For some weird reason you want to hang evil around the neck of rationality. I don't understand why you want to do this, but it is very annoying. STOP IT or I will have to think of a fiendishly creative and a perversely wicked means of making you want to cease and desist (since good arguments clearly are not good enough for you). — Bitter Crank

X-)

I think I see your point. It takes intelligence to do both good AND bad. Is this what you're talking about?

If you are then that's what I want to say also. Rationality can be used to do evil. I've taken one step back but it becomes a fact that rationality has a flaw in that it can be used to do evil.

The problem is that you haven't defined 'Rationality' in a way that is consistent. In the first part of your claim you seem to class rationality as that thing which has replaced religion, the authority of God, the thing that drives the move towards materialism. In the second half (the evidence) you seem to equate it entirely with intelligence - the ability to choose a course of action which will accurately produce the desired result.

These are two different definitions so your argument that one is evidence for a flaw in the other fails.

Rationality in philosophy (as opposed to Rationalism, which is even more unrelated to what you're citing as evidence), is having reason behind opinion or action. It's simply being able to justify one thought by logical consequence of a prior thought. Intelligence then becomes merely a 'tool' of rationality. Those with greater intelligence will be more able to link one thought to another with logical inference.

Your archetypal villains (lets presume they even exist), have high levels of intelligence which they apply to do evil things. They have an evil intention, and they are intelligent enough to see a course of action that will bring that intention about, they are using intelligence to do evil. They are not necessarily using rationality to do evil, we are as yet uninformed as to their chain of reasoning. No-one has given us any insight whatsoever into how they justify their actions by some logical inference from previous thoughts (which in turn are derived logically from thoughts prior to those...).

All I can see that you're actually arguing is that intelligence is a double-edged sword because, like any powerful tool, it can be used to do good or harm. The same argument could be made about Guns or Electricity. Rationality has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

True, but rationality isn't an authority and it isn't infallible. If it was, then we would only need one rational person around at any given time. We have found that several people applying reason is better than depending on 1 person alone. — Bitter Crank

Philosophers have a way of distilling from reality and praxis, ideals. Such is the case with what we like to call 'rationality', which is not actually evident, but an idealised extrapolation; as if to say; "if only we could think with purity we would achieve a purity of rationality."

It is true to say that there is nothing wrong with rational thinking; it is a means by which totally reliable and replicable results can be shared throughout our language community, where the evidence and assumptions are also correct. We can agree formal, even objective, criteria and methods to take what is evident and offer universal and agreeable results.

Obviously no such state of affairs can really exist. It is not possible to completely share the same point of view, it is not always possible to agree upon what makes reliable or applicable evidence. And so our ideal of rationality often fails to produce the expected results.

I'm glad that reason has been dissociated from evil. That makes it so much easier to implement my plan. Mwah-hah-hah. (Strokes white cat.)

All I can see that you're actually arguing is that intelligence is a double-edged sword because, like any powerful tool, it can be used to do good or harm. The same argument could be made about Guns or Electricity. Rationality has nothing whatsoever to do with it. — Pseudonym

I don't think I'm wrong in defining an equivalence between intelligence and rationality. What is the basic structure of an IQ test? Logical ability right?


I agree with you that everything is a double-edged sword and saying that rationality has a flaw isn't that big a deal. I think @Bitter Crank will disagree with you.


Anyway, I've never seen rationality put in the dock anywhere on this forum. No one has actually found a flaw in our tool. Here your claim of double-edgedness of everything comes in handy. From a moral perspective, at a minimum, rationality has a flaw.

To say that rationality has a flaw implies that it is meant to do something, and fails somehow in that something. But the whole point is that rationality can be put to use to justify anything. Hume's words on this are still among the best: “'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". Rationality is neither 'light' nor 'dark', just grey, neutral, and this is not a 'flaw', but exactly how things should be.

“'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". — StreetlightX

(Y)

See! Rationality has a moral shortcoming. Of course one may say that of anything. After all tools are only as good as the craftsman.

I'm just a bit concerned about rationality. It seems to have acquired a reputation in the last 2 millenia that I feel is too good to be true. You know that feeling right?

Perfection is impossible. We all know that. So, isn't it natural for me to question rationality's role as the utlimate judge of all under the sun.

Surely, rationality has a flaw and I found one if we take a moral perspective (as your quote so eloquently proves).

Do you see other flaws in rationality?

It's not a fucking flaw. Rationality is morally neutral. It doesn't strive for 'perfection', which is an external criteria which you keep trying to impose on it from the outside. Consider that the flaw is your attempt to foist a criteria upon it which does not belong. To use another quote from Einstein, you're trying to judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, and judge the fish deficient. But it's your criteria which is off.

It's not a fucking flaw. — StreetlightX

Ok.

What is the flaw in rationality then? Can you think of anything? If you can't then it implies you think rationality is perfect. Are you willing to take that stand?

I don't think I'm wrong in defining an equivalence between intelligence and rationality. What is the basic structure of an IQ test? Logical ability right? — TheMadFool

You definitely are wrong. As I've said, rationality is the ability to derive one thought logically from another. Intelligence is the ability to see a successful path to a particular goal. I gather from your previous postings that you seem to take little notice of actual evidence when you have an idea (why let evidence get in the way of a good theory, right?). But with a resigned sigh. Here are the results of the famous Stanovich experiments

Professor Stanovich and colleagues had large samples of subjects complete judgement tests (tests which show their susceptibility to irrational thinking - cognitive biases, in this case the conjunction fallacy), as well as an IQ test. What they found was that a person with a high IQ is about as likely to suffer from irrational behaviour as a person with a low IQ i.e Intelligence does not correlate at all with rationality.

Later studies, repeating the same set up have actually found that people with higher IQs are slightly more prone to irrational thinking.

So there's good evidence that rational thinking is actually reducing the sort of 'evil' behaviour you're describing, by making people more able to see both sides and less likely to come to prejudiced or biased conclusions.

Why are you obsessed with finding a flaw in rationality?

Was it something that happened in early childhood? Were you bullied in a high school philosophy class? Did a philosopher make unwanted sexual overtures to you (which was OK as far as you were concerned, except it was not the philosopher from whom you were hoping for unwanted sexual overtures)? What? Why? How? Where? When did it all go so wrong?

Intelligence does not correlate at all with rationality. — Pseudonym

Are mathematicians/scientists/philosophers dumber than the average person you walk into on the streets?

What was Socrates doing? Being rational or intelligent?

Why are you obsessed with finding a flaw in rationality? — Bitter Crank

I like to try the impossible. Rationality has this perfect reputation that I think needs examination. That's all. Thanks for your replies though. They were great.

If you can't then it implies you think rationality is perfect. — TheMadFool

No, it doesn't. It implies that that the entire question is bogus and irrelevant, and that perfection or imperfection is a stupid criteria by which to judge rationality. To say that a smell is not round is not to imply that it is not-round. It implies that asking wheater a smell is round or not is a dumb question. So too with the question of 'perfection' with respect to reason.

Are mathematicians/scientists/philosophers dumber than the average person you walk into on the streets? — TheMadFool

Why are you walking into all these people?

Are mathematicians/scientists/philosophers dumber than the average person you walk into on the streets?

What was Socrates doing? Being rational or intelligent? — TheMadFool

How should I know? I don't have IQ results, nor the results from any cognitive bias tests. What's the point of the question? Perhaps you could rephrase it to something I could answer.

How should I know? I don't have IQ results, nor the results from any cognitive bias tests. What's the point of the question? Perhaps you could rephrase it to something I could answer. — Pseudonym

Ok. I'll ask you this...

Is rationality perfect in every sense of the word?

Yes. Prove it.

No. Prove it. (My OP is proof that rationality isn't perfect)

Why are you walking into all these people? — Bitter Crank

Am I? I just have a few questions more. Thanks.

So too with the question of 'perfection' with respect to reason. — StreetlightX

Prove to me that rationality is the best thinking tool.

Why? I never said rationality is the best thinking tool. I only said that holding rationality to the standard of perfection is a dumb thing to do.

I only said that holding rationality to the standard of perfection is a dumb thing to do. — StreetlightX

Why?