Can we force people to believe things? — Andrew4Handel

Social pressure is extremely effective, even when it has to do with simple observations. If the people around you believe something that in itself exerts pressure on people to believe certain things. If the people around you would view you negatively if you didn't believe something, this puts even more pressure on you. There need not be any formal punishment, just their judgment.

So, yes, we can.

Would people try to protect you/ put you do good use or harm you/harm others? — Benj96

I think you're in trouble regardless. People can, and not unfairly, assume that you are an adult and are going along with them. Perhaps you don't end up an addict or mercenary etc. But all your relationships will be twisted to unhealthy places: at work, love life, with your kids!!, on the street, in stores, any transaction with a salesperson and so on.

It would rightly be seen as a kind of mental health issue.

And that's without anyone consciously deciding to abuse someone who is a clinical soft touch.

And you'd certainly end up close to friends and lovers who are the wrong people for you, unless you're a masochist who is generally passive.

I mean, there'd be something wrong with someone who chose to be close to someone who always said yes. They'd be messed up too.

A real pity when this happens and not picked up on.
It's happened before and it will happen again.
Some expert, clever trollers are never banned... — Amity

Yes. And I am not sure any process that would 'catch' them and ban them would be one I'd vote for. But I do think the issue should be thought about. There's a poster on another forum. He with regularity responds not quite to what you are saying. He dismisses critiques of parts of his posts as 'not solving issue X.' IOW he does not need to support any point made in his posts since he treats all responses as failing to solve his main interests. He does not state this openly and I think is not aware that he is doing this, but it happens with great regularity. He has trouble understanding many things and if he does he will more or less, label someone as a professional philosopher - which is just silly when aimed at me and most of the others - and a strange ad hom or insult. There's a quite a bit of labeling as argument. It tends not to be rude. There are some forays into psychologizing those he disagrees with, but mostly in general, not so much You think this because....type obvoious attacks.

You can find yourself, if you engage with him, chasing down responses to points raised much earlier and finding the whole thing spinning in a slow circle.

I wouldn't ban him. He can produce interesting things. But engaging with him is pointless, but it can take pages and for some years to realize this.

On the other hand I think it is worse than anything a traditional troll does.

Starting a thread with Democrats are weak men and men hating women...
or All repulicans and psychopaths and closeted gays.

or some other blunt smash, I mean, how many pages are you going to keep talking to that kind of posting?

But the seemingly-around-the-next-corner might concede or clarify something slow-burn poster can really suck the life out of thread after thread.

It is only a concern when it is related to the 'status' of a forum member.
If you see the label 'Banned' on someone's profile, what is your first impression?
Unworthy of being read or thoughts considered? — Amity

It wouldn't affect me, though you may be right in that it would affect others. I just don't look that carefully 'up there' and have only understood later why someone never responded to me. I guess for some it might stain their pre-ban posts. I don't see that as a big loss. I think most move chronologically through posts so those post quickly become unseen along with all the other unbanned people's posts. I could be wrong about that.

My main point was that the person need not feel a stain on their character after the banning moment and
any short term emotional effects of that.

There has to be a fairer method before any permanent staining of a character. — Amity

It would be the staining of the character of a made up name that a person has on a philosophy forum whose members can be from anywhere in the world. I don't think this is a real concern. There is the practical issue of this person never getting to be here again, but he or she is not going to get funny looks while walking down the street or more rigorous grilling at job interviews. We don't know who they are and the rest to of the world doesn't even know what this forum is.

And there are other forums to go to.

I think perhaps some people who are in psychosis are reacting to or their state came into being because of facets of society: but also their families and contacts or lack thereof. But I think other things can be at play: trauma, lack of sleep and stress (not necessarily caused by societal problems) drug and alcohol use, medication, long term social isolation (chicken and egg issues here) and likely other things that don't come to me off the top of my head.

My guess is that it's not the best idea to at least simply blame psychosis on society.

I do think people are not reacting, all the time. They have been trained to not react, to take certain things as given if not also good, to hide their reactions even from themselves, to get along and not rock the boat and for those who can't or don't want to do these things there is tremendous emotional stress.

I think it might be better to focus on what seems mentally healthy - being ok with things as they are - and say there may well be a widespread mental illness in that, than to say psychosis comes from the problems in society. I think that there are people who see and feel the things you dislike but who are never in psychosis. I think people who are psychosis are not always for the reasons you say/imply.

A narrower focus I think is better and then also focus on the crazyiness of the general shrug and blindness.

I'd question your use of 'subtle trolling' as I think the definitive characteristic of trolling is that it is intentional and premeditated. — Pantagruel

I think subtle trolling can be premeditated, especially in heavily moderated forums. But I've noticed the seemingly oxymoronic phrase is now fairly commonplace out there. That said, I mean it as a challenging idea. And why should someone oblivious or sneaky, who can end up torturing someone for pages, be considered less a troll?

In digital communications, some people assume a tone they wouldn't dream of doing in person. — Pantagruel

Yes.

I also think in person, when dealing with passive aggressive and/or unconscious irritating responses, a simple 'Come on' coupled with the facial expression and tone of voice expression of irritation often can snap someone out of their habits. Especially if you follow up with a short clear explanation of what you see as going on.

Online, the other person does not have to worry that they already showed through their own body language that they were 1) affected by the irritation and care about it and 2) kinda, sorta know what the other person meant. With time and distance, they can more easly, pretend to be unmoved and come up with what they think is a deft response admitting nothing. They are also playing to the gallery.

do you feel an obligation to treat someone respectfully in a philosophical discussion? — Pantagruel

Yes.
Just to muddy the waters, I'd like to broaden the category of respect (and civility).
There are a number of ways to be disrespectful without being openly rude. IOW philosophy discussions online (other types of discussion also) allow for all sorts of passive-aggressive disrespect. Here's a common one. Instead of responding to specific points/criticisms, someone restates their position: assertion as justification.
It's a bit like the topic of trolling. Yes, it's pernicious when someone starts threads just to trigger people. Or the openly rude person who just starts being condescending and insulting. But honestly, for me, and I would guess others, the bluntly and openly rude troll is fairly easy to deal with. It's all right there on the table. You know what is happening.
I think the tougher problem are quasi-trollers. They never quite respond to points made. They rephrase instead of justify. There can be cut paste aspects to their responses. (IOW they did respond, in the sense that your post made them think of some stuff and they wrote that). They can classify you or your argument - not in a directly insulting way (by calling it or you stupid), but as mere physicalism, say, or _________[any category that would be considered wrong or problematic to somebody]. We could call this dismissive or categorizing as critique, rather than some real analysis or justification.

There are a number of other online behaviors (and I think they are a bit easier online unless you are family members, say, who can do this in person quite easily].

So, the first time this happens, we tend to explain, critique the response, ask for clarification, remind them of our points, etc. But once it becomes a pattern it is vastly more pernicious than the open troll.

The complications of even bringing this up:

Now, should there be consensus in agreement with me, perhaps rude people will claim that anyone they are rude was doing this. IOW they didn't start it.
All of us are likely guilty of this kind of problematic communication to some degree. We will have done this kind of thing in some, probably many posts.
It can be done unconsciously. In fact, I think it is often unconscious. We focus where it feels good to focus.

Well, one may ask me. Isn't this just a good argument to keep respectful when faced with this subtler trolling. This keeps the rude people from having a new kind of excuse for their abuse and keeps the door open for a civil discussion.

I agree in general.

I'd leave open the door for a parting, not so civil reaction to such patterns. I think it should be ok to be disrespectful if one feels like one has been disrespected, especially if one is clear how (what you experienced). What we really don't want it threads with bile going on and on. Insult matches or whole exchanges that may well include some philosophy but are stained with mutual disrespect in a series of posts.

Or we could reframe a parting to the 'man', if not ad hom, post that is pointing our what are perceived as personal flaws in the other person and includes an express of frustration or anger
as respectful of dialogue and philosophy and even not necessarily a negative thing for the person it is aimed at to experience. In another forum I sometimes wish there was a kind of spontaneous intervention, where a number of (clearly frustrated) posters do just that: say they are not interested in continuing dialogue with someone, explaining why and they don't have to be nice about it, and leaving that thread or ending (at least for a time) their communication with that person.

I balk at the Jesus-ish idea that one must turn the other cheek with regularity and be civil, while at the same time not wanting snarling threads all over the place.

Would we hold to the former out in the physical world?

And I note that the anger I am talking about is not aimed at the position someone holds, but the manner in which they communicate, even if it is passive aggressive or convenient for them rather than openly hostile.

I find it a very hard scenario to imagine, which is why I tried to get at it through teasing it away from the movie. I think the use of the Matrix scenario/jargon is confusing. A simpler do you take truth or happiness, though even then I still can't picture the scenario. I think any answering the question would entail me projecting things on the situation - from life. And these cannot be appropriate since I do not see that choice as binary and in every situation where I choose happiness without truth, this is at least partly delusional. The truth has effects. Sort of like heroin has an experiential downside, as does denial, workaholism, platic surgery, and so on. In your scenario the truth has zero effects plus I have not the slightest idea what that truth might be. Here, I generally do have at least a feeling level sense.

Which is fine. You have your situation, as described, though it seems very partial. It's not the film scenario which I got, but it's not clear what it is. Some will not find that a problem, but I actually think they are answering about a choice they have no idea if they would make it, because the scenario is so vague AND utterly unlike the choices we have in this world.

A quibble first. I think for most people it couldn't give everything we want, since a part of us would like to know what is really going on. I get it. After we choose the blue pill, we would think we knew what was really going on. But at the moment of choosing, we are not choosing to experience everything we want if we take the blue pill.

Thought 2: this is a very different scenario from the film. People in the matrix did not have everything they wanted.

So, we have this choice - we return to the matrix with no memory of there being anything else OR we find out some of what is really going on.

Thought 3 - we are choosing between a known - if we've been in the matrix before and it was good - and an unknown. The latter having as a positive aspect that it would be more real. But, as in the film, much of the realer life might be very unpleasant. (short term, long term)

Thought 4 - I believe that we are all, right now, choosing the blue pill (and to some degree the red pill) already. I am not suggesting a formal conspiracy theory is the case. I am thinking of our willingness to notice out own motivations, desire, emotions, judgments, etc. that are ego dystonic or just plain unpleasant to notice/experience. I say this because anyone taking a very firm pro-red pill stance needs to consider that they are probably choosing with great regularity to not known things about themselves and other people. Some peoplel make that kind of red-pilling a priority. If they catch a flicker of a feeling or judgment or desire they can tell they don't really like catching that flicker, they make a conscious choice to investigate, allow the feeling to express, find out what they are really thinking and feeling (also).

Thought 5 - in the film Neo feels like there is something off about 'reality'. Further, his life doesn't look great. You are proposing a perfect Matrix. In the situation where I am choosing pill, how did I get out of the Matrix? What does it seems like is really going on? Do I have any hints about the motivations of the Matrix makers? What is the person like who is offering me the choice?

They don't strike me as weird as they reflect lived experience. But I understand philosophers may find them weird. — Tom Storm

I found them weird long before I got interested in philosophy.

No question. I would not say realism is 'true' (I dislike this word) but I would say we are mostly compelled to live as though it were real. — Tom Storm

I'm not arguing it's not real, even, but I often think it isn't what it seems like or, perhaps better put, if I pay attention it doesn't even seem like what it seems like. I just think it's weird. I do realize that weird should be in contrast with some kind of norm, but...it all seems very weird to me.

Not really because no matter what the position people seem to hold, as soon as they leave the keyboard or the class room, they mostly enter the quotidian world of realism, cause and effect, common sense, and ordinary moral agreements. — Tom Storm

I agree in a sense, it is literally quotidian. It happens with regularity and the anomolies are rare by comparison. But the everyday is really weird. I mean, really weird. There's something rather than nothing. We have internal experiences. People get big puffy less mobile and expressive lips from surgery and most people do not treat this as odd. Time seems to speed up as we age. There are very plastic seeming people with dull eyes and others with so much life seething in there. If you really pay attention to realism, it's weird. If you busy yourself with errands and distractions or have to, well, we're used to it and it's also a bit disturbing.

Sure and I have done nothing unscientific here. You said that scientists don't rule anything out, but that's clearly false, — khaled

In the context, I am correct. Gallileo found evidence that the solar system is heliocentric not geocentric. That's a different kind of situation from ruling out that some substance or entity cannot exist, which is what we were talking about. He found evidence for how things are organized and heleocentrism fit the evidence better, the patterns in the things that were known. He didn't so something that parallels, say, ruling out the existence of ghosts or telekinesis or that some facet of mind is a different substance. It was not that kind of ruling out. As far as the law of conservation of energy, this has not been proved, it's just we have never found a counterexample. There is nothing in scientific methodology that means if we find evidence that there may be changes in convervation of energy, we should simply ignore it, because this cannot be the case. But more importantly you are doing deduction that may or may not be sound. You think that if there is mental stuff and this is of a different substance than matter then this must necessarily violate conservation of energy. Perhaps you are correct, perhaps not. If we went back hundred and fifty years many of the processes and things discovered under quantum mechanics would have been ruled out due to deduction. Something is either a wave or a particle. Things have to be in one place. No two things can be in the same place at the same time. And other seemingly deducible or self-evident truths have turned out not to be true. Further there IS controversy about whether the law of conservation of energy is a law. This relates to the Big Bang and quantum phenomena also.

Your speculation certainly falls into the kinds of things that scientists speculate about, and also of course philosophers, but it is speculative. If this was supposed to be taken as on a par with conclusions held generally in consensus in science, that would be unscientific. Of course we can use deduction in philosophy to propose things and draw conclusions, but when these are taken as proofs or 'now that is ruled out period'..well, I disagree.

Yes. But any dualist you find will insist that there is mental stuff on top of this set of things as a whole seperate set of things. That's what's ruled out. — khaled

That is certainly ruled out if you take a monist stand. But to me at least science is a methodology, not a stand on ontology.

Yes you do, when they contradict what you find. Galileo ruled out the geocentric system for example. Mental stuff (if it has any agency) will contradict conservation of energy. — khaled

He showed that the solar system was heliocentric. No one has shown that the universe cannot be dualist or that any phenomenon that for some reason a physicalist or a dualist or anyone else thinks is not physical (a term that has no meaning or an expanding meaning) that doesn't mean we can rule out the phenomenon. We can of course say there is insufficient or no evidence at this time. But we have no grounds to rule it out based on substance (in the philosophical sense). I mean right now there a millions of neutrinos coursing through out bodies hitting nothing. There are massless particles. There are thing in superposition. In addition there are many things that we now know are real that we ruled out given then current models. I see no reason to not be agnostic on such things.

And also this is thephilosophyforum not thescienceforum. I don't intend to strictly adhere to the scientific method. — khaled

That's fine. I don't think anyone here needs to see things from a scientific point of view. But sometimes it seems like a good starting point in these kinds of dialogue since often the position you seemed to have that I first responded is one that is often batched with science.

Sure and if scientists find "consciousness" or "emotion" as some sort of matter then I'll scrap my beliefs on the spot. Until then, this is how I make sense of things. — khaled

that sounds like you might be a dualist, or....? What belief would you have to scrap`?

What you'd find discussed in a physics or chemistry book. — khaled

That's an expanding set of 'things' and openended as far as qualities.

"mental stuff" as dualists and idealists have it. — khaled

But within science you don't rule out things. You find a negative result about X, but it is conceded that future research may demonstrate Xs existence. You don't say, well that sounds like a thing that requires dualism or even rule out dualism. If, later, the consensus is that X exists, regardless of its qualities or lacks thereof, it is included in what is considered real.

↪Bylaw They should which is why I said:
I prefer "stuff" to "matter", and I prefer "arrangement" to "pattern"
— unenlightened

Yea that sounds better.
— khaled — khaled

What's stuff?
What are we ruling out? If it's not matter, then this isn't materialism, or?

So, massless particles don't count, then?

It's not an ontological claim, it's a methodological suggestion. If we have two explanations and both work, we might as well use the simpler one...that's just easier. But no one has to follow this suggestion.

What is matter?

They may think of it as a truth claim but from what I can see, the best anyone can do is express a preference based on some set of values. — Tom Storm

OK, I agree. When I look at posts like this, I am not quite sure what people are saying....

A moral claim is an opinion about what is good or bad.

Morality is not about what is the case, but how we want things to be. Mostly, folk find themselves in agreement on the topic, but they get hung up on the details.

If you think torture is not immoral, you are faulty.

No argument from first principles or axioms or final justifications is relevant here. Indeed, thinking that such things are needed is further evidence of something being wrong. If you cannot see that inflicting pain should be avoided, you are faulty.

I am nodding for a while then ending up not at all sure what position is presented on the objectivity of morals.

Saying it is 'bad' is a values statement — Tom Storm

Do people mean it as a preference, say? Or do they mean it as a truth claim?

A moral claim is an opinion about what is good or bad.

Morality is not about what is the case, but how we want things to be. Mostly, folk find themselves in agreement on the topic, but they get hung up on the details. — Banno

Are you saying this is what people man when they moral claims? Because I don't think most think they are opinions, or, better put, I think they think many of their moral claims are objective claims. Or are you saying that really, despite what they think, they are merely expressing their preferences and desires?

That Planck units are less fictitious.

Yards and inches are based on human decided lengths, perhaps coming from some original object with no exact size, but used to create the measure. IOW they don't correspond to the things they measure now. Like a tradition. Planck length and light seconds are based on (or if one doesn't accept that intended to be based on) taken from constants that are still their to measure again and again. They are not arbritary of based on tradition.

Yes it depends on what idea of "selfish" one has. If they think it is about serving their own physical self, gathering and not sharing resources - then they are being materialistic selfish/physicalist selfish.

But if they think selfishness is about propagating a sense of unity, sense of oneness, to others, then as you said they ought to be more "selfish" and disperse resources and their wisdom etc. In this case they are being "spiritually/Immaterially/non material selfish". — Benj96

It's prior to thinking. We have parts of ourselves that when watching someone suffering feel pain ourselves. It's not like we need a philosophy, though a philosophy can affect this or patch damage from bad parenting or propaganda. We have this as part of ourselves. There are exceptions with psychopaths and sociopaths. But in general we don't need people to not have as much self. We just need to make sure we don't take away that part of the self that cares about others and identifies with them.

It is in one's self interest to see others as human and identify with them, care about them. Because that is part of the social mammal self. You're a partial person if you don't

Very true Bylaw. Propaganda is based on deluding people away from the idea of "self", pitting them against eachother. Its most evil and unsettling I think. — Benj96

Often the idea is to fight the natural identification with the other. The natural tendency to not like seeing others suffering. To fight this, indoctrinate that they are not like you, not human, not deserving of empathy. You have to find a way to reduce that part of the self that cares for others. Note: that means making them have less self.

Well, obviously we must have a physical self. But I think it pertains more to "only thinking about yourself" or being "self-absorbed". That to me is selfishness. When others needs for resources come second and only second to your own. — Benj96

I have more trouble with having selfless as a positive term than selfish as a negative one. One you have the pair of terms, I think it causes problems. As far as needs for resources, I do think we, being closer to ourselves, need to prioritize ourselves. It's when we take more than we need that a real problem comes in.

It is reflected well by the sentiment that so many mothers tell us when we are small "the world doesn't revolve around you!" — Benj96

Sure. But that's a long way from praising selflessness. Further my main point is that once we make it seem like we have needs and desires about ourselves, and other people have needs and desires for themselves, so we have to be selfless, it is as if we have no needs to be kind to others or built in desires to reduce suffering and to suffer with. We have those desires also and they are a part of the self. We don't need to lose the self to be kind and empathetic.

Selflessness for me is not about not existing as a physical self, but rather it's about extending your awareness and consideration beyond your own needs to envelope those of others. — Benj96

Then it's not selflessness. Words are tools and I now know more about your use of the term and I can work with that. But the word is selfless. Homeless is without a home. Remorseless indicates no remorse. And so on. Yes, words can shift meanings over time, but I think this word should not have positive connotations. And yes, there would be something wrong with us if we were only concerned about ourselves. But then generally speaking mammalian selves, especially the social mammals' selves don't need to be extended to have concerns for others.

Generally from there, I agree with that first response: the parent child scenario. I don't think we have particularly different ideas of what is good between humans, at least at this level of abstraction.

And morality is based on the difference between selfishness and selflessness. — Benj96

It often does frame things this way, but I think it is a faulty model. It presumes, I think, that if left to my interests, I would not take care of others. It is as if the self is selfish. But the self includes empathy. We are built for this also. When we model this as 'he needs to learn how to be selfless, for example, we are presuming that he doesn't have a natural urge to reduce the suffering of others.' I am not making a pollyanish case for humans. I see all sorts of urges in us, but I want to stress that some of them, built into the self, are empathetic urges. Once our assumes are that empathy, for example, is not part of the self. That we must set aside the self to get to empathy and care for others, we are telling selves that having a self, coming from a self, is a problem. IOW guilt and shame slip in a apriori needs for good communal behavior, kindness and so on. We do not have to set aside the self's (even) immediate desires to be empathic and kind. I hope this doesn't seem like mere pedantry or nitpicking over terms. I think this model has actually done tremendous damage to us and society. We are mammals, with complicated limbic systems, and while there is controversy around mirror neurons, SOMETHING is us ties the self inextricably to others, directly. We aren't komodo dragons or wasps.

Which is why you need to do a lot of propaganda work to set the stage for things like the Holocaust or what happened in Rwanda. You have to fight this core portion of the self very hard, for a long time, preferably from early childhood. And for generations.

Another angle on this: someone is judged as selfish for not sharing their stuff. I think it's actually better to tell them they are not being selfish enough. I think there is even better language possible, but this, I think is more accurate than saying they are being too selfish.

If it was a komodo dragon or a wasp, on the other hand, telling them to be more selfish implies a misunderstanding of the nature of those creatures.

Bylaw: “Desirable to whom? How do you find it this way? What was your process for determining it is more desirable and cannot this process also be fallible?”[ — Art48

If it is agreed that changing our language more accurately represents the world (an idea you may reject), then changing language is desirable if we are concerned about accuracy. However, I don’t mean to claim that we become infallible if we change our language.[

I didn't take it that way. What I meant is that it can be beneficial to be blunt and certain in many situations, rather than more cautious formulations, EVEN IF we are fallible. So, how do know that even if it is more accurate it is better to have a language that no longer includes this kind of ontological certainty.

As far as the rest, I understood or assumed that you thought our assessments of our subjective experience must be accurate. But I address my skepticism about that in my previous post. Could you respond to those`objections`?

The analogy is to psychosis symptoms such as conspiracy theories. — Mark Nyquist

For a long time we were told by the experts that depression was caused by a chemical imbalance. This is not longered considered the case. There's irony here. If you noticed that this model supported the pharmacological approach to dealing with depression (read: money for some) and thought this model was not the case and that certain groups with money and power were using a false model for their benefit, this could have been considered a kind of conspiracy theory. When, in fact, the belief in these chemical patterns that needed chemical solutions was a kind of pattern hallucination (at best) by the supposed experts. For other approaches to depression. For other models of what depression is caused by and how it can be treated
https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Connections-Uncovering-Depression-Unexpected/dp/163286830X
gives a nice overview.

Very little of it comes from any kind of formal learning and very little of it is easily expressible in propositions, — T Clark

Ah, yes, thanks for mentioning propositions. That was another point mentioned that I thought was odd/interesting. I don't think that a proposition ever has to be involved, though one might be able to translate many (most?) intuitions into a proposition.

We learn, build, a model of the world and how it works. — T Clark

I think we might also be born with some talents with intuition. Now, sometimes it might be that we are born with a tendency to notice/focus on X, and so we are better at intuition in that area. But I am not sure that covers all precocious skills in intuition.

It doesn't supersede reason. — T Clark

No, But we do have a couple of ways of making decisions/drawing conclusions, and I get the feeling that some people, and a higher percentage in online discussion forums with academic topics think we would be better off with just one. Further they seem to believe they are truly distinct processes, where I think that reason needs intuition, that it is used as a part of reason, a needed to in every reasoning process. I think many people confuse how reason looks on paper with what actually happens in their minds. And what happens in their minds uses intuition in lots of tiny support steps. But for some reason they think, often, we would be better off if we had only reason/rationality - formal, logical verbal analysis and deduction, induction, abduction working their little engines. So, yes, I think intuition comes first in the process, though I do think one might be able to deduct from a model (a scientific one, say) the focus of research. But even after a burst of intuition to hypothesis, any research project, and paper-writing process, any thining about what one is doing, will include (one notices, if one dives phenomenlogically in) thousands of instances of intuition.

I'm finding some of the discussion odd. That's not a cover for saying people are wrong. For example, when intuition was being discussed at one point it seemed to be related to ontology. Intuitions of first principles or something. As opposed to how I generally think of it in relation to direct appraisals: reading other poker players, realizing that it is likely a crime is now occuring in the bank you are in even though you see no criminal but rather through reading body language, art experts detecting instantly a counterfeit painting. As experienced, generally, fast processes where a conclusion is reached without a rational verbal process. (there may be unconscious processes that are rational, but often this needs to be blackboxed).

Also that rationality or reason includes specific positions. Like if you believe in God and argue that God exists or cannot be ruled out or any other what was called pre-Enlightenment beliefs are part of your argument or conclusions, then it is not reason/rationality. I think that is a poor use of the terms. These are process words. Nouns describing what one does, not what one believes or concludes. I think that's a better use. Or was Newton not reasoning because he had non-relative space time in his conclusions? For example. Because he was wrong or partly wrong or had incorrect metaphysical assumptions. (not even mentioning his other beliefs)

I suppose I am also saying that one can reason one's way to an incorrect conclusion. Or one we do not know if it is correct or not. Or two people can be reasoning together and disagree, or be being rational and yet have opposed opinions. It's not a content issue.

Otherwise we then later find that oh, he wasn't reasoning because it turns out he was wrong. Or, oh she wasn't being rational because it turns out she was wrong.

I don't think that's a good way to use these terms.

This then also leaves room for non-rational processes that might be useful.

So whats your point?
— Benj96

You say:

I think it is possible to be criminal and also rational in the case that the law is irrational.
— Benj96

From that I infer that in cases where a law is rational, you think criminal acts are not rational. I was disagreeing that is necessarily true. — T Clark

Agreed. Rational does not necessarily include ethical. But since when each adjective (or noun) is used, we tend to mean an ideal trait: Good, Beautiful and True blended. So, it is bothersome to think of a rational criminal. But I can't see any reason not to, for example, distinguish between an extremely effective, rational criminal and an dull witted one who gets caught all the time.

The process is meant to generate a lot of hypotheses for further testing. That's where reason/rationality comes in. — T Clark

Though I want to add that those rational processes of further testing need to use intution right through. They are not just intuition, but the process relies on it.

Maybe the difference between reason and rationality is that reason welcomes intuition and insight into the process. — T Clark

I tend to react to the words this way also. Rationality seems focused, even if it is on the fly or just in the head, on (intended to be) logical verbal processes, whereas reason seems to mean something processes of good thinking, whatever they are like. I don't tend to keep the terms separate and I think others will not have this way of separating them, but I do have a dash of that tendency myself.

I am not sure what part of the context made it something that would have to be resisted, but I do believe all philosophy humor impulses should be given in to.

I would need intuition to get the meaning of this quasi Zeno image and draw a conclusion. Though my point was more that to reason requires all sorts of intuitive supportive processes.

and reason without intuition is nearly useless.

But reasoning the verb also characterizes the thinking people use every day to solve challenges of every kind, from the most mundane to the most exotic. Rationalizing or rationalization, as was discussed, is more of a forcing of something to fit into a formalized schema, with the implication that the rationalization may not be accurate in some way. Rationalization has something of the procrustean about it. Whereas reason is more organic and practical. — Pantagruel

So, presumably more formal types of thinking, like in a well written philosophical essay, would be rigorous reasoning.

If I look, however, at

Reasoning the verb also characterizes the thinking people use every day to solve challenges of every kind, from the most mundane to the most exotic. — Pantagruel

I would think that not only are there microintuitions ongoing in such processes, but also full out intution. At least, that's how my problem solving day goes. Rapid estimates, gut reactions to people, reading of body language in small decisions during a meeting, guesses crosscultural potential meanings (crosscultural in the broadest sense not just dealing with someone of another nationality), rapid assessments (so, qualitative) of all sorts of things, scattered in and amongst dashes of deduction and induction and abduction. So, it seems to me intuition is a tool in the reason toolbox.

Rationalization, yes, to me has a perjorative sense. But rationality does not for me.

Well, first I should say that I often use rationality and reason interchangeably. (I am not arguing they should be used that way, just confessing). Further, I am used to syntheticity/analyticity in relation to statements. Whereas intuition can be non-verbal. Again, I am confessing, not saying those nouns have to relate just to statements. I am contrasting the attempts at using language logically (and thus deduction, induction and abduction to arrive at conclusions or reject conclusions with processes that are generally not verbal, at least in a step by step process (perhaps a conclusion is spat out in word form), and also some parts of the process are black boxed. We don't know what is happening in full. This can be an intuition honed by an expert over a long time. It might be a process that someone (seems to be at least) gifted at from an early age (for some reason). And it doesn't have to be exotic stuff: detectives, art appraisers, poker players. We all use intuition all the time: when moving through crowds, when assessing people and situations, and then on down to microlevels like in the process of reading, say. But, if you want, let me know your sense of the difference between reason and rationality and also syntheticity and analyticity and perhaps I can give a competent response.