{"id":4279,"date":"2009-12-06T12:15:28","date_gmt":"2009-12-06T12:15:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/?p=4279"},"modified":"2012-03-08T04:10:09","modified_gmt":"2012-03-08T04:10:09","slug":"a-ramble-through-rationalism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/2009\/12\/06\/a-ramble-through-rationalism\/","title":{"rendered":"A Ramble Through Rationalism"},"content":{"rendered":"

The last thing I expected at a history talk with Stephen Fry was a discussion on the relative merits of rationalism and empiricism. But that’s what we got for part of the time at the Harper Collins Annual history Lecture<\/a> at the Royal Institute of British Architects last month. \u00a0 And for some reason, the topic’s stuck in my head.<\/p>\n

\"Stephen
Stephen Fry at the Harper Collins History Lecture (photo Sven Klinge)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A rush to rationalism?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The difference between rationalism and empiricism essentially turns on the degree to which we draw on the evidence of our senses in creating knowledge.<\/p>\n

Fry’s comments were a warning through illustration of over-dependence on apparently rational decisions. \u00a0As the\u00a0conversation moved to the fall of the Berlin Wall, Fry made the point that while it seemed rational to liberate Eastern Europe with the flourish, rapidity, \u00a0and \u00a0completeness now symbolised by the dismantling of the wall, that process also had unforeseen consequences in the form of\u00a0unprecedented crime and corruption.<\/p>\n

Fry likened it to the activation of a sleeping cancer one might find in a patient from Oliver Sacks’s book\u00a0Awakenings<\/a><\/em>. \u00a0 These negative developments had been kept in check only by the strictures of the former regime, and\u00a0were now – in some quarters – the cause of discontent and a call for a return to a more certain past.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\"Stephen<\/dt>\n
Stephen Fry in conversation with Lisa Jardine at RIBA (Photo: Sven Klinge)<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n


\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

It’s hard to know whether an empiricist approach would have predicted the unlooked for outcome, or whether the experience of Eastern Europe has informed China’s more recent and ongoing transformation. \u00a0But when looked at in this way, the Chinese process, whereby economic liberation moves ahead of relaxation in political and social controls, might not be all bad. For while the West finds elements of the process distasteful, what greater chaos might be unleashed under a less managed regime?<\/p>\n

Yet at an emotional level, attacks on rationality can grate, especially with scientists and technologists. \u00a0I bristled when Fry likened over-zealous support for rationalism to belief in religion. \u00a0Was this the same Stephen Fry whose debate trounced the Catholic Church, and who regularly\u00a0shares platforms with the likes of Richard Dawkins?<\/a> But rather than rejecting rationalism, I believe he made a valid point: that it is too easy to assume a rationalist approach in all situations – however complex – when sometimes the abstract premises from which we deduce knowledge for decision making are just not up to it.<\/p>\n

\"Ticket<\/a><\/p>\n

A palette of reason<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Moving on, but with an eye to Fry’s sentiments, there seem to be an awful lot of reasonable sounding words out there: like ‘rational’, ’empirical’, ‘evidence-based’, ‘logical’; and indeed – \u00a0‘reasonable’. \u00a0Whether in the context of drugs policy, climate change, faith schools, or whatever; \u00a0these words sit like so many pigments on a palette of reason, wielded by individuals and governments alike, to convince us – and themselves – that a particular\u00a0course of action carries some special sanction. \u00a0But why do the same words frequently lead to misunderstandings and angst?<\/p>\n

It seems to be down to definition and interpretation. \u00a0Boiling our list down to rationalism and empiricism (subsuming ‘evidence-based’ into empiricism and \u00a0logic into rationalism) the dictionary definitions and learned philosophical commentaries leave plenty of scope for confusion.<\/p>\n

The \u00a0Compact Oxford English Dictionary<\/a> defines rationalism as:<\/p>\n

‘<\/strong>the practice or principle of basing opinions and actions on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response’<\/strong><\/em>, <\/strong>and empiricism as <\/strong><\/p>\n

‘<\/strong>the theory that all knowledge is derived from experience and observation<\/strong><\/em>‘<\/strong><\/p>\n

which seems pretty clear. But \u00a0the Oxford Pocket English Dictionary <\/a>muddies the\u00a0rational water by including philosophical and theological interpretations that flex the definition of rationalism to a form no scientist could agree with. \u00a0It seems scientific rationalism is just one brand. \u00a0I’ve really no idea what to make of the theological interpretation given as:<\/p>\n

‘<\/strong><\/span>the practice of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion’.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

but it put me in mind of this quote from the current Pope, relayed in this interview<\/a> by the Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno, and equally confusing to my concept of rationality:<\/p>\n

“<\/strong>religion needs science to keep itself away from superstition<\/strong><\/em>“<\/strong><\/p>\n

No wonder there’s confusion<\/h3>\n

This all goes some way to explain why scientists find themselves at odds with the government on issues like drugs policy and the recent Nutt affair.<\/p>\n

Professor David Nutt led a committee advising the British Government on drugs policy, until he was sacked for speaking publicly in a manner the Home Secretary judged inconsistent with his position. \u00a0The sacking blew up into a huge debate about the role of scientific advisors and their advice, what they can say when, and the way scientific evidence is used in a politically cognisant, but surely still rational, decision making process.<\/p>\n

Some of our reasonable words appeared in \u00a0the popular press; such as ‘empirical<\/em>‘ in this Daily Mail \u00a0piece by A.N.Wilson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

‘The trouble with a ‘scientific’ argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts.’<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n

\n<\/em><\/div>\n

Evan Lerner has argued<\/a> the technical inaccuracy of this statement that leaves us nowhere to go. \u00a0If empirical facts are no good, decision makers must be following a rationalist stance or some ‘third way’ unbeknown to philosophers. \u00a0But I’d argue the politicians are just following a brand of rationalism that suits their purpose; it’s just not a scientific one. \u00a0And when A.N.Wilson goes on to invoke the R-word<\/a>:<\/p>\n

‘Those who dare question scientists are demonised for their irrationality. Global warming may or may not be a certainty, but anyone who queries it has his sanity questioned. Cast doubt on these gods of certainty and you are accused of wanting to suppress free expression -…’<\/strong><\/em><\/div>\n

\n<\/em><\/div>\n

he’s right; \u00a0anyone who doesn’t comply with the scientific definition of rationality is demonised. \u00a0Personally I’d like the scientific definition to be universally accepted, but while there are powerful constituencies who benefit from and delight in wooliness defended as realism or flexibility \u00a0(politicians, theologians, dictionary compilers), I can’t see it happening.<\/p>\n

\n

Likewise, the only kind of rationality under which a discussion on the virtues of faith schools makes sense is one that allows ethical and metaphysical propositions (e.g. is there a god). \u00a0Moreover, we’re left with politicians working up a drugs policy using an ethics-based ‘political rationality’, and an education policy that recognises and values a ‘religious rationality’.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the transparency being called for concerning when and under what circumstances this flexing of scientific rationalism happens, also threatens politicians with\u00a0the anathema of exposing less visible agendas traditionally played close to the chest.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The last thing I expected at a history talk with Stephen Fry was a discussion on the relative merits of rationalism and empiricism. But that’s what we got for part of the time at the Harper Collins Annual history Lecture at the Royal Institute of British Architects last month. \u00a0 And for some reason, the … Continue reading A Ramble Through Rationalism<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[449,12,231,13],"tags":[777,455,779,773,778,776,775,774,218],"class_list":["post-4279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-philosophy-of-science","category-politics","category-rational","category-religion","tag-david-nutt","tag-empiricism","tag-faith-schools","tag-lisa-jardine","tag-nuttsack","tag-rationalism","tag-riba","tag-royal-institute-of-british-architects","tag-stephen-fry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pkpOr-171","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4279","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4279"}],"version-history":[{"count":116,"href":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4279\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13413,"href":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4279\/revisions\/13413"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/communicatescience.com\/zoonomian\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}