Max: "When I talk about rationalism I mean a commitment to reason, evidence, and logic rather than to acquiring knowledge through authority, emotion, tradition, revelation, or faith."
As we've discussed before, you use the latter words, to some extent, in ways that are different than how I use them. I hope you won't mind if I include here a link to my explanation of the difference. Beyond that, I'll just say that if I understood those words as you understand them, I would probably reject them too.
Bryan, I don't understand your point nor its connection to this post. The X post you link to is skeptical of assigning precise probabilities, which is not something discussed here. In other essays, I have agreed with that.
I saw it as related to the limits of formal thinking and metrics mania. Assigning precise probabilities in metrics such as how much a person is better than another person seems to be an example of reaching beyond a reasonable application of rationality. Apologies if this muddles too many stray thoughts.
To be rational is to use reason, or thought, to attempt to solve some sort of problem. Human beings are obliged to be rational in this sense as they go about their lives from moment to moment (including as they decide how to dance). It is certainly possible to reason more efficiently or less efficiently (and, therefore, to study and advocate efficient rationality). But it seems both arbitrary and, ultimately, incoherent to assert that above some alleged level of reasoning efficiency we are “rational” and below some alleged level we are “irrational”. https://jclester.substack.com/p/rationality-a-libertarian-viewpoint
Yes, clearly being rational or irrational is not all-or-nothing. I would not equate reason with "thought" as you seem to do in the first line. Thinking can be rationalizing, following orders or authorities, and so on.
>Yes, clearly being rational or irrational is not all-or-nothing.
You say “Yes”, but I asserted and explained that people are always rational and never “irrational”.
>I would not equate reason with "thought" as you seem to do in the first line. Thinking can be rationalizing, following orders or authorities, and so on.
Yes, reasoning is thinking. One cannot rationalise without doing some reasoning/thinking. One cannot follow orders or authorities without reasoning/thinking (however quickly and superficially) about what they are and deciding whether it is better to follow them or not.
Except that plenty of people do NOT say they favor rationalism. In fact, they oppose it. Not many people oppose or criticize eating or breathing. There is a parallel, as you say, in that there are different ways of being a rationalist -- which is the point of this piece and my others on the topic -- just as there are healthy, unhealthy, and deadly things to eat and better and worse ways and amounts to eat.
>Except that plenty of people do NOT say they favor rationalism. In fact, they oppose it.
Hardly anyone ever talks about “rationalism” (or even has an implicit theory of it). But most people occasionally talk about being “rational” and “irrational” (although they usually really mean being efficiently and inefficiently rational; or prudent and imprudent).
>Not many people oppose or criticize eating or breathing.
The point is that it hardly makes sense to advocate what people are biologically obliged to do, such as eating, breathing, and reasoning/thinking. One must really have some qualification in mind.
>There is a parallel, as you say, in that there are different ways of being a rationalist…
But a rationalist cannot coherently be advocating reasoning as opposed to not reasoning. Reasoning is something all humans have to do while they are conscious.
I take it that you are arguing that all human thinking involves reasoning, rationalism advocates reasoning, and therefore rationalism is meaningless or lacking in content. In addition, you say that people are always rational. I'm unclear how this goes with your claim that "reasoning is not equivalent with thought" (which I agree with). I would say that when people are rationalizing, they are thinking and reasoning but are being (to some degree) irrational. They are motivated to defend an idea rather than to hold it open to genuine reasoning. That's is part of what "irrational" means. You apparently have no place for irrationality whereas I see it as a matter of degree.
'But a rationalist cannot coherently be advocating reasoning as opposed to not reasoning." I wouldn't go that far. I think there are reactions that do not (immediately) involve reasoning. More importantly, even when people are reasoning, if they are reasoning badly in certain ways, we say there are thinking/reasoning irrationally. (Again, we use the term in a binary way but I would say it's a matter of degree.)
In your view, if it's impossible for humans to be irrational, do you think that the term "rational" means anything? Would you agree that it coming in degrees?
>I take it that you are arguing that all human thinking involves reasoning, rationalism advocates reasoning, and therefore rationalism is meaningless or lacking in content.
Not merely “involves”: to think is to reason (reasoning is not a subset of thinking). If “rationalism advocates reasoning” it is not “meaningless” (because I understand it) and it is only “lacking in content” if taken literally. But there is a tacit theory that is more than advocating reasoning: it is advocating certain types of reasoning.
>In addition, you say that people are always rational.
Because they are always thinking when they are conscious.
>I'm unclear how this goes with your claim that "reasoning is not equivalent with thought" (which I agree with).
That is not a quotation from what I wrote. Is it supposed to be a paraphrase? Of what?
>I would say that when people are rationalizing, they are thinking and reasoning but are being (to some degree) irrational.
>They are motivated to defend an idea rather than to hold it open to genuine reasoning.
How can one come up with a defence of an idea but by engaging in “genuine reasoning”?
>That's is part of what "irrational" means.
“Irrational” is incoherent.
>You apparently have no place for irrationality whereas I see it as a matter of degree.
Try to make clear sense of it instead of merely using the word.
>'But a rationalist cannot coherently be advocating reasoning as opposed to not reasoning." I wouldn't go that far. I think there are reactions that do not (immediately) involve reasoning.
For instance?
>More importantly, even when people are reasoning, if they are reasoning badly in certain ways, we say there are thinking/reasoning irrationally. (Again, we use the term in a binary way but I would say it's a matter of degree.)
Most people say that, and it makes no literal sense: “irrational” is as incoherent as “irrunnable”. People are really talking about implicit types of reasoning and not about reasoning as such.
>In your view, if it's impossible for humans to be irrational, do you think that the term "rational" means anything?
Yes, reasoning or thinking.
>Would you agree that it coming in degrees?
Either you are reasoning or you aren’t. Either you are walking or you aren’t. But we can reason and walk in different ways, directions, speeds, efficiencies, etc. None of these has a claim to being “real” reasoning or walking.
I think you are using "reasoning" in a way that doesn't reflect standard use. An example of a reaction that does not involve reasoning: Pulling your hand away from a very hot object. You do NOT go through a rational thinking process, you just react. To make the point even more clearly: Animals think but they do not (with some plausible exceptions) reason. It seems that you either have to deny that they think or insist that they reason. Neither seems promising.
Reasoning and thinking are closely related cognitive processes, but they are not identical. Each plays a distinct role in how we process information, make decisions, and understand the world. Here's a closer look at the differences between them:
Thinking: This is a broad, overarching term that encompasses all mental activities. Thinking can involve a wide range of cognitive processes, including remembering, imagining, perceiving, reasoning, and problem-solving. It includes both conscious and unconscious processes and can be directed (focused on a specific goal or problem) or undirected (such as daydreaming or free association).
Reasoning: Reasoning is a specific form of thinking that involves drawing conclusions based on premises or evidence. It is a deliberate, structured process that uses logic to infer new information from known facts. Reasoning can be deductive (drawing specific conclusions from general principles) or inductive (inferring general principles from specific examples). It is a conscious effort to apply logical thought to understand something or solve a problem.
Key Differences:
Scope: Thinking is a general cognitive activity that includes various mental processes, of which reasoning is just one specific type. Reasoning is a subset of thinking focused on logical inference and problem-solving.
Process: Thinking can be intuitive, creative, or random, involving a wide range of mental activities. Reasoning, by contrast, is more structured and follows logical rules to arrive at conclusions from given information.
Goal-orientation: While all reasoning is goal-oriented, aiming to solve a problem or understand a concept through logical steps, thinking can be both goal-oriented and non-goal-oriented, such as when engaging in imaginative or speculative thought without a specific aim.
In summary, reasoning is a disciplined, logical form of thinking aimed at drawing conclusions from evidence or premises. Thinking, however, is a more encompassing term that covers all forms of mental activity, including but not limited to reasoning.
You hit the nail on its knucklehead—anyone who criticized transhumanism or the particular perspective of Extropy as too rationalist focused.
Great post! For more on this topic, I recommend people to check out our conversation together where we discussed Karl Popper's ideas 😉: https://youtu.be/Ak9NsM61Xg0?si=aeWdHvh4ep27OP7-
Max: "When I talk about rationalism I mean a commitment to reason, evidence, and logic rather than to acquiring knowledge through authority, emotion, tradition, revelation, or faith."
As we've discussed before, you use the latter words, to some extent, in ways that are different than how I use them. I hope you won't mind if I include here a link to my explanation of the difference. Beyond that, I'll just say that if I understood those words as you understand them, I would probably reject them too.
https://lincoln.metacannon.net/2011/10/dynamic-faith-in-pancritical.html
Lincoln: I don't mind at all.
this "125% better life partner trade-up" spreadsheet morality stuff is just a way of self-reporting an anxiety disorder, see: https://twitter.com/kanzure/status/1754951822723170720
Bryan, I don't understand your point nor its connection to this post. The X post you link to is skeptical of assigning precise probabilities, which is not something discussed here. In other essays, I have agreed with that.
I saw it as related to the limits of formal thinking and metrics mania. Assigning precise probabilities in metrics such as how much a person is better than another person seems to be an example of reaching beyond a reasonable application of rationality. Apologies if this muddles too many stray thoughts.
Ah! Thanks for elaborating. Now I see the connection.
To be rational is to use reason, or thought, to attempt to solve some sort of problem. Human beings are obliged to be rational in this sense as they go about their lives from moment to moment (including as they decide how to dance). It is certainly possible to reason more efficiently or less efficiently (and, therefore, to study and advocate efficient rationality). But it seems both arbitrary and, ultimately, incoherent to assert that above some alleged level of reasoning efficiency we are “rational” and below some alleged level we are “irrational”. https://jclester.substack.com/p/rationality-a-libertarian-viewpoint
Yes, clearly being rational or irrational is not all-or-nothing. I would not equate reason with "thought" as you seem to do in the first line. Thinking can be rationalizing, following orders or authorities, and so on.
>Yes, clearly being rational or irrational is not all-or-nothing.
You say “Yes”, but I asserted and explained that people are always rational and never “irrational”.
>I would not equate reason with "thought" as you seem to do in the first line. Thinking can be rationalizing, following orders or authorities, and so on.
Yes, reasoning is thinking. One cannot rationalise without doing some reasoning/thinking. One cannot follow orders or authorities without reasoning/thinking (however quickly and superficially) about what they are and deciding whether it is better to follow them or not.
Saying that one is in favour of "rationality" (or "rationalism") without qualification, is like saying that one is in favour of eating or breathing.
Except that plenty of people do NOT say they favor rationalism. In fact, they oppose it. Not many people oppose or criticize eating or breathing. There is a parallel, as you say, in that there are different ways of being a rationalist -- which is the point of this piece and my others on the topic -- just as there are healthy, unhealthy, and deadly things to eat and better and worse ways and amounts to eat.
>Except that plenty of people do NOT say they favor rationalism. In fact, they oppose it.
Hardly anyone ever talks about “rationalism” (or even has an implicit theory of it). But most people occasionally talk about being “rational” and “irrational” (although they usually really mean being efficiently and inefficiently rational; or prudent and imprudent).
>Not many people oppose or criticize eating or breathing.
The point is that it hardly makes sense to advocate what people are biologically obliged to do, such as eating, breathing, and reasoning/thinking. One must really have some qualification in mind.
>There is a parallel, as you say, in that there are different ways of being a rationalist…
But a rationalist cannot coherently be advocating reasoning as opposed to not reasoning. Reasoning is something all humans have to do while they are conscious.
I take it that you are arguing that all human thinking involves reasoning, rationalism advocates reasoning, and therefore rationalism is meaningless or lacking in content. In addition, you say that people are always rational. I'm unclear how this goes with your claim that "reasoning is not equivalent with thought" (which I agree with). I would say that when people are rationalizing, they are thinking and reasoning but are being (to some degree) irrational. They are motivated to defend an idea rather than to hold it open to genuine reasoning. That's is part of what "irrational" means. You apparently have no place for irrationality whereas I see it as a matter of degree.
'But a rationalist cannot coherently be advocating reasoning as opposed to not reasoning." I wouldn't go that far. I think there are reactions that do not (immediately) involve reasoning. More importantly, even when people are reasoning, if they are reasoning badly in certain ways, we say there are thinking/reasoning irrationally. (Again, we use the term in a binary way but I would say it's a matter of degree.)
In your view, if it's impossible for humans to be irrational, do you think that the term "rational" means anything? Would you agree that it coming in degrees?
>I take it that you are arguing that all human thinking involves reasoning, rationalism advocates reasoning, and therefore rationalism is meaningless or lacking in content.
Not merely “involves”: to think is to reason (reasoning is not a subset of thinking). If “rationalism advocates reasoning” it is not “meaningless” (because I understand it) and it is only “lacking in content” if taken literally. But there is a tacit theory that is more than advocating reasoning: it is advocating certain types of reasoning.
>In addition, you say that people are always rational.
Because they are always thinking when they are conscious.
>I'm unclear how this goes with your claim that "reasoning is not equivalent with thought" (which I agree with).
That is not a quotation from what I wrote. Is it supposed to be a paraphrase? Of what?
>I would say that when people are rationalizing, they are thinking and reasoning but are being (to some degree) irrational.
Then it might help if you read this (it’s under 1,000 words): https://jclester.substack.com/p/rationality-a-libertarian-viewpoint
>They are motivated to defend an idea rather than to hold it open to genuine reasoning.
How can one come up with a defence of an idea but by engaging in “genuine reasoning”?
>That's is part of what "irrational" means.
“Irrational” is incoherent.
>You apparently have no place for irrationality whereas I see it as a matter of degree.
Try to make clear sense of it instead of merely using the word.
>'But a rationalist cannot coherently be advocating reasoning as opposed to not reasoning." I wouldn't go that far. I think there are reactions that do not (immediately) involve reasoning.
For instance?
>More importantly, even when people are reasoning, if they are reasoning badly in certain ways, we say there are thinking/reasoning irrationally. (Again, we use the term in a binary way but I would say it's a matter of degree.)
Most people say that, and it makes no literal sense: “irrational” is as incoherent as “irrunnable”. People are really talking about implicit types of reasoning and not about reasoning as such.
>In your view, if it's impossible for humans to be irrational, do you think that the term "rational" means anything?
Yes, reasoning or thinking.
>Would you agree that it coming in degrees?
Either you are reasoning or you aren’t. Either you are walking or you aren’t. But we can reason and walk in different ways, directions, speeds, efficiencies, etc. None of these has a claim to being “real” reasoning or walking.
I think you are using "reasoning" in a way that doesn't reflect standard use. An example of a reaction that does not involve reasoning: Pulling your hand away from a very hot object. You do NOT go through a rational thinking process, you just react. To make the point even more clearly: Animals think but they do not (with some plausible exceptions) reason. It seems that you either have to deny that they think or insist that they reason. Neither seems promising.
ChatGPT gives a pretty decent answer:
Reasoning and thinking are closely related cognitive processes, but they are not identical. Each plays a distinct role in how we process information, make decisions, and understand the world. Here's a closer look at the differences between them:
Thinking: This is a broad, overarching term that encompasses all mental activities. Thinking can involve a wide range of cognitive processes, including remembering, imagining, perceiving, reasoning, and problem-solving. It includes both conscious and unconscious processes and can be directed (focused on a specific goal or problem) or undirected (such as daydreaming or free association).
Reasoning: Reasoning is a specific form of thinking that involves drawing conclusions based on premises or evidence. It is a deliberate, structured process that uses logic to infer new information from known facts. Reasoning can be deductive (drawing specific conclusions from general principles) or inductive (inferring general principles from specific examples). It is a conscious effort to apply logical thought to understand something or solve a problem.
Key Differences:
Scope: Thinking is a general cognitive activity that includes various mental processes, of which reasoning is just one specific type. Reasoning is a subset of thinking focused on logical inference and problem-solving.
Process: Thinking can be intuitive, creative, or random, involving a wide range of mental activities. Reasoning, by contrast, is more structured and follows logical rules to arrive at conclusions from given information.
Goal-orientation: While all reasoning is goal-oriented, aiming to solve a problem or understand a concept through logical steps, thinking can be both goal-oriented and non-goal-oriented, such as when engaging in imaginative or speculative thought without a specific aim.
In summary, reasoning is a disciplined, logical form of thinking aimed at drawing conclusions from evidence or premises. Thinking, however, is a more encompassing term that covers all forms of mental activity, including but not limited to reasoning.