Follow TV Tropes

Following

On Rationality

Go To

LeighSabio Mate Griffon To Mare from Love party! Since: Jan, 2001
Mate Griffon To Mare
#1: May 25th 2011 at 2:16:37 PM

Inherent in the fact that we hold a belief is the fact that we think the belief is true. Of course, if a belief is true, then holding it is rational. The conclusion of all this is that everyone thinks that every belief they hold is rational, no matter how ludicrous the belief is, and sees themself as rational, because, after all, they hold only rational (in their view) beliefs.

But not all beliefs are true, and not all people are rational. So some people are irrational, hold irrational beliefs and don't know it. The thing is, they see themselves as being as rational as you see yourself as being. So how do you know you aren't one of them?

My basic question is how can a person know if their reason is deceived at any given time? How can a person, for that matter, know if any belief they hold is rational or is ridiculous. And if they can't, does that mean that knowledge is impossible?

"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.
#2: May 25th 2011 at 2:35:43 PM

Yes, it does. but sometimes the balance of probability in your favor is high enough to act on.

<><
Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#3: May 25th 2011 at 2:42:20 PM

I don't know. That's what testing is for. To see what seems to be the most probable. Testing has its limits though and is subject to bias though. Then we have the issue of subjectivity and my belief that we cannot ever truly know the truth of such things. So in the end I can't know.

edited 25th May '11 2:43:06 PM by Aondeug

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#4: May 25th 2011 at 2:54:03 PM

You should probably just take a course in epistemology somewhere.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
Aondeug Oh My from Our Dreams Since: Jun, 2009
Oh My
#5: May 25th 2011 at 3:01:08 PM

I should just because the name sounds cool!

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah
del_diablo Den harde nordmann from Somewher in mid Norway Since: Sep, 2009
Den harde nordmann
#6: May 25th 2011 at 3:05:19 PM

Why will a rock drop if we let it fall? Because of gravity, and it has happened every time before that.
Why does a man not touch a hot iron kettle? Because he burnt his hand at something hot as a kid, and hence got it properly into his brain.
What does a sociologist think? He thinks of what is likely.

edited 25th May '11 3:06:54 PM by del_diablo

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.
thatguythere47 Since: Jul, 2010
#7: May 25th 2011 at 4:11:23 PM

What's that rationalist saying? what do you know and how do you know it? I know that isn't right >_<

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
feotakahari Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer from Looking out at the city Since: Sep, 2009
Fuzzy Orange Doomsayer
#8: May 25th 2011 at 4:12:56 PM

This is why I argue for free speech, even for people whose beliefs I consider ridiculous. I'm waiting for them to find an argument that makes sense to me.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful
LeighSabio Mate Griffon To Mare from Love party! Since: Jan, 2001
Mate Griffon To Mare
#9: May 25th 2011 at 5:05:06 PM

[up][up] What do we know, what do we suspect, what can we prove?

"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#10: May 25th 2011 at 5:16:35 PM

Nothing, lots of stuff, the things that no one is arguing about to begin with.

LeighSabio Mate Griffon To Mare from Love party! Since: Jan, 2001
Mate Griffon To Mare
#11: May 25th 2011 at 5:31:12 PM

I think my argument in the OP disregards that there are degrees of certainty that a person can have in beliefs. Perhaps we believe things on two levels: there are the fundamentals of logic and morality, which are both innate, and then there are the beliefs we've formed in life after that, which are less deeply rooted in our psyches. Just a theory.

"All pain is a punishment, and every punishment is inflicted for love as much as for justice." — Joseph De Maistre.
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
#12: May 25th 2011 at 5:46:58 PM

I don't believe there's a difference. There are beliefs that are held more strongly than others, but they can still change under certain circumstances, and they can still be false.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff
victorinox243 victorinox243 Since: Nov, 2009
victorinox243
#13: May 25th 2011 at 5:52:22 PM

Welcome to the Postmodern era. Or as the author of "Master and Emissary" wrote, the beginning of a right-brained dominated era.

There is a point where taking things too far inside the box of rationality becomes detrimental to living. Lingering on such a feedback loop has destroyed people. Such rumination has epistemological significance, but that also means it's one of those things which does not have a rational, definite reason or answer.

DeMarquis Who Am I? from Hell, USA Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Buried in snow, waiting for spring
Who Am I?
#14: May 25th 2011 at 5:54:56 PM

Wow, this place has changed. A whole page on rationality and not one link to LessWrong

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
Wicked223 from Death Star in the forest Since: Apr, 2009
#16: May 25th 2011 at 6:11:04 PM

Welcome to the Postmodern era. Or as the author of "Master and Emissary" wrote, the beginning of a right-brained dominated era. There is a point where taking things too far inside the box of rationality becomes detrimental to living. Lingering on such a feedback loop has destroyed people. Such rumination has epistemological significance, but that also means it's one of those things which does not have a rational, definite reason or answer.

I've read this post 5 times and I can't glean a single useful point from it...

You can't even write racist abuse in excrement on somebody's car without the politically correct brigade jumping down your throat!
drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#17: May 25th 2011 at 6:11:36 PM

@Leigh: for starters, interesting question. I like it.

Inherent in the fact that we hold a belief is the fact that we think the belief is true. Of course, if a belief is true, then holding it is rational. The conclusion of all this is that everyone thinks that every belief they hold is rational, no matter how ludicrous the belief is, and sees themself as rational, because, after all, they hold only rational (in their view) beliefs.

I disagree with your conclusion. One can hold a belief, acknowledge it to be irrational yet continue to think it has meaning anyway *

.

That said, I'll give you that on a practical level, you're largely correct; people assume their own beliefs are self evident. Which is why there's so much conflict in the world.

My basic question is how can a person know if their reason is deceived at any given time? How can a person, for that matter, know if any belief they hold is rational or is ridiculous. And if they can't, does that mean that knowledge is impossible?

Answers: You can't, You shouldn't and no.

Explanation: Knowledge is not static. It's a constantly changing force, and our belief system should reflect that. There's a sociological theory called "Cognitive Dissonance" which is basically a fancy term for that queasy feeling you get when one belief runs into a cold hard fact which renders it irrelevant. People are prone to ignoring such data *

or rationalizing it away.

IMO, rationality is overrated. Self-awareness is far more important.

edited 25th May '11 6:11:53 PM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
Tzetze DUMB from a converted church in Venice, Italy Since: Jan, 2001
DUMB
#18: May 25th 2011 at 6:19:29 PM

No, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort caused by holding mutually contradictory beliefs.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.
BobbyG vigilantly taxonomish from England Since: Jan, 2001
vigilantly taxonomish
drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#20: May 25th 2011 at 6:20:46 PM

@Tze: the term applies to either, but you're more correct than I am. smile

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
Carciofus Is that cake frosting? from Alpha Tucanae I Since: May, 2010
Is that cake frosting?
#21: May 25th 2011 at 10:11:42 PM

Rationality is not really a property of beliefs: rather, it is a property of the way in which you update your beliefs. You can be rational and wrong, or irrational and right.

Dumb example: I am afraid that I will get hit by a car today, because my horoscope said so. Then I walk through the street, and get hit by a random car. My belief ended up being right, but most people would agree that it was still quite irrational.

As to precisely which methods of knowledge updating count as rational... well, there are plenty of possibilities here.

Personally, I think that an eclectic approach should be favored. There are no "laws" of rationality, there is a bag of useful tricks which sort of kinda work when applied to certain specific situations, at least most of the time.

One should feel free to mix and match as needed, and to try new ideas if they look like they might lead somewhere interesting. Whatever works, works — no matter how you want to define it, "rationality" is a tool, not a slave owner.

edited 25th May '11 10:19:49 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
joeyjojo Happy New Year! from South Sydney: go the bunnies! Since: Jan, 2001
Happy New Year!
#22: May 26th 2011 at 1:53:51 AM

"Cognitive Dissonance" which is basically a fancy term for that queasy feeling you get when one belief runs into a cold hard fact which renders it irrelevant. People are prone to ignoring such data * ...And often with goo reason; cold hard facts can be counterproductive to one's continued survival or rationalizing it away.

Amen to that. My life would be a lot happy if I was capable of Cognitive Dissonance sad No matter how hard I squint I can't see grey when things are black and white.

hashtagsarestupid
honorius from The Netherlands Since: Jun, 2010
#23: May 26th 2011 at 6:26:44 AM

I've read this post 5 times and I can't glean a single useful point from it...
I can't either. What is his point? That we're switching to an irrational world view? Why?

If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied -Rudyard Kipling
Myrmidon The Ant King from In Antartica Since: Nov, 2009
The Ant King
#24: May 26th 2011 at 7:24:18 AM

Welcome to the Postmodern era. Or as the author of "Master and Emissary" wrote, the beginning of a right-brained dominated era.

There is a point where taking things too far inside the box of rationality becomes detrimental to living. Lingering on such a feedback loop has destroyed people. Such rumination has epistemological significance, but that also means it's one of those things which does not have a rational, definite reason or answer.

So how's the weather in the 1990s, nowadays?

Kill all math nerds
Alexander_UE from Upper Canada Since: Nov, 2010
#25: May 26th 2011 at 5:53:11 PM

Inherent in the fact that we hold a belief is the fact that we think the belief is true. Of course, if a belief is true, then holding it is rational. The conclusion of all this is that everyone thinks that every belief they hold is rational, no matter how ludicrous the belief is, and sees themself as rational, because, after all, they hold only rational (in their view) beliefs.

I think you're moving too fast through this line of argumentation. Holding only beliefs that are believed to be true is one of the requirements of being rational, but it's not the only condition. Now, people may have varying different ideas of what the other conditions are (for both knowledge and rationality, they seem a bit mixed together in my reading of your OP,) but it will in general be a justification (or a counterfactual or two that track whether the belief is based in reality.) This leads us to the question as to what third condition for knowledge

edited 26th May '11 5:53:37 PM by Alexander_UE

Profile | Talk to Me | Note: Check your irony detector before replying.
Add Post

Total posts: 25
Top