Justified Cognitive

Page: METAPhilosophy
Relevance: Burden Of Proof

This the 1st, initial step is to ensure avoidance of cognitive biases. Don’t focus on logical rule-checking first. Instead, focus on avoiding cognitive biases.

It's like not trying to apply logic to something that is inherently beyond logic. Isn't it logical to detect whether something is beyond logic or not?

This is why avoiding cognitive biases is fundamentally part of establishing something logically, even if it cannot be understood by logical rules.

A simple example: logic cannot comprehend the logic behind a magic show, even though the magic show is logical; our perception is simply biased (blurred - obscured).

Here, ensure first that we are not dealing with a magic show (except for magicians who have already overcome cognitive biases and are creating the scenario of cognitive bias themselves).

Once it is certain that we are not dealing with a magic show, then proceed to apply all the logical formulas you know.

Justified Cognitive (Tested Perception)

So, our focus here is on overcoming cognitive biases, so that the conclusion-drawing process (logically) is also relevant and not out of context.

So, besides understanding the signs of logic (logical fallacy), it is also necessary to understand the signs of perception (justified cognitive to avoid cognitive biases) so that perception is not deceived like a magic trick.

These are some forms of justification which have not yet been specifically realized by philosophy except in a psychological context, not yet in its own philosophical realm.

Here, we will transform the concept of philosophy, which tends to be considered abstract, into a philosophy that is objective without ignoring the subjective side (note here the importance of synergy between subjectivity & objectivity).

Every word or piece of meaning must have empirical evidence.

📌 Case Study:

Example: "fruit on the table". The empirical evidence (seeing more closely the presence of fruit on the table). If not found, then...

✅ EXAMPLE - Exemplar Justification.
Find an example that there has been fruit on the table before. If there is no example at all of fruit on the table, then..

✅ SCALE - Scale Justification
Look for a smaller scale. Maybe it means a picture of fruits? Plastic fruit? Or something resembling fruit (synthetic fruit). If there is no empirical evidence, nor an example & scale, then...

✅ LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE - Consequence Justification.
Look for the logical consequence of the possibility of the table's surface and material being able to hold fruit.

✅ TRACE - Trace Justification.
Ensure there are traces, smell, stickiness from the sweetness of fruit that was once placed on the table. Traces of people talking about fruit on the table. LIKE A PHILOSOPHICAL DETECTIVE.

📌 If it has been proven that there is fruit on the table in any form of justification above, it is only ensuring the state is free from obscurity. However, further justification is needed so that the information "there is fruit on the table" is not wrongly linked to another statement "there is a sweetheart sitting on the table."

✅ CAUSAL JUSTIFICATION. The point is to be aware that the statements that have been verified because our perception is tested through justification (justified cognitive), should not overlap with other information. Here, "Causal Justification" is necessary.

To determine which type of causality applies to "the fruit on the table." In this case, it falls under the type of "dependent reliance."

• 👉 For philosophers who find the dependent causality relationship strange, they are late to the understanding of Einstein or science, which has grasped this concept where Einstein's theory of gravity emphasizes the Earth's reliance on space.

🔰 See how understanding causality enables us not only to touch reality but also to separate events or states according to their type, to prevent overlapping between Einstein's gravity and Newton's gravity model.