Here is a relatively quick definition about hyper-rationality from a site that likes to consider itself a knowledge forum (it’s also not religious, if that’s what you are worried about):
This is not necessarily something newly defined FWIW. Postmodernists have been calling out the modernist tendency to hyper-rationality for decades. Esp the tendency for those folks to believe that the views that they have ‘reasoned’ are the only way to think of an issue… solely because they reasoned it out without bias (or so they believe).
The history of the Western world since the Enlightenment has been an increasing respect for evidence in the pursuit of knowledge, and a commensurate decline in ignorant superstition. “A modernist emphasis on hyper-rationality” sounds like special pleading that the same standards of evidence that we demand for all other knowledge should not apply to religious truth claims. It should not be a surprise that such an attitude gets a highly skeptical reception on SDMB. If you claim that “other ways of knowing” are justified, you should certainly expect to have to justify your extraordinary position. Again, my principal point is that it’s ridiculous to portray this as anti-religion “bias” on the part of the majority of SDMB members. It derives from the objective attributes of most forms of religious belief.
Not at all. It means that we should look more towards post-modernist claims that being able to know objective truths on the basis of rational thought is mostly a bunch of bull and the vast majority of ‘so-called’ objective truth rests on a pile of subjective biases, including those that are cultural in nature. One should realize and explore these subjective biases rather than attempt to say I have the objective truth and all others are simply ‘ignorant’. This sort of humbleness in having ‘the truth’ may result in some actual discussion and not having people leave due to condescension based on being told how stupid they are for not being ‘the truth’ which has been objectively rationed out (which, btw, applies both ways).
This would be the same postmodernism that has taken the important and valid notion that some aspects of culture are arbitrary, and gone to the preposterous extreme of claiming that there is no objective reality at all - that, for example, geology and particle physics are arbitrary constructs of the patriarchal culture of science, and that Plate Tectonics and the Standard Model would look completely different if there were more women involved? No thanks, I think I know where the “hyper-” and the “bunch of bull” are in the postmodernist view of the world. My atheism is not attributable to subjective bias, it is not a cultural construct, and I do not have to check my privilege. It’s based simply on the lack of any evidence whatsoever.
It still sounds to me like “hyper-rationalism” is a label like “scientism” to attach to people who point out that your beliefs are unsupported by evidence.
Any comments on the genetically-modified food issues? There, we see the strong science aligned generally with the right, and the lefties opposed. And the subject is debated here respectfully, rather than dismissively.
Aside: is your name a shout-out to the complex function, or Bernhard himself? Or completely unrelated?
I find it interesting that you would treat the extreme as the your basis for analysis for post-modern thought in its entirety (to be fair, one may be able to say similar for my views on modernism). Could be a result of some sort of cultural or societal bias that guides your thinking on this matter?
On the other hand, maybe I should not be surprised, as you considered “sane” Republicans and theists as collateral damage in your crusade against those unenlightened groups.
Certainly the anti-GMO lobby are completely on the wrong side of the science. Do you feel pro-GMO liberals on here soft-pedal the issue because they are arguing largely against other liberals? If so, I think that’s a mistake - the potential health consequences of undermining research on more efficient crops could be just as devastating as the consequences of low vaccination rates.
It’s after Bernhard. My first degree was in math, but I bummed around and wasted my time, so I’m kind of a “failed” mathematician. Still, he’s one of my great intellectual heroes, and I think there a subtle motivation that if I used him as my alias, it would motivate me to get to grips with some of the work he did that I understand poorly - i.e. most of it! - you know, just because it’s embarrassing not to know his work thoroughly if you’re named after him.
You’re assuming that, like a good postmodernist disciple, I would feel immensely ashamed of being tarred with cultural bias. But I’m not a postmodernist. So I feel no shame whatsover in pointing out that my ideas, on their merits, are better than yours.
It’s an interesting topic and one I’ve wondered myself from time to time.
I agree there’s definitely a left-leaning bias here, but it’s a soft one - most of us are on the same page around a number of things (how many posters here genuinely oppose same-sex marriage, for example?). I think the general tone of the place (and insistence people at least try and use proper spelling and grammar) keeps away the angry and inarticulate on both sides of the spectrum.
This might come as a surprise to regular readers of my musings here, but according to The Political Compass, my results are:
Economic Left/Right: -5.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.0
Which puts me politically alongside Gandhi. This is, of course, greatly amusing, since I’m pretty sure Gandhi wasn’t a fan of imperialism or British firearms or many of the other unpopular views I’ve been known to share on the boards. (And yes, I know that’s not how the Political Compass works).
The thing is: Pretty much no-one on these boards (or IRL) would consider me left-leaning (even I consider myself centrist), but both the Political Compass and the Vote Compass run by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (a respected establishment in Australian politics) say the same thing.
So what exactly is “left-leaning”, basically? That’s sort of my point. To me, left-leaning is about basically all the Social Justice Warrior stuff people keep carrying on at me for not agreeing with enough (or loudly enough) about. I’m sure others probably have an economic definition.
And due to the differing nature of politics, what’s “left” or “right” in one place might be “centre” in others.
I do think there’s a tendency amongst left-leaning folks to only endorse whatever they believe the “approved” view is, however.
So tell me which ‘subjective bias’ created computers? Cell phones, the internet, the internal combustion engine, electricity, nuclear power, advances in medicine to name only a few? Now, you can debate the advantages or disadvantages of these things, but you cannot debate that they were derived directly from the scientific method and observable fact. Science is more than just a belief system. It is specifically built to test itself and evolves to fit what is observed in the long run.
Religion is not, never has been, in fact by its very definition cannot be.
What a strange question. You don’t care about the beliefs of those around you, when they can have such a profound impact on your own life and the lives of others in society? Isn’t all of human culture a dialog of ideas?
So tell me, what scientific process decided that murder is wrong? Which science decided that pumping convicted murders full of electricity until they are dead is morally just? Which science decided that bombing Hiroshima with a nuke was so bad that nukes ought not ever be used again while nothing is said of the munitions used to firebomb Dresden?
While science is useful for understanding how things work and how to accomplish certain things, it is morally neutral. The fact that if you take two seperate pieces of urainum that have a total mass of greater than 15 kilograms and slam them together for a short period of time leads to a chain reaction that releases huge amounts of energy is science.
Science is silent on whether or not dropping an atomic bomb on a city is a moral or just thing to do.
Politics is, at its base, a moral concern where subjective bias is king.
What I suspect runs off most conservatives is that on this board many subjective subjects are treated as objectively true and anyone who disagrees with these ‘truths’ are treated like shit.
Take abortion. Science can tell us a lot about fetal development but it is silent on when a fetus turns into a human deserving rights. My personal belief is that it when a fetus can feel pain, but that is purely subjective and I have no real strong feelings on the subject. However, on the 'Dope, those who are anti-abortion are called women haters and all sorts of other things because the underlying assumption is that a fetus isn’t a human until some abitrary length of gestation has been met.
So, science is useful but jn a limited scope. Outside of that scope philosophy and religon are what people generally use to make decisions.
I think you have it right, although I’d note that science and empiricism being more favored by one ideological camp over another is a temporary condition. When Cecil started, things were a lot different.
I’d also add that SDMB is a great board for science, but on politics it doesn’t really fight ignorance any better than any other board. It’s certainly better than the overtly partisan boards like Free Republic and Democratic Underground, but I find that debatepolitics.com is actually better for politics. It’s got tons more diversity in the member base and just as much rigor for proving your arguments.
Not all pro-choice views rely on determining at what point the fetus should be considered human or a person or whatever. Some stances are indifferent to the concept.
