>On the contrary, if rational behaviour is defined, following Aristotle, >as behaviour for which an actor is able to provide reasons when >questioned, then I should think this definition is quite operational.
Yes, you are right, that is an operational definition. But have you had the experience of asking someone the reasons for his/her behavior, and receiving a response that was blatantly inconsistent and self-contradictory? For example, when I was a teenager, I worked in a nursing home. One of the patients was convinced that the staff was hiding her mother upstairs. She kept demanding that we let her see her mother. She had what she considered good reasons for her beliefs, and could provide them when questioned. In fact, the staff found questioning her an amusing sport. Her reasons for her opinions and behavior made for endless lunchtime stories. They changed from day to day and were wildly at variance with observable facts, which she blithely denied. This patient would satisfy your definition of rational. Yet most people would consider her irrational. Would you consider her rational because she could provide reasons for her beliefs and behavior? If so, is there any meaningful content to your theory of rationality? Kathy
