The Red Pill isn't an academic philosophy, so the lack of discussion on the nature of truth and knowledge shouldn't be surprising. Also, TRP isn't obligated to have any standards of truth or objectivity at all. As long as they are minding their own business, they shouldn't have to justify their beliefs to the rest of reddit. However, I'm still bringing this up because I find it a constant source of confusion between TRP and the rest of us. After we find out that TRP doesn't literally rape women on a daily basis, one of the second biggest complaints is that TRP isn't as rational or scientific as it claims. The confusion starts with one way that TRP advertises itself.

TRP claims to be in possession of a truth generally unaccepted by the general population. Even their name references an awakening towards the true nature of reality. They pride themselves in rejecting meaningless platitudes and fantasies. They are on the side of science and reason. Even for those of us who aren't seeking any type of self-help, the promise of a rational worldview can be very alluring.

Now myself and many non-redpillers here also aspire to be rational and scientific. Since we both have the same standards for truth, then in theory we would expect our beliefs to overlap in many areas. This is sometimes the case. Everyone here who attempts rationality probably doesn't believe in astrology. Everyone here who trusts science probably believes in evolution. Why should our beliefs stand in such stark contrast when it comes to gender relationships? Even if we disagree initially, can't we come to some sort of consensus based on science?

So my first thought is that maybe our standards for truth are not as similar as I believe. This brings me to my question in the thread title. How do you decide whether a source is trustworthy or not? How do you know something is true? How do you maintain objectivity and avoid bias?

Secondly, I'd like to do a little experiment to test my own objectivity. I will list my own standards for truth below. Anyone is free to produce any evidence that fits within these standards and I promise to believe the evidence. If I am as rational and scientific as I'd like to be, and the poster has equal standards, then we should eventually agree on whatever topic presented.

Here are my standards.

For strongly held beliefs,

  • Modern scientific study published in peer reviewed journal with numerous citations. Multiple studies will increase the intensity of my belief. If two studies contradict, I will side with the more recent study or the larger study, depending on which difference is greatest. I will make no restrictions on the methodology used.

  • Any argument that uses identifiable logical rules connecting believed premises.

  • Any extrapolation from results fitting with the above standards that reflects the general consensus of the scientific community.

Very weakly held beliefs,

  • Anything with no direct evidence but can be reasonably assumed from any results that fit with the above standards. When in doubt, skepticism is preferred to belief.