Drawing conclusions (part 2)

"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
Sherlock Holmes

When I first began this blog I posted some comments about drawing conclusions before examining the evidence. Now, in the middle of my second semester of using The Evidence Blog in my philosophy course I find the problem is still as bad as ever.

Without much knowledge of basic psychology, not to say anything of brain science, students seem very willing and eager to share their views on what the mind is, how it relates to the brain, and what each one does with regard to thinking and other mental processes.

When you think about this at all, it should strike you as quite odd. How can people go on and on about a subject they know quite little about?

In fact, psychologists recognize this is all too common. Indeed, there has been much research done recently on precisely this phenomenon. However, philosophers have recognized this propensity for centuries. In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Rene Descartes devotes an entire chapter to the question of the origin of our errors in thinking. In part, this is due to our willingness to make judgments about things which are beyond our knowledge. And so it goes.

I would like to encourage my students and any readers of this blog (if indeed there be any!) to take to heart Sherlock Holmes' warning and advice quoted above. Don't let your own pet theory guide your interpretation of the facts. Let the facts guide your formation of theory.

These days to really be conversant on the philosophical questions we address here you need to do some research on the latest findings in such areas as neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, evolution, cosmology, and physics. Some of our current theories may turn out to be wrong but we have to work with what we have and know today, not what we might know decades from now. At least you need to be aware of what we know today!