judgement is not an issue, because the practise of breaking the biases, and judging them has been developed, and this is what matters. So in a matter of time, the new bias will itself be blocked and reassessed, and this is what is important. This habit, of blocking the biases, and judging them cannot be said to be a bias itself. It is a way of thinking of a free willing mind, which cannot be called a bias because it is not directed in any particular direction.

True, but it serves no purpose to doubt ourselves into oblivion. If humans are naturally inclined to biases and cognitive dispositions, it seems rather futile to effect their collective demise. — Mww

It is not a matter of doubting oneself into oblivion. It is just the introspection of a healthy rational mind which does not want to be misled by itself, by trusting, and relying on, decisions it made when it was less capable. Once we realize that a mind keeps developing over a very long portion of one's lifetime, we ought to recognize the need to keep reassessing the principles we employ for making judgements.

Besides, I suspect there are some biases we refuse to over-rule, and in conjunction with them, the innate predispositions we couldn’t over-rule without destroying the manifest identity to which they belong. — Mww

Yes, most people refuse to judge their biases, that's why we call these people biased. But if you recognize that biases can be judged and over-ruled, then you'll see that this way of thinking, which engages in that procedure cannot be a biased way of thinking.

And the latter statement here is just a blatant denial of free will as an identifying feature of human beings. Are you determinist?

Doubt implies dismissal Without the opportunity for correction. — Mww

No, "doubt" implies indecision. This does not mean that the thing doubted, i.e. what the person is indecisive about, will necessarily be dismissed. Judgement is suspended, so the thing being judged (doubted) is held in a mental position where it is neither accepted nor rejected.

I get what you’re saying; I just think you’ve gone too far with it, in terms of practical purposes and the consequences for philosophy. — Mww

If the principles are reasonable, and there appears to be nothing wrong "in principle", then why not take them as far as one can go, in practise. If in practise, a brick wall is hit, where the principles have difficulty, and further process is prevented, then we need to reassess the principles to see what the problem is.

Go ahead, express something that is not already seated somewhere, somehow, someway. The notion of the ridding of all is absurd - impossible. One may attempt to identify biases and to work with, around or through them, but every gesture is biased is some way. Do you care to retreat from the categorical to something (more) reasonable? — tim wood

Obviously you are a very biased person if you are attempting to justify your biases in this way, instead of accepting the fact that you might be able to rid yourself of the bad ones if you would only submit to the process of doubting them all. This being required in order to identify all the bad ones as bad.

And this prevents us from just going right back to a new bias, a new inclination of a different color, but inclination nonetheless?
— Mww

Yes, but the decision is made from a more fully developed intellect (...) more rational (...) develop the full capacity of logical reasoning (...) a matter of introspection (...) a matter of time — Metaphysician Undercover

That's the whole point. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, my point exactly. Yours is predicated on education, the qualifications above listed being more attributable to experience than mere education. One cannot even become properly educated without those qualifications. Or, in other words, becoming educated presupposes those qualifications. Either way, and however reduced. It is education that comes as a consequence, and never as an antecedent.

So any bias can be overcome, that's the nature of free will, and will power. — Metaphysician Undercover

And that right there is the proverbial knife-in-the-heart of your predication on education. Will power cannot be taught. And while experience is a form of education, absent the stipulation that says otherwise, education as used herein indicates the formal, sit-down-shut-up-and-memorize brand of it.
————-

We naturally have feelings, but can certainly distinguish a good one from a bad one.
— Mww

I don\t agree that we can "certainly distinguish a good feeling from a bad feeling". Sometimes the distinction is easy, other times not so easy. — Metaphysician Undercover

Categorical error aside, easily or difficultly, even problematically, distinguishing a good feeling from a bad, or the relative degree of one or the other with respect to themselves, is a distinction.
————-

Doubt implies dismissal Without the opportunity for correction.
— Mww

No, "doubt" implies indecision. — Metaphysician Undercover

Hmmm....yeah, I’ll own that. I should have said implies possible dismissal.
————-

we need to reassess the principles to see what the problem is. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yep. Given the principle......

Learning to overrule whatever biases one is inclined toward due to genetics or predisposition, is part of a proper education. — Metaphysician Undercover

.......the proposed counterargument suggests both a reevaluation of conditionals and a reassessment of the principle the conditionals endorse.

With respect to which, I offer, for your consideration: education in the minor and my experiences in the major determine the possibilities toward biases in general, my biases represent a rational determination from those possibilities, which is called persuasion, my innate predispositions judge a priori whether my biases conform to my nature, which is called interest.

Agree with any of that?

Yes, my point exactly. Yours is predicated on education, the qualifications above listed being more attributable to experience than mere education. One cannot even become properly educated without those qualifications. Or, in other words, becoming educated presupposes those qualifications. Either way, and however reduced. It is education that comes as a consequence, and never as an antecedent.

So any bias can be overcome, that's the nature of free will, and will power.
— Metaphysician Undercover

And that right there is the proverbial knife-in-the-heart of your predication on education. Will power cannot be taught. And while experience is a form of education, absent the stipulation that says otherwise, education as used herein indicates the formal, sit-down-shut-up-and-memorize brand of it. — Mww

What's with the inconsistency Mww? First you say that these "qualifications" are more attributable to experience than education, but then you proceed to say that experience is a form of education. If these "qualifications" are attributable to experience, and experience is a form of education, then such "qualifications" are necessarily attributable to education. What we cannot conclude is that they are attributable to all forms of education.

So you proceed to restrict "education" to a "sit-down-and-shut-up" form, attempting to deny that introspection and other forms of being self-taught are valid forms of education. And this is evident in your claim that "will power cannot be taught". In actuality will power is self-taught, through practise and exercise. We are given will, but the determination and persistence, which constitutes the will to succeed, will power, is developed through practise. And since this "power" can be freely transposed from one habit to another, it cannot be called a bias. It is the inclination to direct the will power in one direction rather than another, which is a bias.

.......the proposed counterargument suggests both a reevaluation of conditionals and a reassessment of the principle the conditionals endorse.

With respect to which, I offer, for your consideration: education in the minor and my experiences in the major determine the possibilities toward biases in general, my biases represent a rational determination from those possibilities, which is called persuasion, my innate predispositions judge a priori whether my biases conform to my nature, which is called interest.

Agree with any of that? — Mww

Inconsistency again? Above you said that experience is a form of education. This would put experience as the minor, and education as the major, education as logically prior to experience. You now look to reverse this, making experience the major, and education the minor. Are you now saying that education is a form of experience? Why not just equate the two? All forms of experience are education and all forms of education are experience.

If we take this position as a clean slate, I'd have to disagree with your proposal. I disagree because there must be a capacity which enables, or allows one to experience, or be educated. And this capacity is necessarily prior to experience and education. And, I believe it is quite possible that a bias could be inherent within such a capacity. In fact, upon analysis we might find that this capacity is best described as a type of bias in itself.

This is why, in philosophy we must doubt, or question this very capacity itself, the capacity which allows us to understand, because of the way that it may taint our knowledge. This is the tinted glass analogy used in theological metaphysics. It is proposed that the soul must be immaterial in order that it can understand and know all material things. However, since the intellect, which is the means through which the soul knows, is united with, and dependent on the material body, this material body acts like a lens through which the intellect "sees" the world. And since the lens is material rather than immaterial, it is as a tinted lens.

That the lens which we see the world through is tinted, does not necessitate that the world will be misunderstood by us. What is required is that we determine and understand the nature of the tinting in order that we can account for it, and adjust for it in our understanding. The "capacity to experience and understand" is that lens through which we "see" the world. And so we must learn to understand the biases which inhere within this capacity, in order to develop a true understanding. This is a matter of negating those biases.

Ehhhh......think I’ll leave it to the audience from here on out. Assuming there is one. Let them be the judge.