| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/2/2008 3:14:27 PM | I admire the efforts of people like Richard Dawkins, Penn Gillette and James Randi for the encouragement of rational thought, however...
I've also seen them be very shrill, condescending and outright belligerent. But that's not the issue. What occurs to me is that they actually contradict themselves. They believe in what they say when they say they don't believe in God, psychic abilities and all things "supernatural" but don't they miss the point. Even in their experiments to debunk, it seems to me that it is an inherently flawed approach. Their experiments are really experiments in human behaviour, not in the inherent nature of reality.
In fact, science by its very definition operates on the basis that there are still things unseen and yet to be discovered. Time itself is not measured. A clock only measures a change of condition within the clock from one moment to the next. A "mechanism" for time remains elusive. So does a mechanism for "gravity."
Does this undermine their efforts? | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/2/2008 4:22:22 PM | None of that undermines their efforts at all.
One can always come up with arguments against “reality,” since all it is, is a brain interpreting things outside of it, using the cognitive tools that is available to it.
However, the people whom you have mentioned refer to human reality. A table IS SOLID to us, even though it is made up of moving atoms.
Time does exist, because we use it as a measurement of the passing of our lives. We DO get older, as the clock tics. If you don’t believe it, look at a picture of yourself twenty years ago, then look in the mirror. That’s time.
One might argue that it is simply the degeneration of cells, without them having the ability to completely regenerate. Whatever. It’s time.
Does a tree make a sound when it falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it? I only care, if it falls on me. | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/2/2008 9:18:31 PM | | Well the rational reply to your assault on rationalism is that what you should actually be talking about is the weakness of reductionism, give you a swift kick in the ass and take away your bong. | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/2/2008 9:58:13 PM | Time is measured by a clock just as surely as length is measured by a yardstick. Time and length are both concepts that have meaning only as we have defined them. Some people have a definition of god by which they can measure morality, while others use another more general concept. It is hard to say which way is best... or even that there is a best way to measure morality.
As for proving or disproving the existence of a supernatural, I am sure rationalists would be the first to say that it can be neither proven or disproven. But when every example of the supernatural that is put forward to be tested is shown to be not supernatural, one tends to see a pattern. | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/2/2008 11:38:42 PM |
Well the rational reply to your assault on rationalism is that what you should actually be talking about is the weakness of reductionism, give you a swift kick in the ass and take away your bong.
That's pretty much the brass tacks.
The emperical (scientific) method demands material, agreeable proof. That's what makes it a method and not a belief system. Material reality is only as good as it's best evidence. If you choose to believe in things that cannot or can never be proven - good for you and good luck. A lot of people are happy living that way - don't fight it.
If you question rationality, I have something to sell you.
"Crazy theories one: regular theories a billion." - Stephen J. Fry | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/3/2008 4:32:41 AM |
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Shakespeare
That's the whole problem.
Is there more to the Universe than can be conceptualized by rational thought ?
If the Universe is more than that, then the Universe is not a logical place.
Einstein showed very clearly that the physicality of the Universe, height, depth, length and time, are purely subjective dependant upon the point of view of the observer. Different points of view can make the same phenomena wildly different, yet real just the same.
Is the Universe logical ?
Is the rationalist like the lottery player who desperately wants to find a logical pattern in the numbers where none really exists ?
It's not the fault of the Universe, that it doesn't live up to our expectations. | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/3/2008 5:20:27 AM |
Einstein showed very clearly that the physicality of the Universe, height, depth, length and time, are purely subjective dependant upon the point of view of the observer. Different points of view can make the same phenomena wildly different, yet real just the same.
Is the Universe logical ?
As long as a set of rules is followed, then certainly the universe is logical. Whether one fully understands those rules seems to be the problem. | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/3/2008 12:07:06 PM | The lottery player examines pages of past historical draws to find some sense to the number patterns.
When he thinks he has found something, he makes his prediction.
When his prediction doesn't come true, he goes back to his analysis.
He is convinced that ultimately he will find the logic behind the sequence.
Will we ultimately get it all figured out ?
Will there ultimately be a point where the Universe will not surprise us ?
Is there an ultimate, supreme logic behind everything ?
I think, if there is such an ultimate, supreme logic to the Universe, it is beyond our minds at our current state of evolution. | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/3/2008 3:13:57 PM |
I admire the efforts of people like Richard Dawkins, Penn Gillette and James Randi for the encouragement of rational thought, however...
Christopher Hitchens is also a major player in debunking religion and God.
I've also seen them be very shrill, condescending and outright belligerent.
I can assure you they aren't generally like that.
What occurs to me is that they actually contradict themselves.
You have to provide a specific example. But suppose you are right. Where do you find more contradictions: in region or in their though?
What's more these guys are always willing to reconsider their position and re-examine their arguments and admit errors and mistakes... religious people aren't.
They believe in what they say when they say they don't believe in God, psychic abilities and all things "supernatural" but don't they miss the point.
What's the point?
Even in their experiments to debunk, it seems to me that it is an inherently flawed approach.
I'm not sure what experiments you're referring to. How is their approach flawed? What is their approach?
In fact, science by its very definition operates on the basis that there are still things unseen and yet to be discovered.
People are the engine of science. Science is a human baby - "an intellectual baby" so to speak. We know there are more things to be seen and discovered but not because science tells us but because we know it's so.
Time itself is not measured. A clock only measures a change of condition within the clock from one moment to the next. A "mechanism" for time remains elusive. So does a mechanism for "gravity."
So?
What's wrong with saying, "I don't know" rather than posing an explanation that involves God? | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/3/2008 5:32:33 PM |
The lottery player examines pages of past historical draws to find some sense to the number patterns.
When he thinks he has found something, he makes his prediction.
When his prediction doesn't come true, he goes back to his analysis.
He is convinced that ultimately he will find the logic behind the sequence.
Why do you think that he will not find that the pattern is a probability factor of a fixed set of numbers? The human mind has been exploring the universe for a relatively short period of time. For the amount of knowledge that we have already acquired in that short time, I would bet my money on an eventual full explanation of the mysteries of the universe within 100,000 years... unless we kill ourselves off first. I'm in no hurry for either possibility. | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/3/2008 7:26:45 PM | If it were hypothetically possible, when man has explained away all there is left to explain......
these questions will be likely to appear
Will Jeopardy still have a fan-base?
What line of work would a philosopher seek? Fisherman? Emu-herder?
and lastly,
what would be next?
| |
|
| Rationalism/reductionism
Posted: 7/3/2008 7:49:44 PM | First of all Hiker, chill. Since I don't own a bong, never have, you have nothing to take. I consider myself a fairly rational person and am always willing to stand corrected. It's easier to change an idea than a belief. So you're probably right, let's call it the fault of reductionism. You say "toe-may-toe..."
However, as much as someone might say "I believe," so are the likes of Penn Gillette and Richard Dawkins say "I don't believe." Each is an act of faith since either is a subjective statement. So much remains unknown, far more than is known. For instance, consider the fact that the universe is apparently ruled by two wholly different, mutually exclusive laws. Scientists are struggling with that. Some have resorted to a theory (Strings or M, whichever you prefer) that, at present, makes no significantly testable predictions but many scientists (i.e. Brian Green) are passionate proponents.
Examples of experiments. Efforts to disprove "psychics" are done by subjecting individuals to a series of tests that involve reenacting situations such as card and palm reading. But what are they trying to prove? That people will react according to their beliefs? We already know that. That seems more like a behavioural experiment. Yeah, it proves the concept but doesn't really show anything new.
Finally, they assert what they think people should think but do they realize what they're asking people to give up? Let's see - go from a world where maybe, just maybe a person's life has a reason, purpose and maybe part of a grander scheme - and that when someone dies, there's a chance they will continue or....
Am I making my point? | |
|
| Rationalism/reductionism
Posted: 7/3/2008 8:20:44 PM |
Finally, they assert what they think people should think but do they realize what they're asking people to give up? Let's see - go from a world where maybe, just maybe a person's life has a reason, purpose and maybe part of a grander scheme - and that when someone dies, there's a chance they will continue or....
I don't see how they are asking anyone to give up a reason or purpose for living... and it is hard to exclude onesself from being part of a grander scheme of humanity if one is already a member.
As for dying, it seems to be an individual's choice whether it is in his best interest to believe in an afterlife or not. Even if you cannot fathom why it makes sense to not believe in an afterlife doesn't mean that that belief is not best for them. I've never seen a cogent rationalist argue that a person should not believe, they only point out the logical fallacies that some beliefs contain. | |
|
| Rationalism/reductionism
Posted: 7/3/2008 8:44:24 PM | "I've never seen a cogent rationalist argue that a person should not believe, they only point out the logical fallacies that some beliefs contain."
That makes sense. But have you ever felt you were tripping over your own keyboard in trying to express an idea. And I spent 20 years in journalism. I must be getting out of practice.
But with a nod to Marshall McLuhan, is the rationalism message lost in the delivery? I'm sorry but some of these guys do come off as terribly arrogant. I saw Dawkins in an interview and he came off as something of a dismissive, aristocratic academic. And have you ever seen an episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullsh1t!"? | |
|
| Rationalism/reductionism
Posted: 7/3/2008 8:53:01 PM | | Haven't seen Bullsh1t but I will agree with you that some people tend to treat rationalism as a fundamentalist religion that should be proselytized. They just haven't grasped the whole concept imho. | |
|
| Rationalism/reductionism
Posted: 7/3/2008 11:37:56 PM | I've never seen Dawkins act belligerent, even after watching clips of him on numerous anti-evolution videos, where they would love to portray him as such. He has been **stardized by so many quote mining, video cut/paste, anti-science jerks that I can't blame him if he loses his cool once in a while.
Even in their experiments to debunk, it seems to me that it is an inherently flawed approach. What debunking experiments are you talking about?
In fact, science by its very definition operates on the basis that there are still things unseen and yet to be discovered. Very true. There are many things that are not yet known. Some people have the courage to admit these gaps in knowledge, others fill these gaps with unsubtantiated claims.
The most arrogant sounding people I've seen are not the scholars, but the uneducated morons who think they know more than the ones who spend a lifetime learning and practicing the field of study they are discussing. They attempt to make up for their lack of knowledge with overpowering confidence and arrogance, essentially browbeating you into believing as they do. As an example, check out any venomfangx videos on youtube and you'll see what I mean. | |
|
| Rationalism/reductionism
Posted: 7/4/2008 12:17:05 AM |
However, as much as someone might say "I believe," so are the likes of Penn Gillette and Richard Dawkins say "I don't believe." Each is an act of faith since either is a subjective statement.
No, that's not what Dawkins is saying.
There are three possible answer to the question, "Does God exist?".
a) No.
b) Yes.
c) I don't know.
Dawkins believes c). He is labeled as an Atheist but he isn't. Atheists deny God's existence and are full of shit. There is a difference between, "I deny God's existence" & "I don't know if God exists".
So what's all the fuzz about?
When we are born, as Locke would put it, our mind is tabula rasa - blank, empty. The notion of God isn't in the mind - it's not present, not "installed". How do I know this? I remember the first time I heard the word God and asked, "What's God?" I asked a similar question the first time I heard the name Santa Claus.
It follows that those who believe in God do so either
a) Completely on faith. In other words, people of faith do not have evidence to support or prove God's existence but believe in God anyway.
b) Or because they have evidence that God exists.
People who admit a) cannot claim religious authority. They cannot claim what's good, bad, moral or immoral and claim it is God's word.
Now people who want power and authority, like the Pope for example, cannot admit a) and will not admit a). That only leaves them with b). However, there is no evidence for or against the existence of God, yet they claim they know what's good, bad, moral or immoral and claim it is God's word.
Dawkins is debating people who claim b). I know, and I know Dawkins knows that such people can't possibly know what they claim they know, be there is a God, or no God.
People who claim b) hide behind the Bible/Koran/etc. What's worse, those people use and abuse those who claim a). | |
|
| Rationalism/reductionism
Posted: 7/4/2008 6:51:47 PM | >>>But with a nod to Marshall McLuhan, is the rationalism message lost in the delivery? I'm sorry but some of these guys do come off as terribly arrogant. I saw Dawkins in an interview and he came off as something of a dismissive, aristocratic academic. And have you ever seen an episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullsh1t!"?
In defense of Bullsh!t!, its a show based on questioning the rationally of other peoples beliefs. So its expressing ideas and attacking beliefs and ideals- so of course it seems dismissive- if they're trying to express why taxes, religion, and psychics are to be opposed, they naturally are going to be taking a negative stance. | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/4/2008 10:44:07 PM | Rational thought is just that, but I believe you are factoring in personal emotions to this line of thinking, that is consciously void of emotion. I find that you are judging the people you have listed, for being human, and that should have no relevance to rational thought. As many intellegent or brilliant people are less than spectacular as a human being would be measured.
The reason for arrogance, etc. may arise due to popularity, position, fame, and other factors.
I believe that rational thinking does not necessarily have to be of one mindset, if free thinking is the environment. For example, when working an experiment, one will examine and try many different positions to find the answer. Once an answer is found, a personal position may change based on the findings. Experiment 1 in one area, may be contradictory to Experiment 2 from a different area, when compared to each other.
I would caution about making hasty decisions. | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/5/2008 7:04:43 PM | There is no such thing as 'rational' thought or a 'rational' man. It is impossible to be other than subjective; there are only conceits that one is rational. The greater the conceit in that regard, the more laughable the owner's claim that s/he is 'intelligent'.
These 'great lights' (Dawkins, et al.) haven't managed to realize that human knowledge is far too limited (and I use 'limited' only because every possible term is an equally vast understatement) to grasp the true workings of the universe. And oh, yes, they are indeed arrogant about their 'brilliance'. Too much irony. | |
|
| rationalism
Posted: 7/5/2008 8:44:50 PM | In defense of rationalism I must point out the obvious self fulfilling fallacy in this statement:
It is impossible to be other than subjective
I couldn't know the workings of Dawkin's mind, but to say that he overestimates human knowledge and that he claims more than working theories of the workings of the universe would be a gross exaggeration to ascribe to any reputable scientist. | |
|
| rationalism
Posted: 7/5/2008 11:43:25 PM | | Ah crud. I don't know why I was thinking 'Dennett' when I saw 'Dawkins'. I'll just slink back to Lurkerville now. | |
|
| rationalism
Posted: 7/6/2008 8:36:23 PM | Let us not forget Carl Sagon who was probably one of the first to see the danger of a world with dangerous weapons and religion. Dawkins had to of been inspired by him. Carl Sagons book. (Demon Haunted world) Science, a candle in the dark. Is a must read. Sagon is more diplomatic though in his critisism of religion.
They are both right in the fact the supersticious beliefs greatly out weigh rational thought in this world, and the free-thinkers have the duty to spreak up for their Ideals, or else we will end up with a world religious dictatorship, and no free thought. | |
|
| Rationalism/reductionism
Posted: 7/14/2008 1:42:07 AM | Haha, the bong reply was particularly funny to me personally because most people probably don't even know what reductionism is (nor rationalism for that matter).
And just a small correction...science isn't just empiricism. It's this terrific blend of rationalism and empiricism. Sometimes it's proposing a hypothesis and doing experiments to increase confidence in that hypothesis by comparing it to that empirical evidence, and sometimes it's looking at a large set of empirical evidence and then trying to come up with a hypothesis that explains why the data looks the way it does. Kind of a self-sustaining loop. | |
|
| The fault of rationalism
Posted: 7/14/2008 8:43:37 AM | I think the original goal of rationalist philosophy is actually quite noble; to try and harmonise our minds and emotions with the cosmos through careful use of our intellect and the development of virtue.
Religion is a sensitive and controversial topic for many people. The question of science and religion is a subset of the question of religion as a general phenomenon, and how it relates to various areas of human life.
Clearly some feel a religious outlook on life (or at least a belief in some deity) is totally incompatible with scientific view of the world. Others may feel differently.
When 'rationalism' comes up I think of the tradition of people like Liebniz, Kant, Descartes, Einstein, and others who combined a rigorous exploration of the universe using logic and science with a deep sense of wonder and awe towards reality and its knowability. You don't have to be a theist to wonder and desire to know. I find that is a good source of spirituality, if one can use that term, without abandoning reason and rationality. | |
|
Home
login 
