Rationality/Belief

[elliotfc]

Hi, particularly to the chap who, this past weekend, was musing about discussing religion or anything with others, the passion that goes into such discussion, and the admission that the religious believer may not be rational...

I can't find the thread that contained the above, so allow me to start anew...

Are there different types of rationality? It appears on this list that the standard, or definition, of rationality involves hyptothetical falsifiable reality, or something like that. I'm thinking that such a definition is rather recent...and surely rationality is an old concept that predates modern scientific thought.

What I'm getting at is this. Has the modern scientific type co-opted, or hi-jacked the word "rationality" to mean a specific thing that it has only recently (past 100 years?) meant? Or is it possible to be rational in a myriad of ways (granted for conversation sake the definitions and boundaries of the definition should be divulged).

Saying someone is not rational or irrational can be less than nice. I'm not trying to advocate politeness here. I'm just wondering if anyone is up for the idea that there is no universal standard for rationality, and rationality can only be understood compared to a set of standards that are (let's face it) personal choice.

Next. People are quick to say that they do not believe in things on this board. As if belief was a pejorative, or something to be ashamed of? Whatever, I don't quite get that. In any case, I do think all individuals must believe in standards for making judgments, standards for acceptance, and standards for living and debating. Is that belief, or would you prefer a different word for that?

Cheers.

-Elliot

[evildave]

Yes, there are different kinds of rationality.

About as many kinds as there are people.

The way you think (or what passes for thought in you) is very different from person to person. This can be categorized in different ways, and has been extensively studied and debated by psychologists for a long time. Lots of theories, lots of hypotheses, little agreement.


Mostly, people operate as a set of habits. You trigger a complex behavior and just act it out, making little, nearly unconscious adjustments as you go to keep the behavior going.

The significant bit is where does the stimulus go to cause a response? Most stimulation will simply derail one behavior and trigger the next in most people, ever more automatically as they get older.

A lot of people spend a lot of their time acting out behaviors, and a little time reacting to change, and little or no time evaluating those behaviors, or seeking to establish better ones, or understanding their reactions and seeking to change them.

Tomorrow morning, when you get up, shower, get dressed, think about what you're doing as you do it. Try to make inconsequential changes. You'll forget and find yourself doing the same things tomorrow. Your whole day is generally planned as going to run down the same track as that day does every week. Maybe every day.

There's no real reason to spend every day as essentially a smart automata, but we tend to do it. Habits hold us, and bind us. They're easier than thinking. You just go on "autopilot" and you find yourself at work, doing the same thing as always, then suddenly the day is over, and you find yourself in front of the TV or behind the newspaper (or in front of the computer) doing the same thing again.

This whole section of the post is about introspection, and it's very troublesome and leads people to difficult questions, and it leads to thinking, and it's one of those cognitive traits that atrophies like the muscles of a fat person who rides a motorized cart to get donuts in most people. Introspection is probably one of those things you need in order to be "rational", and though everyone has practiced it when young, few still practice it as adults.

All thought is, is a chore like exercise. The more you do it, the easier it is to do, and the less prone most people are to take it up, since it would require (for them) special effort to engage in. Of course, engagning in only one sort of thought (like arguing on a UBB forum) is a bit like excercising only one muscle.

What some people call "willpower" is similarly in need of exercise. You've got to at least wake from your routines once in a while and make a decision, or add or prune a habit conclusively to have the "confidence" to exercise it.

Do you have the will to change something? Of course. Everybody does. The problem is, change requires special effort in its self. All of those comfortable routines that make it possible to nap all day while you work get disrupted by it. All it amounts to is the difference between your desire to remain comfortable, versus your desire to change.

It's just so natural to want to stay safe and comfortable, and never think a bad thought, even as the bulldozer rolls up to your home.

[Phil]

Originally posted by elliotfc
. . . People are quick to say that they do not believe in things on this board. As if belief was a pejorative, or something to be ashamed of? Whatever, I don't quite get that. In any case, I do think all individuals must believe in standards for making judgments, standards for acceptance, and standards for living and debating. Is that belief, or would you prefer a different word for that?
Hey Elliot,

Similar threads always seem to come in waves. I was just reading another that dealt with language and the sometime flexible if not ambiguous meanings of words. And I think this thread is of the same ilk.

Obviously I don't speak for the entire JREF community, but it's been my observation since lurking and posting here that for the most part there is little delineation between the various meanings of the word "believe".

Often on these forums, the word "believe" is used to mean: to have a firm religious faith, or to accept as true, genuine, or real
and less often to mean:
to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something, or to hold an opinion

That's not to say JREFers don't have opinions or think something to be true. We all know that to be far from the truth. I'm demonstrating such in this post after all. But when it comes down to it, for all it's other fine and wonderful qualities, this online community largely consists of skeptics (I won't use the word Brights because I don't like it. More language issues.) And as a skeptic community, the type of topics we deal with in no particular order include psychics, religion, dowsing, alien abductees, ghosts, astrology, etc., etc. These are the kinds of subjects that require one to "believe" as it is defined in the first quote above, the key word in that definition being "accept". And perhaps that definition finds it's way into our threads by default, especially in the R&P forum.

As to your question of different types of rationality, I'll add to what evildave said by saying that the habits he speaks of are what define the types that you speak of; in my opinion anyway. You and I discussed briefly 'rationality by degrees' in another thread, and where I don't know anyone who lives a completely rational life or has a totally rational mind, many people I know have changed their habits enough to be "differently rational" if you will.

Hope I haven't completely gone off topic here, but it's nearly time to travel to Vegas for TAM2 and I've got a million things on my mind right now. I apologize if I didn't address your questions.

BTW, the defintions above are from Webster's.

[elliotfc]

Howdy Phil, I couldn't find the thread from a few days back, so thank you for checking in....

Originally posted by Phil
And as a skeptic community, the type of topics we deal with in no particular order include psychics, religion, dowsing, alien abductees, ghosts, astrology, etc., etc. These are the kinds of subjects that require one to "believe" as it is defined in the first quote above, the key word in that definition being "accept".

Phil, you provided two definitions of believe, or belief. Why are you limiting the supernatural bits from above to the first definition? People can certainly possess a firm conviction for the things you mention above. As for efficacy, that is up to the individual I guess. There are non-religious believers in the above things you mention as well. I don't see a dichotomy here.

It's clear that belief is a bad word here, even though it has different meanings, which, like all dictionary definitions where several meanings follow the word in question, overlap and are far from distinct from each other. I'm afraid I might be preaching semantics here; I don't see what the big deal is. Do skeptics think differently from religious people? Of course. But why is the word "believe" the lynchpin? To be human is to believe things, belief is not the realm of only a few people.

Just by the fact that this forum exists, skeptics certainly believe things and share their beliefs with each other, ranging from commentary to factual matters or anything. I've got the idea that skeptics loathe religious belief, and am not trying to submit that anyone here does have religious beliefs. I suspect that we are not as different as you would make it out (religious/skeptics). We are similar because we all have beliefs; they just point in various and sundry directions.

As to your question of different types of rationality, I'll add to what evildave said by saying that the habits he speaks of are what define the types that you speak of; in my opinion anyway. You and I discussed briefly 'rationality by degrees' in another thread, and where I don't know anyone who lives a completely rational life or has a totally rational mind, many people I know have changed their habits enough to be "differently rational" if you will.

I agree with this. I definitely think differently in different spheres, or use different types of thinking to suit a situation. I don't have a default way of thinking and am able to think in all sorts of environments. I think my point is/was there is no way to know what is the "best" rationality, or if any is automatically superior to another. It's a matter of personal choice and efficacy.

Have fun in Vegas, that sounds like a good place to be right about now.

-Elliot

[Dancing David]

Not much to add here, but I have seen the words reason and locig slung with the same abandon as rational. I can only restate what the Evileone said, in that all three belong to individuals.

I don't feel that the word rational has been opted by science and more than it has been opted by the predominant paradigm. I think that the root of the word is greek and goes to the idea of cutting something.