And yes, for you and I, we quite often quibble (not suprisingly) over the word ‘reality’ – on which I (not just for hits!) direct your attention to my post on god and reality here.

I usually try to make as few assumptions as possible. That’s why I avoid words like natural, supernatural, materialist, idealist, etc., because each has an underlying assumption and personal definition. I think it is possible to approach reality, and to approach scientific understanding of reality, without any of these assumptions.

In practice I also think the practitioners of science don’t indulge in these assumptions (at least at a conscious defined level). If we did we would probably not have made the progress we have – and we would have all those amazing, fantastic (and seemingly “supernatural”) theories that we do have.

Ideally if we are going to use these words we should come to an agreed understanding of how we mean them to be used and what they mean. Alternatively, I believe we can get by without them. And I believe that helps reduce the chance of diversion into “philosophical” backwaters and muddying of these waters.

And here’s a very key point: it’s not so much a matter of “diverting” an otherwise clear discussion to philosophy, but instead, in many/most of these kinds of conversations, there are muddy, cluttered, contradictory and confused philosophical assumptions lying at or just beneath the surface at almost every point. So I think the logical (and practical!!!) thing to do is to actually talk about these philosophical assumptions. And if it’s done patiently and humbly it can be clarifying to what is often a muddy discussion.

Now, I am sure we could get into a very extensive discussion “about what truth” is (and perhaps end up with a very mystical but useless meaning) but it won’t help us one iota in solving real problems. Meanwhile most of humanity gets on with doing the job. They have an (possibly instinctive) understanding of “truth” – and importantly a practical rather than “philosophical” understanding. It is this type of understanding which has got us to where we are today and will help us solve the current problems we have.

Maybe it is just my biased perception – but I can’t help thinking that these sort of diversions into “philosophy” are common to those who argue for a theistic position. I keep wondering if this isn’t what is taught to people who study theology.

Whereas, in most cases, scientific training seems to encourage discussion into considering evidence and how well ideas conform to reality. (And, yes, I would see attempt to divert discussion of my use of “reality” into “philosophical” dead ends as an an attempt at muddying rather than clarifying).

As I mentioned elsewhere recently, I think seeking common ground is a key thing in the pursuit of truth. Heck, the pursuit of truth itself is common ground most of us can stand on? Though you rightly ask in the post about the times we’d prefer not to know the truth!

This is why I often propose ‘espistemology’ and ‘philosophy’ as key places to seek common ground. If people cannot even agree on what truth/knowledge is and how it is gained, then they’ll not ever agree or even reach mutual understanding.

Rather than constantly put scientific knowledge against religious knowledge, why not talk about what truth is, and what knowledge is? Of course, this all requires great patience and being prepared to really think hard through the meanings of words (i.e. Ken and I often butt heads about the word ‘reality’), and (more importantly!) the concepts/assumptions behind them.

(I also agree that we don’t necessarily have to assume motives are either bad or good, we can just try to look at their actions/ideas/etc. and engage with them.)

I know it’s hard to overcome this. One way is to try and develop a tendency to “devils advocate” – to automatically have a quick mental consideration of the alternative argument (probably easier when one is being exposed to something one tends to agree with). I find that I tend to do this while listening/watching news reports.

Another approach is to develop good listening and questioning skills. Before concluding motives try to listen to what is actually said. And if possible to actually ask good questions, especially around areas which may be feeding ones confirmation biases.

One may not necessarily have to assume the best in peoples’ motives. Perhaps it may enable us to reveal the true underhand motives rather than the one we have assumed. And thereby learn more about the opposition?

The goal of this post was to find methods readily acceptable to all that will help us get closer to the truth. We’ve established that group-think can unfairly bias our perceptions.

Changing topic.

As we have just perhaps observed, something else that can get in the way of finding truth is reading too much into what another person says (we all all guilty of that!) exaggerated by your perception of their beliefs. A classic example of this would be where a secular humanist is immediately distrustful when a religious organisation says that they think we ought to look after the suffering children in Africa because, based on past experience or natural prejudice, they assume that the ulterior motive is to proselytise rather than simply give aid.

The fact of the matter may be that they have no interest in proselytising and, like you, share a genuine concern for the suffering of children.

Perhaps the best trick in this situation is to actively try to assume the best in people’s motives especially in the absence of any evidence to the contrary because we can be sure that our biases are working overtime to lean us towards assuming the worst.