For several years I’ve been assembling what I’ve come to call my “thinking toolbox,” a collection of first principles, heuristics, quotes, and clarifying wisdom I use to navigate toward an ever more secure epistemology. I find having such a “toolbox” invaluable, and I hope that publishing it here will make my thinking more transparent to readers of my other posts. I will plan to update and revise it as my thinking develops. I would love to receive thoughts and suggestions via the comments link below. In no particular order, here’s my “thinking toolbox”…
- Objective reality exists.
- Consensual agreement about objective reality is generated through application of the scientific method.
- Seek to falsify, not to confirm. The soundness of a claim is proportional to its resistance to falsification.
- The moment you begin to be convinced by an argument, seek out the best articulated counterargument.
- Claims are only as valid as the evidence that supports them.
- True maps must converge.
- Pursue truth, not victory.
- Free speech and free thought are the only correctives to human error.
- Always know why you believe what you believe, and what it would take to change your mind. More/better information should always change your mind.
- Maintain an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
- Continually seek to understand the world from the broadest range of perspectives.
- Hold the tension between perspectives without falling into any single perspective.
- Hold nothing sacred; place nothing off limits to continual interrogation.
- “If you know what a group holds sacred, around it you will find a ring of motivated ignorance.” -Jonathan Haidt
- “All great truths begin as blasphemies.” -George Bernard Shaw
- The desire for something to be true does not constitute an epistemological point in favor of it being so.
- The fact that something may be undesirable does not constitute an epistemological point against it being true.
- Assume good faith on the part of those who disagree, unless proven otherwise by failure to engage arguments on their merits.
- The individual is sovereign; individual sovereignty is equal parts rights and responsibilities; responsibility is the door to meaning.
- Cultural creations of the pre-experimental mind cannot be interpreted using the tools and assumptions of the post-experimental mind.
- Ideologies are incomplete, partial mythologies. They are attractive due to the mythological truths they contain; they are destructive due to the mythological truths they omit. Seek to avoid ideological possession.
- Be suspicious of reductive, single-factor analyses; most complex problems require a multivariate analysis.
- Correlation does not imply causation.
- To ensure that conversations run toward depth:
- Steel man, don’t straw man. Be able to articulate opposing arguments at their best, in a manner that would be endorsed by a holder of the opposing view. Bring your counter argument to bear only after the steel man has been established. Steel manning strips away weak elements in both arguments and furthers learning on all sides. To quote John Stewart Mill, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
- When someone says something that seems obvious, first assume that they are saying something subtle until proven otherwise.
- When someone says something that seems wrong, first assume that they are saying something counterintuitive until proven otherwise.
- Always question whether you are sophisticated or unsophisticated relative to someone’s point, i.e., might they be positioned to perceive deeper meaning and complexity than you.
Deliberative Dad 
My favorite – ‘”objective reality exists” – I always struggled with ” perception is reality” – nope. Real is real.
Looking forward to our next conversation.
LikeLike
Thanks Mary! I agree.
This may strike some as so obvious as to be redundant. I think not. We seem to be witnessing the steady disintegration of enlightenment empiricism and the rise of a relativistic postmodernism.
In 2004 the George W. Bush administration treated us to this gem: “People like you are still living in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That’s not the way the world really works anymore. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Today this fruit has ripened (or rotted) into the absurdity of a reality-free presidency, proclaiming “alternative facts” and “truth isn’t truth”.
Meanwhile, the left is doing no better. Arguments are reduced to power and oppression. There is no objective truth, no reality, just identitarian narratives competing for power. I am entitled to “speak my truth,” no matter how untethered to the facts. Identity, not the strength of arguments, dictates who may speak about what. You are admonished to “stay in your lane.” I am entitled to my “intellectual safety.” If I don’t like your argument, I’m not obliged to engage you on the merits, I simply demonize you and prevent you from speaking.
So, in the face of all of this madness, I say again, objective reality exists, and I might add, objective truth exists.
LikeLike
I found this essay on Buddhist epistemology interesting. It was written in 1963 by Douglas Burns. It reinforces for me the importance of connecting with our direct sensory experiences of heart, mind, body, emotions and how along with some precepts can be helpful guidance in this crazy town journey of life.
This an excerpt.
Let me paraphrase the Kalama Sutta: Greedy hatred and delusion are unwholesome and undesirable states of mind which men should avoid regardless of whether or not there exists life after death or moral law (karma). This is so first because they result in self-destructive behaviour~ and second because they are in and of themselves unpleasant, agitated states of mind. Conversely, love, compassion, mental purity and equanimity are meaningful and rewarding experiences regardless of their future consequences. This is not something that one can prove to another. It is something that each person can and must discover for himself as he experiences life.
This as I see it, is the central theme. of Buddhist epistemology. This entire essay can be summarized in the following words: There is very little of which we are certain, and yet it matters little that we have certainty about most matters. The only thing of which we can be certain is each conscious experience (sensation, memory, thought, emotion, etc.) at the moment at which it exists.
Finally, let me point out that we have arrived at a common understanding between Theravada Buddhism and Zen. Theravada logically and, didactically points out the limitations of logic. Zen avoids logic altogether and embraces no world view. `
What is the true nature of Buddhahood?” the Zen student might ask his master. The answer may be, “Three ounces of flax”, or perhaps “A leaf floating in the stream.” The student diligently and persistently meditates upon such answers. It is like meditating on turning a tennis ball inside out without breaking the cover; the problem has no solution. Because of this, the intellect finally fatigues and gives up, and at this point the student has freed himself from his bondage to rationalizing; he has broken a life-long habit of trying to solve all problems through intellectualizing. He is a stop closer to Enlightenment. [33] [34]
One last thing I should say. I have not in this writing presented the most important aspects of the Dhamma. Buddhism is neither a world view nor a negation of world views. It is a technique, a discipline and a way of life designed to free men from suffering and to mature and perfect their personality. This will be the topic of our next writing. .
LikeLike