Why are we (usually) reasonable?!

[tonyrey]

Is there a reason or not? Please feel free to answer the question in any way you like (reasonably of course ). My own view is:

1. Every reasonable person accepts conclusions based on probability.
2. Probability is not a human invention.
3. Probability describes physical events.
4. The description consists of human symbols.
5. The description is accurate whatever symbols are used.
6. The description is based on understanding events.
7. It is not an accident we can understand events.
8. It is not an accident events can be understood.
9. There is a reason why events are understandable and understood.
10. It is because reality is reasonable - and not absurd!

 

[Sair]

Is there a reason or not? Please feel free to answer the question in any way you like (reasonably of course ). My own view is:

1. Every reasonable person accepts conclusions based on probability.
2. Probability is not a human invention.
3. Probability describes physical events.
4. The description consists of human symbols.
5. The description is accurate whatever symbols are used.
6. The description is based on understanding events.
7. It is not an accident we can understand events.
8. It is not an accident events can be understood.
9. There is a reason why events are understandable and understood.
10. It is because reality is reasonable - and not absurd!

None of this is an ‘accident’ if it is a product of evolution - either organisms are successful in adapting to the demands of their environment, or they’re not, and the ones that are not die out. If modern humans are, on average, better at reasoning than we might be (and let’s face it - we’re far from perfectly rational animals) then it’s because our ancestors bequeathed the ability to reason, because it worked for them, and is likely to work for us. You really need to learn the difference between ‘chance’ and ‘natural selection’.

What’s more, as I’ve said before, the much-lauded “rationality” of humans is really nothing more (nor less) than the ability to perceive cause-and-effect relationships, and apply this perception in situations where immediate observation is unavailable. It could be said (quite easily) that you read too much into our abilities and are too ready to ascribe “specialness” to humans.

 

[inocente]

Reason is a let-them-eat-cake kind of thing. The world is amazingly reasonable when we have food in our belly and life is good. Less so for a bottle washer with terminal cancer facing Christmas Day alone or for a marine in a firefight seeing all his buddies get cut down one by one.

 

[JDaniel]

Reason is a let-them-eat-cake kind of thing. The world is amazingly reasonable when we have food in our belly and life is good. Less so for a bottle washer with terminal cancer facing Christmas Day alone or for a marine in a firefight seeing all his buddies get cut down one by one.

Inocente:

Are we having a bad day?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

None of this is an ‘accident’ if it is a product of evolution - either organisms are successful in adapting to the demands of their environment, or they’re not, and the ones that are not die out.

Sair:

That’s very short-sighted. For all of the possible evolutionary structures, that could insure an organism’s survival, that fail, there a thousands, maybe billions, that won’t/don’t fail (in varying degrees) - not just one or two, Therefore, we are still talking about an inordinate amount of “chance” occurrences times whatever that number is times the time it takes to produce the fully operative design that then that can test for success. What we don’t know is, where everything is, on the list of organisms en route to success. Half, or more, of current organisms may well be on their way out. All it may take is just a little more time.

We can look at “rationality” and come to a reasoned conclusion that, compared to every other structure, “reason” appears to be one that lends itself - more than any other - to the long-term success of our species.

God bless,
jd

 

[Theophorus]

Is there a reason or not? Please feel free to answer the question in any way you like (reasonably of course ). My own view is:

1. Every reasonable person accepts conclusions based on probability.
2. Probability is not a human invention.
3. Probability describes physical events.
4. The description consists of human symbols.
5. The description is accurate whatever symbols are used.
6. The description is based on understanding events.
7. It is not an accident we can understand events.
8. It is not an accident events can be understood.
9. There is a reason why events are understandable and understood.
10. It is because reality is reasonable - and not absurd!

When you say “a reason” and “reasonable” do you mean purpose, cause and effect, or human rationality, the ability to recognise purpose cause and effect? Or both?

 

[inocente]

Are we having a bad day?

No, the sun has got his hat on, lovely day.

Seriously though, most people in history did not find the world reasonable, they invented all kinds of superstitions and magics to try to make sense of what they saw as an incomprehensible topsy-turvy world. It’s only those of us who are not having to fight for our survival who find that our world seems reasonable.

 

[tonyrey]

When you say “a reason” and “reasonable” do you mean purpose, cause and effect, or human rationality, the ability to recognise purpose cause and effect? Or both?

A good question!

1. By “a reason” I mean “a rational explanation”.
2. A rational explanation is based on knowledge, logical principles and insight into purpose, cause and effect.
3. Reality is reasonable in the sense that it is logically and scientifically explicable.
4. A list of physical causes is not a rational explanation because it excludes purpose.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

A comment and a question.

1. Every reasonable person accepts conclusions based on probability.

This is something that sounds good at first read, but I don’t think it’s true. Not every one understands probability. It’s also possible to construct misleading propositions based on probability both intentionally and unintentionally For example, inferences made from the Iris data set are not always correct. In other words there are some false conclusions that result based on probability. Also keep in mind that probabilities are usually derived from a sample of a population. It’s not impossible for a sample to not be representational of the population.

1. Probability describes physical events.

Do we ever observe non-physical events?

 

[tonyrey]

When you say “a reason” and “reasonable” do you mean purpose, cause and effect, or human rationality, the ability to recognise purpose cause and effect? Or both?

I would like to add that a scientific explanation is not rational or reasonable in the full sense of the term. Physics, chemistry and biology don’t explain persons or logic or mathematics or moral principles. In daily life you’d think there’s something wrong with some one who gives you nothing but scientific explanations!

 

[tonyrey]

This is something that sounds good at first read, but I don’t think it’s true. Not every one understands probability.

Not everyone understands the principles of probability but they understand enough to avoid risking their lives unnecessarily.

It’s also possible to construct misleading propositions based on probability both intentionally and unintentionally For example, inferences made from the Iris data set are not always correct. In other words there are some false conclusions that result based on probability. Also keep in mind that probabilities are usually derived from a sample of a population. It’s not impossible for a sample to not be representational of the population.

Estimates of probability are fallible but the success of science demonstrates the extreme accuracy of mathematical analysis.

Do we ever observe non-physical events?

Constantly - except when we are unaware of our thoughts and feelings…

 

[inocente]

Not everyone understands the principles of probability but they understand enough to avoid risking their lives unnecessarily.

Even many of those who do still smoke and drink and take other unwarranted risks.

 

[tonyrey]

Even many of those who do still smoke and drink and take other unwarranted risks.

Alas!

 

[JDaniel]

No, the sun has got his hat on, lovely day.

Seriously though, most people in history did not find the world reasonable, they invented all kinds of superstitions and magics to try to make sense of what they saw as an incomprehensible topsy-turvy world. It’s only those of us who are not having to fight for our survival who find that our world seems reasonable.

Inocente:

No doubt. but, we are not talking about the world, or about historical people. The question was, “Why are we (usually) reasonable?!” I don’t know about you, but I’m still alive!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Even many of those who do still smoke and drink and take other unwarranted risks.

Inocente:

Not too long ago, I read that if people would avoid those things, and keep themselves fit and healthy, it would only extend their lives by about 4 months. That’s four months of living on a respirator and meds!

Not sure those four months are that important to me. (Though I would not ask for early dispatch!)

God bless,
jd

 

[Sair]

No, the sun has got his hat on, lovely day.

Seriously though, most people in history did not find the world reasonable, they invented all kinds of superstitions and magics to try to make sense of what they saw as an incomprehensible topsy-turvy world. It’s only those of us who are not having to fight for our survival who find that our world seems reasonable.

Philosophy and science - and theology too, for that matter - are indeed largely first-world pursuits; only someone who had all their immediate physical needs met could take the time to ponder the question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, after all.

Human rationality, for all its complexities, is far from a perfect system (just as we would expect, from something that arose through indifferent, trial-and-error natural selection rather than something designed by a perfect deity) and we certainly don’t always reason towards truth.

And of course, there are reasons and reasons. We might not always like the reasons we find, nor be able to accept that there are some things that seem to just happen without any particular reason. In the past, people explained differences in fortune through reference to magic and witchcraft, when in reality it was just happenstance, or perhaps poor planning on the part of the farmer whose piglets all died, even though his neighbour’s piglets grew into strong young porkers. And any modern Western schoolchild could have told the Aztecs that the sun’s apparent ‘rising’ every morning has nothing to do with cutting still-beating hearts out of prisoners’ chests to appease a god.

Even now people are prone to asking ‘why’ questions that might not even have any satisfying answers. Why did my aunt and grandmother get cancer? One explanation lies in their respective physiological histories; but that’s not the “why” that most religions claim to answer, not the kinds of ‘reasons’ that people often seek, not just to make sense of their experiences (because it makes sense that cancer has an empirical explanation) but to fit them into a larger cosmic narrative at the centre of which they place themselves.

 

[Sair]

Sair:

That’s very short-sighted. For all of the possible evolutionary structures, that could insure an organism’s survival, that fail, there a thousands, maybe billions, that won’t/don’t fail (in varying degrees) - not just one or two, Therefore, we are still talking about an inordinate amount of “chance” occurrences times whatever that number is times the time it takes to produce the fully operative design that then that can test for success. What we don’t know is, where everything is, on the list of organisms en route to success. Half, or more, of current organisms may well be on their way out. All it may take is just a little more time.

What you’re asking here appears to be a variation on the old creationist chestnut, “What’s the use of half an eye?” Infusing this question, and your comments here, is the assumption that nature has a grand design, a plan, an end goal. But what might this end goal be, exactly? What, precisely, is a “fully operative design”? Nature doesn’t work like that. Either an organism’s structures and behaviours allow it to survive and pass on its genes, or they don’t - it really is that simple, and natural selection doesn’t take the long view. There is no organism living today that is “en route” to success - they already are a success, precisely because they’ve survived and have the chance to pass their genes to the next generation.

We can look at “rationality” and come to a reasoned conclusion that, compared to every other structure, “reason” appears to be one that lends itself - more than any other - to the long-term success of our species.

As I said, nature doesn’t take the long view - if a structure isn’t immediately successful in allowing an organism to survive and reproduce, then it won’t be passed on to subsequent generations. Everything in nature is a trade-off - we may assume that, since large brains with reasoning power are very costly to run in terms of energy consumption, they must have contributed to our ancestors’ survival and reproduction - maybe just a little more often than they impeded it. That would be enough to tip the balance in favour of large brains in the human species. None of this is indicative of a long-term plan or an ultimate goal.

 

[inocente]

No doubt. but, we are not talking about the world, or about historical people. The question was, “Why are we (usually) reasonable?!” I don’t know about you, but I’m still alive!

Yes, but so are my roses and I’ve never heard them debating Wittgenstein.

I’m arguing the premise of the thread title. Suppose the “we” in the title is you (Catholic), me (Baptist), a Pantheist and an Atheist. The possibilities are:

1. 
   *]One of us is correct in our beliefs and the rest wrong, meaning most of us are either unreasonable or not reasoning very well.
   
   *]None of us is right, which is even worse.
   
   *]Any of us could be right but none of us really had enough information to come to our beliefs. Yet we would each probably spend hours trying to convince the others to our corner, which is unreasonable .
   
   In every case the majority of us don’t come off too well in the reasoning department. So is it reasonable to say that we are usually reasonable?

 

[inocente]

Philosophy and science - and theology too, for that matter - are indeed largely first-world pursuits; only someone who had all their immediate physical needs met could take the time to ponder the question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, after all.

Human rationality, for all its complexities, is far from a perfect system (just as we would expect, from something that arose through indifferent, trial-and-error natural selection rather than something designed by a perfect deity) and we certainly don’t always reason towards truth.

And of course, there are reasons and reasons. We might not always like the reasons we find, nor be able to accept that there are some things that seem to just happen without any particular reason. In the past, people explained differences in fortune through reference to magic and witchcraft, when in reality it was just happenstance, or perhaps poor planning on the part of the farmer whose piglets all died, even though his neighbour’s piglets grew into strong young porkers. And any modern Western schoolchild could have told the Aztecs that the sun’s apparent ‘rising’ every morning has nothing to do with cutting still-beating hearts out of prisoners’ chests to appease a god.

Even now people are prone to asking ‘why’ questions that might not even have any satisfying answers. Why did my aunt and grandmother get cancer? One explanation lies in their respective physiological histories; but that’s not the “why” that most religions claim to answer, not the kinds of ‘reasons’ that people often seek, not just to make sense of their experiences (because it makes sense that cancer has an empirical explanation) but to fit them into a larger cosmic narrative at the centre of which they place themselves.

Agreed. A while back I worked in a research park, and as a little experiment for several days at coffee time got different groups chatting about ghosts, astrology, UFOs and so on. Most people turned out to believe in one or more such things, even though they were all highly educated. (And many were self-declared atheists who supposed themselves uber-rational ).

 

[tonyrey]

Philosophy and science - and theology too, for that matter - are indeed largely first-world pursuits; only someone who had all their immediate physical needs met could take the time to ponder the question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, after all.

We all have a philosophy regardless of our status in society. It is based on our beliefs and values which may be largely due to our cultural background but in any court of law we’re held responsible for the way we behave - taking into account any mitigating circumstances . In other words we are considered to be fundamentally reasonable beings.

Human rationality, for all its complexities, is far from a perfect system (just as we would expect, from something that arose through indifferent, trial-and-error natural selection rather than something designed by a perfect deity) and we certainly don’t always reason towards truth.

1. The notion that our power of reason is ultimately due to a series of accidents doesn’t explain how we can control our thoughts.
2. To regard our limitations as evidence that our power of reason is not designed is unrealistic. To satisfy that demand everyone would have to be an intellectual prodigy!

And of course, there are reasons and reasons. We might not always like the reasons we find, nor be able to accept that there are some things that seem to just happen without any particular reason. In the past, people explained differences in fortune through reference to magic and witchcraft, when in reality it was just happenstance, or perhaps poor planning on the part of the farmer whose piglets all died, even though his neighbour’s piglets grew into strong young porkers. And any modern Western schoolchild could have told the Aztecs that the sun’s apparent ‘rising’ every morning has nothing to do with cutting still-beating hearts out of prisoners’ chests to appease a god.

The issue is still whether we can control our thoughts - and if so how?

Even now people are prone to asking ‘why’ questions that might not even have any satisfying answers. Why did my aunt and grandmother get cancer? One explanation lies in their respective physiological histories; but that’s not the “why” that most religions claim to answer, not the kinds of ‘reasons’ that people often seek, not just to make sense of their experiences (because it makes sense that cancer has an empirical explanation) but to fit them into a larger cosmic narrative at the centre of which they place themselves.

The derogatory reference to “a larger cosmic narrative” implies that you’re exempt from such a weakness. Yet “at the centre of which they place themselves” implies that you have a superior viewpoint…