The description of crazy or sane comes from the observer, not the performer and the extension of mimicking such a rational process also implies that the observer must consider whatever decision making skills used by the performer had to follow some form of a rational process to the performer.
There is no requirement for an observer to assume that the "performer"/decision-maker observed "had to follow some form of a rational process ..." The observed decision-maker could be asked to describe the process used to reach their decision and, if it were based on logical reasoning, (rather than 'mimicking such a rational process'), the line of reasoning would be apparent. If the observed decision-maker cannot describe the process or, invalidates it as logical reasoning by describing illogical aspects of the process, (such as emotional bias, subjective personal preferences or, random risks taken, etc.), then their decision had an irrational basis.
I contend that what determines a 'rational' choice is purely subjective and that the consensus of what is rational or not, while appropriate in a democracy or courtroom, holds no weight in the validity of personal decision making.
I disagree based upon the established meaning of "rational": Lest you go off into a diversion into word interpretation variations, "rational" does not have a subjective 'makes-sense-to-me' meaning. The established meaning of "rational" includes a process 'in accordance with reason and logic; unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice.' Inclusion of irrational aspects, (such as emotional bias or prejudice), invalidates the decision-making process as being rational by definition. It doesn't matter to this definition whether the decision-maker subjectively views their own decision as 'making sense' to them personally, (as this has no bearing on the objective reasoning process itself).
To clarify I can think of many cases where certain courses of action would be considered irrational to nearly everyone, but then when you start mixing in more variables (the kind of variables favoring choosing the 'by itself' irrational choice) to the equation you will begin to whittle away at the majority and given enough compelling reasons that majority will become a minority. You might call this rationalizing but I further contend this is exactly what is involved in decision making.
The inclusion of non-rational variables is what dillutes a rational decision-making process, (mixing irrationality with reasoning), and forms an irrational basis for making decisions. While it can be contended that including irrational factors in a decision-making process is 'reasonable' in light of human propensities for irrational behaviour, the decision-making process itself does have an irrational basis. Therefore, inclusion of irrational and not fully-predictable variables can, (and often does), lead to errors of misjudgement.
It is an appeal to authority, but what do you give in opposition? You give your own opinion about how you view the choices made by people ...
It isn't my "opinion", since the described reasoning used to arrive at the dissenting contention employs logical reasoning, (rather than emotional bias, subjective preconceptions or prejudicial preferences). That means it isn't 'merely' an unfounded opinion.
I agree that there are differences between reasons and logical reasons, but then the distinction is always placed to indicate it being logical and not the other way around.
While it is true that a reason may or may not be based in reasoning, the distinction between reasons/excuses and logical reasoning is made because reasons/excuses quite often are not based upon logical reasoning. It is important not to conflate the two due to this distinction.
We are not logical automatons though and that is obvious in our diversity of choices from everything to fashion, food, music, politics, religion, etc..
Precisely so, and it is because we are not logical automatons that we humans regularly include illogical components to the decision-making process regarding the subjects mentioned - with emphasis upon "religion" especially. The illogical component included in religion is faith.
I would speculate that if there is a person out there who always bases their choices on pure logic that everyone who knows this individual would claim the person to "have something wrong with them" or uses such words as "doesn't seem quite right" or "odd" when describing the person.
Actually, I've observed that most reactions have included irrationally-emotional ones when confronted by logic. Apparently, umbrage is taken when an individual's personal preferences/bias is challenged by reason, (in fact, such a reaction often swings over into a 'logic can't tell me what to do' response ... almost as if they are insisting upon being as irrational as possible - just to be contrary).
This again relies on a consensus of what is logical or not. Outside of pure science one will find it difficult to logically prove most things in all cases.
To reiterate; "rational" does not have a subjective 'makes-sense-to-me' meaning. The established meaning of "rational" includes 'in accordance with reason and logic; unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice.' The only "consensus" involved concerns the consistancy of meaning, (otherwise, people would redefine meanings in any random manner).
People weight variables. Some things have more importance than others when choosing and thus are more difficult to convey as rational to an observer. Some things that certain people weigh as very important are completely unimportant to others.
Such a variable-weighting process either involves logical reasoning to assign weights or, it incorporates irrational aspects, (such as emotional bias, subjective personal preferences or prejudices). If it includes irrational aspects, the reasoning process contains error-prone factors, (as not all variables are known). Even when all variables are unknown, consciously choosing to make a "leap of faith" in lieu of them qualifies as an irrational decision because it isn't based upon logical reasoning by definition.
In such context the logic of the observer has no relevance to the logic of the performer. Unless the importance of the variables are equally shared by those that they are being explained to then it is possible that their will be disagreement on whether the chosen action was logical or not.
I disagree since, if the "performer"/decision-maker is not using logic, that is relevant to the context. The observed decision-maker could be asked to describe the process used to reach their decision and, if it were based on logical reasoning, (rather than 'mimicking such a rational process'), the line of reasoning would be apparent. If the observed decision-maker cannot describe the process or, invalidates it as logical reasoning by describing illogical aspects of the process, (such as emotional bias, subjective personal preferences or, random risks taken, etc.), then their decision had an irrational basis.
I provided support for my contention that courts are aware that sometimes people don't make choices. Courts are aware that sometimes people act and react without processing the data.
On the contrary; acting and reacting without thinking is based upon the choice to permit strong emotions or personal preconceptions, (previously deciding upon choice preferences - and often according to an irrational basis), to override rational thinking. Your contention appears to be based upon such subconscious roots as the 'flight or fight' instinct. Such 'instincts' are emotionally-based and therefore, aren't logical by definition. Courts do recognize this when judging premeditation and self-defense however, no bank robber would get off on a plea of self-defensively robbing a bank.
Whether faith may be primal or not I am uncertain. Even the biblical thief on the cross was not in such an instant decision making choice to choose faith from a "heat of the moment" reaction, but a man with a gun to his head might well qualify I suppose.
Since we're all going to physically die at some point, an argument can be made that all humans do have that type of 'gun to the head' and are using "faith" to grasp at any chance of somehow surviving that fate in a nonphysical form. Such a rationalization doesn't qualify as using reason; it qualifies as succumbing to fear emotions.
I agree that dishonesty occurs in online surveys. Many people are aware (or will be eventually) that such things are often detected and used as disqualification and this is a rational basis for the survey taker to be honest instead of wasting their time being dishonest.
That may indeed provide a rational basis to be honest however, there is a strong probability that the dishonest survey-taker has previously made their decision to 'cheat' on the basis that they may not get caught, (which qualifies as irrational since it either disregards the possibility of being caught cheating or, includes a willingness to accept the consequences of being caught).
I didn't do them to be illogical (although I speculate one can claim to do that but the act of intending to deliberately do something illogical suddenly qualifies that act as logical in that pretense).
The implication wasn't that the intention was to be illogical but, that the decision-making process included irrational aspects, (which your example included), and therefore, the conclusion was irrational. In the context of basing "belief" upon "faith"; faith being an irrational aspect of a decision to hold a religious belief, (since no valid argument for "faith" being a rational component has been made), means that choosing to have such "faith" is an irrational decision. As previously mentioned, people are free to hold irrational beliefs and make irrational decisions based upon them. Whether or not they accept the consequences of their decisions manifests during life, (as there is no conclusive evidence of it manifesting after they physically die).
Community Forum
Topic: Faith (Read 53669 times)
April 15, 2009, 07:34:39 pm
