Are Women More Likely To Be Believers?

[autonomous_unit]

Oxford Will, I understand the philosophical tenets you keep asserting over and over here, but I wonder at their relevance. I am personally skeptical of your (rather old-fashioned, from my point of view) statement that we are all logical unless insane. For me, my basic knowledge of contemporary physiological and psychological study and my above-average knowledge of computational theory and related engineering disciplines (consider that "applied logic" ) make it clear that we are far from logical machines. We are fuzzy thinkers, and I do not mean to imply a formal fuzzy logic either. We "compute" decisions in a dizzying array of parallel and redundant biological components, swimming in a flood of noisy signals and biases which somehow comes out with statistically significant results that are barely understood by contemporary science and certainly not by contemporary engineering. To say our minds are logical, merely because they produce results that are often not inconsistent with a logical analysis of reality, is as strange an assertion as to say water is mathematical, merely because it seems to compute volumetric sums when we pour it.

As you've mentioned, logic is merely a system for inferring truth values from a set of premises. We could apply logic to study the behavior of a system, or even attempt to model a simple system and see if the model appears to be logically sound, but isn't it naive to think we can reduce the organic complexity of the mind to a system of facts and a logic, i.e. separate premises and inference rules? None of us have the luxury of knowing whether our real-life operating premises are even logically consistent, much less having the time to exhaustively search the inference space for proofs of interesting derived truth. I think it is unquestionable that our minds take many short cuts to find relevant inferences in real life, and this process is inseparable from our memories/neural-training and emotional/endocrine systems which help guide us to reasonably relevant decisions in the moment when decision matters. We do not just learn new facts/premises, but new inference rules and contextual rules for when they are appropriately applied. And, we do this day in and day out whether we have ever attempted to reflect on our own decision-making or not. If anything, I'd say that an attempt to reflect and interpose formal symbolic reasoning will lead most people to reduce their practical decision-making capacities. (Not to discount the value of learning logical reasoning skills, but I think our innate intuitive decision-making is just as important in everyday life...)

To the original topic: in practice, I think the boundaries between theories, knowledge, belief, and wisdom are also fuzzy. We draw distinctions based on "how strongly" we trust the information, how deeply it is embedded into our cultural landscape, how catastrophic it would be to rip out the "fact" and all its derived truths, etc. Often these boundaries are abused and their separateness exagerated for rhetorical effect. Finally, I think there are strong cultural norms affecting what information we will allow ourselves to learn and absorb to a certain strength or depth of belief. Some of these norms are gender-based, I would agree, though I choose to remain a skeptic as far as thinking there are also sexual biases as to what we will learn.

I don't think it is my "maleness" that makes me believe in a cold, uncaring (but still wonder-filled) reductionist universe. But, I am not foolish enough to think my education was not enabled by the cultural environment from which I came, nor that my being raised with conventional expectations to "act like a boy/man" had no influence on how I trained myself to think. My own skepticism regarding spirits, souls, psychic phenomena, etc. has to do with the views I've developed on perception and its illusory nature. I think we, in general, perceive things more vividly and clearly than we've actually sensed them, i.e. we "recover" information from our noisy senses, often without a clear awareness of where the senses end and the imagination begins. My trade/expertise makes me painfully aware that one cannot "recover" more information than was present in the sense data, and this knowledge is what forces me to disregard fanciful explanations where a simpler answer of "faulty signal processing" would do... my gender merely made it easier for me to obtain this education.

[OxfordWill]

Oxford Will, I understand the philosophical tenets you keep asserting over and over here, but I wonder at their relevance. I am personally skeptical of your (rather old-fashioned, from my point of view) statement that we are all logical unless insane. For me, my basic knowledge of contemporary physiological and psychological study and my above-average knowledge of computational theory and related engineering disciplines (consider that "applied logic" ) make it clear that we are far from logical machines. We are fuzzy thinkers, and I do not mean to imply a formal fuzzy logic either. We "compute" decisions in a dizzying array of parallel and redundant biological components, swimming in a flood of noisy signals and biases which somehow comes out with statistically significant results that are barely understood by contemporary science and certainly not by contemporary engineering. To say our minds are logical, merely because they produce results that are often not inconsistent with a logical analysis of reality, is as strange an assertion as to say water is mathematical, merely because it seems to compute volumetric sums when we pour it.

Well, you have of course caught me out. I have an agenda which I am pursuing and sometimes, in order to teach a simple point, you have to extrapolate that point to such lengths that the point is made to seem altogether more important or fundamental than it really is. Then in the second lesson, you can break it down and put it in the correct place, safe in the knowledge that the student has taken its essence on board.

When I imply our minds are logical machines, I do not mean to simultaneously imply that our minds are particularly well oiled logical machines. We are better, on the whole, at doing bad logic than good logic. My point is that, bad or good, it is logic that is being done (poorly or otherwise). Bad logic is still logic, or rather, an absence of good logic does not, ontologically speaking, cause the logic-gears to vanish. This, I find, is the best way to teach someone the importance of logic when hitherto, "logic" was a word that didnt really mean anything other than "correct".

But really your point is philosophy of mind - and essentially you are asking to enter into a discussion on how the mind works. I would love to do so, but this is not the place to do it. As you may have guessed, I have strong opinions on that too. In short I agree most with a computational theory of mind written by a philosopher named Mark Cain, which today is a version of Fodor's own development of Putnams original CTM. I expect you might be a CTM type too since you are in computers. It is not perfect but has the most explanatory power of all current options in my opinion. Although it can leave some things difficult to palate such as that concepts may well be innate and learning is technically impossible.

As you've mentioned, logic is merely a system for inferring truth values from a set of premises. We could apply logic to study the behavior of a system, or even attempt to model a simple system and see if the model appears to be logically sound, but isn't it naive to think we can reduce the organic complexity of the mind to a system of facts and a logic, i.e. separate premises and inference rules? None of us have the luxury of knowing whether our real-life operating premises are even logically consistent, much less having the time to exhaustively search the inference space for proofs of interesting derived truth. I think it is unquestionable that our minds take many short cuts to find relevant inferences in real life, and this process is inseparable from our memories/neural-training and emotional/endocrine systems which help guide us to reasonably relevant decisions in the moment when decision matters. We do not just learn new facts/premises, but new inference rules and contextual rules for when they are appropriately applied. And, we do this day in and day out whether we have ever attempted to reflect on our own decision-making or not. If anything, I'd say that an attempt to reflect and interpose formal symbolic reasoning will lead most people to reduce their practical decision-making capacities. (Not to discount the value of learning logical reasoning skills, but I think our innate intuitive decision-making is just as important in everyday life...)

Yes it is, but it is key for people to realise that the process can be explicited and written down on paper, even if we are then to overlook some steps made on the neurological or "binary" level. Because, what ultimately is our goal- to encourage logical thinking or not? Hopefully now you will give me the benefit of the doubt as I am trying (failing!) to pass on some fundamentals. Sure, I could offer a 600 page thesis on the problems with deviant logic, but nothing would be gained by a novice reading that, wheres "logic for dummies" is surprisingly well written! So in essence I am saying I agree with you but don't tell anyone.

To the original topic:[...] My trade/expertise makes me painfully aware that one cannot "recover" more information than was present in the sense data, and this knowledge is what forces me to disregard fanciful explanations where a simpler answer of "faulty signal processing" would do... my gender merely made it easier for me to obtain this education.

And those who did not obtain the education in question and claim to be able to sense the extra-sensual are... misguided or gifted? And are they more likely to be female or male? And is that just because Males have had more opporunity to gain education, and so therefore are you saying Males are simply better educated than females? Sorry- just redirecting some heat! Enjoyed your breath of fresh air.

[autonomous_unit]

... Although it can leave some things difficult to palate such as that concepts may well be innate and learning is technically impossible.

Personally, I haven't found anything in computation that would lead necessarily to determinism. Not to imply choice or free will in any real opposition, either...

... Because, what ultimately is our goal- to encourage logical thinking or not?

That's clearly your goal but I am not sure it is mine nor everyone else's here! I'm neither a teacher nor a missionary, so until I have kids of my own, I cannot be sure how much logical thinking I will want to impart versus all other modes of cognition. I've personally been aware of my own intuition and gestalt perceptions since a young age, and see logic as just another tool for the shed... Now, logical behavior I think we can talk about as a basic civic necessity, but I'm less concerned by what means people manage their own behaviors...

.. And those who did not obtain the education in question and claim to be able to sense the extra-sensual are... misguided or gifted? And are they more likely to be female or male? And is that just because Males have had more opporunity to gain education, and so therefore are you saying Males are simply better educated than females? Sorry- just redirecting some heat! Enjoyed your breath of fresh air.

Just to side-step your redirected heat, I am merely referring to a well-known gender imbalance in the student population of my field. I never claimed my education was "better" since the most I can do is admit my bias as belonging to the population that shows the bias. It's one of those ironies of life that I know my views may not be easily digested by those with a different education (and vice versa), while I simultaneously realize that my own views shaped my education to date so that even some of my closest classmates did not really receive "my education" per se.

(To finish on that note while resuming an earlier thread in this discussion, I don't think the "right" to free speech or personal beliefs in any way implies a right to be heard nor respected... it is merely a right not to be obstructed by the powers wielded through government. Everyone has a right to speak or hold their opinions, and I have the right to plug my ears or mock them as I see fit!)

[OxfordWill]

At least you recognise that a right imposes some sort of duty on others.

I can't imagine why you would want to encourage illogical thinking, and since there is no middle ground between rational and the irrational, not wanting to encourage logical thinking is tantamount to the same. Im pretty sure you would prefer your neighbours to be more rational than less.

You say you have been aware of your intuition- for me anyway it is one of the biggest problems for ethics. Intuition tells us we ought to donate money to the starving person on our doorstep, but not to feel the same for the starving african a million miles away (putting $5 in the envelope or whatever). Intuition seems to tell us that conspicuousness has a valid bearing on ethical obligations, but logical analysis in most cases shows this to be bad thinking or hypocritical when placed alongside the vast majority of popular normative ethics. When faced with a choice between the rational and the intuitive, in such an example, does one have any justification for following the intuitive? Even against reason? I submit we really cannot rely on our intuition. Its one of a series of tricky meta-ethical positions which tend to turn out smelling pretty bad under a bright light.

Vaguely justified linkage: www.givingwhatwecan.org

http://www.amirrorclear.net/academic/index.html

For a glance at how reliant ethics is on logic.

Edited September 17, 2007 by OxfordWill

[cmsally]

Intuition tells us we ought to donate money to the starving person on our doorstep, but not to feel the same for the starving african a million miles away

Not really based on intuition but more on logic. If we give to someone within our sphere of experience we have more chance of knowing how the money is spent and whether it really does alleviate their poverty.

It would seem to be a more rational decision, the more we know about the case of poverty , where our money goes and how it is spent , the more rational it becomes.

Intuition is something that is based more on instinct. Ask anyone who has done dangerous things or been to dangerous places and chances are they will all have done something based on instinct; some action for which at the time there was no rational explanation. Ask them the reason and a lot of people will say they just had "a bad feeling".

Maybe though there is some scientific explanation for something they pick up on - for example how do the ants know its going to rain, how do a lot of animals know about a thunderstorm or natural disaster.

Intuition may well be another kind of logic but one we haven't perfectly fathomed out yet.

[sbk]

Well, oxfordwill, I do have to wonder how long you've spent living in Thailand after reading your theories on logic and logical thinking.

You seem to see logic and the thought process as some kind of absolute rather than something determined by one's culture and experiences. You are not a woman, you can NEVER understand what it is like to be a woman, regardless of how much logic you apply to the idea. I am not a man, I can NEVER understand what it is like to be a man (and I mean the cumulative experiences of life and cultural behaviors that makes up masculinity and femininity not biological changes). How can you possibly say that your definition of correct thinking (or to put it your way--logical thinking) is valid in my world or the world of a Thai woman or of a Kalahari bushwoman? We are all shaped and molded by our culture and life experiences and, IMO, there is no absolute definition of logic that is not culturally based.

And how does this apply to the OP? Well, IMO, only in the way that someone who believes solely in the logic of their culture (such as will) could not believe that alternatives exist outside their own experiences or that others might process information in a completely different way from their own. So what someone might see as spiritual or supernatural, another would merely deny its existence and label it fraud.

[Jet Gorgon]

I agree CM and SBK. I think Oxwill just likes to pontificate and extol his self-appointed genius among the stupidity that he presumes to see around him. I doubt he has applied his use of logic anywhere outside of belittling students in a classroom or perhaps cashing in royalty cheques from Logic for Dummies. AutoUnit, conversely, presents lucid and valid arguments, without appearing pompous or arrogant, perhaps because he uses applied logic and lives in the real world.

Pure logic has its place in theory, but most people actually live and interact pleasantly with others in the real world. Beliefs, ghosts and intuition cannot be quantified, so they are dismissed by "thinkers" as irrational. For that reason, I do love Buddhist thought. Spiritual and real world. I think Oxwill would learn much from meditation, but I believe his ego would never permit his mind to be calmed.

[suegha]

sbk and Jet, excellent posts! Oxford Will, take note, you do certainly come across as self-righteous! Like I said in previous posts, try to respect other peoples opinions...

[OxfordWill]

Suegha your suggestion is delightfully ironic.

Jet- Again you have me all summed up. Its comforting to know I am understood so.

SBK, your opinions on logic are not opinions you are entitled to! I say again, you do not understand what logic is. You are using the word "logic" but you dont actually seem to have the first clue as to what you are talking about. You are incorrect, you have no good reasons for your opinion beyond how you would like to see the world, and you are essentially trying to say that black is white. Maybe you are the type of person who sees so much difference in the world around her, that you assume this difference must extend to all things. This is a faulty assumption if so. I am all for avoiding ethnocentricity, but that is not what is at stake here. We're talking maths and logic and axioms and all those kinds of things. They are not culturally sensitive, by definition. Logic is not relative, nor is it based on culture. You insist on this line of thinking but it is 100% wrong. This is not my opinion which some other people, who also study logic, disagree with (at least not at the level we are discussing). This is an opinion that anyone who knows anything about logic, agrees with. There is nothing more I can add to the matter. The only requests I had for a copy of the intro to logic were from people who didnt even contribute to the thread. If you want to know why you are wrong, the book I am offering is quite a good start. Do not confuse the "is" with an "ought". I am not saying "logic is absolute" and therefore "all cultures must adhere to logic". I am saying "logic is absolute" and also "Isnt it wonderful how different cultures apply logic in different degrees of seriousness". I am not passing a moral or ethical or behavioural judgement on anything or anyone. I am simply telling you that black is black and it has no ramifications beyond that fact for me. Again my opinions on logic are not theories or something I have cooked up on my own. I haven't had to go beyond the basic cold hard facts, theories come once you have those foundations in place, which you do not (and you're not alone!).

cmsally- I agree entirely, but it is not going to be logic as we know it. It is going to be another type of process, along the lines of the one autonomous_unit was hinting at above.

Another, shorter, intro to logic:

http://ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=152732

When we talk about logic [...] we’re actually talking about the study of argument. Argument is logic, logic is argument. Philosophers care a great deal about arguments, and hence, one cannot hope to be a philosopher without knowing about logic even if you then decide to ignore logic (notable example: Nietzche).

However, there’s a problem. Everyone has got an opinion, and just how do we tell good arguments from bad ones?.....

Edited September 18, 2007 by OxfordWill

[suegha]

I had been finding this thread most entertaining and a great read, of late, however, it's been hi-jacked and has become slightly annoying...

[Grover]

Im quite enjoying it all

[suegha]

Im quite enjoying it all

I'm sure some will enjoy it, however, it's gone so far off topic it's unreal!!!

[sbk]

Well, I did try to point it in the direction of the OP

Will, we agree to disagree. Enough said

[OxfordWill]

Have a good week

Edited September 19, 2007 by OxfordWill

[autonomous_unit]

Sorry, couldn't join in yesterday from my flying carpet over the Pacific...

...

I can't imagine why you would want to encourage illogical thinking, and since there is no middle ground between rational and the irrational, not wanting to encourage logical thinking is tantamount to the same. Im pretty sure you would prefer your neighbours to be more rational than less.

So, we're either "with you" or "against you", is that it? Somewhat stark categories. My fuzzy thinking tells me you ought to embrace ambivalence more. I never said I encouraged illogical thinking, but rather that formal symbolic reasoning is not the pinnacle of thought we should strive attain to under all circumstances (to the detriment of other modes). And as I said, I'd want my neighbors to behave rationally, but whether they do this out of fear of upsetting the spaghetti monster or because they've shrewdly determined how it benefits them more on the whole, I do not care.

Regarding intuition, I reject your straw man about local versus global charity, in order to get to my point more directly. Using intuition (or as I said, getstalt perceptions) is not illogical, but rather is an acceptance that we have access to less than perfect information and less than perfect proof-building capacity. Consider how each derivation in a long logical "calculation" can add error when the inputs are imprecise. The more directly we can reach a conclusion from our possibly erroneous premises, the less likely we are to wander off into the logical dark forest of our minds. Our intuition and gestalt perceptual capabilities are, in my opinion, a valuable tool for weighing one imperfect "fact" or sense against others and deciding how to act.

Of course, with the luxury of time we can try to investigate our premises to reduce the unknowns and we can validate our thinking with more elaborate analysis. But, we should take care to consider the bigger picture wherin our premises are wrong... The less time we have to make a decision, the more critical it can be to have an intuitive process we can trust. Thus, we train as athletes or combatants to process information in real-time, rather than to stop and work out physics calculations in "long hand" before making our next move! There is an entire spectrum of reasoning situations from these concrete training/conditioning tasks to the most abstract life-altering philosophical debates. That is my epistomological creed.

In a deparate attempt to return to topic, I would summarize that this intuitive reasoning ability is also something we learn and refine by practice. While some people develop it into being "believers" in the sense of the original poster, I don't think this is a necessary conclusion. It all depends on how we train the ability, when we decide it is reaching erroneous conclusions, etc. And, this reflective process is itself grounded in culture and emotion. Did it hurt us or ostracize us to follow our intuitions? If so, we probably will adjust them more (for next time) than if the outcome was satisfactory or comforting. Just as in evolution in general, the guiding pressure is not "optimization" but "'avoidance of disaster"... there's a great middle ground where different approaches are all good enough to survive in the same ecology, whether it is an ecology of organisms or one of minds.

[OxfordWill]

Sorry, couldn't join in yesterday from my flying carpet over the Pacific...

...

I can't imagine why you would want to encourage illogical thinking, and since there is no middle ground between rational and the irrational, not wanting to encourage logical thinking is tantamount to the same. Im pretty sure you would prefer your neighbours to be more rational than less.

So, we're either "with you" or "against you", is that it? Somewhat stark categories. My fuzzy thinking tells me you ought to embrace ambivalence more. I never said I encouraged illogical thinking, but rather that formal symbolic reasoning is not the pinnacle of thought we should strive attain to under all circumstances (to the detriment of other modes). And as I said, I'd want my neighbors to behave rationally, but whether they do this out of fear of upsetting the spaghetti monster or because they've shrewdly determined how it benefits them more on the whole, I do not care.

Yes it's not a great idea (my fault) to mark it in such competitive terminology but yes you can't have a middle ground in this case. How exactly do you think your neighbours can behave rationally if they are unable to think rationally? Maybe I am missing something here.

Regarding intuition, I reject your straw man about local versus global charity, in order to get to my point more directly.

woah there. It's not my argument, it's THE argument.

Using intuition (or as I said, getstalt perceptions) is not illogical, but rather is an acceptance that we have access to less than perfect information and less than perfect proof-building capacity. Consider how each derivation in a long logical "calculation" can add error when the inputs are imprecise. The more directly we can reach a conclusion from our possibly erroneous premises, the less likely we are to wander off into the logical dark forest of our minds. Our intuition and gestalt perceptual capabilities are, in my opinion, a valuable tool for weighing one imperfect "fact" or sense against others and deciding how to act.

This is not wrong, but it is being misapplied. I am talking about the logic or argument, not of computation. Now, you might say the two are the same, but we can only agree or disagree about that on a theoretical level since we have not discussed the nature of the mind beyond brief comments on CTM. The logic of argument, for example sentential logic, is what I am banging on about here. Not formal symbolic logic.

Of course, with the luxury of time we can try to investigate our premises to reduce the unknowns and we can validate our thinking with more elaborate analysis. But, we should take care to consider the bigger picture wherin our premises are wrong... The less time we have to make a decision, the more critical it can be to have an intuitive process we can trust. Thus, we train as athletes or combatants to process information in real-time, rather than to stop and work out physics calculations in "long hand" before making our next move! There is an entire spectrum of reasoning situations from these concrete training/conditioning tasks to the most abstract life-altering philosophical debates. That is my epistomological creed.

Fully agree.

Did it hurt us or ostracize us to follow our intuitions?

I am more concerned who else it might hurt.

[canuckamuck]

Getting back to the discussion, I think we have established here a near consensus that women are more likely to be believers in things that fall outside of the more narrow views of science and see-it-to-believe-it mind worshippers.

Women IMO have an extra sensitivity to our spiritual, emotional, and instinctual components, giving them an alternate perspective. As with all points of view, there are advantages and disadvantages this is why women should embrace their distinction. This does not make them superior to men, rather complimentary to them - one half of the set if you will.

It has become quite obvious that as Oxford continues to postulate this opinion he seems so entitled to; the ladies have not nearly budged. For they know there is so much more to reality than cold logic can offer and they patiently remind him thus.

Autonomous unit, very enjoyable posts.

Oxford Will we all believe in something, you believe in logic. You have made it equal to truth, and that is your choice.

[OxfordWill]

/nevermind!!!! *slap self*

Edited September 21, 2007 by OxfordWill

[khall64au]

Onya OxWill

IMHO women don't need to prove there is anything to believe in. We - us women - are intuitive and that is all that counts.

We never say 'we told you so' - that is an unsaid truth!

It is up to the individual to believe in the truth of another individual... it's the female energy that counts - look at the moon, hug a tree, where did those fireflies come from, is that a hummingbird or a dragonfly, see that reflection in the pond? ......

[suegha]

Praise be...