Radio Free Mormon & Backyard Professor Take Elder David A. Bednar to the Limit

[Marcus]

Confirmation bias is unavoidable to varying degrees, no matter what epistemological or developmental methods are employed, be they secular or religious.

However, functional methods (processes) will naturally include elements to help minimize or surmount confirmation bias where possible.

Since confirmation bias merely confirms what is already known or believed, and represents the status quo, an epistemological or developmental methodology that includes the element of growth in knowledge and faith, can reasonably be considered as functional because it surmounts the confirmation bias.

The process outlined in Alma 32, particularly when used in conjunction with Moroni 10, and as employed in relation the restored gospel of Christ, contains an element of growth (it is actually THE key element), and thus may be considered functional.

Said another way, epistemological and developmental methodologies (processes) can reasonably be considered as functional if they produce the intended growth, development, and progress.

Could you expound on your definition of functional methods? Above you are saying they “help minimize or surmount confirmation bias where possible,” but then further on you say processes are functional “if they produce the intended growth, development, and progress.”

The problem is that “intended” development implies what you expected to happen, or in other words, the development that your confirmation bias expects.

These two descriptions of functional processes are logically contradictory.

[wenglund]

…Said another way, whether secular or religious, the divergence in beliefs within a broad ideational category (religion, philosophy, politics, and economics) is not reasonable grounds, in itself, to reject all or a select set of beliefs and evidence.

No, this is an illogical position to take. For example, if this were true, the fact that there is a divergence between a belief in a flat earth and another belief in a somewhat spherical earth would mean that there are no reasonable grounds to

1) reject both beliefs (I.e. you must believe in both a flat earth and a round earth),

and also

2) you cannot reject either one of the beliefs on any other grounds, simply because both may“exist” in people’s minds.

This is fallacious reasoning.

No, you evidently failed to see or comprehend my very important qualifier: "in itself". In other words, I was saying that it is not reasonable to reject any or all beliefs SOLELY on the basis that there is a divergence of beliefs. One cannot reasonably reject the belief in a spherical earth SOLELY on the basis that other people believe in a round or a flat earth, etc.. Each belief regarding the shape of the earth can only reasonably be rejected on their own respective merits.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[wenglund]

Could you expound on your definition of functional methods? Above you are saying they “help minimize or surmount confirmation bias where possible,” but then further on you say processes are functional “if they produce the intended growth, development, and progress.”

The problem is that “intended” development implies what you expected to happen, or in other words, the development that your confirmation bias expects.

These two descriptions of functional processes are logically contradictory.

No. You are mistaken. A functional methodology is one that both minimizes confirmation bias and works as intended. The intent of methodology isn't to confirm the bias, as you mistakenly supposed, since it is designed to minimize it. Instead, the intent is to test and produce GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT in faith and knowledge and other attributes, and this beyond the confirmed bias. It is the GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT that indicate that methodology works as intended. It is the GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT that indicate that the methodology is functional.

Think of it as similar to the scientific method. The scientific method is functional because it both minimizes confirmation bias and works as intended. The intent of the scientific method isn't to confirm the bias that it is designed to minimize. Instead, the intent is to test and produce GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT in scientific knowledge. It works as intended. It is functional.

Does that help?

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Marcus]

No, this is an illogical position to take. For example, if this were true, the fact that there is a divergence between a belief in a flat earth and another belief in a somewhat spherical earth would mean that there are no reasonable grounds to

1) reject both beliefs (I.e. you must believe in both a flat earth and a round earth),

and also

2) you cannot reject either one of the beliefs on any other grounds, simply because both may“exist” in people’s minds.

This is fallacious reasoning.

No, you evidently failed to see or comprehend my very important qualifier: "in itself". In other words, I was saying that it is not reasonable to reject any or all beliefs SOLELY on the basis that there is a divergence of beliefs. One cannot reasonably reject the belief in a spherical earth SOLELY on the basis that other people believe in a round or a flat earth, etc.. Each belief regarding the shape of the earth can only reasonably be rejected on their own respective merits.

Thanks, Wade Englund

Ah, I see. Then you do not reject, for example, the BYP’s way of belief, solely because your way of belief exists. In other words, you need to argue the merits of a position, rather than just asserting it as true.

You may need to change your way of conversing on this board then, because you have just admitted that both accepting and rejecting beliefs on the basis of their merits is the proper and logical approach.

[Marcus]

Could you expound on your definition of functional methods? Above you are saying they “help minimize or surmount confirmation bias where possible,” but then further on you say processes are functional “if they produce the intended growth, development, and progress.”

The problem is that “intended” development implies what you expected to happen, or in other words, the development that your confirmation bias expects.

These two descriptions of functional processes are logically contradictory.

No. You are mistaken. A functional methodology is one that both minimizes confirmation bias and works as intended. The intent of methodology isn't to confirm the bias, as you mistakenly supposed, since it is designed to minimize it. Instead, the intent is to test and produce GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT in faith and knowledge and other attributes, and this beyond the confirmed bias. It is the GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT that indicate that methodology works as intended. It is the GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT that indicate that the methodology is functional.

Think of it as similar to the scientific method. The scientific method is functional because it both minimizes confirmation bias and works as intended. The intent of the scientific method isn't to confirm the bias that it is designed to minimize. Instead, the intent is to test and produce GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT in scientific knowledge. It works as intended. It is functional.

Does that help?

Thanks, Wade Englund

You can leave off the “does that help” comments. Unless you want me, a professor at an exceedingly more prestigious university than yours, to condescend correspondingly to you.

Your analogy of the scientific method is misused, due to the lack of falsification in your process. The Alma test you referred to earlier has implicit in it the requirement that if the expected answer is not received, one should try again until one receives the correct answer, which, by definition, is the “intended” response. Changing the way the word “intent” is used, as you did in the above paragraph, does not obviate the clear implication that the “intended growth, development, and progress” was intended to be in the direction of your starting assumptions.

Continuing to search until your starting assumptions are vindicated, at least in your mind, is the definition of confirmation bias.

[wenglund]

Sadly, I don’t think he sees room for all people to find happiness in their own way. He must ridicule another’s choices to justify his own.

Quite the contrary. I explicitly acknowledged that other people can find "happiness" through beliefs and practices divergent from mine. In fact, their "happiness" is one of the reasons I gave for why they may prefer not to change from their beliefs and practices to mine, and as such may unwittingly deny themselves the blessing that flow from my belief and practices. (I put the word "happiness" in quotes because happiness means different things to different people)

And, nowhere did I ridicule their choice. At worst I may have expressed sadness that their choice may unwittingly deny them blessing I believe they might otherwise have had, which in turn motivates me to suggest an alternative.

Also, I have explicitly stated that I am not here to convince or convert people to my point of view. In other words, I do not intend to justify my choice. Instead, I have offered a way for people to justify it for themselves. I have done so because I have confidence in that suggested methodology.

In short, be careful. You may be inadvertently confessing through projection.

Thanks, Wade Englund

[Marcus]

Sadly, I don’t think he sees room for all people to find happiness in their own way. He must ridicule another’s choices to justify his own.

Quite the contrary. I explicitly acknowledged that other people can find "happiness" through beliefs and practices divergent from mine. In fact, their "happiness" is one of the reasons I gave for why they may prefer not to change from their beliefs and practices to mine, and as such may unwittingly deny themselves the blessing that flow from my belief and practices. (I put the word "happiness" in quotes because happiness means different things to different people)

And, nowhere did I ridicule their choice.

Don’t be facile. In the paragraph above, you ridiculed. Or tried to, anyway. No one is going to take nonsense like that seriously.

In short, be careful. You may be inadvertently confessing through projection.

Now that’s funny. Dumb, but funny.

[drumdude]

Don’t forget he has priesthood authority over you, Marcus! Just like all 12 year old Mormon boys!

[Marcus]

Don’t forget he has priesthood authority over you, Marcus! Just like all 12 year old Mormon boys!

[Dr Exiled]

Sadly, I don’t think he sees room for all people to find happiness in their own way. He must ridicule another’s choices to justify his own.

Quite the contrary. I explicitly acknowledged that other people can find "happiness" through beliefs and practices divergent from mine. In fact, their "happiness" is one of the reasons I gave for why they may prefer not to change from their beliefs and practices to mine, and as such may unwittingly deny themselves the blessing that flow from my belief and practices. (I put the word "happiness" in quotes because happiness means different things to different people)

And, nowhere did I ridicule their choice. At worst I may have expressed sadness that their choice may unwittingly deny them blessing I believe they might otherwise have had, which in turn motivates me to suggest an alternative.

Also, I have explicitly stated that I am not here to convince or convert people to my point of view. In other words, I do not intend to justify my choice. Instead, I have offered a way for people to justify it for themselves. I have done so because I have confidence in that suggested methodology.

In short, be careful. You may be inadvertently confessing through projection.

Thanks, Wade Englund

I love your humble superiority act. Are you shedding some tears over our awful state? Alma 32 has certainly taken you to imagined heights of greatness. You've reached the "too sacred to share" level in the celestial multi-level invention. You should congratulate yourself, in your humble way of course. Too bad you can't see how blind you actually are.