Dead-lifting and Rationality, Part 2

The prior post presented dead-lifting as an analogy by which one could better understand some characteristics of rationality, asserting that the two are alike in several ways. The purpose of this post is to explore how to grow in rationality.

Thus far I've been using some important terms a little loosely, imprecisely. Going ahead requires a bit more care. To that end, let us say that wisdom has to do with comprehensive understanding of nature, but especially of human nature, behavior, motives, causes, feelings, reactions, etc. This is distinct from knowledge and science. Someone might have great knowledge, for example, of computer science or of subatomic physics, and yet not be wise. Rationality is related to wisdom, and has to do with the ability to order or organize one's beliefs, values, actions, emotions and such according to reality, as well as some norm representing excellence. A rational person thinks, acts and feels in a good and organized way, and often toward a particular end. One can be rational without being wise, but it would be difficult to be wise without also being rational; likewise, one can be organized without being rational, but one who is rational is also organized. Rationale refers to that ordering principle, as in "the rationale underlying his behavior is selfishness." Reason is related to rationality, and therefore wisdom. When employed as a verb it refers to the activity of the intellect whereby we proceed from certain beliefs to others. For example, we might reason from the disappearance of cookies from the cookie jar and recent passage of children through the kitchen that the children took the cookies. In common discourse, reason and rationale are sometimes used interchangeably, as nouns, as in "what was your reason for doing that?" That all being said, we generally lack wisdom because we lack rationality (among other things). And we lack rationality because (also among other things) our ability to reason is so weak. Consequently, our goal herein is to propose exercises to help strengthen our ability to reason. We do this with full knowledge that reason alone does not make a good person, but you'll hardly find a good person who lacks strong reasoning abilities.

One does not grow in physical strength by talking about it, reading about it, or watching others exercise, but by personal practice. But not all practice is equal. The results will vary depending on the way one practices. Some methods may lead to good results for some, but not for others. Some won't work at all. And some might actually cause injury. It could easily result in injury, for example, if someone over-trains, attempts substantially too much weight, uses poor form, and so on. Someone who uses too little weight, or does way too many repetitions, may experience slower gains.

While it is true that merely talking about, reading about or watching others lift won't make one stronger, these activities are not without utility. Specifically, someone can learn about good technique (and bad ones) by reading, talking and watching, as well as different approaches to training that work for different people. He might also find inspiration by seeing others' examples.

This is, in a sense, how philosophy works with respect to rationality. Philosophy, as an academic pursuit, is generally characterized by the study of how other "great thinkers" throughout history have reasoned through complex questions, inquired into morality, and so on. In that sense, the study of philosophy -- reading, talking about, and in a way watching others do philosophy -- can help one see ways of becoming more rational in his own life. However, merely seeing how someone else employed reason does not automatically make me any more wise; we each must put in our own effort. So what are some basic ways to do this?

Engage in Dialog... Carefully

We already do lightweight reasoning every day. We make judgments about what to wear. We decide in what order to go about our daily tasks. We navigate traffic and social interactions. We pick what we are going to eat or drink by weighing various factors like cost, time, service, distance, health, taste, etc. We decide which bills to pay, how much and when.

In most cases our reasoning is somewhat shallow, for that is all that is really required of us. Of course, it doesn't seem shallow to us, operating within it. Rather, it seems quite magnificent, and certainly superior to most of what is going on around us, right?

Leaving our delusions aside for the moment, here are a couple simple exercises for improving our ability to reason: The first is to talk to yourself. Really.

Ask yourself, "Why do I believe X," or, "Why does Y bother me so much," or "Why did I choose, say or do that?" Imagine that someone else asked these questions of you and you need to provide an answer that was true and persuasive to someone -- and we should qualify this as a reasonable someone -- who doesn't agree with you. In other words, "just because," or "I heard it somewhere," isn't going to cut it.

This can be hard to practice in the abstract, and can be more useful in the particular. When doing this internally, it is pretty safe to pick something controversial -- it isn't as if you are going to lose a friend over it. Perhaps a news-issue, cultural, political or religious topic. Something interesting, but not too deep. In other words, don't start with "why do I believe that God exists (or not)?" You can go there eventually, but that isn't a good beginning question. We have to build up to those kind of inquiries.

For example, suppose your community has a bond issue up for vote. Your local school district seeks 5 million dollars to upgrade its computers and networks, train staff, etc. It is for the children, so that they can learn better and be better equipped to enter the workforce or go on to college. The proponents of the bond say it will cost the average person "less than the cost of a cup of coffee per day." And argue that this is an insignificant price to help give local children a better education and a better chance in life. Detractors say that it is a waste of money, that more and better computers don't necessarily result in better educations, and they are upset that the school already cut art, wrestling, home economics and shop programs, while all staff receive wages higher than the local average for other industries.

What is the right thing to do? Is there a right thing to do, or is it purely subjective? Which way would you vote? Would you vote at all? Imagine that yours is the deciding vote, and that you must justify your decision to everyone else. Take a few moments and think through this, perhaps even writing down how you would address the issue. Can you imagine what the objections would be? Do you have sufficient answers to those objections?

...

All done? Have it figured out?

As we've mentioned elsewhere, philosophy doesn't really provide answers to questions such as this, but it does provide examples of inquiry. One of the first steps of inquiry is to make sure that we have a good, comprehensive understanding of the current circumstances. This might include looking into things like:

• What is the current state of the school's computer and network systems?
• What kind of bidding process was engaged to arrive at the price figure?
• How much does the school already bring in (in total, or per student per year)?
• Are there any studies about computers in school and student performance?
• Are there other ways of funding this purchase or providing the desired equipment?
• What is the real total cost to the community over the 10-year repayment?
• What about people who can't afford the increase in property taxes?

Another step in reasoning is to place the proposition in a formal way. This is called a syllogism, which at its most basic presentation consists of two premises and a conclusion. A common, example syllogism is:

P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

If the premises are true and the structure is sound, then the conclusion is necessarily true. Most human problems and disputes cannot be easily distilled down to a simple syllogism, but sometimes a set of them. For example, in the case of the school bond, at least two -- and probably several more -- syllogisms are necessary to encompass the general proposal:

Syllogism (argument) 1

P1. Our children need better education.
P2. Better education requires better computers.
Therefore, our children need better computers.

It is unlikely that many people are going to argue against the need for a good (or "better") education. However, the second premise about the relationship between computers and a good education might be vulnerable. A critic could rightly argue that that premise needs some justification and, in the absence of such justification, could disregard the premise.

Of course, the fact that a premise is wrong or that an error is made in the argument's structure does not mean that the conclusion is false. For example (this may seem like a joke, but isn't far from the level of reasoning many people use):

P1. All fish are mammals.
P2. Purple is my favorite color.
Therefore, the earth is round.

In other words, it is possible to be right with respect to one's belief, yet have completely nonsensical "justification" for it. This leads to an important distinction between beliefs and knowledge. We believe many things. Hopefully, most of those things are true. Of these, some of them are justified in the sense of having some kind of solid grounding backing them up, which will usually be either personal experience of some kind, or a sound argument. Knowledge is justified, true belief.

A person who believes that the world is round because all fish are mammals and purple is his favorite color doesn't really know that the earth is round. He just believes it -- he doesn't actually have any justification for that belief (even though it is true). On the other hand, someone who believes that the world is round because he's personally flown around it, studied it, seen pictures from space, etc., knows that the world is round -- his belief is justified.

One of the most common errors we make, and one that leads to endless conflict, is to confuse beliefs for knowledge, and then to act thereupon in ways that are harmful to others. We will return to this later. For now, in the case of our school bond, not only is there the argument about whether the computers are needed for the children's education, but there is another about how they will be paid for:

Syllogism 2

P1. The computers cost 5 million dollars.
P2. The costs for education should be equally divided among the community.
Therefore, the 5 million dollar cost should be borne equally by the members of the community.

Both of these premises could be easily assailed. As mentioned earlier, perhaps there are other ways of acquiring the equipment, lower costs, donations and grants, etc. Whether the costs for education should be equally divided among the community, especially those who are against the program or simply can't afford it, is really the big issue here. Again, that doesn't mean that the conclusion is false -- only that it does not follow from the premises. The reason that this is important to understand is that someone might argue, as in this case, that the 5 million dollar cost should be divided equally among all people. But someone else could just as easily say, "no, those who are for it should pay for it," and give his reasoning. Different people will use different means to make a choice between those two options (assuming there are no others), but the rational person will make the choice that has the best reasoning. In theory, and assuming that the world operates in accord with some kind of rationale, beliefs, values and choices that correspond to rationality will tend to lead to better outcomes, and are better in and of themselves, than those that are irrational.

As you might have perceived, each of the premises is, itself, a belief (or assertion) that is subject to questioning. And so, questioning a common belief will often lead to other (implied or actual) beliefs, which lead to other (implied or actual) beliefs, and so on. Eventually, we come to fundamental beliefs -- ones that aren't predicated upon other beliefs, but are themselves predicated of many. Many times we aren't conscious of these, but it is important to dig down to them from time to time, inspect them, rearrange them. In many cases, the differences people have in particular "surface" issues are really symptoms of much deeper differences of beliefs. There is little point in trying to work out the surface differences without digging for the real root cause of the differences.

By going through the exercise, attempting to discern what premises -- which are nothing more than other beliefs -- are underlying the belief in question, we both practice using reason, and we inspect our own array of beliefs in the process.

Engage in Dialog... Carefully... with Others

Most people have anemic reasoning skills, but working with someone else, unless they are just a complete train-wreck, will often be an improvement over working in isolation. In boxing there is a saying that goes, "everyone has a plan until you get punched in the face." With respect to reasoning, we generally believe that our own reasoning is unassailable... until we share it with someone else.

But be careful here. When you've gone through a few introspective inquiries, find a friend (perhaps one you don't mind losing) and explain that you are working on becoming more rational. To that end, would he (or she) mind discussing some topic of interest to each of you over a drink? This is best to do in person with someone who knows you well, and whose judgment you respect, at least for now.

As soon as another person becomes involved, several potentially-derailing dynamics may come into play. The primary one has to do when one's ego rises up, usually resulting in a desire to "win" the argument. This leads to all kinds of problems. Be aware of your emotional state, too. A sense of anger, embarrassment or frustration tends to cloud one's intellect. If you sense any of these dynamics beginning to arise within you, it can help to acknowledge them and consciously attempt to refocus upon the topic and the quest for understanding and truth. These human dynamics can arise for many reasons. These include:

• Being faced with the reality that I don't know why I believe what I believe, and suddenly feeling a need to defend it. Rather than admitting this, the typical reaction is to get angry and attack the dialog partner.
• Some of us are naturally competitive, and this is stronger in some than others. When winning takes priority over discovering truth, truth and understanding are sacrificed, relationships are harmed, and no one really benefits.
• It is very common for your dialog partner to lack discussion skills and to engage in a number of fallacies. These can be hard to answer, and confuse the discussion. Sometimes this is deliberate. Other times the person just doesn't know any better. Either way, it is important not to be distracted by fallacies, personal attacks and other nonsense. We will discuss common reasoning errors and how to address them in a future entry.

It will help if you each have a different position on the matter, or at least agree to take an opposite position for the sake of helping each other. Once other people become involved, it is important to remember that the point is not to win the argument or dominate the other person, but to, together, see if you can understand the issue better. See if you can lay out each of your positions as formal arguments, and then test each others' arguments. Are the premises solid? Is the reasoning sound? Is one argument more persuasive than the others. How do your emotions or other beliefs play into the question?

In the best of cases, your different apprehensions of the matter will draw closer together. At the very least, you'll (hopefully) have a better understanding of other perspectives.

For example, a couple weeks ago local police shot and killed a suspect at a local convenience store. A few hours prior, the man apparently stabbed another young man, killing him. The story going around was that he returned to the store and lunged at police, knife in hand. The police shot him to protect themselves. It seemed that justice was served, after a fashion, but then police car camera footage was released of the shooting, as well as some more information from the man's family.

It turns out that the attacker went home after the initial conflict, talked to his family, and decided to turn himself in to police. He returned to the store, and was identified as the attacker by someone on scene. Three police men immediately drew their guns, surrounded him and began to shout at him -- what they were shouting was not clear. He put his hands up, and hesitated for a couple seconds. Then police shot him many times. He dropped to the ground and died shortly thereafter. Some have said that he had a knife in his hands, but that isn't clear from the video. What is clear is that he did not lunge at the officers or act in any threatening way whatsoever (he lunges forward and falls when the shooting begins). If anything he looked kind of confused and submissive.

The video shows someone being shot to death. No blood is visible, but it is not for the squeamish. The actual shooting is at about minute 7.

The question one could ask is, "was this shooting justified?" Many people commented that "he got what he deserved," and "he shouldn't have attacked the police," etc. Many had the opposite opinion. You and your dialog partner could each take a different side and do your best not merely to win the argument at any cost -- there is nothing fruitful in that -- but to see which position is the most reasonable, the most rational.

On the side of arguing that the shooting was justified, some premises might include:

• Those who take a life forfeit their own.
• He didn't obey the officers.
• He had a weapon in his hands -- the police were rightly protecting themselves.
• Police actions should not be second-guessed.
• The police feel bad about it, therefore it is okay.
• The police chief and district attorney cleared the police of any wrongdoing.

On the side of arguing that it was not justified, some premises might include:

• His hands were up in a submissive posture. Police should not shoot people who are surrendering.
• We don't know why he stabbed the person earlier. Maybe it was provoked and he didn't intend to kill him.
• There is no evidence of someone in that posture then attacking multiple police with their guns drawn.
• That is not how knife-attacks happen.
• Police could (or should) have used non-lethal weapons like tazers.
• Most men carry knives at all times -- many men (and women) carry guns too. It isn't lawful for police to shoot you because you have a knife in your hands or on your person.

There are many other possibilities. You might not come to a unanimous position on this. But see how you could structure your arguments. Test your own and each others' premises.

Some people set up discussion groups at cafes, churches or community centers for just these kinds of discussions. In my own family, at dinner I'll sometimes bring up a topic -- usually not one this grave -- and ask each person to share his thoughts and reasoning.

In an upcoming post we'll go over some common mistakes that people make in their reasoning.

Seek Truth

One of my favorite contemporary philosophers is Dietrich Von Hildebrand. He passed away some years ago and wrote many fine books. In one of them he had a sentence that read (as I recall), "it is the vocation of philosophers to seek truth above the rhythms of history." This is correct.

And as budding practical philosophers -- people who are seeking to grow in wisdom -- we must learn to seek truth above the rhythms (and turmoil) of our daily lives. Or, to be more precise, seek truth within and through these waves as they wash over us and toss us about.