Sheep and Goats

Tag: Reason

  • Save Us from Critical Thinking: Part 4

    For complete results, start here

    It was irksome when atheists put up their ‘Let Reason Prevail’ billboard right next to that Illinois State Capitol Nativity Scene back in 2009; that much was immediately apparent. But putting my finger on just why it was irksome required more effort. Was it the presumption of the atheists that they held a monopoly on “reason?” Partly. Was it the crassness of plunking it next to the nativity scene, as though it, too, offered a message of hope? Closer.

    It took a while, but I at last came across an experiment that blew that nettlesome Let Reason Prevail slogan sky-high. Reason cannot prevail among humans. We are not capable of it. We can muster a fair effort when distractions are few. But add in any significant stress, and human reasoning ability goes right down the drain. It is hard to come to any other conclusion after pondering the cake-fruit experiment of several years back. Alas, it received only the publicity of light fluff news. It deserves more, as it holds unsettling implications for any future based on the veneration of reason.

    The cake-fruit experiment unfolded thus: In 1999, Stanford University professor Baba Shiv enrolled a few dozen undergraduates and gave each a number to memorize. Then, one at a time, they were to leave the room and walk down a corridor to another room, where someone would be waiting to take their number. On the way down, however, participants were approached by a friendly woman carrying a tray. “To show our thanks for taking part in our study,” she said, “we’d like to offer you a snack. You have a choice of two. A nice piece of chocolate cake. Or a delicious fruit salad. Which would you like?”

    Unbeknownst to each participant, some had been given two-digit numbers to memorize, and some had been given seven-digit numbers. When Shiv tallied up the choices made (for that was the object of the experiment) he found that those students with seven digits to remember were nearly twice as likely to choose the cake as those given two digits! Two digits—you choose fruit. Seven digits—you choose cake. What could possibly account for that?

    The reason, Shiv theorized, is that once you weed out the occasional oddball, we all like cake more than fruit; it tastes better. But we also know that fruit is better for us. This is a rational assessment that almost all of us would make. But if our minds are taxed with trying to retain seven digits instead of a no-brainer two, rationality goes right out the window, and the emotional, “Yummy, cake!” wins out! “The astounding thing here,” said the Wall Street Journal’s Jonah Lehrer, reviewing the experiment for NPR, “is not simply that sometimes emotion wins over reason. It’s how easily it wins.”

    Now, this experiment was not taken very seriously by anyone. When the media covered it at all, they treated it as fluff, as a transitional piece going in to or out of more serious news. But plainly, the experiment holds deeper significance. Aren’t world leaders also human, and thus susceptible to emotion trumping rationality? Daily they grapple to solve the woes afflicting us all. Meanwhile, opponents seek to undermine them, and media outlets try to dig up dirt on them. If it takes only five extra digits for emotion to overpower reason, do you really think there is the slightest chance that “reason will prevail” among the world’s policymakers, immersed in matters much more vexing and urgent than choosing between cake and fruit? Has it up till now?

    That is what was so irksome about the ‘Let Reason Prevail’ slogan. Reason cannot prevail among imperfect humans! It can occur, but it cannot prevail. Humans are not capable of it. Five digits is all it takes for our rational facade to crumble!

    Since that Baba Shiv experiment, the term “reason” has been upgraded to “critical thinking,” as though to impress with increased potency. It’s the same stuff. It’s just that the latter was not the buzzphrase then that it has come to be today.

    Now, if there is one thing that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for, it is for their insistence that humans do not have the ability to govern themselves. Their reason (critical thinking) will not save them. It is too easily trumped by other factors. Anticipating and announcing the kingdom hope, in accord with Jesus’ prayer, while it does require faith, is seen to be more “reasonable” than the “reason” championed by men.

    to be continued here

    ******  The bookstore

  • Save Us from the Trolley Problem

    The trolley problem: it’s a great philosophical puzzle to occupy the musings of that bunch and keep them off the street where they might do harm. Maybe you’ve seen the drawing. By pulling a lever, you divert the trolley to the track on which one person is lying, killing him. By doing nothing, the trolley rolls ahead and kills 5 on the main track. What should you do? Kill 1 by action ? Or by inaction, suffer 5 to be killed?

    In the end, doesn’t every political assassin rationalize his deed as one of saving the greater number? Didn’t the guy who started WWI by plugging the archduke think that? Could be he was acting out the trolley problem in his own head, assuring himself that, while hard, he had made the morally necessary choice which would benefit the greater number. How did that work out?

    The trolley problem works as a practical exercise when you are operating a trolley. For anything more complex, figure that you may be wrong. You just may be overestimating your power to save the 5. They also might be nowhere near in the danger you think they are. Whereas, if you pull the lever, beyond all question and ambiguity, you have made yourself a murderer. In real life, people apply their ‘trolley problem’ analysis to situations far more complex than trolleys, into areas where it is certain to break down. In real life, one may find those 5 were never in danger to begin with; it was just your cockeyed view of the world that made you think so. Perhaps their lives will even be improved if you let your dreaded “trolley” hit them.

    ….

    To those who would hesitate to pull the lever, one critic writes:

    …..”You now having all the facts or info only excuses you from consequences you couldn’t foresee.”

    Doesn’t this statement mean that you don’t have all the facts?

    ….”Even if there were unexpected consequences then you would be forgiven for not knowing about them beforehand if you had no information to guide your actions.”

    Forgiven by who?

    …..”Choosing not to act is still to act.”

    Of course it is not. People freeze in real life. If someone suffers paralysis, for whatever reason, how are they making a choice? The thought of directly and purposefully taking a life would be enough to freeze many a person in his tracks. He or she might thereafter torment themselves about those that “could have been saved.” But they never got to that point on account of freezing before the act of deliberately killing.

    Save us from the lawyerly “knew or should have known” game. (a game which lawyers do not play unless big money is involved) We never really know what another person “knew,” much less what they “should have known.” If someone’s emotion (moral revulsion) freezes them from deliberately taking a life, who is anyone else to say what they “should have known?”

    Maybe this entire “trolley problem” suffers from the philosopher’s curse that we are all thought and no emotion, or even that we can separate the two. It is the curse from which unlimited hubris arises, and unbounded pretension that our role is to judge other people.

    In fact, emotion and thought are not separable. Medical research has shown that when portions of the brain associated with emotion are destroyed, people become incapable of even the most fundamental of logical choices. The 1994 book ‘Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain’ presented, as one example, a man who underwent an operation that resulted in such brain damage. He continued to excel in memory and logic tests, his 130+ IQ unimpaired. “However, he couldn’t decide trivial matters—e.g., selecting lunch from a menu took hours, or choosing a shirt led to endless pros/cons analysis without conclusion. His life unraveled: he lost jobs, went bankrupt, and divorced due to chronic indecision.” (Grok)

    And if we’re going to ask for “any suspension of disbelief since it is only a hypothetical,” why limit ourselves to the hypotheticals the critic quoted above has spelled out? What are those 5 people doing on the tracks to begin with? What faulty assumption put them there? I know enough not to sit on railroad tracks. Why don’t they? Surely, one consideration of the fellow called upon to decide (assuming it IS decision unimpeded by emotion) will be if it is his job to save the world from self-imposed blinders? Maybe he’ll “save” those five, committing certain murder to do so, and they will immediately sit on another set of train tracks.

    “The trolley problem is just one more depressing example of academic philosophers’ obsession with concentrating on selected, artificial examples so as to dodge the stress of looking at real issues.” – Mary Midgley

    I mean, if it were Mary on the spur, and all the philosophers on the main line, no way would you not let that train keep on rolling and take take our all of that air-headed bunch.

    ******  The bookstore

    museum exhibition of ancient bust statues
    Photo by Michael Noel on Pexels.com

  • Why Reason Fails: Insights from the Cake-Fruit Experiment

    It was irksome when atheists put up their ‘Let Reason Prevail’ billboard right next to that Illinois State Capitol Nativity Scene back in 2009; that much was immediately apparent. But putting my finger on just why it was irksome required more effort. Was it the presumption of the atheists that they held a monopoly on “reason?” Partly. Was it the crassness of plunking it next to the nativity scene, as though it, too, offered a message of *hope*? Closer.

    It took a while, but I at last came across an experiment that blew that silly *Let Reason Prevail* slogan sky-high. Reason *cannot* prevail among humans. We are not capable of it. We can muster a fair effort when distractions are few. But add in any significant stress, and human reasoning ability goes right down the drain. It is hard to come to any other conclusion after pondering the cake-fruit experiment of several years back. Alas, it received only the publicity of light fluff news. It deserves more, as it holds unsettling implications for any future based on the veneration of reason.

    The cake-fruit experiment unfolded thus: In 1999, Stanford University professor Baba Shiv enrolled a few dozen undergraduates and gave each a number to memorize. Then, one at a time, they were to leave the room and walk down a corridor to another room, where someone would be waiting to take their number. On the way down, however, participants were approached by a friendly woman carrying a tray. “To show our thanks for taking part in our study,” she said, “we’d like to offer you a snack. You have a choice of two. A nice piece of chocolate cake. Or a delicious fruit salad. Which would you like?”

    Unbeknownst to each participant, some had been given two-digit numbers to memorize, and some had been given seven-digit numbers. When Shiv tallied up the choices made (for that was the object of the experiment) he found that those students with seven digits to remember were nearly twice as likely to choose the cake as those given two digits! Two digits—you choose fruit. Seven digits—you choose cake. What could possibly account for that?

    The reason, Shiv theorized, is that once you weed out the occasional oddball, we all like cake more than fruit; it tastes better. But we also know that fruit is better for us. This is a rational assessment that almost all of us would make. But if our minds are taxed with trying to retain seven digits instead of a no-brainer two, rationality goes right out the window, and the emotional, “Yummy, cake!” wins out! “The astounding thing here,” said the *Wall Street Journal’s* Jonah Lehrer, reviewing the experiment for *NPR*, “is not simply that sometimes emotion wins over reason. It’s how easily it wins.”

    Now, this experiment was not taken very seriously by anyone. When the media covered it at all, they treated it as fluff, as a transitional piece going in to or out of more serious news. But plainly, the experiment holds deeper significance. Aren’t world leaders also human, and thus susceptible to emotion trumping rationality? Daily they grapple to solve the woes afflicting us all. Meanwhile, opponents seek to undermine them, and media outlets try to dig up dirt on them. If it takes only five extra digits for emotion to overpower reason, do you really think there is the slightest chance that “reason will prevail” among the world’s policymakers, immersed in matters much more vexing and urgent than choosing between cake and fruit? Has it up till now?

    That is what was so irksome about the ‘Let Reason Prevail’ slogan. Reason *cannot* prevail among imperfect humans! It can occur, but it cannot prevail. Humans are not capable of it. Five digits is all it takes for our rational facade to crumble!

    Since that Baba Shiv experiment, the term “reason” has been upgraded to “critical thinking,” as though to impress with increased potency. It’s the same stuff. It’s just that the latter was not the buzzphrase then that it has come to be today.

    Now, if there is one thing that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for, it is for their insistence that humans do not have the ability to govern themselves. Nearly everyone else in the field of religion accepts the present setup of squabbling nations as a given and prays for God to somehow bless the leaders running it—often with the proviso that whatever country they are in emerges on top. Of course, it doesn’t matter too much, though, since said religionists are all heaven-bound! Just passing through, you understand. So while one might not like staying in a crummy hotel, you can at least console yourself that it’s only for a night or two.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Let Reason Prevail

    When Richard Dawkins blessed the atheist buses rolling out of London's central depot, the word "probably" didn't faze him at all. "There probably is no God," announced those buses via placards pasted to their sides, "Now get on and enjoy life" He defended the clunky wording here. "If we say 'there's definitely no God'…you can't say that," he waffled. Actually, it's British Truth in Advertising law that wouldn't permit the more straightforward statement, and he, Dawkins, law-abiding to the core, I'm sure, acquiesced.

    But I write from America, a land whose people are a curious mix of gunslinger and crybaby. And….let us not mince words here….our atheists are better than their atheists. You're not going to catch our atheists going weak at the knees – sniveling up to us with a namby-pamby "probably." No! When our atheists posted a sign on the Illinois State Capitol grounds, it was to proclaim:

    "At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

    Any wimpy "probably?" Not on your life! British atheists should be ashamed of themselves. A bunch of  wusses – make no mistake!
     
    The American atheist sign was smack dab next to a Christmas tree and uncomfortably close to a Nativity Scene – you know, Jesus in a manger and the three wise men bearing gifts. It made local politician William Kelly hopping mad, and he tried to tear down the sign (with the cameras running?), but Capitol police chased him off. Free speech, you know.
     
    Now….what is it about this atheist billboard that rankles? It's not a matter of accuracy. Other than its conclusion, which is opinion, not fact, its tenets are more accurate than those of the Nativity scene.

    After all, religion certainly can affect people in the way the sign says – it comes in many brands and flavors. Moreover, December 21st is the winter solstice, whereas December 25th is not Christ's birthday. Shepherds are not going to be sleeping outdoors with their flocks that time of year, as the Bible says they were. Moreover, Herod is not going to require his rebellious Jewish subjects to travel to the towns of their birth in the dead of winter. These matters are common knowledge. Jesus may have been born in early autumn, but he certainly was not born Dec 25. It was some slick Roman politician, trying to merge then-apostate Christianity with conventional Roman life who got the bright idea that the birthday of the sun, the Dec 25th Saturnalia, should also be the birthday of the Son! Cool!! Talk about clever marketing!
     
    By the time the Nativity Scene's "wise men" (magi) showed up with presents, the child was two, long out of the stable. They were supposed to report Jesus' whereabouts to Herod, who intended to have the child killed, since the last thing he wanted was a newborn "King of the Jews" amidst his surly subjects. But the wise men fled the other way and Herod, furious, had all the 2-year olds in Bethlehem put to death, figuring one of them, surely, would be this toddler king. Jesus parents were a step ahead of him, though….they'd fled into Egypt. *

    No, its not the supporting details that rankle about that atheist sign.  What is it? Could it be that, in advancing "reason" as a cure-all, those atheists presume to have a monopoly on it? Partly.
     
    Am I wrong in thinking that when people say they want reason to prevail, they really just want everyone to come around to their own opinion – an opinion which to them, invariably, is reason personified? Consider the role "reason" might play in the latest diplomatic spat between Britain and China. The Chinese have just executed a British citizen for drug trafficking in their country, the first such execution since the 1950's. But the Brits had wanted him spared, owing to his diagnosis of bipolar disorder. They'd lobbied hard for that outcome.
     
    When they didn't get it, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown cried: "I condemn the execution of Akmal Shaikh in the strongest terms, and am appalled and disappointed that our persistent requests for clemency have not been granted……I am particularly concerned that no mental health assessment was undertaken." But China would have none of it. "Nobody has the right to speak ill of China's judicial sovereignty," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said. "We express our strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition over the groundless British accusations. We urge the British side to mend its errors and avoid damaging China-British relations."
     
    What we are dealing with are different cultural attitudes towards social policy, criminal conduct, mental illness, personal responsibility, individual rights, and drug use. These are values. I defy you to tell me what "reason" dictates with regard to the interplay between them. For the most part, the two citizenries lined up with the viewpoints of their respective governments. Is "reason" only to be found among one or the other population? If so, which one? Actually, it was China that played the "reason" card first. "We hope that the British side can view this matter rationally," Jiang said. Why didn't the Brits think of enshrouding their plea in rationality? Too late now. China beat them to it, and now the Brits are, by default, irrational.

    Yet, even that isn't it in its entirety. In fact, I think it is no more than a contributing point. No, that winter solstice sign rankles for other reasons, as well.

    Maybe its the crassness of plunking it right next to the Nativity Scene, as if it, too, represented a message of hope. For the Nativity Scene, even if poorly understood, even if misportrayed, even if represented by charletans, still represents hope to countless millions of people that this life, so full of hardship, is not all there is. Now, if there was to be an Atheist Scene, and not just a sign, would it not have to be a fellow in his coffin? You are telling the impoverished and disadvantaged, forever punted about and trod upon by human agencies, that not only is this life rough – it is also all they are ever going to get. Atheism may be attractive and trendy to the young and monied, but it sure is a downer to those poor and hungry and abused. They're to get the warm and fuzzies over "reason prevailing?" I don't think so.
     
    Yeah. that's it. That's what rankles most.

    Look, if you believe it, you believe it. It's not holding the notion that annoys me. It's heralding it as if were some sort of great news, worthy of the Births column, and not the Obituaries.

    [Edit: update…now this is the reason]
     
    *In the meanwhile, here's what those Nativity Scenes don't tell you with regard to Jesus and the Wise Men, as found at Matt 2:1-23:  (NIV) 

     

     
    After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

    " 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
    are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
    for out of you will come a ruler
    who will be the shepherd of my people Israel."
     
    Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."
    After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

    When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

    When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:

    "A voice is heard in Ramah,
    weeping and great mourning,
    Rachel weeping for her children
    and refusing to be comforted,
    because they are no more."
     
    After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead."

    So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

    ***********************

    Tom Irregardless and Me     No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash