What else to make of this, from New Scientist?:
A lot of problems in today’s world are too big for our brains. An algorithm that identifies how cause and effect are linked could lead us to better solutions
…
Finding solutions means doing what Newton did with gravity: asking the right questions, teasing out causes and effects, and so building an intellectual framework to explain the puzzle. But how do we do that with the sheer quantity of data sloshing around in today’s world? It’s this problem that has led some to think we need to think seriously about the way we think. Only by rebooting our powers of logic and going beyond what nature has hardwired into our brain can we hope to grapple with problems that are far bigger than any of us. It’s time to install Thinking 2.0.
For most of us, Thinking 1.0 is taxing enough. We humans love to sideline logic in favour of the easy answer. We might make life decisions based on … More.
To get our handy dandy Thinking 2.0 kit we must, of course, forward $$ to New Scientist. Hey, our thinking skills are probably okay if we decide not to forward money.
Thought experiment: What if we talked that way (“We represent Thinking 2.0”)? What would be a logical assumption about us?
If the same thing isn’t a logical assumption about New Scientist, the most likely reason is the cultural hold naturalism has on the sciences. People don’t even see this rubbish as abnormal if it defends naturalism.
People don’t even see this rubbish for what it is, if it defends naturalism.
See also: What has naturalism done for the sciences?
Neuroscience tried wholly embracing naturalism, but then the brain got away
Follow UD News at Twitter!