Defending Rationalism

[apathy maybe]

Anarchism and 'anarchistic' knowledge systems

Paul Feyerabend (Against Method - Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge, (London: Verso, 1978)), argues (as the title suggests) against any method in scientific exploration. He feels that any rules or guidelines will restrict scientific progress. He also comes to the conclusion that any knowledge system is as good as any other. He rejects the idea that science is somehow above community, and draws the conclusion that if a community wishes to teach (for example) "creation science", that is as valid as teaching evolution. (This is a very quick summary of quite a difficult book, my advice is to read interpretations of Feyerabend's ideas before attempting to read them directly.)

So then, he argues, in effect, for an anarchistic system, no knowledge system is higher in a hierarchy then any other. (He does draw connections with Dadaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dadaism) (see footnote 12 in the introduction) the art 'method' from the 1920's that was also against method).

I contend, that while his system is anarchistic (in the sense of not having hierarchy), it is not useful for anarchism. (Though he does, in my mind correctly, attack scientists who think that their work is not to be directed by community, but rather by their own wishes).


Anarchism is against oppression and subjection. It is for the ability of people to live out their lives to their fullest ability. It is against hierarchy, it is for voluntarism. (See also http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421 and http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=28053 )

While there do exist certain forms of anarchism (or other anti-hierarchical political systems) that are irrational (Tolstoy's, the Digger's and other religious types), I contend that the goals of anarchism (a free and open society without oppression) are under threat from irrationalism.

It is true that humans are not completely rational, they have certain biological biases that mean that they might prefer some things over another for irrational reasons. (Hume had some interesting ideas around this, he criticised induction, though he recognised that it was beneficial biologically.)

But despite these biological 'facts of life', humans still have the potential to be quite rational.


Rational, "of or based on reasoning or reason" (The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary), thought is thought that is lead by reason and logic. I am not defending rationalism as such, but rather attacking irrationalism, and the only alternative to irrationalism is rationalism (used here to mean believing in rational thought, using reason, rather then in any philosophical or theological sense).

Irrationalism is thinking about things in an irrational way, drawing conclusions that are no substantiated by the facts, attributing to supernatural or metaphysical things that could easily be attributed to natural or physical causes.

Irrationalism leads quickly to to religion, with all the possible problems inherent in religion (see the Catholic Church, many forms of Protestantism, many forms of Islam and so on). It can also lead to believing that such things as (hereditary) monarchy are good (when obviously there is no rational reason to support them).

In other words, irrationalism can lead to hierarchy, something that anarchism is against. (Though I am not saying that it will lead to hierarchy, just that the possibility exists.)


So if we are against irrationalism, and I feel we should be because of all the possible problems associated with it, then we are left with rationalism. So I feel that most of Feyerabend's conclusions are not in line with anarchist thought, and that while some of them are useful in and of themselves, we should prefer rational thought, and continue to try and find a rational method for science.


(I'm working on a paper a the the moment in which I will present different ideas about science (including Feyerabend's) and criticism them, before attempting to draw my own conclusions on what exactly science is.)

[apathy maybe]

Isn't anyone going to reply to this?

What I'll do is quickly restate my main point.

My point is that belief in irrational things can lead to hierarchy. Because anarchism is against hierarchy, it is to the benefit of anarchism and anarchistic societies to promote rational and critical thinking.

This is not to say that an anarchistic society could not come about that promoted irrational thinking.

[rouchambeau]

it is to the benefit of anarchism and anarchistic societies to promote rational and critical thinking.
butt omg who a u 2 say that rational and crtical thincing is beter then any other thawt?!?!

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

How are you defining irrational thinking? How does this lead to a hierarchy?

[apathy maybe]

How are you defining irrational thinking? How does this lead to a hierarchy?
Irrational thinking is thinking that is irrational ;).
Examples include, belief that the sky gods cause thunder and lightning, belief in a all powerful, all knowing, everywhere type of god, belief in things for no good reason (without evidence). Hume wrote a good piece on why (based only on the testimony of others) miracles should not be believed in.

This sort of thinking can lead to hierarchy, a few ways. I'll provide examples.

A witch doctor/priest gets the best bits of the hunt in return for protecting the village against the sky gods. This can rapidly (well with in a few generations) lead to an established religious structure that controls a large part of a societies daily life.

New age cults are based on irrationality, see also Scientology and Railians (prob. spelt wrong.)

I can't give a generalised "law" 'cause there isn't one.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The fact that irrational thinking can result in hierarchy does not prove that it will do so in all circumstances. However, I think you are just saying that it "can." Therefore, an anarchist society should seek to eliminate it. All forms and instances or irrational thinking may not have the potential to lead to hierarchy. Can you prove that they do?

[apathy maybe]

That's correct, I was simply saying that they can lead to hierarchy.

While I cannot show that all forms of irrationality lead to hierarchy, there are other reasons to attempt to get rid of irrational thinking. Rational thinking leads to advances in science and technology, irrational thinking does not.

[blake 3:17]

Is Feyeraband an irrationalist? I think of him more as a radical pragmatist.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think it is a tough argument to make that all irrationality is bad. Although intellectuals, who are rational people by nature, may be inclined to believe as such. Many of the underlying premises we believe are true are, in fact, not proven. Our reasons for believing certain things, as Hume and others have demonstrated, are baseless. Without them, however, much of our modern world is irrational.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by blake 3:17+--> (blake 3:17)Is Feyeraband an irrationalist? I think of him more as a radical pragmatist.[/b]I don't think he is an irrationalist, I just think that he (potentially) promoting irrational thinking. What I don't like is that he called his system methodological anarchism, while I think that anarchism should be based on a rational basis.


Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
I think it is a tough argument to make that all irrationality is bad. Although intellectuals, who are rational people by nature, may be inclined to believe as such. Many of the underlying premises we believe are true are, in fact, not proven. Our reasons for believing certain things, as Hume and others have demonstrated, are baseless. Without them, however, much of our modern world is irrational. I know, personally I am a bit of a pragmatist, I ignore the fact at induction is potentially irrational, I ignore the fact that other things can not be proven.

So not all irrationality is bad, because without it we would still be stuck in a primitive society, but it seems to me that we should avoid it where we can.


The main irrationality that I meant was that that lead to superstition, religion and so on. Stupid stuff like astrology.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 29, 2006 11:13 pm
I know, personally I am a bit of a pragmatist, I ignore the fact at induction is potentially irrational, I ignore the fact that other things can not be proven.

So not all irrationality is bad, because without it we would still be stuck in a primitive society, but it seems to me that we should avoid it where we can.

The main irrationality that I meant was that that lead to superstition, religion and so on. Stupid stuff like astrology.
I am somewhat of a pragmatist, too. However, it seems to me that the issue of whether irrational behavior is good or bad (assuming morality exists) is epistemological in nature. Therefore, I must assume the role of the skeptic and ask:

Not all irrationality is bad.
Some irrationality is bad.

We seem to have both accepted these premises (whether justly or not). However, how does this help our everyday lives? Most people would agree with the second statement. Some may disagree with the first. However, we are accepting them both.

How, then, do we determine whether something is a good irrationality or a bad one? Logic and reason, I assume we would both answer. However, before we proposed our two premises, we already used logic and reason to determine whether something was bad or good.

Therefore, it seems to me that, aside from being interesting, the argument and establishing of our two premises contributes nothing to our thinking processes or our way of life in general.

[Hit The North]

It's not just a question of whether irrationality is always bad, but whether rationality is always good.

Rationality can create oppressive hierarchical systems which prioritize efficiency in achieving organizational goals over more human concerns such as ethical treatment and the value of human life. The Nazi death camps may have been created as a consequence of irrational belief, but they were organized according to a rational plan.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

How is irrationality ever a good thing? :wacko: Unless you mean if say, a BNP activist irrationally deciding that actually there are no foreign people in Britain, and therefore there's no need to be active anymore. That would be good, but only in the sense of one irrationality cancelling out the other.

One could use this bizarre "all ideas are equal" to defend fundamentalist religion, Nazism, Fascism, Cannibalism, anything. Just on the basis that not to do so would be promoting a hierarchy in thought? Absurd.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The concentration camps were not true rationality. They were a rational extension of an original irrationality, i.e. the whole Nazi ideology. The rationality itself was not a bad thing, it was basically just efficient irrationality.

-Alex

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 05:27 pm
The concentration camps were not true rationality. They were a rational extension of an original irrationality, i.e. the whole Nazi ideology. The rationality itself was not a bad thing, it was basically just efficient irrationality.

-Alex

The application of the rational systems of capitalist industry and modern bureaucracy towards the aim of exterminating the Jews was in itself a bad thing. In terms of consequence it allowed for a previously undreamed of level of extermination. Plus, arguably it was the emotional and physical distance from the event, as engendered by the rationalization of the process, that made the whole enterprise possible. Rational systems isolate individual action into hierarchically arranged impulses - the human agents are mere cogs in the machine and this allows them to waver any personal responsibility in the carnage.

Moreover, the designation of the Jews as the "enemy within" was not based on irrational thinking. On the contrary there were rational justifications within European history and culture which lead the Nazis to locate Judaism as the scape goat. Once that was done, it was rational to then employ the most efficient means of eliminating them.

We need to recognize that rationalism produces it's own irrationalities.

Also, like Foucault, we should recognize that professionalized bodies of knowledge based on rational discourses have become the typical means of domination and social control in late capitalism.

All knowledge exists within power relations. Its application is always political.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

You miss the point. Rationality itself is still not a bad thing. If true rationality had been applied then the whole holocaust would have been avoided. What you can argue is that incomplete rationality, i.e rationality to accompany irrationality, is a bad thing. Pure rationality does no one any harm, when it is tied to irrationality it becomes another beast entirely. :)

-Alex