NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll start with a small question:

suppose you are on the second floor of a building and you want to go home, why do you take the stairs or the elevator and not the window?

The question might look stupid and you most likely never bothered to think about it before, and that is what the question is all about: Everyone does things according to beliefs that he has not thought about and often you don't even know you handle according to this belief or you don't even know you hold that belief.

in case of the stairs vs the windows, most will say that they take the stairs because it is safe and they can get injured by jumping out of the window. note that the stairs don't have to be safe or safer than the window. this is a belief that you have. Taking the stairs might actually be lethal if there is a toxic fume in the hall, a bomb under the stairs, ...
So the best answer is that one takes the stairs because he believes the stairs to be safer than the window. This belief seems to be right and is probably right most of the times I believe, but it can be wrong on certain occasions. Thinking about a belief for yourself and considering all the pro's and con's you can think of will make you change the belief or leave it that way and it will change that belief in a conviction.
note that one might be convinced about one thing and another person can still be convinced about the opposite without one of them making a bad decision: One of them just has acces to other information leading to another conclusion.

There are a lot of beliefs one has or might have: "eating rat poison is unhealthy", "the shortest way from place x to place y is ...". Everyday beliefs like these are required to make decisions and act. One might think about wether a certain belief like this is rational (the arguments pro are better than the arguments contra) in order to make it a conviction, but this is in most cases not really needed for everyday beliefs.

Their are however more important believes that affect the way we see the world. examples: "communisme is the best system", "the free market is the best system", "terrorists hate freedom", "bush is a warcriminal", "I'ld be happier if i had more money", ...

I just call on everyone to think (even) more about these beliefs you hold yourselves and to think about arguments pro or contra in order to get rid of irrational beliefs and to be convinced about the things you believe in instead of just believing in them.

I just call on everyone to think (even) more about these beliefs you hold yourselves and to think about arguments pro or contra in order to get rid of irrational beliefs and to be convinced about the things you believe in instead of just believing in them.

Does this include your own belief that the rational is a better tool to understand the world than the irrational?

I just call on everyone to think (even) more about these beliefs you hold yourselves and to think about arguments pro or contra in order to get rid of irrational beliefs and to be convinced about the things you believe in instead of just believing in them.

Does this include your own belief that the rational is a better tool to understand the world than the irrational?

i assume that you are using a different definition of rational here.

a rational decision is a decision in which you consider all the pro's and con's that you know and then pick the option you think is the best decision. note that the 'rational decision' can be different from person to person and can change in time: beliefs can change, one can recieve more information.

it's in indeed a belief that a rational decision is better than an irrational one, but it can be argumented:

when all the beliefs and all information one person has lead to the logical conclusion that under these circumstances option A is better than option B for this person then this person beliefs that option A is better than option B and it's in his interest (at least he thinks so) to act according to option A.

A belief you hold can be perfectly rational, but could be irrational if i believed in it. Therefor we can say that there is no such thing as 'The rational' and 'The irrational'. the rationality of a belief is bound to a person and a time.

ohhh illich i dont think you thought about what bodies said at all. did you consider the benefits of going with an irrational understanding of the world?

if you ask us to question everything then you should too

anyway, YEAH
its a good thing to THINK now and then
99.99% of everything we believe is because we were taught it not because we tested it. now for 99.98% of that its because its TRUE but there are some things in everyones life that they believe that just isnt true. its a good thing to give our ideas a bit of a check every now and then

although i dont recommend trying that window thing.

"know thyself" as socrates said

Furthermore, walking down stairs or standing in an elevator doesn't feel typically nearly as painful as getting a facefull or body full of glass shards. It's the animalistic sides of our brain which strive to keep us from pain and suffering.

Epistemology, how people know what they know. For most of us, it comes down to some balance of authority (what people whom we respect have told us; they may be living or long departed) and personal experience.

The Inquisition was for 100% authority, rational or not.
Chaucer's Wife of Bath was for 100 % experience.

Epistemology, how people know what they know.

i always think of epistemology as the study of the surprising ways that people don't actually know what they think they do.

allthough i'm not 100% sure that was what bodies was trying to tell me (i assumed, without being sure of it, that he was splitting the world in a romantic way in the rational: science, maths, ... and the irrational: arts, religion, ... ; i don't really believe in such a split), it's a good remark. I have to say tho that i wasn't calling on everyone to think about every belief they had as this would be so time consuming (if possible at all) that the benefits from it would be far lower than the cost, making that decision irrational :p. I believe it's called being hyperrational: trying to make the rational decision so much that the costs of making the rational decision exceed the benefits and therefor ending up acting irrational all the time.

I merely call on to think about some of the more important beliefs you hold every now and then.

(dam it's getting hard to post something here)

Furthermore, walking down stairs or standing in an elevator doesn't feel typically nearly as painful as getting a facefull or body full of glass shards. It's the animalistic sides of our brain which strive to keep us from pain and suffering.

you believe that walking down the stairs doesn't feel as painful as jumping through the window. i have to say that this is what i believe too based on a lot of experience. but there might as wel be radioactive waste in the hall and you might die a horrible death from cancer because of that waste. In that case the window would have been the safest way.

Does this include your own belief that the rational is a better tool to understand the world than the irrational?

i assume that you are using a different definition of rational here.

a rational decision is a decision in which you consider all the pro's and con's that you know and then pick the option you think is the best decision. note that the 'rational decision' can be different from person to person and can change in time: beliefs can change, one can recieve more information.[/quote]

It would seem that you are arguing that there is only one way to be rational: although different people will make different decisions, due to the different experiences/beliefs they hold, as you describe it they will all come to a conclusion using the same methodology.

it's indeed a belief that a rational decision is better than an irrational one, but it can be argumented:

when all the beliefs and all information one person has lead to the logical conclusion that under these circumstances option A is better than option B for this person then this person believes that option A is better than option B and it's in his interest (at least he thinks so) to act according to option A.

(note: obvious errors of typing have been edited from the above for the sake of clarity)

You are not arguing that a rational methodology is better than another kind: instead you are merely redescribing the rational methodology as a 'logical' one. That is all you have done here.


A belief you hold can be perfectly rational, but could be irrational if i believed in it. Therefore we can say that there is no such thing as 'The rational' and 'The irrational'. the rationality of a belief is bound to a person and a time.

You seem to be missing the point: I am not concerned with the actual content of any beliefs, but rather the methodology with which we come to believe tham and appraise them - the epistemological theory which underpins them. You appear to be operating on the assumption that there is a single epistemological method which is shared by all people in all times, even though they may believe vastly different things as a result.

I'll repeat the challenge I obliquely issued in my earlier post: can you provide an argument for the superiority of the rational to other systems of belief?

Does this include your own belief that the rational is a better tool to understand the world than the irrational?

i assume that you are using a different definition of rational here.

a rational decision is a decision in which you consider all the pro's and con's that you know and then pick the option you think is the best decision. note that the 'rational decision' can be different from person to person and can change in time: beliefs can change, one can recieve more information.

It would seem that you are arguing that there is only one way to be rational: although different people will make different decisions, due to the different experiences/beliefs they hold, as you describe it they will all come to a conclusion using the same methodology.

it's indeed a belief that a rational decision is better than an irrational one, but it can be argumented:

when all the beliefs and all information one person has lead to the logical conclusion that under these circumstances option A is better than option B for this person then this person believes that option A is better than option B and it's in his interest (at least he thinks so) to act according to option A.

(note: obvious errors of typing have been edited from the above for the sake of clarity)

You are not arguing that a rational methodology is better than another kind: instead you are merely redescribing the rational methodology as a 'logical' one. That is all you have done here.


A belief you hold can be perfectly rational, but could be irrational if i believed in it. Therefore we can say that there is no such thing as 'The rational' and 'The irrational'. the rationality of a belief is bound to a person and a time.

You seem to be missing the point: I am not concerned with the actual content of any beliefs, but rather the methodology with which we come to believe tham and appraise them - the epistemological theory which underpins them. You appear to be operating on the assumption that there is a single epistemological method which is shared by all people in all times, even though they may believe vastly different things as a result.

I'll repeat the challenge I obliquely issued in my earlier post: can you provide an argument for the superiority of the rational to other systems of belief?[/quote]

looks like i totally misinterpreted your first sentence, allthough i'm still running that risk when trying to answer to your question.

'when all the beliefs and all information one person has lead to the logical conclusion that under these circumstances option A is better than option B'

When i wrote this sentence, i almost added a note after the word 'logical'. 'logical' might have been a bad choice of words, but then again not. In the proces of deciding which one of the options is the best, one uses a methodology that is also a part of his beliefs. Therefor the method used to decide what the best option is based on certain beliefs and information is a part of ones beliefs. Using this one can say that ones beliefs and the information he has lead to a (logical) conclusion as both the method to make that conclusion and the beliefs and information on which one has to use that method are included in this.

perhaps it would be better to try (as i'm probably not very capable at making a good definition) to say what an irrational belief is:
an irrational belief is a belief that is inconsistent with other beliefs that a person has at a time.

an example: a racist that holds the belief "all black people are bad and evil" but believes that his black neighbour is OK. In this case his belief is irrational. He can just throw it away or change it to something like "most black people are bad and evil" if this does not cause any inconsistencies with another belief he has.


"I just call on everyone to think (even) more about these beliefs you hold yourselves and to think about arguments pro or contra in order to get rid of irrational beliefs and to be convinced about the things you believe in instead of just believing in them."

it's this 'definition' that was used in the original sentence. When you start questioning a belief you can find a few things:
-the belief is inconsistent with other beliefs you have, so it's irrational (or perhaps those other beliefs are irrational) and you might want to start thinking about what exactly was 'wrong' (not in a moral meaning) about it.
-the belief is consistent with other beliefs and you find a few reasons that are supporting belief. In this case you are making it a conviction. (this does not mean it can't change)
-the belief is consistent with other beliefs, but you find no reasons for believing in it. I can't exactly think of an example, i don't know if there is one but it seems a possible outcome. I don't think i would keep a belief like this as i would have no reasons to believe in it.

What if every single book in the library is just blank pages until you pick it up and open it?

you believe that walking down the stairs doesn't feel as painful as jumping through the window. i have to say that this is what i believe too based on a lot of experience. but there might as wel be radioactive waste in the hall and you might die a horrible death from cancer because of that waste. In that case the window would have been the safest way.
Please pardon my saying so, for I mean no offence, but is this not a prime example of your own proclaimed "hyperrational" rationale? I mean, this is really all assuming a whole cubic load of superfluously hypothetical and largely, under normal circumstances, (epistimologically being what they may relative to our respective lives; toxic waste lined corridors NOT being one of mine) bull--. In this vein, I could just as easily say that a horde of flesh eating, machete wielding space ninja zombies was waiting for me at the bottom of the window, but because the stairs led out the opposite side of the building, away from the zombie horde, the stairs were the safest way to go. This really is an interessting philosophical conversation, and as before, I certainly mean far from foremost to insult anyone, because there are many very challenging points raised here.

What if there are rose bushes waiting for you if you jump out of the window?

Besides...I don't wanna get dirt all over my clothes man! I take showers for a reason!

perhaps it would be better to try (as i'm probably not very capable at making a good definition) to say what an irrational belief is: an irrational belief is a belief that is inconsistent with other beliefs that a person has at a time.


Your assumption: inconsistancy is a bad thing.
From whence comes this principle?


"I just call on everyone to think (even) more about these beliefs you hold yourselves and to think about arguments pro or contra in order to get rid of irrational beliefs and to be convinced about the things you believe in instead of just believing in them."

You still provide no epistemological framework with which to assess these beliefs. Does "I heard the voice of God telling me that X" take precedence over "Science states that not-X"? Does personal experience outweigh traditional mores?

What is the difference between "believing that X" and "being convinced that X"?

Surely if I believe X, then I am convinced that X, and vice-versa, or are you arguing that it is possible to believe that X but not be convinced that X, and vice-versa?*



*Note, nowhere in this thread have we even begun to start looking at the difference between "believing that X" and "knowing that X" (yet).

you believe that walking down the stairs doesn't feel as painful as jumping through the window. i have to say that this is what i believe too based on a lot of experience. but there might as wel be radioactive waste in the hall and you might die a horrible death from cancer because of that waste. In that case the window would have been the safest way.
Please pardon my saying so, for I mean no offence, but is this not a prime example of your own proclaimed "hyperrational" rationale? I mean, this is really all assuming a whole cubic load of superfluously hypothetical and largely, under normal circumstances, (epistimologically being what they may relative to our respective lives; toxic waste lined corridors NOT being one of mine) bull--. In this vein, I could just as easily say that a horde of flesh eating, machete wielding space ninja zombies was waiting for me at the bottom of the window, but because the stairs led out the opposite side of the building, away from the zombie horde, the stairs were the safest way to go. This really is an interessting philosophical conversation, and as before, I certainly mean far from foremost to insult anyone, because there are many very challenging points raised here.

of course thinking about such beliefs is irrational yes, but it is a good example to show you that a human holds many beliefs that he himself isn't even aware of that he has them and that he often assumes that these beliefs are true, while they might be wrong. The world is flat remember.

perhaps it would be better to try (as i'm probably not very capable at making a good definition) to say what an irrational belief is: an irrational belief is a belief that is inconsistent with other beliefs that a person has at a time.


Your assumption: inconsistancy is a bad thing.
From whence comes this principle?


"I just call on everyone to think (even) more about these beliefs you hold yourselves and to think about arguments pro or contra in order to get rid of irrational beliefs and to be convinced about the things you believe in instead of just believing in them."

You still provide no epistemological framework with which to assess these beliefs. Does "I heard the voice of God telling me that X" take precedence over "Science states that not-X"? Does personal experience outweigh traditional mores?

What is the difference between "believing that X" and "being convinced that X"?

Surely if I believe X, then I am convinced that X, and vice-versa, or are you arguing that it is possible to believe that X but not be convinced that X, and vice-versa?*



*Note, nowhere in this thread have we even begun to start looking at the difference between "believing that X" and "knowing that X" (yet).

i think i would translate a sentence "knowing that X" into "believing that X is true and that you have been able to see that X is true". I think it is best to try to avoid 'to know' when talking about this subject as this assumes that one can see and think about the world in a way that he makes no mistakes. as i am probably being very unclear i'll give an example:

3 different people: a medieval peasant, a modern child and a modern scientist look at what we believe to be a star. We ask them what they see:
-peasant: i see the star hanging on the firmament of heaven.
-child: i see a star shining at me from space.
-scientist: i see the light that a star has emmited x years ago and i therefor see the position of that star x years ago.
all of these people think they know the answer, but none of them knows the real answer. when people see something they interprete it using their theories on the world (a theorie is a set of believes).

'What is the difference between "believing that X" and "being convinced that X"?'

a belief is something that you think is true. this thinking might be concious, but it does not have to be. when you are convinced of something that means you have spent time judging the belief that you are convinced of. this does not mean that a belief that one is convinced of is 'more true' than other beliefs, but the person who is convinced of something will at least be able to argument why he believes in it, both for others in discussions and for himself.

Yes, i believe inconsistancy to be a bad thing as it can lead to paradoxes in making decisions. i'll try to make an example using a racist that believes:
1:"All black people are inferior and therefor they are not allowed in my shop".
2:"Black people are human".
3:"I have rights because i am human".
4:"one of these rights is that one may not discriminate against me".
5:"If someone does not allow me in his shop because i look different than him, then he is discriminating against me".
now 2-5 would lead to the decision that has to allow black people in his shop while 1 says he cannot allow them in his shop.

'You still provide no epistemological framework with which to assess these beliefs.'

that is because i don't think i'm capable at making such a framework without it being all screwed up.

Epistemology, how people know what they know.

i always think of epistemology as the study of the surprising ways that people don't actually know what they think they do.

Well, that too.
I think. :wink: