Symposium Discussions at the Retreat

At the Retreat, the Unis were divided into seven smaller groups to discuss the theme of the Symposium, namely Reason (s). Some of these very fruitful discussions are summarized by the discussion leaders below. 

James’ Table

Much of the conversation at our table focused on a few major themes. It is perhaps easiest to list them and provide some context for each:

1. Reasons that people do what they do/reasons justifying behavior. People found this thread especially interesting as it seems to transcend the boundaries of many fields. Specific examples included reasons that people stay in or seek therapy, reasons that people try to change themselves, reasons that people hold particular political beliefs or have certain values, reasons that individuals or groups use violence.

2. The interplay between culture and language and what people consider reasonable. Examples include how the use of gendered pronouns affects what people consider reasonable behavior and cultural norms, how what is defined as reasonable or normal behavior differs markedly across cultures, how language and word choice affects what people interpret to be the reasons for political positions or group actions (i.e. as pertains to word choice by politicians in media).

3. The idea that reasons are a social version of mathematical proofs/reasons are the premises used in the application of Reason. Reasons are how people ground themselves in making any kind of social argument; they are the premises from which we try to make deductions. There was discussion of whether it is possible to determine what is right or wrong via Reason and whether an axiomatic set of reasons could ever be agreed upon.

4. Potpourri. A couple of other interesting ideas came up that didn’t really fit in any theme. One is the question of how much free will there is. Discussing Reason or the reasons that people make decisions tends to presuppose some amount of free will. There was also a reference to the Asimov story, and how it was interesting that while we consider Reason what differentiates humans, the robot seemed more sure of itself than the people. In this sense, perhaps the capacity for doubt is more inherently human than Reason.

Meg’s Table

The discussion at our table did not focus on any of the particular readings, but rather on a more general conversation about the theme.  Our conversations was naturally framed as a series of dichotomies that seem to arise around Reason(s) and are each interesting and worth exploring:

• Proof vs. Conviction

When thinking of the “reasons” for an action, we discussed how some seem to be tangible, possible to write down, could be expressed as equations.  Others, on the other hand, are convictions or beliefs.  Is one type of reason better than the other?  Is one type of reason more valued by society than the other?  Do these judgements change depending on the action in question, the setting of the discussion?

• Science vs. Religion

Similar to the dichotomy listed above, science and religion are often treated as inherently opposed.  Science, a bastion of logic and proof, is seen as incompatible with religion, based on faith and conviction.  This is an interesting topic to explore.  We could perhaps have a panel of people to debate these ideas.

• Emotion vs. Reason

Can these two things be separated?  Should they be separated?  Why is there this belief in the necessity of divorcing the self from logic/reason.  Why do people feel that they must justify or rationalize their actions or the reasons behind their actions?

• “The Problem with Objective Observation”

Not a dichotomy, but the idea of objective observation as problematic was also raised and discussed.  Growing from the discussion of emotion vs. reason, we considered whether or not divorcing oneself from a situation is every truly possible.  Can we objectively observe and evaluate the world around us?  The principles of Quantum Mechanics indicate that this is not possible.  The “measurement problem” as it is called, describes how any observation/measurement of a system will necessarily change it’s properties.

Alex’s Table

Wagering against Pascal

Pascal’s Wager challenged many of the retreat participants to consider the relationship between reason and faith. The apparent opposition between reason and religion can easily be dissolved when we consider the role that reason and understanding play in multiple religions, as well as the component of ‘faith in reason’ that our society exhibits. Instinctively sensing a treasonous act in Pascal’s actual arguments, the Unis proceeded to refute this worthy interlocutor through a number of reasonable strategies. Some Unis threw in unstated mathematical assumptions, others challenged the narrowness in interpreting God from the monotheistic framework, while still others challenged the propriety of using probability theory as a reason for belief. Through this heated debate, Unis were made aware that reasons can be both quantitative and qualitative and that different reasons are judged appropriate in different disciplines. For example, Daniel pointed out that in the legal sphere we rely on precedents, which are the sum of reasons adduced by previous generations. Other disciplines weigh against the consideration of past judgments and focus on rethinking anew. One thought that persisted was that one’s definition of reason comes with criteria for what count as reasons. For example, reason and rationality as used in economics are technical terms with technical definitions and reasonable actions represent a very restricted and mathematically definable set. A narrow construal of reason as logic would produce a different set of acceptable arguments, while the broadest understanding of reason can include any type of argument that is acceptable to other human beings. Of course, reasonable people may reasonably disagree and the discussion was for good reason left unresolved.”

Tina’s Table

Our group began by discussing reason from a behavioral perspective. We talked about why we do certain things and not others. The conversation then moved to a discussion of reason as faculty. Someone brought up the Asimov short story, “Reason,” and we reflected on unreasonable reasons.  Next we discussed the normative tone inherent in the idea of reason. Since reason is also influenced by culture, we talked about being reasonable (built in morality) versus being rational (often seen as cold and calculating). We established that there may be a difference between being “reasonable” and being “correct.”  This led us to a conversation about truth and reality. Someone pointed out that behind any train of thought there is always assumptions; there are also limits to our knowledge. We discussed Pascal’s Wager, and the idea that reason doesn’t work to prove God. The discussion then turned to reason as a thought process and reason as artificial intelligence.  At the close of the discussion we developed possible Symposium sub-themes:

• Unreasonable Reason

• What’s Your Reason?

• Reason vs. Faith

• The Problem of knowledge (limits)

Chris’s Table

Our group primarily focused on five aspects of reason(s):

-The fundamental existential reasons for existence

-The false dichotomy of reason vs. faith

-The basic understanding of how reason occurs in a biochemical sense within the brain

-How artificial intelligence and computer science can model reasoning, and perhaps how this can help us understand the function of the brain

-From a different perspective, thinking about the sociology and policy of reason, and how we seek reasons for why things are the way they are (e.g. poverty), and how they might be changed.