From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I assume this is of example irrationality by showing the sort of shit an irrational person would write. - π 01:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif delete? ТyTalk. 01:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, but we could blank it and replace it with a coherent stub. - π 01:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Like irrationality is the opposite of rationality? ТyTalk. 01:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
ouch, that was so gay. Be rational, not rationalist. =P Künstlerin (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
We frown on homophobia here. Did you know that? Did you notice yourself using homophobic language? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
You are redefining a term to suit yourself. 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No. Actually, I am rationally approaching the academic discipline known as Post-Rationality, from my unique perspective as an Academic Painter and Visual Artist. This is real scholarship. The difference between pre-rationality and post-rationality must be espoused when dealing with the all-encompassing notion of "irrationality". Don't be irrational about it. Künstlerin (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No you are posting postmodernist dribble you have made up that is counter to the site stated mission. - π 02:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't dismiss this out of hand. Rationally consider the possiblity that irrationality can be either pre-rational or post-rational. Künstlerin (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You are just making shit up. Find me one reference to post-rationality that exists outside your own head. - π 02:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm doing that right now. It's funny, because you could just google it, or just ask any Professor in a Fine Arts Department, but I'm gathering sources for you right now anyways. Künstlerin (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I did google it and it turned up nothing that resembles what you are discussing. - π 02:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Fine Arts is for people who cannot do calculus. ТyTalk. 02:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That presuppose they know what calculus is. - π 03:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Good point. ТyTalk. 03:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
here's one: ... It's not talking about the example I was talking about, but it's talking about the concept. The big example will come tomorrow after I've spoken to my collegues. But besides that even, suppose I was the first person to realise that irrationality can either be pre- or post-rational (I'm not), that doesn't mean it's wrong or even irrational. Your ideological stance is irrational. And your stance on Fine Art and Calculus is also irrational. Künstlerin (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I know calculus is irrational, that is the point of it. - π 03:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
That describes nothing like what you are saying. It uses post in the chronological sense as in afterwards, being rational after the event, what would have been the better decision to have made. - π 03:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Ken Wilber Künstlerin (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Wilber's word is "trans" rather than "post". Would that satisfy you, π? Künstlerin (talk) 08:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
From the woo-meister Ken Wilber? No. - π 23:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess now the burden of proof is on you to defend the claim that this particular essay is woo. =) Künstlerin (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
There is not much to comment on that essay. He begs his own question to start with. He presupposes that there is some sort of ordering: "pre-rationality" < rationality < "trans-rationality". Trans-rationality seems to be defined as being better than rational because it is more open-minded to spirituality. He doesn't put forward an argument, he just says anyone that disagrees with him are committing a logical fallacy. His essay is an nice example of argument by assertion. - π 04:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Post-rationality" or "trans-rationality" are silly. On the other hand, rationality is contested - in terms of what the basic principles of rationality are, and in terms of what is the ontological status of those principles. I think too often, this site assumes the existence of "reason" without being clear about which account of reason it subscribes to. (((Zack Martin))) 08:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism and Empiricism. - π 23:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
That is one answer. There are others. (((Zack Martin))) 00:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
That is the answer for this place. - π 01:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This place criticises Conservapedia for being unwilling to examine their foundational beliefs, and yet this place is equally unwilling to examine its own. A bit inconsistent? (((Zack Martin))) 01:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
What is a Conservapedia? - π 01:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
What is a RationalWiki? (((Zack Martin))) 01:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
A wiki that can be expressed as the ratio of two integer wikis. - π 02:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif We didn't have a "great post" smiley. It's my favorite RW slogan, whoever wrote it, it always makes me smile broadly, and Pi guy used it in perfect context. FTW! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
^^lol. see? that's funny. i'm not in maths. but one day after i'm old and retired, i'm going to go back to undergraduate school as a math student and just see what kind of syntheses i can come up with, having had a lifetime's experience in the Visual Language to mesh with the Mathematical Language. *sigh, i'm daydreaming again...* Künstlerin (talk)

This seems to be a bit late to the party but...[edit]

Empty article is empty article. Ty will link it from everywhere if it survives, to heal eir OCD. I see the original was run-on stupid and useless. I suspect deletion would have made more sense. Irrational = not able to be presented as the ratio between two integers. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Then let's nuke it. ТyTalk. 04:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know, it could be padded out with a discussion on the "logical" position of irrationalism, New-Agey woo that we have been gifted. - π 04:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
So, by your definition of "irrational" the value of "3 + 2i" is an irrational number? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 04:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. Not only is "3 + 2i" irrational, it is also a young Earth cretinist, a birther, and a 911-truther. I had to suffer three hours on the street yesterday listening to them harangue me and other innocent passers-by! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Lord... I bet they also believe that Osama bin Ladin is still alive, and acting as a body double for Fidel Castro who is still alive? --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised.
okay. let's delete it. ˘_˘ ……ø_ºØ¿h0VV dΩ ¡ mAk3 mei S¡Gnņ®3 ∂ififi3®EnT c0LøU®$? 06:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait yes!! We can pad it out with New-Agey goo. I like that better!!! ø_ºØ¿h0VV dΩ ¡ mAk3 mei S¡Gnņ®3 ∂ififi3®EnT c0LøU®$? 06:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)