Epistemic closure is an act of will

Just reviewing what epistemic closure is…a good 2010 NYTimes article: “‘Epistemic Closure’? Those Are Fighting Words”

It’s a very good read.

Then I read a logical analysis of ‘epistemic closure’ — the logic topic — on http://plato.stanford.edu, there is an argument against the existence of epistemic closure: 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 f𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘒𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦.  That argument seemed weird to me.

I think we MUST concede that there is a logical definition, and then there’s its non-logical application. It’s precisely 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 there is lack of analysis of knowledge that there is closure.

Or better still, you can “analyze” what you 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 is knowledge (when it’s not knowledge) and simply reinforce “truth” of what you believe (bias confirmation) or just add volume to the muck of what you believe is fact.

What we mean by closure is that new knowledge based on analysis of facts (existing “knowledge”?) or even the willingness to consider facts outside your echo chamber is non-existent or seriously (willfully) inhibited.

With epistemic closure, when there is cognitive dissonance, people “resolve” the dissonance in favor of what fits the narrative they want to believe or that fits within what they think they “know.”

The existence of “death panels” was a shining example. Without critical evaluation of facts (like actually reading the bill), you hear “death panels” from a demagogue; and no amount of presenting facts works to dissuade you from believing such a thing exists. It echoes well with both what you want to believe and what you think it fits “logically” into what you think you “know.”

Understanding epistemic closure

Re: Epistemic closure comes back to haunt the GOP

Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion, or what we call “knowledge.” Epistemic has to do with knowledge or the degree to which to which we validate it.

When you limit what constitutes truth, even the possibility of truth, or where truth can be found, you have closed off an important part of how you gain knowledge and introduce bias into your understanding of the world.

When you use ways of thinking that don’t follow implications (what is logically implied by honestly evaluating how one thing leads to another or what needs to be true for something to exist [entails]), you have effectively created an echo chamber, where you only hear ideas that align with your preconceptions, and ignore alternative perspectives.

In an echo chamber, you only allow yourself to consider a narrow set of ideas and actively avoid or reject ideas that do not align with your existing beliefs.  You rationalize away a possible truth (cognitive dissonance) because it doesn’t fit what you want to believe (bias) by either distorting the implications to fit your beliefs or denying it outright.

This system of thought ultimately prevents us from gaining a deeper understanding of the world and can lead to a narrow-minded and dogmatic perspective. This is epistemic closure: you have built a seal around what you allow yourself to know.

God didn’t make them JUST male and female

I read a couple of articles dealing with the transgender kid who committed suicide because her parents, although loving her “unconditionally,” rejected a great deal about her on religious grounds. That rejection manifested itself on so many cruel levels, including “God doesn’t make mistakes…God’s going to send you straight to hell.”

Update 2/24/24:  (NYT) “There’s not multiple genders. There’s two. That’s how God created us,” The Oklahoma school superintendent, Ryan Walters, said saying he did not believe that nonbinary or transgender people exist. “You always treat individuals with dignity or respect, because they’re made in God’s image,”  which image obviously doesn’t include what’s under the surface.  He and the State legislature want to specify that “gender is an immutable biological trait” — and indeed it is, but biology includes more than what they can see on the surface.

Some thoughts:

1. God “made them [standard] male and [standard] female.” Makes it sound like there’s an absolute dichotomy, always. Generally speaking, it’s true. But speaking specifically, it’s NOT true. We are a puddle of chemicals where our development and outcome rely on what substances are released at what time in what (utero) environment and the blueprint (DNA) we are dealt with.

In a sexual species, the idea that females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y chromosome is often presented as a scientific argument. However, reality is much more complex. Nature provides various examples that defy this simplistic binary understanding. For instance, insects can have females with XX chromosomes and males with X chromosomes. Birds can have females with ZW chromosomes and males with ZZ chromosomes. Reptiles can have temperature-dependent sex determination, where females develop in warm environments and males in cool environments. Some flatworms determine sex through battles, where females become females after winning contests. Parrotfish and clownfish can change their sex in response to environmental factors or the death of the only male in their group. Cuttlefish, bluegills, and others exhibit male individuals that mimic females to approach actual females for mating. Slime molds and certain mushrooms can have both sexes.

Even within our species, humans exhibit significant diversity. Some individuals are born female but develop male characteristics due to 5-alpha-reductase deficiency. Others have an X and Y chromosome but are insensitive to androgens, leading to the development of female bodies. There are also individuals with an X and Y chromosome, but they lack the SRY gene, resulting in female bodies. On the other hand, some individuals have two X chromosomes, with one containing the SRY gene, which leads to male bodies. Additionally, there are individuals with two X chromosomes along with a Y chromosome. Furthermore, there are individuals with only one X chromosome. Lastly, there are individuals with two X chromosomes, yet their brains and hearts exhibit male characteristics.

(The preceding information was found in a Facebook post, but I have verified its accuracy using various sources.)

Science is far more nuanced and diverse than a simple binary model.  In the world that the Creator made, there is a considerable spectrum of “intersex” physical configurations, which can manifest as gender dysphoria.

Arrestable Development of Dominionism

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he is not the same man.”
~ Heraclitus.

The America of today is different from the newly born America and the 50-year old America and the 100-year old America. As different as a new-born human is from his teenage years and his 60th year.

Anyone who wants to “take back America” – back as in some delusional ownership or back in time to some fantastic state when their perspective is imagined to have reigned supreme – is really trying to transform America in his image, similarly to how the dominionist has crafted his God and his Christ.

Even if he should succeed, the resulting America won’t be the same as the America of the past. Current America has gotten large and complex. He would have to distort today’s America in ways that suits his imagination.  It is easy to think you can go back in time IF you mean less complexity and purer faith. But what one will be imagining as less-complexity and pureness is really one’s rejecting today’s realities, narrowing minds, and dumbing down our thinking. In that way, simplicity means willful stupidity.

Do we need to fear the Christian Dominionist movement?

Change is evolutionary in the sense that it happens in reaction to environmental conditions (not progress in the ameliorative sense). If we think of dominionism as environmental conditions, we are at this moment changing in response. Somehow, I don’t think the loudness and extremeness of their voice equates to actual power to realize dominionism. It could be just the opposite, where the evolutionary adaption that results is to solidify ourselves against what amounts to a bacterial disease.