Ok, so I have a lot of thoughts in my head and perhaps someone would like to hear abou them so I'll post here when I feel the urge
-- Changing reality instead of ideas --
So I've thought about this for the last week or so.
All people have a view of the world inside their heads. This meens that there are about 6 billions different worlds out there walking around. I tend to believe that there is only one reality though (I agree with the objectivists on this) and thus, since noone could ever know the truth, everybody must be wrong.
Most external ideas (that comes from others view of the world) easially becomes subsets of our own personal view. A few things happen when new ideas get incorporated into our world:
1. External stimuli. We get a prposal from someone or somewhere that challenge our view of the world.
2. We try to incorporate this idea into our view by using deduction with our own ideas to form a new reality.
Actually 1 doesn't need to happen, we can just deduce stuff from different earlier deductions formed in our head. The problem is that the more wrong the old ideas were the more wrong the new idea will become.
Now. Emotions play a big part in this for some reason. We use the emotions to evaluate the importance of the new idea and weighs that against how much the idea will challange the old view.
If the source seems to be trustworty (i.e. a guy in a white coat) and the idea isn't challanging for our world view then we incorporate it. For example, most men realise that their feet get wet when they stand up and pee so the rational thing would be to sit down on the toilet and for most men this isn't very challanging for their world view so they sit down.
The more challanging an idea is the more our emotions will try to resist it. If you have read "Food Revolution" you see this happen to John as his alliances all the time. His opponents don't use logic but instead they get angry and bash his personality.
The problem becoms even worse when youre view gets so challange that it shakes in its foundations. What people tend to do then is to change reality. For example. The republicans core foundation would be somewhat challenged if global warming weren't infact a hoax so for ages now they have depended on the declining amount of scientists that says that this is not a problem we need to worry about. I think that there are like 3 of them left these days. In doing so they seem more and more moranic as time goes by. Just wait for it, Bush will soon be angry and start to talk about emotions and God instead of changing his view of the world. In doing so he would actually seem less rediculous than when he clinges on to the 3 scientists.
Don't relax just yet, this involves you too. Everybody does this to some extent. Take b-12 for example. From the studies that have been made on vegans who don't supplement with it the homocystein levels go up. When they start eating b-12 they go down. It have also been made quite clear that elevated homocystein either itself is bad or at least it's an indication that something is wrong. Taking supplements however doesn't fit into a certain view of the world so instead of taking the harmless b-12 one tries to change reality.
Veganism is another example. If you put yourself in front of an omni and showed them scientific "proof" of what they are doing to themselves and others by eating the way they do most omnis would probably be pissed off and accuse you of various things not related to the topic. Logic goes out the window.
I agree with the objectivists that world is not dependent on our view of it and in every moment truth exist in this reality. What I don't agree with them on is that you cannot know what this state is or even if you are getting closer or further away from the truth by altering your view to another state (to prove something you have to know what to prove).
I wonder where this stubborness comes from where emotions take over to the point where we are able to actually jump off a bridge if that's what our world view tells us to do and what makes us try to change reality instead of our own personal view of it? What kind of evolutionary advantage would such an approach get?