4 ms·

Yeah, maybe the outward pretense of rationality was more important in decades past. In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretent

Yeah, maybe the outward pretense of rationality was more important in decades past. In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". It never actually meant anything more rigorous, it was just the norm to write more pretentiously and inflate the certainty of conclusions. We've been greatly humbled by being wrong over and over in recent decades. Maybe that has driven people to be less confident and stop presenting their thoughts as inevitable rational conclusions. Another illustration of the weakness of their data interpretation -- the figure shows use of the word "data" has declined in the past 20 years. Has actual use of data declined over this period? Quite the opposite, surely. I think (haha) this last point is actually quite revealing and strongly supports the "decreasing pretension" interpretation of the paper's word use trend charts. Maybe people stopped saying "the data says" over and over in a crude attempt to box the reader into submission.

scsilver 5y ago
It's hard for me to appreciate an argument that we were more rational during a time of religious dominance, the last 2000 or so years. We've been greatly humbled by being wrong over and over in recent decades. Maybe that has driven people to be less confident and stop presenting their thoughts as inevitable rational conclusions. This resonates with me. We are more able to verify our assertions, quicker, faster, more accurately and are more hesitant to make bold claims. I also think we have a bit of division of specialization going on, where the world keeps turning if everyone is competent in their specialty, allowing our personal, unprofessional, side to act more irrationally without as much consequence as in the past. Ultimately it's really hard for me to believe that as we spread education and opportunity to the 8 billion people of the world, we are somehow measurably less rational then when a large swath of our population couldn't even read or write.
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  I think it's pretty common for an individual person to gain intellectual humility over time, especially at middle-age. As far as historical trends, I think we'd need to start with a clear definition of "rational", and a way to measure that in present and historical societies.
jtbayly 5y ago
The shift in language in culture as a whole has (in my own personal observation) been directly tied to the inability of the general populace to even understand basic logic. It also corresponds to a direct rejection in much of academia that there is such a thing as Truth. If you "personally believe" something in today's context, then it is "true for you" and cannot be questioned. Also, I'll just leave this here for fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
> In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". It never actually meant anything more rigorous, it was just the norm to write more pretentiously and inflate the certainty of conclusions. A person of a certain age remembers specifically being taught to obscure weak I-statements with impersonal statements that one could conclude are more rational if they do not think about them too hard.
wahern 5y ago
> In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". My high school Philosophy teacher would argue that "I think" is a weasily way to avoid accountability and challenge. And, "I think", she would say, is implied by any first person statement. Nobody can challenge what you think; your thoughts are your own. What they can challenge are declarations you make about the external world. What she failed to foresee is the degree of offense people would eventually claim regarding others' declarations. "I think" is indeed a way to pull your punches, but often to avoid conflict with the public's increasingly hyper-sensitive disposition than to protect one's own fragile ego.
- civilized 5y ago
  I don't know about Philosotopia, but in the real world the difference between X and "I think X" is pretty obvious, and it's very easy to challenge what others think.
  - wahern 5y ago
    > it's very easy to challenge what others think. Arguably it didn't used to be that way, and the current state of affairs--political divisiveness, etc--is a reflection of those rhetorical, linguistic barriers falling.

scsilver 5y ago

It's hard for me to appreciate an argument that we were more rational during a time of religious dominance, the last 2000 or so years. We've been greatly humbled by being wrong over and over in recent decades. Maybe that has driven people to be less confident and stop presenting their thoughts as inevitable rational conclusions. This resonates with me. We are more able to verify our assertions, quicker, faster, more accurately and are more hesitant to make bold claims. I also think we have a bit of division of specialization going on, where the world keeps turning if everyone is competent in their specialty, allowing our personal, unprofessional, side to act more irrationally without as much consequence as in the past. Ultimately it's really hard for me to believe that as we spread education and opportunity to the 8 billion people of the world, we are somehow measurably less rational then when a large swath of our population couldn't even read or write.

CoastalCoder 5y ago
I think it's pretty common for an individual person to gain intellectual humility over time, especially at middle-age. As far as historical trends, I think we'd need to start with a clear definition of "rational", and a way to measure that in present and historical societies.

jtbayly 5y ago

The shift in language in culture as a whole has (in my own personal observation) been directly tied to the inability of the general populace to even understand basic logic. It also corresponds to a direct rejection in much of academia that there is such a thing as Truth. If you "personally believe" something in today's context, then it is "true for you" and cannot be questioned. Also, I'll just leave this here for fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

> In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". It never actually meant anything more rigorous, it was just the norm to write more pretentiously and inflate the certainty of conclusions. A person of a certain age remembers specifically being taught to obscure weak I-statements with impersonal statements that one could conclude are more rational if they do not think about them too hard.

wahern 5y ago

> In my experience reading scientific papers, "we conclude" is just a pretentious old-timey way to say "I think". My high school Philosophy teacher would argue that "I think" is a weasily way to avoid accountability and challenge. And, "I think", she would say, is implied by any first person statement. Nobody can challenge what you think; your thoughts are your own. What they can challenge are declarations you make about the external world. What she failed to foresee is the degree of offense people would eventually claim regarding others' declarations. "I think" is indeed a way to pull your punches, but often to avoid conflict with the public's increasingly hyper-sensitive disposition than to protect one's own fragile ego.

civilized 5y ago
I don't know about Philosotopia, but in the real world the difference between X and "I think X" is pretty obvious, and it's very easy to challenge what others think.
- wahern 5y ago
  > it's very easy to challenge what others think. Arguably it didn't used to be that way, and the current state of affairs--political divisiveness, etc--is a reflection of those rhetorical, linguistic barriers falling.