> 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.
Well, since we're pretty bad at predicting many sorts of happenings in the future, an oracle will do as well as any in many cases. But here's a thought experiment: imagine going to a culture in which people consult oracles to determine the next day's weather and then giving them access to NWS reports. Within a week, a month, or year, folks will have figured out which is more reliable.
> 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.
Yes, just like birds learn to sing pretty songs and monkeys learn to swing through trees.
> 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.
We just found such a culture, which was an astounding discovery. I'm sure, however, that members of this culture had mastered the concepts such that we wouldn't find many adults who thought that 1 and 1 added up to many, or couldn't distinguish between a many consisting of 10 and a many consisting of 100.
> --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).
Do go on. Tell me about the cultures in which everyone's a Humean skeptic with regard to the rising of the sun.
> 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!)
That people can be very irrational in other cultures, and our own as well (in addition to the creationists I alluded to previously, some folks also believe in astrology), is no news flash even to this pop sociobiologist. My claim is that there aren't any cultures in which "logical reasoning on the basis of relevant evidence" isn't a fact of everyday life. We couldn't survive without it. (Putting my hand in the fire last night hurt. But the oracle says that it'll be very pleasurable tonight. So I'll sleep in the fire tonight.)
-- Luke