So I was re-reading Dennis’ post on intellectual certainty, and an interesting thought occurred to me. First off, I think the post is very fascinating and does bring up some thought-provoking questions that could potentially alter the daily routine involved in much our lives. My issue is in the final paragraph.
I may see a potential flaw in the ending logic. He says that his single experi(ence/ment) with sleep lead him to question how many other things in his daily life could possibly be wrong. Although I clearly see the case against intellectual certainty, I believe he has taken a step too far in possibly applying it to a vast number of other things. When one takes this single experiment and uses it to pose a much larger, overlapping question, they are applying dangerous inductive reasoning beginning with one isolated incidence.
In theory, this would be similar to saying that because 3+11 equals an even number (14), then all sums of two odd numbers is an even number. We know this is true; it is a proven, straightforward, mathematical calculation. Another example would be saying that because this charcoal brick I just touched is hot, every other charcoal brick is hot. However, this becomes more complicated as we realize that various circumstances may change the result from being hot (maybe the charcoal brick hasn’t been heated, or it has been sitting, cooling down for quite some time).
So, just because Dennis’ isolated experiment showed that his intellectual certainty was misleading, I’m not sure how accurate it is to group his other daily routines in the same, somewhat ominous, category. The situations Dennis presents, constant exercise, lifting weights, socializing, and heavy studying, are all affected greatly by varying factors and outside forces.
Of course, this goes back to the ancient philosophical debate about varying types of logic and reasoning. Although both can be very useful, I would say that in the given case of challenging intellectual curiosity, I will side with Aristotle and work from the bottom of the pyramid upwards.
I believe this is the “ending logic” to which you are referring:
This all begs an interesting question: what else don’t I know? If I was wrong about something as certain as my “no sleep” mentality, maybe I’m wrong on other things? Maybe it’s not optimal to exercise five to six times per week, to eat a balanced diet, to lift weights, to socialize with friends, and to study a lot for classes? Yes, these propositions seem ridiculous, but for me, finding out that 8 hours of sleep is way better than 6 hours was equally ridiculous. If anything, this entire experience for me has turned into another warning against intellectual certainty. I like to think of education as a process of discovering more and more about how little you know about the world. So, I say, do everything in moderation, be open to persuasion, realize that half the things you might now be convinced on could be completely false, and don’t be surprised to hear that your favorite food is discovered to contain the newest deadly carcinogen.
As you can clearly see, I make no such inductive leap from saying that because I was incorrect about my judgments on sleep, I am incorrect about other parts of my daily routine. I merely suggest the possibility that this might be the case. You characterize me as saying that because something is true of A, it must be true of a the seemingly similar set containing [B,C,D,E…]. This is simply not my conclusion, which would be formally stated as: because something is unexpectedly true of A, it is worth considering whether or not it is true of the related set containing [B,C,D,E].
Yesterday, having come across this post for the first time, i noticed that it was exactly one years old. Not knowing whether the statutes of limitations had run out on leaving a reply, i thought I’d wait another day…just in case. (So far: all hook, no substance)
I think it should be pointed out that Dennis premised that five to six hours of sleep allotted for the maximum enhancement of his current and future goals. This premise is already against the grain from rule of thumb, which is eight hours as everyone knows. That it took an experiment with conventional wisdom to win his endorsement of it, begs the question of why he was so “intellectually certain” his “rebel-like” sleeping habits were the optimimum. Furthermore, the outcome of this realization leads Dennis to wonder the applicability this has toward other conventional widely accepted concepts. Concepts that are believed to be positive catalysts to everyday life. This would allude to his next experiment having an opposite premise. Which might lend itself to explaining how earmarks for seemingly useless studies, are conceived. An exaggerated example of this would be study to determine whether water is good for you. (just going for laughs here)
Just noteworthy is all, because he’s obviously referring to the degree of certainty that was overturned. Only to be replaced with the same degree of certainty for a new premise. Which means it is just as vulnerable. Being aware of this is a ringing endorsement of skepticism. Which i believe serves as a vetting mechanism for one’s own assurances. I believe that when Dennis transcended his own intellectual certainty, he expanded his skepticism, and therefore increased his standards for assurances going forward. This could prove more useful than having been correct about sleeping quotas all along. However this thinking suggests you cant exercise in too much skepticism, therefore, i propose a study be financed to determine the moderate level of skepticism to achieve optimum judgement…(I guess i was going for laughs the whole time;)