#954
*****Support the channel*****
Patreon: / thedissenter
PayPal: paypal.me/thedissenter
PayPal Subscription 1 Dollar: tinyurl.com/yb3acuuy
PayPal Subscription 3 Dollars: tinyurl.com/ybn6bg9l
PayPal Subscription 5 Dollars: tinyurl.com/ycmr9gpz
PayPal Subscription 10 Dollars: tinyurl.com/y9r3fc9m
PayPal Subscription 20 Dollars: tinyurl.com/y95uvkao
*****Follow me on*****
Website: www.thedissenter.net/
Facebook: / thedissenteryt
Twitter: / thedissenteryt
Podcast: bit.ly/3FeSNqb
This show is sponsored by Enlites, Learning & Development done differently. Check the website here: enlites.com/
RECORDED ON JANUARY 17th 2024.
Dr. Jonathan Matheson is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Florida specializing in epistemology. His primary research interests concern the epistemic significance of disagreement. He also has research interests in ethics, metaphysics, and philosophy of religion. His latest book is Why It's OK Not to Think for Yourself.
In this episode, we focus on Why It’s OK Not to Think for Yourself. We start by discussing where the idea that people should think for themselves comes from, and social epistemology and the wisdom of crowds. We talk about who we should rely on, how to identify the experts, why we cannot properly evaluate all kinds of information by ourselves, and how we need to rely on other people and on accumulated knowledge. We go through the main objections to Dr. Matheson’s thesis, namely the autonomy objection, the free-rider objection, the Socratic objection, the objection of epistemic vulnerability, the understanding objection, and the intellectual virtue objection. Finally, we discuss epistemic responsibility, and cases where it is not OK to not think for yourself.
Time Links:
00:00 Intro
00:27 Where the idea that people should think for themselves comes from
06:42 Social epistemology
08:39 The wisdom of crowds
10:51 Who should we rely on?
13:17 Can we properly evaluate all kinds of information by ourselves?
16:56 Identifying the experts
27:42 Relying on other people and on accumulated knowledge
30:10 The autonomy objection
37:09 The free-rider objection
42:53 The Socratic objection
47:28 Epistemic vulnerability
51:19 The understanding objection
55:15 Intellectual virtues
1:04:41 Epistemic responsibility
1:10:04 Cases where it is not OK to not think for yourself
1:13:08 Follow Dr. Matheson’s work!
--
Follow Dr. Matheson’s work:
Website: bit.ly/3RFniMW
PhilPeople profile: bit.ly/3rrpa1f
Why It's OK Not to Think for Yourself: bit.ly/49o3X9B
--
A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: PER HELGE LARSEN, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, PHIL KAVANAGH, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, FERGAL CUSSEN, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, ROMAIN ROCH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, NELLEKE BAK, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, SUNNY SMITH, JON WISMAN, WILLIAM BUCKNER, PAUL-GEORGE ARNAUD, LUKE GLOWACKI, GEORGIOS THEOPHANOUS, CHRIS WILLIAMSON, PETER WOLOSZYN, DAVID WILLIAMS, DIOGO COSTA, ANTON ERIKSSON, ALEX CHAU, AMAURI MARTÍNEZ, CORALIE CHEVALLIER, BANGALORE ATHEISTS, LARRY D. LEE JR., OLD HERRINGBONE, MICHAEL BAILEY, DAN SPERBER, ROBERT GRESSIS, IGOR N, JEFF MCMAHAN, JAKE ZUEHL, BARNABAS RADICS, MARK CAMPBELL, TOMAS DAUBNER, LUKE NISSEN, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, JESSICA NOWICKI, LINDA BRANDIN, NIKLAS CARLSSON, GEORGE CHORIATIS, VALENTIN STEINMANN, PER KRAULIS, KATE VON GOELER, ALEXANDER HUBBARD, BR, MASOUD ALIMOHAMMADI, JONAS HERTNER, URSULA GOODENOUGH, DAVID PINSOF, SEAN NELSON, MIKE LAVIGNE, JOS KNECHT, ERIK ENGMAN, LUCY, YHONATAN SHEMESH, MANVIR SINGH, PETRA WEIMANN, AND PEDRO BONILLA!
A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, TOM VANEGDOM, BERNARD HUGUENEY, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, THOMAS TRUMBLE, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, JONCARLO MONTENEGRO, AL NICK ORTIZ, NICK GOLDEN, AND CHRISTINE GLASS!
AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, BOGDAN KANIVETS, ROSEY, AND GREGORY HASTINGS!
#TheDissenter #JonathanMatheson #Philosophy
Пікірлер: 16
I might consider objecting but I'll just take your word for it instead!
This concept is typically called “critical thinking”. There is a nice paper on it: “Is critical thinking epistemically responsible?” by Huemer. It identifies several situations where critical thinking is preferable to credulity or scepticism: identifying experts; no expert consensus (though scepticism is probably better in such cases); expert bias/experts who do not use the methods of critical thinking; personal life.
this is much easier to comprehend: it’s similar to the difference between one human mind and billions of apes’ minds.
The core is in the brainstem not because I got that from books, I knew that without the need for books, but books were important to make things much clearer and easier to explain. Actually regarding the current technology the progress is neurology is good.
many irrational thieves used blunt theft and some others used thievery as patchwork techniques, something similar to diagonal line in graph as a reference, they change their nonsense regularly to get closer to that line. they don’t possess human personal identities but they have something similar to other irrational animals, that’s why they don’t possess the main human characteristics such as morals and minds and they can’t feel ashamed like humans and there’s something ugly and irrational that attracts them to each other (very similar to other irrational animals such as apes in the Jungle).
“every kind of information headed for cortex has first relay to the Thalamus, then once more from the thalamus makes projection up to the cortex”, seems weird because of the lack of understanding (the core is in the brainstem)!
there’s something in the lower part of the brainstem that can turn human on and off (dead or alive). that’s 100 % correct
Reticular Activating System (RAS) seems weird, isn’t it ?! Planet of the apes is planet of endless wonders!
this must reach future generations clean and intact (it’s not for the thieving apes), future generations will reach a point while they make scientific progress where they have no chance to survive without knowing all that: the main location of self concept (one of the most advanced coding systems in existence itself) is the brainstem and the surrounding area few inches upwards to the back of the the brain, it’s involved in the building of the body since the early stages of the embryonic development, it reaches the cortex to generate both consciousness type one and personal identity and uses consciousness type two to process sensory data to transform it to sensory information in the back of the brain, it reaches the the heart during awake (and there’s strong evidence that it reaches the entire body during awake, but there’s regression during sleep. all that has nothing to do with religions, gods, demons, angels, ghosts,.. etc. it’s about highly advanced science that requires rational intelligent entities to comprehend, the Limbic system is important part of the the brain to process emotions and memory but as soon as humans make good scientific progress they will find a solution for that weak point.
It's okay not to think for yourself...if you are a follower. But there is no innovation without thinking for yourself. Novel ideas require independent thinking.
that’s completely wrong, because it’s about the quality of mind and logic, one rational intelligent entity can defy billions of irrational apes all together .
15:15 It is not possible to generalize the limited mental abilities of apes to humans!