tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7021972615680221295.post1608900831343948260..comments2023-05-25T13:17:24.082+00:00Comments on Language, Life and Logic: Matthew Hutson and magical thinkingMark Englishhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03506844097173520312noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7021972615680221295.post-15200638409578266262012-06-15T13:47:46.409+00:002012-06-15T13:47:46.409+00:00Matthew Hutson is basically a science writer (not ...Matthew Hutson is basically a science writer (not a philosopher or scientist) and I suspect he will not be dealing in any depth with the sorts of questions you raise.<br /><br />He does seem to take a pragmatic and largely descriptive approach to our cognitive quirks, but underlying it (I think) is an implicit commitment to a hard-edged scientific view of the world.<br /><br />Actually I had drafted another little piece on magical thinking before your comments appeared which touches on a couple of the points you raise. I will post it soon.<br /><br />The terms 'rational' and 'irrational' can be used in different ways, and I think one just has to be sensitive to how the other person is using them.Mark Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506844097173520312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7021972615680221295.post-19894039400274070492012-06-15T03:50:19.544+00:002012-06-15T03:50:19.544+00:00Coming full circle, Hutson probably should not pra...Coming full circle, Hutson probably should not praise or blame "magical thinking," but simply analyze it -- first by defining it well, then by showing what it does for us (or to us -- LOL). What leads us to cling to the irrational (rocks are alive, volcanoes punish evil) even in the presence of rational explanations? Why is a "magical" explanation of some event so compelling (Jupiter signifies the birth of a king) in the absence of evidence? "Pragmatically" (to borrow a term you discussed) what is compelling is that it "satisfies" our need for explanation ... not that it is true. That's why people disagree about truth, perhaps: we tend to settle for "true enough," as long as it fits our inner metaphysical assumptions.GTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7021972615680221295.post-80543549349815638832012-06-15T03:30:49.861+00:002012-06-15T03:30:49.861+00:00Now we'll have to read Hutson's book of co...Now we'll have to read Hutson's book of course. I hope he treats deeply the idea of "magical thinking." Philosophically, "magic" is an apparent suspension of cause and effect. The rabbit materializes out of the hat without any clear reason why; we are amazed because it's impossible but it happened anyway. The rational explanation for the apparent break between cause and effect is that it's a trick -- an illusion. The irrational explanation is that the magician did the impossible. So Hutson should explain (or account for) any human tendency to believe the impossible. If he gets that right, he does us all a great service by helping us sort out the irrational from the rational.<br /><br />There is a very deep animism involved in religious belief. But is that irrational? Is it irrational to look at the physical world with all its strange behavior and conclude that even rocks are alive and nature in general is not only conscious of us, but willful too? Animism attributes life and consciousness to everything. Everything has a soul. In the absence of scientific explanations, our pre-ancient forebears invented "spirits" to move the world, where today we explain the world as moving according to "laws of nature" -- both of which are metaphysical assumptions. The point here is, it is rational to create metaphysical assumptions (even if mistaken). What makes one explanation rational or not is not whether it is proven or factually true, but whether the explanation reassures us that we understand the world. To me, animism and religion and philosophy and science are all exercises in rationality -- which is a unique human urge to comprehend rather than merely live in the world. We just want to make sense of it. It's rational to do so and irrational not to. I do not think we are intuitively dualists. I do think we're intuitively animists, and this has led us on a long journey of discovery, in which the metaphysical assumption that there are "laws" of nature is just the latest iteration.GTChristiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14390368105725901371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7021972615680221295.post-43661041002009607252012-06-15T00:03:12.073+00:002012-06-15T00:03:12.073+00:00On the other hand, I always check both ways when c...On the other hand, I always check both ways when crossing the road.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16898681927233029900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7021972615680221295.post-12937036637841020502012-06-14T08:07:52.617+00:002012-06-14T08:07:52.617+00:00Nicely put.Nicely put.Mark Englishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03506844097173520312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7021972615680221295.post-1614938469616468482012-06-13T16:17:27.748+00:002012-06-13T16:17:27.748+00:00I know that I am not immortal.
I just keep forget...I know that I am not immortal.<br /><br />I just keep forgetting the fact.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16898681927233029900noreply@blogger.com