You have to do both
This was last week, but I missed it – Neil deGrasse Tyson, Twitter, a hashtag – #Rationalia.
Oh god. The word all by itself is enough to kick the nausea-mechanism into life. Rationalia: the land where all the self-admiring dudebros wander up and down congratulating each other on their towering Rationality.
Tyson tweeted him a tweet, a tweet tweeted he it, on June 29.
Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) June 29, 2016
Earth needs a virtual country:
#Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence
Dude. No. What are you thinking?
Well, we know what he’s thinking. He’s thinking what Sam Harris was thinking when he wrote his awful book on morality. He’s thinking what the self-admiring dudebros always are thinking when they tell everyone else to go away and learn how to think. He’s thinking “reason” is all there is to it.
He’s thinking a one-line Constitution is a possible and a desirable thing, and that evidence is the only relevant factor in how people should treat each other. Did you notice the one word in there that overturns that whole idea? It’s the word “should.” What evidence can determine what we should do? Not influence or shape, but determine? “Should” according to what?
A single ten word sentence is not enough for a Constitution. That ten word sentence is not enough for a Constitution or for basic life advice. I can think of better single sentences for the purpose without breaking a sweat. “First, do no harm” is a contender, and that’s only four words. “Be good to each other” is one more word. “Don’t be evil” is a mere three. All of them are more to the purpose than Tyson’s absurdity.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 30 articles. Most of the articles have numbered items, and most of the rest are several sentences. Actual Constitutions are longer than that, and that’s not just because humanities types like to ramble on while Rational Men of Science know how to cut to the chase.
Some people posed for photos.
Reason is good. Following the evidence is good. Thinking carefully is good. But they are not enough.
What irritates me about New Atheists like these is their smug notion that nobody has ever thought the things they think. They should take a walk across campus from the science buildings to the law school and sit in on an introductory evidence class. Because we do have parts of society where evidence rules–anything that takes place in a courtroom–and that’s the part of society that’s downright infamous for drawn-out, bitter fighting that ends terribly for everyone.
What happens when the evidence doesn’t lead to a clear and obvious course of action (only something like 100% of the time)? What about when the evidence presents several equally-valid options? How do you weigh the evidence, and is that the same across the board? There are people who pursue education and careers in exactly these questions; I see no reason to listen to a bunch of physicists on the subject, no matter how brilliant they insist they are.
What irritates me about New Atheists like these is their smug notion that nobody has ever thought the things they think.
Exactly.
I’m honestly kind of shocked that Tyson really thinks something so shallow.
The problem is that it can be perfectly rational, according to evidence, to kill your 90-year-old grandma if she has money and you need it; after all, you are younger, she is going to die soon, and besides, it’s logical to make a decision to further one’s interests.
It is emotion that stops our hand before we stick that knife in Grandma. We love Grandma. She loves us. And we recognize her as a human being with human needs and desires, just like us. You could reach that last conclusion through rationality, but it might not be enough to stay your hand, because the old woman, going to die soon fact might overwhelm it. We need to find the right balance of rationality and emotion.
Spock was pure logic; Bones was almost pure emotion. In the end, it was usually a collaboration that solved the problem, or Kirk, who was supposed to represent the balance of the two (you can argue about that if you like, but it seems clear to me that was what the intended design was). Start with the head, yes, but then allow the heart to give you information that is vitally needed to solve the problem in the most human way possible.
There is already a political program that claims to be based on rationality. It is Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.
iknklst, or even just to let grandma die because she’s no longer a productive member of society– I’d bet some of those “citizens of Rationalia” would be shocked to find out there are people who would give evidence supported arguments for why they shouldn’t get medical interventions, or have been given some of the opportunities that got them where they are in the first place. Like discrimination against women always gets justified on the basis of evidence– “Women are statistically more likely to drop out of the work force” and that’s enough for some employers.
Also, I’m really annoyed by the guy who liked the idea so much he posted two photos of himself as a citizen of Rationalia
Based on the evidence…. Evidence for what? At some point you have to make a value judgement. Which is more important: liberty or safety, happiness or welfare, the future or the now? If you don’t know what you want to favor or maximize in any given situation, what good will evidence do?
Stagmancer, they assume that the “value” judgement will be determined based on evidence. I don’t know exactly how to do that, but they seem to think they do.
Also, this sounds like a boring place. Where would you have art, music, literature, theatre? Most of those fields are based on emotional rather than rational basis. If all movies and plays, for instance, have to be written to conform to the idea of Rationalia, it will be barren entertainment indeed. And where would music be without love, longing, and loss? These are not rational; they are emotional, no matter how much we want it to be otherwise.
I don’t eat swordfish because I think it is too spectacular to be used for food; other people, people just as moral and humane as I, eagerly eat swordfish because it tastes good. But they may turn away from another food I willingly consume. These are not rational reasons, but they are important reasons to each of us, and I would hate to live in a world where I would have to eat swordfish because my reason for not eating it is not rational.
Apparently they don’t do metaethics classes at Uni of Rationalia.
iknklast @4,
Eh. Supposedly. But the writers often had sloppy notions of what counts as logic — especially when bluffing in poker or a sacrifice in chess is supposed to bamboozle the “logical” Spock or Data. And I’ve found that Star Trek makes a lot more sense if you assume (as I think the later series made more explicit) that Vulcans most certainly do have emotions, they just work really hard to keep them under control.
Getting back on topic, this notion that public policy is all about logic and rationality is not just wrong, but also dangerous. It can be used to justify totalitarianism: after all, if government is just a matter of making the “smart” decisions, why let the stupid people have any input? Just put our scientist-kings in charge!
Not another atheist conceit, it reminds me of Daniel Dennett’s description of atheists as ‘brights’.
Or perhap’s it’s a physicist’s conceit, there are physicists pontificating on many subjects which are usually not related to their areas of expertise. Of course physics is the only real science and everything else is stamp collecting.
@5 David Evans
I read the book years ago, it should be subtitled “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
Actually, even from series 1 and 2 of the TOSS it was made clear that Spock had deep, intense emotions that it was considered shameful, even dangerous to display and were therefore kept under strict control. See episodes The Menagerie I & II, The Naked Time, This Side of Paradise and Amok Time.
What? Why are you looking at me funny?
But yeah, Rationalia and Objectivisim….
See, you all get the problem. Why doesn’t he?
Possibly because even rational and objectively minded people have blind spots and fall prey to thinking that what they think is rational, because they are rational and have thought it. As others nicely put it above, evidence leads to more than one rational path and you need an ethical framework to guide you further. Ayn Rand’s objectionable objectivism made the assumption that short term selfish gain was the ONLY objectively rational thing to do. She allowed no space for longer term harm or reward being considered and weighed against each other, let alone simple compassion.
It’s disappointing when otherwise admirable people can’t think for a second before leaping on a simplistically described idea (#Rationalia) that can be discredited so easily.
But part of being rational surely is reading some of the vast library of books that explain how even Paragons of Reason are subject to biases and errors.
Well, that’s a broader definition of rational than some rational people apply. But, yes, that is how I see things. One of my favourite Culture ship names was The Grey Area. Rational people (capital R regardless of where that is in the sentence) forget that there is usually a grey area.
Ophelia @15
But books that explain that I might be wrong are not a rational use of my time!
Seriously, though, these Brave Citizens of Rationalia remind me of the American conservatives who declare that the answer to every issue of public policy can be found in the Constitution. (“It’s the Owner’s Manual of our country!” they insist. Well, perhaps that analogy is somewhat appropriate, but the Owner’s Manual for your television set won’t tell you which programs you should watch.)
Rob @ 12, re Spock,
True, but when you’re talking about Spock it’s never clear whether any display of emotion is confirmation that Vulcans do possess emotions, or simply due to his half-human nature.
Screechy @18, Amok Time makes it explicit that Pon Farr applies to all male Vulcans. The theme of carefully controlled vulcan emotions is developed in later series and movies. Contrast with the related Romulans who are ruled by emotion.
I can’t believe I even know this stuff…
RJW @ 11
Like when physicists start talking about evolution like they know anything about it? >.<
Well said, Ophelia. I, too, am very tired of the assumption that if we would all just simply behave in the properly rational manner we are all capable of, all our problems would be solved. The assumption results in the exasperated tone which the simple citizens of this simplified country, Rationalia, almost invariably adopt when they try to address the complicated realities of the world.
iknklast @ 8
Yeah, I know, but it’s just such an obvious example of lazy thinking. I imagine they think that the value judgements are obvious, like, prefer things that are “better” for people. But of course, defining what is “better” for people is exactly the reason that political policy is often so convoluted.
I can’t believe Rationalia would even have a functioning government! According to their one line constitution, what does it even look like? Fascism and Soviet style communism are hopefully out given a consensus definition of “better for people”. But is it a constitutional monarchy or a constitutional republic? The current constitutional monarchies are pretty great when it comes to certain metrics, and depending on what you use, the “evidence” might even favor them over something like a liberal democratic republic despite the irrationality of having a hereditary state figurehead. Maybe we go with the Chinese model of a corporate-communist dictatorship because that would allow us to spend the money to gather so much evidence for the rest of our policies?
Let’s say we go with a US-style government. How long is the president’s term? What does the evidence say is the best term length? Is the legislature bicameral or unicameral…. Man this is starting to seem pretty irrational.
@20 Stagamancer,
Yes, a good example of physicists’ intellectual arrogance. The only physicist that I can think of who hasn’t made a dork of himself is Prof. Brian Cox. He appeared in a recent TV series that explored the physics of evolution and as far as I can tell, kept to his area of expertise. It would be interesting to read biologists’ views of the series.
Btw, I noticed in the article that economists and philosophers also had opinions about evolutionary biology.
You saw that Brian Cox is one of the citizens of Rationalia in the photo though yes?
I’m a big fan of Brian Cox but that photo makes me cringe for all of them.
who decides on the validity of the evidence? what counts as evidence? whose evidence counts? I know physicists who based on the evidence don’t accept the big bang theory. Are we to accept the multiverse theory that Cox is always banging on about? Fine – where’s the evidence? and don’t tell me string theory or M-theory – there’s little convincing empirical evidence for those; is it ten dimensions or eleven? It’s all a lot more equivocal than that and we just have to muddle through the best we can with what we have and see before us. These guys just really want to establish rule by a self-anointing aristocracy based on mutual admiration. They need to remember the first law of the universe: “no matter how smart you think you are there’s always someone smarter”. And there are plenty of people smarter than these dudes.
They should also remember the second law too: “nobody loves a smartass”.
Stagmancer @ 22 – well and even if they do think ‘prefer things that are “better” for people’ is obvious…that still doesn’t let them off the hook, because they’re talking about a constitution here. You can’t just assume things like that when writing a constitution.
That’s what made Sam Harris’s “morality” book such a pile of shit. He assumed so much when he needed to make it explicit and argue for it. It drove me nuts.
@22 Stagamancer
Why is it not rational to have a hereditary head of state?
The essential difference is not between monarchy and republic but between parliamentary and presidential systems, most Western countries with a president as head of state are in fact, parliamentary democracies.
The US seems unique as it’s the only country with a presidential system, that I can think of, that’s maintained a stable democracy from independence.
Most Western constitutional monarchies function as de facto republics anyway, so the distinction between monarchy and republic has little significance.
Ophelia,@24
Nobody’s perfect, even physicists.
@RJW 27
Given that ability to rule has hardly been shown to itself be hereditary, I see no rationality in using birth as a mode for deciding the head of state. However the fact that many current constitutional monarchies are basically equivalent to the US or parliamentary republics when it comes to liberty, happiness, or welfare of its citizens is exactly my point. How does the evidence help you decide between the two? It’s a pretty important decision to make when constructing your government. If you don’t make it explicit, what stops somebody from assuming and authoritarian role?
You know, the writers of The Simpsons anticipated Rationalia way back in 1999.
Things did not end well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Saved_Lisa%27s_Brain
Stagamancer @28
I’m not convinced, in parliamentary democracies, that the head of state actually rules, whether the state is monarchical or republican.
Actually most Western parliamentary democracies, particularly constitutional monarchies, have higher developmental indexes and far less social inequality than the US. As to constructing governments that prevent authoritarian rule, a democratic constitution is a necessary but not sufficient condition. There are numerous examples of countries in the Americas who haven’t been saved from authoritarian rule by democratic constitutions. The difference is political culture, democratic constitutions don’t guarantee liberty, the UK functions as a democracy without a written constitution.
So, in summary, it’s not possible to construct a political system that prevents tyranny, just one that reduces the risks.
Neither better nor worse than some other forms of government. I suspect it matters more the power structure that surrounds that government and the restrictions on the power.
As to the question of whether hereditary rule can be rational – of course it can! Context is everything. If you have dozens, maybe even hundreds of powerful, violent, militaristic families seeking power, having a system of government that reduces the number of times in any century that the country descends into civil war is a good thing. A rational thing. When a family descends into incompetence you do the rational thing and replace them, with the least bloodshed possible. Very rational.
It seems to me that you’re being too harsh on Tyson: it was just a tweet, not an essay. I’m sure Tyson doesn’t really think a country’s constitution should be just one line; rather, he’s trying to succinctly convey the idea that public policy should be based on reason and evidence — which I would have thought you’d agree with. He didn’t say it would be easy, or that the “right answer” is always obvious or even knowable; but reason and evidence are the tools we should be using. The alternative is to disregard reality in favor of whim or dogma or blind adherence to tradition.
Sadly, you’ve aligned yourself with those who shout “scientism” at any suggestion that we maintain a demand for objective justification and reasoned argument outside the laboratory, like the UCLA sociologist who wrote a stupid critique of Tyson’s tweet in Slate. My response is here: https://norighttobelieve.wordpress.com/2016/07/09/whos-afraid-of-evidence/
@ RJW 30
Dammit. I messed up the block quote tag above #33. My words start with “I feel…”
@33 Stagamancer
Yes, we probably are arguing the same point, from different perspectives.
@ 32 Ezra Resnick
I understand the point that Tyson is making, however whether it’s a tweet or carved in stone, it’s essentially meaningless. It ignores the competing interests and different values of individuals in a society.
For example, to some people, coral reefs are instrinsically valuable as functioning eco-systems, to other people they’re sources of minerals or easily written off as ‘collateral damage’. How do we make rational choices between the two value systems? The problem is that there are often multiple ‘right answers’.
Peak Rationalia.
For me, this is one of Tyson’s thought bubbles that he uses to stir up debate on social media. There is nothing drastically wrong with the idea, it’s just incomplete.
We have evidence that Tyson can write well on serious issues, eg: https://www.facebook.com/notes/neil-degrasse-tyson/dark-matters/10154327926476613
He just doesn’t do it that often.
I ask: what do these clowns even think “policy” IS?
Policy is a course of action that’s formally endorsed by whatever organisation is doing it. But the point of taking action is to achieve something. You don’t use policy to set your aims. You can have perfectly good 100% evidence-based policy to do ANYTHING. Encourage teenage pregnancy. Kill Jews wholesale. Make women into slaves. Those aims are never evidence-based.
Ezra – well if Tyson doesn’t really think a country’s constitution should be just one line then he shouldn’t have said what he said, should he. He said what he said and not something else.
I of course do agree with him that “public policy should be based on reason and evidence”…along with other things.
And no, I’m really not aligning myself with “those who shout ‘scientism’ at any suggestion that we maintain a demand for objective justification and reasoned argument outside the laboratory.” I’m not arguing against the need for justification and reasoned argument; quite the contrary. I’m simply saying it’s not all there is to it.
It’s part of reasoned argument to understand that there are more than two possibilities in most disagreements. There are more than two in this one. The fact that I think Tyson oversimplified the issue drastically doesn’t mean I think woo-mongers and “spiritual” types are right.
Thank you for tweeting at me about Tyson’s suggestion, though, I hadn’t seen it before!
To be honest, I think they just do’t understand humanities and assume it goes without saying that there would be shared ethical values through which the evidence would be filtered.
Which means they know jack all about philosophy, because there are multiple valid ethical frameworks and well-meaning people can disagree on the best approach.
They know jack all about the processes of decision making or they would realize priorities can clash even when everyone agrees on the evidence.
They know jack all about politics, or they would understand that too brief a constitution lacks safeguards.
And so on.
Exactly. Tyson has (notoriously) expressed disdain for philosophy, and it shows.