On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Luke Weiger wrote:
> Let's put values aside for the moment. I certainly think all aspects of
> Enlightenment thinking (aka the norms of proper reasoning and fecund
> naturalistic investigation) can be explained by such just-so stories.
This is an astounding claim contradicted by a mountain of research in cultural psychology. The "norms of proper reasoning" vary dramatically in different societies. For instance, consultation of an oracle to resolve problem or predict the future is rigorous reasoning in some societies; scientific investigation is rigorous reasoning in others. Your use of the word "norms" is apt: people learn the proper ways of thinking, just like they learn the proper ways of speaking and acting.
> > If so, how do you explain the fact that many human societies do not value
> > or heavily rely on Enlightenment style thinking?
>
> What do you mean? Are there cultures in which no blinks when someone
> expresses a bare contradiction? Claims that 2 and 2 add up to 5? That the
> sun won't rise tomorrow?
In fact, numeracy is not universal; some cultures have nothing more than the concepts one, two, and many, so yes, there are cultures that do not practice or value the kind of math wizardry we value. --Also, the kind of abstract, inductive reasoning in your last example may seem obvious to you, but it is not universal (what Piaget calls the "formal" stage of cognitive development is observed in some societies but not others). I could go on, but I hope you get my point.
> > (--Once again, old whisker's dead on: people treat the
> > products of social relations as something that must
> > preexist social relations!)
>
> Well, if Marx actually disagreed with me on this one (would that we could
> put the question to him), he'd be wrong.
>
> -- Luke
Why are you so confident about a claim that is contradicted by decades of research by sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists? (Doesn't your dogmatism here in the face of contradictory data undermine your claim that logical reasoning on the basis of relevant evidence is universal? Hell, your own posts undermine your claim!)
Miles