Dangers: Cognitive Biases

⸺

  • “Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, creating subjective perceptions that deviate from objective reality.”
  • “Understanding these cognitive biases is crucial for philosophers, as awareness of these biases can lead to more rigorous and unbiased thinking, analysis, and discussion.”
  • “Cognitive biases influence how individuals perceive and argue about various issues, including those debated in public and historical contexts.”
  • “These examples illustrate how cognitive biases can shape the course of public debates and decision-making, often leading to flawed judgments and actions.”
  • “Understanding these biases is crucial for critical thinking and for developing more reasoned and equitable discussions in public discourse.”
  • “Confirmation Bias: Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs and neglecting contradictory evidence.”

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. List the 20 most common cognitive biases seen in philosophical discussions.
  2. Provide 5 examples of actual cognitive biases found in historical public debates.
    1. 1. Confirmation Bias in the Salem Witch Trials (1692)
    2. 2. Status Quo Bias in the Debates on Slavery in the United States (19th Century)
    3. 3. Bandwagon Effect in the McCarthy Era (1950s)
    4. 4. Sunk Cost Fallacy in the Vietnam War (1955-1975)
    5. 5. In-group Bias in the Debate Over Women’s Suffrage (Late 19th – Early 20th Century)
    6. 5 Examples of Cognitive Biases in Historical Public Debates:
  3. Provide a 15-item quiz on common cognitive biases with answers at the end.
    1. Quiz: Identify the Cognitive Bias
    2. Answers
    3. Bias Buster Quiz: Test Your Awareness!
  4. Provide 15 discussion questions related to cognitive biases in the context of philosophical discussions.
    1. 15 Discussion Questions on Cognitive Biases in Philosophy:

List the 20 most common cognitive biases seen in philosophical discussions.

Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, creating subjective perceptions that deviate from objective reality. They can significantly influence philosophical discussions and reasoning. Here are the 20 most common cognitive biases encountered in these contexts:

  1. Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.
  2. Anchoring Bias: The common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the “anchor”) when making decisions.
  3. Dunning-Kruger Effect: A cognitive bias wherein people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.
  4. Availability Heuristic: Overestimating the importance of information that is available to us, leading to a bias towards recent, dramatic events.
  5. Belief Bias: The tendency to judge the strength of arguments based on the plausibility of their conclusion rather than how strongly they support that conclusion.
  6. Hindsight Bias: The inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place.
  7. Status Quo Bias: A preference for the current state of affairs, where changes are perceived as a loss.
  8. Sunk Cost Fallacy: Continuing a behavior or endeavor as a result of previously invested resources (time, money, or effort), even when continuing is not the best decision.
  9. False Consensus Effect: The tendency to overestimate how much other people agree with us.
  10. Bandwagon Effect: The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same.
  11. Self-Serving Bias: The habit of attributing positive events to one’s own character but attributing negative events to external factors.
  12. Negativity Bias: The tendency to pay more attention to and give more weight to negative than positive experiences or other kinds of information.
  13. In-group Bias (In-group Favoritism): The pattern of favoring members of one’s in-group over out-group members.
  14. Overconfidence Bias: The unwarranted faith in one’s intuitive reasoning, judgments, and cognitive abilities.
  15. Fundamental Attribution Error: The tendency to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior.
  16. Projection Bias: Assuming that others share the same beliefs we do.
  17. Gambler’s Fallacy: The belief that if something happens more frequently than normal during a given period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or vice versa.
  18. Framing Effect: Drawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that information is presented.
  19. Halo Effect: The tendency for an impression created in one area to influence opinion in another area.
  20. Optimism Bias: The bias that leads people to believe that they are at a lesser risk of experiencing a negative event compared to others.

Understanding these cognitive biases is crucial for philosophers, as awareness of these biases can lead to more rigorous and unbiased thinking, analysis, and discussion. Recognizing and mitigating these biases can enhance the clarity and depth of philosophical inquiry.

While defining the “20 most common” cognitive biases can be subjective depending on specific contexts, here are 20 biases frequently encountered in philosophical discussions:

Confirmation Bias: Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs and neglecting contradictory evidence.

Anchoring Bias: Over-relying on an initial piece of information while making judgments.

Framing Bias: Decisions being influenced by how information is presented, not its objective content.

Availability Bias: Judging the likelihood of events based on how easily they come to mind.

In-Group Bias: Favoring the opinions and perspectives of your own group.

Out-Group Bias: Disfavoring the opinions and perspectives of groups you don’t belong to.

Self-Serving Bias: Attributing positive outcomes to yourself and negative ones to external factors.

Hindsight Bias: Believing you predicted outcomes after they happen, despite lacking prior knowledge.

Curse of Knowledge Bias: Assuming others have the same knowledge or experience as you do.

False Consensus Bias: Overestimating how much others agree with your opinions and beliefs.

Bandwagon Effect: Adopting an opinion or belief because it’s popular, regardless of its merit.

Authority Bias: Unduly trusting information coming from an authority figure or institution.

Sunk Cost Fallacy: Continuing a course of action because of past investments, even if they have no bearing on future outcomes.

Gambler’s Fallacy: Believing that random events are influenced by previous occurrences.

Representativeness Heuristic: Judging something based on how well it resembles a stereotype or prototype.

Neglect of Probability: Underestimating the role of chance or randomness in events.

Base Rate Fallacy: Ignoring general statistics when making specific judgments.

Illusion of Control: Overestimating your ability to influence outcomes.

Just-World Bias: Believing that good things happen to good people and bad things to bad people.

Dunning-Kruger Effect: Overestimating your own competence in specific areas.

Remember, recognizing and mitigating these biases is crucial for engaging in thoughtful and objective philosophical discussions. By remaining aware of how your cognitive processes might influence your reasoning, you can strive for a more balanced and nuanced understanding of complex philosophical issues.

Provide 5 examples of actual cognitive biases found in historical public debates.

Cognitive biases influence how individuals perceive and argue about various issues, including those debated in public and historical contexts. Here are five examples of cognitive biases as they have appeared in historical public debates, demonstrating their impact on discussions and decision-making processes:

1. Confirmation Bias in the Salem Witch Trials (1692)

During the Salem Witch Trials, confirmation bias played a significant role. Accusers and judges interpreted evidence and testimonies in a way that confirmed their preexisting beliefs about witchcraft and possession. Any unusual behavior or misfortune in the community was seen as confirmation of witchcraft, leading to the conviction and execution of many innocent people.

2. Status Quo Bias in the Debates on Slavery in the United States (19th Century)

In the debates leading up to the American Civil War, many defended slavery by appealing to the status quo bias. They argued that slavery was an established system that had been in place for centuries and was essential to the economy and social order, resisting changes despite moral and ethical arguments against the practice.

3. Bandwagon Effect in the McCarthy Era (1950s)

During the McCarthy era, the bandwagon effect was evident as many people supported Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communist crusade without critically examining the evidence. The widespread fear of communism and the popularity of McCarthy’s campaign led individuals to join the cause, often resulting in the persecution of innocent people based on unfounded accusations.

4. Sunk Cost Fallacy in the Vietnam War (1955-1975)

The decision-making process of the United States government during the Vietnam War often exhibited the sunk cost fallacy. Despite mounting evidence that the war was unwinnable and the high human and financial costs, the commitment to continue was justified by the investment already made, leading to the prolongation of the conflict.

5. In-group Bias in the Debate Over Women’s Suffrage (Late 19th – Early 20th Century)

The debate over women’s suffrage showcased in-group bias, where opponents of suffrage often favored their in-group (men in this case) and their existing rights and privileges, viewing the suffrage movement as a threat to the social order. This bias influenced the arguments against suffrage, which were often based on maintaining traditional gender roles and the existing political structure.

These examples illustrate how cognitive biases can shape the course of public debates and decision-making, often leading to flawed judgments and actions. Understanding these biases is crucial for critical thinking and for developing more reasoned and equitable discussions in public discourse.

5 Examples of Cognitive Biases in Historical Public Debates:

  1. Confirmation Bias in the Scopes Monkey Trial (1925): Supporters of creationism often cherry-picked scientific evidence that seemed to confirm their existing beliefs, while ignoring or downplaying contradictory findings. This bias hindered a fair and objective evaluation of the evidence supporting evolution.
  2. Anchoring Bias in the Vietnam War Debates (1960s): Early optimistic assessments of the conflict (“Domino Theory”) became an anchor for policy decisions, even as evidence emerged pointing towards failure. This bias made it difficult to adjust strategies and recognize the need for withdrawal sooner.
  3. Availability Bias in the Debate on Gun Control: Both sides of the debate often rely on readily available, emotionally charged anecdotes (e.g., mass shootings, self-defense cases) to support their arguments, neglecting broader statistical data on gun violence and its causes. This bias can lead to an inaccurate understanding of the issue’s complexity.
  4. In-Group Bias in Climate Change Negotiations: Developed nations, historically responsible for a greater share of carbon emissions, sometimes prioritize the economic interests of their own groups (industries, citizens) over global solutions, hindering progress in collective action.
  5. False Consensus Bias in Debates on Social Justice: Individuals may overestimate the level of agreement on issues like racial equality or LGBTQ+ rights within their own communities, leading them to underestimate the opposition or challenges faced by diverse groups. This bias can hinder dialogue and understanding across differing perspectives.

These are just a few examples, and the specific biases involved vary depending on the historical context and topic of debate. Recognizing and analyzing these biases helps us understand how cognitive processes shape public discourse and promotes more critical and informed engagement with complex issues.

Provide a 15-item quiz on common cognitive biases with answers at the end.

Below is a 15-item quiz designed to test knowledge on common cognitive biases, with scenarios that illustrate these biases in various contexts. Participants are asked to identify the cognitive bias demonstrated in each scenario.

Quiz: Identify the Cognitive Bias

1. Even after hearing about numerous cases of online fraud, John still believes his chances of being scammed online are low because he’s careful.
A. Optimism Bias
B. Confirmation Bias
C. In-group Bias

2. Sarah decides to keep investing money into a failing business because she’s already invested so much and doesn’t want it to go to waste.
A. Sunk Cost Fallacy
B. Gambler’s Fallacy
C. Status Quo Bias

3. Mark thinks that the extreme weather events happening now are more common than they were in the past, mainly because they are fresh in his memory.
A. Availability Heuristic
B. Anchoring Bias
C. Recency Bias

4. Despite evidence to the contrary, a group of investors continues to follow the advice of an investment guru because he was right once in the past.
A. Halo Effect
B. Confirmation Bias
C. Authority Bias

5. Lisa believes that her success in life is due to her hard work and intelligence, but she attributes her failures to bad luck and external factors.
A. Self-Serving Bias
B. Fundamental Attribution Error
C. Dunning-Kruger Effect

6. When Alex reads news articles, he only selects those that support his political views, ignoring any evidence that challenges his beliefs.
A. Confirmation Bias
B. Belief Bias
C. Anchoring Bias

7. Emma overestimates her performance on an exam, thinking she scored higher than most of her peers, despite not studying much.
A. Overconfidence Bias
B. Dunning-Kruger Effect
C. Optimism Bias

8. After buying a popular stock, Jenny convinces herself that all signs point to its value increasing, ignoring any negative indicators.
A. Confirmation Bias
B. Availability Heuristic
C. Bandwagon Effect

9. People tend to believe that a company with a well-designed logo and professional website is more trustworthy and of higher quality than one without.
A. Halo Effect
B. Aesthetic-Usability Effect
C. Anchoring Bias

10. During a debate, Tom argues that his opponent’s point is invalid because the opponent once changed his mind about a similar issue.
A. Ad Hominem
B. Tu Quoque
C. Straw Man

11. Despite statistics showing a decrease in violent crime, many believe it is on the rise because of high-profile cases in the news.
A. Availability Heuristic
B. Negativity Bias
C. Gambler’s Fallacy

12. Jack refuses to listen to any criticism about his favorite political candidate, believing the candidate can do no wrong.
A. Halo Effect
B. In-group Bias
C. Confirmation Bias

13. After seeing a few news reports about shark attacks, Maria is afraid to go swimming in the ocean, believing attacks are more common than they are.
A. Availability Heuristic
B. Overgeneralization
C. Negativity Bias

14. Nathan, a CEO, rejects a new project proposal because it’s different from the strategies his company has successfully used in the past.
A. Status Quo Bias
B. Risk Aversion
C. Anchoring Bias

15. After moving to a new city, Elena feels more comfortable befriending people from her home country, believing they share more in common.
A. In-group Bias
B. Similarity Attraction Effect
C. Confirmation Bias

Answers

  1. A. Optimism Bias
  2. A. Sunk Cost Fallacy
  3. A. Availability Heuristic
  4. A. Halo Effect
  5. A. Self-Serving Bias
  6. A. Confirmation Bias
  7. B. Dunning-Kruger Effect
  8. A. Confirmation Bias
  9. A. Halo Effect
  10. B. Tu Quoque
  11. A. Availability Heuristic
  12. A. Halo Effect
  13. A. Availability Heuristic
  14. A. Status Quo Bias
  15. A. In-group Bias

This quiz aims to enhance understanding of cognitive biases, showcasing how they influence perceptions, decisions, and judgments across various scenarios.

Bias Buster Quiz: Test Your Awareness!

Instructions: Match each scenario with the cognitive bias most likely at play.

  1. You only read news articles that confirm your existing political beliefs. a) Confirmation bias b) Bandwagon effect c) Sunk cost fallacy
  2. After surviving a car accident, you become overly cautious about driving, even on short trips. a) Availability bias b) Illusory control c) Gambler’s fallacy
  3. You invest more money into a losing stock in hopes of recouping your losses. a) Sunk cost fallacy b) Anchoring bias c) Representativeness heuristic
  4. You decide to buy the latest smartphone everyone is talking about, even though you don’t necessarily need it. a) Bandwagon effect b) Availability bias c) Authority bias
  5. You readily recall all the times your boss criticized you, but forget the many times they praised your work. a) Negativity bias b) Self-serving bias c) Hindsight bias
  6. You judge a new restaurant based on a single bad online review, ignoring multiple positive ones. a) Availability bias b) Anchoring bias c) Representativeness heuristic
  7. You trust a medical professional’s opinion without questioning their reasoning, simply because of their title. a) Authority bias b) Curse of knowledge c) In-group bias
  8. You believe you’re better at public speaking than most people, despite limited experience. a) Dunning-Kruger effect b) False consensus bias c) Self-serving bias
  9. You avoid visiting a new neighborhood because you heard a crime occurred there once. a) Availability bias b) Representativeness heuristic c) In-group bias
  10. You think you’re more likely to win the lottery after someone else in your town wins.

a) Gambler’s fallacy b) Hindsight bias c) Base rate fallacy

Answer Key:

  1. a) Confirmation bias
  2. a) Availability bias
  3. a) Sunk cost fallacy
  4. a) Bandwagon effect
  5. a) Negativity bias
  6. a) Availability bias
  7. a) Authority bias
  8. a) Dunning-Kruger effect
  9. b) Representativeness heuristic
  10. a) Gambler’s fallacy

Provide 15 discussion questions related to cognitive biases in the context of philosophical discussions.

Exploring cognitive biases within philosophical discussions encourages a deeper understanding of how these biases influence our thinking, reasoning, and arguing about philosophical concepts. Here are 15 discussion questions designed to stimulate critical thinking and conversation on this topic:

  1. How do cognitive biases affect our understanding of philosophical concepts such as free will, morality, and the nature of reality?
  2. In what ways can confirmation bias impact the study of philosophy, particularly in interpreting philosophical texts or theories?
  3. Discuss the role of the Dunning-Kruger effect in philosophical debates. How might overconfidence in one’s understanding influence the discourse?
  4. Can the awareness of cognitive biases lead to more objective philosophical reasoning? Provide examples to support your argument.
  5. How does the halo effect influence our perception of philosophical arguments presented by individuals with high status or reputation in the field?
  6. Consider the impact of in-group bias on philosophical communities. How might this bias affect the acceptance or rejection of new ideas?
  7. Analyze the role of the sunk cost fallacy in the persistence of outdated or refuted philosophical theories.
  8. Discuss how availability heuristic might influence contemporary philosophical concerns, especially those related to ethics and existential risks.
  9. To what extent do cognitive biases play a role in philosophical disagreements? Can understanding these biases help resolve disputes?
  10. Explore the relationship between optimism bias and philosophical optimism. How might a bias towards positive outcomes affect philosophical inquiry?
  11. How might anchoring bias affect the formulation of philosophical questions and problems?
  12. Examine the effects of the status quo bias on the evolution of philosophical paradigms. Are there instances where this bias has hindered philosophical progress?
  13. How does the negativity bias influence philosophical discussions on human nature and societal structures?
  14. Discuss the implications of the self-serving bias in ethics and moral philosophy. How does attributing success to personal virtues and failure to external factors complicate moral judgments?
  15. How could cognitive biases affect the interpretation of logical fallacies in philosophical arguments?

These questions aim to promote a reflective examination of the ways cognitive biases shape our engagement with philosophical ideas, potentially leading to a more nuanced and critical approach to philosophical inquiry and debate.

15 Discussion Questions on Cognitive Biases in Philosophy:

  1. Awareness: How aware are you of your own cognitive biases, and how does this awareness influence your approach to philosophical discussions?
  2. Impact: Do you think certain biases are more problematic than others in philosophical discussions? Why or why not?
  3. Mitigating Bias: What strategies can we use to identify and mitigate our own cognitive biases when engaging in philosophical debates?
  4. Responsibility: Who holds the responsibility for addressing cognitive biases in a philosophical discussion? The individual, the facilitator, or both?
  5. Openness to Change: How can we cultivate intellectual humility and remain open to changing our minds when presented with evidence challenging our existing biases?
  6. Impact on Truth: How do cognitive biases hinder our pursuit of truth in philosophical inquiry? Can they ever be beneficial?
  7. Group Biases: Are there specific biases prevalent in group discussions on philosophy, such as in-group bias or out-group bias? How can we address them?
  8. Cultural Influence: Do different cultures have varying tendencies towards certain cognitive biases? How might this affect philosophical discourse across cultures?
  9. Emotional Influence: How do our emotions interact with cognitive biases in shaping our philosophical perspectives?
  10. Humor and Satire: Can humor or satire be used effectively to expose cognitive biases in philosophical debate? If so, how?
  11. Historical Impact: How have the understanding and awareness of cognitive biases evolved throughout history, and how has this impacted philosophical discourse?
  12. The Role of Education: How can we effectively educate people about cognitive biases and their impact on philosophical thinking?
  13. Formal vs Informal Biases: Are formal biases (like confirmatory bias) more dangerous than informal ones (like bandwagon effect) in philosophical discussions?
  14. Bias and Critical Thinking: How can recognizing and understanding cognitive biases contribute to better critical thinking skills in philosophical inquiry?
  15. Building Constructive Discourse: How can we utilize awareness of cognitive biases to build more productive and intellectually honest philosophical discussions?

Remember, these are just starting points, and the discussions they spark can be tailored to specific philosophical inquiries or challenges faced by the group. The ultimate goal is to foster open, honest, and critically aware dialogue in the pursuit of philosophical understanding.

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. List the 20 most common cognitive biases seen in philosophical discussions.
  2. Provide 5 examples of actual cognitive biases found in historical public debates.
    1. 1. Confirmation Bias in the Salem Witch Trials (1692)
    2. 2. Status Quo Bias in the Debates on Slavery in the United States (19th Century)
    3. 3. Bandwagon Effect in the McCarthy Era (1950s)
    4. 4. Sunk Cost Fallacy in the Vietnam War (1955-1975)
    5. 5. In-group Bias in the Debate Over Women’s Suffrage (Late 19th – Early 20th Century)
    6. 5 Examples of Cognitive Biases in Historical Public Debates:
  3. Provide a 15-item quiz on common cognitive biases with answers at the end.
    1. Quiz: Identify the Cognitive Bias
    2. Answers
    3. Bias Buster Quiz: Test Your Awareness!
  4. Provide 15 discussion questions related to cognitive biases in the context of philosophical discussions.
    1. 15 Discussion Questions on Cognitive Biases in Philosophy:

Leave a comment

Phil Stilwell

Phil picked up a BA in Philosophy a couple of decades ago. He occasionally teaches philosophy and critical thinking courses in university and industry. He is joined here by ChatGPT 4, GEMINI, CLAUDE, and occasionally Copilot, his far more intelligent AI friends. The five of them discuss and debate a wide variety of philosophical topics I think you’ll enjoy.

Phil curates the content and guides the discussion, primarily through questions. At times there are disagreements, and you may find the banter interesting.

— Goals and Observations

Stay informed!

Sign up for new post notices.

Recent Posts

  • Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

    Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was a seminal figure in modern philosophy, contributing to metaphysics, logic, and epistemology. His concept of monads, the principle of sufficient reason, and the idea of the best of all possible worlds… Read more

  • Collapsing Epistemological Terms

    This article delves into the challenges of defining epistemological terms and proposes methods to achieve productive dialogue. It emphasizes collapsing 2nd-order terms into 1st-order concepts like “credence” for clarity and mutual understanding. However, some responses… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Hegel

    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy has left a lasting impact. While his concept of the dialectic is widely acknowledged, his Absolute Spirit and Absolute Idealism are less accepted due to their speculative and metaphysical nature.… Read more

  • John Locke

    John Locke profoundly influenced modern philosophy, challenging prevailing rationalist views and emphasizing knowledge derived from sensory experiences. His concept of the mind as a “tabula rasa” at birth and his political theories significantly impacted political… Read more

  • Dangers: Awe as an Indicator

    The argument presents an insightful perspective on the subjective nature of beauty and the relationship between the observer and the observed. It questions the idea of objective beauty and challenges anthropocentric viewpoints. It also acknowledges… Read more

  • The Power of Statistics

    Statistics play a crucial role in acquiring truth by providing tools for interpreting data, quantifying uncertainty, and making informed decisions. Its power lies in quantifying evidence, pattern recognition, hypothesis testing, decision-making, understanding variability, and effective… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Charles Sanders Peirce

    Charles Sanders Peirce explains his philosophy, covering pragmatism, semiotics, and the scientific method. Pragmatism evaluates ideas by their practical consequences. Semiotics studies signs: icons, indexes, and symbols. The scientific method involves hypothesis, experimentation, and revision.… Read more

  • Baruch Spinoza

    Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century Dutch philosopher, significantly influenced modern philosophy by challenging traditional dualistic views and championing reason as the path to knowledge. His deterministic view of the universe led to groundbreaking contributions in monism,… Read more

  • Subjectivity Constrained by the Objective

    Subjective experience, influenced by objective reality, emerges from subjective creatures trying to navigate the world. Objective limitations and neural flexibility shape rich subjectivity, displaying various quirks. Cognitive biases, emotional states, and exploratory nature raise potential… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Epicurus

    Epicurus, an influential ancient Greek philosopher, advocated for pleasure as the highest good, tranquility of the mind, and the moderation of desires. While some of his specific ideas have evolved, they continue to shape contemporary… Read more

  • Faith or Evidence?

    This article explores the tension between citing miracles and advocating for faith as a reason to believe in God. It delves into how these concepts are viewed and reconciled within religious epistemology. The passage also… Read more

  • Testing Prayer

    A definitive prayer test would involve a specific, observable miracle, like restoring amputated limbs, occurring within a set timeframe following prayers directed to a specific God. Control groups would be essential to exclude coincidences and… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Socrates

    Socrates’ philosophy has left a lasting impact on critical thinking and ethical exploration. His Socratic Method continues to inspire dialogue in various fields. The notion of ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’ challenges societal… Read more

  • Monetary Goals

    A rational disposition toward money and possessions involves moderation, value-focused decision-making, and long-term planning, prioritizing experiences over material possessions. Historical figures like Diogenes of Sinope and St. Francis of Assisi found happiness through self-sufficiency and… Read more

  • Thomas Aquinas

    Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of the 13th century, profoundly impacted Western philosophy by integrating Aristotelian philosophy with Christian doctrine. His influence is seen in Scholasticism, natural law theory, and the synthesis of… Read more

  • Culture-Wide Emotional Dispositions

    This article discusses the cultural aspects of emotional expression in Japanese society and its impact on child development. It emphasizes the influence of cultural norms on emotional expression, the effects of emotional suppression in childhood,… Read more

  • Shades of Certainty

    This article critiques the binary notion of belief, arguing that belief and liking exist on a spectrum rather than as fixed categories. It highlights the linguistic and ontological conflicts of oversimplified binary perspectives and emphasizes… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Aristotle

    This article includes lengthy dialogues involving Aristotle discussing his philosophical ideas with various individuals, such as a curious teenager, another philosopher exploring his philosophy, and a critical philosopher confronting him on weaknesses in his philosophy.… Read more

  • Detecting Bad Science

    This article provides insight into spotting bad science, vulnerable science domains, pressures driving improper science, questions to ask when evaluating scientific claims, a quiz on scientific claims, and discussion questions. It covers sensationalized headlines, conflicts… Read more

  • Our View of Humanity

    A distorted view of human nature can severely distort our beliefs about events involving humans. Each of the distorted views presented impacts our perceptions and interactions. Real-life tragedies, such as those involving Ted Kaczynski and… Read more

  • Appreciating our Insignificance 

    Accepting our cosmic insignificance offers advantages such as humility, perspective, unity, innovation, and resilience. Staying grounded amid ideologies promising cosmic importance involves mindfulness, gratitude, rationality, meaningful connections, and limiting exposure to grandiose narratives. Real-life accounts… Read more

  • Charles Sanders Peirce

    Charles Sanders Peirce was a foundational figure in American philosophy, best known as the progenitor of pragmatism. His ideas significantly influenced logic, the philosophy of science, and semiotics. His lasting mark on philosophy includes pragmatism,… Read more

Recent Posts — Expanded Version
Indicate your interests:

Links to Section Menus