JP2

I never suggested that rationalism employs logic to the exclusion of all empirical data, simply that one can be rational - insofar as being rational is to employ and apply a valid form of logical reasoning - without necessarily needing to appeal to any form of empirical evidence. And, as I said - and as I am sure you are already aware - strict rationalism (in the Cartesian sense) states that logic, at all times, should be preferred to knowledge acquired via the senses, which is - according to this position - inherently fallible.

My point was brought up in direct reference to the topic (that being rational amounts to basing ones beliefs on evidence) which I was merely attempting demostrate as inaccurate. I was not attempting to justify the doctrine that states that you can only be rational if you disregard empirical evidence in favour of rational logic, I was merely trying to differentiate between that which is "rational" and that which is "empirical" (so as to identify the flaw in the topic title).

As for me mixing up "the rational" with "rationalism"? Well perhaps I got a little excited. The blood must have rushed to my head, and I will admit that yes, the doctrine of "rationalism" and the concept of the "rationale" (the conscious totality of "rational thought") are slightly different things, and I was wrong to confuse them.

Blame it on my puppy-like enthusiasm for being on a new forum.

But, according to this belief, we would have to trace every thought back to its very foundation or its very origin before we can say it is true with any sort of authority? I'll presume that you believe in evolution: does this mean that you can trace back every series of premise and conclusion that took Darwin's original conception (including the series of premise and conclusion that led him to this conception) from where it began to how it exists today?

My point was not to offer a proof that would demonstrate - beyond all doubt - how absolutism, by mere application of the odd syllogism, could be established, rather, it was to show - to the satisfaction of our reasonable, every-day needs - how an idea could be shown to be likely to be true or likely to be false, and how to which degree this likelihood could be ascertained.

I am not Zarathustra.

Keith Russell

JP2:

While I agree that there are schools of thought which maintain that one can be rational, and base one's beliefs on something other than evidence--

--I disagree.

Keith.

Clutch

Again, no. Descartes made this claim about reason, not logic. Logic in the modern sense was not a concept that Descartes used. (Arguably, he didn't even possess the concept.)

John Galt, Jr.

Clutch, Keith,

So am I right in thinking that the two of you disagree.

Clutch said
Keith said One cannot determine the largest city in Nebraska by consulting 'only claims'.

John Galt, Jr.

John Galt, Jr.

doubtingt,

In your response to me (I think) you said Is that what you said, or might I be wrong about that? I am not going to address the claim until I know what you said.

John Galt, Jr.

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

AtlanticCitySlave

It seems to me the problem being entered upon here is an epistemological one, namely the "regress problem" concerning justification. Even taking that into consideration though, and even assuming, as is the case, that we don't have a satisfactory reply to the regress problem, I don't think it's really a problem to say that someone is rational when they base their belief (that the largest city in nebraska or any other state is X) on maps, public authority (geographers, etc.). After all, if they are giving reasons for whatever it is they believe in, they are, by definition, being rational (at least if we define rationality, at the minimum, as giving reasons for a belief in something). The problem, of course, is whether those underlying premises (maps, authority, etc.) are good reasons. But, even if they aren't, it is still the case that you are being rational by saying "i believe X is the largest city in America based on A, B, C".
An example is Richard Swinburne. Many of us would question his arguments, whether he can really convince us it's rational to believe in God, etc., but few of us, if any of us, would say Richard Swinburne is not acting rationally in his arguments (or beliefs). We would just hold there are problems with his line of reasoning, not that he isn't being rational in his pursuit of proving the existence of God.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Atlantic, I still think that it is not enough to have 'sources' to use to justify one's beliefs. Statistics are too slippery, too malleable, to be taken at face value. (Population statistics are fairly cut-and-dried, but there are other kind of statistics.)

I also still believe that it is not enough to use 'reason/logic' to extrapolate from unsupported premises.

Anyone can construct 'castles-in-the-air', deducting rationally from any premise, and creating elaborate systems of thought that have wondfully consistent internal logic--but no independently verifiable basis or relationship to reality.

I don't consider such systems rational. Why would you use such rigorous logic for 90 percent of one's thoughts, but never apply logic to one's premises, as well?

That, to me, hardly seems 'rational'.

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

It strikes me that anyone interested in this question could do worse than taking a look at <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000008&p=" target="_blank">this thread</a> of old. Or, if the question is indeed an epistemic one, as AtlanticCitySlave suggests, we might have recourse to our Hume or Kant.

Here Hume's comments on induction may be of interest. Leastways, assuming you haven't already looked at your questions from this angle. On the other hand, if it's the implicit "only beliefs based on evidence are rational" you're after, perhaps some of the remarks in <a href="http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec4.asp" target="_blank">this link</a> will be of interest.

Clutch

Again, to suppose that every proposition must be checked "directly" to be known is to hobble one's own brain. Fact-checking is something conducted in the light of other facts known; the atomistic conception of single propositions brought up before the "tribunal of experience" is very simplistic -- convenient for some discussions, but in no way suitable to be enshrined as a general dogma.

How should you check the comparative populations of cities yourself -- count noses? Of course, you'll have to make notes or tick boxes or some such, and then, afterwards, you'll have to trust what you wrote down earlier. But you might have made a mistake! Gasp!

The fact is, you're no less likely to make a mistake than are the encyclopedia's sources... and you know this. And ceteris paribus there is no reason to anticipate a bias on this issue from the encyclopedia... and you know this, too. It is just a mistake to ignore this sort of knowledge that you already possess, in the false belief that some epistemic purity is thereby attained.

Clutch

Hugo,

FWIW, aside from clarifying for a relatively newcomer like me just why SingleDad left, I didn't find the thread especially enlightening, nor relevant to the specifics of this one.