3 ms·

> But the reasoning process that was used isn't actually for reaching logically correct conclusions The purpose that reasoning is bent towards affects the tru

by lawpoop 10y ago

> But the reasoning process that was used isn't actually for reaching logically correct conclusions The purpose that reasoning is bent towards affects the truth value of the outcome of that reasoning? The purpose of a building-- house or office-- affect the framing quality, and not the materials and hammering technique I use?

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
> The purpose that reasoning is bent towards affects the truth value of the outcome of that reasoning? Yes. Consider two types of "reason". "Reason-type-1" is used to logically derive correct conclusions from correct premises. "Reason-type-2" is used to justify and communicate conclusions that we have irrationally reached. Which type of reasoning will achieve better "truth value", to use your term? The article claims that Reason-type-2 is all that exists, even though we all claim that we're doing Reason-type-1. So, to restate my point: If the author is correct, then what the author used to reach the stated conclusions was Reason-type-2 and not Reason-type-1. We therefore have grounds for suspecting the truth value of the author's conclusions. This is what I mean when I say that the author's position is self-refuting.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  If the author really is correct, and all that exists is Reason-Type-2, then there is no actual Reason-Type-1 by which to reject their claims. It's self-reinforcing, rather than self-refuting. It's like 15th century herbalists who claimed that certain herbs were balancing humors, when the herbs had actual medicinal values. Their methods were efficacious, but they did not understand why and made false claims about why. We all use Reason-Type-2, and only that, because that is all that exists (if the author is correct), but mistakenly claim we're using Reason-Type-1, which doesn't actually exist (again, if the author is correct), the same way people had wrong-headed, but reasonable in context, theories about how the world worked.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    True. But at the same time, there is no Reason-Type-1 by which to decide that their claims are correct. All we have is Reason-Type-2, and that is insufficient to know whether their claims are actually correct, as opposed to "reasonable in context". If we only have Reason-Type-2, we're much less sure that we're really right (about anything) than we are if we have Reason-Type-1.

by lawpoop 10y ago

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

> The purpose that reasoning is bent towards affects the truth value of the outcome of that reasoning? Yes. Consider two types of "reason". "Reason-type-1" is used to logically derive correct conclusions from correct premises. "Reason-type-2" is used to justify and communicate conclusions that we have irrationally reached. Which type of reasoning will achieve better "truth value", to use your term? The article claims that Reason-type-2 is all that exists, even though we all claim that we're doing Reason-type-1. So, to restate my point: If the author is correct, then what the author used to reach the stated conclusions was Reason-type-2 and not Reason-type-1. We therefore have grounds for suspecting the truth value of the author's conclusions. This is what I mean when I say that the author's position is self-refuting.

lawpoop 10y ago
If the author really is correct, and all that exists is Reason-Type-2, then there is no actual Reason-Type-1 by which to reject their claims. It's self-reinforcing, rather than self-refuting. It's like 15th century herbalists who claimed that certain herbs were balancing humors, when the herbs had actual medicinal values. Their methods were efficacious, but they did not understand why and made false claims about why. We all use Reason-Type-2, and only that, because that is all that exists (if the author is correct), but mistakenly claim we're using Reason-Type-1, which doesn't actually exist (again, if the author is correct), the same way people had wrong-headed, but reasonable in context, theories about how the world worked.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  True. But at the same time, there is no Reason-Type-1 by which to decide that their claims are correct. All we have is Reason-Type-2, and that is insufficient to know whether their claims are actually correct, as opposed to "reasonable in context". If we only have Reason-Type-2, we're much less sure that we're really right (about anything) than we are if we have Reason-Type-1.