Philosophy Now Forum

The old joke goes when you assume, you make an ass out of you (u) and me.

Aside from that, I feel that we do assume too much because it holds back progress, yet we need to assume to have a starting place to go on.

What do you think?

PhilX

It depends on what you are basing your assumptions on. If the assumptions are based on observations, they may be valid, or may be proven wrong with the next observations. If you base your assumptions on Mythology or religious claims, there is no way to prove them right or wrong, only unsupported.

thedoc wrote:It depends on what you are basing your assumptions on. If the assumptions are based on observations, they may be valid, or may be proven wrong with the next observations. If you base your assumptions on Mythology or religious claims, there is no way to prove them right or wrong, only unsupported.

I was thinking in terms of theoretical assumptions. Occam's Razor is closely related to this discussion. Maybe an example would help clarify. When I worked in sales I heard plenty of advice which I found out later was bullshit. I replaced the advice with my own observations and logic, then tested and my sales took off and I never had to look back and it didn't matter what the product or service was (in fact there's no such thing as a good product or service to me as that made no difference - it would get sold). I can also say from my studies there's no such thing as a sales voice.

Basing assumptions on observation may or may not work. If it's a testable hypothesis, then you can find out if the assumptions are good ones. In sales I scratched a lot of assumptions in the form of bad advice and went with my thoroughly tested system and all my subsequent sales days were great - no more goose eggs.

So I'm asking whether you can think of any field where too many assumptions are being made, or have been made, where it's holding back the field which can do better without whatever assumptions are being used? Or do you have something else in mind?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The old joke goes when you assume, you make an ass out of you (u) and me.

Aside from that, I feel that we do assume too much because it holds back progress, yet we need to assume to have a starting place to go on.

What do you think?

PhilX

Saying, "yet we need to assume..." is another assumption, which holds back progress.

We do not need to assume anything at all. In fact I found that by not making assumptions I was able to learn far more, far quicker.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:So I'm asking whether you can think of any field where too many assumptions are being made, or have been made, where it's holding back the field which can do better without whatever assumptions are being used?

Another field where too many assumptions are being made is in Life, itself, and especially in the field of philosophical discussions is where assumptions are really holding back great discoveries and understandings.

ken wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The old joke goes when you assume, you make an ass out of you (u) and me.

Aside from that, I feel that we do assume too much because it holds back progress, yet we need to assume to have a starting place to go on.

What do you think?

PhilX

Saying, "yet we need to assume..." is another assumption, which holds back progress.

We do not need to assume anything at all. In fact I found that by not making assumptions I was able to learn far more, far quicker.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:So I'm asking whether you can think of any field where too many assumptions are being made, or have been made, where it's holding back the field which can do better without whatever assumptions are being used?

Another field where too many assumptions are being made is in Life, itself, and especially in the field of philosophical discussions is where assumptions are really holding back great discoveries and understandings.

Can you give a specific example where assumptions are holding back discoveries and understandings?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

ken wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The old joke goes when you assume, you make an ass out of you (u) and me.

Aside from that, I feel that we do assume too much because it holds back progress, yet we need to assume to have a starting place to go on.

What do you think?

PhilX

Saying, "yet we need to assume..." is another assumption, which holds back progress.

We do not need to assume anything at all. In fact I found that by not making assumptions I was able to learn far more, far quicker.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:So I'm asking whether you can think of any field where too many assumptions are being made, or have been made, where it's holding back the field which can do better without whatever assumptions are being used?

Another field where too many assumptions are being made is in Life, itself, and especially in the field of philosophical discussions is where assumptions are really holding back great discoveries and understandings.

Can you give a specific example where assumptions are holding back discoveries and understandings?

PhilX

Any and all assumptions can hold us back.

I try not to make assumptions so maybe I am not the best one to give examples.

Or, maybe the assumption that 'we need to assume' is a good example to give here.

The first reason this assumption holds people back from making discoveries and understandings is if you begin by assuming you know an answer already, then you:
1. Are not open.
2. Already have a bias, and thus have more of a tendency to look only from one or a select few certain viewpoint/s, trying to back up or verify what it is that you are already assuming is true, right, or correct.

The second reason this assumption holds you back from making discoveries and understandings is in the subliminal way that words affect us, without us even realizing it. Depending on what the word 'need' is being referred to and means here, when you used it, this will influence if you are being held back and not able to move forward or the opposite. To discover and understand this better, you need to look at and find out what did you actually mean by the word 'need' here. You are the only one that truly knows what you meant, so what is the word 'need' actually referring to?

You wrote, "yet we need to assume to have a starting place to go on." I could easily make an assumption, but that would completely defeat what I have been saying. However, if, for example, you meant that the word 'need' here is in reference to 'having a starting place to go on' from, then we can (hehe) go on. With your assumption, it means we can not move or go on at all if we do not make any assumptions at all. We can test this to see if it is true or not. We could test this by saying, "Let us state some thing and then see if we can just look at it, instead of assuming any thing prior about it". For example, let us start with "We do not need money to live".

Can you just look at that and ask some clarifying questions about it, without assuming or believing anything prior nor about it? If you can, then we do NOT need to assume to have a starting place to go on. However, if you can NOT, look at that test example from a completely open viewpoint, then maybe we do need to assume to have a starting place to go on, but then your other statement, "I feel that we do assume too much because it holds back progress" is in contradiction with your own self.

So, are you able to look at "We do not need money to live" from the inquisitive completely open Mind, or can you only look at it from an already assumption based viewpoint?

If it is the former, then the Truth will revealed. If, however, it is the latter, then just as you predicted and also feel, we do assume too much because assumptions actually do hold back progress, is correct. You are unable to discover and understand what is actually True if and whilst you are making assumptions, and also by believing by the way.

One example of assumptions holding you back is in education. I believe that the longer a subject is being taught by teachers and not by those engaged in the commercial activity, the farther the material being taught drifts away from the actual practice. I went to college for Industrial arts and was certified to teach drafting, metal shop, and several other related subjects. After 7 years teaching, I quit and started working in a machine shop, then I started working as a draftsman. Both times I found that what I was supposed to teach was wrong in many ways. For example in drafting in college, the work was seriously marked down, and we were taught to not erase, if it could be avoided, when I worked as a draftsman one of my main tools was an electric eraser. We would make one long straight line and then erase the parts we didn't need.

thedoc wrote:One example of assumptions holding you back is in education. I believe that the longer a subject is being taught by teachers and not by those engaged in the commercial activity, the farther the material being taught drifts away from the actual practice. I went to college for Industrial arts and was certified to teach drafting, metal shop, and several other related subjects. After 7 years teaching, I quit and started working in a machine shop, then I started working as a draftsman. Both times I found that what I was supposed to teach was wrong in many ways. For example in drafting in college, the work was seriously marked down, and we were taught to not erase, if it could be avoided, when I worked as a draftsman one of my main tools was an electric eraser. We would make one long straight line and then erase the parts we didn't need.

With technical subjects there's a problem here because, e.g. in college, by the time you get your Bachelor's degree, most of what you learn becomes obsolete and what you learn is based on technology, some of which is obsolete too. So the education system isn't very efficient.

PhilX

There is another situation where people will assume too much about themselves and others. One example is a professor I had in college, who was taught that when you put on a shirt with buttons, you start with the top button and work down, so that everything comes out even. He was taught this and assumed that everyone did it that way, I didn't and still don't. Another is someone I know was taking medication for a heart condition, and part of that was half a tablet, so he used a "pill splitter" and assumed that everyone else who needed to take half a tablet did also. I have also seen this with deficiencies of character. On another forum, many years ago, there was one member who claimed to be a pedophile, and was making the claim that all men were as well, in order to make his own deficiency seem normal.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

thedoc wrote:One example of assumptions holding you back is in education. I believe that the longer a subject is being taught by teachers and not by those engaged in the commercial activity, the farther the material being taught drifts away from the actual practice. I went to college for Industrial arts and was certified to teach drafting, metal shop, and several other related subjects. After 7 years teaching, I quit and started working in a machine shop, then I started working as a draftsman. Both times I found that what I was supposed to teach was wrong in many ways. For example in drafting in college, the work was seriously marked down, and we were taught to not erase, if it could be avoided, when I worked as a draftsman one of my main tools was an electric eraser. We would make one long straight line and then erase the parts we didn't need.

With technical subjects there's a problem here because, e.g. in college, by the time you get your Bachelor's degree, most of what you learn becomes obsolete and what you learn is based on technology, some of which is obsolete too. So the education system isn't very efficient.

PhilX

That is certainly true with current technology, but the technology I was teaching was 100 or more years old, and it would not have been unrealistic to teach it properly, rather than make it suit teaching rather than industry. This is the assumption that I am referring to, when the material is altered to suit teaching, and subsequently becomes incorrect.

thedoc wrote:There is another situation where people will assume too much about themselves and others. One example is a professor I had in college, who was taught that when you put on a shirt with buttons, you start with the top button and work down, so that everything comes out even. He was taught this and assumed that everyone did it that way, I didn't and still don't. Another is someone I know was taking medication for a heart condition, and part of that was half a tablet, so he used a "pill splitter" and assumed that everyone else who needed to take half a tablet did also. I have also seen this with deficiencies of character. On another forum, many years ago, there was one member who claimed to be a pedophile, and was making the claim that all men were as well, in order to make his own deficiency seem normal.

With the half a pill splitting, something people often overlook is that it doesn't have to be exact. So, e.g., say one part turns out to be 1/4, the other part 3/4. In two days it evens out to be one whole pill so the deficiency or overage is evened out in two days.

PhilX

First, there's some ambiguity in what counts as an assumption.

Conventional dictionary definitions often hinge the distinction on proof--so that assumptions are something like "propositions accepted as true without proof."

Depending on how we're using "proof"--there's some ambiguity there, too, as sometimes it's used to simply refer to any evidential or logical support; it's not always restricted to the idea of something that can not possibly be incorrect--we might be able to say that all empirical claims are assumptions.

However, assumption is also often used merely to refer to propositions accepted as true non-critically, with no examination, questioning, etc., or where people might not even be aware that they're making an assumption.

Assumptions accepted as true non-critically are problematic when they serve as the basis for anything important, especially anything that would determine actions that can't be easily corrected, or where they determine widespread social trends or anything like that.

Some assumptions (in the "no critical examination" sense of the word) are innocuous though.

One of my pet peeves is the many social interaction assumptions that are made, such as people assuming personality traits via gender, nationality, age, etc.

Projection assumptions tend to annoy me, too--people projecting their opinion, their interpretation, etc. onto the world at large, as if everyone would or should be the same.

Terrapin Station wrote:First, there's some ambiguity in what counts as an assumption.

Conventional dictionary definitions often hinge the distinction on proof--so that assumptions are something like "propositions accepted as true without proof."

Depending on how we're using "proof"--there's some ambiguity there, too, as sometimes it's used to simply refer to any evidential or logical support; it's not always restricted to the idea of something that can not possibly be incorrect--we might be able to say that all empirical claims are assumptions.

However, assumption is also often used merely to refer to propositions accepted as true non-critically, with no examination, questioning, etc., or where people might not even be aware that they're making an assumption.

Assumptions accepted as true non-critically are problematic when they serve as the basis for anything important, especially anything that would determine actions that can't be easily corrected, or where they determine widespread social trends or anything like that.

Some assumptions (in the "no critical examination" sense of the word) are innocuous though.

One of my pet peeves is the many social interaction assumptions that are made, such as people assuming personality traits via gender, nationality, age, etc.

In science, scientists are always looking for testable hypotheses. Where it gets rough is when statistics comes into the picture.

PhilX

Academic fields tend to be more focused on examining assumptions.

You could see the gist of philosophy as being the "King Assumption Checker."

And as philosophers, we get to point out assumptions other fields either overlook, or that are basically required for that field to proceed in the first place. For example, science only works if we assume that the world is more or less uniform, and thus that phenomena are replicable and so on.

Terrapin Station wrote:Academic fields tend to be more focused on examining assumptions.

You could see the gist of philosophy as being the "King Assumption Checker."

And as philosophers, we get to point out assumptions other fields either overlook, or that are basically required for that field to proceed in the first place. For example, science only works if we assume that the world is more or less uniform, and thus that phenomena are replicable and so on.

It's mostly a world of statistics. For example when I did my sales studies, I worked with very small samples. If I were to repeat the study, one of the issues would be what should the sample size be? 100 people?, 500 people?, 1,000 people? (and this would depend on funding and various other factors).

PhilX