• introbert
    333
    There is an interesting social phenomenon that can be considered real irrationalism and ideal rationalism. The rationalism is ideal because the people that subscribe to it don't fully understand it and the real is irrational because what occurs are false appeals that seem rationational based on the ideal.

    This kind of thing happens in many situations, but one I noticed is the idealization of doctors and the concepts like 'orders', 'prescription', 'opinion', 'prognostication', etc. There's many. The appeal to authority is fallacious, but the rationalism is not a logical one, but following rules. That type of rationalism is just an idea.

    In the real the i. false appeal to authority legitimizes opinion, ii. creates prescribed actions ( in medicine ie. pharmaceutucals. How to think ie. 2500 words with citations), iii. legitimizing opinion as valid, and iv. prognostication as a deterministic expectation of anything a doctor can make into a disease (ie. daydreaming, being alone, paranoia). A deterministic expectation is a cornerstone of modernist thought. The real is irrational because all of the appeals are false:i. authority, ii.opinion, iii. someone telling you how to think is against the spirit of logic iv. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. A deterministic expectation is considered a self-fulfilling prophesy and deludes some into thinking there are prognostic powers. Usually the outcomes of things are statistical or people organize to create the outcome.

    The example given here is just for discussion purposes, in a hypothetical "what-if" (if things were actually that way). It adds another level of rationalisms to realisms.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    I'm not quite following. Are you saying that certain beliefs are ideally rationalistic because they are based on an appeal to authority? However (in some cases) that appeal to authority is misplaced, hence "really irrational"? Why is a deterministic expectation a cornerstone of modernist thought?
  • introbert
    333
    It's a starting point that has to be challenged. The appeal to authority is made in the case of medical doctors because the science is assumed to be sound, but people really only have a few active memories at any one time besides their fixed belief and direct perception, and none of those seem to acknowledge a physician is not a chemical engineer.. I notice that the drugs can treat but also expose the sick to risks to 'cure' the disease in the population over time. That a word such as side-effect can completely negate any suspicion to intention or importance makes me wonder.
  • introbert
    333
    "determinism cornerstone modern?"

    The short answer is determinism is based on expectations, or what is determined is expected. Prior to modern naive action resulted in indeterminancy.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Let's assume a "deterministic expectation" is a cornerstone of modernist thought. Are you criticizing modernism? Or implying some kind of functional role and imperative to deterministic expectation?

    In your amplification of the ideal rationalism you say is implied in the acceptance of authority, you say that "a physician is not a chemical engineer." However the essence of authority is specialization, and specialists complement one another within an overarching framework of scientific legitimacy. You seem to be saying that the only true authority would be one with a universal compass, the ideal of the Renaissance man. Now I believe that sentiment has validity, especially when it comes to the extension of knowledge past its current empirical limits. But I don't think it is necessarily a valid criticism of authority. Certainly not of medical authority. Doctors know as much about the actions of drugs as they need to know in order to prescribe them effectively.
  • introbert
    333
    Yes criticizing modernism. Yes functionalism is cornerstone of modern sociology, arouse during rationalization of german society at the beginning of the industrial age. Merton later continued the agenda in the postwar period. That likely had an antagonistic function as well as a alienating function.

    The argument you have made about a physician being a specialization is not relevant in that my argument implies the doctor is assumed to have knowledge.
  • introbert
    333
    *likely in that case has function of creating doubt
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    The argument you have made about a physician being a specialization is not relevant in that my argument implies the doctor is assumed to have knowledge.introbert

    But isn't your argument also specifically about the fact that the doctor's knowledge is inadequate because of a lack of expertise in chemistry?
  • introbert
    333
    The functionary makes compositon fallacy that the whole of doctors /medicine have the knowledge of only some.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    The functionary makes compositon fallacy that the whole of doctors /medicine have the knowledge of only some.introbert

    Meaning what? Are you saying that only some doctors are qualified? Are you saying no doctors are qualified? I already discounted the cross-domain specialization case (or at least brought it up for discussion). Where are you saying that this appeal to authority fails?
  • introbert
    333
    Logic doesn't necessarily come from someone who theorized idea mechanics. BCE there was an unjust civilization and logic is the deconstruction of evil stupidities that serve as warnings for possible dystopic regimes.
  • Pantagruel
    3.4k
    Logic doesn't necessarily come from someone who theorized idea mechanics. BCE there was an unjust civilization and logic is the deconstruction of evil stupidities that serve as warnings for possible dystopic regimes.introbert

    I see. So you don't really want to discuss the epistemological validity of authority from the perspective of rationality?
  • introbert
    333
    Appeal to authority is classically taken as perhaps the definitive fallacy. Classic in contemporary modern is positivist diagnostic criteria.
  • Alkis Piskas
    2.1k
    The rationalism is ideal because the people that subscribe to it don't fully understand and the real is irrational because what occurs are false appeals that seem rationational based on the ideal.introbert
    Hi.

    Do you mean that the concept of "rationalism" is not completely clear, and that, in contast, the concepts of "real" and "irrational", are completely clear?
    But if "rationalism", which is based on "rationality", is not completely clear how can "irrationality" be?

    Then, if indeed this is true, why is something that is not fully undestood considred "ideal"? In what way? What's the connection?

    Can you explain all this, please?
  • introbert
    333
    None of those words have full surface value. You need to know something about them.
  • introbert
    333
    Ok hold on im knitting.
  • introbert
    333
    My argument is that the rationality is ideal meaning it is not real and the real is irrational meaning it is based on inadequate ideals. Rational idealism is opposed to naive states ancient/prmitive, unskilled, idealistic ( transcendant) etc.

    If we were talking about ethical egoism for example it is opposed to egoistic states, implies they are unethical but acknowleges the self does exist, but erodes individual.

    That is an example if how that when talking about rational idealism we contrast with the opposite and in the other with ontology and psychology
  • introbert
    333
    * deontology
  • introbert
    333
    Rational can mean so many different things. Rational meant you could do logic, but really people don't need to do formal logic all the time so that rational definition is naive if taken as absolute, but also because it is classical. Rational idealism is a modernist construction and is connected to psychiatry. There is an emerging rationalism based on diagnostic signs of mental illness. Naive is becoming a complex of behaviors that will lead to being deemed pathologically irrational. Some people will not obey the new rationalizations that will be adopted by disciplinarians in families and institutions, and constant corrections and control will cause instabilities feeding the leviathan.
  • RogueAI
    2.8k
    Appeal to authority is classically taken as perhaps the definitive fallacy. Classic in contemporary modern is positivist diagnostic criteria.introbert

    And yet, when your car doesn't work you don't take it to a cardiologist and when you have chest pains, you don't go to a mechanic.
  • introbert
    333
    Logician=/=doctor?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.