WEBVTT - Steven Pinker || Why Rationality Matters 0:00:14.520 --> 0:00:16.959 Today. It's great to have Stephen Pinker on the podcast. 0:00:17.200 --> 0:00:20.880 Doctor Pinker is the Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, 0:00:21.200 --> 0:00:23.599 a two time Pultzer Prize finalist, and the winner of 0:00:23.640 --> 0:00:26.239 many awards for his research, teaching in books. He has 0:00:26.280 --> 0:00:28.680 been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and named 0:00:28.720 --> 0:00:31.440 one of Times one hundred Most Influential People and one 0:00:31.440 --> 0:00:34.880 of Foreign Policies one hundred Leading Global Thinkers. His books 0:00:34.880 --> 0:00:37.440 include How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, The Stuff 0:00:37.440 --> 0:00:40.200 of Thought, The Better Angels of Our Nature, The Sense 0:00:40.240 --> 0:00:44.400 of Style, Enlightenment Now, and most recently, Rationality, What it Is, 0:00:44.720 --> 0:00:49.320 Why it Seems Scarce, Why it matters? Stephen Pinker, So 0:00:49.440 --> 0:00:51.680 great to have you back on the Psychology podcast. Nice. 0:00:53.560 --> 0:00:57.480 I always enjoy talking to you. You always stimulate my brain, 0:00:58.400 --> 0:01:00.920 which is the motto of our podcast is that we 0:01:00.960 --> 0:01:04.000 might people with brains. We used to my brain. So 0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:06.200 you say in this new book of yours, you argue 0:01:06.200 --> 0:01:08.839 that that quote rationality ought to be the load star 0:01:08.920 --> 0:01:14.039 for everything we think and do. Why is that? The 0:01:14.160 --> 0:01:16.399 very fact that you're asking that question and waiting for 0:01:16.480 --> 0:01:20.880 my answer means you've already accepted the answer, namely that 0:01:20.920 --> 0:01:24.080 we ought to persuade each other with good reasons. Now 0:01:24.080 --> 0:01:26.679 it's not the only way that we can get other 0:01:26.680 --> 0:01:29.560 people's ascent. We can bribe them, we can threaten them, 0:01:29.560 --> 0:01:31.800 we can beat them up, we can try to cancel them. 0:01:32.120 --> 0:01:37.440 But if you're tossing out a question waiting for the answer, 0:01:37.720 --> 0:01:42.720 presumably pondering what I'm saying, that you have already committed 0:01:42.760 --> 0:01:46.119 yourself to reason. Reason is just the It's the water 0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:49.360 we swim in, it's the air we breathe. Well, you know, 0:01:49.400 --> 0:01:51.560 But the key part of that sentence that I asked 0:01:51.600 --> 0:01:55.160 you is the everything we do. So I do, I 0:01:55.200 --> 0:01:58.640 must ask? Must we always follow reason? Do I need 0:01:58.680 --> 0:02:01.000 a rational argument? For a while? I should fall in love, 0:02:01.200 --> 0:02:04.440 cherish my children, enjoy the pleasures of life. Isn't it 0:02:04.480 --> 0:02:06.800 sometimes okay to go crazy, to go wild the silly, 0:02:06.800 --> 0:02:10.639 to stop making sense? Absolutely, and there is a false 0:02:11.639 --> 0:02:18.639 dichotomy between reason and goals, motivation, emotion. But as thinkers 0:02:18.760 --> 0:02:21.840 going back at least to David Hume, have noted reason 0:02:21.840 --> 0:02:24.160 as a means to an end. It's a way of 0:02:24.200 --> 0:02:26.960 achieving a goal using knowledge. It can't tell you what 0:02:27.000 --> 0:02:32.360 the goal is. If you enjoy pain, if you enjoy 0:02:32.440 --> 0:02:35.840 being miserable and hungry and cold. Well, reason can help 0:02:35.840 --> 0:02:37.919 you accomplish that if that's what you want to accomplish, 0:02:38.080 --> 0:02:39.840 and it isn't going to tell you that that's not 0:02:39.880 --> 0:02:42.480 something you ought to accomplish. But whatever it is you 0:02:42.480 --> 0:02:45.560 want to accomplish, reason is the way you gain it. 0:02:46.600 --> 0:02:52.320 But the goals are not part of reason per se. 0:02:53.120 --> 0:02:55.640 Although I'm going to add an asterisk there. One still 0:02:55.680 --> 0:03:00.880 can rationally talk about goals, such as what happens when 0:03:01.320 --> 0:03:04.520 two or more of your goals come into conflict, such 0:03:04.560 --> 0:03:09.040 as having fun now versus being comfortable and respected in 0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:13.000 the future. And there are also rational arguments to be 0:03:13.080 --> 0:03:17.120 had when one person's goals clash or another, and that 0:03:17.160 --> 0:03:21.600 brings us into the domain of morality. But there's nothing 0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:28.360 irrational about falling in love or dancing and partying or nothing. 0:03:28.360 --> 0:03:32.239 There's nothing irrational about them rationality. You know, I want 0:03:32.240 --> 0:03:34.400 to just talk about a second what is rationality? Because 0:03:34.960 --> 0:03:37.400 I'm a big fan of Keith Stanovitch's work, and I 0:03:37.440 --> 0:03:39.760 was really excited to see that you quoted him in 0:03:39.800 --> 0:03:43.880 your book. He often distinguishes between two types of rationality, 0:03:43.880 --> 0:03:48.160 and his work it is between instrumental rationality and epistemic rationality. 0:03:48.200 --> 0:03:50.600 Your definition of rationality seems to be the murderer, but 0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:54.160 it's like the pithy condensing of both. So you define 0:03:54.240 --> 0:03:58.040 rationalities the ability to use knowledge to attain goals. It 0:03:58.600 --> 0:04:01.440 kind of combines both instru mental and episte in a way. Yes, 0:04:01.480 --> 0:04:06.280 and that is a fundamental distinction sometimes frames the distinction 0:04:06.360 --> 0:04:09.320 between what is true and what to do, or pure 0:04:09.360 --> 0:04:13.360 reason and practical reason. The reason that I merged them 0:04:13.360 --> 0:04:15.840 in my own attempt at a definition, namely the use 0:04:15.880 --> 0:04:18.919 of knowledge to attain goals, is that even when it 0:04:18.960 --> 0:04:22.880 comes to epistemic rationality, what is true, we don't really 0:04:22.920 --> 0:04:26.919 consider someone rational who's just say, spitting out the digits 0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:33.039 of pie till for all eternity, or just stating using 0:04:33.160 --> 0:04:39.039 logic to state true but useless facts like either Paris 0:04:39.120 --> 0:04:42.680 is the capital of France, or unicorns exist. Either Paris 0:04:42.760 --> 0:04:44.719 is the capital of France, or the moon is made 0:04:44.720 --> 0:04:47.320 of cheese. I mean, those are all true, but we 0:04:47.480 --> 0:04:50.560 tend not to consider it to be particularly rational just 0:04:50.600 --> 0:04:54.880 to say true stuff. We even in epistemic rationality, we 0:04:54.960 --> 0:05:03.000 have some goal of understanding the world, expanding our knowledge base. 0:05:04.000 --> 0:05:09.839 We have goals for which truths we prioritize, So that's 0:05:09.880 --> 0:05:12.080 why I merge them. But you're you're right that there 0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:14.760 is one could say that there is a logical distinction 0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:17.960 between them and at its base, I mean, rationality helps 0:05:18.000 --> 0:05:21.600 you get the things that you want. And it's very interesting, 0:05:21.680 --> 0:05:23.440 you know that the goal conflict thing. I'm not over 0:05:23.480 --> 0:05:25.839 that yet because I think that I think about that 0:05:25.880 --> 0:05:29.400 all the time because we can have two long term 0:05:29.440 --> 0:05:32.200 goals that conflict within ourselves. Right, It's not always like 0:05:32.240 --> 0:05:35.359 a goal conflict is some short term one weighing it 0:05:35.400 --> 0:05:38.080 against a long term it can be you know, we 0:05:38.120 --> 0:05:40.480 can have two long term goals. And what is like 0:05:40.520 --> 0:05:42.400 the is there like a system in the brain, like 0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:47.520 a meta rationality system that like can help us adjudicate 0:05:49.120 --> 0:05:52.279 two rational potential avenues we could take be taking that 0:05:52.360 --> 0:05:54.240 makes it great? Oh, it makes complete sense. But the 0:05:54.279 --> 0:05:57.919 way I would put it is rationality is itself meta. 0:05:58.560 --> 0:06:01.640 That is, you know, if you had a meta rationality, 0:06:01.680 --> 0:06:02.960 then you say, well, gee, do we have to get 0:06:02.960 --> 0:06:05.440 another part of the brain for the meta meta rationality? 0:06:05.920 --> 0:06:09.080 But taking a leaf turtle and turtles all the way 0:06:09.120 --> 0:06:10.960 down or all the way up. But take taking a 0:06:11.040 --> 0:06:15.599 leaf from the field of linguistics and cognitive science, which 0:06:16.839 --> 0:06:19.520 going back at least to Non Chomsky and George Miller, 0:06:20.279 --> 0:06:27.239 emphasized the uh the power of recursive computation and recursive representation. Namely, 0:06:27.680 --> 0:06:31.280 an idea can contain an idea, including an example of itself. 0:06:31.800 --> 0:06:37.039 A reason reasoning process can step back and consider its 0:06:37.160 --> 0:06:41.800 own shortcomings or flaws, and we can then in turn 0:06:41.920 --> 0:06:46.360 step up a level and criticize the criticism of our reasoning. 0:06:47.200 --> 0:06:51.240 And there's as long as you have the computational power 0:06:51.680 --> 0:06:55.600 to embed a proposition in a proposition, or have a 0:06:55.960 --> 0:07:00.720 routine call an instance of itself that automatically makes it 0:07:01.160 --> 0:07:04.440 meta for as many levels as you want, until you, 0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:06.280 of course, your the mind boggles because it just gets 0:07:06.320 --> 0:07:09.840 too complicated to keep track of them. But it is essential, 0:07:10.160 --> 0:07:13.600 and I'm glad you mentioned this that not only when 0:07:13.600 --> 0:07:18.080 it comes to adjudicating among long term goals much harder. 0:07:18.080 --> 0:07:21.360 I mean, we all of course are faced with the 0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:26.000 tension between immediate gratification and longer term satisfaction. I mean, 0:07:26.040 --> 0:07:30.080 that's just kind of the stuff of self control, of maturity. 0:07:31.080 --> 0:07:33.440 But you're right that we often have long term goals 0:07:33.440 --> 0:07:38.120 that come into conflict. And I thought consider in talking 0:07:38.160 --> 0:07:45.840 about reasoning about goals, I can think of adjudicating among 0:07:45.880 --> 0:07:48.080 goals within a person to be kind of what we 0:07:48.160 --> 0:07:52.280 mean when we talk about wisdom and judicating among goals 0:07:52.960 --> 0:07:55.080 from different people, kind of what we mean when we 0:07:55.120 --> 0:08:00.000 talk about ethics and morality. But yeah, there's no obviously 0:08:00.120 --> 0:08:03.920 league correct answer to how should I trade off creating 0:08:03.960 --> 0:08:07.800 my masterpiece with spending time with my kids? Both of 0:08:07.840 --> 0:08:10.520 them are long term goals at least developed building a 0:08:11.680 --> 0:08:14.960 satisfying relationship with your kids, And it is part of 0:08:15.000 --> 0:08:19.040 the agony of being a mature adult that one has 0:08:19.080 --> 0:08:24.680 to grapple with these conflicts and there's no single correct answer. Yeah, 0:08:25.400 --> 0:08:27.000 there's a question I want to ask you, and it's 0:08:27.040 --> 0:08:29.800 opening up a can of worms, and what is truth? 0:08:30.760 --> 0:08:34.280 Because I mean, I've heard other very smart people attempt 0:08:34.320 --> 0:08:37.079 to discuss such a topic and it can go in 0:08:37.160 --> 0:08:40.400 a very long, you know, conversation direction. But I feel 0:08:40.400 --> 0:08:41.839 like that's kind of the elfin in the room we 0:08:41.880 --> 0:08:45.280 took a rationality. Truth is a very important part of rationality. 0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:48.200 You want to use correct knowledge, right, two tangles you 0:08:48.200 --> 0:08:50.280 don't want to use you know, your definition the ability 0:08:50.280 --> 0:08:52.720 to use knowledge to tangles The inference. There is that 0:08:52.800 --> 0:08:56.480 the ability to use correct knowledge. There's a lot of 0:08:56.520 --> 0:09:00.720 knowledge going around these days. According to one some fairly 0:09:00.760 --> 0:09:04.880 well known characterization of knowledge borrowed from the fill of philosophy, 0:09:04.960 --> 0:09:10.520 knowledge is sometimes defined as justified true belief. So by definition, 0:09:10.720 --> 0:09:14.160 knowledge is true. If it isn't, we don't call it knowledge, 0:09:14.160 --> 0:09:18.920 We call it belief. We don't say John knows the 0:09:18.960 --> 0:09:21.840 moon is made of cheese, although we could say John 0:09:22.000 --> 0:09:24.160 believes the moon is made of cheese. When you use 0:09:24.240 --> 0:09:28.960 Noah knowledge, you're kind of committing yourself to truth behind 0:09:28.960 --> 0:09:32.120 the scenes. Then you're right. It does raise the question 0:09:32.200 --> 0:09:34.480 of what do we mean by truth? And again this 0:09:34.600 --> 0:09:37.720 is a question much discussed in the field of philosophy, 0:09:37.920 --> 0:09:43.800 and in many ways above my pay grade. A famous 0:09:43.960 --> 0:09:47.960 definition of truth from Tarski is that to say that 0:09:48.200 --> 0:09:50.920 X is true is to say X. Now that for 0:09:51.040 --> 0:09:54.080 many people that's not particularly satisfying. Or truth is what 0:09:54.160 --> 0:09:58.760 is the case. But it's like reason, it's a It 0:09:58.800 --> 0:10:04.600 doesn't submit to a conventional definition because it's deeper than that. 0:10:06.080 --> 0:10:08.720 You can't have a definition of reason unless you know 0:10:08.760 --> 0:10:12.560 how to reason. You can't talk about truth unless you 0:10:12.920 --> 0:10:17.400 already are grounded in some tacit commitment to truth. Otherwise 0:10:17.720 --> 0:10:20.280 nothing that you say would be in a sense worth saying. 0:10:20.760 --> 0:10:22.240 It'd be oh, I'll take it or leave it. I'm 0:10:22.480 --> 0:10:24.520 I'm just making noise in my mouth. I'm not making 0:10:24.559 --> 0:10:30.080 a claim to anything that is factually accurate or worthy 0:10:30.080 --> 0:10:32.720 of your belief. So kind of committed to truth even 0:10:32.800 --> 0:10:38.080 when we start to persuade, explain, And I think you know, 0:10:38.120 --> 0:10:44.240 one way of parsing this somewhat enigmatic definition of truth 0:10:44.600 --> 0:10:46.520 that to say X is true is to say X 0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:49.160 is that it's just kind of what we mean when 0:10:49.240 --> 0:10:51.959 we say stuff in the first place. And so there 0:10:52.000 --> 0:11:00.200 is something almost superflulous about saying differentiating between the you know, 0:11:00.240 --> 0:11:02.719 the the the world is round is true and the 0:11:02.760 --> 0:11:07.839 world is round. I mean, this just raises the question, 0:11:08.960 --> 0:11:12.160 can it be rational in certain instances to be completely 0:11:12.200 --> 0:11:16.280 deluded delusional as well about something, but in a way 0:11:16.360 --> 0:11:19.200 that delusion in its if it in itself is what 0:11:19.320 --> 0:11:21.960 gets you to attain your goal, then would that be 0:11:22.000 --> 0:11:24.120 the more rational thing to have incorrect knowledge? Well, it 0:11:24.120 --> 0:11:27.400 could be. Well, then say that it be. We relativize 0:11:27.400 --> 0:11:30.120 it and say that it is a rational way to 0:11:30.160 --> 0:11:33.320 attain a particular goal. I don't think we would call it. 0:11:33.800 --> 0:11:38.760 And again, I'm especially as someone who is very interested 0:11:38.800 --> 0:11:40.640 in words, I know that it's not up to me 0:11:41.040 --> 0:11:44.920 to legislate the meaning of words. When I answer a 0:11:45.000 --> 0:11:48.840 question of this, does the word apply, I'm kind of 0:11:49.679 --> 0:11:55.120 tapping into are the community's intuitions of when it's natural 0:11:55.160 --> 0:11:58.640 to use the word. So, uh, the word means what 0:11:58.720 --> 0:12:01.480 people understand the word to me, and I think most 0:12:01.559 --> 0:12:04.240 so the answer to your question is it rational? Is 0:12:04.240 --> 0:12:07.720 it really? Would most people use the word rational in 0:12:09.000 --> 0:12:12.800 describing that. I think most people would not, unless you 0:12:13.000 --> 0:12:15.520 narrow it and say, is this a rational way of 0:12:17.360 --> 0:12:19.600 doing whatever he wants to do? But is it rational 0:12:19.640 --> 0:12:22.880 to believe things that we standing outside that person know 0:12:22.960 --> 0:12:26.440 to be false? I think no. The answer is no, 0:12:27.000 --> 0:12:31.600 and my own admittedly someonat makeshift definition of rationality, namely 0:12:31.640 --> 0:12:34.440 the use of knowledge to attain goals. Well, packed into 0:12:34.440 --> 0:12:37.160 that is knowledge, And as we spoke about just a 0:12:37.240 --> 0:12:41.840 couple of minutes ago, the conventional understanding of knowledge is 0:12:42.160 --> 0:12:45.199 justified true belief, and so true is packed into that. 0:12:45.559 --> 0:12:48.160 So in a sense, in the most general sense, no, 0:12:48.240 --> 0:12:51.880 you can't be rational if you believe things that are 0:12:51.920 --> 0:12:54.880 not true. At least if there are reasons for you 0:12:54.920 --> 0:12:58.960 to know that it's not true or reasons for us 0:12:59.000 --> 0:13:03.480 to know that it's not true. Yeah, Stephen, this is 0:13:03.520 --> 0:13:05.200 really this is really interesting. I mean, you're really this 0:13:05.240 --> 0:13:09.439 is really interesting. So you distinguished between logic and reasoning. 0:13:09.480 --> 0:13:12.360 Can you can you be completely illogical about something but 0:13:12.440 --> 0:13:14.880 still make a rational decision about it. I don't think 0:13:14.920 --> 0:13:19.080 you can be illogical, but you can. You have to 0:13:19.080 --> 0:13:24.320 apply a lot more than logic, because the problem about 0:13:24.360 --> 0:13:28.439 logic is that it basically just expands what is already 0:13:28.559 --> 0:13:31.720 in the premises. If something is true, that it tells 0:13:31.760 --> 0:13:33.679 you you know, some other things that are true and 0:13:33.720 --> 0:13:35.920 some things that aren't that aren't true, in some things 0:13:35.920 --> 0:13:39.600 that might or might not be true. But because rationality 0:13:39.640 --> 0:13:42.920 involves the pursuit of some goal, even if the goal 0:13:43.000 --> 0:13:48.640 is understanding something more deeply or more accurately, logic doesn't 0:13:48.640 --> 0:13:51.040 get you there. You've got to They're just they're just 0:13:51.080 --> 0:13:52.959 too many things you can prove. You can prove all 0:13:53.000 --> 0:13:58.600 kinds of you know, crazy but irrelevant things. If P 0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:01.400 is Q, then p or q true, and so is 0:14:01.440 --> 0:14:04.280 p or Q or R or p or q or 0:14:04.400 --> 0:14:07.440 rrs And you could spin out all kinds of useless 0:14:07.480 --> 0:14:13.280 true statements indefinitely, so logic isn't enough. Moreover, there are 0:14:13.480 --> 0:14:17.320 if you are applying nothing but logic, there's a sense 0:14:17.360 --> 0:14:20.560 in which that can be irrational, in the sense that 0:14:20.800 --> 0:14:26.320 you are deliberately foregoing the use of possibly relevant knowledge. 0:14:26.360 --> 0:14:29.600 The point about logic is it's formal, in the sense 0:14:29.680 --> 0:14:33.400 that logic actually doesn't even care about the content of sentences. 0:14:33.560 --> 0:14:38.080 It cares only about their form, about how propositions, predicates 0:14:38.080 --> 0:14:41.280 and arguments are joined by hands and ores and ifs 0:14:41.280 --> 0:14:45.360 and nots and hals and necessary and possible, but really 0:14:45.600 --> 0:14:47.400 kind of doesn't care what those sentences are about, whether 0:14:47.440 --> 0:14:52.760 they're about the moon being made of cheese or little 0:14:52.840 --> 0:14:56.960 green men emerging from flying saucers. Predicate is a predicate, 0:14:57.000 --> 0:15:01.760 and then logic allows you to apply predicate to new sentences, 0:15:02.600 --> 0:15:06.960 uh in real life. And oh and not only is that, 0:15:07.000 --> 0:15:09.600 what is that what logic is all about? But if 0:15:09.600 --> 0:15:13.280 you're really being a logician, you may not make inferences 0:15:13.320 --> 0:15:17.760 that aren't licensed by the premises and the conclusions. You 0:15:17.800 --> 0:15:21.720 may not kind of drag in your your knowledge, your beliefs, 0:15:21.760 --> 0:15:24.680 your conjectures. And that's kind of a crazy thing to 0:15:24.720 --> 0:15:28.240 do so. For example, you know, if you're a geometry 0:15:28.240 --> 0:15:32.160 student and you're asked to prove that the in an 0:15:32.200 --> 0:15:36.320 Isosceles triangle the two angles are equal. Now a perfectly 0:15:36.440 --> 0:15:38.680 rational thing to do. Pull it up a tractor and 0:15:38.720 --> 0:15:40.840 measure one angle and measure the other angle, and say, hey, 0:15:40.880 --> 0:15:43.120 they're they're they're the same. It's best I can tell. Now, 0:15:43.120 --> 0:15:45.240 you don't get credit on a geometry test if you 0:15:45.240 --> 0:15:48.960 do that, even though in real life that's exactly what 0:15:48.760 --> 0:15:52.240 you might do, but you're not using the rules of 0:15:52.280 --> 0:15:56.360 the system, namely the rules in this case of Euclidian geometry, 0:15:56.720 --> 0:15:59.960 which allow a certain number of axioms and rules of infra. 0:16:00.320 --> 0:16:02.360 You have to stick to those. You can't pull out 0:16:02.400 --> 0:16:06.120 your ruler and your protector. That's not very rational, but 0:16:06.160 --> 0:16:10.720 that's what logic, strict logic demands, and likewise, in all 0:16:10.840 --> 0:16:14.640 kinds of reasoning, and it's many experiments are shown show 0:16:14.680 --> 0:16:20.880 that people are in this sense illogical but rational, or 0:16:20.880 --> 0:16:23.360 at least non logical but rational. They can't help but 0:16:23.520 --> 0:16:28.000 mixing logic in with their real world knowledge, even though 0:16:28.200 --> 0:16:32.680 strictly speaking, logic doesn't care about real world knowledge. So 0:16:32.760 --> 0:16:38.520 if you say, for example, all all all plant matter 0:16:38.600 --> 0:16:43.320 is healthy. Tobacco is plant matter. Therefore tobacco is healthy. 0:16:43.640 --> 0:16:46.800 Is that a valid inference? And the answer is yes, 0:16:46.800 --> 0:16:50.080 it's a valid inference. If you know all X is 0:16:50.240 --> 0:16:54.120 y and P is x and p is y. That's 0:16:54.200 --> 0:16:56.520 what the rules tell you. Now you give that to 0:16:56.560 --> 0:16:59.240 people and you say that's solveless, just as a logic problem, 0:16:59.360 --> 0:17:03.320 and they like, they won't do it. They can't block 0:17:03.360 --> 0:17:05.680 out of their heads an idea talk, Oh, that's really 0:17:06.000 --> 0:17:09.480 toxic substance. What are you talking about, Is that it's healthy? 0:17:09.320 --> 0:17:11.639 Say no, no, forget what you know about tobacco. Just 0:17:11.640 --> 0:17:15.480 pay attention to be they all and the is and 0:17:16.280 --> 0:17:18.640 ordinary people have a lot of trouble doing that. And 0:17:18.680 --> 0:17:23.040 so is that irrational? Well not in everyday life, but 0:17:23.240 --> 0:17:26.560 it is illogical in the sense that in the you 0:17:27.000 --> 0:17:29.440 the actual application of the rules of logic, you're you're 0:17:29.520 --> 0:17:31.639 breaking the rules of the game. Now, there are some 0:17:31.720 --> 0:17:37.640 pass in fact, we don't want people to be so rational, 0:17:38.320 --> 0:17:40.520 we want them to be logical. So, for example, if 0:17:40.560 --> 0:17:45.439 we have a moral principle, you may not prejudge someone 0:17:45.600 --> 0:17:51.440 by their their race or religion. If you're screening for terrorists, 0:17:51.440 --> 0:17:55.840 for example, even if you have statistical data that say 0:17:56.200 --> 0:17:58.560 that people of one religion are more likely to be 0:17:58.600 --> 0:18:02.680 suicide terroristsan people of another religion, and there's a sense 0:18:02.720 --> 0:18:06.280 in which it would be more rational to scrutinize them more. 0:18:06.800 --> 0:18:09.520 We decide on moral grounds, No, you can't do it. 0:18:09.560 --> 0:18:13.119 You've got to follow the rule all people have equal rights, 0:18:14.240 --> 0:18:17.760 so the ability to be at least sometimes turn on 0:18:18.000 --> 0:18:23.840 our logic and ignore what we know. Likewise, in the courtroom, 0:18:23.960 --> 0:18:27.840 there may be evidence that's highly relevant to the case, 0:18:27.920 --> 0:18:32.040 but if it was illegally obtained, if it was inadmissible 0:18:32.119 --> 0:18:36.280 because it referred to the person's criminal record or racial statistics, 0:18:36.680 --> 0:18:41.359 we say we're going to follow this strict logical rule system. 0:18:41.680 --> 0:18:45.480 You must throw out what you, as an ordinary person know, 0:18:46.080 --> 0:18:48.639 so it's there. Sometimes when it's actually good that we're not, 0:18:48.760 --> 0:18:52.720 so that we can turn off the totality of our 0:18:52.880 --> 0:18:58.239 rationality and apply rules exactly. Or another example is there 0:18:58.400 --> 0:19:01.800 is a there's a dolphin, a fish, or a mammal. Well, 0:19:01.840 --> 0:19:04.200 if we apply everything where you know, well, fish they swim, 0:19:04.280 --> 0:19:08.800 they're streamlined, you know, they live in the ocean, you'd say, yeah, 0:19:08.960 --> 0:19:12.320 dolphins of fish. When we apply kind of the strict 0:19:12.359 --> 0:19:18.720 logic of science. Namely, a fish belongs to one class 0:19:18.800 --> 0:19:21.719 and mammals to another. And if you are warm blooded 0:19:21.720 --> 0:19:24.959 and suckle your you're young and have further than you're 0:19:25.000 --> 0:19:27.520 a mammal, even if you look like a fish. Well there, 0:19:27.600 --> 0:19:32.879 then again we're turning off our knowledge, applying strict definitions 0:19:32.920 --> 0:19:35.840 and rules in a more logical mode of thinking. And 0:19:35.920 --> 0:19:42.400 that's what makes science possible. You know, does that contradict 0:19:42.480 --> 0:19:44.359 your idea that rests now ought to be the old 0:19:44.400 --> 0:19:46.520 star for everything we think can do. Didn't that just 0:19:46.600 --> 0:19:48.960 kind ofdict that Well, there's a kind of net it's 0:19:48.960 --> 0:19:51.440 a good, good question, and there's a kind of meta 0:19:51.640 --> 0:19:57.600 rationality where we can decide, depending on our goals, what 0:19:59.200 --> 0:20:04.760 tools of rationtionality to apply and which ones to sideline. 0:20:05.920 --> 0:20:10.600 So if our goal, if our goal is justice, that's 0:20:10.720 --> 0:20:16.919 not the same goal as say efficiency or the best 0:20:16.960 --> 0:20:20.840 actuarial statistics, and we might decide, well, justice is more important. 0:20:21.119 --> 0:20:25.720 Let's turn off our statistical reasoning. Let's apply this ironclad rule. 0:20:26.280 --> 0:20:29.680 And if your higher level goal is justice, then again, week, 0:20:29.720 --> 0:20:32.879 since rationality is always in pursuit of a goal, you 0:20:33.000 --> 0:20:37.399 might decide that one kind of rational thinking must be 0:20:38.119 --> 0:20:45.439 disabled and another kind deployed. You make a point in 0:20:45.480 --> 0:20:47.679 your in your book that there can be no trade 0:20:47.680 --> 0:20:51.119 off between rationality and social justice or any other moral 0:20:51.200 --> 0:20:55.720 or political cause. That's a that's a heavy statement. I 0:20:55.760 --> 0:20:57.800 really want to unpack that for our listeners because I 0:20:57.800 --> 0:21:01.080 think that people's intuitions is that they is not that. 0:21:01.600 --> 0:21:03.920 I don't think a lot of people that. Yeah, yeah, 0:21:04.000 --> 0:21:06.200 so can you unpack what you mean by that, and 0:21:06.240 --> 0:21:09.200 maybe and then we can get into into your into 0:21:09.320 --> 0:21:12.040 the essential features of morality as you do in your book. Yeah, 0:21:12.160 --> 0:21:15.600 if you believe that social justice can be itself be justified, 0:21:15.800 --> 0:21:19.240 there are reasons to pursue it. It's not just a 0:21:19.840 --> 0:21:24.080 battle between our side and the bad guys. Now, admittedly, 0:21:24.760 --> 0:21:27.600 a lot of people who claim to pursue social justice 0:21:27.640 --> 0:21:31.080 are doing that, but you know, in which case they've 0:21:31.080 --> 0:21:32.880 got to live with the possibility that the other side 0:21:32.960 --> 0:21:35.800 might be stronger than them and crush them. But if 0:21:35.800 --> 0:21:42.280 they're hoping to persuade open minded third parties, if they're 0:21:42.320 --> 0:21:45.720 hoping to have reasons for what they do, then you've 0:21:45.760 --> 0:21:53.000 got to follow the laws of reason, including factual accuracy. 0:21:53.359 --> 0:21:56.800 Is it the case that, for example, African Americans are 0:21:56.800 --> 0:22:00.639 disadvantaged relative to white people. There a lot of people 0:22:01.720 --> 0:22:03.000 on the right who would say, no, it's the other 0:22:03.000 --> 0:22:06.440 way around. It's white people who are oppressed, white working 0:22:06.440 --> 0:22:09.120 class people. Well, if you think they're wrong, you better 0:22:09.320 --> 0:22:13.000 have reasons to have a show why they're wrong. If 0:22:13.000 --> 0:22:17.480 you think that particular measures such as reparations, such as 0:22:17.880 --> 0:22:23.280 compensatory policies are morally justified, well either they are they aren't. 0:22:23.400 --> 0:22:25.760 If they are, then you should be able to provide 0:22:25.760 --> 0:22:30.480 those reasons. If you can't, then well maybe you should 0:22:30.480 --> 0:22:33.320 rethink them. But you're certainly not going to recruit others, 0:22:33.560 --> 0:22:35.200 or at least you're not going to recruit others who 0:22:35.640 --> 0:22:41.080 are open minded. Aren't just joining a mob for the 0:22:41.200 --> 0:22:43.400 fun of being part of a mob. Now you could 0:22:43.400 --> 0:22:45.520 concede that it's all about mob rule. Our mob is 0:22:45.520 --> 0:22:47.840 bigger than their mob. But again, if you do that, 0:22:48.200 --> 0:22:57.080 then say goodbye to recruiting, hitherto unaffiliated people, and say 0:22:57.080 --> 0:23:01.680 goodbye to claiming that that you're right when the other 0:23:01.720 --> 0:23:06.040 side happens to be stronger than you are. Do you 0:23:06.040 --> 0:23:08.680 feel like you're you're ever misunderstood? Oh, you might say 0:23:08.680 --> 0:23:12.880 that answer honestly, yes, I read an article this comes 0:23:12.920 --> 0:23:15.119 up in my head because I read an article a 0:23:15.200 --> 0:23:17.320 Christism of you, but it was framed in like, why 0:23:17.359 --> 0:23:19.639 is Stephen Pinker far right? Now all of a sudden 0:23:20.200 --> 0:23:22.400 and now I don't get the sense that you're you've 0:23:22.440 --> 0:23:25.159 suddenly become a far right, you know, in terms of 0:23:25.160 --> 0:23:28.439 Paul Understatement time on record as the I think I'm 0:23:28.480 --> 0:23:31.960 the second largest contributor to the Democratic Party among Harvard faculty. 0:23:33.560 --> 0:23:35.520 So let's get that on the record. Let's get that 0:23:35.560 --> 0:23:37.640 on the record. You know, as I sometimes say that, 0:23:38.000 --> 0:23:41.200 you know, a lot of academics and intellectuals live at 0:23:41.240 --> 0:23:45.399 a hypothetical place that I call the left pole. So 0:23:45.520 --> 0:23:46.760 you know, when you're at the when you're at the 0:23:46.800 --> 0:23:49.920 north pole, all directions are south. When you're at the 0:23:50.000 --> 0:23:53.440 left pole, all directions are are right. And if you 0:23:53.480 --> 0:23:56.960 when you're sitting at a left pole, anything that diverges 0:23:57.119 --> 0:24:01.439 from a pretty rigid set of orthodox is considered, you know, 0:24:02.040 --> 0:24:07.160 on the right. I consider that to be a pathology 0:24:07.480 --> 0:24:14.159 of some of the leftism in academia and journalism that 0:24:14.640 --> 0:24:19.520 there's it is so rigid, it's such a a catechism, 0:24:20.400 --> 0:24:23.120 like religious catechism. There's just no room for dissent and 0:24:23.520 --> 0:24:26.480 just like anyone who doubts the trinity is a heretic. 0:24:26.800 --> 0:24:31.160 Anyone who doubts certain sets of axioms on the hard 0:24:31.240 --> 0:24:33.320 left is considered to be on the right. But no, 0:24:33.400 --> 0:24:35.760 there's no certainly the right doesn't consider me to be 0:24:35.800 --> 0:24:39.600 on the right. Yeah, you know, this is it is 0:24:39.640 --> 0:24:41.520 interesting because it does seem like something has changed in 0:24:41.560 --> 0:24:44.720 the last ten years or so five ten years, where 0:24:45.800 --> 0:24:49.560 you know, maybe twenty years ago, if you published something 0:24:49.560 --> 0:24:53.600 a scientific finding and the finding had like a it 0:24:53.640 --> 0:24:56.919 didn't it wasn't automatically politicized, It didn't automatically make you 0:24:56.960 --> 0:25:00.120 think the author must be on a certain pot of 0:25:00.359 --> 0:25:02.880 because they're presenting a certain form of knowledge. But there's 0:25:02.880 --> 0:25:06.240 something these days about where knowledge is so the knowledge 0:25:06.240 --> 0:25:10.359