No, you're not a member of the population I point at with "rationalist". I guess it's ambiguous like "scientist" vs "scientismist" ... or "woke" vs. "wokeist".
The rationalists are a fairly well-defined community of tech-savvy intellectuals who engage in things like Effective Altruism (e.g. get a job making as much money as you possibly can, *then* giving away a large percentage of it, like 90%). They also take Bayesianism to an extreme, talk a lot about "priors", give their opinions "epistemological confidence" ratings, etc. But moving to the interpersonal baroque, I don't consider you a rationalist. I don't even think you're very rational. Your commitment to metaphysical stances is way too strong. Such commitment is faith-based and irrational. But it *is*, I think, idealist. And in that context, I would suggest I'm more rational than you are. Agnosticism is rational. On 4/30/21 9:49 AM, [email protected] wrote: > So, I think I am a rationalist, right? So if anybody is doing pearl > clutching on this list, it's me. So, here goes. > > Is rationality the same as rationalism. You, glen, are patently rational. > Does that make you a rationalist? I want you to clarify the meanings of your > words, remove, to the extent possible, ambituities in how you use them, try > to extract the same meanings FROM them that you put INTO them. That seems > rational to me. Does that make me a rationalist? -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
