You're quite right. We all develop a bias about the world, and even as I say that I'm pretty good at "critical thinking", there's no telling whether I actually am. Anyone at any level of knowledge, experience, or culture can plausibly come to an implausible belief. It's easy to think ourselves correct and others, if they disagree, incorrect. Always keep that in mind. I am not the beginning. I am not the end. I have my views and my veracity will be perceived diversely by others with their own rich worldviews.
For sure, but I think GP's point (certainly mine) is that the opposite end of the spectrum is also a commonly trod landmine. The world is not split into, say, people who believe global warming is completely bunk and people who are fully informed on the best forecasts of global warming. There are levels to the information people have, and then to how people perceive that information, and then to how people communicate that information, and so on. Science is generally the correct tool for most jobs, but it would be a mistake to say that our implementation and realization of science is necessarily correct. And that's without mentioning what people then do with their knowledge.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I hereby appeal to the guidelines. Comments like mine or GP, that may come off as controversial or offensive (which is a function of the reader), should be read and responded to with time to breathe. Considering the topic of this thread, even more so. Anyone's immediate interpretation relies on more primitive modes of cognition that are generally more emotionally saturated. I'm not bashing science or whatever. I know some people do (on here?). I want to say that intellectualism is a journey and a struggle. If the truth was easy to come by, only malicious people would be an obstacle. But people aren't generally malicious, just hurt and confused.
Here I'm saying your interpretation of my comment is wrong. You can be wrong. And as you're reading this, keep in mind that I can be wrong. I'm not just including myself to let you save face or something. I mean it. The core of intellectualism is not doing science or whatever, not in practice at least. A rational agent has no stubbornness. But as humans, having humility and self-awareness is necessary.
The scientific method is currently our best method to try to remove our biases and move towards the truth. It's certainly not perfect (funding can introduce systemic biases and can direct research away from certain topics), but it's so much better than the alternatives.
There's also the issue of people/scientists not being willing to adjust their beliefs when presented with new information. Science advances funeral by funeral
