Is Irrational Thinking Unavoidable? Examining Society's Standards

  • Thread starter Thread starter Iacchus32
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Irrational
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the nature of rationality and irrationality in thought processes, questioning whether societal standards should dictate individual reasoning. Participants examine the implications of diverse perspectives on rationality, the role of creativity, and the potential benefits of unconventional ideas.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that individual experiences shape rationality, questioning the validity of a universal standard for rational thought.
  • Others propose that while there is a diversity of rational ideas, there is also a significant amount of irrational thought that complicates discourse.
  • A viewpoint suggests that irrationality may not be inherently negative, as it can lead to creative ideas and innovation.
  • Concerns are raised about how to judge irrationality, with some suggesting that the method of idea generation is crucial to understanding its rationality.
  • Participants discuss the potential for a structured approach to engage unconventional ideas while minimizing conflict, suggesting a self-organizing system for idea evaluation.
  • Some contributions highlight the value of dreams and unconventional thinking in generating useful ideas, referencing historical examples like Einstein's theory of relativity.
  • There is a call for a methodology that allows for the exploration of unconventional ideas without dismissing them outright, emphasizing the importance of freedom of speech.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of rationality and the role of societal standards, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without consensus on the topic.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of a clear definition of rationality and irrationality, as well as the challenge of establishing a universally accepted method for evaluating ideas.

  • #31
Originally posted by Zero
There is no proof of a 'spiritual reality', and until there is, speaking of it as though it is real is irrational.
I believe that there's no proof of a spiritual reality for you, in which case you can't help but not believe in it "rationally." But that doesn't mean you can't take your own criteria of "disbelief," and apply it to another person's experience, because they're not one and the same.

If you want to wait for Science to prove something to you which, for all intents and purposes you can prove to yourself, then you're no doubt going to be in for a long wait ...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I also think it is irrational to believe that there is a fundamentally different reaslity between what I experience, and what you experience. In other words, there is only one reality, and it is only rational to assume that the rules apply to everyone.
 
  • #33
Everyrthing, nothing, this question and it's answer too...
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Zero
I also think it is irrational to believe that there is a fundamentally different reaslity between what I experience, and what you experience. In other words, there is only one reality, and it is only rational to assume that the rules apply to everyone.
Do you believe it's possible to come to a conclusion without "Science" to back you up? Or, does that make it irrational to come up with an answer that science is unable to answer? Hey, people do it all the time. Therefore I think the bottom line should be where we put our trust. Should we be allowed to trust what we know for ourselves? Or, should we always "put our faith" in Science? There's a big difference there! :wink:
 
  • #35


Originally posted by drag
Everyrthing, nothing, this question and it's answer too...
Can I take that to mean yes or no? :wink:
 
  • #36
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you believe it's possible to come to a conclusion without "Science" to back you up? Or, does that make it irrational to come up with an answer that science is unable to answer?

there are no questions which science itself (meaning the scientific process) us unable to answer. any limitation on our understanding is human error. (so to speak)


Hey, people do it all the time. Therefore I think the bottom line should be where we put our trust. Should we be allowed to trust what we know for ourselves? Or, should we always "put our faith" in Science? There's a big difference there! :wink:

what we know ourselves is very rarely true. (and there can be only one truth). science is the only true process with which one can accuratly search for the truth. all others are only empty speculation without observation. (IMHO)
 
  • #37
Originally posted by maximus
what we know ourselves is very rarely true. (and there can be only one truth). science is the only true process with which one can accuratly search for the truth. all others are only empty speculation without observation. (IMHO)
Would you say that the truth that a butterfly experiences is different from that of a sheep or, perhaps a wolf? Indeed, if it wasn't for this, they would all be the same creatures wouldn't they?

And whose to say that it's any different with human beings? With our larger brains, and larger capacity for experience overall? People adapt and evolve to all kinds of situations, and to each situation there are "specific truths" which, makes each one of us "unique individuals."

Therefore, should we be made to answer to the "outside rule," which says we all must "think alike" or, should we all be allowed to respond from the uniqueness of our situation? (as a butterfly responds differently from a wolf).

I don't know about you, but I sure appreciate having my "own mind." :wink:
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Iacchus32

I don't know about you, but I sure appreciate having my "own mind." :wink:

have your own mind, think your own thoughts. but remember as i said before: there is only one universal truth. not a different one for every personal experience. therefore, even though a butterfly might have different view of the world (it's be a philosophy of flowers and grasses), our view is more accurate. sorry, butterfly advocates!
(i know I've sort of shifted the meaning of your butterfly analogy, but so what)
 
  • #39
Originally posted by maximus
have your own mind, think your own thoughts. but remember as i said before: there is only one universal truth. not a different one for every personal experience. therefore, even though a butterfly might have different view of the world (it's be a philosophy of flowers and grasses), our view is more accurate. sorry, butterfly advocates! (i know I've sort of shifted the meaning of your butterfly analogy, but so what)
If everything were the same, without a sense of diversity, there would be "nothing unique," and hence, "nothing real."

Think about it. If every situation were unique, the properties of truth must also entail "uniqueness" (setting it aside from everything else). In which case "I" would not exist, if I were not unique. Therefore, it must be this uniqueness which speaks to me about the truth, not some "outside agency" called Science.

Which isn't to say Science can't teach us anything, although it would mean "nothing," unless we can adapt it to our own situation.
 
  • #40
Arggghh...

PM :smile:
 
  • #41
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you believe it's possible to come to a conclusion without "Science" to back you up? Or, does that make it irrational to come up with an answer that science is unable to answer? Hey, people do it all the time. Therefore I think the bottom line should be where we put our trust. Should we be allowed to trust what we know for ourselves? Or, should we always "put our faith" in Science? There's a big difference there! :wink:

This is where you accuse me of treating science as a religion, right? Please, spare me that sort of nonsense. The question is: do we trust of senses, the things we can observe ourselves, or do we follow the lunatic ravings of our subconscious? Reality is real, what goes on in our minds is, at best, a reflection of that reality. I can imagine whatever I like, but my imaginings are useless unless they correspond to reality.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by Zero
This is where you accuse me of treating science as a religion, right? Please, spare me that sort of nonsense. The question is: do we trust of senses, the things we can observe ourselves, or do we follow the lunatic ravings of our subconscious? Reality is real, what goes on in our minds is, at best, a reflection of that reality. I can imagine whatever I like, but my imaginings are useless unless they correspond to reality.
With such a big brain you'd think we'd be able to figure things out for ourselves. But no, we need somebody else to tell us how to think. Hey it's not my fault people are stupid! :wink:

In fact, I think this could be the very problem. We have to rely upon somebody else -- be it science, religion or whatever -- to tell us how to think. If we were truly intelligent, we wouldn't have the need for a "crutch" such as science, etc ...

Only question is, how do you teach people how to think for themselves? :wink:
 
  • #43
There is a difference between 'thinking for yourself' and making up whatever suits you. If you want to ignore reality, and base your life on your dreams, that is fine. Just don't try to dress it up like you are anything other than irrational for doing so. You are not superior.

Boy, reality is such a crutch, huh?
 
  • #44
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If we were truly intelligent, we wouldn't have the need for a "crutch" such as science, etc ...


the problem is we all don't have the equipment to make scientific observations. so we have to rely and trust scientific sources that do have precise instruments.

Only question is, how do you teach people how to think for themselves? :wink:

the most important principle of anyone, in any kind of search for truth. (whether from science, religion, ect.) is the old question everything . take nothing for absolute truth. question all your beliefs.
 
  • #45
Originally posted by Zero
There is a difference between 'thinking for yourself' and making up whatever suits you. If you want to ignore reality, and base your life on your dreams, that is fine. Just don't try to dress it up like you are anything other than irrational for doing so. You are not superior.

Boy, reality is such a crutch, huh?
Reality is "the reality" of my situation, and I would prefer to base everything upon that.

Ulitmately, it's up to each and everyone of us to decide what that reality is and, what we're going to do about it. I'm afraid that's the only way it's going to work, otherwise there would be no "accountability."

In fact if you can't conceive of yourself as an "individual first," then you're just a drone of the system.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Reality is "the reality" of my situation, and I would prefer to base everything upon that.

Ulitmately, it's up to each and everyone of us to decide what that reality is and, what we're going to do about it. I'm afraid that's the only way it's going to work, otherwise there would be no "accountability."

In fact if you can't conceive of yourself as an "individual first," then you're just a drone of the system.

The 'system' is REALITY. Try joining the rest of us in it...it is quite a remarkable place, even without the fairy tales some people like to impose on it.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by maximus
the problem is we all don't have the equipment to make scientific observations. so we have to rely and trust scientific sources that do have precise instruments.
Yes, and we all still have to get on with our "own" lives.


the most important principle of anyone, in any kind of search for truth. (whether from science, religion, ect.) is the old question everything . take nothing for absolute truth. question all your beliefs.
Absolutely! But then again, that would be an absolute wouldn't it? :wink:
 
  • #48
Originally posted by Zero
The 'system' is REALITY. Try joining the rest of us in it...it is quite a remarkable place, even without the fairy tales some people like to impose on it.
No, the system is human agency, which superimposes itself "over reality."
 
  • #49
Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, the system is human agency, which superimposes itself "over reality."

Does lying to yourself this way make you feel like a rebel? Does that explain your urge to reject every bit of truth that might be inconvenient to your imaginary world?
 
  • #50
Originally posted by Zero
Does lying to yourself this way make you feel like a rebel? Does that explain your urge to reject every bit of truth that might be inconvenient to your imaginary world?
What the hell difference is it going to make if I can't see if for myself? ... and that's the truth! You know what they say, "Garbage in, garbage out!" :wink:

This is what I mean by "accountability."
 
  • #51
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What the hell difference is it going to make if I can't see if for myself? ... and that's the truth! You know what they say, "Garbage in, garbage out!" :wink:

This is what I mean by "accountability."

Well, you just produce your own garbage, don't you? And, of course, there is no way for you to check it against anything else to see if it is garbage or not.
 
  • #52
Originally posted by Zero
Well, you just produce your own garbage, don't you? And, of course, there is no way for you to check it against anything else to see if it is garbage or not.
Not so. This is why I have a brain. Not to mention other reference materials as well.
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Not so. This is why I have a brain. Not to mention other reference materials as well.

Do these 'references' exist in reality, or did you just dream up their existence on the spot?
 
  • #54


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Can I take that to mean yes or no? :wink:
Where do you see a yes or no question ?
 
  • #55
Originally posted by drag
Where do you see a yes or no question ?
Well "yes" is everything and "no" is nothing, etc. Meaning we can call something irrational, but by who's standards? In which case it could be a yes or a no.
 
  • #56
Phenomenon vs Observation

So does it make sense then, that what we deem rational, should be adapted to each situation? Rather than have it "imposed" externally, in a white-washing sense?

Of course the one idea is general and the other is specific, and yet without the specific, there would be no will or motivation to give rise to the phenomenon which allows us to make the "general observation" in the first place. Got it? :wink:
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Proof of irrationality of sqrt2 in Penroses Road to Reality
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Why are there more societies where the people are oppressed than free?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
14K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Do you think there is an intrinsic merit to intelligence?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
10K
Why do so many people hate science?
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
12K
Is Doing More Always Better for Society?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
How Did Saartjie Baartman Influence Victorian Fashion?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Is Society Doomed by Human Nature?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
What Dignity Do Non-Believers Uphold in the Absence of Religious Convictions?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Where do ethics come from and how do they shape society?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K