Rationality and tradition

[Xenophanes]

Tradition is, in many senses, a great resource for knowledge and for action. But can tradition be used to legitimate knowledge or action?

I would argue that we should uphold a tradition until a better solution to the problem a tradition solves has been formulated. This means further that although we should not be sceptic about a tradition, in so far as it is a tradition, we should always be critically open to new solutions, i.e new traditions. and not fall into the error of traditionalism i.e that something should, just because it is a tradition, be kept.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have to say that I am a sucker for tradition and arguments from tradition. I point it out as fast as any other logical fallacy, but there usually is something that makes me respect them above all the other logical fallacies. Plus, if you start to mix sports with traditions than I will through all rationality out the window.

 

[Deleted member 619]

The only thing I can contribute to this topic is that tradition is, far and away, the very worst reason for anything. It's dogmatic and stupid. If you're doing something purely on the basis that it's traditional, you haven't looked hard enough for alternatives.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Tradition is, in many senses, a great resource for knowledge and for action. But can tradition be used to legitimate knowledge or action?

I would argue that we should uphold a tradition until a better solution to the problem a tradition solves has been formulated. This means further that although we should not be sceptic about a tradition, in so far as it is a tradition, we should always be critically open to new solutions, i.e new traditions. and not fall into the error of traditionalism i.e that something should, just because it is a tradition, be kept.

Tradition is the social equivalent to personal habits.

As with personal habits, they can be good or bad - in other words, helpful or harmful, depending on circumstances.

Since, over time, people change - both as individuals and societies - old habits can become outdated/inappropriate and, as a result, fall into disuse.

However, there are those that, for one reason or another, remain - mainly due to the length of time they've been in place and/or due to the strength with which such beliefs are held, since habits develop due to an initial belief based on an inferred association (which is how religions develop).

This is where rationality comes in - such strongly held habits, which are no longer appropriate, need to be examined as objectively as possible to see whether they're helpful or harmful, and then to address changing and/or ending their practice.

Needless to say, as with personal habits, this can be a long and painful process.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Xenophanes]

The only thing I can contribute to this topic is that tradition is, far and away, the very worst reason for anything. It's dogmatic and stupid. If you're doing something purely on the basis that it's traditional, you haven't looked hard enough for alternatives.

Science is a tradition, rationality is a tradition, empricism is a tradition, atheism is a tradition. I mean tradition in the wide sense, not in the narrow sense. Without having traidtions humans would not be able to have anything to be sceptic abou, t to engage with, or to improve upon.

This is the wikipedia explanation.

"A tradition is a belief or behavior passed down within a group or society with symbolic meaning or special significance with origins in the past"

I do not like this description, simply because belief does not have to be a part of the tradition, or people being part of that tradition do not have to believe everything that is part of the tradition, or indeed anything. For instance I do not believe that all the laws in england are good laws, and I do not believe that they should be laws, but I will follow them, while simultaneously criticising them and if I can try to change them, or support people that are. The word behaviour is not explicit enough about what is involved in tradition. Traditions can have practices and they can have people acting in accordance with those practices, or having similar goals as the tradition and using different practices to get there.

 

[Xenophanes]

I agree wholeheartedly with much of your comment Dragon Glas. I do not agree with the 4th paragraph though, but for the topic the disagreement is irrelevent.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Science is a tradition,

Total fucking drivel. Science is a process, and we use it because it works.

rationality is a tradition, empricism is a tradition, atheism is a tradition. I mean tradition in the wide sense, not in the narrow sense.

So by tradition, you mean everything, reducing the term to a trivial and meaningless tautology. Is this whjat passes for fucking thought in your world?. What a vapid pile of absolute cortical excrement.

Without having traidtions humans would not be able to have anything to be sceptic abou, t to engage with, or to improve upon.

This is the wikipedia explanation.

Fantastic. Fail to think, back it up with wikifuckingpedia. Back to discussion by fucking proxy, What a waste of time.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I agree wholeheartedly with much of your comment Dragon Glas. I do not agree with the 4th paragraph though, but for the topic the disagreement is irrelevent.

Thank you, Xenophanes.

Are you referring to this one? ...

However, there are those that, for one reason or another, remain - mainly due to the length of time they've been in place and/or due to the strength with which such beliefs are held, since habits develop due to an initial belief based on an inferred association (which is how religions develop).

Perhaps my assertion as to the basis for traditions?

I'd be interested to hear your argument against whatever it is with which you disagree.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Xenophanes]

Science is a tradition,

Total fucking drivel. Science is a process, and we use it because it works.

So, because something is a tradition, it cannot work?

rationality is a tradition, empricism is a tradition, atheism is a tradition. I mean tradition in the wide sense, not in the narrow sense.

So by tradition, you mean everything, reducing the term to a trivial and meaningless tautology. Is this whjat passes for fucking thought in your world?. What a vapid pile of absolute cortical excrement. [/quote]


No, by tradition I mean a set of practices that are kept and disseminated by institutions. It is a perfectly respectable view, one upheld by Karl Popper. You have never heard the saying that england has a tradition of rationality or a scientific tradition. Which for instance China does not have.

Without having traidtions humans would not be able to have anything to be sceptic abou, t to engage with, or to improve upon.

This is the wikipedia explanation.

Fantastic. Fail to think, back it up with wikifuckingpedia. Back to discussion by fucking proxy, What a waste of time.

I did not back it up with wikipedia. I criticised wikipedias description, in order to have a jumping off point. If you had read what I wrote, you might have understood.

Why are you so hostile?

You seem to be one of those that hear words such as "tradition" and react badly to them.

 

[Inferno]

This topic reminds me of Umbridge's speech:

 

[Xenophanes]

This topic reminds me of Umbridge's speech:

No, because that woman is dogmatic, as tell-taled by her last quote, to do with prohibiting.

I do not think discouraging progress for progress sake is the right characterisations of what I am saying. People can be innovative and come up with ideas, but they have to be put to the test like all ideas. Being open to criticism is also about being open to new ideas, and even facilitating them. We should encourage the critical enagement with traditions in order to eliminate the bad polices and practices.

 

[Deleted member 619]

So, because something is a tradition, it cannot work?

Yes, because that logiocally follows from what I said, doesn't it?

Again, is that what passes for thought in your world?

No, by tradition I mean a set of practices that are kept and disseminated by institutions. It is a perfectly respectable view, one upheld by Karl Popper.

Fantastic. Got anything else other than idiotic argumenta ad verecundiam to support your nonsense?

You have never heard the saying that england has a tradition of rationality or a scientific tradition. Which for instance China does not have.

No nation has a tradition of rationality, because the vast majority of all populations are fucking stupid, and anything but rational.

Without having traidtions humans would not be able to have anything to be sceptic abou, t to engage with, or to improve upon.

Utter bollocks.

Why are you so hostile?

Because stupidity offends me.

You seem to be one of those that hear words such as "tradition" and react badly to them.

No, I react badly to self-proclaimed filosofeazers bowling up and talking bollocks dressed as fucking wisdom.

If you ever meet anybody for whom your opinion of my tone is of any value whatsoever, feel free to tell them all the fuck about it. I'm not interested.

 

[Xenophanes]

So, because something is a tradition, it cannot work?

Yes, because that logiocally follows from what I said, doesn't it?

Again, is that what passes for thought in your world?

No, by tradition I mean a set of practices that are kept and disseminated by institutions. It is a perfectly respectable view, one upheld by Karl Popper.

Fantastic. Got anything else other than idiotic argumenta ad verecundiam to support your nonsense?

You have never heard the saying that england has a tradition of rationality or a scientific tradition. Which for instance China does not have.

No nation has a tradition of rationality, because the vast majority of all populations are fucking stupid, and anything but rational.

Without having traidtions humans would not be able to have anything to be sceptic abou, t to engage with, or to improve upon.

Utter bollocks.

Why are you so hostile?

Because stupidity offends me.

You seem to be one of those that hear words such as "tradition" and react badly to them.

No, I react badly to self-proclaimed filosofeazers bowling up and talking bollocks dressed as fucking wisdom.

If you ever meet anybody for whom your opinion of my tone is of any value whatsoever, feel free to tell them all the fuck about it. I'm not interested.

Do you ever offer criticism or arguments. yes it did follow from what you said. Why did you make the claim that "we use science because it works", if it was not a criticism of my claim that science is a tradition? I agree we use science because it works, what relevance does it have to my argument?

I was not using the invocation of Popper to support my view; I was using it to show you that I am not the only one that uses it that way. It could still be false.

I never claimed to be wise. I can "bowl up" anywhere I like. Is this like territorial pissings for you, or something; this your turf?

 

[Deleted member 619]

yes it did follow from what you said.

No it fucking didn't.

Why did you make the claim that "we use science because it works", if it was not a criticism of my claim that science is a tradition?

It was a criticism of your claim, which was a fatuous evasion. Science isn't a tradition, it's a process. It has no symbolic meaning, no beliefs, pretty much none of the things that define a tradition.

I agree we use science because it works, what relevance does it have to my argument?

It was to point out the distinction between science and traditions, because traditions don't work.

I was not using the invocation of Popper to support my view; I was using it to show you that I am not the only one that uses it that way. It could still be false.

Then what was the point of invoking him? Pointing out that you're not the only one that holds a view is equally fallacious.

I never claimed to be wise. I can "bowl up" anywhere I like. Is this like territorial pissings for you, or something; this your turf?

No, you're extremely welcome here. However, if you talk bollocks, expect to have your bollocks eviscerated.

 

[Xenophanes]

yes it did follow from what you said.

No it fucking didn't.

Why did you make the claim that "we use science because it works", if it was not a criticism of my claim that science is a tradition?

It was a criticism of your claim, which was a fatuous evasion. Science isn't a tradition, it's a process. It has no symbolic meaning, no beliefs, pretty much none of the things that define a tradition.

I agree we use science because it works, what relevance does it have to my argument?

It was to point out the distinction between science and traditions, because traditions don't work.

I was not using the invocation of Popper to support my view; I was using it to show you that I am not the only one that uses it that way. It could still be false.

Then what was the point of invoking him? Pointing out that you're not the only one that holds a view is equally fallacious.

I never claimed to be wise. I can "bowl up" anywhere I like. Is this like territorial pissings for you, or something; this your turf?

No, you're extremely welcome here. However, if you talk bollocks, expect to have your bollocks eviscerated.

It is not fallacious, it is only fallacious if I used it to support my argument. That is what a fallcy is.

Some traditions do work: science works.

You now say that your criticsm was exactly what I guess it to be, even though you chastised me for saying it was that? You need to get your criticisms straight.

me: Science is a tradition,

you: Total fucking drivel. Science is a process, and we use it because it works.


me: So, because something is a tradition, it cannot work?

you: Yes, because that logiocally follows from what I said, doesn't it?"

and you: It was to point out the distinction between science and traditions, because traditions don't work.

So yes that is exactly what you were getting at.

 

[Xenophanes]

It was a criticism of your claim, which was a fatuous evasion. Science isn't a tradition, it's a process. It has no symbolic meaning, no beliefs, pretty much none of the things that define a tradition.

Firstly, the scientific method is a process. But science itself is a tradition. There are scientific institutions who practice empirical and rational investigation and pass it down; individual scientists have beliefs and these about beliefs are about their practice, a belief that science works. Like you have this belief as well.

Secondly, you criticise me for using Wikipedia to support my argument, when I did not do any such thing, and now you are using wikipedias definition in your argument against me. You have no intellectual honesty what-so-ever.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Firstly, the scientific method is a process. But science itself is a tradition.

No, moron. Science IS the process.

There are scientific institutions who practice empirical and rational investigation and pass it down; individual scientists have beliefs and these about beliefs are about their practice, a belief that science works.

Science has no inherent beliefs. What individuals who employ the process believe is not a function of the process. You're talking bollocks.

Like you have this belief as well.

Go on, stupid cunt, tell me what I think again.

Secondly, you criticise me for using Wikipedia to support my argument, when I did not do any such thing, and now you are using wikipedias definition in your argument against me.

I've done no such thing. Where am I citing Wikipedia?

You have no intellectual honesty what-so-ever.

You have no intellect.

 

[Xenophanes]

Firstly, the scientific method is a process. But science itself is a tradition.

No, moron. Science IS the process.

There are scientific institutions who practice empirical and rational investigation and pass it down; individual scientists have beliefs and these about beliefs are about their practice, a belief that science works.

Science has no inherent beliefs. What individuals who employ the process believe is not a function of the process. You're talking bollocks.

Like you have this belief as well.

Go on, stupid cunt, tell me what I think again.

Secondly, you criticise me for using Wikipedia to support my argument, when I did not do any such thing, and now you are using wikipedias definition in your argument against me.

I've done no such thing. Where am I citing Wikipedia?

You have no intellectual honesty what-so-ever.

You have no intellect.

it was you who told me that. Am I to think you said it because it was false?

i am not saying that science has inherent beliefs, like religion does not. Only people can have beliefs.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I told you what, that I have a belief? I think not.

 

[Xenophanes]

I told you what, that I have a belief? I think not.

Unless you are making a psychological point. How can claiming "Science works" not also imply that you believe that science works?