Big Think
Steven Pinker’s personal philosophy is based on reason.
Source
The Personal Philosophy of Steven Pinker
Similar Posts
AI Can Now Self-Reproduce—Should Humans Be Worried? | Eric Weinstein
Electric powered plane takes to skies above Scotland
Intro to Machine Learning (ML Zero to Hero – Part 1)
25 thoughts on “The Personal Philosophy of Steven Pinker”
Comments are closed.
You don't need faith when you understand 100 percent of the world and how it works. In other words we have to take many things with faith, math, logic, scientific methods, etc. We don't understand gravity and yet we have faith that it's not going to end anytime soon. It's just a matter of what we have faith in and hoping that we need as little as possible to get by until knowledge reduces these unfounded beliefs a bit more every day.
There was nothing said we don’t know, and in a most simple way possible. Who is trying here to object are or hypocrites or a retarded with no real argument whatsoever, sorry.
I prefer reason to. But I think you (as an enlightened person), should not have children without a good reason. How will you answer THEM? I hope you don't tell them, "Because I was bored/lonely/experimenting.". I think you misunderstand what faith is. When a bank lends you money, they have faith (reasonable expectation) that you will pay them back. It's not guaranteed; you could die tomorrow. Or, they might NOT have faith in you, and not lend you the money. That doesn't mean that you don't exist, or that someone made you up. Can you expect your children to have faith in you? Or better yet, can you really expect them to survive WITHOUT faith in you? Forget about YOUR faith for a moment, and think about theirs. Now what? What can they have faith in? Their reasons are different than yours. Can they have faith in their own reasons? Why are THEY here? They haven't found a reason yet. Do you really have a valid reason to have kids? Who's to judge? I'm sure your kids will have some kind of opinion, regardless of what your reasons are. You can't claim "biology made me do it.", when you're such an enlightened person. Ask yourself, "Why DOES something (children) exist instead of nothing?". You might not think it's such a stupid question, when your children ask you, "Why am I REALLY here?".
Such a brilliant and well spoken guy – alas – if he could only free himself from his naturalistic world view…imagine what he could accomplish. He could still have his science and at the same time broaden his experience to include spirituality, which after all, has existed in some form or another throughout human history – it's not likely to go away. And I don't see that science has demonstrated in the least, that the transcendent does not exist. Why foreclose the possibility of that being true?
Religion, like music, or the taste of food, is experiencially obtained. To philosophize about it, alone, won't due if you want to understand it.
Faith is not reason nor is reason faith. How can you use either to judge the other?
Here is a book that talks over and over about reason: The Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft. Several other books talk about reasons for believing in Christianity: Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. Those are just some of the most famous. There are more.
We should all aspire to being more reasonable and logical.
"A cosmologist willing to think afresh" Impossible we all start with a set of biases about the universe. These biases were created to do what is best for us like we are biased toward our own needs rather than what is true or of other people's needs and our beleifs are fabricated from there because that is what was best for us. Some typical biases are formed out of what ypur friends are into, what felt good when you did it, what creates least guilt and shame for you, what you have knowledge of since you want to know and impress with such knowledge.We also make assumptions. These assumptions were created to know what we dont know
Quickly without knowing for cerstain that it is true since we needed to to survive. If you dont know if something is a threat but you have an assumption. An assumption is better than nothing.. These are created out of experiences the unconcious mind has. Much like a bias tells us how to act. these assumptions are made to tell us how to act without knowing for certain and thus can be wrong. Such as bad steriotypes. Due to skewed experiences that dont match reality. To say then that you need an unbiased rational person is close to impossible. We are all biased for our own needs and we all make assumptions without amsufficient evidence based on experience which is unreasonable. And in fact is evidence of that you had a bias against what he was saying. And you didnt like it even though it matches what we know currently…..
As a side note. The way to lessen these assumptions and biases is to remove the necessity for them since you are safe. Nourished. Loved. Respected. And knowledgable. You dont need to survive you are secure. Another way to do this is to make the thing that is reasonable and logical favorable in the eyes of your assumptions and biases. For example in mumy childhood my dad was always obscuring the truth by the use of logical fallacirs and so ive always had a bias toward reason and logic ans against illogical since my safety against my father depended on it and so I am more logical than people who are normal. These are the ways, so if you want someonr who is at least less of a biased unreasonable person find the person whose bias and assumption matches reason and logic and youll be suprised.
The problem with faith is that faith means beleieve without seeing. Which essentially means to beleieve something regardless of ita truth value and even in spite of the fact that it is wrong. For example there could be evidence that a certain beleif is wrong which would lead to a more informed decision and thus a better outcome for both you and those around you. Yet without accepting this contradictory proof you cant knoe the truth. And without being open to change you beleifs you cant accept contrary proof since it would change your beleifs. And faith means to beleive something and disregard evidence. And thus faith prevents truth and thus a more informed and better life. Not that this human phenomenon is without reason, in fact it is human nature to be biased and assume. If you are biases toward your own needs and not necessairly what is reasonable then ypu survive better. If you can assume the future even if it is wrong it gives you a better chance than if you didnt if it is based on your prior experience and you have no time to use reason which was the case in human history. Thus we hold beleifs stubbornly that allign themselves with our biases and assumptions since that is what is best for us according to our nature given to us. And biases and assumptions cause a sort of faith and unchanging beleif that we know of. The remedy to this, especially when most people love their life running from pain and toward pleasure. Is to have your needs met to dum down the necessity to survive and thus be more biased and assume more. To reach this state of spiritual enloghtenment or even self actualization that puts you into a higher concious. This is done by feeling loves safe healthy respected and knowledgable following Maslows hierarchy of needs accordingly. The other way is for your assumptions and biases to allign with reason and logic which was the case with me personally. My father tended to skew the truth through the use of logical fallacies to get away with doing whatever he wanted to me. And so since everyone has a bias toward what they perceive as helpful to them I had a bias toward reason and logic since my entire life of safety and well being(i had no friends only my dad) dependrd on it.
There's a huge difference between being able to reason and conducting an entirely reasoned, rational life. It is a rare individual, if they exist at all, who is able to override emotions, inherent cultural biases, biological imperatives and genetic programming, with pure reason. Dr. Pinker's claim to living a reasoned life belies the fact that most humans are driven by primitive desires and real and perceived needs. And though there's little doubt there are folks whose capacity to reason and think in the abstract exceeds that of most of humanity, their skills tend to allow them to post rationalize behaviour that is no more driven by reason than anybody else's. In other words, just because Pinker can organize and process factual evidence to arrive at logical conclusions doesn't mean that alone governs his thoughts and deeds. In fact it's highly unlikely.
It's okay to obtain satisfaction from the effects your insight might have on others. It's your nature, and as long as you're correct, you deserve it. It takes work to be what you are. That work is your proof. Just don't be a glutton ; )
I don’t agree with Steven’s take on science’s relationship to philosophy that there’s no such thing as scientific method or that we can use science for a stand-in for morality @ 1:15 – 2:10. Scientific method is the act of observation, testing and hypotheses, there’s no need or should we desire to eliminate those basic axioms and science has no need to observe, adhere or found ethics and morality to function which is why we choose to observe evolution but not to live by its rules. That’s not to say we can’t use science morally such as medicine. In the end of the video Steven agrees that, “why should the cosmos care about me” so I suspect these things I mentioned are just conversational hiccups rather than his absolute philosophical truth, which can happen when there isn't a player on the other side of the conversation.
I found i'm most satisfied when iv managed to make my life more tolerable or the lives of my family and friends more tolerable. I know that sounds cliche but I also don't think it gets any deeper then that. I wish there was more but that's probably because i'm not satisfied, which is neither here nor there.
I am a big fan of Dr Pinker's work. What struck me, and I have also seen him do this in interviews, is the way he clears his throat when he talks. Found on web: "While speaking, the throat-clear may reveal uncertainty; acute or abnormal throat-clearing is a possible sign of deception." Reason is great in many areas and especially when talking with other people. However in my everyday life, don't think I'm alone in this, intuition is what drives most of my actions. The older part of the brain that preceded words and reason that never stopped developing over the eons.
I love reading Pinker's books and watching his talks on YouTube. But I don't always agree with everything he says.
However, anytime I think I disagree with him, I'm willing to temper that disagreement with some measure of self-reflection and put in extra effort to question whether I fully understand what he's actually saying, or consider the possibility that I'm just wrong.
Why? Well… because, he's an accomplished author and professor, and I'm just some jackass making comments on YouTube.
As plain-spoken as this video was there is still a lot of confusion judging from the comments. Steven only elicits two concepts: the non-uniqueness of any person and the Golden Rule as the basis of much of morality. Is there anything controversial in this? While he modestly says what he states applies to himself alone, it is clear that these concepts apply to far more than this one man and are, in a sense, ineluctable.
This reduction of faith as being anti-reason is oversimplification. You can use your reasoning to find the limits of the rational thought and once you have this groundwork done, you can take a leap of faith in the direction you were following until now with your reason. Thats how i did it and truly everyone who believes as an adult at some point had to do.
The purpose of life, is to discover who you are. And like what you find.
Why would anyone give this very eloquent discussion of reason by Pinker the thumbs down??!!?? There are some pathetically sad people out there.
Steven Pinker seems to be regarded as one of the most influential Psychologists alive today. What I've seen here is wholly unimpressive.
ass
Ok now, can you sing Heaven and Hell DIO?
My goal is to be able speak as well as stephen
Sorry, Steven
We stand on the shoulders of giants – I suspect Pinker knows this, and before he is criticised, the critics should do their homework.
Pinker's first foundational point is "the Golden Rule", i.e. treat other people the way you want to be treated. This is the metarule of religion.
Pinker next adopts the "Categorical Imperative" of Immanuel Kant – universalise your behavior to see if it is beneficial and sustainable.
Next comes the "Normative Fallacy", i.e. because something IS doesn't mean it should be so. Pinker correctly points out that when one argues for/against an existing policy/situation one shifts to where evidence needs to be applied. (Politicians and journalists love to twist descriptions of something to imply that the other dude supports it.)
Pinker's last point is to condemn "invention". To assume and blindly follow when you do NOT know leads to things like the Jim Jones trip to space. Admit your ignorance and learn to be comfortable with real evidence.