How rational are you?

[mikkel_the_dane]

So my post was emotionally irrational?

Yes, a part of it. You have to learn to do science on subjectivity as subjectivity and not just subjectively declare it irrelevant, because that you declare it irrelevant, is subjective.

I have learned to do the world with more methodologies than you. You only use 2, objective observation and objective reasoning, but it breaks down when you start evaluating what matters to you. Then you are subjective like the rest of us, you just don't notice. In effect you are subjective at times, not always, but then you don't notice that you are subjective. You just are that and do that.

This is science, it is just not the variant you do.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Only my modest nature and humility gets me to choose option three, given that I can't prove that some of my beliefs are likely to be more rational than irrational - since they tend to involve humans, their nature, and any possible futures.

 

[Augustus]

We already ARE "the rational animal." We don't need to enforce the idea that humans ought to be rational. They naturally are... to some extent. I propose that we make the best of this situation (ie. harvest all the benefits, and allow that aspect of our nature to shine) rather than insist that every last ape among our ranks needs to be as rational as possible.

It could be argued we are the irrational animal, as we need a layer of narrative to underpin just about everything we do. This makes us worry about stuff that has no impact on us, kill or get killed in pursuit of some fanciful cause, etc. Every time we invent some wonderful new technology that could make our lives so much better we then start to think how it could be used to kill people and increase the chances we're all going to die. Either that or how it can be used to watch or monetise porn

Cats just eat food, sleep in the sun then go for a stroll until they are hungry again. My money is on them being the rational animal.

Consistent rationality from the majority of us is unrealistic. But that doesn't mean that when we have a public school board meeting, we shouldn't emphasize logically sound arguments. That doesn't mean, when we have a public school board meeting, that we ought not prefer logical arguments over wailing, grunting, and chest-beating.

Consistent rationality from any of us is unrealistic, but I agree with the rest

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It could be argued we are the irrational animal, as we need a layer of narrative to underpin just about everything we do. This makes us worry about stuff that has no impact on us, kill or get killed in pursuit of some fanciful cause, etc. Every time we invent some wonderful new technology that could make our lives so much better we then start to think how it could be used to kill people and increase the chances we're all going to die. Either that or how it can be used to watch or monetise porn

Cats just eat food, sleep in the sun then go for a stroll until they are hungry again. My money is on them being the rational animal.



Consistent rationality from any of us is unrealistic, but I agree with the rest

@vulcanlogician
Look at it using biology. Some life is not rational, yet it lives. Rationality is a reason add on in brains but the rest is still there. Try reading some science on brains and the question is answered. No human brain is only rational, because then it wouldn't have fully functional brain.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Simple question: How rational do you think you are?

By beliefs I mean things that are at least contested/debatable to some degree: political beliefs, contested scientific beliefs, religious or irreligious beliefs, beliefs relating to culture, history, psychology, etc. rather than obvious fact like water freezes at 0c, or injecting creme de menthe into your testicles is likely to be painful.

Is being rational important to you? What are the limits of human rationality (or your rationality)?

I actively try to be as rational as possible at all times.

However, I did not answer the poll because the mere unspecified notion of "beliefs" is too vague for me.

Beliefs about what?

 

[Augustus]

Beliefs about what?

By beliefs I mean things that are at least contested/debatable to some degree: political beliefs, contested scientific beliefs, religious or irreligious beliefs, beliefs relating to culture, history, psychology, etc. rather than obvious fact like water freezes at 0c, or injecting creme de menthe into your testicles is likely to be painful.

Stuff about the world, how it works, the things in it, etc. excluding trivial facts that are pretty much uncontested and things like aesthetic judgements that are purely preferential.

Like the term rational, it's always going to be a bit subjective as it is an abstract concept.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

... political beliefs, contested scientific beliefs, religious or irreligious beliefs, beliefs relating to culture, history, psychology,...

Stuff about the world, how it works, the things in it, etc. excluding trivial facts that are pretty much uncontested and things like aesthetic judgements that are purely preferential.

Like the term rational, it's always going to be a bit subjective as it is an abstract concept.

Like I said, I consider that to be far to vague.

Political beliefs for example are not comparable to scientific beliefs. Not across the board anyway
They deal with vastly different subjects.

In politics, many things are culturally related for example or even just mere personal preferences. Subjective.
Whereas in science, it's about empirical evidence and objectivity.

I don't think it's right to put them all in the same basket and then ask the general question "are your beliefs supported by high quality evidence?".

 

[Augustus]

The people would like to know - given "rational" is entirely an artifice box some humans made up because they felt like it, what makes something go in that box and not some other entirely artificed box humans made up because they felt like it? Or two boxes, three boxes, fifteen boxes simultaneously?

Same reason we put anything else into an artificial linguistic box: we think it has some utility in thinking about the world and for whatever reason are currently focussing our mind on that particular aspect of our reality.

It's just what we do.

 

[Augustus]

Political beliefs for example are not comparable to scientific beliefs. Not across the board anyway
They deal with vastly different subjects.

In politics, many things are culturally related for example or even just mere personal preferences. Subjective.
Whereas in science, it's about empirical evidence and objectivity.

I don't think it's right to put them all in the same basket and then ask the general question "are your beliefs supported by high quality evidence?".

Humans make subjective generalised judgements all of the time. Even what constitutes being rational is entirely subjective. It's a question purely about self-perception.

Lots of published scientific research has a fair degree of subjectivity, especially in the social sciences.

Political decisions impact the real world and can be judged, to some degree on if they met or are likely to meet their stated aims.

Like I said, I consider that to be far to vague.

Then I made the last option for you

(or options 3 or 4)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Humans make subjective generalised judgements all of the time.

Sure, but it depends on the subject.
Exactly why I find it unreasonable to put all beliefs in one basket in this context.

Even what constitutes being rational is entirely subjective. It's a question purely about self-perception.

I disagree with that.

For example....

A bunch of chocolate is missing from the kitchen.
My son's hands and face have plenty of chocolate on them.
You can believe that my son ate the chocolate.
You can believe that extra-dimensional aliens materialized in my kitchen, stole the chocolate and dematerialized again.

Would you say that which of these 2 beliefs being rational is "entirely subjective"?
I certainly wouldn't.

Then I made the last option for you

(or options 3 or 4)

In other words, you're not willing to entertain my concerns / objections and you're just going to run with your list of choices and simply assume the list is complete and valid.

Okay then.

 

[Augustus]

Unless of course for that individual a position considered rational and based on high quality evidence defined belief, below which would be current working hypotheses, and below that would be uniformed guesses, and below that would be the category of don't know, don't care.

Even accepting such a tautological definition, this would depend on our ability to evaluate evidence impartially and without error and be able to cognitively file all of our beliefs/hypotheses/etc. correctly and make meaningful distinctions between them when informing actions.

I believe my wife loves me. I have lots of evidence that supports this. But then again, many others who felt the same found out they were wrong.

Not sure she'd be too chuffed if I told her that I can only consider it a working hypothesis that she loves me, because it wouldn;t be sufficiently rational to believe it

I would also say that emotionaly wanting or needing something to be true, or be the case, cripples reason. The stronger the emotional desire in the want or need, the greater the degree confirmation bias will interfere with reasoning ability. It is not only possitive emotions where this applies. Fear of a particular truth would also apply as it is simply wanting or needing the truth to not be the case.

It can do, and to some extent, all of us are emotionally driven and blind ourselves to emotionally unappealing truths, or easily believe emotionally pleasing untruths.

Emotions are far more powerful than facts, and we rarely change that which we hold dear simply because it can be shown to be wrong (or highly implausible).

Might those who downplay the value of reason have such emotional needs and wants?

Some people no doubt do.

Personally, I found it more emotionally satisfying to believe in the post-Enlightenment myth that humans were rational and making progress, and that as people god richer and better educated they'd become more rational too. The idea of melioristic progress is quite reassuring after all, just as for many belief in God's love is.

The idea of melioristic progress through reason is just a remixed version of Divine Providence that emerged in Christianity then moved through Providential Deism into secular humanism.

It took me years to lose my faith in reason and reject secular humanism. Not because I wanted to believe in spirits or gods or flying saucers, but for the same reason some people lose faith in God: they can no longer justify believing that which they perceive as being contrary to the evidence.

It doesn't matter how much value one affords to reason, humans just aren't very rational in the overall scheme of things.

Of course, you will probably disagree with some of my opinions above, but whether it is right or wrong, my disbelief in human reason was not to protect an emotional need. It was more the opposite, cognitive dissonance made me reject much evidence for years.

 

[Augustus]

In other words, you're not willing to entertain my concerns / objections and you're just going to run with your list of choices and simply assume the list is complete and valid.

Okay then.

It's a joke option based on the fact people always disagree on RF

(well actually it's a joke description for a serious option)

Sure, but it depends on the subject.
Exactly why I find it unreasonable to put all beliefs in one basket in this context.

What would be some examples of where they differ?

How would you judge your views on scientific issues v political issues for example?

disagree with that.

For example....

A bunch of chocolate is missing from the kitchen.
My son's hands and face have plenty of chocolate on them.
You can believe that my son ate the chocolate.
You can believe that extra-dimensional aliens materialized in my kitchen, stole the chocolate and dematerialized again.

Would you say that which of these 2 beliefs being rational is "entirely subjective"?
I certainly wouldn't.

I mean how to define rationality is subjective.

So for example, if you pray to Jesus every day and it makes you feel good, is it rational to pray?

If you believe X and it makes you happy and causes no harms, is it rational to want someone to tell you Y that will destroy your happiness and offer no benefits?

Is rationality about utility? survival? getting closer to an objective description of a factual reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Even accepting such a tautological definition, this would depend on our ability to evaluate evidence impartially and without error and be able to cognitively file all of our beliefs/hypotheses/etc. correctly and make meaningful distinctions between them when informing actions.

I believe my wife loves me. I have lots of evidence that supports this. But then again, many others who felt the same found out they were wrong.

Not sure she'd be too chuffed if I told her that I can only consider it a working hypothesis that she loves me, because it wouldn;t be sufficiently rational to believe it



It can do, and to some extent, all of us are emotionally driven and blind ourselves to emotionally unappealing truths, or easily believe emotionally pleasing untruths.

Emotions are far more powerful than facts, and we rarely change that which we hold dear simply because it can be shown to be wrong (or highly implausible).



Some people no doubt do.

Personally, I found it more emotionally satisfying to believe in the post-Enlightenment myth that humans were rational and making progress, and that as people god richer and better educated they'd become more rational too. The idea of melioristic progress is quite reassuring after all, just as for many belief in God's love is.

The idea of melioristic progress through reason is just a remixed version of Divine Providence that emerged in Christianity then moved through Providential Deism into secular humanism.

It took me years to lose my faith in reason and reject secular humanism. Not because I wanted to believe in spirits or gods or flying saucers, but for the same reason some people lose faith in God: they can no longer justify believing that which they perceive as being contrary to the evidence.

It doesn't matter how much value one affords to reason, humans just aren't very rational in the overall scheme of things.

Of course, you will probably disagree with some of my opinions above, but whether it is right or wrong, my disbelief in human reason was not to protect an emotional need. It was more the opposite, cognitive dissonance made me reject much evidence for years.

Yeah, I am not as well read as you. I simply read that being rational is maybe not what it is claimed to be and figured this one out that seems to support it.
Take a sufficient amount of debate and you will notice the following for a lot of these debates:
Someone: I am X and you are not X and I know that Y is Z and not W.
Someone else: No, I am X and you are not X and I know that Y is W and not Z.

In general I just figure out if I can be not X and if I don't have to know for both cases if Y is Z or W. To me once I learned that in regards to objective, social and individual it cleared up a lot of things.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes as long as you don't do claim....

Nothing good starts out thus.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing good starts out thus.

Well, that is subjective in you. I still do it different for objective, social and individual and thus you claim what is not good in you, is not good in me. There, you did it again.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, that is subjective....

Another beginning that portends tedium.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Another beginning that portends tedium.

Well, tedium is a feeling in you. But that is not rational as it is a feeling. Go figure. You really have to learn when you are subjective for your reasoning and not just your values, if you want common ground for cognition and values.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, tedium is a feeling in you.

And I give you credit for inspiring it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I give you credit for inspiring it.

Yeah, credit is a feeling in this case.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Personally, I found it more emotionally satisfying to believe in the post-Enlightenment myth that humans were rational and making progress, and that as people god richer and better educated they'd become more rational too. The idea of melioristic progress is quite reassuring after all, just as for many belief in God's love is.

It's always the same thing, isn't it?

"Communism will save humanity and end inequality. Let's kill or lock up anyone who opposes the revolution!"

"Christianity will save humanity and provide redemption. Let's preach and forcibly convert others!"

"Islam will save humanity and end injustice. Let's preach and conquer other countries!"

"The White Man will save humanity and civilize it. Let's conquer others and treat them as second-class citizens!"

"Reason will save humanity and allow progress. Let's colonize those barbarians and teach them our ways!"

Unsurprisingly, the "New Atheist" movement has produced some hawkish and supremacist rhetoric not unlike other preachy ideologies. The only thing more dangerous than a misguided ideology is a misguided ideology imbued with unwarranted confidence.