If this is what you want your future to be like...

[One-Eye]

[Narbus]

[One-Eye]

[mosaik]

[mosaik]

[Narbus]

[mosaik]

[Narbus]

[mosaik]

[The Post Modern]

[Narbus]

I know you think that a lot of times I like to argue because you're you, but this is not one of them. This is actually quite interesting to me, and I'm really trying to figure out what I think on several issues by bouncing things off of you. So I'm not trying to be a pest, I'm trying to figure some things out, and here I think I've got it figured out, and you might be off a bit.


Logical and rational are two different things. Oftentimes they are used in conjuction, but that does not mean they are the same. Peanut butter is not jelly.

Logic is a mathematical way of looking at a problem. That's it. ~fin.

If A then B. That's math.

There are philosophical ramifications, but there are philosophical ramifications to everything, so that's not important.

Now, the trouble with logic is the programmer's mantra: Garbage in, garbage out. If you use worthless givens in a logical statement, your answer will be worthless. For example: Given A, A=A. But I want to know if B=C. So this given does nothing for me, and more importantly it does nothing to solve my problem. In fact, if I try and force this given to fit this problem, I could come up with a solution that actually hurts me more than if I didn't try and solve the problem at all.

Rationality is a means by which to provide those givens. Rationality is a means of looking at a situation and determining what is important in that situation. For example, on that desert island, it doesn't matter to you that Kathleen O'Connel of Columbus, Ohio just tore a nylon on the way home from work. That doesn't change the fact that she tore a nylon, nor does it change how she feels about it, but to you, it doesn't matter. Since rationality is based around the individual, you can disregard Mrs. O'Connel's nylon entirely.

Your perspective has decided what is important to you, rationally.

Logic is not dicatated by circumstances, it is dictated by the givens. Rationality, however, is dictated by circumstance. Given different circumstance, different things are rational.

For example, you walk down the street, pass a man in a yellow jacket, nothing happens. It is not rational to attack him here.
You walk down the street, pass a man in a yellow jacket, and he grabs you, slams you up against the wall, and demands your wallet. Here it would be considered acting in rational self-interest to attack him.

The change in circumstances dictated what was rational and what was not rational.

Another example, with the aid of Mrs. O'Connell again. We've already established that her nylon is unimportant to you on your island. Her nylon is torn, and it was the last one. She knows she needs to go to the grocery store, but they don't have her brand, so she has to leave early to make it to another store, then groceries, then pick up the kids from soccer. Nothing bad, nothing good, neither moral nor immoral, just events that happened. But since she likes her job, and knows she is expected to dress professionally, then it's in rational self interest to leave early and make it to the store on time.

But if circumstance had her with several nylons in a drawer upstairs, then rationally there's no reason to go to the other store, so she doesn't. The circumstances changed what was rational.


Now, as I said before, rational and logical are not the same. Let's prove this, logically.

Let's make a statement and test it's validity. "Rational action is the same as logical action."
I provide proof by counterexample:
Given: Rational means "acting in one's best self-interest, with respect to other people's right to do the same."

Given: I want a new television.
Note that I didn't put "we must act rationally while procuring this television," as a given, which meant it is LOGICAL for me to rob my neighbors. Logically, the television is all I care about. However, this is clearly not rational, by definition given. Therefore, it is not always the case that logical action is the same as rational action, which is something that I think you don't always realize.

In that island example, you are missing several givens, admittedly because I defined them poorly. Let's try again.
1 Given: Staying alive is good.
2 Given: You need heat to stay alive.
3 Given: You need food to stay alive.
4 Given: The trees on the island are the only source of fuel you have.
5 Given: The trees on the island are the only source of food that you have access to.

Now, given that you are cold, it is not logical here to cut down all the trees, as that would invalidate given 3, and therefore invalidate given 1.
Now if we choose to ignore givens 3 and 5 (but not remove them as givens, just say 'screw it,') then we reach my first scenario, where you starve to death because you wanted to be warm.

In your counterexample, you do not use 3 or 5 as givens. Yes, if your only problem is that you are cold, then burning everything is rational. But our only problem is NOT staying warm. Staying warm is only a means by which to meet our greater goal, which is staying alive, a goal which also requires food to meet.

What is rational in a situation is again determined by circumstance.

Now for the kicker. I do not see how it could be rational to purposely disregard any given that is important to the situation, even the ones with long term effects. If you know that in the future, your food supply will be destroyed and you will starve, then it is not acting in rational self-interest to burn all the trees.

I am not suggesting that we be psychics. I am suggesting that if useful information presents itself during the course of finding a solution to a problem, then it is irrational to disregard it. I am suggesting that new information may actually change the problem statement, invalidating information that you formerly considered of importance (rational).

I am suggesting that in order to be rational people, we must be more than simpy logical. We must learn how to define our problems in the proper way so that the logic provides the solution we are looking for.

[Narbus]

[One-Eye]

[Narbus]

You too are confusing rational and logical. In a given situation, there are rational things that can be done. Logic doesn't fit a situation, it fits givens. You can take any situation, even one where we know that |B| + (|C|-D)/F = R, and state that Given A, A = A.

For example, that botulism thing. If all that we care about is hunger (Given: We must eat) then yes, it is logical to eat whatever is there. Eating is our only goal, so eat whatever.
However, if we are given that we must stay alive, and eating is only a means by which to do that (Given: We must live) then suddenly it is not logical to eat contaminated food, because the givens just changed.

[mosaik]