Q of the Week: Freedom of thought?

[Leon]

With the abundance of information we are bombarded with on a daily basis, from the traditional sources of TV, newspapers, magazines and radio, to the more recent addition of internet sources, newssites, blogs, etc., are we losing our ability to think and process this information for ourselves?  When we are constantly surrounded by often subjective material, are people simply echoing what the morning paper/news channel told them, instead of looking at the facts and formulating their own opinion?

Is freedom of speech harming our freedom of thought?

[fred.]

Good question.

I have a feeling that volume of "factoids" have replaced analysis and thought. It seems that news organisations want to report things quickly, they present various snippets of information often with little context and no background. Also there is a trend towards reporting the announcement of the forth coming event as if it was the event - again a trend towards speed above all else.

[Luddite]

Is freedom of speech harming our freedom of thought?

No.

Speech and thought are utterly interrelated and so cannot be dichotomised in that way.

Now there's an arguement to say (one that i agree with), that speech inherently limits thought as our thoughts are expressed and therefore framed by the words we use to conceptualise them.  This is the essence of Orwell's visionary creation 'Newspeak' - remove the words from people and they cannot form the thoughts...if the word 'rebellion' does not exist, then people literally cannot think of rebelling.

But no, the freedom to speack does not inhibit thought.

Now then i may have misunderstood, but that question seems to be a non-sequeter in relation to the jolly interesting propostions you put here...

With the abundance of information we are bombarded with on a daily basis, from the traditional sources of TV, newspapers, magazines and radio, to the more recent addition of internet sources, newssites, blogs, etc., are we losing our ability to think and process this information for ourselves?

Yes.  Absolutely.

Cognitive studies show that the average person can only cope with 2-3 choices on any subject; and at a maximum 6 choices, before they give up on a reasoned choice and simply randomly pick one.
This is why you feel hieghtened anxiety in a supermarket...'how many different butters!?'
And of course to cope with this we become creatures of habit, always choosing the same butter because we need to move on to the bread...

That spreads out into other information sources, and indeed into the panolpy of information presented by the internet.  I have a small number of websites that i frequent, only straying from that beaten path when i need something out of the ordinary.  This is always stressful as precisely for the reason you say - having to critically review this information overload of unfamiliar information landscapes.
 

When we are constantly surrounded by often subjective material, are people simply echoing what the morning paper/news channel told them, instead of looking at the facts and formulating their own opinion?

And this is indeed very interesting.  We are becoming children of google and wikipedia.  Our knowledge being diluted by its incritical accessibility.  This is highly ambivalent; being excellent that the information is much more available than in the past, and also terible that this information is accepted without analysis.

Of course in the acceptance of objective 'facts' this isn't too bad, but as you point out, the acceptance of subjective 'opinions' in a similar uncritical manner is diluting the capacity of critical analysis and 'freedom of thought'.  But then has it no always been thus?  There has always been a separation between the 'thinkers' and the 'masses' has there not?

I doubt a Medeival peasant critically analysed the Biblical teachings of his priest; so most people today don't critically analyse the teachings of wikipedia...none-the-less in both situations, the universities and academic institutions continued to harbour the 'thinkers' (despite New Labour's insane drive to dilute the value of these institutions)...


I agree with the basic premise of your question and would propose a counter-question; does it matter that most people don't think critically about the information they consume?

[Last Hussar]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1

or you get the opposite end of the spectrum where no reasonable challenge is allowed.

[Leon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1

or you get the opposite end of the spectrum where no reasonable challenge is allowed.

[lentulus]

Having seen enough news reports over the years where I knew, from personal information, that the reporter did not understand the details at all, I have long ceased to believe any media as anything except a source of noise.  If there is enough noise there might be something happening -- or it might be a "moral panic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

One of the good sides of growing old is that I have accumulated enough acquaintances in various fields that I can, to some extent, verify facts about things I personally consider important.

Is the condition of "free thought" worse than it was, say, 30 years ago.  No, really.  Most people come rationalize their prejudices now the same way they (we, truthfully) did then.  I personally did not consciously start to challenge my own thinking until about 20 years ago, and I still have to work at both informing and challenging myself.  I'm not sure I can actually judge how successful I am.

It helps that I have a set of political views that are not exactly moderate.  I find about half my positions are those generally found on the right, and half on the left.  Which means to some extent I disagree with everybody.

[lentulus]

; does it matter that most people don't think critically about the information they consume?

As any dietitian will tell you, it's not what you consume, it's what you digest.  And also like diet, to have healthy output you have to work to get enough fiber.

I think I'll drop that analogy now.

[Leon]

And this is indeed very interesting.  We are becoming children of google and wikipedia.  Our knowledge being diluted by its incritical accessibility.  This is highly ambivalent; being excellent that the information is much more available than in the past, and also terible that this information is accepted without analysis.

Of course in the acceptance of objective 'facts' this isn't too bad, but as you point out, the acceptance of subjective 'opinions' in a similar uncritical manner is diluting the capacity of critical analysis and 'freedom of thought'.  But then has it no always been thus?  There has always been a separation between the 'thinkers' and the 'masses' has there not?

Yes, but for a while I think that gap had closed slightly.  Twenty years ago, if people wanted to read up on something specific, they could pop down the library, and would have access to the same information as any other person across the country, from the same handful of books.  Something published by a respected and relevant authority could be trusted to provide mostly accurate info. 

If that same person were to now try and access that information from the internet, they would be attacked by a wave of data courtesy of Google, which they would then have to sift through to find something credible.  I use Wikipedia quite often, but I'm putting my faith in a site where anyone can edit the information at any time.  I could claim that the moon had fallen out of the sky, and that would be out there in the interweb until someone else edited it back! 

I doubt a Medeival peasant critically analysed the Biblical teachings of his priest; so most people today don't critically analyse the teachings of wikipedia...none-the-less in both situations, the universities and academic institutions continued to harbour the 'thinkers' (despite New Labour's insane drive to dilute the value of these institutions)...

I agree with the basic premise of your question and would propose a counter-question; does it matter that most people don't think critically about the information they consume?

Yes, but I also don't think they fully realise how much it matters.  Despite the wealth of information out there, society is dumbing down year on year, and unless that trend is reversed, where are we going to end up?  A world full of people repeating whatever statement we've been given by Blog X?  The way the education system is changing isn't helping matters though, with kids being given qualifications seemingly for writing their name correctly.

[Leon]

I personally did not consciously start to challenge my own thinking until about 20 years ago, and I still have to work at both informing and challenging myself.  I'm not sure I can actually judge how successful I am.

Interesting, can you elaborate on that?  What caused that change?

It helps that I have a set of political views that are not exactly moderate.  I find about half my positions are those generally found on the right, and half on the left.  Which means to some extent I disagree with everybody.

[lentulus]

I doubt a Medeival peasant critically analysed the Biblical teachings of his priest; so most people today don't critically analyse the teachings of wikipedia...none-the-less in both situations, the universities and academic institutions continued to harbour the 'thinkers' (despite New Labour's insane drive to dilute the value of these institutions)...

I've been coming around to the idea that, prior to the counter reformation, there was a surprising non-uniformity of belief.  Carlo Ginzburg (author of "Night Battles" and "The Cheese and the Worms") has based some excellent work on the records of the Holy Office in Friul; in Night Battles he sees the witch-mania as a drive to force residual pre-Christian beliefs into the patterns of Maleus Malefactorum. It is interesting to consider the possibility that the drive to conformity from both the reformation and counter reformation might have had long range implications for our society's willingness to think independently.  On the other hand, they may just illustrate what happens to people who's thoughts deviate from the commonly accepted.

As far as Universities go, I have been reading John Ralston Saul's "Voltaire's *******s: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West"; his critique of the product of Universities, and especially management schools, as favoring conformity and value-free "rational" approaches does not leave much hope reposing in academia.  I'm still reading it - it is an enjoyable read, but a long book - this review captures the place I am with it so far quite well:

http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/saul.html

edit: I didn't realize this forum had a bleep-o-matic.  The stars refer to Saul's belief that those claiming to be Voltaire's intellectual offspring are not "legitimate" using a good old word who's meaning seems to have deviated from the simply technical.

[lentulus]

Quote from: Leon on Today at 05:43:09 AM
Interesting, can you elaborate on that?  What caused that change?

I had a vision of the Blessed Virgin, and joined the Catholic Church.

Seriously.  And I had been an atheist, raised Anglican.

Anyway, this pretty much disqualifies me from participating in the widely accepted belief-patterns of the 21st century; a scientific education leaves me incapable of accepting most of the positions espoused by those who put their faith in their intellectual drivers seat.

I don't beat anyone over the head with it; in so much as it leads to debate it is mostly me explaining to other Catholics that evolution is both established scientific fact and accepted within the teachings of the Church.  A process that has lead me to a far better understanding of cognitive dissonance. 

[Leon]

I had a vision of the Blessed Virgin, and joined the Catholic Church.

Seriously.  And I had been an atheist, raised Anglican.

Anyway, this pretty much disqualifies me from participating in the widely accepted belief-patterns of the 21st century; a scientific education leaves me incapable of accepting most of the positions espoused by those who put their faith in their intellectual drivers seat.

I don't beat anyone over the head with it; in so much as it leads to debate it is mostly me explaining to other Catholics that evolution is both established scientific fact and accepted within the teachings of the Church.  A process that has lead me to a far better understanding of cognitive dissonance. 

Now that's really interesting.  How do those debates usually turn out?  I'm not a big fan of religion myself, but I do like to chat with religious people about how they mix science and their faith.

[lentulus]

Now that's really interesting.  How do those debates usually turn out?  I'm not a big fan of religion myself, but I do like to chat with religious people about how they mix science and their faith.

Most (especially well educated priests) don't have a problem with it.  I have met one woman who said "I cannot believe that man is descended from apes"  -- and she was right, she can't.  There are some stock weasel arguments that anti-evolutionist use -- "not all the people who accept it agree" and "not all the questions are answered" -- which establish a filter on the believable that Christianity itself does not pass.  But I like the woman, and can recognize cognitive dissonance when I see it.

I also teach at RCIA (instruction for those joining the Church) in our parish as part of a team, and I tend to work on the better educated candidates to remind them that the mysteries of the Church cannot be understood by reason, and salvation is based on faith not knowledge.

As far as "being a fan of religion" -- many an early Sunday morning in the shower, I'm not either.  I have to ask myself, based on my experience, does my religion correctly describe how the Universe really works within those questions in its scope?  I think the answer is "yes", I'm guessing you think it's "no".  If so, it is silly to like a description of the way the world works that you think is false.  If you think it's true -- well, I'm not a big fan of gravity when my leg is bothering me, but I am stuck with it so I have to understand it.

[clibinarium]

Hmmm, I travelled in the other direction. Now I am an agnostic, but I was rasied a Catholic and went to a Catholic school with a heavy religious ethos. Although I lost my faith, it still informs my world view and much of my ethics. Our religious education was composed mostly of debate and discussion of moral and ethical issues, and looking back on it, it was quite sophisticated (it went over the heads of a fair few in our class).

On the issue of evolution there was never any serious conflict presented between religion and science, our religion teachers (mainly priests) all appeared to accept the scientific explanation of evolution as a fact. Our science teachers (one of whom was a priest) would have rolled their eyes at the suggestion of creationism. The story of Genisis was explained in terms of allegory. The idea still would have been that evolution was God's work, God being the moving factor behind most things in the universe. Where it got a bit foggy was on the mechanism of natural sellection, whether the diversity of animals was God's design, was the mechanism was natural selection. If you are taking natural selection seriously its the random mutation of genes giving rise to better adaptability, so is random rather than a force with an intellegence behind it. Or if the idea was the mechanism was random and spotaneous, but that was the way God had brought it into being.
Where they would have stood firm was on the creation of the universe. No "it just exploded into being", it would have  been "if it exploded; God blew it up". I imagine it winds up scientists a bit if the Church says constantly "Yeah that is how it works, but of course it is, that's the way God made it".

It all depends on how literally you take the words of the Bible. All the Young Earth, God faking dinosaur bones, and so on of recent years came as a bit of a surprise to me initially; based on what I was taught God had no more problem with evolution than he did with earth not being the pivot of the universe.

Anybody grappling with these issues should give the film "Inherit the wind" a look, it's about the Scopes "Monkey trial"; Spencer Tracy will sort it out for you (or at least give food for thought).

[Luddite]

Hey we've strayed into religion! 

Breaking all the conversational taboos lately eh Leon?!

Hehe..

Well, on that particular question, i'm with Epicurus...

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

- Epicurus [341â€"270 B.C.]