vigilance in scientific and religious cognition Konrad TalmontKaminski UFAM Warsaw RCC Aarhus i LEVYNA Brno Structure Epistemic Vigilance CRED traditions Pragmatic contradiction Argumentative account ID: 431827
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Epistemic" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Epistemic
vigilance in scientific and religious cognition
Konrad Talmont-KaminskiUFAM Warsaw, RCC Aarhus i LEVYNA BrnoSlide2Slide3
Structure
Epistemic Vigilance
CRED traditions
Pragmatic contradiction
Argumentative account
z
y
q
Cultural Learning
Source Vigilance
l
k
Content Vigilance
k
Truth as norm
k
Nonalethic
function
k
y
Religions
ScienceSlide4
Cultural learning
Cultural learning
powerfulAllows spread of useful behavioursCristine’s
work on ritual
Makes
possible Machiavellian
manipulation
Sperber et
al
Mind & Language
(2010
)
Epistemic vigilance requiredSlide5
Sperber
et al
Mind & Language (2010)Epistemic Vigilance
Epistemic Vigilance
Personal interests
Logical consistency
Source Vigilance
l
k
Content Vigilance
k
Plausibility
k
General trustworthiness
k
lSlide6
Vigilance to content
Argumentative account of reasoning
Mercier & Sperber BBS (2011)Reasoning not aimed at true belief
A tool of epistemic vigilance
Convincing others
Not being mislead
Cognitive ‘biases’ due to functionSlide7
Truth as norm
Groups can reason toward truth
Scientific reasoningRequires appropriate institutionsTruth as explicit normUseful where truth tied to function
Division
of cognitive
labour
De-
emphasised
source vigilanceSlide8
Vigilance to source
Credibility enhancing displays
Henrich Evol & Hum Beh
(2009)
Machiavellian manipulation easier with language
CREDs costly for manipulators
Mushrooms exampleSlide9
Structure
Epistemic Vigilance
CRED traditions
Pragmatic contradiction
Argumentative account
z
y
q
Cultural Learning
Source Vigilance
l
k
Content Vigilance
k
Truth as norm
k
Noncognitive
function
k
y
Religions
ScienceSlide10
Stabilising
religion
CREDs independent of contentCREDs can stabilise costly behaviour
Costly
behaviour
can be prosocial
Cultural group
selection
Religions as CRED traditions
Cognitive byproducts
Dual inheritance
account
Content vigilance de-
emphasisedSlide11
Nonalethic
functionNF = not tied to truthFunction of religions nonalethicSignificant consequences
NF ‘parasitic’ upon truth-connected function
Similar to
Batesian
mimicry
NF requires protection against counterevidenceSlide12
Truth & function
*
UncorrelatedCorrelatedAccuracy
Functionality
Accuracy
Functionality
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
e
bSlide13
Superempirical
Content
Methodological
Context
Social
Context
Superempirical
>
Unfalsifiable
“Invisible”
“Dangerous”
“Far away”
Sacred
Available methods
Available tools
Superempirical
<
UnfalsifiableSlide14
The sacred
Example of social context
Not definitional for religionImportant, none-the-lessA means for maintaining stabilityRaise cost of investigatingSlide15
Pragmatic contradiction
Need to protect NF
Conflicts withExplicit truth normConflict attitudinal not ontologicalBoth CRED traditions and
scientific reasoning
potentially functional
No easy solutionSlide16
Moderating the conflict
Nonoverlapping
magisteria (NOMA)Methodological context?Science open-endedNOMA requires withholding of critical faculties
Aspect of social contextSlide17
Moderating the conflict
Religious beliefs not about “facts in the world”
Difficult to sustainUnrepresentative approachTheological incorrectnessNo successful deist religionsSlide18
Further problem
Not all religious
behaviour prosocialProblematic behaviour
Problematic environments
Need a critical attitude to identify function
Critical attitude undermines function
Reasoning trumps CRED traditionsSlide19
Conclusions
Nonalethic
function of religion at bottom of conflict with scientific reasoningTo maintain function religious beliefs must be protected against potential counterevidence
Reasoning trumps CRED traditionsSlide20
Thank you
Konrad Talmont-Kaminski
Religion as Magical Ideology“For God and Country, Not Necessarily for Truth” The Monist 96.3 (2013)
konrad@talmont.com
deisidaimon.wordpress.com