Bumble Bee Tuna

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rational BAC
Say I am a completely rational nuclear scientist or a doctor or a lawyer or an accountant -------but just happen to believe that knocking on wood brings good luck--or rubbing on a rabbits foot does the same thing ---or throwing salt over my left shoulder --------or any number of quirks that very rational people seem to have.

Obviously, if you believe in superstitious BS, nobody would describe you as "Completely Rational". If these people admitted that their superstitions were irrational, but thought they were the right thing to do anyway, why would we call them rational? They obviously aren't. If they were rational, they would stop doing things they admit are irrational. What would be the meaning of calling someone rational if it didn't mean that they would make rational decisions? EVERYONE makes a majority of rational decisions. But only "rational" people always make rational decisions or recognize and regret when they don't.

Well the repeated misunderstandings of my position are probably why you think as such. Maybe one of these days, you'll understand what I'm saying. Until then, you'll continue to misunderstand because the two of us are using "rational" in entirely different ways. You are using it in a way that renders it meaningless.

Tarnaak, ask yourself this:

What are you criteria for determining if someone is rational?
Under your criteria, is there ANYONE who qualifies as irrational?
As far as I can tell, the criteria the people I have been arguing against use don't disqualify anyone, making them semantically useless.

-B

AJ113

Your best effort yet, BBT!

If someone is irrational, admits that he is irrational, and does nothing to address his self-confessed irrationality, then surely this set of circumstances is sufficient to warrant describing the individual as an irrational person.

If a man murders another man, the fact that 99% of his life is lived normally does not absolve him from being described as a murderer.

Nowhere357

Okay fine.

Love is an emotion. We can rationalize our emotional decisions, but that is done after the fact.

The point here - which you seem to accept - is that rational thought can include consideration of emotions.

False. Please look up the word in the dictionary.

False. We have both logic and intuition.

False. Both logic and intuition are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

And we use intuition to know for example whether we're in love. It is not reasonable to deny this.

Intuition is a direct awareness of our inner state - there is no need to "guess" whether we're in love, for example. Which shows that intuition is a form of knowledge, and that reason must (sometimes at least) involve our intuition - our awareness of our inner emotional state.

If a person finds that a belief satisfies an inner need, this belief has provided it's own justification. We don't need logic to tell us when we're hungry, we don't need logic to verify our feelings of love, and we don't need logic to justify spiritual awareness.

It is not the case that holding an illogical belief is sufficient to declare a person irrational.

Nowhere357

As we look into this subject deeper, it becomes necessary to refine the general definitions we've been using.

I think we can agree that reason can involve our emotions. So I think at this point that decisions based on emotions are illogical but not necessarily irrational.

When a girl marries a bad boy loser, she had a very good REASON. She was in love. That the decision was illogical does not make her an irrational person. That her decision may actually contradict the logic of choosing a suitable mate, does not make her a generally irrational person.

Does this help clarify my position? Iow, if a belief in the IPU satisfies an inner need, then there is the REASON to believe! And given that the reason exists, the decision is rational. However illogical the decision may be. I hope this helps.

AJ113

Consider your position clarified.

However, it is flawed. You utilise the noun "reason," which means "cause," but it is not the same as the verb "to reason," which means:

"reason verb [T]
to try to understand and to make judgments based on practical facts:" (source Cambridge Dictionaries Online.)

Notice the last two words: practical facts

So when a girl marries a bad boy loser she had a CAUSE. She was in love. She certainly did not arrive at her decision through REASONING. She made an irrational decision. Oh, yes she did!

"irrational adjective
not using reason or clear thinking" (source Cambridge Dictionaries Online.)

She new the cause (reason), she KNEW her decision was irrational (not reasoning), she was an IRRATIONAL PERSON!

Regarding intuition, you said:
False. Both logic and intuition are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

False. Intuition is never wrong. If you are wrong, then it is not intuition, it is a guess, because the definition of intuition is:

"intuition noun [C][U]
(knowledge obtained from) an ability to understand or know something immediately without needing to think about it, learn it or discover it by using reason:" (source Cambridge Dictionaries Online.)

So if you are wrong, then you you do not have the ability to understand or know. Which means that you are not using intuition, you are guessing.

Which brings me back to my original point:
A man has an irrational belief.
He knows it is irrational. (not using reason)
He is not using intuition, because his specific belief does not give him knowledge, and intuition is only intuition when knowledge ensues.
Yet he still holds the belief.
He is an irrational person.

Bumble Bee Tuna

I apologize. I was using the word "intuition" to mean the feelings you get like "oh I shouldn't get on that plane, I have a bad feeling about it". Those "intuitive" feelings are usually wrong and not a way to have knowledge at all. The dictionary definition is a bit different. It's knowledge of obvious things. When you're talking about your emotions, intuition is a way to acquire knowledge of them. But talking about the outside world? Intuition is often wrong. The obvious turns out to be wrong upon inspection. Can't begin to count how many times in Physics class you'll get told 'Now, this is counterintuitive, but...". Intuition is a way to THINK you have knowledge, and still end up being wrong. The fact that usually, the obvious thing is right is what gives the illusion that intuition is a tool for gaining knowledge.

I think it's important to differentiate between decisions based on emotions and decisions that take emotions into consideration. Decisions that recognize one's emotional feelings and the effects those feelings will have are logical and rational. Decisions based on the emotion, are both illogical and irrational.

Her decisions was irrational. To decide if she is an irrational person, or just a rational person who made a mistake, we need to ask some questions.

1. Does she admit that her decision was irrational? Does she admit that he is a poor husband and that it was irrational to marry him?
2. If so, does she regret the decision now? Or does she think the decision was A-OK anyway?

If yes to both, she is a rational person who screwed up. If no to #2, she is an irrational person. If no to #1, we can't tell yet because if she's rational, she's still in the process of making the mistake.

Ugh, so close to finishing replying and gah! I have to get to work. I'll be back.

-B

AJ113

Got to disagree with this.
Intuition, by definition is the gaining of knowledge.
If no knowledge is gained, then it's not intuition. It's a hunch.
Hunches can be wrong, but intuition cannot.

At the risk of repeating myself, intuition is:
"an ability to understand or know something immediately without needing to think about it, learn it or discover it by using reason"
So if you end up being wrong, then it's not intuition. It's a guess or a hunch.

Rational BAC

Methinks that------By Bumble Bees definition of rationality--

That the whole human race IS irrational.

We ALL have little quirks in our rationality. And it is very human to be like that. Almost everybody has small and relatively insignificant irrationalities that do not in any way keep them from making a living or raising a family or sending their children through college or anything really wierd at all.

So -----with the possible exception of Bumble Bee, (and maybe a very few others), should we not all agree that the whole human race is irrational?

I can go with that if Bumble Bee agrees with that.

The human race is essentially irrational--------!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N'est-ce pas?

Tarnaak

Is there going to be a test on this thread??

Bumble Bee Tuna

RBAC- I would imagine there are quite a few people out there like myself who would fit my definition of rationality. I would say, though, that most people do not. That's the point! It's a defining characteristic- some people have to not have it, otherwise it wouldn't be useful at all.

AJ- OK, so you're taking guesses, picking the ones that turn out to be right, and calling that "intuition". The wrong guesses are called "hunches". Does this strike anyone else as a ridiculous endeavour? Ignoring the misses?
Isn't it being deceitful to claim that intuition is a path to knowledge if intuition is really defined as "right guesses"? Guesses aren't considered paths to knowledge.
If fake intuition (i.e. when you THINK you know something immediately but turn out to be wrong) turns out to be indistinguishable from real intuition (when you THINK you know something immediately but turn out to be wrong), what good does intuition do us as a process through which to acquire knowledge?

To me, I don't see any way to distinguish fake intuition from real intuition. Perhaps you could enlighten me. And if there's no way to tell the difference, I fail to see how intuition can be a reliable tool for obtaining knowledge.

-B