Prescott: Is Reality Hostile or Nurturing Toward Us?

I can't help but see that nature gets better at nurturing as it evolves. Organisms, whatever they are, become better adapted to their environment and that environment itself is maintained in exquisite balance (until know-it-all humans arrive and upset that balance). That idea that such exquisite choreography could be the result of accident or chance seems profoundly naive to me: teleology is obvious.

I guess it's just curious to me, Jim, that you endorse the notion that materialism is self-defeating in that its own rational basis is implicitly undercut by its premise that thought evolved for the purpose of survival not rationality, yet you don't seem to recognise that a similar claim of self-defeat could be made against your (self-admitted to be a) belief that "people [do not] choose beliefs based on logic".

How is that self defeating? I am not claiming my belief is based on a logical argument so I am not undermining it by saying logic is not reliable. I did not provide any logical proof or provide any evidence. I gave quotes that explained the principle.

Logic is not the only way of apprehending the truth or making a decision. When you look for your socks and know they are under your bed, you are not using logic, you are using your eyesight. When you decide to hug a loved one, do you do a cost benefit analysis? I think you hug them because you feel an emotion that motivates you. Is it a wrong decision because it is based on an emotion?

If people make decisions based on factors other than reason - an argument might convince them, but the logic of the argument is not what convinces them. It is some other factor hidden in the words that influences their thinking.

Pricing merchandise at $9.99 instead of $10 results in higher sales. Everyone knows it is only $.01 difference. Everyone knows it is a sales gimmick. But it works.

Look at the techniques of persuasion - many of them are hidden in what seem to be logical arguments. That is why Adams says rationality is an illusion, we think we are convinced by logic but it is really other factors that convince us. And we do it to ourselves (rationalize) as much as other people do it to (persuade) us.

And I don't post on internet forums because I think I am going to convince people with my logic. I learned long ago it doesn't work. I post on internet forums to share information with people who may find it interesting, or who may be convinced because of factors other than logic, to provide information to help people justify their preexisting beliefs, and to help me work out my thinking and subsequently put it on my blog or web site.

[Laird]

How is that self defeating? I am not claiming my belief is based on a logical argument so I am not undermining it by saying logic is not reliable. I did not provide any logical proof or provide any evidence. I gave quotes that explained the principle.

Strangely enough, all of that sounds very much like an attempt at logical or rational justification. ;-)

Jim, I'm not at all averse to the idea that some of our beliefs are not chosen entirely on the basis of "logic". I think that the way that we form our beliefs is complex, taking into account probabilities, consistency with prior beliefs, and consistency with what intuitively "makes sense" to us - and that some hypothetical "Spock-like" "purely rational" formation of beliefs is pretty unrealistic if not impossible and unreasonable.

On the other hand, your generalisation seems to imply that people (generally) do not use reason in forming their beliefs, which, it seems to me, is not at all the case (as a generalisation). I think that often enough, whilst it might take some time to process, people can be convinced to change their beliefs by logic. It takes time to process because of what I mentioned above: we have a whole set of prior beliefs and (often probabilistic) intuitions which need to be reassessed in the light of new arguments. Granted, some of us, some of the time, don't have the patience to reassess our beliefs, and sometimes the barrier to reassessment is too high, but some of us, some of the time, when we encounter a compelling logical argument or set of evidence, do reassess that which needs reassessment.

I also continue to think that there is a strong parallel with your argument for the self-defeat of materialism. Here's the parallel:

"If materialism is true, then it is not rationally supportable by humans because it entails that human brains evolved for survival not rationality".

versus

"If Jim's and Scott's claim about belief formation is true, then it is not rationally supportable by humans because it entails that humans form beliefs (including about such claims) for reasons other than rationality".

You might (or might not) have picked up by now that I'm not sold on such arguments...

When I say the materialists are undermining their arguments when they attack human reason, I am using their own arguments against them. If their logic is reliable, as they claim, their argument fails. 

But if someone says I have undermined my argument by attacking human reason, I don't care because I do not claim logic is reliable in the first place. I could still be right, I am not depending on logic to prove my point.

And I also don't care if I have undermined my argument because people will believe me or not, but my "logic" will have nothing to do with the matter.

[Laird]

But if someone says I have undermined my argument by attacking human reason, I don't care because I do not claim logic is reliable in the first place. I could still be right, I am not depending on logic to prove my point.

Heh -  again, you use logic to defend your lack of need to use logic...

(You might have missed my post above where I made the same point because you posted shortly afterwards)

[Laird]

P.S. Re your point that we can be manipulated in various ways by e.g. marketing (99 cents versus a dollar): yes, that's fair enough.

people can be convinced to change their beliefs by logic

This is probably the least effective route. Otherwise all of the sceptics would have jumped ship by now.

There was a study (and probably more that one) which involved a group of students voting to express their views on a particular issue. Next, there was a kind of role-playing where the group were arbitrarily allocated a task of writing or speaking, to argue the case for just one side of the issue. At the end of this task, the students voted again to express their position. The was a shift in the voting, so that those who had spoken in favour of a particular view (even though arbitrarily allocated) were more likely to then vote in support of that view.

Role-playing it seems is more powerful than logic.

[Laird]

This is probably the least effective route.

OK, but then accept the implications: this applies to your beliefs too, including the belief that "role-playing [...] is more powerful than logic". I'm suggesting instead that beliefs are formed through a complex process that includes logic whilst also being modulated by all sorts of other factors, including prior beliefs, probabilistic assessments, and intuitions as to what makes most sense. And yes, this process can be hijacked at least in part by subliminal techniques such as those of marketing.