We tend to fetishise reason as a sort of transcendental virtue. And while I think reason is non-negotiable for civilised discourse, it may also be used to achieve lamentable outcomes. — Tom Storm
Whatall premises? How so? — Vera Mont
Even when we think, we reason internally as an internal discussion. — Pantagruel
How do people generate new generalizations from observations? — T Clark
Situation: I am standing on a hard surface in the dark.
Problem: I am not satisfied to stand here until daybreak (Memory has kicked in with two pieces of information: it's night and it usually ends with sunrise) — Vera Mont
I don't see any of that as irrational. — Vera Mont
No. There are uninformed or fallaciously-derived "strategies".If thinking is strategic, is it therefore also rational? — Pantagruel
Yes. It is often not irrational to break rules norms or conventions.Is it possible to be a criminal, and also rational, in the strictest sense of the word?
I can't tell what you mean – how do you distinguish between "thinking" "rational" and "reasonable"?What about reasonable?
And being discursive in nature, these terms connote primarily social, not subjective, practices (Peirce-Dewey, Witty)thinking: reflective inquiry / practices (i.e. meta-rational, meta-reasonable ... e.g. conjecture-making/testing, reflective equilibrium, philosophical hermeneutics, conceptual analysis, etc)
rational: inferential rule-following (e.g. means adequate to ends (goals) which, however, do not undermine / invalidate ends (goals))
reasonable: context-specific rule/exception-making and goals-setting which may be inferential or not
Not always.Is ethics rational? — Pantagruel
It's reasonable, I think; but, of course, that depends on what you mean by "ethical".Or is it just rational to be ethical?
I am often stunned that this needs to be said and how nice to read it.Again, non-rational is not the same as irrational. — T Clark
Exactly. It is as if we can manage without intuition, often. Or, it is as if everything in science, say, is reasoned and empirical. Conclusions are formed, hopefully, after testing and rational analysis, but the process of science requires intution and other non-rational processes. Often if one asserts this, one is told 'but they are fallible.' Well, sure. And of course reasoned/rational processes are also fallible. But yes, intuition is fallible but necessary. We can't weed it out and function. And then as a related issue, some intuition is better than other intuition. Some people's intuition that is is better than other people's.How do people generate new generalizations from observations? I do it by pouring information into my brain, letting it spin around for a while until a pattern emerges, an insight. Intuition. Generating a new premise, a hypothesis, is not a logical process. It requires that something new be created where there was nothing before. Then that new idea can be tested using empirical methods. You have to have a hypothesis before you can apply logic. Before you can be rational. — T Clark
You're not describing a new generalization. — T Clark
Okay. How is a real situation in which the subject may find himself non-rational? And why does it matter whether reality follows the rules of this distinction? Suppose reality does throw up a problem that is irrational, or appears irrational to the subject.Again, non-rational is not the same as irrational. — T Clark
Clearly explained! — Janus
Exactly. It is as if we can manage without intuition, often. Or, it is as if everything in science, say, is reasoned and empirical. Conclusions are formed, hopefully, after testing and rational analysis, but the process of science requires intution and other non-rational processes. Often if one asserts this, one is told 'but they are fallible.' Well, sure. And of course reasoned/rational processes are also fallible. But yes, intuition is fallible but necessary. We can't weed it out and function. And then as a related issue, some intuition is better than other intuition. Some people's intuition that is is better than other people's. — Bylaw
I'm asking why you would need a new generalization in thAe first place. I'm describing a premise from which a practical, mundane chain of reasoning may start. A situation is identified. Why would it have to be new? — Vera Mont
Okay. How is a real situation in which the subject may find himself non-rational? — Vera Mont
Yes. Another thought is that when reasoning, there are moments of 'microintuitions'. They can be all sorts of things - moments of feeling into semantics, the 'I have checked that enough' qualia, 'it feels like some step is missing here' qualia, tiny thought experiments where one circles around a step in reasoning, quick dashes into memory looking for counterevidence and so on. All these little tweaks and checks.How do people generate new generalizations from observations? I do it by pouring information into my brain, letting it spin around for a while until a pattern emerges, an insight. Intuition. Generating a new premise, a hypothesis, is not a logical process. It requires that something new be created where there was nothing before. Then that new idea can be tested using empirical methods. You have to have a hypothesis before you can apply logic. Before you can be rational. — T Clark
Yes. Another thought is that when reasoning, there are moments of 'microintuitions'. They can be all sorts of things - moments of feeling into semantics, the 'I have checked that enough' qualia, 'it feels like some step is missing here' qualia, tiny thought experiments where one circles around a step in reasoning, quick dashes into memory looking for counterevidence and so on. All these little tweaks and checks. — Bylaw
So, most people will reject the conclusion of an argument if they dislike it, or if it conflicts with the body of beliefs they already hold, or if they think it would be immoral to believe such a conclusion, or if they find it an ugly belief to hold. And they will do that regardless of how good the argument is.
Note: the perfectly rational person is not necessarily going to be the perfect philosopher. For there may be truths about reality that we do not have overall reason to believe. The ideally rational person recognizes what they have overall reason to believe and believes it. That we have epistemic reason to believe x does not entail that we have overall reason to believe it.
So, the dedicated philosopher may not be perfectly rational — Bartricks
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. — Bylaw
t standards of rationality change. Slavery was an accepted institution in ancient Greece. The slave Epictetus was a Stoic, which makes sense. But then so was Marcus Aurelius. So rejection of an argument at a social level could be the institution of a new rational standard. — Pantagruel
Could this be described as alternating phases of syntheticity and analyticity? Analytic thinking seems to fit the bill as a kind of framework of rationality. Whereas syntheticity, which in its very nature involves leaps, seems better described as a process of reason. — Pantagruel
The description I've provided is just about the first time I've tried organizing my thoughts on this subject and putting them into words. That has been what I would call a rational process, but it's roots are in experience, not reason. — T Clark
So, presumably more formal types of thinking, like in a well written philosophical essay, would be rigorous reasoning.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
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.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
Are you upholding the analytic/synthetic distinction here? — Joshs
Laws defines criminals.Is it possible to be a criminal, and also rational, in the strictest sense of the word? — Pantagruel
Are you upholding the analytic/synthetic distinction here?
— Joshs
I'm acknowledging it, not sure what you mean by upholding — Pantagruel
Also, I don't think thinking is strategic. I'm not even sure what that means. Certainly a lot of our thinking is not goal oriented. — T Clark
I tend to view the mind (and the associated thinking, however seemingly mundane or counterproductive) as being more of a long-term planning module within the human apparatus. — Bret Bernhoft
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.