The (apparent) Rationalist Delusion in Moral Psychology - Jonathan Haidt

[LovePrevails]

Author of the Righteous Mind - very worthwhile presentation maybe Stef should debate this guy I would love to see it

 

 

I noticed one or two self-detonating statements from Haidt, lets see if you see what I see or something else

[jpahmad]

The whole thing is self-detonating.  He's using reason to try to prove that reason is in-effective?

[LovePrevails]

The whole thing is self-detonating.  He's using reason to try to prove that reason is in-effective?

 

yeah and he says that he doesn't think we should be parsimonious - should we be parsimonious about that statement?

there is a lot of interesting points in the presentation but the conclusions he draws are not the best ones to draw from those points

[bugzysegal]

yeah and he says that he doesn't think we should be parsimonious - should we be parsimonious about that statement?

there is a lot of interesting points in the presentation but the conclusions he draws are not the best ones to draw from those points

 

The whole thing is self-detonating.  He's using reason to try to prove that reason is in-effective?

 

You have all butchered his arguments. He doesn't flatly argue against mind changing through argumentation, but that it is highly bound by other factors. He doesn't say psychology should be inconsistent, but that it's search for consistency in human cognition should not merely seek out the dominance of rationality(avoiding confirmation bias reinforcing dominance of rationality). When you argue against someone, not only is it fair to accurately represent someone's arguments for critique, but this effort is what lends your critique credibility.   

 

I would ask you to suspend your disbelief briefly:

 

Arguing contradictions can't be true doesn't invalidate(make impossible) the possibility of contradiction. If that seems non-sensical (which I'm sure to most it does)in stead of trying to follow an argument, allow your mind to paint a picture: Reason is a tool so well crafted, that we have very few other ways for communicating sophisticated meaning. At the roots of language, where we acquire it, there is action with certainty, without empirical doubt or reason. The fact that we speak at all expresses the fundamental belief that their are other minds. Saying that "arguing against reason" is a bad argument is true, if reason is the tool you are trying to use. That does not mean it is the only tool. Art experiments with all manner of communication.

 

 Reason is but a tool, not one of divination of fundamental truth, but one assessing patterns emerging from molecular, to the celestial. We are nested comfortably in the goldy-locks zone of physics.Imagine that we only think reason explains all we examine, merely because we assume it does. What if we pervert it and change its functioning to serve our purposes becoming in effect the ultimate confirmation bias? So far the tools of practical reason (science) have given us good answers, but what would it mean if there were always more questions? If there is no bedrock to physics, must there be one of truth? Or is truth more like water than the cup?

 

My introduction to philosophy class was taught a by a Dr. of Eastern philosophy. After rigorous back and forth about how I saw Buddhism as irrational, she replied that Buddhism was not rationalist. I didn't know how to reply because I never thought people would adhere to a system of beliefs which didn't strictly adhere to reason. This was many years ago. Determined to prove the world a reasonable one, I delved into philosophy as my major. These days, I see that alternative less as a surrender to not knowing. The existence of mystery doesn't necessarily depend on our ability to comprehend it (though it might which would be mysterious indeed!). In case this also sounds like sciencey-new-age-woo to you, I assure you I'm not meditating about "quantum consciousness" Certainty is good and perhaps it is too seductive. Without it their would be no language. That does not negate the fact that the world may be stranger than we can imagine.