Eliezer Yudkowsky (recently heard on G’Day World #238) is back. This time we’re having a discussion about another one of Eli’s favourite memes – rationality. We had originally planned to discuss his “Twelve Virtues of Rationality” but got side tracked into why “faith” and “religion” are irrational and dangerous and… well… we never really got onto what we planned to talk about. So we’ve agreed to have another crack at this one in another couple of weeks. Next time we’ll stick to the script.
Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed today’s chat as well. As I explained to Eli afterwards, I don’t really think these shows will change the minds of many religious types. In fact, I’m pretty sure they have mostly stopped listening to the show.
The idea of these shows now is to provide some tools and arguments for those of you who find yourselves having discussions with your religious friends and family. So take notes (or get the transcript!!) and do your part to make the human race completely rational!
Now… folks… this isn’t radio. This is podcasting. It’s supposed to be a conversation, not just me talking at you.
Become part of the G’Day World conversation.
If you’re a member of Facebook, you can ADD ME AS A FRIEND and then ADD YOURSELF TO THE G’DAY WORLD GROUP.
Do me a solid and digg the show.
Get the TPN version of Particls?
Don’t forget to make use of my new comments line – +613 9016 9699.
You can now buy transcripts of this podcast from Pods In Print.
If you enjoyed this podcast, make sure you don’t miss future episodes by subscribing to our feed and leave us a voice comment!
- Subscribe to TPN::G’day World by Email
- If you use iTunes, click here.
- If you use another aggregator, grab our RSS feed here.
- If you don’t know what I’m talking about, read this description in Wikipedia.
The G’Day World Theme Song is “Save Me†by The Napoleon Blown Aparts.
great show cam,
i always have the problem when speaking to my christian and muslim mates when they say:
Science and Mathmatics are just another way of explaining how things came about, and that because its a man-made invention than it is just as flawed as religous beleifs. We have somehow come up with huge equations using descriptions and words that we have as humans invented so why is that to be believed.
I mean how can i answer that?
I find it profoundly annoying and stupid and i get upset at their ignorance and usually loose it which in turn loses the arguement.
I mean that to me is irrational
yeah Rob, I know that feeling. I think Eli was on the right track when he brings it back to a search for truth. For something to be true, it must be supported by material evidence. Otherwise, it’s just an idea and has no credibility in a discussion about truth.
Are all beliefs that have no proof irrational? Let’s see. What proof is there that, in order for a belief to be rational, it must be proven? Or is that particular belief rational only by definition?
Dave – yes, believing a theory to be true when where is no evidence to support it is always irrational.
And that statement isn’t a matter of belief. It’s a matter of definition, of language. For an argument to be rational it must be supported by evidence.
By the way, I’m enjoying your analysis of the podcast on your blog! Keep up the great work.
Thanks Cameron. Since you have been good enough to comment on my blog entries, I will make my responses there.
G’day World is a top podcast – I’ve been listening for ages. It’s raw. Thanks a bunch for keeping it going. Go the Aussies!
Cameron:
Please remember – I am not a scientist. I am kind of an engineer, though I have not earned an accredited engineering degree. (My degrees are a BS with a concentration in English and an MS in Systems Technology.)
Can you tell me if you think that anti-depressants work? Is psychotherapy an effective treatment?
Are cholesterol fighting drugs effective? Does tobacco cause cancer? Does nuclear power contribute to greenhouse gas accumulation?
Each of those statements can only truthfully be answered with either “it depends” or with a range of probabilities that may or may not encompass all possible outcomes.
Your guest is quite right in asserting that modern scientific thinking must often account for uncertainty and probabilities.
I never try to defend any particular story taken from the man created books called the Bible, the Koran, or any other scripture and the proof than any of those are not factually correct is no proof that there is no God. All they prove is that the writer of the story did not have full understanding.
I have no problem at all with entering into discussions with people who do not agree with me, but it is a bit frustrating to continue engaging with someone who tries to insist that I am – by definition – irrational. I do not claim to “believe”, I try to explain my understanding (as it currently exists) and my search for truth as it grows and develops.
BTW – I would be quite willing to discuss how an experiment can be properly designed to test the power of prayer, but like many of the scientific “facts” listed above, there will be a range of expected outcomes that partly depend on the skill and understanding of the participants and the observers.
Oh, and Cameron, I forgot to mention: Jesus love you. 😉
Hey Cam,
Machines becoming awake and deceiding that mankind has made a stuff up of it all ??? Honestly dude, you watch far too many movies. While I do not doubt that computers will get smarter and smarter, they will not be able to think until such time as a quantum leap away from the current technology. As one of your guests recently has said, its not a matter of upscaling, the human brain has a completely different method of working than a modern computer. we are a long way from understanding they way the brain works.
I personally think that perhaps the secret is in what you perceive as the brains ‘inefficiencies’
I am quietly confident that this will not happen in our lifetime Cam, our children, or our grandchildrens, or their grandchildrens maybe.
Cheers
J
Rod, sorry mate, but you mean an engineer isn’t a scientist?? Sheesh. Frustrating it might be Rod, but until someone can give me some evidence to explain why they believe in supernatural beings, then the ‘irrational’ tag sticks. If it’s a search for truth, then let’s throw the evidence on the table for believing in Jesus or God. If we don’t have any, then your search for truth just got a whole lot easier.
John, you might be right sir, but many, many computer scientists and big brains disagree with you. As Kurzweil explains, our tiny little mammalian brains can’t begin to comprehend the “quantum leap” that is only a couple of decades away. Read his last book (or listen to his podcast with me), then come tell me on what points he is wrong.