thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: So how does science say that consciousness organizes matter? Oh I know- "we will figure it out some day". I call that "faith in the eternal progression of human knowledge". Sounds like religion to me. Anything you don't doubt, you have "faith" in. I'll get a little too literal here but consciousness organizes thoughts which can be used to organize matter. "I think therefore I am". I don't believe in the eternal progression of human knowledge. But I readily admit that my knowledge is but a tiny thimble in the vast oceans of my ignorance. Hopefully someday I will know all the God knows. I doubt my doubts. I'm not sure it is possible to have faith in doubts, other than I have more than a few doubts.
Analytics Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 In general, people want to find metaphysical meaning in the world and are prone to cognitive bias. If somebody endeavors to live a life governed by reason but doesn't completely eradicate superstitious thought, it isn't that they traded one superstition for another, it's that they failed to completely eradicate magical thinking and cognitive bias from their lives. 2
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 35 minutes ago, Analytics said: In general, people want to find metaphysical meaning in the world and are prone to cognitive bias. If somebody endeavors to live a life governed by reason but doesn't completely eradicate superstitious thought, it isn't that they traded one superstition for another, it's that they failed to completely eradicate magical thinking and cognitive bias from their lives. I don't believe it is possible or even desirable to eliminate all magical thinking from our lives. However a little bit at the right time adds much to an otherwise dreary existence.
Analytics Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 57 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: I don't believe it is possible or even desirable to eliminate all magical thinking from our lives. However a little bit at the right time adds much to an otherwise dreary existence. I don't disagree with that, but it does depend upon how outrageous the magical thinking is, and how seriously and literally you take it.
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 What is the difference between astronomy and astrology? About 50 IQ points.
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Analytics said: I don't disagree with that, but it does depend upon how outrageous the magical thinking is, and how seriously and literally you take it. Always.
halconero Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 2 hours ago, Analytics said: In general, people want to find metaphysical meaning in the world and are prone to cognitive bias. If somebody endeavors to live a life governed by reason but doesn't completely eradicate superstitious thought, it isn't that they traded one superstition for another, it's that they failed to completely eradicate magical thinking and cognitive bias from their lives. I'd raise the question, does the elimination of "magical thinking" result in the eradication of religiosity in the individual?
Analytics Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 1 hour ago, halconero said: I'd raise the question, does the elimination of "magical thinking" result in the eradication of religiosity in the individual? It depends upon what you mean by "religiosity". You don't need to invoke magical thinking to feel a connection with other people, to have ethics, to have purpose and joy in your life, and to have a sense of wonder about the universe. But eliminating magical thinking does eradicate religious beliefs that entail magical thinking.
Gray Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, halconero said: I'd raise the question, does the elimination of "magical thinking" result in the eradication of religiosity in the individual? No, it doesn't have to. If I still engage in any magical thinking, I'm not aware of it. But I am a theist and spirituality is important to me. However, without magical thinking, it's almost impossible to retain orthodoxy in most traditions. And forget about fundamentalism. Edited January 13, 2016 by Gray
Calm Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Has someone defined magical thinking yet (in a useful way)? 1
Analytics Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 3 minutes ago, Calm said: Has someone defined magical thinking yet (in a useful way)? Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation. In religion, folk religion, and superstitious beliefs, the posited correlation is often between religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense. In clinical psychology, magical thinking can cause a patient to experience fear of performing certain acts or having certain thoughts because of an assumed correlation between doing so and threatening calamities. Magical thinking may lead people to believe that their thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.[1] It is a type of causal reasoning or causal fallacy that looks for meaningful relationships of grouped phenomena (coincidence) between acts and events. In other cases, a therapist may employ magical thinking, as used in analytical psychology, to draw meaning from the content of a patient's dreams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking 1
mfbukowski Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 5 hours ago, Analytics said: In general, people want to find metaphysical meaning in the world and are prone to cognitive bias. If somebody endeavors to live a life governed by reason but doesn't completely eradicate superstitious thought, it isn't that they traded one superstition for another, it's that they failed to completely eradicate magical thinking and cognitive bias from their lives. That's an interesting metaphysics/ superstition. And please define "reason". Does reason include ethical judgements? How do you know your metaphysics is true? Sounds like standard 17th century Enlightenment metaphysics to me. Pretty old stuff.
mfbukowski Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation. In religion, folk religion, and superstitious beliefs, the posited correlation is often between religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense. In clinical psychology, magical thinking can cause a patient to experience fear of performing certain acts or having certain thoughts because of an assumed correlation between doing so and threatening calamities. Magical thinking may lead people to believe that their thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.[1] It is a type of causal reasoning or causal fallacy that looks for meaningful relationships of grouped phenomena (coincidence) between acts and events. In other cases, a therapist may employ magical thinking, as used in analytical psychology, to draw meaning from the content of a patient's dreams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking Are you aware that Hume blew that out of the water well over two hundred years ago? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/ "Causality" is a huge question and is not quite as easily defined as it appears you think it is. 1
Analytics Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: That's an interesting metaphysics/ superstition. And please define "reason". Does reason include ethical judgements? How do you know your metaphysics is true? Sounds like standard 17th century Enlightenment metaphysics to me. Pretty old stuff. If somebody is endeavoring to live by "reason," it is up to him to determine what he means by that word. I think some ethical positions are more supported by reason than others, but that's just me and my tired old 17th century thinking. When you ask me how do I know if my metaphysics is "true", what do you mean by "true"? And why do you presume I want my metaphysics to have the property of being "true" in the first place? Sorry I'm such a simplistic philosopher. I'll go watch that Rorty video again and see if it makes me less superstitious.
mfbukowski Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Analytics said: If somebody is endeavoring to live by "reason," it is up to him to determine what he means by that word. I think some ethical positions are more supported by reason than others, but that's just me and my tired old 17th century thinking. When you ask me how do I know if my metaphysics is "true", what do you mean by "true"? And why do you presume I want my metaphysics to have the property of being "true" in the first place? Sorry I'm such a simplistic philosopher. I'll go watch that Rorty video again and see if it makes me less superstitious. Well I think that may be the problem. Does reason give us "truth"? The position that one can determine what "truth" means to us individually is incompatible with the idea that "reason gives us truth", whatever that could mean. On one hand you say observation and reason gives us truth and on the other you say "it is up to him to determine what he means by that word" I actually agree with you on the latter part of that- I think truth is contextual and it is up to the "context" in a sense to say what is "true". Relgion and science are two different contexts, but you put them in the same basket incorrectly, imo. I suppose "reason" for me would be weighing the issues and in a sense finding out what works best. But what if what you call "superstition" works best for certain purposes? Why is it NOT "superstitious" to believe it is "wrong" to kill babies for fun? Is it reasonable just because people have always believed that? They have always believed in God too- and that is another "superstition". So in your quest to end "superstition", how can morality be "reasonable"? So is it true then that atheists have no ethics? I think we all know they do. Obviously they must use a version of "reason" which finds a valid use for beliefs which cannot be justified through observation and empiricism. I'm not attacking you, but that silly wikipedia article. You have to read critically and understand the history of these ideas before you just go and read something like that and not see the contradictions. We can go into it more if you like, or not. The bottom line is the jump between "correlation" to "causation" is precisely what Hume said about what we now call "science". Hume said that you cannot infer causation from correlation, and yet the stupid article applies Hume's argument to religion without realizing that it applies as much to science as religion or superstition. It is the same argument, but the article applies it to one side of the equation without even knowing that it applies to science and observation just as much as it applies to religion. Edited January 13, 2016 by mfbukowski
Gray Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Why is it NOT "superstitious" to believe it is "wrong" to kill babies for fun? Is it reasonable just because people have always believed that? They have always believed in God too- and that is another "superstition". So in your quest to end "superstition", how can morality be "reasonable"? So is it true then that atheists have no ethics? I think we all know they do. Obviously they must use a version of "reason" which finds a valid use for beliefs which cannot be justified through observation and empiricism. I think that's a category error. Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality. It has nothing to do with moral judgments.
Analytics Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Well I think that may be the problem. Does reason give us "truth"? The position that one can determine what "truth" means to us individually is incompatible with the idea that "reason gives us truth", whatever that could mean. On one hand you say observation and reason gives us truth and on the other you say "it is up to him to determine what he means by that word"... Before we get to far into this, could you tell me where I said that "observation and reason gives us truth?" You claim that I said that, but I don't remember saying that. I don't think I even would think that because I really don't even know what it means.
Analytics Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Are you aware that Hume blew that out of the water well over two hundred years ago? http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/ "Causality" is a huge question and is not quite as easily defined as it appears you think it is. Hume blew Wikipedia's definition of magical thinking out of the water over 200 years ago? Then what is his definition of magical thinking? it isn't in the link you provided.
mfbukowski Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 In other words, if Hume was right, the wikipedia article on "magical thinking" would include science as much as religion. Both infer "causation" from "correlation" Kant's point ultimately was that both derive from the way we perceive things- that our minds "synthesize" both objects and what we think of as "causality". These are the rules which create what we call "reason" itself. These are the rules by which our minds work. I would add that in one context, one can think that our notion of causality itself evolved and allows us to do what is necessary to survive. In another context, we can say that through our "intelligence" we organize reality from matter unorganized, just as God does. So yes, that is where Rorty gets this whole idea that "appearance=reality" as we know it- from Kant really. Appearances to us are reality to us. Of course there is something "out there"- yes we bump into "things" and fall off "cliffs". But what it "really is" cannot be observed. Quarks? Strings? Dark matter? All those are really just names for experienced appearances and perceptions as much as chairs and tables are. More complex descriptions, yes, but still descriptions. All we have is language to describe all of it, from fairies to dark matter. Yes of course we have more evidence for one than the other, but in the end it's still just words describing experiences.
Analytics Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: In other words, if Hume was right, the wikipedia article on "magical thinking" would include science as much as religion. Both infer "causation" from "correlation" Kant's point ultimately was that both derive from the way we perceive things- that our minds "synthesize" both objects and what we think of as "causality". These are the rules which create what we call "reason" itself. These are the rules by which our minds work. I would add that in one context, one can think that our notion of causality itself evolved and allows us to do what is necessary to survive. In another context, we can say that through our "intelligence" we organize reality from matter unorganized, just as God does.... That's all fascinating, I'm sure. But I don't see how it has any bearing on whether I said "observation and reason gives us truth."
mfbukowski Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Analytics said: Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation. In religion, folk religion, and superstitious beliefs, the posited correlation is often between religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense. In clinical psychology, magical thinking can cause a patient to experience fear of performing certain acts or having certain thoughts because of an assumed correlation between doing so and threatening calamities. Magical thinking may lead people to believe that their thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.[1] It is a type of causal reasoning or causal fallacy that looks for meaningful relationships of grouped phenomena (coincidence) between acts and events. In other cases, a therapist may employ magical thinking, as used in analytical psychology, to draw meaning from the content of a patient's dreams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking 15 minutes ago, Analytics said: That's all fascinating, I'm sure. But I don't see how it has any bearing on whether I said "observation and reason gives us truth." What then was the purpose of the first post? Are these statements alleged to be true, or are you just making noises with no intent to make them useful or give them relevance? Why should we believe any word of it, if they are not alleged to be "true"? What was your purpose in uttering these syllables? Edited January 13, 2016 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Other faiths are taking a more active role in stamping out weak-faithed pseudosuperstitious views in their church: 1
mfbukowski Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 48 minutes ago, Gray said: I think that's a category error. Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality. It has nothing to do with moral judgments. I, with most, am putting statements about religion in the same category as statements about moral judgments. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. The category is "statements which cannot be justified through empirical observation" Religion, superstition and moral judgments are all in that category.
Analytics Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What then was the purpose of the first post? Are these statements alleged to be true, or are you just making noises with no intent to make them useful or give them relevance? Why should we believe any word of it, if they are not alleged to be "true"? My first post on this thread was an attempt to provide a brief, well-thought out answer to the question in the OP. Whether you find it useful or relevant is a subjective decision that you need to make for yourself. I find what I said insightful, but I'm not alleging that they are anything more than ideas to consider. Whether or not any of it is "true" depends upon what you mean by "true", which is a term you still haven't defined. ETA: by the "first post" were you referring to the definition of magical thinking? That is a direct quote from Wikipedia. I provided it, because somebody asked for a definition of magical thinking, and I thought that was a decent-enough definition. Edited January 13, 2016 by Analytics
mfbukowski Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Thinking The problem is that you are mixing the correspondence theory of truth with the deflationary theory of truth. Correspondence says that truth is justified through empirical observation. Deflationism says that that is a hollow claim because 2 hours ago, Analytics said: Magical thinking is the attribution of causal or synchronistic relationships between actions and events which seemingly cannot be justified by reason and observation. That is a solid statement about what cannot be "justified by reason and observation" That means that you are saying that reason and observation justify our beliefs On the other hand you say Quote If somebody is endeavoring to live by "reason," it is up to him to determine what he means by that word which is saying that "reason" has no other meaning that what a person gives it. So suppose that person a thinks that reason justifies what we call "superstition"? His observation is that "the fairies did it". So is superstition justified by reason or not?
Recommended Posts