The status of items you do not understand

[ctrl y]

The question: Suppose there is some item that you don't understand after significant study. What should you do with it, cognitively?

Some possible answers:

* Dismiss it as arbitrary. (This makes sense but runs into problems. Items in advanced physics would probably be incomprehensible to me, but they are certainly reasonable to believe.)

* Assess the level of your intelligence. A very intelligent person should take his ability to understand something as the standard of reasonableness, and dismiss as arbitrary the item that he cannot understand. A less intelligent person might see how authorities treat the item instead, and treat it like they do. (This answer also makes sense but does not really apply to fields like philosophy, where there are no ultimate authorities, and what authorities there are do not agree about much.)

* Study harder. (In some situations this would be the right approach but there are also situations where one has read all the material and does not understand the item in question.)

-------------------------------------------------

Context: I am in a debate with a person who believes in a version of modern theology. His god-concept does not make sense to me, and I have read a lot of what he has written about it. He is very sophisticated and well read.

Edited January 31, 2010 by ctrl y

[Pokarrin]

If you must defer to authority for understanding in a matter in which you have a personal stake, at least make your best effort to intelligently choose which authority to defer to. Consider arguments made by potential candidates on related topics that you do understand well, and consider how rational they are in those arguments. Also, consider whether they might have an unreasonable bias in this particular case. The far better alternative, of course, is to improve your intelligence until you do understand their arguments, and judge for yourself.

I admit I'm a bit curious as to the particular god-concept this individual advocates. Can you provide an example or a link to his work?

[ctrl y]

The far better alternative, of course, is to improve your intelligence until you do understand their arguments, and judge for yourself.

That is a far better alternative. How?

I admit I'm a bit curious as to the particular god-concept this individual advocates. Can you provide an example or a link to his work?

He seems to think God is a "thing" (not a thing really but something beyond being a thing somehow) that is above being and undergirds and causes it. Also, "it" is conscious.

http://www.doxa.ws/Menues/DoxaGod.html

Actually, this is better: http://www.doxa.ws/Being/Being2.html

But of course I just mentioned that debate to give context to the initial question. The initial question is really what I started the thread for.

Edited January 31, 2010 by ctrl y

[Pokarrin]

That is a far better alternative. How?

It's not easy to improve your intelligence in general, but it's made somewhat easier when you have a particular subject to study. Quite simply, read books by other thinkers on the subject, beginning with those who write most simply, until you understand the basic principles that can be applied to the subject. When I wanted to understand economics, for instance, I tried to start with Adam Smith, but found it hard going because I didn't know a lot of the terms he used, and I had trouble deciphering the somewhat archaic language. Henry Hazlitt and Frederic Bastiat provided a much better basic grounding for me, and I was later able to go back to Smith, then Von Mises and Hayek for a more thorough exposition of the subject. After that, it was much easier for me to understand Keynes' arguments and why they were incoherent. Think of the way you learned algebra in high school; had you begun with a book on the subject without a prior grounding in basic arithmetic, you would likely have found your intelligence inadequate to the task, despite the fact that most algebraic functions are actually relatively simple to understand.

[Pokarrin]

What a fascinating mixture of logical fallacy, sound reasoning, and occasionally bad spelling this guy is. He is obviously at least somewhat familiar with logical argument, though I doubt he's made a serious study of it. I believe I can refute him argument by argument, and I fully intend to do so for the sole purpose of sharpening my mind thereby. Would you like me to post my results when I finish, or would you rather work through it yourself? It may take me some time, as I will probably have to check some of his source material myself.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Context: I am in a debate with a person who believes in a version of modern theology. His god-concept does not make sense to me, and I have read a lot of what he has written about it. He is very sophisticated and well read.

In order for a hypothesis or a philosophical position to make sense it has to be pinned to the real world by empirical facts. Such facts need not provide absolute proof of the hypothesis but they do have to connect the hypothesis to the real and sensible world. The connection may be direct and simple or it might be lengthy and contain abstract elements, but there must be a connection.

That is why most of us do not accept the existence of unicorns, but do accept the existence of atoms (which we cannot see).

Bob Kolker

[Grames]

Context: I am in a debate with a person who believes in a version of modern theology. His god-concept does not make sense to me, and I have read a lot of what he has written about it. He is very sophisticated and well read.

A god-concept does not need to make sense. It is quite possible that the problem here is not that you are not smart enough to understand him.

[Jake_Ellison]

If I were to venture a guess, the problem isn't that you can't understand, the problem is that you don't have the means to prove it illogical. Obviously, something illogical can't be understood (integrated without contradictions), but it can be proven illogical by pointing out said contradictions.

What you need to do is find any contradictions with reality, or any leaps that aren't connected to reality, in his theory.

* Dismiss it as arbitrary. (This makes sense but runs into problems. Items in advanced physics would probably be incomprehensible to me, but they are certainly reasonable to believe.)

Not so fast. Nothing's incomprehensible, we just don't have the time to fully study everything. But we do have plenty of reasons to think that the science behind an Apache helicopter or an MRI machine is not arbitrary, nonetheless. (non arbitrary means that there is evidence to support it - obviously there is, the fact that both technologies work perfectly might not be the main proof, but it is nonetheless quite sufficient to conclude that the science is for the most part correct)

We also have plenty of reason to think that the theory of a god-concept is arbitrary. (since we have plenty of opportunities to find some evidence of God, and yet there is none to be found) That makes it quite an extraordinary claim, and the one thing I haven't read you mention is some actual evidence supporting that claim. If he doesn't present you with some, it can be dismissed as arbitrary. The burden of proof is on him, and the only reason why he would refuse to present evidence is because he has none. No evidence is the definition of arbitrary.

[ctrl y]

What a fascinating mixture of logical fallacy, sound reasoning, and occasionally bad spelling this guy is. He is obviously at least somewhat familiar with logical argument, though I doubt he's made a serious study of it. I believe I can refute him argument by argument, and I fully intend to do so for the sole purpose of sharpening my mind thereby. Would you like me to post my results when I finish, or would you rather work through it yourself? It may take me some time, as I will probably have to check some of his source material myself.

Sure. I would recommend sending a copy to him as well.

[JMeganSnow]

* Dismiss it as arbitrary. (This makes sense but runs into problems. Items in advanced physics would probably be incomprehensible to me, but they are certainly reasonable to believe.)

* Assess the level of your intelligence. A very intelligent person should take his ability to understand something as the standard of reasonableness, and dismiss as arbitrary the item that he cannot understand. A less intelligent person might see how authorities treat the item instead, and treat it like they do. (This answer also makes sense but does not really apply to fields like philosophy, where there are no ultimate authorities, and what authorities there are do not agree about much.)

* Study harder. (In some situations this would be the right approach but there are also situations where one has read all the material and does not understand the item in question.)

These are all poor options because they ignore your nature as a human being and thinking person, as well as the nature of the subject you're trying to understand.

Dismissing something as arbitrary when you don't even understand the claim that is being made is ludicrous. In this model, you would be using "arbitrary" as an effective "get out of jail free" card to avoid thinking.

Assessing the level of your own intelligence is a massively difficult project, and intelligence has almost nothing to do with WHAT you can understand--just HOW MUCH of it you can deal with at once. People of average intelligence can learn calculus and higher mathematics if it is presented in such a way that takes into account their limitations. They can make judgments based on material that is simplified for an intelligent layman.

Studying harder without making an evaluation on the worth of a given item of knowledge to you, personally, is a waste of time.

The proper thing to do is to assess how important this particular issue is to you, decide how much time you are willing to devote to it, and then seek out avenues that are appropriate given the amount of time/interest you have to spend. If you have little and the issue is not important, the proper action may just be to say "I'm not following this and it isn't worth my time", and drop it.

However, in many cases the fact that you don't understand something is not an indicator of failure on your part but on the part of the person attempting to explain it to you. If you are of at least average intelligence and are confronted by some elaborate bit of hooey, don't assume that you're too stupid to understand it and thus it must be profound in its indications. The burden of making their claims comprehensible falls upon the person making those claims. Tell them you're not interested in their hooey unless they can summarize it well enough that you can grasp the ESSENTIALS of their case. The minute details aren't what make or break their case, anyway--that's just the loopholes where they hope to hide themselves.

[dream_weaver]

<snip> The minute details aren't what make or break their case, anyway--that's just the loopholes where they hope to hide themselves.

Interesting way to state it.

While he may be

a very sophisticated and well read

individual; these attributes alone are not the hallmark of a clear thinker, and in this case, it may well be the issue that is obfuscating his thinking.