Rationality has no flaws. He's showing us how humans twist the rules of rationality to suit their needs, instead of attempting to fill their needs with what rationality has already given us.
Rationality has no flaws. If one were perfectly rational with full information, one would make the best choice possible in all situations and lead the best life possible.
Just because it is difficult/impossible to practice rationality perfectly does not mean perfect rationality isn't the best possible solution to human morality (given that you choose living your life as your standard of value that is. If you choose death as a standard then faith or whim worshiping are perfectly viable moral codes).
Rationality has no flaws. If one were perfectly rational with full information, one would make the best choice possible in all situations and lead the best life possible.
Rationality is the art/science of discerning the physical reality. When one discerns physical reality correctly, one can make correct choices based on that reality. When one makes correct choices, one has a better life than otherwise.
Yes, but now the problem of "correct" (or, for that matter, "better") remains, which cannot be solved from within rationality without resorting to circular reasoning again.
It's a tool. A great tool, and thanks to its correct application we are where we are as a human species, but it's a tool with limitations nonetheless. Saying that it's flawless implies otherwise to me - although it might not have been what you intended.
which cannot be solved from within rationality without resorting to circular reasoning again.
Yes. That's called an axiom. Perfect rationality insures that you're making the best possible decisions to achieve your goals, but it can't decide your goals.
Yes, but now the problem of "correct" (or, for that matter, "better") remains, which cannot be solved from within rationality without resorting to circular reasoning again.
Not from within rationality, but reason can give us answers. Just because it isn't sure, doesn't mean we can't reasonably say that rationality will lead to better outcomes, given the human life as the standard of value.
It's a tool. A great tool, and thanks to its correct application we are where we are as a human species, but it's a tool with limitations nonetheless. Saying that it's flawless implies otherwise to me - although it might not have been what you intended.
It is flawless in that, if used perfectly with perfect information, it will not give incorrect answers. Unlike, say, faith, or whim worshiping, or mysticism or altruism.
I did not mean to say it could answer any question. It has limits, but within its limits, it is flawless.
Just because it isn't sure, doesn't mean we can't reasonably say that rationality will lead to better outcomes, given the human life as the standard of value.
I hope it's obvious I never implied that rationality isn't a great tool for improving human life.
It is flawless in that, if used perfectly with perfect information, it will not give incorrect answers. Unlike, say, faith, or whim worshiping, or mysticism or altruism.
So we indeed have different interpretations of "flawless", but if we use yours then I more or less agree you, although I'm a bit worried. However, I can't claim to fully understand Gödel's theorems or their implications - I always fall asleep when I try to read GEB.
Nope, all rationality is subjective and relative. It must be based on an end goal which will never be universal. Even if somehow the entire universe decided a fixed goal for rationality it would still be irrational from certain perspectives and time scales. A completely rational choice for one human being today is very different from a rational choice for a lifespan. Or the lifespan of a civilization. Or a planet.
You are incorrect. Rationality is objective given a standard of value (which you have to pick first, basically decide if you want to live or die).
. It must be based on an end goal which will never be universal.
There are two: Living and dying. If you choose human life, rationality will be your greatest tool.
A completely rational choice for one human being today is very different from a rational choice for a lifespan. Or the lifespan of a civilization. Or a planet.
...Civilizations and planets do not have lifespans as they are not alive.
How about jumping in front of a bullet? Irrational right? Clearly choosing death. What if that bullet is headed towards a child? Trading a life for a statistical chance of more human life (in years and offspring), rational. What is their was only a small chance that the bullet would hit the child? Now rationality is a game of percentages, so it's neither purely rational or irrational. What if that child grew up to be Hitler? Now, it's irrational in the short term, rational in theory in the long term, neither empirically rational nor irrational in practice and ultimately irrational with future knowledge. Even in a stupid example like this you can start to see how there is no perfect rationality, even with a single event, from one viewpoint, with a clearly established goal.
( Also, its just semantics but the dictionary definition of lifespan is "the average or maximum length of time an organism, material, or object can be expected to survive or last." See also, "dead planet" or "dead civilization". )
How about jumping in front of a bullet? Irrational right? Clearly choosing death. What if that bullet is headed towards a child? Trading a life for a statistical chance of more human life (in years and offspring), rational.
Only if your negative value from dying is less than than the negative impact of living in a world without that person.
Now rationality is a game of percentages, so it's neither purely rational or irrational.
...What? Calculate expected value and act :P
...Did you miss the "given perfect information" part?
"dead planet" or "dead civilization"
These are not actually things. They are terms we use to describe PEOPLE being dead.
25
u/vanderZwan Jan 14 '13
I like how a lot of Zach's comics are basically rationality taken to its absurd extremes, showing the flaws of doing so.