I have spent weeks reading this thread and it was hard work for many reasons.
Science requires discipline, and a devotion to cause which seems rare today because of society’s shift towards egotism, opionation, self indulgence, public exposure, and self aggrandisement. But there are numerous contrasting examples of behaviour from previous and recent centuries, showing individuals whose devotion, in often solitary pursuit, illustrate shining pioneering selflessness.
I pursue objectivism, but do not deny my, or anyone else’s, subjective opinions; surely opinions can only be so when a factual validation cannot be established. Science is a tool, but it is limited by our methodology and knowledge, hence the need for the above which takes dedicated work, and which many people are too mentally lazy to do.
One aspect of discussion is that of the nature of the language structure itself, which is crucial; a valid argument can only be stated with the use of ‘watertight’, ‘fireproof’ language. Errors can be included in statements by the use of bad grammar, syntax, non sequiturs, specious arguments, circular arguments, and sophisms.
But it is unfair to expect non native speakers of English to have the same or even similar grasp of the language, as those to whom it is native. The British seem to dislike American English, preferring strict adhesion to a formal framework, but I admire the way Americans cut to the chase and whilst maybe a little casual, actually often penetrate very well into the core of issues.
I urge us all to be more humble in our statements, and more accepting of others’ differing views, and above all that we try to not become polarised to the point of discussion becoming alienated, intransigent, argumentative, (in the heat, not in the light sense), and ad hominem. These latter reactions may perhaps keeping our sense of self in tact, but they waste energy, and to no avail, much of all our self beliefs actually providing an illusory and insulative comfort zone. People often do not know themselves, and the quote previously from Carl Sagan is also very relevant.
The principles of science should be applied to not only the objects we are assessing, but also to our own belief systems; we all have preconceptions, derived form our vast human experience, and embedded through years of our developmental social psychology; which is both human, and nothing to be intrinsically ashamed of. Surely however we should perhaps feel shame at refusing to address our own psychological foibles and attempting to ruthlessly pursue intellectual honesty.
Error in thought can be spread widely and with great speed now, especially with the web, much of which is inaccurate, and it represents a massive threat to reasoned argument and sensible discussion.
However rather than gaining a sense of well being from adhesion to delusive comfort beliefs, an alternative is to accept that life is full of unknown and often intrusive, and maybe unpleasant events, and when perceiving these, we can deliberately avoid putting energy into, or contributing to, a self constructed comfort zone of illusion. Denying reality is actually hard work, and manifests when we are confronted with attacks on our views from outside; just watch the hackles rise in the attacked. The longer we adhere to delusions, the greater is the upheaval at removing them because with time and habit they become embedded and difficult to change. This is why therapy is recommended before the age of forty.
I think the Zen model of a piece of string about to be cut by a knife is relevant here; be taught and the knife cuts through, be limp and the knife finds difficulty.
I live now with sound which is often offensive, but occasionally very good, and I feel sure after nearly four years of scrutinising and casual audition, that the system is being more objective than anything I have previously had. Most of my listening is via FM, and for two reasons; it allows me to attend to other tasks, and I can avoid the internal ‘set-up’ which goes on in the mind when choosing material, this parallel with expectation bias. This produces many surprises and is not comfortable, as indeed is much other truth in the world. I think now, having a very good tuner and an improved aerial, I can hear differences in replayed recordings on a given FM station, and maybe even studio changes.