Twelve Virtues of Rationality

[Kubert]

I wanted to show you this page:" Twelve Virtues of Rationality (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)".
I was rather impressed by it. To me being rational means seeing things as they are and acting in an appropriate way. This is essential to grow as a person. To grow you have to be honest with yourself and not rationalize your way out of improving.

I especially find the the idea interesting that intelligence and knowledge, if used wrong, can make you more stupid by improving your rationalisation abilities.

I also see this text as an ethical test. I can't see how asking yourself "What's the rational thing to do" could ever be bad (except if you use this as rationalisation of course).

However, I'd like to hear your opinions about it (and thereby implement the fifth virtue). I wonder if thinking and feeling types might react differently to it?

[Monte314]

"Rationality" is a method of handling information (however that information might have been obtained). One implication of this is that "rational" conclusions can never be better than the information from which they are deduced. In particular, if the information available is faulty, perfectly valid, rational/logical reasoning can yield completely false conclusions.

Ergo: It is possible to be both completely rational, and completely wrong.

On the other hand, I might decide to ignore all evidence and just guess. It is *possible* that by random chance, I could happen to be correct every single time.

Ergo: It is possible to be both completely irrational, and completely right.

Does this help?

[Kubert]

"Rationality" is a method of handling information (however that information might have been obtained).
One implication of this is that "rational" conclusions can never be better than the information from which they are deduced.
In particular, if the information available is faulty, perfectly valid, rational/logical reasoning can yield completely false conclusions.

That's why it seems rational to me to try to consider all information you can get. Besides, rationality is a broader term than logic. An example: A lack of evidence is not a valid logical reason to consider a theory to be wrong. However, it's still a valid rational reason to consider that theory to be wrong. I might be mistaken, but I consider the process of gathering information as important for forming rational conclusions.


Ergo: It is possible to be both completely rational, and completely wrong.

On the other hand, I might decide to ignore all evidence and just guess. It is *possible* that by random chance, I could happen to be correct every single time.

Ergo: It is possible to be both completely irrational, and completely right.

Does this help?
Sure it's possible to just make thinks up and still be right. But don't you think your conclusions will be of a much higher quality if you try to improve the processes of taking in information and reasoning about it? I'm particulary interested in how people can screw up on this process even if they believe themselves to be sceptic , rational, intelligent, or realistic (as many INTJs probably do). I'm interested in cognitive biases (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and thinks like that.

My primary intention however wasn't to discuss the nature or semantics of "rationality". I thought people might like the text. I even see a connection to INTJs. personalitypage.com (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) talks about how INTJs might use their thinking function to dismiss external information, rather than for judging internal ideas. Especially the 4. virtue of evenness seems to be relevant on that context.

[thod]

"Rationality" is a method of handling information (however that information might have been obtained). One implication of this is that "rational" conclusions can never be better than the information from which they are deduced. In particular, if the information available is faulty, perfectly valid, rational/logical reasoning can yield completely false conclusions.

Ergo: It is possible to be both completely rational, and completely wrong.


All pigs are cows
All cows can fly
-> All pigs can fly

Correct logic, yet the conclusion is incorrect in the real world, there are no flying pigs.

On the other hand, I might decide to ignore all evidence and just guess. It is *possible* that by random chance, I could happen to be correct every single time.

Ergo: It is possible to be both completely irrational, and completely right.


All pigs are cows
All cows can fly
-> No pigs can fly

Incorrect logic, correct conclusion.

[Monte314]

Here's one of my favorites:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.
Therefore, all men are Socrates.