mfbukowski Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 16 minutes ago, Analytics said: 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. And as you recall, I disagreed with the wikipedia article for reasons I detailed. It is still not clear to me, then how your position differs from the wikipedia article I thought some of those were your words, and that you supported the definition. It is still confusing to me whether or not you support it, and for what reasons, but on with life I suppose.
mfbukowski Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 7 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. So how does that work again, that reason supposedly eradicates superstitious thought when reason is whatever you think it is? Quote If somebody is endeavoring to live by "reason," it is up to him to determine what he means by that word If reason is "up to him to determine what that means", is that "cognitive bias" or not? 2
Analytics Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Thinking The problem is that you are mixing the correspondence theory of truth with the deflationary theory of truth. I'm not talking about truth. In fact, I've said repeatedly I don't know what "truth" is. If I don't know what truth is, on what basis can you say I'm mixing "theories" of truth? I'm not mixing theories of truth; I'm asking you to define it. Quote Correspondence says that truth is justified through empirical observation. Deflationism says that that is a hollow claim because [Magical thinking is defined as...] That seems like a total non squitter. The definition of magical thinking simply explains what is meant by the term "magical thinking." It doesn't imply anything about the correspondence theory of truth being hollow or anything else. It's just an explanation of what a term means. Quote 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 I'm not saying what justifies our beliefs. I'm defining magical thinking. I'm not making any claim about whether magical thinking is justified or not, much less about whether any belief however derived is "true" (whatever "true" even means.) Quote On the other hand you say, "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. In one sense, words don't have any meaning other than what we give them. Surely you don't dispute that. My point though is that "endeavoring to live by reason" is a practical question that might be done in different ways by different people. If you want to under what it means, have a personal conversation with somebody about what they are doing to live their life according to their own ideals. Quote 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? Somebody thinking that their beliefs are reasonable doesn't mean they really are. Edited January 14, 2016 by Analytics
Analytics Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And as you recall, I disagreed with the wikipedia article for reasons I detailed. It is still not clear to me, then how your position differs from the wikipedia article I thought some of those were your words, and that you supported the definition. It is still confusing to me whether or not you support it, and for what reasons, but on with life I suppose. The Wikipedia article defines what the word "magical thinking" means. If you disagree with the article, I'd appreciate your definition of magical thinking just to clarify the point.
Stargazer Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 On 1/12/2016 at 7:15 AM, thesometimesaint said: Because the second is more applicable. The government should be indifferent to your religion. IOW Believe whatever you want, but don't try to use the force of government to prescribe beliefs. We've gone down that street before, and it doesn't turn out well. When did we go down that street? I can think of some possible cases, but I'm not sure which ones you're thinking of.
Analytics Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: So how does that work again, that reason supposedly eradicates superstitious thought when reason is whatever you think it is? If reason is "up to him to determine what that means", is that "cognitive bias" or not? For example, if somebody thinks "reason" means "confirmation bias," then yes, "reason" is a cognitive bias. That's why it's important to understand what people mean by the words they use. I'm surprised you take issue with that.
volgadon Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 I think it is less the rise of secularism, and more the revolt against rationality taking place in the 20th century in all spheres of thought and culture. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Analytics said: The Wikipedia article defines what the word "magical thinking" means. If you disagree with the article, I'd appreciate your definition of magical thinking just to clarify the point. I have none. To me it is a meaningless phrase. Magic is direct experience of the world without thinking. One sees the rabbit come out of the hat and one is astounded. One sees an angel and is more astounded. No "thought" required.
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Analytics said: I'm not talking about truth. In fact, I've said repeatedly I don't know what "truth" is. If I don't know what truth is, on what basis can you say I'm mixing "theories" of truth? I'm not mixing theories of truth; I'm asking you to define it. That seems like a total non squitter. The definition of magical thinking simply explains what is meant by the term "magical thinking." It doesn't imply anything about the correspondence theory of truth being hollow or anything else. It's just an explanation of what a term means. I'm not saying what justifies our beliefs. I'm defining magical thinking. I'm not making any claim about whether magical thinking is justified or not, much less about whether any belief however derived is "true" (whatever "true" even means.) In one sense, words don't have any meaning other than what we give them. Surely you don't dispute that. My point though is that "endeavoring to live by reason" is a practical question that might be done in different ways by different people. If you want to under what it means, have a personal conversation with somebody about what they are doing to live their life according to their own ideals. Somebody thinking that their beliefs are reasonable doesn't mean they really are. Oh gosh. No communication. Things are what you say they are and yet beliefs "really are reasonable" or not. Nevermind.
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 4 hours ago, Stargazer said: When did we go down that street? I can think of some possible cases, but I'm not sure which ones you're thinking of. Nearly all of recorded history is about the use of governments, be they tribes or Constitutional Democracies to enforce belief. The Bible is replete with examples. Western history from before Christianity was broadly accepted and after it was. Muslims in the Middle East to the Khmer of ancient Cambodia. We are bloody violent species more than willing to use violence to promote our religions of peace.
Stargazer Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Nearly all of recorded history is about the use of governments, be they tribes or Constitutional Democracies to enforce belief. The Bible is replete with examples. Western history from before Christianity was broadly accepted and after it was. Muslims in the Middle East to the Khmer of ancient Cambodia. We are bloody violent species more than willing to use violence to promote our religions of peace. Oh, right. I was trying to think of examples from our own country. Wasn't having a lot of success. I suppose that the Federal government attempting to dictate LDS marriage beliefs might qualify there, though.
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 4 hours ago, volgadon said: I think it is less the rise of secularism, and more the revolt against rationality taking place in the 20th century in all spheres of thought and culture. I blame the internet. While it is a great tool to dispense actual real facts it also allows yahoos of all stripes to get together and mutually reinforce each other's delusions. This is how we get a resurgence of homeopathy, anti-vaccination movements, retrenching of racism, and all kinds of weird pseudocults and lore. You do realize we made it to the 21st century now right?
volgadon Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I blame the internet. While it is a great tool to dispense actual real facts it also allows yahoos of all stripes to get together and mutually reinforce each other's delusions. This is how we get a resurgence of homeopathy, anti-vaccination movements, retrenching of racism, and all kinds of weird pseudocults and lore. You do realize we made it to the 21st century now right? Silly me, I forgot that as soon as the year 2000 commenced we all immediately implemented a complete return to Fin de Siecle rationalism. 1
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 minute ago, volgadon said: Silly me, I forgot that as soon as the year 2000 commenced we all immediately implemented a complete return to Fin de Siecle rationalism. I wasn't suggesting that....just poking fun at you getting the date wrong. Just out of curiosity what would Fin de Siecle rationalism entail? Only being rational for the day or the entire year before the turn of the century?
volgadon Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I wasn't suggesting that....just poking fun at you getting the date wrong. Just out of curiosity what would Fin de Siecle rationalism entail? Only being rational for the day or the entire year before the turn of the century? What date did I get wrong?
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Just now, volgadon said: What date did I get wrong? "the revolt against rationality taking place in the 20th century" If you meant the revolt is over you should have used past tense. If you meant the present tense then the revolt taking place should be in the 21st century or the 20th and 21st century. I edit stuff at work and I am equally annoying and hated there.
volgadon Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: "the revolt against rationality taking place in the 20th century" If you meant the revolt is over you should have used past tense. If you meant the present tense then the revolt taking place should be in the 21st century or the 20th and 21st century. I edit stuff at work and I am equally annoying and hated there. Then that would be getting the tense wrong, wouldn't it? Assumptions, dear Lucius.
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 minute ago, volgadon said: Then that would be getting the tense wrong, wouldn't it? Assumptions, dear Lucius. You might have got the tense wrong. I have no idea. The important thing is that you are wrong. And this is why I am hated at work.
volgadon Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, The Nehor said: You might have got the tense wrong. I have no idea. The important thing is that you are wrong. And this is why I am hated at work. You, Lucius, of course, are never wrong.
Gray Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: 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. I don't think they're really comparable. Moral judgments don't have much to do with causality, per se. They're just strong opinions about what we might consider right action. But if you say that if you commit immoral action x, then supernatural consequences follow, you've probably entered the realm of superstition. Edited January 14, 2016 by Gray
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Stargazer said: Oh, right. I was trying to think of examples from our own country. Wasn't having a lot of success. I suppose that the Federal government attempting to dictate LDS marriage beliefs might qualify there, though. Kim Davis is a more recent example. Edited January 14, 2016 by thesometimesaint spelling
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 9 hours ago, volgadon said: You, Lucius, of course, are never wrong. Well, I did not want to say it because that might be seen as bragging
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Gray said: I don't think they're really comparable. Moral judgments don't have much to do with causality, per se. They're just strong opinions about what we might consider right action. But if you say that if you commit immoral action x, then supernatural consequences follow, you've probably entered the realm of superstition. Well I will try once more. Hume conclusively showed that there can be no logically necessary connections between causes and effects. There is no way to prove logically that anything was or is the "cause" of anything else.. Empirically we speak that way of course. In a court of law, all they do is determine "cause" for accidents, crimes etc, but those conclusions are totally pragmatic. We know what "truth" means, we know what "cause" means, we just cannot prove anything logically about either one. No one who knew this would ever say "But if you say that if you commit immoral action x, then supernatural consequences follow, you've probably entered the realm of superstition. " The point is that ANYTIME we think there are logical connections between ANY causes and effects, we are in the realm of ...... a statement which cannot be justified logically. I suppose one could say that objectively any religious statement could also be said to be "just a strong opinion" From that perspective any statement in science or religion or ethics are "just strong opinions". If it's not math, it's opinion. And math just describes the evolution of our brains and the rules by which we must think. That view essentially started with Kant and has pervaded much of western philosophy So as I see it, "superstition" is not qualitatively different than science or morals or religion. It is just wrong science that doesn't work for the purpose intended Edited January 14, 2016 by mfbukowski
Gray Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Well I will try once more. Hume conclusively showed that there can be no logically necessary connections between causes and effects. There is no way to prove logically that anything was or is the "cause" of anything else.. Empirically we speak that way of course. In a court of law, all they do is determine "cause" for accidents, crimes etc, but those conclusions are totally pragmatic. We know what "truth" means, we know what "cause" means, we just cannot prove anything logically about either one. No one who knew this would ever say "But if you say that if you commit immoral action x, then supernatural consequences follow, you've probably entered the realm of superstition. " The point is that ANYTIME we think there are logical connections between ANY causes and effects, we are in the realm of ...... a statement which cannot be justified logically. I suppose one could say that objectively any religious statement could also be said to be "just a strong opinion" From that perspective any statement in science or religion or ethics are "just strong opinions". If it's not math, it's opinion. And math just describes the evolution of our brains and the rules by which we must think. That view essentially started with Kant and has pervaded much of western philosophy So as I see it, "superstition" is not qualitatively different than science or morals or religion. It is just wrong science that doesn't work for the purpose intended If by prove you mean conclusively demonstrate with 100% confidence, sure. We can't prove anything at all. But we can show strong evidences for certain cause/effect relationships. We do it all the time, and that's what keeps us from wandering out into traffic and that's what landed men on the moon. But when I say, "infanticide is wrong" I'm not commenting on causes or effects. I'm stating a strongly held opinion, that's all. Edited January 14, 2016 by Gray
Analytics Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Well I will try once more. Hume conclusively showed that there can be no logically necessary connections between causes and effects. There is no way to prove logically that anything was or is the "cause" of anything else.. Empirically we speak that way of course. In a court of law, all they do is determine "cause" for accidents, crimes etc, but those conclusions are totally pragmatic. We know what "truth" means, we know what "cause" means, we just cannot prove anything logically about either one.... To make sure if I'm understanding what you are saying, if I dropped a pen off my desk and asked physicists what "caused" it to fall to the ground (assuming it did!), they would talk about gravity, and depending upon how pedantic they wanted to get might start discussing the curvature in the space-time continuum due to massive bodies being present, and if they really wanted to get esoteric, might even start talking about Higgs Bosons and such. In contrast, if I asked you why the pen fell, you'd say something to the effect, "there is no logical way to prove that the pen falling had a cause, much less what the cause really was. Hume conclusively proved there is no logically necessary connections between causes and effects, therefore asking to know the logical cause of anything is rooted in outdated 17th century enlightenment philosophy." Do I have that right? If so, I think I get the point, but it seems like an incredibly priggish thing to say that isn't all that interesting.
Recommended Posts