❇️ METAKognisi @Link
🎯 Relevance (Cognitive Bias)
🔰 Recognizing cognitive bias, overcoming cognitive bias, to realize things as they are and to be able to act realistically.
The fundamental aspect of philosophy is its thinking and, of course, its reflection (which is different from merely philosophizing).
Or if one rejects the idea that reflection is different from thinking, then META views it differently. This has been discussed extensively in various parts here, so you are encouraged to explore how your peers think and expand their thoughts through reflection.
Cognitive Bias
It starts not with the concept of refuting, but with the concept of maintaining, which will eventually form a more directed refutation.
This is done by avoiding "cognitive bias." Something not deeply recognized by previous philosophy (even though philosophy knows what cognitive bias and logical fallacy are).
Logical Fallacy
"Logical fallacy" is left to philosophy, while "cognitive bias" will be addressed with the META approach.
Misunderstanding
Assuming something makes sense, but there is a conflict with another party who also thinks it makes sense. It's funny when both parties think it makes sense, but there is a conflict.
This is because one party is trapped in "cognitive bias," leading to misunderstandings that underestimate illusions, whereas anything that has an influence requires attention.
Misunderstanding the Situation
Seeing a flaw in logic, so it is considered impossible (not acknowledged).
This is because of cognitive bias, so it is thought there is a logical error. Actually, something is correct, but due to cognitive bias, it is perceived as "6" being "9" and thus deemed illogical because there are only "6" cakes but the demand is for "9" cakes, when in reality only "6" cakes are needed, they just misplaced their perception, leading to flawed logic.
What happens is "logical fallacy" vs "cognitive bias" which should be addressed by overcoming "cognitive bias" first and then checking for "logical fallacy" to reveal the boundaries of universal absolutes.
HIDDEN FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS THAT NEED TO BE REALIZED
From here, a CRITICAL ATTITUDE WILL BECOME SHARPER WITHOUT SEEKING JUSTIFICATION GAPS (unfair ego defense), BUT RATHER ABLE TO FIND TRUTH GAPS (expansion of knowledge).
So that it does not happen, starting to philosophize to overcome confusion, but instead becoming confused or clearer without realizing getting trapped in the fog of polemics because merely understanding "logical fallacy" without realizing "cognitive bias."
AWARENESS & TRANSFORMATION IN PHILOSOPHY
AFTER REALIZING MANY "COGNITIVE BIASES," one will be surprised at how they have not been philosophizing, but rather engaging in polemics without realizing it.
I will update this …
EXEMPLAR JUSTIFICATION
🎯 1🔰 Believing without example is absurd. refutting without example is nonsensical. As simple as that, no absurd at all
SCALE JUSTIFICATION
📌 Link
🎯 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
📌 Link
🎯 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.
