Prejudices and Methodological Errors That Impede Correct Thinking

Due to insufficient education or the strong but mistaken perceptions formed during a particular period of life, a person may enter into a methodologically flawed process of thinking; likewise, they may hold certain prejudices due to some deeply rooted understandings within society. Because of their prejudices and cognitive distortions, people perceive the world in a way disconnected from reality and, rather than conforming themselves to reality, they resort to coercive methods to make reality conform to themselves. Such individuals fall into a state similar to that of small children who try to force round Lego pieces through triangular holes, and when they inevitably fail, they start throwing the Legos around, disrupting the game.

It is impossible for someone who does not act according to the basic principles of logic to reach correct conclusions in their thinking. At the most fundamental level, in order to think correctly, one must act in accordance with the following four rules of logic:

The Law of Non-Contradiction
The Law of Identity
The Law of the Excluded Middle
The Principle of Sufficient Reason

Another factor that hinders correct thinking is the person’s mental tendency toward dogmatism. Here, the term dogmatic refers to a person who believes that there is only one correct opinion on a particular matter, that they themselves possess this correct opinion, and therefore claim that all differing views are indisputably wrong.

Similarly, always striving to be right by selectively highlighting only the information that supports one’s own arguments from among various available data on a given topic is also one of the factors that lead a person into erroneous thinking. For example, when someone who is firmly convinced of the correctness of Marxism is told about “the large number of academic books and scientific articles criticizing this ideology,” they interpret this as “a capitalist ploy”; and when told that interest in Marxism is continuously increasing, they respond by saying, “Yes, that’s right! The working-class revolution is near!” In any case, this effort to always prove oneself right is a type of thinking error.

Below are some examples frequently encountered in survey studies on prejudices:

Something that is expensive is of higher quality than something that is cheap. In social experiments, when the same type of beverage was labeled “cheap” on one bottle and “expensive” on another, and participants were asked to taste them, the majority said that the expensive one tasted better.
Statistics on air and ground transportation show that plane crashes occur at an extremely low rate. However, people act on the prejudice that flying carries a higher risk of crashing and thus feel much more anxious about air travel compared to land transportation.
Many people, after investing money, time, and effort into a task but failing to achieve the desired result, prefer to persist rather than give up, even though the outcome is negative. In such situations, the thought “this time it will work!” becomes dominant. A similar example can be seen in a gambler who keeps losing but clings to the idea, “This time I’m going to win!” This is known as the gambler’s fallacy.
One of the most common examples of prejudice is the bandwagon effect. People generally see agreeing with the majority opinion as a safer and more secure path. When almost everyone immediately defends a particular idea on any given topic, it is perceived as a sign of that opinion’s correctness.
People assume they have reached definitive knowledge by making broad generalizations based on small fragments of information. Such individuals attempt to justify their prejudices, which are contrary to reality, by referring to highly exceptional cases—such as claiming that smoking has no negative health effects by citing the example of a 100-year-old smoker.

Systematic Errors in Thinking

According to classical epistemology, which extends from Ancient Greece to Christianity, Islamic theology, and then to Kant, to know something means “the formation of its representation and image in the mind.” In other words, the human mind is like a mirror, and the brighter the mirror is, the more accurate the mental image and representation of the object will be. Therefore, the dirt and spots on the mirror must be wiped clean. Prejudices constitute a part of this dirt. Below, we will focus on these types of errors.

1– The human being is such a creature that they see themselves as the measure of all things and evaluate all existence only according to their own mode of perception. Indeed, while Protagoras said, “Man is the measure of all things,” Plato opposed this view by stating, “God is the measure of all things.” In this context, it is important to note that the humanist movement does not mean love for humanity, but rather the placement of man at the center of everything. In other words, through humanism, the sovereignty of man on earth has been declared in place of God.

The human mind is such that it defines nature, events, and even God according to its own perceptual world, and takes itself as a reference point. Most people picture God in their minds as a wise, bearded figure sitting in the sky, and fall into anthropomorphism based on the metaphorical expressions in the holy books. In order to prevent such a problematic misunderstanding, Islamic scholars have designated one of Allah’s attributes as muhalefetün lil havadis, meaning that He does not resemble any created being. Although anthropomorphic expressions are found in the Qur’an, their purpose is to reveal the truth through comparisons comprehensible to human beings. It should not be forgotten that metaphorical expressions, when they fall from the hands of the knowledgeable into those of the ignorant, are liable to be mistaken for literal truth. Problems arise when things that differ in essence are reduced—due to a lack of comprehension—to mere differences in degree.

2– Each individual sees and evaluates the world through their own perspective, and therefore does not doubt the accuracy of their own mode of perception. From this point of view, everything appears so clear, and everyone is so confident in the correctness of their own evidence that no one is willing to go through the trouble of listening to other opinions. At this point, we encounter a form of prejudice referred to as “first-person subjectivity.”

The most general cause of this type of error is that each individual is unaware that they are watching the world from within their own cave (their own mind). The existence of countless schools of thought in the fields of philosophy, politics, economics, and religion throughout human history clearly demonstrates this reality.

3– People communicate with each other through language, and for communication to be sound, the words must correspond precisely with the events or objects being referred to. However, in practice, this correspondence often cannot be achieved, and the transfer of information fails to occur properly.

The meanings of words and concepts in language are established through consensus; if concepts begin to be used without such agreement, chaos arises in the realm of thought. For example, if there is consensus on what the word masa (table) means in Turkish, then it becomes clear for these individuals whether or not a certain object is a table. On the other hand, when concepts such as secularism, nationalism, science, democracy, freedom of thought, and so on are used with varying meanings, prejudices toward different views emerge in people’s minds.

Another problem related to language is the following: the human mind cannot think about something for which it lacks a concept. In other words, if an event, object, or emotion is not expressed through a specific concept, our mind does not produce thoughts about that matter. A good example of this is when we get stuck while talking about a particular topic because we cannot recall a specific word.

People often choose to understand objects or events directly through words and concepts. However, the direction of this process should be exactly the opposite—that is, it should proceed from objects to concepts. Because there is no necessary relationship between the word table and the “real table,” we cannot in any way understand the real table simply by starting from the word table. If this were possible, someone who does not know German would immediately understand that Der Tisch means “table” upon hearing it!

4– People often refer to the views of certain authorities to prove the correctness of their own thoughts. If an idea is correct in both form and content, it is perfectly reasonable to strengthen it by drawing support from authorities. However, if the idea is wrong and some authorities have defended this view, then there is a problem. In such cases, correcting a wrong idea or developing a different perspective turns into a serious problem.

The greater the number of individuals with authority in a society, the more difficult it becomes for thought to develop in that society—because those in authority generally do not allow others to step outside the bounds of their own ideas. Over time, a prejudice forms in society that it is wrong to deviate from the patterns drawn by the authorities. In reality, many wise or authoritative figures express their thoughts not to restrict or lock people’s thinking, but to open up new paths for them; however, some narrow-minded individuals turn these ideas into unchangeable molds.

Conclusion

Since it is extremely difficult for a person to separate themselves from the values of the society in which they were born and raised, the educational processes they underwent, traditional practices, and certain superstitious beliefs, the act of thinking is, for the most part, afflicted with failure and inconsistency. The notion that correct knowledge can be attained simply by transmitting information from the external world to the mind via the sensory organs is a highly misleading approach. The claim that our mind reflects reality as it is—like the image of an object reflected in a flat mirror—is the result of a flawed epistemological theory that has dominated for centuries. The human mind cannot be likened to a flat mirror that reflects external reality (the world of noumena) as it is; rather, it should be likened to the concave/convex mirrors used for amusement in funhouses, which distort images. Therefore, the image/information formed in our minds is a somewhat deformed version of reality.

This situation can be likened to white light from the sun being refracted through a prism and separated into colors. After being refracted in the prism, the white light undergoes diffraction according to its wavelength and splits into the seven known colors. The relationship between the human mind and the realm of existence resembles this event of color formation through spectral dispersion. When the reality of the external world reaches our mind (the prism), it passes through a filter and becomes differentiated. This is why there are countless different scientific theories on the same subject, or why people hold different opinions in social, political, economic, and other matters.

Viewed in this way, it can be concluded that no one has the right to hold the truth alone or to determine reality in an indisputable manner. Therefore, this principle must be taken into account when adhering to ideas, ideologies, beliefs, and leaders. From the perspective of religious individuals, it can comfortably be stated that no one other than God and the prophets possesses the attribute or privilege of being binding and decisive.