Our cognitive biases can interfere with our reasoning even when we perceive that we are only acting based on logic.

While we can rely on reasoning in areas of knowledge such as mathematics, when we apply it in the real world it is much more difficult to deal with. In mathematics, we are relying on axioms that do not need to be true in real life. However, in real life, an individual’s biases get in the way of reasoning that is completely logical. For example, as I mentioned in a previous post, if I were to read an article that presented data that showed vaccines as being harmful to people’s health, I would be instantly skeptical and try to challenge the article, because it directly contradicts my personal view. However, if I were to read an article that confirms my previous point of view, I would be unlikely to challenge the legitimacy of the data. This is just one example of how our biases can bar us from reason.

Reasoning has difficulty approaching truth because when we use reasoning, we are using logic that is based on assumptions.

When using reasoning, it is important to know what we are working towards. Truth is hard for reasoning to work towards because when we use reasoning, we are making decisions based on assumptions. What makes it particularly hard is that to reach true statement, we must go from one true statement to another. This makes it easier to use reasoning to approach certainty that something is true based on given information rather than an absolute truth.

A conclusion’s certainty is dependant on the validity of the reasoning involved and how true the statements it was based on were.

I touched upon this in my last CU, but I didn’t expand on it too much. I think that for something to be “certain” (not true) it needs to first be based in something that we assume to be true (or as close to true as we can get), and then use reasoning that is valid enough to reach a conclusion. Much of what we know today is based on these two things. For example, in the middle ages, the earth was assumed to be flat, because it was known that things fall towards the ground, and logically it made sense to assume that the earth was flat based on this. However, now, we have much more sophisticated equipment, as well as a better idea of how gravity works. So we base our conclusions on what we know about the earth, which is that gravity is generated by centers of mass, so flat earth wouldn’t make sense. We also have been able to see the earth from space, and have seen that it is spherical. This means that we used “truer” statements than what was used in the middle ages, so this conclusion, as a result, is truer than the old conclusion.

Confirmation bias

Out of the different cognitive biases we make, confirmation bias is one of the most common. Confirmation bias is when we are more likely to believe or favor an idea that confirms what we already know. For example, I inherently have the bias that vaccines are helpful towards human society. So, if I was to be presented with data or an article that has evidence that points towards vaccines being a health hazard, I would immediately be skeptical and try to challenge the article with things I believe to be correct about vaccines or doubt the reliability of the source. However, if I were to be given data from an experiment that shows that vaccines are helpful for everyone’s health, I would likely almost immediately accept the data as true. This is the issue with confirmation bias, as it makes us less skeptical of things because they share our viewpoint.

Anchoring bias

Anchoring bias is essentially when we are presented with information before making a decision, and while making that decision, we tend to cling to that initial information even when the decision at hand has nothing to do with that information. For example, if I was looking to buy a car, and I see a car that costs 30000 dollars and a car that costs 100000 dollars, I’ll think that 30000 dollars for a car is a reasonable price. However, if I were to be presented with a car that costs 5000 dollars and a car that costs 30000 dollars, I would think that the car that costs 30000 dollars sounds pricey and unreasonable. I only am really making this judgment because I am looking at the car’s cost in comparison to another car which really shouldn’t have a place in my decision. This is why anchoring bias can become a problem.

Narrative fallacy

Narrative fallacy is when we decide to lean towards one side based on the story behind it rather than logic because we find it easier to sympathize with due to the story. This can often be seen on shows like America’s Got Talent, in which contestants often bring a story with them to the show. If their story is compelling, people who watch the show are more likely to support that person. This means that your favorite contestant on the show may not be the most talented, which is why narrative fallacy obstructs logic.

Framing bias

Framing bias is very similar to narrative fallacy, as it also has to do with the way information is presented rather than what the information is actually saying. Framing bias is when we make a decision based on how information is presented to us making us more likely to believe it. Framing bias often comes into play when investing in things like stocks. For example, if investing in a stock presented a possibility of a 25% gain or a 100% loss, it immediately sounds like a bad decision. However, if I also give the information that the stock has been steadily improving for the last two years, it immediately sounds more attractive even though the possibility of failure is just as likely.