reason vs non-reason

[redmartian89]

How can someone determine what is rational vs what is irrational?

The only difference I can see is that, when being rational, you will give up your ideas if proven wrong, and being irrational means holding onto ideas even when proven wrong.

How can an idea be considered rational or not? Is it the same criteria for considering an idea scientific: falsifiability/verifiability? Or can some rational ideas be not considered scientific?

Is reason objective?

How can it be (proven) objective?

Or is it simply just like the scientific method of problem, hypothesis, research, experiment, observation, conclusion?

 

[NavyGuy7]

I'd say it's more like your common sense. A reasonable man doesn't stick his hand in the metaphorical ( I said METAPHORICAL) fire, because he knows it will "burn" his hand. Right?

I think you're thinking too hard on this. Though I love to argue, so what the heck? All the discussions in the D&D have been fun and intellectually stimulating so far. Why not give us your view on things?

 

[ArchaicTruth]

I believe that reason has the ability to ask questions, and true reason leads to the benefit of all sentient beings. If you have questions which you are not seeking to answer or are otherwise ignoring, or are harming others, then you are being irrational. Just my two cents.

 

[Isambard]

Reason is the ability to make an arguement free of fallacies and contradictions

 

[DJPavel]

How can someone determine what is rational vs what is irrational?

The only difference I can see is that, when being rational, you will give up your ideas if proven wrong, and being irrational means holding onto ideas even when proven wrong.

How can an idea be considered rational or not? Is it the same criteria for considering an idea scientific: falsifiability/verifiability? Or can some rational ideas be not considered scientific?

Is reason objective?

How can it be (proven) objective?

Or is it simply just like the scientific method of problem, hypothesis, research, experiment, observation, conclusion?

You can look at what is (ir)rational from two angles: logical and practical (as I classify them for my purposes).

Rational in the logical sense means "consitent". So, you're being irrational if you believe in two contradictory statements within a single belief system. For example, if you believe God is omnipotent (has the power to do anything), He wants to eridicate all evil, and you believe evil exists, then I would say you're being irrational, for you have a contradiction of terms: can do it, wants to do it, but it's there.

From a pragmatic point of view, rational means "most efficient" in achieving a goal or meeting a specific need. So, if you want to sell most widgets, you might have two approaches: turn to Astrology or turn to the risk/benefit analysis taught in Business 101. You're being rational if you choose the theory that will get you where you want in the most efficient (less cost more benefit) way. Not to say that the Astrology will necessarily fail. But you have to look at it in probabilistic terms. If you have 100 kids running their businesses, half of them would choose the astrology method, while the other half, the risk analysis, which half do you think would end up better off? If you're being a rational parent, which theory would you teach your kids?

DJP

 

[NavyGuy7]

Oh. And remember, don't view reason and irrationality as versus each other. Both coexist to bring a balance. Sometimes it's better to be irrational than rational. Like when acting as a role completely opposite of your personality. You place yourself in the shoes of an imaginary person. Pretty irrational, I'd say. But cool.

Just don't let one side conquer the other. Like irrationality.

 

[redmartian89]

Oh. And remember, don't view reason and irrationality as versus each other. Both coexist to bring a balance. Sometimes it's better to be irrational than rational.

Balance? Like freedom and slavery, or good and evil? Sin and Holiness?

Like when acting as a role completely opposite of your personality. You place yourself in the shoes of an imaginary person. Pretty irrational, I'd say. But cool.

You use reason to determine how to act as this person.

Just don't let one side conquer the other. Like irrationality.

Why should reason share space with non-reason?

 

[NavyGuy7]

Balance? Like freedom and slavery, or good and evil? Sin and Holiness?

Um.... not really. I said coexist, not constantly fighting each other. Besides, whatever, that's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You use reason to determine how to act as this person.

But it's pretty irrational in and of itself to think of it as an ACTUAL person rather than imaginary.

Why should reason share space with non-reason?

Why shouldn't it? We're human. We have both. Therefore it shares space in our brain. Right?