3 ms·
This is an excellent counterargument. Here is another one: You will never be a completely rational being, no matter how hard you try. You are very good at tric
by guscost 6y ago
This is an excellent counterargument. Here is another one:
You will never be a completely rational being, no matter how hard you try. You are very good at tricking yourself, and it happens all the time. If you attempt to "think, don't believe", you will fail, and along the way yield all control over what you believe.
- FeepingCreature 6y agoThat's not an argument, just a sequence of assertions.
- guscost 6y agoEach assertion is true. The last one is the argument, the first two are just context.
- FeepingCreature 6y agoI don't know what to tell you. This is not how logic works.
- guscost 6y agoIndeed it is not!!!
- stagas 6y agoWe don't run on logic, trust me. I've spent the week writing a text editor. I can trash logic completely. If you want to know, all absolutely logical pieces of first-pass code failed terribly at edge cases that were completely invisible and counter-intuitive. Not because the code was wrong, but because it was right. I had to re-examine what I held to be true and came to realize that we make sense of the world by assumptions that are only loosely based on reality. I highly recommend writing a text editor to everyone, as a hard course on "logic", at least. It's the adaptation of monkey brain expectations on a purely logical machine.
- FeepingCreature 6y agoWell, since we don't run on logic, I'll just go ahead and disregard this argument regardless.
- JKCalhoun 6y agoMonty Python reference?
- DubiousPusher 6y agoI vociferously agree. For me, this is sort of the ultimate somewhat Zen like lesson I've distilled from the skeptical movement. It's good to know you have these faiths and biases. But it's only less naive to think you have the time or the capacity to out-think them all. It's troubling to me that I see a lot of the folks in the modern rationalist movement go hard at other people for not being "rational" or not using "facts" when what they should've learned is to be tremendously suspicious of their own conclusions and to hold them very loosely.