Ship of Fools: The Idolisation of Reason

Thread: The Idolisation of Reason Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026585

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

It seems to me that in some situations, including this forum, we operate on the assumption that the only important form of knowledge is that which results either from logical analysis or from the testing of falsifiable predictions.

I accept such knowledge is important, and has been transformative in our societies. However, I believe it is only a part of our engagement with the world, and phenomenologically not the most important part. I think that there is a mythologisation of these forms of knowledge, that ignores the elements of the subjective in the social construction of it and is used to try and silence other valid forms of knowing.

What do you think ?

(Yes, this op was partially triggered by assertions about what serious debate is that were made in hell, and yes I realise the inherent paradox of trying to reason about these topics.)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was just chatting with que sais-je on another thread about David Hume's assertion, that 'reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions'.

It's something of a grenade thrown into post-Enlightenment thought, and maybe for that reason, is often disregarded.

But its implications are quite interesting - for example, that reason does not generate desires or intentions or attachments to things.

[ 27. November 2013, 19:07: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It seems to me that in some situations, including this forum, we operate on the assumption that the only important form of knowledge is that which results either from logical analysis or from the c
I accept such knowledge is important, and has been transformative in our societies. However, I believe it is only a part of our engagement with the world, and phenomenologically not the most important part. I think that there is a mythologisation of these forms of knowledge, that ignores the elements of the subjective in the social construction of it and is used to try and silence other valid forms of knowing.

What do you think ?

(Yes, this op was partially triggered by assertions about what serious debate is that were made in hell, and yes I realise the inherent paradox of trying to reason about these topics.)

Yes, I agree. The problem is not with reason, but with the placing of reason on a pedestal above all else. Things get out of balance with this sort of approach.

On the other hand, I could wish that more of the people I run into on a daily basis took an approach of 'testing falsifiable predictions', rather than 'looking for things which confirm my existing biases'.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It seems to me that in some situations, including this forum, we operate on the assumption that the only important form of knowledge is that which results either from logical analysis or from the testing of falsifiable predictions.

ISTM, this impression is created by assertions that [fill in blank] is quantifiable in the same manner as a falsifiable prediction. i.e that religion is as provable as a scientific hypothesis. They are different,* but assertions that they are not lead to reactions that are, perhaps, a tad too enthusiastic. or IMO.

*Difference does not quantify importance.

Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on :

Doublethink, the psychiatrist Iain Mcgilchrist agrees with you, and his book The Master and his Emissary outlines his - well, his reasons, but also his knowledge, understanding, and his big-picture view of the world, which cannot be reduced to reason alone.

He uses a right brain-left brain schema (while acknowledging that reality is too complex for most populist schemas of this type) to describe the types of brain activity in which reason only plays a small role, such as empathy, music, metaphor, humour, motivation, and creativity.

Most importantly from a religious point of view (IMO), he sees the experience of transcendence as a right brain phenomenon. Transcendence for most people is accessed through love, art, religion or nature - none of which require "left brain" logical understanding.

It was on this SoF website that I came across this quote (attributed to the singer Zappa and to scientist Clifford Stoll on the internet.)

quote:
Data is not information
Information is not knowledge
Knowledge is not understanding
Understanding is not wisdom.

Reason works with data and information, and some types of knowledge, but is impaired when it tries to work with other types of knowledge that are seen as subjective. Wisdom takes all of these into account, yet goes beyond them.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

The real spring in the clockwork is imagination - the ability to think of a thing not thought before. Logic, analysis, taxonomy are all ways of articulating an idea, but are not the thing itself. The danger I see is that the means are seen as the proof.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The real spring in the clockwork is imagination - the ability to think of a thing not thought before. Logic, analysis, taxonomy are all ways of articulating an idea, but are not the thing itself. The danger I see is that the means are seen as the proof.

Yes, that's nice. I would add desire as well. Most people actually want certain things, or are attached to certain things, but this does not happen via reason.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

I don't think I am too wrong in saying that Descartes is generally regarded historically as the ultimate champion of reason, and, of course, his famous cogito ergo sum springs to mind.

The basic idea, of course, is that no matter how much I may doubt, my doubting involves thinking, which is itself dependent on my existing. Thus I cannot think unless I first exist in a state of consciousness. Reason is therefore dependent on consciousness, which is itself an experience. Even unconscious entities which 'reason', such as computers, are merely extensions of human reason. Descartes' starting point was the fact that he knew that he existed. Even if his awareness of reality was an illusion, there was still someone - the subject - doing the experiencing and therefore the thinking. His act of ratiocination merely confirmed what he already knew (by experience) about his own ontological status.

Therefore it is entirely logical to say that our reasoning depends on our experience of our own existence, i.e. our consciousness. Thus reason itself demonstrates that it itself is not supreme.

But if logic is not supreme, that does not imply that it can be dispensed with. The principle of explosion in classical logic demonstrates the absurdity of embracing contradiction.

One thing I am sure of, however, is that on the day of judgment, I will not be judged on the internal coherence of my theological system. The neo-pseudo-gnostics in the Christian Church who think that God is obsessed with the organisation of information in people's brains, are worshipping a false god, namely, reason itself.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It seems to me that in some situations, including this forum, we operate on the assumption that the only important form of knowledge is that which results either from logical analysis or from the testing of falsifiable predictions.

Blame it on the Enlightenment. Science type thinking became the main spring of philosophy because Newton's Experimental Philosophy delivered results - his theory of gravity works. But that approach only applies to things which are repeatable, predictable, capable of shared observation.

Philosophy struggles with the individual, unanalysable, stuff which makes up our life. "While we are reasoning concerning life, life is gone; and death, though perhaps they receive him differently, yet treats alike the philosopher and the fool" said Hume. Much philosophy seems to me just silly system building (Hume again, "When a philosopher has once laid hold of a favourite principle, which perhaps accounts for many natural effects, he extends the same principle over the whole creation, and reduces to it every phenomenon though by the most violent and absurd reasoning").

But all scientific laws end up as mathematical equations and beautiful as mathematics is, there must be more to the universe. Blake says
"When the Sun rises, do you not see a round Disk of fire somewhat like a Guinea? O no, no, I see an Innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying `Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty.' I question not my Corporeal or Vegetative Eye any more than I would Question a Window concerning a Sight I look thro it & not with it". Which I think is part of Firenze's point. "a round Disk of fire somewhat like a Guinea" is a scientific view but that isn't what makes the sun wonderful.

There, Hume and Blake combined. The Enlightenment meets the Counter-Enlightenment. Very self indulgent of me but I couldn't resist. Last quote for over optimistic scientists and philosophers, from Montaigne: "You can walk on stilts but you still have to sit on your own bum."

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Quetzacoatl

quote:
I was just chatting with que sais-je on another thread about David Hume's assertion, that 'reason is and ought to be the slave of the passions'.

I find this observation of Hume a welcome corrective to the notion that reason trumps desire, when in many instances it presents self-interest (often unenlightened) as rational and objectively virtuous. Economic and social theories presenting themselves as scientific are notorious in this respect e.g. utilitarianism, neo-liberalism, Marxism, Fascism and so on.

I have long been intrigued as to how the Enlightened founders of the USA, men of reason and natural rights, could have been slave owners. The trick was to recognise that some humans are less than other and, therefore (logically), are not to be accorded what to others are natural rights. In other words, Enlightenment+Slave-Owning led to racism. Passion ruled reason.

On a more theological note the essence of God is his Love, all else (including reason) flows (logically) from that. As Isaac Watts wrote "Where reason fails with all her powers/There faith prevails and love adores."

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Kwesi

Slavery is a nice example. I suppose there is often an unchallenged premise in these things - for example, that black people are inferior.

Wasn't part of the British Imperial justification that they were civilizing savage and primitive people? It's possible that some people did challenge that view, but perhaps they were drowned out, at least initially.

I remember the old feminists would talk about consciousness-raising, and they had a point, that for example, patriarchal assumptions have often been so unconscious as to seem 'natural'. Then for a while, reason is helpless before them, because they are not even recognized.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I forgot to say that depth psychology has had a big impact (I think), since it has accustomed us to thinking that lots of ideas and feelings are covert. If they are covert (unconscious), they cannot be challenged, or even discussed. Hence, the idea of consciousness-raising, which is really hard. Jung called consciousness a crime against nature!

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I have long been intrigued as to how the Enlightened founders of the USA, men of reason and natural rights, could have been slave owners. The trick was to recognise that some humans are less than other and, therefore (logically), are not to be accorded what to others are natural rights. In other words, Enlightenment+Slave-Owning led to racism. Passion ruled reason.

I agree with you. When we consider any two groups some will see differences, other similarities. We can find any number of example from ancient Greece onwards.

The stronger group define a certain dividing line between them and the others. The others may be black, women, children, gays, Jews whatever. Then some start to claim that the similarities between us and them are more important than the differences. This happens with slavery but with the other groups also. It forms a template for all liberation groups.

Those who see the similarities often build on the arguments of previous groups: arguments for female emancipation draw on anti-slavery ones and so on. A redefinition of what it is to be counted as human eventually becomes part of the language. Usually emotion is used to provide 'leverage'. You suggested that for slave owners passion ruled reason, the knack is to change the passion and the reason will follow!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I think the problem isn't reason - it's a particular idea of what reason is and does. Reason as working out how to control things.

Reason in a broad sense isn't opposed to emotion intution etc. Reason in a broad sense is just making our meanings available to other people. It's making sense of ourselves. That's what logic is - it's not a machine for reaching conclusions. Logic is a method of preserving meaning. A logical contradiction is just something that doesn't mean anything. A contradiction is something that can't possibly be true under any circumstances.
So reason is what turns intuition, emotion, etc - things that can make sense only to us - into things that make sense to other people.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Kwesi

Slavery is a nice example. I suppose there is often an unchallenged premise in these things - for example, that black people are inferior.

Wasn't part of the British Imperial justification that they were civilizing savage and primitive people? It's possible that some people did challenge that view, but perhaps they were drowned out, at least initially.

I think you've got it exactly backwards. It wasn't racism that led to slavery, it was slavery that led to racism. Slave owners didn't start out with the premise that black people are inferior, they started out with the premise that they wanted black people to perform unpaid labor and then came up with reasons as to why this was just (e.g. white people are better at running black people's lives than they are themselves). Likewise British Imperialism didn't proceed from the idea that everyone else were primitive savages, it started out with the idea that Britain should occupy other countries and strip them of resources and then invented justifications as to why this was a good thing (e.g. we're doing the savages a favor).

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Doublethink, I think and feel that you are right. Jokes aside, it seems to me that the rise of all the electronics into our lives has accelerated the issue. There is also the general demise of participation in the arts, except as spectator.

Thus in today's society, we soak up mostly others' ideas, and feelings are only useful insofar as they motivate us to accept what ideas are being sold us, and to motivate us to buy products and services.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It wasn't racism that led to slavery, it was slavery that led to racism. Slave owners didn't start out with the premise that black people are inferior, they started out with the premise that they wanted black people to perform unpaid labor and then came up with reasons as to why this was just (e.g. white people are better at running black people's lives than they are themselves). Likewise British Imperialism didn't proceed from the idea that everyone else were primitive savages, it started out with the idea that Britain should occupy other countries and strip them of resources and then invented justifications as to why this was a good thing (e.g. we're doing the savages a favor).

Hmmm. I see it in a slightly different manner. There has always been the us and them. We have used this as reasoning for as long as there has been reasoning. Racism and imperialism justifications became more extreme. Possibly as intellectual trends began to question such relationships. Always there, still are. We simply change what we define as Us, what we define as Them.

Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
It seems to me that in some situations, including this forum, we operate on the assumption that the only important form of knowledge is that which results either from logical analysis or from the testing of falsifiable predictions.

I accept such knowledge is important, and has been transformative in our societies. However, I believe it is only a part of our engagement with the world, and phenomenologically not the most important part. I think that there is a mythologisation of these forms of knowledge, that ignores the elements of the subjective in the social construction of it and is used to try and silence other valid forms of knowing.

What do you think ?

(Yes, this op was partially triggered by assertions about what serious debate is that were made in hell, and yes I realise the inherent paradox of trying to reason about these topics.)

It's interesting to see it described as being a characteristic of this forum, as I've always thought religious people tended to take exactly the opposite angle - I'd expect it to be a hotbed of other approaches to finding the truth.

Handwaving a lot, I'm very suspicious of talk about things like social construction.

I'm a huge fan of logical analysis / falsifiable predictions and all that myself, although I tend to restrict it to specific domains - it's the best thing for factual questions, but not so useful in areas like morals.

Falsifiable predictions will tell you guns kill people, but aren't so useful when deciding whether it's good or bad to shoot.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

msstevens

quote:
I'm a huge fan of logical analysis / falsifiable predictions and all that myself, although I tend to restrict it to specific domains - it's the best thing for factual questions, but not so useful in areas like morals.

On the whole I'm much in agreement with your position, mstevens, particularly in relation to the the arts and social sciences and questions of value. I wonder, however, to what extent science can be constrained by the principle of falsifiability. I am persuaded that Darwinianism is the most plausible explanation for the development of biological life, but is it falsifiable? Is the concept of "survival of the fittest" falsifiable or a tautology? What sort of experiment or observation could prove otherwise? I suppose I'm asking what constitutes a fact, apart from banalities such as guns can kill.

Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
msstevens
quote:
I'm a huge fan of logical analysis / falsifiable predictions and all that myself, although I tend to restrict it to specific domains - it's the best thing for factual questions, but not so useful in areas like morals.
On the whole I'm much in agreement with your position, mstevens, particularly in relation to the the arts and social sciences and questions of value. I wonder, however, to what extent science can be constrained by the principle of falsifiability. I am persuaded that Darwinianism is the most plausible explanation for the development of biological life, but is it falsifiable? Is the concept of "survival of the fittest" falsifiable or a tautology? What sort of experiment or observation could prove otherwise? I suppose I'm asking what constitutes a fact, apart from banalities such as guns can kill.

I think this can be made more philosophically solid in ways that I'm not qualified to do, but I'd go for "facts" constraining expectations in some way.

Taking "darwinianism" as the example, it makes predictions about the sorts of fossils we will find. If we started finding different kinds of rocks, we'd reduce the credibility of darwinianism. Although since there's so much evidence for it we would rightfully demand some pretty amazing rocks before we were convinced.

On a semi-religious angle, one problem I often have with religion is that religious people often seem to mix up factual and spiritual claims, and be reluctant to admit that science can be properly used to comment on the factual side.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

mstevens

Haven't had an opportunity here to say this so far, so welcome to the Ship.

A couple of points

1. Re Darwin, you can find threads aplenty in Dead Horses which explore scientific, philospophical and religious implications of evolution.

2. I'm intrigued. Why are you suspicious of talk "about things like social construction"? It seems germane to this thread as well.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Aren’t logic and reason the only things we have that differentiate us from other, baser, animals?

The only tools we humans have to actually make sense of this universe are logic and reason. We have nothing else. Take those facilities away and what remains is a mere ape.

Emotions and passions are all very well but they are nothing more than actions and reactions by another name. Sometimes those are good and useful, but they actually “explain” nothing. They may be explanations, the reasons why we do something, but in and of themselves they don’t explain anything.

If we want to understand anything then we must bring logic and reason to bear. Some people have a greater capacity for logic and reason than others, but the while of humanity relies on people having logic and rationality. As an example, we may not be able to understand the chemistry behind modern pharmaceuticals but we hope that someone does!

But, such is humanities flawed character, we don’t actually like those who are more logical and rational than ourselves. As children we dislike the smart kids (who get the right answers) favouring the popular. It isn’t until we get out of school and into the world of work, that being able to generate the right answer is valued more highly than being popular. At which point those who have the capacity for being “right” – the logical, the rational, the “clever” – tend to be (economically) valued more. This deepens the dislike, because the clever kids are now paid more than the kids who were popular. The clever kids are now the bosses.

So we need the clever, the logical, the rational, those who can come up with the right answer. They are the only ones who drive knowledge forward. The others, the less clever, the more reactive (for want of a better word), follow in their wake.

If we sat around waiting for passion and emotion to figure out how to make the crops grow better or to protect us from the wild animals or to how to heal someone who is sick, then humanity would have never survived.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Surely, it's not either/or. Somebody has to have the desire to improve crops, or find a cure for a disease, and then they can exercise their reason and ingenuity.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, it's not either/or. Somebody has to have the desire to improve crops, or find a cure for a disease, and then they can exercise their reason and ingenuity.

Motivation is distinct I agree, but the thread is about whether reason is idolised. My point is that it is not, in fact it is dispised more often than not.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I don't know that you want to work with too narrow a definition of 'reason'. Different eras favour different skills.

Case in point: my grandfather (fl. 1890s-1940s). He had the capacity to look at such mechanical agricultural innovations as came his way and build another one. But I doubt he was more than basically literate and numerate. Looking at the Stephensons and Brunels of the 19th century, I get the impression that kind of visionary practicality found its time.

So I think it's a mistake to say there are clever people and thick people. There are some people whose particular type of intelligence is well fitted to the current environment. But, come the apocalypse, will the ability to write functions in C++ be more or less useful than being able to build a shelter or grow food?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I don't know that you want to work with too narrow a definition of 'reason'. Different eras favour different skills.

Case in point: my grandfather (fl. 1890s-1940s). He had the capacity to look at such mechanical agricultural innovations as came his way and build another one. But I doubt he was more than basically literate and numerate. Looking at the Stephensons and Brunels of the 19th century, I get the impression that kind of visionary practicality found its time.

So I think it's a mistake to say there are clever people and thick people. There are some people whose particular type of intelligence is well fitted to the current environment. But, come the apocalypse, will the ability to write functions in C++ be more or less useful than being able to build a shelter or grow food?

But taking that kind of extreme isn't relevent.

If there is an apocolypse then C++ programmers won't be needed, but those people will have an certain level of intelligence that may well allow them to learn very quickly how to build shetlers, and indeed how to organise people to build more shelters more quickly, or how to grow crops more efficiently.

It will be the former C++ programmers that figure out how to build structures that will stay up rather than falling over killing their inhabitants. Because they have the intellectual ability to LEARN. Not because they have already aquired the knowledge.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Deano

quote:
Motivation is distinct I agree, but the thread is about whether reason is idolised. My point is that it is not, in fact it is dispised more often than not.

Deano, I suspect the balance of your conclusion is more right than wrong. Ever since before Socrates was invited to drink hemlock there have been powerful vested interests in the promotion of ignorance and prejudice. Those powers seem hardly less diminished in our own time.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

These conversations always remind me of Yeats:

the best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity.

From a poem, with the ironic title 'The Second Coming', well I think it's ironic - 'what rough beast ... slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?'

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

It will be the former C++ programmers that figure out how to build structures that will stay up rather than falling over killing their inhabitants. Because they have the intellectual ability to LEARN. Not because they have already aquired the knowledge.

Mebbe. Mebbe no. My social circle runs rather to scientists, engineers and techies. Some of them have practical skills (eg chemical engineering+joinery) some of 'em don't. I am arguing the unremarkable point that there are different sorts of intelligence - by which I mean the ability to grasp the world you encounter and deal with it successfully. The outcomes for individuals however is not always dependent on inherent ability - or, as it has been rather better put, the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, agree with that. For the tribe to survive and prosper, we need all kinds of intelligence - intellectual, emotional, intuitive, sensation type.

Posted by mstevens (# 15437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
mstevens

Haven't had an opportunity here to say this so far, so welcome to the Ship.

A couple of points

1. Re Darwin, you can find threads aplenty in Dead Horses which explore scientific, philospophical and religious implications of evolution.

2. I'm intrigued. Why are you suspicious of talk "about things like social construction"? It seems germane to this thread as well.

Thanks for the welcome!

I've posted a tiny bit before but I mostly lurk, I only comment occasionally when something grabs the interest.

I was handwaving a lot on the social construction thing, and could probably comment better if someone tried bringing it in in any specific way. It's just a general feeling that bringing that angle in on discussions of things like science is usually somewhere between wrong and irrelevant.

On the evolution front my views are generally those of Richard Dawkins from his early days before he started being a professional atheist.

I didn't want to particularly grab evolution to talk about, it was just a good example someone else mentioned.

Or to try something else: That Pope Guy was talking about helping the poor. I'd split his claims into a mix of spiritual - it's good to help the poor, and factual - which activities actually do help the poor.

Science(tm) has a place to comment on which things are good for the poor (for example, I was reading earlier in the week about a study suggesting that "giving them cash" is an effective strategy, and something else saying that free medical treatment is a good option), but is out of place in deciding whether to do them.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Not sure if this is off-topic or not, but one reason for the development of social construction theory was in response to essentialist theories.

An obvious example is in the study of sex and gender. Essentialist theories might state that men and women are basically X and Y - say, aggressive and timid, or sexy and demure, or workaholics and domestic, and so on.

Some feminists began to object to this, and argued that these categories are socially constructed, and not inherent.

So, it's a bit like the nature/nurture debate.

I don't think it has been applied so much in the hard sciences, but it has in things like the study of primates, etc. There are feminist primatologists, but I'm not sure there are feminist physicists, but you never know.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Re knowledge and reason being the 'only thing' the differentiates us from animals.

Don't think so. Consider music. Which hasn't brought us reasoned out 'good ideas' such as invading the neighbouring country or polluting the environment. Music hath charms that tameth the savage beast (not sure whose quote it is).

Are any of you living mistaken lives?

quote:
Friedrich Nietzsche
Life without music would be a mistake

Dismiss this at my peril, and the peril of everyone who is worthy of love.

quote:
Fred Neitzsche
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.

Given what is going on in Hell about some of this, I am glad to be thought insane by some of you.... and grateful to be dancing with the majority. [Smile]

Posted by GreyBeard (# 113) on :

If you can cope with reading about brain damage, there's a fascinating and well-respected book on the physical link between reason and emotion: Descartes Error, by Antonio Demasio.

Damasio is a neuroscientist who marshals evidence about brain damage and shows that the seemingly neat separation between emotion and reason isn't backed up by biology

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I have long been intrigued as to how the Enlightened founders of the USA, men of reason and natural rights, could have been slave owners. The trick was to recognise that some humans are less than other and, therefore (logically), are not to be accorded what to others are natural rights. In other words, Enlightenment+Slave-Owning led to racism. Passion ruled reason.

I think you have hit on something essential. Reason does not create either facts or value judgments; it operates on them once they enter the scene. If you start with the "fact" that non-Europeans are inferior, then reason can take that fact and run with it, coming up with all sorts of 100% reasonable and rational conclusions.

And once we've made our value judgments, reason helps us find justification for them, as if they were spawned by reason itself. Phrenology immediately comes to mind. How can we explain why these people are inferior? Look, how their skulls are shaped differently from ours! We also get this with sexism, where differences in the brain explain why women are only fit to be mothers and caretakers and not executives or scientists. The value judgment -- "women are inferior to men in these areas" -- is already there, and sexists use reason to justify it.

I am reminded of Thoreau's pseudowisdom, "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." The racist and sexist attitudes are the castles. The pseudoscientific findings of "reason" are the foundations that come along after the fact.

The prophet Jeremiah tells us "the heart is deceitful above all things." We might add the reason.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I'm inclined to agree with you, mousethief - and it is I think part of Croesos's earlier point - that too often reason is the means by which we justify our prejudices, though he may not enjoy my expressing it this way.

quetzalcoatl wrote:

quote:
Not sure if this is off-topic or not, but one reason for the development of social construction theory was in response to essentialist theories.

An obvious example is in the study of sex and gender. Essentialist theories might state that men and women are basically X and Y - say, aggressive and timid, or sexy and demure, or workaholics and domestic, and so on.

Some feminists began to object to this, and argued that these categories are socially constructed, and not inherent.

So, it's a bit like the nature/nurture debate.

I don't think it has been applied so much in the hard sciences, but it has in things like the study of primates, etc. There are feminist primatologists, but I'm not sure there are feminist physicists, but you never know.

To be fair, I don't see much argument claiming to be feminist using such stark opposites. Maybe a few second-wave adherents. Just as the nature/nurture debate is increasingly discounted in the natural sciences, the construct vs. essentialism debate seems more nuanced. After all, the A vs. B debate involves countering a constructed bipole with another one. Anything else, middle or not, is excluded. Worth mentioning if only to demonstrate how such constructs themselves come about.

quote:
"The world is divided into two kinds of people - those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don't."

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think you have hit on something essential. Reason does not create either facts or value judgments; it operates on them once they enter the scene. If you start with the "fact" that non-Europeans are inferior, then reason can take that fact and run with it, coming up with all sorts of 100% reasonable and rational conclusions.

And once we've made our value judgments, reason helps us find justification for them, as if they were spawned by reason itself. Phrenology immediately comes to mind. How can we explain why these people are inferior? Look, how their skulls are shaped differently from ours! We also get this with sexism, where differences in the brain explain why women are only fit to be mothers and caretakers and not executives or scientists. The value judgment -- "women are inferior to men in these areas" -- is already there, and sexists use reason to justify it.

I am reminded of Thoreau's pseudowisdom, "If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them." The racist and sexist attitudes are the castles. The pseudoscientific findings of "reason" are the foundations that come along after the fact.

The prophet Jeremiah tells us "the heart is deceitful above all things." We might add the reason.

Not so sure about that. It seems to me that proper use of logic and reason can (a) develop real, true facts in the first place, and (b) help to dispose of the wrongly labelled "facts" you have highlighted above.

"Common sense" informs us that the heavier object would fall faster than a light one, disregarding atmospheric effects. We thought that for centuries, millenia even, right up until Galileo came along with his logic and reason and showed us that they will fall at the same rate. So the emotive, passionate, feelings-based common sense approach was wrong and it took logic and reason to develop the true fact.

As an example for point (b) I will start with your premise, that emotion and reason tells us that men are superior to women or that Europeans are superior to other races.

Clearly logic and reason can be usurped to, as you say, build foundations beneath those claims. But it isn't true logic and rationality, but faux variations.

The true reasoned thinker would look at the facts and the evidence and would conclude that whilst there were differences between the sexes, that in no way made one superior to the other.

The genuine application of logic and reason would sweep away the weak footings of misapplied logic and perverted reason, leaving the emotional sexist assumptions unsupported and easy to knock down.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

mstevens

Apologies, I overlooked the registration date, and thanks for your gracious reply.

I suppose social construction can be easily taken to be a kind of postmodern thing, and therefore by implication a bit sceptical of the truthfulness of scientific processes. But the Pomo critique of scientific processes had some validity. Some adherents took it too far, that's all.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

It will be the former C++ programmers that figure out how to build structures that will stay up rather than falling over killing their inhabitants. Because they have the intellectual ability to LEARN. Not because they have already aquired the knowledge.

Um, no. This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding on how abilities work, the ways in which we acquire knowledge and general social dynamics.
Programmers will be among the first eaten, carpenters will be the ones building shelters.
The ability to program does not inherently confer the ability to do anything else. It is a fallacy that intelligence is akin to a store of energy that may be applied in any direction one chooses. Abilities greatly vary and few can do many things well; this is one reason da Vinci is still revered.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
mstevens

Apologies, I overlooked the registration date, and thanks for your gracious reply.

I suppose social construction can be easily taken to be a kind of postmodern thing, and therefore by implication a bit sceptical of the truthfulness of scientific processes. But the Pomo critique of scientific processes had some validity. Some adherents took it too far, that's all.

If you press it, you can show that absolutely everything is an intellectual construct. At which point meaning dissolves entirely, or at least retreats beyond reason. Though wasn't it Derrida who was pointed out that in fact it didn't for practical purposes? (or if it wasn't him then whoever it was!...)

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

I think the social constructionist idea is important, in understanding the limits of knowledge claims.

Essentially, it is a reminder that we are always examining things indirectly, filtered through culture, experience and the senses (or machines we have built to sense). These filters can never be entirely objective, and sometimes blind us entirely.

They are our potentially false premises if you like.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That's my POV too.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

It's fine when used sensitively and with some caution, I agree. Anyone venturing down this path though should at least be aware of the various japes and hoaxes perpetrated in its name, of which the most famous is the Sokal affair.

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The real spring in the clockwork is imagination - the ability to think of a thing not thought before.

This.

quote:
then posted by deano:
Aren’t logic and reason the only things we have that differentiate us from other, baser, animals?

AFAWK not speaking dolphin, aren't human beings the only animals with the gift of imagination? Imagination generates each subsequent Popperian hypothesis.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It's fine when used sensitively and with some caution, I agree. Anyone venturing down this path though should at least be aware of the various japes and hoaxes perpetrated in its name, of which the most famous is the Sokal affair.

Agreed. But I'll see your Sokal and raise you one Piltdown Man.

Seriously, sincerity of engagement and research integrity are desirable, regardless of research field or the strength of peer review. And, unfortunately, neither can be guaranteed. The processes are generally self correcting,in the long run, which is not to say there will not be confusion and misrepresentation along the way.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:
then posted by deano:
Aren’t logic and reason the only things we have that differentiate us from other, baser, animals?
AFAWK not speaking dolphin, aren't human beings the only animals with the gift of imagination? Imagination generates each subsequent Popperian hypothesis.

Squeeeel click click click, whistle click whistle squeeeel.
Roughly translated,* studies more and more indicate thought processes are not a linear progression based on perceived species intelligence. Given demonstrable causal reasoning in species other than humans, it is not completely unreasonable to postulate the ability to imagine. Indeed, studies with chimps and bonobos appear to validate this very thought.

*my Atlantic bottle-nose is a bit rusty.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Clearly logic and reason can be usurped to, as you say, build foundations beneath those claims. But it isn't true logic and rationality, but faux variations.

It isn't a true Scotsman.

quote:
It seems to me that proper use of logic and reason can (a) develop real, true facts in the first place,

Out of what? It's imagination that led Galileo to drop the balls from the tower. If he hadn't imagined what it would be like, he would never have done it. Reason doesn't generate, it works on raw material from elsewhere. You might as well say that iron ore is produced by smelters.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It isn't a true Scotsman.

but it might be a strawman...

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You might as well say that iron ore is produced by smelters.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What you have marked as a strawman isn't. It's an analogy. A strawman says, "you are saying X" when you're not. This is "what you are saying is like X." Subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.

Now will you address that analogy? Can you think of anything that sheer reason unaided by imagination has produced? The world bates its breath.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Clearly logic and reason can be usurped to, as you say, build foundations beneath those claims. But it isn't true logic and rationality, but faux variations.
It isn't a true Scotsman.

Umm... whatever deano's overblown claims for intelligence, I don't think this is a No True Scotsman argument. A No True Scotsman argument is one where the only reason for defining the counterexample as Not a Scotsman is that it upsets the case being made. Whereas just saying some people thought they'd made a rational case for slavery doesn't mean that they'd actually made a rational case for slavery. The rational case for slavery is open to counterarguments. It's not as if reason is uniquely responsible for things like slavery: people thought they had emotional and intuitive and instinctual and imaginative cases for slavery as well.

Logic preserves truth from premise to conclusion. Obviously there, if you put rubbish in you get rubbish out. On the other hand, if you put enough rubbish in you get nothing out - logic will tell you that something you've put in must be rubbish, although it won't tell you what. And logic can't create rubbish where no rubbish has been put in.

Rationality is broader than logic. Rationality also covers how much credence you give to your premises.

quote:

quote:
It seems to me that proper use of logic and reason can (a) develop real, true facts in the first place,
Out of what? It's imagination that led Galileo to drop the balls from the tower. If he hadn't imagined what it would be like, he would never have done it. Reason doesn't generate, it works on raw material from elsewhere.

The same could be said of imagination. Apparently, both imagination and logic are left brain functions. Logic is, so to speak, systematic imagination.
(The right brain, along those lines, is responsible for emotion and what one might call having one's feet on the ground. I'd say that having one's feet on the ground is an important part of rationality.)

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:
then posted by deano:
Aren’t logic and reason the only things we have that differentiate us from other, baser, animals?
AFAWK not speaking dolphin, aren't human beings the only animals with the gift of imagination? Imagination generates each subsequent Popperian hypothesis.
Squeeeel click click click, whistle click whistle squeeeel.
Roughly translated,* studies more and more indicate thought processes are not a linear progression based on perceived species intelligence. Given demonstrable causal reasoning in species other than humans, it is not completely unreasonable to postulate the ability to imagine. Indeed, studies with chimps and bonobos appear to validate this very thought.

*my Atlantic bottle-nose is a bit rusty.

Bother.

I'm going to move this tangent over to the Theology of work thread.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Logic preserves truth from premise to conclusion.

In an axiomatic system set in an artificial language, sure. In real life, nobody can use that kind of logic. There are no such neat-and-tidy arguments about real things. Not in science, not in theology, not in politics, not in economics, not in nothing.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The same could be said of imagination. Apparently, both imagination and logic are left brain functions.

That's not how left and right brain functions are usually split up. What do you base this on?

quote:
Logic is, so to speak, systematic imagination.

No it's not. It's a system for drawing conclusions. It provides no input, so it is not imagination.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Logic preserves truth from premise to conclusion.
In an axiomatic system set in an artificial language, sure. In real life, nobody can use that kind of logic. There are no such neat-and-tidy arguments about real things. Not in science, not in theology, not in politics, not in economics, not in nothing.

Yes, real world situations don't always fit into neat and tidy categories. That doesn't mean that logic isn't helpful. Just as real-world situations don't always conform strictly to mathematical idealisations means that mathematical idealisations don't help.

But logic does work. For example, if carbon dioxide would form a layer on the ground too deep to breathe in if it fell out of the atmosphere, and we can still breathe, it follows that carbon dioxide doesn't fall out of the atmosphere. Disregard for logic tends to go along with various forms of charlatanry.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The same could be said of imagination. Apparently, both imagination and logic are left brain functions.
That's not how left and right brain functions are usually split up. What do you base this on?

An article I saw a while back. According to the article, people with left-brain damage have difficulty with metaphor. Meanwhile, people with right-brain damage have difficulty with irony and sarcasm. (The left brain can imagine all sorts of explanations, but doesn't have the ability to reality check them.)
The idea that imagination and feeling go together and are jointly opposed to reason is deeply engrained in our culture - probably since Plato. But that doesn't make it true.

quote:

quote:
Logic is, so to speak, systematic imagination.
No it's not. It's a system for drawing conclusions. It provides no input, so it is not imagination.

But how does logic draw conclusions? Simply put, it's a formalised way of imagining hypothetical situations and deciding which ones can happen. People worked out which syllogisms are valid by seeing whether they can imagine situations in which they aren't valid. If you imagine that Tibby is a cat and all cats are mammals, can you imagine that Tibby is not a mammal? How else did Aristotle come up with logic?

Does imagination provide input? It uses material from the senses as its building blocks. It's a way of processing the building blocks. But it's not as if imagination can happen unfettered by logic. One can no more imagine a square circle than draw one.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0