Rationality: What it is, why it seems scarce, and why it matters

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you realize what you just said?

You said he is a champion of retaining the philosophies of the 16 and 17 hundreds, which have been conclusively shown to be... simplistic and naive, and rather quaint, and irrelevant for the most important human concerns, like who we are, what gives us meaning, and morality

Yes, I realize his views are unpopular with people who are into religion or postmodernism. You are into both of those things, so I'd be shocked if you thought it was a good book. You've posted a negative review. I'm still persuaded by him. Here are some quotes of people like me who fell for his simplistic, naïve, quaint, and irrelevant arguments: (copied from Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress: Pinker, Steven: 9780525427575: Amazon.com: Books)

"The world is getting better, even if it doesn’t always feel that way. I’m glad we have brilliant thinkers like Steven Pinker to help us see the big picture. Enlightenment Now is not only the best book Pinker’s ever written. It’s my new favorite book of all time.”—Bill Gates

“A terrific book…[Pinker] recounts the progress across a broad array of metrics, from health to wars, the environment to happiness, equal rights to quality of life.”—Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times

"Steven Pinker’s mind bristles with pure, crystalline intelligence, deep knowledge and human sympathy."—Richard Dawkins

“Pinker is a paragon of exactly the kind of intellectual honesty and courage we need to restore conversation and community.”—David Brooks, The New York Times

“[Enlightenment Now] is magnificent, uplifting and makes you want to rush to your laptop and close your Twitter account.”—The Economist

“[A] magisterial new book…Enlightenment Now is the most uplifting work of science I’ve ever read.”—Science Magazine

“A passionate and persuasive defense of reason and science…[and] an urgently needed reminder that progress is, to no small extent, a result of values that have served us - and can serve us - extraordinarily well.”—The Philadelphia Inquirer

“A meticulous defense of science and objective analysis, [and] a rebuttal to the tribalism, knee-jerk partisanship and disinformation that taints our politics.”—San Francisco Chronicle

“Brimming with surprising data and entertaining anecdotes.”—Financial Times

“[Pinker] makes a powerful case that the main line of history has been, since the Enlightenment, one of improvement.”—Scientific American

“Let’s stop once in a while to enjoy the view—I’m glad Pinker is pushing for this in a world that does it too rarely… It’s hard not to be convinced.”—Quartz

“Enlightenment Now is formidable.”—Financial Times

“As a demonstration of the value of reason, knowledge, and curiosity, Enlightenment Now can hardly be bettered.”—The Boston Globe

“With a wealth of knowledge, graphs and statistics, a strong grasp of history, and an engaging style of writing…Enlightenment Now provides a convincing case for gratitude.”—Pittsburgh Post Gazette

“A masterly defense of the values of modernity against ‘progressophobes’.”—Times Higher Education

“Enlightenment Now strikes a powerful blow against the contemporary mystifications being peddled by tribalists on both the left and the right.”—Reason

“Pinker presents graphs and data which deserve to be reckoned with by fair-minded people. His conclusion is provocative, as anything by Pinker is likely to be.” —Colorado Springs Gazette

“Elegantly [argues] that in various ways humanity has every reason to be optimistic over life in the twenty-first century…. A defense of progress that will provoke deep thinking and thoughtful discourse among his many fans.”—Booklist

“Pinker defends progressive ideals against contemporary critics, pundits, cantankerous philosophers, and populist politicians to demonstrate how far humanity has come since the Enlightenment…In an era of increasingly “dystopian rhetoric,” Pinker’s sober, lucid, and meticulously researched vision of human progress is heartening and important.”—Publishers Weekly

“[An] impeccably written text full of interesting tidbits from neuroscience and other disciplines…The author examines the many ways in which Enlightenment ideals have given us lives that our forebears would envy even if gloominess and pessimism are the order of the day.” —Kirkus Review

 

[Analytics]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

You do realize that Carroll and Pinker are at odds with each other when it comes to the most fundamental and basic elements of human consciousness?

Carroll is a compatibilist.  Pinker, like Sam Harris, is a determinist.  Yet you defend them both as reasonable and logical thinkers.  Hmmm....

First, the distinction between compatibilism and determinism are subtle, and it isn't clear to me they are mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, I never claimed reasonable and logical thinkers need to agree with each other about everything--especially about something as speculative as the fundamental nature of human consciousness. 

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Doesn't everything really hang on that one question of whether or not we are free-willed thinkers, or not?

I guess it depends partially on the answer to that question. If God is going to eternally punish us with hell and damnation for getting that question wrong then yea, everything really hangs on it. Otherwise, I don't know why it would.

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Ultimately, science is based on the unproven and unprovable hypothesis that the universe is governed by natural laws that can be inferred through meticulous observation.

The evidence that this unprovable hypothesis really is true is the excellent track record that science has in figuring out the nature of reality. Science is based on methodological empiricism, and its results and success count as evidence that the world is fundamentally a naturalist one and that rational enquiry is the best way to figure things out. 

There's a fun (and quite iconoclastic) essay about this very take on science by famed philosophy of science professor Paul Feyerabend. He looks at the dogma and ideology of science with a critical eye. Don't let the title deceive you: he is no fundamentalist or some such. He is asking us to question the special status we have given science and especially critiques the defense of science by those, like you, who point to science's results and methods as justification (two sections are titled "Against Method" and "Against Results"). He also questions why truth trumps all other virtues.

It's short and fun to read.

How to Defend Society Against Science

[pogi]

46 minutes ago, Analytics said:

First, the distinction between compatibilism and determinism are subtle, and it isn't clear to me they are mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, I never claimed reasonable and logical thinkers need to agree with each other about everything--especially about something as speculative as the fundamental nature of human consciousness. 

I guess it depends partially on the answer to that question. If God is going to eternally punish us with hell and damnation for getting that question wrong then yea, everything really hangs on it. Otherwise, I don't know why it would.

There absolutely is a distinction between the two.  One believes in free-will, and therefore personal responsibility/accountability.  The other, doesn't.  Those are mutually exclusive ideas. 

I'm sorry, but if Pinker doesn't believe in free-will...what is the point of this?  I am just as right to believe what I believe, because I can't believe anything else.  I am as nature intended.  There can be nothing wrong, or bad, about that.  "Progress", which Pinker hails as a hallmark of the enlightenment, could be nothing but a myth - an illusion - because everything is as it should be.  Progress suggests that there was something wrong with where we came from.  But there couldn't be anything wrong with how the universe determines things.  Illogic would be just as valid as logic, and they are equally determined by the universe and unavoidable.  There could be no wrong or bad consequences for being unreasonable and illogical, because that would suggest that the universe is somehow wrong or bad.   You don't really believe that do you?  You believe it is amoral, right?  Morality is then just an illusion, along with free-will.   This whole argument that one can "progress" is foolishness from the perspective of an amoral slave-master universe we are all just puppets to. 

How does one "progress" beyond the bonds of captivity to the universe?  Progression and regression, good and bad, logic and illogic, are all myths and illusions.  How can anyone be wrong for believing what they do, if they can't help it?  We are all exactly as we should be, right?  This whole idea that there is no free will or personal responsibility is the most uninspiring and unenlightened foundation of all.  Pinker's entire philosophical fortress he builds upon it, as glorious and strong as it may appear, is as empty as the amoral universe he is a puppet of. 

Edited December 3, 2021 by pogi

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

So perhaps in some of these discussions the posters could agree on the tools, both rational and not rational, to apply to the topic at hand. That seems to be a challenge, though, since adopting another's favored tool (for the sake of discussion and experimentation) risks demonstrating the faults in one's own. And then explaining why a particular tool is favored is an exercise in making the irrational appear rational, since preference is subjective and biased anyway. This is where I think @mfbukowski's paradigm is helpful. At least people can understand what works for others and try them out to see. 

This seems to be related to the thought that inspired me to start this thread in the first place. Rationality is defined as “the ability to use knowledge to attain goals.” In the section of the book alluded to in the title about "why it seems so scarce," he makes the point that different people have different goals, and depending upon the circumstances, having the pure theoretical goal of understanding "The Truth" might not have a lot of upside. Pinker says something that reminds me of @mfbukowski .

He says:

Quote

People divide their worlds into two zones. One consists of the physical objects around them, the other people they deal with face to face, the memory of their interactions, and the rules and norms that regulate their lives. People have mostly accurate beliefs about this zone, and they reason rationally within it. Within this zone, they believe there’s a real world and that beliefs about it are true or false. They have no choice: that’s the only way to keep gas in the car, money in the bank, and the kids clothed and fed. Call it the reality mindset.

The other zone is the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past, the unknowable future, faraway peoples and places, remote corridors of power, the microscopic, the cosmic, the counterfactual, the metaphysical. People may entertain notions about what happens in these zones, but they have no way of finding out, and anyway it makes no discernible difference to their lives. Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose. Call it the mythology mindset.

Pinker, Steven. Rationality (pp. 299-300). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

If having a belief within the "mythology zone" is empowering and inspirational, these are legitimate good reasons to believe it, and there aren't that many reasons not to believe it. Bertrand Russell would say there is no evidence for an alleged tea cup that is orbiting the sun somewhere beyond Mars, and therefore one shouldn't believe in it. But is is that really a satisfactory reason not to believe? If believing in that teacup works for you in a Rorty way, why not believe it?

If you'll pardon me for being crass, believing in a humanoid God that lives on a planet orbiting Kolob is the same way. There are many good reasons to believe that Being doesn't really exist, and there are not very many reasons to believe He really does. But if the belief adds value to your life, why not embrace it?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Yes, I realize his views are unpopular with people who are into religion or postmodernism. You are into both of those things, so I'd be shocked if you thought it was a good book. You've posted a negative review. I'm still persuaded by him. Here are some quotes of people like me who fell for his simplistic, naïve, quaint, and irrelevant arguments: (copied from Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress: Pinker, Steven: 9780525427575: Amazon.com: Books)

"The world is getting better, even if it doesn’t always feel that way. I’m glad we have brilliant thinkers like Steven Pinker to help us see the big picture. Enlightenment Now is not only the best book Pinker’s ever written. It’s my new favorite book of all time.”—Bill Gates

“A terrific book…[Pinker] recounts the progress across a broad array of metrics, from health to wars, the environment to happiness, equal rights to quality of life.”—Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times

"Steven Pinker’s mind bristles with pure, crystalline intelligence, deep knowledge and human sympathy."—Richard Dawkins

“Pinker is a paragon of exactly the kind of intellectual honesty and courage we need to restore conversation and community.”—David Brooks, The New York Times

“[Enlightenment Now] is magnificent, uplifting and makes you want to rush to your laptop and close your Twitter account.”—The Economist

“[A] magisterial new book…Enlightenment Now is the most uplifting work of science I’ve ever read.”—Science Magazine

“A passionate and persuasive defense of reason and science…[and] an urgently needed reminder that progress is, to no small extent, a result of values that have served us - and can serve us - extraordinarily well.”—The Philadelphia Inquirer

“A meticulous defense of science and objective analysis, [and] a rebuttal to the tribalism, knee-jerk partisanship and disinformation that taints our politics.”—San Francisco Chronicle

“Brimming with surprising data and entertaining anecdotes.”—Financial Times

“[Pinker] makes a powerful case that the main line of history has been, since the Enlightenment, one of improvement.”—Scientific American

“Let’s stop once in a while to enjoy the view—I’m glad Pinker is pushing for this in a world that does it too rarely… It’s hard not to be convinced.”—Quartz

“Enlightenment Now is formidable.”—Financial Times

“As a demonstration of the value of reason, knowledge, and curiosity, Enlightenment Now can hardly be bettered.”—The Boston Globe

“With a wealth of knowledge, graphs and statistics, a strong grasp of history, and an engaging style of writing…Enlightenment Now provides a convincing case for gratitude.”—Pittsburgh Post Gazette

“A masterly defense of the values of modernity against ‘progressophobes’.”—Times Higher Education

“Enlightenment Now strikes a powerful blow against the contemporary mystifications being peddled by tribalists on both the left and the right.”—Reason

“Pinker presents graphs and data which deserve to be reckoned with by fair-minded people. His conclusion is provocative, as anything by Pinker is likely to be.” —Colorado Springs Gazette

“Elegantly [argues] that in various ways humanity has every reason to be optimistic over life in the twenty-first century…. A defense of progress that will provoke deep thinking and thoughtful discourse among his many fans.”—Booklist

“Pinker defends progressive ideals against contemporary critics, pundits, cantankerous philosophers, and populist politicians to demonstrate how far humanity has come since the Enlightenment…In an era of increasingly “dystopian rhetoric,” Pinker’s sober, lucid, and meticulously researched vision of human progress is heartening and important.”—Publishers Weekly

“[An] impeccably written text full of interesting tidbits from neuroscience and other disciplines…The author examines the many ways in which Enlightenment ideals have given us lives that our forebears would envy even if gloominess and pessimism are the order of the day.” —Kirkus Review

 

Hilarious!!!!! 

Not ONE review citing objective evidence for their opinions!!!

Starting at the top

Sorry for my formatting errord

1- "is getting better"- Gates

2 terrific,... progress - Kristoff

3 pure, crystalline intelligence, deep knowledge and human sympathy."—Richard Dawkins

4- paragon of exactly the kind of intellectual honesty...NY Times

5- magnificent, uplifting - The Economist

6- magisterial new book…Enlightenment Now is the most uplifting work of science I’ve ever read.” Science Magazine 

You get the idea...

Let the reader note that every statement is subjective, a matter of opinion with NO evidence for any of these opinions 

Therefore by their own criteria, these are irrational judgments 

I am tired of noting REPEATEDLY the same self-contradictions in your posts, so hereafter IF I respond I will simply say: "Same argument"

 

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

This seems to be related to the thought that inspired me to start this thread in the first place. Rationality is defined as “the ability to use knowledge to attain goals.” In the section of the book alluded to in the title about "why it seems so scarce," he makes the point that different people have different goals, and depending upon the circumstances, having the pure theoretical goal of understanding "The Truth" might not have a lot of upside. Pinker says something that reminds me of @mfbukowski .

He says:

If having a belief within the "mythology zone" is empowering and inspirational, these are legitimate good reasons to believe it, and there aren't that many reasons not to believe it. Bertrand Russell would say there is no evidence for an alleged tea cup that is orbiting the sun somewhere beyond Mars, and therefore one shouldn't believe in it. But is is that really a satisfactory reason not to believe? If believing in that teacup works for you in a Rorty way, why not believe it?

If you'll pardon me for being crass, believing in a humanoid God that lives on a planet orbiting Kolob is the same way. There are many good reasons to believe that Being doesn't really exist, and there are not very many reasons to believe He really does. But if the belief adds value to your life, why not embrace it?

Indeed

So what's your point? There are many ways of defining "truth".

You just cannot understand that apparently. 

Truth in the eye of the beholder and their context, unless it is about science, in which everyone accepts the methodology and therefore the context 

Edited December 3, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

..................... Have you read Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain by the preeminent neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga? I think you'd enjoy it.

Well,  maybe, especially if he is as much fun as my former UCLA classmate Mayim Bialik.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Rationality is defined as “the ability to use knowledge to attain goals.”

Does the definition limit the source of knowledge?

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

There absolutely is a distinction between the two.  One believes in free-will, and therefore personal responsibility/accountability.  The other, doesn't.  Those are mutually exclusive ideas. 

I'm sorry, but if Pinker doesn't believe in free-will...what is the point of this?  I am just as right to believe what I believe, because I can't believe anything else.... 

Yawn. In the words of Sean Carroll, "it is artificial and counterproductive to deny ourselves the vocabulary of choice when we talk about human beings, regardless of how well we understand the laws of physics. This stance is known in the philosophical literature as compatibilism, and refers to the compatibility between an underlying deterministic (or at least impersonal) scientific description and a macroscopic vocabulary of choice and volition." Pinker (and Harris) both use "the vocabulary of choice" when talking about human beings, and they agree with Carroll (and with Gazzaniga) about the fundamental nature of the brain as a physical entity governed by the known laws of physics. Whether they would describe their positions as compatibilism or something else is a tedious discussion on the margins that is primarily about semantics.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

...I am as nature intended.  There can be nothing wrong, or bad, about that.  "Progress", which Pinker hails as a hallmark of the enlightenment, could be nothing but a myth - an illusion - because everything is as it should be.  Progress suggests that there was something wrong with where we came from.  But there couldn't be anything wrong with how the universe determines things.  Illogic would be just as valid as logic, and they are equally determined by the universe and unavoidable.  There could be no wrong or bad consequences for being unreasonable and illogical, because that would suggest that the universe is somehow wrong or bad.   You don't really believe that do you?  You believe it is amoral, right?  Morality is then just an illusion, along with free-will.   This whole argument that one can "progress" is foolishness from the perspective of an amoral slave-master universe we are all just puppets to....

Yet all of that is the opposite of what Pinker believes. Ergo, you misunderstand where he is coming from. Modus Tollens.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

.......................

I'm sorry, but if Pinker doesn't believe in free-will...what is the point of this?  I am just as right to believe what I believe, because I can't believe anything else.  I am as nature intended.  There can be nothing wrong, or bad, about that.  "Progress", which Pinker hails as a hallmark of the enlightenment, could be nothing but a myth - an illusion - because everything is as it should be.  Progress suggests that there was something wrong with where we came from.  But there couldn't be anything wrong with how the universe determines things.  Illogic would be just as valid as logic, and they are equally determined by the universe and unavoidable.  There could be no wrong or bad consequences for being unreasonable and illogical, because that would suggest that the universe is somehow wrong or bad.   You don't really believe that do you?  You believe it is amoral, right?  Morality is then just an illusion, along with free-will.   This whole argument that one can "progress" is foolishness from the perspective of an amoral slave-master universe we are all just puppets to. 

How does one "progress" beyond the bonds of captivity to the universe?  Progression and regression, good and bad, logic and illogic, are all myths and illusions.  How can anyone be wrong for believing what they do, if they can't help it?  We are all exactly as we should be, right?  This whole idea that there is no free will or personal responsibility is the most uninspiring and unenlightened foundation of all.  Pinker's entire philosophical fortress he builds upon it, as glorious and strong as it may appear, is as empty as the amoral universe he is a puppet of. 

You have got it exactly right, pogi.  The whole universe may as well be a simulation.  This is the existentialist dilemma.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Rationality is defined as “the ability to use knowledge to attain goals.”

Doesn't this seem so meaningless on the foundation of a deterministic universe and absence of free-will and personal responsibility/accountability?  Don't "goals" imply free-will?  What is the point of "goals" if you have no choice (or at least control over the choices we make) in the matter?  "Rationality", based on this definition and in light of the absence of free-will, becomes empty and unimportant because you can't do anything about it anyway.  It is meaningless, really.  Irrationality becomes equally valid as a the unavoidable effect of a natural cause.  We shouldn't judge or condemn irrationality as inferior in some way, if we truly believe there is no personal responsibility/accountability.  

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Bertrand Russell would say there is no evidence for an alleged tea cup that is orbiting the sun somewhere beyond Mars, and therefore one shouldn't believe in it.

Unfortunately he backs that up with the word "should"!!!

I say people SHOULD believe in God

So what? 

Who is right on that is a matter of experience - THAT is the evidence 

I talk to God and He talks to

Same argument for how many times now?

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

There's a fun (and quite iconoclastic) essay about this very take on science by famed philosophy of science professor Paul Feyerabend. He looks at the dogma and ideology of science with a critical eye. Don't let the title deceive you: he is no fundamentalist or some such. He is asking us to question the special status we have given science and especially critiques the defense of science by those, like you, who point to science's results and methods as justification (two sections are titled "Against Method" and "Against Results"). He also questions why truth trumps all other virtues.

It's short and fun to read.

How to Defend Society Against Science

That was a fun read!

The revolutionary aspect of this piece makes me want to go home, put a Clash album on the record player, and turn the volume up to 10. It made me think the lowest circle of hell would be to be a scientist at BYU. Making sure science doesn't become a religion made me think of living in a John Lennon utopia, where one can wander through the streets and be bedazzled by magicians, priests, astrologers, and the occasional science, all of whom are embraced as equally valued members of society. 

My favorite quote is probably this:

Quote

 

Kuhn's ideas are interesting but, alas, they are much too vague to give rise to anything but lots of hot air. If you don't believe me, look at the literature. Never before has the literature on the philosophy o'science been invaded by so many creeps and incompetents. Kuhn encourages people who have no idea why a stone falls to the ground to talk with assurance about scientific method. Now I have no objection to incompetence but I do object when incompetence is accompanied by boredom and self-righteousness, and this is exactly what happens. We do not get interesting false ideas, we get boring ideas or words connected with no ideas at all. Secondly, wherever one tries to make Kuhn's ideas more definite one finds that they are false.

 

If I had to choose between science as a religion or religion as a religion, I'd choose none of the above and would join Feyerabend as an intellectual anarchist. 

Great article that makes some great points. Thanks for sharing!

Edited December 3, 2021 by Analytics

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Hilarious!!!!! 

Not ONE review citing objective evidence for their opinions!!!

Starting at the top

Sorry for my formatting errord

1- "is getting better"- Gates...

Let's focus on that one. The objective evidence Gates supporting Gates's claim here is presented in pages 39 through 346 of the book he was referring to. So can you clarify your point here? Are you saying the 300+ pages of objective evidence that Pinker details isn't really objective evidence? Or are you claiming that "better" is a totally subjective word and there is no objective reason to believe that health is "better" than disease, that freedom is "better" than slavery, that prosperity is "better" than starvation, and that peace is "better" than war?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Yet all of that is the opposite of what Pinker believes.

What Pinker believes then is irrational from the foundation of hard determinism.  Sure, we make choices, but we have no control over the choices we make.  How exactly do "goals" make sense in that context?  How can anything be "wrong" if we have no free-will?  He admits that personal responsibility is a myth, after all. 

What then could be wrong with my beliefs if they are determined by the universe and I have no control over my choices?  How can anyone fault me for that?  

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

This seems to be related to the thought that inspired me to start this thread in the first place. Rationality is defined as “the ability to use knowledge to attain goals.” In the section of the book alluded to in the title about "why it seems so scarce," he makes the point that different people have different goals, and depending upon the circumstances, having the pure theoretical goal of understanding "The Truth" might not have a lot of upside. Pinker says something that reminds me of @mfbukowski .

He says:

If having a belief within the "mythology zone" is empowering and inspirational, these are legitimate good reasons to believe it, and there aren't that many reasons not to believe it. Bertrand Russell would say there is no evidence for an alleged tea cup that is orbiting the sun somewhere beyond Mars, and therefore one shouldn't believe in it. But is is that really a satisfactory reason not to believe? If believing in that teacup works for you in a Rorty way, why not believe it?

If you'll pardon me for being crass, believing in a humanoid God that lives on a planet orbiting Kolob is the same way. There are many good reasons to believe that Being doesn't really exist, and there are not very many reasons to believe He really does. But if the belief adds value to your life, why not embrace it?

I think this is why it is important to define (describe) terms up front in any discussion, though sometimes it may be more efficient to wait until a specific contested point is raised. For example, rationality can be defined in a number of ways, and using this definition allows for “the ability to use [experience – rational and not] to [exercise faith in that knowledge to] attain goals,” or that “knowledge” is “experience” of all kinds, and “faith” is an element in applying knowledge toward yet-to-be-experienced goal attainment.

Believing in the teacup is a form of knowledge that may lead to applications and beliefs that more people can agree upon. For example, an atheist may get a kama muta / autonomous sensory meridian response by buying a few chickens on a “Light the World Giving Machine” kiosk despite a cold attitude toward knowing its founders believe in God, the skepticism of not knowing the recipients and how many chickens they need, trusting whether there is a specific need or a general fund, etc. In either case, the goals are the same at the general level: help others.

Then deeper questions arise, such as, “Why help others?” “What is the best reason / way to help others?” “Why is that the best reason / way to help others?” “Why do you want to help others?” “What is your best reason / way to help others?” “Why is that your best reason / way to help others?” These eventually get into territory the interlocutors become unfamiliar with, demonstrating more reliance on their feelings.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

This seems to be related to the thought that inspired me to start this thread in the first place. Rationality is defined as “the ability to use knowledge to attain goals.” In the section of the book alluded to in the title about "why it seems so scarce," he makes the point that different people have different goals, and depending upon the circumstances, having the pure theoretical goal of understanding "The Truth" might not have a lot of upside. Pinker says something that reminds me of @mfbukowski .

He says:

If having a belief within the "mythology zone" is empowering and inspirational, these are legitimate good reasons to believe it, and there aren't that many reasons not to believe it. Bertrand Russell would say there is no evidence for an alleged tea cup that is orbiting the sun somewhere beyond Mars, and therefore one shouldn't believe in it. But is is that really a satisfactory reason not to believe? If believing in that teacup works for you in a Rorty way, why not believe it?

If you'll pardon me for being crass, believing in a humanoid God that lives on a planet orbiting Kolob is the same way. There are many good reasons to believe that Being doesn't really exist, and there are not very many reasons to believe He really does. But if the belief adds value to your life, why not embrace it?

I think this is why it is important to define (describe) terms up front in any discussion, though sometimes it may be more efficient to wait until a specific contested point is raised. For example, rationality can be defined in a number of ways, and using this definition allows for “the ability to use [experience – rational and not] to [exercise faith in that knowledge to] attain goals,” or that “knowledge” is “experience” of all kinds, and “faith” is an element in applying knowledge toward yet-to-be-experienced goal attainment.

Believing in the teacup is a form of knowledge that may lead to applications and beliefs that more people can agree upon. For example, an atheist may get a kama muta / autonomous sensory meridian response by buying a few chickens on a “Light the World Giving Machine” kiosk despite a cold attitude toward knowing its founders believe in God, the skepticism of not knowing the recipients and how many chickens they need, trusting whether there is a specific need or a general fund, etc. In either case, the goals are the same at the general level: help others.

Then deeper questions arise, such as, “Why help others?” “What is the best reason / way to help others?” “Why is that the best reason / way to help others?” “Why do you want to help others?” “What is your best reason / way to help others?” “Why is that your best reason / way to help others?” These eventually get into territory the interlocutors become unfamiliar with, demonstrating more reliance on their feelings.

[webbles]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

I agree.

One thing to add to this is the idea of effective quantum field theory. Carroll goes into some detail that even if quantum field theory isn't the ultimate truth of reality at every level of energy, distance, etc., and that there could be and probably are particles, fields, and phenomena that it doesn't describe, it does have a well-defined domain of applicability, and within that domain of applicability it is rock solid. The modifier "effective" conveys that even if there is something more to actual reality, the theory is effective at describing reality within its limits. Everything that is strong enough and lasts long enough to have even an subtle effect on the brain is well within that domain of applicability. That's why we can say that even though there is more for science to learn (e.g. dark matter, dark energy), we can be confident that if there was a particle or field that could affect the way the brain functions, we would have discovered it by now. 

I'm glad we agree  Then are you just saying that spirit can't exist unless it is naturalistic (composed of fermions and bosons)?  If so, I think that is pretty much inline with LDS theology (such as spirit matter is just matter but more "refined").

I'm not so sure we can be confident with our knowledge of quantum field theory, though.  We know gravity exists.  Quantum field theory currently can't explain it.  Also, neutrinos are causing a bit of a problem.  They should have no mass but they are oscillating as if they have mass.  So something is affecting them and we don't know what it is.  There's several theories but we haven't been able to prove any of them.  So that's two instances of stuff that could affect brain functions that we still don't quite understand.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Or are you claiming that "better" is a totally subjective word and there is no objective reason to believe that health is "better" than disease, that freedom is "better" than slavery, that prosperity is "better" than starvation, and that peace is "better" than war?

Yes, that is the whole point.

What is the basis UNDER YOUR POSITIVIST SYSTEM for determining the alleged "truth" of any of those assertions.

Did Hitler and Stalin and scores of others find peace to be better than war?

What objective evidence have you that ANY of these moral judgments are "true" ?

Is your position on abortion " true" while others are false?

Objective scientific evidence please. Hitchens is an atheist who must end up proposing spiritual entities 

You have ignored my other CFR's, I am tired of this

 

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

..................... These eventually get into territory the interlocutors become unfamiliar with, demonstrating more reliance on their feelings.

Yes, and we might include doctoral researchers from Timothy Leary to Carlos Castaneda, who systematically exposed themselves to psychotropic substances in order to truly grasp reality.  We might also include men like Abraham and Joseph Smith, who sought communion with God.  Are these methods mere blind alleys, or do they remove us from our deterministic slavery?

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

turn the volume up to 10. It made me think the lowest circle of hell would be to be a scientist at BYU.

I have known a few scientists at BYU, they loved it even with some frustrations (one was my bishop a few divisions ago, good friend, good man).  I certainly enjoyed my science classes there and never felt torn.  My husband didn’t like his evolutionary psychology class because of the topic, but I enjoyed the text.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

.....................

Objective scientific evidence please. Hitchens is an atheist who must end up proposing spiritual entities ...................

Profound, but very clear thinking from Christopher Hitchens.

Peter Hitchens says that "tribalism always trumps reason."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46A1fAss2c0

 

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and we might include doctoral researchers from Timothy Leary to Carlos Castaneda, who systematically exposed themselves to psychotropic substances in order to truly grasp reality.  We might also include men like Abraham and Joseph Smith, who sought communion with God.  Are these methods mere blind alleys, or do they remove us from our deterministic slavery?

As a 1960's survivor I can tell you this much- the lingering memory that one really did just injest some chemicals, helps one in a "bad trip"because one can attibute the "bad" experiences to the chemical, and not confuse the experience with "reality".   That dragon is not really about to eat me.

On the other hand, even when major insights are received, I at least did not trust them for the same reason- it was "just the chemical" and not a 'real" insight to me.  So in my opinion, they are less a door out of determinism and more like blind alleys.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

As a 1960's survivor I can tell you this much- the lingering memory that one really did just injest some chemicals, helps one in a "bad trip"because one can attibute the "bad" experiences to the chemical, and not confuse the experience with "reality".   That dragon is not really about to eat me.

On the other hand, even when major insights are received, I at least did not trust them for the same reason- it was "just the chemical" and not a 'real" insight to me.  So in my opinion, they are less a door out of determinism and more like blind alleys.

I have just had three ketamine experiences and never got any insights, but had the bad trip and it was definitely knowing it was a chemical and would eventually fade that helped me survive what felt at the time like an eternity of hell.  And even without chemical enhancements, I tend to wonder how much of my inner experience is ‘real’ because of experience with getting hit with depression attacks and suddenly so many things are different in meaning.  Depending on how I look at it, it can favour a deterministic paradigm (it is just biochemical) or free will (untethering from the usual tethers allows new choices and I can choose to untether in many ways).

Edited December 4, 2021 by Calm