Home | Community | Message Board


MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: ½ Pint Jars

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/19/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs
    #3618909 - 01/12/05 05:32 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

A rational belief is one in which the basis for it can by viewed dispassionately and the SAME conclusion could be reached based SOLEY on the data. In this case an expert may be needed to show the methodology by which such a belief was arrived at, but the charisma of the expert has no real importance.

An irrational belief has no verifiable base and the facts do not lead an objective observer to anywhere near the same conclusion. When you hear double-speak or "special logic" such as "God made the fossils look old to test us," know that you are in irrational territory. Experts in this arena have no such methodology and we must take their word for the story. Whether or not we accept the story or belief is based mostly on personal charisma and /or social acceptance factors.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineld50negative1
lethal dosage

Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 821
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Swami]
    #3619040 - 01/12/05 05:54 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:


A rational belief is one in which the basis for it can by viewed dispassionately and the SAME conclusion could be reached based SOLEY on the data. In this case an expert may be needed to show the methodology by which such a belief was arrived at, but the charisma of the expert has no real importance.





I have my own data Swami.

What makes a belief? To think something when you only have hints as to whether or not it's true? If you have to have "data" to have a "rational" belief then would that not make it a fact? It all comes down to a personal level.

based on your statement:

Your belief that one of the main reasons people have belief in God is because they are not confident in themselves and want to use God as a crutch is an "irrational" belief because it is not based on data, but your own thoughts.

We have data that supports both creation and evolution (if you want to argue against this do some research), but it all comes down to a belief.

And so it seems... the fact that I believe in God is "irrational" because your belief against God is "rational" to you, but based on what you say your belief is also irrational...


where's your damn data?


--------------------


Edited by ld50negative1 (01/12/05 05:58 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineld50negative1
lethal dosage

Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 821
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: ld50negative1]
    #3619079 - 01/12/05 06:00 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

I'm not sure why I responded talking about God, but somehow I believe (irrational? - i have no data) this thread has alot to do with your last thread.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinetrinity7
Qie Lan
Registered: 09/25/04
Posts: 104
Loc: Wide open space
Last seen: 10 years, 6 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Swami]
    #3619081 - 01/12/05 06:00 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

I guess at some point you have to do `the leap`.
Like in that Koan about what do you do when you reach the end of a 100 feet high pole and are asked do to the next step.
What I mean is, logic / rationality is quite O.K., but it can only take you that far.
Can you leave logic behind when it?s necessary, Swami ?
Does that feel like dying ?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineskystone
stop the motion
Registered: 11/08/04
Posts: 465
Loc: state,country,etc.
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Swami]
    #3619101 - 01/12/05 06:02 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Swami said:
A rational belief is one in which the basis for it can by viewed dispassionately and the SAME conclusion could be reached based SOLEY on the data. In this case an expert may be needed to show the methodology by which such a belief was arrived at, but the charisma of the expert has no real importance.

An irrational belief has no verifiable base and the facts do not lead an objective observer to anywhere near the same conclusion. When you hear double-speak or "special logic" such as "God made the fossils look old to test us," know that you are in irrational territory. Experts in this arena have no such methodology and we must take their word for the story. Whether or not we accept the story or belief is based mostly on personal charisma and /or social acceptance factors.




Yes, but many times even scientists have skipped the rational part and took a risk by adopting some hypotesis and acting on it.
That get's stuff moving far quicker. There is more risk, but that's
everyones choice


--------------------
"..and suddenly it began to rain"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: skystone]
    #3619250 - 01/12/05 06:24 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

There is no such thing as objective data and furthermore nothing can ever be proven absolutely because you would first have to prove the basis for this, reality, and then you would have to prove consciousness which is the basis of experiencing reality. Prove you aren't a brain in a jar.

Some beliefs are rational or irrational based on logic, or our conventional view of things. But there is no absolute way of knowing if you are right or not. And anyway life as we experience it is only really significant in the symbolic sense so it really doesn't matter.

A serious flaw with scientific methodology is that operates only on a intellectual or conceptual level. It does not take into consideration experience at all, and experience is the basis of all understanding. It is certainly possible to transcend intellectual realities and experience others that are not quantifiable or even understandable by intellectual science. If I experience God directly, what rational explantion can factually disprove this, and thus take precedences? If direct experience is the most significant way that I know things, and science cannot disprove what I experience, why should I be wrong?


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Edited by Divided_Sky (01/12/05 06:32 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineskystone
stop the motion
Registered: 11/08/04
Posts: 465
Loc: state,country,etc.
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3619301 - 01/12/05 06:31 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Divided_Sky said:
There is no such thing as objective data and furthermore nothing can ever be proven absolutely because you would first have to prove the basis for this, reality, and then you would have to prove consciousness which is the basis of experiencing reality. Prove you aren't a brain in a jar.

Some beliefs are rational or irrational based on logic, or our conventional view of things. But there is no absolute way of knowing if you are right or not. And anyway life as we experience it is only really significant in the symbolic sense so it really doesn't matter.




Of course, that's all true, but when we say "objective", we mean relativley objective, objective in the domain science is right now.
We wouldn't get far if science started in the begining from trying to prove that there is objective matterial reality. It's pointless,
we built everything on top of that and now we are discussing in that domain. But we are all (well can't speak for everyone) aware that nothing can really be proven.


--------------------
"..and suddenly it began to rain"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: skystone]
    #3619324 - 01/12/05 06:34 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Yes, I do believe a conventional reality exists and that logic is the best method in dealing with it, but I think Swami assumes that we understand much more than we do, and takes his materialist assumptions about reality too literally.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisiblePaou
Seeker

Registered: 09/23/04
Posts: 376
Loc: Transcendence
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Swami]
    #3619330 - 01/12/05 06:35 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

I think you're making the same false dichotomy that many economists make. You assume there is only rational and irrational. There is also non-rational, which is distinct from both of the former categories. The majority of human behavior is non-rational.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlinedeff
lovelightbliss
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 8,358
Loc: all this Flag
Last seen: 9 minutes
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Paou]
    #3619538 - 01/12/05 07:14 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

my money's on divided sky for dis one

summed it up well

:cool:


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineZekebomb
sociophagus

Registered: 08/24/03
Posts: 1,164
Loc: BC province
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: deff]
    #3619938 - 01/12/05 08:41 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

are rational, irrational, and non-rational arranged on a spectrum, or in a triangle?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Zekebomb]
    #3620051 - 01/12/05 08:57 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

I think non-rational is separate from the rational/irrational spectrum. Non-rational implies the thing can be neither rational nor irrational. For example, your favorite color is a non-rational preference. It can't be rational or irrational by nature.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineZekebomb
sociophagus

Registered: 08/24/03
Posts: 1,164
Loc: BC province
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: ]
    #3620077 - 01/12/05 08:59 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

makes sense


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,944
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3620432 - 01/12/05 10:09 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Objectivity is the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation. It is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality. It is the only means of determining the truth. The concepts of true and false are only meaningful in reference to reality.

Objectivity is the act of referencing reality in determining the truth. It is the act of founding one's knowledge on reality, and making one's thoughts and ideas conform to it. To be objective, reality must be an explicit standard to be compared to. Objectivity is the process of actively comparing one's thoughts to reality, and this can only be accomplished if the purpose of the comparison is identified. The purpose, of course, is to set the standard for validity.

It is a common mistake to believe that one cannot be objective if one has a personal stake involved in something. The implication is that the emotion or motivation necessarily prevents one to be accurate. Since objectivity is the act of conforming one's thoughts to reality, it should be clear that this is possible regardless of any influences.

Subjectivism is an epistemological theory. It is a theory of knowledge, and how it is achieved. Subjectivism holds that knowledge is generated from the mind, without reference to reality. It holds that gaining knowledge about the world is done through introspection. It holds that metaphysically, the world is a figment of our imaginations. It holds that because reality is an aspect of our minds, it is affected by them.

Like most misbegotten notions, this theory is never held consistently. The effect of trying to hold it consistently would be a complete inability to interact with the world. One would just sit and wish for things to be "better", confused at why the world isn't doing its part.

No, the practitioners apply it only in certain respects, and to certain degrees. It is an act of evasion. An attempt to ignore the facts of reality. It is the claim that the mind controls particular aspects of reality, or that certain facts of reality don't exist, and can be whatever you mind wants. A common use of subjectivism is in the field of ethics. A subjectivist evades the objective nature of ethics, and pretends that he may act in any way he chooses, without consequence.

Subjectivism [philisophically] is a denial of reality. It is the acceptance of the Primacy of Consciousness. It is a denial of reality, and a denial of the Law of Identity. It states that "anything goes", and lets desires, whims, and emotions run rampant.

One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality.

The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality. Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted. Since there is no objective moral standard, reason cannot be used to determine how one should act. Emotions are all that is left to make the decision, and subsequently, one is ruled by one's emotions.

A second consequence to espousing subjective values is a demand for no moral judgment. Since morality is subjective, and right or wrong are not real, it makes no sense to judge others by your own personal moral whims. And when moral judgment is not practiced, justice is impossible. Crimes cannot be punished. The innocent cannot be protected. It is easy to see who benefits from this policy.



--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlinedeff
lovelightbliss
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 8,358
Loc: all this
Last seen: 9 minutes
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #3620580 - 01/12/05 10:34 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

to me, subjecticism is the admittance that the perception we have of the reality is altered from whatever the source of that reality is, through the act of perception itself. in this regards, it acknowledges the differences that are inevitable between any two realities, as the perceptions are based around past interactions stored within the brain, as well as dozens other factors.

it is not the denial of an objective state per se, but the acceptance that such a state cannot be known as knowledge acts to abstract direct experience, itself subjecttive in nature.

but there's obviously overlap between realities, and we assert that to be the consensual objective reality. of course, it's entirely possible that humans percieve similar realities, but these altogether may be entirely different than an alien perception of reality.

in a way, this view states that no perception can be proven to be more real than another, as all we can base this upon are our past experiences - now stored in the present moment within the brain as memories.

to me, the only objective state is void :smile:. any experience that limits itself, or filters itself out from this infinite nothingness is subjective, as it is relative to what perceptual 'lens' is.

morality is subjective, and I think this is clear to see. the fact that we argue whether or not it is, itself, is proof to this fact. not only that, there may be some consensual aspects of human morality that help humanity as a whole, but these themselves are not objective. common characteristics between humans is not objective, as humans as a species percieves reality subjectively different than animals (and those bloody aliens :smile:)

:cool:


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineZekebomb
sociophagus

Registered: 08/24/03
Posts: 1,164
Loc: BC province
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #3620586 - 01/12/05 10:36 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

SkorpivoMusterion said:
Objectivity is the recognition of reality as the ultimate standard of evaluation. It is the acceptance that all knowledge is knowledge about reality. It is the only means of determining the truth....

Objectivity is the act of .....

It is a common mistake to believe that one cannot be objective if one has a personal stake involved in something. The implication is that the emotion or motivation necessarily prevents one to be accurate. Since objectivity is the act of conforming one's thoughts to reality, it should be clear that this is possible regardless of any influences.

Subjectivism is an epistemological theory. It is a theory of knowledge, and how it is achieved. Subjectivism holds that knowledge is generated from the mind ....

Like most misbegotten notions, this theory is never held consistently.....

No, the practitioners apply it only in certain respects, and to certain degrees. It is an act of evasion. An attempt to ignore the facts of reality.....

Subjectivism [philisophically] is a denial of reality. It is the acceptance of the Primacy of Consciousness. It is a denial of reality, and a denial of the Law of Identity. It states that "anything goes", and lets desires, whims, and emotions run rampant.

One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil.....

...Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted.....

....Crimes cannot be punished. The innocent cannot be protected. It is easy to see who benefits from this policy.





first of all, lemme guess: you are an objectivist.

let's see... objectivists think they know what reality is, and how it works?

emotional attachment does not skew judgement?

Subjectivism holds that knowledge is generated from the mind. so objectivism holds that knowledge is 'generated' from 'reality'? and we then use our untrickable eyeballs to see the knowledge and internalize it?

is objectivism used consistently?

is allowing desires, whims, and emotions to run rampant Bad then?

there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted
so does objectivism tell us which values should be accepted?

aaand finally, I have difficulty seeing who benefits from this policy. who does? the strong? the guilty?

please note, I only asked all these questions because you wrote such an intensive paragraph pitting objectivism against subjectivism. (I will admit to leaning towards Subjectivism as you describe it, and thus having a bias.)

please further note, subjectivists ARE objectivists in a way, in that they believe they have an understanding of reality (in this case, that it is based on their consciousness or whatever) and base their decisions on this belief


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Zekebomb]
    #3621665 - 01/13/05 02:24 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Skorp & Zeke -
Keep it coming.

:thumbup: :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Sclorch]
    #3622273 - 01/13/05 05:12 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

All beleifs are irrational because they are not rooted in real experience.

Just as one who tastes honey, no longer believes in that taste, he knows that taste through his experience.

I suppose its the same with god!


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineDivided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings

Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 8 years, 6 months
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Sinbad]
    #3622768 - 01/13/05 11:37 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

I DO NOT subscribe to subjectivism. I believe that subjectivity is objective and objectivity is subjective, but no subjective reality negates or contradicts another one. So in a sense things are objective because they are universal and predictable, but also not because they only exist subjective to experience.


--------------------
1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..."
2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..."
3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Rational vs. Irrational Beliefs [Re: Divided_Sky]
    #3622805 - 01/13/05 11:54 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Hmm, i see what your getting at!

Will think about that one, but i dont agree that things are predictable, at least they're not for me anyways!

Irrational and Rational beliefs are most certainly subjective and objective, what might seem irrational to one person, might be completely irrational to another. But in order to rationalize a belief we attempt to relate it to our own experience objectivly! Both ways have no actual root in our real experience, therefore they are contradictory.

Just as one who has experinced god but is not living within that knowlege, becomes a christian, or a hindu or a (insert your own here) and formulates an abstract belief based on that experience, but that belief can never truley mirror, replace or compare in any way to that actual direct experience!

So therefore it becomes useless and irrational to formulate it in the first place!

In the case of irrational beliefs one makes an assumption that has no base is ones own experiences, isnt this also true for rational beliefs?

Now im going to stop dribbling and make myself a cuppa tea!

Peace


--------------------


Edited by Sinbad (01/13/05 11:56 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: ½ Pint Jars

General Interest >> Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Why my irrational belief system is better than yours
( 1 2 all )
OrgoneConclusion 3,372 34 10/15/07 05:35 AM
by Ego Death
* Question for moral objectivists
( 1 2 all )
silversoul7 2,274 31 06/14/03 12:42 PM
by NewToTrippin
* Being Rational?
( 1 2 all )
Chronic7 1,531 27 12/08/08 08:41 PM
by Poid
* rationality
( 1 2 all )
BleaK 2,320 28 03/18/06 02:17 AM
by BlueCoyote
* Are Believers Rational Beings?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Swami 5,403 60 04/22/02 05:23 AM
by infidelGOD
* Objectivism.. Here We Go Again!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
PedM 7,564 130 03/22/06 12:37 AM
by SkorpivoMusterion
* Literacy and Far-out Beliefs
( 1 2 3 all )
OrgoneConclusion 2,309 41 05/28/07 10:47 AM
by backfromthedead
* Critiques of Ayn Rand's Objectivism
( 1 2 all )
Trepiodge 2,572 24 07/30/07 08:03 PM
by Left Nut City

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, CosmicJoke, Diploid, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
8,246 topic views. 0 members, 2 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.096 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.