When debating apologists, I often end up debating about Reason, namely, arguing that the most important (epistemic) rational arguments aren't deductive. A clever schizophrenic could craft their delusions to be both logically consistent and immune to direct empirical refutation, but we'd still know that they're wrong; it's by Reason, not Logic, that we can do this. Deductive logic is impotent to tell us anything actually new (non-ampliative). Inductive/abductive reasoning is heart of rationality.
Good video. I have always taken rational and rationality to refer to epistemic rationality and then think that theists were insane and irrational because they didn't understand what rationality was.
For example DawahFilms doesn't seem to get it:
watch?v=YJt1PV_UIqw
Here is another video that I think has a "crazy" view of "rationality":
IMO, "belief" is way over emphasized in the general public. Of course we believe what we know, but belief without knowing is of questionable value. I try not to depend on beliefs, but rather to know beyond a reasonable doubt or to remain skeptical about it.
Nice try Julia! However, you make the basic false assumption that "accurate beliefs" exists. There are only BELIEFS and they are as individual as each and everyone of us. What seems rational to you, may or may not be to another. Beliefs are based on your own personal experience and the evidence that YOU have gathered so far. But don't give up!
@zabelicious, you have a point, but only in regard to factors that are not demonstrable, quantifiable, etc. For example if you believed that the undocumented 'god' named Ib is the 'god' of mercy and I believe that Ib is the 'god' of pain, neither of our beliefs can be refuted. "True" is that which is not false, and false is contradiction in context. If your idea of Ib cannot be known to be false, if in fact it is, then you can't really know if it's true either because true means not-false.
@LucisFerre1 Nope. You are wrong here. True and False are not a dichotomy. There are four possibilities for any statement. True, not-true, false, and not-false. True is not the same as not false, etc. So it is not accurate to say that "True" is that which is not false. Something can be not-false yet still not fall into the true category.
And it seems that you're misreading what I wrote. I never said that there are no statements that are neither true nor false. I said that true is not false, and that false is to contain contradictions. In other words, if a statement is either true or false, and it's true, then it's not false, etc. And if it is false, it's false because it contains contradictions. This is modern logic, and why vacuous truths are allowed in such.
@zabelicious, One may merely believe x, or x can be possessed knowledge which we believe also. If you're going to argue that no one can reasonably know anything, then you're arguing that epistemology is bunk, and you would be pretty much wasting our time as you would be implicitly arguing that you don't "know" what you're talking about as well. You would be digging away the foundation under you own argument.
And of those not of an evolutionary bent (like Miss America contestants), many would contend family, society, the future self or God are worth higher consideration. For those who agree on the general aim of instrumental rationality (utility), it's still a bitch. Which came first, instinct or rationalization? Isn't rationality far from being a concrete, scientific thing, but rather wildly subjective artistic vision? Isn't the whole pudding really just ours for the taking?
A New Yorker article on dating websites mentions that to get an accurate matching algorithm the site has to not only consider what a person says they want, but how they act, and goes so far as to say the outcome satisfaction of people who take similar actions can be predicted much more rapidly than if based on expressed desires. Willing a thing does not make it true. You're better off watching what a person does for five minutes than listening to them for a month. Goodbye setting intentions.
Julia, if I encourage rationality it will erode my competitive edge. Rather let them strive for their irrationality and fulfill themselves in the process.
And isn't instrumental rationality more of a trick than you make it out to be? You make the focal point the self, but the self is fractional- the human mind is complex enough that something good for you in one way may not benefit in others.
I agree that any filthy hole that limits us to 500 characters is going to be mindless and perverted. This place is a Stanford prison, stick to Vimeo. You look swell in that sweater, by the way.
Excellent clarification on both the intended meanings of the term 'rationality' and its misuses. Misuses which I- and, I believe, many other aspiring rational thinkers- encounter on a regular basis.
Thank you for vocalising and explaining these! I look forward to sharing this video and dispelling certain misunderstandings about rational thinking- so far I've failed to do so myself :P
5 comments so far, 4 of them referring to your looks/personality... *facepalm* Some of your Youtube viewers need to give their instrumental rationalities an audit.
@measureofdoubt Well .. since beauty has been linked to the golden ratio, and it applies quite well in your specific case, I think those responses are quite rational tbh ;)
Also, you are never better off not knowing. Unless you like to stick your head in the sand and not be able to prepair. How you define any kind of rationale as being in-line with irrational beliefs goes beyond me. Thats like defining a square circle :/ Where I come from we call that self-delusion. Goals or no goals.
@PlanetJeroen Since in religious areas, being religious would be a great plus to your social network options, according to your vid it would be considdered rational behaviour to at least pretend to believe in a god to further your social life. At first that looks like it might be true ... and then you start to think about the implications of you not being yourself in the process of furthering your social life ... and you end up with all kinds of irrational scenarios imho.
One must choose, does one want ease or authenticity. If Plato's escaped cave slave (in Socrate's story) wanted ease at the expense of authenticity, he could have went back into the cave and re-chained himself to the wall to watch the shadow puppets. If he wanted authenticity, which is a harder route to take, he would stay in the sunlight. Remember, he chose authenticity and died bringing this choice to others. (Socrates did the same, it was his allegory after all).
@BrynWebb18 That's why whenever I watch a video by a reasonably attractive woman, I scroll down. That way I'm only listening to the content of what she's saying.
I remember when Taner Edis was on Point of Inquiry way back when and he spoke of rationality in terms of 'rational choice theory' (as you put it 'instrumentally'). He, advocating accommodationism, prefers to frame/recognize the fact that theists DO employ rationality, but it's more analogous to 'consumer rationality,' such as what is the best 'world view product' from all available options. I guess it's still offensive, but we ALL do this in terms of non-veridical inherited evolutionary traits.
Julia, there is god because you're the evidence since there couldn't be a combination of beauty and intelligence rolled up in one package by normal process of evolution
For you, I'd give up my irrational beliefs any day.
kasuskasus 4 days ago
Your videos should have more views. It's funny, most of my favourite Youtubers typically only get a few thousand views per video.
jakebowkett01 5 days ago
I think it's more difficult in the main for people to be instrumentally rational than epistemically so.
aDarkRage27 1 week ago
I would like to be both epistemically and instrumentally rational
screenflicker1 3 weeks ago
When debating apologists, I often end up debating about Reason, namely, arguing that the most important (epistemic) rational arguments aren't deductive. A clever schizophrenic could craft their delusions to be both logically consistent and immune to direct empirical refutation, but we'd still know that they're wrong; it's by Reason, not Logic, that we can do this. Deductive logic is impotent to tell us anything actually new (non-ampliative). Inductive/abductive reasoning is heart of rationality.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 4 weeks ago
maybe I couldn't make it through this video because this all seems elementary to me.
Broey88 1 month ago
do me julia, rationally.
drealgrin 2 months ago
Hi Julia !
REALITY2point0 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this works but it's seems like in order to talk fluidly you take some rationalities to be basic to reality where they are all semantics
Like if you were more beautiful to me for instance then some other standard I wouldn't care because I know what i like.
Johndoe2point0 2 months ago
Comment removed
Johndoe2point0 2 months ago
Comment removed
Johndoe2point0 2 months ago
Comment removed
Johndoe2point0 2 months ago
Comment removed
Johndoe2point0 2 months ago
Good video. I have always taken rational and rationality to refer to epistemic rationality and then think that theists were insane and irrational because they didn't understand what rationality was.
For example DawahFilms doesn't seem to get it:
watch?v=YJt1PV_UIqw
Here is another video that I think has a "crazy" view of "rationality":
watch?v=zZHq9u9OFY0
You might want to make video responses to them.
zarkoff45 3 months ago
What is an irrational explanation? Great point. That's brilliant (because I never thought of it before, lol).
LucisFerre1 3 months ago
IMO, "belief" is way over emphasized in the general public. Of course we believe what we know, but belief without knowing is of questionable value. I try not to depend on beliefs, but rather to know beyond a reasonable doubt or to remain skeptical about it.
LucisFerre1 3 months ago
Nice try Julia! However, you make the basic false assumption that "accurate beliefs" exists. There are only BELIEFS and they are as individual as each and everyone of us. What seems rational to you, may or may not be to another. Beliefs are based on your own personal experience and the evidence that YOU have gathered so far. But don't give up!
zabelicious 5 months ago
@zabelicious, you have a point, but only in regard to factors that are not demonstrable, quantifiable, etc. For example if you believed that the undocumented 'god' named Ib is the 'god' of mercy and I believe that Ib is the 'god' of pain, neither of our beliefs can be refuted. "True" is that which is not false, and false is contradiction in context. If your idea of Ib cannot be known to be false, if in fact it is, then you can't really know if it's true either because true means not-false.
LucisFerre1 3 months ago
@LucisFerre1 Nope. You are wrong here. True and False are not a dichotomy. There are four possibilities for any statement. True, not-true, false, and not-false. True is not the same as not false, etc. So it is not accurate to say that "True" is that which is not false. Something can be not-false yet still not fall into the true category.
adam3251 2 months ago
@adam3251, you should read Quine.
And it seems that you're misreading what I wrote. I never said that there are no statements that are neither true nor false. I said that true is not false, and that false is to contain contradictions. In other words, if a statement is either true or false, and it's true, then it's not false, etc. And if it is false, it's false because it contains contradictions. This is modern logic, and why vacuous truths are allowed in such.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
@zabelicious, One may merely believe x, or x can be possessed knowledge which we believe also. If you're going to argue that no one can reasonably know anything, then you're arguing that epistemology is bunk, and you would be pretty much wasting our time as you would be implicitly arguing that you don't "know" what you're talking about as well. You would be digging away the foundation under you own argument.
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
beauty + intelligence
soccermasta14 6 months ago 2
And of those not of an evolutionary bent (like Miss America contestants), many would contend family, society, the future self or God are worth higher consideration. For those who agree on the general aim of instrumental rationality (utility), it's still a bitch. Which came first, instinct or rationalization? Isn't rationality far from being a concrete, scientific thing, but rather wildly subjective artistic vision? Isn't the whole pudding really just ours for the taking?
needleofjustice 7 months ago
If we're all carriers for selfish genes, wouldn't it be most 'rational' to ultimately act in their interest?
needleofjustice 7 months ago
A New Yorker article on dating websites mentions that to get an accurate matching algorithm the site has to not only consider what a person says they want, but how they act, and goes so far as to say the outcome satisfaction of people who take similar actions can be predicted much more rapidly than if based on expressed desires. Willing a thing does not make it true. You're better off watching what a person does for five minutes than listening to them for a month. Goodbye setting intentions.
needleofjustice 7 months ago
Julia, if I encourage rationality it will erode my competitive edge. Rather let them strive for their irrationality and fulfill themselves in the process.
And isn't instrumental rationality more of a trick than you make it out to be? You make the focal point the self, but the self is fractional- the human mind is complex enough that something good for you in one way may not benefit in others.
needleofjustice 7 months ago
I agree that any filthy hole that limits us to 500 characters is going to be mindless and perverted. This place is a Stanford prison, stick to Vimeo. You look swell in that sweater, by the way.
needleofjustice 7 months ago
Excellent clarification on both the intended meanings of the term 'rationality' and its misuses. Misuses which I- and, I believe, many other aspiring rational thinkers- encounter on a regular basis.
Thank you for vocalising and explaining these! I look forward to sharing this video and dispelling certain misunderstandings about rational thinking- so far I've failed to do so myself :P
Alaric87 8 months ago
In addition, this is a great example of 'tabooing your words', a tool which can be further investigated on LessWrong :)
Alaric87 8 months ago
I think you contradict yourself on 'a rational explanation' meaning "just an explanation," and "a true explanation."
imshippyupup 8 months ago
Wonderful thoughts; thank you for sharing!!!
Haygirl345 9 months ago
I think that it is important to show that skeptics aren't a bunch of hideous trolls.
SulliedMind 9 months ago
@Bryn -- Sigh, I know. Well, it's Youtube -- I suppose I should just consider myself lucky that no one's calling me a "fucken mor0n!!!!111!," right?
measureofdoubt 10 months ago 11
5 comments so far, 4 of them referring to your looks/personality... *facepalm* Some of your Youtube viewers need to give their instrumental rationalities an audit.
BrynWebb18 10 months ago 13
@BrynWebb18 men making those comments/this lady preparing her appearance before the video - rational human behaviour ;P
Sonnetalex 6 months ago
@measureofdoubt Well .. since beauty has been linked to the golden ratio, and it applies quite well in your specific case, I think those responses are quite rational tbh ;)
Also, you are never better off not knowing. Unless you like to stick your head in the sand and not be able to prepair. How you define any kind of rationale as being in-line with irrational beliefs goes beyond me. Thats like defining a square circle :/ Where I come from we call that self-delusion. Goals or no goals.
PlanetJeroen 5 months ago
@PlanetJeroen Since in religious areas, being religious would be a great plus to your social network options, according to your vid it would be considdered rational behaviour to at least pretend to believe in a god to further your social life. At first that looks like it might be true ... and then you start to think about the implications of you not being yourself in the process of furthering your social life ... and you end up with all kinds of irrational scenarios imho.
PlanetJeroen 5 months ago
@PlanetJeroen, exactly.
One must choose, does one want ease or authenticity. If Plato's escaped cave slave (in Socrate's story) wanted ease at the expense of authenticity, he could have went back into the cave and re-chained himself to the wall to watch the shadow puppets. If he wanted authenticity, which is a harder route to take, he would stay in the sunlight. Remember, he chose authenticity and died bringing this choice to others. (Socrates did the same, it was his allegory after all).
LucisFerre1 2 months ago
@BrynWebb18 That's why whenever I watch a video by a reasonably attractive woman, I scroll down. That way I'm only listening to the content of what she's saying.
argebarse 2 months ago
@BrynWebb18
A. She looks lovely.
B. Geeky = Sexy.
C. She is a single Jew. That is very attractive for Jewish guys who try to make their mothers happy.
D. She makes sense! there is not much to comment about.
E. Does Julia write at Less Wrong?
Forkroute 1 month ago
Will you go out with me? ; )
DTfanforever 10 months ago
I remember when Taner Edis was on Point of Inquiry way back when and he spoke of rationality in terms of 'rational choice theory' (as you put it 'instrumentally'). He, advocating accommodationism, prefers to frame/recognize the fact that theists DO employ rationality, but it's more analogous to 'consumer rationality,' such as what is the best 'world view product' from all available options. I guess it's still offensive, but we ALL do this in terms of non-veridical inherited evolutionary traits.
gatogreensleeves 10 months ago
also you have no reason in the world at all to delude yourself about your attractiveness if in case that is the case with you
screenflicker1 10 months ago
Julia, there is god because you're the evidence since there couldn't be a combination of beauty and intelligence rolled up in one package by normal process of evolution
screenflicker1 10 months ago
@screenflicker1 was just a compliment btw ;)
screenflicker1 10 months ago