On 1-5-2009 22:07, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>>>     The problem with the word rational is that it's typically used with
>>> assumptions that are not commonly shared.
>>>
>> Rational implies that 'ratio' i.e. reasoning was applied. As such the
>> use of irrational when applied to the position of another person in a
>> discussion is a bit like suggesting that that person did not think
>> everything through. Which is of course not a fruitful position to take
>> in a discussion. Used like this it probably needs an identifier, yes.
>>
>> In this case I don't think that is what somebody was meaning. I think he
>> meant that it is a way of thinking that is completely alien to him. As
>> long as he is aware that other positions are possible and that his POV
>> is just as alien to others there is no problem. When he thinks that his
>> position is the only one that is logical and well though through there
>> would be a problem. At least in the sense that he would not be high on
>> my list of people to meet IRL. Then again somebody probably very much
>> likes his privacy anyway.
> 
> 	Yes, but now you're making assumptions on why (either of the two)
> declared something as irrational.

Merely pointing out that he is using the word irrational when he means 
(fundamentally) ununderstandable. Which is not the meaning you or I 
would attribute to it, but not really uncommon either. Perhaps he is not 
really aware of the original meaning of the latin word 'ratio' and its 
history. But then I am speculating again.
To support that: if you ask wikipedia you'll only find fraction as the 
meaning. With a link to a philosophical meaning of 'reason' in the 
disambiguation part, suggesting that 'ratio' may not be used by the 
common English speaking man with a meaning of 'reason'. I don't know, 
English is not my first language and ratio does have this meaning in Dutch.
So, perhaps 'irrational' is not always used as an ad hominem, depending 
on the cultural background. Other than that I agree with what you said. 
But you knew that already ;)

> 	As you said, rational implies reasoning. Assumptions were not stated on
> the input to the reasoning. Declaring something to be irrational without
> knowing those assumptions is faulty.
> 
> 	If someone is not at all concerned with what happens after his death
> (quite understandable), then his position is quite rational, because it
> wasn't devoid of reason. If Chambers cares quite a bit about future
> generations (also quite understandable), then his position is quite
> rational.
> 
> 	Given the lack of certainty on people's assumptions, and that two
> completely opposite viewpoints can be rational, I fail to see the point
> of labeling things as rational or irrational. It doesn't add anything of
> value to the discussion, and while perhaps not here, is often used more
> as an (often faulty) ad hominem.
> 
> 	Instead of stating whether something is irrational or not, just state
> your argument and your assumptions and let people decide the merits of
> the argument. As a reader, seeing anyone declare something as irrational
> is a waste of space and of my time. I care not whether anyone thinks
> others are being rational or not, or whether others think *I'm* being
> rational. I care only about whether someone is making a meaningful case.
> 
> 	(And no, I don't see the validity of using the word "irrational" to
> mean the other side is not making a meaningful case - if that's how you
> feel, just focus on pointing out the flaws).
>

Post a reply to this message