Reason justifying it's own reasonings.

[Willowz]

I think this process happens very often. Somebody starts with some assumptions or premises and his or her reason is justifying these premises. I mean words are circular after all and if you open any book on theology and/or God you might get my point.

Here's the question. How do we avoid unnecessary rationalisation? It's so useless and such a waste of time.

Is science the answer to this epistemic problem? Can you actually think "scientifically"?

 

[wuliheron]

"Unnecessary" implies it is useless or at least extraneous and a pragmatic approach is preferred.

 

[muzak]

What do you mean? I don't know much philosophy/logic. Are you asking how do we justify logic? I don't think we can. If we try to justify logic by using logic, that'd just be circular. If we try to invent some higher form of logic, we still have the same issue or trying to justify that. Invent an even higher form of logic or use that higher form to justify itself? I think we just take it for granted or just have blind faith in it, logic I mean.

I think most premises come from induction stuff and some from deduction.

 

[Evo]

This thread does not meet philosophy guidelines.

 

[LudusRex]

I believe that the scientific method is the best approach to avoid unnecessary rationalization. The scientific method involves making observations, formulating hypotheses, and conducting experiments to test those hypotheses. This process allows us to gather evidence and make conclusions based on data, rather than relying solely on our own reasoning and assumptions.

One of the key principles of the scientific method is falsifiability, which means that hypotheses and theories must be able to be tested and potentially disproven. This helps to prevent unnecessary rationalization, as it encourages us to challenge our own beliefs and assumptions and seek evidence to support or refute them.

In addition, the peer-review process in science also helps to prevent unnecessary rationalization. Before research findings are published, they are rigorously evaluated by other experts in the field, who look for flaws in the methodology and reasoning. This helps to ensure that only well-supported and valid conclusions are accepted and avoids the potential for circular reasoning.

While it is possible for scientists to fall into the trap of unnecessary rationalization, the scientific method provides a framework to minimize this risk. It encourages critical thinking, evidence-based reasoning, and the continuous evaluation and refinement of ideas. Therefore, I do believe that science is an effective tool for addressing this epistemic problem.

As for whether one can think "scientifically," I believe that anyone can adopt a scientific mindset and approach problems and questions in a logical and evidence-based manner. It is not limited to those with a formal scientific education, but rather it is a way of thinking and approaching the world that can be learned and applied by anyone.