Why does the fluttering red cape prevail?

[coberst]

Why does the fluttering red cape prevail?

The confident Matador flutters the red cape, the massive bull charges, energetically hooking empty air in bewilderment.

Please be reasonable! Let us reason together. There was no reason for that. What do we mean by these common expressions?

Ignoring the fact that these are generally just common exclamations by most of us that are meaningful only in their emotional content; what is the source of our indication of reliance on ‘reason’?

“The decay of decency in the modern age, the rebellion against law and good faith, the treatment of human beings as things, as the mere instruments of power and ambition, is without a doubt the consequence of the decay of the belief in man as something more than an animal animated by highly conditioned reflexes and chemical reactions. For, unless man is something more than that, he has no rights that anyone is bound to respect, and there are no limitations upon his conduct which he is bound to obey.” Walter Lippmann

Western democracies have invested in a concentrated effort to establish a ‘confidence in reason’ because it is assumed by the sophisticated that reasoning is the principal factor that makes humans different in kind from other animals.

A popular adage goes something like this “I cannot argue down a conviction that has not been argued up.” It is impossible for me to use reason to convince someone who is without confidence in reason that they should have confidence in reason.

An adult without confidence in reason must start the effort to study reason before they can gain a confidence in reason. Perhaps that is impossible also. Perhaps it is the case that an adult without a confidence in reason will never have confidence in reason.

I suspect that 95% of the adults in the US have no confidence in reason and if my logic is correct they never will have that confidence. If that does not depress 5% of the population then nothing will. Perhaps it will delight the other 95%.

Further thought leads me to modify that statement. The 95% without confidence in reason do in fact have some confidence in reason. They do recognize that as an instrument to gain a goal reason is necessary.

What can we say about the 95% and reason? I guess we can say that they often have confidence in reason but that confidence is restricted to a limited aspect of life.

Is a person capable of having confidence in reason when that person is almost completely ignorant of the nature of reasoning?

“Confidence in reason is based on the belief that one’s own higher interests and those of humankind will be best served by giving free play to reason…The very idea of reasonability becomes one of the most important values and a focal point in one’s life. In short, to have confidence in reason is to use good reasoning as the fundamental criterion by which to judge whether to accept or reject any belief or position.” Quote from Critical Thinking: What every Person needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World Paul and Elder.

A person who lacks confidence n reason might place their trust in:

1) Charismatic leaders
2) Institutional leaders
3) Corporate leaders
4) Spiritual leaders
5) Social leaders
6) Political ideologies
7) Gut feeling
8) Fate
9) Astrology
10) Parents

 

[ragarth]

If I may ask, how is your definition of reason in this thread contrasted with rational thought?

 

[coberst]

If I may ask, how is your definition of reason in this thread contrasted with rational thought?

I would say that reasoning consists of conceptualization plus the ability to make if-then inferences from these concepts.

 

[Penumbra]

Why does the fluttering red cape prevail?

The confident Matador flutters the red cape, the massive bull charges, energetically hooking empty air in bewilderment.

Please be reasonable! Let us reason together. There was no reason for that. What do we mean by these common expressions?

Ignoring the fact that these are generally just common exclamations by most of us that are meaningful only in their emotional content; what is the source of our indication of reliance on ‘reason’?

“The decay of decency in the modern age, the rebellion against law and good faith, the treatment of human beings as things, as the mere instruments of power and ambition, is without a doubt the consequence of the decay of the belief in man as something more than an animal animated by highly conditioned reflexes and chemical reactions. For, unless man is something more than that, he has no rights that anyone is bound to respect, and there are no limitations upon his conduct which he is bound to obey.” Walter Lippmann

Western democracies have invested in a concentrated effort to establish a ‘confidence in reason’ because it is assumed by the sophisticated that reasoning is the principal factor that makes humans different in kind from other animals.

A popular adage goes something like this “I cannot argue down a conviction that has not been argued up.” It is impossible for me to use reason to convince someone who is without confidence in reason that they should have confidence in reason.

An adult without confidence in reason must start the effort to study reason before they can gain a confidence in reason. Perhaps that is impossible also. Perhaps it is the case that an adult without a confidence in reason will never have confidence in reason.

I suspect that 95% of the adults in the US have no confidence in reason and if my logic is correct they never will have that confidence. If that does not depress 5% of the population then nothing will. Perhaps it will delight the other 95%.

Further thought leads me to modify that statement. The 95% without confidence in reason do in fact have some confidence in reason. They do recognize that as an instrument to gain a goal reason is necessary.

What can we say about the 95% and reason? I guess we can say that they often have confidence in reason but that confidence is restricted to a limited aspect of life.

Is a person capable of having confidence in reason when that person is almost completely ignorant of the nature of reasoning?

“Confidence in reason is based on the belief that one’s own higher interests and those of humankind will be best served by giving free play to reason…The very idea of reasonability becomes one of the most important values and a focal point in one’s life. In short, to have confidence in reason is to use good reasoning as the fundamental criterion by which to judge whether to accept or reject any belief or position.” Quote from Critical Thinking: What every Person needs to Survive in a Rapidly Changing World Paul and Elder.

A person who lacks confidence n reason might place their trust in:

1) Charismatic leaders
2) Institutional leaders
3) Corporate leaders
4) Spiritual leaders
5) Social leaders
6) Political ideologies
7) Gut feeling
8) Fate
9) Astrology
10) Parents

I think those 10 places of trust are more dangerous than placement of trust in reason. Reason allows someone's perspective to be changed when new information or arguments arise, but trust in those 10 things has a higher chance of leading to a one-sided perspective that is immune to change or external opinion.

That is not to say that reason cannot be used for dangerous ends, but at least someone who is dangerous due to his conclusions on reason can be reasoned with!

I completely disagree with the quote by Walter Lippmann. What decay of decency is he talking about? He says the treatment of human beings as things is due to viewing a human as an animal, and yet slavery and wars and genocide have existed for thousands of years. How odd that he says that when he himself was born in a country only 30 years or so after the abolition of slavery.

Everyone in some way relies on reason. Some more than others, but everyone does at least to some extent. I think relying purely on reason is not usually a good choice, though. It needs to be tempered with emotion, or "gut feeling" as you address in option number 7. When performing something that is concluded to be reasonable, people still need to take a step back and think, "Does this feel right?"

-Lyn

 

[Sphinx777]

"Does this feel right?"

“Intuition is the supra-logic that cuts out all the routine processes of thought and leaps straight from the problem to the answer.”

~ Robert Graves

“Intuition is a combination of historical (empirical) data, deep and heightened observation, and an ability to cut through the thickness of surface reality. Intuition is like a slow motion machine that captures data instantaneously and hits you like a ton of bricks. Intuition is a knowing, a sensing that is beyond the conscious understanding — a gut feeling. Intuition is not pseudo-science.”

~ Abella Arthur

 

[Gracchus]

“Intuition is the supra-logic that cuts out all the routine processes of thought and leaps straight from the problem to the answer.”

~ Robert Graves

“Intuition is a combination of historical (empirical) data, deep and heightened observation, and an ability to cut through the thickness of surface reality. Intuition is like a slow motion machine that captures data instantaneously and hits you like a ton of bricks. Intuition is a knowing, a sensing that is beyond the conscious understanding — a gut feeling. Intuition is not pseudo-science.”

~ Abella Arthur

Of course, intuition is often deadly wrong.

 

[Penumbra]

“Intuition is the supra-logic that cuts out all the routine processes of thought and leaps straight from the problem to the answer.”

~ Robert Graves

I think that intuition shouldn't be used to cut out thought and logic, but instead should be used along side of it.

“Intuition is a combination of historical (empirical) data, deep and heightened observation, and an ability to cut through the thickness of surface reality. Intuition is like a slow motion machine that captures data instantaneously and hits you like a ton of bricks. Intuition is a knowing, a sensing that is beyond the conscious understanding — a gut feeling. Intuition is not pseudo-science.”

~ Abella Arthur

I disagree with this quote. By implying that intuition is not psuedo-science, he seems to imply that intuition is a science, which I think is very wrong. A sensing beyond conscious understanding is just poetic fluff, because two people can very opposing gut feelings about the same topic, and one or both can be just plain wrong. Intuition is merely our conscience telling us something that it has learned through thousands of generations of development and instinct over the years. It's a powerful, useful tool, but it's not infallible, and needs to be coupled with thought and logic.

-Lyn


[/quote]

 

[Suggestion Box]

lets define 'dangerous'=leading to something bad

i think when we say that trust in items 1-10 is 'dangerous' we are implying that reason is more controllable than trust, and that control will lead to either good or neutral situations in most cases.

i doubt that we really have any control in either case over whether our situation will turn out good or bad or neutral. good bad and neutral are opinions, whereas reason can deduce facts. we may have control over whether a certain outcome will succeed a certain stimulus. but as to whether we like the outcome or not, that's purely up to opinion. in saying its dangerous to trust, we're making a lot of assumptions about what's good and what's bad. these are opinions, not facts. how many of us can say we know what's good for us, if good is an opinion having nothing to do with reason?