A / Instructions:
1. Read the article below by Kirsten Weir.
2. After reading the article below, consider the following: Charles L. Stevenson, in the essay “The Nature of Ethical Disagreement,” claims that disagreements in belief can often be resolved by the methods of science. This is because science can give us facts and facts are supposed to form our beliefs, but research has shown that much of what we believe is not determined by the facts but by what we wish to be true. This might correspond to what Stevenson claims are disagreements in attitude which are much more difficult to resolve. Our attitudes toward a belief or issues sometimes determine what we allow ourselves to count as facts or evidence.
3. For discussion: Given what you have read in the article below and what you read in the essay by Charles L. Stevenson, answer the following: How can we objectively view the facts without interpreting them differently if they challenge our personal beliefs, group identity, or moral values? More specifically, how do we approach moral decision-making in light of what Weir and Stevenson have shown about our attitudes toward facts that challenge our current beliefs?
“Why we believe alternative facts: Explain How motivation, identity, and ideology combine to undermine human judgment”
By Kirsten Weir
American Psychological Association
May 2017, Vol 48, No. 5
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/05/alternative-facts
Fact or opinion?
It’s a distinction we learn as kids. But it turns out judging facts isn’t nearly as black-and-white as your third-grade teacher might have had you believe.
In reality, we rely on a biased set of cognitive processes to arrive at a given conclusion or belief. This natural tendency to cherry-pick and twist the facts to fit with our existing beliefs is known as motivated reasoningand we all do it.
“Motivated reasoning is a pervasive tendency of human cognition,” says Peter Ditto, Ph.D., a social psychologist at the University of California, Irvine, who studies how motivation, emotion, and intuition influence judgment. “People are capable of being thoughtful and rational, but our wishes, hopes, fears, and motivations often tip the scales to make us more likely to accept something as true if it supports what we want to believe.”
In today’s era of polarized politicsand when facts themselves are under attackunderstanding this inclination (and finding ways to sidestep it) has taken on new urgency, psychologists say.
“It takes more information to make you believe something you don’t want to believe than something you do,” Ditto says.
We don’t just delude ourselves when it comes to our health and well-being. Research shows we also interpret facts differently if they challenge our personal beliefs, group identity, or moral values. “In modern media terms, that might mean a person is quick to share a political article on social media if it supports their beliefs but is more likely to fact-check the story if it doesn’t,” Ditto says.
So, for example, want to convince a vaccine skeptic that immunizations are safe? First, it helps to figure out if they believe in Big-Pharma conspiracy theories, if they’re fearful of medical intervention or whether they want to prove to their social circle that they’re a concerned parent.
“The key question is not Why do they disagree with the science?’ but rather, Why do they want to disagree with the science?'”
B/ Reply the thesis below :
“Well for starters, its human nature to do what Kirsten Weir says we do, motivated reasoning. Most people do it subconsciously, well, I think we all do it subconsciously. Nobody wants to be wrong, everyone wants to be right. Unfortunately, it seems to be a difficult loop to get out of. We can discourage motivated reasoning, and praise scientific facts by practicing media literacy. Instead of taking a course related to this topic in college, we can start teaching our elementary children how to separate personal beliefs from facts. We have to start being open-minded from the beginning. We dont all have to agree, but we can most certainly agree to disagree. For example, two people can be approached about a belief they both know nothing about. Facts can be presented to them and then the question can be asked at the end. They walk in open-minded, learn, then come to an agreement. Hopefully, the same idea is applied to the rest of their beliefs when they compare it to others. ”
I need Part A 150 words and part B 120 words
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|