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 07/25/07 - 01:52 PM: Subject: Can reason defend itself?	#1
Can reason defend itself? I'm having a bit of a hard time figuring out the proper way to phrase or elaborate on the question. Essentially, can reason/logic defend itself as more "true"? Or, at the most basic and axiomatic points of knowledge, does faith have to step in: either you trust that reason is valid and is optimal for discovering reality, or you trust something else as the most basic founding knowledge. If the answer is yes, it can defend itself, I'd be curious to know how. If the answer is no, then is faith in logic no more correct than faith in something else (God, etc.)? I'm drawn to this question because I think of people who have successfully rejected religion, such as this guy: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/memoir2.html I've noticed it often comes down to the fact that they have faith in reason above all things, even a deity. They try to believe this deity is a rational concept, but if they are convinced otherwise, then, as this guy did, they must rethink their beliefs. It raises the question, for me, however, as to what would happen if someone just decided to put faith in God above faith in reason? So that even if God is an irrational concept, they don't have to care, because they believe in him prior to reason. I've articulated this question quite poorly, but hopefully I can be more clear based on responses to this topic.

HolisticBeing
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 18, 2007

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 214

Posted 07/25/07 - 03:35 PM:	#2
Essentially all knowledge is inherently circular. When you get down to the bottom of everything we know, it all coheres on other information, and that information coheres on that information in a circle, and in short we really don't know anything at all. We all have fundamental assumptions and presuppositions about how we believe the way things are but in fact no one can say how things really are. Reason can not defend reason, because it would be a circular proof. What standard can you appeal to for rationality? And if so, what proof is there? And if you have a proof of that, then you must have another proof for that, and a standard for that proof. Since there is no standard, our rationality is essentially an illusion and we really don't know anything at all. We pyschologically want to believe in certainty and that we really know things, but since no knowledge can ultimately be justified, we really know nothing. Every theory of justification has serious criticisms and flaws, and in short, skepticism is the only viable and true position. We really don't know anything. We just psychologically want to believe we know things because it makes us feel better. If we are the result of evolution, we have no basis to claim we are rational creatures. Logic could just be the demented imagination of a delusional creature. There is no proof evolution could evolve a rational mind, and evolution has fooled us into believing we are rational creatures but in fact we are inherently non-rational and all of our knowledge is useless. Once you recognize how stupid we are and how we don't know anything, you suspend judgement, and peace of mind and tranquility results, and you see nothing as good or bad, right or wrong, things just are, and you accept the customs of people without making judgements on them. If you really truly think deeply about the nature of what we know, you will find that we know nothing, and that logic can not be jusified except in a circle. We are not rational animals. We are just animals with a psychological disposition to want to believe in things.

Ibrahim
seeker of nothing

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 10, 2006
Location: Washington State, USA

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 374

Posted 07/25/07 - 05:05 PM:	#3
jwdink wrote: Can reason defend itself? I'm having a bit of a hard time figuring out the proper way to phrase or elaborate on the question. Essentially, can reason/logic defend itself as more "true"? Or, at the most basic and axiomatic points of knowledge, does faith have to step in: either you trust that reason is valid and is optimal for discovering reality, or you trust something else as the most basic founding knowledge. If the answer is yes, it can defend itself, I'd be curious to know how. If the answer is no, then is faith in logic no more correct than faith in something else (God, etc.)? I'm drawn to this question because I think of people who have successfully rejected religion, such as this guy: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/memoir2.html I've noticed it often comes down to the fact that they have faith in reason above all things, even a deity. They try to believe this deity is a rational concept, but if they are convinced otherwise, then, as this guy did, they must rethink their beliefs. It raises the question, for me, however, as to what would happen if someone just decided to put faith in God above faith in reason? So that even if God is an irrational concept, they don't have to care, because they believe in him prior to reason. I've articulated this question quite poorly, but hopefully I can be more clear based on responses to this topic. Reason is a perspective based in particular values. More specifically, it's based on the belief that truth possesses the properties of consistancy, coherence, clarity, and above all, faith in the powers of the human mind. That being said, it is impossible to live without a set of values through which we judge our actions and experience whether it be religion, reason, science art or any other pathos. From an epistemological perspective, HolisticBeing hit the nail on the head. The value of knowledge is not self evident or inhering, rather it is bestowed.
"And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh"--Nietzsche

jwdink
Johnnie

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

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 428

Posted 07/25/07 - 06:30 PM:	#4
HolisticBeing wrote: Essentially all knowledge is inherently circular. When you get down to the bottom of everything we know, it all coheres on other information, and that information coheres on that information in a circle, and in short we really don't know anything at all. We all have fundamental assumptions and presuppositions about how we believe the way things are but in fact no one can say how things really are. Reason can not defend reason, because it would be a circular proof. What standard can you appeal to for rationality? And if so, what proof is there? And if you have a proof of that, then you must have another proof for that, and a standard for that proof. Since there is no standard, our rationality is essentially an illusion and we really don't know anything at all. We pyschologically want to believe in certainty and that we really know things, but since no knowledge can ultimately be justified, we really know nothing. Every theory of justification has serious criticisms and flaws, and in short, skepticism is the only viable and true position. We really don't know anything. We just psychologically want to believe we know things because it makes us feel better. If we are the result of evolution, we have no basis to claim we are rational creatures. Logic could just be the demented imagination of a delusional creature. There is no proof evolution could evolve a rational mind, and evolution has fooled us into believing we are rational creatures but in fact we are inherently non-rational and all of our knowledge is useless. Once you recognize how stupid we are and how we don't know anything, you suspend judgement, and peace of mind and tranquility results, and you see nothing as good or bad, right or wrong, things just are, and you accept the customs of people without making judgements on them. If you really truly think deeply about the nature of what we know, you will find that we know nothing, and that logic can not be jusified except in a circle. We are not rational animals. We are just animals with a psychological disposition to want to believe in things. This is a bit too nihilistic for my tastes. We know nothing? In the strictest sense-- yes, that's true. For all we know, causality is just a coincidence, our sense-data is deceptive, etc. etc. But I think there's a difference between knowledge in the more useful, everyday sense, and knowledge in the sense of 100% certaintly. Of course the latter is impossible. So what? As humans, we have to rest our assumptions on something. I don't know if it's circular, however. I'd say it's more axiomatic. We can't help but assume that our observations are typically correct, unless we're given a reason to believe otherwise. We can't help but assume things cause one another. We can't help but assume that A and not A cannot be true. We simply need to assume certain things to survive. That's why if the person you're discussing things with is surviving (aka alive), then you have things you implicitly agree on, and have faith in, like the ones I've listed above. So you have common ground on which to understand and discuss things. That's why I personally think that while no proposition of faith (faith in God, faith reason, faith in flying spaghetti monster) is less provably, objectively, or neccessarily true than any other, I think in any sensible human way they can be. By accepting you are a human and by living, you have accepted implicitly certain axioms that lead you to have faith in reason and to find concepts such as unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters absurd, upon careful thought. It's not 100% certain knowledge, which is impossible and unneccessary, but it's still knowledge, in a more useful and coherent sense. That's my take on it, anyway. I'm really curious if anyone thinks that reason can defend itself. I was in another thread where someone said he believed this. I'm curious to see what people who share this conviction mean.

jwdink
Johnnie

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

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 428

Posted 07/25/07 - 06:33 PM:	#5
Reason is a perspective based in particular values. More specifically, it's based on the belief that truth possesses the properties of consistancy, coherence, clarity, and above all, faith in the powers of the human mind. That being said, it is impossible to live without a set of values through which we judge our actions and experience whether it be religion, reason, science art or any other pathos. I'd have to agree with you, though I think it's not only impossible to live without a set of values through with we judge, but I'd argue that these values must be somewhat rational. Thus when people say they have faith in God above all things, I'd say they are incorrect--they have faith in reason even prior to this, whether they realize it or not. Edited by jwdink on 07/25/07 - 06:50 PM

Quotheraving
Pope on a Rope

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 30

Posted 07/25/07 - 11:24 PM:	#6
Reason appears to be, in effect, a set of mental rules or tools based on living experience (which obviously includes consistency, logic and coherence), evolved to aid us in living. Faith is also a mental tool, but one with very clear and limited useage. I.E. We can reasonably have faith in experience, or the word of someone that we know is trustworthy. Good reasoning should have no need to defend itself as it shouldn't stray far from reality and empirical validation. Pure reason on the other hand (reasoning based entirely upon abstractions of abstractions) needs to find some way of relating to experience or it becomes faith.
"I think, therefore I think I am"

amishmime
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 22, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 07/26/07 - 04:26 AM: Subject: Reasoning	#7
I find reasoning is largely purpose driven. Great minds past and present, have tended to form separate mechanisms for various ideas. Whether these subjects are based on empirical data or based on matters of faith vary between each culture and demographic, but ultimately, the conclusion will support their purpose. I think. I think one rarely arrives at a solution that is contrary for the purpose they support. If your asking--in the simplest way--whether reason is capable of defending itself? Yes.. and no. Depends on your purpose.

Ibrahim
seeker of nothing

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 10, 2006
Location: Washington State, USA

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 374

Posted 07/26/07 - 08:16 AM:	#8
jwdink wrote: I'd have to agree with you, though I think it's not only impossible to live without a set of values through with we judge, but I'd argue that these values must be somewhat rational. Thus when people say they have faith in God above all things, I'd say they are incorrect--they have faith in reason even prior to this, whether they realize it or not. If by reason you mean certain categories ( such as causality and time ala Kant), then I agree. However, any argument that God is a priori or that reason is justified independent of experience I find untenable. One thing that must be kept in mind is the reason, much like all other forms of cognition, are mutable and their definitions have changed drastically overtime. If 300 years ago you told Newton that light was both matter and an incorporeal electromagnetic wave, he would have flipped. Today it is widely accepted and even readily apparent that it behaves like both. ( though I have to admit that a priori reason such as logic hasn't changed since Aristotle, though I am very skeptical about that as well)
"And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh"--Nietzsche

jwdink
Johnnie

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

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 428

Posted 07/26/07 - 09:57 AM:	#9
Good reasoning should have no need to defend itself as it shouldn't stray far from reality and empirical validation. Don't you need faith to believe that what you percieve as real and emperical, is, in fact, correct? I can't see how one can avoid starting with faith in something. I find reasoning is largely purpose driven. Great minds past and present, have tended to form separate mechanisms for various ideas. Whether these subjects are based on empirical data or based on matters of faith vary between each culture and demographic, but ultimately, the conclusion will support their purpose. I think. I think one rarely arrives at a solution that is contrary for the purpose they support. If your asking--in the simplest way--whether reason is capable of defending itself? Yes.. and no. Depends on your purpose. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Could you clarify? ( though I have to admit that a priori reason such as logic hasn't changed since Aristotle, though I am very skeptical about that as well) I think this is what I'm talking about when I speak of "reason". My original question is can a priori logic defend itself with itself, or do you just have faith in these methods of thinking?

jwdink
Johnnie

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

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 428

Posted 07/26/07 - 10:02 AM:	#10
It looks like this is almost the exact same thread as one posted quite a while ago-- I must say the original poster articulated his thoughts much better than I did. http://forums.philosophyforums.com...-justify-itself-22653.html

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.