4 ms·

There's roughly one thing you actually shouldn't think. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING g

There's roughly one thing you actually shouldn't think. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed. It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own: and already Mr. H. G. Wells has raised its ruinous banner; he has written a delicate piece of scepticism called "Doubts of the Instrument." In this he questions the brain itself, and endeavours to remove all reality from all his own assertions, past, present, and to come.

nonrandomstring 4y ago
Wasn't Kant's "critique of reason" the original sin of this kind?
- qsort 4y ago
  Kant was about as far from radical skepticism as you can get.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    I didn't mean to imply Kant was the sinner, just that his words are heretical today. When he was saying it, it was to the applause of his peers in the spirit of that age. Try criticising the moral supremacy of rational prediction (for example algorithmic policing) now, and they'll nail you to tree and set it on fire.
    - AstralStorm 4y ago
      There is no such thing as rational prediction of any sizable length of time for a complex system, so it is trivial to criticize. How long can you accurately predict a relatively simple system of weather? Climate only works because our forcing is big and the forces are highly predictable. Social movements, moral ideas... good luck even setting an equation. Every attempt will be so approximate as to be worthless.
      - nonrandomstring 4y ago
        > There is no such thing as rational prediction of any sizable length of time for a complex system, You know that. I know that. Anyone with an IQ in double figures knows that. But they want it don't they. Or rather, they want to believe in it. Because otherwise what else is there to put faith in but men, minds and meetings? We'd have to sit down and talk to each other like savages.
yasp 4y ago
> One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Failing at reasoning makes the above paragraph even more funny. Our human application of reason is never perfect. Even mathematical and logical truths are as useful as matter to which we apply them. There is no need for intent in anything either. Even reasoning can be done unintentionally.
the_af 4y ago
I admire Chesterton and I agree that the thought that brings inaction and paralysis is unwelcome. That said, > That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed Well, that's very debatable. "All religious authority"? "All" is doing some heavy-duty work in that sentence. > It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own Whenever you read this sentence, this is the most decadent age. This one, the one you're living in!
SuoDuanDao 4y ago
"I have a right to think for myself" ---> "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." ---> "I think therefore I am".
bena 4y ago
This seems like just a complete misunderstanding of scepticism. And of thought. It's an absurd extreme and they try to claim that any movement towards scepticism must land at that extreme or it's "faith-based". I looked up the quote and it's from G.K. Chesterton, a Christian apologist. Also the man for which the fence was named. But that's beside the point. It totally tracks that an apologist would want to cast aspersions on scepticism in general. In a way, it's a tacit admission that religious thought is not rational and can never be defended on the basis of rationality or logic. So they stop trying and start trying to make the claim that rationality and logic just don't exist. That even acceptance of reality requires irrational faith. The idea is that once you accept that premise, you have to accept the premise of a deity also based on irrational faith. But we can demonstrate that there is a shared reality that is not capable of being "thought" away. You can take any relatively sharp object and stab it through their hand. Now, if reality were subjective and based on irrational faith, he could trust in his faith to make his hand not stabbed. But we both know that's not going to happen, what's going to happen is that he's going to hurt. Solipsism is all fun and games until someone loses an eye.
- hprotagonist 4y ago
  you can't argue with a (p-)zombie, i suppose.
- d0mine 4y ago
  There is a fun experiment about stubbing an arm https://youtube.com/watch?v=3DwVsjC_wIw https://youtube.com/watch?v=3DwVsjC_wIw

nonrandomstring 4y ago

Wasn't Kant's "critique of reason" the original sin of this kind?

qsort 4y ago
Kant was about as far from radical skepticism as you can get.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  I didn't mean to imply Kant was the sinner, just that his words are heretical today. When he was saying it, it was to the applause of his peers in the spirit of that age. Try criticising the moral supremacy of rational prediction (for example algorithmic policing) now, and they'll nail you to tree and set it on fire.
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    There is no such thing as rational prediction of any sizable length of time for a complex system, so it is trivial to criticize. How long can you accurately predict a relatively simple system of weather? Climate only works because our forcing is big and the forces are highly predictable. Social movements, moral ideas... good luck even setting an equation. Every attempt will be so approximate as to be worthless.
    - nonrandomstring 4y ago
      > There is no such thing as rational prediction of any sizable length of time for a complex system, You know that. I know that. Anyone with an IQ in double figures knows that. But they want it don't they. Or rather, they want to believe in it. Because otherwise what else is there to put faith in but men, minds and meetings? We'd have to sit down and talk to each other like savages.

yasp 4y ago

> One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.

AstralStorm 4y ago
Failing at reasoning makes the above paragraph even more funny. Our human application of reason is never perfect. Even mathematical and logical truths are as useful as matter to which we apply them. There is no need for intent in anything either. Even reasoning can be done unintentionally.

the_af 4y ago

I admire Chesterton and I agree that the thought that brings inaction and paralysis is unwelcome. That said, > That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed Well, that's very debatable. "All religious authority"? "All" is doing some heavy-duty work in that sentence. > It only appears at the end of decadent ages like our own Whenever you read this sentence, this is the most decadent age. This one, the one you're living in!

SuoDuanDao 4y ago

"I have a right to think for myself" ---> "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all." ---> "I think therefore I am".

bena 4y ago

This seems like just a complete misunderstanding of scepticism. And of thought. It's an absurd extreme and they try to claim that any movement towards scepticism must land at that extreme or it's "faith-based". I looked up the quote and it's from G.K. Chesterton, a Christian apologist. Also the man for which the fence was named. But that's beside the point. It totally tracks that an apologist would want to cast aspersions on scepticism in general. In a way, it's a tacit admission that religious thought is not rational and can never be defended on the basis of rationality or logic. So they stop trying and start trying to make the claim that rationality and logic just don't exist. That even acceptance of reality requires irrational faith. The idea is that once you accept that premise, you have to accept the premise of a deity also based on irrational faith. But we can demonstrate that there is a shared reality that is not capable of being "thought" away. You can take any relatively sharp object and stab it through their hand. Now, if reality were subjective and based on irrational faith, he could trust in his faith to make his hand not stabbed. But we both know that's not going to happen, what's going to happen is that he's going to hurt. Solipsism is all fun and games until someone loses an eye.

hprotagonist 4y ago
you can't argue with a (p-)zombie, i suppose.
d0mine 4y ago
There is a fun experiment about stubbing an arm https://youtube.com/watch?v=3DwVsjC_wIw https://youtube.com/watch?v=3DwVsjC_wIw