Mlodinow reports that "Believing in what you desire to be true and then seeking evidence to justify it doesn't seem to be the best approach to everyday decisions. . . .[But] [t]he 'causal arrow' in human thought processes consistently tends to point from belief to evidence, not vice versa. . . [And] in the struggle to fashion a coherent convincing view of ourselves and the rest of the world, it is the impassioned advocate that usually wins over the truth seeker" (201).
Does Mlodinow's view that belief comes before evidence and impassioned advocacy is more persuasive than the presentation of fact and logic apply in school and academia or is this kind of behavior typical, rather, of the world of politics, television, and religion, say?
The behavior that Mlodinow presents is by far a practice of politics, television and religion. I do believe however that impassioned advocacy does play a part in some parts of school and academia. When I think of professors I think of someone that feels very strongly about the subject they are teaching. Most professors have doctorate degrees, which are not easy to get. To reach the level of skill and knowledge that many if not all professors possess takes a love for what they are teaching. I think that this love for the subject creates opinions that in some cases are not backed up with evidence and taught or forced upon the students. For example a government professor is not going to not have an opinion about the issues in politics. While this teacher may not be biased in how they teach the subject matter I do not believe they could fully block out their beliefs and merely teach the facts, especially in the discussion oriented classes we have today. This applies to the students as well. While most of what we learn is fact and logic when we like learning about something it sparks an excitement in us which we can create opinions or beliefs that are not always supported by logic or fact.
ReplyDeleteAlan Dennis
Alan, I have to agree with you; passion has to mix with the facts in order to be successful. Several of my teachers were wonderful examples of this. For instance, my AP Biology teacher was enthusiastic and absolutely loved biology. She wholly understood what she taught and she loved teaching it at the same time. Though she had her beliefs, she did not force them on us. She taught us the facts and let us determine our views. One example of this was when we studied stem cells and stem cell research; she explained to us the method as well as the various types of research, and allowed us to determine our views on it. She even stated, “I’ll let you decide how you feel about it.” At the same time, though she did not state her beliefs out right, they underscored her teaching and fueled the passion behind the class. If it had not been for the passion from her beliefs, the class would not have had the same enthusiasm or alluring feel. Coincidentally, my AP Government teacher is another wonderful example. She taught us how the government operated, she explained to us the different views, and she let us interpret the facts for ourselves; yet, at the same time, her beliefs were present in the way she taught. Though she refused to discuss her beliefs with her students, she was always willing to explain politics, functions, and various other things to aid us in determining our views. Government was her fascination, as was observed by the enthusiasm in her teaching and the willingness she had to explain and discuss ideas with us.
DeleteOpinions and views that are not supported by facts are not necessarily bad either. For instance, when a researcher comes up with an idea that they want to test, they have to believe in that idea in order to obtain the funds needed to research their idea. In order to obtain these funds, they have to explain their belief in it and communicate it to others, even though this idea is not supported by facts. Once they research it, they either confirm that idea with the facts or they do not. In the case that they do not, they may find another route or idea that could achieve the same goal. When this occurs, both for a researcher and for everyone in society, one may have to slightly alter one’s views and adapt to a new idea, and proceed to test that theory and find the facts on it. Where would our medical field be if it were not for the theories that were believed in first and proven true later? Unsupported belief can bring about the finding of new knowledge, and if it results in nothing, then perhaps it leads to a clearer path and another idea.
Mlodinow is right to state that fanatical enthusiasm for a cause can tend to win over duller, more objective narratives but I agree with Alan and Darby that the realm of education is typically geared more towards facts and reason. They are also both correct in thinking that teachers are involved in their respective fields because of their initial interest and drive to learn and teach more about certain subjects or ideas. Popular discourse may give the spotlight to Jenny McCarthy more quickly than, say, someone who actually studies and develops vaccines for a living but when it comes to listening to lectures and soaking up trivia and skills in the classroom I've found that things are mostly objective and point in the opposite of the mental process that Mlodinow describes. In fact, in my experience, teachers that tend to use their occupation as a platform for spreading fanatical opinion-based information tend to get laughed out of the classroom.
ReplyDelete