Rationality

I am pretty sure I mentioned a post about rationality. Here it is.

It seems that the following is possible:

S at t rationally believes p and S* at t rationally believes ~p. 

What is going on? 

First, we have to distinguish between rationality and knowledge. Knowledge is one of the highest intellectual achievements (I think understanding and wisdom are higher). Knowledge is higher than mere belief. I can believe that there are 20 humans are mars. I do not know that there are 20 humans are mars. Belief is easy to get. Knowledge is not easy to get. To believe something is just to think it is true. To know something is more than that—not less though.

Knowledge is higher than mere true belief. I can believe that there are aliens, and it be true that there are aliens, but not know that there are aliens. Maybe I made a lucky guess. Maybe I believe everything I read on internet. That ain’t knowledge. True belief is harder to get than just belief, but easier to get than knowledge. Knowledge is more than true belief—not less though. 

Knowledge, genuine knowledge, once we think about it, entails truth. If you know something then it is true. So, the following is not possible:

S at t knows p and for S* at t knows ~p.

Rationality falls somewhere between belief and knowledge. You can rationally believe something false and be intellectually better than someone who irrationally believes something true. If I believe everything I read on the internet, then I am being irrational even though I am guaranteed to believe a bunch of truths. 

So, rationally believing something is kind of intellectual achievement, but it is not as high as knowledge. 

Another interesting thing to notice here is that rationality is going to be relative to the person, but the relativity here is objective, not subjective. Rationally believing something will depend on a person’s background knowledge, experience, and perspective. I cannot rationally believe that I do not exist. But I can rationally believe that you do not exist (at least I think that’s possible). For example, if I have not heard from for a long time, have not seen any evidence for your continued existence, and have some reason to think that you no longer exist, then I may be rational in believing that you do not exist. Let’s say that you do exist. You would not be rational in thinking that you do not exist. So being rational is going to be relative to person’s body of evidence. I can rationally believe something one day and then the next day that same belief may become irrational. For example, suppose I believe today that I have good shot at getting a paper I just submitted to a journal published. Suppose tomorrow that the journal emails me to say that they have rejected my paper. What was rational for me to believe today (I will get my paper published) is not rational for me to believe tomorrow (assuming I have read my emails). 

Since, in general, each person has a different body of evidence, and rationality is some kind of function from evidence to belief, it follows that rationality is person-relative. Or more precisely, rationality is body-of-evidence-relative. 

Question: Now, if theism is true, is it ever rational to be atheist? The answer to this question is important, I think. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Arguing For God's Existence

Proving God’s Existence Throughout the modern period of philosophy and theology (beginning around the 18 th century until now) various thinkers have suggested that there is something problematic about giving arguments for God’s existence. They have given a variety of different reasons: faith requires the absence of proof, faith requires not relying on a proof, even if there are some, no argument for God’s existence is a good one, no argument gets us to God, no argument gets us to the God of the Bible (this is the worry that the God of the philosophers is different from the God of the Bible), arguments for God’s existence assume that our intellects have not been affected by the fall, God’s existence is obvious and a proof assumes that it is not, God’s existence is known by all because it is implanted in us so proofs are superfluous at best, denials of God’s existence are a sin problem, not a philosophy problem, etc. Rather than focus on the above reasons for not giving arguments f...
Read more

Possible Worlds and Covid-19

We are in the midst of a pandemic. As nations around the world respond to it, models of varying kinds are being generated to give policy-makers, practitioners, and others some kind of insight into the implications of all sorts of responses to the pandemic. Each model involves a bunch of assumptions—many of which are hidden in the mathematics—ranging from estimates about the number of actual infections, rate of infection, prevalence of co-morbidities, demographics of regions, infection death-rates, confirmed infection death-rates, duration of virus, etc. etc. etc.  Each model is representing a possible world! Did you notice that? Every model—and these are being relied upon by each and every country’s leaders in the world right now—is a prediction of what the world will look if x is true and we do y (to simplify quite a bit). Change x a bit and leave y alone and we get a new future; leave x alone and change y a bit and we get a new future; change both x and y a bit and we get ...
Read more

Concepts of Existence: An Intuitive Introduction

Concepts of Existence Consider the following: some dogs are brown. (In what follows, I use the phrases, property, first-order property, predicate, first-order predicate, as synonyms. They each mean roughly: a feature of some individual object. So a second-order property or second-order predicate is a property or predicate of an individual's first-order property. The considerations below suggest that 'existence' is best understood as a second-order property and not a first-order one. This will all be more understandable after you read below!) Given the truth of the above it seems to follow that some dogs exist. We do not need to add to the above claim: Some dogs are brown and they exist. Once we know that some dogs are brown, we already know that they exist. So, existence is not really a property of anything in the way that, say, being brown is a property of some dogs. So, it looks like thinking existence is a property is either unnecessary or incoherent. If x...
Read more