Thanks to u/v8power for the excellent suggestion!
It's a tricky topic!
This is 1 of 2 round tables this time, due to a tie.
Thanks to everyone who made suggestions or voted!
Thanks to u/v8power for the excellent suggestion!
It's a tricky topic!
This is 1 of 2 round tables this time, due to a tie.
Thanks to everyone who made suggestions or voted!
Does it make more sense to you to agree with things because they disagree with things you already believe? Btw, that isn't dunning kruger (check wiki, you may be confused). That is simple logic. And it's not about belief, it's about odds. Take your point and reverse it, find if what you "believe" make sense to be discarded when judging new thoughts.
If what you already believe isn't a basis for judgement, why would new beliefs be? If you weren't capable of thinking until today, what makes you believe now you started for real?
I think therefore i am; i believe, and i judge according to my beliefs. The belief not to have to judge info based on old beliefs? that's an old belief you got, dude. Circular logic. Word salad.
Examples would be abound, but frankly i think the logic itself you stated is quite evidently not sound on a minimal reasoning.
As for intuition and instinct, i suppose it depends on your own experience with it. If . you are never right you will refuse it, if you often hit you will tend to go with it unless something seems off. As long as you are able to challenge/modify your results based on new evidence, there is no problem in having a working hypothesis by those sources.
Literally most scientific discovery is made by people who had a thought by intuition and went on to test it.
The catapult inventor is said to have dreamed of it a night and then reverse engineered his dream.
Disregarding our natural sense of "getting it" is stupid imo. Has always been the best starter for discovery.