Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

But Is It True?

Entry 1747, on 2015-10-28 at 12:14:53 (Rating 2, Skepticism)

Today I attended a short customer services course. It was kind of fun in some ways and there were some interesting points made, but to a large extent it was just a generic rehashing of the stuff that we all know anyway without any reference to the particular issues faced by the organisation I work for.

I realised that the trainer had a particular way of looking at the world, which included using various "psychometric models" which I usually think of as being more pop psychology than real science, and I realised that everyone has their equivalent to these models which they use to try to understand the complexity of the world. They have models based on personal experience, on common sense, and on the shared wisdom of their particular community.

The problem is that these sources of knowledge are often wrong. Here are some examples...

Many people find it hard to believe that human activity can have a noticeable effect on the planet as a whole. They can't believe that by taking as many fish as we want from the ocean that a species can be virtually eliminated. They can't believe that by burning fossil fuels the climate can be changed. They can't believe that pollution from farming can degrade the environment significantly.

Others find it hard to accept the findings of science. They don't think the quantum nature of the world is real even though anyone can do an experiment to show that it is. They can't accept that evolution is the only sensible explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. They think a simple religious interpretation of the universe makes more sense than the reality revealed by science.

And others have social and political ideologies which they cling to despite evidence. They might believe that countries which follow a more socialist political path aren't good places to live. They might think that more guns is the best answer to increased numbers of mass shootings. They might think that free markets always give the best outcome for the majority.

Then there's those who think organic food is always superior. Or that vaccinations are a bad thing and might lead to autism. Or that homeopathy, reflexology, exorcism, faith healing, reiki, etc are effective and a good alternative to science-based medicine.

There are hundreds more beliefs I could add to the list above but I think that is a good, representative sample and a substantial proportion of the population would accept at least one of them. And who knows, maybe they are right because it's impossible to completely dismiss anything as completely untrue. There is always room for doubt. But a good interim conclusion would be that all of the above are doubtful at best, and completely false at worst.

If you look at a subject, like evolution, without any knowledge of the real discoveries of science, it is almost impossible to accept it. How could the incredibly complex organisms (including ourselves) on the planet today have arisen through "random trial and error" from simple chemicals in the distant past? It just doesn't make sense.

But many things which all evidence indicates are true don't make sense until you look at that evidence. How could anyone possible believe the completely counter-intuitive findings of relativity or quantum theory unless they were aware of the experiments and observations which show that the world at the sub-atomic level and at the greatest scales actually doesn't work how we would intuitive expect it to?

If you consider what intuition really is - a set of heuristic rules we use to understand common experiences - it isn't surprising that it doesn't work in many extraordinary situations, especially those involving the most basic levels of the physical world, the most complex situations involving the behaviour of large groups of people, processes occurring over vast time periods, or phenomena outside the usual range of experiences of a person or his immediate group.

I'm not saying that everyone should re-examine all of their most cherished beliefs. I'm just saying that unless they do they really shouldn't enter into debates with people who have actually made an effort to look at the facts.

And finally, do I suffer from the same problem? Well I guess I probably do because one of the basic attributes of people who prefer personal opinion to facts is that they don't realise they are doing it. I do have to say though, that I make a real effort to look at alternatives to what I initially think is true and I do hold several ideas in a state where I accept they are doubtful. I think that if everyone made that sort of effort we would all be much better off.

Look at it this way: I might like an idea and it might seem to make sense, but is it true?

Comment 1 (4418) by SM on 2015-10-30 at 14:32:20:

"How could the incredibly complex organisms (including ourselves) on the planet today have arisen through "random trial and error" from simple chemicals in the distant past? It just doesn't make sense"

Does it make (rational) sense that rationality could arise from irrational matter? How do universal, invariant, immaterial laws of thought come from simple chemical matter via a naturalistic process of, "random trial and error"?

Comment 2 (4422) by OJB on 2015-10-30 at 20:55:14:

I don't really agree with your premises here. Matter isn't irrational or rational but rationality arises from processes which emerge from matter. There are no universal, invariant laws of thought.

Think of it this way: thought is a higher process which is an emergent property of a brain. It's like a program running on a computer. As different ways of thinking evolve only the best ones give survival value. The best ones are those which represent the world the best, in other words are rational.

That is the general case anyway, because sometimes irrationality can have survival value too. Maybe that's why we have religion!

Comment 3 (4424) by SM on 2015-10-31 at 20:52:34:

“...rationality arises from processes which emerge from matter.”

So rationality has arisen via “random trial and error”, from physical matter, that was brought about by a mindless, undirected/chaotic explosion? But it’s the sine qua non for logic. And logic is immaterial, as it is ideational. How did mindless matter bring about immaterial realities like logic?

“There are no universal, invariant laws of thought.”

No logic of the universal, absolute variety then? But, “There are no absolutes except in logic and mathematics.“ (OJB Blog).

I guess if logic were tethered to evolutionary processes then it couldn't be invariant, but then how is it even logic? Did what was once illogical, evolve into what is now logical? Is logic still evolving? A statement like, “I can't see a flaw in my logic. If you can, please email me and tell me where it is” (OJB Blog), assumes the absoluteness, universality, and transcendental necessity of logic, does it not?

“...thought is a higher process which is an emergent property of a brain.”

But this makes things like logic dependent on the brain (mind?). So how can you, from within your naturalistic worldview, account for the fact that logic connects with the world outside your head? Does it? The statement, “Believers in literal creation are unreasonable and irrational” (OJB Blog), is meaningless if rationality is contingent.

“It's like a program running on a computer.”

I thought minds put programs into computers. Doesn’t your worldview have the program (rationality) arising from processes which emerge from the plastic and metal (matter) of the computer?

“...sometimes irrationality can have survival value too. Maybe that's why we have religion!”

Maybe we should allow creationism in schools; it could have survival value.

Comment 4 (4425) by OJB on 2015-11-01 at 10:27:28:

1. Maybe our problem here is the definition of rationality. In this context I see it this way: thinking in a way which is likely to lead to correct conclusions about the real world. You can see how there would be evolutionary pressure for this to arise.

2. Yes, I'm not sure we were talking about the same thing there. What maths and logic are is a bit of a philosophical mystery. Is maths a tool we use to examine reality or is it really a part of reality itself? Either way, I agree that these are consistent systems, apart from the well-known limitations regarding Godel's Incompleteness, etc.

3. How logic and maths relate to the real world is also a matter for debate. There is the famous paper "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Maths" which points out how pure abstract maths can be used to predict real phenomena. This is interesting stuff but we really are branching in to philosophy here and there are no distinct hypotheses we can test.

4. Currently programs are written by humans but it's not difficult to see how self-programming computers could be created. They wouldn't have to be very good, just try plenty of times and take the good programs forward to the next iteration. In other words, evolve.

5. We can, and do, have creationism in schools, in religious studies classes. But not in science because it isn't science and would cause a lot of confusion if it was presented as if it was.

Comment 5 (4426) by SM on 2015-11-02 at 10:30:08:

“1. Maybe our problem here is the definition of rationality…”

This reads like an equivocation on ‘rationality’ just so YOU can, “see how there would be evolutionary pressure for this to arise.” ‘Rationality’ that "is likely to lead to”, as opposed to ‘consistently leads to’ (given the absolute logic involved), sounds somewhat irrational in my opinion.

“What maths and logic are is a bit of a philosophical mystery.”

This sounds like a (rare) admission that immaterial realities cannot be (fully) accounted for using the presuppositions of a naturalistic worldview. I appreciate such honesty.

“…take the good programs forward…”

Yes, but this hasn’t accounted for the good programs existing in the first instance, to be taken forward. Appreciate the discussion, thanks.

Comment 6 (4431) by OJB on 2015-11-02 at 17:57:40:

Rationality doesn't always lead to the correct result because there are other factors, such as prior knowledge, which also affect results. For example, it might be that concluding that the universe is static was the most rational thing at one point, until the knowledge of redshifts changed this. You can be rational, but still wrong.

There's no need to resort to a non-naturalistic worldview to account for non-material things, such as maths and logic. These are simply systems of rules and are emergent properties of a thinking material machine, in this case a brain. No need to resort to superstition to explain anything!

As I clearly said in comment 4, point 4, they don't have to be good programs. Anything which can change and pass those changes on to other programs is all that is necessary, just like with biological evolution.

Comment 7 (4432) by SM on 2015-11-03 at 09:55:02:

“Rationality doesn't always lead to the correct result…”

Sorry, I think you may be missing my point. It’s not the fact of an end result that’s up for debate, it’s the fact of the process - the “leading”. Does your worldview have a process of thinking (rationality), which has the quality of being logically consistent, arising via “random trial and error”, from physical matter, that was brought about by a mindless, undirected/chaotic explosion?

“You can be rational, but still wrong.”

Yes, but the PROCESS LEADING to the false conclusion(s) is still logically consistent. That’s what needs to be accounted for, form within your worldview. Given you believe pragmatism is the arbiter of truth, and irrational conclusions/assumptions/statements can have survival value, couldn’t the irrational creationist be right?

Comment 8 (4433) by OJB on 2015-11-03 at 10:13:47:

Yes, my worldview does have a process where rational thinking can arise through "random" trial and error. Remember that evolution isn't undirected though, it is directed by natural processes often (somewhat inaccurately) summarised as "survival of the fittest". Surely you can see how rational thought gives an individual increased fitness?

Yes, the irrational creationist could be right. And a 5 year old who believes that fairies at the bottom of the garden created the world could be right too. But we have to look at the balance of probabilities. Since there is no evidence supporting creationism we are safe in the interim belief that it is wrong.

Comment 9 (4434) by SM on 2015-11-04 at 09:16:32:

"How logic and maths relate to the real world is also a matter for debate."

But you do believe they relate (connect) to the real world, right? If so, what is the supporting evidence that they do so? Is the capacity of math and logic working in the extended world, something that is amenable to the scientific method?

Comment 10 (4436) by OJB on 2015-11-04 at 15:49:51:

Theoretical maths has lead to predictions on how the real world should behave and those predictions have later been supported by experiments. Maths often describes the real world accurately. Relativity and QED would be two examples. And yes, using maths to make predictions which are tested by experiment is precisely what the scientific method is all about.

Comment 11 (4438) by SM on 2015-11-04 at 19:32:00: Great, thanks.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.