Confidence in reason

[coberst]

Confidence in reason

A popular adage goes something like this “I cannot argue down a conviction that has not been argued up.” It is impossible for me to use reason to convince someone who is without confidence in reason that they should have confidence in reason.

An adult without confidence in reason must start the effort to study reason before they can gain a confidence in reason. Perhaps that is impossible also. Perhaps it is the case that an adult without a confidence in reason will never have confidence in reason.

I suspect that 95% of the adults in the US have no confidence in reason and if my logic is correct they never will have that confidence. If that does not depress 5% of the population then nothing will. Perhaps it will delight the other 95%.

Further thought leads me to modify that statement. The 95% without confidence in reason do in fact have some confidence in reason. They do recognize that as an instrument to gain a goal reason is necessary.

What can we say about the 95% and reason? I guess we can say that they often have confidence in reason but that confidence is restricted to a limited aspect of life.

Is a person capable of having confidence in reason when that person is almost completely ignorant of the nature of reasoning?

[Subfallen]

By "reason" do you mean "methodological naturalism?" If yes, then I think you are right, and <font color="red">DS</font> has provided an explanation that I thought rather original:

[ QUOTE ]

I am quite sure that the main reason people believe in the paranormal is because to believe otherwise is acknowledge that a small percentage of the world has a very good idea how things work and that they have no prayer of joining that group.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that 95% of the adults in the US have no confidence in reason and if my logic is correct they never will have that confidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what leads you to suspect that, coberst? What's more which logic gets you to conclude that they never will? I mean it is a very bald statement. I think you should give a few of your reasons for making them. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[coberst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that 95% of the adults in the US have no confidence in reason and if my logic is correct they never will have that confidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what leads you to suspect that, coberst? What's more which logic gets you to conclude that they never will? I mean it is a very bald statement. I think you should give a few of your reasons for making them. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a matter of observation and judgment. It appears to me that in the US well over 50% of the citizens are religious and well over 90% believe in God and soul and heaven and angels, and miracles, etc. at least that is what I consider to be the case based upon things I see and hear. It is a common cry that "I cannot make that idiot change his or her mind". I suspect we all know that 76% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[Splendour]

Quote: Is a person capable of having confidence in reason when that person is almost completely ignorant of the nature of reasoning?

Yes. Just because people are ignorant of the nature of reasoning doesn't mean they don't reason. Its just that they arrive at their reason by a different route. For example, commonsense is a form of reason but its experiential or arrived at through a gestalt type process.

The hilarious thing is that in certain situations you will frequently see more down to earth or less educated people saying about the more intellectual educated person that "he's intelligent but he ain't go no commonsense." This could have quite a lot of importance in say a life or death situation.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote: Is a person capable of having confidence in reason when that person is almost completely ignorant of the nature of reasoning?

Yes. Just because people are ignorant of the nature of reasoning doesn't mean they don't reason. Its just that they arrive at their reason by a different route. For example, commonsense is a form of reason but its experiential or arrived at through a gestalt type process.

The hilarious thing is that in certain situations you will frequently see more down to earth or less educated people saying about the more intellectual educated person that "he's intelligent but he ain't go no commonsense." This could have quite a lot of importance in say a life or death situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coberst. Confidence in reason is inversely related to ability.

luckyme

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that 95% of the adults in the US have no confidence in reason and if my logic is correct they never will have that confidence. If that does not depress 5% of the population then nothing will. Perhaps it will delight the other 95%.

[/ QUOTE ]

People are very clever in our time. Everyone is smart and they display it daily. If one wants to discuss "reason" per se then they will probably turn their back on him and see him as a pedant with questionable motives. People do not walk around stating that they have a 40% confidence in reason. They know its limitations and act accordingly.

To say that one who is a theist or religious is unreasonable is being obtuse, bloated in one's self involvement, and oh yea again definitely unreasonable.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
People are very clever in our time. Everyone is smart and they display it daily.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. yet less than half the people are tall. hmmm.

luckyme

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
It is impossible for me to use peanut butter to convince someone who is without confidence in peanut butter that they should have confidence in peanut butter.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can still reason with someone who you think adheres to unreasonable beliefs. They might not go along with you, but you don't need to develop a "confidence in reason" first, because to them their beliefs are reasonable already. Getting didactic on "confidence in reason" won't help -- nor should it.

[TomCowley]

Two intelligent people start talking and find out they have a difference of judgment. Person A decides to let person B explain his detailed reasoning. Upon hearing it, it's clear B hasn't made any logical mistakes. A still shouldn't blindly accept B's analysis- he has to go back and figure out if his difference in judgement was due to a mistake (in which case he'll probably convert to B's point of view), or if it's solely due to different starting assumptions. If it's due to different starting assumptions, then both people need to examine the assumptions both people started with to evaluate which are "better", or if the contradictory result from two seemingly reasonable sets of starting assumptions means that the problem clearly doesn't have enough data to be solved with any confidence.

Now, can the average person even UNDERSTAND that, much less articulate it, much less practice it? No. It's not necessarily lack of confidence in reason (although that cerainly exists), it's complete cluelessness about how reason even works. And that's not even getting into the details of useless/untestable beliefs.