Do you have evidence for the fact, that you are rational?

[mikkel_the_dane]

But that is self-defeating because if it's true the point you're making cannot be justified. And that means, you have no point at all.

Well, now, you are on the hook for philosophy. Because I am going to hold us both to the standard of justified true beliefs and see if that is an idea and not a fact; or a fact.

The first part is easy, we need 4 or more humans divided into 2 groups of 2 or more. Each group agree that they have a point but the 2 groups contradict each other to the effect of X is Y and not Z versus X is Z and not Y.
You can observe that one even in practice here on this forum. One for the groups have a false claim, yet they agree they have a point.

Now notice what I did, because also applies to us 2. If we disagree as to the effect of a contradiction, we still both think we each individually have a point and we act on it. That is what is happening now as we debate.
So at least one of us is not justified, yet we can both act on it.

That was part one. Do you agree or if not, what do you then claim as at least some people are not justified, yet they are, it would seem, in the world as parts of the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes.

What is your actual evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If I say yes, is it rational that you would follow it with a challenge to provide the evidence then?

I'd I say no, is it rational to agree without evidence, the answer no is the correct response?

As for yes, then yes, I would ask for evidence. As for no, then you in sense accept that it is a sort of belief, that works if you believe in it and doesn't if you don't believe in it.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is your actual evidence?

Oh, you're expanding the thread now?
Occasaional use (often successful) of rational thought.
Irrational thoughts are a good a priori basis for reasoning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, you're expanding the thread now?
Occasaional use (often successful) of rational thought.
Irrational thoughts are a good a priori basis for reasoning.

Okay.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay.

Hmmm....uncharacteristically brief for you.
Did I do something wrong?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmmm....uncharacteristically brief for you.
Did I do something wrong?

No, I am just taking a break from you. Right now, I am not there for ending up doing relativism with you again. At least for now.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, I am just taking a break from you. Right now, I am not there for ending up doing relativism with you again. At least for now.

Oh, good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since the yes argument has already been presented I will provide something much better, stone cold proof:

The name has been changed to protect the guilty. I mean innocent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Since the yes argument has already been presented I will provide something much better, stone cold proof:

View attachment 77921

The name has been changed to protect the guilty. I mean innocent.

That is not evidence. But still, it is a fun one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not evidence. But still, it is a fun one.

Hah! You say that only because you do not have one!

 

[syo]

I'm on medication. The psychiatrist will have me locked up if I don't take my meds. So no. I'm not rational.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Question: What happens when two rational lines of thoughts meet.

Answer: A rational conclusion.

 

[dybmh]

Well, now, you are on the hook for philosophy. Because I am going to hold us both to the standard of justified true beliefs and see if that is an idea and not a fact; or a fact.

The first part is easy, we need 4 or more humans divided into 2 groups of 2 or more. Each group agree that they have a point but the 2 groups contradict each other to the effect of X is Y and not Z versus X is Z and not Y.
You can observe that one even in practice here on this forum. One for the groups have a false claim, yet they agree they have a point.

Now notice what I did, because also applies to us 2. If we disagree as to the effect of a contradiction, we still both think we each individually have a point and we act on it. That is what is happening now as we debate.
So at least one of us is not justified, yet we can both act on it.

That was part one. Do you agree or if not, what do you then claim as at least some people are not justified, yet they are, it would seem, in the world as parts of the world.

No. Not at all. Both groups of two are rational. As long as they have reasons, they're rational. That's what I'm saying. Trying to dive layer after layer into the reasons for the reasons does not change that the reasons exist.

A person cannot challenge the reasoning process in total ( which is what it appears you are doing ), because then their own reasoning process which determined that reasoning cannot be justified, itself cannot be justified. So the person who does this has just convinced themselves ( if they are consistent ) that there own objection is without merit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Not at all. Both groups of two are rational. As long as they have reasons, they're rational. That's what I'm saying. Trying to dive layer after layer into the reasons for the reasons does not change that the reasons exist.

A person cannot challenge the reasoning process in total ( which is what it appears you are doing ), because then their own reasoning process which determined that reasoning cannot be justified, itself cannot be justified. So the person who does this has just convinced themselves ( if they are consistent ) that there own objection is without merit.

You have to explain what you mean by justified.

 

[wellwisher]

One way to show oneself as being rational, is to show how a consensus of science, which claims to be rational, is not being rational. Rational is about the walk, and not just about the talk.

For example, DNA contains the genetic templates; genes, which underscore the processes, configurations, and dynamics of life. However, the DNA with all this data, does not work without water nor can the DNA work in any other solvent. However, water which allows DNA to function, can do many things without DNA; weather and life. So which is more fundamental?

An analogy is an electric car. The electric car has little value without its battery. Yet, that same battery can be used to power many things, with or without the car. However, since the car is more flashy, with LED displays, the car is subjectively given the lead role, even though it is totally dependent on a battery, which still has potential with or without the car. Electric cars were not even practical until Lithium batteries could be perfected. Once this power source appeared, we were able to pretend the dependent car was independently leading.

This pretending, in terms of the DNA, needs an oracle which, by itself is not rational. How are odds, dice and cards rational? Is giving the DNA the lead role, rational? Or is there a higher form of thinking beyond reasoning?

The problem with reason, is reason is only as good as its data and its foundation premises. Reason is like the mixing process for baking a cake. The same amount of processing, with old ingredients, that lack a few key components, will never make a good cake, even if mixed exactly the same way as a cake with all the fresh ingredients. Reason often does not take the time to look at the expiration dates of its ingredients. Often it depends on the prestige of others; subjective, to tell them that stale ingredients are fresh. Reasoning with stale ingredients; data and foundation premises, makes even the best mixing process; irrational.

Atheists often know how to mix; rational logic, but they do not question stale ingredients.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I'm on medication. The psychiatrist will have me locked up if I don't take my meds. So no. I'm not rational.

Taking your meds is a rational decision, wouldn’t you say?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One way to show oneself as being rational, is to show how a consensus of science, which claims to be rational, is not being rational. Rational is about the walk, and not just about the talk.

For example, DNA contains the genetic templates; genes, which underscore the processes, configurations, and dynamics of life. However, the DNA with all this data, does not work without water nor can the DNA work in any other solvent. However, water which allows DNA to function, can do many things without DNA; weather and life. So which is more fundamental?

An analogy is an electric car. The electric car has little value without its battery. Yet, that same battery can be used to power many things, with or without the car. However, since the car is more flashy, with LED displays, the car is subjectively given the lead role, even though it is totally dependent on a battery, which still has potential with or without the car. Electric cars were not even practical until Lithium batteries could be perfected. Once this power source appeared, we were able to pretend the dependent car was independently leading.

This pretending, in terms of the DNA, needs an oracle which, by itself is not rational. How are odds, dice and cards rational? Is giving the DNA the lead role, rational? Or is there a higher form of thinking beyond reasoning?

The problem with reason, is reason is only as good as its data and its foundation premises. Reason is like the mixing process for baking a cake. The same amount of processing, with old ingredients, that lack a few key components, will never make a good cake, even if mixed exactly the same way as a cake with all the fresh ingredients. Reason often does not take the time to look at the expiration dates of its ingredients. Often it depends on the prestige of others; subjective, to tell them that stale ingredients are fresh. Reasoning with stale ingredients; data and foundation premises, makes even the best mixing process; irrational.

Atheists often know how to mix; rational logic, but they do not question stale ingredients.

Well, I do it differently than you.

 

[syo]

Taking your meds is a rational decision, wouldn’t you say?

Decision? It's not a decision. If I don't take them, they will strap me and put a syringe.

 

[dybmh]

You have to explain what you mean by justified.

I mean that if the objection to reasoning is justified, then it should not be ignored.

You mentioned the trilemma, why is the trilemma significant? Isn't any process employed to measure it's significance undermined by the implications of the trilemma itself?

If so, then... ignore it. It's self-defeating.