Moderator: Community Team
Doom wrote:The problem with reason is that it is patently ridiculous. No person has ever been shown to be able to participate in the act of reasoning. Instead, all studies of the matter show that humans decide first and then use "reason" to justify their decisions. Of course, you have the obvious triumphs of reason like Aristotle stating that women aren't as intelligent because they have less teeth.
TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Doom wrote:The problem with reason is that it is patently ridiculous. No person has ever been shown to be able to participate in the act of reasoning. Instead, all studies of the matter show that humans decide first and then use "reason" to justify their decisions. Of course, you have the obvious triumphs of reason like Aristotle stating that women aren't as intelligent because they have less teeth.
That reminds me of something Heinlein wrote, unfortunately i can't find it and don't remember where it came from. It was similar, and it said something along the lines of reason or logic never revealed something not already known by the person. Reason is really a formalization or statement of something of which you've already drawn a conclusion or are convinced about.
I think that's largely true. I can say, however, that on a few occasions I've modified something i believed when presented with something truer, or where the logical conclusion reveals an inconsistency.
-TG
DoomYoshi wrote:Physics has become an unexperimental metaphysics, with theories rated on how "mathematically beautiful" they are, rather than with how they correspond with reality.
DoomYoshi wrote:The first ever psychology paper worth half a shit has been published. Maybe there is some hope for the field.
Symmetry wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:The first ever psychology paper worth half a shit has been published. Maybe there is some hope for the field.
Do you care about what other people think of you?
In 1970, I had the chance to attend a lecture by Stephen Spender. He described in some detail the stages through which he would pass in crafting a poem. He jotted on a blackboard some lines of verse from successive drafts of one of his poems, asking whether these lines (a) expressed what he wanted to express and (b) did so in the desired form. He then amended the lines to bring them closer either to the meaning he wanted to communicate or to the poetic form of that communication.
I was immediately struck by the similarities between his editing process and those associated with scientific investigation and began to wonder whether there was such a thing as a scientific method. Maybe the method on which science relies exists wherever we find systematic investigation. In saying there is no scientific method, what I mean, more precisely, is that there is no distinctly scientific method.
The Enlightenment’s original motive was to make analysis of the world possible by tearing the right to define reality away from divine authority to individual reason. Descartes’ ‘I think therefore I am’ moved the seat of knowledge into the human mind
Users browsing this forum: No registered users