82,447
edits
Cognitive dissonance: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Where defence is even needed (much of the time, ignoring will do just fine), classic approaches include ''[[ad hominem]]'' arguments, ''[[reductio ad absurdam]]s'', analogising to the Third Reich and, if you're really rattled, the old [[correlation does not imply causation]] chestnut, but the most reliable of the lot is just ignoring utterly. | Where defence is even needed (much of the time, ignoring will do just fine), classic approaches include ''[[ad hominem]]'' arguments, ''[[reductio ad absurdam]]s'', analogising to the Third Reich and, if you're really rattled, the old [[correlation does not imply causation]] chestnut, but the most reliable of the lot is just ignoring utterly. | ||
You won’t notice you’re doing it. You | You won’t notice you’re doing it. You won’t even ''believe'' you’re doing it. There are plenty of pragmatic reasons you should do this. This is how scientific progress works. You acquire scientific knowledge — indeed, ''any'' specialist knowledge — by gaining entry to a heavily fortified citadel of knowledge — a series of ideas and predicates built upon a basic [[narrative]] architecture. Entry to the citadel is jealousy guarded by acolytes to ensure members of the fraternity are suitably indoctrinated in those predicates before being allowed to fool around with them. Therefore, you can’t reach a position of influence in that [[narrative]] architecture — in that [[paradigm]] — without first making a fundamental commitment to its precepts strong enough to prevent you fooling around with them without sacrificing your credibility. | ||
They have compromising photos, that is to say. | They have compromising photos, that is to say. | ||