Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge
Discussion started by Zelalem Mekonnen
Ayn Rand claims that "[t]he virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge [...]." This is wrong, mainly because reason can only be used as a method of choosing between knowledge/ideas, not as a source of knowledge.
What do you think is the source of knowledge if not reason?
The source of knowledge is myths. Reason criticizes them and we get myths that are testable (if knowledge about the physical world), hard to vary and make some assertion about reality. Popper highlighted the myth and testable nature of scientific knowledge, and Deutsch highlights hard to vary and explanation/assertion nature of knowledge.
Criticism is a form of knowledge. How does reason have access to criticism if reason is not the source of knowledge?
Religion is a form of knowledge, but it is not reasonable. It holds some truths, but it is not reasonable. Knowledge can come from myths, which are not reason.
This misses the point of the post before it. Knowledge starts as myths and contains myths. Reason makes it hard to vary, thus reasonable to take as true until the myths in that theory itself are corrected.
I pointed out a circularity in #1655. Instead of resolving the circularity, you posted another idea repeating the same circularity. That makes no sense.
Even if I was somehow mistaken about there being a circularity, repeating the same idea doesn’t correct that.
Please read the discussion ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ in its entirety before continuing here.
Dreams can be a source of knowledge. But dreams aren't always reasonable. Sometimes, dreams are lies.
In that statement, I am looking at reason as a mode of criticism. You might get ideas and potentially knowledge from all sources and reason tests weather they are right or not.
And if I understand you right, what you're saying is if an idea isn't from 'reason' than how can we criticize it using reason. But we can and do all the time. Religion is irrational, but we criticize it and take what is good from it and discard the rest.
Say someone said "I had a dream that {insert something true}" or "god told me that {insert something true}," what is the source of knowledge here?
That doesn’t belong here because you didn’t actually comment on my thoughts re circularity (I’m not requesting to do so now). You either did not read ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ or you did not understand it. You need to post ideas in the appropriate place. Discussions on Veritula shouldn’t be treated like linear chats.
Don’t post another idea in this discussion (the one titled ‘Reason Not The Only Source of Knowledge’) until you understand how Veritula works. If you think you understand how it works, post a summary of your understanding as a new top-level idea using the form located at the bottom of ‘How Does Veritula Work?’. I can then criticize your summary to help improve your understanding.
You can also study Edwin’s activity for examples of how to do Veritula well. He’s fairly new to it but learned it quickly.
Don’t let this discourage you. Veritula has a learning curve. It takes some upfront investment but it’s worth it.
Copying from another chat where Dennis and I were discussing Rand's conception of irrationality:
Amaro:
What's an irrational idea to you? I understand anti-rational (immunized against criticism) and rational (subject to criticism). Is irrational just "false" or is there something else to it? Are there true but irrational ideas? I think rational but false ideas must exist, no?
Could the same mistaken idea (belief in god, say) be either rational, anti-rational or irrational depending on how exactly it is instantiated in the mind? Or must any particular idea always fall within one and only one of those categories?
Dennis:
Great questions. You’ll find answers to most if not all of them here: https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html
I disagree with some of it, but if you basically just ignore the small bits about perception and the senses, the rest is still very good
Amaro:
Okay I read it. Not sure I'm clear on my questions after doing so to be honest.
To Rand, it seems that irrationality is tied to a lack of commitment to truth, almost like an internal insincerity.
If I get her right, one could in principle hold a rational belief which is false —a belief in god, say— so long as this belief stems from a sincere effort to explain the world and so long as the believer is ready to jettison his belief if he were to think of some reason why it cannot be true.
So the same mistaken idea could be rational in one person's mind and irrational in another person's mind depending on whether that person is committed to the truth and ready to ditch the idea should they find some reason to do so.
Did I get this right?
Is irrational just "false" or is there something else to it?
There’s more to it.
Are there true but irrational ideas?
It would be irrational to continue to hold true ideas in the face of unaddressed criticism, yes.
I think rational but false ideas must exist, no?
Yes. Mere falsehood does not imply irrationality.
Okay I read it. Not sure I'm clear on my questions after doing so to be honest.
You asked if irrationality was just false or if there was something else to it. Note that the word ‘false’ does not occur on the linked page. Instead, she mentions the destruction of life, dishonesty, lack of integrity, context dropping, mysticism, and more examples of irrationality. These are attitudes toward truth seeking and their effects.
You asked whether rational but false ideas must exist. That is what Rand means by “not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know.” Blindness = being wrong on some issue, refusal to see = refusing to seek or recognize the truth on some issue. To her, blindness and the refusal to see are not the same thing, which answers your question.
If I get her right, one could in principle hold a rational belief which is false —a belief in god, say— so long as this belief stems from a sincere effort to explain the world and so long as the believer is ready to jettison his belief if he were to think of some reason why it cannot be true.
A belief in god is a form of mysticism. Rand writes that rationality “means the rejection of any form of mysticism […].” So a belief in god is not just false, it’s irrational. It’s also implausible that someone could hold on to as blatantly false an idea as the existence of god without some refusal to look into the matter critically.
I agree that a belief in god is mystical, but I disagree that the fact that god doesn't exist must be blatant and that believing in god must necessarily involve some dishonest refusal to look into the matter. Or, perhaps to be more precise: The refusal to look into the matter could be a result of genuine disinterest in the light of more pressing problems, rather than some irrational fear response to changing one's mind on the topic.
Perhaps consider a child growing up on a medieval farm in Europe. His entire social context is certain of the existence of god, the kid would never encounter any criticism of it without creating it himself. Water is wet, fire is hot and the universe was created by sky daddy. He didn't ask for this last "fact", it's just what mom and dad told him. He's young, he doesn't really care, he's much more interested in a thousand other things, so he heard of god once, thought to himself "alright, whatever" and went straight back to wondering about whether the dirt in the yard could possibly make for a tasty meal. Perhaps if this kid was to encounter some argument for why the universe cannot have been created by an omnipotent being, the child would just say "ah alright, now that you say it that way, it does sound a bit silly..." and upon examining the matter critically for a mere second the kid would ditch his belief in god without further ado. The reason why he hasn't done so is because he was occupied with things other than the big questions of the origins of the cosmos, the meaning of life and what not. Is this kid being irrational?
Is this kid being irrational?
Perhaps not. However, I find your example implausible. Let’s look at it more closely. You originally wrote that a belief in god could be rational if two conditions are both met:
- “[The] belief stems from a sincere effort to explain the world and …”
- “… the believer is ready to jettison his belief if he were to think of some reason why it cannot be true.”
As for 1, a sincere effort to explain the world implies a critical attitude, honesty, conscientiousness/thoroughness, which means subjecting candidate ideas to lots of criticism, following up on counter-criticisms (as opposed to running off and doing something else), etc. A child might prioritize playing in the dirt today, but at some point he will ask questions. A sincere effort to explain anything means he’d rather say ‘I don’t know’ than believe something as silly as god.
God as a concept is arbitrary on its face. It cannot survive even very basic criticism. So it cannot possibly stem from a sincere effort to explain the world.
As for 2, kids ask tons of questions and criticize ideas. They’re naturally curious and conscientious in this way. The problem is that parents beat the god idea into their kids (figuratively if not literally) so that the kids don’t question it. So then those kids are not willing to jettison the idea anymore. Which is why the idea sticks around despite not being a sincere effort to explain the world.
Yeah fair. I'll admit, my example is rather contrived. My hope was to show that one could in principle maintain a belief in god in a rational fashion, at least for a time. However, just because it is theoretically possible doesn't mean that it is at all likely. I agree that this isn't what is usually going with believers.
This has to take time into context. At one point, a belief in god was all that we had. We didn't have hard to vary explanations. As such, a person might have a belief in god as the only worldview currently. So it isn't irrational for that person, or people back in the days, to believe in god.
So the same mistaken idea could be rational in one person's mind and irrational in another person's mind depending on whether that person is committed to the truth and ready to ditch the idea should they find some reason to do so.
Did I get this right?
I agree, yeah. I think (ir)rationality has to do with an attitude toward ideas and truth seeking. It’s a property of minds, not ideas. (Though as a shorthand, calling a belief in god irrational is fine, I think, as long as we know that we’re calling the holder of that idea irrational, not literally the idea itself.)
The idea that irrationality is a property of minds rather than individual ideas is interesting, I hadn't considered it.