fraac wrote:
It's ridiculous only because you're refusing to explore the implications. From my dog's point of view is arithmetic rational?
What does your dog's viewpoint have to do with it? Arithmetic is necessarily rational. We can't just guess the answers. Your dog's inability to comprehend the process doesn't make it irrational.
Quote:
If a religious person has perceived a measurable impact on their lives - not an externally verifiable impact, which you've already agreed doesn't matter - then why can't they rationally claim existence of a god?
This is where things get a little complicated. A believer can have a measurable, actual impact on their lives from their faith. But this doesn't come from God, which is (in a manner of speaking) just a catalyst. If a church fundraiser makes a big difference in the community, I can guarantee that not one penny of those funds came from God. They came from the people that attended the fundraiser. God's input, in a purely financial sense, is zero.
Religion is not the voice of God directing your life. It's YOU directing your life. God doesn't actually have to do anything - the system runs itself, and there are similar systems for any number of Gods, and a number of them with no Gods. If you want to see the effect God has on someone's life, you'll be struggling; a lot of that effect is not God but those doing what they consider God's work. God's input is indeterminate.
Quote:
And you still haven't answered: by precisely which logical steps have you determined that Windows is 'rational' if you yourself cannot verify its rationality?
You're cottoning on. I can't verify that - my conclusion is irrational. It's taking a non-rational leap, because confirming it rationally would take a long time and might actually be impossible for me. But, like many such leaps, it's not a complete guess. I can look at any small part of Windows and see that it works rationally. I can't be sure they *all* do, or that there isn't an irrational result from some emergent process. But this seems very unlikely given what I know about computers and programming. If you can demonstrate how Windows works irrationally, I'll be happy to change my position on this.
Quote:
"I'm beginning to think "irrational" is continuing to try talking to you..."
Being tied in knots by superior logic would feel like that, and yet like a dog dismissing branches of mathematics perhaps you're missing a bigger picture.
Being irritated by someone who doesn't understand what I'm saying often feels like that.
Dogs do not dismiss mathematics. They don't have a concept of what it even is. If they did, they may respond in the irrational way that humans usually do by labelling it "magic" (or, these days, "technology") and being surprised when it doesn't react the normal way when they turn on the switch.
I think the thing people often miss when this is discussed, is that there is not necessarily any value attached to the word rational, or irrational. Both kinds of thinking are useful in different situations. The critique that someone's opinion/assertion is irrational does not necessarily mean it’s bad, it just means that the method used to reach it is faulty. Irrational thought is great for other things, like creative acts. There it is a wonderful gift, and might even be essential in creativity.
But knowledge that is reached through irrational methods isn't reliable, generally. It
be right, but isn't necessarily right. That’s just unreliable information; one might say it isn't even information. And because of that, that’s why people who start talking as if it is reliable get critiqued so harshly.
28 Feb 2012, 6:10 pm
