I find the issue of reasoning and rationalizing interesting. In a LTP analysis, we need to try reasoning and exposing all the claims while attempting to uncover the faulty assumptions.
This extends to science, and you mentioned the scientific method that utilizes cause-and-effect reasoning applied to theories. When a theory is developed, it should explain the facts, practical observations, and reality. If it fails to do so, two things can happen. Either the theory is upgraded, or if it fails outright, we should change or replace it.
However, in many cases, as Updegrove said, people prefer to ignore the inconsistencies and create alternative theories rather than challenge the wrong assumptions. An example of this is seen with Covid-19 vaccines, where people chose not to challenge the not-so-well-founded studies during vaccine development.
Another example that I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with is the hysterical behavior surrounding Climate Change. An implicit theory here states that the climate is changing (which is an oxymoron, as it has been changing for millions of years). The focal point is the supposedly "indisputable" connection between Climate Change and CO2 levels, assuming CO2 is the primary factor explaining climate. This assertion suggests that Climate Change is anthropogenic truth, caused by human emissions, and that our behavior should revolve around achieving net-zero variations or no CO2 emissions. This, in turn, would lower Earth's temperature (effect) and save the planet (the "glorious" effect).
The truth is, nobody really knows because we're dealing with a complex system of systems (Climate) with many variables and considerable complexity. Is it reasonable for me, or rather for a scientist, to be ostracized by their community and labeled a denier if they detect inconsistencies in this reasoning?
Climate Change is indeed an illustrative example of the reasoning and rationalization debate you mentioned. Its significance lies in the impact it has on our lives, not the climate itself, but the policies aimed at achieving Net Zero, even though many scientists question the necessity of Net Zero for any purpose!"
In the background to the issues discussed here are worldviews. As the West drifts from modern ideologies (derived from the Enlightenment) towards the postmodern worldview, this affects many things. The Enlightenment worldview was largely a reaction to the Judeo-Christian worldview and though it rejected the Judeo-Christian sacred text, the Bible, it still accepted the Judeo-Christian concept of Truth, yet placing this concept in Science (note the capital S...). Postmodernism is also a (more extreme) reaction to the Judeo-Christian worldview, rejecting even the Enlightenment concept of Truth. As a result, Science as Truth goes out the window... All that is left is the individual’s subjective feelings. This is a huge factor in the transgender debate where powerful social institutions back the concept that “feelings” trump biological facts. Just a few generations ago, such assertions could have landed you in a rubber-padded room... Richard Dawkins is a rare holdout to Modern/ Enlightenment thinking in his rejection of transgender ideology. While I don’t accept his worldview, I admire his courage to go against the current. Somewhat like that 1930’s era photo of a Nazi rally with everyone in the crowd raising their arm in the Nazi salute, except one man...
All of which takes us back to the temptation to rationalization. As you point out Thorsteinn, in ordinary life such temptations are unavoidable, but can be dealt with if individuals or social institutions care about Truth. One manifestation of this intellectual duty in science is caring about FACTS. As Postmodernism grows in influence, caring about facts becomes a secondary (or tertiary) issue... A number of years ago, reflecting on the possible repercussions of postmodern thought the British anthropologist Ernest Gellner observed:
"Quite probably, the break-through to the scientific miracle was only possible because some men were passionately, sincerely, whole-heartedly concerned with Truth. Will such passion survive the habit of granting oneself different kinds of truth according to the day of the week ?"
p. 93 in GELLNER, Ernst (1992/1999) Postmodernism, Reason and Religion.
If reason and logic are no more than arbitrary cultural conventions (as postmoderns assert), such a statement brings into question the whole concept of the university, a haven for universal knowledge, which is, ironically, typically postmoderns favourite refuge.
I find the issue of reasoning and rationalizing interesting. In a LTP analysis, we need to try reasoning and exposing all the claims while attempting to uncover the faulty assumptions.
This extends to science, and you mentioned the scientific method that utilizes cause-and-effect reasoning applied to theories. When a theory is developed, it should explain the facts, practical observations, and reality. If it fails to do so, two things can happen. Either the theory is upgraded, or if it fails outright, we should change or replace it.
However, in many cases, as Updegrove said, people prefer to ignore the inconsistencies and create alternative theories rather than challenge the wrong assumptions. An example of this is seen with Covid-19 vaccines, where people chose not to challenge the not-so-well-founded studies during vaccine development.
Another example that I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with is the hysterical behavior surrounding Climate Change. An implicit theory here states that the climate is changing (which is an oxymoron, as it has been changing for millions of years). The focal point is the supposedly "indisputable" connection between Climate Change and CO2 levels, assuming CO2 is the primary factor explaining climate. This assertion suggests that Climate Change is anthropogenic truth, caused by human emissions, and that our behavior should revolve around achieving net-zero variations or no CO2 emissions. This, in turn, would lower Earth's temperature (effect) and save the planet (the "glorious" effect).
The truth is, nobody really knows because we're dealing with a complex system of systems (Climate) with many variables and considerable complexity. Is it reasonable for me, or rather for a scientist, to be ostracized by their community and labeled a denier if they detect inconsistencies in this reasoning?
Climate Change is indeed an illustrative example of the reasoning and rationalization debate you mentioned. Its significance lies in the impact it has on our lives, not the climate itself, but the policies aimed at achieving Net Zero, even though many scientists question the necessity of Net Zero for any purpose!"
In the background to the issues discussed here are worldviews. As the West drifts from modern ideologies (derived from the Enlightenment) towards the postmodern worldview, this affects many things. The Enlightenment worldview was largely a reaction to the Judeo-Christian worldview and though it rejected the Judeo-Christian sacred text, the Bible, it still accepted the Judeo-Christian concept of Truth, yet placing this concept in Science (note the capital S...). Postmodernism is also a (more extreme) reaction to the Judeo-Christian worldview, rejecting even the Enlightenment concept of Truth. As a result, Science as Truth goes out the window... All that is left is the individual’s subjective feelings. This is a huge factor in the transgender debate where powerful social institutions back the concept that “feelings” trump biological facts. Just a few generations ago, such assertions could have landed you in a rubber-padded room... Richard Dawkins is a rare holdout to Modern/ Enlightenment thinking in his rejection of transgender ideology. While I don’t accept his worldview, I admire his courage to go against the current. Somewhat like that 1930’s era photo of a Nazi rally with everyone in the crowd raising their arm in the Nazi salute, except one man...
All of which takes us back to the temptation to rationalization. As you point out Thorsteinn, in ordinary life such temptations are unavoidable, but can be dealt with if individuals or social institutions care about Truth. One manifestation of this intellectual duty in science is caring about FACTS. As Postmodernism grows in influence, caring about facts becomes a secondary (or tertiary) issue... A number of years ago, reflecting on the possible repercussions of postmodern thought the British anthropologist Ernest Gellner observed:
"Quite probably, the break-through to the scientific miracle was only possible because some men were passionately, sincerely, whole-heartedly concerned with Truth. Will such passion survive the habit of granting oneself different kinds of truth according to the day of the week ?"
p. 93 in GELLNER, Ernst (1992/1999) Postmodernism, Reason and Religion.
If reason and logic are no more than arbitrary cultural conventions (as postmoderns assert), such a statement brings into question the whole concept of the university, a haven for universal knowledge, which is, ironically, typically postmoderns favourite refuge.