--- Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fred Foldvary wrote: > > It seems to me that the concept of rationality makes sense when it is > > applied to human action, but it is not meaningful when applied to > beliefs. Action is rational or not, based on the actor's knowledge. > > This whole idea is forty years out of date. Economists have been > theorizing about and testing the rationality of beliefs for years.
They have been theorizing and testing about cognition, but it is not clear why it is labelled "rationality". > > When people have false beliefs, why is this not just bad data? > > ... One person can have bad data indicating that they are a > better driver than average, even though they aren't. But how could 80% > of people have bad data that all points in this direction? The belief that one is a better-than-average driver is based on data from one's personal experience and beliefs about one's abilities, which is usually data badly interpreted. What counts is data as perceived in the mind, and when objectivly good data is badly interpreted, it becomes bad data as perceived. > ... In fact, if you know you are vain then > rationally speaking you should adjust your beliefs in a more self- > critical direction to compensate. But many persons do not realize the extent of their vanity, and thus they suffer from bad data. They misinterpret the data they view in a mirror. > ... essentially the beliefs that are false > not from lack of data, but because the available data has been > improperly processed. What does "improperly processed" mean? Fred Foldvary ===== [EMAIL PROTECTED]
