Read on Twitter
I want to explore this crucial insight in more depth.
The Doxastic Division of Labour
THREAD: https://twitter.com/MyBetaMod/status/1336989558228078599
The Doxastic Division of Labour
THREAD: https://twitter.com/MyBetaMod/status/1336989558228078599
'Doxastic' is a philosophical term meaning 'relating to an individual's beliefs'.
Doxastic division of labour means that you rely on others to verify some of the important things you believe without understanding how they do it.
Doxastic division of labour means that you rely on others to verify some of the important things you believe without understanding how they do it.
Basically, you cannot know everything to an expert level by yourself.
So, if everything's going well, it's okay to trust scientists to tell you about physics, to trust priests to tell you about good spiritual practice, and so forth.
So, if everything's going well, it's okay to trust scientists to tell you about physics, to trust priests to tell you about good spiritual practice, and so forth.
But things aren't going so well these days.
The crowd is sick and poisoned, and its instincts are wrong.
A lot of people in high places have failed in their philosophical responsibility to tell the truth.
The crowd is sick and poisoned, and its instincts are wrong.
A lot of people in high places have failed in their philosophical responsibility to tell the truth.
Therefore, society is damaged and "don't trust the crowd" tends to be a good rule of thumb.
The danger, which @MyBetaMod identifies clearly, is that this leads to a rather foolish tribal suspicion of everything, including good and important ideas.
The danger, which @MyBetaMod identifies clearly, is that this leads to a rather foolish tribal suspicion of everything, including good and important ideas.
Again, you literally can't verify everything for yourself.
You can try to be good at mathematics and familiar with scientific journals, so that you get a good radar for stuff which sounds fishy.
You can learn a bit of philosophy and theology.
But you can't know it all.
You can try to be good at mathematics and familiar with scientific journals, so that you get a good radar for stuff which sounds fishy.
You can learn a bit of philosophy and theology.
But you can't know it all.
You can't say "I trust no one" and you can't figure it all out yourself.
So you have to trust some authorities to do some of your thinking for you.
(It's a terrible idea to reject good science because a priest lied to you once.)
So you have to trust some authorities to do some of your thinking for you.
(It's a terrible idea to reject good science because a priest lied to you once.)
In this context, the instruction 'be self-aware' isn't just a case of watching yourself.
You have to watch your intellectual authorities to see whether they have been caught lying.
You have to check, on a case-by-case basis, that your gurus have not been fraudulent.
You have to watch your intellectual authorities to see whether they have been caught lying.
You have to check, on a case-by-case basis, that your gurus have not been fraudulent.
Check that your sources of information are good and reliable.
Move on to other sources if the ones you used to trust have been found wanting.
This is much more subtle than just "don't follow the crowd".
Move on to other sources if the ones you used to trust have been found wanting.
This is much more subtle than just "don't follow the crowd".
In other words, if you really want to know things, and manage your life correctly, you will need to go beyond the rule of thumb.
Even if you outsource some of your thinking to experts.
Cheers.
Even if you outsource some of your thinking to experts.
Cheers.
