The Fundamental Flaws of Modern Rationality

Rationality and scientific thought. The most popular religion in the modern Western world- the most fervently defended, the most universally accepted, and the most fundamentally flawed. Rationality can be accurately summed up as dogmatic naturalism, something that attempts to apply human perceptual standards to the universe at large, and attempts to explain our existence through extrapolation of observable telluric phenomena. The first hint of the hypocrisy that plagues this religion is that it tries to explain the origin of the universe through a purely theoretical approach (the big bang, black holes, expanding universe etc.), but then claims to be a bulwark of empiricism and testable hypotheses. Modern “scientists” are the priests of modernity and rational thought, Dawkins is their pope, and peer-reviewed studies are their gospel.

There is a distinct trend of anthropocentrism among the more ignorant and simple-minded adherents to rationalism, believing "humanity" is somehow the pinnacle of existence, the human mind a sacred entity. This is also the basis of secular humanism, the elevation of “humanity” to the point that it occupies a spiritual, abstract significance to the humanist. There is also a marked trend of quantity and matter as opposed to metaphysical quality and virtue. Everything is relativised to fit human perceptions. To say something has intrinsic value would be tantamount to a heretical utterance, because supposedly the only valid truths are those that relate to matter and corporeal existence. We are seeing the shift back to temporalism and the worship of matter as opposed to the veneration of metaphysical, transcendent virtue. Our elevation of all things material and “human” is remarkably similar to the primitive animistic anthropomorphism of our early ancestors. Concepts wholly contrived by human perception are somehow "concrete" and undeniably real. Time, for example. Time is a system we've devised to measure material degradation and solar phases, but it has no absolute basis in the physical world. Can you show me proof that there are twenty-four hours in a day, can you prove that things come into being and then cease to exist in a linear fashion? Neither is mathematics anything but a theoretical system of quantification and measurement, based on ascribed values and the arbitrary division and reunification of those values. There is no physical basis for mathematics, yet it is universally accepted. It's quite possible that early mathematical philosophers could have contrived an entirely different system of measurement, which could have fundamentally changed the way we view the world today. To reiterate, rationalism is nothing more than elevation of human perceptual awareness. In the same vein, there is no way to disprove the assertion that we currently exist inside a black hole, because the concept is entirely theoretical (no different than religious philosophy). Science and religion both arise from the desire to understand our place in the universe, however, science has simply become the most universally accepted dogma.

It's even visible in the language we use today. Highly analytical, specially honed for the categorization and description of earthly phenomena. And yet there are ideas and concepts that cannot be expressed in modern language because they are alien to our perception. However, that doesn't mean that these things don't exist. Conversely, things that we CAN describe don't have to exist simply by virtue of their expression.

That's the inherent hypocrisy in all forms of modern rationalism, to act as if subjective, perceptual, abstract concepts are "real" simply because scientists (priests of relativism) have an official piece of paper that says so..... and then they ask a theist to prove the existence of God. Sheer hypocrisy, and an inherently flawed mode of thought. 

Are you trying to say that science is plagued with misperceptions just like everything else? You went about it the long way I see.

Our language is overcomplicated, with each science having their own and the language of the sciences needs special knowledge to interpret right. The complicated language is there for intimidation some times.

originally posted by: Connell

It's even visible in the language we use today. Highly analytical, specially honed for the categorization and description of earthly phenomena. And yet there are ideas and concepts that cannot be expressed in modern language because they are alien to our perception. However, that doesn't mean that these things don't exist. Conversely, things that we CAN describe don't have to exist simply by virtue of their expression.

Ineffable, subjective experiences--un-quantifiable by definition--are rejected by modern rationalism (positivism) as sources of knowledge. Scientists will admit their focus is narrow, however they will never admit that this narrow focus impedes their own search for truth.

Welcome to ATS. I hope you have thick skin.

Just so others understand what all those isms actually mean I will post the definitions to those and a few other things you may have taken some liberties with.

rationality

1.the state or quality of being rational.
2.the possession of reason.
3.agreeableness to reason; reasonableness.
4.the exercise of reason.
5.a reasonable view, practice, etc.

naturalism

noun
1.Literature.
a manner or technique of treating subject matter that presents, through volume of detail, a deterministic view of human life and actions.
a deterministic theory of writing in which it is held that a writer should adopt an objective view toward the material written about, be free of preconceived ideas as to form and content, and represent with clinical accuracy and frankness the details of life.
Compare realism (def 4b).
a representation of natural appearances or natural patterns of speech, manner, etc., in a work of fiction.
the depiction of the physical environment, especially landscape or the rural environment.

2.(in a work of art) treatment of forms, colors, space, etc., as they appear or might appear in nature.
Compare idealism (def 4), realism (def 3a).

3.action arising from or based on natural instincts and desires alone.

4.Philosophy.
the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

5.Theology.
the doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of natural processes and not from revelation.
the doctrine that natural religion is sufficient for salvation.

6.adherence or attachment to what is natural.

RATIONALISM

1: reliance on reason as the basis for establishment of religious truth
2a : a theory that reason is in itself a source of knowledge superior to and independent of sense perceptions
b : a view that reason and experience rather than the nonrational are the fundamental criteria in the solution of problems
3: functionalism 2

anthropocentrism

noun
anthropocentrism - an inclination to evaluate reality exclusively in terms of human values
1.an anthropocentric theory or view.

an·thro·po·cen·tric (ăn′thrə-pə-sĕn′trĭk)
adj.
1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.

HUMANISM

1
a : devotion to the humanities : literary culture
b : the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance
2: humanitarianism
3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

temporalism
the philosophical doctrine that emphasizes the ultimate reality of time instead of the reduction of time to a manifestation of the eternal. — temporalist, n. — temporalistic, adj.

Animistic

n.
1. The belief in the existence of individual spirits that inhabit natural objects and phenomena.
2. The belief in the existence of spiritual beings that are separable or separate from bodies.
3. The hypothesis holding that an immaterial force animates the universe.

anthropomorphism

: an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics : humanization

originally posted by: rickymouse
Are you trying to say that science is plagued with misperceptions just like everything else? You went about it the long way I see.

Our language is overcomplicated, with each science having their own and the language of the sciences needs special knowledge to interpret right. The complicated language is there for intimidation some times.

Not quite, in laymen's terms what I'm trying to say is that the mistake of modern science is to assume that human perception is an absolute. It's not, it's subject to and skewed by our flawed biology. It's possible that our entire conception of the universe is akin to looking through at an oscilloscope, and our entire notion of "life" and "existence" is completely wrong. We would have no way to know.

The scientific explanation of our universe is no more concrete than any religious explanation, both are theoretical. Why one is assumed to be true just because it has the "science" label is beyond me.

Either way, we lack the capability to see the whole picture, to see all aspects of what is really one singularity. But that is a different subject entirely.

a reply to: Connell

I agree and disagree. I value personal experiences and i enioy some mind-travelling, but look at all those "reality is a simulation/illusion" people: They delude themselfes, because they gave up their set of values to counter-check their "findings", for a theory provable by exactly nothing.
And this

Neither is mathematics anything but a theoretical system of quantification and measurement, based on ascribed values and the arbitrary division and reunification of those values. There is no physical basis for mathematics, yet it is universally accepted. It's quite possible that early mathematical philosophers could have contrived an entirely different system of measurement, which could have fundamentally changed the way we view the world today.

is wrong. Maths is the language natural phenomena, or physics talk to us. The beauty in maths is: when it is wrong it doesn't work. Wish we would have something so clear and clean for our daily communications as well. Nobody could have "invented" it differently, because it originates in the attempt to describe nature.
Earth has about twelve hours in daylight and 12 hours nighttime, depending on your standingpoint and approximity to the aequator. If you would have called it 580 Connells would still describe the same thing, just more complicated.
Reality exists and it is important to understand how and why, because we would have never builded bridges, houses, cars, etc.
Your mind is entirely your business and to say "we let it get swallowed from rationalism" is just not true, you are free to explore more so than ever before. Nobody will stone you as heretic, or burn you as sourcerer just because you like to imagine spooky things. That's a big step towards individual freedom. With thanks to rationalism.
So enjoy your subjective theory:

Either way, we lack the capability to see the whole picture, to see all aspects of what is really one singularity. But that is a different subject entirely.

Because i don't believe in singularity, but won't burn you. The pretty in science is, as long as it is not proven or unproven, the cat is dead and alive at the same time. That's just maybe to complicated to grasp for someone thinking there is only one thing in the entire universe.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Connell

It's even visible in the language we use today. Highly analytical, specially honed for the categorization and description of earthly phenomena. And yet there are ideas and concepts that cannot be expressed in modern language because they are alien to our perception. However, that doesn't mean that these things don't exist. Conversely, things that we CAN describe don't have to exist simply by virtue of their expression.

Ineffable, subjective experiences--un-quantifiable by definition--are rejected by modern rationalism (positivism) as sources of knowledge. Scientists will admit their focus is narrow, however they will never admit that this narrow focus impedes their own search for truth.

Welcome to ATS. I hope you have thick skin.

Positivism is possibly one of the most useless and idiotic concepts ever thought up- attempting to discredit traditional philosophy by positing that everything can be proven if it's "quantifiable", which again brings us back to the point that our methods of "quantification" are subjective and flawed. By saying that everything can be proven, one is really saying that nothing can be proven, and that nothing exists in BOTH a material and metaphysical sense. Just another form of modernist extremism.

Pessimistic, retarded concepts like positivism are just another red flag heralding our decline as a species.

Anyway, why should I need a thick skin?

I will define one more ism for everyone since that is evidently what the OP is geared towards.

solipsism
noun so·lip·sism ˈsō-ləp-ˌsi-zəm, ˈsä-

Full Definition

: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism

It really is the only way to defend beliefs not concordant with reality is to challenge reality itself. It is an attack on epistemology which is basically like saying god can't be real unless reality isn't.

epistemology
noun epis·te·mol·o·gy
Definition

: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Connell

I agree and disagree. I value personal experiences and i enioy some mind-travelling, but look at all those "reality is a simulation/illusion" people: They delude themselfes, because they gave up their set of values to counter-check their "findings", for a theory provable by exactly nothing.
And this

Neither is mathematics anything but a theoretical system of quantification and measurement, based on ascribed values and the arbitrary division and reunification of those values. There is no physical basis for mathematics, yet it is universally accepted. It's quite possible that early mathematical philosophers could have contrived an entirely different system of measurement, which could have fundamentally changed the way we view the world today.

is wrong. Maths is the language natural phenomena, or physics talk to us. The beauty in maths is: when it is wrong it doesn't work. Wish we would have something so clear and clean for our daily communications as well. Nobody could have "invented" it differently, because it originates in the attempt to describe nature.
Earth has about twelve hours in daylight and 12 hours nighttime, depending on your standingpoint and approximity to the aequator. If you would have called it 580 Connells would still describe the same thing, just more complicated.
Reality exists and it is important to understand how and why, because we would have never builded bridges, houses, cars, etc.
Your mind is entirely your business and to say "we let it get swallowed from rationalism" is just not true, you are free to explore more so than ever before. Nobody will stone you as heretic, or burn you as sourcerer just because you like to imagine spooky things. That's a big step towards individual freedom. With thanks to rationalism.
So enjoy your subjective theory:

Either way, we lack the capability to see the whole picture, to see all aspects of what is really one singularity. But that is a different subject entirely.

Because i don't believe in singularity, but won't burn you. The pretty in science is, as long as it is not proven or unproven, the cat is dead and alive at the same time. That's just maybe to complicated to grasp for someone thinking there is only one thing in the entire universe.

Possibly it's "too complicated for me to grasp", or possibly, it's too complicated for someone who has a poor command of the English language to grasp. But I won't hold that against you.

I accept the fact the mathematical principles would still apply with or without our knowledge of it, nobody is arguing that. But unfortunately you are incorrect, Math isn't always right. The Pythagorean theorem for example only works in a 3-dimensional universe, so you can't say it is universal. Math is symbolic, just like language, and we often try to explain the infinite through finite equations, which is essentially what symbolism and all expression is.

Also, you seem to be making a fair few assumptions about me. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a self-professed rationalist likes to assume things.

originally posted by: Connell

Anyway, why should I need a thick skin?

Because with a philosophy such as yours, you'll never get past page one of your threads without someone criticizing you because they don't like the words you're using.



Unless you happen to be highly skilled at semantic pissing contests. Then you've got no worries...

a reply to: Connell

Oh dear. Sure than define your 4th dimension, please? Because as far as I am concerned you sound more fit to discuss pixies and fairies.
English is not my first language and my shaking hands can barely hold my morning coffee, so...
And relativism is actually exactly that train of thought you are denying exists, but then fall back on to when i challenge your wrong OP: the truth, or reality are always just an approximation, best described with universally understandable symbols=>maths.
Like i said, I agree and disagree. But that is because you are obviously confused.
We left finite equations the latest when Einstein gave us Relativity.

originally posted by: Connell
Rationality and scientific thought. The most popular religion in the modern Western world- the most fervently defended, the most universally accepted, and the most fundamentally flawed.

You were doing pretty good until the "most fundamentally flawed" part. Science, out of all various disciplines humanity uses to explain and interact with the world around us is not the most flawed. It is certainly the most practical and useful in terms of application and reliability. It's not 100% correct and isn't complete by any means but thus far it's the best method we have.

But out of curiosity what method would you suggest if not science???

Science and religion both arise from the desire to understand our place in the universe, however, science has simply become the most universally accepted dogma.

That is because every other approach we've tried has failed far more than science.

And yet there are ideas and concepts that cannot be expressed in modern language because they are alien to our perception.

Science doesn't decide the limits of our language so if our language is the problem take it up with the linguists.

and then they ask a theist to prove the existence of God. Sheer hypocrisy, and an inherently flawed mode of thought. 

It's not the Scientists who are asking the theists for proof of God's existence. Not the reputable ones anyway. If those are the questions you're looking for then I suggest you somewhere other than science at least for now.

Science doesn't claim to have all the answers and admits because of it's methods there very well may be some questions that science can't answer. It's also always open for correction and decides "what is" based on repeatable and testable methods that anyone can verify for themselves. It's results are everywhere around us and working as predicted as proof of concept.

If that isn't good enough for you then you must have a better more functional and complete method or process. If you don't then you're just complaining about something which is still better than anything you can provide as a replacement and I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Connell

Oh dear. Sure than define your 4th dimension, please? Because as far as I am concerned you sound more fit to discuss pixies and fairies.
English is not my first language and my shaking hands can barely hold my morning coffee, so...
And relativism is actually exactly that train of thought you are denying exists, but then fall back on to when i challenge your wrong OP: the truth, or reality are always just an approximation, best described with universally understandable symbols=>maths.
Like i said, I agree and disagree. But that is because you are obviously confused.
We left finite equations the latest when Einstein gave us Relativity.

Sure than define for me your Euclidean space time, please? Because as far as I am concerned you sound more fit to discuss barbie dolls and painting your nails.
Gibberish is not my first language and my hands are shaking after a nice wank, so.....
And rationalism is exactly that train of thought you claim exists, but then you fall back on intangible theory when I challenge your wrong posts: the truth, or reality exists, but our less-than-perfect quantification of it paints a poor picture=> my philosophy.
Like I said, I agree and disagree. But that is because you are obviously out of your element and butthurt at my post.
We left finite equations when the dump I just took started accelerating through time out of my arse cheeks at a different rate than I.

1. Nobody is winning- not the scientists, not the religious. No matter who you ask, they'll tell you the other side runs the world.

2. Math is real. The whole point of math is that it works out in every time and place and medium we've ever encountered- that's why nobody ever eats their last fish and then still has fish left, regardless of what certain books might claim.

3. Religion and science are both ultimately based on human experience. It doesn't actually matter whether you are looking at a burning bush or a three beam balance. You observe and you make what assumptions you deem justified, form a theory, put it into practice, and see if it works.

Hmm, burning bushes usually vanish into a pile of ash, this one is calling me by name and telling me what to do- either I'm in a very bad mental condition or I am receiving a message from an entity that can do things i thought were impossible- i will do what the bush says, and if it works out badly, that means i'm in very bad mental condition and i will stop, but if it works out well then I'll try to make friends with this mystery entity.

There you have it- the scientific method in action at the foundation of religion.
Religion later returned the favor when Rene Descartes dreamed that an angel told him "the conquest of nature is achieved through measure and number".

a reply to: Connell

Every point in three-dimensional Euclidean space is determined by three coordinates.

So you suggest you just add time and it is a 4th dimension? Well then define time, ol'smart guy.
Or maybe to make it more interesting:
We all know time is a product of rotation, speed and X, with something missing in the occasion, you found it?

I'll get back to you all tomorrow, right now I've got a few things need takin care of, gonna add a few more uppity sloots to my harem.

Peeple, I know you'll be waiting eagerly for my return, but you must be patient.

a reply to: Connell

A little late, but welcome to ATS.

Your basic premise was exploded in the thirteenth century by the friar-philosopher Roger Bacon, who pointed out that the universe has a metrical frame.

Peeple explained it well. There's really nothing else to add, except that, when your point that our perceptions could be no more reflective of fundamental reality than an oscilloscope trace, you neglect to consider that an oscilloscope trace is a very accurate reflection of that aspect of fundamental reality it is designed to reflect — one may equally well say, 'to manifest'.

a reply to: Connell

I can see where you're coming from, however while science seeks to understand things through empirical and calculable measurement, the basis of theism is to venerate something more powerful than ourselves in the hopes that it will make everything ok.

To say that science is an absurd and Hippocratic ideology would be denying all the advancements that the human race has made since we could consciencely percieve the world around us.

When it comes to theism there is no capable way in our present moment in existence to effectively support or denounce the exitence of beings such as angels, demons, gods, ect. But as you said that doesn't mean that they don't exis. we just have no way of looking for the, and even if we did, in many religions, such as christianity, members are even discouraged from the idea of a possible way of "understanding" God.

In my honest opinion tho the idea i detering a flock of faithful from even attempting to understand something that is basically in charge of you. It seems like an attemp to hold people in a state of ignoranc.

Now don't get me wrong religion played an important part in our history as a race by giving us a basis for moral judgment. But like anything else it's how you percieve it.

a reply to: Connell

I'm looking forward to read your reply, Sir.
Just so we don't forget what we are talking about:

That's the inherent hypocrisy in all forms of modern rationalism, to act as if subjective, perceptual, abstract concepts are "real" simply because scientists (priests of relativism) have an official piece of paper that says so..... and then they ask a theist to prove the existence of God. Sheer hypocrisy, and an inherently flawed mode of thought.

And now it is basically up to you to prove that the X in your 4th dimension, which seems to contain all information and is everywhere at the same time, and which also has measurable effects on our reality and the way we perceive it is not something physical, because it was you, who said:

Sure than define for me your Euclidean space time, please?

it is a mathmatical provable phenpomena. Doesn't sound so begnin to me. Good Luck proving your point without making your OP obsolete. Would be a miracle...

a reply to: Connell

I actually agree with what you say. Science's theories are just theories. Even the scientific laws have limitations as to their use and application. Exclusions exist on most scientific theories, exclusions that actually make the information useless in the real world.

My best example is that of H2O. This element can't exist that way in nature, it shares itself to build complexes, If you pour pure H2O into a sterile beaker, it is not pure anymore. It would have to be done in a vaccum. The air interacts with the water, the beaker glass interacts with the water. Real water is a complex molecule full of bonds to other materials. The same is true with the air we breathe.

But people will believe the misconceptions science creates and actually back it's credibility. They think that the information they are fed is applicable to things it is not able to be used on. Some things science says are true as related to what we perceive at the time. Some is good enough to utilize to do something but often the side effects of science are worse than we had without what it created. Look at what increasing plastics in our environment did. When I say environment I include the direct negative effects of it's overuse in our food processing on our health. The fumes plastic gives off can be endocrine disruptors.

But ignore things that science says are not important.