Re: this myth of rationality Re: [RC] Libertarian Logic

[David R. Block]

Title: ORourke1 Signature

Complete and total rationality might be a myth. If rationality is a myth, then is irrationality the truth?? Not sure I want to go there. Not sure that you would want to go there, either. If you do want to, WHY?? I have to admit that I don't see floating point as irrational. And the difference between real and rational is therefore an enigma to me. I find it intriguing that when dealing with rationality, and in some cases when dealing with Libertarianism, there appears to be this presupposition or demand of "perfectionism." i readily acknowledge that as impossible, so I don't really understand the criticism of what I am not saying or believing most of the time-close to the number I really don't want to use-99 % of the time. I would like to think that we are more rational than irrational. Your mileage may vary, David  "Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine."--P. J. O’Rourke On 11/1/2011 4:19 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote: Hi Billy, On Nov 1, 2011, at 12:56 PM, bil...@aol.com wrote: How Not to Argue for Limited Government and Lower Taxes T. M. Scanlon This article is part of Libertarianism and Liberty, a forum on arguments for libertarian policy conclusions. Libertarians embrace liberty as their fundamental starting point. From this, they advocate a program of limited government and lower taxes. But it’s not clear how they get from their starting point to their policy conclusion. Very nice analysis, though I'm a little fuzzy about his conclusion. I also realized a fundamental flaw in Libertarian reasoning: the assumption that humans are rational. We aren't. The human brain isn't designed for rational calculation. It is designed for *heuristics* -- determining behavior by matching patterns against the environment. In fact, this is the only kind of system that can deal with the real world -- in the mathematical sense. The world is real, not rational -- continuous floating-point numbers, not discrete integers. The only robust way to cope with reality is to use some kind of fuzzy logic --- which leads to heuristics. Logic is one important heuristic, but frankly of limited validity, because it depends incredibly precisely on the initial conditions, and in complex systems the relation of outputs to inputs is generally chaotic not linear. The mapping between the analog real world and the digital rational world -- analog-to-digital -- is really hard, and in fact one of the most difficult problems in computation. The requirement for rational thinking is the requirement for perfect information. Most libertarian utopias assume that everyone has access to sufficiently accurate information to decide for themselves. But we don't. All information is imperfect, our time and attention is limited, and frankly our brains (mine included) are too stupid to really make effective decisions about *most* things that matter to us. We *need* each other to provide abstractions and rules to simplify our lives to the point of manageability. This is not to entirely dis rationality or logic -- heck, I make my living off of computers and production systems designed for maximum rationality. But I never forget that they are the servants of human beings, and that all the interesting and difficult questions lie on the *analog* side of the equation. I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this rant, but it struck me that this myth of rationality runs deep in Western thought, and I only now realized that the emperor has no clothes -- or at most, a headband. DRB, Kevin -- as the Libertarian-leaning among us, what do you think? -- Ernie P. -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org