How rational are you?

[Heyo]

Perceptions are perceptions, but beliefs are claims which you hold as true or false. These don’t have to coincide with your perceptions. For example if you are at a magic show you may see a rabbit appear or disappear but that doesn’t mean you believe the rabbit exists or no longer exists.

At a magic show, you know that are being tricked, so you don't believe your lying eyes. But you can also be tricked by natural phenomena. Most people forget that. Our perception and our every day beliefs are reasonably accurate, so we take it that they will most probably work. And the only rationality behind that is that it worked yesterday. Not very deep, is it?

I am not sure what you mean by stochastic beliefs. Perhaps you can provide some examples. Regarding false beliefs, the beliefs do not have to be true to be rational: Rationality does not entail trueness.

I've opened my eyes in the morning more than 22,222 times and I was alive. I believe it will be so tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow. And, by induction, I rationally believe that I am immortal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you think either/both of those are purely rational decisions?

It depends on how you view emotions and feelings. If you believe that you in a sense can have a more rational set of emotions and feelings, then yes. If you on the other happen include this version of rational, based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings, then no.

If you then go the science route, then rationality is an evolutionary add-on, that still requires emotions and feelings. In fact there is a disorder where you can't use your feelings and emotions and it can take ½ hour to pick a flavor of ice-cream.

 

[MikeF]

I've opened my eyes in the morning more than 22,222 times and I was alive. I believe it will be so tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow. And, by induction, I rationally believe that I am immortal.

You believe you are immortal absent any other information. In other words, you live alone on an island and never saw anyone die. Actually, even seeing bugs die may provide some cracks in your assumption of immortality.

 

[Curious George]

At a magic show, you know that are being tricked, so you don't believe your lying eyes. But you can also be tricked by natural phenomena. Most people forget that. Our perception and our every day beliefs are reasonably accurate, so we take it that they will most probably work. And the only rationality behind that is that it worked yesterday. Not very deep, is it?

I've opened my eyes in the morning more than 22,222 times and I was alive. I believe it will be so tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow. And, by induction, I rationally believe that I am immortal.

At a magic show there is certainly reason to doubt what you perceive. Other instances give a person reason doubt as well. That is not the point. The point was that you have beliefs based on perception. Even when our perception is faulty, though our conclusions may still be rational.

Your take on inductive reasoning may be rational if you only consider your previous waking. But whether it is reasonable to only consider that as evidence is another question.

 

[Heyo]

Your take on inductive reasoning may be rational if you only consider your previous waking. But whether it is reasonable to only consider that as evidence is another question.

Exactly. And many of our beliefs about the world are similar shallow when they only rest on perception.

 

[anna.]

It depends on how you view emotions and feelings. If you believe that you in a sense can have a more rational set of emotions and feelings, then yes. If you on the other happen include this version of rational, based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings, then no.

If you then go the science route, then rationality is an evolutionary add-on, that still requires emotions and feelings. In fact there is a disorder where you can't use your feelings and emotions and it can take ½ hour to pick a flavor of ice-cream.

So gradations of rationality?

 

[John53]

Doesn't the fact that we're all on an internet religious debate forum rule all of us out of the rational category?

 

[MikeF]

Doesn't the fact that we're all on an internet religious debate forum rule all of us out of the rational category?

*****WINNER***** Frubal.

 

[wellwisher]

Doesn't the fact that we're all on an internet religious debate forum rule all of us out of the rational category?

Rational thinking is not the highest possible state of thought processing. Spatial thinking is more advanced. Rational is 2-D or based on cause (x) and affect (y), while integral thinking is 3-D (x,y,z).

Religion is closer to 3-D, which is where our reason can get fuzzy. The concept of God, by including even the paradoxes of opposites, such as smaller than small and larger than large, tries to create a 3-D picture. Since reason is 2-D, the extra 3rd dimension is where things get fuzzier than reason. The z-axis is not just cause and affect, since it needs to align in 3-D and not just 2-D. This extra alignment becomes where religion becomes esoteric.

As an analogy, in geometry I can approximate a 3-D ball, with an infinite number of 2-D circles, all with a common center, with each circle at a slightly different angle. All our rational opinions, on any given forum subject; the common center, together, approximate the 3-D ball. This is all the data for a potential 3-D truth. To learn 3-D, you need to have an open mind so you can integrate all the rational circles at different angles; POV, into a 3-D image. This is not as easy as reason.

A 2-D thought is based on cause and affect. A 3-D thought is based on (cause and affect, cause), and (affect, cause and affect). The 3-D thought needs to know the affect that created the first cause and cause that the final affect will induce. This third dimension or z-axis is not as definitive, but is often felt from the inside through gut feelings and intuition. Other rational circles may have some of the answers. Larger than large and smaller than small does not make any rational sense, but rather has to be sensed; z-axis.

By the way, Special relativity, when you travel at the speed of light, can make infinite appear to contract to a point so smaller than small and larger than large become one. God is light; speed of light.

The brain can naturally process data in 3-D, but this is not always conscious. Often opinions or rational circles, will overlap the 3-D images of the unconscious, and make us feel conviction for our opinions. We have touched 3-D at the core. I have a habit of jumping around and adding new ways to see the same thing. I add different rational circles, at different angles, to help fill in the 3-D ball, often driven by subject triggered intuitions, from the z-axis; core generating a new angle.

 

[MikeF]

By the way, Special relativity, when you travel at the speed of light, can make infinite appear to contract to a point so smaller than small and larger than large become one

How often do you get to travel at the speed of light?

 

[vulcanlogician]

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.

I think we largely agree on what reason is, how it functions, and how important it is in producing an accurate portrayal of the world.

But you can't wave away emotions by asserting how much more useful and accurate reason is. We humans are ignorant creatures. Sure, we are less ignorant than a cat (I disagree with @Augustus on that). But not much less ignorant in the grand scheme. I don't think we are doomed to be ignorant creatures. Things like science teach us how to be less ignorant-- and we do learn many true things from it. But that doesn't mean we aren't largely ignorant of what is going on (both in our lives and in the natural world). The things we do not know outnumber the things we do know, exponentially.

I don't think anyone achieves rational knowledge merely by being confident in their own picture of the world. To the contrary, I think unconfidence is the virtue that carries us from ignorance to knowledge. Carefulness, exactness, hard-won certitude, and copious doubting (like that found in the sciences).

I've done some thinking about the poll options since my last visit. I still think option 1 can be discounted, in all cases, simply due to our general ignorance. But I think option 2 ("The vast majority of my beliefs are rational and based on high quality evidence") is achievable by human beings. I'm fairly pessimistic about things, so I only feel comfortable endorsing option 3 in regards to myself. That's not me being careless and putting emotion on par with logic. I think logic is superior to emotion in giving us an accurate portrayal of the world. That's me being careful about professing the truth-value of my own beliefs. I am a human being. Human beings have emotions. Emotions can tamper with reasoning. So I'd never advance the idea that my logical picture of the world is completely accurate. I very much doubt it is. Even though I probably accept most of the propositions about reality that you accept, Mike. I think the standard model is the most accurate picture of the world that we have yet known. That doesn't mean that we aren't 99% ignorant just because we can be certain about the 1% that we think we should be sure of.

 

[Curious George]

Exactly. And many of our beliefs about the world are similar shallow when they only rest on perception.

I have never met anyone who has concluded they are immortal because they woke each morning. Perhaps you can provide an example of an actual belief. You might suggest believing that the sun will rise tomorrow is equally shallow or perhaps the entire scientific method is just as shallow, but even we’re we to sum all of the inductive beliefs, I still imagine you would find many more deductive beliefs based on perception, and this doesn’t account for the inductive beliefs that you agree are rational.

 

[Shaul]

*pedant

That would depend on whether I intended to write that there was a distinct pedant person within me or whether I was writing that there was a mere part of me that was pedant-like or pedantic. Just to be quite pedantic.

 

[Heyo]

I have never met anyone who has concluded they are immortal because they woke each morning. Perhaps you can provide an example of an actual belief.

Actual belief, you mean religious beliefs? None of those are rational.

You might suggest believing that the sun will rise tomorrow is equally shallow or perhaps the entire scientific method is just as shallow,

That one is explicitly designed to be thorough. Science, and to an extend, philosophy, encourage us to not jump to conclusions.

but even we’re we to sum all of the inductive beliefs, I still imagine you would find many more deductive beliefs based on perception, and this doesn’t account for the inductive beliefs that you agree are rational.

Psychologists have tried that and found that humans are poor at reasoning unless specifically motivated to. (Are Humans Rational?) We simply didn't evolve to be rational.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So gradations of rationality?

Yes, in effect. Humans are a varying degree of cognition and feelings/emotions.
In my version of rationality, it is the ability to spot when you are not and consider if you can do your emotions/feelings better, but that better is still not really rational. It is just a combination of cognition and feelings/emotions.

Example: I am somewhat stressed right now. How do I handle that and can I remove it or do I need to mitigate it, because I can't remove that I am stressed?

 

[Curious George]

Actual belief, you mean religious beliefs? None of those are rational.

So you mean complex belief systems? I agree that the longer the necessary reasoning and logic the more irrational or fallible the beliefs are likely to be.

But for every complex belief there are uncountable simple beliefs which are well supported.

That one is explicitly designed to be thorough. Science, and to an extend, philosophy, encourage us to not jump to conclusions.

That one is very basic and rational even though at some point it will be wrong. But in the absence of any reason to the contrary we can rationally rely on things like cause and effect.

Psychologists have tried that and found that humans are poor at reasoning unless specifically motivated to. (Are Humans Rational?) We simply didn't evolve to be rational.

You provide a pop science article which discusses the misses in rationality. This speaks nothing about the hits which are much more abundant. Pop science is usually spinning a story that sells. In this case the idea is that humans lack rationality. But only speaks to abstract beliefs and complex beliefs. This article says nothing of concrete beliefs.

 

[Heyo]

You provide a pop science article which discusses the misses in rationality. This speaks nothing about the hits which are much more abundant. Pop science is usually spinning a story that sells. In this case the idea is that humans lack rationality. But only speaks to abstract beliefs and complex beliefs. This article says nothing of concrete beliefs.

At least it is written by a professor in psychology, summarizing the state of research. I guess that is at least one level above

even we’re we to sum all of the inductive beliefs, I still imagine you would find many more deductive beliefs based on perception

i.e. pure conjecture.

As it is today, it seems there is no published research that fits exactly our question, only expert opinion (which I have cited and it is in favor of my position). So, unless you have more than your imagination, we can only wait for more research and keep our own opinions (with an open mind).

 

[MikeF]

I think we largely agree on what reason is, how it functions, and how important it is in producing an accurate portrayal of the world.

But you can't wave away emotions by asserting how much more useful and accurate reason is. We humans are ignorant creatures. Sure, we are less ignorant than a cat (I disagree with @Augustus on that). But not much less ignorant in the grand scheme. I don't think we are doomed to be ignorant creatures. Things like science teach us how to be less ignorant-- and we do learn many true things from it. But that doesn't mean we aren't largely ignorant of what is going on (both in our lives and in the natural world). The things we do not know outnumber the things we do know, exponentially.

I don't think anyone achieves rational knowledge merely by being confident in their own picture of the world. To the contrary, I think unconfidence is the virtue that carries us from ignorance to knowledge. Carefulness, exactness, hard-won certitude, and copious doubting (like that found in the sciences).

I've done some thinking about the poll options since my last visit. I still think option 1 can be discounted, in all cases, simply due to our general ignorance. But I think option 2 ("The vast majority of my beliefs are rational and based on high quality evidence") is achievable by human beings. I'm fairly pessimistic about things, so I only feel comfortable endorsing option 3 in regards to myself. That's not me being careless and putting emotion on par with logic. I think logic is superior to emotion in giving us an accurate portrayal of the world. That's me being careful about professing the truth-value of my own beliefs. I am a human being. Human beings have emotions. Emotions can tamper with reasoning. So I'd never advance the idea that my logical picture of the world is completely accurate. I very much doubt it is. Even though I probably accept most of the propositions about reality that you accept, Mike. I think the standard model is the most accurate picture of the world that we have yet known. That doesn't mean that we aren't 99% ignorant just because we can be certain about the 1% that we think we should be sure of.

I’m not sure how many people realize that this poll is a Rorschach test with the options of the poll substituting for inkblots.

How one answers depends entirely on the assumptions and presumptions that are attached to the words being used as well as in the way the words are associated with each other. As such, simply looking at a selection someone made in the poll is meaningless without the explanation as to why they chose that response. The why gives us the window into the framework in which the respondent is evaluating the options as well as the meaning they attach to the important concept words being used. The value of the poll is in demonstrating that each of us is not approaching the poll with the exact same set of assumptions and value choices, nor interpreting words in exactly the same way. It shows us how quickly we can begin to talk past each other here on RF without reconciling these inherent differences at the start of any discussion.

For example, one may interpret the poll in the following translated way:

1. All my beliefs are right, none of them are wrong.
2. The vast majority of my beliefs are right, some few may be incorrect.
3. I have mainly correct beliefs but I also have many that are probably incorrect.
4. Some few of my beliefs are correct, most are not.
5. No idea *or* I don’t care whether I’m right or not.
6. I don’t accept the implied premises of the poll.

In this interpretation, “rational beliefs” equates to objectively true beliefs. This seems to preclude the possibility that a belief can be rational and wrong or incorrect in some way. Would you agree that some may interpret the poll in this way? Is this the only way in which to interpret it?

I think one of my favorite answers regarding this poll was from Revoltingest. He chose an answer that would seem counterintuitive on the surface, but in his explanation we see that he is acknowledging and highlighting that not all beliefs are about purely objective things, that many beliefs are built from value choices. Some beliefs are neither necessarily right or wrong but still involve reasoning.

I also found it instructive that when a couple of statistics were referenced in the discussion, there was not much critical analysis about what those statistics really represented and whether or not they were relevant to the poll options. Were these numbers telling us what we think they are telling us on the surface as interpreted through our assumptions.

I saw the first option as a great platform to both highlight the assumptions that seemed incorporated into the poll as well as explore more thoroughly what we mean when we use words like reason, logic, irrational, rationality, etc. Did my choice surprise you? If it did, did it prompt a reassessment in your opinion of me that you may have formed over all of our previous discussions?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How often do you get to travel at the speed of light?

But if you are driving, do the headlights work?

I wonder what the fine is for that?

I worry about things a lot.

It isn't always rational.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I’m not sure how many people realize that this poll is a Rorschach test with the options of the poll substituting for inkblots.

That's an interesting way to see things. If the poll options are inkblots, then it follows that no answer is correct, and all you're left with is self-analysis.

But even if the poll options weren't interpretations, I wouldn't really criticize anyone for selecting option 1. When I was a young, hot-headed, twenty-something atheist, I'd have snap-picked option 1 or 2. And not merely due to overconfidence. I'd have probably thought the question to mean anything I set my mind to (the analysis of any particular belief), I'd feel confident in resolving it (or at the very least saying that it can't be resolved).

But as time went on, and influence from philosophy kinda helped me get there, I became more skeptical. A lot of folks see skeptics as some kind of denialists of extraordinary claims. (ie. a "skeptic" doesn't believe that the house is haunted). But a real skeptic doesn't deny ghosts, she simply has a high bar for acceptance of ghost-claims. She is willing to investigate the matter. "This house isn't really haunted" is not a belief that the skeptic has, but a hypothesis she feels can only be falsified by direct evidence of ghosts. Ironically, the skeptic looks for evidence of ghosts MUCH HARDER than your average ghost hunter. A chill that passes through the room is enough to convince your average ghost hunter (like you see on TV). The skeptic carefully examines the chill and wonders if it couldn't be explained by a draft in the house. What else could it be? Perhaps trickery on the part of the ghost hunter. Long after the ghost hunters have settled on their conclusion (ghosts), the skeptic remains examining the evidence before her.

To this end... since I value skepticism so much... I'm prone to put less emphasis on surety of my own beliefs, and more emphasis on testing what I do not know. I'm not just a skeptic of other people's beliefs, but a skeptic of my own as well. Around five years ago, I discovered that I took an urban legend to be true. (Because I heard it repeated verbatim on a television show where it was identified as a known urban legend). I had no really reason to ever doubt the story. It was interesting and unusual, but well within the confines of a plausibility. But now I regard my belief in the story as mistaken. Five years ago, I had pretty much the same kind of beliefs that I have now, but -- lo and behold-- one of them turned out to be false.

That's why I regularly like to internalize my skepticism as well as shine it outward upon dubious claims. As someone who claims to be a true skeptic, such a posture seems only fair.