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

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Some opinions are subjective. Others are objectively true. Others are objectively false. And others are somewhere on a spectrum of being things that can reasonably be disagreed about. You can believe whatever you want, but rationality really does mean something.

What is an example of an objectively true opinion? 

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Some opinions are subjective. Others are objectively true. Others are objectively false. And others are somewhere on a spectrum of being things that can reasonably be disagreed about. You can believe whatever you want, but rationality really does mean something.

The vast majority of opinions are subjective.  The amount of "objectively true" and "objectively false" opinions are extremely small.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

I see. 

The specific CFR that @mfbukowski made in this thread was in response to this statement I made to @smac97:

"Specifically, the way you use the catchphrase "reasonable minds can disagree" seems designed to avoid engaging with arguments you know you'd lose..."

So I can better understand CFRs, what types of citations of sources would be appropriate to support my claim that the way Smac uses the catchphrase "reasonable minds can disagree" subjectively seems to me to be designed to avoid engaging with the arguments that reasonable minds are disagreeing about? 

As I said to Seekingunderstanding, knowing that you know what CFR means, was "He [Analytics] was asking about the meaning of CFR.  His reply might have been akin to yours here, but he seemed to plead ignorance instead.  Playing "Let's Pretend" is no substitute for actual discussion.  Especially where rationality is the focus."  Of course kookookachoo is a mode of reply which is very popular.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

JS-H 1 mentions “feeling(s)” 6 times in 3 verses and once in Oliver’s statement. Most significant, I think, is, “[This] passage of scripture …seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again…” It would be interesting to see what Dr. Leary felt in hid research and in being prompted to try LSD. In any case, their grasping reality does entail seeking and obtaining a “revelation” of some sort.

According to D&C 76, there are no blind alleys, as every road (method) leads somewhere. Whether we choose what road we start and remain on would depend, I think, on the revelation(s) we get along the way. Some people get revelations that they have a choice, and others get revelations that they do not. I think both are right as far as they are concerned.

Prof Leary began the legal use of LSD under the control of the psychiatrist in charge of the Massachusett's State Prison system.  He and Dr Alpert were asked to come into the Mass Prison system to create a rehab program, so that paroled prisoners could change their ways.  That successful rehab program actually continued on for many years thereafter -- the former prisoners themselves ran it.  So LSD seemed to have practical value.  However, Leary and Alpert got fired from Harvard, but didn't much care at that point.

Talking about "feelings" is meaningless in this discussion.  The word "feelings" tells us nothing about what is actually happening at a cosmic or higher spiritual level. What we mainly get is opinion-mongering.  Choosing rationality instead is likewise a meaningless choice.  Such choices tell us nothing about the ultimate nature of reality.

Edited December 5, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is an example of an objectively true opinion? 

2 + 2 = 4

Provo is in Utah

pi is an irrational number

Smoking causes lung cancer

“If A then B” implies “if not B then not A”

“If A then B” does not imply “if not A then not B”

Confirmation bias affects a lot of people a lot of the time

The Utes won the PAC-12

Edited December 5, 2021 by Analytics

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That is all irrelevant, why can't you see that???

I think it is relevant because that was my point. 

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The issue is that YOU cannot know "what seems to others", if it is me, Smac, Joe Biden or Donald Trump. 

I never claimed otherwise.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Who cares if it was Smac or me?

It matters because you asked me when you said reasonable minds can disagree. That is Smac’s catchphrase, not yours.

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Follow the ARGUMENT, not the characters.

The issue is subjective knowledge vs objective knowledge.

The issue is that you seem upset that a book you haven’t read doesn’t say what you think it should say about a philosophical position you disagree about.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

2 + 2 = 4

Provo is in Utah

pi is an irrational number

Smoking causes lung cancer

“If A then B” implies “if not B then not A”

“If A then B” does not imply “if not A then not B”

Confirmation bias affects a lot of people a lot of the time

The Utes won the PAC-12

What definition of opinion are you using? For example, people can hold the opinion that 2 +2 does not equal 4, but that wouldn't render the opinion objectively false except within the context of agreement among like-minded people sharing the same measurement scales, numeral systems, semantics, etc.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Prof Leary began the legal use of LSD under the control of the psychiatrist in charge of the Massachusett's State Prison system.  He and Dr Alpert were asked to come into the Mass Prison system to create a rehab program, so that paroled prisoners could change their ways.  That successful rehab program actually continued on for many years thereafter -- the former prisoners themselves ran it.  So LSD seemed to have practical value.  However, Leary and Alpert got fired from Harvard, but didn't much care at that point.

Talking about "feelings" is meaningless in this discussion.  The word "feelings" tells us nothing about what is actually happening at a cosmic or higher spiritual level. What we mainly get is opinion-mongering.  Choosing rationality instead is likewise a meaningless choice.  Such choices tell us nothing about the ultimate nature of reality.

It could be said (as has been observed and reported by some) that we are microcosms of what is actually happening at a cosmic or higher spiritual level. Our reason and feelings, our private little microcosm, are all we have to work with to make the cosmic or spiritual discovery, or revelation, by expanding our reason and feelings (mind).

So, I’m thinking that these discussions on rationality and feelings are useful for those who learn or discover something new, even if it is semantic. Some will say that spirit is yet a separate element from thoughts and feelings, but I think it is fundamental to and manifest through thoughts and feelings, and that part of the cosmic discovery entails integrating and coordinating them, the many barriers to accomplishing that notwithstanding. We wouldn't be able to do this without the second estate and all the gospel principles that entails.

Edited December 5, 2021 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

It could be said (as has been observed and reported by some) that we are microcosms of what is actually happening at a cosmic or higher spiritual level. Our reason and feelings, our private little microcosm, are all we have to work with to make the cosmic or spiritual discovery, or revelation, by expanding our reason and feelings (mind).

So, I’m thinking that these discussions on rationality and feelings are useful for those who learn or discover something new, even if it is semantic. Some will say that spirit is yet a separate element from thoughts and feelings, but I think it is fundamental to and manifest through thoughts and feelings, and that part of the cosmic discovery entails integrating and coordinating them, the many barriers to accomplishing that notwithstanding. We wouldn't be able to do this without the second estate and all the gospel principles that entails.

I guess so.  It's more like casting our bread upon the waters and seeing if it comes back to us.  We are not really in control, much as we'd like to be.  And, yes, we only find out the ultimate truth in the hereafter.

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

What is an example of an objectively true opinion? 

Mimes are evil.

[Olmec Donald]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Mimes are evil.

In protest I gesticulate disrespectfully in your general direction... ironically, confirming your opinion...

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I guess so.  It's more like casting our bread upon the waters and seeing if it comes back to us.  We are not really in control, much as we'd like to be.  And, yes, we only find out the ultimate truth in the hereafter.

Amen; discovery is in the journey (the expansion)... I mean, the destination is what we're "here after"  and D&C sections 76 and 88 (esp. verses 36-40; 49-50) allow for many options.

Edited December 5, 2021 by CV75

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

In protest I gesticulate disrespectfully in your general direction... ironically, confirming your opinion...

In my objective opinion, this is not the same as miming:

[Analytics]

[in response for me making the audacious claim that the belief "2 + 2 = 4" is objectively true, CV75 said...]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

What definition of opinion are you using? For example, people can hold the opinion that 2 +2 does not equal 4, but that wouldn't render the opinion objectively false except within the context of agreement among like-minded people sharing the same measurement scales, numeral systems, semantics, etc.

This is a profound question. Answering your question, I'm using the definitions of standard English and the axioms of conventional mathematics.

Addressing what I think is your underlying point, I never studied set theory in any detail, but when I googled for a proof of "2 + 2 = 4", this is what came up:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-proof-of-2+2-4

It turns out that rigorous proofs of "2 + 2 = 4" are absurdly complex.

All abstract thought, including mathematics, rest on axioms that are explicitly stated from the outset. From within abstract models, you can't prove the axioms are "true." You assume that they are true. In principle, by changing the underlying axioms we could create a system of mathematics where 2 + 2 is something other than 4.

However, that doesn't mean that the axioms that we do use in standard mathematics are arbitrary and could change from culture to culture, with none being more "right" than any other. We knew that 2 + 2 = 4 thousands of years before rigorous set theory was developed that allows us to prove it. This is because there is a one-to-one correspondence between how the universe actually works and the axioms of conventional mathematics. This one-to-one correspondence is why mathematics is such a powerful tool in science and engineering (not to mention accounting!).

So, "2 + 2 = 4" is true within the theoretical construction of conventional mathematics, but it is also true in real-world models--if I have two quarters in my piggy bank and add two more quarters, I will then have four quarters.

While you can't prove axioms are true, some axioms correspond with reality while others do not. If the objective of an abstract model is to represent something in the real world, the axioms must correspond to the real world. Proving that they correspond has more to do with induction than with a rigorous deductive proof. But not being able to strictly prove an axiom doesn't mean that all axioms are equally valid.

This quote from Pinker seems relevant:

Quote

 

Now, arguments for truth, objectivity, and reason may stick in the craw, because they seem dangerously arrogant: “Who the hell are you to claim to have the absolute truth?” But that’s not what the case for rationality is about. The psychologist David Myers has said that the essence of monotheistic belief is: (1) There is a God and (2) it’s not me (and it’s also not you). The secular equivalent is: (1) There is objective truth and (2) I don’t know it (and neither do you). The same epistemic humility applies to the rationality that leads to truth. Perfect rationality and objective truth are aspirations that no mortal can ever claim to have attained. But the conviction that they are out there licenses us to develop rules we can all abide by that allow us to approach the truth collectively in ways that are impossible for any of us individually.

The rules are designed to sideline the biases that get in the way of rationality: the cognitive illusions built into human nature, and the bigotries, prejudices, phobias, and -isms that infect the members of a race, class, gender, sexuality, or civilization. These rules include the principles of critical thinking and the normative systems of logic, probability, and empirical reasoning.

Pinker, Steven. Rationality (pp. 40-41). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

 

 

[Analytics]

On 12/4/2021 at 5:29 PM, mfbukowski said:

WIthout any evidence, those beliefs are irrational according to you.

Actually, I said I assumed those beliefs were true, "irrationally, whimsically, mulishly, for no good reason."

On 12/4/2021 at 5:29 PM, mfbukowski said:

They are perfectly justifiable to me.

It seems to me that God exists, so we agree in our mutual irrational postmodernism 

Everything you believe is "what seems to you", some of that is confirmed by others,= science, and other of those beliefs are purely subjective, like religion.

It seems the primary difference between you and me is that my objective is to maximize the quality of my thought and minimize my cognitive biases so that what I believe approaches what's actually true, while your objective is to use postmodernism as a license to rely on cognitive biases to believe what you want. Note that I'm not claiming to know what your actual thoughts really are--I probably understand what the world looks like from the perspective of a bat more than I understand what it looks like from your perspective. I'm just stating what my impression is.

 

[Peacefully]

On 12/3/2021 at 12:13 AM, Calm said:

https://www.livescience.com/34052-unsolved-mysteries-physics.html

 My current favorite unsolved mystery besides the obvious “what is dark energy/dark matter?” and “what the heck is gravity, anyway?” is Fundamental Constants…..
 

We don’t even know how much we don’t know.

Fascinating stuff! 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

All abstract thought, including mathematics, rest on axioms that are explicitly stated from the outset. From within abstract models, you can't prove the axioms are "true." You assume that they are true. In principle, by changing the underlying axioms we could create a system of mathematics where 2 + 2 is something other than 4.

However, that doesn't mean that the axioms that we do use in standard mathematics are arbitrary and could change from culture to culture, with none being more "right" than any other. We knew that 2 + 2 = 4 thousands of years before rigorous set theory was developed that allows us to prove it. This is because there is a one-to-one correspondence between how the universe actually works and the axioms of conventional mathematics. This one-to-one correspondence is why mathematics is such a powerful tool in science and engineering (not to mention accounting!).

An interesting thing about axioms is that you can't prove any formal axiomatic theories.  This is called the "Gödel's incompleteness theorems".  You can read about it at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems.  Basically, no matter how complete the set of axioms you choose, there is always things that can't be proven despite being true.

 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

[in response for me making the audacious claim that the belief "2 + 2 = 4" is objectively true, CV75 said...]

This is a profound question. Answering your question, I'm using the definitions of standard English and the axioms of conventional mathematics.

Addressing what I think is your underlying point, I never studied set theory in any detail, but when I googled for a proof of "2 + 2 = 4", this is what came up:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-proof-of-2+2-4

It turns out that rigorous proofs of "2 + 2 = 4" are absurdly complex.

All abstract thought, including mathematics, rest on axioms that are explicitly stated from the outset. From within abstract models, you can't prove the axioms are "true." You assume that they are true. In principle, by changing the underlying axioms we could create a system of mathematics where 2 + 2 is something other than 4.

However, that doesn't mean that the axioms that we do use in standard mathematics are arbitrary and could change from culture to culture, with none being more "right" than any other. We knew that 2 + 2 = 4 thousands of years before rigorous set theory was developed that allows us to prove it. This is because there is a one-to-one correspondence between how the universe actually works and the axioms of conventional mathematics. This one-to-one correspondence is why mathematics is such a powerful tool in science and engineering (not to mention accounting!).

So, "2 + 2 = 4" is true within the theoretical construction of conventional mathematics, but it is also true in real-world models--if I have two quarters in my piggy bank and add two more quarters, I will then have four quarters.

While you can't prove axioms are true, some axioms correspond with reality while others do not. If the objective of an abstract model is to represent something in the real world, the axioms must correspond to the real world. Proving that they correspond has more to do with induction than with a rigorous deductive proof. But not being able to strictly prove an axiom doesn't mean that all axioms are equally valid.

This quote from Pinker seems relevant:

 

I’m thinking “the one-to-one correspondence between how the universe (reality) actually works and the axioms” is an assumption based on which universe we experience or invent, and in either case our thoughts and feelings set the rules, systems, methods, definitions, etc. of how that universe works. The same with reality.

I’m also thinking that contests between proponents of which universe/reality is best for what purpose is a matter of trying to expand (humility) and justify (pride) our thoughts and feelings, which some interpret or describe as spirituality. There is also a tension between "epistemic humility" and justification which can constrict or contract expansion.

The rules you mention (the principles of critical thinking and the normative systems of logic, probability, and empirical reasoning) are those of thought; there are also rules for feelings and in both cases the aim is expansion of the mind or spirit. It seems to me these rules of thought and feeling can infuse a bias (Pinker uses “conviction”) for themselves, and rightly so for the sake of discipline and discipleship. The “best” approach in my mind would be to incorporate them as “rules we can all abide by that allow us to approach the truth collectively in ways that are impossible for any of us individually” -- which sounds a lot like the “gathering” President Nelson talks about!

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/4/2021 at 6:31 PM, CV75 said:

What is an example of an objectively true opinion? 

According to those [few? one? none?] who hold them, "Mine."  What is an example of an objectively false opinion, according to those [few? one? none?] who hold "objectively true" opinions?  "Everyone else's," or "those of many others" or "those of at least a few others" or, in a pinch, "my interlocutor's."

[Analytics]

10 hours ago, webbles said:

An interesting thing about axioms is that you can't prove any formal axiomatic theories.  This is called the "Gödel's incompleteness theorems".  You can read about it at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems.  Basically, no matter how complete the set of axioms you choose, there is always things that can't be proven despite being true.

 

That's really disturbing. I can't pretend to have much understanding of this corner of the deep end, but even in the context of incompleteness theorems, there is still the concept of things that really are true, even if they aren't proven.

To me, this comes across as a limitation of formal deductive reasoning more than an implication that the truth really isn't out there.

[Analytics]

50 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

According to those [few? one? none?] who hold them, "Mine."  What is an example of an objectively false opinion, according to those [few? one? none?] who hold "objectively true" opinions?  "Everyone else's," or "those of many others" or "those of at least a few others" or, in a pinch, "my interlocutor's."

This brings to mind the Monte Hall problem. 

Imagine you are on a gameshow, and the host shows you three closed doors with a prize behind each. He says you have to choose a door, and you win the prize behind the one you choose. He says one of the doors contains a brand new car, while the other two doors each contain a booby prize.

You then choose a door.

The host then goes to one of the two doors you didn't choose and says, "Man, you sure are lucky you didn't choose this door!" He opens it and reveals a goat.

He then asks you, "Are you sure you want to stick with your original guess, or do you want to change your guess to the other closed door?"

So here's the problem. When you are in that situation, what are the chances there is a car behind the door you originally chose?

The first time I saw this problem, I said the odds my original guess was right was 50%, obviously. There are two doors that are still closed. One has a car, one has a goat. It's a 50-50 proposition.

Even though I was confident I was right about that, my guess wasn't objectively true. The objectively correct answer to the problem is that there is only a 33% chance my original guess was right, so the smart thing to do is change my guess to the other closed door. That is true regardless of who believes it and who doesn't.

Some opinions really are true, while others really are false. What might be more important than whether an opinion is actually true or false is the quality of the thought process used to acquire that opinion. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I’m thinking “the one-to-one correspondence between how the universe (reality) actually works and the axioms” is an assumption based on which universe we experience or invent, and in either case our thoughts and feelings set the rules, systems, methods, definitions, etc. of how that universe works. The same with reality.

I’m also thinking that contests between proponents of which universe/reality is best for what purpose is a matter of trying to expand (humility) and justify (pride) our thoughts and feelings, which some interpret or describe as spirituality. There is also a tension between "epistemic humility" and justification which can constrict or contract expansion.

The rules you mention (the principles of critical thinking and the normative systems of logic, probability, and empirical reasoning) are those of thought; there are also rules for feelings and in both cases the aim is expansion of the mind or spirit. It seems to me these rules of thought and feeling can infuse a bias (Pinker uses “conviction”) for themselves, and rightly so for the sake of discipline and discipleship. The “best” approach in my mind would be to incorporate them as “rules we can all abide by that allow us to approach the truth collectively in ways that are impossible for any of us individually” -- which sounds a lot like the “gathering” President Nelson talks about!

Just to be sure I'm following you here, are you say our thoughts and feelings actually literally set the rules for how the universe works? Surely you aren't saying the universe wasn't governed by the Theory of Relativity until that theory was set through Einstein's thoughts and feelings. Or are you saying there isn't actually an objective reality out there, but rather we just believe what we want? Or are you going in the direction of What the Bleep Do We Know!? where our thoughts and feelings have some influence on the outcomes of the stochastic processes underlying quantum physics, resulting in us effectively have some choice into how the universe unfolds?

Surely you know a lot about cognitive biases and how they affect decision making. When setting "rules of thought and feelings" that rightly foster discipleship, how do know you are choosing a rule that leads to actual truth and not merely choosing to employ cognitive biases to bolster belief in your a priori beliefs that in reality are false? Or does that distinction not matter?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

According to those [few? one? none?] who hold them, "Mine."  What is an example of an objectively false opinion, according to those [few? one? none?] who hold "objectively true" opinions?  "Everyone else's," or "those of many others" or "those of at least a few others" or, in a pinch, "my interlocutor's."

The problem here as always are words, the difference between opinion and fact.

The actual issue is betwee the subjective and objective

The bottom line is whether the subjective can have truth value and the answer is that for each individual, it can.

The reason is that all things exist in relation to other things, and one would have to analyze all the relations to get a full picture of even that single thing.

This cannot be done, therefore we go with approximations.

-William James, radical empiricism 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

Edited December 6, 2021 by mfbukowski

[webbles]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That's really disturbing. I can't pretend to have much understanding of this corner of the deep end, but even in the context of incompleteness theorems, there is still the concept of things that really are true, even if they aren't proven.

It's not really a concept of "things that really are true".  It's that in a "consistent formal system", you have to assume that something is true even though you can't prove it.  Which means you are using "faith" to accept that it is true, because it could turn out to be false.  In the end, all "consistent formal systems" (which is basically everything, including the universe) is dependent on "faith"

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

To me, this comes across as a limitation of formal deductive reasoning more than an implication that the truth really isn't out there.

It's more of an implication that we can't prove everything about the universe (either through deductive reasoning, math, physics, etc).  There will always be something that we just have to accept is true or false but will never be able to prove it.  When this was first proposed in 1930, it was mainly geared toward the idea that science would be able to discover a "universal model" of the universe.  Godel basically proved that it will never be possible.  All of our models will always be incomplete as part(s) of them will always be non-provable.

Which, back to your original point, means that reasonable people can disagree since there is absolutely no way to prove either side is correct.

By the way, there is also "Gödel's completeness theorems" .  And even though they look to be contradictory, they are not.  I think https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ox7rvp/how_to_understand_that_godels_incompleteness/ might be the easiest explanation on why the two are not contradictory of each other.

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, webbles said:

It's not really a concept of "things that really are true".  It's that in a "consistent formal system", you have to assume that something is true even though you can't prove it.  Which means you are using "faith" to accept that it is true, because it could turn out to be false.  In the end, all "consistent formal systems" (which is basically everything, including the universe) is dependent on "faith"

It's more of an implication that we can't prove everything about the universe (either through deductive reasoning, math, physics, etc).  There will always be something that we just have to accept is true or false but will never be able to prove it.  When this was first proposed in 1930, it was mainly geared toward the idea that science would be able to discover a "universal model" of the universe.  Godel basically proved that it will never be possible.  All of our models will always be incomplete as part(s) of them will always be non-provable.

Which, back to your original point, means that reasonable people can disagree since there is absolutely no way to prove either side is correct.

By the way, there is also "Gödel's completeness theorems" .  And even though they look to be contradictory, they are not.  I think https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ox7rvp/how_to_understand_that_godels_incompleteness/ might be the easiest explanation on why the two are not contradictory of each other.

Bravo!