I don’t focus as much on bias-free as I do on authentic expression. But I do try to check myself against whatever is “best of class” as much as is reasonable.
I strive for accuracy. I am pedantic. Journals, reasoning through, and a lot of introspection.
What I present forth in any engagement is fact. I don’t expect agreement though and I express my amount of certainty/uncertainty freely.
But I don’t think in terms of “what I believe”. It’s go / no-go.
I can’t say it’s free of bias from somebody else’s POV. But from my own, it is.
I’ve changed my mind on things. Around 2012 I spoke of computational theory of mind as fact. At the time, it was fact.
Now, it’s not. It might be fact to someone else though.
As far as what’s universally fact? I don’t know. How can I know? But I try
This approach, of authenticity, is freeing and has saved me a LOT of trouble. I still work on being as factually accurate as I can be, but I’m no longer trapped by, “But how to you KNOW if what you BELIEVE is TRUE?”
It’s true. I know it is. But I’m not attached to needing agreement from external sources and if past me and today me would be hypocritical if put side-by-side,
I think that pitting belief vs knowledge as tangents is a form of gaslighting tbh even if it’s a common technique. I prefer working with % of certainty.
There’s a name for that but I don’t know what it is atm.
Indeed. I think that’s why I abandoned the term. The notion of “justified belief” is wonky.