Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[questor]

It is possible that more has been written about and less learned about this subject than any issue discussed on this site. if Dr. D. has something of value, i would enjoy learning about it. the disparaging comments about ones of us who have joined in this discourse have in no way enhanced the value of
his project. instead of cloaking this seemingly empty vessel in polysyllabic
words, why not simply explain why this subject is important to anyone or can improve our society? it seems this has not been accomplished. i have no fight with Dr. or any wish to disparage him, but of what use is all this to anyone?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Originally Posted by questor

It is possible that more has been written about and less learned about this subject than any issue discussed on this site. if Dr. D. has something of value, i would enjoy learning about it. the disparaging comments about ones of us who have joined in this discourse have in no way enhanced the value of
his project. instead of cloaking this seemingly empty vessel in polysyllabic
words, why not simply explain why this subject is important to anyone or can improve our society? it seems this has not been accomplished. i have no fight with Dr. or any wish to disparage him, but of what use is all this to anyone?

Ok.
Umm, if we are engaging in a rational discussion, how are we to know that? If we are not, same thing. How are we to know that too?
In other words, what makes a discussion rational. We ARE discussing here, and i believe (oops. think. am sure. guess) we are, it's a discussion.
So, putting aside the efficacy of our beliefs, what's left?
Explanation.
I explain. You explain. We weep and we repeat.

So, unless rational is tied to the efficacy of our beliefs, it is only tied to our explanations. To the nature of our explanations inasmuch as we can identify the elements of an explanation, qua explanation.

A mathematical formula is an explanation and so is a sentence.

What makes it rational?

[questor]

Steve, please re-read your reply to me. i do believe we are now descending into the realm of absurdity.
this is truly a conversation where the answer ''don't mean nothing''. please include me out on any further continuance on this issue. there are many things of substance to discourse on. let's move on!

[Doctordick]

Sorry about the delay of my response but I guess my personal reality had dwindled to such a small subset of reality itself that I couldn't encompass the time to find the forum. You know, those trivial things like grandchildren, dinner parties, entertainment, travel plans and, now that it's summer, lawn care on top of it all. What is left of “my personal reality” is almost chock full to the hilt. I have no idea how I managed prior to retirement.

But, no problem; I managed to get this into my “dwindled schedule”.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

... the option to 'suspend all my beliefs' enters in here? I don't have a problem with that. It scares me sometimes that I think I can do that quite easily.

If you can then I think we could have a rational discussion. All I ask is that you make no assertions unless you can prove they are valid. I will try to do the same. You need to understand that such a standard is extremely hard to maintain and I fully expect mistakes on both our parts; however, I will treat each of your complaints on my logic as issues to be defended in detail and am prepared to do just that. Secondly, I hope you do not become upset when I suggest that something you have said doesn't hold water.

Originally Posted by ldsoftwaresteve

A mathematical formula is an explanation and so is a sentence.

What makes it rational?

Well, I made my contribution: I said (see post #188) that the adjective “rational” means that whatever it is that is being modified by that adjective (its object) “does not generate emotional doubts as to its validity”. So the issue as to the rationality of a given statement is made by the listener (no trustworthy contributor ever puts forward an idea he himself holds to be irrational). It follows that a discussion is “rational” if the proffered statements do not raise emotional doubts as to their validity in the mind of any member of the discussion.

This is quite a bit looser than requiring a discussion to be factual but is still a rather extreme constraint. The reason for loosing the constraint is that the “factual” constraint is rather worthless from a philosophical perspective. The reason for requiring the constraint is that, without such a constraint, any discussion quite rapidly degenerates into what Kant referred to as “mock battles”: i.e., participants arguing about issues which cannot be settled. No squirrel decision can ever be raised to the status of valid; the best possible status any such decision can ever acquire is “rational”.

It follows that the real issue here is, can we have a philosophical discussion which is rational? That is to say, is there enough left, after we strip out anything which “generates emotional doubts” in the participants, to yield a worth while discussion. My point, with this thread, was merely an attempt to get people to see the difference between “justified beliefs” and “reasonable beliefs”. Let us be “reasonable”! I find very few of the threads on this (or any other forum) to be very “reasonable”.

Have fun -- Dick

[SidewalkCynic]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

It follows that the real issue here is, can we have a philosophical discussion which is rational? That is to say, is there enough left, after we strip out anything which “generates emotional doubts” in the participants, to yield a worth while discussion. My point, with this thread, was merely an attempt to get people to see the difference between “justified beliefs” and “reasonable beliefs”. Let us be “reasonable”! I find very few of the threads on this (or any other forum) to be very “reasonable”.

I agree!

I have yet to read through the entire article, I will do so, but allow me to indulge in some immeadiate reaction. My personal evaluation of discussions, of any medium, is that the understanding of logic, and reason, is incorrect.

Reasoning, or inference, is based on premises, that are considered to be true, no matter what the short-term consequences may appear to be for the argument. What seems to not be understood by participants is that the premises are not agreed upon, because premises have evolved into complex structures and are unregulated, except in the physical sciences: bio-logical, astro-logical, etc. In those areas scientists have done an exceptionally good job of isolating the logical systems from human ideology, and of course, the ideology of supernatural intervention.

Now, when it gets into more abstract discussion of areas that are "less observed and measured," the problem, seemingly to me, is that ideologies are not isolated and regulated to maintain a standard of uncorrupted logic specific to the foundational premise(s). And, this is the enormous error of Atheists, who contend that they are without religion, which in essence, to those of us who do not believe in the existence of a supernatural dimention, is just an ideology with a complex set of premises (moral) that includes a god, which is just another complex set of premises (logic).

So, although, Atheists do not have a belief in gods, they do however retain an ideology - a philosophical social system (poorly regulated by peer group pressure) of complex premises that guides them to be able to function in a society that is dominated by the theists and their faulty complex logic social system.

And so, discussions, of any sort, beyond the techno-logical standardizations, is erroneous, and eventually leads to the economic (unregulated and compromised social-political ideologies system) crisis we are enduring now.

And, I know what you mean by, "have fun."

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

In essence, there are two very different ways of "understanding the universe". There is that emotional feeling that something makes sense; . . . Then again there is a very different kind of understanding which allows you to logically defend some set of analytical expectations in intimate detail; even in cases where no emotional feeling exists to defend the validity of those expectations (here I am talking about all those totally counter intuitive deductions so common in analytical work).

. . .

I will use the adjective "logical" to classify a specific kind of thought commonly believed, particularly by intellectuals, to be the only possible variety of rational thought (I suspect they believe rational and logical are merely different words for the same phenomena). In my head, the term "rational thought" implies the idea being expressed makes sense: i.e., it does not generate emotional doubts as to its validity. Under that view, the adjective rational does not always imply "logical". The view also makes it apparent that "rational statements" (though they seem to make sense) are not necessarily valid, a point anyone familiar with the development of science should be aware. That is, very bright people have made errors in their beliefs from time to time; but that does not mean that those beliefs were irrational.

If one holds that only logical thoughts are rational, then scientific progress becomes impossible since any deductions must be based on things presumed to be valid without reason (those axioms one starts with) and that is certainly irrational.

and the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

Logic and rationality are different IMO. Logic is a process of structural derivation of a conclusion which then ought to be consistent with evidence. Rationality is a characteristic of the conclusion; in essence, we characterize conclusions as rational or irrational based on whether such conclusions are consistent with evidence.

Logic is a path which must be constructed to get from evidence to conclusion. Rationality is the quality of the conclusion.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by lawcat

Logic is a path which must be constructed to get from evidence to conclusion. Rationality is the quality of the conclusion.

I am sorry but you seem to have missed the very essence of my post. The issue which I tried to raise is the fact that there are two very different paths capable of getting from evidence to conclusion and that neither path is sufficient standing alone. And, yes, rationality is the quality of the conclusion. My point being that rationality can not be achieved without recognizing not only the two paths but also the inherent benefits and problems associated with each of them.

Have fun -- Dick

[lawcat]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

I am sorry but you seem to have missed the very essence of my post. The issue which I tried to raise is the fact that there are two very different paths capable of getting from evidence to conclusion and that neither path is sufficient standing alone. And, yes, rationality is the quality of the conclusion. My point being that rationality can not be achieved without recognizing not only the two paths but also the inherent benefits and problems associated with each of them.

Have fun -- Dick

I apologize if I missed the point. My intent was to frame the context, and then, as we get on the same page about meanings, we can get to the point.
In another post, here http://hypography.com/forums/philoso...cience-14.html, at #136, I discussed the two paths: the induction and deduction; and their respective nature and benefits. In science, one of the two paths must be pursued: either inductive or deductive. IMO, the inductive path is always preferred, because it is based on empirical probabilities. Deduction should be used only when induction will not do; but neither path can be disregarded.

OFF TOPIC:
I've been thinking about your use of the sigma function in Schrodinger. My question is this: Does your use of the sigma function operate to quantize the fundamental equation? If so, does that imply that spacetime as a medium is quantized in its essence?

[HydrogenBond]

If you reason with empirical evidence, one is not not dealing with premises, which are sharp points. Rather one is dealing with premises that are fuzzy balls. Logic connects the premises, in both cases, with fuzzy balls offering more subjective flexibility.

For example, if we have two points, there is only one logic line that can connect two sharp points. If we have two fuzzy balls, there are many lines of reasoning that can connect them. One can start at the bottom of the first ball and connected to the top of the second ball. This particular line of reasoning will have a different angle than the rational line that connects two sharp points. This range of logical angles is implicit of subjectivity that is added to reasoning, relative to the ideal world of a singular line between point premises. There is uncertainty in the fuzzy ball, making it ripe for subjectivity.

Let me give a practical example. During a lightning storm, one is at risk of getting struck by lightning. This is a fuzzy ball premise, that can be used for further reasoning, since there is no data that suggest everyone who goes outside during a lightning storm gets struck. However, somewhere in that fuzzy ball premise there are real examples. But we don't know where in the fuzzy ball these examples will be today. So we have to pick somewhere to begin reasoning.

Using logic, we can start anywhere in the ball, even in places where we won't get struck in reality, but will still logically infer the need to stay indoors. There will usually be fear involved in the subjective angle of risk. Fear creates two subjective choices; fight or flight. This helps, since anything that touches the ball will generate fear to make the fuzzy ball appear to be tighter.

What is interesting, instead using the subjectivity within risk/fear for fuzzy ball reasoning, what would happen if we induced the desire emotion, as the fuel for the subjective angles between fuzzy ball premises. Whereas fear narrows the mind to two basic choices, desire is promiscuous, compulsive, fickle and even faithful. What this does is open up more angles.

I enjoy fuzzy ball logic as much as anyone else, because it is very flexible and can get one all pumped up with subjectivity. Logically, if one can't do anything about fuzzy premise, since many are good empirical science, one can still approximate the line through the fuzzy ball centers using subjective angle generation and then taking an average of all the possible angles in fuzzy ball reasoning. That is why I generate so many angles, but don't camp out too long at any one angle. I try to touch the entire fuzzy ball with the hope I can see the average line down the center.

Another trick for logical optimization is to avoid fear, as the subjective background, when reasoning with fuzzy premises. Fear will narrow the mind down because of subjective consequences, making it harder to get a good average, since the logical angles allowed will be weighted too heavy one way.

One needs to use desire, instead of fear, because desire will go where fear will not go. That is why in culture money, prestige, recognition, etc. are all based on desire, setting the background emotional ambiance for people and scientists, to help avoid the narrowing effect of fear so they can strike out on another angle. This gives more angles to take an average. We may not be able to change some of the fuzzy premises of science, since many things have to be done empirically. But we can optimize logical conclusions using these fuzzy ball premises. One has to understand the nature of subjective angles, the type of emotion used especially between fear and desire, and try to take an average.

[Rade]

Rational discussion of "r" at time "x" may differ from rational discussion of "r" at time "y" because the facts of reality of "r" may have changed during the interval of time "t" intermediate between moments "x" and "y".

For there to be a rational discussion (that is, you want the discussion to be in accordance with the facts of reality), there is only one way--you must use reason. "Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference...." (Ayn Rand). The common denominator is that "reason" can be used at both moments "x" and "y" thus allowing for the possibility of rational discussion of "r" at all moments of time. But rationality it is an act of volition, irrational discussion of "r" also possible at any moment.

Thus, defining the nature of rational discussion is the process of using reason to communicate the facts of reality of "r" at different moments of time.