That was part of my point—that, in this one facet of human endeavor, and in modern times rather than ancient ones, it’s remarkable the extent to which an actual Light Side Epistemology and Dark Side Epistemology have developed. Like the sort of contrast that naive people draw between Their Party and the Other Party, only in real life.
That sounds a lot more like you’re being subject to the same bias.
“Some people have this view, even though reality is more complex, but what’s amazing is that in a subject area I care a lot about, that’s what’s there.”
Yes, if you label the things you accept Light, and the things you reject Dark, you’ll see that dichotomy, but why that grouping?
Is traditional rationality Light side? or just bayesianism?
The dark side might be more appropriately grouped into a few different schools.
There will be classes of similar rules that contain both light and dark members.
The both sides have always been around, some of the light side rules might be new, and it is new to group the light side together as the things that work best.
But they are not opposed to each other. Just as physics doesn’t care if you suffer, logic doesn’t care if you get the right answer. There is no battle for our minds. Humans argue about the origin of life, but all existing humans use a combination of light and dark thinking. Creationists can look for evidence and evolutionists can say irrational things for their own psychological defense. The ‘sides’ coexist quite peacefully, not at all like competing bands of primates.
And this might be a reason that it’s so hard to get rid of bad thinking even in ourselves. The light side doesn’t have any alarm bell defenses against the dark side.
That was part of my point—that, in this one facet of human endeavor, and in modern times rather than ancient ones, it’s remarkable the extent to which an actual Light Side Epistemology and Dark Side Epistemology have developed. Like the sort of contrast that naive people draw between Their Party and the Other Party, only in real life.
That sounds a lot more like you’re being subject to the same bias. “Some people have this view, even though reality is more complex, but what’s amazing is that in a subject area I care a lot about, that’s what’s there.”
Yes, if you label the things you accept Light, and the things you reject Dark, you’ll see that dichotomy, but why that grouping?
Is traditional rationality Light side? or just bayesianism?
The dark side might be more appropriately grouped into a few different schools.
There will be classes of similar rules that contain both light and dark members.
The both sides have always been around, some of the light side rules might be new, and it is new to group the light side together as the things that work best.
But they are not opposed to each other. Just as physics doesn’t care if you suffer, logic doesn’t care if you get the right answer. There is no battle for our minds. Humans argue about the origin of life, but all existing humans use a combination of light and dark thinking. Creationists can look for evidence and evolutionists can say irrational things for their own psychological defense. The ‘sides’ coexist quite peacefully, not at all like competing bands of primates.
And this might be a reason that it’s so hard to get rid of bad thinking even in ourselves. The light side doesn’t have any alarm bell defenses against the dark side.