• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Word Needed: Delusion? Faith?

 
 
 
ideologyhunter said:
From my reading, most concepts that match your example are going to be in two-word form. Wish fulfillment or (with a bit more circumstance) confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
I would add to this  appeal to consequences and  appeal to emotion.

Also,  self-serving bias. If you are better-looking, that would benefit the believer, so it is the preferred belief. If you are smarter, that would benefit the believer, so it is the preferred belief.
 
Every time I have seen "confirmation bias" used it is to confirm a bias the user has for someone else's biases.
 
It's actually partly all of these, plus a little Dunning-Kruger thrown in for good measure. Seems we need a more accurate word, especially since it's precisely how our commander and chief makes his decisions.
 
Horatio Parker said:
Malintent said:
My point is to answer the OP question... The OP's point (or one of them) is that words mean things... and I agree... and you now understand that, because words really do mean things (to those with comprehension abilities).

While a single word may not precisely capture every nuance of any idea, some words are better than others. The word intuition missed an element of the thought, and another word exists that captures it.

words are tools... use them or beat your fists upon your chest and grunt... whatever works for you..
Click to expand...

And this better word is...what?
Click to expand...

What I said. "Sophistry".
 
Malintent said:
What I said. "Sophistry".
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was only looking at our exchanges.

Anyway, I don't see how sophistry, which as I understand it denotes a relationship between people as opposed to an individual's inner self, is applicable. The OP is about internal processes.
 
Explanation: if the other person is wrong to accuse you of confirmation bias, then that means the arguments supporting your conclusion are valid. Ask them to demonstrate what is wrong with your arguments.

If they are the ones who are really indulging in confirmation bias, then that means the arguments supporting their conclusions are either weak or perhaps even completely invalid. If this is the case, then demonstrate what is wrong with their arguments.

Responding with "No, you're the one who is really giving in to confirmation bias" is a fairly useless observation, hence my pithy response.
 
Horatio Parker said:
Malintent said:
What I said. "Sophistry".
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was only looking at our exchanges.

Anyway, I don't see how sophistry, which as I understand it denotes a relationship between people as opposed to an individual's inner self, is applicable. The OP is about internal processes.
Click to expand...

OK, some more words, then...

Mythomania: an abnormal or pathological tendency to exaggerate or tell lies

pseudologia fantastica: The medical name of the condition commonly known as "pathological lying".. synonymous with Mythomania.
 
Jobar said:
 Fideism?
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Fideism is highly relevant to the discussion, but it doesn't refer to people that actually rely on irrational faith to arrive at beliefs. Rather, it refers to the philosophical understanding about epistemology that recognized the inherent opposition between faith and reasoned thought.

One could technically accept this view (as I do), but still take either side in terms of being in favor of faith versus reason. The father of the Protestant Revolution, Martin Luther was accepted Fideism, but used the idea to argue that the Christian religion rooted in faith should be based in personal experience and emotionalism and not scholarship and formal theology which was how the Catholic Church controlled Christianity.

OTOH, the harshest critics of religion also tend to accept Fideism, viewing the core problem of religion as being faith itself, which they (correctly, IMO) identify as the definitional antithesis of reason and thus inherently incompatible with scientific thinking and valid knowledge. Getting back to the OP, Fideism is compatible with viewing faith as a form of self-delusion, because ignoring fact and reason to reach emotionally preferred implausible conclusions come close to capturing the essence of both faith and self-delusion.
 
I've gone from extolling sophisticated philosophical arguments constructed and put forth by people far, far more intelligent than me to "You really believe some invisible guy who created everything has nothing better to do than watch you take a shit?"

It's as intellectually demanding as I'm willing to make things with respect to the fraud called "faith."
 
What word would you use to describe someone that thinks they can discern reality despite being proven wrong many times.


Human?
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
For example, most people believe they are of above average intelligence and better than average looking... which obviously can't be true.
Click to expand...

Why not? Here's a racist example. Let's suppose there are 10 AD&D player characters. 8 are humans and 2 are half-orcs. The two half orcs have charisma 3 and 4. The 8 humans have scores 4, 8, 11, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 17. The average charisma is 9.7. 6 out of 10 of the characters are of above average charisma, i.e, most of the players can validly think they are better than average in the group. There's no reason why the world at large cannot also have some really fugly, deformed people who pull down the average. There's no reason to assume that an equally sized subpopulation of good-looking mutants cancels this out. In short, you are confusing median and average.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom