Can reason defend itself?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Can reason defend itself? » Can reason defend itself?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Can reason defend itself?

jwdink
Johnnie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 20, 2007
Location: Maryland

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 428

Posted 08/11/07 - 01:46 PM:	#61
that, since there's no absolutely coherent or consistent base for reason, therefore all is irrational, and by extension, any belief in any old irrational thing whatsoever is just fine. I completely agree with what you're saying in your post, but I did wish to clarify something in this statement. I would argue that it depends on what you mean by "fine". In an objective sense, it's "fine", since the universe doesn't care either way. However, in any other sense, if you're rejecting intuitions to reason it's not "fine". As humans we can't help but accept them implicitly, and if you proclaim your rejection of them, you're really just lying to yourself.

NoSoul
Economic determinist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 05, 2004

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 610

Posted 08/11/07 - 01:59 PM:	#62
Well, that's what I think, too -- that such people are simply wrong to ignore their intuitions to reason. Which goes back to my question over whether they are consciously or willfully (malevolently? in bad faith?) doing so, or if they neurologically faultily wired or defective, or at least just neurologically wired much differently than me & others like me.
Firmly tie the mind, resembling a mad elephant, to the strong pillar of its perceptual content, with the rope of contemplative inspection, and gradually tame it with the hook of discrimination. -- Buddhist Handbook, Salamander Press To the poet and sage, all things are friendly and hallowed, all experiences profitable, all days holy, all men divine. - Nietzsche/Emerson

Taffer
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2007

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 254

Posted 08/12/07 - 02:03 AM:	#63
jwdink wrote: How come you think it's meaningless? Sorry if I'm being dense here. Because it talks about proof, and any proof contains assumptions. The same applies to terms such as "justification" or "showing" or any term which might be substituted for proof. For the word "proof" to have any meaning some mention must be made of the assumptions being used. Usually, in everyday language, people just say "proof" and the talk of assumptions is dropped. That's fine, people's use of everyday language tends to be lazy (we aren't robots, after all), and stuff (which strictly speaking ought to be said) gets dropped. But for a precise discussion such as this one, precision of thought and discourse is needed. What is actually left unsaid differs in different cases. Firstly there is mathematical and empirical proof. A lawyer might say "proof" and mean "proof to a sufficient order to convince the jury", whereas a physicist might mean "proof" as "proof to a very high degree of empirical observation". Then there is mathematical proof. A mathematician engaged in the study of formal axiomatic systems might mean "proof" as "a proof in PA" or "a proof in ZF" (here PA is a fragment of arithmetic, ZF is a popular modern set theory). A mathematician engaged in mathematics but not in the study of axiomatic systems might mean "proof" as "a proof from intuitively self-evident principles". What I was saying is that for the wikipedia notion of "faith" (or any similar notion) to have meaning, one or more of the above meanings must be assigned. jwdink wrote: However, in any other sense, if you're rejecting intuitions to reason it's not "fine". As humans we can't help but accept them implicitly, and if you proclaim your rejection of them, you're really just lying to yourself. Well, to a certain extent it is impossible to reject reason, because it is wired into our biology. If someone says they reject that "if A is true, A is true" or "3 does not divide 7", then that is all they are doing - saying that. One cannot truly reject such obvious things because they are hardwired into our minds, and it is impossible for anyone to imagine it any other way. NoSoul wrote: I have long thought reason & intuition are essential complements to each other. Reason & logic simply feel better than irrationality. At least in a certain sense. At the limits of reason, conclusions & premises begin to contradict each other, things stop cohering so well, and you are forced, IMO, to resort to intuition to sort things out. The question of reason giving itself reason is a clear paradox, an example of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem if you will. To resolve it requires stepping outside of reason, and resorting to intuition. This is paradoxical, but IMO it's necessary. I don't know what specific "limits of reason" or "contradictions" (remember, a contradiction is a statement of the form "A and not A") you are talking about, but Godel's theorems have nothing to do with such. Godel's theorems are about the limitations of "fixed axiomatic systems of reasoning", not "reason". Edited by Taffer on 08/12/07 - 02:14 AM

NoSoul
Economic determinist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 05, 2004

Total Topics: 25
Total Posts: 610

Posted 08/15/07 - 02:37 AM:

#64

I used GIT as metaphor; but it's a close metaphor. The question concerns "Reason giving itself reason," or "Justification justifying itself." That is an example of GIT. A set never fully explainable in terms of itself alone, but always with need to appeal to a meta-set ever just beyond its reach.

Is there anything wrong, in your opinion, with justifying reason on intuitionist grounds? As you admit, it's hardwired into biology. In effect -- I'd say, phenomenologically -- this is the same thing as using intuition ("common sense") to derive reason. (Obviously this is not the same as using intuition at every turn to justify every "reasoned" syllogism; just sort of getting the ball rolling. Intuition producing reason is sort of like Deism: A mystical clockwork maker which produces a totally deterministic universe after its origin.)

Edited by NoSoul on 08/15/07 - 02:43 AM

Firmly tie the mind, resembling a mad elephant, to the strong pillar of its perceptual content, with the rope of contemplative inspection, and gradually tame it with the hook of discrimination.

-- Buddhist Handbook, Salamander Press

To the poet and sage, all things are friendly and hallowed, all experiences profitable, all days holy, all men divine. - Nietzsche/Emerson

noself
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
Location: Manchester, UK

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 10

Posted 08/15/07 - 06:09 AM:	#65
Reason/logic isn't a belief system. It is the process of comparing different belief systems (or apparent patterns) for consistency. So there is nothing to defend. Even a heavily reasoned view, such as evolution, is never strictly set like belief, as new patterns (evidence) can always change it. I would like to turn the question around and ask what reason would have to defend itself against, even if there was anything to defend? p.s: NoSoul, I didnâ€™t plagiarise your name.. It's a coincidence!

jwdink
Johnnie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 20, 2007
Location: Maryland

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 428

Posted 08/15/07 - 08:10 AM:	#66
noself wrote: Reason/logic isn't a belief system. It is the process of comparing different belief systems (or apparent patterns) for consistency. So there is nothing to defend. Even a heavily reasoned view, such as evolution, is never strictly set like belief, as new patterns (evidence) can always change it. I would like to turn the question around and ask what reason would have to defend itself against, even if there was anything to defend? p.s: NoSoul, I didn’t plagiarise your name.. It's a coincidence! You might be defending yourself again some devil's advocate, like myself, who ask you: And how do you know this process of comparison is valid? How exactly would you answer this question?

noself
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
Location: Manchester, UK

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 10

Posted 08/15/07 - 12:39 PM:	#67
We can't raise doubts over, and test the validity of reason with reason itself. To ask whether reason can defend itself is like asking whether a knife can cut itself...The answer may be no, but it doesn't mean the knife can't cut. Whatever truth value reason has depends on the patterns being reasoned, and only if there were no patterns, would reason be impossible.

jwdink
Johnnie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 20, 2007
Location: Maryland

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 428

Posted 08/15/07 - 01:39 PM:	#68
It's not as if it's a flaw in reason-- it merely means that, strictly speaking, our trust in reason is unjustified.

noself
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
Location: Manchester, UK

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 10

Posted 08/15/07 - 02:01 PM:	#69
Is it? To reiterate same analogy.. Is our trust in a knife's ability to cut unjustified because it can't cut itself? No. As long as we can see its consistent ability to cut other things, our continued use of it is justified. The only justification that reason needs is that it works, even if it's in a practical sense rather than an objective one.

jwdink
Johnnie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 20, 2007
Location: Maryland

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 428

Posted 08/15/07 - 06:13 PM:	#70
I'm sorry, but I'm having a bit of trouble seeing how that knife analogy has much validity. The only justification that reason needs is that it works, even if it's in a practical sense rather than an objective one. This is exactly what I'm trying to get at-- in all practical senses, then yes, reason is the only way to conduct thought, really. But in the strictest objective sense, it's completely unjustified.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.