Imagine a deeply engaging debate between two sides of scholars. Trained at the best institutions in the world, these highly educated and intelligent scholars spend their lives charting the known universe, making detailed observations of celestial objects, their characteristics, movements, and so forth. Volumes of data have been compiled and from this data these scholars base their well reasoned decisions but two groups have emerged who are at odds over what the data suggests concerning a single issue. The issue? Whether Pluto in the House of Leo is a sign of fortune or misfortune for those born to water signs.
What's the problem here? You have educated, intelligent folk dedicated to a field of study. Everyone in the field bases decisions on empirical data. The entire process of study and reaching conclusions is completely rational, but most of you probably immediately scoffed once you saw this was about astrology, as you should, and that's because although the exercise of a belief may be rational, the foundational belief is irrational. There's nothing to suggest that anything about celestial objects drives humanity's moods or their likelihood of finding fortune or misfortune (short of them crashing into the Earth or something nearby which would have a physical effect). The basis of the field is faith, so it doesn't matter whether you're combing through the data to determine whether you should play the lottery or if the girl you met at the store would go out with you, the belief that such an answer could be found in this way is irrational, and pure faith. Likewise, with such a basis for your belief, you have no leg to stand on to criticize someone else who may be combing the same data for messages from the dead. Both of your beliefs are based on faith, so regardless of the rational and seemingly scientific approaches either of you make, neither has any kind of authority to dismiss the other's assertions based on their own. In other words, to say reading the stars for messages from the dead is silly because the stars are there to predict the future is absurd.
Take for instance the recent ghost of Michael Jackson story. Imagine if three groups were arguing over it. The first believes it's his ghost because ghosts appear as shadowy forms. The second discounts this as being a ghost because they believe ghosts emit light, and this clearly wasn't emitting light. The third group says the other two are nuts and the debate ridiculous since ghosts can't be captured on film. Who has an objective leg to stand on? No one, because not only isn't there some reference to cite on what the actual characteristics of ghosts are, the very possibility of ghosts existing can't be verified. Again, the argument may be conducted rationally, but what all the arguments are based on is faith, making the entire exercise one of futility, comparable to debating the winner of a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse.
2009-07-13
Based on what?
Give this post a thumbs up
I dig this post
Vote up on The Atheist Spot
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
lol...Clearly it wasn't a ghost, it was Shadow Monster.
Hold on now, Superman and Mighty Mouse have clearly defined attributes, and there is a canonical continuity, as well as an avenue for correcting contradictions (ongoing publications and retcons). There is no dispute, for example, that Superman is fiction, that he is from Krypton, and that he can fly under a yellow sun. On the other hand, with a character like Jesus, it is still under dispute as to whether he is real, fully divine, fully human, part of a trinity or not, etc etc.
Maybe that's because we still have the original documents that attest to Superman, but we can't say the same thing about Jesus. For instance, there are probably many extant copies of the original Superman comic book, whereas the closest version of the NT we have is probably so far removed from the original that it can't be relied on.
Imagine if all we had was a photocopy, of a faxed copy, of a mimeographed copy, of another fax of a photocopy of the original Superman. It would be illegible. ;)
Which Superman attributes will you rely on? The Gospel of Siegel and the Gospel of Byrne contradict one another.
... the winner of a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse.
Harry Potter
It's quite easy, DC canon is what is most recently published. Unlike the Bible, DC is willing to drop things from it's canon. For example, while Superman was born on Earth from a birthing matrix in Man of Steel, he was canonically born on Krypton and sent to Earth as a toddler, according to Birthright. This is because Birthright is more recent. In the Bible, there is much in he New Testament to contradict the Old Testament, but religious people refused to drop the OT from continuity. It's like having Superman being a flaming racist in Action Comics #340 and then having him be nice to other races in Action Comics #450, but then assert that he was just and morally good when he was racist and equally just and morally good when he wasn't.
... although the exercise of a belief may be rational, the foundational belief is irrational.
Well said. That's an excellent point.
As for the most important question of the moment, Superman (especially Dean Cain's character on the Lois & Clark series - definitely the sexiest Man of Steel ever!) kicks Mighty Mouse's ass.
"I'm normally not a praying man, but if you're up there, please save me Superman!" -- Homer Simpson
Philly said, "What's the problem here?"
In my opinion, the problem here is that Philly would have his guests believe highly educated and intelligent scholars trained at the best institutions in the world who spent their lives charting the known universe making detailed observations and basing well-reasoned decisions on volumes of data would oppose each other over whether Pluto in the House of Leo is a sign of fortune or misfortune for those born to water signs.
Unless Philly wants to concede that perhaps the best possible education in the world is in fact useless in safeguarding against woo, Philly presents the logically impossible, then acts as if its logical impossibility somehow scores points for his team via analogy.
So, for the people who don't already see through Scarlet A glasses, what's the point of this post? I saw where Philly said,
"..although the exercise of a belief may be rational, the foundational belief is irrational,"
Yet, irrational means "unsupported by evidence" whereas rational would mean "supported by evidence," correct? If so, how can an irrational belief be exercised rationally?
By following a false premise to it's attempted logical conclusion
QF,
It sounds like you're saying that following a false premise to it's attempted logical conclusion is rational. If so, I don't see how. If not, maybe I'm misunderstanding you?
Either way, it's always refreshing when I talk to somebody besides Evo, SI or Philly.
irrational is a term that means unsupported by logic, aka illogical. I believe abstract logic to be a completely separate entity from objective evidence obtained from measuring the natural world. It is entirely possible to start with a false premise or a nonobjectified claim (say, smoking is good for your health) and then derive a completely logical or rational conclusion based on it (if it's good for your health and you want to be healthy, then....), even if that conclusion (you should smoke to be healthy) is unsupported by real world evidence.
irrational also is the infinite amount of numbers in between every rational number. Of course i-rational-irrational is as logical as it gets because it holomorphically takes into account all possible numbers in the imaginary plane for each dimension in n-dimensional space, but that's too far off the point here.
QuantumFlux,
Thanks for that. Many atheists use irrational to mean "unsupported by evidence," so I can appreciate your distinction. Regarding your first paragraph, how would you say it relates to Philly's OP? Also, in light of your distinction, who's the arbiter of cogency?
Yet, irrational means "unsupported by evidence" whereas rational would mean "supported by evidence," correct? If so, how can an irrational belief be exercised rationally?.
Irrational belief - black cats crossing your path cause misfortune.
Rational exercise of irrational belief - avoiding black cats.
Philly,
Do you define rational as supported by evidence? Or supported by logic?
irrational = not based on logic = not based on reason
unobjective = not based on facts or evidence
False premises are typically unobjective claims, i.e. "black cats crossing your path cause misfortune." ....where's the proof?
Faulty logic is irrational deductions, i.e. "therefore white cats crossing your path causes good fortune" ....How does one deduce this? What about yellow cats then?
Fine though, go ahead and argue with the dictionary ;)
• To be rational is to make reasonable decisions.
• Reasonable decisions are ones based on logic and/or evidence.
• Although premises for one's logic or the evidence they rely on may be false, the process of making decisions based on such logic and/or evidence may be reasonable and thus rational.
Reason is the logic that connects one premise to a conclusion. When you give somebody "one good reason why", you are actually giving a given premise and the logical step that follows...."B" because "A". A reason is actually a step of logic from a premise, whether it be an objective or unobjective premise.
Philly,
You said, "Although premises for one's logic or the evidence they rely on may be false, the process of making decisions based on such logic and/or evidence may be reasonable and thus rational."
What I believe you're trying to say is that the decisions we make from faulty premises would be rational if the faulty premises were true, and that's correct.
Yet, the way I see it, rational behavior can only be founded on rational belief, and any behavior founded on irrational belief remains irrational. Behavior that derives from faulty premises shouldn't get a free pass because it would be rational if the premises were true. It's the "fruit of the poisoned tree" or "chain of induction" ideas:
If A is rational, so is B;
If B is rational, so is C;
If C is rational, so is D, E, F, etc. all the way to Z.
Note that the cogency of latter letters depends on the cogency of previous letters. So, that's why I disagree, for now.
Either way, is there any larger point you're trying to make here?
Quantum Flux,
Not sure if "argue with the dictionary" was meant for me, but arguing with the dictionary is not my intention. I realize that different people use different words in different ways. If I want to understand people, I need to know what they mean when they use those words. So, I was asking you and Philly what you meant when you used them. Now that you've both explained, we're all on the same page, and it feels good. If you have any idea how Philly's point relates to anything larger, I'm interested.
whatever, ha ha
Yet, the way I see it...
is wrong.
It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.
Well, there we have it folks: when it boils down to the nitty-gritty and the logic starts coming out, Philly's opponent is wrong because Philly says "Goddidit" -- er -- I mean, "Because Philly says so!"
I must have confused the two expressions, since both essentially express the same fallacious reasoning: handwaving and dismissal sans a valid counterargument of one's own is really no different than Fundamentalist denial because both aim to discredit their opponent's argument with appeals to authority rather than reasoned conclusions supported by logic and critical thinking.
I thought atheists and freethinkers were supposed to be different?
Philly,
Question: that one lady you always like to remind everyone of who refused medical treatment of some sort - according to your argument as I'm understanding it here, although her foundational belief was irrational, her "process of making decisions" to refuse medical treatment was rational then, right?
I'm still waiting to see if you feel your argument here has any larger significance, or not.
Either way, is there any larger point you're trying to make here?
Does it have a "larger point" to you? Don't you suppose that analogies are often laid out specifically for the reader to think about, and to see if it applies in any other ways? Does this post help clarify any "larger points" for you?
If there is a "larger point" you might expect to find yours in the summation:
Again, the argument may be conducted rationally, but what all the arguments are based on is faith, making the entire exercise one of futility
If you find no "larger point", you were treated to a nicely written post and you move on.
I believe it's called "take it for what it's worth" or "if the shoe fits, wear it" or "if it doesn't apply, don't take it personally".
She followed a false premise to it's logical conclusion Cl. There are a lot of people whom take unobjectified claims to the logical extreme and end up dead. There is no magic bulletproof vests for the religious faithful you know, they aren't immune or exempt from reality just because they believe they are.
I explained why you were wrong cl, so you're "handwaving" and other theatrics are really quite embarrassing for you.
As for the question, QF answered it just fine.
Evo,
You said, "Does this post help clarify any "larger points" for you?"
No, that's why I asked. People don't always get the meaning of analogies. I suppose I could've just assumed Philly was stating the obvious, but hey. I'm not taking any of this personally.
QF,
You said, "She followed a false premise to it's logical conclusion Cl."
Correct, and Philly maintains that her "process of making decisions based on [false premises] may be reasonable and thus rational."
Do you really agree with that?
Philly,
Think this out:
"Irrational belief - black cats crossing your path cause misfortune..."
followed by,
"Rational exercise of irrational belief - avoiding black cats."
How can there be a "rational exercise" of an irrational belief? I don't see how avoiding black cats suddenly becomes rational just because someone irrationally believes they bring bad luck. But hey, it's your claim.
Win the battle, lose the war.
That's how.
Or think about the story where the NASA engineers worked out the perfect landing for some probe but somehow they confused meters and feet and that fucker got drilled onto the surface. One little unit of measurement ruined it all, but hey, their numbers were right.
cl:
Distinguishing between valid arguments and sound arguments is an important part of formal logic.
A logical argument can have a correct form and faulty premises, yet be valid. This means that the the chain of reasoning can be correct, but, if one (or more) of the premises is false, then the conclusion will be false. Validity is a measure of the argument's structure and coherence, not of its truth.
A sound argument requires both correct structure (validity) and correct, or true, premises. This is, obviously, the goal that people seek to attain when arguing for various positions.
Given the distinctions between validity and soundness, Philly's point still stands: one can follow the recipe precisely, but if the ingredients are stale, the cake will taste like crap. Nevertheless, the baker can't be faulted for not following the recipe. If one wants to bake a delicious cake, then one needs to follow the recipe and use fresh ingredients.
NASA is a piece of shit. They went to the moon during the Apollo program and then they never built a Moonbase and haven't ever landed on Mars either, like Von Braun promised. What the heck is the point of the Space Shuttle and the ISS (originally Space Station Freedom)? Originally NASA was going to use that as a docking station for transits to Mars and the Moon, but that got cut in the 1970's with Apollo 17, NASA started doing business with the commies, and hasn't done anything spectacular with the manned missions since....that's a lot of beaurocratic tax dollars wasted. Imagine what Burt Rutan could have done with even a fraction of 1% of what NASA had dicked around with all those nonproductive years.
"Given the distinctions between validity and soundness, Philly's point still stands: one can follow the recipe precisely, but if the ingredients are stale, the cake will taste like crap."
I understand. That doesn't make it rational.
QF: Actually, the successive cutting of funds to NASA is why those things didn't happen. Have you forgotten all the times they've whored themselves as glorified UPS delivery drivers, taking commercial satellites and other experiments to make extra money? You think they decided to slingshot probes around planets saving fuel because they were green inspired?
cl: Actually, it does.
When there are limited funds, what appear to be more pressing issues, or when an investment won't show a return in the near future (especially not before re-election), funding NASA is determined to be less and less a priority. This is also why Venice doesn't have some system in place to stop the flooding, and partly why there's opposition to many of Obama's expensive programs.
A related sentiment is the notion of instant gratification in exchange for later payment. That's worked out real well for the US too, hasn't it?
Oh, and thanks for the more detailed explanation, Chaplain.
My apologies Philly. The best thing to come out of the NASA manned space program was the data and prestige gathered from Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17. I'm not really with the whole space shuttle and space station diplomacy thing, that's just a money waster without any real science being done. Also, I can't get over the idiotic taping over of some of the lunar landing mission films mistake that NASA made.
However, Hubble and much of the unmanned satellite missions to the moon and the other planets were very well performed and the huge amount of data from and low cost of the unmanned missions makes that part of NASA worth it.
Well you could also argue that which does not kill you makes you stronger and say those achievements on the cheap by NASA were made possible by short-sided dicks in Congress slashing their budgets. What's that about necessity being the mother of invention?
I need to make a correction to my previous comment about valid arguments. It is possible to have an argument that contains a false premise (or several false premises, in a long, detailed argument), yet still arrive at a true conclusion. The argument can, therefore, be valid, but unsound.
Validity is only one aspect of the deductive process. It's important, as it helps us examine whether the relationship between the premises and the conclusion are what we think they are. But, in the long run, soundness is what we really seek.
Validity is a necessary condition of soundness.
Philly,
So, is it rational, then, to ram airplanes into buildings because we believe nothing is more important than ridding the world of infidels? I fail to see how such is either reasonable or rational.
Yes, we can exercise formally valid logic off faulty premises. That doesn't make those behaviors rational or reasonable. While it might be formally valid, avoiding black cats is not reasonable or rational. That's all I'm saying.
Well that, and that I don't see the greater impetus of this post, if there was any intended. What's the point of stating the obvious? Of course behavior B makes sense given premise A.. and?
Cl, was it irrational for Japan to kamakaze bomb Pearl Harbor?
Avoiding black cats, if you believe having them cross your path will be bad, is rational. The foundational belief, however, is irrational.
I don't know enough about Islam to say whether flying planes into buildings of infidels is a rational decision based on Islam or not.
QF: The Japanese didn't begin kamikaze tactics until late in the war, so no kamikaze bombing of Pearl Harbor, just your regular old bombing, and torpedoing .
I'll be damned, F-ing world history teacher when I was in high school!!!
I thought you were boinking the neighbor's dog, while you were in high school, QF... no, wait... that's what you do, now!
LOL!
I saw Richard Dawkin's visage in my stool, the other day... and Darwin's in my Corn Flakes!
No ghosts, though.
I saw Richard Dawkin's visage in my stool, the other day... and Darwin's in my Corn Flakes!
You could try selling them on eBay.
Good luck with that.
Well, Chappy, turnabout is fair play, right?
Hi
Costume Watches Wholesale Audemars Piguet From Usa Discount Ladies
[url=http://auxwatches.007sites.com]cie watches[/url]
[url=http://colewatches.5webs.net]citizen solar watches[/url]
[url=http://jojowatches.hostaim.com]cole watches[/url]
[url=http://watches.awardspace.biz]concord diamond watch[/url]
[url=http://repwatch.bravehost.com]corum mens watch[/url]
Post a Comment