Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge
#1646·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoCriticism is a form of knowledge. How does reason have access to criticism if reason is not the source of knowledge?
Could you expand more on what you mean by the above question?
Ayn Rand claims that "[t]he virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
Ayn Rand claims that "[t]he virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as the only source of knowledge.
#1819·Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 2 months agoThis has to take time into context. At one point, a belief in god was all that we had. We didn't have hard to vary explanations. As such, a person might have a belief in god as the only worldview currently. So it isn't irrational for that person, or people back in the days, to believe in god.
Irrationality may be all people had back in the day but that doesn’t make it rational.
This counter-criticism isn’t an invitation to continue this discussion at this point. See #1821.
#1818·Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 2 months agoDreams can be a source of knowledge. But dreams aren't always reasonable. Sometimes, dreams are lies.
In that statement, I am looking at reason as a mode of criticism. You might get ideas and potentially knowledge from all sources and reason tests weather they are right or not.
And if I understand you right, what you're saying is if an idea isn't from 'reason' than how can we criticize it using reason. But we can and do all the time. Religion is irrational, but we criticize it and take what is good from it and discard the rest.
See #1821.
#1820·Zelalem MekonnenOP, about 2 months agoSay someone said "I had a dream that {insert something true}" or "god told me that {insert something true}," what is the source of knowledge here?
That doesn’t belong here because you didn’t actually comment on my thoughts re circularity (I’m not requesting to do so now). You either did not read ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ or you did not understand it. You need to post ideas in the appropriate place. Discussions on Veritula shouldn’t be treated like linear chats.
Don’t post another idea in this discussion (the one titled ‘Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge’) until you understand how Veritula works. If you think you understand how it works, post a summary of your understanding as a new top-level idea using the form located at the bottom of ‘How Does Veritula Work?’. I can then criticize your summary to help improve your understanding.
You can also study Edwin’s activity for examples of how to do Veritula well. He’s fairly new to it but learned it quickly.
Don’t let this discourage you. Veritula has a learning curve. It takes some upfront investment but it’s worth it.
#1727·Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoI pointed out a circularity in #1655. Instead of resolving the circularity, you posted another idea repeating the same circularity. That makes no sense.
Even if I was somehow mistaken about there being a circularity, repeating the same idea doesn’t correct that.
Please read the discussion ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ in its entirety before continuing here.
Say someone said "I had a dream that {insert something true}" or "god told me that {insert something true}," what is the source of knowledge here?
#1623·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoIf I get her right, one could in principle hold a rational belief which is false —a belief in god, say— so long as this belief stems from a sincere effort to explain the world and so long as the believer is ready to jettison his belief if he were to think of some reason why it cannot be true.
A belief in god is a form of mysticism. Rand writes that rationality “means the rejection of any form of mysticism […].” So a belief in god is not just false, it’s irrational. It’s also implausible that someone could hold on to as blatantly false an idea as the existence of god without some refusal to look into the matter critically.
This has to take time into context. At one point, a belief in god was all that we had. We didn't have hard to vary explanations. As such, a person might have a belief in god as the only worldview currently. So it isn't irrational for that person, or people back in the days, to believe in god.
#1727·Dennis Hackethal, 2 months agoI pointed out a circularity in #1655. Instead of resolving the circularity, you posted another idea repeating the same circularity. That makes no sense.
Even if I was somehow mistaken about there being a circularity, repeating the same idea doesn’t correct that.
Please read the discussion ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ in its entirety before continuing here.
Dreams can be a source of knowledge. But dreams aren't always reasonable. Sometimes, dreams are lies.
In that statement, I am looking at reason as a mode of criticism. You might get ideas and potentially knowledge from all sources and reason tests weather they are right or not.
And if I understand you right, what you're saying is if an idea isn't from 'reason' than how can we criticize it using reason. But we can and do all the time. Religion is irrational, but we criticize it and take what is good from it and discard the rest.
Fire purifies gold, but it isn't gold itself. Reason doesn't need to be the source of knowledge to criticize other sources. The main source of knowledge is myth and things that don't make sense. All of our scientific theories are testable, hard to vary myths. As Popper states in Conjecture and Refutations (171), "[w]e shall understand that, in a certain sense, science is myth-making just as religion is."
Religion is a form of knowledge, but it is not reasonable. It holds some truths, but it is not reasonable. Knowledge can come from myths, which are not reason.
#1726·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 3 months agoThis misses the point of the post before it. Knowledge starts as myths and contains myths. Reason makes it hard to vary, thus reasonable to take as true until the myths in that theory itself are corrected.
This should be marked a criticism.
#1726·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 3 months agoThis misses the point of the post before it. Knowledge starts as myths and contains myths. Reason makes it hard to vary, thus reasonable to take as true until the myths in that theory itself are corrected.
I pointed out a circularity in #1655. Instead of resolving the circularity, you posted another idea repeating the same circularity. That makes no sense.
Even if I was somehow mistaken about there being a circularity, repeating the same idea doesn’t correct that.
Please read the discussion ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ in its entirety before continuing here.
#1646·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoCriticism is a form of knowledge. How does reason have access to criticism if reason is not the source of knowledge?
This misses the point of the post before it. Knowledge starts as myths and contains myths. Reason makes it hard to vary, thus reasonable to take as true until the myths in that theory itself are corrected.
#1641·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoFair enough. Will revise. By the way, I prefer when people use their real names. Mind changing yours under settings?
I'd rather remain anonymous. Don't worry, I'm not one of Elliot's goons. And I'll prove it to you.
#1653·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 3 months agoFire purifies gold, but it isn't gold itself. Reason doesn't need to be the source of knowledge to criticize other sources. The main source of knowledge is myth and things that don't make sense. All of our scientific theories are testable, hard to vary myths. As Popper states in Conjecture and Refutations (171), "[w]e shall understand that, in a certain sense, science is myth-making just as religion is."
This is largely a duplicate of #1633. You’d want to avoid repeating ideas.
#1646·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoCriticism is a form of knowledge. How does reason have access to criticism if reason is not the source of knowledge?
Fire purifies gold, but it isn't gold itself. Reason doesn't need to be the source of knowledge to criticize other sources. The main source of knowledge is myth and things that don't make sense. All of our scientific theories are testable, hard to vary myths. As Popper states in Conjecture and Refutations (171), "[w]e shall understand that, in a certain sense, science is myth-making just as religion is."
#1649·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 3 months agoSo the [...] or ellipsis indicates that the sentence is quoted half way.
I thought ellipsis was including the []. But it isn't.
Ayn Rand claims that "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
Ayn Rand claims that "[t]he virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
#1635·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoThat quote is better but still not quite right. You’d want to end it not in a dangling comma, but in an ellipsis to indicate that you’re cutting the sentence short. Try changing it to:
"The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge […]." This is wrong etc.
Then, in the section “Do the comments still apply?”, be sure to deselect the criticisms that your edit addresses.
So the [...] or ellipsis indicates that the sentence is quoted half way.
Ayn Rand claims that "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge," This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
Ayn Rand claims that "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
#1633·Zelalem MekonnenOP, 3 months agoThe source of knowledge is myths. Reason criticizes them and we get myths that are testable (if knowledge about the physical world), hard to vary and make some assertion about reality. Popper highlighted the myth and testable nature of scientific knowledge, and Deutsch highlights hard to vary and explanation/assertion nature of knowledge.
Criticism is a form of knowledge. How does reason have access to criticism if reason is not the source of knowledge?
#1634·Dennis Hackethal, 3 months agoIn other situations, I would agree. For example, back when I was first learning how to code, I made it a point to type code from tutorials manually to retain it better.
But with quotes it’s different because retaining the literal letter matters. Typing it manually is too error prone and there’s no compiler (except Quote Checker) to catch errors.
Point taken. It is copy/pasted now.
#1639·Amaro Koberle, 3 months agoYeah fair. I'll admit, my example is rather contrived. My hope was to show that one could in principle maintain a belief in god in a rational fashion, at least for a time. However, just because it is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it is at all likely. I agree that this isn't what is usually going with believers.
Is irrational just "false" or is there something else to it?
There’s more to it.
Are there true but irrational ideas?
I don’t think so, no.
I think rational but false ideas must exist, no?
Yes. Mere falsehood does not imply irrationality.
Okay I read it. Not sure I'm clear on my questions after doing so to be honest.
You asked if irrationality was just false or if there was something else to it. Note that the word ‘false’ does not occur on the linked page. Instead, she mentions the destruction of life, dishonesty, lack of integrity, context dropping, mysticism, and more examples of irrationality. These are attitudes toward truth seeking and their effects.
You asked whether rational but false ideas must exist. That is what Rand means by “not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.” Blindness = being wrong on some issue, refusal to see = refusing to seek or recognize the truth on some issue. To her, blindness and the refusal to see are not the same thing, which answers your question.
Is irrational just "false" or is there something else to it?
There’s more to it.
Are there true but irrational ideas?
It would be irrational to continue to hold true ideas in the face of unaddressed criticism, yes.
I think rational but false ideas must exist, no?
Yes. Mere falsehood does not imply irrationality.
Okay I read it. Not sure I'm clear on my questions after doing so to be honest.
You asked if irrationality was just false or if there was something else to it. Note that the word ‘false’ does not occur on the linked page. Instead, she mentions the destruction of life, dishonesty, lack of integrity, context dropping, mysticism, and more examples of irrationality. These are attitudes toward truth seeking and their effects.
You asked whether rational but false ideas must exist. That is what Rand means by “not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.” Blindness = being wrong on some issue, refusal to see = refusing to seek or recognize the truth on some issue. To her, blindness and the refusal to see are not the same thing, which answers your question.
#1640·Ragnar Danneskjöld, 3 months agoHi Dennis. You say there can't be true irrational ideas. You also say (#1625) that calling an idea irrational can be short for calling its holder irrational. Consider an irrational person believing some true idea. He is told criticisms he can't address. If he still considers the idea true without addressing those criticisms, if he evades the issue, then he's still being irrational even though the idea is true.
Fair enough. Will revise. By the way, I prefer when people use their real names. Mind changing yours under settings?