Only when I have enough hard evidence do I ever consider drawing conclusions that might fit the facts.
And then whenever new hard evidence turns up I reconsider everything and revise every conclusion that I have if necessary.
But it strikes me very clearly that many people do something very different.
These people latch on to what sounds like a "good idea" or they latch on to a "good idea" with the expectation of getting something that they are telling themselves they badly need, and then they start looking for evidence for the purposes of fending off critical attacks, but all they can come up with is soft evidence. The final twist in the tale is that they then use the same technique of justifying wishful thinking with soft arguments to convince themselves that their soft arguments are actually hard arguments when this is not true.
These people are so good at what they do that they can keep up the soft justification game for ever without even noticing what they are doing.
2006-08-22
10:01:08
·
3 answers
·
asked by
optimaxim
3
in
Social Science
➔ Psychology