John Page

How do you know you are applying the "rules of evidence or logic" correctly?

For example, if a result is discovered that is inconsistent with the rules of logic, but the result is verifiable under the rules of evidence, one or the other (or both, depending on the system of logic you're using) is irrational.

From the above, one might state that rationality is a function of the congruence between one's concept of reality and what reality actually is (See also Keith's post above). In other words, the greater one's understanding of reality, the more likely are one's thoughts to be rational. Can you be absolutely rational, maybe, but again, how can one tell. The need for us to evolve our axioms from those ancestral (to which you refer) is further evidence for skepticism against claims that "rationality" is effectively the truth.

Methinks your attempt to brand relativism is naive! Logic and religion are both systems of thought and in such a context are they similar. Both can be tested and found wanting - religious dogma seems to stifle free thinking and thus innovation and learning - logic seems remote from human values and has fared feebly as a basis for societal coherence.

Simply put, it appears to me that your point of view is to confer moral value judgements upon philosophical systems and judge them good or bad according to your own, subjective, criteria.

Anway, you didn't answer my question. How do you arrive at the conclusion that relativism puts logical and illogical systems on equal ground? (This seems highly illogical to me)

Cheers, John