donnerkeil

I've seen many people label themselves as "free-thinkers", but I'd like to get a solid definition (if possible) of what a free-thinker is (which should provide insight on what free-thought is as well).

Amos

In my definition a free-thinker is not divided in his own mind between his conscious and subconscious mind. Because of this he is not troubled by inspired moments that would upset his preconceived opinions.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

A freethinker is one who rejects dogma and personal authority with regard to ideas. A freethinker, by definition, does not hold a objective proposition true by mere virtue of its being endorsed by any person.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Megatron

In other words, we believe what we find for ourselves to be true, as opposed to what someone else told us...

donnerkeil

Oh posh, you take plenty of things to be true without "finding out for yourself". I'd dare say you do so on most scientific matters simply because you either don't have the means, methods or money (or all three) to do the testing yourself. So to some degree, everyone takes someone "on their word".

So does that mean no one is really a free-thinker in the complete sense of the word?

donnerkeil

All ideas, or just religious ideas in particular? Why would one reject personal authority, especially if someone is in a position to exercise that authority? Do you deny Einstein's authority when it comes to his ideas of physics?

Yet, as I told Zero Angel, everyone takes "objective proposition's" (btw, talk about a redundancy of terms...) from time to time for a given, based entirely on who is endorsing it. This happens in science all the time. If I go to a conference and I see data presented, if it is presented by a Nobel Laureate, I am more likely to take his word for it than I am if an undergraduate presented the same material.

And why do I? Because short of finding the funding, the materials and machinery, and the overhead to perform the same experiments, since someone has done it (and I assume someone else has confirmed it) what is the point in redoing it myself? Do I need to do this with every scientific position ever reported, and do it on my own?

Malaclypse the Younger

donnerkeil

Taking someone on their word is different from taking it on their authority.

And I don't even do that. If something is important to me, I look at the actual arguments and evidence, and make up my own mind.

Even when I take someone's word for things (such as experimental results), it's because I've investigated their general or specific credibility.

Just because I believe something indirectly does not mean I believe it on their authority.

For instance, many things that the Pope says about God are true (under Catholic methodology) merely by the virtue of him saying them. This is an example of non-freethinking. The "truth" of these statements has nothing to do with the quality of his argumentation nor his reputation for accuracy.

Malaclypse the Younger

donnerkeil

I absolutely deny Einstein's authority; Relativity is not true (nor do I believe it) because Einstein said it. Rather, it is true (and I believe it) because the arguments and evidence support it.

No, everyone does not. I do not, unless the proposition is entirely irrelevant or trivial.

An objective proposition is not a redundancy. If you declare a subjective proposition (e.g. "I like ice cream") I will take that proposition as true on your authority.

No it does not. If you wish to make blanket statements like this, please offer actual evidence. I am not going to believe this sort of statement on your authority.

Good primary data is always reproducible and often actually reproduced. Even when taken at face value (i.e. by us nonscientists) we can determine for ourselves that it is reliable because of our knowledge of its reproducibility and the meta-methodology of science to attempt to replicate and challenge theories and experimental results.

If a Nobel-prize winner proposes a theory, then I will be more likely to take it seriously, but I am always (if interested) going to actually examine his arguments. Einstein didn't like QM, but his arguments were deficient, and thus I don't believe him.

You should understand the arguments for various scientific theories if you wish to profess strong belief in them. You have good evidence for the reliability of taking particular experimental results at face value by investigating someone's personal reputation and methodology to indirectly trust their reports.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

donnerkeil

Don't you usually take someone "on their word" precisely because of their authority? Would you take Einstein at his word in a matter on physics over that of a door-to-door salesman? Yes, you would... why? Because Einstein was a reknown'd physicist. It is simply Einstein's credentials which lead you to even consider his comments in the first place. Einstein is an authority on the subject, and hence you are going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But that proves my point. When something is imporant to you, you immediately go to the authorities on the subject and you look at what they have done to satisfy your own line of thinking, maybe even adopting their own theories as an explanation for what they observed.

What do you mean you investigated their "general or specific" credibility? Experiments ask a specific question (or else they're not experiments).

I would say that it does depend on their authority. If they were not experts in their field (ie: an authority) what basis would you have for believing it in the first place?

First of all, Catholics believe that certain things the Pope says are "infallible" (rather than just saying true) because of specific support that this authority is derived from Scripture. In addition, these statements must be weighed against prior teaching to search for conflicts, because in order for it to be true/infallible it must be non-contradictory in nature. Hence, Catholics don't just "take his word for it", his comments are studied and examined closely. So, I suppose that would make Catholics free-thinkers, since the Pope's statements are analyzed.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: donnerkeil ]</p>

Malaclypse the Younger

Even if a particular person is not particularly interested in science, they can still investigate its methods and practices to determine whether science itself is generally reliable.

The important thing in science is that no one claims private knowledge. There is nothing asserted in science--from the loftiest theory to the most mundane experimental results--that cannot in principle be directly investigated by anyone, and there is good evidence to support this conclusion.

Religious authorities claim, however, that they have private knowledge which cannot even in principle be verified by any person. If one asserts the truth of the bible, they must assert it on its own authority--the statements asserted as true in the bible cannot, even in principle, be directly verified by any person. And again, there is good evidence to support this conclusion.

[ March 02, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>