C8H11NO2: another mystery solved?

Upon discovering the other day that I was discussing both religion and politics, and realizing how I’d rather not, I found myself being challenged to explain the difference. Upon reflection though, I found it more interesting to think about their similarities- that being that most participants are engaged in each with little or no examination. Its true that most participants would disagree with that statement but from a phenomenological perspective, the mere observation of the state of each reveals my statement to be true. Each manifests itself as a series of assumptions that inform a specific set of prescriptive behaviors, but its the unexamined participation that is most curious to me. It reminded me of a previous conversation in which someone was recounting how they had no evidence for a specific belief- they just wanted to believe it. How nice I thought to myself. If only intention and belief were so fluidly connected I would have fewer mental dilemmas! And yet, despite the fact that 3 out of every four earthlings have learned to read and write, I feel generally to be in the smallest minority of people who require reasons for believing things. Its true, I’m usually harping on distinguishing between the set of things that has no justification from things that require justification. But now I really challenge myself to answer a very simple question: Why must my knowledge set be entirely coherent? Of course I can set aside some obvious things like a coherent knowledge set makes good predictions such that I don’t walk into moving propellers or fall into deep wells like an Edward Gorey unfortunate. But from an epistemological rather than evolutionary perspective does it really matter if I believe in unicorns for example? Why is it apparently important for me to not believe in unicorns because there is no evidence for their existence? Suggesting that I prefer truth to false seems not only glib but really just shunts the problem to a different set of terms without actually explaining anything. But perhaps it is that simple. Maybe being right about something triggers a tiny dopamine release in my brain. Perhaps I’ve quietly adapted to this Pavlovian, neurochemical epistemology. Truth is not philosophical but chemical. Leaving out some beliefs because they are unsupported allows one to be not wrong which is slightly different from being right about something, but at least the dopamine feedback loop is preserved even if the set of possible beliefs is smaller. And so while I still feel like a reef in a sea of unsubstantiated believers, I should try to enjoy my diet of dopamine in return for my troubles. Its exhausting being a reef, incidentally, being ever crashed upon by the ship of fools. Don’t forget to vote.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to C8H11NO2: another mystery solved?

  1. “Leaving out some beliefs because they are unsupported allows one to be not wrong which is slightly different from being right about something”. What an unscientific statement coming from such a truth-seeking fellow. Actually, by believing in things that can never be proven wrong you might get closer to being right. You could find and capture a unicorn and then I’d be right. But if you never find one, then you still haven’t proven me wrong.

  2. This is of course an argument from ignorance. Its an argument that tries to prove something with a lack of proof. In fact, this is not an argument at all and persuasions of this class are not to be considered by anyone endeavoring to think clearly.

  3. Actually the underlying principle of all scientific study (not that I personally hold to this epistimological understanding of truth) is that you can not PROVE something true. You can only more closely approximate the truth by proving something false, or by being thus far unable to prove something false. So if you’re aiming to be not wrong, you are actually better off choosing to believe in something that, by its very nature, can’t be proven wrong. It is my many years of psych study, the discipline that attempts the preposterous (in my opinion) the scientific study of human behavior.

  4. ….(much throat clearing) ignore that last punctuation mark, anyways, …that makes me so aware of scientific principles. It is the very reason that I am so Jaded!

  5. rainswept says:

    This definitely puts me in mind of the lamentably little known Pascal’s Unicorn Wager, which, if I recall correctly, asserts that we should believe that if a thousand Unicorns were tossed up in the air, about as many would come down on the horns as on their asses.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s