Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:14 am

<< Week of December 06, 2016 >>
Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday
6 Day Month

7 Day Month

8 Day Month

9 Day Month

10 Day Month

11 Day Month

12 Day Month





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Aug. 2000 - The Rationalistic Fallacy 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 15299
Location: Florida
Thanks: 2997
Thanked: 1153 times in 915 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 6

Post Aug. 2000 - The Rationalistic Fallacy
This thread is for discussing Massimo Pigliucci's August 2000 "Rationally Speaking" article entitled The Rationalistic Fallacy.

Quote:
The rationalistic fallacy


If you are of the lot who is stubbornly trying to improve critical thinking skills around the world and feels a bit frustrated by the wave of nonsense that regularly hits the airwaves, you are not alone. If you insist in thinking that all you need to do is to explain things just a little bit better and people will see the light, you are committing what is known as the "rationalistic fallacy."

It is probably true that better knowledge and understanding of science improves one's ability to grasp the real world; if that were not the case the entire education system should be thrown out, a step that only a minority of right wingers is prepared to take in the US at this moment. But it is also undeniably true that explaining science to many people does not make them any less true believers in pseudoscience.

For example, John Moore reports in an article in The Science Teacher (May 2000) that subjects were surveyed for their beliefs in the paranormal, UFOs and astrology before taking a course which dissected the evidential bases for all these pseudosciences. While skepticism had marginally increased toward the end of the course, credulity had returned with a vengeance only a year after the test!

It seems to me that we should try to understand what causes the rationalistic fallacy if we hope to make any progress in fighting the rampant irrationalism that manifests itself in countless forms. It might save us a lot of misdirected efforts and a trip or two to the psychotherapist when the depression hits.

The first thing to realize is that many people who believe in all sorts of weird things are not stupid; at least, not in the generally accepted sense of the term. Sure, if we define intelligence as the ability to grasp the real world, then anybody who does not understand quantum mechanics is an idiot. But remember the immortal words of physicist Richard Feynman: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

No, the fact is that many people who believe in pseudoscience live successful lives. Some are college graduates. They can understand very well the reality of everyday life; sometimes they even successfully make complex decisions such as investing their money or planning a career. The answer must therefore lie elsewhere.

I think the problem is in what we mean by "understanding reality." Thomas Henry Huxley, the 19th century scientist known as "Darwin's bulldog," was very successful in lecturing to the general public, to an extent that neither Richard Dawkins nor Stephen Gould can dream of today. Huxley's fundamental philosophy was that science is common sense writ large. Since most people are equipped with both an innate curiosity and a moderate dose of common sense, if we explain things appealing to their already existing mental tools they will understand. Indeed, this is the philosophy behind most science documentaries.

The problem is that most modern science is not a matter of common sense at all! On the contrary, from physics to cosmology, from evolutionary to molecular biology, our current scientific understanding of the world is extremely counter-intuitive. The reason for this is that science's realm of investigation now literally spans the whole of creation, from the beginning of time until now (roughly 20 billion years) and from the subatomic level to the largest aggregates of galaxies. Let us remember that in Huxley's time most scientists thought the earth was a few million years old, the existence of galaxies was yet to be discovered, and nobody had the foggiest idea of what an atom or a gene was.

Evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker suggest an explanation for this state of affairs. According to the standard Darwinian theory, our brains are at least in part the result of natural selection to improve our fitness; but the question is: to what kind of environment? Obviously, the one that we have inhabited for most of our evolutionary existence: forests and savannahs, where "reality" meant being able to procure food and mates while carefully avoiding predators. Is it any wonder, then, that we simply can't understand quantum mechanics?

If we add to this mix the fact that people still want answers to the fundamental questions of life (probably an annoying byproduct of being self-aware), it doesn't take much to understand why evolution and the Big Bang are discarded in favor of all-powerful and all-good imaginary friends who watch over every detail of our lives (especially the sexual scenes). Even the much-touted fact that Europeans accept evolution and are less religiously fundamentalist than Americans has, I would argue, a far less flattering explanation than it is usually assumed. It is not that Europeans are smarter or know more science (this is demonstrably not so); rather, it is probably that through history they have had their fill of religious wars and witch hunts and they are putting their current trust in another category of priests, the scientists (at least until these, too, screw things up in some major way).

So, what do we do about it? Unfortunately, identifying the causes doesn't necessarily cure the disease. We are in no position to reshape the human brain to bring it up to speed with the current human environment. We can, however, get more familiar with the large literature on human cognitive neuro-sciences; getting to know how the brain works has to be the first step toward designing better tools and arguments to educate people.

We can also be more understanding when we do confront an irrational position, and not dismiss our interlocutor as a simpleton (at least, not too quickly). Demonstrating sympathy and reaching out to the "right brain" may be a better way to get to the left one. But that is subject matter for another column.

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."



Sat Jul 19, 2003 12:49 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 15299
Location: Florida
Thanks: 2997
Thanked: 1153 times in 915 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 6

Post Re: Aug. 2000 - The Rationalistic Fallacy
This is one of my favorite Rationally Speaking articles because I can relate to it so much.

Quote:
If you are of the lot who is stubbornly trying to improve critical thinking skills around the world and feels a bit frustrated by the wave of nonsense that regularly hits the airwaves, you are not alone. If you insist in thinking that all you need to do is to explain things just a little bit better and people will see the light, you are committing what is known as the "rationalistic fallacy."

I am soooooo guilty of this!

Where was Massimo when I needed him? I've been pulling my hair out debating faith vs. reason for about 20 years now. How many people have I helped escape the irrationality of mysticism? Maybe 2 or 3.

Chris

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."



Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:51 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor

BookTalk.org Moderator

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3551
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1320
Thanked: 1140 times in 838 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Aug. 2000 - The Rationalistic Fallacy
Good post.

it lives AGAIN!


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


Thu Oct 14, 2010 5:03 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Sophomore


Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 261
Location: Wheaton, Illinois, USA
Thanks: 26
Thanked: 34 times in 31 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Aug. 2000 - The Rationalistic Fallacy
Johnson,

Thanks for resurrecting this post (pun intended). I have been wondering lately if there are not three (as opposed to two) ways to see the world. The rational common-sense traditional-science approach, the magical-religion approach, and the non common-sensical but rational quantum mechanical approach. I know I am leaving out the in-between approaches that most people really use to make sense of the world; like most Christians that accept modern evolutionary and geological theory. But, I guess my real question is, where does QM fit? Pigliucci more than just mentions it; he goes to some trouble to explain why it does not seem rational, even though it is.


_________________
--Gary

"Freedom is feeling easy in your harness" --Robert Frost


Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:45 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Wearing Out Library Card

Silver Contributor

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 243
Location: Oak Ridge, TN
Thanks: 43
Thanked: 55 times in 46 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Aug. 2000 - The Rationalistic Fallacy
GaryG48 wrote:
Johnson,

Thanks for resurrecting this post (pun intended). I have been wondering lately if there are not three (as opposed to two) ways to see the world. The rational common-sense traditional-science approach, the magical-religion approach, and the non common-sensical but rational quantum mechanical approach. I know I am leaving out the in-between approaches that most people really use to make sense of the world; like most Christians that accept modern evolutionary and geological theory. But, I guess my real question is, where does QM fit? Pigliucci more than just mentions it; he goes to some trouble to explain why it does not seem rational, even though it is.


Where does QM fit in? Everywhere! It's just too tiny to see unless you have really really good eyesight. :)


_________________
Tom


Fri Oct 15, 2010 8:03 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5598
Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 1409
Thanked: 1425 times in 1114 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Aug. 2000 - The Rationalistic Fallacy
It''s a good column that describes well the tendency of many people to reserve a compartment for beliefs that can't be explained rationally. As Massimo says, there doesn't appear to be a negative correlation between what we call success and having some irrational beliefs. I think people normally maintain a firewall between these beliefs and truly vital matters relating to survival and increased well-being. If they fail to do this, we diagnose insanity.

A couple of things might be missing from his remarks. One is what Todd Riniolo said about the individual not being the best judge of his own rationality. Probably no one, Riniolo said, is a totally consistent critical thinker for this reason. So the rationalistic fallacy should perhaps include that caveat. We might also consider the Buddhist warning about attachment to ego whenever we feel a strong sense that we are being rational and others are not. Another thing to add is that the best moments humans experience on earth are probably not moments of rational insight, but rather of emotional pleasure or more to the point, emotional reward. If we look closely at religion, especially at its power to give people intense, shared emotional experience, we better understand why it has persisted and in some form probably always will.



Last edited by DWill on Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
GaryG48, johnson1010, Saffron
Sat Oct 16, 2010 4:58 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Tenured Professor

BookTalk.org Moderator

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3551
Location: Michigan
Thanks: 1320
Thanked: 1140 times in 838 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Aug. 2000 - The Rationalistic Fallacy
Magical thinking is like being an Alcoholic. No one can make you be a critical thinker, you have to want it for yourself.

The first step is recognizing you have a problem.


_________________
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Have you tried that? Looking for answers?
Or have you been content to be terrified of a thing you know nothing about?

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?

Confidence being an expectation built on past experience, evidence and extrapolation to the future. Faith being an expectation held in defiance of past experience and evidence.


The following user would like to thank johnson1010 for this post:
Interbane
Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:10 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

BookTalk.org Newsletter 

Announcements 

• What fiction book should we start January 1, 2017?
Wed Nov 30, 2016 4:57 pm



Site Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank