The Autistic "Rationale-dependant" thinking style; thoughts and personal experiences?

[Neri]

 

[Neri]

This one is especially for you @Hypnalis. I'm not saying it's imperitive that you watch. Your will is your to do as you please with. But if you do, you will understand what claim you made that I'm responding to with this.
I did make it exceedingly clear that this thread is about logic and rationale, and in particular, some of our autistic minds gearing toward logical ways of relating and I'm loving the discourse, however,. I'm too ill (can't stop sneezing and blowing my nose) to participate much in the reasoning side of this thread (that's been blowing up and I'm getting quite a kick out of that ) so here's an answer that I'm borrowing from someone else. Disclaimer. I've only watched the first minute or so of it.

 

[The Pandector]

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

So biblical scrutiny means comparing what someone claims with the stories in the bible.

Were the stories in the bible scrutinised and if so, how?

First of all, the Bible is a whole lot more than a collection of stories, although that is how it's usually presented to young children. Comparing truth claims with a collection of stories is not how I would characterize the process.

I worry that this line of questioning will lead me to break the rules of our forum, if I haven't already. I'll try to be circumspect.

Probably the most outstanding 'proof' of the Bible is prophecy, in the sense of reports of the future being foretold and the prophecy coming to pass. This has happened so many times and across such profound boundaries that alone it earns the Bible a serious read. For instance, a few thousand years passed with an unfulfilled prophecy of the Lord returning the Hebrew people to their homeland. Cultures simply don't survive thousands of years without a homeland. Still, in the middle of just the last century, against all odds and under exactly the type of duress foreseen, the Jews regained their homeland. I think most historians would consider this a one-of-a-kind event; a people dispersed literally around the globe and yet retaining their cohesion and religion, then regaining their homeland after thousands of years. That's remarkable, to say the least. But that it was foretold long before they lost Israel to the Romans is truly stunning.

I don't understand why you would ask me if the stories of the Bible were scrutinized, and how. If I were qualified, I could spend chapters explaining the canonization process, but I'm doubting that would be productive. Recently, a huge cache of New Testament-era documents were found, surprisingly well preserved. They demonstrate that the texts we read today are identical to the ones being produced in Jesus and John's day. I would say that argues for a very tightly controlled provenance. You might also be interested in the intense but ancient process the Jews employed to guarantee perfect copies of the Scriptures.

But then, that doesn't really satisfy, right? Who wrote the original texts, and let's see the Notary Public stamp on those signed witness lists. Of course, that type of proof doesn't exist. Which is really the point of the conversation. Trying to apply the scientific method to validate/invalidate Scripture or faith is a pointless exercise. The adventurer needs to acknowledge that the scientific method is limited in its applicability. Science's inability to verify spiritual truth does not diminish spiritual truth, it proves science's limitations. Even logic and reason, which seems universal, are often dumbfounded by things which are.

The 'stories' of the Bible, taken together, embody an astounding range of practical, moral, intellectual guidance. It's that guidance that's used in what I called biblical scrutiny. It's not a quick study.

 

[Neri]

Just watched this. Fascinating!

 

[Hypnalis]

Don't know about protecting, but yeah. We've been dealing with two straw men, the strict scientist and the spiritual seeker. Both are straw men, which allow us to discuss complex issues without constantly admitting that there are many exceptions and no single individual is really like that. We talk about the average family, but can't find one with 2.3 children. I acknowledged this to you back just a bit...
(Anything we say about either spirituality or science in general is going to suffer for our inability/unwillingness to operate without generalities, which are always suspect.)

It catches my eye that you see this as a context-switching style to which you're wise. Sounds like a none-too-subtle warning not to try any fancy tricks. Analogies, for instance, put one set of facts into another context to demonstrate the relationship between the data points doesn't change. Maybe you view this - as well as using useful generalities - as some sort of sophistry. I don't feel that way.

That wasn't a warning in the sense that there's a penalty.

I don't participate in discussions to "win", but for their own sake. If they stop being interesting I exit, generally without comment. This one is a bit special because I entered in the middle, so if I exit the discussion I might make a comment as I do so.

What I intended when I commented on your technique was partly a test to see if you're aware of what you're doing. It's a mini "Gish gallop" (perhaps we could use "Gish canter"

The counter is to ignore the burst of random stuff as I did, and go straight to the point. So the second meaning (along with some kind of "back to basics" comment IIRC) was to let you know how I'd deal with it.
You can write whatever you like of course (I'm actually firmly against "in-forum gatekeeping"), but I won't read anything packaged that way.

That use of "analogies" and "generalities" would also be better directed at someone who didn't pay attention in rhetoric class
You should have noticed I am careful with categories, boundaries, and definitions. This is part of my standard toolkit for ND-NT communication, so I get a lot of practice. If you "splice" unlike concepts I'll see it.

 

[tazz]

It's not a quick study.

Agreed. I've studied it, for many years. I just wanted to know your take on it.

I think we're reaching the end of this line of discussion and thank you for being so thorough and sharing some personal stories.

I don't think we're breaking the forum's posting guidelines because, and I want to make this very clear, to point out the inaccuracies in your comments so far, I don't have to debate whether god is real or the bible is accurate. I could concede all of that and still the way you describe the world is inaccurate.

You are using incorrect definitions of words. In everyday language, we already have definitions for data and scrutiny and rigour, for example.

When someone hears a voice in the way you describe it, that's not a data point, it's hearsay. We already have those words in our language. You're simply using them incorrectly. I'm not even doubting whether god actually spoke to you, but it's simply incorrect to call it a data point when it's hearsay.

We also have a definition for scrutiny. And comparing that hearsay to a text that doesn't have clear origins and editing history, and by your own description cannot be verified as accurate, is not scrutiny. Again, you're just using the wrong words to describe things and your actions.

Overall, you say that your process is as rigorous as any scientific experiment - but just based on what you've written, it isn't. Rigorous would be an inaccurate way to describe it. That's not my interpretation or opinion. I'm just comparing what you've written to the usual definitions of the words. I could concede that everything you've said did indeed happen, but just focusing on the way you describe it - it would be incorrect to use words like data, scrutiny and rigour.

Does this relate to the original purpose of the thread, I'm not sure. But there was mention of a rational, logos-spirited discussion. That surely must rely on everyone using at least roughly the same definitions for words. And even perhaps being a little more careful than they might usually be to ensure that the words they're using describe things accurately. Unfortunately we're no-where close to a rational, logos-spirited discussion here.

 

[Neri]

 

[Hypnalis]

@Neri

This one is especially for you @Hypnalis.

There's no rush with this. I'll wait until you're better.
When I watch the video I might add a short post. Don't expect me to change sides though

Also I don't deconstruct and correct errors in this kind of thing, because there's nothing to add.
This is a very old conflict, and it hasn't changed in an interesting way in 100 years (probably more). The faces change, but not the words or the techniques.

 

[tazz]

Science's inability to verify spiritual truth does not diminish spiritual truth

Maybe this is a good example of where words are used incorrectly. If something can't be verified, then the word truth in the everyday sense would not be a good word to use. The words anecdote or hearsay would be more accurate. You don't have to bring science into it to reach that conclusion. Just use everyday language. Truth is not a very good way to describe it.

That incorrect use of the word truth then undermines the point: there's a truth that scientifically can't be verified, and that reveals a limitation of the scientific method. But if we use the correct words then that entire problem goes away: what we're actually looking at here is some hearsay that science hasn't been able to verify (yet). Well, if it's hearsay, it can't be verified spiritually, or biblically either.

An out of body experience would be a good example. It happens. Then later we say, that's a truth and science can't verify it so that's a limitation in the scientific method. No. If it happened last week, we can't go back in time to check if it actually happened, so a scientist couldn't verify it. But then neither could anyone else, by any method, scientific, spiritual or whatever. Not even the person who experienced it can verify it (to us). So it's not a truth. It's hearsay. Calling it a truth would be incorrect. The limitation is inherent in the situation, not the methods by which it's investigated.

A different but related argument is that there are things that clearly exist but can't be measured even if we are able to try at the time they are occurring: love, someone's personal out of body experience etc. I think most people would say that love exists. But it's been mentioned in this thread that science can't verify it. Really? In everyday language love means something like a feeling of deep affection for someone or something. Are we sure we can't measure that, and what gives us the confidence to say we never will be able to? We can measure all sorts of activity in the brain now. I have no idea whether an experiment has been done, for example, to scan the brain while someone is thinking about another person they have a deep affection for. But it doesn't sound unreasonable that we could. Experiments have been done that reveal specific brain activity when someone is donating money to a charity they care about(1). So again, "you can't measure love" is often cited as a limitation of the scientific method, but is nothing of the sort. It just highlights how vague the question is, not a limitation in the scientific method. Be more precise and the scientific method is applicable, no problem.

Notes:
1. U. Moaz et al. "Neural precursors of decisions that matter - an ERP study of deliberate and arbitrary choice." 2019.

 

[The Pandector]

Sorry to hear you feel that way, @tazz. I had thought we were having an open and honest discussion, but I see that this isn’t your preference.

I also have listened to your understanding of the universe and find it lacking, but then that can be the foundation for constructive discussion, which is what I thought we were having. One latecomer to the conversation obviously missed several points but still accused me of some nefarious shape shifting. I’m clueless.

You say I’m not using acceptable terminology. If I choose to use words or phrases that come to my mind and you are aware of what I’m saying, then the communication was effective. Example, spiritual versus physical understanding. I didn’t get those words from a college course, I got them from my mind when trying to express the difference between two types of understanding. I remember you griping those words, but I didn’t hear any suggested alternatives; I continued to use the words at hand.

One distinct disadvantage I’ve experienced in life is that I’m not a devious person. I composed a paragraph earlier, designed to demonstrate a type of condescension. I had to immediately explain that the entire paragraph was not written in earnest, but was designed to elicit an informative response. Because, you see, in my world it would be devious and dishonest to pretend to actually believe something that I did not believe. You, as well as others hereabouts, obviously are not bothered by such restrictive moralizing. Frankly, I find such insincerity offensive on both personal and moral grounds, and completely out of place in a discussion concerning the pursuit of truth.

You refer repeatedly to the acceptability of the ‘stories’ I related. You might even, quite generously I imagine, just accept them at face value. How kind. Think back. I repeatedly warned that your questions would pull us off topic, but for the sake of the conversation, I supplied the examples you requested. IOW, the conversation went the way it did at Your leading, not mine.

Yeah, the conversation dove fast when I gave you the best personal example I could give of leading of the Spirit. I’m well aware that it opens me up to extreme doubt and ridicule to tell that story, but foolishly thought I was in a safe and respectful place. But I didn’t jump right out there with that story: you requested an example and I gave you my best effort. Again, I objected on the grounds that personal stories would pull us off course, but went along for the sake of what I thought was an open hearted discussion. And to think that another of the same, uh, trend claimed she wasn’t here to win. Huh.

I didn’t participate in this discussion to win, neither to demonstrate an acceptable vocabulary; I usually try to leave that trash to the cleanup crew. I appreciate Paul’s determination in this regard… he hadn’t come with high sounding words and fancy presentation; he came to demonstrate the power of the Spirit. So I provided a fully faithful report of an example of such.

So, you say you are familiar with the process of biblical scrutiny. What guidelines have you deduced about the use of lies and misrepresentation in the pursuit of truth? Is that a legitimate technique? Is it liable to be effective?

In sticking with the conversation, I had hoped to hear from you some indication of your acknowledgment that the scientific method is absolutely insufficient to explain the existence of spiritual phenomena. Even though I repeatedly acknowledged the sufficiency of that method for physical matters, I missed the part about your acknowledgment of any other method’s legitimacy for anything.

Then you finish by telling me you have been hiding your skills at biblical scrutiny. But now the conversation is conveniently over and - surprise! - you never stood to questions about your own use of the Bible’s wisdom.

Do you see how an objective observer might conclude that the arrival at truth was never the goal, and that fealty to truth was not a priority on your part?

But, since you want to win a debate, keep in mind that the first task in any debate is the framing, which is properly done with a definition of terms. This is done at the beginning, because the rest of the discussion is pointless until terms have been agreed upon. You made one gripe without an alternative offering. But you have decided that the terminology should be discussed at the end of the discussion, and had the audacity to blame that on me and use it as an excuse to bail before being questioned. Pretty weak from the judge’s point of view. But not as weak as asking for examples and then dinging me for responding with ‘stories’.

But this conversation has not been the waste of time it feels like. I had a severe breakdown a few years back at my wife’s passing, which led to my late-age self diagnosis of autism. My recovery has been difficult, especially with emotional control being a major problem. I watched a few others get pretty riled in this thread, but I didn’t fall into that trap. (As I say, I know I always come across as strident). While I’m not claiming victory over that problem, it’s been good to return to rational discussion without the emotional burden.

So you see, if you’re really watching, that the rigor of my process is more effective than yours, since I apply the lessons to the conversation rather than merely having a conversation about the lessons. I believe that’s a critical distinction.

 

[tazz]

I had hoped to hear from you some indication of your acknowledgment that the scientific method is absolutely insufficient to explain the existence of spiritual phenomena

I do not think it is insufficient. And I don't see that you've offered any convincing argument that it is.

Do you see how an objective observer might conclude that the arrival at truth was never the goal, and that fealty to truth was not a priority on your part?

I think the record shows that you're misrepresenting what I've contributed to this conversation and the way I've approached it.

 

[The Pandector]

That wasn't a warning in the sense that there's a penalty.

I don't participate in discussions to "win", but for their own sake. If they stop being interesting I exit, generally without comment. This one is a bit special because I entered in the middle, so if I exit the discussion I might make a comment as I do so.

What I intended when I commented on your technique was partly a test to see if you're aware of what you're doing. It's a mini "Gish gallop" (perhaps we could use "Gish canter"

The counter is to ignore the burst of random stuff as I did, and go straight to the point. So the second meaning (along with some kind of "back to basics" comment IIRC) was to let you know how I'd deal with it.
You can write whatever you like of course (I'm actually firmly against "in-forum gatekeeping"), but I won't read anything packaged that way.

That use of "analogies" and "generalities" would also be better directed at someone who didn't pay attention in rhetoric class
You should have noticed I am careful with categories, boundaries, and definitions. This is part of my standard toolkit for ND-NT communication, so I get a lot of practice. If you "splice" unlike concepts I'll see it.

Sorry. I’ve read and reread your response, but am still clueless.

I had to look up Gish gallop, and won’t bother looking up in-forum gatekeeping, for lack of interest. As I mentioned elsewhere, I am not a devious person, and despise deviousness in others, though of course I have to live with it. If I lay out a fact, it is an attempt to inform you, not to bury you. If I seem to you to have done so, that doesn’t mean it was my intention, and it certainly doesn’t mean that I was doing it but was unaware. What it means is that you personally live in a world where you have to be constantly alert to all those nasty individuals out there who are trying to steer you wrong.

Discussions of absolute dimensions aside, I do not live in that world, and I’m sad that you do.

In self defense, I will point out that the information I offered was not some galloping dash to a non-existent end zone. Rather, I was responding clearly to questions asked of me. If you were buried in a blizzard, it wasn’t of my making. You may have paid so close attention in rhetoric class that you forgot that there is such thing as straight forward communication, sans the devious rhetorical devices. There’s no cunning demon behind this bush. Be free.

 

[The Pandector]

I do not think it is insufficient. And I don't see that you've offered any convincing argument that it is.


I think the record shows that you're misrepresenting what I've contributed to this conversation and the way I've approached it.

Actually, as I said before, I had no problem with your approach until you revealed your end game, which showed your manipulation and lack of transparency.

Nevertheless, you have stated categorically that you believe that the scientific method is sufficient for the investigation and resolution of all matters physical and otherwise. I’ll leave you standing there holding on to that, and won’t ask how that jibes with the biblical scrutiny you’re comfortable with.

Oh well… we’ll always have Paris.

 

[tazz]

Then you finish by telling me you have been hiding your skills at biblical scrutiny

Just going back over some of my comments, and I see why you're saying this. My bad. When I said I've studied it for many years, I was referring to the origins of bible texts: the archaeology and provenance. I wasn't referring to biblical scrutiny; I genuinely had no idea what you meant by that. The fact that I actually quoted your reference to biblical scrutiny and then said I've studied it for years was a genuinely unintentional mistake.

Also, I should say for clarity that it was amateur, casual study. On and off, since I was 15. I didn't take a degree in theology or archaeology or anything like that.

 

[Hypnalis]

Sorry. I’ve read and reread your response, but am still clueless.

I guess we're done then.
Neither of us was going to change the other's perspective though, so no harm done, no opportunities lost.

I have a follow-up technical question, but only answer if you want to. Do you use a "playbook" for these discussions?
Note that I have no objection to using one. It's the rule rather than the exception for a very wide range of topics these days, and has been for decades. I'm just testing an assumption.

BTW I've literally used a reasonably good christian playbook in debate. The nature of the discussion, the side I took, and our opponents might surprise or amuse you.

 

[The Pandector]

Maybe this is a good example of where words are used incorrectly. If something can't be verified, then the word truth in the everyday sense would not be a good word to use. The words anecdote or hearsay would be more accurate. You don't have to bring science into it to reach that conclusion. Just use everyday language. Truth is not a very good way to describe it.

Thank you, @tazz, for returning to the conversation. I appreciate that. Not because I want to drag out the conversation, but because it was friendly.

In your everyday life, you use the word truth to mean that which can be verified. You claim that is the common understanding, and I won't argue. But if everyone else was marching off a cliff...

Truth, in fact, is just what is so, not what is understood or believed. If every living soul believed that God was dead, would he then cease to exist? Of course not. If a solar flare turned us all colorblind in an instant, would the colors of the previously-visible spectrum then cease to exist? Of course not. Human belief or perception does not alter truth. Therefore, it is folly to believe that truth should be defined as that which can be verified by humans.

You may be correct that most people think in this way, but that is a wholly unconvincing argument. I get your point that employing off-label meanings might confuse or perturb some. Still, I prefer for my words to reflect logic and reason, not merely common usage.

Maybe, rather than 'truth', you can suggest a word that specifies exactly what is so, regardless of human confusion about what's so. I always think of that as being 'the truth', but I'm open to other suggestions as long as they do not diminish the factuality of that truth.

 

[The Pandector]

I guess we're done then.
Neither of us was going to change the other's perspective though, so no harm done, no opportunities lost.

I have a follow-up technical question, but only answer if you want to. Do you use a "playbook" for these discussions?
Note that I have no objection to using one. It's the rule rather than the exception for a very wide range of topics these days, and has been for decades. I'm just testing an assumption.

BTW I've literally used a reasonably good christian playbook in debate. The nature of the discussion, the side I took, and our opponents might surprise or amuse you.

No ma'am. As I've tried twice this morning to confess, I do not have the guile to use a 'playbook'. That would be chasing a particular outcome, and it seems silly on its face to pursue truth with a predetermined outcome in mind. Of course, if you're just there for a good discussion, then they are no doubt a great aid.

Do you mind revealing your assumption about me? After all, you recently all but accused me of some devious pre-named diversionary scheme, so I would be interested to hear why you would accuse a guileless bumpkin like me of such.

 

[tazz]

I was sorta saying it felt like we were nearing the end, not that I was making a final post and would not say another word.

If a solar flare turned us all colorblind in an instant, would the colors of the previously-visible spectrum then cease to exist? Of course not. Human belief or perception does not alter truth

This example misses the mark because you're talking about our ability to see something, changing after it's already been verified.

Before it's been verified, I could say "visible light is made up of all these different wavelengths". But until we find out whether that statement is true or not, we can't go around saying that it is true.

 

[The Pandector]

Just going back over some of my comments, and I see why you're saying this. My bad. When I said I've studied it for many years, I was referring to the origins of bible texts: the archaeology and provenance. I wasn't referring to biblical scrutiny; I genuinely had no idea what you meant by that. The fact that I actually quoted your reference to biblical scrutiny and then said I've studied it for years was a genuinely unintentional mistake.

Also, I should say for clarity that it was amateur, casual study. On and off, since I was 15. I didn't take a degree in theology or archaeology or anything like that.

Got it. Yeah, I see. But given the current discussion, let me make clear that I did not coin the phrase 'biblical scrutiny', though I can't say where I first heard it.

Likewise (and I think I stated this) I don't pretend to have any authority in the use of logical terminology. In fact, I have great trouble learning in the classroom. I succeeded in both computer technology and in biblical studies with very little instruction. That my superiors consistently used me to teach and train others is an unscientific demonstration of my success at self-education; at work I went from technician to technical management and in the church I went from pew-sitter to teaching elder. (I did not volunteer or promote myself for those roles.)

In both roles, I found terminology to be a problem because I frequently freeze during word recall. In computers, the names and meanings were easier to recall, but the church terminology often uses names that don't recall the meaning, and vice-versa. It became natural for me to avoid the devastating freeze-ups by pulling up my own descriptive words and phrases. It seems to have been successful, as I mentioned. Of course, now we can see the outcome of that strategy; I'm being pummeled online for misuse of common words. That chicken came home to roost.

 

[tazz]

Crucially, for this discussion, I think it's worth noting that if I'm the first one to see light split into all the different colors, I can go around saying that is true. But until it is verified, that claim is still hearsay.

Some people might decide I'm trustworthy and take me at my word. They still only have hearsay to go on. I think it would be a bit premature for someone to take me at my word and then start teaching students that light is made up of lots of different colors. What they could teach, is "some bloke says it's true, but it hasn't yet been verified." It would be important to point out that the rigorous scrutiny required to verify something has not yet taken place, otherwise the students might get the wrong impression.

If someone was going to build an expensive machine that uses the different color wavelengths to analyse the chemical composition of stars (which is a real thing called spectroscopy), then they would need something more than hearsay. Firstly, because they don't want to waste a lot of time and money designing the machine if it's not going to work. And secondly, because all of their results will be doubted too unless the premise upon which the machine depends has been verified. They won't be able to state that "it is true that this star is made up of hydrogen and helium" until we've verified that light is indeed made up of different colored wavelengths. This is how the scientific method proceeds to build up a body of knowledge that can be relied upon.

I appreciate your comments about your difficulties with terminology, but it doesn't seem relevant in this case. You didn't write "truth" but mean "hearsay". You wrote "truth" meaning "something that is so". I'm trying to stay away from discussing religion to avoid problems with posting guidelines. So let's avoid that and just talk about the general idea of spiritual truth. As we've hopefully just established, we can't call it a spiritual truth unless it's been verified. It might be true, but we don't know that unless there's some sort of verification. If that verification process (e.g. some form of scrutiny) relies on information that itself hasn't been verified, then we cannot confidently say that the spiritual truth in question is true either.

In the same way: all the results from the spectroscopy machine would be doubted if we don't first establish (i.e. verify) that light is indeed made up of different colored wavelengths.