travisjungroth a day ago

At first I was going to respond this doesn't seem self-evident to me. Using your definitions from your other comment to modify and then flipping it, "Can someone fake logic without being able to perform logic?". I'm at least certain for specific types of logic this is true. Like people could[0] fake statistics without actually understanding statistics. "p-value should be under 0.05" and so on.

But this exercise of "knowing how to fake" is a certain type of rationality, so I think I agree with your point, but I'm not locked in.

[0] Maybe constantly is more accurate.

Reply View 0 replies
pixl97 a day ago

Being rational in many philosophical contexts is considered being consistent. Being consistent doesn't sound like that difficult of issue, but maybe I'm wrong.

Reply View 0 replies
guerrilla a day ago

That would be more aesthetically pleasing, but that's unfortunately not what the word rationalizing means.

Reply View 1 reply
  • bluefirebrand a day ago

    Just grabbing definitions from Google:

    Rationalize: "An attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate"

    Rational: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic"

    They sure seem like related concepts to me. Maybe you have a different understanding of what "rationalizing" is, and I'd be interested in hearing it

    But if all you're going to do is drive by comment saying "You're wrong" without elaborating at all, maybe just keep it to yourself next time

    Reply View 0 replies