One strategy to decide what to believe about X is to add up all the pro and con arguments that one is aware of regarding X, weighing each by its internal strength. Yes, it might not be obvious how to judge and combine arguments. But this strategy has a bigger problem; it risks a selection bias. What if the process that makes you aware of arguments has selected non-randomly from all the possible arguments?
For example, if the question is “Is there some complex technical solution to simple problem X”, it may not work well to exclude all complex technical solution proposals.This is contradictory. If a simple problem X could have a complex, technical solution, then it would not be a simple problem, after all.
And if you cannot thru simple reasoning come to the strong, internally consistent conclusion that a complex, technical solutions could not be applicable or superior, you should upgrade X to "complex and technical". You should rationally decide that you believe, that you do not understand X and therefore should not believe anything about it.
I tend to take a position, then look for arguments that come to a different conclusion and engage with those. Sometimes my favoured argument is then updated, but I keep looking for contradictory arguments.
I don't think most people for most topics have time to do anything very extensive. Even when they do, the space of arguments is so large that it is not usually possible to approach exhausting them. You just have to accept that what can be proven is limited.
I think this is all correct, but from the inside I feel like I follow a different process that gives a similar result:1) stick your head in the sand if there is nothing to be gained from understanding an argument. So ignore IQ, race, climate change etc.
2) If it looks like there is money on the table, ignore arguments from bias and look at the object level as much as possible. This is what I do at work, I try to ignore who is saying things and just try to figure out the truth. If only one person ever says anything solicit others for their views. This seems like what you are talking about, "de-bias" the set by including more views, discounting predictably loud voices, etc. By I only do that because I have something to lose.
It maybe makes a difference here whether you want a view that is as true as possible, regardless of the cost of acquiring it, or a view that is just better than the one that you currently hold. If the arguments you see are all biased, that may not matter if you suspect that engaging with them will move you toward the truth at low computational cost. Another way of putting it is that you will never be able to consider all the arguments on a topic, whatever set is presented to you is probably better than one you could come up with on your own because it is acquired cheaply. If there is a lot at stake you should get to work gardening the set.
I didn't become a libertarian by ignoring academic views, even though the vast majority of them are leftist. Also, I started this process pretty far to the left of center. What turned out to matter for me personally was that libertarian arguments were in the set, and that I was willing to engage at the object level. It turned out there was a lot of money on the table, I've made several large life choices based on that update.
For example, if the question is “Is there some complex technical solution to simple problem X”, it may not work well to exclude all complex technical solution proposals.This is contradictory. If a simple problem X could have a complex, technical solution, then it would not be a simple problem, after all.
And if you cannot thru simple reasoning come to the strong, internally consistent conclusion that a complex, technical solutions could not be applicable or superior, you should upgrade X to "complex and technical". You should rationally decide that you believe, that you do not understand X and therefore should not believe anything about it.
> we might just want to limit our exposure to the sources that we expect to be unusually subject to favorable selection biases
It seems to me the meta-danger of such an approach is that we might develop a selection bias toward sources.
I tend to take a position, then look for arguments that come to a different conclusion and engage with those. Sometimes my favoured argument is then updated, but I keep looking for contradictory arguments.
I don't think most people for most topics have time to do anything very extensive. Even when they do, the space of arguments is so large that it is not usually possible to approach exhausting them. You just have to accept that what can be proven is limited.
I think this is all correct, but from the inside I feel like I follow a different process that gives a similar result:1) stick your head in the sand if there is nothing to be gained from understanding an argument. So ignore IQ, race, climate change etc.
2) If it looks like there is money on the table, ignore arguments from bias and look at the object level as much as possible. This is what I do at work, I try to ignore who is saying things and just try to figure out the truth. If only one person ever says anything solicit others for their views. This seems like what you are talking about, "de-bias" the set by including more views, discounting predictably loud voices, etc. By I only do that because I have something to lose.
It maybe makes a difference here whether you want a view that is as true as possible, regardless of the cost of acquiring it, or a view that is just better than the one that you currently hold. If the arguments you see are all biased, that may not matter if you suspect that engaging with them will move you toward the truth at low computational cost. Another way of putting it is that you will never be able to consider all the arguments on a topic, whatever set is presented to you is probably better than one you could come up with on your own because it is acquired cheaply. If there is a lot at stake you should get to work gardening the set.
I didn't become a libertarian by ignoring academic views, even though the vast majority of them are leftist. Also, I started this process pretty far to the left of center. What turned out to matter for me personally was that libertarian arguments were in the set, and that I was willing to engage at the object level. It turned out there was a lot of money on the table, I've made several large life choices based on that update.