I haven't read the article yet, but this stood out:

"Far more crucial than what we know or do not know is what we do not want to know."

I think that I would revise it to this:

Far more crucial than what we know or do not know, and even more crucial than what we do not want to know, is what we do not want others to know we do not know.

--That, I think, plays a larger role in societies, particularly when irrational thought patterns have been systematized or people have become "acculturated." It is the door shutting on debate, even more so than "what we do not want to know" -- although I think the two may often work in tandem.
 

Mark,

Good post -- it made me rant! ;-)

Irrational schools of thought, regardless of whether their origin is secular or religious are profoundly seductive because they offer the mind a " free lunch". They permit or even enshrine common logical fallacies such as special pleading, begging the question or appeal to authority as virtues. They are also, by their rarefied narrowness and lack of identifiable, quantifiable and reliable " yardstick" to self-critically evaluate, tailor made to create the kind of individual who Eric Hoffer called The True Believer:

...

The epistemological method that becomes the dominant mode of thought in a given society determines its attitude on all great questions - from peace and war to prosperity and what it considers to be "good". Political conflicts over intellectual shams like " intelligent design" matter because they are questions of the legitimacy or falsehood of a particular cognitive method.

Rational, normal science is a hyperoptimization to the zero-kinetic attractor in the social cognition loop. Focusing on reharmonization/orientation, it allows you to slowly compile lists of observations. Not much more, though.

Francis Bacon, in his Natural Histories, did this excellently, compiling reams of observations that range from the obvious to the inexplicable. Charles Fort did the same.

Progress has come from irrational schools, because they give us a qualitative orientation (which moves beyond "objective" observation). They operate in scientific revolutions. These irrational turns give us fields of vision that turn the scattered stars of data into constellations of meaning.

Rational Choice Theory in economics & political science is an example of the constructive irrationality. Rational Choice can never, ever be falsified. Yet it gives our eyes new, more meaningful constellations to see.

Another similar theory is Historical Evolution. The original foundation of the theory is backwards projectionism -- that the laws of nature we see now have been continuous into the past. With this assumption literal readings of ancient texts become untenable, and other explanations should be found. Yet the sister science of Cosmology has junked backwards projectionism, arguing that laws will break down at certain times.

In other words, historical evolution rejections catastrophism, insisting on backwards projectionism. Cosmology rejections backwards rejectionism, embracing catastrophism.

It was in the face of similar conundrums that William of Ockham realized that if one were a theist, then a complicated "theory" like:

This AND God did it or Not This AND God did it

could be simplified the simple theory "God"

(In predicate calculus:
(This ^ God) V (~This ^ God) ->
God ^ (This V ~This) ->
God )

Scientific justifications for not using Ockham's razor are numerous and contradictory, but the best ones abandon the dream of a purely rationalist epistemology, insetad admitting normal, rational science as a tool that can be used in certain domains from time to time.

Happily, these turmoils shall not damn us. Humans are naturally competitive-cooperative. We form teams and try to win. Progress -- whether in wealth, struggle, or "science" itself -- comes from this.
 

"Political conflicts over intellectual shams like " intelligent design" matter because they are questions of the legitimacy or falsehood of a particular cognitive method."

This is right, the political conflicts do matter in determining which ideas and cultural practices are current in a society and who wins these conflicts can have serious consequences about the survival of that society. And if we desire to defend this particular cognitive method (or any other idea), then we have to be willing to engage in political conflict. This is not always easy for people to accept, especially if they prefer a well-crafted argument, based on facts and have an aversion for polemics and the 30 second tv commercial. But that is what it takes to win the political conflict and to successfully spread ideas throughout a society. The 18th century philosophes understood this quite clearly and were highly skilled polemicists, propagandists, and popularizers of science. Some of our most valued texts from America's founding era were polemics rather than dispassionate philosophical texts, the most prominent being Common Sense and the Federalist Papers. If we are serious about defending the scientific method or freedom of the press or of conscience or whatever, we have to be willing to wield all the rhetorical tools available to us, from the well-crafted argument to polemic to catchy slogans to creating activist groups and so on.
 

As a relative of mine, who is also a research biologist, one said: the simplest explanations for processes in biological systems are almost always wrong.
 

Paul MacDonald, btw, has a great article on the epistemological status of rational-choice theory in the APSR.
 

Hi everyone !

Dr. Dan - Perhaps the reason is that even the simplest biological system is usually still a complex system ?

Curtis - That could be rational, calculated, strategic positioning or social metaphysics, depending on your perspective.

Phil- Well, I ...agree !

Dan of tdaxp - Glad you liked it. Unfortunately, you are wrong. or rather not quite right.

Science often entails studied observation, sometimes in large doses. No argument. It also is an intrinsically insightful domain which is what separates the naturalist recording new species from the theoretical physicist producing breakthroughs.

After the observations comes a period of processing that leads to a hypothesis. There's a leap occurring though sometimes it is methodical problem solving - particularly when the data is reduced to mathematical variables.

Secondly - intuitive thinking does not equal irrational thinking; though the inability to point to " steps" in arriving at an intuitive solution superficially resembles irrational thinking's use of an unproven assertion as a self-referential premise. The former is a form of cognitive processing while the latter stymies the the thinking process.

Is there any use for irrationality ? Yes, I think there is some value in the creation of positive mythic themes in terms of inspiring someone to do the hard, rational work of arriving systematically at the desired ends.

Trying to short-circuit the " hard work " part and retrofit reality to irrational dreams on the other hand has a fearsome historical legacy - poets, musicians and artists make for bloody rulers.
 

It boils down to dogma. Going along with the accepted thought of the day, as long as we don't have to think about it, but can grasp some aspect of the idea. Critical thinking requires a thought process that allows going against our own cherished thoughts or current thinking on a subject, whether or not it is religon, social, whatever. Being able to "step outside" of oneself or generally accepted social norms is not an easy thing for most, but it must take place in order for anyone to achieve a true balance. The so called "truths" of religon are most often opinonated "dogma" of a certain selected few who have the wherewithal to force their opinion. As for me, I will think of it in my own way and gladly suffer and "consequences" that comes from it.
 

Mark,

In my original comment I was going to ask "What is rational thought, anyway." I think it may be a valid question.

Our text in psychological development defines rationality as something like productive thought, but that leads to circularity. How would one center rational but subconscious thought that works to rational but subconscious thought that doesn't work to irrational but conscious that... &c
 

It is a spot on question.

Rational thought has an epistemology rooted in reality (it respects unwelcome data) and methodological consistency. It can be in error but the error is honest ( bad data, mistaken premise)not dishonest. It relies upon logic and proof and rejects the supernatural, unknowable, undefinable source as a legitimate basis for knowledge.

I'm not certain the subconscious intuitive can be " irrational" per se as it would seem to be a hard-wired form of cognitive processing that we perform automatically( it can wrong of course but that goes to your data).
 

Mark,

OK. A class uses a different definition of rationality, so I may be misunderstanding.

How does one test if a thought is rational? Based on reality seems more a description than a test.

Also, a problem with "supernatural" in the definition is supernatural is a construct. Any supernatural explanation can be reworded to make a natural explanation, so excluding the supernatural can be a mental stumbling block.
 

Hi Dan,

Good response, as always, Dan. You my friend, I think will go far.

I'm out of touch with the latest nuances in academic Ed. psych. so we may be talking past one another - you have to recall that my *formal* ed psych experience was about 15-18 years ago :o) The field evolves and my subsequent attention has been intermittent..

Generally, my use of irrational denotes more the conscious or default cultural embrace of irrationalist philosophy. Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, Focault etc. etc.

Irrational or better, imaginary, modes of thought are not useless. On the contrary, I think they are extremely powerful. A little detachment from reality ( to postulate a *could be* or * should be* existence) goes a long way.

The psychological exaltation of such euphoric visions are, in my view, potentially dangerous when disconnected from the pragmatism of making haste slowly.

"How does one test if a thought is rational? Based on reality seems more a description than a test."

Rational thought does not a priori reject contradictory information but will alter its stated position based upon the weight of evidence. It identifies standards and applies them with uniform consistency.

"Also, a problem with "supernatural" in the definition is supernatural is a construct."

To you and me yes. To a premodernist believer, no it isn't. The revealed word is the Truth in a way that is real and alive to them in a way that moderns have difficulty compehending. Michael Scheuer actually does a pretty good job of conveying this premodern viewpoint in his first " anonymous" book when he discusses the religious sincerity of al Qaida's fanatical core.

Our worldview is not that of a magical universe so your posing of the problem is itself highly self-referential. So much so that such a true believer would reject your characterization with the utmost vehemence.

"Any supernatural explanation can be reworded to make a natural explanation,..."

Not those that are impossible.
 

I should have said " very dangerous".
 

I think the key point is the comment that Mark made above, "...it respects unwelcome data." The whole idea of performing an experiment is to answer a question...to test your hypothesis. It means that, first, you are interested enough to ask a question and secondly, that you are open to the possibility of alternative outcomes.

Barnabus
 

A good example could be found in this article from New Scientist: "Three cosmic enigmas, one audacious answer". Science has enigmas, and in this case, the question of whether black holes exist. Instead of black holes, there may be "dark energy stars." Even the concepts of dark energy and dark matter are vague and could possibly be a type of magical thinking; but the magical thinking is provisional, since most serious scientists will wait for evidence to confirm their hypotheses.

Now, of course, some scientists are quite convinced by their hypotheses, and perhaps out of ideological reasoning or simply professional advocacy will tend to reject competing theories. But most of those will ultimately change their p.o.v. if proven wrong.

The "global warming" debate may be a good example. One potential problem for scientists, however, may be the impossibility of finding proof -- not that proof does not exist, but that humanity may not now or ever be able to prove or disprove some things, because of our limitations. Once these theories grip the "public mind," however, they can be as convincing as magical thought about God or Fairies, etc. In fact, whether in the public mind or the individual minds of scientists, so much "proof" comes from the observations (experiments) and hypotheses of others -- no person can possibly recreate every result on every subject through experimentation, because time and resources are too limited. So many scientists, like their non-scientist audience, may accept some things on the faith that those things have been proven by others.
 

Mark,

Thank you for the kind words, and good point on talking past each other. I'm using David Moshman's definition of rationality, which is "a matter of having good reasons for one's beliefs and actions." That is, those things are congruent with some coherent epistemology. Ideas and actions that don't fit within a coherent epistemology, therefore, are irrational.

Moshman's "rational" thinking is equivalent to Kuhn's "normal" thinking. Your statement "Rational thought does not a priori reject contradictory information but will alter its stated position based upon the weight of evidence" is a good example of this. The paradigm shifts Kuhn cited would be irrational, because the weight of evidence was with the old paradigm against the new way of thinking (Brahe v. Copernicus, for example).

On the supernatural construct... I should have said "a problem with"supernatural" is that the concept of the supernatural is a construct." The modern world separates natural from supernatural ("unlimited natural"), war from peace ("unlimited war"), science from superstition ("unlimited science"), that the pre-moderns have difficult comprehending. Just as it's arbitrary (but possibly useful) for international lawyers to declare certain actions "war" and other actions "peace," it's arbitrary (but possibly useful) to define certain causes as "natural" and other causes as "supernatural."

Not those that are impossible.

Perhaps I should have said "translated," but I'm sure the statement still holds. Clarke said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."