How rational are you?

[JDMS]

Do you check for roadworks on the internet before deciding which route to take, do you make a diet plan with your nutritional needs when you decide what to eat?
Idleing you conscious brain while waiting for the decision that has already been made in the unconscious part to rise the top doesn't count as a rational decision, it is at best rationalizing the irrational decision.

Yes? Do you not check the routes that Google Maps provides first?
For example, I always choose one route over the other one that Google Maps recommends because it's a backroad that is less dangerous and uses less gas even though it's 10 minutes longer (in a ~2 hour drive). Unless it's dark, then I take the highway to avoid the risk. You don't do this?
Edit: I also check the cameras on TripCheck before driving.

 

[Heyo]

Yes? Do you not check the routes that Google Maps provides first?
For example, I always choose one route over the other one that Google Maps recommends because it's a backroad that is less dangerous and uses less gas even though it's 10 minutes longer (in a ~2 hour drive). Unless it's dark, then I take the highway to avoid the risk. You don't do this?
Edit: I also check the cameras on TripCheck before driving.

I do it for longer trips. But if you just have to go for groceries and there are two, more or less equal, roads, do you check then? Or do you just follow your feeling? I do the later and I know that I do it.
And I get characterized as exceptionally rational. So, when I know that I do it ...

 

[RestlessSoul]

Which is why a major goal of education should be to create intellectuals; the rational 30%.

I would have thought the major goal of education was to equip people for life?

 

[JDMS]

I do it for longer trips. But if you just have to go for groceries and there are two, more or less equal, roads, do you check then? Or do you just follow your feeling? I do the later and I know that I do it.
And I get characterized as exceptionally rational. So, when I know that I do it ...

Oh, true. Going to the store, I will make decisions based on when lights are green/yellow/etc because I have the patterns memorized, but I wouldn't do the full extent of that each time. Still using my brain, though - I'd hope most are, when driving a deadly machine.

 

[Curious George]

Do you check for roadworks on the internet before deciding which route to take, do you make a diet plan with your nutritional needs when you decide what to eat?
Idleing you conscious brain while waiting for the decision that has already been made in the unconscious part to rise the top doesn't count as a rational decision, it is at best rationalizing the irrational decision.

How about everything you see or touch each day? Assuming you do believe that all this does exist. I would suggest seeing or feeling something is high quality evidence unless there is something around to dispute it.

What about believing others when they share something like their feelings or state of mind and you observe behavior that supports it.

I would suggest that the vast majority of our beliefs are rational and supported by high quality evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm a bit confused by some of the discussion in this thread, perhaps because I'm directly referencing dictionary definitions of both "rationality" and "logic", whereas some people here seem to be stretching the meaning of rationality. The definition of rationality doesn't tackle the concept of what the desired or expected result of rationality is... there is no posted goal or expectation. It's not about increased survival, increased happiness, or anything. It's really not that complex at all, unless you randomly ascribe attributes to it like that, when there's no reason to.

Something is "rational" if it's based on logic, and logic is the quality of being justified by reason. That's it. Multiple things can be logical at once.

If I hand you a map with five different routes to a specific destination that you'd like to get to, and tell you to choose one (without specifying, "choose the fastest", "choose the safest", etc), you might pick different routes, all using logic.

You may rationally choose route #2 after using reason and the geographical information given to determine that this route is the fastest and most direct path to the destination, with the lowest chance of getting turned around.

Or, you could also rationally make the decision to take route #4, because it is only a half-mile longer, and doesn't involve crossing a busy road that may be potentially dangerous, given that you are a careful person.

These are both rational decisions, despite being personalized. Because, guess what? The definition of "rational" doesn't specify anything about the result of using said rationale. It doesn't say that the result is you'll get there faster or safer, or even whether something is true.

It's literally just about whether the idea, opinion, decision, etc. was based on thought, consideration, evidence, and so on.

It is because there are 2 kinds of rationality as play.
Yours and the folk version of rationality is better than irrational. That one is not rational, but some people believe it is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How about everything you see or touch each day? Assuming you do believe that all this does exist. I would suggest seeing or feeling something is high quality evidence unless there is something around to dispute it.

What about believing others when they share something like their feelings or state of mind and you observe behavior that supports it.

I would suggest that the vast majority of our beliefs are rational and supported by high quality evidence.

There is a difference between external sensations and internal ones.
The cat is multicolored is not the same as philosophy is meaningless.

 

[Curious George]

There is a difference between external sensations and internal ones.
The cat is multicolored is not the same as philosophy is meaningless.

You misinterpret my point. Excusing that there may be some noumenal existence behind our phenomenal experience, every reliance or belief that is rooted in our phenomenal experience is, on some level, rational. Perhaps some strings of beliefs move towards irrationality as they become more tenuous, but for every belief that does this there are countless beliefs more closely rooted to our phenomenal experience that are rational. For instance you believe you are interacting on some technological contraption to converse here. Just because your above reply was irrational does not mean that there are not countless rational beliefs on which you are currently relying to provide said irrational response. Your phone/computer exists, how it is oriented in space and time, that the words you are typing are in fact words…the list goes on. All of these are rational beliefs. The evidence you have for them comes from your experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You misinterpret my point. Excusing that there may be some neumenal existence behind our phenomenal experience, every reliance or belief that is rooted in our phenomenal experience is, on some level, rational. Perhaps some strings of beliefs move towards irrationality as they become more tenuous, but for every belief that does this there are countless beliefs more closely rooted to our phenomenal experience that are rational. For instance you believe you are interacting on some technological contraption to converse here. Just because your above reply was irrational does not mean that there are not countless rational beliefs on which you are currently relying to provide said irrational response. Your phone/computer exists, how it is oriented in space and time, that the words you are typing are in fact words…the list goes on. All of these are rational beliefs. The evidence you have for them comes from your experience.

Yeah, that is the external world. And that is a part of the is-ought problem.

 

[Curious George]

Yeah, that is the external world. And that is a part of the is-ought problem.

No, it has nothing to do with the is ought problem. The is ought problem focuses on value judgement and/or inductive reasoning. That the floor on which you stand exists has nothing to do with whether it ought to exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it has nothing to do with the is ought problem. The is ought problem focuses on inductive reasoning. That the floor on which you stand exists has nothing to do with whether it ought to exist.

There is a world, how ought I to live in it as a part of it.

 

[Curious George]

There is a world, how ought I to live in it as a part of it.

Value judgment (I edited quickly but not quick enough).

Again, this doesn’t relate to your belief that you are standing on the ground.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Value judgment (I edited quickly but not quick enough).

Again, this doesn’t relate to your belief that you are standing on the ground.

Well, then the world is not connected and in fact dualistic for facts versus value judgments. As they are not part of the same world.

 

[Curious George]

Well, then the world is not connected and in fact dualistic for facts versus value judgments. As they are not part of the same world.

This is a non sequitur. And nothing I have said precludes ought statements from being rational as well. You taking note that value judgement and/or induction are distinct from deductions means nothing with respect to whether the world is dualistic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is a non sequitur. And nothing I have said precludes ought statements from being rational as well. You taking note that value judgement and/or induction are distinct from deductions means nothing with respect to whether the world is dualistic.

Then explain how you make rational value judgments.

 

[Valjean]

I would have thought the major goal of education was to equip people for life?

That's the goal of culture. Formal eduction is a small part of culture.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's the goal of culture. Formal eduction is a small part of culture.

In my culture education is different as it includes both social and formal education.

 

[Curious George]

Then explain how you make rational value judgments.

That is tangential. The point here is that any basis for any single value judgement entails a multitude of beliefs that are not value judgments. And none are the f this precludes that a person can have a rational value judgement.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is tangential. The point here is that any basis for any single value judgement entails a multitude of beliefs that are not value judgments. And none are the f this precludes that a person can have a rational value judgement.

Yes, it is possible to kill a human. Fact.
It is also observable that we have several value judgments on killing a human when it is a murder or not. Or wrong or not.
So if I understand you right, then all positions on killing are rational as long as they are based on facts. Is that it?

 

[Heyo]

How about everything you see or touch each day? Assuming you do believe that all this does exist. I would suggest seeing or feeling something is high quality evidence unless there is something around to dispute it.

What about believing others when they share something like their feelings or state of mind and you observe behavior that supports it.

I would suggest that the vast majority of our beliefs are rational and supported by high quality evidence.

Are perceptions really beliefs? And do you only believe what you see or do you also connect a host of other beliefs to the perception which are merely stochastic and frequently false?