Talk:Rationality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Rationality, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Source of ideas
I don't know where half of the stuff in this article came from. E.g., this:
- In the social sciences, rationality is a complex cluster of traits that, some claim, either apply to human beings, or serve as useful approximations with which to model human behavior. A rational being, in this sense, probably
- has goals and seeks to fulfill them
- is self-interested
- is not significantly constrained/influenced by social networks
- is amoral, except to the extend that morals increase "utility"
- choses courses of action based on some kind of optomization procedure (see Rational Choice Theory)
is not risk-averse. acts on the basis of the "expected value"
- deals like an economist with sunk costs.
- is omniscient regarding the future, or at least has a clearly defined and somehow "reasonable" probabilistic model of the future
- is predictible
Who has said this, other than the author of this article? --Larry Sanger
I wrote this as filler until I can put something more intelligent. There is significant discussion in Sociology and Economics in which the term "rational" is thrown around without much clarification about what it means. Usually, though, the author has something quite particular in mind, usually one or more of the traits specified in the above points. I think a clarification, perhaps better worded and expanded, would be useful to someone examining discourse in those fields - fields which, of course, come to influence our everyday discourse as well.
Another theme to cover here is the debate between people who think "rationality" is a good thing to have in social science models (stereotypically Economists) and those who think it is a bad thing (stereotypically Sociologists).
Basically, the above is a synthesis of a few different authors I've read. If it would be better to take this content away until I can clarify exactly who said what, and provide a more in-depth analysis, that would be fine. But please don't delete the whole Rationality page without telling me; I'd like access to the page's "history". -- Ryguasu
Okay, in the interest of not seeming a hypocrite when I make similar critiques of others' work, I'm removing the "social science" claims until I can develop them further. If anyone is curious, any work on them will probably take place at User:Ryguasu/Rationality. -- Ryguasu
[edit] announcing policy proposal of general interest
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] post-rational
Does post-rational fit into the various sorts of rational in the article? Coriolise 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fix this mistake
"In philosophy, which rationality and reason are the key methods by which we obtain knowledge, in opposition to empiricism which states that knowledge is obtained primarily via the senses."
First we need to correct a simple mistake, a "in" as third word is missing.
"In philosophy, in which rationality and reason are the key methods by which we obtain knowledge, in opposition to empiricism which states that knowledge is obtained primarily via the senses."
This sentence is not good, as it gives the reader the impression that there is an opposition between rationality and empiricism. That you can choose between rationality and empiricism.
We need both, of course. Thinking rationally without using our senses to collect information is as useless as collecting information without thinking about the collected data in a rational way. (Roger)
Okay, I fixed it myself. (Roger)
[edit] Article standard
This article is terrible. If you are reading this talk page because you are thinking of using the ideas in the article and want some idea of the standard of those ideas, my advice is find another reference source for now. Anarchia 20:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Do you think rationality could be defined as not only a discrepancy between means and ends, but as a complete absence of the ends, as by a person who is consumed by emotion and thinks of nothing but his current situation, dwelling in blind emotion. AdamBiswanger1 22:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I am assuming that you mean 'irrationality' rather than 'rationality'. The term 'rational' gets used in a variety of ways. 'Irrational' could be used to refer to someone who is dominated by immediate affective states, that is, someone who fails to reflect about his or her situation at all. However, more needs to be said about the person before you call them irrational. First, you need to know why the person is "consumed by emotion and thinks of nothing but his current situation". If the person is currently incapable of doing anything other than living in this way, then calling them 'irrational' seems mistaken. If the person is choosing to live in this way, then he or she might be acting irrationally, but, again, you would still need to know why. Is it, for instance, political or artistic statement (think Diogenes). If the person could conceivably determine he or she has most reason to act in another way, but it is hard to see how he or she could practically come to realise that, then it is appropriate to call the person 'objectively irrational'. (See Niko Kolodny's article in Mind 2005.) If the person could practically come to see that he or she has most reason to act in another way, but is choosing not to, then it is appropriate to call that person 'subjecively irrrational'. On the off chance that your question is due to Hume's argument - this won't work as an argument against Hume. Anarchia 19:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
