tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post3176980999907659878..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & Politics, Part 4Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-57461941731997927112009-04-26T12:13:00.000-07:002009-04-26T12:13:00.000-07:00It's funny because this doesn't have a damn thing ...It's funny because this doesn't have a damn thing do with Objectivism other than as a completely unconscious straw man argument.HerbSewellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06612165300491693085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-10679899685587918502009-04-13T05:54:00.000-07:002009-04-13T05:54:00.000-07:00I've read your essay, which I mostly agree with.Le...I've read your essay, which I mostly agree with.<BR/><BR/>Let me just refine it and see if you agree with my refinement of some of your ideas from that essay.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>How would we decide which are more rational? - Mike Huben<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I know I am nit picking a bit.<BR/><BR/>But don't you think it would be more accurate to use, <BR/><BR/>"Perceived Rationality" as perceived by a particular individual at the moment he/she makes the decision based on his/her perception of the input he/she regards as germane to the problem as perceived by him/her up to and just prior to the moment he/she makes the decision?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I know it's a handful, but let's just say it's a habit I've gained while learning how to prove theorems while a math major.<BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the answer lies in WHEN they are used, under what conditions. - Mike Huben<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Forgive another nit-pick from me.<BR/><BR/>What about adding 'By whom'?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/> What we would call rational then would be the methodology which gives the best results. - Mike Huben<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I have a slight problem with your definition above.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Of course, here's the dillemma, barring time travel (at a cost economically acceptable to the one making the decision if technically feasible),(or some kind supernatural oracle or what have you)<BR/><BR/>how would one objectively know (not guess, not hope) which methodology would have given the best results?<BR/><BR/><BR/>I like to modify your definition above to mine below:<BR/><BR/>What one would call rational then would be the methodology which one thinks(not hope, not want to believe) would give the best results at the moment when one makes the decision germane to the problem as perceived by one up to the moment when one makes that decision,<BR/><BR/>but may not neccessarily give the best results if implemented at the time mentioned above.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-9642244412313932962009-04-12T16:58:00.000-07:002009-04-12T16:58:00.000-07:00See my essay:Skepticism of Rationalityfor some mor...See my essay:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://world.std.com/~mhuben/skept/rationality.html" REL="nofollow">Skepticism of Rationality</A><BR/><BR/>for some more thoughts on this subject.<BR/><BR/>Heuristics such as informal fallacies and intuitions have been shown to work better that other forms of analysis in certain situations, and people really use them.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.com