Hard to Believe

"Love is hard to believe, ask any lover. Life is hard to believe, ask any scientist. God is hard to believe, ask any believer." Yann Martel Life of Pi

I must admit I am not sure what his meaning is here. "Love is hard to believe". That doesn't make sense, it's just bad English. You can believe a statement, you can't believe a noun. I can't believe chocolate and I can't believe bananas so I can't believe love. I think he means "believe in the existence of love" or "believe that I am loved". And actually those aren't hard to believe in at all. Similarly, it's easy to believe that I am alive and that life exists. It's not much harder to believe in God, millions if not billions of people do after all. So what's the point here? 

What is hard to believe is that a boy can come to be in a lifeboat with a tiger let alone survive 227 days on the open ocean. 

The Better Story

"Which is the better story, the story with the animals or the story without the animals." Yann Martel Life of Pi

Pi asks this question of the inspectors. They choose the story with the animals as Pi intended. Martel obviously thinks the the story with the animals is the "better" story and wants us to think this to. I disagree. I think the story without the animals is the better story. It's shorter, more plausible and doesn't include the tedious rambling detail of the other story.

Martel doesn't really give us the option to choose the second story. He sets the whole thing up so that we are supposed to choose the story with the animals. What I object to is being manipulated into this choice and the conclusion that comes with it. Martel is about as subtle as if he hit you with a stick. If you like the second story more, you are obviously deficient. 

It's fine by me if you like the story with the animals better. But please don't disparage those more sensible people that do not.

See Dan Schneider's review at Hackwriters.com for a great piece of criticism that explains why the second story is indeed the better story.

Choose to Believe

In the phrase "choose to believe" the word "choose" is redundant. 

The phrase "choose to believe" is often used in a moralizing sense. If someone say that I choose not to believe something, they imply that I have made a moral error in not following the correct path. But belief doesn't work like that. It isn't a matter of choice, you either believe or you don't. 

A true choice would be 'chicken' or 'beef' for your airline meal. This is a true choice, you pick one or the other and it is possible to freely change your mind. I could even help you change your mind by offering you a sum of money to do so.

Contrast this with a choice between to witnesses who recall conflicting versions of  an event. You listen to their evidence. It seems as though you have a choice of which one to believe, but this is a false analogy. You believe one or the other (or neither). The choice is not free, but bound to how credible and persuasive the witnesses are. Saying "I chose to believe witness A" is equivalent to saying "I believe witness A" or "I was persuaded by witness A". You cannot freely change your mind, and I cannot help you change your mind by offering money. Even if you are corrupt, and say you believe B, it will be a lie because you really believe A. The only thing that will change your mind is new evidence. 

Doubt is Good

"To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."  Yann Martel from Life of Pi.

This is another example of the problem we are dealing with. The obvious intention here is to disparage anyone who thinks doubt is a rational way of approaching the world. Someone who chooses immobility as a means of transportation must be stupid, so anyone whose philosophy of life incorporates doubt must be stupid. No, what is stupid is this sentence.

Doubt is Good. Doubt is the motive power behind science, technology and progress. Without doubt we would still be stuck in the Dark Ages. Doubt is the questioning of information given to us be others, our ancestors, our parents our teachers. Without doubt we would never think to find a better way of doing things, there would be no progress. Doubt is the antidote to gullibility. Doubt is the grown-up adult response to the world.

Block of Cement

Reality isn't just "out there", like some block of cement: reality is an interpretation. In a sense we co-create our reality. Yann Martel in an interview.

What a load of nonsense. 

Drivel like this is the core of the problem. I really find it hard to see how anyone can take this stuff seriously. we co-create our reality. What on earth can this mean in proper English. I have no idea. I can only think that Martel is using a completely different language where all the words mean non-standard things.  According to my dictionary reality is existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions. It is just "out there" like some block of cement. A block of cement doesn't rely on an interpretation, it is what it is. Of course, the block can be useful to humans in different ways, being part of a structure, or a work of art, or even as a weapon. But it is still a block of cement however it is used or viewed. There has to be an object to be interpreted. That object is the block of cement as it exists in reality. 

A Dry, Yeastless Factuality

There are forces at work in this world that are against the fundamental principles of rationality and common sense that have brought us so much gain. If unchallenged, we risk losing ground to irrationality and relativism. The title of  my blog "A dry, yeastless factuality" is taken from the book "Life of Pi" by Yann Martel. This book is a prime example of the way that rationality is subtly attacked. The book won the Booker Prize and is widely praised. It is a set text in many High Schools and even Seminaries. Otherwise intelligent people find it entertaining and for some it seems to hold a philosophically appealing message. This is shocking because the book is a polemic against rationality. The central theme is that it is better to believe a fantasy, if it makes you feel good, rather than the truth, which Martel disparagingly refers to as "a dry, yeastless factuality". The good news is that there are many sensible people who, like me, are greatly disturbed by the book's message. I hope to put some pointers to them here and at the same time record other supporters of rationality and common sense. 

Yes, it's only a novel, and it doesn't in itself do much harm. However, it is a symptom of a much bigger problem, a spread of anti-rationality among otherwise intelligent and sensible people.  These people teach our children, vote for our leaders and spread this virus among us. 

Any little thing we can do to stop it spreading is a good thing.

Increase