The Danger of Rationalism

[Tambourine]

I'm not sure I understand the original post. What is being described there as "rational" is called deductive or deontological reasoning - reasoning from general principles. But deductive reasoning is not the only form of rationality; inductive reasoning (from singular phenomena to general principles) and abductive reasoning (from the factual towards the plausible) are both equally valid forms of logic that are not deontological in nature.

Empirical research seems to be based on our ability for inductive and abductive reasoning - observing singular cases, finding plausible explanations, and drawing conclusions that lead to more general theories, which in turn can be tested for consistency and logical coherency via deductive reasoning.

 

[dfnj]

The word "rational" has more than one meaning. In common speech (and sometimes even in formal philosophy) the word often enough means a view or belief that is arrived at through a combination of logical reasoning and empirical evidence. However, the word when used in philosophy can often refer to a view or belief that is arrived at through logical reasoning alone. Thus, a "rationalist" is quite often a philosopher who ignores empirical evidence in favor of grounding their beliefs solely in logical reasoning.

In my view, rationalism poses a peculiar sort of danger that is derived from the fact a line of reasoning can be perfectly logical without being sound. That is, without being both logical and true at the same time.

For instance, consider this simple line of logical reasoning:

All men have horns.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates has horns.

The reasoning is perfectly logical but it is not sound. It is not grounded in truth. But that is a problem with all purely rational arguments. You can know if they are logical, but you cannot know if they are true (without resorting to empirical verification).

A popular example (in America) of a rationalist would be Ayn Rand. Rand almost never checked her views and theories against empirical evidence such as is found in the sciences or in the better histories. Hence, it seems likely she did not realize how far her views often deviated from anything strongly supported by empirical evidence. For instance, she divided people into two economic categories -- "makers and takers" -- and then assigned traits and attributes to each group that -- while logically derived from her definitions of the categories -- are simplistic to the point of absurdity when compared to empirical reality.

Rationalism has its uses, but without empirical verification, rationalism seems to rather quickly detour into the impractical and absurd. This is most likely the reason the sciences avoid rationalism in favor of a more balanced combination of logical reasoning and empirical evidence.

The Japanese have a saying, "The first person to raise their voice in an argument, loses."

I would like to alter to be, "The first person who claims they are being rationale in a discussion is completely irrational."

It's like someone saying they are being "objective" by expressing and opinion.

One thing I do know for sure, in the words of the great comedian Emo Philips, "Ambiguity....the devils vegetable garden."

 

[gnomon]

The word "rational" has more than one meaning. In common speech (and sometimes even in formal philosophy) the word often enough means a view or belief that is arrived at through a combination of logical reasoning and empirical evidence. However, the word when used in philosophy can often refer to a view or belief that is arrived at through logical reasoning alone. Thus, a "rationalist" is quite often a philosopher who ignores empirical evidence in favor of grounding their beliefs solely in logical reasoning.

In my view, rationalism poses a peculiar sort of danger that is derived from the fact a line of reasoning can be perfectly logical without being sound. That is, without being both logical and true at the same time.

For instance, consider this simple line of logical reasoning:

All men have horns.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates has horns.

The reasoning is perfectly logical but it is not sound. It is not grounded in truth. But that is a problem with all purely rational arguments. You can know if they are logical, but you cannot know if they are true (without resorting to empirical verification).

A popular example (in America) of a rationalist would be Ayn Rand. Rand almost never checked her views and theories against empirical evidence such as is found in the sciences or in the better histories. Hence, it seems likely she did not realize how far her views often deviated from anything strongly supported by empirical evidence. For instance, she divided people into two economic categories -- "makers and takers" -- and then assigned traits and attributes to each group that -- while logically derived from her definitions of the categories -- are simplistic to the point of absurdity when compared to empirical reality.

Rationalism has its uses, but without empirical verification, rationalism seems to rather quickly detour into the impractical and absurd. This is most likely the reason the sciences avoid rationalism in favor of a more balanced combination of logical reasoning and empirical evidence.




___________________________________

I think your argument could have used a better example against the simplicity of rationalism. Here's one:

My child had a vaccination.
My child developed autism.
It was the vaccine that caused his autism.

It's a rational deduction based upon the illogical argument of causation and correlation.

It is very rational that we as humans see someone in one state and take a single instance will make a causal judgment call based upon a single cause while ignoring empirical evidence that is contrary.

I'm not disagreeing with your point but if you want people interested do not link to a website with a long argument about logic. Because no one really cares about reading it. And I don't know anyone who really cares much about Ayn Rand anymore.

edit: Disclaimer.....I don't crap anymore other than listening to music.

 

[Valjean]

The premise "all men have horns" is not based in logical reasoning. Thus, your argument against rationalism fails.

Logic is a mathematical process.

Premises need not be based on logical reasoning. Nor must they be true. Premises are axiomatic. It's an example of correct logic leading to a false conclusion.

A 'reasonable' conclusion, IMHO, derives from correct premises and correct logic.

 

[gnomon]

This is a perfect time for Strother Martin to opine.