Public Challenge To Rationalists: On What Evidence Might We Rest?
Posted in Logic, Public Challenges, Quickies, Skepticism, Thinking Critically on | 2 minutes | 13 Comments →
First let me be clear: I consider myself a rational person, and the point of this post is not to denigrate rationalism or rationalists. The value of rationalism as a truth-filter and its tremendous impact on modern society cannot be overstated. When appropriately applied, the philosophy of rationalism leads to or complies with all sorts of tried-and-true concepts: The presumption of innocence sans proof of guilt, the scientific method, the burden of proof, etc. All of these things are sound derivatives of an evidence-based epistemology and by no means do I intend to challenge them.
Yet, any idea can descend into dogma, and no philosophy is good when our application of it encourages rigidity. Consequently, I've noticed I don't always agree with the scope and popular interpretations of rationalism that have ascended to the apex of today's epistemological food chain. In my opinion, they lend themselves all too well to dogmatic thinking and provide the perfect cover for those who unconsciously make the converse mistake of the gullible.
Going further, I often wonder if contemporary interpretations of rationalism entail an irrecoverable contradiction, and therein lies the topic of the post: Contemporary rationalism tells us to assume all claims without evidence are false, yet there's no evidence to support the claim that all claims without evidence are false, so on what evidence might we rest?
**Note: This is not an argument, conclusion or suggestion that all claims are equally credible, either, so don't start flanking me from that direction.
Lifeguard
says...CL:
You wrote:
“Contemporary rationalism tells us to assume all claims without evidence are false, yet there’s no evidence to support the claim that all claims without evidence are false, so on what evidence might we rest?”
Sometimes I can’t help but feel a little bit like you’re painting in breathtakingly broad strokes. I say that because the ONLY defense of such an absurdly dogmatic version of rationalism as you’ve described would be precisely the kind of outflanking you describe in your footnote.
I think just about any rationalist you asked would concede that it is entirely possible to hold a factually correct belief in the absence of evidence (for instance, I believe my neighbor is watching “Seinfeld” re-runs right now). They would only quibble with you over (1) whether that warrants a claim of knowledge and (2) that rationality of acting upon that belief, which would entail an analysis of both the content of the belief relative to the evidence available to support (if any) and the gravity of the proposed action (ie, literally knocking on wood, going to mass, or strapping a bomb to yourself for Allah).
MS Quixote
says...“Contemporary rationalism tells us to assume all claims without evidence are false,”
cl,
I’d like to add a related difficulty to the mix. Whose rationalism is it that determines what evidence is rational? So often, the self-proclaimed rationalist has already determined what is evidence, and what is not (the escapable opinion, for instance), what is warranted, and what is not. “**Note: This is not an argument, conclusion or suggestion that all claims to rationality and warrant are equally credible, or that all evidence is equally credible, either, so don’t start flanking me from that direction.”
cl
says...Lifeguard,
Ouch. Painting in broad strokes is not a strategy I’m fond of, so let me clarify a few things here. The “absurdly dogmatic” interpretation of rationalism you suggest I offer as a rhetorical caricature is not something I just pulled out of thin air. I see this interpretation time and time again both in the real world and in online forums. To me, the truth is often found between extremes; I’m a fan of the middle path. On one end, we find the extreme, unchecked irrationalist: gullible and superstitious, with dogma that has typically blinded them to honest consideration of any evidence or ideas that might challenge their own. But on the other end, we find something equally comparable, the extreme, overchecked rationalist: rigid and closed-minded, with dogma that has typically blinded them to honest consideration of any evidence or ideas that might challenge their own. Both of these archetypes exist within glass walls.
For example, I was recently involved in a thread where I attempted to highlight some problems in responding to creationism by offering evolutionary algorithms (EA’s) as analogous to biological evolution. Commenter OMGF’s rigidity and resistance to theistic ideas caused a knee-jerk reaction that precluded a healthy cross-examination of ideas, which is the key element of a reasoned conclusion. Such is just one danger of the “absurd interpretation” of rationalism in question.
Perhaps, but would they concede such was rational and treat people who hold such beliefs accordingly?
Eff you clown
says...To set the record straight:
A) I never suggested that randomness alone produces complexity.
B) That you claim that now is simply lying on your part.
C) That you are now misrepresenting the argument on DA is another lie.
D) Then, you have to come here and misrepresent me and the argument on your own blog is yet another lie.
You are a disgusting troll and a liar, which is why I don’t normally respond to you. Stop lying about me and stop lying about your childish attacks on me. Now eff off and suck it.
cl
says...See people, here’s a perfect example of what I mean when I say that emotionally-controlled states of irrationalism can lead to knee-jerk reactions that preclude the healthy cross-examination of ideas. In his obviously emotionally-controlled state in which he sought more to maintain the appearance of correctness and denigrate me than think clearly or critically consider, commenter Eff you clown / Anonymous / cl is a coward and liar / OMGF / GCT blunders:
What the “eff” does that have to do with anything? I never claimed you said that. Reread. Such is an inference you made. Your argument here is based on inference. Please find one claim I made that can reasonably be interpreted as “Eff you clown / Anonymous / cl is a coward and liar / OMGF / GCT claims randomness alone produces complexity.” You cannot find such a claim because I’ve not made such a claim. Remember, this is about evidence, not emotion.
Seriously. If anyone wants to look into this, did I claim here, on DA, or in our original soiree that Eff you clown / Anonymous / cl is a coward and liar / OMGF / GCT ever suggested that randomness alone produces complexity? If so, where? I would challenge Eff you clown / Anonymous / cl is a coward and liar / OMGF / GCT to locate these words in my argument, but I know he can’t because they’re not there, and he doesn’t respond to “liars” and “trolls” anyways, so I don’t expect to hear from him until his next pseudo-intellectual drive-by.
So, to *really* set the record straight, I never claimed Eff you clown / Anonymous / cl is a coward and liar / OMGF / GCT “suggested that randomness alone produces complexity.” Rather, I asked him how evolutionary algorithms can account for the genotype/phenotype distinction, and of course, he didn’t have an answer. I suggested it is somewhat misleading to use EA’s as evidence for biological evolution for this reason, and commenter jack at DA introduced the randomness element into the discussion:
Not to shoot fish in a barrel or anything, but let’s return to Eff you clown / Anonymous / cl is a coward and liar / OMGF / GCT:
I’ve not misrepresented the argument at DA, and that’s twice now I’ve included the pertinent link, so anyone can go see for themselves. The extent of my mention here of that argument is two sentences: “I was recently involved in a thread where I attempted to highlight some problems in responding to creationism by offering evolutionary algorithms (EA’s) as analogous to biological evolution. Commenter OMGF’s rigidity and resistance to theistic ideas caused a knee-jerk reaction that precluded a healthy cross-examination of ideas, which is the key element of a reasoned conclusion.” The first sentence is undeniably 100% factually correct as stated. The second sentence describes my perception of your reaction to information that challenges your point of view. Neither of those misrepresents you or the argument at DA.
I can see why you arrived at the incorrect conclusion, though. You blundered by assuming my objection related to material jack introduced into the discussion. I told you to listen to what he was saying because it was relevant.
Ah, yes, never heard any of that from you before. And what’s this BS that you “don’t normally respond to me?” I can produce a list of people a mile long who know this is false. “Normally” means “most of the time,” in case you forgot. That you’ve ignored an occasional comment or two I’ve made does not erase the literal hundreds (if not literal thousands) you have responded to. In fact, if you normally don’t respond to me, why are we arguing about something that spans three different websites over the last month? Hmmm… reality seems to contradict what you say again.
Anyways, enough on your irrationalism. Go watch SouthPark or something.
pevo
says...You can not successfully attack the process of reason with a rational argument. On the verge of winning such an assault, you would disarm yourself!
I'll choose any name I want on your den of lies
says...jack: It’s misleading to point to the results of EAs and say to our creationist friends, “See, randomness can produce complex and interesting things!” It’s not the randomness that does it. To suggest this is to buy into their flawed logic…
clown: Exactly, jack, exactly. I think you hit the nail on the head here. Interestingly, since he mentioned me, when I tried to even begin to suggest this to our friend OMGF, it all went over his head…
Me: I rest my case. Thanks for playing, but you lost.
cl
says...What, you think I can’t read or don’t remember what I actually said? And of course you say I’ve lost. According to you I always lose, and I’m always going to lose. But this isn’t a boner-stroking ego contest for me.
Problem is that again, in your typical knee-jerk fashion, you’re not listening, just grasping at straws to maintain the appearance of correctness. You made an inference. I already told you that. But I don’t expect that you’d slow down to critically consider if maybe, just maybe, I might know what I’m talking about regarding my own statement:
You concluded the “this” in the paragraph of mine you cite referred to the “randomness” part of jack’s explanation when it did not. We never got far enough for me to ask your opinions on the “randomness” part of jack’s explanation because you refused to answer the original question (from Karla’s blog) re genotype/phenotype distinction.
The point I was trying to make to you, the error I actually was and still am claiming you make, is that it’s misleading to toss a complex and oft misunderstood metaheuristic concept that does not exclusively apply to biological evolution to people like Karla who admit to having little education in evolution. Karla, who admitted to being relatively ignorant about biological evolution, asked you about evidence of evolution “from one species to another,” and you tossed out Avida. It was misleading and intellectually dishonest or ignorant, depending on what you know.
And although I don’t mind your silly names, I’ll always clarify who you really are so people might know who to connect your peculiar comments to, and that’s none other than the one I call Ebon’s Bulldog – OMGF of Daylight Atheism and the Why I Hate Jesus blog!
Just for fun – you win, I lose, I’m a troll and liar and a major douche and you’re totally smarter and more rational than me – okay? Now that I’ve finally conceded your intellectual superiority, have you come up with an intelligent answer in your own words to the question I asked you? Or are we still more concerned with maintaining the appearance of correctness?
As nomorehornets told you too, “Think for about 5 minutes before you type another knee-jerk reply.”
Eff you clown
says...You are a serious moron if you think people gonna believe this obvious bullshit.
Jack said something very specific and you agreed with that specific thing, calling it “this” and now you are trying to claim that you meant something he didn’t even talk about? You are a troll, a liar, and a useless sack of shit. Not only that, but you’re still wrong even after moving the goal posts and trying to re-write history. So, you can stop cyber-stalking me now and trying to provoke me (yes, I know what you are doing, and you are doing it so that you can whine about how I’m being irrational and mean to you and stroke your pathetic martyr complex). You’re a pathetic attention whore and I’ve already given you too much attention. So, back the fuck off, stop following me around the intarwebs and trying to provoke me, and fuck off.
Paul S
says...I wonder if contemporary rationalism really does tell us to assume all claims without evidence are false. I would think a rationalist would be skeptical of a claim without evidence, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the rationalist automatically assumes the claim to be false.
cl
says...Paul S,
I like that. Valid distinction, yours is. However, many rationalists I encounter tend to fall into the former category. As for me, given I have zero information on a particular claim, I start at NULL and wait for some argument or piece of evidence to sway me one way or the other. In others, given no data, I try to start with a clean mental slate, leaning neither towards skepticism or belief, but waiting for something that would justify either. Of course, this only applies to situations in which I decide rationalism is the best approach to knowledge.
John Evo
says...To me, the truth is often found between extremes; I’m a fan of the middle path.
As am I. I just think the two extremes are a bit different than the ones you described. I see them as Dogma at one end and Nihilism at the other, with rationalism running the middle road.
Motherfucker, this is an interesting blog though. Quite the group of commenters.
HI LIFEY! (If he’s still around)
cl
says...Interesting. So you would consider the people I’m thinking of Nihilists. I actually like that. As someone who labels themselves a “moderate” can fall all over the political spectrum, someone who calls themselves a rationalist can be either religious or irrational. But I always thought that was self-evident.