Escape, evade

[smalltalk]

This is the phrase I am examining:

"...those who wish to escape from the discomfort of honest uncertainty to the equanimity and false self-assurance of confirmation bias."

Can this same idea be communicated using the word "evade"? I'm uncertain of the preposition, if there is one, that can be properly used. I believe one can "escape" from X "to" or "into" Y. What about "evade" (trans)? Does one "evade" X "for" Y? In the above phrase can I replace "escape from" with "evade", and replace "to" with "for"?

Thank you.

 

[smalltalk]

And I suppose "avoid" might work in some formation. One could "avoid" X "by" (doing, attempting) Y.

 

[Tarheel]

I would prefer to see a complete sentence. Do you have one?

 

[tedmc]

"...those who wish to escape from the discomfort of honest uncertainty to the equanimity and false self-assurance of confirmation bias."

Avoid, escape and evade have different meanings and different uses.

I don't understand the underlined part of the sentence above.

 

[smalltalk]

Thanks tedmc.

My thought is that confirmation bias leads to a great deal of dishonest expressions of certainty. John Stuart Mill, in On Liberty, explains: "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The rational position for him would be suspension of judgment, and unless he contents himself with that, he is either led by authority, or adopts, like the generality of the world, the side to which he feels most inclination."

I am trying to contrast dishonest certainty (self-righteousness, "led by authority") with honest uncertainty, not knowing, not being sure. There are many issues today which are highly complex and, for me at least, not easy to understand clearly. For some, confirmation bias "solves" the discomfort of uncertainty with the simple adoption of the viewpoint that one is right, period. One maintains this equanimity by simply examining only those sources who offer agreement, whether they are right or wrong. Psychologists call this "splitting", splitting off uncomfortable thoughts from one's awareness so one's view of the world is always "right".

Perhaps the word "honest" is unnecessary. But the concept is simple -- conformation bias offers an escape from the discomfort of uncertainty.

 

[Tarheel]

Two things. One, are those your words? Two, do you have a question?

 

[smalltalk]

Yes, they are my words. Why do you ask?

Regarding your second thing, didn't you read my initial post?

 

[Tarheel]

Post #5 is an interesting read. You quoted John Stuart Mill. Many of today's college students seem uninterested in ideas. Certainly, they are not interested in the ideas of John Stuart Mill.

 

[Rover_KE]

smalltalk, welcome back after your three-year seven-month furlough.:-D

This is the phrase I am examining:

...

Always tell us the source and author of any text you quote, please.

 

[jutfrank]

In the above phrase can I replace "escape from" with "evade", and replace "to" with "for"?

I think you could get away with that, yes.

The structure evade X for Y is not exactly as 'fixed' as escape from X to Y, but it does work in this case. The preposition for in this context has a similar sense of directionality as to.

Note, though that evade does have a different meaning from escape. If you use escape, it means that those people are already in a state of honest uncertainty, whereas if you use evade, it means they never actually get there. Which is it?

 

[Rover_KE]

Yes, they are my words. Why do you ask?

We need to know whether you wrote the text yourself or are quoting the words of somebody else.

 

[smalltalk]

jutfrank, thanks very much for this clear answer. And for your note on evade vs. escape. This was probably the distinction that was haunting me. Thank you for that. Which is it? Ha - both are accurate!

Thanks for the welcome, Rover! And I even remembered my password, usually an impossible challenge at my age. "Always tell us the source and author of any text you quote, please." Hmmm, I thought I did -- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty.

Tarheel, yes, re college students, I agree. Was it Plato who said Presidents, Senators and Congresspersons should be philosophers?

Oh, dear, we're not there yet, are we? For those interested, I'll close with the "other half" of Mill's quote, the gravamen of his point, in my opinion.

"Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form; he must feel the whole force of the difficulty which the true view of the subject has to encounter and dispose of; else he will never really possess himself of the portion of truth which meets and removes that difficulty." (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, somewhere in Chapter 2)

 

[smalltalk]

Rover, just saw your post. Yes, I will not steal the words of another! " " ...I'm never without these valuable companions.