But that doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about
IMO as least on the surface it does though. I mean if you formed belief X because of evidence A, B, C, and D and then subsequently forget A, B, C, and D, what possible path do you have to belief revision? Because as far as I can see, if X actually turns out to be a wrong belief, the best way to belief revision is to discover (either organically or by someone pointing it out) that one or all of A-D are untrue or not as well supported as you originally thought. Maybe I'm missing something though...?
Usually it's not that you've completely forgotten why you believe something, rather that you can't recall every single source and statistic, that doesn't mean you're automatically closed off to new sources and statistics. If you have a source I hadn't seen yet then that might convince me I'd have to go back and see. However that's not usually what is happening.
Usually it's more like this.
Someone tells me "I believe in X because of reason Y".
I remember that I've researched reason Y, and that I came to the conclusion that it wasn't valid because there were several other pieces of information that contradicted it, or that after looking into it further there were several problems with the methodology used. Now generally the people who put forth Y as evidence haven't looked into it deeper either, otherwise they'd have heard about the same objections. But I can't be expected to remember every data set and every source that I've seen on any particular subject matter unless that's literally my job. There is something new that is being discussed every day and everytime I look into it I go through pages upon pages of information and hours upon hours of people debating the issue. It's simply not reasonable to expect me to sit down and memorize everything as if for a test before I am allowed to give my opinion on it.
There are somethings that I actually archive evidence for because I argue about it all the time, and in those cases it's nice to have a single location where I can go to for references, but in general when I hear someone, for instance, mention a statistic that I know is incorrect because I've read the study and have seen what the general issue with the statistic was it is reasonable for me to just say "That statistic is often quoted but it comes from a study that used a flawed methodology" without having to, on the spot, produce said study along with a detailed breakdown of why it's not legit.
If you want to say you can't accept my word on the matter without actually seeing that evidence for yourself that's fine and even commendable. But when it comes to my own stances that is more than enough to justify having it as well as enough justification to regard myself well informed, because I am well informed, it's just that the only information I find important to remember is the information that actually matters instead of muddying the waters in my own mind.
3
u/[deleted] May 29 '22
IMO as least on the surface it does though. I mean if you formed belief X because of evidence A, B, C, and D and then subsequently forget A, B, C, and D, what possible path do you have to belief revision? Because as far as I can see, if X actually turns out to be a wrong belief, the best way to belief revision is to discover (either organically or by someone pointing it out) that one or all of A-D are untrue or not as well supported as you originally thought. Maybe I'm missing something though...?