This is important when philosophy focuses so much on logical fallacies in philosophical reasoning but lacks depth in exploring the root of reasoning errors, which is perceptual errors.
It's like having correct logic so that the process sequence of driving a vehicle is right. The plane can be operated, there's no contradiction in the steps, but if your vision is blurry, or you can't estimate beyond the fog, or you can't maintain clarity of sight, you might press the wrong button (even though the logic behind it is correct, you need to press a certain button function - it's just that you missee), and the result will pose a risk.
And it seems that philosophy has only reached the point of detecting the most cognitive biases (perceptual failures) from a psychological perspective, which❓Should be more oriented towards a philosophical perspective.
Even the philosophical perspective is relatively not universal, so it still gets stuck in polemics because ❓ Philosophical issues around polemics must be resolved in an absolutely universal way, and generally (not all philosophers) are less familiar with or do not believe in the existence of absolute universal truths, considering all truths to be relative, subjective, which is completely absurd, because relative and subjective have nothing to do with whether something is true or not nor does it mean there is no certainty. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE THE CONFUSION IN PHILOSOPHY ARISES AS A RESULT OF COGNITIVE BIAS.
I will continuously update the list of "cognitive justifications" here on METACognition (Telegram Messenger)
🔰 And here are some examples of cognitive justification that will make us aware of whether your philosophical thinking has been realistic or not
EXEMPLAR JUSTIFICATION
🎯 1🔰 Believing without example is absurd. refutting without example is nonsensical. As simple as that, no absurd at all
- 1. To confirm something, find direct evidence.
👉 Prove the existence of a ship at sea❓ Go to the port.
- 2. Realizing the possibility through an example.
👉 Prove the existence of a ship at sea❓ Just yesterday we made a toy ship together, so the possibility of a ship at sea is not impossible.
- 3. Realizing the truth through logical consequences.
👉 Prove the existence of a ship at sea❓ Even without an example, according to Archimedes' principle, the possibility can be realized through logical reasoning.
Drawing conclusions through reasoning also requires indirect examples. The example is not from a model (prototype) but from sensory observations. This also involves examples formulated into the laws of nature.
SCALE JUSTIFICATION
🎯 2 🔰 Reasoning without scale means understanding something beyond reach as if it were within reach, and this is a contradiction.
- 〰 Reasoning with scale involves reasoning with accessible examples and tracing their logical consequences to understand something beyond the reach of the senses.
Once again, this aligns with "exemplar justification."
CROSS-SCALE JUSTIFICATION
🎯 3 🔰 Reasoning with a scale based on relative truth cannot be mapped to a larger scale because it leads to the fallacy of composition. Therefore, a scale with a foundation of universal truth is needed to achieve a cross-scale that can map between small and large scales.
CONSEQUENCE JUSTIFICATION
🎯 4 🔰 When there is a distance, interaction is possible. However, if no distance between the two, this is a contradiction, and one of them must change.
So, the concept of direct observation is understood as follows:
- THERE IS DISTANCE. A closeness between the observer and the observed, which means there is a distance.
- THERE IS NO DISTANCE. The position of the observer is the same as the position of the observed. If this involves two things, it is a contradiction unless it is understood as closeness leading to a collision.
PROXIMITY IN SCIENCE
In science, such extreme proximity can be observed in collision processes. When the proximity between one particle and another is forced to the point of almost no distance, at a certain point, one will be destroyed (one will break apart).
So, do not say that empirical observation is direct observation, because only the closest possible observation is feasible.
Also, do not demand proof through direct observation because nothing can empirically or otherwise perceive something as it is.
What happens is proof through consistent logical consequences with high probability. Why?
Because when we cannot fully comprehend something as we cannot touch it except through interaction (farthest or closest), the knowledge we gain from interaction is an understanding of its logical consequences.
Proof of Logical Consequences
So, rather than demanding direct proof that does not exist or is misunderstood except as an understanding of the logical consequences of interaction, the proof is no longer "direct" but between two possibilities, namely "farthest interaction" or "closest interaction" (which is mistaken for touch but is not), understood as "relative logical consequence" (farthest interaction) or "absolute logical consequence" (closest interaction).
THIS IS ONE WAY TO AVOID COGNITIVE BIAS DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDING REALITY.
TRACE JUSTIFICATION
🎯 5 🔰 The absence of something can be proven just as the existence of something can be proven, by ensuring the absence of any trace of its existence, thus making the existence of something merely a conjecture of the actual "absence of something."
〰〰〰
If one says "this exists," "that exists," then it can be proven "to exist," but if someone does not believe in "the existence of something," must they also prove the "existence" of what they do not acknowledge exists❓
Those who do not believe in "the existence of something" claim that proof is unnecessary❓ Why❓ Because they do not acknowledge its existence, so why prove something that does not exist❓This is generally how philosophers view it. The burden of proof is only for those who acknowledge its "existence." Especially if its existence is promoted, it certainly must be proven. BUT IF SOMETHING IS CONSIDERED "NON-EXISTENT," THEN HOW CAN WE PROVE THE "EXISTENCE" OF SOMETHING THAT IS INDEED CONSIDERED NON-EXISTENT❓WE CAN❗️
We can prove the "non-existence of something" considered "non-existent"❗️How❓Simple ... by observing if there are any traces of its existence❓If there are no traces of its existence, then the non-existence of something has been proven.
- 〰 Are there "apples" in the orchard or not? If you believe there are no apples in the orchard, then proving the non-existence of apples in the orchard by ensuring there are no traces of apples in the orchard means we have successfully proven the "non-existence of something" (in this case, "the non-existence of apples") in the orchard.
✅ See now that we can prove the "non-existence of something."
CAUSAL JUSTIFICATION
🎯 6 🔰 Being aware of causal relationships can maintain the order of priorities to ensure balance and avoid misinterpretation.
Sometimes something fails to be understood not because of a logical error, but because something essential is omitted.
Example: a person should not consume something because they are sick, but this does not apply to others.
It’s similar to allergy symptoms, which not everyone has. This is not a matter of overgeneralizing or being too prohibitive (overprotective), but rather not recognizing whether the prohibition or allowance is correct or misplaced.
The difficulty in ensuring causal relationships is the main issue leading to the risk of ignoring what should not be ignored, resulting in minimal information or overaccepting, causing an accumulation of out-of-context information that is mistakenly thought to be within the same context (one group).
Simply put, just because more than one event happens in sequence does not mean there is a causal relationship.
A simple example: after drinking syrup, a plane flies by. This does not mean the plane flew by as a result of drinking the syrup, hehe.
It seems trivial and easy to beware of, but many slip up here by not recognizing the complete causal relationship.
A "table" and a "book on the table" appear to have no causal relationship, as the table is not the cause of the book being on the table, but rather someone placed the book on the table.
- 〰 However, there is also a causal relationship between the table and the book on it, where without the table, the book cannot be read by someone who needs it someday.
🔰 Critiquing (recognizing) such causal relationships is not pointless or an effort to forcibly connect things (overfitting), but rather a critical attitude necessary to ...
- 1⃣ ... ensure the boundaries of context and perspective, and if we cannot critique this, we may get trapped in overlapping contexts that are very obscure.
- 2⃣ ... recognize the order of priorities so that things can be placed correctly, preventing mistakes in determining goals that impact unrealistic reasoning.
CAUSAL JUSTIFICATION - CAUSE AND EFFECT AS DEPENDENCY
🎯 6 🔰 As previously explained, understanding the cause-and-effect relationship is not as simple as generally known. Meta-wise, there are 4 forms of causality, which are dependencies.
✅ By recognizing the structure of cause-and-effect dependencies, which are not as simple as generally known, we can avoid misplacing the order of meanings, thus avoiding the risk of overlap and ambiguity.
This can address the absurd grouping of data.
These 4 forms of causality are largely unnoticed in the world of philosophy, with often less than 4 being recognized. Therefore, it is important to be aware of them, not only to avoid contextual errors but also as a hallmark of critical thinking, namely .
- 🎖1. Ownership Dependency. If there is a cause-and-effect relationship that eliminates. This means, if the cause is gone, the effect is also gone.
👉 Example: without sugar, there is no sweetness of sugar, meaning the sweetness of sugar depends on the existence of sugar.
- 🎖2. Functional Dependency. If there is a cause-and-effect relationship that does not eliminate. This means, if the cause is gone, the effect remains, but without the cause, the effect cannot be active.
👉 Example: sugar & tongue. Without a tongue, sugar still exists, without sugar, the tongue still exists. However, without a tongue, the sweetness of sugar cannot be tasted.
- 🎖3. Support Dependency. If there is a cause-and-effect relationship that relies. This means, if the cause becomes the place for the effect.
👉 Example:
--- Ball & hand. The ball is held by the hand, the ball is placed, the ball relies on the hand.
--- Lion & earth. The lion is placed on the earth.
- 🎖4. Sequential Dependency. If there is a sequence of moments between two things.
👉 Example:
--- Car & airplane. It appears that the car moves first before the airplane, so car -> airplane, or the airplane's engine is started first before the car's engine, so airplane -> car | The sequence of events depends on the situation.
⭕️ SO AT LEAST WE REALIZE THAT PHILOSOPHIZING IS NOT AS EASY AS SIMPLY HAVING A STRONG INTENT TO THINK CRITICALLY, BUT ALSO REQUIRES DETERMINATION TO EMBRACE PHILOSOPHY FULLY, AND NOT HASTILY SAY "I ALREADY KNOW THIS IS RIGHT / WRONG."
Cognitive Bias
In the end, we must decide our stance, whether to accept or reject, but also not rush into it, because the dense forest of philosophy is full of ambiguities that trap one into drawing conclusions out of context by not understanding the encompassing circumstances.
Cognitive Bias
Cognitive Bias — Philosophy & METAPhilosophy
METACognition
