Peter Boghossian on Why You Should Try to Disprove Your Beliefs

Can we truly see the world without the lens of our preconceptions? Philosopher Peter Boghossian challenges us to confront the ideological filters that cloud our judgment, arguing that intellectual honesty is crucial in the pursuit of truth. He explains how these entrenched views, especially when left unchecked, can distort even scientific inquiry, leading us to conclusions that align with our assumptions rather than reality. We need to remain willing to revise our beliefs when new evidence demands it, rather than stubbornly sticking to our ideological assumptions.
Check out the full episode this clip was featured in here: • Peter Boghossian on Cr...
Subscribe and ring the notification bell so you don’t miss a single video!
Follow Dad Saves America on Substack: dadsavesameric...
Subscribe to the podcast: dadsavesameric...
Make a tax-deductible donation to Dad Saves America: secure.anedot....
Follow Peter on X (formerly Twitter): / peterboghossian
Peter on Substack: boghossian.sub...
Peter on KZbin: / @drpeterboghossian
_____________________________________
Our Website: www.dadsavesam...
_____________________________________
Dad Saves America is a channel dedicated to celebrating heroic fatherhood while teaching the next generation of fathers strategies they can utilize in parenting their children. We believe strong children come from a strong family. We’ve had many experts in the studio, including Jonathan Haidt, Dr. Drew Pinsky, Troy Kotsur, John Mackey, Ben Askren, and Adam Carolla.
#peterboghossian #ideologicalbias #criticalthinking

[@radiac6818]

Doing the research required to form a well-informed opinion based on reliable facts is exhausting and most people who work real jobs for those $1 bills you mentioned don't have the time or energy to do that, so they crowd source it or believe the opinions of experts whom they trust. Which experts you trust is largely a function of your upbringing. Given that, it's possible to take any ridiculous idea and give credence to it, if you can control the narrative, which is a problem that meticulous research and faithful reporting of news is supposed to solve, but does not do anymore, if it ever did. Big businesses, lawyers, political organizations, marketing people, etc have figured out how to get people to believe, or at least agree to, basically anything, and a big part of getting people to buy into terrible ideas is to threaten those that dissent with the real and potent repercussion of cancellation or removal from office, their job, etc. People like Peter Boghossian, Jordan Peterson, Gad Saad, Colin Wright, Kathleen Stock, etc are basically the modern equivalent of martyrs for standing up for well-founded opinions in the face of rabid opposition from people who are willing to propagandize nonsense and throw dissenters under the bus just to keep THEIR stupid unnecessary jobs. And in that context, the era of identity politics makes it nearly impossible to scrutinize the ideas on their merits in the first place through research and inquiry, because anyone doing well-thought out and well-conducted research on anything like social science questions never gets funded and never gets to publish for fear of backlash from politicial groups. Many of the people propagating bad ideas DON'T WANT that data to exist in the first place, and have no desire to engage in defending their bad ideas in the realm of logic and reason in any event. They say anything they want, no matter how ridiculously wrong it sounds, then an honest inquirer asks "How do you get around the glaring problem that your idea is disproven by obvious fact XYZ?" and they reply with "You're a bigot." end of conversation. Identity politics is like a kind of armor that any person who isn't a straight white man can use to get away with any petulant or self-serving plea for attention or validation without having to actually be right about anything. It's basically legalized gaslighting on a huge scale.

[@mangokane11]

I appreciate you! We dont want to simply consider anything that doesn't line up with what we believe we know. It's easier be dismissive and criticize. Arrogant ignorance is the true pandemic. Ego's go unchecked and self reflection is either not needed or its not done honestly. Review isn't needed. Which is unfortunate because it works in tandem with hindsight which helps to correct ourselves if necessary. Ego's don't like the thought of being incorrect or simply mistaken on any level. A question I've asked... What is your view on the pledge of allegiance? The vast majority had a positive and supportive view on it. I thought that a positive view actually lines up perfectly. A view I do not line up with. I reviewed my experience as a 5 and 6 year old, when I was in my mid 40's and previously I would've been in agreement. It's only because I've reflected on it that I no longer find it positive. It's the where, when, and how that I find disturbing. But this is just one example of many that I've had to come to terms with. Not comfortable at all but it's very necessary. For me. Rabbit holes get a bad rap. I'm currently in a Rabbit of discovery. Discovering new things that I've been wrong about or never knew about. It started organically. Unintentionally. It was the U.S.S LIBERTY. Never heard of it. Well, i know now. Which lead to more and it hasn't stopped. I'm still in here. It sucks but it's good. But it sucks. I'll down here for awhile trying to catch up with actuality. But doing it responsibly. It can be easy to be manipulated while down here. I am vigilant in my awareness of that. And to fully support a point you've madewith my own experience that continues... TIME. I have never in my life committed so much to time towards anything. I an able to do so but the vast majority of us for various reasons, don't have the will to sacrifice their time but most likely just don't have the time which I can understand completely. Just figuring out how to pursue information responsibly took an incredible amount of a time and I've made a lot of mistakes in that process. TIME.... Maintaining our lives is already time consuming especially families with children. It's the biggest factor in my opinion. Anyways I'm placing you in my bubble! No algorithm needed. 😁 have a good night! Aloha!

[@catalyst3713]

Very well said.

[@SilkyJohnson7]

Damn

[@HH-ru4bj]

He's absolutely right, many of our beliefs are just convenient either because they are satisfying and don't cost us anything, they're comfortable or just plain easy. It takes a lot of work to proactively confront the things that threaten those comfortable ideas, before you even get to challenge your ideas. It's easy to challenge ideas you don't agree with, not so easy to challenge ideas that you do agree with. Flat earth unfortunately has become the safe dog to beat as an example, but at least I get the premise, they don't trust anything they can't see with their own eyes, literally and to a fault, but they do have an epistemological basis at least. Other beliefs...not so much, it's as if they operate purely on the primacy effect and everything after follows is a form of confirmation bias. It's counter intuitive, but their ideas do often cause them suffering, so they aren't easy, but in their minds it's easier and more comfortable to have them, because they fear losing something important even more.

[@ryangallagher-oy6qt]

Peter Boghassian seems like a logical positivist - he believes the only things we can make positive claims about are those validated by sound reason. Generally, I agree with logical positivists, yet to the extent that the best mechanism for objective verification often reduces our scoop of observation to scientific materialism, I find it somewhat stifling. This same frustration is shared by the idealists - those who deny objective reality in favor of subjective reality. The failure of logical positivism to address problems like the 'hard problem' in philosophy in regard to consciousness has led to an increase in idealism. Again, the idealists are often correct in recognizing that the logical positivists have largely abandoned looking at consciousness. But they are likewise incorrect to abandon objectivity. People need to get better at recognizing the 'looks' 'seems' and 'is' distinction. Religious views, btw, often balance these extremes out. This is why God incarnated in the flesh as Jesus Christ in Christianity. It is also why the Buddha, when his right to enlightenment is challenged by the demon Mara, touches the ground to symbolize his right as 'witness to the earth.' This is also the daoist balance between the active and inactive principles - yin and yang.

[@publicutility]

Marketing, advertising, corporate media sponsors and owners. Wealth is not indicative of intelligence.

[@DadSavesAmerica]

Honest question: if people are so completely gullible that marketing and advertising can cause them to believe anything... how can you possibly justify democracy itself? Wouldn't the implication be an elite dictatorship to keep all those gullible morons from letting their brainwashed hysteria destroy everything? This kind of "false-consciousness" argument has always struck me as profoundly self-invalidating of allegedly pro-democracy leftism. But then, it's right in line with communist regimes in the real world.

[@Cijil]

Do you want intelligence to be indicative of wealth? Wouldn't it be nice for someone with a lower intelligence to have the opportunity to become wealthy even if it is small? Or do you believe that those with a higher intelligence are more worthy of wealth? I am only hearing a support of elitism from your statement if I am being honest.

[@publicutility]

I think using a caveat of ***"honest" indicates typical dishonesty.

[@publicutility]

The idiot box, anti social media Unregulated power. It seems you believe corporate power, tiny number of extremely wealthy people should own everything and everyone. As if they earn and deserve it. Need to know before any chance of understanding. Currently all branches, agencies of government and public service are under the boot of, whoever and whatever the they are. Yet, not possible to be satisfied.

[@Cijil]

@@publicutility It wasn't intended as an insult but to demonstrate that intelligence is not the supreme good. Is intelligence indicative of virtue? I don't believe it is. What do you believe?

[@gregoryisom7741]

I feel that it is useful to note the travelers/nomads mentality. I, like many americans, moved in youth. The physical reference change can facilitate discerning thinking styles.

[@uid360]

Peter is awesome.

[@thetruthrenegade]

This era doesn't care about reality or what is real. This era only cares about the story and how does the story or (narrative) feels.. when I was growing up, no one ever said the word narrative. now people associate stories with possible bad things so it seems that the media etc. decided on narrative to fool us.(which sound more professional, the narrative or the story) We are inundated with stories all day long if you are connected to a radio, phone, computer, tv etc. It's easy to go into a state where you suspend critical thinking and let the stories go into your mind where who the F knows what it's going to do or how it's going to manifest. humans ain't designed to process this much data and be effective especially if they aren't educated in certain topics and fields. Nature doesn't rely on critical thinking skills. It's a skill that most people aren't gong to develop and with AI, well there goes most people thinking skills just outsource it.

[@mustang607]

That word as well as others were marched through the institutions.

[@axel8406]

Im pro anybody can get a state marriage. Im against forcing religious institutions to perform them. Marriage should not be regulated by the state.

[@jcush5441]

There was a time when the state did not regulate marriages, it was done by the church😊

[@axel8406]

@@jcush5441 I know. But communist want all within the state and nothing out of the state so here we are now.

[@carolynbrightfield8911]

Marriage is a con job by the state to tie two people together financially. I've been state heterosexual married for 50 years. Back then, heterosexual de facto relationships were not recognised by the state. So your finances (on break up remained yours), now, in Australia, after two years de facto, the state ties you together financially. There is no way the state allows you to have a relationship where you don't become tied financially unless you break up before two years. Since money is one of the biggest break up issues of relationships, the state has taken control in the "bedroom". Now, it pays for childcare more than for one parent to stay home and raise their own children until school age. The mother must join the white patriarchal work force. The father traditionally always had to. That was the patriarchy for ya. Ha ha. The state always wins. 🥲

[@carolynbrightfield8911]

* we got married because as state teachers we could be appointed anywhere in the state about(2000km × 2000km NSW) because the state government back then didn't recognise de facto relationships. Now it controls gay relationships as well - de facto and state married. Smart move, state.The state always wins.

[@HH-ru4bj]

Marriage it self and it's origins are a lot more complicated than many realize, and had different obligations depending on the culture, class or politics of the time or culture. Because our system is based on the European model, we tend to look at marriage from that pov. Where I am it's not so much a religious institution except for tradition, but through the centuries it's utility was mostly political to control rights of heirship, until it became a way to control peasants from breeding out of control, which one could argue is also political. Tying finances together was also part of the incentive as well as the social stigma and laws regarding separation. Over the last 60 years or so, though, marriage has all but lost any real relevance, since both parties have equal opportunities to work, and divorce much easier to attain. The religious influences were part social conditioning and because religion was intertwined with the state

[@patrickday4206]

Nice video more people need to be open to ideas and information. Unfortunately we are so overwhelmed in this digital age many people are overwhelmed and not smart enough to filter it all

[@dragonfly1430]

Someone who believes that every disparity is due to systems, has never had children! 😂

[@DadSavesAmerica]

💯

[@saltchuckwest]

▪︎social constructionism provides an out infinitely ▪︎personal responsibility doesn’t but is humanized by foregiveness

[@Davidsavage8008]

When you hope you are wrong about something and you are , its a good thing..... It is those things that just seem to appear real more and more every step of the way that we must be prepared to accept. You can not put filters on because your job is on the line lets say because its on the chopping block to reduce the budget , that resistance will not sustain itself but the preperation must be made. The mistery of life is , why put an (f) in lie and call it good ?

[@HateIncorporated]

Agreed. Which is why I worship the sun. I can point to my god. I can feel his touch. I eat of his energy. He doesn't demand anything from me, but that I don't get to close his presence. Good enough for me, which is more than I can say for any of the others.....

[@tbobtbob330]

I've been derided my whole life for being a "flip flopper" because I'll change my opinions based on new information - information I'm constantly seeking out. I'm at the point where I have zero interest in being around other people.

[@Nonplused]

It's unfortunate that he used gay marriage as an example, because the data on any kind of marriage isn't great right now. Marriage is part of a larger construct that we can sort of call "society, culture, and religion", which is largely managed by the "collective subconscious", but at this point it seems like that structure is undergoing a lot of change, and I imagine there will be a lot of false starts before it settles on something that works. It could be as dramatic and society altering as the rise of Christianity was, or it could result in a hard reversion to a more dogmatic and ridged state of things. Christianity eventually allowed the evolution of ideas like universal human rights, forgiveness and rehabilitation, and equality under the law. Part of society wants to extend that movement to even more freedoms (but often not in the name of any God), including say gay marriage. But there are other parts of society that wants to turn to more authoritarian forms, which includes certain other religions but also includes the current trends towards totalitarianism (socialism, speech policing, etc.). I think which way it goes is very much an open question at this point. Freedom is hard won and easily squandered.

[@patrickday4206]

Picky picky can't see the picture because something offends

[@channe11-manager]

I love Peter's comment @1:28 deflating the convenient "social construct" argument. The bank example he used, is particularly good because it catches everyone in the act of accepting objective reality so long as it serves personal interests. This lays bare social constructionists as disingenuous when subjectivity is applied to objective realms, and attempts are made to deny things that immediately apparent.

[@buglepong]

its ironic, because fiat money is totally made up

[@simonskinner1450]

I did this with Christianity, I have exposed false teaching by falsifying my beliefs and have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' for NT truth.

[@glocksNgrippers]

So true.

[@anisotropik]

Great video so far but do you think at 2:00, 'female' witch doctor... Is a necessary gender description? So poignant until a snarky stereotype burp

[@patrickday4206]

So typical of today's people nit picking looking for something to be critical you think if it was always a male witch doctor it wouldn't be bad?

[@johnduffin9425]

safe and effective. they said it. I believe it. no thinking required. jeapordy is on at 4:30. nothing more to think about. it's just how the sheep roll.

[@darbyheavey406]

Homeopathy? Chiropractic Care? total nonsense but persists for over 100 years.....

[@mikeyh0]

I have heard all this before almost word for word (different examples, of course) which indicates to me that the perception of the human mind has not changed one bit. I think I was about 25 or so when i had conversations like this - way back in the 70's. I suppose people need to clutter their minds from time to time if only to appreciate the absence of that clutter in later years. [As this older man might consider] Of course, that is just the beginning of the maturation process - that cleansing of the ego and id. I am actually smiling at his lack of understanding. His ego is way out of proportion. Same sex marriage is inherently based on deception - both of others and self. The data are very clear from the particular community. That lifestyle is rife with (plagued by) a higher percentage of various destructive behaviors that the algorithm will not allow me to elucidate. To conclude this man is immoral and should be listened to only to know what to avoid.

[@kimjohnson8471]

I purposely listen to opinions I disagree with. I am of the opinion that if I can guess all your stances simply in accordance to a particular edict, they are not your own beliefs. You've been brainwashed.

[@mangokane11]

Honestly self reflecting is incredibly difficult. It's easy to self reflect. Difficult to do it Honestly.

[@user-rc3qk7ty9m]

Wrong

[@edmunddengler7687]

From the same man who said there was no evidence he would accept to prove God exists? Yup, way to live your beliefs Peter!

[@ClanMacAoidh]

This doesn't sound like Peter at all.

[@edmunddengler7687]

@@ClanMacAoidh He is an ardent atheist. There have been several interviews where all "proof of god" he dismissed as trickery, technology, aliens, etc. He was unable to articulate what it would take to change his mind. Even Darwin laid out what it would take to dispute evolution.

[@user-fh1zw2dj8n]

This person is not taking into consideration that every person has an opinion.

[@MartB-tx5lb]

“Facts don’t care about your feelings.” -Ben Shapiro

[@IndenturedSavant13]

No there isn't...