Rationality Rules

[Heyo]

So the correct answer is that some times there are many correct answer to the same problem. Okay.
How come that is possible?

Regards
Mikkel

Because 2^2 = 4 and -2^2 = 4. Thus the solution to x^2 - 4 = 0 is {-2, 2}. 2 would be a wrong answer (as would be -2).
There is only one correct answer. The one answer is the set.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because 2^2 = 4 and -2^2 = 4. Thus the solution to x^2 - 4 = 0 is {-2, 2}. 2 would be a wrong answer (as would be -2).
There is only one correct answer. The one answer is the set.

You are playing with words. Reality is not just math.

You have to show that for the set of reality, there is only one correct methodology for only one kind of correct answers. That correct answers works a certain way for math doesn't mean that math works on everything.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Augustus]

When you solve a quadratic equation, there can be zero, one or two solutions. The correct answer is therefore a set.
Same with rational solutions. The answer may be a set. And like with a quadratic equation, calling only one solution the answer would be wrong. There is only one correct answer and that is the set. Omitting a solution is wrong.

I still think this overstates the degree with which we can be fully rational, as rationality is limited by cognitive ability, imperfect information, and the paradigms we operate in.

"How best to reduce poverty" might involve thousands of potential solutions though, and many of these will be contingent on making certain previous assumptions that people will have differing views of (some of which will be value judgements).

Reason only operates within a framework of axioms, and these axioms differ from person to person, which means what is rational differs from person to person with no 'rational' way to choose between them.

There are also many situations we operate with imperfect information and under uncertainty. As such there will always be unknown solutions, or things which can only be known with hindsight and/or trial and error. The rational explanation behind why something works often post-dates our knowledge of why it works (or why it doesn't).

Also if we are operating within the wrong paradigm, we will always be omitting potential solutions. Even on something simple like 'how best to design a suitcase', people omitted the option of putting wheels on it until the 1970s. Ironically all the people tasked with landing a man on the moon, were lugging heavy suitcases around grumbling about how much they hated this and never once thought of something as simple as 'put little wheels on it'

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of you and the ACA. From what I registered of the whole affair via YouTube, Stephen made an honest mistake.

Has he owned up to his mistake?

If he apologized, I haven't heard about it (though I don't really follow him).

... but it was just as much about the actions of the ACA leadership: they knew that the guy was (at the time, at least) unapologetically anti-trans, had concerns raised to them by other members, and the leadership effectively flipped them the bird.

So it wasn't just about the fact that "Rationality Rules" was anti-trans; it was also about the ACA leadership's decision to partner with and help promote someone who was anti-trans.

The over-reaction was totally emotional, outrage culture, white knighting, bs. Atheist+ self destruction all over again.

Hmm. So you think my values are wrong. I'd love to hear how you think reason guided you to that conclusion.

For a group that theoretically holds "atheism is not an ideology, the only thing that qualifies an atheist is, that s/he doesn't believe in god(s)" it showed a whole complex of ideology.

The idea that people shouldn't be jerks to other people is just basic human decency; it isn't a "whole complex of ideology."

And I've seen auto racing clubs split up over personal differences between the leadership; this isn't some sort of declaration that those personal differences necessarily have anything to do with auto racing itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
The idea that people shouldn't be jerks to other people is just basic human decency; it isn't a "whole complex of ideology."

...

That is maybe not that rational as you think. It is basically a normative claim and not a fact.
Can humans be decent? Yes, but that is subjective. Should they be decent? Well, now we are outside science and inside philosophy and psychology.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[PureX]

Why is that so? Why do religious people especially (but not exclusively) try to convince themselves (and others) that their beliefs are rational when they clearly aren't? Wouldn't it be more honest and easier to admit that it's not rational and denounce the societal pressure that everything has to be rational?

I'm going to make breakfast now, with lots of bacon, eggs and cheese on toast. Is that rational? No, but it tastes good.

Reason is not a guarantee of reasonableness. "Reason" just refers to the logic chain one uses to get from a question to an answer. And logic is only as good as the breadth of possibilities it has to work with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is maybe not that rational as you think. It is basically a normative claim and not a fact.

Well, no. Anti-trans bigotry is what's normal right now, unfortunately.

Can humans be decent? Yes, but that is subjective. Should they be decent? Well, now we are outside science and inside philosophy and psychology.

No, we're in ethics.

In any case, my point was that the idea that we shouldn't be jerks to trans people has no particular connection to not believing in gods.

That being said, there may be a bit of a correlation, since a lot of anti-LGBTQ bigotry is rooted in the tenets of theistic religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, no. Anti-trans bigotry is what's normal right now, unfortunately.


No, we're in ethics.

In any case, my point was that the idea that we shouldn't be jerks to trans people has no particular connection to not believing in gods.

That being said, there may be a bit of a correlation, since a lot of anti-LGBTQ bigotry is rooted in the tenets of theistic religion.

Okay, ethics it is. What that has to do with rationality, we can look into or we don't look into it.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Heyo]

Has he owned up to his mistake?

If he apologized, I haven't heard about it (though I don't really follow him).

So, you don't really know what it was all about?

Hmm. So you think my values are wrong. I'd love to hear how you think reason guided you to that conclusion.

Your values aren't necessarily wrong but your informations obviously are.

The idea that people shouldn't be jerks to other people is just basic human decency; it isn't a "whole complex of ideology."

If you want to get up to speed, here's a short (12 min) summary:

 

[Augustus]

Has he owned up to his mistake?

Did he say anything beyond 'trans-women have an unfair advantage in sports?' as that seems to be what the video is about.

 

[Heyo]

You are playing with words. Reality is not just math.

Reality can be sufficiently modeled by math if reality is sufficiently known (defined).

You have to show that for the set of reality, there is only one correct methodology for only one kind of correct answers.

There can be multiple methodologies if they all come to the same conclusion. In fact, having multiple ways to come to the conclusion raises the certainty that the answer is correct.

That correct answers works a certain way for math doesn't mean that math works on everything.

Math doesn't work on everything, I agree. Only on sufficiently know reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Reality can be sufficiently modeled by math if reality is sufficiently known (defined).

Such fun. Definitions are in your head. As for knowledge you have to check if knowledge is limited, before you claim you can know everything with knowledge

Math doesn't work on everything, I agree. Only on sufficiently know reality.

So are there parts of reality, which are not known with knowledge, yet parts of reality?

We are playing philosophy.
What about this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Are these parts a part of reality, though you can't use knowledge on them?

What if we can't know how reality works, because evolution is about how to live and replicate and not about knowing how reality really works?
How come you haven't tested your assumption that reality as such is knowable, before you assume it is?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Heyo]

Reason only operates within a framework of axioms, and these axioms differ from person to person, which means what is rational differs from person to person with no 'rational' way to choose between them.

That is exactly the excuse of people who are irrational but won't admit it. The "there are no wrong answers" of those who are chronically wrong and don't strife to be right.
Is it wrong for me to rob a bank? If my axioms are aligned in the right way, you'd never be able to call that wrong.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is exactly the excuse of people who are irrational but won't admit it. The "there are no wrong answers" of those who are chronically wrong and don't strife to be right.
Is it wrong for me to rob a bank? If my axioms are aligned in the right way, you'd never be able to call that wrong.

Correct, there is no wrong. We only label it wrong.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Heyo]

Correct, there is no wrong. We only label it wrong.

Regards
Mikkel

Well, then rationality isn't for you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, then rationality isn't for you.

Well, you see that is the limit of rationality. I can do it differently and still be a part of reality. Now turn that into math.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Augustus]

That is exactly the excuse of people who are irrational but won't admit it.The "there are no wrong answers" of those who are chronically wrong and don't strife to be right.

Everyone is irrational to some degree, our brains didn't evolve to be purely rational.

Also reason is only one tool we have for identifying what is right. There are certain kinds of knowledge that cannot be explained rationally but are derived from experience (See Polanyi -Tacit knowledge or Oakeshott -Practical knowledge).

Then there are domains in which we rely on heuristics which are 'right enough', rather than right (or even true). Many aspects of traditional religion likely evolved out of heuristic based knowledge (like dietary prohibitions for example).

Is it wrong for me to rob a bank? If my axioms are aligned in the right way, you'd never be able to call that wrong.

This is a question of ethics, and what is morally correct depends on the ethical framework you operate in.

Robin Hood is a hero, not a villain, because we judge his theft to serve a greater good, and those he stole from are judged not to be innocent (or at least not as deserving of their property).

Humans are value pluralistic, so while we might say that killing babies for fun is almost universally considered immoral, on many issues there is no reason to prefer outcome A over outcome B other than personal preference.

To what extent should we favour individual rights over collective rights?
What is the correct balance between liberty and security?
To what extent should we favour tradition over progressivism?

But even beyond ethics, in the sciences we operate with certain axiomatic assumptions, and every now and again we undergo a paradigm shift. In such situations, there is a point where both paradigms are 'active' at the same time and favoured for different reasons. For example, around the time of Copernicus and later Galileo, geocentrism and heliocentrism were both accepted by different groups of natural philosophers and there were valid reasons to accept/reject either. That we know with hindsight who was right, doesn't mean it was clear to any rational person in real time.

As you move to social sciences, there are numerous competing paradigms all of the time, and in complex domains our ability to use reason to arrive at truth/the right answer is often severely limited by uncertainty and incomplete information. As such, we may be forced to rely on heuristics as the 'least bad' option.