Login  Register

Re: "rational"

Posted by Prof David West on Jan 06, 2014; 5:52pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/11-American-Nations-tp7584250p7584635.html

I sent this message with an attachment - which exceeded the word quota
for a post, so resending without the attachment - Steve may or may not
allow the other one to be posted in the future.


My own opinion is that not all thought is rational - specifically not
all thinking about design is rational.  I am almost done with a book on
"Design Thinking" that is premised on this exact issue - designers think
differently and business and CS/SE types would benefit from learning how
they do what they do and thereby complement their rational thinking with
an equally powerful (in the realm of complexity and wicked problems -
superior) mode of thought.

In the realm of programming, Parnas suggested long ago that there is no
'rational programming process' but that there are benefits in
rationalizing one after the fact.  I don't know if the list accepts
attachments, but I have put Parnas' paper on this email.

Nick - deduction, abduction, induction - like mathematics - are only
useful tools for the simplest of problems - which are, as von Neumann
pointed out, a small subset of reality.

davew



On Sun, Jan 5, 2014, at 09:26 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Good question, John,
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if we could reconstruct artistic work as forms of
> deduction, induction, and abduction. I know of at least one article that
> tries to do that.   But rational reconstruction is like that bubble in
> the
> kingfisher's head that gives the formula for refraction by the surface of
> the water.  Lord knows how it is actually done.  
>
> I guess I have no idea what kinds of procedures one would have to do to
> settle the matter.  I wouldn't trust asking the artist because that would
> almost demand a rationalization.  I would have to watch a painting
> develop.
> Nick
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
> Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Kennison
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 4:49 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "rational"
>
> Concerning the statement:
>
> >> My intuition tells me that all thinking is rational - it's just that most
> of it is weak or founded on truly crazy premises.
>
> I think this is one of the issues to be explored. It seems to work for
> the
> person who believes that every statement in the bible is literally true.
> (And maybe has a further belief ambiguities and apparent contradictions
> can
> be resolved by contacting God through prayer.) My own tendency to believe
> what I see seems to require that I don't have hallucinations --or could
> distinguish them from true visual perceptions.
>
> But what about the thinking done by an artist when creating a work of
> art.
> Is it rational but based on strange axioms, or it is a different type of
> thinking which is non-rational And if the former, how does the artist
> come
> up with the strange hypotheses?
> What about intuition, including the intuition that all thinking is
> rational
> but possibly with crazy hypotheses?
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Friam [[hidden email]] on behalf of Nick Thompson
> [[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 5:02 PM
> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "rational"
>
> This is the kind of discussion that a Newly Minted Peircean, such as
> myself,
> should be all over, but I find myself oddly (thankfully?) reticient.  My
> intuition tells me that all thinking is rational - it's just that most of
> it
> is weak or founded on truly crazy premises. Among valid inferences,
> Peirce
> made a distinction between strong inferences (All ravens are black, this
> bird is a raven, this bird is black) and weak ones such as "this bird is
> a
> raven, this bird is black, all ravens are black" (induction)  and "this
> bird
> is black, all ravens are black, this bird is a raven"(abduction).   But
> he
> regarded all three as valid forms of inference.  In this spirit, I might
> argue that right wing thinking is not irrational, but exceedingly weak.
> But we should beware of falling for the syllogism, "This guy is wrong,
> all
> right-wingers are wrong, this guy is a right winger" which is valid, but
> horribly weak.
>
> Nicholas S. Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
>
> From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Roger
> Critchlow
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 12:20 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] "rational"
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM, glen
> <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
> [ ... ]
> Now, that carries us to how/whether/why humans would use irrational
> inference procedures.  But I think we would _need_ some evidence that
> people
> actually use irrational reasoning procedures.  I think even so-called
> "irrational" things like _emotions_ are, somewhere deep down, rational.
> Those emotions are an evolutionarily selected decision-making ability
> that
> has its own calculus.
>
> Bob Altemeyer's research on right-wing authoritarian (RWA) personalities
> --
> pdf at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ -- finds that high scoring
> RWAs
> suffer from severe cognitive disabilities which essentially render them
> immune to reason.  (Note that "right-wing" here is a technical term
> meaning
> "adherent of the status quo".)
>
> But research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life
> under
> the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do,
> exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double
> standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and--to
> top
> it all off--a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could
> ever
> change their minds with evidence or logic.
>
> There's an article in today's Times,
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/media/banished-for-questioning-th
> e-gospel-of-guns.html, which unintentionally makes the case that the gun
> rights lobby is essentially a coalition of right-wing authoritarians and
> gun
> manufacturers.  They cannot tolerate any discussion of the dogma because
> they are incapable of reasoning on the subject, only able to distinguish
> the
> party line from apostasy so they can attack the enemies.
>
> Just because there is a reason to be a lynch mob doesn't make a lynch mob
> reasonable.  I think you're confounding the rationality of explanation
> with
> the rationality of the explained.
>
> -- rec --
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com