Science and Rationality are not the end all be all

Post Reply New Topic

I have feelings of frustration and futility when trying to speak to some of the members on here. Some of them assume that one can be totally objective and totally impartial. Some of them assume that science, rationality and logic is the only way to obtain truth when it is not. The problem is every person has unconscious assumptions that they're going by and they have emotions as well that is a part of them. We all have our own experiences and genetic code that is unique to every individual.

Some of our perceptions will be different from each. All of this includes us Aspies as well. Science and Rationality is not the end all be all to obtain truth but is but one part in our toolbox. People are not always rational or logical. When one makes a decision one can't just determine the rationality of it like costs but one has to consider things like ethics and emotions of others as well. The scientific method and science are great tools to obtain truth but they're just that. They're just one tool out of other tools that we evolved with. These things are excellent and I am for these things. They have brought us great things. Still, none of us are robots, machines or computers. We're more than that. We human beings are more than just rational beings.

We human beings are the sum of our rationality, consciousness, unconsciousness, genetics, emotions maybe even more including having a soul. Yes, we have to be objective and rational but we can't lose ourselves to that. Please read Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift especially about the Houyhnhnms. They're a race of horses are very rational indeed.

My biggest fear is not that computers and robots may think like humans but what I fear most is the converse. The converse is that human beings start thinking like robots and computers. None of us all have all of the answers. Trying to get other members on here to understand this is so frustrating to me. I'm told by a certain member to draw my own conclusions. Well these are my conclusions from my own perceptions.

This is both a rant and a philosophical discussion but I would like to take this into a more philosophical discussion but I just had to get my feelings on this off of my chest.

I don't think it is possible. It's a noble ideal, though.


Exactly, and we are first and foremost human beings, a complex life form where "the whole is more than the sum of its parts" (Aristotle), be it cognitive abilities, emotions, experiences, needs, hopes, dreams, and the hopeless bewilderment when facing the incredible vastness of the universe. Aristotle once said that "the more you know, the more you know you don't know." Socrates even went further when he said that "the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing," but this was before Plato and Aristotle made important contributions to philosophy. We know something, but far from everything. Knowledge is like an onion: There is always another layer.

Yes, one example ...

The stock market can be irrational, so rational thinkers can do worse than irrational ones in finding the truth.

Computer program of "virtual monkeys making random picks" consistently beats investment managers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 ... 21285.html

A real cat beats investment managers at picking stocks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 79491.html

Name a way to obtain truth that is irrational.

Can you prove rationality?

I think he just did.

How?

The question follows as an implication of your claim that science, rationality, and logic is not the only way to obtain truth.

I can show beyond a reasonable doubt that reason is a means to the truth, yes. It must be effective because technology exists, and technology is the product of an effective understanding of natural laws.

Logic is self-supporting and true in all possible universes. That's why they call them the "logical absolutes".

I agree with the OP's point about scientism, which is the belief that science is the only way of finding out truth. It's merely the most reliable.

I think that science is the best way of finding out the truth. It's just that truth isn't everything that's needed. Consider a courtroom. Science can help find out the truth of what happened via forensic analysis, analysing CC footage, DNA analysis etc. But knowing the truth of what happened is not all that is necessary. It's just the first step. Science can be used to absolutely prove that X committed a murder. But what happens after that has nothing to do with science or with truth and everything to do with ethics, law, precedent etc.

Please do so if you don't mind?

It must be effective because technology exists

Never said it was ineffective. It is very valuable. I agree with that but I don't think it is the end all be all.



I can agree with this mostly but even then some things are open to interpretation and even scientists disagree sometimes.



How do you figure that this is so? Do you know all of the possible universes that currently exist and that can possibly exist? Why couldn't the natural laws be different in other universes if there are other universes? How can you claim that logic is self-supporting without using circular reasoning? Was there something that logic came from? What was the thing that logic was derived from and how was it derived? Are there some cases in which circular reasoning is acceptable and if yes which ones?

Christians claim that the bible and God self-supporting. It seems to me that you're doing what Christians do and that is you take some things upon faith.



With human behavior and psychology can you show me how logical absolutes apply? When it comes to human beings why can't contradictions exist like a person can both be good and evil at the same time like Maleficent?

Honestly, are absolutes truthfully absolutes or are they our interpretation?




To me, it still doesn't paint the entire picture because human beings still have an unconscious nature. We can be as objective as we can but total objectivity is not possible.

I'm not bashing science, rationality or objectivity. Far from it. I wish people were more objective that is why that one has to keep in mind that there is a subjective element in it that is not possible to remove even though one wants to try do so as much as possible.

Jannisy, I do not feel comfortable with claiming things as absolute. I settle for more than likely or plausible. To me, science can be used to prove that there is a high plausibility that X committed a murder. To me, absolute denotes 100%. I'm not comfortable with that. I will buy that it may be the most reliable but I simply don't like it or feel comfortable when it is treated as 100% when it is not. Results and findings can be open to interpretation, biases, predjudices, etc. I am basing this on my own experience and do you remember Whirlingmind? She showed how science can go wrong and how it can be subjected to human bias, prejudice and subjectivity. Can one truthfully be totally objective and in my experience I do not see how even though one can and should try to be as objective as possible? To me, those who claim they're objective in an absolute way I cast my doubts on even some of the Aspies on here.

You are so right about ethics, law, precedent, etc. These things are based upon our culture, history, beliefs, etc.

I don't know why but this just bothers me so much. It's like banging my head against the wall. This was what Whirlingmind was trying to get across as well.

Did the chicken cross the road or did the road cross the chicken?

This is my personality type and what I've noticed on this board is that a lot of Aspies on here are J. http://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality So, I clash.

I could be wrong on everything I'm trying to get across here. I don't know. If I am, I will alter my view.

Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 28 Jul 2014, 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One can consider emotions and wathever, but I dispute the claim that they can lead to truth.
Actually I would define rationality as the only kind of thinking that results in reliably correct conclusions. And science as any method that allows deducing demonstrable facts about nature.

I guess I fail to understand the criticism that people think science is the "end all be all". I'm not sure what that means beyond scientism, which is the belief that science is the only means of finding things out. Certainly we can be introspective and find out things about ourselves that would not be accessible to scientific inquiry (at this point in technological development).

Logic is not science, and the logical absolutes have nothing to do with the natural laws. The logical absolutes are:

Law of Identity

The Law of Identity states something is what it is:

A = A


Law of Excluded Middle

The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false.
A = A, is either true (A=A) or it is false (A=/=A)


Law of Non-contradiction

The law of non-contradiction states that two opposing statements cannot both be true:

A = A and A=/=A cannot both be true



The logical absolutes don't depend on physics or natural laws. It is the underpinning of anything being true. If they were false, then truth would be unobtainable since the universe would be nonsensical.

Certainly people can be both good and evil, but that isn't a contradiction, it's due to the imprecise nature of the words good and evil.

Total objectivity is an elusive goal, but that's why we have science, in order to rule out personal bias.

I will agree that rationality may be necessary but I do not agree that rationality is sufficient enough. When I mean truth I don't mean just understanding the universe and empirical existence. In addition, I mean how do we live our lives with virtue. How do we then live? To answer this question I believe rationality is necessary but insufficient. Part of living is to understand our empirical world but to me it is not sufficient. One has to expand outside of rationality to get a full measure of ourselves and existence.

If their computer simulation is so great, why aren't they investing in stocks with it? They could get rich just by selling their super program to investment bankers. It reminds me a bit of those self-proclaimed paragnosts. If they know so much about the future, why aren't they getting filthy rich by investments instead of scamming gullible people?

The stories mentioned about that one cat, and the one chimp are just that: annecdotal blahblah. Every once in a while you hear a story of a monkey being more succesful at investing than the market. It happens because sometimes by random luck you can beat the market.
One reason of course is that investment bankers are not just looking for the biggest return on investment, they also want low risk. They NEED a diversified portfolio that will also include low growth/low risk investments. In business you can only fail once (unless someone else bails you out of course), those chimps/cats/computers can succeed 9/10 times and people think that is pretty good. But if you have a bankrupcy chance of 1/10 every year it won't be long before you are out of business.