However, methods must suit the subject at hand. The success of a method in one application or even in a whole range of applications does not mean that that method is applicable to all areas of inquiry. But that does not mean we have to abandon reason, only that we might have to apply it differently. Nor does it mean that reason has to be or can be our only guide.
Reason is instrumental in nature. It is the instrument for the satisfaction of our perceived needs and for the gratification of our desires. The importance of these purposes to individual and group survival over the last half billion years has somehow led to the self conscious awareness in which we revel. However it is not clear that this reasoning, self conscious awareness confers long term survival benefits as compared to, for instance, ants and cockroaches, which, given the manner in which humans organize and direct our energies through societies, are likely to outlast us. That could well make us and our vaunted intellect and reason the worst joke evolution ever produced.
I do not know that reason alone can save us from such an end. I suspect that it cannot. We must much more carefully examine the role of emotion and desire in the operation of reason and better learn to control how we organize and direct the activities of our societies. This involves judgment, foresight and greater awareness of the impact of our activities on the whole earth.
We are aware of these problems, especially on ET. The challenge is to find better ways to control and organize our activities. Abandoning reason is unlikely to help, but transcending limitations of the current ways in which reason is applied may well be a significant part of our salvation as a species. Our secular salvation may depend on developing and generalizing an improved consciousness that better employs reason in conjunction with our other faculties. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
A good example is the statement that science and reason have limitations... well, duh, that's only been generally accepted in the scientific community since before I was born.
For that reason, making such a statement raises a couple of red flags in the minds of some people - myself included:
Further, even though science cannot directly speak to something like ethics, most ethical systems are based on assumptions and narratives that are open to scientific scrutiny.
I guess my point is that I think that this kind of discussion would benefit less from a greater awareness of the (by and large well appreciated) limitations of science and reason, and benefit rather more from a greater appreciation of the limitations of the limitations of science and reason...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Though I'm sure I'm not the first to point out that the RHS of thefourth identity is clearly
|heart 0| |0 heart|
* Is there such a thing as yoga pants? There should be.
** Yes, I'm being dismissive of religion/spirituality here. I'm a hard-core non-believer. What do you expect? No one worries about being dismissive of us.
In an age where concepts like solidarity and compassion have been vilified and ridiculed - but where religious mumbo-jumbo is given a free pass - dressing up solidarity and compassion in quasi-religious terms may not be such a bad idea. Like many such political shortcuts it comes at a cost; in this case the cost of opening the door for gurus, quacks and a variety of other kinds of shady characters that can couch much less savoury pursuits in much the same language.
Actually, sociology and anthropology are quite insightful as to how, why and between whom couples and marriage form. They don't tell us who to love, but show love clearly isn't random.
I'm always on the lookout for rationalizations that my husbands weren't my fault. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Rather, the idea is that we socialise very strongly among our own social class, and most weddings are among similar or close by on the social ladder - despite claims, and conscious feelings, that encounters are random.
Now, there is something to look for in the way men and women are socialised towards different ideals of marriage - which could lead to their break up. And how mores of personal accomplishment mean that an unhappy marriage has to be broken, yet social pressures towards marriage are still quite intense... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
That's ok - I take full credit for the divorces. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
A case in point is the climate change debate. The calculated consequences of our CO2 emissions are such that everybody agrees that these consequences are bad (unless you are actively working to bring about the end of the world). Even climate change deniers don't argue that these consequences are OK. Instead they have to argue that the scientific estimates of the consequences are wrong. If you accept the scientific findings we must do something to combat GHG emissions, and that is science telling us how to govern.
More generally, I think there is a very broad consensus about many moral questions when posed clearly a such. If you ask: "Is it OK that poor children die because they cannot afford medical care?", even right-wing politicians will not publicly agree. They will argue that their policies help poor children rather than harm them. It is then up to (sociological/medical) science to demonstrate when they are wrong. What is needed for this is more thinking and more science ("reason"), not less! Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.
I love your tag line
tomhuld:
Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.
...in view of the fact that even a mention of astrology on this site is sure to bring the world down around you...
...there's only smoking that's worse....
<hides> "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
What about homeopathy, can you make fun of that? Real capricorns don't believe in astrology.
I also agree that there is a very broad consensus that letting poor people starve in the gutter is wrong, even if it is in the short-term interest of the oligarchy. However, even when backed by a massive (if not quite unanimous - Uncle Miltie and his Chicago Boyz would disagree) consensus, it remains a political position, and there is no point pretending that it's scientifically supported.
In fact, I think it can be downright harmful to present what is inherently a political decision as a technical matter than can be unambiguously resolved through the scientific method. After all, Uncle Miltie and Maggie Thatcher got a lot of traction out of obfuscating the political decisions that underlie much of the economic science (and pseudoscience) that they used.
