(Sorry if wrong sub, but this seemed like a good place to start with this question/thought maybe?)
Rationalism (reason), logic and critical thinking has played a very large role in my journey over the past few years.
For example a big leap was when I found this: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
In a way I'm quote ashamed that I learned most of these things only past 30 year of age but such is life.
In many ways this has "helped" me in my journey to deconstruct my beliefs and in many cases let go of them, but this post is not about my ex-faith journey.
My question is rather how one can know if this is the right path?
In other words how can I be sure this is not just a new belief in "rationalism"? How can I know this is the right path to take? Or rather why should I put my trust (and really my life) in these ways of thinking?
Thanks for your thoughts
I just learned about the philosophy of scientism which basically has two meanings - the first is the extreme trust and emphasis on science and the extreme emphasis on pure logic and reason, the other is the criticism against the scientific methodologies (whether the criticisms are good like proper assessment tests, or biased/flawed such as supporting pseudo-scientific methods or beliefs)
This makes me aware that despite the merits of science, it can still have its limitations or at least, how we use or apply science (considering that the science is a tool of how we approach, question and examine the universe) regardless if it is done out of the idea of preserving or expanding one's logical reasoning or knowledge (a few philosophers actually criticised against this as well such as Nietzche, Bruce Lee (yes, he was a philosopher too), and Hume). There is even a study saying that decisions and even problem-solving are influenced by our emotions which further reinforces the idea that pure logic alone cannot really exist
This also popped up in my head the idea of experience vs logic, a question that has been popping up in my head for quite a long time because it makes me wonder if one's personal experiences also have merit in one's logical reasoning especially that person applies it to science or scientific approach.
Although I find this a bit ironic because one of the most used type of evidence in scientific research is empirical evidence, hence the word "empirical", deriving from the school of thought of empiricism which has been on an ongoing debate against rationalism in the epistemology department for quite a long time, I've been told for quite a long time that one's logical reasoning (especially when backed up by reliable references and calculations to support their claims and hypotheses) hold more merit than one's experiences, even though it is possible that one's experiences that influence their biases, heuristics, patterns in thought and including their sense of logic and reasoning (which is why the philosopher John Locke believed that humans are influenced by both their logic and their experiences simultaneously)
I find this also quite interesting to take into account about one's experiences being applied in scientific research not just from the researchers themselves (for the sake of possible experimenter bias or perhaps the researcher's personal previous experience in sc
... keep reading on reddit ➡
It's interesting to trace the history and development of philosophical arguments and traditions, but it seems to me like Critical Rationalism sort of fell off the map after the 1970s. The last famous people I know of who were appreciably influenced by Popper were Lakatos and MacIntyre.
That's kind of a shame, because I think Popper really was onto something important (even if he wasn't right about everything), and other people simply didn't get CR because anti-justificationism is so counter-intuitive to modern philosophy.
I think CR is far more popular with scientists themselves because scientists do science as a living practice. Most practical things that humans do tend to ignore the question of ultimate justification in favor of gradual progress through in situ problem solving, and so do in fact display something similar to the patterns that Popper, Lakatos, and Kuhn described (a dialectic between received tradition and critical innovation aimed at solving problems).
Anyways, what's the current consensus opinion in general academic philosophy on CR, and the current state of the art within the critical rationalist program?
Edit: I know that /u/drunkentune 's work involves a lot of Popper. Paging him!
Just perused the woefully short Wikipedia article and came to this line,
> By dissolving justificationism itself, the critical rationalist regards knowledge and rationality, reason and science, as neither foundational nor infallible, but nevertheless does not think we must therefore all be relativists. Knowledge and truth still exist, just not in the way we thought.
So how do they exist then?
I need help for arguments for basing belief off of critically reasoned faith over the strong rationalist view that belief should be based solely on what can be physically proven, and the fideist view that belief should be based off of faith without regard to reason. Thanks in advance and if clarification is needed let me know!
I don't have a problem with voicing your opinion or having a stand. To each his own.
What I observed is most people - even millenials who are apparently tech savvy cannot for the love of god differenciate an opinion piece from fact checked news articles.
dayachesi check the credibility of the source and learn critical thinking. Ecochamber lo undi undi asalu Naaku okadu share chesina article asalu source yenti, context yenti, and why it is happening.. Em lekunda yedo naluguru stories lu pettaru ani.. Just aa 5 slides on insta lo chusi nuvvu née stand theskoku.
Confirm news ledu ante uccha aapukuni verify ayye daaka undandi.
Aa city Inspector ki Em jarigindho message poye lopu video lu share chesi, yevado gottam gaadi tweets, posts ni source of news ani meeku easily available forwards ni, ready made trends ki padipothunnam.
Sare.. Neeku antha opika ledu Leda interest ledu ante it's absolutely OK not to indulge in political and governance. But don't have half baked opinions like this. It's dangerous and leads to loss of harmony in the society and life.
Anthe. Finish.
6+ years focusing mainly on talk therapy (Gestalt therapy) in person and group settings. A great progress has been made in acquiring base safety levels and shame issues as well as overall awareness but I’ve stuck now.
The Critic just being so so so rational in it’s flawless killing logic in most painful areas (ageing and Self Image mostly) like:
- You are ageing, therefore becoming less attractive, capable, strong – you become miserable second-class human with shrinking opportunities and eventually left behind (why not, why it’s not like that? I sincerely don’t get it). Why should I live like that?
- Me and neurotypical person with caring parents. (How on earth am I not miserable compared to undamaged full capacity human being?)
- Not comparing yourself to others is just escapism and closing eyes to the problems (why shouldn’t I)?
I do understand that it must be some kind of tricky defense system with a great deal of cognitive distortion to the level of illusion/hallucination since I was a kid (preverbal probably). But I have absolutely nothing to oppose to pure logic of «2+2=4» as I see it which I 100% believe in and moreover, this makes me feel as if I gaslight myself badly when trying to ignore it.
This rational thing messes up every pre-encounter with the Inner Child and deep-rooted feelings of abandonment and loss not enabling grief and sadness to emerge which is needed probably for a progress to be made. Sometimes though I am able to shed some tears but only when alone and triggered with sad music.
What would you suggest me to do?
Sorry if it’s hard to read, English is not my first language, I’m doing my best.
Learn to differentiate between constructive criticism and ideological disagreements. One gives rational arguments and obseravtions The other bullies, undermines, and humiliates
by LifeMathMoney
I’d rather paper hands sell now for 20 dollars than stop a fucking rocket mid flight. They’re the same ones that will sell on the uptick think8ng that “gut feelings” and other make believe bullshit smart people gave up in favor of science and math a long time ago can tell them this is the peak.
Fuck that. Sell on the downturn when we’re at Neptune after reaching Pluto. That only happens if pussy papes get out of the way. And like that other ape, I’m only selling 4/5ths so I can long play GME and never leave an ape behind.
Can you imagine someone that shits themselves over 200 a share holding on when its in the multiple thousands and vacillating? GET OFF MY PLANE.
Seriously, how difficult is to have conversations on (popular/"crowded") social media platforms these days. Most of your usual topics of "concern" involve a lot of grey areas, hence a well-informed take should be very much a prerequisite before you start giving (aka, imposing) your opinion.
Unfortunately, your "everyday" celebrities usually don't fall into this category. The problem is this weird infatuation and blind following a good number of people have with them, none of them think critically, no one wants to keep aside their biases, and that inevitably creates a toxic echo chamber with no room for discussion. Conversely, raising awareness is a good thing, which is different from painting an entire situation black and white.
Don't get me wrong, I am all in for people having a platform to speak freely, you know, everyone should have a microphone - but they should be on mute whenever it's due. (This statement is contradictory in itself, but I am not sure how do I articulate it without hitting the self-irony note.)
PS: perhaps this might be a semi-popular (≅ semi-unpopular) opinion... in a dilemma here!
I consider myself a rational person. I am observing that these days I tend to get sidetracked when in an argument (verbal, civil and rational). My line of thought seems to get swayed and I question myself if I made my stance clear. I am not exactly sure where I am going wrong. It's like you're speaking the rational side of things and suddenly that is no longer reasonable even by your own standards (No Inception references, this is real).
What I have learnt about being rational has come mostly from common sense. I have not really read what it is that makes anyone rational. This request seems a little silly to me too.
Books that have quoted references, facts, examples and are an easy read are what I am looking for.
Any help is appreciated.
Seriously tho, what would they really have to say to us in a real time debate? Remove the words: homophobe, transphobe, mysoginist and what are they left with? Do they deep down know that the game is not the precious masterpiece they claim it is? Or they’re seriously that stupid?
Hello, as a layman I have been listening to a podcast in which a critique of rationality was briefly introduced. Later episodes started building on top of it assuming that "people could be dissappointed with rationality" but I couldn't follow it. Why would people be dissapointed with rationalism?
After searching the difference between empiricists and rationalists I got the impression that empiricist argument is that we cannot construct purely objective world represantation since we introduce a lot of biases. If it is just that then it makes sens to me as one of limitations of rationality but maybe there is more to it?
If we say that two different choices in a life situation are rational and later it comes out that only one of them would provide desireble outcome does it mean that rationality is not providing us with a solid way of making sens of things but just some sort of logic syntax?
What im saying is christianity isnt doable for intellectuals, it was invented to create weak minded people and put a block on their ability to think critically...so sad ..it also creates much unnecessary division amongst us and them (rational thinkers vs the deluded)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/story-jesus-christ-was-fabricated-pacify-poor-claims-controversial-biblical-scholar-8870879.html
