Response to "Evidence and Truth, Part Deux

What if we make pre-evidential assumptions because of our specific worldview that are shown to be invalid by the evidence. Lets say that we have a pre-evidential assumption that the god Atlas holds the world up on his shoulders, and the earth that he is holding up is a flat round table.

Lots of things can happen here we can see things that seem to confirm to us that this is so. We see pieces of evidence that seem to us to support this perspective or viewpoint, that seem to validate our pre-evidential assumptions. It typically doesn't seem to occur to people that it seems to validate our beliefs(which is what pre-evidential assumptions really are) because we naturally assume those beliefs are correct, that in fact the seeming correlation may be purely, utterly incidental. This tendency can be referred to as confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the natural tendency to interpret new information in the terms of prior existing beliefs, whether or not they fit.

Sometimes, though, we run into events or evidence that is contradictory to our prior existing beliefs. What do we do when that happens? Religion and faith demands that we force it into the mold, that we come up with a way to interpret the evidence to make it fit the prior existing beliefs regardless. Since those beliefs are unchallengeable, it must be the evidence that needs re-interpreting, right??

But it gets even more complicated than that, of course. Sometimes, different people have different dogmatic belief structures that contradict each other, so you can't just say we need to interpret things in light of Christianity, or Buddhism, or Naturalism for example. The metaphysical approach that some scientists try to take is to throw that out. The idea is not to interpret things in light of one specific belief structure or another so much as to try to figure out what 'is', what exists and establish a belief structure based on this foundation of existence, or 'is-ness', if you will.

To say this differently, I don't want to interpret things in the light of naturalism because that's what I believe or know so much as I want to do that if and only if naturalism is the stance that best matches the evidence. In other words, figuring out ways to change the worldview in light of the evidence rather than interpreting the evidence in context of worldview.

Ever wonder why it's important to scientists for multiple researchers to come up with the same results in independant labs and with independant configurations? It's because of this type of thing. We tend to make the evidence conform to our preconceived notions rather than adjust our notions to match the evidence. If I see what the evidence says and 5 others see it and come to the same conclusions, I have a stronger reason to believe it. But what if #6 comes along and interprets everything differently, because he has different basic beliefs? And what if he can explain what the first 5 said and did in light of his new theory? Then it becomes the responsibility of the first 5 to amend their understand, and even to adjust their preconceptions, if you will, to match the evidence. That is the way science ought to work and it is the way it often does.

I have more to say and no time right now, hehe. And I've gone on long enough for this post, for now. I don't have to say it all at once. I'll answer your other post later.