Well I believe on the basis of walking out my front door many times that there is no danger of falling into a fiery pit if I walk out of my front door.

But I guess it rather depends on what decisions, and what research. If you are a hunter, it might be reasonable to base your lunch recipe on what bird you come across.

Suppose I believe in making decisions based on which kind of bird I see first thing in the morning, and that I believe this due to my own unpublished scientific research.

Is this an irrational belief? — Rufoid

The logic maybe correct. The background beliefs definitely differ.

People who behave in the way you describe are working from a set of beliefs that they haven't subjected to scrutiny. People who reject such a worldview have.

Suppose I believe in making decisions based on which kind of bird I see first thing in the morning, and that I believe this due to my own unpublished scientific research.

Is this an irrational belief? — Rufoid

Rationality is a fundamentally contested term, so it's difficult to give a clear answer.

In terms of purely instrumental rationality, it's not irrational. In terms of rationality as a more general faculty of applying your mental resources in an effective (for solving problems) and non-contradictory manner, it probably is irrational.

This kind of brings to mind arguments over "objective" morality and the is/ought gap. What often stands for said objectivity is some consistent reductive procedure for deciding moral questions - even if, in a deductio ad absurdum, the procedure were as arbitrary as examining bird entrails.

That's a fun question! It sounds like a subjective truth that one has... .

Why were you thinking that would be considered irrational?

Since you put it in the context of a scientific belief of sorts, I'm guessing you're wondering if a synthetic proposition is irrational , no?

This kind of brings to mind arguments over "objective" morality and the is/ought gap. What often stands for said objectivity is some consistent reductive procedure for deciding moral questions - even if, in a deductio ad absurdum, the procedure were as arbitrary as examining bird entrails. — SophistiCat

Interesting association. I disagree with calling it "objective", but it is connected to rationality. I have said elsewhere that I think the difference between mere preferences and moral statements is that the latter are reasonable, that is that they're open to some intersubjective process of checking their internal structure on the basis of shared human mental structures. That would be an application of reason. Is rationality a correct, which is to say internally consistent for humans in general, application of reason?

Suppose I believe in making decisions based on which kind of bird I see first thing in the morning, and that I believe this due to my own unpublished scientific research.

Is this an irrational belief? — Rufoid

Sure sounds pretty whacky. ‘Ah! A blue jay! I must take the Eastern Distributor today.’

Right, "checking their internal structure on the basis of shared human mental structures" would be one such reductive procedure. "Greatest happiness (or 'thriving') for the greatest number of people" is another - quite different - stand-in for rational morality (if you don't like 'objective'). Or you could, you know, decide on the basis of which kind of bird you see first thing in the morning, or use any number of other "rational," i.e. universal and consistent procedures that reduce the answer to some objective facts or events.

The thing about rationality, in the narrow procedural sense, is that it is completely sealed. It is a game that you play by the rules that you and your fellow participants agree to follow. You cannot get out of it anything other than what you put into it in the first place when you agreed on the rules. The choice of the rules and the decision to stick to them are not rational though (unless they are the outcome of some other rational game, but that only pushes the problem back one step).

I agree, I think we need more information. OP can you please share more information?

I....CAN NOT....COMPUTE.....BE....CAUSE...IT...IS..... SOMEWHERE....BETWEEN...A...LOL!

So, do you think there is a meaning of rationality outside the narrow procedural sense? Or would you use a more general term like "reason"?

If we take the scientific method as an example, would you say the method itself is rational, or merely that we can rationally apply the method? And if the method is not itself "rational", then how do we describe it's justification?

The thing about rationality, in the narrow procedural sense, is that it is completely sealed — SophistiCat

What would the broader sense be?

The choice of the rules and the decision to stick to them are not rational though — SophistiCat

Why?

Well I believe on the basis of walking out my front door many times that there is no danger of falling into a fiery pit if I walk out of my front door. — unenlightened

Is it rational to believe you won't fall into a fiery pit?

But I guess it rather depends on what decisions, and what research. If you are a hunter, it might be reasonable to base your lunch recipe on what bird you come across. — unenlightened

I was trying to evoke a superstitious belief. There is such a thing as using birds as omens.

People who behave in the way you describe are working from a set of beliefs that they haven't subjected to scrutiny. People who reject such a worldview have. — TheMadFool

But suppose I learned this superstition from a community of white magic practitioners (it used to be common). It's been scrutinized. Is it rational now?

In terms of purely instrumental rationality, it's not irrational. In terms of rationality as a more general faculty of applying your mental resources in an effective (for solving problems) and non-contradictory manner, it probably is irrational. — Echarmion

As long as an approach is effective and non-contradictory, it could be called rational?

Suppose I believe in making decisions..... — Rufoid

What’s irrational is seeking or expecting a verifiable objective account of a decision making process by that which is not, and can never be, a first-person perspective.

The best I can say is that, given the available information and given my experience, it would be entirely irrational for me make my decisions under those conditions. Far as I’m concerned, you can make your decisions any ol’ way you want.

I do have to wonder though.....what does your research say about not seeing the right kind of bird? If your house is on fire, but there’s not a speckled finch to be found........

I agree, I think we need more information. OP can you please share more information? — 3017amen

Just exploring what it means to hold a belief irrationally.

What’s irrational is seeking or expecting a verifiable objective account of a decision making process by that which is not, and can never be, a first-person perspective. — Mww

The bird is a sign. We use signs all the time. If it's cloudy, I take it as a sign that it might rain. I don't have to understand what clouds are or how they relate to rain to use clouds in this way.

But if I do, is it irrational?

Nope. As I said, make your decisions.....read your signs....any way you like.

Do I think it irrational? Maybe. Do I think you should think it irrational? Nahhhh. I don’t care, unless you rain on my parade somehow.

"Just exploring what it means to hold a belief irrationally. "

Oh, ok, gotcha. Well one short example or analogy would be saying something like: I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

Is that irrational? I would say no because it's not a contradiction (p and not- p).

( You can reasonably believe that the sun will rise tommorow because you've seen the sun rise before. But their is no guarantee that it will rise again.)

However, I think it would be in the category of a Kantian synthetic a priori ' belief' or truth statement.

Kind of similar to the statement that: all events must have a cause.

A statement like that is something beyond pure reason, but certainly not irrational.

To Rufoid.
'Rationality' is in the eye of the beholder unless put up for scrutiny, as you do, in which case 'consensus' operates.
So before 'the question' your rationality stands.
After 'the question' your methodology including your research techniques are open to the criticism you would obviously expect.

Suppose I believe in making decisions based on which kind of bird I see first thing in the morning, and that I believe this due to my own unpublished scientific research.

Is this an irrational belief? — Rufoid

The belief is rational. You can believe all you want. You could even believe that god exists, and nobody can stop you from that.

Basing decisions on beliefs can be rational. For instance, if the first bird you see is a frizbee, you know it's a good day and you will plan some outdoor activities. If the first bird you see is a few vultures circling in the sky, then you know that a hot lunch is lying there somewhere near your abode.

Furthermore, if you decide that if you first see a dove, you'll asl Julia to marry you, and if you see a crow, then you will ask the old crownie next door to marry you, is still not an irrational decision-- it is a noncongruent decision.

Noncongruence bears randomness, which is not counter-reason.

As long as an approach is effective and non-contradictory, it could be called rational? — Rufoid

I wouldn't make such a definitive statement. My few words were just a brief, back of the envelope kind of description.

What I meant to hint at is that "rationality" can be understood rather broadly, and this broad understanding would include, for example, avoiding known biases in human thinking (e.g. confirmation bias) assessing the weight of evidence and possibly making moral assessments.

As long as an approach is effective and non-contradictory, it could be called rational? — Rufoid

Practice says, yes. Just one more addition you'd need: repeatable. And you need to be able to figure it out intuitively. I think this makes a thought rational.

....yes, which could be construed as "inductive reasoning."

Next question lol

On the surface, it appears as though there is nothing rational about your choice. However, we do not know that the reason you make your decisions based off the type of bird you see is that you believe this will give you the best chance at making good decisions. If we knew that, I think we could say you're being irrational because there is no logical reason to believe this to be true. If you were doing this for some other reason, we'd have to re-evaluate.

I think this is a case of ambiguity arising from lack of information that is confusing some of the other posters.

Suppose I believe in making decisions based on which kind of bird I see first thing in the morning, and that I believe this due to my own unpublished scientific research.

Is this an irrational belief? — Rufoid

First off, you said you've done some appropriate research, so your way of doing things sounds justified, which I guess means it's rational. I'm going to ignore that and talk instead about what would happen if your belief in bird based decision making was not justified based on your experience.

I make a lot of decisions as part of my work, so I've thought about the decision making process. It's clear to me that with 90% of the decisions I make, it doesn't matter what I choose. The only things that are important are 1) I make a choice and 2) I take responsibility for the consequences of my decisions.

Given that, I'm allowed to make most decisions on any basis I want, which allows me to be as playful as I want. Generally, I just go with what feels right without too much introspection. Alternatively, I could do it by your bird method, although maybe you'd have to carry around your field guide all the time. In the spring in the eastern US, there are a lot of warblers migrating north. There are dozens of species and many of them are hard to tell apart. What if you saw a Myrtle Warbler but thought it was a Prairie Warbler and made the wrong decision?

Most decisions are made by such non-rational, not irrational methods. Which is fine.

But suppose I learned this superstition from a community of white magic practitioners (it used to be common). It's been scrutinized. Is it rational now? — Rufoid

Did it hold out to your scrutiny? After careful examination of the evidence did it establish the fact that birds can aid in decisions?

If the answer to all the above is "yes", which it probably isn't, then it's rational.

I think this is a case of ambiguity arising from lack of information that is confusing some of the other posters. — Judaka

Sorry about that. I dont make decisions using bird omens. I was listening to an intelligence squared debate about whether science refutes God. One pro-speaker, Lawrence Krause (sp?) said that belief in god is irrational.

I don't think that ends up being a refutation, but since then, I've been pondering the idea of a proposition that's necessarily held irrationally. Is there such a thing?

Could belief in bird omens be rational? I think the responders are all saying that it can be rational.

That's leading me to wonder what irrationality is. Is the wording just used to express condemnation?

Did it hold out to your scrutiny? After careful examination of the evidence did it establish the fact that birds can aid in decisions — TheMadFool

The research showed that 96% of the time, my decisions were awesome.

Therefore it's rational?

Most decisions are made by such non-rational, not irrational methods. Which is fine. — T Clark

What's the difference?