/sci/ - Science & Math

brool story co

Begun, the /sci/ war has...

>>3228300
cool rationale bro.

This is going to be a fun thread. Hold on, I'm getting my popcorn.

You have three choices:
1. Admit defeat, and remain silent.
2. Argue, and prove the thearom
3. Agree and watch this thread die.

So people have arguments to show they've won the argument rather than reveal the truth? No shit, how long has it taken people to figure this out? I thought this was common sense. Theres no purpose to arguments because arguing proves you can't reason with them in the first place.

>>3228332
>Doesn't realize that science has to experiment to prove knowledge and his reasoning is proof of this.

Lets all be congenial here.

I am with OP
So let's hear... why is rationalism the ultimate truth??

>>3228295
btw OP you are a faggot. How is it that the article you posted uses rationalism (for example... evolution theory) t bash rationalism.....
uh..........

>>3228383
Oh, a challenger appears!

They used the scientific method to prove a specific point. They posit that reason developed as a tool of persuasion, not as a intrinsic survival mechanism.

It suggests that argumentation was the evolutionary driver, which means reason and rationale developed only as a way to coerce groups.

This also suggests that faulty reasoning would, if persuasive, also persist, and develop just as well if it's rationale was useful for argumentation.

How does this matter...at all? Who cares what the origins of reason are. We know its useful to evaluate reality, what difference does it make how or why it came to be.

>Not being a machine
>Attempting logic
I

>>3228449
The point is what the 'useful' thing is, and it's not just about evaluating reality, it's about setting the perception of reality. If we could believe that reason and rationale would continue towards some 'singularity' then they would be intrinsic truths, and we can expect progress to always be better, particularly when we face growing problems.

But if the study is true about psychology and sociology, then we're always perilously perched on a edge that could swiftly, irrationally, disappear and drop us into the unfathomable depths of irrationality.

It would be as if Poe's law suddenly no longer looked like parody, but became reasonable.

>>3228430
Implicitly
>Premises of an argument may be wrong, yet being persuasive they might prevail as, so to say an axiomatic system. Thus evolving as scientific method, let's just say.
>Evolutionary theory is for one thing a theory. A theory within the theist-atheist argument. As such it is not reaching towards truth but using reason for disarming the opposite opinion.
>Then the whole argument would be cimented on a faulty belief.

>>3228430
"They posit that reason developed as a tool of persuasion, not as a intrinsic survival mechanism."

Persuasion IS a survival mechanism. I convince people my belief or way of doing things is the only or best way and it becomes necessary, I win. I survive. I bullshit. I believe my own bullshit so everyone believes it. It becomes standard bullshit. I survive.

>>3228466

Seems to be an old idea rephrased. Everyone has a different perception of reality, and people can abuse the term rational to mean just about anything. But true rational thinking is changing ones mind based on all the available evidence, and proving your conviction with testable and observable demonstrations. to say you're using "reason" isn't reasonable enough. And to use any notion of absolute certainty of rationality is a red herring, there is no such thing.

>>3228486
>Implying humans are animals and nothing has a reason to be bu survival

>>3228486
Right, but that's not intrinsic survival. Whether people believe your bullshit or not, your survival doesn't hinge on it. Your position in society surely does, but things like blood lines, familial bonds, ability to kill a buffalo, those are intrinsic survival mechanisms.

>>3228499
>implying facts are true

>>3228484
would disagree

>>3228507
>Implying you don't have a personal life

>>3228499
>reason
Using reason to argue

>>3228295

>Claims reason evolved to win arguments
What evolutionary benefit is that? The sexy debater gets head?

>Even if reason evolved to win arguments
-Doesn't mean it doesn't benefit people then
-Doesn't mean it cannot benefit people now

>And much of what we know cannot be put into words, she explained, pointing out that language evolved relatively late in human development.

It would be interesting to see whether the cognitive biases this theory explains occur in animals without language. And also, in humans, whether stating your opinion to others affects how confident you are in your opinion.

>>3228537
The advantage of course is that you've allied the arguers with you. Even if the argument is flawed, useless or near useless, you've defanged your foe.

It means that it's a short term solution. Farmers don't need reason, a widget maker doesn't need reason. A pr0n star doesn't need reason. They can all exist without reason.

>>3228515
>implying bullshitting is fundamental to survival

Girl: Do you think I'm cute?
Guy: Yeah!
Girl: Do you really think so?
Guy: Yeah!
(non-factual subjective opinions)

-Sex-Babies-Survival

>>3228537
tell that to the ant colony.

>>3228560
thats not survival, that's reproduction. If that were true, labor wouldn't last 9 months.

Evidence time:

/sci/ itself. Everyone knows the threads that get bumped are unsolvable, irrational, and filled with people trying to with unwinnable arguments.

Am I the only one that saw a fucking contradiction in the theory?

One instance they're saying that the judicial system is flawed because reasoning is used persuasively and that the "marketplace of ideas" won't actually bring out truth.

Then later they quote a guy saying lets put kids in Math circles because they "will be exposed to the best arguments."

Sounds like some pseudoscientific horseshit.

>>3228607
Parody?

Also I'm convinced humans evolved to be irrational instead of aspies for a reason, Einstein himself said "If you're not making mistakes you're not trying anything new". I don't think science is about making random stabs in the dark but it's not about dogmatically worshipping "established" theories either, it is in fact irrational to be what most people consider rational because there is much evidence to suggest that experimentation and speculation are beneficial.

>>3228618
You were reading multiple people's interpretation, reason, from the logic. The dissonance is in interpretation from multiple view points.

Surely, the meta-reason is self evident.

Shit son, humans better be careful.

Someday we're gonna run the wrong experiment and find out that we're actually non-sentient machines that run off of chain reactions and have no control over our lives.

Humans everywhere will disappear once they hear the news. How depressing :(

>>3228632

How can you differentiate between the "true" logic and others interpretations on it.

When you interpret an interpretation?

It's like saying "I am a liar." Paradox.

That article should have been displayed during the first showing of Inception.

OP is a faggot. This is logical because I saw him stuffing cocks into his ass.

>>3228645
Really, or was this a self delusion fashioned by your deep desire to have gay sex without prohibition.

>>3228643
By doing scientific research.

>>3228295
Is that a wierd model of an ant and if not then what the fuck s wrong with that ant?

>>3228703
It is, an ant, befell by the cordyceps fungus. A fine species of fungus that reproduces by releasing it's sports from high above.

They infect the ant, convince it, through reason, to climb high into the branchs, clench down on a leaf or branch, and stay.

There, the fruiting body of the fungus grows, and begins the cycle again.

Each cordycep only attacks and infects a single given type of ant. They think there are thousands of types of cordyceps.

>people argue just to win
They needed a team of scientists just to figure that out?

>>3228731
What about termites and bees?

>>3228735
Yes. Reason and rationale are broad. Scientific reason is narrow.

You can claim all the knowledge you wish about reality, but if you do not test this knowledge, if you do not create any narrow theory, then you are simply reasoning to win an argument.

>>3228742
beetles

>>3228742
Moths

>>3228742
All kinds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuKjBIBBAL8

Just one more bump then I will let the religion vs science threads once more rule the 'ration' of /sci/

>>3228731
>>3228761
>>3228771
>>3228295
Damn Cordyceps fungi are some stone cold niggas.

>>3228484
The theory of evolution is not "just a theory", as many people try to reason in their arguments against it.
A scientific theory is more than just a concept, but people don't realise this because they are ignorant and just proving OP's point. Why bother finding a true understanding of something when you can just make shit up? Because we want the truth, damnit.

The topic at hand is pretty interesting, and I have to say it seems pretty legit at its core. People like to be right, and they will work around others' arguments for the sake of forcing their own home. Straw man arguments, omission of facts and flimsy connections in their thought process generally prove this to us. In turn, if someone presents this sort of argument to a scientist, philosopher etc, they will pick up on it and refute the shit out of until they come out on top. But why? Wouldn't it just be a recursive cycle if one party constantly tried to outdo the other? Non.
Reasoning may in part have grown to its current ideal through the social side of "being right", but I think it holds too much importance to many men as being the way to reach the truth. You want to reason someone out of something that simply isn't correct. Assuming your argument is about something objective, this new theory, created by French social scientists I might add, holds about as much water as a broken sieve.

Feel free to argue, I probably just want to be right.

>>3228905
You gotta admit, their reasoning skills are A++.

>>3229030
...broken sieve...I assume that holds alot of water.

>>3229069
God damnit, that is a brilliant point.
I'd also like to say I wasn't really trying to dismiss the idea. I just don't believe that it would have developed purely as a social function.
I know there are a lot of people who will cling onto what they know as the true thing, but confirmation bias can't affect everybody, can it? I for one try not to take anything at face value until I've done at least a little research, or reached my own logical conclusion. If someone tries to prove me wrong I'll courteously accept, given again that I'm proven wrong with objective proof.
I just can't believe that there isn't a decent portion of the population the same. Even through different eras, surely there was something else that compelled people to know the objective truth, right?

>>3229096
Well, imagine we happen upon a man lost in a woods, somewhere in oklahoma.

He carries a map with him, and on the maps are instructions on how to read a compass, how to locate his position, and so forth. He appears to have everything he needs to exit the forest.

You ask him, "Are you lost?"

He replies, "Yes."

Now, your reason tells you that he has all the necessary tools to not be lost, but he claims otherwise. Is he actually lost or is he merely ignorant?

What reason appears to be is not to same as scientific knowledge, as it must deal with a larger set of 'facts' and to manipulate those into a communicable understanding, the argument.

Those facts however are always defined as a very tiny subset of reality, which means the mind inevitably must loosen it's grip on what forms those facts.

This leads to many people, including scientists, into forming hypotheses defined by anomalous fuzzy logic. It is as if they are lost in oklahoma, appear to have all they need to locate themselves, but exclaim by virtue of ignorance, "I am lost."

>>3229154
So basically to reason something, we find ourselves in a convoluted whirlpool of facts. We take the most solid things we can find in that pool because we just can't handle more, and then we stick it together into some misshapen raft.
Sorry if my thinking in metaphor is annoying, god knows it is to me.
Anyway, we have to separate reason from scientific knowledge often, but surely there were points where they intertwined with reason's conception. If we apparently developed the ability to reason as both a method to convince and a defence against brainwashing why did anybody want to convince anybody anything? I suppose a statement like "everything we do socially stems from manipulation" would support this, but damned if I don't want to believe that people were just as interested in sharing the truth with one another.

>>3229198
I did state this before, but reason, persuasion, is like adding grease to your evolutionary cog. It doesn't do the heavy lifting like more physical prowess or technical skills, but it turns potential conflict into neutral situations.

I suppose reasoning and language inevitably developed as cohesive tools.

But it's late and I'm already forgetting why I posted this.

>>3229222
Fair enough. Thank you, sir.
Your comments are appreciated, that is why you are posting.