I wanted to get a feel for the online climate towards Informationalism. So I have been participating in some online discussions on forums. I've found that the people I have been engaged in discussion with seem to be driven very powerfully by personal bias. This is not surprising; it is common human nature to act in our own interest. We perceive our own interest to be the things that we want.
However, Informationalism suggests that perhaps it is in our own interest to gather information and interpret it in an empirical and objective way as closely as possible. It think it is probably true that it is highly unlikely that one can overcome all bias, or consider a subject from a totally objective point of view. But, does this mean we should allow ourselves to be possessed by bias. Our bias, which has been instilled by our parents and our society, and is upon close examination not really our personal feeling at all.
My debates have been closed almost entirely too political issues, and I've found that it is difficult for one to garner attention unless one makes outlandish statements. Bold proclamations.
Does this call attention to why those who follow doctrines without evidence in complete certainty are so vocal about their claims? Could individuals perhaps want to believe outlandish claims on some level because it makes them feel important? I will deal with this later when I attempt to explore the relationship of Informationalism and Psychology from an Informationalist's perspective.

Informationalism as a perspective system tries to avoid proclamations of absolute certainty. It is, after all, impossible to prove completely that pigs cannot fly. However, if one chose to embrace this as absolutely true because it cannot be proven false; it is very likely that they would quickly find themselves most unfortunate if they were to jump from a building waiting on a flying pig to catch them.

We can discuss what is likely given the evidence. We can also discuss what the relationships between the information we receive seem to suggest. What we cannot do is make with complete certainty absolute generalizations about this information without all of the information. Once again, we can only say what is likely and go from there. One could use this to deny everything likely and chose to take the side of the unlikely; that is a fair choice. It is my hope that the flying pig catches you.

It is sometimes true that what has been discounted at one time has later turned out to be true in another. This is why we do not dismiss improbability entirely. If our data leads us away from what is highly likely, that means it wasn't really highly likely after all.

Soon I will attempt to strengthen the layouts of the perspective of Informationalism. Then I will attempt to analyze data from an Informationalist's perspective. This is not the same as a so-called Freudian psychoanalysis. Nor is it as simple as making a hypothesis and testing it as is the case in the scientific method. It is examining the information, whatever for it may come in, and determining what we can learn from it. What does this information suggest?
If this sounds fairly scientific, that is because it is so. But science itself is a tool. Informationalism is a way to use the tool.