Dijkstra and medieval thinking
Posted on: December 2, 2008 - 11:46am
Offline
Dijkstra and medieval thinking
Edsger Dijkstra wrote:
One of the characteristics [of the Middle Ages] was that "reasoning by analogy" was rampant; another characteristic was almost total intellectual stagnation, and we now see why the two go together. A reason for mentioning this is to point out that, by developing a keen ear for unwarranted analogies, one can detect a lot of medieval thinking today.
That's one sign of medieval thinking. Any others?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
When you don't understand something, attribute it to magic.
"reasoning by analogy" is that not the Parables of the New Testament?
I would say reasoning by feeling. People decide what is right by how it feels rather that scientific experimentation.
For example, people believed that a heavy object would fall faster than a lighter one. Why? It felt heavier so it must fall faster. Da Vinci disproved this through a scientific experiment. Same thing with bloodletting. Sickness is in the blood, so let the disease go out with the blood, feels like the right thing to do. No scientific analysis of the effects.
Same thing today in the political, economic, education and social fields. People pick what to believe based on how it makes them feel rather than any scientific understanding and analysis of experimental data.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I think the most common error is a naive trust in intuition, which could be another way of saying something 'feels' right.
I think many of our intuitions are derived from simple, informal analogies, which may or may not have been consciously thought through, but have been found to 'work' enough times to become a shortcut 'rule', I see this as an aspect of our basic mental equipment - 'pattern seeking'.
We perceive some consistent pattern in a set of experiences, which leads us to 'predict' that some particular outcome or other aspect will subsequently be observed. When this prediction 'works', we get a small 'buzz' of satisfaction, a reward, which re-inforces the pattern of association.
The expectation of a particular pattern can become so strong that our percpeption becomes strongly biased to make our observations 'fit' the expectation, or if that can't be made to work, to discount the non-conforming experience; count the 'hits' and ignore the 'misses'. And this typically happens below the level of explicit reasoning.
This mechanism works pretty well in relatively stable and not-too-complex environment in which our brains evolved, but is grossly inadequate in thinking about more complex, novel areas of reasoning about the world.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Damn straight.
So, how would you weaponize this? I mean, in discussions with someone of superior knowledge (or at least, claimed superior knowledge) of a subject, how would you use this to detect when they were being medieval, rather than presenting current best knowledge? I can see it would be obvious in many situations, but I can also imagine situations in which it would be more subtle.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Bingo. This is exactly my thinking on how intuition works as well. The 'buzz' is what I call 'awe'. It is our most basic emotion. It is the learning emotion. It's the feeling you get when suddenly things start to make sense, when you feel you know what is *real*.
Fear-based awe is 'terror', and causes you to make snap-judgments of the avoidance kind: If I do X, then Y will happen, and oh crap I don't want Y to happen (terror), so I better not do X, or I should do the opposite of X to ensure that Y doesn't happen. This is typical religious reasoning. If I question the dogma, I might be charged with blasphemy, or worse I might go to hell (terror!), so I better not question the dogma.
More 'love-based' awe is 'wonder', and can cause snap judgments of the seeking kind: Which way should I go? Hmm, path X seems right because of idea Y, I think I'll go there. Wow! Path X is really amazing (wonder), so Y must really be true! This is more of the 'spiritual' kind of reasoning we see in New Age and alternative medicines, etc.
(My twist on the whole thing is that I add a rational side to the wonder-based intuition. Wonder doesn't just mean the feeling you get, but it is also something you do: To wonder, to ask questions and constantly seek better answers. This is where rationality comes in.)
Agreed. Intuition is not perfect, and is just the first step toward knowledge. An important step, but only the first.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
We need better drugs than religion. The reason the Religious are against legalizing sex, marijuana and other drugs is they are too much competition for their drug. Perhaps the only reason we are atheists is because the religion drug just doesn't give us a big enough high. We'd all through out reason if the the high we got from a particular drug is strong enough. There is no real high you get from non-belief so that's why we are the minority.
You can try to point it out to people, but we're chemical creatures largely driven by what feels good, not what is rational. I think either challenge people when they make a claim to either show you the scientific data or else produce an experiment to verify the results. Put up or shut up.
For example, Xians tell me that prayer works. So, I challenge them to show me an experiment proving this claim. I tell them let's go down to the cancer hospital and do a scientific study on whether prayer will heal. They weasel out the experiment. They won't admit they are wrong about this claim, but at least they know how ridiculous their claims really are.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I like the Dijkstra method, but I prefer to use a recursive A* algo.