The Danger of Rationalism

[Sunstone]

Let me reformulate that in a more rational way:

If all men have horns
and Socrates is a man,
then Socrates has horns.

Or in mathematical language:

If the set of "all men" is a subset of "all things with horns"
and "Socrates" is a subset of "all men"
then "Socrates" is a subset of "all things with horns".

This a way to formalize assertions into mathematics and use mathematical tools to determine the truth value of these assertions.
Like mathematics, rationalism makes no statement about the real world, it makes statements about truth values, given that the premises are correct representations of the real (or an ideal) world.

The danger lies in forgetting that limitation.

I agree with Russell and Whitehead that mathematics is a subset of logic.

 

[Altfish]

It is interesting that an intelligent person like you (and I am NOT being sarcastic -- I regard you as among the smarter people I have met online) has such a basic misconception of the nature of logic. I suspect that is because very few educations include formal courses in the study of logic. But -- to me -- it is almost shocking that someone as smart as you would not grasp what logic is. And I am not exaggerating when I say "almost shocking".

I don't think you fully understood the point I was trying to make.- your example....

All men have horns.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates has horns...

...does not prove logic fails. Logic works if the starting premises are correct, but if you make a false assumption at the start, of course the error will be carried through

If the starting premise had been (say) ..

All men have feet.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates has feet

...or do I really not understand what you are saying??

 

[McBell]

I don't think you fully understood the point I was trying to make.- your example....

All men have horns.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates has horns...

...does not prove logic fails. Logic works if the starting premises are correct, but if you make a false assumption at the start, of course the error will be carried through

If the starting premise had been (say) ..

All men have feet.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates has feet

...or do I really not understand what you are saying??

He is pointing out that something can be logically valid, but not logically sound.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think you fully understood the point I was trying to make.- your example....

All men have horns.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates has horns...

...does not prove logic fails. Logic works if the starting premises are correct, but if you make a false assumption at the start, of course the error will be carried through

If the starting premise had been (say) ..

All men have feet.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates has feet

...or do I really not understand what you are saying??

You seem to be confused about the point I was making in the OP. But your confusion is subtle. I suggest you re-read the OP with much greater care. Perhaps you will note that I am not saying "logic fails" -- to use your words.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I'm afraid what I have said to Altfish also applies to you.

Hmmm. I think I do understand the nature of logic. Perhaps we're talking past each other. Maybe a direct question will help.

Was logic used to derive the first premise of "all men have horns?"

 

[osgart]

Doesn't logic require true and accurate premises to reveal a further truth in its conclusion?

What good is a false statement in logic?

If rationalism is merely making statements without regards to facts then surely rationalism is only useless talk.

How is a false statement logically valid?

You have to start with a truth to reveal other possible truthes. And each truth must possibly follow from the previous truth to arrive at a conclusion that is possibly true.

There are things that can't be refuted because they are not testable.

So maybe much of logic is hypothetical, and speculation.

 

[Sunstone]

Hmmm. I think I do understand the nature of logic. Perhaps we're talking past each other. Maybe a direct question will help.

Was logic used to derive the first premise of "all men have horns?"

No.

First Chapter. https://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf

 

[Erebus]

Logic works if the starting premises are correct, but if you make a false assumption at the start, of course the error will be carried through

Unless I'm misunderstanding the OP, the suggestion here is that you need something in addition to logical reasoning to ensure that the starting premise is correct.

Knowing that "all men have horns" is untrue can be determined through empiricism. We can see that men don't have horns (barring the occasional accident of birth of course) and we can feel their heads to check for invisible horns. That provides us with a sound premise from which we can build a logical argument.

 

[Sunstone]

Unless I'm misunderstanding the OP, the suggestion here is that you need something in addition to logical reasoning to ensure that the starting premise is correct.

Knowing that "all men have horns" is untrue can be determined through empiricism. We can see that men don't have horns (barring the occasional accident of birth of course) and we can feel their heads to check for invisible horns. That provides us with a sound premise from which we can build a logical argument.

Exactly.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Wait...not all men have horns?!

 

[atanu]

......

Rationalism has its uses, but without empirical verification, rationalism seems to rather quickly detour into the impractical and absurd. This is most likely the reason the sciences avoid rationalism in favor of a more balanced combination of logical reasoning and empirical evidence.

Agree.

However, pure empiricism is equally problematic. Suppose, if you deny the existence of any object on the ground of it not being perceived, you admit an inference of which non-perception is the basis. Even Bertrand Russel, the modern proponent of empiricism wrote:

An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth (1940), 1969 Pelican ed., pp. 156-157:

.... "For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that [it] itself cannot be known. While therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so."​

...

 

[Heyo]

Wait...not all men have horns?!

There's a difference between having horns and being horny.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

No.

First Chapter. https://www.fecundity.com/codex/forallx.pdf

If logic wasn't used to derive the first premise, then your argument that rationalism leads to absurd or false conclusions fails. A true "rationalist" wouldn't assert that all men have horns. Perhaps the argument would be better stated as:

"If all men have horns and Socrates is a man, then Socrates has horns."

This is a purely rationalistic argument, and is valid and sound.

 

[Jane Boswell]

"However, the word when used in philosophy can often refer to a view or belief that is arrived at through logical reasoning alone. Thus, a "rationalist" is quite often a philosopher who ignores empirical evidence in favor of grounding their beliefs solely in logical reasoning."

Many of my views/beliefs were arrived at through illogical processes, perhaps because I work in the arts and am more left-brain oriented. But being grounded in logical reasoning at the same time takes a sinister savvy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unless I'm misunderstanding the OP, the suggestion here is that you need something in addition to logical reasoning to ensure that the starting premise is correct.

Knowing that "all men have horns" is untrue can be determined through empiricism. We can see that men don't have horns (barring the occasional accident of birth of course) and we can feel their heads to check for invisible horns. That provides us with a sound premise from which we can build a logical argument.

Yes, but the example is still valid.
There are 2 factors, valid and sound, and they are not same.

Any deduction has 4 possible base states:
Sound and valid
Sound and invalid
Unsound and valid
Unsound and invalid.

The deduction Sunstone presented was unsound and valid.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Erebus]

Yes, but the example is still valid.
There are 2 factors, valid and sound, and they are not same.

Any deduction has 4 possible base states:
Sound and valid
Sound and invalid
Unsound and valid
Unsound and invalid.

The deduction Sunstone presented was unsound and valid.

Regards
Mikkel

Yes, the example Sunstone gave was valid. The point is that by relying on logical reasoning alone, you run a greater risk of making valid but unsound arguments. Coupling logical reasoning with empiricism gives you a much better chance of ensuring your premises are true.

To put this into practical terms, a discussion on an internet forum probably isn't going to cause much damage if somebody makes a valid but unsound argument. It's something you're better off avoiding but hardly world-shattering. When the person making those arguments is directly or indirectly impacting political, social or economic theory, it can potentially be dangerous.

Sunstone brought up Ayn Rand's work as an example of somebody falling into this trap. Now I've never read her work myself and so can't make a personal judgement call on whether I think he's right. What I do know is that Rand's work has inspired numerous politicians who actively seek to put her theories into practice. For what it's worth, the politicians who do that are often people whose policies I personally feel are harmful.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, the example Sunstone gave was valid. The point is that by relying on logical reasoning alone, you run a greater risk of making valid but unsound arguments. Coupling logical reasoning with empiricism gives you a much better chance of ensuring your premises are true.

To put this into practical terms, a discussion on an internet forum probably isn't going to cause much damage if somebody makes a valid but unsound argument. It's something you're better off avoiding but hardly world-shattering. When the person making those arguments is directly or indirectly impacting political, social or economic theory, it can potentially be dangerous.

Sunstone brought up Ayn Rand's work as an example of somebody falling into this trap. Now I've never read her work myself and so can't make a personal judgement call on whether I think he's right. What I do know is that Rand's work has inspired numerous politicians who actively seek to put her theories into practice. For what it's worth, the politicians who do that are often people whose policies I personally feel are harmful.

Well, I have.
Now I will give you an example of Ayn Rand reasoning and if you want to play, have a go at it.
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 125

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Erebus]

Well, I have.
Now I will give you an example of Ayn Rand reasoning and if you want to play, have a go at it.
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 125

Regards
Mikkel

Kind of difficult to form much of an opinion from a single paragraph devoid of further context. I'll give it a try though.

All thinking is a process of identification and integration ... All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it?

That looks like a pretty good example of her making her own assumptions about human nature and not checking how true they are. People mostly don't think that way at all. The vast majority of our daily experiences are simply subconsciously acknowledged and almost immediately discarded from memory. You can test this yourself by walking through a room and attempting to remember everything you see over the space of a minute.

No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

This seems to give credence to the idea that she was overly concerned with validity without giving due consideration to soundness. She emphasises that it's the presence of a contradiction that serves to evict us from reality.
Furthermore, it doesn't match up to how humans actually think and behave. Cognitive dissonance, ambivalence and outright hypocrisy are all part of the reality of human life. She appears to have missed that.


Like I said, I can't really give an informed opinion based on that bit of text. If it's representative of the rest of her work though, I can certainly see where Sunstone was coming from.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Like I said, I can't really give an informed opinion based on that bit of text. If it's representative of the rest of her work though, I can certainly see where Sunstone was coming from.

Well, it is. It ends in that she had a subjective value system and she tried to make it objectively true and logical as a sort of absolute representation of what the universe really is.
Are there a point here and there, where she has a point, yes. But overall it doesn't work. In effect she subjectively rationalized her subjective values as objectively true and logical.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Jane Boswell]

To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."
Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual

One person's reality is another one's paradox: an objective reality can no longer be defined by concensus except scientifically. And would not life be dull without paradox, devoid of anything numinous?