Forum:Does rationality have any limits?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Does everything have to be rational? Sometimes I quite enjoy being irrational. I have a lot of fun with the concept of synchronicity even though I know it is just my confirmation bias that distorts my view. I also like my magickal thoughts especially when thinking about politics. I also seccombe to the joys of lies. Is this wrong? What do ya reckon? --Dirk Steele (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow what you mean. Are you saying people will never be fully rational, and should just enjoy being irrational? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Follow up: I believe rationality in humans has limits. We're reasoning creatures, and therefore we must be capable of irrational thought -and no human can be fully rational -anyone who believes themselves to be so is only lying to themselves. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Does rationality have limits? Of course it does. Tisane is living proof of this principle.
Goodpost.gif Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I want my beliefs to be true. Truth has a fundamental value to me. I also believe that only true claims have practical applications. If I have false factual beliefs, then I'm more likely to make bad decisions. So, will I strive to be rational in every way? Yes. -- Note, don't invoke a Straw Vulcan. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
"A popular belief about "rationality" is that rationality opposes all emotion—that all our sadness and all our joy are automatically anti-logical by virtue of being feelings. Yet strangely enough, I can't find any theorem of probability theory which proves that I should appear ice-cold and expressionless." Scarlet A.pngnarchistModerator 02:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you 'believe' is 'true' aint it?. You support everything that accords with your belief. Twit! Sometimes I play poker irrationally for rational purposes. Am i wrong?--Dirk Steele (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Straw Vulcan: "The Straw Vulcan assumes that self-sacrifice isn't "logical", even though there can easily be situations where self-sacrifice is "logical".". Sometimes you play poker to lose for <insert reason here> is not equivalent to believing that your next hand will be a royal straight flush because the thought brings you comfort. Your example does not include an example of irrationality, despite your protestations otherwise. Again, see the Straw Vulcan page. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I am just bluffing you mate. Dirk Steele (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

So thinking about this for a moment. Sometimes (perhaps often) we have to make decisions based on imperfect or inadequate data. In such a case we cannot know what the optimal decision will be and our decision may be more instinctual that rational. (Although one could argue that the decision taken will still be the most rational under the circumstances I suppose.)

I've read the "Straw Vulkan" thing and it's interesting but there are times when people will contrast a decision made with the "heart" rather then the "head". Is the heart decision "worse"? Presumably not to the decision taker or they wouldn't have taken it.--Weirdstuff (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)