Disagreement, Dogmatism, and Belief Polarization
نویسندگان
چکیده
Consider the phenomenon of belief polarization. Suppose that two individuals—let’s call them ‘You’ and ‘I’--disagree about some non-straightforward matter of fact: say, about whether capital punishment tends to have a deterrent effect on the commission of murder. Although neither of us is certain of his or her view, I believe that capital punishment is a deterrent while You believe that it is not. Perhaps one or both of us has evidence for his or her view. Or perhaps we hold our views on the basis of ideological dogma, or on the basis of some admixture of dogma and evidence. In any case, regardless of why we believe as we do, You and I disagree, in a perfectly familiar way. Suppose next that the two of us are subsequently exposed to a relatively substantial body of evidence that bears on the disputed question: for example, statistical studies comparing the murder rates for adjacent states with and without the death penalty. The evidence is of a mixed character: some studies seem to suggest that capital punishment is a deterrent while other studies seem to suggest that it is not. Regardless, the entire body
منابع مشابه
Roger White Problems for Dogmatism
I argue that its appearing to you that P does not provide justification for believing that P unless you have independent justification for the denial of skeptical alternatives -hypotheses incompatible with P but such that if they were true, it would still appear to you that P. Thus I challenge the popular view of ‘dogmatism,’ according to which for some contents P, you need only lack reason to ...
متن کاملDifferences of Opinion
This paper considers the resolution of ambiguity according to the scientific ideal of direct observation when there is a practical necessity for social learning. An agent faces ambiguity when she directly observes low-quality data yielding set-identified signals. I suppose the agent’s objective is to choose the single belief replicating what would occur with high-quality data yielding pointiden...
متن کاملDogmatism and the distinctiveness of opposite vs. different cognitive systems: Release from proactive inhibition for shifts within- and between- dimensions of meaning
In a series of three experiments, encoding distinctiveness in a release from proactive inhibition paradigm was investigated as a function of dogmatism. Significant differences in release from proactive inhibition between high and low dogmatic individuals were found for shifts within meaning dimensions (from one end of a dimension to the other end) but not for shifts between different dimensions...
متن کاملFrom perception to action: An economic model of brain processes
We build on evidence from neurobiology to model the process through which the brain maps evidence received from the outside world into decisions. This mechanism can be represented by a decision-threshold model. The sensory system encodes information in the form of cellfiring. Cell-firing is then measured against a threshold and an action is triggered depending on whether the threshold is surpas...
متن کاملA collective opinion formation model under Bayesian updating and confirmation bias
We propose a collective opinion formation model with a so-called confirmation bias. The confirmation bias is a psychological effect with which, in the context of opinion formation, an individual in favor of an opinion is prone to misperceive new incoming information as supporting the current belief of the individual. Our model modifies a Bayesian decision-making model for single individuals [M....
متن کامل