Irrational Conclusions
Is it reasonable to conclude that a particular conclusion not containing internal contradictions is irrational? I think the answer must be no since I do not believe that I have any direct access to the experience of another person. My own conclusions are, I think a matter of comparing experience to memory. I can only access these things for myself.
Now, I do feel justified in saying that certain conclusions are inconsistent with certain premises or with other conclusions.
I think it’s important because there are a large array of conclusions that I find un-intuitive. Or, more directly that my intuition of them is that they are delusions or false attributions or hallucinations or invalid in some other way.
It’s important because I think a consistent skepticism of my own judgment is necessary to avoid the kind of errors I perceive around me.
Finally it’s important because unconventional conclusions are, historically the lever of intuition itself. I want to remain open to possibility since the state of knowledge seems to be in perpetual transition.
All blacks are violent.
Joe is black.
Therefore, Joe is violent.
No internal contradictions. By the book logic.
But totally wrong. And not rational.
The major premise is not supported by evidence, so it is at least not rational. And since there is manifold evidence to the contrary, it is probably irrational.
Throughout my life, the one question I have asked myself more than any other is, “What do I know?”
To answer that question, I must roll back to an objective, foundational truth of the premise in flux, and follow a train of logic that leads me to the endpoint of what I know.
From that point, I can continue building the necessary logic train of objective truth and observational experience to reach the next step of what I know.
as for all logic:
garbage in -> garbage out
All blacks are violent.
Joe is black.
Therefore, Joe is violent.No internal contradictions. By the book logic.
But totally wrong. And not rational.
The major premise is not supported by evidence, so it is at least not rational. And since there is manifold evidence to the contrary, it is probably irrational.
Just conclusions. Not syllogisms.
as for all logic:
garbage in -> garbage out
No critique of logic though? It can preserve and apply truth. It doesn’t create it.
Throughout my life, the one question I have asked myself more than any other is, “What do I know?”
To answer that question, I must roll back to an objective, foundational truth of the premise in flux, and follow a train of logic that leads me to the endpoint of what I know.
From that point, I can continue building the necessary logic train of objective truth and observational experience to reach the next step of what I know.
Is there any reason to suppose we share foundational truths with others? Many institutions maintain that we do. I don’t personally see how we could possible affirm this.
IMHO, the rationality of any conclusion depends greatly on veracity of the foundational thoughts on which it is built.
The more assumptive that foundation is, the more likely one is to incorporate the irrational. The more fact based the foundation, the more sound the assumption.
Throughout my life, the one question I have asked myself more than any other is, “What do I know?”
To answer that question, I must roll back to an objective, foundational truth of the premise in flux, and follow a train of logic that leads me to the endpoint of what I know.
From that point, I can continue building the necessary logic train of objective truth and observational experience to reach the next step of what I know.
Is there any reason to suppose we share foundational truths with others? Many institutions maintain that we do. I don’t personally see how we could possible affirm this.
Water flows downhill, hot air rises, tides rise and fall, there are lots of foundational truths that are universal for everyone. In very many ways our own conclusions can be examined in much the same manner as physical phenomena, using the same criteria for what is, and what is not, true and/or relevant.
All blacks are violent.
Joe is black.
Therefore, Joe is violent.No internal contradictions. By the book logic.
But totally wrong. And not rational.
The major premise is not supported by evidence, so it is at least not rational. And since there is manifold evidence to the contrary, it is probably irrational.Just conclusions. Not syllogisms.
“Joe is violent” is a conclusion, with no internal contradictions. But let’s go with “all blacks are violent”. No internal contradictions, but I contend it is irrational.
All blacks are violent.
Joe is black.
Therefore, Joe is violent.No internal contradictions. By the book logic.
But totally wrong. And not rational.
The major premise is not supported by evidence, so it is at least not rational. And since there is manifold evidence to the contrary, it is probably irrational.Just conclusions. Not syllogisms.
“Joe is violent” is a conclusion, with no internal contradictions. But let’s go with “all blacks are violent”. No internal contradictions, but I contend it is irrational.
I would say it’s false. I would not say irrational because that depends on the experience data of the person… Which I don’t know.
I think that getting to maybe is probably the most rational conclusion for a skeptic trying to be as objective as possible. But opinions aren’t by nature maybes. They’re conclusiory biases that pretty much paint the analyses we use when trying to be uber objective, if we’re not careful with our processing.
I think I can be more concise. Conclusions in isolation are non rational. Though we can certainly deem them as true or false. Helpful or harmful. Etc. Methods can be evaluated as rational or irrational.
Does everyone accept the distinction between irrational and “non-rational” or arational? It’s pretty subtle.
So facts are conclusions, so to speak? Methods at arriving at facts are rational or irrational?
I don’t think that it’s actually possible to ” be reasonable.” A person can only behave or think reasonably given his or her circumstances in any given situation. And circumstances are relative. Context has some psychological and cultural universalities, but perceptually these vary drastically.
Does everyone accept the distinction between irrational and “non-rational” or arational? It’s pretty subtle.
It’s an absolutely essential distinction. Immediate experiential knowledge is, in my opinion non rational. But we cannot do without it. Everything else follows from it.