Search ideas

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."

I thought ellipsis was including the []. But it isn't.

Superseded by #1650. This comment was generated automatically.

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.

So the [...] or ellipsis indicates that the sentence is quoted half way.

Superseded by #1647. This comment was generated automatically.

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.

Criticism is a form of knowledge. How does reason have access to criticism if reason is not the source of knowledge?

Yeah but there’s still #1635.

Point taken. It is copy/pasted now.

Great. With that in mind, would you like to revise #1617 in such a way that it has no outstanding criticisms? Note that it currently has one outstanding criticism (#1623).

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.

Fair enough. Will revise. By the way, I prefer when people use their real names. Mind changing yours under settings?

Hi 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.

Yeah 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.

I wonder if ‘drive’ is really a good word for unconscious ideas. In this context, my Dictionary app says:

 an innate, biologically determined urge to attain a goal or satisfy a need: emotional and sexual drives.

and

“determination and ambition to achieve something: her drive has sustained her through some shattering personal experiences.”

But neither of those is unconscious. People are aware of their sexual and emotional drives and their ambitions.

In addition, there are other types of unconscious knowledge. As you say in your video, habitualization is a source of unconscious knowledge.

When I hear the word ‘drive’, I think of determination and ambition, which take lots of conscious effort. I don’t think of habitualized knowledge, which by definition takes no effort.

Is this kid being irrational?

Perhaps not. However, I find your example implausible. Let’s look at it more closely. You originally wrote that a belief in god could be rational if two conditions are both met:

1. “[The] belief stems from a sincere effort to explain the world and …”
2. “… the believer is ready to jettison his belief if he were to think of some reason why it cannot be true.”

As for 1, a sincere effort to explain the world implies a critical attitude, honesty, conscientiousness/thoroughness, which means subjecting candidate ideas to lots of criticism, following up on counter-criticisms (as opposed to running off and doing something else), etc. A child might prioritize playing in the dirt today, but at some point he will ask questions. A sincere effort to explain anything means he’d rather say ‘I don’t know’ than believe something as silly as god.

God as a concept is arbitrary on its face. It cannot survive even very basic criticism. So it cannot possibly stem from a sincere effort to explain the world.

As for 2, kids ask tons of questions and criticize ideas. They’re naturally curious and conscientious in this way. The problem is that parents beat the god idea into their kids (figuratively if not literally) so that the kids don’t question it. So then those kids are not willing to jettison the idea anymore. Which is why the idea sticks around despite not being a sincere effort to explain the world.

Superseded by #1629.

That 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.

In 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.

The 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.

I didn't copy/paste, no. I try not to whenever possible. It helps with paying attention to the detail.

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.

Synonymous indeed. In a previous video I labeled Deutsch's terms to make them easier to discuss and get a better sense for. You're correct that the specific mapping I use is:
Statements = explicit knowledge
Intuitions = inexplicit knowledge
Drives = unconscious knowledge

I agree that a belief in god is mystical, but I disagree that the fact that god doesn't exist must be blatant and that believing in god must necessarily involve some dishonest refusal to look into the matter. Or, perhaps to be more precise: The refusal to look into the matter could be a result of genuine disinterest in the light of more pressing problems, rather than some irrational fear response to changing one's mind on the topic.

Perhaps consider a child growing up on a medieval farm in Europe. His entire social context is certain of the existence of god, the kid would never encounter any criticism of it without creating it himself. Water is wet, fire is hot and the universe was created by sky daddy. He didn't ask for this last "fact", it's just what mom and dad told him. He's young, he doesn't really care, he's much more interested in a thousand other things, so he heard of god once, thought to himself "alright, whatever" and went straight back to wondering about whether the dirt in the yard could possibly make for a tasty meal. Perhaps if this kid was to encounter some argument for why the universe cannot have been created by an omnipotent being, the child would just say "ah alright, now that you say it that way, it does sound a bit silly..." and upon examining the matter critically for a mere second the kid would ditch his belief in god without further ado. The reason why he hasn't done so is because he was occupied with things other than the big questions of the origins of the cosmos, the meaning of life and what not. Is this kid being irrational?