Bad Parts of Reason

[quatona]

You know, I took a few classes in high school with Dempsey, the captain of the US team. So I know full well the ridiculous feeling of having all my local pals support him when I knew how douchey he was back then. Which isn't at all to say he's the same now, but I'm very skeptical of this considering you have a person like that when he was 18, then add money and attention. The door's still open, though.

So, all this said, I had huge motivation to root for my ancestral team rather than my native one.

Tbh, I can´t seem to manage to think of any team as *my* team. Maybe that has to do with being second generation to the "Third Reich" - but all forms of tribalism and nationalism escape me.
Speaking of celebrities, last night I went to a concert of "Extreme". Great band still, great concert, great fun, and Nuno is a real force on the guitar.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I'm not sure I'd use the word idolize, but we value it because it's the best way to come to truth, and avoid error.

Assuming people are totally objective and free from bias and presuppositions and personal desire, this may be true.

But we all know that no one is totally objective, free from bias and presuppositions and personal desire.

Thus our reasoning can lead to error and not truth if we are not honest with ourselves and if we are seeking only to confirm what it is we already believe. This applies to theist and atheist alike.

 

[Paradoxum]

Assuming people are totally objective and free from bias and presuppositions and personal desire, this may be true.

But we all know that no one is totally objective, free from bias and presuppositions and personal desire.

Thus our reasoning can lead to error and not truth if we are not honest with ourselves and if we are seeking only to confirm what it is we already believe. This applies to theist and atheist alike.

I agree. But what I said is true regardless. Saying reason is the best way we have to figure out the truth doesn't mean that we can't make errors.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can already see one of the problems with reasoning: we don't really know how to define it relative to other methods of determining truth

Here's where I completely differ from you.
I don't know of methods to determine truth "other" then reason.

Can you name a few with a proven track record?

The big question, as a shrink, I have is: how did it come about to idolize reason (as opposed to other methods) like this?

There's no "idolizing" as far as I can see....

There's just the recognition of the enormous track record.
Reasoning has definatly validated itself as the best method to differentiate truth from fiction.

I know of no "other" method that even comes close to its effectiveness.
It's not "idolizing". It's merely recognizing its merrit.

 

[Received]

If you say so.
The thing is (and I have told you this before - actually, whenever it was the time of the month, and you started your rant against reason):
Your posts appear to be the attempt at using reason, and from my experience you expect the replies to be founded in reason (otherwise you criticize them for being not reasonable).
I am still wondering what other method you are proposing for an alternative.
Here´s my offer: You give me your idea of an epistemological method (and again: I´m not even aware of a competing method) that doesn´t employ reason, and we will base our further discussion on that method - looking where that gets us.

Actually, I'm not arguing against reason here. I'm just trying to get a sense of how idealized (should've said that rather than idolized, given that idolaters never come clean as idolaters) reason is compared to, say, empiricism, or broad experience, or intuition. There's a reason why rationalism as an "ism" is outdated. Reason works fine and well within its proper context; as a goal in itself it's quite limited.

I wasn´t even thinking of religion, and the idea to contrast reason with religion was yours.

When we're talking about idolatry like this, I think it's most relevant to include religion.

Ahhh, truth/Truth/TRUTH!
And if we understand truth as inaccessible, we can all go home.
Yet, in lack of an alternative, you and I will use reason to deal with everything that´s not a priori defined into the obscure, as we have always done - since it is the only method to our disposal. Well, ok, Voodoo may be worth a try.

Truth as inaccessible presupposes the propositional method, particularly knowledge as true, justified, belief that I'm critical against. Truth is what is unveiled before us.

 

[Received]

Here's where I completely differ from you.
I don't know of methods to determine truth "other" then reason.

Can you name a few with a proven track record?

Proven track record is a fallacy. The other methods are empiricism, broad experience, intuition, authority (yes), and others I'm sure.

There's no "idolizing" as far as I can see....

There's just the recognition of the enormous track record.
Reasoning has definatly validated itself as the best method to differentiate truth from fiction.

I know of no "other" method that even comes close to its effectiveness.
It's not "idolizing". It's merely recognizing its merrit.

Effectiveness at most could mean that religion is most applicable to most aspects of truth. That doesn't make it best by any means. A lawnmower is extremely effective because it can cut down grass for five whole acres, whereas a house only occupies a fraction of a single acre. Perhaps lawnmowers are better than houses?

 

[bhsmte]

What are the downsides to reasoning? It might help to think how you'd be if you only had the ability to connect premises to conclusions. You couldn't know if those premises are true, for example.

A downside to experience is that your senses might be deceiving. A downside to intuition is that your intuition might simply be wrong. How goes it with reason?

Well, if one attempts to reason without utilizing verifiable facts to support the conclusion, then that is the downside.

But, on the other hand, if one doesn't use verifiable facts to support their reasoning and conclusions, they aren't really using reason as it was intended.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, I'm not arguing against reason here. I'm just trying to get a sense of how idealized (should've said that rather than idolized, given that idolaters never come clean as idolaters) reason is compared to, say, empiricism, or broad experience, or intuition. There's a reason why rationalism as an "ism" is outdated. Reason works fine and well within its proper context; as a goal in itself it's quite limited.

As far as I'm concerned, empiricism is a part of the bigger picture that "reason" represents.

"Reason" by itself and on its own is not a thing.

 

[Received]

Well, if one attempts to reason without utilizing verifiable facts to support the conclusion, then that is the downside.

But, on the other hand, if one doesn't use verifiable facts to support their reasoning and conclusions, they aren't really using reason as it was intended.

Dunno. I think this is why logicians distinguish between valid and sound conclusions. You can have a perfectly reasonable conclusion but still not know whether the premises are sound. Then you also have a priori and a posteriori reasoning. So I don't think reasoning needs facts or knowledge of the truth of premises to be reasoning.

 

[Received]

As far as I'm concerned, empiricism is a part of the bigger picture that "reason" represents.

"Reason" by itself and on its own is not a thing.

Do you believe in a priori reasoning?

 

[bhsmte]

Dunno. I think this is why logicians distinguish between valid and sound conclusions. You can have a perfectly reasonable conclusion but still not know whether the premises are sound. Then you also have a priori and a posteriori reasoning. So I don't think reasoning needs facts or knowledge of the truth of premises to be reasoning.

The definition of reason that I would use would include the utilization of verifiable facts. To me, if you are not using verifiable facts in reasoning, one is really engaging in intuition.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you believe in a priori reasoning?

Depends on what you mean by that...
A real-world example?

 

[quatona]

Actually, I'm not arguing against reason here.

Good. However, you made a thread about "bad parts of reason" - and without even naming one single of those bad parts. Which would have helped everyone to understand your criticism and would have created a basis for considering and discussing it.

I'm just trying to get a sense of how idealized (should've said that rather than idolized, given that idolaters never come clean as idolaters) reason is compared to, say, empiricism, or broad experience, or intuition.

No, you didn´t try to get a sense of that. It was your preassumption, and even though you got no response that would allow to conclude that reason is idealized by any of the posters, you pretend that this is what you can take away from this thread.
Besides, even if reason were idealized, that wouldn´t constitute a "bad part of reason".

There's a reason why rationalism as an "ism" is outdated. Reason works fine and well within its proper context; as a goal in itself it's quite limited.

Sure it isn´t a goal in itself. It´s a tool, it´s a method (whereas intuition, broad experience aren´t even methods).

When we're talking about idolatry like this, I think it's most relevant to include religion.

Then please do it without making it look like it was my idea.

 

[Received]

Depends on what you mean by that...
A real-world example?

Eh, I hate doing this because it seems like I'm being pedantic, but:

A priori and a posteriori - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Received]

Good. However, you made a thread about "bad parts of reason" - and without even naming one single of those bad parts. Which would have helped everyone to understand your criticism and would have created a basis for considering and discussing it.

I was asking for input, not stating my own opinion. You always suspect secret motives from me, q.

No, you didn´t try to get a sense of that. It was your preassumption, and even though you got no response that would allow to conclude that reason is idealized by any of the posters, you pretend that this is what you can take away from this thread.
Besides, even if reason were idealized, that wouldn´t constitute a "bad part of reason".

See?

 

[Received]

The definition of reason that I would use would include the utilization of verifiable facts. To me, if you are not using verifiable facts in reasoning, one is really engaging in intuition.

Wait. There are plenty of truths that aren't reducible to facts, and aren't reducible to intuition. A priori reasoning is an example. Saying you "assume" a premise for the sake of argument, then taking this to a conclusion is another. No naked intuition, just reasoning with logic to truths.

 

[quatona]

I was asking for input, not stating my own opinion. You always suspect secret motives from me, q.



See?

From your post #10:

I can already see one of the problems with reasoning: we don't really know how to define it relative to other methods of determining truth, and because of this it's easy to almost treat it like God and ascribe it omnipotent powers it doesn't really have.

 

[Received]

From your post #10:

Yeah, post 10, not the OP.

Splitting hairs, maybe...

 

[quatona]

Yeah, post 10, not the OP.

Splitting hairs, maybe...

Well, it was the post I was talking about when saying what you claimed to take away from this thread.
(I mean, already stating in the OP what you have taken away from the yet to unfold thread would be a bit too transparent, wouldn´t it? )

 

[quatona]

Now, why don´t you already go ahead and give us those "bad parts of reason" you have in mind, along with those alternative methods you keep talking about?