Comments on: never an Englishman http://www.dansanders.net/2009/12/26/never-an-englishman/ building a bias for action Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:57:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: dan http://www.dansanders.net/2009/12/26/never-an-englishman/comment-page-1/#comment-22213 dan Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:06:02 +0000 http://www.dansanders.net/?p=315#comment-22213 And I will admit that my last paragraph is inflammatory, but that is a failing I will afford myself if, in the area of critical thinking, I seem to need educatin'. And I will admit that my last paragraph is inflammatory, but that is a failing I will afford myself if, in the area of critical thinking, I seem to need educatin’.

]]> By: dan http://www.dansanders.net/2009/12/26/never-an-englishman/comment-page-1/#comment-22212 dan Sun, 27 Dec 2009 05:00:44 +0000 http://www.dansanders.net/?p=315#comment-22212 First paragraph: I disagree. Faith and reason often exist in the same mind; that's obvious. What I should have made clearer is that they do not - and cannot - share equal status on the topic of religion. Plenty of religious scientists out there. But as long as they don't "have faith" that two plus two equals four, I don't really care about it. I find religious scientists odd, I must say, but that's my opinion. And if there is a third option, then there is still no overlap; you've merely hypothesized a trinary state. As for me, I had faith *in a god*, and it was contrary to reason - that there is no proof of one. I existed in two mental states simultaneously. That's not a sliding scale, that's dysfunction (at least for me it was). And you write as if *I* invented the difference between faith and reason. "“compelling reason,” which suggests an emotional response" - How? Your definition fails to compel, in either sense (and is ironically binary). If you can explain to me the logical reasons for believing in (to paraphrase Flew) an "invisible, intangible, flying god whose creation looks exactly like there isn’t a god," then by all means, proceed, and perhaps I will better understand the gray area to whose defense you are marshaling. First paragraph: I disagree. Faith and reason often exist in the same mind; that’s obvious. What I should have made clearer is that they do not – and cannot – share equal status on the topic of religion. Plenty of religious scientists out there. But as long as they don’t “have faith” that two plus two equals four, I don’t really care about it. I find religious scientists odd, I must say, but that’s my opinion. And if there is a third option, then there is still no overlap; you’ve merely hypothesized a trinary state. As for me, I had faith *in a god*, and it was contrary to reason – that there is no proof of one. I existed in two mental states simultaneously. That’s not a sliding scale, that’s dysfunction (at least for me it was). And you write as if *I* invented the difference between faith and reason.

““compelling reason,” which suggests an emotional response” – How? Your definition fails to compel, in either sense (and is ironically binary).

If you can explain to me the logical reasons for believing in (to paraphrase Flew) an “invisible, intangible, flying god whose creation looks exactly like there isn’t a god,” then by all means, proceed, and perhaps I will better understand the gray area to whose defense you are marshaling.

]]> By: DG Seaton http://www.dansanders.net/2009/12/26/never-an-englishman/comment-page-1/#comment-22206 DG Seaton Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:17:43 +0000 http://www.dansanders.net/?p=315#comment-22206 You know that I am fond of the study of logic and its resultant dividend of enhanced critical thinking. I applaud the wonderful exercise to sift through the various (and numerous) logical fallacies that exist. But I challenge you to go further and exercise critical thinking in your your own commentary. While faith and reason are binaries, prima facie, it's a false dichotomy to suggest that these are the only two options, that there is "no sliding scale." You make that dichotomous statement but then flirt with the reality that acknowledges both opposites can exist in the same mind, which is actually a *third* option. You yourself existed in this mutual overlap. Purportedly you still remain there, willing to believe again if there is "compelling reason," which suggests an emotional response, not a rational one. Since emotions can be "compelled," and facts/reason cannot. Critical thinking is a hard-to-grasp but highly effective tool. It's like a broad spectrum pesticide, working equally well on not just one topic or problem but many. It's fed by curiosity about a host of subjects, not just one or two. It is also reflective. Discourse about the topic of fallacies is rooted in reasoning, yes; but it should also take assumptions and biases to task, and that's an area in which we all can use exercise and practice. As a universal tool, reason should be used in large questions and small, personal and public. When we find flaws in it, they should be tweaked, and understanding should be increased. Binary thinking is a common fallacious mindset, and I've seen you use it in other arguments (e.g., the American/Christians and Iranian/Sharia most recently). Either/or thinking is dangerous; it leads to false conclusions when one sees only on/off, black/white, true/false. It's the ambiguous that bedevils you, I suspect. Sometimes there *is* no right or wrong answer. Or maybe discomfort with the act of questioning is the root of your fondness for the dichotomous mindset? To tick off the fallacious without passing your own judgments and conclusions through that same filter of fallacies will not yield critical thinking. It will only be strenuous or protracted thinking about a topic. Real intellectual discipline operates hand-in-hand with deep curiosity and unwillingness to settle for just one perspective. Are you up for that? You know that I am fond of the study of logic and its resultant dividend of enhanced critical thinking. I applaud the wonderful exercise to sift through the various (and numerous) logical fallacies that exist. But I challenge you to go further and exercise critical thinking in your your own commentary. While faith and reason are binaries, prima facie, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that these are the only two options, that there is “no sliding scale.” You make that dichotomous statement but then flirt with the reality that acknowledges both opposites can exist in the same mind, which is actually a *third* option. You yourself existed in this mutual overlap. Purportedly you still remain there, willing to believe again if there is “compelling reason,” which suggests an emotional response, not a rational one. Since emotions can be “compelled,” and facts/reason cannot.

Critical thinking is a hard-to-grasp but highly effective tool. It’s like a broad spectrum pesticide, working equally well on not just one topic or problem but many. It’s fed by curiosity about a host of subjects, not just one or two. It is also reflective. Discourse about the topic of fallacies is rooted in reasoning, yes; but it should also take assumptions and biases to task, and that’s an area in which we all can use exercise and practice.

As a universal tool, reason should be used in large questions and small, personal and public. When we find flaws in it, they should be tweaked, and understanding should be increased. Binary thinking is a common fallacious mindset, and I’ve seen you use it in other arguments (e.g., the American/Christians and Iranian/Sharia most recently). Either/or thinking is dangerous; it leads to false conclusions when one sees only on/off, black/white, true/false. It’s the ambiguous that bedevils you, I suspect. Sometimes there *is* no right or wrong answer. Or maybe discomfort with the act of questioning is the root of your fondness for the dichotomous mindset?

To tick off the fallacious without passing your own judgments and conclusions through that same filter of fallacies will not yield
critical thinking. It will only be strenuous or protracted thinking about a topic. Real intellectual discipline operates hand-in-hand with deep curiosity and unwillingness to settle for just one perspective. Are you up for that?

]]>