However, neither of these imply that intelligence, science, and rationality, as a practical matter, are the best way to get things done by individual people operating in the year 2009.
I am not sure science belongs in that sentence. The application of science is an assumed part of my everyday life in the form of technology. Sure, I am not whipping up new chemicals to help me get through today, but I use computers, pens, clothing, dishwashers...
Intelligence certainly has a practical threshold. If you have no intelligence at all you cannot thrive in a world of computers, pens, clothing, dishwashers… On the other hand, technology has allowed some areas to lower their intelligence thresholds. People who have severe mental disabilities can function in relatively normal lifestyles. I see this as a good thing.
Rationality is probably the least necessary for everyday living, but I wonder if it works the same way as science and intelligence: Is applied rationality what we see day in day out? If something applied rationality to the world around us, would our personal lives get easier/better?
I am not really disagreeing with what you said. I guess I am more looking for clarification about what you meant by the quoted sentence above.
So far as I am aware, no group of people has managed to achieve anything even remotely similar using, not only rationality, but any skill involving deliberative thought, as opposed to skills such as yelling at huge crowds of people.
I would offer a reactionary counterpoint and say that most people who achieve things that similar were using deliberative thought. I have about as much evidence as you showed in your post. I really think you are underplaying Hilter’s abilities. He deliberately set out to achieve a particular goal and succeeded. It’s not like he accidently tried to take over the world. The British Empire, the Roman Empire, and any other large ruling body was also acting deliberately. I am not a big history buff, so I cannot think of many others. Mao? Stalin?
Today the large conquerers could be translated into people with money. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al were able to systematically make money. They weren’t lucky, unintelligent, crazy, or anything like that. They are smart, driven people with a specific goal who have succeeded.
Intelligence certainly has a practical threshold. If you have no intelligence at all you cannot thrive in a world of computers, pens, clothing, dishwashers… On the other hand, technology has allowed some areas to lower their intelligence thresholds. People who have severe mental disabilities can function in relatively normal lifestyles.
I’m not sure what you mean by “relatively normal”. In countries like the UK and USA, about 20% of the adult population are said to be functionally illiterate. In a world where a normal lifestyle is rapidly coming to include using the internet, where applying for entry-level jobs can only be done online, these people are going to have major difficulties coping. This may well be a significant social issue in coming decades.
It is a deliberately ambiguous term. I do not think that it is possible to rate “normal” for every mental disability at once. What I wanted to say was, “technology is helping some of them.”
I am not sure science belongs in that sentence. The application of science is an assumed part of my everyday life in the form of technology. Sure, I am not whipping up new chemicals to help me get through today, but I use computers, pens, clothing, dishwashers...
Intelligence certainly has a practical threshold. If you have no intelligence at all you cannot thrive in a world of computers, pens, clothing, dishwashers… On the other hand, technology has allowed some areas to lower their intelligence thresholds. People who have severe mental disabilities can function in relatively normal lifestyles. I see this as a good thing.
Rationality is probably the least necessary for everyday living, but I wonder if it works the same way as science and intelligence: Is applied rationality what we see day in day out? If something applied rationality to the world around us, would our personal lives get easier/better?
I am not really disagreeing with what you said. I guess I am more looking for clarification about what you meant by the quoted sentence above.
I would offer a reactionary counterpoint and say that most people who achieve things that similar were using deliberative thought. I have about as much evidence as you showed in your post. I really think you are underplaying Hilter’s abilities. He deliberately set out to achieve a particular goal and succeeded. It’s not like he accidently tried to take over the world. The British Empire, the Roman Empire, and any other large ruling body was also acting deliberately. I am not a big history buff, so I cannot think of many others. Mao? Stalin?
Today the large conquerers could be translated into people with money. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al were able to systematically make money. They weren’t lucky, unintelligent, crazy, or anything like that. They are smart, driven people with a specific goal who have succeeded.
I’m not sure what you mean by “relatively normal”. In countries like the UK and USA, about 20% of the adult population are said to be functionally illiterate. In a world where a normal lifestyle is rapidly coming to include using the internet, where applying for entry-level jobs can only be done online, these people are going to have major difficulties coping. This may well be a significant social issue in coming decades.
It is a deliberately ambiguous term. I do not think that it is possible to rate “normal” for every mental disability at once. What I wanted to say was, “technology is helping some of them.”