3 ms·

> Your last paragraph suggests that you don't allow the possibility that this piece is intended to be reflexive. If that's the intent, then maybe she shouldn't

> Your last paragraph suggests that you don't allow the possibility that this piece is intended to be reflexive. If that's the intent, then maybe she shouldn't write it in exactly the absolutely certain voice that she's criticizing, except without the only part of that voice, the rationality, that makes that voice sometimes worthwhile. > In domains where feeling and intuition are appropriate, there are people pushing academic, rational agendas which kill the subject matter dead. If you haven't experienced this problem I respectfully suggest that you may not be in the target audience of this article. I've experienced a problem which I think you may be talking about: A lot of times people reject ideas or decisions that are based in intuition or feeling. They do so because they believe that intuition and feeling aren't rational. The problem is, that's not rational. Intuition and feeling are based in rationality, especially in domains where it's more important that a decision be quick than accurate, or when extended application of logic or search for evidence isn't likely to yield useful results. The flipside of that is what I think you're doing now: claiming that rationality kills domains where feeling and intuition are appropriate. Nothing is farther from the truth: killing a domain based in intuition and feeling by applying logic or evidence inappropriately is an irrational behavior. Julia Galef calls this "Straw Vulcanism"[1] and I recommend her talk; she does a better job of explaining it than I can. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLgNZ9aTEwc

theoh 10y ago
Well, it is the "Opinionator" column, and she states the thesis she is proposing very clearly using "I believe" language in the third paragraph. You seem to claim that only rationality can make assertions worthwhile, but that's not universally accepted. See William James' notion of the Will to Believe. He argued that sometimes you must accept an unproven fact in order to take advantage of its implications. If you are expecting every sentence in the Opinionator piece to contain a "this is just my opinion, but", caveat, I'm not sure what viable model of writing you have in mind. There are rhetorical allowances that must be made, and it feels pedantic to complain about the author's tone of certainty. She's trying to lead a charge, inspire courage, etc. To address some of your later points: We know that humans have many cognitive biases, so intuition is not necessarily a rational thing. I should have put "rationality" in quotes in my comment -- I have no beef with rationality per se. However, in art, propositional knowledge is thin on the ground, and attempts to place the study or practice of art on a rational basis are necessarily reductive (because propositional approaches are just not adequate or available). One of my colleagues is a devotee of a quantum quackery approach to psychotherapy. I'm happy to accept that it's "rational" for them to follow this idea if it leads to good results in their artistic career. If they don't believe it themselves there are issues of sincerity when they participate. If they do believe it, they aren't being rational. I'm usually the guy who gets shouted down when I try to claim that aesthetic pleasure should be included in the category of rational "functions" of objects, so I think we essentially agree on the power and legitimacy of a rational approach to all aspects of experience. Quantum quackery and Skepticon talks are, it seems to me, totally incompatible and it's futile for any of us to reconcile those two audiences, for the time being. Ok?

theoh 10y ago

Well, it is the "Opinionator" column, and she states the thesis she is proposing very clearly using "I believe" language in the third paragraph. You seem to claim that only rationality can make assertions worthwhile, but that's not universally accepted. See William James' notion of the Will to Believe. He argued that sometimes you must accept an unproven fact in order to take advantage of its implications. If you are expecting every sentence in the Opinionator piece to contain a "this is just my opinion, but", caveat, I'm not sure what viable model of writing you have in mind. There are rhetorical allowances that must be made, and it feels pedantic to complain about the author's tone of certainty. She's trying to lead a charge, inspire courage, etc. To address some of your later points: We know that humans have many cognitive biases, so intuition is not necessarily a rational thing. I should have put "rationality" in quotes in my comment -- I have no beef with rationality per se. However, in art, propositional knowledge is thin on the ground, and attempts to place the study or practice of art on a rational basis are necessarily reductive (because propositional approaches are just not adequate or available). One of my colleagues is a devotee of a quantum quackery approach to psychotherapy. I'm happy to accept that it's "rational" for them to follow this idea if it leads to good results in their artistic career. If they don't believe it themselves there are issues of sincerity when they participate. If they do believe it, they aren't being rational. I'm usually the guy who gets shouted down when I try to claim that aesthetic pleasure should be included in the category of rational "functions" of objects, so I think we essentially agree on the power and legitimacy of a rational approach to all aspects of experience. Quantum quackery and Skepticon talks are, it seems to me, totally incompatible and it's futile for any of us to reconcile those two audiences, for the time being. Ok?