On 01/08/2014 03:59 AM, John Kennison wrote: > > Okay, here's my dilemma in a slightly different form. Suppose a person acts > entirely on the basis of messages received from a Ouija board. This certainly > appears to be irrational. But it could be said to be based on a premise that > the Ouija board is infallible. If we accept this, then I doubt that there is > any such thing as an irrational action. > > Or, if I get angry and punch the wall, leaving an awful hole in the wall and > a painful bruise on my hand, was I acting rationally on a fleetingly held > premise, that the wall needed punching? What can we do to rescue the term > "irrational" ? I had thought that Glen's approach was going far beyond what > irrationality really is, but now it looks like the best one out there.
I think there are two banal ways in which "rational" can be vernacular: 1) evidence of deliberation 2) evidence of the weighing of multiple options. I don't much like (1) because, well, I have cats ... and they seem to deliberate on various things quite a bit yet still make what I'd call the wrong decisions in the end. (1) evokes the old joke when observing someone think: "I can smell the wood burning." So, I still like (2) for a best approximation to what normal people mean by the word "rational". But, I'd accept (1) in pretty much any context. By either (1) or (2), I think both your scenarios above fail and would be called irrational. -- ⇒⇐ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
