Seven reasons why people hate reason

[Jack]

How humans dared to know The 21st-century passion for "Enlightenment values" owes a lot to the 18th century. Philosopher A. C. Grayling discusses where those values come from and what they mean today 1: Reason stands against values and morals Shaping a moral and humane world requires more than reason, says Archbishop Rowan Williams 2: No one actually uses reason If we had to think logically about everything we did, we’d never do anything at all, says neuroscientist Chris Frith. Watch a related video 3: I hear "reason", I see lies Science is routinely co-opted by governments and corporations to subvert people’s ability to make their own decisions, say sociologist David Miller and linguist Noam Chomsky. Watch a related video and hear the full interview (28MB MP3). 4: Reason excludes creativity and intuition Reason is lost without art, says Turner prizewinner Keith Tyson. Watch a related video. 5: Whose reason is it anyway? Real people don’t live their lives according to cold rationality, says bioethicist Tom Shakespeare. Watch a related video. 6: Reason destroys itself Even in formal mathematics, reason breaks its own rules, says mathematician Roger Penrose. Watch a related video. 7: Reason is just another faith Unconditional reliance on a single authority is never sensible, says philosopher Mary Midgley.

Seven reasons why people hate reason - opinion - 14 July 2008 - New Scientist

Is reason just as unsatisfactory a framework for thinking as theism and superstition? Check out some the linked articles on the source page and let's discuss/debate.

[SoylentGreen]

It is unreasonable to take any of the seven points and only give one persons view on them. People tend to have there own particular bias and any number of good reasons for holding them.
Theism and superstition are when a person does not use reason , so they can not be compared.

[oracle13]

Reason is a slave of the passions, as David Hume recognised ages ago.

Practical reasoning has its uses. It is the tool which allows us to fulfill our desires.

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on where you stand, I'm not really sure), people have differing desires, and even unconscious desires, some would argue, that even they themselves are unaware of.

Within the framework of attaining a shared desire, reason is a good tool for achieving that desire.

Trying to use reason to argue about what is the most important desire, or whose desire trumps whose, is more difficult. Politics and ethics are the most important branches of study in my opinion.

[HelioPrime]

People can even claim they are acting only on sound logical reason. Bias and personal preferences always enter the game.

#5 is a good one. Who uses reason anyways except when it suits them.

[oracle13]

Mmmm I don't know about number 5. I watched the related video and the guy's case wasn't very strong at all.

He was arguing that the best way to change the public's opinions when it comes to health is not through statistics but through stories and emotions. As in, if a study comes out saying that 80% of people who smoke die younger, but one of your relatives smoked regularly till he was 90, you are unlikely to accept the statistics as truth.

Basically he shows that large numbers of people don't change their life just because someone gives them a good reason to. The answer to this problem is not to play along and lie to people or play on inherent biases to make them think what the state wants them to think. The answer is to instill that in certain cases reason is clearly the best way forward. This is one of those cases where everyone has the same ultimate desire (good health, though obviously it is impaired by other non-healthy desires, ie: smoking, drinking, eating too much). There is a definite, knowable, reasonable way of living healthily for any person on the planet, all they have to do is weigh their desires to find whether they want to quash their often strong desires for so-called vices.

[jsmill]

while this is an interesting idea, the only way we prove one another right or wrong is through reason: making this a rather silly objective.

[Shade]

Quote by: Jack Is reason just as unsatisfactory a framework for thinking as theism and superstition?

Plenty of people want you to believe that so you will give them equal credibility.

But it isn't true. Here's why ...

"Reality" is everything that exists.

Reality exists outside of anyone's consciousness.

Therefore, reality is objective (not subjective).

"Logic" is a set of rules that are used to apply and test ideas in the real world (reality).

The rules of logic are based on the behavior of matter and energy in reality.

Therefore, the rules of logic are objective (a set of rules for testing ideas in an objective world).

"Reason" is that mental process we humans use in evaluating the truth of an idea, and we do so by applying logic.

Therefore, reason is itself objective.

All forms of mysticism (religion, crystal ball gazing, etc.) are not.

Most people however, are not consciously aware of this, and that is why it can *seem* contradictory.

Therefore ...

1: Reason stands against values and morals Shaping a moral and humane world requires more than reason...

Reason is the *only* way one can figure out *objective* morality.

2: No one actually uses reason If we had to think logically about everything we did, we’d never do anything at all...

Everybody uses reason every day. For *most* people though, it is only done at the subconscious level.

If you are feeling hungry, you do not pray to the gods to drop food in your lap. No, you get your ass off the couch and go to the fridge or the store.

If you want healthy teeth, you do not pull out your tarot cards to find out if a fire-breathing dragon is next to a magic wizard of healthy teeth. No, you brush your teeth.

Everybody uses reason every day without thinking about it.

It's when people start to ponder more difficult ideas that they often abandon their own ability to use reason.

3: I hear "reason", I see lies Science is routinely co-opted by governments and corporations to subvert people’s ability to make their own decisions...

Yes, of course, because people who operate governments and corporations often abandon their own abilities to use reason. More precisely: they do use reason to arrive at ideas that they think will benefit themselves, but they stop there and do not consider at what expense it will be to others and, ultimately, themselves as well.

Notice: The person does not say science *itself* does not use reason, only that it can be co-opted (reason can be abandoned) when others use political power to corrupt the scientist.

4: Reason excludes creativity and intuition Reason is lost without art...

Using reason to test the objective truth of ideas does not mean that artistic expression is impossible.

It's just that artistic expression isn't a means of testing the truth of ideas, which are objective. Rather, it's a means of expressing personal preferences, which are subjective.

5: Whose reason is it anyway? Real people don’t live their lives according to cold rationality...

Same as #2 above (everybody uses reason every day).

6: Reason destroys itself Even in formal mathematics, reason breaks its own rules...

There are no contradictions in reality. Scientists understand this.

If you have an idea and there seems to be a contradiction when tested against reality, then your idea is faulty in some way. Your idea must yield to reality; reality does not yield to your idea.

7: Reason is just another faith Unconditional reliance on a single authority is never sensible...

Reason does not rely on a single authority any more than does science.

Faith is belief in the *absence of* evidence.

Reason is the means of determining truth *based on* evidence.

[oracle13]

Reality exists outside of anyone's consciousness.

This premise can be contested.

"Logic" is a set of rules that are used to apply and test ideas in the real world (reality).

A set of rules constructed by minds that may or may not comprehend reality as it 'is' whatever that means.

I am in full agreement with your conclusion I just want to try and tighten up what you are saying.

I think I am in full agreement with what you are saying but I'm not sure actually.

The world may be reality, but I don't care about the world, I only care about it as a tool to fulfill the desires that are placed within my mind. Reality, ie: everything 'outside' my consciousness that my consciousness perceives may be understood through reason.

Take, for example, a person with a phobia of pickles (this person actually exists). If you talk to her about why she is afraid of pickles, she can carefully explain that she has no reason to be afraid. But as soon as she is shown a pickle she can't stop her reactions.

Clearly this is an example of an action not based on reason. Is she stupid? No, clearly she has a recognisable problem. What's to say many 'unreasonable' people don't have problems like these, problems that are not medically documented because they are not frequent issues.

[Shade]

Quote by: oracle13 This premise can be contested.

Please do so. I am willing to be corrected if I'm wrong. But the idea that reality exists outside of anyone's consciousness is a pretty solid point.

An example: Was North America here before you were? Will it be here after you are gone? The answer to both is yes. So, we know North America exists outside of your (or anyone's) consciousness.

Do you have a counterexample or something that would disprove the point?

Reality, ie: everything 'outside' my consciousness that my consciousness perceives may be understood through reason.

I would just add a few things here.

First, reality is everything that exists (by definition). That means it *also* includes everyone's thoughts, since thoughts do exist. But the existence of reality is not *dependent upon* anyone's thoughts.

Second, your five senses directly perceive reality.

Third, your brain uses reason as the mental process to figure it all out.

Take, for example, a person with a phobia of pickles...

Do you pray to the gods to tell you why she has a pickle phobia?

No, you attempt to use reason to figure it out (assuming you want to figure it out in the first place).

Reason does *not* mean we know everything there possibly is to know. Reason is *not* knowledge itself.

Reason is a *process* we use to arrive at truth (aka "knowledge"). We may never know some things. We may even be wrong about something. But reason is a process that is self-correcting because it (a) allows for a null hypothesis (can be proven wrong), and (b) allows for admitting new evidence. This means that false ideas can be replaced with true ideas when new evidence or more sound arguments show up on the radar.

Superstition, on the other hand, does not allow for *ever* changing one's ideas because it is a requirement to adhere to the dogmatic preachings *no matter what evidence* is later discovered to the contrary.

The pickle phobia is likely to have a specific psychological root cause. I mean, honestly, who the hell is afraid of a pickle? It's not like being afraid of heights, which has to do with death, or claustrophobia that has to do with suffocation (death). Figuring it out would take someone who understands how to figure it out. (Not me.)

[oracle13]

The pickle phobia is likely to have a specific psychological root cause.

Of course it has a cause, but the point I was making is that even the knowledge of the cause will not change the fact that this person acts in ways that people would not deem reasonable around pickles. And yes I realise that was a fairly stupid example.

I think you are assuming that I am questioning reason as a process of gaining knowledge because I have some kind of other agenda, perhaps a religious one. This is not the case at all, I am looking at the question from a moral and political standpoint.

I will try and sum up the main thing I trying to get across:

1. I have certain desires that I have no control over.
2. Many of these desires can be best achieved through practical reasoning.
3. Often, my brain's reasoning faculties allow me to overpower a particular urge in order to allow the satisfying of another more important urge, or to allow the postponement of the satisfying of that urge. (this is basically the crux of any politics).
4. Sometimes, however, a particular desire cannot be overcome by the brain's own reasoning faculties (ie: pickle woman.) Or, another example, the film A Beautiful Mind. In fact this perfectly illustrates the point I am trying to make. In one scene the main character describes to his doctor how he feels his schizophrenia is like a math problem, and he just needs to time to find the solution.

There are a hold range of mental illnesses that certainly have causes which can be understood, but this does not necessarily mean they can be fixed. Russel Crowe's character works out for himself one of his delusions cannot possibly be real, yet it still manages to influence his behaviour.

Please do so. I am willing to be corrected if I'm wrong. But the idea that reality exists outside of anyone's consciousness is a pretty solid point.

Yeah I agree that there is an external world, I didn't really object in the way that I should have. My argument is more to do with the fact that it doesn't matter, for the meantime, that, if we perceive the external world exactly as it is (which is the only way we would be able to have unquestionable knowledge of reality), we can formulate a system of right and wrong answers about what we know and what we do not know. This objective system of knowledge is perhaps possible if we could somehow gather every piece of knowledge about this world, including the contents of every person's brain.

We will probably not ever achieve this amount of knowledge, and we certainly won't in our lifetimes. Thus, if we try and use pure reason to justify our actions, in this day and age, we must always fall short because we simply do not know the answers to many questions, because we don't have all the information. What reason does allow us to do, however, it to question the beliefs of people not using reason who still believe they have all the answers (ie: any religious dogma, any justification of an action not based on reason.)

Am I making sense?

The main objection I have to the idea that reason can be used to obtain objectively correct information about the world is made by my references to people with mental illnesses. Reasoning is a faculty our brains possess. We take information in, we draw up lists of possible responses to the information, we evaluate these responses based on our pre-programmed desires, and we choose and execute the appropriate response. Clearly, however, people differ in terms of every part of this reasoning model. Blind people don't take in the information of sight; this will affect the rest of their reasoning process. People with brain damage might not be able to consider choices that normal people would think obvious.

What this means is that either the external world is not concrete and people are perceiving different things, which would explain why they react in different ways (highly unlikely), or our brains are different, and we are processing the same information in different ways, explaining why we differ in our response to the same stimuli.

My point is, regardless of which is correct, sometimes we can't reason with people who choose to act differently from us, simply because their brains might not comprehend the kind of reasoning that we believe is self-evident. Simply put, some people can't be reasoned with BECAUSE they act differently from us. Some people can, but definitely, some people can't.

Not only this, huge areas of life are about value judgements. Is it better to kill an innocent child to save the lives of ten murderers? What if these murderers, were they to be saved, would go on to save the lives of 10,000 people, who would otherwise die? Any kind of reasoned answer you use here is based on a desire. And you certainly cannot choose your desires.

Reason is a slave of the passions, after all.

This post has been a huge ramble and I apologise if it makes no sense. This issue is really troubling me though, so please feel free to pick apart everything I've said because I'm not sure I like the consequences of what I'm saying.

[Jack]

An example: Was North America here before you were? Will it be here after you are gone? The answer to both is yes. So, we know North America exists outside of your (or anyone's) consciousness.

It's an extreme example perhaps, but an existentialist would say that we cannot to an absolute certainty say that North America was here before we were born or will be here after we die. How could anyone convince me that everything I perceive might be a construction of my own mind. There is no one we will ever know as well as we know ourselves. Everyone else could be a delusion. Even my physical body could be a part of the delusion. Maybe I'm a huge, deformed brain sitting in a beaker in some other reality making all this up.

Would that be an unreasonable possibility?

[minorwork]

Reason - 1) Ability to distinguish, 2) Capability of distinguishing "this" from 'everything else but this"


Expressed in such ways as:
Let there be a distinction
Find a distinction
See a distinction
Describe a distinction
Define a distinction
Let a distinction be drawn

Warming up with definitions. Any others?

[minorwork]

Quote by: Jack It's an extreme example perhaps, but an existentialist would say that we cannot to an absolute certainty say that North America was here before we were born or will be here after we die. How could anyone convince me that everything I perceive might be a construction of my own mind. There is no one we will ever know as well as we know ourselves. Everyone else could be a delusion. Even my physical body could be a part of the delusion. Maybe I'm a huge, deformed brain sitting in a beaker in some other reality making all this up.

I doubt I could tell any difference.

Would that be an unreasonable possibility?

One description certainly. Any other entities in the same boat?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Jack an existentialist would say that we cannot to an absolute certainty say that North America was here before we were born or will be here after we die.

But that lack of knowledge is, itself, supposed to be an absolute certainty... which is why existentialism is often self-contradictory.

As for the op, we use reason constantly. We use it so much that it becomes second nature to us. We like to think that things like love and trust have nothing to do with reason, but they have everything to do with reason. We ignore the millions of little things that our loved ones do that prove to us that they love us.

Even things most individuals would consider irrational have a crude logic to them.

The 7 points in the op are just part of conservative theism's attack on all things scientific. If you believe them, then you're just another casualty in the culture war... kinda like Helio. Who's reason lol.

[oracle13]

But that lack of knowledge is, itself, supposed to be an absolute certainty... which is why existentialism is often self-contradictory

The sentence:

'It is uncertain whether reality exists outside our mind'

is not equivalent to

'It is certain that it is uncertain whether reality exists outside our mind'

The second implies that true knowledge of the subject is impossible, whereas the first implies true knowledge of the subject is not known YET.

Even things most individuals would consider irrational have a crude logic to them.

Just because every behaviour has a cause doesn't mean every behaviour is rational. By that definition of rational, everything with a cause is rational, and thus everything is rational.

Read my previous post for a more substantial exposition of my stance, I feel quite certain you will disagree with part or all of it, and I would like to hear counter-arguments to what I am saying.

[isaone]

Quote by: Jason Is reason just as unsatisfactory a framework for thinking as theism and superstition?

Absolutely NOT!!!! .

Is reason/rationality perfect . No of course not because the tools (humans) that are using it are limited in their capabilities. But to compare it to superstition and theism is ridiculous since they have absolutely nothing going for them at all. The only times that superstition and theism advance the human situation is either when they use dumb luck or simply use reason disguised as revelation (i. e. Incan priests using real astronomy to predict eclipses and then pretending that the Gods revealed it to them)

This method of attacking a concept is identical to what the intelligent Designers use against Evolution. They erroneausly think that by finding places when Evolution has been shown to be incorrect of has not yet explained everything that they prove ID to be correct. This is completely mistaken. To show that superstition/theism is superior you must compare to two approaches to one another and discard the one which performs the worst. The "winner" will not be perfect but we can only use the best we have.

Imagine you wanted to get to England in 1801. You are planning on going by boat but a friend tells you

• You will be not going by the shortest route. in fact it will take you hundreds of miles further than if you flew in a straigth line like a bird
• Sometimes there are storms that cause you to go further off course or even die

So therefore your friend says you should just go in a straight line on horseback in some other direction because then you will not be tacking back and forth and getting blown all over by storms.

Obviously you have had to be an idiot to take the friends advice. This line of attack on reason is identical. Science may not always get you there immediately. It may take you in circles for some time and run you down a few dead ends but it has a mechanism for getting us closer and closer to our goals. It discards bad ideas and rewards (over time) things that actually produce the results we want. Theism and superstition fail miserably in the only test that matters. Getting the result we wish more often than pure chance.

[isaone]

On the pickle issue by the way . Your friend's fear of pickles has a definite reason based cause. It is clearly due to some sort of physiological/chemical event taking place in their brain. We may not yet have the tools to find the exact nature of that event but we are getting closer and may someday get there. Certainly humans do not always act 'reasonably' . No one will disagree with that but in no way does the human's inability to act reasonably have any impact on the comparison of the concept of reason vs the concepts of theism and superstition.

[oracle13]

No one will disagree with that but in no way does the human's inability to act reasonably have any impact on the comparison of the concept of reason vs the concepts of theism and superstition.

This is a position I fully agree with. In my previous posts I was only trying to highlight the problems with reason, not trying to advocate another method of gaining knowledge/fulfilling desires.

[Shade]

Quote by: oracle13 Of course it has a cause, but the point I was making is that even the knowledge of the cause will not change the fact that this person acts in ways that people would not deem reasonable around pickles.

True. That's because people act on emotions all the time.

Let me try this and tell me what you think:

Humans have the *ability* to use reason, but that doesn't mean they always do.

Emotions are the human response mechanism that tells us something (a stimulus) is good or bad for us. And that good or bad value judgment is determined in our minds based on our currently-held beliefs. But our beliefs may or may not be valid.

Our actions are based on our emotions, which are based on our beliefs.

If our beliefs are irrational, then our emotions and actions probably will be, too.

*Most* people live their lives this way. *Most* people have been influenced by irrational ideas from the time they were very young. They just don't realize it (yet).

1. I have certain desires that I have no control over.

Everyone has unlimited desires, yet limited resources.

2. Many of these desires can be best achieved through practical reasoning. 3. Often, my brain's reasoning faculties allow me to overpower a particular urge in order to allow the satisfying of another more important urge, or to allow the postponement of the satisfying of that urge. (this is basically the crux of any politics). 4. Sometimes, however, a particular desire cannot be overcome by the brain's own reasoning faculties (ie: pickle woman.) Or, another example, the film A Beautiful Mind. In fact this perfectly illustrates the point I am trying to make. In one scene the main character describes to his doctor how he feels his schizophrenia is like a math problem, and he just needs to time to find the solution.

If we are talking about a person with a *healthy* brain, then of course people have conflicting desires and emotions all the time.

For example, I want to be a professional bodybuilder, but I also want to eat nothing but chocolate cake. Well, there's a conflict. Only the process of reason will allow me to figure out why I am not achieving my desired goals. If I fail to use reason, then I will not achieve my goals, no matter how much praying to the gods I do.

If, however, we are taking about a sick mind (schizophrenia), then we have to acknowledge that something is broken here and may not work the way a healthy human mind would. We cannot use it as an example of how a healthy mind works.

Ever seen a three-legged dog? It's still a dog, but not one that could win any races. To a certain extent, it functions a little differently than other dogs, but it still barks and does all the things dogs do. We just can't use it as an example of what healthy dogs do.

This objective system of knowledge is perhaps possible if we could somehow gather every piece of knowledge about this world, including the contents of every person's brain.

Umm ... how do you *know* this? You state it as though it is a *fact*, yet you did *not* ask every person on the planet about every thought they ever had. Yet, you arrived at a conclusion anyway. This means you already know that the statement is nonsense.

*You* already know that this is not necessary. Newton did not need to do it to figure out gravity. Why should you?

Blind people don't take in the information of sight ... What this means is that either the external world is not concrete and people are perceiving different things...

Blind people are a good example. They *know* they are blind. They *know* they are missing some information about reality.

This does *not* mean that reality is not objective.

Remember: reality exists independent of anyone's consciousness.

...sometimes we can't reason with people who choose to act differently from us, simply because their brains might not comprehend the kind of reasoning that we believe is self-evident.

But that is *irrelevant*.

Reality exists independently of anyone's consciousness. It makes no difference that lots of people think the world is flat or that lots of people believe in the existence of an imaginary guy in the sky. None of those thoughts determines what *is* reality.

People will disagree. Sure! And *only* reason can adjudicate our differences to arrive at truth (some people are unwilling to participate in such a discussion, but that just means they are dogmatic and unwilling to learn what the truth is).

It's like the difference between a scientist who is willing to run tests to find out if his hypothesis might be true or false versus the scientist who is unwilling to run any tests at all because he just wants to stick to his beliefs.

Reason is a slave of the passions, after all.

No, *emotions* are based on our beliefs. But our beliefs may or may not be valid.

So, our "passions" (emotions) are a slave of our beliefs, which we may have come to believe via reason or myth.

[Shade]

Quote by: Jack ...an existentialist would say that we cannot to an absolute certainty say that North America was here before we were born ... everything I perceive might be a construction of my own mind ... Everyone else could be a delusion. Even my physical body could be a part of the delusion.

Are you saying everything could be a delusion?

You could be a delusion?

Then there is no point in anybody interacting with you. You are just a delusion.