The gorilla
- Thread starter chris snell
- Start date
Try again.
Full Definition of reason
1
a : a statement offered in explanation or justification <gave reasons that were quite satisfactory>
b : a rational ground or motive <a good reason to act soon>
c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact <the reasons behind her client's action>
d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause <the reason for earthquakes> <the real reason why he wanted me to stay — Graham Greene>
2
a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : intelligence (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : sanity
b : the sum of the intellectual powers
Reason does not have to be fact. Reason does not have to be proven. Reason is quite subjective and will vary from one individual to the next.
fishEH is pretty darn close to the right track.
Reason, or (put shortly) the faculty of observation and analysis, must be accepted unconditionally; and that is, in fact, the very underlying concept of faith.
Faith is not a theological concept. It simply happens to be a concept common within theology. Don't let the name fool you. That's the problem many people run into.
Cheers,
Kennith
black kid = truth
black gorilla = bullshit
kennith + emmodg = gay bears
Did I understand correctly?
black gorilla = bullshit
kennith + emmodg = gay bears
Did I understand correctly?
I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow. It doesn't mean it will. Faith is simply trusting the world to act as you expect.
Blind faith is the same without any experience guiding the way.
Reason starts with some ground rules. The Greeks worked all this out 2500 years ago.
But if you don't accept the same ground rules, what's reasonable to you won't be what's reasonable to someone else. Your reason and my reason may not match; that's called science. Scientific debate. Which I know isn't popular with so many things like anthropogenic global warming being "settled science".
(reason = logic) (faith = potentially short-sighted expectations)
Blind faith is the same without any experience guiding the way.
Reason starts with some ground rules. The Greeks worked all this out 2500 years ago.
But if you don't accept the same ground rules, what's reasonable to you won't be what's reasonable to someone else. Your reason and my reason may not match; that's called science. Scientific debate. Which I know isn't popular with so many things like anthropogenic global warming being "settled science".
(reason = logic) (faith = potentially short-sighted expectations)
Now we're cooking.
The first "ground rule" of reason is that reason exists.
Most people accept this unconditionally (blindly). Most people have faith in reason.
Cheers,
Kennith
But you have evidence that the sun will come up tomorrow. You have your entire lifetime of first hand experience in that the sun will come up, and, if you trust your parents, their experience, and so on back for millions of years.
Faith is trusting that something that has no evidence, or very sketchy evidence, either happened or will happen.
Playing the odds the sun will come up is safe. But some sort of galactic cataclysm may be on its way. In either case, I feel pretty safe believing the sun's on its way tomorrow, but that belief or expectation isn't founded on anything other than my experience, direct by experience or indirect by learning.
After that, it's turtles all the way down
True.
I think in his case, however, he just broke it down in a more pedestrian manner at the expense of accuracy. If people don't follow the very simple suggestion to begin with, it is incredibly difficult to explain it without standing in front of the person.
His post doesn't actually hit the root of the issue, in that he's still using reason rather than questioning it, but if people can wrap their brains around his explanation; well... It's better than nothing.
This is a case in which an initial misunderstanding can easily poison the ability to grasp a concept, and many run into that issue. Few people are prepared at a moment to reevaluate the validity of observation itself.
In thousands of years, nobody has demonstrated to the public a quick way to get the point across when it doesn't land immediately. One way or another, you're going to end up with an exchange, and that doesn't work well on the net.
You can't teach what someone is unwilling to learn, and this is the prime case in which an otherwise sensible person will stick their head right in the sand. It's a natural, expected, and perfectly understandable reaction.
They'll Google themselves to death to avoid the issue; consciously or not, under the same assumption that is itself being questioned.
Cheers,
Kennith
I found a guy that can explain all this in a language that might be more familiar to you:
Cheers,
Kennith
If Faith = Bullshit, then everyone here is full of shit.
Owning a Land Rover requires faith above reason. It is a minor miracle when a 20 year Land Rover runs.
That is not what I was saying, but it is indeed one specific conclusion that can be reached.
The method itself relies on reason. It is one of very few axiomatic weaknesses in science.
Cheers,
Kennith