Some good suggestions here, but I have the feeling that the author did not get to the deepest consequences of this "curiosity". For example, let's take Fengshui (a Chinese geomantic practice). A superficial knowledge will tell you it tries to avoid straight lines for your alleys in your garden, because ghosts like straight lines. And if you can't avoid a straight line, you may add a mirror or other reflecting plane at one end of the line, because ghost, who are obviously ugly, don't like to see their face.
All this is not very likely to be the cup of tea of a well-bred rationalist. But if you are curious enough and keep your mind open, you might discover that Fengshui is, for some part, a string of ancient wisdom pearls disguised behind mnemotechnic tips. Maybe the real original reason was that the most fearful warriors were the archers at that time, and the ghost explanation stayed because it was easier to remember.
And digging in this direction you might find teaching that are still very useful today. An example could be acupuncture and Chinese medicine: the fact that it seems to be in continuous use since so long time and still used by very informed people in some of the most developed East-Asian countries might be a sign that this practice is useful, sometime, even if no proof pro or contra has been brought to the debate (to my knowledge).
So with a bit of real curiosity, not only the one that feeds you with suspicions whenever you read an articles with figures in it, but with the kind of curiosity that is a real openness to the "strange" and the "strangers", you might find out that pure cold rationalism is not a silver bullet, and that in fact curiosity is a value to be placed above.
After all, rationalism is not able to tell us why one should not pee every evening on one's neighbors fence, right?
you might find out that pure cold rationalism is not a
silver bullet, and that in fact curiosity is a value to be
placed above.
you're presenting a rational argument for your point, which implies you think it's rational to place curiosity higher. That implies "pure cold rationalism" is a kind of strawman.
After all, rationalism is not able to tell us why one
should not pee every evening on one's neighbors fence,
right?
you sound serious, so: because they might not like the smell, because they might able to see it, and not like the sight...
Of course this single post does not "get to the deepest consequences," but you really have to look at it as a small piece of the much larger ongoing conversation at Less Wrong. For example, your last question is better answered by the discussions in this sequence:
By this definition (both about map/territory and 'winning'), if 'strange' ideas from 'strangers' seem to give good results, then it is rational to try and understand them. But in case of Feng Shui and artists, if reason for having a curved garden is to make archer's life difficult, then I want to believe it's because of archers, not because of ghosts. We don't need spiritual mnemonic nowdays anymore. And if one finds that peeing on one's neighbors fence is a good way towards achieving goals he value, then it might in fact be rational to do so. But in most of cases, rationality tells us that angry neighbors and loosing karma in society are Bad Things to have.
(On top of that, I also remember reading somewhere, but cannot remember where or vouch for, a claim that the metalworking technology required to produce needles as long, narrow and supple (non-brittle) as acupuncture needles simply did not exist until recently, maybe early 20C, maybe 19C, but certainly not 16C or earlier China, let along 20C BC China.)
...even ignoring the fact that appeal to antiquity is a logical fallacy, again very much not the cup of tea for a well-bred rationalist.
Did this come off as pseudoscientific to anyone else? It seems to be inviting me to see that the procedure works by personal experience, not to question whether or not it works.
If it doesn't seem to work for me, I haven't practiced it enough. How long should I try? 10000 trials. Of course the game is already up before I begin.
> Below, I propose a process for how to "get curious." I think we are only just beginning to learn how to create curious people, so please don't take this method as Science or Gospel but instead as an attempt to Just Try It.
Nowhere is the author suggestng that this procedure has been scientificaly tested.
Also, the author raises two very important points that can be applied to other things in life:
1) to train a skill before it is needed, so that it's available when the time comes.
2) to train it enough many times for it to become a habit.
All this is not very likely to be the cup of tea of a well-bred rationalist. But if you are curious enough and keep your mind open, you might discover that Fengshui is, for some part, a string of ancient wisdom pearls disguised behind mnemotechnic tips. Maybe the real original reason was that the most fearful warriors were the archers at that time, and the ghost explanation stayed because it was easier to remember.
And digging in this direction you might find teaching that are still very useful today. An example could be acupuncture and Chinese medicine: the fact that it seems to be in continuous use since so long time and still used by very informed people in some of the most developed East-Asian countries might be a sign that this practice is useful, sometime, even if no proof pro or contra has been brought to the debate (to my knowledge).
So with a bit of real curiosity, not only the one that feeds you with suspicions whenever you read an articles with figures in it, but with the kind of curiosity that is a real openness to the "strange" and the "strangers", you might find out that pure cold rationalism is not a silver bullet, and that in fact curiosity is a value to be placed above.
After all, rationalism is not able to tell us why one should not pee every evening on one's neighbors fence, right?