1) The Reason for Reason
Most of what will follow in this essay is fairly obvious and straight forward. Where this disagrees from the norm will be in subtle details. There are two points to this essay. One would be to explain the purpose of reason to someone who was sceptical of it. The second will become clear when subtle points made in this essay is used to defend later ones.
What is reason?
We all talk about reason, seeing reason, using reason, being rational, what exactly is it and why are we doing it?
Sometimes when we use a word or concept so much we can take it for granted and forget where it came from. When this happens, we might want to take a step back and try to imagine how we would explain it to someone who had not come across it before, or remember how we first came across it ourselves.
To me, reason is the method by which we settle disputes over the truth.
This dispute needn't be between two people. Perhaps you yourself have found yourself with two beliefs that contradict themselves. Perhaps you are entertaining a position that contradicts a belief of yours in order to test this belief against possible objections.
When we come across two positions that contradict each other, only one of them can be right. How do we choose which one? This is where the methods of reason come into play.
From here, there are two approaches to take.
One would be to build positive arguments in favour of your position.
Perhaps you can show that your position logically follows from beliefs that your opponent holds.
Another possibility is to show problems in your opponents argument. Perhaps their position contradict other beliefs of theirs, or perhaps you
It is possible an argument will be a clear cut, undisputable, absolute proof.
In reality, especially with more complex arguments, the difference won't be so clear cut and we will have to settle by noting that one position faces more problems than the other or that one position has a stronger case in it's favour.
Ways to criticise and defend a position
There appear to be two main ways to criticise a position, both of which are coupled with a corresponding method of justification.
The first one involves a use of logic.
You can use logic to criticise a position by showing a contradiction in your opponent's position. It might be that their position contradicts another one of their beliefs, or maybe the position itself involves an internal contradiction.
The corresponding positive argument is logical inference, where you show that your opponent denies your position they contradict one of their beliefs in the process, so they must choose between accepting your position or giving up this belief of theirs.
I write more about logic in another essay.
The other way to criticise an opponents belief involves observation.
If we are debating the existence of a mythical creature then the observation might be of the creature. We might criticise an observation by claiming that they saw something else and mistook a different animal for the mythical creature, maybe back this up with reasons why they might've made this error, e.g. they weren't wearing their glasses.
On the other hand, we could make a positive argument by showing someone this creature with their own eyes, so they observe it for themselves.
The type of observation will vary with the question.
For instance, questioning the tautology "all bachelors are married" involves questioning the meanings of the words involved. We could settle a dispute on the meanings of words by observing how other people use them, or observe how we ourselves tend to use them in particular contexts.
A mind experiment can be an observation in this way, as it observes how we naturally apply the concepts we are looking at.
So why reason?
It's not that reason in general needs justifying - after all, the demand for justification is itself an action of reason. It's that reason can be applied in various ways, each way for a different purpose, so particular applications might need justifying.
That's why it is worth recognising the purpose of reason, so we can recognise when we are mis-using it.
If we were to dispute whether cows exist then we could settle the question by observing the physical object of the cow.
If, on the other hand, the dispute was over the existence of there being a prime number between 3 and 6, trying to observe a physical object would be completely the wrong way to go about it - you would have to seriously misunderstand the question at hand to try and solve it through that method.
This example is obvious and is not a mistake that we are likely to make in real life, but it shows the kind of mistake that can be made and might make us wonder if there are more subtle examples that we might have missed.
One of the key points of the essays that follow will be to take account for a factor that many of us seem to forget - that reason is done for a purpose and when this is forgotten the rules of reason can be mis-applied, sometimes dogmatically.
Another key point is that reason is something we do, so if we say that someone's belief is irrational then we are making claims about how the person has treated that belief rather than the content of that belief. So to claim that theism is irrational already sounds a bit strange as the rationality is being judged by the content of the belief, rather than how the person in question came to this belief.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
Quote: To me, reason is the
Talk about starting off with subtle differences! I don't approve of this definition. Reason is much more than this, and its uses are much more far reaching. Furthermore, resolving disputes does not address or even vaguely imply whether truth will win the disputes. I suspect subterfuge.
I recognize that you allow self-dispute in your definition as an afterthought, but even that is not encompassing enough. We also use reason to answer questions for which we don't have conflicting answers. If Suzy takes the five oclock train going seventy miles an hour towards Bristol, and Jack takes the Ten AM trans atlantic from JFK, who will reach France first? As this question is asked, I must first use reason to discover what information is missing, yet necessary for a true answer. Then, I must use reason to apply math. Then, I must employ reason well enough to know that my answer is quite fallible, and I should double check it. Unless I am a very good logician, I will probably reach the rational conclusion that I should get a professor to check my answer against what has historically been proven the true answer to this question.
None of this inherently involves dispute. Call me nitpicky if you like, but your definition isn't close to a traditional definition of reason. I think I'd prefer it if we used another word if you plan to address only dispute resolution. After all, the rules of debate and the rules of reason, while they do overlap, are not synonymous.
Unless I need to do some severe revision to my essays, I think we're in basic agreement here, although I think (I was planning on it, anyway) I broke down the different ways an argument can win a debate a little bit further. I'll proof it later to see.
Here, we come to a potential problem. All methods of winning a debate employ logic/reason. Even if I resort to propoganda, deceit, manipulation, and emotional appeal, I am using logic. Perhaps I am using it poorly, or perhaps I know my position is in danger of losing, and I am doing everything I can to win. It could be that I doubt the logic of my opponent, but I cannot refute it, and so I am trying to win because I'm sure i'm right anyway. That's still logic. Just poor logic. Invalid logic is still logic.
Already, I don't like equating reason with debate. I see it going down a very convoluted path.
This is still logic. I don't care much for the distinction you've made, either. As far as I'm aware, the three options for defeating a position are:
1) Formally prove it wrong.
2) Demonstrate errors in evidence or induction.
3) Propose a more parsimonious solution.
Questioning the definitions precedes the debate. We cannot debate a topic if we are not in agreement as to what the topic is. The only exception, of course, is a debate over the definition of a word.
Well, yes. Reason precedes justification and becomes axiomatic. If we must employ reason to question reason, then it is true axiomatically.
This is what I've been waiting for, and it's sitting here naked. I hope you've justified this.
You've prompted a question: Logic is not a purpose. It is a tool. It's like a hammer. Hammer doesn't have purpose. People have purposes for which they employ hammers. Hammers were built to serve purposes, but they don't have a purpose apart from their creators.
How do you then justify reason having purpose?
Even in your definition, "...reason is the method by which we settle disputes over the truth," you assert that reason is a tool, now you have ascribed it a purpose. I'd like to see you either clarify who or what has the purpose, or eliminate this claim from your essay.
I know you well enough to know you're not going to leave this naked (I hope) but I think you've been a bit vague here, and if someone were to read only this essay, they could come away with a lot of misconceptions.
Misuse is dependent on purpose. I know I'm completely nitpicking here, but I also know you're eventually trying to set up a conclusion that logic and faith are sometimes compatible, so I'm wary of these little holes through which the conclusion might slip.
Truth (as yet undefined in your essay) is relative to the closed system in which it is derived, and this makes truth somewhat flexible. For instance, it is irrational to allow oneself to be stung by a bullet ant when one is known to be allergic to them. However, in the closed system of a hospital room, with doctors standing around, it is quite rational, particularly if the goal of the whole thing is the development of an antivenom which would innoculate everyone who is allergic to bullet ant stings.
So, getting stung by an ant is both rational and irrational. This is all fine, but this is a different application of the word "truth" then the question of whether ants, or anaphalactic shock, exist in the material universe (or, for that matter, whether the material universe exists!). The former sense of truth presupposes the latter, for if there is no ant, there is no question of the rationality of being stung.
I really hope I haven't anticipated your whole argument. I know we've discussed this before, and we've come to a bit of an impasse at a similar point. I am presuming nothing without reading the rest of the essays, however,
This distresses me greatly. I am really scared of the "purpose of reason." Just like a hammer, reason can be the tool by which we acheive many purposes, and each purpose might be rational or irrational within its own context, but none of these purposes has any bearing on the existence of the hammer or the "truth" that if you hit something with a hammer, there will be a physical consequence.
No.
When we say that a belief is irrational, we mean that the substance of that belief can be demonstrated to be logically invalid.
We say nothing about the way they treat that belief. We say everything about the way that belief was derived.
(There is a possible equivocation here. When I say, "It's irrational for you to let your brother live with you for free," I don't mean it in exactly the same way. What I mean is "If I were in your position, I couldn't justify your actions within my own paradigm." Maybe I've just identified a new fallacy! The fallacy of equivocation of reason.)
I suspect that the crux of our disagreement is here. If you agree, we can procede from here, but if you feel like I have misunderstood your position, I'll be thrilled to read the rest of your essays to see if they clear up my confusion. In any case, until I receive a response, I'll continue to go through the essays.
In the meantime, please answer this. Are you suggesting that the end result of a dispute resolution can affect a person consistently with the goals (purpose) that they have, and so conclusions which further that purpose are rational?
Off to lunch now.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism