PURRfectly RATional To Be IrRATional Paradox

TheMadFool

Rationality is the the ability to, and the practice of, of reason - reason being, in the simplest of terms, the application of prescribed rules of thinking (deduction/induction/abduction) to arrive at, or come as close as is possible to, the truth.

The purring cat and the squeaking mouse, like every other life form capable of thought, whether simple or complex, relies on rationality to survive, cats have to be rational to capture rats and rats, similarly, have to be rational to escape cats. I would've preferred to use mice in this tail of rationality but the title wouldn't have been as catchy. So, that's that.

Allow me to present a reconstruction of a rat's thought processes with respect to meeting a painful and miserable death at the ~~hands~~ paws of a hungry cat.

Reasoning 1
1. If a cat's in the bushes then there's a sound (the cat's pawtsteps)
2. A cat 's in the bushes
Ergo,
3. There's a sound

Reasoning 1 is the familiar natural deduction rule modus ponens. It's a valid piece of reasoning. No issues there.

"Reasoning" 2
4. If a cat's in the bushes then there's a sound (the cat's pawsteps)
5. There's a sound
Ergo,
6. A cat's in the bushes

"Reasoning" 2 is an instance of a fallacy that goes by the name affirming the consequent. However, give this piece of reasoning that rats use some careful thought. Think in terms of risk, specifically the odds of survival, for rats that commit this fallacy and rats that don't. Is it better for a rat to commit this fallacy than to not?

Consider a rat X who doesn't commit this fallacy. X would conclude that there's absolutely no justification to conclude that there's a cat in the bushes and wouldn't run for cover but the problem for X is that it isn't justified to conclude there's no cat in the bushes. In other words, the sound could very well be a cat's pawsteps, a cat ready to make a meal of X and if this is true then rat X would've signed its death warrant.

Consider a rat Y who does commit this fallacy. Rat Y would immediately hide/run. Rat Y would have a better chance of survival for it would always escape that cat that did make a sound.

In essence, rat Y, by committing this particular logical fallacy, would survive longer than rat X.

Committing a logical fallacy is irrational

Ergo, sometimes, It's rational to be irrational or that sometimes it's irrational to be rational

Paradox!

A penny for your thoughts...

Addendum:

Reasoning 3
7. If there's a sound then it could be that a cat's in the bushes
8. There's a sound
Ergo,
9. It could be a cat's in the bushes

It might seem that rat Y is using reasoning 3 in which case it's not committing the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent but the point is, its behavior - running/hiding upon hearing a sound - implies that it believes/assumes that a cat's in the bushes i.e. it concludes, via "reasoning" 2, that a cat is in the bushes and that's precisely what affirming the consequent fallacy is.

Nils Loc

The purring cat and the squeaking mouse, like every other life form capable of thought, whether simple or complex, relies on rationality to survive, cats have to be rational to capture rats and rats, similarly, have to be rational to escape cats. — TheMadFool

Can't we flat out reject this? The behavior of cats stalking rats and rats running from cats is a consequence of natural selection, which is not a process that involves rational decision making in the ordinary sense.

It maybe the case there are cats/rats that have learned techniques by which they're comparatively better at what they do than on average but it's still unlikely that any process of rationality is involved.

There is no need to affirm a consequent. If you hear a sound that causes you to run for cover, then you run for cover. As to whether said rat is actually thinking, "is that really a cat?", I doubt it.

If an animal is incapable of rationality then isn't it also incapable of irrationality?

TheMadFool

Can't we flat out reject this? — Nils Loc

I'm afraid not. Although we can't look inside the minds of cats and rats, we can draw reasonable inferences from their behavior, one being that they behave rationally and, germane to this discussion, irrationally too.

Rational Rats

Causal reasoning requires the ability to use modus ponens, a basic application of which in causal reasoning would look like this:

1. If X is followed by Y then, X causes Y
2. X is followed by Y
Ergo,
3. X causes Y

In the context of this discussion:

4. IF a cat in the bushes is followed by a sound then a cat in the bushes causes a sound
5. A cat in the bushes is followed by a sound
Ergo,
6. A cat in the bushes causes sound

This makes it even more plausible, if not certain, that rats can reason the way I described they do.

If this fails to convince you, the theme of this thread - it's rational to be irrational or it's irrational to be rational (sometimes) - is transferable to humans. What would you do if you were alone, lost in a jungle, and you hear the sound of twigs breaking behind you? Quite naturally, you not only will but actually should (it's highly recommended that you follow this course of action) affirm the consequent and thus assume, without real justification, that there's a predator stalking you.

Nils Loc

If this fails to convince you, the theme of this thread - it's rational to be irrational or it's irrational to be rational (sometimes) - is transferable to humans. — TheMadFool

Well you're example of associative learning is a kind fundamental to life it seems.

The other day I was witness to a cattle egret that walked up to me after I had turned on my pressure washer. They associate the sound (x) of lawn mowers with easy access to insects(y). This scenario was somewhat novel I thought. No lawn but I was surprised he was still getting insects from what the pw gun by force unsettled from nooks and crannies.

I aimed by gun to the surface very close to the bird and it got soaked and blown but it didn't retreat. I would say the bird was being neither rational or irrational in the human sense of the term. There is not way it could weigh the pros an cons of the novel situation. Of course there may be context specific stimuli for the bird which I'm totally unaware. Like if an engine is humming but there is a doglike/catlike creature somewhere in the vicinity, do they decide not to engage?

TheMadFool

neither rational or irrational — Nils Loc

I'm deeply intrigued by this claim. Can you edify me on this most fascinating idea of "neither rational nor irrational"?

Nils Loc

I'm deeply intrigued by this claim. Can you edify me on this most fascinating idea of "neither rational nor irrational"? — TheMadFool

I'm not committed to this claim. Just being wary of transferring aspects of human experience (reasoning in abstract) to animals. I see reason as self-aware abstraction, though insofar as most of what a brain does is not conscious, I'm probably wrong.

In what circumstance of living my life, making decisions actively or passively, am I neither being rational or irrational, or is everything to be subject to such kind of analysis?

Does an animal run from predators as a tried and true effective strategy because said animal "wants to live"?

TheMadFool

Just being wary of transferring aspects of human experience (reasoning in abstract) to animals. — Nils Loc

Is there a difference, a distinction, between youre behavior (in the jungle) and the rat Y's behavior (in the scenario described in the OP) in terms of information available for deduction (a sound) and the deduction made (defensive behavior)? No! A sound was heard and both you and rat Y ducked for cover. Your reasoning is (also should be) the affirming the consequent fallacy. Purely in logical terms, assuming the rat can reason like us, isn't the rat too committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent? If no, which valid argument form is the rat employing? In other words, can you find a valid argument form that leads you to the conclusion (initiate defensive behavior) from the information available (sound)?

Nils Loc

Is there a difference, a distinction, between youre behavior (in the jungle) and the rat Y's behavior (in the scenario described in the OP) in terms of information available for deduction (a sound) and the deduction made (defensive behavior)? No! — TheMadFool

If a rat smells cat urine and perhaps there is time-sensitivity gradations to this smell, such that a rat smells recently discharged urine, then the rat reacts as if a cat were present. But this representation in language of "cat is likely present" as affirming a possible consequent through representative logic is quite human. I can't say that this necessitates any conscious mental, logically represented, working hypothesis for the rat but maybe it isn't needed. We as humans can rationalize a rat's behavior, but what is going on in the mind of a rat?

Let's say I smell cat pee on my rug but I own no cats. Is this again an example of affirming the consequent in as far as I conclude that a cat must have peed on my rug? What if I take a chemical sample of this odor to a lab which confirms that there is cat DNA in such sample. I then further conclude that it is likely a cat peed on my rug, but am I still not affirming the consequent? At what point of conclusion is the fallacy overcome in terms of probability? To what extent is the investment in obtaining this certainty rational or irrational?

TheMadFool

what is going on in the mind of a rat? — Nils Loc

This is privileged information - no mind is accessible to another mind. However, that doesn't mean we can't create a high fidelity reconstruction of rat Y's thoughts on the matter from info that's available to us. Doing this is very simple in my humble opinion.

Step 1 is to note what sort of info is available to rat Y and what inference it draws from that. Step 2 is to put what we learned of rat Y in step 1 into a recognizable but, more importantly, plausible logical template that we can analyze.

Step 1: Information received/gathered by rat Y: a sound. The inference made by rat Y is there's a cat (a predator) in the vicinity; that's why it takes cover.

Step 2: We (humans) understand that the following premise is true:

1. If a cat's in the bushes then there's a sound.

The converse (if there's a sound then there's a cat in the bushes) is false because a sound can be made by, say, another rat, a breeze, etc.

This means the only available truth for the rat - a truth that can function as a premise - is premise 1

Rat Y, runs for cover upon hearing a sound and that bespeaks it has come to a conclusion regarding the sound, and that conclusion is that there's a cat lurking in the bushes.

Now, let's go over what rat Y knows (the premises):

1. If there's a cat in the bushes then there's a sound
2. There's a sound

We also know Rat Y's conclusion (from its behavior):
3. There's a cat in the bushes

Rat Y's argument then is:

1. If there's a cat in the bushes then there's a sound
2. There's a sound
Ergo,
3. There's a cat in the bushes ?/! (irrational?/rational!)

No other logical template (argument form) fits the rat Y scenario and it's the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

PURRfectly RATional To Be IrRATional Paradox

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions