It’s not just the improbability, if not impossibility, of reaching a conclusion that makes many dismissive of theoretical questions. There’s also a sense of vanity about the whole enterprise. Isn’t the very definition of hubris unduly solemn adults pretending that they can even begin to fathom the deepest mysteries of existence? From this perspective, much theology looks like blasphemy – “For who has known the mind of the Lord?” as the Bible puts it…
ReadThinking for ourselves is largely a matter of working out how we use and interpret the opinions of others. Our ability to think for ourselves rests largely on how well we think about what others think.
ReadOften beliefs and arguments are motivated by desires and interests that distort reasoning. But if that is indeed the case, the distortions should be made manifest by weaknesses in the argument. Address the argument, not the arguer, is a fundamental principle of rational debate.
ReadThe clearest evidence that neuromarketing is not such a game changer is that all the key techniques used to package and sell the book itself predate any insights that the brain sciences may have brought. If even David Lewis has to rely on the same old methods tried and tested by people who wouldn’t know a synapse from a neuron, then neuromarketing may indeed be new and improved, but not quite as much as we are led to believe.
ReadThe whole project of rational enquiry can be seen as the attempt to bring greater order to our understanding of the world. However, just as lovers of well-kept homes can be obsessively fastidious, so seekers after intellectual rigour can push orderliness too far.
Read