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

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

William James, radical empiricism 

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

"The postulate is that "the only things that shall be debatable among philosophers shall be things definable in terms drawn from experience." The fact is that our experience contains disconnected entities as well as various types of connections; it is full of meaning and values. The conclusion is that our worldview does not need "extraneous trans-empirical connective support, but possesses in its own right a concatenated or continuous structure."

[Analytics]

2 hours 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. 

My question then is how can we apply this to the system of the universe itself? It doesn't contradict my assertion that some things are objectively knowable, does it? My understanding is that it actually proves that some things are knowable by providing an example of something that is known; we objectively know that we can't prove everything.

2 hours ago, webbles said:

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. 

How does this imply we have to have faith in anything? How does it imply we must accept something as true or false? If something isn't knowable, isn't it better to say "I don't know"?

Interestingly, the only candidate for somebody who knows everything in the system of "the universe" is, hypothetically God. Have we now proven that God doesn't know everything?

[smac97]

On 12/4/2021 at 10:32 AM, Analytics said:

This post was addressed to Smac97, not to you; I referred to you in the third person. The way he uses the phrase “reasonable minds can disagree” seems to me to be used a strategy to avoid defending his position. It is a description of my subjective response to what he says.

Well, no.  I'm content to point to my track record on this board.  I certainly have my flaws, but being unwilling or unable to defend my position isn't one of them.

"Reasonable minds can disagree" is an important principle.  We can argue about things all day long, but I generally bring that point up when the discussion comes to involve sentiments along the lines of "If you disagree with my opinion then you are stupid or evil or dishonest."

See, the really important things are, in the end, untestable.  You have previously asserted that "science" (specifically, "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla") has disproved  the existence of "spirits and revelation."  I found that assertion absurd on its face, and an abuse of "science," and an abject example of scientism.  I am perfectly fine with you not believing in these things, though.  Not because "science" has done what you say, but because I think a reasonably intelligent person living in 2021 can arrive at that conclusion.  Such a person can reach such a conclusion because, well, reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  The data are inconclusive.  Whether God exists is therefore a question of faith, and not an empirically testable/provable thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Have we now proven that God doesn't know everything?

I can't imagine what that even means.

Is the set of "things"- whatever that is- finite ?  Is it constantly changing? Is it transempirical? And in what sense of "know"? As facts?  As experience? As observations?  As a savior, does he know sin while being perfect?

Can he make a rock so big...?

The "omni's" are jibberish. 

And you think they can be proven either way?

I really need to get over this addiction

"Bit Martha, there's someone wrong on the internet !...

https://images.app.goo.gl/nFdjQU14QkB6xSEM7

Edited December 6, 2021 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The "omni's" are jibberish.

Any language that tries to explain something that is beyond the limits of language (such as God) eventually has to rest on contradiction. There's no other way to describe it. So yes, the omni's are "gibberish" but that doesn't mean they are false.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Any language that tries to explain something that is beyond the limits of language (such as God) eventually has to rest on contradiction. There's no other way to describe it. So yes, the omni's are "gibberish" but that doesn't mean they are false.

Yep. Therefore, postmodernism.

It's the only way for religion to be true

[OGHoosier]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

Hold on. You're right that your original intuition - of your first guess having a 50% chance of being right - is incorrect, but I don't see why it is wiser to change your guess to the other closed door. Wouldn't your first door have a 50-50 chance versus that door? Put it another way, the revelation of the one booby-prized door simply offers you a new choice between the two remaining doors which is 50-50. Why should we change our guess to the other closed door?

Edited December 6, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Hold on. You're right that your original intuition - of your first guess having a 50% chance of being right - is incorrect, but I don't see why it is wiser to change your guess to the other closed door. Wouldn't your first door have a 50-50 chance versus that door? Put it another way, the revelation of the one booby-prized door simply offers you a new choice between the two remaining doors which is 50-50. Why should we change our guess to the other closed door?

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

Because the universe likes absurdity.

Quote

When the player first makes their choice, there is a 2/3chance that the car is behind one of the doors not chosen. This probability does not change after the host opens one of the unchosen doors. When the host provides information about the 2 unchosen doors (revealing that one of them does not have the car behind it), the 2/3 chance of the car being behind one of the unchosen doors rests on the unchosen and unrevealed door, as opposed to the 1/3 chance of the car being behind the door the contestant chose initially.

The given probabilities depend on specific assumptions about how the host and contestant choose their doors. A key insight is that, under these standard conditions, there is more information about doors 2 and 3 than was available at the beginning of the game when door 1 was chosen by the player: the host's deliberate action adds value to the door he did not choose to eliminate, but not to the one chosen by the contestant originally. Another insight is that switching doors is a different action from choosing between the two remaining doors at random, as the first action uses the previous information and the latter does not. Other possible behaviors of the host than the one described can reveal different additional information, or none at all, and yield different probabilities.

Many readers of vos Savant's column refused to believe switching is beneficial and rejected her explanation. After the problem appeared in Parade, approximately 10,000 readers, including nearly 1,000 with PhDs, wrote to the magazine, most of them calling vos Savant wrong.^[4] Even when given explanations, simulations, and formal mathematical proofs, many people still did not accept that switching is the best strategy.^[5] Paul Erdős, one of the most prolific mathematicians in history, remained unconvinced until he was shown a computer simulation demonstrating vos Savant's predicted result.^[6]

 

[smac97]

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

While on occasion I've relayed what mainstream science says on a topic, I've never declared that my perspective is "borne of inconvertible fact." 

Sure seems like you have.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

My point isn't and wasn't that you are postmodernism personified in every aspect of your life. Rather, it is that you seem to grab onto a few postmodern beliefs when doing so fits your aims.

Correlation is not causation.  That my beliefs and aims may coincide with a smattering of "postmodern beliefs" doesn't mean much.  I share 60% of my DNA with a banana, but that doesn't mean much, either.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

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

Oh, malarky.  I've been arguing with you for years.  And very little of what you have presented has been so outside my wheelhouse that I've felt incapable of meaningful discussion and debate about it.

There are certainly topics about which I am quite limited in my knowledge and competency.  For example, I think you'll find that I don't have a lot to say about debates over linguistic or translation issues.  I have no training in ancient Hebrew or Greek or Egyptian.  In such debates I almost always sit on the sidelines and watch.  And if I do participate, it will be to quote learned sources rather than expound my neophyte views.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

and is basically a postmodern attack on rationality that leaves us effectively in a perpetual state of epistemological relativism and obscurantism. You might not subscribe to postmodern thought generally, but you seem to want others to subscribe to postmodern values by politely pretending that your beliefs are just as valid as anybody else's.

There is nothing inherently "postmodern" in situating the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being "just as valid as anybody else's."

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

If you think your beliefs really are as rational as mine, we could have a rational discussion about it and use the tools of rationality to evaluate the actual evidence.

We have rational discussions all the time.

The problem I see is that you seem to believe you have a corner on the market.  That your beliefs are per se "rational," whereas anyone else's that depart from yours are less so.  That just doesn't work.  You have never come anywhere near establishing that your beliefs about God, etc. are rationally superior to anyon else's.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

The problem is that as you just conceded, your most important beliefs aren't based on rationality, they are based on "revelation from God."

The problem that I see is that you are in the thrall of scientism, that you think "rationality" can definitively disprove the existence of God.  I dispute that.  A lot.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

But that is a far cry from summarily declaring one's position to be "science," to be "fact" that others should "realize" and "accept," and so on.

Science is science.

And water is wet.  And circles are round.  Any other tautologies we can trade?

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

Even the parts of science that are incompatible with your religious beliefs.

I'm reminded of the recent episode where Dr. Anthony Fauci presumed to "represent science."  He literally said that.  See here:

Quote

DR. FAUCI: Right, exactly. Exactly. And to me, that's- that's unbelievably bad because all I want to do is save people's lives. That's what I have done for the last 50 years, 40 of which was 37 of which was leading the institute.

When I see people who scattered around misinformation and lies that can actually endanger the lives of people, but also it is very easy to pick out an individual and make them a target because that's what people can focus on. But you're talking about systems, you're talking about the CDC, you're talking about the FDA, you're talking about science in general.

Anybody who's looking at this carefully realizes that there's a distinct anti-science flavor to this. So if they get up and criticize science, nobody's going to know what they're talking about. But if they get up and really aim their bullets at Tony Fauci, well, people could recognize there's a person there. There's a face, there's a voice you can recognize, you see him on television. So it's easy to criticize, but they're really criticizing science because I represent science. That's dangerous.

To me, that's more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me. I'm not going to be around here forever, but science is going to be here forever. And if you damage science, you are doing something very detrimental to society long after I leave. And that's what I worry about.

A response to this statement in the Washington Examiner:

Quote

Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared on CBS's Face the Nation this weekend and discussed the emergence of the omicron variant and the threats it may or may not possess. During the conversation with host Margaret Brennan, the conversation turned to mounting criticism of Fauci in recent months. He claimed that any criticisms of him were, in essence, attacks on science. Fauci repeated that all of his recommendations were based on science.

“So it's easy to criticize [me], but they're really criticizing science because I represent science,” Fauci said. “That's dangerous. To me, that's more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me. I'm not going to be around here forever, but science is going to be here forever. And if you damage science, you are doing something very detrimental to society long after I leave. And that's what I worry about.”

This is the talk of tyrants. Fauci does not represent science. Fauci represents Fauci. What he says does not represent absolute thoughts or data — it only represents what Fauci has theorized or concluded. What Fauci and his team may have scientifically concluded could be different than what other scientists might have concluded. In fact, Fauci's scientific conclusions were actually quite different from other doctors' conclusions, such as those of Dr. Scott Atlas. Contrary to what he may think or what he may say, Fauci is one of many scientists. Fauci is not science.

This should raise all sorts of red flags for all sorts of reasons. First, the hubris of someone to suggest that his or her insight, recommendations, and opinions are the only acceptable science is tyrannical. Disagreement is an integral part of science — it incentivizes research to prove or disprove data. Second, arguing otherwise or declaring that Fauci's words are final seems like something ripped from the pages of medieval history. As often as Fauci has repeatedly changed his conclusions and recommendations, stating that he is the science would, under all logic, discredit science itself as not reliable.

(Emphasis added.)

See, I see you doing the same sort of thing as Dr. Fauci.  You conflate your opinion with "science."  You honestly seem to think that what you think is "science."  That your way of looking at things pertaining to the existence of God is the only plausible, reasonable, "rational" way of doing so.  To disagree with you is to disagree with "science" and "rationality" (and, therefore, to disagree with you is to be stupid, ignorant, dishonest, etc.).

I disagree with that.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

Let's take a specific example. I believe that what I've said in the past that you found most offensive is that revelation, spirits, etc. all contradict the known laws of physics.

You said: "As I've shown on this thread, the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla, proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."

You also said:

Quote

Quote

Nobody is "ignor{ing} scientific arguments."  We are all fine with science within its sphere and element.  But science, in its present form, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the existence of spirits.

Do you know how silly that sounds?

You said these things after having invoked a book written by Sean Carroll:

Quote

In the words of Sean Carroll:

There’s nothing in the practice of science that excludes the supernatural from the start. Science tries to find the best explanations for what we observe, and if the best explanation is a non-natural one, that’s the one science would lead us to. We can easily imagine situations in which the best explanation scientists could find would reach beyond the natural world. The Second Coming could occur; Jesus could return to Earth, the dead could be resurrected, and judgment could be passed. It would be a pretty dense set of scientists indeed who, faced with the evidence of their senses in such a situation, would stubbornly insist on considering only natural explanations. The relationship between science and naturalism is not that science presumes naturalism; it’s that science has provisionally concluded that naturalism is the best picture of the world we have available.

Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 134). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

I responded:

Quote

Sheesh.  Even Carroll doesn't go so far as you do.  He proposes that "science has provisionally concluded" some things. 

"Provisionally," as I hope you understand, means "subject to further confirmation; for the time being."  Synonyms for it include "temporarily" and "on certain conditions."  See also "subject to confirmation," "as a fill-in," "short-term," "for the present," "for now," and "tentatively."

But on this thread you have blown way past "provisionally" and are saying that Caroll's theory is "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."

Don't you see what you are doing here?

And here:

Quote

Quote

In any case, Sean Carroll has made a serious, provocative, science-based argument about how there is immense experimental evidence supporting the rigorousness of Quantum Mechanics within its "domain of applicability," and that surprisingly, this indicates that there can't be "spirits",

"Indicates that there can't be 'spirits?'"

Indicates?

What happened to "proves?"  As in "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist"?

Quote

at least not spirits strong enough to interact with known reality by moving a photon, moving an electron, or moving anything else that would be perceptible to us.

"At least not?"

"Known reality?"

"Perceptible to us?"

Again, what happened to "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist?"

Surely you understand that qualified terms like "at least not" and "known reality" and "perceptible to us" don't play well together with absolutist, conclusory terms like "strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla" and "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist"?

And here:

Quote

Quote

To answer these questions, the answer is no regarding "the existence of God, spirits, etc." The reason for that is that "God, spirits, etc." are undefined.

And yet you have characterized Carroll's theory as  "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."

So Carroll has "proven" that these "undefined" things (God and spirits) "don't exist?"  That's what "science" can do?  Disprove the existence of something that isn't even defined?

Quote

However, I would say Carroll is a qualified expert with regards to Effective Quantum Field Theory and the experimental data supporting it, including what it implies about the likelihood of there being unknown energy or particles that can affect our day-to-day reality, including signals to or from the atoms that make up our brains. 

"What it implies about the likelihood?"  

What happened to "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist"?

Do you see just a wee bit of difference between

(A) a theory that "provisionally" (as Carroll elsewhere put it) "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of spirits

versus

(B) a theory that, as you assert, is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla" and "proves" the non-existence of spirits?

I'm getting whiplash reading your posts.  

I think you are in the thrall of scientism.

I am a huge fan of science, but I also think it has limited application in ascertaining the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc.

You are vastly overstating what Carroll says.  You are vastly overstating what "science" can prove or disprove.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

I've claimed that it isn't just that physics hasn't found evidence of these things. I've claimed that effective quantum field theory--the most robust theory in all of science, positively demonstrates that such things can't exist.

"I've claimed" being the operative wording here.

Carroll posits a theory that "provisionally" "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of Spirit.

You then come along and assert that "effective quantum field theory--the most robust theory in all of science, positively demonstrates that such things can't exist."

I see vast differences between what Carroll seems to have said and what an over-enthusiastic neophyte who read his book has construed.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

If such things did exist, they would have manifest themselves in specific experiments that have been exhaustively performed.

Wow.  No unproven assumptions there.

Assumptions about things that according to you have not even been scientifically defined.

This is "science," is it?  Not scientism?  Not dogmatism?  

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

The state of the world is that one of the following two things must be true:

• Effective quantum field theory is fundamentally wrong, despite all of the evidence indicating the opposite within the energy levels, time intervals, and distances in space that are applicable.
• Spirits, revelation, etc. really don't exist.

Pinker actually touches upon this in a slightly different context. When discussing the replicability crisis in psychological research and how proper Bayesian reasoning can help avoid such problems, he gives an example of a eminent psychologist who published a paper in a prestigious journal that claimed he'd demonstrated some students had ESP and could predict some images that were hidden behind a screen. Pinker said:

Quote

Not surprisingly, the effects failed to replicate, but that was a foregone conclusion given the infinitesimal prior probability that a social psychologist had disproven the laws of physics by showing some undergraduates some porn. When I raised this point to a social psychologist colleague, he shot back, “Maybe Pinker doesn’t understand the laws of physics!” But actual physicists, like Sean Carroll in his book The Big Picture, have explained why the laws of physics really do rule out precognition and other forms of ESP.

Pinker, Steven. Rationality (p. 160). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

That is the reality of where we are with science--the laws of physics really do rule out spirits, revelation, and such.

Pinker quoting Carroll.  And Carroll posits a theory that "provisionally" "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of spirits.

And according to you, this means "the laws of physics really do rule out spirits, revelation, and such."

Thus sprach Analytics.

Oh.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

You don't have to accept what science says on the matter,

See?  You are doing it again.  Equating your opinion with "what science says."

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

but you are missing the point when you say "rational minds can disagree."

Actually, I say "reasonable minds can disagree."

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

The issue isn't whether rational minds disagree. The issue is whether there is a rational argument that Sean Carroll is wrong.

Whether Carroll is "wrong" in his theory that "provisionally" "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of spirits?

And according to you, isn't the discussion over?  There is no debate to be had because "the laws of physics really do rule out spirits, revelation, and such."  That's it.  The debate is over.  Analytics has spoken.  To disagree with him is to deny rationality.  To disagree is to be stupid, ignorant, dishonest, or some combination thereof.  "Science is science," after all.  And Analytics is the receptable of "Science" in its purest form.

Or . . . not.  It might just be that Analytics is vastly overstating what "science" in 2021 can prove or disprove.  

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

So far, I haven't seen anybody engage his actual arguments on this specific point.

It's important to understand what Carroll is actually claiming. In his own words:

Quote

I’m not claiming that we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I’m claiming that we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things.

Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (p. 155). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

I dispute this. 

You said: "If such things did exist, they would have manifest themselves in specific experiments that have been exhaustively performed."

You have come nowhere near establishing this assumption.  That's all it is.  An assumption.  And not even one that I would call "scientific" in any meaningful sense of the word.

I reject the notion that the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc. is empirically testable.  

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

So what's your rational basis for claiming that science doesn't know the specific things that Carroll says it knows? 

Well, for one thing, "science" doesn't "know" anything.  It is an abstraction.  A compilation of data.  And that compilation is finite, incomplete, and shot through with assumptions, errors, and so on.

For another, Carroll has said that "science has provisionally concluded that naturalism is the best picture of the world we have available."  From this you extrapolate that Caroll's theory is "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."  See, that's not "science."  That's an overzealous amateur exceeding the measure of scientific evidence by a country mile.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

I think the real issues are A) the quality and quantity of the evidence, and B) the presuppositional lens each individual uses to view such evidence.

The historical reality of the Tower of Babel (in general rather than specific terms) is a question of fact.  Whether it actually happened or not is an unknown.  There is no way to definitively say it did or did not happen.  The evidence regarding it is scant.  But the same can be said for virtually all ancient events, so the conclusion one reaches is going to be much more about the presuppositional lens he uses to view that evidence.

I disagree. The problem with the story of the Tower of Babel is that almost all of the details of it are scientifically impossible.

I don't think so.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

There wasn't a single language,

Wow.  All sorts of assumptions built into those five words.  

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

and God didn't confound that language to prevent anybody from building a tower to heaven.

And more assumptions.  According to you, "God" couldn't have done anything because you presuppose that God does not exist.  

This is "science," is it?

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

In all likelihood,

"In all likelihood"?  What on earth does that mean, Mr. I-Represent-"Science"?

You perpetually assert that "science" has empirically disproved the existence of God, revelation from God, "spirits," and so on.  

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

sometime in the first or second millennium B.C., a Hebrew storyteller heard about the magnificent architecture in Babylon, so he made up a story about building a tower in Babylon that was integrated with the Mesopotamian stories about a global flood that they inherited. Others liked the story, so it was passed down. That's it. Speculations of real-world history that goes beyond that are simply fanciful.

I get that this is your opinion.  What I don't get is how this is scientifically-established and incontrovertible fact.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

Well, no.  I think you do others a disservice when you reserve pure motives for yourself ("I want to get to the truth of the matter") but impute impure motives onto them.

I didn't impute motives on anyone. I specifically said, "Our respective rights to choose our own goals is something that we can agree on."

Yes, you do impute motives when you reserve to yourself the pursuit of "truth" ("I want to get to the truth of the matter") while stating that others who disagree with you have - as you put it - "different goals" (than "get{ting} to the truth of the matter").

You declare that you are in the pursuit of truth and that we are not.  That is nothing but an imputation of motives.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

If your goal is theoretical in nature--to simply figure out the truth of the matter, that's great! However, when your method to achieve that goal includes things like "revelation from God" that blatantly contradict the methods of rationality,

I disagree.  I think "rationality" has limitations.  I can therefore use it and other means to acquire knowledge and "truth."  I can walk and chew gum at the same time.  I can use rationality, empiricism, evidentiary analysis, philosophy, and revelation from God to "get to the truth of the matter."

As Mr. Spock so aptly put it: "Logic, logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom ... not the end."

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

it's proving my point about which one of us is even attempting to employ the normative tools of rationality and which one of us is abandoning those tools when they don't lead to the desired beliefs. 

I don't abandon the tools of rationality.  I use them for their proper, non-ubiquitous purposes.  I can and do use other tools as well.

A hammer can drive a nail home, but it does a poor job of painting a wall.  But using a brush to paint doesn't mean I "abandon" the hammer altogether.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

If you can bring yourself to concede that people who have reached differing conclusions about Noah have also "want{ed} to get to the truth of the matter," then that's great.

Sure. But if their goal is wanting to get to the truth of the matter, but their methods rely upon things that rationality has thoroughly discredited, you can't say their beliefs are "rational," given what that word actually means.

"Rationality" does not discredit the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc.  

You are speaking of "rationality" in the same way that Dr. Fauci speaks of "science."

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

Maybe their beliefs are "based on revelation from God" and maybe they are even true, but they aren't rational.

That's simply not so.  Daniel Peterson has some interesting thoughts on this here:

Quote

I’m not arguing for the priority of irrationality over disciplined reason. My discomfort with Robert Reilly’s argument isn’t so much that he privileges reason over revelation, although I definitely think that, if one has to err, it would be best to err in the opposite direction. My fundamental objection is that he wants to separate them at all, and to privilege one — whichever one it be — over the other. No sentient, properly functioning, mature human being is without reason, and reason should constantly organize and evaluate experience, just as experience should inform and guide reason. Revelation, in my judgment, should never be detached from rationality, but rationality shouldn’t be divorced from empirical experience, either, not even if it’s experience with God and the divine.

You seem to think that one can only build an intellectual house with one tool.  I submit that we have many tools at our disposal, and that if I use one for framing the walls and then set it aside to use another tool to paint the ceiling, I have not "abandoned" the former tool.  I am just using it for the (limited) purposes for which it can and ought to be used.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

My sense, though, is that you have not, and cannot, concede this.  For you, our motives are suspect. 

It's shocking how much you misunderstand me.

Well, you are the guy who juxtaposed your noble motives ("I want to get to the truth of the matter") with ours ("hav{ing} different goals" than "get{ting} to the truth of the matter").

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

You want to get to the absolute truth of the matter.  That is what you care about more than anything else. Great to hear.

Yes, I do.  But that's not what youo said before.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

But in the pursuit of this goal, you adulterate the normative rules of rationality and base your beliefs partially on "revelation from God."

That's like telling a contractor "You adulterate the normative rules of construction by not using a hammer to paint the ceilings!"

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

And you are offended that I claim "revelation from God" has been thoroughly discredited by the tools of rationality.

I'm not offended by your opinion.  I just disagree that you equate posit a one-to-one correlation between your opinion and "science" and "rationality."

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

You think I'm intolerably arrogant to claim I've learned that. Isn't that basically where we are at?

I think it was arrogant for Dr. Fauci to declare to criticize him is to "criticize science" because, according to Fauci, "I represent science."

I likewise think it is arrogant to declare for Person A to declare to Person B that Person A "want{s} to get to the truth of the matter" but Person B has "different goals" from that.

I think it is wrong to equate one's opinion about "science" and "rationality" to be equivalent to those things, and that anyone who departs from that opinion "adulterate{s} the normative rules of rationality."

I think it is wrong to (vastly) overstate what "science" has proved or can prove relative to the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc.  I think it is presumptuous in the extreme to declare things like "If such things did exist, they would have manifest themselves in specific experiments that have been exhaustively performed."

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

You are framing yourself as a truth-seeker, and those who have different perspectives from yours as not being truth-seekers.  This leaves you free to label yourself as honest and truth-seeking and rational, and people like me as . . . not these things, as having "a different goal" than these things.

My point isn't to judge you.

And yet, you did.  It's not that big a deal.  I've never met you, and I don't particularly care about your subjective opinion of religionists.  But when you include in your argument the notions things like A) you are seeking truth and religionists are not, B) "science" has empirically disproved the existence of God, spirits, revelation, etc., C) people who disagree with you have abandoned rationality, then I'm going to point out those things.  I don't think they are correct.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

You are really concerned with feeling respected and feeling that we are two "rational minds" that disagree about some unknowable things.

I'm not really that interested in "feeling respected" by irreligious persons such as yourself.  I'm more interested in rebutting what I believe to be falsehoods and flawed arguments.

On 12/2/2021 at 6:38 PM, Analytics said:

My point is simply that science has proven to a surprisingly high degree of certainty that what people call "revelation from God" isn't authentic and isn't even plausible.

And yet, "science" has done no such thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 6, 2021 by smac97

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

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?

I meant “…how that universe works for me / us.” Our thoughts and feelings help us perceive, describe and apply the universe, at least pieces of it. That part of it that we cannot see, define or control would still definitely impact us, but all we can experience of it is what we think and feel.

Given that bias is the greater of the processes operating in our convictions and choice-making, choosing a rule would follow the stronger of our inclination for expansion or preservation (I used the term “justification” previously, but that is more accurately the means by which preservation is achieved and maintained). Since we know we have bias, the distinctions are in whether we have a bias for expansion, a bias for preservation, or a bias for coordinating the two. When we have those subjective “swelling motions” and conclusions that a rule is good (Alma 32), what else would anyone choose, anyway?

So, when setting rules of thoughts and feelings for a discipline, a rule that leads to the expansion and preservation of what works (i.e., brings satisfaction individually and collectively) would sift out a rule that doesn’t do both, and the biases evolve.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Any language that tries to explain something that is beyond the limits of language (such as God) eventually has to rest on contradiction. There's no other way to describe it. So yes, the omni's are "gibberish" but that doesn't mean they are false.

Wittgenstein, clearly one of the smartest philosophers who ever lived, started out as a positivist, working with Russell and others then reversed his position totally.

So Positivists use W's early work as a reference and postmodernists use his later work as a reference.

He finally got his act together!

He occasionally attended Catholic mass

W:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/

"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence."

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  I'm content to point to my track record on this board.  I certainly have my flaws, but being unwilling or unable to defend my position isn't one of them.

I'd suggest it depends upon the position in question.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Reasonable minds can disagree" is an important principle.  We can argue about things all day long, but I generally bring that point up when the discussion comes to involve sentiments along the lines of "If you disagree with my opinion then you are stupid or evil or dishonest."

It's an important principle. Sure. But stating it is also a way to avoid debating the actual issues.

Another important principle that is applicable to my point is that: reasonable people can believe things that are not supported by well-reasoned arguments. Saying a person is either reasonable or stupid/evil/dishonest is not only a false dichotomy, it is also a red herring. The issue is whether or not somebody's position is supported by valid arguments, not whether they are a reasonably-intelligent all-around nice guy.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

See, the really important things are, in the end, untestable.

I disagree.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

 You have previously asserted that "science" (specifically, "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla") has disproved  the existence of "spirits and revelation." I found that assertion absurd on its face, and an abuse of "science," and an abject example of scientism.  I am perfectly fine with you not believing in these things, though.  Not because "science" has done what you say, but because I think a reasonably intelligent person living in 2021 can arrive at that conclusion.  Such a person can reach such a conclusion because, well, reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  The data are inconclusive. 

This is an excellent example of the issue and a case study worth exploring in detail. But to be sure I understand where you are coming from, are you accusing me of misunderstanding or misrepresenting the argument that Sean Carroll has articulated, or are you accusing him of being guilty of the sin of scientism and not understanding the physics well enough to know that the data are inconclusive? 

In either case, claiming the data are inconclusive and "reasonable minds can disagree" is an example of not defending your position.  

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Whether God exists is therefore a question of faith, and not an empirically testable/provable thing.

Whether God exists is a different question that whether there are spirits and revelation. If you understood the science Carroll teaches on the subject, you wouldn't conflate these issues. This doesn't mean you are stupid, evil, or dishonest. It just means you haven't seriously considered the argument defending a position you find to be absurd.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Because the universe likes absurdity.

 

One of my favorites. It makes no intuitive sense but is absolutely correct.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

One of my favorites. It makes no intuitive sense but is absolutely correct.

It screws with me every time it comes up. I hate it. I love absurdity, but hate game shows. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

It screws with me every time it comes up. I hate it. I love absurdity, but hate game shows. 

Part of the issue for me is it relies on certain behavior from the game show host. That is it assumes he offers the chance to switch every time. Maybe he just offers you the switch if you’ve already chosen the correct door. Or perhaps 2/3 of the time when you choose the correct door he’ll offer the switch compared to 1/3 of the time when you’ve chosen incorrectly. It’s always the unspoken assumptions that get you. 

[The Nehor]

The better way to visualize the Monty Hall problem to make it more intuitive is to change it to a million doors with only one prize. Then you pick one door and Monty Hall opens 999,998 doors that you didn’t pick and offers you the option to switch to the one remaining door or keep the door you picked. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It’s always the unspoken assumptions that get you

Every time, every way, everything. Always the unspoken assumptions. 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The better way to visualize the Monty Hall problem to make it more intuitive is to change it to a million doors with only one prize. Then you pick one door and Monty Hall opens 999,998 doors that you didn’t pick and offers you the option to switch to the one remaining door or keep the door you picked. 

That is very good. My pain is subsiding. 
 

Added:  Nope, it is back again. It is still Monty Hall. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Hold on. You're right that your original intuition - of your first guess having a 50% chance of being right - is incorrect, but I don't see why it is wiser to change your guess to the other closed door. Wouldn't your first door have a 50-50 chance versus that door? Put it another way, the revelation of the one booby-prized door simply offers you a new choice between the two remaining doors which is 50-50. Why should we change our guess to the other closed door?

In phase one, door 1 was a car, a goat, or a goat. In phase two, door 2 is now a car, a car, or a goat. Door 1 still has the original 1/3 chance of hiding a car, while door 2 now has 2/3 chance of hiding a car (door 3 having been revealed to hide a goat). The contestant may also receive various non-verbal cues from the host to his advantage, but that may be beside the point.

It’s almost like 2 + 2 = 4 except when it’s 22 (more information / context given), or 2 apples + 2 oranges = 2 apples (more information / context given). But this deals with probabilities, not counting.

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Part of the issue for me is it relies on certain behavior from the game show host. That is it assumes he offers the chance to switch every time. Maybe he just offers you the switch if you’ve already chosen the correct door. Or perhaps 2/3 of the time when you choose the correct door he’ll offer the switch compared to 1/3 of the time when you’ve chosen incorrectly. It’s always the unspoken assumptions that get you. 

Whether the host behaves consistently or not, the probabilities change in favor of door 2.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

Whether the host behaves consistently or not, the probabilities change in favor of door 2.

If the host only offers the chance to change when your answer is already the correct door, I would think the host’s behavior is absolutely relevant to the question.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

My question then is how can we apply this to the system of the universe itself? It doesn't contradict my assertion that some things are objectively knowable, does it? My understanding is that it actually proves that some things are knowable by providing an example of something that is known; we objectively know that we can't prove everything.

What it means is that we can come up with laws that define how the universe works (such as Theory of Relativity).  And many of those laws will be provable by the other laws that we know.  But it is impossible to create a "Universal Theory of Everything" because the theory, by the Incompleteness Theorem, will always be incomplete.  Some parts will always be unprovable (either true or false).

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

How does this imply we have to have faith in anything? How does it imply we must accept something as true or false? If something isn't knowable, isn't it better to say "I don't know"?

The parts that aren't provable are actually needed to prove other parts.  So if you say "I don't know", then those other parts can't be proven.

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

Interestingly, the only candidate for somebody who knows everything in the system of "the universe" is, hypothetically God. Have we now proven that God doesn't know everything?

The Incompleteness Theorems actually don't involve God (though some people have attempted).  It is only talking about axioms inside of a system.  God is usually outside of the system so His knowledge or lack thereof isn't affected.  If God is inside of the system, then yes, it would prove that God doesn't know everything (which is actually inline with my own understanding).

Interestingly, Godel also had a proof on the existence of God: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof.   It actually is a valid proof (proven by a computer, no less) but only if the axioms are true and that's where most of the criticism is targeted.  And then there's the issue that the god that is proven might not be the god that people worship

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If the host only offers the chance to change when your answer is already the correct door, I would think the host’s behavior is absolutely relevant to the question.

Is that how the Monty Hall Problem is presented? That would certainly eliminate the odds of door 2 being the one to hide the car. I haven't watched the game that closely, but the statistics of his behavior would interesting.

Edited December 6, 2021 by CV75

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I meant “…how that universe works for me / us.” Our thoughts and feelings help us perceive, describe and apply the universe, at least pieces of it. That part of it that we cannot see, define or control would still definitely impact us, but all we can experience of it is what we think and feel.

Given that bias is the greater of the processes operating in our convictions and choice-making, choosing a rule would follow the stronger of our inclination for expansion or preservation (I used the term “justification” previously, but that is more accurately the means by which preservation is achieved and maintained). Since we know we have bias, the distinctions are in whether we have a bias for expansion, a bias for preservation, or a bias for coordinating the two. When we have those subjective “swelling motions” and conclusions that a rule is good (Alma 32), what else would anyone choose, anyway?

So, when setting rules of thoughts and feelings for a discipline, a rule that leads to the expansion and preservation of what works (i.e., brings satisfaction individually and collectively) would sift out a rule that doesn’t do both, and the biases evolve.

There is a lot of overlap between what you are saying here and my original point in the OP, I think. I'm not sure I follow the biases for preservation/expansion concept though. Pinker talks a lot about how people naturally divide themselves up into tribes, and then get intense "my side" bias and employ "motivated reasoning" in favor of their team.

Quote

 

The mustering of rhetorical resources to drive an argument toward a favored conclusion is called motivated reasoning. The motive may be to end at a congenial conclusion, but it may also be to flaunt the arguer’s wisdom, knowledge, or virtue. We all know the barroom blowhard, the debating champ, the legal eagle, the mansplainer, the competitive distance urinator, the intellectual pugilist who would rather be right than get it right.

Many of the biases that populate the lists of cognitive infirmities are tactics of motivated reasoning. In chapter 1 we saw confirmation bias...

We are also motivated to regulate our information diet. In biased assimilation (or selective exposure), people seek out arguments that ratify their beliefs and shield themselves from those that might disconfirm them. (Who among us doesn’t take pleasure in reading editorials that are politically congenial, and get irritated by those from the other side?) Our self-protection continues with the arguments that do reach us. In biased evaluation, we deploy our ingenuity to upvote the arguments that support our position and pick nits in the ones that refute it. And there are the classic informal fallacies we saw in chapter 3: ad hominem, authority, bandwagon, genetic, affective, straw man, and so on. We are even biased about our biases. The psychologist Emily Pronin has found that, as in the mythical town where all the children are above average, a large majority of Americans consider themselves less susceptible to cognitive biases than the average American, and virtually none consider themselves more biased.

So much of our reasoning seems tailored to winning arguments that some cognitive scientists, like Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber, believe it is the adaptive function of reasoning. We evolved not as intuitive scientists but as intuitive lawyers. While people often try to get away with lame arguments for their own positions, they are quick to spot fallacies in other people’s arguments.

Pinker, Steven. Rationality (pp. 290-291). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

 

[webbles]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

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?

According to quantum theory, things around us are actually in a quantum wave that "collapse" at some point to become the things we interact with.  The famous Schrödinger's cat thought experiment is based on that: The cat is both dead and alive because (through a geiger counter) quantum particle can trigger or not trigger the death of the cat.  It isn't until the wave collapses, that we know whether the cat is dead or alive.

The problem, though, is what triggers the collapse of the wave.  There are a LOT of theories (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics for a subset of them), but one of the theories is called "Consciousness causes collapse" (or Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation).  That theory can be summarized as:

Quote

The rules of quantum mechanics are correct but there is only one system which may be treated with quantum mechanics, namely the entire material world. There exist external observers which cannot be treated within quantum mechanics, namely human (and perhaps animal) minds, which perform measurements on the brain causing wave function collapse.

So, according to that theory, our thoughts and feelings literally cause the collapse of the wave functions.  And since the universe is basically made up of wave functions, then yes, they "literally set the rules for how the universe works"  

Now, you might disagree with that theory but it currently can't be proven/disproven anymore than the other theories.  And some physicists/mathematicians/philosophers accept it.