Rationality Ain't Sexy

[LaMont Cranston]

Sisifo, I trust that you will continue to keep a running count of the "I, me, myself, etc." references in the above post, and I put a lot of them in for your benefit. If there's actually something you'd like to talk about, that's fine, but if you just want to bitch about the way things are going, that's also fine. If you can convince others to have this thread moved to another section, rational thinking should let you know that the discussion will remain exactly the same...

[LaMont Cranston]

mm (or would you rather be called ML?), I'm back after a trip out into the world. I looked at all three recommendations, and there's something to be said for all of them. If I say "Let's all be reasonable," that sounds a bit preachy to me. I do happen to think that people will live better, happier lives if they employ the principles of rationality in areas of life that involve such things as relationships, money, career, self-image, etc. Besides having endless conversations about God vs no God, free will vs no free will, etc., it would appear to me that there are many other applications of rationality. Is there a way to say that without being preachy? Or, is that just a description of the way things are and will be?

In the case of your recommendation, "we want to be aware of this process, so we are efficient in maximizing whatever we want to maximize with the proper dose of assumptions and reasoning," I have no particular problem. However, it assumes that the person/people have identified goals they want to attain. I told you some, not all of my goals, and you said you're working on your list. If wouldn't come as a complete shock if we had some goals in common. Once somebody indentifies goals, it's easier to recognize where we want to spend energy and how we can maximize that expenditure.

As we use rational principles, we can better identify that which we want to maximize. At one point, some of my nephews told me that they thought they had a shot at getting athletic scholarships to a college. I pointed out to them that none of them had gone out for, much less made the varsity, of any team in any sport.

You recommendation uses the word "proper" in regard to assumptions and reasoning. I'm not sure how you would define "proper." I tend to go in the direction of examining all assumptions, even the ridiculous ones...most of them are easy to eliminate, and using as much reason as possible. Even if we do that, can we account for all mistakes, fuck-ups, unintended consequences, etc. No, but rational thinkers do have the capacity to do such things as change directions, compensate for errors, etc.

Like I said, rationality has all kinds of uses.

PS: I'm curious about your take on Dawkins. Do you think he acted in an irrational manner? Did he do harm to his image, stature or anything else?

[mm_ll]

LaMont, mm is fine.

You must know at this point that I define rationality as how we process assumptions to make decisions. We believe in our assumptions. We can check against the evidences presented, we can challenge the credibility of who presented the assumptions, we can go see with our own eyes, but in the end we always believe in our assumptions.

I think the people self called rationals just give a higher importance (ie value) to the processing side of the equation. They also try to check their assumptions against what is accepted by the science. For instance, they believe that e=mc2 because Einstein was a renowned scientist, etc etc. But they don't necessarily know exactly what does e=mc2 mean.

I like the work of Richard Dawkins (RD). I haven't seen him undermining irrationality yet. He says the word nonsense a lot, but that only mean that something did not make sense to his assumptions.

When he announced the shutdown of his forum, some people sent nasty emails. His irrational side capture this as personal attacks and his rational side wanted to maximize something (maybe his defense instincts, etc) and sent the outraged email. Afterwards, he checked his assumptions, made other assumptions and send his apology letter.

I personally don't see problems with that. RD - as any of us - have the irrational side and acted very irrationally on that moment, like many of us. It's ok.

Did he damage his image? it depends.

There are a lot of people that see him as 100% rational, and that rationality is better and therefore rational people are better. Those people may see him as hero, and they may have felt betrayed by him. Their irrational side is kicking in and they don't know how to handle it. That is why when you say that RD had an "emotional meltdown" you get a very strong response...

_______

You brought a very important point. Not everyone know their goals, therefore even when they are acting reasonably they may be trying to maximize something that they don't know what it is... now the equation becomes

assumptions + reason = decisions that maximize goals (known or unknown)

As you see, this equation has now even more degrees of freedom, therefore having a higher weight on reason is definetly (according to this definition) not reasonable...
___________

You mention 'let's be reasonable' sounds preachy. Yes, why not? we all are a little preachy some times. I can see that your irrational side can be afraid of this denomination. Makes sense, as you were permabanned (punished) by some that were not able to handle it, and were in position of power. So, try to move on and be in contact with your preachy side, or else.......

still have more to say.. but haven't had much time lately. see ya.
mm.

[LaMont Cranston]

mm, Once again, I have nothing against Dawkins. From what I've seen, the things I've said about him are mild compared to what many others, mostly those who have put him on a pedastal, have written on fora such as these. If anything, I'm grateful to RD for creating venues such as these where people can meet and discuss subjects that interest them.

I've been giving some thought to this thread since we last exchanged posts. One of the things this thread is about is whether or not we can apply rational principles to other parts of our lives other than the "God vs no God" debate and how we might do that.

If you'll notice, some people have responded with suspicion, hostility, anger, etc. In the case of Surendra, I never actually see him coming up with any ideas of his own. His primary tactic is to not very successfully attack the ideas of others with sarcasm. When I consider what might make rationality more appealing to others...and, let's face it, at least some of us think that would be a good thing...I find that certain modes of behavior and tactics work better than others. I can't say that I have found, both from personal experience and observing others, that anger, negativity, ridicule, sarcasm, etc. work very well. Or, at the very minimum, a little of them can go a long way, and those people who don't recognize the limitations of those tactics are being irrational.

I've said that I'm interested in the power of ideas and how they evolve and manifest themselves in the real world. It seems to me that the so-called "new atheism" has attracted at least two kinds of people. One grouip is composed of people such as yourself (and a lot of others) who place great value on rational thinking and are genuinely interested in the ongoing discussions between believers and non-believers. The other group is composed of people who have serious axes to grind with organized religions and other parts of life. Although these people tout the virtues of rationality and usually proclaim themselves to be "more rational than thou," these people are pretty irrational.

Religion, atheism, politics and a lot of other things can be very easy targets to point fingers at, but it's one thing to point fingers, and it's another thing entirely to actually come up with ideas and concepts that will work. I've said that I'm both a fan and a critic of atheism, and, after exchanging thousands of posts with non-believers, I'm still a theist. I do think that the set of viewpoints and ideas that atheism offers to the world deserves to be heard, but truly rational thinkers should be able to recognize that the way a message is delivered has a great deal to do with the way it will be received in the real world.

See you soon...