emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

rationalist(platonic?)-scientific realism vs metamodernist pragamtic instrumentalism

on fundamental matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and ethics.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#1  Postby Mr. Skeptic » May 23, 2020 5:11 am

I was in talks with a DemSocial on discord. he was talking about Stinter's egoism. I chimed in with my def of spook and he argued for social constructs because it's natural. the main discourse is was about how emotions, logic, and reasoning interplay with another. my argument is that, as people are emotional innately and thus everything has some emotion in it. you can't be 100% rational, logical and stoic all the time. it's an Enlightenment fantasy. his was to go on his idiosyncratic definitions and distinctions which in hindsight I didn't even disagree on. they were about "rational/logical emotional separation", etc, and worrying to death about finding out that scientists and science and be a bit subjective and emotional sometimes, and that realization will lead us to primitivism. that despite a lot of advancement in the pre-scientific era.

he strawmaned me too. like when I was on about "hey, your scientist stoic logical ubermensch that puts out pure logic and reason? that's kind of fantastical." and he was like "so you're saying math isn't 100% rational?" no I fucking didn't. math is rational. math is reason. it's a human creation, but a really good one. like you know science? I just sometimes think that it can be subjective. like you know reason and logic? what is reasonable, rationally, and logical changes from person to person. because of education, experience, and biases. it's based on standards. which are created. of course what I got was incredulity. for simple observation, at least to me.

the dude wasn't a dick. I just think he's a bit stupid. even in hindsight, if I was talking about emotional control, there's evidence to suggest that emotions, their expression, and the reason why they are expressed anyway, is based on past experiences. it's called the theory of constructed emotion. it's quite reveling stuff, to be honest. https://fortelabs.co/blog/how-emotions-are-made/
Mr. Skeptic
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 146

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#2  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » May 23, 2020 10:49 am

Tell the guy that with collaboration and independent examinations severely limit individual emotional input. Teat results have no emotion to influence anything ever.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#3  Postby felltoearth » May 23, 2020 2:19 pm

I can’t actually tell from your OP what the argument was about. Was it “if people were only more rational the world would be a better place?”
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14574
Age: 54

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#4  Postby Mr. Skeptic » May 23, 2020 5:14 pm

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Tell the guy that with collaboration and independent examinations severely limit individual emotional input. Teat results have no emotion to influence anything ever.

RS


my contention was with his characterization of logic, reason, and how humans use them, and the ontology. I'm pretty sure that humans can and do logic. social animals often do logic and even have some basic reasoning skills. but the problem is that we still don't really know if this ability is native to organisms and humans or is a purely learned skill and a social construct. I tend to say, some parts of it may be native, but most of what is considered logical, reasonable, and rational is a product of one's standards, which is the consequence of one's education, biases, beliefs, and emotional state. scientists know this. that's why they try to set up standards with the consensus of other scientists of similar education, beliefs, etc. scientists know or at least they should at this point that absolute objectivity is impossible (see epistemic humanity), thus practical objectivity is what they should be aiming for.

we can't know for a 100% certainty that we are or being objective. I think that's my point and pretty sure that we can agree to that.
Mr. Skeptic
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 146

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#5  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » May 25, 2020 12:41 am

No, we don’t agree, and I repeat that test results have no bias, and why objectivity isn’t a factor. When repeatable results are returned from testing opinions, beliefs and all that other trash of human failings go right out the window.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#6  Postby OlivierK » May 25, 2020 5:46 am

Mr. Skeptic wrote: most of what is considered logical, reasonable, and rational is a product of one's standards, which is the consequence of one's education, biases, beliefs, and emotional state. scientists know this.

Yes.
Mr. Skeptic wrote:that's why they try to set up standards with the consensus of other scientists of similar education, beliefs, etc.

No, that's not what they do.

Rather, they set up protocols such as double-blind trials, and invite other scientists, regardless of their culture, to either replicate or disprove their work.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9864
Age: 55
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#7  Postby felltoearth » May 25, 2020 12:26 pm

Further to above, on a fundamental level, we have the ability to write down words and distribute thoughts. This give us the benefit of being able to construct logical arguments, think about them, and improve, correct and rearrange them. This also allows for multiple subjects to review and advise. This is something we have that other social animals don’t possess.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 14574
Age: 54

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#8  Postby don't get me started » May 25, 2020 11:26 pm

felltoearth wrote:Further to above, on a fundamental level, we have the ability to write down words and distribute thoughts. This give us the benefit of being able to construct logical arguments, think about them, and improve, correct and rearrange them. This also allows for multiple subjects to review and advise. This is something we have that other social animals don’t possess.



This is well expressed. One of the things I try to convey to my students about how to analyze language is the difference between the spoken form and the written form. Both forms have an edit function.

In spoken language, speakers rarely proceed through more than a turn or two without some kind of repair taking place, with self-initiated self-repair being the default*. Similarly, writers constantly review, reword, revise and edit their writing. The difference between the spoken form and the written form is that in the spoken form, the repairable item and the repair process are accessible to others. They are on-record and can be referred to by recipients.

In the written form of language the repair and editing processes are invisible to the final reader. The final product is presented as essentially perfect and error free. Also in the written form, not only did the original writer have extensive opportunity to work on the product as he or she was writing, with way more leeway to take time to edit the work hours, days or weeks after the initial writing, editors and reviewers will have had a lot of say in the form of the final product, way more than listeners can influence the spoken output of the speaker.

This is especially true in academic writing where peer reviewers and editors work in a very detailed fashion to prompt changes to the expression, phrasing and discourse continuity of the writing in addition to the actual factual content. No academic paper can ever be conceived of as 100% the work of a single writer. (In addition, many papers are jointly authored, with further opportunities for review and re-working of the text.) The final version of a paper has been worked on minutely by several people over dozens and dozens of versions.

The upshot of all of this is the removal of superfluous, emotional or subjective language from the final piece, and this is what often makes a lot of academic writing so dry and difficult to read. This is also what makes good academic writing reliable.


*Here is the canonical paper on repair processes in spoken interaction:

Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382.

PDF available at

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=on+the+preference+for+self+repair+&btnG=
don't get me started
 
Posts: 1301

Country: Japan
Japan (jp)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#9  Postby Mr. Skeptic » May 26, 2020 3:34 am

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:No, we don’t agree, and I repeat that test results have no bias, and why objectivity isn’t a factor. When repeatable results are returned from testing opinions, beliefs and all that other trash of human failings go right out the window.

RS


test results do not in themselves have no bias. that is true. we bring biases by filtering them into our minds and models. wither or not "bias" in the generic sense is in science or wither or not "bias" is bad, regardless of consequences we can discuss that at a later time. a basic epistemological really arises when addressing "objectivity" and "subjectivity". that is how can we know (justify our claims) that we are being objective or subjective in the first place?

given what we can justify about the neuroscience of perception (that is our senses create our perception of the external reality. in that sense, even empiric justification is still subjective in some basic sense, as it is still contingent upon the brain, as well the words describing that perception and defining the logical systems that we use) and everything else, it's very likely that we can't be 100% objective in everything that we do, as perception can never be truly ruled out, without removing the point or actor.

which is why I find absolutes in the philosophical and normative sense as utterly laughable. there is no such thing. the best we have is 75-99% x (certainty, knowledge, objectivity, whatever). I and think everyone should care practical, reasonable, or beyond reasonable doubt x. practical objectivity, reasonable (within the bounds of reason) certainty and knowledge, etc. reality is practical objective. it is not 100%. it is approximately 100%. to bring up the subjectivity in that context is obfuscate or should only be used to forewarn our mind projection and for clarification. that is it. that is all we should talk about when relating to objectivity in a postmodern/metamodern world; pragmatism with goals as our creed so to speak. anything less is bullshit and should be called out as such.
Mr. Skeptic
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 146

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#10  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » May 26, 2020 9:43 am

When you can show that the speed of light is an approximation you’ll have a point. Until then all I see is an opinion.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#11  Postby Mr. Skeptic » May 26, 2020 10:23 am

I'm not sure what you mean. all I'm stating is a pretty basic philosophical observation called epistemic humility.

"In the philosophy of science, epistemic humility refers to a posture of scientific observation rooted in the recognition that (a) knowledge of the world is always interpreted, structured, and filtered by the observer, and that, as such, (b) scientific pronouncements must be built on the recognition of observation's inability to grasp the world in itself."

and the speed of light is an agreement on a perceived observation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

"The speed of light in vacuum commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its exact value is defined as 299792458 meters per second (approximately 300000 km/s, or 186000 mi/s). [*]It is exact because by international agreement[*] a meter is [*]defined[*] as the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of ​1⁄299792458 second." and henceforth the definitions.

that's what reality is; a mosaic agreement on what the state of affairs is, with (hopefully) the understanding that we are flawed and need correction within a set of standards and goals (that is trying understanding reality for what it is).

my point was that we live in models that help us understand reality. they are not the reality themselves. we cannot access 100% unbiased reality, as we are caged by perception.
Mr. Skeptic
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 146

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#12  Postby newolder » May 26, 2020 11:03 am

The claim is that c has the same value for each and every observer. To disprove the claim a set of observations measuring something other is required. When/if this happens, a discovery will have been made and science will take it on board and move on. Humility is irrelevant to science - it may be relevant to scientists and/or philosophers but science is incapable to care about them either.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7813
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#13  Postby theropod_V_2.0 » May 26, 2020 11:13 am

Perception has no bearing on test results, and your position seems to be that test results don’t matter. This is where your whole position falls down. A mass spectrometer doesn’t give a fuck if you want sodium chloride to become gold. Measuring the speed of light isn’t a popularity contest, and is also carried out with instruments that have no human frailty. Then when other scientists repeat testing then any bias, or emotion, held by the original tester are eliminated. Then you need to address conciliatory evidence where a wide spectrum of examinations from different avenues of testing all return results that are in agreement. There comes a point where to deny that empirical evidence accurately informs us of the real world is just a mental game. Such are the tactics of creationists that have no counter for the actual evidence, so they attack the system. According to your own position even your proclamations cannot be 100% certian.

I get what you are trying to get across. We can rarely be 100% sure of anything ever, but without test results we wouldn’t have a clue about observational reality. Are seriously suggesting that we actually don’t have any idea of what constitutes reality, and are taking “best guesses”?

I’m done here. Have the last word. I’ll continue operating under the principle that empirical evidence holds more weight than word play.

RS
“Sleeping in the hen house doesn’t make you a chicken”.
User avatar
theropod_V_2.0
 
Name: R.A.
Posts: 738

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#14  Postby Mr. Skeptic » May 26, 2020 12:19 pm

me too. because postmodernism is dumb. it's impractical surface level (as of now) observations that (in many cases) lead down bullshit paths of relativism and nihilism. that's actually why I don't like it and without modernist synthesis, it collapses under its own weight.
Mr. Skeptic
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 146

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: emotions, logic, reasoning, and the philosophy of science

#15  Postby Mr. Skeptic » May 26, 2020 1:28 pm

or anything has to do with anything modernism. I'm getting tired of this. just call me a pragmatist. or realist, elitist, or who cares. that's all I and anybody else really needs. because philosophy absent mapping to the reality we experience and for its use in making logical arguments and you making sense is pretty much 90% boring semantic games where words have no practical usage outside "x or y reason that is idiosyncratic to my system" or whatever.

at this point, it's mostly theater with armchair thinkers (like myself) being entertained. the rest goes towards something useful. like you know, science and all things reality related. what I want is data, evidence, facts, whatever is in actual reality. it doesn't fucking matter what you call it, it is what is. our pondering about wordplay and semantics won't ever change that. words don't change or warp our hands into chain guns just because some person or group said let it be. in fact, that would an utterly useless definition, as it doesn't accurately and practically describes the state of affairs. and shouldn't that be the goal of language and communication? to share one's experience and lens of reality to others, in hopes of constructing models of reality that actually describe it? so we can you know, uh, survive, maximize our happiness, health, needs, and fulfillment? well, some people missed that memo. or rather just ignored it. or didn't think it existed. and you know Ratskeps who those people usually are.
Mr. Skeptic
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Owen Terry
Posts: 146

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post


Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest